Piaget was right: Objects exist in the here-and-now of sensory-motor experience

1. Piaget was right: Objects exist in the here-and-now of sensory-motor experience Linda B. Smith Indiana University www.iub.edu/~cogdev

2. Cognitive development as a progressive differentiation of intelligence from sensory-motor processes, as a moving away from the here and now of perceiving and acting. Jean Piaget

3. The A not-B error - an example of sensori-motor intelligence To Piaget, the A not-B error was important because it showed how immature thought was tied to the sensory-motor surface Jean Piaget

4. The A not B error in 8 to 10 month olds A trials A not-B error

5. The A not B error A trials A not-B error

6. The A not B error A 3 to 5 second delay A trials A not-B error

7. The A not B error A trials This is repeated 4 - 6 times A not-B error

8. The A not B error B trials A not-B error

9. The A not B error 3 - 5 sec delay B trials A not-B error

10. The A not B error: an error of spatial perseveration The A not B task B trials A not-B error

11. For Piaget, the error reflected an inability to represent objects independently of their sensory-motor interactions with those objects. For the infant the mental object is inseparable from the location of bodily actions. Jean Piaget Piaget was right, it is a sensory-motor representation, a sensory-motor form of intelligence, that underlies the error A not-B error

12. For Piaget, the error reflected an inability to represent objects independently of their sensory-motor interactions with those objects. For the infant the mental object is inseparable from the location of bodily actions. Jean Piaget But Piaget was wrong about sensori-motor intelligence being a characteristic of only immature thought A not-B error

13. The error reveals a fundamental aspect about all of human cognition about how human cognition is grounded -- through the sensory-motor system -- to the physical world functional, effective, human cognition -- no matter how abstract, no matter how advanced it becomes -- is tied to here-and-now of perception and action sensory-motor thought

14. The plan: • Overview of a dynamic systems account of the A not-B error • How right Piaget was: this is sensory-motorthought • How these same processes are generally fundamental to human cognition, how early word learners link names to things • Grounding and intelligence that transcends the here and now sensory-motor thought

15. Dynamic systems accounts attempt to explain real time behavior as it happens in a task An account in terms of performance, motor plans, reaching to locations in visual space • Smith, Thelen, Titzer & McLin (1999) Knowing in the context of reaching: The task dynamics of the A-not-B error. Psychological Review, 106, 235-260. • Thelen, Schoner, Scheier, & Smith (2001) The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Target article, Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 24, 1-86. • Spencer, Smith, & Thelen (2001) Tests of a dynamic systems account of the A-not-B error: The influence of prior experience on the spatial memory abilities of two-year-olds. Child Development, 72, 1327-1346. • Smith & Thelen (2003) Development as a dynamic system. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 343-348. • Smith, L. B. (2005) Cognition as a dynamic system: Principles from embodiment. Developmental Review • Smith, Spencer & Samuelson (in preparation) The role of space in binding names to things. • Smith, Clearfield, Diedrich & Thelen (in preparation). Thinking close to the sensory-surface: The A not-B error Dynamic Field Model

16. Dynamic systems accounts attempt to explain real time behavior as it happens in a task An account in terms of performance, motor plans, reaching to locations in visual space Dynamic Field Model

17. A task analysis of reaching to a location in space A transient visual event instigates a goal to reach Dynamic Field Model

18. Persistent visual cues that direct and distract the reach direction Dynamic Field Model

19. Memories for recent reaches Dynamic Field Model

20. The body’s position at the moment of the reach Dynamic Field Model

21. The dynamic field model activation space TIME Transient inputs Tonic inputs Memories for past actions and events The body’s position A movement planning field Dynamic Field Model

22. The activity in the movement planning field is driven by two sensory fields and by a motor memory Task input Specific input The lids on the table The hiding event A B Generate reach plan time Memory for just previous reaches. Dynamic Field Model

23. The time evolution of activation in the planning field on the first A trial. The activation rises as the object is hidden and, owing to self-organizing properties in the field, is sustained during the delay. The time evolution of activation in the planning field on the first B trial. There is heightened activation at A before the hiding event, owing to memory for prior reaches. As the object is hidden at B, activation rises at B, but as this transient event ends, owing to the memory properties of the field, activation at A declines and that at B rises.

24. Children make the error because their memory for the desired object is realized in the processes that plan (and remember) spatially directed action -- because the object (in this task) is bound to the location of action. Piaget is right

25. Objects represented in terms of sensory-motor interactions, in terms of bodily actions in space. Jean Piaget Piaget is right

26. The plan: • Overview of a dynamic systems account • How right Piaget was: this is sensory-motorthought • How these same processes are generally fundamental to human cognition, how early word learners link names to things • Grounding and intelligence that transcends the here and now • Extension of the dynamic systems model to the grounding of word learning Piaget is right

27. A not-B experiments with infants • 8 to 10 month olds • 6 A trials, 2 B trials • 3 sec delay at the sensory surface

28. Claim 1: The processes that remember objects and create the error are processes tied to acting in space general processes of visually directed action at the sensory surface

29. No hidden object The A not B error with no hidden object! embedded in the processes that keep track of even in-view objects, embedded in the processes that take a hand to that object’s location in space at the sensory surface

30. Claim 2: The visual events in the task drive the activations in the motor planning field and in so doing createthe error Task input The lids on the table Specific input The hiding event A B Generate reach plan time Memory is carried over to the next trial. at the sensory surface

31. The specific input (the hiding event, the transient cue that signals the target): Increasing the attention-grabbing properties during the hiding of A increases the error; increasing the potency of the B hiding event decreases the error We can make the error come and go at will by manipulating only these aspects The error is a blend of (a competition between) the strength of the more immediate memory of the B event and the memory for just previous events (and actions) at A at the sensory surface

32. The task input (tonic persistent cues, the lids) Increasing the attention-grabbing properties of the persistently present visual input increases and decreases the likelihood of the error We can make the error increase by increasing the salience of the A lid, And make it decrease by increasing the salience of the B lid The error is a blend --an integration -- of the memory for the specific input (the hiding event), the persistent visual cues (the lids on the table), and previous actions at the sensory surface

33. Claim 3: The decision field is continuously coupled to the world through the body Task input The lids on the table Specific input The hiding event A B Generate reach plan time Memory is carried over to the next trial. at the sensory surface

34. From the baby’s view at the sensory surface

35. Pulling attention to the left --midreach -- pulls the reach to to the left; pulling attention to the right -- midreach-- pulls the reach to the right. at the sensory surface

36. Where the infant searches for the object is tied to where the infant looks, to the spatialorientation of the body, and that orientation is tightly tied to the events in the world at the sensory surface

37. Claim 4: The processes that remember objects, actions, locations in space --and that tie them to one another -- are very much in the language of the body at the sensory surface

38. NO ERROR! THE USUAL ERROR A sensory-motor intelligence A trials (6 trials): SIT B trials (2 trials): STAND SIT TO STAND STAND TO SIT SIT-SIT VISUAL DISTRACTION BETWEEN A AND B STAND-STAND (visual distraction) at the sensory surface

39. The processes that keep track of objects in space are tightly tied to the body’s position in space at the sensory surface

40. A trials B trials error No weight No weight * Control error 100% arm weight 100% arm weight NO ERROR No weight 100% arm weight NO ERROR Exp. 100% arm weight No weight *the experimenter pretended to put weights on/off between A and the B trials Perturbing babies’ bodies between A and B trials: Wrist weights (to both arms) at the sensory surface

41. The memories that make the error --that tie objects to locations -- take place in the processes that plan action such that a change in posture or a change in the feel of the arm resets those plans and those memories. at the sensory surface

42. This is sensory-motor intelligence -- . Piaget was right the object is represented in the infant’s own perceptions and actions close to the sensory surface, through bodily interactions in space Jean Piaget This is not just about immaturity, it is a fundamental truth about all of human cognition at the sensory surface

43. The plan: • Overview of a dynamic systems account • How right Piaget was: this is sensory-motorthought • How these same processes are generally fundamental to human cognition, how early word learners link names to things • Grounding and intelligence that transcends the here and now

44. Word learning Children say their first word by 12 months By 18 months 100 words By 24 months 300 words By 36 months 1500 words By 48 months 4000 words The processes that bind actions, objects, and locations (and make the A not-B error) also bind names to things Binding names to things

45. The phenomenon (Baldwin, 1993): Very young word learners (20 month olds) map names to objects even when those names and objects are experienced separated in time. Binding names to things

46. Binding names to things

47. Where is the modi? MODI! Time Binding names to things

48. Space Where is the modi? Linked by space MODI! Time Binding names to things

49. A not-B A trial B trial time Children reach and look to locations to interact with objects and objects become bound to those actions and locations, creating an error Binding names to things

50. There is a modi in here Look at this Binding names to things time Children reach and look to locations to interact with objects. If -- as in the A not-B task --objects become bound to those locations of action, can children be using those locations to solve Baldwin’s task, to map a name to a thing? Binding names to things