Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
S1L5 Conceptual Development (Getting past perception: Rosch’s category…
S1L5 Conceptual Development
Quinn, P.C., & Eimas, P.D.
(1996) train infants to recognise different cats n test by eir showing m anor cat or dog. Looked more at new dog than new cat. Anor exp was performed in 2 reps of 36 infants each. W/in each rep, 12 infants were r&omly assigned to each of 3 groups. Face Only – familiarised w/ cat faces (body parts occluded) & tested w/ novel cat face vs dog face; Body Only – familiarised w/ cat bodies (faces occluded) & tested w/ novel cat body vs dog body; Whole Animal – familiarised w/ cats & tested w/ novel cat vs dog. During familiarised w/ cats & tested w/ novel cat vs dog. During familiarisation, each infant was presented w/ 1 stimulus. Results: whole animal > body only; face only > body only; Whole animal ~ face only
(1993). Evidence for reps of perceptually similar natural categories by 3mo & 4mo infants. Perception, 22(4), 463-475. - 3-4mo again: Ex1: Cats & Dogs can be categorised as different from Birds. Ex2: Control study to check for a priori preference for birds. Ex3: Control study to check for discriminability of stimuli. Ex4: Compare: Train on Dogs, test w/ novel Dog v Novel Cat. Train on Cats, test w/ novel Cat v Novel Dog Category of Dogs includes Cats - Concludes: Category of Cats does not include Dogs - Is re any sense in which cat could be dog but dog could not be cat? Perceptual categorisation… dogs are more variable than cats ‘so cat might be dog…but dog is unlikely to be cat’
Concepts: Ways to organise knowledge of “objects, events [etc.] … on basis of some similarity”
Getting past perception: Rosch’s category hierarchy: Superordinate – Basic - Subordinate
Rosch’s theory: Related principles: Cognitive economy: (1) Things in category, (2) Things not in category. Cue validity: “If is has feature, it is 1 of those”
Basic level objects: Natural discontinuities – where we ‘cut’ world. Maximise cue validity. basic level is seen in: Common attributes, Shape similarity, Motor movements, Maximised cue validity (probability of category Y given cue X), Maximise category resemblance. Children use basic level: Early words spoken, Early words known
Perceptual categorisation: grouping together of objects that have similar appearances.
Superordinate level: general level w/in a category hierarchy, such as, “animal” in animal/dog/poodle example
Subordinate level: most specific level w/in category hierarchy, such as “poodle”
Basic level: middle level, & often 1st level learned, w/in a category hierarchy, e.g. “dog”
Types of categorisation
Perceptual: based on observable properties only.
Conceptual: based on observable properties & includes some cognitive component (e.g. knowing something about category).
Taxonomic: based on kinds.
Categories: Like concepts, but have structure too - Imply sorting…& are of great interest to developmental theorists –Imply hierarchy …& idea of inheriting properties
Perceptual categorisation: “grouping together of objects that have similar appearances” (ALSO NOTE that it is more than just objects that are perceived categorically)
“categorization abilities of infants in domain of vision have been revealed largely through use of a familiarization-novelty pref procedure which relies on pref that infants have for novel stimuli (Fantz, 1964). In a typical study, infants are shown a number of instances from 1 category & n given a preference test that pairs a novel member of familiar category w/ an exemplar from a novel category. A pref…is taken as evidence that infant has formed a categorical representation of familiar category.” (Quinn & Eimas, 1996, pp. 189-190).
Categorical representation: Formation of a perceptually-based mental representation, which allows infant to generalise new instances to familiar category