Feldman R. Parent-infant synchrony and the construction of shared timing; physiological precursors, developmental outcomes, and risk conditions. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 48: 329-354

Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 6.46). 03/2007; 48(3-4):329-54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01701.x
Source: PubMed


Synchrony, a construct used across multiple fields to denote the temporal relationship between events, is applied to the study of parent-infant interactions and suggested as a model for intersubjectivity. Three types of timed relationships between the parent and child's affective behavior are assessed: concurrent, sequential, and organized in an ongoing patterned format, and the development of each is charted across the first year. Viewed as a formative experience for the maturation of the social brain, synchrony impacts the development of self-regulation, symbol use, and empathy across childhood and adolescence. Different patterns of synchrony with mother, father, and the family and across cultures describe relationship-specific modes of coordination. The capacity to engage in temporally-matched interactions is based on physiological mechanisms, in particular oscillator systems, such as the biological clock and cardiac pacemaker, and attachment-related hormones, such as oxytocin. Specific patterns of synchrony are described in a range of child-, parent- and context-related risk conditions, pointing to its ecological relevance and usefulness for the study of developmental psychopathology. A perspective that underscores the organization of discrete relational behaviors into emergent patterns and considers time a central parameter of emotion and communication systems may be useful to the study of interpersonal intimacy and its potential for personal transformation across the lifespan.

Download full-text


Available from: Ruth Feldman,
    • "Similar to our study, the study of microanalysis of face-to-face interaction of parentsinfants uses short time-units (usually 1 minute) to explore, in detail, interpersonal coordination during interaction and compares it to attachment classification. For example, Jaffe et al. (2001) established a link between vocal synchrony using a computed time series analysis and attachment style (see more examples in Feldman, 2007, Beebe et al., 2010). In the present study, we looked at interpersonal coordination at higher resolution (50 Hz) using an automated analysis of the interaction. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Why is it easy for some people to play together and difficult for others? In this interdisciplinary pilot study, we looked at dyadic interaction in motion as a paradigm to explore the expression of attachment in adulthood. We used a device that gives simple, quantitative and automated indicators for the quality of interaction while playing the mirror game. Forty-seven participants played the mirror game with the same gender-matched expert players. In addition, participants were interviewed on the Adult Attachment Interview to assess their quality of attachment. Using high resolution kinematic measures, we found that secure attachment was correlated with high complexity of the game and low synchrony compared to insecure attachment. The findings suggest that security of attachment is related to a more exploratory and less rigid game than insecure-dismissing attachment. These preliminary findings imply that high resolution analysis of simple movement interaction could carry information about attachment behavior.
    Attachment & Human Development 11/2015; DOI:10.1080/14616734.2015.1109677 · 2.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Fetal heart rate variability, emerging at 32–34 weeks gestation, is the earliest expression of parasympathetic control and plays a role in the emergence of inhibitory structures (Groome, Loizou , Holland, Smith, & Hoff, 1999). Baseline RSA at birth has been shown to predict regulation of negative emotions at 3 months (Huffman, Bryan, & Pedersen, 1998), parent–infant synchrony (Feldman & Eidelman, 2007), cognitive development (Doussard-Roosevelt et al., 1997), attention regulation in the second year (Feldman, 2009), and lower behavior problems at 6 years (Doussard-Roosevelt, McClenny, & Porges , 2001). State regulation measured by the NBAS indexes the neonate's ability to maintain an organized state and display a range of adaptive states, from sleep to alertness, in the face of incoming visual, auditory, tactile, and multimodal stimuli. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Elucidating the mechanisms by which infant birth conditions shape development across lengthy periods is critical for understanding typical and pathological development and for targeted early interventions. This study examined how newborns' regulatory capacities impact 10-year outcomes via the bidirectional influences of child emotion regulation (ER) and reciprocal parenting across early development. Guided by dynamic systems theory, 125 infants were tested at seven time points: birth, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and 5 and 10 years. Initial regulatory conditions were measured by respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA; vagal tone) and neurobehavioral regulation (Brazelton, 1973) at birth. At each assessment between 3 months and 5 years, infant ER was microcoded from age-appropriate paradigms and mother-child reciprocity observed during social interactions. Four regulation-related outcomes were measured at 10 years: child RSA, empathy measured by mother-child conflict discussion and a lab paradigm, accident proneness, and behavior problems. An autoregressive cross-lagged structural model indicated that infant birth conditions impacted 10-year outcomes via three mechanisms. First, child ER and reciprocal parenting were individually stable across development and were each predicted by regulatory birth conditions, describing gradual maturation of ER and reciprocity over time. Second, better ER skills at one time point were related to greater reciprocity at the next time point and vice versa, and these cross-time effects defined a field of individual-context mutual influences that mediated the links between neonatal RSA and 10-year outcomes. Third, direct associations emerged between neonatal regulation and outcome, suggesting that birth conditions may establish a neurobiological milieu that promotes a more mature and resilient system. These mechanisms describe distinct "attractor" states that constrain the system's future options, emphasize the importance of defining behavior-based phenotypes of heterotypic continuity, and suggest that infants may shape their development by initiating unique cascades of individual-context bidirectional effects.
    Development and Psychopathology 10/2015; 27(4pt1):1007-1023. DOI:10.1017/S0954579415000656 · 4.89 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "With the exception of high amounts of paternal physical play, Power and Parke (1983)—in a cross-sectional study on 8-month-olds—found few sex differences in parental infant interactions. Finally, in a series of studies, Feldman and her colleagues have confirmed, and extended to include biological measures, the findings of different maternaland paternal–infant interactions (Feldman, 2007b; Feldman, "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Using the concepts of sensory and affective experience, this work relates the concepts of socialization and cognitive development to the embodiment of gender in the human infant. Evidence obtained from biweekly observations from 30 children and their mothers observed from age 3 months to age 12 months revealed measurable sex-related differences in how mothers handle and touch their infants. This work offers novel approaches to visualizing combinations of behaviors with the aim of encouraging researchers to think in terms of suites of action rather than singular sensory or motor systems. New avenues of research into the mechanisms which produce sex-related differences in behavior are suggested. (PsycINFO Database Record
    Developmental Psychology 09/2015; 51(10). DOI:10.1037/dev0000033 · 3.21 Impact Factor
Show more