Perceptual Experience Norms for 506 Russian Nouns: Modality Rating, Spatial Localization, Manipulability, Imageability and Other Variables

Abstract

A number of new psycholinguistic variables has been proposed during the last years within embodied cognition framework: modality experience rating (i.e., relationship between words and images of a particular perceptive modality-visual, auditory, haptic etc.), manipulability (the necessity for an object to interact with human hands in order to perform its function), vertical spatial localization. However, it is not clear how these new variables are related to each other and to such traditional variables as imageability, AoA and word frequency. In this article, normative data on the modality (visual, auditory, haptic, olfactory, and gustatory) ratings, vertical spatial localization of the object, manipulability, imageability, age of acquisition, and subjective frequency for 506 Russian nouns are presented. Strongest correlations were observed between olfactory and gustatory modalities (.81), visual modality and imageability (.78), haptic modality and manipulability (.7). Other modalities also significantly correlate with imageability: olfactory (.35), gustatory (.24), and haptic (.67). Factor analysis divided variables into four groups where visual and haptic modality ratings were combined with imageability, manipulability and AoA (the first factor); word length, frequency and AoA formed the second factor; olfactory modality was united with gustatory (the third factor); spatial localization only is included in the fourth factor. Present norms of imageability and AoA are consistent with previous as correlation analysis has revealed. The complete database can be downloaded from supplementary material.

Augmented Modality Exclusivity Norms for Concrete and Abstract Italian Property Words

“…However, it slightly differs from previous work in Mandarin Chinese, where auditory words were found to be the less common together with olfactory words (Chen et al, 2019). The large distribution of visual information across words in our database is consistent with previous work on other languages like English (Lynott & Connell, 2009), Dutch (Speed and Majid, 2017), Russian (Miklashevsky, 2018), Mandarin Chinese (Chen et al, 2019) and Serbian (Đurđević et al, 2016). Overall, this crosslinguistic pattern provides support for the hypothesis that language semantics exhibits visual dominance in vocabulary usage and structure (Levinson & Majid, 2014;San Roque et al, 2015).…”

“…This pattern replicates a finding that emerged in previous similar studies using English, (Lynott and Connell,Figure 6: Spider plots illustrating the perceptual strength scores on the five senses for some example words, each of which is deemed representative of its class (vision unimodal for "bright", vision multimodal for "strange", audition unimodal for "silent", audition multimodal for "suave", touch for "soft", smell for "perfumed", taste for "disgusting" and abstract for "metaphysical"). ), Dutch (Speed & Majid, 2017), Mandarin Chinese (Chen et al, 2019) and Russian (Miklashevsky, 2018), uncovering an interesting cross-linguistic symmetry between Italian and these languages. The coupling of gustatory and olfactory experience in language semantics fits well within theories claiming that flavor perception can be considered as a unified, multisensory sense (e.g., Auvray & Spence, 2008).…”

Perceptual modality norms for 1121 Italian words: a comparison with concreteness and imageability scores and an analysis of their impact in word processing tasks.

“…In order to allow a more straightforward comparison among studies, we reported in Table 8 First, we demonstrated that our sample of words was experienced in a multimodal way. The multimodal composition of words has been supported by perceptual ratings of English adjectives, nouns and verbs Connell, 2009, 2013;Van Dantzig et al, 2011;Winter, 2016) and Dutch and Russian nouns (Speed and Majid, 2017;Miklashevsky, 2018). In line with previous norming ratings, we replicated a visual dominance effect Connell, 2009, 2013;Van Dantzig et al, 2011;Winter, 2016;Chen et al, 2019) with Italian speakers.…”

“…Following the original works by Connell on English (2009, 2013), perceptual strength norms have been also collected in different languages including Russian (Miklashevsky, 2018), Dutch (Speed and Majid, 2017), Mandarin (Chen et al, 2019). In order to allow a more straightforward comparison among studies, we reported in Table 8 First, we demonstrated that our sample of words was experienced in a multimodal way.…”

The Lancaster Sensorimotor Norms: multidimensional measures of perceptual and action strength for 40,000 English words

“…Since the original appearance of modality-specific norms of perceptual strength, interest in their broad utility has led other research groups to extend them in a variety of directions. Perceptual strength norms (also termed modality exclusivity norms, after the original Lynott & Connell, 2009, work) now exist in several different languages, including Russian (Miklashevsky, 2018), Serbian (Filipović Đurđević, Popović Stijačić, & Karapandžić, 2016, Dutch (Speed & Majid, 2017), and Mandarin (Chen, Zhao, Long, Lu, & Huang, 2019), and have been developed for concept-property pairs as well as individual words (van Dantzig, Cowell, Zeelenberg, & Pecher, 2011). The original English-language norms have also been applied in novel ways, such as examining stylistic differences of authors (Kernot, Bossomaier, & Bradbury, 2019), studying perceptual metaphors (e.g., rough sound, smooth melody; Winter, 2019), testing models of lexical representations (Johns & Jones, 2012), evaluating the iconicity of words in written (Winter, Perlman, Perry, & Lupyan, 2017), and signed languages (Perlman, Little, Thompson, & Thompson, 2018), and discovering links between sensory and emotional experience (Winter, 2016).…”