In a comparison setting (two stimuli), we tested 4- and 6-year- old children’s generalization of novel names for objects. We manipulated the semantic distance between the two learning items (e.g., two bracelets versus a bracelet and a watch), and the semantic distance between the learning items and the test items (e.g., a pendant versus a bow tie). We tested whether smaller semantic distance between learning items would lead to more taxonomic (vs. perceptual) choices at test, than broader semantic distance during learning, especially in the case of distant test stimuli. Results revealed main effects of learning distance, of generalization distance and that only children aged 6 years benefited from broader semantic during learning at test. Four year-old children failed to generalize to far test stimuli even with semantically distant learning items. We discuss how conceptual distance during learning differentially affects generalization performance across age groups.

A common result in novel word generalization is that comparison settings (i.e., several stimuli introduced simultaneously) favor conceptualization and generalization. We investigated which type of items four-, five- and six-year-old children would choose as referents in a free-choice novel noun generalization task. We manipulated the generalization items availability at test (i.e., generalization stimuli introduced sequentially or simultaneously). We also manipulated the semantic distance between items. In a signal detection theory framework, results showed that a simultaneous presentation of generalization items improves children’s sensitivity and helps them use a neutral strategy to generalize. Conceptual distance at learning also affects generalization performance. We discuss the cognitive constraints that both types of presentation bring into the task, and how distance might impede or favor conceptual alignments.

Comparison settings (i.e. several stimuli introduced simultaneously) favor novel word learning and generalization. This study investigates the temporal dynamics of 6-year-olds solving strategies in a relational noun (e.g. “x is the dax for y”) comparison and generalization task with eye tracking data. We manipulated conceptual distance between the task’s items and recorded children’s performances and eye tracking data. We analyze and interpret solving strategies following the predictions made by two hypotheses, the Projection-First and Alignment-first. Eye tracking data clearly revealed that children, first, extract the relation from comparisons of items within a pair and search for a match for the extracted relation, which confirms the predictions of the projection-first hypothesis. Further analyses on error and correct trials suggest that errors occurred in the late, choice, phase of a trial.

A common result in novel word generalization is that comparison settings (i.e., several stimuli introduced simultaneously) favor taxonomically-based generalization. Most generalization studies on comparison have been done with forced-choice designs. We investigated which type of items five-year-old children would choose as referents in a free-choice novel noun generalization task. Options were items from the same basic level category, from a near superordinate category, a distant superordinate category, and also perceptual lures, thematic lures, and unrelated lures. We manipulated the generalization items availability at test (i.e., generalization stimuli introduced sequentially or simultaneously). Results show that items from the same basic level category were more chosen than other taxonomically related items. Interestingly, perceptual lures and near superordinate items did not differ, suggesting that children did not arbitrate between perception and taxonomy. Results are discussed in terms of the respective role of taxonomic relations and perception but also mode of presentation (availability).

Relational categories are notoriously difficult to learn. We studied the impact of comparison on relational concept learning with a novel word learning task in 3- and 4-year olds. We contrasted a no-comparison (single) condition and two comparison conditions. In the latter case, the set of learning pairs was composed of either close or far pairs (e.g., close pair: knife1- watermelon, knife2-orange; far pair: ax- evergreen tree, saw-log, for the “cutter for” relation). We also manipulated the transfer stimuli semantic distance (near or distant semantic domain, e.g., a scissor for a piece of paper in the close case, and a shaver for a face in the far domain case). The no-comparison condition led to random generalizations in the younger group only. Overall the close learning condition and the near transfer condition led to good performance. We discuss these results in terms of the role of semantic distance and how participants integrate stimuli depending on distance.

There is a large body of evidence showing that comparison leads to better conceptualization and generalization of novelnames than no-comparison settings in typically developing (TD) children (e.g., Gentner, 2010). So far, comparison situa-tions have not been studied with children with intellectual disabilities (ID) (Chapman & Kay-Raining Bird, 2012). In thepresent research children with ID and TD children matched on mental age with the Ravens coloured progressive matricesRCPM (Raven, 1965) were tested in several comparison conditions. We manipulated the conceptual distance betweenstimuli in the learning phase and between the learning phase stimuli and the generalization phase stimuli for object andrelational nouns. Results showed that overall both populations had rather similar performance profile when matched ontheir cognitive skills (low vs. high functioning). Unexpectedly, ID childrens performance was equivalent or better thantheir TD peers. We discuss our results in terms of the role of conceptual distance on participants conceptual generalizationas a function of their intellectual abilities and cognitive functioning.

A common result is that comparison settings (i.e., several stimuli introduced simultaneously) favor conceptualization and generalization. In a comparison setting, we manipulated the semantic distance between the two training items (e.g., two bracelets versus a bracelet and a watch), and the semantic distance between the training items and the test items (e.g., a pendant versus a bow tie). We tested 5- and 8-year-old children’s generalization of novel names for objects. This study is the first one to study the temporal dynamics of comparison in a generalization task with eye-tracking data. The eye movement data revealed clear patterns of exploration in which participants first focused on the training items and compared them with each of the choice options. We also compared the search profiles for correct answers and errors. The results show that participants first found commonalities in the learning items, which they compared with each items in the solution set. This pattern is consistent with an alignment view of generalization.

A common result in novel word generalization tasks is that comparison settings (i.e., several stimuli introduced simultaneously) favor conceptualization and generalization. We hypothesized that typical comparison forced-choice designs between a lure and a target conceptual dimension might have constrained children’s choices. Here we used a “yes-no” free choice design with 3- and 4-year-old children, and manipulated the presentation mode of the stimuli, either simultaneous or sequential. We manipulated the semantic distance between training and transfer items. Results showed that simultaneous, rather than sequential, presentations in the transfer phase led to more taxonomic generalizations in four- year olds. Results are discussed in terms of the constraints that both types of presentation bring into the task.