Word learning in the context of semantic prior knowledge: evidence of interference from feature-based neighbours in children and adults

Figures & data

Table 1. Properties of stimuli in the low and high semantic neighbourhood density conditions.

	No. of features^a	% features correlated^a	AoA^b	Frequency^c	Log10 freq^c	Imageability^d	Concreteness^e	No. of phonemes
Low	12.75	5.58	5.14	16.41	1.02	607.56	4.89	4.33
High	18.92	40.00	5.17	16.38	1.13	616.00	4.89	4.50
p	<.001*	<.001*	.96	1	.56	.61	.90	.79

^a McRae et al. (2005). ^bKuperman et al. (2012). ^cCELEX English linguistic database (Baayen et al., 1995). ^dMRC Psycholinguistic database (Coltheart, 1981). ^eBrysbaert et al. (2014). *significant difference between low vs high semantic density items at p < .05.

Figure 1. Schematic of the training tasks used in the learning phase.

Note: For each item, children first repeated the new word aloud twice and wrote it down, before repeating the definition twice. They were given 30 s to draw a picture of the new concept. After completing these learning tasks for all items, children completed two rounds of multiple choice quizzes.

Figure 2. Explicit recall performance by semantic neighbourhood condition and test session.

Note: Proportion correct for (A) Form recall in Experiment 1; (B) Form recall in Experiment 2; (C) Meaning recall in Experiment 1; and (D) Meaning recall in Experiment 2. Individual points mark average participant recall for each condition for each test session. Error bars denote 95% confidence intervals.

Table 2. Final analysis models for Experiment 1: Form tasks.

	Cued form recall^a				Form recognition^b
	β	SE	Z	p	β	SE	Z	p
(Intercept)	0.02	0.28	0.07	.946	2.89	0.25	11.38	<.001
delay1	0.95	0.05	21.10	<.001	0.39	0.05	8.07	<.001
delay2	0.91	0.07	13.35	<.001	0.21	0.10	2.08	.037
density	0.07	0.25	0.28	.780	−0.29	0.22	−1.34	.181

Note: (a) Analysis based on from 2416 observations across 51 participants and 16 items. The final model included by-participant and by-item intercepts. The two-way interaction between time and density was pruned from the model with no reduction in model fit χ² = 0.88, p = .64; (b) Analysis based on from 2416 observations across 51 participants and 16 items. The final model included by-participant and by-item intercepts, as well as by-participant random slopes for the effect of density. The two-way interaction between time and density was pruned from the model with no reduction in model fit χ² = 1.76, p = .41.

Table 3. Final analysis model for Experiment 1: Cued meaning recall.

	β	SE	Z	p
0|1	2.11	0.27	7.69	<.010
1|2	2.19	0.27	7.99	<.001
delay1	0.01	0.04	0.22	.827
delay2	−0.07	0.08	−0.9	.368
density	−0.48	0.18	−2.62	.009

Note: Analysis based on from 2416 observations across 51 participants and 16 items. The final model included by-participant and by-item intercepts. The two-way interaction between time and density was pruned from the model with no reduction in model fit χ² = 0.75, p = .69.

Table 4. Final analysis models for Experiment 2: Form tasks.

	Cued form recall^a				Form recognition^b
	β	SE	Z	p	β	SE	Z	p
(Intercept)	−1.11	0.24	−4.62	<.001	3.38	0.26	12.89	<.001
delay1	0.39	0.03	13.32	<.001	0.11	0.04	2.59	.010
delay2	0.07	0.05	1.55	.122	−0.04	0.08	−0.56	.578
density	−0.11	0.05	−2.24	.025	0.21	0.11	1.97	.049

Note: (a) Analysis based on from 4608 observations across 67 participants and 24 items. The final model included by-participant and by-item random intercepts, and by-participant random slopes for the effect of density. The two-way interaction between time and density was pruned from the model with no reduction in model fit χ² = 1.92, p = .38; (b) Analysis based on from 4200 observations across 65 participants and 24 items. The final model included by-participant and by-item random intercepts, and by-item random slopes for the effect of density. The two-way interaction between time and density was pruned from the model with no reduction in model fit χ² = 0.10, p = .95.

Table 5. Final analysis model for Experiment 2: Cued meaning recall.

	β coefficient	SE	Z	p
Fixed effects
0|1	1.86	0.22	8.63	<.001
1|2	1.98	0.22	9.18	<.001
delay1	−0.01	0.03	−0.33	.738
delay2	−0.02	0.05	−0.29	.773
density	−0.07	0.19	−0.38	.704

Note: Analysis based on from 4536 observations across 66 participants and 24 items. The final model included by-participant and by-item intercepts. The two-way interaction between time and density was pruned from the model with no reduction in model fit χ² = 0.01, p = .995.

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(4), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192726

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior Research Methods, 44(4), 978–990. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The CELEX lexical database (release 2). Distributed by the Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.

 Google Scholar

Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 33(4), 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748108400805

 Google Scholar

Brysbaert, M., Warriner, A. B., & Kuperman, V. (2014). Concreteness ratings for 40 thousand generally known English word lemmas. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 904–911. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0403-5

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

All materials, data, and analyses are available at https://osf.io/35ftn/.