To examine the possibility that early signal-to-word form mapping capabilities are robust enough to handle substantial indexical variation in the realization of words.


Two groups of 7.5-month-olds were tested with the Headturn Preference Procedure. Half of the infants were exposed to words embedded in passages spoken by their mothers and tested on lists of trained and novel isolated words spoken by their fathers. The other half of the infants were yoked pairs listening to unfamiliar speakers.


In the test phase, infants listened longer to trained than to novel words, indicating that they successfully segmented the words from the passages. This result was not modulated by infants' familiarity with the speaker.


Under more naturalistic listening conditions, 7.5-month-olds exhibit the ability to recognize words in the face of substantial indexical variation regardless of whether speakers are familiar. This suggests that early word representations are, at least to some extent, independent of the speaker’s gender and may reflect sophisticated abstraction capabilities on the part of the infants, which would render extreme episodic models of early speech perception untenable. Additional research using similarly ecologically valid testing methods is called for to elucidate the precise nature of early word representations.


  • Barker, B. A., & Newman, R. S. (2004). Listen to your mother! The role of talker familiarity in infant streaming.Cognition, 94, B45–B54.
  • Best, C. T., Tyler, M. D., Gooding, T. N., Orlando, C. B., & Quann, C. A. (2009). Development of phonological constancy: Toddlers' perception of native- and Jamaican-accented words.Psychological Science, 20, 539–542.
  • Bradlow, A. R., & Bent, T. (2008). Perceptual adaptation to non-native speech.Cognition, 106, 707–729.
  • Burnham, D., Kitamura, C., & Vollmer-Conna, U. (2002, May24). What’s new pussycat? On talking to babies and animals.Science, 296, 1435.
  • Church, B. A., & Schacter, D. L. (1994). Perceptual specificity of auditory priming: Implicit memory for voice intonation and fundamental frequency.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 521–533.
  • Clarke, C. M., & Garrett, M. (2004). Rapid adaptation to foreign accented speech.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 116, 3647–3658.
  • Cutler, A. (2008). The abstract representations in speech processing.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1601–1619.
  • Cutler, A., Eisner, F., McQueen, J. M., & Norris, D. (2010). How abstract phonemic categories are necessary for coping with speaker-related variation.In C. Fougeron, B. Kühnert, M. D’Imperio, & N. Vallée (Eds.), Laboratory phonology 10 (pp. 91–111). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
  • Dehaene-Lambertz, G., & Peña, M. (2001). Electrophysiological evidence for automatic phonetic processing in neonates.NeuroReport, 12, 3155–3158.
  • Eisner, F., & McQueen, J. M. (2005). The specificity of perceptual learning in speech processing.Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 224–238.
  • Goldinger, S. D. (1998). Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access.Psychological Review, 105, 251–279.
  • Gregory, S. W. (1990). Analysis of fundamental frequency reveals covariation in interview partner’s speech.Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 14, 237–251.
  • Houston, D. M. (1999). The role of talker variability in infant word representations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
  • Houston, D. M., & Jusczyk, P. W. (2000). The role of talker-specific information in word segmentation by infants.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1570–1582.
  • Johnson, E. K., Westrek, E., Nazzi, T., & Cutler, A. (2011). Infant ability to tell voices apart rests on language experience.Developmental Science, 14, 1002–1011.
  • Jusczyk, P. W. (1993). From general to language-specific capacities: The WRAPSA model of how speech perception develops.Journal of Phonetics, 21, 3–28.
  • Jusczyk, P. W., & Aslin, R. N. (1995). Infants' detection of the sound patterns of words in fluent speech.Cognitive Psychology, 29, 1–23.
  • Jusczyk, P. W., Pisoni, D. W., & Mullennix, J. (1992). Some consequences of stimulus variability on speech processing by 2-month-old infants.Cognition, 43, 253–291.
  • Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A. G. (2006). Generalization in perceptual learning for speech.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 262–268.
  • Kraljic, T., & Samuel, A. G. (2007). Perceptual adjustments to multiple speakers.Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 1–15.
  • Kuhl, P. K. (1979). Speech perception in early infancy: Perceptual constancy for perceptually dissimilar vowel categories.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 66, 1168–1679.
  • Kuhl, P. K., Andruski, J. E., Chistovich, I. A., Chistovich, L. A., Kozhevnikova, E. V., Ryskina, V. L., & Lacerda, F. (1997, August1). Cross-language analysis of phonetic units in language addressed to infants.Science, 277, 684–686.
  • McQueen, J. M., Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (2006). Phonological abstraction in the mental lexicon.Cognitive Science, 30, 1113–1126.
  • Nygaard, L. C., & Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Talker-specific learning in speech perception.Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 355–376.
  • Nygaard, L. C., Sommers, M. S., & Pisoni, D. B. (1994). Speech perception as a talker-contingent process.Psychological Science, 5, 42–46.
  • Palmeri, T. J., Goldinger, S. D., & Pisoni, D. B. (1993). Episodic encoding of speaker’s voice and recognition memory for spoken words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 309–328.
  • Pardo, J. (2006). On phonetic convergence during conversational interaction.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 2382–2393.
  • Remez, R. E., Dubowski, K. R., Broder, R. S., Davids, M. L., Grossman, Y. S., Moskalenko, M., & Hasbun, S. M. (2011). Auditory-phonetic projection and lexical structure in the recognition of sine-wave words.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 968–977.
  • Rost, G. C., & McMurray, B. (2009). Speaker variability augments phonological processing in early word learning.Developmental Science, 12, 339–349.
  • Schmale, R., Cristià, A., Seidl, A., & Johnson, E. K. (2010). Developmental changes in infants' ability to cope with dialect variation in word recognition.Infancy, 15, 650–662.
  • Schmale, R., & Seidl, A. (2009). Accommodating variability in voice and foreign accent: Flexibility of early word representations.Developmental Science, 12, 583–601.
  • Seidl, A., & Johnson, E. K. (2006). Infant word segmentation revisited: Edge alignment facilitates target extraction.Developmental Science, 9, 566–574.
  • Sidaras, S. K., Alexander, J. E. D., & Nygaard, L. C. (2009). Perceptual learning of systematic variation in Spanish-accented speech.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 125, 3306–3316.
  • Singh, L. (2008). Influences on high and low variability on infant word recognition.Cognition, 106, 833–870.
  • Singh, L., Morgan, J. L., & White, K. S. (2004). Preference and processing: The role of speech affect in early spoken word recognition.Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 173–189.
  • Webb, J. T. (1972). Interview synchrony: An investigation of two speech rate measures in an automated standardized interview.In B. Pope, & A. W. Seigman (Eds.), Studies in dyadic communication (pp. 115–133). New York, NY: Pergamon.
  • Werker, J. F., & Curtin, S. (2005). PRIMIR: A developmental framework of infant speech processing.Language Learning and Development, 1, 197–234.

Additional Resources