ArticleInfancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies
Exploring Cues of Reciprocity in Third-Party Word Learning.
Article in Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies. 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.
- Exploring Cues of Reciprocity in Third-Party Word Learning.Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant StudiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study examined how toddlers learn novel words by observing two adults interact in third-party contexts. Specifically, we examined whether toddlers show stronger evidence of selective referent identification for labeled objects in third-party contexts and how word learning may be supported by cues of reciprocity between adult interlocutors, including physical exchange of the object, verbal exchange about the object, and/or the adult listener's response to the information provided. Toddlers (n = 64, Mage = 29.9 mos., SD = 1.7 mos) were assigned to one of four conditions: Object Exchange + Action Imitation, Object Exchange Only, Verbal Exchange + Label Repetition, or Verbal Exchange Only. In the Object Exchange conditions, children observed one adult speaker label and manipulate a target object and then hand it to another adult listener, who either imitated the object manipulation or held the object without manipulation. In the Verbal Exchange conditions, one adult speaker labeled and manipulated the target object without handing it over, and the other adult listener either repeated the label or provided a neutral verbal response. Children's learning was assessed by whether they selected the target object in response to its label; preference responses were used to distinguish target selection from object preference. Children showed stronger evidence of selective referent identification in the Object Exchange conditions compared to the Verbal Exchange conditions. These results suggest that physical exchange of a labeled object between adult interlocutors may help toddlers identify the interaction as referentially relevant and therefore support word learning in third-party contexts.
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.