cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3462575.v1
title: Elevated Chemerin Levels in Pakistani Men: An Interrelation with Metabolic Syndrome Phenotypes

description: Table 2. Correlation of serum chemerin levels with study parameters.Fasting insulin was measured using an ELISA kit (DIA source Immuno Assay S.A., Belgium). Insulin resistance was calculated using the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index [fasting insulin (units per milliliter) x fasting glucose milligram/deciliter)/405]. The body fat percentage was measured using Diagnostic Scale BG55 (Beurer Germany) through bioelectrical impedance matching/analysis. Serum chemerin levels were measured with an enzyme immunoassay kit (Creative Diagnostics, USA,www.creative-diagnostics.com), with a sensitivity of less than 3 pg/ml, using ELISA plate reader equalizer ER 2005, (Eqiupar, Italy).<br>
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459680
title: Syndecan-1 in the Mouse Parietal Peritoneum Microcirculation in Inflammation

description: To examine whether syndecan-1 co-localizes with chemokines <em>in vivo</em>, Alexa Fluor 568-labeled anti-syndecan-1 and Alexa Fluor 488-labeled anti-mouse macrophage inflammatory protein-2 (MIP-2; CXCL2) monoclonal rat antibody (40<em> µ</em>g, clone 40605; R&D Systems, Inc.), anti-mouse keratinocyte chemoattractant (KC; CXCL1) monoclonal rat antibody (40<em> µ</em>g, clone 59526; Creative Diagnostics, Shirley, NY, USA)
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459680.v4
title: Syndecan-1 in the Mouse Parietal Peritoneum Microcirculation in Inflammation

description: To examine whether syndecan-1 co-localizes with chemokines <em>in vivo</em>, Alexa Fluor 568-labeled anti-syndecan-1 and Alexa Fluor 488-labeled anti-mouse macrophage inflammatory protein-2 (MIP-2; CXCL2) monoclonal rat antibody (40<em> µ</em>g, clone 40605; R&D Systems, Inc.), anti-mouse keratinocyte chemoattractant (KC; CXCL1) monoclonal rat antibody (40<em> µ</em>g, clone 59526; Creative Diagnostics, Shirley, NY, USA)
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v5
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English [11 figures for download]

description: In this experiment (<i>N</i> = 42), 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch were rated on the basis of three conceptual modalities—auditory, haptic (or tactile), and visual. Specifically, participants rated the extent to which they experienced certain words through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. The mean ratings bore high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. For each word, modality exclusivity—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and dominant modality—i.e., the highest rating—were also calculated. The stimuli as well as the analyses were in part based on previous norms for English, the results of which were closely replicated. First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic ratings were quite related, whereas the auditory modality came out as the most exclusive. Third, properties and concepts also presented a difference in exclusivity, with concepts showing greater multimodality. Fourth, 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, or differently from, the other two modalities. Eleven representative figures may be downloaded here. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. (Supervisors: Max Louwerse--TilburgU--and Roel Willems--RadboudU).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v6
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: In this experiment (<i>N</i> = 42), 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch were rated on the basis of three conceptual modalities—auditory, haptic (or tactile), and visual. Specifically, participants rated the extent to which they experienced certain words through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. The mean ratings bore high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. For each word, modality exclusivity—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and dominant modality—i.e., the highest rating—were also calculated. The stimuli as well as the analyses were in part based on previous norms for English, the results of which were closely replicated. First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic ratings were quite related, whereas the auditory modality came out as the most exclusive. Third, properties and concepts also presented a difference in exclusivity, with concepts showing greater multimodality. Fourth, 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, or differently from, the other two modalities. Eleven representative figures may be downloaded here. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. (Supervisors: Max Louwerse--TilburgU--and Roel Willems--RadboudU).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v7
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: In this experiment (<i>N</i> = 42), 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch were rated on the basis of three conceptual modalities—auditory, haptic (or tactile), and visual. Specifically, participants rated the extent to which they experienced certain words through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. The mean ratings were backed by high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. For each word, modality exclusivity—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and dominant modality—i.e., the highest rating—were also calculated. The stimuli as well as the analyses were in part based on previous norms for English, the results of which were closely replicated. First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic ratings were quite related, whereas the auditory modality came out as the most exclusive. Third, properties and concepts also presented a difference in exclusivity, with concepts showing greater multimodality. Fourth, 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, or differently from, the other two modalities. Eleven representative figures may be downloaded here. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. (Supervisors: Max Louwerse--TilburgU--and Roel Willems--RadboudU).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v8
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: In this experiment (<i>N</i> = 42), 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch were rated on the basis of three conceptual modalities—auditory, haptic (or tactile), and visual. Specifically, participants rated the extent to which they experienced certain words through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. The mean ratings were backed by high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. For each word, modality exclusivity—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and dominant modality—i.e., the highest rating—were also calculated. The stimuli as well as the analyses were in part based on previous norms for English, the results of which were closely replicated. First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic ratings were quite related, whereas the auditory modality came out as the most exclusive. Third, properties and concepts also presented a difference in exclusivity, with concepts showing greater multimodality. Fourth, 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, or differently from, the other two modalities. Eleven representative figures may be downloaded here. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. (Supervisors: Max Louwerse--TilburgU--and Roel Willems--RadboudU).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v9
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: In this experiment (<i>N</i> = 42), 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch were rated on the basis of three conceptual modalities—auditory, haptic (or tactile), and visual. Specifically, participants rated the extent to which they experienced certain words through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. The mean ratings were backed by high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. For each word, modality exclusivity—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and dominant modality—i.e., the highest rating—were also calculated. The stimuli as well as the analyses were in part based on previous norms for English, the results of which were closely replicated. First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic ratings were quite related, whereas the auditory modality came out as the most exclusive. Third, properties and concepts also presented a difference in exclusivity, with concepts showing greater multimodality. Fourth, 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, or differently from, the other two modalities. Eleven representative figures may be downloaded here. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. (Supervisors: Max Louwerse--TilburgU--and Roel Willems--RadboudU).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v10
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: In this experiment (<i>N</i> = 42), 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch were rated on the basis of three conceptual modalities—auditory, haptic (or tactile), and visual. Specifically, participants rated the extent to which they experienced certain words through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. The mean ratings were backed by high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. For each word, modality exclusivity—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and dominant modality—i.e., the highest rating—were also calculated. The stimuli as well as the analyses were in part based on previous norms for English. For comparison, the English data was re-analyzed based on the three relevant modalities, resulting in a robust replication of all findings. First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic ratings were quite related, whereas the auditory modality came out as the most exclusive. These different levels of exclusiveness invite exploration of different levels of analysis in word comprehension, too. Third, properties and concepts also presented a difference in exclusivity, with concepts showing greater multimodality. Fourth, 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, or differently from, the other two modalities. Eleven representative figures may be downloaded here. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. (Supervisors: Max Louwerse--TilburgU--and Roel Willems--RadboudU).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v11
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: In this experiment (<i>N</i> = 42), 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch were rated on the basis of three conceptual modalities—auditory, haptic (or tactile), and visual. Specifically, participants rated the extent to which they experienced certain words through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. The mean ratings were backed by high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. For each word, modality exclusivity—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and dominant modality—i.e., the highest rating—were also calculated. The stimuli as well as the analyses were in part based on previous norms for English. For comparison, the English data was re-analyzed based on the three relevant modalities, resulting in a robust replication of all findings. First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic ratings were quite related, whereas the auditory modality came out as the most exclusive. These different levels of exclusiveness invite exploration of different levels of analysis in word comprehension, too. Third, properties and concepts also presented a difference in exclusivity, with concepts showing greater multimodality. Fourth, 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, or differently from, the other two modalities. Eleven representative figures may be downloaded here. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. (Supervisors: Max Louwerse--TilburgU--and Roel Willems--RadboudU).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v12
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: In this experiment (<i>N</i> = 42), 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch were rated on the basis of three conceptual modalities—auditory, haptic (or tactile), and visual. Specifically, participants rated the extent to which they experienced certain words through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. For each word, modality exclusivity—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and dominant modality—i.e., the highest rating—were also calculated. The stimuli as well as the analyses were in part based on previous norms for English (Lynott & Connell, 2009, 2013). For comparison, the English data was re-analyzed based on the three relevant modalities, resulting in a robust reproduction of all findings. First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic ratings were quite related, whereas the auditory modality came out as the most exclusive. These different levels of exclusiveness invite exploration of different levels of analysis in word comprehension, too. Third, properties and concepts also presented a difference in exclusivity, with concepts showing greater multimodality. Fourth, 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, or differently from, the other two modalities. Eleven representative figures may be downloaded here. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. This work is part of Pablo Bernabeu's master's thesis, which is supervised by Max Louwerse (Tilburg U), and Roel Willems (Radboud U).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v13
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: In this experiment (<i>N</i> = 42), 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch were rated on the basis of three conceptual modalities—auditory, haptic (or tactile), and visual. Specifically, participants rated the extent to which they experienced certain words through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. For each word, modality exclusivity—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and dominant modality—i.e., the highest rating—were also calculated. The stimuli as well as the analyses were in part based on previous norms for English (Lynott & Connell, 2009, 2013). For comparison, the English data was re-analyzed based on the three relevant modalities, resulting in a robust reproduction of all findings. First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic ratings were quite related, whereas the auditory modality came out as the most exclusive. These different levels of exclusiveness invite exploration of different levels of analysis in word comprehension, too. Third, properties and concepts also presented a difference in exclusivity, with concepts showing greater multimodality. Fourth, 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, or differently from, the other two modalities. Eleven representative figures may be downloaded here. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. This work is part of Pablo Bernabeu's master's thesis, which is supervised by Max Louwerse (Tilburg U), and Roel Willems (Radboud U).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v14
title: Modality exclusivity norms for 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch: a replication of English

description: In this experiment (<i>N</i> = 42), 336 properties and 411 concepts in Dutch were rated on the basis of three conceptual modalities—auditory, haptic (or tactile), and visual. Specifically, participants rated the extent to which they experienced certain words through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. For each word, modality exclusivity—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and dominant modality—i.e., the highest rating—were also calculated. The stimuli as well as the analyses were in part based on previous norms for English (Lynott & Connell, 2009, 2013). For comparison, the English data was re-analyzed based on the three relevant modalities, resulting in a robust reproduction of all findings. First, dominantly visual words were by far the most numerous. Second, visual and haptic ratings were quite related, whereas the auditory modality came out as the most exclusive. These different levels of exclusiveness invite exploration of different levels of analysis in word comprehension, too. Third, properties and concepts also presented a difference in exclusivity, with concepts showing greater multimodality. Fourth, 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, or differently from, the other two modalities. Eleven representative figures may be downloaded here. The norms are available upon request, along with the raw data and annotated code. This work is part of Pablo Bernabeu's master's thesis, which is supervised by Max Louwerse (Tilburg U), and Roel Willems (Radboud U).
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.3459632.v15
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 and concepts in Dutch through the senses of hearing, touch and vision. Mean ratings were computed, with a high interrater reliability and interitem consistency. Each word also bears a specific degree of modality-exclusivity—i.e., the overall perceptual strength—, and a dominant modality—i.e., the highest rating. 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.v16
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.