ReviewNeuroscience and biobehavioral reviews2026
Toward a biologically grounded understanding of autonomic function in developmental science.
Review in Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For over half a century, developmental scientists have used autonomic measures to draw inferences about the physiological mechanisms underlying infant attention, self-regulation, and social behavior. These interpretations rest on a binary model of the autonomic nervous system that divides it into opposing sympathetic and parasympathetic branches, a model established more than a century ago. This review traces the historical description of the autonomic nervous system and summarizes three challenges to the traditional model with evidence from contemporary biology and neuroscience suggesting that the classical model is incomplete. Spanning anatomy, molecular profiling, neurotransmitter phenotypes, and modes of autonomic control, we argue that the autonomic nervous system is more integrated than typically thought. These findings have practical consequences for how developmental scientists interpret physiological signals, including the commonly used measure of respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA). We conducted a survey of 316 peer-reviewed publications published in the past six and a half years that use RSA in developmental populations, showing that interpretations linking RSA to psychological outcomes relies heavily on the traditional autonomic model. We therefore ask what it would look like to reassess the autonomic nervous system free of the assumptions of the traditional model, providing considerations, guidelines, and recommendations for measurement, analysis, interpretation, and transparency. We support a modern, integrated, and multidimensional account of autonomic function grounded in contemporary biology and neuroscience, with data-driven models and interpretations of physiological signals in developmental science.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.