Bouba Kiki Effect Karlee Jones BS Ed amp Matthew Carter PhD Valdosta State University Disclosures None of the authors had any financial relationships relevant to the content of this presentation ID: 1014355
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Preschool-Age Sound-Shape Correspondenc..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1. Preschool-Age Sound-Shape Correspondences to the Bouba-Kiki Effect Karlee Jones, B.S. Ed. & Matthew Carter, Ph.D.Valdosta State University
2. DisclosuresNone of the authors had any financial relationships relevant to the content of this presentation.
3. BackgroundFrom 25 to 29 weeks gestational age, fetuses are able to demonstrate responses in a consistent manner to auditory stimulation.Early detection of speech sound perception indicates that newborns that are born full-term have more than two months of auditory experience at birth.Language experienced in utero affects vowel perception, and newborns’ perception of speech sounds reflects some extent of learning.
4. BackgroundIndividuals’ sensitivity to sound symbolism may have affected the evolution of languages and may influence children’s language development. Sound symbolism is present in the very early stages of language learning and infants can perceive that vocal sounds carry meaning in and of themselves.
5. BackgroundThe Bouba-Kiki effect is a non-arbitrary mapping between speech sounds and the visual shape of objects.This effect examined individuals constantly pairing specific structures of nonsense words to particular types of unfamiliar objects. In previous studies, researchers have observed the Bouba-Kiki effect across the lifespan, from infants to adults using visual cues when presenting the nonsense words to participants.The presence of these sound mappings suggests that this effect might be the neurological basis for sound symbolism.
6. HypothesisTypically developing preschool-age children will respond similarly to their peers on the Bouba-Kiki test when the speaker’s productions are not visible.
7. MethodsParticipantsParticipants were 19 typically developing preschool children (M age = 4.8 years; range 3.2 – 5.4 years) Consisted of 12 males and 7 femalesProcedureA pair of contrasting shapes, one rounded and one pointed were shown to each participant individually. With the speaker’s mouth covered, each participant was asked which letter was bouba.
8. MethodsThe contrasting shapes and the corresponding words consisting of rounded versus non-rounded vowels. Bouba ‘boo-baa’Kiki ‘kiki’
9. ResultsResults revealed that 11 children (6 males, 5 females) correctly paired bouba with the round shape and 8 children (6 males, 2 females) incorrectly paired bouba with the more jagged shape.
10. ConclusionThe author’s hypothesis was rejected due to the resulting data of 57.8% of the sample correctly pairing bouba with the more rounded shape. Results from this study revealed that children may rely upon visual cues to assist in the phoneme selection of nonsense word pairing to shapes.
11. LimitationsNo standardized testing or parental questionnaires were conducted in order to rule out developmental delays in the participants.The possibility of the participants’ acquired vocabulary cannot be ruled out as a factor for influencing their sound-object mappings.Only a single trial was performed with each participant using a single set of contrasting shapes and words.
12. RecommendationsFuture research should be conducted with a larger sample size.Conducting more trials with multiple sets of contrasting shapes and nonsense word pairs would provide more opportunities for data collection.Trials could also be performed with adult participants to determine if visual cues play a role in adults’ sound-shape mapping.
13. ReferencesBirnholz, J. C., & Benacerraf, B. B. (1983). The development of human fetal hearing. Science, 222, 516–518.Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: Sound–shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9(3), 316-322. doi:10.1111/j 1467-7687.2006.00495.xNielsen, A. S., & Rendall, D. (2013). Parsing the role of consonants versus vowels in the classic takete-maluma phenomenon. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(2), 153-163. doi:10.1037/a0030553Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synesthesia – a window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3–34.Spector, F., & Maurer, D. (2013). Early sound symbolism for vowel sounds. I-Perception, 4(4), doi:10.1068/i0535Stager, C., & Werker, J. (1997). Infants listen for more phonetic detail in speech perception than in word-learning tasks. Nature, 388(6640), 381-382.