Who’s Talking Now? Infants’ Perception of Vowels With Infant Vocal Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about infants' abilities to perceive and categorize their own speech sounds or vocalizations produced by other infants. In the present study, prebabbling infants were habituated to /i/ ("ee") or /a/ ("ah") vowels synthesized to simulate men, women, and children, and then were presented with new instances of the habituation vowel and a contrasting vowel on different trials, with all vowels simulating infant talkers. Infants showed greater recovery of interest to the contrasting vowel than to the habituation vowel, which demonstrates recognition of the habituation-vowel category when it was produced by an infant. A second experiment showed that encoding the vowel category and detecting the novel vowel required additional processing when infant vowels were included in the habituation set. Despite these added cognitive demands, infants demonstrated the ability to track vowel categories in a multitalker array that included infant talkers. These findings raise the possibility that young infants can categorize their own vocalizations, which has important implications for early vocal learning.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".