Irrelevant and relevant constraints during demonstration phase.

One part of the objects was always close to the experimenter/participant; the goal was to collect the other object part. In the irrelevant context the other part of each pair was within arm’s reach, thus the situational constraints made the tool use unnecessary. In the relevant context the second part was further away and could not be reached by hand, thus tool use was necessary.</p

Experimental design of the study.

Conditions could consist of three phases: demonstration, short-term re-enactment, and delayed re-enactment. The demonstration and short-term re-enactment took place at the same occasion, in Session 1. One week later, in Session 2 only the delayed re-enactment took place. Tool use context (relevant/irrelevant) changed between or within sessions according to the conditions.</p

Tool use in experimental and control conditions.

Tool use score varied from 0 to 3. The figure includes tool use scores of Session 1 and Session 2, in the Relevant Baseline, Relevant-Irrelevant, Irrelevant-Relevant, and Irrelevant-Relevant Short-term conditions. Preschoolers either used a tool or reached for the object by hand. Asterisks indicate a significant difference * p < .05.</p

S1 File -

(DOCX)</p

EEG data 8mo infants kampis_parise_csibra_kovacs

EEG Data of manuscript Kampis, Parise, Csibra & Kovács. Values depict averaged activation between 25-35 Hz on the indicated channels and conditions

Dataset for Kampis, Parise, Csibra, & Kovacs (2016)

EEG Dataset for article "On potential ocular artifacts in infant EEG: A reply to comments by Köster