Babies Recognize Music From the Womb

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Babies Recognize Music From the Womb

By Maggie Owens ABCNEWS.com

In the womb, they got dosed with everything from UB40 to Mozart and Vivaldi. Suprisingly, the infants remembered the tunes for a long time after birth.

Babies remember tunes they were played in the womb for as much as a year after birth, says a new study.

"All previous research showed that they could remember things for up to a month but there was no evidence to suggest that they would remember for up to a year," said Alexandra Lamont, a lecturer at Britain's University of Leicester psychology department who conducted the study.

"I really wasn't expecting this."

Facing the Music

For the study, "How Music Heard in the Womb is Remembered by the Child," 12 expectant mothers were asked to choose a piece of music that they enjoyed and to play it to their babies for the three months before the birth.

When 11 of the children were one year old they were tested for recognition of the music by being placed in a room with two speakers. The study does not say why one baby was not tested.

New Ultrasound Gives Womb With a View

Each speaker played a piece of music: One was the prenatal music and the other was a piece of music chosen for its similarity in key, pace, and loudness. Atop each speaker was a ball with colored lights.

Researchers recorded the length of time the babies spent looking at each ball — implying they were listening to each piece of music.

Each baby, none of whom could speak, showed a clear preference for the music they had been exposed to while in the womb. A control group of children showed no preference for either piece of music.

Classical and Rock

The parents represented a wide spectrum and were from a variety of economic backgrounds. They have varying home situations with moms working, moms and dads working, nannies, and more.

As a result of their varying backgrounds the babies were exposed to many different types of music during their first year, including the pop group UB40, classical music by Vivaldi and Mozart, Jamaican-born reggae artist Ken Boothe, and British "boy band" Five.

Lamont said she initially allowed the babies a choice between the prenatal music and something completely different.

For instance, if the prenatal music was classical, the other option would be rock music.

She suspected that if the babies were able to pick out their own piece of music, then it would be much more likely that they would remember it in this circumstance.

When she discovered that after a year they could recognize their prenatal music even when offered a very similar choice, she was amazed.

Musical Marking

Lamont plans to continue her research with music and these same babies looking at whether the memories will persist in the years to come and how this memory may effect their musical preferences and abilities.

Lamont's research was broadcast this week in the United Kingdom on a British Broadcasting Corporation program called Child of Our Time, which followed several expectant mothers through their pregnancy and the first year of each child's life and looked at the development of cognitive skills, eating habits, and musical abilities, among other things.

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 12, 2001

Answers

This is vicious, pro-life pseudoscience.

-- (Pat Ireland @ NOW.rimshot), July 13, 2001.

Right on Pat! They're not babies until after we've had a chance to kill them for profit!

-- (Profit@Planned.Parenthood), July 13, 2001.

How sad that you feel that way, pat.

When I was expecting my youngest, I would lie very close to the speakers and play a variety of music, including classical and opera. After my son was born, I would play the same music to soothe him. =0)

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 13, 2001.


Arghh! Another attempt to hijack a perfectly good thread into an abortion brouhaha... feh!

This discovery fits in perfectly with the book I am reading - How the Mind Works, by Stephen Pinker.

You remember how amazed you were the first time you saw a calf stand up and walk around so soon after being born? And how that contrasts so sharply with human infants who stay so helpless for so long? You look at that and it seems like animals are born fully equipped and good-to-go, while we have to painstakingly learn everything.

Well, it turns out that the main reason we're so helpless is that we have to be born before our heads are too big to pass the birth canal - so we're all born 'prematurely'. Our 'fetal' development ends at around 4 months old. And far from having to learn everything, we're born with brains that are pre-equipped with a pretty good store of knowledge - long before we have any experience of the world.

I can't summarize the whole book (I haven't even finished it), but it is a very exciting overview of the whole subject, by a very engaging and intelligent author who is also a leading researcher in the field.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 13, 2001.


I always play beautiful music in my "Woman's Health Clinic". The fetii love to hear the "1812 Overture" as they meet the cosmic vacuum cleaner.

-- (Dr Suckov@electro.lux), July 13, 2001.


This is silly. The only thing it proves is that babies who are one year old like looking at colored lights. Am I the only one who wonders how much they spent on coming to this earth-shattering conclusion?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 13, 2001.

No, the only thing that is silly is your knee-jerk dismissal of it, ape-dude.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 13, 2001.

How can you take a study involving a miniscule sample size and no control group seriously?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 13, 2001.

So you are saying that a baby's brain is functionless until the moment of birth?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), July 13, 2001.

The way this study was conducted doesn't prove anything. We know that babies like to listen to some music, we know they like to look at colored lights. The apparent lack of a control group means that we don't know whether or not looking at colored lights and listening to music is simply typical baby behavior. The addition of the colored lights may show that some colors appeal to babies more than others, but without a control group we'll never know. Also, since the parents picked music out themselves, and presumably picked music they liked, we don't know that the parents didn't keep playing the same music after birth as they played before. The babies could very well be responding to music that they have heard several times since birth. After all, would you suddenly stop playing a music you liked to hear just because you have a new baby?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 13, 2001.


Tarzan...please PLEASE don't have any children.

-- (take@a.guess), July 13, 2001.

The ability to think clearly about fuzzy science is not a reflection on parenting skills, however, rest assured I will give your concerns every ounce of consideration they are due.

:-)

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 13, 2001.


According to Little Nipper, fetal developement doesn't end until 4 months. That's great news! Talk about expanding a market!

-- (Profit@Planned.Parenthood), July 13, 2001.

My dad played trumpet. He would put the trumpet bell on mom's pregnant tum and blow Miles Davis riffs. Is that why I have this fucking Tourette's?

-- (nemesis@awol.com), July 13, 2001.

LOL nemesis!

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 13, 2001.


Hey, Nemesis! That's SHIIIIIIIIT really interesting. My Dad MOTHERFUCKER did the exact same thing ASSHOLE to my mom when she was pregnant FUCKING FUCKERS with me, but I've got a club foot YIP YIP YIP YIP.

Maybe the trumpet ASSLICKING BASTARDS causes different disabilities for different EAT SHIT people. You think?

-- Timmy Tourette (timmy.FUCKING.tourette@touretteSHIT.com), July 16, 2001.


About Dr. Lamont.

Dr. Lamont's press release about the study, which addresses several of the concerns raised by Tarzan. I would guess that it may be a few months before the results can be formally written up and published.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), July 16, 2001.


Tar, you know so little about babies, yet you find it necessary to project your great scientific mind on the best approach to conduct studies.

LN, lots of aspects of the human body develop outside the womb. For instance the vocal cords are not fully developed until about 4 months also. Humans are different from animals in their gestation in many ways. Is that typical of an advanced intellect?

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), July 16, 2001.


"Is that typical of an advanced intellect?"

It seems to be one of the strategies humans have developed, but I'm not sure if it is connected to intelligence. I would say it correlates more to being a predator or prey than to being intelligent. Prey animals seem to be born more fully developed because they need to avoid being eaten. Predators (at least among mammals) seem to have the leisure to develop more after birth.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 16, 2001.


LN, I tend to agree with that. But we humans are predators not because of any physical strengths (such as feline) but because of our intellect.

Not to take this thread "off topic" but I recall an article that described shark's gestation. It seems the more developed offspring will immediately devour the other siblings. No runts in that litter.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), July 16, 2001.


Concerned Parent, bad science is bad science. A sample size of ELEVEN children and no control group? Such a study belongs in a junior high school science fair, where I doubt it would earn a very high grade. Such a study is utterly valueless. A far larger sample size, plus a control group, plus operationalization of concepts are all necessary precursors to doing any sort of scientific study. And the study should be reproduced in order to claim any sort of validity.

You appear to know so little about science, yet you seem to find it necessary to project your great parenting mind on the best approach to conducting studies.

The fact that this study agrees with your experience does not make it true, or even reproducible.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 17, 2001.


ADH,
Dr. Lamont's press release (which I hotlinked above) noted a control group. I'm not sure in what respect you find that deficient.

With regard to the study's sample size, if the toddlers' behavior were random, the probability that all eleven would have preferred the music their mothers had played, is one in two to the eleventh power (2,048), which seems to readily qualify as statistically significant.

I can't say that her study might not be flawed, I just don't feel that there's enough information in the press release to make that determination.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), July 17, 2001.


Already,

After reading many of your responses on this forum, I find that you scrutinize the tree and miss the forest (by the way you break each sentence into its parts and miss the idea behind the paragraph). Yes, dissecting this particular study, you can find fault. But isn't it true that the mere act of studying a behavior influences that behavior? So, anyone can find fault with every study ever conducted. You speak as if you have great experience in research. May I ask what is your background and how you come to speak with such great authority on research techniques?

And your response above shows that you know nothing about parenting. This isn't the one and only study ever done on this subject. There have been numerous studies over decades of research. If you had been a parent or merely read the articles and reports out of personal interest, you would know more than just this one study. Does one simply ignore those other studies or build on those studies to continue the cycle of proving or disproving theories?

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), July 17, 2001.


"There have been numerous studies over decades of research."

Please backup your claim. I would like to see what other studies are out there.

"If you had been a parent or merely read the articles and reports out of personal interest, you would know more than just this one study."

I've been a parent for fifteen years and this is the only study I've ever heard of. My wife has also been a parent for fifteen years and this is the only study she has heard of. My parents have been parents for forty years, they haven't even heard of this study, let alone any others. I assure you, we all take an interest in parenting. It's not just non-parents who haven't seen all the studies on this subject.

-- Skeptical Dad (skeptical@parent.dad), July 17, 2001.


Hmmm...

This study is a good start, and the pro-life side of me wants to embrace it. However, I have to agree with some of the critics that it is only a start. Any scientific study must be subject to rigorous examination before its validity can be accepted or rejected, even if it seems to confirm what "everyone knows".

As the LORD said in Isaih 1:18 "Come, let us reason together,"

-- Polly Wanna Cracker? (polly@wanna.cracker), July 17, 2001.


"I've been a parent for fifteen years and this is the only study I've ever heard of."

I can't help that you and your family are ignorant. Since the beginnings of the Dr Spock generation, many publications have documented studies of fetal development and parenting. I implore you to seek out knowledge of your child's development and not rely on this obscure forum for your personal growth. Here are just a few samplings and will by no means point to every study ever conducted on child development:

http://webmd.lycos.com/content/article/3608.307

http://www.allhealth.com/conditions/reproductive/articles/0,11299,2429 88_209310,00.html

http://www.drgreene.com/newborns.asp

http://www.americanbaby.com/

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), July 17, 2001.


Your ignorance forced me to check a few more places on the web.

Here's more on fetal senses

And what about this article on fetal development

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), July 17, 2001.


Gestation times seem to be most closely correlate to body mass.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), July 17, 2001.

I just have to shake my head. The anti-abortion movement has manuevered the debate to the point where people who believe a woman should have a choice whether she bears a child must pretend that newborn infants are born with blank minds.

Any person interested in the truth knows that development is constant and rapid from the moment of conception. There is no other way to construct an infant out of a zygote. Denying this fact is not in anyone's interest.

By the same token, it is stupid to pretend that this isn't an issue of the relative power of men and women. It is in the interests of men to have every fetus is carried to birth. Women have a competing interest in controlling their own bodies for their own purposes. The fetus is just the pawn in this game.

It has already been agreed by society that, once it is born, a child must be raised. Killing it through action or inaction is not permitted. Consequently, once a child is born a man can safely walk away and be fairly sure that his child will be fed and clothed. By extending this agreement to cover fetuses, men can safely walk away from each woman they can induce to have sex and still feel reasonably certain that, if he succeeded in impregnating the woman, his genes will be propagated in the form of a child.

The biological truth is that women invest a lot more in a fetus than any man ever will. Forcing women to carry children is to a man's advantage. He can hit the major payoff without much investment - like a slot machine player. Women earn that payoff with more than a decade of hard work. Framing the debate in terms of the interest of the fetus and ignoring the interests of the woman is not just - and it hides the role of the interests of men.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 17, 2001.


I think you're missing the forest for the trees. We are not talking about studies of fetal development but of studies showing the development of memory in the pre-born. The fact that you produced six links, none of which had anything to do with fetal memory, would seem to indicate that maybe there aren't very many studies out there on this topic. Let's take your links one at a time, shall we?

Your first link, Fetus to Mom: You're Stressing Me Out mentions several studies that show a link between physical fetal development and maternal health. While it's a good link, it unfortunately has nothing to do with the development and exercise of memory in the fetus.

Your second link doesn't work.

Your third link, Dr. Green's House Calls is a set of articles on newborns. Unfortunately, newborns are not fetuses, having already been born. Additionally, it is not a study since a study consists of more than a set of editorials written by a doctor.

Your fourth link, Americanbaby.com consists of nothing more than the homepage of an on-line magazine. This, of course, is not a study. However, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you messed up the URL.

Your fifth link, The Fetal Senses is an excellent article about the development of the fetus. Unfortunately, while there is a reference to music in utero, neither the article itself nor the footnotes have anything to do with fetal memory.

Your sixth link, Fetal Psychology isn't even footnoted. The writer quotes doctors that have performed studies on fetuses, but none of these studies have anything to do with fetal memory.

Please let me know if you manage to uncover anything having to do with the development of memory by fetuses.

-- Skeptical Dad (skeptical@parent.dad), July 17, 2001.


Lest you think I am playing semantics, here is the complete line from your original post to ADH that made me think you knew of studies conducted on fetal memory:

"This isn't the one and only study ever done on this subject. There have been numerous studies over decades of research. If you had been a parent or merely read the articles and reports out of personal interest, you would know more than just this one study. Does one simply ignore those other studies or build on those studies to continue the cycle of proving or disproving theories?"

-- Skeptical Dad (skeptical@parent.dad), July 17, 2001.


LN, I agree with you on that point of view. Of course, the human fetus has signs of being a human. It couldn't survive without development inside the womb. But to make this as an argument for pro-life has me shaking my head also.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 17, 2001.

I have uncovered many things during the last few decades since I've become a parent. You need to "seek out knowledge of your child's development and not rely on this obscure forum for your personal growth." Further I didn't claim these would answer your questions, for I have no desire to show you 'the light'. You must find your own way in this world and not rely on my help. I placed this disclaimer prior to the links, "Here are just a few samplings and will by no means point to every study ever conducted on child development:"

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), July 17, 2001.

"You need to "seek out knowledge of your child's development and not rely on this obscure forum for your personal growth.""

What on earth makes you think I rely on this forum, or any other, for my personal growth?

"Further I didn't claim these would answer your questions, for I have no desire to show you 'the light'."

Just as I thought. Despite your boasts, and your insults, you can't produce any other studies on fetal memory.

"You must find your own way in this world and not rely on my help."

Just so we're clear on this, I didn't ask you for help. I asked you to back up your assertations. You failed. Better luck next time.

-- Skeptical Dad (skeptical@parent.dad), July 17, 2001.


One can just do a Google search and find some studies. Here are some:

This is an older British study of fetal memory.

This talks about an experimental study of the effect of music on the fetus, but there's not much detail

More discussion of music and the fetus. It references the Hepper study noted above

-- (for@your.info), July 17, 2001.


Thanks for the link. Only the first one addresses fetal memory, and that one is pretty inconclusive, but it's a start. I would still like to see "A parent" defend his/her position however.

-- Skeptical Dad (skeptical@parent.dad), July 17, 2001.

Actually, the second one refers to "hearing-memory" also, but doesn't give much detail.

-- (for@your.info), July 17, 2001.

people are incredable. Babies are sense aware long befor birth. Just because they have not learned a language doesn't mean they don't have memories. Babies will turn toward the sound of a voice they heard while in the womb, after they are born. Also things that happen to them will hold a wordless memory for them later in life. Children born by c-section react differently to children forced through the birth canal to certain situations, such as being wrapped inside a blanket with it over their head. My oldest daughter had her umbilical cord wrapped around her neck twice and panics even now (at 20) when she has anything tight on her neck, such as a winter scarf or turtleneck sweater.

I remember being under 1 year old looking at a teething ring and the colors seemed to have different flavors. Something that went away as I got older.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), July 17, 2001.


My oldest daughter had her umbilical cord wrapped around her neck twice and panics even now (at 20) when she has anything tight on her neck, such as a winter scarf or turtleneck sweater.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

NO ONE likes having tight things wrapped around their neck, Cherri. It's a fucking survival instinct. EVERYONE has an aversion to being STRANGLED. Jesus H. Christ no wonder the Air Force never let you into an actual cockpit.

I remember being under 1 year old looking at a teething ring and the colors seemed to have different flavors. Something that went away as I got older.

This is either a fantasy or a lie. People's memories don't extend that far back.

America n Psychological Society Refutes Cherri

Mentalhelp.net Shows How Childhood Memories are Easily Altered

-- (disrupt@disrupt.disrupt), July 17, 2001.


Nirvana, In Utero

-- (nemesis@awol.com), July 17, 2001.

I'm not so sure this study proves anything. I DO remember dancing to a fast song when I was pregnant with my first and watching her legs kick out to the music. Well, maybe it just SEEMED like she did that.

I ALSO watched my son in utero push his foot against the amniocentesis needle, retract his foot, push again, etc. Well, maybe it just SEEMED like he did that.

I haven't seen nor heard [personally] any recognition from my three children that they remember anything from the womb or their lives as toddlers.

Just as an aside, it was once considered a starting point into reincarnation investigations when one feared things placed around the neck. Science fiction advocates would suggest that the child had been hung in a previous life.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 17, 2001.


Anita, those assumptions extend to other 'unsubstantiated' (not correlated to current life experiences) fears, such as fear of flying, swimming, or others. In these cases in the previous life, the entity could have fallen from a high structure or drowned or died in some other mishap. I find the possibilities fascinating.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 18, 2001.

My oldest daughter had her umbilical cord wrapped around her neck twice and panics even now (at 20) when she has anything tight on her neck, such as a winter scarf or turtleneck sweater. Stupid, stupid, stupid. NO ONE likes having tight things wrapped around their neck, Cherri. It's a fucking survival instinct. EVERYONE has an aversion to being STRANGLED.

I'm not talking about tight things about her neck, she even panics when a winter scarf is loosly around her neck. You assume I meant tight. But then, you know all right...

I remember being under 1 year old looking at a teething ring and the colors seemed to have different flavors. Something that went away as I got older. This is either a fantasy or a lie. People's memories don't extend that far back. You assume again. It is not a fantasy. I have remembered it all my life, some people do have the ability to remember, just because you do not, does not mean I cannot. But then you are different than me. You thats your problem, not mine.

But then you feel you the know the are gods gift to the world so your and cannot be wrong. My mind s not like yours and you need to be right no matter reality.n Do you honestly believe that your beliefs negate facts that exist with others? There have been many situations you have not experienced so you are convinced they do not exist?

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), July 19, 2001.


David L --

"Dr. Lamont's press release (which I hotlinked above) noted a control group. I'm not sure in what respect you find that deficient."

In the respect of size. A sample of 12 infants, plus a control group of indeterminate size, plus a study that demonstrates that babies like colored lights, do not add up to fetal memory, and they certainly don't add up to a piece of peer-reviewed research.

"With regard to the study's sample size, if the toddlers' behavior were random, the probability that all eleven would have preferred the music their mothers had played, is one in two to the eleventh power (2,048), which seems to readily qualify as statistically significant."

That's not how statistical analysis of scientific study works. Firstly, the infinitesmal sample size (eleven plus a similarly-sized control group) is so small as to be impossible to generalize to the larger population of British babies, let alone babies all around the world. Secondly, you don't generalize from a couple dozen kids to the entire planet. You choose an sample size large enough to be statistically meaningful given the potential population. A couple of dozen kids could potentially give results five or six standard deviations off the norm, which is statistically meaningless.

"I can't say that her study might not be flawed, I just don't feel that there's enough information in the press release to make that determination."

The tiny sample size ALONE is enough to make that determination. No respectable scientist would claim that a study performed on a couple dozen infants is generalizable to ALL infants.

Concerned Parent --

"Already, After reading many of your responses on this forum, I find that you scrutinize the tree and miss the forest (by the way you break each sentence into its parts and miss the idea behind the paragraph)."

I disagree. Breaking sentences apart does not mean that one by definition misses the point of a paragraph, or, for that matter, an entire post. I challenge your claim. Furthermore, I contend that by not breaking posts up, one is in danger of missing an individual tree that might otherwise fall on oneself.

"Yes, dissecting this particular study, you can find fault. But isn't it true that the mere act of studying a behavior influences that behavior?"

Um, the "Schroedinger's Cat" proposition applies to PHYSICS, not psychology.

"So, anyone can find fault with every study ever conducted."

That is what science is ABOUT, Concerned Parent. Every study is revisited eventually, and old theories are swapped for new. No scientific "truth" persists forever. Scientists change their positions as new information and new methods are discovered, and each old theory we knock down gets us closer to the truth.

"You speak as if you have great experience in research. May I ask what is your background and how you come to speak with such great authority on research techniques?"

You may ask. My childhood was spent in research laboratories with my father, who is a college professor and an agricultural scientist. I knew how to operate a microscope, a fume hood and an analytical scale by the time I was five. Though I did not go into the biological sciences as my father did, I did earn multiple degrees in the sciences, and I now work in what you would probably call the "high- tech" field. As adjuncts, I also have a strong background in statistics and technical writing.

"And your response above shows that you know nothing about parenting."

What one knows about parenting is irrelevant when scientific research is the topic.

"This isn't the one and only study ever done on this subject. There have been numerous studies over decades of research."

Let's see some of those studies. I think there's a poster on this thread who's got your number there.

"If you had been a parent or merely read the articles and reports out of personal interest, you would know more than just this one study."

Pardon me, but you don't know what I know. And once again, simply being a parent does not grant you scientific knowledge.

"Does one simply ignore those other studies or build on those studies to continue the cycle of proving or disproving theories?"

All studies, if not validated or reproducible, are ignored. If it can't be backed up by repeated, controlled duplications, then it is disregarded. Did you not know that?

Polly --

"Any scientific study must be subject to rigorous examination before its validity can be accepted or rejected, even if it seems to confirm what "everyone knows"."

Well said.

Concerned Parent --

"I can't help that you and your family are ignorant."

You know, CP, several posters here could be saying that to you. You don't seem to show much understanding of the scientific method, so why not play nice? You might find that others will play nice with you.

"I have uncovered many things during the last few decades since I've become a parent. You need to "seek out knowledge of your child's development and not rely on this obscure forum for your personal growth." Further I didn't claim these would answer your questions, for I have no desire to show you 'the light'. You must find your own way in this world and not rely on my help."

Translation: "Despite the many studies that I just KNOW are out there, I cannot find them, and so I demand that you go look for them. I can't be bothered to support my claims."

"I placed this disclaimer prior to the links, "Here are just a few samplings and will by no means point to every study ever conducted on child development:"

Looks like they didn't point to many studies at all.

Cherri --

"people are incredable. Babies are sense aware long befor birth. Just because they have not learned a language doesn't mean they don't have memories."

Cherri, what appears to be at issue is whether or not there is any value to the British study cited at the beginning of this thread.

"Babies will turn toward the sound of a voice they heard while in the womb, after they are born."

Unless I miss my guess, babies will turn toward most sounds, voices or not. Isn't that how those Fisher-Price sound and light crib mobiles are supposed to work?

"Also things that happen to them will hold a wordless memory for them later in life. Children born by c-section react differently to children forced through the birth canal to certain situations, such as being wrapped inside a blanket with it over their head. My oldest daughter had her umbilical cord wrapped around her neck twice and panics even now (at 20) when she has anything tight on her neck, such as a winter scarf or turtleneck sweater."

Is there any scientific study that supports this experiential evidence? If not, then it makes a nice story, but little else, Cherri.

"I remember being under 1 year old looking at a teething ring and the colors seemed to have different flavors. Something that went away as I got older."

I can't speak for you, but I can speak for me. And I find this very hard to believe.

"You assume again. It is not a fantasy. I have remembered it all my life, some people do have the ability to remember,"

I don't think that's been proven, Cherri. But I'm open to being shown evidence that memories go that far back.

"just because you do not, does not mean I cannot."

Doesn't mean you can, either. I'm sorry, Cherri. I find your claim very hard to believe.

"But then you feel you the know the are gods gift to the world so your and cannot be wrong."

Aren't you doing the same thing? Don't you feel that you cannot be wrong, no matter what science says?

"My mind s not like yours and you need to be right no matter reality."

Um, Cherri, I don't believe your claim. The fact that it seems real to you does not mean that it is factual, objective reality. And that has nothing to do with me (or anyone else) wanting to be right. I find your claim unbelievable. And in the absence of proof, I do not believe it.

"Do you honestly believe that your beliefs negate facts that exist with others?"

Cherri, your claimed memory is not proven fact. It is a belief. So where does that leave you?

"There have been many situations you have not experienced so you are convinced they do not exist?"

Scientific method, Cherri. I don't believe it until there's a workable, supportable, verifiable and peer-reviewed theory that can be tested by reproducible experimentation. I might find scientific guesses intriguing, curious and worth bantering about, but unless something's at least a firm scientific theory, I don't buy into it. If you can prove some of those "situations," then I'd be much more accepting of your point of view.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 19, 2001.


ADH,
Although I agree that the findings of Dr. Lamont's study cannot legitimately be generalized to all babies, I see this more as a fundamental limitation of the discipline of statistics than as a characteristic of her study in particular. There's always some doubt in extrapolating from a statistical sampling to an entire population, even though casting this doubt aside (as Dr. Lamont has) is a disconcertingly common error among those who should (and perhaps do) know better.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), July 19, 2001.

"You assume again."

No assumption is necessary, just a basic working knowledge of psychiatry and child development. Humans can't remember before the age of two because the parts of the brain that control memory are still developing. It's a medical and psychological fact, Cherri, not an assumption.

"It is not a fantasy."

Oh, I'm sure it probably seems real enough to you, in the same way that the McMartin pre-school children had very real memories of being molested by circus animals. Memory is a funny thing, Cherri, easily influenced by suggestion. My guess is that you probably had a dream or saw a sequence in a movie or television show that appealed to you on some level. Maybe it's even a real memory from later in life.

That is, if you're not making it up out of wholecloth.

"I have remembered it all my life, some people do have the ability to remember, just because you do not, does not mean I cannot."

Yes, yes. Just tell it all to your very real friend, Harvey the invisible rabbit. I'm sure you remember all sorts of things other people don't, like actually flying aircraft you merely flew as simulations or all the years you served as advisor to the pharoh of Egypt half a dozen lives ago. Just keep telling yourself it's true, no matter what medical science or anyone else has to say about it. It's all so very, very true.

-- (disrupt@disrupt.disrupt), July 19, 2001.


I remember dad socking it to mom. Wow, all that motion and those crazy screams.

Well, I think it was Dad.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), July 19, 2001.


David --

"ADH, Although I agree that the findings of Dr. Lamont's study cannot legitimately be generalized to all babies, I see this more as a fundamental limitation of the discipline of statistics than as a characteristic of her study in particular."

I almost jumped on you, but then held myself back, because I'm not certain what you are trying to say. Are you trying to say that if the good doctor had a larger sample size, then her study would have been more significant? Are you also saying that you believe her methodology is sound? Please tell me more.

"There's always some doubt in extrapolating from a statistical sampling to an entire population, even though casting this doubt aside (as Dr. Lamont has) is a disconcertingly common error among those who should (and perhaps do) know better."

Yes. This is correct. The best one can do in a scientific study is take the largest population they can, and get the margin of statistical error down as low as possible. A study with results two or three standard deviations off the norm is acceptable. Television pollsters sometimes accept four or five standard deviations off, which is poor practice. I would not be surprised to find that Dr. Lamont's study gives results potentially six or seven SDs off.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 20, 2001.


ADH,
I'm saying that Dr. Lamont's methodology might be sound for demonstrating that a particular group of babies responded to particular music. If I were familiar with the details of the study, I could give a more definitive assessment.

But for her express purpose of extrapolating to much larger populations, her methodology is beyond inadequate as you noted. If her study design did not take into account other possible explanations for the babies' musical preferences, such as genetic predisposition, that's another strike against it.

I don't have a problem with small samples, so long as the ambitions of the study are scaled back accordingly. It's kind of like building a prototype to test feasibility of basic concepts before expending larger quantities of time and money.

I find those babies' behavior interesting, something that warrants further investigation. That's all I get from this study.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), July 20, 2001.


Disrupt,

Please, do tell about your 'basic working knowledge of psychiatry and child development'. If children, as you claim, "can't remember before the age of two", then how do they learn? Humans may not have long term memory, but without any memory, learning would be an impossible task.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 20, 2001.


You misunderstand me. Infants and toddlers have memory, but memory works differently as it develops. If you need an analogy, think about coordination. Babies aren't born with a great deal of coordination, it develops over time and gets stronger as they grow, just like other brain functions, such as memory. The difference in the way memory works for infants and toddlers is why adults can't remember past the age of two. This is known as "infant amnesia". The latest theories involve verbal ability, in other words, children learn to associate memories with words and lose the ability to access pre-verbal memories, which come from before the age of two.

-- (disrupt@disrupt.disrupt), July 20, 2001.

Then Cherri's memories can be very real, not as you have attributed them to "Harvey the invisible rabbit". When the theories suggest that memories are associated with words (as Cherri has stated, "Just because they have not learned a language doesn't mean they don't have memories"), then possibly some people may be able to remember without formal language. Since the jury is still out, I find your criticism of Cherri baseless.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 20, 2001.

"Then Cherri's memories can be very real, not as you have attributed them to "Harvey the invisible rabbit"."

No, they are not. Memories before the age of two are irrecoverable.

"Since the jury is still out, I find your criticism of Cherri baseless."

The jury has been in for quite some time. Due to the phenomenon of infant amnesia, humans can not access memories prior to two years of age. Either Cherri is lying, mistaken, or fantasizing. What she claims as truth is completely contrary to all scientific evidence.

-- (disrupt@disrupt.disrupt), July 20, 2001.


Geez, I go away for a few days and this thread takes all kinds of twists and turns.

DavidL-

I'm glad you provided a link to the actual study and I'm glad it was conducted in a more scientific manner than originally reported. I agree that the results are interesting but with such a small sample more work should be conducted before a conclusion can accurately be drawn.

Cherri, disrupt, Maria-

Wow. Infant amnesia. What a strange bit of thread drift.

Infant Amnesia has been studied to death, and while it's something that's never been in dispute, the mechanics behind it are still in doubt. In other words, it's next to impossible that Cherri actually has a memory from that time in her life, but science isn't certain why she doesn't have a memory that old.

Just for discussion's sake, here's a Scientific American article that links infant amnesia with recognition of self. It's about the only article I could find on infant amnesia that didn't talk about it in the context of ritual abuse. Here's an excerpt: Before about two years of age, no one has experiences that can be consciously recalled in later life. Consistent with my interpretation, this period of "infant amnesia" stops at about the same time that children begin to show self-recognition. As would be expected, the onset of an autobiographical memory only begins with the emergence of self-conception.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 20, 2001.


Why then, would my psych professor believe that most of an individual's personality is formed within the first 5 years of life, if a child would have no recollection?

Do you think that an infant who was cuddled and held and nursed would develop differently than one that wasn't? I believe so.

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 20, 2001.


Just because you can't recall the memories from your first two or three years of life once you grow up doesn't mean you aren't developing the ability to remember. And anyway, what do memories have to do with personality? For instance, amnesiacs still retain their personalities even if they lack their memories.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 20, 2001.

Here's a professor who is currently studying infantile amnesia from a neurochemical perspective:

Infantile amnesia is the term used to describe our inability to remember virtually everything from our infancy. After more than a century without answers to this puzzle, neuroscientists are now beginning to identify plausible explanations

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 20, 2001.


Tarzan, if the immediate environment and interaction of a newborn can effect overall personality and development of the child/adult, then who is to say that fetal exposure some 1 to 2 months earlier to music, voice, etc., will not effect emotional and psychological development of same child/adult. It may be subconscious memory, but memory nonetheless.

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 20, 2001.

You're talking about implicit memories. Is it possible that fetii can accumulate and store implicit memories? Maybe. Has it been proven? No. It hasn't even been studied much.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 20, 2001.

http://uclaextension.org/plato/OrvMemory.htm

http://www.psichi.org/content/publications/eye/volume/vol_3/3_3/roveec ollier.asp

No, the jury is still out. We (humans) have lots to learn about the human mind and we're not even close.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 20, 2001.


Sorry 'bout that. Try this which states:

Most researchers believe that preverbal infants possess only a primitive, implicit memory system which processes information automatically and without awareness. They hold that the explicit memory system, which mediates conscious recollection, does not mature until late in the 1st year. This widespread belief, however, is based solely on memory studies with aging amnesics--not on studies with infants! This article reviews new evidence that even the youngest infants exhibit the same memory dissociations as normal adults on recognition (explicit) and priming (implicit) tests, revealing that the roots of both memory systems can be traced to earliest infancy.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 20, 2001.


Or this which states:

In academic circles, a long-standing prejudice against the reliability of all early and very early memory is collapsing. The least-likely period for memory to function, the intrauterine period, increasingly illuminated by ultrasound, has made it possible for visionary experimental psychologists to show that memory and learning systems are functioning. Babies still in the womb are signaling that they have become familiar with rhymes repeated to them daily over a four-week period. Likewise, immediately after birth, babies exposed to parents' voices, musical passages, soap opera themes, news program sounds, sounds of their native language, as well as tastes and smells introduced in utero are all treated as familiar, that is, learned and remembered from weeks and months in the past.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 20, 2001.


While both of these articles take issue with theories of the mechanics behind infantile amnesia, neither actually dispute the existance of infantile amnesia.

The third article is by David Chamberlain, and does clearly dispute infantile amnesia. Unfortunately, one dissenting voice doesn't discredit an entire phenomenon. Do you have anything else?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 20, 2001.


I can't believe someone invoked David Chamerlain. FYI, he's a big wig in the recovered memory movement. In other words, he makes a lot of money off the (completely wrong) belief that infants have explicit memories. He also believes infants and fetuses engage in telepathy. The only person you can find to support your POV is the scientifici equivalent of a flat earther. Interesting.

-- (disrupt@disrupt.disrupt), July 20, 2001.

Eeewww.

Did he become prominent in the field by design or is it because the RM people have perverted his research?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 20, 2001.


Disrupt,

Translation:

Go find something I agree with from someone who cites studies and sources that support my position.

:-)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 20, 2001.


Maria-

Plagiarism is a new low, even for you. In the future, please do not use quotes from me without the proper attribution.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 20, 2001.


Oops sorry, but that was also meant for you too since you asked for more info. I guess it could be for skeptical dad too who didn't like a parent's links.

I like it Tarzan and I'll probably use it again and again. Just think how already would react with this statement. I promise to cite the author and date. :)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 20, 2001.


I promise to cite the author and date. :)

Thank-you. That's all that I ask.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 20, 2001.


Can I also quote that statement too?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 20, 2001.

No you may not.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), July 20, 2001.

Call it a hunch - I doubt Tarzan was shown much affection as an infant. Poor baby.

-- some (things@painfully.obvious), July 20, 2001.

David --

"But for her express purpose of extrapolating to much larger populations, her methodology is beyond inadequate as you noted. If her study design did not take into account other possible explanations for the babies' musical preferences, such as genetic predisposition, that's another strike against it."

Yes. I agree. Perhaps there is a way to exclude other such possibilities, but they are beyond my knowledge. Besides the academic qualifications listed above, I've got two years of law school floating around in my head, but that doesn't get you very far in clinical psychology, I imagine.

"I don't have a problem with small samples, so long as the ambitions of the study are scaled back accordingly. It's kind of like building a prototype to test feasibility of basic concepts before expending larger quantities of time and money."

This is well-said, David. The concerned parent who posted earlier seemed to be taking this obviously flawed study and treating its possibly erroneous conclusions as gospel. Of course, that's not a failing of Dr. Lamont's study; rather, it is a failing of the poster.

"I find those babies' behavior interesting, something that warrants further investigation. That's all I get from this study."

Same here. Perhaps some nugget of further use could be salvaged from Dr. Lamont's study, but I agree, more research is needed before any conclusions could be drawn. Pleased to yak with you, David. :)

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), July 23, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ