Behavioral and Brain Sciences最新文献

Innateness of core knowledge mechanisms (in the form of "cognitive priors") can be revealed by proper comparisons of altricial and precocial species. Cognitive priors and sensitive periods in their expression may also provide clues for the development of plausible artificial intelligence systems.

Central to What Babies Know (Spelke, ) is the thesis that infants' understanding is divided into independent modules of core knowledge. As a test case, we consider adding a new domain: core knowledge of substances. Experiments show that infants' understanding of substances meets some criteria of core knowledge, and they raise questions about the relations that hold between core domains.

Spelke's What Babies Know masterfully describes infants' impressive repertoire of core cognitive concepts, from which the suite of human knowledge is eventually built. The current commentary argues for the existence of a core concept that Spelke claims preverbal infants lack: social goal. Core social goal concepts, operative extremely early in human development, underlie infants' basic abilities to interpret and evaluate entities within the moral world; such abilities support claims for a core moral domain.

There is no room for pragmatic expectations about communicative interactions in core cognition. Spelke takes the combinatorial power of the human language faculty to overcome the limits of core cognition. The question is: Why should the combinatorial power of the human language faculty support infants' pragmatic expectations not merely about speech, but also about nonverbal communicative interactions?

We examine Spelke's core knowledge taxonomy and test its boundaries. We ask whether Spelke's core knowledge is a distinct type of cognition in the sense that the cognitive processes it includes and excludes are biologically and mechanically coherent.

This commentary challenges Spelke's view on the early development of social cognition from a neuroscience perspective by presenting an overlooked body of evidence from neuroimaging research on joint attention with human infants. Indeed, evidence demonstrating adult-like, neural sensitivity to joint attention in young infants, supports alternative theoretical views concerning the origins of uniquely human forms of social cognition.

Some core knowledge may be rooted in - or even identical to - well-characterized mechanisms of mid-level visual perception and attention. In the decades since it was first proposed, this possibility has inspired (and has been supported by) several discoveries in both infant cognition and adult perception, but it also faces several challenges. To what degree does What Babies Know reflect how babies see and attend?

What Babies Know outlines a compelling case for why infancy research is fundamental for conceptualizing what it is to be human. There is another period in human development that is relatively inaccessible, yet is more important. In order to truly understand the nature of core knowledge, perception, and cognition, we must start not with the infant, but with the fetus.

Spelke posits that the concept of "social agent," who performs object-directed actions to fulfill social goals, is the first noncore concept that infants acquire as they begin to learn their native language. We question this proposal on empirical grounds and theoretical grounds, and propose instead that the representation of object-mediated interactions may be supported by a dedicated prelinguistic mechanism.

We question Spelke's key claim that the medium, in which contents from different core knowledge systems can be represented and combined, is language-based. Recalling an episodic memory, playing chess, and conducting mental rotation are tasks where core knowledge information is represented and combined. Although these tasks can be described by means of language, these tasks are not inherently language-based. Hence, language may be an important subset of an abstraction medium - not the medium as such.