SCOPE: The South Carolina psycholinguistic metabase

The number of databases that provide various measurements of lexical properties for psycholinguistic research has increased rapidly in recent years. The proliferation of lexical variables, and the multitude of associated databases, makes the choice, comparison, and standardization of these variables in psycholinguistic research increasingly difficult. Here, we introduce The South Carolina Psycholinguistic Metabase (SCOPE), which is a metabase (or a meta-database) containing an extensive, curated collection of psycholinguistic variable values from major databases. The metabase currently contains 245 lexical variables, organized into seven major categories: General (e.g., frequency), Orthographic (e.g., bigram frequency), Phonological (e.g., phonological uniqueness point), Orth-Phon (e.g., consistency), Semantic (e.g., concreteness), Morphological (e.g., number of morphemes), and Response variables (e.g., lexical decision latency). We hope that SCOPE will become a valuable resource for researchers in psycholinguistics and affiliated disciplines such as cognitive neuroscience of language, computational linguistics, and communication disorders. The availability and ease of use of the metabase with comprehensive set of variables can facilitate the understanding of the unique contribution of each of the variables to word processing, and that of interactions between variables, as well as new insights and development of improved models and theories of word processing. It can also help standardize practice in psycholinguistics. We demonstrate use of the metabase by measuring relationships between variables in multiple ways and testing their individual contribution towards a number of dependent measures, in the most comprehensive analysis of this kind to date. The metabase is freely available at go.sc.edu/scope.

[1]  Quantifying social semantics: An inclusive definition of socialness and ratings for 8388 English words. , 2022, Behavior research methods.

[2]  J. Binder,et al.  Decoding the information structure underlying the neural representation of concepts , 2022, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Michael J Cortese,et al.  How well imageability, concreteness, perceptual strength, and action strength predict recognition memory, lexical decision, and reading aloud performance , 2021, Memory.

[4]  Winston D. Goh,et al.  LexiCAL: A calculator for lexical variables , 2021, PloS one.

[5]  Winston D. Goh,et al.  Consistency norms for 37,677 english words , 2020, Behavior Research Methods.

[6]  Winston D. Goh,et al.  The Auditory English Lexicon Project: A multi-talker, multi-region psycholinguistic database of 10,170 spoken words and nonwords , 2020, Behavior research methods.

[7]  S. Sereno,et al.  LexOPS: An R package and user interface for the controlled generation of word stimuli , 2019, Behavior research methods.

[8]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Recognition times for 62 thousand English words: Data from the English Crowdsourcing Project , 2019, Behavior Research Methods.

[9]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  The Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms: multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words , 2019, Behavior Research Methods.

[10]  Nicholas P Maxwell,et al.  English semantic feature production norms: An extended database of 4436 concepts , 2019, Behavior Research Methods.

[11]  Penny M. Pexman,et al.  Quantifying sensorimotor experience: Body–object interaction ratings for more than 9,000 English words , 2018, Behavior Research Methods.

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

[13]  Sara C. Sereno,et al.  The Glasgow Norms: Ratings of 5,500 words on nine scales , 2018, Behavior Research Methods.

[14]  Suzanne Stevenson,et al.  A comparison of homonym meaning frequency estimates derived from movie and television subtitles, free association, and explicit ratings , 2018, Behavior Research Methods.

[15]  Samantha F. McCormick,et al.  Word prevalence norms for 62,000 English lemmas , 2018, Behavior research methods.

[16]  Benjamin V. Tucker,et al.  The Massive Auditory Lexical Decision (MALD) database , 2018, Behavior Research Methods.

[17]  Hugo Mailhot,et al.  MorphoLex: A derivational morphological database for 70,000 English words , 2018, Behavior research methods.

[18]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  The Word Frequency Effect in Word Processing: An Updated Review , 2018 .

[19]  Thomas T. Hills,et al.  Humor norms for 4,997 English words , 2017, Behavior Research Methods.

[20]  Eiko I. Fried,et al.  A Tutorial on Regularized Partial Correlation Networks , 2016, Psychological methods.

[21]  Eiko I. Fried,et al.  Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper , 2016, Behavior research methods.

[22]  Rutvik H. Desai,et al.  Effects of semantic neighborhood density in abstract and concrete words , 2017, Cognition.

[23]  M. Brysbaert Age of acquisition ratings score better on criterion validity than frequency trajectory or ratings “corrected” for frequency , 2017, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[24]  Melvin J Yap,et al.  The Calgary semantic decision project: concrete/abstract decision data for 10,000 English words , 2016, Behavior Research Methods.

[25]  Boris New,et al.  Worldlex: Twitter and blog word frequencies for 66 languages , 2015, Behavior Research Methods.

[26]  Rutvik H. Desai,et al.  Toward a brain-based componential semantic representation , 2016, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[27]  Francisco Pereira,et al.  A comparative evaluation of off-the-shelf distributed semantic representations for modelling behavioural data , 2016, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[28]  Michael S. Vitevitch,et al.  The influence of clustering coefficient on word-learning: how groups of similar sounding words facilitate acquisition , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[29]  Fionn Murtagh,et al.  Ward’s Hierarchical Agglomerative Clustering Method: Which Algorithms Implement Ward’s Criterion? , 2011, Journal of Classification.

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

[31]  Marc Brysbaert,et al.  Subtlex-UK: A New and Improved Word Frequency Database for British English , 2014, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[32]  T. Rogers,et al.  Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words , 2012, Behavior Research Methods.

[33]  Saif Mohammad,et al.  CROWDSOURCING A WORD–EMOTION ASSOCIATION LEXICON , 2013, Comput. Intell..

[34]  Barbara J. Juhasz,et al.  Sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 mono- and disyllabic words , 2013, Behavior research methods.

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

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

[37]  M. Brysbaert,et al.  Adding part-of-speech information to the SUBTLEX-US word frequencies , 2012, Behavior Research Methods.

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

[39]  William W. Graves,et al.  Neural Systems for Reading Aloud: A Multiparametric Approach , 2009, Cerebral cortex.

[40]  Samuel B. Green,et al.  Evaluation of Parallel Analysis Methods for Determining the Number of Factors , 2010 .

[41]  R. Harald Baayen,et al.  Morphological dynamics in compound processing , 2008 .

[42]  Gordon D. A. Brown,et al.  Contextual Diversity, Not Word Frequency, Determines Word-Naming and Lexical Decision Times , 2006, Psychological science.

[43]  William D. Marslen-Wilson,et al.  The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data , 2006, NeuroImage.

[44]  P. Luce,et al.  Probabilistic Phonotactics and Neighborhood Activation in Spoken Word Recognition , 1999 .

[45]  Ronald Peereman,et al.  Orthographic and Phonological Neighborhoods in Naming: Not All Neighbors Are Equally Influential in Orthographic Space , 1997 .

[46]  George A. Miller,et al.  WordNet: A Lexical Database for English , 1995, HLT.

[47]  Michael C. Doyle,et al.  Effects of frequency on visual word recognition tasks: where are they? , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

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

[49]  A. Paivio,et al.  Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. , 1968, Journal of experimental psychology.