The effect of language cues on infants’ representational flexibility in a deferred imitation task

Herbert, John

doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.06.007

Cited by 19 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior research using multiple paradigms suggests that infants are successful in extracting and mapping linguistic labels early in the second year of life (e.g., Barr & Wyss, 2008; Ganea et al , 2008; Herbert, 2011; Herbert & Hayne, 2000; Kay‐Raining Bird & Chapman, 1998; Pruden et al , 2006; Simcock et al , 2011; Waxman, 2008). The addition of specific linguistic cues (nonsense names, object labels, verbs) might, therefore, facilitate transfer of action imitation across dimension.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

15‐month‐olds’ transfer of learning between touch screen and real‐world displays: language cues and cognitive loads

Zack

Gerhardstein

Meltzoff

et al. 2012

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infants have difficulty transferring information between 2D and 3D sources. The current study extends Zack et al.’s (2009) touch screen imitation task to examine whether the addition of specific language cues significantly facilitates 15-month-olds’ transfer of learning between touch screens and real-world 3D objects. The addition of two kinds of linguistic cues (object label plus verb or nonsense name) did not elevate action imitation significantly above levels observed when such language cues were not used. Language cues hindered infants’ performance in the 3D→2D direction of transfer, but only for the object label plus verb condition. The lack of a facilitative effect of language is discussed in terms of competing cognitive loads imposed by conjointly transferring information across dimensions and processing linguistic cues in an action imitation task at this age.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

15‐month‐olds’ transfer of learning between touch screen and real‐world displays: language cues and cognitive loads

Zack

Gerhardstein

Meltzoff

et al. 2012

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, providing infants with additional encoding time (Barr, Dowden & Hayne, 1996), the opportunity to immediately reproduce target actions (Hayne, Barr & Herbert, 2003), language cues (Bauer, Wenner, Dropik & Wewerka, 2000; Hayne & Herbert, 2004), or allowing an association to be formed between the target event and another, longer remembered, event (Barr, Vieira & Rovee‐Collier, 2001, 2002) can protract the duration of retention for the target actions in an imitation task. Similarly, the opportunity to immediately reproduce the target actions (Hayne et al , 2003; Learmonth, Lamberth & Rovee‐Collier, 2004, 2005), and the provision of language cues at encoding and retrieval (Herbert & Hayne, 2000; Herbert, 2011), can facilitate infants’ ability to retrieve their memories in situations that are similar, but not identical, to those experienced at encoding.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eye tracking infants: Investigating the role of attention during learning on recognition memory

Taylor

Herbert

2012

Scandinavian J Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present study, eye tracker methodology was used to explore whether there were age-related changes in the focus of infant attention during a learning event and subsequent recognition memory for event features. Six-and 9-month old infants watched a video of an adult demonstrating a sequence of actions with an object while visual attention was recorded using an eye tracker. At both ages, attention was focused primarily on the object and person, with the background attended to for approximately 12% of their viewing time. Recognition memory for the person, object and background from the video was assessed immediately using a Visual Paired Comparison procedure. Despite focusing on the central features while watching the target video, infants showed only limited evidence of recognition memory for the individual components of the event. Taken together, these findings suggest that the early age-related changes in memory performance seen in the literature may not be the result of age-related changes in attentional focus during encoding. AbstractIn the present study, eye tracker methodology was used to explore whether there were agerelated changes in the focus of infant attention during a learning event and subsequent recognition memory for event features. Six-and 9-month old infants watched a video of an adult demonstrating a sequence of actions with an object while visual attention was recorded using an eye tracker. At both ages, attention was focused primarily on the object and person, with the background attended to for approximately 12% of their viewing time. Recognition memory for the person, object and background from the video was assessed immediately using a Visual Paired Comparison procedure. Despite focusing on the central features while watching the target video, infants showed only limited evidence of recognition memory for the individual components of the event. Taken together, these findings suggest that agerelated changes in memory performance during the first year of life are unlikely to be the result of age-related changes in attentional focus during encoding.

show abstract

“…In contrast to the facilitation observed at 21-months, the presence or absence of naming information did not appear to influence infants’ performance on the extension trial at 18-months. This was unexpected, given that previous research has documented the facilitative effects of naming in other types of tasks, as well as with even younger infants (e.g., Booth and Waxman, 2002, 2003; Graham et al, 2004; Keates and Graham, 2008; Waxman, 2008; Herbert, 2011). The lack of facilitation reported here likely resulted from two factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Learning from picture books: Infants’ use of naming information

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated whether naming would facilitate infants’ transfer of information from picture books to the real world. Eighteen- and 21-month-olds learned a novel label for a novel object depicted in a picture book. Infants then saw a second picture book in which an adult demonstrated how to elicit the object’s non-obvious property. Accompanying narration described the pictures using the object’s newly learnt label. Infants were subsequently tested with the real-world object depicted in the book, as well as a different-color exemplar. Infants’ performance on the test trials was compared with that of infants in a no label condition. When presented with the exact object depicted in the picture book, 21-month-olds were significantly more likely to attempt to elicit the object’s non-obvious property than were 18-month-olds. Learning the object’s label before learning about the object’s hidden property did not improve 18-month-olds’ performance. At 21-months, the number of infants in the label condition who attempted to elicit the real-world object’s non-obvious property was greater than would be predicted by chance, but the number of infants in the no label condition was not. Neither age group nor label condition predicted test performance for the different-color exemplar. The findings are discussed in relation to infants’ learning and transfer from picture books.

show abstract

The effect of language cues on infants’ representational flexibility in a deferred imitation task

Cited by 19 publications

References 17 publications

15‐month‐olds’ transfer of learning between touch screen and real‐world displays: language cues and cognitive loads

15‐month‐olds’ transfer of learning between touch screen and real‐world displays: language cues and cognitive loads

Eye tracking infants: Investigating the role of attention during learning on recognition memory

Learning from picture books: Infants’ use of naming information

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About