Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-g98kq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-30T03:25:29.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Not all core knowledge systems are created equal, and they are subject to revision in both children and adults

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2024

Rongzhi Liu  and
Fei Xu Open the ORCID record for Fei Xu [Opens in a new window]
Rongzhi Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA rongzhi_liu@berkeley.edu www.babylab.berkeley.edu
Fei Xu*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA rongzhi_liu@berkeley.edu www.babylab.berkeley.edu
*
Corresponding author: Fei Xu; Email: fei_xu@berkeley.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core knowledge systems play an important role in theories of cognitive development. However, recent studies suggest that fundamental principles of the object and agent systems can be revised by adults and preschoolers, when given small amounts of counterevidence. We argue that not all core knowledge systems are created equal, and they may be subject to revision throughout development.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 47 , 2024 , e136
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bar-Haim, Y., Ziv, T., Lamy, D., & Hodes, R. M. (2006). Nature and nurture in own-race face processing. Psychological Science, 17(2), 159–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2003). Teleological reasoning in infancy: The naïve theory of rational action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gönül, G., & Paulus, M. (2021). Children's reasoning about the efficiency of others’ actions: The development of rational action prediction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 204, 105035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyde, D. C., & Spelke, E. S. (2009). All numbers are not equal: An electrophysiological investigation of small and large number representations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(6), 1039–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, D. C., & Spelke, E. S. (2011). Neural signatures of number processing in human infants: Evidence for two core systems underlying numerical cognition. Developmental Science, 14(2), 360–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Izard, V., Sann, C., Spelke, E. S., & Streri, A. (2009). Newborn infants perceive abstract numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(25), 10382–10385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, Z., Woodward, A. L., Sullivan, K. R., & Kinzler, K. D. (2016). Early emerging system for reasoning about the social nature of food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(34), 9480–9485.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, R., & Xu, F. (2021). Revising core beliefs in young children. In Fitch, T., Lamm, C., Leder, H., & Tessmar-Raible, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1677–1683). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Liu, R., & Xu, F. (2022). Can adults revise their core beliefs about objects? In Culberston, J., Perfors, A., Rabagliati, H., & Ramenzoni, V. (Eds), Proceedings of the 44th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1483–1489). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Liu, R., & Xu, F. (2023). Can adults revise their core beliefs about agents? In Goldwater, M., Anggoro, F., Hayes, B., & Ong, D. (Eds), Proceedings of the 45th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1637–1643). Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Nieder, A., & Dehaene, S. (2009). Representation of number in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 32, 185–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scholl, B. J. (2001). Objects and attention: The state of the art. Cognition, 80(1–2), 1–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scholl, B. J., & Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1999). Tracking multiple items through occlusion: Clues to visual objecthood. Cognitive Psychology, 38(2), 259–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scholl, B. J., Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Feldman, J. (2001). What is a visual object? Evidence from target merging in multiple object tracking. Cognition, 80(1–2), 159–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spelke, E. S. (2022). What babies know: Core knowledge and composition volume 1 (Vol. 1). Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
vanMarle, K., & Scholl, B. J. (2003). Attentive tracking of objects versus substances. Psychological Science, 14(5), 498–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woo, B. M., Liu, S., & Spelke, E. (2022, June 30). Infants rationally infer the goals of other people's reaches in the absence of first-person experience with reaching actions. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/dx2erGoogle Scholar
Xu, F., & Arriaga, R. I. (2007). Number discrimination in 10-month-old infants. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, F., & Spelke, E. S. (2000). Large number discrimination in 6-month-old infants. Cognition, 74(1), B1–B11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed