1 / 30

Logic in Infants

Logic in Infants. The ability of infants to perform disjunctive syllogism Allison Hyland, 2012 Supervised by Dr. Susan Carey and Shilpa Mody. Presentation Overview. Description of Disjunctive Syllogism Review of previous studies Methods of our study Results Implications

zilya
Télécharger la présentation

Logic in Infants

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Logic in Infants The ability of infants to perform disjunctive syllogism Allison Hyland, 2012 Supervised by Dr. Susan Carey and ShilpaMody

  2. Presentation Overview • Description of Disjunctive Syllogism • Review of previous studies • Methods of our study • Results • Implications • Potential future studies • Questions

  3. Implications of this research • Chrysippus Dog Anecdote • How can we do this? • What kinds of symbols are available in the mind? • What computational tools and devices do we have access to?

  4. Disjunctive Syllogism • Simple argument form • Process of elimination • A or B • Not B • Must be A • Also called modus tollendo ponens • Mutually Exclusive (only one possibility can be correct)

  5. Previous Studies • Halberda, 2003: The development of a word-learning strategy • Looking time study

  6. Results

  7. Still leaves the question: • Did the infants use Disjunctive Syllogism (logic) or simply match novel to novel without performing logic (N3C) • Why did 14 month olds exhibit opposite behavior?

  8. Previous Studies • Halberda, 2006: Is this a dax which I see before me? • In response to unaddressed issues of previous study • Another looking time study with more stringent statistical techniques • Done first on adults to indicate if his procedure was efficient

  9. Results: General task success

  10. Results: double checks

  11. Halberda, 2006-cont. • Did similar procedure with preschool-aged children • Preferential pointing method and quantitative evaluation of number of double-checks

  12. Results: general task success

  13. Results: double checking success

  14. Previous Studies • Disjunctive syllogism just for word-learning? Or domain general? • Waxman & Booth, 2000: Principles that are invoked during the acquisition of words but not facts • Tested whether children can map novel words to novel objects/novel facts to novel objects AND whether they could extend the significance of these novel objects to similar objects in each case

  15. Results

  16. Previous Studies • Domain Specificity? • Spiegel, Yamaguchi, Heverly-Fitt, Halberda, 2009: Children’s use of logical inference in mapping novel voices to novel characters • Preferential pointing technique in children

  17. Results

  18. Still leaves the question: • When do children develop the ability to perform disjunctive syllogism in simple, A or B situations?

  19. Our Study • We are investigating whether infants can reason about possibilities using the process of elimination. They will see that a toy is being hidden in one of two locations, but will not know which one it is in. Can they use visual or verbal information about where the object is not to determine where it is? • How will we do this?

  20. Methods: Based on Previous Study • Call, 2004: Inferences about the location of food in the great apes • 2 variables: • Visual clue as to location of where food was/was not • Auditory clue as to location of where food was/was not

  21. Results suggests inferential reasoning

  22. Our Methods and Procedure • Subject • Physical set up • 2 Practice Trials • 4 Test Trials • Types of Evidence • Counterbalancing of Conditions: • PL, PR, VL, VR

  23. What does this look like?

  24. Results

  25. Results

  26. Conclusions so far • Not very many children • Tentatively our data supports that children aged between 23 and 24 months can successfully perform disjunctive syllogism

  27. Implications • Results at 23 months • Baseline and definitive age at which children can perform this simple logic

  28. Potential Future Studies • Younger Children • Verbal Cues

  29. Questions?

  30. References • Call, Josep. (2004). Inferences about the location of food in the great apes (pan paniscus, pan troglodytes, gorilla gorilla, and pongopygmaeus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118(2), 232-241. • Halberda, Justin. (2003). The development of a word-learning strategy. Cognition, 87(2003), B23-B34. • Halberda, Justin. (2006). Is this a dax which I see before me? Use of the logical argument disjunctive syllogism supports word-learning in children and adults. Cognitive Psychology, 53(2006), 310-344. • Spiegel, Chad A., Yamaguchi, Mariko, Heverly-Fitt, Sara & Halberda, Justin. (2009). Children’s use of logical inference in mapping novel voices to novel characters. Poster presented at Society for Research in Child Development, Denver, CO. • Waxman, S. & Booth, A. (2000). Principals that are invoked during the acquisition of words but not facts. Cognition, 77(2), 33-43.

More Related