Beyond U-Shaped Development in Infants' Processing of Faces: An Information-Processing Account

Cashon, Cara H.; Cohen, Leslie B.

doi:10.1207/s15327647jcd0501_4

Cited by 127 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are somewhat inconsistent with what Cashon and Cohen (2004) report. In contrast to the present study, these authors reported that 4-monthold infants are able to detect changes in the inner and outer features of the face.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…Four groups of infants, two groups of 4-month-olds and two groups of 8-month-olds, completed both a behavioral visual paired-comparison task as well as an infant controlled habituation of a single face, followed by a presentation of the familiar face with alterations made to it and of a novel face while ERPs were recorded. These age groups were chosen to test the shifts observed from 3 to 7 months of age (Cohen and Cashon 2001;Cashon and Cohen 2004) and the reported importance of the first 6 months of visual experience (Le Grand et al 2001). If there is a shift from featural to configural processing from 4 to 8 months of age, 8-month-olds may be more sensitive to changes in configurations (both behaviorally and as indexed in the infant N290 and P400 ERP components) than 4-month-olds.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Featural and Configural Face Processing in Adults and Infants: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We sought to elucidate the behavioral and electrophysiological correlates of face processing, in adults and infants, by manipulating either the featural or configural information within the face. Two different experiments are reported. In these experiments, event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded from the scalp while adult, 8-month-old, and 4-month-old participants completed configural-change and featural-change face tasks. The infants also completed a behavioral visual paired-comparison task with featural and configural face changes. ERP results reveal hemispheric differences in processing featural but not configural changes for the N170 in adults. Furthermore, featural and configural changes are processed differently within the right and left hemispheres. The right hemisphere N170 is significantly greater for configural compared to featural changes. The left hemisphere N170, however, exhibits the opposite effect. Infant data suggest that similar to adults, 8-month-old, but not 4-month-old participants, exhibit similar hemispheric differences between featural and configural changes for the P400 component. Behavioral results suggest increased sensitivity to both featural and configural face changes in 8-month-olds compared to 4-month-olds.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Featural and Configural Face Processing in Adults and Infants: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The latter pattern of performance has also been supported by other studies, in which reasoning that involves intuitive rules in very young and older students converges (e.g., Bedard et al, 2002;Kail & Salthouse, 1994;Sloutsky & Fisher, 2004;Stavy, 1981;Stavy & Berkovitz, 1980;. Moreover, U-shaped patterns of development have been found for a variety of processes: face perception (Cashon & Cohen, 2004), memory consolidation (e.g., Brainerd, Reyna, & Kneer, 1995;Seamon et al, 2002), and retrieval (e.g., Dosher, 1984;Dosher & Rosedale, 1991). Thus, many cognitive processes are nonmonotonic, and this is why studies are unable to reliably index performance on reasoning tasks through measures of cognitive ability (e.g., Babai & Alon, 2004).…”

Section: Functioningsupporting

confidence: 70%

Development of intuitive rules: Evaluating the application of the dual-system framework to understanding children’s intuitive reasoning

Osman

Stavy

2006

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some particular cases of this general kind of U-shaped learning have been recently experimentally documented by developmental psychologists in the context of infants' face recognition. For example, it has been shown that children exhibit an "inverted-U-shaped" learning curve (a wrong-correct-wrong pattern) for recognition of inverted faces and an "N-shaped" learning curve (a wrong-correct-wrong-correct pattern) for recognition of upright faces [14,15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Model (a ) is directly inspired by the above-mentioned concrete cases of inverted-U-shaped and N-shaped behaviour documented in the psychological literature [14,15]. It also represents the exact inverse of the original non Ushaped model studied in [3,9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variations on U-Shaped Learning

et al. 2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper deals with the following problem: is returning to wrong conjectures necessary to achieve full power of algorithmic learning? Returning to wrong conjectures complements the paradigm of U-shaped learning [3,7,9,24,29] when a learner returns to old correct conjectures. We explore our problem for classical models of learning in the limit from positive data: explanatory learning (when a learner stabilizes in the limit on a correct grammar) and behaviourally correct learning (when a learner stabilizes in the limit on a sequence of correct grammars representing the target concept). In both cases we show that returning to wrong conjectures is necessary to achieve full learning power. In contrast, one can modify learners (without losing learning power) such that they never show inverted U-shaped learning behaviour, that is, never return to old wrong conjecture with a correct conjecture in-between. Furthermore, one can also modify a learner (without losing learning power) such that it does not return to old "overinclusive" conjectures containing non-elements of the target language. We also consider our problem in the context of vacillatory learning (when a learner stabilizes on a finite number of correct grammars) and show that each of the following four constraints is restrictive (that is, reduces learning power): the learner does not return to old wrong conjectures; the learner is not inverted U-shaped; the learner does not return to old overinclusive conjectures; the learner does not return to old overgeneralizing conjectures. We also show that learners that are consistent with the input seen so far can be made decisive [3,25]: on any text, they do not return to any old conjectures -wrong or right.

show abstract

Beyond U-Shaped Development in Infants' Processing of Faces: An Information-Processing Account

Cited by 127 publications

References 36 publications

Featural and Configural Face Processing in Adults and Infants: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation

Featural and Configural Face Processing in Adults and Infants: A Behavioral and Electrophysiological Investigation

Development of intuitive rules: Evaluating the application of the dual-system framework to understanding children’s intuitive reasoning

Variations on U-Shaped Learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About