The DOI matches its Crossref record; 120 of the 121 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 88 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A new view of language acquisition
Open accessAbstract
At the forefront of debates on language are new data demonstrating infants' early acquisition of information about their native language. The data show that infants perceptually “map” critical aspects of ambient language in the first year of life before they can speak. Statistical properties of speech are picked up through exposure to ambient language. Moreover, linguistic experience alters infants' perception of speech, warping perception in the service of language. Infants' strategies are unexpected and unpredicted by historical views. A new theoretical position has emerged, and six postulates of this position are described.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Kuhl proposes a new view of language acquisition in which infants map ambient language through pattern detection, statistical learning, and experience-driven perceptual warping, rather than Skinnerian reinforcement or Chomskyan selection of innate universal grammar/phonetics. Six postulates are offered, including that motherese is instructive and that the critical period depends on neural commitment from experience, not just time.
Key findings
- Infants initially parse phonetic units universally, but this capacity is not speech-specific or species-specific: categorical perception occurs in infants and animals and for nonspeech stimuli; by 12 months infants no longer discriminate non-native phonetic contrasts even though they did so at 6 months.
- Infants exploit statistical properties of speech: 7-month-olds discriminated target syllables better when the transitional probability between /ko/ and /ga/ was 1.0 than when it was reduced to 0.3; 8-month-olds listened longer to new pseudowords formed from parts of original words, indicating statistical word segmentation.
- Language experience warps perception: 6-month-old US and Swedish infants showed the perceptual magnet effect only for native vowel prototypes; Japanese listeners’ multidimensional scaling map for /r-l/ showed no magnet or boundary effects, unlike American listeners.
- Vocal imitation and motherese are linked to learning: by 20 weeks infants clearly imitate /a/, /i/, and /u/ with appropriate relative formant values; infant-directed speech exaggerates vowels in the US, Russia, and Sweden; six tenets include that the critical period is influenced by neural commitment resulting from experience.
Methods
- Theoretical review/colloquium paper, not a new empirical study; it synthesizes behavioral, brain, comparative, and cross-linguistic infant studies.
- No new sample is reported; cited experiments include infants at ages such as 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 months and 12–20 weeks, plus adults and nonhuman animals.
- Main analysis is narrative synthesis and proposal of six postulates and the Native Language Magnet model; no primary statistical analysis is reported.
Limitations
- Stated: further tests are needed to determine the constraints on categorization, statistical learning, and prototype effects in infants using linguistic and nonlinguistic events; whether constraints for physical objects and speech are identical or different “remains to be examined”; animal/human differences “can be resolved with empirical tests.”
- Evident: as a review, it reports no new experimental data or formal meta-analysis, so conclusions rest on cited studies; some claims, such as bilingual separation effects, are described as anecdotal or hypothetical.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
49 Own interpretation · 44 Not checked yet · 5 No basis given · 3 Own result
In the paper
“At this age, infants clearly imitate the model, and their vowels have appropriate formant frequency values in relation to one another, even though infants' vowels occur in a much higher frequency range (93).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [93] Kuhl P K, Meltzoff A N. J Acoust Soc Am. 1996;100:2425–2438. doi: 10.1121/1.417951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“At this age, infants clearly imitate the model, and their vowels have appropriate formant frequency values in relation to one another, even though infants' vowels occur in a much higher frequency range (93).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [93] Kuhl P K, Meltzoff A N. J Acoust Soc Am. 1996;100:2425–2438. doi: 10.1121/1.417951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Infant-directed speech also is altered at the phonetic level and these alterations are argued to help infants learn.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The results demonstrated that the phonetic units of infant-directed speech are acoustically exaggerated.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [106] Kuhl P K, Andruski J E, Chistovich I A, Chistovich L A, Kozhevnikova E V, Ryskina V L, Stolyarova E I, Sundberg U, Lacerda F. Science. 1997;277:684–686. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5326.684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results show a stretching of the acoustic space encompassing speech (Fig. 8).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Infants discriminated only between stimuli from different phonetic categories (12–14).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [12] Eimas P D, Siqueland E R, Jusczyk P, Vigorito J. Science. 1971;171:303–306. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3968.303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [13] Eimas P D. Percept Psychophys. 1974;16:513–521. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [14] Eimas P D. Percept Psychophys. 1975;18:341–347. [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, infants detect patterns in language input.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“These data, indicating that there is not an immutable loss of phonetic abilities for non-native units (32), did not refute the selectionist position.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Werker J F. In: An Invitation to Cognitive Science: Language. Gleitman L R, Liberman M, editors. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1995. pp. 87–107. [Google Scholar]
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding supported the view that domain-general mechanisms were responsible for infants' initial partitioning of the phonetic units of language.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Moreover, unlike adults, infants demonstrated the effect for the phonetic units of all languages (15, 16).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Lasky R E, Syrdal-Lasky A, Klein R E. J Exp Child Psych. 1975;20:215–225. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(75)90099-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [16] Streeter L A. Nature (London) 1976;259:39–41. doi: 10.1038/259039a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 22
- Probably not a substantial claim. 7
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The results demonstrate developmental change between 12 and 20 weeks—by 20 weeks, there is clear separation between the three vowel categories for infants (Fig. 7).”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Adults discriminated phonetic units that crossed the “phonetic boundary” between categories but not stimuli that fell within a category.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Liberman A M, Cooper F S, Shankweiler D P, Studdert-Kennedy M. Psychol Rev. 1967;74:431–461. doi: 10.1037/h0020279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, however, the data also demonstrated that the kind of partitioning seen for speech is not limited to humans or limited to speech.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Werker and her colleagues demonstrated that, by 12 months of age, infants no longer discriminate non-native phonetic contrasts, even though they did so at 6 months of age (31).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31] Werker J F, Tees R C. Inf Behav Dev. 1984;7:49–63. [Google Scholar] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Infants' strategies are unexpected and unpredicted by historical views.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The phenomenon was language-specific; Japanese adults, for example, failed to show a peak in discrimination at the phonetic boundary of an American English/ra-la/series (as in “rake” vs. “lake”) (11).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Miyawaki K, Strange W, Verbrugge R, Liberman A M, Jenkins J J, Fujimura O. Percept Psychophys. 1975;18:331–340. [Google Scholar] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Research on cognitive development confirms the fact that categorization (83), statistical learning (84), and prototype effects (85) are not unique to speech.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [83] Younger B A, Cohen L B. In: The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Bower G H, editor. Vol. 19. San Diego: Academic; 1985. pp. 211–247. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [84] Saffran J R, Johnson E K, Aslin R N, Newport E L. Cognition. 1999;70:27–52. doi: 10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00075-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [85] Quinn P C, Eimas P D. J Exp Child Psychol. 1998;69:151–174. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1998.2443. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two systems are thus tightly coupled early on, but the coupling is seen as a coregistration of auditory and motor information, a polymodal mapping, rather than one in which the representation is specified in motor terms.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Perceptual experience that guides sensory-motor learning also is seen in infants' imitation of nonspeech oral movements (94, 95) and in sign language (96).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [94] Meltzoff A N, Moore M K. Early Dev Parent. 1977;6:179–192. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0917(199709/12)6:3/4<179::AID-EDP157>3.0.CO;2-R. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [95] Meltzoff A N, Moore M K. Inf Behav Dev. 1994;17:83–99. doi: 10.1016/0163-6383(94)90024-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [96] Petitto L A, Marentette P F. Science. 1991;251:1493–1496. doi: 10.1126/science.2006424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A model reflecting this developmental sequence from universal perception to language-specific perception, called the Native Language Magnet model, proposes that infants' mapping of ambient language warps the acoustic dimensions underlying speech, producing a complex network, or filter, through which language is perceived (39, 40, 82).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [39] Kuhl P K. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1994;4:812–822. doi: 10.1016/0959-4388(94)90128-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [40] Kuhl P K. In: The New Cognitive Neurosciences. 2nd Ed. Gazzaniga M S, editor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2000. pp. 99–115. [Google Scholar]
- Not checked yetcites [82] Kuhl P K. In: Mechanistic Relationships Between Development and Learning. Carew T J, Menzel R, Shatz C J, editors. New York: Wiley; 1998. pp. 53–73. [Google Scholar]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“This universal contouring soon gives way to a language-specific mapping that distorts perception, completely revising the perceptual space underlying speech processing (65).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [65] Kuhl P K, Williams K A, Lacerda F, Stevens K N, Lindblom B. Science. 1992;255:606–608. doi: 10.1126/science.1736364. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Vocal learning critically depends on hearing the vocalizations of others and hearing oneself produce sound.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Mothers addressing infants also increase the variety of exemplars they use, behaving in a way that makes mothers resemble many different talkers, a feature shown to assist category learning in second-language learners (107).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [107] Lively S E, Logan J S, Pisoni D B. J Acoust Soc Am. 1993;94:1242–1255. doi: 10.1121/1.408177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They also present new words in a great variety of contexts, which would highlight the internal transitional probabilities of the new words against the backdrop of a variety of contexts (58).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [58] Goodsitt J V, Morgan J L, Kuhl P K. J Child Lang. 1993;20:229–252. doi: 10.1017/s0305000900008266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These studies show that feedback and reinforcement are not necessary in this process; listeners simply need the right kind of listening experience (36, 113).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] McClelland J L, Thomas A, McCandliss B D, Fiez J A. In: Brain, Behavioral, and Cognitive Disorders: The Neurocomputational Perspective. Reggia J, Ruppin E, Glanzman D, editors. Oxford: Elsevier; 1999. pp. 75–80. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [113] Pisoni D B. In: Speech Perception, Production and Linguistic Structure. Tohkura Y, Vatikiotis-Bateson E, Sagisaka Y, editors. Tokyo: Ohmsha; 1992. pp. 143–151. [Google Scholar]
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“When introducing new words, parents repeat the word often in sterotyped frames (“Where's the __ ,” “See the __ ,” “That's a __ ” (110), which would highlight the items in sentence-final position.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [110] Peters A M. The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press; 1983. [Google Scholar]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This may be the case because it is easier to map two different sets of phonetic categories (one for each of the two languages) if they can be perceptually separated.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Infants exposed to two languages do much better if each parent speaks one of the two languages, rather than both parents speaking both languages.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The hypothesis is that, for Japanese people, learning to process English requires the development of a new map, one more appropriate for English.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
In the paper
“Data gathered by using functional MRI techniques indicate that adult bilinguals who acquire both languages early in life activate overlapping regions of the brain when processing the two languages, whereas those who learn the second language later in life activate two distinct regions of the brain for the two languages (114).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [114] Kim K H S, Relkin N R, Lee K M, Hirsch J. Nature (London) 1997;388:172–174. doi: 10.1038/40623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Early in life, interference effects are minimal and two different mappings can be acquired, as is the case for infants learning two languages.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“New training studies suggest that exaggerating the dimensions of foreign language contrasts (36), as well as providing listeners with multiple instances spoken by many talkers (113), are effective training methods.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] McClelland J L, Thomas A, McCandliss B D, Fiez J A. In: Brain, Behavioral, and Cognitive Disorders: The Neurocomputational Perspective. Reggia J, Ruppin E, Glanzman D, editors. Oxford: Elsevier; 1999. pp. 75–80. [Google Scholar] source
- Not checked yetcites [113] Pisoni D B. In: Speech Perception, Production and Linguistic Structure. Tohkura Y, Vatikiotis-Bateson E, Sagisaka Y, editors. Tokyo: Ohmsha; 1992. pp. 143–151. [Google Scholar]
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exaggerating speech not only makes it more discriminable for infants, it highlights critical parameters used in the native language.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The learning strategies used by infants may themselves have influenced the nature of language, in much the same way that general auditory processing influenced the selection of phonetic units for language during its evolution.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Infants are neither the tabula rasas that Skinner described nor the innate grammarians that Chomsky envisioned.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(iv) vocal imitation links speech perception and production early, and auditory, visual, and motor information are coregistered for speech categories;”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(v) adults addressing infants unconsciously alter their speech to match infants' learning strategies, and this is instrumental in supporting infants' initial mapping of speech;”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Language is thus innately discoverable, but not innate in the way that selectionist models suggested.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Infants' performance in laboratory speech perception tasks reflects the mechanisms underlying natural language acquisition.
“The data show that infants perceptually “map” critical aspects of ambient language in the first year of life before they can speak.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Listening preferences in infancy indicate language-specific learning.
“American infants tested at 6 months show no listening preference for words with the strong/weak as opposed to the weak/strong pattern, but by 9 months they exhibit a strong preference for the pattern typical of their native language (55).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The statistical learning demonstrated with artificial speech stimuli generalizes to natural language acquisition.
“New research shows that infants detect and exploit the statistical properties of the language they hear to find word candidates in running speech before they know the meanings of words.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Children learn language more naturally and efficiently than adults.
“There is no doubt that children learn language more naturally and efficiently than adults, a paradox given adults' superior cognitive skills.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Infants exposed to two languages do much better if each parent speaks one of the two languages, rather than both parents speaking both languages.
“Anecdotal evidence suggests that infants exposed to two languages do much better if each parent speaks one of the two languages, rather than both parents speaking both languages.”
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?
In the citing paper
“Humans are easily able to acquire huge amounts of biologically primary knowledge outside of educational contexts and without a discernible working memory load.”
From An Evolutionary Upgrade of Cognitive Load Theory: Using the Human Motor System and Collaboration to Support the Learning of Complex Cognitive Tasks (2012) · cites this paper as Kuhl 2000
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ References
“94.Meltzoff A N, Moore M K. Early Dev Parent. 1977;6:179–192.”
§ References
“doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0917(199709/12)6:3/4<179::AID-EDP157>3.0.CO;2-R.”
Citations
Cites
Fodor, J. A. (1983) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4737.001.0001 · Cited by 7,734
Skinner, B. F. (1957) · doi:10.1037/11256-000 · Cited by 5,759
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 Psychology of Learning and Motivation
(2021) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(21)x0002-3 · Cited by 5,082
Perception of the speech code.
Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0020279 · Cited by 3,722
Chomsky (1959) · doi:10.2307/411334 · Cited by 3,425
Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984) · Infant Behavior and Development · doi:10.1016/s0163-6383(84)80022-3 · Cited by 2,801
Gallistel, C. R. (1990) · Cited by 2,571
Gazzaniga, M. S., & Bizzi, E. (2000) · Cited by 2,547
Of Human Bonding: Newborns Prefer Their Mothers' Voices
DeCasper, A. J., & Fifer, W. P. (1980) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7375928 · Cited by 2,317
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- K Wexler, P W Culicover Formal Principles of Language Acquisition (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1980).
- K N Stevens Acoustic Phonetics (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998).
- J M Pickett The Acoustics of Speech Communication (Allyn and Bacon, Boston, 1999).
- N Gross, P C Judge, O Port, S H Wildstrom BusinessWeek, February 23, 60–72. (1998).
- J F Werker An Invitation to Cognitive Science: Language, eds L R Gleitman, M Liberman (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA), pp. 87–107 (1995).
- P K Kuhl Child Phonology: Vol. 2. Perception, eds G H Yeni-Komshian, J F Kavanagh, C A Ferguson (Academic, New York), pp. 41–66 (1980).
- K H S Kim, N R Relkin, K M Lee, J Hirsch Nature (London) 388, 172–174 (1997).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 769
Neural Variability Limits Adolescent Skill Learning
Caras, M. L., & Sanes, D. H. (2019) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2878-18.2019 · Cited by 36
Development of a Communicative Performance Scale for Pediatric Cochlear Implantation
Lin, F. R., Ceh, K., Bervinchak, D., Riley, A. W., Miech, R. A., & Niparko, J. K. (2007) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31812f71f4 · Cited by 35
A psycholinguistic perspective on the acquisition of phonology
Ramus, F., Sharon Peperkamp, A., Christophe, A., Jacquemot, C., Kouider, S., & Emmanuel Dupoux, A. (2010) · Mouton eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783110224917.3.311 · Cited by 35
A dynamic network analysis of emergent grammar
Ibbotson, P., Salnikov, V., & Walker, R. D. (2019) · First Language · doi:10.1177/0142723719869562 · Cited by 35
Unraveling the nature of autism: finding order amid change
Hellendoorn, A., Wijnroks, L., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00359 · Cited by 35
L2 acquisition and processing of Mandarin tones
Wang, Y., Sereno, J. A., & Jongman, A. (2006) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511550751.024 · Cited by 34
Singh, L., Loh, D., & Xiao, N. G. (2017) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01563 · Cited by 34
Effects of Corrective Feedback on Second Language Pronunciation Development
Saito, K. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108589789.020 · Cited by 39
Dynamic grammar in adults: Incidental learning of natural syntactic structures extends over 48 h
Luka, B. J., & Choi, H. (2011) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.001 · Cited by 34
A Sociophonetic Approach to Scottish Standard English
Schützler, O. (2015) · Varieties of English around the world. General series · doi:10.1075/veaw.g53 · Cited by 33
Multiple imitation mechanisms in children.
Subiaul, F., Anderson, S. E., Brandt, J., & Elkins, J. (2011) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0026646 · Cited by 32
Bao, S., Chang, E. F., Teng, C., Heiser, M. A., & Merzenich, M. M. (2013) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.05.056 · Cited by 32
Gonzalez‐Gomez, N., O'Brien, F. E., & Harris, M. (2020) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.13020 · Cited by 36
Constantino, J. N., Yang, D., Gray, T., Gross, M. M., Abbacchi, A. M., Smith, S. C., Kohn, C. E., & Kuhl, P. K. (2006) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0269-9 · Cited by 32
Self-citationExtracting words from the speech stream at first exposure
Shoemaker, E. M., & Rast, R. (2013) · Second language Research · doi:10.1177/0267658313479360 · Cited by 31
Conboy, B. T., Rivera‐Gaxiola, M., Silva‐Pereyra, J., & Kuhl, P. K. (2008) · Trends in language acquisition research · doi:10.1075/tilar.5.04con · Cited by 32
Self-citationChoisdealbha, Á. N., Attaheri, A., Rocha, S., Mead, N., Olawole‐Scott, H., Brusini, P., Gibbon, S., Boutris, P., Grey, C., Hines, D., et al. (2023) · Brain and Language · doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2023.105301 · Cited by 30
Vocalizations as tools for influencing the affect and behavior of others
Rendall, D., & Owren, M. J. (2010) · Handbook of behavioral neuroscience · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-374593-4.00018-8 · Cited by 31
Alameen, G., & Levis, J. M. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118346952.ch9 · Cited by 30
Individual language experience modulates rapid formation of cortical memory circuits for novel words
Kimppa, L., Kujala, T., & Юрьевич, Ш. Ю. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep30227 · Cited by 29
Emergence of linguistic laws in human voice
Torre, I. G., Luque, B., Lacasa, L., Luque, J., & Hernández-Fernändez, A. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep43862 · Cited by 29
Nagle, C. (2020) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12431 · Cited by 29
Peltola, M. S., Tuomainen, O., Koskinen, M., & Aaltonen, O. (2006) · Journal of Psycholinguistic Research · doi:10.1007/s10936-006-9030-y · Cited by 29
Promoting language and literacy through reading aloud: The role of the pediatrician
Mendelsohn, A. L. (2002) · Current problems in pediatric and adolescent health care · doi:10.1067/mps.2002.125467 · Cited by 29
Evidence for phonetic adaptation of loanwords: an experimental study
Vendelin, I., & Sharon Peperkamp, A. (2004) · Cited by 29
The Paradox of Emotion Attribution
Halberstadt, J. B. (2003) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1046/j.0963-7214.2003.01261.x · Cited by 27
Reading network in dyslexia: Similar, yet different.
Waldie, K., Wilson, A., Roberts, R., & Moreau, D. (2017) · Brain and Language · doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2017.07.004 · Cited by 27
Variables affecting the effects of recasts on L2 pronunciation development
Saito, K. (2014) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168814541753 · Cited by 27
Estimated net saving to society from cochlear implantation in infants: A preliminary analysis
Colletti, L., Mandalà, M., Shannon, R. V., & Colletti, V. (2011) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1002/lary.22131 · Cited by 26
Toward a new model for speech perception: the Universal Perceptual Model (UPM) of second language
Georgiou, G. P. (2021) · Cognitive Processing · doi:10.1007/s10339-021-01017-6 · Cited by 29
A corpus-based analysis of English segments produced by Korean learners
Hong, H., Kim, S., & Chung, M. (2014) · Journal of Phonetics · doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2014.06.002 · Cited by 25
Messum, P., & Howard, I. S. (2015) · Journal of Phonetics · doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2015.08.005 · Cited by 25
Human Speech: A Restricted Use of the Mammalian Larynx
Titze, I. R. (2016) · Journal of Voice · doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.06.003 · Cited by 25
On the nature of the speech perception deficits in children with autism spectrum disorders
You, R. S., Willy Serniclaes, A., Rider, D., & Chabane, N. (2017) · Research in Developmental Disabilities · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.12.009 · Cited by 25
Verhagen, V., Mos, M., Schilperoord, J., & Backus, A. (2019) · Linguistics · doi:10.1515/ling-2018-0036 · Cited by 26
Chen, F., & Peng, G. (2021) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2021_jslhr-20-00725 · Cited by 24
Delcenserie, A., & Genesee, F. H. (2013) · Journal of Child Language · doi:10.1017/s030500091300041x · Cited by 24
Psychodynamic Experience Enhances Recognition of Hidden Childhood Trauma
Cohen, D., Milman, D., Venturyera, V., & Falissard, B. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018470 · Cited by 26
Prenatal and postnatal development of the mammalian ear
Powles-Glover, N. S., & Maconochie, M. K. (2017) · Birth Defects Research · doi:10.1002/bdr2.1167 · Cited by 23
Learning to listen: The sound of sufism in France
Kapchan, D. A. (2009) · The world of music/The world of music · Cited by 23
Effets de l’âge sur l’acquisition de la prononciation d’une seconde langue
Bongaerts, T. (2003) · Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère · doi:10.4000/aile.1153 · Cited by 23
A Tsallis’ statistics based neural network model for novel word learning
Hadzibeganovic, T., & Cannas, S. A. (2008) · Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications · doi:10.1016/j.physa.2008.10.042 · Cited by 23
Wayland, R. P. (2018) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108289849.008 · Cited by 23
Gates-Ulanet, P., Carson, C. M., Mellon, N. K., Niparko, J. K., & Ouellette, M. (2014) · Cochlear Implants International · doi:10.1179/1754762814y.0000000077 · Cited by 22
Effects of classical conditioning on identification and cortical processing of speech syllables
Heim, S., & Keil, A. (2006) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-006-0560-1 · Cited by 22
Vocal Interactivity in-and-between Humans, Animals, and Robots
Moore, R. K., Marxer, R., & Thill, S. (2016) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2016.00061 · Cited by 24
Rivera‐Gaxiola, M., Silva‐Pereyra, J., Klarman, L., García‐Sierra, A., Lara-Ayala, L., Cadena-Salazar, C., & Kuhl, P. K. (2007) · Developmental Neuropsychology · doi:10.1080/87565640701229292 · Cited by 22
Self-citationIs talker variability a critical component of effective phonetic training for nonnative speech?
Zhang, X., Cheng, B., Qin, D., & Zhang, Y. (2021) · Journal of Phonetics · doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2021.101071 · Cited by 24
The effect of age on English /r/-/l/ perceptual training outcomes for Japanese speakers
Shinohara, Y., & Iverson, P. (2021) · Journal of Phonetics · doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2021.101108 · Cited by 21
Jiang, N., Hu, G., Chrabaszcz, A. V., & Ye, L. (2015) · International Journal of Bilingualism · doi:10.1177/1367006915603823 · Cited by 25
The role of imitation in learning to pronounce
Messum, P. (2008) · OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) · Cited by 21
Holm, S. (2008) · BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) · Cited by 21
Primitives of Phonological Structure
(2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198791126.001.0001 · Cited by 20
Benner, A. (2010) · Canadian acoustics · Cited by 20
How Caregiver's Anticipation Shapes Infant's Vowel Through Mutual Imitation
Ishihara, H., Yoshikawa, Y., Miura, K., & Asada, M. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Autonomous Mental Development · doi:10.1109/tamd.2009.2038988 · Cited by 20
Developmental refinement of cortical systems for speech and voice processing
Bonte, M. L., Ley, A., Scharke, W., & Formisano, E. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.015 · Cited by 20
Haakenson, C. M., Balthazart, J., & Ball, G. F. (2020) · eNeuro · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0048-20.2020 · Cited by 20
García‐Sierra, A., Ramírez‐Esparza, N., Wig, N., & Robertson, D. (2020) · Brain and Language · doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2020.104890 · Cited by 21
Does Infant‐Directed Speech Help Phonetic Learning? A Machine Learning Investigation
Ludusan, B., Mazuka, R., & Emmanuel Dupoux, A. (2021) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12946 · Cited by 20
Adi‐Bensaid, L., & Bat‐El, O. (2004) · Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders · doi:10.1080/14769670400009975 · Cited by 20
Introduction: concepts of development, learning, and acquisition
Lindner, K., & Hohenberger, A. (2009) · Linguistics · doi:10.1515/ling.2009.009 · Cited by 20
Improving ASL fingerspelling comprehension in L2 learners with explicit phonetic instruction
Geer, L. C., & Keane, J. (2017) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168816686988 · Cited by 20
Davis, M., & Redford, M. A. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02121 · Cited by 19
Infant-directed speech does not always involve exaggerated vowel distinctions: Evidence from Danish
Cox, C. M. M., Dideriksen, C., Keren‐Portnoy, T., Roepstorff, A., Christiansen, M. H., & Fusaroli, R. (2023) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/cdev.13950 · Cited by 25
Ortiz‐Mantilla, S., Choudhury, N. A., Alvarez, B., & BENASICH, A. A. (2010) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2010.09.031 · Cited by 20
Wang, Y., & Kuhl, P. K. (2003) · Cited by 19
Self-citationGuevara‐Rukoz, A., Cristià, A., Ludusan, B., Thiollière, R., Martin, A. T., Mazuka, R., & Emmanuel Dupoux, A. (2018) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1111/cogs.12616 · Cited by 19
Hearing, Listening, and Understanding: Auditory Development in Infancy
Fernald, A. E. (2004) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470996348.ch2 · Cited by 19
Perception of English stress by Mandarin Chinese learners of English: An acoustic study
Wang, Q. (2008) · UVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · Cited by 19
L1 Influences on Bulgarian-Accented German: Prosodic Units and Prenuclear Pitch Accents
Andreeva, B., & Dimitrova, S. (2022) · Languages · doi:10.3390/languages7040263 · Cited by 18
Matsuda, M., Igarashi, H., & Itoh, K. (2019) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2019.00809 · Cited by 18
Choi, W. (2022) · Journal of Phonetics · doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2022.101135 · Cited by 18
The Early Phase of /ɹ/ Production Development in Adult Japanese Learners of English
Saito, K., & Munro, M. J. (2014) · Language and Speech · doi:10.1177/0023830913513206 · Cited by 18
Language acquisition in optimality theory
Fikkert, P., & de Hoop, H. (2009) · Linguistics · doi:10.1515/ling.2009.012 · Cited by 18
Acoustic cues and linguistic experience as factors in regional dialect classification
Alcorn, S., Meemann, K., Clopper, C. G., & Smiljanić, R. (2020) · The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · doi:10.1121/10.0000551 · Cited by 18
An EEG study on the brain representations in language learning
Soman, A., Madhavan, C. R., Sarkar, K., & Ganapathy, S. (2019) · Biomedical Physics & Engineering Express · doi:10.1088/2057-1976/ab0243 · Cited by 18
Development of neural perceptual vowel spaces during the first year of life
McCarthy, K. M., Skoruppa, K., & Iverson, P. (2019) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-019-55085-y · Cited by 18
Vocal Imitation in Sensorimotor Learning Models: A Comparative Review
Pagliarini, S., Leblois, A., & Hinaut, X. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems · doi:10.1109/tcds.2020.3041179 · Cited by 20
Commentary—Relevancy Is Robust Prediction, Not Alleged Realism
Shugan, S. M. (2009) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.1080.0467 · Cited by 18
Electrophysiological responses to coarticulatory and word level miscues.
Archibald, L. M. D., & Joanisse, M. F. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/a0023506 · Cited by 18
How the Brain Thinks in Autism: Implications for Language Intervention
Williams, D. L., & Minshew, N. J. (2010) · ASHA Leader · doi:10.1044/leader.ftr1.15052010.8 · Cited by 18
Pennington, M. C. (2007) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230625396 · Cited by 18
The sounds of science—a symphony for many instruments and voices
Alexander, G., Allen, R. E., Atala, A., Bowen, W. P., Coley, A. A., Goodenough, J. B., Katsnelson, M. I., Koonin, E. V., Krenn, M., Madsen, L. S., et al. (2020) · Physica Scripta · doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ab7a35 · Cited by 17
Klentschy, M. P. (2005) · Science educator · Cited by 17
A FONOLOGIA NA SALA DE AULA: DESVIOS COMUNS DE ESCRITA
Benevides, A. D. L., & Toni, A. (2021) · doi:10.22533/at.ed.0282115127 · Cited by 16
Rogers, S. J., Vivanti, G., & Rocha, M. (2017) · Autism and child psychopathology series · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-62995-7_13 · Cited by 16
Language familiarity influences own‐race face recognition in 9‐ and 12‐month‐old infants
de Boisferon, A. H., Kubicek, C., Gervain, J., Schwarzer, G., Lœvenbruck, H., Vilain, A., Fort, M., Méary, D., & Pascalis, O. (2021) · Infancy · doi:10.1111/infa.12404 · Cited by 16
Wang, L., Pfordresher, P. Q., Jiang, C., & Liu, F. (2021) · Autism Research · doi:10.1002/aur.2569 · Cited by 20
Musical instrument familiarity affects statistical learning of tone sequences
Hedger, S. C. V., Johnsrude, I. S., & Batterink, L. J. (2021) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104949 · Cited by 17
Evaluating parameters for mapping adult vowels to imitative babbling
Heintz, I., Beckman, M. E., Fosler‐Lussier, E., & Ménard, L. (2009) · Interspeech (USB) · doi:10.21437/interspeech.2009-238 · Cited by 16
Culture and Early Childhood Learning
Cole, M., Hakkarainen, P. E., & Brėdikytė, M. (2010) · Cited by 16
Rhoades, E. A. (2001) · The Volta Review · Cited by 16
Cibelli, E. S. (2020) · Second language Research · doi:10.1177/0267658320921217 · Cited by 16
Production and accent affect memory
Cho, K. W., & Feldman, L. B. (2013) · The Mental Lexicon · doi:10.1075/ml.8.3.02cho · Cited by 16
Multimodal Language Analysis with Recurrent Multistage FusionPreprint
Liang, P. P., Ziyin, L., Zadeh, A., & Morency, L. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1808.03920 · Cited by 30
Infant‐directed speech to infants at risk for dyslexia: A novel cross‐dyad design
Kalashnikova, M., Goswami, U., & Burnham, D. (2020) · Infancy · doi:10.1111/infa.12329 · Cited by 15
Effects of socio‐economic status on infant native and non‐native phoneme discrimination
Singh, L., Cheng, Q., & Yeung, W. J. (2022) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.13351 · Cited by 15
Clark, J. H., Aggarwal, P., Wang, N. Y., Robinson, R. E., Niparko, J. K., & Lin, F. R. (2011) · International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology · doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2011.01.015 · Cited by 15
Almeida, D., Poeppel, D., & Corina, D. P. (2015) · Language Cognition and Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/23273798.2015.1100315 · Cited by 16
Neural Correlates of Phonetic Learning in Postlingually Deafened Cochlear Implant Listeners
Miller, S. E., Zhang, Y., & Nelson, P. B. (2016) · Ear and Hearing · doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000287 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Kuhl, P. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kuhl, Patricia K.
- ORCID
- Kuhl, Patricia K.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2000-10-24
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 22
- Pages
- 11850-11857
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC34178
- OpenAlex
- W1972159947
- Semantic Scholar
- 4ea6e708012a19bcd4674f1607fd1e1a03b93eaf
- Cited by
- 773
- References
- 121
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 34
- FWCI
- 42.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (HD 37954)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD037954, HD37954)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
- Keywords
- language acquisition, infant speech perception, statistical learning, perceptual mapping, language experience, language bootstrapping, infant language development
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Haplorhini, Humans, Infant, Language Development
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
