The role of comparison in preschoolers’ novel object categorization

Abstract

We examined the role of the comparison process and shared names on preschoolers' categorization of novel objects. In our studies, 4-year-olds were presented with novel object sets consisting of either one or two standards and two test objects: a shape match and a texture match. When children were presented with one standard, they extended the category based on shape regardless of whether the objects were named. When children were presented with two standards that shared the same texture and the objects were named with the same noun, they extended the category based on texture. The opportunity to compare two standards, in the absence of shared names, led to an attenuation of the effect of shape. These findings demonstrate that comparison plays a critical role in the categorization of novel objects and that shared names enhance this process.

The benefits and costs of comparisons in a novel object categorization task: Interactions with development

“…In the comparison condition, children extended the novel name that was given to the exemplars (i.e., the standards; e.g., a bicycle and a tricycle) to a perceptually different taxonomic match (e.g., a skateboard), whereas in the no-comparison condition (e.g., a bicycle), they extended the name of the standards to the same-shape match (e.g., eyeglasses). Recently, Graham et al (2010) replicated this finding for categories of unfamiliar stimuli. The target unifying dimension was the nonsalient dimension texture.…”

“…We used unfamiliar categories defined by the nonsalient dimension texture as in Graham et al (2010). Stimuli were constructed around two dimensions, texture and shape.…”

“…This positive role of comparisons has been documented for a wide variety of stimuli and situations in both adults and children. In the case of children, this has been shown for object names (e.g., Gentner & Namy, 1999;Graham, Namy, Gentner, & Meagher, 2010;Namy & Clepper, 2010;Namy & Gentner, 2002), names for parts (Gentner, Loewenstein, & Hung, 2007), action verbs (Childers, 2011), adjectives (Waxman & Klibanoff, 2000), and perceptual categories (e.g., Hammer, Diesendruck, Weinshall, & Hochstein, 2009;Thibaut, 1991).…”

Handwriting generates variable visual output to facilitate symbol learning.

“…The results suggest that not only are young children capable of identifying the critical features that define symbol categories during learning, but they also are attuned to type of information that is and is not relevant for identifying variable symbol forms. Learning through comparison across different category exemplars appears to be crucial for defining object categories (Gentner, Loewenstein, & Hung, 2007; Graham, Namy, Gentner, & Meagher, 2010). In our view, letter recognition requires this comparison process, and the current study supports the notion that category learning is facilitated by exposure to multiple, variable exemplars.…”

Optimal Contrast: Competition Between Two Referents Improves Word Learning

“…Here too, studies across a wide range of topics suggest that too many competing items can disrupt learning (e.g., in wordlearning [Horst, Scott, & Pollard, 2010]; science learning in museum settings [Allen & Gutwill, 2004], target identification in rapid presentations [Shapiro, Raymond, & Arnell, 1997], working memory [Carroll et al, 2010], and long-term memory [Axmacher, Haupt, Cohen, Elgar, & Fell, 2009]). On the other hand, the presence of multiple exemplars has also been shown to aid infants and children in forming categories (Graham, Namy, Gentner, & Meagher, 2010;Quinn & Tanaka, 2007;Waxman, Chambers, Yntema, & Gelman, 1989), remembering hidden objects (Oakes, Kovack-Lesh, & Horst, 2009), and in learning "deeper" relational information (Gentner & Namy, 1999). Thus, the role of competing options in helping or hindering learning remains an open question.…”