scholarly journals Similar perceptual learning in 10-alternative letter identification in external noise with and without feedback supervision

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. 1237
Author(s):  
Jiajuan Liu ◽  
Zhong-lin Lu ◽  
Barbara Dosher
1988 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 403-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lester Hunt ◽  
Heidi Edwards ◽  
Kathryn Quest

The present study investigated the effects of the use of the right and left hands on haptic identification of letters of the alphabet. Each of the 64 right-handed subjects was given three series of randomly ordered presentations of the 26 letters of the alphabet. The subjects were asked to feel each letter and name correctly each letter as quickly but as accurately as possible. Analysis showed faster identification by those subjects using their left hands on Series 1 with no hand-differences appearing on Series 2 and 3. Significant over-all improvement in identification time occured with practice. The results were interpreted in terms of a novelty hypothesis of right-hemisphere function and an explanation of perceptual learning of letter identification.


2004 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
pp. 296-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. A. Doshe ◽  
Z.-L. Lu

2010 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 863-863
Author(s):  
Z.-L. Lu ◽  
J. Liu ◽  
B. Dosher

2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 167-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason M. Gold ◽  
Allison B. Sekuler ◽  
Partrick J. Bennett

Author(s):  
Martin Chavant ◽  
Alexis Hervais-Adelman ◽  
Olivier Macherey

Purpose An increasing number of individuals with residual or even normal contralateral hearing are being considered for cochlear implantation. It remains unknown whether the presence of contralateral hearing is beneficial or detrimental to their perceptual learning of cochlear implant (CI)–processed speech. The aim of this experiment was to provide a first insight into this question using acoustic simulations of CI processing. Method Sixty normal-hearing listeners took part in an auditory perceptual learning experiment. Each subject was randomly assigned to one of three groups of 20 referred to as NORMAL, LOWPASS, and NOTHING. The experiment consisted of two test phases separated by a training phase. In the test phases, all subjects were tested on recognition of monosyllabic words passed through a six-channel “PSHC” vocoder presented to a single ear. In the training phase, which consisted of listening to a 25-min audio book, all subjects were also presented with the same vocoded speech in one ear but the signal they received in their other ear differed across groups. The NORMAL group was presented with the unprocessed speech signal, the LOWPASS group with a low-pass filtered version of the speech signal, and the NOTHING group with no sound at all. Results The improvement in speech scores following training was significantly smaller for the NORMAL than for the LOWPASS and NOTHING groups. Conclusions This study suggests that the presentation of normal speech in the contralateral ear reduces or slows down perceptual learning of vocoded speech but that an unintelligible low-pass filtered contralateral signal does not have this effect. Potential implications for the rehabilitation of CI patients with partial or full contralateral hearing are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document