Cited by 44Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentSocial Robot Interaction and HRISpatial Cognition and Navigation

Do you see what I see? Infants’ reasoning about others’ incomplete perceptions

Open access
Luo, Yuyan, Beck, Whitney·2010·Developmental Science

Abstract

Twelve‐month‐olds realize that when an agent cannot see an object, her incomplete perceptions still guide her goal‐directed actions. What would happen if the agent had incomplete perceptions because she could see only one part of the object, for example one side of a screen? In the present research, 16‐month‐olds were first shown an agent who always pointed to a red object, as opposed to a black or a yellow object, suggesting that she preferred red over the other colours. Next, two screens were introduced while the agent was absent. The screens were (1) red or green on both sides; (2) red on the front (infants’ side) but green on the back (the agent’s side) or vice versa; or (3) only coloured red or green on the front. During test, the agent, who could see only the back of the screens, pointed to one of the two screens. The results revealed that while infants expected the agent to continue acting on her colour preference and point to the red rather than the green screen during test, they did so in accord with the agent’s perception of the screens, rather than their own perceptions: they expected the agent to point to the red screen in (1), but to the green‐front screen in (2), and they had no prediction of which screen the agent should point to in (3). The implications of the present findings for early psychological reasoning research are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00863.x

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • After familiarization in which an agent repeatedly grasps object-A, infants look longer in test when the agent grasps object-B, but only if object-B was present and visible to the agent during familiarization, giving infants evidence that the agent prefers object-A.

    “To illustrate, after watching familiarization events in which an agent repeatedly grasps object-A, infants look longer in test if the agent now grasps object-B, but only if object-B is both present and visible to the agent during the familiarization events, so that infants have evidence that the agent prefers object-A over object-B [48,53,54,64].”

    From False-belief understanding in infants (2010) · cites this paper as [64]

  • In many VOE tasks, infants look longer at a test event that deviates from familiarization events in one condition, but infants in other similar conditions do not.

    “For instance, in many VOE tasks, infants in one condition look longer at the test event that deviates from the familiarization events, but infants in other, very similar conditions do not.”

    From False-belief understanding in infants (2010) · cites this paper as [64]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Allard, A., & Onishi, K.H. (2008). What you say is (not quite) what you see: Perspective taking in 14-month-old infants. Paper presented at the International Conference on Infant Studies.
  2. Flavell, J.H. (2004). Development of knowledge about vision. In D.T. Levin (Ed.), Thinking and seeing: Visual metacognition in adults and children (pp. 13-36). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  3. Ó 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation Ó 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  4. Premack, D., & Premack, A.J. (1995). Origins of human social competence. In M.S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neuro- sciences (pp. 205-218). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luo, Y., & Beck, W.
Affiliations
University of Missouri (US)
Corresponding author
Luo, Yuyan
Venue
Developmental Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-12-09
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
134-142
ISSN
  • 1363-755X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-7687
OpenAlex
W1953889564
Cited by
44
References
44
Citations by year
2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Developmental Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Missouri
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Spatial Cognition and Navigation
Keywords
false belief, theory of mind, goal-directed action, pointing behavior, color preference, social cognition
MeSH terms
Attention, Concept Formation, Discrimination Learning, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Orientation, Photic Stimulation, Visual Perception, Infant Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review