Explaining Individual Differences in Infant Visual Sensory Seeking

Overview

Journal Infancy

Specialties Gynecology & Obstetrics
Pediatrics

Date 2020 Aug 5

PMID 32748567

Citations 4

Authors

Elena Serena Piccardi

Mark H Johnson

Teodora Gliga

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Individual differences in infants' engagement with their environment manifest early in development and are noticed by parents. Three views have been advanced to explain differences in seeking novel stimulation. The optimal stimulation hypothesis suggests that individuals seek further stimulation when they are under-responsive to current sensory input. The processing speed hypothesis proposes that those capable of processing information faster are driven to seek stimulation more frequently. The information prioritization hypothesis suggests the differences in stimulation seeking index variation in the prioritization of incoming relative to ongoing information processing. Ten-month-old infants saw 10 repetitions of a video clip and changes in frontal theta oscillatory amplitude were measured as an index of information processing speed. Stimulus-locked P1 peak amplitude in response to checkerboards briefly overlaid on the video at random points during its presentation indexed processing of incoming stimulation. Parental report of higher visual seeking did not relate to reduced P1 peak amplitude or to a stronger decrease in frontal theta amplitude with repetition, thus not supporting either the optimal stimulation or the processing speed hypotheses. Higher visual seeking occurred in those infants whose P1 peak amplitude was greater than expected based on their theta amplitude. These findings indicate that visual sensory seeking in infancy is explained by a bias toward novel stimulation, thus supporting the information prioritization hypothesis.

Citing Articles

The Infant and Toddler Curiosity Questionnaire: A Validated Caregiver-Report Measure of Curiosity in Children From 5 to 24 Months.

Altmann E, Bazhydai M, Karadag D, Westermann G Infancy. 2025; 30(1):e70001.

PMID: 39853857 PMC: 11758190. DOI: 10.1111/infa.70001.

Behavioral and Brain Reactivity Associated With Drug-Related and Non-Drug-Related Emotional Stimuli in Methamphetamine Addicts.

Li X, Zhou Y, Zhang G, Lu Y, Zhou C, Wang H Front Hum Neurosci. 2022; 16:894911.

PMID: 35814947 PMC: 9263505. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2022.894911.

Not all babies are in the same boat: Exploring the effects of socioeconomic status, parental attitudes, and activities during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic on early Executive Functions.

Hendry A, Gibson S, Davies C, Gliga T, McGillion M, Gonzalez-Gomez N Infancy. 2022; 27(3):555-581.

PMID: 35102670 PMC: 9304249. DOI: 10.1111/infa.12460.

Behavioural and neural markers of tactile sensory processing in infants at elevated likelihood of autism spectrum disorder and/or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Piccardi E, Begum Ali J, Jones E, Mason L, Charman T, Johnson M J Neurodev Disord. 2021; 13(1):1.

PMID: 33390154 PMC: 7780639. DOI: 10.1186/s11689-020-09334-1.

Explaining individual differences in infant visual sensory seeking.

Piccardi E, Johnson M, Gliga T Infancy. 2020; 25(5):677-698.

PMID: 32748567 PMC: 7496506. DOI: 10.1111/infa.12356.

References

Hills T, Todd P, Lazer D, Redish A, Couzin I . Exploration versus exploitation in space, mind, and society. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014; 19(1):46-54. PMC: 4410143. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.10.004. View

Rogers S, Ozonoff S . Annotation: what do we know about sensory dysfunction in autism? A critical review of the empirical evidence. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2005; 46(12):1255-68. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01431.x. View

Tomchek S, Dunn W . Sensory processing in children with and without autism: a comparative study using the short sensory profile. Am J Occup Ther. 2007; 61(2):190-200. DOI: 10.5014/ajot.61.2.190. View

Ghanizadeh A . Sensory processing problems in children with ADHD, a systematic review. Psychiatry Investig. 2011; 8(2):89-94. PMC: 3149116. DOI: 10.4306/pi.2011.8.2.89. View

Begus K, Southgate V, Gliga T . Neural mechanisms of infant learning: differences in frontal theta activity during object exploration modulate subsequent object recognition. Biol Lett. 2015; 11(5):20150041. PMC: 4455734. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2015.0041. View

Fantz R . VISUAL EXPERIENCE IN INFANTS: DECREASED ATTENTION TO FAMILIAR PATTERNS RELATIVE TO NOVEL ONES. Science. 1964; 146(3644):668-70. DOI: 10.1126/science.146.3644.668. View

Baranek G . Autism during infancy: a retrospective video analysis of sensory-motor and social behaviors at 9-12 months of age. J Autism Dev Disord. 1999; 29(3):213-24. DOI: 10.1023/a:1023080005650. View

Gottlieb J, Oudeyer P, Lopes M, Baranes A . Information-seeking, curiosity, and attention: computational and neural mechanisms. Trends Cogn Sci. 2013; 17(11):585-93. PMC: 4193662. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.001. View

Clarke A, Roberts B, Ranganath C . Neural oscillations during conditional associative learning. Neuroimage. 2018; 174:485-493. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.03.053. View

10.

Klimesch W . EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: a review and analysis. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1999; 29(2-3):169-95. DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0173(98)00056-3. View

11.

Xie W, Mallin B, Richards J . Development of brain functional connectivity and its relation to infant sustained attention in the first year of life. Dev Sci. 2018; 22(1):e12703. DOI: 10.1111/desc.12703. View

12.

Orekhova E, Stroganova T, Posikera I, Elam M . EEG theta rhythm in infants and preschool children. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006; 117(5):1047-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2005.12.027. View

13.

Ben-Sasson A, Cermak S, Orsmond G, Tager-Flusberg H, Carter A, Kadlec M . Extreme sensory modulation behaviors in toddlers with autism spectrum disorders. Am J Occup Ther. 2007; 61(5):584-92. DOI: 10.5014/ajot.61.5.584. View

14.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A . Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009; 41(4):1149-60. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. View

15.

Begus K, Gliga T, Southgate V . Infants learn what they want to learn: responding to infant pointing leads to superior learning. PLoS One. 2014; 9(10):e108817. PMC: 4188542. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108817. View

16.

Frost R, Armstrong B, Siegelman N, Christiansen M . Domain generality versus modality specificity: the paradox of statistical learning. Trends Cogn Sci. 2015; 19(3):117-25. PMC: 4348214. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.010. View

17.

Eeles A, Spittle A, Anderson P, Brown N, Lee K, Boyd R . Assessments of sensory processing in infants: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012; 55(4):314-26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2012.04434.x. View

18.

LAKATOS K, Nemoda Z, Birkas E, Ronai Z, Kovacs E, Ney K . Association of D4 dopamine receptor gene and serotonin transporter promoter polymorphisms with infants' response to novelty. Mol Psychiatry. 2003; 8(1):90-7. DOI: 10.1038/sj.mp.4001212. View

19.

Ben-Sasson A, Hen L, Fluss R, Cermak S, Engel-Yeger B, Gal E . A meta-analysis of sensory modulation symptoms in individuals with autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2008; 39(1):1-11. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-008-0593-3. View

20.

Comings D, Gonzalez N, Wu S, Gade R, Muhleman D, SAUCIER G . Studies of the 48 bp repeat polymorphism of the DRD4 gene in impulsive, compulsive, addictive behaviors: Tourette syndrome, ADHD, pathological gambling, and substance abuse. Am J Med Genet. 1999; 88(4):358-68. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1096-8628(19990820)88:4<358::aid-ajmg13>3.0.co;2-g. View