An ecological alternative to Snodgrass & Vanderwart: 360 high quality colour images with norms for seven psycholinguistic variables

Francisco Javier Moreno-Martínez, Pedro R Montoro, Francisco Javier Moreno-Martínez, Pedro R Montoro

Abstract

This work presents a new set of 360 high quality colour images belonging to 23 semantic subcategories. Two hundred and thirty-six Spanish speakers named the items and also provided data from seven relevant psycholinguistic variables: age of acquisition, familiarity, manipulability, name agreement, typicality and visual complexity. Furthermore, we also present lexical frequency data derived from Internet search hits. Apart from the high number of variables evaluated, knowing that it affects the processing of stimuli, this new set presents important advantages over other similar image corpi: (a) this corpus presents a broad number of subcategories and images; for example, this will permit researchers to select stimuli of appropriate difficulty as required, (e.g., to deal with problems derived from ceiling effects); (b) the fact of using coloured stimuli provides a more realistic, ecologically-valid, representation of real life objects. In sum, this set of stimuli provides a useful tool for research on visual object- and word-processing, both in neurological patients and in healthy controls.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Several selected examples of the…
Figure 1. Several selected examples of the standardised stimuli (subcategory in brackets).

References

    1. Snodgrass JG, Vanderwart M. A standardized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory. 1980;6:174–215.
    1. Ellis AW, Morrison CM. Real age of acquisition effects in lexical retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition. 1998;24:515–523.
    1. Funnell E, Sheridan J. Categories of knowledge: Unfamiliar aspects of living and nonliving things. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 1992;9:135–153.
    1. Gilhooly KJ, Gilhooly ML. Age-of-acquisition effects in lexical and episodic memory. Memory & Cognition. 1979;7:213–223.
    1. Humphreys GW, Forde EME. Category-specific deficits: A major review and presentation of the Hierarchical Interactive Theory (HIT). Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2001;24:480–481.
    1. Holmes S, Fitch FJ, Ellis A. Age of Acquisition affects object recognition and naming in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2006;28:1010–1022.
    1. Silveri MC, Cappa A, Mariotti P, Puopolo M. Naming in patients with Alzheimer's disease: Influence of age of acquisition and categorical effects. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 2002;24:755–764.
    1. Allport DA. Newman SK, Epstein R, editors. Distributed memory, modular subsystems and dysphasia. 1985. Current perspectives in dysphasia Edinburgh (pp 32–60): Churchill Livingstone.
    1. Buxbaum LJ, Saffran EM. Knowledge of object manipulation and object function: Dissociations in apraxic and nonapraxic subjects. Brain & Language. 2002;82:179–199.
    1. Magnié MN, Besson M, Poncet M, Dolisi C. The Snodgrass and Vanderwart set revisited: Norms for object manipulability and for pictorial ambiguity of objects, chimeric objects and nonobjects. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology. 2003;25:521–560.
    1. Tranel D, Logan CG, Randall JF, Damasio AR. Explaining category-related effects in the retrieval of conceptual and lexical knowledge for concrete entities: operationalization and analysis of factors. Neuropsychologia. 1997;35:1329–1339.
    1. Warrington EK, McCarthy RA. Categories of knowledge: Further fractionations and an attempted integration. Brain. 1987;110:1273–1296.
    1. Capitani E, Laiacona M, Mahon B, Caramazza A. What are the facts of semantic category-specific deficits? A critical review of the clinical evidence. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 2003;20:213–261.
    1. Rosch EH. Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology. 1973;4:328–350.
    1. Rosch EH, Mervis CB. Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories. Cognitive Psychology. 1975;7:573–605.
    1. Rosch EH, Simpson C, Miller RS. Structural Bases of Typicality Effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1976;2:491–502.
    1. Kiran S, Thomson CK. Effect of typicality on online category verification of animate category exemplars in aphasia. Brain & Language. 2003;85:441–450.
    1. Adlam AL, Paterson K, Bozeat S, Hodges JR. The Cambridge semantic memory test battery: Detection of semantic deficits in semantic dementia and Alzheimer's disease. Neurocase. 2010;16:193–207.
    1. Adlington RL, Laws KR, Gale TM. The Hatfield Image Test (HIT): A new picture test and norms for experimental and clinical use. Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology. 2008;31:731–753.
    1. Brodeur MB, Dionne-Dostie E, Montreuil T, Lepage M. The BOSS, a new set of 538 normalized photos of objects to be used as ecological stimuli in vision and memory paradigms. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(5):e10773. doi: .
    1. Bunn EM, Tyler LK, Moss HE. Category-specific semantic deficit: The role of familiarity and property type re-examined. Neuropsychology. 1998;12:367–379.
    1. Dimitropoulou M, Duñabeitia JA, Blitsas P, Carreiras M. A standardized set of 260 pictures for Modern Greek: Norms for name agreement, age of acquisition and visual complexity. Behavior Research Methods. 2009;41:584–589.
    1. McKenna P. 1998. The category-specific Names Test Hove: Psychological Press.
    1. Moreno FJ, Cañamón S. Presentación y resultados preliminares de la Batería Nombela (I): Un nuevo instrumento para evaluar el deterioro semántico categorial . Revista de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica. 2005;10:205–219.
    1. Moreno-Martínez FJ, Peraita H. Un nuevo conjunto de ítems para la evaluación de la disociación ser vivo/ser no vivo con normas obtenidas de ancianos sanos españoles. Psicológica. 2007;28:1–20.
    1. Pérez MA, Navalón C. Normas españolas de 290 nuevos dibujos: acuerdo en la denominación, concordancia de la imagen, familiaridad, complejidad visual y variabilidad de la imagen. Psicológica. 2003;24:215–241.
    1. Rossion B, Pourtois G. Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart's object pictorial set: the role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception. 2004;33:217–236.
    1. Viggiano MP, Vannucci M, Righi S. A new standardized set of ecological pictures for experimental and clinical research on visual object processing. Cortex. 2004;40:494–509.
    1. Hodges JR, Salmon DP, Butters N. Semantic memory impairment in Alzheimer's disease: Failure of access or degraded knowledge? Neuropsychologia. 1992;30:301–314.
    1. Moreno-Martínez FJ, Montoro PR, Laws KR. A set of high quality colour images with Spanish norms for seven relevant psycholinguistic variables. Aging, Neuropsychology & Cognition. 2011;18:293–327.
    1. Dell'Acqua R, Lotto L, Job R. Naming times and standardized norms for the Italian PD/DPSS set of pictures: Direct comparisons with American, English, French, and Spanish published databases. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 2000;32:588–615.
    1. Price CJ, Humphreys GW. The effects of surface detail on object categorization and naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A Human Experimental Psychology. 1989;41:797–827.
    1. Tanaka JW, Presnell LM. Colour diagnosticity in object recognition. Perception and Psychophysics. 1999;61:1140–1153.
    1. Adlington RL, Laws KR, Gale TM. Visual processing in Alzheimer's disease: Surface detail and colour fail to aid object identification. Neuropsychologia. 2009;47:2574–2583.
    1. Done DH, Gale TM. Attribute verification in dementia of Alzheimer type: Evidence for the preservation of distributed concept knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 1997;14:547–571.
    1. Grossman M, Robinson K, Biassou N, White-Devine T, D'Esposito MD. Semantic memory in Alzheimer's disease: representativeness, ontologic category, and material. Neuropsychology. 1998;12:34–42.
    1. Laws KR, Gale TM, Leeson VC, Crawford JR. When is category-specific in Alzheimer's disease. Cortex. 2005;41:452–463.
    1. Moreno-Martínez FJ. Size matters: A study on naming and size knowledge in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Neurocase. 2010;16:494–502.
    1. Moreno-Martínez FJ, Laws KR. An attenuation of the ‘normal’ category effect in patients with Alzheimer's disease: a review and bootstrap analysis. Brain & Cognition. 2007;63:167–173.
    1. Moreno-Martínez FJ, Laws KR. No category-specificity in Alzheimer's disease: A normal aging effect. Neuropsychology. 2008;22:485–490.
    1. Moreno-Martínez FJ, Tallón-Barranco A, Frank-Garcia A. Enfermedad de Alzheimer, deterioro categorial y variables relevantes en la denominación de objetos. Revista de Neurología. 2007;44:129–133.
    1. Tyler LK, Bright P, Dick E, Tavares P, Pilgrim L, et al. Do semantic categories activate distinct cortical regions? Evidence for a distributed neural semantic system. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 2003;20:541–559.
    1. Laws KR. Illusions of normality: A methodological critique of category-specific naming. Cortex. 2005;41:842–851.
    1. Laiacona M, Barbarotto R, Trivelli C, Capitani E. Disossociazioni semantiche intercategoriali: descrizione di una batteria standrdizzata e dati normativi Archivio di Psicologia. Neurologia e Psichiatria. 1993;54:209–248.
    1. Whatmough C, Chertkow H, Murtha S, Templeman D, Babins L, et al. The semantic category effect increases with worsening anomia in Alzheimer's type dementia. Brain & Language. 2003;84:134–147.
    1. Barbarotto R, Capitani E, Laiacona M. Living musical instruments and inanimate body parts. Neuropsychologia. 2001;39:406–414.
    1. Warrington EK, Shallice T. Category specific semantic impairments. Brain. 1984;107:829–854.
    1. Caramazza A, Shelton JR. Domain-specific knowledge systems in the brain: the animate-inanimate distinction. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 1998;10:1–34.
    1. Crutch SJ, Warrington EK. The selective impairment of fruit and vegetable knowledge: A multiple processing channels account of fine-grain category specificity. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 2003;20:355–372.
    1. McRae K, Cree GS. Factors underlying category-specific semantic deficits. In: Forde EME, Humphreys, editors. Category-specificity in mind and brain. East Sussex: Psychology Press; 2002. pp. 211–249.
    1. Samson D, Pillon A. A case of impairment knowledge for fruits and vegetables. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 2003;20:373–400.
    1. Sebastián N, Martí MA, Carreiras MF, Cuetos F. 2000. LEXESP, Léxico informatizado del Español Barcelona: Ediciones de la Universitat de Barcelona.
    1. Blair IV, Urland GR, Ma JE. Using internet search engines to estimate word frequency. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 2002;34:286–290.
    1. Baayen RH, Piepenbrock R, Gulikers L. 1995. The CELEX lexical database Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistic Data Consortium.
    1. Kucera H, Francis W. 1967. Computational analysis of present-day American English Providence: Brown University Press.
    1. Moreno-Martínez FJ, Montoro PR. Longitudinal patterns of fluency impairment in dementia: The role of domain and “nuisance variables”. Aphasiology. 2010;11:1389–1399.
    1. Cover TM, Thomas JA. Elements of Information Theory (2nd Edition) Hoboken: Wiley and Sons; 2006.
    1. Álvarez B, Cuetos F. Objective age of acquisition norms for a set of 328 words in Spanish. Behavior, Research, Methods. 2007;39:377–383.
    1. Sanfeliu MC, Fernández A. A set of 254 Snodgrass-Vanderwart pictures standardized for Spanish: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers. 1996;28:537–555.
    1. Mahon BZ, Caramazza A. Constraining questions about the organisation and representation of conceptual knowledge. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 2003;20:433–450.
    1. Caramazza A, Mahon BZ. The organization of conceptual knowledge: the evidence from category-specific semantic deficits. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2003;7:325–374.
    1. Shelton JR, Fouch E, Caramazza A. The selective sparing of body parts knowledge: A case study. Neurocase. 1998;4:339–351.
    1. Filliter JH, McMullen PA, Westwood D. Manipulability and living/non-living category effects on object identification. Brain & Cognition. 2005;57:61–65.
    1. Oldfield RC, Wingfield A. Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1965;17:273–281.
    1. Freeman J, Simoncelli EP. Metamers of the ventral stream. Nature Neuroscience. 2011;9:1195–1201.
    1. Girshick AR, Landy MS, Simoncelli EP. Cardinal rules: Visual orientation perception reflects knowledge of environmental statistics. Nature Neuroscience. 2011;14:926–932.
    1. Torralba A. How many pixels make an image? Visual Neuroscience. 2009;26:123–131.
    1. Tenenbaum JB, Kemp C, Griffiths TL, Goodman ND. How to grow a mind: Statistics, Structure, and Abstraction. Science. 2011;331:1279–1285.
    1. Griffiths TL, Chater N, Kemp C, Perfors A, Tenenbaum JB. Probabilistic models of cognition: Exploring representations and inductive biases. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2010;14:357–364.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren