• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

意大利数据的特异性评分。

Specificity ratings for Italian data.

机构信息

Faculty of Modern Languages, Literatures and Cultures, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Faculty of Arts, CLCG, University of Groeningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Behav Res Methods. 2023 Oct;55(7):3531-3548. doi: 10.3758/s13428-022-01974-6. Epub 2022 Sep 26.

DOI:10.3758/s13428-022-01974-6
PMID:36163541
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10615975/
Abstract

Abstraction enables us to categorize experience, learn new information, and form judgments. Language arguably plays a crucial role in abstraction, providing us with words that vary in specificity (e.g., highly generic: tool vs. highly specific: muffler). Yet, human-generated ratings of word specificity are virtually absent. We hereby present a dataset of specificity ratings collected from Italian native speakers on a set of around 1K Italian words, using the Best-Worst Scaling method. Through a series of correlation studies, we show that human-generated specificity ratings have low correlation coefficients with specificity metrics extracted automatically from WordNet, suggesting that WordNet does not reflect the hierarchical relations of category inclusion present in the speakers' minds. Moreover, our ratings show low correlations with concreteness ratings, suggesting that the variables Specificity and Concreteness capture two separate aspects involved in abstraction and that specificity may need to be controlled for when investigating conceptual concreteness. Finally, through a series of regression studies we show that specificity explains a unique amount of variance in decision latencies (lexical decision task), suggesting that this variable has theoretical value. The results are discussed in relation to the concept and investigation of abstraction.

摘要

抽象使我们能够对经验进行分类、学习新信息和做出判断。语言在抽象中可以说是起着至关重要的作用,它为我们提供了在特定性上有所不同的词汇(例如,高度通用:工具 vs. 高度具体:消音器)。然而,人类生成的词汇特定性评级几乎不存在。在此,我们通过最佳最差标度法,展示了一个从意大利语母语者那里收集到的大约 1000 个意大利语单词的特异性评级的数据集。通过一系列相关性研究,我们发现人类生成的特异性评级与从 WordNet 自动提取的特异性度量之间的相关系数较低,这表明 WordNet 并不能反映出说话者思维中存在的类别包含的层次关系。此外,我们的评级与具体性评级之间的相关性较低,这表明特异性和具体性这两个变量捕捉到了抽象中涉及的两个不同方面,并且在研究概念具体性时可能需要控制特异性。最后,通过一系列回归研究,我们发现特异性可以解释决策时滞(词汇决策任务)中独特的方差,这表明这个变量具有理论价值。结果将结合抽象的概念和研究进行讨论。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3f53/10615975/34e69d88e5a9/13428_2022_1974_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3f53/10615975/ab7a8f5233d9/13428_2022_1974_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3f53/10615975/118200c158f9/13428_2022_1974_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3f53/10615975/1a38e4d5a088/13428_2022_1974_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3f53/10615975/22b0bee465b5/13428_2022_1974_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3f53/10615975/34e69d88e5a9/13428_2022_1974_Fig5_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3f53/10615975/ab7a8f5233d9/13428_2022_1974_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3f53/10615975/118200c158f9/13428_2022_1974_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3f53/10615975/1a38e4d5a088/13428_2022_1974_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3f53/10615975/22b0bee465b5/13428_2022_1974_Fig4_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3f53/10615975/34e69d88e5a9/13428_2022_1974_Fig5_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Specificity ratings for Italian data.意大利数据的特异性评分。
Behav Res Methods. 2023 Oct;55(7):3531-3548. doi: 10.3758/s13428-022-01974-6. Epub 2022 Sep 26.
2
On abstraction: decoupling conceptual concreteness and categorical specificity.论抽象:解耦概念具体性与范畴特异性。
Cogn Process. 2020 Aug;21(3):365-381. doi: 10.1007/s10339-020-00965-9. Epub 2020 Mar 16.
3
CONcreTEXT norms: Concreteness ratings for Italian and English words in context.CONcreTEXT 规范:语境中意大利语和英语单词的具体性评级。
PLoS One. 2023 Oct 20;18(10):e0293031. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293031. eCollection 2023.
4
The Paradox of Abstraction: Precision Versus Concreteness.抽象的悖论:精确性与具体性
J Psycholinguist Res. 2017 Jun;46(3):715-729. doi: 10.1007/s10936-016-9459-6.
5
Perceptual modality norms for 1,121 Italian words: A comparison with concreteness and imageability scores and an analysis of their impact in word processing tasks.1,121 个意大利语单词的知觉方式规范:与具体性和形象性得分的比较,以及对其在文字处理任务中的影响的分析。
Behav Res Methods. 2020 Aug;52(4):1599-1616. doi: 10.3758/s13428-019-01337-8.
6
Concreteness/abstractness ratings for two-character Chinese words in MELD-SCH.MELD-SCH 中两个汉字的具体/抽象程度评级。
PLoS One. 2020 Jun 22;15(6):e0232133. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232133. eCollection 2020.
7
A concreteness judgment of words.词语的具体性判断
J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2012;24(3):262-8. doi: 10.1590/s2179-64912012000300012.
8
A Database of Chinese-English Bilingual Speakers: Ratings of the Age of Acquisition and Familiarity.中英双语使用者数据库:习得年龄与熟悉度评分
Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 18;11:554785. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.554785. eCollection 2020.
9
Concreteness ratings for 36,000 Estonian words.36000 个爱沙尼亚语单词的具体性评级。
Behav Res Methods. 2024 Aug;56(5):5178-5189. doi: 10.3758/s13428-023-02257-4. Epub 2023 Dec 21.
10
Strength of perceptual experience predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or imageability.感知体验的强度比具体性和形象性更能预测单词处理能力。
Cognition. 2012 Dec;125(3):452-65. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.010. Epub 2012 Aug 27.

引用本文的文献

1
Specificity effect in concrete/abstract semantic categorization task.具体/抽象语义分类任务中的特异性效应
Cogn Process. 2025 Sep 3. doi: 10.1007/s10339-025-01286-5.
2
Red and blue language: Word choices in the Trump and Harris 2024 presidential debate.红色与蓝色语言:2024年特朗普与哈里斯总统辩论中的用词选择
PLoS One. 2025 Jun 3;20(6):e0324715. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324715. eCollection 2025.
3
Specificity ratings for English data.英文数据的特异性评级。

本文引用的文献

1
Abstraction and analogy-making in artificial intelligence.人工智能中的抽象和类比推理。
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2021 Dec;1505(1):79-101. doi: 10.1111/nyas.14619. Epub 2021 Jun 25.
2
The Croatian psycholinguistic database: Estimates for 6000 nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs.克罗地亚心理语言学数据库:6000 个名词、动词、形容词和副词的估计值。
Behav Res Methods. 2021 Aug;53(4):1799-1816. doi: 10.3758/s13428-020-01533-x. Epub 2021 Apr 26.
3
On abstraction: decoupling conceptual concreteness and categorical specificity.论抽象:解耦概念具体性与范畴特异性。
Cogn Process. 2025 May;26(2):283-302. doi: 10.1007/s10339-024-01239-4. Epub 2024 Nov 8.
4
What we mean when we say semantic: Toward a multidisciplinary semantic glossary.我们所说的语义是什么意思:迈向一个多学科语义词汇表。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2025 Feb;32(1):243-280. doi: 10.3758/s13423-024-02556-7. Epub 2024 Sep 4.
5
Is metaphor a natural kind?隐喻是一种自然类别吗?
Front Psychol. 2024 Mar 25;15:1381821. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1381821. eCollection 2024.
Cogn Process. 2020 Aug;21(3):365-381. doi: 10.1007/s10339-020-00965-9. Epub 2020 Mar 16.
4
Perceptual modality norms for 1,121 Italian words: A comparison with concreteness and imageability scores and an analysis of their impact in word processing tasks.1,121 个意大利语单词的知觉方式规范:与具体性和形象性得分的比较,以及对其在文字处理任务中的影响的分析。
Behav Res Methods. 2020 Aug;52(4):1599-1616. doi: 10.3758/s13428-019-01337-8.
5
Italian Age of Acquisition Norms for a Large Set of Words (ItAoA).大量词汇的意大利语习得年龄规范(ItAoA)。
Front Psychol. 2019 Feb 13;10:278. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00278. eCollection 2019.
6
Portuguese Norms of Name Agreement, Concept Familiarity, Subjective Frequency and Visual Complexity for 150 Colored and Tridimensional Pictures.150 张彩色和三维图片的名称相符性、概念熟悉度、主观频率和视觉复杂性的葡萄牙规范。
Span J Psychol. 2018 Apr 10;21:E8. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2018.10.
7
Concreteness norms for 1,659 French words: Relationships with other psycholinguistic variables and word recognition times.1,659 个法文字汇的具体性规范:与其他心理语言学变数及字词辨识时间的关系。
Behav Res Methods. 2018 Dec;50(6):2366-2387. doi: 10.3758/s13428-018-1014-y.
8
When is best-worst best? A comparison of best-worst scaling, numeric estimation, and rating scales for collection of semantic norms.何时最佳最差最佳?最佳最差标度、数值估计和等级量表在语义规范收集方面的比较。
Behav Res Methods. 2018 Feb;50(1):115-133. doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-1009-0.
9
Scoring best-worst data in unbalanced many-item designs, with applications to crowdsourcing semantic judgments.在不平衡多项设计中对最佳-最差数据进行评分,应用于众包语义判断。
Behav Res Methods. 2018 Apr;50(2):711-729. doi: 10.3758/s13428-017-0898-2.
10
Norms of valence, arousal, concreteness, familiarity, imageability, and context availability for 1,100 Chinese words.1100个中文词汇的效价、唤醒度、具体性、熟悉度、可想象性和语境可用性规范
Behav Res Methods. 2017 Aug;49(4):1374-1385. doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0793-2.