thank you Mike!!

Thank you Caroline :)

This of course did not mean that children were not getting better with age — but we hope this (somewhat) surprising finding can highlight the need for more robust reporting standards and more large-scale multi-laboratory projects (like ManyBabies!) (9/9)

We investigated each hypothesis, but found none of these explained the lack of age-related growth in most datasets! (8/9)

Hypothesis 4: Positive growth only after infancy. Maybe developmental changes were only observable after some age (e.g. in toddlerhood??) (7/9)

Hypothesis 3: Change in only a subset of conditions. Maybe developmental changes were only supposed to be observed in some specific conditions? (6/9)

Hypothesis 2: Methodological adaptation for older infants. Maybe studies testing older infants were using more difficult methods? (5/9)

Hypothesis 1: Age related selection bias against young children. Maybe studies testing younger infants were more likely to have publication bias? (4/9)

That’s very strange! Shouldn’t the children get better at the tasks as they get older? We came up with 4 hypotheses that can potentially explain the flatness of these curves (3/9)

To our surprise, we found that for most phenomena, there was no (linear) age effect at all — meaning that as children get older, the effect sizes in those tasks did not get larger! (2/9)

Developmental psychology has long studied how constructs change with age, but what are the shapes of these changes? We investigated this question by conducting a meta-meta-analysis over 25 developmental meta-analyses retrieved from metalab: langcog.github.io/metalab) (1/9)

Our meta-meta-analysis is officially out! (w/ Molly Lewis, Sho Tsuji, @chbergma.bsky.social, @acristia.bsky.social, and @mcxfrank.bsky.social!)

Estimating age-related change in infants’ linguistic and cognitive development using (meta-)meta-analysis

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

6/
We’ll be at CogSci 2025 presenting this work!
Come find us in San Francisco. Happy to chat about all things looking time paradigms :)

5/
Why does this matter?
Habituation and dishabituation are often treated as separate cognitive predictors.
But our findings suggest they may tap into a shared process.

4/
Infants dishabituated more when the stimuli were simpler, and younger infants showed greater dishabituation overall.

3/
Key finding:
Individuals who habituate faster also show stronger dishabituation, in both infants and adults.
For adults, greater volatility in looking behavior during habituation (often seen as noise) also predicted stronger dishabituation.

2/
We analyzed large-scale looking-time data across the lifespan:
– Infants (N = 1986)
– Preschoolers (N = 33)
– Adults (N = 186)
This allowed us to test how attention unfolds over development—and what predicts its recovery when novelty appears.

1/
New Preprint (also my first time posting on BlueSky haha)!!!
How do individual differences in habituation shape dishabituation magnitude?
Work with Qiong Cao, @mcxfrank.bsky.social and @shariliu.bsky.social

osf.io/preprints/ps...

🚨 Science Resources for BlueSky 🚨

Scientist? Just joined BlueSky? Here’s four resources you might find useful.

#AcademicSky 🧪 🧵

(1) A list of over 130 subject-specific feeds. Find posts by others in your area and use the right tags in your posts to get them seen.