The effect of facal dynamics on infant perception of adult-directed speech in noise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently Polka and Rvachew (in press) found that 6- to 8-month-old infants discriminated a native contrast("bu" - "gu") when familiarized and tested with syllables presented in quiet, but not when familiarized with syllables mixed with a competing noise, even when testing was conducted in quiet. Because the competing noise (segments of cricket and bird song) did not create energetic masking, infant failure to encode the familiarization syllable was due to a disruption in attention to the speech stream. Importantly, in this study, infants watched a checkerboard while listening to syllables spoken in an adult-directed (AD) style. The current study investigated if the addition of a dynamic face facilitates infants' speech processing in the same task. Six-month-olds were habituated to repetitions of the native syllable "ba" mixed with the same noise but these infants saw and heard syllables produced in AD style. Following habituation, infants were presented familiar (repetitions of "ba") and novel test trials (repetitions of "ga"). Infants failed to show syllable discrimination as indexed by a reliable preference for the novel test trials. These findings show that a dynamic face producing AD speech does not engage infant attention to speech enough to support syllable discrimination in noise.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".