Real-world size is automatically encoded in preschoolers' object representations.

When adults see a picture of an object, they automatically process how big the object typically is in the real world (Konkle & Oliva, 2012a). How much life experience is needed for this automatic size processing to emerge? Here, we ask whether preschoolers show this same signature of automatic size processing. We showed 3- and 4-year-olds displays with two pictures of objects and asked them to touch the picture that was smaller on the screen. Critically, the relative visual sizes of the objects could be either congruent with their relative real-world sizes (e.g., a small picture of a shoe next to a big picture of a car) or incongruent with their relative real-world sizes (e.g., a big picture of a shoe next to a small picture of a car). Across two experiments, we found that preschoolers were worse at making visual size judgments on incongruent trials, suggesting that real-world size was automatically activated and interfered with their performance. In addition, we found that both 4-year-olds and adults showed similar item-pair effects (i.e., showed larger Size-Stroop effects for a given pair of items, relative to other pairs). Furthermore, the magnitude of the item-pair Stroop effects in 4-year-olds did not depend on whether they could recognize the pictured objects, suggesting that the perceptual features of these objects were sufficient to trigger the processing of real-world size information. These results indicate that, by 3-4 years of age, children automatically extract real-world size information from depicted objects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

[1]  Roberto Cubelli,et al.  Spatial coding of object typical size: evidence for a SNARC-like effect , 2014, Psychological Research.

[2]  Albert Yonas,et al.  Infants' sensitivity to familiar size as information for distance. , 1982 .

[3]  A. Oliva,et al.  A familiar-size Stroop effect: real-world size is an automatic property of object representation. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Daniel D. Dilks,et al.  Common representational structures across the ventral visual pathway of children and adults , 2016 .

[5]  Yarden Gliksman,et al.  Automaticity of Conceptual Magnitude , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[6]  Marlene Behrmann,et al.  Development of object recognition in humans , 2009, F1000 biology reports.

[7]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Using Tablets to Collect Data From Young Children , 2016 .

[8]  A. Yonas,et al.  Infants’ sensitivity to familiar size: The effect of memory on spatial perception , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  R. Whelan Effective Analysis of Reaction Time Data , 2008 .

[10]  David C. Burr,et al.  Young Children Do Not Integrate Visual and Haptic Form Information , 2008, Current Biology.

[11]  A. Caramazza,et al.  Tripartite Organization of the Ventral Stream by Animacy and Object Size , 2013, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[12]  Bria Long,et al.  A familiar-size Stroop effect in the absence of basic-level recognition , 2017, Cognition.

[13]  M. Ross Quillian,et al.  Retrieval time from semantic memory , 1969 .

[14]  Melvyn A. Goodale,et al.  The role of apparent size in building- and object-specific regions of ventral visual cortex , 2011, Brain Research.

[15]  A. Oliva,et al.  A Real-World Size Organization of Object Responses in Occipitotemporal Cortex , 2012, Neuron.

[16]  S. Carey,et al.  Are faces perceived as configurations more by adults than by children , 1994 .

[17]  S. Gelman,et al.  Children's use of nonegocentric standards in judgments of functional size. , 1989, Child development.

[18]  Alina Liberman,et al.  Experience Shapes the Development of Neural Substrates of Face Processing in Human Ventral Temporal Cortex , 2015, Cerebral cortex.

[19]  A. Paivio Perceptual comparisons through the mind’s eye , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[20]  Dimitrios Pantazis,et al.  Tracking the Spatiotemporal Neural Dynamics of Real-world Object Size and Animacy in the Human Brain , 2018, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[21]  Michael A. Cohen,et al.  Mid-level perceptual features distinguish objects of different real-world sizes. , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  William A Phillips,et al.  The Ebbinghaus illusion deceives adults but not young children. , 2010, Developmental science.

[23]  Karin H. James,et al.  The Importance of Handwriting Experience on the Development of the Literate Brain , 2017 .

[24]  Yarden Gliksman,et al.  Size Perception and the Foundation of Numerical Processing , 2017 .

[25]  Cristina Montomoli,et al.  The Development of Visual Object Recognition in School-Age Children , 2007, Developmental neuropsychology.

[26]  Vaidehi S. Natu,et al.  Development differentially sculpts receptive fields across early and high-level human visual cortex , 2018, Nature Communications.

[27]  Rocco Chiou,et al.  Task-Related Dynamic Division of Labor Between Anterior Temporal and Lateral Occipital Cortices in Representing Object Size , 2016, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[28]  Dean Petters,et al.  Developmental Commonalities between Object and Face Recognition in Adolescence , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[29]  Stephen M. Kosslyn,et al.  Pictures and names: Making the connection , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  Russell A. Epstein,et al.  Coding of Object Size and Object Category in Human Visual Cortex , 2016, Cerebral cortex.

[31]  S. Gelman,et al.  Coordination of size standards by young children. , 1988, Child development.