Lecture 2-Object and number concept Flashcards

1
Q

what is object concept

A

objects continue to exist even if not in view or physical contact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

the object concept 3 underlying principles

A

when an object is occluded by another object, the out of sight object continues to exist
the occluded object retains its spatial and physical properties
the occluded object is still subject to the laws of physics; its interactions with other objects remain regular and predictable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

do babies understand the object concept

A

they must understand these 3 underlying principles to understand object concept

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

understanding of object permanence- specifically that one object cannot move through another
Baillargeon, Spelke + Wasserman, 1985
procedure

A

familiarisation event
babies shown screen rotating back and forth 180
haven’t seen before so attention is captured
TEST A- rotating screen stops as hits object behind
have expectations and hence know it will stop
TEST B- screen rotates 180 despite the obstructing object behind
if infants understand object concept, which was found, infants should look for longer as it is impossible and not compatible with expectations
The ability of object concept may be innate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Baillargeon 1987
understanding of object permanence; specifically that one object cannot move through another
7 months
procedure

A

familiarisation event
babies are shown either screen sliding or screen rotating
test event-vertical block
a vertical block is placed behind the sliding screen,the screen stops when hitting block and hence is a possible condition
a vertical block is placed beneath the rotating screen, the screen doesn’t stop when it hits block
test event-horizontal block
a vertical block is placed behind the sliding screen, the screen doesn’t stop when it hits the block and so it is an impossible test
a vertical block is placed beneath the rotating screen, it stops as it reaches the block and hence is a possible event
infants will look at the impossible test if they understand object concept

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Baillargeon 1987
understanding of object permanence; specifically that one object cannot move through another
7 months
conclusion

A

the results suggest that babies represented the block behind the screen and then estimated when the screen should stop when it reached the object

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Baillargeon 1987
understanding of object permanence; specifically that one object cannot move through another
7 months
design issue

A

how do we know that babies aren’t just responding to the visual characteristics of the block and task?
the statistically significant result shows that infants looked for longer at the impossible event regardless of how the screens and blocks interacted

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Baillargeon 1987
understanding that one object cannot move through another, but can be compressed if it is soft
procedure

A

the rotating screen is used with either a hard or a soft object beneath it
the hard object either stops the screen-possible event or doesn’t-impossible event
the soft object doesn’t stop the sliding screen and can stop it and so is a possible event
infants looked at the impossible event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Baillargeon 1987
understanding that one object cannot move through another, but can be compressed if it is soft
conclusion

A

7 month olds understand the physical properties of objects when they are given the opportunity to feel them and even when they cant feel them they know their properties remain the same

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Piaget research

Piaget suggested what

A

that 2 year olds develop an object concept over the first 2 years of life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Piaget research
AB task
contradicting results

A

this showed that infants fail up until 12 months old whereas other research has shown infants do have object concept by 7 months old

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Piaget research

AB task

A

Children are asked to search for an object that is repeatedly hidden at A
They are they asked to search again, this time the object is clearly hidden at B
Children fail and still look at A even though the object is obviously hidden at B

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Piaget research

what did he conclude

A

Infants do not appreciate the systematic nature of spatial relationships or the permanence of objects
They dont have object concept due to their frontal lobe not being fully developed until they are 22 years old

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Piaget research

Harris 1973- memory

A

The AB search error is due to memory account.
There has to be a memory trace for the most recent event and a longer memory trace established during previous experience with the object
the memory trace for the recent event hiding in B is lost quickly as LTM interferes with performance
This can be tested by having trials which delay between hiding and retreival- and hence will find the object more often if the search is immediate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Piaget research

habit

A

babies are rewarded for giving the same response several times, they are then asked to change their answer and make have a problem coordinating a new plan for the new location

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Piaget research

Diamond 1988

A

Damage to the frontal lobe can give rise to errors in the AB task in non-human primates
Infants fail due to an immature developmental state of the pre-frontal cortex

17
Q

what is the number concept

A

whether infants possess the ability to understand numbers without being taught it

18
Q

gelman and gallistel 1978

what 5 things are we doing when we are counting

A
maintaining 1-1 correspondence 
maintaining a stable order
understanding cardinality 
abstraction
understand order irrelevance
19
Q

gelman and gallistel 1978

argued that children’s counting skills were what…

A

guided by underlying implicit knowledge about the 5 counting principles
developed error detection task

20
Q

gelman and meck 1983

error detection task

A
asked 3-4 yr olds (before school age) to follow a puppet and identify the puppets mistakes which takes away with pressure from the child 
the puppet made 1/3 errors 
-not respecting 1-1 correspondence 
-not respecting table-order principle
-not respecting cardinal principle
21
Q

what is the 1-1 correspondence

A

only 1 tag applies to each item in a set

22
Q

what is the stable order principle

A

maintaining a stable order

1,2,3

23
Q

what is absctraction

A

no matter what you count, the same rules apply

24
Q

what is order irrelevance

A

1,2,3,4,5

5,4,3,2,1

25
gelman and meck 1983 error detection task results
``` 1-1 principle: both 3+4 yr olds good at task 3yr olds detected less errors overall stable-order principle: same result ^ cardianlity: 3 yr olds detected 70% whereas 4yr olds 90% both performed about chance level ```
26
gelman and meck 1983 | support gelman and gallistel 1978
support that 3yr olds have implicit knowledge of the counting principles the knowledge of counting improves during school years rather than being a newly acquired skill
27
Baroody 1984 replication of gelman and meck 1983 procedure
5-7 yr olds were tested on the cardinal principle and order irrelevance child counts set "how many are there" pointing to the last number "can you make this number 1" "we got N counting this way, what do you think we would get counting the other way" Child asked to re-count in opposite direction
28
Baroody 1984 replication of gelman and meck 1983 results
all children counted correctly most of the younger gave an incorrect answer on the order irrelevance- when counting backwards Children's understanding of order irrelevance has been overestimated
29
Baroody 1984 replication of gelman and meck 1983 what may have led children to fail the task other than their lack of understanding of the principles?
memory hypothesis- they may not simply remember how many were counted betrayal hypothesis- might be led to thinking that adult is requesting a different answer than they gave before due to being asked again
30
gelman, meck and merkin 1986 replication of baroody 3-5yr olds procedure
2 conditions; either the child performs or the child watches a puppet perform both groups asked to count, order irrelevance and allowed to count the set 3 times all are given an alternative question "can you start from this side and count this way"
31
gelman, meck and merkin 1986 replication of baroody results
with the altered question added, all get the answers right showing an understanding of the cardinal principle and order irrelevance
32
starkey and cooper 1980 VofE paradigm number concept
familiarised infants to displays of 3 objects at test, infants were then shown displays of either 2 or 3 objects and looked at the impossible event; 2 expectations violated
33
wynn 1992 5-6 months 1+1=1/2
VofE doll is shown in front of child on stage, a screen goes up and a hand comes across and puts another doll onto the stage, the screen is lowered to show either 1 or 2 dolls the infant looks at the 1 outcome as that is impossibe shows they have the ability to add
34
wynn 1992 5-6 months 2-1=1/2
a doll is on the stage, another is placed next to it so there are now 2 on stage, the screen goes up, the hand appears and takes 1 doll away, the screen is lowered to show 1 or 2 dolls the infant looks at the impossible event =2
35
wynn 1992 | what is of most relevance
no matter the amount of dolls, infants looked at the impossible event-increases robustness
36
wynn 1992 | what can we conclude
number knowledge is innate in young infants as well as excluding the possibility that the visual displays may have biased the results
37
wynn 1992 scepticism what if babies are giving answers for reasons other than them having number concept?
wynn implemented further conditions to prove this 1+1=2/3 babies were shown 1 doll on stage and another being added once the screen was up, when the screen lowered it showed 2/3 dolls babies looked at the 3 dolls as they know that to not be the answer they know the answer is 2 as opposed to just knowing 2 is larger than 1 in the previous test
38
Cross cultural research
compare English and oriental children. number system is different so no 11, 12, 13 but 10+1, 10+2 instead, kids who learn from this linguistic point of view make less errors in schools Why English kids make more errors in school is because the language they are taught with is conflicting with our innate knowledge