The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Neurophysiologic evaluation of auditory recognition memory in healthy newborn infants and infants of diabetic mothers
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the integrity of neural pathways for auditory recognition memory in normal newborn infants (n = 32) and infants of diabetic mothers (IDMs, n = 25). IDMs are at risk for fetal metabolic abnormalities that potentially damage recognition memory pathways. We hypothesized that newborn IDMs would have recognition memory deficits that would be correlated with later cognitive development. STUDY DESIGN: Recognition memory was assessed with event-related potentials (ERPs). Neonatal ERPs elicited by the maternal voice were compared with those elicited by a stranger's voice. The Bayley Scales of Infant Development were administered at 1 year of age. RESULTS: Infants in both the control and IDM groups demonstrated recognition of the maternal voice, but their ERP patterns differed. Both groups demonstrated increased amplitude and latency for the "P2" peak elicited by the maternal voice compared with the stranger's voice. In the control group the stranger's voice also elicited a negative slow wave, which was attenuated in the IDMs. The negative slow wave correlated significantly with the 1-year Mental Developmental Index. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a specific neonatal ERP pattern indicated better 1-year cognitive development in infants in the control and IDM groups. ERPs from IDMs demonstrated subtle evidence of recognition memory impairments.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Of Human Bonding: Newborns Prefer Their Mothers' Voices
DeCasper, A. J., & Fifer, W. P. (1980) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7375928 · Cited by 2,317
Cited by
Maternal metabolic conditions and risk for autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders
Krakowiak, P., Walker, C. K., Bremer, A. A., Baker, A. S., Ozonoff, S., Hansen, R. L., & Hertz-Picciotto, I. (2012) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2583 · Cited by 675
Biomarkers of Nutrition for Development (BOND)—Iron Review
Lynch, S., Pfeiffer, C. M., Georgieff, M. K., Brittenham, G., Fairweather-Tait, S., Hurrell, R. F., McArdle, H. J., & Raiten, D. J. (2018) · The Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1093/jn/nxx036 · Cited by 336
Self-citationNutritional influences on brain development
Georgieff, M. K., Ramel, S. E., & Cusick, S. E. (2018) · Acta Paediatrica · doi:10.1111/apa.14287 · Cited by 308
Self-citationFetal sensitivity to properties of maternal speech and language
Kisilevsky, B. S., Hains, S. M. J., Brown, C. A., Lee, C. T., Cowperthwaite, B., Stutzman, S. S., Swansburg, M. L., Lee, K., Xie, X., Huang, H., et al. (2009) · Infant Behavior and Development · doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2008.10.002 · Cited by 286
Fetal cyclic motor activity in diabetic pregnancies: Sensitivity to maternal blood glucose
Robertson, S. S., & Dierker, L. J. (2003) · Developmental Psychobiology · doi:10.1002/dev.10045 · Cited by 285
Metadata
- Authors
- deRegnier, R.-A., Nelson, C. A., Thomas, K. M., Wewerka, S., & Georgieff, M. K.
- Venue
- The Journal of Pediatrics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 137
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 777-784
- ISSN
- 0022-3476 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2081629711
- Cited by
- 433
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.