246 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30219958)
1. Perspective-Taking in Referential Communication: Does Stimulated Attention to Addressees' Perspective Influence Speakers' Reference Production?
Damen D; van der Wijst P; van Amelsvoort M; Krahmer E
J Psycholinguist Res; 2019 Apr; 48(2):257-288. PubMed ID: 30219958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: for the speaker or for the addressee?
Kraljic T; Brennan SE
Cogn Psychol; 2005 Mar; 50(2):194-231. PubMed ID: 15680144
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Addressees' needs influence speakers' early syntactic choices.
Lockridge CB; Brennan SE
Psychon Bull Rev; 2002 Sep; 9(3):550-7. PubMed ID: 12412896
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Attention to Speech-Accompanying Gestures: Eye Movements and Information Uptake.
Gullberg M; Kita S
J Nonverbal Behav; 2009 Dec; 33(4):251-277. PubMed ID: 19862347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Speakers' overestimation of their effectiveness.
Keysar B; Henly AS
Psychol Sci; 2002 May; 13(3):207-12. PubMed ID: 12009039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Lost in thought: cognitive load and the processing of addressees' feedback in verbal communication.
Rossnagel CS
Exp Psychol; 2004; 51(3):191-200. PubMed ID: 15267127
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue?
Haywood SL; Pickering MJ; Branigan HP
Psychol Sci; 2005 May; 16(5):362-6. PubMed ID: 15869694
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. How Cognitive Load Influences Speakers' Choice of Referring Expressions.
Vogels J; Krahmer E; Maes A
Cogn Sci; 2015 Aug; 39(6):1396-418. PubMed ID: 25471259
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Contextual Integration in Multiparty Audience Design.
Yoon SO; Brown-Schmidt S
Cogn Sci; 2019 Dec; 43(12):e12807. PubMed ID: 31858629
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Hierarchical Integration of Communicative and Spatial Perspective-Taking Demands in Sensorimotor Control of Referential Pointing.
Liu 刘 R睿; Bögels S; Bird G; Medendorp WP; Toni I
Cogn Sci; 2022 Jan; 46(1):e13084. PubMed ID: 35066907
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Don't talk about pink elephants! Speaker's control over leaking private information during language production.
Lane LW; Groisman M; Ferreira VS
Psychol Sci; 2006 Apr; 17(4):273-7. PubMed ID: 16623681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The impact of shared knowledge on speakers' prosody.
Michelas A; Cau C; Champagne-Lavau M
PLoS One; 2019; 14(10):e0223640. PubMed ID: 31609982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Age-related differences in referential production: A multiple-measures study.
Saryazdi R; Bannon J; Chambers CG
Psychol Aging; 2019 Sep; 34(6):791-804. PubMed ID: 31204834
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Speaker-external versus speaker-internal forces on utterance form: do cognitive demands override threats to referential success?
Lane LW; Ferreira VS
J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2008 Nov; 34(6):1466-81. PubMed ID: 18980408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Individual differences in speakers' perspective taking: the roles of executive control and working memory.
Wardlow L
Psychon Bull Rev; 2013 Aug; 20(4):766-72. PubMed ID: 23408369
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Audience design affects acoustic reduction via production facilitation.
Arnold JE; Kahn JM; Pancani GC
Psychon Bull Rev; 2012 Jun; 19(3):505-12. PubMed ID: 22419403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Do People Regard Robots as Human-Like Social Partners? Evidence From Perspective-Taking in Spatial Descriptions.
Xiao C; Xu L; Sui Y; Zhou R
Front Psychol; 2020; 11():578244. PubMed ID: 33613351
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Communicative Context Affects Use of Referential Prosody.
Tzeng CY; Namy LL; Nygaard LC
Cogn Sci; 2019 Nov; 43(11):e12799. PubMed ID: 31742754
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Do addressees adopt the perspective of the speaker?
Pickering MJ; McLean JF; Gambi C
Acta Psychol (Amst); 2012 Oct; 141(2):261-9. PubMed ID: 22727911
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Consistency between verbal and non-verbal affective cues: a clue to speaker credibility.
Gillis RL; Nilsen ES
Cogn Emot; 2017 Jun; 31(4):645-656. PubMed ID: 26892724
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
