It is seductive to conclude that whenever a discontinuity is observed in some aspect of development, a new mechanism has emerged. Yet we know that discontinuities can result from a continuous process with an underlying nonlinearity (e.g., a thermostat triggers binary actions—on versus off—despite a linear temperature sensitivity). Moreover, learning itself can change the interpretation of the same input (e.g., the sticky mittens paradigm alters how prereaching infants interact with objects; cf. Needham, Barrett, & Peterman, 2002).

Development is also traditionally viewed as incremental, in the sense of a serial process of learning selleck chemicals llc a hierarchy of nested structures (much like the building-blocks of a house). This view is undoubtedly too simple, as all biological systems acquire specializations (e.g., organs) that are qualitatively different from their underlying components. Moreover, development is better characterized as a parallel process of incremental additions with feedback interactions that alter subsequent additions. McMurray (2007) provided a nice RAD001 example of this parallel nature of development in the domain of the vocabulary spurt in child language. The notion of “mental organs” or modules simply reflects the fact that highly efficient submechanisms,

or domain-specific expertise, frees up cognitive resources to access more or different types of information from the same corpus of input. This in turn allows the mature learner

to “dig deeper” and extract more complex aspects of information that were initially inaccessible to the naïve learner. An interesting methodological point that falls out of this perspective is that the habituation paradigm presumes “processing is complete” once the criterion of habituation has been met. But it seems quite likely that revisiting the same stimuli in a subsequent habituation phase would trigger “further processing” of information that was “missed” by the infant in the initial habituation phase. Finally, development is commonly viewed as progressive, in the sense of consistently adding more Adenosine knowledge or becoming more sophisticated. However, regressions are common in development (Bever, 1982), presumably because of competition among subsystems (e.g., the phenomenon of “perceptual narrowing” in speech and face perception: Pascalis, de Haan, & Nelson, 2002; Pons, Lewkowicz, Soto-Faraco, & Sebastián-Gallés, 2009). For researchers to understand whether development is progressive or regressive requires confidence that the same measurement tool in a given domain of development is actually assessing the same underlying competence across age, or when a uniform tool is unavailable, that different measurement tools suited for different age ranges are assessing the same underlying competence. These are not trivial interpretive issues. Moreover, the emergence of some other developmental system (e.g.