Specificity Ratings for English Data

Overview

Journal Cogn Process

Specialty Psychology

Date 2024 Nov 8

PMID 39514144

Authors

Andrea Amelio Ravelli

Marianna Marcella Bolognesi

Tommaso Caselli

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

A dataset of specificity ratings for English words is hereby presented, analyzed and discussed in relation with other collections of speaker-generated ratings, including concreteness. Both, specificity and concreteness are analyzed in their ability to explain decision latencies in lexical and semantic tasks, showing important individual contributions. Specificity ratings are collected through best-worst scaling method on the words included in the ANEW dataset (Bradley and Lang in Affective norms for English words (ANEW): instruction manual and affective ratings (Tech. Rep.). Technical report C-1, the center for research in psychophysiology, 1999), chosen for its compatibility with many other collections of rating resources, and for its comparability with Italian specificity data (Bolognesi and Caselli in Behav Res Methods 55(7):3531-3548, 2023), allowing for cross-linguistic comparisons. Results suggest that specificity plays an important role in word processing and the importance of taking specificity into consideration when investigating concreteness effects.

References

Balota D, Cortese M, Sergent-Marshall S, Spieler D, Yap M . Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2004; 133(2):283-316. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.283. View

Balota D, Yap M, Cortese M, Hutchison K, Kessler B, Loftis B . The English Lexicon Project. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39(3):445-59. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193014. View

Bolognesi M, Caselli T . Specificity ratings for Italian data. Behav Res Methods. 2022; 55(7):3531-3548. PMC: 10615975. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01974-6. View

Bolognesi M, Burgers C, Caselli T . On abstraction: decoupling conceptual concreteness and categorical specificity. Cogn Process. 2020; 21(3):365-381. PMC: 7381448. DOI: 10.1007/s10339-020-00965-9. View

Borghi A, Binkofski F, Castelfranchi C, Cimatti F, Scorolli C, Tummolini L . The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychol Bull. 2017; 143(3):263-292. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000089. View

Brysbaert M, Warriner A, Kuperman V . Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behav Res Methods. 2013; 46(3):904-11. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5. View

Connell L, Lynott D . Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition. 2012; 125(3):452-65. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010. View

Davis C, Yee E . Is time an embodied property of concepts?. PLoS One. 2023; 18(9):e0290997. PMC: 10479924. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290997. View

Hoffman P . The meaning of 'life' and other abstract words: Insights from neuropsychology. J Neuropsychol. 2015; 10(2):317-43. PMC: 5026063. DOI: 10.1111/jnp.12065. View

10.

Hutchison K, Balota D, Neely J, Cortese M, Cohen-Shikora E, Tse C . The semantic priming project. Behav Res Methods. 2013; 45(4):1099-114. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0304-z. View

11.

Iliev R, Axelrod R . The Paradox of Abstraction: Precision Versus Concreteness. J Psycholinguist Res. 2016; 46(3):715-729. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-016-9459-6. View

12.

Keuleers E, Lacey P, Rastle K, Brysbaert M . The British Lexicon Project: lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behav Res Methods. 2011; 44(1):287-304. PMC: 3278621. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0118-4. View

13.

Mandera P, Keuleers E, Brysbaert M . Recognition times for 62 thousand English words: Data from the English Crowdsourcing Project. Behav Res Methods. 2019; 52(2):741-760. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-019-01272-8. View

14.

Montefinese M, Ambrosini E, Fairfield B, Mammarella N . The adaptation of the Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW) for Italian. Behav Res Methods. 2013; 46(3):887-903. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-013-0405-3. View

15.

Montefinese M, Vinson D, Vigliocco G, Ambrosini E . Italian Age of Acquisition Norms for a Large Set of Words (ItAoA). Front Psychol. 2019; 10:278. PMC: 6381031. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00278. View

16.

Montefinese M, Gregori L, Ravelli A, Varvara R, Radicioni D . CONcreTEXT norms: Concreteness ratings for Italian and English words in context. PLoS One. 2023; 18(10):e0293031. PMC: 10588859. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293031. View

17.

Nosofsky R . Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1986; 115(1):39-61. DOI: 10.1037//0096-3445.115.1.39. View

18.

Pexman P, Heard A, Lloyd E, Yap M . The Calgary semantic decision project: concrete/abstract decision data for 10,000 English words. Behav Res Methods. 2016; 49(2):407-417. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-016-0720-6. View

19.

Reijnierse W, Burgers C, Bolognesi M, Krennmayr T . How Polysemy Affects Concreteness Ratings: The Case of Metaphor. Cogn Sci. 2019; 43(8):e12779. PMC: 6771986. DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12779. View

20.

Scott G, Keitel A, Becirspahic M, Yao B, Sereno S . The Glasgow Norms: Ratings of 5,500 words on nine scales. Behav Res Methods. 2018; 51(3):1258-1270. PMC: 6538586. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-018-1099-3. View