IMABASE: A new set of 313 colourised line drawings standardised in French for name agreement,image agreement,conceptual familiarity,age-of-acquisition,and imageability
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2020
IMABASE: A new set of 313 colourised line drawings standardised in French for name agreement,image agreement,conceptual familiarity,age-of-acquisition,and imageability
We provide normative data for a new set of 313 colourised line drawings. The drawings were standardised on name agreement (N = 60 participants), image agreement (N = 34), conceptual familiarity (N = 36), age of acquisition (N = 35), and imageability (N = 35). Objective visual complexity measures are given for the pictures, and objective word frequencies are provided for the modal names of the drawings. Reliability measures for the collected norms are very high. There are high levels of agreement between the names given by the participants and the drawings and comparative analyses indicate that the distribution of name agreement scores is very similar in both our own database and the MultiPic database (Duñabeitia et al., 2018). A novel “picture-choice task” used to assess name-image agreement (N = 30) reveals that the great majority of the IMABASE pictures that are also present in MultiPic are rated as providing better pictorial representations of the corresponding concepts. Finally, most of the correlations are comparable with those reported in other normative studies on colourised drawings. The whole set of pictures is freely available from https://leadserv.u-bourgogne.fr/~lead/imabase/ and the norms are available as Supplementary Material.
AlarioF.-X.FerrandL. (1999). A set of 400 pictures standardized for French: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, and age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 531–552.
2.
AlarioF.-X.FerrandL.LaganaroM.NewB.FrauenfelderU. H.SeguiJ. (2004). Predictors of picture naming speed. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 140–155.
3.
AuR.JoungP.NicholasM.OblerL. K.KassR.AlbertM. L. (1995). Naming ability across the adult life span. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 2, 300–311.
4.
BakhtiarM.NilipourR.WeekesB. S. (2013). Predictors of timed picture naming in Persian. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 834–841.
5.
BalotaD. A.PilottiM.CorteseM. J. (2001). Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory & Cognition, 29, 639–647.
6.
BarryC.MorrisonC. M.EllisA. W. (1997). Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures: Effects of age of acquisition, frequency, and name agreement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 560–585.
BoninP. (2013). Psychologie du langage: La fabrique des mots[Language production: The building of words]. De Boeck.
9.
BoninP.ChalardM.MéotA.FayolM. (2002). The determinants of spoken and written picture naming latencies. British Journal of Psychology, 93, 89–114.
10.
BoninP.GelinM.BugaiskaA. (2014). Animates are better remembered than inanimates: Further evidence from word and picture stimuli. Memory & Cognition, 42, 370–382.
11.
BoninP.Guillemard-TsaparinaD.MéotA. (2013). Determinants of naming latencies, object comprehension times, and new norms for the Russian standardized set of the colorized version of the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 731–745.
12.
BoninP.MéotA.AubertL.MalardierN.NiedenthalP.Capelle-ToczekM.-C. (2003). Normes de concrétude, de valeur d’imagerie, de fréquence subjective et de valence émotionnelle pour 866 mots [Concreteness, imageability, subjective frequency and emotional valence norms for 866 words]. L’Année Psychologique, 104, 655–694.
13.
BoninP.MéotA.BoucheixJ. M.BugaiskaA. (2018). Psycholinguistic norms for 320 fixed expressions (idioms and proverbs) in French. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 1057–1069.
14.
BoninP.MéotA.BugaiskaA. (2013). Norms and comprehension times for 305 French idiomatic expressions. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1259–1271.
15.
BoninP.MéotA.FerrandL.RouxS. (2011). L’imageabilité: Normes et relations avec d’autres variables psycholinguistiques [Imageability: Norms and relationships with other psycholinguistic variables]. L’Année Psychologique, 111, 327–357.
16.
BoninP.MéotA.LarocheB.BugaiskaA.PerretC. (2019). The impact of image characteristics on written naming in adults. Reading and Writing, 32, 13–31.
17.
BoninP.MéotA.MillotteS.BugaiskaA. (2015). Norms and reading times for acronyms in French. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 251–267.
18.
BoninP.PeeremanR.MalardierN.MéotA.ChalardM. (2003). A new set of 299 pictures for psycholinguistic studies: French norms for name agreement, image agreement, conceptual familiarity, visual complexity, image variability, age of acquisition, and naming latencies. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35, 158–167.
19.
BoninP.PerretC.MéotA.FerrandL.MermillodM. (2008). Psycholinguistic norms and face naming times for photographs of celebrities in French. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 137–146.
20.
BoukadiM.ZouaidiC.WilsonM. A. (2016). Norms for name agreement, familiarity, subjective frequency, and imageability for 348 object names in Tunisian Arabic. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 585–599.
21.
BrodeurM. B.Dionne-DostieE.MontreuilT.LepageM. (2010). The Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS), a new set of 480 normative photos of objects to be used as visual stimuli in cognitive research. PLOS ONE, 5, e10773.
22.
BrodeurM. B.GuérardK.BourasM. (2014). Bank of Standardized Stimuli (BOSS) Phase II: 930 new normative photos. PLOS ONE, 9, e106953.
23.
BrysbaertM.CorteseM. J. (2011). Do the effects of subjective frequency and age of acquisition survive better word frequency norms?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 545–559.
24.
BrysbaertM.ManderaP.KeuleersE. (2018). The word frequency effect in word processing: A review update. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27, 45–50.
25.
BuenoS.MegherbiH. (2009). French categorization norms for 70 semantic categories and comparison with Van Overschelde et al.’s (2004) English norms. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1018–1028.
26.
ClarkeA. J. B.LudingtonJ. D. (2018). Thai norms for name, image, and category agreement, object familiarity, visual complexity, manipulability, and age of acquisition for 480 color photographic objects. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47, 607–626.
27.
CorteseM. J.SimpsonG. B.WoolseyS. (1997). Effects of association and imageability on phonological mapping. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 226–231.
28.
CuetosF.AguadoG.IzuraC.EllisA. W. (2002). Aphasic naming in Spanish: Predictors and errors. Brain and Language, 82, 344–365.
29.
CuetosF.EllisA. W.AlvarezB. (1999). Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 650–658.
30.
CycowiczY. M.FriedmanD.RothsteinM.SnodgrassJ. G. (1997). Picture naming by young children: Norms for name agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 65, 171–237.
31.
D’AmicoS.DevescoviA.BatesE. (2001). Picture naming and lexical access in Italian children and adults. Journal of Cognition and Development, 2, 71–105.
32.
DimitropoulouM.DuñabeitiaJ. A.BlitsasP.CarreirasM. (2009). A standardized set of 260 pictures for Modern Greek: Norms for name agreement, age of acquisition, and visual complexity. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 584–589.
33.
DuñabeitiaJ. A.CrepaldiD.MeyerA. S.NewB.PliatsikasC.SmolkaE.BrysbaertM. (2018). MultiPic: A standardized set of 750 drawings with norms for six European languages. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 808–816.
34.
EllisA. W.MorrisonC. M. (1998). Real age-of-acquisition effects in lexical retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psycho-logy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 515–523.
35.
FerrandL.BoninP.MéotA.AugustinovaM.NewB.PallierC.BrysbaertM. (2008). Age-of-acquisition and subjective frequency estimates for all generally known monosyllabic French words and their relation with other psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 1049–1054.
36.
FitamenC.BlayeA.CamosV. (2019). Five-year-old children’s working memory can be improved when children act on a transparent goal cue. Scientific Reports, 9, 15342.
37.
ForsytheA. (2009). Visual complexity: Is that all there is? In HarrisD. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics (pp. 158–166). Springer.
38.
ForsytheA.StreetN.HelmyM. (2017). Revisiting Rossion and Pourtois with new ratings for automated complexity, familiarity, beauty, and encounter. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 1484–1493.
39.
GarradP.Lambon RalphM. A.PattersonK.PrattK. H.HodgesJ. R. (2005). Semantic feature knowledge and picture naming in dementia of Alzheimer’s type: A new approach. Brain and Language, 93, 79–94.
40.
GauvinH. S.JonenM. K.ChoiJ.McMahonK.de ZubicarayG. I. (2018). No lexical competition without priming: Evidence from the picture–word interference paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 2562–2570.
41.
GuérardK.LagacéS.BrodeurM. B. (2015). Four types of manipulability ratings and naming latencies for a set of 560 photographs of objects. Behavior Research Methods, 47, 443–470.
42.
HachmannW. M.CashdollarN.PostiglioneF.JobR. (2020). The relationship of domain-general serial order memory and reading ability in school children with and without dyslexia. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 193, 104789.
43.
HayesA. F.KrippendorffK. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.
44.
HenryL. A.MesserD.Luger-KleinS.CraneL. (2012). Phonological, visual, and semantic coding strategies and children’s short-term picture memory span. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 2033–2053.
45.
HumphreysG. W.RiddochM. J.QuinlanP. T. (1988). Cascade processes in picture identification. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 5, 67–103.
46.
IzuraC.PlayfootD. (2012). A normative study of acronyms and acronym naming. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 862–889.
47.
JohnstonR. A.BarryC. (2006). Age of acquisition and lexical processing. Visual Cognition, 13, 789–845.
48.
JohnstonR. A.DentK.HumphreysG. W.BarryC. (2010). British-English norms and naming times for a set of 539 pictures: The role of age of acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 461–469.
49.
JuhaszB. J. (2005). Age-of-acquisition effects in word and picture identification. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 684–712.
50.
KhwailehT.MustafawiE.HerbertR.HowardD. (2018). Gulf Arabic nouns and verbs: A standardized set of 319 object pictures and 141 action pictures, with predictors of naming latencies. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 2408–2425.
51.
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–38; discussion 38–75.
52.
LorenzoniA.PeressottiF.NavarreteE. (2018). The manipulability effect in object naming. Journal of Cognition, 1, 30.
53.
MarfulA.Díez-ÁlamoA. M.Plaza-NavasS.FernandezA. (2018). A normative study for photographs of celebrities in Spain. PLOS ONE, 13, e0197554.
54.
MarteinR. (1995). Norms for name and concept agreement, familiarity, visual complexity and image agreement on a set of 216 pictures. Psychologica Belgica, 35, 205–225.
55.
Moreno-MartínezF. J.MontoroP. R. (2012). An ecological alternative to Snodgrass & Vanderwart: 360 high quality colour images with norms for seven psycholinguistic variables. PLOS ONE, 7, e37527.
56.
NewB.PallierC.BrysbaertM.FerrandL. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 516–524.
57.
NishimotoT.MiyawakiK.UedaT.UneY.TakahashiM. (2005). Japanese normative set of 359 pictures. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 398–416.
58.
O’SullivanM.LepageM.BourasM.MontreuilT.BrodeurM. B. (2012). North-American norms for name disagreement: Pictorial stimuli naming discrepancies. PLOS ONE, 7, e47802.
59.
PaivioA.YuilleJ. C.MadiganS. A. (1968). Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs, 76, 1–25.
60.
PerretC.BoninP. (2019). Which variables should be controlled for to investigate picture naming in adults? A Bayesian meta-analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 51, 2533–2545.
61.
PindJ.JónsdóttirH.TryggvadóttirH. B.JonssonF. (2000). Icelandic norms for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) pictures: Name and image agreement, familiarity, and age of acquisition. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 41, 41–48.
62.
PompéiaS.MirandaM. C.BuenoO. F. A. (2001). A set of 400 pictures standardised for Portuguese: Norms for name agreement, familiarity and visual complexity for children and adults. Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, 59(2-B), 330–337.
63.
RamanI.RamanE.MertanB. (2014). A standardized set of 260 pictures for Turkish: Norms of name and image agreement, age of acquisition, visual complexity, and conceptual familiarity. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 588–595.
64.
ReisA.FaíscaL.IngvarM.PeterssonK. M. (2006). Color makes a difference: Two-dimensional object naming in literate and illiterate subjects. Brain and Cognition, 60, 49–54.
65.
RoelofsA.FerreiraV. S. (2019). The architecture of speaking. In HagoortP. (Ed.), Human language: From genes and brains to behavior (pp. 35–50). MIT Press.
66.
RogićM.JerončićA.BošnjakM.SedlarA.HrenD.DeletisV. (2013). A visual object naming task standardized for the Croatian language: A tool for research and clinical practice. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 1144–1158.
67.
RossionB.PourtoisG. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object pictorial set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217–236.
68.
RussoN.HagmannC. E.AndrewsR.BlackC.SilbermanM.SheaN. (2018). Validation of the C.A.R.E. stimulus set of 640 animal pictures: Name agreement and quality ratings. PLOS ONE, 13, e0192906.
69.
SalmonJ. P.McMullenP. A.FilliterJ. H. (2010). Norms for two types of manipulability (graspability and functional usage), familiarity, and age of acquisition for 320 photographs of objects. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 82–95.
70.
SanfeliùM. C.FernandezA. (1996). A set of 254 Snodgrass-Vanderwart pictures standardized for Spanish: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 537–555.
71.
SaryazdiR.BannonJ.RodriguesA.KlammerC.ChambersC. G. (2018). Picture perfect: A stimulus set of 225 pairs of matched clipart and photographic images normed by Mechanical Turk and laboratory participants. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 2498–2510.
72.
ShroutP. E.FleissJ. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
73.
SnodgrassJ. G.CorwinJ. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34–50.
74.
SnodgrassJ. G.VanderwartM. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 6, 174–215.
75.
SnodgrassJ. G.YuditskyT. (1996). Naming times for the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 516–536.
76.
SnowJ. C.SkibaR. M.ColemanT. L.BerryhillM. E. (2014). Real-world objects are more memorable than photographs of objects. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, e837.
77.
StrainE.PattersonK. E.SeidenbergM. S. (1995). Semantic effects in single-word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1140–1154.
78.
StrainE.PattersonK. E.SeidenbergM. S. (2002). Theories of word naming interact with spelling-sound consistency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 207–214.
79.
SzékelyA.BatesE. (2000). Objective visual complexity as a variable in studies of picture naming. CRL Newsletter, 12, 3–33.
SzékelyA.JacobsenT.D’AmicoS.DevescoviA.AndonovaE.HerronD.LuC. C.PechmannT.PléhC.WichaN.FedermeierK.GerdjikovaI.GutierrezG.HungD.HsuJ.IyerG.KohnertK.MehotchevaT.Orozco-FigueroaA.TzengA.TzengO.ArévaloA.VarghaA.ButlerA. C.BuffingtonR.BatesE. (2004). A new on-line resource for psycholinguistic studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 247–250.
82.
TsaparinaD.BoninP.MéotA. (2011). Russian norms for name agreement, image agreement for the colorized version of the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures and age of acquisition, conceptual familiarity, and imageability scores for modal object names. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 1085–1099.
83.
ValenteA.BürkiA.LaganaroM. (2014). ERP correlates of word production predictors in picture naming: A trial by trial multiple regression analysis from stimulus onset to response. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, Article 390.
84.
VitkovitchM.TyrrellL. (1995). Sources of disagreement in object naming. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48A, 822–848.
85.
WeekesB. S.ShuH.HaoM.LiuY.TanL. H. (2007). Predictors of timed picture naming in Chinese. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 335–342.
86.
YoonC.FeinbergF.LuoT.HeddenT.GutchessA. H.ChenH. Y. M.MikelsJ. A.JiaoS.ParkD. C. (2004). A cross-culturally standardized set of pictures for younger and older adults: American and Chinese norms for name agreement, concept agreement, and familiarity. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 639–649.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
