Do typically and atypically developing children learn and generalize novel names similarly: The role of conceptual distance during learning and at test

Abstract

There is a large body of evidence showing that comparison leads to better conceptualization and generalization of novel names than no-comparison settings in typically developing (TD) children (e.g., Gentner, 2010). So far, comparison situations have not been studied with children with intellectual disabilities (ID) (Chapman & Kay-Raining Bird, 2012). In the present research children with ID and TD children matched on mental age with the Ravens coloured progressive matrices RCPM (Raven, 1965) were tested in several comparison conditions. We manipulated the conceptual distance between stimuli in the learning phase and between the learning phase stimuli and the generalization phase stimuli for object and relational nouns. Results showed that overall both populations had rather similar performance profile when matched on their cognitive skills (low vs. high functioning). Unexpectedly, ID childrens performance was equivalent or better than their TD peers. We discuss our results in terms of the role of conceptual distance on participants conceptual generalization as a function of their intellectual abilities and cognitive functioning.

How children generalize novel nouns: An eye-tracking analysis of their generalization strategies

“…A large body of research has demonstrated the benefits of comparison designs for learning novel object names [38][39][40], adjectives [41], action verbs [42], relational nouns [43,44] (see [45] for a meta-analysis; [46] for a synthesis). Considerable attention has also been paid to the conditions under which comparisons lead to better learning and generalization.…”

“…Considerable attention has also been paid to the conditions under which comparisons lead to better learning and generalization. For example, the effect of the number of items compared [37,44], the perceptual similarity between the learning stimuli [47], or the conceptual distance between them [48,49] have all been extensively studied.…”

“…We also manipulated the level of difficulty in terms of the conceptual distance between either the learning items themselves or between the learning and generalization options, as conceptual distance might influence the strategy children follow (see below). Indeed, colleagues [49] showed that all conceptual distance conditions differ in difficulty given that it should be easier to find unifying features for conceptually close objects than for distant objects.…”

Développement lexical dans le cadre d’une déficience intellectuelle : le point sur la question

“…Cela peut s'expliquer par la dissociation entre l'âge chronologique et l'âge mental chez les adolescents et les adultes présentant une déficience intellectuelle. En effet, ces dernières ayant vécu plus longtemps ont eu pour un âge mental donné davantage d'opportunités d'étoffer leur lexique (voir aussi Witt et al 2020, pour un argument similaire). Au-delà de ce premier constat, il est intéressant de noter que l'effet positif de l'expérience éducationnelle et de l'expérience de vie n'est pas limité à une étiologie particulière de déficience intellectuelle, mais constitue un trait commun à la déficience intellectuelle transcendant les étiologies (Facon, 2008 ;.…”

“…Quelques études abordent la question chez des personnes présentant une déficience intellectuelle, mais elles restent encore rares. Nous citerons ainsiZampini, Salvi et D'ordorico (2015) ou encoreWitt, Comblain & Thibaut (2020) qui suggèrent que l'organisation et le développement du lexique des enfants neurotypiques et présentant une déficience intellectuelle reposent sur les mêmes bases cognitives. Ces auteurs utilisent des tâches de généralisation d'association mots-objets et de mots-relations que nous ne décrirons pas ici.…”