Video Deficit in Toddlers’ Object Retrieval: What Eye Movements Reveal About Online Cognition

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether toddlers exhibit different eye‐movement patterns when watching real events versus video demonstrations in an object‐retrieval task. Twenty‐four‐month‐olds (N = 36) searched for a sticker on a felt board after watching an experimenter hide it behind a felt object in person or via video. Eye movements during the hiding event were recorded. Compared to those watching in‐person events, children watching video spent more time looking at the target location overall, yet they had relatively poor search performance. Visual attention to the target location predicted search performance in the video condition only; children who watched in‐person hiding events had high success rates even if they paid relatively little visual attention to the correct location. Findings are consistent with the hypothesis that toddlers process information more quickly for in‐person (versus video) events, enabling them to learn as well (or better) despite relatively low selective attention. Thus, relatively poor encoding, as well as memory retrieval, may underlie the video deficit.

Touch or Watch to Learn? Toddlers’ Object Retrieval Using Contingent and Noncontingent Video

“…We predicted that, consistent with previous findings (Kirkorian, Lavigne, et al, 2016;Schmidt et al, 2007;Schmitt & Anderson, 2002;Troseth, 2003), object retrieval in the no-contingency condition would decrease after the first trial because of competition between mental representations, as evidenced by perseveration. Moreover, we expected contingency to increase object-retrieval performance (Kirkorian, Choi, & Pempek, 2016;Lauricella et al, 2010).…”

“…The mental representations that toddlers derive from symbol-mediated experiences (e.g., video) may be weaker than those based on real-world experiences: During object-retrieval tasks, the relatively salient memory of the previous in-person search event is selected over the weaker memory of the video hiding event, resulting in perseveration (Kirkorian, Lavigne, et al, 2016;Schmidt et al, 2007;Schmitt & Anderson, 2002;Troseth, 2003). However, interactivity can improve video-mediated learning (Lauricella et al, 2010;Troseth et al, 2006).…”

“…Two-year-olds were selected on the basis of the age range used in previous video-based object-retrieval studies, and we used the number of participants in these studies to determine our target sample size (Kirkorian, Lavigne, et al, 2016;Lauricella et al, 2010;Schmidt et al, 2007;Schmitt & Anderson, 2002;Suddendorf, 2003;Troseth & DeLoache, 1998). Two-year-olds were selected on the basis of the age range used in previous video-based object-retrieval studies, and we used the number of participants in these studies to determine our target sample size (Kirkorian, Lavigne, et al, 2016;Lauricella et al, 2010;Schmidt et al, 2007;Schmitt & Anderson, 2002;Suddendorf, 2003;Troseth & DeLoache, 1998).…”

“…We used video stimuli (for hiding events) and a corresponding felt board (for search events) that were adapted from those used in prior studies (Kirkorian, Lavigne, et al, 2016;Schmidt et al, 2007). The video stimuli were displayed on a touch-screen tablet computer (10.1-in.…”

“…In this study, instead of an experimenter demonstrating a hiding event (Kirkorian, Lavigne, et al, 2016;Schmidt et al, 2007), the bear on the screen was animated so that the character could talk, move, and hide behind one of the four hiding locations. Thus each child's ability to recall the object's location was based only on video information, rather than on observation of a live experimenter.…”