GO TO

INTRANET

The Publications by the people at the Cognitive Development Lab

Linguistic Labels, Induction, and Similarity

1. Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher, A.V (In press). Attentional learning and flexible induction: How mundane mechanisms give rise to smart behaviors. Child Development.

2. Robinson, C. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (In press). Effects of auditory input in individuation tasks. Developmental Science.

3. Sloutsky, V. M., & Robinson, C. W. (2008). The role of words and sounds in visual processing: From overshadowing to attentional tuning. Cognitive Science, 32, 354-377.

4. Kloos, H., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2008). What's Behind Different Kinds of Kinds: Effects of Statistical Density on Learning and Representation of Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 52-72.

5. Robinson, C. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2007). Visual processing speed: Effects of auditory input on visual processing. Developmental Science, 10, 734-740.

6. Sloutsky, V. M., Kloos. H., & Fisher, A. V. (2007). What’s beyond looks? Reply to Gelman and Waxman. Psychological Science, 18(6), 556-557.

7. Robinson, C. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2007). Linguistic labels and categorization in infancy: Do labels facilitate or hinder?. Infancy, 11(3), 223-253.

8. Sloutsky, V. M., Kloos, H., & Fisher, A. V. (2007). When Looks Are Everything: Appearance Similarity versus Kind Information in Early Induction. Psychological Science, 18, 179-185

9. Sloutsky, V. M.., & Fisher, A. V. (2005). Similarity, Induction, Naming, and Categorization (SINC): Generalization or verbal inductive reasoning? Response to Heit and Hayes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 606-611.

10. Fisher, A. V., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2005). When induction meets memory: Evidence for gradual transition from similarity-based to category-based induction. Child Development,76 (3), 583-597.

11. Napolitano, A. C., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2004). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Part II: The flexible nature of modality dominance in young children. Child Development, 75 (6), 1850-1870.

12. Robinson, C, W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2004). The effect of stimulus familiarity on modality dominance. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXVI Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 1167-1172. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

13. Robinson, C.W., & Sloutsky, V.M. (2004). Auditory Dominance and its change in the course of development. Child Development, 75 (5), 1387-1401.

14. Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher, A. V. (2004). Induction and categorization in young children: A similarity-based model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133 (2), 166-188.

15. Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher, A. V. (2004). When development and learning decrease memory: Evidence against category-based induction in children. Psychological Science, 15 (8), 553-558.

16. Sloutsky, V. M., & Spino, M. A. (2004). Naive theory and transfer of learning: When less is more and more is less. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11 (3), 528-535.

17. Sloutsky, V. M, & Napolitano, A.C. (2003). Is a picture worth a thousand words? Preference for auditory modality in young children. Child Development, 74 (3), 822-833.

18. Sloutsky, V.M. (2003). The role of similarity in the development of categorization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7 (6), 246-251.

19. 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. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

20. 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 (6), 1695-1709.

21. Sloutsky, V. M., & Fisher A. V. (2001). Effects of linguistic and perceptual information on categorization in young children. In J. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXIII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 946-951. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

22. Lo, Y.-F, & Sloutsky, V. M (2001). Effects of multiple sources of information on induction in young children. In J. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXIII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 564-569. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

23. Napolitano, A., Sloutsky, V. M., Boysen, S. (2001). Modality preference and its change in the course of development. In J. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXIII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 681-685. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

24. 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, 469-474. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

26. 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, 35 (6), 1478-1492.

The Representation of Structure: Elements and Relations

1. Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J., & Heckler, A. F. (2005). The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12 (3), 508-513.

2. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2006). Effects of concreteness on representation: An explanation for differential transfer. In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXVIII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

3. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2006). Do children need concrete instantiations to learn an abstract concept? In R. Sun & N. Miyake (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXVIII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

4. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2005). Relevant concreteness and its effects on learning and transfer. In B. Bara, L. Barsalou & M. Bucciarelli (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXVII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

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

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

7. 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 XXII Annual Conference ofthe Cognitive Science Society, 1006-1011. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

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

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

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

The Development of Deduction: Mechanisms and Underlying Processes

1. Fangmeier, T., Knauff, M., Ruff, Ch. C., & Sloutsky, V.M. (2006). fMRI Evidence for a Three-Stage Model of Deductive Reasoning. Journal of cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 320-334.

2. Sloutsky, V. M., & Goldvarg, Y. (2004). Mental representation of logical connectives. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: A, Human Experimental Psychology, 57A (4), 636-665.

3. Rader, A. W. , & Sloutsky, V. M. (2002) Process of logically valid and logically invalid conditional Inferences in discourse comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28 (1), 59-68.

4. Morris, B. J., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2002) Children’s solutions of logical versus emperical problems: Whats missing and what develops? Cognitive Development 16 (4), 2002, 907-928.

5. Rader, A. W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2001). Conjunction bias in memory representations of logical connectives. Memory & Cognition, 29(6), 838-849.

6. 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,  907-911. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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,  432-437. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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

Contact our webmaster with questions or comments                    Last update: March 03, 2008