On 2017 Jul 01, Lydia Maniatis commented:

"Could these null findings result simply from poor data quality in infants?"

That a study even warrants such a statement implies a lack of theoretical and methodological rigor. Such questions cannot be resolved post hoc - experiments need to be planned so as to avoid them altogether. The authors feel that "Several observations argue against this [poor quality data] interpretation," but such special pleading by the authors doesn't make me feel any better.

This is a study in which the conceptual categories are crude - e.g. "scenes" is a category - calling into question its replicability (given the broad latitude in selecting stimuli we could label "scenes.") Post hoc evaluations of data - model-fitting, etc - are also poor practice. All they can do is describe a particular dataset, confounds and all. Because the authors make no predictions, emphasizing instead the relative novelty of their technique, one might overlook the fact that data generated without a clear theoretical premise guiding control of variables/potential confounds is of very limited theoretical value. Basically, they're just playing with their toys.

Despite what I see as poor scientific practice, I don't think we needed an fMRI study to to "suggest" to us that, by 4–6 months, babies can distinguish "faces" from "scenes."

On 2017 Jul 01, Lydia Maniatis commented:

"Could these null findings result simply from poor data quality in infants?"

That a study even warrants such a statement implies a lack of theoretical and methodological rigor. Such questions cannot be resolved post hoc - experiments need to be planned so as to avoid them altogether. The authors feel that "Several observations argue against this [poor quality data] interpretation," but such special pleading by the authors doesn't make me feel any better.

This is a study in which the conceptual categories are crude - e.g. "scenes" is a category - calling into question its replicability (given the broad latitude in selecting stimuli we could label "scenes.") Post hoc evaluations of data - model-fitting, etc - are also poor practice. All they can do is describe a particular dataset, confounds and all. Because the authors make no predictions, emphasizing instead the relative novelty of their technique, one might overlook the fact that data generated without a clear theoretical premise guiding control of variables/potential confounds is of very limited theoretical value. Basically, they're just playing with their toys.

Despite what I see as poor scientific practice, I don't think we needed an fMRI study to to "suggest" to us that, by 4–6 months, babies can distinguish "faces" from "scenes."