title: Cognitive development. Observing the unexpected enhances infants' learning and exploration.
abstract: Given the overwhelming quantity of information available from the environment, how do young learners know what to learn about and what to ignore? We found that 11-month-old infants (N = 110) used violations of prior expectations as special opportunities for learning. The infants were shown events that violated expectations about object behavior or events that were nearly identical but did not violate expectations. The sight of an object that violated expectations enhanced learning and promoted information-seeking behaviors; specifically, infants learned more effectively about objects that committed violations, explored those objects more, and engaged in hypothesis-testing behaviors that reflected the particular kind of violation seen. Thus, early in life, expectancy violations offer a wedge into the problem of what to learn.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA. astahl4@jhu.edu.
authors.forename: Aimee E
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Stahl
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA.
authors.forename: Lisa
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Feigenson
mesh_terms: D002657:Child Development; D003071:Cognition; D005106:Exploratory Behavior; D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D019359:Knowledge; D007858:Learning
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1980 Nov;87(6):532-52
references.pmid: 7443916
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Jun 23;106(25):10382-5
references.pmid: 19520833
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2009 Apr;13(4):148-53
references.pmid: 19285912
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2010 Nov;61(3):248-72
references.pmid: 20650449
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2006 Jul;10(7):309-18
references.pmid: 16797219
references.citation: Cognition. 1986 Jun;23(1):21-41
references.pmid: 3742989
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2003 Sep;14(5):402-8
references.pmid: 12930468
references.citation: Cognition. 2010 Feb;114(2):197-206
references.pmid: 19800056
references.citation: Cognition. 1993 May;47(2):121-48
references.pmid: 8324998
references.citation: Emotion. 2002 Jun;2(2):179-93
references.pmid: 12899190
references.citation: Science. 2011 May 27;332(6033):1054-9
references.pmid: 21617069
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1995 Oct;57(7):971-6
references.pmid: 8532500
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2004 Nov;15(11):776-81
references.pmid: 15482450
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2007 Jan;10(1):89-96
references.pmid: 17181705
references.citation: Child Dev. 2012 Jan-Feb;83(1):173-85
references.pmid: 22172010
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Jul;16(7):382-9
references.pmid: 22721579
references.citation: J Biomed Opt. 2005 Jan-Feb;10(1):11010
references.pmid: 15847576
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2012 Jun;64(4):215-34
references.pmid: 22365179
references.citation: Cognition. 1985 Aug;20(3):191-208
references.pmid: 4064606
references.citation: Science. 2011 Mar 11;331(6022):1279-85
references.pmid: 21393536
references.citation: Anim Cogn. 2010 May;13(3):463-70
references.pmid: 19960217
references.citation: Science. 1996 Dec 13;274(5294):1926-8
references.pmid: 8943209
references.citation: Science. 2006 Jan 20;311(5759):381-4
references.pmid: 16424341
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1992 Oct;99(4):605-32
references.pmid: 1454901
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Aug 15;103(33):12649-53
references.pmid: 16894149