That’s not the One I Wanted: Feedback Improves 5-Year-olds’ Communicative Perspective-Taking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective communication requires participants to recognize what knowledge is shared and what knowledge remains unique to each person. Although research has examined the developmental emergence of this communicative skill, it is unclear how children’s attention to shared knowledge is impacted by corrective feedback. Constraint-based models of language processing suggest that listeners simultaneously consider and weigh cues during language comprehension; however, it is unclear to what extent (and when) children use feedback from a communicative partner, relative to other salient cues such as linguistic match, during comprehension. This study addresses this gap by examining whether corrective feedback affects the time course and outcome of Canadian 5-year-olds’ (n = 64) use of shared knowledge to guide interpretation of a speaker’s referential intent. Children who received feedback on the accuracy of their interpretations pointed to target objects more than those who did not receive feedback. Children in the feedback group showed preferential looking toward the target (relative to a competitor), with this effect emerging at later stages of sentence processing. Children’s working memory capacity was positively associated with greater fixation on the target object during trials that required perspective-taking, only if they had received feedback on their previous choices.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".