A rational information gathering account of infant habituation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gaze is one of the primary experimental measures for studying cognitive development, especially in preverbal infants. However, the field is only beginning to develop a principled explanatory framework for making sense of the various factors affecting gaze. We approach this issue by addressing infant gaze from first principles, using rational information gathering. In particular, we revisit the influential descriptive account of Hunter and Ames (1988), which posits a set of regularities argued to govern how gaze preference for a stimulus changes with experience and other factors. When the Hunter and Ames's (1988) model is reconsidered from the perspective of rational information gathering (as recently also proposed by other authors), one feature of the model emerges as surprising: that preference for a stimulus is not monotonic with exposure. This claim, which has at least some empirical support, is in contrast to most statistical measures of informativeness, which strictly decline with experience. We present a normative, computational theory of visual exploration that rationalizes this and other features of the classic account. Our account suggests that Hunter and Ames's (1988) signature nonmonotonic pattern is a direct manifestation of a ubiquitous principle of the value of information in sequential tasks, other consequences of which have recently been observed in a range of settings including deliberation, exploration, curiosity, and boredom. This is that the value of information gathering, putatively driving gaze, depends on the interplay of a stimulus' informativeness (called gain, the focus of other rationally motivated accounts) with a second factor (called need) reflecting the estimated chance that information will be used in the future. This computational decomposition draws new connections between infant gaze and other cases of exploration, and offers novel, quantitative interpretations and predictions about the factors that may impact infant exploratory attention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".