Acromicric dysplasia and geleophysic dysplasia: Similarities and differences

1996 ◽  
Vol 155 (4) ◽  
pp. 311-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raoul C. M. Hennekam ◽  
Yolande van Bever ◽  
Johanna W. E. Oorthuys ◽  
R. C. M. Hennekam ◽  
J. W. E. Oorthuys
Keyword(s):  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Acromicric Dysplasia

Acromicric dysplasia and geleophysic dysplasia: similarities and differences

1996 ◽  
Vol 155 (4) ◽  
pp. 311-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. C. M. Hennekam ◽  
Yolande van Bever ◽  
Johanna W. E. Oorthuys
Keyword(s):  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Acromicric Dysplasia

Orosensory Perception, Speech Production, and Deafness

1973 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milo E. Bishop ◽  
Robert L. Ringel ◽  
Arthur S. House
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
Poor Performance ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
The Other ◽  
Functional Disorders ◽  
Form Discrimination ◽  
School Subjects ◽  
Oral Form ◽  
Similarities And Differences

The oral form-discrimination abilities of 18 orally educated and oriented deaf high school subjects were determined and compared to those of manually educated and oriented deaf subjects and normal-hearing subjects. The similarities and differences among the responses of the three groups were discussed and then compared to responses elicited from subjects with functional disorders of articulation. In general, the discrimination scores separated the manual deaf from the other two groups, particularly when differences in form shapes were involved in the test. The implications of the results for theories relating orosensory-discrimination abilities are discussed. It is postulated that, while a failure in oroperceptual functioning may lead to disorders of articulation, a failure to use the oral mechanism for speech activities, even in persons with normal orosensory capabilities, may result in poor performance on oroperceptual tasks.

Animals as Social Objects

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Verónica Sevillano ◽  
Susan T. Fiske
Keyword(s):  
Social Perception ◽  
Animal Species ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Social Responses ◽  
Content Model ◽  
Stereotype Content ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Behavioral Tendencies ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Sphere Of Influence

Abstract. Nonhuman animals are typically excluded from the scope of social psychology. This article presents animals as social objects – targets of human social responses – overviewing the similarities and differences with human targets. The focus here is on perceiving animal species as social groups. Reflecting the two fundamental dimensions of humans’ social cognition – perceived warmth (benign or ill intent) and competence (high or low ability), proposed within the Stereotype Content Model ( Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002 ) – animal stereotypes are identified, together with associated prejudices and behavioral tendencies. In line with human intergroup threats, both realistic and symbolic threats associated with animals are reviewed. As a whole, animals appear to be social perception targets within the human sphere of influence and a valid topic for research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document