Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation
This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speec...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Junge, Caroline [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2020transfer abstract |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles - Shen, Yanyan ELSEVIER, 2015transfer abstract, an international & interdisciplinary journal, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:60 ; year:2020 ; pages:0 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV052189872 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV052189872 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230626032942.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 210910s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001369.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV052189872 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0163-6383(18)30094-8 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 530 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 600 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 670 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 630 |a 580 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a BIODIV |q DE-30 |2 fid | ||
| 084 | |a 48.00 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Junge, Caroline |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2020transfer abstract | |
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. | ||
| 520 | |a This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. | ||
| 650 | 7 | |a Central fixation |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Familiarity response |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Infant preference |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Headturn preference procedure |2 Elsevier | |
| 650 | 7 | |a Speech segmentation ability |2 Elsevier | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Everaert, Emma |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Porto, Lyan |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fikkert, Paula |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a de Klerk, Maartje |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Keij, Brigitta |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Benders, Titia |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier Science |a Shen, Yanyan ELSEVIER |t Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles |d 2015transfer abstract |d an international & interdisciplinary journal |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV012884081 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:60 |g year:2020 |g pages:0 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a FID-BIODIV | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OPC-FOR | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_812 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 48.00 |j Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 60 |j 2020 |h 0 | ||
| author_variant |
c j cj |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
jungecarolineeveraertemmaportolyanfikker:2020----:otatnbhvoaloigrcdrscssuynna |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2020transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
48.00 |
| publishDate |
2020 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001369.pica (DE-627)ELV052189872 (ELSEVIER)S0163-6383(18)30094-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 VZ 600 VZ 670 VZ 630 580 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 48.00 bkl Junge, Caroline verfasserin aut Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation 2020transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. Central fixation Elsevier Familiarity response Elsevier Infant preference Elsevier Headturn preference procedure Elsevier Speech segmentation ability Elsevier Everaert, Emma oth Porto, Lyan oth Fikkert, Paula oth de Klerk, Maartje oth Keij, Brigitta oth Benders, Titia oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Shen, Yanyan ELSEVIER Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles 2015transfer abstract an international & interdisciplinary journal Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV012884081 volume:60 year:2020 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_812 48.00 Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines VZ AR 60 2020 0 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001369.pica (DE-627)ELV052189872 (ELSEVIER)S0163-6383(18)30094-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 VZ 600 VZ 670 VZ 630 580 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 48.00 bkl Junge, Caroline verfasserin aut Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation 2020transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. Central fixation Elsevier Familiarity response Elsevier Infant preference Elsevier Headturn preference procedure Elsevier Speech segmentation ability Elsevier Everaert, Emma oth Porto, Lyan oth Fikkert, Paula oth de Klerk, Maartje oth Keij, Brigitta oth Benders, Titia oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Shen, Yanyan ELSEVIER Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles 2015transfer abstract an international & interdisciplinary journal Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV012884081 volume:60 year:2020 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_812 48.00 Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines VZ AR 60 2020 0 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001369.pica (DE-627)ELV052189872 (ELSEVIER)S0163-6383(18)30094-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 VZ 600 VZ 670 VZ 630 580 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 48.00 bkl Junge, Caroline verfasserin aut Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation 2020transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. Central fixation Elsevier Familiarity response Elsevier Infant preference Elsevier Headturn preference procedure Elsevier Speech segmentation ability Elsevier Everaert, Emma oth Porto, Lyan oth Fikkert, Paula oth de Klerk, Maartje oth Keij, Brigitta oth Benders, Titia oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Shen, Yanyan ELSEVIER Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles 2015transfer abstract an international & interdisciplinary journal Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV012884081 volume:60 year:2020 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_812 48.00 Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines VZ AR 60 2020 0 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001369.pica (DE-627)ELV052189872 (ELSEVIER)S0163-6383(18)30094-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 VZ 600 VZ 670 VZ 630 580 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 48.00 bkl Junge, Caroline verfasserin aut Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation 2020transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. Central fixation Elsevier Familiarity response Elsevier Infant preference Elsevier Headturn preference procedure Elsevier Speech segmentation ability Elsevier Everaert, Emma oth Porto, Lyan oth Fikkert, Paula oth de Klerk, Maartje oth Keij, Brigitta oth Benders, Titia oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Shen, Yanyan ELSEVIER Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles 2015transfer abstract an international & interdisciplinary journal Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV012884081 volume:60 year:2020 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_812 48.00 Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines VZ AR 60 2020 0 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001369.pica (DE-627)ELV052189872 (ELSEVIER)S0163-6383(18)30094-8 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 530 VZ 600 VZ 670 VZ 630 580 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 48.00 bkl Junge, Caroline verfasserin aut Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation 2020transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. Central fixation Elsevier Familiarity response Elsevier Infant preference Elsevier Headturn preference procedure Elsevier Speech segmentation ability Elsevier Everaert, Emma oth Porto, Lyan oth Fikkert, Paula oth de Klerk, Maartje oth Keij, Brigitta oth Benders, Titia oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Shen, Yanyan ELSEVIER Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles 2015transfer abstract an international & interdisciplinary journal Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV012884081 volume:60 year:2020 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_812 48.00 Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines VZ AR 60 2020 0 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:60 year:2020 pages:0 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:60 year:2020 pages:0 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Central fixation Familiarity response Infant preference Headturn preference procedure Speech segmentation ability |
| dewey-raw |
530 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Junge, Caroline @@aut@@ Everaert, Emma @@oth@@ Porto, Lyan @@oth@@ Fikkert, Paula @@oth@@ de Klerk, Maartje @@oth@@ Keij, Brigitta @@oth@@ Benders, Titia @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2020-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV012884081 |
| dewey-sort |
3530 |
| id |
ELV052189872 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV052189872</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626032942.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210910s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001369.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV052189872</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0163-6383(18)30094-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">530</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">600</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">670</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">630</subfield><subfield code="a">580</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BIODIV</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">48.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Junge, Caroline</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Central fixation</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Familiarity response</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Infant preference</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Headturn preference procedure</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Speech segmentation ability</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Everaert, Emma</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Porto, Lyan</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fikkert, Paula</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">de Klerk, Maartje</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Keij, Brigitta</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Benders, Titia</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Shen, Yanyan ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles</subfield><subfield code="d">2015transfer abstract</subfield><subfield code="d">an international & interdisciplinary journal</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV012884081</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:60</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-BIODIV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-FOR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_812</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">48.00</subfield><subfield code="j">Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">60</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Junge, Caroline |
| spellingShingle |
Junge, Caroline ddc 530 ddc 600 ddc 670 ddc 630 fid BIODIV bkl 48.00 Elsevier Central fixation Elsevier Familiarity response Elsevier Infant preference Elsevier Headturn preference procedure Elsevier Speech segmentation ability Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation |
| authorStr |
Junge, Caroline |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV012884081 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
530 - Physics 600 - Technology 670 - Manufacturing 630 - Agriculture & related technologies 580 - Plants (Botany) |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
530 VZ 600 VZ 670 VZ 630 580 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 48.00 bkl Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation Central fixation Elsevier Familiarity response Elsevier Infant preference Elsevier Headturn preference procedure Elsevier Speech segmentation ability Elsevier |
| topic |
ddc 530 ddc 600 ddc 670 ddc 630 fid BIODIV bkl 48.00 Elsevier Central fixation Elsevier Familiarity response Elsevier Infant preference Elsevier Headturn preference procedure Elsevier Speech segmentation ability |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 530 ddc 600 ddc 670 ddc 630 fid BIODIV bkl 48.00 Elsevier Central fixation Elsevier Familiarity response Elsevier Infant preference Elsevier Headturn preference procedure Elsevier Speech segmentation ability |
| topic_browse |
ddc 530 ddc 600 ddc 670 ddc 630 fid BIODIV bkl 48.00 Elsevier Central fixation Elsevier Familiarity response Elsevier Infant preference Elsevier Headturn preference procedure Elsevier Speech segmentation ability |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
e e ee l p lp p f pf k m d km kmd b k bk t b tb |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV012884081 |
| dewey-tens |
530 - Physics 600 - Technology 670 - Manufacturing 630 - Agriculture 580 - Plants (Botany) |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV012884081 |
| title |
Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV052189872 (ELSEVIER)S0163-6383(18)30094-8 |
| title_full |
Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation |
| author_sort |
Junge, Caroline |
| journal |
Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles |
| journalStr |
Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
500 - Science 600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2020 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
0 |
| author_browse |
Junge, Caroline |
| container_volume |
60 |
| class |
530 VZ 600 VZ 670 VZ 630 580 VZ BIODIV DE-30 fid 48.00 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Junge, Caroline |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 |
| dewey-full |
530 600 670 630 580 |
| title_sort |
contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation |
| title_auth |
Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation |
| abstract |
This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. |
| abstractGer |
This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-PHA SSG-OPC-FOR GBV_ILN_812 |
| title_short |
Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Everaert, Emma Porto, Lyan Fikkert, Paula de Klerk, Maartje Keij, Brigitta Benders, Titia |
| author2Str |
Everaert, Emma Porto, Lyan Fikkert, Paula de Klerk, Maartje Keij, Brigitta Benders, Titia |
| ppnlink |
ELV012884081 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth oth oth oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T22:20:54.606Z |
| _version_ |
1803869963793989632 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV052189872</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626032942.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">210910s2020 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001369.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV052189872</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0163-6383(18)30094-8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">530</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">600</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">670</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">630</subfield><subfield code="a">580</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BIODIV</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">48.00</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Junge, Caroline</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Contrasting behavioral looking procedures: a case study on infant speech segmentation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">This paper compared three different procedures common in infant speech perception research: a headturn preference procedure (HPP) and a central-fixation (CF) procedure with either automated eye-tracking (CF-ET) or manual coding (CF-M). In theory, such procedures all measure the same underlying speech perception and learning mechanisms and the choice between them should ideally be irrelevant in unveiling infant preference. However, the ManyBabies study (), a cross-laboratory collaboration on infants’ preference for child-directed speech, revealed that choice of procedure can modulate effect sizes. Here we examined whether procedure also modulates preference in paradigms that add a learning phase prior to test: a speech segmentation paradigm. Such paradigms are particularly important for studying the learning mechanisms infants can employ for language acquisition. We carried out the same familiarization-then-test experiment with the three different procedures (32 unique infants per procedure). Procedures were compared on various factors, such as overall effect, average looking time and drop-out rate. The key observations are that the HPP yielded a larger familiarity preference, but also reported larger drop-out rates. This raises questions about the generalizability of results. We argue that more collaborative research into different procedures in infant preference experiments is required in order to interpret the variation in infant preferences more accurately.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Central fixation</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Familiarity response</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Infant preference</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Headturn preference procedure</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="7"><subfield code="a">Speech segmentation ability</subfield><subfield code="2">Elsevier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Everaert, Emma</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Porto, Lyan</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fikkert, Paula</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">de Klerk, Maartje</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Keij, Brigitta</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Benders, Titia</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Shen, Yanyan ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Enhancing electrical conductivity and electron field emission property of free standing diamond films by employing embedded Ag nanoparticles</subfield><subfield code="d">2015transfer abstract</subfield><subfield code="d">an international & interdisciplinary journal</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV012884081</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:60</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101448</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-BIODIV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-FOR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_812</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">48.00</subfield><subfield code="j">Land- und Forstwirtschaft: Allgemeines</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">60</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4020147 |