scholarly journals Sustained Pacifier Use is Associated with Smaller Vocabulary Sizes at 1 and 2 Years of Age.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Eduardo Munoz ◽  
Natalia Kartushina ◽  
Julien Mayor
Keyword(s):  
Vocabulary Learning ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Abstract Words ◽  
Sound Discrimination ◽  
Pacifier Use ◽  
Use Of An Object

Pacifier use during childhood has been hypothesised to interfere with language processing.Recent evidence suggests that transient use of an object in the infant’s mouth (a teething toy)impairs speech sound discrimination and that extensive pacifier use translates into slowerprocessing of abstract words at 7-8 years, but to date no studies have revealed detrimentaleffects of prolonged pacifier use on infant vocabulary learning. The present pre-registeredstudy tests the hypothesis that greater accumulated pacifier use is associated with smallervocabulary sizes at 12- (in comprehension and production) and 24-months of age (inproduction).

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.

Another Approach to Evaluating Speech Sound Discrimination

1969 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 745-747 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Goldman ◽  
Macalyne Fristoe
Keyword(s):  
Speech Sound ◽  
Sound Discrimination

scholarly journals Devising a development test of auditory perception: Problems and prospects

1971 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnold Abramovitz
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Emotionally Disturbed ◽  
Auditory Perception ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Pattern Discrimination ◽  
Auditory Training ◽  
Environmental Sounds ◽  
Threshold Phenomena ◽  
Sound Discrimination ◽  
Hearing Children

It is certain that many children whose auditory perception is queried by audiologists, speech therapists, educationists and psychologists elude the diagnostic screens presently available in each of these disciplines. The need for a qualitative and quantitative psychological assessment of the child's auditory abilities and disabilities led to the development of a test which was intended to evaluate the following functions:(a) Recognition of environmental sounds, (b) Auditory figure-ground discrimination, (c) Speech-sound discrimination (phonemic and intonational) and (d) Tonal pattern discrimination (pitch, loudness, duration and interval). It was not intended to investigate threshold phenomena as such but rather to supplement and complement pure-tone and speech audiometry. The test was applied to 205 children, aged five to ten years, drawn from a normal school population, and 232 children with difficulties and handicaps varying both in degree and kind. Only the first two sub-tests were found to be clinically and experimentally viable, and data for the curtailed test are presented. The following results are noteworthy: (1) The test measures functions which are positively related to both age and intelligence. (2) Brain-injured, retarded and emotionally disturbed children generally test low on auditory figure-ground discrimination; this vulnerability is most likely due to perseveration. (3) Previously unsuspected peripheral hearing losses may sometimes be detected by the use of the test. On the other hand, some children said to have high degrees of hearing loss test at or above their age-level. (4) Many deaf and hard-of-hearing children test higher without their hearing-aids; this is probably due to amplification being achieved at the cost of distortion. (5) Children of average intelligence with reading and/or spelling difficulties often test low on auditory figure-ground discrimination. (6) Blind children who have received auditory training are equal to sighted children in recognition of environmental sounds, but superior in auditory figure-ground discrimination. This does not, however, necessarily signify superior auditory perception as such on the part of the blind. In general it is concluded that the development of tests of auditory perception could add significantly to the psycho-educational assessment of both "normal" and handicapped children.

scholarly journals Anterior paracingulate and cingulate cortex mediates the effects of cognitive load on speech sound discrimination

NeuroImage ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 178 ◽  
pp. 735-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia P. Gennari ◽  
Rebecca E. Millman ◽  
Mark Hymers ◽  
Sven L. Mattys
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Load ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Cingulate Cortex ◽  
Sound Discrimination

Influence of Environment on Speech-Sound Discrimination: Findings From a Longitudinal Study

2020 ◽  
pp. 541-558
Author(s):  
Dennis L. Molfese ◽  
Victoria J. Molfese ◽  
Alexandra Fonaryova Key ◽  
Spencer D. Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Longitudinal Study ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Sound Discrimination

The use of visual information in non-native speech sound discrimination across the first year of life

2015 ◽  
Vol 137 (4) ◽  
pp. 2432-2432 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. Kyle Danielson ◽  
Padmapriya A. Kandhadai ◽  
Janet F. Werker
Keyword(s):  
Visual Information ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
First Year ◽  
Native Speech ◽  
Sound Discrimination ◽  
First Year Of Life

Relation of Speech-Sound Discrimination Ability to Articulation-Type Speech Defects

1963 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian H. Cohen ◽  
Charles F. Diehl
Keyword(s):  
Speech Sound ◽  
Discrimination Ability ◽  
Sound Discrimination ◽  
Speech Defects

scholarly journals Auditory evoked potential correlates of speech sound discrimination

1974 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael F. Dorman
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potential ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Auditory Evoked Potential ◽  
Sound Discrimination

Speech Sound Discrimination of Aphasics when Intersound Interval is Varied

1967 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith B. Ebbin ◽  
Allan E. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Speech Sound ◽  
Silent Period ◽  
Auditory Comprehension ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Auditory Recognition ◽  
Comprehension Ability ◽  
Sound Discrimination ◽  
Age And Sex

Twenty-four aphasics and 24 age-and-sex matched brain-damaged, but nonaphasic, comparison subjects were assessed in terms of their abilities to discriminate (“same” versus “different”) between 25 syllable pairs separated by two different time intervals. Aphasics made significantly more errors than the comparison subjects when the silent period between syllables was short rather than long. In addition, this performance was demonstrated to be related to their general auditory comprehension ability, but not to auditory recognition or auditory retention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document