Assessment of Stage 6 object permanence

Pasnak, Robert; Kurkjian, Maura F.; Triana, Estrella

doi:10.3758/bf03337685

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(16 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dumas (1992) and Triana and Pasnak (1981) have reported data showing that adult cats reached Stage 6. However, other investigators (Dore, 1986(Dore, , 1990Dumas & Dore, 1989Goulet, Dore, & Rousseau, 1994;375 Copyright 1996 Psychonomic Society, Inc. Pasnak, Kurkjian, & Triana, 1988) did not find Stage 6 ability in adult cats. In a cross-sectional study, Gagnon and Dore (1994) tested puppies and found similarity in sequence to that in cats and early Stage 6 ability at around the 1st year.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

Development of object permanence in the New Zealand parakeet (Cyanoramphus auriceps)

Funk

1996

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eleven young kakarikis (Cyanoramphus auriceps) were tested on 15 object-permanence tasks in a standardized scale that has been used to assess the development of human infants, some nonhuman primates, and other mammals. The birds successfully completed all tasks in this scale, and many aspects of their testing were similar to human results, such as evidencing the A-not-B error. However, the birds differed slightly but significantly from human subjects in that some of the "invisible displacements" of the later tasks were performed before the earlier visible displacement tasks. These results may relate to common ecological activities of this species. Six of the birds were parent-raised; 5 were hand-raised. The hand-raised birds achieved criteria more qUickly than did the parent-raised birds possibly because the former were more accustomed to the investigator and less distractible in the test situation.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 90%

Development of object permanence in the New Zealand parakeet (Cyanoramphus auriceps)

Funk

1996

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This framework and research tradition has been informative within the comparative literature as well. A number of nonhuman animal species have demonstrated variable levels of success on Piaget's tasks for object permanence, including chimpanzees (Call, 2001;Mathieu, Daudelin, Dagenais, & Decarie, 1980;Wood, Moriarty, Gardner, & Gardner, 1980), orangutans (Call, 2001;de Blois & Novak, 1999;de Blois, Novak, & Bond, 1998), gorillas (Natale, Antinucci, Spinozzi, & Potı `, 1986), macaque monkeys (de Blois & Novak, 1994, 1999Natale et al, 1986;Schino, Spinozzi, & Berlinguer, 1990), dogs (Dore ´, Fiset, Goulet, Dumas, & Gagnon, 1996;Gagnon & Dore ´, 1993;Pasnak, Kurkjian, & Triana, 1988;Triana & Pasnak, 1981), cats (Dore ´, 1986(Dore ´, , 1990Dore ´et al, 1996;Pasnak et al, 1988), and birds (Mendes & Huber, 2004;Pepperberg & Funk, 1990;Pepperberg, Willner, & Gravitz, 1997;Pollok, Prior, & Gu ¨ntu ¨rku ¨n, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Spatial Memory and Monitoring of Hidden Items Through Spatial Displacements by Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).

Beran¹,

Beran²,

Menzel³

2005

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) short-term memory for food location in near space. In Experiments 1 and 2, either 1 or 2 items (chocolate pieces) were hidden in an array of 3 or 5 containers that either remained stationary or were rotated 180 degrees or 360 degrees. When the array remained stationary, the chimpanzees remembered both item locations. When arrays were rotated, however, chimpanzees found only 1 item. In Experiment 3, 2 items were hidden in an array of 7 cups. Both items were found at levels significantly better than chance. Ninety percent of errors were made after the 1st item was found, and errors reflected memory failure rather than a failure of inhibitory control.

show abstract

“…Various precautions have been taken with dogs to guard against the use of such "lower level" strategies to solve the task. Olfactory cues were ruled out, both by providing misleading odor cues (Pasnak, Kurkjian, & Triana, 1988), and by masking them altogether (Gagnon & Doré, 1992). Breed differences were also discounted as an explanation for the success of dogs on the task (Gagnon & Doré, 1992).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Dogs (Canis familiaris) Understand Invisible Displacement?

Collier-Baker

Davis

Suddendorf

2004

Journal of Comparative Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) perform above chance on invisible displacement tasks despite showing few other signs of possessing the necessary representational abilities. Four experiments investigated how dogs find an object that has been hidden in 1 of 3 opaque boxes. Dogs passed the task under a variety of control conditions, but only if the device used to displace the object ended up adjacent to the target box after the displacement. These results suggest that the search behavior of dogs was guided by simple associative rules rather than mental representation of the object's past trajectory. In contrast, Experiment 5 found that on the same task, 18-and 24-month-old children showed no disparity between trials in which the displacement device was adjacent or nonadjacent to the target box.The invisible displacement task was originally conceived by Piaget (1937Piaget ( /1954) as a measure of toddlers' transition to Stage 6 in his theory of object permanence. In the classic task, the subject sees the experimenter hide a desired object under a displacement device, typically a small opaque container. The experimenter slides the displacement device under one of several hiding boxes, surreptitiously deposits the object beneath this box, and shows the subject that the displacement device is now empty. To find the object, the subject cannot rely on perceptual information alone but rather must infer the object's location by mentally representing its past trajectory (e.g., Call, 2001). The task is thus thought to provide evidence of representational thought: the ability to entertain representations of objects or events that cannot be directly perceived.As such, Piaget's invisible displacement task continues to feature strongly in both developmental and comparative research and theory. In Perner's (1991) theory of representational development, for example, passing the invisible displacement task is one of several markers of the emergence of a capacity for secondary representation. Perner suggests that prior to the middle of their 2nd year, infants have access only to primary representations; that is, they maintain a direct model of reality that is continually updated with incoming perceptual information. Passing the invisible displacement task indicates that the child can go beyond a single updating model to entertain multiple models of the world. That is, the child is able to hold in mind a model of the current world (primary representation: displacement device empty) as well as a model of the past world (secondary representation: displacement device with object under large box). By collating these two models the child can infer the likely location of the surreptitiously displaced object. Children typically begin passing the invisible displacement task at approximately 18 -24 months of age (e.g., Kramer, Hill, & Cohen, 1975;Piaget, 1937Piaget, /1954. Perner (1991) argues that several other abilities emerging in the 2nd year, such as mirror self-recognition and pretend play, also involve secondary representations. At le...

show abstract

Assessment of Stage 6 object permanence

Cited by 19 publications

References 5 publications

Development of object permanence in the New Zealand parakeet (Cyanoramphus auriceps)

Development of object permanence in the New Zealand parakeet (Cyanoramphus auriceps)

Spatial Memory and Monitoring of Hidden Items Through Spatial Displacements by Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes).

Do Dogs (Canis familiaris) Understand Invisible Displacement?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About