Abstract
A number of new psycholinguistic variables has been proposed during the last years within embodied cognition framework: modality experience rating (i.e., relationship between words and images of a particular perceptive modality—visual, auditory, haptic etc.), manipulability (the necessity for an object to interact with human hands in order to perform its function), vertical spatial localization. However, it is not clear how these new variables are related to each other and to such traditional variables as imageability, AoA and word frequency. In this article, normative data on the modality (visual, auditory, haptic, olfactory, and gustatory) ratings, vertical spatial localization of the object, manipulability, imageability, age of acquisition, and subjective frequency for 506 Russian nouns are presented. Strongest correlations were observed between olfactory and gustatory modalities (.81), visual modality and imageability (.78), haptic modality and manipulability (.7). Other modalities also significantly correlate with imageability: olfactory (.35), gustatory (.24), and haptic (.67). Factor analysis divided variables into four groups where visual and haptic modality ratings were combined with imageability, manipulability and AoA (the first factor); word length, frequency and AoA formed the second factor; olfactory modality was united with gustatory (the third factor); spatial localization only is included in the fourth factor. Present norms of imageability and AoA are consistent with previous as correlation analysis has revealed. The complete database can be downloaded from supplementary material.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Objective, but not subjective word frequency has been chosen for the factor analysis.
References
ABBYY Lingvo online dictionary [electronic resource]: www.lingvo.ru.
Akinina, Y. S., Grabovskaya, M. A., Vechkaeva A., Ignatjev G. A., Isaev, D. Y., Hanova A. F. (2016). Biblioteka psiholingvisticheskih stimulov: Novye dannye dlja russkogo i tatarskogo jazyka [Library of psycholinguistic stimuli: The new data for Russian and Tatarian languages]. In J. I. Aleksandrov, K. V. Anohin (Eds.), Sed’maja mezhdunarodnaja konferencija po kognitivnoj nauke: Tezisy dokladov. [Seventh international conference on cognitive science: Abstracts] (pp. 93-95). Svetlogorsk (in Russian).
Akinina, Y. S., Iskra, E. V., Ivanova, M. V., Grabovskaya, M. A., Isaev, D. Y., Korkina, I., et al. (2014). Biblioteka stimulov Suschestvitel’noe I object: Normirovanie psikholingvisticheskikh parametrov [Stimuli database noun and object: Norming of psycholinguistic variables]. In B. Velichkovskiy, V. Rubtsov, & D. Ushakov (Eds.), Shestaya mezhdunarodnaya konferentsiya po kognitivnoy nauke: Tezisy dokladov. [Sixth international conference on cognitive science: Abstracts] (pp. 112–114). Kaliningrad (in Russian).
Akinina, Y., Malyutina, S., Ivanova, M., Iskra, E., Mannova, E., & Dragoy, O. (2015). Russian normative data for 375 action pictures and verbs. Behavior Research Methods, 47(3), 691–707. https://doi.org/10.3758/ s13428-014-0492-9.
Allport, D. A., & Funnell, E. (1981). Components of the mental lexicon. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 295(1077), 397–410.
Balota, D. A. (1994). Visual word recognition: The journey from features to meaning. In M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 303–348). San Diego: Academic Press.
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., et al. (2007). The English lexicon project. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639.
Barsalou, L. W., Simmons, W. K., Barbey, A. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 84–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00029-3.
Bergen, B. (2007). Experimental methods for simulation semantics. In M. Gonzalez-Marquez, I. Mittelberg, S. Coulson, & M. J. Spivey (Eds.), Methods in cognitive linguistics (pp. 277–301).
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, 33(1), 73–79.
Campanella, F., & Shallice, T. (2011). Manipulability and object recognition: Is manipulability a semantic feature? Experimental Brain Research, 208(3), 369–383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-010-2489-7.
Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (2004). Extensions of the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms. Behavior Research Methods, 36(3), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195584.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108(1), 204. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204.
Connell, L. (2007). Representing object colour in language comprehension. Cognition, 102(3), 476–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.02.009.
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2009). Is a bear white in the woods? Parallel representation of implied object color during language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16(3), 573–577. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.3.573.
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2010). Look but don’t touch: Tactile disadvantage in processing modality-specific words. Cognition, 115(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.005.
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2011). Modality switching costs emerge in concept creation as well as retrieval. Cognitive Science, 35(4), 763–778. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01168.x.
Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125(3), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010.
Cortese, M. J., & Fugett, A. (2004). Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 36(3), 384–387. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195585.
Davelaar, E., & Besner, D. (1988). Word identification: Imageability, semantics, and the content-functor distinction. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40(4), 789–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748808402299.
De Saussure, F., & Baskin, W. (2011). Course in general linguistics [1916]. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Della Rosa, P. A., Catricalà, E., Vigliocco, G., & Cappa, S. F. (2010). Beyond the abstract-concrete dichotomy: Mode of acquisition, concreteness, imageability, familiarity, age of acquisition, context availability, and abstractness norms for a set of 417 Italian words. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1042–1048. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.4.1042.
Dragoy, O., Chrabaszcz, A., Tolkacheva, V., & Buklina, S. (2016). Russian Intraoperative Naming Test: A Standardized Tool to Map Noun and Verb Production during Awake Neurosurgeries. The Russian Journal of Cognitive Science, 3(4), 4–25.
Dudschig, C., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I., De Filippis, M., & Kaup, B. (2012). From top to bottom: Spatial shifts of attention caused by linguistic stimuli. Cognitive Processing, 13(1), 151–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-012-0480-x.
Dudschig, C., Souman, J., Lachmair, M., de la Vega, I., & Kaup, B. (2013). Reading sun and looking up: The influence of language on saccadic eye movements in the vertical dimension. PloS One, 8(2), e56872. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056872.
Ernst, M. O., & Banks, M. S. (2002). Humans integrate visual and haptic information in a statistically optimal fashion. Nature, 415(6870), 429–433. https://doi.org/10.1038/415429a.
Estes, Z., Verges, M., & Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Head up, foot down object words orient attention to the objects’ typical location. Psychological Science, 19(2), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02051.x.
Filliter, J. H., McMullen, P. A., & Westwood, D. (2005). Manipulability and living/non-living category effects on object identification. Brain and Cognition, 57(1), 61–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2004.08.022.
Fischer, M. H., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Embodied language: A review of the role of the motor system in language comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61(6), 825–850. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701623605.
Franklin, S., Howard, D., & Patterson, K. (1994). Abstract word meaning deafness. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643299408251964.
Grigoriev, A., & Oshhepkov, I. (2013). Objective age of acquisition norms for a set of 286 words in Russian: Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1208–1217. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0319-0.
Hanley, J. R., & Kay, J. (1997). An effect of imageability on the production of phonological errors in auditory repetition. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14(8), 1065–1084. https://doi.org/10.1080/026432997381277.
Hauk, O., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Effects of word length and frequency on the human event-related potential. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115(5), 1090–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2003.12.020.
Imai, M., Kita, S., Nagumo, M., & Okada, H. (2008). Sound symbolism facilitates early verb learning. Cognition, 109(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.015.
James, C. T. (1975). The role of semantic information in lexical decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(2), 130–136.
Janyan, A., & Andonova, E. (2008). Presentation modality in age of acquisition rating reflects mode of acquired knowledge: Evidence from category-specific effects. In Proceedings of the 30th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 1841–1846).
Janyan, A., Vankov, I., Tsaregorodtseva, O., & Miklashevsky, A. (2015). Remember down, look down, read up: Does a word modulate eye trajectory away from remembered location? Cognitive Processing, 16(1), 259–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-015-0718-5.
Juhasz, B. J. (2005). Age-of-acquisition effects in word and picture identification. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 684. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.684.
Keuleers, E., & Balota, D. A. (2015). Megastudies, crowdsourcing, and large datasets in psycholinguistics: An overview of recent developments. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1457–1468. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1051065.
Kiefer, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Conceptual representations in mind and brain: Theoretical developments, current evidence and future directions. Cortex, 48(7), 805–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.006.
Kolbeneva, M. G., & Aleksandrov, Y. I. (2010). Organyi chuvstv, emotsii i prilagatelnyie russkogo yazyika. Lingvo-psihologicheskiy slovar. [Senses, emotions and Russian adjectives]. Moscow.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by 1980. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lee, H. B., & Comrey, A. L. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ljashevskaja, O. N., & Sharov, S. A. (2009). Chastotnyjj slovar’ sovremennogo russkogo jazyka na materialakh Nacional’nogo korpusa russkogo jazyka [Frequency dictionary of Russian language based on Russian National Corpus]. Moscow.
Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 558–564. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.558.
Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 516–526. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0267-0.
Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48(7), 788–804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.002.
Miklashevsky, A. A. (2017). About the high and the low: Spatial semantics of abstract and concrete nouns. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 424, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/424/4.
Moreno-Martínez, F. J., Montoro, P. R., & Rodríguez-Rojo, I. C. (2014). Spanish norms for age of acquisition, concept familiarity, lexical frequency, manipulability, typicality, and other variables for 820 words from 14 living/nonliving concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1088–1097. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0435-x.
Nishimoto, T., Ueda, T., Miyawaki, K., Une, Y., & Takahashi, M. (2012). The role of imagery-related properties in picture naming: A newly standardized set of 360 pictures for Japanese. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0176-7.
Nygaard, L. C., Cook, A. E., & Namy, L. L. (2009). Sound to meaning correspondences facilitate word learning. Cognition, 112(1), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.04.001.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(1p2), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025327.
Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14(2), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01429.
Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Sensorimotor simulations underlie conceptual representations: Modality-specific effects of prior activation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(1), 164–167. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206477.
Perniss, P., Thompson, R., & Vigliocco, G. (2010). Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 227. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00227.
Pulvermüller, F. (2012). Meaning and the brain: The neurosemantics of referential, interactive, and combinatorial knowledge. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 25(5), 423–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2011.03.004.
Pulvermüller, F. (2013). How neurons make meaning: Brain mechanisms for embodied and abstract-symbolic semantics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(9), 458–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.004.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.
Rezanova, Z. I., & Miklashevsky, A. A. (2016). Modelirovanie obrazno-pertseptivnogo komponenta yazyikovoy semantiki pri pomoschi psiholingvisticheskoy bazyi dannyih [Modeling of the perceptual-based component of language semantics using a psycholinguistic database]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya – Tomsk State University Journal of Philology, 5(43), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/43/6.
Rubin, D. C. (1980). 51 properties of 125 words: A unit analysis of verbal behavior. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(6), 736–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90415-6.
Salmon, J. P., McMullen, P. A., & Filliter, J. H. (2010). Norms for two types of manipulability (graspability and functional usage), familiarity, and age of acquisition for 320 photographs of objects. Behavior Research Methods, 42(1), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.1.82.
Schock, J., Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2012). Imageability estimates for 3,000 disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 374–379. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0162-0.
Simonsen, H. G., Lind, M., Hansen, P., Holm, E., & Mevik, B. H. (2013). Imageability of Norwegian nouns, verbs and adjectives in a cross-linguistic perspective. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 27(6–7), 435–446. https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2012.752527.
Strain, E., & Herdman, C. M. (1999). Imageability effects in word naming: An individual differences analysis. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 53(4), 347. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087322.
Strain, E., Patterson, K., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). Theories of word naming interact with spelling-sound consistency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(1), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.207.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
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(4), 1085–1099. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0121-9.
Tsaregorodtseva, O. V., & Miklashevsky, A. A. (2015). Different languages, same sun, and same grass: Do linguistic stimuli influence attention shifts in Russian? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 215, 279–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.635.
Vlasova, R. M. (2016). A normative set of object-action pictures. The Russian Journal of Cognitive Science, 3(1–2), 53.
Whorf, B. L., & Chase, S. (1956). Language, thought and reality, selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Edited... by John B. Carroll. Foreword by Stuart Chase. J. B. Carroll (Ed.). Mass.
Willems, R. M., & Casasanto, D. (2011). Flexibility in embodied language understanding. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 116. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00116.
Winter, B., Matlock, T., Shaki, S., & Fischer, M. H. (2015). Mental number space in three dimensions. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 57, 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.09.005.
Witten, I. B., & Knudsen, E. I. (2005). Why seeing is believing: Merging auditory and visual worlds. Neuron, 48(3), 489–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2005.10.020.
Zevin, J. D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). Age of acquisition effects in word reading and other tasks. Journal of Memory and language, 47(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2834.
Acknowledgements
This study was carried out in 2014–2016 with support from The Tomsk State University Academic D.I. Mendeleev Fund Program under Grant (No. 8.1.37.2015). The work on this article in 2017 was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation (the RF Government Grant No. 14.Y26.31.0014). The author thanks Zoya I. Rezanova and Armina Janyan for valuable discussion at all stages, from planning the study to working on the article, Valeria V. Kashpur for style editing, all the volunteers who helped to collect data and all the participants of the rating study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethical standard
The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Laboratory for Cognitive Studies of Language (Tomsk State University). All the procedures were performed according to APA Ethical Standards.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendices
Appendix 1: The List of Labels Used in the Supplementary Material
-
WORD: the word in Russian
-
Transliteration: transliteration of the word in Latin script
-
English_Translation: approximate English translation (online-dictionary ABBYY Lingvo was used: www.lingvo.ru)
-
Category: Semantic category of the word. The following values are possible:
-
Action
-
Animal
-
Body_part
-
Building
-
Clothes (names of clothes and accessories)
-
Food (names of fruits, vegetables, berries etc.)
-
Ground (lower-space related objects and surface names)
-
Intelligence (names of mental states and processes)
-
Object (a few objects taken from the previous rating study and not included in any other category in this study; mostly upper- or lower-space related objects)
-
Sense_Emotion (names of emotions)
-
Sense_Phys (names of physical experiences)
-
Sound
-
Space (upper-space related objects and phenomena)
-
Tool_power_grip (names of tools that are used with power grip)
-
Tool_precise_grip (names of tools that are used with precise grip)
-
Transport
-
-
Abstractness: the abstractness of the category:
-
Abstract (categories: Action, Intelligence, Sense_Emotion, Sense_Phys)
-
Concrete (all other categories)
-
-
Length: word length in letters
-
Gender: gender of the word. The following values are possible:
-
f: feminine
-
m: masculine
-
n: neuter
-
plur_tant: pluralia tantum
-
-
Fr_obj_Lg: decimal logarithm of objective word frequency (based on Ljashevskaja and Sharov 2009)
-
Vis_Mean: mean of the visual modality rating (1—the lowest; 7—the highest)
-
Vis_SD: standard deviation of the visual modality rating
-
Aud_Mean: mean of the auditory modality rating (1—the lowest; 7—the highest)
-
Aud_SD: standard deviation of the auditory modality rating
-
Olf_Mean: mean of the olfactory modality rating (1—the lowest; 7—the highest)
-
Olf_SD: standard deviation of the olfactory modality rating
-
Gus_Mean: mean of the gustatory modality rating (1—the lowest; 7—the highest)
-
Gus_SD: standard deviation of the gustatory modality rating
-
Hap_Mean: mean of the haptic modality rating (1—the lowest; 7—the highest)
-
Hap_SD: standard deviation of the haptic modality rating
-
Img_Mean: mean of imageability rating (1—the lowest; 7—the highest)
-
Img_SD: standard deviation of imageability rating
-
Man_Mean: mean of manipulability rating (1—the lowest; 7—the highest)
-
Man_SD: standard deviation of manipulability rating
-
Space17_Mean: mean of spatial localization rating (1—the lowest; 7—the highest)
-
Space17_SD: standard deviation of spatial localization rating
-
AoA_Mean: mean of age of acquisition rating (1—the lowest; 7—the highest)
-
AoA_SD: standard deviation of age of acquisition rating
-
Fr_Mean: mean of subjective frequency rating (1—the lowest; 7—the highest)
-
Fr_SD: standard deviation of subjective frequency rating
Appendix 2: The Instructions Used In the Study
The following instructions (in Russian) were used in the study:
Imageability “The words differ in their ability to arouse mental images of things or phenomena. For example, when you hear or read the word “apple”, perhaps, you can easily and fast imagine yourself the image of this object. On the other hand, one cannot so easily imagine “fact”. Please estimate the words in the list by using a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is a low imageability (i.e., the word arouses images slowly and hardly or doesn’t arouses them at all) and 7 is a high imageability (i.e., the word arouses images fast and easily).” (Based on Paivio et al. (1968) with reductions).
Visual rating “Different words can be related to different perceptual modalities, i.e., vision, hearing, gustatory modality, olfactory modality or touch. Please estimate the words in the list by their relatedness to the visual modality: 7 means the strongest relatedness to vision, 1 means the weakest relatedness to vision.”
Auditory rating “Different words can be related to different perceptual modalities, i.e., vision, hearing, gustatory modality, olfactory modality or touch. Please estimate the words in the list by their relatedness to the auditory modality: 7 means the strongest relatedness to hearing, 1 means the weakest relatedness to hearing.”
Tactile rating “Different words can be related to different perceptual modalities, i.e., vision, hearing, gustatory modality, olfactory modality or touch. Please estimate the words in the list by their relatedness to the tactile modality: 7 means the strongest relatedness to touch, 1 means the weakest relatedness to touch.”
Olfactory rating “Different words can be related to different perceptual modalities, i.e., vision, hearing, gustatory modality, olfactory modality or touch. Please estimate the words in the list by their relatedness to the olfactory modality: 7 means the strongest relatedness to olfaction, 1 means the weakest relatedness to olfaction.”
Gustatory rating “Different words can be related to different perceptual modalities, i.e., vision, hearing, gustatory modality, olfactory modality or touch. Please estimate the words in the list by their relatedness to the gustatory modality: 7 means the strongest relatedness to taste, 1 means the weakest relatedness to taste.”
Manipulability “In order to make some objects performing their functions, one has to use hands. For example, in order to make a cigarette performing its function (“being smoked”), the use of hands is necessary. On the other hand, no one interacts with a volcano with help of hands in order to perform its function (“to erupt”). Please estimate the words in the list by the necessity of use of human hands in order to make objects performing their typical functions: 7—the use of hands is always necessary, 1—hands are never used for interaction with this object. Some objects can be used in different ways: an oyster can be an ingredient of a meal (in this case people use their hands in order to make an oyster “being cooked”); on the other hand, it is a living being, and people don’t have to interact with it to make it “living”. In such cases estimate the word according to the option that came first in your mind.” (Based on Moreno-Martínez et al. (2014) with reductions).
Spatial localization “Some objects or phenomena are usually located higher or lower in space. Please estimate how high or low the object is located by using a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is “very low”, and 7 is “very high”.” (another option: “where 1 is “very high”, a 7 is “very low”.”).
Subjective frequency “Different words are used in speech with different frequency. Please estimate how often you meet with every word by using a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is “very seldom”, and 7 is “very often”.”
Age of acquisition “We learn different words at different ages. Please mark the age (the number of years) at which you have learnt every word in the list. Please use numbers from 0 to 15. Use dash in case you don’t know the word.” (Partially based on Kolbeneva and Aleksandrov (2010), where seven intervals of 2 years each were used, covering the age range from 0 to 13 years).
Every instruction (except for AoA) included also a visually represented 7-point Likert scale (horizontally oriented from left to right; vertically oriented for Spatial localization rating in two variants (1 is above vs. 1 is below) randomly distributed between participants). Every instruction ended with the following statement: “Work as fast as possible, don’t think too long about every word. At the same time try to be objective and concentrated. If you need, you can reread the instruction and continue to estimate the nouns. Please don’t make breaks while working; estimate all the words during one session.”
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miklashevsky, A. Perceptual Experience Norms for 506 Russian Nouns: Modality Rating, Spatial Localization, Manipulability, Imageability and Other Variables. J Psycholinguist Res 47, 641–661 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9548-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-017-9548-1