Here's looking at you, baby: What gaze and movement reveal about minimal pair word-object association at 14 months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ability, or lack thereof, of 14-month-old infants to associate novel, minimal pair word-forms with novel objects in a variety of experimental settings has been a crucial research window into how infants go about the quintessential linguistic task of learning words. Here we ask whether the presence of a human interactor in the experimental setting facilitates minimal pair word-object association at this age. In addition to standard looking time measures to test this question, we also introduce the use of measures of infant movement derived by the application of an efficient algorithm that measures motion from 2D video. Infant gaze patterns across the experimental session identified two groups of infants, those engaging in more and those engaging in less mutual gaze with the Experimenter; both groups demonstrated success in the task by both looking time and movement measures. Infants did not succeed in the task by either measure when a videotaped Experimenter presented the labels. We suggest that infants at this age are in transition from being good “information consumers” to becoming good “information seekers,” and that the presence of the live Experimenter plays a crucial role in making it possible for infants to demonstrate their nascent word learning abilities. Further, we explore insights into the looking time results provided by the movement measures as well as novel contributions to our understanding of language acquisition afforded by the examination of infant movement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".