Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41059022›Full record

ArticleJournal of memory and language2026

Close enough isn't good enough in word learning: Successful cross-situational word mappings are semantically independent of previous mappings.

Alexander S LaTourrette, Charles Yang, John Trueswell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of memory and language, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Alexander S LaTourretteDepartment of Psychology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Charles YangDepartment of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
John TrueswellDepartment of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Funding

Identifying cross-situational word learning mechanisms across developmentF32HD103448 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI LATOURRETTE, SANDY SCOTT · 2020 to 2022
$189k
NICHD NIH HHS F32 HD103448
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Children often encounter new words in referentially and semantically ambiguous environments. Thus, they will generally make many incorrect guesses about a word's meaning before arriving at its correct meaning. Here, we asked whether these initial incorrect guesses might nevertheless be useful to learners by providing information about a word's semantic neighborhood (e.g., if most guesses were food items, perhaps the word has a food-related meaning). To test this, we analyzed datasets from previous tasks in which adults guessed the word which caregivers uttered in interactions with their children. We first tested whether adults' incorrect guesses are, indeed, semantically similar to the correct meaning. In Study 1, we established that learners' incorrect guesses were semantically similar to the target word. We then asked whether adults successfully used these semantically similar guesses as "stepping-stones" to arrive at the correct meaning across exposures. Study 2 showed that overall, learners' guesses were semantically consistent across exposures. However, this effect was small, and correct guesses were not judged to be similar to learners' prior, incorrect guesses. Moreover, Study 3 revealed that semantically close-to-target guesses did not improve learners' subsequent accuracy. Thus, even adult word learners fail to use semantic similarity in cross-situational word learning. Study 4 confirmed this result in a new word learning experiment: even for maximally similar meaning pairs, adults failed to generate thematically or taxonomically similar meanings across exposures. While learners' incorrect guesses tend to be similar to the correct meaning, learners do not successfully use this information to learn words across exposures.

Indexed as

cross-situationalreferential ambiguitysemantic similarityword learning

Identifiers

PMID41059022
PMCPMC12498568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.