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

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).

1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-425
Author(s):  
Stuart I. Ritterman ◽  
Nancy C. Freeman

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.


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

Author(s):  
Arnold Abramovitz

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.


NeuroImage ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 178 ◽  
pp. 735-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia P. Gennari ◽  
Rebecca E. Millman ◽  
Mark Hymers ◽  
Sven L. Mattys

2020 ◽  
pp. 541-558
Author(s):  
Dennis L. Molfese ◽  
Victoria J. Molfese ◽  
Alexandra Fonaryova Key ◽  
Spencer D. Kelly

1967 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith B. Ebbin ◽  
Allan E. Edwards

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