Visual Attention Differences in Caesarean versus Vaginally Delivered Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the role that the birth experience plays in brain and cognitive development. Recent research suggests that birth experience influences development of the somatosensory cortex, an area involved in spatial attention to sensory information. Whether there are attentional differences between infants who have different birth experiences as occurs for caesarean versus vaginal delivery, however, has never been investigated. This study explored whether differences in spatial attention occur in infants born by caesarean section versus vaginally. Three-month-old infants performed either a spatial cued task in which we measured the latency of their stimulus-driven reactive saccadic eye movements or a visual expectation task in which we measured both their level of cognitively-driven anticipatory and latency of stimulus-driven reactive saccades. The results show that caesarean delivered infants’ stimulus-driven, reflexive attention is slowed relative to vaginally delivered infants’, whereas their cognitively-driven, voluntary attention is unaffected. Thus, type of birth experience influences one form of infants’ attention, and possibly any cognitive process that relies on spatial attention. This study also reveals that birth experience likely influences the initial state of brain functioning and, consequently, must be considered in our understanding of brain development. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".