Rosenblith JF, Lipsitt LP. J Pediatr 1959;54:200-5Today it is as important to observe babies' behaviors as it was in the past, despite the many technological advances in the field of neonatology. Fifty years ago in The Journal, Rosenblith and Lipsitt reported satisfactory interscorer agreement across 4 domains of the Graham test, one of the first standardized behavioral examinations designed for newborn infants. The authors raised a number of important issues including the need for norms for each day of life and cut-points for determining “normal” versus “abnormal” behavior. They also highlighted that “traumatized” infants may perform differently from the “normal” babies. This raises the difficulty in defining the appropriate “norms” for different groups of infants, which remains an important issue for us today. How should we expect a baby of 23 weeks' gestation to behave at 1 week of age, or, for that matter, upon reaching term? Should we compare preterm infant behavior with term behavior?As technology has advanced, so have the opportunities for greater understanding of the relationships between newborn behaviors and cerebral injury using neuro-imaging, not available in 1959. Similarly, the examination of newborn behaviors has progressed with the development of more complex tools such as the NBAS (Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale) and the APIB (Assessment of Preterm Infant Behavior). However, despite changing terminology, the themes remain the same. Like Graham, Rosenblith, Lipsitt and others, we remain interested in babies' “muscle-tension” (muscle tone), their irritability and self-regulatory behaviors, their maturation, and their ability to engage and orientate to specific stimuli. We still have much to learn from our infants' behavior—although the latest monitors can tell us about numerous vital signs, we can all do with a simple reminder to “observe the baby's behavior.” Rosenblith JF, Lipsitt LP. J Pediatr 1959;54:200-5 Today it is as important to observe babies' behaviors as it was in the past, despite the many technological advances in the field of neonatology. Fifty years ago in The Journal, Rosenblith and Lipsitt reported satisfactory interscorer agreement across 4 domains of the Graham test, one of the first standardized behavioral examinations designed for newborn infants. The authors raised a number of important issues including the need for norms for each day of life and cut-points for determining “normal” versus “abnormal” behavior. They also highlighted that “traumatized” infants may perform differently from the “normal” babies. This raises the difficulty in defining the appropriate “norms” for different groups of infants, which remains an important issue for us today. How should we expect a baby of 23 weeks' gestation to behave at 1 week of age, or, for that matter, upon reaching term? Should we compare preterm infant behavior with term behavior? As technology has advanced, so have the opportunities for greater understanding of the relationships between newborn behaviors and cerebral injury using neuro-imaging, not available in 1959. Similarly, the examination of newborn behaviors has progressed with the development of more complex tools such as the NBAS (Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale) and the APIB (Assessment of Preterm Infant Behavior). However, despite changing terminology, the themes remain the same. Like Graham, Rosenblith, Lipsitt and others, we remain interested in babies' “muscle-tension” (muscle tone), their irritability and self-regulatory behaviors, their maturation, and their ability to engage and orientate to specific stimuli. We still have much to learn from our infants' behavior—although the latest monitors can tell us about numerous vital signs, we can all do with a simple reminder to “observe the baby's behavior.”