BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

136 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21956381)

  • 1. Effects of concurrent arithmetical and syntactic complexity on self-paced reaction times and eye fixations.
    Evans WS; Caplan D; Waters G
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2011 Dec; 18(6):1203-11. PubMed ID: 21956381
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Effects of age, speed of processing, and working memory on comprehension of sentences with relative clauses.
    Caplan D; Dede G; Waters G; Michaud J; Tripodis Y
    Psychol Aging; 2011 Jun; 26(2):439-50. PubMed ID: 21480714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The effect of noun animacy on the processing of unambiguous sentences: evidence from French relative clauses.
    Baudiffier V; Caplan D; Gaonac'h D; Chesnet D
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2011 Oct; 64(10):1896-905. PubMed ID: 21895558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Chinese subject-relative clauses are more difficult to process than the object-relative clauses.
    Chen B; Ning A; Bi H; Dunlap S
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2008 Sep; 129(1):61-5. PubMed ID: 18538740
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Eye movements of young and older adults during reading.
    Kemper S; Liu CJ
    Psychol Aging; 2007 Mar; 22(1):84-93. PubMed ID: 17385986
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. A hierarchical linear modeling analysis of working memory and implicit prosody in the resolution of adjunct attachment ambiguity.
    Traxler MJ
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2009 Oct; 38(5):491-509. PubMed ID: 19377881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Relational processing and working memory capacity in comprehension of relative clause sentences.
    Andrews G; Birney D; Halford GS
    Mem Cognit; 2006 Sep; 34(6):1325-40. PubMed ID: 17225512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Plausibility and verb subeategorization in temporarily ambiguous sentences: evidence from self-paced reading.
    Traxler MJ
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2005 Jan; 34(1):1-30. PubMed ID: 15968918
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Syntactic prediction during self-paced reading is age invariant.
    Cutter MG; Paterson KB; Filik R
    Br J Psychol; 2023 Feb; 114(1):39-53. PubMed ID: 36102378
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Memory interference during language processing.
    Gordon PC; Hendrick R; Johnson M
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2001 Nov; 27(6):1411-23. PubMed ID: 11713876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Aging and individual differences in binding during sentence understanding: evidence from temporary and global syntactic attachment ambiguities.
    Payne BR; Grison S; Gao X; Christianson K; Morrow DG; Stine-Morrow EA
    Cognition; 2014 Feb; 130(2):157-73. PubMed ID: 24291806
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Effects of syntactic prominence on eye movements during reading.
    Birch S; Rayner K
    Mem Cognit; 2010 Sep; 38(6):740-52. PubMed ID: 20852237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Processing and Comprehension of Locally Ambiguous Participial Relative Clause Sentences in Russian.
    Darzhinova L; Luk ZP
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2024 Feb; 53(1):15. PubMed ID: 38381228
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses.
    Staub A
    Cognition; 2010 Jul; 116(1):71-86. PubMed ID: 20427040
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Self-Guided Reading: Touch-Based Measures of Syntactic Processing.
    Hatfield H
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2016 Feb; 45(1):121-41. PubMed ID: 25341490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Working Memory in the Processing of Long-Distance Dependencies: Interference and Filler Maintenance.
    Ness T; Meltzer-Asscher A
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2017 Dec; 46(6):1353-1365. PubMed ID: 28528512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Syntactic ambiguity resolution in dyslexia: An examination of cognitive factors underlying eye movement differences and comprehension failures.
    Stella M; Engelhardt PE
    Dyslexia; 2019 May; 25(2):115-141. PubMed ID: 30990960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Phonological typicality does not influence fixation durations in normal reading.
    Staub A; Grant M; Clifton C; Rayner K
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2009 May; 35(3):806-14. PubMed ID: 19379050
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Eye gaze reveals a fast, parallel extraction of the syntax of arithmetic formulas.
    Schneider E; Maruyama M; Dehaene S; Sigman M
    Cognition; 2012 Dec; 125(3):475-90. PubMed ID: 22921187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Sentence complexity and working memory effects in ambiguity resolution.
    Kim JH; Christianson K
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2013 Oct; 42(5):393-411. PubMed ID: 22752849
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.