The development and neural basis of pointing comprehension

Gredebäck, Gustaf; Melinder, Annika; Daum, Moritz M.

doi:10.1080/17470910903523327

Cited by 86 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This difference was significant despite the fact that the infants did not demonstrate any behavioral responses to the give‐me gesture. Additional studies have also found that the P400 component has expressed sensitivity to typical and referential cues, such as congruent pointing (Gredebäck, Melinder, & Daum, ), and congruent eye‐gaze (Senju, Johnson, & Csibra, ), compared to incongruent control stimuli.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Longitudinal Continuity in Understanding and Production of Giving‐Related Behavior From Infancy to Childhood

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infants have an early understanding of giving (the transfer of an item by one agent to another), but little is known about individual differences in these abilities or their developmental outcomes. Here, 9-month-olds (N = 59) showing clearer neural processing (Event-related potential, ERP) of a give-me gesture also evidenced a stronger reaction (pupil dilation) to an inappropriate response to a give-me gesture, and at 2 years were more likely to give in response to a give-me gesture. None of the differences in understanding and production of giving-related behaviors were associated with other sociocognitive variables investigated: language, gaze-following, and nongiving helping. The early developmental continuity in understanding and production of giving behavior is consistent with the great importance of giving for humans throughout the life span.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Longitudinal Continuity in Understanding and Production of Giving‐Related Behavior From Infancy to Childhood

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, it is unclear whether 1) infants understand how the listener should respond to the speaker’s speech (the outcome of the event), and 2) whether infants use that knowledge to anticipate the listener’s response to speech in the same way they do for gestures. Given that infants within their first year seem to understand that non-verbal gestures and speech function similarly in communicative scenes (e.g., Csibra & Gergely, 2009, 2011; Gredebäck, Melinder, & Daum, 2010; Martin et al, 2012; Vouloumanos et al, 2014), 12-month-olds may interpret speech like gesture in these events: by making predictions about the outcome during the communicative event.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We showed participants a video of pre-recorded actions in a third-party scenario (Augusti et al, 2010; Fawcett & Gredebäck, 2013; Gredebäck et al, 2010; Thorgrimsson et al, 2015) during which an actor (the Communicator), alone, repeatedly grasped one object (target) rather than another object (non-target), suggesting that the Communicator may prefer the target object (e.g., Cannon & Woodward, 2012; Woodward, 1998). In the test scene, the Communicator and a second actor (the Listener) were both present.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

How do infants and adults process communicative events in real time?

Yamashiro

Vouloumanos

2018

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech allows humans to communicate and to navigate the social world. By 12 months, infants recognize that speech elicits appropriate responses from others. However, it is unclear how infants process dynamic communicative scenes and how their processing abilities compare to adults. Do infants, like adults, process communicative events while the event is occurring, or only after being presented with the outcome? We examined 12-month-olds’ and adults’ eye movements as they watched a Communicator grasp one (target) of two objects. During the test event, she could no longer reach the objects, so she spoke or coughed to a Listener, who selected either object. Infants’ and adults’ patterns of looking to the actors and objects revealed that both groups immediately evaluated the Communicators’ speech, but not her cough, as communicative, and recognized that the Listener should select the target object only when the Communicator spoke. Furthermore, infants and adults shifted their attention between the actors and the objects in very similar ways. This suggests that 12-month-olds can quickly process communicative events as they occur with adult-like accuracy. However, differences in looking reveal that 12-month-olds’ process slower than adults. This early developing processing ability may allow infants to learn language and acquire knowledge from communicative interactions.

show abstract

“…It would reveal whether it is the product of learning processes or whether children exhibit such a preference from the moment they engage in point following (that is, around or before their 1st birthday; cf. Behne, Liszkowski, Carpenter, & Tomasello, 2012;Gredebäck, Melinder, & Daum, 2010). A shift in the preferential reliance from gaze to pointing cues could indicate a shift from often relatively automatic and reflex-like processes (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%