Three-Month-Olds Prefer Speech to Other Naturally Occurring Signals
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
Human infants show a preference for listening to speech, but little is known about how infants listen to other naturally occurring sounds. Here, we test infants' listening bias for speech against a range of naturally occurring sounds that share properties of speech to varying extents and we aim to better characterize the speech properties that attract infant attention. We compared 3-month-olds' listening patterns for five types of sounds: nonnative speech, rhesus macaque vocalizations, human noncommunicative vocalizations, human communicative nonspeech vocalizations, and environmental sounds. Across three experiments, 3-month-olds preferred speech to the other four types of sounds. The set of acoustic properties we measured—pitch, peak amplitude, nonzero-root mean square amplitude, frequency difference and amplitude variance—did not predict infant looking time. Our results demonstrate that young infants attend selectively to speech over many other naturally occurring stimuli, an important tool for learning language.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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 it