Beyond the distributional input? A developmental investigation of asymmetry in infants’ categorization of cats and dogs

Abstract

Two experiments are reported using a visual familiarization categorization procedure. In both experiments, infants were familiarized with sets of stimuli previously shown to contain asymmetric feature distributions that support an asymmetry in young infants' categorization of cats and dogs (i.e. infants' cat category excludes dogs but their dog category includes cats). In Experiment 1, the asymmetry was replicated in 4-month-old infants. In contrast, 10-month-old infants demonstrated exclusive category representations for both cats and dogs. In Experiment 2, an additional group of 10-month-olds demonstrated exclusive representations for both cats and dogs under conditions of very limited within-task category familiarization. Potential mechanisms underlying the shift from an asymmetric to a symmetric pattern of categorization in the first year are discussed.

Infants’ Visual Recognition Memory for a Series of Categorically Related Items

“…Several previous studies in which infants were familiarized with multiple images of dogs and cats have shown failures to decrease looking in a nearly identical procedure, and yet had robust novelty preferences when tested on their category formation (Furrer & Younger, 2005; Quinn, 2004; Quinn & Eimas, 1996). One benefit of the procedure used here is that novelty preference is not dependent on habituation of looking to a familiar stimulus, and requiring habituation may actually underestimate infants’ memory abilities (Fagan, 1990).…”

“…Categorization is inferred by their pattern of novelty preference. Studies using this approach have revealed that young infants are sensitive to adult-defined categories such as cat and dog (Furrer & Younger, 2005; Oakes & Ribar, 2005; Quinn, Eimas, & Rosenkrantz, 1993) and form prototypes of items presented during familiarization (Younger, 1985). Moreover, this response to the novel category has been observed in studies using familiarization even when infants’ looking time did not decrease over familiarization with multiple items from within a category (Furrer & Younger, 2005; Quinn, 2004; Quinn & Eimas, 1996).…”

“…Some studies have examined infants’ memory for the individual items in a categorized sequence of familiarization trials (Kovack-Lesh, et al, 2008; Quinn, et al, 2002), but the few studies aimed at uncovering the processes of visual recognition memory in this context have used sets of unrelated items presented on a sequence of trials (Cornell & Bergstrom, 1983; Rose, Feldman, & Jankowski, 2001). Because a large number of studies have shown that across the first year infants familiarized with images of dogs and cats during test exhibit preferences for the novel category (Furrer & Younger, 2005; Kovack-Lesh, et al, 2008; Quinn, 2004; Quinn & Eimas, 1996), we assume that such familiarization will induce categorization. The question we asked here is given that infants are categorizing, and recognizing and encoding the commonalities among the items, what processes are engaged in their encoding of and retaining the details of the individual items?…”

Is It a Noun or Is It a Verb? Resolving the Ambicategoricality Problem

“…Previous work examining infants' ability to form naturally occurring categories has found that differences in within-category variability produce asymmetric behavior in habituation tasks (Quinn, Eimas, & Rosenkrantz, 1993; see also Furrer & Younger, 2006;Mareschal, French, & Quinn, 2000). When habituated to a category with low variability, infants form a narrow category and dishabituate to exemplars from a different but similar category.…”

Gaze and informativeness during category learning: Evidence for an inverse relation

“…An expanding literature in this regard is evident in consumer research (Ozanne, Brucks, & Grewal, 1992;Reutskaja, Nagel, Camerer, & Rangel, 2011), humanÁcomputer interface (Cheng & Liu, 2011;Pan et al, 2004) as well as the combination of the two, i.e., online marketing (Djamasbi, Siegel, Skorinko, & Tullis, 2011;Dreze & Hussherr, 2003). As far as we know, such a bias for less typical objects in a display has only been shown by the novelty and familiarity effects that occur during infant preference paradigms (Furrer & Younger, 2005;Oakes & Riber, 2005;Quinn, 2004;Quinn & Bhatt, 1998). The informationÁfixation link presented here is applicable to any circumstance where manipulation of gaze might be useful.…”