ArticleCognitive psychology2025
The intelligibility of consonants in American English infant-directed speech.
Article in Cognitive psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
To begin learning their language, infants must locate words in the speech signal. Some models of word discovery presuppose that the discovery process depends on identifying phonetic segments (phones) in speech. To test the plausibility of models arguing that infants can reliably categorize consonants in speech, adult native speakers were asked to identify the consonant in vowel-consonant-vowel sequences extracted from spontaneous English infant-directed speech. Listeners could consistently identify some instances of consonants (for example, correctly indicating that an /s/ was an /s/). But many tokens (about half) were not consistently identifiable. Performance was significantly worse for codas than onsets. Providing the full utterance context in low-pass-filtered form did not aid recognition, nor did familiarization with the talker. In a second task, listeners were barely above chance in guessing whether a consonant was a word onset or a word-final coda. Performance on infant-directed speech was not markedly better than performance on a comparison set of adult-directed speech consonants. Erroneous responses frequently had little systematic resemblance to the correct answer. The results suggest that it is not plausible that infants can parse most utterances exhaustively into strings of uttered speech sounds and feed those strings into a statistical clustering mechanism.
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.