Neonates’ responses to repeated exposure to a still face

Emese Nagy (Lead / Corresponding author), Karen Pilling, Rachel Watt, Attila Pal, Hajnalka Orvos

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)
174 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Aim: The main aims of the study were to examine whether human neonates’ responses to communication disturbance modelled by the still-face paradigm were stable and whether their responses were affected by their previous experience with the still-face paradigm.

Methods: The still face procedure, as a laboratory model of interpersonal stress, was administered repeatedly, twice, to 84 neonates (0 to 4 day olds), with a delay of an average of 1.25 day.

Results: Frame-by-frame analysis of the frequency and duration of gaze, distressed face, crying, sleeping and sucking behaviours showed that the procedure was stressful to them both times, that is, the still face effect was stable after repeated administration and newborns consistently responded to such nonverbal violation of communication. They averted their gaze, showed distress and cried more during the still-face phase in both the first and the second administration. They also showed a carry-over effect in that they continued to avert their gaze and displayed increased distress and crying in the first reunion period, but their gaze behaviour changed with experience, in the second administration. While in the first administration the babies continued averting their gaze even after the stressful still-face phase was over, this carry-over effect disappeared in the second administration, and the babies significantly increased their gaze following the still-face phase.

Conclusion: After excluding explanations of fatigue, habituation and random effects, a self-other regulatory model is discussed as a possible explanation for this pattern.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0181688
Pages (from-to)1-21
Number of pages21
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume12
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Aug 2017

Fingerprint

neonates
Crying
infants
distress
Sucking Behavior
nonverbal communication
Reunion
Nonverbal Communication
Communication
animal communication
Fatigue
Fatigue of materials
duration
methodology

Keywords

  • neonate
  • still-face
  • interaction
  • self-regulation
  • intersubjectivity

Cite this

Nagy, E., Pilling, K., Watt, R., Pal, A., & Orvos, H. (2017). Neonates’ responses to repeated exposure to a still face. PLoS ONE, 12(8), 1-21. [e0181688]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181688
Nagy, Emese ; Pilling, Karen ; Watt, Rachel ; Pal, Attila ; Orvos, Hajnalka . / Neonates’ responses to repeated exposure to a still face. In: PLoS ONE. 2017 ; Vol. 12, No. 8. pp. 1-21.
@article{ac5234fa8d5b42d3be10e8fd4dbe9f4d,
title = "Neonates’ responses to repeated exposure to a still face",
abstract = "Aim: The main aims of the study were to examine whether human neonates’ responses to communication disturbance modelled by the still-face paradigm were stable and whether their responses were affected by their previous experience with the still-face paradigm.Methods: The still face procedure, as a laboratory model of interpersonal stress, was administered repeatedly, twice, to 84 neonates (0 to 4 day olds), with a delay of an average of 1.25 day.Results: Frame-by-frame analysis of the frequency and duration of gaze, distressed face, crying, sleeping and sucking behaviours showed that the procedure was stressful to them both times, that is, the still face effect was stable after repeated administration and newborns consistently responded to such nonverbal violation of communication. They averted their gaze, showed distress and cried more during the still-face phase in both the first and the second administration. They also showed a carry-over effect in that they continued to avert their gaze and displayed increased distress and crying in the first reunion period, but their gaze behaviour changed with experience, in the second administration. While in the first administration the babies continued averting their gaze even after the stressful still-face phase was over, this carry-over effect disappeared in the second administration, and the babies significantly increased their gaze following the still-face phase.Conclusion: After excluding explanations of fatigue, habituation and random effects, a self-other regulatory model is discussed as a possible explanation for this pattern.",
keywords = "neonate, still-face, interaction, self-regulation, intersubjectivity",
author = "Emese Nagy and Karen Pilling and Rachel Watt and Attila Pal and Hajnalka Orvos",
note = "The study was supported by grant RES-062-23-1779 from the Economic & Social Research Council to E.N.",
year = "2017",
month = "8",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0181688",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "1--21",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "8",

}

Nagy, E, Pilling, K, Watt, R, Pal, A & Orvos, H 2017, 'Neonates’ responses to repeated exposure to a still face', PLoS ONE, vol. 12, no. 8, e0181688, pp. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181688

Neonates’ responses to repeated exposure to a still face. / Nagy, Emese (Lead / Corresponding author); Pilling, Karen; Watt, Rachel; Pal, Attila ; Orvos, Hajnalka .

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 12, No. 8, e0181688, 03.08.2017, p. 1-21.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Neonates’ responses to repeated exposure to a still face

AU - Nagy, Emese

AU - Pilling, Karen

AU - Watt, Rachel

AU - Pal, Attila

AU - Orvos, Hajnalka

N1 - The study was supported by grant RES-062-23-1779 from the Economic & Social Research Council to E.N.

PY - 2017/8/3

Y1 - 2017/8/3

N2 - Aim: The main aims of the study were to examine whether human neonates’ responses to communication disturbance modelled by the still-face paradigm were stable and whether their responses were affected by their previous experience with the still-face paradigm.Methods: The still face procedure, as a laboratory model of interpersonal stress, was administered repeatedly, twice, to 84 neonates (0 to 4 day olds), with a delay of an average of 1.25 day.Results: Frame-by-frame analysis of the frequency and duration of gaze, distressed face, crying, sleeping and sucking behaviours showed that the procedure was stressful to them both times, that is, the still face effect was stable after repeated administration and newborns consistently responded to such nonverbal violation of communication. They averted their gaze, showed distress and cried more during the still-face phase in both the first and the second administration. They also showed a carry-over effect in that they continued to avert their gaze and displayed increased distress and crying in the first reunion period, but their gaze behaviour changed with experience, in the second administration. While in the first administration the babies continued averting their gaze even after the stressful still-face phase was over, this carry-over effect disappeared in the second administration, and the babies significantly increased their gaze following the still-face phase.Conclusion: After excluding explanations of fatigue, habituation and random effects, a self-other regulatory model is discussed as a possible explanation for this pattern.

AB - Aim: The main aims of the study were to examine whether human neonates’ responses to communication disturbance modelled by the still-face paradigm were stable and whether their responses were affected by their previous experience with the still-face paradigm.Methods: The still face procedure, as a laboratory model of interpersonal stress, was administered repeatedly, twice, to 84 neonates (0 to 4 day olds), with a delay of an average of 1.25 day.Results: Frame-by-frame analysis of the frequency and duration of gaze, distressed face, crying, sleeping and sucking behaviours showed that the procedure was stressful to them both times, that is, the still face effect was stable after repeated administration and newborns consistently responded to such nonverbal violation of communication. They averted their gaze, showed distress and cried more during the still-face phase in both the first and the second administration. They also showed a carry-over effect in that they continued to avert their gaze and displayed increased distress and crying in the first reunion period, but their gaze behaviour changed with experience, in the second administration. While in the first administration the babies continued averting their gaze even after the stressful still-face phase was over, this carry-over effect disappeared in the second administration, and the babies significantly increased their gaze following the still-face phase.Conclusion: After excluding explanations of fatigue, habituation and random effects, a self-other regulatory model is discussed as a possible explanation for this pattern.

KW - neonate

KW - still-face

KW - interaction

KW - self-regulation

KW - intersubjectivity

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0181688

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0181688

M3 - Article

C2 - 28771555

VL - 12

SP - 1

EP - 21

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 8

M1 - e0181688

ER -