Innate sensitivity to characteristics of social stimuli, such as faces and biological motion, may facilitate learning about caregivers and other conspecifics. To date, most research has focused on early preferences for faces. Within two hours of birth newborns look preferentially towards three blobs arranged as facial features (e.g., Mondloch et al., 1999); likewise, visually inexperienced chicks preferentially approach the head and neck region of a hen (Johnson & Horn, 1988). These early preferences are not tuned to species-specific details of faces but serve two important functions: they facilitate rapid recognition of conspecifics (i.e., potential care-givers) and, at least in humans, allow for the later development of expert face processing (Le Grand et al., 2001). The present symposium will examine whether similar developmental principles apply to biological motion. The first two speakers will present evidence that both dark-reared chicks (Regolin) and human newborns (Simion) demonstrate a preference for biological motion over other patterns of motion. Like face perception, this preference is not species-specific; newborns look preferentially towards walking hens and chicks show a preference for walking cats. The ability of both chicks and human newborns to detect biological motion is impaired when stimuli are inverted, indicating that perception of biological motion is constrained by core knowledge of gravity. Despite similar patterns of sensitivity to faces and biological motion in early development, the two systems are differentially affected by early visual deprivation. The third presentation (Maurer) will draw on studies of children treated for bilateral congenital cataract to show that, unlike most visual functions, sensitivity to biological motion develops normally in the absence of early visual experience. The discussant (Troje), who is well known for his extensive studies of adults’ sensitivity to biological motion, will consider the implications of these findings for understanding social development and the origins of a “life detector”