Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 424– 433

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Infant Behavior and Development

Newborn preference for a new face vs. a previously seencommunicative or motionless face

Marco Cecchini, Eleonora Baroni, Cinzia Di Vito, Federica Piccolo, Carlo Lai ∗

University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology, Via degli Apuli 1, 00185, Rome, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 18 September 2009Received in revised form 1 April 2010Accepted 1 April 2011

Keywords:NewbornsCommunicationFace recognitionTheory of mind

a b s t r a c t

Newborn infants prefer to look at a new face compared to a known face (still-face). Thiseffect does not happen with the mother-face. The newborns could be attracted by themother-face because, unlike the still-face, it confirms an expectation of communication.

Fifty newborns were video-recorded. Sixteen of them were recruited in the final sample:nine were exposed to a communicative face and seven to a still-face. All the 16 newbornswere successively exposed to two preference-tasks where a new face was compared withthe known face.

Only newborns previously exposed to a still-face preferred to look at a new face insteadof the known face. The results suggest that the newborns are able to build a dynamicrepresentation of faces.

© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In the last two decades, many studies have investigated on cognitive and social competences of newborn infants (Farroni,Mansfield, Lai, & Johnson, 2003). Some studies showed the communicative competencies of newborns as their ability toimitate facial gestures like “tongue protrusion” or “mouth opening” (Meltzoff, 1999; Meltzoff & Moore, 1977). From a neuro-biological point of view a study on four-month old infants showed that the cerebral areas activated during communicativeface to face interactions are the same as in adults (temporal and prefrontal areas) (Grossmann, Johnson, Farroni, & Csibra,2008).

The preferential looking paradigm (Bushnell, 2001; Horowitz, Paden, & Self, 1972; Morton & Johnson, 1991; Pascalis, deSchonen, & Morton, 1995) highlighted that newborns prefer to look at a human face-like stimulus compared to any other nohuman face-like stimulus (Morton & Johnson, 1991). Moreover, it is clearly demonstrated that newborns prefer to look at anew face compared to a face presented during a habituation paradigm (Bushnell, 2001; Horowitz et al., 1972; Pascalis et al.,1995). Some authors (Horowitz et al., 1972) interpreted this result as affirming that newborns have an innate motivation tolook at new faces (novelty effect) when these faces are compared to faces previously seen from the habituation procedure.This hypothesis assumes that the newborns are able to build a perceptive representation of the face that they looked at andthat their preference for the new face is an expression of a motivation for novelty (Horowitz et al., 1972).

Subsequent studies demonstrated that this effect is absent when the known face is the mother’s face which is looked atmore when it is compared to a new face (Bushnell, 2001; Pascalis & de Schonen, 1994; Pascalis et al., 1995). It is unclearwhy newborns have this preference for the mother’s face, which shows a familiarity effect that overrides the novelty effect

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 06 49917556; fax: +39 06 49917910.E-mail address: carlo.lai@uniroma1.it (C. Lai).

0163-6383/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2011.04.002

M. Cecchini et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 424– 433 425

(Scott & Nelson, 2004). Some authors (Pascalis et al., 1995) hypothesized an “operating conditioning” according to whichthe mother’s face is preferred because it gives positive reinforcements.

The novelty effect and the familiarity effect alone are insufficient to explain the two demonstrated preferences of new-borns to look at new faces and to look at the mother’s face. It is interesting that when newborns were engaged in thehabituation paradigm with the mother’s face, in a successive preference task they preferred the new face (Pascalis et al.,1995; Scott & Nelson, 2004).

Alternatively, it could be hypothesized that few communicative interactions with the mother in the first hours of life couldmotivate newborns to look more at the mother’s face instead of a new one. This interpretation implicates that newborns areable to build a dynamic social representation of the face that they were looking at in a communicative context. This dynamicsocial representation generates a communicative expectation (Meltzoff, 1999) which could orient the preference to look ator to avoid the known face. Therefore the preference for the new face after the habituation paradigm could be not only anexpression of a motivation for novelty but also an avoidance for the known face during a still face condition.

Recent studies demonstrated that three-month old infants (Bertin & Striano, 2006) and also newborns (Nagy, 2008)decreased the time spent looking at a face when it became a freeze face (still-face situation). This is true even for themother’s face (Yato et al., 2008).

It is possible that newborns are likely attracted by their mother’s face (Bushnell, Sai, & Mullin, 1989; Field, Cohen, Garcia,& Greenberg, 1984; Sai, 2005; Walton, Bower, & Bower, 1992) because, unlike the still face, the mother’s face confirmsan expectation of communication. This hypothesis has important implications in understanding social competencies ofnewborns: whether they are only able to build a perceptive representation of faces or whether they can also build a dynamicsocial representation of the interaction with them. In the latter they could use the representation of the interaction with theknown faces in order to orient their behaviour during successive interactions.

The aim of this study was to test if newborns prefer to look at a previously known communicative face compared to anew face, cancelling the “novelty effect”, as has been found with the mother’s face. Moreover, another aim of this study isto investigate newborns’ strategies of gazing at a previously known communicative face compared to a previously knownstill-face.

2. Material and methods

With the approval of the Local Ethical Committee and written consent of their parents, 16 healthy full-term newborns(weight: 2.7–3.8 kg; apgar index: first min. 6–10, fifth min. 8–10; age: mean: 33.6 H ± 12.7 Min: 18 Max: 58) were recruitedin the final sample. The study was carried out at the maternity ward of the Sapienza University Hospital in Rome (Italy).Newborns crying or fussing (about 10%) during a 3-min audio–video recorded baseline were excluded from participation inthe study. Fifty newborns were audio–video recorded. From this initial sample, data from 34 newborns was excluded dueto the following reasons: 10 newborns due to insufficient eye opening necessary to codify gazing at faces; six newbornsbecause of investigator error and 18 newborns for side bias in their looking (11 newborns spent less than 5 s viewing theleast preferred side over the two trials) and facing behaviours (7 newborns did not change their facing orientation over thetwo preference trials).

All 16 newborns were lying supine in their cradles in a quiet room (Fig. 1) where all the experimental sessions wererecorded using an audio–video apparatus (Fig. 1). During a 3-min baseline registration all 16 newborns were in an alert stateand neither fussing or crying. At the end of the baseline period, the newborns were randomly assigned to two groups.

The experimental procedures for the two groups were as follows:Group 1 (7 newborns):

Baseline (3 min);Presentation of a motionless face (still-face) for 8 min (Figs. 1 and 2);Two-minute waiting for preparation of the preference task apparatus;Preference Task 1st Trial (Fig. 4): the previous still-face (Known Face) was presented with a New Face (Field et al.,1984; Horowitz et al., 1972; Pascalis & de Schonen, 1994; Sai, 2005; Walton et al., 1992).Preference Task 1st Trial began with the newborn’s fixation of either face and terminated after 20 seconds offixation to either or both faces (Known and New Face) – 20 s looking duration criteria –.Preference Task 2nd Trial (Fig. 4): after the first trial, the newborns were picked up from the apparatus and thetwo faces changed side to counteract the influence of side bias. The 2nd trial ended following the same 20 slooking duration criteria as the 1st Trial.

Group 2 (9 newborns):Baseline (3 min);Presentation of a communicative face, which brought to the newborn a series of tactile visual and vocal signalexchanges (imitative communication) (8 min) (Figs. 1 and 3);Preference Task 1st Trial (Fig. 4): the previous communicative face (Known Face) was presented with a New Face(Field et al., 1984; Horowitz et al., 1972; Pascalis & de Schonen, 1994; Sai, 2005; Walton et al., 1992). ThePreference Task of the 1st and the 2nd Trial followed the same procedure of the Group 1.

The independent variables were the presence/absence of communication during the face presentation (still-face vs.communicative face) and the two different face stimuli (known face vs. new face) during the two Preference Tasks (1st and2nd Trials).

In Group 2 in order to perform a series of tactile visual and vocal signal exchanges (imitative communication), an inves-tigator stood in front of the cradle 20 cm away from the newborn face and presented the index finger of the right hand to

426 M. Cecchini et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 424– 433

Fig. 1. Experimental apparatus during the presentation of the motionless (Group 1) or of the communicative (Group 2) face.

the newborn in order for the finger to be grasped by the newborn. The experimental procedure for the investigator was asfollows:

- light movements of the finger as an immediate response to the spontaneous pressure variations of the newborn’s palmholding it.

- a visual signal (a tongue protrusion or a mouth opening) only after obtaining a spontaneous tongue protrusion or aspontaneous mouth opening of the newborn.

Fig. 2. Presentation of the motionless face in Group 1.

M. Cecchini et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 424– 433 427

Fig. 3. Presentation of the communicative face in Group 2.

- a vocal signal, as “aaa”, in two situations: after obtaining a spontaneous vocalization from the newborn; and after 20 s ofsilence and immobility of the newborn.

The 8-min of communicative face presentation was necessary to promote a sufficient number of imitative exchangesbetween the newborn and the investigator in Group 2.

During the preference task (Fig. 4) the faces of two voluntary female strangers were presented to a large white screen(2 × 2.5 m) in which two openings were cut out at head height (30 × 25 cm), one each side of mid-line and separated by12 cm. The distance between the face of the newborn and the strangers’ faces was 20 cm. These conditions allowed a good

Fig. 4. Preference task apparatus.

428 M. Cecchini et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 424– 433

view of the air and face of the stimuli from the point of view of the newborn, who remained in the cradle. In order to preventany contamination of the data due to differences in the clothes of the stimulus faces, they each wore a white gown. Thevisible background was the same for both stimulus faces.

The face stimuli were real tri-dimensional woman’s faces (22 cm × 15 cm) with brown hair and broadly comparable.The same female face performed the still face (Group 1) and the communicative face (Group 2) presentations (Figs. 2 and 3).During the preference task the right and left order was balanced for the two faces (Known and New).The dependent variables during the communicative face presentation were the number of occurrences of vocalization

and movements of the mouth (tongue protrusions or mouth openings) for each newborn. The occurrences of vocalizationand movements of the mouth of each newborn were codified as response to an imitative exchange when they were producedafter (time interval ≤ 10′′) a vocal or visual (a tongue protrusion or a mouth opening) signal of the investigator.

The dependent variables during the preference tasks were, the total duration and the mean duration of the occurrencesfor looking (time spent in gazing at each face) and facing (time spent in directing newborn’s face to each face) behaviour foreach newborn.

The audio–video recorded looking and facing behaviour was coded through Noldus Observer system (5.0 Version, 2005).An independent observer coded the newborn’s facing and gazing behaviour. Inter-raters reliability on a sample of three

newborns was Pearson r: 0.82 and Cohen k: 0.79 for looking behaviour and Pearson r: 0.96 for facing behaviour.

2.1. Statistical analysis

Total and mean duration of the occurrences (Mdo) for looking behaviour were analysed in order to test the hypotheses.ANOVA (Fisher F-test) analyses were performed in order to compare Group 1 vs. Group 2 (Communicative and Still/Faceconditions) on the dependent variables using repeated measures analyses when the comparison was within the Group 1 orGroup 2. Where it was necessary single sample t tests and Pearson r were performed. p < 0.05 was considered statisticallysignificant. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistica Version 6.1 software (StatSoft, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA, 1997).All the reported time values are in seconds: mean ± standard deviation.

3. Results

Table 1 shows there were no significant differences between the two groups in the duration of the 1st Trial in order toachieve 20 s of looking criteria (54.4 ± 32.9 vs. 54.8 ± 44.0; p = ns). During the face presentation the duration of time spentwith eyes open (Group 1: 121.7 ± 107.7 vs. Group 2: 128.2 ± 102.8; p = ns) was similar between the two groups. Duringthe Preference Task – 1st Trial – in Group 1, the newborns preferred to look at the new face compared to the known face(15.3 ± 5.7 vs. 4.7 ± 5.7; p < 0.05); in Group 2, the newborns did not show a preference for either of the faces (10.9 ± 5.6 vs.9.1 ± 5.6; p = ns). The between groups comparisons showed that the newborns of Group 1, compared to Group 2, looked lessat the known face (4.7 ± 5.7 vs. 10.9 ± 5.6; p < 0.05) and more at the new face (15.3 ± 5.7 vs. 9.1 ± 5.6; p < 0.05). Moreover, thenew face was looked at with longer looking occurrences from the newborns of Group 1 compared to the newborns of Group2 (2.6 ± 1.9 vs. 1.1 ± 0.6; p < 0.05). The opposite was found for the Known Face condition where the newborns of Group 1had shorter looking occurrences compared to the newborns of Group 2 although this result was not statistically significant(0.9 ± 0.8 vs. 2.4 ± 2.9; p = ns).

In order to control a possible effect of eyes blinking on the results of looking occurrences, the analyses were repeatedon looking behaviour with the data from eyes blinking occurrences removed. This analysis showed the same significantdifferences found on the data with eyes blinking occurrences.

During the Preference Task – 1st Trial – for 5 of the 7 newborns of Group 1, the first looking occurrence at the known facewas very short (0.4 ± 0.3) and it was followed by at least three long looking occurrences (3.2 ± 4.2) at the new face.

During the presentation of the face the time of newborn facing towards the stimulus (Group 1: 311.0 ± 142.9 vs. Group2: 267.0 ± 96.2; p = ns) was similar between the two groups (Table 2). Regarding the facing behaviour as well as the lookingtotal duration, Table 2 shows that the newborns of the Group 1 preferred (but in a non significant way) to turn their facetowards the new face rather than towards the known face (13.6 ± 5.9 vs. 6.4 ± 5.9; p = ns), the newborns of Group 2 did notshow this preference (9.2 ± 8.1 vs. 10.8 ± 8.1; p = ns).

During the Preference Task – 2nd Trial – (Tables 1 and 2) there were no significant differences within and between Group1 and Group 2 for looking behaviour (Group 1: known face 10.5 ± 3.3; new face 9.5 ± 3.3 Group 2: known face 9.3 ± 6.1; newface 10.7 ± 6.1; p = ns) and for facing behaviour (Group 1: known face 9.6 ± 8.0; new face 10.4 ± 8.0 Group 2: known face5.9 ± 8.1; new face 14.1 ± 8.1; p = ns).

Correlation analysis between newborns’ behaviour during the communicative face presentation and the lookingbehaviour during the Preference Task – 1st Trial – was performed on the sample of the 9 newborns from Group 2 (Table 3).Only the number of the occurrences of mouth movements (tongue protrusions and mouth openings) produced by the new-borns during imitative exchanges with the investigator was positively correlated with the preference for the known face(Pearson r: 0.57; p = 0.1).

M.

Cecchini et

al. /

Infant Behavior

& D

evelopment

34 (2011) 424– 433429

Table 1Mean ± standard deviation of open eyes duration during the face presentation (480′′) and mean ± standard deviation of duration for achieving 20′′ looking criteria, total looking duration, mean duration of thelooking occurrences (M.d.o.) during the preference task for the known face and for the new face. Group 1 vs. Group 2 (still face/communicative face). First and second trial data.

Face presentation480′′

Preference Task1st Trial

Preference Task2nd Trial

Open eyes durationduring the facepresentation

Duration for 20′′

criteriaKnown face New face Single sample

t-test on totalduration[Fisher F-teston M.d.o.]

Duration for20′′ criteria

Known face New face Single samplet-test on totalduration[Fisher F-teston M.d.o.]

Total duration[M.d.o.]

Total duration[M.d.o.]

Total duration[M.d.o.]

Total duration[M.d.o.]

Group 1–n:7- 128.2 ± 106.7 (27%) 54.4 ± 32.9 4.7 ± 5.7[0.9 ± 0.8]

15.3 ± 5.7[2.6 ± 1.9]

t(6): 2.5*[F(1,6): 3.7NS]

69.3 ± 32.2 10.5 ± 3.3[1.4 ± 0.8]

9.5 ± 3.3[1.5 ± 0.7]

t(6): 0.4NS

[F(1,6): 0.1NS]Group 2–n:9- 121.7 ± 102.8 (25%) 54.8 ± 44.0 10.9 ± 5.6

[2.4 ± 2.9]9.1 ± 5.6[1.1 ± 0.6]

t(8): 0.5NS

[F(1,8): 1.3NS]85.3 ± 54.5 9.3 ± 6.1

[1.5 ± 1.1]10.7 ± 6.1[1.4 ± 0.8]

t(8): 0.3NS

[F(1,8): 0.0NS]

Fisher F-test F(1,14): 0.0NS F(1,14): 0.0NS F(1,14): 4.8*[F(1,14): 1.9NS]

F(1,14): 4.8*[F(1,14): 4.8*]

F(1,14): 0.5NS F(1,14): 0.2NS

[F(1,14):0.1NS]F(1,14): 0.2NS

[F(1,14):0.0NS]

NSp = non significant.*p < 0.05

430M

. Cecchini

et al.

/ Infant

Behavior &

Developm

ent 34 (2011) 424– 433

Table 2Mean ± standard deviation of “facing behaviour” duration during the face presentation (480′′) and mean ± standard deviation of duration for achieving 20′′ facing criteria, total duration of facing during thepreference task for the known face and for the new face. Group 1 vs. group 2 (still face/communicative face). First and second trial data.

Face presentation 480′′ Preference Task 1st Trial Preference Task 2nd Trial

Facing behaviourduration during theface presentation

Duration for20′′ criteria

Known face New face Single samplet-test on totalduration

Duration for20′′ criteria

Known face New face Single samplet-test on totalduration

Group 1–n:7- 311.0 ± 142.9 (65%) 26.0 ± 5.2 6.4 ± 5.9 13.6 ± 5.9 T(6): 1.6NS 25.4 ± 3.5 9.6 ± 8.0 10.4 ± 8.0 t(6): 0.1NS

Group 2–n:9- 267.0 ± 96.2 (56%) 26.2 ± 9.0 10.8 ± 8.1 9.2 ± 8.1 T(8): 0.3NS 29.2 ± 11.2 5.9 ± 8.1 14.1 ± 8.1 t(8): 1.5NS

Fisher F-test F(1,14): 0.5NS F(1,14): 0.0NS F(1,14): 1.4NS F(1,14): 1.4NS F(1,14): 0.7NS F(1,14): 0.8NS F(1,14): 0.8NS

NSp = non significant.*p < 0.05

M. Cecchini et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 424– 433 431

Table 3Group 2 (9 newborns). Correlations (Pearson r) between newborn behaviours during the communicative face presentation and the time spent looking atthe known face during the Preference Task 1st Trial.

Newborn behaviours during the communicative face presentation

Duration openeyes

Imitatedvocalizations

Imitatedmovements ofmouth

Absolutevocalizations

Absolutemovements ofmouth

Duration of total time spentlooking at the known face duringthe Preference Task 1st Trial

0.41 (p = ns) −0.01 (p = ns) 0.57 (p = 0.1) −0.39 (p = ns) 0.48 (p = ns)

4. Discussion

The most important finding in this study was that the newborns preferred to look at a new face rather than a knownface only when the known face was previously seen in a motionless condition (still face situation). In fact, if the known facecommunicated through vocal and visual imitative interactions for few minutes before, the preference for the new face wasabolished.

This data agrees with recent findings that point out the reduction in newborns’ looking at a motionless face (Nagy, 2008).This finding suggests that the newborns actively avoid looking at immobile faces.

Many studies that have investigated face preferential looking (Horowitz et al., 1972; Kelly et al., 2007; Sangrigoli& de Shonen, 2004) have performed a habituation paradigm (where the infant is placed in front of an immobile faceuntil the newborn has finished looking at the face). In the present study the newborns lost the preference for thenew face when the known face was previously communicative despite being placed in front of it for 8 min. This sur-prising result seems to suggest that infant newborns do not habituate to a known face when the face was previouslycommunicative. From this it can be hypothesised that the mechanism for newborn preference of a new face is not nec-essarily due to habituation of a known face, but rather the avoidance of previously immobile and non communicativefaces.

Moreover the results of this study suggest that during different communicative interactions the newborns are able to builddynamic representations which influence their successive behaviours. They also could develop communicative expectationsthat orient their behaviour in the successive interactions (Cecchini, Lai, & Langher, 2008).

The alternative hypotheses that the newborns were simply more activated by the movements of the communicative faceis not supported as the duration of time with open eyes as well as the time of facing towards the stimulus during the facepresentation in the two groups was equal or similar.

In contrast to the hypothesis, the newborns did not prefer to look at a known communicative face compared to a newface. It is possible that eight minutes of communicative interaction with a face is too short a time to establish a preferencefor looking at it.

The type, and not only the duration, of the communicative interaction probably plays an important role. In this study theincrease of the visual-imitative interactions (mouth openings and tongue protrusions) during the communication of eightminutes with the face was correlated, even if in a non significant way, with the preference to look at it. It suggests that thecontingence between the behaviour of the face with the behaviour of the newborn during the reciprocal interactions as wellas imitative interactions, is an important variable that influences the preference to look at it.

Unlike the visual-imitative interactions, the vocal-imitative interactions with the face were not related to the preferenceto look at it successively. This data is in conflict with the important role of the vocalizations in face to face interactionsduring early infancy (Hsu, Fogel, & Messinger, 2001; Sai, 2005). It could be due to the fact that the vocalizations used by theinvestigator during the face presentation were too simple and ecologically different from the spontaneous vocalizations ofthe mothers observed in other studies (Sai, 2005).

Five newborns of Group 1 showed a very short (0.4 ± 0.3) first looking occurrence at the known face. It was followed by atleast three long (3.2 ± 4.2) successive looking occurrences at the new face, suggesting the presence of memorization of theknown face and the ability to recognize it and to avoid it. This finding highlights that the newborns recognize very quicklya face known eight minutes before, confirming other results on adults (Seeck et al., 1997).

During the 2nd trial the newborns of Group 1 did not have a specific preference for the new face. This means that theduration of the 1st trial (about 1 min: 54.4 ± 32.9) is sufficient to memorize the new face and so become known.

For many years studies have focused on the issue of novelty preference (Horowitz et al., 1972) and other studies onfamiliar preference (Bushnell et al., 1989; Field et al., 1984; Sai, 2005; Walton et al., 1992) assuming two different innatemotivations of newborns: to prefer new faces (Horowitz et al., 1972) and to prefer the mother’s face (Sai, 2005). Our findingssuggest that the variable “precedent communication with the face” should be considered in order to understand the relationbetween the newborn’s familiar vs. novelty preference.

It could be interesting to test which aspect of the communicative interaction with a face is able to predict the successivepreference to look at it compared to a new face. It is probable that the duration of the interaction, the involved sensorial chan-nels (vocal visual or tactile), the contingency of the communicative signals with the newborn’s behaviour, as demonstrated

432 M. Cecchini et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 424– 433

for older infants (Masur & Olson, 2008; Murray & Trevarthen, 1985, 1986; Stormark & Braarud, 2004), have an importantrole.

Finally, it would be important to test the neural correlate (Grossmann et al., 2008) of the looking occurrences at theknown and at the new faces in order to support or disconfirm the hypothesis that the same behaviours could have differentmeanings.

5. Conclusion

During a preference task between a known and a new face, the newborns preferred to look at the new face only when theother face was known in an immobility condition. In this study a face of an adult who produced movements and vocalizationsduring an 8 min time interval is not less attractive to newborns than a new face (First Trial). The more the newborns hadvisual–imitative interactions with the known face, the more they preferred to look at it when compared with the new face,using different looking strategies. The findings of this study suggest that newborns prefer to look at a communicative faceand that they actively avoid the face previously known in an immobility condition.

It is probable that the cause of the attraction is not the face movements and vocalizations per se, neither the inducedincrease in the newborn’s arousal, but the contingency of those movements and vocalizations with the movements andvocalizations of the newborns. The correlation between the newborns’ imitations of mouth movements and the newborns’face preference, although not significant (p = 0.1), is pointing to this interpretation.

These findings suggest that, during the interactions with a specific human face, the newborns are able to build a dynamicrepresentation with communicative expectations that orient their looking behaviour to this face.

It could be interesting to investigate the qualitative aspects of the communication that orient the newborns’ preferencefor the known face as in the case of the mother face. A probable important variable is the contingency between the adult’s andthe newborn’s behaviour. Finally it will be important to investigate the neural correlate of the newborn’s looking behaviourduring face to face interaction (Grossmann et al., 2008).

Acknowledgements

The Authors wish to thank the parents of the newborns who participated at this study, the Neonatology Division ofUmberto I Policlinic – University of Rome “La Sapienza” and Michela Lenti and Chiara Terenzi for the very laborious datacollection.

This research was aided by a University of Rome “Sapienza” grant to Marco Cecchini.

References

Bertin, E., & Striano, T. (2006). The still-face response in newborn, 1.5-, and 3-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 29, 294–297.Bushnell, I. W. R. (2001). Mother’s face recognition in newborn infants: Learning and memory. Infant and Child Development, 10, 67–74.Bushnell, I. W. R., Sai, F., & Mullin, J. T. (1989). Neonatal recognition of the mother’s face. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 7, 3–15.Cecchini, M., Lai, C., & Langher, V. (2008). Communication and crying in newborns. Infant Behavior and Development, 30, 655–665.Farroni, T., Mansfield, E., Lai, C., & Johnson, M. H. (2003). Perceiving and acting on the eyes: Tests of an evolutionary hypothesis. International Journal of

Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 199–212.Field, T. M., Cohen, D., Garcia, R., & Greenberg, R. (1984). Mother-stranger face discrimination by the newborn. Infant Behavior and Development, 7,

19–25.Grossmann, T., Johnson, M. H., Farroni, T., & Csibra, G. (2008). Social perception in the infant brain: Gamma oscillatory activity in response to eye gaze.

Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2, 284–291.Horowitz, F. D., Paden, L., Bhana, K., & Self, P. (1972). An infant control procedure for studying infant visual fixations. Developmental Psychology, 7, 90.Hsu, H. C., Fogel, A., & Messinger, D. S. (2001). Infant non-distress vocalization during mother-infant face-to-face interaction: Factors associated with

quantitative and qualitative differences. Infant Behavior and Development, 24, 107–128.Kelly, D. J., Quinn, P. C., Slater, A. M., Lee, K., Ge, L., & Pascalis, O. (2007). The other-race effect develops during infancy: Evidence of perceptual narrowing.

Psychological Science, 18, 1084–1089.Masur, E. F., & Olson, J. (2008). Mothers’ and infants’ responses to their partners’ spontaneous action and vocal/verbal imitation. Infant Behavior and

Development, 31, 704–715.Meltzoff, A. N. (1999). Origins of theory of mind, cognition and communication. Journal of Communication Disorders, 32, 251–269.Meltzoff, A. N, & Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198, 75–78.Morton, J., & Johnson, M. H. (1991). CONSPEC and CONLERN: A two-process theory of infant face recognition. Psychological Review, 98,

164–181.Murray, L., & Trevarthen, C. (1985). Emotional regulation of interaction between two-months-old and their mothers. In M. Field, & N. A. Fox (Eds.), Social

perception in infancy (pp. 177–198). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Murray, L., & Trevarthen, C. (1986). The infant’s role in mother–infant communications. Journal of Child Language, 13, 15–29.Nagy, E. (2008). Innate intersubjectivity: Newborns’ sensitivity to communication disturbance. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1779–1784.Pascalis, O., & de Schonen, S. (1994). Recognition memory in 3- to 4-day-old human neonates. NeuroReport, 14, 1721–1724.Pascalis, O., de Schonen, S., & Morton, J. (1995). Mother’s face recognition by neonates: A replication and an extension. Infant Behavior and Development, 18,

79–85.Sai, F. Z. (2005). The role of the mother’s voice in developing mother’s face preference: Evidence for intermodal perception at birth. Infant and Child

Development, 14, 29–50.Sangrigoli, S., & de Shonen, S. (2004). Recognition of own-race and other-race faces by three-month-old infants. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,

45, 1219–1227.Scott, L.S., & Nelson, C.A. (2004). The developmental neurobiology of face perception. In J. M. Oldman & M. B. Riba (Series Eds.), Review of psychiatry series

(Vol. 23). American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.

M. Cecchini et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 34 (2011) 424– 433 433

Seeck, M., Michel, C. M., Mainwaring, N., Cosgrove, R., Blume, H., Ives, J., et al. (1997). Evidence for rapid face recognition from human scalp and intracranialelectrodes. NeuroReport, 8, 2749–2754.

Stormark, K. M., & Braarud, H. C. (2004). Infants’ sensitivity to social contingency: A “double video” study of face-to-face communication between 2- and4-month-olds and their mothers. Infant Behavior and Development, 27, 195–203.

Walton, G. E., Bower, N. J. A., & Bower, T. G. R. (1992). Recognition of familiar faces by newborns. Infant Behavior and Development, 15, 265–269.Yato, Y., Kawai, M., Negayama, K., Sogon, S., Tomiwa, K., & Yamamoto, H. (2008). Infant responses to maternal still-face at 4 and 9 months. Infant Behavior

and Development, 31, 570–577.