The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Phonotactic and Prosodic Effects on Word Segmentation in Infants
Open accessAbstract
This research examines the issue of speech segmentation in 9-month-old infants. Two cues known to carry probabilistic information about word boundaries were investigated: Phonotactic regularity and prosodic pattern. The stimuli used in four head turn preference experiments were bisyllabic CVC.CVC nonwords bearing primary stress in either the first or the second syllable (strong/weak vs. weak/strong). Stimuli also differed with respect to the phonotactic nature of their cross-syllabic C.C cluster. Clusters had either a low probability of occurring at a word juncture in fluent speech and a high probability of occurring inside of words ("within-word" clusters) or a high probability of occurring at a word juncture and a low probability of occurring inside of words ("between-word" clusters). Our results show that (1) 9-month-olds are sensitive to how phonotactic sequences typically align with word boundaries, (2) altering the stress pattern of the stimuli reverses infants' preference for phonotactic cluster types, (3) the prosodic cue to segmentation is more strongly relied upon than the phonotactic cue, and (4) a preference for high-probability between-word phonotactic sequences can be obtained either by placing stress on the second syllable of the stimuli or by inserting a pause between syllables. The implications of these results are discussed in light of an integrated multiple-cue approach to speech segmentation in infancy.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of Sensory Physiology
Sanders, M. D. (1975) · British Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1136/bjo.59.2.111-c · Cited by 7,166
Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.274.5294.1926 · Cited by 5,659
The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk
MacWhinney, B. (1992) · Child Language Teaching and Therapy · doi:10.1177/026565909200800211 · Cited by 3,396
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984) · Infant Behavior and Development · doi:10.1016/s0163-6383(84)80022-3 · Cited by 2,801 · cited 1×
“As sensitivity to certain nonnative contrasts begins to decline (Werker & Lalonde, 1988; Werker & Tees, 1983, 1984 ), infants become more attuned to the sound pattern characteristics of words in their native language.”
BackgroundEimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.171.3968.303 · Cited by 2,154
Self-citationLinguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age
Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N., & Lindblom, B. (1992) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1736364 · Cited by 2,086
A precursor of language acquisition in young infants
Mehler, J., Jusczyk, P., Lambertz, G., Halsted, N., Bertoncini, J., & Amiel-Tison, C. (1988) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/0010-0277(88)90035-2 · Cited by 1,578
Self-citationCrook, C. (1985) · Ethology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1016/0162-3095(85)90031-7 · Cited by 1,459
Kuhl, P. K. (1991) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03212211 · Cited by 1,331
Lipsitt, L. P., & Rovee‐Collier, C. (1981) · Ablex Publishing Corp. eBooks · Cited by 1,146
Cited by
Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code
Kuhl, P. K. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1533 · Cited by 2,291
Kuhl, P. K., Tsao, F.-M., & Liu, H.-M. (2003) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1532872100 · Cited by 1,237
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., & Nelson, T. (2008) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2154 · Cited by 886
Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months
Kuhl, P. K., Stevens, E., Hayashi, A., Deguchi, T., Kiritani, S., & Iverson, P. (2006) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00468.x · Cited by 867
A new view of language acquisition
Kuhl, P. K. (2000) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.97.22.11850 · Cited by 773
Metadata
- Authors
- Mattys, S. L., Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., & Morgan, J. L.
- Venue
- Cognitive Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1999-06
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 465-494
- ISSN
- 0010-0285 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1993768374
- Cited by
- 447
- References
- 89
- FWCI
- 21.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Phonotactic and Prosodic Effects on Word Segmentation in Infants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1006/cogp.1999.0721
- The paper
- Mattys, S. L., Jusczyk, P. W., Luce, P. A., & Morgan, J. L. (1999). Phonotactic and Prosodic Effects on Word Segmentation in Infants. Cognitive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0721
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
