Unlearning Incorrect Associations in Word Learning
Evidence From Eye‐Tracking
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 7150245 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Allison Mickel (0000-0002-3218-8939, Institute of Psychology RWTH Aachen University, corresponding author), Bob Mcmurray (0000-0002-6532-284X, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Department of Linguistics University of Iowa) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 49 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | e70077-e70077 |
| Publication date | 2025-06-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Cognitive Science (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0364-0213 • E-ISSN: 1551-6709 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/cogs.70077 |
| PMID | 40497728 |
| OpenAlex | W4411210365 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 49 |
Computational and animal models suggest that the unlearning or pruning of incorrect meanings matters for word learning. However, it is currently unclear how such pruning occurs during word learning and to what extent it depends on supervised and unsupervised learning. In two experiments ( N 1 = 40; N 2 = 42), adult participants first completed a pretraining, in which each word was paired with two objects across trials: its target and another object (termed secondary target [T2]). Subsequently, participants learned the correct word‐object‐mappings in a supervised training paradigm and were then tested on the word meanings. During training, trials were structured such that some T2s never occurred with the targets, while others did, allowing us to disentangle the contributions of supervised and unsupervised pruning accounts. Eye movements were tracked during training and testing to measure the activation strength of alternative meanings. The experiments were identical but differed in how often the word was paired with the T2 during pretraining. We found that while weak incorrect associations were pruned quickly (Experiment 1), stronger ones remained present even after ceiling performance (Experiment 2), suggesting that the extent to which incorrect associations are unlearned depends on the strength of the initial mappings. Additionally, pruning was observed even for T2s that did not co‐occur with their corresponding word during training in line with unsupervised pruning. Overall, these findings imply that subtle incorrect associations may remain in the lexicon and contribute to other language processes (e.g., word recognition) even after word learning is completed
Cognitive psychology · Eye tracking · Linguistics · Natural language processing · Computer Science · Philosophy · Psychology · Reading and Literacy Development · Speech and dialogue systems · Text Readability and Simplification · Artificial Intelligence
Constraints Children Place on Word Meanings
How Many Words Do We Know? Practical Estimates of Vocabulary Size Dependent on Word Definition, the Degree of Language Input and the Participant’s Age
Rapid Word Learning Under Uncertainty via Cross-Situational Statistics
Word learning emerges from the interaction of online referent selection and slow associative learning.
Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models
Infants rapidly learn word-referent mappings via cross-situational statistics
A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.
How Large Can a Receptive Vocabulary Be?
Explicit and implicit memory representations in cross-situational word learning
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |