Lip Movement Exaggerations During Infant-Directed Speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although a growing body of literature has identified the positive effects of visual speech on speech and language learning, oral movements of infant-directed speech (IDS) have rarely been studied. This investigation used 3-dimensional motion capture technology to describe how mothers modify their lip movements when talking to their infants. METHOD: Lip movements were recorded from 25 mothers as they spoke to their infants and other adults. Lip shapes were analyzed for differences across speaking conditions. The maximum fundamental frequency, duration, acoustic intensity, and first and second formant frequency of each vowel also were measured. RESULTS: Lip movements were significantly larger during IDS than during adult-directed speech, although the exaggerations were vowel specific. All of the vowels produced during IDS were characterized by an elevated vocal pitch and a slowed speaking rate when compared with vowels produced during adult-directed speech. CONCLUSION: The pattern of lip-shape exaggerations did not provide support for the hypothesis that mothers produce exemplar visual models of vowels during IDS. Future work is required to determine whether the observed increases in vertical lip aperture engender visual and acoustic enhancements that facilitate the early learning of speech.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".