Fetal Development: Voice Processing in Normotensive and Hypertensive Pregnancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent observation of maternal voice recognition provides evidence of rudimentary memory and learning in healthy term fetuses. However, such higher order auditory processing has not been examined in the presence of maternal hypertension, which is associated with reduced and/or impaired uteroplacental blood flow. In this study, voice processing was examined in 40 fetuses (gestational ages of 33 to 41 weeks) of hypertensive and normotensive women. Fetuses received 2 min of no sound, 2 min of a tape-recorded story read by their mothers or by a female stranger, and 2 min of no sound while fetal heart rate was recorded. Results demonstrated that fetuses in the normotensive group had heart rate accelerations during the playing of their mother's voice, whereas the response occurred in the hypertensive group following maternal voice offset. Across all fetuses, a greater fetal heart rate change was observed when the amniotic fluid index was above compared to below the median (i.e., 150 mm), indicating that amniotic fluid volume may be an independent moderator of fetal auditory sensitivity. It was concluded that differential fetal responding to the mother's voice in pregnancies complicated by maternal hypertension may reflect functional elevation of sensorineural threshold or a delay in auditory system maturation, signifying functional differences during fetal life or subtle differences in the development of the central nervous system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".