How to carry out conceptual properties norming studies as parameter estimation studies: Lessons from ecology

Conceptual properties norming studies (CPNs) ask participants to produce properties that describe concepts. From that data, different metrics may be computed (e.g., semantic richness, similarity measures), which are then used in studying concepts and as a source of carefully controlled stimuli for experimentation. Notwithstanding those metrics' demonstrated usefulness, researchers have customarily overlooked that they are only point estimates of the true unknown population values, and therefore, only rough approximations. Thus, though research based on CPN data may produce reliable results, those results are likely to be general and coarse-grained. In contrast, we suggest viewing CPNs as parameter estimation procedures, where researchers obtain only estimates of the unknown population parameters. Thus, more specific and fine-grained analyses must consider those parameters' variability. To this end, we introduce a probabilistic model from the field of ecology. Its related statistical expressions can be applied to compute estimates of CPNs' parameters and their corresponding variances. Furthermore, those expressions can be used to guide the sampling process. The traditional practice in CPN studies is to use the same number of participants across concepts, intuitively believing that practice will render the computed metrics comparable across concepts and CPNs. In contrast, the current work shows why an equal number of participants per concept is generally not desirable. Using CPN data, we show how to use the equations and discuss how they may allow more reasonable analyses and comparisons of parameter values among different concepts in a CPN, and across different CPNs.

[1]  Robert L. Goldstone Influences of categorization on perceptual discrimination. , 1994 .

[2]  F. Ashby,et al.  Categorization as probability density estimation , 1995 .

[3]  Marianna Bolognesi,et al.  Reliability in content analysis: The case of semantic feature norms classification , 2016, Behavior Research Methods.

[4]  Ian S. Hargreaves,et al.  Get rich quick: The signal to respond procedure reveals the time course of semantic richness effects during visual word recognition , 2014, Cognition.

[5]  Maria Montefinese,et al.  A practical primer on processing semantic property norm data , 2019, Cognitive Processing.

[6]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Basic objects in natural categories , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  Lawrence W. Barsalou,et al.  The instability of graded structure: implications for the nature of concepts , 1987 .

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

[9]  M. L. Lambon Ralph,et al.  Prototypicality, distinctiveness, and intercorrelation: Analyses of the semantic attributes of living and nonliving concepts , 2001, Cognitive neuropsychology.

[10]  Cynthia S. Q. Siew Feature distinctiveness effects in language acquisition and lexical processing: Insights from megastudies , 2020, Cognitive Processing.

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

[12]  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.

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

[14]  Ken McRae,et al.  Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory. , 1999, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[15]  Xu Xu,et al.  Content Differences for Abstract and Concrete Concept , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  G. Hough,et al.  Free listing: A method to gain initial insight of a food category , 2010 .

[17]  N. Starr,et al.  Optimal and Adaptive Stopping in the Search for New Species , 1979 .

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

[19]  Enrique Canessa,et al.  Mathematical regularities of data from the property listing task , 2020, Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

[20]  Michelle Moloney,et al.  Knowledge, expectations, and inductive reasoning within conceptual hierarchies , 2004, Cognition.

[21]  P. Jaccard Distribution de la flore alpine dans le bassin des Dranses et dans quelques régions voisines , 1901 .

[22]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The development of features in object concepts , 1998, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

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

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

[25]  J. Marquié,et al.  Analyzing feature distinctiveness in the processing of living and non-living concepts in Alzheimer’s disease , 2009, Brain and Cognition.

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

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

[28]  Jeroen Geertzen,et al.  Feature Statistics Modulate the Activation of Meaning During Spoken Word Processing , 2015, Cogn. Sci..

[29]  J. Anderson,et al.  Categorization and sensitivity to correlation. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[30]  A. Chao,et al.  Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. , 2012, Ecology.

[31]  A. Angwin,et al.  Alzheimer's disease is associated with distinctive semantic feature loss , 2013, Neuropsychologia.

[32]  C. Caltagirone,et al.  Alzheimer's disease and semantic deficits: a feature-listing study. , 2012, Neuropsychology.

[33]  Lawrence J Walker,et al.  Differing conceptions of moral exemplarity: just, brave, and caring. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[34]  Robert R. Sokal,et al.  A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships , 1958 .

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

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

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

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

[39]  A. Tversky Features of Similarity , 1977 .

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

[41]  Enrique Canessa,et al.  The role of variability in the property listing task , 2017, Behavior Research Methods.

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

[43]  Adam N. Sanborn,et al.  Categorization as nonparametric Bayesian density estimation , 2008 .

[44]  Anne Chao,et al.  Species Richness: Estimation and Comparison , 2016 .

[45]  L. Barsalou,et al.  Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: evidence from property generation. , 2009, Acta psychologica.

[46]  Elizabeth L. Sander,et al.  Rarefaction and extrapolation with Hill numbers: a framework for sampling and estimation in species diversity studies , 2014 .

[47]  J. Hampton Polymorphous Concepts in Semantic Memory , 1979 .

[48]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[49]  Kevin A Hallgren,et al.  Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial. , 2012, Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology.

[50]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[51]  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.

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

[53]  J. W. Hutchinson,et al.  Nearest neighbor analysis of psychological spaces. , 1986 .

[54]  Michael N. Jones,et al.  The semantic richness of abstract concepts , 2012, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[55]  Simon De Deyne,et al.  Redefining the resolution of semantic knowledge in the brain: Advances made by the introduction of models of semantics in neuroimaging , 2019, Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.

[56]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .