Infant recognition of infant vocal signals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most of the speech accessible to infants who are not yet babbling will not have infant vocal properties; yet their perception of infant vocal signals is critical for speech development. We report three experiments designed to assess whether 4- to 5-month-olds recognize and preferentially attend to vowels produced by infant talkers over vowels produced by adult talkers. Infants were tested in a sequential preferential looking procedure using isolated vowels synthesized by VLAM. In experiment 1, infants listened significantly longer to vowels produced by an infant talker than an adult (female). In experiment 2, infants failed to show any listening preference for infant versus adult vowels synthesized with matching (infant-appropriate) f0 values, suggesting that infants either recognized the un-natural pairing of f0 and formant structure in these adult vowels or are attracted to high f0 values. Failing to support the latter interpretation, infants in experiment 3 showed no listening preference when presented infant vowels with different (infant-appropriate) f0 values. Together, these findings suggest that young infants recognize the converging vocal (source and filter) properties that specify an adult and an infant talker. These recognition skills appear to be available prior to babbling, and thus are available to support 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".