Audio-Aerotactile Integration in Infant Speech Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of literature provides evidence for the importance and integration of sensory modalities other than auditory in speech perception (e.g. vision, McGurk and MacDonald, 1976). Recent work (Gick & Derrick, 2009) has shown that aero-tactile information can influence speech perception. In this study, native English speakers were significantly more likely to perceive a consonant as aspirated when puffs of air were inaudibly applied to participants' skin, even if the token was unaspirated. One possible source of a learned mapping between the auditory and aerotactile modalities in this effect could be the sensation of air puffs produced during one's own speech. To test this possibility, the current study tests whether this effect requires production experience with aspiration, by testing for the effect in prelinguistic (6-8 month-old) English-acquiring infants. If one's own speech production experience is not necessary, the infants should show the same effect as adults. English-acquiring infants participated in an alternating/non-alternating sound presentation task, with a puff of air applied every other syllable to their neck. The tactile stimulus either reinforced or interfered with the aspiration distinction, thereby influencing the infant's perception of whether the trial was alternating. Measures of looking time, reflecting infants’ baseline ability to discriminate between two sounds, will be presented. Results provide insight into the developmental trajectory and origins of aero-tactile integration.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".