Ostensive Cues Orient 10-Month-Olds’ Attention toward the Task But Delay Learning

Rana Esseily, Jacqueline Fagard

Laboratoire Ethologie, Cognition et Développement, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre, La Défense, France.
Laboratoire Psychologie de la Perception, UMR 8158, CNRS-Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France.

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2013.47A003                

Abstract

The aim of this study is to investigate how ostensive cues modify infants’ visual attention to task demonstration, and the extent to which this enhances the performance in an imitative learning task. We hypothesized that ostensive cues would help orient infants’ attention toward relevant parts of the demonstration. We investigated the looking behavior of 41 10-month-old infants while observing an adult demonstrating a novel target action after having either provided ostensive cues or not. Infants’ looking behavior was measured using an eye tracker. Two areas of interest were analyzed: the targeted object and the adult’s face. Infants’ performance after demonstration was also analyzed. The results show that infants’ looking behavior varied across groups. When ostensive cues were not provided, infants looked mainly at the experimenter’s face. However, when ostensive cues were provided, infants oriented their attention toward the targeted object. These results suggest that ostensive cues help infants orient their attention toward task-relevant parts of the scene. Surprisingly, infants in the non-ostensive group improved their performance faster after demonstration than infants in the ostensive group. These results are discussed in terms of a video effect and dissociation between separate cognitive systems for social and non-social cognition.

Keywords

Ostensive Cues; Attention Orientation; Eye Tracking; Imitative Learning

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Barr, R., Dowden, A., & Hayne, H. (1996). Developmental changes in deferred imitation by 6- to 24-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 19, 159-170. doi:10.1016/S0163-6383(96)90015-6
[2]	Barr, R., & Hayne, H. (1999). Developmental changes in imitation from television during infancy. Child Development, 70, 1067-1081. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00079
[3]	Barr, R., Muentener, P., Garcia, A., Fujimoto, M., & Chavez, V. (2007). The effect of repetition on imitation from television during infancy. Developmental Psychobiology, 49, 196-207. doi:10.1002/dev.20208
[4]	Brugger, A., Lariviere, L. A., Mumme, D. L., & Bushnell, E. W. (2007). Doing the right thing: Infants’ selection of actions to imitate from observed event sequences. Child Development, 78, 806-824. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01034.x
[5]	Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs for the Society of Research in Child Development, 63, 1-143. doi:10.2307/1166214
[6]	Carpenter, M., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (2005). 12- and 18-month-olds copy actions in terms of goals. Developmental Science, 8, F13-20. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00385.x
[7]	Claxton, L. J., & Ponto, K. C. (2013). Understanding the properties of interactive televised characters. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34, 57-62. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2012.11.007
[8]	Cohen, A. S. (1977). Components of asymmetrical visual encoding of geometrically transformed scripts. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 44, 755-765. doi:10.2466/pms.1977.44.3.755
[9]	Csibra, G., & Gergely, G. (2009). Natural pedagogy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 148-153. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.005
[10]	Elsner, B., Hauf, P., & Aschersleben, G. (2007). Imitating step by step: A detailed analysis of 9- to 15-month-olds’ reproduction of a three-step action sequence. Infant Behavior and Development, 30, 325-335. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.10.001
[11]	Esseily, R., & Fagard, J. (2012). Influence du statut du modèle sur les capacités d’apprentissage par observation de nouvelles habiletés manuelles: Modèle pair versus modèle adulte. Enfance, 64, 85-96.
[12]	Esseily, R., Nadel, J., & Fagard, J. (2010). Object retrieval through observational learning in 8- to 18-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 33, 695-699. doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2010.07.017
[13]	Esseily, R., Rat-Fischer, L., O’Regan, K., & Fagard, J. (2013). Understanding the experimenter’s intention improves 16-month-olds’ observational learning of the use of a novel tool. Cognitive Development, 28, 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2012.10.001
[14]	Fagard, J. (1998). Changes in grasping skills and the emergence of bimanual coordination during the first year of life. In K. J. Connolly (Ed.), The psychobiology of the hand (Vol. Clinics in Developmental Medicine, pp. 123-143). London: Mac Keith Press.
[15]	Fagard, J., & Lockman, J. J. (2009). Change in imitation for object manipulation between 10 and 12 months of age. Developmental Psychobiology, 52, 90-99.
[16]	Frank, M. C., Vul, E., & Johnson, S. P. (2009). Development of infants’ attention to faces during the first year. Cognition, 110, 160-170. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.010
[17]	Feinman, S., & Lewis, M. (1983). Social referencing at ten-months: A second-order effect on infants’ responses to strangers. Child Development, 54.
[18]	Gelman, R., & Spelke, E. (1981). The development of thoughts about animate and inanimate objects: Implications for research on social cognition. In J. L. Flavell, & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive development (pp. 43-66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[19]	Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Kiràly, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415, 755. doi:10.1038/415755a
[20]	Gergely, G., & Csibra, G. (2006). Sylvia's recipe: The role of imitation and pedagogy in the transmission of cultural knowledge. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
[21]	Henrichs, I., Elsner, C., Elsner, B., & Gredeback, G. (2012). Goal Salience affects infants’ goal-directed gaze shift. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1-7. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00391
[22]	Legerstee, M. (1992). A review on the animate-inanimate distinction in infancy: Implications for models of social and cognitive knowing. Infant and Child Development, 1, 59-67.
[23]	Nielsen, M. (2006). Copying actions and copying outcomes: Social learning through the second year. Developmental Psychology, 42, 555-565. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.555
[24]	Nielsen, M., Simcock, G., & Jenkins, L. (2008). The effect of social engagement on 24-month-olds’ imitation from live and televised models. Developmental Science, 11, 722-731. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00722.x
[25]	Senju, A., & Csibra, G. (2008) Gaze following in human infants depends on communicative signals. Current Biology, 18, 668-671. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.03.059
[26]	Senju, A., Csibra, G., & Johnson, M. H. (2008) Understanding the referential nature of looking: Infants’ preference for object-directed gaze. Cognition, 108, 303-319. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.009
[27]	Southgate, V., Chevallier, C., & Csibra, G. (2009). Sensitivity to communicative relevance tells young children what to imitate. Developmental Science, 12, 1013-1019. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00861.x
[28]	Spelke, E., & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10, 89-96. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00569.x
[29]	Topàl, J., Gergely, G., Miklosi, A., Erdohegyi, á., & Csibra, G. (2008). Infants’ perseverative search errors are induced by pragmatic misinterpretation. Science, 321, 1831-1834. doi:10.1126/science.1161437
[30]	Troseth, G. L., Saylor, M. M., & Archer, A. H. (2006). Young children’s use of video as a source of socially relevant information. Child Development, 77, 786-799. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00903.x
[31]	Zack, E., Barr, R., Gerhardstein, P., Dickerson, K., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2009). Infant imitation from television using novel touch screen technology. Developmental Psychology, 27, 13-26. doi:10.1348/026151008X334700