Early knowledge of object motion: continuity and inertia

Spelke, Elizabeth S.; Katz, Gary S.; Purcell, Susan E.; Ehrlich, Sheryl M.; Breinlinger, Karen

doi:10.1016/0010-0277(94)90013-2

Cited by 136 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The same conclusion presses itself forward with respect to information that is specific to the direction of motion: newborns direct their arm movements to a moving toy (Von Hofsten, 1982) but are not able to perceptually distinguish (i.e., do not dishabituate) different directions of motion (Wattam-Bell, 1996a). Moreover, (Von Hofsten et al, 1998) showed that 6-month-olds predict linear object motion when reaching, whereas they fail to extrapolate object motion in preferential looking tasks (Spelke et al, 1994). More recently, (Berthier et al, 2001) observed that nine-month olds often visually tracked and reached for a rolling ball even when the track was blocked by a barrier, whereas 5-month-olds were shown to perceive that objects do not move through the space occupied by other solid objects (Baillargeon, Spelke & Wasserman, 1985).…”

Section: Action and Perception In Infancymentioning

confidence: 86%

Action and perception in infancy

Kamp

Savelsbergh

2000

Infant Behavior and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this introduction to the special issue on Action and perception in infancy, we summarize recent arguments of Milner and Goodale for a dissociation between vision for action and vision for perception in adults. We propose that this dissociation is probably present from birth, and further that vision for action and vision for perception follow different developmental trajectories. Based on this framework, we discern four themes of interest for infancy research (i.e., information and action, exploration and action, information and perception, and the interaction between action and perception) and introduce the contributions of the special issue accordingly.

show abstract

Section: Action and Perception In Infancymentioning

confidence: 86%

Action and perception in infancy

Kamp

Savelsbergh

2000

Infant Behavior and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since the first studies of Piaget (1952), large numbers of investigations have focused on infants' developing abilities to represent occluded objects (for example, Baillargeon, 1999;Mareschal, 2000;Spelke, Breinlinger, Macomber, & Johnson, 1992;Spelke, Katz, Purcell, Ehrlich, & Breinlinger, 1994;Wilcox, Rosser, & Nadel, 1994). In a set of pioneering studies, 5-and 9-month-old infants were presented with a toy train that moved through a tunnel (Meichler & Gratch, 1980;Nelson, 1971Nelson, , 1974.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, Spelke et al (1994) presented 4-, 6-, 8-, and 10-month-old infants with objects moving on linear trajectories that either continued to move along this trajectory in absence of an obstruction (possible event), or moved through an obstacle positioned behind an occluder (impossible event). Six-month-old infants increased their looking times to the impossible event; suggesting that infants expected the moving object to continue on a connected and unobstructed path.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning about occlusion: Initial assumptions and rapid adjustments

Kochukhova

Gredebäck

2007

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined 6-month-olds abilities to represent occluded objects, using a corneal-reflection eye-tracking technique. Experiment 1 compared infants' ability to extrapolate the current pre-occlusion trajectory with their ability to base predictions on recent experiences of novel object motions. In the first condition infants performed at asymptote ($2/3 accurate predictions) from the first occlusion passage. In the second condition all infants initially failed to make accurate prediction. Performance, however, reached asymptote after two occlusion passages. This is the first study that demonstrates such rapid learning effects during an occlusion task. Experiment 2 replicates these effects and demonstrates a robust memory effect extending 24 h. In occlusion tasks such long-term memory effects have previously only been observed in

show abstract

“…Therefore, precise conception of how the object moves behind the occluder is not necessary. For instance, in a number of preferential looking experiments, infants' inferences failed to accord with inertia although reaching and tracking studies indicate that they do accord with inertia (Spelke, Katz, Purcell, Ehrlich, & Breinlinger, 1994; see also Spelke et al, 1995). The 6-month-old infants in one series of experiments viewed an object moving on a straight line as it disappeared behind an occluder, and then the occluder was removed to reveal the object at rest in various positions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%