13.01.2015 Views

The role of the mother's voice in developing mother's ... - FIU Infant Lab

The role of the mother's voice in developing mother's ... - FIU Infant Lab

The role of the mother's voice in developing mother's ... - FIU Infant Lab

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

38<br />

F. Z. Sai<br />

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION<br />

<strong>The</strong> data were expressed <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> PTLT <strong>in</strong>fants spent fixat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r’s<br />

face on each trial. Look<strong>in</strong>g percentages for both trials were also averaged for each<br />

participant (Table 2).<br />

To assess <strong>the</strong> <strong>role</strong> <strong>of</strong> experience with <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r’s <strong>voice</strong> <strong>in</strong> facilitat<strong>in</strong>g<br />

recognition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r’s face, s<strong>in</strong>gle-sample t test were conducted on <strong>the</strong><br />

PTLTs to <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r’s face on trials 1, 2 and on <strong>the</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ed trials (Trials 1 and<br />

2). As a group, <strong>the</strong> newborn <strong>in</strong>fants failed to significantly discrim<strong>in</strong>ate and<br />

recognize <strong>the</strong> face <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r on trial 1 (tð13Þ ¼ 0:83, p ¼ ns), trial 2<br />

(tð13Þ ¼0:92, p ¼ ns), and on <strong>the</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ed trials (tð13Þ ¼0:65, p ¼ ns). Figure 2<br />

displays <strong>the</strong> means percentage preference for <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r’s face across trials.<br />

Experience with <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r’s <strong>voice</strong> prior test<strong>in</strong>g seems necessary for mo<strong>the</strong>r’s<br />

face recognition. <strong>The</strong> question how much experience with <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r’s <strong>voice</strong>–<br />

face is needed for such learn<strong>in</strong>g to develop rema<strong>in</strong>s however, unanswered.<br />

Fur<strong>the</strong>r analyses were conducted to determ<strong>in</strong>e whe<strong>the</strong>r preference for <strong>the</strong><br />

mo<strong>the</strong>r differed as a function <strong>of</strong> condition and position <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r’s face. <strong>The</strong><br />

performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants <strong>in</strong> Experiment 1 was compared to that <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants <strong>in</strong><br />

Experiment 2. A mixed factorial design with condition (<strong>voice</strong> vs no <strong>voice</strong>) and<br />

side preferences (position <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r on <strong>the</strong> right side vs left side) as ma<strong>in</strong><br />

factors revealed no ma<strong>in</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> condition (Fð1; 26Þ ¼3:09, p ¼ ns), side<br />

preferences (Fð1; 26Þ ¼0:001, p ¼ ns) or <strong>in</strong>teraction, condition X side preferences<br />

(Fð1; 26Þ ¼0:099, p ¼ ns). <strong>The</strong> results <strong>in</strong>dicated that although <strong>the</strong> newborn <strong>in</strong>fants<br />

showed no significant differences <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir preferential behaviour across<br />

conditions, a slight preference for <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r was demonstrated <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>voice</strong><br />

condition (Table 3). Fur<strong>the</strong>r, <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>fants demonstrated a slight preference for <strong>the</strong><br />

mo<strong>the</strong>r’s face shown on <strong>the</strong> left side <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>voice</strong> experiment. This pattern was<br />

however, reversed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> no-<strong>voice</strong> experiment. (Figure 3). Perhaps when <strong>in</strong>fants<br />

failed to discrim<strong>in</strong>ate between <strong>the</strong> two faces, <strong>the</strong>y tended to look more to <strong>the</strong> right<br />

side. This is consistent with early reports suggest<strong>in</strong>g significant head turns<br />

towards <strong>the</strong> right side <strong>in</strong> 3 month-old <strong>in</strong>fants (Gesell and Ames, 1947; Turkewitz<br />

et al., 1965). In a study by Bahrick et al. (1996) side preferences was however not<br />

significant at 5 or 8 months.<br />

An <strong>in</strong>terview was conducted with <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r and <strong>the</strong> female stranger at <strong>the</strong><br />

end <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> test<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> each <strong>in</strong>fant <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> no-<strong>voice</strong> experiment. We asked whe<strong>the</strong>r<br />

Figure 2. Percentage preference for <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r’s face across trials <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> no <strong>voice</strong><br />

condition.<br />

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Inf. Child Dev. 14: 29–50 (2005)

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!