ArticleScientific reports2021
Infants differentially extract rules from language.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Brain responses to repetition-based rule-learning do not exhibit sex differences: an aggregated analysis of infant fNIRS studies.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- ManyBabies 3: A Multi-Lab Study of Infant Algebraic Rule Learning.Developmental science · 2026Article
- Shape of the hemodynamic response function in deaf infants eligible for cochlear implantation.Neurophotonics · 2026Article
- Utilizing functional neuroimaging to study early language development.Developmental cognitive neuroscience · 2025Review
- Mapping Early Brain-Body Interactions: Associations of Fetal Heart Rate Variation with Newborn Brainstem, Hypothalamic, and Dorsal Anterior Cingulate Cortex Functional Connectivity.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024Article
- Ten things you should know about sign languages.Current directions in psychological science · 2023Article
- Reproducibility of infant fNIRS studies: a meta-analytic approach.Neurophotonics · 2023Article
- Visual attention for linguistic and non-linguistic body actions in non-signing and native signing children.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Infants readily extract linguistic rules from speech. Here, we ask whether this advantage extends to linguistic stimuli that do not rely on the spoken modality. To address this question, we first examine whether infants can differentially learn rules from linguistic signs. We show that, despite having no previous experience with a sign language, six-month-old infants can extract the reduplicative rule (AA) from dynamic linguistic signs, and the neural response to reduplicative linguistic signs differs from reduplicative visual controls, matched for the dynamic spatiotemporal properties of signs. We next demonstrate that the brain response for reduplicative signs is similar to the response to reduplicative speech stimuli. Rule learning, then, apparently depends on the linguistic status of the stimulus, not its sensory modality. These results suggest that infants are language-ready. They possess a powerful rule system that is differentially engaged by all linguistic stimuli, speech or sign.
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.