Coordinated attention, declarative and imperative pointing in infants with and without Down syndrome: Sharing experiences with adults and peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The link between coordinated attention, imperative and declarative pointing was assessed in a longitudinal study. Four groups of infants were studied in interaction with their mothers, a same-aged peer and the peer's mother. Two groups of infants had Down syndrome (DS), one ( n = 11) with a mean mental age (MA) of 0;8.6 and the other ( n = 11) with an MA of 1;4.5. These infants were matched on MA with two groups ( n = 10 each) of typically developing (TD) infants. The following hypotheses were confirmed: (a) that infants with DS produce less coordinated attention and declaratives than typically developing infants, but a comparable number of imperatives; (b) that coordinated attention predicts declarative but not imperative pointing; and (c) that coordinated attention, imperative and declarative pointing should be higher with adults than with peers. Discussion centers on the implications of these findings for theories of early communication development and mental state awareness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".