Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Commentary on Munakata

Commentary on Munakata J.G. Bremner Lancaster University, UK The Piagetian A not B error has been a focus of research for many years, and yet no clear explanation of the phenomenon has emerged. This is not for want of candidate accounts, because we have seen attempts to explain the error in terms of memory interference (Harris, 1975), object identity (Harris, 1973; Harris, 1985; Butterworth, 1975), and place knowledge (Bremner, 1985). More recently, Diamond (1988) has developed an account based on failure to inhibit a previous response. Although 9-month-old infants are capable of inhibiting incorrect responses, this breaks down when the task is complicated when object disappearance calls on the need to represent the absent object; coordination of these two functions is performed in frontal cortex, a brain region that is poorly developed during the first year. A stronger form of the response inhibition failure account is presented by Smith, McLin, Titzer and Thelen (1995). Finding that errors occur even when no object is hidden, they concluded that the phenomenon has nothing to do with knowledge of hidden objects, being instead about the establishment of a repeated action. None of these accounts, particularly the more recent ones, has provided a convincing explanation http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Developmental Science Wiley

Commentary on Munakata

Bremner, J.G.
Developmental Science , Volume 1 (2) – Oct 1, 1998
Download PDF
2 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/commentary-on-munakata-iDnFQzcJLM

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1998
ISSN
1363-755X
eISSN
1467-7687
DOI
10.1111/1467-7687.00024
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

J.G. Bremner Lancaster University, UK The Piagetian A not B error has been a focus of research for many years, and yet no clear explanation of the phenomenon has emerged. This is not for want of candidate accounts, because we have seen attempts to explain the error in terms of memory interference (Harris, 1975), object identity (Harris, 1973; Harris, 1985; Butterworth, 1975), and place knowledge (Bremner, 1985). More recently, Diamond (1988) has developed an account based on failure to inhibit a previous response. Although 9-month-old infants are capable of inhibiting incorrect responses, this breaks down when the task is complicated when object disappearance calls on the need to represent the absent object; coordination of these two functions is performed in frontal cortex, a brain region that is poorly developed during the first year. A stronger form of the response inhibition failure account is presented by Smith, McLin, Titzer and Thelen (1995). Finding that errors occur even when no object is hidden, they concluded that the phenomenon has nothing to do with knowledge of hidden objects, being instead about the establishment of a repeated action. None of these accounts, particularly the more recent ones, has provided a convincing explanation

Journal

Developmental Science – Wiley

Published: Oct 1, 1998

There are no references for this article.