We've seen something like this list of properties before ...
Compare the notion of a core system with the notion of a module
The two definitions are different, but the differences are subtle enough that we don't want both.
My recommendation: if you want a better definition of core system, adopt
core system = module as a working assumption and then look to research on modularity
because there's more of it.
--------
‘To test the hypothesis that infant color categorization is related
to the cardinal mechanisms of color vision, we plotted [...] the stimuli and infants’ novelty
response in a version of the MacLeod–Boynton chromaticity diagram.
In this color diagram the axes L/(L+M) and S/(L+M) represent the cardinal mechanisms of
color vision that correspond to the two main retinogeniculate color pathways.’
‘Four of the pairs for which there were novelty pref- erences straddle the vertical and horizontal axes originating from the background chromaticity, Munsell N5, on which our stimuli were presented.’
--------
one idea ....
\citep[p.~489]{witzel:2018_colora}: ‘A recent study suggested that categorical responses by
infants are related to the cone–opponent second-stage mechanisms (Skelton et al. 2017). This
observation contrasts with the finding that color categories in adults do not systematically
relate to second-stage mechanisms. It is not yet clear how exactly categorical responses by
infants relate to the categories for basic color terms by adults.’
another idea ...
\citep[p.~490]{witzel:2018_colora}: ‘Infants might acquire categorical information through shared attention and other kinds of
interaction with their social agents (e.g., their parents) that do not depend on language.
Cross-cultural commonalities and infant color categories could also have an ecological origin.
For example, they could be related to statistical regularities of color distributions in the
visual environment (Yendrikhovskij 2001, Steels \& Belpaeme 2005), and infants might internalize
these regularities early in development.’
--------
To continue the argument ...
--------
Let me show you how this works (roughly following Wiggett and Davies 2008)
Recall from earlier how speed and accuracy were tested using a two-alternative forced-choice task.
--------
Now Wiggett and Davies 2008 adapted this very slightly.
They put a word on the target (or, in Experiment 2, on the test stimuli --- that had no effect, showing that the word is important for priming and categorical perception is not a matter of matching label to label).
(They are using the Stroop effect, which I won't explain here but is worth looking up.)
--------
And here are the results from Experiment 1B. The vertical axis is mean accuracy.
--------
Why say that impact of verbal interference plus shaping of perceptual categories by extensions of words gives an interesting sense in which we have expeirences as of red because we label perceived objects 'red'? Two points: long-term, the extentions of perceptual category is influenced by the extension of the word; short-term, covert labelling primes the perceptual category and without this priming you do not have CP (Wiggett and Davies 2008).
--------
The extensions of colour terms vary quite radically between languages.
Ongoing research concerns whether there is any kind of universal prinicple behind the pattern.
--------
So the extensions of colour terms varies between langauges.
Why is this relevant to the relation between infant and adult categorical perception?
--------
Because the boundaries of adults' (but not infants') perceptual categories are
influenced by the extensions of their culturally variable colour terms.
For evidence that adults' perceptual colour categories are influenced by their
culturally variable knowledge of colour words, see \citet{Kay:2006ly},
\citet{Roberson:2007wg}, and \citet{Winawer:2007im};
--------
This is an amazing finding about the power of words.
Learning to use words for colours influences how we categorise them in categorical perception
them.
Colour words shape adults’ categorical perception \citep{Roberson:2007wg,Winawer:2007im}.
We'll see more on this later.
--------
But, as you'd expect, infants’ and toddlers’ perceptual categories are not influenced by the extensions of colour terms.
For evidence that toddlers who know some colour words show no influence of language on categorical perception of colours, see \citet{Franklin:2005hp}.
--------
To continue the argument ...
--------
The adult mode of categorical perception of colour differs from the infant-and-toddler mode in at least four respects: it disappears in the face of
predictable verbal interference but not non-verbal interference (Roberson, Davies and Davidoff 2000: 985; Pilling, Wiggett, et al. 2003: 549-50; Wiggett and
Davies 2008), it can be affected by short-term perceptual learning (Ozgen and Davies 2002), it depends on parts of the brain other than those on which
infants' categorical perception of colour depends (Franklin, Drivonikou, et al. 2008), and the boundaries of adults' perceptual categories do not match the
boundaries of infant and toddler perceptual categories.
--------
There is evidence that the infant mode of categorical perception of colour continues to operate in adults, although it is often inhibited or overshadowed
by the adult mode \citep{Gilbert:2006yb}.
‘Several studies found that category effects occur only or more strongly in the right visual
field but not at all or less strongly in the left visual field (Drivonikou et al. 2007,
Gilbert et al. 2006, Roberson et al. 2008, Zhou et al. 2010). Visual information from the
right visual field is processed in the left hemisphere and language is also processed in the
left hemisphere for almost all people who are right-handed (for a review, see Ocklenburg et
al. 2014). The observation that the category effect is lateralized to the left hemisphere
suggested that language processing is involved in those category effects. Although several
studies found evidence in support of the lateralized category effect, many other studies
could not reproduce the effect, even in extensive series of experiments and with carefully
calibrated color stimuli (Brown et al. 2011; Suegami et al. 2014; Webster \& Kay 2012; Witzel
\& Gegenfurtner 2011, 2015, 2016). It has been suggested that the lateralization of the
category effect occurs only at early stages and disappears at later stages of visual
processing, possibly due to transfer through the corpus callosum (Roberson et al. 2008,
Constable \& Becker 2017)’
\citep[pp.~487--8]{witzel:2018_colora}.