Understanding spatial relations: Flexible infants, lexical adults

McDonough, Laraine; Choi, Soonja; Mandler, Jean M.

doi:10.1016/s0010-0285(02)00514-5

Cited by 196 publications

(174 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

158

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Finally, the present results extend recent evidence that infants aged 6 months and older can recognize the same action when performed with different objects across trials (e.g., Casasola & Cohen, 2002;Casasola, Cohen, & Chiarello, 2003;McDonough, Choi, & Mandler, 2003). For example, Casasola et al (2003) habituated 6-month-olds to four different containment events in which an experimenter's hand placed an object inside another object (e.g., a toy monkey inside a basket, or a small toy car inside a larger car).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Can infants attribute to an agent a disposition to perform a particular action?

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research investigated whether 13.5-month-old infants would attribute to an actor a disposition to perform a recurring action, and would then use this information to predict which of two new objects-one that could be used to perform the action and one that could not-the actor would grasp next. During familiarization, the infants watched an actor slide various objects forward and backward on an apparatus floor. During test, the infants saw two new identical objects placed side by side: one stood inside a short frame that left little room for sliding; the other stood inside a longer frame that left ample room for sliding. The infants who saw the actor grasp the object inside the short frame looked reliably longer than those who saw the actor grasp the object inside the long frame. This and control results from a lifting condition provide evidence that by 13.5 months, infants can attribute to an actor a disposition to perform a particular action.Adults are often able, in simple situations at least, to predict others' actions. Some of our predictions are based on goal information. If we know, or can infer, that a friend has a particular goal in mind, then we can use this information to predict the kinds of actions she is likely to perform next. For example, if our friend says "Let me get you a glass of water", we might expect her to get a glass and fill it with water: these actions are precisely those needed to achieve her goal. Other predictions are based on disposition information. If we know, or can infer, that a friend has a particular disposition-such as a predilection for certain objects, activities, or events-then once again we can use this information to predict her actions. For example, if we know that our friend loves pecan pie, then we might predict which dessert she will select at the buffet table. Although at an abstract level goals and dispositions are conceptually distinct-for example, we would not want to say that a fondness for pecan pie is equivalent to a goal of eating pecan pie-at a more concrete level goals and dispositions are clearly intertwined: her fondness for pecan pie should lead our friend, once she reaches the buffet table and notices the pecan pie, to form a goal of obtaining a piece of the pie and to act in a manner consistent with this goal. In this sense, recognizing others' dispositions can thus help us make sense of their goal-directed actions.Recent research suggests that infants attribute not only goals (e.g., Csibra, Bíró, Koós, & Gergely, 2003;Csibra, Gergely, Bíró, Koós, & Brockbank, 1999;Gergely, Bekkering, & Kiraly, 2002;Gergely, Nadasdy, Csibra, & Biro, 1995;Meltzoff, 1995Meltzoff, , 1996Onishi, Baillargeon, & Woodward, 2005;Shimizu & Johnson, 2004;Song, Baillargeon, & Fisher, 2005;Thoermer & Sodian, 2001;Woodward, 1998Woodward, , 1999 but also dispositions (e.g., Kuhlmeier, Wynn, & Bloom, 2003; Luo & Baillargeon, 2005, in press;Onishi & Baillargeon, 2002;Premack & Premack, 1997;Song, et al., 2005) NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Can infants attribute to an agent a disposition to perform a particular action?

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent evidence indicates that, as they learn about physical events, infants form distinct event categories, such as occlusion and containment events (e.g. Aguiar & Baillargeon, 2003;Casasola & Cohen, 2002;Casasola, Cohen, & Chiarello, 2003;Hespos & Baillargeon, 2001a;Luo & Baillargeon, 2005;McDonough, Choi, &Mandler, 2003;Wilcox & Chapa, 2002); for each category, infants gradually identify a series of variables that enables them to predict outcomes within the category more and more accurately over time (e.g. Aguiar & Baillargeon, 2002;Baillargeon, 1991;Dan, Omori, & Tomiyasu, 2000;Huettel & Needham, 2000;Kotovsky & Baillargeon, 1998;Sitskoorn & Smitsman, 1995;Wang, Kaufman, & Baillargeon, 2003;Wilcox, 1999; for recent reviews, see Baillargeon, 2002Baillargeon, , 2004Baillargeon & Wang, 2002).…”

Section: An Account Of Infants' Physical Reasoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many of infants' initial event categories appear to capture relatively simple spatial relations between objects, such as "object behind other object" (occlusion), "object inside container" (containment), or "object on other object" (support) (e.g. Casasola et al, 2003;McDonough et al, 2003;Spelke & Hespos, 2001; see also Quinn & Eimas, 1996, for a review of spatial categorization in young infants).4…”

Section: The Present Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting continuity violations in infancy: a new account and new evidence from covering and tube events

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research on infants' responses to occlusion and containment events indicates that, although some violations of the continuity principle are detected at an early age e.g. Aguiar, A., & Baillargeon, R. (1999). 2.5-month-old infants' reasoning about when objects should and should not be occluded. The present research focused on events involving covers or tubes, and brought to light additional examples of early and late successes in infants' ability to detect continuity violations. In Experiment 1, 2.5-to 3-month-old infants were surprised (1) when a cover was lowered over an object, slid to the right, and lifted to reveal no object; and (2) when a cover was lowered over an object, slid behind the left half of a screen, lifted above the screen, moved to the right, lowered behind the right half of the screen, slid past the screen, and finally lifted to reveal the object. In Experiments 2 and 3, 9-and 11-month-old infants were not surprised when a short cover was lowered over a tall object until it became fully hidden; only 12-month-old infants detected this violation. Finally, in Experiment 4, 9-, 12-, and 13-month-old infants were not surprised when a tall object was lowered inside a short tube until it became fully hidden; only 14-month-old infants detected this violation. A new account of infants' physical reasoning attempts to make sense of all of these results. New research directions suggested by the account are also discussed.

show abstract

“…In contrast, relational actions are actions in which one object is placed in a particular spatial or mechanical relation with another object (e.g., as in occlusion, containment, support, or collision events). There is evidence that infants aged 6 months and older can recognize the same relational action when performed with different objects across trials (e.g., Casasola & Cohen, 2002;Casasola, Cohen, & Chiarello, 2003;McDonough, Choi, & Mandler, 2003). For example, habituated 6-month-old infants to four different containment events in which an experimenter's hand placed an object inside another object (e.g., a toy monkey inside a basket, or a small toy car inside a larger car).…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can 9.5-month-old infants attribute to an agent a disposition to perform a particular action on objects?

Song

Baillargeon

2007

Acta Psychologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research examined whether 9.5-month-old infants can attribute to an agent a disposition to perform a particular action on objects, and can then use this disposition to predict which of two new objects-one that can be used to perform the action and one that cannot-the agent is likely to reach for next. The infants first received familiarization trials in which they watched an agent slide either three (Experiments 1 and 3) or six (Experiment 2) different objects forward and backward on an apparatus floor. During test, the infants saw two new identical objects placed side by side: one stood inside a short frame that left little room for sliding, and the other stood inside a longer frame that left ample room for sliding. The infants who saw the agent slide six different objects attributed to her a disposition to slide objects: they expected her to select the "slidable" as opposed to the "unslidable" test object, and they looked reliably longer when she did not. In contrast, the infants who saw the agent slide only three different objects looked about equally when she selected either test object. These results add to recent evidence that infants in the first year of life can attribute dispositions to agents, and can use these dispositions to help predict agents' actions in new contexts.

show abstract

Understanding spatial relations: Flexible infants, lexical adults

Cited by 196 publications

References 32 publications

Can infants attribute to an agent a disposition to perform a particular action?

Can infants attribute to an agent a disposition to perform a particular action?

Detecting continuity violations in infancy: a new account and new evidence from covering and tube events

Can 9.5-month-old infants attribute to an agent a disposition to perform a particular action on objects?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About