Animacy cues facilitate 10-month-olds' categorization of novel objects with similar insides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this experiment, we examined whether sensitivity to the relevance of object insides for the categorization of animate objects is in place around 10 months of age. Using an object examining paradigm, 10-month-old infants' (N = 58) were familiarized to novel objects with varying outward appearances but shared insides in one of three groups: No cues, Eyes, and Cue control. During test trials, infants were presented with a novel in-category test object followed by an out-of-category test object. When objects were presented with animacy cues (i.e., Eyes), infants categorized the objects together. In contrast, when objects were presented without any added cues or when they were presented with a shared perceptual marker (Cue control, i.e., plastic spoons placed on top of the objects), infants showed no evidence of categorization. These results indicate that by 10 months of age, eyes signal to infants that objects share some kind of uniting commonality that may not be obvious or readily perceptually available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".