This of course was one of the key points noted by Tolman (1932) and demonstrated decades later by Harlow (1959). That is, the so-called secondary reinforcers find protocol (e.g., curiosity, contact comfort) were incorrectly characterized as derived from primary reinforcers rather than having primary status on their own. Problem 2 was the fact that the natural environment is filled with high levels of ambiguity—that is, given the myriad of events that co-occur, it is unclear whether a stimulus is causally related to another stimulus

(or to a reward) or whether these co-occurrences are merely coincidences that lead to suspicious attributions of causal relations. How does the naïve (infant) learner resolve this ambiguity without the benefit of top-down knowledge that is only available to a mature learner? The road to addressing these two problems was paved by a second wave of methodological advances in the study of infant learning in the 1970s and 1980s and then a third wave of interest in what has become known as statistical learning in the 1990s and 2000s. A key methodological advance was the development and elaboration of the habituation paradigm by Bornstein (1985), Fantz selleck chemicals (1964), Horowitz (1974) and McCall and Kagan (1970). They showed that repeated exposure

to a stimulus led to a decline in a criterion response (e.g., looking

time), which could then be reactivated by a change in that stimulus. Although this simple habituation paradigm provided an excellent measure of discrimination, it was the addition of a “family” of stimuli during the so-called multiple-habituation phase that allowed the paradigm to address questions of category learning. In the hands of Cohen and Strauss (1979) and Fagan (1976), the multiple-habituation paradigm allowed investigators to ask how infants grouped stimuli into categories without the involvement of any conditioned response or primary reinforcer—infants looked for the 4-Aminobutyrate aminotransferase sake of looking and learned for the sake of learning. Paradigms that followed in the tradition of operant conditioning, using motor responses other than looking time such as sucking or foot-kicking, showed that infants as young as 1 day after birth were excellent learners. Siqueland and De Lucia (1969) demonstrated that infants suck to turn on a stimulus. Rovee-Collier, Sullivan, Enright, Lucas, and Fagan (1980) demonstrated that infants kick to wiggle a stimulus, despite the absence of any other reinforcer. And DeCasper and Fifer (1980) showed that newborns suck differently (by starting or delaying a burst of sucks) to one class of auditory stimuli over another.