Skip to main content
Download PDF

Exploring early life social and executive function development in infants and risk for autism: a prospective cohort study protocol of NICU graduates and infants at risk for cerebral palsy

BMC Psychiatry volume 24, Article number: 359 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Delays in early social and executive function are predictive of later developmental delays and eventual neurodevelopmental diagnoses. There is limited research examining such markers in the first year of life. High-risk infant groups commonly present with a range of neurodevelopmental challenges, including social and executive function delays, and show higher rates of autism diagnoses later in life. For example, it has been estimated that up to 30% of infants diagnosed with cerebral palsy (CP) will go on to be diagnosed with autism later in life.

Methods

This article presents a protocol of a prospective longitudinal study. The primary aim of this study is to identify early life markers of delay in social and executive function in high-risk infants at the earliest point in time, and to explore how these markers may relate to the increased risk for social and executive delay, and risk of autism, later in life. High-risk infants will include Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) graduates, who are most commonly admitted for premature birth and/or cardiovascular problems. In addition, we will include infants with, or at risk for, CP. This prospective study will recruit 100 high-risk infants at the age of 3–12 months old and will track social and executive function across the first 2 years of their life, when infants are 3–7, 8–12, 18 and 24 months old. A multi-modal approach will be adopted by tracking the early development of social and executive function using behavioural, neurobiological, and caregiver-reported everyday functioning markers. Data will be analysed to assess the relationship between the early markers, measured from as early as 3–7 months of age, and the social and executive function as well as the autism outcomes measured at 24 months.

Discussion

This study has the potential to promote the earliest detection and intervention opportunities for social and executive function difficulties as well as risk for autism in NICU graduates and/or infants with, or at risk for, CP. The findings of this study will also expand our understanding of the early emergence of autism across a wider range of at-risk groups.

Background

Early detection of developmental delays is crucial to provide optimal support. Identifying early markers that may signpost elevated risk for developmental delay is one way to improve these early detection and support efforts. Literature to date has shown that delays in early social and executive function markers may be predictive of later developmental delays and eventual neurodevelopmental diagnoses, such as autism [1, 2]. Two at-risk infant groups that can show significant delays associated with social and executive function and have an elevated risk of meeting criteria for autism spectrum diagnoses include neonates admitted to the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) and infants with, or at risk for, cerebral palsy (CP). Factors necessitating NICU admissions, such as premature birth, low birth weight and other medical complications like congenital heart disease, have been linked to developmental delays [3], while up to 95% of individuals with CP present with at least one additional medical, neurological, or neurodevelopmental condition, extending beyond motor impairments core to the CP diagnosis [4].

To illustrate, delays in both social development and executive function have been repeatedly observed across infants admitted to the NICU and infants with CP [5,6,7,8,9,10]. For instance, cross-sectional studies of these high-risk infants have reported social impairments spanning from social-communicative difficulties in early childhood to social isolation and withdrawal in adolescence and adulthood [6, 9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. These delays have been found to confer lifelong challenges including decreased quality of life, relationship issues and fewer educational and vocational opportunities [16,17,18]. Additionally, there is growing evidence of attention and executive function delays in both NICU graduates and infants with CP, with attentional deficits detected from the first years of life and delays in executive function reported across the lifespan [7, 19,20,21,22,23]. Similar to social impairments, these delays in executive function have been associated with poorer outcomes across academic achievement, employment and quality of life [24, 25], further underscoring the importance of detecting delays early in development and providing appropiate supports.

While social and executive function impairments are common and considerably impact on daily function in and of themselves, these high-risk infants are also at heightened risk for developing autism. An elevated risk for autism has been linked with risk factors that lead to NICU admissions [26, 27], with early medical complications like low birth weight, congenital heart disease and other birth defects being associated with an increased incidence of autism [28,29,30,31]. Further, it is estimated that up to 30% of children with CP may go onto receive an additional diagnosis of autism [32]. Early identification of social and executive function markers in these high-risk infants would thus help us to develop reliable markers of risk for autism and provide supports and interventions as early as possible.

Despite this, the identification of delay in social and executive functioning domains and a later diagnosis of autism is often not made until years after presentation to health services. Early detection and intervention are critical to safeguard the developmental trajectories of social and executive function and to optimize developmental outcomes [33,34,35]. To date, however, there has been relatively little research exploring the early identification of these delays in high-risk infant cohorts, particularly in the first months of life. While past research has identified early signs of social and cognitive delays in the first year of life in NICU graduates [36,37,38,39], there has been a lack of studies exploring early markers that can predict later social and executive function delays and autism diagnoses. Similarly, no research to date has evaluated early predictors of social and executive function delays in infants with CP, with much of the research efforts focused on motor impairments [40]. This paucity of research highlights the need to explore early divergences in social and executive function in these high-risk cohorts during the first months of life, and to identify markers that can predict later developmental delays. Alongside this, despite the high prevalence of autism in both CP and NICU graduates, research examining the early emergence of autism in NICU graduates is scarce [41, 42] and is non-existent for CP. Instead, much of the extant knowledge comes from studies of infants at familial risk for autism [43, 44]. The search for early markers of autism in infants with CP and NICU graduates is therefore critical, both to expand our understanding of early markers of autism, and to ultimately advance our ability to detect and intervene across a broader range of at-risk infants.

While much of the evidence considering risk for autism comes from familial risk studies (e.g., infant siblings of autistic children), it has provided valuable insights into the early emergence of autism and its associated developmental delays. Thus far, reliable markers of autism have been established from the second year of life onwards. These markers include atypical social interaction and communication behaviours as well as distinct profiles of early temperament, motor development and attention [1, 45,46,47]. However, there has been much less clarity on whether these markers exhibit predictive value in the first year of life, and particularly in the first 6 months [48, 49]. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the subtle and transient signs of atypical development in the first year can be detected by adopting more sensitive measures [50]. For example, studies adopting eye-tracking technology have identified atypical gaze patterns as one promising early marker of later autism [51,52,53,54,55]. Likewise, atypicalities in brain structure and function have demonstrated predictive value from as early as the first few months of life, supporting the speculation that neural measures may provide a window for earlier detection, with neural alterations preceding behavioural changes in autism [1, 50, 56,57,58]. Moreover, recent research has proposed a link between cortical and epidermal development, suggesting that skin barrier integrity and skin lipid profiles could also represent very early indicators for neurodevelopmental divergence [59, 60]. Taken together, the existing evidence underscores the need to take a multi-modal approach that integrates both behavioural and neurobiological measures when examining developmental delays in early infancy. No previous studies have adopted such an approach to prospectively explore the early emergence of social and executive function impairments and risk for autism in infants with CP and NICU graduates. A prospective investigation of early social and executive function delays in these high-risk groups is therefore warranted, to better understand which infants are at increased risk for later social and executive function impairments and may go onto receive an autism diagnosis.

This article presents the protocol for a prospective longitudinal study, which tracks early social and executive function development as well as the risk for autism in two high-risk cohorts, specifically NICU graduates and infants with, or at risk for, CP. Infants are tracked from 3 to 7 months through to 2 years of age. The study will take a multi-modal approach to track early social and executive function development, using behavioural, neurobiological, and caregiver-reported everyday functioning markers. The data from this study has the potential to: (i) provide benchmarks for the early detection of delays in social and executive function and risk for autism in NICU graduates and infants with CP; and (ii) inform on interactions between social and executive function delays with related domains of broader development (e.g., motor, cognitive, language, caregiver well-being and caregiver perceived stigma). With these data, we will be able to establish prediction models for social and executive function delays as well as risk for autism in these high-risk infants, which will then help inform the development of more targeted early interventions. Finally, this study will provide a broader understanding of the early emergence of autism across a wider range of at-risk infants.

Study aims

The primary aim of this study is to identify markers of social and executive function delay in high-risk infants from as early as 3–7 months of age, and to explore how these markers may relate to an increased risk for autism at 2 years of age. High-risk infants will include NICU graduates and/or infants with, or at risk for, CP. Given that social and executive function impairments often occur alongside difficulties in motor, cognitive and language development, as well as poor parental wellbeing, the secondary aim is to examine the associations between the early markers of social and executive function and these broader developmental domains.

Methods

Study design and setting

In this prospective longitudinal study, initial assessments will be conducted when participants are 3–7 (T1) months old, and follow-up assessments will be administered when they are 8–12 (T2), 18 (T3) and 24 (T4) months old. The assessment sessions will take place at the Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, or the Cerebral Palsy Alliance (CPA) early diagnosis clinics.

Participants

This longitudinal study will consecutively recruit 100 infants at the age of 3–12 months old, with age corrected for prematurity. Two groups of infants will be recruited for the study: (1) infants who have been admitted to the NICU; and/or (2) infants with, or at risk for, CP. Infants with vision or hearing impairments or severe medical conditions that may interfere with task completion will be excluded. Families will be referred to the study through CPA early diagnosis clinics, NICUs and NICU follow-up clinics. In the interest of maximising recruitment potential, the upper age cut-off for recruitment has been extended from 7 months to 12 months of age. However, recruitment efforts will primarily be focused on infants aged 3–7 months old. Participants aged 8–12 months old at intake will begin assessments at Time 2 and will be followed up at 18 (T3) and 24 (T4) months old. Informed consent to participate will be obtained from caregivers or guardians of infants recruited into the study in line with existing human research ethics approval (2021/HE000937).

Study procedure

The development of social and executive function will be assessed at 3–7 (T1), 8–12 (T2), 18 (T3) and 24 (T4) months, using behavioural (assessed by laboratory-based tasks), neurobiological (brain activity, physiological measures, epidermal development) and caregiver-reported everyday functioning markers. In addition to this, early autistic behaviours will be measured at 8–12 (T2) and 18 (T3) months. The final assessment at 24 months (T4) will also include a comprehensive assessment for autism, the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, 2nd Edition (ADOS-2) and an eye-tracking task to measure social attention. The assessment procedure is outlined in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Assessment procedure

Full size image

Measures

Early social function

Early social function will be measured both behaviourally and neurobiologically, during the completion of social play tasks. Both the caregiver and infant will be set up with an electroencephalogram (EEG) and mindware physiological recording equipment. Caregivers and infants will be fitted with a 24-channel EEG cap (eego™ sports 24, ANT Neuro). The EEG data will be recorded at a sampling rate of 2 kHz using the 24-channel shielded saline-soaked waveguard net and eego™ amplifier, which has four bipolar input channels and two TTL-based trigger inputs, integrated with the eego™ software package. The physiological recording equipment will measure heart rate variability and respiratory rate. Baseline neural and physiological measures will be recorded for 5 minutes while the caregiver and infants watch a Baby Einstein video (© 2002, The Baby Einstein, LLC), which is commonly used for baseline assessments [61, 62]. Infants will then engage in one unstructured play task and two structured play tasks. Caregivers and infants will complete these play tasks while continuing to wear the EEG and physiological recording equipment. All tasks will be recorded for offline behavioural coding and the neurobiological data will be analysed using previously published methods [63,64,65,66].

Unstructured play

The unstructured play task will involve 6 minutes of free play between the caregiver and infant. Behavioural coding of the unstructured play task will be performed using two coding systems: (1) A quantitative coding system developed by our team based on prior research on caregiver-infant behavioural synchrony [67, 68], where the behaviour of each dyad will be microcoded in 0.01-second frames for important behavioural categories (e.g., eye gaze, social facial expressions, mirroring); (2) The Manchester Assessment of Caregiver-Infant Interaction (MACI [69];), a global rating scale covering broad features of caregiver, infant and dyadic interaction quality. The MACI has been used to capture interaction quality in typically developing infants, as well as those at risk for autism [70].

Structured play

Still face paradigm The still face paradigm will assess caregiver-infant interaction under exposure to socio-emotional stress [71]. This paradigm occurs in three phases: (1) play: caregiver engages in free play with infant; (2) still face: caregiver stops engaging with infant and maintains a neutral face; (3) reunion: caregiver resumes playing with infant. Behavioural coding of the still face procedure will be performed using the infant and caregiver engagement phases (ICEP) coding system [72, 73], which microanalyses the caregiver and infant’s behavioural responses during the still face paradigm.

Imitation task The imitation task will assess facial mimicry. This task will involve the assessor demonstrating two target gestures (tongue protrusion and mouth opening) to the infant [74]. Imitation will be measured by computing the degree to which the child’s response matches the assessor’s modelling of the target gesture. Given that neonatal imitation is bound to a temporal window of approximately 0 to 3 months of age, the imitation task will only be administered for infants aged 3–7 months old (T1).

Attention and early executive function

Attention and early executive function will also be measured behaviourally and neurobiologically. The infant will continue to wear the EEG cap and the mindware physiological recording equipment for the attention and executive function tasks. From the EEG, frontal lobe functioning will be measured via brain electrical activity (EEG power) and functional connectivity (EEG coherence). The physiological recording equipment will measure heart rate, which will provide a biological measure of attention [75]. Infants will complete all tasks while wearing the recording equipment. All tasks will be recorded for offline behavioural coding and the neurobiological data will be analysed using previously published methods [63, 64].

Attention

Orienting task Orienting attention will be measured by a modified version of the “Orientation” items of the NICU network neurobehavioural scale (NNNS) assessment [76]. This task involves presenting infants with a series of inanimate visual (ball), auditory (rattle) and visual/auditory stimuli. The infant’s orienting responses will be scored according to the NNNS manual.

Passive viewing attention task The passive viewing attention task will involve presenting infants with an engaging and brief 1-minute Sesame Street video, which has been used in previous studies [77, 78]. The peak look duration (i.e., longest look at the video) and shift rate (i.e., number of looks at the video) will provide a measure of sustained and orienting attention, respectively. Heart rate deceleration will provide a physiological measure of sustained attention [75].

Early executive functioning

A-not-B task The A-not-B task requires infants to observe a toy as it is hidden in one of two locations (A [left of midline], B [right of midline]) and to find the toy after a delay. Once the infant finds the hidden toy on two consecutive trials, the side of hiding will be reversed. A looking version of this task will be employed in consideration of the potential motor impairments of the participants and to minimise the motion artifact in the EEG recording [79]. The reaching and looking versions of the task have been found to produce comparable performance in infants [80].

Epidermal development

Epidermal development will be measured by measuring infants’ skin barrier functioning and skin lipid profiles. Skin barrier functioning will be measured non-invasively via transepidermal water loss, using a Vapometer® SWL5 (Delfin Technologies Ltd.), with elevated transepidermal water loss indicating a disrupted epidermal barrier [81]. The Vapometer, similar to a thermometer, will be placed on the skin of the child’s forearm for 5–16 seconds. Skin lipids will also be collected non-invasively by using the D-SQUAME standard adhesive discs, the discs will be applied to the skin and pressed onto the skin for 5–10 seconds before it is removed [82]. Epidermal protein levels will be measured through mass spectrometry.

Caregiver-reported everyday function

Caregivers will be asked to complete questionnaires on children’s everyday behaviour, specifically on their everyday social and executive function, and early autism traits and behaviours (see Table 1). The following questionnaires will be administered from Time 1, depending on the age range for which each questionnaire has been validated. At the initial assessment, caregivers will also be asked to provide basic demographic information, including the child’s date of birth, gender, prematurity, and history of medical complications.

Table 1 Timeline of caregiver questionnaires
Full size table

Everyday social functioning

The Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition (ASQ-3 [83];) is a caregiver completed questionnaire that provides ratings on early development in infants and children from 1 month to 5.5 years of age [83]. The ASQ-3 assesses development in five areas: communication; gross motor; fine motor; problem solving; personal-social. The ASQ-3 has been found to exhibit good validity and reliability [83], and has also been validated in preterm children [84].

The Ages and Stages Questionnaire: Social-Emotional, Second Edition (ASQ:SE-2 [85];) is a caregiver-completed questionnaire that screens emotional and social behaviour in infants and children from 1 to 72 months. It measures self-regulation, compliance, social communication, adaptive functioning, autonomy, affect and interaction with people. The ASQ:SE-2 has been identified as one of the most comprehensive and psychometrically sound measures of early social-emotional development [86], and has been used with preterm infants [87].

The Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile Infant-Toddler Checklist (CSBS-DP ITC [88];) is a 24-item caregiver report questionnaire that assesses seven key predictors of later language delays: emotion and use of eye gaze, use of communication, use of gestures, use of sounds, use of words, understanding of words, and use of object. The CSBS-DP ITC is used as a developmental screen for infants aged 6–24 months, and has demonstrated good psychometric properties, with evidence for concurrent validity, test-retest reliability and predictive validity [89].

The Infant Behavioral Questionnaire-revised Short Form (IBQ-r SF [90,91];) is a parent-report questionnaire that measures general patterns of behaviour and temperament in infants aged 3 to 12 months. The Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire – Short Form (ECBQ-SF [92];) is a parent-report questionnaire that measures general patterns of behaviour and temperament in infants and toddlers aged 18 to 36 months. Both the IBQ-r SF and the ECBQ-SF have good reliability and validity and have been shown to predict laboratory measures of attention and temperament [91, 93].

The Brief Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Screening (BITSEA [94];) is a 42-item caregiver completed questionnaire that assesses social-emotional and problems and delays in competence in infants aged 12 to 36 months. The BITSEA provides general Problem and Competence Total scores and has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties [94, 95].

The Sensory Experiences Questionnaire Short Form (SEQ-SF [96];) Version 2.1 is a 41-item caregiver report questionnaire that measures behavioral responses to common everyday sensory experiences in young children with autism and other developmental disabilities from 6 months to 6 years old. An adapted version of the SEQ-SF (for infants aged 3–5 months old) will be used at Time 1. The SEQ-SF measures sensory hyporeactivity, sensory hyperreactivity and sensory seeking behaviors across different sensory modalities and contexts. The SEQ-SF has been shown to exhibit good reliability and validity in typically developing children as well as children with autism and other developmental delays [96,97,98,99].

Brief Infant Sleep Questionnaire – Revised Short Form (BISQ-R SF [100];) is a caregiver report questionnaire that measures infant and toddler sleep problems, validated for ages 0 to 29 months. The questionnaire includes three subscales: infant sleep, parent perception, and parent behaviour. The BISQ-R SF has been shown to exhibit high test-retest reliability and validity [100, 101].

Everyday executive functioning

The Early Executive Functions Questionnaire (EEFQ [102];) is a 31-item caregiver report questionnaire that assesses impairments in everyday EF, developed for infants and toddlers aged 9 to 30 months old [102]. It is comprised of items measuring inhibitory control, flexibility, and working memory that load on to a common Cognitive Executive Functioning factor. The EEFQ has demonstrated good internal consistency and convergent validity [102].

Early autism behaviour

The Baby and Infant Screen for Children with aUtIsm Traits Part 1 (BISCUIT-Part 1 [103];) is a 62-item caregiver-report questionnaire used to measure the traits and behaviour associated with autism. The measure has been validated for toddlers between the ages of 17 to 37 months old. The BISCUIT-Part 1 has demonstrated both excellent validity and reliability and has been tested with children with various medical complications, including CP [103,104,105].

Everyday Social and Executive Functioning, and Child Wellbeing at 24 months

Everyday social and executive functioning and child wellbeing will be assessed at 24 months (T4) by administering the following questionnaires to caregivers at the final assessment timepoint.

The Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales – Third Edition (Vineland-3 [106];)

is a gold-standard measure of adaptive functioning. It has been validated for use in individuals from birth to 90 years of age. The Vineland-3 has robust psychometric properties, with strong internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and inter-rater reliability. It has four domains: communication, daily living skills, socialization, motor skills, and an optional fifth domain for maladaptive behaviour. The Vineland-3 can be administered to the primary caregiver in a semi-structured interview format by a research/clinical professional. Alternatively, it can be completed by a caregiver as a rating form. The Vineland-3 has been validated in children with a range of developmental conditions, including autism [107], and has been used in children with CP [108].

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning – Preschool Version (BRIEF-P [109];) is a 63-item parent report questionnaire that assesses impairments in everyday executive functioning in children 2 to 5 years old. It has two broad indexes: behavioral regulation and metacognition, as well sub-scale scores measuring inhibition, shifting, emotional control, working memory, and planning/organization. The BRIEF-P has been validated in typically developing children, as well as children with learning, neurological, and developmental conditions [110].

The Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1.5–5 (CBCL [111];) is widely used to assess emotional and behavioural disorders in preschool-aged children 1.5 to 5 years. It has demonstrated validity and reliability based on an independent factor analysis in children with autism [112], and has been used with children with CP [113, 114].

Autism traits and behaviour

Early autism traits and behaviour

Early autistic behaviour will be assessed at 8–12 (T2) and 18 (T3) months using the Autism Observation Scale for Infants (AOSI) – a semi-structured observational assessment designed to study the nature and emergence of autism-related behavioural markers in infants from 6 to 18 months old [115]. The AOSI is designed to prompt and observe behaviours considered to be early behavioural indicators of autism (e.g., imitation, orientation to name, social interest and shared affect, atypical sensory behaviour, and eye contact). The AOSI has been used in infants at risk for autism [35] and has demonstrated strong psychometric properties [115].

Comprehensive assessment of autism at 24 months

A comprehensive assessment of autism will be administered to children at 24 months (T4) using the ADOS-2 toddler module [116]. The ADOS-2 is a standardised semi-structured diagnostic tool that measures autism traits and behaviours. This task is comprised of play-based activities and questions designed to prompt and observe the communicative, social, and stereotyped behaviours which are relevant to the diagnosis of autism. Observation of behaviour will be coded according to the ADOS-2. The ADOS-2 has strong inter-rater and test-retest reliability for individual items, strong inter-rater reliability within domains and excellent internal consistency [117, 118].

Social attention

An eye tracking task will be administered to measure social attention at 24 months (T4). In this task, the infant will watch a video of a shared book reading scenario, which is incorporated with multiple bids for joint attention. Social attention will be measured by tracking eye gaze to the social and non-social stimuli throughout the video and during the joint attention episodes. Eye-tracking data will be collected using an integrated TX300 eye tracker with a sampling rate of 300 Hz and equivalent gaze accuracy at 0.4 degrees (Tobii Technology, Stockholm, Sweden). This shared book reading eye tracking task has demonstrated utility in detecting atypical social attention in autistic children aged 3 to 12 years old [119].

Other assessments

Select assessments measuring motor, cognitive and language development, caregiver well-being and caregiver perceived stigma will be used to explore interactions with markers of social and executive impairment. Some of these assessments are collected as part of standard clinical practice across our participating CPA early diagnosis clinics and NICU follow-up clinics. Where possible, data for these assessments will be shared with the research team, rather than repeating the assessments. If assessments have not been completed or we cannot access these data, the following assessments will be administered by the researchers during the assessment visits.

Motor assessments

The Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66 [120]; specific to infants with, or a risk for, CP) and the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2 [121];) will be used to assess early gross and fine motor function, respectively.

Language and cognitive development assessments

Language and cognitive development will be assessed using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development-4 (Bayley-4 [122];). The Bayley-4 includes cognitive, language, motor, social-emotional and adaptive behaviour scales.

Caregiver well-being

Caregiver well-being will be measured using the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS-21 [123];). The DASS-21 is a self-report measure assessing the frequency and severity of negative emotions. Caregiver perception of community stigma around developmental delay will be measured using a variation of the ASD stigma questionnaire [124]. This stigma questionnaire is a self-report measure that assesses caregivers’ perception of stigma around developmental delay in their communities.

Analytic plan

Sample size justification

Allowing for 10% attrition, and based on estimated effect sizes from prior studies (which revealed moderate to large effects when examining early markers of social and executive functioning, and risk for autism [125,126,127];), a sample size of N = 90 will yield power of 0.97 (f2 = 0.30, α = 0.01). While this sample size is larger than that suggested by an a priori power analysis (N = 71, based f2 = 0.30, α = 0.01, 1-ß = 0.90), this will enable additional exploratory analyses to determine broader social-emotional, general developmental and epidermal predictors of social and executive function as well as the development of autism.

Data analysis

Multilevel modeling will evaluate the relationship between behavioural and neurobiological measures from our social and executive function assessments at Times 1–3 (e.g., amount of eye gaze and facial mimicry on social tasks, and percent accuracy on executive functioning tasks) and the social function and autism outcomes (as assessed by the ADOS-2 and social attention task) as well as the executive function outcome (as assessed by the BRIEF-P) at 24 months (T4). Multilevel models are appropriate for handling missing data and provide an unbiased estimate of the means at each time point while retaining the total sample. A multiple regression will assess the relationship between early social development and executive functioning measures and motor, language and child well-being and everyday functioning assessments. Multiple imputation strategies will be employed to deal with any missing data in regression analyses. Imputed data will not be incorporated into any raw or primary datasets. The priority will be to minimize missing data, and the study will have a protocol for follow-up that maximizes data in all participants. Finally, we will conduct exploratory analysis on subgroups of infants with different conditions (e.g., CP, congenital heart disease, prematurity) and combined comorbidities to understand how social and executive function delays may differ across these subgroups.

Discussion

This is the first study, we are aware of, to prospectively track the development of social and executive function as well as the risk for autism in CP and NICU graduates from early infancy through to 2 years of age. The study will take a multi-modal approach, integrating behavioural, neurobiological, and caregiver-rated everyday functioning markers, to identify the earliest signs of developmental delay. This will constitute a critical step towards the earliest detection and intervention opportunities in these high-risk cohorts. The findings of this study will also expand our knowledge on the early emergence of autism across the wider spectrum, beyond infants at familial risk for autism [43, 44]. The increased autism prevalence estimates in CP (up to 30% [32];) compared to the rate found in high-risk siblings (3–18% [128];) highlights a key advantage of investigating early markers of autism in this population. Similarly, given that prematurity, low birth weight and other neonatal medical complications (e.g., congenital heart disease) that warrant admission to the NICU have been identified as key risk factors for autism [26,27,28,29,30,31, 33, 129,130,131,132], this study holds the potential to deepen our understanding of early markers of autism in a more diverse, high-risk cohort. This broader understanding of autism will be pivotal to the development of more personalised intervention and supports.

One potential limitation of this study is the clinical heterogeneity of the study sample, which includes infants with, or at risk for, CP as well as NICU graduates, who are likely to present with various medical complications. This will be addressed by conducting exploratory subgroup analyses to examine how delayed developmental trajectories change across infants with different clinical presentations (e.g., CP, congenital heart disease, prematurity) and combined comorbidities. An inherent challenge to longitudinal studies is the potential for poor retention and follow-up. This study has been designed to minimize attrition rates by limiting the number of assessment visits, and by streamlining the questionnaires into a single online portal, with the option of completing the questionnaires at home. In addition to this, the sample size has been set to allow for 10% attrition. Another methodological challenge for this study is the limited availability of tools validated for infants with CP, who are likely to present with sensory and motor impairments. In consideration of this, some assessment tools have been modified to ensure that the motor problems do not interfere with the task performance (e.g., looking version of the A-not-B task [79, 80];) and measures tested with children with CP have been selected when available (e.g., BISCUIT-Part 1 [104];).

The results of this study will allow us to identify the potential behavioural, neurobiological, and everyday functioning markers of social and executive function delays in CP and NICU graduates at the earliest point in time. Furthermore, it will provide insights into early markers which may increase risk for autism in infants with CP and NICU graduates. To date, we have very little understanding of whether early social and executive functioning markers can be used to track developmental divergence over time in high-risk infants, and if they can predict risk for autism. Therefore, the results of this study will provide critical knowledge on early detection of delays in high-risk infants. This will ultimately inform the development of better, timely, and targeted detection and intervention approaches to optimize developmental outcomes in these high-risk cohorts.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

ADOS-2:

Autism diagnostic observation schedule, 2nd edition

AOSI:

Autism observation scale for infants

ASQ-3:

Ages and stages questionnaire, third edition

ASQ:SE-2:

Ages and stages questionnaire: social-emotional, second edition

Bayley-4:

Bayley scales of infant and toddler development-4

BISCUIT-Part 1:

Baby and infant screen for children with autism traits part 1

BISQ – R SF:

Brief infant sleep questionnaire – revised (short form)

BITSEA:

Brief infant-toddler social and emotional screening

BRIEF-P:

Behavior rating inventory of executive functioning – preschool version

CBCL:

Child behavior checklist for ages 1.5–5

CP:

Cerebral palsy

CPA:

Cerebral palsy alliance

CSBS-DP ITC:

Communication and symbolic behavior scales developmental profile infant-toddler checklist

DASS-21:

Depression anxiety stress scale

ECBQ-SF:

Early childhood behavior questionnaire – short form

EEFQ:

Early executive functions questionnaire

EEG:

Electroencephalogram

GMFM:

Gross motor functioning measure;

IBQ-r SF:

Infant behavioral questionnaire-revised short form

ICEP:

Infant and caregiver engagement phases

MACI:

Manchester assessment of caregiver-infant interaction

NICU:

Neonatal intensive care unit

NNNS:

NICU network neurobehavioural scale

PDMS-2:

Peabody developmental motor scales-2

SEQ-SF:

Sensory experiences questionnaire short form

Vineland-3:

Vineland adaptive behaviour scales – third edition

References

  1. Dawson G, Rieder AD, Johnson MH. Prediction of autism in infants: progress and challenges. Lancet Neurol. 2023;22(3):244–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Micai M, Fulceri F, Caruso A, Guzzetta A, Gila L, Scattoni ML. Early behavioral markers for neurodevelopmental disorders in the first 3 years of life: an overview of systematic reviews. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020;116:183–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Walker K, Holland AJ, Halliday R, Badawi N. Which high-risk infants should we follow-up and how should we do it? J Paediatr Child Health. 2012;48(9):789–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hollung SJ, Bakken IJ, Vik T, Lydersen S, Wiik R, Aaberg KM, et al. Comorbidities in cerebral palsy: a patient registry study. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2020;62(1):97–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mulder H, Pitchford NJ, Hagger MS, Marlow N. Development of executive function and attention in preterm children: a systematic review. Dev Neuropsychol. 2009;34(4):393–421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ritchie K, Bora S, Woodward LJ. Social development of children born very preterm: a systematic review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2015;57(10):899–918.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Feldmann M, Bataillard C, Ehrler M, Ullrich C, Knirsch W, Gosteli-Peter MA, et al. Cognitive and executive function in congenital heart disease: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2021;148(4).

  8. Weierink L, Vermeulen RJ, Boyd RN. Brain structure and executive functions in children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Res Dev Disabil. 2013;34(5):1678–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lipscombe B, Boyd RN, Coleman A, Fahey M, Rawicki B, Whittingham K. Does early communication mediate the relationship between motor ability and social function in children with cerebral palsy? Res Dev Disabil. 2016;53–54:279–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Voorman JM, Dallmeijer AJ, Van Eck M, Schuengel C, Becher JG. Social functioning and communication in children with cerebral palsy: association with disease characteristics and personal and environmental factors. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010;52(5):441–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. De Schuymer L, De Groote I, Striano T, Stahl D, Roeyers H. Dyadic and triadic skills in preterm and full term infants: a longitudinal study in the first year. Infant Behav Dev. 2011;34(1):179–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dean B, Ginnell L, Boardman JP, Fletcher-Watson S. Social cognition following preterm birth: a systematic review. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021;124:151–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Healy E, Reichenberg A, Nam KW, Allin MP, Walshe M, Rifkin L, et al. Preterm birth and adolescent social functioning-alterations in emotion-processing brain areas. J Pediatr. 2013;163(6):1596–604.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gaudet I, Paquette N, Doussau A, Poirier N, Simard MN, Beauchamp MH, et al. Social cognition and competence in preschoolers with congenital heart disease. Neuropsychology. 2022;36(6):552–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Festante F, Antonelli C, Chorna O, Corsi G, Guzzetta A. Parent-infant interaction during the first year of life in infants at high risk for cerebral palsy: a systematic review of the literature. Neural Plast. 2019;2019:5759694.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson S, Marlow N. Early and long-term outcome of infants born extremely preterm. Arch Dis Child. 2017;102(1):97–102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Liptak GS. Health and well being of adults with cerebral palsy. Curr Opin Neurol. 2008;21(2):136–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Reddihough DS, Jiang B, Lanigan A, Reid SM, Walstab JE, Davis E. Social outcomes of young adults with cerebral palsy. J Intellect Develop Disabil. 2013;38(3):215–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sandoval CC, Gaspardo CM, Linhares MBM. The impact of preterm birth on the executive functioning of preschool children: a systematic review. Appl Neuropsychol Child. 2022;11(4):873–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Taylor HG, Clark CA. Executive function in children born preterm: risk factors and implications for outcome. Semin Perinatol. 2016;40(8):520–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Fluss J, Lidzba K. Cognitive and academic profiles in children with cerebral palsy: a narrative review. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;63(5):447–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pereira A, Lopes S, Magalhaes P, Sampaio A, Chaleta E, Rosario P. How executive functions are evaluated in children and adolescents with cerebral palsy? A Systematic Review. Front Psychol. 2018;9:21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Burstein O, Zevin Z, Geva R. Preterm birth and the development of visual attention during the first 2 years of life: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(3):e213687.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Kroll J, Karolis V, Brittain PJ, Tseng CJ, Froudist-Walsh S, Murray RM, et al. Real-life impact of executive function impairments in adults who were born very preterm. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2017;23(5):381–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Laporta-Hoyos O, Ballester-Plane J, Poo P, Macaya A, Melendez-Plumed M, Vazquez E, et al. Proxy-reported quality of life in adolescents and adults with dyskinetic cerebral palsy is associated with executive functions and cortical thickness. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(5):1209–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kolevzon A, Gross R, Reichenberg A. Prenatal and perinatal risk factors for autism: a review and integration of findings. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(4):326–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hisle-Gorman E, Susi A, Stokes T, Gorman G, Erdie-Lalena C, Nylund CM. Prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal risk factors of autism spectrum disorder. Pediatr Res. 2018;84(2):190–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Gu S, Katyal A, Zhang Q, Chung W, Franciosi S, Sanatani S. The association between congenital heart disease and autism Spectrum disorder: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Pediatr Cardiol. 2023;44(5):1092–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuzniewicz MW, Wi S, Qian Y, Walsh EM, Armstrong MA, Croen LA. Prevalence and neonatal factors associated with autism spectrum disorders in preterm infants. J Pediatr. 2014;164(1):20–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lampi KM, Lehtonen L, Tran PL, Suominen A, Lehti V, Banerjee PN, et al. Risk of autism spectrum disorders in low birth weight and small for gestational age infants. J Pediatr. 2012;161(5):830–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Winkler-Schwartz A, Garfinkle J, Shevell MI. Autism spectrum disorder in a term birth neonatal intensive care unit population. Pediatr Neurol. 2014;51(6):776–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Craig F, Savino R, Trabacca A. A systematic review of comorbidity between cerebral palsy, autism spectrum disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2019;23(1):31–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. MacDonald R, Parry-Cruwys D, Dupere S, Ahearn W. Assessing progress and outcome of early intensive behavioral intervention for toddlers with autism. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35(12):3632–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dawson G, Jones EJH, Merkle K, Venema K, Lowy R, Faja S, et al. Early behavioral intervention is associated with normalized brain activity in young children with autism. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2012;51(11):1150–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Whitehouse AJO, Varcin KJ, Pillar S, Billingham W, Alvares GA, Barbaro J, et al. Effect of preemptive intervention on developmental outcomes among infants showing early signs of autism: a randomized clinical trial of outcomes to diagnosis. JAMA Pediatr. 2021;175(11):e213298-e.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Clancy T, Jordan B, de Weerth C, Muscara F. Early emotional, Behavioural and social development of infants and Young children with congenital heart disease: a systematic review. J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2020;27(4):686–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Feldman R. Parent-infant synchrony and the construction of shared timing; physiological precursors, developmental outcomes, and risk conditions. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007;48(3–4):329–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Korja R, Latva R, Lehtonen L. The effects of preterm birth on mother-infant interaction and attachment during the infant’s first two years. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91(2):164–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Feldman R. Parent-infant synchrony: biological foundations and developmental outcomes. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2007;16(6):340–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Novak I, Morgan C, Adde L, Blackman J, Boyd RN, Brunstrom-Hernandez J, et al. Early, accurate diagnosis and early intervention in cerebral palsy: advances in diagnosis and treatment. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(9):897–907.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Karmel BZ, Gardner JM, Meade LS, Cohen IL, London E, Flory MJ, et al. Early medical and behavioral characteristics of NICU infants later classified with ASD. Pediatrics. 2010;126(3):457–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cohen IL, Gardner JM, Karmel BZ, Phan HT, Kittler P, Gomez TR, et al. Neonatal brainstem function and 4-month arousal-modulated attention are jointly associated with autism. Autism Res. 2013;6(1):11–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. McDonald NM, Jeste SS. Beyond baby siblings-expanding the definition of “high-risk infants” in autism research. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2021;23(6):34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Szatmari P, Chawarska K, Dawson G, Georgiades S, Landa R, Lord C, et al. Prospective longitudinal studies of infant siblings of children with autism: lessons learned and future directions. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016;55(3):179–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Zwaigenbaum L, Bauman ML, Stone WL, Yirmiya N, Estes A, Hansen RL, et al. Early identification of autism Spectrum disorder: recommendations for practice and research. Pediatrics. 2015;136(Suppl 1):S10–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Tanner A, Dounavi K. The emergence of autism symptoms prior to 18 months of age: a systematic literature review. J Autism Dev Disord. 2021;51(3):973–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Canu D, Van der Paelt S, Canal-Bedia R, Posada M, Vanvuchelen M, Roeyers H. Early non-social behavioural indicators of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in siblings at elevated likelihood for ASD: a systematic review. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2021;30(4):497–538.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Jones EJ, Gliga T, Bedford R, Charman T, Johnson MH. Developmental pathways to autism: a review of prospective studies of infants at risk. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014;39(100):1–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Cleary DB, Maybery MT, Green C, Whitehouse AJO. The first six months of life: a systematic review of early markers associated with later autism. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2023;152:105304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Varcin KJ, Jeste SS. The emergence of autism spectrum disorder: insights gained from studies of brain and behaviour in high-risk infants. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2017;30(2):85–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Jones W, Klin A. Attention to eyes is present but in decline in 2-6-month-old infants later diagnosed with autism. Nature. 2013;504(7480):427–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Chawarska K, Macari S, Shic F. Decreased spontaneous attention to social scenes in 6-month-old infants later diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders. Biol Psychiatry. 2013;74(3):195–203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Shic F, Macari S, Chawarska K. Speech disturbs face scanning in 6-month-old infants who develop autism spectrum disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2014;75(3):231–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Jones EJ, Venema K, Earl R, Lowy R, Barnes K, Estes A, et al. Reduced engagement with social stimuli in 6-month-old infants with later autism spectrum disorder: a longitudinal prospective study of infants at high familial risk. J Neurodev Disord. 2016;8:7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Elison JT, Paterson SJ, Wolff JJ, Reznick JS, Sasson NJ, Gu H, et al. White matter microstructure and atypical visual orienting in 7-month-olds at risk for autism. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170(8):899–908.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Levin AR, Varcin KJ, O’Leary HM, Tager-Flusberg H, Nelson CA. EEG power at 3 months in infants at high familial risk for autism. J Neurodev Disord. 2017;9(1):34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Wolff JJ, Piven J. Predicting autism in infancy. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2021;60(8):958–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Wolff JJ, Gu H, Gerig G, Elison JT, Styner M, Gouttard S, et al. Differences in white matter fiber tract development present from 6 to 24 months in infants with autism. Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169(6):589–600.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Shin K-O, Crumrine DA, Kim S, Lee Y, Kim B, Abuabara K, et al. Phenotypic overlap between atopic dermatitis and autism. BMC Neurosci. 2021;22(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Jameson C, Boulton KA, Silove N, Nanan R, Guastella AJ. Ectodermal origins of the skin-brain axis: a novel model for the developing brain, inflammation, and neurodevelopmental conditions. Mol Psychiatry. 2023;28(1):108–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Conradt E, Ablow J. Infant physiological response to the still-face paradigm: contributions of maternal sensitivity and infants’ early regulatory behavior. Infant Behav Dev. 2010;33(3):251–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Armstrong V, Brian JA, Sacrey L-AR, Schmidt LA, Smith IM, Vaillancourt T, et al. Behavioral and physiological differences during an emotion-evoking task in children at increased likelihood for autism spectrum disorder. Dev Psychopathol. 2022;36:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Pratt M, Singer M, Kanat-Maymon Y, Feldman R. Infant negative reactivity defines the effects of parent-child synchrony on physiological and behavioral regulation of social stress. Dev Psychopathol. 2015;27(4 Pt 1):1191–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Subha DP, Joseph PK, Acharya UR, Lim CM. EEG signal analysis: a survey. J Med Syst. 2010;34(2):195–212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Turk E, Endevelt-Shapira Y, Feldman R, van den Heuvel MI, Levy J. Brains in sync: practical guideline for parent-infant EEG during natural interaction. Front Psychol. 2022;13:833112.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Turk E, Vroomen J, Fonken Y, Levy J, van den Heuvel MI. In sync with your child: the potential of parent-child electroencephalography in developmental research. Dev Psychobiol. 2022;64(3):e22221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Rayson H, Bonaiuto JJ, Ferrari PF, Murray L. Early maternal mirroring predicts infant motor system activation during facial expression observation. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):11738.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Murray L, De Pascalis L, Bozicevic L, Hawkins L, Sclafani V, Ferrari PF. The functional architecture of mother-infant communication, and the development of infant social expressiveness in the first two months. Sci Rep. 2016;6:39019.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Wan MW, Brooks A, Green J, Abel K, Elmadih A. Psychometrics and validation of a brief rating measure of parent-infant interaction: Manchester assessment of caregiver–infant interaction. Int J Behav Dev. 2016;41(4):542–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Green J, Charman T, Pickles A, Wan MW, Elsabbagh M, Slonims V, et al. Parent-mediated intervention versus no intervention for infants at high risk of autism: a parallel, single-blind, randomised trial. Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(2):133–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Tronick E, Als H, Adamson L, Wise S, Brazelton TB. The Infant’s response to entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-face interaction. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry. 1978;17(1):1–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Weinberg MK, Tronick EZ. Infant affective reactions to the resumption of maternal interaction after the still-face. Child Dev. 1996;67(3):905–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Tronick EZ, Messinger DS, Weinberg MK, Lester BM, Lagasse L, Seifer R, et al. Cocaine exposure is associated with subtle compromises of infants’ and mothers’ social-emotional behavior and dyadic features of their interaction in the face-to-face still-face paradigm. Dev Psychol. 2005;41(5):711–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Meltzoff AN, Moore MK. Newborn infants imitate adult facial gestures. Child Dev. 1983;54(3):702–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Tonnsen BL, Richards JE, Roberts JE. Heart rate-defined sustained attention in infants at risk for autism. J Neurodev Disord. 2018;10(1):7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Bradshaw J, Evans L, Klaiman C, Klin A, McCracken C, Saulnier C. Development of attention from birth to 5 months in infants at risk for autism spectrum disorder. Dev Psychopathol. 2020;32(2):491–501.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Blankenship TL, Slough MA, Calkins SD, Deater-Deckard K, Kim-Spoon J, Bell MA. Attention and executive functioning in infancy: links to childhood executive function and reading achievement. Dev Sci. 2019;22(6):e12824.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Kraybill JH, Kim-Spoon J, Bell MA. Infant attention and age 3 executive function. Yale J Biol Med. 2019;92(1):3–11.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Bell MA. Brain electrical activity associated with cognitive processing during a looking version of the A-not-B task. Infancy. 2001;2(3):311–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Bell MA, Adams SE. Comparable performance on looking and reaching versions of the A-not-B task at 8 months of age. Infant Behav Dev. 1999;22(2):221–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Maarouf M, Maarouf C, Yosipovitch G, Shi V. The impact of stress on epidermal barrier function: an evidence-based review. Br J Dermatol. 2019;181(6):1129–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Kim J, Kim BE, Lee J, Han Y, Jun HY, Kim H, et al. Epidermal thymic stromal lymphopoietin predicts the development of atopic dermatitis during infancy. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;137(4):1282-5 e4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Squires J, Bricker DD, Twombly E. Ages & stages questionnaires. Paul H. Brookes Baltimore; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Schonhaut L, Armijo I, Schonstedt M, Alvarez J, Cordero M. Validity of the ages and stages questionnaires in term and preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2013;131(5):e1468–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Squires J, Bricker D, Twombly E Ages & Stages Questionnaires®. Social-emotional second edition (ASQ®: SE-2): a parent-completed child monitoring system for social emotional behaviors. Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Pontoppidan M, Niss NK, Pejtersen JH, Julian MM, Vaever MS. Parent report measures of infant and toddler social-emotional development: a systematic review. Fam Pract. 2017;34(2):127–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Moe V, Braarud HC, Wentzel-Larsen T, Slinning K, Vannebo UT, Guedeney A, et al. Precursors of social emotional functioning among full-term and preterm infants at 12 months: early infant withdrawal behavior and symptoms of maternal depression. Infant Behav Dev. 2016;44:159–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Wetherby AM, Prizant BM. CSBS manual: communication and symbolic behavior scales. Brookes Publishing Company; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Wetherby AM, Allen L, Cleary J, Kublin K, Goldstein H. Validity and reliability of the communication and symbolic behavior scales developmental profile with very young children. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45(6):1202-18. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2002/097).

  90. Gartstein MA, Rothbart MK. Studying infant temperament via the revised infant behavior questionnaire. Infant Behav Dev. 2003;26(1):64–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Putnam SP, Helbig AL, Gartstein MA, Rothbart MK, Leerkes E. Development and assessment of short and very short forms of the Infant Behavior Questionnaire–Revised. J Pers Assess. 2014;96(4):445–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Putnam SP, Gartstein MA, Rothbart MK. Measurement of fine-grained aspects of toddler temperament: the early childhood behavior questionnaire. Infant Behav Dev. 2006;29(3):386–401.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Rothbart MK, Derryberry D, Hershey K. Stability of temperament in childhood: laboratory infant assessment to parent report at seven years. Temperament and personality development across the life span; 2000. p. 85–119.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Briggs-Gowan MJ, Carter AS, Irwin JR, Wachtel K, Cicchetti DV. The brief infant-toddler social and emotional assessment: screening for social-emotional problems and delays in competence. J Pediatr Psychol. 2004;29(2):143–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Kruizinga I, Jansen W, de Haan CL, van der Ende J, Carter AS, Raat H. Reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the brief infant-toddler social and emotional assessment (BITSEA). PLoS One. 2012;7(6).

  96. Baranek GT, David FJ, Poe MD, Stone WL, Watson LR. Sensory experiences questionnaire: discriminating sensory features in young children with autism, developmental delays, and typical development. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2006;47(6):591–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Little LM, Freuler AC, Houser MB, Guckian L, Carbine K, David FJ, et al. Psychometric validation of the sensory experiences questionnaire. Am J Occup Ther. 2011;65(2):207–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Watson LR, Patten E, Baranek GT, et al. Differential associations between sensory response patterns and language, social, and communication measures in children with autism or other developmental disabilities. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(6):1562-76. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0029).

  99. Boyd BA, Baranek GT, Sideris J, Poe MD, Watson LR, Patten E, et al. Sensory features and repetitive behaviors in children with autism and developmental delays. Autism Res. 2010;3(2):78–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Sadeh A. A brief screening questionnaire for infant sleep problems: validation and findings for an internet sample. Pediatrics. 2004;113(6):e570-e5e7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Mindell JA, Gould RA, Tikotzy L, Leichman ES, Walters RM. Norm-referenced scoring system for the brief infant sleep questionnaire – revised (BISQ-R). Sleep Med. 2019;63:106–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Hendry A, Holmboe K. Development and validation of the early executive functions questionnaire: a carer-administered measure of executive functions suitable for 9-to 30-month-olds. Infancy. 2021;26(6):932–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Matson JL, Wilkins J, Sevin JA, Knight C, Boisjoli JA, Sharp B. Reliability and item content of the baby and infant screen for children with aUtIsm traits (BISCUIT): parts 1–3. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2009;3(2):336–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Matson JL, Wilkins J, Sharp B, Knight C, Sevin JA, Boisjoli JA. Sensitivity and specificity of the baby and infant screen for children with aUtIsm traits (BISCUIT): validity and cutoff scores for autism and PDD-NOS in toddlers. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2009;3(4):924–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Matson JL, Wilkins J, Fodstad JC. The validity of the baby and infant screen for children with autism traits: part 1 (BISCUIT: part 1). J Autism Dev Disord. 2011;41:1139–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Sparrow S, Cicchetti D, Saulnier C. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales–Third Edition: Manual. Bloomington, MN: Pearson; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  107. de Bildt A, Kraijer D, Sytema S, Minderaa R. The psychometric properties of the Vineland adaptive behavior scales in children and adolescents with mental retardation. J Autism Dev Disord. 2005;35(1):53–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Majnemer A, Shevell M, Hall N, Poulin C, Law M. Developmental and functional abilities in children with cerebral palsy as related to pattern and level of motor function. J Child Neurol. 2010;25(10):1236–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Gioia GA, Andrwes K, Isquith PK. Behavior rating inventory of executive function-preschool version (BRIEF-P). Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1996.

  110. Bausela HE. BRIEF-P: validation study in children in early childhood with neurodevelopmental disorders. SAGE Open. 2019;9(3):2158244019879166.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Achenbach TM, Rescorla LA. Manual for the ASEBA preschool forms and profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research center for children, youth …; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Pandolfi V, Magyar CI, Dill CA. Confirmatory factor analysis of the child behavior checklist 1.5-5 in a sample of children with autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2009;39(7):986–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. Sigurdardottir S, Indredavik MS, Eiriksdottir A, Einarsdottir K, Gudmundsson HS, Vik T. Behavioural and emotional symptoms of preschool children with cerebral palsy: a population-based study. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010;52(11):1056–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Romeo DM, Brogna C, Musto E, Baranello G, Pagliano E, Casalino T, et al. Sleep disturbances in preschool age children with cerebral palsy: a questionnaire study. Sleep Med. 2014;15(9):1089–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Bryson SE, Zwaigenbaum L, McDermott C, Rombough V, Brian J. The autism observation scale for infants: scale development and reliability data. J Autism Dev Disord. 2008;38(4):731–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Lord C, Rutter M, DiLavore PC, Risi S, Gotham K, Bishop S. Autism diagnostic observation schedule, second edition (ADOS-2) manual (part I): modules 1–4. Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Dilavore PC, Lord C, Rutter M. The pre-linguistic autism diagnostic observation schedule. J Autism Dev Disord. 1995;25(4):355–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Lord C, Risi S, Lambrecht L, Cook EH, Leventhal BL, Dilavore PC, et al. The autism diagnostic observation schedule-generic : a standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. J Autism Dev Disord. 2000;30(3):205–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Ambarchi Z, Boulton KA, Thapa R, Arciuli J, DeMayo MM, Hickie I, et al. Social and joint attention during shared book reading in young autistic children: a potential marker for social development. J Child Psychol Psychiatr. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13993.

  120. Russell DJ, Rosenbaum P, Wright M, Avery LM. Gross motor function measure (GMFM-66 and GMFM-88) User’s manual. 2nd ed. Mac Keith Press; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  121. Folio RM, Fewell RR. Peabody developmental motor scales - Second Edition. 2nd ed. Pro-Ed; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Bayley N. Bayley scales of infant and toddler development - 3rd Edition. 3rd ed. Pearson; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Lovibond PF, Lovibond SH. The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the Beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behav Res Ther. 1995;33(3):335–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Zuckerman KE, Lindly OJ, Reyes NM, Chavez AE, Cobian M, Macias K, et al. Parent perceptions of community autism Spectrum disorder stigma: measure validation and associations in a multi-site sample. J Autism Dev Disord. 2018;48(9):3199–209.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. Barbaro J, Dissanayake C. Early markers of autism spectrum disorders in infants and toddlers prospectively identified in the social attention and communication study. Autism. 2013;17(1):64–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Fawcett C, Liszkowski U. Mimicry and play initiation in 18-month-old infants. Infant Behav Dev. 2012;35(4):689–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. MacNeill LA, Ram N, Bell MA, Fox NA, Pérez-Edgar K. Trajectories of infants’ biobehavioral development: timing and rate of A-not-B performance gains and EEG maturation. Child Dev. 2018;89(3):711–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Ozonoff S, Young GS, Carter A, Messinger D, Yirmiya N, Zwaigenbaum L, et al. Recurrence risk for autism spectrum disorders: a baby siblings research consortium study. Pediatrics. 2011;128(3):e488–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Agrawal S, Rao SC, Bulsara MK, Patole SK. Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder in preterm infants: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2018;142(3).

  130. Hirschberger RG, Kuban KCK, O’Shea TM, Joseph RM, Heeren T, Douglass LM, et al. Co-occurrence and severity of neurodevelopmental burden (cognitive impairment, cerebral palsy, autism Spectrum disorder, and epilepsy) at age ten years in children born extremely preterm. Pediatr Neurol. 2018;79:45–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Joseph RM, O’Shea TM, Allred EN, Heeren T, Hirtz D, Paneth N, et al. Prevalence and associated features of autism spectrum disorder in extremely low gestational age newborns at age 10 years. Autism Res. 2017;10(2):224–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Soul JS, Spence SJ. Predicting autism Spectrum disorder in very preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2020;146(4).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study is funded by the Cerebral Palsy Alliance (ERG01121, G213268, ERG01921).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic for Autism and Neurodevelopmental (CAN) research, Brain and Mind Centre, Children’s Hospital Westmead Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Kelsie A. Boulton, Dabin Lee, Natalie L. Phillips & Adam J. Guastella

  2. Child Neurodevelopment and Mental Health Team, Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Kelsie A. Boulton, Dabin Lee, Natalie L. Phillips, Nadia Badawi & Adam J. Guastella

  3. Cerebral Palsy Alliance Institute, Discipline of Child and Adolescent Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Ingrid Honan, Catherine Morgan, Iona Novak & Nadia Badawi

  4. Grace Centre for Newborn Intensive Care, Sydney Children’s Hospital Network, Sydney, Australia

    Cathryn Crowle & Nadia Badawi

Authors
  1. Kelsie A. Boulton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dabin Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ingrid Honan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Natalie L. Phillips
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Catherine Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Cathryn Crowle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Iona Novak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Nadia Badawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Adam J. Guastella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Authors A.J.G., N.L.P., and K.A.B. conceptualised and developed the protocol. A.J.G., K.A.B., and D.L. drafted the protocol paper. All authors, K.A.B., D.L., I.H., N.L.P., C.M., C.C., I.N., N.B., A.J.G. contributed and reviewed drafts of the manuscript and approved final submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam J. Guastella.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study has been approved by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC 2021/937) located in Sydney, Australia.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boulton, K.A., Lee, D., Honan, I. et al. Exploring early life social and executive function development in infants and risk for autism: a prospective cohort study protocol of NICU graduates and infants at risk for cerebral palsy. BMC Psychiatry 24, 359 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05779-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05779-z

Keywords

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

Contact us