Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-nqrmd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T01:48:11.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Singing to infants matters: Early singing interactions affect musical preferences and facilitate vocabulary building

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Fabia FRANCO*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Middlesex University, London, UK
Chiara SUTTORA
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Maria SPINELLI
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Science, University G. d'Annunzio Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
Iryna KOZAR
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy
Mirco FASOLO
Affiliation:
Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Science, University G. d'Annunzio Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy
*
*Address for correspondence: Fabia Franco, Department of Psychology, Middlesex University, London, UK, E-mail: f.franco@mdx.ac.uk, francofabia@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This research revealed that the frequency of reported parent-infant singing interactions predicted 6-month-old infants’ performance in laboratory music experiments and mediated their language development in the second year. At 6 months, infants (n = 36) were tested using a preferential listening procedure assessing their sustained attention to instrumental and sung versions of the same novel tunes whilst the parents completed an ad-hoc questionnaire assessing home musical interactions with their infants. Language development was assessed with a follow-up when the infants were 14-month-old (n = 26). The main results showed that 6-month-olds preferred listening to sung rather than instrumental melodies, and that self-reported high levels of parental singing with their infants [i] were associated with less pronounced preference for the sung over the instrumental version of the tunes at 6 months, and [ii] predicted significant advantages on the language outcomes in the second year. The results are interpreted in relation to conceptions of developmental plasticity.

Information

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Infant Musical Environment Screening at 6 (T1) and 14 (T2) Months.

Figure 1

Table 2. Mean (SD) Mean Listening Events and Distraction Events in Vocal and Instrumental Musical Conditions (N = 36 Infants)

Figure 2

Figure 1. Mean Listening Event (Sec) in Vocal and Instrumental Conditions During the Preferential Listening Experiment at 6 Months as a Function of Active Music Engagements (High vs. Low ID-Singing exposure) (N = 36).Note: Error bar = SEM.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Distraction Events (N) in Vocal and Instrumental Conditions During the Preferential Listening Experiment at 6 Months as a Function of Active Music Engagements (High vs. Low ID-Singing) exposure) (N = 36)Note: Error bar = SEM.

Figure 4

Table 3. Infant Attention in Vocal and Instrumental Conditions During the Preferential Listening Experiment at 6 months as a Function of Active (High vs. Low exposure to ID-singing) and Passive Musical Engagements (High vs. Low exposure to Background Music) (N = 36)

Figure 5

Table 4. Pearson's Correlations Between the Behavioural Measures of Infant Attention in the Preferential Listening Experiment at 6 Months and Language Development (CDI-WC) at 14 Months (N = 26).

Figure 6

Figure 3. Mediation Model Including Direct and Indirect Effects of Active Musical Engagements and Patterns of Infant Attention to Sound at 6 Months (T1) on Word Comprehensionat 14 Months (T2). Standardized Regression Coefficients are Reported in the Figure*p < .05.

Supplementary material: File

Franco et al. supplementary material

Franco et al. supplementary material

Download Franco et al. supplementary material(File)
File 16.5 KB