Limits...
Human infants detect other people's interactions based on complex patterns of kinematic information.

Galazka MA, Roché L, Nyström P, Falck-Ytter T - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: Moreover, a second experiment (sample 2: N = 28, Age  = 14 months) indicated that visual preference in this context is influenced by an audiovisual integration processes that takes into account the presence of an interaction between people.All these results were found exclusively for upright displays--when stimuli were shown upside-down (disrupting biological motion processing), performance was random.Collectively, these findings point to an important role for biological motion in social perception in human infants.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Uppsala Child and Babylab, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

ABSTRACT
Do infants perceive other people's interactions by means of a mechanism that integrates biological motion information across the observed individuals? In support of this view, the present study demonstrates that infants (N = 28, Age  = 14 months) discriminate between point light displays representing disrupted and non-disrupted interactions between people, even though the two interaction types are identical at the level of individual point light agents. Moreover, a second experiment (sample 2: N = 28, Age  = 14 months) indicated that visual preference in this context is influenced by an audiovisual integration processes that takes into account the presence of an interaction between people. All these results were found exclusively for upright displays--when stimuli were shown upside-down (disrupting biological motion processing), performance was random. Collectively, these findings point to an important role for biological motion in social perception in human infants.

Show MeSH
Proportion of looking at the non-disrupted interaction across in the Upright and Inverted Conditions (Study 2).Study 2 included auditory cues signaling the presence of an interaction between people. Initially (Phase I), infants attended preferentially to the non-disrupted pair, but with time (Phase II) preference switched to the disrupted pair. This change was only found in the Upright Condition. Looking preference was calculated as looking duration to the non-disrupted display divided by looking duration at both non-disrupted and disrupted displays.* = p<.05; ** = p<.01. Error bars show standard error of the mean.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4237354&req=5

pone-0112432-g004: Proportion of looking at the non-disrupted interaction across in the Upright and Inverted Conditions (Study 2).Study 2 included auditory cues signaling the presence of an interaction between people. Initially (Phase I), infants attended preferentially to the non-disrupted pair, but with time (Phase II) preference switched to the disrupted pair. This change was only found in the Upright Condition. Looking preference was calculated as looking duration to the non-disrupted display divided by looking duration at both non-disrupted and disrupted displays.* = p<.05; ** = p<.01. Error bars show standard error of the mean.

Mentions: A 2(Condition: Upright, Inverted) ×2(Phase: I, II) repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant Condition by Phase Interaction (F(1, 26) = 5.88, p = .023, η2 = 0.184) (Figure 4). Post hoc tests revealed that in Phase I in the Upright Condition, infants oriented towards the non-disrupted pair (M = .58, SD = .19), (t(27) = 2.18, p = .038, d = 0.839), mimicking the result of Study 1. In Phase II, however, they oriented preferentially towards the disrupted display (M = .38, SD  = .21), (t(26) = −3.09, p = .005, d = 1.21), and the change from Phase I to Phase II was statistically significant, (t(26) = 2.98, p = .006, d = 1.17). In the Inverted Condition, no such change was observed (t(26) = 0.57, n.s.). Specifically, in the Inverted Condition, looking preference in Phase I was.49 (SD  = .11) which is not significantly different from chance (t(27) = 0.139, n.s.). The same was found for Phase II in the Inverted Condition (M = .48, SD  = .14; t(27) = 0.823, n.s.).


Human infants detect other people's interactions based on complex patterns of kinematic information.

Galazka MA, Roché L, Nyström P, Falck-Ytter T - PLoS ONE (2014)

Proportion of looking at the non-disrupted interaction across in the Upright and Inverted Conditions (Study 2).Study 2 included auditory cues signaling the presence of an interaction between people. Initially (Phase I), infants attended preferentially to the non-disrupted pair, but with time (Phase II) preference switched to the disrupted pair. This change was only found in the Upright Condition. Looking preference was calculated as looking duration to the non-disrupted display divided by looking duration at both non-disrupted and disrupted displays.* = p<.05; ** = p<.01. Error bars show standard error of the mean.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4237354&req=5

pone-0112432-g004: Proportion of looking at the non-disrupted interaction across in the Upright and Inverted Conditions (Study 2).Study 2 included auditory cues signaling the presence of an interaction between people. Initially (Phase I), infants attended preferentially to the non-disrupted pair, but with time (Phase II) preference switched to the disrupted pair. This change was only found in the Upright Condition. Looking preference was calculated as looking duration to the non-disrupted display divided by looking duration at both non-disrupted and disrupted displays.* = p<.05; ** = p<.01. Error bars show standard error of the mean.
Mentions: A 2(Condition: Upright, Inverted) ×2(Phase: I, II) repeated measures ANOVA revealed a significant Condition by Phase Interaction (F(1, 26) = 5.88, p = .023, η2 = 0.184) (Figure 4). Post hoc tests revealed that in Phase I in the Upright Condition, infants oriented towards the non-disrupted pair (M = .58, SD = .19), (t(27) = 2.18, p = .038, d = 0.839), mimicking the result of Study 1. In Phase II, however, they oriented preferentially towards the disrupted display (M = .38, SD  = .21), (t(26) = −3.09, p = .005, d = 1.21), and the change from Phase I to Phase II was statistically significant, (t(26) = 2.98, p = .006, d = 1.17). In the Inverted Condition, no such change was observed (t(26) = 0.57, n.s.). Specifically, in the Inverted Condition, looking preference in Phase I was.49 (SD  = .11) which is not significantly different from chance (t(27) = 0.139, n.s.). The same was found for Phase II in the Inverted Condition (M = .48, SD  = .14; t(27) = 0.823, n.s.).

Bottom Line: Moreover, a second experiment (sample 2: N = 28, Age  = 14 months) indicated that visual preference in this context is influenced by an audiovisual integration processes that takes into account the presence of an interaction between people.All these results were found exclusively for upright displays--when stimuli were shown upside-down (disrupting biological motion processing), performance was random.Collectively, these findings point to an important role for biological motion in social perception in human infants.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Uppsala Child and Babylab, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

ABSTRACT
Do infants perceive other people's interactions by means of a mechanism that integrates biological motion information across the observed individuals? In support of this view, the present study demonstrates that infants (N = 28, Age  = 14 months) discriminate between point light displays representing disrupted and non-disrupted interactions between people, even though the two interaction types are identical at the level of individual point light agents. Moreover, a second experiment (sample 2: N = 28, Age  = 14 months) indicated that visual preference in this context is influenced by an audiovisual integration processes that takes into account the presence of an interaction between people. All these results were found exclusively for upright displays--when stimuli were shown upside-down (disrupting biological motion processing), performance was random. Collectively, these findings point to an important role for biological motion in social perception in human infants.

Show MeSH