ArticleCognitive psychology2024
Infants can use temporary or scant categorical information to individuate objects.
Article in Cognitive psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In a standard individuation task, infants see two different objects emerge in alternation from behind a screen. If they can assign distinct categorical descriptors to the two objects, they expect to see both objects when the screen is lowered; if not, they have no expectation at all about what they will see (i.e., two objects, one object, or no object). Why is contrastive categorical information critical for success at this task? According to the kind account, infants must decide whether they are facing a single object with changing properties or two different objects with stable properties, and access to permanent, intrinsic, kind information for each object resolves this difficulty. According to the two-system account, however, contrastive categorical descriptors simply provide the object-file system with unique tags for individuating the two objects and for communicating about them with the physical-reasoning system. The two-system account thus predicts that any type of contrastive categorical information, however temporary or scant it may be, should induce success at the task. Two experiments examined this prediction. Experiment 1 tested 14-month-olds (N = 96) in a standard task using two objects that differed only in their featural properties. Infants succeeded at the task when the object-file system had access to contrastive temporary categorical descriptors derived from the objects' distinct causal roles in preceding support events (e.g., formerly a support, formerly a supportee). Experiment 2 tested 9-month-olds (N = 96) in a standard task using two objects infants this age typically encode as merely featurally distinct. Infants succeeded when the object-file system had access to scant categorical descriptors derived from the objects' prior inclusion in static arrays of similarly shaped objects (e.g., block-shaped objects, cylinder-shaped objects). These and control results support the two-system account's claim that in a standard task, contrastive categorical descriptors serve to provide the object-file system with unique tags for the two objects.
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.