The impact of novel labels on visual processing during infancy

The impact of novel labels on visual processing was investigated across two experiments with infants aged between 9 and 21 months. Infants viewed pairs of images across a series of preferential looking trials. On each trial, one image was novel, and the other image had previously been viewed by the infant. Some infants viewed images in silence; other infants viewed images accompanied by novel labels. The pattern of fixations both across and within trials revealed that infants in the labelling condition took longer to develop a novelty preference than infants in the silent condition. Our findings contrast with prior research by Robinson and Sloutsky (e.g., Robinson & Sloutsky, 2007a; Sloutsky & Robinson, 2008) who found that novel labels did not disrupt visual processing for infants aged over a year. Provided that overall task demands are sufficiently high, it appears that labels can disrupt visual processing for infants during the developmental period of establishing a lexicon. The results suggest that when infants are processing labels and objects, attentional resources are shared across modalities.

ERP correlates of shared control mechanisms involved in saccade preparation and in covert attention

We investigated whether attention shifts and eye movement preparation are mediated by shared control mechanisms, as claimed by the premotor theory of attention. ERPs were recorded in three tasks where directional cues presented at the beginning of each trial instructed participants to direct their attention to the cued side without eye movements (Covert task), to prepare an eye movement in the cued direction without attention shifts (Saccade task) or both (Combined task). A peripheral visual Go/Nogo stimulus that was presented 800 ms after cue onset signalled whether responses had to be executed or withheld. Lateralised ERP components triggered during the cue–target interval, which are assumed to reflect preparatory control mechanisms that mediate attentional orienting, were very similar across tasks. They were also present in the Saccade task, which was designed to discourage any concomitant covert attention shifts. These results support the hypothesis that saccade preparation and attentional orienting are implemented by common control structures. There were however systematic differences in the impact of eye movement programming and covert attention on ERPs triggered in response to visual stimuli at cued versus uncued locations. It is concluded that, although the preparatory processes underlying saccade programming and covert attentional orienting may be based on common mechanisms, they nevertheless differ in their spatially specific effects on visual information processing.