lecture 6: cognitive ontogenypages.ucsd.edu/~johnson/cogs102a/102alec6devel_slides.pdf · •...

Lecture6:CognitiveOntogeny

Cogs102A*Dr.ChristineJohnson

Learning• InPsychology,Learning hastraditionallybeenseenas

theindividual'sacquisitionofknowledge• Incontrast,inDCog…

• Learning =Adaptiveprocessesbywhichlearner’sbehaviorisbroughtintocoordination withatask

• Taskdemandsincludeengagingwithaffordancesofacognitiveartifact,situation,anotherperson,oneself,etc

• “Comingintocoordination” includeschanginghowstably&flexiblythelearnerengagesthetask

• Processislargelyobservable inchangesinallocationofattention,affect,objectmanipulation,vocalization,etc.

Vygotsky

• Russianpsychologist(1896-1934)

• Embraced(Marxist)Dialectic

• Focusedon social aspectsof

development

• “Socio-historical”(Cultural)development

VYGOTSKY

• Allhighercognitivefunctions

“appeartwice”

• Firstasinter-personal(social,visible)

• Laterasintra-personal(invisible,mental)

Vygotsky“ZoneofProximalDevelopment”

Vygotsky“ZoneofProximalDevelopment”

• Childparticipates,withmoreproficientothers,insomeorganizedpractice

• Childcomestomakerelevantmoves,tocorrectlytime&placethosemoves,eventuallytoplayallroles,etc.

• Zone“spans” distancefromwhatchildcandotochild'scurrent“potential” withhelp

Vygotsky

• Methodologically,observechangesinthenature,timing,

andproportionofcontributionsoftheparticipants.

“ZoneofProximalDevelopment”

Scaffolding

Scaffolding• InanyApprenticeship - involvingchildrenoradults-

sociallearningincludesVygotskianScaffolding

• Moreproficient“Expert”(e.g.parent,teacher,practicedpeer)

scaffolds“Novice”

Scaffolding• Appliestoanymediatedlearningsituation

• Evenwhen“Expert” isabook(!)

• WhenExpertisanartifact,Noviceplaysamoreactiveroleindirectingattentiontoaffordances

FunctionsoftheExpert inScaffoldingWood,Bruner&Ross(1976)

• RecruitNovic'sinterest,via…• Drawingintopositiveengagement

• Highlighting relevantobjects,affordances

• Simplifythetask(oftenintosub-tasks)• Challenge,justaheadofNoviceproficiency

• Demonstrateidealizedversion

• Markcriticalfeaturesofdiscrepancies• e.g.Viaimitation&correction

• Maintainpursuitofgoal• Provideinterimpayoffs• Maintaintrust• Controlfrustration,risk

ActiveRoleofNoviceRogoff(1991)

• Childrenareactive participantsinZone,evenifrolelimited

• Childismostfrequentinitiatorofinteractions• Infantwhines,Adulthelps,Infantrelaxes• Infantreach,touch,Adultasks“Want?”

Adulthandsobject,Infantgrasps• Childelicitstalk,supportfromothers

• Iftasktooeasy,Infantbored..• WillchallengeAdultformore

elaborateinvolvement

• ExpertandNovicecreate,andadaptto,problem-spacechangesduringlearning

So,theZPDisaDialectic

DiscoveriesfromDistributedDevelopment

Macro-LevelAnalysisBakeman&Adamson(1984)

“CoordinatingAttentiontoPeopleandObjectsinMother-InfantandPeer-InfantInteraction”


METHODS• Longitudinalstudy,Infants6to18months• PairedwithMomorwithPeer• Freeplaywithobjects

• Scoredvideointomacro-level“EngagementStates”• Infantunengaged• Infantonlooking(asotherengageswithobject)• Infantengagedwithpersononly• Infantengagedwithobjectonly• PassiveJoint(bothattendobject,butinfantnotalsoattendmom)• Co-OrdJoint(bothattendtoobjectandtoeachother)


RESULTS:• Mother-Infantdyads(comparedtoPeers)show…

• MorePassiveJoint &CoordinatedJoint• Mommorelikely(thanPeer)todoPassiveJointafterkidOnlooking,

orafterkidinsolitaryObjectplay

IMPLICATIONS:• Momscaffolds infantactivityby...

• Watchingforinfant'srelevantstate(e.g.Onlooking orEngagedw/obj)• Makingobjectsalient(bytimingownengagementtocoincidew/inf's)• Makingselfavailableforco-ord (again,bytimingownengagement)


BUT!• Thisdevelopmentalaccountislimitedtogrosstransitions

inengagementstatesacrosstheages

• DoesNOTprovideinfoonHOWsuchchangescomeabout

• e.g.Viacapacitytorepresentintentionsofother?• e.g.Viadynamicsensori-motorcouplings?• NeedtoactuallyLOOKatthosedetails...(Seelastlecture!)

Piaget'sA-not-BError

TASK:

• Repeatedly,asinfantwatches,hideobjectundercover

PiagetPremieredevelopmentalpsychologistof20th century(1896-1980)

TASK:

• Repeatedly,asinfantwatches,hideobjectundercover• Thenletinfantreachforhiddenobject

Piaget'sA-not-BErrorPiagetPremieredevelopmentalpsychologistof20th century(1896-1980)

TASK:

• Repeatedly,asinfantwatches,hideobjectundercover• Thenletinfantreachforhiddenobject

• Thenhideunder and,aftershortdelay,letinfantreach


TASK:

• Repeatedly,asinfantwatches,hideobjectundercover• Thenletinfantreachforhiddenobject.

• Thenhideunder and,aftershortdelay,letinfantreach

• 8-10montholdinfantsreachtoA(notB!)• By12months,infantlooks&reachestoB.

• Piaget:Only12months“know” thatobjectsexist&persist.


Smith&Thelen(2003)ContemporaryVygotskians,onPiaget’s(Vanishing)A-not-BError

• BUT 9montholdactslike12montholdif…• Shiftposturetostanding• Putonwristweights• Highlightholecovers• Exaggeratehidingevent• Etc!

• So,justaswesawwiththeissueofasking…• “Doesinfanthavetheabilitytocrawl?”• Problematic,sincethereareMULTIPLE

interactingfactors(movements,gravity,etc)• SameistrueofperformanceonA-not-Btask!

SO:• ASKnot“Whatdoesinfantknow?”

• But“Underwhatconditionsdoweseestable/unstableperformance?”

• And“Howdofactorsinteract,change?”

• Also,“Whatreal-worldactivityimprovesperformance?”• e.g.Crawling(Cangettooutofsightobjects)• e.g.Finemotorcontrol(Morewaysto

handle,&thereforesee,stuff)

Smith&Thelen(2003)ContemporaryVygotskians,onPiaget’s(Vanishing)A-not-BError

MicroMatters!

• Moderntechnology• Video• Motiontracking• EyeTracking• Massivedatafile

processing

• Allows…• Multi-modal• Moment-to-moment• Detailed

developmentalrecord

InfantsusetheirheadsShenetal.(2010)

- toreach!

Infantsusetheirheads- toreach!Shenetal.(2010)

METHODS:• Subjects1½to5yearsofage• MotionsensorsonHead&Hands• Bird'sEyeviewandFace-oncameras

• Presentedwithpairsofobjects• Freetoreach

Infantsusetheirheads- toreach!Shenetal.(2010)

RESULTS:• AllshowedHead-stabilizationbeforereach• Alsoco-orientationofHeadandreachingHand• Olderlookedlongerbeforereach,youngerjustatreach

IMPLICATIONS:• Reachingisnotjustaboutthehands!• Instead,aboutcross-modalsensory-motorcoordination

"Gavagai"Theproblemofidentifyingreferent

• ClassicprobleminLinguistics• Proficientspeakersays"LookattheGavagai!"

• Howdoeslearnerknowtowhichofmyriadaspectsofthevisualworldthespeakerisreferring???

• Rabbit?Grass?Path?Ears?Eye?Prey?Green?etc.etc.etc.

• Traditionalsolutionsproposeconceptualconstraints• e.g.Innatecategories,Perceptualbiases,etc

• Butnew,DCog researchshowshowactualwordlearningisalsoconstrainedbyactivityofparticipants!

ActiveInformationSelectionYuetal.(2009)

“Feedyourhead!”

Especially once you can sit stably


METHODS• Subjects19-23months&Moms• Head-CameraonInfantandonMom• PlusBird'sEyecamera

• FreeplaywithMomand3same-sizetoys

• ComputerVisioncanidentifyToys,Hand,Faces


RESULTS

• ObjectsgraspedbyinfantLOOM inhisvisualfield• Blockhisviewofotherobjects• Therebyincreasesalience ofgraspedobject

IMPLICATIONS:• Insteadofpositinginnateconceptual constraintsrequiredfor

parsingthenoisyinputofaclutteredworld• Infantactivelysegments&thusdisambiguatesitsowninput

BootstrappingAssociationLearningYu&Smith(2010)


METHODS• Subjects14months&Moms• EyeTrackerdeterminesInfant’spointoffocus

• Eachtrial,simultaneouslypresented…• Aspokennonsenseword(“gasser”,“manu”,“colat”,etc.)• Two(of6)visualshapes• Wordisnameofoneshapeineachpair

• Afterseveraltrials,determinedthatnamewaslearnedif infantlookedlongeratthenamed(vs.unnamed)shape

"gasser"


RESULTS:• “BestLearners” learnednameof5or6shapes• “PoorLearners” learnednameofonly1or2shapes• Astrainingproceeded,“Best” displayed

fewerandlongerlooksatstimuli

IMPLICATIONS:• Focusedlookingreducesambiguityofinput• InfantBOOTSTRAPS(Scaffolds)hisownlearning

• “PositiveFeedback” or“Ratchet”• Improvestheirownchancesofdetectingregularityofassoc

“Whatyoulearn iswhatyousee”

Neural-NetLearningYu,Ballard&Aslin(2005)

Mom’smulti-modalcoordinationenablesNeural-Netstolearnname-actionassociations


METHODS:• Momonly• Eyetracker,Head-mountedcamera,Microphone• Hand&Bodymotiontrackers

• Vocallydescribeownactions(e.g.“reading” “writing” “stapling” etc),“asiftoachild” (slow,enunciated)


RESULTS:• NeuralNetlearnsimage-soundassociations

• i.e.Wordsforactions• Whencomputershownnewvideosofsameactions...

• Couldsegmentvideosceneappropriatelyand• Generatecorrect“word”

• Basedontime-locked,multi-modalstreams

IMPLICATIONS:• Directedeyeandbodymovementsenabledcomputervision

systemtoisolate&trackpertinentaspectsofscene

• Suchmulti-modalcontingenciesalsoavailabletohumanlanguagelearners

GroundingWordLearningYu,Smith&Pereira(2008,Required)

Vocalizationscontingentwithsustainedhand/eyeengagement

>>Learningnamesofobjects


METHODS:• Subjects17-20monthswithMom• Headcamera&HeadMotiontrackeronInfant&Mom• PlusBird'sEyecamera&ComputerVisionanalysisofvideo

• Freeplaywithsetsof3toys,• Momteachnames(nonsensewords)fornoveltoys• TestedlaterbyrequestingInfanttogivenamedtoy


RESULTS:• NameslearnedwereNOT

mostfrequentlyspoken• Instead,werenamesfortoysthatwere

grasped &/orloomed,w/head-stabilizedlook attimenamed

• i.e.Multi-modal (relevant)inputmakeslearningeasier!

IMPLICATIONS:• Languageresearchersoftenassumenamelearningrequires

“mind-reading”Mom’s“intentions”….

• Butmaybemoreaboutsaliencesthatemerge frommulti-party,time-locked,co-oriented,multi-modalattention.

LAB4:ConsidertheScaffolding

(gradualchangeinparticipationprofile)thatoccurseven

betweenexpertandnoviceadults...

LOAD“Scaffolding”VideofromLabPage

lecture 6: cognitive ontogenypages.ucsd.edu/~johnson/cogs102a/102alec6devel_slides.pdf · •...

Documents