Perception of Similar and Dissimilar Lexical Tones by Non‐Tone‐Learning Infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the perception of Mandarin lexical tones by non‐tone‐learning infants. We tested French‐learning 4‐, 8‐, and 11‐month‐olds on Tone 2 (rising) versus Tone 3 (dipping), the most acoustically similar contrast in Mandarin, and on Tone 1 (high) versus Tone 4 (falling), acoustically more dissimilar contrast. We hypothesized that sensitivity should decline with age for the similar contrast, and the dissimilar contrast should remain more discriminable. Infants were habituated to one tone and tested with the same tone versus the contrastive tone. Results showed that the dissimilar T1–T4 contrast was consistently discriminated by all three ages, whereas the discrimination of the similar T2–T3 contrast revealed a tendency to decline over the ages. These results suggest that relative to consonants and vowels, perceptual sensitivity to lexical tones remains stronger in non‐tone‐learning infants. Discrimination of lexical tones is affected by both acoustic salience and perceptual attunement to the native‐language phonology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".