research article microdevelopment of complex featural and ...research article microdevelopment of...

Research ArticleMicrodevelopment of Complex Featural and Spatial Integrationwith Contextual Support

Pamela L Hirsch1 and Elisabeth Hollister Sandberg2

1Department of Psychology Salem State University 325 Lafayette Street Salem MA 01970 USA2Department of Psychology Vanderbilt University 528 Wilson Hall Nashville TN 37235 USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Pamela L Hirsch phirschsalemstateedu

Received 31 July 2015 Revised 17 September 2015 Accepted 21 September 2015

Academic Editor Olga Capirci

Copyright copy 2015 P L Hirsch and E H Sandberg This is an open access article distributed under the Creative CommonsAttribution License which permits unrestricted use distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original work isproperly cited

Complex spatial decisions involve the ability to combine featural and spatial information in a scene In the present work 4- through9-year-old children completed a complex map-scene correspondence task under baseline and supported conditions Childrencompared a photographed scene with a correct map and with map-foils that made salient an object feature or spatial propertyMap-scene matches were analyzed for the effects of age and featural-spatial information on childrenrsquos selections In both conditionschildren significantly favored maps that highlighted object detail and object perspective rather than color landmark and metricelements Childrenrsquos correct performance did not differ by age andwas suboptimal but their ability to choose correctmaps improvedsignificantly when contextual support was provided Strategy variability was prominent for all age groups but at age 9 with supportchildren were more likely to give up their focus on features and transition to the use of spatial strategies These findings suggestthe possibility of a U-shaped curve for childrenrsquos development of geometric knowledge geometric coding is predominant early ondiminishes for a time in middle childhood in favor of a preference for features and then reemerges along with the more advancedabilities to combine featural and spatial information

1 Introduction

The capacity to establish correspondence between a mapand a scene involves information processing across multipledimensions that incorporate object features (eg color ordetail) categorical and fine-grained spatial coding (eg leftor right of a landmark or metric distances) and arrayconfiguration (eg whole-scene arrangements) For instanceto establish map-scene correspondence it is not enough toidentify a red barn in both a map and a scene (object featurematch) if the red barn is located on the left side of a fence inthe map and on the right side of a fence in the scene (spatialcategorymismatch) Similarly to establish correspondence itis not enough to locate a red barn on the right side of a fencein both the map and the scene (spatial category match) if thered barn is represented in themap as located close to the fenceand distant from the tree but in the scene it is located closeto the tree and distant from the fence (fine-grained codingmismatch) Further to establish geometric correspondence

there must be a link between the holistic spatial relations ofitems in the map and the holistic spatial relations of itemsin the scene (map-scene match) Whether layout items arepictorially represented or symbolized in iconic line drawings(which often display visual feature mismatches) featural-spatial integration is ultimately necessary to determine cor-rect map-scene correspondence

Although in the course of ordinary human developmentit may appear that the ability to combine featural and spatialinformation transpires smoothly research has shown thatchildren initially demonstrate knowledge of object featuresand spatial properties separately [1] and that the two typesof information arise from behaviorally and neurally indepen-dent systems [2] Studies with very young children suggestthat spatial sensitivity emerges in the earliest years of life [3]Evidence from recent experiments with nonhuman animalssuch as newborn chicks argues for an innate predispositionfor geometric coding of the environment that depends on afundamental system that is shared by human and nonhuman

Hindawi Publishing CorporationChild Development ResearchVolume 2015 Article ID 902584 10 pageshttpdxdoiorg1011552015902584

2 Child Development Research

animals alike [4] Encoding of geometry involves the ability toprocess relationships of distance angle and direction whichcan pertain to the surfaces of a surrounding enclosure orto the global spatial relations between multiple objects Thisdiffers from the ability to process local features of discreteobjects that display nonspatial attributes (ie color shapesize and texture) which can pertain to features that identifya surface (eg a colored wall) or to details that identifyan object (eg a church steeple) Some recent compara-tive work suggests that chicks spontaneously reorient bycomputing subtle geometric variations in the terrain of athree-dimensional layout [5] Developmental research withhumans suggests that young children use geometry and donot automatically combine featural and spatial informationFor example studies have shown that 5-month-olds are ableto code location of objects hidden in a sandbox but theyare unable to detect differences in objects retrieved from thesame locations [6] that 1-year-olds (as well as nonhumangreat apes) choose spatial strategies over featural strategiesfor understanding object location [7 8] and that 18- to 24-month-olds rely solely on geometric cues to locate a hiddenobject in small enclosed spaces [9]

In contrast to the experiments with very young chil-dren several developmental studies indicate that school-agedchildren who already have considerable experience in theworld and are learning to usemultiple sources of informationbecome more attracted to the nonspatial features of objectsthan to strategies that depend on the geometry of a spaceThese studies suggest that on a variety of spatial decision-making tasks children may show that they prefer to rely onfeatures rather than locations For instance on an object-search task 3-year-old childrenrsquos early preference for spatialinformation reverses and children favor feature-based strate-gies [7] Further studies that ask children to disambiguate ahiding place show that 3-year-olds prefer color to locationand 4-year-olds prefer size to location [10] experiments thattest 7- to 11-year-olds indicate that object feature informationoften results in systematic biases in locationmemory [11] andstudies that test 3- to 12-year-olds on a picture-environmentcorrespondence task find that featural information is moresalient than spatial position [12] Taken together these find-ings imply that features may predominate in spatial decision-making during middle childhood

Yet in order to make decisions about map-scene corre-spondence it is necessary to acquire the ability to combineinformation about the features of objects and the spatialrelations of objects despite the fact that nonspatial and spatialinformation often compete for attention Error patternsmay arise due to the separate advancement of informationabout the featural identities of objects and the configuralrelations of objects If childrenrsquos attention becomes capturedpredominately by the features of objects their representationsof spatial informationmay get skewed such that intermediaryinternal representations give rise to incorrect spatial strate-gies [13] Maps may be used to interpret how children arethinking about object features and spatial relations A pivotalquestion in the present paper is whether development of chil-drenrsquos ability to combine featural and spatial information inorder to make correct map-scene matches proceeds along an

age-based trajectory or clusters around salient intermediarystrategies regardless of age

The ability to represent spatial information has been tra-ditionally studied in connection with age-dependent devel-opmental capacities Piaget and Inhelder [14] maintainedthat spatial development follows a chronologically orderedsequence in which childrenrsquos spatial decision-making pro-gresses from novice to expert along an age-based linearpathway In particular Piagetian theory proposed that atapproximately 8 or 9 years old childrenrsquos abilities undergoqualitative changes with respect to their ability to men-tally manipulate spatial information However research indevelopmental variability has suggested that children of allages use multiple problem-solving strategies in a variety ofcombinations [15] This implies that spatial understandingmay be present at early ages and spatial miscalculations mayappear at older ages Indeed research indicates that mapskills are active for young children Children are able touse symbolic functioning at 3 years of age as they form adual representation of maps and the spaces they stand for[16] Even young children are able to mentally transform thescenes they encounter Three-year-olds can interpret aerialpictures as representations of scenes [17 18] 4-year-oldscan understand the relation between a map symbol andits environmental referent [19 20] and children from 4 to7 years old can form an integrated mental representationfor locations of unseen objects [21] Nevertheless studiesalso indicate that older children exhibit many difficulties inmapping a representation to a space Research shows that 5-to 7-year-olds often mistake information cues when vantagepoint shifts [22 23] 6- to 9-year-olds may misinterpret theintention of map iconicity [24] and 9-year-olds sometimesmisjudge configuration in scenes that are occluded at eye level[22]

The present study probed 4- through 9-year-old childrenrsquosunderstanding of featural and spatial relations via their choiceof the best map to depict a provided scene The choiceof symbolic representations (ie maps and photographs)to test strategy shifts in development was based on thetheoretical idea that photographs and map representationscan provide a ldquobig picturerdquo perspective on spatial relations ofthe environment that is not as readily available in direct navi-gational experience [25] Investigation of how these symbolicrepresentations are used can demonstrate childrenrsquos spatialcognitive understanding by indicating how they think aboutspatial relations that have not been experienced directlythat is how they mentally represent a view of a scene inthe absence of navigating that scene (see [5] in regard tounsuccessful effects of matching a real-world view with atwo-dimensional snapshot image and see [26 27] for somequalifications in studies using map-based navigation with 2Dmaps of 3D surface layouts) Drawings were not employedto study spatial symbols because they can be confoundedby childrenrsquos limited drawing skills [22] The central goal ofthe current work was to investigate the relationship betweenage and the developmental path of featural-spatial strategychoices with a focus on the types of intermediate strategy skillcomponents children choose when the task requires complexspatial decision-making Although variability in childrenrsquos

Child Development Research 3

featural and spatial preferences was predicted it was alsoexpected that age would be a determining factor and thatolder children would be more likely than younger children tocombine featural and spatial components and make correctmap-scene decisions In contrast to studies that measurejust age-related successes or failures this study also exploredvariability and transitions in spatial strategies across middlechildhood Further the effect of contextual support onstrategy choices was considered by comparing childrenrsquos trial-by-trial performance in baseline and supported conditionsand by examining microdevelopment with support

2 Method

21 Participants Forty-eight children were recruited fromBoston metropolitan area daycare centers and elementaryschools in culturally and socioeconomically diverse neigh-borhoods One child was excluded due to procedural errorForty-seven children (29 boys 18 girls) were tested age 4(119899 = 3119872age = 45) age 5 (119899 = 7119872age = 53) age 6 (119899 = 13119872age = 63) age 7 (119899 = 3119872age = 72) age 8 (119899 = 14119872age =84) and age 9 (119899 = 7 119872age = 96) A written informedconsent was obtained from each childrsquos parentguardian andchildren provided verbal assent before testing

22 Stimuli Ten stimulus sets were created Each set con-sisted of a photographed scene (see Figure 1) with four mapoptions (see Figure 2) The photographed scenes in eachstimulus set included indoor and outdoor settings that werebuilt from such items as dollhouse furniture model railroadsand toy farm buildings Scenes were photographed froma viewing angle of approximately 30∘ and clearly revealedall items throughout the depth of the scene in such a waythat the front and top surfaces of the items were visiblePhotographs measuring approximately 910158401015840 by 810158401015840 were mattedto construction paper measuring 1210158401015840 by 910158401015840 Each map inthe stimulus set was a hand-sketched simple iconic linedrawing that depicted the photographed scene from a surveyperspective The iconic line drawings were suggestive of theitems shown in the photograph but these icons bore littlevisual resemblance to the real objects in the scenes exceptwhen the feature being manipulated was made salient in themap The four maps in a stimulus set each measuring 410158401015840by 410158401015840 were matted onto one sheet of construction paperthat matched the accompanying photographrsquos mat in size andcolor Each scene photograph and each array of four maps(scale roughly 1 4) were presented in clear plastic documentpockets Maps were unaligned (with either the photographor with each other) in order to provide a rigorous test ofchildrenrsquos spatial relations abilities

Each stimulus set contained one map that correctlydepicted spatial relations of the scene elements and threemaps that did not preserve the correct spatial relations ofthe scene but were designed as foils to systematically makesalient one of five featural or spatial components that areknown to attract the young childrsquos spatial representationalactivities [10 28ndash30] Scene components were delineatedby the (relatively) nonspatial strategies of color detail and

Figure 1 Example of a photographed indoor scene used in astimulus set

Figure 2 Example of the fourmap options that corresponded to theindoor scene used in the stimulus set example Beginning top leftand moving clockwise the map choices are Color Foil Metric FoilPerspective Foil and Correct Map

perspective and by the spatial strategies of landmark metriccoding and correct spatial relations A correctly configuredmap was presented as an option on all ten trials Each of themap-foil types was seen six times and was paired with allother types an equal number of times Each map belongedto one of six categories of spatial strategies (1) Color Foilelements of the map were colored to match elements in thepictured scene thereby increasing salience of the color featuredespite incorrect location within the spatial layout (2) DetailFoil small distinctive details were included in the depictionof scene elements thereby increasing salience of physicalsimilarity with particular object features despite incorrectlocation in the spatial layout (3) Perspective Foil an elementof the map was drawn from an incorrect perspective thatmade it transparently identifiable For example a tree mightbe shown from a frontal perspective despite an overheaddepiction of the scene (4) Landmark Foil a landmark fromthe scene (such as a prominent building) was drawn in thecorrect location with respect to the frame of the map whileother distal elements were incorrectly arranged (5) MetricFoil objects were drawn in the wrong places but distanceswere preserved (6) Correct Map all elements of the scenewere presented in correct spatial relations


23 Procedure

231 Baseline Condition Each child was tested individuallyin the school environment After greeting the child the exper-imenter introduced the task by stating that they would beplaying a mapmatching game Practice trials were conductedto ensure that the child was familiarized with the materialsand instructions in the task The experimenter asked if thechild knew what a map was and closed with the statementldquomaps are drawings of places that show us where things arein exactly the right placesrdquo

A photographed scene was placed on the table and shownto the child The experimenter instructed the child to lookcarefully at all of the things in the picture A map groupwas then placed next to the photograph and the child wastold the following ldquoone of these maps (pointing to each offour map choices in turn) is the right map for this place(pointing to the photograph) It shows where things are inthe right places Can you show me which map is the rightmap for this placerdquo This procedure was repeated for each ofthe 10 map-scene stimulus sets Children were permitted tomove the maps and the photographed scene Questions wereanswered truthfully but no information was given disclosingspatial information or information about the correctnessof a choice Thus children arrived at responses that wereunmediated The order of presentation was counterbalancedacross participants The experimenter recorded each childrsquosindividual response on each trial as either the color map (c)the detailmap (d) the perspectivemap (p) the landmarkmap(l) the metric map (m) or the correct map (r)

232 Support Condition Participants from the baseline con-dition went into the support condition in order to explorewhether contextual support (ie scaffolding whereby expe-rienced persons (eg adults) provide assistance to inexperi-enced persons (eg children) with the aim of helping themto master more complex tasks than they could achieve alone[31]) enabled children to reveal unexpressed higher-orderspatial thinking A second group of ten stimulus sets werecreated as matched representational pairs to those used inthe baseline condition As in baseline testing each stimulusset was comprised of one map that correctly depicted spatialconfiguration and three maps that did not preserve thecorrect spatial configuration but that made salient one ofthe five attractive featural or spatial components A correctlyconfigured map was presented as an option on all ten trialsand each map-foil was seen six times and was paired with allother types an equal number of times

Children were tested several days after baseline sessionsand under the same conditions The task was reintroducedand children were told that this time the experimenter wouldgive hints for how to pick the right map Practice instructionsexplained the ldquotricksrdquo that made three maps wrong andthe correct correspondences in the fourth map During testtrials the experimenter asked questions that highlightedspatial relations and that elicited a childrsquos self-explanationwhich is a known facilitator of cognitive development[32 33] For example when a child gave a response theexperimenter inquired whether that map showed the items

of the photographed scene ldquoin exactly the right placesrdquo Ifthe child answered ldquonordquo the experimenter then asked thechild to explain why and to tell which map ldquodid show thingsin the right placesrdquo The experimenter sometimes providedexplanatory feedback another known facilitator of cognitivechange [33] For instance the experimenter pointed outwhen a chosen map showed one building from the sideand others from the top Or the experimenter indicated ifa chosen map showed a table next to a sofa when the sceneshowed it in front Children were asked ldquois that a problemrdquoAt times they were reminded that they could turn the mapsand the photographed scene Children were permitted tochange their responses after consideration of feedbackIndividual responses were coded for strategy preferencesacross the same six possible choices as at baseline

3 Results

31 Baseline Results A one-way ANOVA was conducted onthe number of correctmap responses with age in years (4- 5-6- 7- 8- and 9-year-olds) as the independent variableWhenresults were split across years no effect of age was found (psgt 005) The power of the test was increased by collapsing thedata into two age groups based on the Piagetian claim thatchildrenrsquos reasoning undergoes a qualitative shift at approxi-mately 7 or 8 years of age An independent samples 119905-test wasconducted on the younger group of 4- to 7-year-olds (119899 = 26119872age = 6) and the older group of 8- to 9-year-olds (119899 = 21119872age = 88) but still no significant effect of age was found forcorrect responses between the younger children (119872 = 009)and the older children (119872 = 010) 119905(45) = 019 ns

Data were then examined to determine childrenrsquos dif-ferential strategy preferences for complex map-scene cor-respondence when age was excluded as a factor That ischildrenrsquos map selections were examined to ascertain howfrequently each strategy was chosen yielding color (16)detail (29) perspective (28) landmark (8)metric (10)and correct map (9) Chi-square tests were used to compareobserved frequencies against expected chance frequencies (araw chance frequency score was calculated at 15 for eacherror strategy and at 25 for the correct strategy) All strategyselections differed significantly from chance expectancy 1205942(5 119873 = 943) = 901 119901 = 0000 except the color strategy(ns) Analysis yielded percentage scores that were abovechance levels for the nonspatial strategy preferences of color(by 1) detail (by 14) and perspective (by 13) and thatwere below chance levels for the spatial strategy preferencesof landmark (by 7) metric (by 5) and correct map(by 16) (see Figure 3) Notably these results showed thatchildrenrsquos baseline performance strongly favored nonspatialstrategies over spatial strategies Specifically analysis showedthat childrenrsquos complex map-scene decisions relied signifi-cantly on recognizable object details (first) and identifiableobject perspectives (second) children significantly avoidedlandmark or metric elements and correct spatial relationsand children were comparatively neutral about color as arelevant attribute


minus20

minus15

minus10

minus5

0

5

10

15

20

Col

or

Det

ail

Pers

pect

ive

Land

mar

k

Met

ric

Cor

rect

Strategy

BaselineSupportChange ()

Diff

eren

ce fr

om ch

ance

()

Figure 3 Baseline and support percentage scores compared tochance (ldquo0rdquo) The dash line shows percentage score changes frombaseline to support

32 Support Results A 2 times 6 (condition times age) between-subjects ANOVA was conducted on correct responses andrevealed no significant main effects of condition or age inyears and no interaction effects (ps gt 005) As in the baselinecondition support data were collapsed into a younger group(4 to 7 years old) and an older group (8 to 9 years old)based on the idea that spatial reasoning undergoes qualitativechanges at approximately 7 to 8 years of age An independentsamples 119905-test was conducted on the younger and older agegroups but no significant effect in correct responses wasfound between the younger group (119872 = 014) and the oldergroup (119872 = 019) 119905(45) = 077 nsThus again no significanteffect of age was found for correct responses However apaired samples 119905-test that examined differences in correctresponses between baseline (119872 = 009) and support (119872 =016) conditions was significant 119905(46) = 20 119901 = 005 Theseresults suggest that whereas age did not predict accuratemap-scene correspondence correct map responses for the entiregroup of children regardless of age did improve significantlywhen contextual support was provided

Data were then analyzed to determine childrenrsquos dif-ferential strategy preferences when age was excluded as afactor yielding color (11) detail (33) perspective (24)landmark (5) metric (11) and correct map (26) Chi-square tests were used to compare observed frequenciesagainst expected chance frequencies All strategy selectionsdiffered significantly from chance 1205942 (5 119873 = 942) = 791119901 = 0000 except for correct map (ns) Analysis yieldedpercentage scores that were above chance levels for detail (by18) perspective (by 9) and correct map (by 1) and thatwere below chance for color (by 4) landmark (by 10) andmetric (by 4) (see Figure 3)

Additional chi-square tests were conducted to comparestrategy choices regardless of age between baseline and

supported conditions Significant differences were found forcorrect maps color and landmark 1205942 (5 119873 = 939) = 197119901 = 0001 but not for detail perspective and metric (ns)As shown in Figure 3 comparisons of strategy preferencesfrom baseline to support indicated that with support chil-drenrsquos correct map choices increased significantly to a levelthat was marginally above chance which is consistent withresults of the paired samples 119905-test they continued to favorsalient object details and object perspective their preferencesfor color attributes and landmark components significantlydecreased and their preference for metric coding increasedslightly Thus with support children still relied extensivelyon object details and object perspective for complex spatialdecisions yet their ability to use spatial relations significantlyimproved

Because results above indicated that the static ability tochoose correct map responses did not differ significantlyby age a focus on correct responses was eliminated Yetas childrenrsquos learning is always in flux questions remainedabout how much variation there might be in childrenrsquos use ofintermediary featural-spatial components at different ages Inorder to further evaluate the variability of spatial trajectoriesbetween children a ldquofeatural-spatial strategy shift scorerdquowas calculated as a measure of microdevelopmental changein the distribution of strategy usage between baseline andsupport conditions Shifted scores were computed as thenumerical difference between the number of each strategychoice made in the supported condition and the number ofeach strategy choice made in the baseline condition acrossthe 10 trials Then negative scores were assigned to thecategory ldquoshifted to featuresrdquo scores of ldquo0rdquo were assigned tothe category ldquounchangedrdquo and positive scores were assignedto the category ldquoshifted to spatial relationsrdquo Overall resultsshowed that 41 of childrenrsquos responses shifted toward fea-tures 13 of childrenrsquos responses remained unchanged and46 of childrenrsquos responses shifted toward spatial relationsChi-square tests conducted on childrenrsquos featural-spatial shiftcategories by age in years indicated significant differencesin all shift categories for all ages 1205942 (10 119873 = 47) =187 119901 lt 005 except for 4-year-olds (ns) (see Figure 4)Results showed that 4-year-oldsrsquo scores were distributedequally between the categories (33 33 and 33) 5-year-olds predominantly shifted toward features (56) ratherthan toward spatial relations (42) or unchanged (0) 6-year-olds predominantly shifted toward features (69) ratherthan toward spatial relations (31) or unchanged (0) 7-year-olds predominantly remained unchanged (66) ratherthan shifting toward features (0) or toward spatial relations(33) 8-year-olds split equally between features (42) andspatial relations (42) with some still unchanged (14) and9-year-olds predominantly shifted toward spatial relations(72) with the remainder equally split between features(14) and unchanged (14)

These findings are in agreement with variability research[34] which suggests that the tidy analysis that produced nosignificant result between age and correct map responsesdid not capture the untidiness within the data that canhelp explain developmental unpredictability across middle


01020304050607080

4 5 6 7 8 9

Stra

tegy

shift

()

Age (years)

Shifted to featuresUnchangedShifted to spatial relations

Figure 4 Featural-spatial strategy shifts from baseline to support byage in years

childhood with respect to learning how to combine featuraland spatial information

Microgenetic analysis was used to measure within-child learning pathways by comparing each childrsquos trial-by-trial performance in baseline and support conditionsData showed that children displayed a dynamic process ofvariability in completing this complex spatial task Resultsindicated that some children who benefited from contex-tual support showed orderly stepwise improvement (seeFigure 5(a)) but most childrenrsquos paths toward improvementwere characterized by strong fluctuations (see Figures 5(b)and 5(c)) Additionally results showed that the combinationof strategies used was quite distinct for each child Forexample children who benefited equally from support (iethey had the same positive shift score) manifested differentpaths of intermediary strategy movement toward learningabout spatial relations (see Figure 5)

Further analysis underscored the notion that featural-spatial reorganization is subject to developmental variabilityFor instance children of the same age often showed verydifferent degrees of change (see Figures 6(a) and 6(b) thatshow shift scores for two 5-year-olds were at the oppositeextremes of minus6 and +5) and children who were at differentages often showed the same degree of change (eg seeFigures 6(c) and 6(d) that show shift scores for both a 5-year-old and an almost 9-year-old were +3) Findings alsorevealed variability for some children who demonstratedspatial relations ability at baseline and regressed duringscaffolding (see Figure 6(a)) Similarly some children showedvariability of responses but their degree of change across 10trials was unaffected by scaffolding

Thus these learning curves for frequency of strategychoices revealed featural-spatial developmental path diversitythat was unidentifiable by standard comparisons that usedage and correct map responses as variables

4 Discussion

41 Baseline and Support Discussions Based on ingrainedtraditional models some improvement in correct mapresponses across age was anticipated especially between theyoungest and oldest groups however contrary to expecta-tions no reliable age differences were found at baseline Thisresult was particularly remarkable for older children whooften mapped incorrectly and preferred featural informationeven though they are traditionally considered to be at alater stage of development in which they have establishedmore complex skills Consistentwith newer research baselineresults showed that childrenrsquos performance across middlechildhood significantly favored featural strategies over spa-tial strategies Specifically children relied heavily on objectdetails (first) and object perspectives (second) children sys-tematically avoided landmark or metric elements and correctspatial relations and children were comparatively neutralabout color as a relevant attribute Baseline findings suggestedthat childrenrsquos correct performance on this complex spatialdecision-making task was suboptimal and that the ability tocombine featural and spatial information that is needed tojudge correct maps did not advance significantly across the4- to 9-year-old age range

With support children remained significantly attractedto object details and perspectives yet their spatial strategyuse and correct responses tended to improve Specificallyalthough age did not predict correct responses it was at9 years of age that children showed a statistically signifi-cant transition from the use of featural strategies to spatialstrategies This suggests that many 9-year-olds possessedknowledge potential that they were able to demonstrate whenprovided with additional scaffolding support These resultsare consistent with prior research that found a shift at age 9in processing fine-grained and categorical combinations [35]as well as with Piagetian theory on qualitative changes in rea-soning at approximately 9 years of age Although results couldleave the impression that younger children relied only onfeatures and were not really thinking spatially investigationof variability from baseline to support showed that cognitivereorganization involved an ebb and flow to the process oflearning For example during scaffolding younger childrentended to regress to the use of features and older childrentended to progress to the use of spatial factors but strategychanges in each direction signify that learning was takingplace [27] These results support the idea that developmentalchange emerges as the result of a dynamic system [36] whichin this study included prominent instability across middlechildhoodwith regard to the capacity to combine featural andspatial information in a complex scene

Further the present microgenetic design provided anopportunity to observe change while it was happeningTrial-by-trial analysis uncovered several microlevel changesthat may be understood as transitions in childrenrsquos spatialthinking and skill acquisition Investigation of within-childstrategy change showed that children who benefited fromsupport learned in distinct ways For example childrenwho demonstrated the same degree of change from baselineto support followed a developmental path of fluctuations


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Strategy

Stra

tegy

(6) Correct(5) Metric(4) Landmark(3) Perspective(2) Detail(1) Color

Orderly strategy change

BaselineSupport

8 years 5 months old (33)Trials

(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy

Trials

Strategy fluctuations

BaselineSupport

6 years old (12)

Strategy(6) Correct(5) Metric(4) Landmark(3) Perspective(2) Detail(1) Color

(b)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


BaselineSupport

8 years 5 months old (9)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy


Trials

(c)

Figure 5 Examples of individual strategy change trajectories from baseline (blue lines) to support (orange lines) in which children benefittedcomparably from support (a) shows a strategy change pathway that was orderly (b) and (c) show fluctuations in strategy change pathwaysbut they varied in different ways

marked by strong individual variabilityThese results provideevidence against claims that there is a universal sequence tolearning Further comparison of within-child microdevelop-ment found that childrenrsquos patterns of strategy change variedindependently of age In particular findings indicated thatdegree of change was often dissimilar for children of the sameage and similar for children of different ages

42 General Discussion The present research contributes tothe developmental literature by moving beyond emergenceof spatial skills in infants and very young children to thestudy of complex featural-spatial integration during middlechildhood Present results suggest that between the agesof 4 and 9 years old complex maps and scenes challengechildrenrsquos spatial skillsThese difficultiesmight surprisemany


BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (6)


(a)

BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(b)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (4)


(c)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(d)

Figure 6 Examples of individual trajectories of strategy change from baseline to support (a) and (b) show children of the same age whodemonstrated very different degrees of change (c) and (d) show children of different ages who demonstrated the same degree of change

parents and teachers who expect children to reason relativelycompetently about their spatial environment The currentwork suggests that one challenge centers on the need tocombine feature and spatial compositional elements whichplaces substantial demands on childrenrsquos ability to reasonaboutmultiple variables that have high levels of relational andsymbolic complexity

The main finding of the present study was that salientobject detail and object perspectives were features inscenes that markedly enticed children and that were usedsignificantly more than spatial factors to make choices about

map-scene correspondence This study provides evidencethat across middle childhood childrenrsquos featural-spatialstrategy choices under complex conditions do not appearto proceed along an age-based trajectory but rather clusteraround salient intermediary strategies such as object detailsand perspectives Several possible explanations can be pro-posed for these results One simple account of featural pref-erences is that the salient feature captured childrenrsquos attentionand they did not code the entire array A related explanationis that children did not inspect the line drawings but rathersought the iconicity constraints that preserved a stronger


resemblance to perceptual features Childrenrsquos prominentuse of detail-based estimates of location may have reliedon cognitive shortcuts that previously proved the detailsof features reliable on decisions about object individuationcategorization and disambiguation Childrenrsquos prominentuse of perspective to estimate location suggests that they areon the cusp of spatial concerns learning to evaluate differentviewpoints and to code projective spatial representationsConsistent with studies of adults [37] it is also possible thatchildrenrsquos featural preferences did not signify undevelopedspatial knowledge but instead demonstrated attraction torealistic and elaborate representations over unrealistic andsimple ones (line drawings) that are spatially accurate Ifchildren begin life with innate geometric sensitivity and thenbecome attracted to features in middle childhood they mayneed to develop the capacity to inhibit their attraction tofeatures as well as the ability to learnmore sophisticated waysto reason about space

Additional findings were based on comparison of per-formance under baseline and supported conditions whichcan help to flesh out the complexities of childrenrsquos featural-spatial developmentThe findings clarified that although agedid not predict correct map-scenematches correct responsesfor the whole group improved significantly over baselineperformance when scaffolding support was provided Fur-thermore analysis revealed that whereas children across theage range relied heavily on featural details and perspectiverather than on spatial factors 9-year-oldsrsquo attraction tofeatures began to shift and they were significantly more likelyto select maps based on spatial strategies when provided withscaffolding support Lastly trial-by-trial analysis indicatedthat children regardless of age used all the various featuraland spatial strategies across testing demonstrating uniqueand individual fluctuations in intermediary spatial strategydecisions In order to update the traditional linear age-based trajectory and evolve it to a more realistic model ofspatial development it is important to recognize that childrenare inconsistent and that complex cognitive reorganizationinvolves progression and regression between featural andspatial information In further research it would be relevantto refine the complexity and accessibility of stimuli to gatherdata on substantial numbers of children and to compare sexdifferences in performance

5 Conclusions

The present study suggests that when maps are complexand require the ability to combine multiple sources offeatural-spatial information map accuracy across middlechildhood does not proceed along an age-based trajectorybut rather clusters around salient nonspatial features suchas object details and object perspectives When childrenare provided with scaffolding support correct performanceimproves significantly Amidst strong strategy variabilityoverall microdevelopmental analysis suggests that at 9 yearsof age with support children can begin to give up their attrac-tion to features and shift toward spatial relations strategiesTaken together with studies showing that young children are

predisposed to geometric sensitivity the present paper sug-gests that childrenrsquos development of geometric correspon-dence between a map and a scene may best be characterizedby a U-shaped curve in which geometric coding is predom-inant early on diminishes for a time in middle childhood infavor of a preference for object features and then reemergesalong with the more advanced abilities to combine featuraland spatial information

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interestsregarding the publication of this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the children who participated in thisstudy and the schools that supported it They are gratefulto the anonymous reviewers for very helpful comments andsuggestions

References

[1] M Vasilyeva and S F Lourenco ldquoSpatial developmentrdquo inThe Handbook of Life-Span Development Volume 1 CognitionBiology andMethodsW FOverton Ed vol 1WileyHobokenNJ USA 2010

[2] K Ferrara and B Landau ldquoGeometric and featural systemsseparable and combined evidence from reorientation in peoplewithWilliams syndromerdquo Cognition vol 144 pp 123ndash133 2015

[3] L Hermer and E Spelke ldquoModularity and development thecase of spatial reorientationrdquo Cognition vol 61 no 3 pp 195ndash232 1996

[4] C Chiandetti E S Spelke and G Vallortigara ldquoInexperiencednewborn chicks use geometry to spontaneously reorient to anartificial social partnerrdquo Developmental Science 2014

[5] S A Lee E S Spelke andGVallortigara ldquoChicks like childrenspontaneously reorient by three-dimensional environmentalgeometry not by image matchingrdquo Biology Letters vol 8 no4 pp 492ndash494 2012

[6] N S Newcombe J Huttenlocher and A E LearmonthldquoInfantsrsquo coding of location in continuous spacerdquo Infant Behav-ior and Development vol 22 no 4 pp 483ndash510 1999

[7] D B M Haun J Call G Janzen and S C Levinson ldquoEvolu-tionary psychology of spatial representations in the hominidaerdquoCurrent Biology vol 16 no 17 pp 1736ndash1740 2006

[8] K Cheng and N S Newcombe ldquoIs there a geometric modulefor spatial orientation Squaring theory and evidencerdquo Psycho-nomic Bulletin and Review vol 12 no 1 pp 1ndash23 2005

[9] L Hermer and E S Spelke ldquoA geometric process for spatialreorientation in young childrenrdquo Nature vol 370 no 6484 pp57ndash59 1994

[10] J M Plumert and P Nichols-Whitehead ldquoDevelopmental dif-ferences in preferences for using color size and location infor-mation to disambiguate hiding placesrdquo Journal of Cognition andDevelopment vol 8 no 4 pp 427ndash454 2007

[11] A M Hund and J M Plumert ldquoDoes information about whatthings are influence childrenrsquos memory for where things arerdquoDevelopmental Psychology vol 39 no 6 pp 939ndash948 2003


[12] H LMarsh L Adams C Floyd and S EMacDonald ldquoFeatureversus spatial strategies by orangutans (Pongo abelii) andhumanchildren (Homo sapiens) in a cross-dimensional taskrdquo Journal ofComparative Psychology vol 127 no 2 pp 128ndash141 2013

[13] F L Dolins and R W Mitchell ldquoLinking spatial cognitionand spatial perceptionrdquo in Spatial Cognition Spatial PerceptionMapping the Self and Space F L Dolins and RWMitchell Edspp 1ndash31 Cambridge University Press Cambridge UK 2010

[14] J Piaget and B Inhelder The Childrsquos Conception of SpaceNorton New York NY USA 1967ndash1948

[15] R S Siegler EmergingMindsThe Process of Change in ChildrenrsquosThinking Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Hillsdale NJ USA1996

[16] J S DeLoache ldquoDual representation and young childrenrsquos useof scale modelsrdquo Child Development vol 71 no 2 pp 329ndash3382000

[17] C P Spencer N Harrison and Z Darvizeh ldquoThe developmentof iconic mapping ability in young childrenrdquo InternationalJournal of Early Childhood vol 12 no 2 pp 57ndash64 1980

[18] J M Blaut and D Stea ldquoStudies of geographic learningrdquo Annalsof the Association of American Geographers vol 61 no 2 pp387ndash393 1971

[19] M Vasilyeva and E Bowers ldquoChildrenrsquos use of geometricinformation in mapping tasksrdquo Journal of Experimental ChildPsychology vol 95 no 4 pp 255ndash277 2006

[20] M Bluestein and L Acredolo ldquoDevelopmental changes inmap-reading skillsrdquo Child Development vol 50 no 3 pp 691ndash6971979

[21] D H Uttal and H M Wellman ldquoYoung childrenrsquos representa-tion of spatial information acquired frommapsrdquoDevelopmentalPsychology vol 25 no 1 pp 128ndash138 1989

[22] P L Hirsch and E H Sandberg ldquoDevelopment of mapconstruction skills in childhoodrdquo Journal of Cognition andDevelopment vol 14 no 3 pp 397ndash423 2013

[23] L S Liben andCA Yekel ldquoPreschoolersrsquo understanding of planand oblique maps the role of geometric and representationalcorrespondencerdquo Child Development vol 67 no 6 pp 2780ndash2796 1996

[24] L J Myers and L S Liben ldquoGraphic symbols as lsquothe mind onpaperrsquo links between childrenrsquos interpretive theory of mind andsymbol understandingrdquo Child Development vol 83 no 1 pp186ndash202 2012

[25] D H Uttal ldquoSeeing the big picture map use and the develop-ment of spatial cognitionrdquo Developmental Science vol 3 no 3pp 247ndash264 2000

[26] Y Huang and E S Spelke ldquoCore knowledge and the emergenceof symbols the case of mapsrdquo Journal of Cognition and Devel-opment vol 16 no 1 pp 81ndash96 2015

[27] A Shusterman S Ah Lee and E S Spelke ldquoYoung childrenrsquosspontaneous use of geometry in mapsrdquo Developmental Sciencevol 11 no 2 pp F1ndashF7 2008

[28] D H Uttal ldquoPreschoolersrsquo and adultsrsquo scale translation andreconstruction of spatial information acquired from mapsrdquoBritish Journal of Developmental Psychology vol 12 no 3 pp259ndash275 1994

[29] E K Scholnick G G Fein and P F Campbell ldquoChanging pre-dictors of map use in wayfindingrdquo Developmental Psychologyvol 26 no 2 pp 188ndash193 1990

[30] M Blades and C Spencer ldquoThe use of maps by 4ndash6-year-oldchildren in a large-scale mazerdquo British Journal of DevelopmentalPsychology vol 5 no 1 pp 19ndash24 1987

[31] E K Foster and A M Hund ldquoThe impact of scaffolding andoverhearing on young childrenrsquos use of the spatial terms betweenand middlerdquo Journal of Child Language vol 39 no 2 pp 338ndash364 2012

[32] A Cheshire L J Ball and C Lewis ldquoSelf-explanation feedbackand the development of analogical reasoning skills micro-genetic evidence for a metacognitive processing accountrdquo inProceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the CognitiveScience Society (CogSci rsquo05) B G Bara L W Barsalou and MBucciarelli Eds pp 435ndash441 Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesMahwah NJ USA 2005

[33] R S Siegler ldquoMicrogenetic studies of self explanationrdquo inMicrodevelopment Transition Processes in Development andLearning N Granott and J Parziale Eds pp 31ndash58 CambridgeUniversity Press Cambridge UK 2002

[34] E Flynn and R Siegler ldquoMeasuring change current trends andfuture directions in microgenetic researchrdquo Infant and ChildDevelopment vol 16 no 1 pp 135ndash149 2007

[35] E H Sandberg ldquoCognitive constraints on the development ofhierarchical spatial organization skillsrdquo Cognitive Developmentvol 14 no 4 pp 597ndash619 1999

[36] L B Smith and EThelen ldquoDevelopment as a dynamic systemrdquoTrends in Cognitive Sciences vol 7 no 8 pp 343ndash348 2003

[37] M Hegarty ldquoCognition metacognition and the design ofmapsrdquo Current Directions in Psychological Science vol 22 no 1pp 3ndash9 2013

Submit your manuscripts athttpwwwhindawicom

Child Development Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

Education Research International


Biomedical EducationJournal of



Psychiatry Journal

ArchaeologyJournal of



AnthropologyJournal of


Research and TreatmentSchizophrenia


Urban Studies Research

Population ResearchInternational Journal of


CriminologyJournal of


Aging ResearchJournal of



NursingResearch and Practice

Current Gerontologyamp Geriatrics Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom

Volume 2014

Sleep DisordersHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014

AddictionJournal of


Depression Research and TreatmentHindawi Publishing Corporationhttpwwwhindawicom Volume 2014


Geography Journal


Research and TreatmentAutism


Economics Research International


animals alike [4] Encoding of geometry involves the ability toprocess relationships of distance angle and direction whichcan pertain to the surfaces of a surrounding enclosure orto the global spatial relations between multiple objects Thisdiffers from the ability to process local features of discreteobjects that display nonspatial attributes (ie color shapesize and texture) which can pertain to features that identifya surface (eg a colored wall) or to details that identifyan object (eg a church steeple) Some recent compara-tive work suggests that chicks spontaneously reorient bycomputing subtle geometric variations in the terrain of athree-dimensional layout [5] Developmental research withhumans suggests that young children use geometry and donot automatically combine featural and spatial informationFor example studies have shown that 5-month-olds are ableto code location of objects hidden in a sandbox but theyare unable to detect differences in objects retrieved from thesame locations [6] that 1-year-olds (as well as nonhumangreat apes) choose spatial strategies over featural strategiesfor understanding object location [7 8] and that 18- to 24-month-olds rely solely on geometric cues to locate a hiddenobject in small enclosed spaces [9]

In contrast to the experiments with very young chil-dren several developmental studies indicate that school-agedchildren who already have considerable experience in theworld and are learning to usemultiple sources of informationbecome more attracted to the nonspatial features of objectsthan to strategies that depend on the geometry of a spaceThese studies suggest that on a variety of spatial decision-making tasks children may show that they prefer to rely onfeatures rather than locations For instance on an object-search task 3-year-old childrenrsquos early preference for spatialinformation reverses and children favor feature-based strate-gies [7] Further studies that ask children to disambiguate ahiding place show that 3-year-olds prefer color to locationand 4-year-olds prefer size to location [10] experiments thattest 7- to 11-year-olds indicate that object feature informationoften results in systematic biases in locationmemory [11] andstudies that test 3- to 12-year-olds on a picture-environmentcorrespondence task find that featural information is moresalient than spatial position [12] Taken together these find-ings imply that features may predominate in spatial decision-making during middle childhood

Yet in order to make decisions about map-scene corre-spondence it is necessary to acquire the ability to combineinformation about the features of objects and the spatialrelations of objects despite the fact that nonspatial and spatialinformation often compete for attention Error patternsmay arise due to the separate advancement of informationabout the featural identities of objects and the configuralrelations of objects If childrenrsquos attention becomes capturedpredominately by the features of objects their representationsof spatial informationmay get skewed such that intermediaryinternal representations give rise to incorrect spatial strate-gies [13] Maps may be used to interpret how children arethinking about object features and spatial relations A pivotalquestion in the present paper is whether development of chil-drenrsquos ability to combine featural and spatial information inorder to make correct map-scene matches proceeds along an

age-based trajectory or clusters around salient intermediarystrategies regardless of age

The ability to represent spatial information has been tra-ditionally studied in connection with age-dependent devel-opmental capacities Piaget and Inhelder [14] maintainedthat spatial development follows a chronologically orderedsequence in which childrenrsquos spatial decision-making pro-gresses from novice to expert along an age-based linearpathway In particular Piagetian theory proposed that atapproximately 8 or 9 years old childrenrsquos abilities undergoqualitative changes with respect to their ability to men-tally manipulate spatial information However research indevelopmental variability has suggested that children of allages use multiple problem-solving strategies in a variety ofcombinations [15] This implies that spatial understandingmay be present at early ages and spatial miscalculations mayappear at older ages Indeed research indicates that mapskills are active for young children Children are able touse symbolic functioning at 3 years of age as they form adual representation of maps and the spaces they stand for[16] Even young children are able to mentally transform thescenes they encounter Three-year-olds can interpret aerialpictures as representations of scenes [17 18] 4-year-oldscan understand the relation between a map symbol andits environmental referent [19 20] and children from 4 to7 years old can form an integrated mental representationfor locations of unseen objects [21] Nevertheless studiesalso indicate that older children exhibit many difficulties inmapping a representation to a space Research shows that 5-to 7-year-olds often mistake information cues when vantagepoint shifts [22 23] 6- to 9-year-olds may misinterpret theintention of map iconicity [24] and 9-year-olds sometimesmisjudge configuration in scenes that are occluded at eye level[22]

The present study probed 4- through 9-year-old childrenrsquosunderstanding of featural and spatial relations via their choiceof the best map to depict a provided scene The choiceof symbolic representations (ie maps and photographs)to test strategy shifts in development was based on thetheoretical idea that photographs and map representationscan provide a ldquobig picturerdquo perspective on spatial relations ofthe environment that is not as readily available in direct navi-gational experience [25] Investigation of how these symbolicrepresentations are used can demonstrate childrenrsquos spatialcognitive understanding by indicating how they think aboutspatial relations that have not been experienced directlythat is how they mentally represent a view of a scene inthe absence of navigating that scene (see [5] in regard tounsuccessful effects of matching a real-world view with atwo-dimensional snapshot image and see [26 27] for somequalifications in studies using map-based navigation with 2Dmaps of 3D surface layouts) Drawings were not employedto study spatial symbols because they can be confoundedby childrenrsquos limited drawing skills [22] The central goal ofthe current work was to investigate the relationship betweenage and the developmental path of featural-spatial strategychoices with a focus on the types of intermediate strategy skillcomponents children choose when the task requires complexspatial decision-making Although variability in childrenrsquos



2 Method








23 Procedure






3 Results




minus20

minus15

minus10

minus5

0

5

10

15

20

Col

or

Det

ail

Pers

pect

ive

Land

mar

k

Met

ric

Cor

rect

Strategy


Diff

eren

ce fr

om ch

ance

()









01020304050607080

4 5 6 7 8 9

Stra

tegy

shift

()

Age (years)







4 Discussion





0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Strategy

Stra

tegy



BaselineSupport


(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy

Trials


BaselineSupport

6 years old (12)


(b)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


BaselineSupport


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy


Trials

(c)





BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (6)


(a)

BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(b)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (4)


(c)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(d)








5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References















































Psychiatry Journal



















Volume 2014


AddictionJournal of




Geography Journal







2 Method








23 Procedure






3 Results




minus20

minus15

minus10

minus5

0

5

10

15

20

Col

or

Det

ail

Pers

pect

ive

Land

mar

k

Met

ric

Cor

rect

Strategy


Diff

eren

ce fr

om ch

ance

()









01020304050607080

4 5 6 7 8 9

Stra

tegy

shift

()

Age (years)







4 Discussion





0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Strategy

Stra

tegy



BaselineSupport


(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy

Trials


BaselineSupport

6 years old (12)


(b)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


BaselineSupport


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy


Trials

(c)





BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (6)


(a)

BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(b)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (4)


(c)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(d)








5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References















































Psychiatry Journal



















Volume 2014


AddictionJournal of




Geography Journal






23 Procedure






3 Results




minus20

minus15

minus10

minus5

0

5

10

15

20

Col

or

Det

ail

Pers

pect

ive

Land

mar

k

Met

ric

Cor

rect

Strategy


Diff

eren

ce fr

om ch

ance

()









01020304050607080

4 5 6 7 8 9

Stra

tegy

shift

()

Age (years)







4 Discussion





0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Strategy

Stra

tegy



BaselineSupport


(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy

Trials


BaselineSupport

6 years old (12)


(b)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


BaselineSupport


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy


Trials

(c)





BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (6)


(a)

BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(b)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (4)


(c)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(d)








5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References















































Psychiatry Journal



















Volume 2014


AddictionJournal of




Geography Journal






minus20

minus15

minus10

minus5

0

5

10

15

20

Col

or

Det

ail

Pers

pect

ive

Land

mar

k

Met

ric

Cor

rect

Strategy


Diff

eren

ce fr

om ch

ance

()









01020304050607080

4 5 6 7 8 9

Stra

tegy

shift

()

Age (years)







4 Discussion





0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Strategy

Stra

tegy



BaselineSupport


(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy

Trials


BaselineSupport

6 years old (12)


(b)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


BaselineSupport


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy


Trials

(c)





BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (6)


(a)

BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(b)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (4)


(c)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(d)








5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References















































Psychiatry Journal



















Volume 2014


AddictionJournal of




Geography Journal






01020304050607080

4 5 6 7 8 9

Stra

tegy

shift

()

Age (years)







4 Discussion





0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Strategy

Stra

tegy



BaselineSupport


(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy

Trials


BaselineSupport

6 years old (12)


(b)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


BaselineSupport


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy


Trials

(c)





BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (6)


(a)

BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(b)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (4)


(c)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(d)








5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References















































Psychiatry Journal



















Volume 2014


AddictionJournal of




Geography Journal






0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Strategy

Stra

tegy



BaselineSupport


(a)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy

Trials


BaselineSupport

6 years old (12)


(b)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


BaselineSupport


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stra

tegy


Trials

(c)





BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (6)


(a)

BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(b)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (4)


(c)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(d)








5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References















































Psychiatry Journal



















Volume 2014


AddictionJournal of




Geography Journal






BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (6)


(a)

BaselineSupport

Stra

tegy

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(b)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials

5 years old (4)


(c)

Stra

tegy

BaselineSupport

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Trials



(d)








5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References















































Psychiatry Journal



















Volume 2014


AddictionJournal of




Geography Journal








5 Conclusions





Acknowledgments


References















































Psychiatry Journal



















Volume 2014


AddictionJournal of




Geography Journal








































Psychiatry Journal



















Volume 2014


AddictionJournal of




Geography Journal





research article microdevelopment of complex featural and ...research article microdevelopment of...

Documents