Thanks for the links. If the first link is what they're referring too, then it's a pretty dumb headline. That article is a non-peer reviewed perspective on som

Thanks for the links. If the first link is what they're referring too, then it's a pretty dumb headline. That article is a non-peer reviewed perspective on some recent research. To provide background they make a throw away comment about some work done in 2007 [1] and say it's kind of similar to what you see in 4 year old children (in another study). The original researchers don't seem to have made that statement, or attempted to support it. So... par for the course for New Scientist I guess... [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17314979?access_num=17314979&link_type=MED&dopt=Abstract https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17314979?access_num=1731...