|
Green, C., & Hummel, J. E. (2004). Functional interactions affect object detection in non-scene displays. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science, pp. 488–493.
|
Ajoutée par: Sterenn Audo
|
|
Pop. 23.05%
|
|
|
Green, C., & Hummel, J. E. (2004). Relational perception and cognition: Implications for cognitive architecture and the perceptual-cognitive interface. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory, Vol. 44. (pp. 201–226). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Sterenn Audo
|
|
Pop. 27.31%
|
|
|
Green, C., & Hummel, J. E. (2005). Objects that work together may be perceptually grouped. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Mahwah, NJ. pp. 821–826.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Sterenn Audo
|
|
Pop. 27.22%
|
|
|
Green, C., & Hummel, J. E. (2006). Familiar interacting object pairs are perceptually grouped. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(5), p. p1107–1119.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Sterenn Audo
|
|
Pop. 30.85%
|
|
|
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Authoritative, accountable positioning and connected, general knowing: Progressive themes in understanding transfer. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(4), p. p537–547.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Lynda Taabane
|
|
Pop. 35.39%
|
|
|
Greer, B. (2001). Understanding probabilistic thinking: The legacy of efraim fischbein. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 45(1-3), p. p15.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Lynda Taabane
|
|
Pop. 29.22%
|
|
|
Gregan-Paxton, J. (2001). The role of abstract and specific knowledge in the formation of product judgments: An analogical learning perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(3), p. p141–158.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Lynda Taabane
|
|
Pop. 28.95%
|
|
|
Halpern, D. F., Hansen, C., & Riefer, D. (1990). Analogies as an aid to understanding and memory. Journal of educational psychology, 82(2), pp. 298–305.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Katarina Gvozdic
|
|
Pop. 30.67%
|
|
|
Hampton, J. A., & Taylor, P. J. (1985). Effects of semantic relatedness on same-different decisions in a good-bad categorization task. Journal of experimental psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11(1), p. p85–93.
|
Ajoutée par: Lynda Taabane
|
|
Pop. 32.03%
|
|
|
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1994). Young children's naive theory of biology. Cognition, 50(1), p. p171–188.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Lynda Taabane
|
|
Pop. 33.21%
|
|
|
Heywood, D. (2002). The place of analogies in science education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(2), p. p233–247.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Lynda Taabane
|
|
Pop. 24.95%
|
|
|
Holyoak, K. J., & Koh, K. (1987). Surface and structural similarity in analogical transfer. Memory & Cognition, 15(4), pp. 332–340.
|
Ajoutée par: Lynda Taabane
|
|
Pop. 23.14%
|
|
|
Holyoak, K. J., & Hummel, J. E. (2000). The proper treatment of symbols in a connectionist architecture. In E. Dietrich & A. B. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines. (pp. 229–263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Sterenn Audo
|
|
Pop. 28.49%
|
|
|
Holyoak, K. J., Gentner, D., & Kokinov, B. N. (2001). Introduction: the place of analogy in cognition. In D. Gentner, K. J. Holyoak & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
|
Ajoutée par: Sterenn Audo
|
|
Pop. 25.32%
|
|
|
Holyoak, K. J. (2005). Analogy. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 117–142). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Sterenn Audo
|
|
Pop. 40.93%
|
|
|
Hummel, J. E., & Biederman, I. (1992). Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. Psychological Review, 99(3), p. p480–517.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Sterenn Audo
|
|
Pop. 27.04%
|
|
|
Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (1997). Distributed representations of structure: A theory of analogical access and mapping. Psychological Review, 104(3), p. p427–466.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Lynda Taabane
|
|
Pop. 34.21%
|
|
|
Hummel, J. E., & Stankiewicz, B. J. (1998). Two roles for attention in shape perception: A structural description model of visual scrutiny. Visual Cognition, 5(2), p. p49–79.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Sterenn Audo
|
|
Pop. 25.05%
|
|
|
Hummel, J. E. (2000). Where view-based theories break down: The role of structure in human shape perception and object recognition. In E. Dietrich & A. B. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual and representational change in humans and machines. (pp. 157–185). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Sterenn Audo
|
|
Pop. 28.31%
|
|
|
Hummel, J. E. (2001). Complementary solutions to the binding problem in vision: Implications for shape perception and object recognition. Visual Cognition, 8(3-5), p. p489.
|
Dernièrement modifiée par: Sterenn Audo
|
|
Pop. 27.4%
|
|
