Skip to main content
Download PDF

Object manipulability affects children’s and adults’ conceptual processing

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review volume 15, pages 667–672 (2008)Cite this article

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.

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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M. (2004). Object concepts and action: Extracting affordances from objects parts. Acta Psychologica, 115, 69–96.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borghi, A. M., & Caramelli, N. (2003). Situation bounded conceptual organization in children: From action to spatial relations. Cognitive Development, 18, 49–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casler, K., & Kelemen, D. (2007). Reasoning about artifacts at 24 months: The developing teleo-functional stance. Cognition, 103, 120–130.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaigneau, S. E., Barsalou, L. W., & Sloman, S. A. (2004). Assessing the causal structure of function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 601–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chao, L. L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable manmade objects in the dorsal stream. NeuroImage, 12, 478–484.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diesendruck, G., & Bloom, P. (2003). How specific is the shape bias? Child Development, 74, 168–178.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diesendruck, G., Hammer, R., & Catz, O. (2003). Mapping the similarity space of children and adults’ artifact categories. Cognitive Development, 18, 217–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesendruck, G., Markson, L., & Bloom, P. (2003). Children’s reliance on creator’s intent in extending names for artifacts. Psychological Science, 14, 164–168.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filliter, J. H., McMullen, P. A., & Westwood, D. (2005). Manipulability and living/non-living category effects on object identification. Brain & Cognition, 57, 61–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, J. M. (2000). Perceptual and conceptual processes in infancy. Journal of Cognition & Development, 1, 3–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marques, J. F. (2006). Specialization and semantic organization: Evidence for multiple semantics linked to sensory modalities. Memory & Cognition, 34, 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. (2007). The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 25–45.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCaffery, M., & Beebe, A. (1993). Pain: Clinical manual for nursing practice. Baltimore: Mosby.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Barsalou, L. W. (2003). Verifying different-modality properties for concepts produces switching costs. Psychological Science, 14, 119–124.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanfield, R. A., & Zwaan, R. A. (2001). The effect of implied orientation derived from verbal context on picture recognition. Psychological Science, 12, 153–156.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2004). Action priming by briefly presented objects. Acta Psychologica, 116, 185–203.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, L. K., & Moss, H. (2001). Towards a distributed account of conceptual knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 244–252.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan, R. A., Stanfield, R. A., & Yaxley, R. H. (2002). Language comprehenders mentally represent the shapes of objects. Psychological Science, 13, 168–171.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire de Psychologie et NeuroCognition, Université Pierre Mendès-France, CNRS UMR 5105, P.O. Box 47, F-38040, Grenoble Cedex 9, France

    Solène Kalénine & Françoise Bonthoux

Authors
  1. Solène Kalénine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Françoise Bonthoux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Solène Kalénine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.3.667

Keywords

  • Natural Kind
  • Associative Strength
  • Relation Type
  • Perceptual Similarity
  • Object Domain