Picturing Objects in Infancy

Picturing Objects in Infancy

Jeanne L. ShinskeyRoyal Holloway, University of London and

University of South Carolina

Liza J. JachensRoyal Holloway, University of London

Infants’ transfer of information from pictures to objects was tested by familiarizing 9-month-olds (N = 31)with either a color or black-and-white photograph of an object and observing their preferential reaching forthe real target object versus a distractor. One condition tested object recognition by keeping both objects visi-ble, and the other tested object representation by hiding both objects. On visible trials, infants reached morefor the distractor, indicating they recognized the target object from its picture. On hidden trials, infantsreached more for the target object, suggesting they formed a continued representation of the object based onits picture. Photograph color had no effect. Infants thus show picture-to-object transfer by 9 months with pref-erential reaching, even with black-and-white pictures.

Across the life span, much of our general knowl-edge about the world comes not from our ownobservations but indirectly from experience withsymbolic media such as newspapers, books, tele-vision, and the Internet (DeLoache, 2011). Childrenare no exception: Parents consider books and edu-cational TV very important to their intellectualdevelopment (Rideout, 2011). However, very youngchildren often show confusion about the character-istics of symbolic media such as pictures and books,despite their considerable experience with picturebooks. For example, 9-month-olds touch objects inphotographs as if they were real, and 18-month-olds “read” picture books upside down (DeLoache,Uttal, & Pierroutsakos, 2000; Pierroutsakos &DeLoache, 2003). How well can infants learn fromthese sources if they misinterpret their symbolicproperties? Researchers have only recently beguntesting this question, with few positive results todate. For example, after weeks of repeatedly watch-ing a best-selling DVD promoted to foster wordlearning, infants learned no more words than a con-trol group (DeLoache et al., 2010). Infants thusappear to have difficulty transferring information

presented in symbolic media to the real-world refer-ents that they are intended to symbolize. Of the fewstudies assessing learning from pictures duringinfancy, most focus on word learning after12 months (e.g., Preissler & Carey, 2004). We contrib-ute to the literature by testing learning from picturesin preverbal infants. We asked whether 8- to 9-month-olds could create a representation of an objectfrom a picture and use it to guide action with the realobject in a preferential reaching task. First, we brieflyreview what is currently known about very youngchildren’s transfer between objects and their pictures.

Transfer from pictures to real objects has been stud-ied mainly in the 2nd year of life and mainly withmeasures of word extension or elicited imitation.Word extension studies show that 15- to 24-month-olds who learn a new word for an unfamiliar objectfrom a picture-book interaction extend the word tothe real target object (Ganea, Allen, Butler, Carey, &DeLoache, 2009; Preissler & Carey, 2004). Elicited imi-tation studies show that 18- and 24-month-olds whoare read a picture book depicting a novel actionsequence (putting three objects together to make arattle) imitate the actions when given the real targetobjects (e.g., Simcock & DeLoache, 2006). Yet, theextent to which toddlers transfer learning from pic-tures to objects depends on picture iconicity—thephysical resemblance between a picture and its refer-ent (e.g., DeLoache, 2011). For example, 15-month-olds extend words to objects from pictures if they are

This research was supported by a U.S. National Science Foun-dation Individual Investigator Award (0721166) to the firstauthor and a UK Economic and Social Research Council student-ship award to the second author. We thank all the infants andparents who volunteered to participate in the research. We alsothank Kate Ryan, Alison Connington Cryer, and Amber Wilsonfor research assistance, and Polly Dalton for comments on draftsof the manuscript.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toJeanne L. Shinskey, Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway,University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, United King-dom. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

© 2014 The AuthorsChild Development © 2014 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2014/xxxx-xxxxDOI: 10.1111/cdev.12243

Child Development, xxxx 2014, Volume 00, Number 0, Pages 1–8

photographs or realistic drawings, but not if they areunrealistic cartoons (Ganea, Pickard, & DeLoache,2008). However, even with realistic pictures, theirword extension depends on a color match betweenthe picture and the object: Fifteen-month-olds fail togeneralize to referents that differ only in color. By18 months, infants generalize to referents of differentcolors, but only from realistic pictures and not unreal-istic cartoons (Ganea et al., 2008). Likewise, 18-month-olds imitate actions with objects as depicted inphotographs but not colored drawings, and 24-month-olds imitate actions as depicted in coloreddrawings but not black-and-white line drawings (Sim-cock & DeLoache, 2006). Iconicity thus facilitatesinfants’ transfer of learning from pictures to objects by15 months. With age, infants need fewer physical sim-ilarities between a picture and its referent to recognizethe relation between them.

Apparently only one study has tested picture-to-object transfer before 12 months, using visualhabituation. In one condition, 9-month-olds werehabituated to one of two real objects (toy sheep ordoll) and tested with black-and-white line drawingsof both objects (Jowkar-Baniani & Schmuckler,2011). Infants in both habituation groups lookedlonger at the novel object’s drawing, suggesting theyrecognized the familiar object’s drawing. That is,they showed object-to-picture transfer. In the pic-ture-to-object condition, 9-month-olds were habitu-ated to one of the two line drawings and then testedwith both real objects. Infants habituated to thesheep drawing looked longer at the novel object, butinfants habituated to the doll drawing lookedequally at the familiar versus novel objects. Thispattern of stronger transfer effects from objects topictures than from pictures to objects resemblesasymmetrical patterns found with other measures ofobject knowledge during infancy. For example, in adifferent visual recognition memory task, 5-month-olds who were familiarized and tested with realobjects showed significantly stronger recognitionthan those familiarized and tested with life-size colorphotographs of the same objects (Ruff, Kohler, &Haupt, 1976). Event-related potentials further showthat 18-month-olds differentiate between familiarand novel stimuli more quickly with real objectsthan with photographs of objects (Carver, Meltzoff,& Dawson, 2006). Finally, in object examining tasks,5-month-olds fail to show category learning afterfamiliarization with pictures but succeed after famil-iarization with real objects (Mash & Bornstein, 2012).Together, these findings provide converging evi-dence that representations constructed from picturesappear weaker than those constructed from objects.

In sum, transfer from pictures to objects appearsmore difficult than the reverse and more sensitiveto effects of age. Although infants demonstrate itby their second birthday, almost nothing is knownabout this ability in the 1st year. The limits ofinfants’ learning about the world indirectly frompictures before their first birthday thus remain vir-tually untested. We bridge this gap by testing pic-ture-to-object transfer in 8- to 9-month-olds withpreferential reaching. We familiarized infants withan object’s picture, then showed them the real tar-get object paired with a distractor object, andobserved which one they reached for first. In onecondition, we tested object recognition by keepingboth objects visible. We predicted infants wouldreach more for the distractor, in keeping with find-ings from visual recognition memory studies (e.g.,Jowkar-Baniani & Schmuckler, 2011). A noveltypreference with visible objects would suggestinfants identify the target object as familiar fromtheir exposure to its photograph, and are less inter-ested in exploring it than the unfamiliar distractorobject. In the other condition, we tested object repre-sentation by first showing infants both objects andthen hiding them. We predicted infants wouldreach more for the target in this case, because evi-dence shows that infants this age are more likely tosearch for an object they have seen hidden if it ishighly familiar to them than if it is unfamiliar(Shinskey & Munakata, 2005). A familiarity prefer-ence with hidden objects would suggest infantsformed an enduring representation of the targetobject from exposure to its photograph, which sup-ported greater sensitivity to the continued existenceof the target object relative to the distractor object.Finally, we varied picture iconicity by familiarizingone group with color photographs and the otherwith black-and-white photographs. We predictedthe color photograph group would demonstratestronger reaching preferences because evidenceshows that infants’ object recognition in other trans-fer tasks improves when the real object is the samecolor as that in the picture (e.g., Ganea et al., 2008;Simcock & DeLoache, 2006). An effect of photo-graph color on reaching preference would suggestthat picture iconicity facilitates transfer in part byproviding information about an object’s color.

Method

Participants

The final sample included 31 healthy full-term8- to 9-month-olds, with 16 infants in the

2 Shinskey and Jachens

color photograph group (8 boys, 8 girls; M =8.95 months, SD = .18, range = 8.61–9.27) and 15in the back-and-white photograph group (9 boys,6 girls; M = 8.85 months, SD = .15, range = 8.68–9.17). Another 9 infants were excluded (4 fromthe color group, 5 from the black-and-whitegroup) because they reached to the same locationon every trial (5), failed to complete test trialsdue to fussiness (3), or spent more time lookingat the experimenter than the photographs (1). Themajority of participants were White British (73%)infants from middle-socioeconomic-status homes(64% had at least one university-educated parent).

Apparatus and Stimuli

Infants sat on a parent’s lap across a table from theexperimenter, who presented objects in transparentcontainers on visible trials and opaque containers onhidden trials. The objects were six pairs of simple infanttoys (Figure 1), equated for attractiveness in pilottesting. We used four different pairs of objects for prac-tice trials. Photographs were life-size images of eachobject on a white background, printed individually onlaminated sheets of paper. Black-and-white photo-graphs were identical to color photographs except fortheir color. Infants’ behavior was recorded on video.

Figure 1. Pairs of objects used on the six test trials.

Picturing Objects in Infancy 3

Design

Condition (visible or hidden) was a within-par-ticipants variable and color (color or black-and-white) was a between-participants variable. Everyinfant received three repeated trials per conditionwith the same six pairs of objects presented in thesame sequence. For half the infants, the target wasone member of the pair and for half it was theother. We presented the six trials in one of fourorders (with V and H denoting a visible or hiddentrial, and L and R indicating whether the targetwas on the left or right): VL-HR-VR-HL-VL-HR;VR-HL-VL-HR-VR-HL; HR-VR-HL-VL-HR-VL; HL-VL-HR-VR-HL-VR. Thus, for half the infants agiven pair became hidden and for half it remainedvisible. The dependent variables are describedbelow in the Coding section.

Procedure

On practice trials, the experimenter familiarizedthe infant with a pair of objects being placed in apair of containers and pushed toward the infant.She used transparent containers on visible trialsand opaque containers on hidden trials. On eachtrial, she held the objects above their respectivecontainers until the infant fixated each object. Shelowered both objects simultaneously into their con-tainers, tapped the table between the containers tobreak the infant’s gaze from the last one fixated,and pushed the containers to the infant. She thenaverted her gaze from the infant and the containersby looking at the center of the table. As soon as theinfant contacted one container, the experimenterremoved the other. She then allowed the infant toplay with the object from the chosen container forabout 20 s. That is, infants only received the objectwhose container they contacted first. Infantsreceived two visible trials followed by two hiddentrials. Every infant saw the same four pairs ofobjects in the same order. Ninety-four percent ofinfants contacted a container on at least one visibletrial and 100% did so on at least one hidden trial.

Test trials were identical to practice trials exceptthe experimenter used different object pairs andfirst familiarized the infant with a photograph ofone of the objects (color or black-and-white,depending on the group). At the start of each trial,she presented the photograph for a fixed 80-s per-iod. When the infant looked away, the experimenterredirected his or her attention by pointing at thephotograph or varying its position. After 80 s, shewithdrew the photograph, placing it in the center

of the table just beyond the infant’s reach. (We keptthe photograph visible during object retrieval fol-lowing the procedure of Judge, Kurdziel, Wright,and Bohrman (2012) to reduce the likelihood of par-ticipants confusing the photograph with the object,as infants could see the photograph was not whatwas being presented in the containers.) The experi-menter then held the objects above their respectivecontainers until the infant fixated each object. Thetarget was the object from the photograph and thedistractor was different. As before, the experimenterplaced both objects in their containers, tappedbetween the containers, and pushed the containersto the infant. She ended each trial when the infantcontacted a container or 10 s elapsed (Figure 2). Ifthe infant contacted neither container, the experi-menter removed both without giving the infanteither of the objects and did not repeat the trial.Infants received six trials—three visible and threehidden.

Coding

The experimenter coded all trials for all infants,and an observer who was blind to the hypothesescoded all trials for 26 (84%) infants. On each trial,two reaching measures were scored: (a) whetherthe first manual contact was with the target’s con-tainer or the distractor’s container; (b) the numberof trials that the infant contacted both containersbefore the experimenter could remove the secondone. On each trial, two looking measures were alsoscored by timing how long the infant looked: (a)toward the photograph during the 80-s familiariza-tion; (b) toward the three stimuli (target, distractor,or photograph) before contacting the first container.

Figure 2. A 9-month-old retrieving the target object from its con-tainer after familiarization with its color photograph.


We assessed interrater agreement with Cohen’skappa coefficient for the categorical measure ofwhich container the infant contacted first(kappa = .96), and Pearson’s correlation coefficientfor the remaining measures (rs = 0.93–1.00, n = 26,ps < .01). Preliminary analyses of variance (ANOVAs)on these measures yielded no significant effects ofsex, Fs(1, 27) < 3.30, ps > .05; trial order, Fs(3, 23)< 2.40, ps > .05; or which member of each pairwas the target, Fs(1, 27) < 1. We, therefore, collapsedthe data across these variables in subsequentanalyses.

Results

For each infant, we calculated the proportion of trialsper condition that the first contact was with the tar-get’s container, given the number of trials per condi-tion that the infant contacted either container, whichhappened on all but two trials (i.e., 99%). Thus, aninfant who chose the target on one of three visibletrials and two of three hidden trials received scoresof .33 for the visible condition and .67 for the hiddencondition. We conducted a 2 (condition: visibleor hidden) 9 2 (color: color or black-and-white)ANOVA. Levene’s tests confirmed the proportionalscores met the heterogeneity of variance assumptionfor the visible condition, F(1, 29) = 1.84, p = .185,and the hidden condition, F(1, 29) = .03, p = .875.A main effect of condition showed that infants

reached less for the target in the visible condition(M = 0.27, SE = 0.05) than the hidden condition(M = 0.67, SE = 0.04), F(1, 29) = 39.68, p < .001,g2 = .58. Subsequent two-tailed t tests againstchance (.50) indicated that reaching for the targetwas below chance on visible trials, t(30) = �4.28,p < .001, d = 1.56, and above chance on hidden tri-als, t(30) = 4.69, p < .001, d = 1.71 (Figure 3). Therewas no main effect of color, F(1, 29) < 1, and no Con-dition 9 Color interaction, F(1, 29) < 1. Althoughthe experimenter immediately removed the con-tainer not contacted first and infants received onlythe object chosen first, we also analyzed the propor-tion of trials that infants contacted the second con-tainer before the experimenter could remove it(M = 0.18, SE = 0.05). There was no condition effect,F(1, 29) = 2.62, p = .116; no color effect, F(1,29) < 1;and no Condition 9 Color interaction, F(1, 29) =1.12, p = .298. These results confirm our predictionthat infants would choose the distractor more in thevisible condition and the target more in the hiddencondition, but not our prediction that this effect maybe larger for infants familiarized with color ratherthan black-and-white photographs.

To exclude the possibility that differences in pref-erential reaching in the visible versus hidden condi-tions might be explained by differences infamiliarization duration, we compared lookingtimes during familiarization. For each infant, wecalculated the average looking time at the photo-graph during the 80-s familiarization across the

0.0

0.5

1.0

Color Black & White Color Black & White

Prop

ortio

n of

Tri

als

Visible Hidden

TargetDistractor

Figure 3. Proportion of trials that infants in each group reached preferentially for the target in each condition. Both color and black-and-white photograph groups chose the target less than chance in the visible condition and more than chance in the hidden condition.


three trials in each condition and analyzed it with a2 (condition) 9 2 (color) ANOVA. There was nomain effect of condition, F(1, 29) < 1. However, amain effect of color showed that the color photo-graph group looked longer at the photograph dur-ing familiarization (M = 58.93, SE = 1.83) than theblack-and-white group (M = 52.31, SE = 1.89), F(1,29) = 6.36, p = .017, g2 = .18. There was no Condi-tion 9 Color interaction, F(1, 29) < 1. Thus, prefer-ential reaching in the visible and hidden conditionscannot be explained by differences in familiariza-tion duration, but subsequent effects of color mightbe, given that infants looked less at black-and-whitephotographs.

Finally, we examined whether infants’ preferen-tial reaching was preceded by differences in howlong they looked toward the stimuli before contact-ing a container. For each infant, we calculated ineach condition the average number of seconds spentlooking toward the target or its container (i.e., afterthe object was inside it), the distractor or its con-tainer, and the photograph. We analyzed lookingtimes with a 2 (condition) 9 2 (color) 9 3 (stimulus:target, distractor, photo) ANOVA. There was nomain effect of condition, F(1, 29) < 1. However, amain effect of color showed the black-and-whitegroup looked longer at the three stimuli (M = 3.25,SE = 0.12) than the color group (M = 2.83,SE = 0.12), F(1, 29) = 5.88, p = .022, g2 = .17. A maineffect of stimulus showed looking times toward thethree stimuli differed, F(1, 29) = 129.83, p < .001,g2 = .82. Pairwise comparisons showed infantslooked less at the photograph (M = 1.29, SE = 0.12)than the target (M = 3.77, SE = 0.16, p < .001) or dis-tractor (M = 4.06, SE = 0.15, p < .001). The last twodid not differ from each other (p = .14). There wereno interactions of Condition 9 Color, F(1, 29) = 2.45,p = .128; Condition 9 Stimulus, F(1, 29) < 1; Color9 Stimulus, F(1, 29) < 1; or Condition 9 Color9 Stimulus, F(1, 29) = 2.59, p = .118. Thus, infantslooked longer at the three stimuli after familiariza-tion with a black-and-white photograph than a colorphotograph, and looked longer at the objects thanthe photograph, but did not look longer at oneobject than the other before choosing which toapproach first.

Discussion

These results support three conclusions. First,infants exhibit picture-to-object transfer by9 months with preferential reaching, demonstratingindirect learning about real objects from their pic-

tures. We believe this is the first result showing thatwell before their first birthday, a single brief expo-sure to a picture influences infants’ actions with thereal referent object. There is little empirical evidencefor picture-to-object transfer before the 2nd year oflife. Even then, toddlers are more likely to demon-strate transfer with increasing age and with moreiconic pictures (e.g., Ganea et al., 2008; Simcock &DeLoache, 2006). To date, only one study hasshown transfer from pictures to objects in the 1styear of life, using visual habituation with 9-month-olds (Jowkar-Baniani & Schmuckler, 2011). How-ever, those infants were less likely to show visualrecognition memory in the picture-to-object condi-tion than the object-to-picture condition, consistentwith the literature suggesting that representationsconstructed from pictures are weaker than thoseconstructed from objects (e.g., Carver et al., 2006;Mash & Bornstein, 2012). Our results provide clearevidence that 8- to 9-month-olds can learn about anobject from its picture and transfer that learning tothe real object when they encounter it. Infants dem-onstrated successful picture-to-object mapping byencoding information from the photograph, storingit, matching it to the target and not the distractorwhen objects remained visible, and maintainingtheir representation of the target when objectsbecame hidden. One alternative interpretation ofthis pattern is that infants’ reaching was affected bypotential cues from the experimenter, who wasaware of what the predicted responses were.Because blinding is difficult in face-to-face proce-dures like these, we controlled for visual cueingduring the reaching phase by having the experi-menter fix her gaze away from the containers andtoward the table’s center. However, we cannotexclude the possibility that other cues such as bodylanguage could have influenced infants.

Second, our finding that infants reversed theirnovelty preference when reaching for hiddenobjects is consistent with perspectives suggestingthat infants’ understanding of object permanencemay begin with familiar objects before generalizingto all objects (e.g., Munakata, McClelland, Johnson,& Siegler, 1997). For example, previous findingsshow that 7-month-olds were more likely to searchfor an object after it became hidden if the objectwas familiar than if it was novel, despite theirstrong novelty preference when these objectsremained visible (Shinskey & Munakata, 2005). Ourresults converge with this pattern: Eight- to 9-month-olds reached preferentially for the familiartarget in the hidden condition, despite their strongnovelty preference for the distractor in the visible


condition. Together these findings suggest thatexperience with an object or its picture strengthens7- to 9-month-olds’ representation of the object sothat they can maintain it after the object disappears.Stronger representations of familiar objects thussupport novelty preferences when objects are visi-ble, but greater sensitivity to their continued exis-tence when they are hidden, advancing infants’understanding of object permanence. One alterna-tive interpretation of this preference reversal is thatinfants’ reaching in the hidden condition wasaffected by lack of motivation to obtain the noveldistractor rather than a weaker representation of it.We consider this unlikely because strong noveltypreferences when objects were visible confirmedinfants’ motivation to obtain novel objects. We alsocounterbalanced which object in each pair was thetarget or the distractor, as well as whether the pairwas presented on a visible or hidden trial, thusequating any attraction to a particular object acrossthese variables.

Third, our results provide the first demonstrationof infants transferring learning from a black-and-white photograph to an object. We expected trans-fer to be significantly worse with black-and-whitephotographs than color photographs, based onevidence that the physical resemblance between apicture and its referent facilitates recognition of therelation between them (e.g., DeLoache, 2011).Contrary to our prediction, infants in the black-and-white photograph group did not differ in theirpreferential reaching from infants in the color pho-tograph group. This result initially seems to contra-dict evidence that a color mismatch between apicture and its referent impairs infants’ transfer.Fifteen-month-olds in word extension tasks fail togeneralize from a color picture to a referent of a dif-ferent color (e.g., Ganea et al., 2008), and 24-month-olds in elicited imitation tasks fail to generalize ifthe pictures are black-and-white line drawingsrather than color drawings (Simcock & DeLoache,2006). However, few studies directly compareinfants’ recognition of objects in color versus black-and-white photographs. Those that do suggest pho-tographs are realistic enough that color adds littlebenefit. For example, 5-month-olds familiarizedwith a doll showed the same degree of visual rec-ognition memory for the corresponding photographwhether it was color or black-and-white (DeLoache,Strauss, & Maynard, 1979). Together, these patternssuggest that although pictorial realism facilitatesdetection of the relation between pictures and theirreferents, color is not an essential feature. A possi-ble implication of our finding that infants recog-

nized a colored object from its black-and-whitephotograph may be that toddlers in word extensionor elicited imitation studies might generalize to areferent better from a photograph depicting it inblack-and-white than one depicting it in a differentchromatic color. That is, black-and-white photo-graphs might help toddlers disengage from an asso-ciative interpretation of a picture as referring to aspecific individual and move toward a more sym-bolic interpretation of it as referring to a categoryof objects (e.g., Ganea et al., 2009).

We conclude that infants can form and maintainrepresentations of objects from pictures by9 months, and expect future research to explore theupper limits of this ability. In the meantime, werecommend that researchers exercise caution indrawing conclusions about infants’ object knowl-edge from methods that rely on pictorial stimuli,because other evidence suggests that pictures yieldrelatively weaker representations than real objects(e.g., Mash & Bornstein, 2012). Important theoreticaland practical questions undoubtedly remain. Towhat extent do infants confuse a picture with itsreferent rather than conceptualize the image as theobject it represents (e.g., Judge et al., 2012)? Whydo manipulative features such as pop-ups appearto undermine young children’s learning from pic-ture books (e.g., Tare, Chiong, Ganea, & DeLoache,2010)? How do parental behaviors during jointbook reading affect infants’ learning from picturebooks (e.g., Fletcher & Reese, 2005)? Infants’increasing exposure to symbolic media in the 1styear of life combined with society’s increasingexposure to new forms of electronic media willsurely provide many opportunities to test assump-tions about what infants learn from symbolicmedia.

References

Carver, L. J., Meltzoff, A. N., & Dawson, G. (2006).Event-related potential (ERP) indices of infants’ recog-nition of familiar and unfamiliar objects in two andthree dimensions. Developmental Science, 9, 51–62.doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00463.x

DeLoache, J. S. (2011). Early development of the under-standing and use of symbolic artifacts. In U. Goswami(Ed.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood cognitivedevelopment (2nd ed., pp. 312–336). Chichester, UK:Wiley-Blackwell.

DeLoache, J. S., Chiong, C., Sherman, K., Islam, N., Van-derborght, M., Troseth, G. L., . . . O’Doherty, K. (2010).Do babies learn from baby media? Psychological Science,21, 1570–1574. doi:10.1177/0956797610384145


DeLoache, J. S., Strauss, M. S., & Maynard, J. (1979). Pic-ture perception in infancy. Infant Behavior and Develop-ment, 2, 77–89. doi:10.1016/S0163-6383(79)80010-7

DeLoache, J. S., Uttal, D. H., & Pierroutsakos, S. L. (2000).What’s up? The development of an orientation prefer-ence for picture books. Journal of Cognition and Develop-ment, 1, 81–95. doi:10.1207/S15327647JCD0101N_9

Fletcher, K. L., & Reese, E. (2005). Picture book readingwith young children: A conceptual framework. Develop-mental Review, 25, 64–103. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2004.08.009

Ganea, P. A., Allen, M. L., Butler, L., Carey, S., & De-Loache, J. S. (2009). Toddlers’ referential understandingof pictures. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 104,283–295. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2009.05.008

Ganea, P. A., Pickard, M., & DeLoache, J. S. (2008). Trans-fer between picture books and the real world by veryyoung children. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9,46–66. doi:10.1080/15248370701836592

Jowkar-Baniani, G., & Schmuckler, M. A. (2011). Pictureperception in infants: Generalization from two-dimensional to three-dimensional displays. Infancy, 16,211–226. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2010.00038.x

Judge, P. G., Kurdziel, L. B., Wright, R. M., & Bohrman,J. A. (2012). Picture recognition of food by macaques(Macaca silenus). Animal Cognition, 15, 313–325. doi:10.1007/s10071-011-0455-9

Mash, C., & Bornstein, M. H. (2012). 5-month-olds’ categori-zation of novel objects: Task and measure dependence.Infancy, 17, 179–197. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2011.00076.x

Munakata, Y., McClelland, J., Johnson, M., & Siegler, R.(1997). Rethinking infant knowledge: Toward an adap-

tive process account of successes and failures in objectpermanence tasks. Psychological Review, 104, 686–713.doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.4.686

Pierroutsakos, S. L., & DeLoache, J. S. (2003). Infants’ man-ual exploration of pictorial objects varying in realism.Infancy, 4, 141–156. doi:10.1207/S15327078IN0401_7

Preissler, M., & Carey, S. (2004). Do both pictures andwords function as symbols for 18- and 24-month-oldchildren? Journal of Cognition and Development, 5,185–212. doi:10.1207/s15327647jcd0502_2

Rideout, V. (2011). Zero to eight: Children’s media use inAmerica. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense Media.

Ruff, H. A., Kohler, C. J., & Haupt, D. L. (1976). Infantrecognition of two- and three-dimensional stimuli.Developmental Psychology, 12, 455–459. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.12.5.455

Shinskey, J. L., & Munakata, Y. (2005). Familiarity breedssearching: Infants reverse their novelty preferenceswhen reaching for hidden objects. Psychological Science,16, 596–600. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01581.x

Simcock, G., & DeLoache, J. (2006). Get the picture? Theeffects of iconicity on toddlers’ reenactment from pic-ture books. Developmental Psychology, 42, 1352–1357.doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.6.1352

Tare, M., Chiong, C., Ganea, P., & DeLoache, J. (2010).Less is more: How manipulative features affect chil-dren’s learning from picture books. Journal of AppliedDevelopmental Psychology, 31, 395–400. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2010.06.005


Documents

Picturing Objects in Infancy