Held and Hein (1963) demonstrated that kittens actively exploring their environment developed normal visually guided behavior, while passively moved kittens did not, despite receiving the same visual stimulation.
This seminal study highlighted the crucial role of self-produced movement and active interaction with the environment in the development of visual perception and coordination, challenging the prevailing notion that passive exposure to visual stimuli was sufficient for normal development.
Held, R., & Hein, A. (1963). Movement-produced stimulation in the development of visually guided behavior. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 56 (5), 872.
Background
Previous evidence from two sources suggested that the way the visual world was interpreted could change, i.e., there is a degree of plasticity in the neural systems that is responsible for perceptual development.
Firstly, restricting the visual experience of newborn animals (neonatal deprivation) affects the development of spatial perception and coordination – as demonstrated, for example, by Reisen & Aarons (1959) and Reisen (1961).
Secondly, adult human perception also displays some plasticity as people can adapt to new perceptual information. Held (1955) demonstrated this adaptation experimentally with auditory information (sound), and Held & Hein (1958) with visual information.
In addition, case studies of adaption to inverted images (e.g., Stratton, 1897) and of people who have recovered their sight after being blind for many years (e.g., Gregory & Wallace, 1963), suggest that adult human perception is plastic.
Aim
The aim of Held and Hein’s (1963) study was to investigate the role of active, self-produced movement in the development of visually guided behavior in kittens, challenging the prevailing notion that passive exposure to visual stimuli was sufficient for normal development.
By comparing kittens that actively explored their environment with those who passively moved through the same environment, the researchers sought to isolate the effect of self-directed movement on visual perception and coordination, such as depth perception
Procedure
- Independent variable: the condition of the kitten: active or passive.
- Dependent variable: the perceptual skills and development of the kittens.
Ten pairs of kittens were used, each pair from a different litter (Aged between 8 and 12 weeks). In each pair, one was ‘active’ (A) and one was ‘passive’ (P).
Kitten carosel
The kitten carosel was a specially designed apparatus, consisting of a circular platform with a central vertical axis, was constructed. A horizontal arm extended from the axis, with a kitten gondola suspended from each end of the arm. The gondolas were designed to allow the kittens to move freely within them.
The kittens were placed in the kitten carosel apparatus for three hours a day over eight weeks.
During this time, the active kittens could actively explore their environment, while the passive kittens were exposed to the same visual stimuli but could not control their own movement.
- Active kittens could actively explore their environment through self-directed movement. They could control their own actions and receive visual, tactile, and proprioceptive feedback due to their movements.
- Passive kittens were exposed to the same visual environment as the active kittens but could not actively explore or interact with it. They received visual input passively, without the opportunity to control their own actions or receive feedback from self-directed movement.
Kitten P was also firmly attached to the roundabout but it was carried in a basket, so it could not control its own movement. Through a mechanical system, kitten B was moved in exactly the same way as kitten A.
So if kitten A walked clockwise, moved to the edge, then back to the center, then moved upwards and dropped down again, so did kitten P. Kitten P’s legs stuck through the bottom of the basket, so although he could not move them, they could slide along the floor as he moved.
Neither kitten could see their own limbs, although both could move their heads freely.
The apparatus was housed in a cylinder with black, white, and metal-colored vertical strips on the walls inside. The center of the roundabout, which was also striped, prevented the kittens from seeing each other.
The pairs spent 3 hours per day in the experimental apparatus, beginning when the active kitten was big enough to move the ‘roundabout’ and continuing for six weeks. When not in the experimental apparatus, all kittens were housed in darkness with their mother and littermates.
After the eight-week exposure period, the kittens were tested in a series of visual-motor tasks to assess their visually guided behavior.
- Visually-guided paw placement: the kitten was held by the experimenter with its head and forelegs free and was carried down to the edge of the table. A kitten with normal visual experience extends its paws, ready to make contact with the surface.
- Avoidance of a visual cliff: the kitten is placed on the central ‘bridge’ from which it can stay still or walk onto either the ‘shallow’ or ‘deep’ side. A kitten with normal visual experience avoids the ‘deep’ side.
- Blink to an approaching object: the kitten was held still in a standing position and the experimenter brought his hand quickly towards the kitten’s face (stopping just in front of it). A kitten with normal visual experience blinks in response.
In addition, three tests of visual receptors and their responses were conducted:
- Visual pursuit of a moving object: the kitten was shown the experimenter’s hand moving slowly in front of it. The movement of the kitten’s eyes was recorded. A kitten with normal visual experience follows the movement with its eyes.
- Pupillary reflex to light: a torch beam was moved across the eye and the change in pupil size was noted. The pupil of a kitten with normal visual experience shrinks in response.
- Tactual placing response: the kitten was held as in the paw placement test but its front paws were put against the vertical surface of the table. A kitten with normal visual experience responds by moving its paws to the horizontal surface.
Findings
All of the active kittens had developed a normal visually-guided paw placement response when they had spent 63 hours (21 sessions) or less in the apparatus, most by about 33 hours (11 sessions).
After an equivalent length of time to their active littermate, no passive kitten had acquired a visually-guided paw placement response.
The same pattern was seen with the blink response, which appeared at the same time as the visually-guided paw placement response. On the same day as each kitten
A demonstrated the visually-guided paw placement response. The pair was tested on the visual cliff (and the next day). The results of these tests are shown in Table 1.
They show that all of the active kittens had normal responses to depth but the passive kittens were crossing to the shallow or deep side at random. This suggests that they were unable to discriminate between the deep and shallow drops.
However, a sub-group of two passive kittens had been given an additional period of passive stimulation in the apparatus between 2 and 10 weeks of age.
When given an extra two days in the light and then re-tested, these two kittens rapidly developed normal visually-guided paw placement and visual cliff responses.
Normal visual pursuit of a moving object, the pupillary reflex to light, and tactual placing responses were seen in all animals when tested immediately before being placed in the apparatus for the first time.
Conclusion
The findings fit the idea that self-produced movement and concurrent visual feedback are essential for the development of visually-guided behavior.
Strengths
High level of control
The study was conducted under highly controlled laboratory conditions. The apparatus allowed for precise manipulation of the independent variable (active vs. passive movement) while keeping other factors constant.
This high level of control helps to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the variables and strengthens the internal validity of the study.
Replicable
The standardization of the procedure in Held and Hein’s (1963) study makes it easier to replicate.
Held and Hein (1963) standardized their procedure using the same apparatus, exposure duration, visual stimulation, and testing procedures for all kittens. The apparatus provided identical physical environments, while the exposure duration of three hours a day for eight weeks was consistent.
Reduced bias
Using pairs of kittens minimized the potential for individual differences among the subjects to influence the results.
Weaknesses
Not generalizable
The study used a small sample size and a specific animal species (kittens), which limits the generalizability of the findings to other species, including humans.
The development of visually guided behavior in kittens may not directly translate to the human experience, as there are differences in brain structure and developmental processes.
Lack of ecological validity
The kittens in the study were exposed to a limited set of environmental stimuli within the experimental apparatus.
The study’s artificial laboratory setting and apparatus may not accurately represent the complex, real-world environments in which animals and humans typically develop.
As a result, the findings may not fully capture the intricacies of perceptual and motor development in real-world contexts.
Ethical issues
The study raises ethical concerns regarding animal welfare.
The kittens were kept in darkness and confined to cages for extended periods, which may have caused distress and potentially harmful effects on their development.
Manipulating the kittens’ early sensory experiences and creating a passive condition that hindered normal development may be considered unethical by contemporary standards.
Alternative Explanations
Held and Hein observe that there are possible alternative explanations for their findings. One is that the deprivation could have led to some anatomical or physiological loss (atrophy) that caused the passive kitten’s perceptual deficits.
This is unlikely, however, as they showed normal physiological responses (in the three additional tests). Furthermore, it would be unlikely that such a minimal recovery time for the sub-group of passive kittens could overcome any such damage.
They also discount the possibility that the problems are purely physical or behavioral – since the kittens could perform the tactual placing response normally.
Another criticism suggests that the differences could have been due to emotional responses caused by the release from deprivation during testing.
However, Held & Hein suggest that this cannot be the case because the restriction of the P and A kittens was so similar.
Furthermore, there was no apparent difference between the P and A kittens in terms of their fear or excitement in response to the novel situations.
References
Gregory RL & Wallace JG (1963) Recovery from early blindness: a case study, in RL Gregory (ed) Concepts and Mechanisms of Perception (1974), pp 65-129. London: Duckworth.
Held R (1955) Shifts in binaural localization after prolonged exposures to atypical combinations of stimuli. American Journal of Psychology, 68: 526-48.
Held, R., & Hein, A. (1963). Movement-produced stimulation in the development of visually guided behavior. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 56 (5), 872.
Held R & Hein A (1958) Adaptation of disarranged hand-eye coordination contingent upon re-afferent stimulation. Perception & Motor Skills, 8: 87-90.
Reisen AH & Aarons L (1959) Visual movement and intensity discrimination in cats after early deprivation of pattern vision. Journal of Comparative Physiology & Psychology, 52: 142-9.
Reisen AH (1961) Studying perceptual development using the technique of sensory deprivation. Journal of Nervous & Mental Diseases, 132: 21-5.
Stratton GM (1896) Vision without inversion of the retinal image. Psychological Reviews, 4: 341.
