Search results for "Conceptual distance"
showing 3 items of 3 documents
Generalization of novel names for relations in comparison settings: the role of conceptual distance during learning and at test
2018
International audience; Relational categories are notoriously difficult to learn. We studied the impact of comparison on relational concept learning with a novel word learning task in 3- and 4-year olds. We contrasted a no-comparison (single) condition and two comparison conditions. In the latter case, the set of learning pairs was composed of either close or far pairs (e.g., close pair: knife1- watermelon, knife2-orange; far pair: ax-evergreen tree, saw-log, for the “cutter for” relation). We also manipulated the transfer stimuli semantic distance (near or distant semantic domain, e.g., a scissor for a piece of paper in the close case, and a shaver for a face in the far domain case). The n…
Do typically and atypically developing children learn and generalize novel names similarly: The role of conceptual distance during learning and at te…
2020
International audience; There is a large body of evidence showing that comparison of multiple stimuli leads to better conceptualization and generalization of novel names than no-comparison settings in typically developing (TD) children. By contrast, the evidence regarding this issue remains scarce in children with intellectual disabilities (ID). Children with intellectual disabilities (ID) and TD children matched on mental age with the Raven's coloured progressive matrices were tested in several novel name learning comparison conditions, with familiar objects. We manipulated the conceptual distance between the learning stimuli in the learning phase and between the learning and generalizatio…
Children’s Generalization of Novel Object Names in Comparison Contexts: An eye tracking analysis
2019
International audience; A common result is thatcomparison settings (i.e., several stimuli introduced simultaneously) favor conceptualizationand generalization. In a comparison setting, we manipulated the semantic distance between the two training items (e.g., two bracelets versus a bracelet and a watch), and the semantic distance between the training items and the test items (e.g., a pendant versus a bow tie). We tested 5-and 8-year-old children’s generalization of novel names for objects. This study is the first one to study the temporal dynamics ofcomparison in a generalization task with eye-tracking data. The eye movement data revealed clear patterns of exploration in which participants …