[DSRP Evidence](https://dsrpevidence.org/) # Categories and Constraints in Causal Perception ## Details **Authors** Kominsky et al. **Year** 2017 **Publisher** Psychological Science **Discipline** Human Development [Read it at the publisher](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617719930) 10.1177/0956797617719930 ## In authors' words ### Abstract When object A moves adjacent to a stationary object, B, and in that instant A stops moving and B starts moving, people irresistibly see this as an event in which A causes B to move. Real-world causal collisions are subject to Newtonian constraints on the relative speed of B following the collision, but here we show that perceptual constraints on the relative speed of B (which align imprecisely with Newtonian principles) define two categories of causal events in perception. Using performance-based tasks, we show that triggering events, in which B moves noticeably faster than A, are treated as being categorically different from launching events, in which B does not move noticeably faster than A, and that these categories are unique to causal events (Experiments 1 and 2). Furthermore, we show that 7- to 9-month-old infants are sensitive to this distinction, which suggests that this boundary may be an early-developing component of causal perception (Experiment 3). ### What they set out to do (purpose) To discuss “causal perception” which is a Relationship. ### What they found (results) Our three experiments reveal categorical boundaries within causal perception—boundaries that are defined by an interplay of physical and perceptual constraints. Overall, these experiments showed that causal perceptions are seen in seven to nine month old infants. ## Commentary ### In short This early-on development of Relationships indicates that Relationships are therefore an inherent part of human thought. It is clear that the cognitive, emotional, and conative ability to make Relationships is essential to the process of thinking. ### In more detail Kominsky et. al. 2017 discusses “causal perception” which is a Relationship. There were 3 experiments done, one of which had two sub experiments. In experiment 1a, a visual search task in which the search array consisted of a set of two-object events was performed. There were four conditions (causal, temporal offset, spatial offset, and slip event). There were discs presented under the four conditions and the “subjects were instructed to press the spacebar as soon as they detected the pair in which the two discs were moving at different speeds (i.e., the asymmetric event). After they pressed the spacebar, the animation paused, and they used the mouse cursor to select the asymmetric event.” The 85 subjects performed this task, approximately twelve for each condition. For experiment 1b, practice rounds were added, due to an issue with instruction understanding in experiment 1a. The stimuli used were the same as the first part of the experiment, however there were only two conditions used (an asymmetric-target condition, identical to the causal condition in Experiment 1a, and a symmetric-target condition). In the discussion, the authors concluded that, “Experiment 1 demonstrated that adults’ causal perception distinguishes between triggering and launching events… provided initial evidence that causal perception, independently of judgment or reasoning, is sensitive to a distinction between launching and triggering.” This could mean that Relationships are sensitive to Distinctions, and that the two must function with each other, not separately. In the second experiment, there was only one event on the screen at any given time, instead of three. Otherwise, the stimuli in this procedure were very similar to the stimuli in experiment 1b. “All of the events were two-object events, in which the two discs (A and B) could move either at the same speed or at different speeds, and this varied across trials (but not within a trial).” They found that in testing these kinds of physical Relationships, that sensitivity to speed had an impact on their results in experiment 1b. For the third experiment, they tested the age at which this kind of cognitive processing happens. For each of the previously discussed four categories, they got approximately 34 infants in between the ages of 6 ½ months to 10 months old. For the infants, there was a habituation phase and a test phase. The infants were shown electronic animated stimuli and their looking time was measured. Once the infant had looked away for two continuous seconds, the trial ended. Their results showed that infants are capable of noticing and being interested in “categorical boundary between launching (1:1 and 3:1 events) and triggering (1:3 events).” They wrote, “our three experiments reveal categorical boundaries within causal perception—boundaries that are defined by an interplay of physical and perceptual constraints.” Overall, these experiments showed that causal perceptions are seen in seven to nine month old infants. This early-on development of Relationships indicates that Relationships are therefore an inherent part of human thought. It is clear that the cognitive, emotional, and conative ability to make Relationships is essential to the process of thinking. But what is the elemental or atomic structure of these all-important Relationships? To answer this, let’s look at a few more studies. **Patterns it shows** R **How to cite this** Kominsky et al. (2017). Categories and Constraints in Causal Perception. Psychological Science.