Perceptual and motor attribute ratings for 559 object concepts

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 44, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 1028-1041

  Amsel, Ben D ^a   Urbach, Thomas P ^b   Kutas, Marta ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Conceptual; Modality; Norms; Object; Perceptual; Ratings; Semantic; Sensory

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; COLOR; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; LINGUISTICS; MALE; METHODOLOGY; ODOR; PERCEPTION; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION; SEMANTICS; SOUND; TASTE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; COLOR; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; MALE; PERCEPTION; PSYCHOLINGUISTICS; REACTION TIME; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); SEMANTICS; SMELL; SOUND; TASTE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84870525949     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: 15543528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0215-z     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Amsel, B. D. (2011). Tracking real-time neural activation of conceptual knowledge using single-trial event-related potentials. Neuropsychologia, 49, 970-983. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuropsychologia. 2011. 01. 003.
2. Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116, 463-498.
3. Bennett, S. D., Burnett, A. N., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M. (2011). Imageability and body-object interaction ratings for 599 multisyllabic nouns. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 1100-1109. doi: 10. 3758/s13428-011-0117-5.
4. Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 2767-2796. doi: 10. 1093/cercor/bhp055.
5. Campanella, F., D'Agostini, S., Skrap, M., & Shallice, T. (2010). Naming manipulable objects: Anatomy of a category specific effect in left temporal tumours. Neuropsychologia, 48, 1583-1597. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuropsychologia. 2010. 02. 002.
6. Campanella, F., & Shallice, T. (2011). Manipulability and object recognition: Is manipulability a semantic feature? Experimental Brain Research, 208, 369-383.
7. Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12, 478-484. doi: 10. 1006/nimg. 2000. 0635.
8. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497-505. doi: 10. 1080/14640748108400805.
9. Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 132, 163-201. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 132. 2. 163.
10. Davare, M., Kraskov, A., Rothwell, J. C., & Lemon, R. N. (2011). Interactions between areas of the cortical grasping network. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 21, 565-570.
11. Dawkins, R. (2009). The greatest show on earth: The evidence for evolution. New York, NY: Free Press.
12. de Araujo, I. E. T., Rolls, E. T., Kringelbach, M. L., McGlone, F., & Phillips, N. (2003). Taste-olfactory convergence, and the representation of the pleasantness of flavour, in the human brain. European Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 2059-2068.
13. del Prado, M., Martin, F., Hauk, O., & Pulvermüller, F. (2006). Category specificity in the processing of color-related and form-related words: An ERP study. NeuroImage, 29, 29-37.
14. González, J., Barros-Loscertales, A., Pulvermüller, F., Meseguer, V., Sanjuán, A., Belloch, V., & Avila, C. (2006). Reading cinnamon activates olfactory brain regions. NeuroImage, 32, 906-912. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuroimage. 2006. 03. 037.
15. Goodale, M. A., Meenan, J. P., Bülthoff, H. H., Nicolle, D. A., Murphy, K. J., & Racicot, C. I. (1994). Separate neural pathways for the visual analysis of object shape in perception and prehension. Current Biology, 4, 604-610.
16. Grondin, R., Lupker, S. J., & McRae, K. (2009). Shared features dominate semantic richness effects for concrete concepts. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 1-19. doi: 10. 1016/j. jml. 2008. 09. 001.
17. Grossman, M., Koenig, P., Kounios, J., McMillan, C., Work, M., & Moore, P. (2006). Category-specific effects in semantic memory: Category-task interactions suggested by fMRI. NeuroImage, 30, 1003-1009.
18. Hoenig, K., Sim, E.-J., Bochev, V., Herrnberger, B., & Kiefer, M. (2008). Conceptual flexibility in the human brain: Dynamic recruitment of semantic maps from visual, motor, and motion-related areas. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 1799-1814. doi: 10. 1162/jocn. 2008. 20123.
19. Johns, B. T., & Jones, M. N. (2011). Construction in semantic memory: Generating perceptual representations with global lexical similarity. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Expanding the space of cognitive science: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 767-772). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
20. Juhasz, B. J., & Yap, M. J. (2012). Sensory experience ratings (SERs) for over 5, 000 mono- and disyllabic words. Unpublished manuscript.
21. Juhasz, B. J., Yap, M. J., Dicke, J., Taylor, S. C., & Gullick, M. M. (2011). Tangible words are recognized faster: The grounding of meaning in sensory and perceptual systems. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 1683-1691. doi: 10. 1080/17470218. 2011. 605150.
22. Kan, I. P., Barsalou, L. W., Solomon, K. O., Minor, J. K., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2003). Role of mental imagery in a property verification task: fMRI evidence for perceptual representations of conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 525-540. doi: 10. 1080/02643290244000257.
23. Kellenbach, M. L., Brett, M., & Patterson, K. (2001). Large, colorful, or noisy? Attribute- and modality-specific activations during retrieval of perceptual attribute knowledge. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 1, 207-221. doi: 10. 3758/CABN. 1. 3. 207.
24. Killgore, W. D. S., Young, A. D., Femia, L. A., Bogorodzki, P., Rogowska, J., & Yurgelun-Todd, D. A. (2003). Cortical and limbic activation during viewing of high- versus low-calorie foods. NeuroImage, 19, 1381-1394.
25. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 558-564. doi: 10. 3758/BRM. 41. 2. 558.
26. 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 and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25, 521-560. doi: 10. 1076/jcen. 25. 4. 521. 13873.
27. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco, CA: WH Freeman and Company.
28. Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25-45.
29. Martin, A., Haxby, J. V., Lalonde, F. M., Wiggs, C. L., & Ungerleider, L. G. (1995). Discrete cortical regions associated with knowledge of color and knowledge of action. Science, 270, 102-105. doi: 10. 1126/science. 270. 5233. 102.
30. McLeod, A. I., & Xu, C. J. (2011). Bestglm: Best subset GLM (R package version 0. 33). Retrieved December 2, 2011, from http://CRAN. R-project. org/package=bestglm.
31. 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, 37, 547-559. doi: 10. 3758/BF03192726.
32. McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 126, 99-130. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 126. 2. 99.
33. Medler, D. A., Arnoldussen, A., Binder, J. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2005). The Wisconsin Perceptual Attribute Ratings Database. Retrieved December 11, 2011, from www. neuro. mcw. edu/ratings/.
34. Millan, M. J. (1999). The induction of pain: An integrative review. Progress in Neurobiology, 57, 1-164.
35. Nagasako, E. M., Oaklander, A. L., & Dworkin, R. H. (2003). Congenital insensitivity to pain: An update. Pain, 101, 213-219.
36. Oliver, R. T., Geiger, E. J., Lewandowski, B. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2009). Remembrance of things touched: How sensorimotor experience affects the neural instantiation of object form. Neuropsychologia, 47, 239-247. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuropsychologia. 2008. 07. 027.
37. Oliver, R. T., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2003). Dorsal stream activation during retrieval of object size and shape. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 309-322.
38. Patterson, K., Nestor, P. J., & Rogers, T. T. (2007). Where do you know what you know? the representation of semantic knowledge in the human brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8, 976-987. doi: 10. 1038/nrn2277.
39. Peelle, J. E., Troiani, V., & Grossman, M. (2009). Interaction between process and content in semantic memory: An fMRI study of noun feature knowledge. Neuropsychologia, 47, 995-1003. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuropsychologia. 2008. 10. 027.
40. Pexman, P. M., Hargreaves, I. S., Siakaluk, P. D., Bodner, G. E., & Pope, J. (2008). There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 161-167.
41. Pexman, P. M., Holyk, G. G., & Monfils, M. H. (2003). Number-of-features effects and semantic processing. Memory & Cognition, 31, 842-855.
42. Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., & Hino, Y. (2002). The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 542-549.
43. Preston, C. C., & Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1-15.
44. Salmon, J. P., McMullen, P. A., & Filliter, J. H. (2010). Norms for two types of manipulability (graspability and functional usage), familiarity, and age of acquisition for 320 photographs of objects. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 82-95. doi: 10. 3758/BRM. 42. 1. 82.
45. Shao, J. (1997). An asymptotic theory for linear model selection. Statistica Sinica, 7, 221-262.
46. Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Aguilera, L., Owen, W. J., & Sears, C. R. (2008). Evidence for the activation of sensorimotor information during visual word recognition: The body-object interaction effect. Cognition, 106, 433-443. doi: 10. 1016/j. cognition. 2006. 12. 011.
47. Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Sears, C. R., Wilson, K., Locheed, K., & Owen, W. J. (2008). The benefits of sensorimotor knowledge: Body-object interaction facilitates semantic processing. Cognitive Science, 32, 591-605. doi: 10. 1080/03640210802035399.
48. Simmons, W. K., Ramjee, V., Beauchamp, M. S., McRae, K., Martin, A., & Barsalou, L. W. (2007). A common neural substrate for perceiving and knowing about color. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2802-2810. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuropsychologia. 2007. 05. 002.
49. Stebbins, W. C., & Sommers, M. S. (1992). Evolution, perception, and the comparative method. In D. B. Webster, R. R. Fay, & A. N. Popper (Eds.), The evolutionary biology of hearing (pp. 211-227). New York, NY: Springer.
50. Tillotson, S. M., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M. (2008). Body-object interaction ratings for 1, 618 monosyllabic nouns. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1075-1078.
51. Toepel, U., Knebel, J. F., Hudry, J., le Coutre, J., & Murray, M. M. (2009). The brain tracks the energetic value in food images. NeuroImage, 44, 967-974. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuroimage. 2008. 10. 005.
52. van Dantzig, S., Cowell, R. A., Zeelenberg, R., & Pecher, D. (2011). A sharp image or a sharp knife: Norms for the modality-exclusivity of 774 concept-property items. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 145-154. doi: 10. 3758/s13428-010-0038-8.
53. Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of objects and events. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 183-190. doi: 10. 3758/BRM. 40. 1. 183.
54. Weng, L. J. (2004). Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 956-972.
55. Wu, L.-L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica, 132, 173-189. doi: 10. 1016/j. actpsy. 2009. 02. 002.
56. Wurm, L. H. (2007). Danger and usefulness: An alternative framework for understanding rapid evaluation effects in perception? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 1218-1225. doi: 10. 3758/BF03193116.