A comparison of dyadic interactions and coping with still‐face in healthy pre‐term and full‐term infants

Abstract

Pre-term birth has a significant impact on infants' social and emotional competence, however, little is known about regulatory processes in pre-term mother-infant dyads during normal or stressful interactions. The primary goals of this study were to investigate the differences in infant and caregiver interactive behaviour and dyadic coordination of clinically healthy pre-term compared to full-term infant-mother dyads and to examine pre-term infants' capacity for coping with stress using the face-to-face still-face paradigm (FFSF). Fifty mother-infant dyads, including 25 pre-term infants and 25 full-term infants were videotaped during the FFSF. All infants were 6-9 months of age (corrected for gestational age in the pre-term group). Infant and maternal socio-emotional expressivity and self-regulatory behaviours were coded and measures of dyadic coordination (Matching, Reparation Rate, and Synchrony) were calculated. There were no significant differences in infant and caregiver socio-emotional behaviours between the two groups and both groups demonstrated the still-face (SF) effect and the reunion effect. There was a difference in self-regulatory behaviour. Pre-term infants were more likely than full-term infants to use distancing (e.g., by turning away, twisting, or arching) from their mothers during the FFSF. Additionally, during the Reunion episode of the FFSF pre-term infants showed more social monitoring compared to full-term infants. Regardless of the birth status, the dyads showed less coordination and a slower rate of reparation during the Reunion episode than during the Play episode. The higher proportion of distancing in the pre-term group and the increase in social monitoring suggest that even in normal interactions pre-term infants may experience a higher level of stress and have less capacity for self-regulation compared to the full-terms and that pre-term infants appear to use a compensatory strategy of increased social monitoring to cope with the stress of renegotiating the interaction during Reunion. The findings suggest that pre-term infants have different regulatory and interactive capacities than full-term infants.

Effects of Maternal Anxiety Disorders on Infant Self-Comforting Behaviors: The Role of Maternal Bonding, Infant Gender and Age

“…For instance, Leeb and Rejskind [64] found that female infants aged 3-4 months made more eye contact interaction with unfamiliar female adults. Montirosso et al [65] argued that infant eye contact may serve as a compensatory regulation strategy in preterm infants aged 6-9 months. It may be that female infants make more compensatory use of other-directed regulative strategy as opposed to self-comforting behaviors in the case of maternal disorder.…”

Dyadic co-regulation, affective intensity and infant's development at 12 months: A comparison among extremely preterm and full-term dyads

“…This effect was greater for preterm infants, likely as a function of maternal modelling and contingency patterns, although with more negative emotions displayed by preterm infants. Another study which examined the infants' behaviours during face-to-face play and a still-face condition in a 6-to 9-month-old heterogeneous preterm group (<36 weeks GA), showed that the preterm infants spent a similar time in object/environment engagement and social monitoring as the full-term infants in the play condition; by contrast, lower self-regulatory abilities, with more distancing behaviours, were observed in the stressful still-face condition (Montirosso, Borgatti, Trojan, Zanini, & Tronick, 2010).…”

Mothers' perceptions of their premature infant's communication: A description of two cases

“…Firstly, infants cannot respond to parental expectations in the same way that full-term babies do. They tend to be less alert and responsive (Montirosso, Borgatti, Trojan, Zanini, & Tronick, 2010;Tallandini & Scalembra, 2006). Secondly, mothers typically feel unprepared due to the early birth, which challenges the attachment process (Borghini et al, 2006).…”