Contextual Diversity Not Word Frequency Determines WordNaming and Lexical Decision Times
James S. Adelman, Gordon D. A. Brown, and José F. Quesada
University of Warwick
In press, Psychological Science

Correlation Matrices

6.

7.

—
.896***.914***.924***.889***.098***-.081***-.148***-.553***-.501***-.276***-.361***—.993***.915***.875***.143***-.141***-.139***-.622***-.574***-.325***-.418***—.919***.892***.133***-.121***-.138***-.627***-.576***-.321***-.414***—.958***.118***-.119***-.148***-.575***-.532***-.298***-.386***—.103***-.064***-.121***-.620***-.575***-.296***-.395***—-.654***-.001-.096***-.078***-.371***-.300***

8.
-.029.067***.069***.377***.326***

9.

10.

11.

12.

9. Consistency Ratio
10. Young LD RT
11. Older LD RT
12. Young Naming RT
13. Older Naming RT—.026.030-.039*-.036†—.651***.310***.412***—.315***.486***—.649***

K-F refers to Kučera and Francis (1967). TASA refers to Landauer, Foltz, and Laham (1998) 12th grade. BNC refers to British
National Corpus Consortium (2000). † p < .1; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

CD vs WF Correlation Matrices

5.

CORRELATION MATRICES

4.

Table 1: Raw correlations amongst response times, covariates and predictors for studies using monosyllables only.

3.

2

2.

1. log K-F WF
2. log K-F CD
3. log TASA WF
4. log TASA CD
5. log BNC WF
6. log BNC CD
7. Orthographic N
8. Length
9. Consistency Ratio
10. Young LD RT
11. Older LD RT
12. Young Naming RT
13. Older Naming RT

1.
—.980***.897***.904***.923***.859***.107***-.106***-.151***-.533***-.485***-.278***-.358***

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

—
.622
.627
.627
.582
.187-.249-.143-.300-.372

—
.994
.815
.785
.339
-.377-.355-.550-.627—.823.800.335-.368-.352-.552-.628—
.976
.248
-.253-.198-.475-.571—.234-.231-.189-.482-.574—-.557-.496-.377-.347

—
.824
.540
.548—
.541.529—.726

K-F refers to Kučera and Francis (1967). TASA refers to Landauer et al. (1998) 12th grade. BNC refers to British National Corpus
Consortium (2000). All correlations are significant at p < .001.

CORRELATION MATRICES

2.

3

CD vs WF Correlation Matrices

Table 2: Raw correlations amongst response times, covariates and predictors for Elexicon projectdata.

1. log K-F WF
2. log K-F CD
3. log TASA WF
4. log TASA CD
5. log BNC WF
6. log BNC CD
7. Orthographic N
8. Length (letters)
9. Length (syllables)
10. Naming RT
11. LD RT

1.
—
.989
.623
.625
.626
.572
.193
-.254
-.145
-.297
-.369

6.

7.

—
0.842***
0.867***
0.911***
0.902***-0.090***-0.100***0.103***
0.041†-0.140***0.248***-0.540***-0.417***—
0.993***
0.856***
0.835***-0.305***-0.319***0.245***
0.351***
0.186***
0.260***-0.682***-0.568***—0.868***
0.856***-0.286***-0.306***0.231***
0.325***
0.144***
0.262***-0.679***-0.566***—0.970***-0.140***-0.144***0.130***
0.118***-0.057*0.253***-0.593***-0.464***—-0.126***-0.138***0.124***
0.111***-0.107***0.264***-0.605***-0.478***—0.858***-0.624***-0.393***-0.425***-0.213***0.545***
0.561***8.
9. Orthographic N
10. Imagery
11. Concreteness12. Ambiguity
13. LD RT
14. Naming RT

9.
-0.553***0.276***
0.293***
0.226***-0.341***-0.401***10.
—-0.409***-0.434***-0.239***0.540***
0.548***—-0.263***-0.217***—0.719***

11.
—
0.807***
0.017-0.391***-0.402***

12.

13.

—
0.067**-0.235***-0.270***K-F refers to Kučera and Francis (1967). TASA refers to Landauer et al. (1998) 12th grade. BNC refers to British National CorpusConsortium (2000). † p < .1; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

CD vs WF Correlation Matrices

5.

CORRELATION MATRICES

4.

Table 3: Raw correlations amongst response times, covariates and predictors for Elexicon project
data, for dataset with semantic variables.

3.

4

2.

1. log K-F WF
2. log K-F CD
3. log TASA WF
4. log TASA CD
5. log BNC WF
6. log BNC CD
7. Length (letters)
8. Length (syllables)
9. Orthographic N
10. Imagery
11. Concreteness12. Ambiguity
13. LD RT
14. Naming RT1.
—0.982***0.845***
0.862***
0.906***
0.882***-0.094***-0.101***0.114***
0.077**-0.090***0.241***-0.538***-0.414***

CD vs WF Correlation Matrices

REFERENCES

References
British National Corpus Consortium. (2000). British National Corpus World Edition [CD-ROM].
Oxford: Humanities Computing Unit, University of Oxford.
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English.
Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis.
Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284.

5