Temporal-Order Discrimination for Selected Auditory and Visual Stimulus Dimensions

McFarland, Dennis J.; Cacace, Anthony T.; Setzen, Gavin

doi:10.1044/jslhr.4102.300

Cited by 29 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2). This general pattern of results agreed favorably with our previous study in normal adults [22]. The ANOVA showed significant main effects of group, F 1,6 = 11.11, p < 0.02, stimulus dimension, F 4,24 = 4.05, p < 0.002, and test session, F 3,18 = 6.48, p < 0.004, on TOT.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…The apparatus, stimuli and procedures were identical to those used in a previous study [22]. A brief account is provided here.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Temporal processing was evaluated using tasks that assess temporal-order discrimination in multiple (auditory and visual) sensory modalities. In this context, we have selected stimulus dimensions that have previously been found to produce markedly different results in normal adults [22]. We also examined basic frequency and intensity discriminations and the ability of individuals to perform a simple threshold detection task for relatively long (200-ms) and short (20-ms) pure-tone stimuli.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Temporal Processing Deficits in Remediation-Resistant Reading-Impaired Children

Cacace

McFarland

Ouimet³

et al. 2000

Audiol Neurotol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is considerable interest in whether a deficit in temporal processing underlies specific learning and language disabilities in school-aged children. This view is particularly controversial in the area of developmental reading problems. The temporal-processing hypothesis was tested in a sample of normal children, 9–11 years of age, and in a sample of age-matched children with reading impairments, by assessing temporal-order discrimination. Five different binary temporal-order tasks were evaluated in the auditory and visual sensory modalities. Other basic discrimination abilities for single auditory stimuli were also assessed, including just noticeable differences (JNDs) for frequency and intensity and a simple threshold detection task. In these tasks, the temporal dimension was the duration of the individual stimuli (20 and 200 ms). All data were obtained using forced- choice psychophysical methods, either in a single-track adaptive format or using psychometric functions. The results from these experiments showed that children with reading impairments had deficits in temporal-order discrimination, but these effects were not modality specific. These same children also had significantly elevated frequency and intensity JNDs and their performance on these tasks were not dependent on stimulus duration. No group differences were observed on the threshold detection task, and the derived measurements of temporal integration (i.e. the threshold difference between the 20- and 200-ms stimuli) were considered normal, averaging 11.7 dB. As a whole, discrimination deficits observed in the reading-impaired group only occurred with suprathreshold stimuli. The deficits were neither modality specific nor temporal (duration) specific.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

“…The apparatus, stimuli and procedures were identical to those used in a previous study [22]. A brief account is provided here.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Temporal Processing Deficits in Remediation-Resistant Reading-Impaired Children

Cacace

McFarland

Ouimet³

et al. 2000

Audiol Neurotol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most reports examining performance on auditory relative-timing tasks include data only from trained listeners, implying that experience leads to improvement [asynchrony (Hirsh and Sherrick, 1961;Summerfield, 1982;Parker, 1988;Zera and Green, 1993a,b;Tillmann and Bharucha, 2002) and order (Hirsh, 1959;Hirsh and Sherrick, 1961;Swisher and Hirsh, 1972;Wier and Green, 1975;Miller et al, 1976;Pisoni, 1980;Pastore et al, 1982Pastore et al, , 1988Pastore, 1983;Kelly and Watson, 1986)]. For order-discrimination tasks, such improvements have been either specifically mentioned without supporting data (Broadbent and Ladefoged, 1959;Divenyi and Hirsh, 1974;Pastore, 1983;Kewley-Port et al, 1988;Pastore and Farrington, 1996) or reported with supporting data, including changes in performance during the training period (Nickerson and Freeman, 1974;Warren, 1974;McFarland et al, 1998), com-parisons between the performance of trained and untrained listeners (Barsz, 1996), or improvement from pretraining to posttraining (Merzenich et al, 1996). In each of these cases of documented learning, listeners improved significantly on a trained ordering task, in which two or more consecutive sounds (pure or complex tones and/or noises) were arranged in different orders, and listeners identified specific instances of (Warren, 1974;Merzenich et al, 1996) or discriminated between (Nickerson and Freeman, 1974;Barsz, 1996;McFarland et al, 1998;Takahashi et al, 2004) these orders.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For order-discrimination tasks, such improvements have been either specifically mentioned without supporting data (Broadbent and Ladefoged, 1959;Divenyi and Hirsh, 1974;Pastore, 1983;Kewley-Port et al, 1988;Pastore and Farrington, 1996) or reported with supporting data, including changes in performance during the training period (Nickerson and Freeman, 1974;Warren, 1974;McFarland et al, 1998), com-parisons between the performance of trained and untrained listeners (Barsz, 1996), or improvement from pretraining to posttraining (Merzenich et al, 1996). In each of these cases of documented learning, listeners improved significantly on a trained ordering task, in which two or more consecutive sounds (pure or complex tones and/or noises) were arranged in different orders, and listeners identified specific instances of (Warren, 1974;Merzenich et al, 1996) or discriminated between (Nickerson and Freeman, 1974;Barsz, 1996;McFarland et al, 1998;Takahashi et al, 2004) these orders. However, there is no similar documentation of learning on auditory asynchrony detection, nor has generalization to untrained conditions been explored for either auditory relative-timing task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual-Learning Evidence for Separate Processing of Asynchrony and Order Tasks

Mossbridge

Fitzgerald²,

O’Connor³

et al. 2006

J. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Normal perception depends, in part, on accurate judgments of the temporal relationships between sensory events. Two such relativetiming skills are the ability to detect stimulus asynchrony and to discriminate stimulus order. Here we investigated the neural processes contributing to the performance of auditory asynchrony and order tasks in humans, using a perceptual-learning paradigm. In each of two parallel experiments, we tested listeners on a pretest and a posttest consisting of auditory relative-timing conditions. Between these two tests, we trained a subset of listeners ϳ1 h/d for 6 -8 d on a single relative-timing condition. The trained listeners practiced asynchrony detection in one experiment and order discrimination in the other. Both groups were trained at sound onset with tones at 0.25 and 4.0 kHz. The remaining listeners in each experiment, who served as controls, did not receive multihour training during the 8 -10 d between the pretest and posttest. These controls improved even without intervening training, adding to evidence that a single session of exposure to perceptual tasks can yield learning. Most importantly, each of the two groups of trained listeners learned more on their respective trained conditions than controls, but this learning occurred only on the two trained conditions. Neither group of trained listeners generalized their learning to the other task (order or asynchrony), an untrained temporal position (sound offset), or untrained frequency pairs. Thus, it appears that multihour training on relative-timing skills affects task-specific neural circuits that are tuned to a given temporal position and combination of stimulus components.

show abstract

Cutaneous Perception

Weisenberger¹

2008

Blackwell Handbook of Sensation and Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Temporal-Order Discrimination for Selected Auditory and Visual Stimulus Dimensions

Cited by 29 publications

References 66 publications

Temporal Processing Deficits in Remediation-Resistant Reading-Impaired Children

Temporal Processing Deficits in Remediation-Resistant Reading-Impaired Children

Perceptual-Learning Evidence for Separate Processing of Asynchrony and Order Tasks

Cutaneous Perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About