Norms for two types of manipulability (graspability and functional usage), familiarity, and age of acquisition for 320 photographs of objects

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 82-95

  Salmon, J P ^a   McMullen, P A ^a   Filliter, J H ^a  

^a DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; FEMALE; HAND STRENGTH; HUMAN; LEARNING; MALE; RECOGNITION; SEMANTICS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; FEMALE; HAND STRENGTH; HUMANS; LEARNING; MALE; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77952525705     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.1.82     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bates, E., D'Amico, S., Jacobsen, T., Székely, A., Andonova, E., Devescovi, A., et al. (2003). Timed picture naming in seven languages. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 344-380.
2. Bonin, P., Peereman, R., Malardier, N., Méot, A., & Chalard, M. (2003). A new set of 299 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: French norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, age of acquisition, and naming latencies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 158-167.
3. Borgo, F., & Shallice, T. (2003). Category specificity and feature knowledge: Evidence from new sensory-quality categories. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 327-353. doi:10.1080/02643290244000310
4. Cuetos, F., & Alija, M. (2003). Normative data and naming times for action pictures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 168-177.
5. Culham, J. C., & Valyear, K. F. (2006). Human parietal cortex in action. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16, 205-212. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2006.03.005
6. Dent, K., Johnston, R. A., & Humphreys, G. W. (2008). Age of acquisition and word frequency effects in picture naming: A dual-task investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34, 282-301. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.05.005
7. Farah, M. J., McMullen, P. A., & Meyer, M. M. (1991). Can recognition of living things be selectively impaired? Neuropsychologia, 29, 185-193. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(91)90020-9
8. Farah, M. J., Meyer, M. M., & McMullen, P. A. (1996). The living/nonliving dissociation is not an artifact: Giving an a priori implausible hypothesis a strong test. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 137-154. doi:10.1080/026432996382097
9. Filliter, J. H., McMullen, P. A., & Westwood, D. (2005). Manipulability and living/non-living category effects on object recognition. Brain & Cognition, 57, 61-65. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.022
10. Gaffan, D., & Heywood, C. A. (1993). A spurious category-specific visual agnosia for living things in normal human and nonhuman primates. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 5, 118-128. doi:10.1162/jocn.1993.5.1.118
11. Gilhooly, K. J., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 12, 395-427.
12. Grèzes, J., & Decety, J. (2002). Does visual perception of object afford action? Evidence from a neuroimaging study. Neuropsychologia, 40, 212-222.
13. Humphreys, G. W. (2001). Objects, affordances ... action! The Psychologist, 14, 408-412.
14. Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (2001). Detection by action: Neuropsychological evidence for action-defined templates in search. Nature Neuroscience, 4, 84-88. doi:10.1038/82940
15. Lewis, M. B., Gerhand, S., & Ellis, H. D. (2001). Reevaluating age of acquisition effects: Are they simply cumulative frequency effects? Cognition, 78, 189-205. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00117-7
16. Magnié, M. N., Besson, M., Poncet, M., & Dolisi, C. (2003). The Snodgrass and Vanderwart set revisited: Norms for object manipulability and for pictorial ambiguity of objects, chimeric objects, and nonobjects. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology, 25, 521-560. doi:10.1076/jcen.25.4.521.13873
17. Morrison, C. M., Chappell, T. D., & Ellis, A. W. (1997). Age of acquisition norms for a large set of object names and their relation to adult estimates and other variables. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 528-559. doi:10.1080/027249897392017
18. Pérez, M. A. (2007). Age of acquisition persists as the main factor in picture naming when cumulative word frequency and frequency trajectory are controlled. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 32-42.
19. Riddoch, M. J., Humphreys, G. W., & Price, C. J. (1989). Routes to action: Evidence from apraxia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 6, 437-454. doi:10.1080/02643298908253424
20. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory, 6, 174-215. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174
21. Toledo, A. M., & Tudella, E. (2008). The development of reaching behavior in low-risk preterm infants. Infant Behavior & Development, 31, 398-407. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2007.12.006
22. Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107, 829-854.
23. Witherington, D. C. (2005). The development of prospective grasping control between 5 and 7 months: A longitudinal study. Infancy, 7, 143-161. doi:10.1207/s15327078in0702_2
24. Wolk, D. A., Coslett, H. B., & Glosser, G. (2005). The role of sensory-motor information in object recognition: Evidence from the category-specific visual agnosia. Brain & Language, 94, 131-146. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2004.10.015
25. Yoon, E. Y., Heinke, D., & Humphreys, G. W. (2002). Modeling direct perceptual constraints on action selection: The Naming and Action Model (NAM). Visual Cognition, 9, 615-661. doi:10.1080/13506280143000601