Search

• We tested generalization of child planning from structured tasks to free play. • Adaptive tool-use child planners gather visual information earlier during free play. • Visually-guided planning was positively correlated across different free-play tasks. • The development of visually-guided planning is domain-general. Visually guided planning is fundamental for manual actions on objects. Multi-step planning—when only the requirements for the initial action are directly visible in the scene—necessitates initial visual guidance to optimize the subsequent actions. We found that 3- to 5-year-old children (n = 23) who exhibited visually guided, multi-step planning in a structured tool-use task (hammering down a peg) also demonstrated visually guided planning during unstructured free play while interlocking Duplo bricks and Squigz pieces. Children who exhibited visually guided planning in the hammering task also spent more time looking at the to-be-grasped free-play object and at their construction during reach and transport compared with children who did not demonstrate multi-step planning in the hammering task. Moreover, visually guided planning in the Duplo and Squigz tasks was positively correlated, indicating that planning generalizes across contexts. Findings show that visually guided planning in young children generalizes across different manual actions on objects, including structured tool use and unstructured free play. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Complexity of play predicts infants' capacity to solve means-end problems. • This link does not depend on whether the problem involves the use of tools. • We compared tool and non-tool means-end problem-solving of similar difficulty. Tool use is primarily, but not exclusively, present in species with otherwise advanced cognitive traits. However, the interaction between such traits and conspecific inter-individual variation in the presence, complexity, or intensity of tool use is far from being established. We addressed this matter among human infants, seeking factors that relate to differences in tool use. We examined, both correlationally and experimentally, whether the propensity to engage in object combinations predicts performance in means–end problem-solving tasks involving or not involving the use of a tool. We tested 71 infants aged 15, 18, 21, and 24 months, dividing them into two subgroups: one exposed to an adult demonstrating object–object combinations (i.e., "prompting" infants to combine objects together) and another with comparable social exposure but where the adult demonstrated single-object manipulations. We found a correlation between the combined level of spontaneous and prompted object combinations and problem-solving performance regardless of the involvement of tools in the problem. However, we did not find differences in tool-use performance between the two demonstration subgroups. The correlational analysis suggests that complexity of play, as measured by the frequency of combining objects, is linked to infants' problem-solving skills rather than being specifically associated with tool use, as previously suggested in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We tested how conventional and design cues impact young children's object function judgments. • When asked to identify what an object was 'for', 4- to 5-year-olds were influenced by conventional but not design cues. • Both conventional and design cues influenced 6- to 8-year-olds' function judgments. • The effect of both cues was less salient when malfunctions were presented. • Conventional and design cues appear to be similarly important in function conceptualization. This study investigated the individual influences of conventionality and designer's intent on function judgments of possibly malfunctioning artifacts. Children aged 4 and 5 years and 6 to 8 years were presented with stories about an artifact with two equally plausible functions, one labeled as either conventional or designed. Subsequently, a character attempted to use the artifact for the cued function, which resulted in either malfunction or successful use. The children's task was to identify the real function of the artifact. When the use attempt succeeded, 4- and 5-year-olds preferred conventional functions to the alternative (but did not show a clear preference between design functions and the alternative), and 6- to 8-year-olds preferred conventional and designed functions to the alternative. In case of malfunction, children's choices were at chance, where the effect of either conventional or design cues was less salient. This contrasts with a baseline condition where children avoided the malfunctioning alternatives. Presenting additional cues about an artifact's function can affect function judgments in cases of malfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To become skilled artifact users, children must learn the actions and functions associated with artifacts. We investigated preschoolers’ ability to fast map an action, function and name associated with a novel artifact, and retain the new mapping long term following brief incidental exposure to the artifact being used. In Experiment 1, 3- and 5-year-olds ( N  = 144) were tested 1 week after two exposures to a novel action, function, and name. Participants performed well on comprehension tests of all three kinds of information. In Experiment 2, 3-year-olds ( N  = 100) were exposed to these three kinds of information only once. Retention of the action–artifact link was above chance levels, whereas retention of function and the name was not. Finally, in Experiment 3, 4-year-olds ( N  = 128) performed well on an action production task 1 week after brief exposure. In contrast, their performance on a name production task immediately after exposure was poor. Our data suggest that preschoolers can retain function information about a novel artifact from minimal exposure, similar to their ability to learn an artifact name. Crucially, their ability to remember action–artifact mappings is markedly better than their ability to remember functions and names. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Spontaneous tool innovation to solve physical problems is difficult for young children. In three studies, we explored the effect of prior experience with tools on tool innovation in children aged 4–7 years ( N = 299). We also gave children an experience more consistent with that experienced by corvids in similar studies to enable fairer cross-species comparisons. Children who had the opportunity to use a premade target tool in the task context during a warm-up phase were significantly more likely to innovate a tool to solve the problem on the test trial compared with children who had no such warm-up experience. Older children benefited from either using or merely seeing a premade target tool prior to a test trial requiring innovation. Younger children were helped by using a premade target tool. Seeing the tool helped younger children in some conditions. We conclude that spontaneous innovation of tools to solve physical problems is difficult for children. However, children from 4 years of age can innovate the means to solve the problem when they have had experience with the solution (visual or haptic exploration). Directions for future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across two studies, we explored cultural differences in children’s imitation and transmission of inefficient actions. Chinese American and Caucasian American preschoolers ( N = 115) viewed either one or three models using two inefficient tools to perform two different tasks. In the video, when the model(s) performed the task, only the inefficient tool was available; thus, their choice to use that tool could be considered rational. Next, children were invited to complete the task with either the inefficient tool or an efficient alternative. Whereas the two cultural groups imitated a single model at similar rates, Chinese American children imitated significantly more than Caucasian American children after viewing a consensus. Similar results were found when exploring differences in information transmission. The Chinese American children were significantly more likely than their Caucasian American peers to instruct using an inefficient tool when they had initially viewed a consensus demonstrate it. We discuss these findings with respect to differences in children’s use of social versus task-specific cues for learning and teaching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Overimitation is defined as the imitation of a series of actions, including causally irrelevant ones. Although previous studies have indicated that children’s overimitation tends to be flexible, there is no research directly comparing overimitation occurrences due to types of irrelevant actions such as the target of irrelevant action or tool use. To identify the boundary of overimitation—that is, the point at which it occurs or not—Study 1 focused on the target of causally irrelevant tool-using actions. Specifically, the study examined the demonstration of irrelevant actions toward a main apparatus, a disconnected apparatus, or an actor’s own body, followed by the demonstration of causally relevant actions, to 2-, 3-, and 5-year-old children ( N = 59). Results indicated that children overimitated actions toward the apparatuses more than they did the actions toward an actor’s body. These results showed that overimitation was affected by the target, the apparatus, or the actor’s own body. Study 2 investigated the effect of tool use toward the disconnected apparatus or an actor’s body based on the findings in Study 1. Concretely, Study 2 added two actions without tool use (e.g., action toward an actor’s own body without tool use and action toward an apparatus without tool use) to Study 1’s actions for comparison. The results of this study showed that children overimitated the action toward the apparatus and the action with the tool more than the action toward an actor’s own body and the action without the tool. Taken together, these findings suggest that two factors are involved in the occurrence of overimitation: the target of the action (i.e., the apparatus) and the use of a tool. The current findings provide suggestions for considering important aspects of overimitation that are worthy of more attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How infants observe a goal-directed instrumental action provides a unique window into their understanding of others’ behavior. In this study, we investigated eye-gaze patterns while infants observed events in which an actor used a tool on an object. Comparisons among 4-, 7-, 10-, and 12-month-old infants and adults reveal changes in infants’ looking patterns with age; following an initial face bias, infants’ scan path eventually shows a dynamic integration of both the actor’s face and the objects on which they act. This shift may mark a transition in infants’ understanding of the critical components of tool-use events and their understanding of others’ behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scale errors offer a unique context in which to examine the interdependencies between language and action. Here, we manipulated the presence of labels in a tool-based paradigm previously shown to elicit high rates of scale errors. We predicted that labels would increase children’s scale errors with tools by directing attention to shape, function, and category membership. Children between the ages of 2 and 3 years were introduced to an apparatus and shown how to produce its function using a tool (e.g., scooping a toy fish from an aquarium using a net). In each of two test trials, children were asked to choose between two novel tools to complete the same task: one that was a large non-functional version of the tool presented in training and one novel functional object (different in shape). A total of four tool–apparatus sets were tested. The results indicated that without labels, scale errors decreased over the two test trials. In contrast, when labels were present, scale errors remained high in the second test trial. We interpret these findings as evidence that linguistic cues can influence children’s action-based errors with tools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A significant body of work has demonstrated children’s imitative abilities when learning novel actions. Although some research has examined the role of cultural background in children’s imitation of inefficient actions, to our knowledge no research has explored how culture and conformity interact when engaging in imitation. In Study 1, 87 Caucasian American and Chinese American preschoolers were presented with either one model or three models performing an inefficient action. Whereas there were no cultural differences in imitation in the Single Model condition, Chinese Americans were significantly more likely to copy the model’s preference for an inefficient tool in the Consensus condition. Children’s tool choice was associated with their justification for their choice as well as their memory for the model’s action. Study 2 explored the impact of immigration status on the cultural differences in children’s tool choice by including 16 first-generation Caucasian American children. When comparing the findings with the rates from Study 1, both groups of Caucasian American preschoolers imitated at rates significantly lower than the Chinese American preschoolers. We suggest that the tool choices of Caucasian American children relate to a tendency to engage in a perceptually driven mode of learning, whereas the choices of the Chinese American children reflect a greater likelihood to use a socially driven mode. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A capacity for constructing new tools, or using old tools in new ways, to solve novel problems is a core feature of what it means to be human. Yet current evidence suggests that young children are surprisingly poor at innovating tools. However, all studies of tool innovation to date have been conducted with children from comparatively privileged Western backgrounds. This raises questions as to whether or not previously documented tool innovation failure is culturally and economically specific. In the current study, thus, we explored the innovation capacities of children from Westernized urban backgrounds and from remote communities of South African Bushmen. Consistent with past research, we found tool innovation to occur at extremely low rates and that cultural background had no bearing on this. The current study is the first to empirically test tool innovation in children from non-Western backgrounds, with our data being consistent with the view that despite its key role in human evolution, a capacity for innovation in tool making remains remarkably undeveloped during early childhood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] We dissect children’s observational learning of complex actions. [•] We use naturalistic video displays within a ‘Ghost’ control. [•] Witnessing mechanical information does not equate to witnessing a full display. [•] Witnessing displays focused on action styles does not lead to their imitation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This study investigated cognitive processes underlying tool use and knowledge transfer in 24-month-olds (N =123). Following a demonstration, participants chose a tool to reach a reward in a training transfer paradigm. Differing from previous research, various aspects considered to be relevant for children’s performance were integrated within the same study design, and performance was examined on a trial-by-trial basis. More specifically, we analyzed how the following aspects affected toddlers’ learning and transfer performance: causal information, degree of conflict between perceptually salient and functionally relevant information, and feedback information. Children with access to causal information outperformed children without corresponding information during the training and transfer phases. Perceptual conflict had a negative impact on transfer performance. However, children were quickly able to correct their choices based on feedback. Results are discussed in the light of recent accounts on tool use understanding. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Despite a growing interest in the question of tool-use development in infants, no study so far has systematically investigated how learning to use a tool to retrieve an out-of-reach object progresses with age. This was the first aim of this study, in which 60 infants, aged 14, 16, 18, 20, and 22months, were presented with an attractive toy and a rake-like tool. There were five conditions of spatial relationships between the toy and the tool, going from the toy and tool being connected to there being a large spatial gap between them. A second aim of the study was to evaluate at what age infants who spontaneously fail the task can learn this complex skill by being given a demonstration from an adult. Results show that even some of the youngest infants could spontaneously retrieve the toy when it was presented inside and touching the top part of the tool. In contrast, in conditions with a spatial gap, the first spontaneous successes were observed at 18months, suggesting that a true understanding of the use of the tool has not been fully acquired before that age. Interestingly, it is also at 18months that infants began to benefit from the demonstration in the conditions with a spatial gap. The developmental steps for tool use observed here are discussed in terms of changes in infants’ ability to attend to more than one item in the environment. The work provides insight into the progressive understanding of tool use during infancy and into how observational learning improves with age. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: We explored whether a rising trend to blindly “overcopy” a model’s causally irrelevant actions between 3 and 5years of age, found in previous studies, predicts a more circumspect disposition in much younger children. Children between 23 and 30months of age observed a model use a tool to retrieve a reward from either a transparent or opaque puzzle box. Some of the tool actions were irrelevant to reward retrieval, whereas others were causally necessary. The causal relevance of the tool actions was highly visible in the transparent box condition, allowing the participants to potentially discriminate which actions were necessary. In contrast, the causal efficacy of the tool was hidden in the opaque box condition. When both the 23- and 30-month-olds were presented with either the transparent or opaque box, they were most commonly emulative rather than imitative, performing only the causally necessary actions. This strategy contrasts with the blanket imitation of both causally irrelevant and causally relevant actions witnessed at 3 and 5years of age in our previous studies. The results challenge a current view of 1- and 2-year-olds as largely “blind imitators”; instead, they show that these young children have a variety of social learning processes available to them. More broadly the emerging patterns of results suggest, rather counterintuitively, that the human species becomes more imitative rather than less imitative with age, in some ways “mindlessly” so. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: We present three studies exploring 2- to 4-year-olds’ imitation on witnessing a model whose questionable tool use choices suggested her untrustworthiness. In Study 1, children observed the model accidentally select a physically optimal tool for a task and then intentionally reject it for one that was functionally nonaffordant. When asked to perform the task for her, children at all ages ignored the model’s intentional cues and selected the optimal tool. Study 2 found that when the model’s nonaffordant tool choice was emphasized by claims about its design, 3-year-olds increased imitation. They also imitated, as did 2-year-olds, when the model selected a suboptimal rather than nonaffordant tool. The 4-year-olds consistently avoided imitation. Study 3 replicated these findings with new tools and participants. Additional measures indicated that knowledge about artifact design predicted children’s tendency to ignore the model. These results shed light on developmental trends in the social and cognitive functions of imitation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: We investigated developmental changes in the level of information children incorporate into their imitation when a model executes complex, hierarchically organized actions. A total of 57 3-year-olds and 60 5-year-olds participated, watching video demonstrations of an “artificial fruit” box being opened through a complex series of nine different steps. Half of each sample observed the same nine steps performed through either of two different, hierarchically organized procedures, whereas half witnessed differing component action details. Children were found to imitate at both levels but were more likely to copy at the higher hierarchical level than at the level of specific action details. Fidelity to hierarchical organization, but not to the imitation of specific detail, increased with age. However, variation in imitativeness across children at one of these levels did not predict imitativeness at the other level. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This study explored how conventional versus instrumental language influenced children's imitation and transmission of non-affordant tool use. Rather than examining children's imitation of unnecessary actions that do not impede goal completion, we examined children's conformity with a modeled behavior that may result in sacrificing goal completion. Children (N = 96 4- to 6-year-olds) were presented with either a conventional or instrumental description of a model's actions before watching the model choose a non-affordant tool. Children who heard conventional language imitated and transmitted the model's non-affordant tool choice at significantly higher rates than when they heard instrumental language. The results have implications for children, parents, and teachers regarding the extent to which children will conform with what "we" are "supposed" to do. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tool behavior might be based on two strategies associated with specific cognitive mechanisms: cued-learning and technical-reasoning strategies. We aimed to explore whether these strategies coexist in young children and whether they are manifest differently through development. We presented 216 3- to 9-year-olds with a vertical maze task consisting in moving a ball from the top to the bottom of a maze. Two tool-use/mechanical actions were possible: rotating action and sliding action. Three conditions were tested, each focused on a different strategy. In the Opaque–Cue condition (cued-learning strategy), children could not see the mechanical action of each tool. Nevertheless, a cue was provided according to the tool needed to solve the problem. In the Transparent–No Cue condition (technical-reasoning strategy), no cue was presented. However, children could see the mechanical actions associated with each tool. In the Transparent–Cue condition (cued-learning and/or technical-reasoning strategies) children saw both the mechanical actions and the cues. Results indicated that the Opaque–Cue and Transparent–Cue conditions were easier than the Transparent–No-Cue condition in all children. These findings stress that children can use either cued learning or technical reasoning to use tools, according to the available information. The behavioral pattern observed in the Transparent–Cue condition suggests that children might be inclined to use technical reasoning even when the task can be solved through cued learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Adapted an established task to test children's social learning of inefficient tool use. • First test of children's learning from a human versus robot in this context. • Conformity rate was lower when the task was shown by a robot than by a human. • Regardless of model, normative language did not enhance children's imitation. • Conformist tendency of 3- to 4-year-olds was higher than that of 5- to 6-year-olds. Robots are an increasingly prevalent presence in children's lives. However, little is known about the ways in which children learn from robots and whether they do so in the same way as they learn from humans. To investigate this, we adapted a previously established imitation paradigm centered on inefficient tool use. Children (3- to 6-year-olds; N = 121) were measured on their acquisition and transmission of normative knowledge modeled by a human or a robot. Children were more likely to adopt use of a normative tool and to transmit this knowledge to another when shown how to do so by the human than when shown how to do so by the robot. Older children (5- and 6-year-olds) were less likely than younger children (3- and 4-year-olds) to select the normative tool. Our findings suggest that preschool children are capable of copying and transmitting normative techniques from both human and robot models, albeit at different rates and dependent on age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Children received different types of initial experience with a causal trap-task. • From age 3, generating one's own experience led to above-chance performance. • If the same experience was given through demonstration, performance was at chance. • Using a tool was associated with more perseveration than using one's hands. Children often learn from others' demonstrations, but in the causal domain evidence acquired from observing others may be more ambiguous than evidence generated for oneself. Prior work involving tool-using tasks suggests that observational learning might not provide sufficient information about the causal relations involved, but it remains unclear whether these limitations can be mitigated by providing demonstrations using familiar manual actions rather than unfamiliar tools. We provided 2.5- to 3.5-year-old children (N = 67) with the opportunity to acquire experience with a causal trap task by hand or by tool actively or from observing others. Initially, children either generated their own experience or watched a yoked demonstration; all children then attempted the trap task with the tool. Children who generated their own experience outperformed those who watched the demonstration. Hand or tool use had no effect on performance with a tool. The implications of these findings for scaffolding self-guided learning and for demonstrations involving errors are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]