Infant touching behaviour during mother–infant face‐to‐face interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The study of infant communication during mother–infant interactions has largely focused on infants' distal behaviours, while neglecting their more proximal behaviours, such as touch. Yet, touch is an important modality through which infants and mothers communicate; it is also a vital means through which infants self‐regulate and explore their surroundings. The present study was designed to investigate the touching behaviours of 44, 51/2‐month‐old, healthy, full‐term infants during face‐to‐face mother–infant interactions. A still‐face (SF) procedure was used in order to examine differences in the types and locations of infant touch across normal and perturbed interaction periods, when mothers exhibit changes in their emotional availability. Results revealed that infant touch varied with changes in maternal availability. During the SF period, when mothers were unavailable, infants used more active, soothing, and reactive tactile behaviours (stroke, finger, pat, and pull), and they spent more time touching themselves. In contrast, infants used mostly passive touch (static) during the Normal periods, when their mothers were available. They also spent a significant portion of time touching their mothers. The variations in infant touch across periods suggest that infants communicate their affective states through touch. The findings also support the regulatory and exploratory roles of infant touch, especially during periods of maternal unavailability. Copyright © 2007 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".