98 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20584399)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. Conceptual atomism rethought.
Schneider S
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):224-5. PubMed ID: 20584416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. An additional heterogeneity hypothesis.
Dove G
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):209-10. PubMed ID: 20584400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Structured statistical models of inductive reasoning.
Kemp C; Tenenbaum JB
Psychol Rev; 2009 Jan; 116(1):20-58. PubMed ID: 19159147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Précis of doing without concepts.
Machery E
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):195-206; discussion 206-44. PubMed ID: 20584396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The acquisition of Boolean concepts.
Goodwin GP; Johnson-Laird PN
Trends Cogn Sci; 2013 Mar; 17(3):128-33. PubMed ID: 23428936
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The theoretical indispensability of concepts.
Weiskopf DA
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):228-9. PubMed ID: 20584420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. 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]
19. Rethinking concept analysis.
Risjord M
J Adv Nurs; 2009 Mar; 65(3):684-91. PubMed ID: 19222666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Universal moral grammar: theory, evidence and the future.
Mikhail J
Trends Cogn Sci; 2007 Apr; 11(4):143-52. PubMed ID: 17329147
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
