Body–object interaction ratings for 750 Spanish words

Abstract

An individual’s sense of the extent to which her or his body physically interacts with objects in the environment (body–object interaction; BOI) has been empirically shown to modulate lexical and semantic processing of object names. To allow for further exploration of the nature of those effects, BOI ratings for 750 Spanish nouns were obtained from 178 young adult participants. Statistical analyses showed moderate correlations between BOI indicators and some psycholinguistic indexes, such as word imageability and age of acquisition. In addition, an exploration of lexical associative relationships revealed that high-BOI words have a consistent tendency to be associated with words naming parts of the body. The ratings could be useful to researchers who are interested in manipulating or controlling for the effects of BOI in their language-processing studies. The complete norms are available for free downloading at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/kd5vf/).

Semantic Norm Extrapolation is a Missing Data Problem

“…Examples include imageability (Benjafield et al, 1989;Gilhooly et al, 1980;Grandy, Lindenberger, & Schmiedek, 2020;Scott et al, 2018;Soares et al, 2017;Stration, Jacobus, & Brinley, 1975;Walker, 1970), context availability (Altarriba et al, 1999), body object interaction ratings (M. A. Alonso, Dıéz, Diez-Alamo, & Fernandez, 2018;Bennett, Burnett, Siakaluk, & Pexman, 2011;Pexman, Muraki, Sidhu, Siakaluk, & Yap, 2019;Tillotson, Siakaluk, & Pexman, 2008), motor content norms (Abella & González-Nosti, 2019), relative embodiment of verbs (Sidhu, Kwan, Pexman, & Siakaluk, 2014), graspability D R A F T ratings (Amsel, Urbach, & Kutas, 2012;Heard et al, 2019), manipulability (Medler, Arnoldussen, Binder, & Seidenberg, 2005;Moreno-Martıńez, Montoro, & Rodrıǵuez-Rojo, 2014), sensory experience ratings (Bonin, Méot, Ferrand, & Bugaıska, 2015;Dıéz-Álamo, Dıéz, Wojcik, Alonso, & Fernandez, 2018;Hinojosa, Rincón-Pérez, Romero-Ferreiro, Martıńez-Garcıá, Villalba-Garcıá, Montoro, & Pozo, 2016;Juhasz & Yap, 2013), iconicity ratings (Perry, Perlman, & Lupyan, 2015;Winter, Perlman, Perry, & Lupyan, 2017), mode of acquisition ratings (Della Rosa, Catricalà, Vigliocco, & Cappa, 2010), sensory modality specific concreteness ratings (Lynott & Connell, 2009;Lynott, Connell, Brysbaert, Brand, & Carney, 2019;Miklashevsky, 2018;Morucci, Bottini, & Crepaldi, 2019;Speed & Majid, 2017;Vergallito, Petilli, & Marelli, 2019), and ratings of which bodily effectors are used to interact with a word's referent…”

“…(2020). Playful iconicity: Structural markedness underlies the relation between funniness and iconicity.Language and Cognition, Dıéz-Álamo, A. M., Dıéz, E., Wojcik, D. Z.,Alonso, M. A., & Fernandez, A. (2018).…”

Addressing the elephant in the middle: Implications of the midscale disagreement problem through the lens of Body-Object Interaction ratings

“…An open question remains, however, as to BOI's role in word recognition (see also Connell & Lynott, 2016). In contrast to the experiments reported above, several studies have failed to replicate the facilitatory BOI effect in lexical decision task (LDT) performances (Alonso et al, 2018;Hargreaves & Pexman, 2014;Heard et al, 2019;Juhasz et al, 2011;Muraki & Pexman, 2021;Pexman et al, 2019). Connell and Lynott (2016) argued in their review that one reason for these discrepancies might be a confound between BOI and the age of acquisition (AoA), as physical objects which can be interacted with are likely acquired earlier in life.…”

Sensory experience ratings for 5,500 Spanish words

“…The set of words to be normed was constructed by obtaining stimuli from existing lexical databases in Spanish, with the aim of assembling a pool of words for which other norms of psycholinguistic interest were currently available. Specifically, the set was formed to include (a) 2,765 monoand multisyllabic words with known lexical-decision and word-naming times (Davies, Barbón, & Cuetos, 2013;González-Nosti, Barbón, Rodríguez-Ferreiro, & Cuetos, 2014); (b) 1,512 words with known affective norms (Redondo, Fraga, Comesaña, & Perea, 2005;Redondo, Fraga, Padrón, & Comesaña, 2007); (c) 750 words with known BOI norms (Alonso, Díez, Díez-Álamo, & Fernandez, 2018); (d) 238 one-word names denoting S n o d g r a s s a n d Va n d e r w a r t 's (1 9 8 0 ) d r a w i n g s (Fernandez, Díez, Alonso, & Beato, 2004;Sanfeliu & Fernandez, 1996); (e) the 1,109 adjectives with known AoA norms from Alonso, Fernandez, and Díez (2015); and (f) a subset of 1,024 verbs with known AoA norms from Alonso, Díez, and Fernandez (2016), representing the complete range of AoA (from 3 to 15). We also added six other nouns corresponding to months and days of the week, in order to complete those categories.…”

“…The other examined action variable was the body-object interaction (BOI) index, which reflects the ease with which individuals can physically interact with an object using any part of their body (Bennett et al, 2011;Tillotson et al, 2008). Again, there was no relationship between BOI ratings (reported in Alonso et al, 2018; shared n = 750) and SER (r = -.007, p = .846). It seems, therefore, that SER does not show a clear association with action variables, in contrast to its more obvious relationship with variables that address perceptual dimensions.…”