Cognitive Processing - International Quarterly of Cognitive Science is a peer- reviewed . Second, I review studies showing that presaccadic attention improves identity of a percept on the basis of spatially and temporally distributed neural activities. Development of geocentric spatial language and cognition, Cambridge.
Table of contents
JSTOR: Access Check
The Chinese sample consisted of 70 students 21 female from Tongji University in Shanghai mean age Finally, the Tongan sample consisted of students 68 female from Ha'apai High School mean age All items required participants to adopt the perspective of an observer. The observer's gaze direction was always aligned with the participant's gaze direction.
The objects to be related were located either in the visual field of the observer frontal condition or in the observer's back dorsal condition. Twelve analogous configurations were used in each condition: Participants were asked to indicate the relation between figure F and ground object G from the viewpoint V of the depicted observer by choosing one of eight options: A selection of items is presented in Figure 4. The instructions and the complete set of items are provided for each of the four languages in the Supplementary Material Sections 1 and 2.
Three types of configurations were used, enabling us to elicit the full range of response options: These configurations differ in their requirements for responding according to a relative FoR and thus in their configurational complexity see Grabowski, b , pp. A Possible positions for the figure F in relation to the ground object G. Moreover, if the ground object G affords adoption of the intrinsic FoR, the ease with which this FoR is applied may depend on the orientation of G, in other words: Two aspects contribute to this mapping difficulty: The mapping difficulties and configurational complexities of all 24 items are provided in the Supplementary Material Section 2.
In all countries, the tasks were part of a larger survey on spatial references implemented as paper-pencil questionnaire. All materials were presented in the participants' native language German, US-English, Mandarin Chinese, or Tongan ; they had been translated by bilinguals and double checked in repeated re-translation sequences. The twelve items of each condition frontal and dorsal were arranged in one of two orders: The first one started with the six non-oriented items in random order and then proceeded with the oriented items also in random order ; the second order was the exact reversal and thus started with the oriented items.
The eight response options were always in the same order. Participants were tested indoors, either individually or in small groups. Each individual was randomly assigned to one of four questionnaire versions frontal condition with either first or second order of items, and dorsal condition with either first or second order of items.
Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the respective institution 2. The results are presented in three sections. First, we provide a descriptive overview of the data. Then, we use an MPT model to test item-specific effects and cross-linguistic similarities and differences. Finally, we inspect individual consistency in FoR choice across the item set. In order to provide a first, descriptive overview of the data, we determined for each type or variant of FoR a in which of the items this FoR could be identified unambiguously, and b how frequently this type or variant of FoR was applied among these items.
In the frontal condition, we distinguished between the three variants of the relative FoR translation, reflection, and rotation; Figure 2 , and the intrinsic FoR for the items with an oriented G. In the dorsal condition, we distinguished between three variants of the relative FoR according to the Turn Hypothesis turn-translation, turn-reflection, and turn-rotation; Figure 3 , and the intrinsic FoR for items with an oriented G.
Separately for each of the four sets of six items frontal non-oriented vs. This resulted in 13 exclusions from the total of participants. As the factor animacy did not make any difference neither descriptively nor later in the MPT analysis , animate and inanimate items were pooled. The results are presented in Table 1 including final sample sizes for each item set.
The proportion of responses that could be attributed to one of the FoR variants under scrutiny was generally high: Looking at the modal responses in the frontal condition, the data suggest a preference for reflection in German and English, and for translation in Chinese and Tongan. In the dorsal condition, turn-rotation dominated in all four languages alike although to different proportions. In tasks with an oriented G, the intrinsic FoR was adopted to some degree by the English speaking participants, and to a larger degree by the Chinese and Tongan ones. At this point, we should address one methodological concern: All configurations were presented as two-dimensional 2D sketches from a bird's eye view and, thus, clearly differ from real-world spatial situations.
Associated with this presentation are two questions: First, did the 2D sketches as such induce some kind of bias? And second, did our participants in fact adopt the point of view of the observer depicted in the scene? With regard to the first question, the frontal items are indicative. Here, the descriptive results replicate the findings for the relative FoR variants obtained with other methods: We therefore believe that our 2D sketches did not induce substantial biases. With regard to the second question on perspective taking, the frontal items are not indicative.
As the depicted observer was always looking in the same direction as the participant aligned perspectives , the very same responses result regardless of whether participants project their own coordinate system onto the ground object G or the coordinate system anchored in the observer. The dorsal items, however, are indicative.
We therefore consider it safe to assume that the gross of our participants considered the observer's perspective. The descriptive findings already address the two main hypotheses under scrutiny and clearly refute them: The reflection variant of the relative FoR does not generally prevail in frontal configurations as suggested by the Canonical Encounter Hypothesis , and the majority of participants did obviously not combine a turn of the observer with their preferred frontal variant reflection or translation in dorsal configurations as suggested by the Turn Hypothesis.
A suggestion for why they chose the turn-rotation response instead will be presented in the Discussion. For this overview, we restricted the considered items in order to deal with the general problem that not every FoR can be unambiguously assessed on every item, but in doing so, we of course lost information. A more elegant way is provided by multinomial processing tree modeling. This technique enables us not only to estimate probabilities of the referencing strategies from all items, but also to consider the influence of the item-specific factors configurational complexity, mapping difficulty , and animacy , and to test hypotheses on cross-linguistic similarities and differences.
MPT models are cognitive measurement models that describe categorical data by a set of latent cognitive states for reviews see Batchelder and Riefer, ; Erdfelder et al. Each cognitive state is represented by a parameter that reflects the probability with which the state is reached. Thereby, the problem of ambiguity in FoR assessment on the item level can be quite simply addressed: Unambiguous responses result only from one path in a tree i. The probability of any response category can then be calculated by multiplying the parameters along one path from the root to the leaf.
In case multiple branches lead to the same response category, the individual products are summed. Ambiguities can be resolved across a set of items, as long as the ambiguity does not concern all items alike. The model thus assumes that the probability with which a specific FoR is instantiated is identical across items and that this probability is independent from whether or not an item is ambiguous.
A violation of this assumption would result in considerable model misfit. The full model consists of one tree per item i. For each item, we first distinguish whether or not a person responds with an identifiable FoR represented by the parameters f vs. As not responding with an identified FoR might happen independently for each item, for example due to a not covered type of FoR, some kind of error, or guessing, the full model comprises 24 f parameters per language, one for each item.
For items with an oriented ground object, we then distinguish whether the intrinsic FoR or a variant of the relative FoR is used i vs. As the decision to adopt the intrinsic FoR might depend on item-specific characteristics, for example on the mapping difficulty or on whether or not the objects are animate, the full model comprises 12 i parameters per language, one for each item with an oriented G. To represent adoption of the different variants of the relative FoRs, different sets of parameters are used for the frontal and the dorsal items: In the frontal case, we distinguish whether the translation variant or a different variant is adopted t vs.
In the dorsal case, we distinguish whether the turn-translation variant or a different variant is adopted t t vs. Each of the four parameters t, r, t t , and r t is implemented in two versions in order to be able to model that the ratios of relative references might depend on whether or not items contain an oriented G. Figure 6 shows two example trees, one for an ambiguous frontal item and one for an unambiguous dorsal item. The complete set of trees is provided in Section 2 of the Supplementary Material. Two example trees and their parameters. A Process model for an ambiguous frontal item with oriented G.
B Process model for an unambiguous dorsal item with non-oriented G. Trees are traversed from left to right. Each node represents a latent cognitive state with the edges to each node containing the parameter leading to this node. The squares on the right represent the response categories. The complete list of processing trees is given in Section 2 of the Supplementary Material.
The model parameters were estimated from the frequencies of the response categories aggregated across participants by using maximum likelihood estimation with MPTinR Singmann and Kellen, These values indicate that our modeling assumptions are by and large compatible with the data. The complete list of parameter estimates is reported in Section 3. For a more in-depth analysis of the data, we then probed a selection of restricted models in order to find the model with the best balance between model fit and parsimony.
This model selection process Zucchini, was performed in four steps. In steps 1 and 2 we tested whether all item-specific parameters are necessary, or whether the data can also be accounted for with a more parsimonious version of the model. For steps 3 and 4, we took the most parsimonious model from step 2 to test specific hypotheses on cross-linguistic similarities and differences. Step 4 provides us with a final model from which we then calculated the prevalence of the different variants of the relative FoR in our samples.
Model selection is achieved by combining a model's goodness of fit with a penalty based on its complexity. The complete model selection analysis is reported in the Supplementary Material, Section 3. With one f parameter for each item and one i parameter for each oriented item, the full model allows for item-specific rates of identified FoRs f and, among these, of intrinsic FoRs i in each language.
In step 1 of the model selection process, we checked whether this item-specificity is necessary or whether there is evidence for more general tendencies. We hypothesized that the frequency of identified FoRs may depend on an item's configurational complexity , and that intrinsic referencing may depend on factors related to the orientation of the ground object i. Five sets of parameter restrictions were considered: Otherwise, these rates might depend 4 additionally on the frontal vs.
Six sets of parameter restrictions were considered: The tendency to use the intrinsic FoR might be 1 item-specific i: With regard to mapping difficulty, the tendency to use the intrinsic FoR might depend 3 on the three difficulty levels alone i: With regard to animacy, the tendency to use the intrinsic FoR might depend 5 on animacy alone i: We compared 30 models per languages for the four languages simultaneously, but allowing for language-specific fits: The model with the overall best performance was the model f: According to this model, the rates of identified FoRs depend on the complexity of the basic configuration, equally for all types of items one f parameter per language for each complexity level , while the tendency to use the intrinsic FoR is item-independent one i parameter per language.
Across the board, the f parameters varied as predicted across the three types of configurations, both for frontal and dorsal items. The rate of intrinsic references was similarly high for frontal and dorsal items—which is consistent with the assumption that for intrinsic references, the position of the observer is irrelevant—but differed between languages Table 2B.
Surprisingly, neither mapping difficulty nor animacy was necessary to explain the data. The next step started from the best model from step 1 and tested whether or not the decision for a specific variant of the relative FoR is independent of whether or not the ground object is oriented.
For each of these parameters, two models were defined: We compared 16 models 2 4 combinations of restrictions per language for the four languages simultaneously, again allowing for language-specific fits. It identified all four parameters t, r, t t , and r t as global. The proportions of the different variants of the relative FoRs can be assumed to be equal for oriented and non-oriented items within each language Table 2C,D.
So far, the model was fitted for each language individually. In the next two steps, we tested the data for similarities and differences between languages. To this end, we fitted the data of all languages simultaneously and tested different restrictions of parameters across languages.
For each parameter, f, i, t, r, t t , and r t , we tested five restrictions: In addition, we tested whether the parameter in question can be set equal 3 for German and English, the two Germanic languages with a preference for reflection in frontal settings germanic equal; three parameters: Germanic, Chinese, and Tongan , 4 for Chinese and Tongan, the two non-Germanic languages with a preference for translation in frontal settings non-germanic equal; three parameters: First, we tested the probabilities of identified FoRs f and, among these, of the intrinsic FoR i for language differences.
We considered 25 models: It identified f as germanic equal and i as non-germanic equal. The rate of identified FoRs f was similar for German and English, but differed for Chinese and Tongan both from that of the Germanic languages and from each other.
Cambridge Studies in Cognitive and Perceptual Development
Conversely, the tendency i to use the intrinsic FoR was similar for Chinese and Tongan, but differed for German and English both from that of the non-Germanic languages and from each other. With regard to the rate of identified FoRs f , variation across the three types of configurations in line vs. The rate of intrinsic references i varied considerably across languages; it was lowest among the German participants, larger for the US participants and largest among the Chinese and Tongan participants Table 2B.
The final step of the analysis was carried out separately for the frontal and dorsal items. In both cases, we started from the best model of step 3, and tested the parameters for the variants of the relative FoR t and r; t t and r t for language differences. The number of parameters could again be reduced compared to the best model from step 3: The proportion of translation t was similar for Chinese and Tongan, but differed for German and English both from that of the non-Germanic languages and from each other, whereas the ratio between reflection and rotation as represented by r was similar between Chinese and Tongan, and similar between German and English Table 2C.
Again, we considered 25 models: Compared to the best model from step 3, the number of parameters could again be further reduced: The proportion of turn-translation t t was similar for German and English and similar for Chinese and Tongan, whereas the ratio between turn-reflection and turn-rotation as represented by r t was similar for Chinese and Tongan, but differed for German and English, both from that of the non-Germanic languages and from each other Table 2D.
The overall final model combined the restrictions of the best models from step 4 for the frontal and dorsal items. The parameter estimates are shown in Table 2 ; the estimates of the variants of the relative FoRs in Table 3. The frontal data revealed strong differences between languages with regard to the variants of the relative FoR Table 3A. In these two languages, rotation was nearly absent. By contrast, language differences were small for the dorsal data Table 3B. This choice and its homogeneity are not only surprising because rotation is very rarely used as projection for frontal settings, but also when contrasted with the substantial cross-linguistic differences in strategies for frontal tasks.
We will return to this puzzling finding in the Discussion.
One may therefore wonder whether or not the results of the different steps and particularly the language comparisons are sound. To answer this question, it is important to remember that the goal of the model selection process is different from the goal underlying the use of the G 2 statistics, which provides an assessment of descriptive adequacy only. In contrast, model selection is concerned with choosing from a set of candidate models the one model that best captures the regularities in the data.
The conclusions drawn from a model that provides a good approximation of the regularities can be more validly generalized from observed data to yet unobserved data e. Relating these considerations to our findings, we can conclude: First, the full model provided an adequate account of the data, implying that our modeling assumptions are empirically adequate.
And second, the fact that the eventually selected models seemed to misfit bears no consequences on the conclusions. To the contrary, it avoids overfitting by focussing on the relevant characteristics present in the data. Does the variety of responses that we observed on the aggregate level result from intra-individually varying, task-specific references or from individually stable, but inter-individually different preferences for a particular FoR? In order to answer this question, we determined whether participants adopted a particular FoR consistently and, if so, which one. To this end, we counted for each participant and in each of the four sets of items frontal non-oriented vs.
For example, if four of a participant's responses to the six frontal oriented items were consistent with reflection, two with translation, and two were characterized as unknown types of references, consistency would be The maximum of these values here: Mean consistency values are displayed in Table 4. In general, responses were intra-individually quite consistent, with a mean value of Participants adopted their individually preferred FoR in 4.
An analysis of variance of the consistency values as dependent variable with one within-subject factor item type oriented vs. Post-hoc analyses indicated that German and English speakers did not differ in consistency Consistency was slightly lower for the items with an oriented ground object G Again, there were no effects of the two perspectives: Taken together, these findings suggest that only the possibility of adopting an additional FoR here: Next, we identified each participant's preferred FoR as the one response category that was assessed a more often than all others and b in at least four out of the six items of a block i.
Participants' preferred FoR variants are presented in Table 5. The individually preferred FoRs reflect the aggregated data from Table 1 quite nicely: If the ground object was oriented, some participants consistently adopted the intrinsic FoR. With regard to relative FoRs, translation and reflection were preferred in the frontal condition and turn-rotation in the dorsal condition.
Finally, in China and Tonga, the proportion of participants with no clear preference for any FoR variant was substantially higher than in Germany and in the US. Taken together, these analyses provide information about the variability in referencing with regard to two different aspects: For the four languages under scrutiny, we found different patterns. Among the German participants, high individual consistency was paired with cultural homogeneity. Almost all participants applied the same variant of the relative FoR repeatedly for the whole set of items, and most participants adopted the same variant as everybody else.
However, high individual consistency need not be paired with strong cultural homogeneity. The US participants were also very consistent in applying their preferred FoR, but did not agree with each other on the frontal items regarding which type of projection to use: Finally, among the Chinese and Tongan participants lower intra-individual consistency was paired with weaker cultural homogeneity: In order to further explore to which extent the possibility of adopting the intrinsic FoR in items with an oriented ground object contributes to lower consistency values, we cross-tabulated the preferred FoRs from the set of oriented and the set of non-oriented items.
For all participants with a preference for a variant of the relative FoR on the non-oriented items we then counted how often they kept the same variant on the oriented items, or switched to a different variant of the relative FoR, to the intrinsic FoR, or to the no preference category. The results are presented in Table 6. People with an identifiable preference for a relative FoR on the non-oriented items hardly ever switched to a different variant of the relative FoR on the oriented items.
They mostly kept the same variant, or switched to the intrinsic FoR most frequently in China and Tonga , or showed no clear preference anymore particularly in Tonga.
- Chaotic Logic: Language, Thought, and Reality from the Perspective of Complex Systems Science (IFSR .
- Login using.
- Ascendai: The Destiny Crest.
- ;
- Career Training and Personal Planning for Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Practical Resou.
- Original Research ARTICLE.
- Kama Sutra (en español ) [Translated] (Spanish Edition).
A log-linear analysis Kennedy, with the two factors perspective frontal vs. Taken together, it may be concluded that the variety of strategies in German and, more so, in English most likely reflects inter-individually different, but individually stable preferences for particular types of references. In Chinese and particularly in Tongan, however, the variety of strategies that we observed on the aggregate level seems to have two sources: Whereas many participants showed stable preferences, but differed from one another in the FoRs they adopted, others changed their referencing strategy task-specifically, which reduces their overall individual consistency.
The prime goal of this study was to examine the wide-spread default assumptions that people have a natural preference for the reflection variant of the relative FoR in frontal settings Canonical Encounter Hypothesis ; e. Another, equally important goal was to introduce multinomial processing tree MPT models as a means to address the complexities of data collected in this field of research.
Each of these goals will be discussed further in the following sections. Finally, we will take up the broader issue of what our results tell us about the relation between language, communication, and culture. The data from the frontal configurations clearly disprove the hypothesis on the cross-cultural predominance of the reflection variant of the relative FoR: Reflection is preferred in only two of the four languages under scrutiny German and US-English , and in one of those US-English not even unanimously.
In Chinese and Tongan, on the other hand, reflection is relegated to the second rank by translation. Interestingly, even rotation, for which no previous cases had been reported, occurred in China and Tonga to a small, but considerable extent. One source for variability across individuals and configurations was the absence or presence of an oriented ground object affording an intrinsic FoR , but even beyond this specific case, a substantial number of speakers in three of the four investigated languages exhibited substantial flexibility in adopting different FoRs.
This may reflect the lack of a default interpretation as described by Bohnemeyer for the Yucatec Maya and may be reinforced by a culturally encouraged inclination to take others' or simply other perspectives, as attested to in China and Tonga Wu and Keysar, ; Beller et al. Please recall that the three variants of the relative FoR under scrutiny differ only in how the primary coordinate system anchored in the observer is projected onto the ground object Figures 2 , 3. The ways in which this can be done may differ in complexity with rotation requiring arguably more cognitive effort than the other two.
Adopting the listener's perspective by rotation—as in a true canonical encounter—involves not only a switch on the front-back axis, but also one on the left-right axis see Grabowski, a , b. Apart from this potential difference in complexity, however, there is no a priori reason for considering one type of projection more appropriate than the other or for predicting a specific choice by one group of speakers compared to another. Eventually, the decision for any variant of the relative FoR is arbitrary. Once made, however, consensus among speakers would serve to facilitate communication and would therefore help to establish or maintain cultural conventions on this specific variant.
Beyond the empirical evaluation of default assumptions concerning the relative FoR, our findings also address methodological and theoretical caveats. The observation that translation is not at all rare in cross-linguistic perspective, and not even among US participants, calls for more care in theorizing and operationalization of the relative FoR. For instance, it should caution us against assuming the reflection variant as the baseline for assessing language comprehension in child development or in aphasic patients see also Abkarian, , let alone for research on spatial referencing.
Diverging preferences for reflection vs. If one presumes, for instance, a close conceptual link between the domains of space and time, the different variants of the relative spatial FoR can be assumed to also affect the relative FoR in time. And indeed, the four patterns diagnosed for temporal references map nicely on the absolute and intrinsic FoR for binary relations, and on the reflection and translation variant of the relative FoR for ternary relations Bender and Beller, ; and see Bender et al.
The latter type of ternary relations i. For any attempt to relate referencing patterns across domains, taking into account the different variants of the relative FoR and the observed patterns for dorsal configurations thus proves to be indispensable Bender et al. If we want to assess the extent to which preferences for spatial and temporal FoRs are related to each other, we need to know how people refer to configurations in their back spatially and in the past temporally.
However, recent evidence suggests that the relation between spatial and temporal FoRs is more complex, thus precluding a one-to-one mapping in language e. In spite of the diversity in frontal tasks, most participants in our study converged on the very same response in the dorsal tasks: Topics include perception and representation of the human form, infant imitation, understanding biological motion, self-representation, intention understanding, action production and perception and children's human figure drawings. Each section includes chapters from leading international scholars drawn together by an expert commentary that highlights open questions and directions for future research.
Dasen , Ramesh C. Egocentric spatial language uses coordinates in relation to our body to talk about small-scale space 'put the knife on the right of the plate and the fork on the left' , while geocentric spatial language uses geographic coordinates 'put the knife to the east, and the fork to the west'.
How do children learn to use geocentric language? And why do geocentric spatial references sound strange in English when they are standard practice in other languages? This book studies child development in Bali, India, Nepal, and Switzerland and explores how children learn to use a geocentric frame both when speaking and performing non-verbal cognitive tasks such as remembering locations and directions.
The authors examine how these skills develop with age, look at the socio-cultural contexts in which the learning takes place, and explore the ecological, cultural, social, and linguistic conditions that favor the use of a geocentric frame of reference.
Access Check
One of the key topics for establishing meaningful links between brain sciences and education is the development of reading. How does biology constrain learning to read? How does experience shape the development of reading skills? How does research on biology and behaviour connect to the ways that schools, teachers and parents help children learn to read, particularly in the face of disabilities that interfere with learning?
This book addresses these questions and illuminates why reading disorders have been hard to identify, how recent research has established a firm base of knowledge about the cognitive neuroscience of reading problems and the learning tools for overcoming them, and finally, what the future holds for relating mind, brain and education to understanding reading difficulties. Connecting knowledge from neuroscience, genetics, cognitive science, child development, neuropsychology and education, this book will be of interest to both academic researchers and graduate students. Cognitive Developmental Change makes a fascinating contribution to the fields of developmental, cognitive and educational science by bringing together a uniquely diverse range of perspectives for analysing the dynamics of change.
Connecting traditional Piagetian, information processing, and psychometric approaches with newer frameworks for the analysis of developmental change it provides the reader with an account of the latest theory and research at the time of publication. The contributors to the volume, all internationally respected experts, were asked when writing to consider three main aspects of cognitive change. Its object what changes in the mind during development , its nature how does change occur?
Or, what are the internal and external factors responsible for cognitive change? As a result chapters cover key theories of cognitive change, the factors that affect change including neurological, emotional and socio-cultural factors and methods for measuring and modelling change. The Onset of Language Nobuo Masataka https: The Onset of Language outlines an approach to the development of expressive and communicative behaviour from early infancy to the onset of single word utterances.
Nobuo Masataka's research is rooted in ethology and dynamic action theory. He argues that expressive and communicative actions are organized as a complex and cooperative system with other elements of the infant's physiology, behaviour and the social environments. Overall, humans are provided with a finite set of specific behaviour patterns, each of which is phylogenetically inherited as a primate species. However, the patterns are uniquely organized during ontogeny and a coordinated structure emerges which eventually leads us to acquire language.
This fascinating book offers exciting insights into the precursors of speech and will be of interest to researchers and students of psychology, linguistics and animal behaviour biology. In this thought-provoking book, the argument is put forward that the biological bases of behaviour and cultural context should be approached in an integrated fashion to properly understand ontogenetic development and that both the cultural and biological demain provide constraints and opportunities for development. It also examines the influence that various perspectives have had on developmental theory and the extent to which cultural ideas and practices reflect biological and psychological constraints.
By drawing together editors and contributors who are all leading experts in their field, with diverse theoretical perspectives from a range of disciplines Between Culture and Biology develops an integrative approach to this fascinating topic while preserving intellectual depth and complexity. Microdevelopment is the process of change in abilities, knowledge and understanding during short time-spans.
This book presents a new process-orientated view of development and learning based on recent innovations in psychology research. Instead of characterising abilities at different ages, researchers investigate processes of development and learning that evolve through time and explain what enables progress in them.
Four themes are highlighted: Learning and development are analysed in and out of school, in the individual's activities and through social interaction, in relation to simple and complex problems and in everyday behaviour and novel tasks. With contributions from the foremost researchers in the field Microdevelopment will be essential reading for all interested in cognitive and developmental science. Meltzoff , Wolfgang Prinz https: Imitation guides the behaviour of a range of species. Scientific advances in the study of imitation at multiple levels from neurons to behaviour have far-reaching implications for cognitive science, neuroscience, and evolutionary and developmental psychology.
This volume, first published in , provides a summary of the research on imitation in both Europe and America, including work on infants, adults, and nonhuman primates, with speculations about robotics. A special feature of the book is that it provides a concrete instance of the links between developmental psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science. It showcases how an interdisciplinary approach to imitation can illuminate long-standing problems in the brain sciences, including consciousness, self, perception-action coding, theory of mind, and intersubjectivity.
The book addresses what it means to be human and how we get that way. This book, first published in , is about children's learning and problem-solving behaviour. It reflects the increasingly close integration seen in recent years between social and cognitive approaches to researching the learning process. In particular, Paul Light and Karen Littleton examine the ways in which interactions between children influence learning outcomes. They begin by placing this topic in a broad theoretical and empirical context and go on to present a substantial series of their own experimental studies, which focus on children of late primary and early secondary school age.
These investigations address peer facilitation of problem solving, social comparison effects on learning and social context effects upon the interpretation of tasks.
Many of the studies involve computer-based learning but the findings have implications both for classroom practice and the understanding of the learning process.