Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38012276›Full record

ArticleNature human behaviour2024

Infants' looking preferences for social versus non-social objects reflect genetic variation.

Ana Maria Portugal, Charlotte Viktorsson, Mark J Taylor, Luke Mason, Kristiina Tammimies, Angelica Ronald, Terje Falck-Ytter

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature human behaviour, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Layers of Social Meaning: Innate, Acquired, and Deliberative Levels of Referential Signal Processing.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Awake Infants: Insights From More Than 750 Scanning Sessions.Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Ana Maria PortugalDevelopment and Neurodiversity Lab (DIVE), Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. ana-maria.portugal@psyk.uu.se.ORCID 0000-0002-3627-0753
Charlotte ViktorssonDevelopment and Neurodiversity Lab (DIVE), Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2727-2957
Mark J TaylorDepartment of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Luke MasonDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Kristiina TammimiesCenter of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (KIND), Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Women's and Childrn's Health, Karolinska Institutet & Stockholm Health Care Services, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-8324-4697
Angelica RonaldSchool of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9576-2176
Terje Falck-YtterDevelopment and Neurodiversity Lab (DIVE), Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. terje.falck-ytter@psyk.uu.se.ORCID 0000-0001-9714-0197
Uppsala University · SEKarolinska Institutet · SEKarolinska University Hospital · SEKing's College London · GBUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K021389/1Medical Research Council MR/T003057/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To what extent do individual differences in infants' early preference for faces versus non-facial objects reflect genetic and environmental factors? Here in a sample of 536 5-month-old same-sex twins, we assessed attention to faces using eye tracking in two ways: initial orienting to faces at the start of the trial (thought to reflect subcortical processing) and sustained face preference throughout the trial (thought to reflect emerging attention control). Twin model fitting suggested an influence of genetic and unique environmental effects, but there was no evidence for an effect of shared environment. The heritability of face orienting and preference were 0.19 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.33) and 0.46 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.57), respectively. Face preference was associated positively with later parent-reported verbal competence (β = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.25, P = 0.014, R

Indexed as

Eye MovementsParentsGenetic VariationHumansInfant

Identifiers

PMID38012276
PMCPMC10810753
OpenAlexW4389045259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.