CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Prenatal Substance Exposure EffectsInfant Development and Preterm CareNeonatal and fetal brain pathology

Fetal behavior in smoking compared to non-smoking pregnant women

Cowperthwaite, B., Hains, S.M.J., Kisilevsky, B.S.·2007·Infant Behavior and Development
DOI 10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.12.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To determine the effects of maternal smoking on fetal spontaneous behavior and auditory processing.Methods 38 fetuses of smoking (n=18) and non-smoking (n=20) mothers, stratified by gestational age (<37, >or=37 weeks GA), were examined at least 1h following smoking. Observations included spontaneous fetal heart rate (FHR; 20 min) and body movements (20 min) followed by a 2 min audiotape of the mother reading a story while FHR and body movements were recorded.Results There were no differences in spontaneous behaviors; full-term fetuses showed a FHR acceleration and body movement during the mother's voice. A FHR response following voice offset was limited to fetuses less than 37 weeks GA of non-smoking mothers.Conclusion Fetuses less than 37 weeks GA of mothers who smoke throughout pregnancy have a delayed onset of response to the maternal voice, a subtle difference which may have implications for later language development for prematurely born infants which needs further investigation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.12.004

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Fetuses of smokers show more maladaptive responses to the non-stress test, lower heart rate variability, more mouth and self-touch movements, and poorer recognition of maternal voice than fetuses of nonsmokers.

    “found greater rates of maladaptive response to the non-stress test (a clinical index of fetal well-being)(96), including reduced heart rate variability, increased mouth and self-touch movements, and impaired recognition of maternal voice in fetuses of smokers compared with those of nonsmokers.”

    From Developmental toxicity of nicotine: A transdisciplinary synthesis and implications for emerging tobacco products (2017) · cites this paper as [97]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cowperthwaite, B., Hains, S. M. J., & Kisilevsky, B. S.
Affiliations
Queen's University (CA)
Corresponding author
Kisilevsky, B.S.
Venue
Infant Behavior and Development
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-09
Volume
30
Issue
3
Pages
422-430
ISSN
0163-6383 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.12.004
OpenAlex
W2024835372
Cited by
33
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Infant Behavior and Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Prenatal Substance Exposure Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Infant Development and Preterm Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Neonatal and fetal brain pathology
Keywords
maternal smoking, fetal behavior, fetal heart rate, fetal movement, gestational age, preterm birth, language development
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Female, Fetal Movement, Fetus, Gestational Age, Heart Rate, Fetal, Humans, Pregnancy, Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects, Respiration, Smoking, Chi-Square Distribution, Pregnant People

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