An intensive longitudinal investigation of maternal and infant touching patterns across context and throughout the first 9‐months of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Touch is a central component of mothers' and infants' everyday interactions and the formation of a healthy mother-infant relationship. Twelve mothers and their full-term infants from the Midwest, USA participated in the present study, which examined the quality and quantity of their touching behaviors longitudinally at 1-, 3-, 5-, 7-, and 9-months postpartum and within two normative interaction contexts (face-to-face, floor play). Findings revealed that mothers' and infants' individual touch patterns, varied according to context, infant age (time), and the specific type of touch examined. At 1-month postpartum, dyads coordinated their touch via behavioral matching and were especially reliant on rudimentary types of touch with soothing and regulatory properties (static/motionless touch, stroking). As infants aged to 9-months, dyads transitioned to a more complex form of tactile synchrony characterized by the parallel use of complementary types of touch (grasp, poke, pull). This evolution of tactile synchrony may reflect infants' growing behavioral repertoire and increased capacity to use more refined forms of touch. To our knowledge, this study was the first of its kind, uniquely contributing to the scant knowledge about the development of mother-infant touch and synchrony and offering direct implications for early care practices and infant health and well-being.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".