Object manipulability affects children's and adults' conceptual processing

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 667-672

  Kalénine, Solène ^a   Bonthoux, Françoise ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PIERRE MENDÈS FRANCE   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; PRESCHOOL CHILD; REACTION TIME;

ADULT; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; COGNITION; CONCEPT FORMATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MOTOR SKILLS; REACTION TIME;

EID: 50949131943     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: 15315320     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/PBR.15.3.667     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. AHN, W.-K. (1998). Why are different features central for natural kinds and artifacts? The role of causal status in determining feature centrality. Cognition, 69, 135-178.
2. AHN, W.-K., GELMAN, S. A., AMSTER: AW, J. A., HOHENSTEIN, J., & KALISH, C. W. (2000). Causal status effect in children's categorization. Cognition, 76, B35-B43.
3. BARSALOU, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577-660.
4. BARSALOU, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.
5. BONTHOUX, F., & KALÉNINE, S. (2007). Preschoolers' superordinate taxonomic categorization as a function of visual vs. contextual/functional information and object domain. Cognition, Brain, Behaviour, 11, 713-731.
6. BORGHI, A. M. (2004). Object concepts and action: Extracting affordances from objects parts. Acta Psychologica, 115, 69-96.
7. BORGHI, A. M., BONFIGLIOLI, C., LUGLI, L., RICCIARDELLI, P., RUBICHI, S., & NICOLETTI, R. (2007). Are visual stimuli sufficient to evoke motor information? Studies with hand primes. Neuroscience Letters, 411, 17-21.
8. BORGHI, A. M., BONFIGLIOLI, C., RICCIARDELLI, P., RUBICHI, S., & NICOLETTI, R. (2007). Do we access object manipulability while we categorize? Evidence from reaction time studies. In A. C. Schalley & D. Khlentzos (Eds.), Mental states: Vol. 1. Evolution, function, nature (pp. 153-170). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
9. BORGHI, A. M., & CARAMELLI, N. (2003). Situation bounded conceptual organization in children: From action to spatial relations. Cognitive Development, 18, 49-60.
10. BUB, D. N., MASSON, M. E. J., & BUKACH, C. M. (2003). Gesturing and naming: The use of functional knowledge in object identification. Psychological Science, 14, 467-472.
11. CAPITANI, E., LAIACONA, M., MAHON, B., & CARAMAZZA, A. (2003). What are the facts of semantic category-specific deficits? A critical review of the clinical evidence. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 20, 213-261.
12. CASLER, K., & KELEMEN, D. (2007). Reasoning about artifacts at 24 months: The developing teleo-functional stance. Cognition, 103, 120-130.
13. CHAIGNEAU, S. E., BARSALOU, L. W., & SLOMAN, S. A. (2004). Assessing the causal structure of function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 601-625.
14. CHAO, L. L., & MARTIN, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12, 478-484.
15. CREE, G. S., & MCRAE, K. (2003). Analyzing the factors underlying the structure and computation of the meaning of chipmunk, cherry, chisel, cheese, and cello (and many other such concrete nouns). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 163-201.
16. DIESENDRUCK, G., & BLOOM, P. (2003). How specific is the shape bias? Child Development, 74, 168-178.
17. DIESENDRUCK, G., HAMMER, R., & CATZ, O. (2003). Mapping the similarity space of children and adults' artifact categories. Cognitive Development, 18, 217-231.
18. DIESENDRUCK, G., MARKSON, L., & BLOOM, P. (2003). Children's reliance on creator's intent in extending names for artifacts. Psychological Science, 14, 164-168.
19. DIYANNI, C., & KELEMEN, D. (2005). Time to get a new mountain? The role of function in children's conceptions of natural kinds. Cognition, 97, 327-335.
20. FILLITER, J. H., MCMULLEN, P. A., & WESTWOOD, D. (2005). Manipulability and living/non-living category effects on object identification. Brain & Cognition, 57, 61-65.
21. GERLACH, C., LAW, I., & PAULSON, O. B. (2002). When action turns into words. Activation of motor-based knowledge during categorization of manipulable objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1230-1239.
22. HUGHES, D., WOODCOCK, J., & FUNNELL, E. (2005). Conceptions of objects across categories: Childhood patterns resemble those of adults. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 1-19.
23. KELEMEN, D., & DIYANNI, C. (2005). Intuitions about origins: Purpose and intelligent design in children's reasoning about nature. Journal of Cognition & Development, 6, 3-31.
24. KELLENBACH, M. L., BRETT, M., & PATTERSON, K. (2003). Actions speak louder than functions: The importance of manipulability and action in tool representation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 30-46.
25. KEMLER NELSON, D. G., CHAN EGAN, L., & HOLT, M. B. (2004). When children ask, "what is it?" What do they want to know about artifacts? Psychological Science, 15, 384-389.
26. KEMLER NELSON, D. G., FRANKENFIELD, A., MORRIS, C., & BLAIR, E. (2000). Young children's use of functional information to categorize artifacts: Three factors that matter. Cognition, 77, 133-168.
27. KEMLER NELSON, D. G., RUSSELL, R., DUKE, N., & JONES, K. (2000). Two-year-olds will name artifacts by their functions. Child Development,71 1271-1288.
28. MANDLER, J. M. (2000). Perceptual and conceptual processes in infancy. Journal of Cognition & Development, 1, 3-36.
29. MARQUES, J. F. (2006). Specialization and semantic organization: Evidence for multiple semantics linked to sensory modalities. Memory & Cognition, 34, 60-67.
30. MARTIN, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25-45.
31. MCCAFFERY, M., & BEEBE, A. (1993). Pain: Clinical manual for nursing practice. Baltimore: Mosby.
32. MCRAE, K., CREE, G. S., SEIDENBERG, M. S., & MCNORGAN, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 547-559.
33. MOUNOUD, P., DUSCHERER, K., MOY, G., & PERRAUDIN, S. (2007). The influence of action perception on object recognition: A developmental study. Developmental Science, 10, 836-852.
34. MYUNG, J.-Y., BLUMSTEIN, S. E., & SEDIVY, J. C. (2006). Playing on the typewriter, typing on the piano: Manipulation knowledge of objects. Cognition, 98, 223-243.
35. NELSON, K. (1983). The derivation of concepts and categories from event representations. In E. K. Scholnick (Ed.), New trends in conceptual representation: Challenges to Piaget's theory? (pp. 129-149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. PECHER, D., ZEELENBERG, R., & BARSALOU, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119-124.
37. PECHER, D., ZEELENBERG, R., & BARSALOU, L. W. (2004). Sensorimotor simulations underlie conceptual representations: Modality-specific effects of prior activation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 164-167.
38. QUINN, P. C., & EIMAS, P. D. (2000). The emergence of category representations during infancy: Are separate perceptual and conceptual processes required? Journal of Cognition & Development, 1, 55-61.
39. SLOUTSKY, V. M., KLOOS, H., & FISHER, A. V. (2007). When looks are everything: Appearance similarity versus kind information in early induction. Psychological Science, 18, 179-185.
40. SLOUTSKY, V. M., & SPINO, M. A. (2004). Naive theory and transfer of learning: When less is more and more is less. Psychonomic Bulletin &Review, 11 528-535.
41. STANFIELD, R. A., & ZWAAN, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153-156.
42. TRUXAW, D., KRASNOW, M. M., WOODS, C., & GERMAN, T. P. (2006). Conditions under which function information attenuates name extension via shape. Psychological Science, 17, 367-371.
43. TUCKER, M., & ELLIS, R. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116, 185-203.
44. TYLER, L. K., & MOSS, H. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244-252.
45. ZWAAN, R. A., STANFIELD, R. A., & YAXLEY, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168-171.