Cited by 482Language Development and DisordersPhonetics and Phonology ResearchReading and Literacy Development

Early speech perception and later language development: implications for the “critical period”

Kuhl, Patricia K., Conboy, Barbara T., Padden, Denise, Nelson, Tobey, Pruitt, Jessica·2005·Language Learning and Development

Abstract

In this article, we present a summary of recent research linking speech perception in infancy to later language development, as well as a new empirical study examining that linkage. Infant phonetic discrimination is initially language universal, but a decline in phonetic discrimination occurs for nonnative phonemes by the end of the 1st year. Exploiting this transition in phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months of age, we tested the hypothesis that the decline in nonnative phonetic discrimination is associated with native-language phonetic learning. Using a standard behavioral measure of speech discrimination in infants at 7 months and measures of their language abilities at 14, 18, 24, and 30 months, we show (a) a negative correlation between infants' early native and nonnative phonetic discrimination skills and (b) that native- and nonnative-phonetic discrimination skills at 7 months differentially predict future language ability. Better native-language discrimination at 7 months predicts accelerated later language abilities, whereas better nonnative-language discrimination at 7 months predicts reduced later language abilities. The discussion focuses on (a) the theoretical connection between speech perception and language development and (b) the implications of these findings for the putative "critical period" for phonetic learning.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15475441.2005.9671948

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 104 · Cited by 482

Authors
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Padden, D., Nelson, T., & Pruitt, J.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Language Learning and Development
Published
2005-10
Volume
1
Issue
3-4
Pages
237-264
ISSN
  • 1547-3341 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-5441
OpenAlex
W1984717236
Cited by
482
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 30 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 19
FWCI
19.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Language Learning and Development (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Washington
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
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 › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
infant speech perception, phonetic discrimination, critical period hypothesis, language development, phonetic bootstrapping, early language acquisition

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