Location memory in healthy preterm and full-term infants

Wilcox, Teresa; Nadel, Lynn; Rosser, Rosemary A.

doi:10.1016/s0163-6383(96)90031-4

Cited by 73 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Aguiar & Baillargeon, 1999;Hespos & Baillargeon, 2001b;Luo & Baillargeon, in press;Wilcox et al, 1996). As such, the present results provide support for the prediction, derived from the reasoning account presented in the Introduction, that young infants should be able to detect any continuity violation, in any event category, as long as it involves only the basic information they can represent.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Aguiar & Baillargeon, 1999Baillargeon & DeVos, 1991;Hespos & Baillargeon, 2001a,b;Luo & Baillargeon, in press, 2004;Wilcox, 1999;Wilcox & Chapa, 2004;Wilcox et al, 1996). The present research brought to light several additional examples involving other event categories.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

“…In order to detect the violation that occurs when an object fails to appear between two occluders (e.g. Aguiar & Baillargeon, 1999;Luo & Baillargeon, in press;Wilcox et al, 1996), or when an object that has been lowered inside a container is revealed when the container is slid aside (e.g. Hespos & Baillargeon, 2001a), infants need only represent the basic information about the objects present, their open/closed surfaces, and their spatial arrangement over time.…”

Section: Basic and Variable Continuity Violationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the one hand, (1) 2.5-month-old infants are surprised when an object disappears behind one occluder and reappears from behind another occluder without appearing in the gap between them (Aguiar & Baillargeon, 1999;Luo & Baillargeon, in press;Wilcox, Nadel, & Rosser, 1996); (2) 2.5-month-old infants are surprised when an object is lowered inside a container through its closed top (Hespos & Baillargeon, 2001b); and (3) 2.5-month-old infants are surprised when an object that has been lowered inside a container is revealed when the container is slid aside (Hespos & Baillargeon, 2001b). On the other hand, (1) infants less than 3.5 months of age are not surprised when a tall object becomes hidden behind a short occluder (Aguiar & Baillargeon, 2002;Baillargeon & DeVos, 1991); (2) infants less than 7.5 months of age are not surprised when two objects, identical except for pattern (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Detecting continuity violations in infancy: a new account and new evidence from covering and tube events

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research on infants' responses to occlusion and containment events indicates that, although some violations of the continuity principle are detected at an early age e.g. Aguiar, A., & Baillargeon, R. (1999). 2.5-month-old infants' reasoning about when objects should and should not be occluded. The present research focused on events involving covers or tubes, and brought to light additional examples of early and late successes in infants' ability to detect continuity violations. In Experiment 1, 2.5-to 3-month-old infants were surprised (1) when a cover was lowered over an object, slid to the right, and lifted to reveal no object; and (2) when a cover was lowered over an object, slid behind the left half of a screen, lifted above the screen, moved to the right, lowered behind the right half of the screen, slid past the screen, and finally lifted to reveal the object. In Experiments 2 and 3, 9-and 11-month-old infants were not surprised when a short cover was lowered over a tall object until it became fully hidden; only 12-month-old infants detected this violation. Finally, in Experiment 4, 9-, 12-, and 13-month-old infants were not surprised when a tall object was lowered inside a short tube until it became fully hidden; only 14-month-old infants detected this violation. A new account of infants' physical reasoning attempts to make sense of all of these results. New research directions suggested by the account are also discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 51%

Section: Basic and Variable Continuity Violationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Detecting continuity violations in infancy: a new account and new evidence from covering and tube events

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, although 2.5-month-old infants recognize that an object continues to exist after it becomes hidden behind an occluder (e.g. Aguiar & Baillargeon, 1999;Spelke et al, 1992;Wilcox, Nadel, & Rosser, 1996), they are very poor at predicting when an object behind an occluder should be hidden, how soon an object should reappear from behind an occluder, or how long an object should take to cross an opening in an occluder (e.g. Arterberry, 1997;Aguiar & Baillargeon, 2002;Baillargeon & Devos, 1991;Baillargeon & Graber, 1987;Baillargeon & Luo, 2002;Hespos & Baillargeon, 2001a;Luo & Baillargeon, 2005a;Oakes & Cohen, 1995a;Spelke et al, 1995a;Wilcox, 1999;Wilcox & Schweinle, 2003).…”

Section: Young Infants' Responses To Occlusion Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When the ordinary seems unexpected: evidence for incremental physical knowledge in young infants

Luo

Baillargeon

2005

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to a recent account of infants' acquisition of their physical knowledge, the incrementalknowledge account, infants form distinct event categories, such as occlusion, containment, support, and collision events. In each category, infants identify one or more vectors which correspond to distinct problems that must be solved. For each vector, infants acquire a sequence of variables that enables them to predict outcomes within the vector more and more accurately over time. This account predicts that infants who have acquired only a few of the variables in a sequence should err in two ways in violation-of-expectation tasks: (1) they should view impossible events consistent with their incomplete knowledge as expected (errors of omission), and (2) they should view possible events inconsistent with their incomplete knowledge as unexpected (errors of commission). Many reports have shown that infants who have not yet identified a variable in an event category produce errors of omission: they fail to view impossible events involving the variable as unexpected. However, there has been no report revealing errors of commission in infants' responses to possible events. The present research examined whether 3-and 2.5-monthold infants, whose knowledge of occlusion events is very limited, would produce errors of commission as well as errors of omission when responding to these events. At 3 months of age, infants viewed as unexpected a possible event in which a tall cylinder became visible when passing behind a tall screen with a very large opening extending from its upper edge. At 2.5 months, infants viewed as unexpected a possible event in which a tall cylinder became visible when passing behind a tall screen with a very large opening extending from its lower edge. These findings provide a new kind of evidence for the incremental-knowledge account, and more generally for the notion that infants, like older children and adults, engage in rule-based reasoning about physical events. KeywordsRule-based reasoning in infancy; Occlusion events; Errors of omission and commission

show abstract

Preterm Birth and the Development of Visual Attention During the First 2 Years of Life

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Preterm birth is associated with an increased risk for long-lasting attention deficits.Early-life markers of attention abnormalities have not been established to date but could provide insights into the pathogenesis of attention abnormalities and could help identify susceptible individuals.OBJECTIVE To examine whether preterm birth is associated with visual attention impairments in early life, and if so, in which attention functions and at which developmental period during the first 2 years of life.DATA SOURCES PubMed and PsycINFO were searched on November 17, 2019, to identify studies involving visual attention outcomes in infants born preterm vs full term. STUDY SELECTION Peer-reviewed studies from the past 50 years met the eligibility criteria if they directly assessed visual attention outcomes until the age of 2 years in generally healthy infants born preterm or full term. The selection process was conducted by 2 independent reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISThe Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guideline was followed. Random-effects models were used to determine standardized mean differences. The risk of bias was assessed both within and between studies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Five nascent indices of visual attention were analyzed,including very basic functions-namely, the abilities to follow and fixate on visual targets-and more complex functions, such as visual processing (ie, habituation), recognition memory (ie, novelty preference), and the ability to effortfully focus attention for learning. RESULTS A total of 53 studies were included, with 69 effect sizes and assessing a total of 3998 infants (2047 born preterm and 1951 born full term; of the 3376 for whom sex was reported, 1693 [50.1%] were girls). Preterm birth was associated with impairments in various attention indices, including visual-following in infancy (Cohen d, −0.77; 95% CI, −1.23 to −0.31), latency to fixate (Cohen d, −0.18; 95% CI, −0.33 to −0.02), novelty preference (Cohen d, −0.20; 95% CI, −0.32 to −0.08), and focused attention (Cohen d, −0.28; 95% CI, −0.45 to −0.11). In the neonatal period, preterm birth was associated with superior visual-following (Cohen d, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.40), possibly owing to the additional extrauterine exposure to sensory stimulation. However, this early association waned rapidly in infancy (Cohen d, -0.77; 95% CI, -1.23 to -0.31). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe findings suggest that preterm birth is associated with impingements to visual attention development in early life, as manifested in basic and then complex (continued) Key Points Question Is preterm birth associated with visual attention impairments in early life, and if so, in which attention functions? Findings This systematic review and meta-analysis of 53 studies including 2047 preterm-born and 1951 full-termborn neonates and infants found that preterm birth was significantly associated with impairments in visual attention functioning. Despite a shortterm advantage in visual-following in...

show abstract

Location memory in healthy preterm and full-term infants

Cited by 73 publications

References 25 publications

Detecting continuity violations in infancy: a new account and new evidence from covering and tube events

Detecting continuity violations in infancy: a new account and new evidence from covering and tube events

When the ordinary seems unexpected: evidence for incremental physical knowledge in young infants

Preterm Birth and the Development of Visual Attention During the First 2 Years of Life

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About