MY PROFILE
Welcome, Guest.
Please sign in or you can click here to register an account for free.
Did not receive activation email?
Email:
Password:

Refer-a-Friend and earn loyalty points!
FORUM NEWS + ANNOUNCEMENTS
[6 Sep] Get the BEST of BrillKids at a VERY SPECIAL price (for a limited time only!) (More...)

[05 Apr] BrillKids HQ is relocating: there may be minor shipping delays (More...)

[17 Jan] Looking for WINK TO LEARN coupons? New coupons now available for redemption! (More...)

[22 Jul] More SPEEKEE coupons available at the BrillKids Redemption Center! (More...)

[22 Mar] Important Announcement Regarding License Keys and Usage of BrillKids Products (More...)

[26 Feb] MORE Wink to Learn coupons available at the BrillKids Redemption Center! (More...)

[08 Jun] NEW: Vietnamese Curriculum for Little Reader! (More...)

[15 May] Hello Pal Social Language Learning App Has Launched! (More...)

[3 Mar] Update: Hello Pal now Beta Testing! (What We've Been Up To) (More...)

[11 Feb] Sign up for our Little Reader Vietnamese Beta Testing Program! (Sign ups open until FEB. 15, 2015 ONLY!) (More...)

[26 Jan] More Wink to Learn coupons available at our Redemption Center! (More...)

[18 Nov] Get your Arabic Curriculum for Little Reader! (More...)

[21 Oct] EEECF News: Get 30% Off from Hoffman Academy! (More...)

[22 Sep] The EEECF is now registered in the UN and we now accept donations! (More...)

[13 Aug] The Early Education for Every Child Foundation (EEECF) is now a registered charity on AMAZON SMILE! (More...)

[12 Aug] ALL-NEW Transportation & Traffic Category Pack for Little Reader!(More...)

[21 Jul] Get 10% off our NEW Actions and Motions Category Pack for Little Reader! (More...)

[14 Jul] Get 10% off BrillKids Books! IT'S THE BRILLKIDS SUMMER BOOK SALE! (More...)

[25 Jun] BrillKids store and website now available for viewing in Arabic! (More...)

[09 Jun] Get your Russian Curriculum for Little Reader! 10% off introductory price! (More...)

[09 May] Free Little Reader, Price Changes, and Promotional Discounts! (More...)

[28 Apr] Get BabyPlus Discount Coupons at the BrillKids Coupon Redemption Center (More...)

[13 Mar] Get your FREE Chinese Curriculum Update for Little Reader! (More...)

[20 Feb] FINALLY, introducing our Spanish Curriculum for Little Reader! (More...)

[24 Feb] We're looking for Content Checkers and Testers for our Arabic Curriculum! (More...)

[10 Feb] Volunteer with the Early Education for Every Child Foundation (EEECF) (More...)

[24 Jan] Check out our NEW Thai Curriculum Pack for Little Reader! (More...)

[20 Jan] Get Discounts from BrillKids Product Partners! (More...)

[10 Jan] Introducing our New Category Pack: Exotic & Wild Animals! (More...)

[27 Nov] Sign up for our LR Spanish Beta Testing Program (LIMITED SLOTS ONLY!) (More...)

[19 Dec] Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! NOTE: BrillKids office closed on holidays (More...)

[16 Oct] Announcing the WINNERS of our BrillKids Summer Video Contest 2013! (More...)

[04 Oct] Get Little Reader Touch on your Android device! (More...)

[19 Jul] BrillKids products now available for purchase at our Russian Online Store! (More...)

[31 Jul] BrillKids Video Contest Summer 2013 - Deadline EXTENDED to August 31st! (More...)

[20 Jun] Join the BrillKids Video Contest Summer 2013! (More...)

[17 Jun] India Partners: BrillKids products now once again available in India! (More...)

[22 Apr] Little Reader Touch Version 2 Now Available (More...)

[21 Mar] French Curriculum available now for Little Reader! (More...)

[16 Apr] Spain Partners: BrillKids products now Online in Spain! (More...)

[07 Feb] Update to Little Math Version 2 now! (More...)

[07 Feb] Check out the *NEW* BrillKids Downloads Library! (More...)

[27 Feb] Singapore Partners: BrillKids products now Online in Singapore! (More...)

[20 Feb] Vietnam Partners: BrillKids products now Online in Vietnam! (More...)

[22 Jan] Important: About Sharing License Keys (More...)

[07 Nov] Update to Little Reader v3! (More...)

[19 Oct] We're Looking for Translators for our Little Reader Software (More...)

[15 Oct] More Right Brain Kids coupons available at our Redemption Center! (More...)

[25 Sep] CONTEST: Get A Free Little Musician by helping EEECF reach your friends and colleagues! (More...)

[17 Sep] Give a child the gift of literacy this Christmas: 20,000 children need your help! (More...)

[29 Aug] Little Musician wins Dr. Toy Awards! (More...)

[29 Aug] VIDEOS: Perfect Pitch at 2.5y, and compilation of Little Musician toddlers! (More...)

[09 Aug] Get Soft Mozart Coupons from the Points Redemption Center! (More...)

[03 Aug] Welcome NEW FORUM MODERATORS: Mela Bala, Mandabplus3, Kerileanne99, and Kmum! (More...)

[03 Aug] Winners of the Little Reader Video Contest (Part 5)! (More...)

[25 Jul] Bianca's Story - What happens 10+ years after learning to read as a baby/toddler (More...)

[27 Jun] Updates on our Early Education for Every Child Foundation (EEECF) (More...)

[27 Jun] Join the Little Reader Video Contest (Part 5) (More...)

[04 Jun] Being a Successful Affiliate - Now easier than ever before! (More...)

[18 May] LITTLE MUSICIAN - NOW LAUNCHED! (More...)

[30 Apr] Winners of the Little Reader Video Contest! (More...)

[28 Apr] The Early Education for Every Child Foundation - Help Us Make a Difference (More...)

[20 Apr] Little Reader Curricula on your iPad or iPhone - now possible with iAccess! (More...)

[12 Apr] LITTLE MUSICIAN - now in OPEN BETA TESTING (with a complete curriculum) (More...)

[12 Mar] *NEW* Little Reader Content Packs now available! (More...)

[01 Feb] Join the March 2012 Homeschooling Contest: Create a Monthly Theme Unit! (More...)

[27 Jan] Join the BrillKids Foundation as a Volunteer! (More...)

[20 Jan] BrillKids Featured Parent: Tonya's Teaching Story (More...)

[17 Dec] Dr. Richard Gentry joins the BrillKids Blog Team! (Read Interview on Early Reading) (More...)

[08 Dec] Little Reader Touch promo EXTENDED + Lucky Draw winners (More...)

[01 Dec] Affiliate Success Story - How Elle Made $4,527 in Sales in just 30 days (More...)

[22 Nov] Little Reader Touch now available in the App Store! (More...)

[09 Nov] Winners of the September 2011 Video Contest (More...)

[01 Nov] Another free seminar and updates from Jones Geniuses (More...)

[16 Sep] SPEEKEE is now a BrillKids partner product! Get Speekee coupons at the Coupon Redemption Center! (More...)

[02 Sep] Little Reader Wins Another Two Awards! (Mom's Best Award & TNPC Seal of Approval) (More...)

[05 Aug] Little Reader Deluxe Wins the Tillywig Brain Child Award! (More...)

[28 Jul] LITTLE MUSICIAN beta-testing NOW OPEN! - Sign up here. (More...)

[14 Jul] Little Reader Wins Another Award! (PTPA Seal of Approval) (More...)

[13 Jul] Jones Geniuses FREE Seminars & news of Fall classes (More...)

[30 Jun] Little Reader Wins 2011 Creative Child Awards! (More...)

[11 May] The *NEW* Little Reader Deluxe - now available! (More...)

[06 May] Do you blog about early learning? - Join the BrillKids Blogger Team! (More...)

[21 Apr] Aesop's Fables vol. 2 - *NEW* Storybooks from BrillKids! (More...)

[15 Apr] BrillKids Foundation - Help Us Make a Difference (More...)

[08 Apr] Get READEEZ Discount Coupons at the Forum Shop! (More...)

[06 Apr] The new Parents of Children with Special Needs board is now open! (More...)

[06 Apr] Join the Jones Geniuses online workshop for BrillKids members this April 21st! [FULLY BOOKED] (More...)

[04 Apr] Get TUNE TODDLERS Discount Coupons at the Forum Shop! (More...)

[21 Mar] BrillKids Discount Coupons - Finally Here! (More...)

[21 Mar] BrillKids on Facebook... We've MOVED! (More...)

[15 Mar] Get KINDERBACH Discount Coupons at the Forum Shop! (More...)

[08 Mar] WINNERS OF THE VIDEO CONTEST: You, Your Baby and Little Reader Part 2! (More...)

[07 Mar] Please welcome our NEW FORUM MODERATORS: Skylark, Tanikit, TmS, and TeachingMyToddlers! (More...)

[22 Feb] Do you BLOG? Join the BrillKids Blogger Team! (More...)

[11 Feb] Affiliate Program – Use BrillKids Banners to promote your affiliate link in your blogs and websites! (More...)

[31 Jan] Important: Please Upgrade to Little Reader v2.0 (More...)

[26 Jan] BrillKids Blog - Criticisms of Teaching Your Baby To Read (More...)

[21 Jan] Share your Little Reader Success Story! (More...)

[08 Jan] Little Reader available on the iPad today! (More...)

[17 Dec] Aesop's Fables vol. 1 - New storybooks from BrillKids! (More...)

[13 Dec] Infant Stimulation Cards - New at the BrillKids Store! (More...)

[08 Dec] Christmas Sale: Give the gift of learning with BrillKids! (More...)

[29 Nov] Upgrade to Little Reader 2.0 [BETA] Now! (More...)

[19 Nov] Get Discounts for products from JONES GENIUSES! (More...)

[17 Nov] Join the HOMESCHOOLING CONTEST: Create a Monthly Theme Unit! (More...)

[08 Nov] Piano Wizard Academy Offer - Exclusive to BrillKids Members! (More...)

[23 Oct] Should music be a birthright? Is music education for everyone? (More...)

[20 Oct] Introducing the BrillKids Presentation Binder Set! (More...)

[12 Oct]Get to Know Other BrillKids Parents in Your Area (More...)

[14 Sep] Teaching your kids about music - Why is it important? (More...)

[10 Sep] The new ENCYCLOPEDIC KNOWLEDGE Collaborations board is now open! (More...)

[10 Sep] Meet other BrillKids Members In Your Area! (More...)

[27 Aug] Traditional Chinese Curriculum Add-On Pack for Little Reader - Now Available! (More...)

[20 Aug] Little Reader Chinese Curriculum Add-on pack - Now Available! (More...)

[5 Aug] Take Advantage of our Special Affiliate Program Promotion! (More...)

[3 Aug] Encyclopedic Knowledge Categories for FREE, made by all of us! Please join in! (More...)

[16 Jul] WINNERS OF THE VIDEO CONTEST: You, your baby and Little Reader! (More...)

[24 Jun] Be a BrillKids Affiliate and Get Rewarded! (More...)

[24 Jun] Need help from Native Speakers of SPANISH, RUSSIAN and ARABIC for Little Reader curriculum!

[01 Jun] Deadline for Submission of Entries for the LR Video Contest - Extended Until June 30! (More...)

[19 May] Facebook "LIKE" buttons are now in BrillBaby! (More...)

[25 Mar] Introducing the all new Little Reader Deluxe Kit from BrillKids! (More...)

[18 Mar] More Signing Time Coupons available at our Forum Shop! (More...)

[11 Mar] BrillKids Discount Coupons - Coming Soon! (More...)

[09 Mar] Little Math 1.6 and Semester 2 are now available! (More...)

*

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
Author Topic: Prenatal Learning?  (Read 46102 times)
Digg del.icio.us
Paddy Jim Baggot MD
*
Posts: 44
Karma: 3




View Profile
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2013, 05:24:44 PM »

skylark:

i agree with what you said about causation of Down syndrome.

I am curreently writing a case report about mothers who gave their babies/children vitamins and/or early learning oppurtunities
from before birth
and whose babies achieved more than one might expect
if those who you know, would like to be in a case report (anonymous)
they may help advance the knowledge base regarding helping these babies achieve more than one might expect


there are different types of scientific articles
case reports would be less convincing than clinic al trials as advocated by robbyjo

the trials are often difficult, enormously expensive, take many years to complete
its an easy complaint to say no credible trial has been done
to actually do such a trial is quite anorther story
if some case reports could be done
we could lighht one or more candle rather than curse the darkness
















Logged
Soccer Mommy
*
Posts: 48
Karma: 1
Baby: 4+2P
Latest: (Pg)544w 4d



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2013, 09:44:02 PM »

Robbyjo, I was referring to the previously mentioned comment on another thread which you had mentioned that it was ridiculous. the same comment where you mentioned about the only healthy stimulation for unborn baby was through exercise and eating right. Which yes I do agree that eating right and exercise PROPERLY UNDER DOCTOR'S SUPERVISION is a high priority when conceiving, pregnant, and post-pregnancy, and through breastfeeding as well.

I must also say I agree, that having commercial products as well for something that has not been tested, nor having the adequate possible harmful (or helpful) effects to a fetus is wrong to have advertised if it was not fully tested and things questionable about the product is just a guess, rather than fact. Putting something that could be potentially harmful to the baby, or the mother is absurd and should not be done.

Logged
MamaOfWill
****
Posts: 282
Karma: 61
Baby: 1




View Profile
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2013, 08:22:12 AM »

Robbyjo, I was referring to the previously mentioned comment on another thread which you had mentioned that it was ridiculous.

I agree with soccermom on this quote, Robbyjo has changed her tune since starting the thread.

I didn't ever say that early learning has been proved true beyond any reasonable doubt, I said studies have been done that supports the theory (one of many examples http://www.musicaprenatal.com.mx/english/foundations.html), I said that it makes sense to me (if newborns can learn, then surely babies can learn at least the days before they are born) and from personal experience (my baby responded in a highly predicable fashion to certain stimulation before birth and continued after birth.)

There's a big difference between saying PL is not possible and saying that it has not been proven possible.  (Nobody has proven that it is impossible.)  If you still think PL is ridiculous, then I ask, where is your proof?  Robbyjo, you are making claims you can't support, yet I am under no obligation to provide proof of PL being possible as I never said it is.

Quite frankly I don't have time and I'm not interested in doing further research on the topic, but I'm convinced to the extent that I will practice PL with my future unborn children, I've actually got some new ideas for things I would like to try.  Just like most other EL ideas, we don't have much evidence yet we're taking a chance, spending little bits of time with hopes of making a positive difference.

About muffled input in the womb:  The link I provided is a South African study led by Dr Woodward.  I can't verify the claim, but in part of their study they inserted a microphone inside the womb and found that the mother's own voice vibrates internally and can actually be heard very clearly, one need not speak louder than normal for the baby to hear the mother's voice.  Male voices, as they are deeper, can also be picked up in the womb, although nothing else is as clear as that of the mother's own voice.  Also, think about this, muffled speech and music is surely better than none at all.  If the same muffled input is provided consistently, the mind will probably memorize it, and any form of learning exercises the brain, making it worth while even if the child does not remember it after birth, yet many individual accounts suggests that babies can recognize songs, rhymes, books read, music and regular sounds around the home after birth.  If that is true, one can assume the mind is capable of recognizing the basic sound pattern from the muffled sound in the womb, in the not muffled sound  outside of the womb.

About the big bang theory:  The idea of Prenatal Stimulation is much older than the big bang theory and much wider known, probably much wider excepted too, but I now understand why  you mentioned it thanks for clearing it up soccermom.  Yes, it's easier to prove PL than BB, but that doesn't mean it's easy to prove PL.  What would you suggest, we lock a group of pregnant women in a cage to make sure all influential factors are the same except the one group receives prenatal stimulation and the other is forbidden to talk or listen to music, touch their bellies etc.... hmm that's so inhumane I wouldn't be surprised if Kezia asks me to delete what I just said.

One thing that I hate and see with many parents is that you make a parental choice, like stay at home / breast feed / co-sleep / teach reading etc.  and then hate to see when other mothers don't make the same choice as you did.  This thread stinks of that, if you don't believe in PL then don't practice it, it's simple.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2013, 06:39:51 PM by MamaOfWill » Logged
Soccer Mommy
*
Posts: 48
Karma: 1
Baby: 4+2P
Latest: (Pg)544w 4d



View Profile
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2013, 06:02:17 PM »

I agree

Logged
Tamsyn
*****
Posts: 553
Karma: 128
Baby: 5




View Profile
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2013, 06:27:25 PM »

As long as the consumer is aware of the research status and how much guessing has been done, I don't see a problem with it.  I think it is very sad when people don't have the freedom to purchase the items they want to use, be it prenatal learning materials, raw milk, or toys with small parts.  If somebody wants to buy something that doesn't have millions of dollars worth of research behind it, it's no sweat off my back.  Entrepreneurial efforts come to a complete stop when we over-regulate these things.

Logged

Paddy Jim Baggot MD
*
Posts: 44
Karma: 3




View Profile
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2013, 06:57:49 PM »

there is an air water interface
this could reduce sound transmission to the baby of voices other than the mother
unless they are in contact with the maternal abdomen
if you stand over a pool and shout at someone underwater
the transmission through water is very good
the problem is the air water interface
it will not affect the transmission of the mother voice to the womb

a countervailing factor is the surface area 
a small womb not well applied to the skin may have limited transmission
a larger womb making good contact with the skin
has a large receptive surface area

anecdotally
some women have told me their baby disliked some songs when heard in the environment
and the babies would complain by excessive kicking








Logged
Paddy Jim Baggot MD
*
Posts: 44
Karma: 3




View Profile
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2013, 07:36:34 PM »

in the old days
to understand and analyze an article of scientific literature
one needed to read widely and a lot and use wisdom
interpretation of scientific literature was very much like interpretation of scripture
different people could read the same thing and draw different conclusion
no one has been appointed to be omniscient
even if they were appointed, they still would not be omniscient

now criticism of scientific literature is widely practiced by people who have published little if anything
there is a set of rote rules that can be applied by those who have little knowledge or experience related to the issue at hand

it is now presumed that expert opinion is relatively worthless compared to a randomized trial
while expert opinion could simply be the way we have always done it-it could be wrong
it might not be
would you believe a medical student with a trial over a surgeon with decades of experience
each is really valid

the point about a trial being more credible than expert opinion
that is accepted on faith because it has not been proven in a trial

i think that interpretation of scientific literature is no more objective than scripture
and if one could blindly apply a set of rules without knowledge of the relevant issues
then that application is doomed to produce little of value










Logged
robbyjo
***
Posts: 119
Karma: 16
Baby: 2



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: December 07, 2013, 08:26:12 PM »

First of all, science can never prove a negative statement---the best that science can do is that the statement is not shown to be positive after empirical evidence of many samples (say, 100,000+). Practically speaking, it is a strong statement for the negative. For example, science can never disprove the existence of an invisible pink unicorn.

I sincerely believe that devices that can affect fetal well-being have to be FDA regulated. Why? There are some anecdotal evidence that such devices could do permanent damage, such as permanent hearing loss or autism (see Amazon reviews). This is not about entrepreneurial spirit---this is about the society's well being. Misrepresentation of evidence that could do permanent damage has to be absolutely curtailed. Thus, I would rather see such devices pass a clinical trial. Moreover, if we don't require clinical trial, any con artists could "invent" a whizbang device with fantastic claims and any gullible well-meaning parents are going to swallow it whole.

I am, for one, will not believe any claims without substantive evidence, especially the fake evidence offered by BabyPlus. It is an affront to scientifically minded people. I want to see at least some evidence, as indicative in my first post. So, there is no change in my tone.

The concept of prenatal learning is still ridiculous given the conditions in the womb. Firstly, the major source of learning, if at all is happening, it is going to be through the hearing. We know that fetal hearing is developed by 26-27 week of pregnancy (or Gestational Age / GA). So, before then, learning could hardly happen. Look at BabyPlus's FAQ; they recommended the learning from 18 weeks of pregnancy (GA). While I understand that some babies could develop hearing early, but 18 week GA is pure rubbish! Mother's heartbeat and breathing sound is at 70-110db, and that's very loud. It would be very hard to learn under that kind of noise. Plus, external voice will be greatly muffled in the womb---external voice is attenuated by 5-50db (5db for low voice, 20-30db for high voice, and up to 50db for vocal-range voice). Yes, so low voice could still be heard (given 5 db attenuation), but not vocal range or even above. Even low voice that is strong enough to penetrate the womb "infrastructure" could induce permanent hearing loss due to its energy levels. So, there's my evidence.

There are lots to be discovered and I am definitely interested in learning a lot further about this idea. I have no doubt that babies could have capacities to learn.

Logged
Skylark
*****
Posts: 1821
Karma: 328
Baby: 3




View Profile
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2013, 02:42:44 AM »

Hi all,

I've been looking through this thread and it seems that a lot of the discussion was more about the product (BabyPlus), then about Prenatal Learning per se.

 As such I wanted to encourage everyone to keep discussion here focused on Prenatal Learning and if you would like to discuss the BabyPlus, its pros ans cons or anything else to do with it, you can open a new thread in our Product Review Board http://forum.brillkids.com/product-discussions-and-reviews/ , which was created for that very purpose.

Then there is another not-too-related discussion about Down syndrome, prenatal stimulation and the outcomes. I think, Paddy Jim Baggot MD , you will get more input for the questions you've posed, if you will open a separate topic in this Board for it and just list your questions or what you are looking for in your research.

Keeping discussions separated, will hep everyone to get better participation and will help others to find what they are looking for.

Also, as a side note. It seems to me that there was some misunderstanding among participants in this discussion, which was possibly caused by not clarifying what exactly they meant when they said "Prenatal Learning". I am sure everyone has more to agree then to disagree on  the topic, if less assumptions are made. I do not think anyone was trying to make any outrageous claims or make anyone feel bad with some generalizations. Although it certainly looked a bit that way, judging from reactions. So I would invite everyone to engage in further discussion keeping in mind that if you do not agree with another forum member on something, chances are you might be talking about different things to start with ( ask for clarifications and offer your definitions). And then, as in every debate or discussion, there are going to be differences in opinion and differences in personal experiences. So kindly take that in consideration.

Have a wonderful day everyone!

« Last Edit: December 09, 2013, 03:29:12 AM by Skylark » Logged


http://livingwithkids.rocks Proud mommy of 3 early learners!
robbyjo
***
Posts: 119
Karma: 16
Baby: 2



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: December 10, 2013, 02:11:10 PM »

@SkyLark: Fair enough.

The points I need to get across is: If prenatal learning were real, why commercial products like BabyPlus had to fake their "scientific paper"? And calling it "after 25 years of research"? What?!

Prior to the paper I just reviewed, there's only conflicting and superficial evidence about it. For example: Prenatal music---some evidence says good, some bad. The sample sizes are typically small and the end measure is somewhat iffy and tend to be qualitative, like the frequency of sucking or "being a happy baby". I rarely see papers mentioning experiments with brain-related measurements, like EEG or fMRI, or more objective and quantitative measures, even. Even then, when there's some, the control is insufficient. The problem with music stimulation experiments is that there is no distinction that the music benefits the baby directly or through his mother. We are pretty clear that mother's womb is an insular environment and is pretty secluded from external stimuli. Hence, a lot of people would think that the music treatment affects mom's mood more than the baby. We also know that mom's mood affect baby's mood and good mood positively correlates with baby learning. But calling prenatal music stimulation as "learning" is a huge stretch. The same goes with meditation, etc. Hence, my conclusion.

On the other hand, the paper I referred to above made direct links between neural changes and external stimuli and offer some suggestive evidence on learning. However, it is still unclear what the neural changes mean and what scope it entails. I think it is a worthy follow up. It is a very recent paper (published Aug 26, 2013). I'm pretty sure that follow up studies will ensue soon after.


Logged
MamaOfWill
****
Posts: 282
Karma: 61
Baby: 1




View Profile
« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2013, 07:02:09 PM »

@robbyjo:  You can prove a negative, I can prove that I am not a man.  I suppose you cannot prove that prenatal learning is impossible, but again, that was not what I asked you to do.  You said prenatal learning is absurd, which I interpreted as you saying it's illogical.  One might not be able to prove that PL as a whole is impossible, but one would be capable of taking individual claims and disproving them - that off course will be worthless, but my point is, technically you can provide proof to support your claims if they were true. (Note that I jokingly asked you to provide proof because you asked me to provide proof of something I didn't even say.)

I really don't think you've done even a fraction of the homework on this topic, but let's assume you are correct in saying there is no concrete studies or proof that supports PL, so in that case it would truly just be a theory.  The theory on the other hand is supported by facts, like physical characteristics of premature babies and newborns etc.

I know you're mainly talking about BabyPlus, but clearly nobody else on this thread is, because of the title you chose and your initial attack on PL in your opening post.  Personally I agree with you, I don't like the product and I was aware of the false advertisement (I think most of us were as the product has been discussed at length.)  I don't believe it's harmful though.

Just to be clear, I've been talking about PL in the general sense, as in, the prenatal mind's capability of forming a memory from sensory input in it's surroundings, whether it was generated deliberately/naturally/coincidentally and regardless of the duration the memory lasts.   I'm rejecting what you say about prenatal learning, assuming your definition of prenatal learning is similar to that of mine.

« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 07:51:30 PM by MamaOfWill » Logged
robbyjo
***
Posts: 119
Karma: 16
Baby: 2



View Profile
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2013, 09:27:11 PM »

Prior to coming to this forum, I was already aware about the music and speech (and other) stimulation from the news since a long time now (year 2000-ish?). As I dug deeper in the actual scientific articles whenever some news popped up, I usually found the scientific support of such stimulation to be lacking or tenuous. I knew conditions of the womb, plus PL or even prenatal stimulation would be extremely hard to prove, if at all possible. So, it is not that I was not doing "a fraction of the homework"---I do not believe oversensationalized reports of popular science or blogs, I go to the article directly to read what the authors actually claim.

I came across this PL forum and was quite surprised to see commercial products for PL. At that time, discussions of two products popped up: BabyPlus and HeGuru. BabyPlus claimed "25 years of research"---this is bogus. 25 years of research on things that are "within our reach" would imply mature research, which is absolutely not the case. So, I decided to read again over 30 scientific articles on PL or prenatal stimulation at that moment and basically found none substantive. A vast majority of the papers are things related to substance abuse (alcohol, tobacco, narcotics) or stress / depression-related or animal trials (rats, mice). Go search and you'll see. No clinical trials. Nothing. I know plenty of articles confirming good exercise and nutrition are beneficial to baby's learning experience, but no substantive PL paper (until yesterday).

Let's look at a representative paper that I read back then (a 2002 paper). Here's a relevant quote, that neatly sums up the field back then:
Quote
Research into fetal learning is difficult. ... The majority of the studies of fetal learning have used some form of acoustic stimulation. However, there are wide methodological variations in the acoustic frequency and volume of the stimulus used, the exposure protocols, and whether the sound source was applied directly to the maternal abdomen or in the environment. All these variables can influence the amount and quality of the sound reaching the fetus and thus its effects 22,23.
...
There have been two reports of studies describing classical conditioning in the human fetus using vibroacoustic stimulation 31. In the first, only one subject was used and no data were given. In the second, whilst classical conditioning was demonstrated, others have been unable to reproduce the response 2. More recently maternal relaxation (US) and music (CS) have been reported to produce fetal conditioning after more than 20 prenatal exposures. In the newborn the CS induced a quiet awake state in conditioned fetuses 32. We chose not to use this approach in our studies because it is methodologically complex, has not been reliably confirmed as a method for the fetus, is non-physiological, and has been reported to occur in anenchepalic fetuses 2.
...
We have not examined whether this effect is specific to this stimulus or sound exposure in general. Furthermore, there is no information that such effects are either long lasting or beneficial. Most of the evidence that we have on prebirth experiences affecting later childhood or adulthood is anecdotal, unscientific, and based on subjective interpretation. Future properly designed prospective randomized control studies should involve long-term follow-up of subjects and controls to examine the duration of such effects and their benefit or harm.

(my emphasis)

Table 5 of this paper summarizes 10 studies, saying 1 "yes", 1 contradictory, and 8 "no" or "unknown" in the  "Demonstrated fetal response" column. Out of these 10, only 2 declared neonatal learning possible, but only 1 of them [which is this paper] use a real randomized prospective study.

Sadly enough, this paper's results are weak. However, I agree with the authors' last paragraph (that I quoted above). Remember that this is a 2002 paper. To my surprise, however, after some search, I found this paragraph remains true.

Yes, surely you can prove trivial negative statements and logic or math statements, but nobody could be capable of taking individual (scientific) claims and disproving such claims. Let's take, for example, "hypertension cannot be a cause of traffic accident"---it's a negative statement. We've got data from millions of traffic accidents, but no reports so far (at least, not that I know of) specify "hypertension" as the cause of death. I doubt that we could even prove such statement even if we have 1 billion more traffic accident data points. One could hypothesize that hypertension causes stroke on the road or road rage that leads to death, but nobody link hypertension to traffic accidents.

Now, if your definition of learning is "something that affects neural wiring", there you got your point, especially so proven in the paper I linked. However, stroke, hallucination, nightmare, trauma, and many others also may affect neural wiring (and new memory too), but they're not learning.


Logged
Soccer Mommy
*
Posts: 48
Karma: 1
Baby: 4+2P
Latest: (Pg)544w 4d



View Profile
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2013, 09:51:34 PM »

First, apologies to sound a bit of disagreement here.

Scientifically, there is no proven prenatal education. Even the Baby Plus or the other belt or contraptions do not have scientific merit whatsoever. Baby Plus even dares to show a demonstrably fake "scientific" paper by an unknown author from an unknown journal. Worse yet, these devices could cause deafness in your baby. So, I would suggest you to stay away from all these.

Bonding techniques may work, but again, no scientific merit so far. Music or mediation has little to no effects to the unborn baby. Mental health might be beneficial and that might be influenced positively by meditation.

I think the scientifically sound way to "improve" the condition of your baby is through eating healthy and exercise.


Quote from: soccermom7573 on December 02, 2013, 02:03:47 PM

Respectfully I have to disagree with a couple of things you said Robbyjo. Meditation and music isn't just for babies comfort but mothers as well. You may be able to say "Scientific" all you want but babies are miracles from God and there is no science involves with a bond between mother and babies, born or unborn. Babies will respond to mother and fathers voices in the womb. My daughter responded to both of our voices when I was juts 5-6 months pregnant. At birth, every time we talked and she was awake she would turn straight to us, because she knew our voices.

I listened to gospel music and country music practically everyday of my pregnancy, and my husband and I sang songs as well. Even now, if there is gospel music or country music on, our daughter immediately relaxes, coos along with it and even relaxes enough to fall asleep to it at times.

You say there is no scientific way about bonding.....that's because not everything can be explained with science. The bond between a mother and a child has been present long before science ever was.

the scientific sound to "improve" the condition of your baby is through health and exercise....really. Yes ofcourse, eating healthy and exercising PROPERLY ONLY WHAT YOU'RE ABLE TO DO WITHOUT OVER DOING IT AND UNDER CONDITIONS OF A DOCTOR are healthy for an unborn baby. However, that is not all a baby needs is it.

Not believing in prenatal education, but you believe in science correct? So science has come and has even proven with ultrasounds that babies in the womb learn to grasp, suck their thumb at times, kick, breath, etc, Even if babies do not learn  in the womb how to count because there is no "scientific data" does not mean they are unable to do so. They listen to their mothers voice and the voices that are constantly around. They feel the touch of a hand on their mothers belly. And there is most certainly that bond between mothers and children in the womb and out.

(End Quote)

(Quote Robbyjo)

Firstly, I think you need to reread my comments: Nowhere did I say that music and mediation do not benefit the mothers. What I do object is "prenatal learning", which I think is absurd.

Secondly, your comment sounds like that it is either science or God, which implies that there is no godly scientist on earth. This is a false dichotomy. It is a very clear stance on your earlier post that got deleted. I hope you stop making such comments.

Thirdly, maternal bond is so far proven on the emotional health of the babies and the moms. There is some smattering evidence scientific that this is the case. However, nothing is known on the education front. Granted, emotional balance can propel learning, but that's a different story.

Fourthly, auditory organ is complete by 26-28 weeks (which means 6 months). Babies may respond to external voice or stimuli. However, calling it "learning" is a huge stretch.

Fifthly, let's say that science later can "prove" prenatal learning. Follow up questions still remain: What is the advantage academically vs. those who do not have such learning? What scope is the advantage? Which methods are beneficial? The existing "learning" hold the potential to harm the fetus.

That said, it is up to the parents to do meditation, music, or whatever approach. I think parents do have the rights to know what has been scientifically proven or not. To me, anecdotal evidence does not hold sway since I cannot ascertain that it is not a random chance. 

(End Quote)


(Quote soccermom7573)

Posted by: soccermom7573 

Insert Quote

I deleted that post myself so therefore there were no arguments about the topic. You so kindly stated why start a flame-war conversation. Then you started another topic starting one yourself. I am no longer going to reply to you, or your general idea of prenatal learning, seeming on the other thread you have changed your stance numerous times. It's obvious you believe in science alone. I however do not. My faith is God. Yes some science can be proven as stated in the other thread, that's great but my belief is still in God and that's where it will stay. I am going to respectfully agree to disagree for these conversations are not worth any further of my time. I wish you good luck and whether or not you take it may God bless you and your family and have a wonderful Christmas and happy new year!

(End Quote)




Logged
robbyjo
***
Posts: 119
Karma: 16
Baby: 2



View Profile
« Reply #28 on: December 10, 2013, 09:55:52 PM »

What is the point of copy-and-pasting parts of a thread now again?

Logged
Soccer Mommy
*
Posts: 48
Karma: 1
Baby: 4+2P
Latest: (Pg)544w 4d



View Profile
« Reply #29 on: December 10, 2013, 10:09:38 PM »

I am trying to understand your meaning robbyjo, you have inconsistencies in which you're talking about. Which indeed is confusing us all about your true stance. You keep mentioning where is the proof for prenatal learning....Where is the proof that Baby Plus is harmful?

If something indeed were harmful than yes I agree it should not be used.

You talk about baby plus one second and then the concept of prenatal learning.
 You state music and meditation has little to no help towards an unborn baby, and then say that it does? Yor opinions keep opposing each other. Therefore I think is the trouble we are all having with trying to understand what you are truly saying.

Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
 
Jump to:  

Recent Threads

by newassignmentau, September 29, 2023, 09:52:09 AM
by jasminfernandes, August 18, 2023, 05:42:02 AM
by Annasprachzentrum, August 02, 2023, 08:27:26 PM
by Brileydavis, February 07, 2023, 07:31:40 AM
by justin robinson, January 18, 2023, 12:01:12 PM
by justin robinson, January 18, 2023, 11:26:28 AM
by justin robinson, January 18, 2023, 11:17:08 AM
by justin robinson, January 18, 2023, 11:02:35 AM
by justin robinson, January 18, 2023, 09:45:06 AM
by Thepharmacity, January 04, 2023, 06:12:34 AM
by Sara Sebastian, December 20, 2022, 02:04:21 PM
by Kays1s, December 05, 2022, 02:02:24 AM
by ashokrawat1256, November 11, 2022, 04:54:21 AM
by farnanwilliam, October 22, 2022, 04:12:41 AM
by berryjohnson, February 05, 2020, 12:41:49 PM
Page: 1/4  

Recently Added Files

tamil - months by BhavaniJothi, Dec. 05, 2019
More Shapes - More shapes not originally included in L... by Kballent, Oct. 23, 2019
test1 - test by SSbei, Sep. 08, 2019
Purple Foods - I made some lessons with colored food f... by Kballent, Aug. 07, 2019
Green Foods - I made some lessons with colored food f... by Kballent, Aug. 07, 2019
Yellow Foods - I made some lessons with colored food f... by Kballent, Aug. 07, 2019
Orange - I made some lessons with colored food f... by Kballent, Aug. 07, 2019
Red Food - I made some lessons with colored food f... by Kballent, Aug. 07, 2019
White Foods - As part of Color Themes I made some less... by Kballent, Aug. 07, 2019
Fruits & veggies mascots - This is Polish \"must have\" mascots :) ... by Agnole, Feb. 24, 2018
Page: 1/3  

Members
  • Total Members: 214667
  • Latest: sejal01
Stats
  • Total Posts: 110526
  • Total Topics: 19136
  • Online Today: 211
  • Online Ever: 826
  • (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 198
  • Total: 198

TinyPortal v1.0.5 beta 1© Bloc

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM
Home | File Downloads | Search | Members | BrillBaby | BrillKids | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2024 BrillKids Inc. All rights reserved.