Abstract
Recent work has shown that people routinely use perceptual information during language comprehension and conceptual processing, from single-word recognition to modality-switching costs in property verification. In investigating such links between perceptual and conceptual representations, the use of modality-specific stimuli plays a central role. To aid researchers working in this area, we provide a set of norms for 423 adjectives, each describing an object property, with mean ratings of how strongly that property is experienced through each of five perceptual modalities (visual, haptic, auditory, olfactory, and gustatory). The data set also contains estimates of modality exclusivity—that is, a measure of the extent to which a particular property may be considered unimodal (i.e., perceived through one sense alone). Although there already exists a number of sets of word and object norms, we provide the first set to categorize words describing object properties along the dimensions of the five perceptual modalities. We hope that the norms will be of use to researchers working at the interface between linguistic, conceptual, and perceptual systems. The modality exclusivity norms may be downloaded as supplemental materials for this article from brm.psychonomic-journals.org/ content/supplemental.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amedi, A., von Kriegstein, K., van Atteveldt, N. M., Beauchamp, M. S., & Naumer, M. J. (2005). Functional imaging of human crossmodal identification and object recognition. Experimental Brain Research, 166, 559–571.
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., et al. (2007). The English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 445–459.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
The British National Corpus, Version 2 (BNC World) (2001). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Available at www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk.
Cimpian, A., & Markman, E. M. (2008). Preschool children’s use of cues to generic meaning. Cognition, 107, 19–53.
Connell, L. (2007). Representing object colour in language comprehension. Cognition, 102, 476–485.
Ernst, M. O., & Bülthoff, H. H. (2004). Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 162–169.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558–565.
Goldberg, R. F., Perfetti, C. A., & Schneider, W. (2006). Perceptual knowledge retrieval activates sensory brain regions. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 4917–4921.
González, J., Barros-Loscertales, A., Pulvermüller, F., Meseguer, V., Sanjuán, A., Belloch, V., & Ávila, C. (2006). Reading cinnamon activates olfactory brain regions. NeuroImage, 32, 906–912.
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive Science, 25, 173–202.
Locke, J. (1975). An essay concerning human understanding (P. H. Nidditch, Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press. (Original work published 1690)
Marques, J. F. (2006). Specialization and semantic organization: Evidence for multiple semantics linked to sensory modalities. Memory & Cognition, 34, 60–67.
Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45.
McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 37, 547–559.
Medin, D. L., & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–238.
Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (1998). The Uni versity of South Florida word association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Available at www.usf.edu/FreeAssociation.
Newman, S. D., Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Just, M. A. (2005). Imagining material versus geometric properties of objects: An fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 235–246.
Osherson, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition, 9, 35–58.
Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying properties from different modalities for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119–124.
Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (Eds.) (2005). The grounding cognition: The role of perception and action in memory, language, and thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 576–582.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573–605.
Simmons, W. K., Ramjee, V., Beauchamp, M. S., McRae, K., Martin, A., & Barsalou, L. W. (2007). A common neural substrate for perceiving and knowing about color. Neuropsychologia, 45, 2802–2810.
Sloman, S., & Malt, B. (2003). Artifacts are not ascribed essences, nor are they treated as belonging to kinds. Language & Cognitive Processes, 18, 563–582.
Smith, L. B., & Samuelson, L. K. (2006). An attentional learning account of the shape bias: Reply to Cimpian and Markman (2005) and Booth, Waxman, and Huang (2005). Developmental Psychology, 42, 1339–1343.
Solomon, K. O., & Barsalou, L. W. (2004). Perceptual simulation in property verification. Memory & Cognition, 32, 244–259.
Spence, C., Nicholls, M. E. R., & Driver, J. (2001). The cost of expecting events in the wrong sensory modality. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 330–336.
Tucker, M. (2007). Slide Generator: A DirectX based Experiment Generator for Psychology (Version 2007.3.3). Available at www.psy .plymouth.ac.uk/research/mtucker/SlideGenerator.htm.
Turatto, M., Benso, F., Galfano, G., & Umiltà, C. (2002). Non-spatial attentional shifts between audition and vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 628–639.
Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. E. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244–252.
Vinson, D. P., & Vigliocco, G. (2008). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of objects and events. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 183–190.
Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. E. (1984). Category specific semantic impairments. Brain, 107, 829–853.
Wilson, M. D. (1988). MRC Psycholinguistic Database: Machineusable dictionary, version 2.00. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 20, 6–10.
Zwaan, R. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. Psychology of Learning & Motivation, 44, 35–62.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was funded by Grant RES-000-22-2407 from the U.K. Economic and Social Research Council to the second author.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lynott, D., Connell, L. Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. Behavior Research Methods 41, 558–564 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.558
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.558