Developmental Process in Discovering and Implementing Solutions to Problems with Hidden Demands

• In Event: Poster Session 11
  In Poster Session: PS 11 Topic - Perceptual, Sensory, Motor

Abstract

Physical problem solving is integral to goal-directed motor action—how to navigate an obstacle, open a latch, or grasp the handle of a tool. For some physical problems, the demands are visible in the scene (e.g., a large step is required to cross an obstacle in the path). However, for other types of physical problems, the demands are not immediately apparent, requiring discovery and implementation of non-obvious, specifically designed target actions (Rachwani et al. 2019). How do infants and young children discover whether a closed door requires pushing or pulling or that a graspable cap of a container requires a left-twisting action to open?
Prior developmental research focused on the ages at which children succeed in problem solving, and established that problem solving begins in infancy and improves with age and experience (Adolph & Robinson 2015). However, this outcome-oriented approach addresses only the question of when children can solve particular problems but does not provide insights into the developmental process in learning the solutions (Lockman et al. 2018).
We observed 62 infants (12- to 58 months of age; M=32.58; 34 girls) as they discovered and implemented solutions to open virtual “cabinets” to liberate a cartoon animal visible behind a glass window on the face of the cabinet (Figure 1A). In 4 to 12 trials (M=6.53), infants were encouraged to open the cabinet by pushing a button or sliding a lock to the right or to the left (Figure 1B). The virtual cabinets simulated other work in our lab involving real cabinets with the same locking mechanisms that allowed access to real animals inside.
We evaluated infants’ performance based on how they touched the screen. For each trial, we scored the number of touch “bouts” (how many times infants touched the screen without lifting their finger); target touches (proportion of touch bouts involving the locking area); area covered (proportion of the screen touched); (4) outcome (whether the infant succeeded in opening the cabinet). We used peak-density clustering across all trials from all infants to identify solution models based on these measures (Figure 2A).
We found a developmental progression (Figure 2B) in which the youngest infants displayed “non-target” solution models (green and blue—low/high number of touch bouts, low/high area covered, low number of target touches, failed outcomes), somewhat older infants performed “target” solution models (red; high number of touch bouts, low/high area covered, high number of target touches, failed outcomes), and finally older children implemented a “successful” solution model (yellow; low number of touch bouts, low number of target touches, low area covered, successful outcomes). We did not find a progression across trials within sessions or a main effect of lock type.
Findings indicate a developmental lag between displaying non-target or target solutions and implementing them successfully, and provide a new perspective for cognitive-based research on physical problem solving.

Authors

• Ori Ossmy, New York University
  Presenting Author

• Minxin Cheng, New York University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Catherine Bianco, New York University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Brianna Kaplan, New York University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Karen E Adolph, New York University
  Non-Presenting Author