Recognising a zebra from its stripes and the stripes from “zebra”: the role of verbal labels in selecting category relevant information

Perry, Lynn K.; Lupyan, Gary

doi:10.1080/23273798.2016.1154974

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While previous developmental research testing the hypothesis that labels direct attention to commonalities often used basic or dense categories ( Best et al, 2010 , 2011 ), effects of labels appear to be important for learning of sparse categories ( Perry and Lupyan, 2016 ), and it is possible that some of the discrepancies in previously reported research stems from using dense categories that can be learned without supervision. Dense categories typically have a high family resemblance and have many correlated features (e.g., birds typically have beaks, feathers, small bodies, chirp, etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Moreover, selective attention abilities correlate with categorization of sparse categories. In particular, adults’ performance on a flanker task requiring them to specify the direction of a central target while ignoring irrelevant distractors on either the right or left sides (measure of selective attention) was associated with how quickly participants verified the names of labels denoting sparse categories ( Perry and Lupyan, 2016 ). On a related note, there is evidence with 9- to 15-month-old infants that exposure to linguistic input has a larger effect on learning of sparse or more general categories, whereas, dense/basic categories can often be learned without exposure to labels ( Waxman and Markow, 1995 ; Fulkerson and Haaf, 2003 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of sparse stimuli was important because attention optimization appears to be crucial for learning categories with high within-category variability and a single diagnostic feature ( Perry and Lupyan, 2016 , see also Waxman and Markow, 1995 ; Fulkerson and Haaf, 2003 , for stronger effects of labeling on broad categories). Similar to infant familiarization procedures, participants were not told about category membership and they simply viewed the stimuli while hearing some of the names for the creatures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Linguistic Labels on Visual Attention in Children and Young Adults

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of linguistic labels on learning outcomes are well-established; however, developmental research examining possible mechanisms underlying these effects have provided mixed results. We used a novel paradigm where 8-year-olds and adults were simultaneously trained on three sparse categories (categories with many irrelevant or unique features and a single rule defining feature). Category members were either associated with the same label, different labels, or no labels (silent baseline). Similar to infant paradigms, participants passively viewed individual exemplars and we examined fixations to category relevant features across training. While it is well established that adults can optimize their attention in forced-choice categorization tasks without linguistic input, the present findings provide support for label induced attention optimization: simply hearing the same label associated with different exemplars was associated with increased attention to category relevant features over time, and participants continued to focus on these features on a subsequent recognition task. Participants also viewed images longer and made more fixations when images were paired with unique labels. These findings provide support for the claim that labels may facilitate categorization by directing attention to category relevant features.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Linguistic Labels on Visual Attention in Children and Young Adults

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Verbal interference requires people to dual-task which has some undesired properties and so more recently we have turned to noninvasive brain stimulation as a way to subtly up- or down-regulate linguistic processing (Perry & Lupyan, 2013). These studies have provided additional support that implicit verbal labelling leads to more categorical representations (Perry & Lupyan, 2014, 2017b).…”

Section: The Influence Of Verbal Labels On the Representation Of Meaningmentioning

confidence: 77%

Shaping semantic networks with transcranial direct current stimulation

Perry

Lewis

Lupyan

2020

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Images depict specific objects (e.g., a specific dog), yet are named with categorical labels (e.g., “dog”). We examined how semantic representations activated by images may be influenced by implicit labelling. Participants saw images of familiar objects and generated words associated with each image while undergoing transcranial direct current stimulation over the posterior superior temporal gyrus. Additional participants judged how representative generated associates were of the picture category and guessed the category based on the associates. Anodal stimulation was predicted to up-regulate labelling and thereby increase the extent to which participants produced associate that were more representative of the pictured category. Associates generated by anodally stimulated subjects were found to be more representative and enabled more accurate guessing of the category from which they were generated. The general pattern of results was replicated in a follow-up study using words rather than picture cues. Together these results suggest labelling may help stabilise semantic representations, leading to more robust representation of category-relevant information.

show abstract

“…Most measures focus on the consistency of participant's responding. For instance, one classic measure computes the name agreement by determining what percentage of participants give the modal response (Brandimonte et al, 1992;Brodeur et al, 2010;Perry & Lupyan, 2016). A second measure is entropy of the naming responses (Brodeur et al, 2010;Snodgrass & Vanderwart, 1980), defined as:…”

Section: Nameability Definedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does vocabulary help structure the mind?

Lupyan¹,

Zettersten²

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does language reflect the categories of our mind or does it help create them? On one widespread view (cognitive priority), learning a language involves mapping words onto pre-existing categories, leaving little room for language to change the structure of conceptual content. On another view (linguistic priority), conceptual structure is shaped by experience with and use of language. We argue for the latter perspective and present experimental findings examining how nameability – the ease with which a feature can be named – influences problem-solving, category learning, and geometric reasoning. Even subtle manipulations affecting the availability of verbal labels can impact the categories people discover and use. Words do not simply reflect joints of nature, but are used to flexibly carve joints into nature.

show abstract

Recognising a zebra from its stripes and the stripes from “zebra”: the role of verbal labels in selecting category relevant information

Cited by 12 publications

References 52 publications

Effects of Linguistic Labels on Visual Attention in Children and Young Adults

Effects of Linguistic Labels on Visual Attention in Children and Young Adults

Shaping semantic networks with transcranial direct current stimulation

Does vocabulary help structure the mind?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About