Object Permanence

Object Permanence 

 

 

 

Understanding that objects exist independent of our 

ability to perceive them 

At 8-12 months, infants can search for hidden objects 

Limitations in this ability: A-not-B Task


 

 

 






 

 

 






 

 

 





12-18 months 

Trial-and-error experimentation of the 

world to find new and different ways of 

acting on it. 

Before this, the infant produces known 

actions that will produce mostly known 

outcomes

12-18 months 

Here the infant produces new actions 

and observes the effects 

Can do the A-not-B task but only when 

object is visibly displaced 

Indicates that the spatial relation of objects 

relative to other objects is represented and 

is not related to their actions

Factors 

Revolve around issues of informationprocessing 

Visual Attention 

Perception 

Memory 

Perceptual-Action Coupling

Memory 

Diamond (1985) 

If no delay between hiding and allowing 

infant to search, then infants search correctly 

If impose a delay, then get errors of searching 

at B 

2 sec at 7.5 months 

Increasing by approximately 2 sec each month

Memory 

Lesions to adults’ prefrontal cortex, an area 

involved in working memory, results in poor 

performance on A not B task 

Butterworth (1977) 

Used transparent occluders 

Found infants still make error 

So, it is not just a memory issue

Attention 

Maybe they just are not paying attention 

where it is hidden 

Could affect ability to remember 

Horobin & Acredolo (1986) 

3 conditions to test for how attention might 

relate to ability to search

Horobin & Acredolo 

1) Close Pair (15.25 cm) 

2) Far Pair (45.75 cm) 

3) Six Hole (A and B 45.75 cm apart, with 4 

holes in between)

Horobin & Acredolo Results 

Condition 

Correct Search at B 

1 - Close Pair 57% 

2 - Far Pair 89% 

3 - Six Hole 52%


Condition 

Attention to 

B only 

Attention to 

other 

1 - Close Pair 93% 24% 

2 - Far Pair 100% 80% 

3 - Six Hole 83% 28%


Condition 

Attention 

Back to A 

Attention to 

other 

1 - Close Pair 11% 79% 

2 - Far Pair 62% 98% 

3 - Six Hole 17% 100%

Transparent Occluders 

Because infants were found to make errors with 

these, memory was ruled out as sole source of 

errors 

Yates & Bremner (1988) suggest perhaps it is 

due to novelty of transparent occluders

Yates & Bremner 

Compared familiarizing infants to the 

occluders for 5-10 minutes to not 

familiarizing them 

Found: Familiarized - 10% made errors; 

Unfamiliarized - 40% made errors 

So memory, or more likely attentioninduced 

memory issues, may play an 

important role in this error

A not B Task Concerns 

There is concern that performance in A-not-B 

task is strongly influenced by the development 

of motor control 

Younger infants have poorer motor control, therefore 

make more errors 

So use task that does not require motor response 

Purpose of Ahmed & Ruffman (2000) 

Use violation of expectation paradigm

Other Work on Object 

Permanence 

Bower (1966, 1967, 1982) 

Even infants as young as 20 days old see the 

bottom left alternative (no ball) as surprising


Baillargeon (1987) 

Found that not until 

4.5 months of age 

(substage 3) did 

infants increase 

attention to the 

impossible event

Ahmed & Ruffman 

3 tasks: 

1) Classic A not B task; 

2) A not B nonsearch task (using violation of 

expectation); 

3) one location nonsearch task

Ahmed & Ruffman

Ahmed & Ruffman 

Found that infants looked longer at the 

impossible appearance of toy at A after 

being hidden at B 

There was no affect of delay or age 

There was affect of age and delay on classic A 

not B task 

If infants did not have to search, they 

were found to remember even after 15s 

delay where toy had been hidden 

Go back to possibility that get effects due to 

attention wandering back to A

Object Permanence

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?