Header Logo

Connection

Charles Clifton to Humans

This is a "connection" page, showing publications Charles Clifton has written about Humans.
Connection Strength

0.364
  1. Clifton C, Rysling A, Bishop J. The prosodic accent advantage in phoneme detection: Importance of local context. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2022 Jan; 84(1):244-259.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  2. Clifton C, Frazier L, Kaup B. Negative clauses imply affirmative topics and affirmative antecedents. J Psycholinguist Res. 2021 Dec; 50(6):1261-1282.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  3. Frazier L, Clifton C. Interpreting Adjuncts: Processing English As-Clauses. Lang Speech. 2022 Mar; 65(1):193-215.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  4. Clifton C, Xiang M, Frazier L. A Note on the Voice Mismatch Asymmetry in Ellipsis. J Psycholinguist Res. 2019 Aug; 48(4):877-887.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.025
  5. Clifton C, Frazier L. Evaluation of the epistemic state of the speaker/author. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2018 Jun; 71(6):1482-1492.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  6. Staub A, Dillon B, Clifton C. The Matrix Verb as a Source of Comprehension Difficulty in Object Relative Sentences. Cogn Sci. 2017 May; 41 Suppl 6:1353-1376.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  7. Breen M, Clifton C. Stress matters revisited: a boundary change experiment. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2013; 66(10):1896-909.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  8. Clifton C. Situational context affects definiteness preferences: accommodation of presuppositions. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2013 Mar; 39(2):487-501.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  9. Clifton C, Frazier L. Discourse integration guided by the 'question under discussion'. Cogn Psychol. 2012 Sep; 65(2):352-79.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  10. Clifton C, Frazier L. Interpreting conjoined noun phrases and conjoined clauses: collective versus distributive preferences. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2012; 65(9):1760-76.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.015
  11. Rayner K, Clifton C. Language processing in reading and speech perception is fast and incremental: implications for event-related potential research. Biol Psychol. 2009 Jan; 80(1):4-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  12. Carlson K, Dickey MW, Frazier L, Clifton C. Information structure expectations in sentence comprehension. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2009 Jan; 62(1):114-39.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.012
  13. Clifton C, Carlson K, Frazier L. Tracking the what and why of speakers' choices: prosodic boundaries and the length of constituents. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Oct; 13(5):854-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  14. Frazier L, Carlson K, Clifton C. Prosodic phrasing is central to language comprehension. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Jun; 10(6):244-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  15. Staub A, Clifton C. Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: evidence from either...or. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Mar; 32(2):425-36.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  16. Ashby J, Rayner K, Clifton C. Eye movements of highly skilled and average readers: differential effects of frequency and predictability. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2005 Aug; 58(6):1065-86.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.010
  17. Ashby J, Clifton C. The prosodic property of lexical stress affects eye movements during silent reading. Cognition. 2005 Jul; 96(3):B89-100.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  18. Clifton C, Frazier L. Should given information come before new? Yes and no. Mem Cognit. 2004 Sep; 32(6):886-95.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  19. Rayner K, Juhasz B, Ashby J, Clifton C. Inhibition of saccade return in reading. Vision Res. 2003 Apr; 43(9):1027-34.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  20. Frazier L, Clifton C. Processing "d-linked" phrases. J Psycholinguist Res. 2002 Nov; 31(6):633-59.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  21. Meseguer E, Carreiras M, Clifton C. Overt reanalysis strategies and eye movements during the reading of mild garden path sentences. Mem Cognit. 2002 Jun; 30(4):551-61.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  22. Clifton C, Carlson K, Frazier L. Informative prosodic boundaries. Lang Speech. 2002 Jun; 45(Pt 2):87-114.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  23. Clifton C, Duffy SA. Sentence and text comprehension: roles of linguistic structure. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001; 52:167-96.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.007
  24. Birch S, Clifton C. Focus, accent, and argument structure: effects on language comprehension. Lang Speech. 1995 Oct-Dec; 38 ( Pt 4):365-91.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.005
  25. Staub A, Grant M, Clifton C, Rayner K. Still no phonological typicality effect on word reading time (and no good explanation of one, either): a rejoinder to Farmer, Monaghan, Misyak, and Christiansen. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2011 Sep; 37(5):1326-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.004
  26. Carlson K, Clifton C, Frazier L. Nonlocal effects of prosodic boundaries. Mem Cognit. 2009 Oct; 37(7):1014-25.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  27. Staub A, Grant M, Clifton C, Rayner K. Phonological typicality does not influence fixation durations in normal reading. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009 May; 35(3):806-14.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  28. Swets B, Desmet T, Clifton C, Ferreira F. Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: evidence from self-paced reading. Mem Cognit. 2008 Jan; 36(1):201-16.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  29. Frazier L, Clifton C, Stolterfoht B. Scale structure: processing minimum standard and maximum standard scalar adjectives. Cognition. 2008 Jan; 106(1):299-324.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  30. Frazier L, Clifton C, Carlson K. Focus and VP ellipsis. Lang Speech. 2007; 50(Pt 1):1-21.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.003
  31. Frazier L, Clifton C, Rayner K, Deevy P, Koh S, Bader M. Interface problems: structural constraints on interpretation? J Psycholinguist Res. 2005 May; 34(3):201-31.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
  32. Kambe G, Duffy SA, Clifton C, Rayner K. An eye-movement-contingent probe paradigm. Psychon Bull Rev. 2003 Sep; 10(3):661-6.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.002
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.