INFANTS' USE OF TEMPORAL AND PHONETIC INFORMATION IN THE ENCODING OF AUDIOVISUAL SPEECH.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infants match heard and seen speech in their own and unfamiliar languages (e.g., Kuhl & Meltzoff, 1982, 1984; Patterson & Werker, 1999, 2003; Pons et al., 2009; Kubicek et al., 2014) as early as two months of age, and, as with adults, the addition of mismatching visual information to auditory speech affects infants’ speech perception (e.g., Burnham & Dodd, 2004; Desjardins & Werker, 2004; Danielson et al., 2015). What has remained relatively unexplored, however, is whether and how infants with little linguistic experience use information from the auditory and visual domains differently, and how the temporal relationship between the auditory and visual speech signals may modify perception. To explore this question, we familiarized 6-month-old English-learning infants to sequences of audiovisual syllables from Hindi, comprised of a dental stop and a retroflex stop that are indistinguishable by adult English speakers (Werker et al., 1981). In three familiarization conditions, syllables were audiovisually incongruent such that the audio track from one syllable was paired with the video track from another. In one condition, audiovisual signals were presented simultaneously. In the two other conditions, the visual and auditory signal were offset from one another (auditory first or visual first) by a short 333ms interval. Then infants were tested with auditory-only sequences of syllables from each category. We hypothesized that infants would categorize the stimuli during familiarization based either on the speech segment that they heard or the one that they saw, and that they would exhibit a matching preference for that stimulus type at test. When familiarized to synchronous or visual-first stimuli, similar to natural speech, infants exhibited a matching preference at test for auditorily matched syllables. We interpret these results as evidence that, when the natural temporal dynamics of speech are roughly maintained, infants rely more heavily on auditory than on visual 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".