Two‐month‐old infants match phonetic information in lips and voice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Infants aged 4.5 months are able to match phonetic information in the face and voice ( Kuhl & Meltzoff, 1982 ; Patterson & Werker, 1999 ); however, the ontogeny of this remarkable ability is not understood. In the present study, we address this question by testing substantially younger infants at 2 months of age. Like the 4.5‐month‐olds in past studies, the 2‐month‐old infants tested in the current study showed evidence of matching vowel information in face and voice. The effect was observed in overall looking time, number of infants who looked longer at the match, and longest look to the match versus mismatch. Furthermore, there were no differences based on male or female stimuli and no preferences for the match when it was on the right or left side. These results show that there is robust evidence for phonetic matching at a much younger age than previously known and support arguments for either some kind of privileged processing or particularly rapid learning of phonetic information.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".