ArticlePloS one2025
Word learning as category formation.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A fundamental question in word learning is how, given only evidence about what objects a word has previously referred to, children are able to generalize to the correct class. How does a learner end up knowing that "poodle" only picks out a specific subset of dogs rather than the broader class and vice versa? Numerous phenomena have been identified in guiding learner behavior such as the "suspicious coincidence effect" (SCE)-that an increase in the sample size of training objects facilitates more narrow (subordinate) word meanings. While SCE seems to support a class of models based in statistical inference, such rational behavior is, in fact, consistent with a range of algorithmic processes. Notably, the broadness of semantic generalizations is further affected by the temporal manner in which objects are presented-either simultaneously or sequentially. First, I evaluate the experimental evidence on the factors influencing generalization in word learning. A reanalysis of existing data demonstrates that both the number of training objects and their presentation-timing independently affect learning. This independent effect has been obscured by prior literature's focus on possible interactions between the two. Second, I present a computational model for learning that accounts for both sets of phenomena in a unified way. The Naïve Generalization Model (NGM) offers an explanation of word learning phenomena grounded in category formation. Under the NGM, learning is local and incremental, without the need to perform a global optimization over pre-specified hypotheses. This computational model is tested against human behavior on seven different experimental conditions for word learning, varying over presentation-timing, number, and hierarchical relation between training items. Looking both at qualitative parameter-independent behavior and quantitative parameter-tuned output, these results support the NGM and suggest that rational learning behavior may arise from local, mechanistic processes rather than global statistical inference.
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.