ArticleChild development
Nameability supports rule-based category learning in children and adults.
Article in Child development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Longitudinal associations between memory and emergent literacy from 3 to 6 years of age: a four-wave random-intercept cross-lagged panel study.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Category learning difficulties in ADHD across modalities and multiple learning systems.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Semantic Anchors Facilitate Task Encoding in Continual Learning.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The present study tested the hypothesis that verbal labels support category induction by providing compact hypotheses. Ninety-seven 4- to 6-year-old children (M = 63.2 months; 46 female, 51 male; 77% White, 8% more than one race, 4% Asian, and 3% Black; tested 2018) and 90 adults (M = 20.1 years; 70 female, 20 male) in the Midwestern United States learned novel categories with features that were easy (e.g., "red") or difficult (e.g., "mauve") to name. Adults (d = 1.06) and-to a lesser extent-children (d = 0.57; final training block) learned categories composed of more nameable features better. Children's knowledge of difficult-to-name color words predicted their learning for categories with difficult-to-name features. Rule-based category learning may be supported by the emerging ability to form verbal hypotheses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.