↓ Skip to main content

The Effects of Lexical Pitch Accent on Infant Word Recognition in Japanese

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
The Effects of Lexical Pitch Accent on Infant Word Recognition in Japanese
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02354
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mitsuhiko Ota, Naoto Yamane, Reiko Mazuka

Abstract

Learners of lexical tone languages (e.g., Mandarin) develop sensitivity to tonal contrasts and recognize pitch-matched, but not pitch-mismatched, familiar words by 11 months. Learners of non-tone languages (e.g., English) also show a tendency to treat pitch patterns as lexically contrastive up to about 18 months. In this study, we examined if this early-developing capacity to lexically encode pitch variations enables infants to acquire a pitch accent system, in which pitch-based lexical contrasts are obscured by the interaction of lexical and non-lexical (i.e., intonational) features. Eighteen 17-month-olds learning Tokyo Japanese were tested on their recognition of familiar words with the expected pitch or the lexically opposite pitch pattern. In early trials, infants were faster in shifting their eyegaze from the distractor object to the target object than in shifting from the target to distractor in the pitch-matched condition. In later trials, however, infants showed faster distractor-to-target than target-to-distractor shifts in both the pitch-matched and pitch-mismatched conditions. We interpret these results to mean that, in a pitch-accent system, the ability to use pitch variations to recognize words is still in a nascent state at 17 months.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 31%
Student > Master 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Lecturer 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 4 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 3 19%
Linguistics 3 19%
Arts and Humanities 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,486,175
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,960
of 30,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,769
of 443,061 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#403
of 544 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,257 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 443,061 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 544 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.