wk7= infnat spredisposed to sophisticated ways in object knowledge . eval in ref to COK account

Question 1

plan

Answer 1

1. introduction
2. core knowledge account
3. continuity and unity
4. core knowledge account limitations

Question 2

1a. introduction

Answer 2

Infant and object knowledge
Infants appear to have sophisticated understanding of objects at an early age . Having knowledge about many rules that represent objects such as continuity
What is the core knowledge account
Core knowledge account = Spelke is a nativist view, infants and animals endowned with systems of knowledge about different aspects of the world such as objects and places

Question 3

1b. introduction

Answer 3

Implications of the core knowledge account
If object knowledge is truly core, it should appear early, operate without extensive learning, and show across contexts and species.. Will look at this through vio of expectation and habituation tasks.
Essay thesis
Essay will argue in favour of this account and evaluate evidence supporting it

Question 4

2a. the core knowledge account

Answer 4

CKA suggests that the mind= CK systems of each small chunk of the world to make sense of it. Operate independently with own principles to facilitate further learning. Reasoning and predictions allowed to be made
Observations of Spelke
Derived from observations of infants sophisticated knowledge of world + objects even before able to manipulate objects. Suggested this extended to newborn animals and other species
Evidence of object knowledge animals
Suggested these accounts increase likelihood of survival= passing of genes. Chiandetti et al 2011 studied newborn chicks. Hypothesised t= if rich knowledge could be part of bio heritage . Imprinted chick to an object. Object hidden in right or left ocular in front of. Then covered then presented with slanted ocular to height of object + very small ocular. If the chicks expect object to be solid, they should go to the likely scenario. They did.

Question 5

2b. the core knowledge account

Answer 5

Suggestion
have an expectation after a couple hours of life’ that objects should be solid, and continue to exist over time, so bio heritage
Evidence of object knowledge in infants – gravity and support
Animal studies generalisability? Yes we share cross species parallels – chicks differ in brain development and ecological contexts so must be cautious. must look at infants. 4m Needham 1993 found babies looking time= higher in impossible event of box floating in the air . Suggest they have knowledge of gravity that they expect object to drop . Found this at 2m as well. Maybe surprise rather than conceptual understanding? Supports core knowledge accounts across species

Question 6

3a. Evidence of object knowledge continued

Answer 6

Unity in infants
Unity= another domain we can see object knowledge .When we expect things to be one unitary object when aligned to move together. Spelke and Kellman 1983 4m infants . Habituated infants to 2 sticks in sync. -> dishabituated to separate moving. Looking times raised
Suggests
they expected a single rod to be behind the box, indicating they have a strong expectation / physical knowledge that objects are unitary + they should move together, belonging to the same single object. 4m - we have early evidence of physical knowledge that objects are unitary

Question 7

3b. evidence of object knowledge continued

Answer 7

Continuity in infants
Spelke 1995 extended to continuity with 4m . continuity= expectation objects to be continuous across space+ time than going in and out of existence, longer looking time when habituated to a one-object continuous test
Suggestions
Babies in discontinuous conditions held to expectation that object exist in one location at a time + Use spatiotemporal continuity of object motion as evidence for a single object

Question 8

4a. limitations of the core knowledge account

Answer 8

4. Limitations of the core knowledge account
   Whilst core knowledge account offers infants opportunity to interpret events + inferences of hidden objects + guide exploration (Feigenson 2015)  signature limitations limiting use as a complete explanatory system
   Object features
   Carey et al 2004= infants struggle encoding object features. Could not tell the difference between a duck and bull condition vs just a duck after screen lifted .shows 10m failed to expect two objects behind screen . found up to 12m

Question 9

4b. limitations of the core knowledge account / conclusion

Answer 9

Suggestions
Suggests the physical properties of the objects are not yet part of their core knowledge system of objects , using limited info to track object over occlusion as they fail to record object features Nevertheless, If infants show knowledge at 2 months but still fail in tasks at 10 months this raises questions about the consistency and coherence of the “core” system.

Conclusions
Core knowledge accounts restricted to basic spatiotemporal rep- not rich feature based concepts