View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Concurrences across Time and Sensorimotor Capacities Promote Infant Learning

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Concurrences across Time and Sensorimotor Capacities Promote Infant Learning
Language: English
Authors: Ye Li (ORCID 0000-0002-8317-7180), Viridiana L. Benitez (ORCID 0000-0003-3082-6287)
Source: Child Development Perspectives. 2025 19(2):99-107.
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: 9
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Infants, Perceptual Motor Learning, Sensory Training, Perceptual Development, Learning Processes
DOI: 10.1111/cdep.12531
ISSN: 1750-8592
1750-8606
Abstract: In infancy, sensorimotor capacities directly affect learning. Although developmental scientists have studied the link between sensorimotor capacities and learning, their work has focused primarily on a narrow window of time connecting just two domains. In this article, we propose that considering concurrences across multiple time points and domains provides novel insights into how sensorimotor capacities systematically shape learning. First, we present a developmental map synthesizing changes across the vision, motor, and language domains in the first 18 months of life. Using the map as a guide, we review literature identifying how changes in one sensorimotor domain affect learning. We then highlight additional concurrences that have not been systematically explored and use the concrete example of learning word-object mappings to illustrate how the developmental map provides rich ground to raise new questions and revisit old ones. We end with a call to action to fill key gaps in the map by considering variations in other domains and cultures, as well as in atypical development.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1469564
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGT37C_z-La8KnChRH9DYLJAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCPzw58UKj2hL7xa8QIBEICBm7F4uyFF-NO17pgR6Frx0zgAvq6vuOQDIuh_tyuIC0Wj7Dh4IFygytiXtuyz2eKPFS82wDSYIVBLQeBQzi2V0COeHp01FBb-pJ6hJBh6uCJ4vPnqsFZzCun4D8jEchrV7N3TMTasjrbTQkdgpjLzovEkxl3XT8Ipge1KKHR6cN8Da1Whm2A8uMG4-SifP2Fahe_iw4U4IAsezyQ3
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0184868900;[30rc]01jun.25;2025May05.05:08;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184868900-1">Concurrences across time and sensorimotor capacities promote infant learning </title> <p>In infancy, sensorimotor capacities directly affect learning. Although developmental scientists have studied the link between sensorimotor capacities and learning, their work has focused primarily on a narrow window of time connecting just two domains. In this article, we propose that considering concurrences across multiple time points and domains provides novel insights into how sensorimotor capacities systematically shape learning. First, we present a developmental map synthesizing changes across the vision, motor, and language domains in the first 18 months of life. Using the map as a guide, we review literature identifying how changes in one sensorimotor domain affect learning. We then highlight additional concurrences that have not been systematically explored and use the concrete example of learning word‐object mappings to illustrate how the developmental map provides rich ground to raise new questions and revisit old ones. We end with a call to action to fill key gaps in the map by considering variations in other domains and cultures, as well as in atypical development.</p> <p>Keywords: developmental concurrences; infant learning; sensorimotor capacities</p> <p>Human infants play a direct role in generating experiences for their own learning (Corbetta, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref1">20</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref2">58</reflink>]). Infants' ability to do this depends largely on their sensorimotor capacities, which undergo rapid changes in the first few years of life. Therefore, early infancy is a period in which sensorimotor capacities are coupled tightly with learning; these couplings, supported by theory‐driven hypotheses (e.g., Thelen & Ulrich, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref3">64</reflink>]), have been documented extensively in the linguistic, conceptual, and social domains. However, these studies have focused primarily on a narrow window of time of development (e.g., a few months) and have connected development across only two domains (e.g., motor and vision). In contrast, a complete understanding of how sensorimotor capacities underpin early learning requires considering concurrences across the span of early development and across multiple domains (e.g., Campos et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]; Corbetta et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref5">22</reflink>]; Thelen & Ulrich, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref6">64</reflink>]).</p> <p>In this article, we outline a framework for understanding concurrences across time points and domains by focusing on one example: the development of vision and motor capacities and how they are linked to infant language learning. Via this example, we aim to demonstrate the utility of examining concurrences across time and domains for advancing knowledge of how sensorimotor capacities underpin infant learning.</p> <p>First, we present a developmental map synthesizing trajectories across the motor, vision, and language domains during the first 18 months of life. Using this map as a guide, we identify how changes in one sensorimotor domain affect learning by selectively reviewing classic and recent work. We also highlight how the developmental map points to additional concurrences that remain unexplored, providing rich ground to raise new questions and revisit old ones. Last, we zoom in on learning word‐object mappings, illustrating how it is supported by concomitant and accumulated sensorimotor experiences. The key concept, as our example shows, is that viewing development continuously across time points and domains provides a comprehensive and novel lens to advance our understanding of infant learning. We end with a call to action to fill key gaps in our developmental map and consider different learning pathways in the context of other sensorimotor domains, cultures, and atypical development.</p> <hd id="AN0184868900-2">VISION, MOTOR, AND LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES</hd> <p>Infants undergo dramatic developments in the visual, motor, and language domains, which have been documented extensively in prior studies. Figure 1 displays a developmental map of the trajectories of typically developing infants across their first 18 months of life in these domains. In the motor domain, infants develop gross motor skills, from lifting their head to sitting, crawling, standing, and then walking (Adolph et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]). Infants also develop fine motor skills, with the first attempt at grasping at 4 months, rhythmic arm movements at 7 months, and pincer grasping by 10 months (Thelen, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref8">63</reflink>]; von Hofsten, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref9">67</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/30RC/01jun25/cdep12531-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdep12531-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Developmental map for developmental trajectories in the motor, vision, and language domains among typically developing infants. Note: The figure depicts the normative timelines of developing trajectories in the domains of motor, vision (visual acuity and visual fields), and language in the first one and a half years among typically developing infants. The green region depicts early motor development milestones, with darker green lines representing gross motor skills (Adolph et al., [2]) and lighter green lines depicting fine motor skills (Thelen, [63]; von Hofsten, [67]). The light maroon region denotes early vision development. The top maroon panel depicts the development of visual acuity (Arterberry & Kellman, [4]; Chandna, [16]; Held et al., [30]; Rosander, [51]; Yuodelis & Hendrickson, [75]). The bottom maroon panel denotes developmental changes in the visual fields of infants at several windows of time (Clerkin et al., [18]; Fausey et al., [27]; Smith et al., [58]; Suanda et al., [61]). The purple region captures some milestones of early language development, such as speech perception, sound production, and word‐referent mapping (Bergelson & Swingley, [6]; Bosch & Sebastián‐Gallés, [8]; Eimas et al., [25]; Houston‐Price et al., [32]; Johnson & Jusczyk, [36]; Kuhl et al., [40]; Mehler et al., [44]; Pelucchi et al., [48]; Saffran et al., [52]; Smith & Yu, [57]; Woodward et al., [73])." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Infants also develop vision quickly in the first 8 months of life. Newborns have poor visual acuity and color perception, with cones that support color and high spatial resolution spaced four times farther apart than those of adults (Yuodelis & Hendrickson, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref10">75</reflink>]). Rapidly, they move to perceiving more colors at 2 months (Arterberry & Kellman, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>]), to detecting moving entities and perceiving depth at 4 months (Held et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref12">30</reflink>]; Rosander, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref13">51</reflink>]), and they approach adult‐level visual acuity and color perception at 8 months (Chandna, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref14">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>With recent advances in wearable recording devices, video recordings from infants' first‐person view unveil what appears in the visual field, showing that infants' visual experiences shift systematically. The dominant items in view change from faces (1–3 months) to objects (8–10 months) and to infants' and others' hands in late infancy (Clerkin et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref15">18</reflink>]; Fausey et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref16">27</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref17">58</reflink>]; Suanda et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref18">61</reflink>]). These results reveal significant shifts in the focus of attention across developmental stages.</p> <p>Concurrently, in the domain of language, infants are sensitive to prosodic cues as newborns (Mehler et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref19">44</reflink>]), categorize phonemes as early as 1 month (Eimas et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]), discriminate prosodically similar languages by 4–5 months (Bosch & Sebastián‐Gallés, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref21">8</reflink>]), show sensitivity to the phonotactic patterns of their native language(s) by 9 months (Jusczyk et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref22">37</reflink>]), and narrow in on perceiving the phonemes of their own language(s) between 6 and 12 months (Kuhl et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref23">40</reflink>]). Infants also start cooing around 2 months (Stark, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref24">60</reflink>]), babble around 7 months (Iverson, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref25">33</reflink>]), demonstrate early communicative gestures between 6 and 8 months (Crais et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref26">24</reflink>]), and produce their first words around 12 months (Schneider et al., [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref27">54</reflink>]). Furthermore, infants comprehend early words between 6 and 9 months (Bergelson & Swingley, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref28">6</reflink>]), segment words from natural or artificial speech streams by 8 months (Johnson & Jusczyk, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]; Pelucchi et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref30">48</reflink>]; Saffran et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref31">52</reflink>]), and can map a novel word to a novel object between 12 and 18 months (Houston‐Price et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref32">32</reflink>]; Smith & Yu, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref33">57</reflink>]; Woodward et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref34">73</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184868900-4">CONCURRENCES ACROSS DOMAINS</hd> <p>Contemporary scientists tend to adopt a reductionist approach to study a scientific phenomenon, influenced by Descartes (Heng, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref35">31</reflink>]). Investigating the development of one domain often neglects other domains for simplicity. However, as Figure 1 highlights, developing domains overlap, and one may have cascading effects on others, contributing jointly to early learning. Developmental scientists have a history of investigating how sensorimotor capacities influence each other and learning, from before birth (Bremner et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref36">9</reflink>]) through the first few years of life.</p> <p>Early seminal work set the stage for investigating developmental concurrences across domains (Corbetta & Bojczyk, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref37">21</reflink>]; Corbetta et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref38">22</reflink>]). Corbetta et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref39">22</reflink>]) assessed how two motor domains—walking and reaching—are integrated, so learning to walk (infants posture their arms above their waist for balance) may reshape reaching patterns (infants switch from one‐handed to two‐handed reaching when learning to walk). Thelen and Ulrich ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref40">64</reflink>]) highlighted assessing concurrences longitudinally by tracking how infants' stepping changes from 1 month to 7–10 months. They showed that learning to step is nonlinear and dynamic, and co‐develops with other domains. Last, Campos et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref41">12</reflink>]) indicated that the impact of a single sensorimotor milestone can extend to learning in multiple domains, so, for example, self‐locomotion promotes fear of heights, distance perception, and language development (Walle & Campos, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref42">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>Building on these contributions, we point out some additional concurrences highlighted by the developmental map and supported by other seminal work. For instance, Figure 1 displays a correspondence between fine‐grained grasping and communicative gestures. Pointing emerges around 9 months as a result of infants' communicative needs, at about the same time pincer grasping also emerges. Thus, fine motor skills could set the stage for the development of gestures (Crais et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref43">24</reflink>]; von Hofsten, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref44">67</reflink>]). Figure 1 also indicates concurrences between rhythmic arm movements (e.g., shaking a rattle) and reduplicated babbling (e.g., producing <emph>ba</emph>‐<emph>ba</emph>‐<emph>ba</emph>) around 7–8 months. The emergence of rhythmic arm movements precedes that of reduplicated babbling by about 2–3 weeks. Theories propose that performing repetitive arm movements and performing repetitive vocalizations may belong to a family of domain‐general rhythmically organized motor patterns (Iverson, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref45">33</reflink>]; Oller & Eilers, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref46">46</reflink>]; Thelen, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref47">63</reflink>]). Thus, performing repetitive arm movements may benefit performing repetitive oral–vocal movements, which in turn promotes language production.</p> <p>With advances in research techniques, recent studies have showcased additional concurrences. For instance, Figure 1 shows that grasping and reaching co‐occur with the development of binocular vision and the detection of moving objects (at 4 months). In addition, the manual manipulation of objects during play generates visual variability of objects, which facilitates recognizing objects, forming early visual perception biases, and understanding others' goals (Pereira et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref48">49</reflink>]; Slone et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref49">56</reflink>]; Sommerville et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref50">59</reflink>]). Thus, manual skills and early vision go hand‐in‐hand: Manual experiences shape patterns of early visual perception (e.g. Corbetta et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref51">23</reflink>]) or vice versa (e.g., White et al., [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref52">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>Moreover, caregivers' linguistic input to infants accommodates to infants' concurrent motor skills and actions. When a child is not yet walking or crawling, their caregiver generates more noun‐centered sentence frames (e.g., "<emph>That is your toy!</emph>"), whereas when a child becomes an active moving entity, their caregiver produces more verb‐centered sentence frames (e.g., "<emph>Bring it to mommy</emph>!"; see Figure 2; Iverson, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref53">34</reflink>]; Karasik et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref54">38</reflink>]). Caregivers also temporarily align the types of verbs they use with their children's ongoing actions: Whole‐body verbs are concurrent with whole‐body actions, and manual verbs with manual actions (West et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref55">70</reflink>]).</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/30RC/01jun25/cdep12531-fig-0002.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdep12531-fig-0002.jpg" title="2 Caregivers' linguistic input accommodates to infants' concurrent motor skills. Note: Caregivers accommodate their linguistic input to their child's concurrent motor skills. When a child is not yet crawling or walking, their caregiver generates more noun‐centered sentence frames (e.g., "That is your toy!"), whereas when a child becomes an active moving entity, their caregiver produces more verb‐centered sentence frames (e.g., "Bring it to mommy!") (Iverson, [34]; Karasik et al., [38])." /> </p> <p></p> <p>Although extensive research has documented the temporal links between domains, Figure 1 indicates that many more concurrences across domains remain to be explored. To name one, prior studies have explored the similar trajectories of narrowing speech and face perception from 6 to 9 months (Watson et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref56">69</reflink>]). However, the narrowing process in speech perception also co‐occurs with the narrowing process of fine motor skills (fine‐grained and pincer grasping). Meanwhile, objects dominate the visual fields (at 8–10 months), so infants are more sensitive to objects and their relation to those objects, and selectively focus attention on a particular target of interest.</p> <p>What are the relations among these three developments? The process of selectively focusing attention and filtering out irrelevant information may support a domain‐general advancement in both pincer grasping (selectively manipulating a portion of an object and leaving the rest intact) and perceptual narrowing (selectively discriminating the phonemes of one's own language and filtering out those outside their language). Are these narrowing processes supported indirectly by the same underlying mechanism? Are they connected to each other directly without the mediation of a third variable so the emergence of pincer grasping advances perceptual narrowing or vice versa? Or perhaps these changes are unrelated and just happen to occur at about the same time. Answering these questions could provide unique insights into how motor processes support language and attentional processes.</p> <p>A second example involves infants' underdeveloped visual acuity at 1 month, when their visual field consists predominantly of caregivers' faces. At the same time, infants are categorizing phonemes. What are the relations among these three developments? Caregivers exaggerate their lip movements during infant‐directed speech (Green et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref57">28</reflink>]). By 2 months, infants pair their caregivers' lip movements with heard speech (Patterson & Werker, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref58">47</reflink>]). With infants' poor visual acuity, faces predominating their visual field, and exaggerated lip movements observed in caregivers, infants may link the salient features of moving lips with a subtle change in sound, which in turn helps them discriminate phonemes. Although we do not know how these factors are related, understanding whether these domains function independently or interdependently can provide insights into early language development.</p> <p>However, despite the richness of concurrences that can be captured, not all concurrences reveal a true link between infant development and learning, and some may be spurious. We offer a cautionary note, emphasizing the importance of examining concurrences as theory‐ and hypothesis‐driven endeavors that do not just examine correlations but aim to understand the mechanisms underlying concurrences.</p> <hd id="AN0184868900-6">SENSORIMOTOR UNDERPINNINGS OF WORD‐OBJECT MAPPING</hd> <p>To further highlight the benefits of integrating concurrences across time points and domains, we turn to the milestone of learning word‐object mappings. Figure 3 highlights how word‐object mapping is supported by concomitant and accumulated sensorimotor experiences across time points and domains. The apparently simple act of linking the spoken word <emph>cup</emph> with the referent cup is not easy. Forming word‐object mappings requires multiple sensorimotor skills, with the specific skills necessary to form word‐object mappings varying depending on infants' own sensorimotor capacities. For a typically developing infant, the skills include hearing, vision, and connecting what is heard with what is seen.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/30RC/01jun25/cdep12531-fig-0003.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="cdep12531-fig-0003.jpg" title="3 Zooming into the Sensorimotor Underpinnings of Learning Word‐Object Mappings. Note. A single language learning milestone—mapping words with objects between 12 and 18 months—is supported by sensorimotor experiences across multiple domains (vertical line: Motor, vision, and language domains), and across continuous time points (horizontal line: From 4 months to 18 months). The evidence illustrates that learning (such as successful word‐object mapping) is supported by concomitant and accumulated sensorimotor experiences." /> </p> <p></p> <p>This process involves first segmenting words from running speech to identify a single instance of <emph>cup</emph>. Infants can segment individual words from speech via statistical learning mechanisms by 8 months (Saffran et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref59">52</reflink>]), are sensitive to the phonotactic patterns of their language by 9 months (Jusczyk et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref60">37</reflink>]), and narrow in on the phonemic contrasts of their language between 6 and 12 months (Kuhl et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref61">40</reflink>]). Statistical regularities, phonotactic sensitivities, and phonemic narrowing jointly pave the way for infants to recognize <emph>cup</emph> in running speech.</p> <p>Second, infants need to recognize a cup in various forms and across instances (e.g., when moving, in blue and white, at the table, in the bedroom). This sort of real‐world object recognition is hard (Pinto et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref62">50</reflink>]). Early on, infants develop color vision (at 2 months), and detect moving entities and fine‐tune depth perception (both at 4 months). Their ability to recognize and categorize objects continues developing via object play (4–8 months): During play, infants accumulate a large training data set consisting of self‐generated and other‐generated distinctive visual angles of the same objects (Pereira et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref63">49</reflink>]; Slone et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref64">56</reflink>]), which facilitates object recognition (Tsutsui et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref65">66</reflink>]). Thus, early vision development can promote object recognition and categorization, which are essential for word‐object mapping.</p> <p>Third, fine‐motor development may also play a role in mapping the word <emph>cup</emph> with an actual cup. We hypothesize that, when an infant starts reaching and grasping at around 4 months, daily practice with object play—playing with one toy at a time because of a limit in the number of objects that can be held—may strengthen infants' sustained attention (the ability to endogenously direct their attention to target stimuli while inhibiting their attention to irrelevant stimuli), which improves rapidly in the first year (Amso & Scerif, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref66">3</reflink>]; Byrge et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref67">11</reflink>]; Colombo & Cheatham, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref68">19</reflink>]). Sustained attention may enable infants to concentrate on one object for a period of time, which in turn strengthens the assumption that naming moments (when caregivers name an object) often refer to one object, but not a few.</p> <p>Studies on infants' visual fields (Figure 3) support this conjecture indirectly, showing that many surrounding objects dominate infants' view between 8 and 10 months, but between 12 and 18 months, the number of objects in view decreases to one or a few, usually accompanied by hands (Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref69">58</reflink>]). This conjecture is also supported by evidence that during parental naming moments, 18‐month‐olds look at either the correct object or the incorrect object, but do not switch among multiple objects (Yu et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref70">74</reflink>]). Finally, this conjecture is evidenced by the mutual exclusivity bias during early word learning in which monolingual and, to a lesser extent, bilingual infants assume by default that a word refers to a single object (Liittschwager & Markman, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref71">43</reflink>]; Merriman & Bowman, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref72">45</reflink>]). In summary, fine‐motor development during object play not only aids object recognition, but also may shape attention and word‐object mappings.</p> <hd id="AN0184868900-8">VARIATIONS IN OTHER DOMAINS, CULTURES, AND ATYPICAL DEVELOPMENT</hd> <p>We acknowledge the limitations of Figure 1 in not accounting for other sensorimotor domains and learning, and not accounting for cultural variations and atypical development. We propose several ideas to build on our current model.</p> <p>First, how do other sensorimotor domains intertwine and affect early learning? In our developmental map, we focus on the vision and motor domains to represent sensorimotor development, yet other sensorimotor domains overlap and contribute to learning. For example, oral–vocal movements can go hand‐in‐hand with speech perception: Manipulation of infants' lip and tongue configurations at 4½ months and 6 months can disrupt the perception of phonemes (Bruderer et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref73">10</reflink>]; Choi et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref74">17</reflink>]). In addition, tactile experiences contribute to learning: Patterns of others' touch aid infants' ability to detect auditory regularities (Lew‐Williams et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref75">42</reflink>]) and to learn words accompanying the touch (Seidl et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref76">55</reflink>]). We suggest that researchers add other sensorimotor domains to the developmental map to identify additional concurrences.</p> <p>Second, we focus on language learning in particular; however, other learning (e.g., learning emotion) is affected by sensorimotor experiences. For instance, crawling experiences contribute to the emergence of fear of heights, with experienced crawlers showing changed cardiac rates and facial expressions when faced with a visual cliff (Campos et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref77">14</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref78">13</reflink>]). Researchers may want to consider how other learning beyond language is coupled with sensorimotor experiences.</p> <p>Third, how does the developmental map differ across sociocultural groups? Our map is based on research that primarily sampled White European or European‐American populations of middle to high socioeconomic status (see Supplemental Table S1 in online materials for the sociodemographic information of the participants reviewed in this article). Yet limited research comparing sensorimotor development cross‐culturally suggests differences in when infants succeed at sitting (Karasik et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref79">39</reflink>]) and walking (He et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref80">29</reflink>]), how they perceive objects visually (Kuwabara & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref81">41</reflink>]), and what dominates their visual fields (Jayaraman & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref82">35</reflink>]). These differences are likely driven by variations in sociocultural practices that influence sensorimotor experiences (Adolph & Hoch, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>]; Carra et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref84">15</reflink>]). Identifying differences and similarities across sociocultural groups will point to unique and universal concurrences that deepen our understanding of the sensorimotor underpinnings of learning. For example, in one study, researchers examined the walking‐language concurrence in two cultures (those of the United States and China) in which infants differed in when they began to walk (He et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref85">29</reflink>]). In both groups, walkers had greater vocabularies than crawlers, suggesting a tight coupling between walking and language development that may be universal.</p> <p>Our developmental map also sheds light on how different sensorimotor trajectories across individuals can produce the same learning outcomes. Typically developing infants eventually walk, talk, and view the world in a similar way (e.g., Schneider & Iverson, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref86">53</reflink>]). The question of <emph>equifinality</emph> has long plagued developmental researchers. We propose that integrating sensorimotor experiences across multiple domains, as well as delineating a developmental map tailored to each individual's unique pathway, may provide insights into the different solutions infants use to achieve the same goal.</p> <p>Finally, how does a developmental deficit reshape sensorimotor pathways and learning? Infants who experience deficits in one or more sensorimotor domains can have trajectories that differ from typically developing infants, resulting in the same or different learning outcomes. For instance, in contrast to their typically developing peers, infants with a visual impairment rely more heavily on auditory information to guide their reaching (Elisa et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref87">26</reflink>]; Tröster & Brambring, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref88">65</reflink>]). In addition, their early vocabulary repertoire reflects their sensorimotor experiences as they produce more words with meanings that include auditory (e.g., <emph>music</emph>), olfactory (e.g., <emph>basement</emph>), or tactile (e.g., <emph>dirt</emph>) features than their typically developing counterparts (Bigelow, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref89">7</reflink>]). The developmental map may provide insights into how a deficit in one or some sensorimotor domains systematically shifts learning.</p> <hd id="AN0184868900-9">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>In this article, we noted that early language learning is situated in a coherent and continuous system integrated with sensorimotor experiences. Departing from prior work synthesizing concurrences within a limited set of time points and domains, we highlighted that the impact of sensorimotor skills on learning is more pervasive: Concurrences extend across the span of early development and across multiple domains. We described a developmental map (Figure 1) to emphasize the concurrences across the motor, vision, and language domains during the first 18 months of life. We showcased how our developmental map can help raise new questions and revisit old ones on infant learning. In line with recent forward‐looking endeavors to advise the field of early development to move beyond its current stage (e.g., Benton, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref90">5</reflink>]; Iverson, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref91">34</reflink>]; Smith et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref92">58</reflink>]; Tamis‐LeMonda & Masek, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref93">62</reflink>]; Wojcik et al., [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref94">72</reflink>]), we have provided a novel map to revisit early learning: Viewing development as an <emph>all‐is‐connected</emph> system may not complicate infant learning as contemporary science suggests, but rather demystify it.</p> <hd id="AN0184868900-10">ACKNOWLEDGMENTS</hd> <p>This perspective originated from Ye Li's comprehensive examination during her Ph.D. training. We thank Drs. Arthur M. Glenberg, Linda B. Smith, and Polemnia G. Amazeen for serving on her committee; Dr. Smith for encouraging the publication of these ideas; Dr. Glenberg, Dr. Smith, and the ECCRG for feedback on early versions of the manuscript; and research assistants Tanvi Malhotra, Elianna Aberra, Virginia Ticay, and Anyssia Gomez for assisting on Table S1.</p> <hd id="AN0184868900-11">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not‐for‐profit sectors.</p> <p>GRAPH: Table S1.</p> <ref id="AN0184868900-12"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref83" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Adolph, K. E., & Hoch, J. E. (2019). Motor development: Embodied, embedded, enculturated, and enabling. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 141 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev‐psych‐010418‐102836</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref7" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Adolph, K. E., Hoch, J. E., & Cole, W. G. (2018). Development (of walking): 15 suggestions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22 (8), 699 – 711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.05.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref66" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Amso, D., & Scerif, G. (2015). The attentive brain: Insights from developmental cognitive neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16 (10), 606 – 619. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn4025</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Arterberry, M. E., & Kellman, P. J. (2016). Development of perception in infancy: The cradle of knowledge revisited. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref90" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Benton, D. T. (2023). But what is the mechanism?': Demystifying the ever elusive 'developmental mechanism. Infant and Child Development, 32 (6), e2355. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2355</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref28" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bergelson, E., & Swingley, D. (2012). At 6‐9 months, human infants know the meanings of many common nouns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (9), 3253 – 3258. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1113380109</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref89" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bigelow, A. (1987). Early words of blind children. Journal of Child Language, 14 (1), 47 – 56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900012721</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref21" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bosch, L., & Sebastián‐Gallés, N. (2001). Evidence of early language discrimination abilities in infants from bilingual environments. Infancy, 2 (1), 29 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0201_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref36" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bremner, A. J., Lewkowicz, D. J., & Spence, C. (Eds.). (2012). Multisensory development. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bruderer, A. G., Danielson, D. K., Kandhadai, P., & Werker, J. F. (2015). Sensorimotor influences on speech perception in infancy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112 (44), 13531 – 13536. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1508631112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Byrge, L., Sporns, O., & Smith, L. B. (2014). Developmental process emerges from extended brain‐body‐behavior networks. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18 (8), 395 – 403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.04.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campos, J. J., Anderson, D. I., Barbu‐Roth, M. A., Hubbard, E. M., Hertenstein, M. J., & Witherington, D. (2000). Travel broadens the mind. Infancy, 1 (2), 149 – 219. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327078IN0102_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campos, J. J., Bertenthal, B. I., & Kermoian, R. (1992). Early experience and emotional development: The emergence of wariness of heights. Psychological Science, 3, 61 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9280.1992.tb00259.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campos, J. J., Hiatt, S., Ramsay, D., Henderson, C., & Svejda, M. (1978). The emergence of fear on the visual cliff. In M. Lewis & L. Rosenblum (Eds.), The origins of affect (Vol. 1, pp. 149 – 182). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4684‐2616‐8_6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carra, C., Lavelli, M., & Keller, H. (2014). Differences in practices of body stimulation during the first 3 months: Ethnotheories and behaviors of Italian mothers and West African immigrant mothers. Infant Behavior and Development, 37 (1), 5 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.10.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chandna, A. (1991). Natural history of the development of visual acuity in infants. Eye, 5 (1), 20 – 26. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1991.4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi, D., Yeung, H. H., & Werker, J. F. (2023). Sensorimotor foundations of speech perception in infancy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27 (8), 773 – 784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.05.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clerkin, E. M., Hart, E., Rehg, J. M., Yu, C., & Smith, L. B. (2017). Real‐world visual statistics and infants' first‐learned object names. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 372 (1711), 20160055. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0055</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Colombo, J., & Cheatham, C. L. (2006). The emergence and basis of endogenous attention in infancy and early childhood. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 34, 283 – 322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065‐2407(06)80010‐8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbetta, D. (2021). Perception, action, and intrinsic motivation in infants' motor‐skill development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30 (5), 418 – 424. https://doi.org/10.1177/096372142110319</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbetta, D., & Bojczyk, K. E. (2002). Infants return to two‐handed reaching when they are learning to walk. Journal of Motor Behavior, 34 (1), 83 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222890209601933</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbetta, D., Friedman, D. R., & Bell, M. A. (2014). Brain reorganization as a function of walking experience in 12‐month‐old infants: Implications for the development of manual laterality. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 74175. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00245</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corbetta, D., Wiener, R. F., Thurman, S. L., & McMahon, E. (2018). The embodied origins of infant reaching: Implications for the emergence of eye‐hand coordination. Kinesiology Review, 7 (1), 10 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1123/kr.2017‐0052</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crais, E., Douglas, D. D., & Campbell, C. C. (2004). The intersection of the development of gestures and intentionality. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47 (3), 678 – 694. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092‐4388(2004/052)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science, 171 (3968), 303 – 306. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.171.3968.303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elisa, F., Josée, L., Oreste, F. G., Claudia, A., Antonella, L., Sabrina, S., & Giovanni, L. (2002). Gross motor development and reach on sound as critical tools for the development of the blind child. Brain and Development, 24 (5), 269 – 275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0387‐7604(02)00021‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fausey, C. M., Jayaraman, S., & Smith, L. B. (2016). From faces to hands: Changing visual input in the first two years. Cognition, 152, 101 – 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green, J. R., Nip, I. S., Wilson, E. M., Mefferd, A. S., & Yunusova, Y. (2010). Lip movement exaggerations during infant‐directed speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 1529 – 1542. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092‐4388(2010/09‐0005)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> He, M., Walle, E. A., & Campos, J. J. (2015). A cross‐national investigation of the relationship between infant walking and language development. Infancy, 20 (3), 283 – 305. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12071</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Held, R., Birch, E., & Gwiazda, J. (1980). Stereoacuity of human infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 77 (9), 5572 – 5574. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.77.9.5572</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heng, H. H. (2008). The conflict between complex systems and reductionism. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300 (13), 1580 – 1581. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.13.1580</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Houston‐Price, C., Plunkett, K. I. M., & Harris, P. (2005). 'Word‐learning wizardry' at 1; 6. Journal of Child Language, 32 (1), 175 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000904006610</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iverson, J. M. (2010). Developing language in a developing body: The relationship between motor development and language development. Journal of Child Language, 37 (2), 229 – 261. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000909990432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iverson, J. M. (2022). Developing language in a developing body, revisited: The cascading effects of motor development on the acquisition of language. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 13 (6), e1626. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1626</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jayaraman, S., & Smith, L. (2014). A horse of a different color: Early visual environments in an Indian community. Journal of Vision, 14 (10), 239. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.10.239</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, E. K., & Jusczyk, P. W. (2001). Word segmentation by 8‐month‐olds: When speech cues count more than statistics. Journal of Memory and Language, 44 (4), 548 – 567. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2000.2755</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jusczyk, P. W., Friederici, A. D., Wessels, J. M., Svenkerud, V. Y., & Jusczyk, A. M. (1993). Infants' sensitivity to the sound patterns of native language words. Journal of Memory and Language, 32 (3), 402 – 420. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1993.1022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karasik, L. B., Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S., & Adolph, K. E. (2014). Crawling and walking infants elicit different verbal responses from mothers. Developmental Science, 17 (3), 388 – 395. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karasik, L. B., Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S., Adolph, K. E., & Bornstein, M. H. (2015). Places and postures: A cross‐cultural comparison of sitting in 5‐month‐olds. Journal of Cross‐Cultural Psychology, 46 (8), 1023 – 1038. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115593803</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhl, P. K., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Deguchi, T., Kiritani, S., & Iverson, P. (2006). Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 9 (2), F13 – F21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐7687.2006.00468.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuwabara, M., & Smith, L. B. (2016). Cultural differences in visual object recognition in 3‐year‐old children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 147, 22 – 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2016.02.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lew‐Williams, C., Ferguson, B., Abu‐Zhaya, R., & Seidl, A. (2019). Social touch interacts with infants' learning of auditory patterns. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 35, 66 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn.2017.09.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liittschwager, J. C., & Markman, E. M. (1994). Sixteen‐and 24‐month‐olds' use of mutual exclusivity as a default assumption in second‐label learning. Developmental Psychology, 30 (6), 955 – 968. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.30.6.955</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehler, J., Jusczyk, P., Lambertz, G., Halsted, N., Bertoncini, J., & Amiel‐Tison, C. (1988). A precursor of language acquisition in young infants. Cognition, 29 (2), 143 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010‐0277(88)90035‐2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Merriman, W. E., & Bowman, L. L. (1989). The mutual exclusivity bias in children's word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 54 (3–4), 1 – 132. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166130</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. E. (1988). The role of audition in infant babbling. Child Development, 59 (2), 441 – 449. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130323</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patterson, M. L., & Werker, J. F. (2003). Two‐month‐old infants match phonetic information in lips and voice. Developmental Science, 6 (2), 191 – 196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐7687.00271</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelucchi, B., Hay, J. F., & Saffran, J. R. (2009). Statistical learning in a natural language by 8‐month‐old infants. Child Development, 80 (3), 674 – 685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2009.01290.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pereira, A. F., James, K. H., Jones, S. S., & Smith, L. B. (2010). Early biases and developmental changes in self‐generated object views. Journal of Vision, 10 (11), 22. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.11.22</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pinto, N., Cox, D. D., & DiCarlo, J. J. (2008). Why is real‐world visual object recognition hard? PLoS Computational Biology, 4 (1), e27. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.0040027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosander, K. (2007). Visual tracking and its relationship to cortical development. Progress in Brain Research, 164, 105 – 122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079‐6123(07)64006‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8‐month‐old infants. Science, 274 (5294), 1926 – 1928. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, J. L., & Iverson, J. M. (2023). Equifinality in infancy: The many paths to walking. Developmental Psychobiology, 65 (2), e22370. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.22370</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, R., Yurovsky, D., & Frank, M. (2015). Large‐scale investigations of variability in children's first words. In D. C. Noelle, R. Dale, A. S. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. D. Jennings, & P. P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the cognitive science society (pp. 2110 – 2115). Cognitive Science Society. https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2015/papers/0364/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seidl, A., Tincoff, R., Baker, C., & Cristia, A. (2015). Why the body comes first: Effects of experimenter touch on infants' word finding. Developmental Science, 18 (1), 155 – 164. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12182</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slone, L. K., Smith, L. B., & Yu, C. (2019). Self‐generated variability in object images predicts vocabulary growth. Developmental Science, 22 (6), e12816. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12816</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, L., & Yu, C. (2008). Infants rapidly learn word‐referent mappings via cross‐situational statistics. Cognition, 106 (3), 1558 – 1568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, L. B., Jayaraman, S., Clerkin, E., & Yu, C. (2018). The developing infant creates a curriculum for statistical learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22 (4), 325 – 336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2018.02.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sommerville, J. A., Woodward, A. L., & Needham, A. (2005). Action experience alters 3‐month‐old infants' perception of others' actions. Cognition, 96 (1), B1 – B11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2004.07.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stark, R. E. (1980). Stages of speech development in the first year of life. In G. Yeni‐Komshian, J. F. Kavanagh, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Child phonology (Vol. 1, pp. 73 – 90). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978‐0‐12‐770601‐6.50010‐3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Suanda, S. H., Barnhart, M., Smith, L. B., & Yu, C. (2019). The signal in the noise: The visual ecology of parents' object naming. Infancy, 24 (3), 455 – 476. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12278</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S., & Masek, L. R. (2023). Embodied and embedded learning: Child, caregiver, and context. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32 (5), 369 – 378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721423117873</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thelen, E. (1979). Rhythmical stereotypies in normal human infants. Animal Behaviour, 27, 699 – 715. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003‐3472(79)90006‐X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thelen, E., & Ulrich, B. D. (1991). Hidden skills: A dynamic systems analysis of treadmill stepping during the first year. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 56 (1), 1 – 104. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166099</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tröster, H., & Brambring, M. (1993). Early motor development in blind infants. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 14 (1), 83 – 106. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193‐3973(93)90025‐Q</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tsutsui, S., Zhi, D., Reza, M. A., Crandall, D., & Yu, C. (2019, June 16‐20). Active object manipulation facilitates visual object learning: an egocentric vision study [Conference presentation]. CVPR Workshop on Egocentric Perception, Interaction and Computing (EPIC). Long Beach, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1906.01415</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Hofsten, C. (1989). Mastering reaching and grasping: The development of manual skills in infancy. In S. A. Wallace (Ed.), Advances in psychology (Vol. 61, pp. 223 – 258). North‐Holland. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166‐4115(08)60023‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walle, E. A., & Campos, J. J. (2014). Infant language development is related to the acquisition of walking. Developmental Psychology, 50 (2), 336 – 348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033238</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watson, T. L., Robbins, R. A., & Best, C. T. (2014). Infant perceptual development for faces and spoken words: An integrated approach. Developmental Psychobiology, 56 (7), 1454 – 1481. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West, K. L., Fletcher, K. K., Adolph, K. E., & Tamis‐LeMonda, C. S. (2022). Mothers talk about infants' actions: How verbs correspond to infants' real‐time behavior. Developmental Psychology, 58 (3), 405 – 416. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001285</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> White, B. L., Castle, P., & Held, R. (1964). Observations on the development of visually directed reaching. Child Development, 35 (2), 349 – 364. https://doi.org/10.2307/1126701</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wojcik, E. H., Zettersten, M., & Benitez, V. L. (2022). The map trap: Why and how word learning research should move beyond mapping. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 13 (4), e1596. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1596</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodward, A. L., Markman, E. M., & Fitzsimmons, C. M. (1994). Rapid word learning in 13‐ and 18‐month‐olds. Developmental Psychology, 30 (4), 553 – 566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012‐1649.30.4.553</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yu, C., Zhang, Y., Slone, L. K., & Smith, L. B. (2021). The infant's view redefines the problem of referential uncertainty in early word learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118 (52), e2107019118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2107019118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yuodelis, C., & Hendrickson, A. (1986). A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the human fovea during development. Vision Research, 26 (6), 847 – 855. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042‐6989(86)90143‐4</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Ye Li and Viridiana L. Benitez</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref94"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1469564
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Concurrences across Time and Sensorimotor Capacities Promote Infant Learning
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ye+Li%22">Ye Li</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8317-7180">0000-0002-8317-7180</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Viridiana+L%2E+Benitez%22">Viridiana L. Benitez</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3082-6287">0000-0003-3082-6287</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Development+Perspectives%22"><i>Child Development Perspectives</i></searchLink>. 2025 19(2):99-107.
– 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: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– 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="%22Perceptual+Motor+Learning%22">Perceptual Motor Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sensory+Training%22">Sensory Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Perceptual+Development%22">Perceptual Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/cdep.12531
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1750-8592<br />1750-8606
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In infancy, sensorimotor capacities directly affect learning. Although developmental scientists have studied the link between sensorimotor capacities and learning, their work has focused primarily on a narrow window of time connecting just two domains. In this article, we propose that considering concurrences across multiple time points and domains provides novel insights into how sensorimotor capacities systematically shape learning. First, we present a developmental map synthesizing changes across the vision, motor, and language domains in the first 18 months of life. Using the map as a guide, we review literature identifying how changes in one sensorimotor domain affect learning. We then highlight additional concurrences that have not been systematically explored and use the concrete example of learning word-object mappings to illustrate how the developmental map provides rich ground to raise new questions and revisit old ones. We end with a call to action to fill key gaps in the map by considering variations in other domains and cultures, as well as in atypical development.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1469564
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1469564
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/cdep.12531
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 99
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Infants
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Perceptual Motor Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sensory Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Perceptual Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Processes
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Concurrences across Time and Sensorimotor Capacities Promote Infant Learning
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ye Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Viridiana L. Benitez
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1750-8592
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1750-8606
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 19
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Child Development Perspectives
              Type: main
ResultId 1