Editing Object permanence (section)

==Contradicting evidence==
In more recent years, the original Piagetian object permanence account has been challenged by a series of infant studies suggesting that much younger infants do have a clear sense that objects exist even when out of sight. Bower showed object permanence in 3-month-olds.<ref>Bower, T. G. R. (1974). ''Development in infancy''. San Francisco: Freeman.</ref><ref name=Baillargeon>{{cite journal|last1=Baillargeon|first1=R.|last2=DeVos |first2=J. |title=Object permanence in young infants: further evidence|journal=Child Development|year=1991|volume=62|issue=6|pages=1227–1246|doi=10.2307/1130803|pmid=1786712|jstor=1130803}}</ref> This goes against Piaget's coordination of secondary circular reactions stage because infants are not supposed to understand that a completely hidden object still exists until they are eight to twelve months old. The two studies below demonstrate this idea.

The first study showed infants a toy car that moved down an inclined track, disappeared behind a screen, and then reemerged at the other end, still on the track. The researchers created a "possible event" where a toy mouse was placed behind the tracks but was hidden by the screen as the car rolled by. Then, researchers created an "impossible event". In this situation, the toy mouse was placed on the tracks but was secretly removed after the screen was lowered so that the car seemed to go through the mouse. The infants were surprised by the impossible event, which suggests they remembered not only that the toy mouse still existed (object permanence) but also its location. Also in the 1991 study the researchers used an experiment involving two differently sized carrots (one tall and one short) in order to test the infants' response when the carrots would be moved behind a short wall.<ref name=Baillargeon />   The wall was specifically designed to make the short carrot disappear, as well as tested the infants for habituation patterns on the disappearance of the tall carrot behind the wall (impossible event).<ref name=Baillargeon /> Infants as young as {{frac|3|1|2}} months displayed greater stimulation toward the impossible event and much more habituation at the possible event. The same was true of the tall carrot in the second experiment.  This research suggests that infants understand more about objects earlier than Piaget proposed.<ref name="Santrock"/>

There are primarily four challenges to Piaget's framework:

# Whether or not infants without disabilities actually demonstrate object permanence earlier than Piaget claimed.<ref name=Zsuzsa>{{cite journal |last1=Káldy |first1=Zsuzsa |last2=Sigala |first2=Natasha |title=The neural mechanisms of object working memory: What is where in the infant brain? |journal=Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews |year=2004 |volume=28 |issue=2 |pages=113–121 |doi=10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.01.002 |pmid=15172760 |s2cid=12730891 |id={{ProQuest|620420191}} }}</ref> 
# There is disagreement about the relative levels of difficulty posed by the use of various types of covers and by different object positions.<ref name=Lucas>{{cite journal |last1=Lucas |first1=Thomas|last2=Uzgiris |first2=Ina C. |title=Spatial factors in the development of the object concept|journal=Developmental Psychology|year=1977|volume=13|issue=5|pages=492–500|doi=10.1037/0012-1649.13.5.492|id={{ProQuest|616220376}}}}</ref> 
# Controversy concerns whether or not perception of object permanence can be achieved or measured without the motor acts that Piaget regarded as essential.<ref name=Moore>{{cite journal|last1=Moore|first1=M. Keith|first2=Andrew N. |last2=Meltzoff |title=Object Permanence After a 24-Hr Delay and Leaving the Locale of Disappearance: The Role of Memory, Space, and Identity|journal=Developmental Psychology|year=2004|volume=40|issue=4|pages=606–620|doi=10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.606|pmid=15238047|pmc=1398789|id={{ProQuest|620426719}}}}</ref> 
# The nature of inferences that can be made from the A-not-B error has been challenged. Studies that have contributed to this discussion have examined the contribution of memory limitations, difficulty with spatial localization, and difficulty in inhibiting the motor act of reaching to location A on the A-not-B error.<ref name=Baillargeon />

One criticism of Piaget's theory is that culture and education exert stronger influences on a child's development than Piaget maintained. These factors depend on how much practice their culture provides in developmental processes, such as conversational skills.<ref name="Santrock"/>