18-month-olds comprehend indirect communicative acts

Schulze, Cornelia; Tomasello, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.036

Cited by 44 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Looking at children's age and performance, surprisingly, some younger children showed better results than older children, although they have the same diagnosis. This finding is similar to previous studies (for example [32]). Nevertheless, this "paradoxical "performance during the pragmatic level of language assessment could be partially related to the form of the evaluation process or tool used [33].…”

Section: Advances In Speech-language Pathology 364supporting

confidence: 83%

The Role of Speech and Language Therapist in Autism Spectrum Disorders Intervention – An Inclusive Approach

Vitásková¹,

Kytnarová²

2017

Advances in Speech-Language Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chapter describes the possibilities of involving a speech-language therapist in the assessment of the pragmatic level of communication in autism spectrum disorders (ASD), where one of the most frequently impaired areas is communication pragmatics. These difficulties lead to a disruption of social interaction, which might be one of the obstacles to speech-language intervention in these children. The text is based on an originally developed testing material aimed at selected pragmatic-oriented communication situations relating to everyday activities and real life. Based on a comparison of domestic and international resources in this area, as well as mediated and own empirical experience, our assessment approach is based on the conclusion that pragmatics can be understood in different contexts and perspectives. The text presents the results of a partial survey comparing the performance of children with ASD and children with typical development. The assessment focused on the children's election of the correct picture of a pair of pictures that represent usual communication and social situations. The results of the research suggest fewer incorrect responses in children with ASD and in different areas compared with children with typical development. However, the results of a qualitative analysis indicate a necessity to expand the assessment of communication pragmatics by adding an individually specific qualitative analysis of children's performance.

show abstract

Section: Advances In Speech-language Pathology 364supporting

confidence: 83%

The Role of Speech and Language Therapist in Autism Spectrum Disorders Intervention – An Inclusive Approach

Vitásková¹,

Kytnarová²

2017

Advances in Speech-Language Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While previous VOE studies (e.g., Krehm et al, 2014; Martin et al, 2012; Song et al, 2008; Vouloumanos et al, 2014, 2012), play-based procedures (e.g., Grosse et al, 2010; Liszkowski et al, 2008; Schulze & Tomasello, 2015), and eye-tracking studies (Thorgrimsson et al, 2015) have revealed much about what infants understand about communicative social interactions, we examined how infants and adults process communicative events in real time, while they occur. Tracking infant and adult eye movements and during a communicative event and its outcome suggests that 12-month-olds, like adults, recognize the communicative function of speech in a social exchange, and they process the communicative event while it is occurring.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Early in development, understanding this communicative function of speech helps infants navigate the social world and acquire knowledge in social interactions (reviewed in Vouloumanos & Waxman, 2014). What we know about infants’ understanding of communication is largely based on violation-of-expectation (VOE; e.g., Cheung, Xiao, & Lai, 2012; Krehm, Onishi, & Vouloumanos, 2014; Martin, Onishi, & Vouloumanos, 2012; Song, Onishi, Baillargeon, & Fisher, 2008; Vouloumanos, Martin, & Onishi, 2014; Vouloumanos, Onishi, & Pogue, 2012) or play-based (e.g., Akhtar, Jipson, & Callanan, 2001; Grosse, Behne, Carpenter, & Tomasello, 2010; Liszkowski, Carpenter, & Tomasello, 2008; Schulze & Tomasello, 2015) methods that only provide evidence for how infants evaluate communicative events and do not assess how infants process the dynamics of communication as it unfolds in real time. Recent eye-tracking studies have shown that infants recognize that speech is directed at others (Thorgrimsson, Fawcett, & Liszkowski, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Infants’ looking time to the outcome of an event in VOE procedures (reviewed in Baillargeon et al, 2010; see also Krehm et al, 2014; Liberman et al, 2014; Martin et al, 2012; Song et al, 2008; Vouloumanos et al, 2014, 2012) or their behavioral responses in play-based procedures (e.g., Akhtar et al, 2001; Grosse et al, 2010; Liszkowski et al, 2008; Schulze & Tomasello, 2015) suggest that infants understand how speech and gestures communicate information to others. VOE and play-based studies have shown that infants as young as 6 months, who have a limited receptive vocabulary (Bergelson & Swingley, 2012; Tincoff & Jusczyk, 1999, 2012), recognize that speech, but not a non-speech cough, is communicative, allowing the speaker to provide information to a listener (Martin et al, 2012; Vouloumanos et al, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How do infants and adults process communicative events in real time?

Yamashiro

Vouloumanos

2018

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech allows humans to communicate and to navigate the social world. By 12 months, infants recognize that speech elicits appropriate responses from others. However, it is unclear how infants process dynamic communicative scenes and how their processing abilities compare to adults. Do infants, like adults, process communicative events while the event is occurring, or only after being presented with the outcome? We examined 12-month-olds’ and adults’ eye movements as they watched a Communicator grasp one (target) of two objects. During the test event, she could no longer reach the objects, so she spoke or coughed to a Listener, who selected either object. Infants’ and adults’ patterns of looking to the actors and objects revealed that both groups immediately evaluated the Communicators’ speech, but not her cough, as communicative, and recognized that the Listener should select the target object only when the Communicator spoke. Furthermore, infants and adults shifted their attention between the actors and the objects in very similar ways. This suggests that 12-month-olds can quickly process communicative events as they occur with adult-like accuracy. However, differences in looking reveal that 12-month-olds’ process slower than adults. This early developing processing ability may allow infants to learn language and acquire knowledge from communicative interactions.

show abstract

“…Both the empirical and robotic studies discussed here involved a simplified learning environment and a highly structured task relative to the real-world learning environment children experience outside the lab (Horst & Simmering, 20145;Oudeyer & Smith, in press Schulze & Tomasello, 2015), distributional information (e.g., Gillette, Gleitman, Gleitman, & Lederer, 1999;Medina, Snedeker, Trueswell, & Gleitman, 2011;Twomey, Chang, & Ambridge, 2014;Yuan, Fisher, & Snedeker, 2012) or existing semantic category representations (e.g., Borovsky et al, 2015;Borovsky & Elman, 2006) may play a part in iCub's -and children's -word learning in more complex environments, pointing to further fruitful work in the rapidlyexpanding field of developmental robotics. Overall, however, the current studies represent the first full experimental replication of the results of a widely-used word learning paradigm using an embodied robotic system.…”

Section: Multiple Timescales and The Effect Of Embodimentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children’s referent selection and word learning

Twomey

Morse

Cangelosi

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well-established that toddlers can correctly select a novel referent from an ambiguous array in response to a novel label. There is also a growing consensus that robust word learning requires repeated label-object encounters. However, the effect of the context in which a novel object is encountered is less well-understood. We present two embodied neural network replications of recent empirical tasks which demonstrated that the context in which a target object is encountered is fundamental to referent selection and word learning. Our model offers an explicit account of the bottom-up associative and embodied mechanisms which could support children's early word learning and emphasises the importance of viewing behaviour as the interaction of learning at multiple timescales.

show abstract

18-month-olds comprehend indirect communicative acts

Cited by 44 publications

References 25 publications

The Role of Speech and Language Therapist in Autism Spectrum Disorders Intervention – An Inclusive Approach

The Role of Speech and Language Therapist in Autism Spectrum Disorders Intervention – An Inclusive Approach

How do infants and adults process communicative events in real time?

Children’s referent selection and word learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About