Limits to Infants' Knowledge of Objects: The Case of Magical Appearance

Young infants have an impressive knowledge of material objects. They appreciate that distinct objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, are internally cohesive units that maintain their boundaries, and exist continuously in space and time. We report a surprising limit to this body of understanding: Although 8-month-olds responded to the “magical” disappearance of an object as an unexpected event, they did not so respond to a magical appearance. These results suggest that infants' understanding of objects differs from adult cognition in important respects. We discuss four possible ways in which this finding can be reconciled with evidence that infants appreciate the spatiotemporal continuity of objects.

[1]  D. Kahneman,et al.  The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  T. Simon,et al.  Reconceptualizing the Origins of Number Knowledge: A "Non-Numerical" Account , 1997 .

[3]  永福 智志.  The Organization of Learning , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  C. Gallistel,et al.  Preverbal and verbal counting and computation , 1992, Cognition.

[5]  R. Baillargeon.  A model of physical reasoning in infancy , 1995 .

[6]  Karen Wynn,et al.  Origins of Numerical Knowledge. , 1995 .

[7]  J. Piaget.  The construction of reality in the child , 1954 .

[8]  E. Spelke,et al.  Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change , 1994 .

[9]  E. Spelke,et al.  Object permanence in five-month-old infants , 1985, Cognition.

[10]  Susan J. Hespos,et al.  Do infants understand simple arithmetic? A replication of Wynn (1992) ☆ , 1995 .

[11]  E. Spelke.  Physical knowledge in infancy : Reflections on Piaget's theory , 1991 .

[12]  L. Frank.  The Society for Research in Child Development , 1935 .

[13]  Karen Wynn,et al.  Addition and subtraction by human infants , 1992, Nature.

[14]  Z. Pylyshyn,et al.  Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. , 1994, Psychological review.

[15]  G. Baylis,et al.  Visual attention and objects: evidence for hierarchical coding of location. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  R. Baillargeon.  Representing the existence and the location of hidden objects: Object permanence in 6- and 8-month-old infants , 1986, Cognition.

[17]  Patrice D. Tremoulet,et al.  Indexing and the object concept: developing `what' and `where' systems , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  S. Carey,et al.  Infants’ Metaphysics: The Case of Numerical Identity , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  E. Spelke.  Initial knowledge: six suggestions , 1994, Cognition.

[20]  R. Church,et al.  A mode control model of counting and timing processes. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Animal behavior processes.

[21]  Carl E. Granrud,et al.  Visual perception and cognition in infancy , 1995 .

[22]  Renee L Baillargeon,et al.  Physical reasoning in young infants: Seeking explanations for impossible events , 1994 .

[23]  E. Spelke,et al.  Origins of knowledge. , 1992, Psychological review.

[24]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  Numerical Transformations in Five-month-old Human Infants. , 1997 .

[25]  Karen Wynn,et al.  Infants Possess a System of Numerical Knowledge , 1995 .

[26]  Elizabeth S. Spelke,et al.  Les origines du concept d'objet , 1986 .

[27]  R. Baillargeon.  Object permanence in 3½- and 4½-month-old infants. , 1987 .

[28]  S. Gelman,et al.  Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity In Cognition And Culture , 1994 .