The Role of the Music Therapist in Promoting Parent-Infant Attachment/Favoriser L'attachement Parent-Enfant : Rôle Du Musicothérapeute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infancy: Music and Music TherapyIn all cultures, music in earliest years of life appears in form of songs, chants, lullabies, and improvised vocal play that does not reference high-art cultural symbols; instead, music-making in these early years is a social relational resource available to all regardless of musical skill, knowledge, or training. When infants hear music they turn toward it, smile, and move. At same time, they produce rich, music-like vocal utterances that delight their parents, who respond by singing, cooing, and speaking in a special singsongy way with infinite rhythmic and melodic attunement. This way of using voice has been increasingly referred to as infant directed and has been shown to be preferred by infants as young as one month of age (Cooper & Aislin, 1990]. Originally called motherese, this special way of interacting with infants also has been noted to influence way adults sing to babies and very young children (Shoemark, 2011]. Regarding music therapy in context of parent-infant work, Edwards (2011] stated thatmusic therapy can be described as. . . a process of developing a relationship with a caregiver/dyad in order to support, develop and extend their skills in using musical and music like interactions including vocal improvisation, chants, lullabies, songs, and rhymes, to promote and enhance sensitivity and mutual co-regulation between infant and caregiver, in order to create optimal environment for secure attachment to be fostered. ( p. 6]Music therapists have provided dyadic programs (Oldfield, 2011] and have developed group work methods (Abad & Williams, 2007] to address needs of vulnerable parent-infant cohorts. Music therapy in this context is based on premise that caregiver and infant music-making can have useful functions for developing attachment skills through promoting development of synchronized, attuned, and sensitive inter-relating between parent and infant.Parent-Infant AttachmentAttachment theory was developed in a lifelong collaboration between American-Canadian developmental psychologist Mary Ainsworth and British psychoanalyst John Bowlby. The theory uses a range of sources of evidence to explain need for a child to have a secure base, in which consistent care is provided, for first years of life. Writing in 1991, Ainsworth and Bowlby described how they understood this theoretical contribution:Focusing on intimate interpersonal relations, attachment theory does not aspire to address all aspects of personality development. However, it is an open-ended theory and, we hope, open enough to be able to comprehend new findings that result from other approaches. From its outset it has been eclectic, drawing on a number of scientific disciplines, including developmental, cognitive, social and personality psychology, systems theory, and various branches of biological science, including genetics, (p. 10)In a healthy relationship caregiver affords emotional access to child and responds appropriately and promptly to his or her positive and negative states (Schore, 2001, p. 205). This supports adaptation of infant toward internal regulation functions that relate to the regulation of arousal, maintenance of alertness, capacity to dampen arousal in face of overstimulation, capacity to inhibit behavioral expression, and capacity to develop predictable behavioral cycles (Beebe & Lachmann, 1998, p. 485). This interpersonal and intrapsychic regulation of parentinfant dyad is considered in that interactive regulation flows in both directions, on a moment-to-moment basis, so that each experiences influencing, as well as being influenced by, other's behavior (Beebe & Lachmann, p. 500).The development of ability to relate and communicate has been described as a series of building blocks or developmental phases of intrapsychic and interpersonal capacity (Stern, 2000). …
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".