Origins and Early Development of Perception, Action, and Representation

Bertenthal, Bennett I.

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.431

Cited by 207 publications

(130 citation statements)

References 146 publications

(99 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, one account assumes that different systems of object representation guide infants' responses in VOE and in action tasks (e.g. Bertenthal, 1996;Spelke, Vishton, & von Hofsten, 1995). Another account suggests that weaker or less precise representations may be sufficient for success in VOE than in action tasks (e.g.…”

Section: Discrepancies Between Voe and Action Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Décalage in infants' knowledge about occlusion and containment events: Converging evidence from action tasks

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the present research, 6-month-old infants consistently searched for a tall toy behind a tall as opposed to a short occluder. However, when the same toy was hidden inside a tall or a short container, only older, 7.5-month-old infants searched for the tall toy inside the tall container. These and control results (1) confirm previous violation-of-expectation (VOE) findings of a décalage in infants' reasoning about height information in occlusion and containment events; (2) cast doubt on the suggestion that VOE tasks overestimate infants' cognitive abilities; and (3) support recent proposals that infants use their physical knowledge to guide their actions when task demands do not overwhelm their limited processing resources.

show abstract

Section: Discrepancies Between Voe and Action Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Décalage in infants' knowledge about occlusion and containment events: Converging evidence from action tasks

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In other words, the memory demands on the representations may be greater in the light than in the dark. Alternatively, different neural pathways may account for the differences in looking and reaching: An early-developing visual pathway may guide looking, whereas a later-developing action pathway may guide reaching (e.g., Bertenthal, 1996;Spelke, Vishton, & von Hofsten, 1995). A related possibility is that looking and reaching tasks draw on two distinct types of representations, rather than one ranging along a continuum (e.g., Munakata, 2001;Schacter & Moscovitch, 1984).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Detecting Transparent Barriers: Clear Evidence Against the Means‐End Deficit Account of Search Failures

Shinskey¹,

Munakata²

2001

Infancy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standard explanation of infants' search failures with hidden objects, despite an apparent sensitivity to them, is a deficit in the means-end skill for retrieving objects from occluders. Studies equating means-end demands for retrieving toys from transparent and opaque barriers challenge this account by showing that infants succeed more with visible objects. However, they suffer from a critical limitation: Infants may retrieve visible objects without noticing the transparent barriers in front of them. We addressed this concern by requiring infants to notice a barrier to retrieve a toy and specifically to pull down a rotating screen to retrieve a toy from behind it. Seven-month-olds used this means-end skill more often with a transparent barrier than an opaque one. Thus, neither a means-end deficit nor an ability to ignore transparent barriers fully accounts for search failures. Relations to other findings challenging the means-end deficit account and implications for approaches to studying cognitive development are discussed.

show abstract

“…The representation includes not only the object and its properties but also dynamic parameters of events in which it may be involved (Bertenthal, 1996;Rovee-Collier, 1996). Research indicates that in addition to the featural properties of objects, infants represent (at least): (a) spatiotemporal information about the object (Baillargeon, 1993;Bower, 1982;Hofsten, 1980Hofsten, , 1983Rochat & Hespos, 1996;Spelke, et al, 1995;Xu & Carey, 1996a), (b) acts on or done by the object Meltzoff, 1988aMeltzoff, , b, 1995aMeltzoff & Moore, 1992, 1997, (c) temporal ordering of acts with objects Bauer & Hertsgaard, 1993;Bauer & Mandler, 1992), and (d) the space-time patterning of events (Haith, 1993;Haith, Hazan, & Goodman, 1988).…”

Section: Taking Infant Representation Seriously: Representationally-mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Object representation, identity, and the paradox of early permanence: Steps toward a new framework

Meltzoff¹,

Moore²

1998

Infant Behavior and Development

137

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sensorimotor theory of infancy has been overthrown, but there is little consensus on a replacement. We hypothesize that a capacity for representation is the starting point for infant development, not its culmination. Logical distinctions are drawn between object representation, identity, and permanence. Modern experiments on early object permanence and deferred imitation suggest: (a) even for young infants, representations persist over breaks in sensory contact, (b) numerical identity of objects (Os) is initially specified by spatiotemporal criteria (place and trajectory), (c) featural and functional identity criteria develop, (d) events are analyzed by comparing representations to current perception, and (e) representation operates both prospectively, anticipating future contacts with an O, and retrospectively, reidentifying an O as the "same one again." A model of the architecture and functioning of the early representational system is proposed. It accounts for young infants' behavior toward absent people and things in terms of their efforts to determine the identity of objects. Our proposal is developmental without denying innate structure and elevates the power of perception and representation while being cautious about attributing complex concepts to young infants. Keywordsrepresentation; object identity; object permanence; imitation; cognitive development; memory The field of infant psychology is in crisis. There is no longer a shared framework or set of assumptions about the nature of infancy. This crisis has been brewing for about 30 years. It began with the overthrow of the view that the infant is a purely sensorimotor organism. It continues today because there is no new consensus on how we should conceive of the infant mind.The classical sensorimotor view of infancy was founded on two key assumptions. The first was that there was a primacy to the role of action. In early infancy, to "know" an object was to act upon it. Development derived from relating actions to one another and to consequences in the perceptual world (sensorymotor connections). The second assumption was that a lack of sensory contact, in particular invisibility, was an insurmountable problem Copyright © 1998 Ablex Publishing Corporation Andrew N. Meltzoff, Department of Psychology, Box 357920, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195. 7 Unlike Experiment 1, there were no problems of motor noise correlated with the one-vs. two-object movements, nor surface similarities between the habituation and test displays to serve as a basis for generalization (Spelke et al., 1995, p. 123 NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript for young infants. When sensory contact with objects was lost, objects ceased to exist for the infant. The eventual development of representation was postulated as the way children transcended stimulus-driven reactions and escaped the tyranny of the here-and-now world of infancy. Piaget provided a detailed theory of this kind (Piaget, 1952(Piaget, , 1954(Piaget, , 1962.The ...

show abstract

Origins and Early Development of Perception, Action, and Representation

Cited by 207 publications

References 146 publications

Décalage in infants' knowledge about occlusion and containment events: Converging evidence from action tasks

Décalage in infants' knowledge about occlusion and containment events: Converging evidence from action tasks

Detecting Transparent Barriers: Clear Evidence Against the Means‐End Deficit Account of Search Failures

Object representation, identity, and the paradox of early permanence: Steps toward a new framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About