BLIND: A set of semantic feature norms from the congenitally blind

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 1218-1233

  Lenci, Alessandro ^a   Baroni, Marco ^b   Cazzolli, Giulia ^b   Marotta, Giovanna ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PISA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

Author keywords

Blind; Feature norms; Feature production experiment; Feature type annotation; Semantic memory

Indexed keywords

ACEBUTOLOL;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; BLINDNESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE TEST; MALE; MEMORY; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REFERENCE VALUE; SEMANTICS; STANDARD; YOUNG ADULT;

ACEBUTOLOL; ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; AGED; BLINDNESS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE TESTS; MALE; MEMORY; MIDDLE AGED; REFERENCE VALUES; SEMANTICS; SOFTWARE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84889252480     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: 15543528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-013-0323-4     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Andrews, M., Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. (2009). Integrating experiential and distributional data to learn semantic representations. Psychological Review, 116(3), 463-498. doi: 10. 1037/a0016261.
2. Artstein, R., & Poesio, M. (2008). Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics, 34(4), 555-596. doi: 10. 1162/coli. 07-034-R2.
3. Baayen, H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Baroni, M., Barbu, E., Murphy, B., & Poesio, M. (2010). Strudel: A distributional semantic model based on properties and types. Cognitive Science, 34(2), 222-254. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1551-6709. 2009. 01068. x.
5. Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Comastri, F., Piccioni, L., Volpi, A., Aston, G., & Mazzoleni, M. (2004). Introducing the "la Repubblica" corpus: A large, annotated, TEI(XML)-compliant corpus of newspaper Italian. In Proceedings of LREC 2004, Lisboa (1771-1774). Available from http://www. lrec-conf. org/proceedings/lrec2004/pdf/247. pdf.
6. Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., & Zanchetta, E. (2009). The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 43(3), 209-226. doi: 10. 1007/s10579-009-9081-4.
7. Baroni, M., & Lenci, A. (2008). Concepts and properties in word spaces. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 20(1), 55-88. Available from: http://poesix1. ilc. cnr. it/ijlwiki/doku. php.
8. Baroni, M., & Lenci, A. (2010). Distributional Memory: A general framework for corpus-based semantics. Computational Linguistics, 36(4), 673-721. doi: 10. 1162/coli_a_00016.
9. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
10. Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 358, 1177-1187. doi: 10. 1098/rstb. 2003. 1319.
11. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645. doi: 10. 1146/annurev. psych. 59. 103006. 093639.
12. Bedny, M., Caramazza, A., Pascual-Leone, A., & Saxe, R. (2012). Typical neural representations of action verbs develop without vision. Cerebral Cortex, 22(2), 286-293. doi: 10. 1093/cercor/bhr081.
13. Cattaneo, Z., & Vecchi, T. (2011). Blind vision. The neuroscience of visual impairment. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
14. Chang, K. K., Mitchell, T., & Just, M. A. (2010). Quantitative modeling of the neural representation of objects: How semantic feature norms can account for fMRI activation. NeuroImage, 56(2), 716-727. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuroimage. 2010. 04. 271.
15. Connolly, A. C., Gleitman, L. R., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2007). Effect of congenital blindness on the semantic representation of some everyday concepts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(20), 8241-8246. doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 0702812104.
16. Cree, G., & 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(2), 163-201. doi: 10. 1037/0096-3445. 132. 2. 163.
17. De Deyne, S., Verheyen, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Dry, M. J., Voorspoels, W., et al. (2008). Exemplar by feature applicability matrices and other Dutch normative data for semantic concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 1030-1048. doi: 10. 3758/BRM. 40. 4. 1030.
18. De Vega, M., Glenberg, A., & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.). (2008). Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19. Frassinelli, D., & Lenci, A. (2012). Concepts in context: Evidence from a feature-norming study. In Proceedings of CogSci 2012, Sapporo, Japan. Available from: http://sesia. humnet. unipi. it/norms/.
20. Gallese, V., & Lakoff, G. (2005). The brain's concepts: The role of the sensory-motor system in conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22(3), 455-479. doi: 10. 1080/02643290442000310.
21. 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(2), 125-174. doi: 10. 1080/02643290125857.
22. Kremer, G., & Baroni, M. (2011). A set of semantic norms for German and Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 97-119. doi: 10. 3758/s13428-010-0028-x.
23. Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience. Evidence from the blind Child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24. Lebani, G. E., & Pianta E. (2010). A feature type classification for therapeutic purposes: A preliminary evaluation with non-expert speakers. In Proceedings of the Fourth Linguistic Annotation Workshop, Uppsala, Sweden (157-161). Available from http://aclweb. org/anthology-new/W/W10/W10-1823. pdf.
25. Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 558-564. doi: 10. 3758/BRM. 41. 2. 558.
26. Lynott, D. & Connell, L. (2012). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4). doi: 10. 3758/s13428-012-0267-0.
27. Mahon, B. Z., Anzellotti, S., Schwarzbach, J., Zampini, M., & Caramazza, A. (2009). Category-specific organization in the human brain does not require visual experience. Neuron, 63(3), 397-405. doi: 10. 1016/j. neuron. 2009. 07. 012.
28. Mahon, B. Z., & Caramazza, A. (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology, Paris, 102, 59-70. doi: 10. 1016/j. jphysparis. 2008. 03. 004.
29. Marmor, G. S. (1978). Age at onset of blindness and the development of the semantics of color names. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 25(2), 267-278. doi: 10. 1016/0022-0965(78)90082-6.
30. Marques, J. F. (2009). The effect of visual deprivation on the organization of conceptual knowledge. Experimental Psychology, 57(2), 83-88. doi: 10. 1027/1618-3169/a000011.
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(4), 547-559. doi: 10. 3758/BF03192726.
32. Meyer, D., Zeileis, A., & Hornik, K. (2006). The strucplot framework: Visualizing multi-way contingency tables with vcd. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(3), 1-48. http://www. jstatsoft. org/v17/i03.
33. Montefinese, M., Ambrosini, E., Fairfield, B., & Mammarella, N. (2012). Semantic memory: A feature-based analysis and new norms for Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4). doi: 10. 3758/s13428-012-0263-4.
34. Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
35. Noppeney, U., Friston, K. J., & Price, C. J. (2003). Effects of visual deprivation on the organization of the semantic system. Brain, 126(7), 1620-1627. doi: 10. 1093/brain/awg152.
36. Pietrini, P., Furey, M. L., Ricciardi, E., Gobbini, M. I., Wu, W.-H. C., Cohen, L., et al. (2004). Beyond sensory images: Object-based representation in the human ventral pathway. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 10(15), 5658-5663. doi: 10. 1073/pnas. 0400707101.
37. Pietrini, P., Ptito, M., & Kupers, R. (2009). Blindness and consciousness: New light from the dark. In S. Laureys & G. Tononi (Eds.), The neurology of consciousness: Cognitive neuroscience and neuropathology (pp. 360-374). Amsterdam, The Netherlands - Boston, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
38. Pulvermüller, F. (1999). Words in the brain's language. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 253-336.
39. Ricciardi, E., Bonino, D., Sani, L., Vecchi, T., Guazzelli, M., Haxby, J. V., et al. (2009). Do we really need vision? How blind people "see" the actions of others. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 9719-9724. doi: 10. 1523/JNEUROSCI. 0274-09. 2009.
40. Riordan, B., & Jones, M. N. (2010). Redundancy in perceptual and linguistics experience: Comparing feature-based and distributional models of semantic representation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3(2), 1-43. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1756-8765. 2010. 01111. x.
41. 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, 36(3), 506-515. doi: 10. 3758/BF03195597.
42. Santos, A., Chaigneau, S. E., Simmons, W. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Property generation reflects word association and situated simulation. Language and Cognition, 3(1), 83-119. doi: 10. 1515/langcog. 2011. 004.
43. Shepard, R. N., & Cooper, L. A. (1992). Representation of colors in the blind, color-blind, and normally sighted. Psychological Science, 3(2), 97-104. doi: 10. 1111/j. 1467-9280. 1992. tb00006. x.
44. Steyvers, M. (2010). Combining feature norms and text data with topic models. Acta Psychologica, 133(3), 234-243. doi: 10. 1016/j. actpsy. 2009. 10. 010.
45. Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. P. (2007). Semantic representation. In G. M. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 195-215). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
46. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422-488. doi: 10. 1016/j. cogpsych. 2003. 09. 001.
47. Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of objects and events. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 183-190. doi: 10. 3758/BRM. 40. 1. 183.
48. Vinson, D. P., Vigliocco, G., Cappa, S., & Siri, S. (2003). The breakdown of semantic knowledge: Insights from a statistical model of meaning representation. Brain and Language, 86, 347-365. doi: 10. 1016/S0093-934X(03)00144-5.
49. 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.
50. Zimler, J., & Keenan, J. M. (1983). Imagery in the congenitally blind: How visual are visual images? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(2), 269-282.