The role of prosody in infants’ preference for speech: A comparison between speech and birdsong

Abstract

Speech preferences emerge very early in infancy, pointing to a special status for speech in auditory processing and a crucial role of prosody in driving infant preferences. Recent theoretical models suggest that infant auditory perception may initially encompass a broad range of human and nonhuman vocalizations, then tune in to relevant sounds for the acquisition of species‐specific communication sounds. However, little is known about sound properties eliciting infants’ tuning‐in to speech. To address this issue, we presented a group of 4‐month‐olds with segments of non‐native speech (Mandarin Chinese) and birdsong, a nonhuman vocalization that shares some prosodic components with speech. A second group of infants was presented with the same segment of birdsong paired with Mandarin played in reverse. Infants showed an overall preference for birdsong over non‐native speech. Moreover, infants in the Backward condition preferred birdsong over backward speech whereas infants in the Forward condition did not show clear preference. These results confirm the prominent role of prosody in early auditory processing and suggest that infants’ preferences may privilege communicative vocalizations featured by certain prosodic dimensions regardless of the biological source of the sound, human or nonhuman.

Birdsong fails to support object categorization in human infants

“…Infants' preference for listening to speech, as compared to many other signals, is well-documented [30][31][32]. But this preference, evident in neonates, is not exclusive to speech; 3-and 4-month-olds also favor listening to vocalizations of non-human primates [30,31] and birdsong [33]. This raises the possibility that listening to birdsong, like speech and non-human primate vocalizations, might have downstream consequences for early infant cognition, including object categorization.…”

Infants' preference for speech is stable across the first year of life: Meta‐analytic evidence

“…We found a total of 19 publications (labeled with an asterisk in the reference list) reporting 39 experiments, for a total of 791 infants, and 55 (not mutually independent) effect sizes. Regarding publication status, 47 effect sizes came from 16 papers that have been published in peer‐reviewed journals (Colombo & Bundy, 1981; Cooper & Aslin, 1994; Curtin & Vouloumanos, 2013; Ecklund‐Flores & Turkewitz, 1996; Santolin et al., 2019; Segal & Kishon‐Rabin, 2011; Segal et al., 2021; Shultz & Vouloumanos, 2010; Sorcinelli et al., 2019; Spence & DeCasper, 1987; Vanden Bosch der Nederlanden & Vouloumanos, 2021; Vouloumanos & Curtin, 2014; Vouloumanos et al., 2009, 2010; Vouloumanos & Werker, 2004, 2007; Yamashiro et al., 2020). Additionally, a thesis contributed five effect sizes (Ference, 2018) and three effect sizes were contributed by authors of unpublished work (Santolin et al., 2020).…”

“…Finally, we emailed a major mailing list to ask for missing data. We received two replies, one of which revealed a formerly undiscovered published study and communicated unpublished data (Santolin et al., 2020).…”

A rhythm-aware serious game for social interaction

“…Rhythm is also used in academic research to create serious games. One application is to use rhythm games to teach the sense of rhythm, which is usually learned early in infancy and strongly influences auditory processing and speech learning [40]. In particular, infants with hearing impairments or neurological disorders do not learn rhythm as effectively as others.…”