Editing Object permanence (section)

==Recent studies==
One of the areas of focus on object permanence has been how physical disabilities ([[blindness]], [[cerebral palsy]] and [[Hearing impairment|deafness]]) and intellectual disabilities ([[Down syndrome]], etc.) affect the development of object permanence. In a study that was performed in 1975–76, the result shows that the only area where children with intellectual disabilities performed more weakly than children without disabilities was along the lines of social interaction. Other tasks, such as imitation and causality tasks, were performed more weakly by the children without disabilities. However, object permanence was still acquired similarly because it was not related to social interaction.

Some psychologists believe that "while object permanence alone may not predict communicative achievement, object permanence along with several other sensorimotor milestones, plays a critical role in, and interacts with, the communicative development of children with severe disabilities".<ref name=Kahn>{{Cite journal|last=Kahn|first=J. V.|date=May 1976|title=Utility of the Uzgiris and Hunt seales of sensorimotor development with severely and profoundly retarded children|journal=American Journal of Mental Deficiency|volume=80|issue=6|pages=663–665|issn=0002-9351|pmid=961731}}</ref> This was observed in 2006, in a study recognizing where the full mastery of object permanence is one of the milestones that ties into a child's ability to engage in mental representation. Along with the relationship with [[language acquisition]], object permanence is also related to the achievement of self-recognition. This same study also focused specifically on the effects that Down syndrome has on object permanence. They found that the reason why the children that participated were so successful in acquiring object permanence, was due to their social strength in imitation. Along with imitation being a potential factor in the success, another factor that could impact children with Down syndrome could also be the willingness of the child to cooperate.<ref name=Wright>{{Cite journal |last1=Wright |first1=Ingram |last2=Lewis |first2=Vicky |last3=Collis |first3=Glyn M.|date=June 2006|title=Imitation and representational development in young children with Down syndrome|journal=British Journal of Developmental Psychology |language=en |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=429–450 |doi=10.1348/026151005x51257 |issn=0261-510X}}</ref>

Other, more recent studies suggest that the idea of object permanence may not be an innate function of young children. While, in reference to Piaget's theory, it has been established that young children develop object permanence as they age, the question arises: does this occur because of a particular perception that already existed within the minds of these young children? Is object permanence really an inbred response to the neural pathways developing in young minds? Studies suggest that a multitude of variables may be responsible for the development of object permanence rather than a natural talent of infants. Evidence suggests that infants use a variety of cues while studying an object and their perception of the object's permanence can be tested without physically hiding the object. Rather, the object is occluded, slightly obstructed, from the infants view and they are left only other visual cues, such as examining the object from different trajectories. It was also found that the longer an infant focuses on an object may be due to detected discontinuities in their visual field, or the flow of events, with which the infant has become familiar.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Bremner | first1 = J. G. | last2 = Slater | first2 = A. M. | last3 = Johnson | first3 = S. P. | year = 2015 | title = Perception of object persistence: the origins of object permanence in infancy | url = https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/70662/1/BremnerCDP.pdf| journal = Child Development Perspectives | volume = 9 | issue = 1| pages = 7–13 | doi=10.1111/cdep.12098}}</ref>