A reexamination of some nonverbal perceptual abilities of language-impaired and normal children as a function of age and sensory modality.

A reexamination of some nonverbal perceptual abilities of language-impaired and normal children as a function of age and sensory modality.
复制标题

重新审视语言障碍儿童和正常儿童的一些非语言感知能力作为年龄和感觉方式的函数。

DOI:
10.1044/jshr.2403.351
复制
发表时间:
1981
期刊:
Journal of speech and hearing research
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
Mellits,D
Mellits,D
中科院分区:
--
文献类型:
--
作者:
Tallal,P;Stark,R;Kallman,C;Mellits,D

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

对 35 名语言障碍 (LI) 受试者和 38 名对照受试者进行了一系列非语言感知和记忆测试。给出了三种测试模式:听觉、视觉和跨模式(听觉和视觉)。目的是重新检查 LI 儿童的一些非语言感知和记忆能力,作为年龄和刺激方式的函数。结果未能复制之前关于 LI 儿童听觉模式特有的时间处理缺陷的发现。当快速呈现 2 项序列或连续呈现两个以上刺激时,无论刺激方式如何,LI 组的错误明显多于对照组。然而,进一步的分析通过证明年龄是 LI 儿童感知表现模式特异性的重要变量,解决了当前研究和早期研究之间的明显冲突。年龄较小的 LI 儿童在对听觉和视觉方式快速呈现的刺激做出反应时同样受到损害,而年龄较大的 LI 受试者对快速呈现的听觉刺激而不是视觉刺激做出反应时所犯的错误几乎是其两倍。对照组没有出现这种发育差异。
A battery of nonverbal perceptual and memory tests were given to 35 language-impaired (LI) and 38 control subjects. Three modalities of tests were given: auditory, visual, and cross-modal (auditory and visual). The purpose was to reexamine some nonverbal perceptual and memory abilities of LI children as a function of age and modality of stimulation. Results failed to replicate previous findings of a temporal processing deficit that is specific to the auditory modality in LI children. The LI group made significantly more errors than did controls regardless of modality of stimulation when 2-item sequences were presented rapidly, or when more than two stimuli were presented in series. However, further analyses resolved this apparent conflict between the present and earlier studies by demonstrating that age is an important variable underlying modality specificity of perceptual performance in LI children. Whereas younger LI children were equally impaired when responding to stimuli presented rapidly to the auditory and visual modality, older LI subjects made nearly twice as many errors responding to rapidly presented auditory rather than visual stimuli. This developmental difference did not occur for the control group.