| Title |
BLIND: a set of semantic feature norms from the congenitally blind
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Research Methods, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13428-013-0323-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alessandro Lenci, Marco Baroni, Giulia Cazzolli, Giovanna Marotta |
| Abstract |
Feature-based descriptions of concepts produced by subjects in a property generation task are widely used in cognitive science to develop empirically grounded concept representations and to study systematic trends in such representations. This article introduces BLIND, a collection of parallel semantic norms collected from a group of congenitally blind Italian subjects and comparable sighted subjects. The BLIND norms comprise descriptions of 50 nouns and 20 verbs. All the materials have been semantically annotated and translated into English, to make them easily accessible to the scientific community. The article also presents a preliminary analysis of the BLIND data that highlights both the large degree of overlap between the groups and interesting differences. The complete BLIND norms are freely available and can be downloaded from http://sesia.humnet.unipi.it/blind_data . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 31% |
| Researcher | 8 | 18% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 17 | 38% |
| Linguistics | 10 | 22% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,422
of 2,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,244
of 205,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#14
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 205,561 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.