Peer Review Articles on Different Ways Infants Communicate

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Inquiry Article

Infants Larn What They Want to Learn: Responding to Infant Pointing Leads to Superior Learning

• Katarina Begus,
• Teodora Gliga,
• Victoria Southgate

ten

• Published: October 7, 2014
• https://doi.org/x.1371/periodical.pone.0108817

Figures

Abstract

The majority of electric current developmental models prioritise a pedagogical approach to knowledge acquisition in infancy, in which infants play a relatively passive role as recipients of data. In view of recent evidence, demonstrating that infants use pointing to express interest and solicit information from adults, we ready out to exam whether giving the child the leading role in deciding what data to receive leads to amend learning. Xvi-month-olds were introduced to pairs of novel objects and, in one case they had pointed to an object, were shown a function for either the object they had called, or the object they had ignored. Ten minutes later, infants replicated the functions of chosen objects significantly more than than those of un-chosen objects, despite having been equally visually attentive during demonstrations on both types of objects. These results show that offering information in response to infants' communicative gestures leads to superior learning (Experiment 1) and that this difference in operation is due to learning being facilitated when infants' pointing was responded to, not hindered when their pointing was ignored (Experiment 2), highlighting the importance of infants' own active engagement in acquiring information.

Commendation: Begus K, Gliga T, Southgate V (2014) Infants Learn What They Want to Learn: Responding to Infant Pointing Leads to Superior Learning. PLoS ONE 9(10): e108817. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108817

Editor: Juliane Kaminski, Academy of Portsmouth, Britain

Received: May fourteen, 2014; Accepted: August 27, 2014; Published: October 7, 2014

Copyright: © 2014 Begus et al. This is an open-admission article distributed nether the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted utilise, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The authors ostend that all data underlying the findings are fully available without brake. All relevant data are inside the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The authors have no funding or back up to written report.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests be.

Introduction

The majority of current developmental models prioritise a pedagogical approach to noesis acquisition in infancy. According to this approach, infants are on the receptive side of the pedagogical commutation, having evolved mechanisms enabling them to identify when and what adults intend for them to learn [one] [two]. Taking the leading office in learning, knowledgeable adults ensure efficient transmission of vast amounts of culturally relevant data. Even so, while infants appear to be well equipped to learn from adults' instruction, and sometimes indiscriminately acquire information accompanied by ostensive cues [three] [4], it is increasingly clear that infants play a more than active and solicitous role in their learning. For example, infants are selective in what they attend to [5] and in whose gaze they follow [6], as well as whose actions they imitate [7], all of which are probable to exist important mechanisms in the process of cultural learning. Fifty-fifty during infancy, developed-led learning may not always be the optimum strategy, peculiarly in situations where exploration and innovation are required [8].

Recent piece of work suggests not merely that infants are selective recipients, simply that they also have means of actively expressing involvement, eliciting advice and soliciting information, even prior to the emergence of explicit verbal questioning. Early on pointing is 1 such means past which infants elicit data from adults. Studies have shown infants' pointing gestures perform the office of provoking adults to comment on the referent [nine] and they do and then more than efficiently than object-directed babbling [ten]. Begus and Southgate [11] recently demonstrated that 16-month-onetime infants are motivated to point considering they expect others to provide them with information about the referents of their gestures. In the latter report, the amount of pointing depended on an experimenter'due south perceived competence to provide infants with information. Specifically, infants pointed significantly less towards novel objects when the experimenter had previously shown themselves to exist unknowledgeable (i.east. had mislabeled common objects) than when the experimenter was either demonstrably knowledgeable, or the infant had no evidence of the experimenter's competence. Infants were equally willing to interact with the experimenter irrespective of her competence, and thus it was concluded that infants wait their pointing to be responded to with reliable information, and use it only when they perceive their expectations tin be met.

In adults, much work exists, which demonstrates a relationship between epistemic interest and learning, with desired information existence more likely to be assimilated (due east.thousand. [12]). While in that location has been no straight test of the being of the same relationship early in life, at that place is some indirect evidence that infant learning might as well exist driven past interest. For example, there is a positive human relationship between amount of pointing and vocabulary growth [xiii] and it has also been shown that it is the referents of infants' points, which the caregiver likely names in response [9], that are most likely to enter the kid's vocabulary [fourteen]. These data could exist interpreted as suggesting that infants are more likely to acquire the labels of referents near which they had expressed their involvement in through pointing. In the current report, we aimed to straight exam the hypothesis that infants volition better assimilate data that is provided in response to their expressions of interest, than data that is provided in the absence of any expression of involvement by the infant. Specifically, we asked whether 16-month-old infants would prove superior learning when they were provided with information almost a referent which they had expressed their interest in through pointing.

Methods

Ethics Argument

All participants were recruited from a database of infants whose parents had volunteered to participate in babe studies at Center for Brain and Cognitive Development, Birkbeck College, University of London. Written informed consent was obtained from the infants' caregiver before the experiment was conducted. The procedure was approved by the ideals committee of the Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck College, University of London.

Participants

Fifty 16-month-olds (twenty female, range 15.2–xvi.2 months) participated in the study. Infants were randomly assigned to either Experiment i (N = 16) or one of the two conditions of Experiment 2 (Due north = 17 each). An additional 14 infants (eight from Experiment 1 and 6 from Experiment 2) were tested only excluded from analysis due to parental interference (four), fussiness (four), equipment failure (3) and absenteeism of pointing (iii). Because the aim of the study was to establish how responding to infants' pointing affects their learning, merely infants, who pointed at to the lowest degree twice during the experiment, were included in the final sample. This criterion did non apply to No Choice condition of Experiment 2.

Experiment 1

Procedure.

Teaching phase. Infants were presented with iv pairs of novel objects (Fig. 1a) held at a distance until the babe pointed to one of the objects (Fig. 1b). Once infants had made their choice, the experimenter demonstrated an activity either with the object the infant had chosen (Chosen condition, 2 trials) or with the un-chosen object (Unchosen status, 2 trials), while the other object was removed from view. Each action was demonstrated a unmarried time, with the experimenter announcing the demonstration and commenting on the action (i.eastward. "Let me show yous how it works! Wait, I tin brush my pilus with information technology!"). Subsequently the demonstration, the object was removed without the baby handling information technology.

Infants saw the aforementioned iv actions demonstrated regardless of which object they chose. Which action was performed with which object, whether an action was performed on a called or united nations-called object, and whether the baby first saw a sit-in on a chosen or united nations-chosen object, was counterbalanced across iv weather condition (see Table S1). In society to ensure equal cognitive load, an action was demonstrated fifty-fifty if an infant did non betoken to either of the objects (which occurred on 2 trials in Chosen and i in Unchosen condition), however these trials were not included in further assay.

Testing stage. After a ten minute break, infants were handed each of the previously acted upon objects individually and were prompted to perform the previously demonstrated deportment (i.e. "Tin you show me how it works?"). The outset lx seconds of each trial was analysed for correctly replicated actions and other infant behaviour.

Data analysis.

All trials, in which the infants have touched the object in the exam phase, were included in the analyses. Number of trials, in which the babe refused to collaborate with the object for lx seconds and were terminated before, did non differ between conditions (North(Called) = x, N(Unchosen) = 11; Mann-Whitney U, z = 0.162; p = 0.871). Data was coded from video recordings of the testing sessions by 2 independent coders, one of whom was naïve to the experimental hypothesis. An activity was scored as correctly replicated if both coders agreed the infant had performed the target action. Trials in which no target or an wrong target action was performed were scored as wrong. Infants had to contribute i trial of each condition (Chosen and Unchosen) to be included in the concluding sample (11 infants contributed 4 trials; 4 contributed iii trials; and 1 contributed 2 trials).

Results.

Non-parametric tests, comparing boilerplate proportions of correctly replicated actions across infants, revealed that infants replicated significantly more of the actions demonstrated on objects they had pointed to (M = xl.6%, a total of 13 actions across infants) than actions demonstrated on the objects they had not pointed to (Chiliad = 12.5%, a full of four actions across infants) [Related-Samples Friedman's 2-Way Analysis of Variance by Ranks, χ^two (2) =four.455, p =0.035, two-tailed].

In order to rule out that infants learned less about the Unchosen objects because they were attending less, we measured the time infants visually attended to the demonstrations (every bit a proportion of the total demonstration time), which revealed no significant divergence betwixt the conditions (time attention to demonstrations in Called: M = 98.9% and Unchosen condition: M = 97.0%; t(55) = 1.605; p = 0.114). In addition, on trials when the correct actions were non replicated, infants were equally willing to explore both Called and Unchosen objects in the exam phase (time spent handling Chosen: M = 46.89 sec and Unchosen objects: M = 42.82 sec; t(38) = 0.898; p = 0.374). This suggests the number of replicated deportment in Unchosen condition did not result from them having less visual exposure during demonstrations or less opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge during exam.

Furthermore, due to the fact that the experimenter could not exist blind to infants' option, nosotros took some additional measures to ensure the experimenter'south behavior did not differ between conditions, which could have affected infants' learning. We plant no effect of condition on whatsoever of the measures which included the number of times, during demonstration, the experimenter a) attempted to get the baby'southward attending, b) positively commented on the object/action, c) provided data; also as d) prosody of the experimenter'due south speech and e) duration of the demonstrations (run into Table S2 online for statistical details).

Finally, an analysis of number of times each object was chosen confirmed that objects were distributed similarly in the Called and Unchosen conditions (Chi-Square comparisons for each pair: χ²  = 0.6, p = 0.439; χ²  = ane.0, p = 0.317; χ²  = 1.923, p = 0.166; χ²  = 0.692, p = 0.405). Thus differences in learning performance cannot exist explained past differences in the objects themselves.

Experiment 2

Although different rates of learning for Called and Unchosen objects suggest that responding to infants' points affected their knowledge acquisition, information technology is unclear whether infants' learning in Experiment 1 was facilitated when their pointing was responded to appropriately, or hindered when their pointing was ignored. To address this question, we ran Experiment two, a between-subject control experiment, to establish how much infants learned when they did not have a pick in what they are taught (No Option condition) and compared information technology to learning when they are given a choice of objects, and all their choices are responded to (Chosen Only condition). If the experimenter's failure to respond to infants' pointing on Unchosen trials of Experiment 1 is responsible for infants' comparatively junior learning, nosotros should expect no deviation in learning between No Choice and Chosen Only conditions, since neither involve trials in which the experimenter ignores infants' points. All the same, if the provision of information in response to infants' points on Chosen trials facilitates learning, we would expect infants to larn more of the object functions in the Chosen Just than in the No Pick condition.

Procedure.

The procedure was identical to Experiment 1 except that in the Called Simply status, the experimenter always responded to infants' points past demonstrating an action on the object the infant had chosen, and in the No Choice condition, instead of beingness presented with pairs of objects, infants were presented with single objects and subsequent demonstrations of their functions. Merely infants who contributed the minimum of two trials were included in the final sample (29 infants contributed 4 trials, iv contributed 3 trials, and one contributed two trials).

To ensure the conditions of Experiment 2 were equally engaging and demanding for infants, the 2 conditions were closely matched in all measures of the experimenter's behaviour analysed in Experiment 1, as well equally in the amount of time infants saw the objects earlier the demonstrations (see Table S2 online for statistical details). Number of trials, in which the infant refused to interact with the object for threescore seconds and were terminated earlier, did non differ between conditions (North(Chosen Simply) = ten, N(No Choice) = fifteen; Mann-Whitney U, z = 0.635; p = 0.526).

Results.

When presented with unmarried objects and their functions (No Choice), infants on average correctly replicated 12.2% (total of 8 actions across all infants) of all demonstrated functions, which was significantly lower than the average of 26.0% (total of 16 actions across all infants) of correctly replicated deportment in the Chosen Only condition (Mann-Whitney U Exam, z = 1.759, p = 0.039, i-tailed). The total number of replicated actions in the Chosen Just status (16 across all infants) is similar to the total number or replicated actions in the Chosen condition of Experiment 1 (13 beyond all infants). Furthermore, the total number of replicated actions in the No Choice status (8 across all infants) is like to the total number of replicated actions in the Unchosen condition of Experiment 1 (4 across all infants).

As in Experiment 1, measures of attention during the demonstrations and time spent handling objects during the Testing phase revealed no differences between the two weather of Experiment ii, ruling out visual exposure or lack of opportunity to demonstrate knowledge equally an explanation of the found result (see Table S2 online for statistical details).

Discussion

Previous work has shown a positive relationship between amount of pointing, and vocabulary growth [13] in infancy, but left unanswered the question most the mechanisms driving the relationship between gestures and learning. Our finding that xvi-month-sometime infants replicated significantly more of the actions previously demonstrated on objects they had pointed to, than deportment demonstrated on objects they had not pointed to, provides the starting time direct evidence that responding to infants' gestures with appropriate information results in superior learning.

While infants' learning was afflicted past whether they received data nearly the object they had pointed to, no other measure of behavior revealed whatever differences between conditions. Infants visually attended to the demonstrations equally, regardless of which object was demonstrated, and were as willing to handle all objects. All demonstrations, regardless of condition, were equally rich in pedagogical cues (i.e. ostensive cues similar mutual gaze, infant-directed speech), suggesting that the presence of ostensive cues alone was not sufficient for learning in this paradigm. Previous research has revealed that information received contingently with other infant behavior, like object-directed babbling, is learned better than information received non-contingently [xv], [sixteen] and that individual differences in parental responsiveness to babe vocalizations are reliably related to language outcomes [16]. Still information technology remained unknown what mechanisms mediated this relationship and whether post-obit-in on a child'southward attention has a beneficial outcome, or whether redirecting infants' attention has a detrimental consequence on learning. Our control Experiment two provides a first step towards answering this question, demonstrating that it was non the fact that the experimenter ignored infants' pointing in the Unchosen trials that drove the effect in Experiment i, but rather it is something about the situation in which infants' pointing is appropriately responded to, that drives superior learning.

What mechanisms might mediate the relationship between pointing and learning? One possibility is that the act of making a option is itself a cistron, as suggested past findings that having a choice in the stimuli to be learned increases the learners' perception of control and consequently enhances motivation and learning performance [18]. An alternative possibility is that what drove the superior learning in our paradigm was the aforementioned bulldoze that motivated infants to bespeak in the start place, namely interest. It is well established that, in adults, a positive relationship exists betwixt interest and learning. Epistemic curiosity, as a trait, can explain individual differences in academic achievement [nineteen], and experimental manipulations have demonstrated that caste of involvement or motivation for receiving particular information determines whether that information is subsequently retained [12] [twenty]. For instance, in Kang et al. [12], self-reported curiosity about a particular piece of information correlated with its think 1 to 2 weeks later. We propose that a similar human relationship between interest and learning may be early on in life, that involvement tin exist expressed through pointing, and that responding to these expressions of involvement plays an important office in infant learning.

Some of the earliest accounts of baby pointing suggested that the initial function of pointing is to focus infants' own attention on interesting events [17]. Several studies since accept shown that infants also apply pointing to communicate their interest to others [21]. While there is still contend on what motivates infants to share their interest with others, we believe the current findings, that infants acquire better when they receive information in response to their pointing, provides farther show that one of the reasons infants express their involvement is in gild to obtain data nigh the object of interest, and that, when doing so, they may exist in an optimal state for assimilating information.

Withal, while we believe that existing data support the conclusion that pointing is both interrogative (i.e. used to gain data, [xi]) and communicative (i.eastward. aimed at others equally information sources), it is ultimately not possible to know exactly what motivated infant pointing in this item paradigm. Nonetheless, our conclusion, that there exists a human relationship between expressions of involvement and learning, even early in life, even so holds even if infants were merely requesting the object that they were more interested in, and were not requesting information per se, as both kinds of pointing are motivated past involvement. Regardless of what motivated infants' pointing in this experiment, our data suggest that the extent to which infants acquire information in everyday life depends, in part, on the extent to which caregivers both notice and appropriately answer to infants' expressions of involvement, such as pointing. Understanding the factors involved in learning in infancy, and the potential importance of caregiver responsiveness, may be peculiarly relevant in situations where infants are competing for caregiver's attention, such equally in a plant nursery or kindergarten setting.

By presenting the first direct evidence that responding to infants' communicative gestures affects their knowledge acquisition, we hope to open up new opportunities for the study of learning in preverbal infants, with the focus on infants' own active engagement in acquiring information.

Supporting Data

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: KB TG VS. Performed the experiments: KB. Analyzed the data: KB. Contributed reagents/materials/assay tools: KB. Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: KB TG VS.

References

1. 1. Csibra G, Gergely Thou (2009) Natural Didactics. Trends Cogn Sci 13(iv): 148–153.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. Csibra G (2010) Recognising communicative intentions in infancy. Mind Lang 25(2): 141–168.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
3. iii. Horner VK, Whiten A (2005) Causal noesis and faux/emulation switching in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and children. Anim Cogn 8: 164–181.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. four. Lyons DE, Immature AG, Keil FC (2007) The hidden structure of overimitation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(19): 751–756.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. v. Smith LB, Yu C, Pereira AF (2011) Not y'all mother's view: the dynamics of toddler visual feel. Dev Sci xiv(1): 9–17.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Chow V, Poulin-Dubois D, Lewis J (2008) To see or not to see: infants adopt to follow the gaze of a reliable looker. Dev Sci 11(5): 761–770.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
7. vii. Zmyj N, Buttelmann D, Carpenter MJ, Daum MM (2010) The reliability of a model influences 14-month-olds' fake. J Exp Kid Psychol 106: 208–220.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Bonawitz E, Shafto P, Gweon H, Goodman ND, Spelke Eastward, et al. (2011) The double-edged sword of educational activity: Instruction Limits spontaneous exploration and discovery. Noesis 120(iii): 322–330.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
9. nine. Kishimoto T, Shizawa Y, Yasuda J, Hinobayashi T, Minami T (2007) Do pointing gestures past infants provoke comments from adults? Infant Behav Dev thirty: 562–567.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Wu Z, Gros-Luis J (2014) Caregivers provide more labeling responses to infants' pointing than to infants' object-directed vocalizations. J Child Lang.
11. 11. Begus K, Southgate 5 (2012) Infant pointing serves an interrogative office. Dev Sci xv(5): 611–617.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Kang MJ, Hsu Yard, Krajbich IM, Loewenstein G, McClure SM, et al. (2009) The wick in the candle of learning: epistemic curiosity activates advantage circuitry and enhances memory. Psychol Sci twenty(8): 963–73.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Brooks R, Meltzoff AN (2008) Baby gaze following and pointing predict accelerated vocabulary growth through two years of age: a longitudinal, growth curve modeling report. J Kid Lang 35: 207–220.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Goldin-Meadow Due south, Goodrich W, Sauer East, Iverson J (2007) Young children use their hands to tell their mothers what to say. Dev Sci 10(vi): 778–785.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Goldstein MH, Schwade J, Briech J, Syal S (2010) Learning while blathering: Prelinguistic object-directed vocalizations betoken a readiness to acquire. Infancy 15(iv): 362–391.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. McGillion ML, Herbert JS, Pine JM, Keren-Portnoy T, Vihman MM, et al. (2013) Supporting Early on Vocabulary Development: What Sort of Responsiveness Matters? IEEE 5(3): 240–248.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Bates E, Camaioni Fifty, Volterra Five (1975) The conquering of performatives prior to speech. Merril-Palmer Quarterly 21: 205–224.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
18. 18. Perlmuter LC, Scharff M, Karsh R, Monty RA (1980) Perceived control: a generalized state of motivation. Motiv Emot iv(1): 35–45.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. von Stumm S, Hell B, Chamorro-Premuzic T (2011) The hungry listen: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspect Psychol Sci 6(six): 574–588.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Gruber MJ, Otten LJ (2010) Voluntary control over prestimulus activity related to encoding. J Neurosci 30(29): 9793–800.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Tomasello M, Carpenter M, Liszkowski U (2007) A new look at infant pointing. Child Dev 78(three): 705–722.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

skaggsding1997.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0108817