- 1. babies have innate perceptual abilities
- 2. Fantz - eye gaze and habituation
- 3. Dummy sucking - deliberate action and choice between stimuli
- 4. cross-modal perception
- 5. Object permanence
- a) Piaget's A not B
- b) Baillargeon's violation of expectation (object permanence and memory)
- c) Haith's criticisms of Baillargeon
- d) Neuroimaging: suggests Baillargeon wins (Kaufman) - but we can critique this
- 6. causal contingency
- memory of novel cause-effect relationship
- 7. working memory span
- 8. cause-and effect (Leslie and Keeble)
What visual perceptual experimental evidence shows infants have inborn capacity to distinguish between different entities.
- 'visual preference' - Fantz (eye gazing of schematic faces)
- more preference for complex visuals
- Habituation (Slater & Morrison) - preference for novelty in infants (renewed looking after bored with first object when new object is shown) showing they can distinguish betwen items.
- even in 1-3 yo baby
What experiment showed infants can deliberaately choose between stimuli
- 'sucking' experiment (De Casper & Fifer)
- play mother's voice when sucking rate increased, play strange female voice when rate decreases
- Infants rapidly learned to increase rate
- Good experiment: next day, experimenters reversed the contingency and now slower sucking required --> they changed it
Experimental evidence showing babies can perceive cross-modally.
- 1 month old babies (Meltzoff & Borton)
- suck smooth or nibbled surface (without looking at dummy)
- they prefer to look at picture of dummy they had just been sucking
What other paradigm is good for infant studies?
violation of expectation
Give violation of expectation experiment example and why it is good.
- Baillargeon et al
- Drawbridge experiment
- She criticised Piaget and others' experiments that required action which babies aren't good at
- 5-month old babies habituated to display where screen rotates 180 degrees towards and away from baby
- Box placed on path of screen
- Baby looked at display longer when screen seemed to pass through an apparent solid box (by rotating the whole 180 degrees rather than stopping at 120)
- 5-month old babies have understaning of object permanence
What is Piaget's experiment of object permanencne?
- A-not-B error
- Children older than 10/18months can pass this
- (but requires motor action)
Another Baillargeon experiment using violation of expectation but about memory.
- Display - toy could be placed in location A or B
- placed in A and then screen slid in front of both locations, hiding it
- Then, hand reaches behind screen and retrieve toy from B - impossible event
- Infants looked more closely at this 'impossible' event
- Conclusion: babies could remember location of object during delay
What are some of the crticisms against Baillargeon's methods and conclusions?
- eg. Haith
- argues she doesn't distinguish between perceptual explanations and cognitive explanations
- They argue Baillargeon must be able to discount every perceptual interpretaiton of differences in looking time before proposing cognitive interpretations of looking behaviour
- Perceptual explanations: simple mehcnaism such as novelty, scanning and tracking mechanisms can explain behaviour
- Haith: disntinguishes between simple lingering sensory information vs conceptual representations of objects
- sensory activity in perceptual system
To resolve Baillargeon vs Haith, what method used? What conclusion?
- cognitive neuroimaging (Kaufman et al)
- EEG of train and tunnel experiment
- train enters tunnel, tunnel lifted to either show train (expected) or no train (unexpected)
- train also enters and leaves tunnel, tunnel lifted to either show train (unexpected) and no train (expected)
- Behavioural: infants looked longer at unexpected displays
- EEG: sustained activity peaking around 500ms after the lifting of tunnel
- Conclusion: peaks after reveal, sugggesting this was cognitive representation rather than degraded sensory inputs
- increased activity an attempt o maintain representation of
Criticise Kaufman's study.
The increased EEG activity afterwards could be arrousal or surprise, and not mental representation
Experiment about infant memory with causal contingency paradigm.
- Contingency betwene response and reward
- Conditioned respons - kicking; reward - mobile above cot activated
- Even 3-month olds kicked after a time gap even when mobile no longer activated
- Even for as long as 2 -weeks and 1 month (if they were reminded)
- Babies can learn this very novel causal relaionship
Experiment on infant's working 'memory span'
- Rose et al
- present infant (at age 5,7, 12 months - longitudinal) with 4 items and then paired them with novel items to test recognition
- if they looked briefly at image, seen as recognition
- memory span increased with agefew 5/7mo could hold 3/4 items; but 50% of 12mo could hold 3-4 items.
Expeirment seeming to show babies have inbuild structure to interpret events causally.
- Leslie & Keeble
- Green and red box --> launching vs delayed launching - habituated to video
- then video reversed
- in launching one, not the green box looks like it is launching red
- in this reversed video, infants showed more recovery of attention (dishabituation) than reversal of delayed launch (which doesnt show reversal of causality)
- Showed - recognition of a change in mechanical roles of the two blocks.
- HENCE: infant's percept of direct launch is encoding causal relationship as well as spatiotemporal information