“
“We examined two aspects of temperamental approach in early infancy, positive reactivity and anger, and their unique and combined influences on maternal reports of child surgency and attention focusing at 4 years of age. One hundred and fourteen infants were observed for their positive reactions to novel stimuli at 4 months, and their anger expressions during arm restraint at 9 months. Child surgency and attention focusing at age 4 years were assessed by maternal report. Infants who expressed more anger to restraint were rated higher in surgency during early childhood relative to infants who expressed less anger. The effects of positive reactivity to novelty on attention focusing were moderated by anger to restraint. These findings

suggest that infant temperamental approach tendencies Ridaforolimus chemical structure are multifaceted and have both unique and combined influences on later maternal report of attention and social behavior. “
“Infants

search for an object hidden by an occluder in the light months later than one hidden by darkness. One explanation attributes this décalage to easier action demands in darkness versus occlusion, whereas another attributes it to easier representation demands in darkness versus occlusion. However, search tasks typically confound these two types of demands. This article presents a search task that unconfounds them to better address these two explanations of the “dark advantage.” Objects were hidden by submersion in liquid instead of occlusion with a screen, allowing infants to search with equally simple actions in light versus dark. In Experiment 1, 6-month-olds Nutlin-3a mouse unexpectedly showed a dark disadvantage by discriminating when an object was hidden in the light but not the dark. Experiment 2 addressed the possibility that representation demands were higher in the dark than the light and showed that infants’ search in the dark increased to match that in the light, but not exceed it. Six-month-olds can thus search for a hidden Sulfite dehydrogenase object both when action demands are simplified and

when a noncohesive substance rather than a cohesive occluder hides the object, supporting aspects of both action-demand and representation-demand explanations of décalage in search behavior. “
“This study examines face-scanning behaviors of infants at 6, 9, and 12 months as they watched videos of a woman describing an object in front of her. The videos were created to vary information in the mouth (speaking vs. smiling) and the eyes (gazing into the camera vs. cueing the infant with head turn or gaze direction to an object being described). Infants tended to divide their attention between the eyes and the mouth, looking less at the eyes with age and more at the mouth than the eyes at 9 and 12 months. Attention to the mouth was greater on speaking trials than on smiling trials at all three ages, and this difference increased between 6 and 9 months. Despite consistent results within subjects, there was considerable variation between subjects.