Previous evidence has implicated personal relevance as a predictive factor in lexical access. Westbury (2014) showed that personally relevant words were rated as having a higher
subjective familiarity than words that were not personally relevant, suggesting that personally relevant words are processed more
fluently than less personally relevant words. Here we extend this work by defining a measure of personal relevance that does not
rely on human judgments but is rather derived from first-order co-occurrence of words with the first-person singular personal
pronoun, I. We show that words estimated as most personally relevant are recognized more quickly, named faster,
judged as more familiar, and used by infants earlier than words that are less personally relevant. Self-relevance is also a strong
predictor of several measures that are usually measured only by human judgments or their computational estimates, such as
subjective familiarity, age of acquisition, imageability, concreteness, and body-object interaction. We have made all
self-relevance estimates (as well as the raw data and code from our experiments) available at https://osf.io/gdb6h/.
Akaike, H. (1973). Information
theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In B. N. Petrov & F. Caski. (Eds.), Proceedings
of the Second International Symposium on Information
Theory (pp. 267–281). Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.
Akaike, H. (1974). A
new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic
Control,
19
1, 716–723.
Alexopoulos, T., Muller, D., Ric, F., & Marendaz, C. (2012). I,
me, mine: Automatic attentional capture by self-related stimuli. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 421, 770–779.
Baayen, R. H., Feldman, L. B., & Schreuder, R. (2006). Morphological
influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and
Language,
55
(2), 290–313.
Balota, D. A., Pilotti, M., & Cortese, M. J. (2001). Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory & Cognition, 29(4), 639–647.
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B. & Treiman, R. (2007). The
English Lexicon Project. Behavior Research
Methods,
39
(3), 445–459.
Bird, H., Franklin, S., and Howard, D. (2001). Age of acquisition and imageability ratings for a large set of words, including verbs and function words. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 331, 73–79.
Bonin, P., Peereman, R., Malardier, N., Méot, A., & Chalard, M. (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(1), 158–167.
Brown, G. D., & Watson, F. L. (1987). First in, first out: Word learning age and spoken word frequency as predictors of word familiarity and word naming latency. Memory & cognition, 15(3), 208–216.
Cortese, M. J., & Khanna, M. M. (2008). Age of acquisition ratings for 3,000 monosyllabic words. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 791–794.
Davies, M. (2010). The
Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of
English. Literary and Linguistic
computing,
25
(4), 447–464.
Ferrand, L., Bonin, P., Méot, A., Augustinova, M., New, B., Pallier, C., & Brysbaert, M. (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(4), 1049–1054.
Ferrand, L., Grainger, J., & New, B. (2003). Normes d’âge d’acquisition pour 400 mots monosyllabiques [Age-of-acquisition norms for 400 monosyllabic French words]. L’Année Psychologique, 1031, 445–467.
Flieller, A., & Tournois, J. (1994). Imagery value, subjective and objective frequency, date of entry into the language, and degree of polysemy in a sample of 998 French words. International Journal of Psychology, 29(4), 471–509.
Frings, C., & Wentura, D. (2014). Self-priorization
processes in action and perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance,
40
(5), 1737.
Gernsbacher, M.A. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(2), 256.
Ghyselinck, M., De Moor, W., & Brysbaert, M. (2000). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 2816 Dutch four-and five-letter nouns. Psychologica Belgica, 40(2), 77–98.
Gilhooly, K.J., and Logie, R. H. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words. Behavior Research, Methods Instruments, and Computers, 121, 395–427.
Golubickis, M., Falben, J. K., Cunningham, W. A., & Macrae, C. N. (2018). Exploring
the self-ownership effect: Separating stimulus and response biases. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition,
44
(2), 295.
Hart, B. (1991). Input
frequency and children’s first words. First
Language,
11
(32), 289–300.
Hempel, C. G., & Oppenheim, P. (1948). Studies
in the Logic of Explanation. Philosophy of
Science,
15
(2), 135–175.
Hollis, G. (2020). Delineating
linguistic contexts, and the validity of context diversity as a measure of a word’s contextual
variability. Journal of Memory and
Language,
114
1, 104–146.
Hollis, G., & Westbury, C. (2016). The
principals of meaning: Extracting semantic dimensions from co-occurrence models of
semantics. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review,
23
(6), 1744–1756.
Hollis, G., Westbury, C., & Lefsrud, L. (2017). Extrapolating
human judgments from skip-gram vector representations of word meaning. The Quarterly Journal of
Experimental
Psychology,
70
(8), 1603–1619.
Keuleers, E., Lacey, P., Rastle, K., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). The
British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English
words. Behavior Research
Methods,
44
(
1
), 287–304.
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition
ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research
Methods,
44
(4), 978–990.
Leech, G., Rayson, P. & Wilson, A. (2001). Companion website for: Word
Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: based on the British National
Corpus. [URL]
Marques, J. F., Fonseca, F. L., Morais, S., & Pinto, I. A. (2007). Estimated age of acquisition norms for 834 Portuguese nouns and their relation with other psycholinguistic variables. Behavior Research Methods, 39(3), 439–444.
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013). Efficient
estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1301.3781.
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G. S., & Dean, J. (2013). Distributed
representations of words and phrases and their
compositionality. In Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems (Neural Information Processing Systems Conference,
2013); pp. 3111–3119).
Northoff, G., Heinzel, A., De Greck, M., Bermpohl, F., Dobrowolny, H., & Panksepp, J. (2006). Self-referential
processing in our brain – a meta-analysis of imaging studies on the
self. Neuroimage,
31
(1), 440–457.
Schäfer, S., Wentura, D., & Frings, C. (2015). Self-prioritization
beyond perception. Experimental Psychology.
Schäfer, S., Frings, C., & Wentura, D. (2016). About
the composition of self-relevance: Conjunctions not features are bound to the self. Psychonomic
Bulletin &
Review,
23
(3), 887–892.
Shaoul, C. & Westbury, C. (2006). USENET
Orthographic Frequencies for 111,627 English
Words. (2005–2006) Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta (downloaded
from [URL]
Schmitz, T. W., & Johnson, S. C. (2007). Relevance
to self: A brief review and framework of neural systems underlying appraisal. Neuroscience
& Biobehavioral
Reviews,
31
(4), 585–596.
Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Davis, C. J. (2006). The
Bristol norms for age of acquisition, imageability, and familiarity. Behavior Research
Methods,
38
1, 598–605.
Sui, J., He, X., & Humphreys, G. W. (2012). Perceptual
effects of social salience: Evidence from self-prioritization effects on perceptual
matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 381, 1105–1117.
Symons, C. S., & Johnson, B. T. (1997). The
self-reference effect in memory: a meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin,
121
(3), 371.
Tillotson, S. M., Siakaluk, P. D., & Pexman, P. M. (2008). Body-object
interaction ratings for 1,618 monosyllabic nouns. Behavior Research
Methods,
40
(4), 1075–1078.
Westbury, C. (2014). You
can’t drink a word: Lexical and individual emotionality affect subjective familiarity
judgments. Journal of Psycholinguistic
Research,
43
(5), 631–649.
Westbury, C., & Hollis, G. (2018). Conceptualizing
syntactic categories as semantic categories: Unifying part-of-speech identification and semantics using co-occurrence vector
averaging. Behavior Research
Methods, 1–28.
Westbury, C., Hollis, G., Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2018). Weighing
up the evidence for sound symbolism: Distributional properties predict cue strength. Journal of
Memory and
Language,
99
1, 122–150.
Westbury, C., & Nicoladis, E. (1998). Meaning
in children’s first words: Implications for a theory of lexical
ontology. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Boston University
Conference on Language
Development (pp. 768–778). Cascadilla Press: Somerville, MA.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Kuiken, Don
2024. The Epistemic Limits of Impactful Dreams: Metacognition, Metaphoricity, and Sublime Feeling. Brain Sciences 14:6 ► pp. 528 ff.
Villani, Caterina, Adele Loia & Marianna M. Bolognesi
2024. The semantic content of concrete, abstract, specific, and generic concepts. Language and Cognition► pp. 1 ff.
Heitmeier, Maria, Yu-Ying Chuang & R. Harald Baayen
2023. How trial-to-trial learning shapes mappings in the mental lexicon: Modelling lexical decision with linear discriminative learning. Cognitive Psychology 146 ► pp. 101598 ff.
Westbury, Chris
2023. Why are human animacy judgments continuous rather than categorical? A computational modeling approach. Frontiers in Psychology 14
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.