Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Exploring the Links between the Quality of Early Mother-Infant Interactions and Child Physiological, Behavioural, and Developmental Outcomes. Do we Understand their Complexity? Cover

Exploring the Links between the Quality of Early Mother-Infant Interactions and Child Physiological, Behavioural, and Developmental Outcomes. Do we Understand their Complexity?

Journal of Mother and Child
Volume 29 (2025): Issue 1 (February 2025)
By:  and    
Open Access
|Sep 2025
Figures & tables

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Systematic review flow diagram based on PRISMA guidelines.

Table 1.

List of studies included in the review.

No.Author / YearFinal sample (n)Study designQuality of interaction measures Data collection method / Infant’s age at measuring interactionOutcome domain Data collection method /Child’s age at measuring the outcomeMain findings (↑= ↓ negative correlation, ↑= ↑ positive correlation)
1.A. Bernier, S. D. Calkins, M. A. Bell (2016)n= 197 mother-infant dyads (healthy full-term infants)Longitudinal studyMaternal behavior: sensitivity, intrusiveness, positive affect, physical stimulation coding scheme developed by Calkins, Hungerford, and Dedmon (2004)/ 5 monthsResting EEG power/ 5, 10 and 24 months↑ Quality of maternal behavior during mother—infant interactions = ↑frontal resting EEG power
2.J. R. Britton, H. L. Britton, V. Gronwaldt (2006)n= 152 mother-infant dyads (healthy full-term infants)Longitudinal studyQuality of the dyadic interaction scales Nursing Child Assessment Satellite Training (NCAST) Feeding Scale/ 6 monthsSecurity of infant-mother attachment. Ainsworth Strange Situation Procedure/ 12 months↑Quality of the dyadic interaction = ↑security of attachment
3.R. Costa, B. Figueiredo (2011)n= 94 mother-infant dyads (7,2% preterm infants, 92,8% full-term infants)Longitudinal studyQuality of the overall mother–infant interaction (good vs poor) The Global Rating Scales (GRS)/ 2 months (+/−5 days)Temperament The Infant Behavior Questionnaire - Revised (IBQ-R)- The Portuguese version/ 3 and 12 monthsPoor mother–infant interaction = ↓mothers’ perception of infant high pleasure and smile and ↑ mothers’ perceptions of infant level of activity
4.J. S. Crawford (2004)n= 65 mother-infant dyads (no information about GA)Cross-sectional studyMaternal responsivity/sensitivity Synchrony/reciprocity of parent-child interactions 7-point Likert scales/ between 6 and 12 monthsTemperament. The Infant Behavior Questionnaire- Revised (IBQ-R) and Temperament Laboratory Assessment (TLA)/ between 6 and 12 months↑Maternal responsivity/sensitivity = ↑child’s attentional skills (Perceptual sensitivity)
5.E. P. Davis et al. (2018)Irvine Cohort: n1=192 mother-infant dyads Turku Cohort: n2=126 mother-infant dyads (infants selected from bigger “FinnBrain” Cohort, no information about GA)Longitudinal cohort studyDegree of predictability of maternal sensory signals The entropy rate/ 6, 8 and 12 monthsChild self-control Infant Behavior Questionnaire - Revised (IBQ-R)/ 1 year, Children’s Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ)/ 5 years, Flanker task/ 6,5 years, Temperament in Early Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ)/ 9,5 years↑ Unpredictable maternal sensory signals (high entropy rate) = ↓ child self-control
6.S. J. Erickson, J. R. Lowe (2008)n= 50 mother-infant dyads (VLBW preterm infants: birth weight < 1,250 g.)Cross-sectional studyInteractive maternal behaviors Still Face (SF) Tronick et al.’s (1978) protocol/ between 6 and 8 months

  1. infant positive and negative affect Scale adapted from the Infant Regulatory Scoring System

  2. infant development BSID-II

  3. infant temperament Infant Behavior Questionnaire (IBQ) between 6 and 8 months

Positive infant affect during and after the SF stressor was related to baseline infant positive affect and ↑ maternal responsiveness
7.C. A. Evans, C. L. Porter (2009)n ranged from 101 to 84, mother–infant dyads (healthy full-term infants)Longitudinal studyMother-infant co-regulation Fogel’s Relational Coding System/ 6, 9 and 12 months

  1. Infant developmental status: psychomotor (PDI) and mental (MDI) development Bayley Scales of Infant Development (BSIDII)/ 6 and 9 months

  2. Attachment quality Ainsworth Strange Situation Procedure/ 12 months

Symmetrical co-regulation = ↑ MDI scores. Asymmetrical and Unilateral co-regulation = ↓ MDI scores Symmetrical co-regulation = ↑PDI scores, Unengaged behaviors = ↓ PDI scores
8.R. Feldman (2007)n= 31 mother-infant dyads (healthy full-term infants)Longitudinal studyMother-infant synchrony. Mutual influence assessed with time-series analysis (CCF cross corelation function)/ 3 and 9 months

  1. Verbal IQ, Stanford - Binet Inteligence Scale

  2. Behavior problems, The child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)

  3. Child self-regulated compliance, Observation at “do (pick up) or don’t (resist temptation)” paradigm

  4. Maternal warm control discipline, Maternal disciplinary style coded I, II, III, IV: 2, 4, and 6 years

  5. Moral cognition, 4 moral dilemmas

  6. Dialogical empathy, 2 conflict discusions V, VI: 6 and 13 years

↑ Mother-infant synchrony — ↑ mutual influence, ↑ verbal IQ, ↑ behavior problems and ↑ capacity for empathy in adolescence, ↑ Mutual influence = ↑ self- regulated compliance and ↑ capacity for empathy in adolescence
9.R. Feldman (2010)n= 36 mother-infant dyads (healthy full-term infants)Longitudinal studyMaternal sensitivity Child social engagement Mother intrusiveness Dyadic reciprocity Coding Interactive behavior manual (CIB)/ 3 and 9 months, 2, 4, 6, and 13 years.

  1. Intelligence Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale 4th Edition/ 2, 4 years

    Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children - Revised (WISC-R)/ 6 years

  2. Infant difficult temperament Infant Characteristic Questionnaire and Fussy-Difficult composite/ 3, 9, and 24 months

  3. Child behavior problems Child Behavior Checklist 2–3 years (CBCL 2–3)/ 2 years Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL)/ 4, 6 and 13 years

  4. Child depressive symptoms Child Depression Inventory (CDI)/ 13 years

↓Maternal sensitivity across development and ↑ Intrusiveness = ↓ adolescents’ adaptation ↑Dyadic reciprocity = ↑ adolescent adjustment.
10.R. Feldman et al. (2013)

  • n= 50 mother /father -infant dyads (50 mothers, 48 fathers, healthy infants)

  • f= 50 ‘best friends’ of a similar age to the target child

Longitudinal studyEarly Parental Care Proportions of gaze to infant, positive affect, ‘motherese’ vocalizations, and affectionate touch were summed into a parent care composite/ 1 and 6 months

  1. DNA Genotyping

  2. OT assessments OT collection from Saliva/ 3 years

  3. Child’s Social Reciprocity: mother- child, father- child. Child with best friend Coding Interactive Behavior manual (CIB)/ 3 years

↑Early maternal care = ↑ mother-child reciprocity (early paternal care was unrelated to father-child reciprocity) ↑Mother-child reciprocity = ↑ Children’s social reciprocity with best friend (father-child reciprocity was unrelated)
11.R. Feldman, E. Bamberger, Y. Kanat-Maymon (2013)n ranged from 100 to 68; mother/father-infant dyads (healthy full-term infants)Longitudinal studyParent-child reciprocity Coding Interactive Behavior manual (CIB)/ 5 months, 3 and 13 years.

  1. Children’s social competence,

  2. Aggression,

  3. Prosocial behavior Nursery Assessment Scale I, II, III 3 years

  4. Children’s dialogical skills Adolescent-friend interactions/ 13 years

↑Early maternal and paternal reciprocity = ↑ social competence, ↓aggression in preschool, ↑dialogical skills in adolescence (Father—adolescent reciprocity contributed to the dialogical negotiation of conflict, whereas mother-adolescent reciprocity predicted adolescents’ dialogical skills during positive exchanges.)
12.R Feldman (2015)n= 125 mother-infants dyads (healthy premature infants: GA between 25 and 35 weeks)Longitudinal studyParent-child reciprocity Coding Interactive Behavior manual (CIB)/ 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and 5 years

  1. Emotion regulation (ER) Age-specific ER paradigms/ 3, 6, 12, and 24 months and 5 years

  2. Autonomic regulation= RSA (vagal tone), 10 min of baseline ECG

  3. Child accident proneness, child’s accident proneness and tendency for risky behavior on eight items

  4. Child empathy, Direct observations and an experimental paradigm

  5. Behavior problems, Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) II, III, IV, V at 10 years

↑ Parent-child reciprocity = ↑ child ER, ↑Reciprocity = ↑ greater empathy
13.C. Giovanelli et al. (2020)n= 43 mother-infant dyads(no information about GA)Longitudinal studyMind-mindedness Meins and Fernyhough’s coding system (1977)/ 6 and 12 monthsSymbolic play The coding system developed by McCune-Nicolich (1977)/ 12 and 13 months↑ Mind-related comments = ↑ length and maturity level of infants’ symbolic play
14.M. Kivijärvi et al. (2005)n= 56 mother-infant dyads (healthy full-term infants)Longitudinal studyMaternal sensitivity behavior (MSB) Parent-Child Early Relational Assessment (PCERA)/ 3 and 12 monthsTemperament PCERA infant items/ 3 months Revised Infant Temperament Questionnaire (R-ITQ)/ 6 months Toddler Temperament Questionnaire (TTQ)/ 12 months

  • Less sensitive (LS) mothers = ↑ infants of intermediate temperament cluster (68%)

  • More sensitive (MS) mothers = ↓ infants of intermediate temperament cluster (35%)

  • MS mothers = ↓ active infants (than those of LS mothers)

  • LS mothers = ↑ infants with concern scores in Mood (than those of MS mothers)

  • LS mothers = ↑ concern scores in Sociability of infants (than in case of MS mothers)

15.M. F. Lorber, B. Egeland (2011)n ranged from 267 to 243, mother–child dyads (no information about GA, infants assessed at home at their 7th day of life= probably full-term infants )Longitudinal studyNegative infancy parenting. Ratings of positive and negative maternal regard for the infant on 7-point scales/ 3 and 6 months (common variance)

  1. Maternal perception of infant difficulty. The Infant Temperament Questionnaire (ITQ)/ 3 and 6 months

  2. Mutually negative mother–toddler interaction. Series of mother teaching/child problem-solving tasks/ 24 and 42 months

  3. Conduct problems (CP) Child Behavior Checklist (CBC)/ at kindergarten and first grade (5–6 years)

↑Negative mothering = ↑mutually angry and hostile mother–toddler interaction, and ↑CPs
16.J. Milgrom et al. (2013)m = 109 mothers with n=123 infants (preterm infants <30 weeks GA - Intervention group: m1= 54 mothers, n1 = 60 infants. Control group: m2= 55 mothers n2= 63 infants)RCT (enhanced MITP intervention group vs. control group)Maternal sensitivity Preterm Mother–Infant Interaction Scale (PREMIIS)/ term-equivalent ageInfant communication abilities The Infant–Toddler Checklist of the Communication and Symbolic Behaviour Scales Developmental Profile (CSBS DP Infant–Toddler Checklist)/ 6 months CAExperimental (MITP intervention) group: ↑ symbolic behaviour
17.J. Milgrom, D. T. Westley, A. W. Gemmill (2004)n ranged from 88 to 56, mother-infant dyads: n, ranged from 40 to 23 (depressed mothers), n2 ranged from 48 to 33 (control mothers), no information about infants’ GACross-sectional studyMaternal responsiveness measure adapted by Milgrom and Burn (1988)/ 6 months

  1. Temperament The Short Temperament Scale for Infants (STSI) and Short Temperament Scale for Toddlers (STST)/ 12, 24 and 42 months

  2. Infant IQ Wechsler Preschool Primary Scale of Intelligence (Revised)/ 42 months

  3. Infant cognition Early Screening Profiles (ESP)/ 42 months

Depressed mothers group: ↓ mother-infant interactions and ↑ child’s temperamental difficulties (but not correlated with maternal responsiveness) ↓Maternal responsiveness = ↑ cognitive deficits
18.C A, Newnham, J. Milgrom, H. Skouteris (2009)n= 68 mother-infant dyads (preterm infants; Intervention group: n1= 35 (mean GA= 31.26), Control group: n2= 33 (mean GA= 33.71)RCT (MITP-based intervention group vs control group)Maternal respond, Infant alert, Attending to mother. Mutual attention, Reciprocity/Synchrony Synchrony Scale/ 3 and 6 months CA

  1. Temperament and the colic, sleep and excessive crying difficulties Short Temperament Scale for Infants. The 7-item Approach subscale of the STSI/ 3 and 6 months

  2. Communication and Problem Solving. The Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ)/ 2 years

  • Experimental (MITP intervention) group: Infants were perceived as more “approaching”, “easier” ↓Fewer colic, ↓Sleep and crying difficulties ↑Communication (ASQ)

  • ↑Maternal Responsiveness and Infant Alertness = ↑Communication

19.K. A. O’Donnell H. Gaudreau (2014)n ranged from 213 to 109, mother- infant dyads (healthy full-term infants)Longitudinal studyMaternal sensitivity Ainsworth Maternal Sensitivity Scales 6 and 18 months Maternal behavior: duration of looking away from the infant, vocalizing to the infant Behavioural Evaluation Strategies and Taxonomies coding system/ 6 months

  1. Children’s attachment security Modified Strange Situation procedure/ 36 months

No correlation was found between maternal sensitivity or maternal behavior and children’s attachment security.
20.J Poehlman n, B. H. Fiese (2001)n= 84 infant-mother dyads (n1 =44 full-term infants, n2= 20 preterm LBW infants <2500 g, n3= 20 preterm VLBW infants < 1500 g )Longitudinal cohort studyQuality of parent-infant interaction The Pediatric Infant Parent Exam (PIPE)/ 6 monthsInfant developmental abilities The Mental Scale (MDI) of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development/ 12 months↑ Reciprocal, ↑affectively positive and ↑engaging interactions = ↑ Infant developmental abilities
21.V. Sethna et al. (2017)n= 39 mother-infant dyads (healthy full-term infants)Cross-sectional studyMaternal sensitivity and affect, Quality of parent-infant relationship, Infant communication and affective state Global Rating Scales (GRS)/ between 3 and 6 monthsDimensions and brain volumes MRI data acquisition/ between 3 and 6 months

  • ↑Maternal affect = ↑total grey and white matter volume, and ↓CSF volume

  • ↑Maternal sensitivity = ↑subcortical grey matter volume

  • ↑ Infant communication and engagement during mother-infant interactions = ↓cerebellar volume

22.P. E, Shah, et al. (2013)n= 123 mother-infant dyads (n1 = 39 very preterm infants (VPI ), n2= 47 moderate preterm infants (MPI), n3=37 late preterm infants (LPI)Longitudinal studyMaternal parenting Parent Child Early Relational Assessment (PCERA)/ 4, 9, 16, and 24 months

  1. Cognitive skills Abbreviated Battery IQ Scale (ABIQ) from the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, 5th edition

  2. Child behavior problems Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) both at 36 months

↑Negative parenting = ↑ externalizing behavior problems ↑Maternal negative behavior = ↓ optimal child IQ (VPIs). ↓ Negative interactions during infancy = ↑ cognitive skills (VPIs)
23.D. Silberstein et al. (2009)n= 76 mother-infant dyads (low-risk premature infants: mean GA of 32.5 weeks)Longitudinal studyMaternal touch and gaze Maternal adaptation Coding of Interactive Behavior-Newborn (CIB)/ Prior to hospital discharge Infant developmental status: psychomotor (PDI) and mental (MDI) development Bayley Scales of Infant Development, 2nd edition/ 4 monthsI. Feeding difficulties Maternal interview and direct observations of feeding interactions/ 1 year↑Maternal intrusiveness, ↓affectionate touch and gaze, ↑gaze aversion and ↓maternal adaptation = ↑feeding difficulties
24.S. Stolt et al. (2014)n= 62 mother-infant dyads (n1=28 VLBW infants = birth weight ≤ 1500 g, n2= 34 full-term infants )Longitudinal cohort studyQuality of mother-child Interaction scales The Parent-child Early Relational Assessment (the PCERA)/ 6 and 12 months (CA for VLBW infants)Early language development Checklist for the Development of Early Vocalizations (CDEV) + Finnish version of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory (CDI; FinCDI)/ 6, 12 and 24 month (CA for VLBW infants)↑ Maternal positive affective involvement = ↑number of morphological inflections ↑Infants positive affect = ↑number of morphological inflections ↑ Maternal positive communication = ↑language skills ↑Dyadic features = ↑language skills
25.M. T. Tu et al. (2007)n= 158 mother-infant dyads (n1= 103 VLGA infants= ≤32 weeks GA, n2=55 full-term infants )Longitudinal cohort studyInteractive maternal behaviors: Gratification, Affect, Sensitivity, and Organization. criteria set by Crnic et al. (1983)/ 8 months CA

  1. Focused attention Methods of Lawson and Ruff (2001) / 8 months CA

  2. Infant Cortisol Analysis

  3. Parenting stress Long-form Parenting Stress Index (PSI) / 8 months CA

↑Interactive maternal behavior = ↑focused attention (preterm/low parenting stress group) ↑Interactive maternal behavior = ↓basal cortisol and ↓ quality of focused attention (preterm/high parenting stress group)
26.E. van de Weijer-Bergsma et al. (2016)n= 74 mother-infant dyads (preterm infants; ≤36 weeks GA with a birth weight of <2500g)Longitudinal studyMaternal sensitive responsiveness and directiveness ELO scales/ 7, 10 and 14 months CAExecutive functioning looking and reaching versions of the A-not-B task/ 7, 10 and 14 months CA↑ Maternal directiveness and stability in maternal directiveness = ↑ (faster) developmental change in A-not-B performance
27.F. F. Warnock et al. (2016)n= 24 mother-infant dyads (healthy full-term infants)Cross-sectional studyMaternal caregiving behavior Maternal Behavior Coding System (MBCS)/ second visit after hospital dischargeInfant pain behavior self-regulation Neonatal Distress Pain Related Behavioral Coding Schema (ND-BSC)/ second visit after hospital dischargeAtypical maternal caregiving behavior was related to atypical infant pain behavior self-regulation during and after the heel lance procedure.
28.A. Wazana et al. (2015)n= 650 mother-infant dyads (healthy full-term infants)Longitudinal studyMaternal sensitivity Ainsworth Maternal Sensitivity Scales Maternal behavior: frequency and duration of looking away from the infant, vocalizing to the infant, instrumental caregiving Behavioural Evaluation Strategies and Taxonomies coding system/ Both 6 months

  1. Infant developmental status: psychomotor (PDI) and mental (MDI) development The Bayley Scales of Infant Development—Second Edition/ 6, 12, and 18 months

  2. DRD4 genotype. Genotyping

  3. Attachment The modified separation–reunion procedure/ 36 months

↑ Attentive maternal care (frequency of maternal looking away behavior) and ↓ Sensitivity = disorganized attachment of children in the midrange of birth weight. The association reversed with extreme birth weight (low and high).
29.D. Wolke, S. Eryigit-Madzwamuse, T. Gutbrod (2014)n=176 mother-infant dyads; n1= 71 VP/VLBW infants: <1500 g or <32 weeks of gestation), n2= 105 full-term infantsLongitudinal cohort studyMaternal sensitivity Boston City Hospital Assessment of Parental Sensitivity (BCHAPS)/ at term Mother-Infant Structured Play Assessment/ 3 monthsInfant attachment Strange Situation Assessment (SSA)/ 18 months↓ Maternal sensitivity at term (full-term sample) = ↑ attachment disorganization
30.M. A. J. Zeegers et al. (2018)n ranged from 135 to 130 infants; mother/father – infant dyads (healthy infants = birth weight > 2500 g)Longitudinal studyParental mind-mindedness Mind-mindedness coding manual 4 and 12 months Parenting quality Meso Behavioural Rating System for Families with young children (MeBRF)/ 12 months

  1. Baseline HRV Mean value of HRV

  2. HRV decline Stranger approach task Both at 4 and 12 months

Both mothers’ and fathers’ appropriate mind-related comments = ↑infant baseline HRV (for fathers indirect association via parenting quality) Mothers’ appropriate mind-related comments and fathers’ non-attuned mind-related comments = ↑ HRV decline during the stranger approach
Figure 2.

Significant direct interrelations between the level of early mother-infant interaction quality and physiology-related developmental outcomes found within the scope of articles included in this review.

*no studies which include correlation with physiological or neurodevelopmental outcome.

**eating difficulties according to the current terminology.

Figure 3.

Significant direct interrelations between the level of early mother-infant interaction quality and cognitive-related developmental outcomes found within the scope of articles included in this review.

*no studies which include correlation with cognitive or socio-emotional outcome.

**Social skills include three different variables found in articles: social skills, social reciprocity and symbolic play development.

No.Author/YearSelection BiasStudy DesignConfoundersBlindingData Collection MethodWithdrawals and DropoutsGlobal Rating
1.A. Bernier, S. D. Calkins, M. A. Bell (2016)ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongWeakModerate
2.J. R. Britton, H. L. Britton, V. Gronwaldt (2006)ModerateModerateModerateModerateStrongWeakModerate
3.R. Costa, B. Figueiredo (2011)StrongModerateStrongModerateStrongWeakModerate
4.J. S. Crawford (2004)ModerateModerateModerateModerateStrongModerateStrong
5.E. P. Davis et al. (2018)ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongModerateStrong
6.S. J. Erickson, J. R. Lowe (2008)WeakModerateStrongModerateStrongWeakWeak
7.C. A. Evans, C. L. Porter (2009)WeakModerateStrongModerateStrongStrongModerate
8.R. Feldman (2007)ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongStrongStrong
9.R. Feldman (2010)ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongStrongStrong
10.R. Feldman et al. (2013)WeakModerateStrongModerateStrongModerateModerate
11.R. Feldman, E. Bamberger, Y. Kanat-Maymon (2013)ModerateModerateModerateModerateStrongModerateStrong
12.R. Feldman (2015)ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongModerateStrong
13.C. Giovanelli et al. (2020)WeakModerateStrongModerateStrongStrongModerate
14.M. Kivijärvi et al. (2005)ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongStrongStrong
15.M. F. Lorber, B. Egeland (2011)WeakModerateStrongModerateStrongStrongModerate
16.J. Milgrom et al. (2013)WeakStrongStrongModerateStrongStrongModerate
17.J. Milgrom, D. T. Westley, A. W. Gemmill (2004)ModerateStrongModerateModerateStrongModerateStrong
18.C. A. Newnham, J. Milgrom, H. Skouteris (2009)StrongStrongStrongModerateStrongStrongStrong
19.K. A. O’Donnell, H. Gaudreau (2014)ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongWeakModerate
20.J. Poehlmann, B. H. Fiese (2001)ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongModerateStrong
21.V. Sethna et al. (2017)WeakModerateStongModerateStrongStrongModerate
22.P. E. Shah, et al. (2013)ModerateModerateStongModerateStrongStrongStrong
23.D. Silberstein et al. (2009)ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongStrongStrong
24.S. Stolt et al. (2014)ModerateModerateWeakModerateStrongStrongModerate
25.M. T. Tu et al. (2007)ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongWeakModerate
26.E. van de Weijer-Bergsma et al. (2016)ModerateModerateWeakModerateStrongStrongModerate
27.F. F. Warnock et al. (2016)ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongModerateStrong
28.A. Wazana et al. (2015)ModerateModerateStrongModerateStrongStrongStrong
29.D. Wolke, S. Eryigit-Madzwamuse, T. Gutbrod (2014)StrongStrongStrongModerateStrongStrongStrong
30.M. A. J. Zeegers et al. (2018)WeakModerateStrongModerateStrongModerateModerate
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34763/jmotherandchild.20252901.d-25-00017 | Journal eISSN: 2719-535X | Journal ISSN: 2719-6488
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 143 - 174
Submitted on: May 18, 2025
Accepted on: Jul 25, 2025
Published on: Sep 10, 2025
Published by: Institute of Mother and Child
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
early interaction quality,
mother-infant relationship,
reciprocity,
dyadic synchrony,
responsiveness,
infant development,
systematic review
Related subjects:
Medicine,
Clinical medicine,
Pediatrics and juvenile medicine,
Paediatric haematology and oncology,
Public health

© 2025 Anna Grochowska, Grażyna Kmita, published by Institute of Mother and Child
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 29 (2025): Issue 1 (February 2025)
Previous article
Next article