Klarinet Archive - Posting 000211.txt from 2005/06

From: Joseph Wakeling <joseph.wakeling@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Bounced babies
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 19:32:04 -0400

Ormondtoby Montoya wrote:

>> The issue about visual cues not working is dubious I think since it
>> was a cue of the sort that the babies could easily ignore.
>
>
> Joe, since I haven't read the author's discussion of the results, I
> can only guess. However, I suspect that the author's motive for
> blindfolding some of the babies was that eyes are a primary sensor of
> motion. Thus a roller coaster ride is not as disturbing if you close
> your eyes. Certainly there is no way that most of us can ignore what
> we see during a roller coaster ride.

I have access to this sort of thing, so I downloaded it and can send you
and Tony a copy (and anyone else who is interested---just email me
privately to ask. Probably technically illegal but I am a supporter of
scientific research being freely available to all:-).

Basically the experiment consists of three different runs of the same
process: one, babies being bounced; two, babies being bounced while
blindfolded (to see if visual cues are essential); then, babies not
being bounced but being given visual cues (watching someone else
bouncing). The results are that in the first two cases the rhythmic
cues result in a preference but in the last case, the visual cue has no
significant effect.

It's this third one that I find dubious since unlike the second, the
supposed cue could easily be ignored.

-- Joe

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org