Facilitation of the encoding of objects in infants by observation of the donation

  • 1.

    Gurven, M. & Jaeggi, AV Food sharing. Emerge. Trends Soc. Behave yourself. Sci. Interdisciples. To look for. Connect. Resource 1, 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772 (2015).

    Google Scholar article

  • 2.

    Gurven, M., Stieglitz, J., Hooper, PL, Gomes, C. & Kaplan, H. From womb to grave: the role of transfers in shaping the history of evolved human life. Exp. Gerontol. 47, 807-813 (2012).

    Google Scholar article

  • 3.

    Gurven, M. Give and Don’t Give: The Behavioral Ecology of Human Food Transfers. Behave yourself. Brain Sci. 27, 543-559 (2004).

    Google Scholar article

  • 4.

    Jaeggi, AV & Gurven, M. Natural Cooperators: Sharing food in humans and other primates: Natural cooperators: Sharing food in humans and other primates. Evol. Anthropol. Numbers News Rev. 22, 186-195 (2013).

    Google Scholar article

  • 5.

    Jaeggi, AV & Gurven, M. Reciprocity Explains Food Sharing in Man and Other Primates Independent of Kinship Selection and Tolerated Harvesting: A Phylogenetic Meta-analysis. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 280, 20131615 (2013).

    Google Scholar article

  • 6.

    Kaplan, HS, Schniter, E., Smith, VL & Wilson, BJ Risk and the evolution of human exchanges. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 2930-2935 (2012).

    Google Scholar article

  • 7.

    Bliege Bird, R., Ready, E. & Power, EA The social significance of subtle signals. Nat. Hmm. Behave yourself. 2, 452-457 (2018).

    Google Scholar article

  • 8.

    Barclay, P. Cooperative strategies in organic markets, especially for humans. Evol. Hmm. Behave yourself. 34, 164-175 (2013).

    Google Scholar article

  • 9.

    Stevens, JR & Hauser, MD Cooperative brains: psychological constraints on the evolution of altruism (University of Nebraska, Lincoln, 2005).

    Google Scholar

  • ten.

    Jaeggi, AV, Burkart, JM & Van Schaik, CP On the psychology of cooperation in humans and other primates: a combination of natural history and experimental evidence for prosociality. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2723-2735 (2010).

    Google Scholar article

  • 11.

    Lieberman, D., Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. The architecture of human relatedness detection. Nature 445, 727-731 (2007).

    ADS CAS Google Scholar Article

  • 12.

    Thomsen, L. & Carey, S. Basic Cognition of Relational Models. in Navigate the social world (eds. Banaji, MR & Gelman, SA) 391-394 (Oxford University Press, 2013). doi: https: //doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso / 9780199890712.003.0072.

  • 13.

    Fiske, AP The Four Elementary Forms of Sociality: Framework for a Unified Theory of Social Relations. Psychol. Tower. 99, 689-723 (1992).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 14.

    Tatone, D., Geraci, A. & Csibra, G. Giving and Receiving: Building Blocks for Representing Active Resource Transfer Events in Human Infants. Cognition 137, 47-62 (2015).

    Google Scholar article

  • 15.

    Tatone, D. & Csibra, G. Infants infer different types of social relationships by giving and taking action. in Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (eds. Denison, S., Mack, ML, Xu, Y. & Armstrong, BC) 2981–2987 (Cognitive Science Society, 2020).

  • 16.

    Schöppner, B., Sodian, B. & Pauen, S. Encoding of action roles in meaningful social interaction during the first year of life. Childhood 9, 289-311 (2006).

    Google Scholar article

  • 17.

    Thoermer, C., Neumann, A. & Sodian, B. Encoding of social interaction by infants as a conceptual foundation for the acquisition of the structure of argumentation. in Human cognitive processing (ed. Schalley, AC) vol. 40 55-70 (John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2012).

  • 18.

    Hernik, M. & Southgate, V. Nine-month-old infants do not need to know what the agent prefers to reason about his goals: about the role of preference and persistence in assigning goals to goals. infants. Dev. Sci. 15, 714-722 (2012).

    Google Scholar article

  • 19.

    Biro, S., Verschoor, S. & Coenen, L. Evidence of a unit goal concept in 12 month old infants: Unit goal concept in 12 month old children. Dev. Sci. 14, 1255-1260 (2011).

    Google Scholar article

  • 20.

    Luo, Y. & Baillargeon, R. Can a self-propelled gearbox have a goal? : Psychological reasoning in 5 month old infants. Psychol. Sci. 16, 601-608 (2005).

    Google Scholar article

  • 21.

    Luo, Y. Three-month-old infants assign goals to a non-human agent. Dev. Sci. 14, 453-460 (2011).

    Google Scholar article

  • 22.

    Woodward, A. Infants selectively encode the target object of an actor’s scope. Cognition 69, 1–34 (1998).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 23.

    Robson, S. & Kuhlmeier, Virginia Reaching for an object or object: the context and limitations of encoding object characteristics may restrict the assignment of goals to infants (2019).

  • 24.

    Phillips, AT & Wellman, HM Infants’ Understanding of Object-Directed Action. Cognition 98, 137-155 (2005).

    Google Scholar article

  • 25.

    Csibra, G., Gergely, G., Biró, S., Koós, O. & Brockbank, M. Goal assignment without agency cues: the perception of “pure reason” in early childhood. Cognition 72, 237-267 (1999).

    Google Scholar CAS Article

  • 26.

    Olofson, EL & Baldwin, D. Infants recognize similar goals through different actions involving the manipulation of objects. Cognition 118, 258-264 (2011).

    Google Scholar article

  • 27.

    Mascaro, O. & Csibra, G. Representation of stable relationships of social dominance by human infants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 6862-6867 (2012).

    ADS CAS Google Scholar Article

  • 28.

    Gazes, RP, Hampton, RR & Lourenco, SF Transitive inference of social dominance by human infants. Dev. Sci. 20, e12367 (2017).

    Google Scholar article

  • 29.

    Choi, Y., Mou, Y. & Luo, Y. How do 3 month old infants assign preferences to a human agent ?. J. Exp. Child psychologist. 172, 96-106 (2018).

    Google Scholar article

  • 30.

    Kibbe, MM & Leslie, AM Conceptually rich, perceptually sparse: representations of objects in the working memory of 6 month old infants. Psychol. Sci. 30, 362-375 (2019).

    Google Scholar article

  • 31.

    Yoon, JMD, Johnson, MH & Csibra, G. Communication-induced memory biases in preverbal infants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 13690-13695 (2008).

    ADS CAS Google Scholar Article

  • 32.

    Okumura, Y., Kanakogi, Y., Kobayashi, T. & Itakura, S. Ostension affects infant learning more than attention. Cognition 195, 104082 (2020).

    Google Scholar article

  • 33.

    Csibra, G. & Shamsudheen, R. Nonverbal Generics: Human infants interpret objects as symbols of object types. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 689-710 (2015).

    Google Scholar article

  • 34.

    Pomiechowska, B., Bródy, G., Csibra, G. & Gliga, T. Twelve month old children dispel new words by using inferences of mutual exclusivity. Cognition https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104691 (2021).

    PubMed Google Scholar article

  • 35.

    Spaepen, E. & Spelke, E. Will a doll do the trick? Reasoning of 12 month olds on goal objects. Cognitive. Psychol. 54, 133-154 (2007).

    Google Scholar article

  • 36.

    Tatone, D., Hernik, M. & Csibra, G. Minimal indices of transfer of possession require infants to assign the goal of giving. Open mind 3, 31-40 (2019).

    Google Scholar article

  • 37.

    Csibra, G., Hernik, M., Mascaro, O., Tatone, D. & Lengyel, M. Statistical processing of search time data. Dev. Psychol. 52, 521-536 (2016).

    Google Scholar article

  • Source link

    Leave A Reply

    Your email address will not be published.