Social Neuroscience

ISSN: 1747-0919 (Print) 1747-0927 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/psns20

Left hemisphere EEG coherence in infancy

predicts infant declarative pointing and preschool
epistemic language

N. Khn-Popp, S. Kristen, M. Paulus, J. Meinhardt & B. Sodian

To cite this article: N. Khn-Popp, S. Kristen, M. Paulus, J. Meinhardt & B. Sodian (2016) Left
hemisphere EEG coherence in infancy predicts infant declarative pointing and preschool
epistemic language, Social Neuroscience, 11:1, 49-59, DOI: 10.1080/17470919.2015.1024887

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2015.1024887

Published online: 02 Apr 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 57

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=psns20

Download by: [LMU Muenchen] Date: 12 February 2016, At: 03:06

 SOCIAL NEUROSCIENCE, 2016
Vol. 11, No. 1, 4959, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2015.1024887

Left hemisphere EEG coherence in infancy predicts

infant declarative pointing and preschool epistemic
language

N. Khn-Popp, S. Kristen, M. Paulus, J. Meinhardt, and B. Sodian

Department of Psychology, Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany

Downloaded by [LMU Muenchen] at 03:06 12 February 2016

Pointing plays a central role in preverbal communication. While imperative pointing aims at inuencing another
persons behavior, declarative gestures serve to convey epistemic information and to share interest in an object.
Further, the latter are hypothesized to be a precursor ability of epistemic language. So far, little is known about
their underlying brain maturation processes. Therefore, the present study investigated the relation between brain
maturation processes and the production of imperative and declarative motives as well as epistemic language in
N = 32 infants. EEG coherence scores were measured at 14 months, imperative and declarative point production at
15 months and epistemic language at 48 months. Results of correlational analyses suggest distinct behavioral and
neural patterns for imperative and declarative pointing, with declarative pointing being associated with the
maturation of the left hemisphere. Further, EEG coherence measures of the left hemisphere at 14 months and
declarative pointing at 15 months are related to individual differences in epistemic language skills at 48 months,
independently of child IQ. In regression analyses, coherence measures of the left hemisphere prove to be the most
important predictor of epistemic language skills. Thus, neural processes of the left hemisphere seem particularly
relevant to social communication.

Keywords: Declarative and imperative point production; Epistemic language; EEG; Infancy.

Pointing is an important form of preverbal commu-
nication in infancy (Aureli, Perucchini, & Genco,
2009; Moore & DEntremont, 2001; Tomasello,
Carpenter, & Liszkowski, 2007). Two main underly-
ing motives have been distinguished: an imperative
and a declarative one. While imperative pointing aims
at inuencing another persons behavior (typically to
make an adult hand the infant an object), declarative
pointing serves the transmission of information from
the sender to the recipient when sharing interesting
events. For instance, there is something interesting
going on behind the mothers back (e.g., Christmas
lights on a tree in town square) and the toddler wants
to share the interesting event and thus point to it,
hence, rstly, in order to direct the mothers attention
to the tree and secondly, in order to share the joy
about the lights the child points at the tree. It has
been argued that in declarative pointing, infants impli-
citly represent and manipulate others intentional and
epistemic states, and therefore declarative, but not
imperative pointing, is predicted to be a developmen-
tal precursor of a Theory of Mind (i.e. the ability to
comprehend others internal states such as intentions)
(Camaioni, Perucchini, Bellagamba, & Colonnesi,
2004). This view is supported by longitudinal ndings
indicating that the production of declarative pointing

Correspondence should be addressed to: Nina Khn-Popp, Department of Psychology, Ludwig Maximilian University, Leopoldstrasse 13,
Munich 80802, Germany. E-mail: kuehn-popp@psy.lmu.de
Special thanks go to Sabrina Krimmel, Hannah Perst, the Babylab and the EEG-lab team for support in data acquisition and coding as well
as all families who participated in this study.
No potential conict of interest was reported by the authors.
The work was supported by a DFG grant So 213/27-1 to Beate Sodian.

2015 Taylor & Francis

 50 KHN-POPP ET AL.
gestures was linked to understanding another persons
intention in an imitation task (Camaioni et al., 2004)
and that declarative joint attention at 20 months was
predictive of Theory of Mind at 44 months (Charman
et al., 2000). Moreover, 12-month-olds who pointed
more frequently to share information with an unfami-
liar tester and who followed pointing gestures more
consistently had higher social competence scores at
30 months than their peers (Vaughan Van Hecke et al.,
2007).
According to socio-cognitive accounts, pointing ges-
tures serve as precursor abilities to language develop-
ment (Bates, Camaioni, & Volterra, 1975; Brooks &
Meltzoff, 2008; Colonnesi, Stams, Koster, & Noom,
2010). In autistic children, who are selectively impaired
in declarative but not in imperative skills (Camaioni,
Downloaded by [LMU Muenchen] at 03:06 12 February 2016
Perucchini, Muratori, Parrini, & Cesari, 2003), these
decits in declarative gestural communication were
related to language development (Mundy, Sigman, &
Kasari, 1994). More specically, there is evidence for a
link between declarative pointing and epistemic state
terms (e.g., knowing, thinking, and guessing).
Epistemic (or cognitive state) language refers to thought
processes within a person (cf. Bretherton & Beeghly,
1982). While related to general language development
(Kristen, Sodian, Licata, Thoermer, & PoulinDubois,
2012), epistemic state language has precursor abilities
and correlates that are independent of general language.
For instance, infants non-verbal ability to respond to
intentional gestures, as well as to manipulate others
attentional states and knowledge states via declarative
pointing gestures, seems to be related to their later ability
to verbally express the same epistemic concepts (e.g., to
know). The comprehension of referential pointing at
9 months, which turned out to be the single most impor-
tant predictor in a subsequent regression analysis, and
declarative point production skills at 12 months, but not
imperative point production skills, were found to be
correlates of cognitive state language at 36 months,
independently of general language skills (Kristen,
Sodian, Thoermer, & Perst, 2011). Since epistemic pro-
cesses are intangible and do not always have behavioral
correlates, talking about them reects childrens ability
to take another persons mental perspective.
Consistently, research shows that 30-month-olds visual
perspective taking-ability, which can be seen as an
important precursor skill of later mental state compre-
hension, is concurrently related to childrens references
to inner, intangible states (Chiarella, Kristen, Poulin-
Dubois, & Sodian, 2013). Further, infants mental state
references predict their later Theory of Mind (Olineck &
Poulin-Dubois, 2007).
The distinction between different types of early
communicative motives is assumed to be reected in
distinct electrical signatures and activation patterns of
the developing brain (De Haan, 2007). Therefore,
developmental science has shown great interest in
the neural underpinnings of early non-verbal commu-
nicative abilities such as attention or affect sharing,
pointing comprehension or point following
(Gredebck, Melinder, & Daum, 2010; Grossman &
Johnson, 2010; Henderson, Yoder, Yale, & McDufe,
2002; Hoehl, Palumbo, Heinisch, & Striano, 2008;
Mundy, Card, & Fox, 2000; Striano, Reid, & Hoehl,
2006). However, the neural underpinnings of the dis-
tinction between declarative and imperative pointing
have not been specically addressed yet. Nor has the
neural relationship between the preverbal expression
of declarative motives and more explicit, epistemic
language development been investigated.
In a classical neural study on early communicative
behavior, Mundy et al. (2000) investigated the neural
substrates of initiating joint attention versus initiating
behavioral requests. They assessed initiative declara-
tive behavior through all, gestures, gaze and vocaliza-
tions, thus encompassing affect sharing as well as
joint engagement. They used electroencephalogram
(EEG) power to indicate brain electrical activity and
EEG coherence to measure the degree of brain inte-
gration processes. Results showed that left frontal
cortical activity at 14 months was associated with
the tendency to initiate action as to share an experi-
ence of a toy with another person. Further, relatively
greater left fronto-central EEG coherence at 14 months
was predictive of initiating behavior at 18 months as
well as with requestive behavior (i.e. pointing, reach-
ing, or using eye contact to elicit aid in obtaining an
object) at 14 months. Using the same behavioral joint
attention tasks and EEG procedure, Mundy, Fox, and
Card (2003) showed also that left-hemispheric pro-
cesses at 14 months, related to initiating behavior at
14 months, predict growth in language development at
24 months.
Henderson et al. (2002) employed the same tasks
as Mundy et al. (2000), but they specied the beha-
vioral form by dening pointing as an extended index
nger toward a referent. They reported cortical activ-
ity in bilateral frontal regions at 14 months to be
correlated with initiative joint attention at 18 months,
but not with initiative behavior request. These appar-
ently divergent neural ndings might be related to
rather loose or different denitions of the communi-
cative gestures. Homogeneous denitions and con-
trols, though, seem critical to clearly separating
imperative and declarative motives (Cochet &
Vauclair, 2010).
Initiating joint attentionbehaviors may be dri-
ven by a variety of motives, such as sharing a positive

affect, a novel experience or conveying information
about an object or event. Since the focal objects are
typically in the visual eld shared by the experimenter
and the child in the tasks used by Mundy et al., it is
hard to isolate the epistemic aspect of joint attention
from other dimensions such as affect sharing. The
epistemic understanding underlying declarative point-
ing was specically addressed by Camaioni et al.
(2004), who required the infant to use the pointing
gesture to draw the experimenters attention to a target
that was behind her back. Twelve- and 15-month-old
infants passed this task (Camaioni et al., 2004; Kristen
et al., 2011), thus indicating a sensitivity to the experi-
menters ignorance of an event taking place behind her
back. Since research on the neural correlates of Theory
of Mind reasoning indicates a relationship between left-
Downloaded by [LMU Muenchen] at 03:06 12 February 2016
side activity and epistemic reasoning in adults (Liu,
Meltzoff, & Wellman, 2009; Meinhardt, Khn-Popp,
Sommer, & Sodian, 2012; Sabbagh & Taylor, 2000) as
well as in school-aged children (Khn-Popp, Sodian,
Sommer, Dhnel, & Meinhardt, 2013; Liu, Sabbagh,
Gehring, & Wellman, 2009; Meinhardt, Sodian,
Thoermer, Dhnel, & Sommer, 2011), we hypothesize
that declarative point production in infancy may speci-
cally be associated with brain maturation processes in
the left hemisphere. Further, we also expect epistemic
language development to be subserved by left-
hemispheric processes.
To test these hypotheses, we used the point produc-
tion tasks by Camaioni et al. (2004) to clearly separate
imperative and declarative motives. We also measured
epistemic language competence at 48 months of age,
an age at which children refer to epistemic states quite
frequently when narrating stories and at which mental
state utterances should be evidential of their develop-
ing mental state comprehension (Colonnesi et al.,
2010).
Given that the production of pointing gestures
causes active motor movements, neural activity may
be masked, thus making it difcult to clearly distin-
guish the communicative intent. Therefore, neural
activity has been recorded during a passive, but
awake, state, which is then correlated with the point-
ing behavior and language performance respectively
assessed in an extra sessions. Coherence measures,
based on resting state EEG measures, are assumed to
be markers of the link between brain maturation pro-
cesses and socio-cognitive abilities at this age (Bell,
2012; Cuevas, Bell, Marcovitch, & Calkins, 2012;
Mundy et al., 2000). EEG coherence is the fre-
quency-dependent squared cross-correlation between
two scalp electrode sites and is a measure for the
degree of phase synchrony or shared activity between
spatially separated EEG generators (Nunez, 1981).
EPISTEMIC COMMUNICATION IN INFANCY 51
Increased coherence values suggest that cortical
regions are intricately connected and working
together. When applied in the developmental context,
coherence measures are assumed to be markers of
neural maturation and organization processes that cor-
respond to the emergence of skills such as early com-
municative abilities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
The nal sample consisted of 32 infants (17 female).
Childrens mean age at the EEG measurement
appointment was 14 months (M = 13.99 months;
range = 13.4014.43 months), at the pointing mea-
surement appointment 15 months (M = 15.04 months;
range = 14.2315.50 months), and at the language
measurement appointment 48 months
(M = 48.28 months; range = 48.0349.33 months).
Eleven additional infants were tested in the EEG study
but not included in the nal sample due to fussiness
(i.e. the infant was too distressed as to start the experi-
ment, N = 6; or the experiment had to be interrupted,
N = 5). The children were a subsample part of a larger
sample who participated in a larger study (Licata
et al., 2014; Paulus, Khn-Popp, Licata, Sodian, &
Meinhardt, 2013).
Behavioral assessment: Pointing
measures (based on Camaioni et al.,
2004)
The order of the tasks was kept constant across con-
ditions. First, children received imperative point pro-
duction and then, declarative point production. The
table where infants were seated at was rectangular and
measured 78 cm in height, 120 cm in width, and
78 cm in depth. E made eye contact with children to
get their attention when the trial began.
Declarative point production task
In this task, the child had to infer from E not seeing
the object that he or she, in contrast to himself or
herself, also cannot know about it and thus, to share
his or her interest on the object the child needs to
point at the object. In two trials, a second assistant
(hidden from the child) activated a mobile (pig) hang-
ing from the wall opposite the child and thus, behind
Es back. The mobile moved for about 15 seconds
during which the experimenter looked silently at the
 52 KHN-POPP ET AL.
child. When the mobile stopped, E uttered: What
happened? without turning back to look at the
mobile. E then looked silently at the child for 15 sec-
onds (waiting for the childs reaction). Finally, he
looked at the mobile and named it.
Imperative production task
In two trials, E activated a windup car (toy bear),
moved it in front of the child for about 10 seconds and
then stopped it and looked silently at the child for
15 seconds (waiting for the childs reaction). E then
said, Isnt it nice? Do you like it? and looked
silently at the child for another 15 seconds (waiting
for the childs reaction). After that, the toy was given
to the child. In this task, the child had to indicate that
Downloaded by [LMU Muenchen] at 03:06 12 February 2016
he or she wants to obtain the object with a pointing
gesture.
Coding
Childrens declarative communicative competency
(yes [score = 1, competent] versus no [score = 0, non-
competent]) was coded as follows: First, it was impor-
tant that children did point to inform the experimenter
about the object and not point for themselves or point
to simply obtain the object. Hence, pointing gestures
had to be related to both, E and the object behind Es
back. Thus, children were only rated as competent
when looks at Es face occurred within 2 seconds
before or after the pointing gesture or when looks at
E and pointing gestures occurred simultaneously.
Further, to be rated as communicative competent chil-
dren had to produce a pointing gesture before or after
the verbal trigger in addition to the following target
behaviors: smiled and/or vocalized toward the stimu-
lus, produced a proto-word or a word relative to the
stimulus, or re-enacted what the stimulus did.
Pointing was dened as an arm and index-nger
extension toward the stimulus with the remaining
ngers curled tightly or lightly under the hand
(Franco & Butterworth, 1996). If children pointed
for themselves (without attending to the experimen-
ter), reached for the stimulus or merely looked at the
stimulus, they were rated as non-competent.
Childrens imperative pointing competency (yes
[score = 1, competent] versus no [score = 0, non-
competent]) was coded as follows: Children were
rated as competent when looks at Es face occurred
within 2 seconds before or after the pointing gesture
or when looks at E and pointing gestures occurred
simultaneously. Further, children were coded as com-
municative competent when, in both trials, they
pointed at the stimulus while producing request-like
gestures (as indicated by a whole-hand point and
repeated opening of the hand) at the stimulus either
before or after the verbal trigger in addition to the
following target behaviors: leaned forward or reached
for the stimulus, produced a request vocalization/
proto-word, or whined. Again, if children merely
reached for the stimulus or simply looked at it, they
were rated as non-competent.
For each score and joint attention task, 100% of the
children were scored by an independent observer and
Cohens k was 1.00 for all scores for both declarative
and imperative point production.
Epistemic language and IQ measures
When children were 48 months of age, to test their
narrative skills children were asked to tell a story
about a bear family in 4 phases (Bornstein, Hahn, &
Haynes, 2004). First the child could freely play with
the bear toy gurines. Then, after 5 minutes the
assessor prompted the child to tell a story and again,
after 5 minutes the child was prompted with the
question What is happening next in the story?.
After another 5 minutes, the assessors were instructed
to ask How does the story end?. After another
15 minutes, the narrative was ended. In this study,
childrens use of epistemic state terms frame in regard
to the story characters, within a xed time frame, was
coded using a coding-scheme for mental state terms
(Bretherton & Beeghly, 1982). Thereby, terms such as
think, know, guess, believe were coded as episte-
mic. Note that in order to control effects of general
verbosity, only the propositions containing different
types or usages of epistemic state terms were counted,
but not the mere quantity of propositions containing
epistemic state terms. Further, childrens overall verb-
osity was controlled for in partial correlations.
One hundred percent of transcripts were coded by a
second observer. Cohens k was .98 for epistemic state
terms. The verbal and non-verbal IQ at 48 months
were assessed with the respective scales of the
German version of the WPPSI (Petermann, 2009).
Electrophysiological assessment
EEG recording
During the recording of brain electrical activity
(EEG), infants sat quietly on their mothers lap and
were presented with brightly colored bubbles on a
computer screen. This kind of stimuli resembles to
others used in EEG resting state investigations
(Mundy et al., 2000; Paulus, Khn-Popp, et al., 2013)
 EPISTEMIC COMMUNICATION IN INFANCY 53

FPZ
FP1 FP2

AF7 AF8
AF3 GN AF4
F9 F10
F7 F8
F5 F3 F4 F6
F1 FZ F2

FT7 FT8
FC5 FC3 FC1 FC2 FC4 FC6
FCZ

T7 C5 C3 C1 CZ C2 C4 C6 T8
Downloaded by [LMU Muenchen] at 03:06 12 February 2016

CP3 CP1 CPZ CP2 CP4 CP6

CP5
TP7 TP8
TP9 TP1
P3 P1 PZ P2 P4
P5 P6
P7 P8
PO3 POZ PO4
PO7 PO8
O1 O2
OZ

Figure 1. Electrode layout of the EEG baseline measurement. Gray colored and striped electrodes identify the electrodes inserted in the
analyses of the coherence scores.

and was used to keep the infants visual attention with
reduced movement during the recording time. The
recording lasted for at least 3 minutes until the child
lost interest in the stimulus as evidenced by yawning,
crying, or strong motor activity.
Recordings were made from 17 sites (Fp1, Fp2, F3,
F4, F7, F8, F9, F10, C3, Cz, C4, T7, T8, P3, P4, O1,
O2) using an infant-size cap with Ag/AgCl active
electrodes (ActiCap, Brain Products, Germany)
with a layout following the 10/20 system (see
Figure 1 for an overview). F3, F4, F7, F8, C3, Cz,
C4, T7, T8, P3, P4, O1, and O2 are electrode pairs
commonly employed in EEG resting state research
(Cuevas et al., 2012; Mundy et al., 2000; Paulus,
Khn-Popp, et al., 2013). Fp1 and Fp2 were inserted
to allow for the detection of blinks and vertical eye-
movements; F9 and F10 were included to detect hor-
izontal eye-movements. All electrode sites were refer-
enced to Cz during recording. Prior to the EEG
acquisition, electrode impedances were measured
and accepted if they were below 10 k.
The electrical activity from each lead was ampli-
ed using BrainAmp amplier (Brain Products,
Gilching, Germany) and bandpassed from 0.016 to
100 Hz. Activity for each electrode was displayed
on the monitor of an acquisition computer. The EEG
signal was digitized online at a continuous sampling
rate of 500 Hz, i.e. the data were not affected by
aliasing.
EEG analysis
EEG data were examined and analyzed using
Vision Analyzer Software (Brain Products,
Germany). Ofine, all electrodes were re-referenced
to an average reference, and a digital band pass lter
of 0.1 to 20 Hz was applied. The EEG data were
segmented into equal sized epochs of 1024 ms with
50% overlap. To assure that EEG was only analyzed
from epochs in which the infants were attending to the
baseline stimulus, epochs with artifacts were detected
by means of visual inspection and a semiautomatic
 54 KHN-POPP ET AL.

artifact rejection function (amplitude exceeding RESULTS

120 V, minimal-maximal difference 100 V) and
were eliminated from further analyses if they con-
tained eye movements, blinks, or (motor) artifacts.
On average 44.7% of all epochs were excluded from
subsequent analyses, providing on average 294
(SD = 111.8) epochs per infant.
The data then were analyzed using fast Fourier
transformation (Hanning window: 10%, frequency
resolution: 0.977 Hz). Several coherence pairings
were possible. However, the present study focused
on coherence measures that had previously been asso-
ciated with joint attention skills. Thus, in line with
Mundy et al. (2000), we calculated summary coher-
ence scores for each hemisphere reecting the ratio of
short-distance coherence divided by long-distance
Downloaded by [LMU Muenchen] at 03:06 12 February 2016
Preliminary results
For descriptives see Table 1. Note that, in order to
include and exclude control variables systematically,
throughout the whole paper Baron and Kennys
(1986) and Holmbecks (1997) mediation models
were applied (see also Kochanska, 2002). Thus, con-
trol variables were considered as possible mediators
when they were correlated with the outcome related to
the independent variable and when they themselves
were related to the independent variable (see reported
correlations below).
Both gender and age proved to be unrelated to the
study variables analyses (gender: all ps > .12; age: all

coherence (frontal-central coherence/frontal-occipital
coherence, i.e. F7-T7/F7-01, F3-C3/F3-P3, F8-T8/
F8-02, F4-C4/F4-P4). These coherence scores
included electrode combinations along the vertical
lines, i.e. for the left hemisphere F7-T7-O1 and F3-
C3-P3, and for the right hemisphere F4-C4-P4 and
F8-T8-O2, respectively (see Figure 1). Coherence was
computed for the 69 Hz frequency band using coher-
ence correlation as implemented in the Vision
Analyzer. This alpha-range band is useful from the
end of the rst year of life across all scalp regions
(Saby & Marshall, 2012). Previous studies have
shown that EEG values in this spectrum are related
to socio-cognitive behavior and cognitive develop-
ment (Cuevas et al., 2012; Henderson et al., 2002;
Paulus, Hunnius, & Bekkering, 2013).
ps > .11). Both childrens scores for the verbal IQ
(N = 22, M = 107.14, SD = 12.71, range = 86137)
and their non-verbal IQ (N = 22, M = 98.64,
SD = 10.37, range = 75123) lay in the normal
range. While marginally signicantly related to each
other (N = 22, r = .36, p = .05), only childrens non-
verbal IQ was related to the number of utterances
referring to others epistemic states when narrating a
story (N = 20, r = .55, p = .01). Further, childrens
non-verbal IQ was related to childrens left-coherence
scores (F3-C3/F3-P3: N = 23, r = .43, p < .05; F3-C3/
F3-01: N = 23, r = .52, p < .05), as well as to right-
coherence scores (F4-C4/F4-O2: N = 23, r = .47,
p < .05). Further, childrens verbal IQ was negatively
related to children pointing imperatively (N = 22, r =
-.40, p < .05). No other signicant relations occurred.

TABLE 1
Descriptives of study variables
Measures M SD Range/scores

Imperative pointing (N = 31) 0^ = 39% 0/1

1* = 61%
Epistemic declarative pointing (N = 31) 0^ = 55% 0/1
1* = 45%
Variety of epistemic terms (sum) (N = 21) 2.3 0.58 03
Verbosity (number of words) (N = 21) 198.14 161.48 10568
EEG right-coherence measures (N = 32)
F4-C4/F4-P4 3.66 6.87 .0426.58
F4-C4/F4-O2 1.64 2.60 .0412.30
F8-T8/F8-O2 2.43 5.86 .0925.93
EEG left-coherence measures (N = 32)
F3-C3/F3-P3 8.69 23.57 .0692.24
F3-C3/F3-O1 3.79 11.80 .0958.59
F7-T7/F7-O1 2.57 8.41 .0847.58
Verbal IQ (N = 22) 107.15 12.71 86137
Non-verbal IQ (N = 23) 98.61 10.13 75123

Notes: ^0 = no competence, *1 = competence.

 EPISTEMIC COMMUNICATION IN INFANCY 55

Behavioral results TABLE 3

Correlations of the EEG coherence scores at 14 months,
imperative (IP) and epistemic declarative (DP) pointing scores
On a descriptive level, the dichotomous competence at 15 months and epistemic language at 48 months, control-
scores of imperative and epistemic declarative point- ling for verbosity
ing (see Table 1) proved to be unrelated (Phi = .05, Epistemic language
p = .76) and did not differ signicantly from each
other (2(1) = .10, p = .76; n = 31). Right-coherence scores
F4-C4/F4-P4 rpartial = .35^ p < .07
F4-C4/F4-O2 rpartial = .36^ p < .06
F8-T8/F8-O2 rpartial = .04
Relations between EEG patterns and Left-coherence scores
behavioral tasks F3-C3/F3-P3 rpartial = .47* p < .02
F3-C3/F3-O1 rpartial = .59** p < .003
F7-T7/F7-O1 rpartial = .17
The present studys aim was to investigate the relation Pointing scores
between hemispheric coherence patterns, infants IP competence rpartial = .16
communicative pointing behavior and epistemic lan- DP competence rpartial = .44* p < .02
guage. Given that we expected epistemic declarative
Downloaded by [LMU Muenchen] at 03:06 12 February 2016

pointing and epistemic language to be associated with Notes: **p .01, *p .05, ^p .10 (one-tailed); N = 18.
left-lateralized brain maturation processes, we con-
ducted one-tailed tests.
To this end, point-biserial Pearson product correla- TABLE 4
Linear regression analysis predicting epistemic language at
tions were calculated between left and right ratio EEG
48 months (predictors based on mediation models by Baron
coherence scores and competency pointing scores (see and Kenny (1986) and Holmbeck (1997))
Table 2). Most importantly, epistemic declarative
Predictor variables t p
pointing, but not imperative pointing, was signi-
cantly correlated with left hemisphere coherence DP competence .30 1.63 .13
scores (see Table 2). Right-coherence scores
F4-C4/F4-P4 .08 .43 .67
We also computed partial point-biserial Pearson
F4-C4/F4-O2 .18 .64 .54
product correlations for left and right ratio EEG coher- Left-coherence scores
ence scores and epistemic language scores, controlling F3-C3/F3-P3 .31 .92 .37
for verbosity (see Table 3). As expected, the correla- F3-C3/F3-O1 .92* p < .05 2.18 .05
tions of the EEG data with language revealed that the Non-verbal IQ .23 1.15 .27
14-month ratio measure of left hemisphere coherence
Notes: *p < .05. DP = epistemic declarative pointing. df = 19.
was signicantly correlated with epistemic language
at 48 months, while right hemisphere coherence
scores were marginally signicantly related to episte-
mic language. Finally, epistemic declarative pointing are the most important predictor of epistemic state
was related to epistemic language (see Table 3). As talk at 48 months (see Table 4). While the overall
the regression analyses show, left-coherence scores model, F(6, 13) = 4.29, p = .01, was found to explain
66% of variance, left hemisphere coherence scores
proved to be the only independent predictor. Further,
TABLE 2 imperative pointing scores do not mediate the relation
Correlations of the EEG coherence scores with imperative (IP) between declarative pointing and epistemic language
and epistemic declarative (DP) pointing scores
(see Table 5).
IP competence DP competence

Right-coherence scores
F4-C4/F4-P4 rpbi = .144 rpbi = .07
F4-C4/F4-O2 rpartial = .08 rpbi = .11 DISCUSSION
(N = 20)
F8-T8/F8-O2 rpbi = .08 rpbi = .13 The goals of this study were to reveal the brain
Left-coherence scores maturation processes underlying the production of
F3-C3/F3-P3 rpbi = .10 rpbi = .34* p < .03
imperative and epistemic declarative pointing gestures
F3-C3/F3-O1 rpbi = .18 rpbi = .30^ p < .05
F7-T7/F7-O1 rpbi = .12 rpbi = .26^ p < .08 in infants as young as 15 months and their relation to
epistemic language at 48 months of age. To this end,
Notes: *p .05 (one-tailed), ^p .10 (one-tailed); N = 31. we measured baseline EEG at 14 months and
 56 KHN-POPP ET AL.
TABLE 5
Linear regression analysis predicting epistemic state language
at 48 months
Predictor variables t p
Epistemic declarative pointing (15 months) .40 2.21 .04
Imperative pointing (15 months) .07 .39 .67
F4-C4/F4-P4 .37 1.96 .07
Non-verbal IQ .49 2.73 .02
Notes: F(4, 16) = 4.09, p = .018; overall variance explained by
model: 50.6%.
independently assessed point production competen-
cies as well as epistemic language skills. Results
suggest distinct behavioral and neural patterns for
declarative and imperative pointing, with epistemic
Downloaded by [LMU Muenchen] at 03:06 12 February 2016
declarative pointing being particularly associated
with the maturation of the left hemisphere. Further,
epistemic declarative point production at 15 months
and EEG coherence measures of the left hemisphere at
14 months predict individual differences in epistemic
language at 48 months, independently of child IQ.
Previous behavioral research has indicated distinct
developmental patterns for imperative and declarative
point production with imperative point production
arising earlier in development (Behne, Liszkowski,
Carpenter, & Tomasello, 2012; Kristen et al., 2011).
The present study supports these ndings by showing
a higher competence level for imperative point pro-
duction than for epistemic declarative pointing at
15 months of age. This dcalage may be related to
differences in socio-cognitive demands: whereas
imperative pointing simply aims at inuencing
another persons behavior (i.e. cause the experimenter
to hand over the toy), declarative pointing, as mea-
sured in this study, implies the capacity to share
interest toward novel sights and thus to affect another
persons epistemic state (e.g., cause someone to attend
to the object behind his or her back). In other words,
by using the declarative gesture children intentionally
direct the others attention toward the object
(Camaioni, 1993; Camaioni et al., 2004).
This difference between imperative and epistemic
declarative pointing can also be seen on a neural level:
while epistemic declarative pointing was signicantly
correlated with left hemispheric coherence scores,
imperative pointing signicantly correlated with the
right hemisphere. This lateralization effect suggests
that imperative and epistemic declarative pointing
rely on distinct neural maturation processes.
Previous neural studies on early communicative beha-
vior showed that the left hemisphere is critically
involved in declarative joint attention abilities
(Mundy et al., 2000), whereas others report that both
hemispheres are equally recruited (Henderson et al.,
2002). This inconsistency may be due to the fact that
single aspects of pointing behavior have not been
controlled for, such as the type of gesture and the
communicative setting. This control, though, is criti-
cal to isolating the epistemic dimension of the declara-
tive motive from other communicative motives such
as affect sharing (Camaioni et al., 2004; Henderson
et al., 2002). In the present study, we chose a stricter
criterion for the presence of a declarative motive (in
the sense of sharing information) (cf. Liszkowski,
Carpenter, Striano, & Tomasello, 2006).
Accordingly, to be considered as competent, the infant
had to aim at directing the experimenters attention to
the mobile that was behind her back, requiring some
sensitivity to the experimenters ignorance of this
object. Therefore, the present results suggest that
brain integration processes of the left hemisphere
may be specically relevant for the understanding of
the epistemic dimension of declarative pointing.
Intriguingly, previous neural investigations have
reported a strong relationship between Theory of
Mind reasoning and left-lateralized processes. For
instance, pretense reasoning, a precursor of a Theory
of Mind, is linked to left posterior and left frontal
activity in adults (Meinhardt et al., 2012; Sabbagh &
Taylor, 2000) as well as in 6- to 8-year-old children
(Khn-Popp et al., 2013). Pretense requires the ability
to understand that another person has the same knowl-
edge of reality as oneself (e.g., both see the rabbit
jump out of the cage, thus the cage is empty), but the
other consciously behaves counterfactually on it (e.g.,
he behaves as if the rabbit was still inside the cage and
pretends to feed it). That is, to make sense of his
behavior, the child has to affect the others epistemic
state, i.e. his knowledge. This form of knowledge
acquisition has been associated with left-sided neural
activity. Another study reported left hemispheric pro-
cesses to be related to responding to joint attention in
infants as young as 5 months (Grossman & Johnson,
2010). Accordingly, parts of the left prefrontal cortex
are selectively activated when the experimenter draws
the infants attention toward an object. Despite differ-
ences in development and task complexity (Aureli
et al., 2009; Camaioni et al., 2004), both declarative
and responsive communicative behaviors involve the
capacity to cope with differences in knowledge about
an object or a situation, thus the transmission of
information from the sender to the recipient. Given
the focus on the epistemic quality of joint attention in
the present study, we might conclude that left-
lateralized maturation processes are critical to the
development of informational-representational compe-
tencies in infancy.

In contrast to declarative gestures, imperative
pointing aims at inuencing another persons behavior
by requesting some object. Neural studies with adults
have related the requestive aspect of communication
to right hemispheric processes. For instance, Weylman
and colleagues revealed that people with right hemi-
sphere damage were specically impaired in reques-
tive comprehension (Weylman, Brownell, Roman, &
Gardner, 1989). Further, De Langavant et al. (2011)
showed that communicative pointing toward a
requested object is associated with activity in the
right hemisphere. The present study contributes to
these ndings by suggesting that even in infants
requestive behavior is subserved by right hemispheric
brain maturation processes. However, given the rather
weak correlations, further investigations are required
Downloaded by [LMU Muenchen] at 03:06 12 February 2016
to specify this relationship.
Besides, epistemic language acquisition requires
similar information-representational skills as declara-
tive pointing. That is, both involve the ability to
represent epistemic states and symbolic meaning to
transmit information, which, though, is not required
for imperative behavior. Intriguingly, the present nd-
ings reect on a behavioral level a specic relation as
declarative, but not imperative, pointing competence
predicts subsequent epistemic language skills and on a
neural level as both declarative pointing and language
development rely on brain maturation processes of the
left hemisphere. It seems likely that children who are
competent at declarative pointing, while they display
an understanding of others attentional states, also
show higher motivation to share information with
others. By eliciting social interactions more
frequently, children might receive more learning
opportunities fostering their epistemic language devel-
opment. Thus, declarative pointing competency might
provide a fruitful learning context.
Hence, it seems possible that childrens motiva-
tion to point for others and thus to inform someone
about an interesting event reects some kind of
underlying prosocial comprehension. Intriguingly,
early forms of prosocial understanding have also
been linked to neurophysiological processes of the
left hemisphere. For instance, there is ample evi-
dence that relatively higher left than right frontal
activity is related to social approach behavior (see
for review Harmon-Jones, Gable, Peterson, 2010);
more specically, prosocial action such as under-
standing someones distress and responding empha-
tically toward him is associated with relatively
stronger left frontal cortical activation in 2-year-
old infants (Paulus, Khn-Popp, et al., 2013). In
contrast to imperative point production, which
might be driven by the egocentric goal to obtain
EPISTEMIC COMMUNICATION IN INFANCY 57
an object from someone, declarative point produc-
tion can also be interpreted as some form of proso-
cial behavior given that the infant helps the other
person by directing his or her attention toward a
relevant and interesting object. Later in develop-
ment, this preverbal gesture might be replenished
by verbal utterances, which, importantly, serve the
same goal: inform someone about something that he
cannot see or know. Note that declarative pointing
was related to epistemic language, independently of
childrens IQ. Given the present ndings, this com-
petence seems to be subserved by left-lateralized
brain maturation processes.
Taken together, the present neural insight provides
further support for socio-cognitive accounts proclaim-
ing that communicative (declarative) pointing has a
key function in the development of social understand-
ing linked to the understanding of others epistemic
states, which again is also required for successful
language development (Bates et al., 1975; Camaioni
et al., 2004; Colonnesi et al., 2010). This ability is
suggested to be subserved by left hemispheric brain
maturation processes, which proved to be the promi-
nent independent predictor of references to others
epistemic states at 48 months.
To conclude, the present study aimed at providing
a systematic insight into the neural correlates of
imperative and declarative gestures. Results revealed
signicant differences between pointing behavior with
instrumental (imperative pointing) and declarative
motives on the behavioral as well as neural levels.
The network properties of shared information and
coupling as reected by EEG coherence seem to differ
for imperative versus declarative motives, too.
Whereas the maturation of the left hemisphere is
associated with epistemic declarative pointing,
imperative pointing seems to be related to right hemi-
spheric integration processes. These results provide
neural evidence that imperative and declarative point-
ing serve different socio-cognitive functions.
Furthermore, the present study enlarges previous nd-
ings by elucidating the relation between the epistemic
aspect of non-verbal (epistemic declarative pointing)
and verbal communication (epistemic language) both
relying on brain maturation processes of the left
hemisphere.
One goal of future social neuroscience should be to
specify the functional role of the right hemisphere
related to imperative pointing motives. For instance,
it could be claried whether the comprehension of
requestive pointing behavior, such as when the child
needs to respond to another persons behavioral
request, is similarly related to right hemispheric
maturation processes, or, since empirical evidence
 58 KHN-POPP ET AL.
suggests that it predicts early theory of mind (desire-
psychology) (cf. Kristen et al., 2011), it might share
neuronal correlates with declarative point production
than imperative production does.
Note that the variety of childrens epistemic state
talk seems to be more closely related to childrens
non-verbal IQ than to their verbal IQ. Further, we
controlled for verbosity to differentiate between the
verbal versus cognitive aspect of mental state talk.
However, childrens epistemic state talk is still to be
considered as a linguistic measure of Theory of Mind
and thus could be related to EEG left-coherence mea-
sures because of a strong linguistic component. Note,
though, that while left-coherence measure were more
important, right-coherence measures were also related
to the variety of childrens epistemic talk. Thus, future
Downloaded by [LMU Muenchen] at 03:06 12 February 2016
research should include additional measures, possibly
even completely non-verbal measures of mental state
comprehension, assessing a more socio-cognitive ver-
sus linguistic component of Theory of Mind.
Moreover, further neuroscientic research is
needed to explore whether and how these distinct
neural maturation processes become integrated in the
course of socio-cognitive development to provide a
more coherent insight into the neural underpinnings of
early social communicative abilities.
Original manuscript received 12 July 2014
Revised manuscript accepted 24 February 2015
First published online 1 April 2015
REFERENCES
Aureli, T., Perucchini, P., & Genco, M. (2009). Childrens
understanding of communicative intentions in the middle
of the second year of life. Cognitive Development, 24,
112. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2008.07.003
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator
mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considera-
tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,
11731182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Bates, E., Camaioni, L., & Volterra, V. (1975). The acquisi-
tion of performatives prior to speech. Merril-Palmer
Quarterly, 21, 205226. Retrieved from http://www.
jstor.org/stable/23084619
Behne, T., Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., & Tomasello, M.
(2012). Twelve-month-olds comprehension and production
of pointing. British Journal of Developmental Psychology,
30, 359375. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02043.x
Bell, M. A. (2012). A psychobiological perspective on
working memory performance at 8 months of age.
Child Development, 83, 251265. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-8624.2011.01684.x
Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C. S., & Haynes, O. M. (2004).
Specic and general language performance across early
childhood: Stability and gender considerations. First
Language, 24(3), 267304. doi:10.1177/
0142723704045681
Bretherton, I., & Beeghly, M. (1982). Talking about internal
states: The acquisition of an explicit theory of mind.
Developmental Psychology, 18, 906921. doi:10.1037/
0012-1649.18.6.906
Brooks, R., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Infant gaze following
and pointing predict accelerated vocabulary growth
through two years of age: A longitudinal, growth curve
modelling study. Journals of Child Language, 35,
207220. doi:10.1017/S030500090700829X
Camaioni, L. (1993). The development of intentional com-
munication: A re-analysis. In J. Nadel & L. Camaioni
(Eds.), New perceptions in early communicational devel-
opment. London: Routledge.
Camaioni, L., Perucchini, P., Bellagamba, F., & Colonnesi,
C. (2004). The role of declarative pointing in developing
a theory of mind. Infancy, 5, 291308. doi:10.1207/
s15327078in0503_3
Camaioni, L., Perucchini, P., Muratori, F., Parrini, B., &
Cesari, A. (2003). The communicative use of pointing
in autism: Developmental prole and factors related to
change. European Psychiatry, 18, 612. doi:10.1016/
S0924-9338(02)00013-5
Charman, T., Baron-Cohen, S., Swettenham, J., Baird, G.,
Cox, A., & Drew, A. (2000). Testing joint attention,
imitation, and play as infancy precursors to language
and theory of mind. Cognitive Development, 15,
481498. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(01)00037-5
Chiarella, S. S., Kristen, S., Poulin-Dubois, D., & Sodian, B.
(2013). Concurrent relations between perspective-taking
skills, desire understanding, and internal-state vocabu-
lary. Journal of Cognition and Development, 14(3),
480498.
Cochet, H., & Vauclair, J. (2010). Pointing gestures pro-
duced by toddlers from 15 to 30 months: Different
functions, hand shapes and laterality patterns. Infant
Behavior and Development, 33, 431441. doi:10.1016/
j.infbeh.2010.04.009
Colonnesi, C., Stams, G. J. J. M., Koster, I., & Noom, M. J.
(2010). The relation between pointing and language
development: A meta-analysis. Developmental Review,
30, 352366. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2010.10.001
Cuevas, K., Bell, M. A., Marcovitch, S., & Calkins, S. D.
(2012). Electroencephalogram and heart rate measures of
working memory at 5 and 10 months of age.
Developmental Psychology, 48, 907917. doi:10.1037/
a0026448
De Haan, M. (2007). Infant EEG and event-related poten-
tials. New York, NY: Wiley.
De Langavant, L. C., Remy, P., Trinkler, I., McIntyre, J.,
Dupoux, E., Berthoz, A., & Bachoud-Lvi, A.-C. (2011).
Behavioral and neural correlates of communication via
pointing. PLoS One, 6, e17719. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0017719
Franco, F., & Butterworth, G. (1996). Pointing and social
awareness: Declaring and requesting in the second year.
Journal of Child Language, 23, 307336. doi:10.1017/
S0305000900008813
Gredebck, G., Melinder, A., & Daum, M. (2010). The
development and neural basis of pointing comprehen-
sion. Social Neuroscience, 5, 441450. doi:10.1080/
17470910903523327

Grossman, T., & Johnson, M. H. (2010). Selective prefrontal
cortex responses to joint attention in early infancy.
Biology Letters, 6, 540543. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.1069
Harmon-Jones, E., Gable, P. A., & Peterson, C. K. (2010).
The role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in emo-
tion-related phenomena: A review and update. Biological
Psychology, 84, 451462. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.
2009.08.010
Henderson, L. M., Yoder, P. J., Yale, M. E., & McDufe, A.
(2002). Getting the point: Electrophysiological correlates
of protodeclarative pointing. International Journal of
Developmental Neuroscience, 20, 449458.
doi:10.1016/S0736-5748(02)00038-2
Hoehl, S., Palumbo, L., Heinisch, C., & Striano, T. (2008).
Infants attention is biased by emotional expressions and
eye gaze direction. Neuroreport, 19, 579582.
doi:10.1097/WNR.0b013e3282f97897
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, concep-
tual, and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and
Downloaded by [LMU Muenchen] at 03:06 12 February 2016
moderators: Examples from the child-clinical and pedia-
tric psychology literatures. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 65, 599610. doi:10.1037/0022-
006X.65.4.599
Kochanska, G. (2002). Committed compliance, moral self,
and internalization: A mediational model. Developmental
Psychology, 38, 339351. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.
38.3.339
Kristen, S., Sodian, B., Licata, M., Thoermer, C., & Poulin
Dubois, D. (2012). The development of internal state
language during the third year of life: A longitudinal
parent report study. Infant and Child Development, 21
(6), 634645. doi:10.1002/icd.1767
Kristen, S., Sodian, B., Thoermer, C., & Perst, H. (2011).
Infants joint attention skills predict toddlers emerging
mental state language. Developmental Psychology, 47,
12071219. doi:10.1037/a0024808
Khn-Popp, N., Sodian, B., Sommer, M., Dhnel, K., &
Meinhardt, J. (2013). Same or different? ERP correlates of
pretense and false belief reasoning in children.
Neuroscience, 248, 488498. doi:10.1016/j.
neuroscience.2013.06.017
Licata, M., Paulus, M., Thoermer, C., Kristen, S.,
Woodward, A., & Sodian, B. (2014). Mother-infant inter-
action quality and infants ability to encode actions as
goal-directed. Social Development, 23, 340356.
Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., Striano, T., & Tomasello, M.
(2006). 12- and 18-month-olds point to provide informa-
tion for others. Journal of Cognition and Development,
7, 173187. doi:10.1207/s15327647jcd0702_2
Liu, D., Meltzoff, A. N., & Wellman, H. M. (2009). Neural
correlates of belief- and desire-reasoning. Child
Development, 80, 11631171. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.
2009.01323.x
Liu, D., Sabbagh, M. A., Gehring, W. J., & Wellman, H. M.
(2009). Neural correlates of childrens theory of mind
development. Child Development, 80, 318326.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01262.x
Meinhardt, J., Khn-Popp, N., Sommer, M., & Sodian, B.
(2012). Distinct neural correlates underlying pretense and
false belief reasoning: Evidence from ERPs. Neuroimage,
63, 623631. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.07.019
Meinhardt, J., Sodian, B., Thoermer, C., Dhnel, K., &
Sommer, M. (2011). True- and false belief reasoning in
children and adults: An event-related potential study of
EPISTEMIC COMMUNICATION IN INFANCY 59
theory of mind. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience,
1, 6776. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2010.08.001
Moore, C., & DEntremont, B. (2001). Developmental
changes in pointing as a function of attentional focus.
Journal of Cognition and Development, 2, 109129.
doi:10.1207/S15327647JCD0202_1
Mundy, P., Card, J., & Fox, N. A. (2000). EEG correlates of the
development of infant joint attention skills. Developmental
Psychobiology, 36, 325338. doi:10.1002/(SICI)
1098-2302(200005)36:4<325::AID-DEV7>3.0.CO;2-F
Mundy, P., Fox, N. A., & Card, J. (2003). EEG coherence,
joint attention and language development in the second
year. Developmental Science, 6, 4854. doi:10.1111/
1467-7687.00253
Mundy, P., Sigman, M., & Kasari, C. (1994). Joint attention,
developmental level, and symptom presentation in aut-
ism. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 389402.
doi:10.1017/S0954579400006003
Nunez, P. (1981). Electrical elds of the brain. New York, NY:
Oxford.
Olineck, K. M., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2007). Imitation of
intentional actions and internal state language in infancy
predict preschool theory of mind skills. European
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4, 1430.
doi:10.1080/17405620601046931
Paulus, M., Hunnius, S., & Bekkering, H. (2013).
Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying social learning
in infancy: Infants neural processing of the effects of
others actions. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 8, 774779. doi:10.1093/scan/nss065
Paulus, M., Khn-Popp, N., Licata, M., Sodian, B., &
Meinhardt, J. (2013). Neural correlates of prosocial behavior
in infancy: Different neurophysiological mechanisms sup-
port the emergence of helping and comforting. Neuroimage,
66, 522530. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.10.041
Petermann, F. (2009). Wechsler Preschool and Primary
Scale of Intelligence - Third Edition (WPPSI-III).
Deutsche Version. Frankfurt/M.: Pearson Assessment.
Sabbagh, M. A., & Taylor, M. (2000). Neural correlates of
theory-of-mind reasoning: An event-related potential
study. Psychological Science, 11, 4650. doi:10.1111/
1467-9280.00213
Saby, J. N., & Marshall, P. J. (2012). The utility of EEG band
power analysis in the study of infancy and early childhood.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 37, 253273.
doi:10.1080/87565641.2011.614663
Striano, T., Reid, V. M., & Hoehl, S. (2006). Neural mechanisms
of joint attention in infancy. European Journal of
Neuroscience, 23, 28192823. doi:10.1111/j.1460-
9568.2006.04822.x
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., & Liszkowski, U. (2007). A
new look at infant pointing. Child Development, 78,
705722. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01025.x
Vaughan Van Hecke, A., Mundy, P., Acra, C. F., Block, J.,
Delgado, C., Parlade, M., & Pomares, Y. B. (2007).
Infant joint attention, temperament, and social compe-
tence in preschool children. Child Development, 78,
5369. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00985.x
Weylman, S. T., Brownell, H. H., Roman, M., & Gardner,
H. (1989). Appreciation of indirect requests by left- and
right-brain-damaged patients: The effects of verbal con-
text and conventionality of wording. Brain and
Language, 36, 580591. doi:10.1016/0093-934X(89)
90087-4