ArticlePloS one2024
How children generalize novel nouns: An eye-tracking analysis of their generalization strategies.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Relation between dimensional distinctiveness and comparison format in a novel noun generalization task in preschoolers.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent research has shown that comparisons of multiple learning stimuli which are associated with the same novel noun favor taxonomic generalization of this noun. These findings contrast with single-stimulus learning in which children follow so-called lexical biases. However, little is known about the underlying search strategies. The present experiment provides an eye-tracking analysis of search strategies during novel word learning in a comparison design. We manipulated both the conceptual distance between the two learning items, i.e., children saw examples which were associated with a noun (e.g., the two learning items were either two bracelets in a "close" comparison condition or a bracelet and a watch in a "far" comparison condition), and the conceptual distance between the learning items and the taxonomically related items in the generalization options (e.g., the taxonomic generalization answer; a pendant, a near generalization item; versus a bow tie, a distant generalization item). We tested 5-, 6- and 8-year-old children's taxonomic (versus perceptual and thematic) generalization of novel names for objects. The search patterns showed that participants first focused on the learning items and then compared them with each of the possible choices. They also spent less time comparing the various options with one another; this search profile remained stable across age groups. Data also revealed that early comparisons, (i.e., reflecting alignment strategies) predicted generalization performance. We discuss four search strategies as well as the effect of age and conceptual distance on these strategies.
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.