MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6925220481 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/24hnp

The development of pointing during the first two years of life and across different cultures

2022· other· en· W6925220481 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueOpen Science Framework · 2022
Typeother
Langueen
Domaine
Thématique
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGestureVocabularyFunction (biology)CognitionNonverbal communicationAssociation (psychology)Form and functionLanguage developmentCognitive development

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The canonical pointing gesture refers to pointing with an extended index finger with an at least slightly extended arm, and with the remaining fingers curled. The occurrence of the pointing gesture is considered as one of the major ontogenetic milestones in the first year of life. Empirical evidence suggests an association between development and frequency of pointing during infancy and several areas of cognitive development, such as vocabulary development and Theory of Mind (Rowe & Goldin-Meadow, 2009; Sauer et al., 2010; Sodian & Kristen-Antonow, 2015), indicating the importance of the pointing gesture for infant development. While development and purpose of pointing gesture has been the topic of theoretical debates for a long time, research on the early emergence of pointing is scarce. Specifically, one of the questions is how pointing occurs in development, whether it starts as a non-social gesture and becomes to serve a social function as infants get older or whether it has a social purpose from the start. Findings from few previous studies suggest that the pointing gesture first has a non-social purpose, originating for example from infants’ tactile exploration, and during the second half of the first year of life, possibly based on learning about the reactions from significant others, becomes used for social purposes, i.e., as a form of communication (Carpendale & Carpendale, 2010; Paulus et al., in preparation). The main goal of the current study is to assess the theoretical proposal that pointing develops from a non-social use of the index finger and later becomes a social/communicative gesture. On a side note, our study will also test the theoretical proposition of the 9-month revolution during which there is a sudden switch in pointing behavior from mostly non-social to social (Tomasello & Gonzales-Cabrera, 2017). The second goal of this study is to assess whether there are cross-cultural differences in pointing behavior during the first years of life. Whereas cross-cultural evidence on pointing in infants is limited, evidence from adult studies suggests variability in adults’ pointing behavior across cultures ranging from using different body parts for pointing (e.g., lip pointing instead of index finger pointing), pointing being socially inhibited (e.g., not pointing at people, rainbows or with the left hand), and pointing being limited to certain contexts (e.g., pointing only at a specific location instead of pointing at objects as well) (Enfield, 2001; Kita & Essegbey, 2001; Lee & Fraser, 2001; Le Guen, 2011; Levinson, 2003; Wilkins, 2003). Whereas there is limited evidence on cultural differences in pointing behavior, so far the evidence suggests that there might be differences across different cultures in the frequency of infants pointing behavior. For example, Salomo and Liszkowski (2013) demonstrated differences in the frequency of pointing behavior in 8- to 15-month-old infants from Mexico, the Netherlands, and China with the highest frequency of pointing behavior in infants from China, followed by infants from the Netherlands and then Mexico. Authors explained these differences as related to differences in the amount of joint attention between caregivers and infants. Furthermore, another study assessed pointing gestures in infants from 9 to 13 months of age across three different cultures (Canada, India, and Peru) and found that while infants in all three cultures demonstrated pointing gestures, infants from Canada were engaged in pointing gestures more often compared to infants from India (Callaghan et al., 2011). The potential mechanism through which culture might affect pointing behavior in infants as found in the above studies is through differences in the nature of caregiver-infant interaction. Indeed, research evidence suggests cross-cultural differences in parental beliefs about child-rearing (Lancy, 2010; Weisner, 2009), particularly caregivers’ socialization goals regarding independence and interdependence of children in relation to their family (Kagitcibasi, 2005). These, in turn, have been found to affect the quality of caregiver-infant interaction. In the present study we will examine the effect of four different cultural settings (German, Japanese, Turkish, and Chinese) on type (non-social, social) and frequency of infant’s pointing behavior. The cultures were chosen based on labs of researchers who had expressed interest in participating in this study, while trying to maximize diversity between cultures.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Science ouverte
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,463
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,002
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0050,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,337
Écart entre enseignants0,318 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOpen Science FrameworkTravaux en français237 207