The development of children’s and adults’ use of kinematic cues for visual anticipation and verbal prediction of action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expectations about how others' actions unfold in the future are crucial for our everyday social interactions. The current study examined the development of the use of kinematic cues for action anticipation and prediction in 3-year-olds, 4-year-olds, 10-year-olds, and adults in two experiments. Participants observed a hand repeatedly reaching for either a close or far object. The motor kinematics of the hand varied depending on whether the hand reached for the close or far object. We assessed whether participants would use kinematic cues to visually anticipate (Experiment 1; N=98) and verbally predict (Experiment 2; N=80) which object the hand was going to grasp. We found that only adults, but not 3- to 10-year-olds, based their visual anticipations on kinematic cues (Experiment 1). This speaks against claims that action anticipations are based on simulating others' motor processes and instead provides evidence that anticipations are based on perceptual mechanisms. Interestingly, 10-year-olds used kinematic cues to correctly verbally predict the target object, and 4-year-olds learned to do so over the trials (Experiment 2). Thus, kinematic cues are used earlier in life for explicit action predictions than for visual action anticipations. This adds to a recent debate on whether or not an implicit understanding of others' actions precedes their ability to verbally reason about the same actions.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".