The neural and physiological substrates of real-world attention change across development.

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:
The paper investigates the physiological and neural processes that relate to infants' attention allocation in a naturalistic setting. Contrary to experimental paradigms that are usually employed in developmental research, this study investigates attention processes while letting the infants be free to play with three toys in the vicinity of their caregiver, which is closer to a common, everyday life context. The paper focuses on infants at 5 and 10 months of age and finds differences in what predicts attention allocation. At 5 months, attention episodes are shorter and their duration is predicted by autonomic arousal. At 10 months, attention episodes are longer, and their duration can be predicted by theta power. Moreover, theta power predicted the proportion of looking at the toys, as well as a decrease in arousal (heart rate). Overall, the authors conclude that attentional systems change across development, becoming more driven by cortical processes.

Strengths:
I enjoyed reading the paper, I am impressed with the level of detail of the analyses, and I am strongly in favour of the overall approach, which tries to move beyond in-lab settings. The collection of multiple sources of data (EEG, heart rate, looking behaviour) at two different ages (5 and 10 months) is a key strength of this paper. The original analyses, which build onto robust EEG preprocessing, are an additional feat that improves the overall value of the paper. The careful consideration of how theta power might change before, during, and in the prediction of attention episodes is especially remarkable. However, I have a few major concerns that I would like the authors to address, especially on the methodological side.

Points of improvement
1. Noise
The first concern is the level of noise across age groups, periods of attention allocation, and metrics. Starting with EEG, I appreciate the analysis of noise reported in supplementary materials. The analysis focuses on a broad level (average noise in 5-month-olds vs 10-month-olds) but variations might be more fine-grained (for example, noise in 5mos might be due to fussiness and crying, while at 10 months it might be due to increased movements). More importantly, noise might even be the same across age groups, but correlated to other aspects of their behaviour (head or eye movements) that are directly related to the measures of interest. Is it possible that noise might co-vary with some of the behaviours of interest, thus leading to either spurious effects or false negatives? One way to address this issue would be for example to check if noise in the signal can predict attention episodes. If this is the case, noise should be added as a covariate in many of the analyses of this paper.
Moving onto the video coding, I see that inter-rater reliability was not very high. Is this due to the fine-grained nature of the coding (20ms)? Is it driven by differences in expertise among the two coders? Or because coding this fine-grained behaviour from video data is simply too difficult? The main dependent variable (looking duration) is extracted from the video coding, and I think the authors should be confident they are maximising measurement accuracy.

2. Cross-correlation analyses
I would like to raise two issues here. The first is the potential problem of using auto-correlated variables as input for cross-correlations. I am not sure whether theta power was significantly autocorrelated. If it is, could it explain the cross-correlation result? The fact that the cross-correlation plots in Figure 6 peak at zero, and are significant (but lower) around zero, makes me think that it could be a consequence of periods around zero being autocorrelated. Relatedly: how does the fact that the significant lag includes zero, and a bit before, affect the interpretation of this effect?

A second issue with the cross-correlation analyses is the coding of the looking behaviour. If I understand correctly, if an infant looked for a full second at the same object, they would get a maximum score (e.g., 1) while if they looked at 500ms at the object and 500ms away from the object, they would receive a score of e.g., 0.5. However, if they looked at one object for 500ms and another object for 500ms, they would receive a maximum score (e.g., 1). The reason seems unclear to me because these are different attention episodes, but they would be treated as one. In addition, the authors also show that within an attentional episode theta power changes (for 10mos). What is the reason behind this scoring system? Wouldn't it be better to adjust by the number of attention switches, e.g., with the formula: looking-time/(1+N_switches), so that if infants looked for a full second, but made 1 switch from one object to the other, the score would be .5, thus reflecting that attention was terminated within that episode?

3. Clearer definitions of variables, constructs, and visualisations
The second issue is the overall clarity and systematicity of the paper. The concept of attention appears with many different names. Only in the abstract, it is described as attention control, attentional behaviours, attentiveness, attention durations, attention shifts and attention episode. More names are used elsewhere in the paper. Although some of them are indeed meant to describe different aspects, others are overlapping. As a consequence, the main results also become more difficult to grasp. For example, it is stated that autonomic arousal predicts attention, but it's harder to understand what specific aspect (duration of looking, disengagement, etc.) it is predictive of. Relatedly, the cognitive process under investigation (e.g., attention) and its operationalization (e.g., duration of consecutive looking toward a toy) are used interchangeably. I would want to see more demarcation between different concepts and between concepts and measurements.

General Remarks
In general, the authors achieved their aim in that they successfully showed the relationship between looking behaviour (as a proxy of attention), autonomic arousal, and electrophysiology. Two aspects are especially interesting. First, the fact that at 5 months, autonomic arousal predicts the duration of subsequent attention episodes, but at 10 months this effect is not present. Conversely, at 10 months, theta power predicts the duration of looking episodes, but this effect is not present in 5-month-old infants. This pattern of results suggests that younger infants have less control over their attention, which mostly depends on their current state of arousal, but older infants have gained cortical control of their attention, which in turn impacts their looking behaviour and arousal.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:
This manuscript explores infants' attention patterns in real-world settings and their relationship with autonomic arousal and EEG oscillations in the theta frequency band. The study included 5- and 10-month-old infants during free play. The results showed that the 5-month-old group exhibited a decline in HR forward-predicted attentional behaviors, while the 10-month-old group exhibited increased theta power following shifts in gaze, indicating the start of a new attention episode. Additionally, this increase in theta power predicted the duration of infants' looking behavior.

Strengths:
The study's strengths lie in its utilization of advanced protocols and cutting-edge techniques to assess infants' neural activity and autonomic arousal associated with their attention patterns, as well as the extensive data coding and processing. Overall, the findings have important theoretical implications for the development of infant attention.

Weaknesses:
Certain methodological procedures require further clarification, e.g., details on EEG data processing. Additionally, it would be beneficial to eliminate possible confounding factors and consider alternative interpretations, e,g., whether the differences observed between the two age groups were partly due to varying levels of general arousal and engagement during the free play.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Summary:
Much of the literature on attention has focused on static, non-contingent stimuli that can be easily controlled and replicated--a mismatch with the actual day-to-day deployment of attention. The same limitation is evident in the developmental literature, which is further hampered by infants' limited behavioral repertoires and the general difficulty in collecting robust and reliable data in the first year of life. The current study engages young infants as they play with age-appropriate toys, capturing visual attention, cardiac measures of arousal, and EEG-based metrics of cognitive processing. The authors find that the temporal relations between measures are different at age 5 months vs. age 10 months. In particular, at 5 months of age, cardiac arousal appears to precede attention, while at 10 months of age attention processes lead to shifts in neural markers of engagement, as captured in theta activity.

Strengths:
The study brings to the forefront sophisticated analytical and methodological techniques to bring greater validity to the work typically done in the research lab. By using measures in the moment, they can more closely link biological measures to actual behaviors and cognitive stages. Often, we are forced to capture these measures in separate contexts and then infer in-the-moment relations. The data and techniques provide insights for future research work.

Weaknesses:

The sample is relatively modest, although this is somewhat balanced by the sheer number of data points generated by the moment-to-moment analyses. In addition, the study is cross-sectional, so the data cannot capture true change over time. Larger samples, followed over time, will provide a stronger test for the robustness and reliability of the preliminary data noted here. Finally, while the method certainly provides for a more active and interactive infant in testing, we are a few steps removed from the complexity of daily life and social interactions.