ArticleCognitive science2018
Do Infants Learn Words From Statistics? Evidence From English-Learning Infants Hearing Italian.
Article in Cognitive science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Superior Statistical Learning Relies on Rejecting Partwords.Journal of psycholinguistic research · 2025Article
- Transitional probabilities outweigh frequency of occurrence in statistical learning of simultaneously presented visual shapes.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- A changing role for transitional probabilities in word learning during the transition to toddlerhood?Developmental psychology · 2024Article
- Can Infants Retain Statistically Segmented Words and Mappings Across a Delay?Cognitive science · 2024Article
- The association between statistical learning and language development during childhood: A scoping review.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Speech Segmentation and Cross-Situational Word Learning in Parallel.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2023Article
- When statistics collide: The use of transitional and phonotactic probability cues to word boundaries.Memory & cognition · 2021Article
- Toddlers' Ability to Leverage Statistical Information to Support Word Learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Infants are sensitive to statistical regularities (i.e., transitional probabilities, or TPs) relevant to segmenting words in fluent speech. However, there is debate about whether tracking TPs results in representations of possible words. Infants show preferential learning of sequences with high TPs (HTPs) as object labels relative to those with low TPs (LTPs). Such findings could mean that only the HTP sequences have a word-like status, and they are more readily mapped to a referent for that reason. But these findings could also suggest that HTP sequences are easier to encode, just like any other predictable sequence. Here we aimed to distinguish between these explanations. To do so, we built on findings that infants become resistant to learning labels that are not typical of their native language as they approach 2 years of age and add words to their lexicons. If tracking TPs in speech results in identifying candidate words, at this age TPs may have reduced power to confer lexical status when they yield a unit that is very dissimilar to word forms that are typical of infants' native language. Indeed, we found that at 20 months, English-learning infants with relatively small vocabularies learned HTP Italian words (but not LTP words) as object labels, while infants with larger vocabularies resisted learning HTP Italian words. These findings suggest that the HTP sequences may be represented as candidate words, and more broadly, that TP statistics are relevant to word learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.