Effects of Multisensory Stimulation on Infants' Learning of Object Pattern and Trajectory
Saved in:
| Title: | Effects of Multisensory Stimulation on Infants' Learning of Object Pattern and Trajectory |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Natasa Ganea (ORCID |
| Source: | Child Development. 2024 95(6):2133-2149. |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 17 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Infants, Child Development, Multisensory Learning, Recall (Psychology), Learning Processes, Stimuli, Patterned Responses, Learning Trajectories, Object Permanence |
| DOI: | 10.1111/cdev.14147 |
| ISSN: | 0009-3920 1467-8624 |
| Abstract: | This study investigated whether infants encode better the features of a briefly occluded object if its movements are specified simultaneously by vision and audition than if they are not (data collected: 2017-2019). Experiment 1 showed that 10-month-old infants (N = 39, 22 females, White-English) notice changes in the visual pattern on the object irrespective of the stimulation received (spatiotemporally congruent audio-visual stimulation, incongruent stimulation, or visual-only; [partial eta-squared] = 0.53). Experiment 2 (N = 72, 36 female) found similar results in 6-month-olds (Test Block 1, [partial eta-squared] = 0.13), but not 4-month-olds. Experiment 3 replicated this finding with another group of 6-month-olds (N = 42, 21 females) and showed that congruent stimulation enables infants to detect changes in object trajectory (d = 0.56) in addition to object pattern (d = 1.15), whereas incongruent stimulation hinders performance. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Notes: | https://osf.io/d5tn4/?view_only=b5564084bbf641048d287b1310b946f1 |
| Entry Date: | 2024 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1449854 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEPCkgSzoFazioVtG0mtWCtAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIGjaHdo0JXXlLUawwIBEICBm8OkCfpihRzIHfmnABnqhQf_QQepLoaxDiRFF8jOQLygVTw2gVzCeSFtuglkyfauL5DnSmr_vErApXlQ1ZHuilbdO5zY9scvy69TU0x_I1xXAH3uINOE_E_lqvglV518a2qbIL-hCKxX1GxnQbIIwiaq2s_sv6jPKOd4dRDjpP6JE9bV77TGdvFP8fyXrfs-o6xvaB6c7hMlMgBq Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0181057727;cdv01nov.24;2024Nov26.04:12;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0181057727-1">Effects of multisensory stimulation on infants' learning of object pattern and trajectory </title> <p>This study investigated whether infants encode better the features of a briefly occluded object if its movements are specified simultaneously by vision and audition than if they are not (data collected: 2017–2019). Experiment 1 showed that 10‐month‐old infants (N = 39, 22 females, White‐English) notice changes in the visual pattern on the object irrespective of the stimulation received (spatiotemporally congruent audio‐visual stimulation, incongruent stimulation, or visual‐only; ηp2 =.53). Experiment 2 (N = 72, 36 female) found similar results in 6‐month‐olds (Test Block 1, ηp2 =.13), but not 4‐month‐olds. Experiment 3 replicated this finding with another group of 6‐month‐olds (N = 42, 21 females) and showed that congruent stimulation enables infants to detect changes in object trajectory (d = 0.56) in addition to object pattern (d = 1.15), whereas incongruent stimulation hinders performance.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Abbreviations</item> <p></p> <item> BF Bayes Factor</item> <p></p> <item> IRH Intersensory Redundancy Hypothesis</item> </ulist> <p>Humans function in complex and dynamic sensory environments and acquire information about these environments through various sensory modalities which include all the classic Aristotelian modalities of vision, audition, touch, smell, and taste, and more besides (Fulkerson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref1">27</reflink>]; Hellier, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref2">30</reflink>]). Each sensory modality is somewhat specialized in the transduction of a particular type of information. For example, vision usually provides more reliable information about the identity and the location of objects (Alais &amp; Burr, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>]; Kitagawa &amp; Ichihara, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref4">37</reflink>]; Pick et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref5">57</reflink>]). Meanwhile, audition is more reliable at conveying information about the timing and duration of events (Burr et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref6">16</reflink>]; Morein‐Zamir et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref7">48</reflink>]). Nonetheless, research shows that, if adults bind information about the same object or event across different sensory modalities, their perceptual discrimination and memory encoding improve (Chen &amp; Spence, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref8">17</reflink>]; Lehmann &amp; Murray, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref9">41</reflink>]; Murray et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref10">51</reflink>]). Like adults, infants also seem to benefit from multisensory stimulation when attending and learning about dynamic events (Bahrick &amp; Lickliter, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref11">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>]). However, under certain circumstances, infants struggle to process stimuli when they receive concurrent multisensory stimulation (Bahrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref13">8</reflink>]; Robinson &amp; Sloutsky, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref14">61</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref15">62</reflink>]). For example, Robinson and Sloutsky ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref16">61</reflink>]) found that 14‐month‐old infants prefer to look at a changing stream of images rather than at a non‐changing steam when the images are presented in silence (probably because of the increased visual novelty in the changing stream), but not when the images are accompanied by a computer‐generated sound. The fact that infants may find it difficult to process multisensory stimulation is not surprising, considering that the ability to weigh different types of information and integrate them appropriately does not fully develop until later in life (Bremner, Lewkowicz, et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref17">14</reflink>]; Gori et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref18">28</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref19">29</reflink>]; Lewkowicz &amp; Kraebel, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref20">45</reflink>]). That said, it is important to understand when infants struggle to process multisensory information, and whether that affects their ability to learn about objects and events, because it could inform how adults interact with babies.</p> <p>The Intersensory Redundancy Hypothesis (IRH; Bahrick &amp; Lickliter, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref22">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref23">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]; Bahrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref25">9</reflink>]) is one theory that attempts to explain how infants may benefit from multisensory stimulation in some conditions but not others. According to the IRH, the object/event features or properties that the infant attends to vary depending on whether the infant receives concurrent stimulation across two or more sensory modalities that index the same object/event (i.e., intersensory redundancy). The theory makes two main predictions: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref26">1</reflink>) if intersensory redundancy is present, the infant should prioritize those object properties that are perceived simultaneously through different sensory modalities (i.e., amodal properties), such as the duration, spatial location, tempo, or rhythm of the object, at the expense of those object properties that are defined by only one sensory modality (i.e., modality‐specific properties), such as the color, pattern, pitch, or timbre of the object (the <emph>Intersensory Redundancy Hypothesis</emph>); and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>) if intersensory redundancy is absent, such as when the infant receives only unisensory information about the object or the multisensory stimulation is unrelated and points to two different objects, the IRH argues that the infant prioritizes the modality‐specific object properties at the expense of the amodal properties (the <emph>Unisensory Facilitation Hypothesis</emph>). The third prediction of the IRH is the <emph>Developmental Hypothesis</emph>, which proposes that the effects of multisensory stimulation are more pronounced in younger infants than in older infants (see also Bahrick, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>]). In essence, the IRH predicts that, if a young infant receives congruent (or redundant) sensory cues that point to the same object, they will encode some object properties but not others.</p> <p>Support for this theory comes from Bahrick and Lickliter ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>]), who studied how 5‐month‐old infants learn the rhythm of a dynamic event. Infants were habituated with a video of a hammer that stroke a surface with a particular rhythm. Some infants watched the video in silence (unimodal condition), while other infants watched the video accompanied by a synchronous tapping sound (congruent condition) or an asynchronous sound (incongruent condition). When the rhythm of the hammer changed, the infants in the congruent condition looked longer at the novel test stimuli relative to the familiar stimuli, while those in the unimodal and incongruent conditions did not. Bahrick et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref30">8</reflink>]) found the opposite effect when they habituated another group of 5‐month‐old infants with the same stimuli and then showed them the hammer striking in the opposite direction. Specifically, the infants in the unimodal habituation condition displayed visual recovery when the hammer changed orientation, while those in the congruent audio‐visual condition did not. Based on these results (see also Bahrick, Flom, &amp; Lickliter, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref31">4</reflink>]), Bahrick et al. argued that concurrent multisensory cues hinder young infants' learning of modality‐specific object properties (such as the orientation, visual pattern, color), but facilitate the learning of amodal properties (such as the rhythm of movement, trajectory, duration).</p> <p>Other studies that have depicted collision events have found similar results (Lewkowicz, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref32">43</reflink>]). However, research has shown that different physical events, such as occlusion, containment, and covering, pose different cognitive challenges for infants (Baillargeon, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref33">10</reflink>]; Baillargeon &amp; Wang, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref34">11</reflink>]). Therefore, the effects of congruent multisensory stimulation might be different across physical events. Furthermore, the studies reviewed above manipulated only the temporal relations between auditory and visual cues by presenting the sound and the visual event synchronously or asynchronously. However, in the physical world, multisensory cues are both spatially and temporally correlated, and infants are sensitive to both types of relations (Fenwick &amp; Morrongiello, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref35">26</reflink>]; Morrongiello, Fenwick, &amp; Chance, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref36">49</reflink>]; Morrongiello, Fenwick, &amp; Nutley, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref37">50</reflink>]). To examine the role of multisensory spatiotemporal cues in how infants process objects and object movements, we focused on another category of events, that is, occlusion events, that depict a moving object that briefly disappears behind another object. To correctly perceive such occlusion events, we must represent the continuous trajectory of the occluded object and hold in our short‐term memory the surface features of the object, such as the shape, color, or pattern of the object. Research by Johnson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>]) and Wilcox ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref39">67</reflink>]) shows that, as infants get older, they get better at representing the trajectory of a briefly occluded object and at holding in their memory the surface features of the object (see also Wilcox &amp; Baillargeon, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref40">68</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref41">69</reflink>]). Therefore, we reasoned that occlusion events could provide a case study for the effects of multisensory stimulation on infants' learning.</p> <p>Previously, Bremner, Slater, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref42">15</reflink>]) found that audio‐visual spatiotemporally congruent stimulation, but not incongruent stimulation, helps 4‐month‐old infants process occlusion events. During the study, the infants watched a video of a ball that moved horizontally behind a screen. While the infants watched this occlusion event, they either heard a musical sound that was spatiotemporally congruent with the ball and appeared to originate from the latter, or the sound was incongruent with the ball and seemed to come from another object in the display. The study found that the 4‐month‐old infants in the congruent multisensory condition were able to represent the occluded object for as long as a group of 6‐month‐old infants (Johnson et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref43">32</reflink>]). Meanwhile, the 4‐month‐old infants in the incongruent condition struggled to represent the object. Consistent with these results, Kirkham, Wagner, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref44">36</reflink>]) found that 4‐month‐old infants make more anticipatory saccades to the area where they expect the briefly occluded object to reappear when the sound that accompanies the motion of the object is spatiotemporally congruent rather than incongruent. These results suggest that spatiotemporally correlated audio‐visual cues that point to the same object help infants to (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>) learn that the object continues to exist when out of sight and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>) make more accurate judgments about when and where the object will reappear.</p> <p>Bremner, Slater, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref47">15</reflink>]) and Kirkham, Wagner, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref48">36</reflink>]) lend their support to the IRH; however, it is unclear whether the babies in the congruent multisensory condition encoded only the spatiotemporal properties of the moving object or they also encoded the object's color and visual pattern. Color and pattern are two modality‐specific properties (perceived through vision) that define the identity of an object, and examining whether infants encode such features can reveal how detailed infants' representation of the occluded object is. The IRH (Bahrick &amp; Lickliter, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref49">6</reflink>]) predicts that infants will process these modality‐specific properties more extensively if they only see the briefly occluded object (i.e., the unisensory case) compared to circumstances in which they both see and hear it (i.e., the multisensory case). To test this prediction, we conducted a series of experiments where we manipulated the type of auditory information that the infants received during a visual occlusion event. Specifically, we wanted to know whether receiving auditory information that was spatiotemporally congruent or incongruent with the object's trajectory would help or hinder infants' learning of the object's visual features. In Experiment 1, we studied the effects of multisensory stimulation on 10‐month‐old infants' learning of object pattern. In Experiment 2, we examined the same phenomenon in two younger age groups of infants, 4‐ and 6‐month‐olds. Finally, in Experiment 3, we studied whether 6‐month‐old infants prioritize the encoding of object trajectory (an amodal property) over that of object pattern (a modality‐specific property) when they receive congruent or incongruent audio‐visual stimulation. The experiments were confirmatory in nature, and all the analyses conducted (although not pre‐registered) were planned based on the predictions of the IRH and previous research findings.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-2">EXPERIMENT 1</hd> <p>Visual pattern is a modality‐specific object property that infants attend to from as early as birth (Fantz, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref50">23</reflink>]; Farroni et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref51">24</reflink>]; Johnson, Dziurawiec, Ellis, &amp; Morton, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref52">33</reflink>]; Slater et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref53">64</reflink>]) and potentially even prior (Reid et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref54">59</reflink>]). For example, newborn infants look longer at images depicting schematic faces and concentric circles than at plain‐colored patches (Fantz, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref55">23</reflink>]). Furthermore, infants start to use object pattern information to disambiguate occlusion events during their first year of life. Wilcox ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref56">67</reflink>]) documented this development in a series of experiments conducted with infants aged between 4.5 and 7.5 months old. The results showed that when the occlusion event was brief and two differently patterned objects appeared successively on either side of the occluding screen, the 7.5‐month‐old infants looked longer at the display than when only one object re‐emerged. This was not the case for the 4.5‐month‐olds or the 7.5‐month‐olds who watched events with longer occlusion intervals (see also Wilcox et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref57">71</reflink>]; Wilcox &amp; Chapa, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref58">70</reflink>]). Therefore, occlusion events pose a challenge for young infants to encode the visual features of a briefly occluded object (potentially because of the short‐term memory load that such events pose), and it remains unclear whether providing congruent multisensory cues to the occluded object facilitates this process or, by contrast, hinders it as predicted by the IRH (Bahrick &amp; Lickliter, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref59">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>In Experiment 1, we employed an infant‐controlled habituation paradigm to study whether 10‐month‐old infants learn the pattern on a briefly occluded object when they receive visual information compared to congruent or incongruent audio‐visual information about the item. During the study, the infants watched a dotted ball that moved back and forth behind a box. One group of infants watched the occlusion event in silence (<emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition), while the other two groups watched the occlusion event alongside an auditory cue (a musical sound). In the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> condition, the sound was spatiotemporally congruent with the ball's motion. By contrast, in the <emph>Incongruent (Static Sound)</emph> condition, the sound appeared to originate from the box. After the habituation, the infants watched in silence two occlusion events: one event in which the ball kept its pattern during the occlusion (<emph>No Change</emph> event) and the other in which the ball changed from dots to stripes during the occlusion (<emph>Pattern Change</emph> event). Based on Wilcox's ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref61">67</reflink>]) findings, we predicted that the infants in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition would look longer at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event. We did not have specific predictions for the two multisensory conditions, the <emph>Incongruent (Static Sound)</emph> and the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> conditions, because previous studies that have investigated the effects of multisensory stimulation on infants' processing of occlusion events (Bremner, Slater, et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref62">15</reflink>]; Kirkham, Wagner, et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref63">36</reflink>]) assessed only whether the infants encoded the trajectory of the briefly occluded object.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-3">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057727-4">Design</hd> <p>The study employed an infant‐controlled habituation paradigm. The infants were randomly assigned to one of the three habituation conditions: <emph>Visual‐Only</emph>, <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph>, and <emph>Incongruent (Static Sound)</emph>. After the habituation, all the infants watched two silent occlusion events: <emph>Pattern Change</emph> and <emph>No Change</emph>. The test events were presented in alternation, three times each (i.e., 3 test blocks), for a total of 6 test trials. The order of the test trials was counterbalanced across participants; about half of the infants viewed the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event first (<emph>n</emph> = 21). This resulted in a 3 × 2 × 3 mixed study design with <emph>Habituation Condition</emph> (Visual‐Only vs. Congruent vs. Incongruent) as a between‐subjects factor, and <emph>Test Event</emph> (Pattern Change vs. No Change) and <emph>Test Block</emph> (Block 1 vs. Block 2 vs. Block 3) as within‐subjects factors. Test Block was included as a factor to account for possible practice effects. The dependent variable was the infants' total looking time at each test event.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-5">Participants</hd> <p>Thirty‐nine 10‐month‐old infants (<emph>M =</emph> 304.38 days, range: 258–321 days, 22 females) participated in the study (<emph>n =</emph> 13 in each habituation condition). Twelve additional infants were tested (i.e., 23.53% of the total <emph>N</emph> = 51), but their data were not included in the analysis. Exclusion of these datasets was due to fussiness resulting in the infant not completing the study (<emph>n =</emph> 4), failure to habituate (<emph>n =</emph> 5), and experimenter error (<emph>n =</emph> 3). The participants were recruited via an invitation letter sent to families with young babies living in South‐East London. Families that volunteered to participate were contacted again when the babies were within the age range of the study and were invited to our lab. The study was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki concerning studies with human subjects. The infants were full‐term (i.e., gestation age: 37 weeks or more), and none of them had sight or hearing problems, as per caregiver report. Most of the infants were White‐English and came from families with an average socioeconomic status. There were no significant differences between groups in infants' age, accumulated looking time during the habituation, and initial and terminal level of attention (see Supporting Information). At the end of their visit to our lab, the families received a gift certificate and a baby t‐shirt. Data were collected between October 2017 and September 2018.</p> <p>To estimate the number of participants needed in each habituation condition, we conducted a power analysis in G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref64">25</reflink>]). Because we could not find infant studies like ours – where the type of multisensory stimulation that the infants received during an occlusion event was manipulated across habituation conditions and its effects on infants' ability to encode the object's visual pattern were measured – we did not have a pre‐existing effect size estimate to calculate the required sample size for a three‐way ANOVA in G*Power (the statistical analysis required by our study design). Due to this limitation and the fact that we had a directional hypothesis for the <emph>10‐month‐old</emph> infants in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition, we decided to calculate the required sample size only for this condition. We based this analysis on the data reported by Wilcox ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref65">67</reflink>], exp. 3B), and we compared how long the infants in the <emph>Same‐Pattern Narrow‐Screen</emph> group (<emph>M</emph> = 28.1; SD = 8.0) and those in the <emph>Different‐Pattern Narrow‐Screen</emph> group (<emph>M</emph> = 41.4; SD = 8.9) looked at the test trials. The calculated effect size was Cohen <emph>d</emph><subs>s</subs> = 1.57. The projected sample size for a paired samples <emph>t</emph>‐test (two‐tailed) with effect size 1.5, alpha level.05, and power.75 was 6 participants. The study conducted by Wilcox had a small sample (<emph>n</emph> = 6 infants per condition) and may have overestimated the effect size (see Cumming, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref66">19</reflink>]; Lakens, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref67">39</reflink>]). Therefore, we decided to stop testing after <emph>n</emph> = 13 infants per condition.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-6">Apparatus and stimuli</hd> <p>We used a computer with a 24‐inch screen and two loudspeakers to present the stimuli. The loudspeakers were placed directly below the screen, at 50 cm from each other, positioned equally to the left and right of the screen's center. The infants' looking at the stimuli was recorded using a surveillance video camera positioned under the screen and hidden from the infants' view. The video recording was presented live on a second screen, located outside the testing booth, and was used to code infants' looking durations online. A custom experimental script was created with MATLAB 2017b and Psychtoolbox 3.0.13 (Brainard, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref68">13</reflink>]; Kleiner et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref69">38</reflink>]; Pelli, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref70">56</reflink>]) to control the stimuli presentation. The computer script also recorded the infants' looking time (as specified by the experimenter's online key presses) and calculated the habituation criterion. During the study, the researcher was unaware of the habituation condition and the test events displayed. A third of the videos (<emph>n =</emph> 13) were randomly selected and coded offline by a second coder. The second coder was naive to the habituation condition, the test events, and the experimental hypotheses. A two‐way mixed intra‐class correlation analysis with absolute agreement (Trevethan, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref71">65</reflink>]) was conducted on the individual total looking times during the test trials and demonstrated excellent inter‐rater agreement, ICC<subs>2,1</subs> = .99.</p> <p>During the habituation and the test trials, the infants watched an animation which depicted a room with a centrally located blue box and a dotted ball that moved back and forth behind the box (see Figure 1). The ball crossed the display in 2.5 s and covered ~32.09° visual angle (as seen from 70 cm) at a constant speed of ~12.84°/s. In the 2.5 s, the ball was visible on either side of the box for 533 ms, it transitioned from full visibility to full occlusion (and the reverse) in 400 ms, and it remained occluded for 634 ms (these motion parameters closely resemble those employed by Bremner, Slater, et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref72">15</reflink>]; Kirkham, Wagner, et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref73">36</reflink>]). The infants in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> habituation condition watched the animation in silence. By contrast, the infants in the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> and the <emph>Incongruent (Static Sound)</emph> conditions watched the animation accompanied by a musical sound (see Supporting Information).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/CDV/01nov24/cdev14147-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdev14147-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Displays shown to the infants and stimuli dimensions. During the study, a black and white ball moved horizontally behind a blue box. (a) Habituation display and No Change test display. The black and white ball kept its pattern during the occlusion. (b) Pattern Change test display. The ball changed its pattern during the occlusion. (c) Schematic drawing of the display. Numbers represent the stimuli dimensions in degrees of visual angle, as seen from 70 cm distance (i.e., the infant's viewing distance). SPKR stands for &quot;loudspeaker.&quot;" /> </p> <p></p> <p>We created the musical sound based on a 1 s excerpt from Reich ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref74">58</reflink>], track 2). We looped the selection 60 times to make a tune that lasted 60 s, had a tempo of 144 bpm, and a pitch of 440 Hz, as measured using the MIRtoolbox 1.7.2 (Lartillot &amp; Toiviainen, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref75">40</reflink>]). In the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> habituation condition, the tune started and stopped at the same time as the animation. The sound signal changed dynamically between the left and the right loudspeakers to mimic the ball's motion across the display. When the ball was visible on the left side of the screen, the sound originated mainly from the left loudspeaker. As the ball advanced to the right side of the screen, the sound increasingly originated from the right loudspeaker. In the <emph>Incongruent (Static Sound)</emph> habituation condition, the onset and offset of the music coincided with the start and end of the animation, but the sound remained balanced across the left and right loudspeakers throughout the animation, so it did not mimic the movement of the ball. This sound manipulation was employed by Bremner, Slater, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref76">15</reflink>]) and Kirkham, Wagner, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref77">36</reflink>]) who found that 4‐month‐old infants can differentiate between a <emph>Dynamic Sound</emph> and a <emph>Static Sound</emph>. To ensure that the sound was equally loud across conditions, we used root‐mean‐square amplitude to normalize the tunes. The sound amplitude varied between 54 and 59 dB due to inherent melodic variations, when measured at 70 cm from the screen (the distance at which the participants were placed).</p> <p>To assess whether the changes in sound panning were noticeable, we asked 12 adults to watch the 60‐s animation accompanied by either the dynamic or the static sound. After viewing each video, the adults judged whether the sound they heard was dynamic or static and whether it came from the ball or the box. To minimize the demand characteristics, we counterbalanced the order of the sounds. Furthermore, we did not give details about the study that we planned to conduct with infants. All the adults reported that the dynamic sound appeared to come from the ball and that it moved between the two loudspeakers. Meanwhile, the static sound gave the impression that it originated from the box and that it remained in one location throughout the 60‐s animation.</p> <p>After the habituation, all the infants watched two silent occlusion events. In the <emph>No Change</emph> test event, the dotted ball kept its pattern during the occlusion, just as it had done during the habituation. In the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> test event, the ball changed from dots to stripes (and the reverse) during the occlusion. No other visual parameters changed between the habituation and the test phase. Stimuli and data are available on the Open Science Forum: https://osf.io/d5tn4/?view_only=b5564084bbf641048d287b1310b946f1.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-8">Procedure</hd> <p>The infants were brought to the laboratory by their parents, who also gave informed consent. We conducted the study in a dimly lit room with few visual distracters. During the experiment, each infant sat on their parent's lap, ~70 cm from the stimuli presentation screen, with their eyes aligned with the center of the screen. Before the study, we asked the parent to look at their child's head and refrain from interacting with the child. The researcher controlled the presentation of the stimuli from outside the testing booth via a computer script.</p> <p>The study started and ended with a video from the TV series "In the Night Garden." This video, used in the pre‐test and post‐test trials, was different from the animation used during the study and allowed us to measure the infants' initial and terminal levels of attention. In between the pre‐test and post‐test trials, the infants watched up to 12 habituation trials, followed by 6 test trials (see Supporting Information). If an infant watched less than 5 s of the post‐test video (i.e., less than 8% of its entire duration), we considered that they were tired during the test phase and excluded them from the analysis (none of the 10‐month‐old infants met this criterion).</p> <p>Each infant completed between 5 and 12 habituation trials. The habituation phase lasted until the infants' total looking time in the last four habituation trials (starting from the second trial) was less than half of their looking time in the first four trials. This habituation criterion was calculated online and relied on the researcher's judgments about the infants' looking behavior. If an infant did not reach the habituation criterion within 12 trials, we excluded them from the analysis. When the habituation terminated, the 6 test trials started. During each test trial, the infants watched one of the 2 test events: <emph>Pattern Change</emph> or <emph>No Change</emph>. The events were presented in silence, three times each, and in alternating order.</p> <p>All the trials lasted 60 s or until the infants looked away from the screen for more than 2 s. If an infant looked at the stimuli for less than 2 s, we repeated the trial. We chose this minimum looking interval because the ball took ~2 s to re‐emerge on the other side of the box. Before each trial, a 4°×4° audio‐visual looming animation attracted the infants' attention to the screen center. The attention‐getter was presented for at least 1.5 s and lasted until the infants looked back at the screen. The study lasted ~7 min.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-9">Results and discussion</hd> <p>The individual looking times at the two test events are displayed in Figure 2. In each of the habituation conditions, 11 out of 13 infants looked longer at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event (<emph>Visual‐Only</emph>: Wilcoxon signed‐rank test <emph>z</emph> = 2.55, <emph>p</emph> = .01; <emph>Congruent</emph>: <emph>z</emph> = 2.97, <emph>p</emph> = .003; <emph>Incongruent</emph>: <emph>z</emph> = 2.97, <emph>p</emph> = .003). These observations were confirmed by a 3 (Habituation Condition: <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> vs. <emph>Congruent</emph> vs. <emph>Incongruent</emph>) × 2 (Test Event: <emph>Pattern Change</emph> vs. <emph>No Change</emph>) × 3 (Test Block: <emph>Block 1</emph> vs. <emph>Block 2</emph> vs. <emph>Block 3</emph>) mixed ANOVA conducted in SPSS. Habituation Condition was manipulated between‐subjects, and Test Event and Test Block were manipulated within‐subjects. The analysis was conducted on log<subs>10</subs>‐transformed data because the raw looking time data were positively skewed (see Csibra et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>]). Furthermore, we collapsed the data across the 2 test trial presentation orders (<emph>Pattern Change</emph> event first vs. <emph>No Change</emph> event first; for additional analyses on the effects of Test Trial Order, see Supporting Information).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/CDV/01nov24/cdev14147-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdev14147-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Individual looking times (in seconds) at the test events in Experiment 1. Pattern Change event (PC), the ball changed its pattern during the occlusion. No Change event (NC), the ball kept its pattern during the occlusion. Visual‐Only condition, the animation was presented in silence. Congruent (Dynamic Sound) condition, the animation was accompanied by a musical sound that was spatiotemporally congruent with the movement of the ball. Incongruent (Static Sound) condition, the animation was accompanied by a musical sound that was incongruent with the ball. Gray dots represent individual looking times, averaged across the three test blocks. Black dots represent mean values. *p &lt; .01, two‐tailed." /> </p> <p></p> <p>There was a main effect of Test Event, as the infants looked longer at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event (<emph>M</emph> = 1.21, SD = 0.23) than the <emph>No Change</emph> event (<emph>M</emph> = 0.99, SD = 0.22), <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>, 36) = 40.35, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .001, <ephtml> &lt;math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev14147:cdev14147-math-0003" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"&gt;&lt;semantics&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;msubsup&gt;&lt;mi&gt;&amp;#951;&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mi mathvariant="normal"&gt;p&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mn&gt;2&lt;/mn&gt;&lt;/msubsup&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;/semantics&gt;&lt;/math&gt; </ephtml> = .53. No other main effects or interactions reached significance (all <emph>F</emph>s &lt; 1.84, all <emph>p</emph>s &gt; .16). To test our a priori hypotheses that infants would look longer at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition, we performed three sets of paired‐samples <emph>t</emph>‐tests and Bayesian <emph>t</emph>‐tests. All the comparisons were statistically significant after applying Bonferroni correction (<emph>α</emph> = .016), the effect sizes were large, and the Bayes Factors (BFs) provided strong evidence against the null hypothesis (all <emph>t</emph> &gt; 3.13, all <emph>p</emph> &lt; .01, all Cohen <emph>d</emph><subs><emph>z</emph></subs> &gt; 0.86, all BF &gt; 13; see Supporting Information). Furthermore, the difference between test events was detectable from Test Block 1 (see Supporting Information).</p> <p>These results partially support our hypotheses, showing that 10‐month‐old infants encode the pattern on a briefly occluded object and keep track of it across the spatiotemporal gap imposed by another object. To process the pattern, infants must detect regularities between the visual elements that are present on the surface of an object. There is evidence that infants as young as a few days old can do that, and they even prefer patterned surfaces over plain‐colored ones (Fantz, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref80">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref81">23</reflink>]). However, it is not until between 5.5 and 9.5 months of age that infants start to use pattern information to segment and individuate objects in a visual display (Needham &amp; Baillargeon, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref82">53</reflink>]; Needham &amp; Kaufman, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref83">54</reflink>]; Wilcox, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref84">67</reflink>]; Wilcox &amp; Chapa, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref85">70</reflink>]). Although it is unclear what causes this delay, our results suggest that (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>) this skill is robust in 10‐month‐old infants and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref87">2</reflink>) it is not affected by the sensory conditions in which infants encounter the object.</p> <p>The fact that the 10‐month‐old infants in our study learned the visual features of the ball in all the habituation conditions could be due to various reasons. One possibility is that the infants noticed the change in the ball's pattern because it was a visually salient event. The infants may have come to our lab with the expectation that objects do not change pattern during occlusion, in which case the habituation interval had no impact on their learning. To address this latter possibility, we decided to conduct the experiment with younger infants, for whom the habituation phase may be necessary to detect the change in object pattern (see Wilcox &amp; Chapa, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref88">70</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-11">EXPERIMENT 2</hd> <p>Given that Experiment 1 was inconclusive with respect to the effects of multisensory stimulation on infants' learning, we decided to test two younger age groups of infants: 4‐ and 6‐month‐olds. We opted for these two age groups because previous research has found that 4‐month‐old infants do not abstract color and pattern information when they explore objects visually and haptically (Hernandez‐Reif &amp; Bahrick, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref89">31</reflink>]). Furthermore, 4‐month‐old infants do not spontaneously use color and pattern information to segment objects in a display (Needham, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref90">52</reflink>]) or to individuate briefly occluded objects (Wilcox, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref91">67</reflink>]). By contrast, 6‐month‐old infants can abstract color and pattern information when they look at an item that they are holding (Hernandez‐Reif &amp; Bahrick, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref92">31</reflink>]), that is, when they receive congruent visual and haptic information about an object. Additionally, 5.5‐month‐old infants can learn to attend to the pattern and color of a briefly occluded object if they first watch an actor perform various actions with differently patterned objects (Wilcox &amp; Chapa, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref93">70</reflink>]). We predicted that the 6‐month‐old infants, but not the 4‐month‐old infants, would detect the change in the ball's pattern and look longer at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event, which was more perceptually novel. Furthermore, based on Wilcox ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref94">67</reflink>]), we hypothesized that the 6‐month‐old infants in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition would look longer at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event. Although Experiment 1 showed that 10‐month‐old infants encoded the occluded object's pattern irrespective of whether they heard a spatiotemporally congruent or an incongruent musical sound, we did not know whether this would be the case for the 6‐month‐old infants.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-12">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057727-13">Design, apparatus, stimuli, and procedure</hd> <p>These were identical to Experiment 1, except that the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> and <emph>No Change</emph> test events were presented twice each (i.e., 2 test blocks), in alternation, for a total of 4 test trials. We conducted only two test blocks because piloting data showed that the 4‐ and 6‐month‐olds tended to become fussy or tired after 4 test trials. This resulted in a 3 × 2 × 2 mixed study design with <emph>Habituation Condition</emph> (Visual‐Only vs. Congruent vs. Incongruent) as between‐subjects factors, and <emph>Test Event</emph> (Pattern Change vs. No Change) and <emph>Test Block</emph> (Block 1 vs. Block 2) as within‐subjects factors. <emph>Test Block</emph> was included as a factor to account for practice effects and fatigue. The dependent variable was the infants' total looking time during the test trials. We conducted the statistical analysis separately for the two age groups (<emph>4‐month‐olds</emph> vs. <emph>6‐month‐olds</emph>) because previous studies suggested that only the 6‐month‐old infants would be able to detect the pattern change.</p> <p>Infants' looking behavior was coded online, and a third of the video recordings (<emph>n</emph> = 24) were coded offline by a research assistant. Both the experimenter and the research assistant were blind to the habituation condition and the test events that the infants were watching. Furthermore, the research assistant was unaware of the study hypotheses. For the selection of the video recordings, we employed a stratified random sampling method, such that <emph>n</emph> = 12 videos were selected from each age group (<emph>n</emph> = 4 per habituation condition). A two‐way mixed intra‐class correlation analysis with absolute agreement yielded an excellent inter‐rater agreement, ICC<subs>2,1</subs> = .99, on the infants' total looking time during the test trials. Data were collected between December 2017 and October 2018.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-14">Participants</hd> <p>The final sample consisted of <emph>N =</emph> 72 infants: <emph>n</emph> = 36 four‐month‐olds (<emph>M =</emph> 125.83 days, range: 108–139 days, 15 females) and <emph>n =</emph> 36 six‐month‐olds (<emph>M =</emph> 188.97 days, range: 170–203 days, 11 females). Twenty‐five additional infants were tested (i.e., 25.77% of the total <emph>N =</emph> 97; <emph>n =</emph> 11 four‐month‐olds and <emph>n =</emph> 14 six‐month‐olds), but their data were not included in the analysis because either they failed to complete 4 test trials (<emph>n =</emph> 11), did not habituate (<emph>n =</emph> 8), were too tired during the test trials as confirmed by their short looking time at the post‐test control video (i.e., less than 5 s; <emph>n =</emph> 1), were too young/old (<emph>n =</emph> 2), or because of equipment failure (<emph>n =</emph> 3). The infants were full‐term (i.e., gestation age: 37 weeks or more), did not have any sight or hearing problems, and the majority came from middle‐class, White‐English families. The participants were recruited in the same way as described in Experiment 1. The infants participated in the study only once, so if an infant was tested at 4 months, the family was not invited for the study when the infant reached 6 months of age.</p> <p>Before the study, the infants were randomly assigned to one of the three habituation conditions. This resulted in <emph>n =</emph> 12 infants per habituation condition, in each age group. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of age, accumulated looking time during the habituation, and level of attention at the beginning and the end of the study (see Supporting Information). To estimate the number of participants needed in each habituation condition, we carried out a power analysis. We based the analysis on the looking time data reported in Experiment 1, pooled across the test blocks and habituation conditions because neither of these effects was significant in the previous experiment. The difference between the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> and the <emph>No Change</emph> test events in Experiment 1 corresponded to Cohen <emph>d</emph><subs><emph>z</emph></subs> = 1.04. The projected sample size for a paired samples <emph>t</emph>‐test (two‐tailed) with effect size = 1.04, <emph>α</emph> = .05, and power = .75 was minimum <emph>N</emph> = 9 infants.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-15">Results and discussion</hd> <p>Contrary to the 10‐month‐old infants in Experiment 1, who did not display a decrease in looking times across test blocks, both age groups of infants in the current experiment looked longer at the stimuli in <emph>Test Block 1</emph> than in <emph>Test Block 2</emph> (<emph>4‐month‐olds</emph>: 25 out of 36 infants, Wilcoxon <emph>z</emph> = 2.31, <emph>p</emph> = .02; 6‐month‐olds: 22 out of 36 infants, Wilcoxon <emph>z</emph> = 1.02, <emph>p</emph> = .31). Given the decline in looking time and the fact that the test displays were very similar to the habituation display, we reasoned that any initial effects that 4‐ and 6‐month‐old infants may show in <emph>Test Block 1</emph> could be reduced by fatigue/habituation in <emph>Test Block 2</emph>. Therefore, we decided to analyze the two test blocks separately. Individual looking times (in seconds) to the two test events, <emph>Pattern Change</emph> and <emph>No Change</emph>, in Test Block 1 and Test Block 2, across habituation conditions and age groups, are displayed in Figure 3.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/CDV/01nov24/cdev14147-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdev14147-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Individual looking times (in seconds) at the test events in Experiment 2. Pattern Change event (PC), the ball changed its pattern during the occlusion. No Change event (NC), the ball kept its pattern during the occlusion. Gray dots represent individual looking times. Black dots represent mean values. *p &lt; .05, two‐tailed." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057727-17">Test Block 1</hd> <p>Because we had different a priori predictions for the two age groups, we conducted a two‐way ANOVA between Habituation Condition and Test Event for each age group. We performed the analyses on log<subs>10</subs>‐transformed data (the raw looking time data were positively skewed) that was collapsed across the two test trial presentation orders (for additional analyses on the effects of Test Trial Order, see Supporting Information). In the <emph>4‐month‐old</emph> group, there was no significant main effect or interaction (all <emph>F</emph> &lt; 1.13, all <emph>p</emph> &gt; .34). A Bayesian paired <emph>t</emph>‐test conducted on the data collapsed across the three habituation conditions, produced a BF of 0.24 for Test Event, which provided moderate evidence for the null hypothesis (i.e., that the 4‐month‐olds did not differentiate between the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> and <emph>No Change</emph> test events).</p> <p>In the <emph>6‐month‐old</emph> group, there was a significant main effect of Test Event, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>, 33) = 5.12, <emph>p</emph> = .03, <ephtml> &lt;math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev14147:cdev14147-math-0004" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"&gt;&lt;semantics&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;msubsup&gt;&lt;mi&gt;&amp;#951;&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mi mathvariant="normal"&gt;p&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mn&gt;2&lt;/mn&gt;&lt;/msubsup&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;/semantics&gt;&lt;/math&gt; </ephtml> = .13, as the infants preferred the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event (<emph>M</emph> = 1.16, SD = 0.31) over the <emph>No Change</emph> event (<emph>M</emph> = 1.02, SD = 0.30). No other effects were found in this age group (all <emph>F</emph> &lt; 1.11, all <emph>p</emph> &gt; .34). Planned comparisons revealed that, after applying Bonferroni correction (<emph>α</emph> = .016), only the 6‐month‐old infants in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition looked significantly longer at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref96">11</reflink>) = 3.27, <emph>p</emph> = .007, Cohen <emph>d</emph><subs><emph>z</emph></subs> = 0.94 (see Supporting Information). The Bayesian analysis for the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition produced a BF of 7.55, supporting the presence of a significant difference between Test Events in this condition. For the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> condition, the BF was 0.60, providing anecdotal evidence for the null hypothesis. Meanwhile, for the <emph>Incongruent (Static Sound)</emph> condition, the BF was 0.29, providing moderate evidence for the null hypothesis.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-18">Test Block 2</hd> <p>We conducted two separate two‐way ANOVAs between Habituation Condition and Test Event, one for each age group. In the <emph>4‐month‐old</emph> group, there was no significant main effect or interaction (all <emph>F</emph> &lt; 1.31, all <emph>p</emph> &gt; .28). Similarly, in the <emph>6‐month‐old</emph> group, there was no main effect or interaction (all <emph>F</emph> &lt; 1.11, all <emph>p</emph> &gt; .34).</p> <p>These results are partially consistent with our hypotheses. Although we found that, in <emph>Test Block 1</emph>, 6‐month‐old infants looked significantly longer at the Pattern Change event than the No Change event in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition, and the 4‐month‐old infants did not differentiate between the test events, based on the analyses conducted, we cannot conclude that the two age groups differed significantly. In fact, in a separate three‐way ANOVA that included Age Group and Habituation Condition as between‐subjects factors, and Trial Type as a within‐subjects factor, the interaction between Age Group × Habituation Condition × Trial Type was non‐significant. Furthermore, the effect observed with the <emph>6‐month‐old</emph> infants in <emph>Test Block 1</emph> was temporary and disappeared in <emph>Test Block 2</emph>. That said, previous research has reported that 4‐month‐old infants do not use color and pattern information to connect the visible segments of partially occluded objects (Kellman &amp; Spelke, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref97">34</reflink>]), segregate stationary objects in a visual display (Needham, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref98">52</reflink>]), and individuate objects (Wilcox, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref99">67</reflink>]). Exactly when infants start to use pattern as a cue to the identity of a briefly occluded object is unclear. However, our results suggest that, at 6 months of age, infants can notice changes in pattern across brief occlusion events.</p> <p>The results of Experiment 2 were also inconclusive with regard to the effects of multisensory stimulation on infants' learning. We found that 75% of the 6‐month‐old infants in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> preferred the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event and the difference was statistically significant. Interestingly, a similar proportion of infants in the <emph>Congruent</emph> condition displayed the same looking pattern, but the difference was not statistically significant. Rather surprisingly, the infants in the <emph>Incongruent</emph> condition did not differentiate between the test events and only half of the infants in this group displayed longer looking at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event. One explanation for these inconclusive findings could be the relatively small sample size in each habituation condition. To address this limitation and better assess infants' learning of different object properties, we decided to extend the study by including two types of <emph>Change</emph> events (<emph>Pattern Change</emph> and <emph>Trajectory Change</emph>) in our test trials and by testing an additional group of 6‐month‐old infants.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-19">EXPERIMENT 3</hd> <p>To investigate further the effects of spatiotemporally congruent and incongruent sounds on 6‐month‐old infants' visual processing, we decided to test their encoding of object trajectory as well as object pattern. We chose these two object properties because our study setup allowed object pattern to be specified only by vision and object trajectory to be indexed by both vision and audition. When observing a sounding object move across the hemifield, infants can use both the visual motion cues and the interaural time difference produced by the moving sound, to locate the object in space. The IRH (Bahrick &amp; Lickliter, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref100">6</reflink>]) predicts that infants prioritize the learning of these two object properties differently depending on the multisensory context. More specifically, the IRH proposes that when the audio‐visual cues that index an object/event are incongruent, infants learn the modality‐specific properties (e.g., the object pattern) at the expense of the amodal object properties (e.g., the object trajectory). By contrast, when the audio‐visual cues are congruent, infants learn the amodal properties (e.g., the object trajectory) at the expense of the modality‐specific properties (e.g., object pattern). Consistent with the IRH, various studies have shown that infants encode better the amodal properties of objects/events when they receive congruent audio‐visual stimulation than when they receive incongruent or unimodal stimulation (Bahrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref101">8</reflink>]; Bahrick &amp; Lickliter, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref102">3</reflink>]; Bremner, Slater, et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref103">15</reflink>]; Hernandez‐Reif &amp; Bahrick, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref104">31</reflink>]; Kirkham, Wagner, et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref105">36</reflink>]). However, none of these studies has assessed infants' learning of both modality‐specific and amodal object properties in the same study setup, within‐subjects, and it is unclear whether this prioritization of object properties occurs during the infants' learning.</p> <p>To test these predictions, in Experiment 3, we habituated three groups of 6‐month‐old infants with the same stimuli as in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. The ball's trajectory was specified by both vision and audition in the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> habituation condition and only by vision in the other two conditions. After the habituation, the infants watched three test events in silence. One of the test events was visually identical to the habituation event (<emph>No Change</emph> event). The other two test events were perceptually novel. In one test event, the ball changed its pattern during the occlusion (<emph>Pattern Change</emph> event), and in the other, the ball changed its trajectory during the occlusion (<emph>Trajectory Change</emph> event). We hypothesized that the infants in the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> habituation condition would learn the trajectory of the ball and would look longer at the <emph>Trajectory Change</emph> event than the <emph>No Change</emph> event. Furthermore, we expected the infants in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> habituation condition to learn the pattern on the ball and look longer at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event than the <emph>No Change</emph> event (see Experiment 2). Finally, given the findings of Experiment 2, we did not expect to find any difference between the test events in the <emph>Incongruent (Static Sound)</emph> habituation condition.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-20">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0181057727-21">Design, apparatus, stimuli, and procedure</hd> <p>These were identical to Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, except that the infants watched 3 silent test events: <emph>Trajectory Change</emph>, <emph>Pattern Change</emph>, and <emph>No Change</emph>. In the <emph>Trajectory Change</emph> event, the ball changed its trajectory during the occlusion. Instead of moving left–right–left behind the box (as in the habituation display), the ball translated halfway until it was behind the box, then returned to its starting point, and only after that did it move to the other side of the box. In other words, the new trajectory of the ball was left–left–right–right–left. This trajectory manipulation ensured the ball appeared to the left and right sides of the box the same number of times as it did in the habituation display, the No Change display, and the Pattern Change display.</p> <p>The test events were presented only once, in random order, for a total of 3 test trials. This resulted in a 3 × 3 mixed study design with <emph>Habituation Condition</emph> (Visual‐Only vs. Congruent vs. Incongruent) as a between‐subjects factor and <emph>Test Event</emph> (Change vs. No Change vs. Trajectory Change) as a within‐subjects factor. The dependent variable was the infants' looking time at the stimuli during each test trial. The infants' looking behavior was coded online, and approximately a third of the video recordings (<emph>n</emph> = 15) were re‐coded offline by a research assistant to establish reliability. According to a two‐way mixed intra‐class correlation analysis with absolute agreement, there was an excellent inter‐rater agreement, ICC<subs>2,1</subs> = .99, on infants' total looking times during the test trials. Data were collected between February 2019 and August 2019.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-22">Participants</hd> <p>Data from <emph>N</emph> = 42 six‐month‐old infants (<emph>M</emph> = 181.98 days, range: 164–197 days, 21 females) were analyzed. Five additional infants were tested (i.e., 11.90% of the total <emph>N</emph> = 47), but were not included in the analysis because they were too fussy during the study (<emph>n</emph> = 2), did not meet the minimum gestational age of 37 weeks (<emph>n</emph> = 2), and experimenter error (<emph>n</emph> = 1). The infants were full‐term (i.e., gestation age: 37 weeks or more), did not have any sight or hearing problems, and the majority came from middle‐class, White‐English families. Participants were recruited in the same way as described in Experiment 1. The infants were randomly assigned to one of the three habituation conditions. This resulted in <emph>n =</emph> 14 infants per habituation condition. No significant differences were found between the groups in infants' age, accumulated looking time during the habituation, and level of attention during the pre‐test and post‐test trials (see Supporting Information).</p> <p>As with the previous experiments, we carried out a power analysis. The analysis was based on the looking time data of the 6‐month‐old infants in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> habituation condition, reported in Experiment 2. We based the power analysis on this group because it showed a significant difference in looking behavior between the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> and <emph>No Change</emph> test events in <emph>Test Block 1</emph>, an effect that we aimed to reproduce. This difference had an effect size of Cohen <emph>d</emph><subs><emph>z</emph></subs> = 0.94. The projected sample size for a paired samples <emph>t</emph>‐test (two‐tailed) with effect size = 0.94, <emph>α</emph> = .05, and power = .75 was minimum <emph>N</emph> = 10 infants in each habituation condition.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-23">Results and discussion</hd> <p>Infants' looking times (in seconds) at the three test events, <emph>Trajectory Change</emph>, <emph>Pattern Change</emph>, and <emph>No Change</emph>, are displayed in Figure 4. Pooled across the three habituation conditions, 28 out of 42 infants looked longer at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event versus <emph>No Change</emph> event (Wilcoxon signed‐rank test <emph>z</emph> = 2.77, <emph>p</emph> = .01), and 25 out of 42 infants looked longer at the <emph>Trajectory Change</emph> versus <emph>No Change</emph> event (<emph>z</emph> = 2.22, <emph>p</emph> = .03). It was mostly the infants in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> and <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> habituation conditions who preferred the novel test events to the familiar event.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/CDV/01nov24/cdev14147-fig-0004.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdev14147-fig-0004.jpg" title="4 Individual looking times (in seconds) at the test events in Experiment 3. Trajectory Change event (TC), the ball had a new trajectory during the test trials. During the habituation, the ball appeared alternatively on the left and right side of the box, whereas during the test event, the ball appeared twice on the left‐hand side of the box and then twice on the right‐hand side and so on. Pattern Change event (PC), the ball changed its pattern during the occlusion. No Change event (NC), the ball kept its pattern during the occlusion. Gray dots represent individual looking times. Black dots represent mean values. *p &lt; .05, †p &lt; .10, two‐tailed." /> </p> <p></p> <p>To confirm these observations, we conducted a 3 (Habituation Condition: <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> vs. <emph>Congruent</emph> vs. <emph>Incongruent</emph>) × 3 (Test Event: <emph>Change</emph> vs. <emph>No Change</emph> vs. <emph>Trajectory Change</emph>) mixed ANOVA on log<subs>10</subs>‐transformed data (for additional analyses on the effects of Test Trial Order, see Supporting Information). The analysis yielded a main effect of Test Event, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref106">2</reflink>, 78) = 6.56, <emph>p</emph> = .002, <ephtml> &lt;math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev14147:cdev14147-math-0005" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"&gt;&lt;semantics&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;msubsup&gt;&lt;mi&gt;&amp;#951;&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mi mathvariant="normal"&gt;p&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mn&gt;2&lt;/mn&gt;&lt;/msubsup&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;/semantics&gt;&lt;/math&gt; </ephtml> = .14. Pooled across all the habituation conditions, the infants looked longer at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event (<emph>M</emph> = 1.04, SD = 0.27) versus <emph>No Change</emph> event (<emph>M</emph> = 0.88, SD = 0.27), <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref107">41</reflink>) = 3.30, <emph>p</emph> = .002, Cohen <emph>d</emph><subs><emph>z</emph></subs> = 0.51, BF = 16.03. Similarly, the infants preferred the <emph>Trajectory Change</emph> event (<emph>M</emph> = 0.99, SD = 0.30) to the <emph>No Change</emph> event, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref108">41</reflink>) = 2.54, <emph>p</emph> = .015, Cohen <emph>d</emph><subs><emph>z</emph></subs> = 0.39, BF = 2.86. The main effect of Test Event was qualified by a significant Test Event × Habituation Condition interaction, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref109">4</reflink>, 78) = 2.75, <emph>p</emph> = .03, <ephtml> &lt;math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev14147:cdev14147-math-0006" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"&gt;&lt;semantics&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;msubsup&gt;&lt;mi&gt;&amp;#951;&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mi mathvariant="normal"&gt;p&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mn&gt;2&lt;/mn&gt;&lt;/msubsup&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;/semantics&gt;&lt;/math&gt; </ephtml> = .12. This interaction was followed up with three one‐way repeated measures ANOVA (one for each habituation condition) with Test Event as a within‐subjects factor. The main effect of Test Event was marginally significant in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref110">2</reflink>, 26) = 3.14, <emph>p</emph> = .06, <ephtml> &lt;math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev14147:cdev14147-math-0007" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"&gt;&lt;semantics&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;msubsup&gt;&lt;mi&gt;&amp;#951;&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mi mathvariant="normal"&gt;p&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mn&gt;2&lt;/mn&gt;&lt;/msubsup&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;/semantics&gt;&lt;/math&gt; </ephtml> = .19, highly significant in the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> condition, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref111">2</reflink>, 26) = 11.01, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .001, <ephtml> &lt;math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev14147:cdev14147-math-0008" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"&gt;&lt;semantics&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;msubsup&gt;&lt;mi&gt;&amp;#951;&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mi mathvariant="normal"&gt;p&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mn&gt;2&lt;/mn&gt;&lt;/msubsup&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;/semantics&gt;&lt;/math&gt; </ephtml> = .46, and non‐significant in the <emph>Incongruent (Static Sound)</emph> condition, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref112">2</reflink>, 26) = 0.82, <emph>p</emph> = .45, <emph>ns</emph>.</p> <p>To break down the main effect of Test Event found in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> and the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> conditions and to test our a priori predictions, we conducted planned comparisons between each of the novel test events (<emph>Pattern Change</emph> and <emph>Trajectory Change</emph>) and the familiar event (<emph>No Change</emph>). As mentioned above, we had hypothesized that (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref113">1</reflink>) the infants in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition would look longer at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> versus <emph>No Change</emph> event and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref114">2</reflink>) the infants in the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> condition would look longer at the <emph>Trajectory Change</emph> versus <emph>No Change</emph> event. The analysis (conducted on log<subs>10</subs>‐transformed data) partially confirmed our predictions. In the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition, the difference in looking times between the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> (<emph>M</emph> = 1.13, SD = 0.33) and <emph>No Change</emph> (<emph>M</emph> = 0.89, SD = 0.23) test events was statistically significant, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref115">13</reflink>) = 2.64, <emph>p</emph> = .02, Cohen <emph>d</emph><subs><emph>z</emph></subs> = 0.71, BF = 3.20, whereas in the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> condition, the difference between the <emph>Trajectory Change</emph> (<emph>M</emph> = 0.87, SD = 0.26) and <emph>No Change</emph> (<emph>M</emph> = 0.74, SD = 0.26) test events was marginally significant, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref116">13</reflink>) = 2.09, <emph>p</emph> = .06, Cohen <emph>d</emph><subs><emph>z</emph></subs> = 0.56, BF = 1.43. Unexpectedly, in the latter habituation condition, we also found a significant difference between the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> (<emph>M</emph> = 1.02, SD = 0.17) and <emph>No Change</emph> (<emph>M</emph> = 0.74, SD = 0.26) test events, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref117">13</reflink>) = 4.32, <emph>p</emph> = .001, Cohen <emph>d</emph><subs><emph>z</emph></subs> = 1.15, BF = 45.93. Notably, across all comparisons, the effect size achieved was medium or large, and the BFs were above 1, providing evidence against the null hypothesis.</p> <p>These results are in line with those of Experiment 2. In Experiment 2, in <emph>Test Block 1</emph>, two‐thirds of the 6‐month‐old infants in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition looked longer at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event than the <emph>No Change</emph> event. An equal proportion of infants in the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> condition displayed the same looking pattern, but the difference was not statistically significant. Meanwhile, in Experiment 3, the difference between these two test events was statistically significant in both habituation conditions. To assess whether the failure to find a main effect of Test Event in the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> condition in Experiment 2 was due to a lack of statistical power (there were <emph>n</emph> = 12 six‐month‐old infants in each habituation condition), we pooled the data across Experiment 2 and Experiment 3. We then conducted a 3 (Habituation Condition: <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> vs. <emph>Congruent</emph> vs. <emph>Incongruent</emph>) × 2 (Test Event: <emph>Pattern Change</emph> vs. <emph>No Change</emph>) × 2 (Experiment: <emph>Experiment 2</emph> vs. <emph>Experiment 3</emph>) mixed ANOVA on log<subs>10</subs>‐transformed looking time data. From Experiment 2, we analyzed only the <emph>Test Block 1 data</emph> to even up the signal‐to‐noise ratio across experiments (Figure 5).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/CDV/01nov24/cdev14147-fig-0005.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdev14147-fig-0005.jpg" title="5 Six‐month‐olds' mean looking times (in seconds) at the test events in Experiment 2 and Experiment 3, excluding the trajectory change condition from Experiment 3. Pattern Change event (dark gray), the ball changed its pattern during the occlusion. No Change event (light gray), the ball kept its pattern during the occlusion. The upper panel depicts the mean looking times of the 6‐month‐old infants in Experiment 2, Test Block 1. The lower panel depicts the mean looking times of the 6‐month‐old infants in Experiment 3. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. *p &lt; .05, two‐tailed." /> </p> <p></p> <p>The cross‐experiment analysis showed a main effect of Experiment, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref118">1</reflink>, 72) = 5.85, <emph>p</emph> = .02, <ephtml> &lt;math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev14147:cdev14147-math-0009" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"&gt;&lt;semantics&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;msubsup&gt;&lt;mi&gt;&amp;#951;&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mi mathvariant="normal"&gt;p&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mn&gt;2&lt;/mn&gt;&lt;/msubsup&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;/semantics&gt;&lt;/math&gt; </ephtml> = .08, because the infants in <emph>Experiment 2</emph> looked longer at the test stimuli (<emph>M</emph> = 1.09, SD = 0.23) than the infants in <emph>Experiment 3</emph> (<emph>M</emph> = 0.96, SD = 0.23). Furthermore, there was a main effect of Test Event, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref119">1</reflink>, 72) = 16.01, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .001, <ephtml> &lt;math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev14147:cdev14147-math-0010" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"&gt;&lt;semantics&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;msubsup&gt;&lt;mi&gt;&amp;#951;&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mi mathvariant="normal"&gt;p&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mn&gt;2&lt;/mn&gt;&lt;/msubsup&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;/semantics&gt;&lt;/math&gt; </ephtml> = .18, as the infants looked longer at the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event (<emph>M</emph> = 1.10, SD = 0.30) than the <emph>No Change</emph> event (<emph>M</emph> = 0.94, SD = 0.29). Finally, there was a significant interaction between Test Event × Habituation Condition, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref120">2</reflink>, 72) = 4.56, <emph>p</emph> = .01, <ephtml> &lt;math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00093920:media:cdev14147:cdev14147-math-0011" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"&gt;&lt;semantics&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;msubsup&gt;&lt;mi&gt;&amp;#951;&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mi mathvariant="normal"&gt;p&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;mn&gt;2&lt;/mn&gt;&lt;/msubsup&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;/semantics&gt;&lt;/math&gt; </ephtml> = .11. No other main effects or interactions reached significance (all <emph>F</emph> &lt; 1.15, all <emph>p</emph> &gt; .32). To break down the interaction, we conducted pairwise comparisons between the test events. As expected, the difference between the <emph>Pattern Change</emph> event and the <emph>No Change</emph> event was statistically significant in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref121">25</reflink>) = 4.16, <emph>p</emph> &lt; .001, Cohen <emph>d</emph><subs><emph>z</emph></subs> = 0.82, BF = 92.11, and the <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> condition, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref122">25</reflink>) = 3.48, <emph>p</emph> = .002, Cohen <emph>d</emph><subs><emph>z</emph></subs> = 0.68, BF = 19.83, but not in the <emph>Incongruent (Static Sound)</emph> condition, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref123">25</reflink>) = 0.17, Cohen <emph>d</emph><subs><emph>z</emph></subs> = 0.03, BF = 0.21 (see Supporting Information). The Bayesian analysis provided strong evidence against the null hypothesis in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> and <emph>Congruent (Dynamic Sound)</emph> conditions, supporting the presence of a significant difference between Test Events in these conditions. However, in the <emph>Incongruent (Static Sound)</emph> condition, the BF was small and provided moderate evidence for the null hypothesis (i.e., that the 6‐month‐olds in this condition did not differentiate between Test Events).</p> <p>In sum, Experiment 3 showed that 6‐month‐old infants learn the visual pattern depicted on a briefly occluded object both when they only see it moving and when they see and hear it moving. However, this does not seem to be the case when the movement of the briefly occluded object is accompanied by a spatiotemporally incongruent sound that appears to originate from another object in the display rather than the moving object. These results are consistent with those of Experiment 2, where we tested another group of 6‐month‐old infants. Experiment 3 also revealed that the infants learned the trajectory of the briefly occluded object when they saw and heard the object moving, but not when they saw the object without a relevant auditory cue. These results are partially consistent with the predictions of the IRH in that young infants seem to benefit from congruent audio‐visual cues when learning amodal object properties, but these congruent cues do not hinder infants' learning of modality‐specific object properties. However, the IRH also predicts that, relative to younger infants, older infants should process the amodal and modality‐specific properties of an event/object more quickly in both redundant and nonredundant stimulation contexts. Our results suggest that, at 6 months, infants have the cognitive resources to attend to and process both types of object properties when they receive spatiotemporally congruent or redundant audio‐visual cues. Crucially, spatiotemporally incongruent auditory cues seem to hinder infants' learning of various visual object properties potentially because of the cross‐modal spatiotemporal conflict.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-26">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>The experiments reported here aimed to find out whether multisensory stimulation affects infants' visual perception and learning of two object properties: pattern and trajectory. Experiment 1 looked at the effect of spatiotemporally congruent and incongruent audio‐visual cues on 10‐month‐olds' encoding of object pattern. All the infants displayed visual recovery when the pattern on a briefly occluded object changed, suggesting that (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref124">1</reflink>) at 10 months, infants notice a pattern change in the context of an occlusion event and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref125">2</reflink>) the spatiotemporal relations between audio‐visual cues do not interfere with infants' visual processing. Experiment 2 addressed the same question in two younger groups of infants: 4‐ and 6‐month‐olds. The results showed that the 6‐month‐old infants encoded the pattern on the briefly occluded object, but the 4‐month‐old infants did not. However, the results were inconclusive with respect to the effect of multisensory stimulation on infants' processing of occlusion events. To replicate and extend the results of Experiment 2, we conducted another experiment. In Experiment 3, we found that the 6‐month‐old infants learned the pattern on a briefly occluded object both when they only saw the object (<emph>Visual‐Only</emph> condition) and when they saw and heard the object (<emph>Congruent</emph> condition). Interestingly, in the <emph>Congruent</emph> condition, the infants displayed visual recovery not only when the object changed its pattern but also when it changed trajectory. This finding suggests that spatiotemporally congruent audio‐visual cues may hold infants' attention to an object, and in this way, they may allow infants to encode various object features. By contrast, incongruent audio‐visual cues seem to hinder the ability of 6‐month‐old infants to process visual information—an effect that was consistent across Experiment 2 and Experiment 3.</p> <p>The studies reported here show and confirm that multisensory stimulation affects infants' visual processing and learning (see also Bremner, Lewkowicz, et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref126">14</reflink>]; Lewkowicz &amp; Kraebel, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref127">45</reflink>]). Specifically, we found that congruent audio‐visual stimulation does not interfere with young infants' representation of an occluded object, while incongruent stimulation hinders this process. Previously, Bremner, Slater, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref128">15</reflink>]) found that 4‐month‐old infants represent an object for a longer interval if they hear a musical sound that is spatiotemporally congruent with the occluded object than if the musical sound is incongruent. Similarly, Kirkham, Wagner, et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref129">36</reflink>]) reported that dynamic sounds that appear to originate from briefly occluded objects help infants learn the trajectory of those objects, but static sounds that are unrelated to the occluded objects do not help infants. Additionally, infants learn the rhythm and tempo of a striking hammer better when they both see and hear it compared to when they only see the hammer (Bahrick &amp; Lickliter, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref130">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref131">5</reflink>]). Finally, infants seem to benefit from congruent audio‐visual stimulation when they learn the location of multisensory objects/events (Kirkham, Richardson, et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref132">35</reflink>]; Moore &amp; Meltzoff, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref133">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regarding the hindering effect of spatiotemporally incongruent sounds on infants' visual processing, in Experiment 3, we found that the 6‐month‐old infants failed to encode the visual pattern and the trajectory of an object when the sound that the infants heard was unrelated to the object they looked at. Other studies have reported similar hindering effects when auditory stimulation is incongruent with visual information. For example, Robinson and Sloutsky ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref134">61</reflink>]) showed 14‐month‐old infants two side‐by‐side visual streams, one in which the visual stimulus changed and the other in which it remained unchanged. The authors reported that, when the infants heard a computer‐generated sound alongside the two visual streams, they took longer to display a looking preference for the changing visual stream (which was more interesting) than when the infants watched the streams in silence (see also Robinson &amp; Sloutsky, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref135">60</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref136">62</reflink>]; Barr et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref137">12</reflink>]). Although Robinson and Sloutsky concluded that auditory stimulation, in general, interferes with visual processing, we consider it more likely that the sound used disrupted the infants' visual processing because it was spatiotemporally incongruent with the visual change. When Wada et al. ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref138">66</reflink>]) presented 7‐month‐old infants with brief rare sounds that were spatiotemporally congruent with the onset of a visual display, the infants were better at detecting illusory contour figures in the display than when the sound was more frequent and marked visual displays both with and without illusory contour figures.</p> <p>One theory that has been advanced to explain the effects of multisensory stimulation on infants' development is the IRH (Bahrick et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref139">9</reflink>]; Bahrick &amp; Lickliter, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref140">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref141">5</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref142">6</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref143">7</reflink>]). The IRH proposes that infants can automatically detect congruent multisensory cues. Furthermore, it argues that these cues guide infants' attention toward the object/event properties that are specified redundantly by multiple sensory modalities (i.e., amodal properties). The assumption that infants spontaneously detect which sensory cues are related overlooks the computational issues that multisensory integration poses: the cross‐modal binding problem and the reliability‐weighted integration problem (Ernst &amp; Bülthoff, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref144">21</reflink>]; Rohe &amp; Noppeney, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref145">63</reflink>]). Furthermore, although infants are sensitive to the spatiotemporal relations between sensory cues, they associate auditory and visual stimuli that are more distant in space and time, which adults would not typically bind (Fenwick &amp; Morrongiello, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref146">26</reflink>]; Lewkowicz, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref147">42</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref148">44</reflink>]). In a complex environment where unrelated stimuli are often concurrent, associating sensory cues that occur over a broader spatiotemporal window increases the likelihood of abstracting incorrect cross‐modal relations.</p> <p>The findings reported here speak to the difficulty that 6‐month‐old infants have when processing complex multisensory scenes where it is unclear which sensory cues are related. The fact that the infants habituated with the silent occlusion event showed visual recovery when the pattern on the object changed, but the infants who were habituated with the spatiotemporally incongruent sound did not, suggests that the auditory noise may have put an additional strain on the infants' cognitive processing. It is unclear whether this was because, at this stage of development and/or in this kind of cognitive tasks, infants cannot segregate incongruent sensory streams or have more difficulty ignoring the distracting auditory input. One way to test these alternative explanations is to assess whether infants' performance improves if they are familiarized with the incongruent sound before they complete the occlusion task. The familiarization could help infants learn that the sound is not related to the occlusion event, thereby facilitating the separation of the visual and auditory streams.</p> <p>While the 6‐month‐old infants were differentially affected by the type of multisensory stimulation they received, the 4‐ and 10‐month‐old infants responded similarly across the three habituation conditions, albeit for different reasons. The youngest group did not display visual recovery when the briefly occluded ball changed its pattern. This is in line with previous reports by Wilcox ([<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref149">67</reflink>]) that, at this young age, infants do not spontaneously use pattern information to interpret occlusion events. Notably, at 4 months, infants need to see two objects with different patterns presented side by side and utilized in different actions for them to use visual patterns to individuate objects in a subsequent occlusion task (Wilcox, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref150">67</reflink>]; Wilcox et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref151">71</reflink>]; Wilcox &amp; Chapa, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref152">70</reflink>]). Based on Wilcox et al.'s work, had we employed a change in the shape and pattern of the occluded object, it is likely that the 4‐month‐old infants would have displayed visual recovery in the <emph>Visual‐Only</emph> habituation condition (see also Bremner, Slater, et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref153">15</reflink>]). By contrast, the 10‐month‐old infants successfully processed the occlusion event and looked longer at the stimuli when the occluded object changed pattern irrespective of the type of stimulation they received during the habituation. This is potentially because the pattern change was highly salient for them and the occlusion interval was too short, thereby leading to a ceiling effect. Given these limitations, it is difficult for us to pinpoint when multisensory incongruent auditory stimulation starts to hinder visual processing and when it stops having an impact. This phenomenon seems to be task‐dependent, which suggests that processing unrelated streams of information is cognitively demanding, and it is likely to affect infants when they start to acquire a new skill or master a new task.</p> <p>Another way of interpreting the results of our experiments is through the lens of selective attention and cognitive load, as supported by the findings of Day and Burnham ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref154">20</reflink>]) and Mareschal and Johnson ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref155">46</reflink>]). Day and Burnham ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref156">20</reflink>]) demonstrated that infants aged between 8 and 20 weeks can process the shape of an object when the object is moving at a slower speed but not when it is moving at a higher speed, presumably due to increased cognitive demands. Similarly, Mareschal and Johnson ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref157">46</reflink>]) found that 20‐week‐old infants selectively encoded either surface features or spatial information, depending on the context and the object's affordance, but struggled to integrate both types of information. This selective encoding indicates that infants have limited cognitive resources to process complex stimuli and that the information that infants encode depends on the context and the objectives of encoding. In our experiments, the 6‐month‐old infants' difficulty in encoding visual patterns and trajectories when presented with spatiotemporally incongruent audio‐visual cues could be attributed to the additional cognitive load imposed by the incongruent auditory stimuli. The incongruent sounds likely overwhelmed the infants' selective attention capacity, preventing them from effectively processing and integrating the visual information. This explanation aligns with the notion that infants at this developmental stage have limited cognitive resources and are particularly susceptible to distractions that increase cognitive load.</p> <p>Although the findings reported here capture developmental changes with respect to the effects of multisensory stimulation on infants' learning, the results should be interpreted with caution. The small sample sizes tested in our experiments (i.e., 3 age groups; within each age group, we employed 3 habituation conditions, and in each condition, we tested between 12 and 14 infants) could have underpowered the study. Many infant looking time studies typically have between 8 and 12 infants per condition; however, such a small sample size can yield both false‐positive and false‐negative results (see Oakes, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref158">55</reflink>]). Aware of this limitation and concerned that our results with 6‐month‐old infants in Experiment 2 might reflect a false positive, we reproduced the experiment with another group of 6‐month‐old infants in Experiment 3 and replicated the findings of Experiment 2.</p> <p>The studies reported here measured the effects of different kinds of audio‐visual stimulation on infants' cognitive processing. Infants grow up in complex environments where they receive continuous streams of sensory information across multiple sensory modalities. The multisensory stimulation is either related, such as when both the auditory and the visual inputs originate from the same object/event, or unrelated. The focus of these studies was on how infants navigate complex environments and whether they benefit from multisensory stimulation when processing objects/events. The studies conducted show that 6‐month‐old infants use the spatiotemporal relations between the auditory and visual cues to interpret sensory input. Evidence supporting this conclusion comes from the fact that the infants learned the pattern and the trajectory of a moving object when a spatiotemporally congruent sound accompanied the object, but not when an incongruent sound did. The effect of incongruent audio‐visual stimulation was robust in 6‐month‐old infants, but it did not affect the 10‐month‐old infants, which suggests that it is both age‐ and task‐dependent. All in all, the studies reported here offer insight into how infants process object‐related audio‐visual information and suggest that sometimes irrelevant auditory information hinders infants' cognitive processing.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-27">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>This work was supported by a doctoral training grant from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC 1780518 to NG); a Grant‐in‐Aid for Scientific Research from JSPS (20K14265 to JY); and the European Research Council (ERC 241242 to AJB).</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-28">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>No conflict of interests.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-29">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>Data, analytic code, and materials are available on the Open Science Forum: https://osf.io/d5tn4/?view_only=b5564084bbf641048d287b1310b946f1.</p> <hd id="AN0181057727-30">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>The study received approval from the author university's Ethics Committee (2017–2019).</p> <p>GRAPH: Data S1.</p> <ref id="AN0181057727-31"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref3" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alais, D., &amp; Burr, D. (2004). The ventriloquist effect results from near‐optimal bimodal integration. Current Biology, 14 (3), 257 – 262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.01.029</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref27" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bahrick, L. E. (1994). The development of infants' sensitivity to arbitrary intermodal relations. Ecological Psychology, 6 (2), 111 – 123. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0602_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref21" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Bahrick, L. E., &amp; Lickliter, R. (2000). Intersensory redundancy guides attentional selectivity and perceptual learning in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 36 (2), 190 – 201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.36.2.190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref31" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bahrick, L. E., Flom, R., &amp; Lickliter, R. (2002). Intersensory redundancy facilitates discrimination of tempo in 3‐month‐old infants. Developmental Psychobiology, 41 (4), 352 – 363. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.10049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref11" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bahrick, L. E., &amp; Lickliter, R. (2002). Intersensory redundancy guides early perceptual and cognitive development. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 153 – 187). Academic Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref12" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bahrick, L. E., &amp; Lickliter, R. (2012). The role of intersensory redundancy in early perceptual, cognitive, and social development. In A. J. Bremner, D. J. Lewkowicz, &amp; C. Spence (Eds.), Multisensory development (pp. 183 – 205). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bahrick, L. E., &amp; Lickliter, R. (2014). Learning to attend selectively: The dual role of intersensory redundancy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23 (6), 414 – 420. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414549187</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref13" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bahrick, L. E., Lickliter, R., &amp; Flom, R. (2006). Up versus down: The role of intersensory redundancy in the development of infants' sensitivity to the orientation of moving objects. Infancy, 9 (1), 73 – 96. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327078in0901_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref25" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bahrick, L. E., Lickliter, R., &amp; Todd, J. T. T. (2020). The development of multisensory attention skills: Individual differences, developmental outcomes, and applications. In J. J. Lockman &amp; C. S. Tamis‐LeMonda (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of infant development: Brain, behavior, and cultural context (pp. 303 – 338). Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baillargeon, R. (2004). Infants' physical world. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13 (3), 89 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963‐7214.2004.00281.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Baillargeon, R., &amp; Wang, S. H. (2002). Event categorization in infancy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6 (2), 85 – 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364‐6613(00)01836‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barr, R., Shuck, L., Salerno, K., Atkinson, E., &amp; Linebarger, D. L. (2010). Music interferes with learning from television during infancy. Infant and Child Development, 19 (3), 313 – 331. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.666</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brainard, D. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10 (4), 433 – 436. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00357</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bremner, A. J., Lewkowicz, D. J., &amp; Spence, C. (2012). Multisensory development. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199586059.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bremner, J. G., Slater, A. M., Johnson, S. P., Mason, U. C., &amp; Spring, J. (2012). The effects of auditory information on 4‐month‐old infants' perception of trajectory continuity. Child Development, 83 (3), 954 – 964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2012.01739.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burr, D., Banks, M. S., &amp; Morrone, M. C. (2009). Auditory dominance over vision in the perception of interval duration. Experimental Brain Research, 198 (1), 49 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221‐009‐1933‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, Y. C., &amp; Spence, C. (2010). When hearing the bark helps to identify the dog: Semantically‐congruent sounds modulate the identification of masked pictures. Cognition, 114 (3), 389 – 404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Csibra, G., Hernik, M., Mascaro, O., Tatone, D., &amp; Lengyel, M. (2016). Statistical treatment of looking‐time data. Developmental Psychology, 52 (4), 521 – 536. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000083</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the new statistics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203807002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Day, R. H., &amp; Burnham, D. K. (1981). Infants' perception of shape and color in laterally moving patterns. Infant Behavior and Development, 4, 341 – 357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163‐6383(81)80036‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ernst, M. O., &amp; Bülthoff, H. H. (2004). Merging the senses into a robust percept. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 162 – 169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.02.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fantz, R. L. (1961). The origin of form perception. Scientific American, 204 (5), 66 – 73. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0561‐66</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fantz, R. L. (1963). Pattern vision in newborn infants. Science, 140 (3564), 296 – 297. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.140.3564.296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farroni, T., Johnson, M. H., Menon, E., Zulian, L., Faraguna, D., &amp; Csibra, G. (2005). Newborns' preference for face‐relevant stimuli: Effects of contrast polarity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102 (47), 17245 – 17250. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0502205102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.‐G., &amp; Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39 (2), 175 – 191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fenwick, K. D., &amp; Morrongiello, B. A. (1998). Spatial co‐location and infants' learning of auditory‐visual associations. Infant Behavior and Development, 21 (4), 745 – 759. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163‐6383(98)90042‐X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fulkerson, M. (2014). Rethinking the senses and their interactions: The case for sensory pluralism. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01426</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gori, M., Del Viva, M., Sandini, G., &amp; Burr, D. (2008). Young children do not integrate visual and haptic form information. Current Biology, 18, 694 – 698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.04.036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gori, M., Sandini, G., &amp; Burr, D. (2012). Development of visuo‐auditory integration in space and time. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6, 77. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2012.00077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hellier, J. L. (2016). The five senses and beyond: The encyclopedia of perception. Bloomsbury Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hernandez‐Reif, M., &amp; Bahrick, L. E. (2001). The development of visual‐tactual perception of objects: Amodal relations provide the basis for learning arbitrary relations. Infancy, 2 (1), 51 – 72. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0201_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, S. P., Bremner, J. G., Slater, A., Mason, U., Foster, K., &amp; Cheshire, A. (2003). Infants' perception of object trajectories. Child Development, 74 (1), 94 – 108. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8624.00523</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, M. H., Dziurawiec, S., Ellis, H., &amp; Morton, J. (1991). Newborns' preferential tracking of face‐like stimuli and its subsequent decline. Cognition, 40 (1–2), 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010‐0277(91)90045‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kellman, P. J., &amp; Spelke, E. S. (1983). Perception of partly occluded objects in infancy. Cognitive Psychology, 15 (4), 483 – 524. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010‐0285(83)90017‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirkham, N. Z., Richardson, D. C., Wu, R., &amp; Johnson, S. P. (2012). The importance of "what": Infants use featural information to index events. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113 (3), 430 – 439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.07.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirkham, N. Z., Wagner, J. B., Swan, K. A., &amp; Johnson, S. P. (2012). Sound support: Intermodal information facilitates infants' perception of an occluded trajectory. Infant Behavior and Development, 35 (1), 174 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.09.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kitagawa, N., &amp; Ichihara, S. (2002). Hearing visual motion in depth. Nature, 416 (6877), 172 – 174. https://doi.org/10.1038/416172a</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kleiner, M., Brainard, D. H., Pelli, D. G., Ingling, A., Murray, R., &amp; Broussard, C. (2007). What's new in Psychtoolbox‐3? Perception, 36 (14), 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/03010066070360S101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lakens, D. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t‐tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4 (NOV), 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lartillot, O., &amp; Toiviainen, P. (2007). MIR in Matlab (II): A toolbox for musical feature extraction from audio. Proceedings of the 8th international conference on music information retrieval, ISMIR 2007, Vienna, Austria.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehmann, S., &amp; Murray, M. M. (2005). The role of multisensory memories in unisensory object discrimination. Cognitive Brain Research, 24 (2), 326 – 334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.02.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewkowicz, D. J. (1996). Perception of auditory–visual temporal synchrony in human infants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22 (5), 1094 – 1106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096‐1523.22.5.1094</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewkowicz, D. J. (2004). Perception of serial order in infants. Developmental Science, 7 (2), 175 – 184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2004.00336.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewkowicz, D. J. (2010). Infant perception of audio‐visual speech synchrony. Developmental Psychology, 46 (1), 66 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015579</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewkowicz, D. J., &amp; Kraebel, K. (2004). The value of multisensory redundancy in the development of intersensory perception. In G. A. Calvert, C. Spence, &amp; B. E. Stein (Eds.), Handbook of multisensory processes (pp. 655 – 678). MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mareschal, D., &amp; Johnson, M. H. (2003). The "what" and "where" of object representations in infancy. Cognition, 88 (3), 259 – 276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010‐0277(03)00039‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, M. K., &amp; Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Factors affecting infants' manual search for occluded objects and the genesis of object permanence. Infant Behavior and Development, 31 (2), 168 – 180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2007.10.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morein‐Zamir, S., Soto‐Faraco, S., &amp; Kingstone, A. (2003). Auditory capture of vision: Examining temporal ventriloquism. Cognitive Brain Research, 17 (1), 154 – 163. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926‐6410(03)00089‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrongiello, B. A., Fenwick, K. D., &amp; Chance, G. (1998). Crossmodal learning in newborn infants: Inferences about properties of auditory‐visual events. Infant Behavior and Development, 21 (4), 543 – 553. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163‐6383(98)90028‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrongiello, B. A., Fenwick, K. D., &amp; Nutley, T. (1998). Developmental changes in associations between auditory‐visual events. Infant Behavior and Development, 21 (4), 613 – 626. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163‐6383(98)90033‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray, M. M., Michel, C. M., De Peralta, R. G., Ortigue, S., Brunet, D., Andino, S. G., &amp; Schnider, A. (2004). Rapid discrimination of visual and multisensory memories revealed by electrical neuroimaging. NeuroImage, 21 (1), 125 – 135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.09.035</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Needham, A. (1999). The role of shape in 4‐month‐old infants' object segregation. Infant Behavior and Development, 22 (2), 161 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163‐6383(99)00008‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Needham, A., &amp; Baillargeon, R. (1997). Object segregation in 8‐month‐old infants. Cognition, 62, 121 – 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010‐0277(96)00727‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Needham, A., &amp; Kaufman, J. (1997). Infants' integration of information from different sources in object segregation. Early Development and Parenting, 6 (3–4), 137 – 148. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099‐0917(199709/12)6:3/4&lt;137::AID‐EDP153&gt;3.0.CO;2‐C</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oakes, L. M. (2017). Sample size, statistical power, and false conclusions in infant looking‐time research. Infancy, 22 (4), 436 – 469. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10 (4), 437 – 442. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00366</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pick, H. L., Warren, D. H., &amp; Hay, J. C. (1969). Sensory conflict in judgments of spatial direction. Perception &amp; Psychophysics, 6 (4), 203 – 205. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207017</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reich, S. (1978). Section I. In music for 18 musicians. ECM.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reid, V. M., Dunn, K., Young, R. J., Amu, J., Donovan, T., &amp; Reissland, N. (2017). The human fetus preferentially engages with face‐like visual stimuli. Current Biology, 27 (12), 1825 – 1828.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, C. W., &amp; Sloutsky, V. M. (2007a). Linguistic labels and categorization in infancy: Do labels facilitate or hinder? Infancy, 11 (3), 233 – 253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532‐7078.2007.tb00225.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, C. W., &amp; Sloutsky, V. M. (2007b). Visual processing speed: Effects of auditory input on visual processing. Developmental Science, 10 (6), 734 – 740. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2007.00627.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robinson, C. W., &amp; Sloutsky, V. M. (2008). Effects of auditory input in individuation tasks. Developmental Science, 11 (6), 869 – 881. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2008.00751.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rohe, T., &amp; Noppeney, U. (2015). Cortical hierarchies perform Bayesian causal inference in multisensory perception. PLoS Biology, 13 (2), 1 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002073</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slater, A., Earle, D. C., Morison, V., &amp; Rose, D. (1985). Pattern preferences at birth and their interaction with habituation‐induced novelty preferences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39 (1), 37 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022‐0965(85)90028‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trevethan, R. (2017). Intraclass correlation coefficients: Clearing the air, extending some cautions, and making some requests. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 17 (2), 127 – 143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742‐016‐0156‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wada, Y., Shirai, N., Otsuka, Y., Midorikawa, A., Kanazawa, S., Dan, I., &amp; Yamaguchi, M. K. (2009). Sound enhances detection of visual target during infancy: A study using illusory contours. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102 (3), 315 – 322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2008.07.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilcox, T. (1999). Object individuation: Infants' use of shape, size, pattern, and color. Cognition, 72 (2), 125 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010‐0277(99)00035‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilcox, T., &amp; Baillargeon, R. (1998a). Object individuation in infancy: The use of featural information in reasoning about occlusion events. Cognitive Psychology, 37 (2), 97 – 155. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0690</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilcox, T., &amp; Baillargeon, R. (1998b). Object individuation in young infants: Further evidence with an event‐monitoring paradigm. Developmental Science, 1 (1), 127 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐7687.00019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilcox, T., &amp; Chapa, C. (2004). Priming infants to attend to color and pattern information in an individuation task. Cognition, 90 (3), 265 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010‐0277(03)00147‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilcox, T., Smith, T., &amp; Woods, R. (2011). Priming infants to use pattern information in an object individuation task: The role of comparison. Developmental Psychology, 47 (3), 886 – 897. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021792</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Nataşa Ganea; Caspar Addyman; Jiale Yang and Andrew Bremner</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref137"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref138"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref145"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref147"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref158"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1449854 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Effects of Multisensory Stimulation on Infants' Learning of Object Pattern and Trajectory – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Natasa+Ganea%22">Natasa Ganea</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0003-4727-3540">0009-0003-4727-3540</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Caspar+Addyman%22">Caspar Addyman</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jiale+Yang%22">Jiale Yang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrew+Bremner%22">Andrew Bremner</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4119-3748">0000-0002-4119-3748</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Development%22"><i>Child Development</i></searchLink>. 2024 95(6):2133-2149. – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 17 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Infants%22">Infants</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Development%22">Child Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multisensory+Learning%22">Multisensory Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recall+%28Psychology%29%22">Recall (Psychology)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Stimuli%22">Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Patterned+Responses%22">Patterned Responses</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Trajectories%22">Learning Trajectories</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Object+Permanence%22">Object Permanence</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1111/cdev.14147 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0009-3920<br />1467-8624 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: This study investigated whether infants encode better the features of a briefly occluded object if its movements are specified simultaneously by vision and audition than if they are not (data collected: 2017-2019). Experiment 1 showed that 10-month-old infants (N = 39, 22 females, White-English) notice changes in the visual pattern on the object irrespective of the stimulation received (spatiotemporally congruent audio-visual stimulation, incongruent stimulation, or visual-only; [partial eta-squared] = 0.53). Experiment 2 (N = 72, 36 female) found similar results in 6-month-olds (Test Block 1, [partial eta-squared] = 0.13), but not 4-month-olds. Experiment 3 replicated this finding with another group of 6-month-olds (N = 42, 21 females) and showed that congruent stimulation enables infants to detect changes in object trajectory (d = 0.56) in addition to object pattern (d = 1.15), whereas incongruent stimulation hinders performance. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: Note Label: Notes Group: Note Data: https://osf.io/d5tn4/?view_only=b5564084bbf641048d287b1310b946f1 – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2024 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1449854 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1449854 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1111/cdev.14147 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 17 StartPage: 2133 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Infants Type: general – SubjectFull: Child Development Type: general – SubjectFull: Multisensory Learning Type: general – SubjectFull: Recall (Psychology) Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning Processes Type: general – SubjectFull: Stimuli Type: general – SubjectFull: Patterned Responses Type: general – SubjectFull: Learning Trajectories Type: general – SubjectFull: Object Permanence Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Effects of Multisensory Stimulation on Infants' Learning of Object Pattern and Trajectory Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Natasa Ganea – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Caspar Addyman – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Jiale Yang – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Andrew Bremner IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 11 Type: published Y: 2024 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0009-3920 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1467-8624 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 95 – Type: issue Value: 6 Titles: – TitleFull: Child Development Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
