Toddlers’ looking behaviours during referent selection and relationships with immediate and delayed retention

• Does referent selection (RS) involve a process-of-elimination or a novelty bias? • Converging gaze and point data indicated that toddlers use a process-of-elimination. • Assessed the role of target focus during RS and ostensive naming (ON) on retention. • With ostensive naming, greater target focus predicted better immediate retention. • Without ostensive naming, greater target focus predicted better delayed retention. The current study investigates whether children’s attempts to solve referential ambiguity is best explained as a process-of-elimination or a novelty bias. We measured 2.5-year-old children’s pointing and eye movements during referent selection trials and assessed whether this changes across repeated exposures. We also tested children’s retention of novel words and how much focusing on novel targets during referent selection supports immediate and delayed retention as well as the effect of hearing the words ostensively named after referent selection. Time course analyses of children’s looking during referent selection indicated that soon after noun onsets, in familiar target trials there was a greater focus on targets relative to chance, but in novel target trials, children focussed on targets less than chance, suggesting an initial focus on competitors. Children also took longer to focus on and point to novel compared to familiar targets. Thus, this converging evidence suggests referent selection is best described as a process-of-elimination. Ostensive naming also led to faster pointing at novel targets in subsequent trials and better delayed retention than the non-ostensive condition. In addition, a greater focus on novel targets during referent selection was associated with better immediate retention for the ostensive naming condition, but better delayed retention for the non-ostensive condition. Therefore, a focus on novelty may supplement weaker encoding, facilitating later retention.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Memory and Language
Published
2024-12-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2024.104596
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Child and Animal Learning Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.58
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Toddlers’ looking behaviours during referent selection and relationships with immediate and delayed retention

Emma Axelsson, Jessica S. Horst, Amanda I. Winiger, Samantha L. Playford
2 citations
Journal of Memory and Language
Child and Animal Learning Development
1.58
article

Toddlers’ looking behaviours during referent selection and relationships with immediate and delayed retention

Emma Axelsson, Jessica S. Horst, Amanda I. Winiger, Samantha L. Playford
article en
2 citations

Abstract

• Does referent selection (RS) involve a process-of-elimination or a novelty bias? • Converging gaze and point data indicated that toddlers use a process-of-elimination. • Assessed the role of target focus during RS and ostensive naming (ON) on retention. • With ostensive naming, greater target focus predicted better immediate retention. • Without ostensive naming, greater target focus predicted better delayed retention. The current study investigates whether children’s attempts to solve referential ambiguity is best explained as a process-of-elimination or a novelty bias. We measured 2.5-year-old children’s pointing and eye movements during referent selection trials and assessed whether this changes across repeated exposures. We also tested children’s retention of novel words and how much focusing on novel targets during referent selection supports immediate and delayed retention as well as the effect of hearing the words ostensively named after referent selection. Time course analyses of children’s looking during referent selection indicated that soon after noun onsets, in familiar target trials there was a greater focus on targets relative to chance, but in novel target trials, children focussed on targets less than chance, suggesting an initial focus on competitors. Children also took longer to focus on and point to novel compared to familiar targets. Thus, this converging evidence suggests referent selection is best described as a process-of-elimination. Ostensive naming also led to faster pointing at novel targets in subsequent trials and better delayed retention than the non-ostensive condition. In addition, a greater focus on novel targets during referent selection was associated with better immediate retention for the ostensive naming condition, but better delayed retention for the non-ostensive condition. Therefore, a focus on novelty may supplement weaker encoding, facilitating later retention.

Journal of Memory and LanguageVol. 141
Australian National University (AU), University of Sussex (GB), University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Child and Animal Learning Development
1.58
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.