Advertisement

Using an Animal Model to Explore the Prenatal Origins of Social Development

  • Robert LickliterEmail author
  • Lorraine E. Bahrick
Chapter
  • 1.6k Downloads

Abstract

Prenatal experience is both a formative and regulatory force in the process of development. As a result, birth is not an adequate starting point for explanations of behavioral development. However, little is currently known regarding the role of prenatal experience in the emergence and development of neonatal social orienting, social motivation, or social learning. Our lack of knowledge in this area is due in part to the very restricted experimental manipulations possible with human fetuses. A comparative approach utilizing animal models provides an essential step in addressing this gap in our knowledge of the development of social responsiveness and providing testable predictions for studies with human fetuses and infants. In this chapter we review animal-based research exploring how aspects of prenatal experience can facilitate the development of postnatal social motivation, social recognition, and social learning. We conclude that infant social responsiveness has its roots in prenatal development and that intersensory redundancy present in the prenatal environment promotes the salience of social stimuli during early postnatal development.

Keywords

Prenatal learning Intersensory redundancy Origins of social development Behavioral embryology Selective attention 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The writing of this chapter was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant BCS 1057898 to R. Lickliter and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Grants K02 HD064943 and RO1 HD053776 to L. E. Bahrick.

References

  1. Alberts, J. (1984). Sensory-perceptual development in the Norway rat: A view toward comparative studies. In R. Kail & N. Spear (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on memory development (pp. 65–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Als, H., Gilkerson, L., Duffy, F., McAnulty, G., Buehler, D, Vandenberg, K., … Jones, K. J. (2003). A three-center, randomized, controlled trial of individualized developmental care for very low birth weight preterm infants: Medical, neurodevelopmental, parenting, and caregiving effects. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 24, 399–408.Google Scholar
  3. Arnold, H. M., & Spear, N. E. (1997). Infantile amnesia: Using animal models to understand forgetting. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 26, 251–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aylward, G. P. (2005). Neurodevelopmental outcomes of infants born prematurely. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 26, 427–435.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bahrick, L. E. (2010). Intermodal perception and selective attention to intersensory redundancy: Implications for typical social development and autism. In G. Bremner & T. D. Wachs (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of infant development (pp. 120–166). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bahrick, L. E., & Lickliter, R. (2002). Intersensory redundancy guides early perceptual and cognitive development. In R. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 30, pp. 154–187). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bahrick, L. E., & Lickliter, R. (2012). The role of intersensory redundancy in early perceptual, cognitive, and social development. In A. Bremner, D. Lewkowicz, & C. Spence (Eds.), Multisensory development (pp. 183–206). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bahrick, L. E., & Pickens, J. (1994). Amodal relations: The basis for intermodal perception and learning in infancy. In D. Lewkowicz & R. Lickliter (Eds.), The development of intersensory perception: Comparative perspectives (pp. 205–233). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Bahrick, L. E., & Watson, J. S. (1985). Detection of intermodal proprioceptive-visual contingency as a potential basis of self-perception in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 21, 963–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bailey, E. D., & Ralph, K. M. (1975). The effects of embryonic exposure to pheasant vocalizations on later call identification by chicks. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 53, 1028–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Balas, B. (2010). Using innate visual biases to guide face learning in natural scenes: A computational investigation. Developmental Science, 13, 469–478.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bradley, R. M., & Mistretta, C. M. (1975). Fetal sensory receptors. Physiological Review, 55, 352–382.Google Scholar
  13. Bremner, A., Lewkowicz, D. J., & Spence, C. (2012). Multisensory development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calvert, G., Spence, C., & Stein, B. E. (2004). The handbook of multisensory processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Castellanos, I., Vaillant-Molina, M., Lickliter, R., & Bahrick, L. E. (2006). Intersensory redundancy educates infants’ attention to amodal information in unimodal stimulation. Poster presented at the International Society for Developmental Psychobiology, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  16. DeCasper, A., & Fifer, W. (1980). Of human bonding: Newborns prefer their mothers’ voices. Science, 208, 1174–1176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gekoski, M. J., Fagen, J., & Pearlman, M. A. (1984). Early learning and memory in the preterm infant. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gergely, G., & Watson, J. (1999). Early socio-emotional development: Contingency perception and the social-biofeedback model. In G. Gergely, J. Watson, & P. Rochat (Eds.), Early social cognition: Understanding others in the first months of life. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. Goren, C. C., Sarty, M., & Wu, P. Y. (1975). Visual following and pattern discrimination of face-like stimuli by newborn infants. Pediatrics, 56, 544–549.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gottlieb, G. (1971). Ontogenesis of sensory function in birds and mammals. In E. Tobach, L. R. Aronson, & E. Shaw (Eds.), The biopsychology of development (pp. 67–128). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gottlieb, G. (1997). Synthesizing nature-nurture: Prenatal roots of instinctive behavior. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. Gottlieb, G., & Lickliter, R. (2004). The various roles of animal models in understanding human development. Social Development, 13, 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gressens, P., Rogido, M., Paindaveine, B., & Sola, A. (2002). The impact of the neonatal intensive care practices on the developing brain. Journal of Pediatrics, 140, 646–653.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Haley, D. W., Grunau, R. E., Oberlander, T., & Weinberg, J. (2008). Contingency learning and reactivity in preterm and full-term infants at 3 months. Infancy, 13, 570–595.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Haley, D. W., Weinberg, J., & Grunau, R. E. (2006). Cortisol, contingency learning, and memory in preterm and full-term infants. Psychoendocrinology, 31, 108–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harshaw, C., & Lickliter, R. (2007). Interactive and vicarious acquisition of auditory preferences in Northern bobwhite chicks. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 121, 320–331.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Harshaw, C., & Lickliter, R. (2011). Biased embryos: Prenatal experience alters the postnatal malleability of auditory preferences in bobwhite quail. Developmental Psychobiology, 53, 291–302.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Harshaw, C., Tourgeman, I., & Lickliter, R. (2008). Stimulus contingency and the malleability of species-typical auditory preferences in Northern bobwhite hatchlings. Developmental Psychobiology, 50, 460–472.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Heaton, M., Goodwin, D., & Miller, D. B. (1978). Species-specific auditory discrimination in bobwhite quail neonates. Developmental Psychobiology, 11, 13–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hepper, P. G., Scott, D., & Shahidulla, S. (1993). Newborn and fetal response to maternal voice. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 11, 147–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Honeycutt, H., & Lickliter, R. (2003). The influence of prenatal tactile and vestibular stimulation on auditory and visual responsiveness in bobwhite quail: A matter of timing. Developmental Psychobiology, 43, 71–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hopkins, B., & Johnson, S. (2005). Prenatal development of postnatal functions. London: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  33. Jaime, M., Bahrick, L. E., & Lickliter, R. (2010). The critical role of temporal synchrony in the salience of intersensory redundancy during prenatal development. Infancy, 15, 61–82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Kisilevsky, B. S., Hains, S. A., Lee, K., Xie, X., Huang, H., Ye, H. H., … Wang, Z. (2003). Effects of experience on fetal voice recognition. Psychological Science, 14, 220–224.Google Scholar
  35. Kisilevsky, B. S., & Low, J. A. (1998). Human fetal behavior: 100 years of study. Developmental Review, 18, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Legerstee, M., Pomerleau, A., Malcuit, G., & Feider, H. (1987). The development of infants’ responses to people and a doll: Implications for research in communication. Infant Behavior and Development, 10, 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewkowicz, D. J. (2000). The development of intersensory temporal perception: An epigenetic systems/limitations view. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 281–308.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lewkowicz, D. J., & Lickliter, R. (1994). The development of intersensory perception: Comparative perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Lickliter, R. (1990). Premature visual experience accelerates intersensory functioning in bobwhite quail neonates. Developmental Psychobiology, 23, 15–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Lickliter, R. (2000). The role of sensory stimulation in perinatal development: Insights from comparative research for the care of the high-risk infant. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 21, 437–447.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lickliter, R. (2005). Prenatal sensory ecology and experience: Implications for perceptual and behavioral development in precocial birds. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 35, 235–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lickliter, R. (2011). The integrated development of sensory organization. Clinics in Perinatology, 38, 591–603.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Lickliter, R., & Bahrick, L. E. (2000). The development of infant intersensory perception: Advantages of a comparative convergent operations approach. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 260–280.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Lickliter, R., & Bahrick, L. E. (2004). Perceptual development and the origins of multisensory responsiveness. In G. Calvert, C. Spence, & B. E. Stein (Eds.), Handbook of multisensory processes (pp. 643–654). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Lickliter, R., & Bahrick, L. E. (2007). Thinking about development: The value of animal-based research for the study of human development. European Journal of Developmental Science, 1, 172–183.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Lickliter, R., Bahrick, L. E., & Honeycutt, H. (2002). Intersensory redundancy facilitates prenatal perceptual learning in bobwhite quail embryos. Developmental Psychology, 38, 15–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Lickliter, R., Bahrick, L. E., & Honeycutt, H. (2004). Intersensory redundancy enhances memory in bobwhite quail embryos. Infancy, 5, 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lickliter, R., Bahrick, L. E., & Markham, R. (2006). Intersensory redundancy educates selective attention in bobwhite quail embryos. Developmental Science, 9, 605–616.Google Scholar
  49. Lickliter, R., & Hellewell, T. (1992). Contextual determinants of auditory learning in bobwhite quail embryos and hatchlings. Developmental Psychobiology, 25, 17–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Markham, R., Shimizu, T., & Lickliter, R. (2008). Extrinsic embryonic sensory stimulation alters multimodal behavior and cellular activation. Developmental Neurobiology, 68, 1463–1473.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Mastropieri, D., & Turkewitz, G. (1999). Prenatal exposure and neonatal responsiveness to vocal expression of emotion. Developmental Psychobiology, 35, 204–214.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Maurer, D., & Young, R. E. (1983). Newborns’ following of natural and distorted arrangements of facial features. Infant Behavior and Development, 6, 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Meltzoff, A. N., & Decety, J. (2003). What imitation tells us about social cognition: A rapprochement between developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 358, 491–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Millar, W. S., & Weir, C. G. (1992). Relations between habituation and contingency learning in 5 to 12 month old infants. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12, 209–222.Google Scholar
  55. Moon, C., Panneton-Cooper, R., & Fifer, W. P. (1993). Two-day olds prefer their native language. Infant Behavior and Development, 16, 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moore, D. S. (2009). Probing predispositions: The pragmatism of a process perspective. Child Development Perspectives, 3, 91–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Muir, D., & Nadel, J. (1998). Infant social perception. In A. Slater (Ed.), Perceptual development: Visual, auditory and speech perception in infancy. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  58. Norton-Griffiths, M. (1969). The organization, control, and development of parental feeding in the oysterchater. Behaviour, 34, 55–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Radell, P., & Gottlieb, G. (1992). Developmental intersensory interference: Augmented prenatal sensory experience interferes with auditory learning in duck embryos. Developmental Psychology, 28, 795–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Raju, N., Bahrick, L. E., & Lickliter, R. (2013a). Prenatal visual stimulation interferes with contingency learning in bobwhite quail neonates. Poster presented at the International Society for Developmental Psychobiology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  61. Raju, N., Bahrick, L. E., & Lickliter, R. (2013b). The effects of atypical perinatal sensory stimulation on contingency learning in bobwhite quail neonates. Poster presented at the Society for Child Development, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  62. Rand, K., & Lahav, A. (2014). Impact of the NICU environment on language deprivation in preterm infants. Acta Paediatrica, 103, 243–248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Reynolds, G., & Lickliter, R. (2002). Effects of prenatal sensory stimulation on heart rate and behavioral measures of arousal in bobwhite quail embryos. Developmental Psychobiology, 41, 112–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Reynolds, G., & Lickliter, R. (2003). Effects of redundant and non-redundant bimodal sensory stimulation on heart rate in bobwhite quail embryos. Developmental Psychobiology, 43, 304–310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Robertson, S. S., & Bacher, L. (1995). Oscillation and chaos in fetal motor activity. In J. P. Lecanuet, W. P. Fifer, N. Krasnegor, & W. Smotherman (Eds.), Fetal development: A psychobiological perspective (pp. 169–189). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. Rochat, P. (2001). Social contingency detection and infant development. Bulletin of the Meinninger Clinic, 65, 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rovee-Collier, C. (1987). Learning and memory in infancy. In J. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant development (pp. 98–148). New York, NY: J. Wiley.Google Scholar
  68. Schaal, B., Marlier, L., & Soussignan, R. (1998). Neonatal responsiveness to the odor of amniotic and lacteal fluids: A test of perinatal chemosensory continuity. Child Development, 69, 611–623.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Sleigh, M. J., & Lickliter, R. (1998). Timing of presentation of prenatal auditory stimulation alters auditory and visual responsiveness in bobwhite quail chicks. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 112, 153–160.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Smotherman, W., & Robinson, S. R. (1986). Environmental determinants of behavior in the rat fetus. Animal Behaviour, 34, 1859–1873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tarabulsy, G. M., Tessier, R., & Kappas, A. (1996). Contingency detection and the contingent organization of behavior in interactions: Implications for socioemotional development in infancy. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 25–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Turkewitz, G., & Kenny, P. A. (1985). Limitations on input as a basis for neural organization and perceptual development: A preliminary theoretical statement. Developmental Psychobiology, 15, 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tusculescu, R., & Griswald, J. (1983). Prehatching interactions in domestic chicks. Animal Behaviour, 31, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Vaillant, J., Harshaw, C., Jaime, M., Bahrick, L. E., & Lickliter, R. (2010). Selective attention during prenatal development: Redundancy across auditory and vibro-tactile stimulation facilitates learning in quail embryos. San Diego, CA: International Society for Developmental Psychobiology.Google Scholar
  75. Valenza, E., Simion, F., Cassia, V., & Umilta, C. (1996). Face preference at birth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 892–903.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Watson, J. S. (1979). Perception of contingency as a determinant of social responsiveness. In E. Thoman (Ed.), The origins of social responsiveness (pp. 33–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyFlorida International UniversityMiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations