Cited by 62Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentFace Recognition and PerceptionVisual perception and processing mechanisms

Infants’ perception of chasing

Open access
Frankenhuis, Willem E., House, Bailey, Clark Barrett, H., Johnson, Scott P.·2013·Cognition

Abstract

Two significant questions in cognitive and developmental science are first, whether objects and events are selected for attention based on their features (featural processing) or the configuration of their features (configural processing), and second, how these modes of processing develop. These questions have been addressed in part with experiments focused on infants' perception of faces, human body shapes, and biological motion of individual agents. Here, we investigate 4- and 10-month-old infants' (N=192) attention to social motions, specifically to chasing-a ubiquitous, ancient, and fitness-relevant mode of interaction. We constructed computer-generated animations of chasing that had three properties: acceleration, high turning rates, and attraction ("heat-seeking"). In the first experiment we showed chasing side-by-side with a control display of inanimate, billiard-ball-like motions. Infants strongly preferred attending to chasing. In the next three studies, we systematically investigated the effect of each property in turn (acceleration, turning, and attraction) by showing a display of that property side-by-side with the control display. Infants preferentially attended to acceleration, and to attraction, but not to turning. If infants preferred chasing for its configuration, then the sum of the effect sizes of individual properties should be smaller than their combined effects. That is not what we found: instead, on three measures of visual behavior, the summed effects of individual properties equaled (or exceeded) that of chasing. Moreover, although attraction drew little attention and turning no attention at all, acceleration drew (nearly) as much attention as chasing. Our results thus provide evidence that infants preferred chasing because of its features, not its configuration.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.001

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Even infants as young as 4 months are adept at visually recognizing chasing, possibly because it constitutes part of an innate, survival-based, action schema.

    “Even infants as young as 4 months are adept at visually recognizing chasing, possibly because it constitutes part of an innate, survival-based, action schema (140).”

    From The Stress Acceleration Hypothesis of Nightmares (2017) · cites this paper as [140]

    The Results (§2.2) report that infants, including 4-month-olds, looked longer at a chasing display than at a control display. But a looking preference does not establish that they are adept at recognizing chasing. The General Discussion (§4.1) proposes a possibly ancient attentional filter; it does not establish an innate, survival-based action schema. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bertenthal BI Granud C Perception of biomechanical motions by infants: Intrinsic image and knowledge-based constraints Carnegie symposium on cognition: Visual perception and cognition in infancy 1993 175 214 Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Frankenhuis, W. E., House, B., Clark Barrett, H., & Johnson, S. P.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Frankenhuis, Willem E.
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-02
Volume
126
Issue
2
Pages
224-233
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2013056855
Cited by
62
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Hungarian Scientific Research Fund
  • Hungarian Science Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD040432, R01HD048733, R01HD073535)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
Keywords
infant attention, pursuit, featural processing, configural processing, acceleration, turning, attraction, biological motion, visual preference, social cognition development
MeSH terms
Attention, Child Development, Cognition, Concept Formation, Eye Movements, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Motion Perception, Photic Stimulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review