Novelty responding and behavioral development in young, developmentally delayed children

Mundy, Peter; Seibert, Jeffrey M.; Hogan, Anne; Fagan, Joseph F.

doi:10.1016/0160-2896(83)90026-0

Cited by 20 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This tenet of the model was supported by the observation that the TD cognitive group of children, defined by higher Bayley Infant MDI scores at 18 months, displayed higher frequencies of joint attention behaviors across ages than did the AARD group, defined by significantly lower 18‐month Bayley MDI scores. Research suggests that these group differences may have occurred because joint attention is affected to some extent by basic cognitive processes such as representation, memory, speed of information processing, learning, and response inhibition (e.g., Bates et al, 1979; Mundy et al, 1984; Nichols et al, 2005; Smith & Ulvund, 2003). Work by Landry, Miller‐Loncar, and Smith (2002) also suggests that differences in cognitive level may be associated with a passive versus active interactive style that may affect the frequency of expression of social‐communication bids in children.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research suggests that these group differences may have occurred because joint attention is affected to some extent by basic cognitive processes such as representation, memory, speed of information processing, learning, and response inhibition (e.g., Bates et al, 1979;Mundy et al, 1984;Nichols et al, 2005;Smith & Ulvund, 2003). Work by Landry, Miller-Loncar, and Smith (2002) also suggests that differences in cognitive level may be associated with a passive versus active interactive style that may affect the frequency of expression of socialcommunication bids in children.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, protoimperatives and protodeclaratives may be viewed as the expressions of aspects of early representational development in social interactions (Bates et al, 1979;Leslie & Happe, 1989). Moreover, measures of joint attention and related skills have been observed to be associated with infant novelty responding and visual information processing ability (Mundy, Seibert, & Hogan, 1984), as well as IQ (Smith & Ulvund, 2003). Thus, this model suggests that all four dimensions of infant joint attention illustrated in Figure 1 should primarily share and reflect a common source of cognitive variance in early development.…”

Section: Nih-pa Author Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Individual Differences and the Development of Joint Attention in Infancy

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the development of joint attention in 95 infants assessed between 9 and 18 months of age. Infants displayed significant test -retest reliability on measures of following gaze and gestures (responding to joint attention, RJA) and in their use of eye contact to establish social attention coordination (initiating joint attention, IJA). Infants displayed a linear, increasing pattern of age-related growth on most joint attention measures. However, IJA was characterized by a significant cubic developmental pattern. Infants with different rates of cognitive development exhibited different frequencies of joint attention acts at each age, but did not exhibit different agerelated patterns of development. Finally, 12-month RJA and 18-month IJA predicted 24-month language after controlling for general aspects of cognitive development.The human capacity for social attention coordination has been referred to as joint attention (Bakeman & Adamson, 1984;Bruner & Sherwood, 1983). Different behavioral manifestations of joint attention begin to emerge in the first 6 months of life (D'Entremont, Hains, & Muir, 1997;Farroni, Massaccesi, & Francesca, 2002;Morales, Mundy, & Rojas, 1998) and continue to develop at least through 3 years of age (Adamson, Bakeman, & Dekner, 2004;Carpenter, Nagell, & Tomasello, 1998). These different infant joint attention behaviors may be used for declarative and instrumental-imperative functions (Bates, Benigni, Bretherton, Camaioni, & Volterra, 1979), as well as to initiate or respond to bids in interactions with social partners (Seibert, Hogan, & Mundy, 1982).Various labels have been used to refer to these behavioral dimensions of infant joint attention (Carpenter et al., 1998). Here we adopt the nomenclature initially suggested by Seibert et al. (1982) that is currently widely used in the research literature as well as in multidimensional assessments of early social communication development (e.g., Fidler, Philofsky, Hepburn, & Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Peter Mundy, University of Miami, 5665 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Coral Gables, FL 33146. Electronic mail may be sent to pmundy@miami.edu. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptChild Dev. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 March 11. Published in final edited form as:Child Dev. 2007 ; 78(3): 938-954. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01042.x. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript Rogers, 2005;Henderson, Yoder, Yale, & McDuffie, 2002;Laing et al., 2002; Lord et al., 2002;Mundy, Sigman, Kasari, & Yirmiya, 1988;Smith & Ulvund, 2003;Wetherby, Allen, Cleary, Kublin, & Goldstein, 2002). Accordingly, responding to joint attention (RJA) refers to the ability to follow the direction of gaze and gestures of others, initiating joint attention (IJA) refers to the ability to use direction of gaze and gestures to direct the attention of others to spontaneously share experiences, initiating behavior regulation/requests (IBR) refers to the ability to use gaze and gestures to...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Nih-pa Author Manuscriptmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Individual Differences and the Development of Joint Attention in Infancy

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Concerning reliability, Bornstein and Benasich's (in press) recent review documents the reliability of habituation. Aggregating over four sets of conditions in two separate studies, we can similarly calculate the mean test-retest reliability of recovery to be 0.46 (Bornstein & Benasich, in press;Fagan & McGrath, 1981; see also Mundy, Seibert, Hogan, & Fagan, 1983). Aggregating over four sets of conditions in two separate studies, we can similarly calculate the mean test-retest reliability of recovery to be 0.46 (Bornstein & Benasich, in press;Fagan & McGrath, 1981; see also Mundy, Seibert, Hogan, & Fagan, 1983).…”

Section: The Question Of Continuity In Cognitive Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continuity in Mental Development from Infancy

Bornstein¹,

Sigman²

1986

Child Development

341

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this essay we document moderate continuity in mental development beginning in infancy and extending into childhood. Psychological opinion in the past has tended to favor discontinuity theories of cognitive development from infancy. In recent years, however, the foundations on which discontinuity positions were originally established have themselves come under question and new findings grounded in new assessment procedures have appeared, necessitating revision of opinion on this significant psychological and developmental issue. Our essay has several aims. We first review briefly the bases for contemporary discontinuity theories of mental development. Second, we present current findings that support the alternative proposition of continuity: Recent research demonstrates that infants who more efficiently encode visual stimuli or more efficiently recollect visual or auditory stimuli tend to perform more proficiently on traditional psychometric assessments of intelligence and language during childhood. Third, we scrutinize the assessment methods from which these continuity results derive. Fourth, we offer several models that help to explain the continuity findings. Fifth, we discuss critically the origins and the maintenance of continuity in mental development as it is coming to be conceptualized currently. Finally, we reflect on implications of continuity for the future of infant assessments specifically and for theories of early mental development generally.

show abstract

“…It is a challenge to understand how infants master language so quickly. Although it has long been clear that language learning depends on social interactions (Mundy, Seibert, Hogan, & Fagan, 1983), as well as phonological and lexical coding, more recently, it has been suggested that language also depends on domain‐general cognitive processes (Bloom, 1993; Hollich, Hirsh‐Pasek, & Golinkoff, 2000). In this view, rather than being a completely modular system involving processes and rules specific to language alone (Pinker, 1994), language is seen as drawing on a set of processes shared with other realms of cognition (Bates, 1994; Fernald, Perfors, & Marchman, 2006; Hollich et al, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Cognitive Approach to the Development of Early Language

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A controversial issue in the field of language development is whether language emergence and growth is dependent solely on processes specifically tied to language or could also depend on basic cognitive processes that affect all aspects of cognitive competence (domain-general processes). The present article examines this issue using a large battery of infant information-processing measures of memory, representational competence, processing speed, and attention, many of which have been shown to predict general cognition in a cohort of full-terms and preterms. Results showed that various aspects of infant memory and representational competence (a) related to language at both 12 and 36 months, (b) predicted similarly for the two groups, and (c) predicted 36-month language, independently of birth status, 12-month language, and the 12-month Bayley Mental Development Index. Additionally, the results established predictive validity for the MacArthur 12-month language measure. These findings support a domain-general view of language.

show abstract

Novelty responding and behavioral development in young, developmentally delayed children

Cited by 20 publications

References 13 publications

Individual Differences and the Development of Joint Attention in Infancy

Individual Differences and the Development of Joint Attention in Infancy

Continuity in Mental Development from Infancy

A Cognitive Approach to the Development of Early Language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About