Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T01:25:06.461Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Prepared to learn about human bodies’ goals and intentions

from Part III - Bodily correspondences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2011

Virginia Slaughter
Affiliation:
University of Queensland
Celia A. Brownell
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access

Summary

Human beings are one of the first and one of the most frequent ‘objects’ in infants’ environment. Infants’ interactions with their caregivers are extremely diverse and socially rich. Caregivers provide care, affection and knowledge. It therefore seems trivial to assume that one of the first things human infants will learn is how to identify their conspecifics. The first section of this chapter reviews a series of studies that contradict the above intuition. Experimental research presented in this section has shown that infants, prodigiously good at learning about faces, are slow at learning about the human body appearance. A few explanations have been put forward to integrate these conflicting findings. Faces and bodies are similar in many respects (e.g. they have component parts whose relative position is species-specific; minor variations in the distance between these components occur between individuals) but also different in others (e.g. body parts movement leads to ampler structural changes than face component movements and these movements are often object-oriented). Thus, because movement changes the outline of bodies it may be more difficult to build a prototype of the human body than of the human face. Alternatively it could be that body movement, particularly the goals of human action, grab infants’ attention, at the expense of learning about body structure. It has been proposed that infants’ learning about the structure of the human face is secondary to their learning about facial communicative cues like eye-contact and eye-gaze (Gliga and Csibra, 2007). In the second section we will review evidence in support of a similar developmental story for acquiring knowledge about body structure. We will show that, before acquiring precise knowledge on humans’ appearance, infants are proficient at understanding and anticipating human (body) action. This attentional bias is driven by their need to learn from others, which requires understanding other people’s goals and intentions. The final section will attempt to integrate these two lines of research. We will propose that the principles infants use to understand the goals of human actions can also be used to learn about which bodily actions are possible and which are not, and eventually about human body structure. We will bring arguments to support this view from both developmental and adult cognitive neuropsychology.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baldwin, D.  A.Baird, J.  A.Saylor, M.  M.Clark, M.  A. 2001 Infants parse dynamic actionChild Development 72 708Google Scholar
Bekkering, H.Wohlschlager, A.Gattis, M. 2000 Imitation of gestures in children is goal-directedQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 53 153Google Scholar
Bertenthal, B. I. 1996 Origins and early development of perception, action, and representationAnnual Review of Psychology 47 431Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. S.Bertin, E.Hayden, A.Reed, A. 2005 Face processing in infancy: Developmental changes in the use of diferent kinds of relational informationChild Development 76 169Google Scholar
Biro, S.Leslie, A. M. 2007 Infants’ perception of goal-directed actions: Development through cue-based bootstrappingDevelopmental Science 10 379Google Scholar
Blake, R.Shiffrar, M. 2007 Perception of human motionAnnual Review of Psychology 58 47Google Scholar
Call, J.Carpenter, M.Tomasello, M. 2005 Copying results and copying actions in the process of social learning: Chimpanzees (pan troglodytes) and human children (homo sapiens)Animal Cognition 8 151Google Scholar
Carmel, D.Bentin, S. 2002 Domain specificity versus expertise: Factors influencing distinct processing of facesCognition 83 1Google Scholar
Costantini, M.Committeri, G.Galati, G. 2008 Effector- and target-independent representation of observed actions: Evidence from incidental repetition primingExperimental Brain Research 188 341Google Scholar
Csibra, G.Gergely, G. 2007 ‘Obsessed with goals’: Functions and mechanisms of teleological interpretation of actions in humansActa Psychologica (Amsterdam) 124 60Google Scholar
Csibra, G.Biro, S.Koos, O.Gergely, G. 2003 One-year-old infants use teleological representations of actions productivelyCognitive Science 27 111Google Scholar
Falck-Ytter, T.Gredeback, G.von Hofsten, C. 2006 Infants predict other people’s action goalsNature Neuroscience 9 878Google Scholar
Funk, M.Shiffrar, M.Brugger, P. 2005 Hand movement observation by individuals born without hands: Phantom limb experience constrains visual limb perceptionExperimental Brain Research 164 341Google Scholar
Gergely, G.Csibra, G. 2003 Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naive theory of rational actionTrends in Cognitive Sciences 7 287Google Scholar
Gergely, G.Nadasdy, Z.Csibra, G.Biro, S. 1995 Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of ageCognition 56 165Google Scholar
Gliga, T.Csibra, G. 2007 Seeing the face through the eyes: A developmental perspective on face expertiseProgress in Brain Research 164 323Google Scholar
Gliga, T.Dehaene-Lambertz, G. 2005 Structural encoding of body and face in human infants and adultsJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17 1,328Google Scholar
Halit, H.de Haan, M.Johnson, M. H. 2003 Cortical specialisation for face processing: Face-sensitive event-related potential components in 3- and 12-month-old infantsNeuroimage 19 1,180Google Scholar
Hill, H.Johnston, A. 2001 Categorizing sex and identity from biological motion of facesCurrent Biology 11 880Google Scholar
Kiraly, I.Jovanovic, B.Prinz, W.Aschersleben, G.Gergely, G. 2003 The early origins of goal attribution in infancyConsciousness and Cognition 12 752Google Scholar
Maurer, D.Barrera, M. 1981 Infants’ perception and distorted arrangements of a schematic faceChild Development 52 196Google Scholar
Perone, S.Madole, K. L.Ross-Sheehy, S.Carey, M.Oakes, L. M. 2008 The relation between infants’ activity with objects and attention to object appearanceDevelopmental Psychology 44 1,242Google Scholar
Perone, S.Oakes, L. M. 2006 It clicks when it is rolled and it squeaks when it is squeezed: What 10-month-old infants learn about object functionChild Development 77 1,608Google Scholar
Quinn, P. C. 1987 The categorical representation of visual pattern information by young infantsCognition 27 145Google Scholar
Baldwin, D.  A. 2004 Is the asymmetry in young infants’ categorization of humans versus nonhuman animals based on head, body or global gestalt information?Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 11 92Google Scholar
Reed, C. L.Stone, V. E.Bozova, S.Tanaka, J. 2003 The body-inversion effectPsychological Science 14 302Google Scholar
Reid, V. M.Csibra, G.Belsky, J.Johnson, M. H. 2007 Neural correlates of the perception of goal-directed action in infantsActa Psychologica 124 129Google Scholar
Saxe, R.Tenenbaum, J. B.Carey, S. 2005 Secret agents: Inferences about hidden causes by 10- and 12-month-old infantsPsychological Science 16 995Google Scholar
Saxe, R.Tzelnic, T.Carey, S. 2007 Knowing who dunnit: Infants identify the causal agent in an unseen causal interactionDevelopmental Psychology 43 149Google Scholar
Saylor, M. M.Ganea, P. 2007 Infants interpret ambiguous requests for absent objectsDevelopmental Psychology 43 696Google Scholar
Simion, F.Regolin, L.Bulf, H. 2008 A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn babyProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105 809Google Scholar
Slaughter, V.Heron, M. 2004 Origins and early development of human body knowledgeMonographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 69Google Scholar
Slaughter, V.Heron, M.Sim, S. 2002 Development of preferences for the human body shape in infancyCognition 85 B71Google Scholar
Sommerville, J. A.Woodward, A. L. 2005 Pulling out the intentional structure of action: The relation between action processing and action production in infancyCognition 95 1Google Scholar
Sommerville, J. A.Woodward, A. L.Needham, A. 2005 Action experience alters 3-month-old infants’ perception of others’ actionsCognition 96 B1Google Scholar
Southgate, V.Johnson, M. H.Csibra, G. 2008 Infants attribute goals even to biomechanically impossible actionsCognition 107 1,059Google Scholar
Southgate, V.Johnson, M. H.El Karoui, I.Csibra, G. 2010 Motor system activation reveals infants’ on-line prediction of others’ goalsPsychological Science 21 355Google Scholar
Stekelenburg, J. J.de Gelder, B. 2004 The neural correlates of perceiving human bodies: An ERP study on the body-inversion effectNeuroreport 15 777Google Scholar
Stevens, J. A.Fonlupt, P.Shiffrar, M.Decety, J. 1999 New aspects of motion perception: Selective neural encoding of apparent human movementsNeuroreport 11 109Google Scholar
Taylor, J. C.Wiggett, A. J.Downing, P. E. 2007 Functional MRI analysis of body and body part representations in the extrastriate and fusiform body areasJournal of Neurophysiology 98 1,626Google Scholar
Woodward, A. L.Sommerville, J. A.Guajardo, J. J. 2001 How infants make sense of intentional actionMalle, B.Moses, L. J.Baldwin, D. A.Intentions and Intentionality: Foundations of Social CognitionCambridge, MAMIT Press
Wynn, K. 1996 Infants’ individuation and enumeration of actionsPsychological Science 7 164Google Scholar
Younger, B. A.Cohen, L. B. 1986 Developmental changes in infants’perception of correlations among attributesChild Development 57 803Google Scholar
Zacks, J.Tversky, B.Iyer, G. 2001 Perceiving, remembering, and communicating structure in eventsJournal of Experimental Psychology: General 130 29Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×