Distinguishing novelty and familiarity effects in infant preference procedures

This paper considers possible problems researchers might face when interpreting the results of studies that employ variants of the preference procedure. Infants show a tendency to shift their preference from familiar to novel stimuli with increasing exposure to the familiar stimulus, a behaviour that is exploited by the habituation paradigm. This change in attentional preference with exposure leads us to suggest that researchers interested in infants' pre-experimental or spontaneous preferences should beware of the potentially confounding effects of exposing infants to familiarization trials prior to employing the preference procedure. The notion that infant attentional preference is dynamic also calls into question the use of the direction of post-familiarization preference per se when interpreting the knowledge or strategies available to infants. We look into the results of a cross-modal word learning study to show how the interpretation of results may be difficult when infants exhibit a significant preference in an unexpected direction. As a possible solution to this problem we propose that significant preferences in both directions should be sought at multiple intervals over time. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  M. Goldsmith,et al.  Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants , 1996 .

[2]  A. Slater,et al.  Visual perception and memory at birth , 1995 .

[3]  E. Spelke,et al.  Object permanence in five-month-old infants , 1985, Cognition.

[4]  J. Shinskey,et al.  On perception of a partially occluded object in 6-month-olds , 1998 .

[5]  B. Roder,et al.  Infants' Preferences for Familiarity and Novelty During the Course of Visual Processing. , 2000, Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies.

[6]  Pattern-line effects and units of visual processing in infants☆ , 1986 .

[7]  R. L. Fantz,et al.  Pattern vision in young infants , 1958 .

[8]  E. W. Ames,et al.  Response to novelty as an indicator of visual discrimination in the human infant , 1964 .

[9]  J. M. Hunt Attentional Preference and Experience: I. Introduction , 1970 .

[10]  R. Bogartz,et al.  Object Permanence in Five-and-a-Half-Month-Old Infants? , 2000, Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies.

[11]  K. Hirsh-Pasek,et al.  Running head: THE 3-D INTERMODAL PARADIGM Introducing the 3-D Intermodal Preferential Looking Paradigm: A New Method to Answer an Age-Old Question , 1998 .

[12]  Olivier Pascalis,et al.  Recognition Memory and Novelty Preference: What Model? , 2003 .

[13]  E. Spelke Infants' intermodal perception of events , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  E. Spelke,et al.  Perception of partly occluded objects in infancy , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  K. Hirsh-Pasek,et al.  The eyes have it: lexical and syntactic comprehension in a new paradigm , 1987, Journal of Child Language.

[16]  Ruxandra Sireteanu,et al.  Texture segmentation and visual search based on orientation contrast: An infant study with the familiarization-novelty preference method☆ , 1994 .

[17]  E. N. Solokov Perception and the conditioned reflex , 1963 .

[18]  Donald J. Tyrrell,et al.  Perception of abstract identity/difference relationships by infants , 1991 .

[19]  E. W. Ames,et al.  A multifactor model of infant preferences for novel and familiar stimuli. , 1988 .

[20]  K Plunkett,et al.  Rapid word learning by fifteen-month-olds under tightly controlled conditions. , 1998, Child development.

[21]  R. Bogartz THE CRITERION METHOD: SOME ANALYSES AND REMARKS. , 1965, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  E. N. Sokolov,et al.  Perception and the Conditioned Reflex , 1965 .

[23]  P. Jusczyk,et al.  Infants′ Detection of the Sound Patterns of Words in Fluent Speech , 1995, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  L. Cohen,et al.  Eight-month-old infants' perception of possible and impossible events , 1998 .

[25]  Alan Slater,et al.  Intermodal perception at birth: Intersensory redundancy guides newborn infants’ learning of arbitrary auditory−visual pairings , 1999 .

[26]  J. Kagan,et al.  Individual Differences in the Infant's Distribution of Attention to Stimulus Discrepancy. , 1970 .

[27]  Thomas H. Schilling,et al.  Infants' Looking at Possible and Impossible Screen Rotations: The Role of Familiarization. , 2000, Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies.