General Chat

Researchers found that babies pick up the national nuances of their mother tongue in the last three months of pregnancy. They discovered that newborn infants in France and Germany cry with French and German "accents".
The findings suggest that unborn babies are influenced by the sounds – especially their mother's voice – penetrating the wall of the womb. It was already known that foetuses can memorise sounds from the outside world and are especially sensitive to the melodic characteristics of both music and human speech. However, scientists previously thought language traits did not begin to have an influence until much later.
Dr Kathleen Wermke, the study leader from the University of Würzburg in Germany, said the findings showed that babies' cries reflected the "ambient language they have heard" in the womb. Dr Wermke's team recorded and studied the cries of 60 healthy babies aged three to five days born into French and German-speaking families. Their analysis revealed clear differences in the shape of the infants' cry melodies that corresponded to their mother tongue.
French newborns tended to cry with a rising melodic pattern while German newborns cried with a falling inflection. The different patterns were consistent with the characteristics of both languages, said Dr Wermke. Earlier studies showed that infants can match vowel sounds made by adult speakers but only from the age of 12 weeks after developing the necessary physical vocal control.
Dr Wermke, who reported her findings in the journal Current Biology, said that babies mimicked their mother in order to "foster bonding". "Newborns are probably highly motivated to imitate their mother's behaviour in order to attract her and hence to foster bonding," she said.

That's fascinating Len. So much must mould a child from before birth as they hear and experience so much while in the womb.

Lizx

Just to note that the idea that fetuses hear music, let alone respond to it, is the utmost bunkum. In spite of all the expensive devices pregnant women buy to play Mozart for their fetuses.

Imagine yourself trying to hear Mozart through water ...


http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20000824233046data_trunc_sys.shtml

"If we play sounds loudly - really loud - the 30-week-old fetuses will move to it, but we don't get any response prior to 30 weeks," says Dr. Kisilevsky. "What we still don't know is what they hear, or how clearly they distinguish various sounds."

Ultimately, says Dr. Kisilevsky, the team hopes to determine if what the fetus hears influences its development. "We suspect that the mother's voice, and what the fetus hears has an impact on its development - that it shapes the infant to prefer and recognize its native language. But we still don't know if your child will be brighter, for example, if you play music to it in utero, despite the notions disseminated in the popular media.

Today many entrepreneurs talk about "fetal universities," and sell devices that adhere to the abdomen and transmit music and information to the fetus. But is this trend based on good science?

"We don't know if women should be using these devices," says Dr. Kisilevsky. "We don't know what they should be playing, how long, or how loud." In fact, animal studies have shown that when audio or visual stimulation is provided to chicks in utero, there is a temporary delay in hearing when they are born.



And of course, an "unborn baby" is much like an unbaked cake: it doesn't exist. A baby is there from birth onward; prior to that, it is a fetus. Scientists don't use mush words like "unborn baby" when they discuss their work.

There's a lot of bunk in the above post - for instance sound travels very well through water ask any submariner.
Dr Diana Riley, Consultant Psychiatrist informed me that babies often positively respond to the music associated with popular soaps (e.g.Neighbours") that they heard daily in the maternity wards, prior to birth.

Ask a submariner if you like, Len.

I quoted a scientist who appears to be a bit of an authority.

"If we play sounds loudly - really loud - the 30-week-old fetuses will move to it, but we don't get any response prior to 30 weeks," says Dr. Kisilevsky. "What we still don't know is what they hear, or how clearly they distinguish various sounds."

I always prefer authoritative sources.

I wouldn't dispute the report of infants crying "with an accent". What was actually referred to is the inflexion, rather than "accent". That speech pattern would quite reasonably be communicated to a fetus in late pregnancy, as sound originating and ending within the woman's own body; and the surmise "Newborns are probably highly motivated to imitate their mother's behaviour in order to attract her and hence to foster bonding" makes perfect sense.


If you want to comment on something I've said, do feel free to address me directly.


Just to add: anecdotal evidence is not actually evidence, even when it comes from the mouth of an MD.


Name Dr Diana Riley
Job title Consultant Psychiatrist
Primary specialty Psychiatry
Qualifications
MBBS
MRCS
LRCP
DPM
FRCPsych
>>> Clinical interests
• Psychiatric problems associated with pregnancy
• The puerperium and gynaecological complaints

*not* prenatal development.

perhaps it is the lower (vocal)frequencies that travel better through the watery medium? after all it is said that whales can communicate over many miles due to their low frequency "musical" calls.....??

Bob

Surely a baby in the womb isn't just hearing it's mother's voice through water.
Unlike sounds from the 'outside' ie music, the baby would hear vibrations of the mother's body etc, and hear the voice from a different perspective to that of 'outside' noise. Vibrations travel through water, and the mother's voice is, surely, 'internal' to the baby.
After all, no-one has said that the child responded to the father's voice - external noise, similar to music.

Try talking with your hand on your chest. does your chest vibrate?
That would be internal noise to the baby.
So, just because one academic says music won't make your baby more intelligent, doesn't mean the baby can't hear inflections in it's mother's voice!

They're two totally different studies.

Oh, and academics can be wrong!!

Yes, that will be pretty much what I said.

What the article quoted (I think from the Telegraph, no source cited) said was:

"It was already known that foetuses can memorise sounds from the outside world and are especially sensitive to the melodic characteristics of both music and human speech."

Not at all the same thing. And that's what I was referring to in the first place.


And there really really are no babies in wombs ...

I think parents of babies born at 30 weeks and under, will disagree with you, Janie. Particularly the parents whose babies survive.
To their parents they are babies, not foetuses ejected too early.

maggie

Parents of babies born *whenever* are parents of babies.

Before the babies are born, they are fetuses. That's just how it is. Words mean things.

"To their parents they are babies, not foetuses ejected too early."

Hm, I don't think anyone suggested calling anything a "foetus ejected too early". How odd. Maybe you just wanted to make me look nasty for preferring to use the right words?

Sadly, I have to go home and make dinner and watch House so I won't be able to defend my preference for the right words for things any more tonight.

Listening and Hearing
Although a concentric series of barriers buffer the fetus from the outside world--amniotic fluid, embryonic membranes, uterus, and the maternal abdomen--the fetus lives in a stimulating matrix of sound, vibration, and motion. Many studies now confirm that voices reach the womb, rather than being overwhelmed by the background noise created by the mother and placenta. Intonation patterns of pitch, stress, and rhythm, as well as music, reach the fetus without significant distortion. A mother's voice is particularly powerful because it is transmitted to the womb through her own body reaching the fetus in a stronger form than outside sounds. For a comprehensive review of fetal audition, see Busnel, Granier-Deferre, and Lecanuet 1992.
Sounds have a surprising impact upon the fetal heart rate: a five second stimulus can cause changes in heart rate and movement which last up to an hour. Some musical sounds can cause changes in metabolism. "Brahm's Lullabye," for example, played six times a day for five minutes in a premature baby nursery produced faster weight gain than voice sounds played on the same schedule (Chapman, 1975).
Researchers in Belfast have demonstrated that reactive listening begins at 16 weeks g.a., two months sooner than other types of measurements indicated. Working with 400 fetuses, researchers in Belfast beamed a pure pulse sound at 250-500 Hz and found behavioral responses at 16 weeks g.a.--clearly seen via ultrasound (Shahidullah and Hepper, 1992). This is especially significant because reactive listening begins eight weeks before the ear is structurally complete at about 24 weeks.
These findings indicate the complexity of hearing, lending support to the idea that receptive hearing begins with the skin and skeletal framework, skin being a multireceptor organ integrating input from vibrations, thermo receptors, and pain receptors. This primal listening system is then amplified with vestibular and cochlear information as it becomes available. With responsive listening proven at 16 weeks, hearing is clearly a major information channel operating for about 24 weeks before birth.
Development of Vision
Vision, probably our most predominant sense after birth, evolves steadily during gestation, but in ways which are difficult to study. However, at the time of birth, vision is perfectly focused from 8 to 12 inches, the distance to a mother's face when feeding at the breast. Technical reviews reveal how extraordinary vision is in the first few months of life (Salapatek and Cohen, 1987).
Although testing eyesight in the womb has not been feasible, we can learn from testing premature babies. When tested from 28 to 34 weeks g.a. for visual focus and horizontal and vertical tracking, they usually show these abilities by 31-32 weeks g.a. Abilities increase rapidly with experience so that by 33-34 weeks g.a., both tracking in all directions as well as visual attention equals that of babies of 40 weeks g.a. Full-term newborns have impressive visual resources including acuity and contrast sensitivity, refraction and accommodation, spacial vision, binocular function, distance and depth perception, color vision, and sensitivity to flicker and motion patterns (Atkinson and Braddick, 1982). Their eyes search the environment day and night, showing curiosity and basic form perception without needing much time for practice (Slater, Mattock, Brown, and Gavin, 1991).
In utero, eyelids remain closed until about the 26th week. However, the fetus is sensitive to light, responding to light with heart rate accelerations to projections of light on the abdomen. This can even serve as a test of well-being before birth. Although it cannot be explained easily, prenates with their eyelids still fused seem to be using some aspect of "vision" to detect the location of needles entering the womb, either shrinking away from them or turning to attack the needle barrel with a fist (Birnholz, Stephens, and Faria, 1978). Similarly, at 20 weeks g.a., twins in utero have no trouble locating each other and touching faces or holding hands!

The Senses in Action
Sense modalities are not isolated, but exist within an interconnecting, intermodal network. We cite a few examples of how fetal senses work in tandem. We have already indicated how closely allied the gustatory and olfactory systems are, how skin and bones contribute to hearing, and how vision seems functional even with fused eyelids. When prenates experience pain, they do not have the air necessary to make sound, but they do respond with vigorous body and breathing movements as well as hormonal rushes. Within ten minutes of needling a fetus's intrahapatic vein for a transfusion, a fetus shows a 590% rise in beta endorphin and a 183% rise in cortosol--chemical evidence of pain (Giannakoulopoulos, 1994).
Ultrasonographers have recorded fetal erections as early as 16 weeks g.a., often in conjunction with finger sucking, suggesting that pleasurable self-stimulation is already possible. In the third trimester, when prenates are monitored during parental intercouse, their hearts fluctuate wildly in accelerations and decelerations greater than 30 beats per minute, or show a rare loss of beat-to-beat variability, accompanied by a sharp increase in fetal movement (Chayen et al, 1986). This heart activity is directly associated with paternal and maternal orgasms! Other experiments measuring fetal reactions to mothers' drinking one ounce of vodka in a glass of diet ginger ale show that breathing movements stop within 3 to 30 minutes. This hiatus in breathing lasts more than a half hour. Although the blood alcohol level of the mothers was low, as their blood alcohol level declined, the percentage of fetal breathing movements increased (Fox et al, 1978).
Babies have been known to react to the experience of amniocentesis (usually done around 16 weeks g.a.) by shrinking away from the needle, or, if a needle nicks them, they may turn and attack it. Mothers and doctors who have watched this under ultrasound have been unnerved. Following amniocentesis, heart rates gyrate. Some babies remain motionless, and their breathing motions may not return to normal for several days.
Finally, researchers have discovered that babies are dreaming as early as 23 weeks g.a.when rapid eye movement sleep is first observed (Birnholz, 1981). Studies of premature babies have revealed intense dreaming activity, occupying 100% of sleep time at 30 weeks g.a., and gradually diminishing to around 50% by term. Dreaming is a vigorous activity involving apparently coherent movements of the face and extremities in synchrony with the dream itself, manifested in markedly pleasant or unpleasant expressions. Dreaming is also an endogenous activity, neither reactive or evoked, expressing inner mental or emotional conditions. Observers say babies behave like adults do when they are dreaming (Roffwarg, Muzio, and Dement 1966).
References:
Atkinson, J. and Braddick, O. (1982). Sensory and Perceptual Capacities of the Neonate. In Psychobiology of the Human Newborn. Paul Stratton (Ed.), pp. 191-220. London: John Wiley.
Birnholz, J., Stephens, J. C. and Faria, M. (1978). Fetal Movement Patterns: A Possible Means of Defining Neurologic Developmental Milestones in Utero. American J. Roentology 130: 537-540.and others.

Len, if I knew what point you were attempting to make, obviously to me, I might know what you were expecting me to say.

Your sources are extremely old. Perhaps you're familiar with more recent studies about prenatal development, if that's what you're interested in here. You might want to pursue the cortisol aspect in particular. Cortisol is released in response to what we call a pain stimulus, including in fetuses. The *sensation* of pain is an entirely different matter, and requires an adequately developed cerebral cortex.

The UK's Royal Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists studied this issue a few years ago, and you will be able to find more info about that on line. There is no dispute among experts that the cerebral cortex and the neural pathways connecting it up with the rest of the brain are not sufficiently developed in a fetus for it to actually experience sensation until about 29-30 weeks fetal age.

The fact that fetuses *respond* to sound, light or touch at any stage in pregnancy really does not mean that fetuses like Mozart.

And I still really really don't know what point you were attempting to make.


It is good form to provide a reference to where one consulted a source, so that others may do the same. You obviously consulted this source on line, not in an academic journal at a library.

This is your source:

http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/fetalsense.html

What you copied and pasted at the bottom of your post -- "Atkinson J." etc. -- is *not* your source, and the way you did this is misleading. Those references are cited by the author of what you copied and pasted. What you actually copied and pasted is not a scholarly article.


http://www.birthpsychology.com/apppah/introducing%20APPPAH.html

"Among those involved in living and spreading APPPAH’s message are mothers and fathers, children and adult survivors of prenatal and perinatal trauma. Active members spanning the globe include: obstetricians, pediatricians and family practice physicians, nurses, midwives, health care professionals and developmental therapists, psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, counselors, doulas, childbirth educators, home visitors, chiropractors, cranial-sacral, osteopathic and naturopathic practitioners, and somatic therapists. Other members include community leaders, businesspersons, educators, researchers, and policy makers.

... A significant portion of current APPPAH members are therapists playing a historic role in identifying and healing the psychological traumas of modern birth; they are also authorities on how to prevent these traumas. APPPAH spreads the message that positive prenatal and perinatal experiences have a lasting influence on health, human relationships, and society."


Hmm. Axe to grind, anyone?

I mean, really:

http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/concept6.html

Any outfit that publishes loony garbage like that ... well, I'd be looking very very carefully at anything else it published.

Janey,
I don't think Len was trying to say foetuses 'liked' Motzart - what was being cited was that babies responded to external sound.
As for 'old' citations - why are they so much worse than 'new' ones?

Len is providing interesting ideas and thoughts on a subject, not writing a damn dissertation for a degree! Who cares how old his references are?
They are still interesting.
There have been improvements on penicilin - but it's still penicillin - and that was developed quite a few years ago (so I've been led to believe!)

Personally, I find a lot of new research is merely a re-wording of old research - after all researchers are only trying to make a living and will attempt to debunk previous research by couching it in a different form - but it you are sassy enough to 'read between the lines' you will find it's all the same.

I'm sure there's a more 'up to date' and academic way to pickle onions than the way my gran did it, but I still do it her way - result - they're still pickled onions!

It's all very well quoting 'chapter & verse' from the web, but personally, I find books a lot more trustworthy. I may not write a book, but I can put any old tripe on the net and declare it to be true. As your last 'extract' shows!

....wasn't a certain invasion 'helped' along by something ( an undergraduates dissertation perhaps?) that he (or his henchmen) found on the net - that was then declared to be 'fact?'



Your threads are great food for thought, Len.

maggie

I'm glad you know what Len is doing, because I haven't a clue.

Fetal development is an interesting subject. It very much matters how old the research being presented about it is, because of the rapid pace at which research has taken place. It also very much matters what the sources of material cited are, because the reader needs to be able to assess what they are reading.

The site / organization that Len took that article from is a collection of idiots with an axe to grind. I would in no way trust the person who wrote that article to accurately represent the state of the research when it was written. That article is not a *primary source* of any research, and is not a disinterested review of existing research.


"Len is providing interesting ideas and thoughts on a subject, not writing a damn dissertation for a degree! Who cares how old his references are?
They are still interesting.
There have been improvements on penicilin - but it's still penicillin - and that was developed quite a few years ago (so I've been led to believe!)"

Hmm. And if someone presented an article about treating infections that was written 20 years ago, before the whole range of antibiotics we now have access to was available, how valuable would that be, and how much would you want to rely on it?


"Personally, I find a lot of new research is merely a re-wording of old research - after all researchers are only trying to make a living and will attempt to debunk previous research by couching it in a different form - but it you are sassy enough to 'read between the lines' you will find it's all the same."

Actually, that is a totally inaccurate characterization of genuine research. Researchers do indeed refer to previous work. They do not simply re-word it; that is nonsense. What "will attempt to debunk previous research by couching it in a different form" means I can't even guess. How does one debunk something by couching it in a different form??

Researchers may "debunk" bunk, like psychic phenomena. They don't "debunk" other (genuine) researchers' work; they may do work that conflicts with previous findings and attempt to refute previous findings based on their own, indeed.

There is so much anti-intellectualism in the world ... and especially around here ...


Here's the deal. When people use mush words like "unborn babies" to refer to fetuses, and offer up reams of prose that seems to be saying that fetuses experience sensation in the same way that persons do, I get suspicious. Women's reproductive rights are hardly secured, and need jealous guarding. Calling fetuses "babies", which they are not, and depicting them as dancing to music, when they do not, are little wedges in the armour we women must constantly wear to protect our rights.


As I have said, more than once, the finding about fetuses apparently mimicing the speech patterns transmitted to them through the body of the woman in whose uterus they develop is interesting. The newspaper that refers to the fetuses as "unborn babies" is doing no one a service.

Foetuses are what? Then?
A collection of cells that, it seems (according to you) inherit absolutely nothing from their surroundings?
When foetuses reach 38 weeks and come out of the womb they are what?

If the answer is babies - what is wrong with referring to them as unborn babies - unless it is to assuage the guilt of some.

Glad you (eventually) appear to find the article interesting. (should we be honoured?)

As for your comment:

'There is so much anti-intellectualism in the world ... and especially around here'

Where would that be?

I trust you aren't referrring to either Len or me - as that would be somewhat crass.

Never considered GR a forum for intellectuals - perhaps you should try elsewhere!

maggie

There is no dispute among experts that the cerebral cortex and the neural pathways connecting it up with the rest of the brain are not sufficiently developed in a fetus for it to actually experience sensation until about 29-30 weeks fetal age.


But deaf children cry too.......therefore some kind of sence is there even when deafness happens
and anyway Len was talking about voices they know from tones of language

Yes, yes, it all eventually comes out, doesn't it just?


"When foetuses reach 38 weeks and come out of the womb they are what?"

Why need we play this game?

I believe I've said quite clearly what they are. They are babies. Infant human beings.

"If the answer is babies - what is wrong with referring to them as unborn babies - unless it is to assuage the guilt of some."

What is wrong with referring to them as "unborn babies" is that it is a nonsense. What is an unbaked cake? A nonsense. An unbaked cake is batter. If you called your unbaked cake "batter", what would this be evidence that you felt guilty about?

If someone persistently referred to the contents of the bowl on your counter, whenever you set about baking a cake, as "your unbaked cake", I'll bet you'd be scratching your head and wondering what their point was.

"Glad you (eventually) appear to find the article interesting. (should we be honoured?) "

Be whatever the heck you like. Why would I care, any more than you really care that I found the *finding* (not the article) interesting?

"Never considered GR a forum for intellectuals - perhaps you should try elsewhere!"

And I never siad it was, or suggested it should be, so perhaps you should take your misrepresentation elsewhere.

I said there is a lot of anti-intellectualism in the world. Referring to the research done by qualified individuals as you did -- "I find a lot of new research is merely a re-wording of old research - after all researchers are only trying to make a living and will attempt to debunk previous research by couching it in a different form" -- is pure anti-intellectualism. It is an attempt to dismiss genuine intellectual effort by belittling it and the people who engage in it. I've never figured out why anyone feels a need to do that, myself.

"But deaf children cry too"


Oh, lordy. Surely this wasn't addressed to me ... I could look at it upside down and backwards in a mirror and still not know what it related to.

Crying is a response to pain (or hunger, or frustration, or fear ...). I don't think I suggested deaf children don't feel pain.

"It's all very well quoting 'chapter & verse' from the web, but personally, I find books a lot more trustworthy. I may not write a book, but I can put any old tripe on the net and declare it to be true. As your last 'extract' shows!"


Maggie ... that extract was taken from the website where Len got his stuff.

Are you seeing my point at all? That website is the home of an organization of cranks and fools. The author of that paper is one of them.

*Where* something is published -- that is: in a book, in a journal, by radiowave or in cyberspace -- makes not a bleeding bit of difference to its validity. Do you actually think that because the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine is published on line, we should pooh-pooh everything that appears in it??