93 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20584422)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
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. 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]
7. 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]
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. An additional heterogeneity hypothesis.
Dove G
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):209-10. PubMed ID: 20584400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Prototypes in category learning: the effects of category size, category structure, and stimulus complexity.
Minda JP; Smith JD
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2001 May; 27(3):775-99. PubMed ID: 11394680
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Banishing the thought.
Strohminger N; Moore BW
Behav Brain Sci; 2010 Jun; 33(2-3):225-6. PubMed ID: 20584417
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Prototype and exemplar accounts of category learning and attentional allocation: a reassessment.
Zaki SR; Nosofsky RM; Stanton RD; Cohen AL
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2003 Nov; 29(6):1160-73. PubMed ID: 14622053
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Attachment theory and eating disorders--theoretical and empirical issues].
Józefik B
Psychiatr Pol; 2008; 42(2):157-66. PubMed ID: 19697522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Exemplar and prototype models revisited: response strategies, selective attention, and stimulus generalization.
Nosofsky RM; Zaki SR
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2002 Sep; 28(5):924-40. PubMed ID: 12219799
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Category learning and the memory systems debate.
Poldrack RA; Foerde K
Neurosci Biobehav Rev; 2008; 32(2):197-205. PubMed ID: 17869339
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
