ArticleBehavioral neuroscience2025
A rational information gathering account of infant habituation.
Article in Behavioral neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Gaze is one of the primary experimental measures for studying cognitive development, especially in preverbal infants. However, the field is only beginning to develop a principled explanatory framework for making sense of the various factors affecting gaze. We approach this issue by addressing infant gaze from first principles, using rational information gathering. In particular, we revisit the influential descriptive account of Hunter and Ames (1988), which posits a set of regularities argued to govern how gaze preference for a stimulus changes with experience and other factors. When the Hunter and Ames's (1988) model is reconsidered from the perspective of rational information gathering (as recently also proposed by other authors), one feature of the model emerges as surprising: that preference for a stimulus is not monotonic with exposure. This claim, which has at least some empirical support, is in contrast to most statistical measures of informativeness, which strictly decline with experience. We present a normative, computational theory of visual exploration that rationalizes this and other features of the classic account. Our account suggests that Hunter and Ames's (1988) signature nonmonotonic pattern is a direct manifestation of a ubiquitous principle of the value of information in sequential tasks, other consequences of which have recently been observed in a range of settings including deliberation, exploration, curiosity, and boredom. This is that the value of information gathering, putatively driving gaze, depends on the interplay of a stimulus' informativeness (called gain, the focus of other rationally motivated accounts) with a second factor (called need) reflecting the estimated chance that information will be used in the future. This computational decomposition draws new connections between infant gaze and other cases of exploration, and offers novel, quantitative interpretations and predictions about the factors that may impact infant exploratory attention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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.