The color communication game.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
25 09 2023
25 09 2023
Historique:
received:
25
02
2023
accepted:
15
09
2023
medline:
27
9
2023
pubmed:
26
9
2023
entrez:
25
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is clear diversity among speakers of a typical language in how colors are named. What is the impact of this diversity on the people's ability to communicate about color? Is there a gap between a person's general understanding of the color terms in their native language and how they understand a particular term that denotes a particular color sample? Seventy English-speaking dyads and 63 Somali-speaking dyads played the Color Communication Game, where the "sender" in each dyad named 30 color samples as they would in any color-naming study, then the "receiver" chose the sample they thought the sender intended to communicate. English speakers played again, under instructions to intentionally communicate color sample identity. Direct comparison of senders' samples and receivers' choices revealed categorical understanding of colors without considering color naming data. Although Somali-speaking senders provided fewer color terms, interpersonal Mutual Information (MI) calculated from color naming data was similarly below optimal for both groups, and English-speaking dyads' MI did not improve with experience. Both groups revealed superior understanding of color terms because receivers showed better exactly-correct selection performance than was predicted by simulation from their senders' color-naming data. This study highlights limitations on information-theoretic analyses of color naming data.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37749107
doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-42834-3
pii: 10.1038/s41598-023-42834-3
pmc: PMC10520057
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
16006Informations de copyright
© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Oct 3;114(40):10785-10790
pubmed: 28923921
Top Cogn Sci. 2019 Jan;11(1):207-219
pubmed: 30457215
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Nov 24;106(47):19785-90
pubmed: 19901327
Psychol Sci. 2009 Sep;20(9):1100-7
pubmed: 19656339
J Vis. 2014 Feb 25;14(2):
pubmed: 24569983
Science. 2012 May 25;336(6084):998
pubmed: 22628647
Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Aug;23(4):1015-27
pubmed: 27282993
Annu Rev Vis Sci. 2021 Sep 15;7:605-631
pubmed: 34524876
PLoS One. 2019 May 10;14(5):e0216296
pubmed: 31075109
Cogn Sci. 2020 Nov;44(11):e12907
pubmed: 33135197
Curr Biol. 2015 Sep 21;25(18):2441-6
pubmed: 26365254
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 27;9(1):e86488
pubmed: 24475131
Cogn Sci. 2020 Jun;44(6):e12845
pubmed: 32496603
J Vis. 2016;16(5):14
pubmed: 26982527
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Jul 31;115(31):7937-7942
pubmed: 30021851
J Abnorm Psychol. 1964 Nov;69:472-81
pubmed: 14212016
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Oct 31;103(44):16608-13
pubmed: 17047032
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Sep 28;118(39):
pubmed: 34556580
Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 May;23(5):389-407
pubmed: 31006626