Can the humped animal's knee conceal its name? Commentary on: “The roles of shared vs. distinctive conceptual features in lexical access”

Montefinese, Maria; Vinson, David

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00418

Cited by 11 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In light of previous research, it would also be important to collect semantic [83–85] and lexical [86,87] indexes to investigate their relation with the affective properties of words. Therefore, future research could expand the present database to include these variables.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Affective Norms for Italian Words in Older Adults: Age Differences in Ratings of Valence, Arousal and Dominance

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In line with the dimensional theory of emotional space, we developed affective norms for words rated in terms of valence, arousal and dominance in a group of older adults to complete the adaptation of the Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW) for Italian and to aid research on aging. Here, as in the original Italian ANEW database, participants evaluated valence, arousal, and dominance by means of the Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM) in a paper-and-pencil procedure. We observed high split-half reliabilities within the older sample and high correlations with the affective ratings of previous research, especially for valence, suggesting that there is large agreement among older adults within and across-languages. More importantly, we found high correlations between younger and older adults, showing that our data are generalizable across different ages. However, despite this across-ages accord, we obtained age-related differences on three affective dimensions for a great number of words. In particular, older adults rated as more arousing and more unpleasant a number of words that younger adults rated as moderately unpleasant and arousing in our previous affective norms. Moreover, older participants rated negative stimuli as more arousing and positive stimuli as less arousing than younger participants, thus leading to a less-curved distribution of ratings in the valence by arousal space. We also found more extreme ratings for older adults for the relationship between dominance and arousal: older adults gave lower dominance and higher arousal ratings for words rated by younger adults with middle dominance and arousal values. Together, these results suggest that our affective norms are reliable and can be confidently used to select words matched for the affective dimensions of valence, arousal and dominance across younger and older participants for future research in aging.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Affective Norms for Italian Words in Older Adults: Age Differences in Ratings of Valence, Arousal and Dominance

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We matched as much as possible the Old, HFS and LFS concepts for a number of affective (valence, arousal and dominance/control) and lexical-semantic (word length, word frequency, log-transformed number and word frequency of orthographic neighbors; familiarity, typicality, imageability, concreteness, dominance, mean rank, first occurrence, lexical availability, and mean production frequency, intercorrelational density, and percentage of encyclopedic, taxonomic, functional and sensory features) variables (for a detailed description of these variables, see Fairfield, Ambrosini, Mammarella, & Montefinese, 2017;Montefinese, Ambrosini, Fairfield, & Mammarella, 2013a, 2013b, 2014b, which could affect word recognition performance (for a discussion of this topic, see e.g., Montefinese, Ciavarro, & Ambrosini, 2015;Montefinese & Vinson, 2015) (one way ANOVAs comparing Old, HFS, and LFS concepts: all Fs(1,117) < 2.21, all ps > .11). Moreover, Old, HFS and LFS concepts were also controlled for the age of acquisition (one way ANOVAs comparing Old, HFS, and LFS concepts: F(1,117) = 2.65, p = .08) derived from a preliminary study on an independent sample of 436 participants (363 females and 73 males; mean age = 20.75 years, SD = 1.99 years) who were asked to estimate the age to which they learnt a given word, in line with previous age of acquisition norms (Bird, Franklin, & Howard, 2001;Moors et al, 2013).…”

Section: Apparatus and Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognition memory and featural similarity between concepts: The pupil’s point of view

Montefinese

Vinson

Ambrosini

2018

Biological Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differences in pupil dilation are observed for studied compared to new items in recognition memory. According to cognitive load theory, this effect reflects the greater cognitive demands of retrieving contextual information from study phase. Pupil dilation can also occur when new items conceptually related to old ones are erroneously recognized as old, but the aspects of similarity that modulate false memory and related pupil responses remain unclear. We investigated this issue by manipulating the degree of featural similarity between new (unstudied) and old (studied) concepts in an old/new recognition task. We found that new concepts with high similarity were mistakenly identified as old and had greater pupil dilation than those with low similarity, suggesting that pupil dilation reflects the strength of evidence on which recognition judgments are based and, importantly, greater locus coeruleus and prefrontal activity determined by the higher degree of retrieval monitoring involved in recognizing these items.

show abstract

“…We matched as much as possible the Old, HFS and LFS concepts for a number of affective (valence, arousal and dominance) and lexical-semantic (word length, word frequency, log-transformed number and word frequency of orthographic neighbors; familiarity, typicality, imageability, concreteness, dominance, mean rank, first occurrence, lexical availability, and mean production frequency, intercorrelational density, and percentage of encyclopedic, taxonomic, functional and sensory features) variables (for a detailed description of these variables, see Fairfield, Ambrosini, Mammarella, & Montefinese, 2017;Montefinese, Ambrosini, Fairfield, & Mammarella, 2013a, 2013b, 2014b, which could affect word recognition performance (for a discussion of this topic, see e.g., Montefinese, Ciavarro, & Ambrosini, 2015;Montefinese & Vinson, 2015) (one way ANOVAs comparing Old, HFS, and LFS concepts: all Fs (1,117) < 2.21, all ps > .11). Moreover, Old, HFS and LFS concepts were also controlled for the age of acquisition (one way ANOVAs comparing Old, HFS, and LFS concepts: F (1,117) = 2.65, p = .08) derived from a preliminary study on an independent sample of 436 participants (363 females and 73 males; mean age = 20.75 years, SD = 1.99 years) who were asked to estimate the age to which they learnt a given word, in line with previous age of acquisition norms (Bird, Franklin, & Howard, 2001;Moors et al, 2013).…”

Section: Apparatus and Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

Montefinese M, Vinson D, Ambrosini E. Pupil response to false memory modulated by feature similarity (PrePrint)

Montefinese¹,

Vinson²,

Ambrosini³

2017

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Can the humped animal's knee conceal its name? Commentary on: “The roles of shared vs. distinctive conceptual features in lexical access”

Cited by 11 publications

References 16 publications

Affective Norms for Italian Words in Older Adults: Age Differences in Ratings of Valence, Arousal and Dominance

Affective Norms for Italian Words in Older Adults: Age Differences in Ratings of Valence, Arousal and Dominance

Recognition memory and featural similarity between concepts: The pupil’s point of view

Montefinese M, Vinson D, Ambrosini E. Pupil response to false memory modulated by feature similarity (PrePrint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About