The effect of specific locomotor experiences on infants’ avoidance behaviour on real and water cliffs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Infants’ avoidance of drop‐offs has been described as an affordance learning that is not transferable between different locomotor postures. In addition, there is evidence that infants perceive and act similarly around real and water cliffs. This cross‐sectional study investigated the effects of specific locomotor experiences on infants’ avoidance behaviour using the Real Cliff/Water Cliff paradigm. The experiments included 102 infants, 58 crawling, but pre‐walking, infants (M age = 11.57 months, SD = 1.65) with crawling experience ranging between 0.03 and 7.4 months (M = 2.16, SD = 1.71) and 44 walking infants (M age = 14.82 months, SD = 1.99), with walking experience ranging between 0.13 and 5.2 months (M = 1.86, SD = 1.28). The association between crawling experience and crawlers’ avoidance of the real and water cliffs was confirmed. Importantly, crawling and total self‐produced locomotor experience, and not walking experience, were associated with walkers’ avoidance behaviour on both cliffs. These results suggest that some degree of perceptual learning acquired through crawling experience was developmentally transferred to the walking posture. A longer duration of crawling experience facilitates a more rapid recalibration to the new walking capability. In addition, there was no difference in infants’ avoidance of falling on the real and the water cliff. However, infants explored the water cliff more than the real cliff, revealing more enticement to examine bodies of water than for drop‐offs. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at https://youtu.be/23LXIGiLhHI
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".