Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 17:1 (2016) ► pp.101–127

Children’s referent selection and word learning

Insights from a developmental robotic system

 | Lancaster University, UK
 | University of Plymouth, UK
 | University of Plymouth, UK
 | University of Sussex, UK
It is well-established that toddlers can correctly select a novel referent from an ambiguous array in response to a novel label. There is also a growing consensus that robust word learning requires repeated label-object encounters. However, the effect of the context in which a novel object is encountered is less well-understood. We present two embodied neural network replications of recent empirical tasks, which demonstrated that the context in which a target object is encountered is fundamental to referent selection and word learning. Our model offers an explicit account of the bottom-up associative and embodied mechanisms which could support children’s early word learning and emphasises the importance of viewing behaviour as the interaction of learning at multiple timescales.
Keywords: word learning, referent selection, fast mapping, self-organizing maps, developmental robotics, iCub, Epigenetic Robotics Architecture, competition, novelty
Article outline
  • 1.Computational and robotic insights into development
  • 2.Experiment 1: The effect of competition on referent selection and word learning
    • 2.1Target empirical data
      • 2.1.1Design and procedure
      • 2.1.2Results
      • 2.1.3Paying attention to what an object is not
    • 2.2The iCub and the Epigenetic Robotics Architecture
    • 2.3Simulating referent selection and word learning in a robotic system
      • 2.3.1Design and procedure
        • 2.3.1.1Simulating children’s known vocabulary
        • 2.3.1.2Cross-situational learning and referent selection
        • 2.3.1.3Testing word learning
      • 2.3.2Results
    • 2.4Discussion
    • 2.5“Mutual exclusivity” can emerge from simple associations
  • 3.Experiment 2: The effect of novelty on referent selection
    • 3.1Target empirical data
    • 3.2Design and procedure
      • 3.2.1Simulating children’s known vocabulary
      • 3.2.2Cross-situational learning and referent selection
    • 3.3Results
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.General discussion
  • 6.Referent selection via cross-situational associative learning
  • 7.Multiple timescales and the effect of embodiment
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 7 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.17.1.05two
References (82)
References
Alvy Ray, S. (1978). Color gamut transform pairs. SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, 12(3), 12–19 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axelsson, E. L., Churchley, K., & Horst, J. S. (2012). The right thing at the right time: Why ostensive naming facilitates word learning. Frontiers in Psychology, 31 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axelsson, E. L., & Horst, J. S. (2013). Testing a word is not a test of word learning. Acta Psychologica, 144(2), 264–268 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, D.A. (1993). Infants’ ability to consult the speaker for clues to word reference. Journal of Child Language, 20(02), 395–418 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bion, R. A., Borovsky, A., & Fernald, A. (2013). Fast mapping, slow learning: Disambiguation of novel word–object mappings in relation to vocabulary learning at 18, 24, and 30months. Cognition, 126(1), 39–53 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borovsky, A., Ellis, E. M., Evans, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (2015). Lexical leverage: category knowledge boosts real-time novel word recognition in 2-year-olds. Developmental Science DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borovsky, A., & Elman, J. (2006). Language input and semantic categories: A relation between cognition and early word learning. Journal of Child Language, 33(04), 759–790 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brooks, R., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2005). The development of gaze following and its relation to language. Developmental Science, 8(6), 535–543 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cangelosi, A., & Schlesinger, M. (2015). Developmental robotics: From babies to robots. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single new word. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 151, 17–29.Google Scholar
Clark, E.V. (1990). On the pragmatics of contrast. Journal of Child Language, 17(2), 417–431 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fantz, R.L. (1964). Visual experience in infants: Decreased attention familar patterns relative to novel ones. Science, 1461(668–670 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faubel, C., & Schoner, G. (2008). Learning to recognize objects on the fly: A neurally based dynamic field approach. Neural Networks, 21(4), 562–576 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fazly, A., Alishahi, A., & Stevenson, S. (2010). A probabilistic computational model of cross-situational word learning. Cognitive Science, 34(6), 1017–1063 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J. P., … Reilly, J. S. (1993). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: User’s Guide and Technical Manual. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Fitneva, S. A., & Christiansen, M. H. (2011). Looking in the wrong direction correlates with more accurate word learning. Cognitive Science, 35(2), 367–380 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L., & Lederer, A. (1999). Human simulations of vocabulary learning. Cognition, 73(2), 135–176 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gliozzi, V., Mayor, J., Hu, J. F., & Plunkett, K. (2009). Labels as features (not names) for infant categorization: A neurocomputational approach. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 709–738 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Bailey, L. M., & Wenger, N. R. (1992). Young children and adults use lexical principles to learn new nouns. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 99–108 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Ma, W., Song, L., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2013). Twenty-five years using the Intermodal Preferential Looking Paradigm to study language acquisition: What have we learned? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), 316–339 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gurney, K. (1997). An introduction to neural networks. CRC Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halberda, J. (2006). Is this a dax which I see before me? Use of the logical argument disjunctive syllogism supports word-learning in children and adults. Cognitive Psychology, 53(4), 310–44 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hebb, D. (1949). The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory.Google Scholar
Horst, J. S., McMurray, B. & Samuelson, L. K. (2006). Online processing is essential for learning: Understanding fast mapping and word learning in a dynamic connectionist architecture. Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.Google Scholar
Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K. (2008). Fast mapping but poor retention by 24-month-old infants. Infancy, 13(2), 128–157 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horst, J. S., Samuelson, L. K., Kucker, S. C., & McMurray, B. (2011). What’s new? Children prefer novelty in referent selection. Cognition, 118(2), 234–244 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horst, J. S., Scott, E. J., & Pollard, J. P. (2010). The role of competition in word learning via referent selection. Developmental Science, 13(5), 706–713 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horst, J. S., & Simmering, V. R. (2015). Category learning in a dynamic world. Frontiers in Psychology, 6Google Scholar
Horst, J. S., McMurray, B. & Samuelson, L. K. (2006). Online processing is essential for learning: Understanding fast mapping and word learning in a dynamic connectionist architecture. Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Lawrence Erlbaum & AssociatesGoogle Scholar
Houston-Price, C., & Nakai, S. (2004). Distinguishing novelty and familiarity effects in infant preference procedures. Infant and Child Development, 13(4), 341–348 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Houston-Price, C., Plunkett, K., & Harris, P. (2005). “Word-learning wizardry” at 1;6. Journal of Child Language, 32(1), 175–189 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohonen, T. (1998). The Self-Organizing Map, a possible model of brain maps. Brain and Values, 207–236 5681.Google Scholar
Klee, T., Marr, C., Robertson, E., & Harrison, C. (1999). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory: Toddler (British English adaptation). Newcastle, England: Newcastle University Press.Google Scholar
Kucker, S. C., McMurray, B., & Samuelson, L. K. (2015). Slowing down fast mapping: Redefining the dynamics of word learning. Child Development Perspectives, 9(2), 74–78 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kucker, S. C., & Samuelson, L. K. (2011). The first slow step: Differential effects of object and word-form familiarization on retention of fast-mapped words. Infancy, 17(3), 295–323 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maestre, C., Cully, A., Gonzales, C., & Doncieux, S. (2015). Bootstrapping interactions with objects from raw sensorimotor data: a Novelty Search based approach. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Development and Learning and on Epigenetic Robotics. Providence, RI.Google Scholar
Mani, N., & Plunkett, K. (2010). In the infant’s mind’s ear: Evidence for implicit naming in 18-month-olds. Psychological Science, 21(7), 908–913 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markman, E.M. (1990). Constraints children place on word meanings. Cognitive Science, 14(1), 57–77 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). Constraints on word meaning in early language acquisition. Lingua, 92(1–4), 199–227 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M., & Hutchinson, J. E. (1984). Children’s sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: Taxonomic versus thematic relations. Cognitive Psychology, 16(1), 1–27 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M., & Wachtel, G. F. (1988). Children’s use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meaning of words. Cognitive Psychology, 20(2), 121–157 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marocco, D., Cangelosi, A., Fischer, K., & Belpaeme, T. (2010). Grounding action words in the sensorimotor interaction with the world: experiments with a simulated iCub humanoid robot. Frontiers in Neurorobotics, 41Google Scholar
Mather, E., & Plunkett, K. (2009). Learning words over time: The role of stimulus repetition in Mutual Exclusivity. Infancy, 14(1), 60–76 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L. (2009). The place of modeling in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 11–38 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88(5), 375 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMurray, B., Horst, J. S., & Samuelson, L. K. (2012). Word learning emerges from the interaction of online referent selection and slow associative learning. Psychological Review, 119(4), 83877 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Medina, T. N., Snedeker, J., Trueswell, J. C., & Gleitman, L. R. (2011). How words can and cannot be learned by observation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(22), 9014–9019 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merriman, W. E., Bowman, L. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). The mutual exclusivity bias in children’s word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, i–129 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mervis, C. B., & Bertrand, J. (1994). Acquisition of the Novel Name Nameless Category (N3c) principle. Child Development, 65(6), 1646–1662 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metta, G., Natale, L., Nori, F., Sandini, G., Vernon, D., Fadiga, L., von Hofsten, C., Rosander, K., Lopes, M., Santos-victor, J., Bernardino, A., & Montesano, L. (2010). The iCub humanoid robot: An open-systems platform for research in cognitive development. Neural Networks Neural Networks, 23(8–9), 1125–1134 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montesano, L., Lopes, M., Bernardino, A., & Santos-Victor, J. (2008). Learning object affordances: from sensory–motor coordination to imitation. IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 24(1), 15–26 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moore, R., Mueller, B., Kaminski, J., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Two-year-old children but not domestic dogs understand communicative intentions without language, gestures, or gaze. Developmental Science, 18(2), 232–242 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morse, A. F., Benitez, V. L., Belpaeme, T., Cangelosi, A., & Smith, L. B. (2015). Posture affects how robots and infants map words to objects. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0116012 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morse, A. F. & Cangelosi, A. (in press). Why are there developmental stages in language learning? A developmental robotics model of language development. Cognitive Science.
Morse, A. F., de Greeff, J., Belpeame, T., & Cangelosi, A. (2010). Epigenetic Robotics Architecture (ERA). IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development, 2(4), 325–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munakata, Y., & Pfaffly, J. (2004). Hebbian learning and development. Developmental Science, 7(2), 141–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munro, N., Baker, E., McGregor, K., Docking, K., & Arculi, J. (2012). Why word learning is not fast. Frontiers in Psychology, 31 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oudeyer, P.-Y., & Smith, L. (2016). How evolution may work through curiosity-driven developmental process. Topics in Cognitive Science, 81(2),492–502. DOI logo
Perry, L. K., & Samuelson, L. K. (2011). The shape of the vocabulary predicts the shape of the bias. Frontiers in Psychology, 21, 345 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Samuelson, L.K. (2002). Statistical regularities in vocabulary guide language acquisition in connectionist models and 15–20-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 38(6), 1016–1037 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, L. K., Smith, L. B., Perry, L. K., & Spencer, J. P. (2011). Grounding word learning in space. Plo S One, 6(12), e28095 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schulze, C., & Tomasello, M. (2015). 18-month-olds comprehend indirect communicative acts. Cognition, 1361, 91–98 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shaw, P., Law, J., & Lee, M. (2014). A comparison of learning strategies for biologically constrained development of gaze control on an icub robot. Autonomous Robots, 37(1), 97–110 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, L.B. (2000). Learning how to learn words: An associative crane. In R. M. Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, K. , Bloom, L., Smith, L. B. , Woodward, A. L., Akhtar, N., … G. Hollich (Eds.), Becoming a Word Learner: A Debate on Lexical Acquisition (pp. 51–80). New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. B., Colunga, E., & Yoshida, H. (2010). Knowledge as process: Contextually cued attention and early word learning. Cognitive Science, 34(7), 1287–1314 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. B., Jones, S. S., Yoshida, H., & Colunga, E. (2003). Whose DAM account? Attentional learning explains Booth and Waxman. Cognition, 87(3), 209–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. B., & Yu, C. (2008). Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situational statistics. Cognition, 106(3), 1558–1568 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. B., Yu, C., & Pereira, A. F. (2011). Not your mother’s view: The dynamics of toddler visual experience. Developmental Science, 14(1), 9–17 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tikhanoff, V., Cangelosi, A., & Metta, G. (2011). Integration of speech and action in humanoid robots: iCub simulation experiments. Autonomous Mental Development, IEEE Transactions on, 3(1), 17–29 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Akhtar, N. (1995). Two-year-olds use pragmatic cues to differentiate reference to objects and actions. Cognitive Development, 10(2), 201–224 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Twomey, K. E., Chang, F., & Ambridge, B. (2014). Do as I say, not as I do: A lexical distributional account of English locative verb class acquisition. Cognitive Psychology, 731, 41–71 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Twomey, K. E., Horst, J. S., & Morse, A. F. (2013). An embodied model of young children’s categorization and word learning. In L. J. Gogate & G. Hollich (Eds.), Theoretical and Computational Models of Word Learning: Trends in Psychology and Artificial Intelligence (pp. 172–196). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Twomey, K. E., Ranson, S. L., & Horst, J. S. (2014). That’s more like it: Multiple exemplars facilitate word learning. Infant and Child Development, 23(2), 105–122 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westermann, G., & Mareschal, D. (2012). Mechanisms of developmental change in infant categorization. Cognitive Development, 27(4), 367–382 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). From perceptual to language-mediated categorization. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1634), 20120391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, S., Fisher, C., & Snedeker, J. (2012). Counting the nouns: Simple structural cues to verb neaning. Child Development, 83(4), 1382–1399 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2007). Rapid word learning under uncertainty via cross-situational statistics. Psychological Science, 18(5), 414–420 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yurovsky, D., Fricker, D. C., Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2014). The role of partial knowledge in statistical word learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(1), 1–22 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zosh, J. M., Brinster, M., & Halberda, J. (2013). Optimal contrast: Competition between two referents improves word learning. Applied Developmental Science, 17(1), 20–28 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Hilton, Matt, Katherine E. Twomey & Gert Westermann
2024. Caregivers as experimenters: Reducing unfamiliarity helps shy children learn words. Infancy 29:6 ► pp. 877 ff. DOI logo
Rothwell, Charlotte, Gert Westermann & Calum Hartley
2024. How do Autistic and Neurotypical Children’s Interests Influence their Accuracy During Novel Word Learning?. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 54:9 ► pp. 3301 ff. DOI logo
Mohamed, Youssef & Severin Lemaignan
2021. 2021 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), ► pp. 3020 ff. DOI logo
Twomey, Katherine E. & Angelo Cangelosi
2020. Heads, shoulders, knees and toes. In Current Perspectives on Child Language Acquisition [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 27], ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo
Cangelosi, Angelo & Matthew Schlesinger
2018. From Babies to Robots: The Contribution of Developmental Robotics to Developmental Psychology. Child Development Perspectives 12:3 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Conti, Daniela, Santo Di Nuovo & Angelo Cangelosi
2018. Il contributo metodologico della Developmental Robotics alla psicologia. RICERCHE DI PSICOLOGIA :2 ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Twomey, Katherine E., Lizhi Ma & Gert Westermann
2018. All the Right Noises: Background Variability Helps Early Word Learning. Cognitive Science 42:S2 ► pp. 413 ff. DOI logo
Cangelosi, Angelo & Tetsuya Ogata
2017. Speech and Language in Humanoid Robots. In Humanoid Robotics: A Reference, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Cangelosi, Angelo & Tetsuya Ogata
2018. Voice Speech Interfaces. In Encyclopedia of Robotics, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Cangelosi, Angelo & Tetsuya Ogata
2019. Speech and Language in Humanoid Robots. In Humanoid Robotics: A Reference, ► pp. 2261 ff. DOI logo
Taniguchi, Akira, Tadahiro Taniguchi & Angelo Cangelosi
2017. Cross-Situational Learning with Bayesian Generative Models for Multimodal Category and Word Learning in Robots. Frontiers in Neurorobotics 11 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.