The number of databases that provide various measurements of lexical properties for psycholinguistic research has increased rapidly in recent years. The proliferation of lexical variables, and the multitude of associated databases, makes the choice, comparison, and standardization of these variables in psycholinguistic research increasingly difficult. Here, we introduce The South Carolina Psycholinguistic Metabase (SCOPE), which is a metabase (or a meta-database) containing an extensive, curated collection of psycholinguistic variable values from major databases. The metabase currently contains 245 lexical variables, organized into seven major categories: General (e.g., frequency), Orthographic (e.g., bigram frequency), Phonological (e.g., phonological uniqueness point), Orth-Phon (e.g., consistency), Semantic (e.g., concreteness), Morphological (e.g., number of morphemes), and Response variables (e.g., lexical decision latency). We hope that SCOPE will become a valuable resource for researchers in psycholinguistics and affiliated disciplines such as cognitive neuroscience of language, computational linguistics, and communication disorders. The availability and ease of use of the metabase with comprehensive set of variables can facilitate the understanding of the unique contribution of each of the variables to word processing, and that of interactions between variables, as well as new insights and development of improved models and theories of word processing. It can also help standardize practice in psycholinguistics. We demonstrate use of the metabase by measuring relationships between variables in multiple ways and testing their individual contribution towards a number of dependent measures, in the most comprehensive analysis of this kind to date. The metabase is freely available at go.sc.edu/scope.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
The data for the present study can be accessed at go.sc.edu/scope.
The code for the present study can be accessed at https://osf.io/9qbjz/.
Adelman, J. S., & Brown, G. D. (2007). Phonographic neighbors, not orthographic neighbors, determine word naming latencies. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(3), 455–459.
Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17(9), 814–823.
Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1996). The CELEX lexical database (CD-ROM). Linguistic Data Consortium.
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459.
Binder, J. R., Conant, L. L., Humphries, C. J., Fernandino, L., Simons, S. B., Aguilar, M., & Desai, R. H. (2016). Toward a brain-based componential semantic representation. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33(3–4), 130–174.
Bird, H., Franklin, S., & Howard, D. (2001). Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verbs and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33(1), 73–79.
Brysbaert, M. (2017). Age of acquisition ratings score better on criterion validity than frequency trajectory or ratings “corrected” for frequency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(7), 1129–1139.
Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990.
Brysbaert, M., New, B., & Keuleers, E. (2012). Adding part-of-speech information to the SUBTLEX-US word frequencies. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 991–997.
Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911.
Brysbaert, M., Mandera, P., & Keuleers, E. (2018). The word frequency effect in word processing: An updated review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(1), 45–50.
Brysbaert, M., Mandera, P., McCormick, S. F., & Keuleers, E. (2019). Word prevalence norms for 62,000 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 51(2), 467–479.
Buchanan, E. M., Valentine, K. D., & Maxwell, N. P. (2019). English semantic feature production norms: An extended database of 4436 concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 51(4), 1849–1863.
Caramazza, A., Laudanna, A., & Romani, C. (1988). Lexical access and inflectional morphology. Cognition, 28(3), 297–332.
Chee, Q. W., Chow, K. J., Goh, W. D., & Yap, M. J. (2021). LexiCAL: A calculator for lexical variables. Plos One, 16(4), e0250891.
Chee, Q. W., Chow, K. J., Yap, M. J., & Goh, W. D. (2020). Consistency norms for 37,677 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 52(6), 2535–2555.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (2004). Extensions of the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 371–383.
Coltheart, M., Davelaar, E., Jonasson, J. T., & Besner, D. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. In Attention and performance VI (pp. 535-555). Routledge.
Cortese, M. J., & Fugett, A. (2004). Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 384–387.
Crawford, A. V., Green, S. B., Levy, R., Lo, W.-J., Scott, L., Svetina, D., & Thompson, M. S. (2010). Evaluation of parallel analysis methods for determining the number of factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70(6), 885–901.
Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1981). The living word vocabulary, the words we know: A national vocabulary inventory. World book .
De Deyne, S., Navarro, D. J., Perfors, A., Brysbaert, M., & Storms, G. (2019). The “Small World of Words” English word association norms for over 12,000 cue words. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 987–1006.
Diveica, V., Pexman, P. M., & Binney, R. J. (2022). Quantifying social semantics: An inclusive definition of socialness and ratings for 8388 English words. Behavior Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01810-x
Engelthaler, T., & Hills, T. T. (2018). Humor norms for 4,997 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1116–1124.
Epskamp, S., & Fried, E. I. (2018). A tutorial on regularized partial correlation networks. Psychological Methods, 23(4), 617.
Epskamp, S., Borsboom, D., & Fried, E. I. (2018). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods, 50(1), 195–212.
Fernandino, L., Tong, J. Q., Conant, L. L., Humphries, C. J., & Binder, J. R. (2022). Decoding the information structure underlying the neural representation of concepts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(6). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108091119
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(4), 395–427.
Gimenes, M., & New, B. (2016). Worldlex: Twitter and blog word frequencies for 66 languages. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 963–972.
Goh, W. D., Yap, M. J., & Chee, Q. W. (2020). The Auditory English Lexicon Project: A multi-talker, multi-region psycholinguistic database of 10,170 spoken words and nonwords. Behavior Research Methods, 52(5), 2202–2231.
Goldstein, R., & Vitevitch, M. S. (2014). The influence of clustering coefficient on word-learning: how groups of similar sounding words facilitate acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1307.
Graves, W. W., Desai, R., Humphries, C., Seidenberg, M. S., & Binder, J. R. (2010). Neural systems for reading aloud: A multiparametric approach. Cerebral cortex, 20(8), 1799-1815.
Hauk, O., Davis, M. H., Ford, M., Pulvermüller, F., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2006). The time course of visual word recognition as revealed by linear regression analysis of ERP data. Neuroimage, 30(4), 1383–1400.
Hoffman, P., Ralph, M. A. L., & Rogers, T. T. (2013). Semantic diversity: A measure of semantic ambiguity based on variability in the contextual usage of words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 718–730.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185.
Juhasz, B. J., & Yap, M. J. (2013). Sensory experience ratings for over 5,000 mono- and disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 45(1), 160–168.
Keuleers, E., Lacey, P., Rastle, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 287–304.
Khanna, M. M., & Cortese, M. J. (2021). How well imageability, concreteness, perceptual strength, and action strength predict recognition memory, lexical decision, and reading aloud performance. Memory, 29(5), 622–636.
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Brown University Press.
Kuperman, V., Bertram, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2008). Morphological dynamics in compound processing. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23(7–8), 1089–1132.
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 978–990.
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211.
Levenshtein, V. I. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. Soviet Physics Doklady.
Lund, K., & Burgess, C. (1996). Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28(2), 203–208.
Lynott, D., Connell, L., Brysbaert, M., Brand, J., & Carney, J. (2020). The Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms: Multidimensional measures of Perceptual and Action Strength for 40,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 52(3), 1271–1291.
Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2020). Recognition times for 62 thousand English words: Data from the English Crowdsourcing Project. Behavior Research Methods, 52(2), 741–760.
Medler, D.A., & Binder, J.R. (2005). MCWord: An on-line orthographic database of the English language. http://www.neuro.mcw.edu/mcword/
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781.
Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: a lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39–41.
Mohammad, S., & Turney, P. (2010). Emotions evoked by common words and phrases: Using Mechanical Turk to create an emotion lexicon. In: Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 workshop on computational approaches to analysis and generation of emotion in text.
Mohammad, S. M., & Turney, P. D. (2013). Crowdsourcing a word–emotion association lexicon. Computational Intelligence, 29(3), 436–465.
Monsell, S., Doyle, M. C., & Haggard, P. N. (1989). Effects of frequency on visual word recognition tasks: Where are they? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118(1), 43.
Murtagh, F., & Legendre, P. (2014). Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: which algorithms implement Ward’s criterion? Journal of Classification, 31(3), 274–295.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 402–407.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(1p2), 1.
Peereman, R., & Content, A. (1997). Orthographic and phonological neighborhoods in naming: Not all neighbors are equally influential in orthographic space. Journal of Memory and Language, 37(3), 382–410.
Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. D. (2014). Glove: Global vectors for word representation. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP)
Pereira, F., Gershman, S., Ritter, S., & Botvinick, M. (2016). A comparative evaluation of off-the-shelf distributed semantic representations for modelling behavioural data. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 33(3–4), 175–190.
Pexman, P. M., Heard, A., Lloyd, E., & Yap, M. J. (2017). The Calgary semantic decision project: concrete/abstract decision data for 10,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 407–417.
Pexman, P. M., Muraki, E., Sidhu, D. M., Siakaluk, P. D., & Yap, M. J. (2019). Quantifying sensorimotor experience: Body–object interaction ratings for more than 9,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 51(2), 453–466.
Reilly, M., & Desai, R. H. (2017). Effects of semantic neighborhood density in abstract and concrete words. Cognition, 169, 46–53.
Rice, C. A., Beekhuizen, B., Dubrovsky, V., Stevenson, S., & Armstrong, B. C. (2019). A comparison of homonym meaning frequency estimates derived from movie and television subtitles, free association, and explicit ratings. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 1399–1425.
Roller, S., & Erk, K. (2016). Relations such as hypernymy: Identifying and exploiting Hearst patterns in distributional vectors for lexical entailment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.05433.
Sánchez-Gutiérrez, C. H., Mailhot, H., Deacon, S. H., & Wilson, M. A. (2018). MorphoLex: A derivational morphological database for 70,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 50(4), 1568–1580.
Scott, G. G., Keitel, A., Becirspahic, M., Yao, B., & Sereno, S. C. (2019). The Glasgow Norms: Ratings of 5,500 words on nine scales. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 1258–1270.
Seidenberg, M. S. (2012). Computational models of reading: connectionist and dual-route approaches. In M. Spivey, K. McRae, & M. Joanisse (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 186–203). Cambridge University Press.
Seidenberg, M. S., Waters, G. S., Barnes, M. A., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1984). When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 23(3), 383–404.
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2006). Word frequency effects in high-dimensional co-occurrence models: A new approach. Behavior Research Methods, 38(2), 190–195.
Shaoul, C., & Westbury, C. (2010). Exploring lexical co-occurrence space using HiDEx. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 393–413.
Taylor, J. E., Beith, A., & Sereno, S. C. (2020). LexOPS: An R package and user interface for the controlled generation of word stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, 52(6), 2372–2382.
Toglia, M. P., & Battig, W. F. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tucker, B. V., Brenner, D., Danielson, D. K., Kelley, M. C., Nenadić, F., & Sims, M. (2019). The massive auditory lexical decision (MALD) database. Behavior Research Methods, 51(3), 1187–1204.
Vaden, K. I., Halpin, H. R., & Hickok, G. S. (2009). Irvine phonotactic online dictionary. Version 2.0. [Data file].
Van der Maaten, L., & Hinton, G. (2008). Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 9, 2579–2605.
Van Heuven, W. J., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176–1190.
Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of objects and events. Behavior Research Methods, 40(1), 183–190.
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (1999). Probabilistic phonotactics and neighborhood activation in spoken word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(3), 374–408.
Warriner, A. B., Kuperman, V., & Brysbaert, M. (2013). Norms of valence, arousal, and dominance for 13,915 English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1191–1207.
Weide, R. (2005). The Carnegie Mellon pronouncing dictionary [cmudict. 0.6]. Carnegie Mellon University.
Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 971–979.
In addition to the authors of publicly available datasets, we thank Marc Brysbaert, Chee Qian Wen, and Michael Vitevitch for sharing data.
This work was supported by NIH/NIDCD grants R01DC017162, R01DC017162-02S1, and R56DC010783 (RHD), and a Radboud Excellence fellowship from Radboud University in Nijmegen, the Netherlands (CG).
Conflicts of interest
This study does not involve any data collection; therefore, no ethics approval is needed.
Consent to participate
This study does not involve any data collection; therefore, no consent to participate is needed.
Consent for publication
All authors approve for this publication.
Open practices statement
The data for the present study can be accessed at go.sc.edu/scope. The code for the present study can be accessed at https://osf.io/9qbjz/.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Gao, C., Shinkareva, S.V. & Desai, R.H. SCOPE: The South Carolina psycholinguistic metabase. Behav Res (2022). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01934-0
- Lexical characteristics
- Word recognition