Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things (original) (raw)

References

• Ashcraft, M. H. (1978a). Feature dominance and typicality effects in feature statement verification.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,17, 155–164.
  Article Google Scholar
• Ashcraft, M. H. (1978b). Property norms for typical and atypical items from 17 categories: A description and discussion.Memory & Cognition,6, 227–232.
  Article Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,22, 577–660.
  Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Series B,358, 1177–1187.
  Article Google Scholar
• Barsalou, L. W., Sloman, S. A., &Chaigneau, S. E. (2005). The HIPE theory of function. In L. Carlson & E. van der Zee (Eds.),Representing functional features for language and space: Insights from perception, categorization and development (pp. 131–147). New York: Oxford University Press.
  Google Scholar
• Battig, W. F., &Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology,80 (3, Pt. 2), 1–46.
  Article Google Scholar
• Bourne, L. E., Jr., &Restle, F. (1959). Mathematical theory of concept identification.Psychological Review,66, 278–296.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Burnard, L. (2000).British National Corpus User Reference Guide Version 2.0. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Service. Retrieved May 20, 2002 from hcu.ox.ac.uk/BNC/World/HTML/urg.html. Data retrieved summer 2001 from http://sara.natcorp.ox.ac.uk.
  Google Scholar
• Collins, A. M., &Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.Psychological Review,82, 407–428.
  Article Google Scholar
• Cree, G. S., &McRae, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,132, 163–201.
  Article Google Scholar
• Cree, G. S., McRae, K., &McNorgan, C. (1999). An attractor model of lexical conceptual processing: Simulating semantic priming.Cognitive Science,23, 371–414.
  Article Google Scholar
• Daugherty, K., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1992). Rules or connections? The past tense revisited. In_Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society_ (pp. 259–264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  Google Scholar
• Davis, C. J. (2005). N-Watch: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics.Behavior Research Methods,37, 65–70.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Devlin, J. T., Gonnerman, L. M., Andersen, E. S., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1998). Category-specific semantic deficits in focal and widespread brain damage: A computational account.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,10, 77–94.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Garrard, P., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Hodges, J. R., &Patterson, K. (2001). Prototypicality, distinctiveness, and intercorrelation: Analyses of the semantic attributes of living and nonliving concepts.Cognitive Neuropsychology,18, 125–174.
  PubMed Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. A. (1979). Polymorphous concepts in semantic memory.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,18, 441–461.
  Article Google Scholar
• Hampton, J. A. (1997). Conceptual combination: Conjunction and negation of natural concepts.Memory & Cognition,25, 888–909.
  Article Google Scholar
• Harm, M., &Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes.Psychological Review,111, 662–720.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Hinton, G. E., &Shallice, T. (1991). Lesioning an attractor network: Investigations of acquired dyslexia.Psychological Review,98, 74–95.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Hintzman, D. L. (1986). “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model.Psychological Review,93, 411–428.
  Article Google Scholar
• Jones, S. S., &Smith, L. B. (1993). The place of perception in children’s concepts.Cognitive Development,8, 113–139.
  Article Google Scholar
• Keil, F. C. (1989).Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  Google Scholar
• Kučera, H., &Francis, W. N. (1967).A computational analysis of presentday American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
  Google Scholar
• McNorgan, C., Kotack, R. A., Meehan, D. C., & McRae, K. (in press). Feature-feature causal relations and statistical co-occurrences in object concepts.Memory & Cognition.
• McRae, K. (2004). Semantic memory: Some insights from featurebased connectionist attractor networks. In B. H. Ross (Ed.),Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 45, pp. 41–86). San Diego: Academic Press.
  Google Scholar
• McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Cho, M. J., & McNorgan, C. (2003, September).Distinguishing knowledge of living and nonliving things is computed quickly from concept names, and vice versa. Poster presented at the Thirteenth Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Granada, Spain.
• McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Westmacott, R., &de Sa, V. R. (1999). Further evidence for feature correlations in semantic memory.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,53, 360–373.
  PubMed Google Scholar
• McRae, K., de Sa, V. R., &Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,126, 99–130.
  Article Google Scholar
• McRae, K., Ferretti, T. R., &Amyote, L. (1997). Thematic roles as verbspecific concepts.Language & Cognitive Processes,12, 137–176.
  Article Google Scholar
• Medin, D. L. (1989). Concepts and conceptual structure.American Psychologist,44, 1469–1481.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Medin, D. L., &Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning.Psychological Review,85, 207–238.
  Article Google Scholar
• Medin, D. L., &Shoben, E. J. (1988). Context and structure in conceptual combination.Cognitive Psychology,20, 158–190.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Minda, J. P., &Smith, J. D. (2002). Comparing prototype-based and exemplar-based accounts of category learning and attentional allocation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 275–292.
  Article Google Scholar
• Moss, H. E., Tyler, L. K., &Devlin, J. T. (2002). The emergence of category-specific deficits in a distributed semantic system. In E. M. E. Forde & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.),Category-specificity in brain and mind (pp. 115–147). East Sussex, U.K.: Psychology Press.
  Google Scholar
• Murdock, B. B. (1982). A theory for the storage and retrieval of item and associative information.Psychological Review,89, 609–626.
  Article Google Scholar
• Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., &Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs.Psychological Science,14, 119–124.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Pexman, P. M., Holyk, G. G., &Monfils, M.-H. (2003). Number-offeatures effects and semantic processing.Memory & Cognition,31, 842–855.
  Article Google Scholar
• Pexman, P. M., Lupker, S. J., &Hino, Y. (2002). The impact of feedback semantics in visual word recognition: Number-of-features effects in lexical decision and naming tasks.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,9, 542–549.
  Article Google Scholar
• Plaut, D. C. (2002). Graded modality-specific specialization in semantics: A computational account of optic aphasia.Cognitive Neuropsychology,19, 603–639.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Plaut, D. C., &Shallice, T. (1993). Deep dyslexia: A case study of connectionist neuropsychology.Cognitive Neuropsychology,10, 377–500.
  Article Google Scholar
• Rogers, T. T., &McClelland, J. L. (2004).Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  Google Scholar
• Rosch, E., &Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories.Cognitive Psychology,7, 573–605.
  Article Google Scholar
• Smith, E. E., &Medin, D. L. (1981).Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  Google Scholar
• Smith, E. E., Osherson, D. N., Rips, L. J., &Keane, M. (1988). Combining prototypes: A selective modification model.Cognitive Science,12, 485–527.
  Article Google Scholar
• Smith, E. E., Shoben, E. J., &Rips, L. J. (1974). Structure and process in semantic memory: A feature model for semantic decisions.Psychological Review,81, 214–241.
  Article Google Scholar
• Solomon, K. O., &Barsalou, L. W. (2001). Representing properties locally.Cognitive Psychology,43, 129–169.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review,84, 327–352.
  Article Google Scholar
• Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Lewis, W., &Garrett, M. F. (2004). Representing the meaning of object and action words: The featural and unitary semantic space (FUSS) hypothesis.Cognitive Psychology,48, 422–488.
  Article PubMed Google Scholar
• Vinson, D. P., &Vigliocco, G. (2002). A semantic analysis of noun-verb dissociations in aphasia.Journal of Neurolinguistics,15, 317–351.
  Article Google Scholar
• Wu, L. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004).Grounding concepts in perceptual simulation: 1. Evidence from property generation. Manuscript under review.

Download references