ArticleBehavior research methods2023
Familiarity ratings for 24,325 simplified Chinese words.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hierarchy of the Constituent Characters in Chinese Non-Idiomatic Three-Character Words: An Eye-Tracking Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- AI-generated familiarity estimates are a useful new source of information about word knowledge in Simplified Chinese.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- A large Chinese dataset of ten-category semantic relations with developmental performance in children and adolescents.Scientific data · 2026Article
- CLAP: A battery of measures to estimate language proficiency in native Chinese speakers.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Chinese Onomatopoeia Database (COD): Concreteness, imageability, context availability, age of acquisition, familiarity, semantic transparency, emotional valence, and emotional arousal for Chinese onomatopoeic words.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Lexical decision times for nouns from the Croatian Psycholinguistic Database.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Perception of emotion across cultures: Norms of valence, arousal, and sensory experience for 4923 Chinese words translated from English in Warriner et al. (2013).Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- BRAND: Brand recognition and attitude norms database.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present work collected familiarity norms for 20,275 two-character, 1231 three-character, and 2819 four-character simplified Chinese words from 1300 native speakers of Mandarin Chinese. The familiarity of each word was rated on a 7-point scale by at least 21 participants. The results supported the reliability and validity of the present familiarity ratings, which is the first large familiarity database for Chinese in the field. These familiarity norms can be downloaded from the supplemental materials. Furthermore, the contribution of familiarity to Chinese lexical processing was investigated using the present familiarity ratings and previous data (lexical features and visual lexical decision), mainly from two major Chinese lexicon projects, MELD-SCH and CLP. Regression analysis suggests that familiarity explained a substantial percentage of the variance in lexical processing of both simplified and traditional Chinese words, over and above the effects of word frequency and other lexical features, including age of acquisition (AoA). Further analysis identified a significantly greater familiarity effect for lower-frequency words than that for higher-frequency words. Together, among the first, our findings support the important contribution of familiarity with Chinese words to lexical processing, especially for low-frequency words.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35668341What 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.