Preference for speech in infancy differentially predicts language skills and autism-like behaviors

Abstract

Early emerging biases for conspecific vocalizations are a hallmark of early development. Typically developing neonates listen to speech more than many other sounds including non-biological nonspeech sounds but listen equally to speech and monkey calls. By 3 months, however, infants prefer speech over both non-biological non-speech sounds and over monkey calls. We examined whether different listening preferences continue to develop along different developmental trajectories and whether listening preferences are related to developmental outcomes. Given the static preference for speech over non-biological non-speech sounds and the dynamic preference for speech over monkey calls between birth and 3 months, we examined whether 9-month-olds prefer speech over non-biological non-speech sounds (Experiment 1) and speech over monkey calls (Experiment 2). We compared preferences for sounds in infants at low (SIBS-TD) and high risk (SIBS-A) of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), a heterogeneous population who differ from typically developing infants in their preferences for speech, and examined whether listening preferences predict vocabulary and autism-like behaviors at 12 months for both groups. At 9 months, SIBS-TD listened longer to speech over non-speech, and monkey calls over speech, whereas SIBS-A listened longer to speech over non-speech but listened equally to speech and monkey calls. SIBS-TD's preferences did not predict immediate developmental outcomes. In contrast, SIBS-A who preferred speech to non-speech or to monkey calls had larger vocabularies and fewer markers of autism-like behaviors at 12 months, which could have positive developmental implications.

Infants' preference for speech is stable across the first year of life: Meta‐analytic evidence

“…We found a total of 19 publications (labeled with an asterisk in the reference list) reporting 39 experiments, for a total of 791 infants, and 55 (not mutually independent) effect sizes. Regarding publication status, 47 effect sizes came from 16 papers that have been published in peer‐reviewed journals (Colombo & Bundy, 1981; Cooper & Aslin, 1994; Curtin & Vouloumanos, 2013; Ecklund‐Flores & Turkewitz, 1996; Santolin et al., 2019; Segal & Kishon‐Rabin, 2011; Segal et al., 2021; Shultz & Vouloumanos, 2010; Sorcinelli et al., 2019; Spence & DeCasper, 1987; Vanden Bosch der Nederlanden & Vouloumanos, 2021; Vouloumanos & Curtin, 2014; Vouloumanos et al., 2009, 2010; Vouloumanos & Werker, 2004, 2007; Yamashiro et al., 2020). Additionally, a thesis contributed five effect sizes (Ference, 2018) and three effect sizes were contributed by authors of unpublished work (Santolin et al., 2020).…”

“…This lays the groundwork for social cognition. Finally, the preference itself may also be a meaningful index of processing that can be used to identify children at risk (Sorcinelli et al., 2019). Understanding this phenomenon is therefore crucial for both theoretical and clinical advances.…”