Growth of infant communication between 8 and 12 months: A population study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe changes in infant prelinguistic communication skills between 8 and 12 months, and identify factors associated with those skills. DESIGN: Parent questionnaire data for a prospective population-based cohort of infants in metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 1911 infants born November 2002-August 2003. OUTCOME: Infant communication (Communication and Symbolic Behaviour Scales (CSBS)) at 8 and 12 months. Potential risk factors: sex; prematurity; multiple birth; sociodemographic indicators; maternal mental health, vocabulary and education; non-English speaking background; and family history of speech-language difficulties. Linear regression models were fitted to total standardised CSBS scores at 8 and 12 months. RESULTS: Social communication, especially the use of gesture, developed rapidly from 8 to 12 months. Female sex, twin birth, and family history were strongly associated with CSBS scores. The combined model accounted for 5% and 6% of the total variation at 8 and 12 months, respectively. CSBS score at 8 months strongly predicted CSBS score at 12 months (coefficient = 0.56, partial R(2) = 37.0). CONCLUSIONS: There is a dramatic increase in communication skills between 8 and 12 months, particularly the development of gesture, which (as in previous studies) predates and predicts future language development. Risk factors explained little variation in early communication trajectories and therefore, based on our findings, this developmental course is more likely to be biologically predetermined. Rather than focusing on risk factors, we suggest that language promotion activities in otherwise healthy young infants should either be universal or, if targeted, be based on the level of communication skills displayed.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".