Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp 183–190 | Cite as

Semantic feature production norms for a large set of objects and events

  • David P. Vinson
  • Gabriella Vigliocco
Article

Abstract

Semantic features produced by speakers of a language when given a word corresponding to a concept have provided insight into numerous behavioral phenomena concerning semantic representation in language-impaired and -unimpaired speakers. A number of theories concerning the organization of semantic memory have used features as their starting point. Here, we provide a set of feature norms collected from approximately 280 participants for a total of 456 words (169 nouns referring to objects, 71 nouns referring to events, and 216 verbs referring to events). Whereas a number of feature norms for object concepts already exist, we provide the first set of norms for event concepts. We have used these norms (for both objects and events) in research addressing questions concerning the similarities and differences between the semantic representation of objects and events and in research concerning the interface between semantics and syntax, given that events can be expressed in language as nouns or verbs. Some of this research is summarized here. These norms may be downloaded from www.psychonomic.org/archive.

Keywords

Semantic Similarity Semantic Representation Semantic Memory Semantic Distance Semantic Dementia 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Supplementary material

Vinson-BRM-2008a.zip (46 kb)
Supplementary material, approximately 340 KB.

References

  1. Bird, H., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K., & Hodges, J. R. (2000). The rise and fall of frequency and imageability: Noun and verb production in semantic dementia. Brain & Language, 73, 17–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Breedin, S. D., Saffran, E. M., & Coslett, H. B. (1994). Reversal of the concreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11, 617–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buxbaum, L. J., Veramonti, T., & Schwartz, M. F. (2000). Function and manipulation tool knowledge in apraxia: Knowing “what for” but not “how.” Neurocase, 6, 83–97.Google Scholar
  4. Caramazza, A., & Shelton, J. R. (1998). Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: The animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 1–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, A. C., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cree, G. S., McNorgan, G., & McRae, K. (2006). Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cree, G. S., & McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 163–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cree, G. S., McRae, K., & McNorgan, C. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming. Cognitive Science, 23, 371–414.CrossRefGoogle 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, 4957–4960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daniele, A., Giustolisi, L., Silveri, M. C., Colosimo, C., & Gainotti, G. (1994). Evidence for a possible neuroanatomical basis for lexical processing of nouns and verbs. Neuropsychologia, 32, 1325–1341.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Devlin, J. T., Gonnerman, L. M., Andersen, E. S., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1998). Category-specific semantic deficits in focal and widespread brain damage: A computational account. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10, 77–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Farah, M. J., & McClelland, J. L. (1991). A computational model of semantic memory impairment: Modality specificity and emergent category specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 339–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garrard, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2001). Prototypicality, distinctiveness, and intercorrelation: Analyses of the semantic attributes of living and nonliving concepts. Cognitive Neumpsychology, 18, 125–174.Google Scholar
  14. Garrard, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K., Pratt, K. H., & Hodges, J. R. (2005). Semantic feature knowledge and picture naming in dementia of Alzheimer’s type: A new approach. Brain & Language, 93, 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graesser, A. C., Hopkinson, P. L., & Schmid, C. (1987). Differences in interconcept organization between nouns and verbs. Journal of Memory & Language, 26, 242–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hinton, G. E., & Shallice, T. (1991). Lesioning an attractor network: Investigations of acquired dyslexia. Psychological Review, 98, 74–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Huttenlocher, J., & Lui, F. (1979). The semantic organization of some simple nouns and verbs. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 18, 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin, A., & Chao, L. L. (2001). Semantic memory and the brain: Structure and processes. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11, 194–201.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. McRae, K., & Cree, G. S. (2002). Factors underlying category-specific semantic deficits. In E. M. E. Forde & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Category-specificity in brain and mind (pp. 211–249). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  20. McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547–559.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Westmacott, R., & de Sa, V. R. (1999). Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 360–373.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 99–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miceli, G., Silveri, M. C., Nocentini, U., & Caramazza, A. (1988). Patterns of dissociation in comprehension and production of nouns and verbs. Aphasiology, 2, 351–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, G. A., & Fellbaum, C. (1991). Semantic networks of English. Cognition, 41, 197–229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–277). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., & Devlin, J. T. (2002). The emergence of category-specific deficits in a distributed semantic system. In E. M. E. Forde & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.), Category-specificity in brain and mind (pp. 115–145). Hove, UK.: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Murphy, G. L. (2002). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. Norman, D. A., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Explorations in cognition. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  29. Plaut, D. C. (1995). Double dissociation without modularity: Evidence from connectionist neuropsychology. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology, 17, 291–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rogers, T. T., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Garrard, P., Bozeat, S., McClelland, J. L., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. (2004). The structure and deterioration of semantic memory: A neuropsychological and computational investigation. Psychological Review, 111, 205–235.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogers, T. T., & McClelland, J. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblance: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., & Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: Featural model for semantic decisions. Psychological Review, 81, 214–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tyler, L. K., Moss, H. E., Durrant-Peatfield, M. R., & Levy, J. P. (2000). Conceptual structure and the structure of concepts: A distributed account of category-specific deficits. Brain & Language, 75, 195–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vigliocco, G., & Vinson, D. P. (2007). Semantic representation. In M. G. Gaskell (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 195–215). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Damian, M. F., & Levelt, W. (2002). Semantic distance effects on object and action naming. Cognition, 85, B61-B69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., & Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meanings of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 48, 422–488.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., & Siri, S. (2005). Semantic and grammatical class effects in naming actions. Cognition, 94, B91-B100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Vigliocco, G., Warren, J., Siri, S., Arciuli, J., Scott, S., & Wise, R. (2006). The role of semantics and grammatical class in the neural representation of words. Cerebral Cortex, 16, 1790–1796.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2002). A semantic analysis of grammatical class impairments: Semantic representations of object nouns, action nouns and action verbs. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 15, 317–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vinson, D. P., Vigliocco, G., Cappa, S., & Siri, S. (2003). The breakdown of semantic knowledge: Insights from a statistical model of meaning representation. Brain & Language, 86, 347–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107, 829–853.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity College LondonLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations