Bye‐bye mummy – Word comprehension in 9‐month‐old infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the little research that exists on the onset of word learning in infants under the age of 1 year, the evidence suggests an idiosyncratic comprehensive vocabulary is developing. To further this field, we tested 49 nine-month-old infants by pre-assessing their vocabularies using a UK version of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Developmental Inventory. Intermodal preferential looking (IPL) was then used to examine word comprehension including: (a) words parents reported as understood, (b) words infants are expected to understand according to age-related frequency data, and (c) words parents had reported infants not to understand. Assuming parents are good assessors of their infant's early word knowledge, we expected a naming effect with IPL in condition (a), but not condition (c). As language research uses standard samples of words, we expected a discernible naming effect in condition (b). Results show clear IPL evidence of word comprehension for those words that parents reported their infants to understand (condition a). This agreement between methods demonstrates the usefulness of parental communicative developmental inventory in conjunction with IPL to assess infant's individual word knowledge. No naming effects were found for condition (c) and the lack of naming effects in (b) shows that pre-established word lists may not give a sufficiently clear picture of infant's true vocabulary - an important insight for researchers and practitioners alike. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Most word comprehension research is mainly based on older infants (12, 15, or 18 months of age to 2-3 years and older). Some evidence of word comprehension for common and novel nouns in 6- to 10-month-olds. Existing evidence uses either only specific word groups or nouns combined with specific training and/or repetition procedures. What does this study add? Nine-month-olds display word knowledge independent of context and without repetitions of words. First words encompass not only nouns, but a range of other word classes. Parents are good at indicating which words their infants do and do not understand.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".