Home Catalogue search

eng

Refine your search:

Search in the Catalogues and Directories






	Sort by
Simple Search

Hits 1 – 20 of 20

1	Domain-aware ontology matching ...
	Quesada Real, Francisco José. - : The University of Edinburgh, 2021
	BASE
	Show details

2	Domain-aware ontology matching
	Quesada Real, Francisco José. - : The University of Edinburgh, 2021
	BASE
	Show details

3	A common neural hub resolves syntactic and non-syntactic conflict through cooperation with task-specific networks.
	Hsu, Nina S; Jaeggi, Susanne M; Novick, Jared M. - : eScholarship, University of California, 2017
	BASE
	Show details

4	Language Science Meets Cognitive Science: Categorization and Adaptation ...
	Heffner, Christopher Cullen. - : Digital Repository at the University of Maryland, 2017
	BASE
	Show details

5	Nonmusical Correlates of Musical Ability
	Swaminathan, Swathi. - 2017
	BASE
	Show details

6	Language Science Meets Cognitive Science: Categorization and Adaptation
	Heffner, Christopher Cullen. - 2017
	BASE
	Show details

7	Language modularity
	Harris, Lindsay N., 1979--; Lech, Iwona B.. - 2016
	BASE
	Show details

8	Further Exploring Processing Differences Between Geometric Shapes and Shape Words
	Scordas, Chelsea V.
	In: Electronic Theses and Dissertations (2016)
	Abstract: The current study sought to expand upon the research of geometric shape processing in relation to theories of domain specificity and modularity. Sturz, Edwards, and Boyer (2014) presented results for possible processing differences between geometric shapes and geometric shape words. The authors found that when processing a bi-dimensional sample (i.e., a shape word transposed inside either the same or a different picture of a shape), there was asymmetric interference. Shape words would interfere with identifying the correct shape in a delayed match-to-sample (DMTS) task but there was no such interference from geometric shapes when identifying shape words. It was concluded that geometric shapes activate a visual representation only, while shape words activate both visual and verbal representations. Sturz et al. (2014) proposed this was possible evidence in favor of an independent processing module involved in the early processing of geometric shapes. The current study further tested whether geometric shapes are processed independently from linguistics (i.e., verbal representations) by utilizing DMTS tasks along with imbedded distractor tasks (DTs). It was hypothesized that if a DT was based on visual information (i.e., nonsense shapes; adapted from Lin & Yeh, 2014), it should only affect the performance for geometric shape matching, whereas a verbal DT (i.e., strings of letters) should affect both shape and shape word matching. Results showed evidence that only the nonsense shape DTs negatively impacted performance times for geometric shapes whereas the shape words were negatively impacted by both DTs.
	Keyword: delayed match-to-sample; distractor task; domain specificity; dual-task; Geometric processing; modular processing; Psychology; shape words; working memory
	URL: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2558&context=etd https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/1460
	BASE
	Hide details

9	Linguistic explanation and domain specialization: a case study in bound variable anaphora
	Adger, D; Svenonius, P. - 2016
	BASE
	Show details

10	Attention and executive control during lexical processing in aphasia
	Evans, William Streicher. - 2015
	BASE
	Show details

11	Using a Delayed Match-to-Samples Task to Investigate the Isolated Processing of Geometric Shapes and Their Corresponding Shape Words
	Edwards, Joshua E
	In: Georgia Southern University Research Symposium (2015)
	BASE
	Show details

12	Resisting Everything Except Temptation: Evidence and an Explanation for Domain-Specific Impulsivity
	Tsukayama, Eli
	In: Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations (2012)
	BASE
	Show details

13	Comparison of Instrumentalists and Vocalists on a Lexical Tone Perception Task
	Kirkham, Joseph. - 2011
	BASE
	Show details

14	The Contribution of Domain Specificity in the Highly Modular Mind
	Barcelo Aspeitia, Axel; Erana, Angeles; Stainton, Robert J.
	In: Robert J. Stainton (2010)
	BASE
	Show details

15	How Does the Mind Do Literary Work?
	S. Versace; G. Thoms. - 2009
	BASE
	Show details

16	Theory of mind broad and narrow: Reasoning about social exchange engages ToM areas, precautionary reasoning does not
	Ermer, Elsa; Guerin, Scoft A.; Cosmides, Leda...
	In: Ermer, Elsa; Guerin, Scoft A.; Cosmides, Leda; Tooby, John; & Miller, Michael B.(2006). Theory of mind broad and narrow: Reasoning about social exchange engages ToM areas, precautionary reasoning does not. SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE, 1, 196 - 219. UC Santa Barbara: Retrieved from: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/6c53x1nx (2006)
	BASE
	Show details

17	Sex differences in lexical size across semantic categories
	Laws, K.R.. - 2004
	BASE
	Show details

18	The Case for Modularity: Sin or Salvation?
	Atran, Scott
	In: Evolution and Cognition ; https://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00000135 ; Evolution and Cognition, 2001, 7 (1), pp.46-55 (2001)
	BASE
	Show details

19	Grammatical knowledge vs. syntactic processing in the human brain
	Evelina Fedorenko Nancy Kanwisher
	In: http://cuny2012.commons.gc.cuny.edu/files/2012/03/cuny2012_98.pdf
	BASE
	Show details

20	How Does the Mind Work? Insights from Biology
	Gary Marcus
	In: http://www.psych.nyu.edu/gary/marcusArticles/Marcus 2009 topics.pdf
	BASE
	Show details

© 2013 - 2024 Lin|gu|is|tik | Imprint | Privacy Policy | Datenschutzeinstellungen ändern