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 *

142 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19827700)

  • 1. Individual strategies in artificial grammar learning.
    Visser I; Raijmakers ME; Pothos EM
    Am J Psychol; 2009; 122(3):293-307. PubMed ID: 19827700
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Transfer in artificial grammar learning: the role of repetition information.
    Lotz A; Kinder A
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2006 Jul; 32(4):707-15. PubMed ID: 16822142
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The architecture of intuition: Fluency and affect determine intuitive judgments of semantic and visual coherence and judgments of grammaticality in artificial grammar learning.
    Topolinski S; Strack F
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2009 Feb; 138(1):39-63. PubMed ID: 19203169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Goal relevance and artificial grammar learning.
    Eitam B; Schul Y; Hassin RR
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Feb; 62(2):228-38. PubMed ID: 19058050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. What is learned about fragments in artificial grammar learning? A transitional probabilities approach.
    Poletiek FH; Wolters G
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 May; 62(5):868-76. PubMed ID: 19065286
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Instruction effects in implicit artificial grammar learning: a preference for grammaticality.
    Forkstam C; Elwér A; Ingvar M; Petersson KM
    Brain Res; 2008 Jul; 1221():80-92. PubMed ID: 18561897
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Applying an exemplar model to the artificial-grammar task: inferring grammaticality from similarity.
    Jamieson RK; Mewhort DJ
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2009 Mar; 62(3):550-75. PubMed ID: 18609412
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Syntactic structure and artificial grammar learning: the learnability of embedded hierarchical structures.
    de Vries MH; Monaghan P; Knecht S; Zwitserlood P
    Cognition; 2008 May; 107(2):763-74. PubMed ID: 17963740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. The conscious, the unconscious, and familiarity.
    Scott RB; Dienes Z
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Sep; 34(5):1264-88. PubMed ID: 18763904
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Semantics boosts syntax in artificial grammar learning tasks with recursion.
    Fedor A; Varga M; Szathmáry E
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2012 May; 38(3):776-82. PubMed ID: 22268913
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Intentional control based on familiarity in artificial grammar learning.
    Wan L; Dienes Z; Fu X
    Conscious Cogn; 2008 Dec; 17(4):1209-18. PubMed ID: 18667335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Separate influences in learning: evidence from artificial grammar learning with traumatic brain injury patients.
    Pothos EM; Wood RL
    Brain Res; 2009 Jun; 1275():67-72. PubMed ID: 19389386
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Theories of artificial grammar learning.
    Pothos EM
    Psychol Bull; 2007 Mar; 133(2):227-44. PubMed ID: 17338598
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Statistical learning within and between modalities: pitting abstract against stimulus-specific representations.
    Conway CM; Christiansen MH
    Psychol Sci; 2006 Oct; 17(10):905-12. PubMed ID: 17100792
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Strengthening the case for stimulus-specificity in artificial grammar learning: no evidence for abstract representations with extended exposure.
    Johansson T
    Exp Psychol; 2009; 56(3):188-97. PubMed ID: 19289361
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Individual behavior in learning of an artificial grammar.
    Zimmerer VC; Cowell PE; Varley RA
    Mem Cognit; 2011 Apr; 39(3):491-501. PubMed ID: 21264600
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessing the symbolic distance effect in mental images constructed from verbal descriptions: a study of individual differences in the mental comparison of distances.
    Denis M
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Jan; 127(1):197-210. PubMed ID: 17658445
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Individual differences in solving spatial problems of the IST and IST-70 subtest on "cube problems"].
    Köller O; Rost J; Köller M
    Z Psychol Z Angew Psychol; 1994; 202(1):65-85. PubMed ID: 8053261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. When shoes become hammers: Goal-derived categorization training enhances problem-solving performance.
    Chrysikou EG
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2006 Jul; 32(4):935-42. PubMed ID: 16822159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Probabilistic inference in human semantic memory.
    Steyvers M; Griffiths TL; Dennis S
    Trends Cogn Sci; 2006 Jul; 10(7):327-34. PubMed ID: 16793324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.