Abstract
Research on kinds of concepts indicates that children use perceptual and functional information differently to form natural and artifact concepts. Beyond object domain, object manipulability appears to be a decisive factor in adult conceptual processing. Thus, the effect of object manipulability on conceptual processing was tested in 5- and 7-year-olds and adults using a picture matching task. Reaction times for identifying conceptual relations on the basis of perceptual similarity (e.g., jacket-coat) and contextual/functional information (e.g., jacket-hanger) were analyzed according to object manipulability and domain. Both children and adults were faster to identify contextual/functional relations for manipulable than for nonmanipulable objects. Conversely, they were faster to identify perceptual similarity relations for nonmanipulable than for manipulable objects, particularly for natural concepts. Results reveal an early distinction between concepts of manipulable and nonmanipulable objects. Implications for further research on concept formation and for embodied views of concepts are discussed.
Article PDF
References
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.
Ahn, W.-K., Gelman, S. A., Amsterlaw, J. A., Hohenstein, J., & Kalish, C. W. (2000). Causal status effect in children’s categorization. Cognition, 76, B35-B43.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
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.
Borghi, A. M. (2004). Object concepts and action: Extracting affordances from objects parts. Acta Psychologica, 115, 69–96.
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.
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.
Borghi, A. M., & Caramelli, N. (2003). Situation bounded conceptual organization in children: From action to spatial relations. Cognitive Development, 18, 49–60.
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.
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.
Casler, K., & Kelemen, D. (2007). Reasoning about artifacts at 24 months: The developing teleo-functional stance. Cognition, 103, 120–130.
Chaigneau, S. E., Barsalou, L. W., & Sloman, S. A. (2004). Assessing the causal structure of function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 601–625.
Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable manmade objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12, 478–484.
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.
Diesendruck, G., & Bloom, P. (2003). How specific is the shape bias? Child Development, 74, 168–178.
Diesendruck, G., Hammer, R., & Catz, O. (2003). Mapping the similarity space of children and adults’ artifact categories. Cognitive Development, 18, 217–231.
Diesendruck, G., Markson, L., & Bloom, P. (2003). Children’s reliance on creator’s intent in extending names for artifacts. Psychological Science, 14, 164–168.
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.
Filliter, J. H., McMullen, P. A., & Westwood, D. (2005). Manipulability and living/non-living category effects on object identification. Brain & Cognition, 57, 61–65.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kemler Nelson, D. G., Russell, R., Duke, N., & Jones, K.K. (2000). Two-year-olds will name artifacts by their functions. Child Development, 71, 1271–1288.
Mandler, J. M. (2000). Perceptual and conceptual processes in infancy. Journal of Cognition & Development, 1, 3–36.
Marques, J. F. (2006). Specialization and semantic organization: Evidence for multiple semantics linked to sensory modalities. Memory & Cognition, 34, 60–67.
Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45.
McCaffery, M., & Beebe, A. (1993). Pain: Clinical manual for nursing practice. Baltimore: Mosby.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119–124.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156.
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.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116, 185–203.
Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244–252.
Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kalénine, S., Bonthoux, F. Object manipulability affects children’s and adults’ conceptual processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 15, 667–672 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.667
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.667