Typical and Atypical Development - Autumn Term PDF

Preview

Summary

Compulsory Module for 2nd years
Various Teachers
Lecture notes with additional spoken notes ...

Description

Typical and Atypical Development

Week 1 - Perceptual Development What can an infant perceive at birth and what effect does this have on development? Perceptual Development takes place through the 5 senses. As a newborn, you rely on hearing smell and touch the most whereas we would rely on sight the most. VISION Newborn vision is poorly developed- their visual acuity is limited. Until 8 weeks, infants see objects 30cm away most clearly. Therefore, they can only really see the mother/carer and food clearly - The necessities. ‘Is this 1 object? How far is it?’ Object and Depth Perception develops with age and babies use different types of cues for to aid this1. Motion Spelke & Hermer 1996 – at 4-5 weeks, babies blink at an object moving towards their face. However, still at 4 months, they respond to 2 objects as if they were 1. 2. Binocular Depth CuesAt 2-3 months, infants start to react to the fact that images from the 2 eyes differ. 3. Pictorial Depth CuesThe last to develop in a baby (3-9 months) Overlapping lines and objects masking other objects 4. Shape/Colour/TextureBecome prominent for distinguishing objects at around 4 months. Errors of Scale DeLoache, Uttal & Rosengren (2013) 18 to 30 month old infants will make errors of scale. Children were allowed to play with full size toys; a slide, a child’s chair and a child size toy car. Children were then presented with miniature versions of the same toys. Results showed that the children would try to reenact the same actions with the miniature toys, i.e. sit on the mini chair and try to get into the small car. Why? The child perceives a car - everything he knows about cars is activated. The child perceives that the car is too small, but somehow they fail to put this information together with the information regarding what you can do with a car (enter it) - and this last take precedence.

Video clips from Glover, 2004

Typical and Atypical Development

TASTE Infants can detect bitter, sour and sweet tastes at birth. Salty tastes are not developed at birth- but sensitivity to it is shown at 3-4 months.  Due to the development of the salt receptor. Mennella, Jagnow & Beauchamp (2001) An experiment to see if infants can taste prior to birth. Mothers who were going to breastfeed were assigned to one of 3 groups

WC

3rd Trimester Pregnancy Drink Carrot Juice – 300ml 4 days a week for 3 weeks Water

WW

Water

Group CW

Breastfeeding Drink Water Carrot Juice 4 days a week for 3 weeks Water

Infants were then tested at 5-6 months old for their preference for a carrot-based cereal Infants were coded for negative facial expression and taste preference whilst eating cereal. If infants develop taste postnatally- WC would show effects. But if infants develop taste prenatally – both CW and WC would show effects. ResultsInfants whose mothers had taken carrot juice during pregnancy (CW) showed sig less negative facial responses while eating carrot flavoured cereal + sig greater liking for carrot flavoured cereal. There was a similar trend for infant exposed to carrot-juice during breastfeeding (WC). PA- Flavour exposure can improve dietary outcomes- prevent fussy eating (Cooke & Fildes 2011) SMELL The sense of smell is developed in very young infants – Delaunay-El Allam, Marlier & Schaal, 2006) Coffield, Mayhew, Haviland-Jones & Walker-Andrews 2014 Tested 36 6-7 month old infants’ levels of distress and attention when watching videos showing a women expressing either happiness or sadness. Normally a child won’t want to look at sadness. Infants were placed into 1 of 2 conditions1. No odour condition 2. Odour (pine or baby talc) condition Does smell affect emotion?

Typical and Atypical Development

Infants in the odour condition looked longer overall and looked longer to sad. Odour prevented the usual stressful effects of sad mood- children paid attention to the video longer. HEARING In the last 10-12 weeks of pregnancy, the foetus can hear sounds. At birth, there is preference for complex sounds (voices/noises) to pure tones. At 3 days, infants turn their eyes towards a sound, but their ability to identify the specific location over time. Jordan & Brannon (2006) They asked whether infants are able to match the sound of a number of people speaking to a visual cue showing different numbers of people. 7 month old infants- saw a pair of videos1. 2 women said the word ‘look’. 2. 3 women said the word ‘look’. The infants looking time at each of the paired videos was measured. Infants spent significantly longer looking at the stimuli in which the number of women they saw and heard matched.  This suggests that infants can analyse speech to determine how many people are talking and can match numbers across modalitites. MULTISENSORY DEVELOPMENT- VISION & TOUCH San & Streri (2007) Aimed to explore cross-model transfer between vision and touch. Habituated new-born infants (41 hours old) to either a particular shape or texture. Infants touched one of these objects without seeing them unit they became bored (habituated to) the object. 2 conditionsVT – saw the object and then touched it. TV- Touched it and then saw the object. They found that after tactile habituation (touch), infants were able to recognise the shape and texture of objects visually. – TV After visual habituation, they were able to recognise texture in the tactile modality. – VT = bi-directionality of cross-modal transfer for textures. They were not about to generalise knowledge of shape from the visual to the tactile modality =lack of bi-directionality in cross-modal transfer for shapes.

Typical and Atypical Development

These studies suggest that infants are able to use their vision to match to both touch and hearing in early development. INTERPRETATIONSPiaget- lack of connections between sensory systems at birth – separist view. Gibson- slow differentiation from initially connect sensory systems over development – unification view.

Typical and Atypical Development

Week 2- Development of Autobiographical Memory Autobiographical Memory- specific, personal and long-lasting memory regarding the self. Infantile Amnesia- the inability to remember events from the first 2-3 years of life. Recognition Memory- the realisation that some perceptually present stimulus/event has been encountered before (cue) Recall Memory- the retrieval of some past stimulus/event that is not perceptually present. (no cue) How do we test recall memory in adults/infants? Adults- List of words, stories Infants- Habituation memory Tasks/ recognition memory Memory in Young Infants Meltzoff (1995) Used deferred imitation to test recall memory in infants. This involves imitation of a model observed some time in the past. 14 month old infants were split into 2 conditions1. Group 1 watched 2. Group 2 watched and imitated Both groups reproduced actions 2 and 4 months later, but the number of acts reproduced was significantly less than on immediate recall  Findings have recently been reproduced using younger infants. Even v. young infants can recall single experiences. Episodic vs Autobiographic Memory Episodic – knowing where, what when for past experiences Autobiographic- awareness of the self having experienced the past (autonoetic conscoussness)- sense of personal history. Does Episodic Memory = Autobiographic memory? The Role of Language & Social Environment 1. An individual in a culture develops a ‘shared representation’ of reality that gives structure to experience. e.g. what is appropriate and non-appropriate? How may culture influence autobiographical & episodic memory?

Typical and Atypical Development

1. We reconstruct our memory as we reminisce- memory is not fixed, and is always changing depending on the meaning we attribute to the experience e.g. EWT  Even adolescents and adults can report false memory if submitted to biased questions. How will children fare in Eye witnessing? 1. Language and Narratives give shape to autobiographical memory as we express it. Language categories and schemes gives form to the past events we recall. Language also allows people to share experience with each other. Is memory always in linguistic form? How is memory in linguistic form different from other forms of memory?

Mental Timeline - A personal timeline links past experiences together with a feeling of self having experienced those experiences- a sense of self as the experiencer. Fivush 2011, proposes that language and culture helps to build this representation, and this representation is what distinguishes our memory for that of animals. Language and Mother Scaffolding Why does infant memory improve with age? – Language of the Mother

Week 3- Development of Face Perception

Typical and Atypical Development

Social Cognition- encoding, storage, retrieval and processing of information relating to conspecifics. (Conspecific- a member of the same species) Linked to Theory of Mind & Perceiving Emotion How does the ability to recognise faces emerge? 1. Evolutionary Innate template of the human face, predisposing us to good human perception. or 2. Experiential We learn to see faces as faces; develop this ability throughout life. To distinguish between these hypotheses; investigate face processing in newborns. Early studies of Infant Face Perception Fantz 1961, 1963Showed infants different panels all matched for contrasta. Symmetrical Face b. Face with features jumbled c. 2 tone (no face) The results showed that at even 4 days old, infants preferred A to B & C.  But do they like A just because it’s symmetrical or because it’s actually a face?... Studies have shown that infants prefer well-established preferences- High contrast patters, moderate complexity, symmetry Therefore these factors need to be controlled when investigating whether infants recognise faces; this will rule out potential confounding variables… Maurer and Barrera 1981 (an improvement) The static stimuli were matched for a number of elements, symmetry and external contour. Results 1 month olds would look at all stimuli for a mean of 20 secs.  2 month olds would look at normal faces for a mean of 80 secs, whilst a non symmetrical face was only looked at for 40 secs. Only 2 month olds prefer faces, not 1 month olds. Researchers started to look at whether infants will track the stimuli; do they follow movements? Johnson & Morton (1991) – (a replication of Goren, Sarty & Wu 1975) Newborns (average age 37 mins)! Shown panels of normal face, scrambled face and blank. Their eye and head rotation was measured in relation to the movement of the panel. Newborns showed a preference to a face panel.

Typical and Atypical Development

When looked at 3 or 5 month old, they showed no significant difference (only newborns and 1 month olds). In summaryAt birth- preference to moving stimuli (Maurer and Barrera 1981). At 2 months - preference to static images (Johnson and Morton 1991). Infants track faces further than other stimuli at birth, up to 3 months old.Infants look for longer at static faces than other stimuli after 2 months old. This can be explained 2 different mechanisms mediating face processing. Conspec- mediates tracking Innate template that directs attention to faces. Conlern- mediates looking to static faces. Develops through learning.  We can assume that Conspec trains the infant up to Conlern. Therefore, evolutionary and experiential hypotheses may both be partly true. Expertise Effects (Conlern) Is Conlern experience driven? If so, we should build representations only for the range of stimuli which we encounter, and demonstrate superior processing of these. Pascalis et al 2002Showed 6 month olds and Adults a picture of a monkey and face and novel monkey and novel face. Then measured looking time at each picture. Adults looked at the novel face longer than the normal face but the same amount of time for both monkey faces – shows experience in face processing of humans. In 6 month olds, they looked at both types of novel faces longer than the normal faces. Also found that 6 month olds discriminate equally well between human faces and monkey faces but at 9 months, they discriminate human faces better. Sangrigoli and deSchonen (2004) Looked into face recognition of French (Caucasian) and Asian faces. 3-5 year olds shown a set of faces. They were then asked whether they had to seen the photo before (novel vs. familiar) Results showed that the children recognised their own race better. Sangrioli, Pallier et al (2005)- Other-Race Effect Looked into expertise effects of adoptees for the same study. Adoptees (from Korea) were better at discriminating the French.

Typical and Atypical Development

= Strong support for experiential nature of effect

Diamond & Carey 1986 Showed dog and bird breeders showed similar recognition (better for the animal they breed) with dogs and birds as with humans. Gauthier et al 2000 And even with cars!! They found that the same brain areas are activated when car experts observe cars and bird experts observe birds. There demonstrations of similar expertise effects with non-face stimuli. This suggests that Conlern may learn perceptual representations of any stimuli – it is just about experience. Please note- the stimulus generality of these mechanisms is controversial. Kanwisher 2010- believes that faces are special and that is down to the lack of technology. If fMRIs were better, you could pinpoint an area that responds to faces.

Week 4- Development of Imitation and Action Understanding

Typical and Atypical Development

Imitation An individual observes and replicates another’s behaviour.  Imitation (and mimicry) are common social behaviours.  Other animals also imitate, but not to the same extent as humans (only humans show ‘over-imitation’.  Kids over-imitate their parents Perceptually Transparent Action – when you imitate someone else doing an action and you can see yourself doing it – e.g. waving Perceptually Opaque Actions- aren’t guided by sensory information on the degree of similarity between the model’s and the observer’s behaviour e.g. facial expressions. Instead it requires a neurocognitive mechanism. Mapping of own’s body- how is it linked to others? 1. Evolutionary- innate mechanism that matched observed action onto executed. or 2. Experiential- we learn to match our expression to those of another. Test on Newborns- can they imitate at birth? Meltzoff & Moore 1997 Present 3 facial gestures- mouth widening, lips pursing, tongue protrusion & control (neutral) Newborns are shown behaviour via adult. This is videoed and a panel of judges’ rate offline (video scoring), whether infants imitated the face. The study claimed to show imitation of these gestures. THE ACTIVE INTERMODEL MAPPING (AIM) MODEL – look up* The AIM hypothesis links the infant’s perception of adult action with the infant’s own motor acts via the Supramodel Representation system. 3 systems- Perceptual System, Supramodel Representation System & Action System 1. Perceptual System Infants will see an adult making an expression 2. Supramodel Representation System Subcomponents represent and compare organ relations (mappings) between the external target and infant. 3. Action System Will go round in a cycle until mappings are matched and action can occur. In Meltzoff and MooreThe major components of the model are portrayed by the three bold boxes.

Typical and Atypical Development

The bold box labelled perceptual system functions to provide the perception of the infant’s own body and the external world. Comparisons between the organ relations of an external target and the current position of the infant’s own body are computed in the box labelled supramodal representational system. This comparison yields two possible outcomes: a match or mismatch. (1) A mismatch specifies a new configuration of the body, which serves as a goal for the next imitative attempt and is enacted by the box labelled action system. The arrow from the action system to the infant’s body shows that the effect of the act is a change in body configuration. (As already described, the action system box also includes the process of learning to map muscle movements to OR end states through prior body babbling experience.) (2) A match indicates that the motor act seen and the motor act done by the self are equivalent. This recognition of the equivalence of acts is grounds for infants’ apprehension that the other is, in some primitive sense, ‘like me’,

External Target (Adult Demonstration) Criticisms  Problems with stats – Anisfeld 1991,1996 Error in interpreting statistics as have actually only found imitation of tongue protrusion. If they can imitate, surely they would imitate more than 1 movement? Not just tongue protrusion.  Other studies can also only find evidence of tongue protrusion and some can find no replication of nay imitation! – Oostenbroek et al 2016 Jones 1996, 2006- Tongue Protrusion Effect not driven by matching mechanism. It is driven byInterest- newborns find tongue protrusion interesting; looking time and protrude their tongue to anything interesting! E.g. flashing lights, opera music etc. Is Imitation Learnt?

Typical and Atypical Development

Heyes 2005, 2010 Starts out life with separate sensory and motor representations of action. No way of telling that one representation (sensory) corresponds to the other (motor). Through associations in our environment, what we see and what we feel become combined. These links take place through associative learning. Self Observation- White et al 1964 2-3 month old orphans spend majority of waking hours watching own hand; learn about hand and limb movement. Mirror self observation- Amsterdam 1972 85% of 6-12 month olds respond to mirror image as playmate interacting; learn about facial expressions and movements. Caregivers Imitate- Uzgiris et al 1986 Infants spend a large amount of hours actively interacting face-to-face with adults. Keen caregivers show big expression- caregiver shows happiness if imitate behaviour so rewarding. Caregivers shape the imitation. Synchronous Action- O’Toole & Dubin 1968 in 55% of spoon feeding sequences, infant and caregiver both open their mouths- imagine mum! Although these are all strong evidence, learning is not necessarily correct- just a hypothesis. Can we alter the mappings? The learning approach predicts that we can; if the mappings develop through experience, it should be possible to modify with difference experience from our environment. Natural Selection would predict no- Pinker (1997) argues that experience based alteration of innate systems would usually be maladaptive. Heyes et al (2005) – looked at the degree to which imitative hand responses are performed faster than non-imitative/automatic. Control group (non-imitative) Experimental group – received non-matching training (open hand when see a closing hand) – imitative. Experimental group showed less automatic imitation than control group – so training alters mappings. Experience vs. Learning – Ray & Heyes 2011 How important is stimulus/ environment? Associative Sequence Learning Model (ASL)

Typical and Atypical Development

Interaction with the environment drives mechanisms for imitation. Imitation skills improve as infants experience more of the environment. AIM Model – Meltzoff & Moore Can’t be based on learning as infants display imitation so early on. There is insufficient information in the stimulus (environment) to account for behaviour. Action Understanding Motor representations of observed action activated not only when we want to imitatw action, but also when passively watching. Mirror Neurons –Gallese et al 1996 Monkeys watched an experimenter pick up a raison and then picked up the raison themselves. Mirror neurons fire in the ventral premotor cortex when watching the action and replicating the action yourself. Therefore, the neural system that underlies watching and doing an action is connected. Automatic activation of motor system when observing actions also shown in monkeys...