124 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29411684)
1. Are precues effective in proactively controlling taboo interference during speech production?
White KK; Abrams L; Hsi LR; Watkins EC
Cogn Emot; 2018 Dec; 32(8):1625-1636. PubMed ID: 29411684
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Lions, tigers, and bears, oh sh!t: Semantics versus tabooness in speech production.
White KK; Abrams L; Koehler SM; Collins RJ
Psychon Bull Rev; 2017 Apr; 24(2):489-495. PubMed ID: 27271052
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. How do speakers resist distraction? Evidence from a taboo picture-word interference task.
Dhooge E; Hartsuiker RJ
Psychol Sci; 2011 Jul; 22(7):855-9. PubMed ID: 21642551
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. When does reading dirty words impede picture processing? Taboo interference with verbal and manual responses.
Mädebach A; Markuske AM; Jescheniak JD
Psychon Bull Rev; 2018 Dec; 25(6):2301-2308. PubMed ID: 29790121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. The locus of taboo context effects in picture naming.
Hansen SJ; McMahon KL; Burt JS; de Zubicaray GI
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2017 Jan; 70(1):75-91. PubMed ID: 26629985
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Why the leash constrains the dog: the impact of semantic associations on sentence production.
Sass K; Heim S; Sachs O; Theede K; Muehlhaus J; Krach S; Kircher T
Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars); 2010; 70(4):435-53. PubMed ID: 21196951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Distractor modality can turn semantic interference into semantic facilitation in the picture-word interference task: implications for theories of lexical access in speech production.
Hantsch A; Jescheniak JD; Schriefers H
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2009 Nov; 35(6):1443-53. PubMed ID: 19857015
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Disentangling fast and slow attentional influences of negative and taboo spoken words in the emotional Stroop paradigm.
Bertels J; Kolinsky R
Cogn Emot; 2016 Sep; 30(6):1137-48. PubMed ID: 26197360
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. When Sufficiently Processed, Semantically Related Distractor Pictures Hamper Picture Naming.
Matushanskaya A; Mädebach A; Müller MM; Jescheniak JD
Exp Psychol; 2016 Nov; 63(6):307-317. PubMed ID: 28059032
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Attentional capture by taboo words: A functional view of auditory distraction.
Röer JP; Körner U; Buchner A; Bell R
Emotion; 2017 Jun; 17(4):740-750. PubMed ID: 28080086
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Aging, Emotion, Attention, and Binding in the Taboo Stroop Task: Data and Theories.
MacKay DG; Johnson LW; Graham ER; Burke DM
Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2015 Oct; 12(10):12803-33. PubMed ID: 26473909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Recalling taboo and nontaboo words.
Jay T; Caldwell-Harris C; King K
Am J Psychol; 2008; 121(1):83-103. PubMed ID: 18437803
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Age differences in vulnerability to distraction under arousal.
Gallant SN; Durbin KA; Mather M
Psychol Aging; 2020 Aug; 35(5):780-791. PubMed ID: 32744858
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Hearing taboo words can result in early talker effects in word recognition for female listeners.
Tuft SE; MᶜLennan CT; Krestar ML
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2018 Feb; 71(2):435-448. PubMed ID: 27784198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Feature overlap slows lexical selection: evidence from the picture-word interference paradigm.
Vieth HE; McMahon KL; de Zubicaray GI
Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2014; 67(12):2325-39. PubMed ID: 24830335
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Congruency precues moderate item-specific proportion congruency effects.
Hutchison KA; Bugg JM; Lim YB; Olsen MR
Atten Percept Psychophys; 2016 May; 78(4):1087-103. PubMed ID: 26860710
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The neurobiology of taboo language processing: fMRI evidence during spoken word production.
Hansen SJ; McMahon KL; de Zubicaray GI
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci; 2019 Mar; 14(3):271-279. PubMed ID: 30715549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [The effect of taboo word on language processing].
Huszár T; Makra E; Hallgató E; Janacsek K; Németh D
Psychiatr Hung; 2010; 25(6):525-37. PubMed ID: 21300999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Age-related effects in compound production: Intact lexical representations but more effortful encoding.
Lorenz A; Regel S; Zwitserlood P; Rahman RA
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2018 Nov; 191():289-309. PubMed ID: 30404741
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The interplay between selective and nonselective inhibition during single word production.
Vromans RD; Jongman SR
PLoS One; 2018; 13(5):e0197313. PubMed ID: 29746594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
