估算婴儿的语言接触情况:从双语社区收集的全天录音中随机取样与大量取样的比较

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL
Naja Ferjan Ramírez , Daniel S. Hippe
{"title":"估算婴儿的语言接触情况:从双语社区收集的全天录音中随机取样与大量取样的比较","authors":"Naja Ferjan Ramírez ,&nbsp;Daniel S. Hippe","doi":"10.1016/j.infbeh.2024.101943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In North America, the characteristics of a child’s language environment predict language outcomes. For example, differences in bilingual language exposure, exposure to electronic media, and exposure to child-directed speech (CDS) relate to children’s language growth. Recently, these predictors have been studied through the use of daylong recordings, followed by manual annotation of audio <em>samples</em> selected from these recordings. Using a dataset of daylong recordings collected from bilingually raised infants in the United States as an example, we ask whether two of the most commonly used sampling methods, random sampling and sampling based on high adult speech, differ from each other with regard to estimating the frequencies of specific language behaviors. Daylong recordings from 37 Spanish-English speaking families with infants between 4 and 22 months of age were analyzed. From each child’s recording, samples were extracted in two ways (at random/based on high adult speech) and then annotated for Language (Spanish/English/Mixed), CDS, Electronic Media, Social Context, Turn-Taking, and Infant Babbling. Correlation and agreement analyses were performed, in addition to paired sample <em>t</em>-tests, to assess how the choice of one or the other sampling method may affect the estimates. For most behaviors studied, correlation and agreement between the two sampling methods was high (Pearson <em>r</em> values between 0.79 and 0.99 for 16 of 17 measures; Intraclass Correlation Coefficient values between 0.78 and 0.99 for 13 of 17 measures). However, interesting between-sample differences also emerged: the degree of language mixing, the amount of CDS, and the number of conversational turns were all significantly higher when sampling was performed based on high adult speech compared to random sampling. By contrast, the presence of electronic media and one-on-one social contexts was higher when sampling was performed at random. We discuss advantages of choosing one sampling technique over the other, depending on the research question and variables at hand.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48222,"journal":{"name":"Infant Behavior & Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimating infants’ language exposure: A comparison of random and volume sampling from daylong recordings collected in a bilingual community\",\"authors\":\"Naja Ferjan Ramírez ,&nbsp;Daniel S. Hippe\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.infbeh.2024.101943\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In North America, the characteristics of a child’s language environment predict language outcomes. For example, differences in bilingual language exposure, exposure to electronic media, and exposure to child-directed speech (CDS) relate to children’s language growth. Recently, these predictors have been studied through the use of daylong recordings, followed by manual annotation of audio <em>samples</em> selected from these recordings. Using a dataset of daylong recordings collected from bilingually raised infants in the United States as an example, we ask whether two of the most commonly used sampling methods, random sampling and sampling based on high adult speech, differ from each other with regard to estimating the frequencies of specific language behaviors. Daylong recordings from 37 Spanish-English speaking families with infants between 4 and 22 months of age were analyzed. From each child’s recording, samples were extracted in two ways (at random/based on high adult speech) and then annotated for Language (Spanish/English/Mixed), CDS, Electronic Media, Social Context, Turn-Taking, and Infant Babbling. Correlation and agreement analyses were performed, in addition to paired sample <em>t</em>-tests, to assess how the choice of one or the other sampling method may affect the estimates. For most behaviors studied, correlation and agreement between the two sampling methods was high (Pearson <em>r</em> values between 0.79 and 0.99 for 16 of 17 measures; Intraclass Correlation Coefficient values between 0.78 and 0.99 for 13 of 17 measures). However, interesting between-sample differences also emerged: the degree of language mixing, the amount of CDS, and the number of conversational turns were all significantly higher when sampling was performed based on high adult speech compared to random sampling. By contrast, the presence of electronic media and one-on-one social contexts was higher when sampling was performed at random. We discuss advantages of choosing one sampling technique over the other, depending on the research question and variables at hand.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infant Behavior & Development\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infant Behavior & Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638324000225\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infant Behavior & Development","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638324000225","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在北美,儿童语言环境的特征可预测语言结果。例如,儿童接触双语语言、接触电子媒体和接触儿童指导言语(CDS)的机会不同,都与儿童的语言成长有关。最近,研究人员通过使用全天录音,然后对从这些录音中选取的音频样本进行人工标注,对这些预测因素进行了研究。我们以从美国双语养育的婴儿中收集的日间录音数据集为例,探讨了两种最常用的抽样方法(随机抽样和基于成人高语音的抽样)在估计特定语言行为的频率方面是否存在差异。我们分析了 37 个讲西班牙语和英语的家庭中 4 到 22 个月大婴儿的全天录音。从每个孩子的录音中,以两种方式提取样本(随机/基于成人的高语音),然后对语言(西班牙语/英语/混合)、CDS、电子媒体、社会背景、轮流发言和婴儿咿呀学语进行注释。除了配对抽样 t 检验外,还进行了相关性和一致性分析,以评估选择一种或另一种抽样方法对估计值的影响。对于所研究的大多数行为,两种取样方法之间的相关性和一致性都很高(17 种测量方法中有 16 种的皮尔逊 r 值介于 0.79 和 0.99 之间;17 种测量方法中有 13 种的类内相关系数值介于 0.78 和 0.99 之间)。然而,也出现了有趣的样本间差异:与随机抽样相比,根据成人高谈阔论进行抽样时,语言混合的程度、CDS 的数量和会话转折的次数都明显较高。相比之下,随机抽样时,电子媒体和一对一社交语境的存在率更高。我们讨论了根据研究问题和手头变量选择一种取样技术的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Estimating infants’ language exposure: A comparison of random and volume sampling from daylong recordings collected in a bilingual community

In North America, the characteristics of a child’s language environment predict language outcomes. For example, differences in bilingual language exposure, exposure to electronic media, and exposure to child-directed speech (CDS) relate to children’s language growth. Recently, these predictors have been studied through the use of daylong recordings, followed by manual annotation of audio samples selected from these recordings. Using a dataset of daylong recordings collected from bilingually raised infants in the United States as an example, we ask whether two of the most commonly used sampling methods, random sampling and sampling based on high adult speech, differ from each other with regard to estimating the frequencies of specific language behaviors. Daylong recordings from 37 Spanish-English speaking families with infants between 4 and 22 months of age were analyzed. From each child’s recording, samples were extracted in two ways (at random/based on high adult speech) and then annotated for Language (Spanish/English/Mixed), CDS, Electronic Media, Social Context, Turn-Taking, and Infant Babbling. Correlation and agreement analyses were performed, in addition to paired sample t-tests, to assess how the choice of one or the other sampling method may affect the estimates. For most behaviors studied, correlation and agreement between the two sampling methods was high (Pearson r values between 0.79 and 0.99 for 16 of 17 measures; Intraclass Correlation Coefficient values between 0.78 and 0.99 for 13 of 17 measures). However, interesting between-sample differences also emerged: the degree of language mixing, the amount of CDS, and the number of conversational turns were all significantly higher when sampling was performed based on high adult speech compared to random sampling. By contrast, the presence of electronic media and one-on-one social contexts was higher when sampling was performed at random. We discuss advantages of choosing one sampling technique over the other, depending on the research question and variables at hand.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Infant Behavior & Development
Infant Behavior & Development PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
4.80%
发文量
94
期刊介绍: Infant Behavior & Development publishes empirical (fundamental and clinical), theoretical, methodological and review papers. Brief reports dealing with behavioral development during infancy (up to 3 years) will also be considered. Papers of an inter- and multidisciplinary nature, for example neuroscience, non-linear dynamics and modelling approaches, are particularly encouraged. Areas covered by the journal include cognitive development, emotional development, perception, perception-action coupling, motor development and socialisation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信