Abstract
When two objects share a name, how much does their visual similarity explain, and what do the teaching examples add? First, we reanalyzed trial-level data from a large adult word-extension study (Lewis & Frank, 2018), computing each test image's distance to the examples shown in the space of a frozen self-supervised visual encoder (DINOv2). Distance was associated with extension (log odds -3.23 per standard deviation; 520 people), and an exploratory post hoc analysis suggested that this association persisted within the taught domain after controlling for taxonomic level and teaching condition. Example composition also mattered: after three examples, adults extended a word to 1.1% of superordinate items when the examples were subordinate and to 77.5% when they were superordinate. Second, in an artificial learner using the same encoder, words joining two categories were learned less accurately the farther apart the categories were (84.7%, 65.4%, and 53.0% naming accuracy for near, mid, and far pairs). The encoder's distances correlated with human similarity and confusability measures from three datasets (rho = .501-.795), but this representational alignment did not translate into conclusive evidence that human-derived distances predict learner difficulty, and a second encoder trained on one child's experience reproduced the tier ordering but not the pair-level effect. The secondary human data were analyzed under an internal plan fixed before the confirmatory analyses (not externally preregistered). Visual similarity accounts for part of how generalization is organized in both systems, while the composition of examples contributes what the distance we used does not capture.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.14116
