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.


Novelty preference scores on test: ∗ indicates a result significant at the .05-level, ∗∗∗ indicates a result significant at the .001-level.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

f0020: Novelty preference scores on test: ∗ indicates a result significant at the .05-level, ∗∗∗ indicates a result significant at the .001-level.

Mentions: Object-based novelty preference scores at test were obtained by dividing the amount of looking time at the out-of-category object by the total looking time accumulated for the trial (within-category and out-of-category objects). Novelty preference scores were normally distributed in all conditions (Shapiro–Wilk, all ps > .65). The results are given in Fig. 4. A one-way ANOVA did not reveal differences between the conditions (F(2, 86) = 1.08, p > .34). Importantly, however, we also conducted planned comparisons against chance for each condition separately. If infants failed to form a category and did not discriminate between the two novel objects, we would expect them to spend approximately 50% of their looking directed at each object. By contrast, if they successfully formed a category, we would expect them to reliably prefer the out-of-category over the within-category novel object. Therefore, planned comparisons against chance (0.5) were conducted for each condition. Infants demonstrated systematic novelty preferences in the Silent and Asynchronous Label conditions (Silent: t(28) = 2.13, p = .04; Asynchronous: t(28) = 4.037, p < 0.001) but not in the Synchronous Label condition (t(28) = 1.066, p = .295, all two-tailed one-sample t-tests against chance).


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

Althaus N, Plunkett K - Cognition (2015)

Novelty preference scores on test: ∗ indicates a result significant at the .05-level, ∗∗∗ indicates a result significant at the .001-level.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

f0020: Novelty preference scores on test: ∗ indicates a result significant at the .05-level, ∗∗∗ indicates a result significant at the .001-level.
Mentions: Object-based novelty preference scores at test were obtained by dividing the amount of looking time at the out-of-category object by the total looking time accumulated for the trial (within-category and out-of-category objects). Novelty preference scores were normally distributed in all conditions (Shapiro–Wilk, all ps > .65). The results are given in Fig. 4. A one-way ANOVA did not reveal differences between the conditions (F(2, 86) = 1.08, p > .34). Importantly, however, we also conducted planned comparisons against chance for each condition separately. If infants failed to form a category and did not discriminate between the two novel objects, we would expect them to spend approximately 50% of their looking directed at each object. By contrast, if they successfully formed a category, we would expect them to reliably prefer the out-of-category over the within-category novel object. Therefore, planned comparisons against chance (0.5) were conducted for each condition. Infants demonstrated systematic novelty preferences in the Silent and Asynchronous Label conditions (Silent: t(28) = 2.13, p = .04; Asynchronous: t(28) = 4.037, p < 0.001) but not in the Synchronous Label condition (t(28) = 1.066, p = .295, all two-tailed one-sample t-tests against chance).

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.