Effect of Baby Talking to Baby Development a Systematic Review

Psychol Sci. Writer manuscript; available in PMC 2017 Jul fourteen.

Published in concluding edited form equally:

PMCID: PMC5510534

NIHMSID: NIHMS661012

Talking to children matters: Early linguistic communication experience strengthens processing and builds vocabulary

Supplementary Materials

sup 1.

GUID: 010E2A2E-0DE0-4DFF-A43F-F029A4B40CD2

sup two.

GUID: 96C12864-9D5A-45E7-8A99-3F0530866C3F

video one.

GUID: 5926DC1A-56AE-44D4-8CD6-924951184A15

video 2.

GUID: FE0BFDFB-F47F-4C08-BD68-D8F15B2260D5

05.

GUID: 044DD8D9-69FA-4BAE-A870-82CAC67FA8F2

Abstract

Infants differ substantially in their rates of language growth, and slower growth predicts afterwards academic difficulties. This study explored how the amount of speech to infants in Spanish-speaking families depression in socioeconomic status (SES) influenced the development of children'due south skill in real-fourth dimension language processing and vocabulary learning. All-day recordings of parent-infant interactions at dwelling revealed hit variability amidst families in how much voice communication caregivers addressed to their child. Infants who experienced more child-directed speech became more efficient in processing familiar words in real time and had larger expressive vocabularies by 24 months, although speech simply overheard past the child was unrelated to vocabulary outcomes. Mediation analyses showed that the consequence of child-directed speech on expressive vocabulary was explained past infants' language-processing efficiency, suggesting that richer linguistic communication feel strengthens processing skills that facilitate language growth.

Keywords: Language Development, Poverty, Environmental Effects, Individual Differences, Cognitive Processes

At any given age, there is wide variability among children in their levels of language proficiency (Fenson et al., 1994). Although differences in exact abilities amid individuals are influenced to some extent by genetic factors (Oliver & Plomin, 2007), the contributions of early feel to such differences are also substantial. Factors associated with socioeconomic condition (SES) are strongly associated with variation in language outcomes. By the fourth dimension they enter kindergarten, children from disadvantaged backgrounds differ significantly from their more advantaged peers in verbal and other cognitive abilities (Ramey & Ramey, 2004), disparities that are predictive of later academic success or failure (Hart & Risley, 1995; Lee & Burkam, 2002). Identifying the ecology factors that shape these consequential differences in early language proficiency is disquisitional for remediating the growing accomplishment gaps between children from impoverished and affluent families (Duncan & Murnane, 2011).

What accounts for differences among children in their early linguistic communication growth? One source of variability in rates of language learning is differential access to language and gesture from caregivers. Some parents talk more and use richer vocabulary and gesture in interactions with infants than do others, and such differences in the quantity and quality of language input account in part for subsequently disparities among children in lexical and grammatical development, both inside and between socio-economic groups (Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2003a; Huttenlocher, Waterfall, Vasilyeva, Vevea, & Hedges, 2010; Pan, Rowe, Vocalizer, & Snow, 2005; Rowe & Goldin-Meadow, 2009). A 2nd source of variability in linguistic communication learning relates to infants' speech processing skills. Differences among infants in phonological discrimination (Tsao, Liu, & Kuhl, 2004) and spoken give-and-take recognition (Fernald, Perfors, & Marchman, 2006; Singh, Steven Reznick, & Xuehua, 2012) predict early vocabulary growth. In experimental studies in which infants look at pictures of familiar objects as one object is named, their speed and accuracy in recognizing the object name and identifying the correct picture in real time predicts both early vocabulary evolution and later linguistic communication and cerebral skills (Fernald & Marchman, 2011; Fernald et al., 2006; Marchman & Fernald, 2008).

These studies evidence that children's language outcomes are linked both to early on feel with language and to speech processing skills in infancy, but information technology is non well understood how these 2 influences work together over development to promote vocabulary growth. Here we investigate two culling possibilities: One is that language experience and language-processing skill are separate factors that contribute independently to lexical development. That is, variation in children'due south vocabulary growth could event from differences in children's exposure to voice communication – and thus in their opportunities to larn new words – or from pre-existing differences in children'southward ability to process speech communication efficiently, with some children better able to accept reward of the learning opportunities available to them.

Another possibility is that early experience with language actually influences the development of efficiency in existent-time linguistic communication processing. That is, feel in hearing language from caregivers may sharpen infants' skill in processing spoken communication, and hence meliorate their ability to larn from future language input. A recent study comparison infants from college- and lower-SES families establish that significant disparities in language processing efficiency were already nowadays past eighteen months of age (Fernald, Marchman, & Weisleder, 2013), suggesting that experiential factors associated with SES may contribute to differences in processing skill. In add-on, one previous study showed that infants exposed to richer language input were more efficient in language processing (Hurtado, Marchman, & Fernald, 2008). However, in this report the relation between language feel and processing efficiency could be explained past children'southward vocabulary size. To address this gap, we inquire here: Is early experience with language linked to the development of efficiency in language processing? And if then, do differences in processing efficiency mediate the well-established relation betwixt early language experience and later vocabulary knowledge? Answers to these questions will help u.s.a. understand the developmental pathways linking early language experience, speech-processing efficiency and vocabulary growth.

Method

We focus on infants from low-SES Latino families, a apace growing population of children in the U.S. at take chances for bookish difficulties (Reardon & Galindo, 2009). Rather than relying on short samples of mothers' speech with an observer present (Hurtado et al., 2008; Pan et al., 2005), we collected more extensive and representative recordings of infants' interactions with family members during a typical day at dwelling house. We examine how these naturalistic measures of caregiver speech chronicle to experimental measures of linguistic communication processing and to parent report of expressive vocabulary.

Participants

Participants were 29 Spanish-learning infants (19 F, x One thousand) tested at the ages of nineteen and 24 months. Parents reported that all infants were full-term and typically developing. An additional 6 children were excluded from the sample because the home recordings were not conducted properly (due north=3), the computer malfunctioned during testing (north=2), or the babe received a diagnosis of developmental filibuster during the course of the written report (northward=1). Median family income ranged from < $25,000 to $75,000 per twelvemonth, with 79% of families reporting a yearly income below the federal poverty line. Although parents varied in years of education, most had not completed high school. Maternal education ranged from 4 – sixteen years (K = ten, SD = 3) and was used as the primary alphabetize of SES, controlled in all analyses. All parents were native speakers of Spanish and all children heard Spanish as the primary language in the domicile, with less than 25% exposure to English from adults or other children.

Measures of the Home Language Surround

To measure adult speech attainable to infants in unlike families, audio-recordings were made during a typical mean solar day at domicile when the child was xix months old. A digital recorder in the chest pocket of specialized article of clothing worn past the child enabled unobtrusive recording of both child-directed and overheard speech in daily interactions among family unit members (Ford, Baer, Xu, Yapanel, & Grayness, 2009). Parents were asked to tape their child "during a typical 24-hour interval in the dwelling", and to keep a logbook indicating the locations in which the recording was conducted, who was nowadays, the master activities the kid was engaged in, and whether annihilation atypical occurred.

Families recorded for an boilerplate of 11 hours (range: four-16) over the course of 1-6 days. Using information recorded in the logbooks, we selected for each family unit the longest available recording that represented a typical twenty-four hour period. Estimates of adult word counts based on these recordings were highly correlated with developed word counts aggregated over all days of recording (r = .84, p < .001). Afterwards eliminating nap times, the concluding sample of recordings had an average elapsing of seven hours (range: 3-thirteen). Differences in the length of these recordings were controlled for in all analyses.

The home recordings were analyzed by LENA analysis software (Xu, Yapanel, & Gray, 2009). This software processes the audio files and yields estimates of unlike components of the infant's language environs, including the number of adult word tokens and the number of kid vocalizations. The accurateness of these estimates for English-language recordings has been established in previous studies (Xu et al., 2009; Oller et al., 2010; Oetting, Hartfield & Pruitt, 2009). To appraise the accuracy of the adult give-and-take estimates in Spanish-language environments, lx-min samples from 10 of the current home recordings were transcribed by native Spanish-speakers otherwise uninvolved in this research. This assay revealed a high correlation between automated estimates of adult words and transcriber-based word counts (r = .80), confirming that the LENA arrangement provides reliable estimates of adult words in Spanish language environments (further details tin can be plant in the Supporting Methods available online).

To differentiate between speech directed to the child and speech communication overheard by the child, native Castilian-speaking coders listened to each of the dwelling recordings and classified each 5-min segment as containing speech that was predominantly "child-directed" or "overheard". The number of developed discussion tokens in segments classified equally child-directed, divided by the duration of the recording, served every bit our mensurate of "child-directed voice communication"; the number of adult word tokens in segments classified as overheard, divided by the duration of the recording, served as our measure of "overheard spoken language"; the number of speech-like vocalizations produced by the target kid in segments classified as child-directed, divided by the duration of the recording, served as our measure out of "child vocalizations" (encounter Supporting Methods for further details).

Measures of Expressive Vocabulary

At 24 months, parents completed the MacArthur-Bates Inventario del Desarrollo de Habilidades Comunicativas: Palabras y Enuciados (Inventario 2) (Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2003), the Spanish-language version of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (MCDI). Productive vocabulary scores were based on the number of words parents reported their child "comprende y dice" ("understands and says").

Measures of Language-Processing Efficiency

In the "looking-while-listening" (LWL) task (Fernald, Zangl, Portillo, & Marchman, 2008), infants were presented with pairs of images (e.one thousand., a domestic dog and a baby) while hearing sentences naming one of the pictures. Children were tested on words that are frequent in kid-directed voice communication and are familiar to most children in the participants' age range, based on the MCDI lexical norms (Dale & Fenson, 1996). At 19 months, the eight target nouns were: el perro 'doggie', el libro 'book', el jugo 'juice', el globo 'balloon', el zapato 'shoe', el plátano 'banana', la pelota 'ball', and la galleta 'cookie'. At 24 months, four additional familiar words were included: el caballo 'horse', el pájaro 'bird', la cuchara 'spoon', and la manzana 'apple tree'. All of the words were presented in simple sentence frames ending with the target substantive (due east.g., Mira el perro. 'Look at the doggie.').

The speech communication stimuli were recorded by a native Spanish-speaking adult female and edited for prosodic comparability. Visual stimuli consisted of digital pictures of objects presented in yoked pairs. The pairs were matched for visual salience, the grammatical gender of the object proper noun, and lexical familiarity (based on the MCDI lexical norms; Dale & Fenson, 1996). Each object was presented an equal number of times equally target or distracter. Table S1 in the Supplemental Textile available online lists the give-and-take pairs as presented in the experiments at 19 and at 24 months.

Children saturday on their parent'south lap nearly 60 cm from the screen, and parents wore opaque sunglasses to block their view of the images. On each trial, two pictures were presented in silence for two s, followed by a ca. 3-southward voice communication stimulus, and a 1-s silent period during which the pictures remained on-screen. At 19 months, the 8 target nouns were presented four times each, for a total of 32 test trials; at 24 months, the 12 target nouns were presented iii times each, for a full of 36 test trials. Side of target presentation was counter-balanced across trials, and trial-order was counter-balanced across participants. The unabridged test session lasted four - 5 min.

Children's looking patterns were video-recorded. Subsequently, highly trained coders blind to target location coded the child's gaze patterns. On each frame, coders noted whether the child was fixating the left or right pictures, in transition between the two pictures, or looking away from both. A 2nd coder independently re-coded all trials for 28% of the participants at each age. The proportion of frames on which observers agreed within a single frame was 99%.

Voice communication processing efficiency was calculated as the proportion of time the infant spent fixating the target moving-picture show out of total time looking at either the target or distracter picture, inside 300-1800 ms from target word onset (Fernald et al., 2008). Only those trials on which the kid was looking at either the target or distracter motion picture at the onset of the target noun were included in these analyses. This measure out of efficiency captures children'southward trend to shift rapidly toward the target picture when initially looking at the distracter, also as their tendency to maintain attention to the target when they are already looking at information technology.

Results

Amidst these low-SES families, there was striking variability in the full corporeality of adult speech accessible to the infant, which ranged from virtually 29,000 adult words to fewer than two,000 words over a 10-hour day (Figure 1). When only talk addressed directly to the child was considered, these differences were even more extreme: in one family, caregivers spoke more than 12,000 words to the baby, while in another the infant heard only 670 words of child-directed oral communication over an entire mean solar day, an 18-fold deviation in the amount of child-directed speech communication available to these two children. These differences in parental appointment were uncorrelated with maternal pedagogy (r = .29, p = .13). In addition, amount of child-directed spoken language was not correlated with amount of overheard speech (r = .17, p = .38), suggesting that the observed differences in spoken language to children were not due to overall differences in talkativeness amid families, but rather to caregivers' degree of verbal date with their infants.

Variability across 29 families in the corporeality of adult spoken language infants heard in a typical day at home. The elevation of each bar indicates the total number of developed words spoken in proximity to the target child in one family, calculated by averaging the word counts per waking 60 minutes and extrapolating to a 10-60 minutes day. The proportion of total words that was child-directed oral communication is indicated in black, with overheard speech communication in white.

Links between Linguistic communication Experience and Vocabulary

We next asked whether differences amidst families in amount of speech available to infants predicted children'due south vocabulary six months later. Those children who heard more child-directed speech at xix months had larger vocabularies at 24 months (r = 0.57, p < 0.01), consistent with previous findings (Hoff, 2003a; Hurtado et al., 2008). In contrast, differences in exposure to overheard speech directed to other adults and children were not related to vocabulary size (r = .25, p = .2), suggesting that language spoken directly to the kid is more supportive of early lexical development than oral communication simply overheard by the kid. One alternative possibility is that infants with more precocious language skills tend to vocalize more than often, eliciting more than spoken communication from their caregivers. If so, and if infants who produce more speech early take larger productive vocabularies at 24 months, this might account for the relation between child-directed spoken language and later vocabulary (Newport, Gleitman, & Gleitman, 1977). To examine this possibility, we showtime analyzed the relation between infant vocalizations and child-directed speech at 19 months. Infants who vocalized more frequently did hear more child-directed speech (r = .41, p < .05), suggesting some degree of concordance between infants' and caregivers' vocalizations. However, fifty-fifty subsequently decision-making for infant vocalizations at 19 months, the relation betwixt child-directed speech and 24-calendar month vocabulary remained robust (r = 0.51, p < 0.01). This suggests that over and above differences in infants' expressive language skill early, exposure to child-directed voice communication predicted after vocabulary size.

Links between Language Experience and Language Processing

These results support previous findings showing that early linguistic communication experience predicts after vocabulary knowledge. Simply are children who hear more child-directed speech as well more efficient in processing familiar words in existent fourth dimension? Amount of exposure to kid-directed speech was reliably correlated with children's processing efficiency at xix (r = 0.44, p < 0.05) and 24 months (r = 0.51, p < 0.01) (Figures 2 and ​ 3b illustrate these relations). Moreover, controlling for differences in processing at 19 months, children who heard more child-directed speech communication were more than efficient in language processing at 24 months than those who heard less kid-directed speech (r = 0.47, p < 0.05). This indicates that amount of exposure to kid-directed speech explained gains in processing efficiency from nineteen to 24 months. Importantly, the relation between kid-directed voice communication and processing efficiency at 24 months remained meaning when decision-making for differences in 24-month vocabulary size (r = 0.39, p < 0.05). This indicates that over and above differences in vocabulary knowledge, children who were exposed to more than child-directed spoken communication were better able to place familiar words during real-fourth dimension language processing.

Mean proportion of trials on which children looked to the target motion-picture show, measured from the onset of the target noun. Blackness and greyness lines represent children's looking time at 24 months, based on a median separate of adult words directed to the child at 19 months. The top line shows the time grade of looking beliefs for children who heard more than child-directed speech (CDS) at home; the lower line shows looking time for children who heard less CDS. The dashed vertical line represents target substantive offset; error bars correspond SEs over participants.

The three scatter plots (with all-time-fitting regression lines) show zero-society correlations betwixt (a) vocabulary size (number of words) at 24 months and kid-directed speech at dwelling house, (b) processing efficiency (hateful percent of time spent looking to the target picture) at 19 months and kid-directed speech, and (c) vocabulary size at 24 months and processing efficiency at xix months. The arbitration model (d) shows the link between child-directed speech at 19 months and vocabulary size at 24 months, as mediated by processing efficiency at 19 months. Along the lower path, the solid and dashed arrows show results when the mediator was non included and was included in the model, respectively. Asterisks indicate pregnant paths (*p < .05, **p < .01).

Can Differences in Processing Explain the Link between Language Experience and Vocabulary?

Adjacent we inquire whether the effect of language experience on processing efficiency helps explicate the well-established relation between child-directed speech and vocabulary. We used arbitration analysis to examine whether processing skill at 19 months deemed for the link between child-directed voice communication and 24-month vocabulary (while controlling for maternal teaching, recording length, and baby vocalizations at 19 months). The scatter plots in Fig. 3 illustrate the beginning three steps of the mediation assay: 1) Exposure to child-directed spoken communication at 19 months predicted vocabulary at 24 months (leftmost console), two) Exposure to kid-directed speech communication likewise predicted processing efficiency at xix months (middle console), and three) 19-month processing efficiency predicted 24-month vocabulary (rightmost panel), even when controlling for kid-directed speech. Finally, a disquisitional status for mediation is that the path coefficient betwixt the predictor variable (kid-directed speech) and the consequence variable (vocabulary) be significantly reduced when the mediator variable (processing efficiency) is included in the model. Every bit shown at the bottom of Figure 3, the parameter estimate for the effect of child-directed speech on vocabulary was reduced from 12.61 to 7.41 when processing efficiency was included in the model. A bootstrap (Preacher & Hayes, 2004) testing the significance of the indirect effect gave a 95% confidence interval (corrected for bias) of 0.44 to xiii.61. This confirms that the mediation was significant, and suggests that linguistic communication experience promotes vocabulary evolution at least in office via its influence on processing efficiency. The final model explained 47% of the variance in children'southward vocabularies at 24 months.

Are Differences in Processing Efficiency Explained past Infants' Knowledge of the Target Words?

One potential concern is that some children may have been unfamiliar with some of the target words used in the study, in which case variability in processing efficiency might only reverberate differences in children'south knowledge of these words. To control for this possibility, we collected an independent mensurate of each participant'due south familiarity with the target words. Using a list of but the words used in the written report, parents were asked whether their child "understood" each target word. According to parents' reports, all of the target words were understood by 66% of the children at 19 months, and 72% of the children at 24 months. For each child, we removed those trials with target words they were reported not to sympathize then recomputed the processing efficiency measures. Later on re-running the mediation model reported higher up, the blueprint of results remained the same: Child-directed speech was related to processing efficiency at nineteen months (r = 0.40, p < 0.05), and nineteen-month processing efficiency predicted vocabulary at 24 months (r = 0.53, p < 0.01), even when controlling for CDS (r = 0.41, p < 0.05). Finally, the parameter judge for the event of CDS on vocabulary was significantly reduced from 12.61 to 8.75 when processing efficiency was included in the model, indicating that processing efficiency mediated the link between child-directed spoken language and vocabulary.

In a final analysis we included only those children whose mean accurateness was greater than .fifty at nineteen months (n = 22), thus excluding those whose performance was at or below the run a risk level overall. This analysis revealed fifty-fifty stronger correlations betwixt kid-directed speech and processing efficiency (r = 0.58, p < 0.01), and between processing efficiency and later on vocabulary (r = 0.62, p < 0.01). Moreover, even in this smaller sample, processing efficiency mediated the link betwixt CDS and vocabulary, i.east., the parameter estimate for the effect of child-directed oral communication on vocabulary was significantly reduced from 15.61 to 8.86 when processing efficiency was included in the model. These results provide further bear witness that differences in processing efficiency do not simply reflect variability in children'southward all-or-none knowledge of the target words. Instead, differences in how quickly and reliably children interpret familiar words in real time reflect variability in a cognitive skill that facilitates further linguistic communication learning.

Discussion

This research yielded three main results: First, we institute that variation in infants' experience with child-directed speech in depression-SES Spanish-speaking families predicted children'south later vocabulary. This upshot replicates other studies linking caregiver speech communication and vocabulary development in low-SES children (Hurtado et al., 2008; Pan et al., 2005), merely goes beyond earlier research by using all-twenty-four hours recordings of daily interactions in the dwelling to sample children's early language environments. Thus our measures of kid-directed spoken communication minimize potential artifacts introduced past the presence of an observer or by parents' reactions to a laboratory setting. Second, past recording interactions with multiple family members and identifying dissimilar sources of adult speech accessible to the child, we found that it was only speech addressed directly to the infant, and not speech in adult conversations overheard by the child, that facilitated vocabulary learning at this age, consistent with recent studies of children in middle-class English language-speaking families in the U.South. (Shneidman, Approach, Levine, & Goldin-Meadow, 2012) and in Yucatec Mayan families (Shneidman & Goldin-Meadow, 2012).

Third, the most important discovery in this research was that speech-processing efficiency mediated the relation betwixt child-directed speech and vocabulary. This shows that a disquisitional footstep in the path from early on language experience to later on vocabulary knowledge is the influence of language exposure on infants' speech-processing skill. In previous studies, one explanation proposed for the association between exposure to more child-directed speech and faster vocabulary growth has been that more diverse language from caregivers provides children with more than models to learn from as they begin to build a lexicon. Our findings reveal an additional mechanism by which differences in early language feel pb to differences in vocabulary size: Infants who hear more talk accept more opportunities to interpret language, and to do skills such equally segmenting speech communication and accessing lexical representations that are vital to word learning (Saffran, Newport, & Aslin, 1996; Gershkoff-Stowe, 2002). As a result, infants with more exposure to child-directed spoken language are faster and more than authentic to orient to familiar words in real-fourth dimension, enabling them to acquire new words more rapidly and facilitating rapid vocabulary growth.

Our results besides requite rise to a challenging question: What factors explain the striking disparities observed between families in amount of verbal stimulation provided to infants? Studies comparison advantaged and disadvantaged families show that SES-differences are linked to variability both in speech and gesture directed to children and in children's language outcomes (Hoff, 2003a; Huttenlocher et al., 2010; Rowe & Goldin-Meadow, 2009). However, in such between-group comparisons, differences in caregiver input are confounded with many other factors associated with SES that could also lead to variability in linguistic communication learning – such as parental education, access to resources, living in crowded conditions, and family unit stress levels (Evans, 2004). Past focusing hither on differences within a homogeneous grouping of disadvantaged families, rather than on differences between SES groups, variability in these confounding factors was reduced. Given this more narrow focus, it was surprising to find differences in amount of child-directed speech between families that were almost as large every bit those reported in the landmark study past Hart and Risley (1995), whose sample spanned a broad demographic range from poverty-level to professional person families. While they found pregnant differences between SES groups - with a 20-fold difference in verbal stimulation between those parents who were the most and least verbally engaged with their infants - our findings revealed an xviii-fold departure in caregiver talk to infants within a demographically more than homogeneous group of disadvantaged families. Moreover, the differences in parental engagement observed within this depression-SES sample were not correlated with maternal didactics. An important implication of these findings is that although variability in parenting behaviors is consistently linked to factors related to SES, in that location is as well considerable variability in parental verbal appointment that is contained of social grade.

In ongoing research, we are exploring other factors that could explicate observed differences in children's linguistic communication environments. Previous studies have discussed several such factors, including variability in parents' own verbal abilities or conversational style (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1991), in the activities that parents tend to engage in with their children (Hoff, 2003b), and in parental stress and emotional well-existence (Conger, McCartey, Yang, Lahey, & Kropp, 1984). In add-on, some studies have found that parents from unlike socio-cultural groups accept different behavior about the role they play in children's chatty development (Heath, 1983), and Rowe (2008) found that parents' knowledge and beliefs about kid evolution mediated the relation between SES and caregiver oral communication to children. Although not assessed in the electric current study, parental behavior are an important gene to consider in explaining differences in caregivers' trend to appoint infants in language-rich interactions, given that these beliefs may be more than malleable than other influential factors.

Our results reveal that caregiver talk has direct every bit well as indirect influences on lexical development. More exposure to kid-directed speech non merely provides more models for learning words merely as well sharpens infants' emerging lexical processing skills, with cascading benefits for vocabulary learning. If increased opportunities for exact interaction can strengthen critical processing skills that enable more efficient learning, so interventions aimed at increasing parents' verbal appointment with their infants take the potential to change the form of vocabulary growth and, in plough, to improve later on outcomes for disadvantaged children.

Supplementary Material

sup 1

sup 2

video 1

video ii

05

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health (R01 DC008838) to A. Fernald. We are grateful to the children and parents who participated. Special thanks to V. A. Marchman, R. Hoffmann Bion, R. D. Fernald, C. M. Fausey, and three anonymous reviewers for comments on before versions of the manuscript; and to N. Hurtado, L. Rodriguez Mata, C. Coon, G. Barraza, J. Villanueva, A. Arroyo, N. Otero, 5. Limón, and L. Martinez and the staff of the Center for Infant Studies at Stanford University for help with data collection and coding.

Footnotes

AW and AF developed study concept and designed study. AW performed inquiry and data analysis. AW and AF wrote the paper.

References

• Conger RD, McCarty JA, Yang RK, Lahey BB, Kropp JP. Perception of child, kid-rearing values, and emotional distress as mediating links betwixt environmental stressors and observed maternal behavior. Child Evolution. 1984;55:2234–2247. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Dale PS, Fenson L. Lexical development norms for young children. Behavior Inquiry Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 1996;28:125–127. [Google Scholar]
• Duncan GJ, Murnane RJ. Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children's life chances. Russell Sage Foundation; New York, New York: 2011. [Google Scholar]
• Evans GW. The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist. 2004;59:77–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fenson L, Dale PS, Reznick JS, Bates E, Thal DJ, Pethick SJ. Variability in early chatty development. Monographs of the Society for Inquiry in Child Development. 1994;59 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fernald A, Marchman VA. Private differences in lexical processing at xviii months predict vocabulary growth in typically developing and tardily-talking toddlers. Kid Evolution. 2011;83:203–222. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fernald A, Marchman VA, Weisleder A. SES differences in language processing skill and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science. 2013;xvi:234–248. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fernald A, Perfors A, Marchman VA. Picking up speed in understanding: Speech processing efficiency and vocabulary growth beyond the 2d year. Developmental Psychology. 2006;42:98–116. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Fernald A, Zangl R, Portillo AL, Marchman VA. Looking while listening: Using middle movements to monitor spoken language comprehension by infants and young children. In: Sekerina IA, Fernandez EM, Clahsen H, editors. Developmental Psycholinguistics: On-line methods in children's language processing. J. Benjamins Pub.; Amsterdam; Philadelphia: 2008. [Google Scholar]
• Ford Yard, Baer CT, Xu D, Yapanel U, Gray S. The LENA Language Environment Analysis System: Audio Specifications of the DLP-0121. 2009:ane–8. http://www.lenafoundation.org/TechReport.aspx/Audio_Specifications/LTR-03-2.
• Gershkoff-Stowe L. Object naming, vocabulary growth, and the development of discussion retrieval abilities. Journal of Memory and Language. 2002;46(four):665–687. [Google Scholar]
• Hart BM, Risley TR. Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Brookes Publishing Co.; Baltimore, MD: 1995. [Google Scholar]
• Heath SB. Means with words: Linguistic communication, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge: 1983. [Google Scholar]
• Hoff-Ginsberg E. Mother-kid conversation in dissimilar social classes and conununicative settings. Child Development. 1991;62:782–796. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hoff Eastward. he specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Evolution. 2003a;74:1368–1378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Hoff E. Causes and consequences of SES-related differences in parent-to-child speech. In: Bornstein MH, Bradley RH, editors. Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development. Lawrence Erlbaum; Mahwah, NJ: 2003b. [Google Scholar]
• Hurtado North, Marchman VA, Fernald A. Does input influence uptake? Links between maternal talk, processing speed and vocabulary size in Spanish-learning children. Developmental Scientific discipline. 2008;11:F31–39. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Huttenlocher J, Waterfall H, Vasilyeva G, Vevea J, Hedges LV. Sources of variability in children'southward language growth. Cerebral Psychology. 2010;61:343–65. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Jackson-Maldonado D, Thal DJ, Marchman VA, Newton T, Fenson Fifty, Conboy BT. MacArthur Inventarios del Desarrollo de Habilidades Comunicativas: User'southward guide and technical manual. Brookes Publishing Co.; Baltimore, MD: 2003. [Google Scholar]
• Lee VE, Burkam DT. Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in accomplishment as children begin school. Economic Policy Institute; Washington, DC: 2002. [Google Scholar]
• Marchman VA, Fernald A. Speed of give-and-take recognition and vocabulary knowledge in infancy predict cognitive and language outcomes in later babyhood. Developmental Science. 2008;11:F9–16. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Newport EL, Gleitman LR, Gleitman H. Mother, I'd rather exercise it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In: Snow CE, Fergus, editors. Talking to children: Language input and acquisition. Cambridge University Press; 1977. [Google Scholar]
• Oetting JB, Hartfield 50, Pruitt S. Exploring LENA as a tool for researchers and clinicians. The ASHA Leader. 2009;14:xx–22. [Google Scholar]
• Oliver BR, Plomin R. Twins' Early Evolution Written report (TEDS): A multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior bug from babyhood through adolescence. Twin Research and Human Genetics. 2007;10:96–105. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Oller DK, Niyogi P, Gray South, Richards JA, Gilkerson J, Xu D, Yapanel U, et al. Automatic song analysis of naturalistic recordings from children with autism, language filibuster, and typical development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Us. 2010;107:13354–13359. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Pan BA, Rowe ML, Singer JD, Snowfall CE. Maternal correlates of growth in toddler vocabulary product in depression-income families. Child Development. 2005;76:763–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in unproblematic arbitration models. Behavior Inquiry Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 2004;36:717–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Ramey CT, Ramey SL. Early learning and schoolhouse readiness: Tin early on intervention make a departure? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 2004;50:471–491. [Google Scholar]
• Reardon SF, Galindo C. The Hispanic-White accomplishment gap in Math and Reading in the elementary grades. American Educational Research Periodical. 2009;46:853–891. [Google Scholar]
• Rowe ML. Child-directed speech: Relation to socioeconomic status, noesis of child evolution and child vocabulary skill. Journal of child language. 2008;35:185–205. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Rowe ML, Goldin-Meadow S. Differences in early on gesture explain SES disparities in child vocabulary size at schoolhouse entry. Science. 2009;323:951–953. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Saffran JR, Newport EL, Aslin RN. Give-and-take division: The part of distributional cues. Periodical of Retention and Linguistic communication. 1996;35:606–621. [Google Scholar]
• Shneidman LA, Arroyo ME, Levine S, Goldin-Meadow Southward. What counts every bit effective input for give-and-take learning? Periodical of Child Language. 2012 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Shneidman LA, Goldin-Meadow S. Language input and acquisition in a Mayan village: How important is directed speech? Developmental Science. 2012;15:659–673. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Singh 50, Steven Reznick J, Xuehua L. Infant word segmentation and childhood vocabulary development: a longitudinal analysis. Developmental Scientific discipline. 2012;15:482–495. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Tsao F-M, Liu H-K, Kuhl PK. Speech perception in infancy predicts linguistic communication development in the second year of life: a longitudinal report. Kid Development. 2004;75:1067–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
• Xu D, Yapanel U, Greyness S. Reliability of the LENA speech linguistic communication environment analysis system in immature children's natural habitation environment. 2009 http://world wide web.lenafoundation.org/TechReport.aspx/Reliability/LTR-05-ii.

personfroo1988.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5510534/

Share this post