Jump to content

Cognitive development

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WikiCleanerBot (talk | contribs) at 18:36, 14 December 2023 (v2.05b - Bot T20 CW#61 - Fix errors for CW project (Reference before punctuation)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
For the academic journal, see Cognitive Development.

Cognitive development is a field of study in neuroscience and psychology focusing on a child's development in terms of information processing, conceptual resources, perceptual skill, language learning, and other aspects of the developed adult brain and cognitive psychology. Qualitative differences between how a child processes their waking experience and how an adult processes their waking experience are acknowledged (such as object permanence, the understanding of logical relations, and cause-effect reasoning in school-age children). Cognitive development is defined as the emergence of the ability to consciously cognize, understand, and articulate their understanding in adult terms. Cognitive development is how a person perceives, thinks, and gains understanding of their world through the relations of genetic and learning factors.[1] There are four stages to cognitive information development. They are, reasoning, intelligence, language, and memory. These stages start when the baby is about 18 months old, they play with toys, listen to their parents speak, they watch tv, anything that catches their attention helps build their cognitive development.

Jean Piaget was a major force establishing this field, forming his "theory of cognitive development". Piaget proposed four stages of cognitive development: the sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational period.[2] Many of Piaget's theoretical claims have since fallen out of favor. His description of the most prominent changes in cognition with age, is generally still accepted today (e.g., how early perception moves from being dependent on concrete, external actions. Later, abstract understanding of observable aspects of reality can be captured; leading to the discovery of underlying abstract rules and principles, usually starting in adolescence)

In recent years, however, alternative models have been advanced, including information-processing theory, neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, which aim to integrate Piaget's ideas with more recent models and concepts in developmental and cognitive science, theoretical cognitive neuroscience, and social-constructivist approaches. Another such model of cognitive development is Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory.[3] A major controversy in cognitive development has been "nature versus nurture", i.e, the question if cognitive development is mainly determined by an individual's innate qualities ("nature"), or by their personal experiences ("nurture"). However, it is now recognized by most experts that this is a false dichotomy: there is overwhelming evidence from biological and behavioral sciences that from the earliest points in development, gene activity interacts with events and experiences in the environment.[4] While naturalists are convinced of the power of genetic mechanisms, knowledge from different disciplines, such as Comparative psychology, Molecular biology, and Neuroscience, shows arguments for an ecological component in launching cognition[5] (see the section "The beginning of cognition" below).

History

Jean Piaget is inexorably linked to cognitive development as he was the first to systematically study developmental processes.[6] Despite being the first to develop a systemic study of cognitive development, Piaget was not the first to theorize about cognitive development.[7]

Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote Emile, or On Education in 1762.[8] He discusses childhood development as happening in three stages. In the first stage, up to age 12, the child is guided by their emotions and impulses. In the second stage, ages 12–16, the child's reason starts to develop. In the third and final stage, age 16 and up, the child develops into an adult.

James Sully wrote several books on childhood development, including Studies of Childhood in 1895[9] and Children's Ways in 1897.[10] He used a detailed observational study method with the children. Contemporary research in child development actually repeats observations and observational methods summarized by Sully in Studies of Childhood, such as the mirror technique.

Sigmund Freud developed the theory of psychosexual development, which indicates children must pass through several stages as they develop their cognitive skills.[11]

Maria Montessori began her career working with mentally disabled children in 1897, then conducted observation and experimental research in elementary schools. She wrote The Discovery of the Child in 1950 which developed the Montessori method of education.[12] She discussed four planes of development: birth to 6 years, 6 to 12, 12 to 18, and 18 to 24. The Montessori method now has three developmentally-meaningful age groups: 2–2.5 years, 2.5–6, and 6–12. She was working on human behavior in older children but only published lecture notes on the subject.

Arnold Gesell was the creator of the maturational theory of development. Gesell said that development occurs due to biological hereditary features such as genetics and children will reach developmental milestones when they are ready to do so in a predictable sequence.[13] Because of his theory of development, he devised a developmental scale that is used today called the Gesell Developmental Schedule (GDS) that provides parents, teachers, doctors, and other pertinent people with an overview of where an infant or child falls on the developmental spectrum.

Erik Erikson was a neo-Freudian who focused on how children develop personality and identity. Although a contemporary of Freud, there is a larger focus on social experiences that occur across the lifespan, as opposed to childhood exclusively, that contribute to how personality and identity emerge. His framework uses eight systematic stages that all children must pass through.[14]

Urie Bronfenbrenner devised the ecological systems theory, which identifies various levels of a child's environment.[15] The primary focus of this theory focuses on the quality and context of a child's environment. Bronfenbrenner suggested that as a child grows older, their interaction between the various levels of their environment grows more complex due to cognitive abilities expanding.

Lawrence Kohlberg wrote the theory of stages of moral development, which extended Piaget's findings of cognitive development and showed that they continue through the lifespan. Kohlberg's six stages follow Piaget's constructivist requirements in that those stages can not be skipped and it is very rare to regress in stages. Notable works: Moral Stages and Moralization: The Cognitive-Development Approach (1976) and Essays on Moral Development (1981)

Lev Vygotsky's theory is based on social learning as the most important aspect of cognitive development. In Vygotsky's theory,[16] adults are very important for young children's development. They help children learn through mediation, which is modeling and explaining concepts. Together, adults and children master concepts of their culture and activities. Vygotsky believed we get our complex mental activities through social learning. A significant part of Vygotsky's theory is based on the zone of proximal development, which he believes is when the most effective learning takes place. The zone of proximal development is what a child cannot accomplish alone but can accomplish with the help of an MKO (more knowledgeable other).[17] Vygotsky also believed culture is a very important part of cognitive development such as the language, writing and counting system used in that culture. Another aspect of Vygotsky’s theory is private speech. Private speech is when a person talks to themselves in order to help themselves problem solve. Scaffolding or providing support to a child and then slowly removing support and allowing the child to do more on their own over time is also an aspect of Vygotsky’s theory.[18]

The beginning of cognition

In cognitive development, the essential issue in beginning cognition is how the nervous system grasps perception and shapes intentionality in the sensorimotor stage (or before) when organisms only demonstrate simple reflexes (see articles perception, cognition, binding problem, multi sensory integration). The significance of this knowledge is that the mode to cognize at the stage without communication and abstract thinking, being a pre-requisite of social reality formation, determines the development of everything from cooperative interactions and knowledge assimilation to moral identity and cultural evolution that provides building societies (see also Social cognition and Collective behaviour). The contemporary academic discussion on a controversy in cognitive development (whether cognitive development is mainly determined by an individual's innate qualities or personal experiences) is still in progress.

Many influential scientists argue that the genetic code is no more than a rule of causal specificity based on the fact that cells use nucleic acids as templates for the primary structure of proteins. However, it is unacceptable to say that DNA contains the information for phenotypic design.[19] The epigenetic approach to human psychological development – that cascading phenotypic effects are not encoded directly in the genes – contrasts sharply with many so-called nativist approaches.[5] Opponents of innate knowledge discuss four problems in appearance of the perception of objects.

The binding problem – According to Treisman,[20] the binding problem can be divided into three separate problems. (1) How are relevant elements that should be related as a whole selected and separated from elements that belong to other objects, ideas, or events? (2) How is the binding encoded so it can be transferred to other brain systems and used? (3) How are the correct relationships between related elements within the same object defined? This problem is also connected to the problem of multisensory integration in perception.

The perception stability problem – According to Val Danilov,[21] newborns and infants cannot capture the same picture of the environment as adults because of their immature sensory systems. They cannot sense environmental stimuli from social phenomena to the same extent as adults. The outcomes of processing similar sensory stimuli in immature and mature organisms differ. The corresponding holistic representations of objects can hardly occur in these organisms.

The excitatory inputs problem – According to the received view in cognitive sciences, cognition develops due to experience-dependent neuronal plasticity, e.g., [22][23]. Neuronal plasticity refers to the capacity of the nervous system to modify itself, functionally and structurally, in response to experience and injury.[24] However, the structural organization of excitatory inputs supporting spike-timing-dependent plasticity remains unknown. [25] How is the relation between a specific sensory stimulus and the appropriate structural organization of the excitatory inputs in specific neurons formed?[21]

The problem of Morphogenesis – Cell actions during an embryo formation, including shape changes, cell contact remodeling, cell migration, cell division, and cell extrusion, need control over cell mechanics.[26] This complex dynamical process is associated with protrusive, contractile, and adhesive forces and hydrostatic pressure, as well as material properties of cells that dictate how cells respond to active stresses. Precise coordination of all cells is a necessary condition. Moreover, such a complex dynamical process likely requires clear parameters of the final biological structure – the complete developmental program with a template for accomplishing it. Collinet and Lecuit pose a question: what forces or mechanisms at the cellular level manage four very general classes of tissue deformation, namely tissue folding and invagination, tissue flow and extension, tissue hollowing, and, finally, tissue branching? They challenge the nativists' notion that shape is fully encoded and determined by genes: how are cell mechanics and associated cell behaviors robustly organized in space and time during tissue morphogenesis? They argue that not only gene expression and the resulting biochemical cues but also mechanics and geometry act as sources of morphogenetic information to ultimately define the time and length scales of the cell behaviors driving morphogenesis. Thus, it is not only the interaction of gene activity with events and experiences in the environment that contributes to the formation of tissues in morphogenesis. Indeed, because even processes of the cell coupling for shaping a nervous system during embryonal development challenge the naturalistic approach, how the nervous system grasps perception and shapes intentionality seems even more complicated.[21]

So, the fact that gene activity interacts with events and experiences in the environment (as noted above) may not fully explain the integrative complexity of intentionality-perception development for beginning cognitive development.

Shared intentionality

Nowadays, the Shared intentionality hypothesis is the only one that attempts to explain neurophysiological processes at the beginning of cognitive development at different levels of interaction, from interpersonal dynamics to neuronal interactions.[27][28] It also solves the above noted problems. Michael Tomasello hypothesised that social bonds between children and caregivers would gradually increase through the essential motive force of shared intentionality beginning from birth.[29] The notion of Shared intentionality, introduced by Michael Tomasello, was developed by later researchers, expanding it to the intrauterine period.[21] The Shared intentionality approach also points out that "an innate sensitivity to specific patterns of information" mentioned in the section "Speculated core systems of cognition" is also the outcome of Shared intentionality with caregivers, who obviously participated in the experiments.[30]

Jean Piaget

Main article: Piaget's theory of cognitive development

Jean Piaget was the first psychologist and philosopher to brand this type of study as "cognitive development".[31] Other researchers, in multiple disciplines, had studied development in children before, but Piaget is often credited as being the first one to make a systematic study of cognitive development and gave it its name. His main contribution is the stage theory of child cognitive development. He also published his observational studies of cognition in children, and created a series of simple tests to reveal different cognitive abilities in children. Piaget believed that people move through stages of development that allow them to think in new, more complex ways.

Stages

Sensorimotor stage

The first stage in Piaget's stages of cognitive development is the sensorimotor stage. This stage lasts from birth to two years old. During this stage, behaviors lack a sense of thought and logic. Behaviors gradually move from acting upon inherited reflexes to interacting with the environment with a goal in mind and being able to represent the external world at the end.

The sensorimotor stage has been broken down into six sub-stages that explain the gradual development of infants from birth to age 2. Once the child gains the ability to mentally represent reality, the child begins the transition to the preoperational stage of development.[32]

Each child is born with inherited reflexes that they use to gain knowledge and understanding about their environment. Examples of these reflexes include grasping and sucking.[33]

From 1 to 4 months of age, children repeat behaviors that happen unexpectedly because of their reflexes. For example, a child's finger comes in contact with the mouth and the child starts sucking on it. If the sensation is pleasurable to the child, then the child will attempt to recreate the behavior.[33] Infants use their initial reflexes (grasping and sucking) to explore their environment and create schemas. Schemas are groups of similar actions or thoughts that are used repeatedly in response to the environment.[34] Once a child begins to create schemas they use accommodation and assimilation to become progressively adapted to the world.[35] Assimilation is when a child responds to a new event in a way that is consistent with an existing schema. For example, an infant may assimilate a new teddy bear into their putting things in their mouth scheme and use their reflexes to make the teddy bear go into their mouth.[34] Accommodation is when a child either modifies an existing schema or forms an entirely new schema to deal with a new object or event. For example, an infant may have to open his or her mouth wider than usual to accommodate the teddy bear's paw.[34]

Between 5 and 8 months of age, the child has an experience with an external stimulus that they find pleasurable, so they try to recreate that experience. For example, a child accidentally hits the mobile above the crib and likes to watch it spin. When it stops the child begins to grab at the object to make it spin again. In this stage, habits are formed from general schemas that the infant has created but there is not yet, from the child's point of view, any differentiation between means and ends.[36] Children cannot also focus on multiple tasks at once, and only focus on the task at hand.[34] The child may create a habit of spinning the mobile in its crib, but they are still trying to find out methods to reach the mobile in order to get it to spin in the way that they find pleasurable. Once there is another distraction (say the parent walks in the room) the baby will no longer focus on the mobile. Toys should be given to infants that respond to a child's actions to help foster their investigative instincts.[37] For example, a toy plays a song when you push one button, and then a picture pops up if you push another button.

From 8 to 12 months old, behaviors will be displayed for a reason rather than by chance. They begin to understand that one action can cause a reaction.[33] They also begin to understand object permanence, which is the realization that objects continue to exist when removed from view. For example: The baby wants a rattle but the blanket is in the way. The baby moves the blanket to get the rattle. Now that the infant can understand that the object still exists, they can differentiate between the object, and the experience of the object. According to psychologist David Elkind, "An internal representation of the absent object is the earliest manifestation of the symbolic function which develops gradually during the second year of life whose activities dominate the next stage of mental growth."[38]

From 12 to 18 months old, actions occur deliberately with some variation. For example, a baby drums on a pot with a wooden spoon, then drums on the floor, then on the table.[33]

Between 18 and 24 months of age, children begin to build mental symbols and start to participate in pretend play. For example, a child is mixing ingredients together but does not have a spoon so they pretend to use one or use another object to replace the spoon.[33] Symbolic thought is a representation of objects and events as mental entities or symbols which helps foster cognitive development and the formation of imagination.[39] According to Piaget, the infant begins to act upon intelligence rather than habit at this point. The end product is established after the infant has pursued for the appropriate means. The means are formed from the schemas that are known by the child.[36] The child is starting to learn how to use what it has learned in the first two years to develop and further explore their environment.

Preoperational stage

The preoperational stage lasts from 2 years of age until 6 or 7. It can be characterized in two somewhat different ways. In his early work, before he had developed his structuralist theory of cognition, Piaget described the child's thoughts during this period as being governed by principles such as egocentrism, animism, and other similar constructs. Egocentrism is when a child can only see a certain situation his or her own way. One cannot comprehend that other people have other views and perceptions of scenarios. Animism is when an individual gives a lifeless object human-like qualities. An individual usually believes that this object has human emotions, thoughts, and intentions. Once he had proposed his structuralist theory, Piaget characterized the preoperational child as lacking the cognitive structures possessed by the concrete operational child. The absence of these structures explains, in part, the behaviors Piaget had previously described as egocentric and animistic, for example, an inability to comprehend that another individual may have different emotional responses to similar experiences.[32][40] During this stage children also become increasingly adept at using symbols as evidenced by the increase in playing and pretending.

Concrete operational stage

Lasts from 6 or 7 years until about 12 or 13. During this stage, the child's cognitive structures can be characterized by reality. Piaget argues that the same general principles can be discerned in a wide range of behaviors. One of the best-known achievements of this stage is conservation. In a typical conservation experiment a child is asked to judge whether or not two quantities are the same – such as two equal quantities of liquid in a short and tall glass. A preoperational child will typically judge the taller, thinner glass to contain more, while a concrete operational child will judge the amounts still to be the same. The ability to reason in this way reflects the development of a principle of conservation.[32]

Formal operational stage

This stage lasts from 12 or 13 until adulthood, when people are advancing from logical reasoning with concrete examples to abstract examples. The need for concrete examples is no longer necessary because abstract thinking can be used instead. In this stage adolescents are also able to view themselves in the future and can picture the ideal life they would like to pursue. Some theorists believe the formal operational stage can be divided into two sub-categories: early formal operational and late formal operation thought. Early formal operational thoughts may be just fantasies, but as adolescents advance to late formal operational thought the life experiences they have encountered changes those fantasy thoughts to realistic thoughts.[32]

Criticism

Many of Piaget's claims have fallen out of favor. For example, he claimed that young children cannot conserve numbers. However, further experiments showed that children did not really understand what was being asked of them. When the experiment is done with candies, and the children are asked which set they want rather than having to tell an adult which is more, they show no confusion about which group has more items. Piaget argues that the child cannot conserve numbers if they do not understand one-to-one correspondence.[41]

Piaget's theory of cognitive development ends at the formal operational stage that is usually developed in early adulthood. It does not take into account later stages of adult cognitive development as described by, for example, Harvard University professor Robert Kegan.[42]

Additionally, Piaget largely ignores the effects of social and cultural upbringing on stages of development because he only examined children from western societies. This matters as certain societies and cultures have different early childhood experiences. For example, individuals in nomadic tribes struggle with number counting and object counting. Certain cultures have specific activities and events that are common at a younger age which can affect aspects such as object permeance. This indicates that children from different societies may achieve a stage like the formal operational stage while in other societies, children at the exact same age remain in the concrete operational stage.[43]

Erik Erickson

Erikson worked with Freud but unlike Freud, Erikson focused on Biological, Psychological, and social factors in human development. Each stage is rooted in some kind of competence, or perceived ability to do things.[44]

Each stage is defined by 2 conflicting psychological tendencies and by what traits develop in the stage dependent on how much of each tendency was experienced. There are virtues that develop in healthy circumstances and maladaptations that develop in unhealthy circumstances. It consists of 8 stages. While the conflicting tendencies may appear to be good versus bad. They can be considered as a balance where most healthy individuals experience some of each.[45]

Stage 1-Infancy- Trust Verses Mistrust

A baby has very little ability to do anything for themself. As such infants develop according to whether they learn to trust or distrust the world around them. The virtue that arises during this stage is hope and the maladaptation is withdrawal.[44] [46]

Stage 2-Early Childhood- Autonomy Verses Shame

As a child starts to explore the world the conflict they experience is autonomy or a feeling of being able to do things themselves, verses shame or doubt, which is a feeling of being unable to do things themselves and fear of making mistakes. The virtue that arises during this period is will, suggesting a control over one’s actions. The maladaptation for this stage is compulsion, or lack of control over one’s actions.[44] [46]

Stage 3-Play Age- Initiative Verses Guilt

As a child grows from the stage of autonomy verses shame, they experience the conflict of initiative vs guilt. Initiative or having the ability to act in a situation against guilt or feeling bad about their actions or feeling incapable of acting. The virtue that develops in this stage is purpose and the maladaptation is inhibition.[44] [46]

Stage 4-School Age- Industry Verses Inferiority

As a child’s awareness of their effect on the world around them grows they come to the conflict of industry and inferiority. Industry meaning ability and willingness to proactively interact with the world around them and Inferiority meaning incapability or perceived incapability to interact with the world. The virtue that is learned in this stage is competence and the maladaptation is inertia or passivity.[44] [46]

Stage 5-adolescence- Identity Verses Identity Confusion

As a child grows into adolescence, their ability to interact with the world starts to interact with their perceptions of who they are, and they find themselves in a conflict between identity and identity confusion. Identity means knowledge of who they are and developing their own sense of right and wrong. Identity confusion meaning confusion over who they are and what right and wrong is to them. The virtue that is developed is fidelity and the maldevelopment is repudiation.[44] [46]

Stage 6-Young Adulthood- Intimacy Verses Isolation

During young adulthood, people find themselves in a place where they are looking for belonging in a small number of close relationships. Intimacy suggests finding very close relationships with other people and isolation is a lack of such a connection. The virtue that can arise from this is love and the maladaptation is distantiation.[44] [46]

Stage 7-Adulthood- Generativity Verses Stagnation

In this stage of life people find that along with accomplishing personal goals, they are either giving to the next generation, whether as a mentor or a parent or they turn towards themselves and keep a distance from others. The virtue that arises in this stage is caring and the maladaptation is rejectivity.[44] [46]

Stage 8-Old Age- Integrity Verses Despair

Those in the twilight of their life look back at their lives and either are satisfied with their life’s work or feel great regret. This satisfaction or regret is a large part of their identity at the end of their lives. The virtue that develops is wisdom and the maldevelopment is disdain.[44] [46]

Speculated core systems of cognition

Empiricists study how these skills may be learned in such a short time. The debate is over whether these systems are learned by general-purpose learning devices or domain-specific cognition. Moreover, many modern cognitive developmental psychologists, recognizing that the term "innate" does not square with modern knowledge about epigenesis, neurobiological development, or learning, favor a non-nativist framework. Researchers who discuss "core systems" often speculate about differences in thinking and learning between proposed domains.

Clinical studies suggest that children have an innate sensitivity to specific patterns of information, referred to as core domains.

Evidence suggests that humans utilize two core systems for number representation: approximate representations and precise representations. The approximate number system helps to capture the relationship between quantities by estimating numerical magnitudes. This system becomes more precise with age. The second system helps to precisely monitor small groups (limited to around 3 for infants) of individual objects and accurately represent those numerical quantities.[47]

Very young children appear to have some skill in navigation. This basic ability to infer the direction and distance of unseen locations develops in ways that are not entirely clear. However, there is some evidence that it involves the development of complex language skills between 3 and 5 years.[48] Also, there is evidence that this skill depends importantly on visual experience, because congenitally blind individuals have been found to have impaired abilities to infer new paths between familiar locations.

One of the original nativist versus empiricist debates was over depth perception. There is some evidence that children less than 72 hours old can perceive such complex things as biological motion.[49] However, it is unclear how visual experience in the first few days contributes to this perception. There are far more elaborate aspects of visual perception that develop during infancy and beyond.

Young children seem to be predisposed to think of biological entities (e.g., animals and plants) in an essentialist way.[50] This means that they expect such entities (as opposed to, e.g., artifacts) to have many traits such as internal properties that are caused by some "essence" (such as, in our modern Western conceptual framework, the genome).

A major, well-studied process and consequence of cognitive development is language acquisition. The traditional view was that this is the result of deterministic, human-specific genetic structures and processes. Other traditions, however, have emphasized the role of social experience in language learning. However, the relation of gene activity, experience, and language development is now recognized as incredibly complex and difficult to specify. Language development is sometimes separated into learning of phonology (systematic organization of sounds), morphology (structure of linguistic units—root words, affixes, parts of speech, intonation, etc.), syntax (rules of grammar within sentence structure), semantics (study of meaning), and discourse or pragmatics (relation between sentences). However, all of these aspects of language knowledge—which were originally posited by the linguist Noam Chomsky to be autonomous or separate—are now recognized to interact in complex ways.

It was not until 1962 that bilingualism had been accepted as a contributing factor to cognitive development.[51] There have been a number of studies showing how bilingualism contributes to the executive function of the brain, which is the main center at which cognitive development happens. According to Bialystok in “Bilingualism and the Development of Executive Function: The Role of Attention”, children who are bilingual have to actively filter through the two different languages to select the one they need to use, which in turn makes the development stronger in that center.[52]

Other theories

Whorf's hypothesis

Main article: Linguistic relativity

While working as a student of Edward Sapir, Benjamin Lee Whorf posited that a person's thinking depends on the structure and content of their social group's language. Per Whorf, language determines our thoughts and perceptions.[53] For example, it used to be thought that the Greeks, who wrote left to right, thought differently than Egyptians since the Egyptians wrote right to left. Whorf's theory was so strict that he believed if a word is absent in a language, then the individual is unaware of the object's existence.[54] This theory was played out in George Orwell's book, Animal Farm; the pig leaders slowly eliminated words from the citizen's vocabulary so that they were incapable of realizing what they were missing.[55] The Whorfian hypothesis failed to recognize that people can still be aware of the concept or item, even though they lack efficient coding to quickly identify the target information.[54]

Quine's bootstrapping hypothesis

Willard Van Orman Quine argued that there are innate conceptual biases that enable the acquisition of language, concepts, and beliefs.[56] Quine's theory follows nativist philosophical traditions, such as the European rationalist philosophers, for example Immanuel Kant.

Neo-Piagetian theories

Main article: Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development

Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development emphasized the role of information processing mechanisms in cognitive development, such as attention control and working memory. They suggested that progression along Piagetian stages or other levels of cognitive development is a function of strengthening of control mechanisms and is within the stages themselves. [57]

Neuroscience

During development, especially the first few years of life, children show interesting patterns of neural development and a high degree of neuroplasticity. Neuroplasticity, as explained by the World Health Organization, can be summed up in three points.

  1. Any adaptive mechanism used by the nervous system to repair itself after injury.
  2. Any means by which the nervous system can repair individually damaged central circuits.
  3. Any means by which the capacity of the central nervous system can adapt to new physiological conditions and environment.

The relation of brain development and cognitive development is extremely complex and, since the 1990s, has been a growing area of research.

Cognitive development and motor development may also be closely interrelated. When a person experiences a neurodevelopmental disorder and their cognitive development is disturbed, we often see adverse effects in motor development as well. Cerebellum, which is the part of brain that is most responsible for motor skills, has been shown to have significant importance in cognitive functions in the same way that prefrontal cortex has important duties in not only cognitive abilities but also development of motor skills. To support this, there is evidence of close co-activation of neocerebellum and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in functional neuroimaging as well as abnormalities seen in both cerebellum and prefrontal cortex in the same developmental disorder. In this way, we see close interrelation of motor development and cognitive development and they cannot operate in their full capacity when either of them are impaired or delayed.[58]

Cultural influences

From cultural psychologists' view, minds and culture shape each other. In other words, culture can influence brain structures which then influence our interpretation of the culture. These examples reveal cultural variations in neural responses:

Figure-line task

Behavioral research has shown that one's strength in independent (tasks which are focused on influencing others or oneself) or interdependent tasks (tasks where one changes their own behavior to favor others) differ based on their cultural context. In general, East Asian cultures are more interdependent whereas Western cultures are more independent. Hedden et al. assessed functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) responses of East Asians and Americans while they performed independent (absolute) or interdependent (relative) tasks. The study showed that participants used regions of the brain associated with attentional control when they had to perform culturally incongruent tasks. In other words, neural paths used for the same task were different for Americans and East Asians.[59]

Transcultural neuroimaging studies

New studies in transcultural neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that one’s cultural background can influence the neural activity that underlies both high (for example, social cognition) and low (for example, perception) level cognitive functions. Studies demonstrated that groups that come from different cultures or that have been exposed to culturally different stimuli have differences in neural activity. For example, differences were found in that of the pre motor cortex during mental calculation and that of the VMPFC during trait judgements of one’s mother from people with different cultural backgrounds. In conclusion, since differences were found in both high-level and low-level cognition one can assume that our brain’s activity is strongly and, at least in part, constitutionally shaped by its sociocultural context.[60]

Understanding of others' intentions

Kobayashi et al. compared American-English monolingual and Japanese-English bilingual children's brain responses in understanding others' intentions through false-belief story and cartoon tasks. They found universal activation of the region bilateral ventromedial prefrontal cortex in theory of mind tasks. However, American children showed greater activity in the left inferior frontal gyrus during the tasks whereas Japanese children had greater activity in the right inferior frontal gyrus during the Japanese Theory of Mind tasks. In conclusion, these examples suggest that the brain's neural activities are not universal but are culture dependent.[61]

In underrepresented groups

Deaf and hard-of-hearing

Being deaf or hard-of-hearing has been noted to impact cognitive development as hearing loss impacts social development, language acquisition, and the culture reacts to a deaf child.[62] Cognitive development in academic achievement, reading development, language development, performance on standardized measures of intelligence, visual-spatial and memory skills, development of conceptual skills, and neuropsychological function are dependent upon the child's primary language of communication, either American Sign Language or English, as well as if the child is able to communicate and use the communication modality as a language.[63] There is some research pointing to deficits in development of theory of mind in children who are deaf and hard-of-hearing which may be due to a lack of early conversational experience.[64] Other research points to lower scores on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children,[65] especially in the Verbal Comprehension Index[66] due differences in cultural knowledge acquisition.[67]

Transgender people

Since the 2010s there has been an increase in research into how transgender people fit into cognitive development theory.[68] At the earliest, transgender children can begin to socially transition during identity exploration. In 2015, Kristina Olson and colleagues studied transgender youth in comparison to their cisgender siblings and unrelated cisgender children. The students participated in the IAT, a test that measures how one may identify based on a series of questions related to memory. Overall it determines a child's gender preference. It showed that the transgender children's results correlated with their desired gender. The behaviors of the children also related back to their results. For instance, the transgender boys enjoyed food and activities typically associated and enjoyed by cisgender boys. The article reports that the researchers found that the children were not confused, deceptive, or oppositional of their gender identity, and responded with actions that are typically represented by their gender identity.[69]

See also

References

  1. ^ Sellers, P. Douglas; Machluf, Karin; Bjorklund, David F. (2018), "The Development of Evolutionarily Adaptive Individual Differences: Children as Active Participants in Their Current and Future Survival", The SAGE Handbook of Personality and Individual Differences: Volume II: Origins of Personality and Individual Differences, London: SAGE Publications Ltd, pp. 203–217, doi:10.4135/9781526451200.n12, ISBN 978-1-5264-4518-6, retrieved 2020-10-14
  2. ^ Schacter, Daniel L (2009). Psychology. Catherine Woods. pp. 430. ISBN 978-1-4292-3719-2.
  3. ^ Bronfenbrenner, Urie (2000), "Ecological systems theory.", Encyclopedia of Psychology, Vol. 3., Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 129–133, doi:10.1037/10518-046, ISBN 1-55798-652-5, retrieved 2020-10-07
  4. ^ Carlson, N.R. et al.. (2005) Psychology: the science of behaviour (3rd Canadian ed) Pearson Ed. ISBN 0-205-45769-X
  5. ^ a b Tomasello M. (2019).Becoming human: A theory of ontogeny. Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA: Harvard University Press.
  6. ^ Piaget, Jean (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  7. ^ WESLEY, F (March 1989). "Developmental cognition before piaget: Alfred Binet's pioneering experiments". Developmental Review. 9 (1): 58–63. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(89)90023-3. ISSN 0273-2297.
  8. ^ "Theory of Education", Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Continuum, 2008, doi:10.5040/9781472541376.ch-003, ISBN 978-0-8264-8412-3, retrieved 2020-11-15
  9. ^ Sully, James (1895). Studies of childhood. Longmans, Green and Co. doi:10.1037/11376-000.
  10. ^ "Sully, James", The SAGE Encyclopedia of Children and Childhood Studies, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2020, doi:10.4135/9781529714388.n567, ISBN 978-1-4739-4292-9, S2CID 241133576, retrieved 2020-11-15
  11. ^ Freud, Sigmund (1971) [1905]. "Chapter II: Infantile sexuality. (2). The manifestations of infantile sexuality". Three essays on the theory of sexuality. doi:10.1037/e417472005-178.
  12. ^ Montessori, Maria, Play Is The Work of the Child, doi:10.1037/e555792011-001, retrieved 2020-11-15
  13. ^ "Gesell Theory". Gesell Program in Early Childhood. Retrieved 2020-11-08.
  14. ^ Sacco, Rob G. (2013-03-28). "Re-Envisaging the Eight Developmental Stages of Erik Erikson: The Fibonacci Life-Chart Method (FLCM)". Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology. 3 (1). doi:10.5539/jedp.v3n1p140. ISSN 1927-0534.
  15. ^ Bronfenbrenner, Urie (1992). Ecological systems theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
  16. ^ Vygotsky, Lev (1962). Hanfmann, Eugenia; Vakar, Gertrude (eds.). Thought and language. doi:10.1037/11193-000.
  17. ^ Berk, Laura E. (2012). Infants and Children: Prenatal Through Middle Childhood. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. pp. 224–225. ISBN 978-0-205-83191-3.
  18. ^ Slavin, Robert E. (2018). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Pearson Education Inc. pp. 33–35. ISBN 978-0134524283.
  19. ^ Thompson E. (2010). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. America: Harvard University Press.
  20. ^ Treisman A. (1999). "Solutions to the binding problem: progress through controversy and convergence." Neuron, 1999, 24(1):105-125.
  21. ^ a b c d Val Danilov, Igor (2023). "Low-Frequency Oscillations for Nonlocal Neuronal Coupling in Shared Intentionality Before and After Birth: Toward the Origin of Perception". OBM Neurobiology. 7 (4): 1–17. doi:10.21926/obm.neurobiol.2304192.
  22. ^ Li K.T., Liang J., Zhou C. (2021). "Gamma oscillations facilitate effective learning in excitatory-inhibitory balanced neural circuits." Neural Plast. 2021; 2021: 6668175.
  23. ^ Gilson M., Burkitt A., van Hemmen J.L. (2010). "STDP in recurrent neuronal networks." Front Comput Neurosci. 2010; 4. Doi: 10.3389/fncom.2010.00023.
  24. ^ Von Bernhardi R., Bernhardi L.E., Eugenín J. (2017). "What is neuralplasticity?" In: Theplasticbrain.Cham: Springer; 2017. pp. 1-5.
  25. ^ Tazerart S., Mitchell D.E., Miranda Rottmann S., Araya R. (2020). "Aspike-timing-dependentplasticityrule for dendritic spines." Nat Commun. 2020; 11: 4276.
  26. ^ Collinet C., Lecuit T. (2021). "Programmed and self-organized flow of information during morphogenesis." Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2021; 22: 245-265.
  27. ^ Val Danilov, I. (2023). "Theoretical Grounds of Shared Intentionality for Neuroscience in Developing Bioengineering Systems." OBM Neurobiology 2023; 7(1): 156; doi:10.21926/obm.neurobiol.2301156
  28. ^ Val Danilov, Igor (2023). "Shared Intentionality Modulation at the Cell Level: Low-Frequency Oscillations for Temporal Coordination in Bioengineering Systems". OBM Neurobiology. 7 (4): 1–17. doi:10.21926/obm.neurobiol.2304185.
  29. ^ Tomasello, M. (2008). "Origins of Human Communication," MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-20177-3
  30. ^ Val Danilov, Igor; Mihailova, Sandra (2022). "A New Perspective on Assessing Cognition in Children through Estimating Shared Intentionality". Journal of Intelligence. 10 (2): 21. doi:10.3390/jintelligence10020021. ISSN 2079-3200. PMC 9036231. PMID 35466234.
  31. ^ Renner, John (1974). Research, teaching, and learning with the Piaget model.
  32. ^ a b c d McShane, John. "Cognitive Development: an information processing approach". 1991
  33. ^ a b c d e Freyder, C., & Jackson, M. (2008). Sensorimotor Period. Retrieved November 20, 2012, from "Piaget: Sensorimotor Period". Archived from the original on 2013-11-06. Retrieved 2012-12-03.
  34. ^ a b c d Ormrod, J.E. (2012). Essentials of Educational Psychology: Big Ideas to Guide Effective Teaching. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
  35. ^ McLeod, S. A. (2010). Sensorimotor Stage — Object Permanence. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/sensorimotor.html
  36. ^ a b Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1972). The Psychology of the Child (Vol. 5001). Basic Books.
  37. ^ Buckleitner, W. (2008). So Young, and So Gadgeted. Retrieved November 20, 2012, from https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/technology/personaltech/12basics.html
  38. ^ Elkind, D (1967). "Egocentrism in Adolescence". Child Development. 34 (4): 1025–1034. doi:10.2307/1127100. JSTOR 1127100. PMID 5583052. S2CID 8184525.
  39. ^ Ormrod, J.E. (2012). Essentials of Educational Psychology: Big Ideas to Guide Effective Teaching. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
  40. ^ Ann Hurley."Cognitive Development: Overview." pp. 2 [1] Retrieved May 29, 2012
  41. ^ Gelman, Rochel. (1978). The child's understanding of number. Gallistel, C. R., 1941-. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-11636-4. OCLC 3770717.
  42. ^ Kegan, Robert (1986). The Evolving Self.
  43. ^ Babakr, Zana; Mohamedamin, Pakstan; Kakamad, Karwan (2019). "Piaget's Cognitive Developmental Theory: Critical Review" (PDF). Education Quarterly Reviews. 2 (3): 520. doi:10.31014/aior.1993.02.03.84. Retrieved 2023-03-21.
  44. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Erik Erikson's Stages of Psychosocial Development". 2022-11-03. Retrieved 2023-12-07.
  45. ^ "Psychosocial Development and Identity Statuses". Adult Development: 31–39. 2022.
  46. ^ a b c d e f g h Orenstein, Gabriel A.; Lewis, Lindsay (2023), "Eriksons Stages of Psychosocial Development", StatPearls, Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing, PMID 32310556, retrieved 2023-12-07
  47. ^ Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 8(7), 308.
  48. ^ Ness, Daniel and Stephen J. Farenga. (2007). Knowledge under Construction: The Importance of Play in Developing Children's Spatial and Geometric Thinking. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  49. ^ Simion, F.; Regolin, L.; Bulf, H. (2008). "A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby". PNAS. 105 (2): 809–813. Bibcode:2008PNAS..105..809S. doi:10.1073/pnas.0707021105. PMC 2206618. PMID 18174333.
  50. ^ Gelman, S (2003). The Essential Child: Origins of Essentialism in Everyday Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-518198-0.
  51. ^ Peal, Elizabeth; Lambert, Wallace E (1962). "The relation of bilingualism to intelligence". Psychological Monographs. 76 (27): 1–23. doi:10.1037/h0093840.
  52. ^ Bialystok, Ellen (2015). "Bilingualism And The Development Of Executive Function: The Role Of Attention". Child Development Perspectives. 9 (2): 117–121. doi:10.1111/cdep.12116. PMC 4442091. PMID 26019718.
  53. ^ Whorf, Benjamin (1940). "Linguistics as an Exact Science Language". Thought and Reality.
  54. ^ a b Hunt, E.; Agnoli, F. (1991). "The Whorfian hypothesis: A cognitive psychology perspective". Psychological Review. 98 (3): 377–389. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.3.377.
  55. ^ Mosenthal, P (1975). "Language and thought". Theory into Practice. 14 (5): 306–311. doi:10.1080/00405847509542592.
  56. ^ Quine, Willard Van Orman (2013). Word and Object. doi:10.7551/mitpress/9636.001.0001. ISBN 9780262312790.
  57. ^ Sevinç, Gülşah (2019-05-31). "Bilişsel Gelişime Yeni Piagetci Yaklaşıma İlişkin bir Değerlendirme". Ankara Universitesi Egitim Bilimleri Fakultesi Dergisi. doi:10.30964/auebfd.470159. ISSN 1301-3718.
  58. ^ Diamond, Adele (26 December 2017). "Close Interrelation of Motor Development and Cognitive Development and of the Cerebellum and Prefrontal Cortex". Child Development. 71 (1): 44–56. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00117. JSTOR 1132216. PMID 10836557.
  59. ^ Hedden, T.; Ketay, S.; Aron, A.; Markus, H. R.; Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2008). "Cultural influences on neural substrates of attentional control". Psychological Science. 19 (1): 12–17. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02038.x. PMID 18181784. S2CID 14439636.
  60. ^ han, S.; Northoff, Georg (2008). "Culture sensitive neural substrates of human cognition: a transcultural neuroimaging approach". Nature Reviews. 9 (1): 646–654. doi:10.1038/nrn2456. PMID 18641669. S2CID 6461309.
  61. ^ Kobayashi, C.; Glover, G. H.; Temple, E. (2007). "Cultural and linguistic effects on neural bases of 'theory of mind' in American and Japanese children". Brain Research. 1164 (1): 95–107. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2007.06.022. PMC 2964053. PMID 17643400.
  62. ^ Calvert, Donald R.; Lane, Harlan (December 1985). "When the Mind Hears: A History of the Deaf". The American Historical Review. 90 (5): 1163. doi:10.2307/1859664. ISSN 0002-8762. JSTOR 1859664.
  63. ^ Mayberry, Rachel (2002). Cognitive development in deaf children: the interface of language and perception in neuropsychology.
  64. ^ Woolfe, Tyron; Want, Stephen C.; Siegal, Michael (May 2002). "Signposts to Development: Theory of Mind in Deaf Children". Child Development. 73 (3): 768–778. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00437. ISSN 0009-3920. PMID 12038550.
  65. ^ Sisco, Frankie H.; Anderson, Richard J. (1980). "Deaf Children's Performance on the WISC-R Relative to Hearing Status of Parents and Child-Rearing Experiences". American Annals of the Deaf. 125 (7): 923–930. doi:10.1353/aad.2012.1290. ISSN 1543-0375. PMID 7446346. S2CID 26135193.
  66. ^ Krouse, Hailey E.; Braden, Jeffery P. (2010-10-27). "The Reliability and Validity of WISC-IV Scores With Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children". Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 29 (3): 238–248. doi:10.1177/0734282910383646. ISSN 0734-2829. S2CID 143191620.
  67. ^ Lina-Granade, Geneviève; Comte-Gervais, Isabelle; Gippon, Laurie; Nappez, Gaëlle; Morin, Elodie; Truy, Eric (June 2010). "Correlation Between Cognitive Abilities and Language Level in Cochlear Implanted Children". Cochlear Implants International. 11 (sup1): 327–331. doi:10.1179/146701010x12671177989633. ISSN 1467-0100. PMID 21756642. S2CID 206848307.
  68. ^ Fast, Anne A.; Olson, Kristina R. (March 2018). "Gender Development in Transgender Preschool Children". Child Development. 89 (2): 620–637. doi:10.1111/cdev.12758. ISSN 0009-3920. PMID 28439873.
  69. ^ "Transgender Kids Show Consistent Gender Identity Across Measures". Association for Psychological Science - APS. Retrieved 2023-05-11.

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cognitive_development&oldid=1189896939"