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 *

227 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 6447192)

  • 1. Classification in well-defined and ill-defined categories: evidence for common processing strategies.
    Martin RC; Caramazza A
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 1980 Sep; 109(3):320-53. PubMed ID: 6447192
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Typicality in logically defined categories: exemplar-similarity versus rule instantiation.
    Nosofsky RM
    Mem Cognit; 1991 Mar; 19(2):131-50. PubMed ID: 2017037
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Learning categories via rules and similarity: comparing adults and children.
    Rabi R; Miles SJ; Minda JP
    J Exp Child Psychol; 2015 Mar; 131():149-69. PubMed ID: 25558860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. The use of perceptual features in categorization by orangutans (Pongo abelli).
    Marsh HL; MacDonald SE
    Anim Cogn; 2008 Oct; 11(4):569-85. PubMed ID: 18415129
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Given versus induced category representations: use of prototype and exemplar information in classification.
    Medin DL; Altom MW; Murphy TD
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1984 Jul; 10(3):333-52. PubMed ID: 6235306
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Age, typicality, and task effects on categorization of objects.
    Blewitt P; Durkin M
    Percept Mot Skills; 1982 Oct; 55(2):435-45. PubMed ID: 7155742
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Rules and exemplars in categorization, identification, and recognition.
    Nosofsky RM; Clark SE; Shin HJ
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1989 Mar; 15(2):282-304. PubMed ID: 2522517
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Feature-based versus exemplar-based strategies in preschoolers' category learning.
    Krascum RM; Andrews S
    J Exp Child Psychol; 1993 Aug; 56(1):1-48. PubMed ID: 8366324
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. What some effects might not be: the time to verify membership in "well-defined" categories.
    Larochelle S; Richard S; Soulières I
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2000 Nov; 53(4):929-61. PubMed ID: 11131822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Typicality effects in artificial categories: is there a hemisphere difference?
    Richards LG; Chiarello C
    Brain Lang; 1990 Jul; 39(1):90-106. PubMed ID: 2207623
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Conjuctions of visually based categories: overextension and compensation.
    Hampton JA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1996 Mar; 22(2):378-96. PubMed ID: 8901342
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Essentialism and graded membership in animal and artifact categories.
    Kalish CW
    Mem Cognit; 1995 May; 23(3):335-53. PubMed ID: 7791602
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Tests of an exemplar model for relating perceptual classification and recognition memory.
    Nosofsky RM
    J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1991 Feb; 17(1):3-27. PubMed ID: 1826320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Learning categories by making predictions: an investigation of indirect category learning.
    Minda JP; Ross BH
    Mem Cognit; 2004 Dec; 32(8):1355-68. PubMed ID: 15900929
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Distinguishing prototype-based and exemplar-based processes in dot-pattern category learning.
    Smith JD; Minda JP
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2002 Jul; 28(4):800-11. PubMed ID: 12109770
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Recognition memory for exceptions to the category rule.
    Palmeri TJ; Nosofsky RM
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1995 May; 21(3):548-68. PubMed ID: 7602261
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Perceptual units in the acquisition of visual categories.
    Hock HS; Tromley C; Polmann L
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1988 Jan; 14(1):75-84. PubMed ID: 2963895
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Combining exemplar-based category representations and connectionist learning rules.
    Nosofsky RM; Kruschke JK; McKinley SC
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 1992 Mar; 18(2):211-33. PubMed ID: 1532819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Central tendencies, extreme points, and prototype enhancement effects in ill-defined perceptual categorization.
    Palmeri TJ; Nosofsky RM
    Q J Exp Psychol A; 2001 Feb; 54(1):197-235. PubMed ID: 11216316
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Costs and benefits of automatization in category learning of ill-defined rules.
    Raijmakers ME; Schmittmann VD; Visser I
    Cogn Psychol; 2014 Mar; 69():1-24. PubMed ID: 24418795
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.