Caspar showing his book Babies Laugh at Everything to a baby during the show

Babies Laugh Out Loud – Glasgow July 2024

Monday was the World Premiere my new show Babies Laugh Out Loud. It’s a show for babies and about babies. It is about my research into the science of baby laughter. After 12 years of doing this research, it was a delight to finally present it direct to babies themselves.

i was honoured to be able to present this to babies at the Glasgow Science Centre. Their IMAX stage was not the best location for a tiny show for tiny people. But the babies mostly didn’t mind. Thank you to Sam Wass and the organisers of International Conference on Infant Studies for making this possible. Huge thanks to my director Sarah Argent for co-creating this show. We enjoyed ourselves and audience were soooo cute.

We hope to bring the show to more places. So watch this space. If you have suggestions for suitable venues, please drop me a line at caspar@babies.lol

two toy bunnies one pink, one blue

Pink toys and blue toys?

the front cover of the program for The Joys of Toys

A few years ago, I did a science show for babies and their parents called the Joys of Toys. In the show, 24 babies each got their own small toy box and parents were encouraged to take toys as we directed them. In one experiment comparing cars and animals. I bought 80 assorted toy cars from eBay and several dozen small soft toy animals; teddies, rabbits, badgers, hippos and something the manufacturer insisted was a warthog (a friendly blue warthog). We asked the parents to put a toy car next to soft toy rabbit and see which one each baby lunged for. We wondered if girls would go for the soft toy and the boys for the cars.

            We also wondered if it was a good idea to even run our ‘experiment’. We genuinely had no idea what to expect. Gender preferences are scientifically mysterious. For a long time, it was taken for granted that boys and girls are different beasts but the more scientists investigate it, the less clear the differences become. This does not stop people having strong opinions on what is ‘obvious’ or ‘natural’. Lots of people seem threatened by even the suggestion of uncertainty.

The campaign Let Toys Be Toys started in 2012 with the very reasonable aim of getting shops to label toys by function rather than gender. Since the late 1980s toy manufacturers have increasingly segregated toys by gender, sometimes even making pink and blue versions of the same toys. More disturbing when the types of toys get divided by gender it restricts the toys that children have access to. Let Toys Be Toys is not asking manufacturers to stop making dolls or soldiers. They just want the marketing and sales to move away from the rigid reinforcement of stereotypes. On their website, LetToysBeToys.org.uk, they make the point very simply:

“Boys and girls need the chance to develop in all […] areas, but many stores divide toys into separate boys’ and girls’ sections. Action construction and technology toys are predominantly marketed to boys, while social role play and arts and crafts toys are predominantly marketed to girls. Both boys and girls miss out this way.”

Whenever the campaign features in the press there is no shortage of angry comments that “boys should be boys” and “what is wrong with little girls liking pink?” and of course, “It is political correctness gone mad.”

            In our tiny, chaotic experiments at the Joys of Toys there was no pattern at all. But there is no question that on average schoolboys prefer cars and fighting and schoolgirls prefer dolls and caring. Brenda Todd and colleagues recently completed a very detailed survey of all literature on children’s toy preferences. In a meta-analysis of 16 well-controlled studies conducted since 1980 they found strong gender based preferences in children between 12 months and 8 years old (Todd et al., 2017). Interestingly, that analysis found that boys become more stereotyped in their choices as they get older but girls did not. Stereotypes were weaker in more recent studies than older ones suggesting a trend towards greater egalitarianism.

Where do these preferences come from? This is a very difficult question to answer. By eight years old children have been exposed to many years cultural pressures, not least from other children. This is true even by 12 months. The first question parents used to ask at birth was “Is it a boy or a girl?” Nowadays, they may already know that several months before birth.  Once babies get labelled as boys or girls, we tend to treat them differently and the differences are a lot more pervasive than pink or blue clothes.

https://www.pexels.com/photo/adorable-baby-cheerful-child-459953/

Once upon a time, a baby named X was born. This baby was named X so that nobody could tell whether it was a boy or a girl. Its parents could tell, of course, but they couldn’t tell anybody else. They couldn’t even tell Baby X at first.

X: A Fabulous Child’s Story, Lois Gould, 1972

            A whole class of experiments have studied our weird need to gender stereotype babies. These get labelled “Baby X” studies. The name comes from Lois Gould’s science fiction short story, published in Ms. magazine in 1972. In the story, a lavishly funded Xperiment follows Baby X all the way through infancy and school. X’s parents regularly consult a giant instruction manual that covered everything from how to dress X, what toys to buy and how cope with questions from curious strangers to which bathroom X should use at school. (The solution was to use the principle’s bathroom which was just labelled bathroom.) The story was optimistic and X’s school friends quickly accept them as they are and start to follow suit adopting X’s genderless ways. This upsets other parents and then… well… I will not spoil it for you.

Although inspired by Lois Gould’s story the first real experiment was a bit more modest in scope. It was run by Carol Seavey and colleagues in New York in 1975. Forty-two participants, half of them female, each spent just 3 minutes interacting with a three-month-old baby in a neutral yellow babygrow. They were given a doll, a small football and rubber ring and were told to play naturally with the baby so that researchers could study the infant’s response to strangers. The baby happened to be female but participants were told to a baby boy, a baby girl or a baby. The pattern of results was complex but encouraging. Overall, adults did stereotype the baby based on the label but not strongly and they did not differ in the warmth or affection shown towards it (Seavey, Katz, & Zalk, 1975).

Several similar studies found that prevailing cultural norms were projected onto babies labelled male or female. But the effects were weak and inconsistent (Stern & Karraker, 1989). It not clear how well these 3 minute long interactions represent what children experience in their home environment. Nor does this tell us anything about how children respond to gender role socialization. As in the story of baby X, parents do know the sex of their own child and they interact with that child every day. It is entirely possible that gender stereotypes are self-fulfilling prophecy, children and babies adopting the behaviours in line with their parents’ expectations.

Of course, no parent believes this. Every child will surprise you. Each child turns out differently in the same family. The personalities of older brothers and sisters provide little clue to the what to expect from a new arrival of either gender. Chances are the younger ones have all the baby toys of their older siblings, pink and blue. They will make their own choices, with genes and environment adding to the mix.  

There is curious evidence from monkeys that some toy preferences are genetic. Female vervet monkeys make more contact with a doll and a cooking pot than males do, whereas males spend longer than females manipulating a car and a ball (Alexander & Hines, 2002) and male rhesus monkeys prefer wheeled over non-wheeled plush toys while females had no preference (Hassett, Siebert, & Wallen, 2008). Scientists speculate that cars and balls attract the male animals because of the actions they enable and their interesting geometry. Alexander and Hines speculate that the female vervet monkeys were play cooking games because the pot was red. Some female monkeys had previously been shown to prefer pinks and reds to blues and greens. The theory being that it is a biological programmed preference that makes them respond nurturingly to the adorable pink faces of baby monkeys. To my knowledge no-one has suggested the same applies to humans but it would not necessarily effect babies toys preferences as girls’ preferences for pink only emerges from 2 years old onwards (LoBue & DeLoache, 2011) .

My friend Claire is raising her young children SJ and Phoenix in a gender-neutral way. Claire has avoided telling friends the biological sex of her children and uses the neutral pronoun “they” when talking about them. When SJ, the older of the two, was born Claire lived in highly conservative state of Alabama which made it doubly difficult. But she says “even in Alabama, a lot of people were very supportive.” They recognise that it is an important issue for her. “I have a lot of transgender friends,” Claire explains, “so I am very aware that gender is not the same thing as biological sex. SJ does not know their own gender yet, they are just baby.”

When Claire came home to the UK to give birth to Phoenix the reception was even more positive. “The second time we went to the health centre Phoenix was already a little celebrity, all the staff wanted to meet them and practice using ‘they’ and ‘them’ when talking to us.”

When SJ was coming up for their first birthday. I was wondering what present to send. In Lois Gould’s story, when X goes to school other children ask them what their favourite toy was in the hope of working out if X was a girl or a boy. X tells them that it was a doll but also that the doll was a robot. On hearing this the other children forget their original agenda, they are more interested in the toy than in gender politics. For SJ, I opt for a bright yellow duck but I notice that even for little babies many things come in pink or blue. Clothing can be even more tyrannical than toys, blue and pink are just two of the colours in rainbow of Claire’s children’s wardrobes. But has take extra effort and Claire gets frustrated with this,

“by consciously trying to do the right thing, you really not just how many unconscious biases we project on to tiny babies.“   

In my view, the real biological differences between boys and girls are not yet known but the right way to treat babies is clear. If we treat children equally then in due course any biological differences will emerge anyway. But if we assume we know the difference between boys and girls we end up placing unnecessary restrictions on the choices and opportunities.

We should let toys be toys and let babies be babies.

References

  • Alexander, G. M., & Hines, M. (2002). Sex differences in response to children’s toys in nonhuman primates (Cercopithecus aethiops sabaeus). Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(6), 467–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00107-1
  • Gould, L. (1972, December). X: A fabulous child’s story. Ms., 74–76.
  • Hassett, J. M., Siebert, E. R., & Wallen, K. (2008). Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children. Hormones and Behavior, 54(3), 359–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.03.008
  • LoBue, V., & DeLoache, J. S. (2011). Pretty in pink: The early development of gender-stereotyped colour preferences. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 29(3), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.2011.02027.x
  • Seavey, C. A., Katz, P. A., & Zalk, S. R. (1975). Baby X – The effect of gender labels on adult responses to infants. Sex Roles, 1(2), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288004
  • Stern, M., & Karraker, K. H. (1989). Sex stereotyping of infants: A review of gender labeling studies. Sex Roles, 20(9–10), 501–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288198
  • Todd, B. K., Fischer, R. A., Di Costa, S., Roestorf, A., Harbour, K., Hardiman, P., & Barry, J. A. (2017). Sex differences in children’s toy preferences: A systematic review, meta-regression, and meta-analysis. Infant and Child Development, (July), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.2064
Toddler carrying blanket with caption Happy Towel Day!

Life, the universe and Markov blankets

Forty years ago, on 8th March 1978, the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy was broadcast on BBC Radio for the very first time. I personally first heard it 12 years later, but since that time it has remained my favourite comedy ever. To celebrate the birthday of this remarkable show, book, film, computer game here is a section from my book. This is from a chapter on boredom, surprise and why babies are little scientists. It’s also about why scientists are big kids.

Share and enjoy!
Caspar

Security Blankets

Life is an inevitable & emergent property of any (ergodic) random dynamical system that possesses a Markov blanket. Don’t leave without it!

@FarlKriston, 12 Jan 2015, Anonymous Twitter parody of Prof Karl Friston, FRS

Professor Karl Friston is probably the most influential scientist you’ve never heard of. He works at the University College London’s world famous Functional Imaging Laboratory, affectionally known as the FIL. He has been there most of his career. Back in 1991 he invented Statistical Parametric Mapping. SPM is a statistical technique for analysing the data from brain imaging experiments. SPM is also a set of software that will do the analysis for you. The elegance of the method and the fact that Friston gave away his software for free has led to SPM being used in about 90% of all brain imaging studies. As a result, Karl Friston is the most widely cited neuroscientist alive.

Most of us would have been very happy with that but Friston’s contributions did not stop there. He worked with Chris Frith to develop a highly influential account of schizophrenia and invented something called Dynamic Causal Modelling. He is author or co-author of over a thousand scientific papers. This is a mind-boggling number. For comparison I have under 20. This is partly a consequence of his eminence but also evidence that he is a very practical researcher who stays involved in the nitty-gritty. Friends who work with him tell me he is an affable and generous colleague. Friston’s many, many awards include Fellowship of the Royal Society and something called Golden Brain Award. He is undoubtedly a worthy recipient. He is famous among brain scientists as perhaps the brainiest of them all.

Karl Friston’s most recent idea is his biggest yet. The ‘Free-Energy Principle’ tries to explain not only what brains do but possibly even life itself. But it is also making Friston infamous, as the nerdy but well-meaning mockery of @FarlKriston account shows. The trouble is that the free-energy principle is very hard to comprehend and Friston’s explanations and equations usually only make matter worse. I will do my best to translate. But if you found the last section bamboozling now might be a good time to reach for your security blanket.

Here’s a relatively tame example of Karl explaining it in his own words:

The free-energy principle says that any self-organizing system that is at equilibrium with its environment must minimize its free energy. The principle is essentially a mathematical formulation of how adaptive systems (that is, biological agents, like animals or brains) resist a natural tendency to disorder. (p.127, Friston, 2010)

This makes it sound important doesn’t it? Apparently it can explain everything from the existence of ‘Life as we know it’ (Friston, 2013) right up to Freudian theory and psychedelic drug experiences (Carhart-Harris & Friston, 2010).

The secret is nestled in our Markov blankets. As Karl helpfully explains “The term Markov blanket was introduced in the context of Bayesian networks or graphs and refers to the children of a set (the set of states that are influenced), its parents (the set of states that influence it) and the parents of its children” (Friston, 2013). Got that? In essence, Markov blankets are a supercharged version of Judea Pearl’s Bayesian networks. They provide a statistical way to represent the boundary between an organism and the world. The mathematics gets very complicated, combining Bayesian statistics, information theory and entropy to explain how life can survive in the face of the chaos of the universe. But, in some sense, the free energy principle states that life is about trying to avoid being too surprised by the future.

Knowing what might happen next sounds like a good survival strategy. For Karl Friston, life is anything that can predict its own future. From single cells to Sigmund Freud, he wraps us each in a Markov blanket and sends us out to do battle with the unknown. Describing organisms in this way has some useful features. Action, perception and learning all become mathematically well-defined properties of the system. Perception provides information to optimise future predictions, actions move us out of uncertain (dangerous) situations, and learning is about updating internal states and beliefs about the external world. This might seem a very abstract way of looking at things but it supporters see it as general framework that can be applied as easily to bees as to babies.

Critics of Friston’s theory say there is nothing easy about it. They view it as an interesting intellectual exercise but say that the Free Energy Principle and the closely related Bayesian brain hypothesis are too general to be useful in the real world. FEP is a lot more abstract that SPM. It is not easy to see how it can be used to predict how adult or baby brains will react to the world. But this style of reasoning is already being used to understand what happens in real brains.

My favourite experiment of this kind involved a group of ferrets who went to the cinema. In what was clearly a naked attempt to win an Ignobel Prize, Josef Fiser and Michael Weliky at the University of Rochester got ferrets to watch The Matrix on DVD. The choice was deliberate because like Neo and friends the ferrets had wires coming out the back of their heads. This allowed the scientists to watch what they were thinking. They would watch the film all day and then dream about it at night. In doing so they helped Fiser and colleagues worked out a lot more about how brains are Bayesian predictors (Fiser, Chiu, & Weliky, 2004).

Josef Fisher is the sort of scientist Hollywood might dream up. He is tall, charming, handsome and impeccably dressed. He is Hungarian but speaks English with an American accent. His work is in psychology and neuroscience but with a strong mathematical element. If they made a film about him there would be a whiteboard of equations in the background.

Using the Matrix for this research seems like a doubly prophetic choice. In grown-up ferrets, the scientists discovered patterns of neural activity which correlated significantly with the images on the screen, whilst baby ferrets were more confused. Moreover, the adults kept on thinking about the movie after it had finished. This was pretty cool but the most surprising thing was that ferrets brains were not just passively reproducing what they saw. They could dream about it and their dreams appeared to actively improve their models of the world. Like Neo in the film, they were bending their existing expectations to fit their new reality. Or in the language of Karl Friston, they were minimising their prediction errors via a Gibbs sampling over the probability space.

Still with me? Perhaps now might be a good time to mention Douglas Adams. In that wholly remarkable book the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, he relates that one the highest compliments intergalactic hitchhikers can pay to one another is to say that they are “someone who knows where their towel is.” There are, of course, many practical uses for a towel when travelling the universe but a towel’s greatest value is psychological. As the book recounts:

“any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is, is clearly a man to be reckoned with” (Adams, 1979).

Babies and young children are more likely to carry a security blanket or soft toy on their adventures. Some estimates suggest that up to 70% of children have a strong attachment to a particular object. This seems to be largely a Western phenomenon, possibly a result of many more children sleeping separately from their parents than in Eastern cultures. The standard explanation was that these ‘attachment objects’ are a substitute for the original ‘object’, the mother and her breast. This does not hold up. The objects can provide security in novel situations but it seems to be an independent a child’s attachment to their mother (Donate-Bartfield & Passman, 2004).

Donald Winnicott thought attachment objects were reminder of security and love. I think this is correct. However, Karl Friston and the ferrets lets us see security blankets and velveteen rabbits in a wider context. Babies and children use these objects because we need security as we build our worlds. The ultimate aim of life is to explore enough of the world so that you can survive surprises. We will never be able to expect the unexpected but we can and we must reduce its scope and its impact. To survive we have to change our minds many times. Like the ferrets, we do this by improving in a Bayesian way, updating our beliefs to better fit our experience.

Babies are surprised every day and must continually confront uncertainty and explore the unknown. This is exhilarating and exhausting. It is not enough to add knowledge about the world, they must change their expectations, a new existential crisis every day. Mummy, teddy or a security blanket is a reassuring element of continuity and predictability. If babies know where that is, they know where they are. Perhaps this prevents the Markov blanket from unravelling?

It is hard to appreciate what a wild ride this must be for them. Adults do not change our beliefs very often. We have worked our whole lives to feel like we are right about most things. After all, in Friston’s theory that is the whole point of life; being less surprised over time. The best analogy I can suggest is to imagine your home planet gets destroyed and your best friend turns out be an alien who takes you hitchhiking across the remainder of the galaxy.

I might be biased here. Not only I am keen to meet aliens, I also still have a security blanket. I had one when I was little. I was so attached to it that my mother knitted a large elephant and sewed the tatty cotton rag onto his back. This was meant to deter me but inevitably I ended up dragging the elephant around everywhere. The original blanket disintegrated decades ago. It was replaced in my affections by a cellular blanket my mother bought home one day from hospital. The blanket wrapped a parcel containing my baby sister. No doubt I seemed alien and friendly to her. I still find cotton cellular blankets very soothing. May you do too? Around 30 percent of adults keep an old teddy or similar childhood memento. By my estimates, Charlie Brown’s friend Linus van Pelt must be into his seventies by now. I imagine he still carries his blanket some of the time.

As luck would have it just as I was finishing writing this section, Karl Friston came to my university to give a lecture. This was my chance to hear him in his own words. Would I be bamboozled? His opening was not promising, “I can give very good lectures. This is not one of them.” But he was wrong. He had us imagining ourselves as hungry owls and playing a logical guessing games. There were some of his infamous equations but he guided us through gently them. His reassuring, unhurried delivery no doubt acquired during his early training as a psychiatrist.

His summary of the purpose of life fits very well with the ambitions of our babies. When confronted with the big mysteries of the universe we are compelled to explain them (even if only to explain them away.) “The brain is in the game of explaining the sensory impression at hand.” This is a game of chance and we are all born with an intrinsic motivation to play it. We all keep score with the information gain measured in “Bayesian surprise” (or minimized free energy). Afterwards, I told him about this book and asked if he any insights into how this must feel for babies who play the game so much more intensely than adults? He could not much improve upon the hitchhiking analogy. And, wise man that he is, he also turned the question around. “This is why we are scientists isn’t it? To keep exploring and to try and recapture that feeling of joy?”

At the end of his famous 4 page paper Judea Pearl stated that he hoped his Bayesian networks would become “a standard point of departure for more sophisticated models of belief maintenance and inexact reasoning”. Be careful what you wish for. I do not think he could have predicted that ferrets would be watching The Matrix or that Karl Friston would drape Markov blankets over all life on Earth

“In truth it’s blankets all the way down. So cuddle close and keep that free energy minimal.”

(@FarlKriston, 8 Dec 2017)
Douglas Adams holding up a towel
Douglas Adams knew where his towel was.

For more like this, please look out for my book The Laughing Baby. It is being crowdfunded by Unbound Books. So it needs your support to make it a reality. Please pre-order your copy or tell your friends with babies

The characters Anger, Disgust, Joy, Fear and Sadness from Pixar's Inside Out

Babies and emotion

This weekend I was delighted to receive a beautiful copy of Schadenfreude by Tiffany Watt Smith. It has a close connection to my own book The Laughing Baby because Tiffany and I have compared notes as our various projects have progressed. Tiffany is an historian of emotions and the parent of young childen. She has even brought her son to our lab to take part in one of our studies…

Schadenfreude — Tiffany Watt Smith

You will have to read her book to find out if babies do expeience Schadenfreude. What’s more, Tiffany was one of the first people I interviewed when writing my book. Unfortunately, I didn’t check that sound levels so the recording is essentially inaudible. Nonetheless, her previous book was very helpful when i was trying to answer the following tricky question:

What are emotions?

(From Chapter Nine of The Laughing Baby)

“Emotions do not exist to be locked away inside individuals.”

Vasudevi Reddy and Colwyn Trevarthen, 2004

If laughter evolved as a social glue, central to this role is that it expresses emotion. The most infectious thing about a laughing baby is their absolute delight. It may seem a truism to say that ‘babies laugh because they are happy’. But this challenges us to answer the question what is happiness? While we are about it we might as well try and explain anger, sadness, worry and the rest. It should not surprise anyone that emotions are still mysterious to science. Many theories have been proposed and few have been discarded.

The race for a comprehensive theory of emotion is still wide open. Perhaps, it will always remain so, no scientific theory could catalogue all the nuances of our adult experience. In The Book of Human Emotions, Tiffany Watt Smith describes 156 different emotions. She readily admits this list is not comprehensive and the categories overlap and blur at their edges, changing over time and by culture. Tiffany’s goal as a historian of emotion to offer an argument against the tendency to reduce “the beautiful complexity of our inner lives into just a handful of cardinal emotions” (Watt Smith, 2015).

It is a tendency that has always been there. Tiffany describes the Li Chi, a book from the Confucian era that lists seven essential feelings; joy, anger, sadness, fear, love, dislike and fondness. Two and a half millennia later and little has changed. In the 2015 animated Pixar film Inside Out, the main character, a young girl called Riley, is shown with five emotions; Joy, Anger, Sadness, Fear and Disgust. Modern science usually settles on a list of about nine ‘basic emotions’; happiness, sadness, anger, fear, parental love, child attachment, sexual love, hatred, and disgust (Oatley & Johnson-Laird, 2014). These lists seem reasonable in as far as they go. But the best theories are not about listing emotions but explaining why we have emotions at all.

One of the first people to realise this was Charles Darwin. In a work of visionary genius that often gets overlooked in comparison to his other incredible achievements Darwin advanced one the first ever scientific theories of emotions. His book The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (Darwin, 1872a) proposed that our emotions are evolved for our survival. Of course, he would say that wouldn’t he? Like all of Darwin’s work it was supported by decades of patient accumulation of evidence. He compared the anger displays of many animals. He also included many observations of babies. Darwin kept detailed biographical diaries of several of his children and wondered what was meant by their frowns, blushes, and laughs. On a theoretical level Darwin’s account was a bit thin, all it really says is that emotions are universal, valuable and shared with animals. But it was a very radical proposal for its time

About a decade later, William James and Carl Lange each independently decided that emotions were reactions to bodily states. For example, fear might be how we interpreted our racing hearts. For James emotions are literally feelings, “we feel sorry because we cry, … not … we cry … because we are sorry” (p. 180, James 1884). By this view emotions happen after the fact and are what philosophers call ‘epiphenomena’. The theory has been remarkable popular because it suggests that if you carefully measure exactly how a person is reacting physiologically you can tell what emotion they are experiencing. The James-Lang theory feels unsatisfying to me because it relegates emotion to a passive role. But it does have two important strengths. It points out that our physiology strongly influences our mental state and that emotions depend upon interpretation of experience. Contrary to early views of the theory popularised by John Dewey, neither James nor Lang ever insisted on a single emotion for each physiological reaction. They would be quite content that a racing heart and sweaty palms could be interpreted as fear in some situations and as love in others (L. B. Feldman, 2018).

Our old friend Sigmund Freud took a very different view. For Freud, emotions were supremely mental. Our minds are seething cauldrons of desires. Emotions are the main engine that drive us forward or hold us back. Reversing James-Lange theory, Freud even thought that mental turmoil could manifest itself physically as psychosomatic illness. But Freud’s biggest contribution was the invention of the unconscious. He believed our ‘true’ emotions hide from us in our subconscious and they are shaped by momentous events in early life that echo down through our lives. Being unobservable the unconscious is unscientific. Hence my use of the word invention rather than discovery. If you read modern neuroscience papers on emotion, they usually take the trouble to explain why James & Lange were wrong, but do not even bother to mention Freud.

Jaak Panksepp, who we met tickling rats in chapter seven, believes our emotions exist to tell us what supports or detracts from our survival. He thinks we have 7 emotional systems. There are ancient systems of FEAR, RAGE, LUST and SEEKING and more modern mechanisms for CARE, PANIC and PLAY that are unique to social mammals. He capitalises the words to emphasise that he gives them very specific scientific meaning (Panksepp, 2005). Each system serving specific goal and can be mapped to equivalent brain areas in many species. Take the PANIC system which rules babies’ separation anxiety. Panksepp shows that it operates in the brain with the same neurochemistry as physical pain. The pain of separation is real pain and prompts the infant to act, usually calling out to mother in distress. The return of the mother releases opioids and oxytocin which relieve the pain. The brain circuitry goes back to the imprinting in chicks and the survival value is clear in both cases (Herman & Panksepp, 1981).

As well as his laughing rats, Panksepp has looked at sadness in chickens, what makes guinea pigs cry and mother-infant bonding in sheep. He has spent decades researching emotion in animals and is very particular that they feel things in the same way we do. He believes in an emotional consciousness common to humans and animals and cognitive consciousness that comes later with the use of language. Emotions colour our world and the conscious experience of joy or rage is essential to its function for humans and animals alike. It is an unpopular viewpoint. Plenty of scientists are dismissive of the experience of animals. They cite Morgan’s cannon and say science can only ever study animal behaviour. They criticise him because they do not believe animals have consciousness necessary to experience or interpret emotions. In Panksepp’s view, these scientists are looking down the wrong end of the telescope. It is the experience that makes the emotion and experiencing emotions was how and why consciousness evolved. We may have to describe animal emotions with human labels but FEAR came before ‘fear’ and SEEKING before ‘pleasure’. In my view the most case compelling against Panksepp’s critics is that anyone who is dismissive of animal emotions also has dismiss all the emotions of preverbal babies.

Some researchers do argue precisely this position. One forceful critic of Panksepp is Canadian researcher Lisa Barrett Feldman. A professor of psychology at Northeastern University in Boston, she argues that emotions are entirely conceptual and so animals and new born babies cannot have them. Here is what she says about babies

“Babies don’t know what telescopes are, or sea cucumbers or picnics, let alone purely mental concepts like ‘Whimsy’ or ‘Schadenfreude’. A newborn is experientially blind to a great extent.” (p. 113, L. B. Feldman, 2018)

The quote comes from her recent book How Emotions Are Made in which she describes her own theory of constructed emotion. She contrasts this with what she calls classical view of emotions shared by Darwin, Panksepp and others. As I said at the outset of this section, no one theory of emotions covers all the ground yet so it worth looking at things from the opposite perspective. To do this let us go back to Inside Out.

In the film Inside Out, each of the basic emotions is personified as a character inside Riley’s mind. Joy appears first when Riley is a new born baby seeing her blurry parents for the first time. Her job it seems is to press buttons the cause Riley to respond and collect the memories associated with her actions. She is shortly joined by Sadness and the others and each interpret situations and responds according to their nature. Joy delights, Anger gets mad, Fear worries, Disgust dislikes things and Sadness is sad. If we forgive the artistic licence of little people inside your head pressing buttons it is a wonderful depiction of the classical view of emotions. This is to be expected, the main scientific advisor on the film was Paul Ekman who is one of main theorists behind the idea that emotions are universal biological drives (Keltner & Ekman, 2015).

The outer plot revolves around an eleven year old Riley having to adapt as her family move from Minnesota to a new home and new school San Francisco. The inner plot revolves around Joy trying to understand the purpose of Sadness. It is a good film so I won’t spoil it for you but it is not giving too much away to say that the Emotions learn to work as a team and Riley learns that other people struggle with their emotions too. At various points we see into her parents’ heads, their own teams of five emotional essences at their controls. It is a story Barrett claims that would be recognisable to Aristotle, Plato and even the Buddha, but she argues it is built on a myth. Barrett does not believe there are universal emotions. Your emotions are not fixed by evolution but constructed as part of your culture. They do not bubble up from a set of brain areas but are constructed by your highly sophisticated human brain building abstract categories to help classify and your inner and outer lives.

Lisa Feldman Barrett’s theory has no problem with there being hundreds of subtle emotions like those listed in Tiffany Watt-Smith’s Handbook. In fact, Barrett is the editor of her own Handbook of Emotions, an academic volume running to over 900 pages. There can be countless, complex emotions because our highly social lives and big brains create that complexity. But then Ekman and Panksepp do not have any problem with the existence of complex emotions like embarrassment, ennui or exasperation. Where her theory differs is that she does not think happiness, anger or sadness are any more natural or biological than technostress or Torschlusspanik.

But that does not mean that in Barrett’s version of the film there would be 156+ characters all clamouring for attention in Riley’s head. That would be a terrible movie and it would be committing the error of Essentialism. Just because we can classify a set of behaviours as ‘anger’, does not make anger is a real thing. According to Barrett, Plato, Darwin and Panksepp all commit this error. Plato we can forgive. Essences and Platonic Ideals were kind of his ‘thing’. Barrett gives Darwin a particularly hard time and she has a point. His theory evolution removed the need for essentialism from biological classification. But his book on emotions went the other way. Barrett notes that at Darwin says “Even insects express, anger, jealously and love” (p.350, Darwin, 1872).

Why is this an error? Let us take a closer look at Anger. In several chapters of How Emotions Are Made Barrett deconstructs anger to show it is not a single, simple thing. First, she takes aim at Ekman’s famous work supposedly showing that expressions of emotion are universal. But her research shows that neither facial expressions or physiological signals are highly ambiguous. You can be angry without giving any outward sign of it and seems like anger might not be. Second, there is ambiguity in language. ‘Anger’ might mean annoyance, irritation, rage or fury. But some languages Utka Eskimos have no concept of “Anger” while Mandarin has five or more different “Angers”. Some languages would not even recognise our Western notion of emotion. Finally, in Chapter 12 Barrett asks, “Is a Growling Dog Angry”? As you might guess her answer is that “there is no clear evidence that any non-human animals have the sort of emotion concepts that humans do.” (p. 270). Even dogs, who we have been breeding for their loyalty and understanding of us for millennia. The best we can say is that dogs have raw feelings but this is a long way from emotion. Insects, not even that.

It is in how they approach the emotions of babies where gulf between these theories comes into focus. Barrett, for whom emotions are conceptual, spends a lot of time discussing infant pattern recognition abilities and how they learn words and concepts, the mental prerequisites for her cognitive concept of emotions. Panksepp, for whom emotions are feelings, does more to evoke our empathy but usually cannot help reducing things down to biology and brain areas (Panksepp, 2001). It is notable that neither camp engages directly with the experience of the babies themselves. Yet, I think this is precisely where we will find a better sense of what human emotions are and how they build on our animal affect.

Emotion is about more than just classifying feelings, it is about the feelings themselves. A baby may not know that their sadness is “Sadness” or their happiness is “Joy”. But any parent can see that there is something very real contained in their experiences. I am sure that Barrett and Panksepp would both acknowledge this but there does not seem to be much space in their theories for the subjective sense of emotion, its ‘phenomenology’ if you wanted to be fancy. I do not believe a comprehensive theory of emotions exists yet, but such a theory would not be complete if it did not encompass the primal emotional experience of infants.

For more like this, please look out for my book The Laughing Baby. It is being crowdfunded by Unbound Books. Please pre-order your copy or tell your friends with babies.

A time before smiles?

A time before smiles?

This is the first chapter from my book The Laughing Baby, coming soon from Unbound.

Illustration copyright Marian Medina Cuesta 2017

When the first baby laughed for the first time, its laugh broke into a thousand pieces and they all went skipping about and that was beginning of fairies 
— Peter Pan, JM Barrie

A baby’s first laugh is a magic moment. Parents have no trouble remembering it even years later. Happening anywhere from a few weeks old to four or five months, those early laughs will very likely be small and subtle, a light and breathy chuckle. A tiny baby cannot coordinate the rapid contractions of the intercostal chest muscles required to laugh properly but the sound is unmistakable nonetheless.

For Aristotle, the first time we laugh marks the instant when our soul enters our body and the moment we become truly human. He thought that laughter was what separates us from the animals. He was wrong, of course. Other animals can and do laugh and the boundary between us and other species is a matter of degree, a question of genes and culture. As for the soul, nowadays we would probably call that ‘consciousness’ and we understand that it dawns slowly.

But a baby’s first laugh is a very special event and one that feels transformative. Sometimes it is a spontaneous sound of wellbeing and satisfaction: “I am warm and happy and full of mother’s milk.” Occasionally it is a response to something the baby sees, like a shadow waving on the wall. Best of all is when it is the result of something a parent does — returning to the room or planting a ticklish kiss. However small that first laugh may be, parents will recognise in it the idea that “a laugh is a smile that burst”. It is the first time that a baby expresses their absolute delight with the world.

It is a memory that can stay with a parent forever. When I ran my baby laughter survey one parent, Mary, took the trouble to write and tell me about “the sound of the Angels” that burst forth when she kissed her tiny daughter’s tummy. It had happened forty-two years previously but it still echoed in her memory and made her “smile with JOY”. It was one of many similar stories. This is rather remarkable given that adult memory is usually very vague and non-specific. What did you have for lunch yesterday or do on your last birthday? Not many events in our grown up lives stick all that well. Even wedding days become hazy. But our children’s first laughs, first steps, first words remain with us and raise a smile decades later.

Memories of first smiles can be more elusive and uncertain. In my survey first smiles are reported anywhere from the first day to the sixth month, which is a relatively large range. On top of this, parents have a harder time pinpointing the very first smile and more difficulty recalling it. There are several things happening here. Not only are first smiles more subtle and fleeting but very often parents have been taught to doubt their own judgements.

There is a much-repeated myth that all smiles before about six weeks are actually responses to trapped wind or the sign of a baby filling their nappy rather than a true sign of pleasure or contentment. This myth is widespread and persistent. I’ve even seen it on popular midwifing websites. But it is one that I completely reject. It is true that babies do pull funny faces when burping or pooping. They also smile with genuine satisfaction. Many parents I’ve surveyed are convinced they have seen genuine smiles from very early on and I believe them. They are, no doubt, slightly biased but they are also studying their own baby far more intently than anyone else. We will see later in the chapter why there are excellent grounds for believing they are correct. For the moment, I think it is simple enough to let parents trust their own judgement on this.

Let’s take another look at those first smiles. Yes, babies can pull funny faces when burping up milk or filling nappies but they are equally capable of showing genuine emotion. No one doubts that first cries and first tears are real. A baby in distress is obvious to all. It seems strange, then, that experts would want to deny that early positive emotions are also valid; that first smiles aren’t “proper smiles”.

Worse yet, here we have new parents being told by experts that they are wrong about something so basic. Already uncertain of their own abilities, it is not a great way to reassure them. The main message of this book is that parents and their babies figure most things out for themselves. Nobody is ever properly prepared for a baby. But equally, parents know more than they realise and they will learn fast. It’s even more stressful and bewildering for the baby but their little laughs and smiles are a sign they are succeeding. No one should take that away from them.

There is another milestone for new mothers that it is often overlooked. When was the first time her baby made her laugh? This was earlier than you think. Of course there can be big smiles at the very beginning. Perhaps the time when she first suspected a baby was to be expected? Perhaps when it was confirmed by that second blue line on a pregnancy test? Or maybe a little later when seeing another mum with her new baby made the reality of her own future more concrete?

Secret Joy

But I am not talking about those moments. I like to think that the first time baby directly makes mother laugh is when something about their wriggling inside her makes her smile or starts her giggling. A good friend tells me of laughing when feeling that her unborn daughter had got the hiccups. But it doesn’t take something as comical as this to bring smiles to a mothers lips. Often it is just the knowledge that a new conversation has started.

In my favourite part of Expecting, Chitra Ramaswamy’s book-length memoir of her pregnancy. Chitra describes going out for dinner with friends to celebrate her birthday. Five months pregnant she can’t enjoy the adventurous food of the restaurant and is distracted from her friends as her baby wriggled inside:

I sat sipping champagne that tasted more like cider, pretending to follow the conversation while the baby fizzed in my belly. I said nothing about this furtive firework display. I had no desire to talk about it. There was nothing for anyone else to feel, nothing for anyone else to understand. This was my secret Morse code tapping out its message on my insides. I felt flushed with joy. It was one of the happiest moments of my life, one I can summon up whenever I want to, and often do. (p84–5, Expecting, Chitra Ramaswary 2016)

Just as that private joy became one of the happiest moments of her life. Chitra also relates how Tolstoy makes this secret moment a pivotal scene in his realist masterpiece, Anna Karenina. Anna is pregnant with the child of her lover, Vronsky, but huge obstacles face them because she is already married. Anna has dreamt that she will die in childbirth, and informs Vronsky of this prompting another a fraught discussion of their doomed affair, but in the middle of this Anna experiences the great fears for her situation giving way to a sense of bliss when she feels her baby stirring inside of her.

The first feeling of movement is known as the quickening. For thousands of years this was the major event of pregnancy. Before pregnancy tests and modern medicine this was the first time a woman could say with certainty that she was pregnant. Aristotle and the ancient Greeks and Romans thought this was the moment when the soul entered the body. That these movements indicated the moment when the foetus became “animated” with life, Animus and anima being the Latin words for mind and soul respectively; both having their roots in an even more ancient Proto Indo-European word for breath or breathing.

The legal system also recognised the quickening as the point that divided life from potential life as in the biblical phrase “the quick and the dead”. In English common law abortion was permissible before this point and assaults that caused a woman to miscarry after the quickening were treated as more serious. Until 1869 even the Catholic Church held this view, it accepted abortion before the quickening as the destruction of potential life not of life itself. Legal definitions are now based on viability of life outside the womb. English law recognises a foetus as being “capable of being born alive” from 24 weeks and a baby’s legal status as an individual commences from the point they draw their first breath.

In the private history of any individual pregnancy quickening is a big milestone. The very first flutters of movement are a tangible joy, literally a “touching” moment. From here onwards a mother has a new connection with her little passenger and can start to infer their personality. Comparing the patterns of activity with the experience of other mums to be. Is her little one more prone to wriggling late and night or early in the morning? How do they respond to music or their mother’s mood, to coffee or to cake?

For a first-time mum the first feelings of a baby moving typically occur between the 16th to 20th weeks of pregnancy. Second-time mums tend to notice these movements several weeks earlier because their uterus walls are thinner. This gives a big clue that a foetus is moving before the mother notices it. In fact, it is long before. The first movements are already possible between 4 & 8 weeks after conception. Although there is no way a mother will notice these as the foetus is still the size of a lentil. Though, of course, she will have known she is pregnant from near the beginning.

Even before the introduction of hormonal pregnancy tests in 1970s, few women failed to notice the massive changes that sweep through their bodies after a fertilized egg implants in the womb. The process is started by a flood of human chorinonic gonadortrophin (hCP to its friends) that gets released when the placenta first forms. This tells the ovaries that a pregnancy is taking place and prompts the ovaries to keep producing progesterone while the placenta takes over producing estrogen. The levels of both these two main female hormones will keep increasing throughout pregnancy. A third important hormone, oxytocin, makes its appearance later at the time of the birth.

Progesterone increases the mother’s body temperature and metabolism, this requires extra energy, which is one reason she feels tired all the time. Progesterone also relaxes muscle tone which is useful in later stages of pregnancy but early on affects the stomach and intestine causing heartburn via acid reflux. Estrogen changes her senses of smell and taste and is thought to cause the nausea, vomiting and stomach cramps of morning sickness. On top of all that she has also just found out that you are pregnant. It is not unreasonable for her to be feeling a bit fragile. Fragile and largely in the dark. That first touch of the baby is reassuring.

But in the dark we can listen. Thanks to key medical inventions by maternity doctors René Laennec and Ian Donald eavesdropping on life in the womb has been an important part of obstetrics for nearly two hundred years. René Laennec was a doctor who worked at the Necker hospital for Sick Children in Paris, the world’s first paediatric hospital. In 1816 he invented the stethoscope. He used to get embarrassed having to put his ear to women’s chests to listen to their hearts so he made a listening tube. It was just a short straight wooden tube that he placed on their chest to let him keep a respectable distance. It turned out that this worked better than an ear directly on the chest.

It wasn’t long before Leannec and his colleagues realised that this new invention would let them listen to an unborn baby’s heart beat too. The first reports of foetal heart rates is from 1821 by Leannec’s pupil, Jean-Alexandre Le Jumeau (Wulf, 1985). The Y-shaped stethoscope appeared in 1851 and hasn’t really changed much since then. It is good enough to hear a baby’s heart beating from the 22nd week of pregnancy, though it can depend on the orientation of the baby in the womb (and how much mum’s stomach is gurgling). It could even confirm if there were going to be twins; although if the foetus is moving the heartbeat can be masked by the sound of it splashing around in the amniotic sack.

Measuring foetal heart rate and how much it varies can tell doctors about the health of the foetus. The heart rate is controlled by two complementary systems the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system. The sympathetic nervous system causes increase in heart rate and parasympathetic causes decreases. Normally they are in balance with each other and the heart rate gradually cycles up and down. A very fast or very slow heart rate or even a lack of variability can be a warning sign for doctors.

Interestingly, this very early research also led to an old wives’ tales that persists to this day. In 1860, a certain Dr Frankenhauser published a study in a German medical journal claiming that heart rate could predict the sex of baby. He believed that female foetuses had a heart rate of around 144 beats per minute (bpm) while male foetuses would average 124 bpm. This is not true but the myth has been very hard to shift. It still gets regularly repeated on many pregnancy websites.

Ian Donald was an obstetrician working at the Glasgow Royal Maternity Hospital. Always an original thinker and tinkerer, Donald had previously invented a respirator for newborn infants, unfairly gaining the nickname “Mad Donald”. In the late 1950’s he and his colleagues helped invent modern ultrasound equipment and pioneered its use in foetal medical imaging.

Ultrasound is technically described as an imaging technique but it is based on ordinary sound waves albeit beyond our range of hearing. Like the echolocation of bats, or the sonar of dolphins and submarines, it involves listening to the echoes of very high pitched squeaks and clicks. Sonar technologies had been around in rudimentary form since the first world war and ultrasound itself started life as means of inspecting the interior of metalwork.

Donald had heard of this and of previous attempts to use the same idea to peer into the body. In 1955 he visited the engineering firm Babcock & Wilcox who made large boilers for Glasgow’s shipbuilding industry and who had a metalwork ultrasound device. Donald turned up with two car-loads of medical specimens. Just as it detected flaws and weakness in welds and joints, the device was able to detect the anomalous signals coming from tumours and cysts in the samples. Donald and colleagues built their own version and started using it in their diagnostic work. They wrote up their findings for the medical journal The Lancet in 1958 (Donald, Macvicar, & Brown, 1958). That paper is widely credited for kick-starting medical ultrasound (Woo, 2002).

Ultrasound and heart rate monitoring are the backbone of medical monitoring of foetal development. They have also been used by developmental scientists like myself to uncover what babies experience in the womb. Measurement of changes in foetal heart rate allow us to determine when a foetus is surprised by something. Ultrasound lets us see how a foetus moves in response to sounds, movements and other stimuli. Coupled with what it is known about the biology of the growing foetus, this lets us build a picture of what a foetus can learn in the womb.

Ultrasound shows that the clump of cells which become the heart is already beating by the sixth week after conception. As previously mentioned, at this point the embryo is the size of lentil but already the ears, mouth and nose are visible. The eyes and nostrils are two little black dots and arms and legs are still little stubs, the fingers and toes still webbed. A six-week-old embryo will already move in response to touches around the mouth and nose area. These are simple reflexive actions but show that the nervous system is already beginning to arrange itself. This gives a hint as to why mouthing is such an important exploratory skill for babies.

Fruit of the womb

Over the next two weeks, the embryo doubles to blueberry-sized and then doubles again to the size of a raspberry (according to the fruit and veg based measurement system that seems to be standard in all baby books ever written.) At around 10 or 11 weeks, your little strawberry has sleep and wake cycles. Changes in foetal heart rate indicate if the mummy’s passenger is sleeping or awake. Mostly, the womb is a bedroom. Throughout the pregnancy a foetus spends over 90% of his or her time asleep. Sleep cycles are about 40 minutes at a time punctuated by short bursts of activity. The amount of activity increasing as time goes by. At strawberry-sized the movements are minimal but are clearly exhausting as in-utero yawns have been seen as early as week 11 (Joseph, 2000).

Week 13 is peachy. This is the end of the first trimester, one third of the way through the pregnancy and the embryo has developed sufficiently that we start calling it a foetus. The first voluntary movements start to happen around 16 weeks when the foetus is around 4.5 inches long (11.5 cm) and the size of an avocado. Periods of activity are accompanied by foetal callisthenics. The foetus is recognisably human by now with a big round head and teeny tiny fingers and toes.

Foetal development is not simply a process of growth from blueberry-sized blob to bouncing baby. Throughout this time the constant metamorphosis is no less dramatic than from caterpillar to butterfly. Cells are not only dividing and their numbers multiplying but their functions change and they migrate within the body to different goals and different roles. That blueberry still has gill-like structures and tail which become jaw-bones and coccyx. Most internal organs are only fully formed by week 20 and neurons keep moving and connecting beyond birth.

As we already mentioned, the expectant mother will feel the first tickles of movement somewhere between here and week 20 (a small banana). This is typically when the midterm ultrasound takes place. The foetus is carefully examined to check that everything is developing as expected. On modern ultrasounds the sex of the baby can clearly be seen if you know what you are looking for.

Chances are the foetus will be asleep during this exam but if they are moving you might be in for a nice surprise. In March 2015, Jen Hazel and her husband went for their 14-week ultrasound scan with their doctor in Olympia, Washington. During the scan the foetus clapped her hands together. As Jen describes it:

We went in for an ultrasound and the baby clapped three times on screen. Not to the music, just clapped three times. So my doctor, he said, ‘Well, let’s sing a song.’ My husband grabbed his video and the doctor reran the ultrasound and played the claps and I sang and he sang with me ‘If you’re happy and you know it [clap your hands].’

Their singing isn’t great — Jen is laughing too much and her husband doesn’t seem to know all the words — but it’s a delightful video. And when it was uploaded to YouTube it understandably went viral. At the time of writing it has nearly 12 million views.

So could a 14-week-old foetus be happy? Here we get to the heart of this chapter. Is there really a time before smiles? Where does happiness and contentment begin? Are they present from the very start or do emotions only turn on sometime after birth? Jen’s daughter, Pip, was born safe and healthy. She is a happy, playful baby and she still likes music.

But what about when Pip was still a lemon-size foetus of fourteen weeks? Was she happy and did she know it? Could she know it? A single fertilized egg, a zygote, cannot know or show happiness. Nor can the little ball of cells in the blastocyte or even the yawning strawberry sized embryo. Yet from my parental survey of infant laughter, I am confident that a baby of just a few weeks old can show genuine contentment. Many parents report this. So when do the lights come on? When can a smile really be a smile?

It’s hard to say. There is no way a 14-week-old foetus can feel pleasure or pain. Its nervous system isn’t developed enough. No real research exists on foetal pleasure. Indeed, it would be hard to know even know where to start. But foetal pain is a good guide to pleasure. Pleasure and pain are supported by similar circuits and evidence is accumulating that by end of the second trimester, at around 24–25 weeks post-conception, a foetus can feel rudimentary pain. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a detailed report in 2010 reviewed the available evidence. They concluded that foetal awareness of pain is not possible for before 24 weeks (RCOG, 2010).

For anyone to experience pain, nerve signals from the unpleasant stimulus must reach a cortex capable of processing them. If the signal from some part of the body doesn’t reach the brain, all that we experience is numbness. This is how a local anaesthetic works. Additionally, if the signals reach the brainstem and thalamus but aren’t passed upwards to the cortex we won’t feel anything. This is how general anaesthetic works.

Before 24 weeks a foetus cannot experience pain because the brain is not fully connected. In particular, the thalamus which is a kind of junction box between brain and body, is not properly wired to the cortex (the wrinkly thinking bit). This is not too surprising when you appreciate how complicated the brain is, and how tangled the wiring. Every part needs to talk to every other part and those wires are long trailing tails of the brain cells, called axons. To connect one place to another, the cells must be born in one area and migrate to the other trailing the tail behind them.

As you can imagine this is complicated and the wiring cannot happen until there is somewhere to connect to. The thalamus and the cortex, initially known as the cortical plate, grow separately. A further group of cells develops in a “subplate zone” beneath the cortex. From 12 -18 weeks connections from thalamus arrive in the subplate zone and then wait as the cortical plate matures. At around 24 weeks they recommence their journey to connect to all areas of cortex. A process that continues to week 32. Also at 24 weeks, the neurons of the subplate themselves migrate into different areas of the cortex, effectively wiring these areas together.

Both these processes are important to an awareness of pain. An 18-week-old foetus moves away from a needle prick and even releases stress hormones but it doesn’t feel the pain. The signals can reach the thalamus and potentially the subplate zone but they can’t ascend any higher. The withdrawal reflex and hormone release come from the brainstem.

By 24 weeks nerve signals start to get through the cortex. Brain wave recordings performed with very premature infants show coordinated neural activity in response to a heel lance from 24 weeks of pregnancy. This sets the lower limit recommended by the Royal College. But, as they observe in their report, this is a necessary minimum but it might not be sufficient. EEG activity is not continuous at this point as it would be in an adult or a newborn. So it is not clear that the pain is being perceived as awareness or experience requires an experiencer.

From the 24th week the brain begins connecting itself up in earnest. The sensory inputs from hearing, vision, and touch pass through to the relevant areas of the cortex. Reciprocal connections downward from cortex to brainstem begin by week 26. Feedback loops start to form and the can begin to exert voluntary control over the world. The fetus is starting to hear, feel and even see things and it is starting to learn.

It is unlikely the fetus has any kind of experience before this. But in the third trimester he or she can absorb a surprising amount. Studies looking for changes in fetal heart rate have found that from 26 weeks onwards the fetus can respond and learn to ignore repetitive vibrations. They can respond to changes in levels of external illumination. And can respond to hearing their mother’s voice and feeling her touch through the walls of the womb (Marx & Nagy, 2015).

My favourite study of this kind was done by Peter Hepper of Queen’s University Belfast (Hepper, 1991). He tested newborn infants at just 2–4 days old to see how they responded to music they had heard in the womb. To do this he took advantage of the fact that many mothers watched soap operas. Half of his sample were fans of the show Neighbours and half weren’t. This meant that half babies had heard its catchy theme tune many times while in the womb. When he played it to the two groups in the maternity ward, the movements and heart rates of the Neighbours babies dropped relative to the control group as they seemed to drop into an alert listening state. To double check they were not just more likely to respond to music he tried the Coronation Street theme and got no response. A second experiment got similar results but this time playing the theme tunes to babies still in the womb through headphones on the mummies’ tummies. Hepper argues that the babies were learning not just the music but were associating it with the calm and relaxed state the mother went into as she sat down to enjoy the soap.

One curious feature of most of these studies is that doesn’t seem to matter if the foetus active or ‘asleep’. Recall that foetuses are only active about 10% of the time and the periods of activity in the womb are a dreamlike state not easily comparable to the wakeful attention of a newborn baby is capable of. In fact, some researchers go further and say the whole pregnancy is spent in a deep sleep. Consciousness expert Chirstof Koch writing in Scientific American:

I wager that the foetus experiences nothing in utero; that it feels the way we do when we are in a deep, dreamless sleep. The dramatic events attending delivery by natural (vaginal) means cause the brain to abruptly wake up, however. The foetus is forced from its paradisic existence in the protected, aqueous and warm womb into a hostile, aerial and cold world that assaults its senses with utterly foreign sounds, smells and sights, a highly stressful event. 
 (Koch, 2009)

It is a vivid image but I disagree that life in the womb is spent in such a sedated state. The changes in infant heart rate in various studies suggest they are responsive to events around them and I think these experiences can even be pleasant for the foetus. Anecdotal reports of babies pictured smiling in ultrasounds have been around since 2000, when the resolution of scans became good enough to show facial expressions. Looking at this evidence systematically, the psychologist Nadja Reissland at the University of Durham and colleagues have identified seven foetal facial expressions and confirmed that both crying and laughing are ‘practiced’ in the womb (Reissland, Francis, Mason, & Lincoln, 2011).

Using modern ‘4D’ ultrasound, which has good spatial and depth resolution in real-time, Nadja’s team scanned two foetuses on multiple occasions between 24 and 35 weeks. They recorded 10 minutes of facial expressions on each occasion and used a standard coding scheme to objectively classify what they saw. Facial expressions can be broken down into their component micro-expressions (pursed lips or raised cheeks). The coding scheme designed for very young babies was adapted to define sets of expressions that went together to form a ‘cry face gestalt’ and a ‘laughter face gestalt.’ Some, like a wrinkling of the nose, were common to both. Others defined just laughter (tongue sticking out & lips pulling back) or crying (pulled down lower lip and furrowed brow). Combining data both foetuses (both girls), they found that the crying expression increased from 0 to 42% occurrence while laughing faces increased from 0 to 35% between the 24th and 35th week respectively.

Pleasant expressions were as common as expressions of distress, and both gradually appear as the foetus itself gradually gains awareness. From the baby’s personal point of view, there really is no time before smiles.

When asked I say the grimaces and smiles of infants in utero reflect something genuine from around week 25. I believe this is the start of foetal awareness of pleasure and pain. This not too different from the 24 week mark recommended in the Royal College report. But, for idiosyncratic reasons, I prefer week 25, when the universal fruit and veg scale says the foetus has reached the size of an aubergine.

A former girlfriend of mine, Belinda, always used to say that springy aesthetic pleasures of aubergines reminded her of the chubby arms, legs and tummies of young babies. In the supermarket she couldn’t resist giving the aubergines a playful squeeze. When I started work with babies she would ask often me “How are the aubergines?” It became our secret synonym.

And then a few years ago, while Belinda was pregnant with her daughter Rose, I got a delighted text message letting me know the pregnancy app on her phone had informed that, after 25 weeks, her blueberry had graduated and she was now the proud possessor of a little aubergine of her own.

For more like this, please look out for my book The Laughing Baby. It is being crowdfunded by Unbound Books. So it needs your support to make it a reality. Please pre-order your copy or tell your friends with babies

2020-01-09 13_43_28-(1) The Happy Song. Science Has Designed a Song to Make Your Baby Happy. Make yo

We created a song that makes babies happy

Plenty of research has looked at adults’ emotional responses to music. But research with babies is more piecemeal and eclectic, perhaps reflecting the difficulty of asking them what they like. Researchers know that babies can hear and remember music even while they are still in the womb. And one curious study found that newborn babies prefer Bach to Aerosmith.

Most systematic work has found young babies have clear preferences for consonance over dissonance and can remember the tempo and timbre of music they’ve heard before. Babies prefer the female voice but like it even more when it takes on the qualities of “motherese” (the high-energy singsong tone we all naturally adopt when talking to babies). But their emotional responses to music is a bit more of a mystery. What kind of music makes them calm and content? And what makes them happy?

I am an expert on baby laughter and was intrigued when the C&G baby club approached me and music psychologist Lauren Stewart to create “a song scientifically proven to make babies happy” that they could give away to parents. We thought this was an interesting challenge. However, our first proviso was that they shouldn’t use the word “prove”. Our second was that they had let us do real science. They readily agreed.

The first step was to discover what was already known about the sounds and music that might make babies happy. We had some experience. My previous work on the Baby Laughter project had asked parents about the nursery rhymes and silly sounds that appealed to babies. Lauren’s previous research has looked at “earworms”, songs that get stuck in your head. But we discovered surprisingly little research on babies’ musical preferences. This was encouraging as it meant this was a worthwhile project from a scientific point of view.

The next step was to find the right composer: Grammy-award winner Imogen Heap. Imogen is a highly tech-savvy musician who just happened to have an 18-month-old daughter of her own. She was also intrigued by the challenges of the project. Few musicians had taken on the task of writing real music to excite babies while still appealing to parents. Musician Michael Janisch recorded a whole album of Jazz for Babies, but that was very slow and designed to soothe babies. Most music written specifically for babies sounds frankly deranged.

We met with Heap and gave her a set of recommendations based on what we had discovered from the past research. The song ought to be in an major key with a simple and repetitive main melody with musical devices like drum rolls, key changes and rising pitch glides to provide opportunities for anticipation and surprise. Because babies’ heart rates are much faster than ours so the music ought to be more uptempo than we would expect. And finally, it should have an energetic female vocal, ideally recorded in the presence of an actual baby.

Setting up the experiment

Fortunately Heap had her daughter, Scout, to help her with the composition. Heap created four melodies for us to test in the lab, two fast and two slow ones. For each of these she created a version with and without simple sung lyrics. Some 26 babies between six and 12 months then came to our lab with their mums and a few dads to give us their opinion. Amazingly most of the parents and 20 out of 26 babies seemed to share a clear preference for one particular melody. In line with our predictions this was a faster melody. Even more amazingly, this was the tune that had started out as a little ditty made up by Scout.

We knew which song the mums liked because we could ask them. We also asked the parents to tell us what their babies preferred best, because they are the experts on their own babies. But we also filmed the babies’ responses and coded the videos for laughs, smiles and dancing.

Now that we had a winning melody, Heap needed to turn it into a full-length song and it needed to be funny (to a baby). The secret was to make it silly and make it social. Around 2,500 parents from the C&G baby club and Heapäs fan club voted on silly sounds that made their babies happy. The top ten sounds included “boo!” (66%), raspberries (57%), sneezing (51%), animal sounds (23%) and baby laughter (28%). We also know babies respond better to “plosive” vocal sounds like “pa” and “ba” compared to “sonorant” sounds like “la”. Heap very cleverly worked many of these elements into the song.

Next it needed to be something that parents could enjoy themselves and share with their children. Happiness is a shared emotion and the success of nursery rhymes is that they are interactive. Heap carefully crafted the lyrics to tell a joyous tale of how we love our little babies wherever we are – from the sky to the ocean, on a bike or on a rocket. The transport theme permitted lots of plosives “beep, beep” and bouncing actions.

Our baby music consultants came back to the lab and listened to two slightly different sketches of the full song. This time we found that slightly slower seemed to work better (163 vs 168 beats per minute). Perhaps because it gave parents and babies a little more time to respond to the lyrics. We also found that the chorus was the most effective part of the song and determined which lyrics and sound effects worked better or worse.

After one final round of tweaks from Heap, we went for a different kind of test. We assembled about 20 of the babies in one room and played them the song all together. If you ever met an excited toddler or young baby, you will know that two and a half minutes is a long time to hold the attention of even one child, let alone two dozen. When The Happy Song played we were met by a sea of entranced little faces. This final bit wasn’t the most scientific as tests go but it definitely convinced me that we had a hit on our hands.

Now that we have a song that is both new and highly baby friendly, Lauren and I have a range of follow-up studies planned. We are planning to use the song in a range of experiments looking at how parents introduce their babies to music and hope to look more in depth at babies’ physiological responses to happy music.

This article originally appeared in the Conversation, Feb 2017
https://theconversation.com/we-created-a-song-that-makes-babies-happy-72309

Imogen Heap and Caspar Addyman playing The Happy Song to the babies who helped create it.

Music to make babies laugh

Music to make babies laugh

How two psychologists and an army of babies helped Grammy winner Imogen Heap to write her new happy song for babies.

Being a new parent is an emotional rollercoaster. It is an even wilder ride for a baby. Baby experts often focus on coping with lows. As someone who studies infant psychology I think the highs are no less interesting. So for the last four years I’ve been researching baby laughter. Can I guarantee to make a baby laugh? Well, I’ve been working on it.

I conducted a survey of parents all over the world and have run various studies in the lab. I’ve come to see infant laughter as the flipside to all those tears. Crying and laughter are both social signals that let babies communicate with us. Crying is a signal of frustration and discomfort, laughter signals success and satisfaction. Laughs accompany each tiny triumph and each little “Eureka!”. This makes infant laughter a wonderful window into infant learning. In fact, laughter may be a tool babies use to learn about the social world.

It’s clear that a crying baby needs your help. What is less obvious is that a laughing baby is rewarding your assistance and holding your attention in order to learn from you. The biggest mystery in anyone’s life is other people. This is even more true for babies. They crave quality interactions with adults. Laughter is their secret weapon to get it. This is why laughing babies pull in hundreds of millions of views on YouTube. It also why one of the best ways to make a baby laugh is to take her seriously.

Now, if only more people would take this research seriously I might have funding to do it. Fortunately, last year I started a new job at Goldsmiths, University of London; a place with a reputation for encouraging radical ideas and creative approaches to research. (I always suspect that having blue hair may have helped me get the job.)

Shortly after I arrived I gave a talk to my new department about my research. Straight after the talk Prof. Lauren Stewart came up to me and suggested we collaborate on something. Lauren is a professor of the psychology of music and was interested in how babies respond to music. Music is laden with emotion and so it would be fascinating to learn more about its effect on young babies. I readily agreed but couldn’t find a suitable project.

Then by weird and happy coincidence in April last year C&G baby club called Lauren up saying they wanted help to create ‘a song scientifically proven to make babies happy’. At first we were wary. Brands have a fairly poor track record when it comes to using science. However, I had previously had a very positive experience doing research funded by Pampers. I had seen that baby brands cannot afford to lose their credibility and so have to be assiduous in what they do and what they claim. We met with C&G baby club to discuss their intentions. Our first proviso was that they shouldn’t use the word ‘prove’. Our second was that they had let us do real science. They readily agreed.

Once these ground rules were established the first step was to discover what was already known about the sounds and music that might make babies happy. We had some experience. My previous work on the Baby Laughter project had asked parents about the nursery rhymes and silly sounds that appealed to babies. Lauren’s previous research has looked at ‘earworms’, songs that get stuck in your head. We discovered surprisingly little research on babies’ musical preferences. This was encouraging as it meant this was a worthwhile project from a scientific point of view.

The next step was to find the right composer. With the help of FELT music consultancy, Grammy winner Imogen Heap was recruited as the composer. Imogen is a highly tech-savvy musician who just happened to have an 18 month old daughter of her own. She was intrigued by the challenges of the project. Few musicians had taken on the challenge of writing real music to excite babies while still appealing to parents. Musician Michael Janisch recorded a whole album of Jazz for Babies, but that was very slow and designed to soothe babies. Most music written specifically for babies sounds frankly deranged.

Plenty of research has looked at adults’ emotional response to music (such as the recent brain imaging study of Tinie Tempah). Research with babies is more piecemeal and eclectic, perhaps reflecting the difficulty of asking them what they like. Researchers know that babies can hear and remember music even while they are still in the womb and one curious study from 2000 found that newborn babies prefer Bach to Aerosmith. Most systematic work has been conducted by Laurel Trainor at McMaster University and her colleagues. She has found young babies have clear preferences for consonance over dissonance and can remember the tempo and timbre of music they’ve heard before. Babies prefer the female voice but like it even more when it takes on the high-energy sing-song tone of ‘motherese’. More accurately known as ‘Infant Directed Speech’ as it is a style we all naturally adopt when talking to babies.

We met with Imogen and gave her a set of recommendations based on what we had discovered.The song ought to be in an major key with a simple and repetitive main melody with musical devices like drum rolls, key changes and rising pitch glides to provide opportunities for anticipation and surprise. Because babies’ heart rates are much faster than ours so the music ought to be more up-tempo than we would expect. And finally, it should have an energetic female vocal, ideally recorded in the presence of an actual baby.

Fortunately Imogen had her daughter, Scout, to help her with the composition. Imogen created 4 melodies for us to test in the lab, 2 fast and 2 slow ones. For each of these she created a version with and without simple sung lyrics. Twenty-six babies between 6 and 12 months came to our lab with their mums and dads to give us their opinion on these 8 short pieces of music. Amazingly most of the parents and 20 out of 26 babies seemed to share a clear preference for one particular melody. In line with our predictions this was a faster melody. Even more amazingly, this is was the tune that had started out as a little ditty made up by Scout.

We knew which song the parents liked because we could ask them. We also asked the parents to tell us what their babies preferred best, because they are the experts on their own babies. But we also filmed the babies’ responses and coded the videos for laughs, smiles and dancing. We tried measuring changes in the babies’ heart rates and using a motion capture system to see if they were moving in time with the music. Unfortunately, this hit quite a few technical difficulties and there wasn’t time to solve the problems on our very tight schedule. This was worthwhile as pilot work and will be a really interesting area for future research.

But now we had a winning melody, Imogen needed to turn it into a full length song and it needed to be funny (to a baby). The secret was to make it silly and make it social. Around 2500 parents from the C&G baby club and Imogen’s fan club voted on silly sounds that made their babies happy. The top 10 sounds included “Boo!” (66%), raspberries (57%), sneezing (51%), animal sounds (23%) and baby laughter (28%). We also know babies respond better to plosive vocal sounds like “pa” and “ba” compared to sonorant sounds like “la”. Imogen very cleverly worked many of these elements into the song.

Next it needed to be something that parents could enjoy themselves and share with their children. Happiness is a shared emotion and the success of nursery rhymes is that they are interactive. Imogen carefully crafted the lyrics to tell a joyous tale of how we love our little babies wherever we are — from the sky to the ocean, on a bike or on a rocket. The transport theme permitted lots of plosives “Beep, beep” and bouncing actions.

Our baby music consultants came back to the lab and listened to two slightly different sketches of the full song. This time we found that slightly slower seemed to work better (163 vs 168 beats per minute). Perhaps because it gave parents and babies a little more time to respond to the lyrics. We also found that the chorus was the most effective part of the song and determined which lyrics and sound effects worked better or worse.

Imogen and Caspar premiering the Happy Song to the babies who helped create it.

After one final round of tweaks from Imogen, we went for a different kind of test. We assembled about 20 of the babies in one room and played them the song all together. It was perhaps a silly thing to do but as Imogen and I sat on the sofa in front of a colourful and chaotic room full of parents and babies and pressed play we were cautiously optimistic. If you ever met an excited toddler or young baby, you will know that 2 ½ minutes is a long time to hold the attention of even one child, let alone two dozen. When The Happy Song played we were met by a sea of entranced little faces. This certainly wasn’t very scientific as tests go but it definitely convinced me that we had a hit on our hands. You can hear the song here. Please tweet me (@czzpr) and let us know if it makes your little ones happy too.

Thanks to all the mums, dads and babies who helped with the project. We couldn’t have done it without our small army of tiny music consultants. Nor without my two assistants Omer and Kaveesha who came to us through the excellent Nuffield Brilliant Club which arranges internships for A-level student in real working science labs. It was a frantic summer but we are very happy with the final song. You see a short video about the process here:

Now that we have a song that both novel and highly baby friendly, Lauren and I have a range of follow up studies planned. We are planning to use the song in a range of experiments looking at how mothers introduce their babies to music and hope to look properly at babies physiological responses to happy music. Meanwhile, I am finishing a popular science book called the Laughing Baby. It is all about how to make babies happy and why that is so important. You can preorder your copy here https://unbound.com/books/the-laughing-baby

Caspar Addyman is a Lecturer in Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London. He previously spent 10 years working at Birkbeck Babylab. Caspar is a specialist in baby psychology with a particular interest in positive emotions in infancy. His book The Laughing Baby is published by Unbound in April 2020.