Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T20:02:12.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perception of sibilant–liquid phonotactic frequency in full-term and preterm infants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2019

Brenna HENRIKSON ,
Amanda SEIDL  and
Melanie SODERSTROM Open the ORCID record for Melanie SODERSTROM [Opens in a new window]
Brenna HENRIKSON
Affiliation:
University of Manitoba, Canada
Amanda SEIDL
Affiliation:
Purdue University, USA
Melanie SODERSTROM*
Affiliation:
University of Manitoba, Canada
*
*Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, 66 Chancellors Cir, Winnipeg, R3T 2N2. E-mail: M_Soderstrom@umanitoba.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examined full-term and preterm infants’ perception of frequent and infrequent phonotactic pairings involving sibilants and liquids. Infants were tested on their preference for syllables with onsets involving /s/ or /ʃ/ followed by /l/ or /r/ using the Headturn Preference Procedure. Full-term infants preferred the frequent to the infrequent phonotactic pairings at 9 months, but not at either younger or older ages. Evidence was inconclusive regarding a possible difference between full-term and preterm samples; however, limitations on the preterm sample size limited our power to detect differences. Preference for the frequent pairing was not related to later vocabulary development.

Keywords

infant speech perceptionphonotacticspreterm infants
Type
Brief Research Reports
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , July 2020 , pp. 893 - 907
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, R. M., & Gerhardt, K. J. (2000). The acoustic environment and physiological responses of the fetus. Journal of Perinatology, 20(8), S31–S36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barre, N., Morgan, A., Doyle, L. W., & Anderson, P. J. (2011). Language abilities in children who were very preterm and/or very low birth weight: a meta-analysis. Journal of Pediatrics, 158(5), 766–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, N. (2006a). BSID Scales of Infant and Toddler Development–Third Edition: administration manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
Bayley, N. (2006b). BSID Scales of Infant and Toddler Development–Third Edition: technical manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.Google Scholar
Cristia, A. (2011). Fine-grained variation in caregivers’ /s/ predicts their infants’ /s/ category. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 129(5), 3271–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science, 171(3968), 303–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estes, K. G., Gluck, S. C. W., & Grimm, K. J. (2016). Finding patterns and learning words: infant phonotactic knowledge is associated with vocabulary size. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 146, 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenson, L., Bates, E., Dale, P. S., Marchman, V. A., Reznick, J. S., & Thal, D. J. (2007). MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Foster-Cohen, S. H., Edgin, J. O., Champion, P. R., & Woodward, L. J. (2007). Early delayed language development in very preterm infants: evidence from the MacArthur-Bates CDI. Journal of Child Language, 34(3), 655–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster-Cohen, S. H., Friesen, M. D., Champion, P. R., & Woodward, L. J. (2010). High prevalence / low severity language delay in preschool children born very preterm. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 31(8), 658–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, A. D., & Wessels, J. M. I. (1993). Phonotactic knowledge of word boundaries and its use in infant speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 54(3), 287–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzalez-Gomez, N., & Nazzi, T. (2012). Phonotactic acquisition in healthy preterm infants. Developmental Science, 15(6), 885–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graf Estes, K., Gluck, S., & Grimm, K. (2016). Finding patterns and learning words: infant phonotactic knowledge is associated with vocabulary size. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 146, 34–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, S. K., Brown, W. S. Jr., Gerhardt, K. J., Abrams, R. M., & Morris, R. J. (1994). The perception of speech sounds recorded within the uterus of a pregnant sheep. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96(4), 2055–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herold, B., Höhle, B., Walch, E., Weber, T., & Obladen, M. (2008). Impaired word stress pattern discrimination in very-low-birthweight infants during the first 6 months of life. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50(9), 678–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jusczyk, P. W., Friederici, A. D., Wessels, J. M., Svenkerud, V. Y., & Jusczyk, A. M. (1993). Infants’ sensitivity to the sound patterns of native language words. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(3), 402–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., & Charles-Luce, J. (1994). Infants’ sensitivity to phonotactic patterns in the native language. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(5), 630–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemler Nelson, D. G., Jusczyk, P. W., Mandel, D. R., Myers, J., Turk, A., & Gerken, L. (1995). The head-turn preference procedure for testing auditory perception. Infant Behavior and Development, 18(1), 111–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhl, P., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Deguchi, T., Kiritani, S., & Iverson, P. (2006). Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months. Developmental Science, 9, 13–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, F., Edwards, J., & Beckman, M. E. (2009). Contrast and covert contrast: the phonetic development of voiceless sibilant fricatives in English and Japanese toddlers. Journal of Phonetics, 37(1), 111–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mattys, S. L., & Jusczyk, P. W. (2001). Do infants segment words or recurring contiguous patterns? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(3), 644–55.Google ScholarPubMed
Mattys, S. L., Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., & Morgan, J. L. (1999). Phonotactic and prosodic effects on word segmentation in infants. Cognitive Psychology, 38(4), 465–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
May, L., Gervain, J., Carreiras, M., & Werker, J. F. (2018). The specificity of the neural response to speech at birth. Developmental Science, 21(3), e12564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, R., Ratner, N. B., Jusczyk, A. M., Jusczyk, P. W., & Dow, K. A. (2006). Infants’ early ability to segment the conversational speech signal predicts later language development: a retrospective analysis. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 643–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nittrouer, S. (2001). Challenging the notion of innate phonetic boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 1598–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peña, M., Pittaluga, E., & Mehler, J. (2009). Language acquisition in premature and full-term infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(8), 3823–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peña, M., Werker, J. F., & Dehaene-Lambertz, G. (2012). Earlier speech exposure does not accelerate speech acquisition. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(33), 11159–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pons, F., Lewkowicz, D. J., Soto-Faraco, S., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2009). Narrowing of intersensory speech perception in infancy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10598–602.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, L., Steven Reznick, J., & Xuehua, L. (2012). Infant word segmentation and childhood vocabulary development: a longitudinal analysis. Developmental Science, 15(4), 482–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stager, C. L., & Werker, J. F. (1997). Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks. Nature, 388, 381–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitevitch, M. S., & Luce, P. A. (2004) A web-based interface to calculate phonotactic probability for words and nonwords in English. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 481–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vouloumanos, A., & Werker, J. F. (2007). Listening to language at birth: evidence for a bias for speech in neonates. Developmental Science, 10(2), 159–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7(1), 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werker, J. F., Yeung, H. H., & Yoshida, K. A. (2012). How do infants become experts at native-speech perception? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(4), 221–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, K. S., & Morgan, J. L. (2008). Sub-segmental detail in early lexical representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(1), 114–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar