Operant audiometry with severely retarded children

Fulton, Robert T.; Spradlin, Joseph E.

doi:10.3109/00206097109072561

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Procedures for determining intelligence, blindness, deafness, range of motion, language skills, and so on among the severely impaired are not well validated. Procedures for audiometric evaluation of the severely retarded though operant techniques are fairly well standardized (Fulton, 1971 ), but they are used in few instances; and the technology for assessing other physical attributes (e.g., visual acuity) is still under development (Spellman & DeBriere, 1976).…”

Section: Nondiscriminatory Testing With the Severely/ Profoundly Handmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This may result in inappropriate training strategies or goals to be used if information on the associated handicaps is unavailable. Although some of this technology exists or is under development (Fulton, 1971;Spellman & DeBriere, 1976;Foster & Barnes, 1977), it does not appear to have had the same impact as that of assessment instruments used for prescriptive programming.…”

Section: Nondiscriminatory Testing With the Severely/ Profoundly Handmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Nondiscriminatory Testing Of Minority and Exceptional Children

Alley¹,

Foster²

1978

focusXchild

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Nondiscriminatory Testing With the Severely/ Profoundly Handmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Nondiscriminatory Testing With the Severely/ Profoundly Handmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nondiscriminatory Testing Of Minority and Exceptional Children

Alley¹,

Foster²

1978

focusXchild

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The procedural features were based on previous studies that applied operant techniques for threshold assessment in nonhuman subjects (e.g., Blough, 1958;Clevenger & Restrepo, 2006;Gerken & Sandlin, 1977;Langemann, Gauger, & Klump, 1998;Pfingst & Morris, 1993) and young or disabled children (e.g., Berg & Smith, 1983;Fulton & Spradlin, 1971;Moore, Wilson, & Thompson, 1977;Primus & Thompson, 1985;Sinnott, Pisoni, & Aslin, 1983). Initially, participants learned a simple successive discrimination task (Go/No Go) between the presence and absence of the auditory stimulus generated by the cochlear implant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Operant measurement of auditory threshold in prelingually deaf users of cochlear implants: II.

Silva¹,

Souza²,

Bevilácqua³

et al. 2011

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments evaluated an operant procedure for establishing stimulus control using auditory and electrical stimuli as a baseline for measuring the electrical current threshold of electrodes implanted in the cochlea. Twenty-one prelingually deaf children, users of cochlear implants, learned a Go/No Go auditory discrimination task (i.e., pressing a button in the presence of the stimulus but not in its absence). When the simple discrimination baseline became stable, the electrical current was manipulated in descending and ascending series according to an adapted staircase method. Thresholds were determined for three electrodes, one in each location in the cochlea (basal, medial, and apical). Stimulus control was maintained within a certain range of decreasing electrical current but was eventually disrupted. Increasing the current recovered stimulus control, thus allowing the determination of a range of electrical currents that could be defined as the threshold. The present study demonstrated the feasibility of the operant procedure combined with a psychophysical method for threshold assessment, thus contributing to the routine fitting and maintenance of cochlear implants within the limitations of a hospital setting.

show abstract