tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post4688710916050341627..comments2007-12-08T12:15:42.985-06:00Derichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16617204535017208765noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-32645367168262043542007-12-08T12:15:00.000-06:002007-12-08T12:15:00.000-06:00The article has links to movies showing the stimuli. I don't think they are pushing the innateness angle, intuiting probability could possible rise out of the logic of learning and developing hand-eye coordination, or whatever. I'm going ahead and putting a link to the PDF file in the post.Derichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16617204535017208765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22093933.post-7016351894042245472007-12-08T11:21:00.000-06:002007-12-08T11:21:00.000-06:00I'm disappointed that I can't read the original article (don't have a PNAS subscription).<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I understand the protocol very well. In the image you posted, the blue objects are traveling along trajectories that would be more likely to exit the enclosure and the yellow object would be less likely to do so? If the enclosure and three of the objects are occluded, how do they know that the increase in looking time is due to the probability of exiting the enclosure, or in the case of the yellow object remaining, a case of novelty detection? In other words, how do they know the infants weren't just staring longer because the novel stimuli remained on screen? Why not use four objects that are all the same color?<BR/><BR/>And in these sorts of infant looking-time paradigms, I'm always skeptical about claims of innateness. Is that what the authors are pushing here? Even if the infant has not been exposed to this exact stimuli, surely by the time they are 1 year-old they have been exposed to quite a lot of things moving in the real world, enough to be able to construct probabilistic models.derekjameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02776917750757825408noreply@blogger.com