[1] Bassani, H. F., & Araujo, A. F. R. (2019). A neural network architecture for learning word-referent associations in multiple contexts. Neural Networks, 117, 249-267. [2] Benitez V. L., Yurovsky D., & Smith L. B. (2016). Competition between multiple words for a referent in cross-situational word learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 90, 31-48. [3] Bloom, P. (2001). Précis of how children learn the meanings of words. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(6), 1095-1103. [4] Blythe R. A., Smith K., & Smith, A. D. M. (2010). Learning times for large lexicons through cross-situational learning. Cognitive Science, 34(4), 620-642. [5] Bunce, J. P., & Scott, R. M. (2017). Finding meaning in a noisy world: Exploring the effects of referential ambiguity and competition on 2·5-year-olds’ cross-situational word learning. Journal of Child Language, 44(3), 650-676. [6] Clark E. V.(2009). First language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.. [7] Fitneva, S. A., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). Developmental changes in cross-situational word learning: The inverse effect of initial accuracy. Cognitive Science, 41(1), 141-161. [8] Frank M. C., Goodman N. D., & Tenenbaum J. B. (2009). Using speakers' referential intentions to model early cross-situational word learning. Psychological Science, 20(5), 578-585. [9] Hadley, E. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (2019). Cues for word-learning during shared book-reading and guided play in preschool. Journal of Child Language, 46(6), 1202-1227. [10] Hendrickson, A. T., & Perfors, A. (2019). Cross-situational learning in a Zipfian environment. Cognition, 189, 11-22. [11] Hu, C. F. (2017). Resolving referential ambiguity across ambiguous situations in young foreign language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(3), 633-656. [12] Kan, P. F., & Sadagopan, N. (2015). Speech practice effects on bilingual children's fast mapping performance. Seminars in Speech and Language, 36(2), 109-119. [13] Kurumada C., Meylan S. C., & Frank M. C. (2013). Zipfian frequency distributions facilitate word segmentation in context. Cognition, 127(3), 439-453. [14] Lavi-Rotbain, O., & Arnon, I. (2019). Children learn words better in low entropy. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Cognitive Science Society. [15] Lavi-Rotbain, O., & Arnon, I. (2020). The learnability consequences of Zipfian distributions: Word segmentation is facilitated in more predictable distributions. PsychArchives. [16] Lavi-Rotbain, O., & Arnon, I. (2021). Visual statistical learning is facilitated in Zipfian distributions. Cognition, 206, Article 104492. [17] Lestrade, S. (2017). Unzipping Zipf' s law. PLoS ONE, 12(8), Article e0181987. [18] MacDonald K., Yurovsky D., & Frank M. C. (2017). Social cues modulate the representations underlying cross-situational learning. Cognitive Psychology, 94, 67-84. [19] Mak M. H. C., Hsiao Y., & Nation K. (2021). Anchoring and contextual variation in the early stages of incidental word learning during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 118, Article 104203. [20] Mulak K. E., Vlach H. A., & Escudero P. (2019). Cross-situational learning of phonologically overlapping words across degrees of ambiguity. Cognitive Science, 43(5), Article e12731. [21] Poepsel, T. J., & Weiss, D. J. (2016). The influence of bilingualism on statistical word learning. Cognition, 152, 9-19. [22] Qu J., Hu L., Liu X., Dong J., Yang R., & Mei L. (2021). The contributions of the left hippocampus and bilateral inferior parietal lobule to form-meaning associative learning. Psychophysiology, 58(8), Article e13834. [23] Reisenauer R., Smith K., & Blythe R. A. (2013). Stochastic dynamics of lexicon learning in an uncertain and nonuniform world. Physical Review Letters, 110(25), Article 258701. [24] Repnik K. M., Chondrogianni V., & Sorace A. (2021). Linking disambiguation and retention in a developmental eye-tracking study with monolingual and multilingual children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 206, Article 105072. [25] Roembke, T. C., & McMurray, B. (2021). Multiple components of statistical word learning are resource dependent: Evidence from a dual-task learning paradigm. Memory and Cognition, 49(5), 984-997. [26] Schuler K. D., Reeder P. A., Newport E. L., & Aslin R. N. (2017). The effect of Zipfian frequency variations on category formation in adult artificial language learning. Language Learning and Development, 13(4), 357-374. [27] Trueswell J. C., Medina T. N., Hafri A., & Gleitman L. R. (2013). Propose but verify: Fast mapping meets cross-situational word learning. Cognitive Psychology, 66(1), 126-156. [28] Tsuji S., Jincho N., Mazuka R., & Cristia A. (2020). Communicative cues in the absence of a human interaction partner enhance 12-month-old infants' word learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 191, Article 104740. [29] Vlach, H. A., & DeBrock, C. A. (2017). Remember dax? Relations between children’s cross-situational word learning, memory, and language abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 217-230. [30] Vogt, P. (2012). Exploring the robustness of cross-situational learning under Zipfian distributions. Cognitive Science, 36(4), 726-739. [31] Zettersten, M., & Saffran, J. R. (2021). Sampling to learn words: Adults and children sample words that reduce referential ambiguity. Developmental Science, 24(3), Article e13064. [32] Zipf G. K.(1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Addison-Wesley Press. |