THINGS: A database of 1,854 object concepts and more than 26,000 naturalistic object images
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 14, Issue: 10, Page: e0223792
2019
- 116Citations
- 202Captures
- 2Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations116
- Citation Indexes116
- 116
- CrossRef49
- Captures202
- Readers202
- 202
- Mentions2
- Blog Mentions2
- Blog2
Article Description
In recent years, the use of a large number of object concepts and naturalistic object images has been growing strongly in cognitive neuroscience research. Classical databases of object concepts are based mostly on a manually curated set of concepts. Further, databases of naturalistic object images typically consist of single images of objects cropped from their background, or a large number of naturalistic images of varying quality, requiring elaborate manual image curation. Here we provide a set of 1,854 diverse object concepts sampled systematically from concrete picturable and nameable nouns in the American English language. Using these object concepts, we conducted a large-scale web image search to compile a database of 26,107 high-quality naturalistic images of those objects, with 12 or more object images per concept and all images cropped to square size. Using crowdsourcing, we provide higher-level category membership for the 27 most common categories and validate them by relating them to representations in a semantic embedding derived from large text corpora. Finally, by feeding images through a deep convolutional neural network, we demonstrate that they exhibit high selectivity for different object concepts, while at the same time preserving variability of different object images within each concept. Together, the THINGS database provides a rich resource of object concepts and object images and offers a tool for both systematic and large-scale naturalistic research in the fields of psychology, neuroscience, and computer science.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85073476140&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223792; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31613926; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223792; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223792; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0223792
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know