MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1977622641 · doi:10.1121/1.2935786

Maintainance vs. “loss” of the perceptual bias favoring natural reference vowels

2008· article· en· W1977622641 on OpenAlexaff
Ocke‐Schwen Bohn, Linda Polka

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhonetics and Phonology Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVowelDanishPerceptionAudiologyMid vowelPsychologyLinguisticsFormantMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous infant vowel discrimination studies (Polka & Bohn, 2003) have shown that babies are perceptually biased to favor vowels with more extreme articulations such that a change from a more peripheral vowel (“natural reference vowel” - NRV) to a vowel located more centrally in the vowel space is less discriminable than a change presented in the reverse direction. Recent studies of adult vowel perception suggest that the universal bias favoring NRVs is maintained in the absence of specific language experience and but “lost” if native or non-native language experience causes a reset of the perceptual default favoring NRVs. This presentation reports on vowel discrimination experiments which examined whether absence or presence of specific vowel experience is related to maintenance or loss of this perceptual bias in Danish infants (age 6-12 months). For two Danish vowel contrasts, asymmetries were observed for younger infants, but not for infants older than 10 months. For an English vowel contrast that does not exist in Danish, the asymmetry was maintained in infants up to 12 months and in adult Danish listeners. Results confirm the assumption that the perceptual bias favoring NRVs is maintained throughout the lifespan unless specific vowel experience causes on override. [Work supported by the Danish Research Council for the Humanities.]

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America→Same topicPhonetics and Phonology Research→French-language works237,207→