Little work assesses infant capacity for bi-directional, contingent, second-to-second co-regulation at birth. Even if typical infants have this capacity, preterm infants might not. It makes a difference for our theories of development whether such co-regulation is evident in preterm infants in the neonatal period. For fullterms, Lavelli and Fogel (2013) documented mother and infant bi-directional effects in the first 2 weeks of life, with fine-grained coding and sequential analysis (Bakeman&Quera GSEQ). For preterms, Feldman and Eidelman (2007) documented conditional probability of maternal affiliative behavior during infant alert state, at 37 weeks, using 10s coding-unit; direction of effects was not addressed. Bi-directional second-by-second co-regulation during face-to-face communication with preterm infants in the neonatal period has not been examined, nor has such communication been compared in mother-infant vs. father-infant dyads, our goals. Method Very-preterm infants (N=20), born 27-33 weeks, weighing 665-2100g (mean 1450g), were studied at 35 weeks when medically stable, lying in heated-cot. Spontaneous face-to-face play was videotaped, first with mother, then father, and coded on 1s time-base with engagement scales described in Table 1. Multi-level time-series models evaluated self-contingency (auto-correlation) and interactive contingency (lagged cross-correlation); each form of contingency controlled for the other. Covariates included twin-status, infant sex, infant medical status, maternal age, maternal depression, paternal depression (CES-D as continuous variable). Posthoc descriptive probability explication identified engagement levels involved in significant effects. Results and Discussion Aim 1. Mother-infant vs. father-infant % time in engagement levels Mothers (vs. fathers) spent more time in affiliative behavior (highest engagement levels 8+7+6) t(df)=2.43(19), p=.025, interpreted as more arousing, efforts to get infant attention. Fathers (vs. mothers) spent more time in midrange engagement level 5 (gaze-on+affectionate-touch+neutral-face): t(df)= -2.56(19), p=.019, interpreted as more relaxed, less demanding. Infants were more gaze-on-environment with mothers (t(df)=2.38(19), p=.028) and more eyes-closed with fathers (t(df)= -2.70(19), p=.014), interpreted as more alert/aroused with mothers. Aim 2. Mother-infant vs. father-infant self-and interactive contingency In separate mother-infant and father-infant time-series models, all partners showed significant self-contingency, but only infant coordination with father (F→I) was significant (see Figure 1). Combining mother-infant and father-infant data, and testing differences, for interactive contingency, fathers and infants showed bi-directional coordination; mothers and infants did not show coordination. Posthoc explication of infants→parents showed that, given infants in lower engagement levels one second prior, fathers (vs. mothers) stayed in lower engagement levels in the current second, closer to infants. Posthoc explication of parents→infants showed that, given both parents in lower engagement levels one second prior, infants stayed in lower engagement in the current second with fathers, closer to fathers. In those moments when parents were in higher engagement levels one second prior, infants were higher in the current second with fathers than mothers, thus also coordinating more with fathers at higher engagement levels. We conjecture that fathers and infants were more coordinated (a) because they are more novel to one another than mothers and infants; (b) because fathers “did not need” infants to be high engagement, so that fathers could stay closer to infants’ engagement levels, facilitating infant coordination with fathers.
Very preterm infants show bi-directional, contingent co-regulation with parents in the NICU
Lavelli M.;Stefana A.;
2019-01-01
Abstract
Little work assesses infant capacity for bi-directional, contingent, second-to-second co-regulation at birth. Even if typical infants have this capacity, preterm infants might not. It makes a difference for our theories of development whether such co-regulation is evident in preterm infants in the neonatal period. For fullterms, Lavelli and Fogel (2013) documented mother and infant bi-directional effects in the first 2 weeks of life, with fine-grained coding and sequential analysis (Bakeman&Quera GSEQ). For preterms, Feldman and Eidelman (2007) documented conditional probability of maternal affiliative behavior during infant alert state, at 37 weeks, using 10s coding-unit; direction of effects was not addressed. Bi-directional second-by-second co-regulation during face-to-face communication with preterm infants in the neonatal period has not been examined, nor has such communication been compared in mother-infant vs. father-infant dyads, our goals. Method Very-preterm infants (N=20), born 27-33 weeks, weighing 665-2100g (mean 1450g), were studied at 35 weeks when medically stable, lying in heated-cot. Spontaneous face-to-face play was videotaped, first with mother, then father, and coded on 1s time-base with engagement scales described in Table 1. Multi-level time-series models evaluated self-contingency (auto-correlation) and interactive contingency (lagged cross-correlation); each form of contingency controlled for the other. Covariates included twin-status, infant sex, infant medical status, maternal age, maternal depression, paternal depression (CES-D as continuous variable). Posthoc descriptive probability explication identified engagement levels involved in significant effects. Results and Discussion Aim 1. Mother-infant vs. father-infant % time in engagement levels Mothers (vs. fathers) spent more time in affiliative behavior (highest engagement levels 8+7+6) t(df)=2.43(19), p=.025, interpreted as more arousing, efforts to get infant attention. Fathers (vs. mothers) spent more time in midrange engagement level 5 (gaze-on+affectionate-touch+neutral-face): t(df)= -2.56(19), p=.019, interpreted as more relaxed, less demanding. Infants were more gaze-on-environment with mothers (t(df)=2.38(19), p=.028) and more eyes-closed with fathers (t(df)= -2.70(19), p=.014), interpreted as more alert/aroused with mothers. Aim 2. Mother-infant vs. father-infant self-and interactive contingency In separate mother-infant and father-infant time-series models, all partners showed significant self-contingency, but only infant coordination with father (F→I) was significant (see Figure 1). Combining mother-infant and father-infant data, and testing differences, for interactive contingency, fathers and infants showed bi-directional coordination; mothers and infants did not show coordination. Posthoc explication of infants→parents showed that, given infants in lower engagement levels one second prior, fathers (vs. mothers) stayed in lower engagement levels in the current second, closer to infants. Posthoc explication of parents→infants showed that, given both parents in lower engagement levels one second prior, infants stayed in lower engagement in the current second with fathers, closer to fathers. In those moments when parents were in higher engagement levels one second prior, infants were higher in the current second with fathers than mothers, thus also coordinating more with fathers at higher engagement levels. We conjecture that fathers and infants were more coordinated (a) because they are more novel to one another than mothers and infants; (b) because fathers “did not need” infants to be high engagement, so that fathers could stay closer to infants’ engagement levels, facilitating infant coordination with fathers.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
