96 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20584397)
1. Default knowledge, time pressure, and the theory-theory of concepts.
Blanchard T
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):206-7. PubMed ID: 20584397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Concepts are a functional kind.
Lalumera E
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):217-8. PubMed ID: 20584409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Not different kinds, just special cases.
Danks D
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):208-9. PubMed ID: 20584399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Unity amidst heterogeneity in theories of concepts.
Edwards K
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):210-1. PubMed ID: 20584401
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The faux, fake, forged, false, fabricated, and phony: problems for the independence of similarity-based theories of concepts.
Jacobson AJ
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):215. PubMed ID: 20584407
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. From conceptual representations to explanatory relations.
Lombrozo T
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):218-9. PubMed ID: 20584410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Two uneliminated uses for "concepts": hybrids and guides for inquiry.
Gonnerman C; Weinberg JM
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):211-2. PubMed ID: 20584402
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Conceptual atomism rethought.
Schneider S
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):224-5. PubMed ID: 20584416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Defending the concept of "concepts".
Hayes BK; Kearney L
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):214. PubMed ID: 20584405
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Parsimony and the triple-system model of concepts.
Zaki S; Cruz J
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):230-1. PubMed ID: 20584422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Are prototypes and exemplars used in distinct cognitive processes?
Virtel J; Piccinini G
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):226-7. PubMed ID: 20584418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The function and representation of concepts.
Khemlani SS; Goodwin G
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):216-7. PubMed ID: 20584408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Why don't concepts constitute a natural kind?
Samuels R; Ferreira M
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):222-3. PubMed ID: 20584414
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. An additional heterogeneity hypothesis.
Dove G
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):209-10. PubMed ID: 20584400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Concept analysis: examining the state of the science.
Hupcey JE; Penrod J
Res Theory Nurs Pract; 2005; 19(2):197-208. PubMed ID: 16025698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Where are nature's joints? Finding the mechanisms underlying categorization.
Markman AB
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):220-1. PubMed ID: 20584412
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Methodological and epistemological issues in the interpretation of infant cognitive development.
Müller U; Giesbrecht G
Child Dev; 2008; 79(6):1654-8. PubMed ID: 19037940
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Rethinking concept analysis.
Risjord M
J Adv Nurs; 2009 Mar; 65(3):684-91. PubMed ID: 19222666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Qualitative concept development: implications for nursing research and knowledge.
Finfgeld-Connett D
Nurs Forum; 2006; 41(3):103-12. PubMed ID: 16879145
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Testing two theories of conceptual combination: alignment versus diagnosticity in the comprehension and production of combined concepts.
Costello FJ; Keane MT
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2001 Jan; 27(1):255-71. PubMed ID: 11204101
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
