Eleanor M. Saffran
Affiliations: | Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, United States |
Google:
"Eleanor Saffran"Collaborators
Sign in to add collaborator| Gary Dell | collaborator | Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute | |
| Myrna F. Schwartz | collaborator | Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute |
BETA: Related publications
See more...
Publications
|
You can help our author matching system! If you notice any publications incorrectly attributed to this author, please sign in and mark matches as correct or incorrect. |
| Boronat CB, Buxbaum LJ, Coslett HB, et al. (2005) Distinctions between manipulation and function knowledge of objects: evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Research. Cognitive Brain Research. 23: 361-73 |
| Wilshire CE, Saffran EM. (2005) Contrasting effects of phonological priming in aphasic word production. Cognition. 95: 31-71 |
| Saffran EM, Coslett HB, Keener MT. (2003) Differences in word associations to pictures and words. Neuropsychologia. 41: 1541-6 |
| Saffran EM, Branch Coslett H, Martin N, et al. (2003) Access to knowledge from pictures but not words in a patient with progressive fluent aphasia Language and Cognitive Processes. 18: 725-757 |
| Coslett HB, Saffran EM, Schwoebel J. (2002) Knowledge of the human body: a distinct semantic domain. Neurology. 59: 357-63 |
| Buxbaum LJ, Saffran EM. (2002) Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: dissociations in apraxic and nonapraxic subjects. Brain and Language. 82: 179-99 |
| Martin N, Saffran EM. (2002) The relationship of input and output phonological processing: An evaluation of models and evidence to support them Aphasiology. 16: 107-150 |
| Saffran EM, Branch Coslett H. (2001) Further evidence in support of a distributed semantic memory system Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 24: 492-493 |
| Saffran EM. (2000) Aphasia and the relationship of language and brain. Seminars in Neurology. 20: 409-18 |
| Dell GS, Schwartz MF, Martin N, et al. (2000) The role of computational models in neuropsychological investigations of language: reply to Ruml and Caramazza (2000). Psychological Review. 107: 635-45 |