Stimulus, task, and learning effects on measures of temporal resolution: Implications for predictors of language outcome

Nicholas A. Smith, Laurel J. Trainor, Kellie Gray, Judy A. Plantinga, David I. Shore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Some studies find that temporal processing ability predicts language outcome whereas other studies do not. Resolution of this debate is hindered by the variety of temporal measures used, nonsensory loading of the tasks, and differential amounts of practice across studies. The goal of this study was to examine the effects of stimulus properties, experimental task, and perceptual learning on listeners' gap detection performance. Method: Gap detection thresholds were obtained from adults with normal hearing and language ability. The effects of marker frequency similarity and marker duration on thresholds were examined in yes-no, two-interval forced-choice (2IFC), and dual-pair comparison tasks (which vary in nonsensory loading) over 4 days of testing. Results: Thresholds were highest for gaps defined by markers with disparate frequencies (1000 and 4000 Hz; i.e., between-channel gap detection), and with longer (300 ms) trailing markers, obtained using yes-no and 2IFC tasks. However, these effects were attenuated with training or the initial use of the dual-pair comparison task. Conclusions: These results suggest that gap detection thresholds reflect a variety of sensory and nonsensory factors. Understanding these underlying factors is critical to any evaluation of the relation between temporal processing and language outcome.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1630-1642
Number of pages13
JournalJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume51
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2008

Fingerprint

learning success
stimulus
Aptitude
Language
Learning
language
ability
listener
Hearing
evaluation
learning
performance
Stimulus
Predictors
Temporal Processing

Keywords

  • Backward masking
  • Gap detection
  • Language
  • Perceptual learning
  • Temporal resolution

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

Stimulus, task, and learning effects on measures of temporal resolution : Implications for predictors of language outcome. / Smith, Nicholas A.; Trainor, Laurel J.; Gray, Kellie; Plantinga, Judy A.; Shore, David I.

In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Vol. 51, No. 6, 01.12.2008, p. 1630-1642.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Smith, Nicholas A. ; Trainor, Laurel J. ; Gray, Kellie ; Plantinga, Judy A. ; Shore, David I. / Stimulus, task, and learning effects on measures of temporal resolution : Implications for predictors of language outcome. In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2008 ; Vol. 51, No. 6. pp. 1630-1642.
@article{95436e12912c4f39812c4759d0199bfb,
title = "Stimulus, task, and learning effects on measures of temporal resolution: Implications for predictors of language outcome",
abstract = "Purpose: Some studies find that temporal processing ability predicts language outcome whereas other studies do not. Resolution of this debate is hindered by the variety of temporal measures used, nonsensory loading of the tasks, and differential amounts of practice across studies. The goal of this study was to examine the effects of stimulus properties, experimental task, and perceptual learning on listeners' gap detection performance. Method: Gap detection thresholds were obtained from adults with normal hearing and language ability. The effects of marker frequency similarity and marker duration on thresholds were examined in yes-no, two-interval forced-choice (2IFC), and dual-pair comparison tasks (which vary in nonsensory loading) over 4 days of testing. Results: Thresholds were highest for gaps defined by markers with disparate frequencies (1000 and 4000 Hz; i.e., between-channel gap detection), and with longer (300 ms) trailing markers, obtained using yes-no and 2IFC tasks. However, these effects were attenuated with training or the initial use of the dual-pair comparison task. Conclusions: These results suggest that gap detection thresholds reflect a variety of sensory and nonsensory factors. Understanding these underlying factors is critical to any evaluation of the relation between temporal processing and language outcome.",
keywords = "Backward masking, Gap detection, Language, Perceptual learning, Temporal resolution",
author = "Smith, {Nicholas A.} and Trainor, {Laurel J.} and Kellie Gray and Plantinga, {Judy A.} and Shore, {David I.}",
year = "2008",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0058)",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "1630--1642",
journal = "Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research",
issn = "1092-4388",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stimulus, task, and learning effects on measures of temporal resolution

T2 - Implications for predictors of language outcome

AU - Smith, Nicholas A.

AU - Trainor, Laurel J.

AU - Gray, Kellie

AU - Plantinga, Judy A.

AU - Shore, David I.

PY - 2008/12/1

Y1 - 2008/12/1

N2 - Purpose: Some studies find that temporal processing ability predicts language outcome whereas other studies do not. Resolution of this debate is hindered by the variety of temporal measures used, nonsensory loading of the tasks, and differential amounts of practice across studies. The goal of this study was to examine the effects of stimulus properties, experimental task, and perceptual learning on listeners' gap detection performance. Method: Gap detection thresholds were obtained from adults with normal hearing and language ability. The effects of marker frequency similarity and marker duration on thresholds were examined in yes-no, two-interval forced-choice (2IFC), and dual-pair comparison tasks (which vary in nonsensory loading) over 4 days of testing. Results: Thresholds were highest for gaps defined by markers with disparate frequencies (1000 and 4000 Hz; i.e., between-channel gap detection), and with longer (300 ms) trailing markers, obtained using yes-no and 2IFC tasks. However, these effects were attenuated with training or the initial use of the dual-pair comparison task. Conclusions: These results suggest that gap detection thresholds reflect a variety of sensory and nonsensory factors. Understanding these underlying factors is critical to any evaluation of the relation between temporal processing and language outcome.

AB - Purpose: Some studies find that temporal processing ability predicts language outcome whereas other studies do not. Resolution of this debate is hindered by the variety of temporal measures used, nonsensory loading of the tasks, and differential amounts of practice across studies. The goal of this study was to examine the effects of stimulus properties, experimental task, and perceptual learning on listeners' gap detection performance. Method: Gap detection thresholds were obtained from adults with normal hearing and language ability. The effects of marker frequency similarity and marker duration on thresholds were examined in yes-no, two-interval forced-choice (2IFC), and dual-pair comparison tasks (which vary in nonsensory loading) over 4 days of testing. Results: Thresholds were highest for gaps defined by markers with disparate frequencies (1000 and 4000 Hz; i.e., between-channel gap detection), and with longer (300 ms) trailing markers, obtained using yes-no and 2IFC tasks. However, these effects were attenuated with training or the initial use of the dual-pair comparison task. Conclusions: These results suggest that gap detection thresholds reflect a variety of sensory and nonsensory factors. Understanding these underlying factors is critical to any evaluation of the relation between temporal processing and language outcome.

KW - Backward masking

KW - Gap detection

KW - Language

KW - Perceptual learning

KW - Temporal resolution

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=56849090563&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=56849090563&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0058)

DO - 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0058)

M3 - Article

C2 - 18664697

AN - SCOPUS:56849090563

VL - 51

SP - 1630

EP - 1642

JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

SN - 1092-4388

IS - 6

ER -