Experience‐Driven Semantic Differentiation: Effects of a Naturalistic Experience on Within‐ and Across‐Domain Differentiation in Children

Abstract

Organized semantic networks reflecting distinctions within and across domains of knowledge are critical for higher‐level cognition. Thus, understanding how semantic structure changes with experience is a fundamental question in developmental science. This study probed changes in semantic structure in 4–6 year‐old children (N = 29) as a result of participating in an enrichment program at a local botanical garden. This study presents the first direct evidence that (a) the accumulation of experience with items in a domain promoted increases in both within‐ and across‐domain semantic differentiation, and that (b) this experience‐driven semantic differentiation generalized to nonexperienced items. These findings have implications for understanding the role of experience in building semantic networks, and for conceptualizing the contribution of enrichment experiences to academic success.

Education shapes the structure of semantic memory and impacts creative thinking

“…In this period of high brain plasticity 2 , 3 , children’s knowledge is acquired efficiently through statistical learning 4 , 5 and it is significantly shaped by interactions with the environment 6 . Despite the importance of experience on semantic knowledge (i.e., 7 ), few researches have focused on the role of school education in influencing not only how children acquire new knowledge, but also how they come to represent knowledge in long-term (semantic) memory. The organization of semantic memory plays a key role in higher cognitive functions, such as creative thinking 8 .…”

Research at a Distance: Replicating Semantic Differentiation Effects Using Remote Data Collection With Children Participants

“…size confirmed that pair type was a significant predictor of the distance at which items were arranged on the screen [b = -0.18, χ 2 (1) = 45, p < 0.0001, Cohen's d = 1.44] but window size was not [b = -0.000002, χ 2 (1) = 0.002, p = 0.97]; the model included by-participant random intercepts and slopes for the effect of pair type. The effect size of the effect of pair type was of similar (albeit larger) magnitude relative to when data were collected in person (Vales et al, 2020a).…”

“…The sample in this study was a convenience sample resulting from an ongoing partnership with the science outreach team at a local botanical garden, and thus we did not aim to obtain a geographically diverse sample (although some families joined from out-of-state, which would have been unlikely had the programs taken place in person). When planning this collaboration, we took steps to increase diversity in the demographics of children participants, both through publicizing the camps in underserved neighborhoods and by reducing enrollment costs -and these efforts seem to have been successful to some extent, as we saw an increase in nonwhite participants relative to a prior collaboration (Vales et al, 2020a) and considerable variability in the neighborhoods (i.e., zip codes) where the participants lived. However, because these camps were moved to a remote medium as a result of socialdistancing guidelines due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the Spring and Summer of 2020, there were considerable changes in enrollment as family and childcare circumstances quickly changed.…”

“…The caregiver-reported (provided to the botanical garden by 38 caregivers) gender and racial makeup of the sample was 32% male, 63% female, and 5% not reported; 79% white, 5% Black/African American, 8% Asian/Indian American, and 8% multiracial. This sample was more racially diverse than Vales et al (2020a), which recruited from the same botanical garden but during in-person enrichment programs (see Supplementary Table S1); we will return to this point in the "Discussion" section. The same caregivers also provided their zip code information; the majority of the participants (N = 33) lived in Pennsylvania, with 24 unique zip codes reported; the remaining participants lived in one of four states (N = 4) and in Canada (N = 1).…”

“…The stimuli used in the Spatial Arrangement task are shown in Figure 1A and were identical to the stimuli used in Vales et al (2020a); a comparison between Vales et al (2020a) and the current study's sample, task design, and results is available in Supplementary Table S1. To probe both within-and across-domain differentiation in a single trial, the stimulus set included two domains ('bugs' and 'plants') with a within-domain distinction ('bugs' that are insects vs. not; 'plants' that are fruits vs. not).…”