ArticleDevelopmental science2024
Walking and falling: Using robot simulations to model the role of errors in infant walking.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physically Active Play as a Context for Motor Learning in Children with and Without Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Conceptual Synthesis of Cross-Domain Alignment.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Infants and Adults Are Sensitive to the Costs of Upright Versus Non-Upright Locomotion.Developmental science · 2026Article
- Physical cognition in altered gravity: Link between sensorimotor and cognitive adaptability.iScience · 2026Article
- How infants learn (to walk): Transitions are a fundamental component of practice.Developmental psychology · 2026Article
- Reasoning decline during aging under familiar and unfamiliar physics.Frontiers in aging · 2025Article
- How to get rich quick: Using video to enrich psychology and neuroscience research Comment on "Beyond simple laboratory studies: Developing sophisticated models to study rich behavior" by Maselli et al.Physics of life reviews · 2024Article
- Toward a Causal Science of Early Play?Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant StudiesReview
- The development of gait and mobility: Form and function in infant locomotion.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive scienceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.