Infant speech‐sound discrimination testing: Effects of stimulus intensity and procedural model on measures of performance

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (6) ◽  
pp. 1928-1939 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Nozza
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Intensity ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Testing Effects ◽  
Discrimination Testing ◽  
Infant Speech ◽  
Sound Discrimination ◽  
Measures Of Performance

Group speech sound discrimination testing

1968 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 253-258
Author(s):  
Joan Rechner ◽  
Betty Ann Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Speech Sound ◽  
Discrimination Testing ◽  
Sound Discrimination

Reliability and Validity of Infant Speech-Sound Discrimination-in-Noise Thresholds

1991 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 643-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Nozza ◽  
Sandra L. Miller ◽  
Reva N. F. Rossman ◽  
Linda C. Bond
Keyword(s):  
Speech Sound ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Threshold Procedure ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Infant Speech ◽  
Sound Discrimination ◽  
Db Difference ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Infants were tested on a speech-sound discrimination-in-noise task using the visual reinforcement infant speech discrimination (VRISD) procedure with an adaptive (up-down) threshold protocol. An adult control group was tested using the same stimuli and apparatus. The speech sounds were synthetic /ba/ and /ga/. The masker was band-passed noise presented continuously at 48 dB SPL. Test-retest reliability was good for both groups, although test-retest differences were smaller for adults. For infants the mean of the absolute values of the differences between tests was only 5.2 dB, and there was less than a 10-dB difference between the two tests of 14 (87.5%) of the 16 infants completing the study. The infant-adult difference in discrimination threshold in noise was 6.9 dB, which agrees well with detection-in-noise thresholds from earlier studies and with discrimination-in-noise thresholds obtained on a subset of subjects in our earlier work. Advantages of the adaptive threshold procedure and its possible applications both in research studies and in the clinic are discussed.

Infant speech‐sound discrimination in noise

1990 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 339-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Nozza ◽  
Reva N. F. Rossman ◽  
Linda C. Bond ◽  
Sandra L. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Speech Sound ◽  
Infant Speech ◽  
Sound Discrimination

scholarly journals Infant speech‐sound discrimination in noise

1988 ◽  
Vol 83 (S1) ◽  
pp. S65-S65
Author(s):  
Robert J. Nozza ◽  
Linda C. Bond ◽  
Sandy L. Miller ◽  
Reva N. F. Rossman
Keyword(s):  
Speech Sound ◽  
Infant Speech ◽  
Sound Discrimination

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document