Some views are better than others: evidence for a visual bias in object views self‐generated by toddlers

Abstract

How objects are held determines how they are seen, and may thereby play an important developmental role in building visual object representations. Previous research suggests that toddlers, like adults, show themselves a disproportionate number of planar object views – that is, views in which the objects’ axes of elongation are perpendicular or parallel to the line of sight. Here, three experiments address three explanations of this bias: 1) that the locations of interesting features of objects determine how they are held and thus how they are viewed: 2) that ease of holding determines object views; and 3) that there is a visual bias for planar views that exists independent of holding and of interesting surface properties. Children 18 to 24 months of age manually and visually explored novel objects 1) with interesting features centered in planar or ¾ views; 2) positioned inside Plexiglas boxes so that holding biased either planar or non-planar views; and 3) positioned inside Plexiglas spheres, so that no object properties directly influenced holding. Results indicate a visual bias for planar views that is influenced by interesting surface properties and ease of holding, but that continues to exist even when these factors push for alternative views.

The development of newborn object recognition in fast and slow visual worlds

“…Further, chickens, unlike humans, are mobile from birth and immediately able to explore their environment. Such active motor exploration might play an important role in the development of object recognition [45][46][47].…”

The Signal in the Noise: The Visual Ecology of Parents' Object Naming

“…That is, we demonstrate how visual object clarity may not only be a common occurrence when parents name objects, it may be a common occurrence more generally. One working hypothesis is that the pervasiveness of these clear views of objects may support a constellation of processes, including object segmentation (Metta & Fitzpatrick, 2003), object recognition (James, Jones, Swain, Pereira, & Smith, 2014), and object knowledge (Soska, Adolph, & Johnson, 2010), that make rich and robust object representations, which then in turn facilitates the process of mapping words onto those representations. Research that further documents the properties of infants' and toddlers' everyday visual experiences may thus prove to be central in attempts to understand early word learning (see Clerkin et al, 2017;Fausey, Jayaraman, & Smith, 2016;Jayaraman, Fausey, & Smith, 2015).…”

“…Thus, one pathway by which non-linguistic processes shape word learning is through the quality of the input. Considering the growing body of evidence demonstrating interconnections between non-linguistic and linguistic development in both typical and atypical populations (Collisson, Grela, Spaulding, Ruecki, & Magnuson, 2015;He, Walle, & Campos, 2015;Hellendoorn et al, 2015;James et al, 2014;Leonard, Bedford, Pickles, Hill, & The BASIS Team, 2015;Libertus & Violi, 2016;Oudgenoeg-Paz, Volman, & Leseman, 2016), future investigations that more precisely chart the pathways through which development in non-linguistic domains influence language development (see also Karasik, Tamis-LeMonda, & Adolph, 2014) will be important not just for theory building but also for diagnostic and interventional strategies.…”

From Using Tools to Using Language in Infant Siblings of Children with Autism

“…In particular, the observed relation to vocabulary acquisition could be due to the fact that scarce production of functional actions with tools reduces the occurrence of social interactions supporting object naming (Iverson 2010). Observed differences in functional acts may also have an effect on visuo-perceptual object knowledge, which has been shown to support word learning in typical development (Smith 2003; James et al 2014)…”

“…Overall difficulties in grasping and motor planning mentioned above may have also affected the production of functional actions in HR-ASD infants. In fact, even if grasp type production per se does not directly influence functional action production (i.e., infants start producing functional actions while still using grasps that may result in uncomfortable tool use), grasp types that reduce object exploration at younger ages may lead to difficulties with object shape perception and categorization (Smith 2003; James et al 2014). In other words, functional actions may appear later in HR-ASD infants because they have yet to establish the necessary link between object shape, object manipulation and object function due to documented reduced grasp frequency earlier in development and later unusual object exploration.…”