Color–function categories that prime infants to use color information in an object individuation task

Abstract

There is evidence for developmental hierarchies in the type of information to which infants attend when reasoning about objects. Investigators have questioned the origin of these hierarchies and how infants come to identify new sources of information when reasoning about objects. The goal of the present experiments was to shed light on this debate by identifying conditions under which infants' sensitivity to color information, which is slow to emerge, could be enhanced in an object individuation task. The outcome of Experiment 1 confirmed and extended previous reports that 9.5-month-olds can be primed, through exposure to events in which the color of an object predicts its function, to attend to color differences in a subsequent individuation task. The outcomes of Experiments 2 to 4 revealed age-related changes in the nature of the representations that support color priming. This is exemplified by three main findings. First, the representations that are formed during the colorfunction events are relatively specific. That is, infants are primed to use the color difference seen in the color-function events to individuate objects in the test events, but not other color differences. Second, 9.5-month-olds can be led to form more abstract event representations, and then generalize to other colors in the test events if they are shown multiple pairs of colors in the color-function events. Third, slightly younger 9-month-olds also can be led to form more inclusive categories with multiple color pairs, but only when they are allowed to directly compare the exemplars in each color pair during the present events. These results shed light on the development of categorization abilities, cognitive mechanisms that support color-function priming, and the kinds of experiences that can increase infants' sensitivity to color information.

Partial Color Word Comprehension Precedes Production

“…While these studies interestingly demonstrate that children do not preferentially attend to color early in development, our results suggest that children nonetheless can abstract color from an early age if color is highlighted linguistically. In fact, in studies where color properties are highlighted, evidence of color abstraction has been found in infants as young as five to twelve months of age (Catherwood, Crassini & Freiberg, 1989;Waxman, 2007;Wilcox, Woods & Chapa, 2008;Wilcox, 1999).…”

Memory load affects object individuation in 18-month-old infants

“…For these older infants, some additional evidence suggests that infants used the featural differences between objects to set up contrasting kind representations and that these kind representations are critical to individuation (Bonatti, Frot, Zangl, & Mehler, 2002;Xu, Carey, & Quint, 2004;Xu, Cote, & Baker, 2005). However, when the task is made simpler (e.g., Wilcox & Baillargeon, 1998b;Wilcox & Chapa, 2002;Wilcox & Schweinle, 2002) or when given additional experience with objects' features (Wilcox, Woods, & Chapa, 2008;Wilcox, Woods, Chapa, & McCurry, 2007), infants much younger than 12 months also appear to use featural cues to individuate and can do so with objects that do not clearly contrast in kind membership (e.g., ball vs. box). Taken together, these studies of infants' object individuation abilities have revealed which object features infants can use for individuation as well as which experimental paradigms make individuation more or less difficult (e.g., Bonatti et al, 2002;Krojgaard, 2007;Surian & Caldi, 2010;Wilcox & Baillargeon, 1998a, 1998bXu et al, 2005).…”

Priming 4.5-month-old infants to use height information by enhancing retrieval.

“…Being able to sit up and to crawl increases the opportunities for infants to explore objects and thus enhances their ability to process and reason about objects (e.g., Soska, Adolph, & Johnson, 2010). In addition to naturally occurring experience, deliberate manipulation of experiences at home or in the laboratory enhances infants' perception of and performance in dynamic events (e.g., Amso & Johnson, 2006Barrett, Davis, & Needham, 2007Hauf, Elsner, & Aschersleben, 2004;Sommerville, Hildebrand, & Crane, 2008;Sommerville, Woodward, & Needham, 2005;Wang & Kohne, 2007;Wilcox, Woods, & Chapa, 2008).…”