These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

197 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 10946548)

  • 21. Attention constraints of semantic activation during visual word recognition.
    Smith MC; Bentin S; Spalek TM
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2001 Sep; 27(5):1289-98. PubMed ID: 11550755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Ambiguity advantage revisited: two meanings are better than one when accessing Chinese nouns.
    Lin CJ; Ahrens K
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2010 Feb; 39(1):1-19. PubMed ID: 19582583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Semantic ambiguity and the failure of inhibition hypothesis as an explanation for reading errors in deep dyslexia.
    Colangelo A; Buchanan L
    Brain Cogn; 2005 Feb; 57(1):39-42. PubMed ID: 15629213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Orthographic neighborhood and concreteness effects in the lexical decision task.
    Samson D; Pillon A
    Brain Lang; 2004 Nov; 91(2):252-64. PubMed ID: 15485714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: word frequency effects and individual differences.
    Schilling HH; Rayner K; Chumbley JI
    Mem Cognit; 1998 Nov; 26(6):1270-81. PubMed ID: 9847550
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Age of acquisition effects on traditional Chinese character naming and lexical decision.
    Chang YN; Lee CY
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2020 Dec; 27(6):1317-1324. PubMed ID: 32789580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. How meaning similarity influences ambiguous word processing: the current state of the literature.
    Eddington CM; Tokowicz N
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2015 Feb; 22(1):13-37. PubMed ID: 24889119
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Opposing effects of semantic diversity in lexical and semantic relatedness decisions.
    Hoffman P; Woollams AM
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2015 Apr; 41(2):385-402. PubMed ID: 25751041
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Capacity limitations in visual word processing.
    Mullin PA; Egeth HE
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1989 Feb; 15(1):111-23. PubMed ID: 2522521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Semantic Richness and Aging: The Effect of Number of Features in the Lexical Decision Task.
    Robert C; Rico Duarte L
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2016 Apr; 45(2):359-65. PubMed ID: 25680348
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: an MEG study.
    Beretta A; Fiorentino R; Poeppel D
    Brain Res Cogn Brain Res; 2005 Jun; 24(1):57-65. PubMed ID: 15922158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Right hemisphere language processing: lateral difference with imageable and nonimageable ambiguous words.
    Deloche G; Seron X; Scius G; Segui J
    Brain Lang; 1987 Mar; 30(2):197-205. PubMed ID: 3567547
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. There are many ways to be rich: effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition.
    Pexman PM; Hargreaves IS; Siakaluk PD; Bodner GE; Pope J
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2008 Feb; 15(1):161-7. PubMed ID: 18605497
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Semantic Ambiguity Effects in L2 Word Recognition.
    Ishida T
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2018 Jun; 47(3):523-536. PubMed ID: 29168115
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Learning new meanings for old words: effects of semantic relatedness.
    Rodd JM; Berriman R; Landau M; Lee T; Ho C; Gaskell MG; Davis MH
    Mem Cognit; 2012 Oct; 40(7):1095-108. PubMed ID: 22614728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Single-Word Recognition Need Not Depend on Single-Word Features: Narrative Coherence Counteracts Effects of Single-Word Features that Lexical Decision Emphasizes.
    Teng DW; Wallot S; Kelty-Stephen DG
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2016 Dec; 45(6):1451-1472. PubMed ID: 26861216
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Pupillometric and behavioural evidence shows no differences between polyseme and homonym processing.
    Haro J; López-Cortés N; Ferré P
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2023 Aug; 238():103985. PubMed ID: 37453281
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. An Investigation into the Processing of Lexicalized English Blend Words: Evidence from Lexical Decisions and Eye Movements During Reading.
    Juhasz BJ; Johnson RL; Brewer J
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2017 Apr; 46(2):281-294. PubMed ID: 27246520
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Is the go/no-go lexical decision task preferable to the yes/no task with developing readers?
    Moret-Tatay C; Perea M
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2011 Sep; 110(1):125-32. PubMed ID: 21565360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Lexical access and selection of contextually appropriate meaning for ambiguous words.
    Ihara A; Hayakawa T; Wei Q; Munetsuna S; Fujimaki N
    Neuroimage; 2007 Nov; 38(3):576-88. PubMed ID: 17888689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.