Biological motion preference in humans at birth: role of dynamic and configural properties.

The present study addresses the hypothesis that detection of biological motion is an intrinsic capacity of the visual system guided by a non-species-specific predisposition for the pattern of vertebrate movement and investigates the role of global vs. local information in biological motion detection. Two-day-old babies exposed to a biological motion point-light display (depicting a walking hen) and a non-biological motion display (a rotating rigid object) preferentially looked at the biological display (Experiment 1). A new group of newborns showed themselves to be capable of discriminating, following habituation, a biological motion display from a spatially scrambled version of it (Experiment 2). However, a third group of newborns, at their first exposure to such displays, did not show any preference between them (Experiment 3). Results confirm and extend previous comparative and developmental data, supporting an inborn predisposition to attend to biological motion in humans. This ability is presumably part of an evolutionarily ancient and non-species-specific system predisposing animals to preferentially attend to other animals.

[1]  Joan López-Moliner,et al.  Motion signal and the perceived positions of moving objects. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[2]  G. Horn,et al.  Development of filial preferences in dark-reared chicks , 1988, Animal Behaviour.

[3]  Irene Leo,et al.  Newborns' face recognition: role of inner and outer facial features. , 2006, Child development.

[4]  Irene Leo,et al.  Perceptual completion in newborn human infants. , 2006, Child development.

[5]  G. Vallortigara,et al.  Visual perception of biological motion in newly hatched chicks as revealed by an imprinting procedure , 2000, Animal Cognition.

[6]  J E Cutting,et al.  Masking the motions of human gait , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  Mark H Johnson,et al.  Biological Motion: A Perceptual Life Detector? , 2006, Current Biology.

[8]  C. Frith,et al.  Interacting minds--a biological basis. , 1999, Science.

[9]  Giorgio Vallortigara,et al.  Visually Inexperienced Chicks Exhibit Spontaneous Preference for Biological Motion Patterns , 2005, PLoS biology.

[10]  J. Cutting,et al.  Recognizing the sex of a walker from a dynamic point-light display , 1977 .

[11]  C. Umilta,et al.  Face preference at birth. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  Sung Jun Joo,et al.  The attentional blink does not disrupt computation of the mean size , 2010 .

[13]  A. Lee,et al.  What's in a face? The case of autism. , 1988, British journal of psychology.

[14]  R. Fox,et al.  The perception of biological motion by human infants. , 1982, Science.

[15]  A. Slater,et al.  Locus of Habituation in the Human Newborn , 1983, Perception.

[16]  S. Runeson,et al.  Visual perception of lifted weight. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  Randolph Blake,et al.  Visual Recognition of Biological Motion is Impaired in Children With Autism , 2003, Psychological science.

[18]  Eric Hiris,et al.  Detection of biological and nonbiological motion. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[19]  Giorgio Vallortigara,et al.  Gravity bias in the interpretation of biological motion by inexperienced chicks , 2006, Current Biology.

[20]  F. Simion,et al.  A predisposition for biological motion in the newborn baby , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Looking ahead: the perceived direction of gaze shifts before the eyes move. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[22]  Jillian E. Hardee,et al.  The first time ever I saw your face , 2008, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[23]  W. Dittrich.  Action Categories and the Perception of Biological Motion , 1993, Perception.

[24]  F. D. Horowitz,et al.  An Infant Control Procedure for Studying Infant Visual Fixations. , 1972 .

[25]  Rp Hobson,et al.  Components of person perception: An investigation with autistic, non‐autistic retarded and typically developing children and adolescents , 1997 .

[26]  B. Bertenthal,et al.  Infant sensitivity to figural coherence in biomechanical motions. , 1984, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[27]  T. Shipley.  The Effect of Object and Event Orientation on Perception of Biological Motion , 2003, Psychological science.

[28]  A. Klin,et al.  Two-year-olds with autism orient to nonsocial contingencies rather than biological motion , 2009, Nature.

[29]  C. Umilta,et al.  Dominance of global visual properties at birth. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[30]  G. Johansson.  Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis , 1973 .

[31]  D R Proffitt,et al.  Perception of biomechanical motions by infants: implementation of various processing constraints. , 1987, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  Dorita H. F. Chang,et al.  Acceleration carries the local inversion effect in biological motion perception. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[33]  Carlo Umiltà,et al.  Configural Processing at Birth: Evidence for Perceptual Organisation , 2000, Perception.

[34]  Dorita H. F. Chang,et al.  Characterizing global and local mechanisms in biological motion perception. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[35]  O J Braddick,et al.  ‘Where’ and ‘What’ in Visual Search , 1989, Perception.

[36]  Dorita H. F. Chang,et al.  Perception of animacy and direction from local biological motion signals. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[37]  N. Troje,et al.  The Inversion Effect in Biological Motion Perception: Evidence for a “Life Detector”? , 2006, Current Biology.

[38]  L. Regolin,et al.  Faces are special for newly hatched chicks: evidence for inborn domain-specific mechanisms underlying spontaneous preferences for face-like stimuli. , 2009, Developmental science.

[39]  M. Behrmann,et al.  Seeing it differently: visual processing in autism , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.