We are thankful for the commentaries on our review examining the sticky mittens research. The original authors created a training that is easy to administer and has potential long-term effects based on 2 weeks of exposure. We approached our review with enthusiasm for the paradigm and with the belief that the effects were clear and strong. To our surprise, the motor effects were not as strong as originally assumed. We noted several reasons for our cautious interpretation.

Our review addressed the mixed findings in the sticky mittens literature. There is no cohesive result pattern: from five studies on typical motor development, only two demonstrate immediate effects, one indicated delayed effects and the remaining two showed no effects on reaching and grasping. From our perspective, it is important that studies are able to demonstrate the same positive effects, at the same time points, in order for studies to be considered as replications of the same work. Moreover, we would like to note that the authors have been transparent with their reuse of data. This practice is understandable and, in the context of open science guidelines, their transparency is commendable. Nevertheless, we do not view studies with reused data as independent replications and as such did not include them in our conclusions. We acknowledge that more work is needed before firm conclusions are drawn and hope our review can be used to address gaps and guide future work.

Our review also noted that it is important to consider baseline differences when evaluating the effect of an intervention. The commentaries made the important observation that baseline differences were not significant, suggesting that they therefore should be considered equal. Recently, concerns have been raised about the lack of adjustments for baseline differences, even when nonsignificant, as they have the ability to strongly bias outcome variables (Landau et al., 2018; Twisk et al., 2018; Valente & MacKinnon, 2017). In following these recommendations, we come to a different conclusion. Not accounting for initial baseline differences, even when nonsignificant, opens up for further questions about the validity of the sticky mittens effect.

The commentaries raised many good suggestions that are worth considering as the field moves forward. In particular, it was suggested that parental behavior during training might account for differences between studies. This is an interesting suggestion and we look forward to empirical studies investigating the relation between parental practices and treatment outcomes. A better understanding of individual differences and relations between parents and infant opens up for interesting and valuable theoretical and practical gains.

The sticky mittens training has an enormous potential as a simple and easy to implement training protocol that might be used in homes and kindergartens, by parents and practitioners. Our hope is that this discussion stimulates further work in the field, that enhances our understanding of motor development, embodied cognition, and how to best help infants develop to their full potential.

我们感谢对我们审查粘性手套研究的评论的评论。最初的作者创建了一个易于管理的培训，并且基于 2 周的暴露具有潜在的长期影响。我们怀着对范式的热情和相信效果是明确而强大的方式来进行我们的审查。令我们惊讶的是，运动效果并不像最初假设的那么强烈。我们注意到了我们谨慎解释的几个原因。

我们的评论解决了粘性手套文献中的混合发现。没有一致的结果模式：从五项关于典型运动发展的研究中，只有两项显示出即时效果，一项显示延迟效果，其余两项显示对伸手和抓握没有影响。从我们的角度来看，重要的是研究能够在相同的时间点证明相同的积极影响，以便将研究视为相同工作的重复。此外，我们要指出的是，作者对数据的重用是透明的。这种做法是可以理解的，在开放科学指南的背景下，其透明度值得称赞。尽管如此，我们并不将重复使用数据的研究视为独立的重复，因此没有将它们包含在我们的结论中。

我们的审查还指出，在评估干预效果时考虑基线差异很重要。评论提出了一个重要的观察结果，即基线差异不显着，表明因此应将它们视为相等。最近，人们担心缺乏对基线差异的调整，即使在不显着的情况下，因为它们有能力强烈偏向结果变量（Landau 等人，2018 年；Twisk 等人，2018 年；Valente & MacKinnon，2017 年） . 根据这些建议，我们得出了不同的结论。不考虑初始基线差异，即使是不显着的，也会引发关于粘性手套效应有效性的进一步问题。

评论中提出了许多值得在该领域向前发展的过程中考虑的好建议。特别是，有人认为训练期间的父母行为可能是研究之间差异的原因。这是一个有趣的建议，我们期待着调查父母行为与治疗结果之间关系的实证研究。更好地了解个体差异和父母与婴儿之间的关系，可以带来有趣且有价值的理论和实践成果。

粘连手套训练作为一种简单易行的训练方案具有巨大的潜力，可以在家庭和幼儿园中被家长和从业者使用。我们希望这次讨论能激发该领域的进一步工作，增强我们对运动发育、具身认知以及如何最好地帮助婴儿充分发挥其潜力的理解。