title: All words are not created equal: expectations about word length guide infant statistical learning.
abstract: Infants have been described as 'statistical learners' capable of extracting structure (such as words) from patterned input (such as language). Here, we investigated whether prior knowledge influences how infants track transitional probabilities in word segmentation tasks. Are infants biased by prior experience when engaging in sequential statistical learning? In a laboratory simulation of learning across time, we exposed 9- and 10-month-old infants to a list of either disyllabic or trisyllabic nonsense words, followed by a pause-free speech stream composed of a different set of disyllabic or trisyllabic nonsense words. Listening times revealed successful segmentation of words from fluent speech only when words were uniformly disyllabic or trisyllabic throughout both phases of the experiment. Hearing trisyllabic words during the pre-exposure phase derailed infants' abilities to segment speech into disyllabic words, and vice versa. We conclude that prior knowledge about word length equips infants with perceptual expectations that facilitate efficient processing of subsequent language input.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology and Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA. lewwilliams@wisc.edu
authors.forename: Casey
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Lew-Williams
authors.forename: Jenny R
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Saffran
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D007223:Infant; D019359:Knowledge; D007802:Language; D007804:Language Development; D011337:Probability Learning; D013067:Speech Perception; D014163:Transfer, Psychology; D014706:Verbal Learning; D014825:Vocabulary
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Aug;108(2):477-99
references.pmid: 18533142
references.citation: Child Dev. 2009 May-Jun;80(3):674-85
references.pmid: 19489896
references.citation: Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2010 Nov;1(6):906-914
references.pmid: 21666883
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2003 Jul;39(4):706-16
references.pmid: 12859124
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2009 Aug;33(6):1087-1116
references.pmid: 20574548
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 Sep;120(3):360-71
references.pmid: 21130985
references.citation: Cognition. 2009 Jul;112(1):21-54
references.pmid: 19409539
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2002 Jan;13(1):13-9
references.pmid: 11892773
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2005 Feb;50(1):86-132
references.pmid: 15556130
references.citation: Science. 1996 Dec 13;274(5294):1926-8
references.pmid: 8943209
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2010 Mar;13(2):339-45
references.pmid: 20136930
references.citation: Child Dev. 2010 May-Jun;81(3):727-36
references.pmid: 20573101
references.citation: Dev Psychol. 2003 May;39(3):484-94
references.pmid: 12760517
references.citation: Cognition. 2002 Mar;83(2):B35-42
references.pmid: 11869728
references.citation: Cogn Sci. 2009 Mar;33(2):260-72
references.pmid: 21585470
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010 Aug;63(8):1646-64
references.pmid: 20175025
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2009 Apr;12(3):388-95
references.pmid: 19371361
references.citation: Infancy. 2008 Jan 1;13(1):57-74
references.pmid: 21088702
references.citation: Child Dev. 2011 Mar-Apr;82(2):462-70
references.pmid: 21410909
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2005 Apr;16(4):298-304
references.pmid: 15828977
references.citation: J Mem Lang. 2010 Nov 1;63(4):447-464
references.pmid: 21076648
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2002 May;28(3):458-67
references.pmid: 12018498
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2007 Mar;18(3):254-60
references.pmid: 17444923
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 1982 Apr;14(2):143-77
references.pmid: 7083801
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2008 Dec;19(12):1247-52
references.pmid: 19121132
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2011 Nov;14(6):1323-9
references.pmid: 22010892