↓ Skip to main content

Oscillatory Dynamics Underlying Perceptual Narrowing of Native Phoneme Mapping from 6 to 12 Months of Age

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neuroscience, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Oscillatory Dynamics Underlying Perceptual Narrowing of Native Phoneme Mapping from 6 to 12 Months of Age
Published in
Journal of Neuroscience, November 2016
DOI 10.1523/jneurosci.1162-16.2016
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

During the first months of life, human infants process phonemic elements from all languages similarly. However, by 12 months of age, as language-specific phonemic maps are established, infants respond preferentially to their native language. This process, known as perceptual narrowing, supports neural representation and thus efficient processing of the distinctive phonemes within the sound environment. Although oscillatory mechanisms underlying processing of native and non-native phonemic contrasts were recently delineated in 6-month-old infants, the maturational trajectory of these mechanisms remained unclear. A group of typically developing infants born into monolingual English families, were followed from 6 to 12 months and presented with English and Spanish syllable contrasts varying in voice-onset time. Brain responses were recorded with high-density electroencephalogram, and sources of event-related potential generators identified at right and left auditory cortices at 6 and 12 months and also at frontal cortex at 6 months. Time-frequency analyses conducted at source level found variations in both θ and γ ranges across age. Compared with 6-month-olds, 12-month-olds' responses to native phonemes showed smaller and faster phase synchronization and less spectral power in the θ range, and increases in left phase synchrony as well as induced high-γ activity in both frontal and left auditory sources. These results demonstrate that infants become more automatized and efficient in processing their native language as they approach 12 months of age via the interplay between θ and γ oscillations. We suggest that, while θ oscillations support syllable processing, γ oscillations underlie phonemic perceptual narrowing, progressively favoring mapping of native over non-native language across the first year of life. During early language acquisition, typically developing infants gradually construct phonemic maps of their native language in auditory cortex. It is well known that, by 12 months of age, human infants move from universal discrimination of most linguistic phonemic contrasts to phonemic expertise in their native language. This perceptual narrowing occurs at the expense of the ability to process non-native phonemes. However, the neural mechanisms underlying this process are still poorly understood. Here we demonstrate that perceptual narrowing is, at least in part, accomplished by decreasing power and phase coherence in the θ range while increasing activity in high-γ in left auditory cortex. Understanding the normative neural mechanisms that support early language acquisition is crucial to understanding and perhaps ameliorating developmental language disorders.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Unknown 111 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 19%
Researcher 20 18%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 33 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 19%
Neuroscience 21 19%
Linguistics 7 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 41 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2026.
All research outputs
#2,435,860
of 33,977,172 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neuroscience
#3,094
of 23,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,983
of 452,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neuroscience
#97
of 347 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,977,172 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,193 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 452,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 347 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.