Abstract Do newborns engage in dialogues? This chapter explores evidence on social engagement in human neonates and uses case-based descriptive analysis of interactions with newborns. Starting from experimental data on neonates’ responses to communication disturbances, measured by the still-face procedure, it presents a case showing a neonate proactively engaging with the experimenter to resume a broken communication. It provides descriptive analyses of two cases of neonatal imitation and looks at how the babies not only proactively engaged the experimenter, but also, several, temporally coordinated, synchronized imitative cycles emerged between the baby and the experimenter. Given the richness and the complexity of the data that emerges from these cases, the chapter suggests that case-based descriptions should accompany experimental studies to understand data from experiments on neonatal communicative behaviour.

EDITORIAL article Front. Psychol., 12 June 2023Sec. Developmental Psychology Volume 14 - 2023 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1220161

This study aimed to explore healthy, term neonates’ behavioural and physiological responses to music using frame-by-frame analysis of their movements (Experiment 1; N = 32, 0–3 days old) and heart rate measurements (Experiment 2; N = 66, 0–6 days old). A ‘happy’ and ‘sad’ music was first validated by independent raters for their emotional content from a large pool of children’s songs and lullabies, and the effect of the emotions in these two music pieces and a control, no-music condition was compared. The results of the frame-by-frame behavioural analysis showed that babies had emotion-specific responses across the three conditions. Happy music decreased their arousal levels, shifting from drowsiness to sleep, and resulted in longer latencies in other forms of self-regulatory behaviour, such as sucking. The decrease in arousal was accompanied by heart rate deceleration. In the sad music condition, relative ‘stillness’ was observed, and longer leg stretching latencies were measured. In both music conditions, longer latencies of fine motor finger and toe movements were found. Our findings suggest that the emotional response to music possibly emerges very early ontogenetically as part of a generic, possibly inborn, human musicality.

People with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) have difficulty with socio-emotional functioning; however, research on facial emotion recognition (FER) remains inconclusive. Individuals with ASD might be using atypical compensatory mechanisms that are exhausted in more complex tasks. This study compared response accuracy and speed on a forced-choice FER task using neutral, happy, sad, disgust, anger, fear and surprise expressions under both timed and non-timed conditions in children with and without ASD (n = 18). The results showed that emotion recognition accuracy was comparable in the two groups in the non-timed condition. However, in the timed condition, children with ASD were less accurate in identifying anger and surprise compared to children without ASD. This suggests that people with ASD have atypical processing of anger and surprise that might become challenged under time pressure. Understanding these atypical processes, and the environmental factors that challenge them, could be beneficial in supporting socio-emotional functioning in people ASD.

The main aim of this study was to uncover any evidence for communicative engagement in foetuses. Taking into consideration the continuity of development pre- and postnatally, the social responsiveness of the newborn baby and the development of sensorimotor competence in the foetus, it is plausible to assume that communicative readiness develops before birth. During the interactive and noninteractive applications of three conditions: the mother's voice, the touch of her abdomen and a control condition, foetuses' (N = 12, 2-33 gestational weeks) behaviours were recorded through 4D scanning using Voluson S10 ultrasound and coded frame-by-frame. Foetuses displayed differential right-hand self-touch behaviours in response to the mother's touch. There was a reduction of this movement when the mother was touching her abdomen, compared to when the mother was talking or during the baseline conditions. There was also a reduction in right-hand touch responses during the interactive touch condition but not during interactive talk condition. A similar result was found with regards to right-hand face touch responses. Foetuses displayed a longer duration of mouth opening in the interactive talk condition compared to the noninteractive talk condition. During the first 60 s, foetuses showed a significant increase in sucking behaviours during the interactive touch condition, compared to all other conditions. This is the first study to compare interactive versus noninteractive engagement of the foetus. The findings of this study suggest that foetuses in the third trimester discriminate between interactive and non-interactive external stimuli and respond to contingent interactions.

Although detailed descriptions of proper handshakes partly comprise many etiquette books, how a normal handshake can be described, its proper duration, and the consequences of violating handshake expectations remain empirically unexplored. This study measured the effect of temporal violations of the expected length of a handshake (less than three seconds according to previous studies) administered unobtrusively in a naturalistic experiment. We compared volunteer participants' (N = 34; 25 females; 9 males; M-age = 23.76 years, SD = 6.85) nonverbal behavior before and after (a) a prolonged handshake (>3 seconds), (b) a normal length handshake (average length <3 seconds), and (c) a control encounter with no handshake. Frame-by-frame behavioral analyses revealed that, following a prolonged handshake (vs. a normal length or no handshake), participants showed less interactional enjoyment, as indicated by less laughing. They also showed evidence of anxiety and behavioral freezing, indicated by increased hands-on-hands movements, and they showed fewer hands-on-body movements. Normal length handshakes resulted in less subsequent smiling than did prolonged handshakes, but normal length handshakes were also followed by fewer hands-on-face movements than prolonged handshakes. No behavior changes were associated with the no-handshake control condition. We found no differences in participants' level of empathy or state/trait anxiety related to these conditions. In summary, participants reacted behaviorally to temporal manipulations of handshakes, with relevant implications for interactions in interviews, business, educational, and social settings and for assisting patients with social skills difficulties.

Abstract The study employed four gestural models using frame‐by‐frame microanalytic methods, and followed how the behaviours unfolded over time. Forty‐two human newborns (0–3 days) were examined for their imitation of tongue protrusion, ‘head tilt with looking up’, three‐finger and two‐finger gestures. The results showed that all three gesture groups were imitated. Results of the temporal analyses revealed an early and a later, second stage of responses. Later responses were characterized by a suppression of similar, but non‐matching movements. Perinatal imitation is not a phenomenon served by a single underlying mechanism; it has at least two different stages. An early phase is followed by voluntary matching behaviour by the neonatal infant.

Developmental ScienceVolume 22, Issue 2 e12738 COMMENTARY_REPLY (INVITED ONLY) Eliciting imitation in early infancy Andrew N. Meltzoff, Corresponding Author Andrew N. Meltzoff meltzoff@uw.edu orcid.org/0000-0001-8683-0547 Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Correspondence Andrew N. Meltzoff, Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. Email: meltzoff@uw.eduSearch for more papers by this authorLynne Murray, Lynne Murray Department of Psychology, University of Reading, Reading, UK Department of Psychology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South AfricaSearch for more papers by this authorElizabeth Simpson, Elizabeth Simpson Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorMikael Heimann, Mikael Heimann Department of Behavioral Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorEmese Nagy, Emese Nagy School of Psychology, University of Dundee, Dundee, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJacqueline Nadel, Jacqueline Nadel Centre Emotion, Hôpital de la Salpêtrière, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorEric J. Pedersen, Eric J. Pedersen Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USASearch for more papers by this authorRechele Brooks, Rechele Brooks orcid.org/0000-0002-3798-3448 Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USASearch for more papers by this authorDaniel S. Messinger, Daniel S. Messinger Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorLeonardo De Pascalis, Leonardo De Pascalis orcid.org/0000-0002-9150-3468 Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKSearch for more papers by this authorFrancys Subiaul, Francys Subiaul Department of Speech, Language & Hearing Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USASearch for more papers by this authorAnnika Paukner, Annika Paukner Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, MD, USASearch for more papers by this authorPier F. Ferrari, Pier F. Ferrari Institut des Sciences Cognitives – Marc Jeannerod, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, FranceSearch for more papers by this author Andrew N. Meltzoff, Corresponding Author Andrew N. Meltzoff meltzoff@uw.edu orcid.org/0000-0001-8683-0547 Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Correspondence Andrew N. Meltzoff, Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 98195, USA. Email: meltzoff@uw.eduSearch for more papers by this authorLynne Murray, Lynne Murray Department of Psychology, University of Reading, Reading, UK Department of Psychology, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South AfricaSearch for more papers by this authorElizabeth Simpson, Elizabeth Simpson Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorMikael Heimann, Mikael Heimann Department of Behavioral Sciences and Learning, Linköping University, Linköping, SwedenSearch for more papers by this authorEmese Nagy, Emese Nagy School of Psychology, University of Dundee, Dundee, UKSearch for more papers by this authorJacqueline Nadel, Jacqueline Nadel Centre Emotion, Hôpital de la Salpêtrière, Paris, FranceSearch for more papers by this authorEric J. Pedersen, Eric J. Pedersen Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USASearch for more papers by this authorRechele Brooks, Rechele Brooks orcid.org/0000-0002-3798-3448 Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USASearch for more papers by this authorDaniel S. Messinger, Daniel S. Messinger Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USASearch for more papers by this authorLeonardo De Pascalis, Leonardo De Pascalis orcid.org/0000-0002-9150-3468 Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UKSearch for more papers by this authorFrancys Subiaul, Francys Subiaul Department of Speech, Language & Hearing Sciences, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USASearch for more papers by this authorAnnika Paukner, Annika Paukner Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Rockville, MD, USASearch for more papers by this authorPier F. Ferrari, Pier F. Ferrari Institut des Sciences Cognitives – Marc Jeannerod, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, FranceSearch for more papers by this author First published: 06 September 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12738Citations: 11Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article.Citing Literature Volume22, Issue2March 2019e12738 RelatedInformation

Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) involve difficulties with socioemotional functioning; however, research on emotion recognition remains inconclusive. Children with ASD have been reported to show less susceptibility to spatial inversion. The aim of this study is to examine whether children with ASD utilize atypical abilities in socioemotional processing. This study tested 13 children with ASD (1 girl, M: 15.10 years, standard deviation [ SD]: 1.60 years), 13 children without ASD (3 girls, M: 15.92 years, SD: 1.03 years), and 20 control adults (11 women, M: 24.77 years, SD: 8.30 years) to investigate the speed and accuracy of their responses to images of neutral faces and faces expressing “easy” (happiness, anger) and “difficult” emotions (surprise, fear) in nonrotated (0°) and rotated (30°, 90°, 150°, 180°, 210°, 270°, and 330°) positions. The results showed that children with ASD recognized both easy and difficult emotions as accurately as did children and adults without ASD. Children with ASD, however, responded significantly faster to difficult emotions when the images were rotated. These results offer less support for a deficiency model than for an atypical, rapid featural type of processing used by children with ASD to encode and understand complex socioemotional stimuli.

The meaning, mechanism, and function of imitation in early infancy have been actively discussed since Meltzoff and Moore's (1977) report of facial and manual imitation by human neonates. Oostenbroek et al. (2016) claim to challenge the existence of early imitation and to counter all interpretations so far offered. Such claims, if true, would have implications for theories of social-cognitive development. Here we identify 11 flaws in Oostenbroek et al.'s experimental design that biased the results toward null effects. We requested and obtained the authors' raw data. Contrary to the authors' conclusions, new analyses reveal significant tongue-protrusion imitation at all four ages tested (1, 3, 6, and 9 weeks old). We explain how the authors missed this pattern and offer five recommendations for designing future experiments. Infant imitation raises fundamental issues about action representation, social learning, and brain-behavior relations. The debate about the origins and development of imitation reflects its importance to theories of developmental science.

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Aim The main aims of the study were to examine whether human neonates’ responses to communication disturbance modelled by the still-face paradigm were stable and whether their responses were affected by their previous experience with the still-face paradigm. Methods The still face procedure, as a laboratory model of interpersonal stress, was administered repeatedly, twice, to 84 neonates (0 to 4 day olds), with a delay of an average of 1.25 day. Results Frame-by-frame analysis of the frequency and duration of gaze, distressed face, crying, sleeping and sucking behaviours showed that the procedure was stressful to them both times, that is, the still face effect was stable after repeated administration and newborns consistently responded to such nonverbal violation of communication. They averted their gaze, showed distress and cried more during the still-face phase in both the first and the second administration. They also showed a carry-over effect in that they continued to avert their gaze and displayed increased distress and crying in the first reunion period, but their gaze behaviour changed with experience, in the second administration. While in the first administration the babies continued averting their gaze even after the stressful still-face phase was over, this carry-over effect disappeared in the second administration, and the babies significantly increased their gaze following the still-face phase. Conclusion After excluding explanations of fatigue, habituation and random effects, a self-other regulatory model is discussed as a possible explanation for this pattern.

The aim of the present study was to examine whether fetuses respond to the touching of the mother's abdomen, and if they do, whether they differentiate based on familiarity and the source of the touch, utilizing 3D real-time (4D) sonography. Behavioral responses of 28 fetuses (20th to 33rd week of gestation; N=15 in the 2nd and N=13 in the 3rd trimester) were frame-by-frame coded using a coding system comprising 20 codes and were analyzed in four conditions, during the touch of the (1) mother, (2) the father, (3) the stranger and in a (4) no-touch, control condition. Fetuses showed differential responses to the touch, in particular in the duration of their reaching out to touch the uterus wall in the four conditions, and self-touch, dependent on the gestational age of the fetus. Fetuses in the 3rd trimester touched the uterus wall significantly longer than fetuses in the 2nd trimester did, when the mother touched compared to the control condition. At the same time, fetuses in the 3rd trimester also touched themselves less during the mother's touch, compared when the stranger touched and also compared to the control condition. This differential response of the older fetuses might be due to the maturation of the central nervous system, and may indicate the emergence of a proprioceptive self-awareness by the 3rd trimester.

BackgroundAlthough there is data on the spontaneous behavioural repertoire of the fetus, studies on their behavioural responses to external stimulation are scarce.Aim, MethodsThe aim of the current study was to measure fetal behavioural responses in reaction to maternal voice; to maternal touch of the abdomen compared to a control condition, utilizing 3D real-time (4D) sonography. Behavioural responses of 23 fetuses (21st to 33rd week of gestation; N = 10 in the 2nd and N = 13 in the 3rd trimester) were frame-by-frame coded and analyzed in the three conditions.ResultsResults showed that fetuses displayed more arm, head, and mouth movements when the mother touched her abdomen and decreased their arm and head movements to maternal voice. Fetuses in the 3rd trimester showed increased regulatory (yawning), resting (arms crossed) and self-touch (hands touching the body) responses to the stimuli when compared to fetuses in the 2nd trimester.ConclusionIn summary, the results from this study suggest that fetuses selectively respond to external stimulation earlier than previously reported, fetuses actively regulated their behaviours as a response to the external stimulation, and that fetal maturation affected the emergence of these differential responses to the environment.

Imitation in human neonates, unlike imitation in young infants, is still regarded as controversial. Four studies with 203 newborns are presented to examine the imitation of index finger, two- and three-finger movements in human neonates. Results found differential imitations of all three modelled gestures, a left-handed pattern, and a rapid learning mechanism. The lateralized behavioural pattern suggests the involvement of a right lateralized neural network, and the mechanisms described in this study - (i) the accurate imitation of all aspects of the model's movements, (ii) the rapid learning component, and the (iii) the early sensitive period might fulfil the criteria for filial imprinting.