# Old but attuned: the ability to decode babies' cries does not decline with age

Siloé Corvin, Clément Cornec, Roland Peyron, David Reby, Camille Fauchon, Nicolas Mathevon

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Siloé Corvin, Clément Cornec, Roland Peyron, David Reby, Camille Fauchon, et al.. Old but attuned: the ability to decode babies' cries does not decline with age. Biology Letters, 2025, 21 (2), pp.20240667. 10.1098/rsbl.2024.0667. hal-04967341

HAL Id: hal-04967341

https://hal.science/hal-04967341v1

Submitted on 26 Feb 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Old but attuned: The ability to decode babies' cries does not decline with age

Siloé Corvin¹,²*, Clément Cornec¹, Roland Peyron², David Reby¹,³, Camille Fauchon²,⁴$, Nicolas Mathevon¹,³,⁵$

¹ ENES Bioacoustics Research Lab, CRNL, University of Saint-Etienne, CNRS, Inserm, Saint-Etienne, France.

² UCBL, UJM, CNRS, INSERM, CRNL U1028 UMR5292, NEUROPAIN, Lyon, F-69500, Bron, France

³ Institut universitaire de France

⁴ Université Clermont Auvergne, CHU de Clermont-Ferrand, Inserm, Neuro-Dol, Clermont-Ferrand, France.

⁵ Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, CHArt lab, PSL University, Paris, France

*Corresponding author

$Co-last authors

ORCIDs:

Siloé Corvin 0000-0002-9281-6087

Camille Fauchon 0000-0002-5848-8681

Nicolas Mathevon 0000-0003-0219-6601

David Reby 0000-0001-9261-1711
Abstract

In most human societies, grandparents often provide substantial care and support for their grandchildren, including as babies. Given that previous studies have shown that ageing is accompanied by a gradual decline in our ability to identify other people's emotions, does age also reduce our skill at understanding a baby's cries? Here we show that older people with experience of caring for babies remains able to correctly decode the information conveyed by babies' cries. The results of our psychoacoustic experiments underline that older people were at least as good as younger adults at identifying whether a baby is crying in pain or rather as a result of simple discomfort. These results are consistent with the notion that humans are cooperative breeders where older generations can effectively help younger ones with alloparental care. Favoring intergenerational solidarity is likely to simultaneously benefit the quality of life of young parents and older, knowledgeable caregivers.
# 1. Introduction

In humans, it is common for people other than biological parents to look after babies, contributing to care and feeding. This alloparenting probably began with *Homo erectus* around 2 million years ago [1], and characterizes us as a cooperative breeding species. Alloparents may or may not be genetically related to the children they care for, and their positive impact on infants has been widely demonstrated [2-4]. In particular, the presence of grandparents in the first postpartum months allows support and division of infant care, as well as transmission of knowledge and practice between generations [5,6]. In modern societies, where people are living longer, older adults are likely to be involved in babies' care [7]. This social investment and connection with people of different ages is one of the keys to successful aging [8-10], as are physical and intellectually demanding activities [11]. Thus, caring for kin or non-kin children is associated with better cognitive function [12], well-being [13] and reduced social loneliness [14].

Yet, providing appropriate care for babies requires the ability to identify their needs by decoding the visual and vocal signals they emit [15]. Among these signals, crying, which is triggered by hunger, discomfort, isolation or pain, is the most likely to elicit a response from caregivers [16]. Are older people still able to decode the information in babies cries? Previous studies have shown that aging makes adults less able to identify emotions [17-21], and recognition of emotional facial expressions and cognitive empathy decline with age [17,22]. It has also been shown that the ability to decode emotions in adult non-verbal vocalizations is affected by ageing [18], and declines sharply after the age of sixty [19]. More specifically, a study involving participants aged between 16 and 68 found that younger adults are better than older ones at identifying the context of infant vocalizations [23]. However, this study did not take into account the participants' previous experience in caring for babies, a crucial factor now known to modulate the ability to identify the level of pain encoded by cries [24].

Here, we focused on well-characterized baby cries available from our databank [25] and tested whether getting older impairs our ability to identify crying contexts. We tested pain and discomfort cries, which are acoustically different and recognizable by listeners [24-26] as opposed to cries of hunger or isolation [27]. Parents are able to recognize pain cries for their own baby [25], and more broadly, being familiar with a given baby's cries facilitate pain recognition for this baby, especially for people not currently involved in babies care [24]. Thus, we also investigated whether familiarity with a given baby modulate cries identification in older
adults. We predicted that the effect of age will be mitigated in listeners with extensive prior
exposure to baby cries and that higher cognitive empathy and familiarity with the cries of a
given baby would facilitate the identification of their pain cries whatever the listener's age. To
test this, we conducted psychoacoustic experiment with participants aged from 20 to 87 years
having different levels of experience with babies: individuals with no experience with babies,
individuals who had cared for a baby more than 5 years ago, and individuals who were currently
caring for a baby less than 2 years old.

**2. Methods**

**(a) Participants**

We tested a sample of 309 participants (mean age = 41.1 ± 17.2 years, min-max = 20-87).
Participants were recruited on the online platform Prolific (www.prolific.co/), then directed to
the online platform Labvanced (https://www.labvanced.com/) where the experiment took place.
Once the experiment was completed, participants were paid at the recommended rate of 8.0
GBP per hour. All participants reported having normal hearing. They were distributed as
follows (see Table 1 for details):

- 90 participants had no experience with babies ("no experience" group; 48 men, 42 women; none of them were parents; mean age = 40.0 ± 17.8 years, min-max = 20-76).

- 81 participants had cared for one or more babies in the past, more than 5 years ago ("past experience" group; 40 men, 41 women; 63 of them were parents; mean age = 51.1 ± 18.6 years, min-max = 20-87).

- 138 participants were currently looking after at least one baby under 2-years old ("current experience" group; 52 men, 86 women; 83 of them were parents; mean age = 36.0 ± 13.2 years, min-max = 20-72).

Experience with babies was considered when participants reported taking care of a baby, either
their own, a relative (siblings, nephew, grandchild...) or unrelative through babysitting or their
professional activity.

**(b) Sound stimuli**

The recordings used to produce stimuli for the psychoacoustic experiment were cries extracted
from the database of the ENES Bioacoustics Research Laboratory [25]. Pain cries were
recorded at the pediatrician's office during a vaccination session (N = 22 babies, 10 boys and 12 girls; age = 60.3 ± 3.4 days on the day of vaccination). Discomfort cries were recorded at the baby's home during bathing, undressing or dressing by the parents (time between recording sessions for discomfort cries and pain cries for a given baby = 6.9 ± 3 days; for details concerning recording conditions see [25]).

These raw recordings were segmented into 284 cry sequences using Audacity software (www.audacityteam.org). We selected only those sequences with an excellent signal-to-noise ratio (mean sequence duration = 6.3 ± 1.1 s; 4 sequences of pain cries per baby and 2-19 sequences of discomfort cries per baby). Furthermore, in order to limit pseudo-replication of stimuli in the playback experiment, we retained only those babies for whom we had at least 10 sequences of discomfort cries and 4 sequences of pain cries (N = 9; 3 boys, 6 girls; total = 150 sequences). The sound intensity of the stimuli was normalized to 100% of the maximal amplitude using the “normalize” function in tuneR package (cran.r-project.org/web/packages/tuneR/index.html).

### (c) Experimental procedure

The experimental procedure consisted of two successive phases: a training phase in which participants listened to the discomfort cries of an assigned baby, thus creating familiarity with this assigned baby, and a testing phase in which participants were asked to rate as “discomfort cry” or “pain cry” the cries of their assigned baby and those of an unknown baby (Figure 1a; same procedure as in [24]). Each participant was trained and then tested with different cries, thus preventing idiosyncratic acoustic characteristics of individual babies from biasing the results. Randomization of cry stimuli was achieved using the “sample” function in R statistical software (https://www.r-project.org/).

At the beginning of the training session, participants received the following instruction: “You are going to hear several cries of one baby, who will be named YOUR baby for the rest of this study. YOUR baby is in the bath, it is uncomfortable, YOUR baby is crying.” Then they listened to a succession of four discomfort cries from their assigned baby. This training was repeated a day later, using four more discomfort cries from the same assigned baby. Participants then performed their test session a few hours after the end of the second training session (mean = 6.7 ± 5.6 h, range [3 - 29.3 h]). During the test, they listened to two successive sets of four cries: two pain cries and two discomfort cries presented in a random order. One of the two sets of
cries came from their assigned, “familiar” baby. The other set of cries came from an unknown baby. The order of presentation of the two sets, familiar and unknown, was balanced among the participants. Before the start of each set of cries, participants were informed whether they would hear the cries of their assigned baby or an unknown baby. After each cry, participants were asked to estimate in a two-alternative forced choice whether the cry they heard was due to discomfort or pain. Participants were not told how many cries of discomfort or pain they would listen to.

### (d) Data analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using Bayesian mixed models fitted with the brms R package [28]. Response scores were modeled using a logistic function (Bernoulli family). The outcome variable was success in recognizing the context of crying (discomfort or pain). The participant's age, experience with baby care, as well as the baby's status (familiar or unknown), were included in the model as fixed factors. The participant's identity and that of the baby were included as random factors. The model structure in brms syntax was as follows:

```
success ~ age x levelExperience x baby_status + (1 | subjectID + babyID_stim)
```

To assess the effect of listener's sex, we built another model by adding sex as a fixed factor in the previous model.

For each model, 3000 iterations were run over two MCMC chains (Markov chain Monte Carlo), with the first 1000 iterations of each chain used to tune the algorithm. To improve convergence when modeling response scores, we specified mildly informative conservative priors. Results are summarized as medians of the posterior distributions and 95% credible intervals (CIs). The chance level was set at 50% as it was a two-forced choice (discomfort/pain) with a balance number of the two conditions. Credible intervals for estimates above the chance level indicate a credible effect, given the observed data and model structure [29]. Similarly, when contrasting two conditions, CIs excluding the null value can be inferred to indicate a credible difference between the conditions. In the same way, distribution of posteriors value over a given threshold can be quantified and indicate a credible difference when more than 97.5% of the posteriors are over the threshold value, and a tendency when 95% to 97.5% of the posteriors are over the threshold.
### 3. Results

The participants on average successfully identified the “discomfort” or “pain” crying contexts (mean correct identification of the crying context = 61.4%, 95% CI [53.1, 69.0]; chance level = 50%), and we observed no significant decline in this ability with the age of the participants. The recognition accuracy even tended to increase with age since the crying context was correctly identified in 57.3% of trials at the age of 20 (95% CI [48.4, 65.7]), while this rate of success increased to 64.4% of trials over the age of 70 ([55.1, 72.7]; 7.0% better, [-0.6, 14.7], see Table S1). Regardless of age, participants were more successful in identifying the crying context when they heard a cry from their assigned (familiar) baby than a cry from an unknown baby (6.4% better, [1.5, 11.3]).

As illustrated on Figure 1b, experience with babies improved participants’ ability to identify the crying context in familiar babies. Participants with no experience with babies correctly identified 60.2% [50.1, 69.7] of cries, while those with past experience recognized 63.1% [53.1, 71.9] of cries and those currently caring for a baby 70.4% [60.0, 78.7] of cries (respectively 2.8% [-5.8, 11.2] and 10.0% [0.5, 18.9] higher). At the age of 20, participants with no previous experience with babies were unable to identify the crying context of their familiar baby (53.1% [41.9, 64.0]). However, these participants with no experience performed better at the age of 60 (61.8% [50.6, 72.2]), and this progression was even more marked in the over-70s (65.7% [51.0, 78.2]). Participants aged 20 with past experience with babies also failed to reliably recognize the crying context of familiar baby cries (59.2% [46.2, 71.2]). However, these participants with past experience performed better from the age of 35 (61.0% [50.3, 70.8]), and even better after the age of 70 (65.9% [53.4, 76.7]). Finally, participants currently caring for a baby under 2-years old were able to identify whether cries of a familiar baby had been emitted in a discomfort versus a pain context from the age of 20 (66.2% [56.4, 74.7]). This ability was even improved in the over-70s (73.5% [58.1, 84.8]; see Table S1).

Participants with no experience of babies were not able to reliably identify the crying context of unknown babies (58.2% [47.4, 67.9]). We observed a similar result in participants with past experience with babies at the age of 20 (50.5% [37.0, 64.0]). However, these people with previous experience with babies showed better performance after the age of 70 (63.3% [49.8, 74.6]). Finally, the age of the most experienced participants (with babies under two years of age) did not seem to influence their ability to identify the crying context of an unknown baby (see Table S1).
Empathy scores were positively associated with age, but there was no statistical association between empathy scores and ability to identify crying context (see supplementary methods and results, Tables S2 and S3). Furthermore, the model including the sex of the participants did not explain the data any better (WAIC of 3254.2 versus 3240.3 without) and suggested no difference between men and women regarding their ability to identify crying contexts (-0.1% [-5.6, 5.0]).

4. Discussion

In this study, we showed that as adults age, they retain the ability to identify whether a baby cry is emitted in a context of simple discomfort or real pain. Our results further demonstrate that experience in caring for babies improves this ability [24].

Babies' cries are signals that carry information about the baby's identity and age ("static" information) and immediate needs ("dynamic" information) [27,30]. Knowing how to identify this information in the cry signal - in other words, being able to decode the information conveyed by the cry - is essential for caregivers to provide appropriate care. Previous studies have shown that former experience with babies considerably improves the ability to decode cries, both for static information [31] and for dynamic information [24]. For example, mothers who have already had several children learn to identify their newborn more quickly than primiparous mothers [31]. Parents of young children and healthcare professionals working with babies are much better at identifying pain encoded in babies' cries than inexperienced people [24]. The results of the present study confirm this importance of experience and highlight its role throughout life.

In our study, regardless of age, participants that were currently caring for a baby were the most able to determine whether a cry signals pain or simple discomfort, and therefore whether the baby needs immediate help or not. This ability was not lost in the elderly, older participants reporting caring for a baby under 2 years old (usually a grandchild) remaining able to identify the crying context. Regarding adults who had never cared for babies, while young ones identified the context of a familiar baby's cry only marginally better than chance, older people did significantly better than chance. A comparable improvement in performance was also found in participants who had cared for a baby in the past. This beneficial effect of age on the ability to decode babies' cries could be explained by the fact that human adults are probably indirectly exposed to babies' cries throughout their lives via their social network (family, friends), the
media, or on various occasions such as public transport journeys. It should be noted however
that, in our sample, there was a higher proportion of parents among older participants. Indeed,
those with no experience were necessarily non-parents, as were younger participants with more
than 5 years' experience, mainly acquired through babysitting or looking after younger siblings.
In contrast, older participants with past or current experience were almost all parents. It is
possible that this favored the older people's ability to decode babies' cries.

Our results run counter to previous findings, which have shown an age-related decline in
emotion recognition in faces, bodies, spoken sentences [20], as well as in non-linguistic [21]
and nonverbal vocalizations [19]. One explanation could be that the 2-forced-choice task used
in our study was simpler than in previous works, where participants may be asked to
discriminate up to 18 different emotions [21]. Indeed, more difficult tasks, such as combining
modalities, are likely to create particular difficulties for older people [20]. On the other hand,
our results may be specific to the pain modality. In fact, to our knowledge, pain is almost never
included in studies on emotion recognition. In a study where young and old participants were
asked to rate pain expressed by facial expressions, they showed that older observers'
performance was only slightly reduced, being sufficient to differentiate pain levels [32]. Thus,
the preservation of the ability to identify pain despite aging may be due to the motivational
relevance and survival value of pain cues, their identification being essential to provide adapted
care.

Do our results mean that older people are systematically able to decode babies' cries? Probably
not. Indeed, advancing age is typically accompanied by a decline in sensory and cognitive
abilities, leading increasing difficulties in perceiving and analyzing sensory stimuli from the
environment [11,33-35]. Although our study is limited by the fact that it does not include
auditory and cognitive assessment, our sample likely included people who had retained good
sensory and cognitive abilities despite their age. First, all participants reported normal hearing.
While the oldest participants almost certainly had age-related hearing loss, this usually affects
high frequencies, starting at around 2 kHz and becoming increasingly significant as sounds
approach 8 kHz [36]. As babies' cries are broadband signals extending over a wide frequency
spectrum into low frequencies [25], it is unlikely that our participants had issues hearing them.
Second, the perception of roughness, which is the main acoustic property characterizing pain
in cries [25], is little affected by age-related hearing loss [37]. With regard to the potential
impact of cognitive decline with age, participants were enrolled on Prolific© and had to be able
to complete the experiment online, with three successive sessions. This involved regularly
accessing their mailbox, following a link to the next session and following instructions. Being able to perform these tasks is highly likely to have selected people with conserved cognitive abilities. Furthermore, neither age-related auditory loss [38] nor general cognitive abilities [18] have been linked to decline in emotion recognition. Moreover, our participants showed no decline in cognitive empathy with age, all of which in favor of having selected elderly people who aged well [10]. Finally, our study does not allow us to infer potential effects of age on the behavioral response to crying babies. This impact could be positive - an older, more experienced person could possibly make better decisions than a younger one -, or negative - age could increase the stress associated with listening to a pain cry, or make the person less able to act promptly and appropriately. These results may be specific to crying understanding since other emotions were not evaluated. Future experiments including a larger range of conditions, such as laughter or fear, are required to determine whether the present findings may be extended to other infant vocalizations.

In conclusion, our work underlines that experience in caring for babies enhances the ability to decode the information conveyed in their cries and that this expertise can be preserved at advanced ages. Our results show that older people, likely who have aged well, are still capable of efficiently decoding babies' cries. By highlighting that older persons retain the ability to assess babies' needs by monitoring the babies' vocal solicitations, this study highlights how older caregivers (grandparents or else) may provide young parents with help in babies care [3] by sharing their expertise through advising and direct caregiving. This observation reinforces the idea that favoring the intergenerational solidarity and cohabitation of generations [7,10,39], as in, e.g., multi-generational housing projects is likely to simultaneously benefit the quality of life of young parents and older [14], knowledgeable caregivers.

## References

1. Hrdy SB. 2016 Variable postpartum responsiveness among humans and other primates with "cooperative breeding": A comparative and evolutionary perspective. *Hormones and Behavior* **77**, 272-283. (doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2015.10.016)

2. Hrdy SB. 2007 Evolutionary Context of Human Development: The Cooperative Breeding Model. In *Family Relationships: An evolutionary perspective* (eds CA Salmon, TK Shackelford), pp. 39-68. Oxford University Press. (doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195320510.003.0003)
3. Aubel J. 2021 Grandmothers — a neglected family resource for saving newborn lives. *BMJ Glob Health* **6**, e003808. (doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2020-003808)

4. Chapman S, Danielsbacka M, Tanskanen AO, Lahdenperä M, Pettay J, Lummaa V. 2023 Grandparental co-residence and grandchild survival: the role of resource competition in a pre-industrial population. *Behavioral Ecology* **34**, 446–456. (doi:10.1093/beheco/arad013)

5. Xiao X, Loke AY. 2022 Intergenerational co-parenting in the postpartum period: A concept analysis. *Midwifery* **107**, 103275. (doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2022.103275)

6. Matsui R, Sato Y. 2018 Grandmother's support for new mothers in Japan. *Public Health Nurs*, 1–10. (doi:10.1111/phn.12518)

7. Bengtson VL. 2001 Beyond the Nuclear Family: The Increasing Importance of Multigenerational Bonds. *Journal of Marriage and Family* **63**, 1–16.

8. Cohn-Schwartz E. 2022 Age integration in later life social networks and self-perceptions of aging: examining their reciprocal associations. *European Journal of Ageing*

9. Abrams D, Bryant J, Eller A. 2006 An Age Apart: The Effects of Intergenerational Contact and Stereotype Threat on Performance and Intergroup Bias. *Psychology and Aging* **21**, 691–702. (doi:10.1037/0882-7974.21.4.691)

10. Waddell C, Van Doorn G, Power G, Statham D. 2024 From Successful Ageing to Ageing Well: A narrative review. *The Gerontologist*

11. Hedden T, Gabrieli JDE. 2004 Insights into the ageing mind: a view from cognitive neuroscience. *Nature Reviews Neuroscience* **5**, 87–96. (doi:10.1038/nrn1323)

12. Hou X. 2023 Association between caring for grandchildren based on living arrangements and cognitive function among Chinese middle-aged and older adults: The mediating roles of social activities and depressive symptoms. *Frontiers in Public Health* (doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1105066)

13. Danielsbacka M. 2022 Grandparenting, health, and well-being: a systematic literature review. *European Journal of Ageing*

14. Szabó Á, Neely E, Stephens C. 2019 The psychosocial benefits of providing non-kin childcare in older adults: A longitudinal study with older New Zealanders. *Journal of Health Psychology* (doi:10.1177/1359105319893011)

15. Barr RG. 2014 Crying as a trigger for abusive head trauma: a key to prevention. *Pediatr Radiol* **44**, 559–564. (doi:10.1007/s00247-014-3100-3)

16. Lingle S, Wyman MT, Kotrba R, Teichroeb LJ, Romanow CA. 2012 What makes a cry a cry? A review of infant distress vocalizations. *Curr Zool* **58**, 698–726. (doi:10.1093/czoolo/58.5.698)

17. Malykhin N, Pietrasik W, Aghamohammadi-Sereshki A, Ngan Hoang K, Fujiwara E, Olsen F. 2023 Emotional recognition across the adult lifespan: Effects of age, sex, cognitive empathy, alexithymia traits, and amygdala subnuclei volumes. *J of Neuroscience Research* **101**, 367–383. (doi:10.1002/jnr.25152)
18. Lima CF, Alves T, Scott SK, Castro SL. 2014 In the ear of the beholder: How age shapes emotion processing in nonverbal vocalizations. *Emotion* **14**, 145–160. (doi:10.1037/a0034287)

19. Amorim M, Anikin A, Mendes AJ, Lima CF, Kotz SA, Pinheiro AP. 2021 Changes in vocal emotion recognition across the life span. *Emotion* **21**, 315–325. (doi:10.1037/emo0000692)

20. Ruffman T, Henry JD, Livingstone V, Phillips LH. 2008 A meta-analytic review of emotion recognition and aging: Implications for neuropsychological models of aging. *Neurosci Biobehav Rev* **32**, 863–881. (doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.01.001)

21. Cortes DS, Tornberg C, Bänziger T, Elfenbein HA, Fisher H, Laukka P. 2021 Effects of aging on emotion recognition from dynamic multimodal expressions and vocalizations. *Sci Rep* **11**, 2647. (doi:10.1038/s41598-021-82135-1)

22. Beadle JN, de la Vega CE. 2019 Impact of Aging on Empathy: Review of Psychological and Neural Mechanisms. *Front. Psychiatry* **10**, 331. (doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00331)

23. Lindová J, Špinka M, Nováková L. 2015 Decoding of Baby Calls: Can Adult Humans Identify the Eliciting Situation from Emotional Vocalizations of Preverbal Infants? *PLoS ONE* **10**, e0124317. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124317)

24. Corvin S, Fauchon C, Peyron R, Reby D, Mathevon N. 2022 Adults learn to identify pain in babies' cries. *Curr Biol* **32**, R824–R825. (doi:10.1016/j.cub.2022.06.076)

25. Koutseff A, Reby D, Martin O, Levrero F, Patural H, Mathevon N. 2017 The acoustic space of pain: cries as indicators of distress recovering dynamics in pre-verbal infants. *Bioacoustics* **27**, 313–325. (doi:10.1080/09524622.2017.1344931)

26. Corvin S, Fauchon C, Patural H, Peyron R, Reby D, Theunissen FE, Mathevon N. 2024 Pain cues override identity cues in baby cries. *iScience* (doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.110375)

27. Lockhart-Bouron M *et al*. 2023 Infant cries convey both stable and dynamic information about age and identity. *Commun Psychol* **1**, 26. (doi:10.1038/s44271-023-00022-z)

28. Bürkner P-C. 2017 *brms*: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using Stan. *J Stat Softw* **80**, 1–28. (doi:10.18637/jss.v080.i01)

29. Kruschke JK, Liddell TM. 2018 The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective. *Psychon Bull Rev* **25**, 178–206. (doi:10.3758/s13423-016-1221-4)

30. Mathevon, Nicolas. 2023 *The Voices of Nature: How and Why Animals Communicate*. Princeton University Press.

31. Bouchet H, Plat A, Levréro F, Reby D, Patural H, Mathevon N. 2020 Baby cry recognition is independent of motherhood but improved by experience and exposure. *Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci* **287**, 20192499. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2019.2499)

32. Lautenbacher S, Hofer W, Kunz M. 2016 Age Differences in Decoding Pain from the Facial Expression of Healthy Individuals and Patients with Dementia. *Pain Med* **17**, 685–691. (doi:10.1111/pme.12927)
33. Ballesteros S, Nilsson L-G. 2009 Ageing, cognition, and neuroscience: An introduction. *European Journal of Cognitive Psychology* **21**, 161–175.

34. Cavazzana A, Hummel T, Croy I. 2018 Sensory-specific impairment among older people. An investigation using both sensory thresholds and subjective measures across the five senses. *PLoS ONE* **13**, 1–15. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0202969)

35. Correia C et al. 2016 Global Sensory Impairment in Older Adults in the United States. *Journal of the American Geriatrics Society* **64**, 306–313.

36. Großmann W. 2023 Listening with an Aging Brain – a Cognitive Challenge. *Laryngorhinootologie* **102**, S12–S34. (doi:10.1055/a-1973-3038)

37. Tufts JB, Molis MR. 2007 Perception of roughness by listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. *J. Acoust. Soc. Am.*

38. Dupuis K, Pichora-Fuller MK. 2015 Aging Affects Identification of Vocal Emotions in Semantically Neutral Sentences. *Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research*

39. Burgess G. 2019 The Increase in Multigenerational Households in the UK: The Motivations for and Experiences of Multigenerational Living. *Housing, Theory and Society* (doi:10.1080/14036096.2019.1653360)

**Funding.** The research has been funded by the ANR (BABYCRY project; SCREAM project), the AXA Foundation (NM), the Lyon IDEX Fellowship (DR), the Labex CeLyA (France), the University of Saint-Etienne (France), the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, France), the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (Inserm, France), and the Institut universitaire de France (NM and DR). SC was a recipient of a PhD grant from the Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale (FRM; code ECO202006011648). CF was a recipient of a research grant from the FRM (ARF202110014013). This publication was completed while NM was Visiting Miller Professor at the University of California, Berkeley (Miller Institute for Basic Research in Science).

**Acknowledgements.** The authors thank Hugo Pepin for help in data collection and Andrey Anikin for advice on statistical analyses.
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Men and women participants to the psychoacoustic experiment. For each category, the number of parents is indicated in brackets.</caption><thead><tr><th>Age of the participants</th><th>20-29 years</th><th>30-39 years</th><th>40-49 years</th><th>50-59 years</th><th>60-69 years</th><th>70-79 years</th><th>&gt; 80 years</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Participants with no previous experience with babies (men(fathers); women(mothers))</td><td>20(0);18(0)</td><td>6(0);5(0)</td><td>7(0);5(0)</td><td>6(0);5(0)</td><td>6(0);5(0)</td><td>3(0);4(0)</td><td>0(0);0(0)</td></tr><tr><td>Participants with past experience with babies (men(fathers); women(mothers))</td><td>5(0);6(0)</td><td>5(3);7(7)</td><td>12(10);6(5)</td><td>6(4);5(5)</td><td>5(5);6(6)</td><td>6(6);6(6)</td><td>1(1);5(5)</td></tr><tr><td>Participants with current experience with babies (men(fathers); women(mothers))</td><td>16(9);38(3)</td><td>18(16);29(21)</td><td>6(6);7(6)</td><td>5(5);5(3)</td><td>6(6);4(4)</td><td>1(1);3(3)</td><td>0(0);0(0)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Aging does not impair the ability to identify whether a baby cry expresses pain or simple discomfort. (a) The experimental protocol consisted of two successive phases: a training phase in which participants listened to discomfort cries from an assigned baby, followed by a testing phase (playback tests) in which the participants had to identify cries from their assigned baby and cries from an unknown baby as "discomfort cry" or "pain cry". (b) Results of the psychoacoustic tests. Solid lines represent medians of posterior distributions and light areas 95% credible intervals. Dotted lines indicate the 50% chance level.</figcaption></figure>
## Supplementary methods

Once recruited, participants were asked to complete the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) questionnaire [1], whose perspective-taking sub-score characterizes cognitive empathy [2].

IRI scores (total score and subscores) were modeled using a gaussian family, with the participants' age and sex as fixed factors. To assess IRI, we built 5 additional models (for IRI total score and the 4 subscores). The outcome variable was success, the fixed factors the IRI score (total score or subscores) and the experience in babies care, and participant's and baby's identity were the random factors, with the following syntax:

success ~ IRI (total or subscore) x levelExperience + (1 | subjectID + babyID_stim)

1. Davis MH. 1980 A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. *JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology* **10**, 85.

2. Davis MH. 1983 Measuring individual differences in empathy: evidence for a multidimensional approach. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology* **44**, 113–126.
Supplementary results

<table><caption>**Table S1. Accuracy in cries context identification.** Results are summarised by the median of the posterior distributions and their 95% credible interval. Values in italic correspond to comparisons for which 95% to 97.5% of the posteriors are over the threshold (50% for estimation of crying contexts, first three columns; 0 for comparison between age groups, last column) and indicate a tendency to a difference. Values in bold correspond to comparisons for which more than 97.5% of the posteriors are over the threshold and indicate a credible difference.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th>All ages</th><th>Aged 20</th><th>Over-70s</th><th>Difference between over-70s and 20</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="2">All cries</td><td><b>61.4</b> [53.1, 69.0]</td><td>57.3 [48.4, 65.7]</td><td><b>64.4</b> [55.1, 72.7]</td><td>7.0 [-0.6, 14.7]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Familiar baby cries</td><td>Participants without experience</td><td><b>60.2</b> [50.1, 70.0]</td><td>53.1 [41.9, 64.0]</td><td><b>65.7</b> [51.0, 78.2]</td><td>12.3 [-3.8, 28.3]</td></tr><tr><td>Participants with previous experience</td><td><b>63.1</b> [53.1, 71.9]</td><td>59.2 [46.2, 71.2]</td><td><b>65.9</b> [53.4, 76.7]</td><td>6.7 [-9.3, 22.3]</td></tr><tr><td>Participants with current experience</td><td><b>70.4</b> [60.0, 78.7]</td><td><b>66.2</b> [56.4, 74.7]</td><td><b>73.5</b> [58.1, 84.8]</td><td>7.1 [-9.6, 21.7]</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Unknown baby cries</td><td>Participants without experience</td><td>58.2 [47.4, 67.9]</td><td>55.4 [43.8, 66.1]</td><td>60.3 [45.4, 73.9]</td><td>5.0 [-12.7, 21.4]</td></tr><tr><td>Participants with previous experience</td><td>57.8 [47.6, 66.9]</td><td>50.5 [37.0, 64.0]</td><td>63.3 [49.8, 74.6]</td><td>12.6 [-5.4, 29.7]</td></tr><tr><td>Participants with current experience</td><td>58.8 [47.8, 68.5]</td><td>59.1 [48.4, 68.4]</td><td>58.6 [41.7, 73.8]</td><td>-0.4 [-18.6, 16.9]</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Women</th><th>Men</th><th>Both</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>IRI total</td><td><strong>12.4 [4.9, 20.1]</strong></td><td><strong>10.0 [0.9, 18.9]</strong></td><td><strong>11.2 [5.4, 17.0]</strong></td></tr><tr><td>IRI perspective taking subscore</td><td><strong>6.0 [3.1, 8.9]</strong></td><td><strong>4.5 [1.1, 7.9]</strong></td><td><strong>5.2 [3.0, 7.5]</strong></td></tr><tr><td>IRI empathic concern subscore</td><td><strong>4.0 [1.5, 6.5]</strong></td><td><strong>4.7 [1.8, 7.7]</strong></td><td><strong>4.3 [2.4, 6.3]</strong></td></tr><tr><td>IRI fantasy subscore</td><td>1.6 [-1.5, 4.9]</td><td>0.3 [-3.3, 3.8]</td><td>0.9 [-1.4, 3.3]</td></tr><tr><td>IRI personal distress subscore</td><td>0.8 [-2.2, 3.9]</td><td>0.7 [-2.8, 4.1]</td><td>0.7 [-0.6, 3.0]</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Table S2. Comparison of IRI scores between old and young participants.** Median and 95% credible interval (CI) are reported. Values in bold correspond to comparisons for which more than 97.5% of the posteriors are positive and indicate a credible difference, older participants having higher scores than younger ones.

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>All participants</th><th>No experience</th><th>Past experience</th><th>Current experience</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>IRI total</td><td>0.1 [-0.03, 0.2]</td><td>0.1 [-0.1, 0.3]</td><td>0.1 [-0.2, 0.3]</td><td>0.1 [-0.1, 0.3]</td></tr><tr><td>IRI perspective taking subscore</td><td>0.03 [-0.10, 0.17]</td><td>0.03 [-0.18, 0.26]</td><td>0.10 [-0.16, 0.38]</td><td>-0.04 [-0.20, 0.14]</td></tr><tr><td>IRI empathic concern subscore</td><td>0.06 [-0.07, 0.19]</td><td>0.11 [-0.08, 0.30]</td><td>0.03 [-0.19, 0.26]</td><td>0.03 [-0.14, 0.21]</td></tr><tr><td>IRI fantasy subscore</td><td>0.06 [-0.05, 0.17]</td><td>0.09 [-0.11, 0.28]</td><td>-0.07 [-0.29, 0.16]</td><td>0.17 [0, 0.35]</td></tr><tr><td>IRI personal distress subscore</td><td>0.08 [-0.03, 0.20]</td><td>0.10 [-0.10, 0.32]</td><td>0.11 [-0.11, 0.32]</td><td>0.05 [-0.11, 0.21]</td></tr></tbody></table>

**Table S3. Effect on IRI scores and subscores on success in cry cause recognition.** Medians and 95% CI are reported. A positive median indicates higher success for participants with high IRI scores compared to those with low IRI scores. CIs excluding the null value can be inferred to indicate a credible effect of IRI scores on success in cry recognition.