Object permanence

Object permanence
Psychology

History · Subfields
Basic science
Applied science
Lists
Portal
v · d · e

Object permanence is the understanding that objects continue to exist even when they cannot be seen, heard, or touched. It is acquired by human infants between 8 and 12 months of age via the process of logical induction to help them develop secondary schemes in their sensori-motor coordination. This step is the essential foundation of the memory and the memorization process.

Jean Piaget argued that object permanence is one of an infant's most important accomplishments, as without this concept, objects would have no separate, permanent existence. In Piaget's theory of cognitive development infants develop this understanding by the end of the "sensorimotor stage," which lasts from birth to about 2 years of age.[1] Piaget thought that an infant's perception and understanding of the world depended on their motor development, which was required for the infant to link visual, tactile and motor representations of objects. According to this view, it is through touching and handling objects that infants develop object permanence.[2]

Contents

Early research

Piaget conducted experiments that consisted of behavioral tests with infant subjects. He studied object permanence by watching an infant's reaction when a desirable object or toy, for example, was covered with a blanket or removed from sight. Some of the infant subjects would immediately exhibit signs of habituation in the form of confusion or dismay. Habituation is a form of adaptive learning by which the subject shows a decrease in response to a repeatedly presented stimulus. So the baby subjects would display varying degrees of habituation toward a stimulus (in this case the missing toy covered by a blanket) and would display behaviors of either confusion/interest or boredom and other under-stimulated behaviors. Piaget interpreted these behavioral signs as evidence of a belief that the object had somehow "vanished" or simply ceased to exist. If an infant searched for the object, it is assumed that they believed it continued to exist.[1]

Piaget concluded that some infants were too young to understand object permanence, which would explain why they do not cry when their mothers were gone ("out of sight, out of mind"). A lack of object permanence can lead to A-not-B errors, where children reach for a thing at a place where it should not be. "A-not-B error" is the term used to describe an infant's inclination to search for a hidden object in a familiar location rather than search for the object in a different location.[1] Older infants are less likely to make the A-not-B error because they are able to understand the concept of object permanence more than younger infants. However, researchers have found that A-and-B errors do not always show up consistently.[3] They concluded that this type of error might be due to a failure in memory or the fact that infants usually tend to repeat a previous motor behavior.[1]

Object permanence starts as early as 0-4 months. They aren't fully aware of objects yet but the infants are starting to realize how to move their bodies and use their reflexes. Closer to 3 and 4 months the infant is recognizing objects, so they tend to follow them with their eyes. Objects like balls, toys that make noise and things with bright colors are what attract their attention the most. They are excited when it is present but if it isn't near them they believe the object no longer exits. From 4-8 months the infants are starting to reach for toys to play with them out of curiosity. So they will attempt to grab toys that are partially hidden, but they will not acknowledge a toy that isn't completely hidden yet. At 8-12 months babies are able to find a completely hidden object. Once they find an object in one place and it is re-hid in a different place, even if the baby sees it hidden in a new place they will still look in the spot they found it the first time. For example the ball was under a towel in the middle of the floor, so they remove the towel and find the ball. Then the ball is put behind the couch. The infant is now looking for the ball and knows it is behind the couch but still goes to look under the towel before they look behind the couch. If the they can't seem to find the object they may become frustrated and begin crying. Now at 12-18 months the infant is able to find hidden objects then re-hid them and are still able to remember where they left it. They really enjoy playing hide-and-seek. They are able to account for changes now. After 18 months and up the infant fully understands object permanence. Babies no longer have to fully rely on just their physical or motor skills because they are able to make out images of what the object looked like when they saw it last. They now start looking for things under furniture, in containers and cupboards for different objects. [4]

Contradicting Evidence

In more recent years, the original Piagetian object permanence account has been challenged by a series of infant studies suggesting that much younger infants do have a clear sense of object persisting when out of sight. Bower (1974) demonstrated object permanence in 3-month-olds.[5] Baillargeon & DeVos (1991)[6] showed infants a toy car that moved down an inclined track, disappeared behind a screen, and then reemerged at the other end, still on the track. The researchers created a "possible event" where a toy mouse was placed behind the tracks but was hidden by the screen as the car rolled by. Then, researchers created an "impossible event." In this situation, the toy mouse was placed on the tracks but was secretly removed after the screen was lowered so that the car seemed to go through the mouse. Also in the 1991 study the researchers used an experiment involving two differently sized carrots (one tall and one short) in order to test the infants response when the carrots would be moved behind a short wall. The wall was specifically designed to make the short carrot disappear (possible event), as well as tested the infants for habituation patterns on the disappearance of the tall carrot behind the wall (impossible event).[7] Infants as young as 3½ months displayed greater stimulation toward the impossible event and much more habituation at the possible event. This indicated that they may have been surprised by the impossible event, which suggested they remembered not only that the toy mouse still existed (object permanence) but also its location. The same was true of the tall carrot in the second experiment. This research suggests that infants understand more about objects earlier than Piaget proposed.[1]

There are primarily four challenges to his framework:

1. Whether or not infants without disabilities actually demonstrate object permanence earlier than Piaget claimed. (Kaldy and Sigala, 2004; Mervis and Cardoso-Martins, 1984; Riviere and Lecuyer, 2003).

2. There is disagreement about the relative levels of difficulty posed by the use of various types of covers and by different object positions. (Bower, 1975; Dunst, Brooks, and Doxsey, 1982; Lucas and Uzgiris, 1977).

3. Contoversy concerns whether or not object permanence can be achieved or measured without the motor acts that Piaget regarded as essential. (Baird et al., 2002; Bower and Wishart, 1972; Moore and Meltzoff, 2004; Rose, Feldman, and Jankowski, 2005).

4. The nature of inferences that can be made about the A-not-B error has been challenged. Studies that have contributed to this discussion have examined the contribution of memory limitations, difficulty with spatial localisation,and difficulty in inhibiting the motor act of reaching to location A on the A-not-B error. (Baillargeon and DeVos, 1991).

One criticism of Piaget's theory is that culture and education exert stronger influences on a child's development than Piaget maintained. These factors depend on how much practice their culture provides in developmental processes, such as conversational skills.[1]

Object Permanence in More Than Humans

Experiments in non-human primates suggest that monkeys can track the displacement of invisible targets,[8][9] that invisible displacement is represented in the prefrontal cortex,[10][11][12] and that development of the frontal cortex is linked to the acquisition of object permanence.[13] Various evidence from human infants is consistent with this. For example, formation of synapses in the frontal cortex peaks during human infancy,[14] and recent experiments using near infrared spectroscopy to gather neuroimaging data from infants suggests that activity in the frontal cortex is associated with successful completion of object permanence tasks.[15]

However, many other types of animals have been shown to have the ability for object permanence. These include dogs, cats, and a few species of birds such as the carrion crow and food-storing magpies.[16] [17] [18] [19] Dogs are able to reach a level of object permanence that allows them to find food after it has been hidden beneath one of two cups and rotated 90°.[18] Similarly, cats are able to understand object permanence but not to the same extent that dogs can. Cats fail to understand that if they see something go into an apparatus in one direction that it will still be there if the cat tries to enter from another direction.[19] A longitudinal study found that carrion crows were able to reach the same level of object permanence as humans. There was only one task, task 15, that the crows were not able to master.[17] Another study tested the comparison of how long it took food-storing magpies to develop the object permanence necessary for them to be able to live independently.[16] The research suggests that these magpies followed the a very similar pattern as human infants while they were developing.

Stages in Object Permanence

There are six stages of Object Permanence [20] (see Sensorimotor period for more detail). These are:

1) 0–1 months: Reflex Schema Stage - Baby learns how the body can move and work. Vision is blurred and attention spans remain short through infancy, and they aren't particularly aware of objects to know they have disappeared from sight. However, babies as young as 7 minutes old prefer to look at faces (Lewis, 2005, research at McMaster University). The three primary achievements of this stage are: sucking, visual tracking, and hand closure. (Piaget, 1954, The construction of reality in the child).

2) 1–4 months: Primary Circular Reactions - Babies notice objects and start following their movements. They continue to look where an object was, but for only a few moments. They 'discover' their eyes, arms, hands and feet in the course of acting on objects. This stage is marked by responses to familiar images and sounds (including mother's face) and anticipatory responses to familiar events (such as opening the mouth for a spoon). The infant's actions become less reflexive and intentionality emerges. (Piaget, 1954, The construction of reality in the child).

3) 4–8 months: Secondary Circular Reactions - Babies will reach for an object that is partially hidden, indicating knowledge that the whole object is still there. If an object is completely hidden however the baby makes no attempt to retrieve it. The infant learns to coordinate vision and comprehension. Actions are intentional but the child tends to repeat similar actions on the same object. Novel behaviors are not yet imitated. (Piaget, 1954, The construction of reality in the child).

4) 8–12 months: Coordination of Secondary Circular Reactions - This is deemed the most important for the cognitive development of the child. At this stage the child understands causality and is goal directed. The very earliest understanding of object permanence emerges, as the child is now able to retrieve an object when its concealment is observed. This stage is associated with the classic A-not-B error. After successfully retrieving a hidden object at one location (A), the child fails to retrieve it at a second location (B). (Piaget, 1954, The construction of reality in the child).

5) 12–18 months: Tertiary Circular Reaction - The child gains means-end knowledge and is able to solve new problems. The child is now able to retrieve an object when it is hidden several times within his or her view, but cannot locate it when it is outside their perceptual field. (Piaget, 1954, The construction of reality in the child).

6) 18–24 months: Invention of New Means Through Mental Combination - the child fully understands object permanence. They will not fall for A-not-B errors. Also, baby is able to understand the concept of items that are hidden in containers. If a toy is hidden in a matchbox then the matchbox put under a pillow and then, without the child seeing, the toy is slipped out of the matchbox and the matchbox then given to the child, the child will look under the pillow upon discovery that it is not in the matchbox. The child is able to develop a mental image, hold it in mind, and manipulate it to solve problems, including object permanence problems that are not based solely on perception. The child can now reason about where the object may be when invisible displacement occurs. (Piaget, 1954, The construction of reality in the child).

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f Santrock, John W. (2008). A topical approach to life-span development (4 ed.). New York City: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 9780072435993 
  2. ^ Bremner, JG (1994). Infancy (2 ed.). Blackwell. ISBN 063118466X. 
  3. ^ Sophian, C; Yengo, L (1985). "Infants' understanding of visible displacements". Developmental psychology 21 (6): 932–941. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.932. 
  4. ^ Brigitte, A. (n.d). Jean Piaget's object Permanence Developmental Stages: Theoretical Outline, Modern Critique and Parental Advice. Retrieved fromhttp://www.positive-parenting-ally.com/object-permanence.html
  5. ^ Bower, T.G.R. (1974). Development in infancy. San Francisco: Freeman.
  6. ^ Baillargeon, R; DeVos, J (1991). "Object permanence in young infants: further evidence". Child Development 62 (6): 1227–46. doi:10.2307/1130803. JSTOR 1130803. PMID 1786712. 
  7. ^ Baillargeon, R; DeVos, J (1991). "Object permanence in young infants: further evidence". Child Development 62 (6): 1227–46. doi:10.2307/1130803. JSTOR 1130803. PMID 1786712. 
  8. ^ Filion, C. M.; Washburn, D. A.; Gulledge, J. P. (1996). "Can monkeys (Macaca mulatta) represent invisible displacement?". J. Comp. Psychol 110 (4): 386–395. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.110.4.386. PMID 8956508. 
  9. ^ Churchland MM, Chou IH, Lisberger SG. (2003). "Evidence for object permanence in the smooth-pursuit eye movements of monkeys". J Neurophysiol 90 (4): 2205–18. doi:10.1152/jn.01056.2002. PMC 2581619. PMID 12815015. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=2581619. 
  10. ^ Barborica A., Ferrera V. P. (2003). "Estimating invisible target speed from neuronal activity in monkey frontal eye field". Nature Neuroscience 6 (1): 66–74. doi:10.1038/nn990. PMID 12483216. 
  11. ^ Xiao Q, Barborica A, Ferrera VP. (2007). "Modulation of visual responses in macaque frontal eye field during covert tracking of invisible targets". Cereb Cortex 17 (4): 918–28. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhl002. PMID 16723405. 
  12. ^ Barborica A., Ferrera V. P. (2004). "Modification of saccades evoked by electrical stimulation of macaque frontal eye field during invisible target tracking". J. Neurosci 24 (13): 3260–7. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4702-03.2004. PMID 15056705. 
  13. ^ Diamond, A; Goldman-Rakic, P (1989). "Comparison of human infants and rhesus monkeys on Piaget’s AB task: Evidence for dependence on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex". Experimental Brain Research 74: 24–40. 
  14. ^ Neville, HJ; Bavelier, D (2000). "Specificity and Plasticity in Neurocognitive Development in Humans". In Gazzaniga, MS (ed.). The New Cognitive Neurosciences. pp. 1259–70. 
  15. ^ Baird, AA; Kagan, J; Gaudette, T; Walz, KA; Hershlag, N; Boas DA (2002). "Frontal Lobe Activation during Object Permanence:Data from Near-Infrared Spectroscopy". NeuroImage 16 (4): 1120–1126. doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1170. PMID 12202098. 
  16. ^ a b Pollok, Bettina; Prior, Helmut; Güntürkün, Onur (2000). "Development of object permanence in food-storing magpies (Pica pica).". Journal of Comparative Psychology 114 (2). http://search.proquest.com.cordproxy.mnpals.net/psycinfo/docview/619461015/1328A1C0608EA22A42/16?accountid=10244#. 
  17. ^ a b Hoffmann, Almut; Rüttler, Vanessa; Nieder, Andreas (2011). "Ontogeny of object permanence and object tracking in the carrion crow, corvus corone.". Animal Behaviour 82 (2): 359-359-367. http://search.proquest.com.cordproxy.mnpals.net/psycinfo/docview/885701151/13289E441BD7E303533/2?accountid=10244#. 
  18. ^ a b Miller, Holly; Cassie D. Gibson; Aubrey Vaughan; Rebecca Rayburn-Reeves; Thomas R. Zentall (2009). "Object permanence in dogs: Invisible displacement in a rotation task.". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16 (1): 150-155. http://search.proquest.com.cordproxy.mnpals.net/psycinfo/docview/622272578/13289E441BD7E303533/3?accountid=10244. 
  19. ^ a b Doré, François Y. (1986). "Object permanence in adult cats (Felis catus).". Journal of Comparative Psychology 100 (4): 340-347. http://search.proquest.com.cordproxy.mnpals.net/psycinfo/docview/617246971/13289E441BD7E303533/7?accountid=10244#. 
  20. ^ Piaget, J. (1977). Gruber, H.E.; Voneche, J.J.. eds. The essential Piaget. New York. ISBN 0710087780 [Amazon-US | Amazon-UK].

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Поможем сделать НИР

Look at other dictionaries:

  • object permanence — noun The understanding (typically developed during early infancy) that an object still exists even when it disappears from sight, or other senses …   Wiktionary

  • object permanence — the concept, usually appreciated during the second year of life, that an object continues to exist even when removed from view …   Medical dictionary

  • Permanence — is the state of being permanent: *Digital permanence *Object permanence *Print permanence *Permanence and foster care …   Wikipedia

  • object constancy — 1. the ability to perceive an object as unchanging even under different conditions of observation. 2. see under permanence …   Medical dictionary

  • Digital Object Identifier — Pour les articles homonymes, voir DOI. Digital object identifier (DOI, littéralement « identifiant d objet numérique ») est un mécanisme d identification de ressources numériques, comme un film, un rapport, des articles scientifiques,… …   Wikipédia en Français

  • Постоянство объектов — (object permanence). Согласно теории Пиаже, понимание младенцем в возрасте примерно 1,5 года того факта, что окружающие предметы продолжают существовать даже тогда, когда он не может увидеть, потрогать или каким либо другим образом воспринять их …   Психология развития. Словарь по книге

  • Infant cognitive development — The cognitive development of infants is a part of developmental psychology that studies the internal states of infants and very young children. How infants begin to think, remember and process information is valuable knowledge to many disciplines …   Wikipedia

  • Developmental psychology — Child Psychology redirects here. For the song by Black Box Recorder, see Child Psychology (song). For the journal, see Developmental Psychology (journal). Psychology …   Wikipedia

  • Peekaboo — (also spelled Peek a boo) is a game similar to hide and seek, but played with babies. In the game, one (child, teenager, or adult) hides their face, pops back into the baby s view, and says mdash; to the baby s amusement mdash; Peekaboo! I see… …   Wikipedia

  • Naïve physics — or folk physics is the untrained human perception of basic physical phenomena. In the field of artificial intelligence the study of naïve physics is a part of the effort to formalize the common knowledge of human beings. Many ideas of folk… …   Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
… Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”