Limits to Infants' Knowledge of Objects: The Case of Magical Appearance

Wynn, Karen; Chiang, Wen-Chi

doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00084

Cited by 62 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another experiment suggested infants may also have an implicit understanding of "precise" addition; specifically, that one item + one item = exactly two items. Wynn's (1992a) empirical results and the claim they provide evidence for arithmetical competencies in infancy have been the focus of intense scientific study and theoretical debate (Carey, 2002;Cohen, 2002;Cohen & Marks, 2002;Kobayashi, Hiraki, Mugitani, & Hasegawa, 2004;Koechlin, Dehaene, & Mehler, 1997;McCrink & Wynn, 2004;Simon, Hespos, & Rochat, 1995;Uller, Carey, Huntley-Fenner, & Klatt 1999;Wakeley, Rivera, & Langer, 2000;Wynn, 1995Wynn, , 2000Wynn, , 2002Wynn & Chiang, 1998). The findings for imprecise addition and (or) subtraction have been replicated several times (Cohen & Marks, 2002;Simon et al, 1995;Wynn & Chiang, 1998).…”

Section: Number and Arithmetic In Infancymentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Mathematical Understanding

Geary¹

2007

Handbook of Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Number and Arithmetic In Infancymentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Mathematical Understanding

Geary¹

2007

Handbook of Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…2, 3). Wynn concluded that the infants were able to perform simple arithmetic calculations based on the assumption that infants look longer at unexpected events (4)(5)(6).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Infant brains detect arithmetic errors

Berger

Tzur²,

Posner³

2006

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

168

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A current debate is whether increased looking time in infancy is related to violation of expectations. In this study, 6-to 9-month-old infants' brain activity was analyzed during presentation of correct and incorrect solutions to simple arithmetic equations [(e.g., presentation of 1 ؉ 1; one doll on a TV monitor, with another doll added from behind a screen, followed by a solution of 2 (correct) or 1 (incorrect)]. Infants looked longer at incorrect solutions than at correct ones. Event-related potentials, time-locked to the presentation of the solution, also differed between conditions, with greater negative activity for the incorrect solution condition. Spectral analysis showed a similar pattern to that of adults observing correct and incorrect arithmetical equations. These findings show (i) that the brain network involved in error detection can be identified in infancy and (ii) that this network can support an association between looking time and violation of expectations.early arithmetic ͉ event-related potential ͉ error detection ͉ executive attention ͉ self-regulation W ynn (1) showed that 5-month-old infants could discriminate between correct answers (e.g., 1 ϩ 1 ϭ 2) and errors in simple arithmetic problems (e.g., 1 ϩ 1 ϭ 1). When the number of dolls in a case did not agree with the number seen being placed in the case, babies looked longer than when the number agreed (see also refs. 2, 3). Wynn concluded that the infants were able to perform simple arithmetic calculations based on the assumption that infants look longer at unexpected events (4-6).Some have argued that infants' looking time, instead of being a sign of their understanding of basic arithmetical procedures, reflects their tendency to look longer at displays that differ perceptually from what has already been seen (7,8). The issue raised by Cohen and Marks (7) and Haith and Benson (8) affects our conclusions not only about infants' understanding of numbers but also about their understanding of the physical, biological, and social world. Experiments in these fields rest heavily on the assumption that looking time indicates infant error detection and violation of expectations. How can we be sure that this interpretation is correct? How early in life can error detection be shown?Error detection and the resolution of conflict are considered signs of the development of an executive attention network that involves the anterior cingulate and other frontal brain areas (9). In conflict tasks, children must override a prepotent response, substituting a conflicting response (10, 11). The earliest behavioral signs of executive attention as measured in the efficiency of conflict resolution have been found by the end of the first year of life (12). Later, between 2 and 4 years of age, there appears to be a dramatic increase in the efficiency of children's conflict resolution. For error monitoring, the earliest signs have been observed so far at 39-41 months of age, in the form of increased reaction time after an error (13).In adults, brain activity related...

show abstract

“…Sixand 8-month-old infants seemingly cannot maintain the representation of a lack of an object measured with violation-of-expectation paradigms: while they see the unexpected or "magical" disappearance of an object as an unexpected event, they do not see the "magical" appearance of an object as an unexpected event (Kaufman, Csibra, & Johnson, 2003;Wynn & Chiang, 1998). On one hand, we can suppose that representing the lack of object is handled by the representation handling numerical information.…”

Section: Lack Of Developmental Models Of Understanding Zeromentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Overall, the results about whether ANS may represent zero are inconclusive. While some authors argue that ANS can store zero (Merritt & Brannon, 2013;Wynn & Chiang, 1998), these results can be debated, and according to some models it would be impossible to store zero by the ANS, because for example, the ANS might rely on perceptual properties, and missing stimuli (i.e., a non-symbolic empty set) cannot activate the appropriate features in the system (Dakin, Tibber, Greenwood, Kingdom, & Morgan, 2011). It is also possible that even if zero is stored by the ANS, it requires additional supporting processes.…”

Section: Lack Of Developmental Models Of Understanding Zeromentioning

confidence: 99%