Modeling Individual Differences in Children's Information Integration During Pragmatic Word Learning.

Manuel Bohn, Louisa S Schmidt, Cornelia Schulze, Michael C Frank, Michael Henry Tessler
Author Information
  1. Manuel Bohn: Department of Comparative Cultural Psychology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany. ORCID
  2. Louisa S Schmidt: Leipzig Research Center for Early Child Development, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany. ORCID
  3. Cornelia Schulze: Leipzig Research Center for Early Child Development, Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany. ORCID
  4. Michael C Frank: Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, USA. ORCID
  5. Michael Henry Tessler: DeepMind, London, UK. ORCID

Abstract

Pragmatics is foundational to language use and learning. Computational cognitive models have been successfully used to predict pragmatic phenomena in adults and children - on an aggregate level. It is unclear if they can be used to predict behavior on an individual level. We address this question in children ( = 60, 3- to 5-year-olds), taking advantage of recent work on pragmatic cue integration. In Part 1, we use data from four independent tasks to estimate child-specific sensitivity parameters to three information sources: semantic knowledge, expectations about speaker informativeness, and sensitivity to common ground. In Part 2, we use these parameters to generate participant-specific trial-by-trial predictions for a new task that jointly manipulated all three information sources. The model accurately predicted children's behavior in the majority of trials. This work advances a substantive theory of individual differences in which the primary locus of developmental variation is sensitivity to individual information sources.

Keywords

References

  1. Dev Sci. 2004 Feb;7(1):33-41 [PMID: 15323116]
  2. Psychol Rev. 2019 Apr;126(3):395-436 [PMID: 30762385]
  3. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017 Nov;12(6):1100-1122 [PMID: 28841086]
  4. Psychol Rev. 2020 Jul;127(4):591-621 [PMID: 32237876]
  5. Dev Sci. 2023 Nov;26(6):e13401 [PMID: 37089076]
  6. Cognition. 2016 Apr;149:104-20 [PMID: 26836401]
  7. Cogn Psychol. 1988 Apr;20(2):121-57 [PMID: 3365937]
  8. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Mar;3(3):221-229 [PMID: 30953018]
  9. Cognition. 2015 Mar;136:91-8 [PMID: 25497519]
  10. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014 Sep 19;369(1651):20130302 [PMID: 25092670]
  11. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2011 Nov;140(4):725-43 [PMID: 21875247]
  12. Psychon Bull Rev. 2005 Jun;12(3):403-8 [PMID: 16235625]
  13. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2021 Jul;16(4):682-697 [PMID: 33404356]
  14. Nature. 2021 Jul;595(7866):181-188 [PMID: 34194044]
  15. Cogn Sci. 2018 May;42 Suppl 1:241-269 [PMID: 29457653]
  16. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2021 Jul;16(4):789-802 [PMID: 33482070]
  17. Cogn Sci. 2008 Oct;32(7):1133-47 [PMID: 21585446]
  18. J Exp Child Psychol. 2021 Jun;206:105105 [PMID: 33636635]
  19. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2022 Nov;151(11):2927-2942 [PMID: 35389743]
  20. J Cogn. 2021 Aug 27;4(1):46 [PMID: 34514317]
  21. Annu Rev Linguist. 2017;3:363-388 [PMID: 29034268]
  22. Cognition. 2013 Jan;126(1):39-53 [PMID: 23063233]
  23. Cognition. 2003 Feb;87(1):B23-34 [PMID: 12499109]
  24. Cognition. 2018 Aug;177:41-48 [PMID: 29631197]
  25. Cogn Sci. 2017 Jan;41(1):188-217 [PMID: 27245747]
  26. Cognition. 2020 May;198:104191 [PMID: 32143015]
  27. Science. 2012 May 25;336(6084):998 [PMID: 22628647]
  28. J Child Lang. 1988 Jun;15(2):317-35 [PMID: 3062015]
  29. PLoS One. 2016 May 05;11(5):e0154854 [PMID: 27149675]
  30. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Dec 17;116(51):26072-26077 [PMID: 31792169]
  31. Cogn Psychol. 2014 Dec;75:80-96 [PMID: 25238461]
  32. Child Dev. 2007 Mar-Apr;78(2):493-502 [PMID: 17381786]
  33. Open Mind (Camb). 2020 Nov;4:71-87 [PMID: 33225196]
  34. Front Psychol. 2015 Aug 11;6:1200 [PMID: 26322005]
  35. Psychol Sci. 2006 Sep;17(9):767-73 [PMID: 16984293]
  36. Nat Hum Behav. 2021 Aug;5(8):1046-1054 [PMID: 34211148]
  37. Child Dev. 2013 Nov-Dec;84(6):2079-93 [PMID: 23550944]
  38. Cognition. 2021 Aug;213:104691 [PMID: 33934847]
  39. Behav Res Methods. 2012 Dec;44(4):978-90 [PMID: 22581493]
  40. Child Dev Perspect. 2010 Aug;4(2):152-158 [PMID: 21625352]
  41. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1989;54(3-4):1-132 [PMID: 2608077]
  42. Psychometrika. 2006 Sep;71(3):425-440 [PMID: 19946599]
  43. Trends Cogn Sci. 2016 Nov;20(11):818-829 [PMID: 27692852]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0individualusesensitivityinformationlanguagecognitiveusedpredictpragmaticchildrenlevelbehaviorworkPartparametersthreesourcesdifferencesPragmaticsfoundationallearningComputationalmodelssuccessfullyphenomenaadults-aggregateunclearcanaddressquestion=603-5-year-oldstakingadvantagerecentcueintegration1datafourindependenttasksestimatechild-specificsources:semanticknowledgeexpectationsspeakerinformativenesscommonground2generateparticipant-specifictrial-by-trialpredictionsnewtaskjointlymanipulatedmodelaccuratelypredictedchildren'smajoritytrialsadvancessubstantivetheoryprimarylocusdevelopmentalvariationModelingIndividualDifferencesChildren'sInformationIntegrationPragmaticWordLearningmodelingdevelopmentpragmatics

Similar Articles

Cited By