Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33540277›Full record

ArticleCognition2021

Learning words in space and time: Contrasting models of the suspicious coincidence effect.

Gavin W Jenkins, Larissa K Samuelson, Will Penny, John P Spencer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Gavin W JenkinsDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, USA.
Larissa K SamuelsonSchool of Psychology, University of East Anglia, UK. Electronic address: l.samuelson@uea.ac.uk.
Will PennySchool of Psychology, University of East Anglia, UK.
John P SpencerSchool of Psychology, University of East Anglia, UK.

Funding

The Dynamics of Visual Attention and Word LearningR01HD045713 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI SAMUELSON, LARISSA K · 2004 to 2019
$3.6M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD045713
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In their 2007b Psychological Review paper, Xu and Tenenbaum found that early word learning follows the classic logic of the "suspicious coincidence effect:" when presented with a novel name ('fep') and three identical exemplars (three Labradors), word learners generalized novel names more narrowly than when presented with a single exemplar (one Labrador). Xu and Tenenbaum predicted the suspicious coincidence effect based on a Bayesian model of word learning and demonstrated that no other theory captured this effect. Recent empirical studies have revealed, however, that the effect is influenced by factors seemingly outside the purview of the Bayesian account. A process-based perspective correctly predicted that when exemplars are shown sequentially, the effect is eliminated or reversed (Spencer, Perone, Smith, & Samuelson, 2011). Here, we present a new, formal account of the suspicious coincidence effect using a generalization of a Dynamic Neural Field (DNF) model of word learning. The DNF model captures both the original finding and its reversal with sequential presentation. We compare the DNF model's performance with that of a more flexible version of the Bayesian model that allows both strong and weak sampling assumptions. Model comparison results show that the dynamic field account provides a better fit to the empirical data. We discuss the implications of the DNF model with respect to broader contrasts between Bayesian and process-level models.

Indexed as

LearningVerbal LearningBayes TheoremEmpirical ResearchGeneralization, PsychologicalHumansModels, PsychologicalBayesian modelCategory hierarchyComparisonDynamic field modelWord learning

Identifiers

PMID33540277
PMCPMC8140289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.