Habituation Rate and the Infant's Response to Visual Discrepancies

Author(s): Robert B. McCall, Pamela S. Hogarty, Jayne S. Hamilton and John H. Vincent
Source: Child Development, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Jun., 1973), pp. 280-287
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1128048
Accessed: 26-06-2016 11:46 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for Research in Child Development, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Child Development

This content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:46:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Habituation Rate and the Infant's Response
to Visual Discrepancies

Robert B. McCall, Pamela S. Hogarty, Jayne S. Hamilton,

and John H. Vincent
Fels Research Institute

MCCALL, ROBERT B.; HOGARTY, PAMELA S.; HAMILTON, JAYNE S.; and VINCENT, JOHN H.
Habituation Rate and the Infant's Response to Visual Discrepancies. CHILD DEVELOPMENT,
1973, 44, 280-287. A simple visual stimulus was repeatedly presented to 120 infants 12 and 18
weeks of age until visual fixation reached a habituation criterion. A discrepant stimulus fol-
lowed that varied in its magnitude of discrepancy from the familiar standard. In contrast to
the age effects observed for the rate of habituation (though they interacted with specific
stimuli), there were no age differences in the distribution of fixation times to the several
magnitudes of discrepancy. Infants who habituated rapidly displayed an inverted-U curve of
fixation as a function of discrepancy in accord with the discrepancy hypothesis, whereas slow
habituators gave their maximum response to the largest discrepancy.

An attractive hypothesis in the study of tion) trials were presented. "Rapid-habituating"

the distribution of attention in the human in- infants apparently had habituated to asymptote
fant suggests that the rate of behavioral habitu- but slow habituators had not when the new
ation displayed 'by the infant to the repeated stimulus was introduced. Since habituation rate
presentation of a simple stimulus is a partial is an individual difference variable, it is not
reflection of the internal process of acquiring clear from these data which factor actually
some memory engram for that stimulus (e.g., caused the differential response to discrepancy
Lewis 1969; McCall 1971; Sokolov 1963). -the cognitive nature of the memory engram
Possibly, infants who show habituation are en- at the time the discrepancy was introduced or
coding the stimulus and in some sense have a some characteristic of the infant that operated
"better" memory of it than infants who do not both on the process of habituation and the
habituate. response to discrepancy. However, if slow-
habituating subjects were allowed to view re-
Several studies, using visual and auditory
peated presentations of the standard until they,
stimuli, long and short familiarization periods, too, reached an asymptote of responding, and
and a variety of response measures, have indi- if these subjects did respond differentially to
cated that those 3-6-month-old infants who
discrepancies under these conditions, then the
habituate evidence greater (or more mature) interpretation based upon the cognitive status
response patterns to novel or discrepant stimuli of the engram would be favored. An initial
than those who do not habituate (McCall
study using auditory stimuli suggests this might
1972; McCall & Kagen 1970; McCall & Melson be the case (A. B. Horowitz 1972). Thus, a
1969; Melson & McCall 1970). While this is
major purpose of the present experiment was
not the only evidence nor are all the data to investigate the response to several magni-
entirely consistent (see McCall 1971), the tudes of visual discrepancies as a function of
proposition that habituation reflects engram habituation rate under conditions in which all
acquisition seems plausible under some circum- infants were habituated to a common be-
stances.
havioral criterion.
However, in all of the studies cited above,
a fixed number of familiarization (or habitua- A second purpose was to examine the
This research supported by grant HD 04160 to R. B. M., by grants RR 05537 and FR 00222
to the Fels Research Institute, by the Grant Foundation of New York, and by the Fels Fund
of Philadelphia. We thank Darryl Bloom and Nancy Hurlburt for their help in pilot work and
Joanne Peterson for preparing the manuscript. Reprints may be requested from Robert B.
McCall, Fels Research Institute, Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387.
[Child Development, 1973, 44, 280-287. @ 1973 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All
rights reserved.]

This content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:46:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 McCall et al. 281

magnitude of discrepancy represented by the Cantor 1966; Pancratz & Cohen 1970), and
novel stimulus as a possible determinant of some have found sex differences in the response
attentional behavior. The discrepancy hypothe- to novel stimuli (e.g., Meyers & Cantor 1967;
sis (e.g., see McCall 1971) predicts attentional Pancratz & Cohen 1970).
behavior to be an inverted-U function of the
magnitude of discrepancy. Such a curvilinear Method
relationship presumably reflects the intersection
of two vectors: (1) increasing attention with Subjects
increasing amounts of information, and (2) Subjects, 12 and 18 weeks of age, were
decreasing attention as the stimulus information recruited by sending letters to parents whose
becomes more difficult to process by existing names appeared in the newspaper birth an-
cognitive structures and integrated with estab- nouncements. Approximately 12% of the let-
lished engrams. ters resulted in contacts, and a total of 157
infants were seen. However, 37 subjects were
Empirically, the inverted-U prediction is not included in the data analysis: 20 because
troublesome because there is no theoretical
of fretting and lack of cooperation, 10 due to
basis for deciding how much stimulus discrep- equipment and operator failure, and 7 because
ancy is sufficient to produce the downturn in of other circumstances (i.e., had abnormal
the response curve (Thomas 1971). Thus, al- medical histories, fell asleep, etc.). The re-
though some studies of infant attention have maining 120 infants formed the sample for
observed the complete inverted-U function these observations, and their characteristics are
(McCall 1972; McCall & Melson 1969), others presented in table 1.
have only hinted at it (McCall & Kagan 1967)
Procedure
or found a simple linearly increasing relation-
ship (McCall & Kagan 1970) between dis- Stimuli.-The stimuli are presented in
crepancy and response. All of these results figure 1. They were professionally photo-
might be consonant with the discrepancy hy- graphed (in color) and rear projected by an
pothesis, depending upon the subject's percep- Airequipt 350/EF projector with a 500-w
tion of the degree of discrepancy represented lamp. The diameter of the circular element of
by the set of experimental stimuli. A linear the stimulus was 10 inches, and was located
versus curvilinear result not only depends upon approximately 24 inches from the subject's
the particular stimuli-it might also depend eyes. A stimulus consisted of a black circle
upon the character of the memory engram, per- with a white interior on a yellow background.
ceptual-cognitive style of the subject (i.e., In the center of each circle was an arrow,
rapid vs. slow habituator), age of the infant, which was either a saturated blue (stimulus
etc. Thus, it was of interest to explore the rela- A), blue green (stimulus B), saturated green
tive response to a dimension of discrepancy as (stimulus C), or yellow green (stimulus D).
a function of sex, age, and habituation rate. Unfortunately, the photography minimized the
distinctiveness of these color differentials. The
Another purpose was to focus on possible stimuli were conceived to form a dimension of
age differences in habituation and response to similarity in the alphabetical order presented in
discrepancy. Younger infants have been found figure 1.
to habituate more slowly than older subjects
(e.g., Fantz 1964; Lewis 1969; McGurk 1972). General procedure.-All observations were
Further, several studies indicate that infants do
TABLE 1
not respond to a discrepancy more than to a
familiar event until approximately 2 months SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS (N = 120)
of age (see McCall 1971), but this depends
upon the assessment procedures (Siqueland Characteristic Males Females
1969). An experimental design that habituates Firstborn ............ ..... 25 20
infants to a criterion could assess age differ- No birth anesthetic ........ 7 13
ences in habituation separately from age differ- Abnormal birth positiona ... 6 5
ences in the response to several magnitudes Breast-fedb ................ 21 27
of discrepancy. Complicated pregnancy ..... 3 7
Birth weight (oz) .......... 124.9 118.1
Parental educatione ........ 14.4 14.5
Finally, some investigators have observed
sex differences in habituation to simple visual SBreach, transverse, other.
b Includes all subjects not totally bottle-fed.
stimuli (Horowitz & Paden 1969; Meyers & C 12 years equals high school graduate.

This content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:46:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
282 Child Development

FIG. 1.-Stimuli conceived to be on a scale of relative similarity to one another

performed in a mobile laboratory, located in the Habituation criterion.-The infant was

parking lots of various shopping centers. Moth- said to have reached criterion when he looked
ers provided their own transportation but were at the stimulus for 3 seconds or less on two
paid $2.00 and given Polaroid pictures of their consecutive trials following the first five pre-
children. When mother and infant arrived the sentations. Once the criterion was reached, the
general experimental procedure was explained discrepant stimulus sequence described above
and a few biographical details were secured. (i.e., dssds) was introduced without interrup-
Then the infant was placed in an infant seat tion.
situated on a table surrounded by walls on
three sides, one of which included the stimulus Experimental design.-The total sample
projection area. The mother was seated to the
was divided into an "experimental" sample
right and rear of the S.
(N = 96), which was presented a discrepant
stimulus on the trial following the attainment
Once the infant was comfortable in the of the habituation criterion- and a "control"
seat, the stimulus series began. A standard sample (N = 24), which was presented the
stimulus was presented until a behavioral cri- same familiar standard on the trial subsequent
terion of habituation was reached (see below), to reaching criterion. The control sample was
then the subject saw the sequence dssds in considered a "zero discrepancy" condition and
which d was a discrepant stimulus and s was represented a check against the possibility that
the familiar standard. Following Horowitz and the response to a discrepant stimulus might be
Paden (1969), a stimulus was presented until a regression to a mean response level following
the infant fixated it and remained on until the a chance decline.
child looked away. At this point the stimulus
The experimental Ss were equally divided
field went dark, and 5 seconds elapsed before
the next stimulus was shown. according to sex, age (12 vs. 18 weeks, -?- 1
week), standard stimulus (i.e., whether stimu-
The child's visual fixation was recorded by lus A or D in fig. 1 was the familiar standard),
an observer who pushed a button when the and magnitude of discrepancy (three arbitrary
stimulus was reflected in the child's pupil. The magnitudes produced by presenting stimulus B,
timing was recorded by Cramer digital clocks C, or D if the standard was A; or stimulus C,
(.1-sec accuracy). The previously estimated B, or A if the standard was D). The control Ss
reliability for this coding was .99 (McCall were similarly divided, but all constituted the
1972). zero discrepancy condition. Thus, the basic

This content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:46:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 McCall et al. 283

design was a sex X age (12, 18 weeks) X without time constraint, the data were trans-
standard stimulus (A, D) X magnitude of formed by X' = loglo X.
discrepancy (0,1,2,3) matrix.
The principal result of the above analysis
Results was an age X standard stimulus x trials in-
teraction, Fmult (6,107) = 2.16, p = .05,
Habituation which was largely a difference in quadratic
Although Ss were given as many familiar- trend in the habituation curves of these groups,
ization trials as necessary to reach criterion, all F (1,112) = 7.99, p = .006.
Ss were required to view at least seven presen-
These data are plotted in figure 2. Note
tations of the standard. Ordinarily, such data
that the two 18-week groups tended to have
might be analyzed with an age (12, 18) x shorter fixation times from the first trial and
sex x standard stimulus (vertical, horizontal more regular and shallower habituation curves,
arrow) X trials (7) repeated measures analysis
but the difference in general length of fixation
of variance. However, because fixation time
between the ages was much greater for Ss
across the seven trials was not homogeneously viewing the horizontal than the vertically ori-
correlated (i.e., there was heterogeneity of co-
ented standard stimulus, age x standard,
variance), this conventional analysis would F(1,112) = 8.82, p = .004. There was also a
yield results which were seriously biased in a
sex X standard x trials interaction, FmuIt
positive direction (see McCall & Appelbaum (6,107), p = .01, but this was a difference in
in press] for a nontechnical discussion of this
the sixth-degree trend contrast, F(1,112) =
issue and alternative procedures). Another ap-
15.11, p < .001, in which females viewing the
proach, not dependent upon the nature of the
horizontal standard showed an isolated dip in
covariances, involves analyzing the within-sub-
looking on the fourth trial. Apart from this
jects effects by submitting the six orthogonal unexplained deflection, there were no sex dif-
polynomial contrasts for trials for each S to an
ferences of the type reported by Pancratz and
age x sex X standard stimulus multivariate Cohen (1970).
analysis of variance (see McCall [1970] for a
brief description of multivariate analysis of The number of stimulus presentations
variance). Since Ss could look at the stimulus (trials) and the total time spent looking at the

0-0 horizontal
? ? 12 week AmA vertical
.70 0A EsA
18 week o . .6 horizontal
vertical

X
U6

.50

.60

Z .40 *

.30 mmmmm 0000

.J00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

TRIALS

FIG. 2.-Log fixation time during the required seven-trial familiarization period as a function of age
and standard stimulus.

This content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:46:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
284 Child Development
slow
standard prior to reaching criterion were two
.70
additional indices of the rate of habituation.
These two measures were submitted to a multi-
.60
variate analysis of variance with sex, standard
stimulus, and age as independent variables
(N = 15 per cell). A multivariate analysis of S.0so
variance is an extension of univariate analysis
.4017
of variance to consider the weighted combina-
tion of several variables (in this case, two).
.30
0
There was a significant multivariate effect
for age, Fmnit (2,111) = 5.07, p = .008, in - .20
rapid
which the time measure reached univariate
significance, F(1,112) = 9.65, p = .002. .10

However, this effect was qualified by a stan-

dard X age interaction, Fmut (2,111) = 3.38, 0 1 2 3
p = .037, with both the time, F(1,112) =
6.58, p = .012, and trials, F(1,112) = 4.90, MAGNITUDE OF DISCREPANCY

p = .029, variables having univariate signifi-

cance. There were no effects attributable to sex, FIG. 3.-Log fixation time as a function of
p's > .29. The means are presented in table 2. magnitude of discrepancy for rapid and slow
habituators.
Viewed collectively, these habituation
data only partially support the expected age total time spent looking. Infants reaching the
difference in which older Ss habituate more criterion in seven trials (the minimum num-
rapidly than younger ones: such a result was ber) were defined to be rapid habituators and
dependent upon the nature of the stimulus, the remaining Ss were slow habituators, except
and habituation rate cannot be easily separated in the 12-week-standard-stimulus-D group in
from initial response level when the magnitude which rapid habituators were those Ss reaching
of the response asymptotically approaches the criterion in nine or fewer trials.
lower bound (i.e., 0) of the measurement scale
near the end of the familiarization period. Only 17 of the 120 Ss looked longer on
the first than their last familiarization trial, and
For the purpose of examining differences nine of these were classified as rapid, eight as
in the response to discrepancy as a function of slow, habituators. The average log fixation to
habituation rate, Ss were divided at the median the first two standards was .53 for slow habitu-
within each age x standard stimulus condi- ators and .44 for rapid habituators. Both these
tion. The median split into rapid and slow figures are substantially higher than the zero-
habituators was made on the basis of the trials
discrepancy groups' responses to the first dis-
to criterion, since it was felt that the number crepancy (i.e., the standard) given in figure 3
of new introductions of a stimulus receiving below. Thus, both rapid and slow groups did
substantial looking was possibly a more salient in fact habituate.
index of rate of engram acquisition than the
Rapid and slow habituators were then
compared for differences on the sample char-
TABLE 2 acteristics indicated in table 1. Other results
TRIALS AND FIXATION TIME (SECONDS) TO (McCall 1972) have suggested that rapid
HABITUATION BY AGE AND STANDARD habituators in a long-term familiarization para-
STIMULUS
digm have more highly educated parents than
slow habituators. While the parents of rapid
AGE (WEEKS) habituators in the present study averaged one-
12 18 half year more education than the parents of
slow habituators, the difference was not signifi-
Stimulus A:
Trials ................. 8.87 9.20
cant, t (118) = 1.28. There were no other
differences observed between these groups.
Time ................. 38.08 34.48
Stimulus D: Response to Discrepancy
Trials ................. 11.67 8.83 The differential response to a discrepant
Time ................. 70.08 32.40 stimulus was assessed by performing an age

This content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:46:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 McCall et al. 285

(12 vs. 18 weeks) X habituation group (rapid the curve for slow habituators, the only signifi-
vs. slow) X magnitude of discrepancy (0,1,2, cant trend was linear, F(1,104) = 9.01, p =
3) analysis of variance. Preliminary analyses .003.
indicated no effects or interactions of these
factors with sex or standard stimulus, and con- Discussion
sequently these variables were ignored in the
analyses that follow. The entire five-way anal- These data contain two major results.
ysis could not be performed because some cells First, infants who habituated rapidly to a
would have been vacant.
simple stimulus pattern looked maximally at a
As with the habituation data, the depen- pattern representing a moderate amount of
discrepancy from the familiarized stimulus,
dent variable was the log10 fixation time. Inas-
much as previous studies had indicated that while infants who required more trials to reach
stimulus differences were likely only on the an habituation criterion displayed their maxi-
response to the first presentation of a dis- mum looking to a relatively more discrepant
crepancy (e.g., McCall & Kagan 1970), log stimulus. Second, although older infants habitu-
fixation times to the first and second discrepant ated more rapidly than younger subjects (only
stimuli were analyzed separately. There were for the horizontal standard stimulus), there
no significant differences on the second dis- were no age differences or interactions with
crepancy. Because all Ss were habituated to a magnitude of discrepancy, F < 1, in the re-
common criterion prior to the introduction of a sponse to discrepancies.
discrepant stimulus, the response to the discrep- At first thought, the rapid-slow habitua-
ant stimulus alone was the dependent variable tion results appear to be in conflict with
(rather than a discrepant-minus-previous-stan- previous data (e.g., McCall & Kagan 1970)
dard change score). However, to insure that which indicated that rapid but not slow habitu-
results were not a function of differences in
ators responded positively to discrepant stimuli.
response style and "initial values," the analyses Because the previous studies used a fixed num-
were repeated using the response to the stan- ber of familiarization trials regardless of the
dard immediately preceding the first discrep- infant's behavior, these results can be viewed
ancy as a covariate as suggested by Cronbach as quite consistent. Collectively, they suggest
and Furby (1970). that if an infant has not habituated to a
The analysis of variance indicated three stimulus, he will not respond positively to a
effects: magnitude of discrepancy, F (3,104) = discrepant event and may even display relative
3.26, p = .025; habituation group, F(1,104) gaze avoidance to moderately discrepant
= 12.29, p < .001; and a habituation group- stimuli (e.g., McCall 1972; McCall & Kagen
magnitude of discrepancy interaction, F (3,104) 1970). However, if such infants are permitted
= 3.31, p = .023. Each of these effects was to view the standard until they reach a be-
havioral criterion of habituation, they will
also significant (at only slightly larger proba-
respond to discrepancies, and slow habituators
bilities) when the response to the previous
standard was covaried. There were no age may respond more to larger magnitudes of
effects or interactions (two of three F's < 1). discrepancy than rapid habituators.

The cognitive implications of long looking

The results are presented in figure 3. The
at a very discrepant stimulus are not known.
habituation-group main effect suggested that
Such behavior may represent relative advance-
slow habituators looked longer than rapid
ment-perhaps a better memory of the stan-
habituators. However, figure 3 indicates the dard is present and/or the infant is somehow
general discrepancy effect was a blend of at
capable of processing very discrepant stimulus
least two components, one coming from the
information. Conversely, these infants may
rapid- and one from the slow-habituating in- simply be slow to habituate or "tune out" a
fants. The rapid habituators displayed an stimulus they cannot readily process. Data from
inverted-U function in accord with the dis-
another context (McCall 1972) tentatively sug-
crepancy hypothesis. This was reflected in a
gest that gaze avoidance of extreme discrepan-
significant quadratic trend, F (1,104) = 5.60,
cies may be more characteristic of older infants
p = .022, which was the only statistically re-
liable pattern. In contrast, the slow habituators and thus represent a more developmentally
mature response pattern.
responded most to the largest magnitude of
discrepancy. Despite the apparent inflection in Regardless of one's position on this con-

This content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:46:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
286 Child Development
ceptual issue, the data have several implica- (Salapatek 1968). Thus, it may be that 12-
tions. First, the results are consistent with the week-old infants are as able as 18-weekers to
proposition that the nature of habituation may process a stimulus whose major feature presents
reflect some aspect of the internal process of its contours directly to such a horizontal scan-
acquiring a memory engram for the standard ning strategy. However, when the arrow is
stimulus. Infants who habituate, respond posi- horizontal, examination of its contours requires
tively to new stimuli; if the discrepancy is a more sophisticated scanning strategy, and
introduced before habituation is relatively com- age differences are more obvious.
plete, the subject does not respond positively No sex differences in habituation rate were
to discrepancies.1
observed, despite the fact that others have
A second feature of these data is the clear found more rapid habituation to simple visual
inverted-U result displayed by the rapid habitu- stimuli for boys than girls (e.g., Pancratz &
ators. The fact that two different standards Cohen 1970).
were used without an interaction with magni-
Finally, the fact that age differences were
tude of discrepancy accentuates the role of
present for habituation but not the response to
discrepancy per se, apart from specific physical
discrepancy suggests that whatever develop-
stimulus characteristics, as the causal factor.
mental processes transpire between 12 and 18
Moreover, the observation that the trend was
linear for slow habituators but curvilinear for weeks they may have relatively greater in-
fluence on encoding information into the mem-
rapid habituators agreed with other results ory system and related processes than on
(McCall 1972) in suggesting that the form of retrieving perceptual-cognitive information and
the obtained relationship will not only depend using it to interact with new stimuli. Other
upon the particular levels of discrepancy used data are consistent with such a hypothesis. For
but habituation and/or subject characteristics.
example, Papousek (1961) has shown that
This result joins with other data (McCall 1972;
while there were marked age differences in the
McCall & Melson 1969) in indicating that a acquisition rate of conditioning infant head
curvilinear function may be the basic under-
rotation, the process of extinction was remark-
lying relationship between attention and dis- ably similar across several ages in the first year
crepancy, and that observations of a linear of life. Campbell and Spear (1972) have re-
trend may derive from using stimuli which do
cently reviewed the animal literature on learn-
not represent a sufficient range of discrepancies.
ing and development and conclude that while
Unfortunately, there is no a priori theoretical
there are age differences in the retention of a
definition of "sufficient," but this conceptual
conditioned avoidance response there are no
inelegance does not obviate the potential em- differences in rate of extinction. Finally, Sique-
pirical validity of the inverted-U prediction land (1969) reported a study using 1- and 4-
(Thomas 1971).
month-old infants who were given pacifiers
While previous experiments have demon- which, when sucked, would present or termi-
strated that habituation rate is a function of age nate a visual stimulus. Once asymptotic re-
(e.g., Lewis 1969; McGurk 1972) and stimulus sponding was achieved, a new visual stimulus
complexity (e.g., Caron & Caron 1968), the was suddenly introduced as a reinforcer. While
results of the present study suggest a possible the general level of response differed for the
interaction between age and stimulus proper- two age groups, there was no interaction be-
ties. While an age x complexity dependency tween age and the relative increase in sucking
might be expected, the stimuli in the present in response to the new stimulus. Although
study did not obviously differ in complexity as there must be age differences under some cir-
usually defined. A speculative explanation of cumstances, these studies suggest a minimum
why age differences occurred more clearly for age effect within the first year of life for be-
the horizontal relative to the vertical arrow haviors requiring some comparison with an
might be rooted in the propensity of very young already learned perceptual or associative mem-
infants to scan horizontally more than vertically ory engram.

1 It should be noted that the "short-looking" group in McCall and Kagan (1970) which
apparently did not habituate in the graph presented in that paper actually did habituate.
Because the first stimulus appeared to scare subjects, it was not included in the habituation
analysis. If it were included, the "short lookers" would have habituated by the second trial,
the "rapid habituators" by the fifth trial, and the "slow habituators" not at all. Thus, these
groups should more properly be called "most rapid," "rapid," and "nonhabituators."

This content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:46:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 McCall et al. 287

Thus, it is plausible that developmental McCall, R. B. Encoding and retrieval of perceptual

processes during this age period have their memories after long-term familiarization and
paramount influence on encoding rather than the infant's response to discrepancy. Unpub-
retrieval. This is a compelling hypothesis from lished, 1972.
an evolutionary standpoint. The perceptual- McCall, R. B., & Appelbaum, M. Bias in the analy-
cognitive apparatus of the young infant ap- sis of repeated measures designs: some al-
parently screens out much of the "buzzing ternative approaches. Child Development, in
confusion" once thought prevalent by making it press.
relatively difficult for a stimulus to be encoded McCall, R. B., & Kagan, J. Stimulus-schema dis-
into the memory system. However, if the con- crepancy and attention in the infant. Journal
ditions are right so that an event is encoded, of Experimental Child Psychology, 1967, 5,
then the perceptual-cognitive system of the 381-390.
young infant may be quite effective in retriev- McCall, R. B., & Kagan, J. Individual differences
ing that memory and using it to interact with in the infant's distribution of attention to
new stimuli.
stimulus discrepancy. Developmental Psy-
chology, 1970, 2, 90-98.
References McCall, R. B., & Melson, W. H. Attention in in-
fants as a function of magnitude of discrep-
Campbell, B. A., & Spear, N. E. Ontogeny of ancy and habituation rate. Psychonomic
memory. Psychological Review, 1972, 79, 215- Science, 1969, 17, 317-319.
236.
McGurk, H. Infant discrimination of orientation.
Caron, R. F., & Caron, A. J. The effects of re- Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
peated exposure and stimulus complexity on 1972, 14, 151-164.
visual fixation in infants. Psychonomic Science, Melson, W. H., & McCall, R. B. Attentional re-
1968, 10, 207-208.
sponses of five-month girls to discrepant audi-
Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. How should we tory stimuli. Child Development, 1970, 41,
measure "change"--or should we? Psycholog- 1159-1171.
ical Bulletin, 1970, 74, 68-80.
Meyers, W. J., & Cantor, G. N. Infants' observing
Fantz, R. L. Visual experience in infants: de- and heart period responses as related to
creased attention to familiar patterns relative
novelty of visual stimuli. Psychonomic Science,
to novel ones. Science, 1964, 146, 668-670. 1966, 5, 239-240.
Horowitz, A. B. Habituation and memory: infant
Meyers, W. J., & Cantor, G. N. Observing and
cardiac responses to familiar and discrepant
cardiac responses of human infants to visual
auditory stimuli. Child Development, 1972,
43, 43-54. stimuli. Journal of Experimental Child Psy-
chology, 1967, 5, 16-25.
Horowitz, F. D., & Paden, L. Y. Infant control of
visual stimulation three to fourteen weeks of Pancratz, C., & Cohen, L. B. Recovery of habitua-
tion in infants. Journal of Experimental Child
age. Paper presented at the Society for Re-
Psychology, 1970, 9, 208-216.
search in Child Development, Santa Monica,
California, April 1969. Papousek, H. Conditioned head rotation reflexes
Lewis, M. A developmental study of information in infants. Acta Paediatrica, 1961, 50, 565-
576.
processing within the first three years of life:
response decrement to a redundant signal. Salapatek, P. Visual scanning of geometric figures
Monographs of the Society for Research in by the human newborn. Journal of Compara-
Child Development, 1969, 34 (9, Serial No. tive and Physiological Psychology, 1968, 66,
133). 247-258.

McCall, R. B. The use of multivariate procedures Siqueland, E. R. The development of instrumental

in developmental psychology. In P. Mussen exploratory behavior during the first year of
(Ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psy- human life. Paper presented at the Society for
chology. New York: Wiley, 1970. Pp. 1366- Research in Child Development, Santa Monica,
1378. California, April 1969.
McCall, R. B. Attention in the infant: avenue to Sokolov, Y. N. Perception and the conditioned
the study of cognitive development. In D. reflex. S. W. Waydenfeld (Trans.). New
Walcher & D. L. Peters (Eds.), Early child- York: Macmillan, 1963.
hood: the development of self-regulatory Thomas, H. Discrepancy hypotheses: methodologi-
mechanisms. New York: Academic Press, cal and theoretical considerations. Psycholog-
1971. Pp. 107-137. ical Review, 1971, 78, 3, 249-259.

This content downloaded from 128.205.114.91 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 11:46:17 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms