Investigating Maternal Touch and Infants' Self‐Regulatory Behaviours during a Modified Face‐to‐Face Still‐Face with Touch Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maternal touch and infants' self‐regulatory behaviours were examined during a modified Still‐Face with Touch (SF + T) procedure. Mothers and their 5½‐month‐old infants participated in one period of Normal interaction followed by three SF + T periods. Maternal functions of touch, and infants' self‐regulatory behaviour, affect, and attention were evaluated. Contrary to a typical SF procedure, the amount of smiling remained high while fretting remained low. High levels of maternal touching and variations in the functions of maternal touch were observed across periods. Playful touch remained high while there was an increase in nurturing touch and a decrease in attention‐getting touch from the Normal to all SF + T periods. Similar amounts of self‐regulatory behaviours were observed across periods with the exception of a decrease in bidirectional exchanges during the SF + T periods. Finally, across periods, maternal touch and infants' self‐regulatory behaviours were found to be temporally organized with infants' affect and attention. Examining how mothers use touch when other forms of communication are absent increased our understanding of the role of touch in infants' emotion regulation. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".