Effects of Familiarity and Feeding on Newborn Speech–Voice Recognition
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it