Co‐regulation, relationship quality, and infant distress vocalizations observed during mother‐infant interactions: Influences of maternal depression and different contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mother-infant interactions are co-regulated and provide the foundation for mother-infant relationship quality. The implications of maternal depression and contextual demands (i.e., reinstating the interaction following maternal unavailability and vocalized infant distress) on observationally coded co-regulation in mother-infant dyads (n = 40) at 4-months was investigated. Associations among co-regulation patterns and mother-infant relationship quality was also examined. Dyads participated in Still-Face (SF) and Separation (SP) procedures, with periods of maternal emotional and physical unavailability. Co-regulation was captured using the Revised Relational Coding System. Relationship quality was examined using the Emotional Availability Scales. Dyads in the depressed group had significantly more unilateral exchanges than the non-depressed group following the SF and SP perturbations. The depressed group also had significantly more distress vocalizations during the SP perturbation than the non-depressed group. Co-regulation in the depressed group was less disrupted by the SF perturbation. Positive relationship quality dimensions (maternal sensitivity, structuring, and infant responsiveness) were associated with more symmetrical and less unilateral co-regulation regardless of the interaction period. There were also context-specific results pertaining to patterns of co-regulation and associated maternal hostility and infant responsiveness. Results highlight co-regulatory differences in depressed mothers and their infants and how these differences are exacerbated by contextual demands.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".