Adults' and infants' perception of infant-directed speech and song.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infant-directed speech, also sometimes described as “musilanguage”, has acoustic characteristics overlapping with those of infant-directed singing. In the present contribution we determine whether native-English-speaking adults and infants from native-English speaking households discriminate between infant-directed speech and song in a nonnative language and which acoustic features are typical of their speech or song perception. Twentyfour native English-speaking adults rated Russian speech and song samples taken from naturalistic infant-directed recordings. Furthermore, 32 infants (6 to 9 months) were tested in a head-turn preference procedure on a selection of the stimuli rated by adults. Results showed that both infant and adults discriminated between infant-directed speech and singing in a foreign language. In adults, tempo and pitch variability accounted for perceived differences. Moreover, infants, independently of age, attended longer to song than to speech – an intriguing result underlining the importance of studying infantdirected singing and its role for early linguistic development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".