Speech segmentation and cross-situational word learning in parallel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Language learners track conditional probabilities to find words in continuous speech and to map words and objects across ambiguous contexts. It remains unclear, however, whether learners can leverage the structure of the linguistic input to do both tasks at the same time and how that would impact learning. To explore these questions, we combined speech segmentation and cross-situational word learning into a single task. Participants had to track speech statistics (transitional and phonotactic probabilities) to segment words and, at the same time, track co-occurrences between these newly segmented words and objects across presentations to overcome ambiguity and learn word-object pairings. In Experiment 1, when adults (N = 60) simultaneously segmented continuous speech and mapped the newly segmented words to objects, they demonstrated better performance than when either task was performed alone. However, when the speech stream had conflicting information between transitional and phonotactic statistics, participants were still able to correctly map words to objects, but surprisingly, were at chance level on speech segmentation. In Experiment 2, we used a more sensitive speech segmentation measure to find that adults (N = 35), exposed to the same conflicting speech stream, correctly identified non-words as such, but were still unable to consistently discriminate between words and part-words. Again, mapping was above chance. Our study suggests that learners can track multiple sources of statistical information to find and map words to objects in complex environments. It also prompts critical questions on how to effectively measure the knowledge that may arise from these learning experiences.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".