ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

Thanks for putting up the reply from Dr Peter Vishton about the motorized baby chair. His explanation allayed many of my fears as to how this chair might be used. I am glad he is a researcher and not just someone wanting to make money out of children.

I have to say when I first saw this article I had my reservations as well, but as with most things, moderation, just like a swing, walker,or a jumper with any non mobile child. After I got over that little bit I was ecstatic. I began to think of all of the possibilities! How much of the brain we are waking up for children. I am very excited, to say the least, to see where this will go. I have worked with infants and toddler with disabilities for 13 years now and I hope that we can start as early as that for some of these children with physical disabilities that prevent them from getting the movement they so desperately need. So thank you for the hard work that has gone into making this incredible machine and I look forward to seeing how far this will go!

What's most concerning to me about this device is not how it affects physical development but its effect on emotional , and to some extent -social, development. I agree with Dr. Vishton regarding infants at this age - here at our center we have a more simple phrase. We call it "stuck in my body blues." They are certainly thinking beyond their body's physical capacities. That being said, there are all kinds of concepts children can describe, or even demonstrate, at ages younger than previously understood. That being said - just because my four year old can describe the mechanics of driving a car and devices could be invented that would allow him to do it, would I really want him driving at that age. His emotional maturity at 16 is dubious enough!

I understand what the doctor says but I do not agree with some his line of thinking. Yes research has shown that an infant's movements are directly related to his cognitive development however in this contraption what movement is the infant making? He is strapped in the chair and moving his eyes to get him to go the direction he wants. The chair is moving the infant. I also agree that if it is limited to 20 minutes a day that it would not be detrimental to an infant's development but you know there will be parents out there who will love the freedom this gives them or the novelty of this device and will not leave it to 20 minutes. Also the doctor says this will not delay a child's transition to crawling. Again if it is limited to 20 minutes or less then perhaps not but I do believe there will be those children who will be exposed to it for longer periods and thus will refuse to move without the help of their "toy". I guess I am still holding to the belief that we should leave children to be children, developing at hier own pace, and stop trying to interfer with that.

I would NEVER consider the motorized baby car a "toy". If so, it should be at the top of the list of worst toys EVER invented. Many years ago, I read an early childhood education text that said something like this: "Children love learning and our job is to avoid putting unnecessary obstacles in their way." Typically developing babies and children come with bodies and minds that are geared to move and learn and think. Too many toys and programs and standards, etc., that we impose on young children, are harmful to their healthy development.

This is absurd! Development cannot be sped up! Dr. Arnold Gesell found years ago in a famous study of twins; where one twin was allowed to use a walker and the other twin was not; that the child who did not use the walker, walked first! Important developmental milestones are being met while the child is in the crawling stage. To deny the child of that development is child abuse!

I found ths browsing my email. I would like this fund to be provided to az tesidents who provide care for children of low income families in a home settimg. State fees are getting out rages. And costing the provider they cant afford to improve repairs on their homes
They struggle to make a profit even to invest and put back into their early childhood progms. Please keep advocating for the kids who are our future and who are teaching them for our next generations! Thanks

If a parent has it, he/she will use it, a bit more each time as it frees up precious time, like so many other devices that free up parent's time. 1/2 of all 3 year olds have electronic devices, preferring them to actual play items like blocks, legos, dolls, dress up. Parents are more engrossed in their phone apps than their children. So what are we trying to accomplish here? Seems like we should be going in the other direction. Watch your child grow because it's fun, most of the time.

Let a child be a child, and develop naturally as the Lord has designed us to be.

If you teach about young children this can really be used to get your students talking and engaged. I plan to show the video and discuss. Then allow them to read the inventor's comments and discuss again. I am really looking foward to hearing what my students have to say about this. Thank you for providing this great classroom activity.

Again, as a society why are we always trying to push our children to accomplish something when developmentally they are not ready for it. As for using it to encourage a child who is slow to crawl or get around, what makes you think that, that child has the brain power to figure out "that this is what it will be like when I can get around". Also we all know that this toy will be abused, and not limited to the recomened 20 minutes that you suggest . Please figure out how to make a buck another way!

Thank you for the explanation. I have a question with the set up of the research: why not use a human connection to move the infants around to seek different perspectives before they can crawl to enhance development? A warm and loving adult or even another child can offer multiple perspectives. It would even allow for a more rich and complex experience as the child can be placed in varying environments with different textures, sensory and perceptual experiences. The chair can't offer complexity as does movement in daily activity with a caregiver alongside the infant. It only offers visual feedback as it moves. Before a child can crawl, he can guide a caregiver to his interest just from an intent focusing with his eyes which are the compass for activity. I think if you begin to consider your question from the perspective of human interaction, you can offer parents and caregivers more insight into how to relate and play with children while allowing them to understand the importance of presenting the child with varying perceptual experiences to enhance cognitive development. You also work attachment alongside cognition.

Research is wonderful and I applaud the professor for researching with his students. However, the chair has nothing to do with crawling or figuring out how to crawl. Putting things on the floor that a child is interested in would do more for crawling than this motorized chair. I tire of seeing electronic things to engage babies. Babies learn by doing! They learn by experiencing things that will get them on the road to development, which this chair will not.

Could this be used for paraplegics who are not able to otherwise get around? This might be very useful for some handicapped people.

"if you give a child the ability to perform some action earlier than they otherwise could, then they may seem to improve"

Improvement toward what end? What does a 6-month-old need to "improve"?

Sorry; not buying it. And even if I did think his argument was valid, do we really imagine parents only allowing their baby to spend 20 minutes a day in such a devise? When have we ever been about moderation in this country?

I am concerned about the "push down" for mental development in our society. The purpose behind this electronic chair for infants seems to continue the "push down" mentality.

In spite of the designers attempt to justify, this device is quite simply dangerous and damaging to the natural development of children's bodies and brains. Our culture seems to have decided doing things better, faster, sooner is better. It is not.

Many prior comments reported that this might be ok for disabled children. Absolutely not. Even more than typically abled children, they need to move as best they can, use and develop what strength they can, and build their brains and bodies just like all other babies and toddlers!

Thanks to Exchange Every Day for this wonderful open discussion. Good to know the inventor's altruistic and scientific intentions. I still feel that as with other inventions meant to improve our children's lives, that this will not be used/marketed as intended and that in the broader community, it will be misused and truly be a detriment to optimal child development in typically developing children. DVD players in cars, the array of demobilizing baby seats/chairs, hand held screens, Baby Einstein, etc.

Well, sir, I certainly hope you haven't invented this contraption as a way to earn money because i wouldn't buy it for any of my future grandchildren. Babies are fine the way they are. God made them with everything they need to live. They are not mini-adults. They grow in developmental stages through 18. When society finally realizes this our children will then have a real chance in life.

With all respect Dr. Vishton, you are assuming the child will develop the some degree of visual perceptual ability of moving through space before its time, and this would be good for neurogenesis. However; the progression of sensory-motor-perceptual development has a defined order and was detailed by Jean Piaget and the movements and terms defined by Rudolf Laban. Vestibular development happens in utero and is the stimulator for the first 15-18 months of life. The proprioceptive connections of body to brain occur from self movement. (Arching a back; raising the head; baby planks on the elbows; stabilizing on hands and knees; crawling; climbing stairs; walking; running; falling down and getting up and thus understanding transfer of weight and balancing) The lack of orderly and sustained use of the sensory-motor-perceptual hierarchy of Piaget leading to higher order thinking skills is what contributes to learning differences and various rates of learning and application of skills from lifetime experiences.
The device you have is a godsend to children/parents needing an affordance for a child to be mobile. You describe 20 minute intervals as the limit. Yes, some vestibular sensation might be stimulated as the child discovers how to turn in a non-stop circle (spinning) or visually discover some peripheral field of vision moving in the chair. But, there is not any proprioceptive integration of sensations form the nerves and tendons of the body with the vestibular visual field. People are a body to mind connection system. We are descendants of hunters and gathers with a brain designed to survive in an environment of unpredictable situations. If you watch the movie Wally-E, the electric chairs are there with people unable to walk and they display many of the health issues we currently see in the sedentary society. Think about it-the body is attempting to integrate neural pathways of vestibular and proprioceptive nerve networks. Strapped in a chair designed for a child with special needs, who has physical limitations probably will do little in regards to "stimulating" a faster rate to visually perceive information from the environment. The body develops at the rate it was meant to progress through natural experiences. Your hypothesis makes about as much sense as a jaguar or cheetah taking her cubs to an amusement park and putting them in a cage on a roller coaster to develop hunting and survival skills.

I would not buy or use this chair.