Ways of probing situated concepts

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 302-310

  Morais, Ana Sofia ^a   Olsson, Henrik ^a   Schooler, Lael J ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LINGUISTICS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PAIRED ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOLOGY;

ATTENTION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PAIRED-ASSOCIATE LEARNING; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOLOGY; VOCABULARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77952468804     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.1.302     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 358, 1177-1187.
2. Barsalou, L. W., & Wiemer-Hastings, K. (2005). Situating abstract concepts. In D. Pecher & R. A.Zwaan (Eds.), Grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking (pp. 129-163). New York: Cambridge University Press.
3. Callanan, M. A. (1985). How parents label objects for young children: The role of input in the acquisition of category hierarchies. Child Development, 56, 508-523. doi:10.2307/1129738
4. Garrard, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2001). Prototypicality, distinctiveness, and intercorrelation: Analyses of the semantic attributes of living and nonliving concepts. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18, 125-174. doi:10.1080/02643290042000053
5. Marques, J. F. (2007). The general/specific breakdown of semantic memory and the nature of superordinate knowledge: Insights from superordinate and basic-level feature norms. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 24, 879-903. doi:10.1080/02643290701789436
6. Masson, M. E. J., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 203-220. doi:10.1037/h0087426
7. McRae, K., & Cree, G. S. (2002). Factors underlying category-specific semantic deficits. In E. M. E. Forde & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Category specificity in brain and mind (pp. 211-249). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
8. McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 37, 547-559.
9. Murphy, G. L., & Wisniewski, E. J. (1989). Categorizing objects in isolation and in scenes: What a superordinate is good for. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 15, 572-586. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.15.4.572
10. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
11. Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X
12. Ruts, W., De Deyne, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Verbeemen, T., & Storms, G. (2004). Dutch norm data for 13 semantic categories and 338 exemplars. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 506-515.
13. Tversky, B., & Hemenway, K. (1984). Objects, parts, and categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 169-193. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.169
14. Wisniewski, E. J., & Murphy, G. L. (1989). Superordinate and basic category names in discourse: A textual analysis. Discourse Processes, 12, 245-261.
15. Wu, L.-L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica, 132, 173-189.
16. Yeh, W., & Barsalou, L. W. (2006). The situated nature of concepts. American Journal of Psychology, 119, 349-384.