On the Temporal Dynamics of Tool Use
暂无分享,去创建一个
[1] Christian Michel. Overcoming the modal/amodal dichotomy of concepts , 2020, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences.
[2] F. Osiurak,et al. Technition: When Tools Come Out of the Closet , 2020, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.
[3] M. Brandimonte,et al. Looking to recognise: the pre-eminence of semantic over sensorimotor processing in human tool use , 2020, Scientific Reports.
[4] Kiril Kostov,et al. Critical bottom-up attentional factors in the handle orientation effect: asymmetric luminance transients and object-center eccentricity relative to fixation , 2020, Psychological Research.
[5] F. Binkofski,et al. The prominent role of perceptual salience in object discrimination: overt discrimination of graspable side does not activate grasping affordances , 2020, Psychological research.
[6] F. Osiurak,et al. The elephant in the room: What matters cognitively in cumulative technological culture , 2019, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
[7] F. Osiurak,et al. To Watch is to Work: a Review of NeuroImaging Data on Tool Use Observation Network , 2019, Neuropsychology Review.
[8] M. Brandimonte,et al. Tool and object affordances: An ecological eye-tracking study , 2019, Brain and Cognition.
[9] Solène Kalénine,et al. What first drives visual attention during the recognition of object-directed actions? The role of kinematics and goal information , 2019, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.
[10] S. Laham,et al. A meta-analysis of the object-based compatibility effect , 2019, Cognition.
[11] Sharon L. Thompson-Schill,et al. Investigating Grounded Conceptualization: Stimulus-Response Compatibility for Tool Handles Is Due to Spatial Attention , 2019, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.
[12] F. Binkofski,et al. The unimanual handle-to-hand correspondence effect: evidence for a location coding account , 2018, Psychological Research.
[13] D. Kourtis,et al. Concurrent Cortical Representations of Function- and Size-Related Object Affordances: An fMRI Study , 2018, Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience.
[14] S. Kalénine,et al. Timing of grip and goal activation during action perception: a priming study , 2018, Experimental Brain Research.
[15] Dietmar Heinke,et al. Looking for intoolligence: A unified framework for the cognitive study of human tool use and technology. , 2018, The American psychologist.
[16] Daniel N Bub,et al. Time Course of Motor Affordances Evoked by Pictured Objects and Words , 2018, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.
[17] François Osiurak,et al. What is an affordance? 40 years later , 2017, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.
[18] Caruana Fausto,et al. Types of abduction in tool behavior , 2017 .
[19] Laurel J Buxbaum,et al. Learning, Remembering, and Predicting How to Use Tools: Distributed Neurocognitive Mechanisms Comment on Osiurak and Badets (2016) , 2017, Psychological review.
[20] Aymar de Rugy,et al. Creating semantics in tool use , 2017, Cognitive Processing.
[21] F. Binkofski,et al. The challenge of abstract concepts. , 2017, Psychological bulletin.
[22] Patric Bach,et al. Understanding the Goals of Everyday Instrumental Actions Is Primarily Linked to Object, Not Motor-Kinematic, Information: Evidence from fMRI , 2017, PloS one.
[23] Emanuelle Reynaud,et al. On the neurocognitive origins of human tool use : A critical review of neuroimaging data , 2016, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.
[24] François Osiurak,et al. Tool use and affordance: Manipulation-based versus reasoning-based approaches. , 2016, Psychological review.
[25] Guy Vingerhoets,et al. Perceiving objects by their function: An EEG study on feature saliency and prehensile affordances , 2015, Biological Psychology.
[26] P. Mcmullen,et al. Accessing embodied object representations from vision: A review. , 2015, Psychological bulletin.
[27] Bradford Z. Mahon,et al. What is embodied about cognition? , 2015, Language, cognition and neuroscience.
[28] Harold Bekkering,et al. Action semantics: A unifying conceptual framework for the selective use of multimodal and modality-specific object knowledge. , 2014, Physics of life reviews.
[29] Patric Bach,et al. The affordance-matching hypothesis: how objects guide action understanding and prediction , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..
[30] Friedemann Pulvermüller,et al. Unconscious Automatic Brain Activation of Acoustic and Action-related Conceptual Features during Masked Repetition Priming , 2014, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.
[31] F. Osiurak,et al. Pliers, not fingers: Tool-action effect in a motor intention paradigm , 2014, Cognition.
[32] G. Goldenberg. Apraxia – The cognitive side of motor control , 2013, Cortex.
[33] R. Proctor,et al. Object-based correspondence effects for action-relevant and surface-property judgments with keypress responses: evidence for a basis in spatial coding , 2013, Psychological research.
[34] T. Ziemke,et al. Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: An integrative review , 2013, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.
[35] N. Holmes,et al. To eat or not to eat? Kinematics and muscle activity of reach-to-grasp movements are influenced by the action goal, but observers do not detect these differences , 2013, Experimental Brain Research.
[36] Frank E Garcea,et al. What is in a tool concept? Dissociating manipulation knowledge from function knowledge , 2012, Memory & Cognition.
[37] B. Bahrami,et al. Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics , 2012, Cortex.
[38] D. McDermott. LANGUAGE OF THOUGHT , 2012 .
[39] R. Proctor,et al. Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.
[40] F. Osiurak,et al. Re-examining the gesture engram hypothesis. New perspectives on apraxia of tool use , 2011, Neuropsychologia.
[41] Guy Dove. On the need for Embodied and Dis-Embodied Cognition , 2011, Front. Psychology.
[42] N. Hodges,et al. Manipulations to the Timing and Type of Instructions to Examine Motor Skill Performance Under Pressure , 2010, Front. Psychology.
[43] Lewis A. Wheaton,et al. The Neuroscience of Storing and Molding Tool Action Concepts: How “Plastic” is Grounded Cognition? , 2010, Front. Psychology.
[44] R. Proctor,et al. The object-based Simon effect: grasping affordance or relative location of the graspable part? , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.
[45] F. Osiurak,et al. Grasping the affordances, understanding the reasoning: toward a dialectical theory of human tool use. , 2010, Psychological review.
[46] L. Buxbaum,et al. Action knowledge, visuomotor activation, and embodiment in the two action systems , 2010, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
[47] A. Chatterjee. Disembodying cognition , 2010, Language and Cognition.
[48] G. Goldenberg,et al. The neural basis of tool use. , 2009, Brain : a journal of neurology.
[49] Lawrence W Barsalou,et al. Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.
[50] G. Vingerhoets,et al. Conceptual and physical object qualities contribute differently to motor affordances , 2009, Brain and Cognition.
[51] K. Heilman,et al. The disconnection apraxias , 2008, Cortex.
[52] H. Bekkering,et al. Conceptual knowledge for understanding other’s actions is organized primarily around action goals , 2008, Experimental Brain Research.
[53] Bradford Z. Mahon,et al. A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content , 2008, Journal of Physiology-Paris.
[54] L. Barsalou. Grounded cognition. , 2008, Annual review of psychology.
[55] W. Prinz,et al. Activation of action rules in action observation. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.
[56] Ed Symes,et al. Visual object affordances: object orientation. , 2007, Acta psychologica.
[57] Scott T. Grafton,et al. A distributed left hemisphere network active during planning of everyday tool use skills. , 2004, Cerebral cortex.
[58] R. Passingham,et al. Objects automatically potentiate action: an fMRI study of implicit processing , 2003, The European journal of neuroscience.
[59] S. Anderson,et al. Attentional processes link perception and action , 2002, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.
[60] Sarah H. Creem,et al. Defining the cortical visual systems: "what", "where", and "how". , 2001, Acta psychologica.
[61] L. Buxbaum. Ideomotor Apraxia: a Call to Action , 2001, Neurocase.
[62] R. Cubelli,et al. Cognition in Action: Testing a Model of Limb Apraxia , 2000, Brain and Cognition.
[63] R. Ellis,et al. On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.
[64] K. Heilman,et al. A Cognitive Neuropsychological Model of Limb Praxis , 1991 .
[65] K. Heilman,et al. Two forms of ideomotor apraxia , 1982, Neurology.
[66] J. Gibson. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .