1. Introduction
Possible perceptions of causality
What underlies causal perception?
Temporal and spatial continuity supports an immediate
causal impression – Michotte, (1964)
Retinotopically-specific adaptation is obtained from
launching to braking, and not to triggering, BUT also from
triggering to launching – Kominsky & Scholl, in press
Are these categories intrinsic to causal perception?
If causal roles are reversed, 6-month olds dishabituate
more to causal events containing spatio-temporal
continuity – Leslie & Keeble, (1987)
7-month olds distinguish between launching and
triggering – Kominsky et al., in press
Infants‘ perception(s) of causality
Florin Gheorghiu, Jonathan Kominsky, and Susan Carey
Previous results
Kominsky et al., in press
Results
7-month olds (n=11)
Log transformations
4-month olds (n=7)
Data collection is ongoing.
Discussion
How is the development of causal perception
shaped? (< or >)
If infants distinguish triggering, what is there to it?
Temporospatial
properties?
Animacy?
Luo & Baillargeon,
(2005)
1 m/s 1 m/s
“Launching”
(1:1) speed ratio
1 m/s 3 m/s
“Triggering”
(1:3) speed ratio
1 m/s3 m/s
“Braking”
(3:1) speed ratio
Harvard Laboratory for
Developmental Studies
0
2
4
6
8
10 3 to 11 to 3
Non-CausalCausal
Testtriallookingtime(sec)
*
p = .029
ns
Methods
4 and 7-month old (n=32)
infants habituated to
Causal Launching or DelayedTemporal
Offset (0.5s)
One test trial on either 1:3 or 3:1
(in the corresponding
habituation condition)
Replication of Kominsky et al., in press
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 6
Lookingtimeontesttrial
Subjects
habituated to 1:1, tested on 1:3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5
Lookingtime on testtrial
Subjects
habituated to 1:1, tested on 3:1
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1 2 3 4 5 6
Lookingtimeontesttrial
Subjects
habituated to 1:1, tested on 1:3
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
1,4
1,6
1 2 3 4 5
Lookingtimeontesttrial
Subjects
habituated to 1:1, tested on 3:1