Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1975,41, 233-234. @ Perceptual and Motor Skills 1975
SUCCESSIVE VERSUS SIMULTANEOUS PRESENTATION OF FORMS I N ORAL STEREOGNOSTIC TESTING1 EHUD YAIRI A N D DENISE CAVANESS Texas Tech University Summ~y.-Two forms of 55 pairs of plastic forms were orally presented one at a time to a group of 30 adults at 5-sec. intervals and to 30 other adults simultaneously. The latter subjects made significantly more errors, particularly between classes of forms.
The technique of paired comparisons of plastic forms in testing oral stereognosis (Ringel, Burk,& Scott, 1968) has apparently eliminated problems of intersensory contamination inherent in earlier methods (Shelton, Arndt, & Hetherington, 1967). However, the usual 5-sec. delay between presentation of the two forms of each stimulus pair complicates the perceptual task by preventing immediate direct comparison of shapes and by relying to some extent on the subject's retention. This factor might be minimized by presenting the forms simultaneously. This study compared oral stereognostic scores obtained by successive form presentation with those obtained by simultaneous presentation. Method.-Sixty female university students between the ages of 18 and 28 yr. participated. They were all free of speech defects or abnormalities of oral structures and demonstrated no history of motor or sensory difficulties. Subjects were randomly divided into two groups of 30 each. The 10 NIDR plastic forms used by Ringel, Burk, and Scott (1968) were also employed in this study. Each form was paired with itself and with each of the other nine forms yielding a total of 55 stimulus pairs. Of these, 37 were between-class comparisons (paired forms differing in shape category) and 18 were within-class comparisons a aired forms similar in the general geometric shape). Thirty different random orders were pre-determined for presenting the 55 stimulus pairs. One of these orders was randomly assigned to the individual subjects in each group. The subject was seated blindfolded in a chair and each form was placed in his mouth by one investigator. For Group I the forms of a pair were presented one at a time, each for a 7-sec. period. The time interval between presentation of the two forms was 5 sec. After the second form was removed, subjects were asked to indicate whether the stimuli were "same" or "different." Subjects in Group I1 were simultaneously presented with the two forms of each pair and explored the forms orally for 7 sec. Upon removal of the forms, subjects indicated whether they were the "same" or "different." The data were analyzed in terms of between-class, within-class and total number of errors. t tests for unrelated groups were employed to evaluate statistical significance of group differences. 'This research was supported by a grant from the Institute of Human Resources, Texas Tech University, Principal Investigator, Dr. Ehud Yairi. Portions of the data reported herein are based upon a thesis completed by Denise Cavaness, M.S., Texas Tech University ( 1 9 7 3 ) , under the direction of Ehud Yairi, Ph.D.
E. YAlRI & D. CAVANESS
234
Results.-Group means, standard deviations, and results of the statistical analyses are presented in Table 1. These data show marked, and statistically significant increases in number of errors from Group I (successive method) to Group 11 (simultaneous method) across all three measures. There was a noticeable increase in the ratio of between- to within-class errors. The mean ratio was .34 in Group I and 1.22 in Group I1 ( t 5 , = 4.40, p < .01). TABLE 1
MEANERRORS ON ORALSTEREOGNOSTIC TEST,STANDARD DEVIATIONS BY GROUP Error Type Wirhin-class Errors Between-class Errors Total Errors
Group I M SD 3.73 1.07 4.80
1.52 1.80 2.61
Group 11 M SD 5.10 5.57 10.67
2.16 3.91 5.36
tra
P
2.59 9.20 5.33
0.01 0.01 0.01
The large differences in test scores obtained by the two groups are of special interest since more errors occurred under the simultaneous condition which apparently allowed for more direct comparisons of stimuli and minimized dependency on retention. The over-all high error frequency associated with this method may permit finer grading of oral stereognostic skills than successive presentation which gave near ceiling performance. Another important observation is that the simultaneous presentation method resulted in more between- than within-class errors while the consecutive presentation method, both in this and in all past research, has yielded considerably more within- than between-class errors. It is the between-class comparisons, however, which have been considered more important in discriminating normal speakers from speech defective groups. Individuals with articulatory disorders not only produced more between-class errors than did normal speakers, but the proportion of between-class errors increased monoconically as a function of severity of articulation defects (Ringel, Burk, & Scott, 1968; Ringel, et al., 1970). In this respect normal speaking subjects in Group I1 demonstrated oral stereognostic response pattern similar to that of articulatory defective persons. Thus, further research with simulcaneous presentation might contribute to understanding the nature of orosensory disturbances associated with speech disorders. REFERENCES
RINGEL, R. L., BURK,K. W., & SCO?T, C. M. Tactile perception: form discrimination in
the mouth. British /ouma/ o f Disorders of Communication, 1968, 3, 150-155. RINGEL,R. L., HOUSE,A. S., BURK, K. W . , DOLINSKY, J. P., & SCOTT, C. M. Some relacions between oral sensory discrimination and articulatory aspect of speech production. Journal o f Speeh and Hearing Dirorderr, 1970, 35, 3-11. SHELTON,R. L., ARNDT, W. B., Br HETHERINGTON, J. J. Testing oral stereognosis. In J. F. Bosma (Ed.), Symporiirm on oral sensation and perception. Springfield, 111.: Thomas, 1967. Pp. 221-243.
Accepted July 8,1975.
SUCCESSIVE VERSUS SIMULTANEOUS PRESENTATION OF FORMS I N ORAL STEREOGNOSTIC TESTING1 EHUD YAIRI A N D DENISE CAVANESS Texas Tech University Summ~y.-Two forms of 55 pairs of plastic forms were orally presented one at a time to a group of 30 adults at 5-sec. intervals and to 30 other adults simultaneously. The latter subjects made significantly more errors, particularly between classes of forms.
The technique of paired comparisons of plastic forms in testing oral stereognosis (Ringel, Burk,& Scott, 1968) has apparently eliminated problems of intersensory contamination inherent in earlier methods (Shelton, Arndt, & Hetherington, 1967). However, the usual 5-sec. delay between presentation of the two forms of each stimulus pair complicates the perceptual task by preventing immediate direct comparison of shapes and by relying to some extent on the subject's retention. This factor might be minimized by presenting the forms simultaneously. This study compared oral stereognostic scores obtained by successive form presentation with those obtained by simultaneous presentation. Method.-Sixty female university students between the ages of 18 and 28 yr. participated. They were all free of speech defects or abnormalities of oral structures and demonstrated no history of motor or sensory difficulties. Subjects were randomly divided into two groups of 30 each. The 10 NIDR plastic forms used by Ringel, Burk, and Scott (1968) were also employed in this study. Each form was paired with itself and with each of the other nine forms yielding a total of 55 stimulus pairs. Of these, 37 were between-class comparisons (paired forms differing in shape category) and 18 were within-class comparisons a aired forms similar in the general geometric shape). Thirty different random orders were pre-determined for presenting the 55 stimulus pairs. One of these orders was randomly assigned to the individual subjects in each group. The subject was seated blindfolded in a chair and each form was placed in his mouth by one investigator. For Group I the forms of a pair were presented one at a time, each for a 7-sec. period. The time interval between presentation of the two forms was 5 sec. After the second form was removed, subjects were asked to indicate whether the stimuli were "same" or "different." Subjects in Group I1 were simultaneously presented with the two forms of each pair and explored the forms orally for 7 sec. Upon removal of the forms, subjects indicated whether they were the "same" or "different." The data were analyzed in terms of between-class, within-class and total number of errors. t tests for unrelated groups were employed to evaluate statistical significance of group differences. 'This research was supported by a grant from the Institute of Human Resources, Texas Tech University, Principal Investigator, Dr. Ehud Yairi. Portions of the data reported herein are based upon a thesis completed by Denise Cavaness, M.S., Texas Tech University ( 1 9 7 3 ) , under the direction of Ehud Yairi, Ph.D.
E. YAlRI & D. CAVANESS
234
Results.-Group means, standard deviations, and results of the statistical analyses are presented in Table 1. These data show marked, and statistically significant increases in number of errors from Group I (successive method) to Group 11 (simultaneous method) across all three measures. There was a noticeable increase in the ratio of between- to within-class errors. The mean ratio was .34 in Group I and 1.22 in Group I1 ( t 5 , = 4.40, p < .01). TABLE 1
MEANERRORS ON ORALSTEREOGNOSTIC TEST,STANDARD DEVIATIONS BY GROUP Error Type Wirhin-class Errors Between-class Errors Total Errors
Group I M SD 3.73 1.07 4.80
1.52 1.80 2.61
Group 11 M SD 5.10 5.57 10.67
2.16 3.91 5.36
tra
P
2.59 9.20 5.33
0.01 0.01 0.01
The large differences in test scores obtained by the two groups are of special interest since more errors occurred under the simultaneous condition which apparently allowed for more direct comparisons of stimuli and minimized dependency on retention. The over-all high error frequency associated with this method may permit finer grading of oral stereognostic skills than successive presentation which gave near ceiling performance. Another important observation is that the simultaneous presentation method resulted in more between- than within-class errors while the consecutive presentation method, both in this and in all past research, has yielded considerably more within- than between-class errors. It is the between-class comparisons, however, which have been considered more important in discriminating normal speakers from speech defective groups. Individuals with articulatory disorders not only produced more between-class errors than did normal speakers, but the proportion of between-class errors increased monoconically as a function of severity of articulation defects (Ringel, Burk, & Scott, 1968; Ringel, et al., 1970). In this respect normal speaking subjects in Group I1 demonstrated oral stereognostic response pattern similar to that of articulatory defective persons. Thus, further research with simulcaneous presentation might contribute to understanding the nature of orosensory disturbances associated with speech disorders. REFERENCES
RINGEL, R. L., BURK,K. W., & SCO?T, C. M. Tactile perception: form discrimination in
the mouth. British /ouma/ o f Disorders of Communication, 1968, 3, 150-155. RINGEL,R. L., HOUSE,A. S., BURK, K. W . , DOLINSKY, J. P., & SCOTT, C. M. Some relacions between oral sensory discrimination and articulatory aspect of speech production. Journal o f Speeh and Hearing Dirorderr, 1970, 35, 3-11. SHELTON,R. L., ARNDT, W. B., Br HETHERINGTON, J. J. Testing oral stereognosis. In J. F. Bosma (Ed.), Symporiirm on oral sensation and perception. Springfield, 111.: Thomas, 1967. Pp. 221-243.
Accepted July 8,1975.
