. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Sep 6.

Published in final edited form as: Res Dev Disabil. 2010 May 21;31(5):951–975. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.04.016

Table 1.

Studies with Preterms with no Additional Complications

Authors	Infant Age at Time of Testing¹M (SD)	Stimuli	Habituation Measure	Dishabituation Measure	Difference in Stimulus Encoding?² p³/d⁴	Difference in Stimulus Discrimination?² p³/d⁴	Habituation in Preterms?⁵	Dishabituation in preterms?⁵	Habituation in Terms?⁵	Dishabituation in Terms?⁵
Bonin, Pomerleau, & Malcuit (1998) measurement 1	2.0	naturalistic faces naturalistic children’s faces, abstract patterns	infant-controlled FFD⁶	recovery of attention novelty preference	— —⁷	— —⁷	+⁸ +⁹	+ +	+⁸ +⁹	+ +
measurement 2	3.92	naturalistic faces naturalistic children’s faces, abstract patterns	infant-controlled FFD	recovery of attention novelty preference	— —⁷	— —⁷	+⁸ +⁹	+ +	+⁸ +⁹	+ +
measurement 3	5.94	naturalistic faces naturalistic children’s faces, abstract patterns	infant-controlled FFD	recovery of attention novelty preference	— —⁷	— —⁷	+⁸ +⁹	+ +	+⁸ +⁹	+ +
Fagan, Fantz, & Miranda (1971, quoted from Fantz, Fagan, & Miranda (1975)	1.15–2.08 2.54–4.16¹¹	abstract patterns abstract patterns	FFD or FPD¹⁰ FFD or FPD	novelty preference novelty preference	not given —⁷	not given —	?¹² +⁹	?¹² +	?¹² +⁹	?¹² +
Field, Woodson, D. Cohen, Greenberg, Garcia, & Collins (1983)	neonatal period (no age correction)	naturalistic facial emotional expressions	infant-controlled	recovery of attention	+²⁰	+²⁰	+	+	+	+
Friedman, Jacobs, & Werthmann (1981)	neonatal period	green vs. red real box	infant-controlled	not tested	+ .01/0.84	not tested	+⁸	not tested	+⁸	not tested
Kopp, Sigman, Parmelee, & Jeffrey (1975)	neonatal period	checkerboard patterns	FPD	not tested	+ .04/0.51²¹	not tested	not given	not tested	not given	not tested
Mash, Quinn, Dobson, & Narter (1998) study 1	preterms: 3.58 terms: 3.14	dot patterns (to “above” vs. “below” categories)	FPD	novelty preference	—	—	—¹³	+	—¹³	+
study 2¹⁴	preterms: 3.58 terms: 3.72	naturalistic pictures of cats and dogs (categorization task)	FPD	novelty preference	—	+ .002/1.08	—	—	—	+
Rose (1980) study 1	preterms: 6.34 terms: 6.31	abstract patterns abstract patterns naturalistic faces	FFD FFD FFD	novelty preference	?¹⁶ —⁷ ?¹⁶	?¹⁶ — ?¹⁶	?¹⁷ ?¹⁷ ?¹⁷	?¹⁷ ?¹⁷ ?¹⁷	+⁹ ?¹⁷ +⁹	+ ?¹⁷ +
study 2¹⁵	preterms: 6.34 terms: 6.31	abstract patterns abstract patterns naturalistic faces	FFD FFD FFD	novelty preference	—⁷ —⁷ —⁷	— — —	+⁹ ?¹⁷ +⁹	+ ?¹⁷ +	+⁹ ?¹⁷ +⁹	+ ?¹⁷ +
Rose (1983) study 1	preterms: 6.67 terms: 6.4	abstract real 3D patterns	FFD	novelty preference	—¹⁸	+¹⁸ .01/0.77	+⁹	+	+⁹	+
study 2	preterms: 13.0 terms: 12.8	abstract real 3D patterns	FFD	novelty preference	—¹⁸	—¹⁸	+⁹	+	+⁹	+
Rose, Gottfried, & Bridger (1978) study 1	preterms: 12.56 terms: 12.33	abstract patterns	FFD	novelty preference	—⁷	—	+⁹	+	+⁹	+
study 2¹⁴	preterms: 12.56 terms: 12.47	abstract patterns	FFD	novelty preference	—⁷	—	+⁹	+	+⁹	+
Rose, Gottfried, & Bridger (1979) study 1	preterms: 6.6 terms: 6.88	abstract patterns	FFD	novelty preference	?¹⁶	?¹⁶ .08/0.48	?¹⁷	?¹⁷	+⁹	+
study 2	preterms: 12.33 terms: 12.49	abstract patterns	FFD	novelty preference	—⁷	—	+⁹	+	+⁹	+
Sigman, Kopp, Littman, & Parmelee (1977)	neonatal period	checkerboard patterns	FPD	not tested	+²²	not tested	not given	not tested	not given	not tested
Sigman & Parmelee (1974)	preterms¹⁹: 4.16 terms: 4.39	checkerboard pattern vs. abstract patterns	FPD	novelty preference	—	+²³	+	—	+	+

Notes. Standard deviations are given in parentheses.

Age at time of testing in months. For the preterm infants, age is corrected (= age from expected date of birth). Age of both preterms and terms is given if age at time of testing was different.

+: A significant difference between preterms and terms to the disadvantage of the preterms was observed. —: No significant difference between preterms and terms was observed.

One-tailed probability for value of t comparing group means.

⁴

Effect size according to Cohen (1977).

⁵

+ A significant habituation/dishabituation was observed. —: No significant habituation/dishabituation was observed.

⁶

FFD: Fixed fixation duration.

⁷

: Deduced from there being no group difference in dishabituation performance.

⁸

: An infant-controlled habituation procedure was used. Hence, the infants are considered as having habituated.

⁹

Deduced from there being a significant dishabituation. Hence, the infants must have successfully habituated.

¹⁰

FPD: Fixed presentation duration.

¹¹

The participants were tested every two weeks. The whole testing period was subdivided into two phases; results obtained in each phase were comparable.

¹²

Habituation might have interfered with dishabituation: There was no significant dishabituation; whether the infants had habituated was not tested. Hence, it is possible that the infants continued to habituate (i.e., to look at the familiar stimulus) during the dishabituation phase, thereby suppressing a clear dishabituation reaction.

¹³

Despite there being no significant decrease in fixation during the habituation period, the infants displayed a significant dishabituation.

¹⁴

The same preterms, but different groups of terms were investigated in studies 1 and 2.

¹⁵

The same terms, but different groups of preterms were investigated in studies 1 and 2.

¹⁶

Term infants displayed a significant dishabituation reaction. In the preterm infants, however, no significant dishabituation response was observed. Due to using a fixed fixation duration habituation procedure, it remains unclear whether the preterms continued to look at the habituation stimulus during the dishabituation period, that is, to encode the habituation stimulus, thereby producing a null result. If so, the dishabituation response in the preterms might be confounded with continuation of habituation, and it remains unclear whether or not the preterms’ ability to display a novelty response is inferior to that of the terms. Furthermore, the non-significant dishabituation in combination with a fixed fixation duration habituation procedure leaves open whether the preterm infants had habituated. Hence, it cannot be determined whether or not their habituation performance was comparable to that of the terms.

¹⁷

There was no significant dishabituation response. Due to using a fixed fixation duration habituation procedure, it remains unclear whether the infants continued to look at the habituation stimulus during the dishabituation period, that is, to encode the habituation stimulus, thereby producing a null result. If so, the dishabituation reaction in the infants might be confounded with continuation of habituation and it is unclear whether or not the infants were able to discriminate between the posthabituation stimuli. Furthermore, the non-significant dishabituation in combination with a fixed fixation duration habituation procedure leaves open whether the infants had habituated.

¹⁸

See the main text for a comment.

¹⁹

The preterms failed to habituate and to dishabituate.

²⁰

Group differences were assessed by a common measure, F(2,92) = 5.41, p = .006.

²¹

Values for total fixation. Values for first fixation are p = .02, d = 0.62.

²²

F(1,38) = 5.45, p = .025.

²³

Values for the groups × stimulus novelty interaction are F(1,36) = 14.33, p < .01.