Motor memory is a factor in infant perseverative errors

Diedrich, Frederick J.; Thelen, Esther; Smith, Linda B.; Corbetta, Daniela

doi:10.1111/1467-7687.00140

Cited by 74 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous work by Thelen and colleagues (2001) demonstrated that a dynamic field model of reaching behavior could capture infants' A-not-B performance. According to Thelen et al, infants' reaches in this task depend on the interaction between a long-term memory of past reaches to the A location and a memory of the cuing event at the B location (see also Diedrich, Highlands, Thelen & Smith, 2001;Diedrich, Thelen, Smith & Corbetta, 2000;Smith, Thelen, Titzer & McLin, 1999). Infants "fail" in this task because the memory of B is not robust and is dominated by the long-term memory of A; infants succeed in this task when they can effectively sustain the memory of B during short-term delays.…”

Section: Piaget's A-not-b Task In Infancymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although this model effectively captured a host of data and generated novel predictions (e.g., Clearfield, Smith, Diedrich & Thelen, 2006;Diedrich, Clearfield, Smith & Thelen, 2007;Diedrich, et al, 2001;Diedrich, et al, 2000), it is limited in several respects. For instance, it does not address issues of how reference frames are calibrated and re-aligned during the task.…”

Section: Piaget's A-not-b Task In Infancymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Generalizing the dynamic field theory of spatial cognition across real and developmental time scales

Simmering¹,

Schutte²,

Spencer³

2008

Brain Research

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within cognitive neuroscience, computational models are designed to provide insights into the organization of behavior while adhering to neural principles. These models should provide sufficient specificity to generate novel predictions while maintaining the generality needed to capture behavior across tasks and/or time scales. This paper presents one such model, the Dynamic Field Theory (DFT) of spatial cognition, showing new simulations that provide a demonstration proof that the theory generalizes across developmental changes in performance in four tasks-the Piagetian A-not-B task, a sandbox version of the A-not-B task, a canonical spatial recall task, and a position discrimination task. Model simulations demonstrate that the DFT can accomplish both specificity-generating novel, testable predictions-and generality-spanning multiple tasks across development with a relatively simple developmental hypothesis. Critically, the DFT achieves generality across tasks and time scales with no modification to its basic structure and with a strong commitment to neural principles. The only change necessary to capture development in the model was an increase in the precision of the tuning of receptive fields as well as an increase in the precision of local excitatory interactions among neurons in the model. These small quantitative changes were sufficient to move the model through a set of quantitative and qualitative behavioral changes that span the age range from 8 months to 6 years and into adulthood. We conclude by considering how the DFT is positioned in the literature, the challenges on the horizon for our framework, and how a dynamic field approach can yield new insights into development from a computational cognitive neuroscience perspective.

show abstract

Section: Piaget's A-not-b Task In Infancymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Piaget's A-not-b Task In Infancymentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalizing the dynamic field theory of spatial cognition across real and developmental time scales

Simmering¹,

Schutte²,

Spencer³

2008

Brain Research

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some researchers suggest that the crucial factor leading to search errors at the B location is not a history of reaching to the A location, but rather a history of attending to or planning to reach to the A location (e.g., Diedrich et al, 2000;Munakata, 1998;Ruffman & Langman, 2002). A number of lines of research have shown performance on the A-not-B task to relate to infant attention.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Coding of Observation and Execution of Action in 9-Month-Old Infants

Longo¹,

Bertenthal²

2006

Infancy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do 9-month-old infants motorically simulate actions they perceive others perform? Two experiments tested whether action observation, like overt reaching, is sufficient to elicit the Piagetian A-not-B error. Infants recovered a toy hidden at location A or observed an experimenter recover the toy. After the toy was hidden at location B, infants in both conditions perseverated in reaching to A, demonstrating that active search by the infant is not necessary for the A-not-B error. Consistent with prior research, infants displayed an ipsilateral bias when reaching, the so-called mysterious midline barrier. A similar ipsilateral bias was also observed depending on the manner in which the experimenter reached; infants perseverated following observation of ipsi-but not contralateral reaches by the experimenter. Thus, infants perseverated only following observation of actions they themselves were able to perform, suggesting that they coded others' actions in terms of motor simulation.The ability to represent and understand the behaviors of others is crucial for interacting effectively in our social world. Much of this understanding takes place with little awareness of the perceived actions or responses that are involved. When observing the behaviors of another, we tend to implicitly know their wants, desires, and intentions (Blakemore & Decety, 2001). Moreover, our responses are automatically shaped by these behaviors (Blakemore & Frith, 2005). Dating back at least to Darwin's (1872Darwin's ( /1965 observations of spectators at sporting events, researchers have commonly noted that people will automatically imitate actions they observe others perform. For example, we direct our gaze in the same direction we see another individual look (Driver et al., 1999), and we mimic the facial Correspondence should be addressed to Matthew R. Longo,

show abstract

“…For Mareschal, this is an important 'crack in the story' because reaching is discrete (but cf. Diedrich et al, 1997), whereas my model produces only graded responses. For Smith & Scheier, the reaching process, and bodily movements in general, are critical because they clearly influence subsequent behavior.…”

Section: Fundamental Challengesmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…However, as I argued in the original paper, the data are mixed on this issue; Wellman, Cross, and Bartsch's (1986) meta-analysis did not show any effects of number of A trials, but subsequent studies have demonstrated clear effects of the number of reaches to A (Smith, McLin, Titzer, & Thelen, 1995;Diedrich, Thelen, Smith, & Corbetta, 1997). In addition, Bremner points out that equivocal data on the effects of distinct covers can be understood in terms of the effects of the number of A trials, and that his own work with distinct covers demonstrates effects of the number of A trials.…”

Section: Number Of a Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infant perseveration: Rethinking data, theory, and the role of modelling

Munakata

1998

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The commentaries on my model of the AK B task highlight disagreements in the field at three levels: 1) data, 2) theory, and 3) the role of modelling. Some of the data disagreements have actually been resolved by existing studies. I will not venture to claim that any of the debates about theory and the role of modelling have been resolved, but I will discuss additional data and arguments and attempt to clarify my stance on these issues. DataThe commentaries highlight five disagreements about data on the AB B error: 1) Do looking measures show greater sensitivity than reaching measures? 2) Do infants perseverate to A when an object is visible at B just as they would if the object were hidden? 3) Does increasing the number of hiding locations help infant performance for non-artifactual reasons? 4) Does increasing the number of A trials increase the likelihood of the AB B error? and 5) Do infants show a U-shaped pattern of development in their AB B errors? I will argue that existing data answer Question 1 in the affirmative and Question 2 in the negative, whereas additional work may be needed to resolve the remaining questions. Looking vs. ReachingDiamond challenges some of the studies I cited as evidence for earlier sensitivity in violation-of-expectation variants of the AB B task (Baillargeon & Graber, 1988;Baillargeon, DeVos, & Graber, 1989), arguing that these were not equivalent to reaching versions of the task. Smith & Scheier go one step further to challenge the general claim that looking measures show greater sensitivity than reaching measures, arguing that looking and reaching are strongly coupled and the greater sensitivity claim is primarily based on 'anecdotal reports that babies sometimes look correctly but reach wrong and on experimental evidence from nonreaching tasks.' These are important cautions, but the collection of data on looking and reaching measures of AB B demonstrate that these behaviors, while strongly coupled, nonetheless show differential sensitivity in equivalent versions of the AB B task. This point is made perhaps most clearly in Ahmed and Ruffman's (1997) expectation-reach studies and Hofstadter and Reznick's (1996) gaze-reach study. In Ahmed and Ruffman's (1997) studies, infants were presented with equivalent expectation and reach variants of the AB B task; they were presented with an A trial and allowed to reach and then presented with a B trial, and either allowed to reach (generally reaching perseveratively) or watch as the toy was revealed at A or B (generally looking longer when the toy was revealed at A). In Hofstadter and Reznick's (1996) study, infants were presented with a standard AB B task in which they were allowed to reach. Their direction of reach and gaze were the same on most trials, but when they differed, infants were more likely to gaze correctly while reaching incorrectly than vice versa. Thus, the claim that infants show greater sensitivity in looking measures of AB B than in reaching is not based simply on non-equivalent task variants, anecdotal data, or non-re...

show abstract

Motor memory is a factor in infant perseverative errors

Cited by 74 publications

References 62 publications

Generalizing the dynamic field theory of spatial cognition across real and developmental time scales

Generalizing the dynamic field theory of spatial cognition across real and developmental time scales

Common Coding of Observation and Execution of Action in 9-Month-Old Infants

Infant perseveration: Rethinking data, theory, and the role of modelling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About