Cited by 103Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentCategorization, perception, and languageFace Recognition and Perception

Evidence for a Global Categorical Representation of Humans by Young Infants

Quinn, Paul C., Eimas, Peter D.·1998·Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

Abstract

The representation of pictorial exemplars of humans by young infants was examined. Experiments 1B and 2 demonstrated an asymmetry with respect to the exclusivity of the categorical representations formed by 3- and 4-month-olds for humans and non-human animal species. The categorical representation for humans included novel humans, horses, cats, and fish, but excluded cars; the categorical representation for horses included novel horses, but excluded humans, fish, and cars. Experiment 2 also showed that the categorical representation for humans included exemplar information, whereas the categorical representation for non-human animal species was based on summary information. The asymmetry in categorization of human versus non-human animal species did not extend to the presumed more basic process of discrimination of individual humans versus non-human animals (Experiment 3). The findings suggest that a broad categorical representation of humans may be a cognitive reference point (or region) for young infants.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/jecp.1998.2443

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research on cognitive development confirms that categorization, statistical learning, and prototype effects are not unique to speech.

    “Research on cognitive development confirms the fact that categorization (83), statistical learning (84), and prototype effects (85) are not unique to speech.”

    From A new view of language acquisition (2000) · cites this paper as [85]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Quinn, P. C., & Eimas, P. D.
Affiliations
  • Washington and Jefferson College (US)
  • Brown University (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-06
Volume
69
Issue
3
Pages
151-174
ISSN
0022-0965 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2061858308
Cited by
103
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01hd028606-03)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD 28606)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
categorical representation, infant categorization, cognitive reference points, young infants, species discrimination
MeSH terms
Child Development, Cognition, Concept Formation, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Infant Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review