Developmental Change in Action Perception: Is Motor Experience the Cause?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human actions are complex stimuli containing several perceptual dimensions an observer could attend to. Research indicates that attention to the perceptual dimensions of action undergoes a process of perceptual narrowing between 4 and 10 months, during which infants’ attention to configural and temporal information in action decreases over time, while attention to hand information is maintained. This research explored whether infants’ active experience with grasping is related to perceptual narrowing in action. Across two studies, we tested 6‐month‐old infants’ attention to changes in these action dimensions and also assessed their grasping ability. Infants who were more proficient at grasping showed a pattern more consistent with perceptual narrowing (decreasing attention to configural and temporal information) relative to those less proficient at grasping, especially for attention to configural information. In addition, attention to hand information appears to undergo U‐shaped development between 4 and 10 months, as 6‐month‐olds did not recover attention to the hand change. These findings add to a growing body of research showing that infants’ motor experience broadly influences their perception of others’ action and may follow a complex developmental pathway that diverges from perceptual narrowing over the first year.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".