Discovering category boundaries: the role of comparison in infants’ novel category learning

A key question in categorisation is how infants extract regularities from the exemplars they encounter. Detecting similarities and dissimilarities across items is vital in order to determine category-relevant features. Previous research found evidence that infants acquire a single category more easily with paired presentations in comparison to single presentations (Oakes & Ribar, 2005; Oakes & Kovack-Lesh, 2007). Here, we focus on infants’ acquisition of a category contrast, i.e. when they are exposed to two categories. In an eye-tracking study, we examined 10-month-old infants’ ability to learn two novel visual categories when presented with one item at a time and with items in pairs. Infants were familiarised with pairs of items from the same category or with pairs of items from different categories (cross-category pairs). Using a linear model with a priori contrasts, we show that infants’ learning is directly related to the opportunity for category comparison: there is no evidence of category learning in the singleitem condition, improved performance when familiarised with same-category pairs, and finally robust category learning when familiarised with cross-category pairs. We conclude that comparison which involves items from different categories promotes category formation, by highlighting differences and promoting a discovery of category boundaries

Erratum: Corrigendum to “Balloons and bavoons vs spikes and shikes: ERPs reveal shared neural processes for shape-sound-meaning congruence in words, and shape-sound congruence in pseudowords” (Brain and Language (2015) 145–146 (11–22) (S0093934X15000760) (10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.011))

Publisher Copyright: © 2016 Elsevier Inc.The authors regret that in the version of this article initially published, there was an error in the discussion section. Specifically, on page 21 it was erroneously reported that more negativity was present for the congruent condition, whereas more negativity was actually observed for the incongruent condition, as we correctly reported in results section on page 17. We also reported that this effect was similar to one previously reported finding (Kovic et al., 2010), but would like to clarify that the similarity is only in timing, and not polarity. This descriptive error does not alter the interpretation of the results. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused