Characteristics of hiding places and the transition to Stage IV performance in object permanence tasks.

Dunst, Carl J.; Brooks, Penelope H.; Doxsey, Pamela A.

doi:10.1037/0012-1649.18.5.671

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, there was the extra difficulty posed by the relation of containment; the child had to use the solidity principle to infer which cup the ball would be in, whereas the infants needed to infer only whether the object should be above or below the shelf. Containment may be a particularly difficult spatial relationship for children to understand (Dunst, Brooks, & Doxsey, 1982). Second, in the infant studies, the shelf was visible on either side of the occluder when the objects were dropped; in Experiment 1, the occluder completely covered the shelf.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Predicting the Outcomes of Physical Events: Two‐Year‐Olds Fail to Reveal Knowledge of Solidity and Support

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two-year-olds' (N = 153) knowledge of solidity was tested in four search tasks adapted from infant looking-time experiments. In Experiment 1, 2-year-olds failed to search in the correct location for a falling ball after a hidden shelf that blocked its trajectory had been inserted in the apparatus. Experiment 2 extended this finding by showing that 2-year-olds failed to take into account the effects of either removing or inserting a shelf in their search for a toy dropped behind a screen. Experiment 3 examined sensitivity to the constraint provided by a solid barrier on horizontal motion. In all three experiments, 2-year-old children searched initially at the location where they saw the object during familiarization. Experiment 4, using multiple test trials but no familiarization to a pretest location, also showed that 2-year-olds failed to take the presence or absence of a barrier into account when planning where to search for a toy they had seen dropped behind a screen. In all of these studies, 2-year-olds showed no evidence of representing solidity and support constraints on the trajectories of falling objects. Experiments 1 and 3 also included 2 1/2-year-olds (N = 31), who succeeded on these search tasks. The implications of the poor performance of 2-year-olds, in the face of success by very young infants on looking-time measures of sensitivity to similar constraints on object motion, are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Predicting the Outcomes of Physical Events: Two‐Year‐Olds Fail to Reveal Knowledge of Solidity and Support

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, in 8 to 9 months-old infants, the following variables have a considerable effect upon search behaviour: delay between hiding and onset of search (Harris 1973), laboratory versus home environment (Acredolo 1979), transparent versus opaque screens (the former are more difficult) (Lockman 1984), locomotion versus manual reaching (Lockman 1984), number of hiding places (Cummins & Bjork 1983), self-movement versus object-movement (Bremner 1978a, Goldfield & Dickerson 1981, Wishart & Bower 1982, nature of landmarks provided (Acredolo & Evans 1980, Bremner 1978b, Butterworth, Jarrett & Hicks 1982, Goldfield & Dickerson 1981, Presson & Thrigh 1982, egocentric position of containers , Cummins & Bjork 1983, nature of position changes of containers , Sophian & Sage 1983, and, finally nature of containing or occluding object (Dunst, Brooks & Doxsey 1982).…”

Section: The Ablative Componentmentioning

confidence: 99%

In, on, under: an essay on the modularity of infant spatial competence

Geert

1986

First Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to current standard theory, children acquire a preverbal conceptual organization of spatial relations. In learning spatial relations words, children are assumed to employ their spatial relational concepts in order to fill in the meaning of the words. The present paper offers an alternative, modular conception. The content, form and manifestation of spatial knowledge are different for the three main cognitive modules, namely perception, action and language. An overview of experimental research on early space perception and action is presented, showing that knowledge in one module cannot account for knowledge in the other. Finally, a longitudinal study of in, on and under use in one child between the ages of 1;9ms and 2;9ms is presented. It is argued that the data support a modular view according to which the child learns language specific rules for the lexical distribution of the prepositions. These rules are not based on simple preverbal spatial relations concepts.

show abstract

“…Direct comparisons of conclusions based on gaze and reach responses are rare, but gaze responses seem to be somewhat more sensitive than reach responses. For example, Dunst, Brooks, and Doxsey (1982) allowed 7-month-old infants to retrieve an object they had seen hidden inside a small box. An analysis of reaching suggested a lack of knowledge, but an analysis of visual responses indicated that most infants knew tlie location of the object (i.e., they looked toward the top of, or inside of, the box).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response Modality Affects Human Infant Delayed-Response Performance

Hofstadter¹,

Reznick²

1996

Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Delayed response performance was assessed in 120 7-, 9-, and 11-month-old infants with correct response defined as either retrieval of a hidden object or gaze toward the location where the object was hidden. Performance improved with age, was above chance for each age group in each condition, and was more often correct with the gaze response. When direction of gaze and reach differed, direction of gaze was more likely to be correct. Infants in the reach condition were more likely to fail to reverse a previously correct response (i.e., to make the A-not-B error). Perseverative responding occurred frequently and was more likely in the reach than the gaze condition. This effect emerged primarily in the context of an incorrect response, which suggests modality-specific sensitivity to the effect of priming rather than reinforcement. Many infants showed strong side biases, and there was a tendency for more reaches to the left but gazes to the right. In a second experiment, 12 5-month-olds gazed toward the correct location more frequently than would be expected by chance but failed to reverse a previously correct response more often than older infants. These findings indicate that response modality has a significant effect on delayed-response performance.

show abstract

Characteristics of hiding places and the transition to Stage IV performance in object permanence tasks.

Cited by 13 publications

References 4 publications

Predicting the Outcomes of Physical Events: Two‐Year‐Olds Fail to Reveal Knowledge of Solidity and Support

Predicting the Outcomes of Physical Events: Two‐Year‐Olds Fail to Reveal Knowledge of Solidity and Support

In, on, under: an essay on the modularity of infant spatial competence

Response Modality Affects Human Infant Delayed-Response Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About