Cited by 315Reading and Literacy DevelopmentNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismMemory Processes and Influences

The Bristol norms for age of acquisition, imageability, and familiarity

Open access
Stadthagen-Gonzalez, Hans, Davis, Colin J.·2006·Behavior Research Methods

Abstract

Ratings of age of acquisition (AoA), imageability, and familiarity were collected for 1,526 words. The methodology made use of a modular approach, in which the full sample of words was divided into five separate blocks. Within each block, each word was rated on each of the three variables by 20 participants (undergraduate students from the University of Bristol). Analyses comparing these ratings to existing norm databases demonstrated that this methodology resulted in high reliability (assessed by Cronbach's a) and validity. The ratings were also transformed to be compatible with the Gilhooly and Logie (1980) norms. This transformation resulted in a set of norms for 3,394 words, which is by far the largest database of ratings forAoA, imageability,and familiarity t o date. The resulting databaseshould be useful for researchers interested in manipulating or controlling these factors in word recognition, neuropsychological, or memory studies. These norms can be downloaded from language.psy.bris .ac.uk/bristol_norms.html.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03193891

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [9]9. Burnard, L. (1995). The user's reference guide for the British National Corpus. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services.
  2. [26]26. Meng, X., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing corre- lated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172-175.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Davis, C. J.
Affiliations
University of Bristol (GB)
Venue
Behavior Research Methods
Published
2006-11
Volume
38
Issue
4
Pages
598-605
ISSN
  • 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
  • 1554-3528
OpenAlex
W2076431357
Cited by
315
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 18
FWCI
11.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Directorate for Biological Sciences
  • Economic and Social Research Council (PTA-026-27-0769)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
age of acquisition, imageability, familiarity, word norms, word recognition, lexical decision, reference values, word ratings, neuropsychology
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Cognition, Female, Humans, Imagination, Language, Male, Speech, Students, Verbal Behavior, Verbal Learning, Vocabulary

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review