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 *

134 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33545512)

  • 1. What's new? A comprehension bias in favor of informativity.
    Rohde H; Futrell R; Lucas CG
    Cognition; 2021 Apr; 209():104491. PubMed ID: 33545512
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. This Better Be Interesting: A Speaker's Decision to Speak Cues Listeners to Expect Informative Content.
    Rohde H; Hoek J; Keshev M; Franke M
    Open Mind (Camb); 2022; 6():118-131. PubMed ID: 36439071
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Discourse coherence modulates use of predictive processing during sentence comprehension.
    Carter GA; Hoffman P
    Cognition; 2024 Jan; 242():105637. PubMed ID: 37857052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. Informationally redundant utterances elicit pragmatic inferences.
    Kravtchenko E; Demberg V
    Cognition; 2022 Aug; 225():105159. PubMed ID: 35580451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Dissociable effects of prediction and integration during language comprehension: evidence from a large-scale study using brain potentials.
    Nieuwland MS; Barr DJ; Bartolozzi F; Busch-Moreno S; Darley E; Donaldson DI; Ferguson HJ; Fu X; Heyselaar E; Huettig F; Matthew Husband E; Ito A; Kazanina N; Kogan V; Kohút Z; Kulakova E; Mézière D; Politzer-Ahles S; Rousselet G; Rueschemeyer SA; Segaert K; Tuomainen J; Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn S
    Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci; 2020 Feb; 375(1791):20180522. PubMed ID: 31840593
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Anticipating the Damn Referent: How Comprehenders Rapidly Retrieve the Speaker's Attitude When Processing Negative Expressive Adjectives.
    Ronderos CR; Domaneschi F
    Cogn Sci; 2023 May; 47(5):e13295. PubMed ID: 37203252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Rapid Expectation Adaptation during Syntactic Comprehension.
    Fine AB; Jaeger TF; Farmer TA; Qian T
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(10):e77661. PubMed ID: 24204909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Do we rely on good-enough processing in reading under auditory and visual noise?
    Zdorova N; Malyutina S; Laurinavichyute A; Kaprielova A; Ziubanova A; Lopukhina A
    PLoS One; 2023; 18(1):e0277429. PubMed ID: 36693033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Does negation influence the choice of sentence continuations? Evidence from a four-choice cloze task.
    Albu E; Dudschig C; Warren T; Kaup B
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2024 Jan; 77(1):90-110. PubMed ID: 36760063
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Extending Situated Language Comprehension (Accounts) with Speaker and Comprehender Characteristics: Toward Socially Situated Interpretation.
    Münster K; Knoeferle P
    Front Psychol; 2017; 8():2267. PubMed ID: 29416517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic.
    Smith NJ; Levy R
    Cognition; 2013 Sep; 128(3):302-19. PubMed ID: 23747651
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Seeing words in context: the interaction of lexical and sentence level information during reading.
    Hoeks JC; Stowe LA; Doedens G
    Brain Res Cogn Brain Res; 2004 Mar; 19(1):59-73. PubMed ID: 14972359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. An electrophysiological investigation of semantic and phonological processing in skilled and less-skilled comprehenders.
    Landi N; Perfetti CA
    Brain Lang; 2007 Jul; 102(1):30-45. PubMed ID: 17188346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. The neural integration of speaker and message.
    Van Berkum JJ; van den Brink D; Tesink CM; Kos M; Hagoort P
    J Cogn Neurosci; 2008 Apr; 20(4):580-91. PubMed ID: 18052777
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Scalar Implicature is Sensitive to Contextual Alternatives.
    Zhang Z; Bergen L; Paunov A; Ryskin R; Gibson E
    Cogn Sci; 2023 Feb; 47(2):e13238. PubMed ID: 36739521
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Flexible predictions during listening comprehension: Speaker reliability affects anticipatory processes.
    Brothers T; Dave S; Hoversten LJ; Traxler MJ; Swaab TY
    Neuropsychologia; 2019 Dec; 135():107225. PubMed ID: 31605686
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Impairment of sentence comprehension.
    Saffran EM; Schwartz MF
    Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci; 1994 Oct; 346(1315):47-53. PubMed ID: 7886152
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. It is not what you say but how you say it: Evidence from Russian shows robust effects of the structural prior on noisy channel inferences.
    Poliak M; Ryskin R; Braginsky M; Gibson E
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2024 Apr; 50(4):637-649. PubMed ID: 37213180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties.
    Cain K; Oakhill J
    Br J Educ Psychol; 2006 Dec; 76(Pt 4):683-96. PubMed ID: 17094880
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.