Young Infants' Performance in the Object‐Variation Version of the Above‐Below Categorization Task: A Result of Perceptual Distraction or Conceptual Limitation?

Abstract

Five experiments were conducted to examine the performance of young infants on above versus below categorization tasks. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that infants did not form abstract categorical representations for above and below when familiarized with different objects depicted in a constant spatial relation relative to a horizontal bar and tested on a novel object depicted in the familiar and novel spatial relation. Experiments 3 through 5 examined perceptual‐attentional distraction versus conceptually based generalization explanations for young infant performance in the object‐variation version of the above‐below categorization task. Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrated that infants still did not form abstract categorical representations for above and below when object variation was removed from the familiarization trials or when object novelty was reduced during the preference test trials. However, Experiment 5 showed that 3‐ and 4‐month‐olds succeeded on the above versus below categorization task when familiarized with object variation and preference tested with a familiar versus novel object‐bar relation. These results indicate that young infants can form categorical representations for above and below in the object‐variation version of the above‐below categorization task, but that such representations are specific to the particular objects presented. Young infant performance in the object‐variation version of the above‐below categorization task thus reflects a conceptually based generalization limit rather than a problem of perceptual‐attentional distraction.

Spatial representation by young infants: Categorization of spatial relations or sensitivity to a crossing primitive?

“…Despite the reports that young infants can represent above versus below (Mash et al, 1998;Quinn, 1994;Quinn et al, 1996;Quinn, Polly, et al, 2002) and left versus right (Experiment 1 of the present study), there is one unresolved issue with respect to the interpretation of performance. Specifically, it is possible that infants are simply responding to the crossing of an object from one side of a bar to the other (Landau & Jackendoff, 1993;Talmy, 1983), rather than representing the spatial relations above, below, left, and right.…”

“…In particular, an earlier study reporting that infants could represent left and right as distinct categories left open the possibility that the infants were simply engaging in pattern discrimination (Behl-Chadha & Eimas, 1995), and prior reports that infants could represent above and below as individuated categories were also consistent with the idea that the infants were merely responding to the crossing of a target object relative to a referent bar (Mash et al, 1998;Quinn, 1994;Quinn et al, 1996;Quinn, Polly, et al, 2002).…”

“…The stimuli were adapted from the stimuli used by Quinn et al (1996;Quinn, Polly, et al, 2002) to study infants' representation of above versus below. Each stimulus was created by arranging a black diamond and vertical bar onto a 17.7 ϫ 17.7 cm white posterboard card (see Figure 1).…”

“…The procedure was one that Quinn and colleagues have employed previously to investigate whether infants can form the category representations above versus below (Mash, Quinn, Dobson, & Narter, 1998;Quinn, 1994;Quinn, Cummins, Kase, Martin, & Weissman, 1996;Quinn, Polly, Furer, Dobson, & Narter, 2002). In this procedure, 3-and 4-month-olds become familiarized with an object (i.e., a dot or diamond) located in different positions above or below a horizontal bar.…”

Can Language Do the Driving? The Effect of Linguistic Input on Infants' Categorization of Support Spatial Relations.

“…Infants first learn to recognize a relation between specific objects prior to recognizing the relation between novel objects. For example, 3-month-old infants only recognize "above" versus "below" between familiar objects (Quinn, Polly, Furer, Dobson, & Narter, 2002), whereas 6-month-old infants can generalize these relations to novel objects (Quinn et al, 1996). Similarly, 6-month-old infants only recognize the spatial relation "between" when presented with familiar objects but cannot generalize the "between" spatial relation to novel objects until they are 9 months of age (Quinn et al, 2003).…”