Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37750490›Full record

ArticleDevelopmental science2024

Walking and falling: Using robot simulations to model the role of errors in infant walking.

Ori Ossmy, Danyang Han, Patrick MacAlpine, Justine Hoch, Peter Stone, Karen E Adolph

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Developmental science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Toward a Causal Science of Early Play?Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies
    Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Ori OssmyCentre for Brain and Cognitive Development & Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck, University of London, London, UK.
Danyang HanDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7113-8857
Patrick MacAlpineDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Justine HochDepartment of Psychology and Human Development, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Peter StoneDepartment of Computer Science, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Karen E AdolphDepartment of Psychology, New York University, New York, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2819-134X
New York University · USBirkbeck, University of London · GBSony Corporation (United States) · USThe University of Texas at Austin · USVanderbilt University · US

Funding

Flexibility of Learning in Infant Skill AcquisitionR01HD033486 · NICHD · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI ADOLPH, KAREN E · 2001 to 2023
$4.5M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD033486
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

What is the optimal penalty for errors in infant skill learning? Behavioral analyses indicate that errors are frequent but trivial as infants acquire foundational skills. In learning to walk, for example, falling is commonplace but appears to incur only a negligible penalty. Behavioral data, however, cannot reveal whether a low penalty for falling is beneficial for learning to walk. Here, we used a simulated bipedal robot as an embodied model to test the optimal penalty for errors in learning to walk. We trained the robot to walk using 12,500 independent simulations on walking paths produced by infants during free play and systematically varied the penalty for falling-a level of precision, control, and magnitude impossible with real infants. When trained with lower penalties for falling, the robot learned to walk farther and better on familiar, trained paths and better generalized its learning to novel, untrained paths. Indeed, zero penalty for errors led to the best performance for both learning and generalization. Moreover, the beneficial effects of a low penalty were stronger for generalization than for learning. Robot simulations corroborate prior behavioral data and suggest that a low penalty for errors helps infants learn foundational skills (e.g., walking, talking, and social interactions) that require immense flexibility, creativity, and adaptability. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS: During infant skill acquisition, errors are commonplace but appear to incur a low penalty; when learning to walk, for example, falls are frequent but trivial. To test the optimal penalty for errors, we trained a simulated robot to walk using real infant paths and systematically manipulated the penalty for falling. Lower penalties in training led to better performance on familiar, trained paths and on novel untrained paths, and zero penalty was most beneficial. Benefits of a low penalty were stronger for untrained than for trained paths, suggesting that discounting errors facilitates acquiring skills that require immense flexibility and generalization.

Indexed as

RoboticsAccidental FallsGeneralization, PsychologicalHumansInfantLearningWalkingerrorfallingpenaltyreinforcement learningsimulated robotwalking

Identifiers

PMID37750490
PMCPMC10922068
OpenAlexW4387032826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.