How does the brain interpret signals from the outside world? Walking through a park, you might take for granted the ease with which you can understand what you see. Rather than seeing a series of still snapshots, you are able to see simple, fluid movement — of dogs running, squirrels foraging, or kids playing basketball. You can track their paths and know where they are headed without much thought. “How does this process take place?” asks Rudy Behnia, PhD, a principal investigator at Columbia’s Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute. “For most of us, it’s hard to imagine a world where we can’t see motion, shapes, and color; where we can’t have a representation of the physical world in our head.” And yet this representation does not happen automatically — our brain has no direct connection with the outside world. Instead, it interprets information taken in by our senses. Dr. Behnia is studying how the brain builds these representations. As a starting point, she focuses on how we see motion

Previous work suggests that children’s ability to understand metaphors emerges late in development. Researchers argue that children’s initial failure to understand metaphors is due to an inability to reason about shared relational structures between concepts. However, recent work demonstrates that preschoolers, toddlers, and even infants are already capable of relational reasoning. Might preschoolers also be capable of understanding metaphors, given more sensitive experimental paradigms? I explore whether preschoolers (N = 200, ages 4-5) understand functional metaphors, namely metaphors based on functional similarities. In Experiment 1a, preschoolers rated functional metaphors (e.g. “Roofs are hats”; “Clouds are sponges”) as “smarter” than nonsense statements. In Experiment 1b, adults (N = 48) also rated functional metaphors as “smarter” than nonsense statements (e.g. “Dogs are scissors”; “Boats are skirts”). In Experiment 2, preschoolers preferred functional explanations (e.g. “Both hold water”) over perceptual explanations (e.g. “Both are fluffy”) when interpreting a functional metaphor (e.g. “Clouds are sponges”). In Experiment 3, preschoolers preferred functional metaphors over nonsense statements in a dichotomous-choice task. Overall, this work demonstrates preschoolers’ early-emerging ability to understand functional metaphors.