Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 88 references

Burstiness and interpersonal foraging between human infants and caregivers in the vocal domain

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read In daylong home recordings, infants and adult caregivers both vocalize again sooner after the other responds, even after statistically removing the natural burst-and-lull clustering of vocalizations.

desk verdict A genuinely new control for burstiness in vocal turn-taking with a consistent but overstated result; deserves review and a null simulation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01545 v2 pith:7KGFVMBO submitted 2025-05-02 q-bio.NC

VPS Ritwika , Sara Schneider , Lukas D. Lopez , Jeffrey Mai , Ajay Gopinathan , Christopher T. Kello , Anne S. Warlaumont This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NC
keywords infant-caregiverinteractionsvocalcommunicationburstinessforagingcontingentresponsesinter-eventintervalsarea-restrictedsearchdaylongaudiorecordings
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Infant and caregiver vocalizations arrive in bursts and lulls, so a quick reply often looks as if it caused the next vocalization when both events are simply part of an ongoing burst. This paper asks whether receiving a social response really shortens the time until the partner vocalizes again, over and above the natural clustering of vocal behavior. Analyzing more than 2,400 hours of daylong home recordings, the authors show that gaps between successive vocalizations are positively correlated for both infants and adults, confirming the burstiness. They then subtract the predictable part of each gap using the previous gap and compare the leftovers for gaps with and without a partner response. They find that, for both infants and adults, a response predicts a shorter next gap once this clustering is controlled, supporting an 'interpersonal foraging' view in which each partner's vocal engagement is a resource the other seeks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the inter-event interval (IEI), the time from the offset of one vocalization to the onset of the next vocalization of the same kind, either infant speech-related or adult. The analysis first logs and normalizes IEIs, then fits a linear mixed-effects model predicting the current IEI from the previous IEI; the residuals from that model are the clustering-controlled outcome. A binary comparison is then made between residuals whose first vocalization was followed by a partner vocal onset within a response window Tresp, called 'Resp', and residuals with no such onset, called 'NoResp', with short intervals and intervals interrupted by the infant's own non-speech sounds excluded. This two-step residualization is the mechanism that separates the response signal from the endogenous burst-lull structure.

What would settle it

Generate surrogate daylong vocalization series that reproduce the observed positive correlation between successive gaps but contain no true social coupling, for example by placing partner responses at random positions, then apply the paper's two-step residual comparison; if the negative response coefficient persists in the surrogates, the control is incomplete and the reported effect is not evidence of social facilitation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the discovery is that social engagement has a facilitatory, turn-by-turn effect on vocal timing that survives statistical control for the burstiness of vocal behavior. Successive inter-event intervals (IEIs), defined from the offset of one speech-related vocalization to the onset of the next, are positively correlated in daylong recordings for infants aged 3, 6, 9, and 18 months and for adult caregivers, with standardized coefficients around 0.23 to 0.33. After regressing the current IEI on the previous IEI to form residuals, IEIs whose first vocalization received a partner response within a response window of about 2 to 10 seconds are shorter than IEIs with no response; for a 5-second window the standardized response effects range from -0.09 to -0.15 for infant gaps and -0.11 to -0.17 for adult gaps, significant at p < 0.001 in the daylong automated data. The shortening appears for response windows of at least 2 to 3 seconds, while very short windows around 1 second or less produce artifactual positive effects due to the duration of the intervening sound. Human-listener validation data trend in the same direction and are clearest for infant-directed adult vocalizations.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that subtracting the prediction from the immediately previous gap removes all of the burstiness-driven confound; if bouts of activity linger across more than one gap, the shorter gaps after responses could still reflect shared activity state rather than the response itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Contingent caregiver responses appear to promote immediate subsequent infant vocalization in naturalistic, daylong home settings, extending short laboratory demonstrations to real-world interaction.
  • The effect is bidirectional: infant responses likewise shorten adult caregivers' next vocal gap, so the interaction behaves like a mutually reinforcing loop rather than a one-way caregiver-to-infant input.
  • Analyses should use response windows of at least about 2 to 3 seconds; shorter windows around 1 second or less are dominated by sound-duration artifacts and should not be interpreted as social effects.
  • The successive-IEI residual method provides a reusable statistical control for burstiness in any event-based interactive time series, such as gestures or nonhuman animal vocal turn-taking.
  • In human-labeled validation data, the adult side of the effect was clearest for infant-directed adult vocalizations, suggesting that directedness is part of what makes the interpersonal foraging loop work.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The authors control for only the most recent gap, so their own limitation implies a sharper test not performed here: adding several previous gaps or a burst-context variable could reveal whether one-lag control leaves residual confounding.
  • Because the recordings are observational, the causal reading is an inference; a simulation that reintroduces burstiness without any true social effect and runs the same residual comparison would show how much bias the control actually removes.
  • If interpersonal foraging is general, the same residual method could hunt for contingent-response effects in other modalities and species, predicting that response windows and effect sizes differ with the vocal repertoire.
  • The age-related decline in the infant successive-IEI correlation suggests a developmental shift toward more exploratory vocal timing; an untested corollary is that infants with steeper declines may show stronger response-shortening effects or faster language growth later.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes and applies an analytic approach, inspired by flight-time analyses in foraging research, to test whether receiving a social vocal response shortens the next inter-event interval (IEI) for infant and adult vocalizations after controlling for the positive correlation between successive IEIs. Using daylong LENA recordings from 54 infants at 3, 6, 9, and 18 months (200 recordings, over 2,400 hours) plus human-labeled 5-minute validation excerpts, the authors compute IEIs, label each IEI as Resp, NoResp, or NA based on a response window Tresp, and compare residual IEIs from a previous-IEI regression between Resp and NoResp cases. They report positive correlations between successive IEIs for both infants and adults, and negative response effects for Tresp ≥ 2 s (adults) or ≥ 3 s (infants) in the daylong data, with weaker and only partially significant validation results. The findings are interpreted as evidence for an 'interpersonal foraging' process in which social responses facilitate immediate subsequent vocalization.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides large-scale naturalistic evidence that contingent vocal responses are followed by earlier subsequent vocalizations in both infants and caregivers, addressing a confound that has limited prior event-level studies. The proposed successive-IEI residual method is a potentially transferable tool for studying turn-by-turn effects in other modalities and species. The paper has notable strengths: a large daylong corpus, transparent reporting of the full Tresp sweep, validation with human annotations, and public code and data availability. The main risk is that the single-lag control may not fully remove burstiness-driven confounding, and the validation results are only partially significant; these issues are fixable with additional analyses.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4 and Discussion, limitation paragraph] The two-step control for burstiness uses only the immediately preceding IEI when predicting the current IEI. Given the hierarchical, multi-timescale clustering reported in Section 2.1 and Supplementary Fig. S9, an AR(1)-style residual can still contain a latent activity state in which both partner responses and short focal IEIs are more probable. Because Resp IEIs are over-represented inside bursts and NoResp IEIs in lulls, the negative response beta could arise even without any response-driven facilitation. The paper flags this limitation in the Discussion but does not quantify it. A null simulation in which the same burst structure is preserved but response receipt has no causal effect on the next IEI is needed to show that the proposed two-step procedure does not produce negative response betas by construction. Alternatively, the control should be extended to include higher-order IEI lags or burst-context indicators.
  2. [Section 4.4, second-stage model] The second-stage linear model treats residual IEIs as independent observations. With hundreds of thousands of IEIs drawn from 200 recordings and 54 infants, this can inflate significance levels. The paper already uses mixed-effects models with infant ID as a random effect for the first-stage and age-trend analyses, so it would be straightforward to apply the same clustering to the response-effect test, or to report cluster-robust standard errors or recording-level response betas. Without this, the strong p<0.001 claims in Section 2.2 rest on an independence assumption that is unlikely to hold for repeated IEIs within a recording.
  3. [Section 2.2, Figure 4, and Tables S12-S13] The choice of Tresp ≥ 2 s or ≥ 3 s as the 'most stable and interpretable' range is made after inspecting the sweep across response windows, and no multiple-comparison correction across Tresp values is reported. This post-hoc selection risk is compounded by the validation results: for the representative Tresp = 5 s, only the H: Child-directed Adult dataset reaches p<0.001 for adult IEIs (Table S13), while H: All Adult gives beta = 0.04 (p = 0.30), and infant IEI effects in the human-labeled data do not reach the strict threshold (Table S12). The bidirectional claim therefore rests heavily on the LENA daylong labels. The authors should either pre-specify the Tresp range, correct for multiple comparisons, or temper the conclusions to reflect the partial validation support.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Methods 4.3] The phrase 'response reciept' should be corrected to 'response receipt'.
  2. [Introduction, paragraph 2] The reference 'see Fig. 1 and 27' should be clarified; presumably it refers to Fig. 1 and Supplementary Fig. S27, but the label is incomplete.
  3. [Supplementary Section S6.3 and Fig. S23 caption] The text refers to 'Fig. 1C and D', but the main-text Fig. 1 has only panels A and B; the reference should be updated to the correct figure panels.
  4. [Abstract and Discussion] The phrase 'independent of burstiness' is stronger than what the analysis supports given the single-lag control; consider wording such as 'after controlling for the immediately preceding IEI' to match the actual method.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the response-effect test is run on residuals from an independently fit previous-IEI control, and the foraging framing is rhetorical rather than load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that, after controlling for the positive correlation between successive inter-event intervals, a partner response within Tresp is associated with a shorter subsequent IEI. The control is computed before any response grouping: current IEI is regressed on previous IEI (with participant random effects), and only the residuals enter the Resp-vs-NoResp comparison. Response status is defined by whether a partner vocalization onset occurs within Tresp after the offset of the focal vocalization, not by the length of the outcome IEI, so the contrast is not definitionally tied to the predicted quantity. The Tresp sweep from 0.5 s to 10 s is a sensitivity analysis with an explicit explanation of why very short windows introduce intervening-sound-duration artifacts; it is not a parameter fitted to produce the headline result. The main inferential weakness, acknowledged by the authors in the Discussion, is that only the most recent IEI is used as the control, so higher-order burstiness or shared activity state could remain in the residuals; that is an identification limitation and a candidate for null-simulation testing, not a circularity. The self-citation of the prior vocal-foraging paper [27] supplies framing, terminology, and dataset provenance, but the statistical derivation in the present paper does not depend on any unverified claim imported from that citation. External validation with human-labeled 5-minute excerpts provides independent support for the LENA-based analyses. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 0 is therefore appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or theoretical entities are introduced. The 'interpersonal foraging' label is interpretive framing, not a postulated mechanism with independent evidence.

free parameters (1)
  • Response window Tresp = Swept 0.5 to 10 s; interpretable range selected post hoc as >=2 s (adult) and >=3 s (infant)
    Defines whether a vocalization counts as a response and excludes IEIs <= Tresp. The main conclusions depend on choosing a window in the range where the negative beta appears.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption LENA automated labels accurately identify infant speech-related and adult vocalization onsets and offsets.
    Primary daylong analyses rely entirely on LENA. Human-labeled validation is only partially significant and covers high-volubility 5-minute excerpts, not full days.
  • domain assumption Regression on the single previous IEI removes burstiness confound.
    The response test is performed on residuals from current-IEI-on-previous-IEI regression; the authors acknowledge this captures only first-order temporal dependence (Methods 4.4; Discussion).
  • domain assumption No unmeasured shared state explains both response receipt and shorter next IEI.
    Observational daylong recordings could reflect shared engagement states. The abstract's counterfactual phrasing goes beyond what the design can establish.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Burstiness and interpersonal foraging between human infants and caregivers in the vocal domain." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7KGFVMBO

@misc{pith2026250501545,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Burstiness and interpersonal foraging between human infants and caregivers in the vocal domain},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7KGFVMBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01545}
}
read the original abstract

Vocal responses from caregivers are believed to promote more frequent and more advanced infant vocalizations. However, studies that examine this relationship typically do not account for the fact that infant and adult vocalizations are distributed in hierarchical clusters over the course of the day. These bursts and lulls create a challenge for accurately detecting the effects of adult input at immediate turn-by-turn timescales within real-world behavior, as adult responses tend to happen during already occurring bursts of infant vocalizations. Analyzing daylong audio recordings of real-world vocal communication between human infants (ages 3, 6, 9, and 18 months) and their adult caregivers, we first show that both infant and caregiver vocalization events are clustered in time, as evidenced by positive correlations between successive inter-event intervals (IEIs). We propose an approach informed by flight time analyses in foraging studies to assess whether the timing of a vocal agent's next vocalization is modified by inputs from another vocal agent, controlling for the first agent's previous IEI. For both infants and adults, receiving a social response predicts that the individual will vocalize again sooner than they would have in the absence of a response. Overall, our results are consistent with a view of infant-caregiver vocal interactions as an 'interpersonal foraging' process with inherent multi-scale dynamics wherein social responses are among the resources the individuals are foraging for. The analytic approaches introduced here have broad utility to study communication in other modalities, contexts, and species.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01545 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Analysis procedure. (A) shows a hypothetical sample time series of infant speech-related (ChSp; blue) and adult (Ad; black) vocalizations. ChSp inter-vocalization intervals (IEIs) are computed as the difference between the onset time of the (i+1)th ChSp vocalization and the offset time of the i th ChSp vocalization; adult IEIs are computed similarly. The response window (Tresp) is indicated in purple and is used to … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Analysis procedure. (A) is a scatter plot showing the positive correlation between successive ChSp IEIs for infants at 18 months. The infant age represented here was chosen randomly. To facilitate visualization, the plot displays 2000 randomly chosen points from the full set of daylong LENA infant IEIs at 18 months. IEIs were log-transformed and then normalized with respect to the full 18 month daylong infant IEI da… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. B shows the correlations between previous IEIs and current IEIs for the 5-minute excerpts segmented and labeled by human listeners, as well as for those same 5-minute excerpts’ LENA-labeled data. For the data labeled by human listeners, there are statistically significant positive correlations between previous IEIs and current IEIs for infants (β = 0.19, p < 0.001; Supplementary Table S8) and for adults, whether all… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Response effects on IEIs after controlling for previous IEI (A) Standardized regression coefficients (β; y-axis) from linear models testing the effect of receipt of an adult (Ad) response on the length of infant speech-related (ChSp) IEIs—after controlling for the posi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Babbling and early speech: Continuity and individual differences

    John L Locke. Babbling and early speech: Continuity and individual differences. First Language , 9(6):191--205, 1989

    1989

  2. [2]

    The emergence of the speech capacity

    D Kimbrough Oller. The emergence of the speech capacity . Psychology Press, 2000

    2000

  3. [3]

    Cross-species parallels in babbling: animals and algorithms

    Sita M Ter Haar, Ahana A Fernandez, Maya Gratier, Mirjam Kn \"o rnschild, Claartje Levelt, Roger K Moore, Michiel Vellema, Xiaoqin Wang, and D Kimbrough Oller. Cross-species parallels in babbling: animals and algorithms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 376(1836):20200239, 2021

    2021

  4. [4]

    Social and endogenous infant vocalizations

    Helen L Long, Dale D Bowman, Hyunjoo Yoo, Megan M Burkhardt-Reed, Edina R Bene, and D Kimbrough Oller. Social and endogenous infant vocalizations. PloS one , 15(8):e0224956, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Social feedback to infants' babbling facilitates rapid phonological learning

    Michael H Goldstein and Jennifer A Schwade. Social feedback to infants' babbling facilitates rapid phonological learning. Psychological science , 19(5):515--523, 2008

    2008

  6. [6]

    Social interaction shapes babbling: Testing parallels between birdsong and speech

    Michael H Goldstein, Andrew P King, and Meredith J West. Social interaction shapes babbling: Testing parallels between birdsong and speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 100(13):8030--8035, 2003

    2003

  7. [7]

    The social functions of babbling: acoustic and contextual characteristics that facilitate maternal responsiveness

    Rachel R Albert, Jennifer A Schwade, and Michael H Goldstein. The social functions of babbling: acoustic and contextual characteristics that facilitate maternal responsiveness. Developmental science , 21(5):e12641, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    The development of structured vocalizations in songbirds and humans: a comparative analysis

    Dina Lipkind, Andreea Geambasu, and Clara C Levelt. The development of structured vocalizations in songbirds and humans: a comparative analysis. Topics in Cognitive Science , 12(3):894--909, 2020

    2020

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Infant-directed speech is modulated by infant feedback

    Nicholas A Smith and Laurel J Trainor. Infant-directed speech is modulated by infant feedback. Infancy , 13(4):410--420, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    Infant-adult vocal interaction dynamics depend on infant vocal type, child-directedness of adult speech, and timeframe

    Gina M Pretzer, Lukas D Lopez, Eric A Walle, and Anne S Warlaumont. Infant-adult vocal interaction dynamics depend on infant vocal type, child-directedness of adult speech, and timeframe. Infant Behavior and Development , 57:101325, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    Patricia K. Kuhl. Early language acquisition: cracking the speech code. Nature Reviews Neuroscience , 5:831--843

  4. [12]

    Goldstein, Heidi R

    Michael H. Goldstein, Heidi R. Waterfall, Arnon Lotem, Joseph Y. Halpern, Jennifer A. Schwade, Luca Onnis, and Shimon Edelman. General cognitive principles for learning structure in time and space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 14(6):249--258, 2010

    2010

  5. [13]

    C. S. Tamis-LeMonda , Y. Kuchirko, and L. Song. Why is infant language learning facilitated by parental responsiveness? Current Directions in Psychological Science , 23(2):121--126, 2014

    2014

  6. [14]

    Bobb, and Eve V

    Marisa Casillas, Susan C. Bobb, and Eve V. Clark. Turn-taking, timing, and planning in early language acquisition. Journal of Child Language , 43(6):1310--1337, 2016

    2016

  7. [15]

    A. S. Warlaumont. Infant vocal learning and speech production , pages 602--631. Cambridge University Press, 2020

    2020

  8. [16]

    Rohlfing, Giuseppe Leonardi, Iris Nomikou, Joanna Raczaszek-Leonardi, and Eyke H\" u llermeier

    Katharina J. Rohlfing, Giuseppe Leonardi, Iris Nomikou, Joanna Raczaszek-Leonardi, and Eyke H\" u llermeier. Multimodal turn-taking: Motivations, methodological challenges, and novel approaches. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems , 12(2):260--271, 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    Tamis-LeMonda, Marc H

    Catherine S. Tamis-LeMonda, Marc H. Bornstein, and Lisa Baumwell. Maternal responsiveness and children's achievement of language milestones. Child Development , 72(3):748--767, 2001

    2001

  10. [18]

    Caregivers' contingent comments to 9-month-old infants: Relationships with later language

    Pamela Rosenthal Rollins. Caregivers' contingent comments to 9-month-old infants: Relationships with later language. Applied Psycholinguistics , 24:221--234, 2003

    2003

  11. [19]

    Naja Ferjan Ram\` i rez, Sarah Roseberry Lytle, and Patricia K. Kuhl. Parent coaching increases conversational turns and advances infant language development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 117(7):3484--3491, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    Your turn, my turn

    Trinh Nguyen, Lucie Zimmer, and Stefanie Hoehl. Your turn, my turn. neural synchrony in mother--infant proto-conversation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 378:20210488, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Elmlinger, and Michael H

    Vivian Hanwen Zhang, Steven L. Elmlinger, and Michael H. Goldstein. Developmental cascades of vocal turn-taking connect prelinguistic vocalizing with early language. Infant Behavior and Development , 75:101945, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Turn taking affects the quality of infant vocalizations

    Kathleen Bloom, Ann Russell, and Karen Wassenberg. Turn taking affects the quality of infant vocalizations. Journal of Child Language , 14(2):211--227, 1987

    1987

  15. [23]

    N. M. Leezenbaum, S. B. Campbell, D. Butler, and J. M. Iverson. Maternal verbal responses to communication of infants at low and heightened risk of autism. Autism , 18:694--703, 2013

    2013

  16. [24]

    Gros-Louis, M

    J. Gros-Louis, M. J. West, and A. P. King. Maternal responsiveness and the development of directed vocalizing in social interactions. Infancy , 19:385--408, 2014

    2014

  17. [25]

    A social feedback loop for speech development and its reduction in autism

    Anne S Warlaumont, Jeffrey A Richards, Jill Gilkerson, and D Kimbrough Oller. A social feedback loop for speech development and its reduction in autism. Psychological science , 25(7):1314--1324, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Elmlinger, Jennifer A

    Steven L. Elmlinger, Jennifer A. Schwade, Laura Vollmer, and Michael H. Goldstein. Learning how to learn from social feedback: The origins of early vocal development. Developmental Science , 26(2):e13296

  19. [27]

    Exploratory dynamics of vocal foraging during infant-caregiver communication

    VPS Ritwika, Gina M Pretzer, Sara Mendoza, Christopher Shedd, Christopher T Kello, Ajay Gopinathan, and Anne S Warlaumont. Exploratory dynamics of vocal foraging during infant-caregiver communication. Scientific reports , 10(1):10469, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    D. H. Abney, A. S. Warlaumont, D. K. Oller, and S. Wallot. Multiple coordination patterns in infant and adult vocalizations. Infancy , 22(4):514--539, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    A. S. Warlaumont, K. Sobowale, and C. M. Fausey. Daylong mobile audio recordings reveal multitimescale dynamics in infants' vocal productions and auditory experiences. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 21(1):12--19, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    L \'e vy flight search patterns of wandering albatrosses

    Gandhimohan M Viswanathan, Vsevolod Afanasyev, Sergey V Buldyrev, Eugene J Murphy, Peter A Prince, and H Eugene Stanley. L \'e vy flight search patterns of wandering albatrosses. Nature , 381(6581):413--415, 1996

    1996

  23. [31]

    The physics of foraging: an introduction to random searches and biological encounters

    Gandhimohan M Viswanathan, Marcos GE Da Luz, Ernesto P Raposo, and H Eugene Stanley. The physics of foraging: an introduction to random searches and biological encounters . Cambridge University Press, 2011

    2011

  24. [32]

    L \'e vy walk patterns in the foraging movements of spider monkeys (ateles geoffroyi)

    Gabriel Ramos-Fern \'a ndez, Jos \'e L Mateos, Octavio Miramontes, Germinal Cocho, Hern \'a n Larralde, and Barbara Ayala-Orozco. L \'e vy walk patterns in the foraging movements of spider monkeys (ateles geoffroyi). Behavioral ecology and Sociobiology , 55:223--230, 2004

    2004

  25. [33]

    Foraging success of biological l \'e vy flights recorded in situ

    Nicolas E Humphries, Henri Weimerskirch, Nuno Queiroz, Emily J Southall, and David W Sims. Foraging success of biological l \'e vy flights recorded in situ. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 109(19):7169--7174, 2012

    2012

  26. [34]

    Scaling laws of marine predator search behaviour

    David W Sims, Emily J Southall, Nicolas E Humphries, Graeme C Hays, Corey JA Bradshaw, Jonathan W Pitchford, Alex James, Mohammed Z Ahmed, Andrew S Brierley, Mark A Hindell, et al. Scaling laws of marine predator search behaviour. Nature , 451(7182):1098--1102, 2008

    2008

  27. [35]

    The role of semantic clustering in optimal memory foraging

    Priscilla Montez, Graham Thompson, and Christopher T Kello. The role of semantic clustering in optimal memory foraging. Cognitive science , 39(8):1925--1939, 2015

    1925

  28. [36]

    Optimal foraging in semantic memory

    Thomas T Hills, Michael N Jones, and Peter M Todd. Optimal foraging in semantic memory. Psychological review , 119(2):431, 2012

    2012

  29. [37]

    Spivey, and Tyler Marghetis

    Soran Malaie, Michael J. Spivey, and Tyler Marghetis. Divergent and convergent creativity are different kinds of foraging. Psychological Science , 35(7):749--759, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    A guide to area-restricted search: a foundational foraging behaviour

    Arik Dorfman, Thomas T Hills, and Inon Scharf. A guide to area-restricted search: a foundational foraging behaviour. Biological Reviews , 97(6):2076--2089, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    Optimal foraging in a uniform habitat: the search mechanism of the green lacewing

    Alan B Bond. Optimal foraging in a uniform habitat: the search mechanism of the green lacewing. Animal Behaviour , 28(1):10--19, 1980

    1980

  32. [40]

    Host-plant finding by insects: orientation, sensory input and search patterns

    JH Visser. Host-plant finding by insects: orientation, sensory input and search patterns. Journal of insect physiology , 34(3):259--268, 1988

    1988

  33. [41]

    Dopamine and glutamate control area-restricted search behavior in caenorhabditis elegans

    Thomas Hills, Penelope J Brockie, and Andres V Maricq. Dopamine and glutamate control area-restricted search behavior in caenorhabditis elegans. Journal of Neuroscience , 24(5):1217--1225, 2004

    2004

  34. [42]

    Robertson, John Guckenheimer, Amy M

    Steven S. Robertson, John Guckenheimer, Amy M. Masnick, and Leigh F. Bacher. The dynamics of infant visual foraging. Developmental Science , 7(2):194--200, 2004

    2004

  35. [43]

    Robertson, Sarah Enos Watamura, and Makeba Parramore Wilbourn

    Steven S. Robertson, Sarah Enos Watamura, and Makeba Parramore Wilbourn. Attentional dynamics of infant visual foraging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 109(28):11460--11464, 2012

    2012

  36. [44]

    Linda B. Smith. Cognition as a dynamic system: Principles from embodiment. Developmental Review , 25(3--4):278--298, 2005

    2005

  37. [45]

    M. H. Bornstein, D. L. Putnick, L. R. Cote, O. M. Haynes, and J. T. D. Suwalsky. Mother-infant contingent vocalizations in 11 countries. Psychological Science , 26(8):1272--1284, 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    E. E. Hilbrink, M. Gattis, and S. C. Levinson. Early developmental changes in the timing of turn-taking: A longitudinal study of mother-infant interaction. Frontiers in Psychology , 6:1492, 2015

    2015

  39. [47]

    Early development of turn-taking in vocal interaction between mothers and infants

    Maya Gratier, Emmanuel Devouche, Bahia Guellai, Rubia Infanti, Ebru Yilmaz, and Erika Parlato-Oliveira. Early development of turn-taking in vocal interaction between mothers and infants. Frontiers in Psychology , 6:1167, 2015

    2015

  40. [48]

    Dominguez, E

    S. Dominguez, E. Devouche, G. Apter, and M. Gratier. The roots of turn-taking in the neonatal period. Infant and Child Development , 25:240--255, 2016

    2016

  41. [49]

    Speech and Computer

    Ian Spencer Howard and Piers Ruston Messum. A computational model of infant speech development. In XII International Conference" Speech and Computer"(SPECOM'2007) , pages 756--765, 2007

    2007

  42. [50]

    A. S. Warlaumont and M. K. Finnegan. Learning to produce syllabic speech sounds via reward-modulated neural plasticity. PLOS ONE , 11(1):e0145096, 2016

    2016

  43. [51]

    Rheingold, Jacob L

    Harriet L. Rheingold, Jacob L. Gewirtz, and Helen W. Ross. Social conditioning of vocalizations in infants. Comparative and Physiological Psychology , 52(1):68--73, 1959

    1959

  44. [52]

    Social and nonsocial conditioning of infant vocalizations

    Paul Weisberg. Social and nonsocial conditioning of infant vocalizations. Child Development , 34(2):377--388, 1963

    1963

  45. [53]

    Nathani and R

    S. Nathani and R. E. Stark. Can conditioning procedures yield representative infant vocalizations in the laboratory? First Language , 16(48):365--387, 1996

    1996

  46. [54]

    Donald K. Routh. Conditioning of vocal response differentiation in infants. Developmental Psychology , 1(3):219]]226, 1969

    1969

  47. [55]

    A. L. Harbison, T. G. Woynaroski, J. Tapp, J. W. Wade, A. S. Warlaumont, and P. J. Yoder. A new measure of child vocal reciprocity in children with autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research , 11:903--915, 2018

    2018

  48. [56]

    Richards

    Jill Gilkerson and Jeffrey A. Richards. A guide to understanding the design and purpose of the LENA system. Technical Report LTR-12, LENA Foundation, 2020

    2020

  49. [57]

    Information foraging

    Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card. Information foraging. Psychological Review , 106(4):643--675, 1999

    1999

  50. [58]

    Human memory retrieval as l \'e vy foraging

    Theo Rhodes and Michael T Turvey. Human memory retrieval as l \'e vy foraging. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications , 385(1):255--260, 2007

    2007

  51. [59]

    Exploration versus exploitation in space, mind, and society

    Thomas T Hills, Peter M Todd, David Lazer, A David Redish, and Iain D Couzin. Exploration versus exploitation in space, mind, and society. Trends in cognitive sciences , 19(1):46--54, 2015

    2015

  52. [60]

    Long, Edina R

    Hyunjoo Yoo, Pumpki Lei Su, Gordon Ramsay, Helen L. Long, Edina R. Bene, and D. Kimbrough Oller. Infant vocal category exploration as a foundation for speech development. PLOS One , 19(5):e0299140, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Altmann, Janet B

    Eduardo G. Altmann, Janet B. Pierrehumbert, and Adilson E. Motter. Beyond word frequency: Bursts, lulls, and scaling in the temporal distributions of words. PLOS One , 4(11):e7678, 2009

    2009

  54. [62]

    Hadar Karmazyn-Raz and Linda B. Smith. Sampling statistics are like story creation: a network analysis of parent-toddler exploratory play. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 378:20210358, 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    Distinguishing between social reinforcement and social elicitation

    Kathleen Bloom. Distinguishing between social reinforcement and social elicitation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology , 38(1):93--102, 1984

    1984

  56. [64]

    The value of vocalizing: Five-month-old infants associate their own noncry vocalizations with responses from caregivers

    Michael H Goldstein, Jennifer A Schwade, and Marc H Bornstein. The value of vocalizing: Five-month-old infants associate their own noncry vocalizations with responses from caregivers. Child development , 80(3):636--644, 2009

    2009

  57. [65]

    Warlaumont, Daniel Messinger, Edina Bene, Suneeti Nathani Iyer, Chia-Chang Lee, Brittany Lambert, and D

    Beau Franklin, Anne S. Warlaumont, Daniel Messinger, Edina Bene, Suneeti Nathani Iyer, Chia-Chang Lee, Brittany Lambert, and D. Kimbrough Oller. Effects of parental interaction on infant vocalization rate, variability and vocal type. Language Learning and Development , 10(3):2...

    2013

  58. [66]

    Santos, E.P

    M.C. Santos, E.P. Raposo, G.M. Viswanathan, and M.G.E. da Luz . Can collective searches profit from Lévy walk strategies? Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 42:434017, 2009

    2009

  59. [67]

    Calabrese, Thomas Mueller, Kirk A

    Ricardo Mart \'e nez-Garc \'i a, Justin M. Calabrese, Thomas Mueller, Kirk A. Olson, and Crist \'o bal L \'o pez. Optimizing the search for resources by sharing informaiton: Mongolian gazelles as a case study. Physical Review Letters , 110:248106, 2013

    2013

  60. [68]

    Golnaraghi, David A

    F. Golnaraghi, David A. Quint, and Ajay Gopinathan. Optimal foraging strategies for mutually avoiding competitors. Journal of Theoretical Biology , 570:111537, 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    Rowland, Nairán Ramírez-Esparza, Lisa R

    Elika Bergelson, Melanie Soderstrom, Iris-Corinna Schwarz, Caroline F. Rowland, Nairán Ramírez-Esparza, Lisa R. Hamrick, Ellen Marklund, Marina Kalashnikova, Ava Guez, Marisa Casillas, Lucia Benetti, Petra van Alphen, and Alejandrina Cristia. Everydat language input and produc...

    2023

  62. [70]

    Automated monitoring of behavior reveals bursty interaction patterns and rapid spreading dynamics in honeybee social networks

    Tim Gernat, Vikyath D Rao, Martin Middendorf, Harry Dankowicz, Nigel Goldenfeld, and Gene E Robinson. Automated monitoring of behavior reveals bursty interaction patterns and rapid spreading dynamics in honeybee social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ...

    2018

  63. [71]

    Comparison of methods for rhythm analysis of complex animals’ acoustic signals

    Lara S Burchardt and Mirjam Kn \"o rnschild. Comparison of methods for rhythm analysis of complex animals’ acoustic signals. PLoS Computational Biology , 16(4):e1007755, 2020

    2020

  64. [72]

    Developmental determinants of structure in zebra finch song

    Philip H Price. Developmental determinants of structure in zebra finch song. journal of comparative and physiological psychology , 93(2):260, 1979

    1979

  65. [73]

    The developmental dynamics of marmoset monkey vocal production

    Daniel Y Takahashi, Alicia R Fenley, Yayoi Teramoto, Darshana Z Narayanan, Jeremy I Borjon, Peter Holmes, and Asif A Ghazanfar. The developmental dynamics of marmoset monkey vocal production. Science , 349(6249):734--738, 2015

    2015

  66. [74]

    Origins of Human Communication

    Michael Tomasello. Origins of Human Communication . MIT Press, 2008

    2008

  67. [75]

    Turn-taking skills in mammals: A systematic review into development and acquisition

    Filipa Abreu and Simone Pika. Turn-taking skills in mammals: A systematic review into development and acquisition. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution , 10:987253, 2022

    2022

  68. [76]

    Takahashi, Alicia R

    Daniel Y. Takahashi, Alicia R. Fenley, and Asif A. Ghazanfar. Early development of turn-taking with parents shapes vocal acoustics in infant marmoset monkeys. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B , 371:20150370, 2016

    2016

  69. [77]

    Kosie and Casey Lew-Williams

    Jessica E. Kosie and Casey Lew-Williams. Infant-directed communication: Examining the many dimensions of everyday caregiver-infant interactions. Developmental Science , 27(5):e13515, 2024

    2024

  70. [78]

    J. M. Iverson and S. Goldin-Meadow. Gesture paves the way for language development. Psychological Science , 16(5):367--372, 2005

    2005

  71. [79]

    Burkhardt-Reed, Helen L

    Megan M. Burkhardt-Reed, Helen L. Long, Dale D. Bowman, Edina R. Bene, and D. Kimbrough Oller. The origin of language and relative roles of voice and gesture in early communication development. Infant Behavior and Development , 65:101648, 2021

    2021

  72. [80]

    Acquisition of turn-taking in sign language conversations: An overview of language modality and turn structure

    Laura Horton and Jenny Singleton. Acquisition of turn-taking in sign language conversations: An overview of language modality and turn structure. Frontiers in Psychology , 13:935342, 2022

    2022

  73. [81]

    Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Language Archive

    ELAN [Computer Software]. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, The Language Archive . https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan, 2024

    2024

  74. [82]

    Warlaumont, Gina M

    Anne S. Warlaumont, Gina M. Pretzer, Sara Mendoza, Sara Schneider, Jimel Mutrie, Lukas Lopez, Eric A. Walle, and Christopher T. Kello. San Joaquin Valley HomeBank Corpus (formerly the Warlaumont HomeBank Corpus ), 2024

    2024

  75. [83]

    Warlaumont, Elika Bergelson, Alejandrina Cristia, Melanie Soderstrom, Paul De Palma , and Brian MacWhinney

    Mark VanDam, Anne S. Warlaumont, Elika Bergelson, Alejandrina Cristia, Melanie Soderstrom, Paul De Palma , and Brian MacWhinney . HomeBank : An online repository of daylong child-centered audio recordings. Seminars in Speech and Language , 37(2):128--142

  76. [84]

    Dongxin Xu, Umit Yapanel, Sharmi Gray, and Charles T. Baer. The LENA Language Environment Analysis system: The Interpreted Time Segments (ITS) file. Technical Report LTR-04-2, LENA Foundation, 2008

    2008

  77. [85]

    Head/tail breaks: A new classification scheme for data with a heavy-tailed distribution

    Bin Jiang. Head/tail breaks: A new classification scheme for data with a heavy-tailed distribution. The Professional Geographer , 65(3):482--494, 2013

    2013

  78. [86]

    Power-law distributions in empirical data

    Aaron Clauset, Cosma Rohilla Shalizi, and Mark EJ Newman. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM review , 51(4):661--703, 2009

    2009

  79. [87]

    A thorough evaluation of the Language Environment Analysis ( LENA ) system

    Alejandrina Cristia, Marvin Lavechin, Camila Scaff, Melanie Soderstrom, Caroline Rowland, Okko R\" a s\" a nen, John Bunce, and Elika Bergelson. A thorough evaluation of the Language Environment Analysis ( LENA ) system. Behavior Research Methods , 53:467--486, 2020

    2020

  80. [88]

    On the histogram as a density estimator: L 2 theory

    David Freedman and Persi Diaconis. On the histogram as a density estimator: L 2 theory. Zeitschrift f \"u r Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und verwandte Gebiete , 57(4):453--476, 1981

    1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.