Results – effects of having a target named Comparing known & unknown targets (“name” condition) with known & unknown pictures (“look” condition) In other words comparing “Default” looking words (targets in “name” condition, known

in “look” condition) by “name” vs “look” Test of Schafer et al. Looking after sound

whether word was known (F1,17 = 13.09, p = .002, 2 = .44)

No other effects including no effect of condition i.e. of hearing the name

of the word (Only effects on latency or looking during sound are of

side)

Study 2 - Discussion Naming of items increases looking time overall But does not increase looking time to targets

no more than knowing a word increases looking time to its picture, in the absence of a name

Naming increase probably general attentional phenomenon More variable input!

Conclusions

Children may look at target-known pictures more than non-target or unknown pictures

But may not be because of N3C principle Simply knowing a word increases looking

N3C seems to apply preferentially when parent is “helping” Any effect of child’s vocabulary?

References

Golinkoff, R. M., Mervis, C. B., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1994). Early object labels: The case for a developmental lexical principles framework. Journal of Child Language, 21(1), 125-155.

Schafer, G., Plunkett, K., & Harris, P. L. (1999). What's in a name? Lexical knowledge drives infants' visual preferences in the absence of referential input. Developmental Science, 2(2), 187.

What are they looking at? Techniques in Preferential LookingKatie Alcock and Sarah Watts

Department of Psychology, Lancaster University and Department of Psychology, City University, London

k.j.alcock@lancaster.ac.uk

Assumptions in preferential looking

Parent interference affects results

vs No response from parent will disturb child Children will look at target if they can distinguish it from non-

target Scoring issues? - which looks to score

Novel-name nameless-category principle (Golinkoff)

But Schafer, Plunkett & Harris (1999) Standard preferential looking Did not name words More looking at pictures referring to words the child knew ?Looking depends on knowledge, not on use of input as

referent/instruction

Study 1 - Parental looking

Basic preferential looking paradigm Two pictures “Look! Look at the X” Children’s knowledge of a 75-item word list assessed Balanced known/unknown words within and across children Scored start and finish of each look

Total looking after end of sound file Latency of first look after end of sound file

Number of items 10-20 depending on children’s vocabulary

“Known target” condition (child knows “apple”)

“Unknown target” (child does not know “bear”)

Parent manipulation Blind/deaf condition

Parents wear sleep mask and hear music over headphones

See/hear condition Parents can see and hear

Participants 22 children aged 17-19 months, 9F, 13M Recruited through nurseries in North London

Results - baseline - looking before sound file ends

Main effect of side (F 6.68, p = .017, 2 = .24)

No other main effects or interactions

Results - looking time after sound: main effects

Children look more at known words (F1,21 =17.56, p <.001, η2 =.46)

Children look more at target words (F1,21 = 35.10, p <.001, η2 =.63)

Children look more to the right (F1,21 = 4.81, p =.040, η2 =.19)

Results - looking time after sound: interactions

Interaction between parent condition, known, and target: (F1,21 = 5.30, p =.032, η2 =.20)

When parent can see/hear classic pattern of more looking at target for both

known & unknown targets When parent can’t see/hear

in unknown target condition no difference between target (unknown) and non-target (known)

Effect of parent looking/speaking/pointing? 10 parents: parent behaviour videoed and scored Parents all did something

either looked, pointed, or spoke at some point during testing

Group really too small for analysis But some interactions

Study 1 - Discussion Parent interaction is affecting children’s performance May help to explain N3C principle findings in some studies

Study 2 - Naming targets Same paradigm Two pictures

Look! Look at the X! (“name” condition) Look! Look at that! (“look” condition)

Words chosen in same way as study 1 “Name” condition as Study 1 Balanced order again

“Look” condition (child knows one of two words)

Participants 20 children aged 17-19 months, recruited as above (2

children did not complete testing so N = 18)

Results - effects of knowing a word Collapsing targets/non-targets in “name” condition In other words comparing:

Known with unknown (regardless of whether they are named or not)

by “name” condition vs “look” condition Looking time after sound ends:

known (F1,17 = 4.647, p =.046, 2 = .22) more looking at pictures representing known words

condition (F1,17 = 4.316, p = .053, 2 = .20) Slightly more looking overall in “name” condition

No effect on latency No effect on looking before the picture is named

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

msec

Parent can'tsee or hear

Parent cansee and hear

KnowntargetUnknownnon-targetUnknowntargetKnownnon-target