Cited by 62Language Development and DisordersChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentChild Development and Digital Technology

Comparing Automatic and Manual Measures of Parent–Infant Conversational Turns: A Word of Caution

Open access
Ramírez, Naja Ferjan, Hippe, Daniel S, Kuhl, Patricia K·2021·Child Development

Abstract

The Language ENvironment Analysis system (LENA) records children’s language environment and provides an automatic estimate of adult–child conversational turn count (CTC). The present study compares LENA’s CTC estimate to manually coded CTC on a sample of 70 English-speaking infants recorded longitudinally at 6, 10, 14, 18, and 24 months of age. At each age, LENA’s CTC was significantly higher than manually coded CTC (all ps < .001, Cohen’s ds: 0.9–2.05), with the largest discrepancies between the two methods observed at younger ages. The Limits of Agreement Analyses confirm wide disagreements between the two methods, highlighting potential problems with automatic measurement of parent–infant verbal interaction. These findings suggest that future studies should validate LENA’s CTC estimates with manual coding.

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 · 10.1111/cdev.13495

Cites

39 of 40 references verified1 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?

  • LENA recorders can generate reports about infants' language environments, but their automated analysis has been shown not to correlate with human generated analysis.

    “Additionally, while LENA recorders can generate reports about infants’ language environments, their automated analysis has been shown not to correlate with human generated analysis [72]”

    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 [72]

    The Abstract says LENA provides automatic measures of children’s language environments. The Results (page unavailable) find poor absolute agreement between automated and manual conversational-turn counts, but not an absence of correlation: correlations were low at 6 and 10 months and higher at 14–24 months. The claim confuses poor agreement with no correlation and extends a finding about conversational turns to automated analysis generally. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 5

  1. Bergelson, E., Casillas, M., Soderstrom, M., Seidl, A., Warlaumont, A. S., & Amatuni, A. (2019). What do North American babies hear? A large‐scale cross‐corpus analysis. Developmental Science, 22. 10.1111/desc.1272 PMC6294666 30369005 · DOI
  2. Gilkerson, J., Richards, J. A., Warren, S. F., Montgomery, J. K., Greenwood, C. R., Oller, D. K., & Hansen, J. H. (2017). Mapping the early language environment using all‐day recordings and automated analysis. American Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology, 26, 248– 265. 10.1044/2016_AJSLP-15-016 28418456 PMC6195063 · DOI
  3. Kuhl, P. K. (2007). Is speech learning ‘gated’ by the social brain? Developmental Science, 10, 110– 120. 10.1073/pnas.1532872100 17181708 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Meltzoff, A. N., & Brooks, R. (2009). Social cognition and language: The role of gaze following in early word learning. In J. Colombo, P. McCardle, & L. Freund (Eds.), Infant pathways to language: Methods, models, and research disorders (pp. 169– 194). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  5. Weisleder, A., & Fernald, A. (2013). Talking to children matters: Early language experience strengthens processing and builds vocabulary. Psychological Science, 24, 2143– 2152. 10.1177/0956797613488145 24022649 PMC5510534 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ramírez, N. F., Hippe, D. S., & Kuhl, P. K.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Ramírez, Naja Ferjan
Venue
Child Development
Published
2021-03-01
Volume
92
Issue
2
Pages
672-681
ISSN
  • 0009-3920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8624
OpenAlex
W3119928075
Cited by
62
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7
FWCI
15.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Child Development (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Overdeck Family Foundation
  • The Bezos Family Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Education › Child Development and Digital Technology
Keywords
Language Environment Analysis, parent-infant interaction, automated measurement, manual coding, measurement agreement, limits of agreement, early childhood language development
MeSH terms
Adult, Child Development, Child Language, Child, Preschool, Communication, Female, Humans, Infant, Language Development, Male, Parent-Child Relations, Parents, Infant Behavior

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