Exam 2 - Infant Psych

Motor Development involves increasing…

• agency

• prospectivity

• behavioral flexibility

• means-end understanding

Agency

sense of control

Prospectivity

looking ahead

Behavioral flexibility

adapting to circumstances

Means-end understanding

understanding links between actions and goals

Dynamic systems theory

• dependent on the interplay of many factors

  • it affects other aspects of development (cognitive, social, communication, etc)

Postural control

• a complex sensorimotor behavior that maintains balance by counteracting gravitational forces and by anticipating postural challenges induced by external demands and perturbations

• cephalocaudal trend

Head and body control

Reaching and grasping: birth

Pre-reaching movements - clumsy motions in direction of target object

Reaching and grasping: 3-4 months

Looks at and swipes at object, retains object placed in hand.

Reaching and grasping: 4-5 months

contacts toy placed on table

Reaching and grasping: 5 months

Sits with support and grasps object

Reaching and grasping: 6-7 months

Bangs, shakes, rattles, explores, transfers object from hand to hand

Reaching is increasingly prospective (anticipatory)

• 5 months - contact, then form hand

• 7.5 months - pre-form hand in anticipation of dowel orientation

• 9 months - open hand while reaching, begin to close in anticipation of contacting object

Reaching lays groundwork for perceptual and cognitive advances

• Inter-sensory integration (visual-tactile)

• Tool use

• Means-end understanding

Needham, Barrett & Peterman, 2002

• Infants wore velcro mittens and had opportunity to interact with toys covered in velcro (blocks, rings, cubes)

• Mitten group:

  • Explored more

  • Swatted more

  • Used more swats with looking

What is the most important take-home message from the velcro mitten study?

Motor development and cognitive development are inextricably intertwined in infancy

Locomotion

highly variable progression

Changes with increasing walking experience:

• Increased step length

• Less variable step length

• Less lateral movement

• Less flat-footed

• More symmetrical steps (one leg back as one leg forward)

• Better balance

• Better able to adjust to different surfaces, slopes

Prone

face down

Supine

face up

Prone vs Supine

Crawling as a developmental organizer

• Other changes at at about the same time (8-9 months)

Social referencing

using others’ emotions as cues to safety/danger

Non-verbal communication

pointing, gesturing

Crawling and depth perception

Bertenthal, Campos, Kermoian, 1992

The visual cliff

• infants with little crawling experience will cross

• infants with more crawling experience won’t cross

• 11 days crawling experience: 30-50% avoid deep

• 41 days crawling experience: 60-80% avoid deep (Does not depend on age)

Measure of fear:

• increased HR when placed on deep side

Crawling experience drives fear of heights

The veritable cliff (Adolph, 2002)

• Infants accurately judged what they could reach in sitting, but not crawling posture

• Similar results for crawling to walking transition

• Each new posture involves re-learning what is safe and possible

Challenges with studying infant perception

• They can’t tell us what they see

• They can look more or less at things

• Researchers have to infer what they are perceiving based on differences in looking time

Do infants prefer faces that are looking at them? (Farroni, Menon & Johnson, 2002)

Infants don’t have a general understanding of gaze, but prefer faces that match a simple head-on face template

Studying infant abilities: Preference

• preference for one implies discrimination

• lack of preference implies NOTHING

Studying infant abilities: Habituation / Familiarization

• Show infant repeated presentations of stimulus until looking time drops, then show new stimulus

• Increased looking time (recovery from habituation) implies discrimination of 2 stimuli

example: if you show a dog until habituated and looking time drops, and then show a meerkat and the dog they should prefer the meerkat IF they can tell the difference

Habituation/Familiarization + Preference

• can be used to ask questions about infant categories

example: if habituated to many photos of dogs, and then shown the a picture of another dog and a meerkat preference for the meerkat shows its new to them and they group the dogs together and not the meerkat into one category

Studying infant abilities: Violation of Expectation (VOE)

• Show infants events that violate their expectations

• If expectations are violated, they will look longer

• You can learn what they expect

• Contrast looking times to Possible and Impossible Events

• Game: make Possible and Impossible events as similar as possible in every way to eliminate alternative explanations for differences in looking times

Perception: 2 Theoretical Positions

• construcivism

  • jean piaget

  • top down

• ecological view

  • J.J. Gibson

  • bottom up

Is the infant born prepared to interpret visual stimuli in a meaningful way?

• Piaget (Constructivist)

  • NO – The infant learns meaning through associating different experience

• Gibson (Ecological View, more nativist)

  • YES, somewhat – The infant’s visual system is constructed to be prepared to perceive the world

Static monocular cues

• interposition

• linear perspective

• relative size

• texture gradient

Kinetic cues: motion parallax

as we move, the image of objects closer to us moves faster than the image of farther objects

Depth cues

• binocular cues

• static monocular cues

• motion cues

Binocular cues

Binocular disparity, convergence

Static monocular cues

Interposition, relative size, texture gradient

Motion cues

Motion parallax, things that move together belong together

Development of stereoacuity: Held, Birch & Gwiazda (1980)

• Preferential looking method

• Infants wear goggles with 2 different images presented to each eye (like stereo glasses at the movies)

  • Assumption: infants prefer display with depth cues if they can detect them

• Longitudinal study, 10 to 30 weeks

• Findings – preference for displays including binocular disparity as a depth cue emerges suddenly, around 4 months of age

Sensitivity to monocular depth cue of interposition develops between. . .

5 and 7 months

Kinetic cues

• Studies suggest motion cues may be some of the earliest to be detected

• looming and motion parallax

Looming

• expansion as cue to approach

• texture expands as object approaches

• newborns draw back their heads and blink in response to looming

Motion parallax

• as we move, the image of objects closer to us moves faster than the image of farther objects

Motion parallax: Slater, Rose & Morrison (1984)

• Study 1: Showed newborns 3D objects and 2D photos of the same things paired

  • Infants strongly preferred 3D

    • Could be binocular disparity

    • Or motion parallax (as they move)

• Study 3: –monocular presentation

  • Still preferred 3D, though not as much

  • Must be using motion parallax to detect 3D

• CONCLUSIONS

  • Newborns can distinguish 3D objects from 2D representations

  • Newborns can use motion parallax (a kinetic cue) to detect depth

Perception of 3D world: Impossible objects (Shuwairi, 2007)

• 4 months

• Infants looked longer to impossible cube, suggesting they discriminate 2D representations of 3D from 2D representations that do not depict depth

Object unity

perceiving different parts of object as distinct

Object segregation

perceiving separate objects as distinct

At what age can infants use continuity to unify partially occluded objects?

• when stationary, 7 month olds looked longer at broken rod (showing it doesn’t make sense to them) while 4 month olds did not (not yet sensitive to continuity as a cue)

• BUT when rod is in motion, 4 month olds preferred to look at broken rod

  • used continuity as a cue as long as motion was present

  • CONCLUSION: MOTION is an important cue to object boundaries early in development

Younger infants and continuity

Newborns (Slater et al., 1990)

• Newborns preferred the complete rod

• They perceived it as more novel

• Did NOT appear to be sensitive to continuity, even with motion

2-month-olds (Johnson & Aslin 1995)

• 2 month-olds preferred broken rod (completed rod in spite of occlusion) IF the occluder was narrow

A late developing skill in terms of infant perception of objects

using object properties such as color, texture or pattern to break a scene into separate objects

Using object properties to identify object unity (Needham & Baillargeon 1997)

• 8-month-olds looked longer at the Move-together event while 4.5 month olds looked about equally

  • BUT 4.5 mo who are given brief exposure to either object alone DO look longer at move together event (they’re surprised by it)

Theorists differ on whether infants should be able to perceive objects in a 3D world without experience

• Constructivists — NO

• Ecological theorists — YES

Do infants prefer faces over other stimuli? Fantz (1961)

Fantz’s conclusion:

• Young infants do prefer faces over other stimuli

• BUT, not because of their organization as faces.

• Early on, preference for faces is driven by lower-level properties of faces

  • E.g., high contrast, curvature

Newborn ability to distinguish face from non-face (Johnson & Morton, 1991)

• Infants tracked images with features in face-like organization (2 dots above 1 dot) more than other images

• Difference declines at 4-6 weeks of age

• From birth, infants are biased to attend to faces

• Initial bias probably reflects subcortical mechanism

• Perhaps not the same as real understanding of faces as special

Is this preference for face-like organization present prior to birth?

Yes!

• Shined patterns of dots through the mother’s abdomen

• Using ultrasound, recorded fetus’ turns toward or away from light

Recognizing mom’s face

• Newborns appear to distinguish mom’s face (vs a strangers) in the first few days

• They need all the information they can get (dependent on features such as hairstyle)

Specialization of processing human faces (Pascalis, DeHaan & Nelson 2002)

• Humans better at human than monkey discrimination, while opposite holds true for monkeys

• 6 month-olds looked longer at novel monkey and novel human faces

• 9 month-olds looked longer at novel human faces, but not at novel monkey faces

Do infants also specialize in processing faces of their own race?

Yes, as they get more exposed to their race the get worse at discriminating between another

Perceiving faces of other races Kelly et al., 2007

• 3, 6, 9 month olds

  • 3 months: good at task regardless of race of face

  • 6-month-olds good at Chinese and Caucasian, not African or Middle-Eastern

  • 9-month-olds good only at Caucasian

• perceptual narrowing hypothesis

How well do 5-month-old infants recognize the same expression across different faces?

• 5-month-olds categorize smiling faces together and as different from fear, even when displayed by different faces

How well do 5-month-old infants recognize the same face across different expressions?

• they recognize a new face as novel, meaning they discriminate between them

Facial expressions and vocal expressions

• ex. happy face and happy voice

• do earliest for mom, and generally earlier for women than men

Modality

the sensory channel carrying certain information (visual, auditory, tactile…)

Amodal

not tied to a particular sense

Invariant

not changing, constant

Ecological View: Amodal invariants

Abstract similarities or correspondences in the information coming in from different senses

• Important in detecting correspondences between senses, and in detecting information about the world

Can 1-month-olds relate visual and tactile information? (visual-haptic)

• sucked on smooth vs nubby pacifier (habituated) and then saw pictures of the pacifier they sucked on and the other one (test)

• they preferred photo of one they sucked on

• 1-month-old infants have some ability to integrate visual and tactile information for shape

Vision and Audition

• They turn different amounts depending on location of sound

• ushaped curve, they get worse up until 80 days and then begin to improve again

Can 3-month-olds link visual and auditory events by synchrony?

1. Experiment 1: Are they sensitive to the correspondence between visual and auditory timing (simultaneity)?

2. Experiment 2: Are they able to match by tempo (fast vs. slow) even when the tracks are out of synchrony?

• Kangaroo or donkey bouncing fast or slow

• 3-month-olds can use synchrony and tempo to match visual and auditory events

Refinement in the first year (Bahrick, 1987)

• 4-month-olds prefer displays that are synchronous, but don’t distinguish single from multiple balls

• 6-month-olds are sensitive to one vs. many differences

Newborn Imitation (Meltzoff & Moore 1978)

• 48 hours old

  • Tongue protrusion

  • Mouth opening

  • Lip protrusion

  • Finger waving

• Replicated in hour-old infants

  • Strongest results for tongue protrusion and mouth opening

• newborn chimps also do the same thing!!

What to control for in Meltzoff and Moore imitation study

• is adulting imitating infant

• Is infant just more likely to show a facial expression because of general excitement?

• are researchers biased to code for imitation

Features of Jean Piaget’s theory

1. Stages

   • qualitative change

   • invariant sequence

2. constructivism

   • Neither nativist (knowledge is innate) nor empiricist (knowledge comes from experience)

   • Knowledge is built by the child in an active process

3. Schemes

   • Basic element of knowledge

   • Start as reflexes, then action schemes, then mental representations, around 18 months

   • Knowledge originates in actions

Schemes

• A baby has a grasping scheme

• What is graspable?

• How can I grasp this particular object?

• What will happen when I do?

Piaget’s Stages

1. sensorimotor (birth — 18-24 months)

2. preoperational (2-6 years)

3. concrete operational (8-12 years)

4. formal operational (12+ years)

Piaget’s account of the Sensorimotor stage

• achievements

  • distinguish self from the world

  • understand the difference between cause and effect, and learn specific means end relationships

  • develop concept of object

• Limitations

  • no planning

  • no remembering

  • no bringing concepts of absent objects to mind

Stage 2 (Piaget’s 6 substages of sensorimotor development)

1 - 4 MONTHS: Primary Circular Reactions

Cause - effect:

• discover actions on their own bodies and learn to repeat

Object Concept

• tracks moving objects with anticipation; fails to reach for partially hidden objects

Stage 3 (Piaget’s 6 substages of sensorimotor development)

4 - 8 months: Secondary circular reactions

Cause - effect:

• Discovers actions on objects, learns to repeat (e.g., shake rattle)

Object Concept

• Reaches for partially hidden objects; fails to reach for fully hidden objects

Stage 4 (Piaget’s 6 substages of sensorimotor development)

8-12 months: Coordination of secondary circular reactions

Cause - effect:

• intentionally put 2 schemas together to solve a problem (e.g. push box aside in order to reach toy)

Object Concept

• reaches for completely hidden objects (make A not B error)

Object permanence

the understanding that objects persist, continue to exist when we cannot see them

Stage 5 (Piaget’s 6 substages of sensorimotor development)

12-18 months: Tertiary Circular reactions

Cause - effect:

• use of new means discovered by chance for new ends

• deliberate variation of means to end

Object Concept

• searches for object visibly displaced, but fails with invisible displacement

Stage 6 (Piaget’s 6 substages of sensorimotor development)

18-24 months: Coordination of Secondary Circular reactions

Cause - effect:

• insightful problem solving

Object Concept

• solves search tasks with invisible displacement

Will infants show surprise (increased looking) when objects spontaneously cease to exist?

• 5 month olds

• looked longer at impossible event (were suprised)

• finding was later extended to 3.5 month olds c vc v

A not B error

8-12 months

• hide object at A several times

  • infant finds successfully

• hide object at B

  • infant searches at A

Response Perseveration

• infant can’t stop repeating previously awarded response

• IN FAVOR: Route finding task, Pick and Lockman 1982

  • step one: infant finds shortest route to mom

    • step two: mom moves and infant takes the same route as before even though longer

• AGAINST:

  • infant still sometimes makes the error even if they only watch A trials and never reach

Memory interference

2 hiding locations are so similar, they are easy to confuse in memory

• IN FAVOR:

  • more distinctive the hiding location, error down

  • longer delays, error up

• AGAINST:

  • infants still make the error with transparent cover (no memory required)

Insightful problem solving from Piaget (19 months)

For the first time Lucienne plays with a doll carriage whose handle comes to the height of her face. When she comes against a wall, she pulls, walking backward. But as this position is not convenient for her, she pauses and without hesitation, goes to the other side of the carriage to push the carriage again. She therefore found the procedure in one attempt, apparently through analogy to other situations, but without training, apprenticeship or chance.

Joint Attention Behaviors

• gaze following

• showing

• pointing

• following a point

Social referencing

using another’s emotional signals as info in an uncertain situation

When is the transition from dyadic to triadic engagment?

around 8-9 months

Rich interpretation vs lean interpretation

• Rich interpretation involves a deep, contextual analysis that seeks to uncover underlying meanings, nuances, and complexities.

• Lean interpretation focuses on a surface-level, efficient understanding that prioritizes core facts and immediate takeaways without extensive context

Triadic engagement

interacting and engaging between infant, another person, AND an object

Communicative and social skills (Carpenter, Nagell, and Tomasello 1998)

• between 9 and 15 months

  • dramatic increase within 9 and 13 months

• age of emergence: age when first able to perform a task

  • Following adult gaze Showing, Pointing Requesting Assistance

Specific impairments in joint attention: Autism

• children with autism have impairments in exactly the social communicative skills that typically develop between 9 and 13 months

• thought to have impairments in understanding others’ mental states

When do infants really follow gaze direction, and not simply head turn direction? (Brooks and Meltzoff 2005)

• eyes open vs closed

• 9 mo turn as much when actor has eyes open as when closed

• 10 mo only turn if actors eyes are open

• emerges suddenly SOMEWHERE between 9 and 10 months

Further development in gaze following: blindfold task

Would infants follow gaze more when Experimenter wore a headband (eyes free) or a blindfold (eyes covered)?

• 12 NO

• 14 and 18 mo YES

Conclusion: 12-month-olds don’t know yet about how occluders (like blindfolds) block visual contact with objects, but 14-month-olds do.

Theory of mind

Understanding of other people’s actions in terms of psychological concepts like beliefs, desires, emotions, and perceptual experiences

Why might goals and intentions be difficult for infants?

• they are invisible

• they are abstract

• and they must be inferred from visible behavior