TY - JOUR
T1 - Validation of the C.A.R.E. stimulus set of 640 animal pictures
T2 - Name agreement and quality ratings
AU - Russo, Natalie
AU - Hagmann, Carl Erick
AU - Andrews, Rosemary
AU - Black, Conner
AU - Silberman, Magenta
AU - Shea, Nicole
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Russo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2018/2
Y1 - 2018/2
N2 - Stimulus sets are valuable tools that can facilitate the work of researchers designing experiments. Images of faces, and line drawings of objects have been developed and validated, however, pictures of animals, that do not contain backgrounds, have not been made available. Here we present image agreement and quality ratings for a set of 640 color images of animals on a transparent background, across 60 different basic categories (e.g. cat, dog, frog, bird), some with few, and others with many exemplars. These images were normed on 302 participants. Image agreement was measured both with respect to the proportion of participants that provided the same name as well as the H-statistic for each image. Image quality was measured both overall, and with respect to the accuracy of participants’ naming of the basic category. Word frequency of each basic and superordinate category based on the English Lexicon Project (Balota, et al., 2007) and the HAL database (Kucera & Francis, 1976) are provided as are Age of Acquisition (Kuperman, Stadthagen-Gonzalez, & Brysbaert, 2012) data.
AB - Stimulus sets are valuable tools that can facilitate the work of researchers designing experiments. Images of faces, and line drawings of objects have been developed and validated, however, pictures of animals, that do not contain backgrounds, have not been made available. Here we present image agreement and quality ratings for a set of 640 color images of animals on a transparent background, across 60 different basic categories (e.g. cat, dog, frog, bird), some with few, and others with many exemplars. These images were normed on 302 participants. Image agreement was measured both with respect to the proportion of participants that provided the same name as well as the H-statistic for each image. Image quality was measured both overall, and with respect to the accuracy of participants’ naming of the basic category. Word frequency of each basic and superordinate category based on the English Lexicon Project (Balota, et al., 2007) and the HAL database (Kucera & Francis, 1976) are provided as are Age of Acquisition (Kuperman, Stadthagen-Gonzalez, & Brysbaert, 2012) data.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042692585&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042692585&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0192906
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0192906
M3 - Article
C2 - 29489882
AN - SCOPUS:85042692585
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 13
JO - PloS one
JF - PloS one
IS - 2
M1 - e0192906
ER -