Comparing statistical learning across perceptual modalities in infancy: An investigation of underlying learning mechanism(s)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statistical learning (SL), sensitivity to probabilistic regularities in sensory input, has been widely implicated in cognitive and perceptual development. Little is known, however, about the underlying mechanisms of SL and whether they undergo developmental change. One way to approach these questions is to compare SL across perceptual modalities. While a decade of research has compared auditory and visual SL in adults, we present the first direct comparison of visual and auditory SL in infants (8-10 months). Learning was evidenced in both perceptual modalities but with opposite directions of preference: Infants in the auditory condition displayed a novelty preference, while infants in the visual condition showed a familiarity preference. Interpreting these results within the Hunter and Ames model (1988), where familiarity preferences reflect a weaker stage of encoding than novelty preferences, we conclude that there is weaker learning in the visual modality than the auditory modality for this age. In addition, we found evidence of different developmental trajectories across modalities: Auditory SL increased while visual SL did not change for this age range. The results suggest that SL is not an abstract, amodal ability; for the types of stimuli and statistics tested, we find that auditory SL precedes the development of visual SL and is consistent with recent work comparing SL across modalities in older children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".