Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words

By Kenneth Gilhooly, Robert H. Logie. 1980

Subfields: Statistics and Probability, Computational Linguistics & Semantics

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Statistics and Probability

In Computational Linguistics & Semantics

Citations in the corpus

Towards fairer datasets: filtering and balancing the distribution of the people subtree in the ImageNet hierarchy (2019, background): “Prior works have demonstrated a strong correlation between familiarity and imageability [9, 32, 78], which explains the low imageability of the less frequent cotter.”
Assessing Lexical Proficiency Using Analytic Ratings: A Case for Collocation Accuracy (2014, background): “Words that are highly concrete refer to here-and-now concepts, ideas, and things (Paivio et al. 1968; Toglia and Battig 1978; Gilhooly and Logie 1980).”
The influence of age of acquisition in word reading and other tasks : A never ending story ? (2004, methodology): “…words in these studies were matched for Kucera and Francis frequency, there were differences between the two sets of words on the frequency counts provided in the CELEX and the WFG databases, as well as differences in the ratings of lexical familiarity provided by Gilhooly and Logie (1980).”
Age of acquisition and lexical processing (2006, methodology): “(The early words also tended to have higher ratings of lexical familiarity as provided by Gilhooly & Logie, 1980.)”
Linguistic Features Identify Alzheimer’s Disease in Narrative Speech (2015, unknown): “Specifically, we use the SUBTL frequency norms [53] and the combined Bristol and Gilhooly-Logie norms [54, 55] for familiarity, imageability, and age-ofacquisition.”
Age and age of acquisition: An evaluation of the cumulative frequency hypothesis (2002, background): “…420 510 glove 9 5 2.28 437 534 face 371 4 1.66 448 533 sock 4 4 1.72 418 518 Mean 224 5.0 3.6 5.5 5.0 3.6 SD 129 0.8 0.8 2.81 0.8 0.8 F = word frequency (KucÏ era & Francis, 1967); L = word length (number of letters); AoA = age of acquisition (Gilhooly & Logie, 1980); YRT = young RT; ORT = old RT.”
The Large-Scale Structure of Semantic Networks: Statistical Analyses and a Model of Semantic Growth (2005, methodology): “Gilhooly and Logie (1980) asked adults to estimate, using an arbitrary rating scale, the age at which they first learned particular words.”
Measuring L2 Lexical Growth Using Hypernymic Relationships (2009, methodology): “MRC concreteness values are based on the work of Paivio, Yuille, and Madigan (1968), Toglia and Battig (1978), and Gilhooly and Logie (1980), who asked participants to score nouns based on concreteness on a numerical scale (from 1 to 7).”
More use almost always a means a smaller frequency effect: Aging, bilingualism, and the weaker links hypothesis. (2008, background): “These conclusions depend on the assumption that frequency per se – not one of several variables that are highly correlated with word frequency (e.g., Gilhooly & Logie, 1980) – produced the pattern of results we obtained.”
Word naming times and psycholinguistic norms for Italian nouns (2002, background): “…conducted on a word sample not limited to depictable nouns, are more similar to those that have been obtained on word samples that not only included object names, but also had a wider IMAG range, includingabstract words as well (see, e.g., Gilhooly & Logie, 1980, 1982; Rubin, 1980; Whaley, 1978).”
MANULEX: A grade-level lexical database from French elementary school readers (2004, background): “…Yuille & Madigan, 1968), Gilhooly and Logie's ratings based on age of acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity and ambiguity measures (Gilhooly & Logie, 1980), the Colorado norms which deal with word meaningfulness (Toglia & Battig, 1978), the word frequency counts of Kučera and…”