Examining the Robustness of Neural Correlates of Infants’ Sociomoral Evaluations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has shown that infants prefer prosocial characters over antisocial ones, suggesting that sociomoral evaluation is early-emerging. However, some have argued that infants’ preferential responses stem from low-level perceptual processes rather than true social understanding. Using electroencephalography (EEG), past work has suggested that motivational and social, but not attentional, processes are implicated in infants’ responses to prosocial versus antisocial acts and individuals, however, the majority of past work utilized a single type of prosocial/antisocial interactions: helping a character to climb a hill. To test the generalizability of past neural findings from the hill paradigm, here we examined infants' responses in a distinct helping/hindering scenario in which a character tries but fails to open a box and is alternatively helped or hindered. Largely replicating past work, infants showed greater activity in social (indexed by the P400) but not attentional (indexed by the Nc) ERP components when seeing hinderers versus helpers, consistent with claims that infants’ responses to prosocial and antisocial agents are social. No evidence of differential approach/avoidance motivation during prosocial/antisocial events was found. These findings support the role of social processes in infants’ sociomoral evaluations.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".