An historical perspective on these challenges is presented, and some potential solutions are proposed. Planning for a presidential address poses a significant dilemma—should the focus be on (1) your personal scientific history, (2) key controversies in the field, CH5424802 cell line (3) a tribute to highly talented graduate students and postdocs, (4) a lifelong goal of proposing

a grand theory, or (5) giving up in desperation and simply delivering your regular colloquium? In the end, this address is a little bit of “all of the above”. I begin with some history on the general topic of learning theory and development (Stevenson, 1970), and then pose a series of questions—why is learning a hard problem, what enables learning to be tractable given these problems, and are the mechanisms of learning across development continuous, incremental, and progressive? Along the way, I highlight a number of methodological challenges that face infancy researchers, and I come Midostaurin research buy to some tentative conclusions about how the field might move forward to address the key questions that will surely continue to vex the next generation of researchers. One of the key events in my personal scientific history was the tremendous appreciation for the history of psychology engendered by one of my professors—Robert

Wozniak—at the University of Minnesota’s Institute of Child Development. In several courses and countless conversations, Rob highlighted

the importance of consulting the history of any discipline before stumbling, unannounced, into a subfield where others before you have given considerable thought (and often conducted key experiments) to address a particular question. Fortunately for me, my first laboratory experience as an undergraduate at Michigan State University was with Hiram Fitzgerald, whose own research on infant learning was steeped in the traditions of classical conditioning (Fitzgerald & Brackbill, 1976) that were in turn engendered in him by his mentor Yvonne Brackbill and the major figures in the field before her. The study of learning in infants had a major resurgence of interest in the 1960s not only in the tradition much of classical conditioning, but also in the operant conditioning paradigms adapted to study infants by Lipsitt (1964) and Papousek (1959). Two decades later, these same principles were used to condition head-turning behavior (Kuhl, 1985). The beauty of these paradigms was their emphasis on unambiguous events: a single context, clear instances of conditioned and unconditioned stimuli, well-defined responses, and the use of primary reinforcers. Unfortunately, these early examples of classical and operant paradigms exposed a number of problems for any realistic theory of learning in infants.