Eilers R E, Gavin W J, Wilson W R
Child Dev. 1980 Mar;51(1):113-7.
This paper is a reply to a critique of Eilers, Gavin, and Wilson (1979) by Aslin and Pisoni (this issue). The reply argues that the critics' contentions are basically unwarranted on both methodological and conceptual grounds. The critique is largely based on misunderstandings of the study's purposes and procedures.