Age-related evaluations of imageability and subjective frequency for 1286 neutral and emotional French words: ratings by young, middle-aged, and older adults

Abstract

This study aimed at providing imageability and subjective frequency ratings collected from four adult age groups ranging from 18 to 85 years old (18-25; 26-39; 40-59; and 60 and over) for 1286 neutral and emotional French words available in the EMA database (Gobin et al., 2017). Overall, the older adults rated words as more (subjectively) frequent and more imageable than the younger adults. Furthermore, we examined the relationships between subjective frequency and imageability, as well as those with emotional variables (i.e., valence, arousal) already available for these words, for each age group. For all age groups, more subjective frequent words were more imageable. Emotional words were more imageable and more frequent. Arousal scores were lower for low-and high-imageability words, and higher for more subjective frequent words. The strength of these links between subjective frequency, imageability, and emotional ratings was found to decrease as a function of age. Finally, by using the lexical decision reaction times and accuracy rates of young adults from Megalex (Ferrand et al., 2018), imageability and subjective frequency across age were found to provide an additional contribution to visual word recognition performance as compared to objective lexical variables (i.e., number of letters, syllables, objective frequency, orthographic neighborhood). More importantly, subjective frequency and imageability ratings from the youngest group predicted reaction times and accuracy better than ratings from the oldest group. By providing new age-adapted word characteristics, this norm should be of great use to researchers in the field of cognitive aging who use word materials.

Is the approach avoidance compatibility effect moderated by word imageability?

“…Eighty words with 5-7 letters and 2-3 syllables were selected in the French lexical databases, EMA (Gobin et al, 2017) and Lexique 3.8 (New et al, 2007). Subjective frequency and imageability estimates were drawn from the lexical database of Ballot et al (2022a). Words were selected according to the valence, arousal, imageability, and subjective frequency estimates from young adults aged 18-25 years old, to have estimates tailored to the population solicited in this study.…”

“…Eighty words with 5-7 letters and 2-3 syllables were selected in the French lexical databases EMA (Gobin et al, 2017) and Lexique 3.8 (New et al, 2007). Subjective frequency and imageability estimates were drawn from the lexical database of Ballot et al (2021). 1 Because the material was developed with adults aged 18 to 25, we also conducted the analyses without these participants.…”

“…Embodied approaches emphasise that upon the presentation of a word, associated sensorimotor information stored in memory is activated, influencing lexical processing. Among these variables, word imageability (i.e., the ease with which a word elicits a mental image, Ballot et al, 2022a; Desrochers & Thompson, 2009) appears to be particularly relevant to the study of the sensory information embedded in the word. Paivio et al (1968) initially proposed a broad definition of the concept of imageability, by referring to the way in which a word arouses a sensory experience (such as mental pictures and sounds).…”

Age-related positivity effect: Distinct mechanisms for lexical access and episodic memory of emotional words.

“…The stimulus words were mostly nouns ( N = 8–11 per condition), and the remaining words were adjectives or verbs. The word categories were also matched on imageability (Ballot et al, 2022; all p s > .05). Moreover, valence, arousal, and imageability were matched across the two age groups of our study (all p s > .05).…”

Firma vai yritys? Vierassanojen ja omaperäisten sanojen objektiivinen ja subjektiivinen frekvenssi selkokielessä

“…Subjektiivinen frekvenssi ei edellytä sanan merkityksen tuntemista, vaan se kuvaa ainoastaan sanan ilmiasun kohtaamistaajuutta. Kohtaamistaajuutta arvioidaan kyselyillä, joissa arviointiasteikon ääripäissä ovat sanan kohtaaminen usein tai ei koskaan (Ballot, Mathey & Robert, 2022;Balota ym., 2001;Chen & Dong, 2019). Objektiivinen ja subjektiivinen frekvenssi korreloivat keskenään, mutta eivät täydellisesti (Chen & Dong, 2019;.…”