cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v17
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality-exclusivity norms. Respondents rated the extent to which they experienced certain properties (below, 'prop') and concepts (conc) in Dutch through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Besides specific ratings for the auditory (A), haptic (H) and visual (V) modalities, each word also bears a score for modality-exclusivity (EXC)—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and a dominant modality (MOD)—i.e., the highest rating. An excerpt is provided below, yet the actual norms contain over 20 variables, including measures of frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage. For comparison, the English norms were re-analyzed, thus unveiling a broad reproduction of results (see also Louwerse & Connell, 2011). First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic words were quite related, whereas auditory words showed greater independence. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension. Third, the three modalities also presented differences in modality-exclusivity, with auditory and visual words showing greater unimodality, and haptic words showing greater multimodality. Fourth, properties were more unimodal than concepts. Fifth, the data presented sound-symbolism, that is, non-arbitrary relations between meaning and sound. As such, auditory ratings predicted lexical properties of the words better than the other two modalities, or else with a different polarity.Six representative figures are provided. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. This work is part of Pablo Bernabeu's MPhil thesis, which is supervised by Max Louwerse (Tilburg U), and Roel Willems (Radboud U).<strong>References</strong>Louwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <em>Cognitive Science, 35, </em>2, 381-98.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <em>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </em>2, 558-564.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<em> </em><em>Behavior Research Methods, 45</em>, 516-526.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v18
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality-exclusivity norms. Respondents rated the extent to which they experienced certain properties (below, 'prop') and concepts (conc) in Dutch through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Besides specific ratings for the auditory (A), haptic (H) and visual (V) modalities, each word also bears a score for modality-exclusivity (EXC)—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and a dominant modality (MOD)—i.e., the highest rating. An excerpt is provided below, yet the actual norms contain over 20 variables, including measures of frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage. For comparison, the English norms were re-analyzed, thus unveiling a broad reproduction of results (see also Louwerse & Connell, 2011). First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic words were quite related, whereas auditory words showed greater independence. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension. Third, the three modalities also presented differences in modality-exclusivity, with auditory and visual words showing greater unimodality, and haptic words showing greater multimodality. Fourth, properties were more unimodal than concepts. Fifth, the data presented sound-symbolism, that is, non-arbitrary relations between meaning and sound. As such, auditory ratings predicted lexical properties of the words better than the other two modalities, or else with a different polarity.Six representative figures are provided. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. This work is part of Pablo Bernabeu's MPhil thesis, which is supervised by Max Louwerse (Tilburg U), and Roel Willems (Radboud U).<strong>References</strong>Louwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <em>Cognitive Science, 35, </em>2, 381-98.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <em>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </em>2, 558-564.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<em> </em><em>Behavior Research Methods, 45</em>, 516-526.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v19
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality-exclusivity norms. Respondents rated the extent to which they experienced certain properties (below, 'prop') and concepts (conc) in Dutch through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Besides specific ratings for the auditory (A), haptic (H) and visual (V) modalities, each word also bears a score for modality-exclusivity (EXC)—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and a dominant modality (MOD)—i.e., the highest rating. An excerpt is provided below, yet the actual norms contain over 20 variables, including measures of frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage. For comparison, the English norms were re-analyzed without the olfactory and gustatory modalities where necessary, thus unveiling a broad reproduction of results (see also Louwerse & Connell, 2011). First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic words were quite related, whereas auditory words showed greater independence. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension. Third, the three modalities also presented differences in modality-exclusivity, with auditory and visual words showing greater unimodality, and haptic words showing greater multimodality. Fourth, properties were more unimodal than concepts. Fifth, the data presented sound-symbolism, that is, non-arbitrary relations between meaning and sound. As such, auditory ratings predicted lexical properties of the words better than the other two modalities, or else with a different polarity.Six representative figures are provided. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. This work is part of Pablo Bernabeu's MPhil thesis, which is supervised by Max Louwerse (Tilburg U), and Roel Willems (Radboud U).<strong>References</strong>Louwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <em>Cognitive Science, 35, </em>2, 381-98.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <em>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </em>2, 558-564.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<em> </em><em>Behavior Research Methods, 45</em>, 516-526.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v20
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality-exclusivity norms. Respondents rated the extent to which they experienced certain properties (below, 'prop') and concepts (conc) in Dutch through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Besides specific ratings for the auditory (A), haptic (H) and visual (V) modalities, each word also bears a score for modality-exclusivity (EXC)—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and a dominant modality (MOD)—i.e., the highest rating. An excerpt is provided below, yet the actual norms contain over 20 variables, including measures of frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage. For comparison, the English norms were re-analyzed without the olfactory and gustatory modalities where necessary, thus unveiling a broad reproduction of results (see also Louwerse & Connell, 2011). First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic words were quite related, whereas auditory words showed greater independence. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension. Third, the three modalities also presented differences in modality-exclusivity, with auditory and visual words showing greater unimodality, and haptic words showing greater multimodality. Fourth, properties were more unimodal than concepts. Fifth, the data presented sound-symbolism, that is, non-arbitrary relations between meaning and sound. As such, auditory ratings predicted lexical properties of the words better than the other two modalities, or else with a different polarity.Six representative figures are provided. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. This work is part of Pablo Bernabeu's MPhil thesis, which is supervised by Max Louwerse (Tilburg U), and Roel Willems (Radboud U).<strong>References</strong>Louwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <em>Cognitive Science, 35, </em>2, 381-98.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <em>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </em>2, 558-564.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<em> </em><em>Behavior Research Methods, 45</em>, 516-526.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v21
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality-exclusivity norms. Respondents rated the extent to which they experienced certain properties (below, 'prop') and concepts (conc) in Dutch through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Besides specific ratings for the auditory (A), haptic (H) and visual (V) modalities, each word also bears a score for modality-exclusivity (EXC)—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and a dominant modality (MOD)—i.e., the highest rating. An excerpt is provided below, yet the actual norms contain over 20 variables, including measures of frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage. For comparison, the English norms were re-analyzed without the olfactory and gustatory modalities where necessary, thus unveiling a broad reproduction of results (see also Louwerse & Connell, 2011). First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic words were quite related, whereas auditory words showed greater independence. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension. Third, the three modalities also presented differences in modality-exclusivity, with auditory and visual words showing greater unimodality, and haptic words showing greater multimodality. Fourth, properties were more unimodal than concepts. Fifth, the data presented sound-symbolism, that is, non-arbitrary relations between meaning and sound. As such, auditory ratings predicted lexical properties of the words better than the other two modalities, or else with a different polarity.Six representative figures are provided. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. This work is part of Pablo Bernabeu's MPhil thesis, which is supervised by Max Louwerse (Tilburg U), and Roel Willems (Radboud U).<strong>References</strong>Louwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <em>Cognitive Science, 35, </em>2, 381-98.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <em>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </em>2, 558-564.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<em> </em><em>Behavior Research Methods, 45</em>, 516-526.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v22
title: Modality-exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality-exclusivity norms. Respondents rated the extent to which they experienced certain properties (below, 'prop') and concepts (conc) in Dutch through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Besides specific ratings for the auditory (A), haptic (H) and visual (V) modalities, each word also bears a score for modality-exclusivity (EXC)—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and a dominant modality (MOD)—i.e., the highest rating. An excerpt is provided below, yet the actual norms contain over 20 variables, including measures of frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage. For comparison, the English norms were re-analyzed without the olfactory and gustatory modalities where necessary, thus unveiling a broad reproduction of results (see also Louwerse & Connell, 2011). First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic words were quite related, whereas auditory words showed greater independence. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension. Third, the three modalities also presented differences in modality-exclusivity, with auditory and visual words showing greater unimodality, and haptic words showing greater multimodality. Fourth, properties were more unimodal than concepts. Fifth, the data presented sound-symbolism, that is, non-arbitrary relations between meaning and sound. As such, auditory ratings predicted lexical properties of the words better than the other two modalities, or else with a different polarity.Six representative figures are provided. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. This work is part of Pablo Bernabeu's MPhil thesis, which is supervised by Max Louwerse (Tilburg U), and Roel Willems (Radboud U).<strong>References</strong>Louwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <em>Cognitive Science, 35, </em>2, 381-98.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <em>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </em>2, 558-564.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<em> </em><em>Behavior Research Methods, 45</em>, 516-526.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v23
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality exclusivity norms. Respondents rated the extent to which they experienced certain properties (above, 'prop') and concepts (conc) in Dutch through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Besides specific ratings for the auditory (A), haptic (H) and visual (V) modalities, each word also bears a score for modality exclusivity (EXC)—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and a dominant modality (MOD)—i.e., the highest rating. An excerpt is provided below, yet the actual norms contain over 20 variables, including measures of frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage. For comparison, the English norms were re-analyzed without the olfactory and gustatory modalities where necessary, thus unveiling a broad reproduction of results (see also Louwerse & Connell, 2011). First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, the visual and haptic modalities were quite related, leaving auditory ones as more independent. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension (Louwerse & Connell, 2011). Third, the three modalities also presented differences in modality exclusivity, with auditory and visual words showing greater unimodality, and haptic words showing greater multimodality. Fourth, properties were more unimodal than concepts. Fifth, the data presented sound-symbolism, that is, non-arbitrary relations between meaning and sound. As such, auditory ratings predicted lexical properties of the words better than the other two modalities, or else with a different polarity.Six representative figures are provided. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. This work is part of Pablo Bernabeu's MPhil thesis, which is supervised by Max Louwerse (Tilburg U), and Roel Willems (Radboud U).<strong>References</strong>Louwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <em>Cognitive Science, 35, </em>2, 381-98.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <em>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </em>2, 558-564.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<em> </em><em>Behavior Research Methods, 45</em>, 516-526.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v24
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality exclusivity norms. Respondents rated the extent to which they experienced certain properties (above, 'prop') and concepts (conc) in Dutch through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Besides specific ratings for the auditory (A), haptic (H) and visual (V) modalities, each word also bears a score for modality exclusivity (EXC)—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and a dominant modality (MOD)—i.e., the highest rating. An excerpt is provided, yet the actual norms contain over 20 variables, including measures of frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage. Among the results, there were unimodal, bimodal, and tri-modal (or multimodal) words. For comparison, the English norms were re-analyzed without the olfactory and gustatory modalities where necessary, thus unveiling a broad reproduction of results (see also Louwerse & Connell, 2011). First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, the visual and haptic modalities were quite related, leaving auditory ones as more independent. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension (Louwerse & Connell, 2011). Third, the three modalities also presented differences in modality exclusivity, with auditory and visual words showing greater unimodality, and haptic words showing greater multimodality. Fourth, properties were more unimodal than concepts. Fifth, the data presented sound-symbolism, that is, non-arbitrary relations between meaning and sound. As such, auditory ratings predicted lexical properties of the words better than the other two modalities, or else with a different polarity.Six representative figures are provided. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. This work is part of Pablo Bernabeu's MPhil thesis, which is supervised by Max Louwerse (Tilburg U), and Roel Willems (Radboud U).<strong>References</strong>Louwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <em>Cognitive Science, 35, </em>2, 381-98.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <em>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </em>2, 558-564.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<em> </em><em>Behavior Research Methods, 45</em>, 516-526.