ArticleCognitive science2021
Quantifying Talker Variability in North-American Infants' Daily Input.
Article in Cognitive science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond adult speech: why research on language development should consider speech from children.Child development perspectives · 2026Article
- Linking acoustic variability in the infants' input to their early word production.Developmental science · 2024Article
- Talker variability is not always the right noise: 14 month olds struggle to learn dissimilar word-object pairs under talker variability conditions.Journal of experimental child psychology · 2023Article
- The acquisition of speech categories: Beyond perceptual narrowing, beyond unsupervised learning and beyond infancy.Language, cognition and neuroscience · 2023Article
- Talker variability shapes early word representations in English-learning 8-month-olds.Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Words sound slightly different each time they are said, both by the same talker and across talkers. Rather than hurting learning, lab studies suggest that talker variability helps infants learn similar sounding words. However, very little is known about how much variability infants hear within a single talker or across talkers in naturalistic input. Here, we quantified these types of talker variability for highly frequent words spoken to 44 infants, from naturalistic recordings sampled longitudinally over a year of life (from 6 to 17 months). We used non-contrastive acoustic measurements (e.g., mean pitch, duration, harmonics-to-noise ratio) and holistic measures of sound similarity (normalized acoustic distance) to quantify acoustic variability. We find three key results. First, pitch-based variability was generally lower for infants' top talkers than across their other talkers, but overall acoustic distance is higher for tokens from the top talker versus the others. Second, the amount of acoustic variability infants heard could not be predicted from, and thus was not redundant with, other properties of the input such as the number of talkers or tokens, or proportion of speech from particular sources (e.g., women, children, electronics). Finally, we find that patterns of pitch-based acoustic variability heard in naturalistic input were similar to those found with in-lab stimuli that facilitated word learning. This large-scale quantification of talker variability in infants' everyday input sets the stage for linking naturally occurring variability "in the wild" to early 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.