4.5 Article

Influences of high and low variability on infant word recognition

Journal

COGNITION
Volume 106, Issue 2, Pages 833-870

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.002

Keywords

variability in speech; word recognition; infancy

Funding

  1. NICHD NIH HHS [R03 HD046676, 1 R01 HD32005, R01 HD032005, 5 R03 HD046676-02, R03 HD046676-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although infants begin to encode and track novel words in fluent speech by 7.5 months, their ability to recognize words is somewhat limited at this stage. In particular, when the surface form of a word is altered, by changing the gender or affective prosody of the speaker, infants begin to falter at spoken word recognition. Given that natural speech is replete with variability, only some of which determines the meaning of a word, it remains unclear how infants might ever overcome the effects of surface variability without appealing to meaning. In the current set of experiments, consequences of high and low variability are examined in preverbal infants. The source of variability, vocal affect, is a common property of infant-directed speech with which young learners have to contend. Across a series of four experiments, infants' abilities to recognize repeated encounters of words, as well as to reject similar-sounding words, are investigated in the context of high and low affective variation. Results point to positive consequences of affective variation, both in creating generalizable memory representations for words, but also in establishing phonologically precise memories for words. Conversely, low variability appears to degrade word recognition on both fronts, compromising infants' abilities to generalize across different affective forms of a word and to detect similar-sounding items. Findings are discussed in the context of principles of categorization that may potentiate the early growth of a lexicon. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

Anonymous

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available