Measuring nonvisual knowledge about object categories: The Semantic Vanderbilt Expertise Test

[1]  Rankin W. McGugin,et al.  Expertise Effects in Face-Selective Areas are Robust to Clutter and Diverted Attention, but not to Competition. , 2015, Cerebral cortex.

[2]  Rankin W. McGugin,et al.  Item response theory analyses of the Cambridge Face Memory Test (CFMT). , 2015, Psychological assessment.

[3]  Rankin W. McGugin,et al.  Robust expertise effects in right FFA , 2014, Neuropsychologia.

[4]  Rankin W. McGugin,et al.  Experience moderates overlap between object and face recognition, suggesting a common ability. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[5]  Z. Križan,et al.  Do People Have Insight Into Their Abilities? A Metasynthesis , 2014, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[6]  Thomas S. Redick,et al.  No evidence of intelligence improvement after working memory training: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[7]  Todd M. Gureckis,et al.  CUNY Academic , 2016 .

[8]  Rankin W. McGugin,et al.  The Vanderbilt Expertise Test reveals domain-general and domain-specific sex effects in object recognition , 2012, Vision Research.

[9]  B. Duchaine,et al.  The Cambridge Car Memory Test: A task matched in format to the Cambridge Face Memory Test, with norms, reliability, sex differences, dissociations from face memory, and expertise effects , 2012, Behavior research methods.

[10]  E. McKone,et al.  Individual Differences in the Ability to Recognise Facial Identity Are Associated with Social Anxiety , 2011, PloS one.

[11]  N. Brewer,et al.  Face recognition performance of individuals with Asperger syndrome on the Cambridge face memory test , 2011, Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research.

[12]  W. Grodd,et al.  Many Faces of Expertise: Fusiform Face Area in Chess Experts and Novices , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[13]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Where cognitive development and aging meet: Face learning ability peaks after age 30 , 2011, Cognition.

[14]  Michael Erb,et al.  Mechanisms and neural basis of object and pattern recognition: a study with chess experts. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[15]  W. Sommer,et al.  PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Individual Differences in Perceiving and Recognizing Faces — One Element of Social Cognition , 2010 .

[16]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Human face recognition ability is specific and highly heritable , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[17]  Hashim Hanif,et al.  Relating visual to verbal semantic knowledge: the evaluation of object recognition in prosopagnosia. , 2009, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[18]  G. Yovel,et al.  Diagnosing prosopagnosia: Effects of ageing, sex, and participant–stimulus ethnic match on the Cambridge Face Memory Test and Cambridge Face Perception Test , 2009, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[19]  P. Harris,et al.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[20]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Super-recognizers: People with extraordinary face recognition ability , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  J. Pettibone,et al.  The roles of ability, personality, and interests in acquiring current events knowledge: A longitudinal study , 2008 .

[22]  Frederick L Oswald,et al.  Individual differences in current events knowledge: Contributions of ability, personality, and interests , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[23]  K. Nakayama,et al.  The Cambridge Face Memory Test: Results for neurologically intact individuals and an investigation of its validity using inverted face stimuli and prosopagnosic participants , 2006, Neuropsychologia.

[24]  E. Capitani,et al.  Human evolution and the brain representation of semantic knowledge: is there a role for sex differences? , 2006 .

[25]  G. Gainotti.  The influence of gender and lesion location on naming disorders for animals, plants and artefacts , 2005, Neuropsychologia.

[26]  M. Behrmann,et al.  Congenital prosopagnosia: face-blind from birth , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[27]  D. Hambrick.  Why are some people more knowledgeable than others? A longitudinal study of knowledge acquisition , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[28]  J. Hodges,et al.  Non-verbal semantic impairment in semantic dementia , 2000, Neuropsychologia.

[29]  S. Embretson,et al.  Item response theory for psychologists , 2000 .

[30]  G. Humphreys,et al.  An interactive activation approach to object processing: effects of structural similarity, name frequency, and task in normality and pathology. , 1995, Memory.

[31]  A. Baddeley,et al.  The Spot-the-Word test: a robust estimate of verbal intelligence based on lexical decision. , 1993, The British journal of clinical psychology.

[32]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure , 1992, Memory & cognition.

[33]  J. Tanaka,et al.  Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[34]  A. Young,et al.  Understanding face recognition. , 1986, British journal of psychology.

[35]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[36]  J. Raven,et al.  Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and Mill Hill vocabulary scales , 1981 .

[37]  C. Adcock,et al.  Primary Mental Abilities. , 1971, The Journal of general psychology.

[38]  J. Raven,et al.  Manual for Raven's progressive matrices and vocabulary scales , 1962 .