Child Studies in Asia-Pacific Contexts

Korean Association of Child Studies (한국아동학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Do Simple Objects Facilitate Infants' Formation of a Spatial Category?

  • Received : 2012.07.27
  • Accepted : 2012.08.17
  • Published : 2012.08.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The present study investigated infants' ability to form a category of a support relation (i.e., "on") when the objects depicting the relation were perceptually simple versus more complex. Twenty Korean infants of 14 months were habituated to dynamic support events with objects that were either simple or more complex in appearance. They were then tested with events that differed from the habituation events in the specific objects, spatial relation, or both. Infants formed a support category whether familiarized to simple or complex objects, looking significantly longer at test events with a novel than familiar relation. The results indicate that at 14 months of age, object features do not impact infants' ability to form a categorical representation of support.

Keywords

References

  1. Amaya, M., Uttal, D. H., O'Doherty, K. D., Liu, L. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (2008). Two-Digit Subtraction: Examining the link between concrete and abstract representations of knowledge. Manuscript under revision.
  2. Behl-Chadha, G., & Eimas, P. D. (1995). Infant categorization of left-right spatial relations. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13, 69-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1995.tb00665.x
  3. Casasola, M. (2005). When less is more: How infants learn to form an abstract categorical representation of support. Child Development, 76, 279-290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00844.x
  4. Casasola, M. (2008). The development of infants' spatial categories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 21-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00541.x
  5. Casasola, M., & Cohen, L. B. (2002). Infant categorization of containment, support, and tight-fit spatial relationships. Developmental Science, 5, 247-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00226
  6. Casasola, M., Cohen, L. B., & Chiarello, E. (2003). Six-month-old infants' categorization of containment spatial relations. Child Development, 74, 679-693. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00562
  7. Casasola, M., & Park, Y. (in press). Developmental changes in infant spatial categorization: When more is best and when less is enough. Child Development.
  8. Choi, S. (2006). Influence of language-specific input on spatial cognition: Categories of containment. First Language, 26, 207-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723706060748
  9. Choi, S., & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41, 83-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90033-Z
  10. Cohen, L. B., Atkinson, D. J., & Chaput, H. H. (2004). Habit X: A new program for testing infant perception and cognition [Computer software]. Austin, the University of Texas.
  11. Gava, L., Valenza, E., & Turati, C. (2009). Newborns' perception of left-right spatial relations. Child Development, 80, 1797-1810. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01368.x
  12. Kaminski, J. A., & Sloutsky, V. M. (2010). Concreteness and relational matching in preschoolers. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXXII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 335-340). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  13. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2006). Do children need concrete instantiations to learn an abstract concept? In R. Sun and N. Miyake (Eds.). Proceedings of the XXVIII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 411-416).
  14. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. F. (2008). The advantage of abstract examples in learning math. Science, 320, 454-455. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1154659
  15. Maguire, M., Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, R. (2008). Focusing on the relation: Fewer exemplars facilitate children's initial verb learning and extension. Developmental Science, 11, 628- 634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00707.x
  16. McDonough, L., Choi, S., & Mandler, J. (2003). Understanding spatial relations: Flexible infants, lexical adults. Cognitive Psychology, 46, 229-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(02)00514-5
  17. Paik, J. H., & Mix, K. (2006). Preschoolers' use of surface similarity in object comparisons: Taking context into account. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 95, 194-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2006.06.002
  18. Park, Y., & Casasola, M. (in preparation). Do objects matter for infants' formation of a spatial category?
  19. Petersen, L. A., & McNeil, N. M. (2008). Using perceptually rich objects to help children represent number: Established knowledge counts. In V. Sloutsky, B. Love, & K. McRae (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1567- 1572). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  20. Quinn, P. C. (1994). The categorization of above and below spatial relations by young infants. Child Development, 65, 58-69. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131365
  21. Quinn, P. C., Adams, A., Kennedy, E., Shettler, L., & Wasnik, A. (2003). Development of an abstract category representation for the spatial relation between in 6- to 10-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 39, 151-163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.1.151
  22. Quinn, P. C., Cummins, M., Kase, J., Martin, E., & Weissman, S. (1996). Development of categorical representations for above and below spatial relations in 3- to 7-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 32, 942- 950. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.5.942
  23. Quinn, P. C., Polly, J., Furer, M., Dobson, V., & Narter, D. (2002). Young infants' performance in the object-variation version of the abovebelow categorization task: A result of perceptual distraction or conceptual limitation? Infancy, 3, 323-347. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0303_3
  24. Rattermann, M. J., Gentner, D., & DeLoache, J. (1990). The effects of familiar labels on young children's performance in an analogical mapping task. In Proceedings of the 12th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp.22-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  25. Son, J. Y., Smith, L., & Goldstone, R. (2008). Simplicity and generalization: Short-cutting abstraction in children's object categorizations. Cognition, 108, 626-638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.002
  26. Son, J. Y., Smith, L., & Goldstone, R. (2011). Connecting instances to promote children's relational reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108, 260-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.011
  27. Uttal, D. H., Scudder, K. V., & DeLoache, J. S. (1997). Manipulatives as symbols: A new perspective on the use of concrete objects to teach mathematics. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 37-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(97)90013-7
  28. Welling, C. (2011). Is it daxing? The effect of learning formats on preschoolers' acquisition of novel dynamic relations. Honors research thesis. Ohio State University.

Cited by

  1. What Develops in Infants’ Spatial Categorization? Korean Infants’ Categorization of Containment and Tight-Fit Relations pp.00093920, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12903