Introduction•Processing of configurational

information is often highly affected by inversion

•Previous research has focused on the perception of static stimuli such as faces, pictures in story books or objects

•How do infants perceive dynamic events when presented in an inverted orientation?

•Do they show evidence of meaningful interpretation for upside-down actions?

•Where do infants look when viewing such actions?

•Does gaze direction to relevant aspects of an event predict increased looking when those elements are deleted from the event?Background on Inversion

Effects

•Processing of configurational information is particularly affected by inversion whereas perception of discrete features is not

•FACES: Recognition is more affected by inversion than for non-face stimuli (Yin, 1969).

•Children do not show special inversion sensitivity to faces over houses until teens (Carey & Diamond, 1977)

•Meaningful information such as emotional expression can often be completely lost as a result of inversion as in the Margaret Thatcher Illusion (see above)

•PICTURES & OBJECTS: 18 – 24 month olds naming pictures are not affected by inversion, but do show effects when naming objects (DeLoache et al., 2000)

Orientation Specificity for Infant Event RepresentationsOrientation Specificity for Infant Event RepresentationsPeter Gordon, Kristin Bellanca, Margaret Heller, Noa Porath

Teachers College, Columbia University

HUG w/ toy

Fig 2 GIVE: Upright vs. Hug

0

10

20

30

40

Hab1 Hab2 Hab3 Hab4 Hab5 Hab6 AvgOld

AvgNew

Trials

Mea

n Lo

okin

g tim

e (s

ec)

Give

Hug

Fig 1 GIVE Upright vs. Upside Down

0

10

20

30

40

Hab1 Hab2 Hab3 Hab4 Hab5 Hab6 Avg Old AvgNew

Trials

Mea

n L

oo

kin

g ti

me

(sec

)

Give

Give UD

GIVE Upside Down w/toy

HUG w/o toy

GIVE w/o toy GIVE w/ toy

Habituation Test

Give Upside Down

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Approach Interaction Departure

Per

cen

t L

oo

kin

g t

ime

With Toy

Without Toy

Fig 3 Give

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Approach Interaction Departure

Per

cen

t L

oo

kin

g t

ime

With Toy

Without Toy

Fig 4 Hug

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

Approach Interaction Departure

Per

cen

t L

oo

kin

g t

ime With Toy

Without Toy

GIVE Upside Down w/o toy

Eye-Tracking Data% looking to toy locationHabituation Data

Approach Interaction Departure Approach Interaction Departure

Event Videos

ASL 504 infra-red remote eye tracker

•When 10 month olds see an event of GIVING, they treat a toy undergoing transfer of possession with special status

•When habituated to viewing a GIVING event on video, they show recovery of looking time when the toy is missing in the NEW test video stimuli

•The toy is RELEVANT to the action of GIVING (It isn’t giving without the transferred object)

•Infants do not show recovery of looking time when the missing object is IRRELEVANT to the action, such as when two people are hugging and one is carrying a toy (Fig. 1)

Eye Tracking

•Eye tracking of infants as they watched the GIVE event video revealed that, during the transfer of possession, they looked at the toy more than any other element in the scene

•When the toy was missing in the test video, they continued to look at where the toy had been in the original video (Fig. 3)

•With the HUG videos, infants looked at the toy much less during the interaction phase, and almost never when it was no longer in the video (Fig. 4)

The GIVE/HUG Effect Effects of Event Inversion for GIVE

•Eye tracking for the upside down video showed patterns of eye gaze that were almost indistinguishable from those in the upright orientation (Fig. 5)

•In the w/o toy condition, eye gaze to the location of the missing toy was somewhat attenuated, but was still greater than in the irrelevant-object (HUG) condition

•Infants’ gaze is drawn to the transferred object for the inverted GIVE event just as in the upright orientation

BUT ... Do infants understand the inverted GIVE event?

•In the habituation procedure, infants did not show recovery of looking time when the toy was removed from the GIVE upside down video (Fig. 2)

•This contrasts sharply with the recovery of LT in the upright condition

•The effect of inversion appears to be that infants could not make sense of the action and the role of the toy in that action, even though they were looking at the toy in the appropriate locations

•This suggests that recovery of looking time in habituation for dynamic events is strong evidence of infants’ meaningful interpretation of those events