Metacognitive errors contribute to the difficulty in remembering proper names

While prior research has shown that proper names are more challenging to learn and remember than other types of information (e.g., occupations), little research has explored the role of metacognitive factors in proper name learning. Thus in four experiments participants learned, made predictions, and were tested on their memory for common nouns (i.e., occupations) and proper nouns (i.e., names). Results showed that memory predictions were consistently overconfident for names, whereas the discrepancy between predictions and performance was smaller for occupations. With experience, participants were able to modify predictions and, critically, Experiment 4 showed that improvements in the accuracy of memory predictions led participants to allocate more study time to names and thus improved memory for names. Such data suggest that theories of proper name learning should make provisions for deficits in metacognitive awareness.     

Learning Proper Names and Count Nouns: Evidence From 16- and 20-Month-Olds

In 4 experiments, we examined 16- and 20-month-old infants' understanding of proper names and count nouns. In each experiment, infants were taught a novel word modeled linguistically as either a proper name (e.g., "DAXY") or a count noun (e.g., "a DAXY") for a stuffed animal shown on a puppet stage. This animal was moved to a new location on the stage, and a second identical-looking animal was placed in the original animal's starting location. We then assessed infants' looking behavior in response to the word they had heard. At 20 months (Experiments 1 and 3), but not at 16 months (Experiments 2 and 4), infants were significantly more likely to look first at the original object in response to hearing the word in the proper name condition than in the count noun condition or in a baseline condition in which they heard no word. The results suggest that distinct and appropriate form–meaning links involving proper names and count nouns emerge in children's language between 16 and 20 months.     

Naming and Exclaiming: Infants' Sensitivity to Naming Contexts

In three experiments, we examined 17-month-olds' acquisition of novel symbols (words and gestures) as names for object categories. Experiment 1 compares infants' extension of novel symbols when they are presented within a familiar naming phrase (e.g., "Look at this [symbol]!") versus presented alone (e.g., "Look! ... [symbol]!") Infants mapped novel gestures successfully in both naming contexts. However, infants mapped novel words only within the context of familiar naming phrases. Thus, although infants can learn both words and gestures, they have divergent expectations about the circumstances under which the 2 symbolic forms name objects. Experiments 2 and 3 test the hypothesis that infants' expectations about the circumstances under which words that name objects are acquired by monitoring how adults indicate their intention to name. By employing a training paradigm, these two experiments demonstrated that infants can infer how an experimenter signals his or her intention to name an object on the basis of a very brief training experience.     

Acquiring experiential traces in word-referent learning

In two experiments, we investigated the activation of perceptual representations of referent objects during word processing. In both experiments, participants learned to associate pictures of novel three-dimensional objects with pseudowords. They subsequently performed a recognition task (Experiment 1) or a naming task (Experiment 2) on the object names while being primed with different types of visual stimuli. Only the stimuli that the participants had encountered as referent objects during the training phase facilitated recognition or naming responses. New stimuli did not facilitate the processing of object names, even if they matched a schematic or prototypical representation of the referent object that the participants might have abstracted during word-referent learning. These results suggest that words learned by way of examples of referent objects are associated with experiential traces of encounters with these objects.     

The role of novelty in early word learning

What mechanism implements the mutual exclusivity bias to map novel labels to objects without names? Prominent theoretical accounts of mutual exclusivity (e.g., Markman, 1989, 1990 ) propose that infants are guided by their knowledge of object names. However, the mutual exclusivity constraint could be implemented via monitoring of object novelty (see Merriman, Marazita, & Jarvis, 1995 ). We sought to discriminate between these contrasting explanations across two preferential looking experiments with 22‐month‐olds. In Experiment 1, infants viewed three objects: one name‐known, two name‐unknown. Of the two name‐unknown objects, one was novel, and the other had been previously familiarized. The infants responded to hearing a novel label by increasing attention only to the novel, name‐unknown object. In a second experiment in which the name‐known object was absent, a novel label increased infants’ attention to a novel object beyond baseline preference for novelty. The experiments provide clear evidence for a novelty‐based mechanism. However, differences in the time course of disambiguation across experiments suggest that novelty processing may be influenced by contextual factors.     

Age differences in memory for names: the effect of prelearned semantic associations

Previous research has shown that people-especially older adults-have a special difficulty in learning the names of newly encountered people. This is potentially attributable to the lack of direct link in memory between a face and name. The present experiments investigated whether older and younger adults could use other semantic information about a person (i.e., a "mediator") to indirectly link a name to a face. In each of two experiments, older and younger adults prelearned associations between semantic information (character information or occupations) and names. They then attempted to learn links between faces and either the names or semantic information. In the "unmediated" condition, participants learned only one piece of information (either the name or the semantic information) about each face, whereas in the "mediated" condition, they learned both the to-be-tested information as well as the "mediator" (i.e., both the name and the other semantic information). Experiment 1 showed that, at a simple level, both age groups could use character information ("good" or "bad") to help recognize people's names, given their faces. Experiment 2 showed that knowing the occupation associated with a name helped both age groups to later recall the name associated with a given face.     

The Effects of Distractor Words on Naming Pictures at the Subordinate Level

Three experiments are reported in which participants are asked to name pictures at the subordinate level (e.g. POODLE) whilst ignoring a distractor word. In Experiment 1, the distractor words included the names of other exemplars from the same basic-level category (e.g. spaniel). Naming latencies were prolonged in this condition, relative to unrelated conditions. In Experiment 2, the distractor words included the correct basic level names (e.g. dog) and the names of related basic level objects (e.g. cat). Subordinate naming latencies were faster in these conditions than in unrelated conditions, suggesting that basic level names can be eliminated as competitors and that it can even be useful to have simultaneous activation of the correct basic level representation when retrieving subordinate names. Finally, Experiment 3 showed that when the names of subordinate objects from a related basic-level category (e.g. koala) are printed on objects, subordinate naming latencies are again delayed when compared with unrelated conditions. The results are discussed with reference to current models of object name retrieval.     

Sources of Disagreement in Object Naming

Two experiments examined the processing of objects with low name agreement. Experiment I compared naming latencies for objects with three different types of name disagreement to those for matched control objects with very high name agreement. Objects with low name agreement due to abbreviations (e.g. phone) were named no more slowly than were control objects. Objects with multiple names (e.g. couch, sofa, settee) and objects often given incorrect names (e.g. spider for ant) took longer to name correctly than did matched controls. These results were confirmed in a second naming experiment using a revised set of high-name-agreement control stimuli. In Experiment 2, subjects carried out an object decision task using the revised stimulus set. Subjects could recognize objects with multiple names as quickly as those with high name agreement. Objects often given incorrect names were recognized by subjects more slowly than were high-agreement matched stimuli. The pattern of data suggests that the delay in naming latency due to the availability of more than one correct name arises after structural recognition. In contrast, the slowed naming of objects often misnamed would seem to originate from difficulties encountered at or before the structural stage of recognition.     

What's in a shape? Children represent shape variability differently than adults when naming objects

Children and adults often generalize a word to objects of the same shape. However, the shape properties on which generalization is based are unknown. We investigated the degree to which two shape dimensions were represented categorically by children and adults when learning names for objects. Multidimensional scaling techniques were used to establish the perceptual similarity of two sets of objects in Experiment 1. In Experiments 2 and 3, children (from 2;8 to 4;5 years of age) and adults participated in two tasks in which they learned a novel name for an exemplar. We then examined how often the novel name was generalized to different objects and to line drawings of the objects. In one task, participants generalized the names from memory; in a second task the exemplar was in front of the participant during generalization. Adults accepted names more often to objects that fell "within" the proposed shape boundaries than to objects that fell "across" the boundaries. Children, however, were just as likely to generalize names to novel objects that fell within as to objects that crossed the boundaries.     

Young children's use of functional information to categorize artifacts: three factors that matter

Three experiments addressed factors that might influence whether or not young children take into account function, as opposed to overall appearance or shape, when they extend the names of novel artifacts. Experiment 1 showed that 4-year-olds more often extend a name on the basis of a demonstrated function when that function provides a plausible causal account of perceptible object structure. Experiment 2 showed that they more often extend a name by function when they respond slowly, and hence thoughtfully. Experiment 3 demonstrated that they are more likely to take function into account when they extend names than when they judge similarities. Comparisons of lexical and non-lexical conditions in younger children failed to show any differences. Overall, the findings suggest that by 4 years of age, children may learn names as labels for novel artifact kinds rather than perceptual classes, and that the processes by which they categorize may be mindful and reflective, as in adults.     

Infant categorization of containment,support and tight‐fit spatial relationships

Two experiments examined infant categorization of containment, support or tight‐fit spatial relationships. English‐learning infants of 10 months (Experiment 1) and 18 months (Experiment 2) were habituated to four pairs of objects in one of these relationships. They were then tested with one event from habituation, one with novel objects in the familiar relationship, one with familiar objects in a novel relationship and one with novel objects in a novel relationship. Infants at both ages generalized their habituation of the containment relationship to novel objects in this relationship. In the support and tight‐fit conditions, the younger infants responded only to the novel objects in the test while the older infants responded to the novel relationship, but only with familiar objects. The results indicate that infants learn to categorize containment prior to support or tight‐fit relationships and suggest that infants can recognize a relationship between familiar objects prior to novel objects.     

How children name objects with shoes

Many studies report a shape bias in children's learning of object names. However, one previous study suggests that the shape bias is not the only perceptually based bias displayed by children learning count nouns. Specifically, children attended to texture as well as shape when extending a novel name to novel objects with eyes. Two experiments attempt to extend this finding, asking whether children will also attend to texture in the presence of another cue to animacy—shoes. In Experiment 1, 80 2- and 3-year-olds participated in either a Name generalization or Similarity judgment task. The novel objects were identical except that for half of the children the objects had shoes. In the Similarity condition, children made their judgments by overall similarity. In the Name condition, 2-year-olds extended the novel name by shape across objects both with and without shoes. In contrast, 3-year-olds generalized the novel name by shape when the objects had no shoes but by texture when the objects had shoes. Experiment 2 challenged this finding, using a forced choice procedure and objects that differed from the named exemplar more markedly in shape. Twenty 3-year-olds participated in a Name generalization task, half for objects with shoes, half for objects without shoes. Again, children attended reliably more to texture when the objects had shoes than when they had no shoes. The results are discussed in terms of the development of different perceptually based biases and the relation of such biases to a taxonomic bias in early word learning.     

Categorical responding in 15-month-olds: Influence of the noun-category bias and the covariation between visual fixation and auditory input

According to constraints/bias accounts of word learning, children learn words rapidly and accurately because they possess the uniquely linguistic knowledge that nouns refer to objects in a category. These accounts predict that (a) when input is provided, children will organize objects categorically in the presence of words or nouns but not in their absence, and (b) when nouns are present, manipulation of nonlinguistic variables should not disrupt categorical responding. Using a familiarization-discrimination paradigm, a preliminary experiment confirmed that, for the target category, 15-month-olds did not respond categorically in the absence of input. Experiments 1 and 2 (labeling input) and Experiments 3 and 4 (instrumental music input) revealed successful categorization when either input was perfectly correlated with an infant's fixation of an object. However, in all four experiments, when this perfect covariation was degraded, infants did not categorize, even when nouns were present (Experiments 1 and 2). These outcomes are not consistent with the predictions of bias accounts and they considerably weaken the case for a psychologically real noun-bias prior to the vocabulary explosion. The reported findings are more consistent with children's use of manifold sources of information as cues to responding categorically.     

Object name learning provides on-the-job training for attention

By the age of 3, children easily learn to name new objects, extending new names for unfamiliar objects by similarity in shape. Two experiments tested the proposal that experience in learning object names tunes children's attention to the properties relevant for naming—in the present case, to the property of shape—and thus facilitates the learning of more object names. In Experiment 1, a 9-week longitudinal study, 17-month-old children who repeatedly played with and heard names for members of unfamiliar object categories well organized by shape formed the generalization that only objects with similar shapes have the same name. Trained children also showed a dramatic increase in acquisition of new object names outside of the laboratory during the course of the study. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and showed that they depended on children's learning both a coherent category structure and object names. Thus, children who learn specific names for specific things in categories with a common organizing property—in this case, shape—also learn to attend to just the right property—in this case, shape—for learning more object names.     

On recognizing proper names: the orthographic cue hypothesis

Five experiments investigated the recognition of proper names and common nouns using the lexical decision paradigm. In Experiments 1-3 the case of the initial letter of written stimuli was systematically varied. An advantage was consistently found for proper names written with the first letter in capital. Crucially, response times to proper names with the first letter in lowercase and to common nouns irrespective of the case of the first letter did not differ from each other. No difference between proper names and common nouns emerged in Experiment 4 where the stimuli were presented auditorily, and in Experiment 5 where a visual lexical decision task was performed with illegal non-words. The pattern of results shows that the proper name advantage is orthographic in nature and rules out an account in terms of semantic, morphological or other lexical variables. A model is proposed in which information about the case of the first letter is specified in the abstract multidimensional orthographic representation mediating written word recognition.     

Speech planning during multiple-object naming: Effects of ageing

Two experiments were conducted with younger and older speakers. In Experiment 1, participants named single objects that were intact or visually degraded, while hearing distractor words that were phonologically related or unrelated to the object name. In both younger and older participants naming latencies were shorter for intact than for degraded objects and shorter when related than when unrelated distractors were presented. In Experiment 2, the single objects were replaced by object triplets, with the distractors being phonologically related to the first object's name. Naming latencies and gaze durations for the first object showed degradation and relatedness effects that were similar to those in single-object naming. Older participants were slower than younger participants when naming single objects and slower and less fluent on the second but not the first object when naming object triplets. The results of these experiments indicate that both younger and older speakers plan object names sequentially, but that older speakers use this planning strategy less efficiently.     

Speech planning during multiple-object naming: effects of ageing

Two experiments were conducted with younger and older speakers. In Experiment 1, participants named single objects that were intact or visually degraded, while hearing distractor words that were phonologically related or unrelated to the object name. In both younger and older participants naming latencies were shorter for intact than for degraded objects and shorter when related than when unrelated distractors were presented. In Experiment 2, the single objects were replaced by object triplets, with the distractors being phonologically related to the first object's name. Naming latencies and gaze durations for the first object showed degradation and relatedness effects that were similar to those in single-object naming. Older participants were slower than younger participants when naming single objects and slower and less fluent on the second but not the first object when naming object triplets. The results of these experiments indicate that both younger and older speakers plan object names sequentially, but that older speakers use this planning strategy less efficiently.