Limits...
Timing matters: the impact of label synchrony on infant categorisation.

Althaus N, Plunkett K - Cognition (2015)

Bottom Line: However, analyses of infants' gaze patterns to object parts reveal that even synchronous labels do not hinder learning completely.We conclude that synchronous labels interfere with the familiarisation process, but this process involves shifts in familiarity vs. novelty preference rather than overshadowing of visual learning.Besides offering detailed insight into the effects of labelling on infants' visual attention, these findings offer the potential to reconcile previous contradictory results.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. Electronic address: nadja.althaus@psy.ox.ac.uk.

No MeSH data available.


Looking time during familiarisation.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4400968&req=5

f0015: Looking time during familiarisation.

Mentions: Looking time for each familiarisation trial was calculated as the sum of fixation time falling on the leaf and shell AOIs. In order to assess whether infants had begun to habituate by the end of the familiarisation phase (a typical indicator of learning), we divided the eight trials into two blocks of four trials (e.g. Eimas & Quinn, 1994). Average looking times for Blocks 1 (Trials 1–4) and 2 (Trials 5–8) are shown in Fig. 3. The data were submitted to a mixed model ANOVA with within-subjects factor Block (Block 1, Block 2) and between-subjects factor Condition (Silent, Asynchronous, Synchronous). This yielded a significant main effect of Block (F(1, 84) = 6.464, p = .013). While the Block × Condition remained non-significant (F = 1.870, p = .161), as did the main effect of Condition (F(2, 84) = 1.99, p = .143), planned comparisons showed that infants’ looking in the Silent condition did decrease (t(28) = 3.575, p = .001). In the two conditions with labels infants’ attention did not appear to decrease (Asynchronous: t(28) = .112, p > .91; Synchronous: t(28) = 1.42, p > .17; all paired, 2-tailed tests). These findings are consistent with previous research showing that auditory input maintains infant looking (Baldwin & Markman, 1989; Plunkett et al., 2008; Robinson & Sloutsky, 2007a) during a sequence of familiarisation presentations.


Timing matters: the impact of label synchrony on infant categorisation.

Althaus N, Plunkett K - Cognition (2015)

Looking time during familiarisation.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4400968&req=5

f0015: Looking time during familiarisation.
Mentions: Looking time for each familiarisation trial was calculated as the sum of fixation time falling on the leaf and shell AOIs. In order to assess whether infants had begun to habituate by the end of the familiarisation phase (a typical indicator of learning), we divided the eight trials into two blocks of four trials (e.g. Eimas & Quinn, 1994). Average looking times for Blocks 1 (Trials 1–4) and 2 (Trials 5–8) are shown in Fig. 3. The data were submitted to a mixed model ANOVA with within-subjects factor Block (Block 1, Block 2) and between-subjects factor Condition (Silent, Asynchronous, Synchronous). This yielded a significant main effect of Block (F(1, 84) = 6.464, p = .013). While the Block × Condition remained non-significant (F = 1.870, p = .161), as did the main effect of Condition (F(2, 84) = 1.99, p = .143), planned comparisons showed that infants’ looking in the Silent condition did decrease (t(28) = 3.575, p = .001). In the two conditions with labels infants’ attention did not appear to decrease (Asynchronous: t(28) = .112, p > .91; Synchronous: t(28) = 1.42, p > .17; all paired, 2-tailed tests). These findings are consistent with previous research showing that auditory input maintains infant looking (Baldwin & Markman, 1989; Plunkett et al., 2008; Robinson & Sloutsky, 2007a) during a sequence of familiarisation presentations.

Bottom Line: However, analyses of infants' gaze patterns to object parts reveal that even synchronous labels do not hinder learning completely.We conclude that synchronous labels interfere with the familiarisation process, but this process involves shifts in familiarity vs. novelty preference rather than overshadowing of visual learning.Besides offering detailed insight into the effects of labelling on infants' visual attention, these findings offer the potential to reconcile previous contradictory results.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. Electronic address: nadja.althaus@psy.ox.ac.uk.

No MeSH data available.