PSYC 3684 1st Edition Lecture 6 Outline of Last Lecture I. Prenatal DevelopmentII. Teratogens and their effects on developmentOutline of Current Lecture II. 5 Principles of Teratogenic effects continuedCurrent Lecture5 Principles of Teratogenic Effects Continued:- Specific impact (tobacco and SIDS)o Thalidomide: results in leg and arm abnormalitieso Thalidomide babies have flipper arms and legso Not all individuals react the same way to something so you never know what could happen for any given persono Physiological state of mom and dad matterBeyond the Barker Hypothesis:- Barker hypothesis that early exposure to adversity can lead to more problems- Predictive adaptive response (PAR) model (Glynn and Sandman, 2014)o Developing organism makes adjustments based on predicted postnatal environment, can lead to adaptive responses For example: if a mother isn’t getting enough calories, neither is the baby,and she baby slows down its metabolism so it can stay alive, then when it is born, it is born with a slower metabolism than most If the conditions after birth are better this could be a huge problem, but this could benefit the baby if he still doesn’t get enough food after birtho Caloric sufficiency in post-natal environment could lead to increased risks for obesity and diabetes, since the baby slowed its metabolism downFetal and Newborn CapacitiesThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.- “Blooming, buzzing, confusion” (James, 1890)- Now we know that babies are capable of way more than we thought- DeCasper and Fifer (1980)o Research question: can newborns distinguish between their biological mothers voice between other voices? Method participants = 10 newborns less than 3 days oldProcedure:- 2 minute adjustment period for the babies- 5 minute baseline sucking period to determine individual sucking rates- Last 20 minutes was the experimental period- One half of babies were randomly assigned to suck faster than average- Group A = increase in sucking rate produced the moms voice and if they slowed down it was not moms voice- Group B = slowed sucking rates produced the moms voice, if faster sucking then they heard a different voiceControls:- Alternative response requirements- Controls for alternative explanation that sucking rate may shift because of desire for milk, fatigue, or other various reasons- Each mom serves as another non-maternal voice for the studyo Controls for alternative explanation that preference for maternal voice may reflect speech properties other than “maternal” such as pitch, frequencyResults:- 80% of new born babies shifted their sucking rates so they could hear their own mothersvoice again- Babies can tell which voice is their moms and which isn’tImplications- Nurture/Nature:- Nature: little post-natal exposure to maternal voice, genetic predisposition to quickly recognize their own maternal voice- Nurture: prenatal exposure/ learningo Pre-natal learningDeCasper and Spence (1986): follow up study – Cat in the Hat study“Is it possible that the capacity to recognize voice prenatal is real?!”-Mother read a passage twice a day, every day, 6 weeks before giving birthControl group moms did NOT read the passageNewborns were read the same passage from Cat in the Hat and another one from Dog in the Fog and they preferred the Cat and the HatInfants shifted rate of sucking in direction of Cat in the Hat passage (amazing!)Infants learned and remembered the acoustic cues they heard in
View Full Document