↓ Skip to main content

Infants Encode Phonetic Detail during Cross-Situational Word Learning

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
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.
Title
Infants Encode Phonetic Detail during Cross-Situational Word Learning
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01419
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paola Escudero, Karen E. Mulak, Haley A. Vlach

Abstract

Infants often hear new words in the context of more than one candidate referent. In cross-situational word learning (XSWL), word-object mappings are determined by tracking co-occurrences of words and candidate referents across multiple learning events. Research demonstrates that infants can learn words in XSWL paradigms, suggesting that it is a viable model of real-world word learning. However, these studies have all presented infants with words that have no or minimal phonological overlap (e.g., BLICKET and GAX). Words often contain some degree of phonological overlap, and it is unknown whether infants can simultaneously encode fine phonological detail while learning words via XSWL. We tested 12-, 15-, 17-, and 20-month-olds' XSWL of eight words that, when paired, formed non-minimal pairs (MPs; e.g., BON-DEET) or MPs (e.g., BON-TON, DEET-DIT). The results demonstrated that infants are able to learn word-object mappings and encode them with sufficient phonetic detail as to identify words in both non-minimal and MP contexts. Thus, this work suggests that infants are able to simultaneously discriminate phonetic differences between words and map words to referents in an implicit learning paradigm such as XSWL.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 27%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Researcher 5 12%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 18 44%
Linguistics 5 12%
Social Sciences 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 30 January 2017.
All research outputs
#5,941,997
of 24,065,546 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,514
of 32,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,920
of 325,236 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#180
of 437 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,065,546 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,302 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 325,236 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 437 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 58% of its contemporaries.