Psicobiología del estrés prenatal:implicaciones en el eje hipotálamo-hipofisiario-adrenal de los bebés

The womb is the first developmental environment. After developmental psychobiologists started to investigate intrauterine evolution of infant and its long-term impact, they found that prenatal and postnatal development is influenced by mother’s psychological health. Specifically, scientific research evidence indicates that prenatal stress is a possible cause of subsequent psychopathological vulnerability. This vulnerability comes from stress sensitivity and is the basis of many childhood disorders. In the last decade, there are evidences for a fetal origin of stress sensitivity in the context of the fetal programming theory (Entringer et al., 2009, Grant et al., 2009, Gutteling et al., 2004, Huizink et al., 2004, O’Connor et al., 2005). According to fetal programming hypothesis, babies that have been exposed to high levels of prenatal stress would develop elevated HPA axis reactivity and thus increased stress sensitivity in the postnatal period. In the field of animal psychobiology, several studies have shown that prenatal stress could play some role on fetal programming of neurodevelopment and HPA axis (Glover, 2010, Weinstock, 2005, 2008). In human psychobiology, evidences are less clear (Glover, 2010). Although research in this regard has been growing during the last few years, more studies are warranted to investigate the relationship between maternal stress and fetal programming of neurodevelopment and the HPA axis in humans, to confirm the findings which are evident from animal psychobiology...

The interpretation of scholars' interpretations of confidence intervals: criticism, replication, and extension of Hoekstra et al. (2014)

Hoekstra et al. (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2014, 21:1157–1164) surveyed the interpretation of confidence intervals (CIs) by first-year students, master students, and researchers with six items expressing misinterpretations of CIs. They asked respondents to answer all items, computed the number of items endorsed, and concluded that misinterpretation of CIs is robust across groups. Their design may have produced this outcome artifactually for reasons that we describe. This paper discusses first the two interpretations of CIs and, hence, why misinterpretation cannot be inferred from endorsement of some of the items. Next, a re-analysis of Hoekstra et al.’s data reveals some puzzling differences between first-year and master students that demand further investigation. For that purpose, we designed a replication study with an extended questionnaire including two additional items that express correct interpretations of CIs (to compare endorsement of correct vs. nominally incorrect interpretations) and we asked master students to indicate which items they would have omitted had they had the option (to distinguish deliberate from uninformed endorsement caused by the forced-response format). Results showed that incognizant first-year students endorsed correct and nominally incorrect items identically, revealing that the two item types are not differentially attractive superficially; in contrast, master students were distinctively more prone to endorsing correct items when their uninformed responses were removed, although they admitted to nescience more often that might have been expected. Implications for teaching practices are discussed.