The effect of different kinds of form pre-exposure on form discrimination learning.

1958 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. H. Forgus
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Form Discrimination

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.

Distinctive Phonetic Features as Relevant and Irrelevant Stimulus Dimensions in Speech-Sound Discrimination Learning

1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-425
Author(s):  
Stuart I. Ritterman ◽  
Nancy C. Freeman
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Irrelevant Dimension ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Irrelevant Stimulus ◽  
Relevant Dimension ◽  
Phonetic Features ◽  
Sound Discrimination ◽  
Nonsense Syllables

Thirty-two college students were required to learn the relevant dimension in each of two randomized lists of auditorily presented stimuli. The stimuli consisted of seven pairs of CV nonsense syllables differing by two relevant dimension units and from zero to seven irrelevant dimension units. Stimulus dimensions were determined according to Saporta’s units of difference. No significant differences in performance as a function of number of the irrelevant dimensions nor characteristics of the relevant dimension were observed.

Cognitive Development Meets Discrimination Learning

1996 ◽  
Vol 41 (11) ◽  
pp. 1109-1110
Author(s):  
Deborah G. Kemler Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Development ◽  
Discrimination Learning

Temporal Discrimination Learning Based on Feature-Target Intervals

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. James Kehoe ◽  
Kristin G. Boesenberg ◽  
Natasha White ◽  
Benjamin Carr ◽  
Gabrielle Weidemann
Keyword(s):  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Temporal Discrimination ◽  
Feature Target
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document