Effect of spatial separation of stimulus, response, and reinforcement on selective learning in children.

1964 ◽  
Vol 67 (6) ◽  
pp. 577-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendell E. Jeffrey ◽  
Leslie B. Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Separation ◽  
Selective Learning ◽  
Stimulus Response

The Effect of Nonlinear Amplitude Growth on the Speech Perception Benefits Provided by a Single-Sided Vocoder

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 745-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica M. Wess ◽  
Joshua G. W. Bernstein
Keyword(s):  
Transfer Functions ◽  
Spatial Configuration ◽  
Free Field ◽  
Spatial Separation ◽  
Compression And Expansion ◽  
Interaural Difference ◽  
Interaural Differences ◽  
Single Sided Deafness ◽  
Perceptual Separation ◽  
Loudness Growth

PurposeFor listeners with single-sided deafness, a cochlear implant (CI) can improve speech understanding by giving the listener access to the ear with the better target-to-masker ratio (TMR; head shadow) or by providing interaural difference cues to facilitate the perceptual separation of concurrent talkers (squelch). CI simulations presented to listeners with normal hearing examined how these benefits could be affected by interaural differences in loudness growth in a speech-on-speech masking task.MethodExperiment 1 examined a target–masker spatial configuration where the vocoded ear had a poorer TMR than the nonvocoded ear. Experiment 2 examined the reverse configuration. Generic head-related transfer functions simulated free-field listening. Compression or expansion was applied independently to each vocoder channel (power-law exponents: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, or 2).ResultsCompression reduced the benefit provided by the vocoder ear in both experiments. There was some evidence that expansion increased squelch in Experiment 1 but reduced the benefit in Experiment 2 where the vocoder ear provided a combination of head-shadow and squelch benefits.ConclusionsThe effects of compression and expansion are interpreted in terms of envelope distortion and changes in the vocoded-ear TMR (for head shadow) or changes in perceived target–masker spatial separation (for squelch). The compression parameter is a candidate for clinical optimization to improve single-sided deafness CI outcomes.

The Effect of Real-Time Feedback Using a Smartwatch on the Clinical Behavior of Novice Student Clinicians

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (11) ◽  
pp. 79-90
Author(s):  
Courtney G. Scott ◽  
Trina M. Becker ◽  
Kenneth O. Simpson
Keyword(s):  
Real Time ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Communication Disorders ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
Single Subject ◽  
Clinical Behavior ◽  
Stimulus Response ◽  
Treatment Data ◽  
Computer Monitors

The use of computer monitors to provide technology-based written feedback during clinical sessions, referred to as “bug-in-the-eye” (BITi) feedback, recently emerged in the literature with preliminary evidence to support its effectiveness (Carmel, Villatte, Rosenthal, Chalker & Comtois, 2015; Weck et al., 2016). This investigation employed a single-subject, sequential A-B design with two participants to observe the effects of implementing BITi feedback using a smartwatch on the clinical behavior of student clinicians (SCs). Baseline and treatment data on the stimulus-response-consequence (S-R-C) contingency completion rates of SCs were collected using 10 minute segments of recorded therapy sessions. All participants were students enrolled in a clinical practicum experience in a communication disorders and sciences (CDS) program. A celeration line, descriptive statistics, and stability band were used to analyze the data by slope, trend, and variability. Results demonstrated a significant correlative relationship between BITi feedback with a smartwatch and an increase in positive clinical behaviors. Based on qualitative interviews and exit rating scales, SCs reported BITi feedback was noninvasive and minimally distracting. Preliminary evidence suggests BITi feedback with a smartwatch may be an effective tool for providing real-time clinical feedback.

A stimulus-response social psychology?

1998 ◽  
Vol 53 (9) ◽  
pp. 1078-1078
Author(s):  
Todd D. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Stimulus Response
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document