A longitudinal analysis of the development of infant facial expressions in response to acute pain: Immediate and regulatory expressions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Facial expressions during infancy are important to examine, as infants do not have the language skills to describe their experiences. This is particularly vital in the context of pain, where infants depend solely on their caregivers for relief. The objective of the current study was to investigate the development of negative infant facial expressions in response to immunization pain over the first year of life. Infant facial expressions were examined longitudinally using a subsample of 100 infants that were each videotaped during their 2-, 4-, 6-, and 12-month routine immunization appointments. Infant facial expressions were coded using BabyFACS (facial action coding system) for the first minute after a painful needle prick. Facial expressions were examined with a catalogue of the most commonly occurring facial expressions. Results demonstrated that clear differences were seen over ages. Infants display a variety of facial expressions with some of the components of adult pain expressions immediately after the needle and they abate shortly after. However, infants did not display adult expressions of discrete negative emotions. Instead, infants displayed a variety of generalized pain and distress faces aimed at gaining caregiver aid. The development of nonverbal communication in infants, particularly facial expressions, remains an important area of inquiry. Further study into accurately measuring infant negative emotions, pain, and distress is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".