Distributional Learning in Vowel Distinctions by 8-month-old English Infants
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Distributional Learning in Vowel Distinctions by 8-month-old English Infants Ferran Pons (fpons@psych.ubc.ca) Infant Studies Centre, University of British Columbia. 2 136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4 CANADA Laura Sabourin (sabourin@uoregon.edu) Brain Development Lab, University of Oregon. 12 2 7 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 USA Jasmine C. Cady (jwlabmgr@psych.ubc.ca) Infant Studies Centre, University of British Columbia. 2 136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4 CANADA Janet F. Werker (jwerker@psych.ubc.ca) Infant Studies Centre, University of British Columbia. 2136 West Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4 CANADA interaction between conditions, demonstrating that the type of distribution did not affect performance. Introduction By the end of the first year of life, infants show decreased sensitivity to phonetic differences not used in their native language (Werker & Tees, 1984) and increased sensitivity to native distinctions (Kuhl et al., 2006). With an artificial language learning manipulation, Maye, Werker, and Gerken (2002) demonstrated that infants’ speech sound categories change as a function of the distributional properties of the input. Recently, Bosch and Sebastian-Galles (2003) reported a different pattern of perceptual reorganization for Catalan- Spanish bilingual infants: At 4 and 12 months, but not at 8 months of age, infants were able to discriminate the Catalan vowel contrast / E -e/. This finding challenges the idea that linguistic exposure promotes increased sensitivity within the language environment. It was suggested that distributional learning may be the mechanism responsible for such a pattern. Finally, Sabourin and Werker (in prep.) found that 8-month-old English infants had difficulties discriminating two vowels (/ I /-/e/) that are close in vowel space. The present study investigates the role of distributional learning in these similar vowels (/ I /-/e/). Discussion These results suggest that there may be limitations to distributional learning, and support the idea that vowel perception may develop in a different manner than consonants. The type of familiarization used (as in Maye et al., 2002) may not be powerful enough to impact vowel perception. The critical phonetic cues distinguishing vowel contrasts may be more salient than those distinguishing consonant contrasts. Simple exposure to the reduced set of stimuli used in this study in comparison to those used in Sabourin and Werker, may have been enough to highlight that salient distinction, irrespective of the distributional manipulation. Our results are in accordance with PRIMIR (Werker & Curtin, 2005) which predicts that salient contrasts will be resistant to distributional learning. Future experiments are needed to further explore the present results and to investigate other possible explanations, such as prototypically preferences. Method References Bosch, L. & Sebastian-Galles, N. (2003). Simultaneous bilingualism and the perception of a language-specific vowel contrast in the first year of life. Language and Speech, 46 (3), 183-216. Kuhl, P.K., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Deguchi, T., Kiritani, S. & Iverson, P. (2006). Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 9 (2), F1-F9. Maye, J., Werker J.F., & Gerken, L. (2002). Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination. Cognition, 82, B101-B111. Werker, J.F. & Curtin, S. (2005). PRIMIR: a developmental model of speech processing. Language Learning and Development, 1, 197–234. Werker, J.F. & Tees, R.C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 32 eight-month-old Canadian-English infants (15 females) were familiarized in a unimodal or bimodal manner to an 8- step continuum from / I / to /e/ vowels embedded in a nonsense word ([t I b]-[teb]). Tokens were a subset of the stimuli used by Sabourin and Werker (in prep.). Familiarization was followed by a test phase where two types of test trials were presented: Non-alternating, where either stimulus 3 or stimulus 6 was repeated, and alternating, where infants heard the alternation of the two endpoint stimuli of the continuum (tokens 1 and 8). Results Infants in both conditions (unimodal and bimodal) were able to discriminate between the endpoint tokens of the continuum. They listened longer to the alternating than to the non-alternating trials (p < .001). There was no
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».