text:
Object permanence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Psychology
Outline
History
Subfields
Basic types
Abnormal
Behavioral genetics
Biological
Cognitive
Comparative
Cross-cultural
Cultural
Differential
Developmental
Evolutionary
Experimental
Mathematical
Neuropsychology
Personality
Positive
Quantitative
Social
Applied psychology
Applied behavior analysis
Clinical
Community
Consumer
Counseling
Critical
Educational
Environmental
Ergonomics
Forensic
Health
Humanistic
Industrial and organizational
Interpretive
Legal
Medical
Military
Music
Occupational health
Political
Religion
School
Sport
Traffic
Lists
Disciplines
Organizations
Psychologists
Psychotherapies
Publications
Research methods
Theories
Timeline
Topics
Psychology portal
v
t
e
Object permanence is the understanding that objects continue to exist even when they cannot be observed (seen, heard, touched, smelled or sensed in any way). This is a fundamental concept studied in the field of developmental psychology, the subfield of psychology that addresses the development of infants' and children's social and mental capacities. There is not yet scientific consensus on when the understanding of object permanence emerges in human development.
Jean Piaget, the Swiss psychologist who first studied object permanence in infants, argued that object permanence is one of an infant's most important accomplishments, as, without this concept, objects would have no separate, permanent existence. In Piaget's theory of cognitive development, infants develop this understanding by the end of the "sensorimotor stage," which lasts from birth to about two years of age.[1] Piaget thought that an infant's perception and understanding of the world depended on their motor development, which was required for the infant to link visual, tactile and motor representations of objects. According to this view, it is through touching and handling objects that infants develop object permanence.[2]
Contents
[hide]
1 Early research
2 Stages
3 Contradicting evidence
4 In animals
5 Recent studies
6 See also
7 References
Early research[edit]
Developmental psychologist Jean Piaget conducted experiments that collected behavioral tests on infants. Piaget studied object permanence by observing infants' reactions when a favorite object or toy was presented and then was covered with a blanket or removed from sight. Object permanence is considered to be one of the earliest methods for evaluating working memory.[3] An infant that has started to develop object permanence might reach for the toy or try to grab the blanket off the toy. Infants that have not yet developed this might appear confused.[4] Piaget interpreted these behavioral signs as evidence of a belief that the object had ceased to exist. Reactions of most infants that had already started developing object permanence were of frustration because they knew it existed, but didn't know where it was. However, the reaction of infants that had not yet started developing object permanence was more oblivious. If an infant searched for the object, it was assumed that they believed it continued to exist.[1]
Piaget concluded that some infants are too young to understand object permanence, which explains why they do not cry when their mothers are gone ("out of sight, out of mind"). A lack of object permanence can lead to A-not-B errors, where children reach for a thing at a place where it should not be. Older infants are less likely to make the A-not-B error because they are able to understand the concept of object permanence more than younger infants. However, researchers have found that A-not-B errors do not always show up consistently.[5] They concluded that this type of error might be due to a failure in memory or the fact that infants usually tend to repeat a previous motor behavior.[1]
Stages[edit]
Peek-a-boo is a prime example of an object permanence test.[6]
In Piaget's formulation, there are six stages of object permanence.[7] These are:
0–1 months: Reflex Schema Stage – Babies learn how the body can move and work. Vision is blurred and attention spans remain short through infancy. They aren't particularly aware of objects to know they have disappeared from sight. However, babies as young as seven minutes old prefer to look at faces. The three primary achievements of this stage are: sucking, visual tracking, and hand closure.[8]
1–4 months: Primary Circular Reactions – Babies notice objects and start following their movements. They continue to look where an object was, but for only a few moments. They 'discover' their eyes, arms, hands and feet in the course of acting on objects. This stage is marked by responses to familiar images and sounds (including parent's face) and anticipatory responses to familiar events (such as opening the mouth for a spoon). The infant's actions become less reflexive and intentionality emerges.[8]
4–8 months: Secondary Circular Reactions – Babies will reach for an object that is partially hidden, indicating knowledge that the whole object is still there. If an object is completely hidden however the baby makes no attempt to retrieve it. The infant learns to coordinate vision and comprehension. Actions are intentional but the child tends to repeat similar actions on the same object. Novel behaviors are not yet imitated.[8]
8–12 months: Coordination of Secondary Circular Reactions – This is deemed the most important for the cognitive development of the child. At this stage the child understands causality and is goal directed. The very earliest understanding of object permanence emerges, as the child is now able to retrieve an object when its concealment is observed. This stage is associated with the classic A-not-B error. After successfully retrieving a hidden object at one location (A), the child fails to retrieve it at a second location (B).[8]
12–18 months: Tertiary Circular Reaction – The child gains means-end knowledge and is able to solve new problems. The child is now able to retrieve an object when it is hidden several times within his or her view, but cannot locate it when it is outside their perceptual field.[8]
18–24 months: Invention of New Means Through Mental Combination – The child fully understands object permanence. They will not fall for A-not-B errors. Also, a baby is able to understand the concept of items that are hidden in containers. If a toy is hidden in a matchbox then the matchbox put under a pillow and then, without the child seeing, the toy is slipped out of the matchbox and the matchbox then given to the child, the child will look under the pillow upon discovery that it is not in the matchbox. The child is able to develop a mental image, hold it in mind, and manipulate it to solve problems, including object permanence problems that are not based solely on perception. The child can now reason about where the object may be when invisible displacement occurs.[8]
Contradicting evidence[edit]
In more recent years, the original Piagetian object permanence account has been challenged by a series of infant studies suggesting that much younger infants do have a clear sense that objects exist even when out of sight. Bower showed object permanence in 3-month-olds.[9][10] This goes against Piaget's coordination of secondary circular reactions stage because infants aren't supposed to understand that a completely hidden object still exists until they are eight to twelve months old. The two studies below demonstrate this idea.
The first study showed infants a toy car that moved down an inclined track, disappeared behind a screen, and then reemerged at the other end, still on the track. The researchers created a "possible event" where a toy mouse was placed behind the tracks but was hidden by the screen as the car rolled by. Then, researchers created an "impossible event." In this situation, the toy mouse was placed on the tracks but was secretly removed after the screen was lowered so that the car seemed to go through the mouse. Also in the 1991 study the researchers used an experiment involving two differently sized carrots (one tall and one short) in order to test the infants response when the carrots would be moved behind a short wall.[10] The wall was specifically designed to make the short carrot disappear, as well as tested the infants for habituation patterns on the disappearance of the tall carrot behind the wall (impossible event).[10] Infants as young as 3½ months displayed greater stimulation toward the impossible event and much more habituation at the possible event. This indicated that they may have been surprised by the impossible event, which suggested they remembered not only that the toy mouse still existed (object permanence) but also its location. The same was true of the tall carrot in the second experiment. This research suggests that infants understand more about objects earlier than Piaget proposed.[1]
There are primarily four challenges to Piaget's framework:
Whether or not infants without disabilities actually demonstrate object permanence earlier than Piaget claimed.[11]
There is disagreement about the relative levels of difficulty posed by the use of various types of covers and by different object positions.[12]
Controversy concerns whether or not perception of object permanence can be achieved or measured without the motor acts that Piaget regarded as essential.[13]
The nature of inferences that can be made from the A-not-B error has been challenged. Studies that have contributed to this discussion have examined the contribution of memory limitations, difficulty with spatial localization, and difficulty in inhibiting the motor act of reaching to location A on the A-not-B error.[10]
One criticism of Piaget's theory is that culture and education exert stronger influences on a child's development than Piaget maintained. These factors depend on how much practice their culture provides in developmental processes, such as conversational skills.[1]
In animals[edit]
Experiments in non-human primates suggest that monkeys can track the displacement of invisible targets,[14][15] that invisible displacement is represented in the prefrontal cortex,[16][17][18] and that development of the frontal cortex is linked to the acquisition of object permanence.[19] Various evidence from human infants is consistent with this. For example, formation of synapses in the frontal cortex peaks during human infancy,[20] and recent experiments using near infrared spectroscopy to gather neuroimaging data from infants suggests that activity in the frontal cortex is associated with successful completion of object permanence tasks.[21]
However, many other types of animals have been shown to have the ability for object permanence. These include dogs, cats, and a few species of birds such as the carrion crow, Eurasian jays and food-storing magpies. Dogs are able to reach a level of object permanence that allows them to find food after it has been hidden beneath one of two cups and rotated 90°.[22] Similarly, cats are able to understand object permanence but not to the same extent that dogs can. Cats fail to understand that if they see something go into an apparatus in one direction that it will still be there if the cat tries to enter from another direction.[23] However, while cats did not seem to be quite as good at this ‘invisible displacement test’ as dogs are, it’s hard to say whether their poorer performance is a true reflection of their abilities or just due to the way in which they’ve been tested.[24] A longitudinal study found that carrion crows' ability developed gradually, albeit with slight changes in the order of mastery compared to human infants. There was only one task, task 15, that the crows were not able to master. The crows showed perseverative searches at a previously rewarded location (the so-called ‘A-not-B error’). They mastered visible rotational displacements consistently, but failed at more complex invisible rotational displacements. [25] Another study tested the comparison of how long it took food-storing magpies to develop the object permanence necessary for them to be able to live independently.[26] The research suggests that these magpies followed a very similar pattern as human infants while they were developing.
Recent studies[edit]
One of the areas of focus on object permanence has been how physical disabilities (blindness, cerebral palsy and deafness) and intellectual disabilities (Down syndrome, etc.) affect the development of object permanence. In a study that was performed in 1975-76, the results showed that the only area where children with intellectual disabilities performed more weakly than children without disabilities was along the lines of social interaction. Other tasks, such as imitation and causality tasks, were performed more weakly by the children without disabilities. However, object permanence was still acquired similarly because it was not related to social interaction.
Some psychologists believe that 'while object permanence alone may not predict communicative achievement, object permanence along with several other sensorimotor milestones, plays a critical role in, and interacts with, the communicative development of children with severe disabilities'.[27] This was observed in 2006, in a study recognizing where the full mastery of object permanence is one of the milestones that ties into a child's ability to engage in mental representation. Along with the relationship with language acquisition, object permanence is also related to the achievement of self-recognition. This same study also focused specifically on the effects that Down syndrome has on object permanence. They found that the reason why the children that participated were so successful in acquiring object permanence, was due to their social strength in imitation. Along with imitation being a potential factor in the success, another factor that could impact children with Down syndrome could also be the willingness of the child to cooperate.[28]
Other, more recent studies suggest that the idea of object permanence may not be an innate function of young children. While, in reference to Piaget's theory, it has been established that young children develop object permanence as they age, the question arises: does this occur because of a particular perception that already existed within the minds of these young children? Is object permanence really an inbred response to the neural pathways developing in young minds? Studies suggest that a multitude of variables may be responsible for the development of object permanence rather than a natural talent of infants. Evidence suggests that infants use a variety of cues while studying an object and their perception of the object's permanence can be tested without physically hiding the object. Rather, the object is occluded, slightly obstructed, from the infants view and they are left only other visual cues, such as examining the object from different trajectories. It was also found that the longer an infant focuses on an object may be due to detected discontinuities in their visual field, or the flow of events, with which the infant has become familiar.[29]
See also[edit]
Margaret Mahler § Object constancy
Elizabeth Spelke
Renee Baillargeon
Philosophical realism
Idealism
Peekaboo
Wax argument
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Santrock, John W. (2008). A topical approach to life-span development (4 ed.). New York City: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-3133768.
Jump up ^ Bremner, JG (1994). Infancy (2 ed.). Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-18466-X.
Jump up ^ Lowe, Jean; Peggy MacLean; Michele Shaffer; Kristi Watterberg (2009). "Early Working Memory in Children Born With Extremely Low Birth Weight: Assessed by Object Permanence". Journal of Child. 24 (4): 410–415. doi:10.1177/0883073808324533.
Jump up ^ Ellis-Christensen, Tricia. "What Is Object Permanence?". Conjecture Corporation. Retrieved 2011-11-21.
Jump up ^ Sophian, C.; Yengo, L. (1985). "Infants' understanding of visible displacements". Developmental Psychology. 21 (6): 932–941. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.21.6.932.
Jump up ^ Kitajima, Yoshio; Kumoi, Miyoshi; Koike, Toshihide (1998). "Developmental changes of anticipatory heart rate responses in human infants". Japanese Journal of Physiological Psychology and Psychophysiology. 16 (2): 93–100.
Jump up ^ Piaget, J. (1977). Gruber, H.E.; Voneche, J.J.. eds. The essential Piaget. New York. ISBN 0-7100-8778-0 [Amazon-US | Amazon-UK].
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Anderson, John E. (1955). "Review of The construction of reality in the child". Psychological Bulletin. 52 (6): 526–8. doi:10.1037/h0039645.
Jump up ^ Bower, T.G.R. (1974). Development in infancy. San Francisco: Freeman.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Baillargeon, R; DeVos, J (1991). "Object permanence in young infants: further evidence". Child Development. 62 (6): 1227–46. PMID 1786712. doi:10.2307/1130803.
Jump up ^ Káldy, Zsuzsa; Sigala, Natasha (2004). "The neural mechanisms of object working memory: What is where in the infant brain?". Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 28 (2): 113–121. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.01.002.
Jump up ^ Lucas, Thomas; Uzgiris, Ina C. (1977). "Spatial factors in the development of the object concept.". Developmental Psychology. 13 (5): 492–500. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.13.5.492.
Jump up ^ Moore, M. Keith; Andrew N. Meltzoff (2004). "Object Permanence After a 24-Hr Delay and Leaving the Locale of Disappearance: The Role of Memory, Space, and Identity.". Developmental Psychology. 40 (4): 606–620. PMC 1398789  . PMID 15238047. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.606.
Jump up ^ Filion, C. M.; Washburn, D. A.; Gulledge, J. P. (1996). "Can monkeys (Macaca mulatta) represent invisible displacement?". J. Comp. Psychol. 110 (4): 386–395. PMID 8956508. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.110.4.386.
Jump up ^ Churchland MM, Chou IH, Lisberger S (2003). "Evidence for object permanence in the smooth-pursuit eye movements of monkeys". J Neurophysiol. 90 (4): 2205–18. PMC 2581619  . PMID 12815015. doi:10.1152/jn.01056.2002.
Jump up ^ Barborica A, Ferrera VP (2003). "Estimating invisible target speed from neuronal activity in monkey frontal eye field". Nature Neuroscience. 6 (1): 66–74. PMID 12483216. doi:10.1038/nn990.
Jump up ^ Xiao Q, Barborica A, Ferrera V (2007). "Modulation of visual responses in macaque frontal eye field during covert tracking of invisible targets". Cereb Cortex. 17 (4): 918–28. PMID 16723405. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhl002.
Jump up ^ Barborica A, Ferrera VP (2004). "Modification of saccades evoked by electrical stimulation of macaque frontal eye field during invisible target tracking". J. Neurosci. 24 (13): 3260–7. PMID 15056705. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4702-03.2004.
Jump up ^ Diamond, A; Goldman-Rakic, P (1989). "Comparison of human infants and rhesus monkeys on Piaget’s AB task: Evidence for dependence on dorsolateral prefrontal cortex". Experimental Brain Research. 74: 24–40. doi:10.1007/bf00248277.
Jump up ^ Neville, H. J.; Bavelier, D. (2000). "Specificity and Plasticity in Neurocognitive Development in Humans". In Gazzaniga, MS (ed.). The New Cognitive Neurosciences. pp. 1259–70. CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list (link)
Jump up ^ Baird, AA; Kagan, J; Gaudette, T; Walz, KA; Hershlag, N; Boas DA (2002). "Frontal Lobe Activation during Object Permanence:Data from Near-Infrared Spectroscopy". NeuroImage. 16 (4): 1120–1126. PMID 12202098. doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1170.
Jump up ^ Miller, Holly; Cassie D. Gibson; Aubrey Vaughan; Rebecca Rayburn-Reeves; Thomas R. Zentall (2009). "Object permanence in dogs: Invisible displacement in a rotation task.". Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 16 (1): 150–155. doi:10.3758/pbr.16.1.150.
Jump up ^ Doré, François Y. (1986). "Object permanence in adult cats (Felis catus).". Journal of Comparative Psychology. 100 (4): 340–347. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.100.4.340.
Jump up ^ Muth, Felicity. "What's Going On in Your Cat's Head?". Scientific American Blog Network. Retrieved 2017-10-10.
Jump up ^ Hoffmann, Almut; Rüttler, Vanessa; Nieder, Andreas (2011). "Ontogeny of object permanence and object tracking in the carrion crow, corvus corone.". Animal Behaviour. 82 (2): 359–359–367. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.05.012.
Jump up ^ Pollok, Bettina; Prior, Helmut; Güntürkün, Onur (2000). "Development of object permanence in food-storing magpies (Pica pica).". Journal of Comparative Psychology. 114 (2): 148–157. doi:10.1037/0735-7036.114.2.148.
Jump up ^ Kahn, James V. (May 1976). "Utility of the Uzgiris and Hunt Scales of Sensorimotor Development with Severely and Profoundly Retarded Children". American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 6. 80: 663–665. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Jump up ^ Wright, Ingram; Vicky Lewis; Glyn M. Collis (June 2006). "Imitation and Representational Development in Young Children with Down Syndrome". British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 24. 2: 429–450. |access-date= requires |url= (help)
Jump up ^ Bremner, J. G.; Slater, A. M.; Johnson, S. P. (2015). "Perception of object persistence: the origins of object permanence in infancy". Child Development Perspectives. 9 (1): 7–13. doi:10.1111/cdep.12098.
[show]
v
t
e
Infants and their care
Main Article
Infant
Health
Baby food
Birth weight
Breast pump
Breastfeeding
Breastfeeding and medications
Bottle feeding
Colic
Immunizations
Cradle cap
Cross eyed
Failure to thrive
Immunization
Infant and toddler safety
Infant bathing
Infant food safety
Infant formula
Infant massage
Infant food safety
Infant nutrition
Infant respiratory distress syndrome
infant sleep training
Neo-natal intensive care unit
Oral rehydration therapy/Pedialyte
Newborn care and safety
Pediatrician
Preterm birth
Shaken baby syndrome
Soy formula
Sudden infant death syndrome
Development
Attachment parenting
Baby-led weaning
Baby talk
Babbling
Childbirth
Congential disorder
Crawling
Infant visual development
Diaper rash
Gestational age
Infant cognitive development
Itsy Bitsy Spider
Kangaroo care
Mother
Object permanence
Parent
Parenting
Pat-a-cake, pat-a-cake, baker's man
Peekaboo
Play
Prenatal development
Prenatal development table
Teething
This Little Piggy
Types of crying
Walking
Weaning
Socialization and Culture
Attachment
Babysitting
Child abuse
Child custody
Child's rights
UN Child rights
Circumcision
Daycare
Foster care
Grandparent visitation
Infant swimming
Milk bank
Nanny
Wet nurse
Infant care and equipment
Baby bouncer
Baby gate
Baby monitor/Hidden camera
Baby powder
Baby shampoo
Baby toy
Baby walker
Bib
baby swing
Baby transport
Bassinet
Child safety seat/Car seat safety
Cloth diaper
Cradle board
Diaper
Diaper bag
Baby wipes
Haberman Feeder
Highchair
Infant bed (American 'crib' and 'cradle', British 'cot')
Infant carrier
Infant clothing
Pacifier
Playpen
Stroller
Supplemental nursing system
Swaddling
Swim diaper
Baby teether
Travel cot
Other topics
Baby shower
Babywearing
Beginning of pregnancy controversy
Breast shell
Child neglect
Closed adoption
Cry room
Infant ear piercing
Lactation suppression
Miscarriage
Nipple shield (breastfeeding)
Open adoption
Prenatal cocaine exposure
Neonatal withdrawal syndrome
Parental child abduction
Parental rights
Parenting plan
Paternity fraud
Paternity
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Object_permanence&oldid=804634758"
Categories:
Cognition
Child development
Developmental psychology
Hidden categories:
CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list
Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL
Good articles
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Deutsch
Español
Euskara
فارسی
Français
한국어
Bahasa Melayu
Português
Svenska
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 10 October 2017, at 07:22.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

value: a

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: This is a good article. Click here for more information.

attrs: href title

attrs: class id

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: class style

value: tr

values: The Greek letter 'psi', a symbol for psychology

attrs: href class title

value: td

value: li

values: padding:0 0.1em 0.4em;padding:0.15em 0.5em 0.6em;

values: Industrial and organizational psychology

values: List of important publications in psychology

values: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-bottom:1px solid #aaa;

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values: Piaget's theory of cognitive development

values:
/wiki/Sensorimotor_stage
mw-redirect
Sensorimotor stage

values: US Navy 100406-N-7478G-346 Operations Specialist 2nd Class Reginald Harlmon and Electronics Technician 3rd Class Maura Schulze play peek-a-boo with a child in the Children's Ward at Hospital Likas

values:
/wiki/Frontal_cortex
mw-redirect
Frontal cortex

values:
/wiki/Near_infrared_spectroscopy
mw-redirect
Near infrared spectroscopy

values:
/wiki/Hearing_impairment
mw-redirect
Hearing impairment

values:
/wiki/Renee_Baillargeon
mw-redirect
Renee Baillargeon

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0039645

values:
/wiki/PubMed_Identifier
mw-redirect
PubMed Identifier

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1786712

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F1130803

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15238047

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8956508

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12815015

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1152%2Fjn.01056.2002

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12483216

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1038%2Fnn990

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16723405

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1093%2Fcercor%2Fbhl002

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15056705

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1007%2Fbf00248277

values: Category:CS1 maint: Extra text: editors list

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12202098

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1006%2Fnimg.2002.1170

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.3758%2Fpbr.16.1.150

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1111%2Fcdep.12098

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: Template talk:Infants and their care (page does not exist)

values:
navbox-image
6
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values:
/wiki/Bottle_feeding
mw-redirect
Bottle feeding

values: Childhood immunizations in the United States

values:
/wiki/Neo-natal_intensive_care_unit
mw-redirect
Neo-natal intensive care unit

values: Congential disorder (page does not exist)

values: Prenatal development table (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Child%27s_rights
mw-redirect
Child's rights

values:
/wiki/Car_seat_safety
mw-redirect
Car seat safety

values:
/wiki/Cradle_board
mw-redirect
Cradle board

values:
/wiki/Infant_carrier
mw-redirect
Infant carrier

values: Parental responsibility (access and custody)

values: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Object_permanence
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: بقای شیء – Persian

values: interlanguage-link interwiki-fa badge-Q17437796 badge-featuredarticle

values: 대상영속성 – Korean

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Object_permanence rootpage-Object_permanence vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view