Researchers using observational assessment techniques on infants must not overgeneralize and must base their conclusions on data from many studies.
On the basis of the data from one or two studies, it seems that some infants develop a particular perceptual ability not observed in others.
To use data from one or two studies on infant’s perceptual abilities, it is necessary to use techniques that will provide conclusive evidence.
When researchers fail to make generalizations from their studies, their observed data is often inconclusive.
[#paragraph1]In the study of perceptual abilities of infants, a number of techniques are used to determine infants’ responses to various stimuli. Because they cannot verbalize or fill out questionnaires, indirect techniques of naturalistic observation are used as the primary means of determining what infants can see, hear, feel, and so forth. Each of these methods compares an infant’s state prior to the introduction of a stimulus with its state during or immediately following the stimulus. The difference between the two measures provides the researcher with an indication of the level and duration of the response to the stimulus. For example, if a [#highlight1]uniformly[/highlight1] moving pattern of some sort is passed across the visual field of a neonate (newborn), [#highlight3]repetitive following movements of the eye[/highlight3] occur. The occurrence of these eye movements provides evidence that the moving pattern is perceived at some level by the newborn. Similarly, changes in the infant’s general level of motor activity — turning the head, blinking the eyes, crying, and so forth — have been used by researchers as visual indicators of the infant’s perceptual abilities.
[#paragraph2]Such techniques, however, have limitations. First, the observation may be unreliable in that two or more observers may not agree that the particular response occurred, or to what degree it occurred. Second, responses are difficult to quantify. Often the rapid and diffuse movements of the infant make it difficult to get an accurate record of the number of responses. The third, and most [#highlight5]potent[/highlight5], limitation is that it is not possible to be certain that the infant’s response was due to the stimulus presented or to a change from no stimulus to a stimulus. The infant may be responding to aspects of the stimulus different than those identified by the investigator. [#highlight6]Therefore, when observational assessment is used as a technique for studying infant perceptual abilities, care must be taken not to overgeneralize from the data or to rely on one or two studies as conclusive evidence of a particular perceptual ability of the infant.[/highlight6]
[#paragraph3]Observational assessment techniques have become much more sophisticated, reducing the limitations just presented. [#insert1] Film analysis of the infant’s responses, heart and respiration rate monitors, and nonnutritive sucking devices are used as effective tools in understanding infant perception. Film analysis permits researchers to carefully study the infant’s responses over and over and in slow motion. [#insert2] Precise measurements can be made of the length and frequency of the infant’s attention between two stimuli. [#insert3] Heart and respiration monitors provide the investigator with the number of heartbeats or breaths taken when a new stimulus is presented. [#insert4] Numerical increases are used as [#highlight8]quantifiable[/highlight8] indicators of heightened interest in the new stimulus. Increases in nonnutritive sucking were first used as an assessment measure by researchers in 1969. They devised an apparatus that connected a baby’s pacifier on to a counting device. As stimuli were presented, changes in the infant’s sucking behavior were recorded. Increases in the number of sucks were used as an indicator of the infant’s attention to or preference for a given visual display.
[#paragraph4]Two additional techniques of studying infant perception have come into vogue. The first is the habituation-dishabituation technique, in which a single stimulus is presented repeatedly to the infant until there is a measurable decline (habituation) in whatever attending behavior is being observed. At that point a new stimulus is presented, and any recovery (dishabituation) in responsiveness is recorded. If the infant fails to dishabituate and continues to show habituation with the new stimulus, it is assumed that the baby is unable to perceive the new stimulus as different. The habituation-dishabituation paradigm has been used most extensively with studies of auditory and olfactory perception in infants. The second technique relies on evoked potentials, which are electrical brain responses that may be related to a particular stimulus because of where they originate. Changes in the electrical pattern of the brain indicate that the stimulus is getting through to the infant’s central nervous system and eliciting some form of response.
[#paragraph5]Each of the preceding techniques provides the researcher with evidence that the infant can detect or discriminate between stimuli. With these sophisticated observational assessment and electro physiological measures, we know that the neonate of only a few days is far more perceptive than previously suspected. However, these measures are only “indirect” indicators of the infant’s perceptual abilities.