Physical World and Spatial Cognition Flashcards
how have researchers studied infants’ understanding of objects?
objects through methods like violation-of-expectation looking-time tasks, and habituation or familiarisation followed by test trials.
- If something violates their knowledge of the world= longer looking
what happens following habituation or familiarisation?
in these tests, infants are presented with unexpected and expected scenarios.
what types of information can children represent about objects?
unity
continuity
solidity/ cohesion
contact and inertia
gravity
unity (age)
5m infants infer object boundaries by analysing movements.
if occluded elements move together, infants infer a single unitary object (Kellman and Spelke, 1993).
Looking time increased when infants saw two objects moving in opposite ways , at 4m they had a strong expectation/physical knowledge objects are unitary
continuity
-infants expect objects to exist in one location at a time, using spatiotemporal continuity
Continuity study (age)
- 4m infants looked longer at the two object than the one object test in the continuous movement condition.
- pattern reversed in the discontinuous movement condition
- Suggests a strong expectation of a single object being continuous , existing at one location at a time
solidity (age)
objects are perceived as solid bodies, and expected not to interpenetrate other objects
6m surprised when car passes through block
The sight of an object that violated expectations enhanced learning and promoted information-seeking behaviors
contact and inertia (age)
8m infants understand objects need to touch other objects to influence their movement, and cannot move location on their own (they are inert )
looking time increased at unexpected event of box moving without train pushing it
gravity (age)
infants expect unsupported objects to fail, and express surprise if they do not
suggesting they have some knowledge of gravity and support -as early as 2 months of age
why is studying object knowledge in newborns challenging?
challenging due to poor vision and short awake spans, but imprinting studies in animals suggests there may be some way to explore this
object knowledge in animals
- if they show rich physical knowledge that reflects knowledge of humans it may suggest this knowledge is part of our (and animals) biological heritage
chicks had an expectation that objects should be solid _ continue to exist over time
why did spelke and carey generate their theory of core knowledge?
infants display sophisticated knowledge about the physical world of objects around them before they are able to manipulate objects themselves
theory of core knowledge
- evolution endowed humans and other animals with domain specific systems of knowledge about specific aspects of the world to make sense of it (e.g., object, places, approximate numbers).
- human mind has a few core knowledge systems, each being responsible for a small chunk of the world
how do the systems of TOCK operate?
- operate independently, have their own principles and limitations, and are used to facilitate further learning – nativist perspective.
- allows for reasoning + predictions to be made
benefits of the core knowledge system of objects
helps infants interpret events – making inferences about hidden locations – and guides their exploration
limitations of the core knowledge system of objects (ages)
infants may struggle to encode object features, seen in Xu and Carey (2004) where 10m infants failed to expect two objects behind a screen up to 12m
– Suggests the physical properties of the objects are not yet part of their core knowledge system of objects , using limited info to track object over occlusion
what different frames of reference can infants use to represent space?
- egocentric
- allocentric
egocentric (viewer-dependent)
objects are represented relative to one’s body (e.g. in front of me)
allocentric
Landmark based: objects are represented relative to landmarks or salient features of the environment (e.g. by the door)
Absolute: objects are represented relative to landscape or celestial constants (e.g. south)
historic understandings of frames of reference vs new evidence
Predominant view from Piaget
historically, egocentric representations were considered simpler as they dont have a model ref for the world , but evidence suggests infants have more objective ways of representing space via viewer-independent coding:
evidence of viewer-independent coding
newcombe (1999)
kaufman and needham (2011)
what did newcombe (1999) demonstrate for viewer independent coding ? (age)
-5m infants can use geometric properties of the environment to locate hidden objects via looking times
- used the properties in front of the box in front of them they should be able to differentiate these two locations relative to the shape of the box, egocentrically looked the same
what did kaufman and needham (2011) find for viewer independent coding ? (age)
infants by 6m can set allocentric spatial representations.
they used the table as a stable reference point, and were dishabituated when objects moved location with respect to these landscape constants instead of baby itself
remained consistent even when infant moves
how did cheng (1986) reveal differences in human/animal spatial representations for navigation?
disorientation task found rats rely on geometric information to guide search for a reward
- did not care about pattern for doors /visual info
when disoriented, what errors did rats make?
geometric errors by returning to a corner with similar geometry to where the reward was located (opposite corner)
hermer and spelke (1994) infants’ navigation
- notice landmark information (coloured wall) but fail to combine this with allocentric geometric information when searching for a hidden object
- performed identically if provided with geometric+ visual and just geometric
What does infant navigation studies show us
use of landmarks during navigation is limited, uses allocentric /geometric info
core system of place is blind to almost all perceptible properties
what do children use language for in naviagtion?
to integrate different forms of spatial information
types of verbal expressions used to integrate spatial information
- spatial expression
- task-relevant non-spatial expression
- a verbal expression that drew attention to the landmark in a task-irrelevant manner
spatial expression
links object location to a spatial cue
reference to the landmark/visual features
task-relevant non-spatial expression
emphasise the utility of the landmark in the task
a verbal expression that drew attention to the landmark in a task-irrelevant manner
draw attention to the landmark in an unrelated manner
How does language help us in navigation
mediates and makes spatial representations more refined
the presence of space, relevant language ,changes the spatial behaviour in children and change their mental representation of space and act like adults
Why may children not take landmarks into account (2 explanations)
- don’t know landmarks are something important to build into their spatial rep, language helps them realize this
- may have both representations, but they exist independently, language helps connect this into one coherent representation of space
