1989
DOI: 10.1002/dev.420220704
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Stimulus duration and repetition rate influence newborns' head orientation toward sound

Abstract: Three experiments evaluated the effects of stimulus duration and repetition rate on newborns' head orientation responses. In Experiment 1, 28 infants turned toward a 20-sec continuous rattle sound but not toward 14- and 500-msec rattle sounds. Signal energy as a possible explanation for the infants' difficulty orienting toward brief sounds was explored in Experiment 2. Twenty neonates did not turn toward a single 90 dB, 14-msec rattle sound, although a longer duration (10 sec) sound containing less energy (70 … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Audiometric sound stimulation was a tonal sweep with a frequency increasing from 2 to 4 kHz, intensity 90 dB SPL (Electrical Acoustics Constructions, EAC, Milan Mercury) applied 5 cm away from the external auditory meatus. The reasons for choosing this particular auditory stimulus were to prompt more attention to a train of briefly repeated high-energy sounds rather than to a continuous sound of costant energy (16,17). Movement artifacts were seen during the study period, but we ruled out any influence of the consequent sharp spikes on the chromophores by excluding the traces containing the spikes in relation to a cytochrome aa 3 threshold level between 0.2 and Ϫ0.2 (18).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Audiometric sound stimulation was a tonal sweep with a frequency increasing from 2 to 4 kHz, intensity 90 dB SPL (Electrical Acoustics Constructions, EAC, Milan Mercury) applied 5 cm away from the external auditory meatus. The reasons for choosing this particular auditory stimulus were to prompt more attention to a train of briefly repeated high-energy sounds rather than to a continuous sound of costant energy (16,17). Movement artifacts were seen during the study period, but we ruled out any influence of the consequent sharp spikes on the chromophores by excluding the traces containing the spikes in relation to a cytochrome aa 3 threshold level between 0.2 and Ϫ0.2 (18).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, there is good evidence to suggest that the neonatal orienting to sound does not reflect the same sound localization mechanism observed in adults or older children (Litovsky & Ashmead, ; Muir & Hains, ; Litovsky, ). Neonatal localization abilities appear to be largely limited to left–right hemifield discriminations (Muir et al ., ), and require longer‐duration transients than those necessary for localization in older infants and adults (Clarkson et al ., ). Neonates also lack sensitivity to the precedence effect – an auditory spatial illusion thought to be part of an echo suppression mechanism requiring neurons in the primary auditory cortex (Cranford et al ., ; Fitzpatrick et al ., ; Muir & Hains, ; Mickey & Middlebrooks, ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Neonatal ERP responses to sounds are strongly influenced by stimulus parameters: newborns preferentially respond to broadband noise compared to tones (Turkewitz et al, 1972; Werner and Boike, 2001; Kushnerenko et al, 2007), to high compared to low frequency noise (Morrongiello and Clifton, 1984), to tones of longer rather than shorter duration (Clarkson et al, 1989). Acoustic features (such as intensity or spectral complexity) are apparently initially the most salient cues for passive attention and, as a consequence, orienting (Kushnerenko et al, 2007).…”
Section: Development Of Passive Auditory Attention During the First Ymentioning
confidence: 99%