Plain or decorated? Object visual features matter in infant spatial categorization

Abstract

The current study investigated infant spatial categorization of a support relation across differences in the perceptual features of the objects. Infants of 8 and 14 months (N = 67) were habituated to dynamic support events with objects that were plain and monochromatic or those that were embellished with decorations (e.g., polka dots, feathers). Infants were then tested with events that presented a novel pair of objects, a novel spatial relation (i.e., containment), or both. Infants, particularly those of 8 months, formed an abstract categorical representation of a support relation when habituated with the decorated objects but not the plain objects. The results suggest that the perceptual features of objects can facilitate infants' categorization of spatial relations, at least in some learning settings and especially with younger infants.

Getting some space: Infants’ and caregivers’ containment and support spatial constructions during play

“…We focus on infants' construction of containment and support relations for both empirical and theoretical reasons. Empirically, these relations are among the first that infants show that they can discriminate between physically possible and impossible events (e.g., Aguiar & Baillargeon, 1998;Baillargeon & Wang, 2002;Hespos & Baillargeon, 2006, 2008Needham & Baillargeon, 1993), organize into categories (e.g., Casasola, Cohen, & Chiarello, 2003;Park & Casasola, 2015;Rigney & Wang, 2015), and label in their early speech (e.g., Bowerman, 1996;Choi & Bowerman, 1991), pointing to early exposure to containment and support and their labels. At a theoretical level, arguments have been raised for a distinction between these two relations.…”

Effects of Age, Spatial Relation and Object Type on Young Children’s Analogical Transfer of Spatial Relations

“…(tight-fit) (Choi & Hattrup, 2012). , (Bremner & Idowu, 1987;Clark, 1973;Johnston & Slobin, 1979;Meints, Plunkett, Harris, & Dimmock, 2002;Tomasello, 1987) (Casasola & Cohen, 2002;Casasola, Cohen, & Chiarello, 2003;Park & Casasola, 2015) , , Casasola & Cohen, 2002;Casasola, et al, 2003). , (Chang-Song, 2004), (in, ) (on, ) (Bowerman, 1996;Brown, 1973;Clark, 1973;Furrow, Murray, & Furrow, 1986;Gentner & Bowerman, 2009;Halpern, Corrigan, & Avizer, 1983;Johnston & Slobin, 1979;Park, 2015).…”

“…in on (Casasola & Cohen, 2002;Casasola et al, 2003;Furrow et al, 1986;Gentner & Bowerman, 2009;Halpern et al, 1983;Johnston & Slobin, 1979;Park & Casasola, 2015) .…”

What Develops in Infants’ Spatial Categorization? Korean Infants’ Categorization of Containment and Tight‐Fit Relations

“…In contrast, infants of 11 months form the containment category regardless of whether the novel test relation is occlusion or support (Rigney & Wang, ), and those of 14 months form categories of containment and support regardless of whether they are provided with two or six exemplars (Casasola & Park, ; but also see Casasola, ). Finally, both Korean‐ and English‐exposed infants of 8 and 14 months vary in their categorization of support (i.e., one object placed on another) across perceptually simple (monochromatic) versus perceptually rich (e.g., patterned) objects, documenting how the perceptual features of the objects in the spatial events impact infants’ spatial categorization (Park & Casasola, ; Park, Casasola, & Kim, ).…”

“…Newborn infants categorize left as distinct from right (Gava et al., ) and infants of 3 and 4 months categorize above as distinct from below (Quinn, ). Infants of 5 and 6 months form a spatial category of between relations (Quinn, Norris, Pasko, Schmader, & Mash, ), the same age that they form a category of containment relations (Casasola, Cohen, & Chiarello, ), and by 8 months, infants form a category of support (i.e., one object placed on another; Park & Casasola, ). Similarly, young infants discriminate between physically possible and impossible events that include many of these same spatial relations (e.g., Aguiar & Baillargeon, ; Baillargeon & Wang, ; Hespos & Baillargeon, , ; Needham & Baillargeon, ).…”