cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v25
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.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v26
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.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v27
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.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v28
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 747 properties and 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 R 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.v29
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 747 properties and 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. Their English properties and concepts were translated into Dutch, then independently tested as follows. Forty-two respondents rated the auditory, haptic, and visual strength of those words. Mean ratings were then computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Based on the three modalities, each word also features a specific modality exclusivity, and a dominant modality. The norms also include external measures of word frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage.Starting with the results, unimodal, bimodal, and tri-modal words appear. Visual and haptic experience are quite related, leaving a more independent auditory experience. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension (Louwerse & Connell, 2011). Auditory and visual words tend towards unimodality, whereas haptic words tend towards multimodality. Likewise, properties are more unimodal than concepts. The form of words is not quite as arbitrary as we used to think. It is connected to their meaning. This 'sound symbolism' was tested by means of a regression: Auditory strength predicts lexical properties of the words (frequency, distinctiveness...) better than the other modalities do, or else with a different polarity.Norms, data, and analysis code available at: https://github.com/pcbernabeu/Modality-exclusivity-norms-747-DutchReferencesLouwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <i>Cognitive Science, 35, </i>2, 381-98.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <i>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </i>2, 558-564.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<i> Behavior Research Methods, 45</i>, 516-526.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v30
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 747 properties and concepts in Dutch: a replication of English (Bernabeu, Louwerse, & Willems, in prep.)

description: This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality exclusivity norms. Their English properties and concepts were translated into Dutch, then independently tested as follows. Forty-two respondents rated the auditory, haptic, and visual strength of those words. Mean ratings were then computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Based on the three modalities, each word also features a specific modality exclusivity, and a dominant modality. The norms also include external measures of word frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage.Starting with the results, unimodal, bimodal, and tri-modal words appear. Visual and haptic experience are quite related, leaving a more independent auditory experience. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension (Louwerse & Connell, 2011). Auditory and visual words tend towards unimodality, whereas haptic words tend towards multimodality. Likewise, properties are more unimodal than concepts. The form of words is not quite as arbitrary as we used to think. It is connected to their meaning. This 'sound symbolism' was tested by means of a regression: Auditory strength predicts lexical properties of the words (frequency, distinctiveness...) better than the other modalities do, or else with a different polarity.Norms, data, and analysis code available at: https://github.com/pcbernabeu/Modality-exclusivity-norms-747-DutchReferencesLouwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <i>Cognitive Science, 35, </i>2, 381-98.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <i>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </i>2, 558-564.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<i> Behavior Research Methods, 45</i>, 516-526.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v31
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 747 properties and concepts in Dutch: a replication of English (Bernabeu, Louwerse, & Willems, in prep.)

description: This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality exclusivity norms. Their English properties and concepts were translated into Dutch, then independently tested as follows. Forty-two respondents rated the auditory, haptic, and visual strength of those words. Mean ratings were then computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Based on the three modalities, each word also features a specific modality exclusivity, and a dominant modality. The norms also include external measures of word frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage.Starting with the results, unimodal, bimodal, and tri-modal words appear. Visual and haptic experience are quite related, leaving a more independent auditory experience. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension (Louwerse & Connell, 2011). Auditory and visual words tend towards unimodality, whereas haptic words tend towards multimodality. Likewise, properties are more unimodal than concepts. The form of words is not quite as arbitrary as we used to think. It is connected to their meaning. This 'sound symbolism' was tested by means of a regression: Auditory strength predicts lexical properties of the words (frequency, distinctiveness...) better than the other modalities do, or else with a different polarity.Norms, data, and analysis code available at: https://github.com/pcbernabeu/Modality-exclusivity-norms-747-DutchReferencesLouwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <i>Cognitive Science, 35, </i>2, 381-98.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <i>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </i>2, 558-564.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<i> Behavior Research Methods, 45</i>, 516-526.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v32
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 747 properties and concepts in Dutch: a replication of English (Bernabeu, Louwerse, & Willems, in prep.)

description: This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality exclusivity norms. Their English properties and concepts were translated into Dutch, then independently tested as follows. Forty-two respondents rated the auditory, haptic, and visual strength of those words. Mean ratings were then computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Based on the three modalities, each word also features a specific modality exclusivity, and a dominant modality. The norms also include external measures of word frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage.Starting with the results, unimodal, bimodal, and tri-modal words appear. Visual and haptic experience are quite related, leaving a more independent auditory experience. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension (Louwerse & Connell, 2011). Auditory and visual words tend towards unimodality, whereas haptic words tend towards multimodality. Likewise, properties are more unimodal than concepts. The form of words is not quite as arbitrary as we used to think. It is connected to their meaning. This 'sound symbolism' was tested by means of a regression: Auditory strength predicts lexical properties of the words (frequency, distinctiveness...) better than the other modalities do, or else with a different polarity.ReferencesLouwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <i>Cognitive Science, 35, </i>2, 381-98.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <i>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </i>2, 558-564.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<i> Behavior Research Methods, 45</i>, 516-526.All data via the link below.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v33
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 747 properties and concepts in Dutch: a replication of English (Bernabeu, Louwerse, & Willems, in prep.)

description: This study is a cross-linguistic, conceptual replication of Lynott and Connell’s (2009, 2013) modality exclusivity norms. Their English properties and concepts were translated into Dutch, then independently tested as follows. Forty-two respondents rated the auditory, haptic, and visual strength of those words. Mean ratings were then computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Based on the three modalities, each word also features a specific modality exclusivity, and a dominant modality. The norms also include external measures of word frequency, length, distinctiveness, age of acquisition, and known percentage.Starting with the results, unimodal, bimodal, and tri-modal words appear. Visual and haptic experience are quite related, leaving a more independent auditory experience. These different relations are important because they may correlate with different levels of detail in word comprehension (Louwerse & Connell, 2011). Auditory and visual words tend towards unimodality, whereas haptic words tend towards multimodality. Likewise, properties are more unimodal than concepts. The form of words is not quite as arbitrary as we used to think. It is connected to their meaning. This 'sound symbolism' was tested by means of a regression: Auditory strength predicts lexical properties of the words (frequency, distinctiveness...) better than the other modalities do, or else with a different polarity.ReferencesLouwerse, M., & Connell, L. (2011). A taste of words: linguistic context and perceptual simulation predict the modality of words. <i>Cognitive Science, 35, </i>2, 381-98.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2009). Modality exclusivity norms for 423 object properties. <i>Behavior Research Methods, 41, </i>2, 558-564.Lynott, D., & Connell, L. (2013). Modality exclusivity norms for 400 nouns: The relationship between perceptual experience and surface word form.<i> Behavior Research Methods, 45</i>, 516-526.All data via the link below.