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 *

129 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33793260)

  • 1. Tracking nonliteral language processing using audiovisual scenarios.
    Rothermich K; Schoen Simmons E; Rao Makarla P; Benson L; Plyler E; Kim H; Henssel Joergensen G
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2021 Jun; 75(2):211-220. PubMed ID: 33793260
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. No, No One Had Fun. Individual Differences in Nonliteral Language Perception.
    Joergensen GH; Makarla PR; Fammartino M; Benson L; Rothermich K
    Lang Speech; 2022 Jun; 65(2):290-310. PubMed ID: 34148389
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Nonliteral language processing across the lifespan.
    Rothermich K; Giorio C; Falkins S; Leonard L; Roberts A
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2021 Jan; 212():103213. PubMed ID: 33220614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Introducing RISC: A New Video Inventory for Testing Social Perception.
    Rothermich K; Pell MD
    PLoS One; 2015; 10(7):e0133902. PubMed ID: 26226009
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Social perception in adults with Parkinson's disease.
    Pell MD; Monetta L; Rothermich K; Kotz SA; Cheang HS; McDonald S
    Neuropsychology; 2014 Nov; 28(6):905-16. PubMed ID: 24885448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Sarcasm detection in native English and English as a second language speakers.
    Techentin C; Cann DR; Lupton M; Phung D
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2021 Jun; 75(2):133-138. PubMed ID: 33600203
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Age-related differences in the ability to decode intentions from non-literal language.
    Pomareda C; Simkute A; Phillips LH
    Acta Psychol (Amst); 2019 Jul; 198():102865. PubMed ID: 31228718
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Detecting sarcasm from paralinguistic cues: anatomic and cognitive correlates in neurodegenerative disease.
    Rankin KP; Salazar A; Gorno-Tempini ML; Sollberger M; Wilson SM; Pavlic D; Stanley CM; Glenn S; Weiner MW; Miller BL
    Neuroimage; 2009 Oct; 47(4):2005-15. PubMed ID: 19501175
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Speaker-Specific Cues Influence Semantic Disambiguation.
    Davies C; Porretta V; Koleva K; Klepousniotou E
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2022 Oct; 51(5):933-955. PubMed ID: 35556197
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Social appropriateness perception of dynamic interactions.
    Rothermich K; Ahn S; Dannhauer M; Pell MD
    Soc Neurosci; 2022 Feb; 17(1):37-57. PubMed ID: 35060435
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Examining the role of context in written sarcasm comprehension: Evidence from eye-tracking during reading.
    Țurcan A; Howman H; Filik R
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2020 Oct; 46(10):1966-1976. PubMed ID: 32658544
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Teaching sarcasm: Evaluating metapragmatic training for typically developing children.
    Lee K; Sidhu DM; Pexman PM
    Can J Exp Psychol; 2021 Jun; 75(2):139-145. PubMed ID: 32757569
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Alexithymic traits predict the speed of classifying non-literal statements using nonverbal cues.
    Jakobson LS; Pearson PM
    Cogn Emot; 2021 May; 35(3):569-575. PubMed ID: 31941409
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Social perception in children with intellectual disabilities: the interpretation of benign and hostile intentions.
    Leffert JS; Siperstein GN; Widaman KF
    J Intellect Disabil Res; 2010 Feb; 54(2):168-80. PubMed ID: 20070474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Older adults have difficulty in decoding sarcasm.
    Phillips LH; Allen R; Bull R; Hering A; Kliegel M; Channon S
    Dev Psychol; 2015 Dec; 51(12):1840-1852. PubMed ID: 26501728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Communicative deficits in agenesis of the corpus callosum: nonliteral language and affective prosody.
    Paul LK; Van Lancker-Sidtis D; Schieffer B; Dietrich R; Brown WS
    Brain Lang; 2003 May; 85(2):313-24. PubMed ID: 12735947
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Emotional Processing of Ironic Versus Literal Criticism in Autistic and Nonautistic Adults: Evidence From Eye-Tracking.
    Barzy M; Filik R; Williams D; Ferguson HJ
    Autism Res; 2020 Apr; 13(4):563-578. PubMed ID: 32017394
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Using Sarcasm to Compliment: Context, Intonation, and the Perception of Statements with a Negative Literal Meaning.
    Voyer D; Vu JP
    J Psycholinguist Res; 2016 Jun; 45(3):615-24. PubMed ID: 25900533
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. The ability to recognise emotions predicts the time-course of sarcasm processing: Evidence from eye movements.
    Olkoniemi H; Strömberg V; Kaakinen JK
    Q J Exp Psychol (Hove); 2019 May; 72(5):1212-1223. PubMed ID: 30282526
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Immediate online use of prosody reveals the ironic intentions of a speaker: neurophysiological evidence.
    Mauchand M; Caballero JA; Jiang X; Pell MD
    Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci; 2021 Feb; 21(1):74-92. PubMed ID: 33420711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 7.