Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Rhythm entrains attention in both human and non-human animals. Here, the ontogenetic origins of this effect were investigated in newborns (Experiment 1; N = 30, 16 females) and 2-month-old infants (Experiment 2; N = 30, 17 females). Visuospatial attentional disengagement was tested in an overlap task where a static peripheral stimulus (S2) appeared while a central rhythmic, non-rhythmic or static stimulus (S1) remained visible on the screen. Results indicated a developmental pattern, with 2-month-olds, but not newborns, showing equally faster disengagement of fixation when S1 was static or rhythmic compared to non-rhythmic. Infants' preferential looking behaviour indicate that this difference in saccadic latencies was not due to stimulus salience (Experiment 3; N = 30, 18 females). Results point to the importance of the temporal structure of dynamic stimuli as a specific feature that modulates attentional disengagement at 2 months of age. • Two-month-olds, not newborns, were equally faster in disengaging fixation from static and rhythmic stimuli compared to non-rhythmic stimuli. • Infants’ preferential looking behaviour suggests that this effect is not due to stimulus salience. • The ability to harness rhythmic patterns to optimise visuospatial attention emerges very early in human ontogeny.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arioli et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: