Visual Perception

Slater, Alan

doi:10.1002/9780470996348.ch1

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 97 publications

(83 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In effect, newborns might be unable to detect a difference between human eyes and other species’ eyes. A low-level-based capacity to detect human eyes would emerge later with the improvements in acuity, contrast sensitivity, and color vision (Slater, 2001). However, this proposal appears inconsistent with our luminance and contrast analysis showing that infants and newborns should be able to discriminate the NonHumanEyes-Face with the HumanEyes-Face (see Figure 1 and Footnote 1).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preference for human eyes in human infants

Dupierrix

Boisferon

Méary

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite evidence supporting an early attraction to human faces, the nature of the face representation in neonates and its development during the first year after birth remain poorly understood. One suggestion is that an early preference for human faces reflects an attraction toward human eyes because human eyes are distinctive compared with other animals. In accord with this proposal, prior empirical studies have demonstrated the importance of the eye region in face processing in adults and infants. However, an attraction for the human eye has never been shown directly in infants. The current study aimed to investigate whether an attraction for human eyes would be present in newborns and older infants. With the use of a preferential looking time paradigm, newborns and 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month-olds were simultaneously presented with a pair of nonhuman primate faces (chimpanzees and Barbary macaques) that differed only by the eyes, thereby pairing a face with original nonhuman primate eyes with the same face in which the eyes were replaced by human eyes. Our results revealed that no preference was observed in newborns, but a preference for nonhuman primate faces with human eyes emerged from 3. months of age and remained stable thereafter. The findings are discussed in terms of how a preference for human eyes may emerge during the first few months after birth. © 2013 The Authors

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preference for human eyes in human infants

Dupierrix

Boisferon

Méary

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With respect to the longitudinal development within the first three months, we expect a significant increase of face-to-face contact in the German sample, in line with previously reported findings from Western middle-class samples (e.g., Adamson, 1995;Reddy et al, 1997). This increase is based on the infant's growing ability to return and maintain facial exchange over the first three months (Slater, 2004). Since face-to-face contact is not emphasized in Nso ethnotheories of parenting (Keller et al, 2002), we do not expect temporal variation in face-to-face contact in the Nso sample.…”

Section: The Culture Of Nso Farmer Familiesmentioning

confidence: 96%

Developing patterns of parenting in two cultural communities

Keller

Borke

Lamm

et al. 2011

International Journal of Behavioral Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is aimed at analyzing verbal and nonverbal strategies in terms of body contact, face-to-face contact, and discourse style during the first three months of life in two cultural communities that have been characterized as embodying different cultural models of parenting: German middle-class, and Nso farmer families. It can be demonstrated that the Nso mothers have significantly higher rates of body contact during the assessments of free-play interactions during the first 12 weeks than the German women. The German women on the other hand demonstrate the expected increase of face-to-face contact, whereas the Nso women demonstrate a significantly lower and stable pattern of face-to-face contact over the assessments. The German mothers use an agentic discourse style, whereas the Nso mothers use a relational discourse style. Moreover, body contact and a relational discourse style form one parenting strategy, whereas face-to-face contact and the agentic discourse style form another parenting strategy. The results demonstrate culture-specific parenting strategies that not only differ with respect to the amount of behaviors expressed, but also the developmental course of particular behaviors. It is also evident that socialization strategies are expressed in different behavioral channels. The role of sociodemographic variables is particularly discussed with respect to their impact for defining sociocultural environments.

show abstract

“…Moreover, they suggested that these abilities are evolutionary in origin, implying that some sort of hereditary mechanism is likely to be involved. Slater (2004) repeated this conclusion in a review of the development of face perception by asserting that even though in utero propioceptive feedback may contribute to newborns’ representation of faces, the in utero experience interacts with “innate evolutionary biases” (p. 21). Although Slater does not specify what he means by innate evolutionary biases, others who practice the strong version of nativism are clear about this.…”

Section: Examples Of a Modern Nativist Approach And Its Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Biological Implausibility of the Nature-Nurture Dichotomy and What It Means for the Study of Infancy

Lewkowicz

2011

Infancy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the time of the Greeks, philosophers and scientists have wondered about the origins of structure and function. Plato proposed that the origins of structure and function lie in the organism's nature whereas Aristotle proposed that they lie in its nurture. This nature/nurture dichotomy and the emphasis on the origins question has had a powerful effect on our thinking about development right into modern times. Despite this, empirical findings from various branches of developmental science have made a compelling case that the nature/nurture dichotomy is biologically implausible and, thus, that a search for developmental origins must be replaced by research into developmental processes. This change in focus recognizes that development is an immensely complex, dynamic, embedded, interdependent, and probabilistic process and, therefore, renders simplistic questions such as whether a particular behavioral capacity is innate or acquired scientifically uninteresting.

show abstract

Visual Perception

Cited by 5 publications

References 97 publications

Preference for human eyes in human infants

Preference for human eyes in human infants

Developing patterns of parenting in two cultural communities

The Biological Implausibility of the Nature-Nurture Dichotomy and What It Means for the Study of Infancy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About