Describing the structure of concepts through different feature levels

References

• Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
   Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1982). Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts. Memory & Cognition, 10(1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197629
   Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1987). The instability of graded structure: Implications for the nature of concepts. In U. Neisser (Ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: Ecological and intellectual factors in categorization (pp. 101–140). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (2016). Situated conceptualization: Theory and applications. In Y. Coello, & M. H. Fischer (Eds.), Foundations of embodied cognition, Volume 1: Perceptual and emotional embodiment (pp. 11–37). Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bolognesi, M. (2017). Using semantic feature norms to investigate how the visual and verbal modes afford metaphor construction and expression. Language and Cognition, 9(3), 525–552. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.27
   Google Scholar
• Bolognesi, M., & Steen, G. (2018). Abstract concepts: Structure, processing and modeling. editors’ introduction. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(3), 490–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12354
   Google Scholar
• Borghesani, V., & Piazza, M. (2017). The neuro-cognitive representations of symbols: The case of concrete words. Neuropsychologia, 105, 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.06.026
   Google Scholar
• Brysbaert, M., & Stevens, M. (2018). Power analysis and effect size in mixed effects models: A tutorial. Journal of Cognition, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.10
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, E. M., Holmes, J. L., Teasley, M. L., & Hutchison, K. A. (2013). English semantic word-pair norms and a searchable Web portal for experimental stimulus creation. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 746–757. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0284-z
   Google Scholar
• Buchanan, E. M., Valentine, K. D., & Maxwell, N. P. (2019). English semantic feature production norms: An extended database of 4436 concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Chaigneau, S., & Barsalou, L. (2002). The role of function in categories. Theoria et Historia Scientiarum, 8, https://doi.org/10.12775/ths.2008.003
   Google Scholar
• Chaigneau, S. E., Canessa, E., Barra, C., & Lagos, R. (2018). The role of variability in the property listing task. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 972–988. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0920-8
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1983). Making sence of nonce sence. In G. B. Flores d’Arcais & R. J. Jarvella (Eds.), The process of language understanding. (pp. 297–331). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Cree, G. S., McNorgan, C., & McRae, K. (2006). Distinctive features hold a privileged status in the computation of word meaning: Implications for theories of semantic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32(4), 643. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.32.4.643
   Google Scholar
• Dagaev, N. I., & Terushkina, Y. I. (2014). Conceptual knowledge of emotions includes somatosensory component: Evidence from modality-switch cost effect. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(3), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.892111
   Google Scholar
• De Deyne, S., Verheyen, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Dry, M. J., Voorspoels, W., & Storms, G. (2008). Exemplar by feature applicability matrices and other Dutch normative data for semantic concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 40(4), 1030–1048. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.4.1030
   Google Scholar
• Devereux, B. J., Tyler, L. K., Geertzen, J., & Randall, B. (2014). The Centre for Speech, Language and the Brain (CSLB) concept property norms. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1119–1127. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0420-4
   Google Scholar
• García Coni, A., Comesaña, A., Piccolo, B., & Vivas, J. (2020). Relaciones conceptuales: Comparación entre niños, adultos jóvenes y adultos mayores. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología, 13(1), 59–69. https://reviberopsicologia.ibero.edu.co/article/view/1617 https://doi.org/10.33881/2027-1786.rip.13106
   Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. A., Dubois, D., & Yeh, W. (2006). Effects of classification context on categorization in natural categories. Memory & Cognition, 34(7), 1431–1443. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195908
   Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. A., & Passanisi, A. (2016). When intensions do not map onto extensions: Individual differences in conceptualization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(4), 505. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000198
   Google Scholar
• Keil, F. C. (1994). The birth and nurturance of concepts by domains: The origins of concepts of living things. In L. A. Hirschfeld, & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind: Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 234–254). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kempton, W. (1981). The folk classification of ceramics: A study of cognitive prototypes. Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kremer, G., & Baroni, M. (2011). A set of semantic norms for German and Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 97–109. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-010-0028-x
   Google Scholar
• Larochelle, S., & Pineau, H. (1994). Determinants of response times in the semantic verification task. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(6), 796–823. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1038
   Google Scholar
• Lebois, L. A., Wilson-Mendenhall, C. D., & Barsalou, L. W. (2015). Are automatic conceptual cores the gold standard of semantic processing? The context dependence of spatial meaning in grounded congruency effects. Cognitive Science, 39(8), 1764–1801. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12174
   Google Scholar
• Lenci, A., Baroni, M., Cazzolli, G., & Marotta, G. (2013). BLIND: A set of semantic feature norms from the congenitally blind. Behavior Research Methods, 45(4), 1218–1233. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0323-4
   Google Scholar
• Lenth, R. (2019). emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.
   Google Scholar
• Magezi, D. A. (2015). Linear mixed-effects models for within-participant psychology experiments: An introductory tutorial and free, graphical user interface (LMMgui). Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00002
   Google Scholar
• Mahmoud, A., & Zrigui, M. (2017). Semantic similarity analysis for paraphrase identification in Arabic texts. In Proceedings of the 31st Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation (pp. 274–281).
   Google Scholar
• Manoiloff, L., Artstein, M., Canavoso, M. B., Fernández, L., & Segui, J. (2010). Expanded norms for 400 experimental pictures in an Argentinean Spanish-speaking population. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 452–460. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.452
   Google Scholar
• Martin, A. (2016). GRAPES – Grounding representations in action, perception, and emotion systems: How object properties and categories are represented in the human brain. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 979–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0842-3
   Google Scholar
• Martínez-Cuitiño, M., Barreyro, J. P., Wilson, M., & Jaichenco, V. (2015). Nuevas normas semánticas y de tiempos de latencia para un set de 400 dibujos en español. Interdisciplinaria, 32(2), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.16888/interd.2015.32.2.6
   Google Scholar
• Marton, Y. (2013). Distributional phrasal paraphrase generation for statistical machine translation. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 4(3), 39. https://doi.org/10.1145/2483669.2483672
   Google Scholar
• Marton, Y., Callison-Burch, C., & Resnik, P. (2009). Improved statistical machine translation using monolingually-derived paraphrases. In Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 381–390). Association for Computational Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Mazzuca, C., Borghi, A. M., Saskia, V., Lugli, L., Nicoletti, R., & Majid, A. (2020, August 28). Gender at the interface of culture and language.
   Google Scholar
• McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Westmacott, R., & Sa, V. R. D. (1999). Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 53(4), 360. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087323
   Google Scholar
• Montefinese, M., Ambrosini, E., Fairfield, B., & Mammarella, N. (2013). Semantic memory: A feature-based analysis and new norms for Italian. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 440–461. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0263-4
   Google Scholar
• Montefinese, M., Ambrosini, E., Fairfield, B., & Mammarella, N. (2014). Semantic significance: A new measure of feature salience. Memory & Cognition, 42(3), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0365-y
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, G. (2002). The Big Book of concepts. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pazgón, E., Yerro, M., Favarotto, V., Vivas, L., & Vivas, J. (2011). Categorización de rasgos semánticos: Diferencias de género en una tarea de atributos de conceptos. Perspectivas en Psicología: Revista de Psicología y Ciencias Afines , 8(2), 1–8. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=4835/483549017001
   Google Scholar
• Pino, O. V., Nascimento, E. R., & Campos, M. F. M. (2019). Global semantic description of objects based on prototype theory. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.03365.
   Google Scholar
• Pulvermüller, F. (2018). Neurobiological mechanisms for semantic feature extraction and conceptual flexibility. Topics in Cognitive Science, 10(3), 590–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12367
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Ruts, W., De Deyne, S., Ameel, E., Vanpaemel, W., Verbeemen, T., & Storms, G. (2004). Dutch norm data for 13 semantic categories and 338 exemplars. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195597
   Google Scholar
• Santos, A., Chaigneau, S. E., Simmons, W. K., & Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Property generation reflects word association and situated simulation. Language and Cognition, 3(1), 83–119. https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog.2011.004
   Google Scholar
• Sartori, G., & Lombardi, L. (2004). Semantic relevance and semantic disorders. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(3), 439–452. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892904322926773
   Google Scholar
• Sartori, G., Lombardi, L., & Mattiuzzi, L. (2013). Semantic relevance best predicts normal and abnormal name retrieval. Neuropsychologia, 754–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.08.001
   Google Scholar
• Stukken, L., Verheyen, S., & Storms, G. (2013). Representation and criterion differences between men and women in semantic categorization. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, (pp. 3474–3479). Austin, TX, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/45b2z57c.
   Google Scholar
• Tversky, B., Havousha, S., & Poller, A. (1979). Noun-modifier order in a semantic verification task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13(1), 31–34. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03335003
   Google Scholar
• Ursino, M., Cuppini, C., & Magosso, E. (2013). The formation of categories and the representation of feature saliency: Analysis with a computational model trained with an Hebbian paradigm. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, 12(04), 401–425. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219635213500246
   Google Scholar
• Verheyen, S., Ameel, E., & Storms, G. (2011). Overextensions that extend into adolescence: Insights from a threshold model of categorization. In L. Carlson, C. Hölscher, & T. F. Shipley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2000–2005). Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Verheyen, S., & Storms, G. (2018). Education as a source of vagueness in criteria and degree. In E. Castroviejo, L. McNally, & G. Weidman Sassoon (Eds.), The Semantics of Gradability, Scale Structure and Vagueness: Experimental Perspectives (Vol. 4, pp. 149–167). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.183
   Google Scholar
• Vivas, J., Kogan, B., Romanelli, S., Lizarralde, F., & Corda, L. (2020). A cross-linguistic comparison of Spanish and English semantic norms: Looking at core features. Applied Psycholinguistics, 41(2), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716419000523
   Google Scholar
• Vivas, J., Lizarralde, F., Huapaya, C., Vivas, L., & Comesaña, A. (2014). Organización reticular de la memoria semántica. Natural Finder y Definition Finder, dos métodos informatizados para recuperar conocimiento. Encontros Bibli: Revista Eletrônica de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, 19(40), 235–252. https://doi.org/10.5007/1518-2924.2014v19n40p235
   Google Scholar
• Vivas, L., Manoiloff, L., García, A., Lizarralde, F., & Vivas, J. (2018). Core semantic links or lexical associations: Assessing the nature of responses in word association tasks. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 48(1), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-018-9601-8
   Google Scholar
• Vivas, J., Martínez, S., Krzemien, D., & Lizarralde, F. (2020). Estabilidad semántica en la producción de atributos semánticos entre adultos mayores y adultos jóvenes. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 38(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.7368
   Google Scholar
• Vivas, L., Montefinese, M., Bolognesi, M., & Vivas, J. (2020). Core features: measures and characterization for different languages. Cognitive Processing – International Quarterly of Cognitive Science. Special Topic. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10339-020-00969-5.
   Google Scholar
• Vivas, J., Vivas, L., Comesaña, A., Coni, A. G., & Vorano, A. (2017). Spanish semantic feature production norms for 400 concrete concepts. Behavior Research Methods, 49(3), 1095–1106. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0777-2
   Google Scholar
• Westfall, J., Kenny, D. A., & Judd, C. M. (2014). Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5), 2020–2045. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000014
   Google Scholar
• White, A., Storms, G., Malt, B. C., & Verheyen, S. (2016). Between versus within-language differences in linguistic categorization. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1955–1960). Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• White, A., Storms, G., Malt, B. C., & Verheyen, S. (2018). Mind the generation gap: Differences between young and old in everyday lexical categories. Journal of Memory and Language, 98, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.09.001
   Google Scholar
• Wickham, H. (2017). tidyverse: Easily Install and Load the ‘Tidyverse’. R package version 1.2.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyverse.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, L. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2009). Perceptual simulation in conceptual combination: Evidence from property generation. Acta Psychologica, 132(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.02.002
   Google Scholar
• Yee, E., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2016). Putting concepts into context. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(4), 1015–1027. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0948-7
   Google Scholar
• Zannino, G. D., Perri, R., Pasqualetti, P., Caltagirone, C., & Carlesimo, G. A. (2006). Analysis of the semantic representations of living and nonliving concepts: A normative study. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 23(4), 515–540. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290542000067
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, W., Hu, H., Hu, H., & Fang, J. (2019). Semantic distance between vague concepts in a framework of modeling with words. Soft Computing, 23(10), 3347–3364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2992-x
   Google Scholar