When looking at the video of the Qrio robot and children's reactions at an object that seems to interact with its surroundings we learn that children will attend to and interact with objects that contingently react to them. We also know that children follow eye gaze of objects that appear to be consciously avoiding obstacles. I would be curios to view an experiment in which these theories were combined, would babies follow the "eye" gaze of an electronic vacuum cleaner with two dots on top?
Based on the research we have read the answer would be yes. Electronic vacuums are compacts spheres about the diameter of a frisbee which buzz around your house vacuuming on their won, all the while, specially programmed to avoid running into your furniture. If previous data holds true, if we were to place two "eyes" on top of it, babies would follow it's "gaze". This experiment would be along the same lines as the blob experiment and I find that both of these result sets would be difficult to believe. The thought that babies need so few morphological features in order to elicit an action so crucial to learning as eye gaze seems to be absolutely absurd and very difficult to devote any validity to. A more believable explanation may be that babies attention is drawn to movement of any kind and merely the movement of the direction of two dots is enough to elicit a head turning response; these babies are most likely more observant than we give them credit for and are to discriminate between when a blob moves it's eyes and when even a dog moves it's eyes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment