Object permanence

[2] Developmental psychologist Jean Piaget conducted experiments that collected behavioral tests on infants.

A lack of object permanence can lead to A-not-B errors, where children reach for a thing at a place where it should not be.

[5] They concluded that this type of error might be due to a failure in memory or the fact that infants usually tend to repeat a previous motor behavior.

[9][10] 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 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.

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.

These include dogs, cats, and a few species of birds such as the carrion crow, Eurasian jays and food-storing magpies.

Dogs are able to reach a level of object permanence that allows them to find food after it has been hidden beneath one of two cups and rotated 90°.

[24] A longitudinal study found that carrion crows' ability developed gradually, albeit with slight changes in the order of mastery compared to human infants.

The crows showed perseverative searches at a previously rewarded location (the so-called "A-not-B error").

[25] Another study tested the comparison of how long it took food-storing magpies to develop the object permanence necessary for them to be able to live independently.

[30] 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.

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.

[31] Other, more recent studies suggest that the idea of object permanence may not be an innate function of young children.

Studies suggest that a multitude of variables may be responsible for the development of object permanence rather than a natural talent of infants.