Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 588–595 | Cite as

A standardized set of 260 pictures for Turkish: Norms of name and image agreement, age of acquisition, visual complexity, and conceptual familiarity

  • Ilhan RamanEmail author
  • Evren Raman
  • Biran Mertan
Article

Abstract

In the present study, normative data in Turkish are presented for the 260 color versions of the original Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) picture set for the first time. Norms are reported for name and image agreement, age of acquisition (AoA), visual complexity, and conceptual familiarity, together with written word frequency, and numbers of letters and syllables. We collected data from 277 native Turkish adults in a variety of tasks. The results indicated that, whilst several measures displayed language-specific variation, we also reported what seem to be language-independent—that is, universal—measures that show a systematic relationship across several languages. The implications of the reported measures in the domain of psycholinguistic research in Turkish and for wider cross-linguistic comparisons are discussed.

Keywords

Turkish Lexical processing Picture norms Cross-linguistic Age of acquisition Visual complexity Conceptual familiarity 

Notes

Author Note

We express our thanks to the participants who took part in the study voluntarily and to our research assistants Elif Çağatay, Önay Çiçek, Şerife Dilem, Bahire Güzer, Melis Singin, and Zehra Köseoğlu for their involvement in the data collection process.

Supplementary material

13428_2013_376_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (47 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 46 kb)
13428_2013_376_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (59 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 58 kb)

References

  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.-X., & Ferrand, L. (1999). A set of 400 pictures standardized for French: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, and age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 531–552. doi: 10.3758/BF03200732 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alario, F.-X., Ferrand, L., Laganaro, M., New, B., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Segui, J. (2004). Predictors of picture naming speed. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 140–155. doi: 10.3758/BF03195559 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakhtiar, M., Nilipour, R., & Weekes, B. S. (2013). Predictors of timed picture naming in Persian. Behavior Research Methods. doi: 10.3758/s13428-012-0298-6
  5. Barry, C., Morrison, C. M., & Ellis, A. W. (1997). Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures: Effects of age of acquisition, frequency, and name agreement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 560–585. doi: 10.1080/783663595 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonin, P., Chalard, M., Méot, A., & Fayol, M. (2002). The determinants of spoken and written picture naming latencies. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 89–114. doi: 10.1348/000712602162463 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonin, P., Peereman, R., Malardier, N., Méot, A., & Chalard, M. (2003). A new set of 299 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: French norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, age of acquisition, and naming latencies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 158–167. doi: 10.3758/BF03195507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2008). Age of acquisition ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 791–794. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.791 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cuetos, F., Ellis, A. W., & Alvarez, B. (1999). Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 650–658. doi: 10.3758/BF03200741 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dent, K., Johnston, R. A., & Humphreys, G. W. (2008). Age of acquisition and word frequency effects in picture naming: A dual-task investigation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 282–301. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.282 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dimitropoulou, M., Duñabeitia, J. A., Blitsas, P., & Carreiras, M. (2009). A standardized set of 260 pictures for Modern Greek: Norms for name agreement, age of acquisition, and visual complexity. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 584–589. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.2.584 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Durgunoglu, A. Y., & Oney, B. (2002). Phonological awareness in literacy development: It’s not only for children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellis, A. W., & Morrison, C. M. (1998). Real age-of-acquisistion effects in lexical retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 515–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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, 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, 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, 684–712. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.684 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morrison, C. M., & Ellis, A. W. (2000). Real age of acquisition effects in word naming and lexical decision. British Journal of Psychology, 91, 167–180.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nishimoto, T., Miyawaki, K., Ueda, T., Une, Y., & Takahashi, M. (2005). Japanese normative set of 359 pictures. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 398–416. doi: 10.3758/BF03192709 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nisi, M., Longoni, A. M., & Snodgrass, J. G. (2000). Italian measurement on the relation of name, familiarity, and acquisition age for the 260 figures of Snodgrass and Vanderwart. Giornale Italiano di Psicologia, 27, 205–218.Google Scholar
  20. Pind, J., Jónsdóttir, H., Gissurardóttir, H., & Jónsson, F. (2000). Icelandic norms for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) pictures: Name and image agreement, familiarity, and age of acquisition. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 41–48. doi: 10.1111/1467-9450.00169 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Price, C. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). The effects of surface detail on object categorization and naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 797–828.PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raman, I. (2011). The role of age of acquisition in picture and word naming in dyslexic adults. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 328–339.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raman, I., & Baluch, B. (2001). Imageability effects and level of skill in naming a transparent alphabetic orthography. Reading and Writing, 14, 599–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raman, I., Baluch, B., & Besner, D. (2004). On the control of visual word recognition, Changing routes versus changing deadlines. Memory & Cognition, 32, 489–500. doi: 10.3758/BF03195841 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  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, 217–236. doi: 10.1068/p5117 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sanfeliu, M. C., & Fernandez, A. (1996). A set of 254 Snodgrass–Vanderwart pictures standardized for Spanish: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 537–555. doi: 10.3758/BF03200541 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shannon, C. E. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. In C. E. Shannon & W. Weaver (Eds.), The mathematical theory of communication (pp. 29–125). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google 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, 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, & Computers, 28, 516–536. doi: 10.3758/BF03200540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Székely, A., & Bates, E. (2000). Objective visual complexity as a variable in studies of picture naming. CRL Newsletter, 12, 3–33.Google Scholar
  33. Tsaparina, D., Bonin, P., & Méot, A. (2011). Russian norms for name agreement, image agreement for the colorized version of the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures and age of acquisition, conceptual familiarity, and imageability scores for modal object names. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 1085–1099. doi: 10.3758/s13428-011-0121-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vitkovitch, M., & Tyrrell, L. (1995). Sources of disagreement in object naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 822–848. doi: 10.1080/14640749508401419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weekes, B. S., Shu, H., Hao, M., Liu, Y., & Tan, L. H. (2007). Predictors of timed picture naming in Chinese. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 335–342. doi: 10.3758/BF03193165 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMiddlesex UniversityHendonUK
  2. 2.Eastern Mediterranean UniversityFamagustaNorth Cyprus

Personalised recommendations