Abstract
Subjective frequency estimates for large sample of monosyllabic English words were collected from 574 young adults (undergraduate students) and from a separate group of 1,590 adults of varying ages and educational backgrounds. Estimates from the latter group were collected via the internet. In addition, 90 healthy older adults provided estimates for a random sample of 480 of these words. All groups rated words with respect to the estimated frequency of encounters of each word on a 7-point scale, ranging from never encountered to encountered several times a day. The young and older groups also rated each word with respect to the frequency of encounters in different perceptual domains (e.g., reading, hearing, writing, or speaking). The results of regression analyses indicated that objective log frequency and meaningfulness accounted for most of the variance in subjective frequency estimates, whereas neighborhood size accounted for the least amount of variance in the ratings. The predictive power of log frequency and meaningfulness were dependent on the level of subjective frequency estimates. Meaningfulness was a better predictor of subjective frequency for uncommon words, whereas log frequency was a better predictor of subjective frequency for common words. Our discussion focuses on the utility of subjective frequency estimates compared with other estimates of familiarity. The raw subjective frequency data for all words are available at http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~dbalota/labpub.html.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Amano, S., Kondo, T., &Kakehi, K. (1995). Modality dependency of familiarity ratings of Japanese words.Perception & Psychophysics,57, 598–603.
Andrews, S. (1997). The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,4, 439–461.
Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., & Pilotti, M. (1999, November).Itemlevel analyses of lexical decision performance: Results from a megastudy. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
Balota, D. A., &Ferraro, F. R. (1996). Lexical, sublexical, and implicit memory processes in healthy older adults and in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer type.Neuropsychology,10, 82–95.
Balota, D. A., Ferraro, F. R., &Connor, L. T. (1991). On the early influence of meaning in word recognition: A review of the literature. In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.),The psychology of word meaning (pp. 187–222). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Balota, D. A., &Spieler, D. H. (1999). Word frequency, repetition, and lexicality effects in word recognition tasks: Beyond measures of central tendency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,128, 32–55.
Burgess, C., &Livesay, K. (1998). The effects of corpus size in predicting reaction time in a basic word recognition task: Moving on from Kučera and Francis.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,30, 272–277.
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., &Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In S. Dormic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI (pp. 535–555). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dutch Center for Lexical Information (1995).The Celex lexical database. Nijmegen: Dutch Center for Lexical Information.
Garber, E. E., &Pisoni, D. B. (1991).Lexical memory in visual and auditory modalities: A second report. (Research on Speech Perception, Prog. Rep. No. 17, pp. 213–227). Bloomington: Indiana University, Speech Research Laboratory.
Gaygen, D. E., &Luce, P. A. (1998). Effects of modality on subjective frequency estimates and processing of spoken and printed words.Perception & Psychophysics,60, 465–483.
Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 256–281.
Gilhooly, K. J., &Logie, R. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,12, 395–427.
Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access.Psychological Review,105, 251–279.
Kučera, M., &Francis, W. N. (1967).Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Landauer, T. K., &Streeter, L. A. (1973). Structural differences between common and rare words: Failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,12, 119–131.
Nusbaum, H. C., Pisoni, D. B., &Davis, C. K. (1984).Sizing up the Hoosier mental lexicon: Measuring the familiarity of 20,000 words (Research in Speech Perception, Prog. Rep. No. 10). Bloomington: Indiana University, Speech Research Laboratory.
O’Dowd, S. C. (1984). Does vocabulary decline qualitatively in old age?Educational Gerontology,10, 357–368.
Paap, K. R., Johansen, L. S., Chun, E., &Vonnahme, P. (2000). Neighborhood frequency does affect performance in the Reicher task: Encoding or decision?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1691–1720.
Peereman, R., Content, A., &Bonin, P. (1998). Is perception a two-way street? The case of feedback consistency in visual word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,39, 151–174.
Pisoni, D. B., &Garber, E. E. (1990). Lexical memory in visual and auditory modalities: The case for a common mental lexicon. InProceedings of the 1990 International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 401–404). Kobe: Acoustical Society of Japan.
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., &Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains.Psychological Review,103, 56–115.
Seidenberg, M. S., &McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming.Psychological Review,103, 56–115.
Shipley, W. C. (1940). A self-administering scale for measuring intellectual impairment and deterioration.Journal of Psychology,9, 371–377.
Spieler, D. H., &Balota, D. A. (1997). Bringing computational models of word naming down to the item level.Psychological Science,8, 411–416.
Spieler, D. H., &Balota, D. A. (2000). Factors influencing word naming in younger and older adults.Psychology & Aging,15, 225–231.
Stone, G. O., Vanhoy, M., &Van Orden, G. C. (1997). Perception is a two-way street: Feed forward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition.Journal of Memory & Language,36, 337–359.
Toglia, M. P., &Battig, W. F. (1978).Handbook of semantic word norms. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by Grant PO1 AGO3991 from NIA and Grant F32 DC00342 from NICDS. We thank Harris Interactive for web data collection.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Balota, D.A., Pilotti, M. & Cortese, M.J. Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory & Cognition 29, 639–647 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200465
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200465