developmental object permanence

Object permanence:

Objects continue to exist even when they are out of
sight
̶
The occluded object retains its spatial & physical properties.
̶
The occluded object is still subject to physical laws

whats necessary for this

Mental representation is necessary!
̶
Planning
̶
Deferred imitation

what Piaget stage is the focus of this

sensorimotor 0-2

Sensorimotor Stage

• 0-24 months
• Learns about world through actions and sensory information
• Learns to differentiate self from the environment
• Start to understand causality, and form internal mental representations....
• Object permanence attained at 12 months, full internal
representations by 18-24 months

Sensorimotor Substages

• Reflex activity
• Primary circular reactions
• Secondary circular reactions
• Coordination of secondary circular reactions
• Tertiary circular reactions
• Internal representation

a not b error until

12 months

whats the a not b error

The error is that infants below about 12 months perseverate in searching at A from where they have successfully retrieved the object several times, sometimes even when the object is visible at the new location B.26 Jun 2019

Piaget’s Observations on Mental Representations

object permanence, gol directed structured behaviour ie planning, deffereed imitation (enduring mental rep)

• Object permanence

Begin to search for objects around 8-9 months
̶
A not B error until 12 months

• Goal-directed, structured behaviour: planning
̶

Not until stage 6
̶
Ex: Lucienne versus Jacqueline and chain/box problem
• Deferred imitation (enduring mental rep.)
̶

Copying behaviour after a delay
̶

Not until stage 6

Critiques of Piaget

• Methods: Observational methods, often with own children
̶
quantitative, experimental data rare
̶
“clinical method” rather than standardized
• Confounds:
̶
Motor coordination and motor planning deficits
• Inability to perform coordinated actions (means-end)
̶
Memory deficits
̶
Communication – biased by cues

Younger infants could show some evidence if:
̶

Simplify procedure in experimental studies
• Change procedure
• Change the dependent variable
• Earlier than Piaget predicted?

Ex: A-not-B Error

Ex: A-not-B Error
• Piaget: don’t solve until 12 months
• Slight design tweaks can lead to different results. Examples:
̶
Butterworth (1977)
̶
Smith & Thelen (2003)

A-not-B error: Butterworth (1977)

• 3 conditions
̶
Normal design
̶
Covered but visible
̶
Visible and uncovered
• Errors in all 3 conditions, even when object covered but visible
̶
Reflects lack of coordination, not necessarily lack of object
permanence
Object permanence measured in first conditon
Other cognitive
processes in others

A-not-B error: Smith & Thelen(2003)

• One variation had infant stand instead of sit during “B” trial
̶
10m old infants performed like 12m old
• Standing made the “A” position less salient
Image from: Smith & Thelen (2003), Wiley science.

helps to break repetitive behaviour

Darkness rather than occlusion by other objects (visual vs manual
search)
̶

Shown object within reach, lights turned off
̶
Infants as young as 5m will grasp for out of sight objects (Bower and
Wishart, 1972)
̶
But still just performing “reaching action” (extension of ongoing action
or reproduction of previous action)?

take away the necessity of reaching

̶
Bower (1982)
̶
Baillargeon et al (1985)
̶
Baillargeon & deVos (1991)

Violation of expectation
̶

̶
Shown “possible” and “impossible” event
̶
Should show different reaction to “impossible” event

Bower (1982)

• Infants a few months old, shown object, screen moved in front of object,
then returned to original position
̶
2 conditions: Object still in place versus empty space
̶
Monitored child’s heart rate
• Piaget: too young to have info about objects that are no longer present =
no reaction
• Bower: faster heart rate (more surprise) in second (empty) condition

Baillargeon et al (1985)

• Should look longer at the impossible event
̶
If they find it surprising
• Drawbridge and solid box
̶
Experimental condition (box behind the drawbridge)
̶
Control (box next to the drawbridge)

Experiment:
̶
Preference for impossible event
• Control:
̶
Only those who saw 180 event first, showed
preference, only on 1st trial
• SO:
̶
Not because preferred 180 event, but
because expectations violate

Baillargeon et al (1985)

• Conclusion:
̶
Infants expected the screen to stop against the box
̶
Infants understood the box continued to exist
• Contrary to Piaget:
̶
Infants as young as 5m show object permanence
• Not an extension or repetition of previous action
̶
Supports idea that failure on previous tests result of interaction with other
cognitive abilities

Baillargeon (2004)

• From early age infants “interpret physical events in accord with general
principles of continuity and solidity”
̶
As young as 2.5 months
̶
These principles are innate or babies born with ability to acquire knowledge about object
properties very quickly

• Criticisms of the VOE approach?
̶

Only indicates limited awareness of events (i.e. perceives a difference)
̶
Or perceptual preference for novelty, but not understanding
̶
Depends on what we’re using (e.g. overall looking time versus social looking...)
̶
Do looking preferences really tell us about what babies know? (see Schöner and Thelen,
2006)

evdeicne for planning

Clifton t al

Clifton et al. (1991)

• Presented 6m olds with small (required 1 hand grasp) and large (2 hand
grasp) objects
̶
Each object made identifying sound
̶
Infants made appropriate grip to reach for objects in darkness
̶
Authors conclude this is based on mental representations

Claxton et al. (2003)

• Differences in motor patterns in adults for planned actions
(Marteniuk et al., 1987)
̶
Precise actions = slower approach
• 10m infants encouraged to throw ball or fit it into a hole
̶
If motor patterns determined by ball properties, should find no
difference
̶
If determined by upcoming action, should find a difference
̶
Reaching action slower for precise action

Willatts (1989): Planned actions

• Toy out of reach on a cloth
• Cloth and toy blocked by a barrier
• 9-month old children performed sequence of actions to get toy
• Many on the 1st attempt
̶
Novel, planned actions
̶
Mental representation of the world used to organise behaviour

Deferred imitation

• Meltzoff & Moore (1994): 6 weeks old
̶
Some infants saw adult make facial gesture, some saw neutral
expression
̶
Day later, those who saw gesture were more likely to perform it to a
neutral face
• Meltzoff (1995): 14m- & 16m-olds
̶
Experimenter performed series of actions with objects
̶
Both ages more likely to reproduce observed actions than those who
did not see them
• Even after a FOUR MONTH DELAY!

Barr et al. (1996)

Infants saw series of actions with puppet and had to repeat after a 24hr delay
• Children given 3 repetitions of actions
̶
6m no difference from control
̶
Supports Piaget’s view
• Additional 6m-olds given 6 repetitions of
actions
̶
6m now score significantly higher than
control
̶
Evidence of deferred imitation in 6m-old

Patel et al. (2013): Context matters

• 6m, 9m, 24m tested using puppet paradigm, 24hr delay
• Varied the context during retrieval (auditory and visual)
̶
Full flexibility/generalization not achieved until 12m

Conclusion

• Children not born with fully developed object
concept, but develop it over time
• Certain behaviours/abilities seem to emerge in
similar order
• Children develop some aspects of mental
representation earlier than Piaget suggested
̶
Contrary to the discrete stage view