dhild dev Flashcards
Who do kids fail to use height info?
Prime height and covering,
Do barrier show first, place object behind, then in container,
8m, plain covering, no result look equally.
Try teach height, showing barrier first then. Cover.
Look long disappear at small one.
Means know should not stick out, and are clearly using hiehgt info.
Short term effect, PRIMING EFFECT,
Werker 2007
Are kids born bias attention to speech, pay attention. Yes.
Newborns, sucking choice of sounds, sine vs speech,
Prefer speech,
Filtered speech, above above, preferred neither,
Demonstrates probable biological effect. Preference for speech.
Preference not due to learning!
What else do they know about language when born
Might not extract preference, bc biological, but other things take experience,
Nazzi, different languages sound different, can kids distinguish?
Yes,
Fej languages, different patterns,
French, syllables equal timing, English, pattern, uses stress time. Japanese mora timed, unclear
Prefer native language but also distinguish between English and Japanese, so not equal. Prefer English. Not sure why,
Don’t distinguish b English from am eng,
Different rhythm classes newborns distinguish,
Any lasting effect of using height info. Tested at 9m, using covering teaching
Relative hiehgt imp. When covering.
Method
Pairs of coves, teCh, see does not cover.
3 pairs of covers, and 3 different objects, tall short, and object
Then do test using newd covers and object, this time it’s magical.
Look at small longer!
Can teach height. Can make comparison between height,
Did another experiment getting rid of comparing.
Then they look equally, so very imp. Aspect.
Outcomes differ, sticking out aspect, means kids pick this up, use info
Test using smaller object, outcome always full covering.
Also messes them up, equal pref.
Does not make kids question withy are things happening, with outcome and comparison taken away.l
Also did, take away ability to answer why object is covered, full and partial covering, show containers are partially filled. In training inside hollow thoughts, can see it, cuz, messes them up. Look equally.
Can conclude, kids, use compariosn of height and outcomes and hollowness in combination to compare objects,
Bernard study, not using height,
Learn when it is orange it stays, orange things Re heavy, and therefore it stays,
Suprixing when blue stays on, so learn patter at 24 months.
Do they think it is because orange is heavy, use a different color,
Pick up, Or Use sea saw! Pillow smooth down, Orange sink, or blink sink seen Blue sink, kids look longer.
Suggestive kiss think that orange should sink. Towards thinking heavy,
Last test was picking up, no more looking pattern used.
Choice boxes see which pick up, pick up blue more,
Prefer light over heavy
Conclude, reasoning about physical world.
Kids, represent height in some event not other, representation or use is selective.
How is ithp that they are learning about patterns on world, and are they building a story? Think kids make inference orange is heavy.
Jazz I, z5 month olds languages
American kids this time.
Distinguish bet. B eng, j,
Italian, j,
Cannot do italian vs Spanish.
B eng, Dutch, and American eng, distinguish,
Within own class, can do it,
Rely on stress time,
Same syllable time in non native language cannot discriminate,
Selective use of info from representation,
Baillerfeon again,
Did not use looking time in this exp.
short and tall container and frog, one then two legs showing prob. Container 7.5m
Another version, just screens, barrier, 4.5m
Test edp 4.5-7 and 7-8.5
Confirm, all kids reach for tall, older slightly less, 100 vs 75. No one reaching for short one, for barrier condition
For container condition, many go for smaller container, more do not reach at all. Definitely not going for tall one.
This all shows using different measure get same type of results. Reliability is good. But now why is this so?
At 8 months, can tell sequence of words and statistical probability of which ones fit to plethora?
Context dependant and independant issue, shows that both are imp.
End of infant cognition,
Height and inclusion, containment, covering and tubes.
Storing height, not using it when inside anothe one.
audio demos,
Q
1 a steady drip worse drench rain, sine wave speech.
Sine speech and regular human speech.
2. Synthesized speech, continuum, ba oak cut different place.
3. Saffron experiment. Radom order synthesize
What is a word. What you need to know to learn a word,
Sounds must be combined, have meaning, arbitrary connection across languages and conventional within a lang. Context.
Part of speech (aside: meaning connotative denotation)
LEVELS OF FORMALITY
-REGISTER
What do they do with this info?
Saffron info.
Unit, or info or word. Different boundaries. Intention.
Convention
Beheld on reading, study on children word meaning
Had to control for faces.
Showed kids as young as six months could distinguish images with spoken word meanings told to them by pRents. Could also pick. Out objects in a seperate scene trial. Suddenly jump improvement at 14 months many possible reasons. Basically, are using words, know meanings. Over time social cues and attention changes.
Saffron et al paper.
Continuous speech
, 3 syllable nonsense words, randomized.
Training random speech, syllables
**Statistical word learning,
Counting
Tracking probablility syllables go togethor. **
Trial 1 part word
Word herd, changed space,
Kids do identiy Change in syllables.
Word form, can distinguish. Therefore
Extract right chunks of sound.
Other trial was non word.
Kids track probabilities and allows them to pick out chunks (units) of sound and useful for attaching meaning to them.
Kids able to learn assocTions word object, in lab train, and T home.
Trouble with similarities at young age, though they can distinguish sounds, associating to object harder.
Now swing ly paper.
Nuance kids pay attention to.
14 month olds.
Baby car, pictures
Say baby look baby, say vaby look at baby.
Raby sound led to looking at car, too much of a dif fence.
Conclude know it’s a baby, look more at baby, vaby, not for ruby.
Are learning distinctions.
14momth olds,
Have said first word, don’t necessarily have associations
Takes longer to learn, than 17 months maybe.
Phonetically similar words, bih dih, makes it harder for did lif and neem.
14 months succeed.
17months descriminate connsannt word object situation betters.
Words different sounding aids 14m
When doing association , encode sound and object, and association, more difficult anything is, distinguish sound or object hard, makes it harder. Also tried with easier objects to distinguish.
Information processing theory is cognitive psychology.
Burke reading
How to maintaing or discard a sound difference
Longitudinal study. 12 sessions, (2009)
Start with 9 month olds.
Test mandarin sounds, difference detected! Under threshold age, though never exposed to mandarin
4 weeks later, they fails. In control
Insert training though. Playing mandarin adult. Toys. Intervention
Short terms of naturalistic training
Leads to maintin difference.
Do different training so seeing, interaction hearing just play audio does not work. Even audio I and video togethor did not work!
Conclude: somehting about interaction, can pick up on.
Naturalistic interactions exposure to distinction allows distinction to be maintained, can therefore track distinctions. Depends of form of trainign. Open q to aspects.
Did not control for attention
Lip k things up in natural enviro by 6 m
Eerker stingler study,
17 month olds for this atudy.
At 14m the do not though! Show the below.
Had novel object. And say bih
See Object say bih or dih, look more novel dih.
Says nothing about association. Though, due to hearing dih a thousand times.
Hab to bi dih two dif objts.
Trial, switch up double cHnging. Look at novel is association, not just object or sound like aBove. (Ok above sound only)
Results do look longer here as well. For novel.
Sounds from b to p
1-4 months either already learned or innate, could hear difference in sounds Lready.
Werker studies
Kind of sound kids can discriminate,
B p continuum differs between language.
Discriminate between any two speech sounds independant of lang guage. Was found at 7 months, could distinguish Hindi sounds. Universal listener. 11 months things turns to language relevant ones, so language difference, not as easily descrimianted.
Later not easily able to learn later. Lovely rice life studies.
Bilingual are a mess, more research needed.
How can we learn what are imp. Sounds for language and which are not.
Focus on difference and keep ones for different meanings,
Words meaning must be associated to one sound. Mapping to object
And tracking distributions in the absence of meaning. Change between 6-8 and 10-12 months.
Take home: does show it is long lasting, but it is a proof of concept. Are capable of statistical learning. Not sure if it’s what they do though.
Unsure about meaning use.
Methods below.
Distribution of quality of sound, determines if we end up descriminate ing between sounds.
Tracking distributions. Of sounds
Voice onset time. Known to be imp.
Language general to language specific. Categorical perception always there.
Aside, I wonder about mirror neurons, and rela of this to music.
Bi modal distribution, uni modal distribution, fact about adult speech. Maybe study et al.
Artificial continuum between two sounds. Da –> ta
Play sounds to mimic one of the above distributions. In training.
6-10 months olds.
Only proof of conept, lots of if’s
Used alternating and non alternating trials.
Do distinguish between alternating and no alternating in bimodL but not uni modal trIning group. Listen longer.
Once word units extracts what can they do with them, compare to
Abstract objects.
Bernal son paper supposed to have read, similar to tickoff gezync
Mapping objects and word forms, 6 months
Mom, dad, common words to hear.
Test if know meaning,
Pictures, say mom seeing both, look more at mom.
But if you don’t say anything, Lways look at mom. Uh oh.
Use relative looking, say mom, amount mom looking goes up.
Say dad, look more to dad.
Baseline problem, preference for mom.
Amount looking to target word increases after hearing it.
Therefore able to distinguish and match words to person. Association is there.
Then use strangers, paired kids, own parent vs another.
Hear mom dad, you look equally! No sig
Distinguish person,
Decent recognizing faces, match sound to picture.
Does not tell us what if they know what mom means.
Topal a not b search reading artice
Earning mechanism and communication. Issues in a not b error.
Ten month olds
Oc, nc, ns
Ostensively communication, standard interaction, influences kids expectation, induces learning pattern. NOt relying on episodic. General knowledge instead. (Usually how we interact with kids)
Non communicative, facing away, no interaction.
Non sociaL, no experimenter
3a 4b
Kids only in oc high errors, less in others. Ns lowest.
Conclude, socail cues play a part generalized knowledge.
Configuration q, color
Physical cue, support
Experience, knowledge
Study
Zero training, no results.
With experience, use it to distinguish togethor box.
B/devos 1991
Ramp study.
Ramp, fly out other side, younger than 8th months. (3.5 months old.)
Box in from or behind , impediment, then cover
When impediment is there in the way, look longer.
Conclude: Shows object permanence.
Seem to know blocking. Using depth.
So have object perm, but sometimes cannot act or respond to hiding.
Summary chapter on conceptual dev. Debunking Piaget
Could be dynamic, memory or experiential context dependant, in preserver strive learning of object permanence,
Many interesting studies present, mom mirrors, trans, novel toy if seen but familiar if dark.
Older long distraction time possible, more memory.
So are kids doing similar thing. Are they representaing lots info, are they selective like adults, what makes them be selective.
He spots, Baillerfeon 4.5m (2001) 3 studies
Object taller than barrier, or shorter.
Shown barriers, tall short object,
Kid thoughts?
Look longer at novel. Disappear behind short.
Conclude sensitive, to respective hiehgts (represented)
From half container above, to complete.
Always disappears. No result. Forget about tallness, think circumvents.
Behind vs within distinction
Attention height,, no attention height 3d object.
Barriers 3d put it BEHIND, surprised again.
Confirms hiehgt representation, also shows spatial representation,
Encode tall, lose inside, keep in mind outside behind.
Argue, must know height, but despite recorded, not payed attention to. Record but choose not to use, or only records split second before put behind.
Aside: Are sensitive to width too
Probably in fact what adults do. Failure to use info though do encode,
3 month old bailer ton study.
Like carrot study,
Don’t see it pass through window, expediting it to pass through,
Means child is thinking object has constant trajectory, expereince shows should see it in window. Object perm continue to exist. See in depth, additionally, when something not blocking it, should be able to see it! Continuity
Violates expectation when does not happen.
Are surprised.
Therfore conclude,
Can track trajectory, have depth, object perm, know continuity (in time)
Shown Piaget object perm 8-9 but
Other studies show do in fact know something about the objects
Ball agternoon reading
Shows us a developmental trajectory infants unlike Piaget, rely on dichotic variable, them discrete, thns continuous, not generalized, not inversions and therefore not occuring at same ages. More research to be done with bugs, screen,s unveiling, collision, and support, to determine, learning and observation time required and age of onset.
What is object permanence and what is its developmental trajectory?
When children can track where an object is/may be when not perceptible ie out of sight.
1-4 months, cannot do it, need to be seen, out of sight out of mind.
4-8m partially concealed can locate, still not op
8-12 rely on behaviour, believe they control where it is, look where it was last found, not where it disappeared. Do not see it independant of self Anotb error.
Invisible displacements stump 1-1.5yrs do not look behind barrier
Only around 1.5-2 yrs do kids have op,
Article of perseveration error, in infants
Not necessarily due to memory, or recency, or inhibitory lacking, but in fact a distinction between a learned teaching response in the a b error, and one of a hide and seek episodic. Simply put social cognition is developing at 1 year and ostensively referential interaction biases baby. Previous research and arguments may to be quite correct.
Baillergeaon study 1987
Memory of a not be error
Remember over delay with object out of view,
Delays of 15, 30. 70 sec.
Always retrieve object. Using barrier hide under table.
Kids we always suprised when came out wrong side!
No MATTER time, so memory not an issue.
But not as complex as a not b things.
Reaching issue, does involve time as other studies show though.
Under what sit. Represent different features of object, infants.
Using barriers
Occlusion
4.5 Notice height, behind (did study, behind, contain nil, behind/contain, confirm)
Only at 7.5 notice containment. Inside.
Cover only around 12 months.
Tube cut out bottom, 14 months notice weird.
Encode all info, and only use later on. Long dev. Traj.
Failure to use, categories of physical events like above, dif physical consequence of object interaction,
With experience, realize hiehgt generalize imp.
What are kids doing with objects?
Cover object, –> failure to search until 8 months-9
Out of sight out of mind, lack object permanence.
Not quite right, attention ceases, memory forget, means end problem, two steps too many.
