Perceptual and conceptual novelty independently guide infant looking behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 21.4 1区 心理学 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Nature Human Behaviour Pub Date : 2024-10-14 DOI:10.1038/s41562-024-01965-x
Linette Kunin, Sabrina H. Piccolo, Rebecca Saxe, Shari Liu
{"title":"Perceptual and conceptual novelty independently guide infant looking behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Linette Kunin, Sabrina H. Piccolo, Rebecca Saxe, Shari Liu","doi":"10.1038/s41562-024-01965-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Human infants are born with their eyes open and an otherwise limited motor repertoire; thus, studies measuring infant looking are commonly used to investigate the developmental origins of perception and cognition. However, scholars have long expressed concerns about the reliability and interpretation of looking behaviours. We evaluated these concerns using a pre-registered ( https://osf.io/jghc3 ), systematic meta-analysis of 76 published and unpublished studies of infants’ early physical and psychological reasoning (total n = 1,899; 3- to 12-month-old infants; database search and call for unpublished studies conducted July to August 2022). We studied two effects in the same datasets: looking towards expected versus unexpected events (violation of expectation (VOE)) and looking towards visually familiar versus visually novel events (perceptual novelty (PN)). Most studies implemented methods to minimize the risk of bias (for example, ensuring that experimenters were naive to the conditions and reporting inter-rater reliability). There was mixed evidence about publication bias for the VOE effect. Most centrally to our research aims, we found that these two effects varied systematically—with roughly equal effect sizes (VOE, standardized mean difference 0.290 and 95% confidence interval (0.208, 0.372); PN, standardized mean difference 0.239 and 95% confidence interval (0.109, 0.369))—but independently, based on different predictors. Age predicted infants’ looking responses to unexpected events, but not visually novel events. Habituation predicted infants’ looking responses to visually novel events, but not unexpected events. From these findings, we suggest that conceptual and perceptual novelty independently influence infants’ looking behaviour. Combining results from 76 studies, Kunin et al. find evidence for two distinct drivers of infant looking: the degree to which a stimulus is unexpected and the degree to which it is visually unfamiliar.","PeriodicalId":19074,"journal":{"name":"Nature Human Behaviour","volume":"8 12","pages":"2342-2356"},"PeriodicalIF":21.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nature Human Behaviour","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01965-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Human infants are born with their eyes open and an otherwise limited motor repertoire; thus, studies measuring infant looking are commonly used to investigate the developmental origins of perception and cognition. However, scholars have long expressed concerns about the reliability and interpretation of looking behaviours. We evaluated these concerns using a pre-registered ( https://osf.io/jghc3 ), systematic meta-analysis of 76 published and unpublished studies of infants’ early physical and psychological reasoning (total n = 1,899; 3- to 12-month-old infants; database search and call for unpublished studies conducted July to August 2022). We studied two effects in the same datasets: looking towards expected versus unexpected events (violation of expectation (VOE)) and looking towards visually familiar versus visually novel events (perceptual novelty (PN)). Most studies implemented methods to minimize the risk of bias (for example, ensuring that experimenters were naive to the conditions and reporting inter-rater reliability). There was mixed evidence about publication bias for the VOE effect. Most centrally to our research aims, we found that these two effects varied systematically—with roughly equal effect sizes (VOE, standardized mean difference 0.290 and 95% confidence interval (0.208, 0.372); PN, standardized mean difference 0.239 and 95% confidence interval (0.109, 0.369))—but independently, based on different predictors. Age predicted infants’ looking responses to unexpected events, but not visually novel events. Habituation predicted infants’ looking responses to visually novel events, but not unexpected events. From these findings, we suggest that conceptual and perceptual novelty independently influence infants’ looking behaviour. Combining results from 76 studies, Kunin et al. find evidence for two distinct drivers of infant looking: the degree to which a stimulus is unexpected and the degree to which it is visually unfamiliar.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
感知和概念新奇性独立引导婴儿的观察行为:系统回顾与荟萃分析
人类婴儿出生时眼睛是睁开的,而且运动能力有限;因此,测量婴儿注视行为的研究通常被用来研究感知和认知的发展起源。然而,长期以来,学者们一直对观察行为的可靠性和解释表示担忧。我们对 76 项已发表和未发表的有关婴儿早期生理和心理推理的研究(总人数 = 1,899 人;3-12 个月大的婴儿;数据库搜索和征集未发表研究的时间为 2022 年 7 月至 8 月)进行了预先登记 (https://osf.io/jghc3)、系统性的荟萃分析,对这些担忧进行了评估。我们在同一数据集中研究了两种效应:观察预期事件与意外事件(违反预期 (VOE))以及观察视觉熟悉事件与视觉新奇事件(感知新奇 (PN))。大多数研究都采用了尽量减少偏倚风险的方法(例如,确保实验者对实验条件不了解,并报告评分者之间的可靠性)。关于VOE效应的发表偏倚,证据不一。与我们的研究目标最相关的是,我们发现这两种效应的变化是系统性的--效应大小大致相同(VOE,标准化平均差为 0.290,95% 置信区间为 (0.208,0.372);PN,标准化平均差为 0.239,95% 置信区间为 (0.109,0.369))--但又是独立的,基于不同的预测因素。年龄可以预测婴儿对意外事件的观察反应,但不能预测视觉新奇事件。习惯可以预测婴儿对视觉新奇事件的注视反应,但不能预测意外事件。根据这些研究结果,我们认为概念新颖性和知觉新颖性会独立影响婴儿的注视行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Nature Human Behaviour
Nature Human Behaviour Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
36.80
自引率
1.00%
发文量
227
期刊介绍: Nature Human Behaviour is a journal that focuses on publishing research of outstanding significance into any aspect of human behavior.The research can cover various areas such as psychological, biological, and social bases of human behavior.It also includes the study of origins, development, and disorders related to human behavior.The primary aim of the journal is to increase the visibility of research in the field and enhance its societal reach and impact.
期刊最新文献
Predicting replicability of COVID-19 social science preprints Becoming the ideal woman-of-colour academic for everyone but me Predicting the replicability of social and behavioural science claims in COVID-19 preprints Mutual inclusivity improves decision-making by smoothing out choice’s competitive edge Challenges and promises of big team comparative cognition
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1