-
Perception is:
Concious mental representation of sensory information
-
Concepts are:
Mental groupings of similar things, events, or people (like Piaget's Schemas)
-
Cognitions are:
Higher level judgements or deductions based on perceptual information or concepts
-
Describe study:
Meltzoff & Moore (1983)
What did they prove?
- Neonate imitates facial expression (sticking out tongue) after seeing an adult do it for 20 sec.
- Successful imitation proved that neonates could represent the info, hold the info in their brain while adult was away, and reproduce gesture
-
What does most violation-of-expectation paradigm research prove?
Give examples
- Causality
- Covering something causes it to disappear
- A short container causes a tall object to disappear
- A wooden obstacle causes a drawbridge to stop rotating
-
Describe:
Leslie and Keeble (1987)
- Launching events - red and blue block that hit each other
- When contact is short, causality is possible (as soon as red hits blue)
- When contact is delayed, causality is not possible (1 sec after red hits blue)
-
Define:
Intentional Stance
Attributing mental states like beliefs, desires, or goals as the basis for the action
-
True or false:
Gergely, et al. suggested that babies attribute an intentional stance to actions of objects
True
-
Describe:
Tremoulet & Feldman (2000)
(Animacy relations)
- Line moving up and diagonal (/), when it turns the "head" to move down and diagonal (\), adults attribute animacy (like it might be a real thing).
- If it's facing up and diagonal (/) and moves down facing the same way (/), they don't attribute animacy
-
Describe:
Gergely et al. (1995)
What did they prove?
- Pg 45
- 2 balls - 1 big, 1 small
- Swell up (like talking) 1 at a time
- Little ball "revs up" and jumps over wall in middle
- When wall gone, little ball still jumps
- Babies looked because they "knew" it was irrational of the little ball to jump because the wall was gone
-
What are the 2 separable causal frameworks that children form?
- 1. Explaining the behavior of objects (Physical reasoning)
- 2. Explaining the behavior of people (Psychological reasoning)
-
Describe:
Rochet et al. (1997)
What did they argue that this meant?
- 3-6 mos olds prefer to watch 2 dots chase each other rather than just move randomly
- Argued: that infants were sensitive to movement info (the 1st dot doesn't want to be by the 2nd dot)
- It specified social causality
-
Things that move on their own are called ____________.
Agents
-
Something that causes an effect on the environment is called ________.
An agent
-
Describe:
Spelke, Phillips, Woodward (1995)
- Used box vs. person touching an object.
- Dishabituated to box touching because they dont have feelings, etc
- No dishabituation because people do have feelingss, etc
- Conclusion - infants reason differently about people and objects
-
Describe:
Meltzoff (1995)
- Adults tried to put beads in jar, or tried to put string on a hook and failed
- When babies imitated, they successfully complete the action intended by adult
- When saw done by a robot arm, they did not imitate
- Conclusion: Babies separate causal explanations by 18 mos. (understand unobservable traits like wants, desires, beliefs, goals)
-
Describe:
Wynn and Bloom study
Babies picked a yellow square when it helps the blue square get up the hill, and not the red square because it pushed the blue down the hill
-
Define:
Modules (Modularism)
Special dedicated info-processing systems in the brain that recieve input from particular classes of objects in world
-
What are the 4 "Modules"?
All are Domain Specific
- Language and grammar
- Numbers
- Music
- Cause and Effect
-
What are the 2 types of causality?
- Theory of Mind (Psychological causality)
- Object mechanics (Physical causality)
-
What are the domain-general learning mechanisms? (4)
- Imitation
- Statistical learning
- Explanation-based (causality)
- Learning by analogy
-
Adult reasoning involves what 3 "ingredients"?
- Reasoner wants to reach a desired goal
- Sequence of mental processes must be involved
- Mental processes are effortful (not automatic)
-
Describe:
Baillargeon's Bear in the cup
- Have a bear in a cup behind a screen, take cage out from behind screen and then bear.
- Babies have to reason that you can't get the bear out if you don't take cup out first
-
Describe:
Cooper (1984)
- Mickey mouse behind a wall -
- 10 mos olds dishabituate to equal relations only
- 14 mos olds dishabituate to equal and less than relations
-
Describe:
Simon, Hespos, & Rochat (1995)
- Change mickey's number and identity -
- Babies showed surprise at impossible identity + impossible math, but not to impossible identity alone
-
Define:
Ventral stream
What does it process?
- Visual "what" pathway
- Processes unique features, colors, shapes
-
Define:
Dorsal Stream
What does it process?
- Visual "where" pathway
- Processes spatial and temporal info (coming at you, moving away, to the left), what you can do with something, how you can act on something
-
Learning by imitation depends on the ability to _______________
Understand the intentions of others
-
Describe:
Meltzoff (1988)
- Deferred Imitation (reproducing a novel action previously learned, at a later time)
- Showed 6 actions to 14 mos olds with 1 week delay
- Findings:
- 9 mos old retain 3 novel acts 24 hrs
- 14 mos olds = deferred imitation over 2-4 mos
- 14 mos olds = deferred imitation after seeing it on tv
-
Describe:
Meltzoff (1985)
- Delayed imitaion 14 mos olds:
- Pulling the dumbell apart 3 times, 45% kids did it after he showed
-
Define:
Learning by Analogy
Finding certain relational correspondences b/w 2 events, situations, etc then tranferring info knowledge form one to the other
-
Describe:
Greco, Hayne, Rovee-Collier (1990)
- (Analogy)
- Conjugate reinforcement techinque a.k.a. mobile kicking
- Butterfly mobile used during recall, infants still kicked
-
Describe:
Chen, Sanchez, Campbell (1997)
- (Analogy)
- Using "means ends" to solve problem
- 1)Remove box, 2)pull cloth to 3)get string to 4)pull earnie toy close.
-
Define:
Explanation-based learning
(Who, and what)
- Based on Baillargeon's research
- Based on idea that infants identify event categories like containment or support
- Baillargeon thinks these are innate
-
Define:
Core Knowledge
- Fundamental notions or principles that guide understandings of events
- Relies on simple basic principles (partial contact= support, no contact = falls)
-
Why do babies make search errors in reaching and crawling?
What is the key?
- Perseveration due to pre-frontal cortex immaturity
- Do it over and over
- Inhibition is key - they can't inhibit the response tendency (they can't inhibit the previously executed motor pattern)
-
Describe:
John Bowlby's theory
- Newborns come equipped with behavioral mechanisms for ensuring proximity to mother (crying, rooting, grasping, smiling)
- This ensures survival because mothers can't ignore a baby's cry, etc
-
Describe:
DeCasper & Fifer (1980)
- Maternal voice preferences
- Babies heard more of mother's voice depending on how fast they sucked on binky.
- Change their sucking rate to hear mother's voice the most possible
- Lasted for 24 hours
- Could be unlearned by reversing the learned action (sucking LESS now makes you hear more mother's voice, and they changed)
-
Describe:
DeCasper & Spence (1986)
- Mothers read 1 of 3 books while pregnant
- Baby preffered to hear that book (by mother or stranger) after birth (changed sucking rate to hear it)
- Demonstrates "Familiararity preference"
- Babies can form memories prenatally
-
Define:
Contingency Learning
- Ability to detect and learn contingencies (relationships) b/w one's actions and events in environment
- a.k.a. Associative Learning
They notice that certain things they do produce an action that they like, so they keep doing it
-
Describe:
Bahrik & Watson (1985)
- Babies shown 2 videos: own live movements and own pre-recorded movements
- Preferred to look at live movements
Indicates awareness and preference for contingency
-
Decribe:
The Rouge test
- Put a dot on child's nose or forehead and show them in mirror
- Evidence of self-recognition shows at about 18 mos old
- They show signs of embarrassment or touching their body where it is
-
Describe:
Striano, Henning & Stahl (2005)
- Mothers responded:
- 1- naturally (talking/reacting to babies normally)
- 2- noncontingently (wore headphones listening to what they said a week before and imitated that)
- 3- imitated babies
- 3 mos olds smiled more in natural condition and looked at mom more in noncontingent condition
|
|