English semantic feature production norms: An extended database of 4436 concepts

A limiting factor in understanding memory and language is often the availability of large numbers of stimuli to use and explore in experimental studies. In this study, we expand on three previous databases of concepts to over 4000 words including nouns, verbs, adjectives, and other parts of speech. Participants in the study were asked to provide lists of features for each concept presented (a semantic feature production task), which were combined with previous research in this area. These feature lists for each concept were then coded into their root word form and affixes (i.e., cat and s for cats) to explore the impact of word form on semantic similarity measures, which are often calculated by comparing concept feature lists (feature overlap). All concept features, coding, and calculated similarity information is provided in a searchable database for easy access and utilization for future researchers when designing experiments that use word stimuli. The final database of word pairs was combined with the Semantic Priming Project to examine the relation of semantic similarity statistics on semantic priming in tandem with other psycholinguistic variables.

[1]  Marco Baroni,et al.  A set of semantic norms for German and Italian , 2011, Behavior research methods.

[2]  Maria Montefinese,et al.  Semantic similarity between old and new items produces false alarms in recognition memory , 2015, Psychological research.

[3]  Joseph T. Devlin,et al.  The emergence of category specific deficits in a distributed semantic system , 2002 .

[4]  Donald G. MacKay,et al.  Derivational rules and the internal lexicon , 1978 .

[5]  Ken McRae,et al.  Category - Specific semantic deficits , 2008 .

[6]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words , 2012, Behavior research methods.

[7]  P. Pexman,et al.  Number-of-features effects and semantic processing , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[8]  Gabriella Vigliocco,et al.  Semantic and grammatical class effects in naming actions. , 2005 .

[9]  Jon Andoni Duñabeitia,et al.  NoA’s ark: Influence of the number of associates in visual word recognition , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  R. Saxe,et al.  Look at this: the neural correlates of initiating and responding to bids for joint attention , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[11]  W. Maki,et al.  Latent structure in measures of associative, semantic, and thematic knowledge , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  The use of film subtitles to estimate word frequencies , 2007, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[13]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  The Neural Consequences of Semantic Richness , 2007, Psychological science.

[14]  Lawrence W Barsalou,et al.  Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. , 2003, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[15]  J. Vivas,et al.  Spanish semantic feature production norms for 400 concrete concepts , 2017, Behavior research methods.

[16]  Mark Steyvers,et al.  Topics in semantic representation. , 2007, Psychological review.

[17]  Erin M Buchanan,et al.  LAB: Linguistic Annotated Bibliography – a searchable portal for normed database information , 2018, Behavior Research Methods.

[18]  D L Medin,et al.  Concepts and conceptual structure. , 1989, The American psychologist.

[19]  William S. Maki,et al.  Semantic distance norms computed from an electronic dictionary (WordNet) , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[20]  Thomas A. Schreiber,et al.  The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[21]  K. McRae,et al.  Shared Features Dominate Semantic Richness Effects for Concrete Concepts. , 2009, Journal of memory and language.

[22]  Mark H. Ashcraft,et al.  Property norms for typical and atypical items from 17 categories: A description and discussion , 1978 .

[23]  Amy Perfors,et al.  Structure at every scale: A semantic network account of the similarities between unrelated concepts. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[24]  Allan Collins,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing , 1975 .

[25]  T. Landauer,et al.  A Solution to Plato's Problem: The Latent Semantic Analysis Theory of Acquisition, Induction, and Representation of Knowledge. , 1997 .

[26]  David P. Vinson,et al.  Semantic similarity and grammatical class in naming actions , 2005, Cognition.

[27]  Christiane Fellbaum,et al.  Book Reviews: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database , 1999, CL.

[28]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  Is more always better? Effects of semantic richness on lexical decision, speeded pronunciation, and semantic classification , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[29]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[30]  David P Vinson,et al.  Semantic feature production norms for a large set of objects and events , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[31]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things , 2005, Behavior research methods.

[32]  Chris McNorgan,et al.  An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: simulating semantic priming , 1999, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  Mark S. Seidenberg,et al.  On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[34]  Uta Noppeney,et al.  Music expertise shapes audiovisual temporal integration windows for speech, sinewave speech, and music , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[35]  M. Garrett,et al.  Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis , 2004, Cognitive Psychology.

[36]  Jon A. Willits,et al.  Models of Semantic Memory , 2015 .

[37]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  There are many ways to be rich: Effects of three measures of semantic richness on visual word recognition , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  Lance J. Rips,et al.  Structure and process in semantic memory: A featural model for semantic decisions. , 1974 .

[39]  Amy Beth Warriner,et al.  Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas , 2013, Behavior Research Methods.

[40]  Michael N. Jones,et al.  Redundancy in Perceptual and Linguistic Experience: Comparing Feature-Based and Distributional Models of Semantic Representation , 2010, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[41]  W. Levelt,et al.  Semantic distance effects on object and action naming , 2002, Cognition.

[42]  Alessandro Lenci,et al.  BLIND: a set of semantic feature norms from the congenitally blind , 2013, Behavior research methods.

[43]  Michael P Toglia.  Withstanding the test of time: The 1978 semantic word norms , 2009, Behavior research methods.

[44]  W. F. Battig,et al.  Handbook of semantic word norms , 1978 .

[45]  Penny M. Pexman,et al.  Semantic Richness Effects in Syntactic Classification: The Role of Feedback , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[46]  Amy Perfors,et al.  The “Small World of Words” English word association norms for over 12,000 cue words , 2018, Behavior Research Methods.

[47]  Mark J. Huff,et al.  An Abundance of Riches: Cross-Task Comparisons of Semantic Richness Effects in Visual Word Recognition , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[48]  M. Ross Quillian,et al.  Retrieval time from semantic memory , 1969 .

[49]  Wolf Vanpaemel,et al.  Dutch norm data for 13 semantic categories and 338 exemplars , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[50]  Marcella Laiacona,et al.  Variabili semantico-lessicali relative a tutti gli elementi di una categoria semantica: indagine su soggetti normali italiani per la categoria "frutta" , 2004 .

[51]  Gabriella Vigliocco,et al.  A semantic analysis of grammatical class impairments: semantic representations of object nouns, action nouns and action verbs , 2002, Journal of Neurolinguistics.

[52]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Lexical access and inflectional morphology , 1988, Cognition.

[53]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Accessing Different Types of Lexical Semantic Information: Evidence From Priming , 1995 .

[54]  David A. Balota,et al.  The semantic priming project , 2013, Behavior Research Methods.

[55]  E. Rosch,et al.  Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[56]  Wolf Vanpaemel,et al.  Exemplar by feature applicability matrices and other Dutch normative data for semantic concepts , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[57]  G. Hitch,et al.  Separate effects of word frequency and age of acquisition in recognition and recall. , 1998 .

[58]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  The English Lexicon Project , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[59]  Jeroen Geertzen,et al.  The Centre for Speech, Language and the Brain (CSLB) concept property norms , 2013, Behavior research methods.

[60]  Michael N Jones,et al.  Representing word meaning and order information in a composite holographic lexicon. , 2007, Psychological review.

[61]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words , 2011, Behavior Research Methods.

[62]  John Kounios,et al.  Semantic richness and the activation of concepts in semantic memory: Evidence from event-related potentials , 2009, Brain Research.

[63]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Semantic Cognition: A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach , 2004 .

[64]  Erin M Buchanan,et al.  English semantic word-pair norms and a searchable Web portal for experimental stimulus creation , 2013, Behavior research methods.

[65]  Lilian Milnitsky Stein,et al.  Normas Brasileiras para Listas de Palavras Associadas: Associação Semântica, Concretude, Frequência e Emocionalidade , 2009 .

[66]  S. Cappa,et al.  The breakdown of semantic knowledge: Insights from a statistical model of meaning representation , 2003, Brain and Language.

[67]  Melvin J Yap,et al.  Semantic richness effects in lexical decision: The role of feedback , 2015, Memory & cognition.

[68]  Ettore Ambrosini,et al.  Semantic memory: A feature-based analysis and new norms for Italian , 2013, Behavior research methods.

[69]  Amy Beth Warriner,et al.  Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas , 2014, Behavior research methods.

[70]  Michael D. Buhrmester,et al.  Amazon's Mechanical Turk , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[71]  W. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  Morphology and meaning in the English mental lexicon. , 1994 .

[72]  D. Vinson,et al.  Can the humped animal's knee conceal its name? Commentary on: “The roles of shared vs. distinctive conceptual features in lexical access” , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[73]  Curt Burgess,et al.  Characterizing semantic space: Neighborhood effects in word recognition , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.