Where's the ball? Two- and three-year-olds reason about unseen events.

Berthier, Neil E.; DeBlois, Sandra; Poirier, Christopher R.; Novak, Melinda A.; Clifton, Rachel K.

doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.3.394

Cited by 122 publications

(278 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

253

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, even though the existence and location of an invisible object can guide 14-month-olds' search after a significant delay, we do not think this dictates that all attributes of the object are available to the infant while the object is still occluded. For example, it has been reported that it is not until 2.5 to 3 years of age that children use the solidity of a hidden object blocking the path of a rolling ball to guide search (Berthier et al, 2000;Hood, Carey, & Prasada, 2000;Hood, Cole-Davies, & Dias, 2003). For further analysis of related developmental changes see Meltzoff and Moore (1998). enable assessment of visual behavior in very young infants.…”

Section: Object Permanencementioning

confidence: 99%

Object Permanence After a 24-Hr Delay and Leaving the Locale of Disappearance: The Role of Memory, Space, and Identity.

Moore¹,

Meltzoff²

2004

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fourteen-month-old infants saw an object hidden inside a container and were removed from the disappearance locale for 24 hr. Upon their return, they searched correctly for the hidden object, demonstrating object permanence and long-term memory. Control infants who saw no disappearance did not search. In Experiment 2, infants returned to see the container either in the same or a different room. Performance by room-change infants dropped to baseline levels, suggesting that infant search for hidden objects is guided by numerical identity. Infants seek the individual object that disappeared, which exists in its original location, not in a different room. A new behavior, identity-verifying search, was discovered and quantified. Implications are drawn for memory, spatial understanding, object permanence, and object identity.

show abstract

Section: Object Permanencementioning

confidence: 99%

Object Permanence After a 24-Hr Delay and Leaving the Locale of Disappearance: The Role of Memory, Space, and Identity.

Moore¹,

Meltzoff²

2004

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Initially both Bruce Hood and we saw the toddlers' failure to search correctly as disagreeing with the infant data (see discussions in Berthier et al, 2000;Hood et al, 2000). At the same time both sets of authors independently suggested that task differences might explain the success of infants and the failure of toddlers to recognize the importance of physical solidity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mash et al (2003) gave 2-year-olds full visual access to the ball's movement by first rolling the ball so that it came to rest against the wall before lowering the screen. When the screen was lowered to conceal ramp and ball, the top of the wall showed above the screen, serving as a continual reminder of the ball's location as in the original study (Berthier et al, 2000). Seeing where the ball stopped actually benefited the children very little.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Berthier et al (2000) presented children with the horizontal version of this task described above and illustrated in Fig. 1, and Hood et al (2000) presented children with a 2-choice vertical version of the task.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A final difference between our study and Hood et al's (2003) was age of children. We tested 2-year-olds rather than 2.5-and 3.0-year-olds because the younger group had shown virtually no success on the opaque screen version of this task (Berthier et al, 2000;Mash et al, 2003;Keen et al, in press). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Object and event representation in toddlers

Keen

Shutts

2007

Progress in Brain Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mental representation of absent objects and events is a major cognitive achievement. Research is presented that explores how toddlers (2-to 3-year-old children) search for hidden objects and understand out-of-sight events. Younger children fail to use visually obvious cues, such as a barrier that blocks a moving object's path. Spatiotemporal information provided by movement cues directly connected to the hidden object is more helpful. A key problem for toddlers appears to be difficulty in representing a spatial array involving events with multiple elements.Keywords object search; reasoning; cognitive development; toddlers Representation of absent objects is a hallmark of cognition because it frees the organism from reliance on simply what is in sight at the moment. Tasks requiring search for hidden objects have been used to explore cognitive development since Piaget made it a critical feature of testing infants' representation of out-of-sight objects (Piaget, 1954). While it is easy to replicate Piaget's finding that infants will not search for a desired toy that has disappeared under a cloth, it has been hard to interpret this puzzling behavior. In his chapter in the Handbook of Child Psychology (1983), Paul Harris proposed that the reason for infants' failure in the Piagetian search task is not that they lack object permanence, but rather they do not know where to search for the hidden object. Eventually the infant overcomes this problem and knows to lift the cloth to find the toy.Knowing where to search for a hidden object depends on one's ability to use the cues that indicate where the hidden object is. For the 10-month-old in Piaget's search task, the cue is the place of disappearance. The infant sees the toy disappear under a cover, so under the cover is the obvious place to look. For the toddler, more complex cues can be used. In our lab we have tested toddlers' understanding of motion cues of disappearance and reappearance from behind multiple hiding sites, and the contact mechanical cue of a barrier. The movement cues are appreciated at a younger age, but the barrier cue is not used until around 3 years of age. What are the constraints that prevent a child from using readily available cues? Why does a child have difficulty in applying relevant knowledge to solve a problem? We will review research from our lab and seek some resolution to these problems in this chapter.First, let us describe the task. The child is seated in front of an apparatus that features a ramp and an opaque screen that can be placed to hide a large section of the ramp. Four doors cut into the screen can be opened to reveal a hiding place, and a barrier can be placed perpendicular to the ramp behind any of these doors. The barrier protrudes above the screen by several centimeters and stands out because it is painted a different color from the screen and the ramp.

show abstract

Developmental Processes

2005

Tissue Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier's archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

show abstract

Where's the ball? Two- and three-year-olds reason about unseen events.

Cited by 122 publications

References 21 publications

Object Permanence After a 24-Hr Delay and Leaving the Locale of Disappearance: The Role of Memory, Space, and Identity.

Object Permanence After a 24-Hr Delay and Leaving the Locale of Disappearance: The Role of Memory, Space, and Identity.

Object and event representation in toddlers

Developmental Processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About