using P-Stat, BMDP and SPSS for a cross-products factor analysis

Tanner, Barry A.; Leiman, James M.

doi:10.1016/0010-468x(83)90084-3

Computer Programs in Biomedicine

1983

DOI: 10.1016/0010-468x(83)90084-3

|View full text |Cite

using P-Stat, BMDP and SPSS for a cross-products factor analysis

Barry A. Tanner

James M. Leiman

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2001

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Auditory Evoked Responses to Similar Words with Phonemic Difference: Comparison between Children with Good and Poor Reading Scores

Valencia

McAnulty²,

Waber³

et al. 2001

Clinical Electroencephalography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our previous study demonstrated a physiologic deficit in two-tone discrimination in poor readers. This was specific to the left parietal area suggesting that poor readers handled rapid tones differently. The current paper extends this finding in the same population, demonstrating that poor readers also have difficulty with phonemic discrimination. Long latency auditory evoked potentials (AEP) were formed using a phonemic discrimination task in a group of children with reading disabilities and controls. Measuring peak-to-peak amplitude of the waveforms, we found reduced N1-P2 amplitude in the Poor Reader group. Using the t-statistic significance probability map (SPM) technique, we also found a group difference, maximal over the mid-parietal area, from 584 msec to 626 msec after the stimulus onset. This difference was due to a lower amplitude on the Poor Reader group. We hypothesized that this late difference constitutes a P3 response and that the Poor Reader group generated smaller P3 waves. These auditory evoked response (AER) data support a discrimination deficit for close phonemes in the Poor Reader group as they had smaller N1-P2 absolute amplitude and developed smaller P3 waves. Based on these data we should be able to differentiate between Good and Poor readers based on long latency potentials created from phonemic stimuli.

show abstract

Auditory Evoked Responses to Similar Words with Phonemic Difference: Comparison between Children with Good and Poor Reading Scores

Valencia

McAnulty²,

Waber³

et al. 2001

Clinical Electroencephalography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

using P-Stat, BMDP and SPSS for a cross-products factor analysis

Cited by 1 publication

References 6 publications

Auditory Evoked Responses to Similar Words with Phonemic Difference: Comparison between Children with Good and Poor Reading Scores

Auditory Evoked Responses to Similar Words with Phonemic Difference: Comparison between Children with Good and Poor Reading Scores

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About