↓ Skip to main content

Monolingual and Bilingual Infants’ Ability to Use Non-native Tone for Word Learning Deteriorates by the Second Year After Birth

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Monolingual and Bilingual Infants’ Ability to Use Non-native Tone for Word Learning Deteriorates by the Second Year After Birth
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00117
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liquan Liu, René Kager

Abstract

Previous studies reported a non-native word learning advantage for bilingual infants at around 18 months. We investigated developmental changes in infant interpretation of sounds that aid in object mapping. Dutch monolingual and bilingual (exposed to Dutch and a second non-tone-language) infants' word learning ability was examined on two novel label-object pairings using syllables differing in Mandarin tones as labels (flat vs. falling). Infants aged 14-15 months, regardless of language backgrounds, were sensitive to violations in the label-objects pairings when lexical tones were switched compared to when they were the same as habituated. Conversely at 17-18 months, neither monolingual nor bilingual infants demonstrated learning. Linking with existing literature, infants' ability to associate non-native tones with meanings may be related to tonal acoustic properties and/or perceptual assimilation to native prosodic categories. These findings provide new insights into the relation between infant tone perception, learning, and interpretative narrowing from a developmental perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Researcher 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Master 4 10%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 11 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 29%
Linguistics 6 15%
Neuroscience 5 12%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Unknown 17 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#14,272,319
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#14,539
of 31,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,133
of 334,528 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#378
of 577 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 31,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,528 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 577 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.