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 *

197 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33100508)

  • 41. Effects of contrastive focus on lexical predictability during sentence reading: The case of
    Lowder MW; Ryan G; Opie J; Kaminsky E
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2021 Jan; 74(1):179-186. PubMed ID: 32705949
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. fMRI reveals language-specific predictive coding during naturalistic sentence comprehension.
    Shain C; Blank IA; van Schijndel M; Schuler W; Fedorenko E
    Neuropsychologia; 2020 Feb; 138():107307. PubMed ID: 31874149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Tracking competition and cognitive control during language comprehension with multi-voxel pattern analysis.
    Musz E; Thompson-Schill SL
    Brain Lang; 2017 Feb; 165():21-32. PubMed ID: 27898341
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Deep Artificial Neural Networks Reveal a Distributed Cortical Network Encoding Propositional Sentence-Level Meaning.
    Anderson AJ; Kiela D; Binder JR; Fernandino L; Humphries CJ; Conant LL; Raizada RDS; Grimm S; Lalor EC
    J Neurosci; 2021 May; 41(18):4100-4119. PubMed ID: 33753548
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Lexical predictability exerts robust effects on fixation duration, but not on initial landing position during reading.
    Vainio S; Hyönä J; Pajunen A
    Exp Psychol; 2009; 56(1):66-74. PubMed ID: 19261580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. The Influence of Visual Uncertainty on Word Surprisal and Processing Effort.
    Ankener CS; Sekicki M; Staudte M
    Front Psychol; 2018; 9():2387. PubMed ID: 30618905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Effects of Lexical Variables on Silent Reading Comprehension in Individuals With Aphasia: Evidence From Eye Tracking.
    DeDe G
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2017 Sep; 60(9):2589-2602. PubMed ID: 28863409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Retrieval (N400) and integration (P600) in expectation-based comprehension.
    Aurnhammer C; Delogu F; Schulz M; Brouwer H; Crocker MW
    PLoS One; 2021; 16(9):e0257430. PubMed ID: 34582472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. A resource-rational model of human processing of recursive linguistic structure.
    Hahn M; Futrell R; Levy R; Gibson E
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2022 Oct; 119(43):e2122602119. PubMed ID: 36260742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Understanding the visual constraints on lexical processing: New empirical and simulation results.
    Veldre A; Reichle ED; Yu L; Andrews S
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2023 Mar; 152(3):693-722. PubMed ID: 36107696
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Dependency Resolution Difficulty Increases with Distance in Persian Separable Complex Predicates: Evidence for Expectation and Memory-Based Accounts.
    Safavi MS; Husain S; Vasishth S
    Front Psychol; 2016; 7():403. PubMed ID: 27064660
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Additive effects of repetition and predictability during comprehension: evidence from event-related potentials.
    Chow WY; Lago S; Barrios S; Parker D; Morini G; Lau E
    PLoS One; 2014; 9(6):e99199. PubMed ID: 24905459
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Effects of word frequency and modality on sentence comprehension impairments in people with aphasia.
    DeDe G
    Am J Speech Lang Pathol; 2012 May; 21(2):S103-14. PubMed ID: 22294411
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Processing of the Korean Eojoel ambiguity.
    Lee Y; Nam K; Gordon PC
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2009 Aug; 38(4):345-62. PubMed ID: 19052871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Phonological typicality influences on-line sentence comprehension.
    Farmer TA; Christiansen MH; Monaghan P
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2006 Aug; 103(32):12203-8. PubMed ID: 16882728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. How do task demands and aging affect lexical prediction during online reading of natural texts?
    Andrews S; Veldre A; Wong R; Yu L; Reichle ED
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2023 Mar; 49(3):407-430. PubMed ID: 36521158
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Using reinforcement learning to examine dynamic attention allocation during reading.
    Liu Y; Reichle ED; Gao DG
    Cogn Sci; 2013; 37(8):1507-40. PubMed ID: 23432659
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. The influence of lexical and conceptual constraints on reading mixed-language sentences: evidence from eye fixations and naming times.
    Altarriba J; Kroll JF; Sholl A; Rayner K
    Mem Cognit; 1996 Jul; 24(4):477-92. PubMed ID: 8757496
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Balancing Prediction and Sensory Input in Speech Comprehension: The Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Word Recognition in Context.
    Klimovich-Gray A; Tyler LK; Randall B; Kocagoncu E; Devereux B; Marslen-Wilson WD
    J Neurosci; 2019 Jan; 39(3):519-527. PubMed ID: 30459221
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Comparisons of online reading paradigms: eye tracking, moving-window, and maze.
    Witzel N; Witzel J; Forster K
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2012 Apr; 41(2):105-28. PubMed ID: 22002037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.