CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Language Development and DisordersNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismPhonetics and Phonology Research

Infants’ neural speech discrimination predicts individual differences in grammar ability at 6 years of age and their risk of developing speech-language disorders

Open access
Zhao, T. Christina, Boorom, Olivia, Kuhl, Patricia K., Gordon, Reyna·2021·Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
DOI 10.1016/j.dcn.2021.100949PMC PMC8047161
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The 'sensitive period' for phonetic learning posits that between 6 and 12 months of age, infants' discrimination of native and nonnative speech sounds diverge. Individual differences in this dynamic processing of speech have been shown to predict later language acquisition up to 30 months of age, using parental surveys. Yet, it is unclear whether infant speech discrimination could predict longer-term language outcome and risk for developmental speech-language disorders, which affect up to 16 % of the population. The current study reports a prospective prediction of speech-language skills at a much later age-6 years-old-from the same children's nonnative speech discrimination at 11 months-old, indexed by MEG mismatch responses. Children's speech-language skills at 6 were comprehensively evaluated by a speech-language pathologist in two ways: individual differences in spoken grammar, and the presence versus absence of speech-language disorders. Results showed that the prefrontal MEG mismatch response at 11 months not only significantly predicted individual differences in spoken grammar skills at 6 years, but also accurately identified the presence versus absence of speech-language disorders, using a machine-learning classification. These results represent new evidence that advance our theoretical understanding of the neurodevelopmental trajectory of language acquisition and early risk factors for developmental speech-language disorders.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.dcn.2021.100949

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research has identified MMR in the left inferior frontal region (IF) to be a key process that holds higher predictive value for later language skills.

    “So far, research has identified MMR in the left inferior frontal region (IF) to be a key process that holds higher predictive value for later language skills [3,4].”

    From Tracking Acquisition of Language in Kids (TALK) study protocol: A longitudinal investigation of infants at high vs. low risk for atypical speech and language development (2026) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Results (‘Infant speech discrimination as a predictor of individual differences in spoken grammar’; page not provided) find that prefrontal MMR predicted grammar skills at age 6 more strongly than temporal MMR. The Discussion (‘The role of inferior frontal gyrus’; page not provided) says the prefrontal region includes IFG, but the study does not establish that MMR specifically in the left IFG has the higher predictive value. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Infants' neural processing of speech towards the end of the sensitive period can predict expressive grammar skills at 6 years of age and risk of developing speech and language disorders.

    “a small preliminary study extended this research and demonstrated that infants’ neural processing of speech towards the end of the sensitive period could predict not only individual expressive grammar skills at 6 years of age, but also the risk of developing speech and language disorders [4].”

    From Tracking Acquisition of Language in Kids (TALK) study protocol: A longitudinal investigation of infants at high vs. low risk for atypical speech and language development (2026) · cites this paper as [4]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Aoyama K. A psycholinguistic perspective on Finnish and Japanese prosody: perception, production and child acquisition of consonantal quantity distinctions DAIA Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The Humanities and Social Sciences 61 4 2000 1376
  2. Brimo D. Apel K. Fountain T. Examining the contributions of syntactic awareness and syntactic knowledge to reading comprehension J. Res. Read. 40 1 2017 57 74 10.1111/1467-9817.12050 · DOI
  3. Drucker H. Burges C.J.C. Kaufman L. Smola A. Vapnik V. Support vector regression machines Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Denver, Colorado 1996
  4. Kaufman A.S. Kaufman N.L. Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children–Second Edition 2004 American Guidance Service Circle Pines, MN
  5. Kuhl P.K. Infant speech perception: integration of multimodal data leads to a new hypothesis- Sensorimotor mechanisms underlie learning Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology 2021 Wiley 113 158
  6. Peter B. Potter N. Davis J. Toward a paradigm shift from deficit-based to proactive speech and language treatment: randomized pilot trial of the babble boot Camp in infants with classic galactosemia [version 5; Peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] F1000Research 8 2020 271 10.12688/f1000research.18062.5) PMC7291108 32566130 · DOI
  7. Preston J.L. Felsenfeld S. Frost S.J. Mencl W.E. Functional brain activation differences in school-age children with speech Sound J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 55 August 2012 1068 1083 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0056)speech 22232410 PMC3427927 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhao, T. C., Boorom, O., Kuhl, P. K., & Gordon, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Zhao, T. Christina
ORCID
Venue
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-04
Volume
48
Pages
100949
ISSN
1878-9293 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.dcn.2021.100949
PMC
PMC8047161
OpenAlex
W3146245645
Cited by
39
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 2
FWCI
10.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
mismatch negativity, prefrontal cortex, spoken grammar, language acquisition, individual differences, language outcome prediction, neurodevelopmental trajectories, machine learning classification
MeSH terms
Child, Female, Humans, Individuality, Language Disorders, Male, Phonetics, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Speech, Speech Perception

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