Infants aged 4.5 months are able to match phonetic information in the face and voice (Kuhl & Meltzoff, 1982;Patterson & Werker, 1999); however, the ontogeny of this remarkable ability is not understood. In the present study, we address this question by testing substantially younger infants at 2 months of age. Like the 4.5-month-olds in past studies, the 2-month-old infants tested in the current study showed evidence of matching vowel information in face and voice. The effect was observed in overall looking time, number of infants who looked longer at the match, and longest look to the match versus mismatch. Furthermore, there were no differences based on male or female stimuli and no preferences for the match when it was on the right or left side. These results show that there is robust evidence for phonetic matching at a much younger age than previously known and support arguments for either some kind of privileged processing or particularly rapid learning of phonetic information.

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

No abstract

Compared with treatment as usual, Housing First produced greater improvements in housing stability, quality of life, and community functioning after one year of enrollment. The study provides support for adopting Housing First as an approach for ending chronic homelessness among persons with severe mental illness, even if they are actively symptomatic or using substances.

BackgroundIndividuals with mental illnesses are overrepresented among the homeless. Housing First (HF) has been shown to promote positive outcomes in this population. However, key questions remain unresolved, including: how to match support services to client needs, the benefits of housing in scattered sites versus single congregate building, and the effectiveness of HF with individuals actively using substances. The present study aimed to recruit two samples of homeless mentally ill participants who differed in the complexity of their needs. Study details, including recruitment, randomization, and follow-up, are presented.MethodsEligibility was based on homeless status and current mental disorder. Participants were classified as either moderate needs (MN) or high needs (HN). Those with MN were randomized to HF with Intensive Case Management (HF-ICM) or usual care. Those with HN were randomized to HF with Assertive Community Treatment (HF-ACT), congregate housing with support, or usual care. Participants were interviewed every 3 months for 2 years. Separate consent was sought to access administrative data.ResultsParticipants met eligibility for either MN (n = 200) or HN (n = 297) and were randomized accordingly. Both samples were primarily male and white. Compared to participants designated MN, HN participants had higher rates of hospitalization for psychiatric reasons prior to randomization, were younger at the time of recruitment, younger when first homeless, more likely to meet criteria for substance dependence, and less likely to have completed high school. Across all study arms, between 92% and 100% of participants were followed over 24 months post-randomization. Minimal significant differences were found between study arms following randomization. 438 participants (88%) provided consent to access administrative data.ConclusionThe study successfully recruited participants meeting criteria for homelessness and current mental disorder. Both MN and HN groups had high rates of substance dependence, suicidality, and physical illness. Randomization resulted in no meaningful detectable differences between study arms.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN57595077 (Vancouver at Home study: Housing First plus Assertive Community Treatment versus congregate housing plus supports versus treatment as usual) and ISRCTN66721740 (Vancouver At Home study: Housing First plus Intensive Case Management versus treatment as usual).