The influence of babbling patterns on the processing of speech

DePaolis, Rory A.; Vihman, Marilyn May; Nakai, Satsuki

doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2013.06.007

Cited by 72 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, a perceptual CL bias might be more difficult to learn than a perceptual LC bias, because it goes against what appears to be a language-general production LC bias (which will however need to be further evaluated in future studies), as is suggested for Japanese by the adults data obtained by Tsuji et al (2012). These opposed production/perception biases might make the learning of these phonotactic dependencies more difficult, since several studies have shown the importance of the perception-production link (see Vihman, 1993;Vihman & Croft, 2007;Yeung & Werker, 2013) and the influence of production experience on infant speech processing (Keren-Portnoy, Vihman, DePaolis, Whitaker, & Williams, 2010;DePaolis, Vihman, & Keren-Portnoy, 2011;DePaolis, Vihman, & Nakai, 2013;Majorano, Vihman, & DePaolis, 2014). These different explanations are likely to be non-mutually exclusive, in particular in light of the fact that French-learning infants have been found to acquire a CL bias for fricative sequences without any developmental lag (e.g., by 10 months), a case that crucially differs from the present case in the fact that the input patterns were much clearer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

The role of the input on the development of the LC bias: A crosslinguistic comparison

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tPrevious studies have described the existence of a phonotactic bias called the Labial-Coronal (LC) bias, corresponding to a tendency to produce more words beginning with a labial consonant followed by a coronal consonant (i.e. ''bat'') than the opposite CL pattern (i.e. ''tap''). This bias has initially been interpreted in terms of articulatory constraints of the human speech production system. However, more recently, it has been suggested that this presumably language-general LC bias in production might be accompanied by LC and CL biases in perception, acquired in infancy on the basis of the properties of the linguistic input. The present study investigates the origins of these perceptual biases, testing infants learning Japanese, a language that has been claimed to possess more CL than LC sequences, and comparing them with infants learning French, a language showing a clear LC bias in its lexicon. First, a corpus analysis of Japanese IDS and ADS revealed the existence of an overall LC bias, except for plosive sequences in ADS, which show a CL bias across counts. Second, speech preference experiments showed a perceptual preference for CL over LC plosive sequences (all recorded by a Japanese speaker) in 13-but not in 7-and 10-month-old Japanese-learning infants (Experiment 1), while revealing the emergence of an LC preference between 7 and 10 months in French-learning infants, using the exact same stimuli. These crosslinguistic behavioral differences, obtained with the same stimuli, thus reflect differences in processing in two populations of infants, which can be linked to differences in the properties of the lexicons of their respective native languages. These findings establish that the emergence of a CL/LC bias is related to exposure to a linguistic input.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

The role of the input on the development of the LC bias: A crosslinguistic comparison

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further, infants who did not yet regularly produce alveolar stops (i.e., [t]) at 10–12 months of age preferred listening to words that contained the alveolar stop than to words that did not (DePaolis, Vihman, & Nakai, 2013). However, infants who produced [t] frequently, instead preferred listening to words that contained a consonant they did not yet produce (i.e., [s]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why repetition? Repetitive babbling, auditory feedback, and cochlear implantation

Fagan

2015

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the reduplicated, or repetitive vocalizations of hearing infants and infants with profound hearing loss with and without cochlear implants using a new measure of repetition in order to address questions not only about the effects of cochlear implantation on repetitive babbling, but also the reason that repetitive vocalizations occur at all and why they emerge around 7 to 8 months of age in hearing infants. Participants included 16 infants with profound hearing loss and 27 hearing infants who participated at a mean age of 9.9 months and/or a mean age of 17.7 months. Mean age at cochlear implantation for infants with profound hearing loss was 12.9 months and mean duration of implant use was 4.2 months. Before cochlear implantation, the data show repetitive vocalizations were rare. However, four months after cochlear implant activation, infants with hearing loss produced both repetitive vocalizations, and repetitions per vocalization, at levels commensurate with hearing peers. The results support the hypothesis that repetition emerges as a means of vocal exploration during the time that hearing infants (and infants with cochlear implants) form auditory-motor representations and neural connections between cortical areas active in syllable production and syllable perception, during the transition from nonlinguistic to linguistic vocalization.

show abstract

“…In both, infants’ consonantal babbling preferences were systematically related to their listening preference between passages with nonsense words containing those same consonants and otherwise identical passages in which the nonsense words contained consonants not found in their preferred babbling routines. The authors interpreted this as evidence that pre-linguistic babbling provides a lens that focuses the child’s attention to specific articulatory patterns in heard speech (DePaolis, Vihman & Keren-Portnoy, 2011; DePaolis, Vihman & Nakai, 2013). …”

Section: Converging Evidence For Articulatory-based Attunement Of Permentioning

confidence: 99%

Articulating What Infants Attune to in Native Speech

Best

Goldstein

Nam

et al. 2016

Ecological Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To become language users, infants must embrace the integrality of speech perception and production. That they do so, and quite rapidly, is implied by the native-language attunement they achieve in each domain by 6–12 months. Yet research has most often addressed one or the other domain, rarely how they interrelate. Moreover, mainstream assumptions that perception relies on acoustic patterns whereas production involves motor patterns entail that the infant would have to translate incommensurable information to grasp the perception-production relationship. We posit the more parsimonious view that both domains depend on commensurate articulatory information. Our proposed framework combines principles of the Perceptual Assimilation Model (PAM) and Articulatory Phonology (AP). According to PAM, infants attune to articulatory information in native speech and detect similarities of non-native phones to native articulatory patterns. The AP premise that gestures of the speech organs are the basic elements of phonology offers articulatory similarity metrics, while satisfying the requirement that phonological information be discrete and contrastive: 1) distinct articulatory organs produce vocal tract constrictions; 2) phonological contrasts recruit different articulators, and/or constrictions of a given articulator that differ in degree or location. Various lines of research suggest young children perceive articulatory information, which guides their productions: discrimination of between- versus within-organ contrasts; simulations of attunement to language-specific articulatory distributions; multi-modal speech perception; oral/vocal imitation; perceptual effects of articulator activation or suppression. We conclude that articulatory gesture information serves as the foundation for developmental integrality of speech perception and production. … each blind man felt a part of the animal in his reach, reporting that it was like a wall; a snake; a tree; a fan … “Each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong”(Saxe, 1873, pp. 135–136)

show abstract

The influence of babbling patterns on the processing of speech

Cited by 72 publications

References 30 publications

The role of the input on the development of the LC bias: A crosslinguistic comparison

The role of the input on the development of the LC bias: A crosslinguistic comparison

Why repetition? Repetitive babbling, auditory feedback, and cochlear implantation

Articulating What Infants Attune to in Native Speech

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About