The significance of event information for 6- to 16-month-old infants' perception of containment.

Abstract

Four experiments familiarized 6-, 9-, 12-, and 16-month-old infants to a solid block that was repeatedly lowered into a semitransparent container. In test trials the end state, containment, was either compatible or incompatible with the objects' size and position. In Experiment 1, infants saw the block and box successively before they observed the end state. This forced infants to attend to each object individually and memorize its size and position while observing the end state. In Experiments 2 and 3, the block and container were shown simultaneously, the block suspended above the container at a distance of either 25 cm (Experiment 2) or 2 cm (Experiment 3). The shorter distance made direct comparison easier to perform. In Experiment 4, the full event was shown in which the block was lowered inside the container from a distance of 25 cm. Infants' perception of containment was related to the visual information that was available. When the event made it easier to grasp the relevant information, infants could perceive whether the block could pass in the container at a progressively younger age.

Learning Object Permanence from Video

“…Later evidence showed that children learn OP for occluded targets early [1,2]. Still, only at a later age do children develop understanding of objects that are contained by other objects [22]. Based on these experiments we hypothesize that reasoning about the location of non-visible objects may be much harder when they are carried inside other moving objects.…”

Comparison facilitates the use of height information by 5-month-olds in containment events.

“…The other line of research examines occlusion and containment as spatial contexts for rule learning: For a given spatial relation, infants identify rules that specify which variables are relevant for interpreting physical events of this relation, such as height being relevant to events involving occlusion (Hespos & Baillargeon, 2001, 2006; see also Aguiar & Baillargeon, 2002; Baillargeon, Li, Gertner, & Wu, 2011; Smitsman, Dejonckheere, & De Wit, 2009). When infants notice that some event outcomes support the current rule whereas other outcomes contradict it, this contrast triggers revision of the existing rule, allowing infants to predict outcomes more accurately (e.g., Wang, Zhang, & Baillargeon, 2016).…”

“…The other line of research examines occlusion and containment as spatial contexts for rule learning: For a given spatial relation, infants identify rules that specify which variables are relevant for interpreting physical events of this relation, such as height being relevant to events involving occlusion (Hespos & Baillargeon, 2001, 2006; see also Aguiar & Baillargeon, 2002;Baillargeon, Li, Gertner, & Wu, 2011;Smitsman, Dejonckheere, & De Wit, 2009).…”

The Fluid Construction of Spatial Concepts in Infancy

“…This research typically investigates how infants acquire and refine their intuitions about a spatial relation. It has been shown that for each vector (or each problem to be solved about a given relation), infants identify a rule of what object properties are relevant [Aguiar & Baillargeon, 2002;Smitsman, Dejonckheere, & De Wit, 2009;Wang et al, 2004]. With experience, infants may notice that while some outcomes support the current rule, others contradict it.…”