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

Departamento de Psicología Básica I, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia, Madrid, Spain.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.73). 01/2012; 7(5):e37527. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037527
Source: PubMed

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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Boston Naming Test (BNT) (Kaplan, Goodglass, & Weintraub, 1983 ) is the most commonly used test of confrontation naming in neuropsychology (Rabin, Barr, & Burton, 2005 ). However, there are significant criticisms of the BNT which suggest that it might not be the assessment measure of choice. These criticisms are that the BNT has poor psychometric properties, is not adequately standardized, and has inadequate norms. It is further suggested that when considered in the context of contemporary conceptualizations of the neuropsychology of naming, the BNT does not adequately capture the processes known to be required for successful naming, and does not sample widely enough from the content domain of "naming". These criticisms suggest that the BNT is flawed as a measure of naming, and are discussed in detail in this review. Other stand-alone visual confrontation naming tasks are reviewed to evaluate whether any might be viable substitutes for the BNT in clinical neuropsychology. The Naming Test from the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery (Stern & White, 2009 ) was identified as a possible alternative to the BNT, however, neither of these tests was designed with reference to models of the neuropsychology of naming, and development of a new test of naming is indicated.
    The Clinical Neuropsychologist 03/2014; · 1.68 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article presents a new corpus of 820 words pertaining to 14 semantic categories, 7 natural (animals, body parts, insects, flowers, fruits, trees, and vegetables) and 7 man-made (buildings, clothing, furniture, kitchen utensils, musical instruments, tools, and vehicles); each word in the database was collected empirically in a previous exemplar generation study. In the present study, 152 Spanish speakers provided data for four psycholinguistic variables known to affect lexical-semantic processing in both neurologically intact and brain-damaged participants: age of acquisition, familiarity, manipulability, and typicality. Furthermore, we collected lexical frequency data derived from Internet search hits, plus three additional Spanish lexical frequency indexes. Word length, number of syllables, and the proportion of respondents citing the exemplar as a category member-which can be useful as an additional measure of typicality-are also provided. Reliability and validity indexes showed that our items display characteristics similar to those of other corpora. Overall, this new corpus of words provides a useful tool for scientists engaged in cognitive- and neuroscience-based research focused on examining language, memory, and object processing. The full set of norms can be downloaded from .
    Behavior Research Methods 01/2014; · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Memory stability and change are considered opposite outcomes. We tested the counterintuitive notion that both depend on one process: hippocampal binding of memory features to associatively novel information, or associative novelty binding (ANB). Building on the idea that dominant memory features, or "traces," are most susceptible to modification, we hypothesized that ANB would selectively involve dominant traces. Therefore, memory stability versus change should depend on whether the currently dominant trace is old versus updated; in either case, novel information will be bound with it, causing either maintenance (when old) or change (when updated). People in our experiment studied objects at locations within scenes (contexts). During reactivation in a new context, subjects moved studied objects to new locations either via active location recall or by passively dragging objects to predetermined locations. After active reactivation, the new object location became dominant in memory, whereas after passive reactivation, the old object location maintained dominance. In both cases, hippocampal ANB bound the currently dominant object-location memory with a context with which it was not paired previously (i.e., associatively novel). Stability occurred in the passive condition when ANB united the dominant original location trace with an associatively novel newer context. Change occurred in the active condition when ANB united the dominant updated object location with an associatively novel and older context. Hippocampal ANB of the currently dominant trace with associatively novel contextual information thus provides a single mechanism to support memory stability and change, with shifts in trace dominance during reactivation dictating the outcome.
    Journal of Neuroscience 02/2014; 34(6):2203-13. · 6.91 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

Available from
May 29, 2014