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 *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29790181)

  • 1. Spatial Semantics, Cognition, and Their Interaction: A Comparative Study of Spatial Categorization in English and Korean.
    Yun H; Choi S
    Cogn Sci; 2018 May; ():. PubMed ID: 29790181
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Relative contribution of perception/cognition and language on spatial categorization.
    Choi S; Hattrup K
    Cogn Sci; 2012; 36(1):102-29. PubMed ID: 21972797
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Understanding spatial relations: flexible infants, lexical adults.
    McDonough L; Choi S; Mandler JM
    Cogn Psychol; 2003 May; 46(3):229-59. PubMed ID: 12694694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Revisiting the role of language in spatial cognition: Categorical perception of spatial relations in English and Korean speakers.
    Holmes KJ; Moty K; Regier T
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2017 Dec; 24(6):2031-2036. PubMed ID: 28337647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. What Develops in Infants' Spatial Categorization? Korean Infants' Categorization of Containment and Tight-Fit Relations.
    Casasola M; Ahn YA
    Child Dev; 2018 Jul; 89(4):e382-e396. PubMed ID: 28771703
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Whereof one cannot speak: How language and capture of visual attention interact.
    Goller F; Choi S; Hong U; Ansorge U
    Cognition; 2020 Jan; 194():104023. PubMed ID: 31445296
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of Language Background on Gaze Behavior: A Crosslinguistic Comparison Between Korean and German Speakers.
    Goller F; Lee D; Ansorge U; Choi S
    Adv Cogn Psychol; 2017; 13(4):267-279. PubMed ID: 29362644
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Does language rule perception? Testing a radical view of linguistic relativity.
    Baier D; Choi S; Goller F; Nam Y; Ansorge U
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2023 Mar; 152(3):794-824. PubMed ID: 36227301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Tight and loose are not created equal: an asymmetry underlying the representation of fit in English- and Korean-speakers.
    Norbury HM; Waxman SR; Song HJ
    Cognition; 2008 Dec; 109(3):316-25. PubMed ID: 19010464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Why loose rings can be tight: the role of learned object knowledge in the development of Korean spatial fit terms.
    Chang F; Choi Y; Ko Y
    Cognition; 2015 Mar; 136():196-203. PubMed ID: 25498745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Conceptual precursors to language.
    Hespos SJ; Spelke ES
    Nature; 2004 Jul; 430(6998):453-6. PubMed ID: 15269769
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Can English-learning toddlers acquire and generalize a novel spatial word?
    Casasola M; Wilbourn MP; Yang S
    First Lang; 2006 Jan; 26(2):187-205. PubMed ID: 19774108
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The cross-linguistic categorization of everyday events: a study of cutting and breaking.
    Majid A; Boster JS; Bowerman M
    Cognition; 2008 Nov; 109(2):235-50. PubMed ID: 18947824
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The importance of lexical verbs in the acquisition of spatial prepositions: The case of in and on.
    Johannes K; Wilson C; Landau B
    Cognition; 2016 Dec; 157():174-189. PubMed ID: 27643981
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The semantics of space: integrating linguistic typology and cognitive neuroscience.
    Kemmerer D
    Neuropsychologia; 2006; 44(9):1607-21. PubMed ID: 16516934
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Spatial communication systems across languages reflect universal action constraints.
    Coventry KR; Gudde HB; Diessel H; Collier J; Guijarro-Fuentes P; Vulchanova M; Vulchanov V; Todisco E; Reile M; Breunesse M; Plado H; Bohnemeyer J; Bsili R; Caldano M; Dekova R; Donelson K; Forker D; Park Y; Pathak LS; Peeters D; Pizzuto G; Serhan B; Apse L; Hesse F; Hoang L; Hoang P; Igari Y; Kapiley K; Haupt-Khutsishvili T; Kolding S; Priiki K; Mačiukaitytė I; Mohite V; Nahkola T; Tsoi SY; Williams S; Yasuda S; Cangelosi A; Duñabeitia JA; Mishra RK; Rocca R; Šķilters J; Wallentin M; Žilinskaitė-Šinkūnienė E; Incel OD
    Nat Hum Behav; 2023 Dec; 7(12):2099-2110. PubMed ID: 37904020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Grounded Cognition Entails Linguistic Relativity: A Neglected Implication of a Major Semantic Theory.
    Kemmerer D
    Top Cogn Sci; 2023 Oct; 15(4):615-647. PubMed ID: 36228603
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Variation in spatial language and cognition: exploring visuo-spatial thinking and speaking cross-linguistically.
    Soroli E
    Cogn Process; 2012 Aug; 13 Suppl 1():S333-7. PubMed ID: 22806675
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Cross-Linguistic Differences in a Picture-Description Task Between Korean- and English-Speaking Individuals With Aphasia.
    Sung JE; DeDe G; Lee SE
    Am J Speech Lang Pathol; 2016 Dec; 25(4S):S813-S822. PubMed ID: 27997955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Spatial language and spatial representation: a cross-linguistic comparison.
    Munnich E; Landau B; Dosher BA
    Cognition; 2001 Oct; 81(3):171-207. PubMed ID: 11483169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.