# data[].attributes.body
Objective measures (e.g., eye tracking) and studies done in natural situations would improve the quality of the studies. Measuring surprise in their brain using techniques similar to n400 could make clearer which task (possible/impossible) the babies did not expect.

# data[].attributes.body
Parent consent should be obtained, and discomfort and invasiveness should be minimised. Combine observation and neuroimaging techniques and remain open-minded during interpretation. Combine object permanence task and ERPs by wearing an EEG cap whilst doing the observation study. Maybe make the study longitudinal, studying at 2, 4, 6, 10, 12 months instead of 8, 10, 12 (rapid development and a young age).

# data[].attributes.body
A combination of looking time (behavioural observation) and neuroimaging techniques (EEG) to increase confidence in findings by seeing if the results correlate. Also, for neuroimaging techniques such as SEPs, doing longitudinal studies so that it can account for individual differences and show development over time.

# data[].attributes.body
Researchers could combine behavioural measures (i.e. looking time,) and brain imaging to understand both brain and behaviour and how they might work together for a range of tasks.
As it difficult to do multiple trials with the same infant (i.e. due to loss of interest), a larger sample size could be used to create a bigger data set.

# data[].attributes.body
specify how different methods of data collection would be collected  to avoid bias i.e. behaviours and what they mean

# data[].attributes.body
Infant Development Researchers should place an importance on finding clear empirical data correlations between behavioural symptoms and neural reasoning,  whilst finding a method that is unobtrusive and quick as to not affect infant behaviour through the experiment itself.

# data[].attributes.body
Researcher's should be aware of possible inaccuracies when making inferences about babies abilities based on their behavior. Various controls should be used to ensure validity of the measure for its use in infants. Where possible, literature should show effects using multiple methods, with different strengths and weaknesses, which counter-act each other; perhaps starting with more behavioral methods before moving onto imaging.

# data[].attributes.body
- Depends on the question being asked/ task
- depends on age, 2/3 months is the youngest for imaging methods- can't talk- can still see cause and effect.
- aim to use behavioural methods as less invasive but if necessary use fNRIS to further validate data.

# data[].attributes.body
When researching infants, we need to be careful with what techniques we use; because of the ‘noise’ and how that influences the results and how experimenter bias may influence infants’ behaviour. It is a good idea to use a mixture of both looking time and brain imaging; potentially starting with looking time as it is less invasive and if a significant result is found, then move to brain-imaging. Noting, the costs and timing problems in these techniques.

# data[].attributes.body
Depending on the aims of the study, researchers are able to choose between a cost-effective behavioural measure, or a more expensive and specific brain-imaging measure. The advantage of the Baillargeon (object-permanence) approach is the ability to collect a large amount of data on the behaviour of infants. The advantage of the Rigato approach is the potential to gather specific time-sensitive data on infant brain development. Both approaches are valid and provide useful insights into infant development.

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:

High temporal resolution, thinner skulls and less hair equals clearer signals.

Limitations:

Low spatial resolution change in processing might not equal improved ability, expensive, could have tried different types of sensations/ stimulations, not just vibrations, simpler experiments needed.

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:

-          Objective measure – no inferences from behaviour (however cause/effect of brain imaging?)
-          Thinner scalp – better spatial resolution than adults

-          EEG- good temporal resolution

-          Help understand children development of senses

Limitations:

-          More invasive

-          Brain imaging with children a lot of background ‘noise’

-          EEG – poor spatial resolution – surface only

-          Children movement confound? Artefacts?

-          Need a lot of data for average brain signal interpretation

-          Reductionist?

-          Hard to recruit? Parents uncomfortable with procedure?

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:
- High temporal resolution – when
- More of an indication of the brain activity rather than behaviour
- Non-invasive

Limitations:
- Low spatial resolution - where
- More uncomfortable for the child
- Can’t do many trials without child losing interest --> limits data
- Noisy data - influenced by movements

# data[].attributes.body
- lots of noise in data when using ERP with babies, hard to counter this with a large dataset as babies will not tolerate large number of trials
- studies are correlational so cannot establish cause and effect link, especially difficult as babies cannot explain own experience
- ERP has good temporal resolution, can tell us about order of processing
- harder to understand where things are happening due to poor spatial resolution

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:
- Give stronger signals (ERP’s) as they tend to have thinner skulls; so less trials are needed.
- Helps us understand early stages of cognitive processing; can see how things changes with age (developmental processes)
- They showed the timing of infant’s behaviour (ERP = Time cause of perceptual processing)
- Infants can’t speak, so it allows us to measure some type of cognition

Limitations:
- Lots of ‘noise’ in the data; cannot control their behavioural movements, which result in artefacts in data
- More invasive and can be physically uncomfortable
- Much more expensive & time consuming
- Difficult to perform multiple trials on infants
- More difficult to perform on children/infants compared to adults

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages-
-More objective compared to looking time studies
-More ecologically valid because they used toys as the stimulus
- Direct studying of the brain relies on less inference
- Good temporal resolution
Disadvantages
- Still an element of inference as we are saying the neurological response is relating to behaviour.
- Noise artefacts from movement etc
- Cross sectional design, doesn't account for individual differences
-Difficult to get children to sit and focus for a long period of time, lack of trials so less data

# data[].attributes.body
- Unique insight into early brain development
- More accurate than looking time- can link cognitive to behaviour, real time measurements
- fMRI are hard to use with babies- need to be very still- hard if infant is fussy or inattentive
- ERP- just shows activity, not where in the brain its happening

# data[].attributes.body
Paper 2:
Advantages:
- more objective
- stronger signals because of thinner skull and hair (although maybe cancelled out by noise?)
- Useful since infants cant communicate

Limitation:
- More cost
- More invasive
- Poor spatial

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:

-          As cannot communicate verbally can learn about infant internal processes from behaviour

-          Can test cognitive processes through behaviour

-          Objective measure of time looking at object – less subjective than other methods e.g. strange situation

Limitations:

-          Limitations of inference – what does looking time actually represent? Interest in general or aware of it being ‘strange’ ?

-          Low ecological validity – not a natural environment – lab setting

-          Unusual environment – not behaving as normal?

-          Not a massive sample

-          Replicable results?

# data[].attributes.body
- cannot be sure that babies increased looking time indicates their knowledge that the vent is impossible, looking time data requires our inferences
-light flicker may be an alternative cause for the difference in looking time
-modern day methods allow looking time to be more objective (eg video multiple and multiple rater)

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:

-       Quick – Cost effective

-       Clear Correlations visible

Disadvantages

-       Sample size tricky to increase

-       Clear link between Looking time and neural reasoning not clear

-       Noise in data

Dunn and Bremner (2017) - social looking is better than just looking – Changing object to Facial

Aim 2

Advantages

-       Objective Data

-       Good Temporal Accuracy

-       Easier and less scary for infant than fMRI

Disadvantages

-       Poor Spatial Accuracy

-       Lot of noise in the data due to infants moving

-       Babys move a lot.

-       Babies distracted by equipment

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:

Non-invasive, one of few methods that studies children’s cognition (alternative to talking), quantifiable.

Limitations:

Inferring, what does longer looking actually mean, reciprocity (copying the adult), noisy (if using eye tracking), looking may not be the best measure of perceptual competence, draw bridge problem.

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:
- not invasive so the infants won't find it stressful
- less expensive compared to imaging techniques
- easier to do
- two observers which can establish inter-rater reliability

Disadvantages:
- relying on inferences
- can be unreliable i.e. different infants acting differently due to individual differences
- possible order effects as they could have learned from habituation what to expect

# data[].attributes.body
- cheap and easy to adminster- observational techniques, no EEG (expensive equipment). Not invasive
- can't determine cognition from behaviour - just because they look longer, not necessarily more interesting
- infants might have preferences for other stimuli other than what they intend.
- inter-observer reliabilty- normally more than one observer (however- human error, might miss something, unless recorded).

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages
- Cost-effective
- Not intrusive, the child can stay with their caregiver, more ethical than separating them

Disadvantages
- cannot control fussiness of infants (data points were gotten rid of because of this)
- Difficult to maintain infant's behaviour, less self aware than adults

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:
- Easy to measure just 1 aspect of behaviour
- Cheap
- More likely to get parental consent
- Less distressing for the child than other methods

Limitations:

- Behaviour is the end-point (don’t know neural aspects)
- Babies might just like to look at things; the author's inference might be a bit of stretch

# data[].attributes.body
Advantages:
- non-invasive
- quite simple to perform – cheap and not equipment reliant

Limitations:
- A lot of ‘noise’ in infant studies
- It is a behaviour measurement; what exactly does ‘looking time’ mean? à issues with connecting behaviours to cognition
- Evidence that experimenter bias can influence looking time
- Different children have different habituation times (problems with establishing a baseline for looking time)
- Have a tendency to skewed distributions – making them ‘unfit’ for parametric analysis