Infant visual habituation and parental psychological distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research is equivocal concerning the relationship between parental psychological distress and infant cognitive functioning. Four potential limitations of the literature are addressed: reliance on mothers' but not fathers' psychological distress, use of categorical measures of psychological distress, use of standardized measures of infant cognitive functioning, and failure to take into account potential gender differences. Ninety‐nine twin pairs and both their mothers and fathers were assessed. Infants cognitive functioning was assessed using an infant‐controlled habituation–recovery–dishabituation task. Maternal and paternal psychological distress was assessed using the Symptom Check List‐90‐Revised. No gender differences were obtained for infant visual information‐processing abilities or parental psychological distress. Maternal and paternal psychological distress was related to female visual encoding abilities only. It was concluded that parental psychological distress might degrade parent–infant interactions. Characteristics of girls when faced with parents exhibiting psychiatric difficulties may exacerbate difficulties of parent–infant interactions, thereby hindering the full development of cognitive abilities involved in the process of habituation. A need exists to examine the relationship between parental psychological distress and infant visual attention separately for girls and boys. ©2001 Michigan Association for Infant Mental Health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".