Top

Optie A:

Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
Optie B:

Deel de link per e-mail
Link delen

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

19-12-2019 | Original Article Open Access

Children struggle beyond preschool-age in a continuous version of the ambiguous figures task

Tijdschrift:: Psychological Research

Auteurs:: Eva Rafetseder, Sarah Schuster, Stefan Hawelka, Martin Doherty, Britt Anderson, James Danckert, Elisabeth Stöttinger

Extras

» Naar de volledige tekst

Belangrijke opmerkingen

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01278-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Abstract

Children until the age of five are only able to reverse an ambiguous figure when they are informed about the second interpretation. In two experiments, we examined whether children’s difficulties would extend to a continuous version of the ambiguous figures task. Children (Experiment 1: 66 3- to 5-year olds; Experiment 2: 54 4- to 9-year olds) and adult controls saw line drawings of animals gradually morph—through well-known ambiguous figures—into other animals. Results show a relatively late developing ability to recognize the target animal, with difficulties extending beyond preschool-age. This delay can neither be explained with improvements in theory of mind, inhibitory control, nor individual differences in eye movements. Even the best achieving children only started to approach adult level performance at the age of 9, suggesting a fundamentally different processing style in children and adults.

Onze productaanbevelingen

BSL Psychologie Totaal

Met BSL Psychologie Totaal blijf je als professional steeds op de hoogte van de nieuwste ontwikkelingen binnen jouw vak. Met het online abonnement heb je toegang tot een groot aantal boeken, protocollen, vaktijdschriften en e-learnings op het gebied van psychologie en psychiatrie. Zo kun je op je gemak en wanneer het jou het beste uitkomt verdiepen in jouw vakgebied.

Meer informatie

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 94 kb)

Akshoomoff, N. A., & Stiles, J. (1995a). Developmental trends in visuospatial analysis and planning: I. Copying a complex figure. Neuropsychology, 9(3), 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.9.3.364. CrossRef

Akshoomoff, N. A., & Stiles, J. (1995b). Developmental trends in visuospatial analysis and planning: II. Memory for a complex figure. Neuropsychology, 9(3), 378–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.9.3.378. CrossRef

Bernstein, L. J., & Cooper, L. A. (1997). Direction of motion influences perceptual identification of ambiguous figures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(3), 721–737. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.23.3.721. CrossRefPubMed

Bialystok, E., & Shapero, D. (2005). Ambiguous benefits: The effect of bilingualism on reversing ambiguous figures. Developmental Science, 8(6), 595–604. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00451.x. CrossRefPubMed

Burnett, H. G., & Jellema, T. (2013). (Re-)conceptualisation in Asperger’s syndrome and typical individuals with varying degrees of autistic-like traits. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(1), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1567-z. CrossRefPubMed

Danckert, J., Stottinger, E., Quehl, N., Anderson, B., Stöttinger, E., Quehl, N., & Anderson, B. (2012). Right hemisphere brain damage impairs strategy updating. Cerebral Cortex, 22(12), 2745–2760. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr351. CrossRefPubMed

Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Anderson, L. C., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2037–2078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.006. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Delis, D. C., Robertson, L. C., & Efron, R. (1986). Hemispheric specialization of memory for visual hierarchical stimuli. Neuropsychologia, 24(2), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(86)90053-9. CrossRefPubMed

Devine, R. T., & Hughes, C. (2013). Silent films and strange stories: Theory of mind, gender, and social experiences in middle childhood. Child Development, 84(3), 989–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12017. CrossRefPubMed

Doherty, M. J., & Wimmer, M. C. (2005). Children’s understanding of ambiguous figures: Which cognitive developments are necessary to experience reversal? Cognitive Development, 20(3), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.05.003. CrossRef

Dukette, D., & Stiles, J. (1996). Children’s analysis of hierarchical patterns: Evidence from a similarity judgment task. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 63(1), 103–140. https://doi.org/10.1006/jecp.1996.0044. CrossRefPubMed

Egré, P., Ripley, D., & Verheyen, S. (2018). The sorites paradox in psychology. In E. Zardini & S. Oms (Eds.), The sorites paradox. Cambrdige: Cambridge University Press.

Ehlers, J., Strüber, D., & Basar-Eroglu, C. (2016). Multistable perception in children: Prefrontal delta oscillations in the developing brain. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 103, 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.02.013. CrossRefPubMed

Fisher, G. H. (1968). Ambiguity of form: Old and new. Perception & Psychophysics, 4(3), 189–192. CrossRef

French, J. A., Menendez, D., Herrmann, P. A., Evans, E. M., & Rosengren, K. S. (2018). Cognitive constraints influence an understanding of life-cycle change. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 173, 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2018.03.018. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action: Performance of children 312–7 years old on a Stroop-like day-night test. Cognition, 53(2), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(94)90068-X. CrossRefPubMed

Girgus, J. J., Rock, I., & Egatz, R. (1977). The effect of knowledge of reversibility on the reversibility of ambiguous figures. Perception & Psychophysics, 22(6), 550–556. CrossRef

Gopnik, A., & Rosati, A. (2001). Duck or rabbit? Reversing ambiguous figures and understanding ambiguous representations. Developmental Science, 4(2), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7687.00163. CrossRef

Happé, F. G. E. (1994). An advanced test of theory of mind: Understanding of story characters’ thoughts and feelings by able autistic, mentally handicapped, and normal children and adults. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24(2), 129–154. CrossRef

Holt, G. L., & Matson, J. L. (1976). The effects of age on perceptual changes using two new perspectives of the Necker cube. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 8(1), 4–6. CrossRef

Intaitė, M., Noreika, V., Šoliūnas, A., & Falter, C. M. (2013). Interaction of bottom-up and top-down processes in the perception of ambiguous figures. Vision Research, 89, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2013.06.011. CrossRefPubMed

Jastrow, J. (1900). Fact and fable in psychology. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co. CrossRef

Kelly, B. S., Rainford, L. A., Darcy, S. P., Kavanagh, E. C., & Toomey, R. J. (2016). The development of expertise in radiology: In chest radiograph interpretation, “Expert” search pattern may predate “Expert” levels of diagnostic accuracy for pneumothorax identification. Radiology, 280(1), 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2016150409. CrossRefPubMed

Kimchi, R., Hadad, B., Behrmann, M., & Palmer, S. E. (2005). Microgenesis and ontogenesis of perceptual organization. Psychological Science, 16(4), 282–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01529.x. CrossRefPubMed

Liu, X., Banich, M. T., Jacobson, B. L., & Tanabe, J. L. (2004). Common and distinct neural substrates of attentional control in an integrated Simon and spatial Stroop task as assessed by event-related fMRI. Neuroimage, 22(3), 1097–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.02.033. CrossRefPubMed

Long, G. M., & Toppino, T. C. (1981). Multiple representations of the same reversible figure: Implications for cognitive decisional interpretations. Perception, 10(2), 231–234. https://doi.org/10.1068/p100231. CrossRefPubMed

Long, G. M., & Toppino, T. C. (2004). Enduring interest in perceptual ambiguity: Alternating views of reversible figures. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 748–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.748. CrossRefPubMed

Martens, R., Hurks, P. P. M., & Jolles, J. (2014). Organizational strategy use in children aged 5–7: Standardization and validity of the Rey Complex Figure Organizational Strategy Score (RCF-OSS). The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 28(6), 954–973. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.939228. CrossRefPubMed

Mitroff, S. R., Sobel, D. M., & Gopnik, A. (2006). Reversing how to think about ambiguous figure reversals: Spontaneous alternating by uninformed observers. Perception, 35(5), 709–715. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5520. CrossRefPubMed

Mohammadi Sepahvand, N., Stöttinger, E., Danckert, J., & Anderson, B. (2014). Sequential decisions: A computational comparison of observational and reinforcement accounts. PLoS One, 9(4), e94308. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094308. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Moses, P., Roe, K., Buxton, R. B., Wong, E. C., Frank, L. R., & Stiles, J. (2002). Functional MRI of global and local processing in children. Neuroimage, 16(2), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2002.1064. CrossRefPubMed

Nayar, K., Franchak, J., Adolph, K., & Kiorpes, L. (2015). From local to global processing: The development of illusory contour perception. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 131, 38–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2014.11.001. CrossRefPubMed

O’Hare, A. E., Bremner, L., Nash, M., Happé, F., & Pettigrew, L. M. (2009). A clinical assessment tool for advanced theory of mind performance in 5 to 12 year olds. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(6), 916–928. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0699-2. CrossRefPubMed

Odic, D., Hock, H., & Halberda, J. (2014). Hysteresis affects approximate number discrimination in young children. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(1), 255. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030825. CrossRef

Perner, J., Mauer, M. C., & Hildenbrand, M. (2011). Identity: Key to children’s understanding of belief. Science, 333(6041), 474–477. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201216. CrossRefPubMed

Perner, J., Stummer, S., Sprung, M., & Doherty, M. (2002). Theory of mind finds its Piagetian perspective: Why alternative naming comes with understanding belief. Cognitive Development, 17(3–4), 1451–1472. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(02)00127-2. CrossRef

Poirel, N., Mellet, E., Houdé, O., & Pineau, A. (2008). First came the trees, then the forest: Developmental changes during childhood in the processing of visual local-global patterns according to the meaningfulness of the stimuli. Developmental Psychology, 44(1), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.245. CrossRefPubMed

R Core Team (2019). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org/index.html.

Rock, I., Gopnik, A., & Hall, S. (1994a). Do young children reverse ambiguous figures? Perception, 23, 635–644. CrossRef

Rock, I., Hall, S., & Davis, J. (1994b). Why do ambiguous figures reverse? Acta Psychologica, 87(1), 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(94)90065-5. CrossRefPubMed

Rock, I., & Mitchener, K. (1992). Further evidence of failure of reversal of ambiguous figures by uninformed subjects. Perception, 21(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1068/p210039. CrossRefPubMed

Ropar, D., Mitchell, P., & Ackroyd, K. (2003). Do children with autism find it difficult to offer alternative interpretations to ambiguous figures? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21, 387–395. CrossRef

Ruggieri, V., & Fernandez, M. F. (1994). Gaze orientation in perception of reversible figures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78(1), 299–303. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1994.78.1.299. CrossRefPubMed

Stöttinger, E., Filipowicz, A., Marandi, E., Quehl, N., Danckert, J., & Anderson, B. (2014). Statistical and perceptual updating: Correlated impairments in right brain injury. Experimental Brain Research, 232(6), 1971–1987. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-3887-z. CrossRefPubMed

Stöttinger, E., Guay, C. L., Danckert, J., & Anderson, B. (2018). Updating impairments and the failure to explore new hypotheses following right brain damage. Experimental Brain Research, 236(6), 1749–1765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5259-6. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Stöttinger, E., Sepahvand, N. M., Danckert, J., & Anderson, B. (2016). Assessing perceptual change with an ambiguous figures task: Normative data for 40 standard picture sets. Behavior Research Methods, 48(1), 201–222. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0564-5. CrossRefPubMed

Tsal, Y., & Kolbet, L. (1985). Disambiguating ambiguous figures by selective attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 37(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748508400950. CrossRef

Van de Cruys, S., Evers, K., Van der Hallen, R., Van Eylen, L., Boets, B., De-Wit, L., & Wagemans, J. (2014). Precise minds in uncertain worlds: Predictive coding in autism. Psychological Review, 121(4), 649–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037665. CrossRefPubMed

Wimmer, M., & Doherty, M. (2007). Investigating children’s eye-movements: Cause or effect of reversing ambiguous figures? In D. McNamara & J. Trafton (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. CogSci 2007: The 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Nashville, TN, USA, 01.08.2007-04.08.2007 (pp. 1596–1664). New York, NY, USA: Cognitive Science Society, Inc. http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2007/.

Wimmer, M. C., & Doherty, M. J. (2011). The development of ambiguous figure perception. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 76(1), 1–130. CrossRef

Wimmer, H., & Mayringer, H. (1998). False belief understanding in young children: Explanations do not develop before predictions. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 22(2), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/016502598384441. CrossRef

Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5. CrossRefPubMed

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophische Untersuchungen. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Titel: Children struggle beyond preschool-age in a continuous version of the ambiguous figures task
Auteurs:: Eva Rafetseder
Sarah Schuster
Stefan Hawelka
Martin Doherty
Britt Anderson
James Danckert
Elisabeth Stöttinger
Publicatiedatum: 19-12-2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-019-01278-z
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Tijdschrift: Psychological Research An International Journal of Perception, Attention, Memory, and Action
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)