INFORME

Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn by
Downweighting Irrelevant Evidence

Francesco Poli1

, Tommaso Ghilardi1

, Rogier B. Mars1,2

,

Max Hinne1

, and Sabine Hunnius1

1Donders Center for Cognition, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nimega, Los países bajos
2Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, FMRIB,
Universidad de Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Headington, Oxford, Reino Unido

un acceso abierto

diario

Palabras clave: meta-learning, infant, computational modeling, eye-tracking

ABSTRACTO

Infants learn to navigate the complexity of the physical and social world at an outstanding
pace, but how they accomplish this learning is still largely unknown. Recent advances in
human and artificial intelligence research propose that a key feature to achieving quick and
efficient learning is meta-learning, the ability to make use of prior experiences to learn how to
learn better in the future. Here we show that 8-month-old infants successfully engage in meta-
learning within very short timespans after being exposed to a new learning environment. Nosotros
developed a Bayesian model that captures how infants attribute informativity to incoming
events, and how this process is optimized by the meta-parameters of their hierarchical models
over the task structure. We fitted the model with infants’ gaze behavior during a learning task.
Our results reveal how infants actively use past experiences to generate new inductive biases
that allow future learning to proceed faster.

INTRODUCCIÓN

Infants constantly learn from what they experience in the physical and social world around them,
updating their expectations as they encounter new—and sometimes conflicting—information
(Hunnius, 2022; Köster et al., 2020). These learning abilities are advanced from early in life
(Emberson et al., 2015; Kidd et al., 2012; Poli et al., 2020) and possibly from birth (Bulf et al.,
2011; Craighero et al., 2020). A key aspect of infant learning is the ability to exploit newly learned
content to improve further learning (Dewar & Xu, 2010; Thiessen & Saffran, 2007; Werchan &
Amso, 2020). Sin embargo, the cognitive mechanisms that support this ability are still unknown.

This ability to learn how to learn is often referred to as meta-learning, and has been placed
at the core of recent theories of human (Baram et al., 2021; Wang y cols., 2018) and artificial
intelligence (Lake et al., 2017). When agents meta-learn, they do not simply accumulate
experiencias, but actively use them to generate new inductive biases and knowledge. Este
in turn makes learning proceed faster and more efficiently in the future (Kemp et al., 2007;
Wang y cols., 2018).

A classical study by Harlow (1949) illustrates the key aspects of meta-learning. Macaque
monkeys were given a choice between two objects. One of the objects predicted the location
of some food with perfect accuracy, while the other object was always paired with an empty
Bueno. Every six trials the two objects (es decir., the learning set) changed, but the underlying rule
remained the same: one object led to a reward, the other did not. This setup meant that in theory

Citación: Poli, F., Ghilardi, T., Mars,
R. B., Hinne, METRO., & Hunnius, S. (2023).
Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn by
Downweighting Irrelevant Evidence.
Mente abierta: Discoveries in Cognitive
Ciencia, 7, 141–155. https://doi.org/10
.1162/opmi_a_00079

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00079

Materiales suplementarios:
https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a_00079

Recibió: 28 Octubre 2022
Aceptado: 6 Abril 2023

Conflicto de intereses: Los autores
declare no conflict of interests.

Autor correspondiente:
Francesco Poli
francesco.poli@donders.ru.nl

Derechos de autor: © 2023
Instituto de Tecnología de Massachusetts
Publicado bajo Creative Commons
Atribución 4.0 Internacional
(CC POR 4.0) licencia

La prensa del MIT

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

/

mi
d
tu
oh
pag
metro

i
/

yo

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

i

.

/

/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
7
9
2
1
3
3
8
2
9
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
7
9
pag
d

/

.

i

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn

Poli et al.

it was always possible to know which object was rewarded after a single trial: the chosen object
if a reward was received, or the non-chosen one if no reward was received. Across hundreds
of trials, the macaques learned the structure of the task and became able to predict after one
single presentation of a new object set where the food was. These large timescales do not offer
evidence for quick meta-learning. Sin embargo, Harlow also tested preschool children with a
similar task, obtaining a comparable performance in much shorter timespans (Harlow, 1949).

The study by Harlow (1949) on learning sets offers a simple but elegant example of learning
to learn, a sophisticated ability that requires the agent to form meta-representations over the task
espacio, allowing past experience with similar situations to support the learning in new situations
( Wang y cols., 2018). Recent advances in cognitive computational modeling capture how adults
acquire structured priors that support their learning over multiple scales (Gershman & NVI,
2010; Lake et al., 2015; Poli et al., 2022; Vossel et al., 2014). Similarmente, research in artificial
intelligence focuses on how complex structures can emerge from statistical regularities, y
what prior knowledge is required to support such processes (Alet et al., 2020; Grant et al.,
2018), if any (Piantadosi, 2021). Such questions are extremely relevant within developmental
ciencia (Rule et al., 2020; Xu, 2019; Yuan et al., 2020), and Bayesian theories of brain func-
cionando (Tenenbaum et al., 2011) hold promise to answer them in terms of hierarchical priors (o
overhypotehses) that can be either learned or refined with the accumulation of new knowledge.
This would help overcome the rigid dichotomy of “empiricism versus nativism”, moving
towards a better understanding of the nature of the cognitive mechanisms that underlie learning
in infancy and of the priors that might support acquisition of knowledge from birth.

From the early studies on learning sets (Harlow, 1949; Koch & Meyer, 1959), developmen-
tal science has come a long way. Infants’ learning skills (Emberson et al., 2015; Romberg &
Saffran, 2013; Trainor, 2012), their flexibility (Kayhan et al., 2019; Tummeltshammer &
Kirkham, 2013) and complexity ( Werchan et al., 2015) have been widely demonstrated. Cómo-
alguna vez, current research lacks a mechanistic explanation of how meta-learning occurs in the
infant mind. The key difference between meta-learning and other forms of learning is that
meta-learning does not change the infants’ models of the world directly, but the very same
learning processes that allow them to further shape their internal models of the world. En esto
paper, we show how we can leverage hierarchical Bayesian models to gain novel insights into
the cognitive mechanism that allows infants to exploit prior knowledge to optimize how new
stimuli are learned. We studied 8-month-old infants because at this age infants have already
started to develop the ability to control their attention and to actively disengage from a stim-
ulus, a behavioral measure that plays an important role in our analyses.

We presented infants with multiple probabilistic sequences of stimuli while monitoring their
eye movements via eye-tracking, and we quantified the information gain of each stimulus
using Bayesian updating and information theory. In our task, information gain refers to the
degree to which every stimulus contributes to effectively learning the probabilistic structure
of the task. We propose that when infants meta-learn, they gain the ability to strategically
weight the value of incoming information. Namely, they might upweight the information con-
tent of stimuli that are expected to carry more information, or downweight the information
content of stimuli that are expected to be irrelevant. Similar to Harlow’s (1949) tarea, our task
provided a general structure that infants could extract over multiple sequences. In each
secuencia, the most relevant information was in the first trials, and later trials were less relevant
to learn to predict the following stimuli. If infants understood this structure, they could make
use of it to change how they learned: By upweighting evidence acquired early in the sequence
and downweighting evidence acquired later on, they could optimize their learning. Nosotros
expected this to be reflected in increased looking times to the initial stimuli that offer more

MENTE ABIERTA: Descubrimientos en ciencia cognitiva

142

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

/

mi
d
tu
oh
pag
metro

i
/

yo

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

i

.

/

/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
7
9
2
1
3
3
8
2
9
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
7
9
pag
d

/

.

i

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn

Poli et al.

información, and increased probability of disengaging from the screen for the stimuli that are
less relevant for learning.

MÉTODOS

Participantes

Ninety 8-month-old infants (m = 8.05 meses, DE = 11.56 días, 42 hembras) were recruited for
this study from a database of volunteer families. Infants that carried out less than 20 trials were
excluded from the analysis (norte = 17) as they did not perform enough trials in at least two
sequences. The final sample consisted of 73 infantes (m = 8.02 meses, DE = 11.37 días,
34 hembras). For this study, a previously published dataset (Poli et al., 2020) was reanalysed
(norte = 50), and new data were collected using the same task (norte = 40). Since the previous study
focused on a different set of hypotheses, familiarity with the existing dataset did not impact
hypothesis formation.

Procedimiento

Infants were tested in a silent room with fixed levels of light. They were placed in a baby seat,
which was held by the parents on their lap. The eyes of the infants were approximately 65 cm
far from the screen. Parents were instructed not to interact with their child, unless infants
sought their attention and, even in that case, not to try to bring infants’ attention back to
the screen. During the experiment, the infants’ looking behavior was monitored using both
a Tobii X300 eye-tracker and a video camera. We extracted visual fixations using I2MC
(Hessels et al., 2017) with the default parameters of the algorithm. We then extracted saccadic
estado latente, looking time and look-away from the pre-processed data.

Experimental Paradigm

Infants were presented with a visual learning eye-tracking task composed of 16 sequences of
estímulos. Every sequence contained 15 cue-target pairs (es decir., ensayos), where the cue was a shape
appearing in the middle of the screen, and the target was the same shape appearing in one of
four screen quadrants around the cue location (Cifra 1). The shape was the same across all
trials of the same sequence but changed across sequences. For all sequences, the target could
appear in any location, but it appeared in one specific location more often than the others.
Específicamente, it appeared in the high-likelihood location 60% of the times in 6 sequences, 80%
of the times in 6 other sequences, y 100% of the times in 4 sequences. A representation of
all sequences in their order of presentation is given in Figure 2. The sequences were shown
one after the other in the same order for all participants. When the infant looked away from the
screen for one second or more, the sequence was stopped. When the infant looked back to the
pantalla, the following sequence was played. The experiment lasted until the infant had
watched all 16 sequences or became fussy. This procedure may result in non-random miss-
ingness of the data (p.ej., fewer datapoints for later sequences). Additional information can be
found in the Supplementary Materials.

Computational Model

We developed a cognitive Bayesian model of infants’ looking behavior that exploits the
richness of eye-tracking data to infer the values of latent parameters capturing how infants
processed the information content of the stimuli over time. para hacerlo, we engaged in a
‘reverse-engineering’ procedure: given the data, we wanted to infer information about infants’

MENTE ABIERTA: Descubrimientos en ciencia cognitiva

143

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

/

mi
d
tu
oh
pag
metro

i
/

yo

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

i

.

/

/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
7
9
2
1
3
3
8
2
9
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
7
9
pag
d

.

/

i

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn

Poli et al.

(A) An example trial of the visual learning task. Each sequence was composed of a maximum of 15 trials and terminated when
Cifra 1.
infants looked away for 1 segundo. ITI = Inter-Trial Interval, ISI = Inter-Stimulus Interval. (B) Descriptive statistics of the average number of
sequences watched by each infant. (C) Descriptive statistics of the average number of trials watched in each sequence by each infant.

cognitive processes (es decir., the latent parameters of the model). A consequence of this approach
is that we were not constrained to the use of only one dependent variable, as is often the case
in statistical models. En cambio, we exploited multiple dependent variables to improve the model
estimates of the latent parameters (p.ej., Sotavento & carpinteros, 2014). Específicamente, we collected
three variables from the infants’ looking behavior that have been shown to relate to informa-
tion processing (Kidd et al., 2012; O’Reilly et al., 2013; Poli et al., 2020): 1) Look-Away. Para
each trial, we recorded whether infants kept looking at the screen or looked away; 2) Saccadic
Latency. We measured how quickly infants moved their eyes from the cue to the target loca-
ción, from the moment the target appeared. Negative times (es decir., anticipations to the target
ubicación) were also possible; 3) Looking Time. We measured how long infants looked at the
target location, from the moment it appeared to 750 ms after its disappearance.

In every trial t of a sequence s, a stimulus is shown in the target location
Bayes-optimal learning.
xs,t 2 {1, …, k}, where K = 4. Starting from the initial uniform prior γs = [1, 1, 1, 1], which assumes
that the target is equally likely to appear in any of the four locations (es decir., 25%), the probability
PAG(X )s,t of seeing the stimulus in any given location is updated in light of the new evidence xs,t:

P Xð Þ

s;t

¼ Xs;t þ γ
t þ K

s

where Xs,t indicates all the evidence that has been observed up until trial t. From these probabil-
ities, we quantified how much information the stimulus was conveying using the Kullback-Leibler
(KL) Divergence (Kullback & Leibler, 1951), or DKL:

DKL ¼

XK

i¼1

P Xð Þ

s;t log

P Xð Þ
P Xð Þ

s;t

s;t−1

!

KL-Divergence captures how much the new stimulus changed the probability distribution of the
events or, en otras palabras, how much information is gained from the new stimulus to understand
the underlying (hidden) probability distribution of the events. We chose this approach to quantifying
information gain for its simplicity and for its wide use within the field of cognitive neuroscience
(Mars et al., 2008; O’Reilly et al., 2013). The resulting estimates are reported in Figure 2.

MENTE ABIERTA: Descubrimientos en ciencia cognitiva

144

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

/

mi
d
tu
oh
pag
metro

i
/

yo

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

i

.

/

/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
7
9
2
1
3
3
8
2
9
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
7
9
pag
d

.

/

i

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn

Poli et al.

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

/

mi
d
tu
oh
pag
metro

i
/

yo

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

i

/

/

.

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
7
9
2
1
3
3
8
2
9
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
7
9
pag
d

/

.

i

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Estimates of information gain for all the sequences of the visual learning task. These estimates were used as input in the model,
Cifra 2.
and the data from infants (looking times, saccadic latencies, and look-aways from the screen) informed the model about whether information
was up- or downweighted across time. Colours indicate the four target locations (pseudo-randomized across participants). The number of each
sequence is given in the upper-right corner of every plot. The location of the stimuli was pseudo-randomized, so that each location has the
same overall probability of showing the target (25%), and each probabilistic sequence contains more than one low-probability location.

To test our hypotheses on up- and downweighting of information, we introduced an expo-
nential decay of information gain over trials (ver figura 3, in green). The decay could vary
across sequences, thus allowing information on early sequences to be processed differently
from information acquired later in the task. The decay was regulated by four additional param-
eters λ0

a, such that:

a, and β1

a, λ1

a, β0

(cid:2)

IGs;t ¼ λ0

α þ λ1
αs
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
Early up−weight

(cid:3)

(cid:3)

(cid:2)
(cid:2)
−t β0
α þ β1
αs
exp.
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
Late down−weight

DKLs;t

α and λ1

where λ0
α regulate the upweighting across sequences of the information acquired in trials
early in the sequence, while β0
α and β1
α regulate the downweighting across sequences of the infor-
mation acquired in trials late in the sequence. The parameters λ0
α are simple intercepts,
while λ1
α are the regression coefficients of interest, and our focus will thus be on the latter. Si
meta-learning occurs, we would expect that as sequences are observed, infants start to extract the
underlying informational structure. Como consecuencia, the more sequences they are exposed to,
the more they would upweight the information acquired in the first trials or downweight the infor-
mation of late trials of each sequence. These two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive: Infants

α and β0

α and β1

MENTE ABIERTA: Descubrimientos en ciencia cognitiva

145

Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn

Poli et al.

yo

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

/

mi
d
tu
oh
pag
metro

i
/

yo

a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

d
oh

i
/

i

.

/

/

1
0
1
1
6
2
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
7
9
2
1
3
3
8
2
9
oh
pag
metro
_
a
_
0
0
0
7
9
pag
d

/

.

i

F

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

t

oh
norte
0
7
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

Cifra 3. The generative model. Squares indicate discrete variables and circles indicate continu-
ous variables; Grey boxes indicate observed variables; In green, parameters regulating the up- y
downweighting of information; In yellow, parameters accounting for individual differences across
infantes; In red, the parameter controlling for infants’ changing attention across sequences. Tenga en cuenta que
hyperparameters and parameters controlling covariates are not reported in this figure, but are avail-
able in the Supplementary Materials.

α and β1

might both upweight early evidence and downweight late evidence. This would translate in the
model returning positive values for both λ1
a. Finalmente, we introduced parameters to control
the effect of time on infants’ behavior. Primero, the parameter λs controls for changes in baseline
attention to the task across sequences (ver figura 3, in red). This allows us to disentangle whether
changes in attention across sequences are in fact due to meta-learning or simply related to fatigue.
Segundo, when estimating the relation of information gain with the dependent variables (saccadic
estado latente, looking time, and look-away) we always included the trial number as covariate (ver
Supplementary Materials). Por eso, any correlation we find between information gain and these
variables was obtained while accounting for changes in behavior over time.

We modeled how the information content in the stimuli was related linearly to the different
observed variables, Saccadic Latency (SL), Looking Time (LT), and Look-Away (LA), in a prob-
abilistic way. When estimating the relationship between information gain and the dependent
variables, the regression coefficients (ver figura 3, in yellow) are estimated hierarchically, ambos
at the group level and for each participant, thus taking into account between-subject variabil-
idad. Further specifications of the priors and likelihoods of the model are available in the online
Supplementary Materials.

Inference. The model was fitted in Python using PyMC3 (Salvatier et al., 2016). Two chains of
400,000 samples each were run using No-U-Turn-Sampler (NUTS), a common gradient-based

MENTE ABIERTA: Descubrimientos en ciencia cognitiva

146

Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn

Poli et al.

MCMC algorithm. 390,000 samples were discarded as burn-in, and the last 10,000 muestras
were kept for further analysis. All the parameters reached convergence, as indicated by ^R < 1.05 for all parameters (see Gelman & Rubin, 1992). RESULTS Model Comparison We compared the full model to reduced models that did not include some (or all) of the param- eters modulating the up and down-regulation of information. The upweight model assumed that, as sequences accumulated, information early in the sequences was progressively upweighted. The downweight model assumed that, as sequences accumulated, information late in the sequences was progressively downweighted. The full model assumed concurrent up- and down- weighting of information, while the no-weight model assumed no change across sequences in the way information gain decayed over trials. The negative expected log predictive densities (ELPD) of the models were compared with Leave-One-Out (LOO) and WAIC methods. The results of model comparison are reported in Table 1. As expected, LOO and WAIC methods returned similar estimates for all of the dependent variables. When comparing the total scores of the different models, the downweight model and the full model performed better Table 1. Model comparison between the full model and different reduced models, for each dependent variable and as a whole. Model Null model Dependent Variable Looking Time -ELPD LOO 4686 ΔLOO -ELPD WAIC 4685 ΔWAIC Saccadic Latency Look-Away Total Upweight Looking Time Saccadic Latency Look-Away Total Downweight Looking Time Saccadic Latency Look-Away Total Full model Looking Time Saccadic Latency Look-Away Total 4555 1201 10442 4683 4552 1205 10440 4675 4549 1194 0 2 4555 1201 10441 4683 4552 1205 10440 4674* 4549* 1194 0 1 10418 24 10418* 23 4675 4549 1192 4675 4549 1192 10416* 26* 10416* 25* Note. Delta values indicate the difference from the null model. Asterisks indicate the best models. OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science 147 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u o p m i / l a r t i c e - p d f / d o i / i / / . 1 0 1 1 6 2 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 2 1 3 3 8 2 9 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 p d . / i f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn Poli et al. than the null model and the upweight model, as indexed by lower negative ELPD scores (Kruschke, 2011). The difference in performance between the downweight model and the full model was negligible. The upweight parameter did not affect the results in either of the two models: it was absent in the downweight model, and it was not different from zero for the full model (see below and in Figure 5). Hence, both models support the conclusion that down- weighting is present, while upweighting is not. Information Gain Predicted Infants’ Looking Behavior Before analysing the parameters of interest (i.e., the up- and downweight parameters), we examined whether the dependent variables were significantly related to the information gain estimates. This step is crucial as we assumed that the dependent variables can inform latent parameters related to how information is processed. We found that the beta coefficients relat- ing the dependent variables to information gain were different from zero for look-aways (mean = −4.98, SD = 0.61, 94% HDI = [−6.21, −3.87]), looking time (mean = −0.57, SD = 0.20, 94% HDI = [−0.99, −0.20]) and saccadic latency (mean = 0.69, SD = 0.19, 94% HDI = [0.34, 1.05]), and none of the credible intervals included zero. Hence, the ‘reverse- engineering’ procedure was successful, as the dependent variables were all contributing to inform the levels of information content and their change over time. To check whether our model was a good fit to the data, we performed a posterior predictive check. In other words, the values of the posterior distributions were used to predict new data, thus testing whether they could produce reliable estimates. The real data and the predicted distribution of the data matched well (Figure 4). Infants Meta-Learn by Downweighting Irrelevant Information α and β1 Table values of the parameters λ1 α accounted for the up- and down-regulation of infor- mation across sequences. The upweight parameter (λ1 α) was not different from zero (mean = 0.003, SD = 0.003, 94% HDI = [0, 0.009]), confirming that there was not a significant rela- tionship between upweighting of information found early in a sequence and sequence num- ber. The parameter β1 α was different from zero (mean = 0.065, SD = 0.019, 94% HDI = [0.031, 0.102]), confirming that there was a significant relationship between downweighting of infor- mation found late in a sequence and sequence number (Figure 5). To better understand how the parameters capture infants’ attribution of informativity to incoming stimuli, we simulated the up- and downweighting of information gain on a novel unseen sequence (i.e., sequence 16, see Figure 2). We used the mean values of the parameters estimated by the model that was fit with infants’ gaze data (as reported in Figure 4 and 5) to generate the perceived values of information gain if this had been presented early (as sequence 1) or late (as sequence 5) during the experiment. The results are reported in Figure 6. Compar- ing an early sequence to a late sequence, the information gain of the first trials did not change as the sequences progressed, while information gain of trials later on in the sequence was downweighted for late sequences. This effect was present while controlling for changes in baseline attention across sequences (see λs in Figure 4). Infants’ Learning Efficiency Improves Over Time Once we identified the mechanisms underlying infants’ meta-learning, we examined whether infants achieved more efficient and faster learning over time. To test this, we analysed saccadic latencies for predictable trials. The first trial of each sequence was excluded and only trials that OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science 148 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u o p m i / l a r t i c e - p d f / d o i / i / / . 1 0 1 1 6 2 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 2 1 3 3 8 2 9 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 p d . / i f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn Poli et al. l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u o p m i / l a r t i c e - p d f / d o i / i / / . 1 0 1 1 6 2 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 2 1 3 3 8 2 9 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 p d / . i f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Figure 4. Results for the coefficients relating information gain to looking behavior. (A–D) The peak of the distributions indicate the most likely value for the parameter, and the rest of the curve indicates other possible values and their relative likelihood. (E–F) The posterior pre- dictive distributions for looking time and saccadic latency consists of multiple overlapping lines obtained by generating the data multiple times after the model was fit. showed the most predictable location are analysed. When a target repeatedly appears in the same predictable location, saccadic latencies to the target should decrease. Moreover, in later sequences, if infants are exploiting what they meta-learned from previous sequences, saccadic latencies should be even shorter from earlier on. We analysed saccadic latencies as a linear function of sequence number and as a logarithmic function of trial number, while controlling OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science 149 Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn Poli et al. Figure 5. The posterior distributions for λ1 αs and β1 α. The peaks of the distributions indicate the most likely values for the parameters, and the rest of the curve indicates other possible values and their relative probability. The parameters λ1 and β1 α regulate the up- and downweighting of infor- αs mation gain, respectively. for overall trial number. Participants were included as random intercepts, and we included random slopes for all predictors that vary within participants (sequence number, log within- sequence trial number, their interaction, and overall trial number). The model was run on R with brms (Bürkner, 2017) with two chains of 10,000 samples, and the first 5000 samples were discarded as burn-in. We found a main effect of trial number (β = −0.45, SD = 0.05, 94% HDI = [−0.56, −0.33]), indicating that infants were learning the predictable target locations successfully. More impor- tantly, we found an interaction between sequence number and trial number (β = 0.04, SD = 0.01, 94% HDI = [0.01, 0.07]) due to differences across sequences in saccadic latency to early l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u o p m i / l a r t i c e - p d f / d o i / i . / / 1 0 1 1 6 2 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 2 1 3 3 8 2 9 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 p d . / i f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Figure 6. Simulation of information gain values for an early and a late sequence. After the model was fit to the data, the resulting parameters estimates were used on a novel unobserved sequence (Sequence 16) to simulate information gain values at different time points (i.e., for the 1st and 5th sequence). On average, infants watched 7 sequences. Compared to the blue line, the orange line is not higher at the start of the sequence (information is not upweighted) but it is lower in following trials (information is downweighted). Shaded areas indicate 95% credible intervals. OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science 150 Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn Poli et al. Saccadic latencies as a function of sequence and trial number. Saccadic latencies for predictable trials decreased across time, Figure 7. indicating a learning effect. This effect changed across sequences, as later sequences presented faster saccadic latencies from early on, sug- gesting that meta-learning led to more efficient learning. Shaded areas indicate 95% credible intervals. trials (as indicated by significant marginal effects for trial 2, β = −0.06, 94% HDI = [−0.12, −0.01]). This indicates significantly lower values of saccadic latencies for early trials of late sequences, which supports the idea that learning was faster for later sequences, just as pre- dicted by our meta-learning results (Figure 7). DISCUSSION Meta-learning is a complex ability that entails building and tuning meta-parameters over a task to shape future expectations. Whereas it was known that infants’ learning is incremental and that infants build new knowledge relying on what they have learned in the past (Thiessen & Saffran, 2007), the cognitive mechanisms underlying meta-learning were still unknown. In the current study, we show that infants can meta-learn from limited evidence on a relatively small timescale (i.e., within minutes). More importantly, computational modeling demonstrates how they achieve this meta-learning: Infants identify where in the environment information is, and they use this knowledge to downweight the informativity of irrelevant stimuli. Conversely, we do not find evidence supporting the idea that they upweight the informativity of the relevant stimuli. In addition, we find that as time progressed, infants needed less information and their learning efficiency increased, as indexed by faster saccadic latencies. These results were obtained while controlling for the effect of fatigue and for the passage of time, and thus cannot be explained by a simple decrease in interest in the stimuli over time. However, future studies should be designed decreasing as much as possible the non-random nature of missing data. Moreover, future research should explore whether the current findings can be generalized across paradigms and contexts. In the current paradigm, the informative evidence was always at the start of the sequence, and the very first sequence was always 100% predictable. Although this does not invalidate the evidence for downweighting of infor- mation as we find it, different structures (e.g., with information that is delivered mid-way through the sequence) as well as different orders of sequences should be examined in the future to determine the generalizability of our results. More broadly, it is not known how infants apply these learning strategies in real life learning. OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science 151 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u o p m i / l a r t i c e - p d f / d o i / i . / / 1 0 1 1 6 2 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 2 1 3 3 8 2 9 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 p d / . i f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn Poli et al. Although we find that infants meta-learn by downweighting irrelevant evidence, we do not find an upweighting of the relevant evidence. One possibility is that at 8 months of age, infants are still unable to perform this upweighting process, which has yet to emerge later in life. This idea is consistent with the possibility that meta-learning mechanisms might not be in place from birth and develop across longer timescales instead ( Wang et al., 2018). Testing multiple age ranges in the future will enhance our understanding of the exact development of meta- learning skills. Another possibility is that upweighting as a part of meta-learning is never instantiated in the human mind, neither in infants nor in adults. In fact, whereas we did not find evidence that relevant information was upweighted and thus gained importance in abso- lute terms, downweighting of irrelevant information still enhances that information in relative terms. This may be enough for cognitive systems to orient their attention and information pro- cessing resources efficiently. Future research should investigate meta-learning in adults with comparable computational models to clarify this issue. The idea that infants learn inductive biases that change their information processing over time is in line with the predictive processing framework. Predictive processing holds that the brain is a hierarchically-structured prediction engine, with prediction travelling from higher to lower levels in the hierarchy, and prediction errors moving in the opposite direction, from lower to higher levels (Clark, 2013). In predictive processing terms, prediction errors are pre- cision weighted, that is, their importance is modulated depending on their relevance. The down-weighting of information content as we find it is assimilable to the predictive processing concept of precision-weighting of the prediction error. Specifically, in later sequences, the structure of the task is already clear to the infants, so new information is less likely to change their expectations, and as a consequence, it is downweighted. Thus, the current study contrib- utes to recent literature on infant development suggesting that the foundations of a predictive mind are present from early on in life (Köster et al., 2020). The ability to meta-learn is crucial for learning optimization and the acquisition of new abilities ( Yoon et al., 2018). Its presence in the first year of life is in line with the idea that complex functions can emerge dynamically from the interaction between powerful learning mechanisms (Chen & Westermann, 2018; Poli et al., 2020; Silverstein et al., 2021), fundamen- tal attentional biases (Di Giorgio et al., 2017), and early accumulation of evidence (Craighero et al., 2020; Ossmy & Adolph, 2020). Recent theoretical and empirical work favours the idea that high-level cognitive systems can be generated via sub-symbolic dynamics (Piantadosi, 2021; Sheya & Smith, 2019). For example, Yuan et al. (2020) investigated how preschoolers learn to map multi-digit number names onto their written forms. They presented children and a deep learning neural network with minimal training material and showed that both children and machines could reach systematic generalizations from limited evidence. Hence, complex and symbolic structures can emerge from simple mechanisms, and meta-learning might greatly ease this process from a very young age. The key idea is that some brain networks might work on long timescales to train other networks that are faster and more flexible. For example, the sub-cortical dopaminergic system might train prefrontal areas to function as free-standing learning system ( Wang et al., 2018). This hypothesis has only recently gained interest in the adult literature (Dehaene et al., 2022), and its predictions about the developmental pathways of (sub)symbolic representations remain to be tested. Finally, the current work offers a new methodological approach to infant research. Usually, statistical models try to link one or more independent variables to a single dependent variable by fitting a number of parameters (Lee, 2018). Conversely, in the computational model that we designed, the values of latent parameters were informed by multiple sources of data. In our case, saccadic latency, looking time to the targets, and looking away from the screen OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science 152 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u o p m i / l a r t i c e - p d f / d o i / i / / . 1 0 1 1 6 2 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 2 1 3 3 8 2 9 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 p d . / i f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn Poli et al. contributed to informing the relevant latent parameters. This approach is especially useful in infant research, which is often characterized by smaller datasets with lower signal-to-noise ratios compared to adult research (Havron et al., 2020). The limitations inherent to infant research can thus be compensated using richer measurements and dedicated computational models. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the lab managers and the student assistants for helping with data collection, and all the families that participated in our research. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS F.P.: Conceptualization, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing – original draft. T. G.: Conceptualization, formal analysis, writing – review and editing. R.B.M: Methodology, supervision, writing – review and editing. M.H.: Formal analysis, supervision, writing – review and editing S.H.: Methodology, supervision, writing – review and editing. FUNDING INFORMATION This work was supported by the Donders Centre for Cognition internal grant to S.H. and R.B. M. (“Here’s looking at you, kid.” A model-based approach to interindividual differences in infants’ looking behaviour and their relationship with cognitive performance and IQ; award/ start date: 15 March 2018), BBSRC David Phillips Fellowship to R.B.M. (“The comparative connectome”; award/start date: 1 September 2016; serial number: BB/N019814/1), Nether- land Organization for Scientific Research NWO to R.B.M. (“Levels of social inference: Inves- tigating the origin of human uniqueness”; award/start date: 1 January 2015; serial number: 452-13-015), Wellcome Trust center grant to R.B.M. (“Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neu- roimaging”; award/start date: 30 October 2016; serial number: 203139/Z/16/Z), and Dutch Research Council NWO to S.H. (“Loving to learn - How curiosity drives cognitive develop- ment in young children”; start date: 1 February 2021; serial number: VI.C.191.022). DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Experimental data and computational models can be found on OSF: https://osf.io/a93qr/. REFERENCES Alet, F., Schneider, M. F., Lozano-Perez, T., & Kaelbling, L. P. (2020). Meta-learning curiosity algorithms. arXiv:2003.05325. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2003.05325 Baram, A. B., Muller, T. H., Nili, H., Garvert, M. M., & Behrens, T. E. J. (2021). Entorhinal and ventromedial prefrontal cortices abstract and generalize the structure of reinforcement learning problems. Neuron, 109(4), 713–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .neuron.2020.11.024, PubMed: 33357385 Bulf, H., Johnson, S. P., & Valenza, E. (2011). Visual statistical learning in the newborn infant. Cognition, 121(1), 127–132. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.010, PubMed: 21745660 Bürkner, P.- C. (2017). brms: An R package for Bayesian multilevel models using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01 Byers-Heinlein, K., Bergmann, C., & Savalei, V. (2022). Six solu- tions for more reliable infant research. Infant and Child Develop- ment, 31(5), Article e2296. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2296 Chen, Y.-C., & Westermann, G. (2018). Different novelties revealed by infants’ pupillary responses. Scientific Reports, 8(1), Article 9533. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-27736-z, PubMed: 29934594 Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477, PubMed: 23663408 Craighero, L., Ghirardi, V., Lunghi, M., Panin, F., & Simion, F. ( 2 0 2 0 ) . Tw o - d a y - o l d n e w b o r n s l e a r n t o d i s c r i m i n a t e accelerated-decelerated biological kinematics from constant OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science 153 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u o p m i / l a r t i c e - p d f / d o i / i / / . 1 0 1 1 6 2 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 2 1 3 3 8 2 9 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 p d / . i f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn Poli et al. velocity motion. Cognition, 195, Article 104126. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104126, PubMed: 31731117 Dehaene, S., Al Roumi, F., Lakretz, Y., Planton, S., & Sablé- Meyer, M. (2022). Symbols and mental programs: A hypothesis about human singularity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(9), 751–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2022.06.010, PubMed: 35933289 Dewar, K. M., & Xu, F. (2010). Induction, overhypothesis, and the origin of abstract knowledge: Evidence from 9-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 21(12), 1871–1877. https://doi.org/10 .1177/0956797610388810, PubMed: 21078899 Di Giorgio, E., Lunghi, M., Simion, F., & Vallortigara, G. (2017). Visual cues of motion that trigger animacy perception at birth: The case of self-propulsion. Developmental Science, 20(4), Article e12394. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12394, PubMed: 26898995 Emberson, L. L., Richards, J. E., & Aslin, R. N. (2015). Top-down modulation in the infant brain: Learning-induced expectations rapidly affect the sensory cortex at 6 months. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(31), 9585–9590. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510343112, PubMed: 26195772 Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Inference from iterative simula- tion using multiple sequences. Statistical Science, 7(4), 457–472. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177011136 Gershman, S. J., & Niv, Y. (2010). Learning latent structure: carving nature at its joints. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20(2), 251–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2010.02.008, PubMed: 20227271 Grant, E., Finn, C., Levine, S., Darrell, T., & Griffiths, T. (2018). Recasting gradient-based meta-learning as hierarchical Bayes. arXiv:1801.08930. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1801.08930 Harlow, H. F. (1949). The formation of learning sets. Psychological Review, 56(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/ h0062474, PubMed: 18124807 Havron, N., Bergmann, C., & Tsuji, S. (2020). Preregistration in infant research—A primer. Infancy, 25(5), 734–754. https://doi .org/10.1111/infa.12353, PubMed: 32857441 Hessels, R. S., Niehorster, D. C., Kemner, C., & Hooge, I. T. C. (2017). Noise-robust fixation detection in eye movement data: Identification by two-means clustering (I2MC). Behavior Research Methods, 49(5), 1802–1823. https://doi.org/10.3758 /s13428-016-0822-1, PubMed: 27800582 Hunnius, S. (2022). Early cognitive development: Five lessons from infant learning. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093 /acrefore/9780190236557.013.821 Ibrahim, J. G., Chen, M.-H., & Sinha, D. (2001). Bayesian survival anal- ysis (Vol. 2). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3447-8 Kayhan, E., Hunnius, S., O’Reilly, J. X., & Bekkering, H. (2019). Infants differentially update their internal models of a dynamic environment. Cognition, 186, 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1016 /j.cognition.2019.02.004, PubMed: 30780046 Kemp, C., Perfors, A., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Learning overhy- potheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science, 10(3), 307–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687 .2007.00585.x, PubMed: 17444972 Kidd, C., Piantadosi, S. T., & Aslin, R. N. (2012). The Goldilocks effect: Human infants allocate attention to visual sequences that are neither too simple nor too complex. PLoS One, 7(5), Article e36399. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036399, PubMed: 22649492 Koch, M. B., & Meyer, D. R. (1959). A relationship of mental age to learning-set formation in the preschool child. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 52(4), 387–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043510, PubMed: 14410329 Köster, M., Kayhan, E., Langeloh, M., & Hoehl, S. (2020). Making sense of the world: Infant learning from a predictive processing perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 562–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895071, PubMed: 32167407 Kruschke, J. K. (2011). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R and BUGS. Academic Press. Kullback, S., & Leibler, R. A. (1951). On information and suffi- ciency. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22(1), 79–86. https:// doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729694 Lake, B. M., Salakhutdinov, R., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2015). Human- level concept learning through probabilistic program induction. Science, 350(6266), 1332–1338. https://doi.org/10.1126/science .aab3050, PubMed: 26659050 Lake, B. M., Ullman, T. D., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Gershman, S. J. (2017). Building machines that learn and think like people. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, Article e253. https://doi.org /10.1017/S0140525X16001837, PubMed: 27881212 Lee, M. D. (2018). Bayesian methods in cognitive modeling. In J. Wixted & E.-J. Wagenmakers (Eds.), The Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience (Vol. 5, pp. 37–84). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119170174 .epcn502 Lee, M. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2014). Bayesian cognitive modeling: A practical course. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139087759 Mars, R. B., Debener, S., Gladwin, T. E., Harrison, L. M., Haggard, P., Rothwell, J. C., & Bestmann, S. (2008). Trial-by-trial fluctua- tions in the event-related electroencephalogram reflect dynamic changes in the degree of surprise. Journal of Neuroscience, 28(47), 12539–12545. https://doi.org/10.1523/ JNEUROSCI .2925-08.2008, PubMed: 19020046 Ossmy, O., & Adolph, K. E. (2020). Real-time assembly of coor- dination patterns in human infants. Current Biology, 30(23), 4553–4562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.08.073, PubMed: 32976812 O’Reilly, J. X., Schüffelgen, U., Cuell, S. F., Behrens, T. E., Mars, R. B., & Rushworth, M. F. (2013). Dissociable effects of surprise and model update in parietal and anterior cingulate cortex. Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(38), E3660–E3669. https://doi.org/10 .1073/pnas.1305373110, PubMed: 23986499 Piantadosi, S. T. (2021). The computational origin of representation. Minds and Machines, 31, 1–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023 -020-09540-9, PubMed: 34305318 Poli, F., Meyer, M., Mars, R. B., & Hunnius, S. (2022). Contribu- tions of expected learning progress and perceptual novelty to curiosity-driven exploration. Cognition, 225, Article 105119. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105119, PubMed: 35421742 Poli, F., Serino, G., Mars, R. B., & Hunnius, S. (2020). Infants tailor their attention to maximize learning. Science Advances, 6(39), Article eabb5053. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb5053, PubMed: 32967830 Rodríguez, G. (2008). Multilevel generalized linear models. In J. de Leeuw & E. Meijer (Eds.), Handbook of multilevel analysis (pp. 335–376). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387 -73186-5_9 Romberg, A. R., & Saffran, J. R. (2013). Expectancy learning from probabilistic input by infants. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, Article 610. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00610, PubMed: 23439947 OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science 154 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u o p m i / l a r t i c e - p d f / d o i / i / / . 1 0 1 1 6 2 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 2 1 3 3 8 2 9 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 p d / . i f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Eight-Month-Old Infants Meta-Learn Poli et al. Rule, J. S., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2020). The child as hacker. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(11), 900–915. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.005, PubMed: 33012688 Salvatier, J., Wiecki, T. V., & Fonnesbeck, C. (2016). Probabilistic programming in Python using PyMC3. PeerJ Computer Science, 2, Article e55. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.55 Sheya, A., & Smith, L. (2019). Development weaves brains, bodies and environments into cognition. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, 34(10), 1266–1273. https://doi.org/10.1080 /23273798.2018.1489065, PubMed: 31886316 Silverstein, P., Feng, J., Westermann, G., Parise, E., & Twomey, K. E. (2021). Infants learn to follow gaze in stages: Evidence confirming a robotic prediction. Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive Science, 5, 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1162/opmi_a _00049, PubMed: 35024530 Tenenbaum, J. B., Kemp, C., Griffiths, T. L., & Goodman, N. D. (2011). How to grow a mind: Statistics, structure, and abstraction. Science, 331(6022), 1279–1285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science .1192788, PubMed: 21393536 Thiessen, E. D., & Saffran, J. R. (2007). Learning to learn: Infants’ acquisition of stress-based strategies for word segmentation. Language Learning and Development, 3(1), 73–100. https://doi .org/10.1080/15475440709337001 Trainor, L. J. (2012). Predictive information processing is a fundamental learning mechanism present in early development: evidence from infants. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 83(2), 256–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2011.12.008, PubMed: 22226901 Tummeltshammer, K. S., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2013). Learning to look: Probabilistic variation and noise guide infants’ eye movements. Developmental Science, 16(5), 760–771. https://doi.org/10.1111 /desc.12064, PubMed: 24033580 Vossel, S., Mathys, C., Daunizeau, J., Bauer, M., Driver, J., Friston, K. J., & Stephan, K. E. (2014). Spatial attention, precision, and Bayesian inference: A study of saccadic response speed. Cerebral Cortex, 24(6), 1436–1450. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor /bhs418, PubMed: 23322402 Wang, J. X., Kurth-Nelson, Z., Kumaran, D., Tirumala, D., Soyer, H., Leibo, J. Z., Hassabis, D., & Botvinick, M. (2018). Prefrontal cortex as a meta-reinforcement learning system. Nature Neuroscience, 21(6), 860–868. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0147-8, PubMed: 29760527 Werchan, D. M., & Amso, D. (2020). Top-down knowledge rapidly acquired through abstract rule learning biases subsequent visual attention in 9-month-old infants. Developmental Cognitive Neu- roscience, 42, Article 100761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcn .2020.100761, PubMed: 32072934 Werchan, Denise M., Collins, A. G. E., Frank, M. J., & Amso, D. (2015). 8-month-old infants spontaneously learn and generalize hierarchical rules. Psychological Science, 26(6), 805–815. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615571442, PubMed: 25878172 Xu, F. (2019). Towards a rational constructivist theory of cognitive development. Psychological Review, 126(6), 841–864. https://doi .org/10.1037/rev0000153, PubMed: 31180701 Yoon, J., Kim, T., Dia, O., Kim, S., Bengio, Y., & Ahn, S. (2018). Bayesian model-agnostic meta-learning. In Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 7343–7353). Yuan, L., Xiang, V., Crandall, D., & Smith, L. (2020). Learning the generative principles of a symbol system from limited examples. Cognition, 200, Article 104243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j .cognition.2020.104243, PubMed: 32151856 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . / e d u o p m i / l a r t i c e - p d f / d o i / i . / / 1 0 1 1 6 2 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 2 1 3 3 8 2 9 o p m _ a _ 0 0 0 7 9 p d / . i f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 OPEN MIND: Discoveries in Cognitive Science 155

Descargar PDF