4.5 Article

Belief-based action prediction in preverbal infants

Journal

COGNITION
Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 1-10

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.008

Keywords

Infants; Theory of mind; False belief; EEG; Sensorimotor alpha suppression

Funding

  1. Wellcome Trust [088427/Z/09/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust
  2. Wellcome Trust [088427/Z/09/Z] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Successful mindreading entails both the ability to think about what others know or believe, and to use this knowledge to generate predictions about how mental states will influence behavior. While previous studies have demonstrated that young infants are sensitive to others' mental states, there continues to be much debate concerning how to characterize early theory of mind abilities. In the current study, we asked whether 6-month-old infants appreciate the causal role that beliefs play in action. Specifically, we tested whether infants generate action predictions that are appropriate given an agent's current belief. We exploited a novel, neural indication of action prediction: motor cortex activation as measured by sensorimotor alpha suppression, to ask whether infants would generate differential predictions depending on an agent's belief. After first verifying our paradigm and measure with a group of adult participants, we found that when an agent had a false belief that a ball was in the box, motor activity indicated that infants predicted she would reach for the box, but when the agent had a false belief that a ball was not in the box, infants did not predict that she would act. In both cases, infants based their predictions on what the agent, rather than the infant, believed to be the case, suggesting that by 6 months of age, infants can exploit their sensitivity to other minds for action prediction. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available