On the other hand, it is possible that even though the potential to represent
these structures is available, other factors related to our particular instantiations of iteration (or recursion) impaired their ability to make explicit judgements. One such factor might be the amount of visual complexity. Another factor may be that these children likely had little or no previous experience with visuo-spatial fractals before performing our experiment. Overall, we found that higher levels of visual complexity reduced participants’ ability to extract recursive and iterative principles. This effect seems to be more pronounced in the second NVP-BEZ235 chemical structure grade group. Incidentally, we asked the majority of children (18 second graders and 24 fourth graders) how frequently they had detected differences between the choice images during the realization of our tasks (i.e. between foil and correct fourth iteration).
While 17.6% of the questioned second graders reported perceiving no differences between ‘correct’ fourth iteration and foil most of the time, only 4.5% of the fourth graders did so. This provides additional evidence that younger children may have had difficulties detecting (or retrieving) information relevant to process the test stimuli. Previous research on the development of hierarchical processing suggests that before the age of 9 children seem to have a strong Afatinib price bias to focus on local visual information (Harrison and Stiles, 2009 and Poirel et al., 2008), which as we have discussed, can affect normal
hierarchical processing. Thus, further research will be necessary to determine whether the potential to represent recursion in vision is not part of the cognitive repertoire of many younger children; or whether inadequate performance was caused by inefficient visual processing mechanisms. Although we found no significant performance differences between VRT and EIT in overall, a closer analysis revealed two interesting dissociations: First, unlike in VRT, children seemed to have difficulty in rejecting the ‘Odd constituent’ foils in EIT, though performance was adequate in trials containing other foils Cyclin-dependent kinase 3 categories (‘Positional error’ and ‘Repetition’). Since they were able to respond adequately to this foil category while executing VRT, it seems unlikely that this result was caused by a general inability to perceive ’odd constituent’ mistakes. Instead, we suspect that there may be differences in the way recursive and non-recursive representations are cognitively implemented. These differences might have led subjects to detect errors of the ‘odd constituent’ type more efficiently in VRT. Previous studies (Martins & Fitch, 2012) suggest that EIT may be more demanding of visual processing resources than VRT.