词汇规范的掌握差异:运动意象和语义等级的个体差异。

Q1 Psychology Journal of Cognition Pub Date : 2025-01-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.5334/joc.418
Emiko J Muraki, Sydney Born, Penny M Pexman
{"title":"词汇规范的掌握差异:运动意象和语义等级的个体差异。","authors":"Emiko J Muraki, Sydney Born, Penny M Pexman","doi":"10.5334/joc.418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Word norming datasets have become an important resource for psycholinguistic research, and they are based on the underlying assumption that individual differences are inconsequential to the measurement of semantic dimensions. In this pre-registered study we tested this assumption by examining whether individual differences in motor imagery are related to variance in semantic ratings. We collected graspability ratings (i.e., how easily a word's referent can be grasped using one hand) for 350 words and also had each participant complete a series of motor imagery questionnaires. Using linear mixed effect models we tested whether measures of motor imagery ability (e.g., the Florida Praxis Imagery Questionnaire and the Test of Ability in Movement Imagery for Hands) and motor imagery vividness (e.g., the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire 2) could account for variance (raw and absolute difference scores) in graspability ratings. We observed a significant relationship between motor imagery vividness and absolute rating difference scores, wherein people with more vivid motor imagery provided ratings that were further from the mean word ratings. However there was no relationship between motor imagery and raw rating difference scores. The results suggest that there are measurable systematic differences in how participants make sensorimotor semantic ratings, which has implications for how sensorimotor semantic word norms are used for investigations of lexical semantic processing.</p>","PeriodicalId":32728,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognition","volume":"8 1","pages":"12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11720573/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Grasping Variance in Word Norms: Individual Differences in Motor Imagery and Semantic Ratings.\",\"authors\":\"Emiko J Muraki, Sydney Born, Penny M Pexman\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/joc.418\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Word norming datasets have become an important resource for psycholinguistic research, and they are based on the underlying assumption that individual differences are inconsequential to the measurement of semantic dimensions. In this pre-registered study we tested this assumption by examining whether individual differences in motor imagery are related to variance in semantic ratings. We collected graspability ratings (i.e., how easily a word's referent can be grasped using one hand) for 350 words and also had each participant complete a series of motor imagery questionnaires. Using linear mixed effect models we tested whether measures of motor imagery ability (e.g., the Florida Praxis Imagery Questionnaire and the Test of Ability in Movement Imagery for Hands) and motor imagery vividness (e.g., the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire 2) could account for variance (raw and absolute difference scores) in graspability ratings. We observed a significant relationship between motor imagery vividness and absolute rating difference scores, wherein people with more vivid motor imagery provided ratings that were further from the mean word ratings. However there was no relationship between motor imagery and raw rating difference scores. The results suggest that there are measurable systematic differences in how participants make sensorimotor semantic ratings, which has implications for how sensorimotor semantic word norms are used for investigations of lexical semantic processing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":32728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cognition\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11720573/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.418\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Psychology\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.418","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

词规范数据集已成为心理语言学研究的重要资源,其基础假设是个体差异对语义维度的测量无关紧要。在这项预先登记的研究中,我们通过检查运动意象的个体差异是否与语义评级的差异有关来检验这一假设。我们收集了350个单词的可抓性评分(即单手抓住一个单词的指代物的难易程度),并让每个参与者完成一系列运动意象调查问卷。使用线性混合效应模型,我们测试了运动想象能力(例如,佛罗里达实践想象问卷和手部运动想象能力测试)和运动想象生动度(例如,运动想象生动度问卷2)是否可以解释可抓性评分的差异(原始和绝对差异分数)。我们观察到运动意象生动度和绝对评分差异得分之间的显著关系,其中运动意象更生动的人给出的评分离平均单词评分更远。然而,运动意象与原始评分差异得分之间没有关系。结果表明,被试在进行感觉运动语义评定时存在可测量的系统差异,这对如何将感觉运动语义词规范用于词汇语义加工的研究具有启示意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Grasping Variance in Word Norms: Individual Differences in Motor Imagery and Semantic Ratings.

Word norming datasets have become an important resource for psycholinguistic research, and they are based on the underlying assumption that individual differences are inconsequential to the measurement of semantic dimensions. In this pre-registered study we tested this assumption by examining whether individual differences in motor imagery are related to variance in semantic ratings. We collected graspability ratings (i.e., how easily a word's referent can be grasped using one hand) for 350 words and also had each participant complete a series of motor imagery questionnaires. Using linear mixed effect models we tested whether measures of motor imagery ability (e.g., the Florida Praxis Imagery Questionnaire and the Test of Ability in Movement Imagery for Hands) and motor imagery vividness (e.g., the Vividness of Movement Imagery Questionnaire 2) could account for variance (raw and absolute difference scores) in graspability ratings. We observed a significant relationship between motor imagery vividness and absolute rating difference scores, wherein people with more vivid motor imagery provided ratings that were further from the mean word ratings. However there was no relationship between motor imagery and raw rating difference scores. The results suggest that there are measurable systematic differences in how participants make sensorimotor semantic ratings, which has implications for how sensorimotor semantic word norms are used for investigations of lexical semantic processing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cognition
Journal of Cognition Psychology-Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊最新文献
Long-term Contingency Learning Depends on Contingency Awareness. I am Once Again Asking for Your Attention: A Replication of Feature-Based Attention Modulations of Binding Effects with Picture Stimuli. Implicit Learning of Parity and Magnitude Associations with Number Color. Exploring Inhibitory Control Processes in Highly Superior Autobiographical Memory (HSAM): A Single Case Study. Readiness for Perception and Action: Towards a More Mechanistic Understanding of Phasic Alertness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1