Effects of Familiarity and Feeding on Newborn Speech–Voice Recognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Newborn infants preferentially orient to familiar over unfamiliar speech sounds. They are also better at remembering unfamiliar speech sounds for short periods of time if learning and retention occur after a feed than before. It is unknown whether short‐term memory for speech is enhanced when the sound is familiar (versus unfamiliar) and, if so, whether the effect is further enhanced by feeding. We used a two‐factorial design and randomized infants to one of four groups: prefeed‐unfamiliar, prefeed‐familiar, postfeed‐unfamiliar, and postfeed‐familiar. Memory for either familiar or unfamiliar speech (the infant's mother saying “baby” versus a female stranger saying “beagle”) was assessed using head turning to sound in an habituation–recovery paradigm and a retention delay of 85 sec either before or after a typical milk feed. Memory for the familiar speech–voice was enhanced relative to the unfamiliar speech–voice, expressed by significantly less head turning toward the habituated sound stimulus when it was re‐presented after the delay. Memory for familiar or unfamiliar speech was not significantly enhanced from pre‐ to postfeeding, nor was there a significant interaction. This is the first demonstration in newborns that familiarity enhances short‐term memory for speech–voice sound.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".