Research with Babies Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What are the typical methods for testing adults?

A
  • Questionnaires
  • Interviews
  • Paper & pencil tasks
  • Computer-based tests
  • Test batteries (IQ)
  • Experiments
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the main stages of in utero?

A
  1. Germinal stage
  2. Embryonic stage (weeks 3–8)
  3. Foetal stage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are some factors that influences the behaviour of the newborn?

A

Perceptual information available to the growing brain limited by environment (womb), so the input (Mother’s voice, foods ingested, stressors, etc.) influences the behaviour of the newborn

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are the different postnatal developmental stages?

A
  1. Neonatal (Neonatal < 1-mo)
  2. Infancy (Infancy/toddler < 2-yr)
  3. Childhood (Childhood < 12-yr)
  4. Adolescence (Adolescence late teens/early 20s)
  5. Adulthood (< Maturity)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

How are studies conducted for smell and taste in utero/neonatal development?

A

Smell:
All of the necessary structures in place (nasal cavities, trigeminal system, neurons connect with olfactory bulb)
Much of the research animal-based (rats, rabbits, sheep)
Some from humans (Schaal, Marlier & Soussignan, 2000)

Taste:
Swallowing amniotic fluid at around 12 weeks (de Vries, Visser, & Prechtl, 1985)
Mennella, Jagnow & Beauchamp (2001) tested in whether experiences in final trimester impacted on weaning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Describe Schaal et al.’s (2000) study on anise.

A

Recruited expectant mothers who habitually consumed anise sweets/drinks (AC) & those who did not (nAC) - 12 per group
Some measures related to mothers & infants to show parity between two groups (gestational period, weight of infants at birth etc.)
Recorded consumption 15 days prior to expected term
Using diluted anethole, created anise odour similar to amniotic fluid
Within the first 8 postnatal hours (2.9 ± 1.9h, range 0.5-8h, colostrum?) tested neonates response to odour & retested at 4 days
Oro-facial response test were analysed blind by a coder who performed at a level of reliability >70% (Facial Action Coding System)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are the findings in newborn senses of taste and smell?

A
  • No. of –ve facial responses sig. at time 1 (<8hrs), not sig. at time 2 (4 days)
  • Head orientation - sig. longer orientation at time 1 & 2.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Describe Mennella, Jagnow, and Beauchamp’s (2001) study on taste.

A
  • Expectant mothers consumed 300ml of carrot juice or water 3 weeks during the last trimester of pregnancy & during the first 2 months of lactation.
  • Group 1 drank carrot juice during pregnancy & water during lactation (infant only exposed during pregnancy)
  • Group 2 drank water during pregnancy & carrot juice during lactation (only exposed during breastfeeding)
  • Group 3 (Control) drank water during both pregnancy & lactation (no exposure)
  • Approx. 4 weeks after initial weaning (with cereal) infants were videotaped tasting cereal prepared with water or carrot juice (counterbalanced)
  • Immediately after each session, the mothers rated their infants’ enjoyment of the food on a 9-point scale (problem with this?) & eating recorded
  • Infants who were exposed showed fewer neg. facial expressions to carrot compared to water & rated as enjoying carrot cereal more (compared to control)
  • Basis for cultural differences in preferences?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Describe Mennella, Johnson, and Beauchamp (1995) study.

A

Abstract: Amniotic fluid samples were obtained from 10 pregnant women undergoing routine amniocentesis procedure. Approximately 45 min prior to the procedure, five of the women ingested placebo capsules, whereas the remaining five ingested capsules containing the essential oil of garlic. Randomly selected pairs of samples, one from a woman who ingested garlic and the other from a woman who ingested placebo capsules, were then evaluated by a sensory panel of adults. The odor of the amniotic fluid obtained from four of the five women who had ingested the garlic capsules was judged to be stronger or more like garlic than the paired samples collected from the women consuming placebo capsules. Thus, garlic ingestion by pregnant women significantly alters the odor of their amniotic fluid.

Found: showed that garlic flavour transmitted to amniotic fluid

The amniotic fluid is the protective liquid contained by the amniotic sac of a gravid amniote. This fluid serves as a cushion for the growing fetus, but also serves to facilitate the exchange of nutrients, water, and biochemical products between mother and fetus.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Describe the study conducted by Hepper, Wells, Dornan & Lynch (2012).

A

Hepper, Wells, Dornan & Lynch (2012) later showed that exposure to garlic during pregnancy (3-4 meals per week for 4 weeks) results in increased consumption of garlic potato gratin preference at 8/9 years

  • 40 participants exposed, 33 at follow-up
  • Parental reports & detailed food diaries at follow-up suggested little-no garlic exposure
  • Test carried out twice (1 month apart), more consumption of gratin by those exposed prenatally
  • Slightly odd way of carrying out measure & only 8% difference across a small sample. Enough to draw conclusions?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What did Steiner (1977) study suggest?

A
  • Innate preference for sweet/dislike of bitter

- newborns reject the sour taste of citric acid as evidenced by facial grimacing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What does research say about exposure to tastes in infants ?

A
  • Barring (except) bitter/sweet (umami), foods largely neutral & open to influence
  • Exposure is the key to increasing acceptance (Birch et al. 1998; Birch & Marlin, 1982; Birch et al. 1987; Nicklaus et al. 2005; Pliner, 1982; Wardle et al. 2003; Wardle et al. 2003)
  • Continues to contribute to cultural variances (Zellner, Garriga-Trillo, Rohm, Centeno & Parker, 1999)
  • Exposure increases preference for a target food, for similar foods and reduces neophobia (Birch & Martin, 1982; Birch et al., 1987)
  • Early exposure to different textures promotes acceptance of variations as the child ages (Foote & Marriott, 2003; Northstone et al., 2001)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Describe the Wardle, Herrera, Cooke, and Gibson (2003) study.

A

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate two interventions (one reward-based and one exposure-based) for increasing children’s acceptance of an unfamiliar vegetable compared with a no-treatment control. It was predicted that the exposure condition would increase liking for, and consumption of, the vegetable relative to either the reward or control group.

DESIGN:
Using a randomized controlled design, participants were assigned to one of two intervention groups (exposure or reward) or to a no-treatment control condition, for a 2 week period. Liking for, and consumption of, red pepper was assessed before and after the treatment period.

SETTING:
The study was conducted in three primary schools in London.

SUBJECTS:
Parental consent was obtained for 49 out of a possible 72 children.

INTERVENTIONS:
Interventions comprised eight daily sessions during which participants in the exposure group were offered a taste of sweet red pepper and told that they could eat as much as they liked. Participants in the reward group were shown a sheet of cartoon stickers and told that they could choose one of them on condition that they ate at least one piece of the pepper.

RESULTS:
The exposure-based intervention significantly increased both liking (P=0.006) and consumption (P=0.03) compared with the control group. The outcome of the reward intervention was intermediate and did not differ significantly from the exposure or control conditions.

CONCLUSIONS:
Repeated exposure to the taste of unfamiliar foods is a promising strategy for promoting liking of previously rejected foods in children.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Is there a confounding variable in the Wardle, Herrera, Cooke, and Gibson (2003) study?

A

“we cannot be sure that reported associations are not the result of confounding between neophobia and pickiness.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What are the influence of food neophobia and modelling on infants?

A
  • Exposure has increased our preference or the foods we’ve eaten but then we start getting food neophobia - Avoidance of new foods
  • Begins around the age of 18-24 months (Cooke et al., 2003)
  • Culturally foods are similar, but can vary widely between cultures
  • Said to be of evolutionary benefit - prevents ingestion of toxic foods
  • Observed in animals
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How is neophobia and modelling applied in real life?

A
  • Repeated opportunities to try
  • Reward might be detrimental (contingency affect)
    > Could be the DV. Liking affected relative to mere exposure but intake unaffected (Cooke, Chambers, Añez & Wardle, 2011)!?
  • Investigation does not finish at ‘modelling reduces neophobia’
    > Parents (Harper & Sanders, 1975), peers (Birch, 1980; Hendy, 2002) and teachers (Hendy & Raudenbush, 2000) can influence consumption through modelling - food has to be the same as the one offered & has to be eaten, not just offered (Addessi et al., 2005). Children model parents unless child is sensory sensitive (aka individual differences) (Coulthard & Blissett, 2009)
  • Additionally, parents influence through purchase of food - children’s food exposure
  • Television & advertising is another aspect of social learning
  • Important to critically evaluate findings & conclusions, extend where data are unclear
17
Q

Describe the study on disgust.

A

Study one: 4 to 6 year olds
Proof of principle

  • Disliked foods will act as contaminants in early childhood
    > A reduction in the rating of a liked food once it has touched a disliked food
    > A continued reduction in the rating of a liked food, compared to the unadulterated rating, after the disliked food has been removed
    > Younger children more prone to a contamination response than the older children, in line with neophobia decreasing with age
18
Q

Describe the methods of study one on disgust.

A

Participants:

  • 30 participants (18 males)
  • Age range: 4 years 5 months - 6 years 1 month (mean = 5 years)
  • Recruited via nursery & tested in nursery

Materials:

  • Selection of liked & disliked foods (based on parental report)
  • Foods selected do not leave physical trace
  • Food shown on paper plates so they could be thrown away after each use

Procedure:

  • UNADULTERATED MEASURE: Liked & disliked foods presented on different plates (the rating for the disliked food was also taken at this point to confirm it was disliked). Both were removed after taking the ratings. [“how much would you like to eat this food?”]
  • TOUCHING – The liked food touching the disliked food on the same plate. [“how much would you like to eat the food when it is like this?”]
  • REMOVED – The liked food was put back on a separate plate using tongs. [“What about now I’ve taken it away from the other food?”]
  • OUT OF SIGHT – The disliked food was removed completely from view. [“what about if I take this other food away?”]

*Alter questions!!

19
Q

Describe the results of study one on disgust.

A
  • A significant difference for overall contamination
  • Contamination continued compared to unadulterated rating
  • 16 of the 30 participants showed a ‘full’ contamination response
  • Younger participants (median 4 years 10 months) more likely to show response than older (median 5 years 6 months)
20
Q

Describe the conclusion of study one on disgust.

A

Despite leaving no physical trace the disliked food acted as a contaminant

First study to show some support for anecdotal reports of food acting as a contaminant during childhood

Does this contamination sensitivity occur earlier?
Just repeat the study with 2 year olds?

21
Q

Describe the Study two: Infancy

Hypothesis.

A
  • Disliked foods will act as contaminants during infancy

> Infants will be less likely to eat a liked food when touching a disliked food, in comparison to a control

22
Q

Describe the methods of study two on disgust.

A

Participants:

  • 18 participants (12 males)
  • Age range: 1 year 6 months – 2 years 2 month (mean = 1 year 10 months)

Materials:

  • Foods prepared by mother, at home
  • Foods selected do not leave physical trace
  • Food given in ‘normal’ mealtime setting

Control = Infant given:

  • A small amount of liked food
  • A small amount of another liked food
  • Both, touching, on the same plate

Experimental = Infant given:

  • A small amount of liked food
  • A small amount of disliked food
  • Both, touching, on the same plate
  • If liked food is consumed, experiment ends
  • If rejected, disliked removed
  • If still rejected, infant given a new taste of the food
  • DV has to become consumption (or not)
23
Q

Describe the results of study two on disgust.

A
  • A significant difference for overall contamination, in comparison to control
  • However, 10 children showed no response, 6 would eat the liked food once the disliked was removed and only 2 showed the ‘full’ response
24
Q

Describe the conclusion of study two on disgust.

A
  • Despite leaving no physical trace the disliked food acted as a partial or full contaminant to 8 of the 18 children
  • First study to show some support for anecdotal reports of food acting as a contaminant during infancy
25
Q

What is the summary about the studies on disgust?

A
  • Key element of disgust = contamination (Fallon & Rozin, 1983)
    Some evidence supporting the theory that food can be considered ‘disgusting’ and be a motivation for rejection prior to 7 years
  • Foods ‘disgusting’ enough? – Texture; ‘Mushy/gooey’ (Martins & Pliner, 2006)
  • Limitations
    > Use of ‘dry’ foods
    > Requires increased participants
  • Future Directions
    > Could use ‘slimy’ foods?!
    > Video recording to show ‘disgust’ response?
    -> Facial coding? Blind coders
26
Q

Why is examining the effects of prenatal maternal stress (PNMS) on later, infant cognition is difficult?

A

Mechanism unknown
- In animals, PNMS impacts on placental functioning
> Acute and chronic stress depletes the placenta’s ability to protect the foetus against teratogens (e.g. cortisol) increasing risk neurological impairments

27
Q

Can we just simplify or change the tasks?

A

Piaget: given weights & told position them so as to balance

Siegler: weights already on but experimenter held it down - kids were asked which of 3 things would happen if let go (Siegler, 1976)

28
Q

What are the different ways to question the parents?

A
  • Parental report
  • Established questionnaire
  • Interviews
  • Focus groups
29
Q

How do you conduct observation on infants?

A
  • Video recording
  • Covert (i.e., not openly acknowledged or displayed)/Overt (i.e., shown openly; apparent)
  • Inter-rater reliability
  • Coding method
  • Blind observers
  • Length of looking/preferences
  • Non-nutritive sucking
  • Psychophysics
30
Q

How do you measure an infant’s visual performance?

A

Visual acuity is 20/200 (Haith, 1990); Can track moving objects (Aslin, 1981)

Preferential looking paradigm

31
Q

What is an innate’s preference for faces?

A
  • Newborns suck longer looking at photo of mother than other female (Walton et al, 1992)
  • Prefer attractive looking people (Langlois et al, 1991)
32
Q

What is the Habituation phenomenon?

habituation is the diminishing of an innate response to a frequently repeated stimulus.

A
  • Visual Preference / Non-nutritive Sucking
  • Show a stimulus repeatedly… infant’s interest declines
  • Once habituation occurs you introduce novel stimulus
  • Dishabituation occurs [Dishabituation is when we respond to an old stimulus as if it were new again. When we repeatedly see or experience a stimulus, our response to it grows weaker. For example, you play peek-a-boo with a baby by covering your face with a blanket.]

> Example: ability to notice differences.

33
Q

How do you measure psychophysics in infants?

A
  • Pulse rate
  • Blood Pressure
  • EEG
  • Eye tracking
34
Q

What did Meltzoff and Borton (1979) found for the cross-modal perception 1?

A

1m sucking on one of the
dummies (without seeing it)
and then seeing the pair

75% looked longer at the
previously sucked dummy

35
Q

What is the overall summary on experimenting on babies?

A
  • Variety of methods used to test babies
  • Age is no barrier… Innovation (& persistence) is key!
  • Cautious interpretation where inference is necessary