Numerical development: From the infant to the child. Wynn's (1992) paradigm in 2- and 3-year olds |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Centro de Finanzas, IESA, Venezuela;2. CESA, Colombia;1. Sorbonne universités, Université de technologie de Compiègne, Laboratoire Roberval UMR CNRS 7337, CS 60 319, 60 203 Compiègne cedex, France;2. Safran/Snecma, Etablissement Villaroche Sud, Rond-point René Ravaud - Réau, 77550 Moissy-Cramayel, France;1. State Key Lab of Precision Measuring Technology and Instruments, Tianjin University, 92 Weijin Road, Nankai District, Tianjin, China;2. Systems Engineering Research Institute, China State Shipbuilding Corporation (CSSC), 5 Yuetanbei Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, China;1. Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy;2. NeuroMI, Milan Center for Neuroscience, Milano, Italy;3. Department of Neurology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland;4. Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland;5. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland;6. Zurich Center for Integrative Human Physiology, University of Zurich, Switzerland |
| |
| Abstract: | Wynn (1992) claims that 4- and 5-month-old infants are capable of calculating the exact result of simple arithmetic operations such as “1+1=2”. She observed and tested infant oculomotor behavior using the “reaction to the impossible event” procedure (“1+1=1”, “1+1=3”). Our study used the same paradigm to look into the linguistic future of these protonumerical abilities (i.e., verbal reaction to the impossible event). Forty-eight 2- and 3-year-old children were tested (1) on an adapted version of Wynn's situation and (2) on a number/length-interference task. The results indicated a developmental performance hierarchy in which success on the impossible-event task contrasts with failure on the number/length-interference task (for the same numbers and the same objects). In the impossible-event task there is a clear lag between reactions to “1+1=1” violations, which occur earlier, and reactions to “1+1=3” violations. Wynn (1992) did not find this lag in infants' reactions. The results are discussed in terms of reorganization of the protonumerical abilities, and activation/inhibition strategy. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
