When gathering your family in your house, for example, it is important to make sure that your own children are there: replacing them with the neighbor’s will not do. Despite the fact that the experimenter was calling the set of puppets a ‘family’, several pieces of evidence

OSI-906 nmr indicate that children did not interpret the goal of the present task as being restricted to the individuals presented on the tree at the start of the trial. Crucially, when tested with small sets, they readily placed all puppets on the tree, even when one of them was a newcomer. Furthermore, with large sets they failed to solve the task following the addition or subtraction of a branch, despite the fact that the family of puppets did not change in this condition. find more Thus, the pattern of findings obtained with large sets evidently reflects limitations to children’s processing of these sets, rather

than their understanding of the task. Perhaps children’s performance with large sets was constrained by limitations of processing resources, such as limitations in working memory4: the children may have failed to remember all the relevant pieces of information, or to process this information appropriately. Because children succeeded with the identity-preserving events and in the absence of any transformation, we know SDHB that they could remember one-to-one relations between branches and puppets and reproduce such a relation at the end of a trial. Furthermore, because they succeeded at tracking additions

and subtractions with small sets, we know that they could remember and process set transformation events. However, it is possible that the joint requirements of remembering both a one-to-one mapping and a transformation exceeded the limits on children’s memory and attention. Alternatively, even if children could remember all the relevant information, they might have failed to combine these two pieces of information to predict the final mapping between branches or puppets. Crucially, our task was designed so that there were strategies available for working around any limitations in children’s processing resources. First, in the substitution events, children could have succeeded by focusing on the initial state of one-to-one correspondence and discarding the transformation as having no effect. Children were likely to discover this strategy, however, only if they understood that a subtraction of one is reversed by an addition of one.