1. Introduction Numerous studies show that verbal labels help to launch new category formation (Deng & Sloutsky, 2013), or select specific information from memory for categorization (Gelman & Heyman, 1999). However, in many situations, children already have an initial knowledge about the category, but they obtain additional information within the experience and they need to relate it to the already known information. Do the verbal labels and content of initial knowledge affect on the memorizing of such additional information about the category? We know (Jones, et al., 1991) that children are easier to remember names of objects on the basis of global features (shape) than local (part). And patients with aphasia selectively impaired on low- dimensional categorization, but not on high-dimensional categorization (Lupyan, & Mirman, 2012). Are the word labels help in the perception of different features to collecting categorical information? In our experiment, we examined whether the verbal labels lead to different ways to collect categorical information about categories with local and global feature distinction. Method 76 children (49-61 months, M=55.4) Experimental conditions: - Label \ No-label -Global \ Local feature distinction 2x2 Between-subject design Training – 16 trials Test – 8 items Method 76 children (49-61 months, M=55.4) Experimental conditions: - Label \ No-label -Global \ Local feature distinction 2x2 Between-subject design Training – 16 trials Test – 8 items Discussion Preschoolers can memorize additional information only when the distinction between categories based on global features and when categories have labels. We suppose that the label presence does not change the structural properties of the children working memory, but it changes their perception. In many cases children more quickly and efficiently find the object by its name than by the example. In our previous study, we found that adult subjects better remember additional information with labels as in the context of global and local features distinction between categories. These results prove that the effect of language on category learning can be different in different ages. References 1.Deng, W., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2013). The role of linguistic labels in inductive generalization. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(3), 432–55. 2.Gelman, S. A., & Heyman, G. D. (1999). Carrot-eaters and creature-believers: The effects of lexicalization on children's inferences about social categories.Psychological Science, 10(6), 489- 493. 3.Jones, S. S., Smith, L. B., & Landau, B. (1991). Object properties and knowledge in early lexical learning. Child development, 62(3), 499-516. 4.Lupyan, G., & Mirman, D. (2012). Linking language and categorization: Evidence from aphasia. Cortex; a J.Devoted to the Study of the Nervous System and Behavior, 1–9. Contacts 1.Alexey Kotov, Laboratory for cognitive research, National Research University “Higher School of Economics”, al.kotov@gmail.com 2.Tatyana Kotova, Center of Cognitive Research (RANEPA), tkotova@gmail.com 1-2. Research Group for Concept and Cognitive Development www.cogdevelopment.com Labels help preschoolers to memorize additional information about category, but only for global features based categories Alexey Kotov 1, Tatyana Kotova 2 Funding The study was implemented in the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics in 2014 Results Label condition: “Find dopa” Categorical features (p=1) Individual features (p=0.25) Where do we put this stone? Visual identification task Search goal Memory task Test Global features (form) distinction Local features (part) distinction Remember new information Old item New Item (different individual feature) Under the label-condition children recalling old items and items with new-individual feature better than under no-label condition. Children recognized old and new test items unsuccessfully both in the label condition, and in no-label condition. No-label condition: “Find this” * * ns chance level Test in both conditions (global and local) was the same Label condition: “Find dopa” No-label condition: “Find this” Categories intro (story) Categorical features (p=1) Individual features (p=0.25)