ArticleCognitive processing2020
Core features: measures and characterization for different languages.
Article in Cognitive processing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating semantic control with transcranial magnetic stimulation: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Pooled it
- Semantic properties and categorization norms for the 260 Snodgrass and Vanderwart objects: A 45-year conceptual update to a classic set.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- A Standardized Semantic Feature Norm for 954 Cantonese Concepts.Scientific data · 2025Article
- New Spanish semantic feature production norms for older adults.Behavior research methods · 2022Article
- Eliciting semantic properties: methods and applications.Cognitive processing · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
According to the feature-based view of semantic representation, concepts can be represented as distributed networks of semantic features, which contribute with different weights to determine the overall meaning of a concept. The study of semantic features, typically collected in property generation tasks, is enriched with measures indicating the informativeness and distinctiveness of a given feature for the related concepts. However, while these measures have been provided in several languages (e.g. Italian, Spanish and English), they have hardly been applied comparatively across languages. The purpose of this paper is to investigate language-related differences and similarities emerging from the semantic representation of aggregated core features. Features with higher salience for a set of concrete concepts are identified and described in terms of their feature type. Then, comparisons are made between domains (natural vs. artefacts) and languages (Italian, Spanish and English) and descriptive statistics are provided. These results show that the characterization of concrete concepts is overall fairly stable across languages, although interesting cross-linguistic differences emerged. We will discuss the implications of our findings in relation to the theoretical paradigm of semantic feature norms, as well as in relation to speakers' mutual understanding in multilingual settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32333125What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.