Limits...
Mothers say "baby" and their newborns do not choose to listen: a behavioral preference study to compare with ERP results.

Moon C, Zernzach RC, Kuhl PK - Front Hum Neurosci (2015)

Bottom Line: Previously published results from neonatal brain evoked response potential (ERP) experiments revealed different brain responses to the single word "baby" depending on whether it was recorded by the mother or an unfamiliar female.These results are consistent with behavioral preference studies in which infants altered pacifier sucking to contingently activate recordings of the maternal vs. an unfamiliar female voice, but the speech samples were much longer and information-rich than in the ERP studies.Neonates can apparently recognize the maternal voice in brief recorded sample (previous ERP results) but they are not sufficiently motivated by it to alter sucking behavior.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Pacific Lutheran University Tacoma, WA, USA.

ABSTRACT
Previously published results from neonatal brain evoked response potential (ERP) experiments revealed different brain responses to the single word "baby" depending on whether it was recorded by the mother or an unfamiliar female. These results are consistent with behavioral preference studies in which infants altered pacifier sucking to contingently activate recordings of the maternal vs. an unfamiliar female voice, but the speech samples were much longer and information-rich than in the ERP studies. Both types of neonatal voice recognition studies imply postnatal retention of prenatal learning. The preference studies require infant motor and motivation systems to mount a response in addition to voice recognition. The current contingent sucking preference study was designed to test neonatal motivation to alter behavior when the reward is the single word "baby" recorded by the mother or an unfamiliar speaker. Results showed an absent or weak contingent sucking response to the brief maternal voice sample, and they demonstrate the complementary value of electrophysiological and behavioral studies for very early development. Neonates can apparently recognize the maternal voice in brief recorded sample (previous ERP results) but they are not sufficiently motivated by it to alter sucking behavior.

No MeSH data available.


Mean sucks per minute to the maternal vs. the stranger female voice. Voice stimuli were contingent on sucking, and the maternal and stranger voices alternated in five one-minute intervals of a 10 min presentation period.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4373280&req=5

Figure 1: Mean sucks per minute to the maternal vs. the stranger female voice. Voice stimuli were contingent on sucking, and the maternal and stranger voices alternated in five one-minute intervals of a 10 min presentation period.

Mentions: Data from the MS group were used to test the hypothesis that sucks during minutes of opportunity to hear mother’s voice would exceed those of stranger voice minutes. For the MS group (N = 36) a mixed 2 (Voice) × 2 (Order of voice presentation) × 5 (Minutes) ANOVA was conducted. There were no statistically significant main effects of the within-subjects variable Voice (Mother Voice sucks per minute: Mean = 28.7, SD = 16.3, Stranger Voice Mean = 27.0, SD = 14.4 or the between-subjects variable of Order. There was no main effect of Minutes nor were there any significant interaction effects. See Figure 1; Table 1.


Mothers say "baby" and their newborns do not choose to listen: a behavioral preference study to compare with ERP results.

Moon C, Zernzach RC, Kuhl PK - Front Hum Neurosci (2015)

Mean sucks per minute to the maternal vs. the stranger female voice. Voice stimuli were contingent on sucking, and the maternal and stranger voices alternated in five one-minute intervals of a 10 min presentation period.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4373280&req=5

Figure 1: Mean sucks per minute to the maternal vs. the stranger female voice. Voice stimuli were contingent on sucking, and the maternal and stranger voices alternated in five one-minute intervals of a 10 min presentation period.
Mentions: Data from the MS group were used to test the hypothesis that sucks during minutes of opportunity to hear mother’s voice would exceed those of stranger voice minutes. For the MS group (N = 36) a mixed 2 (Voice) × 2 (Order of voice presentation) × 5 (Minutes) ANOVA was conducted. There were no statistically significant main effects of the within-subjects variable Voice (Mother Voice sucks per minute: Mean = 28.7, SD = 16.3, Stranger Voice Mean = 27.0, SD = 14.4 or the between-subjects variable of Order. There was no main effect of Minutes nor were there any significant interaction effects. See Figure 1; Table 1.

Bottom Line: Previously published results from neonatal brain evoked response potential (ERP) experiments revealed different brain responses to the single word "baby" depending on whether it was recorded by the mother or an unfamiliar female.These results are consistent with behavioral preference studies in which infants altered pacifier sucking to contingently activate recordings of the maternal vs. an unfamiliar female voice, but the speech samples were much longer and information-rich than in the ERP studies.Neonates can apparently recognize the maternal voice in brief recorded sample (previous ERP results) but they are not sufficiently motivated by it to alter sucking behavior.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, Pacific Lutheran University Tacoma, WA, USA.

ABSTRACT
Previously published results from neonatal brain evoked response potential (ERP) experiments revealed different brain responses to the single word "baby" depending on whether it was recorded by the mother or an unfamiliar female. These results are consistent with behavioral preference studies in which infants altered pacifier sucking to contingently activate recordings of the maternal vs. an unfamiliar female voice, but the speech samples were much longer and information-rich than in the ERP studies. Both types of neonatal voice recognition studies imply postnatal retention of prenatal learning. The preference studies require infant motor and motivation systems to mount a response in addition to voice recognition. The current contingent sucking preference study was designed to test neonatal motivation to alter behavior when the reward is the single word "baby" recorded by the mother or an unfamiliar speaker. Results showed an absent or weak contingent sucking response to the brief maternal voice sample, and they demonstrate the complementary value of electrophysiological and behavioral studies for very early development. Neonates can apparently recognize the maternal voice in brief recorded sample (previous ERP results) but they are not sufficiently motivated by it to alter sucking behavior.

No MeSH data available.