On the limits of infants' quantification of small object arrays
On the limits of infants' quantification of small object arrays
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.cognition.2004.09.010
复制
发表时间：
2005-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Carey, S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Feigenson, L;Carey, S
最近的研究表明，婴儿依靠基于物体的注意力和短期记忆机制来代表少量的物体。这项研究表明，婴儿能够区分包含1、2或3个对象的数组，但不能区分大于3个对象的数组[Feigenson， L., & Carey， S.(2003)]。通过对象文件跟踪个体：来自婴儿手动搜索的证据。发展科学，6,568-584；Feigenson， L., Carey， S., and Hauser， M.（2002）。婴儿选择更多的表征：对象文件与模拟量。心理科学，13(2),150-156。然而，关于婴儿如何表示超过并行表示的3项限制的数组，我们知之甚少。我们探索了婴儿可能表示4个对象数组的可能格式。实验1使用手动搜索范式来显示婴儿能够成功地区分1与2、2与3以及1与3个对象的数组。然而，尽管有高度可区分的比率，婴儿未能区分I和4，这为目标文件表示在该任务中的表现提供了迄今为止最有力的证据。实验2在第二个范式——饼干选择任务中重复了这种区分1和4的戏剧性失败。然后我们发现，在选择任务中，婴儿成功地选择了更大数量的饼干，分别是0和4块饼干，1块小饼干和4块大饼干。这些结果表明，虽然婴儿不能将4表示为“正好4”、“大约4”、“3”，甚至不能表示为“多个”，但他们确实表示了有关数组的信息，包括存在一个爆竹或爆竹材料，以及数组中单个物体的大小。(c) 2004 Elsevier B.V.版权所有
Recent work suggests that infants rely on mechanisms of object-based attention and short-term memory to represent small numbers of objects. Such work shows that infants discriminate arrays containing 1, 2, or 3 objects, but fail with arrays greater than 3 [Feigenson, L., & Carey, S. (2003). Tracking individuals via object-files: Evidence from infants' manual search. Developmental Science, 6, 568-584; Feigenson, L., Carey, S., & Hauser, M. (2002). The representations underlying infants' choice of more: Object files versus analog magnitudes. Psychological Science, 13(2), 150-156]. However, little is known about how infants represent arrays exceeding the 3-item limit of parallel representation. We explored possible formats by which infants might represent a 4-object array. Experiment I used a manual search paradigm to show that infants successfully discriminated between arrays of 1 vs. 2, 2 vs. 3, and I vs. 3 objects. However, infants failed to discriminate I vs. 4 despite the highly discriminable ratio, providing the strongest evidence to date for object-file representations underlying performance in this task. Experiment 2 replicated this dramatic failure to discriminate I from 4 in a second paradigm, a cracker choice task. We then showed that infants in the choice task succeeded at choosing the larger quantity with 0 vs. 4 crackers and with 1 small vs. 4 large crackers. These results suggest that while infants failed to represent 4 as "exactly 4", "approximately 4", "3", or as even as "a plurality", they did represent information about the array, including the existence of a cracker or cracker-material and the size of the individual objects in the array. (c) 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.