Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Departments of Experimental and Developmental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands;2. Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands;3. Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands;4. Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia;1. Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany;2. Laboratoire Parole et Langage, UMR 7309, CNRS / Aix-Marseille University, Aix-en-Provence, France;3. Laboratoire Phonétique et Phonologie, UMR 7018, CNRS / Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris-3, Paris, France;4. University of California, Merced, USA;1. Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, Michigan State University, 1026 Red Cedar Road, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA;2. Department of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, The Ohio State University, 915 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, OH 43212, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (ManyBabies Consortium, 2019), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. |
| |
| Keywords: | Infant preference Central fixation Headturn preference procedure Speech segmentation ability Familiarity response |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
