Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 159–167 | Cite as

Oral stereognosis: Effect of varying form set, answer type, and retention time

  • Anne Torrans
  • Daniel S. Beasley
Article
Received:

Abstract

The oral stereognosis abilities of 40 young adults were investigated as a function of oral stereognosis form sets (four sets), retention time (unlimited and 5 sec), and response type (oral discrimination and visual recognition). Results showed that the Penn State forms were the easiest for the subjects under all conditions and that the Ringel form set was the most difficult under all conditions. A significant interaction between oral form sets and answer type indicated that the visual recognition task, rather than the discrimination task, was primarily responsible for the differences between the oral form sets. A three-way interaction revealed that the retention times had a significant effect on the two form sets of medium difficulty (NIDR-10 and NIDR-20) for the visual recognition condition. The results are discussed in view of their research and clinical implications.

Keywords

Retention Time Young Adult Significant Interaction Cognitive Psychology Clinical Implication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arndt, W., Elbert, M., and Shelton, R. (1970). Standardization of a test of oral stereognosis. In Bosma, J. (ed.),Second Symposium on Oral Sensation and Perception, Thomas, Springfield, Ill.Google Scholar
  2. Aungst, L. (1965). The relationship between oral stereognosis and articulation proficiency. Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  3. Bosma, J. (1967).Symposium on Oral Sensation and Perception, Thomas, Springfield, Ill.Google Scholar
  4. Bosma, J. (1970).Second Symposium on Oral Sensation and Perception, Thomas, Springfield, Ill.Google Scholar
  5. Class, L. (1956). A comparative study of normal speakers and speech defectives with regard to the tactual-kinesthetic perception of forms with the tongue. Master's thesis, Ohio State Univesity.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards, A. (1964).Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences, Holt, Rinchart. and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Fucci, D., and Robertson, J. (1971). “Functional” defective articulation: An oral sensory disturbance.Percept. Mot. Skills 33: 711–714.Google Scholar
  8. Hutchinson, J., and Bain, S. (1974). A comparison of two oral stereognosis testing strategies with children having articulation problems. Michigan State University.Google Scholar
  9. Lass, N., and Clay, T. (1973). The effect of memory on subject performance on a test of oral form discrimination.West. Speech 37: 27–33.Google Scholar
  10. Lass, N., Tekieli, M., and Eye, M. (1971). A comparative study of two procedures for assessment of oral tactile perception.Cent. States Speech J. 22: 21–26.Google Scholar
  11. Lass, N., Bell, R., Simcoe, J., McClung, N., and Park, W. (1972). Assessment of oral tactile perception: Some methodological considerations.Cent. States Speech J. 3: 165–173.Google Scholar
  12. Locke, J. (1969). Oral perception and articulation learning.Percept. Mot. Skills 26: 1259–1264.Google Scholar
  13. Locke, J. (1969). Short-term auditory memory, oral perception, and experimental sound learning.J. Speech Hearing Res. 12: 185–192.Google Scholar
  14. MacDonald, E., and Aungst, L. (1970). Apparent independence of oral sensory functions and articulatory proficiency. In Bosma, J. (ed.),Second Symposium on Oral Sensation and Perception, Thomas, Springfield, Ill.Google Scholar
  15. Moser, H., LaGourgue, J., and Class, L. (1970). Studies of oral stereognosis in normal, blind, and deaf subjects. In Bosma, J. (ed.),Second Symposium on Oral Sensation and Perception, Thomas, Springfield, Ill.Google Scholar
  16. Moser, H., LaGourgue, J., and Class, L. (1970). Studies of oral stereognosis in normal, blind, and deaf subjects. In Bosma, J. (ed.),Second Symposium on Oral Sensation and Perception, Thomas, Springfield, Ill.Google Scholar
  17. Ringel, R. (1970a). Oral sensation and perception: A selective review.ASHA Reports, No. 5, pp. 188–206.Google Scholar
  18. Ringel, R. (1970b). Studies of oral region texture perception. In Bosma, J. (ed.),Second Symposium on Oral Sensation and Perception, Thomas, Springfield, Ill.Google Scholar
  19. Ringel, R., and Fletcher, H. (1967). Oral perception. III. Texture discrimination.J. Speech Hearing Res. 10: 642–649.Google Scholar
  20. Ringel, R., Burk, K., and Scott, C. (1968). Tactile perception: Form discrimination in the mouth.Brit. J. Dis. Commun. 3: 150–155.Google Scholar
  21. Ringel, R., Burk, K., and Scott, C. (1970a). Tactile perception: Form discrimination in the mouth. In Bosma, J. (ed.),Second Symposium on Oral Sensation and Perception, Thomas, Springfield, Ill.Google Scholar
  22. Ringel, R., House, A., Burk, K., Dolinsky, J., and Scott, C. (1970b). Some relations between orosensory discrimination and articulatory aspects of speech production.J. Speech Hearing Dis. 35: 3–11.Google Scholar
  23. Shelton, R. (1968). Oral sensory function in speech production. Prog. Report, NIDR (USPHS), Res. Career Develop. Award #DE 31, 669-01.Google Scholar
  24. Solomon, B. (1965). The relation of oral sensation and perception to chewing, drinking, and articulation in athetoid children and adults. Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
  25. Weinberg, B., Liss, G., and Hilis, J. (1970). A comparative study of visual, manual, and oral form identification in speech impaired and normal speaking children. In Bosma, J. (ed.),Second Symposium on Oral Sensation and Perception, Thomas, Springfield, Ill.Google Scholar
  26. Winer, B. (1962).Statistical Principles in Experimental Design, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne Torrans
    • 1
  • Daniel S. Beasley
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationsLouisiana State University in ShreveportShreveport
  2. 2.Department of Audiology and Speech SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast Lansing

Personalised recommendations