English semantic word-pair norms and a searchable Web portal for experimental stimulus creation

As researchers explore the complexity of memory and language hierarchies, the need to expand normed stimulus databases is growing. Therefore, we present 1,808 words, paired with their features and concept–concept information, that were collected using previously established norming methods (McRae, Cree, Seidenberg, & McNorgan Behavior Research Methods 37:547–559, 2005). This database supplements existing stimuli and complements the Semantic Priming Project (Hutchison, Balota, Cortese, Neely, Niemeyer, Bengson, & Cohen-Shikora 2010). The data set includes many types of words (including nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.), expanding on previous collections of nouns and verbs (Vinson & Vigliocco Journal of Neurolinguistics 15:317–351, 2008). We describe the relation between our and other semantic norms, as well as giving a short review of word-pair norms. The stimuli are provided in conjunction with a searchable Web portal that allows researchers to create a set of experimental stimuli without prior programming knowledge. When researchers use this new database in tandem with previous norming efforts, precise stimuli sets can be created for future research endeavors.

[1]  M. Lucas,et al.  Semantic priming without association: A meta-analytic review , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[2]  Keith A Hutchison,et al.  Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review , 2003, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

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

[5]  R. Proctor,et al.  Index of norms and ratings published in the Psychonomic Society journals , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

[11]  R. Schvaneveldt,et al.  Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[12]  Boris New,et al.  SEMANTIC AND ASSOCIATIVE PRIMING IN THE MENTAL LEXICON , 2003 .

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

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

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

[16]  Jodi L. Davenport,et al.  The locus of semantic priming in RSVP target search , 2005, Memory & cognition.

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

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

[19]  Greg B. Simpson,et al.  The influence of phonological neighborhood on visual word perception , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[21]  Peter Gölitz,et al.  Withstanding the Test of Time , 2007 .

[22]  Jonathan Vaughan,et al.  A Web-Based Archive of Norms, Stimuli, and Data , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[23]  Gordon D A Brown,et al.  Phonographic neighbors, not orthographic neighbors, determine word naming latencies , 2007, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

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

[25]  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.

[26]  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.

[27]  Derek Besner,et al.  On the Myth of Automatic Semantic Activation in Reading , 1999 .

[28]  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.

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

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

[31]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Category specificity in brain and mind , 2002 .

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

[33]  B. Bergum,et al.  Attention and Performance VI , 1978 .

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

[35]  David W. Conrath,et al.  Semantic Similarity Based on Corpus Statistics and Lexical Taxonomy , 1997, ROCLING/IJCLCLP.

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

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

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

[39]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[40]  D. Plaut.  Double dissociation without modularity: evidence from connectionist neuropsychology. , 1995, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[41]  Marc Brys,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 .

[42]  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 .

[43]  W. Kintsch,et al.  High-Dimensional Semantic Space Accounts of Priming. , 2006 .

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

[45]  Victoria A. Fromkin,et al.  Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey: The mental lexicon , 1988 .

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

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

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

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

[50]  Curt Burgess,et al.  Modelling Parsing Constraints with High-dimensional Context Space , 1997 .

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

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

[53]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .