Play in Cognitive Development: From Rational Constructivism to Predictive Processing.

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Topics in Cognitive Science Pub Date : 2024-08-27 DOI:10.1111/tops.12752
Marc M Andersen, Julian Kiverstein
{"title":"Play in Cognitive Development: From Rational Constructivism to Predictive Processing.","authors":"Marc M Andersen, Julian Kiverstein","doi":"10.1111/tops.12752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is widely believed that play and curiosity are key ingredients as children develop models of the world. There is also an emerging consensus that children are Bayesian learners who combine their structured prior beliefs with estimations of the likelihood of new evidence to infer the most probable model of the world. An influential school of thought within developmental psychology, rational constructivism, combines these two ideas to propose that children learn intuitive theories of how the world works in part by engaging in play activities that allow them to gather new information for testing their theories. There are still, however, at least two pieces missing from rational constructivist theories of development. First, rational constructivism has so far devoted little attention to explaining why children's preferred form of learning, play, feels so fun, enjoyable, and rewarding. Rational constructivism may suggest that children are curious and like to play because reducing uncertainty and learning better theories of the causal workings of the world is enjoyable. What remains unclear, however, is why reducing uncertainty in play is interesting, fun, and joyful, while doing so in other forms of learning can be frustrating or boring. Second, rational constructivism may have overlooked how children, during play, will take control of and manipulate their environment, sometimes in an effort to create ideal niches for surprise-extraction, sometimes for developing strategies for making the world fit with their predictions. These missing elements from rational constructivism can be provided by understanding the contribution of play to development in terms of predictive processing, an influential framework in cognitive neuroscience that models many of the brain's cognitive functions as processes of model-based, probabilistic prediction.</p>","PeriodicalId":47822,"journal":{"name":"Topics in Cognitive Science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Topics in Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12752","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is widely believed that play and curiosity are key ingredients as children develop models of the world. There is also an emerging consensus that children are Bayesian learners who combine their structured prior beliefs with estimations of the likelihood of new evidence to infer the most probable model of the world. An influential school of thought within developmental psychology, rational constructivism, combines these two ideas to propose that children learn intuitive theories of how the world works in part by engaging in play activities that allow them to gather new information for testing their theories. There are still, however, at least two pieces missing from rational constructivist theories of development. First, rational constructivism has so far devoted little attention to explaining why children's preferred form of learning, play, feels so fun, enjoyable, and rewarding. Rational constructivism may suggest that children are curious and like to play because reducing uncertainty and learning better theories of the causal workings of the world is enjoyable. What remains unclear, however, is why reducing uncertainty in play is interesting, fun, and joyful, while doing so in other forms of learning can be frustrating or boring. Second, rational constructivism may have overlooked how children, during play, will take control of and manipulate their environment, sometimes in an effort to create ideal niches for surprise-extraction, sometimes for developing strategies for making the world fit with their predictions. These missing elements from rational constructivism can be provided by understanding the contribution of play to development in terms of predictive processing, an influential framework in cognitive neuroscience that models many of the brain's cognitive functions as processes of model-based, probabilistic prediction.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认知发展中的游戏:从理性建构主义到预测处理。
人们普遍认为,游戏和好奇心是儿童建立世界模型的关键因素。此外,一种新的共识是,儿童是贝叶斯学习者,他们会将自己结构化的先验信念与对新证据可能性的估计结合起来,从而推断出最有可能的世界模型。发展心理学中一个颇具影响力的学派--理性建构主义--将这两种观点结合在一起,提出儿童学习关于世界如何运作的直觉理论的部分途径是参与游戏活动,从而收集新信息来检验自己的理论。然而,理性建构主义的发展理论至少还缺少两块内容。首先,理性建构主义迄今为止还很少关注解释为什么儿童喜欢的学习形式--游戏--会让他们感觉如此有趣、愉快和有收获。理性建构主义可能认为,儿童之所以好奇和喜欢游戏,是因为减少不确定性和学习更好的世界因果运作理论是一件令人愉快的事情。然而,仍然不清楚的是,为什么在游戏中减少不确定性是有趣、好玩和快乐的,而在其他形式的学习中这样做却会令人沮丧或无聊。其次,理性建构主义可能忽略了儿童在游戏中是如何控制和操纵他们的环境的,有时 是为了创造理想的 "壁龛 "以提取惊喜,有时是为了发展使世界符合他们预测的策略。认知神经科学的一个有影响力的框架将大脑的许多认知功能建模为基于模型的概率预测 过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Topics in Cognitive Science
Topics in Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
10.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: Topics in Cognitive Science (topiCS) is an innovative new journal that covers all areas of cognitive science including cognitive modeling, cognitive neuroscience, cognitive anthropology, and cognitive science and philosophy. topiCS aims to provide a forum for: -New communities of researchers- New controversies in established areas- Debates and commentaries- Reflections and integration The publication features multiple scholarly papers dedicated to a single topic. Some of these topics will appear together in one issue, but others may appear across several issues or develop into a regular feature. Controversies or debates started in one issue may be followed up by commentaries in a later issue, etc. However, the format and origin of the topics will vary greatly.
期刊最新文献
Metaphors and the Invention of Writing. Language Production and Prediction in a Parallel Activation Model. Homesign Research, Gesture Studies, and Sign Language Linguistics: The Bigger Picture of Homesign and Homesigners. Simultaneous Hypotheses in Cognitive Agents: Commentary on Paxton, Necaise et al., and the Dynamical Hypothesis in Cognitive Science. Measuring Beyond the Standard: Informal Measurement Systems as Cognitive Technologies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1