Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Aug 31;31(5):e70122. doi: 10.1111/infa.70122

Infant Rhythmic Movement Across Postural Conditions

J Amber Kao 1,✉, Sinead Rocha 1,✉
PMCID: PMC13530304  PMID: 42675579

ABSTRACT

Musical engagement is a universal trait of human behavior and a foundational form of embodied communication. While this engagement is deeply rooted in bodily experiences, much of the existing research has focused on perceptual and neural mechanisms, with comparatively little attention paid to how the body's physical affordances, including the differing biomechanical properties of distinct effectors, shape early rhythmic engagement with music. The current study aims to characterize how rhythmic motoric responses to music vary in the context of an infant's developing physical skills and attributes. Pre‐ambulatory infants were placed in an unweighting paradigm to vary levels of postural support as duration and rate of rhythmic movement were measured across core and distal effectors. Results indicated that greater postural support resulted in increased durations and quicker rates of rhythmic movement and enabled qualities of bounce and rebound within infants' movement repertoire, an effect driven primarily by core effectors. Rate of rhythmic movement was found to be organized primarily by effector type, with core movements consistently slower than distal movements across all conditions. Distinct trends between core and distal effectors were found, with vertically displaced core movements consistently slower in rate and increased in duration with age, while distal movements were faster in rate and showed no significant change in duration with age. These patterns align with principles of biomechanics and mass distribution, reflecting a hierarchical organization of rhythmic movement across the body that parallels patterns observed in adults. Findings suggest that postural support facilitates the emergence of more fully embodied musical engagement, offering insight into the sensorimotor foundations of early rhythmic movement.

1. Introduction

Musical engagement is a universal trait of human behavior, found within all human cultures from infancy, and a foundational form of embodied communication (Trehub 2003; Trevarthen 1999). Long before recognizable speech, infants engage in rhythmic and expressive exchanges of movement and sound with caregivers that reflect an innate musicality, forming the basis for early social and emotional communication (Trevarthen 2008). Following Honing et al. (2015), this musicality is understood as an early‐emerging suite of biological and cognitive capacities that underlie musical engagement and guide anticipation and responsive behavior to musical structure. Early musicality is evident in infants' innate beat perception skills (Winkler et al. 2009), ability to discern patterns of metric regularity (Cirelli et al. 2016), and notably, the propensity to move spontaneously to music (Zentner and Eerola 2010; Rocha et al. 2021a). Expressions of this musicality early in development include rhythmic motor behaviors known as stereotypies—repetitive, reflexive actions that serve as precursors to more intentional and coordinated behaviors (Thelen 1981). The natural pace of these inherent rhythmic behaviors, termed Spontaneous Motor Tempo (SMT) (Fraisse 1982), can be observed in infants as young as 4 months (Rocha et al. 2021a). Early rhythmic movements precede more complex behaviors such as beat synchronization (Ravignani et al. 2017; Fraisse 1982) and serve a crucial role in supporting prosocial behavior (Cirelli et al. 2014) and language development (Rocha et al. 2024). Whilst considerable recent attention has focused on the neural architecture supporting music perception (Attaheri et al. 2022; Mandke and Rocha 2023; Nguyen et al. 2023), the current study aims to characterize how motoric responses to music vary in the context of rapidly developing physical skills and attributes.

Early musical engagement is both shaped and constrained by infants' developing motor abilities and the biomechanics of their bodies (Rocha et al. 2021a; Kragness et al. 2023). Growth factors such as height and weight, along with shifts in muscle and fat distribution affecting variations in strength, collectively influence the dynamic forces shaping the developmental arc (Thelen et al. 1984). These evolving physical attributes influence, and at times limit, infant movement and posture, reflecting the ever‐changing embodied nature of their developing motor skills (Adolph and Hoch 2019). Furthermore, maturation of these motor skills brings forth new motoric skillsets, which enable the infant novel opportunities for learning (Adolph and Hoch 2019). For example, when infants advance from seated stationary positions or crawling postures, learning to stand and locomote expands their horizon and frees their hands for greater exploration (Kretch et al. 2014). These embodied developments collectively enable new opportunities for learning and engagement, yet to date, the impact of such postural change on musical engagement has yet to be investigated.

Whilst adult rhythmic movement is often measured in the laboratory with precise index finger tapping paradigms (McAuley et al. 2006; Grahn and Brett 2007), infant studies have applied innovative gross‐motor tapping paradigms involving hand drumming, handbells and toy drumming techniques (Rocha and Mareschal 2017; Rocha et al. 2021a; Rocha et al. 2024; Yu and Myowa 2021). These approaches confirm that though infants cannot reliably synchronize their movements to music, their drumming speed and consistency improve with age, along with increased tempo flexibility in older infants, a crucial prerequisite of auditory‐motor synchronization (Rocha and Mareschal 2017; Rocha et al. 2021a; Rocha et al. 2024). Instrument based measures promote infant movement to reveal age‐related changes beyond those seen when infants' spontaneous movements are measured without a supporting task structure (e.g., Zentner and Eerola 2010; Fujii et al. 2014). However, these approaches, though valuable, are somewhat reductive in isolating one effector or movement type. More recent studies have examined spontaneous full‐body rhythmic movements in both adults and infants, highlighting naturalistic coupling between movement and rhythm (Boll‐Avetisyan et al. 2024; Burger et al. 2014; Kragness et al. 2023; Nguyen et al. 2023). While these studies demonstrate whole‐body rhythmic movement to emerge spontaneously, they have not addressed how the body's biomechanical properties may contribute toward the expression of such movement. The present study therefore extends this framework by manipulating postural support to investigate how infants' physical affordances influence rhythmic movement. This question is particularly meaningful given that body size and musical rhythm interact bidirectionally across the lifespan, with larger bodies showing perceptual and movement preferences for slower rhythms (Dahl et al. 2014; Todd et al. 2007).

The relationship between body size and music has led to speculation that the vertical “bounce” inherent in upright locomotion may shape rhythmic preferences, with vestibular stimulation playing a central role in the auditory‐motor relationship linking bodily motion and rhythmic perception (Phillips‐Silver and Trainor 2005, 2007, 2008; Trainor et al. 2009). This concept extends to pre‐ambulatory infants, with infant SMT influenced not by the infants' own anthropometrics, but rather by the body size of their primary caretakers (Rocha et al. 2021a). A short experience of a novel walking speed in the lab is enough to bias infant SMT (Rocha et al. 2021b). Movement studies in adults demonstrate how musical rhythm is embodied through distinct patterns across different body parts and axes, with vertical torso motion along the superior‐inferior axis aligning most closely with the beat at the tactus level, and distal limb movements reflecting faster rhythmic subdivisions (Burger et al. 2014). Taken together, these studies suggest rhythmic perception and production are grounded in the infant body's evolving mechanical and sensory properties, integrating vestibular feedback from motion with motor coordination across the body. Given that spontaneous movement measures often reveal limited or inconsistent developmental change over the first two years of life, and that targeted drumming paradigms, while structured, still fall short in capturing the complex nature of full‐bodied responses, a third approach is necessary to give more nuanced understanding of infant movement in light of their developing motor skills.

To better understand how biomechanical limitations shape infant movement, specialized tools have been developed to temporarily alleviate motor constraints, revealing latent motor capacities. For example, canonical studies have used water submersion to support infant weight, demonstrating neonatal stepping reflexes (Thelen et al. 1984), and “sticky mittens” with Velcro to allow non‐grasping infants to manipulate objects (Needham et al. 2002). “Crawliskates” have been used to support early locomotion well before infants are strong enough to do so independently, demonstrating coordinated whole‐body movement patterns (Patrick et al. 2009). Most relevant to rhythmic behavior, Kornafel et al. (2023) used an unweighting apparatus akin to a suspended sprung harness that provided varying levels of postural support to pre‐locomotive infants. By reducing the demands of balance and gravitational load, the harness enabled upright motor skills not yet present in the infants' baseline skill set, including prolonged periods of unsupported standing and the onset of unassisted walking. This novel unweighting paradigm not only revealed latent motor skills, but also enabled a fuller embodiment of movement, allowing infants to engage in more full‐bodied actions with the aid of postural support provided by the harness, thereby offering a means to examine how biomechanical support can shape early rhythmic engagement.

Building on these findings, the present study aims to investigate whether providing postural support reveals emerging capacities for embodied rhythmic expression in pre‐ambulatory infants. Specifically, it will examine how varying levels of postural support, affect two central aspects of rhythmic movement: duration (i.e. how long rhythmic activity is sustained) and rate of movement, measured using inter‐onset intervals (IOI). To explore full‐body rhythmic movement, infants will be tested across three postural conditions: seated (unassisted support), standing (moderate support), and bouncer (providing an unweighted experience with maximum support). Analysis will further determine which effectors are recruited in music‐induced rhythmic movements, comparing movement of the core effectors (head, torso, legs) versus distal limbs (arms, hands, feet). We predict that duration and rate of rhythmic movement will vary by postural support condition, and that rhythmic behaviors will present differently across core and distal effectors.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

The study included 27 infants (15 males), ranging in age from 6 to 13 months (M = 9.33 months, SD = 2.02). Families were recruited from an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse locality within the Southeast London community through flyers, online social media advertisements, and local nurseries, with sample size determined by the availability of time and resources within the scope of the present study. Race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status were not collected as part of this study's ethics approval. All infants were deemed typically developing, as indicated by scoring “on schedule” for their age on the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition (ASQ‐3; Squires and Bricker 2009). Eligibility criteria required infants to be able to sit unassisted but not yet walk confidently (defined as walking more than three steps without assistance). An additional six infants were tested but were excluded due to excessive fussiness (four infants) or failure to meet eligibility criteria (two infants). All procedures were approved by the institutional research ethics committee, and informed consent obtained from all caregivers prior to participation.

2.2. Procedure

Upon arrival at the university infant laboratory reception space, caregivers received an information sheet detailing the study, provided informed consent, and completed two questionnaires assessing developmental milestones and home musical exposure. Families were then shown to the testing space.

Warm Up: Infants were first seated at the center of a playmat measuring 1.8 × 1.8 m (see Figure 1 for schematic). To ease the transition into the testing environment, a standardized musical warm‐up protocol was used (see Supporting Information S1: Appendix A for warm‐up procedures). Caretakers were invited to participate and interact along with their infant during this period.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Schematic of experimental environment and conditions. (A) Video recording device. (B) Infant seated. (C) Infant standing. (D) Parent/Guardian. (E) Foam play‐mat. (F) Infant in bouncer. (G) Audio speakers and visual stimuli. (H) Researcher. All trials and conditions took place in the same room, depicted here as three rooms for illustrative purposes only. Colors correspond to conditions in Figures 4 and 6.

Experiment: The experiment was constructed as a repeated measures within‐subjects design, with each infant completing three conditions of increasing postural support (Seated, Standing, Bouncer), with each condition consisting of three 60‐s trials.

Seated Condition: Infants were seated on the floor upon the playmat, which allowed for unsupported spontaneous movement to music.

Standing Condition: Infants were placed in a stationary baby walker, which provided vertical upright support, offering pre‐ambulatory infants moderate postural support while standing.

Bouncer Condition: Infants were secured in a sprung harness that provided an unweighted experience. This setup provided the greatest level of postural support, enabling infants to engage in bouncing movements that simulated reduced body weight.

The order was fixed (Seated → Standing → Bouncer) to follow a progression from the most naturalistic to the most supportive condition. This sequence was chosen to reduce carryover, as piloting showed that beginning with the Bouncer condition often led infants to attempt bouncing movements in later conditions. Although this order helped minimize such bias, we acknowledge that it may still introduce unavoidable order effects, such as fatigue.

Movement duration and rate of movement were recorded in each condition to assess infants' rhythmic movement across the varying levels of postural support. The caretaker was positioned behind the infant and instructed to be still and visually attend to the infant, providing physical contact only when needed in response to the infant's needs for safety or comfort. The conditions were administered in a fixed order (Seated, Standing, then Bouncer) to minimize carryover effects. At the end of the session, infants received a certificate and t‐shirt as a token of appreciation for participation.

2.3. Apparatus and Equipment

Auditory stimuli were presented through two loudspeakers placed at ground level 1.5 m from the center of the playmat. Musical excerpts were delivered at 65 dB in counterbalanced order across conditions. A 24‐inch monitor placed between the speakers displayed images of animals changing at a slow rate of 30s/frame not temporally aligned to music, to help maintain the infant's attention toward the auditory stimuli.

Two types of infant apparatuses were used to provide differing levels of postural support. An infant walker (Uuoeebb; model 784140382386, Figure 2a) was used to provide moderate postural support in the standing condition. The walker included three adjustable height settings and its wheels were removed to maintain safety and consistency across conditions. A free‐standing baby bouncer (HI SUYI; model YYEJSJ‐Bw5, Figure 2b) was used to provide the highest level of postural support.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Apparatus used for postural support conditions. (A) Baby walker without wheels used for the standing condition. (B) Free‐standing baby bouncer used for the Bouncer condition.

Infants' movements were recorded using a Hikvision camera system (4‐megapixel resolution; model DS‐2CD2347G1‐L(U)). Three cameras were positioned around the testing space to capture frontal (0°) and oblique (45°) views.

2.4. Music Stimuli

Consistent with previous research on musical groove in young children (Kragness et al. 2022), music stimuli were selected from the song database provided by Janata et al. (2012). The selected excerpts and their corresponding groove ratings and tempos are presented in Supporting Information S1: Appendix B, Table B1. Following Kragness and colleagues' findings which suggested high‐groove music to elicit greater dance movement in children compared to low‐groove stimuli, excerpts were chosen from the top 20% of groove ratings.

The tempo was verified using an online beats per minute tool (www.beatsperminuteonline.com). The three excerpts were chosen for their similarity in tempo, groove, and meter to ensure consistency across stimuli. Each track was trimmed to 1 minute using Movavi Editor (version 24.4.0), encompassing the first 60 s of the music. However, for “Sabrosa,” the excerpt began 10 s to bypass the quieter opening to give a more representative musical segment. Each musical excerpt was presented three times within a condition, yielding nine trials per infant across the three postural conditions. The assignment of excerpts to condition was counterbalanced across infants to control for stimulus‐order effects.

2.5. Behavior Coding

Behavior coding was conducted to assess infants' movements during each 60‐s trial. ELAN Linguistic Annotator (Version 6.8; Sloetjes and Wittenburg 2008) was used to annotate instances of rhythmic movement. A bout of rhythmic movement was defined as “movement of parts of the body or the whole body that was repeated in the same form at least three times at regular short intervals” (Thelen 1981).

A complete list of coded effectors and descriptions of body actions is presented in Table 1. The duration of a rhythmic bout, body action type, number of actions performed, and onset timestamp of each individual rhythmic movement belonging to the same bout were annotated as separate tiers (see Figure 3). Detailed annotation procedures are provided in Supporting Information S1: Appendix C.

TABLE 1.

Coding scheme and notation criteria for body actions.

Body action Definition Movement notation criteria
Arm+ Movement of the arm at the elbow or shoulder joint, characterized by “flapping” motions Lowest point of the arm during motion; one “flapping” motion is noted when the arm reaches its lowest point
Feet+ Tapping motions of the feet, involving movement at the ankle joint Moment of contact between the foot and the floor
Fingers Repetitive opening and closing actions of the hand Closing of the hand
Hand+ Clapping actions involving the palms Moment when palms make contact
Head* Nodding or shaking movements of the head, performed in any direction or plane A nod at its lowest point or shake of the head at its farthest displacement from the midline, in any direction or plane
Kick+ Swinging or kicking motions of the leg in any direction, characterized by movement that does not result in vertical displacement of the torso Point of greatest extension of the leg
Lateral+ Side‐to‐side movements of the torso in the frontal plane The moment the movement reaches farthest displacement from the midline of the body
Leg* Bending of the knees or leg movements resulting in vertical displacement of the torso Point of greatest flexion of the knees
Torso* Vertical extension and contraction of the torso Point of greatest contraction of the torso
Open in a new tab

Note: Effectors grouped as Core Effector Group denoted with a (*) and Distal Effector Group (+).

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

ELAN‐based behavior annotation. Example of manual notation of behavior coding. Trial number, type of action, number of actions, and start time of each movement were recorded separately in distinct tiers. Concurrent movements were annotated in separate tiers.

Inter‐rater reliability was assessed using two‐way mixed effects intraclass correlation coefficients with absolute agreement for single measures (ICC(3,1)). Inter‐rater reliability for movement duration was ICC = 0.993, 95% CI [0.988, 0.995], p < 0.001, and for inter‐onset interval was ICC = 0.829, 95% CI [0.734, 0.891], p < 0.001.

2.6. Variables and Data Aggregation

To assess rhythmic movement by effector, this infant study builds upon methodologies previously used to investigate hierarchical rhythmic movement in adults (Burger et al. 2014; Toiviainen et al. 2010). Movements from individual body parts were aggregated into functional movement categories to capture distinct aspects of motor activity. Vertical displacement of the torso and body actions involving or resulting from superior‐inferior movement of the trunk, were collectively categorized as “core” movement. This “Core Effector Group” was computed by aggregating torso, leg, and head movements along the superior‐inferior axis. In contrast, limb movements of the arm, hand, and feet, including lateral and kicking movements that did not vertically displace the trunk of the body, were grouped as the “Distal Effector Group” to capture motor activity of the limbs along the frontal and sagittal planes. This aggregation was applied to both measures of duration and rate of movement, facilitating a detailed analysis of how these metrics varied across different effector types, contributing to a comprehensive mapping of whole‐body motor activity.

Inter‐onset intervals (IOIs), reflecting the temporal aspect of rhythmic movement, were derived from behavior annotations coded in ELAN. IOIs were calculated by subtracting the timestamp of each movement onset from the timestamp of the subsequent movement within a rhythmic bout. Lower IOIs correspond to shorter spacing between successive movements, representing a faster tempo of movement, whereas higher IOIs indicate slower movement. These intervals, measured in milliseconds, were then averaged to obtain the mean IOI for each bout of movement. Mean IOIs were categorized according to effector group (Core or Distal) and analyzed across the postural support conditions.

2.7. Analysis

Generalized linear mixed effects models (Brooks et al. 2017) in R (4.4.1, R Core Team 2024) were conducted to examine the effects of postural support on infant rhythmic movement. Duration and rate of movement were included as dependent variables. Postural support condition (Seated, Standing, and Bouncer) were included as fixed effects, with infant identity as a random effect to account for repeated measures. Gamma and Tweedie distributions were selected to model the positively skewed, non‐normal structure of the data. For Duration, a Tweedie distribution was used to handle zero‐inflated outcomes introduced by grouping data at the condition or effector level. For rate of movement, IOI was aggregated to the bout level and modeled using Gamma distribution, as by definition zeros were not possible at the bout level (an inter‐onset interval requires at least two movement onsets to be calculated).

To gain a fuller understanding of developmental trends in rhythmic movement, infant age, reflecting developmental change in motor abilities, was included as a predictor in supplementary models. Scores from the ASQ‐3 (Squires and Bricker 2009) and Music@Home—Infant Questionnaire (Politimou et al. 2018) were also examined as potential factors associated with rhythmic movement (see Supporting Information S1: Appendix D, Table D1).

3. Results

Duration of infant rhythmic movement. Rhythmic movement durations were analyzed using a Tweedie generalized linear mixed‐effects model (glmmTMB) with Condition (Seated, Standing, Bouncer) as a within‐subject fixed effect and a random intercept for Infant ID to account for repeated measures across individuals. Infants exhibited significantly longer rhythmic movement durations in the Bouncer condition compared to the Seated baseline, b = 1.60, SE = 0.25, z = 6.50, p < 0.001, exp(b) = 4.96, 95% CI [3.06, 8.03] (see Figure 4). The Standing condition also differed significantly from Seated, b = 1.05, SE = 0.26, z = 4.04, p < 0.001, exp(b) = 2.85, 95% CI [1.72, 4.75], indicating that moderate postural support was also associated with a reliable increase in movement duration. The intercept, representing the estimated average duration of rhythmic movement in the Seated condition, was statistically significant, b = 1.09, SE = 0.25, z = 4.38, p < 0.001, exp(b) = 2.97s, 95% CI [1.82, 4.83], suggesting infants were capable of initiating rhythmic movements independently without added postural support. Fixed effects accounted for 35.3% of the variance in movement duration (marginal R 2  = 0.353).

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Duration of rhythmic movement by condition. Mean duration of rhythmic movement is shown for each condition, with standard error bars. Rhythmic movements of different effectors may occur concurrently or partially overlap.

To further unpack the organization of movement, a second model included an interaction between Condition and Effector Group (Core vs. Distal), specified as Duration ∼ Condition × EffectorGroup + (1|InfantID), fitted using a Tweedie glmmTMB to accommodate zeros present at the effector group level. Full descriptive statistics are shown in Table 2. In this extended model, a significant main effect of the Bouncer Condition emerged, b = 2.39, SE = 0.296, z = 6.04, p < 0.001, exp(b) = 10.94, 95% CI [5.03, 23.86], indicating Core movements in the Bouncer condition were significantly longer in duration than Core movements compared with the Seated condition. Additionally, a significant interaction between the Bouncer Condition and Distal Effector Group b = −1.64, SE = 0.542, z = −3.03, p = 0.002, exp(b) = 0.19, 95% CI [0.07, 0.56] indicated that the significant increase in movement duration from the Seated to Bouncer condition was most strongly accounted for by Core movements, with a comparatively attenuated increase for Distal movements.

TABLE 2.

Duration of rhythmic movement by condition and effector group.

Condition Effector group Mean (s) Median (s) SD (s)
Seated Core 1.64 0.00 6.71
Distal 2.35 0.51 4.21
Standing Core 4.06 1.96 7.05
Distal 5.79 3.98 5.55
Bouncer Core 12.80 6.75 13.80
Distal 4.58 2.79 5.48
Open in a new tab

Note: The Core Effector Group includes vertical movement of the head, torso, and legs. The Distal Effector Group includes movement of the arms, hands, feet, kicking, and lateral movement. Zero values reflect conditions in which no rhythmic movement of that effector type was observed.

These findings suggest that the increased movement duration observed in the Bouncer condition was primarily driven by Core effectors, highlighting the specific contribution of postural support in enabling full‐body rhythmic movement, see Figure 5.

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Duration of rhythmic movement by condition and effector group. Mean total duration of rhythmic movement per infant is shown, with standard error bars. Rhythmic movement bouts of different effectors may be concurrent or partially overlapping.

Rate of infant rhythmic movement: In addition to the quantity of rhythmic movement we hypothesized differences in the rate of the rhythmic movement across conditions. This was examined using the mean inter‐onset interval of each rhythmic bout, calculated in milliseconds and aggregated to the bout level. A gamma generalized linear mixed‐effects model was specified as IOI ∼ Condition + (1 | Infant ID), with Condition (Seated, Standing, Bouncer) as a fixed effect and a random intercept for Infant ID to account for repeated measures across individuals. The model did not reveal a significant effect of Condition on IOI when collapsing across effector groups, suggesting postural support did not uniformly influence the tempo of infants' rhythmic movements. Neither the Standing (b = −0.026, SE = 0.040, z = −0.65, p = 0.515, exp(b) = 0.97, 95% CI [0.90, 1.05]) nor Bouncer (b = −0.012, SE = 0.039, z = −0.32, p = 0.752, exp(b) = 0.99, 95% CI [0.91, 1.07]) conditions differed significantly from Seated. The estimated IOI for the Seated condition was 532 ms (95% CI [485, 583]). These results suggest postural support did not significantly affect overall rate of rhythmic movement (see Table 3 and Figure 6).

TABLE 3.

Gamma generalized linear mixed model predicting IOI (ms) by condition.

b SE z p exp(b) 95% CI
Intercept (seated) 6.28 0.05 134.01 < 0.001 532 ms [485, 583]
Standing (vs. seated) −0.026 0.040 −0.65 0.515 0.97× [0.90, 1.05]
Bouncer (vs. seated) −0.012 0.039 −0.32 0.752 0.99× [0.91, 1.07]
Open in a new tab

Note: The table presents results of a gamma glmmTMB examining the effects of postural support condition (from least support to greatest: Seated, Standing, Bouncer) on inter‐onset interval (IOI), measured in milliseconds. A smaller IOI value indicates a quicker rate of movement. Coefficients are presented on the log scale; exp(b) represents the multiplicative effect relative to Seated condition.

FIGURE 6.

FIGURE 6

Open in a new tab

Inter‐onset interval by condition. Mean inter‐onset interval is shown for each condition, with standard error bars. Lines connect measurements from the same infant across conditions.

The rate of rhythmic movement was further analyzed using a Gamma generalized linear mixed‐effects model to examine the interaction of Condition and Effector Group (Core vs. Distal), specified as IOI ∼ Condition × EffectorGroup + (1 | InfantID), with mean IOI aggregated to the bout level. Fixed effects in this model accounted for approximately 8.4% of the variance in IOI (marginal R 2 = 0.084). Descriptive statistics for IOI by Condition and Effector Group are presented in Table 4. This analysis revealed significant main effect of Effector Group, as well as a significant main effects of Condition (see Table 5 and Figure 7). Relative to the seated condition, IOIs were shorter in both the standing (b = −0.168, SE = 0.076, z = −2.22, p = 0.027, exp(b) = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 0.98]) and Bouncer (b = −0.174, SE = 0.074, z = −2.35, p = 0.019, exp(b) = 0.84, 95% CI [0.73, 0.97]) conditions, indicating greater postural support was associated with faster Core movement rates. Distal effectors exhibited significantly shorter IOIs than core effectors, (b = −0.301, SE = 0.081, z = −3.73, p < 0.001, exp(b) = 0.74, 95% CI [0.63, 0.87]), indicating faster rhythmic movement of distal limbs. The interaction for both Standing x Distal (b = 0.154, SE = 0.088, z = 1.75, p = 0.080) and Bouncer × Distal (b = 0.102, SE = 0.089, z = 1.15, p = 0.251) did not reach significance, suggesting the condition effect on movement rate was primarily driven by Core rather than Distal effectors. These findings demonstrate that rate of movement did not accelerate uniformly, with Core and Distal effectors demonstrating fundamentally different rhythmic rates apart from postural condition.

TABLE 4.

Inter‐onset interval of rhythmic movement by condition and effector group.

Condition Effector group Mean (ms) Median (ms) SD (ms)
Seated Core 686 708 211
Distal 480 429 160
Standing Core 552 506 202
Distal 483 434 190
Bouncer Core 574 554 159
Distal 445 405 170
Open in a new tab

Note: The Core Effector Group includes vertical movement of the head, torso, and legs. The Distal Effector Group includes movement of the arms, hands, feet, kicking, and lateral movement. Values reflect mean IOI aggregated to the bout level.

TABLE 5.

Gamma generalized linear mixed model predicting IOI (ms) by condition and effector group.

b SE z p Exp(b) 95% CI
Intercept (seated, core) 6.51 0.08 85.57 < 0.001 671 ms [578, 779]
Standing (vs. seated) −0.168 0.076 −2.22 0.027 0.85× [0.73, 0.98]
Bouncer (vs. seated) −0.174 0.074 −2.35 0.019 0.84× [0.73, 0.97]
Distal (vs. core) −0.301 0.081 −3.73 < 0.001 0.74× [0.63, 0.87]
Standing x distal 0.154 0.088 1.75 0.080 1.17× [0.98, 1.39]
Bouncer x distal 0.102 0.089 1.15 0.251 1.11× [0.93, 1.32]
Open in a new tab

Note: The table presents results of a linear mixed‐effects model examining the effects of postural support condition (Seated, Standing, Bouncer) and Effector Group (Core vs. Distal) on inter‐onset interval (IOI), measured in milliseconds. The intercept represents the estimated IOI for Core movements in the Seated condition. Coefficients are on the log scale; exp(b) represents the multiplicative effect.

FIGURE 7.

FIGURE 7

Open in a new tab

Inter‐onset interval by condition and effector group. Model‐estimated mean inter‐onset intervals (IOI) by condition and effector group. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

Age and infant rhythmic movement: To assess whether developmental maturity was associated with rhythmic behavior, Tweedie generalized linear mixed‐effects models (glmmTMB) were conducted with age mean‐centered for the analysis (M = 9.33 months), (Duration∼Condition × Age + (1|InfantID), fitted separately for Core and Distal effectors. Duration revealed a significant main effect of Age for Core effectors (b = 0.77, SE = 0.24, z = 3.23, p = 0.001, exp(b) = 2.17, 95% CI [1.36, 3.46]), indicating that each additional month of age was associated with a 2.17 times increase in duration of Core rhythmic movement. The interactions between Condition and Age were also significant for both Standing (b = −0.57, SE = 0.25, z = −2.24, p = 0.025) and Bouncer (b = −0.64, SE = 0.24, z = −2.68, p = 0.007), indicating that the age‐related increase in Core duration was most pronounced in the Seated condition and comparatively attenuated under greater postural support. Equivalent analyses predicting IOI showed no significant effects of age (Core: b = 0.04, SE = 0.05; Distal: b = −0.01, SE = 0.03) either for Core (p = 0.392) or Distal (p = 0.650) effectors, and no significant interactions between Condition and Age were observed. Fixed effects accounted for 63.5% of the variance in Core duration (marginal R 2  = 0.635) and 18.0% of the variance in Distal duration (marginal R 2  = 0.180; see Table 6 and Figure 8). These findings suggest developmental maturity to be uniquely associated with the duration of rhythmic engagement but not rate of movement.

TABLE 6.

Tweedie generalized linear mixed model predicting duration (sec) by condition and age.

b SE z p Exp (b) 95% CI
Core effectors
Intercept (seated, mean age) −1.02 0.52 −1.95 0.051 0.36s [0.13, 1.00]
Standing versus seated 1.98 0.55 3.62 < 0.001 7.25× [2.48, 21.22]
Bouncer versus seated 3.24 0.52 6.20 < 0.001 25.41× [9.13, 70.70]
Age (centered) 0.77 0.24 3.23 0.001 2.17× [1.36, 3.46]
Standing × age −0.57 0.25 −2.24 0.025 0.57× [0.34, 0.93]
Bouncer × age −0.64 0.24 −2.68 0.007 0.53× [0.33, 0.84]
Distal effectors
Intercept (seated, mean age) 0.63 0.28 2.27 0.023 1.88s [1.09, 3.25]
Standing versus seated 1.00 0.30 3.30 < 0.001 2.73× [1.50, 4.95]
Bouncer versus seated 0.75 0.31 2.38 0.017 2.11× [1.14, 3.90]
Age (centered) 0.12 0.15 0.85 0.397 1.13× [0.85, 1.51]
Standing × age −0.12 0.17 −0.70 0.483 0.89× [0.64, 1.23]
Bouncer × age −0.03 0.17 −0.17 0.865 0.97× [0.70, 1.35]
Open in a new tab

Note: Results of a Tweedie glmmTMB examining effects of condition and infant age on duration of rhythmic movement. Age was mean‐centered (M = 9.33 months); the intercept therefore represents the estimated duration for an infant of average age in the Seated condition. Coefficients are on the log scale; exp(b) represents the multiplicative effect relative to Seated condition.

FIGURE 8.

FIGURE 8

Open in a new tab

Duration of rhythmic movement by age, condition, and effector group. Duration of rhythmic movement is shown as a function of age, condition and effector group. Lines represent predicted values from the corresponding Tweedie glmmTMB (see Table 6). Points represent individual infant observations.

Additional analyses tested whether infant performance was predicted by home musical environment (M@H score), but no significant main effects were found (see Supporting Information S1: Appendix E, Table E1). A secondary analysis of ASQ‐3 score revealed a significant association with Core duration and Core IOI specifically; full results are reported in the supplement and warrant further investigation in future work.

4. Discussion

In this study, infants were placed in three levels of postural support to alleviate biomechanical constraints of early motor development to examine rhythmic movement. The results demonstrated quicker rates of rhythmic movement in distal limbs relative to core movements across all conditions. Critically, increased postural support resulted in both longer durations and faster rates of rhythmic movement emerging specifically for core effectors in conditions with greater postural support.

Infants' longer durations of rhythmic movement under increased postural support align with expectations. By reducing weight‐bearing on the lower limbs and supporting upright stabilization, both apparatus addressed two key biomechanical limitations specific to early motor development. Duration was highest in the Bouncer Condition, where the sprung nature of the harness made it possible for infants to push against gravity, allowing for greater ease of movement between maximum flexion and extended positions of the legs. Thus, the Bouncer Condition assisted infants in gathering and storing elastic energy during the peaks and troughs of their movement. This stored energy was then transferred back into the floor, creating a rebound effect that propelled subsequent movements with greater ease and efficiency, which may have allowed infants to sustain rhythmic movements for longer than they could have unsupported.

To further unpack these findings, effects of postural support on duration of movements were examined by effector group. The Core Effector Group represented the vertical displacement of the infants' trunk, which entailed movement of the legs, torso and head, to cooperatively embody the superior‐anterior directional movement of “bounce”. Movement of the legs (while standing or bouncing) and torso (while seated), both inevitably result in head movement and require active engagement against gravity. In a related study with adults, Burger et al. (2014) also found movement in the superior‐inferior direction to closely align with properties of the musical pulse. They proposed that gravity, along with the body's muscular and biomechanical properties, supports movements such as bouncing. Burger and colleagues argue that only upward force is actively exerted, as gravity naturally facilitates downward motion, and as a result, bouncing or nodding emerges as an intuitive response to rhythmic auditory stimuli. In the current study, the Bouncer Condition facilitated more fully embodied movements, as evidenced by the longest average duration of Core Effector Group engagement across our three conditions. This whole‐body movement resulted in vertical displacement of the trunk and enabled qualities of bounce and rebound into the infants' movement repertoire.

A possible explanation for the longer durations of repetitive rhythmic movements with postural support lies in the coupling between sensory and motor processes. When given increased postural support in a musical context, infants are able to express longer durations of full‐bodied bouncing movements, which inherently entails head movement. The repetitive vertical movements of bounce change the position of the head relative to gravity, generating changes in velocity and position, detected by the vestibular system, located in the inner ear (Raphan et al. 2001). The otolith organs (utricle and saccule) and the fluid in the semicircular canals of the vestibular system are responsible for detecting changes in acceleration and gravity, which are integral to the movements involved in bouncing (Purves et al. 2018). Although vestibular stimulation was not directly measured, prior work reflects a bidirectional relationship between auditory rhythms and physical movement mediated by vestibular stimulation (Phillips‐Silver and Trainor 2005, 2008; Rocha et al. 2021a), which may help contextualize the observed pattern of results. Given that humans are biologically predisposed to move to music (Zentner and Eerola 2010), auditory signals naturally engage motor pathways, with sensory feedback supporting the coordination and sustaining rhythmic movements (Grahn and Brett 2007). Speculatively, the significant increase of rhythmic activity in the Bouncer Condition may reflect vestibular input associated with vertical bouncing, potentially facilitating greater sustained rhythmic movements.

In this study, the rate of rhythmic movements was also examined, measured by the inter‐onset interval (IOI) of movements. Results demonstrated rate of movement to be primarily organized by effector type, with Distal effectors moving significantly faster than Core effectors regardless of postural condition. Postural support facilitated faster Core movement in the Standing and Bouncer conditions relative to the Seated baseline, with no corresponding significant change in the Distal rate. Notably, the Condition x Effector Group interaction did not reach significance suggesting that postural support did not change the fundamental rate difference between Core and Distal effectors. Core movement remained slower than Distal movement across the three conditions, which suggests this distinction is not driven by postural mechanics alone, but may instead reflect more fundamental biomechanical or developmental differences between effector types.

Taken together, these findings on duration and rate of rhythmic movement highlight the interplay between biomechanical properties and developing motor skills. In the current infant study, artificial stabilization of the body in the upright position enabled longer and fuller‐bodied movements involving vertical displacement of the core. While core movements occurred at a slower rate than movements of the distal limbs, the Bouncer and Standing conditions showed comparably faster tempi of rhythmic movement relative to the Seated condition. Bounce is particularly interesting as it reflects a naturally occurring two‐beat kinetic cycle of torso movement (a downward and an upward motion), with the downward phase noted as the perceived “bounce”. Each full cycle of vertical bouncing consists of a downward motion (from maximum to minimum kinetic energy) and an upward motion (from minimum to maximum kinetic energy), where the fluctuations between peaks and troughs correspond to a four‐beat period. Consequently, when counting “bounces,” only the downward motions are typically accounted for, given that each downward movement represents the single active engagement against gravity needed in the cycle. This results in a two‐beat period of kinetic energy where the fluctuations between peaks and troughs correspond to a four‐beat period for each movement of bounce. (Figure 9 provides further illustration.) It should be noted that the mechanical properties of the bouncer apparatus may have also contributed to the observed patterns of core movement. While infants actively generate rhythmic motion, the recoiling nature of the sprung harness likely amplified small trunk displacements, sustaining the oscillatory cycle. Thus, the current design, while effectively capturing latent rhythmic organization through reduction of biomechanical constraints, cannot fully disentangle infant‐driven from device‐amplified motion. Future work employing force‐sensing technology could help specify how mechanical and infant‐driven components interact to produce rhythmic movement.

FIGURE 9.

FIGURE 9

Open in a new tab

Visual depiction of kinetic energy dynamics in periodic bounce movements. (A) Illustrates the periodic oscillations of kinetic motion, highlighting points of maximum and minimum kinetic energy. One complete cycle of movement consists of two maxima and two minima. The grey dotted lines show how the two‐beat cycle is divided into four‐beat periods. (B) Details the two‐beat period of bounce movement, with corresponding points of maximum and minimum kinetic energy as depicted in the oscillations shown in (A). As the spring of the bouncer expands and contracts, each segment of the bounce (whether downward or upward) involves movement that starts from a point of minimum kinetic energy, reaches maximum kinetic energy, and then returns to the minimum. This pattern results in two, two‐beat periods per segment, totaling four beats for each complete bounce.

These patterns of periodicity, rooted in properties of mass and gravity, align with findings from adult studies showing that the inherently heavier torso region embodies slower metrical levels, while lighter distal limbs reflect faster subdivisions (Burger et al. 2014; Toiviainen et al. 2010). The unweighting paradigm in the current study altered infants' relationship to gravity, changing the biomechanical conditions and kinematic properties of their movement, which enabled more sustained and varied rates of rhythmic movement. This also highlights the continuity of biomechanical principles and rhythmic movement patterns across development, traced from infancy through adulthood, and offers a broader view of how musicality unfolds through the maturation of embodied movement.

This study introduced a novel way to observe and test infant movement in musical contexts through the use of a standing walker and bouncer apparatuses which allowed for measurement of isolated effectors, groups of effectors and whole‐body movements. Whereas past research with pre‐ambulatory infants has largely tested infants in a supported sitting position, the present design uniquely differentiates and examines the movement rates of both gross‐motor distal limbs, and core and torso dynamics, providing a fuller characterization of rhythmic movement across the body. At the same time, this study was intentionally scoped to examine how postural support shapes expression of rhythmic movement within a musical context, rather than to contrast movement to music versus absence of music. As such, a non‐music or silent baseline was not included. Given prior evidence that infants may exhibit rhythmic movement in silence, it is plausible that aspects of the observed movement patterns would have emerged in the absence of auditory stimulation (Thelen 1981; Rocha et al. 2024). Auditory input was therefore held constant across conditions to isolate biomechanical differences, and future studies incorporating both music and non‐music contexts would help clarify how postural support interacts with specific auditory features.

However, this novel postural support paradigm for assessing infant movement to music also presents potential limitations involving those associated with apparatus design and the influence of prior familiarity. While the Standing Condition offered upright support for the infant, the walker may have contributed to a sense of confinement, particularly after experiencing the freedom to move around the playmat in the Seated Condition. Additionally, the attached tray may have prompted drumming motions due to its tactile feedback. In the Bouncer condition, some infants may have found the experience highly novel or overly familiar, which may have shaped their responses. These factors limit the extent to which the observed effects can be attributed exclusively to postural support. Future studies would benefit from systematically assessing familiarity measures alongside broader individual differences (e.g., infant temperament, affect), and refinement of the postural support methods to even better match physical affordances available to the infant across conditions. The present findings were obtained using specific apparatus (a standing walker and sprung bouncer) and musical stimuli within a single cultural and geographic context (Southeast London). The apparatus were chosen as infant safe and accessible for research, but this accessibility is bound to the prevalence of artificial postural support devices for UK infants. Both the objects available to infants and the broader material and musical culture in which they are raised vary considerably across communities, and the affordances of the specific apparatus used here may have shaped infants' rhythmic responses in ways that do not generalize straightforwardly to other settings, communities, or material ecologies. Replication across different cultural contexts would help establish the generalizability of the present findings. Perhaps more importantly, extensions of the current design to capture natural postural change will be critical to confirming the effects presented from the current experimental manipulation.

Factors related to infant development including age, developmental maturity and home musical environment were examined as secondary predictors associated with total duration and rate of movement. Of the two main target variables, only duration of rhythmic movement showed significant association with age, while IOI (rate of movement) did not. These findings suggest developmental maturity to be associated with the duration of rhythmic engagement but not its intrinsic tempo (SMT), pointing to distinct developmental pathways for these two dimensions of rhythmic movement. Considered alongside known anthropometric effects of body size and mass distribution on movement kinematics in adults, these patterns raise the possibility that growth‐related biomechanical changes may differently shape duration and rate of rhythmic movement. When duration was modeled separately by effector group, the age‐related increase in duration was specific to core effectors, without a corresponding observation in distal effectors (see Table 6). Overall, this suggests that growth‐related biomechanical changes may particularly influence the duration of core, rather than distal rhythmic movement.

Building from this, it is interesting that no strong relationship emerged between age and IOI for either core or distal effectors in the current study. This contrasts with prior work examining distal movements in seated infants, such as whole‐hand drumming, which has consistently shown faster IOIs with increasing age across infancy (Rocha et al. 2021a; Rocha et al. 2024). This absence may reflect methodological differences, as previous studies prioritized auditory and tactile feedback of distal movements (i.e. drumming on an instrument). In contrast, the study did not privilege distal effectors nor provide sensory feedback, which may help explain why age‐related changes in rhythmic rate were not observed for either effector group. The present findings therefore suggest age‐related changes in rhythmic rate are not yet detectable within the present age range and sample size, in contrast to duration, which showed a clear age‐related increase specific to core effectors. Similarly, measures of the home musical environment did not account for additional variance in either rate or duration of rhythmic movement. As age uniquely predicted duration but not rate of rhythmic movement, the divergence between developmental maturity and musical environment on these two dimensions may reflect distinct underlying mechanisms with rate of movement more tightly governed by the biomechanical properties of the effector itself, whereas duration of engagement may be more readily shaped by external factors not tested in current study, such as affective state, motivation or social context.

In summary, this study characterized infant motoric responses to music as part of an embodied foundation for later complex and communicative behaviors, including forms of social rhythmic coordination. Increased postural support was shown to increase rhythmic movement in pre‐ambulatory infants, otherwise limited by developing motor skills. Using an unweighting paradigm, infants were enabled to express longer durations and quicker rates of rhythmic movement. This novel methodology allowed for the mapping of single effectors and groups of effectors, demonstrating distinct trends between distal and core effectors, giving a fuller picture of how musicality unfolds across the body. These findings highlight the interplay between mass, gravity, and motor development that shape spontaneous sensorimotor behavior and provide insight into rhythmic movement in early development. Providing an unweighted experience, which temporarily compensates for postural control and strength demands, may offer a framework to identify rate‐limiting factors in rhythmic movement development, with potential relevance for future intervention research. More broadly, the results capture an embodied account of rhythm in which rhythmic movement does not emerge uniformly across the body, but is instead shaped by biomechanical organization and postural constraints. In this way, rhythmic movement appears scaffolded by the interaction of the developing body, postural support, and auditory context, rather than driven by music alone. Distinguishing between core and distal effectors further suggests that spontaneous motor tempo may follow different developmental trajectories across the body, with implications for how early rhythmic movement is conceptualized and measured in infancy.

Author Contributions

J. Amber Kao: conceptualization, methodology, visualization, writing – original draft, formal analysis, data curation, investigation. Sinead Rocha: conceptualization, writing – review and editing, supervision, methodology.

Funding

The authors have nothing to report.

Ethics Statement

All procedures were approved by the Goldsmiths, University of London Research Ethics Committee, and informed consent obtained from all caregivers prior to participation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Supporting Information S1

INFA-31-0-s001.docx (2.7MB, docx)

Supporting Information S2

INFA-31-0-s003.csv (14.4KB, csv)

Supporting Information S3

INFA-31-0-s002.csv (199.4KB, csv)

Acknowledgments

We thank the families who participated in this research and the members of the Goldsmiths InfantLab for their support. We are especially grateful to Jacob Kao and Nina Mesic for their assistance with data management and behavioral coding.

Kao, J. A. , and Rocha Sinead. 2026. “Infant Rhythmic Movement Across Postural Conditions,” Infancy: e70122. 10.1111/infa.70122.

Handling Editor: Ana Moreno‐Núñez

Contributor Information

J. Amber Kao, Email: j.amberkao@princeton.edu.

Sinead Rocha, Email: s.rocha@gold.ac.uk.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available in the supplementary materials. Due to ethical restrictions associated with infant participants, raw video data are not publicly available. Additional materials may be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.

References

  1. Adolph, K. E. , and Hoch J. E.. 2019. “Motor Development: Embodied, Embedded, Enculturated, and Enabling.” Annual Review of Psychology 70, no. 1: 141–164. 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102836. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Attaheri, A. , Ní Choisdealbha Á., Di Liberto G. M., et al. 2022. “Delta‐ and Theta‐Band Cortical Tracking and Phase‐Amplitude Coupling to Sung Speech by Infants.” NeuroImage 247: 118698. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2021.118698. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Boll‐Avetisyan, N. , Shandala A., and Langus A.. 2024. “Infants Show Systematic Rhythmic Motor Responses While Listening to Rhythmic Speech.” Frontiers in Psychology 15: 1370007. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1370007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brooks, M. E. , Kristensen K., van Benthem K. J., et al. 2017. “glmmTMB Balances Speed and Flexibility Among Packages for Zero‐Inflated Count Data.” R Journal 9, no. 2: 378–400. 10.32614/RJ-2017-066. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Burger, B. , Thompson M. R., Luck G., Saarikallio S. H., and Toiviainen P.. 2014. “Hunting for the Beat in the Body: On Period and Phase Locking in Music‐Induced Movement.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 8: 903. 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00903. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cirelli, L. K. , Einarson K. M., and Trainor L. J.. 2014. “Interpersonal Synchrony Increases Prosocial Behavior in Infants.” Developmental Science 17, no. 6: 1003–1011. 10.1111/desc.12193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cirelli, L. K. , Spinelli C., Nozaradan S., and Trainor L. J.. 2016. “Measuring Neural Entrainment to Beat and Meter in Infants: Effects of Musical Background.” Frontiers in Neuroscience 10: 229. 10.3389/fnins.2016.00229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dahl, S. , Huron D., Brod G., and Altenmüller E.. 2014. “Preferred Dance Tempo: Does Sex or Body Morphology Influence How We Groove?” Journal of New Music Research 43: 214–228. 10.1080/09298215.2014.881888. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Fraisse, P. 1982. “Rhythm and Tempo.” In The Psychology of Music, edited by Deutsch D., 2nd ed., 149–180. Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-213562-0.50010-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fujii, S. , Watanabe H., Oohashi H., Hirashima M., Nozaki D., and Taga G.. 2014. “Precursors of Dancing and Singing to Music in Three‐ to Four‐Month‐Old Infants.” PLoS One 9, no. 5: e97680. 10.1371/journal.pone.0097680. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Grahn, J. A. , and Brett M.. 2007. “Rhythm and Beat Perception in Motor Areas of the Brain.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19, no. 5: 893–906. 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.5.893. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Honing, H. , ten Cate C., Peretz I., and Trehub S. E.. 2015. “Without It No Music: Cognition, Biology and Evolution of Musicality.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 370, no. 1664: 20140088. 10.1098/rstb.2014.0088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Janata, P. , Tomic S. T., and Haberman J. M.. 2012. “Sensorimotor Coupling in Music and the Psychology of the Groove.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 141, no. 1: 54–75. 10.1037/a0024208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kornafel, T. , Paremski A. C., and Prosser L. A.. 2023. “Unweighting Infants Reveals Hidden Motor Skills.” Developmental Science 26, no. 2: e13279. 10.1111/desc.13279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kragness, H. E. , Anderson L., Chow E., Schmuckler M. A., and Cirelli L. K.. 2022. “Musical Groove Shapes Children’s Free Dancing.” Developmental Science 26, no. 1: e13249. 10.1111/desc.13249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Kragness, H. E. , Hannon E. E., and Cirelli L. K.. 2023. “The Musical Mind: Perspectives From Developmental Science.” In The Origins of Musicality, edited by Honing H., 183–202. MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kretch, K. S. , Franchak J. M., and Adolph K. E.. 2014. “Crawling and Walking Infants See the World Differently.” Child Development 85, no. 4: 1503–1518. 10.1111/cdev.12206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Mandke, K. , and Rocha S.. 2023. “Neural and Behavioural Rhythmic Tracking During Language Acquisition: The Story So Far.” In Rhythms of Speech and Language, edited by Meyer L. and Strauss A.. Cambridge University Press; (in press). [Google Scholar]
  19. McAuley, J. D. , Jones M. R., Holub S., Johnston H. M., and Miller N. S.. 2006. “The Time of Our Lives: Life Span Development of Timing and Event Tracking.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 135, no. 3: 348–367. 10.1037/0096-3445.135.3.348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Needham, A. W. , Barrett T. M., and Peterman K.. 2002. “A Pick‐Me‐Up for Infants’ Exploratory Skills: Early Simulated Experiences Reaching for Objects Using ‘Sticky Mittens’ Enhances Young Infants’ Object Exploration Skills.” Infant Behavior & Development 25, no. 3: 279–295. 10.1016/S0163-6383(02)00097-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Nguyen, T. , Reisner S., Lueger A., Wass S. V., Hoehl S., and Markova G.. 2023. “Sing to me, Baby: Infants Show Neural Tracking and Rhythmic Movements to Live and Dynamic Maternal Singing.” Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience 64: 101313. 10.1016/j.dcn.2023.101313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Patrick, S. K. , Noah J. A., and Yang J. F.. 2009. “Interlimb Coordination in Human Crawling Reveals Similarities in Development and Neural Control With Quadrupeds.” Journal of Neurophysiology 101, no. 2: 603–613. 10.1152/jn.91125.2008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Phillips‐Silver, J. , and Trainor L. J.. 2005. “Feeling the Beat: Movement Influences Infant Rhythm Perception.” Science 308, no. 5727: 1430. 10.1126/science.1110922. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Phillips‐Silver, J. , and Trainor L. J.. 2007. “Hearing what the Body Feels: Auditory Encoding of Rhythmic Movement.” Cognition 105, no. 3: 533–546. 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.11.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Phillips‐Silver, J. , and Trainor L. J.. 2008. “Vestibular Influence on Auditory Metrical Interpretation.” Brain and Cognition 67, no. 1: 94–102. 10.1016/j.bandc.2007.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Politimou, N. , Dalla Bella S., Farrugia N., and Franco F.. 2018. “A Novel Instrument to Assess the Home Musical Environment in the Early Years.” PLoS One 13, no. 4: e0193819. 10.1371/journal.pone.0193819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Purves, D. , Augustine G., Fitzpatrick D., Hall W., and LaMantia A.. 2018. Neuroscience. 6th ed. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  28. Raphan, T. , Imai T., Moore S. T., and Cohen B.. 2001. “Vestibular Compensation and Orientation During Locomotion.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 942, no. 1: 128–138. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb03740.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ravignani, A. , Honing H., and Kotz S. A.. 2017. “The Evolution of Rhythm Cognition: Timing in Music and Speech.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 11: 303. 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. R Core Team . 2024. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (Version 4.4.1). Computer Software. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R‐project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  31. Rocha, S. , Attaheri A., Choisdealbha Á. N., et al. 2024. “Precursors to Infant Sensorimotor Synchronization to Speech and Non‐Speech Rhythms: A Longitudinal Study.” Developmental Science 27, no. 4: e13483. 10.1111/desc.13483. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Rocha, S. , and Mareschal D.. 2017. “Getting into the Groove: Development of Tempo Flexibility Between 10 and 18 Months of Age.” Infancy 22, no. 4: 540–551. 10.1111/infa.12169. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rocha, S. , Southgate V., and Mareschal D.. 2021a. “Infant Spontaneous Motor Tempo.” Developmental Science 24, no. 2: e13032. 10.1111/desc.13032. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Rocha, S. , Southgate V., and Mareschal D.. 2021b. “Rate of Infant Carrying Impacts Infant Spontaneous Motor Tempo.” Royal Society Open Science 8, no. 9: 210608. 10.1098/rsos.210608. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Sloetjes, H. , and Wittenburg P.. 2008. ELAN (Version 6.8). Computer software. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan. [Google Scholar]
  36. Squires, J. , and Bricker D.. 2009. Ages & Stages Questionnaires®, Third Edition (ASQ‐3): A Parent‐Completed Child‐Monitoring System. Paul H. Brookes. [Google Scholar]
  37. Thelen, E . 1981. “Rhythmical Behavior in Infancy: An Ethological Perspective.” Developmental Psychology 17, no. 3: 237–257. 10.1037/0012-1649.17.3.237. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Thelen, E. , Fisher D. M., and Ridley‐Johnson R.. 1984. “The Relationship Between Physical Growth and a Newborn Reflex.” Infant Behavior and Development 7, no. 4: 479–493. 10.1016/S0163-6383(84)80007-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Todd, N. P. M. , Cousins R., and Lee C. S.. 2007. “The Contribution of Anthropometric Factors to Individual Differences in the Perception of Rhythm.” Empirical Musicology Review 2, no. 1: 1–13. 10.18061/1811/24478. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Toiviainen, P. , Luck G., and Thompson M. R.. 2010. “Embodied Meter: Hierarchical Eigenmodes in Music‐Induced Movement.” Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 28, no. 1: 59–70. 10.1525/mp.2010.28.1.59. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Trainor, L. J. , Gao X., Lei J., Lehtovaara K., and Harris L. R.. 2009. “The Primal Role of the Vestibular System in Determining Musical Rhythm.” Cortex 45, no. 1: 35–43. 10.1016/j.cortex.2007.10.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Trehub, S. E . 2003. “The Developmental Origins of Musicality.” Nature Neuroscience 6, no. 7: 669–673. 10.1038/nn1084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Trevarthen, C . 1999. “Musicality and the Intrinsic Motive Pulse: Evidence From Human Psychobiology and Infant Communication.” Supplement, Musicae Scientiae 3, no. S1: S157–S213. 10.1177/10298649000030S109. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Trevarthen, C . 2008. “The Musical Art of Infant Conversation: Narrating in the Time of Sympathetic Experience, Without Rational Interpretation, Before Words.” Supplement, Musicae Scientiae 12, no. S1: S15–S46. 10.1177/1029864908012001021. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Winkler, I. , Háden G. P., Ladinig O., Sziller I., and Honing H.. 2009. “Newborn Infants Detect the Beat in Music.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106, no. 7: 2468–2471. 10.1073/pnas.0809035106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Yu, L. , and Myowa M.. 2021. “The Early Development of Tempo Adjustment and Synchronization During Joint Drumming: A Study of 18‐to 42‐Month‐Old Children.” Infancy 26, no. 4: 635–646. 10.1111/infa.12403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Zentner, M. , and Eerola T.. 2010. “Rhythmic Engagement With Music in Infancy.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, no. 13: 5768–5773. 10.1073/pnas.1000121107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supporting Information S1

INFA-31-0-s001.docx (2.7MB, docx)

Supporting Information S2

INFA-31-0-s003.csv (14.4KB, csv)

Supporting Information S3

INFA-31-0-s002.csv (199.4KB, csv)

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available in the supplementary materials. Due to ethical restrictions associated with infant participants, raw video data are not publicly available. Additional materials may be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.

Articles from Infancy are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES