Cited by 16Neuroscience and Music PerceptionLanguage Development and DisordersPhonetics and Phonology Research

Mothers say “baby” and their newborns do not choose to listen: a behavioral preference study to compare with ERP results

Open access
Moon, Christine, Zernzach, Randall C., Kuhl, Patricia K.·2015·Frontiers in Human Neuroscience

Abstract

Previously published results from neonatal brain evoked response potential (ERP) experiments revealed different brain responses to the single word "baby" depending on whether it was recorded by the mother or an unfamiliar female. These results are consistent with behavioral preference studies in which infants altered pacifier sucking to contingently activate recordings of the maternal vs. an unfamiliar female voice, but the speech samples were much longer and information-rich than in the ERP studies. Both types of neonatal voice recognition studies imply postnatal retention of prenatal learning. The preference studies require infant motor and motivation systems to mount a response in addition to voice recognition. The current contingent sucking preference study was designed to test neonatal motivation to alter behavior when the reward is the single word "baby" recorded by the mother or an unfamiliar speaker. Results showed an absent or weak contingent sucking response to the brief maternal voice sample, and they demonstrate the complementary value of electrophysiological and behavioral studies for very early development. Neonates can apparently recognize the maternal voice in brief recorded sample (previous ERP results) but they are not sufficiently motivated by it to alter sucking behavior.

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 · 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00153

Cites

34 of 34 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moon, C., Zernzach, R. C., & Kuhl, P. K.
Affiliations
  • Pacific Lutheran University (US)
  • Wilford Hall Ambulatory Surgical Center (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Moon, Christine
Venue
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
Published
2015-03-25
Volume
9
Pages
153-153
ISSN
1662-5161 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1988158575
Cited by
16
References
32
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 4
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Human Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD037954, U54HD083091)
  • Madigan Army Medical Center
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
maternal voice, neonates, pacifier sucking, behavioral preferences, event-related potentials, voice familiarity

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