Eyes can tell. Attention to the eyes and the mouth during audiovisual vowel processing in monolingual and bilingual infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After 6 months of age monolingual infants look more to the mouth of a speaker when there is a mismatch (as opposed to match) between heard and (visually) articulated native consonants. Here, we examined whether monolingual and bilingual infants increase their attention to speakers’ mouth when processing vowels. We compared 4.5- and 8-month-old monolingual and bilingual infants’ attention to the eyes and the mouth while presented with native vowels in audiovisual match and mismatch conditions. We observed that 4.5-month-old monolingual and bilingual infants detect the AV mismatch by increasing their attention to the eyes, not to the mouth – as has been previously observed for consonants. However, by 8 months of age monolingual and bilingual infants’ attention to the eyes and the mouth is not affected by audiovisual disruption. Our findings suggest that audiovisual vowel and consonant processing differ during the first year of life, and that the specific type of linguistic experience does not modulate selective attention to the mouth or the eyes during vowel processing.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".