@brainpilot/skills 0.0.6

package/skills/11_Developmental_Cognition/infant-looking-time-designer/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,345 @@
+---
+name: "infant-looking-time-designer"
+description: "Designs habituation and preferential-looking paradigms with age-appropriate timing parameters and exclusion criteria"
+domain: "developmental-cognition"
+version: "1.0.0"
+papers:
+ - "Fantz, 1964"
+ - "Colombo & Mitchell, 2009"
+ - "Oakes, 2010"
+ - "Hunter & Ames, 1988"
+ - "Baillargeon, 1987"
+dependencies:
+ required:
+ - research-literacy
+review_status: "ai-generated"
+---
+
+# Infant Looking Time Paradigm Designer
+
+## Purpose
+
+This skill encodes expert methodological knowledge for designing infant looking-time studies, including habituation, preferential-looking, and violation-of-expectation paradigms. It provides age-appropriate timing parameters, habituation criteria, exclusion standards, and coding reliability benchmarks that require specialized training in developmental methodology. A general-purpose programmer would not know the appropriate trial durations by age, when to expect novelty versus familiarity preferences, or how to set habituation criteria.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+- Designing a new habituation study for infants of a specific age
+- Setting up a preferential-looking paradigm (side-by-side or central fixation)
+- Creating a violation-of-expectation study to test infant knowledge
+- Choosing age-appropriate timing parameters (trial duration, ITI, attention-getters)
+- Establishing exclusion criteria and coding reliability standards
+- Deciding between online (webcam-based) and in-lab testing
+- Determining sample size and expected effect sizes for infant studies
+
+## Research Planning Protocol
+
+Before executing the domain-specific steps below, you MUST:
+
+1. **State the research question** -- What specific question is this analysis/paradigm addressing?
+2. **Justify the method choice** -- Why is this approach appropriate? What alternatives were considered?
+3. **Declare expected outcomes** -- What results would support vs. refute the hypothesis?
+4. **Note assumptions and limitations** -- What does this method assume? Where could it mislead?
+5. **Present the plan to the user and WAIT for confirmation** before proceeding.
+
+For detailed methodology guidance, see the `research-literacy` skill.
+
+
+## ⚠️ Verification Notice
+
+This skill was generated by AI from academic literature. All parameters, thresholds, and citations require independent verification before use in research. If you find errors, please [open an issue](https://github.com/HaoxuanLiTHUAI/awesome_cognitive_and_neuroscience_skills/issues).
+
+## Paradigm Selection Decision Tree
+
+```
+What is the research question?
+ |
+ +-- Does the infant have a representation of X?
+ | |
+ | +-- Test via surprise --> Violation-of-Expectation (Baillargeon, 1987)
+ | |
+ | +-- Test via discrimination --> Habituation + Test (Fantz, 1964)
+ |
+ +-- Can the infant discriminate A from B?
+ | |
+ | +-- Simultaneous comparison --> Preferential Looking (Fantz, 1958)
+ | |
+ | +-- Sequential comparison --> Habituation + Novelty Test
+ |
+ +-- Does the infant prefer/attend more to A vs B?
+ |
+ +-- Spontaneous preference --> Preferential Looking
+ |
+ +-- After familiarization --> Habituation + Test
+```
+
+## Habituation Paradigm Design
+
+### Overview
+
+Habituation measures the decline in looking time as infants become familiar with a repeated stimulus, followed by a test phase to assess discrimination or representation (Colombo & Mitchell, 2009).
+
+### Habituation Criterion Methods
+
+| Method | Description | Default Criterion | Source |
+|--------|-------------|-------------------|--------|
+| **Criterion-based** (preferred) | Trials continue until looking decreases to a threshold | **50%** of initial baseline | Oakes, 2010; Colombo & Mitchell, 2009 |
+| **Fixed-trial** | Set number of habituation trials | Age-dependent (see below) | Cohen, 1976 |
+| **Sliding window** | Criterion computed over a moving window of trials | Window of **3-4** consecutive trials | Oakes, 2010 |
+
+### Criterion-Based Habituation Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Value | Source |
+|-----------|-------|--------|
+| Baseline window | First **3** trials (average looking time) | Oakes, 2010 |
+| Decrement criterion | Looking drops to **50%** of baseline | Oakes, 2010; Colombo & Mitchell, 2009 |
+| Criterion window | **3** consecutive trials below criterion | Oakes, 2010 |
+| Maximum trials before aborting | **20-25** trials (or abandon) | Colombo & Mitchell, 2009 |
+| Minimum habituation trials | **4-6** trials (to ensure real exposure) | Expert consensus |
+
+### Fixed-Trial Habituation by Age
+
+| Age Group | Recommended Trials | Source |
+|-----------|-------------------|--------|
+| Neonates (0-1 mo) | **8-12** trials | Slater, 1995 |
+| 3-6 months | **6-10** trials | Cohen, 1976; Colombo & Mitchell, 2009 |
+| 6-12 months | **6-8** trials | Colombo & Mitchell, 2009 |
+| 12-24 months | **4-8** trials | Colombo & Mitchell, 2009 |
+
+### Maximum Trial Duration by Age
+
+| Age Group | Max Trial Duration | Source |
+|-----------|-------------------|--------|
+| Neonates (0-1 mo) | **60 s** | Slater, 1995 |
+| 1-3 months | **30-60 s** | Colombo & Mitchell, 2009 |
+| 3-6 months | **20-30 s** | Colombo & Mitchell, 2009 |
+| 6-12 months | **15-20 s** | Colombo & Mitchell, 2009 |
+| 12-24 months | **10-20 s** | Colombo & Mitchell, 2009 |
+
+### Look-Away Criterion
+
+A trial ends when the infant looks away for a continuous duration:
+
+| Age Group | Look-Away Duration | Source |
+|-----------|-------------------|--------|
+| Neonates | **2-3 s** | Slater, 1995 |
+| 3-6 months | **2 s** | Oakes, 2010 |
+| 6-12 months | **1-2 s** | Oakes, 2010 |
+| 12+ months | **1-2 s** | Oakes, 2010 |
+
+**Minimum look before look-away counts**: Infant must look for at least **0.5-1.0 s** before a look-away can terminate the trial (Oakes, 2010).
+
+## Preferential Looking Design
+
+### Standard Configuration (Fantz, 1958)
+
+| Parameter | Value | Source |
+|-----------|-------|--------|
+| Display arrangement | Side-by-side, equidistant from midline | Fantz, 1958 |
+| Stimulus eccentricity | **15-20 degrees** from center | Aslin, 2007 |
+| Position counterbalancing | Each stimulus appears equally on left and right | Fantz, 1958; Oakes, 2010 |
+| Number of test trials | **4-8** trials (minimum **2** per side assignment) | Oakes, 2010 |
+| Trial duration | **10-20 s** (depending on age) | Oakes, 2010 |
+
+### Interpreting Preference Direction
+
+```
+Is there a familiarization/habituation phase?
+ |
+ +-- NO (spontaneous preference) --> Report raw preference proportion
+ |
+ +-- YES --> What is the age and task complexity?
+ |
+ +-- Younger infants + simple stimuli --> Expect NOVELTY preference
+ | (Hunter & Ames, 1988)
+ |
+ +-- Younger infants + complex stimuli --> Expect FAMILIARITY preference
+ | (Hunter & Ames, 1988)
+ |
+ +-- Older infants + simple stimuli --> Expect NOVELTY preference
+ |
+ +-- Brief familiarization + any age --> Expect FAMILIARITY preference
+ (Hunter & Ames, 1988; Roder et al., 2000)
+```
+
+**Hunter & Ames (1988) model**: Preference direction is determined by the interaction of:
+1. **Age** (processing speed)
+2. **Stimulus complexity** (encoding difficulty)
+3. **Familiarization duration** (encoding completeness)
+
+General rule: Incomplete encoding produces familiarity preference; complete encoding produces novelty preference (Hunter & Ames, 1988).
+
+### Looking Time Preference Threshold
+
+| Measure | Threshold | Source |
+|---------|-----------|--------|
+| Proportion looking to target | > **55%** of total looking time | Oakes, 2010 |
+| Statistical test | One-sample t-test against **50%** (chance) | Standard practice |
+| Effect size benchmark (infant studies) | Cohen's d ~ **0.4 -- 0.6** (medium) | Oakes, 2010 |
+
+## Violation-of-Expectation (VoE) Design
+
+### Overview (Baillargeon, 1987)
+
+Infants view an expected and an unexpected event. Longer looking at the unexpected event is interpreted as detection of the violation.
+
+### Standard VoE Structure
+
+1. **Familiarization phase**: Infants see the basic event (e.g., screen rotating)
+2. **Test phase**: Two events presented (expected vs. unexpected), counterbalanced for order
+3. **Measure**: Looking time difference between expected and unexpected events
+
+### VoE Parameters
+
+| Parameter | Value | Source |
+|-----------|-------|--------|
+| Familiarization trials | **4-6** trials | Baillargeon, 1987; Spelke et al., 1992 |
+| Test trials per event type | **2-3** trials each | Baillargeon, 1987 |
+| Maximum test trial duration | **30-60 s** (age-dependent; see habituation table) | Colombo & Mitchell, 2009 |
+| Event presentation order | Counterbalanced (expected-first vs. unexpected-first) | Standard practice |
+| Expected effect direction | Longer looking at unexpected event | Baillargeon, 1987 |
+
+### Important Methodological Caveats
+
+1. **Low-level perceptual confounds**: Ensure expected and unexpected events are matched on visual features (motion, color, surface area). The unexpected event should differ only in the conceptual violation (Baillargeon, 2004).
+2. **Familiarity preference interpretation**: Longer looking at the "expected" event does not necessarily mean failure to detect the violation; it may reflect familiarity preference (Hunter & Ames, 1988).
+3. **Replication concerns**: Some classic VoE findings have proven difficult to replicate (Baillargeon et al., 2016).
+
+## General Timing Parameters
+
+### Attention-Getters
+
+| Parameter | Value | Source |
+|-----------|-------|--------|
+| Type | Central animated stimulus with sound | Oakes, 2010 |
+| Duration | **3-5 s** (or until infant fixates center) | Expert consensus |
+| Presentation | Before every trial | Oakes, 2010 |
+| Purpose | Recenter gaze to midline before trial onset | Oakes, 2010 |
+
+### Inter-Trial Interval
+
+| Age Group | ITI Duration | Source |
+|-----------|-------------|--------|
+| All ages | **1-3 s** (blank screen or neutral gray) | Oakes, 2010 |
+
+See `references/age-parameters.yaml` for a comprehensive age-by-parameter table.
+
+## Exclusion Criteria
+
+### Trial-Level Exclusion
+
+| Criterion | Threshold | Source |
+|-----------|-----------|--------|
+| Minimum looking on test trial | > **0.5 s** looking required | Expert consensus |
+| Fussiness (infant turns away from screen) | Trial excluded | Oakes, 2010 |
+| Parental interference | Trial excluded | Standard practice |
+| Equipment failure (eye-tracker loss) | Trial excluded | Standard practice |
+
+### Participant-Level Exclusion
+
+| Criterion | Threshold | Source |
+|-----------|-----------|--------|
+| Completed test trials | Must complete > **50%** of test trials | Oakes, 2010 |
+| Failure to habituate | Exclude if not habituated after maximum trials | Colombo & Mitchell, 2009 |
+| Side bias | > **90%** looking to one side across all trials | Oakes, 2010 |
+| Fussiness | General fussiness preventing data collection | Standard practice |
+| Parent report of atypical state | Sleepy, ill, recent feeding issues | Standard practice |
+
+### Expected Exclusion Rates
+
+| Setting | Expected Exclusion Rate | Source |
+|---------|------------------------|--------|
+| In-lab (3-6 months) | **20-40%** | Oakes, 2010 |
+| In-lab (6-12 months) | **15-30%** | Oakes, 2010 |
+| In-lab (12-24 months) | **10-25%** | Oakes, 2010 |
+| Online (webcam-based) | **30-50%** (higher due to environment) | Smith-Flores et al., 2022 |
+
+**Sample size implication**: Recruit **1.5-2x** the target N to account for exclusions (Oakes, 2010).
+
+## Coding Reliability
+
+### Live vs. Offline Coding
+
+| Method | Description | When to Use |
+|--------|-------------|-------------|
+| Live coding | Experimenter presses key during session | Habituation criterion in real-time |
+| Offline coding | Frame-by-frame from video recording | All published looking time data |
+| Automated (eye-tracking) | Tobii, EyeLink, or webcam-based | High precision needed; older infants |
+
+### Reliability Standards
+
+| Metric | Minimum Standard | Source |
+|--------|-----------------|--------|
+| Proportion of sessions double-coded | > **25%** (at least) | Oakes, 2010 |
+| Inter-coder agreement (proportion) | > **90%** | Oakes, 2010 |
+| Cohen's kappa (looking/not-looking) | > **0.85** | Oakes, 2010; Colombo & Mitchell, 2009 |
+| Pearson r (total looking times) | > **0.90** | Oakes, 2010 |
+
+### Coding Resolution
+
+| Method | Temporal Resolution | Source |
+|--------|-------------------|--------|
+| Frame-by-frame video coding | **33 ms** (30 fps) or **17 ms** (60 fps) | Standard practice |
+| Live key-press coding | ~**200-300 ms** (human reaction time) | Expert consensus |
+| Eye-tracker | **4-17 ms** (60-250 Hz) | Equipment-dependent |
+
+## Online vs. In-Lab Testing
+
+### Considerations for Online Infant Testing
+
+| Factor | In-Lab | Online | Source |
+|--------|--------|--------|--------|
+| Environmental control | High | Low (home distractions) | Smith-Flores et al., 2022 |
+| Stimulus calibration | Precise (visual angle, distance) | Variable (screen size, distance) | Zaadnoordijk et al., 2022 |
+| Looking time coding | Offline video or eye-tracker | Webcam-based or parent-coded | Smith-Flores et al., 2022 |
+| Exclusion rate | **20-30%** | **30-50%** | Smith-Flores et al., 2022 |
+| Sample diversity | Limited to local population | Broader demographic reach | Zaadnoordijk et al., 2022 |
+| Recommended platform | N/A | Lookit, Labvanced, Gorilla | Smith-Flores et al., 2022 |
+
+**Critical**: Online studies require explicit instructions to parents about distance from screen (typically **60 cm**) and minimizing distractions. Validate online paradigms against in-lab data before drawing novel conclusions (Smith-Flores et al., 2022).
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+1. **Ignoring novelty vs. familiarity preference**: Assuming longer looking always means preference for the novel stimulus. Depending on age, complexity, and encoding time, infants may show familiarity preference instead (Hunter & Ames, 1988).
+2. **Fixed vs. criterion habituation**: Using fixed-trial habituation when criterion-based is more appropriate. Criterion-based habituation ensures infants have actually encoded the stimulus before testing (Oakes, 2010).
+3. **Perceptual confounds in VoE**: Unexpected events that differ from expected events on low-level perceptual features (motion path length, surface area visible) confound interpretation (Baillargeon, 2004).
+4. **Insufficient counterbalancing**: Failing to counterbalance stimulus position (left/right), trial order (expected/unexpected first), and stimulus assignment across infants.
+5. **Not reporting exclusion rates**: Journals increasingly require transparent reporting of how many infants were excluded and why. High exclusion rates may bias the sample (Oakes, 2010).
+6. **Coding reliability not reported**: All published looking-time data should include inter-coder reliability from offline coding, even if live coding was used during the session.
+7. **Age-inappropriate timing**: Using adult-like trial durations with young infants, or overly short trials with neonates, leading to floor/ceiling effects.
+
+## Minimum Reporting Checklist
+
+Based on Oakes (2010) and Colombo & Mitchell (2009):
+
+- [ ] Paradigm type (habituation, preferential looking, VoE)
+- [ ] Age of participants (mean, range, in days or weeks for infants < 12 months)
+- [ ] Habituation criterion and method (if applicable)
+- [ ] Number of habituation trials to criterion (mean, SD)
+- [ ] Trial duration parameters (maximum duration, look-away criterion, minimum look)
+- [ ] Number of test trials and counterbalancing scheme
+- [ ] Attention-getter description and duration
+- [ ] Exclusion criteria and number excluded (with reasons)
+- [ ] Coding method (live, offline, automated) and temporal resolution
+- [ ] Inter-coder reliability (kappa, r, proportion agreement)
+- [ ] Looking time data: means and SDs per condition
+- [ ] Statistical tests, effect sizes, and confidence intervals
+
+## References
+
+- Aslin, R. N. (2007). What's in a look? *Developmental Science*, 10(1), 48-53.
+- Baillargeon, R. (1987). Object permanence in 3.5- and 4.5-month-old infants. *Developmental Psychology*, 23(5), 655-664.
+- Baillargeon, R. (2004). Infants' reasoning about hidden objects: Evidence for event-general and event-specific expectations. *Developmental Science*, 7(4), 391-424.
+- Baillargeon, R., Stavans, M., Wu, D., Gertner, Y., Setoh, P., Kittredge, A. K., & Bernard, A. (2016). Object individuation and physical reasoning in infancy: An integrative account. *Language Learning and Development*, 8(1), 4-46.
+- Cohen, L. B. (1976). Habituation of infant visual attention. In T. J. Tighe & R. N. Leaton (Eds.), *Habituation: Perspectives from Child Development, Animal Behavior, and Neurophysiology*. Erlbaum.
+- Colombo, J., & Mitchell, D. W. (2009). Infant visual habituation. *Neurobiology of Learning and Memory*, 92(2), 225-234.
+- Fantz, R. L. (1958). Pattern vision in young infants. *The Psychological Record*, 8, 43-47.
+- Fantz, R. L. (1964). Visual experience in infants: Decreased attention to familiar patterns relative to novel ones. *Science*, 146(3644), 668-670.
+- Hunter, M. A., & Ames, E. W. (1988). A multifactor model of infant preferences for novel and familiar stimuli. *Advances in Infancy Research*, 5, 69-95.
+- Oakes, L. M. (2010). Using habituation of looking time to assess mental processes in infancy. *Journal of Cognition and Development*, 11(3), 255-268.
+- Roder, B. J., Bushnell, E. W., & Sasseville, A. M. (2000). Infants' preferences for familiarity and novelty during the course of visual processing. *Infancy*, 1(4), 491-507.
+- Slater, A. (1995). Visual perception and memory at birth. *Advances in Infancy Research*, 9, 107-162.
+- Smith-Flores, A. S., Perez, J., Zhang, M. H., & Feigenson, L. (2022). Online measures of looking and learning in infancy. *Infancy*, 27(1), 4-24.
+- Spelke, E. S., Breinlinger, K., Macomber, J., & Jacobson, K. (1992). Origins of knowledge. *Psychological Review*, 99(4), 605-632.
+- Zaadnoordijk, L., Buckler, H., & Cusack, R. (2022). Online testing in developmental science: A guide to design and implementation. *Behavior Research Methods*, 54, 1202-1221.
+
+See `references/` for detailed age-by-parameter tables and paradigm checklists.

package/skills/11_Developmental_Cognition/infant-looking-time-designer/references/age-parameters.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,186 @@
+# Infant Looking Time: Age-by-Parameter Reference Table
+# Comprehensive timing and design parameters organized by age group.
+# All values include citations to primary sources.
+
+age_groups:
+ neonates:
+ age_range: "0-1 months"
+ habituation:
+ method: "Fixed-trial preferred (criterion-based difficult with neonates)"
+ fixed_trial_count: 8-12
+ criterion_if_used: "50% of first 3 trials"
+ source: "Slater, 1995"
+ trial_timing:
+ max_trial_duration_s: 60
+ look_away_criterion_s: 2-3
+ minimum_look_s: 1.0
+ inter_trial_interval_s: 2-3
+ source: "Slater, 1995; Colombo & Mitchell, 2009"
+ attention_getter:
+ duration_s: 3-5
+ type: "High-contrast animated pattern with sound"
+ source: "Expert consensus"
+ visual_capabilities:
+ acuity: "~20/400 to 20/600 (very poor)"
+ contrast_sensitivity: "Low; use high-contrast stimuli"
+ color_vision: "Limited; achromatic stimuli recommended"
+ optimal_distance_cm: 20-30
+ source: "Slater, 1995; Atkinson, 2000"
+ exclusion:
+ expected_rate_percent: 30-50
+ common_reasons:
+ - "Sleepiness"
+ - "Fussiness"
+ - "Inability to maintain fixation"
+ source: "Slater, 1995"
+
+ young_infants:
+ age_range: "1-3 months"
+ habituation:
+ method: "Criterion-based or fixed-trial"
+ fixed_trial_count: 8-10
+ criterion: "50% of first 3 trials over 3 consecutive trials"
+ max_trials: 25
+ source: "Colombo & Mitchell, 2009"
+ trial_timing:
+ max_trial_duration_s: 30-60
+ look_away_criterion_s: 2
+ minimum_look_s: 0.5-1.0
+ inter_trial_interval_s: 1-3
+ source: "Colombo & Mitchell, 2009"
+ attention_getter:
+ duration_s: 3-5
+ type: "Central animated stimulus with sound"
+ source: "Oakes, 2010"
+ visual_capabilities:
+ acuity: "~20/200 to 20/400"
+ contrast_sensitivity: "Improving"
+ color_vision: "Emerging; red-green discrimination present"
+ optimal_distance_cm: 30-50
+ source: "Atkinson, 2000"
+ exclusion:
+ expected_rate_percent: 25-40
+ source: "Oakes, 2010"
+
+ middle_infants:
+ age_range: "3-6 months"
+ habituation:
+ method: "Criterion-based (preferred)"
+ criterion: "50% of first 3 trials over 3 consecutive trials"
+ max_trials: 20-25
+ source: "Oakes, 2010; Colombo & Mitchell, 2009"
+ trial_timing:
+ max_trial_duration_s: 20-30
+ look_away_criterion_s: 2
+ minimum_look_s: 0.5
+ inter_trial_interval_s: 1-3
+ source: "Colombo & Mitchell, 2009"
+ preferential_looking:
+ trial_duration_s: 10-20
+ num_test_trials: 4-8
+ position_switches: "Equal left-right assignment"
+ source: "Oakes, 2010"
+ attention_getter:
+ duration_s: 3-5
+ type: "Central animated stimulus with sound"
+ source: "Oakes, 2010"
+ visual_capabilities:
+ acuity: "~20/100 to 20/200"
+ contrast_sensitivity: "Good"
+ color_vision: "Functional trichromacy"
+ optimal_distance_cm: 50-60
+ source: "Atkinson, 2000"
+ exclusion:
+ expected_rate_percent: 20-35
+ source: "Oakes, 2010"
+ preference_direction:
+ simple_stimuli: "Novelty preference expected"
+ complex_stimuli: "Familiarity preference possible"
+ brief_familiarization: "Familiarity preference likely"
+ source: "Hunter & Ames, 1988"
+
+ older_infants:
+ age_range: "6-12 months"
+ habituation:
+ method: "Criterion-based"
+ criterion: "50% of first 3 trials over 3 consecutive trials"
+ max_trials: 20
+ source: "Colombo & Mitchell, 2009"
+ trial_timing:
+ max_trial_duration_s: 15-20
+ look_away_criterion_s: 1-2
+ minimum_look_s: 0.5
+ inter_trial_interval_s: 1-3
+ source: "Colombo & Mitchell, 2009"
+ preferential_looking:
+ trial_duration_s: 8-15
+ num_test_trials: 4-8
+ position_switches: "Equal left-right assignment"
+ source: "Oakes, 2010"
+ attention_getter:
+ duration_s: 3-5
+ type: "Central animated stimulus with sound"
+ source: "Oakes, 2010"
+ exclusion:
+ expected_rate_percent: 15-30
+ source: "Oakes, 2010"
+ preference_direction:
+ default: "Novelty preference for most paradigms"
+ source: "Hunter & Ames, 1988"
+
+ toddlers:
+ age_range: "12-24 months"
+ habituation:
+ method: "Criterion-based"
+ criterion: "50% of first 3 trials over 3 consecutive trials"
+ max_trials: 15-20
+ source: "Colombo & Mitchell, 2009"
+ trial_timing:
+ max_trial_duration_s: 10-20
+ look_away_criterion_s: 1-2
+ minimum_look_s: 0.5
+ inter_trial_interval_s: 1-3
+ source: "Colombo & Mitchell, 2009"
+ preferential_looking:
+ trial_duration_s: 8-12
+ num_test_trials: 4-8
+ source: "Oakes, 2010"
+ attention_getter:
+ duration_s: 3-5
+ type: "Central animated stimulus with sound"
+ source: "Oakes, 2010"
+ exclusion:
+ expected_rate_percent: 10-25
+ source: "Oakes, 2010"
+ notes: >
+ Toddlers are more mobile and may require additional
+ strategies to maintain attention (e.g., sitting on
+ parent's lap, interactive elements between blocks).
+
+# Coding reliability standards (all ages)
+coding_reliability:
+ minimum_double_coded_proportion: 0.25
+ inter_coder_agreement_threshold: 0.90
+ cohens_kappa_threshold: 0.85
+ pearson_r_threshold: 0.90
+ source: "Oakes, 2010; Colombo & Mitchell, 2009"
+
+# VoE-specific parameters (all ages)
+violation_of_expectation:
+ familiarization_trials: 4-6
+ test_trials_per_event: 2-3
+ counterbalance_order: true
+ expected_effect: "Longer looking at unexpected event"
+ source: "Baillargeon, 1987; Spelke et al., 1992"
+
+# References
+references:
+ - "Atkinson, J. (2000). The Developing Visual Brain. Oxford University Press."
+ - "Baillargeon, R. (1987). Object permanence in 3.5- and 4.5-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 23(5), 655-664."
+ - "Cohen, L. B. (1976). Habituation of infant visual attention. In Habituation. Erlbaum."
+ - "Colombo, J., & Mitchell, D. W. (2009). Infant visual habituation. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 92(2), 225-234."
+ - "Fantz, R. L. (1964). Visual experience in infants. Science, 146(3644), 668-670."
+ - "Hunter, M. A., & Ames, E. W. (1988). A multifactor model of infant preferences. Advances in Infancy Research, 5, 69-95."
+ - "Oakes, L. M. (2010). Using habituation of looking time. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11(3), 255-268."
+ - "Slater, A. (1995). Visual perception and memory at birth. Advances in Infancy Research, 9, 107-162."
+ - "Spelke, E. S., et al. (1992). Origins of knowledge. Psychological Review, 99(4), 605-632."