How well imageability, concreteness, perceptual strength, and action strength predict recognition memory, lexical decision, and reading aloud performance

References

• Balota, D. A., Cortese, M. J., Sergent Marshall, S. D., Spieler, D. H., & Yap, M. J. (2004). Visual word recognition for single syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.283
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftus, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., & Treiman, R. (2007). The English lexicon project: A users guide. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., & Cortese, M. J. (2012). Megastudies: Large scale analyses of lexical processes. In J. S. Adelman (Ed.), Visual word recognition Vol. 1: Models and methods, orthography and phonology (pp. 90–115). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barber, H. A., Otten, L. J., Kousta, S. T., & Vigliocco, G. (2013). Concreteness in word processing: ERP and behavioral effects in a lexical decision task. Brain and Language, 125(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.01.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.977
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheyette, S. J., & Plaut, D. C. (2017). Modeling the N400 ERP component as transient semantic over-activation within a neural network model of word comprehension. Cognition, 162, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.10.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chumbley, J. I., & Balota, D. A. (1984). A word’s meaning affects the decision in lexical decision. Memory & Cognition, 12(6), 590–606. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213348
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, J. M., & Paivio, A. (2004). Extensions of the Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968) norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(3), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195584
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 33(4), 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748108400805
   Google Scholar
• 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
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortese, M. J., & Fugett, A. (2004). Imageability ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Methods and Research, Instrumentation, & Computers, 36(3), 384–387. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195585
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2007). Age of acquisition predicts naming and lexical decision performance above and beyond 22 other predictor variables: An analysis of 2340 words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(8), 1072–1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210701315467
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2008). Age of acquisition ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 791–794. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.791
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortese, M. J., Khanna, M. M., & Hacker, S. (2010). Recognition memory for 2,578 monosyllabic words. Memory (Hove, England), 18(6), 595–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.493892
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortese, M. J., McCarty, D. P., & Schock, J. (2015). A mega recognition memory study of 2,897 disyllabic words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1489–1501. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.945096
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortese, M. J., & Schock, J. (2013). Imageability and age of acquisition effects in disyllabic word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66(5), 946–972. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.722660
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortese, M. J., Simpson, G. B., & Woolsey, S. (1997). The effects of association and imageability on phonological mapping. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4(2), 226–231. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03209397
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortese, M. J., Toppi, S., Khanna, M. M., & Santo, J. B. (2020). AoA effects in reading aloud and lexical decision: Locating the (semantic) locus in terms of the number of backward semantic associations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(11), 2036–2044. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820940302
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghio, M., Vaghi, M. M., & Tettamanti, M. (2013). Fine-grained semantic categorization across the abstract and concrete domains. PloS one, 8(6), e67090. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067090
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103(3), 518–565. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.518
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauk, Olaf, Johnsrude, Ingrid, & Pulvermüller, Friedemann. (2004). Somatotopic Representation of Action Words in Human Motor and Premotor Cortex. Neuron, 41(2), 301–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00838-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hintzman, D. L., Caulton, D. A., & Curran, T. (1994). Retrieval constraints and the mirror effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(2), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.2.275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman, P. (2016). The meaning of 'life' and other abstract words: Insights from neuropsychology. Journal of Neuropsychology, 10(2), 317–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnp.12065
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hutmacher, F. (2019). Why Is there So much more research on vision than on any other sensory modality? Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2246. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02246
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jessen, F., Heun, R., Erb, M., Granath, D., Klose, U., Papassotiropoulos, A., & Grodd, W. (2000). The concreteness effect: Evidence for dual coding and context availability. Brain and Language, 74(1), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1006/brln.2000.2340
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keuleers, E., Lacey, P., Rastle, K., & Brysbaert, B. (2012). The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0118-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kousta, S.-T., Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Andrews, M., & Del Campo, E. (2011). The representation of abstract words: Why emotion matters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(1), 14–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021446
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 978–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laming, D. (2004). Human judgement: The Eye of the beholder. Thompson Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Lau, M. C., Goh, W. D., & Yap, M. J. (2018). An item-level analysis of lexical-semantic effects in free recall and recognition memory using the megastudy approach. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(10), 2207–2222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021817739834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy-Drori, S., & Henik, A. (2006). Concreteness and context availability in lexical decision tasks. The American Journal of Psychology, 119(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/20445318
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, M. B., & Vladeanu, M. (2006). What do we know about psycholinguistic effects? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(6), 977–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210600638076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-019-01316-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monaghan, J., & Ellis, A. W. (2002). What exactly interacts with spelling-sound consistency in word naming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(1), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.1.183
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortensen, K., & Hughes, T. L. (2018). Comparing Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform to conventional data collection Methods in the health and medical research literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 33(4), 533–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4246-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The University of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. http://www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation/.
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira, J., Perea, M. V., Ladera, V., & Gamito, P. (2013). The roles of word concreteness and cognitive load on interhemispheric processes of recognition. Laterality, 18(2), 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2011.649758
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 words. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76(3, Part 2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025327
   Google Scholar
• Pulvermüller, F. (1999). Words in the brain's language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(2), 253–279. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X9900182X
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pulvermüller, F., Hauk, O., Nikulin, V. V., & Ilmoniemi, R. J. (2005). Functional links between motor and language systems. European Journal of Neuroscience, 21(3), 793–797. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03900.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reilly, J., & Kean, J. (2007). Formal distinctiveness of high- and low-imageability nouns: Analyses and theoretical implications. Cognitive Science, 31(1), 157–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210709336988
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouse. (2015). A reliability analysis of Mechanical Turk data. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 304–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb2014.11.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabsevitz, D. S., Medler, D. A., Seidenberg, M., & Binder, J. R. (2005). Modulation of the semantic system by word imageability. NeuroImage, 27(1), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.04.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schock, J., Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2012a). Imageability ratings for 3,000 disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(2), 374–379. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0162-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schock, J., Cortese, M. J., Khanna, M. M., & Toppi, S. (2012b). Age of acquisition ratings for 3,000 disyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 374–379. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0162-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schwanenflugel, P. J., Akin, C., & Luh, W. M. (1992). Context availability and the recall of abstract and concrete words. Memory & Cognition, 20(1), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208259
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siakaluk, P. D., Pexman, P. M., Aguilera, L., Owen, W. J., & Sears, C. R. (2008). Evidence for the activation of sensorimotor information during visual word recognition: The body-object interaction effect. Cognition, 106(1), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.12.011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strain, E., Patterson, K., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1995). Semantic effects in single-word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory, and Cognition, 21(5), 1140–1154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.5.1140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toglia, M. P., & Battig, W. F. (1978). Handbook of semantic word norms. Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, J., Conder, J. A., Blitzer, D. N., & Shinkareva, S. V. (2010). Neural representation of abstract and concrete concepts: A meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 31(10), 1459–1468. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20950
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0314-x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, M. (1988). MRC psycholinguistic database: Machine-usable dictionary, version 2.00. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202594
   Google Scholar
• Yarkoni, T., Balota, D. A., & Yap, M. J. (2008). Beyond coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 971–979. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.5.971
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar