Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 847–861 | Cite as

A Picture Database for Verbs and Nouns with Different Action Content in Turkish

  • Ece Bayram
  • Özgür Aydin
  • Hacer Iclal Ergenc
  • Muhittin Cenk Akbostanci


In this study we present a picture database of 160 nouns and 160 verbs. All verbs and nouns are divided into two groups as action and non-action words. Age of acquisition, familiarity, imageability, name agreement and complexity norms are reported alongside frequency, word length and morpheme count for each word. Data were collected from 600 native Turkish adults in total. The results show that although several measures have weak correlations with each other, only age of acquisition had moderate downhill relationships with familiarity and frequency with familiarity and frequency having a rather strong positive correlation with each other. The norms and the picture database are available as supplemental materials for use in psycholinguistic studies in Turkish.


Verb Noun Picture database Action Non-action 



We thank María González-Nosti and Fernando Cuetos for their guidance during the design.

Funding This study was funded as a part of a research project by Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) (Grant number 115S812).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest for this study.

Ethical Standards

This study was approved by local ethics committee and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.


  1. Aksan, Y., Aksan, M., Koltuksuz, A., Sezer, T., Mersinli, Ü., & Ufuk, U. (2012). Construction of the Turkish National Corpus (TNC). Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012), Istanbul, Turkey.Google Scholar
  2. Alario, F., Ferrand, L., Laganaro, M., New, B., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Segui, J. (2004). Predictors of picture naming speed. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36(1), 140–155. doi: 10.3758/bf03195559.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent-Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 283–316. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barry, C., Morrison, C. M., & Ellis, A. W. (1997). Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures: Effects of age of acquisition, frequency, and name agreement. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 50(3), 560–585. doi: 10.1080/783663595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bedny, M., McGill, M., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2008). Semantic adaptation and competition during word comprehension. Cerebral Cortex, 18(11), 2574–2585. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhn018.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll, J. B., & White, M. N. (1973). Word frequency and age of acquisition as determiners of picture-naming latency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25(1), 85–95. doi: 10.1080/14640747308400325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cuetos, F., & Alija, M. (2003). Normative data and naming times for action pictures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35(1), 168–177. doi: 10.3758/bf03195508.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuetos, F., Ellis, A. W., & Álvarez, B. (1999). Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 31(4), 650–658. doi: 10.3758/bf03200741.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Damasio, A. R., & Tranel, D. (1993). Nouns and verbs are retrieved with differently distributed neural systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 90(11), 4957–4960. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.11.4957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis, A. W., & Morrison, C. M. (1998). Real age-of-acquisition effects in lexical retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24(2), 515–523. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.24.2.515.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(2), 256–281. doi: 10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilhooly, K. J., & Logie, R. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 12(4), 395–427. doi: 10.3758/bf03201693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Göz, I. (2003). Yazılı Türkçe’nin Kelime Sıklığı Sözlüğü. Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu.Google Scholar
  14. Hirsh, K. W., & Funnell, E. (1995). Those old, familiar things: Age of acquisition, familiarity and lexical access in progressive aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 9(1), 23–32. doi: 10.1016/0911-6044(95)00003-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnston, R. A., & Barry, C. (2006). Age of acquisition and lexical processing. Visual Cognition, 13(7–8), 789–845. doi: 10.1080/13506280544000066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Juhasz, B. J. (2005). Age-of-acquisition effects in word and picture identification. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 684–712. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.684.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Juhasz, B. J., & Rayner, K. (2003). Investigating the effects of a set of intercorrelated variables on eye fixation durations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29(6), 1312–1318. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1312.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Marcel, A. J., & Patterson, K. E. (1978). Word recognition and production: Reciprocity in clinical and normal studies. Attention and performance VII. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Morrison, C. M., Ellis, A. W., & Quinlan, P. T. (1992). Age of acquisition, not word frequency, affects object naming, not object recognition. Memory and Cognition, 20(6), 705–714. doi: 10.3758/bf03202720.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  21. Perani, D., Schnur, T., Tettamanti, M., Cappa Italy, S. F., & Fazio, F. (1999). Word and picture matching: A PET study of semantic category effects. Neuropsychologia, 37(3), 293–306. doi: 10.1016/s0028-3932(98)00073-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Raman, I. (2006). On the age of acquisition effects in word naming and orthographic transparency: Mapping specific or universal? Visual Cognition, 13, 1044–1053. doi: 10.1080/13506280500153200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raman, I., Baluch, B., & Sneddon, P. (1996). What is the cognitive system’s preferred route for deriving phonology from print? European Psychologist, 1, 221–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raman, I., Raman, E., & Mertan, B. (2013). A standardized set of 260 pictures for Turkish: Norms of name and image agreement, age of acquisition, visual complexity, and conceptual familiarity. Behavior Research Methods, 46(2), 588–595. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0376-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Richardson, J. T. E. (1975). Concreteness and imageability. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27(2), 235–249. doi: 10.1080/14640747508400483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roodenrys, S., Hulme, C., Alban, J., Ellis, A. W., & Brown, G. D. A. (1994). Effects of word frequency and age of acquisition on short-term memory span. Memory and Cognition, 22(6), 695–701. doi: 10.3758/bf03209254.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object pictorial set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33(2), 217–236. doi: 10.1068/p5117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (Eds.). (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  29. Shapiro, K. A., Moo, L. R., & Caramazza, A. (2006). Cortical signatures of noun and verb production. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(5), 1644–1649. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0504142103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174–215. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.6.2.174.Google Scholar
  31. Snodgrass, J. G., & Yuditsky, T. (1996). Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28(4), 516–536. doi: 10.3758/bf03200540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Szekely, A., & Bates, E. (2000). Objective visual complexity as a variable in studies of picture naming. Center for Research in Language Newsletter, 12(2), 1–33.Google Scholar
  33. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Druks, J., Barber, H., & Cappa, S. F. (2011). Nouns and verbs in the brain: A review of behavioural, electrophysiological, neuropsychological and imaging studies. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(3), 407–426. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.04.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Weekes, B. S., Shu, H., Hao, M., Liu, Y., & Tan, L. H. (2007). Predictors of timed picture naming in Chinese. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 335–342. doi: 10.3758/bf03193165.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Interdisciplinary Neurosciences, Institute of Health SciencesAnkara UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Languages, History and GeographyAnkara UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Neurology, Faculty of MedicineAnkara UniversitySıhhiye, AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations