Labels did not help them categorise atypical exemplars
Labels helped both typical and atypical exemplars
Labels did not help them categorise the typical exemplars, but it did help them categorise the atypical exemplars
Labels helped them categorise typical exemplars
Prototypically of the learning set
All of the above
The level of abstraction
3 to 5 months
1 to 2 months
9 to 10 months
6 to 8 months
There was habituation to either a single woman or several women
None of the above
Kluender et al. (1987)
Schrier et al. (1984)
Vonk and MacDonald (2004)
Infants were unable to form category representations of animals or furniture.
Infants were found to form a category representation of domestic cats that included novel cats, but excluded birds, dogs, horses and tigers.
Both A and B
Infants were found to form a category representation of chairs that included novel chairs, but excluded couches, beds and tables.
Infants will prefer instances from novel category B after presentation with exemplars of familar category A, but not prefer instances from novel category A after presentation with exemplars from familiar category B. 3 and 4 month old infants presented wit
5 and 6 month olds
3 and 4 month olds
7 and 8 month olds
1 and 2 month olds
Object examination task was used: familiarisation then novel exemplar from familar vs unfamiliar category.
10 month old infants have perceptual similarity as they spent longer when examining an object from a new category.
10 month old infants have conceptual insight as they spent longer when examining object from a new category.
10 month old infants have perceptual similarity as they spent a short amount of time examining an object from a new category.
10 month old infants have conceptual insight as they spent a shorter amount of time examining an object from a new category.
They had pre-existing knowledge of object categories they learnt at home.
Infants were unable to recognise object categories even when they were already familar with the objects used.
Infants could recognise objects that they had just been introduced to, compared to objects in their pre-existing knowledge.
HOWEVER - these results could have been explained by association instead.
Chimpanzees can understand categories as concepts as they could sort between food and tools.
Chimpanzees cannot understand category concepts as they could sort between food and tools.
Chimpanzees cannot understand categories as concepts as they could not sort between tools and food.
When we encounter a new object we compare it to our prototype: typical exemplars share many features and atypical exemplars share fewer features.
The inability to represent a category due to the reflection of central tendency
An abstract representation of a category reflecting the central tendency, or 'best example'.
The lack of association between many categories
6 months old
3 months old
4 months old
5 months old
选择要在Apple App Store上查看的Topgrade应用程序。