ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Semantic properties and categorization norms for the 260 Snodgrass and Vanderwart objects: A 45-year conceptual update to a classic set.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present a new set of English property norms for 260 object concepts based on the standardized Snodgrass and Vanderwart (1980) picture set. For each object, 100 participants provided a basic-level label (dog), a superordinate category (animal), and three features (bark, tail, fur), yielding a dataset of 78,000 features. Our norms differ from other datasets in four important ways: they (1) probe basic-level information, (2) separate taxonomic and feature information, (3) use open-ended responses for natural descriptions, and (4) include a larger number of responses per object (100 vs. ~ 30 participants in other norms). We analyzed feature statistics such as frequency, distinctiveness, and co-occurrence, and contrasted our norms with those of McRae et al. (2005), CSLB (Devereux et al., 2014), and Hovhannisyan et al. (2021). Compared to picture-based norms, our data-derived from black-and-white line drawings-elicited more diverse features and aligned more closely with language-based norms, particularly CSLB. We assessed the generalizability of our norms using an object-property congruency task, where 144 participants judged whether properties (basic level, superordinate, and features) were related to objects. Objects were shown in three picture formats with increasing ecological validity: (1) colored line drawings, (2) realistic photographs, and (3) realistic photographs of objects in scenes. We then contrasted these data with those of Antal & de Almeida (2024) employing the original line-drawing set. Agreement rates for object-property pairs remained high across picture formats and property types. Bayesian inference revealed minimal variability in congruency judgments across picture formats, with responses tightly clustered around zero. Results show that our norms are generalizable to realistic visual stimuli. Norms are available at https://osf.io/c6brw/overview .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.