Preferential looking and visual fixation methods have been used to examine multiple cognitive abilities in infants such as object permanence (Charles & Rivera, 2009) and working memory (Cuevas et al., 2012). Reaching measures can examine similar infant cognitive abilities. The methods of Richmond et al. (2015) to explain infant spatial relational memory and Cuevas & Bell (2010) to compare looking and reaching performance in a working memory task will be discussed. Questions that arise ask what can each method tell us about infant cognitive ability and which method (if any) is best in determining the how infants’ cognitive ability can help them understand the world around them.
Richmond et al. (2015) conducted a study to test infants’ spatial …show more content…
However, infants are not sensitive to changes in the identity of objects unless there is prolonged or age appropriate visual familiarization with the object. Upon further discussions of these findings, authors ask why infants do poorly in search tasks despite being able to encode information about spatial relations. Results suggest that search tasks require motor abilities and that in turn requires additional processes that the infant have difficulty …show more content…
This study was initially aimed at figuring out why infants correctly identify the location of the hidden object by looking, but also simultaneously reaches for the toy incorrectly. Infants were subjected to a reaching and looking version of Piaget’s A-not-B working memory task. The reaching version of the task consisted of six steps. During the first three steps, the experimenter would partially cover the toy with a cloth, completely cover the toy with a cloth, and completely cover the toy under one of two identical cloths. The infant was required to successfully find the toy under the cloth twice to continue. Afterwards the last three steps consisted of A-not-B procedures. During the last three, the infant was subjected to three trials of AAB (two successful retrievals of toy from side A prompted a trial of B – toy hidden in side B). Infants who correctly retrieved the toy from side B at least two times moved onto the next step. The difference between the last three steps was the number of seconds of delay before infant could reach for the toy (0, 2, and 4 second respectively). The looking version of the A-not-B working memory task followed the same procedure as the reaching version, however the infant searched for the hidden toy with their eyes rather than
Richmond et al. (2015) conducted a study to test infants’ spatial …show more content…
However, infants are not sensitive to changes in the identity of objects unless there is prolonged or age appropriate visual familiarization with the object. Upon further discussions of these findings, authors ask why infants do poorly in search tasks despite being able to encode information about spatial relations. Results suggest that search tasks require motor abilities and that in turn requires additional processes that the infant have difficulty …show more content…
This study was initially aimed at figuring out why infants correctly identify the location of the hidden object by looking, but also simultaneously reaches for the toy incorrectly. Infants were subjected to a reaching and looking version of Piaget’s A-not-B working memory task. The reaching version of the task consisted of six steps. During the first three steps, the experimenter would partially cover the toy with a cloth, completely cover the toy with a cloth, and completely cover the toy under one of two identical cloths. The infant was required to successfully find the toy under the cloth twice to continue. Afterwards the last three steps consisted of A-not-B procedures. During the last three, the infant was subjected to three trials of AAB (two successful retrievals of toy from side A prompted a trial of B – toy hidden in side B). Infants who correctly retrieved the toy from side B at least two times moved onto the next step. The difference between the last three steps was the number of seconds of delay before infant could reach for the toy (0, 2, and 4 second respectively). The looking version of the A-not-B working memory task followed the same procedure as the reaching version, however the infant searched for the hidden toy with their eyes rather than