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 *

152 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27303315)

  • 41. Structure Modulates Similarity-Based Interference in Sluicing: An Eye Tracking study.
    Harris JA
    Front Psychol; 2015; 6():1839. PubMed ID: 26733893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. 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]  

  • 43. The processing role of structural constraints on the interpretation of pronouns and anaphors.
    Badecker W; Straub K
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2002 Jul; 28(4):748-69. PubMed ID: 12109766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Role of Expectation and Working Memory Constraints in Hindi Comprehension: An Eye-tracking Corpus Analysis.
    Agrawal A; Agarwal S; Husain S
    J Eye Mov Res; 2017 Apr; 10(2):. PubMed ID: 33828649
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Target Complexity Modulates Syntactic Priming During Comprehension.
    Husain S; Yadav H
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():454. PubMed ID: 32256432
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Attraction Effects in Honorific Agreement in Korean.
    Kwon N; Sturt P
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():1302. PubMed ID: 27630594
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Frontal-posterior theta oscillations reflect memory retrieval during sentence comprehension.
    Meyer L; Grigutsch M; Schmuck N; Gaston P; Friederici AD
    Cortex; 2015 Oct; 71():205-18. PubMed ID: 26233521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension.
    Van Dyke JA; McElree B
    J Mem Lang; 2006 Aug; 55(2):157-166. PubMed ID: 18209744
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Cue-focused and reflexive-associative processes in prospective memory retrieval.
    McDaniel MA; Guynn MJ; Einstein GO; Breneiser J
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2004 May; 30(3):605-14. PubMed ID: 15099129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Lexico-syntactic interactions during the processing of temporally ambiguous L2 relative clauses: An eye-tracking study with intermediate and advanced Portuguese-English bilinguals.
    Soares AP; Oliveira H; Ferreira M; Comesaña M; Macedo AF; Ferré P; Acuña-Fariña C; Hernández-Cabrera J; Fraga I
    PLoS One; 2019; 14(5):e0216779. PubMed ID: 31141531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Coreference and antecedent representation across languages.
    Lago S; Sloggett S; Schlueter Z; Chow WY; Williams A; Lau E; Phillips C
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2017 May; 43(5):795-817. PubMed ID: 28068123
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. An activation-based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval.
    Lewis RL; Vasishth S
    Cogn Sci; 2005 May; 29(3):375-419. PubMed ID: 21702779
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Memory retrieval given two independent cues: cue selection or parallel access?
    Rickard TC; Bajic D
    Cogn Psychol; 2004 May; 48(3):243-94. PubMed ID: 15020213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Direct-access retrieval during sentence comprehension: Evidence from Sluicing.
    Martin AE; McElree B
    J Mem Lang; 2011 May; 64(4):327-343. PubMed ID: 21580797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Interference patterns in subject-verb agreement and reflexives revisited: A large-sample study.
    Jäger LA; Mertzen D; Van Dyke JA; Vasishth S
    J Mem Lang; 2020 Apr; 111():. PubMed ID: 33100507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. A framework for modeling the interaction of syntactic processing and eye movement control.
    Engelmann F; Vasishth S; Engbert R; Kliegl R
    Top Cogn Sci; 2013 Jul; 5(3):452-74. PubMed ID: 23681560
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Favor referential representations.
    Frazier L; McNamara P
    Brain Lang; 1995 Jun; 49(3):224-40. PubMed ID: 7640964
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Not All Phrases Are Equally Attractive: Experimental Evidence for Selective Agreement Attraction Effects.
    Parker D; An A
    Front Psychol; 2018; 9():1566. PubMed ID: 30210399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Distinctiveness and encoding effects in online sentence comprehension.
    Hofmeister P; Vasishth S
    Front Psychol; 2014; 5():1237. PubMed ID: 25566105
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Unifying syntactic theory and sentence processing difficulty through a connectionist minimalist parser.
    Gerth S; Beim Graben P
    Cogn Neurodyn; 2009 Dec; 3(4):297-316. PubMed ID: 19795221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.