Information Processing in Seven-Month-Old Infants as a Function of Risk Status

Abstract

7-month-old full-terms and high-risk preterms (less than 1,500 grams at birth) were compared on problems of visual recognition memory and tactual-to-visual cross-modal transfer. On the visual problems, preterm infants showed significantly less differential attentiveness to novelty than full-terms. They also required longer exposure times during visual familiarization, primarily because of longer pauses between fixations. Preterms and full-terms exhibited different patterns of looking, as indicated by the duration of fixation and the frequency in shifts of gaze. On the cross-modal problems, preterms and full-terms both exhibited similar and significant preferences for familiar rather than novel stimuli, a direction of preference which suggests that these problems were relatively difficult for both groups. For the preterms, novelty and exposure-time scores were found to be related to several medical risk factors. Novelty preferences were compromised in preterms who had suffered RDS postnatally, particularly those who had required prolonged mechanical ventilation. In general, high-risk preterms exhibited deficits in visual recognition memory and in the ability to recruit, sustain, and shift attention.

Visual habituation and dishabituation in preterm infants: A review and meta-analysis

“…Effect sizes in the studies which found significant differences between preterms and terms were predominantly medium. In Rose et al (1988), when tested with naturalistic faces and geometric 3D forms, no difference was found between 7-month-old preterms with RDS and 7-month-old terms. With abstract patterns, however, a significant difference between groups, with an effect size of d = 0.49 ( p = .01), emerged.…”

“…Risk factors are listed in Table 4. They include IVH, RDS (e.g., Landry, Leslie, Fletcher, & Francis, 1985; Rose, Feldman, McCarton, & Wolfson, 1988), hyaline membrane disease (Cohen, 1981), and cardiac anomalies (Millar, Weir, & Supramian, 1991). In two studies, the nature of additional risk factors was not specified (Caron & Caron, 1981; Holmes, Reich, & Gyurke, 1989), making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about the samples.…”

“…The most frequently reported risk factors in preterm birth are IVH and RDS complications (e.g., Landry et al, 1985; Rose et al, 1988). The kinds of additional strains preterms are exposed to are summarized in Table 4.…”

Measuring infant memory: Utility of the visual paired-comparison test paradigm for studies in developmental neurotoxicology

“…The lack of a robust response to visual novelty in these groups raised provocative questions about the meaning of early perceptual-cognitive changes and their possible relationship with long-term intelligence and academic success (Rose et al , 1988). While it is difficult to predict the meaning of early differences in selective visual attention, infant novelty preference scores are related to later performance on standardized tests of intelligence, (Fagan et al , 1986, Thompson et al , 1991, Fagan et al , 2007, Rose et al , 1988, Rose, et al , 2005). In addition, better infant visual recognition memory scores have been associated with enhanced comprehension and gestural communication in toddlers (Heimann et al , 2006) and improved expressive and receptive language skills during preschool and beyond (Fagan and McGrath, 1981, Rose et al , 1991, Thompson et al , 1991).…”

Contingency Learning and Reactivity in Preterm and Full‐Term Infants at 3 Months

“…Since that time, longitudinal studies of infants born prematurely with age-matched, full-term controls have demonstrated a greater incidence of behavioral, cognitive, and learning problems in infants born prematurely that persist into childhood (e.g., Anderson, Doyle, & Victorian Infant Collaborative Study Group, 2003; Grunau, Whitfield, & Davis, 2002; Pharoah, Stevenson, & West, 2003; Rose & Feldman, 1996; Taylor, Klein, Minich, & Hack, 2000) and late adolescence (e.g., Grunau, Whitfield, & Fay, 2004; Hack et al, 2002; Saigal, Hoult, Streiner, Stoskopf, & Rosenbaum, 2000). Specifically, preterm infants are slower in the processing of novel (e.g., Gardner & Karmel, 1983; Landry, Leslie, Fletcher, & Francis, 1985; Millar & Weir, 1995; Rose, Feldman, Jankowski, & Caro, 2002; Rose, Feldman, McCarten, &Wolfson, 1988) and contingent stimulation (e.g., Gekoski, Fagen, & Pearlman, 1984; Millar, Weir, & Supramaniam, 1992; Ramey, Heiger, & Klisz, 1972), which may be due, in part, to differences in brain function (e.g., Herbert, Eckerman, Goldstein, & Stanton, 2004) or difficulties in arousal regulation (e.g., Mayes, 2000; Millar & Weir, 2007). …”