This article was downloaded by: [marco dondi]On: 15 August 2012, At: 00:08Publisher: Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK
Laterality: Asymmetries of Body,
Brain and CognitionPublication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/plat20
Is startle a lateralised response
in early infancy?Laura Franchin
a , Sergio Agnoli
a & Marco Dondi
a
a Dipartimento di Scienze Umane and Neuroscience
Centre, University of Ferrara and National Institute of
Neuroscience, Ferrara, Italy
Version of record first published: 01 Aug 2012
To cite this article: Laura Franchin, Sergio Agnoli & Marco Dondi (2012): Is startle
a lateralised response in early infancy?, Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and
Cognition, DOI:10.1080/1357650X.2012.704038
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2012.704038
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
Is startle a lateralised response in early infancy?
Laura Franchin, Sergio Agnoli, and Marco Dondi
Dipartimento di Scienze Umane and Neuroscience Centre, University
of Ferrara and National Institute of Neuroscience, Ferrara, Italy
The aim of the study was to explore whether the acoustic startle response shows
signs of early lateralisation. Using non-invasive startle measurements (Automated
Infant Motor Movement Startle Seat and Facial Action Coding System), an analysis
of response latencies and intensities on the right and left body sides was performed,
investigating the presence of asymmetries on the whole-body startle and on the
facial component of the startle motor pattern in a group of 5-month-old infants.
The findings suggest that the infant whole-body startle is a lateralised response,
characterised by a right bias latency. This lateralisation could reflect an underlying
lateralised organisation of the infant startle neural circuitry. On the other hand, the
analysis of the facial component of the startle motor pattern did not reveal any
significant asymmetry. The discrepancy found in the whole-body response and in
the startle facial component will be discussed, reflecting on the limits of the adopted
methodologies. The use of a high-speed camcorder might allow future research to
analyse more in depth the startle fast face responses.
Keywords:Whole-body startle; Automated Infant Motor Movement Startle Seat;
AIMMSS; Facial Action Coding System; FACS; Baby FACS; Asymmetries;
Infancy.
The startle reflex is generally considered to be a primitive and stereotyped
defensive reflex that is elicited by a sudden and unexpected stimulus. It
Address correspondence to: Marco Dondi, Dipartimento di Scienze Umane, University of
Ferrara, via Savonarola 38, 44100 Ferrara, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]
The authors wish to thank the children and parents who participated in this research and the
DPSS (Dipartimento di Psicologia dello Sviluppo e della Socialiszazione) of the University of
Padova for their invaluable contributions, support, and cooperation in this project. Special thanks
and gratitude is also given to Professor Francesca Simion, to Dr Piero Scatturin, for his technical
support in the apparatus development, and to the late and much missed Professor Alberto
Mazzocco, who first trusted and had faith in this project. Additional thanks to Laura Carver for
thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. At present Laura Franchin works at
Dipartimento di Psicologia dello Sviluppo e della Socialiszazione, University of Padova; while
Sergio Agnoli works at Marconi Institute for Creativity, MIC, University of Bologna.
LATERALITY, 2012, iFirst, 1�16
# 2012 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
http://www.psypress.com/laterality http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2012.704038
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
consists of a generalised flexion motor response that extends from the face
through the trunk and the knees (as a ‘‘cascade reaction’’; Lang, 1995). The
motor component of this reflex includes eye closure (better known as
eyeblink reflex), facial grimacing, neck flexion, arm and leg abduction or
flexion (Hunt, Clarke, & Hunt, 1936; Landis & Hunt, 1939). These motor
reactions, usually elicited by an acoustic stimulation (somatosensory and
visual modalities are less utilised), are typically supposed to be bilateral and
symmetrically distributed (Brown et al., 1991; Grosse & Brown, 2003;
Hillman, Hsiao-Wecksler, & Rosengren, 2005).
In recent years neuroanatomical research examined the lateralisation of
the neural correlates of the acoustic startle reflex, elucidating its circuitry
(Buchanan, Tranel, & Adolphs, 2004; Davis, Gendelman, Tischler, &
Gendelman, 1982; Kettle, Andrewes, & Allen, 2006; Koch & Schnitzler,
1997; Yeomans & Frankland, 1995). The startle neural circuit consists of an
ipsilateral pathway: the auditory nerve fibres, which receive the acoustic
startle probe, project ipsilaterally onto cochlear root neurons, whose thick
axon collaterals project contralaterally, crossing the brainstem and termina-
ting in the Nucleus reticularis pontis caudalis (NRPC) with outputs to the
descending reticulo-spinal tract to the spinal cord (Buchanan et al., 2004;
Davis et al., 1982; Davis, Walker, & Lee, 1999; Kettle et al., 2006). On the
other hand, focusing on the study of the possible lateralisation of the motor
responses that characterised the startle pattern, only a few studies are pre-
sently available on normal side-to-side differences of the motor startle
reflex following binaural stimulation in healthy adult participants (see
Hackley & Graham, 1987; Hillman et al., 2005; Kofler, Muller, Rinnerthaler-
Weichbold, & Valls-Sole, 2008). In 2005 Hillman and colleagues, using a
platform which provides information on the movement of the centre of foot
pressure (COP) in the anterior�posterior and medial�lateral directions,
showed that the startle postural reaction in adults is characterised by an
initial anterior movement, followed by a posterior one, and by no differences
in the medial-lateral directions. Unlike Hillman et al. (2005), a study by
Kofler et al. (2008) showed that the startle reflex is not completely
symmetrical. The aim of Kofler et al.’s work was to examine the normal
side-to-side differences of the startle reflex in bilaterally recorded muscles
(Masseter, Orbicularis oculi, Sternocleidomastoid, and Biceps brachii)
following binaural stimulation in healthy right- and left-handed adults.
The authors provided evidence of a laterality in the Sternocleidomastoid and
Biceps brachii muscles, associated with the hand dominance, and a right
Orbicularis oculi bias, irrespective of the participants’ handedness. The
authors explained these results suggesting that these asymmetries subserve
the functional role of facilitating the rotation of the head towards the
dominant side via the contralateral Sternocleidomastoid reaction, and of
facilitating the defensive response inducing more flexion movement in the
2 FRANCHIN, AGNOLI, DONDI
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
dominant arm with the ipsilateral Biceps brachii reaction. Relative to the
Orbicularis oculi asymmetry, they assumed that it may be in part related to a
differential hemispheric modulation of brainstem reflexes. However, the
facial asymmetry found in the adults’ Orbicularis oculi muscle by Kofler is
not a consistent finding between studies. The right bias was reported also by
Kettle et al. (2006), Hackley and Graham (1987), and Hager & Ekman
(1985), but it was not confirmed in the researches by Bradley, Cuthbert, and
Lang (1991, 1996).
The discrepancy between the results of Kofler et al. (2008) and Hillman
et al. (2005) on the lateralisation of the whole body startle response probably
arises from the different methodologies (COP vs EMG) used to study the
whole-body response. Moreover, Kofler et al. examined only the activity of
some single muscles involved in the motor response, while Hillman et al.
considered the global motor response, where probably the contribution of
the leg muscles (adults standing on the COP) diminished the contribution
of the lateralised muscles activities of the upper limb, highlighting only a
significant anterior movement at the beginning of the startle reaction.
Despite the importance of the startle reflex in psychophysiological
research, the neurophysiological functioning of the startle motor response
in the first months of life is yet an unexplored area. This lack is surprising,
because the startle response is considered a central psychophysiological
index to study the development of affective and attentive processes in the
first months of life (see Anthony & Graham, 1983, 1985; Balaban, 1995;
Balaban, Anthony, & Graham, 1989; Quevedo, Smith, Donzella, Schunk,
& Gunnar, 2010; Richards, 1998, 2000). Moreover, startle is already a
fundamental neurological index at birth and even at the prenatal stage to
detect the correct functioning of the neural pathways involved in this reflex
and, more in general, to assess the neurological conditions of the infant or
foetus (Divon et al., 1985; Emory & Mapp, 1988; Korner, 1969; Kuhlman,
Burns, Depp, & Sabbagha, 1988). In fact, the most important neurobeha-
vioural scales in the neonatal clinical assessment (see Amiel-Tison, 1995,
2002; Brazelton, 1973; Prechtl & Beintema, 1964; Scanlon, Nelson, Grylack
& Smith, 1979) suggest assessment of the intensity, velocity, and symmetry of
the response or, more generally, detecting the deficit (hypo-startle) or the
excessive presence (hyper-startle) of the spontaneous or elicited response
(Divon et al., 1985; Emory & Mapp, 1988; Kuhlman et al., 1988).
For the first months of life there is a considerable body of evidence of
postural and other motor biases in neonatal reflexes, such as palmar grasp
reflex, automatic walking reflex, and Babinski reflex. In most infants these
reflexes show a rightward bias in strength, coordination, and frequency
(Caplan & Kinsbourne, 1976; Grattan, De Vos, Levy, & McClintock, 1992;
Peters & Petrie, 1979). In particular, Ronnqvist and co-workers (Ronnqvist,
1995; Ronnqvist & Hopkins, 1998; Ronnqvist, Hopkins, Van Emmerik, &
EARLY LATERALISATION OF STARTLE RESPONSE? 3
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
de Groot, 1998) found that the Moro reflex in newborns displayed shorter
onset latency in the right arm than the left one. To date no studies have
attempted to verify the presence of any startle bias in early infancy. Usually
researchers and clinicians assume that it is a bilateral and symmetrically
distributed motor reaction (Brown et al., 1991; Grosse & Brown, 2003;
Hillman et al., 2005). Considering the importance of deepening knowledge
of the neurophysiological functioning of the startle motor response in early
infancy in order to better investigate the normal functioning of a widely
utilised reflex in both the clinical and neuropsychological fields, the aim of
the present study was to examine the characteristics of the infant’s startle
response, verifying whether or not this response is a symmetrical reaction
during infancy. The present work investigated the infant startle lateralisation
by analysing, in particular, the asymmetries of the whole-body startle and of
the facial component of the startle motor pattern in a group of 5-month-old
infants.
The methodologies adopted in this study are based on a completely non-
invasive and non-intrusive measurement of the infants’ startle response,
allowing an analysis of the whole-body startle and of its facial component,
separately, on the two sides of the infant’s body. Using AIMMSS (Automated
Infant Motor Movement Startle Seat), a computerised instrument for non-
invasive startle measuring (Agnoli, Franchin, & Dondi, 2011), a recording of
the intensity and latency of the whole-body motor response was realised on
the right and left body sides. This new instrument consists of an infant seat
suitable for infants of about 5 months old. Since its correct functioning was
previously tested with 5-month-olds, we chose to test a sample of infants of
the same age. Using FACS (Facial Action Coding System; Ekman, Friesen,
& Hager, 2002), particularly the version readapted to the infant’s face, the
Baby FACS (Oster, 2009), an analysis of the latency and intensity of the
muscular contractions involved on the right and left facial actions was
conducted.
METHOD
Participants
Sixteen 5-month-old infants (five girls) were involved in the study (M�19.2
weeks of age, SD�0.8). All the infants were healthy and born at full term
with birth weights appropriate for their gestational ages. They were recruited
by letters sent to parents identified through birth records. A total of 28
parents were contacted, and 16 participated in the study. All were Caucasian,
with an age range between 22 and 38 years (M�31.12 years, SD�4.32).
Written informed consent was obtained from the infants’ parents.
4 FRANCHIN, AGNOLI, DONDI
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
Startle data acquisition and measurement
Whole-body startle. The Automated Infant Motor Movement Startle Seat
(AIMMSS) is a new non-invasive instrument developed by the research
group (Agnoli et al., 2011) to perform a registration of the infant whole-
body reactions to startling stimuli. In particular in this study it was
employed to detect and analyse whole-body startle asymmetries. Startle
motor responses were measured by extensimetric sensors (strain gauges)
glued onto four stainless steel cantilevers mechanically coupled to an infant
seat and electrically connected to a dedicated preamplifier. The mechanical
deformations of the four cantilevers, resulting from a whole-body startle
response, produced a voltage signal that was integrated by the amplifier to
produce an output signal proportional to the change of strain applied by the
child’s movement on the infant seat.
Time series from the left and right channels were acquired with a Labview
DAQ card and a customised Labview program (National Instruments Corp,
Austin, TX), and were stored on a laptop for off-line analysis. In the same
Labview graphic programming environment the onset latency and amplitude
of the left and right AIMMSS signals were calculated. Onset latency was
defined as the time between the probe stimulus onset and the time at which
the startle response began. Startle amplitude was defined by the maximum
voltage generated within 600 ms of the stimulus onset (see also Hillman
et al., 2005; Hillman, Rosengren, & Smith, 2004; Winslow, Parr, & Davis,
2002).
Facial component of the startle motor pattern. The Facial Action Coding
System (FACS; Ekman et al., 2002) and Baby FACS (Oster, 2009), a version
of FACS applicable to infants and neonates, were used to assess the latency
and intensity of facial muscular activity involved in the startle response,
separately on the right and left sides of the face. FACS coding consists in
decomposing a facial movement into the particular Action Units (AUs) that
produced it, either singly or in combination with other units (Ekman,
Friesen, & Simons, 1985). Specifically, micromeasurement was made for each
AU that appeared in the face as consequence of acoustic stimulation. Two
trained FACS coders (the primary coder was a certified FACS coder; the
second coder, although not certified, was trained to code the action units
described below in the text, for reliability purposes) independently watched
the videos in slow motion and, where necessary, frame by frame. As in
Ekman et al. (1985) and Hager and Ekman (1985), the two coders analysed
the onset and intensity of the actions involved in the facial component of the
startle response: Brow Lowerer (AU4), Cheek Raiser (AU6), Lid Tightner
(AU7), and Blink-Optional (AU45). Moreover, according to Baby FACS
EARLY LATERALISATION OF STARTLE RESPONSE? 5
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
guidelines, Brow Knitting (AU3) was analysed.1 The Action Units 20 (Lip
Stretcher) and 21 (Neck Tightener), identified by Ekman et al. (1985) as
actions involved in the facial component of the startle response, were not
analysed because (in line with Oster, 2009) these two Action Units are
difficult to code on an infant’s face. In fact the typical infant body shape,
with a shorter and more thickly padded neck compared with that of adults,
makes the observation of the Lip Stretcher and Neck Tightener difficult
(Oster, 2009). This issue was also confirmed in a previous work on 5-month-
old infants (see Agnoli et al., 2011). Following Ekman et al.’s (1985) scoring
procedure, any of these actions (AU3; AU4; AU6; AU7; AU45) that began in
the first 200 ms after the acoustic startle probe were scored, since this
interval includes the beginning of actions that comprise a characteristic
startle response (see Hager & Ekman, 1985). Because the film had been
exposed at 25 frames per second, specifying the number of frames would
provide data in 40-ms units.
Startle AUs onset and intensity coding was conducted separately for each
side of the face, using custom software (Adobe Premiere Pro). The survey of
the AUs characteristics was independently conducted on each side of the
face, temporarily obscuring the side not submitted to analysis (Hager
& Ekman, 1985). Video-recordings were viewed extensively in slow, frame
by frame and real-time motion to distinguish the AUs onset and intensity.
To find the onset time of each AU, coders proceeded until the movement
peaked or was clearly visible. They then moved the recording backward until
the movement stopped and noted the onset time. They confirmed or adjusted
the onset time by moving the recording forward and backward across the
estimated onset point. After each AU onset identification, the two coders
calculated the AU onset latency on both sides of the face by counting the
number of frames elapsing between the acoustic stimulation and the
muscular contraction onset.
In addition the coders recorded, separately for the two sides of the face,
when each AU reached maximum muscular contraction (apex). The coders
rated the AUs’ apex intensity from ‘‘A’’ to ‘‘E’’ level, following FACS and
Baby FACS guidelines: A level refers to a trace of the action, B to slight
evidence, C to a marked or pronounced action, D to a severe or extreme
action, and E to the maximum evidence. However, for every AU the criteria
for each intensity level in terms of the scale of evidence are described in the
FACS coding manual.
1Baby FACS (Oster, 2009) distinguishes between Corrugator supercilii action, coded as AU3
(knitting of the brow due to medial contraction), and Procerus action, coded as AU4 (knotting of
the brow due to lowering of glabella). The adult FACS (Ekman et al., 2002) does not separately
code knitting but includes it in AU4 (Oster, 2005).
6 FRANCHIN, AGNOLI, DONDI
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
The extent of intercoder agreement was evaluated through three indexes:
(a) identification of each AU, (b) location of movement beginning, and (c)
judgement of the intensity of the actions for each side of the face. Intercoder
reliability (Cohen’s Kappa) based on about 80% of all probes (N�96) was
high for the identification of AUs (k�.83) on the left and right side of the
face, and it ranged from .68 to .90 for the location of movement onset. In
accordance with Ekman et al. (1985) we calculated intercoder agreement on
intensity ratings separately for each of the AUs codified on the two sides of
the face that were shown by half or more of the participants (.57Bk�.79).
In cases of important discrepancies in codes, coders reviewed and assigned
scores by consensus. A blink was considered invalid if the probe occurred in
the midst of a naturally occurring blink.
Stimuli
The acoustic startle probe was a 50-ms burst of white noise (20 Hz � 20 kHz)
presented at an intensity of 95 dB, with instantaneous rise/fall time. It was
generated by a custom white noise generator and presented binaurally
through two speakers at about 50 cm from the infant’s left and right ear,
respectively.
Procedure
Parents were asked to bring their infants to the laboratory about an hour
before an anticipated feeding so the infants could be tested when awake, but
not hungry. Before starting the session experimenters explained the
procedure to the parents. The infant was seated on the infant seat
(AIMMSS) and the parent was seated at the side where she/he was
encouraged to interact freely with her/his child. The parents’ position was
randomised across infants. Experimenters and equipment were separated
from parents and infants by room dividers that totally isolated the dyad
during the experimental trials. During the experimental session two digital
camcorders on tripods recorded the infant’s face and whole body, respec-
tively. The first camera was used for collecting data for facial coding. The
other camera was used for reviewing offline each experimental trial and for
controlling signal artefacts possibly caused by the infant’s (or by the
parent’s) motor activity not related to the acoustic probes. The height of
the tripods and the angle of the cameras were adjusted to obtain a level,
straight-on view of the child’s face and body.
Six acoustic probes were presented with an inter-trial interval of at least
10 seconds. The startle probes were presented without notice by one of the
experimenters when the spontaneous motor activity of the infant was
reduced to a minimum, the infant’s body weight was centrally distributed on
EARLY LATERALISATION OF STARTLE RESPONSE? 7
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
the infant seat, and the head was in the centre between the two speakers. The
other experimenter sat silently behind the cameras to ensure a correct video-
recording. The stimulus presentation was marked by a red LED (with a
blinking duration of 50 ms), placed on the top of the infant seat and visible
in shot of the cameras, to facilitate the identification of the stimuli onset in
the video coding.
RESULTS
A total of 96 probe presentations (6 probes per 16 infants) were considered
for data analysis. For the whole-body startle analysis, 37 events (38.5% of the
all probes) produced analysable startle signals. In the remaining probes, even
when using a frame-by-frame video analysis, infants did not exhibit any
whole-body motor response. Infants were included in the statistical analysis
only if they exhibited at least one whole-body startle. For the analysis of the
facial component of the startle motor pattern a valid video data recording
was obtained for 90.6% (n�87) of the probes. Nine un-analysable probes
(9.4%) were excluded from analysis because there was not a straight-on shot
of infant’s face (n�5), or the probe occurred in the midst of a naturally
occurring blink (n�1) or when the Action Units considered in the present
study were already activated (n�3). Within the analysable probes (n�87),
65 events (74.7%) produced at least one analysable Action Unit activity,
while 22 events (25.3%) did not present any Action Unit linked to the startle
responses.
The dependent variables considered for statistical analyses were: whole-
body startle onset latency and amplitude derived from AIMMSS left and
right channels registration, and AUs onset latency and intensity derived from
FACS coding on the right and left sides of the face. Mean values for each
infant (n�16) were analysed. In addition, the data were also analysed using
a probe-by-probe analysis of all analysable events (n�37 for the whole-body
startle; n�65 for the startle facial component). In order to analyse infants’
startle asymmetries, data derived from left and right body sides were
compared. Finally, we analysed whether startle habituated to the acoustic
stimulation and whether the habituation affected the response lateralisation.
Statistical significance levels used a criterion of pB.05.
Whole-body startle
Comparing the mean latencies derived from the right and left AIMMSS
channels, the analysis revealed a significant difference, t(15)��2.42,
p�.029, d��0.31, 95% CI (�26.71, �1.69). The startle response latency
recorded by the right channel (M�145.47; SD�45.48) was significantly
shorter than the latency recorded on the left channel (M�159.67;
8 FRANCHIN, AGNOLI, DONDI
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
SD�44.51), as Figure 1(a) shows. Also the probe-by-probe analysis
confirmed this significant trend, t(36)��2.51, p�.017, d��0.26, 95%
CI (�32.94, �3.52). Regarding the analysis of the amplitudes derived from
the right and left channels, the response intensity recorded on the two body
sides (right: M�0.053; SD�0.049; left: M�0.044; SD�0.038) showed no
significant differences in both analyses (Figure 1b).
In order to explore the startle response habituation we split the six probes
into two blocks, including the first three probes of each infant in the first
Figure 1. Startle parameters (Panel a: onset latency; Panel b: amplitude) registered by the left and
right AIMMSS channels. (a) Mean onset latencies (n�16), expressed in milliseconds. (b) Mean
amplitudes (n�16), expressed in Volt. Error bars represent standard deviations.
EARLY LATERALISATION OF STARTLE RESPONSE? 9
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
block and the latter three (probes 4, 5, 6) in the second block. The
habituation effects on startle latency and amplitude asymmetry was explored
through a repeated-measure ANOVAwith Laterality (2 levels: right; left) and
Block (2 levels: first; second) as within-participant factors.
For the latency parameter the results showed a Laterality effect,
F(1, 13)�4.871, p�.046, hp2�.273, that confirmed the asymmetry in startle
latency already described above, with a shorter latency on the right side.
No effect of Block, F(1, 13)�1.436, p�.252, hp2�.099, and no interaction
between Laterality and Block, F(1, 13)�.508, p�.489, hp2�.038, emerged.
For the amplitude parameter the results showed only a Block effect,
F(1, 13)�9.161, p�.010, hp2�.413, that highlighted a stronger amplitude in
the first block. No effect of Laterality, F(1, 13)�1.466, p�.247, hp2�.101,
and no interaction between Laterality and Block, F(1, 13)�4.112, p�.064,
hp2�.240, emerged.
Facial component of the startle motor pattern
Mean values and standard deviations of the right and left startle AUs latency
and intensity coded using Baby FACS are reported in Table 1. Only Action
Units 7 and 45 were detected in the entire sample; AU 6 was detected in the
majority of the babies’ faces, while Action Units 3 and 4 were detected in
about half of the sample (see Table 1). The analyses performed on the AUs
latencies and intensities of the facial component for each Action Unit failed
to reveal any significant difference between the two sides of the face.
DISCUSSION
The aim of the present study was to determine whether the acoustic startle in
5-month-old infants is a symmetric or lateralised motor reflex. The findings
suggest that the whole-body startle resulting from binaural stimulation is
lateralised towards the right side. A whole-body lateralisation emerged from
the analysis of the startle asymmetries, based on the AIMMSS. The data
revealed a difference in the onset latencies between the right and left body
sides. In particular, the startle latency recorded on the right AIMMSS
channel was significantly shorter than the latency recorded on the left
AIMMSS channel. However, in the analysis of the amplitudes registered on
the two body sides, no significant difference was found. The analysis of the
facial component of the startle motor pattern, performed using the Baby
FACS coding system (Oster, 2009), also showed no significant difference in
the Action Units latencies and intensities computed on the two face sides. In
addition an habituation effect in startle amplitude (a reduction in amplitude
across probes) was found. This result is not surprising, considering that
the whole-body startle response is usually characterised by a rapid
10 FRANCHIN, AGNOLI, DONDI
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
habituation (Cassella & Davis, 1986; Hillman et al., 2005; Winslow et al.,
2002). However, the statistical analyses showed that this habituation did not
affect the lateralisation of the response, neither in the amplitude nor in the
latency parameter.
These findings are consistent with the studies on infancy that analysed the
lateralisation of other reflex motor activities. The lateralisation of the startle
latency, that is the shorter latency recorded on the right body side, suggests
that the 5-month-old infants’ startle motor response is characterised by a
right bias latency, as Ronnqvist and co-workers (Ronnqvist, 1995; Ronnqvist
& Hopkins, 1998; Ronnqvist et al., 1998) found in the abduction/extension
movements of the Moro reflex in healthy full-term newborns. However, the
lack of significant results regarding the intensity parameter of the whole-
body response is in line with the research on infants of Ronnqvist and
colleagues and with the research on adults’ startle of Hillman et al. (2005).
On the other hand, the absence of significant data in the analysis of the facial
component of the startle motor pattern in our study is not comparable with
any other infants’ research. The only data present in the literature on
eyeblink lateralisation regards a stronger right bias found in the adults’
Orbicularis oculi muscle detected with the FACS system by Hager and
Ekman (1985), and with the EMG by Kettle et al. (2006), Kofler et al.
(2008), and Hackley and Graham (1987), even if it has not been confirmed
by Bradley et al. (1991, 1996). Probably the Orbicularis oculi bias found in
the majority of studies on the lateralisation of adults’ startle motor pattern
could be not yet completely developed in 5-month-old infants. Alternatively
we could hypothesise that the lack of significant facial asymmetries could
arise from the infants’ face morphological characteristics, and in particular
from the subcutaneous fat that reduces or eliminates fine lines and wrinkles
TABLE 1
Mean (SD) latency and intensity of startle Action Units coded using Baby FACS
AU3 AU4 AU6 AU7 AU45
n Right Left n Right Left n Right Left n Right Left n Right Left
Latency 8 132 132 7 139 139 10 63 63 16 83 82 16 67 70
(47) (47) (20) (20) (22) (22) (22) (21) (14) (14)
Intensity 8 1.56 1.56 7 1.80 1.80 10 2.53 2.53 16 2.53 2.53 16 3.80 3.80
(0.42) (0.42) (0.58) (0.58) (0.84) (0.84) (0.74) (0.78) (0.54) (0.55)
Action Units (AUs) parameters derived from the Baby FACS codings on the left and right side
of the face. n indicates the number of infants who exhibited at least once the AU indicated in each
column. AUs latency is expressed in milliseconds. FACS intensity alphabetic values were
transposed in numeric values that ranged from 1 (trace of the action) to 5 (maximum evidence).
EARLY LATERALISATION OF STARTLE RESPONSE? 11
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
(Oster, 2009), causing serious difficulties in the video analysis of the different
intensities of (left vs right hemiface) muscle contractions.
Adopting a neurophysiological perspective, we suggest that the right
startle motor bias showed by 5-month-olds could reflect an underlying
lateralised organisation of the startle neural circuitry, in particular at the
spinal level. Ronnqvist (1995) suggested that the Moro reflex lateralisation
derives from some spinal asymmetries. The interpretation of Ronnqvist
(1995) would also be helpful for an understanding of the rightward startle
body bias. The startle neural circuitry is characterised by the activation of
three synapses at the level of cochlear root neurons, neurons in the NRPC,
and motoneurons in the facial motor nucleus and spinal cord (Davis, 1997;
Davis et al., 1999; Lang, Davis, & Ohman, 2000). The reticular formation
influences motor activities through its reciprocal connection with red nucleus,
substantia nigra, subthalamus, basal ganglia, motor cortex, cerebellum, and
spinal cord (Traurig, 2008). On the basis of a cross-species similarity of the
startle circuitry (Yeomans & Frankland, 1995), Davis et al. (1982) demon-
strated that the startle circuitry consists of an ipsilateral pathway from the
auditory nerve to the ventral cochlear nucleus, which crosses the brainstem
to the contralateral NRPC. The NRPC sends output to the contralateral
facial motor nucleus, which contains the motoneurons that innervate the
Orbicularis oculi muscle (Meloni & Davis, 1992). On the basis of the lack of
significant results in the analysis of the startle facial component, it seems
that this neural tract does not present asymmetries in 5-month-old infants.
Apart from the contralateral facial nucleus, the NRPC also sends output to
the spinal cord. Specifically, the Pontine reticular nucleus and the Gigan-
tocellular nucleus of the medulla provide predominantly ipsilateral and
contralateral projections to spinal cord via the medial reticulospinal and
lateral reticulospinal tracts, respectively (Traurig, 2008). Pontine reticular
nucleus facilitates motor neurons that innervate axial and limb extensor
muscles. Gigantocellular nucleus projections exert facilitatory effects on
neurons innervating limb flexors and inhibit lower motor neurons innerva-
ting axial and limb extensor muscles. Considering that the whole-body
startle consists of a neck flexion, and arm and leg abduction or flexion (Hunt
et al., 1936; Landis & Hunt, 1939), the Gigantocellular nucleus projections
might contribute to the rightward body bias found in this motor reaction,
exerting facilitatory effects on neurons innervating limb flexors. Therefore,
similar to the Moro reflex, the startle rightward body bias found at 5 months
old could be determined by the presence of some asymmetries at the spinal
level.
Nevertheless this interpretation should be considered cautiously, due to
the relatively small sample size investigated, and to the small number of
analysable responses of the whole-body startle. The choice of measuring the
whole-body startle response involves the typical issue of the low number of
12 FRANCHIN, AGNOLI, DONDI
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
analysable responses. In fact, whole-body startle response is subject to a
stronger habituation than startle blink, which is the response component
usually measured in startle research (Blumenthal et al., 2005). Indeed, both
in animals and in adult humans, the whole-body startle is characterised by
lower response rate than blink reflex (Cassella & Davis, 1986; Hillman et al.,
2005; Winslow et al., 2002). In accordence with these data, in the present
work and in a previous study (Agnoli et al., 2011), we also found a low
whole-body startle frequency in 5-month-old infants. However, the results of
the present work could represent a first insight for a deeper analysis of infant
startle asymmetries that could bring new data to the study of the startle
neurological organisation in the first months of life.
A final consideration regards the discrepancy found in the results on the
latency parameter obtained by using the AIMMSS and Baby FACS coding
system. Baby FACS coding was executed on the video-recordings performed
by a standard camcorder. The FACS methodology has already demonstrated
its reliability in detecting adults’ asymmetric facial behaviours (see Hager &
Ekman, 1985). Consequently we could hypothesise that the lack of detection
of the asymmetries in the latency parameter could be imputed to a technical
limit of the standard camcorder used to record the startle facial component,
rather than to the coding procedure used to measure it. The discrepancy in
the detection of asymmetries in the speed parameter can be explained by the
fact that the two recording instruments (AIMMSS and camcorder) are
characterised by a different sensitivity; that is, a different temporal
resolution. While the camcorder used in this study for the Action Units
onset video coding recorded at 25 frames/second*that is, one data (frame)
every 40 milliseconds*the AIMMSS recorded data with a time sampling of
5 milliseconds. Given that the full-body latency differences were on the order
of 15 ms, it is possible that a small latency difference might be obscured by
up to 40 ms of jitter in the face response latency data. Thus the discrepancy
in the results regarding the latency parameter might be influenced by the
different time sampling of the instruments adopted in this work. We propose
as a possible solution for future research to combine the use of Baby FACS
coding with the use of more sensitive instruments such as a high-speed
camcorder. In this way it should be possible to obtain a direct comparison
between AIMMSS and Baby FACS AUs latencies. Moreover, future studies
with a high-speed video could better examine whether there is greater
evidence for asymmetry in quicker or more intense facial actions. Finally, it
would be very interesting to study the startle motor reactions of infants at
younger ages in order to also clarify the development of the startle circuitry.
Manuscript received 1 February 2012
Revised manuscript received 10 June 2012
First published online 31 July 2012
EARLY LATERALISATION OF STARTLE RESPONSE? 13
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
REFERENCES
Agnoli, S., Franchin, L., & Dondi, M. (2011). Three methodologies for measuring the acoustic
startle response in early infancy. Developmental Psychobiology, 53, 323�329. doi: 10.1002/
dev.20528.
Amiel-Tison, C. (1995). Clinical assessment of the infant nervous system. In M. I. Levene & R. J.
Lilford (Eds.), Fetal and neonatal neurology and neurosurgery (2nd ed.) (pp. 83�104). London:
Churchill Livingstone.
Amiel-Tison, C. (2002). Update of the Amiel-Tison neurologic assessment for the term neonate or
at 40 weeks corrected age. Pediatric Neurology, 27, 196�212.
Anthony, B. J., & Graham, F. K. (1983). Evidence for sensory-selective set in young infants.
Science, 220(4598), 742�744. doi: 10.1126/science.6836312
Anthony, B. J., & Graham, F. K. (1985). Blink reflex modification by selective attention: Evidence
for the modulation of ‘‘automatic’’ processing. Biological Psychology, 21, 43�59. doi:10.1016/
0301-0511(85)90052-3
Balaban, M. T. (1995). Affective influences on startle in five-month-old infants: Reaction to facial
expression of emotion. Child Development, 66, 28�36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00853.x
Balaban, M. T., Anthony, B. J., & Graham, F. K. (1989). Prestimulation effects on blink and
cardiac reflexes of 15-month human infants. Developmental Psychobiology, 22, 115�127. DOI:
10.1002/dev.420220203
Blumenthal, T. D., Cuthbert, B. N., Filion, D. L., Hackley, S., Lipp, O. V., & Van Boxtel, A. (2005).
Committee report: Guidelines for human startle eyeblink electromyographic studies. Psycho-
physiology, 42, 1�15. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00271.x
Bradley, M. M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1991). Startle and emotion: Lateral acoustic
probes and the bilateral blink. Psychophysiology, 28, 285�295. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1991.
tb02196.x
Bradley, M. M., Cuthbert, B. N., & Lang, P. J. (1996). Lateralised startle probes in the study of
emotion. Psychophysiology, 33, 156�161. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1996.tb02119.x
Brazelton, T. B. (1973). Neonatal behavioral assessment scale. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott.
Brown, P., Rothwell, J. C., Thompson, P. D., Britton, T. C., Day, B. L., & Marsden, C. D. (1991).
New observations on the normal auditory startle reflex in man. Brain, 114, 1891�1902.
doi: 10.1093/brain/114.4.1891
Buchanan, T. W., Tranel, D., & Adolphs, R. (2004). Anteromedial temporal lobe damage blocks
startle modulation by fear and disgust. Behavioral Neuroscience, 118, 429�437. doi: 10.1037/
0735-7044.118.2.429
Caplan, P. J., & Kinsbourne, M. (1976). Baby drops the rattle: Asymmetry of duration of grasp by
infants. Child Development, 47, 532�534. doi: 10.2307/1128815
Cassella, J. V., & Davis, M. (1986). The design and the calibration of a startle measurement system.
Psychology and Behavior, 36, 377�383. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(86)90032-6
Davis, M. (1997). The neurophysiological basis of acoustic startle modulation: Research on fear
motivation and sensory gating. In P. J. Lang, R. F. Simons, & M. Balaban (Eds.), Attention and
orienting (pp. 69�96). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Davis, M., Gendelman, D. S., Tischler, M. D., & Gendelman, P. M. (1982). A primary acoustic
startle circuit: Lesions and stimulation studies. The Journal of Neuroscience, 2, 791�805.
Davis, M., Walker, D. L., & Lee, Y. (1999). Neurophysiology and neuropharmacology of startle and
its affective modulation. In M. E. Dawson, A. M. Schell, & A. H. Bohmelt (Eds.), Startle
modification. Implication for neuroscience, cognitive science, and clinical science (pp. 95�113).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Divon, M. Y., Platt, L. D., Cantrell, C. J., Smith, C. V., Yeh, S. Y., & Paul, R. H. (1985). Evoked
fetal response: A possible intrauterine neurological examination. American Journal of
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 153, 454�456.
14 FRANCHIN, AGNOLI, DONDI
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Hager, J. C. (2002). Facial Action Coding System (FACS). Salt Lake
City, UT: Research Nexus division of Network Information Research Corporation.
Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., & Simons, R. C. (1985). Is the startle reaction an emotion? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1416�1426. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.49.5.1416
Emory, E. K., & Mapp, J. R. (1988). Effects of respiratory distress and prematurity on spontaneous
startle activity in neonates. Infant Behavior and Development, 11, 71�81. doi:10.1016/S0163-
6383(88)80017-1
Grattan, M. P., De Vos, E., Levy, J., & McClintock, M. K. (1992). Asymmetric action in the human
newborn: Sex differences in patterns of organisation. Child Development, 63, 273�289. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01626.x
Grosse, P., & Brown, P. (2003). Acoustic startle evokes bilaterally synchronous oscillatory EMG
activity in the healthy human. Journal of Neurophysiology, 90, 1654�1661. doi: 10.1152/
jn.00125.2003
Hackley, S. A., & Graham, F. K. (1987). Effects of attending selectively to the spatial position of
reflex-eliciting and reflex-modulating stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 13, 411�424. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.13.3.411
Hager, J. C., & Ekman, P. (1985). The asymmetry of facial actions is inconsistent with models of
hemispheric specialisation. Psychophysiology, 22, 307�318. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1985.
tb01605.x
Hillman, C. H., Hsiao-Wecksler, E. T., & Rosengren, K. S. (2005). Postural and eye-blink indices of
the defensive startle reflex. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 55, 45�49. doi:10.1016/
j.ijpsycho.2004.06.002
Hillman, C. H., Rosengren, K. S., & Smith, D. P. (2004). Emotion and motivated behaviour:
Postural adjustments to affective picture viewing. Biological Psychology, 66, 51�62.
doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2003.07.005
Hunt, W. A., Clarke, F., & Hunt, E. (1936). Studies of startle pattern: Infants. The Journal of
Psychology, 2, 339�352.
Kettle, J. W. L., Andrewes, D. G., & Allen, N. B. (2006). Lateralisation of the startle reflex circuit in
humans: An examination with monaural probes following unilateral temporal lobe resection.
Behavioral Neuroscience, 120, 24�39. doi: 10.1037/0735-7044.120.1.24
Koch, M., & Schnitzler, H. U. (1997). The acoustic startle response in rats � circuits mediating
evocation, inhibition and potentiation. Behavioural Brain Research, 89, 35�49. doi:10.1016/
S0166-4328(97)02296-1
Kofler, M., Muller, J., Rinnerthaler-Weichbold, M., & Valls-Sole, J. (2008). Laterality of auditory
startle responses in humans. Clinical Neurophysiology, 119, 309�314. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.
2007.11.006
Korner, A. F. (1969). Neonatal startles, smiles, erections, and reflex sucks as related to state, sex,
and individuality. Child Development, 40, 1039�1053. doi: 10.2307/1127010
Kuhlman, K. A., Burns, K. A., Depp, R., & Sabbagha, R. E. (1988). Ultrasonic imaging of normal
fetal response to external vibratory acoustic stimulation. American Journal of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, 158, 47�51.
Landis, C., & Hunt, W. A. (1939). The startle pattern. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.
Lang, P. J. (1995). The emotion probe. American Psychologist, 50, 372�385.
Lang, P. J., Davis, M., & Ohman, A. (2000). Fear and anxiety: Animal models and human cognitive
psychophysiology. Journal of Affective Disorder, 61, 137�159. doi:10.1016/S0165-0327(00)00
343-8
Meloni, E. G., & Davis, M. (1992). Anatomical connections mediating the pinna component of the
acoustic startle reflex in the rat. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 18, 1547.
Oster, H. (2005). The repertoire of infant facial expressions: An ontogenetic perspective. In J. Nadel
& D. Muir (Eds.), Emotional development (pp. 261�292). New York: Oxford University Press.
EARLY LATERALISATION OF STARTLE RESPONSE? 15
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2
Oster, H. (2009). Baby FACS: Facial Action Coding System for Infants and Young Children.
Unpublished monograph and coding manual. New York University.
Peters, M., & Petrie, B. F. (1979). Functional asymmetries in the stepping reflex of human neonates.
Canadian Journal of Psychology, 33, 198�200. doi: 10.1037/h0081717
Prechtl, H. F. R., & Beintema, D. (1964). The neurological examination of the full term newborn
infant. London: Heinemann.
Quevedo, K., Smith, T., Donzella, B., Schunk, E., & Gunnar, M. (2010). The startle response:
Developmental effects and a paradigm for children and adults. Developmental Psychobiology,
52, 76�89. doi: 10.1002/dev.20415
Richards, J. E. (1998). Development of selective attention in young infants: Enhancement and
attenuation of startle reflex by attention. Developmental Science, 1, 45�51. doi: 10.1111/1467-
7687.00011
Richards, J. E. (2000). Development of multimodal attention in young infants: Modification of the
startle reflex by attention. Psychophysiology, 37, 65�75. doi: 10.1111/1469-8986.3710065
Ronnqvist, L. (1995). A critical examination of the Moro response in newborn infants � symmetry,
state relation, underlying mechanisms. Neuropsychologia, 33, 713�726. doi:10.1016/0028-3932
(95)00006-O
Ronnqvist, L., & Hopkins, B. (1998). Head position preference in the human newborn: A new
look. Child Development, 69, 13�23. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1998.tb06129.x
Ronnqvist, L., Hopkins, B., Van Emmerik, R., & de Groot, L. (1998). Lateral biases in head
turning and the Moro response in the human newborn: Are they both vestibular in
origin? Developmental Psychobiology, 33, 339�349. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2302(199812)33:4
B339::AID-DEV5�3.0.CO;2-R
Scanlon, J. W., Nelson, T., Grylack, I., & Smith, Y. (1979). A system of newborn physical
examination. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Traurig, H. H. (2008). The brain stem reticular formation. In M. Conn (Ed.), Neuroscience in
medicine (pp. 273�286). London: Springer.
Winslow, J. T., Parr, L. A., & Davis, M. (2002). Acoustic startle, prepulse inhibition, and fear-
potentiated startle measured in rhesus monkeys. Biological Psychiatry, 51, 859�866.
doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(02)01345-8
Yeomans, J. S., & Frankland, P. W. (1995). The acoustic startle reflex: Neurons and connections.
Brain Research Reviews, 21, 301�314. doi:10.1016/0165-0173(96)00004-5
16 FRANCHIN, AGNOLI, DONDI
Do
wn
load
ed b
y [
mar
co d
on
di]
at
00
:08
15
Au
gu
st 2
01
2