ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
A Framework for Online Experimenter-Moderated Looking-Time Studies Assessing Infants' Linguistic Knowledge.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phonological representation in English-learning infants' word comprehension.Developmental psychology · 2026Article
- Comparing automated gaze classifiers in infant looking studies: Accuracy and vulnerability to environmental factors.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Object Functions and Words Reexamined: Toddlers' Recognition of Function Depends on Object Type.Journal of cognition and development : official journal of the Cognitive Development Society · 2025Article
- Quality of remotely-collected gaze data in autistic and nonspectrum children.Language development research · 2025Article
- Remote Infant Studies of Early Learning (RISE): Scalable online replications of key findings in infant cognitive development.Developmental psychology · 2025Article
- Exploration of factors affecting webcam-based automated gaze coding.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Do focused interests support word learning? A study with autistic and nonautistic children.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2024Article
- Talker variability is not always the right noise: 14 month olds struggle to learn dissimilar word-object pairs under talker variability conditions.Journal of experimental child psychology · 2023Article
- Validation of an open source, remote web-based eye-tracking method (WebGazer) for research in early childhood.Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant StudiesArticle
- Becoming word meaning experts: Infants' processing of familiar words in the context of typical and atypical exemplars.Child developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Online data collection methods pose unique challenges and opportunities for infant researchers. Looking-time measures require relative timing precision to link eye-gaze behavior to stimulus presentation, particularly for tasks that require visual stimuli to be temporally linked to auditory stimuli, which may be disrupted when studies are delivered online. Concurrently, by widening potential geographic recruitment areas, online data collection may also provide an opportunity to diversify participant samples that are not possible given in-lab data collection. To date, there is limited information about these potential challenges and opportunities. In Study 1, twenty-one 23- to 26-month-olds participated in an experimenter-moderated looking-time paradigm that was administered
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.