Kybernetes 48 (2019)

Purpose – This paper aims to extend the companion paper on “infant psychophysics”, which concentrated on the role of in-lab observers (watchers). Infants cannot report their own perceptions, so for five decades their detection thresholds for sensory stimuli were inferred from their stimulus-evoked behavior, judged by watchers. The inferred thresholds were revealed to inevitably be those of the watcher–infant duo, and, more broadly, the entire Laboratory. Such thresholds are unlikely to represent the finest stimuli that the infant can detect. What, then, do they represent? Design/methodology/approach – Infants’ inferred stimulus-detection thresholds are hypothesized to be attentional thresholds, representing more-salient stimuli that overcome distraction. Findings – Empirical psychometric functions, which show “detection” performance versus stimulus intensity, have shallower slopes for infants than for adults. This (and other evidence) substantiates the attentional hypothesis. Research limitations/implications – An observer can only infer the mechanisms underlying an infant’s perceptions, not know them; infants’ minds are “Black Boxes”. Nonetheless, infants’ physiological responses have been used for decades to infer stimulus-detection thresholds. But those inferences ultimately depend upon observer-chosen statistical criteria of normality. Again, stimulus-detection thresholds are probably overestimated. Practical implications – Owing to exaggerated stimulus-detection thresholds, infants may be misdiagnosed as “hearing impaired”, then needlessly fitted with electronic implants. Originality/value – Infants’ stimulus-detection thresholds are re-interpreted as attentional thresholds. Also, a cybernetics concept, the “Black Box”, is extended to infants, reinforcing the conclusions of the companion paper that the infant-as-research-subject cannot be conceptually separated from the attending laboratory staff. Indeed, infant and staff altogether constitute a new, reflexive whole, one that has proven too resilient for anybody’s good.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Can Infants Have Interests in Continued Life?Chris Kaposy - 2007 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (4):301-330.
The Problem of Infant Suffering.Andrew Chignell - 1998 - Religious Studies 34 (2):205-217.
Joining Intentions in Infancy.V. Reddy - 2015 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 22 (1-2):24-44.
The Narrative of Parents.Mili Mass - 1996 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 26 (4):423–442.
Effect of Stimulus Variables on Choice Reaction Times and Thresholds.J. Kaswan & S. Young - 1965 - Journal of Experimental Psychology 69 (5):511.


Added to PP index

Total views
68 ( #139,573 of 2,348,451 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
45 ( #14,853 of 2,348,451 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes