Greater caregiving risk, better infant memory performance?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor early life care often relates to cognitive difficulties. However, newer work suggests that in early-life, adversity may associate with enhanced or accelerated neurodevelopment. We examine associations between postnatal caregiving risks (i.e., higher self-reported postnatal-anxiety and lower observed maternal sensitivity) and infant relational memory (i.e., via deferred imitation and relational binding). Using subsamples of 67-181 infants (aged 433-477 post-conceptual days, or roughly five to seven months since birth) taking part in the GUSTO study, we found such postnatal caregiving risk significantly predictive of "better" performance on a relational binding task following a brief delay, after Bonferroni adjustments. Subsequent analyses suggest that the association between memory and these risks may specifically be apparent among infants spending at least 50% of their waking hours in the presence of their mothers. Our findings echo neuroimaging research concerning similar risk exposure and larger infant hippocampal volume, and likewise underscore the importance of considering developmental context in understanding early life experience. With this in mind, these findings caution against the use of cognitive outcomes as indices of experienced risk.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".