Objective-AoA norms for 175 names in Spanish: relationships with other psycholinguistic variables, estimated AoA, and data from other languages

Pérez, Miguel Á.; Navalón, Conrado

doi:10.1080/09541440340000547

Cited by 35 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Subjective methods mostly rely on adults' retrospective judgments about when different words were acquired (e.g., Alonso, Fernandez, & Díez, 2015;Cortese & Khanna, 2008;Marques, Fonseca, Morais, & Pinto, 2007). Substantial evidence from studies in different languages has shown that objective and subjective measures of AoA are strongly correlated (e.g., Morrison, Chappell, & Ellis, 1997;Pérez & Navalón, 2005). The present study concerns itself with subjective AoA ratings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…As a measure of reliability commonly used in norming studies (e.g., Pérez & Navalón, 2005), we calculated the internal consistency (Cronbach's α), measuring the degree to which participants agreed on the ratings for different items. As we mentioned in the Method section, each participant filled out three separate forms, each containing 200 words.…”

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AoA can be assessed by objective or subjective measures. Objective measures refer to methods in which the word knowledge of children of different ages is objectively determined (e.g., through analysis of natural conversations or tasks such as picture naming; Pérez & Navalón, 2005). Subjective methods mostly rely on adults' retrospective judgments about when different words were acquired (e.g., Alonso, Fernandez, & Díez, 2015;Cortese & Khanna, 2008;Marques, Fonseca, Morais, & Pinto, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Subjective age-of-acquisition norms for 600 Turkish words from four age groups

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main purpose of this study was to report agebased subjective age-of-acquisition (AoA) norms for 600 Turkish words. A total of 115 children, 100 young adults, 115 middle-aged adults, and 127 older adults provided AoA estimates for 600 words on a 7-point scale. The intraclass correlations suggested high reliability, and the AoA estimates were highly correlated across the four age groups. Children gave earlier AoA estimates than the three adult groups; this was true for high-frequency as well as low-frequency words. In addition to the means and standard deviations of the AoA estimates, we report word frequency, concreteness, and imageability ratings, as well as word length measures (numbers of syllables and letters), for the 600 words as supplemental materials. The present ratings represent a potentially useful database for researchers working on lexical processing as well as other aspects of cognitive processing, such as autobiographical memory.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Reliabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Subjective age-of-acquisition norms for 600 Turkish words from four age groups

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The correlation values and their directions are in line with those presented by other studies. The correlation between the AoA and the length measures is higher than the one found for languages such as Spanish (Pérez & Navalón, 2005; correlations between estimated AoA and length measures range between .295 and .363) and French (Chalard et al, 2003; correlation between rated AoA and number of phonemes .260). However, it is similar to the one found for English (Bird et al, 2001; correlation between AoA and the number of syllables .560).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Age-of-acquisition norms for a set of 1,749 Portuguese words

Cameirão

Vicente

2010

Behavior Research Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1973, Carroll and White showed that words acquired earlier in life tend to be processed faster and more accurately than later acquired words in a picture naming task. From that moment on, age of acquisition (AoA) was considered to be a relevant psycholinguistic variable, and several experimental studies have replicated the effect found by Carroll and White in many paradigms (e.g., picture naming-Barry, Holmes & Ellis, 2006;Lambon Ralph & Ehsan, 2006; written-word naming-Brysbaert, Lange, & Van Wijnendaele, 2000;Monaghan & Ellis, 2002a, 2002bMorrison & Ellis, 1995 lexical decision-Gerhand & Barry, 1999;Turner, Valentine, & Ellis, 1998). In fact, AoA seems to be the main variable that influences the speed of lexical processing, and its effect remains even when other variables, such as cumulative frequency, are controlled (Pérez, 2007). Recently, an extensive study conducted by Cortese and Khanna (2007) , and Portuguese (Vicente, 2004;Vicente, Castro, & Walley, 2008). It is also consistent throughout the entire life span, since it has been found in children (D'Amico, Devescovi, & Bates, 2001), young adults, and older subjects (Barry, Johnston, & Wood, 2006). Similarly, early acquired words are the last to deteriorate in neuropsychological disorders such as Alzheimer's disease (Sartori, Lombardi, & Mattiuzzi, 2005) and aphasia (Hirsh & Ellis, 1994). These studies highlight the vital importance of AoA in lexical processing and emphasize the need to control AoA in experimental and neuropsychological studies. For that purpose, researchers need to have access to AoA norms.There are two ways of collecting AoA data: (1) using adult estimates (see, e.g., Bird, Franklin, & Howard, 2001;Marques, Fonseca, Morais, & Pinto, 2007) or (2) analyzing the performance of children in naming tasks (e.g., Chalard, Bonin, Méot, Boyer, & Fayol, 2003). In the first method, adults are asked to estimate the age at which they possibly learned a given word. In the second method, the experimenter presents pictures to children of different age cohorts, and the average AoA is usually calculated when at least 75% of the children can name the picture (Morrison, Chappell, & Ellis, 1997). It has been shown that adult estimates are as valid and reliable as the data collected with children and that the norms provided by the two methods are highly correlated (Ghyselinck, De Moor, & Brysbaert, 2000;Morrison et al., 1997;Pind, Jónsdóttir, Gissurardóttir, & Jónsson, 2000). Moreover, the correlations between the two types of norms are still significant even when other variables, such as familiarity, frequency, and phonological length, are controlled . So, when it is not possible to obtain objective data, adult estimates seem to be a valid and reliable AoA measure.Current lexical databases of AoA norms use both methods. Table 1 summarizes the main AoA norms that have been published since 1997. There is only one published lexical database for Portuguese (Marques et al., 2007). In that database, the authors collected AoA estimates for 834Age-of-acquisit...

show abstract

“…Studies using multiple regression report that subjective and objective measures of AoA have a significant effect on picture naming independent of printed-word frequency and rated familiarity in English (Barry et al, 1997;Bates et al, 2003;Ellis & Morrison, 1998;Snodgrass & Yuditsky, 1996), French (Alario et al, 2004;Bonin et al, 2002;Bonin et al, 2003), Icelandic (Pind & Tryggvadottir, 2002), Italian (Dell'Acqua et al, 2000), and Spanish (Cuetos et al, 1999; see also Pérez & Navalón, 2005). Zevin and Seidenberg (2004) also raised concerns about use of objective measures of AoA to predict naming times.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of timed picture naming in Chinese

Weekes

Shu

Hao

et al. 2007

Behavior Research Methods

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many studies have analyzed the properties of objects that influence picture naming speed. These studies are important for developing cognitive models of object recognition and naming and for the study of lexical processing in the brain (Bates et al., 2003;Székely et al., 2003). Up until the late 1990s, research on the key factors affecting picture naming speed was limited to that done in English. However, there has been a steady increase in studies investigating timed picture naming in other languages including Dutch (Jescheniak & Levelt, 1994;Severens, Van Lommel, Ratinckx, & Hartsuiker, 2005), French (Alario et al., 2004;Bonin, Chalard, Méot, & Fayol, 2002;Bonin, Peereman, Malardier, Méot, & Chalard, 2003;Chalard, Bonin, Méot, Boyer, & Fayol, 2003;Kremin, Hamerel, Dordain, De Wilde, & Perrier, 2000;Schwitter, Boyer, Méot, Bonin, & Laganaro, 2004), Icelandic (Pind & Tryggvadottir, 2002), Italian (Dell'Acqua, Lotto, & Job, 2000), Japanese (Nishimoto, Miyawaki, Ueda, Une, & Takahashi, 2005), and Spanish (Cuetos, Ellis, & Alvarez, 1999;Sanfeliu & Fernandez, 1996). All of these studies investigate naming of objects using line drawings first published by Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) and locally collected normative data. According to a review by Alario et al., the key variables that predict picture naming latency across languages are name agreement and rated age of acquisition (AoA). Bates and colleagues compared languages in a study of picture naming in Bulgarian, English, German, Hungarian, Italian, Spanish, and Mandarin (Putonghua). Their data confirmed the importance of name agreement but also revealed a robust effect of printed-word frequency across languages. Bates et al. did not, however, consider the full range of variables for each of the languages examined; for example, they did not consider the effect of rated AoA on picture naming in Chinese. The primary aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of key variables-including AoA-on picture naming in Mainland Chinese speakers.Name agreement has a significant impact on timed picture naming that is independent of the effects of correlated variables such as word frequency, familiarity, and AoA in all languages. Name agreement can be measured in several ways, but the most common way is to determine the proportion of speakers who assign the target name to a pictured object. Another method is to measure the number of names given to a picture across participants. On both measures, pictures of objects that elicit different namesfor example, gun/pistol/revolver-have lower name agreement than do those that elicit a single name. If an object has more than one alternative name and participants do not all give the same name to a given picture, retrieval of any one of those names will be slowed. Pictures with a single dominant response are named more quickly and more accurately than pictures with alternative responses. This robust effect is possibly due to competition for tar- 335Copyright 2007 Psychonomic Society, Inc. We report normative data collected f...

show abstract

Objective-AoA norms for 175 names in Spanish: relationships with other psycholinguistic variables, estimated AoA, and data from other languages

Cited by 35 publications

References 0 publications

Subjective age-of-acquisition norms for 600 Turkish words from four age groups

Subjective age-of-acquisition norms for 600 Turkish words from four age groups

Age-of-acquisition norms for a set of 1,749 Portuguese words

Predictors of timed picture naming in Chinese

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About