Infant object categorization transcends diverse object–context relations

Bornstein, Marc H.; Arterberry, Martha E.; Mash, Clay

doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2009.10.003

Cited by 21 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The infants who played with the heterogeneous toys touched objects forming basic-level categories but not superordinate-level categories, whereas the infants who played with the homogeneous toys touched objects forming both basic-level and superordinate categories. These and other results (e.g., Bornstein & Arterberry, 2010; Bornstein, Arterberry, & Mash, 2010; Mareschal & Tan, 2008) suggest that category variability may indeed affect infants’ categorization behavior.…”

supporting

confidence: 67%

Effect of between-category similarity on basic level superiority in pigeons

Lazareva

Soto

Wasserman

2010

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children categorize stimuli at the basic level faster than at the superordinate level. We hypothesized that between-category similarity may affect this basic-level superiority effect. Dissimilar categories may be easy to distinguish at the basic level but be difficult to group at the superordinate level, whereas similar categories may be easy to group at the superordinate level but be difficult to distinguish at the basic level. Consequently, similar basic-level categories may produce a superordinate-before-basic learning trend, whereas dissimilar basic-level categories may result in a basic-before-superordinate learning trend. We tested this hypothesis in pigeons by constructing superordinate-level categories out of basic-level categories with known similarity. In Experiment 1, we experimentally evaluated the between-category similarity of four basic-level photographic categories using multiple fixed interval-extinction training (Astley & Wasserman, 1992). We used the resultant similarity matrices in Experiment 2 to construct two superordinate-level categories from basic-level categories with high between-category similarity (cars and persons; chairs and flowers). We then trained pigeons to concurrently classify those photographs into either the proper basic-level category or the proper superordinate-level category. Under these conditions, the pigeons learned the superordinate-level discrimination faster than the basic-level discrimination, confirming our hypothesis that basic-level superiority is affected by between-category similarity. Keywordspigeons; categorization; basic category; superordinate category; visual discrimination; stimulus similarity Categories are often considered to be organized at multiple hierarchical levels, such as the subordinate, basic, and superordinate levels. The subordinate-level categories office chair and dining chair are included in the basic-level category chair which, in turn, is included in the superordinate-level category furniture.Send correspondence to: Olga F. Lazareva, olga.lazareva@drake.edu, telephone: (515) 271-4801, fax: (515) 316 Olin Hall, Department of Psychology, Drake University, Des Moines, IA 50311-4505. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptBehav Processes. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 October 1. Published in final edited form as:Behav Processes. 2010 October ; 85(3): 236-245. doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2010.014. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptStarting with the pioneering research of Rosch and colleagues (Rosch & Merv...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 67%

Effect of between-category similarity on basic level superiority in pigeons

Lazareva

Soto

Wasserman

2010

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Only one published study examined infants’ attention to the relation between figure and context by using pictures of animals and vehicles on various grounds (Bornstein, Arterberry, & Mash, 2010). They found that 6-month-old infants categorized colored photographs of animals and vehicles across various contexts in which the figures appeared (e.g., a tiger in the green field, a tiger on a beach, and a tiger in a parking lot).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These age groups were chosen to parallel those in the dynamic figure and ground discrimination studies (Experiment 1a). Also, given the findings of Bornstein et al (2010), we expected that infants at these ages might be able to detect changes in figures and ground in static pictures. We expected that 1) there would be no a priori preference to static scenes before familiarization to a specific figure or ground; 2) similar to the dynamic experiments, in general, infants should look longer to the novel figure or the novel ground at test; 3) English-reared infants might not be sensitive to different ground distinctions (i.e., within- vs. across-category distinctions) in static events that no longer have a temporal dimension; and 4) infants might detect grounds earlier than they did in dynamic events, due to the presence of a static figure which might not attract as much attention as a dynamic figure.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who is crossing where? Infants’ discrimination of figures and grounds in events

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To learn relational terms such as verbs and prepositions, children must first dissect and process dynamic event components. This paper investigates the way in which 8- to 14-month-old English-reared infants notice the event components, figure (i.e., the moving entity) and ground (i.e., stationary setting), in both dynamic (Experiment 1) and static representations of events (Experiment 2) for categorical ground distinctions expressed in Japanese, but not in English. We then compare both 14- and 19-month-old English- and Japanese-reared infants’ processing of grounds to understand how language learning interacts with the conceptualization of these constructs (Experiment 3). Results suggest that 1) infants distinguish between figures and grounds in events; 2) they do so differently for static vs. dynamic displays; 3) early in the second year, children from diverse language environments form nonnative - perhaps universal - event categories; and 4) these event categories shift over time as children have more exposure to their native tongue.

show abstract

“…Recent research has shown that infants form categories of these types of event components within the context of static events. For example, Bornstein et al (2010) finds that 6-month-olds can form categories of figures across different external contexts, or grounds, in static photographs. But, when and how do infants form categories of figure, ground, source and goal in the flow of dynamic events?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By 6 months of age infants form categories of containment relations and by 14 months they form categories of support relations (see Casasola, 2008 for a review; Casasola, 2005; Casasola & Cohen, 2002; Casasola, Cohen & Chiarello, 2003; McDonough, Choi & Mandler, 2003). Finally, infants can represent both the sources and goals (Lakusta & Landau, 2005; Lakusta, Wagner, O’Hearn, & Landau, 2007; Wagner & Lakusta, 2009) and figures and grounds in dynamic motion events (Göksun, Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2009; also see Bornstein, Arterberry & Mash, 2010 for infants’ categorization of figures across different contexts, or grounds, in static events).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Find Your Manners: How Do Infants Detect the Invariant Manner of Motion in Dynamic Events?

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To learn motion verbs, infants must be sensitive to the specific event features lexicalized in their language. One event feature important for the acquisition of English motion verbs is the manner of motion. This paper examines when and how infants detect manners of motion across variations in the figure’s path. Experiment 1 shows that 13- to 15-month-olds (N=30) can detect an invariant manner of motion when the figure’s path changes. Experiment 2 reveals that reducing the complexity of the events, by dampening the figure’s path, helps 10- to 12-month-olds (N=19) detect the invariant manner. These findings suggest that: 1) infants notice event features lexicalized in English motion verbs, and; 2) attention to manner can be promoted by reducing event complexity.

show abstract

Infant object categorization transcends diverse object–context relations

Cited by 21 publications

References 46 publications

Effect of between-category similarity on basic level superiority in pigeons

Effect of between-category similarity on basic level superiority in pigeons

Who is crossing where? Infants’ discrimination of figures and grounds in events

Find Your Manners: How Do Infants Detect the Invariant Manner of Motion in Dynamic Events?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About