Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

A-not-B error

The A-not-B error, also referred to as the perseverative search error, is a fundamental phenomenon in developmental psychology observed in infants, in which they continue to search for a hidden object at its initial hiding location (A) even after directly observing it being moved to a new location (B), typically during repeated trials with a brief delay between hiding and search.^[1] This error, which emerges prominently between 8 and 12 months of age, reflects the transitional limitations in cognitive processes such as object permanence—the understanding that objects continue to exist when out of sight—inhibitory control, and working memory during the sensorimotor stage of development.^[2] First systematically documented by Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget in his seminal 1954 work The Construction of Reality in the Child, the A-not-B task involves hiding a desirable object, such as a toy, under a cover at location A, allowing the infant to retrieve it successfully multiple times to reinforce the association, and then visibly relocating it to location B before prompting the search.^[3]^[1] Piaget interpreted the persistent reaching toward A as evidence of an immature schema of reality, where infants temporarily "forget" the object's independent existence and conflate it with its most recent successful retrieval site, marking a key milestone in the progression from egocentric to more abstract thought.^[3]^[4] The error's robustness across variations in methodology, such as the use of looking versus reaching responses, has made it a cornerstone for studying early executive functions, with research showing that visual tracking (looking) matures earlier than manual action (reaching), often achieving adult-like performance by 9–10 months while motor errors persist longer due to prefrontal cortex development.^[2]^[4] Modern explanations extend beyond Piaget's structuralist view, incorporating dynamic systems theory—which attributes errors to interactions between motor habits, attention, and environmental cues—and neurocognitive models emphasizing deficits in response inhibition and attention shifting, rather than a wholesale failure of object permanence.^[5]^[4] These insights have influenced broader research on atypical development.^[2]

Background and Definition

Definition of the A-not-B Error

The A-not-B error refers to the perseverative search behavior observed in infants, typically aged 8 to 12 months, who continue to reach for a hidden object at its original hiding location (A) despite watching it being visibly moved to a new location (B), even after multiple successful retrievals from A in prior trials.^[6]^[7] This error highlights a failure to integrate new spatial information, as the infant persists in the previously reinforced search strategy rather than adapting to the updated hiding position.^[6] In the basic experimental setup, the task involves two distinct, visible hiding locations, such as covers on a table, where an appealing toy or object is repeatedly concealed at location A for several trials, allowing the infant to uncover and retrieve it.^[7] On subsequent trials, the object is then hidden at location B in full view of the infant, followed by a short delay—often 3 seconds or less—before the infant is permitted to search.^[7] Despite this clear demonstration of relocation, infants in this age range frequently return to location A, committing the error on reversal trials.^[6] This perseveration is classified as a cognitive rigidity in updating object location representations, occurring reliably across studies with infants in the specified age window, where search errors peak before declining around 12 months.^[6] The phenomenon is briefly associated with developing object permanence, as it reveals limitations in maintaining mental representations of hidden objects across spatial displacements.^[7]

Relation to Object Permanence

Object permanence refers to the cognitive ability by which individuals understand that objects continue to exist even when they are no longer visible or audible.^[8] This concept emerges gradually during Jean Piaget's sensorimotor stage of cognitive development, spanning from birth to approximately two years of age, as infants progress from reflexive actions to coordinated schemes involving mental representation.^[9] In Piaget's framework, the development of object permanence marks a key transition toward symbolic thought, beginning around six months when infants start searching for partially hidden objects and advancing by nine to twelve months to fully hidden ones.^[8] The A-not-B error is closely tied to this developmental process, illustrating an incomplete schema of object permanence in infants aged eight to twelve months.^[10] According to Piaget, infants at this stage possess a rudimentary representation of hidden objects but fail to integrate updated spatiotemporal information, leading them to perseverate in searching the original hiding location (A) despite witnessing the object's relocation to a new site (B). This error reflects a context-dependent understanding of objects, where the infant's schema is anchored to recent motor actions rather than a stable, independent existence of the object across displacements.^[10] Within the sensorimotor stage, particularly substage 4 (eight to twelve months), the A-not-B error highlights the limitations of early representational abilities, as infants coordinate secondary circular reactions but struggle with mental tracking of invisible displacements. Evidence from observational tasks supports this link: infants reliably succeed in simpler permanence tests involving visible displacements (substage 3), such as following an object moved in plain sight, but exhibit errors in delayed hidden displacements characteristic of the A-not-B paradigm, underscoring the fragility of their emerging permanence concept before full maturation around eighteen to twenty-four months.^[8]

Historical Development

Piaget's Original Observation

Jean Piaget first documented the A-not-B error through naturalistic observations of his own infants during the 1920s and 1930s, which he later formalized in his 1954 book The Construction of Reality in the Child.^[11] These early observations involved his three children—Jacqueline (born 1921), Lucienne (born 1925), and Laurent (born 1931)—and focused on their interactions with hidden objects in everyday home settings.^[12] Piaget's work emphasized how such behaviors revealed the gradual construction of reality in young minds, drawing from his broader genetic epistemology approach to cognitive development.^[11] In these informal experiments, Piaget hid toys, such as chains or watches, under blankets or covers in two distinct locations, labeled A and B.^[11] He would first hide the object at location A, allowing the infant to find it successfully multiple times to establish a familiar schema. The object was then visibly moved to location B in the infant's presence, yet the child persistently reached for and searched at location A, even after several trials.^[13] This perseverative behavior was consistently observed around 8 to 12 months of age, highlighting a key limitation in early search tasks.^[14] Piaget situated the A-not-B error within Stage IV of the sensorimotor period (approximately 8-12 months), a transitional phase from primarily action-based coordination to the beginnings of representational thought.^[11] He interpreted the error as stemming from the infant's egocentrism and lack of decentration, where the child fails to shift perspective from the established action schema associated with location A.^[11] Specifically, Piaget argued that the infant assimilates the new hiding event at B into the prior schema of A without accommodating to the updated reality, reflecting an incomplete object concept and reliance on immediate coordination of secondary circular reactions.^[5] This framing underscored the error as a natural marker of developmental progression toward more flexible cognition.^[11]

Evolution in Research

The A-not-B task has roots in earlier delayed-response paradigms used in animal research, such as those by Hunter (1913, 1917), which examined the effects of delay on spatial memory. Following Jean Piaget's initial informal observations in the 1920s and 1930s, research on the A-not-B error underwent significant formalization in the 1960s and 1970s through the development of standardized laboratory protocols that enhanced task reliability and allowed for quantitative measurement of error rates.^[6] Researchers such as George Butterworth introduced controlled experimental conditions, including specified delays between hiding and search, consistent hiding locations, and systematic recording of reaching behaviors, which moved the phenomenon from anecdotal reports to replicable empirical findings.^[15] These advancements, summarized in early meta-analyses, demonstrated that error rates varied predictably with factors like delay duration and number of prior successful trials, establishing the A-not-B task as a cornerstone of developmental psychology experiments.^[6] Subsequent studies in the 1970s extended these protocols to explore the error's robustness across diverse populations, confirming its near-universality while identifying subtle variations in task engagement. For instance, Gratch and colleagues replicated the error in samples of infants, showing consistent perseverative reaching despite visible displacements, though engagement levels differed based on familiarity with experimental settings.^[16] From the 1990s onward, technological integrations like eye-tracking enabled finer-grained analysis of the dissociation between infants' visual attention and manual actions in the A-not-B task. Studies revealed that infants often correctly fixate on the new hiding location (B) but still reach toward the previous one (A), suggesting the error stems from motor inhibition challenges rather than a complete failure of location memory.^[2] This approach, exemplified in work by Hofstadter and Reznick, quantified looking-reach discrepancies and underscored how perceptual tracking develops ahead of executive control in early infancy.^[17] By the 2020s, neuroimaging techniques have increasingly linked the A-not-B error to prefrontal cortex maturation, providing neural evidence for its developmental trajectory. Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) studies of infants during executive function tasks show heightened prefrontal activation during correct trials, correlating with reduced perseverative errors and indicating that the region's development supports inhibition of habitual responses.^[18] These findings, extending to functional MRI in slightly older infants, reinforce connections between the error and emerging executive functions, with ongoing research as of 2025 exploring how environmental factors influence this neural progression.^[18]

Experimental Procedure

Standard A-not-B Task

The standard A-not-B task involves a controlled setup with two identical hiding locations, typically wells or shallow containers spaced approximately 30-40 cm apart on a table in front of the seated infant, each covered by a cloth or lid to conceal the object.^[13] An attractive toy or small object, such as colorful links or a stuffed animal, serves as the target to motivate the infant's search behavior.^[19] This arrangement ensures the locations are visually similar and within the infant's reaching distance, minimizing distractions from external cues.^[5] The procedure begins with warm-up trials where the object is visibly displaced to one location (A) without a cover, allowing the infant to practice reaching and retrieving it successfully to build familiarity.^[19] Following this, the experimenter conducts typically 2-3 successful hiding trials at location A: the infant watches as the object is hidden under the cover at A, after which a 3-second delay is imposed before the infant is permitted to reach and uncover it.^[20] Once these trials are completed, the hiding location switches to B for the test trial, using the same 3-second delay and visible hiding event, while the infant again reaches to uncover the correct spot.^[13] The A-not-B error is measured as the percentage of reaches to the original location A on the first B trial, with the perseverative reaching to A despite observing the switch exemplifying the core behavioral phenomenon.^[20] To maintain experimental integrity, controls include counterbalancing the side assigned as A across participants, conducting visible displacements initially to confirm attention, and ensuring parental non-involvement by having the parent hold the infant without gesturing or cuing toward locations.^[19] Sessions are typically video-recorded for reliable coding of reaches based on the first hand contact with a cover.^[13]

Variations in Methodology

Researchers have adapted the standard A-not-B task by manipulating the delay between hiding the object and allowing the infant to search, typically ranging from 0 to 10 seconds, to examine memory retention over time. In these variations, delays are systematically increased across trials or age groups to identify thresholds where errors emerge, as demonstrated in studies showing that younger infants (around 8 months) err at shorter delays (e.g., 3 seconds) while older infants tolerate longer ones (up to 10 seconds).^[21]^[22] Another methodological variation involves altering the spatial configuration of hiding locations, such as rotating the positions of A and B or varying the exact position of A around a central mean to test spatial generalization and memory precision. For instance, in sandbox tasks, the A location is shifted slightly across trials (e.g., by 10 inches) while B remains fixed, or the entire apparatus is rotated (e.g., by -40 degrees) to assess how infants encode and retrieve location-specific information.^[5]^[23] Social elements have been incorporated by varying the presence or behavior of the experimenter or parent during the task, such as having the experimenter maintain eye contact, look away, or involve a caregiver to explore the role of social cues in search behavior. A 2020 study manipulated experimenter gaze direction (e.g., toward midline versus away) and found these adjustments influenced infant performance in the hiding and reaching sequence, highlighting how environmental social factors can be isolated.^[13] Advanced versions of the task combine the core hiding and reaching procedure with eye-tracking technology or alternative response measures, like manual search versus looking, to dissociate visual attention from motor action. For example, head-mounted eye trackers have been used with 14-month-olds during manual searches under boxes, allowing researchers to measure gaze shifts separately from reaching errors and reveal discrepancies between where infants look and where they act.^[24]^[2]

Theoretical Explanations

Piagetian Perspective

In Jean Piaget's constructivist theory of cognitive development, the A-not-B error exemplifies the limitations of schema formation during the sensorimotor stage, particularly in substage IV (approximately 8-12 months). At this substage, infants coordinate secondary circular reactions—repetitive actions focused on external objects—with the beginnings of representational insight, enabling them to retrieve partially hidden objects and demonstrating an emerging understanding of object permanence. However, this coordination is constrained by perseveration, where the infant rigidly adheres to established action patterns, repeatedly searching at location A despite visible displacement to location B. This perseveration arises because the infant's schema for the object's location is strongly tied to the successful retrieval action at A, reflecting the circular, habit-bound nature of early sensorimotor intelligence.^[25] The core mechanism of the error lies in the processes of assimilation and accommodation central to Piaget's framework. The infant assimilates the new hiding event at B into the preexisting A-schema, interpreting the displacement as consistent with the familiar action sequence rather than as evidence requiring schema revision. Accommodation—the modification or creation of new schemas to fit discrepant information—fails to occur adequately, as the infant's cognitive structures are not yet flexible enough to integrate the updated spatial evidence. This imbalance favors assimilation over accommodation, preventing the infant from updating their mental model of the object's path and leading to the characteristic perseverative reach toward A.^[25] From a Piagetian viewpoint, this limitation is rooted in the infant's egocentric, action-centered perspective during the sensorimotor period, where cognition is bound to immediate perceptual-motor experiences rather than detached mental operations. The infant fails to decenter, or shift focus from their own successful action at A to mentally simulate the object's movement to B, as representational thought remains underdeveloped and tied to physical coordination. Consequently, the world is experienced through the lens of ongoing actions, with displacements not yet tracked via internalized schemas independent of visible cues. Observed perseveration in such tasks underscores this action-bound egocentrism, where the infant prioritizes habitual motor responses over evidence-based inference.^[26] Piaget predicted that the A-not-B error resolves as the infant progresses to substage V (12-18 months), marked by tertiary circular reactions—active experimentation with variations in actions to produce novel outcomes. This stage fosters greater accommodation, allowing the infant to flexibly adjust schemas to new displacements and experiment with alternative search strategies. By engaging in trial-and-error behaviors, the infant develops more robust representational abilities, enabling mental decentering and accurate tracking of hidden objects across locations, thus diminishing perseverative errors and advancing toward full object permanence.^[25]

Dynamic Systems and Inhibition Theories

The inhibition theory posits that the A-not-B error arises from infants' difficulty in suppressing a habitual reaching response to location A, mediated by the developing prefrontal cortex. This account emphasizes executive function deficits, particularly in inhibitory control, rather than a complete absence of object permanence. Seminal evidence comes from comparative studies showing that both human infants and rhesus monkeys with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex lesions exhibit pronounced A-not-B errors, while those with intact regions perform better, linking the phenomenon directly to neural inhibition mechanisms.^[27] Building on this, the dynamic systems approach frames the error as an emergent property of interacting perceptual, motor, and cognitive processes, where reaching to A represents a stable "attractor state" in the infant's action-planning dynamics. In this view, repeated successful reaches to A create momentum that biases subsequent actions, exacerbated by factors like body posture. Empirical tests of this model demonstrate that varying task constraints, like prior experience or visibility of locations, modulates error rates by altering the strength of these dynamic attractors. Complementing these perspectives, graded representation models suggest that infants possess partial object permanence but fail to integrate it under conditions of delay or conflict, leading to cue competition where the salient memory trace for A overrides the weaker one for B. In connectionist simulations, this results in "leaky" internal representations that activate based on recency and salience, producing errors without implying categorical cognitive stages. These models highlight how environmental cues compete during action selection, offering a mechanistic explanation for variability in task performance. Supporting these non-stage-based accounts, eye-tracking studies reveal dissociations between perception and action: infants often correctly anticipate the object's location at B through gaze shifts but err in reaching toward A, indicating intact representational knowledge but deficits in updating motor plans or inhibiting prepotent responses. Such findings challenge unified permanence deficits and emphasize domain-specific integration failures in early executive processes.^[2]

Developmental Implications

The A-not-B error is rarely observed in infants younger than 7 months, as their understanding of object permanence is still rudimentary and insufficient to support consistent search behaviors in the task.^[28] By around 7–8 months, however, the error emerges, marking the point at which infants demonstrate basic object permanence but struggle with location updates.^[28]^[10] Error rates are high (often 70–90%) between 8 and 12 months of age in standard A-not-B paradigms.^[10] This high incidence reflects a developmental bottleneck in integrating memory and action during this period. The decline begins thereafter, with error rates dropping to near zero by 12 to 15 months as cognitive and motor control mature.^[29] Task difficulty modulates this trajectory; for instance, longer delays between hiding and search extend error persistence across ages.^[10] Notably, error patterns differ by response type: visual looking tasks show earlier adult-like performance (by 9–10 months) compared to manual reaching, which persists longer due to motor demands.^[2] Individual differences in resolution timing are notable, with infants gaining more motor experience—such as through crawling or reaching practice—showing faster overcoming of the error compared to less active peers.^[29] These variations highlight how environmental opportunities for physical exploration influence the pace of developmental progress in spatial cognition.

Connections to Broader Cognition

The A-not-B error serves as an early indicator of emerging executive functions, particularly inhibition and working memory, which are foundational cognitive processes that enable goal-directed behavior and flexible adaptation to changing circumstances. In infants, the perseverative reaching observed in the task reflects challenges in suppressing a habitual response while updating spatial information in working memory, linking it directly to prefrontal cortex maturation. This connection is evidenced by longitudinal assessments showing that better performance on the A-not-B task at 8-12 months correlates with stronger inhibitory control and working memory capacity by toddlerhood, which in turn predicts success on later executive function measures such as delay-of-gratification tasks in preschoolers.^[30] Beyond isolated cognitive skills, the A-not-B error highlights the interplay between motor actions and cognitive representation, aligning with embodied cognition theories that emphasize how perception, movement, and thought are coupled in early development. Dynamic systems approaches propose that the error arises from the interaction of memory traces, attentional competition, and motor habits within a self-organizing perceptual-motor system, rather than a deficit in abstract understanding alone. For instance, variations in reaching dynamics—such as body posture or prior motor experience—modulate error rates, demonstrating how embodied experiences shape cognitive flexibility and inform models of development where cognition emerges from action in context.^[5] Longitudinal studies reveal the predictive power of A-not-B performance for broader developmental trajectories, including vocabulary acquisition and problem-solving abilities by toddlerhood. Infants who exhibit fewer errors early on show accelerated growth in expressive vocabulary and enhanced performance on simple puzzle tasks around 18-24 months, suggesting that early representational stability facilitates language mapping and exploratory behaviors. These associations underscore the error's role as a marker of cognitive scaffolding that supports later adaptive skills.^[31]^[32] In clinical contexts, persistent A-not-B errors beyond typical ages signal potential risks for neurodevelopmental disorders, aiding early identification and intervention. Infants at elevated risk for autism spectrum disorder, such as younger siblings of diagnosed children, demonstrate heightened perseveration on the task, reflecting frontal lobe inefficiencies that may precede social and attentional symptoms. Similarly, early executive function deficits indexed by the A-not-B task in at-risk groups for ADHD predict later inattention and hyperactivity traits, supporting its use in screening protocols to target preventive supports.^[33]^[32]

References

[1]
A-not-B task/error – Lancaster Glossary of Child Development
Jun 26, 2019 · Devised by Jean Piaget (1896-1980) to investigate the development of object permanence in infancy, the task involves hiding a desirable object ...
[2]
Developmental Progression of Looking and Reaching Performance ...
The A-not-B error occurs when infants reach to the incorrect location (A) on reversal trials (B). We chose the A-not-B task because (1) it has been the topic of ...Method · Results · Object Permanence...
[3]
The construction of reality in the child; : Piaget, Jean, 1896-1980
Sep 25, 2012 · The construction of reality in the child;. by: Piaget, Jean, 1896-1980. Publication date: 1954. Topics: Child development. Publisher: New York ...
[4]
What Does The “A-not-B Error” Really Tell Us About Infant Cognition?
Apr 25, 2011 · This effect, first demonstrated by Jean Piaget, is called the perseverative search error or sometimes the A-not-B error. The A-not-B error is ...
[5]
[PDF] Tests of a Dynamic Systems Account of the A-not-B Error
Piaget's (1954) A-not-B error is one of these phe- nomena. In this task, an infant watches as an object is hidden at one location—Location A.
[6]
Infant Search and Object Permanence: A Meta-Analysis of the A-Not ...
A-not-B error is a replicable phenomenon and, second, if it is replicable, about the conditions necessary for its appearance. The magnitude of this research ...
[7]
[PDF] Infant search errors: Stage of concept development or stage of ...
First, Piaget (1954) did not specifically constrain infant search to A and B locations during B-hidingtrials, but it is not clear that Piaget's infants ...
[8]
Cognitive Development - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf - NIH
Apr 23, 2023 · Object permanence emerges around six months of age. It is the concept that objects continue to exist even when they are not presently visible.Definition/Introduction · Issues of Concern · Clinical Significance
[9]
object permanence - APA Dictionary of Psychology
Apr 19, 2018 · According to Jean Piaget, object permanence develops gradually in infants during the sensorimotor stage of cognitive development.
[10]
Infant search and object permanence: a meta-analysis of the A-not-B ...
Infant search and object permanence: a meta-analysis of the A-not-B error. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev. 1987;51(3):1-67. Authors. H M Wellman , D Cross, K ...
[11]
The Construction of Reality in the Child
### Summary of Jean Piaget’s Description of the A-not-B Error (Stage IV, Sensorimotor Period)
[12]
Piaget's Theory and Stages of Cognitive Development
the understanding that objects continue to exist ...The Sensorimotor Stage · Preoperational Stage · Concrete Operational Stage
[13]
Investigating the social environment of the A‐not‐B search task - PMC
Piaget interpreted infants' search behaviour as indicative of a limited and fragile understanding of object permanence. There thus appears to be a disparity ...
[14]
Object Permanence - Simply Psychology
Jun 2, 2025 · The A-not-B error, where an infant searches for an object in its original hiding place (A) even after seeing it moved to a new location (B). In ...Why it's helpful · Birth to 4 Months Initial Lack of... · to 8 Months Beginning of...
[15]
Object disappearance and error in Piaget's Stage IV task
Errors occurred under all three conditions taking the form of a conflict in which infants searched persistently either at A or at B. The conflict was at a ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[16]
The Stage IV Error in Piaget's Theory of Object Concept Development
12 infants saw the same toy hidden at both A and B. The majority of the infants in each group made the AB error, suggesting that the AB error may be best viewed ...
[17]
[PDF] Understanding the A-not-B Error: Working memory vs. reinforced ...
They found that infants look longer when a toy hidden at A is revealed at B than when it is revealed at A. This point is rather important because these two ...
[18]
Are A-not-B errors caused by a belief about object location? - PubMed
Infants seemed to believe the object was in A, suggesting that both a conceptual deficit and ancillary deficits account for A-not-B errors. Publication types.Missing: Hofstadter Spelke 2009 eye- tracking
[19]
fNIRS Monitoring of Infant Prefrontal Cortex During Crawling and an ...
Aug 12, 2021 · These results support the theoretical view that both active locomotion and EF engage the prefrontal cortex (PFC) during early development.
[20]
[PDF] SES affects infant cognitive flexibility - Whitman College
After a 3-second delay, the experimenter pushed the box ... Performance on the A-not-B task of Argentinian infants from unsatisfied and satisfied basic.
[21]
[PDF] The A-Not-B Error: Results from a Logistic Meta-Analysis By - CORE
Abstract: A meta-analysis of the A-not-B error was conducted using logistic regression on studies conducted before Sep- tember 1997 (107 data points).
[22]
Development of the ability to use recall to guide action, as ... - PubMed
The delay between hiding and retrieval necessary to produce the AB error increased continuously throughout this period at an average rate of 2 sec/month, from ...Missing: 1988 manipulations
[23]
[PDF] Frontal Lobe Function and Dysfunction
delay of 0-10 seconds is imposed during which the subject is prevented from ... A meta-analysis of research on stage 4 object per- manence: The A-not-B error.
[24]
[PDF] Generalizing the Dynamic Field Theory of the A-not-B Error Beyond ...
One of the most dramatic—and most studied— changes in early development occurs in the A-not-B sit- uation. After repeatedly finding hidden toys at an “A”.Missing: seminal | Show results with:seminal
[25]
Attentional Flexibility Predicts A-Not-B Task Performance in 14 ... - NIH
May 5, 2020 · The study shows preliminary evidence that particularly attentional flexibility is a key factor underlying EF performance in young children.Missing: Hofstadter Spelke 2009
[26]
The construction of reality in the child : Piaget, Jean, 1896- cn
Nov 10, 2011 · The construction of reality in the child. by: Piaget, Jean, 1896- cn. Publication date: 1971. Topics: Child development, Child psychology.
[27]
Cognitive Development: Piaget and Vygotsky
A child who continues to make the A-not-B error has not fully developed object permanence. True. False. Check. The fact that an infant will tend to look longer ...
[28]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.03.001
[29]
(PDF) Neuropsychological insights into the meaning of object concept development
### Summary of Age-Related Patterns of A-not-B Error
[30]
Executive Functions - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
... (A-not-B task; Diamond 1985). Not until a year and a half later do toddlers ... inhibition is a behavioral product of exercising WM, not a separate cognitive skill ...
[31]
Vocabulary and Executive Functioning: A Scoping Review of the ...
May 11, 2022 · Early childhood marks a time where word learning is accompanied by rapid growth in the cognitive processes that underlie self-modulated and goal-directed ...
[32]
Attention and Executive Functioning in Infancy: Links to Childhood ...
An embodied account of early executive-function development: prospective motor control in infancy is related to inhibition and working memory. Psychological ...
[33]
Frontal cortex functioning in the infant broader autism phenotype
The aim of the present study was to establish whether Sibs-ASD differed from low-risk control infants in their performance on this task. ... A-not-B task: ...<|control11|><|separator|>