Infants Understanding of Continuity of Objects

In the article “Infants’ Physical World” by Rene´e Baillargeon, evidence shows that from a young age, infants understand the general principles of continuity, which are that objects exist continuously in time and space but cannot exist at the same point in time (Spelke 1994). This article suggests that infants form “event categories” that contain knowledge to help them identify what variables should be included in the physical representation of objects. When infants watch an event, they use basic information about what they see and what they will expect to see. The event categories consist of containment, occlusion and covering events. Results suggest that “infants do not generalize variables from occlusion to containment or covering events, but learn separately about each event category” as they grow older (Baillargeon). Infants at 2.5 months old already have expectations about these event categories, and by 7.5 months old they have learned about height and transparency as occlusion variables.

The article “Limits to Infants’ Knowledge of Objects: The Case of Magical Appearance” by Karen Wynn and Wen-Chi Chiang also suggests that infants have the knowledge that objects exist continuously, cannot be in the same space at the same time and that objects are solid and have boundaries. The study included examining how 8 month olds respond to the magical appearance or disappearance of an object as an unexpected event. Baillargeon states that infants this age are learning about occlusion variables and how occluded objects still exist when hidden. This coincides with Wynn and Chiang’s finding because they show that 8 month olds are not surprised when an object “discontinuously appears” but are surprised when an object “discontinuously disappears”(Wynn & Chiang). With respect to Baillargeon’s findings, infants 8 months of age have learned about occlusion variables and how objects still exist after they disappear. Since infants track objects and update their locations, it would make sense that the infant is curious when the object has suddenly disappeared. To support Wynn and Chiang’s finding that infants are not surprised when an object appears, infants do not pay attention to a scene where there is no object to focus on. When one appears, the infant is not surprised due to “object centered attentional processes” that require an object to be present in order to engage attention or to “provide the bases of a mental representation” (Wynn & Chiang). “The appearance of a new object creates no conflict because processes specify information only about tracked objects” (Wynn & Chiang). Because of more limited reasoning capacities, infants cannot identify a magical appearance as a violation of continuity because the capacity to reason about an object’s immediate past may not be fully developed at 8 months of age. However, infants may have the same understanding of object continuity as adults.

One question to ask about these finding is since infants are surprised at the magical disappearance of an object, wouldn’t they be just as surprised to see a new stimulus that was not there before since both are in violation of the continuity principle? Since they can detect expected appearances and disappearances, it would seem that unexpected appearances do cause surprise like unexpected disappearances. If infants have limited reasoning capacities but possibly the same understanding of object continuity as adults, one would expect these two events to produce the same effect. Another question about Wynn and Chiang’s findings is that infants can “determine the correct results of simple additions and subtractions of small numbers of physical objects, and are surprised when the resulting number of objects that is shown to them is incorrect.” If infants have numerical knowledge, wouldn’t this apply to knowledge of numbers of objects as well?

Piaget and Child Development

After going through 3 weeks of class, I have learned and understand the different stages in Piaget’s theory and how children develop throughout each stage. For example, from birth to roughly 2 years old, children go through what Piaget would call as the sensorimotor period. Infants at this stage basically develop the very primary reactions that humans have. Then when children move on to the preoperational period, roughly 2 years old to 7 years old, they start to develop and understand more complex thoughts. Things such as symbolic representations, concepts about time and date, and simple mental imagery are being developed in this stage. After 7 years old, children move on to the concrete operations period, where complex mental representations and operations are develop. From this stage on, it is where I start to think it’s interesting. As talked about in class, children start to understand that taller container does not necessary holds more liquid in this period of life, and they start to be able to realize the conservation of number, solid, and liquid quantity. Finally, after 12 years old until the end of life, children go through the formal operations period, in which adolescent period comes in and abstract concept about the world is being developed.
Piaget’s theory about different stages and how children develop throughout these stages is definitely convincing; however, I have been thinking if this is the only explanation of how children develop? If that is so, why do some children develop faster while some develop slower? For example, when I was in elementary school, I had friends who were still figuring out the idea of conservation of matters while some friends who had already moved on to more abstract thinking. Me and my friends were in the same age, or according to Piaget, in the same development period. Then what made the difference in the speed of developing? I believe that this is an interesting question to explore on.

prominence of infants' looking behaviors

As developmental cognitive neuroscience advances, it is likely that new measurement techniques which would leave less space for rich interpretation will be invented. For instance, perhaps, it will become possible to see whether an infant’s brain processes an impossible event, such as a magical disappearance, following the same pathways or firing the same regions as in an adult’s brain. Probably, it will become easier to determine how much information infants are capable of processing and the mechanisms that enable them to process any information of concern. Current theories of cognitive development will be tested with these new methods and maybe unexpected conclusions will be drawn.

Today, even though it is becoming more and more common to use methods such as EEG in developmental studies, observing infant’s behavior, such as familiarization or habituation tendencies, is still playing an important role in research on cognitive development. These studies are being tested majorly against two developmental theories: Piaget’s constructivist theory and core knowledge theory. According to Piaget’s constructivist theory, children actively construct knowledge for themselves in response to their experiences. This theory emphasizes the role of learning mechanisms, such as assimilation and accommodation, in cognitive development. It asserts that infants are born with general learning abilities and active construction is needed to increase knowledge. Core knowledge theory does not ignore the importance of learning; however, contrary to Piagetian perspective, it asserts that infants are born with not only general learning mechanisms, but also with some knowledge of fundamental concepts. Since many studies leave room for rich interpretation, findings of current research can be used to support either. For instance, findings of Baillergeon’s study on expectancies of very young infants related to containment, occlusion, and covering events can be used as evidence that supports infants possess some innate knowledge about these concepts. However, the same research may also suggest that infants are born with general learning abilities that enable them to learn about these concepts as early as a few months old, by actively observing their surroundings.

Whether it is used to support the constructivist theory or the core knowledge theory, recent research contributes to an important finding: infants are more competent than they were thought to be. Even though it is plausible to think that instead of physical laws, “what” infants detect in studies such as Wynn’s magical disappearance study, or Spelke’s object unity or continuity studies, may be some novelty that adults eyes fail to detect, the consistency in looking trends suggest that infants detect “something.” Probably the most important aspect of these findings is how predictive they may be in terms of cognitive development of a child. For instance, as quoted in Siegler, 7-month-olds who habituate slower have higher rates of learning disabilities when they are 6 years old. As demonstrated by this finding, regardless of which theory they are used to support, recent research in infants’ capabilities, combined with studies on neuroplasticity, may be used to detect developmental delays and make more efficient early intervention possible.

The whole story?

I believe that Piaget’s stage theory created a strong foundation for cognitive development research. The notion that infants are born with innate capabilities for association in addition to meaningful perceptual and motor skills is well founded. I consider the idea that children increase their understanding and begin to form multifaceted concepts through exploration of their environment to be critical to this theory. What disturbs me most about this theory and frankly all theories of cognitive development is that little credence is given to a child’s individual differences and/or differences in their environment.

Whether we believe that children are born with innate capabilities or not, any theory agrees that most children are born on an equal scale. What these theories don’t make allowances for is the learning environment to which each child will be exposed. Piaget hypothesizes that children will develop cognitively through interacting with their environment. What if their interactions are limited? Will the child continue to develop through some innate mechanisms or will they experience a stalling of the process? Piaget’s theory, like others, does not take into account birth order, gender, family of origin, language acquisition, parent’s age and educational level, or whether they have a stay at home parent. These are only a few of the variables that significantly impact a child’s cognitive development.

I agree with Piaget that children develop in qualitative stages, but defining the stages by a child’s age is not realistic. I have seven children, two of which are biological; and five adopted through the foster care system. Although each of my children has developed at different rates, they have all inevitable traveled through stages much like those described by Piaget. My oldest child who is talented and gifted crawled and did not speak until he was two. My second child walked at seven months and spoke in three word sentences at twelve months. I am curious how Piaget would explain this. Because one child was delayed in language acquisition, does that mean that he could make less sense of his environment than my second child could? Are the differences individual or due to birth order and the influence of an older sibling?

Cognitive development theories seem to ignore the impact of the environment to which each individual child is exposed. Cognitive development theories begin to answer the questions about thinking, but I don’t believe we are anywhere near the whole story.

egocentrism

On the textbook assigned for this class, the author Siegler and Wagner debate whether Piaget theory for children in the preoperational stage are entirely egocentric or not. They believed that under other circumstances children can take other people perspective rather than their own. The author also relates the idea that classifying a group or a stage as being "egocentric" it misleads us to think only the preoperational children are entirely egocentric and see older children as not. This biased topic is also applied to children and adults with Aspenger Syndrome, mostly known as Autistic kids. This is one of the Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Asperger Syndrome in children is also classified into Autism, but these children have better cognitive skills than other autistic kids whom can't function, interact and engage with their outer environment. They are seen to have a normal intellect but have difficulties in delay in language. and suffer with clumsiness. In fact children with Asperger Syndrome could have exellent motor and verbal skills. They can certainly comunicate effectively and have coordinate free bodily movements. They can express their feelings and emotions, but are also believed to be unable to succeed in social relationship or social intearctions. they are believed to be egocentric and can't take other people's perspective and relate to other people's feelings. The DSM mainly highlights lack to demonstrate empathy toward peers and lack of social interaction for asperger children or autistic children. In my experience with autistic children with asperger syndrome are very intelligent children who do present egocentrim as Piaget's mentionened. The are clues such as lack on empathy with peers and are unable to get other people points of view but their own. They do change one topic to another abruptly. One example would be to not being able to realize when someone could get upset or get someone sad because of their actions. They can talk hours and hours without even perceiving a person's is not even interacting with them, but for them they believe they are engaging in a conversation without even letting a person time to talk or reply. They do present egocentrism, but they also can see someone cry or be upset and know a person's sense of mood, rather than their own. The fact is that they don't know how to exteriorize those feelings and be more empathetic about other people's feelings or how to say the proper word to comfort someone.

Infants' Physical World

In response to this article I have to say it helped to solidify the ideas that we went over in the class lectures. I still have a hard time with the concept that children are born with a "blank slate". It doesn't really seem to make sense that they would be able to detect an event violation even with their poor vision. So this must mean that they do have certain abilities that were inset before they were born. I do however like the concept this article presented with the different event categories such as: occlusion, containment, and covering. It was interesting to find out that when presented with two different categories a child of 7 1/2 months can only see one violation instead of both violations but that a child of 9 months can detect both violations.
I wonder if the children that are being tested are actually becoming slightly habituated to the events that they are viewing over and over again or if they are truely are interested in what they are viewing? It would see more realistic to use a brain wave measureing devise to measure the reaction their brain is having to the different stimulus. That would seem to be a way to know for sure if they are reacting to the violation or maybe they are just bored. This article in particular didn't go over exactly how eyesight might effect the results of children of a certain age. It seems there are many different factors that should be taken into account when testing children's physical world in order to test their true ability.

The Importance of Language

While learning about how infants develop their perceptions of the physical world and perceive objects, Elizabeth Spelke introduces the notion that language is not necessarily vital in expressing ones knowledge of the physical world. She writes that “one need only observe objects and their motions; one need not articulate the principles of ones theory or communicate with others about it” (Spelke, 181). However, after making the above mentioned statement she goes on to recognize that language is critical in a child’s development. My question is how important is language in conveying ones knowledge and understanding?
Spelke’s research has focused on “the ability of young infants to organize the perpetual world into physical objects” (Spelke, 168). In order to obtain results she utilizes the fact the only motor responses that infants can control is looking. Basing her inferences on the fundamental insight that infants looking behavior is both organized and selective. One of the main findings of her research is that infants perceive the world in terms of physical bodies. They then use this to infer about, and make predictions regarding physical events.
We have learned in class that there has been a great deal of research into infants perceptual development. However, I still question if it is accurate for us to infer about an infants cognitive ability based on their looking behavior. In some cases I feel it might seem a little far stretched to draw such conclusions and make those suggestions. It makes sense to think that a person doesn’t have to articulate or physically speak in order to show that they understand a particular concept or theory, but being able to articulate your thoughts is a large part of learning and conveying to others that you’re learning. In Spelke’s research for example how do we know that the infants weren’t paying more attention to an object just because it was more interesting and intriguing? From personal experience with my 2 year old niece I have found that she will stare at an object but just out of pure curiosity. She doesn’t speak often and knows very few words. Based on her behavior it appears she doesn’t fully understand what she is staring at because later she will point and attempt to ask about it.
All of the information, readings and lectures, we have discussed in class has allowed me to actively look and understand the behaviors of the infants and children that are around me. I am able to take the material learned in this class and use it for real world applications. I am interested in seeing how this particular research progresses, especially with advances in the understanding of brain activity and fMRI’s.

Stage Development

Brain development is a constantly changing process among humans beginning prenatally and continuing throughout ones adolescence. Understanding the process of brain development has been the subject of many psychological studies. Researchers have targeted a diverse area of children's development to learn more about how individual brains operate and what causes them to progress through stages of development. I find a very crucial aspect of brain development to encompass research interested in how the brain progresses through its developmental process. These stages represent milestones in the developmental capacity of the human brain. The stage theory is not only one accepted among psychologists, but also a concept society has come to embrace and use as a statement of causation for a child or adolescent's actions or behaviors. Developmental stages are an important area of study due to the psychological and social acceptance it has endured.
Originally, the stage theory was inspired by Charles Darwin blossoming from his curiosity concerning evolution of animals into humans. This theory was later expanded by developmental theorists who claimed that a child's transition into adolescence would be marked by rapidly progressing stages, similar to that of evolution. Flavell indicated there are four primary indicators of the stage concept, which we can see exhibited within children today. Change progresses through stages qualitatively, it cannot be measured as the results of a standard test may exhibit it must be assessed in a way that ensures flexibility and understanding. The concurrence assumption relays that children will make the transition through stages on multiple concepts at once rather than advancing in one area of logistics a child will advance in multiple areas of reasoning comprehension. Children also will exhibit a movement from one stage to the next in an abrupt fashion, while they may be in a specific stage for a prolonged period of time the transition to the next occurs quite suddenly, specifically this could be displayed in a child's ability to reason. Coherent organization give us the view that stages are comprised as a whole entity, giving substance to the thought of a smooth transition into stages.
Piaget expanded on the stage theory and considered stage development to begin with the sensorimotor stage starting at birth and continuing to approximately two years of age. The sensorimotor stage has six substages, this is viewed as the most crucial time in a child's brain development. Substage one touches on the modification of reflexes of newborns, such as sucking. Substage two continues into the primary circular reactions of infants 1-4 months exhibited by an infants arm and hand movements. Substage three involves secondary circular reactions of infants 4-8 months where infants become interested in things occurring around them. Substage four involves coordination of secondary circular reactions from 8-12 months, here you can see the infant begin to gain control of its body. Substage five is focused on tertiary circular reactions from one year to eighteen months, infants are searching for ways to interact with their surrounding environment and explore the world around them. Finally, substage six is termed the beginnings of representational thought from eighteen months to two years where babies can begin taking control of their actions and mental capacities. Piaget then moves into the preoperational stage which may stem from two years of age to six or seven years, here toddlers experience substantial growth of representational ability. The concrete operations stage is displayed roughly from ages six to twelve years, in this stage the child is experiencing acquisition of operations and control over mental dynamic. Finally, he uses the formal operations stage to complete a child's cognitive development up until adolescence, here the child is realizing the effect the environment has as well as realizing their mental potential.
It is apparent to see the truth behind the research. Considering the research we have been presented with and the stage theorists methods and reasoning behind their theories one can come to understand the connection between the many studies. From Darwin's theory on evolution stemmed the implication of stages by Flavell into the definitional stage theory Piaget presents, it is apparent the human brain develops through a series of stages during ones lifetime. Not only is the stage theory accepted by many researchers, but also society as a whole.

techniques for measuring an infants physical knowledge

The information that we have learned in lecture and assigned readings attempts to create a timeline of the cognitive development of infants throughout adolescence. What we do know is that babies continue to improve their ability to adapt to their environment through interaction with its different element (i.e. objects, people, etc.) and that there is also a possibility that some of their knowledge has existed since birth. We have also learned about the difficulties when attempting to obtain accurate information regarding the knowledge of infants. Preferential looking and habituation are two techniques currently used to test infants’ physical knowledge about their surroundings by interpreting the infants looking behaviors (looking time). As a student I have always been open to new and clever ways of obtaining information. These two techniques however, seem to elicit some skepticism from myself as well as others.

The preferential-looking technique used throughout Spelke’s visual and auditory studies is used to infer whether a baby can discriminate between an impossible and possible event or integrate different pieces of information. For instance, if infants are given a visual task (an impossible as well as a possible event according to the laws of physics) and they look longer at the event that is impossible, this information is interpreted as a demonstration that the infant notices the violation of the object according to their knowledge or competence about the physical knowledge. If then they notice this violation then it is inferred that infants must be able to understand certain physical principles such object continuity or object solidity, for example, which would make this event impossible. Thus, the baby would recognize that because of their understanding of an object’s capabilities (object continuity and solidity) the impossible event is unexpected or magical which causes the baby to look longer at that event. Although this technique appears to be able to infer important information about a babies knowledge it is also entirely possible a number of other things could have caused of an infant to look for an extended period of time at an object or event. Some other reasons an infant may have looked longer could be their interest in the elements of the event (ball, shaped objects, colors, etc.) which caused them to focus their attention more on this event. Also, the infant could be attending to something other than the two events or nothing at all perhaps just staring. Aren’t there more accurate techniques of measuring a babies understanding such as functional and structural electromagnetic imaging? I briefly remember that this idea was mentioned during the first or second lecture. I continue to wonder whether this technique has been used and if this strategy has provided researchers with a different avenue for obtaining new and accurate information.

Innate?

Jean Piaget argued that children go through stages of development. That, these stages are not innate, rather, they are learned through interactions with the environment. He believed these stages to be in a particular sequence, hierarchical, with each possessing a new way of thinking, and each being domain general. Researchers, like Spelke, have argued that some of the information that infants have is, in fact, innate and that the reason this was not detected in Piaget’s research is due to limitations in testing methods. Are some of these abilities innate? I think this is a really interesting question. To me it seems unlikely that we will ever really know the answer though. One of my closest friends had a baby in June, I find it amazing that so much conclusive research has been done on two and a half year old babies, because it would be so hard to test them. I can’t imagine trying to get Sydney to do some of the things that are done in these studies. For one think attention span is so short and awake time is not much longer. They can hardly hold their heads up, and have poor eyesight. Alone these limitations present important challenges. But, you also have to take into account that, it is so hard to be sure that what you think you are measuring is, in fact, what is being measured. It is so hard to definitively know what the baby is thinking or reacting to. Several people, in class, have brought up valid possible alternative explanations to babies attentiveness. I understand that most of these possible alternative explanations have likely been tested for, but, as subject, babies present a lot of limitations, and questions. Honestly, I am not completely sure why the question of innate or not is that important. To an extent I get it. Because we will tailor how we treat, and teach children based on our understanding of their developmental abilities. And, it is true that researchers have come up with better mobiles, and things of that nature, based on better understanding of how babies see. So, it is conceivable that a better understanding of babies cognitive abilities will further help researchers make more appropriate and interesting toys for babies. Things like Baby Einstein (I think) even claim to be more stimulating and even educational than other mediums for babies, I assume based on this type of infant research. But, I am not sure that the question of innate can be answered. The Spelke article said that two and a half month old babies are the youngest tested thus far, and I don’t know how you could go younger. And, arguably, having some of the reactions that Spelke found so young very possibly implies innate knowledge, but a lot of observation has also been done by this point. Perhaps I am just jaded by all the psych classes I have taken, but nature never seems to be the answer and nurture never seems to be either. It is almost always a combination of both, and this case doesn’t appear to be any different. I think these challenges of the Piagetian model are much more interesting in the later stages. This stuff that we talked about on Wednesday was, I think, really important. An understanding of where kids are at developmentally can be helpful in their education, stimulating play, the ability to gauge what they can and can not handle, or just manipulating them into thinking that they got two cookies rather than one by splitting the one in half. Those videos are entertaining to watch, because the kids are cute, and the mistakes funny. I remember being a kid, my twin sister and I would have to spilt stuff all the time, we really worked hard trying to make sure that it was either even down to the last crumb, or that we somehow scammed more than the other. Remembering that so clearly it seems so crazy, to me, that at that same age we could have been so easily miss lead, on what now seems like very basic forms of measurement. The other important bit of information, that was demonstrated by both models is that, kids can learn these things by repeated exposure. Knowing where kids are less cognitively developed can help researchers know what they need to be exposed to more.

optimized learning

From the evidence presented by Piaget and subsequent researchers, there has been evidence that children do not necessarily develop all skills within the time frame that Piaget asserts. The model that is presented by Piaget claims that there is an all or nothing phenomena that occurs as the child discovers a deeper understanding of its environment, it develops a more sophisticated view of innate conceptual knowledge. It has been shown through studies on kittens and other higher ordered animals, that there is a period of cortical development based on experience, such as the development of ocular dominance collumns in the visual cortex. There have been many fMRI studies that have shown this to be true in infants as well. So this shows that Piaget was fairly accurate in most of his theory. In studies conducted by Baillargeon et. al. they demonstrated that children possess these abilities at a significantly earlier age that Paget asserted. This leads me to question whether or not there is a manner in which cognitive development can be optimized based on experience dependant learning. There have been claims recently that IQ ratings can be increased with aids like Baby Mozart (which are false), and it is shown that children will develop a fear response to the "visual cliff" only after they are able to develop locomotor skills. The development of the fear response for the "visual cliff" is dependant on experience acquired through self-genterated locomotion. This response age can be shortened of the child gains experience through the use of a walker, which allows for self-generated locomotion prior to when the child would naturally begin locomotion. This shows that with the proper stimulation, a child can develop some experience based skills faster than normal with approptiate stimulation. This leads me to believe that rather than the all-or-nothing approach is not representative of development, but a linear approach is more plausable, with the slope of the line as the more acurate measure, with the slope being individualized for each person. So I ask; Is there other areas of cognitive development that can be optimized?

Now to return to the development for various sensory systems. It has been shown that there is a "critical period" for the development of cortical areas in the brain, such as the visual and auditory systems, that are dependant on experience based learning. Animal studies have shown that it is possible to suppress the development of these areas by eliminating asymmetrical sensory input (ie; binocular vision), but that there isnt a way to shorten the development of these functions. This leads to the hypothsis of what role does genetics play into the developing brain. Since these systems develop on a specific universal time course, and have been replicated in many animal studies, one must conclude that there is genetic time course for the development of certain cortical processes.

From these observations, it appears that there are methods that can enhance learning in infants and children, and and many more to be discovered, though there is a biological limit to how much learning the child can attain at certain "stages" in their early years. Since current imaging techniques that have both high temporal and spatial acquity (ex. fMRI, NIRS) are limited for use in infants and young children, there is a need to develop more mobile techniques that can be applied for use on infants and young children. Current methods give good temporal acquity, but are poor at best in their spatial acquity. By being able to better image the developing brain, we will be less reliant on assuming we know what is occuring in children's developing brain. With a more fuller understanding of the developmental process, and biological forces acting on the development, we can institute methods to ensure that the child is given the best possible stimulation to optimize their learning capacities.

How infants distinguish among faces

When I read about how infants distinguish among faces, I recall the date that my younger cousin came to this exciting world. I remember that most of my aunts rushed on to be the first to hold their niece in their arms. However, my cousin did not allow everyone to hold her. She showed her preference clearly, and she also made sure that we knew her rights of freedom—she cried out loud. Interestingly, no matter how terribly she cried, she could always find her peace when she returned back to her mom’s arms. It seems that my cousin already knew how to distinguish her mom from others at birth.

From the example of my cousin, I wonder why infants could distinguish their moms and others even though they have poor vision at birth. As we discussed in class, it is quite possible that infants distinguish their moms by hair. I remember that my cousin always grabbed her mom’s long hair during feeding time and sleeping time. I guess that my cousin tried to make sure that her mom was with her. Thus, I think that my long hair would be one of reasons that my cousin liked to be with me. My long hair probably made her felt that I was her mom, therefore, she was peaceful when I held her or fed her with a bottle of milk. Moreover, I noticed that my cousin also needed to grab my hair in order to fall asleep. So, I believe that an infant could distinguish faces by hair.

Nevertheless, what if infants’ mothers change their hair style, would infants also change their preference toward their mother’s faces? And would infants still distinguish their mother’s faces from others? I think that the answers really depend on how long a baby has known his/her mom. If an infant just knew her mom for a day, he/she might not recognize his/her mom after the hair style of his/her mom changes the next day. It is too difficult for an infant to recognize his or her mom’s face by the details of his/her mom's face at birth. So, when hair which is only clue for an infant to distinguish his/her mom disappeared, it is hard for him/her to recognize his/her mom. Rather, an infant might prefer someone who has similar hair style that his mom had before. On the other hand, if infants stay with their mom longer and are more familiar with their moms, they might be able to recognize their moms by other clues such as voice or scent of their moms. Thus, it is reasonable that an infant might distinguish their mom’s faces from their mom’s hair. Yet, if infants recognize their mom by hair, do infants also distinguish their fathers by hair? Personally, I think that it is more difficult for infants to distinguish their fathers by hair, because the hair styles of men are usually short and do not have much significant variance.

In the text book, the author also mentioned that infants prefer attractive faces more than unattractive faces because attractive faces fit a prototype of an average face. First of all, I actually doubt that an infant could judge the attractiveness of faces. From my experience, I understand that a 4-year-old child already knows the standards of the attractive faces. When I had practice teaching in kindergarten, I found out that 4-year-old children like to play with someone who is beautiful. In addition, one of my families works in a public kindergarten for more than 20 years. She told me that children would prefer a teacher if the teacher is young and pretty. However, a 4-year-old child might judge the attractiveness of faces based on the influence of media such as cartoon or fairy tales rather than their innate judgments. Furthermore, different cultures may have different judgments of the attractiveness of faces. It is worth to question about how infants understand the standards of the attractiveness in their cultures without exposing to their cultures long enough. Therefore, it is not convincing to conclude that the infants prefer attractive faces without considering culture influences. Indeed,a prototype of an average face might arouse infants survival instinct to prefer a face which looks more similar to theirs. Possibly, infants might prefer attractive faces because attractive European faces has more salient characteristics that are easier for infants to perceive.

A-not-B error

Psychologists have used the A-not-B error experiment in order to gain a better understanding of infant’s cognitive development. Piaget first introduced this concept through his cognitive development theory under substage 4 of infant’s sensorimotor stage. The A-not-B error experiment uses the prefrontal cortex. As stated in the lecture, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex controls: temporal memory, organization behavior, inhibit actions, and is sensitive to context. Studies have shown that adults with a lesion through their dorsolateral prefrontal cortex demonstrate similar to infants with an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex. One of the experiments shown in class was the card sorting tasks that children under 4 years of age had difficulty with. Of the reasons given in class why children had trouble with this task, an important reason was left out.

One of the reasons why young children may have trouble with the card sort task is because of repetition. Repetition is a central concept that should be looked at while performing this task. It is critical because adults with a healthy prefrontal cortex could have trouble performing the same task. On October 8, I was taking part in a cognitive experiment that involved the repeated tasks of pushing one of two buttons depending on the situation. After several times pressing the same key, I was unaware that I was pressing the wrong until it was too late. I knew that I was pressing the wrong key, but the repeating motion led me to choose the wrong one anyways. During the “Representations of the Physical World” lecture it was stated that “infants are developing the ability to use recall memory to guide action, rather than habit.” Recall memory is being built and grow, but so is the task of repetition. Repetition works by building upon every previous action to produce the next one. Repetition will be harder to break with every successful previous act. Repetition not only makes it harder for the action to be broken, but it also helps train the subject in the act being performed.

From previous experiments we know that the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is essential to performing mental representations. Although the A-not-B error experiment is a good example; the experiment does have flaws. One of the things that I would like to know is: how long does the subject take before breaking the habit of the wrong answer. I would also be curious about other variations of the experiment.

Social and Cultural Context of Cognitive Development

From lectures and readings it seems to me that most of the research conducted in the area of cognitive development has been with infants who come from a Westernized society. My question is whether culture plays a role in infant's cognitive development and whether children that come from other cultural backgrounds learn capabilities at a different rate compared to infants whp come from a Westernized society?
I found an article titled "Cognitive Development in Social and Cultural Context" by Mary Gauvain. She explains that infants acquire social and intellectual skills that are adapted to circumstances in which they grow. Culture possesses structure and direction and combined with social contact these systems help an infant develop. If it weren't for the social interactions that infants receive they would understand less from their environment. Tools can enhance thinking in unique ways. For example toys and play can help infants grow in capabilities. If infants are exposed to a stimuli that allows exploration and learning then their cognitive development will grow.

How do children develop the skills and knowledge to become competent members of their community? According to Mary Gauvain, material, symbolic and social resources are important in supporting mental growth.
I often have wondered if infant's in other cultures learn and develop at different stages or rates than infants who are raised in Western society? Most likely in those cultures where infants are exposed to less learning stimulus such as having less toys then perhaps learning and cognitive development takes place at a slower speed than infants who are raised in a society where they are exposed to greater learning stimulus. If there are any studies done based on different cultural background, it would be interesting to see the results.

Parents also play a big role in the development of their infants. Learning takes place through play and through social interactions and I was wondering if those children who have less interactions with a caregiver might perhaps have lower cognitive abilities than infants who have a caregiver present most of the time and that engages to play with them.

I am mostly interested in the cultural context of cognitive development and would like to see how different studies from other cultures compare to studies from our culture, perhaps further studies will be done in the future in this area since culture is know playing a big part in psychology.

Piaget and A not B error

After being in this class for two weeks, there are a lot of questions that I have. One of them has to do with Piaget’s theory of the Stage Model. It makes sense that there are different stages of development. (Obviously there is more than one theory, but I will be focusing on the theory posed by Piaget.) This theory can help explain why children can only perform certain actions at certain times in their development. This is the point in which I have questions and comments. First of all, since researchers are dealing with real children in “real” situations it is pretty impossible to talk to a child within the first year of life. However, most of the studies that try and prove Piaget’s theory use infants looking behavior. Someone in class already brought up the idea that maybe babies just look around. The results of this study may have only been proving that babies look around randomly, rather than they look because they are interested. This was an idea that I had thought of as well. I know that these studies have been replicated so that probably is not the case, but it still intrigues me. Are there any other kinds of studies that try and prove Piaget’s theory differently? And if the answer is yes, then what techniques do they use instead of looking behavior? And what if child's looking behavior speaks to something else? It seems logical that young babies will look at something that is new and different. It also seems logical that young babies will look at something longer when it is puzzling or seems impossible. But what about the familiarity aspect of the situation? In prior psychology classes I have learned that there is an idea that people like things that are familiar. For instance: When participants are shown words or faces prior to a “test” (even at fast speeds) they are more likely to choose items that they have seen previously just because they were familiar. So what if this is what babies are doing? Even though this does not seem as logical, it is definitely another hypothesis. Also, if these children are doing experiments, they are probably doing the same task for many different trials. They could be getting more familiar with the experiment, and therefore have a better idea on how to respond.
I would also like to mention a thought about some of the studies that were presented in class. I would like to talk the A not B error. There have been some hypotheses about why young children are susceptible to this error. For example, children could perform the action when the time between hiding and finding was reduced. Also, when the time was extended the children were found to be responding randomly. But why is it that during this “critical time period” we find an A not B error? I am curious to know if this study was replicated across cultures. I wonder if this A not B error has to do with culture. Or I wonder if this has to do with attention span too. I guess I just have a hard time with this error. It just seems bizarre that this occurs, but only when the certain conditions are just right.

Piaget misunderstood?

I think Piaget is sometimes criticized too harshly. While it is important to critique his theory, and to fine-tune it, it is also important to realize that he was also right on a lot of accounts. I also think that some of his concepts might have been misinterpreted, which has led people to underestimate him and think that he, in turn, has underestimated what children are capable of.

One of the main pieces of criticism directed at him is that his theory implies cognitive development is qualitative and domain-general. This is, however, a label put on his theory by others, and might not be exactly what he meant. For example, he might not have meant that children miraculously master the concept of conservation on all tasks all at once when they reach the age of six or seven. It was merely his way of providing a benchmark between the preoperational and concrete operational stages – a child is considered concrete operational when they have fully mastered the concept of conservation, which is not the same as saying that children get the concept of conservation when they are concrete operational.
While this categorization can be detrimental, it provides us a general framework in which to work and has many real-life applications. For one, we can tie it in with Vygotsky’s concept of the zone of proximal development and scaffolding, and therefore provide children with the encouragement they need to master the tasks we know are within reach at each stage, or age. We know, thanks to Piaget, that it is probably more appropriate to help a two-year-old master the concept of object permanence than to introduce the idea of class inclusion, which would most probably be beyond the child’s experience and mental capacity to handle.

It has to be acknowledged that children develop at different rates, and that there can never be one mould that we can squeeze everyone into. There has been proof that children can master the concepts from a different stage with some help, proving that they are capable. Piaget’s theories therefore do not apply to every single child, but then again no one else’s has or ever will. We must acknowledge, however, the generalizability of Piaget’s theories. It is simple amazing how many times the experiments and results for conservation, A-not-B error, and object permanence, to name a few, have been replicated. This replication can not only be found across variations of the original experiments, but also across cultures and generations. This shows that his “qualitative and domain-general” theories have some truth to it in terms of what children of a specific age group are capable of, if no one specifically trains them on a particular task.

Another major criticism of his theory is that competence is not only demonstrated through performance. One of the main theories discussed in class in illustration of this argument was the A-not-B error. Children are said to have “overcome” this error because they look at the blanket the toy is under, even while reaching for the other blanket under which they initially found the toy the first time. They know, the argument goes, where the toy is, they are simply reaching for the wrong blanket out of habit. As far as I’m concerned, inhibiting this impulse to reach for the wrong blanket and going for the one they know is right is very much part of cognitive development. Until they have inhibited this urge, they have not overcome the A-not-B error, and Piaget is right. Again, it is true that children can be trained, and will get better at it the more they perform the task, but this, as mentioned earlier, is “unnatural”, because under normal circumstances they would not get this much practice in so short a period. At any rate, this observation that children get better at doing something the more they do it is in strong support of Piaget’s overarching concept of the child as a little scientist, learning from trial and error.

In summary, Piaget should be accorded no small amount of respect for his astute observations and theories that he formulated pretty much single-handedly. He could not explain everything, and so his theories are by no means the final word in cognitive development. But rather than being pushed aside and replaced by more contemporary theories, they should be recognized as a firm foundation on which the field of cognitive development can flourish.

12 oz. Can or 12 oz. bottle

Last year my roommate and I were going to Safeway to get some beer for the weekend. We got to the beer aisle and being the frugal college students that we are we spent some time scanning the variety of brewers and prices we had to choose from. Eventually we settled on Coors, I reached for the 24-pack of cans for 20 bucks, and he reached for the 18-pack of bottles for 19 bucks. When I asked him what he was doing he replied, “Well I know that case has more cans, but there’s more beer in these bottles.” The point I’m trying to highlight is that I feel there is an over estimation of our own abilities. Why do you think really expensive Vodkas come in really tall, thin containers? What the conservation tasks demonstrate is simply that the children who fail at this do not have a conceptual understanding or schema to deal with what is being asked of them. When they hear more, they may simply think taller. From the Human Performance class, we know that we are most accurate at making a decision about the respective lengths of two lines that start at the same datum. Next is comparing two lines that are not lined up on one end. It turns out that making comparisons between both volumes and areas is something that most of us are terrible at. It’s something that we develop over years of observation, so it seems silly to me to be surprised when a child makes this mistake. The visual cliff is the most compelling evidence to me that children learn through their observations. Let’s think about what a baby sees for the first time. They lie on their backs and observe things floating in and out of there visual field. As adults we have a clear concept of up and down, because we spend the majority of waking life in one orientation. Things fall from top to bottom in our visual field. But a baby observes a mobile that is suspended in its field, nothing above or below it. Adult’s faces come at them from all angles, attached to bodies that extend out of their few, and when they turn to watch them walk away they see something contacting the ground (which is there visual side). Occlusion and continuity are simply the first things that they have any chance of understanding. When a baby begins to sit itself up, and learn that is how it needs to be oriented t move, it then can begin to understand concepts like support and physical laws like gravity. If I was carried everywhere on my side, held upside down, and tossed in the air, I’d be pretty confused as to which way things where supposed to happen too. The assumption may be made that we have a kinesthetic sense that tells us which way is up, and we do, but it’s very easy to confuse. When pilots come into bad whether and they no longer have readily available cues to orient them to what their pitch is, if they don’t know how to fly by there gauges they will enter a state of vertigo and fly there planes straight into the ground. I don’t think that the assumption should be made that babies have innate understandings, or a naïve sense of physics. Just because they demonstrate an ability to be more interested in the things that they have the ability to perceive doesn’t mean that they where born with those abilities. It’s kind of a stretch but I think our dreams are a good example of this. When I was young I remember flying and doing amazing things in my dreams all the times. There were huge monsters to run away from. I even had a dream with the Young Looney Tunes, cartoon colors and all. Well now I know I can’t fly, so I don’t fly any more. I’ve never had the experience of actually being chased by a monster so that doesn’t happen anymore either. About the worst thing that happens in my dreams now is a horrible breakup or waking up in a dream and realizing I hadn’t written a term paper. Still pretty scary, but they all hold to the physics I’ve come to understand after 21 years.

Critical Times

As others have noted, one of the main issues disagreed upon in the field is whether infants are born with some innate knowledge, or merely the hardwiring to develop knowledge based on experience. All agree that babies learn very rapidly within their first year. Though Piaget, the "father of cognitive development," thought that infants have no real physical knowledge before 4 months of age, research has since supported the theory that infants as young as 2.5 months have expectations about how objects should interact in the physical world.
In Spelke's theory of innate knowledge, she suggests that infants are born with knowledge of 3 core principles of "naive physics": cohesion, continuity, and contact. As they experience the world, infants then expand on these basics with additional knowledge. In the continuity experiment (Kellman & Kestenbaum, 1986) which we looked at in class, infants as young as 2-3 months were shown to be surprised by violations of the continuity principle (the ball disappearing behind one occluder and reappearing behind a separate occluder). Several studies (many by Baillargeon) on infants 2-3 months old have also measured their expectations of the principles of occlusion, containment, and covering, and have found that infants of this age do indeed have expectations about these events. Does this give support to the theory of innate knowledge, or do these other measured competencies at such a young age suggest that all knowledge is learned? What is it about this age of about 2.5 months that allows infants to suddenly exhibit their competence in these principles? If they had competency prior to this age, could it be accurately tested?
In 1990, Slater et. al. used a study design previously used by Kellman and Spelke (1983) to test whether infants perceive a center-occluded object, which moves as a whole, as one object or two (infants at around 4 months had shown surprise when the occluder was removed to reveal two objects relative to one object). Using this design, Slater and colleagues altered the display in such a way that a newborn, with their limited visual abilities, would be able to perceive it. They then tested two different age groups, newborns and 2 months olds with the display. The results showed that newborns looked longer at the single object (in contrast with the 4 month olds), and the two month olds showed no preference. This suggests that these younger infants do not have the same conception of object unity, and therefore this knowledge must be learned. But could there be other explanations for the younger infants' performance on this task? I suggest that there is, and that it involves not their knowledge of the physical world, but simply their perceptual abilities and the systems by which they process that information.
Two very important things are changing in visual perception abilities for infants younger than 2.5 months, and I don't mean quantitative improvements in vision. First of all, we've learned that eye tracking changes in nature as infants progress through this stage. They begin by tracking only one edge of one object at a time, progressing to several edges and between objects. Secondly, infants are transitioning between their reliance on subcortical pathways and cortical pathways for visual information between birth and two months. So, looking at the "failure" of young infants on the object unity task, we could suggest that young infants may not be able to perceive and examine more than one object at a time at that stage, since their tracking is limited. Additionally, brought in on the "quick and dirty" subcortical pathways could be processed in some qualitatively different way than information that is later brought in through cortical pathways (after about 2 months).
Whatever the explanation, innate knowledge or learned, 2.5 months of age seems to be an important stage after which we know a great deal about cognitive development, and before which we know little. What other methods of experimentation might psychologists tap into in order to study this enigmatic time?

Skepticism

In learning about infant’s perception of their physical world we have been presented with many interesting theories and ways of testing and measuring an infant’s development and their understanding of the objects in their world. While many of these ways of measuring infant’s development of their perception of the physical world seem logical, I couldn’t help but be skeptical about some of them.
One thing that stirred up some skepticism in me was Elizabeth Spelke’s paper on the Origins of Physical Knowledge, in particular her section related to language and conceptual development. Throughout the class thus far, we have discussed the development of physical knowledge based on infant’s looking behavior, which makes complete sense when taking into account the fact that infants are not capable of speech. However, I couldn’t help but think about how much speech actually contributes to the development of physical knowledge. Spelke makes the argument that language does not play an important role in the development of physical knowledge because the act of merely observing an object does not require one to “articulate the principles of one’s theory or communicate with others about it.” This seems completely reasonable, but it seems to me that the development of physical knowledge also relies on language because it seems impossible that an infant would be able to develop a complete understanding of its physical world before it could verbally inquire about it.
Something else presented in class and in the readings that has made me think twice has to do with the concept of the A not B error. When watching the videos in which an infant is presented with an interesting object that is covered by one of two clothes, one cannot help but notice that the infant is given verbal encouragement to find the object, verbally rewarded when the infant pulls off the right cloth, and then reinforced when the infant is able to grab and play with the object. My question is, how much does the reward and the positive reinforcement influence the infant in choosing which cover to pull off? In other words, is it possible that the infant continues to go to the incorrect cloth even though he/she knows that the object is not there due to the verbal encouragement that he/she received? Has this ever been controlled for in the A not B study? The idea is especially intriguing to me because it has been said that babies will look at the correct cloth hiding the object while they are pulling off the cloth that was previously hiding the object. Are they continuing to make the same mistake repeatedly because they think they are pleasing their parent or the adult involved in the experiment?
In lecture we discussed the development of concrete operations and the diagnostic tasks used to assess this development such as the conservation, seriation, and class inclusion tasks. In watching the videos which showed these tasks in action, I could not help but think that it was quite possible that some of the children produced incorrect responses not because they were cognitively unable to do so, but because the could not understand why the adults were asking them the silly questions. Also, I think that they may have made the errors that they did because they were assuming that the adults asking the questions knew better than to ask such questions.
Thus far, the readings and lecture in this class have provided me with a better understanding of how children gain an understanding of their physical world. I think it would prove useful to look into how researchers such as Spelke and Baillargeon control for some of the problems that arise in their studies in order to gain an even better grasp of cognitive development.

Innate Abilities

When a child is born does he/she come into the world as a “blank slate” (tabula rasa) that must develop abilities and other characteristics from scratch or are they born already possessing a “base” set of abilities from which to build? While it is generally assumed that infants do indeed begin life with an innate set of abilities theorists are not in agreement as to how extensive those abilities are and just what these abilities entail.

The term innate means “in-born” or having “at-birth” characteristics and can be metaphorically symbolized, using the computer metaphor as being like ROM (read only memory) of a computer and then also the plasticity of a young brain metaphorically seen as RAM (random access memory). Also, from a Freudian/evolutionary point of view, the early stages that are innate are related to the basal “id’ and what creatures lived eons ago that are relative to the statement “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”; wherein the developmental stages of the brain’s development are similar to the evolutionary processes of previous life-forms over the history of Earth. The Freudian “id” that is manifest in the early functions of life goes along with the development of the “ego” next, and then the “super-ego” finally. Id, ego and super-ego can be simplistically thought of as want, can and should. I see the “id” as innate.

I see the ego as being developed by specific personal experiences early in life and finally the super-ego being achieved through something like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs ultimately being a search for religion and God. Freud said “…a search for utopia.” I say a hope for Heaven only for the “good’ beings that deserve it. If children are taught at a young age about religion and that if they are “good” they will have everlasting life in heaven, I believe they will develop into a functional society that is compassionate, loving, and not dysfunctional. I emphasize here the importance of religion on the developing brain. Statistics, used in the psychological field, prove the importance of this point of view. To secure this even more, a developing mind that is taught “evil” and “wickedness” leads to Hell, except through the salvation of Jesus, which is a metaphor for an “eternal lake of fire.’

I believe it is innate, no matter what race, color or language, that children will accept this stimulus of empirical religion and that this empirical religion will have a greatly beneficial effect on their cognition and behavior from a “wee” little age to an old person. Is it not everyone’s desire to exist in Heaven (fun, good times, no pain, holiness, enjoyment) forever. If only God could save the world.

My thoughts on Cognitive Development

Initially I believed that most aspects of functioning and understanding life were learned more than innate. The material we have looked at so far has made me reanalyze my thoughts of cognitive development. The class hasn’t made me change my initial thought completely but it has allowed me to evolve from it. Not only is learning very important to cognitive development but so are the innate abilities that help us process our learning. What this class has taught me (at least the way I interpret it) is that our brains supply us with essential tools, and our environment helps us utilize those tools that enable our process of thought and perception to evolve. The evolution of our thoughts leads to the ability for complex problem solving and reasoning. Since we have some innate abilities that help us learn, the more we exercise them the easier it becomes to process.
An example of this would be the study by Pescalis, 2005, (discussed in class) where infants were exposed to faces of different monkeys over a long period of time allowing them to become experts in distinguishing monkey faces. Another example on the other end of the spectrum is the story of the feral child Genie. Genie was subjected to severe confinement with no social interaction and spent nearly all her life tied to toilet in the basement of her families home. She wasn’t discovered until the age of thirteen. Genie lost most of her ability to speak or even physically function. Many say this is due to the fact that she was never exposed to very important social aspects of life as she developed into a teenager. Both these examples show the importance of taking advantage of what our innate cognitive processes have to offer us and exercising those abilities through learning and early exposure.
A personal example of my own cognitive development that I could vividly recall was when I was around the age of six and constantly arguing with my parents that plants were not alive like people were. I couldn’t grasp the idea that plants could be alive simply because I associated being alive as having feelings and talking or at least having a heart- beat. This is evidence that I went through Paiget’s stages of assimilation, accommodation, and equilibration, when I finally realized that not all living things share the same characteristics. So far this class has exposed me to many different views of cognitive development, the two main classifications being innate or learned. The more I consider both sides the more I believe that it is a combination of both. Piaget’s experiments and outcomes can be interpreted many different ways but so can Spelkes ideas. The difficulty with studying cognitive development is that the subjects (babies and children) cannot accurately tell you what they are feeling or what they are thinking. This situation leaves most of the results of cognitive development involving children to behavioral observation. In the end this makes for very interesting results because it allows researchers to learn different aspects of cognitive development because there is an advantage of being able to see it from many different viewpoints.