Hendrickson Kristi, Mitsven Samantha, Poulin-Dubois Diane, Zesiger Pascal, Friend Margaret
Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego, USA.
Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, USA.
Dev Sci. 2015 Sep;18(5):723-35. doi: 10.1111/desc.12250. Epub 2014 Nov 28.
The goal of the current study is to assess the temporal dynamics of vision and action to evaluate the underlying word representations that guide infants' responses. Sixteen-month-old infants participated in a two-alternative forced-choice word-picture matching task. We conducted a moment-by-moment analysis of looking and reaching behaviors as they occurred in tandem to assess the speed with which a prompted word was processed (visual reaction time) as a function of the type of haptic response: Target, Distractor, or No Touch. Visual reaction times (visual RTs) were significantly slower during No Touches compared to Distractor and Target Touches, which were statistically indistinguishable. The finding that visual RTs were significantly faster during Distractor Touches compared to No Touches suggests that incorrect and absent haptic responses appear to index distinct knowledge states: incorrect responses are associated with partial knowledge whereas absent responses appear to reflect a true failure to map lexical items to their target referents. Further, we found that those children who were faster at processing words were also those children who exhibited better haptic performance. This research provides a methodological clarification on knowledge measured by the visual and haptic modalities and new evidence for a continuum of word knowledge in the second year of life.
本研究的目标是评估视觉与动作的时间动态,以评估引导婴儿反应的潜在词汇表征。16个月大的婴儿参与了一项二选一的强制选择单词-图片匹配任务。我们对同时发生的注视和伸手行为进行了逐时刻分析,以评估作为触觉反应类型(目标、干扰项或无触摸)函数的提示单词的处理速度(视觉反应时间)。与干扰项触摸和目标触摸相比,无触摸时的视觉反应时间(视觉RTs)明显更慢,而干扰项触摸和目标触摸在统计学上没有差异。与无触摸相比,干扰项触摸时视觉RTs明显更快,这一发现表明,不正确和没有的触觉反应似乎指示了不同的知识状态:不正确的反应与部分知识相关,而没有的反应似乎反映了将词汇项目映射到其目标指称对象的真正失败。此外,我们发现那些处理单词速度更快的孩子也是那些触觉表现更好的孩子。这项研究为通过视觉和触觉模态测量的知识提供了方法上的澄清,并为生命第二年单词知识的连续性提供了新证据。