References
- 1Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D., & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological science, 17(9), 814–823. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01787.x
- 2Auvray, M., & Spence, C. (2008). The multisensory perception of flavor. Consciousness and cognition, 17(3), 1016–1031. DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2007.06.005
- 3Barca, L., Burani, C., & Arduino, L. S. (2002). Word naming times and psycholinguistic norms for Italian nouns. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(3), 424–434. DOI: 10.3758/BF03195471
- 4Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(4), 577–660. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X99002149
- 5Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annu. Rev. Psychol., 59, 617–645. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
- 6Barsalou, L. W., Santos, A., Simmons, W. K., & Wilson, C. D. (2008). Language and simulation in conceptual processing. Symbols, embodiment, and meaning, 245–283. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0013
- 7Bedny, M., Koster-Hale, J., Elli, G., Yazzolino, L., & Saxe, R. (2019). There’s more to “sparkle” than meets the eye: Knowledge of vision and light verbs among congenitally blind and sighted individuals. Cognition, 189, 105–115. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.03.017
- 8Binder, J. R., & Desai, R. H. (2011). The neurobiology of semantic memory. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(11), 527–536. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2011.10.001
- 9Borelli, E., Crepaldi, D., Porro, C. A., & Cacciari, C. (2018). The psycholinguistic and affective structure of words conveying pain. PloS one, 13(6),
e0199658 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199658 - 10Carroll, J. B., & White, M. N. (1973). Age-of-acquisition norms for 220 picturable nouns. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12(5), 563–576. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5371(73)80036-2
- 11Chen, I. H., Zhao, Q., Long, Y., Lu, Q., & Huang, C. R. (2019). Mandarin Chinese modality exclusivity norms. PloS one, 14(2),
e0211336 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211336 - 12Clarke, A., & Tyler, L. K. (2014). Object-specific semantic coding in human perirhinal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(14), 4766–4775. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2828-13.2014
- 13Coltheart, M. (1977). Access to the internal lexicon. The psychology of reading.
- 14Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability. Cognition, 125(3), 452–465. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010
- 15Connell, L., Lynott, D., & Banks, B. (2018). Interoception: the forgotten modality in perceptual grounding of abstract and concrete concepts. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 373(1752),
20170143 . DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0143 - 16Crepaldi, D., Amenta, S., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2016). Frequency estimates from different registers explain different aspects of visual word recognition. International Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Granada, Spain,
5–8 May .http://crr.ugent.be/subtlex-it/ - 17Della Rosa, P. A., Catricalà, E., Vigliocco, G., & Cappa, S. F. (2010). Beyond the abstract—concrete dichotomy: mode of acquisition, concreteness, imageability, familiarity, age of acquisition, context availability, and abstractness norms for a set of 417 Italian words. Behavior research methods, 42(4), 1042–1048. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.42.4.1042
- 18Đurđević, D. F., Popović Stijačić, M., & Karapandžić, J. (2016). A quest for sources of perceptual richness: Several candidates. Studies in language and mind, 187–238.
- 19Gainotti, G., Spinelli, P., Scaricamazza, E., & Marra, C. (2013). The evaluation of sources of knowledge underlying different conceptual categories. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 7, 40. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00040
- 20Gernsbacher, M. A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of experimental psychology: General, 113(2), 256. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.113.2.256
- 21Ghyselinck, M., De Moor, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2000). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 2816 Dutch four-and five-letter nouns. Psychologica Belgica, 40(2), 77–98.
- 22Glenberg, A. M., & Gallese, V. (2012). Action-based language: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension, and production. Cortex, 48(7), 905–922. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.04.010
- 23Kiefer, M., Sim, E. J., Herrnberger, B., Grothe, J., & Hoenig, K. (2008). The sound of concepts: four markers for a link between auditory and conceptual brain systems. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(47), 12224–12230. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3579-08.2008
- 24Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior research methods, 44(4), 978–990. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4
- 25Levinson, S. C., & Majid, A. (2014). Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language, 29(4), 407–427. DOI: 10.1111/mila.12057
- 26Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods, 41(2), 558–564. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.2.558
- 27Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form. Behavior research methods, 45(2), 516–526. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0267-0
- 28Lynott, D., Connell, L., Brysbaert, M., Brand, J., & Carney, J. (2019, May 7). The Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms: Multidimensional measures of Perceptual and Action Strength for 40,000 English words. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/ktjwp
- 29Majid, A., & Burenhult, N. (2014). Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130(2), 266–270. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.004
- 30Majid, A., Roberts, S. G., Cilissen, L., Emmorey, K., Nicodemus, B., O’grady, L., …, Shayan, S. (2018). Differential coding of perception in the world’s languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11369–11376. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1720419115
- 31Martin, C. B., Douglas, D., Newsome, R. N., Man, L. L., & Barense, M. D. (2018). Integrative and distinctive coding of visual and conceptual object features in the ventral visual stream. Elife, 7,
e31873 . DOI: 10.7554/eLife.31873 - 32Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48(7), 788–804. DOI: 10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.002
- 33Miklashevsky, A. (2018). Perceptual Experience Norms for 506 Russian Nouns: Modality Rating, Spatial Localization, Manipulability, Imageability and Other Variables. Journal of psycholinguistic research, 47(3), 641–661. DOI: 10.1007/s10936-017-9548-1
- 34Montefinese, M., Vinson, D., Vigliocco, G., & Ambrosini, E. (2019). Italian age of acquisition norms for a large set of words (ItAoA). Frontiers in psychology, 10, 278. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00278
- 35Navarrete, E., Arcara, G., Mondini, S., & Penolazzi, B. (2019). Italian norms and naming latencies for 357 high quality color images. PloS one, 14(2),
e0209524 . DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0209524 - 36Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
- 37Rodriguez, A., & Laio, A. (2014). Clustering by fast search and find of density peaks. Science, 344(6191), 1492–1496. DOI: 10.1126/science.1242072
- 38San Roque, L., Kendrick, K. H., Norcliffe, E., Brown, P., Defina, R., Dingemanse, M., …, Majid, A. (2015). Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-visual verbs varies. Cognitive Linguistics, 26, 31–60.
- 39Schwanenflugel, P. J. (1991).
Why are abstract concepts hard to understand? In P. J. Schwanenflugel (Ed.), The psychology of word meanings (pp. 223–250). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. - 40Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Shoben, E. J. (1983). Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9(1), 82. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.9.1.82
- 41Speed, L. J., & Majid, A. (2017). Dutch modality exclusivity norms: Simulating perceptual modality in space. Behavior research methods, 49(6), 2204–2218. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-017-0852-3
- 42Van Dam, W. O., van Dijk, M., Bekkering, H., & Rueschemeyer, S. A. (2012). Flexibility in embodied lexical-semantic representations. Human brain mapping, 33(10), 2322–2333. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.21365
- 43Van Dantzig, S., Cowell, R. A., Zeelenberg, R., & Pecher, D. (2011). A sharp image or a sharp knife: Norms for the modality-exclusivity of 774 concept-property items. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 145–154. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-010-0038-8
- 44Van Heuven, W. J., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2014). SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176–1190. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2013.850521
- 45Vergallito, A., Petilli, M. A., & Marelli, M. (2019, June 11). Perceptual strength norms in Italian. Retrieved from
osf.io/d6tjh - 46Vigliocco, G., Meteyard, L., Andrews, M., & Kousta, S. (2009). Toward a theory of semantic representation. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 219–247. DOI: 10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.011
- 47Winter, B., Perlman, M., & Majid, A. (2018). Vision dominates in perceptual language: English sensory vocabulary is optimized for usage. Cognition, 179, 213–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.008
- 48Yarkoni, T., Balota, D., & Yap, M. (2008). Moving beyond Coltheart’s N: A new measure of orthographic similarity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(5), 971–979. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.15.5.971