Maternal Humming during Kangaroo Care: Effects on Preterm Dyads’ Physiological Parameters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humming is probably more effective than speech for improving mothers’ cardiorespiratory function and infants’ self-regulation. We intend to understand the effects of (1) maternal humming vs. speech on preterm infants’ physiological parameters, (2) maternal humming vs. speech on mothers’ physiological parameters, and (3) humming melodic contours and the process of the lengthening of the final note on preterm infants’ physiological parameters. This study was designed as a single-group repeated measures study, using microanalytical methodology (ELAN software version 4.9.4), with a protocol (silent baseline/speech, humming/silence/humming, or speech/silence) applied to preterm dyads (N = 36). Audio and video observations were recorded. Infants’ and mothers’ heart rates (HR) and O2 saturations were observed once a minute. The proportion of O2 saturation relative to HR (Prop. O2 saturation/HR) was estimated for both partners during the protocol. We found that the infants’ HR mean was significantly lower during humming (p = 0.028), while a significantly higher Prop. O2 saturation/HR ratio was recorded during humming for infants (p = 0.027) and mothers (p = 0.029). The duration of sinusoidal contours, together with the lengthening of the final note, predicts infants’ Prop. O2 saturation/HR ratio. Musical features of humming seem to improve the physiological stability of preterm infants during kangaroo care.
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) | 0.000 | 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".