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.