Flashcards
object permanence
Cards in this deck (23)
- 1What is the problem in infant object permanence?The problem : as our perceptual input in constantly changing, if we see an object in one local then another while covered; how can we be sure it is the Same object.
- 2What can't a purely perceptual organism do and what doe sit need a concept of?Now a purely perceptual organism can't see the difference: however the concept of space and time is needed for knowledge of continued existence.
- 3What are two explanations for the aquisitaiton of time and space?In trying to deduce how we might acquire this concept of space and time; two explanations appear- the nativist solution and constructivist.
- 4What does the constructivist and nativist solution state?However the constructivist solution states that it gradually developed with experience. Piaget (1936/1953)
The nativist solution. States that it was selected for by evolution spelke (1985) - 5According to piaget when were the first signs of understanding of time and space?Piaget believed that the first signs of understanding the concept of space and time was 18-24 months.
- 6Why is there no direct perceptual information and how does the child reveal deficits in knowledge?As there is no direct perceptual information available and the concept requires stored representation, when the child searches and errors occur- this reveals deficits in knowledge.
- 7What were piagets substages?Piaget had thought out some sub stages,
Before 6-7 months the infant plays with the toys however when covered doesn't try to recover even if portion of toy is visible.
However at 6-7 months infant searches for toy under partially hidden toy.
Finally at 8-9 months the infant lifts the cloth even if the toy is not completely hidden.
He has made the a not b error. - 8Kellman & spelke (1983), what did they do in relevance with habituation test displays?Kellman & spelke (1983), habituation and test displays were used.
the test only works if the object moves and both parts movie the same direction.
4 mth old can do task. contrary to piaget time scale.
subsequent research- newborns look more at connected rod.
not to fill in the missing section, nor perceive as connected.
This is contrary to the nativist position. - 9Huffman, slade & redman (2005),what did they do?Huffman, slade & redman (2005), infants trained to expect hand through a one of two door after a prompt to recover an object through a transparent screen.
The infants see an object hidden behind one of two opaque screens and then hear a prompt between 2 or 8 second but not hand appears.
Infants must anticipate where hard will go based on understanding of where object is. not just novelty - 10What were th results of Huffman, slade & redman (2005)The results indicate mean correct rate os higher at 2 secs than 8 second and incorrect i higher at 8 second compared to 2.
incorrect sd higher at 8 sec than 2. - 11Why did children make this error in object permanence.Huffman, slade & redman (2005)?Children make this error in object permanent because they don't have a full grasp of that concept yet. The errors in search reveal errors in understanding. Furthermore they egocentrically associate the object with their actions. In piagets eyes this means a gradual construction.
- 12What test did Baillargeon (1985, 1987) do?Baillargeon (1985, 1987) did 4 separate tests habituation, placing the box, possible event and an impossible event.
tested 3.5, 4.5 mth old.
found they look more at impossible event tham possible or control.
thus evidence for object permanence and solidity of objects.
Furthermore evidence was shown for 10 week old babies aguiar & baillargeon (1999) through a short and tall carrot event, with them passing. violation of expectation. - 13What did SHinsky & schilling (2000 find?SHinsky & schilling (2000), thought whether looking patterns reflect conceptual understanding or a low level novelty
- 14Define Means- end reasoning Attention- distraction- memory- Inhibition-such as,
Means- end reasoning- infants have to work out where to get the object
Attention- distraction- less so with looking
memory- looking=recognition search is recall.
Inhibition- may not be able to stop previous search (a not B) - 15What did Ahmed & ruffman, 1998). look into?Ahmed & ruffman, 1998).
Looked into: looking time vs reaching.
within subjects, correct or error.
non search- possible from B
impossible from A - 16What do research ebleiev about ancillary deficits?some researchers believe that infants do have concept of object permanence however ancillary deficits interfere.
- 17In regards to partial knowledge explain how this relates to looking and reaching?Other s believe that infants only have partial knowledge.
So implicit or unconsciousness vs explicit or conscious understanding
(Looking) (reaching)
Graded representation- according to piaget it gets fuller and according to Munakata (1998) it gets stronger. - 18What is a position against the nativist?There is no evidence for innateness or object permanence as neonates do not show it.
object pervenche ance may be constructed by maturation rather than experience.
The time scale of OP is earlier than piaget suggest.
The key issue is wether knowledge tapped by looking and reaching is the same and this is divided into two position. one says yes but difficulty due to ancillary deficits and no says looking is implicit or less full than reaching. - 19What does unification of groups against a "common enemy" necessarily implyAt 12-18 months the infant no longer makes a not b error however cannot handle displacements. Furthermore it can represent the object when invisible and stationary but not when invisible and moving.
At 18-24 months they can handle full displacements and has full object permanence. Representation rather than pure perception. - 20What do piaget tasks use as a measure of understanding and what coudlbe used?Piagets task use reach as a measure of understanding. What if measures such as reach in the dark or looking were used.
- 21Describe the object displacement task?Invisible displacement:
Step 1, the object is in exptr hand
Step 2, exptr closes hand
step 3, hand under cloth
step 4, object under cloth
step 5, child looks for object
step 6, quits and upset - 22Horobin & acredolo (1986),What did they suggest?Horobin & acredolo (1986), suggest more errors when containers are far apart than close yet habit should be the same
- 23What di diamond (1985) suggestFor example; diamond (1985) suggests memory, inhibition/ habit or attention . These are knowledge as ancillary deficient so
Information
- Description
- Developmental Flashcards on object permanence , created by murat sertay on 12/08/2016.
- Created by
- murat sertay
- Views
- 1
- History
-
- Created by murat sertay · Aug 12, 2016
- Copied by murat sertay · Aug 12, 2016
- Rating