Infants’ categorization of vowels with infant vocal properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior research shows that infants can recognize phonetic equivalence among vowels produced by adult men, women, and children. It is unknown whether this ability extends to infant vowel productions, which have unique properties due to the size and geometry of the infant vocal tract. The present study was undertaken to determine whether infants recognize infant vowel productions as phonetically equivalent to vowels produced by adults and children. Infants (4–6 months) were tested in a look-to-listen procedure using isolated vowels, /i/ and /a/, synthesized to simulate productions by men, women, children and a 6-month-old. Infants were first habituated to diverse productions of the same vowel produced by several adult male, female, and child speakers while they fixated on a checkerboard. Following habituation, infants were then presented infant productions of the same vowel (familiar) and the other vowel (novel) in four test trials. A novelty effect (novel > familiar) was observed showing that infants recognized the familiar infant vowel to be similar to the habituation vowel. The findings are discussed in terms of the emergence of perceptual constancy in the development of vowel perception raising issues about how and when such knowledge is acquired in relation to the infant’s own productions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".