And finally
Appendix 7 Experiment 4 norming questionnaire instructions
Experiment 4 norming instructions version 1 (plausibility)
Please read the following instructions carefully
before starting the experiment
Instructions
Each question will show two pictures that suggest the ‘playing out’ of a particular event. For example, you might see the following:
These pictures are intended to show an event in which a match is used to light the candles. Your task is to say how likely it is you would see this happening in everyday life. You can make your decision on a rating scale like this one:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
If you think that lighting candles on a cake is highly likely to happen in everyday life, then you would select a ‘7’ on the scale. If you think it is a highly unlikely that this would happen, then you would select a ‘1’ on the scale. If you think this event is no more or less likely to happen in everyday life, then you would select a ‘4’.
There is no right or wrong answer. We are simply interested in what you think about the likelihood of these events happening. For example, you might have been presented with the following:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
For this example, you may have wanted to choose a low score on the scale – the cigarette may have lighted the candles on the cake, but it is highly unlikely to see this in everyday life.
Your personal details
After the actual experiment ends, you will see a section asking for details about yourself. We would be grateful if you could give a valid email address so that we can contact you if we have any questions about your answers, and so that we can contact you if you have won the prize draw!
In the field marked "Region" we would like you to give us an indication of the region you grew up in, so that we have an idea of the type of English you speak (we would like this information in case there are differences between dialects!).
The personal data you give us is used only for scientific purposes. We will not give any of this information to anyone else (including other research groups), nor will we report any information in any way that can be identified with you.
And finally...
Taking part in this experiment is entirely voluntary! You should feel free to cancel the experiment at any point if you don't want to continue.
Once again, thanks for your interest in taking part. You can start the experiment proper by clicking on the start button below.
Experiment 4 norming instructions, version 2 (likelihood)
Please read the following instructions carefully
before starting the experiment
Instructions
Each question will show two pictures that suggest the ‘playing out’ of a particular event. For example, you might see the following:
These pictures are intended to show an event in which a match is used to light the candles. Your task is to say how likely it is you would see this happening in everyday life. You can make your decision on a rating scale like this one:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
If you think that lighting candles on a cake is highly likely to happen in everyday life, then you would select a ‘7’ on the scale. If you think it is a highly unlikely that this would happen, then you would select a ‘1’ on the scale. If you think this event is no more or less likely to happen in everyday life, then you would select a ‘4’.
There is no right or wrong answer. We are simply interested in what you think about the likelihood of these events happening. For example, you might have been presented with the following:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
For this example, you may have wanted to choose a low score on the scale – the cigarette may have lighted the candles on the cake, but it is highly unlikely to see this in everyday life.
Your personal details
After the actual experiment ends, you will see a section asking for details about yourself. We would be grateful if you could give a valid email address so that we can contact you if we have any questions about your answers, and so that we can contact you if you have won the prize draw!
In the field marked "Region" we would like you to give us an indication of the region you grew up in, so that we have an idea of the type of English you speak (we would like this information in case there are differences between dialects!).
The personal data you give us is used only for scientific purposes. We will not give any of this information to anyone else (including other research groups), nor will we report any information in any way that can be identified with you.
And finally...
Taking part in this experiment is entirely voluntary! You should feel free to cancel the experiment at any point if you don't want to continue.
Once again, thanks for your interest in taking part. You can start the experiment proper by clicking on the start button below.
Experiment 4 norming instructions, version 3 (commonality)
Please read the following instructions carefully
before starting the experiment
Instructions
Each question will show a picture of an object. This picture is meant to represent an object in a particular state, rather than a ‘kind’ of that object. For example, an object may look squashed, broken, painted, etc. For instance, you might see loaf of bread that has been sliced:
Your task is to say how common you think a loaf of sliced bread is in everyday life. Note that we are asking you for a judgement about sliced bread, not bread in general, which in your experience could be more or less common than sliced bread.
You can make your choices on a rating scale like this one: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A choice of ‘7’ means that you think sliced bread is ‘very common’, a choice of ‘1’ means you think it is ‘not very common at all’, and a choice of ‘4’ means you think sliced bread is no more or less common in everyday life than anything else.
Given an example to illustrate this, a book is very common, but a book with a torn page such as the one below is less common. If presented with this, you may want to choose a low score as this is not very common in everyday life. Remember, we are asking for a judgment on the specific state or condition of the object, not the class of objects.
There is no right or wrong answer. We are simply interested in how common you think these items are.
Your personal details
After the actual experiment ends, you will see a section asking for details about yourself. We would be grateful if you could give a valid email address so that we can contact you if we have
any questions about your answers, and so that we can contact you if you have won the prize draw!
In the field marked "Region" we would like you to give us an indication of the region you grew up in, so that we have an idea of the type of English you speak (we would like this information in case there are differences between dialects!).
The personal data you give us is used only for scientific purposes. We will not give any of this information to anyone else (including other research groups), nor will we report any information in any way that can be identified with you.
And finally...
Taking part in this experiment is entirely voluntary! You should feel free to cancel the experiment at any point if you don't want to continue.
Once again, thanks for your interest in taking part. You can start the experiment proper by clicking on the start button below.
References
Abeles, M. (1991). Corticonics: Neural circuits of the cerebral cortex. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Adamo, M., & Ferber, S. (2009). A picture says more than a thousand words: Behavioural and ERP evidence for attentional enhancements due to action affordances. Neuropsychologia, 47, 1600-1608.
Aloimonos, Y., & Rosenfeld, A. (1991). Computer vision. Science, 253, 1249- 1254.
Altmann, G. T. M. Charles, V., & Gennari, S. P. (2005). Where language meets vision: event-structure in the visual world. AMLap Conference, Ghent. Altmann, G. T. M., & Kamide, (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs:
restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73, 247-264. Anderson, M. L. (2003) Embodied cognition: A field guide. Artificial
intelligence, 149, 91-130.
Andrews, S., Shelley, A. M., Fox, A. M., Catts, S. V., Ward, P. B., & McConaghy, N. (1993). Event-related potential indices of semantic processing in schizophrenia. Biological Psychiatry, 34, 443-458. Bajo, M. T., & Canas, J. J. (1988). Phonetic and semantic activation during
picture and word naming. Acta Psychologica, 72, 105-115.
Barsalou, L. W. (1993). Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: Manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In A. C. Collins, S. E. Gathercole, & M. A. Conway (Eds.), Theories of memory (pp. 29-101). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Abstraction in perceptual symbol systems. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London: Biological Sciences, 358,
1177-1187.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounding symbolic operations in the brain’s modal systems. In G. R. Semin, & E. R. Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding:
Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 9-42).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Beeckmans, J. (2000). Generation of conceptual gists of abstract patterns.
Beer, A. L., & Diehl, V. A. (2001). The role of short-term memory in semantic priming. Journal of General Psychology, 128, 329-350.
Belke, E. (2008). Effects of working memory load on lexical-semantic encoding in language production. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15, 357-363. Biederman, I. (1981). On the semantics of a glance at a scene. In M. Kubovy &
J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual Organisation (pp. 213-253). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Biederman, I. (1987). Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94, 115-147.
Biederman, I., Blickle, T. W., Teitelbaum, R. C., Klatsky, G. J., & Mezzanotte, R. J. (1988). Object identification in nonscene displays. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14,
456-467.
Block, N. (1983). Mental pictures and cognitive science. Philosophical Review,
92, 499-539.
Boyce, S., & Pollatsek, A. (1992). Identification of objects in scenes: The role of scene background in object naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 531-543.
Brown, M., & Besner, D. (2002). Semantic priming: On the role of awareness in visual word recognition in the absence of an expectancy. Consciousness
and Cognition, 11, 402-422.
Campbell, F. W., & Wurtz, R. H. (1978). Saccadic omission: Why we do not see a grey-out during a saccadic eye movement. Vision Research, 18, 1297- 1303.
Chase, W. G., & Clark, H. H. (1972). Mental operations in the comparison of sentences and pictures. In L. W. Gregg (Eds.), Cognition in Learning and
Memory. New York: Wiley.
Chun, M. M. (1997). Types and tokens in visual processing: A double dissociation between the attentional blink and repetition blindness.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 738-755.
Clark, H. H. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive
Colcombe, S. J., & Wyer, R. S. (2002). The role of prototypes in the mental representation of temporally related events. Cognitive Psychology, 44, 67-103.
Corbett, A. T. (1977). Retreival dynamics for rote and visual image mnemonics.
Journal of verbal learning and verbal behaviour, 16, 233-246.
Craighero, L., Fadiga, L., Umiltà, C. A., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Evidence for visuomotor priming effect. Neuroreport, 20, 347-349.
Dell’Acqua, R., & Grainger, J. (1999). Unconscious semantic priming from pictures. Cognition, 73, 1-15.
den Heyer, K., Goring, A., & Dannebring, G. L. (1985). Semantic priming and word repetition: The two effects are additive. Journal of Memory and
Language, 24, 699-716.
Doan, A., E. (2005). Type I and type II error. Encyclopaedia of social measurement, 883-888.
Dobel, C., Gumnior, H., Bölte, J., & Zwitserlood, P. (2007). Describing scenes hardly seen. Acta Psychologica, 125, 129-143.
Enns, J. T., & Di Lollo, V. (2000). What’s new in visual masking? Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 4(9), 345-352.
Estes, Z. & Glucksberg, S. (1998). Contextual activation of features of combined concepts. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, 333-338.
Ferretti, T. R., McRae, K., & Hatherell, A. (2001). Integrating verbs, situation schemas and thematic role concepts. Journal of Memory and Language,
44, 516-547.
Feustel, T. C., Shiffrin, R. M., & Salasoo, A. (1983). Episodic and lexical contributions to the repetition effect in word identification. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 309-346.
Gajewski, D. A., & Henderson, J. M. (2005). The role of saccade targeting in the transsaccadic integration of object types and tokens. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 820-
830.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton- Mifflin.
Gilchrist, I. D., Humphreys, G. W., & Riddoch, M. J. (1996). Grouping and extinction: Evidence for low-level modulation of selection. Cognitive
Neuropsychology, 13, 1223-1249.
Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
20, 1–55.
Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558-565.
Glenberg, A. M., & Robertson, D. A. (2000). Symbol grounding and meaning: A comparison of high dimensional and embodied theories of meaning.
Journal of Memory and Language, 43, 379–401.
Grafton, S. T., Fadiga, L., Arbib, M. A., & Rizzolatti, G. (1997). Premotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools. Neuroimage,
6, 231-236.
Green, C. B., & Hummel, J. E. (2006). Familiar interacting object pairs are perceptually grouped. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 32, 1107-1119.
Grimes, J. (1996). On the failure to detect changes in scenes across saccades. In K. Akins (Eds.), Perception (Vancouver Studies in Cognitive Science, Vol. 5, pp. 89-109). New York: Oxford University Press.
Henderson, J. M. (1997). Transsaccadic memory and integration during real- world object perception. Psychological Science, 8, 51-55.
Henderson, J. M., & Ferreira, F. (2004). Scene perception for psycholinguists. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of Language, Vision,
and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World. New York: Hove,
Psychology Press.
Higbee, K. L. (2004). Mnemonics, Psychology of. International encyclopedia of
the social and behavioural sciences, 9915-9918.
Hirose, N. (2002). An ecological approach to embodiment and cognition.
Cognitive Systems Research, 3, 289-299.
Hommel, B. (1998). Event files: Evidence for automatic integration of stimulus- response episodes. Visual Cognition, 5, 183-216.
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849-878.
Irwin, D. E. (1991). Information integration across saccadic eye movements.
Cognitive Psychology, 23, 420-456.
Irwin, D. E. (1996). Integration information across saccadic eye movements.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 94-100.
Irwin, D. E., Carlson-Radvansky, L. A., & Andrews, R. V. (1995). Information processing during saccadic eye movements. Acta Psychologica, 90, 261- 273.
Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology,
24, 175-219.
Kamide, Y., Atlmann, G. T. M., & Haywood, S. L. (2003). Prediction and thematic information in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133- 156.
Kamp, H. & Partee, B. (1995). Prototype theory and compositionality. Cognition, 57, 129-191.
Kanwisher, N. G. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Cognition, 27, 117-143.
Kanwisher, N. G. (1991). Repetition blindness and illusory conjunctions: Errors in binding visual types with visual tokens. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 404-421.
Kelsey, R., M., Ornduff, S., R., Alpert, B., S. (2007). Reliability of cardiovascular reactivity to stress: Internal consistency. Psychophysiology, 44, 2, 216-225.
Koriat, A. (1981). Semantic facilitation in lexical decision as a function of prime- target association. Memory & Cognition, 9, 587-598.
Lavie, N., Lin, Z., Zokaei, N., & Thoma, V. (2009). The role of perceptual load in object recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Liberman, N., Förster, J., & Higgins, E. (2007). Completed vs. interrupted
priming: Reduced accessibility from post-fulfilment inhibition. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 258-264.
Liberman, N., Sagristano, M., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of mental construal. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 38, 523-534.
Loschky, L. C., Sethi, A., Simons, D. J., Pydimarri, T. N., Ochs, D., & Corbeille, J. L. (2007). The importance of information localization in scene gist recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception &
Performance, 33, 1431-1450.
Mandler, J. M., & Parker, R. E. (1976). Memory for descriptive and spatial information in complex pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Learning and Memory, 2, 38-48.
McKone, E. (1995). Short-term implicit memory for words and nonwords.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1108-1126.
McNamara, T. P. (2005). Semantic Priming: Perspectives from Memory and
Word Recognition. Taylor & Francis group: Hove, Psychology Press.
McRae, K., Hare, M., Ferretti, T. R., & Elman, J. L. (2001). Activating verbs typical agents, patients, instruments, and locations via event schemas. In
Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 617-622). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Michotte, A. (1963). The perception of causality. New York: Basic Books. Milner, A. D., & Goodale, M. A. (1995). The visual brain in action. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Murata, A., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., Raso, V., & Rizzolatti, G.
(1997). Objects representation in the ventral premotor cortex (Area F5) of the monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 78, 2226-2230.
Neely, J. H. (1976). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Evidence for facilitatory and inhibitory processes. Memory and
Cognition, 4, 648-654.
Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W.
Humphreys (Eds.), Basic Processes in Reading: Visual Word
Recognition, pp. 264-336. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Neely, J. H., Keefe, D. E., & Ross, K. (1989). Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 1003-1019.
Neisser, U., & Kerr, N. (1973) Spatial and mnemonic properties of visual images. Cognitive psychology, 5, 138-150.
Norris, J. (1984). The effects of frequency, repetition and stimulus quality in visual word recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
36, 507-518.
Mitchell, D. B., & Brown, A. S. (1988). Persistent repetition priming in picture naming and its dissociation from recognition memory. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 213-
222.
Morton, J. (1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychological
Review, 76, 165-178.
Oliva, A. (2005). Gist of a Scene. In L. Itti (Eds.), Neurobiology of Attention, pp. 251-256. Elsevier, Academic Press.
Oliva, A., & Torralba, A. (2007). The role of context in object recognition.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 520-527.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Palmer, S. E. (1975). The effects of contextual scenes on the identification of objects. Memory and Cognition, 3, 519-526.
Peterson, R., & Simpson, G. (1989). Effects of backward priming on word recognition in single word and sentence contexts. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 15, 1020-
1032.
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975b). Attention and cognitive control, In R. L. Solso (Eds.), Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola
Symposion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Potter, M. C. (1976). Short-term conceptual memory for pictures. Journal of