Featured Post from Vanderbilt University

Infant seating devices may reduce language exposure

Mar 15, 2023

3 min

Kathryn L. Humphreys

When a parent needs to cook dinner or take a shower, often they will place their baby in a bouncy seat, swing, exersaucer, or similar seating device intended to protect the baby and grant a degree of independence to both the parent and infant. For many parents, these devices represent a helpful extra set of hands; for babies, the freedom to safely explore their immediate surroundings. As useful as these devices are to both parents and infants, they may present trade-offs regarding their effect on infants’ exposure to adult language, which is critical for language development. That’s according to a new study by researchers at the Stress and Early Adversity Lab at Vanderbilt Peabody College of education and human development.



Within infants’ natural environments and daily routines, the study explored interactions between their exposure to adult language and their placement in seating devices, which support posture and promote the infant’s ability to play with objects or observe their surroundings without direct support from a caregiver. The researchers found that infants were exposed to fewer words when spending time in seating devices compared to when spending time in other placements. They also found that infants who spent the most time in seating devices heard nearly 40 percent fewer daily words compared to infants who spent the least amount of time in seating devices. Infants with more, compared to less, seating device use also had less consistent exposure to adult language throughout the day.


Sixty mothers and their 4- to 6-month-old infants participated in this study. For three days, a Language Environment Analysis audio recording device (i.e. “talk pedometer”) captured language exposure. The mothers inserted the audio recorder into the pocket of a vest their babies wore. Automated software estimated from the recordings the total number of adult words spoken to or near the infant over the course of a day. To record real-time behaviors of infant placement, the mothers responded to 12 brief surveys per day about their infant’s current location and use of seating devices. Caregiver reports of their child’s placement in seating devices accounted for 10 percent of an infant’s daily exposure to adult words, which the researchers say is a striking finding due to the complex nature of language exposure and how many other factors may influence children’s exposure to speech (e.g. caregiver’s talkativeness, presence of other siblings).


Kathryn Humphreys, assistant professor of psychology and human development and expert in infant and early childhood mental health, is the senior author of the study. She notes that infant seating devices can provide a convenient way to keep infants safely contained while caregivers attend to other tasks. However, given the potential for frequent and prolonged use of these devices, she says that parents may want to be intentional about interactive opportunities while the infant explores their surroundings as well as consider wearing or otherwise carrying their infant on their body as much as possible to create more opportunities for engagement through speech.


“While we need more research to be certain that seating devices reduce the richness of infants’ language environments, these findings are influencing my own decisions about intentional placement with my 6-month-old." - Kathryn Humphreys


Kathryn Humphreys


She suggests that safe and convenient places are a boon for both infants and their caregivers, but that there is a risk for reduced levels of interactions when infants are stationary and not moving to where their caregivers are active.


Connect with:
Kathryn L. Humphreys

Kathryn L. Humphreys

Associate Professor of Psychology and Human Development

A clinical psychologist with expertise in infant mental health.

Tender Age Detainment CentersInfants and ToddlersOrphanagesParent Child SeparationsMigrant Youth

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Vanderbilt University

2 min

Slow traffic, fast food: The effects of highway congestion on fast-food consumption

Sitting in your car at 5:15 p.m. on a Tuesday, vehicles line the highway as far as the eye can see. The GPS estimates you still have 30 minutes left in traffic, and a vision of your empty fridge passes through your mind as your stomach grumbles. You are faced with a decision: stop at the grocery store to buy ingredients to make dinner or follow one of the many fast-food beacons illuminated beyond the exit sign. According to new research from Panka Bencsik, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Health, and Society, Vanderbilt University, on days when highways are more congested, particularly during weekday afternoon rush hour, people are more likely to choose the fast-food option. Bencsik worked in collaboration with researchers at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign to analyze the causal effect of time lost on food choice in Los Angeles County. The team analyzed smartphone GPS data from 2017 to 2019 to track foot traffic to restaurants and grocery stores during periods of heavy traffic congestion. “These results are concerning from a public health standpoint,” Bencsik said. “Fast food tends to be higher in fat, sodium, and energy density, and lower in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and nutrients than food consumed at home. The time commuters spend in congested traffic has substantial implications for eating habits and potentially caloric intake.” Prior research estimates that people consume about 134 more calories per meal when they eat elsewhere versus eating at home. Bencsik said looking at that combined with the results of this study, which also suggests a decrease in visiting supermarkets, likely leads to unhealthier eating habits as a result of traffic congestion. Bencsik said the results of the study also do not suggest that people are swapping their planned “take out day” for the day with more traffic, but they are instead choosing to visit fast-food restaurants more in total. “Increased consumption of fast food due to traffic congestion during peak travel times potentially plays a role in the rise in obesity, heart failure, and diabetes among Americans, given that fast food is typically less healthy than other options,” Bencsik said. “Our results suggest that policies aimed at reducing time spent commuting by car could help battle unhealthy eating habits. For example, improving infrastructure to mitigate traffic congestion, or expanding and speeding up public transport, could reduce fast-food dependency. Increasing work-from-home opportunities and reducing the number of days workers go into work could also have a meaningful impact.” The full paper, "Slow traffic, fast food: The effects of time lost on food store choice," is published in the Journal of Urban Economics.

2 min

Vanderbilt debate director and rhetoric expert on Harris-Trump debate expectations and tips

John Koch, senior lecturer and director of debate at Vanderbilt University, is available for commentary on the Harris-Trump presidential debate. A recognized scholar on presidential communication and rhetoric, John uses a wide range of methods to understand and explain political and policy debates. His research is guided by the question of how we can improve citizenship practices and debates within our political culture. His most recent co-authored scholarly article explored the history of presidential debates and how we can improve them. He has served as chair of the National Communication Association’s Argumentation and Forensics Division and the Committee on International Discussion and Debate. His research has appeared in Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, the National Forensic Journal, Studies in Debate and Oratory and various book chapters on presidential rhetoric. Currently, he serves as the Director of Debate of Vanderbilt’s internationally renowned and award-winning debate program. Topics he can speak to include: What arguments to expect from the candidates What each candidate needs to do and not do in the debate How to determine who wins a debate What to watch for/what issues might come up in the debate History of presidential debates The usefulness of presidential debates and how we might improve them How adults can discuss politics and debates with their children by watching debates together After debate analysis of who may have won and what issues/moments may be salient to voters The debate styles of the candidates and their histories in debates Differences in debate style we can expect between Trump and Harris Differences in how Trump may approach the debate with Harris vs. how he approached Biden

5 min

While Marijuana Will Soon be Rescheduled, the Federal Government’s Drug Scheduling System Remains Tyrannical

Earlier this year, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) announced that it would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), greatly reducing the restrictions on the drug. It represents a historic change in federal marijuana policy and a watershed moment for generations of activists that have sought legalization on a national level. While many advocates believe the shift bodes well for efforts to relax controls on other Schedule I drugs—including promising psychedelics like psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD– Vanderbilt Law professor Robert Mikos argues that the marijuana rescheduling decision will not pave the way for rescheduling any other drug. Mikos explains that the decision preserves the barriers that make it virtually impossible to remove drugs from Schedule I. He labels those barriers the “tyrannies of scheduling.” In his paper “Marijuana and the Tyrannies of Scheduling,” forthcoming in Fordham Law Review, Mikos lays out the core challenges posed by the existing scheduling process and offers a solution that would lead to “more rational scheduling decisions that better reflect the benefits and dangers of controlled substances, as Congress intended.” The Role of Currently Accepted Medical Use in Scheduling Decisions The CSA creates five Schedules (I-V). Scheduling dictates how a drug is regulated under the statute. Schedule I drugs are subject to the most restrictive controls, and those controls are steadily relaxed as one moves down the schedules. Congress made all the initial scheduling decisions when it passed the CSA in 1970, but it also empowered the DEA, working in conjunction with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to reschedule drugs based on new information acquired after the passage of the statute. Agency scheduling decisions are supposed to be based on three core characteristics of a drug: its abuse potential, its dependence liability, and whether it has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU). Unfortunately, these characteristics do not always suggest the same schedule for a drug. But as Mikos explains, the DEA has grossly simplified the scheduling process by suggesting that CAMU determinations should trump all other considerations. In particular, the agency has insisted that a drug with no CAMU must be placed on Schedule I, regardless of its abuse potential or dependence liability. According to Mikos, the DEA’s simplification of the scheduling process places tremendous weight on agency CAMU determinations and how the agency chooses to define this particular scheduling criteria. The Tyranny of Science In the past, the DEA insisted that the only way to demonstrate that a drug has a CAMU was by completing multiple controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating that a drug is effective at treating some medical indication, the same requirement for new drug approval under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. As Mikos has noted in his past work, completing such trials is “notoriously expensive and time-consuming,” requiring strict parameters and a large number of participants. The challenge is even more daunting for drugs already on Schedule I, because the CSA restricts research on such drugs. Due to regulatory restrictions, marijuana advocates have struggled to complete even a single RCT demonstrating marijuana’s medical efficacy. Indeed, in the past 50 years, only one Schedule I drug (Epidiolex) has ever been able to satisfy the DEA’s CAMU test, leading Mikos to label the agency’s science-focused approach the “Tyranny of Science.” The Tyranny of the Majority In 2023, however, HHS devised an alternative CAMU test that emphasizes practical experience over scientific research. “Because more than 30,000 health care practitioners (HCPs) had already recommended the drug to their patients in the thirty-eight states with medical marijuana laws,” Mikos explains, “the agency concluded there was enough clinical experience to demonstrate that marijuana has a CAMU and thus could be rescheduled.” But while this alternative test does not require completing RCTs – and thereby eliminates the Tyranny of Science – Mikos demonstrates that it is no less tyrannical than the DEA’s original CAMU test. According to Mikos, the alternative CAMU test simply “imposes a different form of tyranny: the Tyranny of the Majority.” He explains that to accumulate the clinical experience needed to satisfy the new test, advocates must convince popular majorities in a substantial number of states to legalize medical use of a drug. It took decades to build the public support necessary to do that for marijuana, and Mikos points out that no other Schedule I drug currently commands the same level of public support as marijuana. “Despite growing interest in the therapeutic value of [psychedelics, . . . less than a quarter of all Americans support legalizing psychedelics like psilocybin,” Mikos writes. “By comparison, 90% of Americans support legalizing medical marijuana.” What is more, even if large numbers of states were to legalize medical use of a substance like psilocybin or MDMA, advocates will also have to convince large numbers of patients, their health care practitioners (HCPs), and their suppliers to risk federal sanctions in order to accumulate the clinical experience HHS demands to satisfy the new CAMU test. “While marijuana was finally able to run the gauntlet, no other Schedule I is likely to replicate that feat anytime soon. Other promising Schedule I drugs like psilocybin, MDMA, and LSD are likely to remain trapped on that schedule for the foreseeable future,” the paper states. A New Way Forward Mikos argues that the agencies did not need to create a new CAMU test to reschedule marijuana. He suggests that the DEA has placed too much emphasis on CAMU in scheduling decisions. The DEA “has no authority, and no good reason, to hold (or place) a drug on Schedule I solely because the drug lacks a currently accepted medical use.” Indeed, Mikos suggests the agency’s emphasis on CAMU runs contrary to the text of the CSA and provides insufficient information about a drug’s benefits and risks to make sensible scheduling decisions. Rather than propose yet another, less tyrannical CAMU test, Mikos suggests that the DEA should instead take a more flexible approach to scheduling, one that considers all 3 criteria – a drug’s abuse potential, its dependence liability, and whether or not it has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU)—to determine where a drug belongs among the statute’s five schedules. “Although my approach would not make it any easier to demonstrate CAMU, it would reduce the dominant influence CAMU determinations now wield over scheduling decisions,” Mikos concludes. It would enable the agency to remove drugs like marijuana, psilocybin, or MDMA from Schedule I, even if they lack a currently accepted medical use, if their abuse potential and dependence liability so warrant. “As a result,” he notes, “my approach would foster more rational administrative scheduling decisions going forward.”

View all posts
Powered by