Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T01:09:31.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heavy objects and small children: Developmental data extend the passive frame theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2016

Cheshire Hardcastle ,
Eliah White ,
Heidi Kloos  and
Valerie Gray Hardcastle
Cheshire Hardcastle
Affiliation:
Bioscience Division, SRI International and Stanford Hospital & Clinics, Menlo Park, CA [email protected]
Eliah White
Affiliation:
Department of Psychological Science, Northern Kentucky University, Highland Heights, KY [email protected]://artscience.nku.edu/departments/psychology/facstaff/ft-faculty/White.html
Heidi Kloos
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45220-0376. [email protected]@uc.eduhttp://www.artsci.uc.edu/departments/psychology/fac_staff.html?eid=kloosa&thecomp=uceprofhttp://www.artsci.uc.edu/departments/psychology/fac_staff.html?eid=hardcave&thecomp=uceprof
Valerie Gray Hardcastle
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45220-0376. [email protected]@uc.eduhttp://www.artsci.uc.edu/departments/psychology/fac_staff.html?eid=kloosa&thecomp=uceprofhttp://www.artsci.uc.edu/departments/psychology/fac_staff.html?eid=hardcave&thecomp=uceprof
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Passive frame theory is compatible with modern complexity theory and the idea that conflict drives the emergence of a novel structural organization. After describing new developmental data, we suggest that this conflict needs to be expanded to include not only conflict between action options, but also between action and perception.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 39 , 2016 , e180
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

References

Bak, P. (1996) How nature works: The science of self-organized criticality. Copernicus.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Juarrero, A. (1999) Dynamics in action: Intentional behavior as a complex system. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kloos, H. & Amazeen, E. L. (2002) Perceiving heaviness by dynamic touch: An investigation of the size-weight illusion in preschoolers. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 20(2):171–83.Google Scholar
Kozhevnikov, M. & Hegarty, M. (2001) Impetus beliefs as default heuristics: Dissociation between explicit and implicit knowledge about motion. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 8:439–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krist, H., Fieberg, E. L. & Wilkening, F. (1993) Intuitive physics in action and judgment: The development of knowledge about projectile motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 19:952–66.Google Scholar
Robinson, L. (2010) The relationship between perceived physical competence and fundamental motor skills in preschool children. Child: Care, Health and Development 37(4):589–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swenson, R. (1997) Evolutionary theory developing: The problem(s) with Darwin's dangerous idea. Ecological Psychology 9(1):47–96.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. & Varela, F. J. (2001) Radical embodiment: Neural dynamics and consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5(10):418–25.Google Scholar
Werner, G. (2007) Metastability, criticality and phase transitions in brain and its models. Biosystems 90(2):496–508. doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2006.12.001.Google Scholar
Zhu, Q. & Bingham, G. (2010) Learning to perceive the affordance for long-distance throwing: Smart mechanism or function learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 36(4):862–75.Google Scholar