Baby or bebe? You might be able to tell by the way he cries

They may not be old enough to talk, but babies less than a week old know how cry in their native language.

Researchers have known that infants have the ability to mimic speech starting at around 12 weeks of age. They also show a preference for spoken language that mirrors the rhythm, melody and intensity patterns of their mother tongue.

But when they’re too young to control their vocal cords or the muscles that shape the mouth to make specific sounds, how can babies demonstrate that they’re tuned into the chatter around them? Through their cries, suggests a team of European scientists.

The researchers recorded the cries uttered by 30 French and 30 German newborns when they were hungry, having their diapers changed, or generally out of sorts. Though the babies were only 2 to 5 days old, they already cried in distinct patterns.

The wails of the French babies started out low and rose to a higher pitch, while those of their German counterparts started out high and fell to a lower pitch. The German babies also cried with more intensity than the French babies, the researchers found. These patterns matched the intonation patterns of spoken French (in which the pitch tends to rise over the course of several words) and German (in which the opposite occurs).

The scientists said babies start to pick up on the melody of ambient language during their third trimester in the womb. They can’t hear all the phonetic details of their mothers’ speech, but they can perceive the overall patterns or phrases and sentences. Imitating those patterns probably helps newborns endear themselves to their mothers, the researchers theorized.

The results were published online today by the journal Current Biology.

-- Karen Kaplan

Photo: Turns out the language of baby cries is not universal. Credit: Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times

Sleep may enhance those mad skills

Sleep is essential for memory, including learning motor skills after practicing them. But sleep--and when that sleep takes place--may also enhance memory of motor skills that are learned just through observation, according to a new study. The findings could have implications for children, athletes, and those who have to relearn basic skills after suffering an injury or stroke.

Researchers showed a video of a hand performing parallel finger tapping tests to 64 people. The study participants were later asked to perform the same sequence of the task or a different one. Participants who slept within 12 hours of the observation improved the speed and accuracy of their finger tapping skills. No improvements were noted if the participants slept more than 12 hours after the initial observation. And, practicing the movements wasn't required to improve skills.

In the study, the authors wrote, "These results could have implications for (re)learning movements in cases where practice is difficult or impossible, as in children, during rehabilitation following stroke or fractures, or in complex skill acquisition in, for example, sports or surgical techniques. An important recommendation in such circumstances would be to perform the observation just before sleep onset."

The study was published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

-- Jeannine Stein

Photo credit: Beatrice de Gea / Los Angeles Times

OMG! Texting may not make teens bad spellers!

U R prolly not going to believe this, but chatspeak doesn't turn kids into bad spellers.

Srsly.

A new study found that regularly using chatspeak -- the official term is simple messaging service -- doesn't automatically make teens bad spellers. This is a major concern among some parents who think that frequent texting will transform their children into abbreviating, acronyming, emoticoning adults who think "what" is really spelled "wat."

Chatspeak was analyzed from about 40 students ages 12 to 17. The teens were also asked to take a standard spelling test. The Canadian researchers discovered the young people used an enormous range of types of new language, and that girls outranked boys in use of new language.

But they didn't find much evidence that using abbreviated words, shortcuts, word combinations, letters and numbers or even phonetic spellings was connected with bad spelling. Overall, general spelling ability was linked with making spelling errors, not with using new language in instant messaging. The researchers did discover that boys who were poorer spellers tended to use more new language and more abbreviations.

In a news release, lead author Connie Varnhagen, a psychology professor at the University of Alberta in Canada, said: "Kids who are good spellers [academically] are good spellers in instant messaging. And kids who are poor spellers in English class are poor spellers in instant messaging."

The study was recently published in the journal Reading and Writing.

-Jeannine Stein

Photo credit: Matt Sayles / Associated Press

Spanking toddlers: Poverty, punishment and preparation for life?

There's no topic more incendiary than spanking. Add to that the spanking of very young children by  mothers in minority, low-income households and you have a minefield.

A group of Duke University researchers has not only ventured into that minefield; it has also set off a few bombs in the process. Published in this month's issue of the journal Child Development, their study of 2,573 toddlers enrolled in Head Start found that for poor children, early and frequent spanking -- by the age of 1 -- is not only very common, but it also makes their behavior at age 2 more aggressive and by age 3 appears to have slowed their socio-emotional development.

They also found that a low-income mother is most likely to start spanking a very fussy, irritable baby by the age of 1, and more likely still if the mother is depressed. Boys were spanked and yelled at more often than girls, and the poorer the family the greater the likelihood the kids would be physically and verbally punished at an early age.

The collective results suggest that the causes and effects of spanking are tightly bound together, making it difficult to tease out the influence of poverty, genetics, gender differences and cultural expectations when discussing the controversial practice.

The American Academy of Pediatrics in 1998 issued a recommendation that parents find means to correct children's behavior other than corporal punishment. A large body of evidence suggests the practice is seldom effective and may have negative effects. But some in the African American community have defended the practice, citing research showing that while spanking may make white children more aggressive, the practice makes African American children less so.

How common is it for low-income mothers to have spanked their children by the age of 1? One in three mothers told researchers that they or someone in their household had spanked their 1-year-old in the preceding week, on average doling out 2 1/2 spankings per week. By the time their children were 2 and 3, 49% of the moms in the study said they had spanked the child in the last week -- on average between 2 1/2 and three times.

Verbal punishment was less frequent than spanking: 17% of the mothers surveyed said they had yelled at a 1-year-old; 24% yelled at their 2-year-old, and 16% at their 3-year-old.

After stripping out the influence of income, African American children at all three ages were most likely to be spanked and to be verbally punished; low-income white mothers and Mexican American mothers who were more Americanized were about equally likely to spank their young children, and generally about equally likely to yell at the toddlers. Recently arrived Mexican American moms were least likely to spank a toddler, and less likely to verbally punish a 2-year-old than were other low-income moms.

The study's findings generally "paint a picture of spanking and verbal punishments as products of parental challenges (e.g., the many difficulties associated with being a young parent and/or living in poverty), and may also reflect a goal of preparing a child for a life characterized by these and other challenges," the authors write.

-- Melissa Healy

Too much confidence equals lower reading scores for teens

Having loads of self-confidence is a good thing, right?

Maybe not when it comes to reading skills. In a new study, researchers discovered that teenage students who were overconfident had lower reading comprehension than students who were under-confident. They analyzed reading tests and questionnaire replies of 158,848 15-year-olds in 34 countries.

In all countries, students who were overconfident were more apt to test below their country's average on reading scores. Conversely, those who were under-confident were more likely to score above the country's average.

Though instilling children with self-confidence has been a societal goal for some years, it seems there can be too much of a good thing. In this instance, the study's lead author believes that teens who are too self-assured might not be able to correctly determine their reading level.

In a news release, Ming Ming Chiu, a professor in the department of learning and instruction in the University at Buffalo's Graduate School of Education, said, "If an overconfident student chooses a book that is too hard -- such as 'The Lord of the Rings' rather than 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone,' he or she might stop reading after a few pages and let it sit on a bookshelf. In contrast, a more self-aware student is more likely to finish an easier book and continue reading more books." In the study, the authors wrote, "Chronic doubts about abilities may be a sign of academic difficulties, but chronic overconfidence may also mask real academic difficulties, and students appear to perform best in all settings when displaying modest levels of [self-concept]."

The study appears in the July issue of the journal Learning and Individual Differences.

-- Jeannine Stein

Photo credit: Jessica Hill / AP

If you value verbal skills in children, please talk while the TV is on

Watching TV is a lot harder than it used to be. For parents, anyway. Now, not only should they avoid using the television as a babysitter, distraction or even sanity-saving break, they apparently also need to keep up a running commentary (or pseudo-dialogue) on what the little ones are watching. 

Researchers had already established that time spent watching TV or videos is linked to delayed language development in children ages 8 months to 16 months. (Here's the synopsis of that study.) What they didn't know was exactly why.

So in a new study published this week in Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, researchers at the University of Washington and Seattle Children's Reseach Institute measured everything heard by, or uttered by, 329 children ages 2 months to 48 months. They did this by attaching digital recorders to the kids' clothing on various days throughout a two-year period.

Each hour of TV the children heard was linked to a 7% decrease in words that adults spoke to them. It was also connected to a decrease in the number of words (or utterances, really — these are very small kids) from the children themselves. (Here's the synopsis of the new study.)

The report concludes: "Having a television on within earshot of young children diminishes their exposure to adult words, their own vocalizations, and the conversational turns in which they engage."

This doesn't mean TV is bad, mind you. And the researchers point out that, unsurprisingly, many parents interact less with their children when the television is on. One of the things they seem to be taking issue with is the notion that some of the shows the kids are watching promise to encourage parent-child interaction — and that such interaction appears limited.

They add: "Given the critical role that adult caregivers play in children's linguistic development, whether they talk to their child while the screen is on may be critical and explain the effects that are attributed to content or even amount of television watched.

In short, it's OK to talk while watching TV.

— Tami Dennis

Photo: Playing with your baby is good; shushing her and yourself while watching "Sesame Street" ... not so good.

Credit: Beatrice de Gea / Los Angeles Times

Brain drugs won't go away, so best give them some thought

If pills can make us better mentally -- and it seems clear they can -- it's time to answer the question of whether we should let them. 

For some people, the question is already moot. In the April 27 issue of the New Yorker, writer Margaret Talbot explores the issue of brain medications in "Brain Gain: The underground world of 'neuroenhancing' drugs."

She writes: "In recent years Adderall and Ritalin, another stimulant, have been adopted as cognitive enhancers: drugs that high-functioning, overcommitted people take to become higher-functioning and more overcommitted."

She tells her story in some part through a recent Harvard graduate named Alex. He makes a compelling case for what can be accomplished with a little help.

Some neuroscientists and ethicists have already answered the bigger question among themselves. Says a recent blog post from Times staff writer Melissa Healy: "Pop a smart pill? Why not, says a group of neuroethicists"

-- Tami Dennis

Photo: Ritalin -- the little helper for people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and overworked, over-stressed students -- is going mainstream.

Credit: Keith Beaty/Toronto Star/ZUMA Press

Mentally challenging job may keep brain sharper for longer

Is your job a brain-buster? Here's something to think about: Having an intellectually challenging job may help stave off cognitive decline in old age.

In a study of 1,036 male twins, using data that went back to the early 1940s, researchers at Duke University Medical Center found that the more mentally challenging one's job, the better memory and other cognitive abilities held up after retirement, regardless of one's intelligence or years of education.

Further, the benefits of hard pondering at work were greatest among people who scored lower on IQ tests as children, while physically demanding jobs were associated with a decline in intellectual abilities in later life.

"Although the intellectual and physical demands of an individual's job are not the largest factors influencing cognitive performance as we age," says lead author Guy Potter, assistant professor of psychiatry at Duke, "this study illustrates how a number of smaller influences like these can accumulate over the life span to have a positive or negative effect on brain health in later life." The study appears in the May issue of the journal Neurology. Here's a link to the study's abstract (viewing the full study requires a subscription).

--Janet Cromley

Photo: Mark Boster / Los Angeles Times