↓ Skip to main content

The influence of label co-occurrence and semantic similarity on children’s inductive generalization

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The influence of label co-occurrence and semantic similarity on children’s inductive generalization
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01146
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bryan J. Matlen, Anna V. Fisher, Karrie E. Godwin

Abstract

Semantically-similar labels that co-occur in child-directed speech (e.g., bunny-rabbit) are more likely to promote inductive generalization in preschoolers than non-co-occurring labels (e.g., lamb-sheep). However, it remains unclear whether this effect stems from co-occurrence or other factors, and how co-occurrence contributes to generalization. To address these issues, preschoolers were exposed to a stream of semantically-similar labels that don't co-occur in natural language, but were arranged to co-occur in the experimental setting. In Experiment 1, children exposed to the co-occurring stream were more likely to make category-consistent inferences than children in two control conditions. Experiment 2 replicated this effect and provided evidence that co-occurrence training influenced generalization only when the trained labels were categorically-similar. These findings suggest that both co-occurrence information and semantic representations contribute to preschool-age children's inductive generalization. The findings are discussed in relation to the developmental accounts of inductive generalization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 31%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Neuroscience 2 13%
Unknown 5 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2015.
All research outputs
#20,738,791
of 23,339,727 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#24,903
of 31,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,571
of 267,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#535
of 562 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,339,727 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,054 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 562 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.