Table 1.
Example speech streams for each condition in experiment 1.
Table 2.
Summary of the linear mixed-effects model of (log transformed) looking times on the segmentation trials for participants in experiment 1.
Fig 1.
Pirate plot depicting the (raw) mean looking times to words and non-words, given for each condition.
Black lines indicate the mean, and coloured blocks indicate SE. The distribution of looking times is illustrated for each group, with individual data points in grey.
Table 3.
Summary of the linear mixed-effects model of (log transformed) looking times on the segmentation trials for participants in experiment 1 (with median split for vocabulary size).
Fig 2.
Pirate plot depicting the (raw) mean looking times to words and non-words for the participants in experiment 1.
The top panel displays this data for High and Low CDI groups. The bottom panel breaks this down into each markers condition, with the High CDI group in panel A and the Low CDI group in panel B. Black lines indicate the mean, and coloured blocks indicates SE. Coloured shapes show the distribution of looking times for each group, with individual data points in grey.
Fig 3.
Pirate plot depicting the (raw) mean looking times to trials containing words from the same (consistent) versus different (inconsistent) categories for participants in experiment 1, given for each condition.
Black lines indicate the mean, and the coloured blocks indicate SE. The distribution of looking times is given for each group, with individual data points in grey.
Table 4.
Summary of the linear mixed-effects model of (log transformed) looking times on the categorisation trials in experiment 1.
Table 5.
Example speech streams for each condition in experiment 2 (with phonological cues).
Table 6.
Summary of the final linear mixed-effects model of (log transformed) looking times on the segmentation trials for participants in experiment 2.
Fig 4.
Pirate plot depicting the (raw) mean looking times to words and non-words, given for each condition.
Black lines indicate the mean, and the coloured blocks indicate SE. The distribution of looking times is given for each group, with individual data points in grey. We note that subsequent supplementary exploratory analysis found that infants in the No Marker group were not homogeneous in their looking preferences–thus this visualisation combines data from two opposing preferences; a novelty preference (children with High CDI scores) and a familiarity preference (children with Low CDI scores); see Fig 5).
Table 7.
Summary of the linear mixed-effects model of (log transformed) looking times on the segmentation trials for participants in experiment 2 (with median split for vocabulary size).
Fig 5.
Pirate plot depicting the (raw) mean looking times to words and non-words for the participants in experiment 2.
The top panel displays this data for High and Low CDI groups. The bottom panel breaks this down into each markers condition, with the High CDI group in panel A, and the Low CDI group in panel B. Black lines indicate the mean, and the coloured blocks indicate SE. Coloured shapes show the distribution of looking times for each group, with individual data points in grey.
Fig 6.
Pirate plot depicting the mean (raw) looking times to trials containing words from the same versus different categories for each condition.
Black lines indicate the mean, and the coloured blocks indicate SE. The distribution of looking times is given for each group, with individual data points in grey.
Table 8.
Summary of the linear mixed-effects model of (log transformed) looking times on the categorisation trials for participants in experiment 2.