Comparison of active and purely visual performance in a multiple-string means-end task in infants

International audienceThe aim of the present study was to understand what factors influence infants’ problem-solving behaviours on the multiple-string task. The main question focused on why infants usually solve the single string-pulling task at 12 months at the latest, whereas most 16-month-old infants still cannot solve the task when several strings are presented, only one of which is attached to the desired object. We investigated whether this difficulty is related to infants’ ability to inhibit their spontaneous immediate actions by comparing active and purely visual performance in this task. During the first part of the experiment, we assessed the ability of infants aged 16–20 months to solve the multiple-string task. The infants were then divided into three groups based on performance (a “failure” group, an “intermediate” group, and a “success” group). The results of this action task suggest that there were differences in infants’ performance according to their level of inhibitory control of their preferred hand. In the second part of the experiment, the three groups’ predictive looking strategies were compared when seeing an adult performing the task. We found that only infants who successfully performed the action task also visually anticipated which string the adult had to pull in the visual task. Our results suggests that inhibitory control was not the only factor influencing infants’ performance on the task. Furthermore, the data support the direct matching hypothesis (Rizzolatti and Fadiga, 2005), according to which infants need to be able to perform actions themselves before being able to anticipate similar actions performed by others

Development of reaching to the body in early infancy: from experiments to robotic models

We have been observing how infants between 3 and 21 months react when a vibrotactile stimulation (a buzzer) is applied to different parts of their bodies. Responses included in particular movement of the stimulated body part and successful reaching for and removal of the buzzer. Overall, there is a pronounced developmental progression from general to specific movement patterns, especially in the first year. In this article we review the series of studies we conducted and then focus on possible mechanisms that might explain what we observed. One possible mechanism might rely on the brain extracting “sensorimotor contingencies” linking motor actions and resulting sensory consequences. This account posits that infants are driven by intrinsic motivation that guides exploratory motor activity, at first generating random motor babbling with self-touch occurring spontaneously. Later goal-oriented motor behavior occurs, with self-touch as a possible effective tool to induce informative contingencies. We connect this sensorimotor view with a second possible account that appeals to the neuroscientific concepts of cortical maps and coordinate transformations. In this second account, the improvement of reaching precision is mediated by refinement of neuronal maps in primary sensory and motor cortices—the homunculi—as well as in frontal and parietal corti- cal regions dedicated to sensorimotor processing. We complement this theoretical account with modeling on a humanoid robot with artificial skin where we implemented reaching for tactile stimuli as well as learning the “somatosensory homunculi”. We suggest that this account can be extended to reflect the driving role of sensorimotor contingencies in human development. In our conclusion we consider possible extensions of our current experiments which take account of predictions derived from both these kinds of models

Development of reaching to the body in early infancy: From experiments to robotic models

We have been observing how infants between 3 and 21 months react when a vibrotactile stimulation (a buzzer) is applied to different parts of their bodies. Responses included in particular movement of the stimulated body part and successful reaching for and removal of the buzzer. Overall, there is a pronounced developmental progression from general to specific movement patterns, especially in the first year. In this article we review the series of studies we conducted and then focus on possible mechanisms that might explain what we observed. One possible mechanism might rely on the brain extracting “sensorimotor contingencies” linking motor actions and resulting sensory consequences. This account posits that infants are driven by intrinsic motivation that guides exploratory motor activity, at first generating random motor babbling with self-touch occurring spontaneously. Later goal-oriented motor behavior occurs, with self-touch as a possible effective tool to induce informative contingencies. We connect this sensorimotor view with a second possible account that appeals to the neuroscientific concepts of cortical maps and coordinate transformations. In this second account, the improvement of reaching precision is mediated by refinement of neuronal maps in primary sensory and motor cortices—the homunculi—as well as in frontal and parietal corti- cal regions dedicated to sensorimotor processing. We complement this theoretical account with modeling on a humanoid robot with artificial skin where we implemented reaching for tactile stimuli as well as learning the “somatosensory homunculi”. We suggest that this account can be extended to reflect the driving role of sensorimotor contingencies in human development. In our conclusion we consider possible extensions of our current experiments which take account of predictions derived from both these kinds of models

Development of reaching to the body in early infancy: From experiments to robotic models

We have been observing how infants between 3 and 21 months react when a vibrotactile stimulation (a buzzer) is applied to different parts of their bodies. Responses included in particular movement of the stimulated body part and successful reaching for and removal of the buzzer. Overall, there is a pronounced developmental progression from general to specific movement patterns, especially in the first year. In this article we review the series of studies we conducted and then focus on possible mechanisms that might explain what we observed. One possible mechanism might rely on the brain extracting “sensorimotor contingencies” linking motor actions and resulting sensory consequences. This account posits that infants are driven by intrinsic motivation that guides exploratory motor activity, at first generating random motor babbling with self-touch occurring spontaneously. Later goal-oriented motor behavior occurs, with self-touch as a possible effective tool to induce informative contingencies. We connect this sensorimotor view with a second possible account that appeals to the neuroscientific concepts of cortical maps and coordinate transformations. In this second account, the improvement of reaching precision is mediated by refinement of neuronal maps in primary sensory and motor cortices—the homunculi—as well as in frontal and parietal corti- cal regions dedicated to sensorimotor processing. We complement this theoretical account with modeling on a humanoid robot with artificial skin where we implemented reaching for tactile stimuli as well as learning the “somatosensory homunculi”. We suggest that this account can be extended to reflect the driving role of sensorimotor contingencies in human development. In our conclusion we consider possible extensions of our current experiments which take account of predictions derived from both these kinds of models

FAKTOR-FAKTOR YANG MEMPENGARUHI TINGGINYA ANGKA SUSPEK TUBERKULOSIS DI PUSKESMAS PERAWATAN RATU AGUNG

Ber ba ga i c ar a tel ah di lak uk an untuk m enangg ul ang i T B, s alah s atun ya de nga n pen er ap an s tr at egi DO T S ( Dir ec tly O bs er v ed T r eatm ent Sh or tc our s e ) hing ga k e pel a ya na n k es ehatan pr im er . Ber das ar k an la por a n tah u nan Pus k esm as Per awa ta n Ratu Ag ung tah un 2 01 0 dik etahu i b ah wa s epanj an g t ahu n a ngk a s us pek T B m as ih ting gi, n am un a ngk a tem uan BT A po s itif s er ta a ngk a T B par u BT A neg atif r el atif r en dah. Pe ne lit ian in i b er tuj ua n unt uk m engur aik an f ak tor - f ak tor yan g d id uga ber hu bun gan d eng an ti n ggi n ya angk a s us pek T B di P us k esm as Per awatan Ra tu A gun g; m ener angk an s ebar an r es ponde n ber d as ar k an k arak ter is tik data dem ogr af is, antr opom etr i, da n k ar ak ter is tik tem pat tingg a l; s er ta m ener angk an hub unga n ant ar a k ar ak ter is tik res ponde n den gan k ec ur igaan a tau k ej adian T B. D es ai n p ene it ian ya ng d i gunak an ada lah c r os s - s ec tiona l. Sam pel t er dir i dar i du a k elom pok , yai tu k elom pok pas ien da n k elom pok tenaga k es ehatan di Pu sk esm as Per a wat an Ratu A gu ng. Da ta dar i k elom pok pas ien dik um pulk an den gan m enggu nak an p eng is ian k ues io ner , daf tar til ik k unj ungan r um ah, da n pe nguk ur an ber at bada n da n tin gg i ba dan. Data dar i k elom pok tena ga k es ehatan dik um pulk an denga n pr os es wa wa nc ar a. Se ban yak 33 r es po nden dar i k elom pok pas ie n ber has il d ik um pulk an, de nga n r es pond en ter ban yak untuk m as ing- m asing var ia be l ber a da pada r en tan g us ia 50 54 tahu n, ti ngk at pen did ik an SMA/s e der aj at, s tatus gi zi c uk up, ber pe ngh as il an c uk up, dan ber tem pat tin gga l di r um ah k ategor i ba ik . Has il uj i k om par atif m enunj uk k an ada n ya h ub unga n k em ak naan ant ar a var iab el us i a d an t in gk at pen di dik an d eng an var i abe l d ia gnos is T B par u. W awanc ar a di l ak uk an ter had ap d ok ter , petu gas Pr ogr am Pen ang gu lan gan T B, d an p etug as lab or ator ium dan di k etahui ba h wa f ak tor yang dapa t m en yeba bk an ting gi n ya angk a s us pek T B par u di P us k esm as Per awatan Ra tu A gun g ada la h k em ungk inan pr os es penj ar i nga n s us pek T B ya n g ter l al u lon ggar ; f ak tor -f ak tor ya ng da pat m en yeba bk an r en dah n ya a ngk a tem uan BT A pos it if adal a h tid ak 100 % - n ya s us pe k yang di per ik s a s putum , penc at atan id ent itas s us pek di la bor at or ium yan g ti dak len gk ap s ehin gga m en yu litk an p el ac ak an pad a s us pek yan g t idak m en ye les a ik an pem er ik s aan S PS, pen ggu naa n ant i biot ik ya ng ti dak tepat s e bel um pem er ik s aan BT A, da n k ooper at iv itas p as ien ya ng m as ih b el um baik ; dan f ak tor - f ak tor yan g dapa t m en yeb abk an r enda hn ya an gk a tem uan k as us T B par u BT A neg atif adal ah t idak s elur uh s us pek dengan BT A nega tif ya ng d ip er ik s a Ron tgen par u, gam bar an T B yang t idak k has , dan ti dak s em ua pas ie n yan g dip er ik s a Rontge n k em bali lag i k e Pus k esm as

Which limb is it? Responses to vibrotactile stimulation in early infancy

Somogyi E, Jacquey L, Heed T, et al. Which limb is it? Responses to vibrotactile stimulation in early infancy. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. 2018;36(3):384-401