New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here


by: Isaac Lemus

PSYC 339 WEEK 7 PSYC 339

Isaac Lemus

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

These notes cover anything that was discussed during week 7 of the class! Sorry for the late post, I just got over being sick for the last week.
Origins of the Mind
Justin Wood
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Origins of the Mind

Popular in PSYC

This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Isaac Lemus on Tuesday October 18, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSYC 339 at University of Southern California taught by Justin Wood in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 2 views. For similar materials see Origins of the Mind in PSYC at University of Southern California.


Reviews for PSYC 339 WEEK 7


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 10/18/16
Lecture Notes 10/4: Numbers Part 2 Like always, we have this classic debate of whether or not number representation is innate or learned through experience. In the previous lecture we looked at the first system: approximate number system (also known as the number sense) and its three systems: Approximation based on ratios, abstract across different senses, and can be used arithmetically to add and subtract. The studies show that the trait is found across all animals and human infants When looking at AI, if we can build it then we can determine if a mechanism is innate or learned. If we remember, A1 can recognize objects through multiple repeated layers that make simple computations. What happens if we use the same AI and expose it to a number of objects. Well, AI will naturally learn to pick up numbers by exposing them to different numbers of objects. So the empiricist were right in this extent. From before, approximate number systems brings conflict of spontaneous vs trained behavior ● Animals can be trained to do amazing sophisticated things with numbers, even surpassing the capabilities of humans ○ Chimps can be trained to count dots, click the order, hold number information in working memory, and fill number representation gaps. Even pigeons do this! ○ So non human animals can learn the symbols for numbers and therefore number cognition isn’t unique to just humans or require language, culture, or pedagogy system of teaching. ○ But remembered that these animals were trained and weren’t exactly core knowledge representation. Onto system number 2: Exact Number Representation: this process is taken over by the first system of approximation after we pass 3 to 4 objects. ● 3 Item tracking limit: babies can represent the number of objects that go in the basket. This number representation system is also apparent in the object tracking system. ● Infants and monkeys can add and subtract individual numbers just as well as the can approximate numbers ● Singular Plural trait: All languages seem to have a singular plural distinction. One of something or more than one of something. Very limited trait because it’s only used to tell if there is more than one of something. ● Maybe you need language to develop this? Or maybe we made language based off of an innate trait? ● The monkey studies show that language is not needed. They can tell 1vs 2 or 1 vs 5 but had a harder time distinguishing two sets of more than one apple Limits: broad group, one or more than one, or a max tracking of 3. The only way to overcome this is by using human cultural learning Lecture notes 10/6: Agents 1 We are now going to focus on the first element of social cognition. Everything we talked about before was all physical based, but now we are moving on to social aspects. Humans seem to care more about social information rather than physical. Where does this capability come from? Is it uniquely human? What are the mechanisms behind everything ● Pixar short clip shows just how attentive we are to the facial features and social inferences. We saw examples of emotions, ingroup and outgroup, anger, happiness and picked up social cues Let’s start with our ability to recognize faces: ● As adults, this ability does seem to be domain specific: Inversion recognition shows that we have a concrete system that is finely tune to faces that are right side up. In addition Prosopagnosia is a disorder where people can’t recognize faces. It only affects facial perception, nothing else. Harvard did a large survey and concluded 2% have this order. People with this order rely on other cues, how they talk, the clothes they wear. In continuation, Neuroimaging data shows that an area called in the brain is dedicated solely to facial memory. ● All this suggests that there is a system at play. But how did this system develop? To answer this question, let’s take a look at babies? ● Paddle face study shows that babies have a built in desire to follow faces. The results: ○ They track the actual configuration of a face rather than a linear or scrambled paddled ○ But, we tested 5 day old babies, could they have developed this trait during this time or is it innate? ○ Their system is a little different than us adults. They have a template but it’s very minimal. They just look for exact or top heavy oval shapes. ● Around 2 days of life, they seem to prefer images of their mom. So the system is up and off the ground early but not as precise as adults So how does this system develop in babies and is it affected by experience? Maybe we automatically know what species we are and instinctually understand how we look. ● To test this we ask: does a baby recognize changes in a human faces more than in a monkey face. The results conclude that babies can start with a wide general recognition of other animals then raised to learn what human faces are. It’s what you are exposed to that determines what facial recognition you have. ● From a different perspective, monkeys were raised from 6 to 21 months of life with or without a faces. The results show that even without experience monkeys have a preference for faces when they were shown for the first time in photographs. It is Experience independent. Then as the monkeys were raised with either human faces or monkey faces, they began developing a preference for that type of face One of the biggest questions that face psychologist today is whether or not this trait, along with our other innate systems is domain specific, meaning we have different mechanisms for every trait, or do all these traits stem from a general knowledge. Both Descartes and Berkeley would reason against domain specific, saying everything stems from one system of innate reasoning and logic, or everything is learned through a single system of experience and association. Chomsky and tinbergen would reason for domain specific because of their belief of a language system and a evolutionary traits like spiders building a spider web Next, for some reason we have the ability to infer mental aspects on an inanimate object based solely on movement. Pixar short of lamps. Where does this trait originate from? Inanimate objects don’t move unless another object hit it. Agents (people, animals, being, etc.) have the ability to adapt its behavior as a reflection of the environment. Agents communicate and react to other agents and refer to objects as references. ● Triangles and circle 1940’s movie show that we can build an entire inferences based solely on movement. 12 roles of animation: squash and stretch, anticipation, staging, pose to pose, follow through and overlap, slow in and slow out, arcs, secondary action, timing, exaggeration, solid drawing, appeal Do babies expect objects and agents to move differently? ● Objects: Red object hit the blue object behind a block. Then the block was moved and two different repeats were done, one where the blocks touched, one where they didn’t. The babies was surprised when the blue block moves on its own. ● Agents: Same study with done with people. Babies find it more surprising when people move after contact has been made. ● They have different expectation for humans and objects So now that we know that they have a different expectation for human agents, do babies infer that humans agents are goal orientated? ● Experiment: Two objects side by side, a ball and a teddy bear. The baby is habituated to a person grabbing a ball. Then the person grabs the teddy bear. The results show that 5 and 8 month old encode people's goals and look longer when a person starts grabbing a teddy bears ● Now, if you replace the human for just a stick poking at the two objects, the results become different and they don’t stare longer when the stick pokes something new. They don't have that same expectation for humans and objects What about accidental versus intentional? They can still tell the difference. Results shows that babies know when something is done accidentally vs intentionally because they don’t longer when a hand just flops/falls from object to object. Next, rationally movement and actions. Do babies do this through Interaction and imitation? ● Box lights up with touch. Researcher put on a blanket and touched the light with their forehead because there hands were occupied with the blanket. In a different trial, researchers just turned on the light with their forehead for no reason. Results, at 12 months of age, when the researcher hands were occupied, babies used their hands. They knew the only reason why researchers used their foreheads was because they couldn't use their hand. ● Ball to ball with barrier study shows that we make inferences to understand what the agents are doing in the most logical way (If the ball jumps with a barrier, its goal is to get to the other side, if the ball jumps with no barrier then its goal is to jump). Babies results at five to six months of age show that babies think rationally too. In summary babies have the ability to determine specific actions as goal orientated, and can analyze the goal by using rational thinking. Human infants seem to have separate systems of core knowledges. Double association: Move on own Goals Objects Yes no agents No Yes Objects and people move behind two block barriers. More surprised with two people and not with objects. Also shows that they have two different systems The train and arm going through a wall study show that they expect both objects and agents to be solid. So everything we talked about above had to rely on action. But lets quickly cover another field: Eye gaze, do babies understand that other people can see? ● Results from a study show that if the baby is 9 months, the baby can look at an object that a researcher is looking at but only if its in their field of view. It’s not until 18 months that babies can follow a gaze out of their visual field. ● In a separate study, babies are more quickly able to look at an object when a face is shown looking at it before. At birth, they can follow eye gaze even if it is limited. Is this system different than the ths system? Yes, develop parallel and don’t connect until 11 months


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Allison Fischer University of Alabama

"I signed up to be an Elite Notetaker with 2 of my sorority sisters this semester. We just posted our notes weekly and were each making over $600 per month. I LOVE StudySoup!"

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.