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 *

180 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12412896)

  • 1. Addressees' needs influence speakers' early syntactic choices.
    Lockridge CB; Brennan SE
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2002 Sep; 9(3):550-7. PubMed ID: 12412896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Perspective-Taking in Referential Communication: Does Stimulated Attention to Addressees' Perspective Influence Speakers' Reference Production?
    Damen D; van der Wijst P; van Amelsvoort M; Krahmer E
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2019 Apr; 48(2):257-288. PubMed ID: 30219958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: for the speaker or for the addressee?
    Kraljic T; Brennan SE
    Cogn Psychol; 2005 Mar; 50(2):194-231. PubMed ID: 15680144
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Attention to Speech-Accompanying Gestures: Eye Movements and Information Uptake.
    Gullberg M; Kita S
    J Nonverbal Behav; 2009 Dec; 33(4):251-277. PubMed ID: 19862347
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue?
    Haywood SL; Pickering MJ; Branigan HP
    Psychol Sci; 2005 May; 16(5):362-6. PubMed ID: 15869694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Speakers' overestimation of their effectiveness.
    Keysar B; Henly AS
    Psychol Sci; 2002 May; 13(3):207-12. PubMed ID: 12009039
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Lost in thought: cognitive load and the processing of addressees' feedback in verbal communication.
    Rossnagel CS
    Exp Psychol; 2004; 51(3):191-200. PubMed ID: 15267127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Speakers extrapolate community-level knowledge from individual linguistic encounters.
    Tobar-Henríquez A; Rabagliati H; Branigan HP
    Cognition; 2021 May; 210():104602. PubMed ID: 33550116
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Extensions of the lost letter technique to divisive issues of creationism, darwinism, sex education, and gay and lesbian affiliations.
    Bridges FS; Anzalone DA; Ryan SW; Anzalone FL
    Psychol Rep; 2002 Apr; 90(2):391-400. PubMed ID: 12061574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production.
    Ferreira VS; Dell GS
    Cogn Psychol; 2000 Jun; 40(4):296-340. PubMed ID: 10888342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Syntactic alignment and participant role in dialogue.
    Branigan HP; Pickering MJ; McLean JF; Cleland AA
    Cognition; 2007 Aug; 104(2):163-97. PubMed ID: 16876778
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Self-Priming in Production: Evidence for a Hybrid Model of Syntactic Priming.
    Jacobs CL; Cho SJ; Watson DG
    Cogn Sci; 2019 Jul; 43(7):e12749. PubMed ID: 31310024
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Lexical, morphological, and syntactic aspects of verb production in agrammatic aphasics.
    Bastiaanse R; Hugen J; Kos M; van Zonneveld R
    Brain Lang; 2002 Feb; 80(2):142-59. PubMed ID: 11827441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Lexically-driven syntactic priming.
    Melinger A; Dobel C
    Cognition; 2005 Nov; 98(1):B11-20. PubMed ID: 15925357
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Structural properties of syntactically reduced speech: a comparison of normal speakers and Broca's aphasics.
    de Roo E; Kolk H; Hofstede B
    Brain Lang; 2003 Jul; 86(1):99-115. PubMed ID: 12821418
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. A crosslinguistic comparison of the production of utterances in discourse.
    Holmes VM
    Cognition; 1995 Feb; 54(2):169-207. PubMed ID: 7874876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The impact of shared knowledge on speakers' prosody.
    Michelas A; Cau C; Champagne-Lavau M
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(10):e0223640. PubMed ID: 31609982
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation.
    Arnold JE; Kahn JM; Pancani GC
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2012 Jun; 19(3):505-12. PubMed ID: 22419403
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Contextual Integration in Multiparty Audience Design.
    Yoon SO; Brown-Schmidt S
    Cogn Sci; 2019 Dec; 43(12):e12807. PubMed ID: 31858629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. How Cognitive Load Influences Speakers' Choice of Referring Expressions.
    Vogels J; Krahmer E; Maes A
    Cogn Sci; 2015 Aug; 39(6):1396-418. PubMed ID: 25471259
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.