The latter three stimuli served as nonobject pictorial control images for a comparison of manual response, following a procedure used by Yonas et al. (2005). Participants were seated in an infant chair secured to a testing table. Parents were seated in a chair immediately adjacent to the child and were instructed to keep their hands in their lap and not to initiate any gestures toward the display or interact with the child during the session. The experimenter was concealed behind a black curtain, only emerging to change displays. In addition,

parents were instructed to remain neutral but equally attentive to each display that was presented to the child. Parents were not informed selleck compound of the hypotheses or the nature of the visual displays prior to the testing session. Lumacaftor A full debriefing took place after the session was completed. On each trial, a display was secured

to the tabletop directly in front of the infant. Infants were free to explore any part of the display, but they were prevented from picking it up. Infants viewed a total of seven displays presented individually. Each display remained available for a maximum of approximately 40 sec. The experiment always began with a color photograph of a real toy (e.g., either a kitten or a doll) as a “warm up” to engage the infants in the task as shown in Figure 1. Infants’ responses to the initial “warm-up” displays were not included in final analyses. The experimental and control displays, shown in Figure 1, were presented in a pseudorandom order. For example, half of the participants viewed a sequence of displays in which the possible figure appeared before the impossible one in the series, and the other half viewed a sequence of displays

in which the impossible cube was presented before the possible cube display. A photo of a real toy always preceded the displays of the possible and impossible cubes (i.e., the possible and impossible figures were never 17-DMAG (Alvespimycin) HCl presented back to back in sequence). This was to control for the possibility of increased visual attention and/or interest generated by the warm-up displays toward the subsequent display. The three perceptual control displays were presented in randomized order immediately following the displays of primary interest in this experiment (i.e., the possible and impossible cubes). All test sessions were recorded on digital video and were subsequently coded from videotapes for types of manual contact and deliberate behaviors directed toward exploring the picture displays (e.g., touching, grasping, rubbing, scratching, and patting). The scoring criteria were based on a modified hybrid version of the coding schemes used by DeLoache et al. (1998) and Yonas et al. (2005).