GO TO

INTRANET

The Publications by the people at the Cognitive Development Lab

Linguistic Labels, Induction, and Similairty

1. Hasson, U., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2002). Similarity and difference judgements under perceptual and non perceptual conditions. In W. Gray & C. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXIV Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 429-434

2. Sloutsky, V. M., & Lo, Y.-F. (2000). Linguistic labels and the development of inductive Inference. Proceedings of the XXII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 469-474). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

3. Sloutsky, V. M., & Lo, Y.-F. (2000). The primacy of one-to-one generalization in young childrens induction. Proceedings of the XXII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 912-917). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

4. Sloutsky, V. M. & Spino, M. (Under review). Naive theory and transfer of learning: When less is more and more is less

5. Sloutsky, V. M., Lo, Y.-F, & Fisher, A. (2001). How much does a shared name make things similar? Linguistic Labels, Similarity and the Development of Inductive Inference. Child Development, 72, 1695-1709.

6. Napolitano, A., Sloutsky, V. M., Boysen, S. (In Press). Modality preference and its change in the course of development. Proceedings ofthe XXIII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

7. Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher A. (2001). Effects of linguistic and perceptual informationon categorization in young children. Proceedings of the XXIII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

8. Lo, Y.-F, & Sloutsky, V. M  (2001). Effects of multiple sources of information on induction in young children. Proceedings of the XXIII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

9. Sloutsky, V. M, & Napolitano, A.C. (In Press). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Preference for auditory modality in young children. Child Development

10. Sloutsky, V. M., & Lo, Y.-F. (1999). How much does a shared name make things similar?   Part 1: Linguistic labels and the development of similarity judgement. Developmental Psychology, 6, 1478-1492.

The Representation of Structure: Elements and Relations

1. Yarlas, A. S., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2000). Problem representation in experts and novices: Part 1. Differences in the content of representation. In L. R.Gleitman& A. K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference ofthe Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1006-1011). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

2. Sloutsky, V. M., & Yarlas, A. S. (2000). Problem representation in experts and novices: Part 2. Underlying processing mechanisms. In L.R. Gleitman & A.K.Joshi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 475-480). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

3. Yarlas, A. S., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2001). The effect of attention in the representation of relational information. Manuscript under review.

4. Yarlas, A. S., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2001). Representation of elements and relations across informational structures: Evidence for general cognitive mechanisms of feature processing. Manuscript under review.

5. Sloutsky, V. M., & Yarlas, A. S. (2000). Problem processing by experts and novices:The case of arithmetic. Manuscript under review.

6. Sloutsky, V. M., & Yarlas, A. S. (2000). Mental representation of elementary and relational properties of propositional logic arguments. Manuscript under review.

7. Yarlas, A. S., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2000). Representation of arithmetic principles by novices: Knowledge or attention? Manuscript under review.

8. Yarlas, A. S., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2000). Representation of arithmetic principles by children and preadolescents. Manuscript underreview.

The Development of Deduction: Mechanisms and Underlying Processes

1. Rader, A. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (1999). Conjunction bias in memory representations of logical connectives. Paper in progress.

2. Rader, A. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (1999). Representation of logical forms and reasoning. In M. Hahn & S. Stones (Eds.). Proceedings of the XXI Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 560-565). Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.

3. Rader, A. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (1999). Representations of propositions with connectives: The deep vs. surface structure. Paper in progress.

4. Rader, A., & Sloutsky, V. (2000).Processing of logically valid and logically invalid conditional inferences in discourse comprehension. Paper in progress.

5. Morris, A. K., & Sloutsky,V. M. (1998). Understanding of logical necessity: Developmental antecedents and cognitive consequences. Child Development,69(3), 721-741.

6. Morris,B. J., & Sloutsky, V. M. (in press). Childrens solutions of logical vs. empirical problems: Whats missing and what develops. Cognitive Development,0, 000-000.

7. Morris, B. J., & Sloutsky, V. M. (1999). Developmental differences in young childrens solutions of logical vs. empirical problems. In M. Hahn & S. Stones (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXI Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 432-437). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

8. Sloutsky, V. M., & Goldvarg, Y. (1999). Representation and recall of determinate versus indeterminate problems. Paper in progress.

9. Sloutsky, V. M., & Johnson-Laird. P. N.(1999). Problem representations and illusions in reasoning. In M. Hahn & S. Stones (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXI Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 701-705).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

10. Sloutsky, V. M., Morris, B., & Rader, A. (2000). Increasing informativeness and reducing indeterminacy: An adaptive constraint in human cognition. Paper in progress.

11. Sloutsky, V. M., Rader, A., & Morris, B. (1998). Increasing informativeness and reducing ambiguities: Adaptive strategies in human information processing. In M. A. Gernsbacher & S. J. Derry (Eds.), Proceedings of the XX AnnualConference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 997-999). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

12. Sloutsky, V. M. (2000). What are fallacies good for? Representational speed-up in propositional reasoning. Proceedings of the XXII Annual Conferenceof the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 907-911). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

13. Aaron W. Rader, & Sloutsky, V. M. (2001) Conjunctive bias in memory representations of logical connectives. Memory and Cognition 2001, 29(6), 838-849.

14. Aaron W. Rader, & Sloutsky, V. M. (2002) Process of logically valid and logically invalid conditional Inferences in discourse comprehension.

15. Yevgeniya Goldvarg, & Sloutsky, V. M.(2002). Mental representation of logical connectives.

16. Bradley J. Morris, Sloutsky, V. M. (2002) Children’s solutions of logical versus emperical problems: Whats missing and what develops? Cognitive Development 16 (2002) 907-928.

Contact our webmaster with questions or comments                    Last update: September 02, 2009