CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 421Face Recognition and PerceptionVisual perception and processing mechanismsPrenatal Substance Exposure Effects

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Human Fetus Preferentially Engages with Face-like Visual Stimuli

Open access
Reid, Vincent M., Dunn, Kirsty, Young, Robert J., Amu, Johnson, Donovan, Tim, Reissland, Nadja·2017·Current Biology
DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.044
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In the third trimester of pregnancy, the human fetus has the capacity to process perceptual information [1-3]. With advances in 4D ultrasound technology, detailed assessment of fetal behavior [4] is now possible. Furthermore, modeling of intrauterine conditions has indicated a substantially greater luminance within the uterus than previously thought [5]. Consequently, light conveying perceptual content could be projected through the uterine wall and perceived by the fetus, dependent on how light interfaces with maternal tissue. We do know that human infants at birth show a preference to engage with a top-heavy, face-like stimulus when contrasted with all other forms of stimuli [6, 7]. However, the viability of performing such an experiment based on visual stimuli projected through the uterine wall with fetal participants is not currently known. We examined fetal head turns to visually presented upright and inverted face-like stimuli. Here we show that the fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy is more likely to engage with upright configural stimuli when contrasted to inverted visual stimuli, in a manner similar to results with newborn participants. The current study suggests that postnatal experience is not required for this preference. In addition, we describe a new method whereby it is possible to deliver specific visual stimuli to the fetus. This new technique provides an important new pathway for the assessment of prenatal visual perceptual capacities.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.044

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 39 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Rochat, 2011, What Is It Like to Be a Newborn? Oxford Handbook of the Self

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 421

Related

Metadata

Authors
Reid, V. M., Dunn, K., Young, R. J., Amu, J., Donovan, T., & Reissland, N.
Affiliations
  • Lancaster University (GB)
  • University of Cumbria (GB)
  • Durham University (GB)
Corresponding author
Reid, Vincent M.
ORCID
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-06
Volume
27
Issue
12
Pages
1825-1828.e3
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cub.2017.05.044
OpenAlex
W2622549106
Cited by
421
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 56 · 2018: 59 · 2017: 10
FWCI
30.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Insight (University of Cumbria) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Economic and Social Research Council Transformative Research Grant (ES/L003155/1)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/L008955/1)
  • Royal Society (UF110555)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
Keywords
face preference, 4D ultrasound, upright vs inverted faces
MeSH terms
Female, Fetus, Humans, Male, Photic Stimulation, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Trimester, Third, Visual Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review