Cited by 32Child and Animal Learning DevelopmentVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionMind wandering and attention

Comparing methods for measuring peak look duration: Are individual differences observed on screen-based tasks also found in more ecologically valid contexts?

Open access
Wass, Sam V.·2014·Infant Behavior and Development

Abstract

Convergent research points to the importance of studying the ontogenesis of sustained attention during the early years of life, but little research hitherto has compared and contrasted different techniques available for measuring sustained attention. Here, we compare methods that have been used to assess one parameter of sustained attention, namely infants' peak look duration to novel stimuli. Our focus was to assess whether individual differences in peak look duration are stable across different measurement techniques. In a single cohort of 42 typically developing 11-month-old infants we assessed peak look duration using six different measurement paradigms (four screen-based, two naturalistic). Zero-order correlations suggested that individual differences in peak look duration were stable across all four screen-based paradigms, but no correlations were found between peak look durations observed on the screen-based and the naturalistic paradigms. A factor analysis conducted on the dependent variable of peak look duration identified two factors. All four screen-based tasks loaded onto the first factor, but the two naturalistic tasks did not relate, and mapped onto a different factor. Our results question how individual differences observed on screen-based tasks manifest in more ecologically valid contexts.

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.infbeh.2014.04.007

Cites

65 of 65 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?

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: 2

  1. Wass S.V. Gaze-contingent concentration training for infants 2011 University of London Birkbeck (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis)
  2. Wass S.V. Smith T.J. Oculomotor behaviour during naturalistic orienting: relation to individual differences in infancy Infancy 2014 PMC4286103 25635173

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wass, S. V.
Affiliations
MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit (GB)
Corresponding author
Wass, Sam V.
Venue
Infant Behavior and Development
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-08
Volume
37
Issue
3
Pages
315-325
ISSN
0163-6383 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2070189916
Cited by
32
References
62
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
6.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Infant Behavior and Development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
British Academy
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
Keywords
sustained attention, individual differences, infants, measurement validity, naturalistic observation, ecologically valid assessment, attention development, typically developing infants
MeSH terms
Attention, Child Development, Computer Graphics, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Individuality, Infant, Male, Psychological Tests, Visual Perception, Infant Behavior

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