The Development of Infants’ Expectations for Event Timing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity to process and incorporate temporal information into behavioural decisions is an integral component for functioning in our environment. Whereas previous research has extended adults’ temporal processing capacity down the developmental timeline to infants, little research has examined infants’ capacity to use that temporal information in guiding their future behaviours and whether this capacity can detect event-timing differences on the order of milliseconds. The present study examined 3- and 6-month-old infants’ ability to process temporal durations of 700 and 1200 milliseconds by means of the Visual Expectation Cueing Paradigm in which the duration of a central stimulus predicted either a target appearing on the left or on the right of a screen. If 3- and 6-month-old infants could discriminate the milliseconds difference between the centrally-presented temporal cues, then they would correctly make anticipatory eye movements to the proper target location at a rate above chance. Results indicated that 6- but not 3-month-olds successfully discriminated and incorporated events’ temporal information into their visual expectations. Brain maturation and the perceptual capacity to discriminate the relative timing values of temporal events may account for these findings. This developmental limitation in processing and discriminating events on the scale of milliseconds, consequently, may be a limiting factor for attentional and cognitive development that has not previously been explored.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".