Week 5-RF Lecture

Question 1

Define maternal gaze

Answer 1

the act of a mother looking at her infant’s face

Question 2

Define mutual gaze

Answer 2

the act of a mother and her infant engaging in mutual eye contact (certain factors can influence the amount of time spent looking towards and processing of the infants face)

Question 3

State 4 reasons why gaze is important

Answer 3

1.indicates our partner’s focus of attention, willingness to interact + their emotional states/interactions (Lotzin et al., 2015)
2.newborns prefer previously exposed to faces if the face exhibited direct gaze>averted gaze (Rigato et al., 2011)
3.gaze coordination improves as infants get older (Northrup et al., 2019)
4.infants showed better attentional control at 11 months if more time spent in mutual gaze at 5 months (Niedzwiecka et al., 2018)

Question 4

What are two techniques used for measuring gaze?

Answer 4

1.eye tracking glasses
2.desktop eye tracker

Question 5

Give 4 factors which might influence gaze to infant faces

Answer 5

1.Parenthood-show different and specific to infant facial expressions compared to non-parents
2.Sex/gender-mothers rate infants emotional expressions differently to fathers (Parsons et al., 2017)
3.Hormonal differences-mums with higher levels of oxytocin display increased gaze time towards the infants face (Kim et al., 2014)
4.Facial anomaly-Haemangioma, strabismus and clefts

Question 6

How is gaze to faces affected by cleft lip and/ or
palate (CLP)?

Answer 6

-may disrupt visual processing of the target face (Parsons et al., 2011)
-Infants with cleft lip rated less attractive + were viewed for shorter durations than healthy infants, particularly where the cleft lip was severe (Parsons et al., 2011)
-Observers fixated significantly more on the mouth area compared to control images (TD faces) (Meyer-Marcotty et al., 2010).
-In faces depicting clefts, observers spent more time looking at the oronasal region of interest, followed by the eyes (van Schijndel et al., 2015).
-Participants fixated significantly longer on the mouths of infants with cleft lip. Severity of cleft lip was associated with the strength of fixation bias, with participants looking even longer at the mouths of infants with the most severe clefts (Rayson et al., 2017).

Question 7

De Pascalis et al., 2017 experiment: background

Answer 7

Investigated maternal gaze during naturalistic interactions, and the influence infant age has, focusing on the transition from 1st-2nd month when social expressiveness emerges, and by infant facial configuration, focusing on the effect of having a cleft lip.

Question 8

De Pascal et al., 2017 experiment: methods

Answer 8

30 infants (10 with a cleft lip), + their mothers, were seen at 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 weeks. Mothers wore eye-tracking glasses whilst interacting with infants.
Fixation duration + count were calculated for general (infant face, body, and surrounding environment), and infant facial (eyes, mouth, other) areas.

Question 9

What were the results of De Pascal et al., 2017 experiment?

Answer 9

-all ages mothers gazed mainly towards their infant’s face, but was reduced for a cleft lip.
-Within infant’s face, the eyes attracted the greatest attention, for all mums, at all ages.
-1st-2nd month, all mums increased their visual attention towards their infant’s mouth.
-the presence of a cleft lip was associated with decreased maternal gaze to the infant’s mouth.

Question 10

What is excessive gaze synchrony/the effects? (Lotzin et al., 2015)

Answer 10

-heightened maternal emotional dysregulation associated with EGS
and tend to experience higher levels of distress and arousal
-higher distress=heightened mother-infant gaze synchrony=interferes with infants ability to self regulate, explore and respond adaptively to the environment
-parental gaze behaviour tends to occur intuitively and in line with typical development

Question 11

Define mirroring

Answer 11

a maternal behaviour matching/mirroring the infants behaviour and plays a vital role in infant development as studies have found maternal marking increases infant social expressiveness

Question 12

True or false: the presence of a cleft lip interrupts intuitive maternal behaviour

Answer 12

True

Question 13

Mirroring in the presence of CLP (Murray et al., 2018): experiment

Answer 13

-two groups CLPs and control used to measure effect mirroring and maternal gaze had on infant social expressiveness focusing on change from 1st to 2nd month
-Mother + infant were observed at 1, 3, 5, 7, & 9 weeks of life
-research team coded four key behaviours: infant social expressiveness (ISE), maternal mirroring, maternal marking and maternal gaze.

Question 14

Give examples of infant social expressiveness

Answer 14

vocalisation, smiles, pre-speech mouth movements

Question 15

Mirroring in the presence of CLP (Murray et al., 2018): findings

Answer 15

-CLPs slower development of early social behaviours (ISE) compared to control
-Mirroring in mothers of CLP infants was reduced compared to control mothers
-mothers of control infants mirrored their infants
over 4x as often as CLP-affected mothers in month 2 compared to month 1 (maternal gaze
was a factor).

Question 16

Define marking (+ e.g., smiling or neutral)

Answer 16

affective quality and intensity of response well-attuned and singles out/”marks” an infants behaviour

Question 17

What are negative responses in marking?

Answer 17

-mis-attuned responses overshoots/undershoots intensity of infant behaviour
-negating responses such as rejecting or mocking

Question 18

What are the main components in the functional architecture of mother-infant communication?

Answer 18

-mirroring and positive marking promote development of infant social behaviour
-positive marking=generalised + effect on infant behaviour
-maternal mirroring strongest promoter + has specific effect on infant social behaviour

Question 19

What are early maternal interactions with infants with CLP?

Answer 19

-infants with CLP more difficult, less communicative and less clear clues given at 2-3 months compared to control
-lower maternal responsiveness/sensitivity
-lower maternal sensitivity accounts for group differences in infants cognitive outcome 18-24 months

Question 20

CLP relating to lower maternal mirroring results in what?

Answer 20

slower development of infant social behaviour

Question 21

What did Field & Vega-Lahr (1984) suggest?

Answer 21

-mirroring=perception THEN action
- CLP might make infants less appealing to look at, and might make infant expression more difficult to interpret for parents.

Question 22

Naïve observers: Still pictures – CLP versus Typical faces

Answer 22

-decreased activation of brain area tied to perception of “baby schema” (Parsons et al., 2013)
-lower ratings of attractiveness (Meyer-Marcotty et al., 2009; Parsons et al., 2011).
-greater desire to avoid looking at pictures (Yamamoto et al., 2009; Parsons et al., 2011).
-No difference in accuracy of interpretation of infant facial expressions (Oster, 2003).
-greater visual attention on mouth area (Meyer-Marcotty et al., 2009; Rayson et al., 2017).

Question 23

What are the conclusions for mothers and infants?

Answer 23

A coordinated and sophisticated exchange, optimised to promote infant social development.

Question 24

What are the conclusions for mirroring?

Answer 24

• A crucial component of the spontaneous repertoire of maternal responses.
• The strongest maternal promoter of the development of infants.

Question 25

What are the conclusions on the importance of studying?

Answer 25

• The conditions that favour or hinder the use of this response
• The reasons behind these conditions (e.g., why do mothers of cleft-affected infants use less mirroring?)