llllllll
. . .. c9...-u o .. . , , . . . . ._
.fl.o..s. 9-. 5 ‘ .u .. . . . o . A o . .w L. . o . c .
.u.‘ , . . .t v .v . Y . . . .a .
... ..o. .n ... J, .. .
a . _
1...‘ .. . ... 2:... . . . o
. s . ., .. g . ... s .
. ~ ~ . .‘ c .o .. . . .f . . _ L ..
o _. . .o . .., _. .‘ o. .‘ .
v .’ . . V‘ . .L. o
. .. . . .a ..G .. y... . . cuV . o
.a ,. . ‘o . a...u... 0.. . .
. .v ... . . .
. . . .\ .- 0. 0?. . \ .
. . o... . .u . p... « . u A
. . . o w.
. . .v .. . . .
.. . . . .1 . _ v3.94; .
v .. . .
. . . .. . . . .. . . .
. . . o _ .0. ‘ .Q
. . 9. o .. ... .. .
v _ g . a. v .. o. x...
. . . o . v.. _. .
. . y . o.
. . . . . .. L. . .1. .
. . . . . . . . . . .
noon . . . .
. . o. .4 o
r I 1‘ . L . ‘.u0o . .o
. . u. L _. . .. c. . o . . .
0 . . s .0
_ . n a . ,. o u
n . .. . v. R... o. .
o . . ~
v .. o . . .
. o. . . .h‘
. 3 .1 . _. . A . . ~_. .
. t .o .. n . ... .w
. ... c .
.. ..7 . ._ . .. ..n n
_ . . . ..c.. o. .
O . . .0... . 5 .
.Q
_ _. o. .. .. . . . .... .
. . .\v . a. . .
_ . . . _ ._ . o ‘
. o . .. . o.
. I . o. .. o .. . .
. L L. . .
. st , ' a. .p . a
o q u.
a u . . u. . .0 _.
. .o v .
1 I
. .. v . . . .
. . .I - . o‘

. _
. .
u n
. .n.
. o
. p
. I
. .
. I t q 0
. .
. . . ..
. . c .
. .
o .1
0 v
v
\.
. . .
0 ~
.\ .
. .
n
n .

3". 00----” -0 “‘"PFW"'Y‘“""‘" V‘VVWV—“rvvv-w7-~119w—f‘v w- —
.
0

‘pi‘

‘—

 

.~-~~

:9’”

c..1.. . _..A.

 

.'
.
’s‘.
.‘
_. .-
ml.
c
- t
O
I- . .
u
<
o "
‘.'..-.
- o
‘ 1

.‘wmi

s

 

 

ORAL'”VR

VE CHI

CT!

 

or- ..
TESTING STRATEGIES
TORY- 0er

  

m.
I.
m
-
.
b:n . .a ~ .._ ....'.....
D r U
...§ . .L . .Df‘f!

pPITCo

. . . L . v . . oJJ . l . ‘ . v.
. . . .L .9. .c. .... .1... , 41.5.3. . .\.~ ...v.’0v..I-.-.o. 5.1}... 1&4.‘ . _. .

 

. ,. .
- _ v
.. .
. .
. .o.~
.
— _.
. r t. ‘
_ . ~ .
. . o.
a V O . _ c
. .
. .
_'—l - ~
.. . a.
.
.. 0..
.‘ _ .
t "
o I I
:0 .
‘
.. _ , . c
.
. .. Y
a 1 . I D
. .
. o
..
‘ o .
. . .
. .. .
.
t .
Q .
, ‘. _ a o .
. . o. . ..
a .I ‘
.. .. .
. .
.9 n O
4 o .‘ . .
I —
<0 n. O . .
c u
A .
... .
..
.1 I ..n
q . a
O 0
.u . .
. 0
¢. .
..
. .. ..
. . . a
. . ..
-
o . ‘.
. o . .
. . ..
o .
. ...s.

A.

I
.

0

H4

0

gree

- MICHIGAN STATE uuwmsm _s

.

.

o

for"

Thesis

_ ...‘ ....L.....

0

u .

 

SALLY

was: N~

.

.t...

o

0

197.4 1

c
.

t'li

   

c .
c -
I _ . .
a
.
_ _. a .
a .
.
.4
. .
O . .0
a . ._ .. .
. in... o .
.
0p . . _ o
.. ’. .
O
. o I . o: 0 .
. Q . . . IA.
4
..
. o .. . o
. A.
n O . n .0
o .
_..o . ... . V
'1‘ O
U u . .A . .
. o.
. . . ... . I. .
. ~ ~. 9 .1. c o
.2 ..
. .27 .A c
. .
. o u
o . 9.. .3.
.. . :3 o . o .
- ¢ .
Y a .. .. ..
. . .. b.
. o . O
O. A
. . 7.. I.
. . . .2 . .- .....
O
. T... 3 {pct H u
. o
I . .
. .. . ._
.. ... s
. . .u. . f“
9 a I in.
.. .. ...
t
a
0 o. . n. 1
I
1 . ... . .1.
. . .' a U
. ,
O a
2 . . . O
.. ,.. . .
... II . .
. . .1 a.
t v .
. . c . r v
u . . . . -.
. . . . .. .
. - n
u r .
. .a. . .. *.0 V
I . a
. . .
- n I _
D u. n O
. .a. . 0.1. o
. ._ . $0. .
~o _
I On I
. S ..
. . .
. _ . .
. .
a ._u I a A
.a. .
.
.q; .
. u
. a. .
a
. --
. . .
. .I
. O u
. . o
r. .
.
cu. .
. A .
A n I
o . ..
o .. .
.
0 ‘
t - O
A!
. ~ .
- - ;
o u ‘u a
.
O I O
. I .a .
. .
.
.
D
.
.
o .J
o
. k
..
' ..|
.
o
.
. . .
.
<
. .
t
c
O O
u .
.
§
. o
O O u .
a
0 ~
. q
o
.
. ‘
N. .
.
o
O
. .. o .d ....m. _. .41.)...y. 1v,
. _ .x . . ..‘.. . L. .5 ‘. 3 I o

.f

.. 3.. K. i ZW‘.&
_ HT. VJ... ......n_.! a” . h... upT,&&E13}%rLy’anv

 

I‘: “‘3
a “L“-

 

 

 

 

sué \j‘

ABSTRACT

A COMPARISON OF TWO ORAL STEREOGNOSIS TESTING STRATEGIES

WITH ARTICULATORY—DEFECTIVE CHILDREN

BY

Sally Jame Bain

It was the purpose of this investigation to evaluate
whether or not the crossing of modalities in oral stereognosis
testing causes a difference in degree of difficulty for
children with defective articulatory functioning when compared
with a matched control group. Subjects were fifteen children,
aged 7 to 10 years, with defective articulation ranging in
severity and fifteen normal speakers matched for age and sex.
Existence and severity of articulation defect was measured by

the Fisher-Logemann Test of Articulation Competence. To

 

determine the effects of modality-crossing, each child was
given two tests developed for testing oral-stereognosis
abilities. One method consisted of stimuli presented orally
(0-0). The other involved both visual and oral presentation
(V-O). In both cases, the subject was required to make a
"same or different" judgement concerning the pairs of stimuli
presented. Specifically, three experimental questions were

studied:

Sally Jame Bain
(1) What relationship exists between articulatory performance,
method of oral stereognosis testing, and error type profile?
(2) Is there a correlation between articulatory proficiency
(as measured by standard articulation inventory) and oral
stereognosis performance? (3) Does visual perceptual
ability (as measured by selected subtests of the Illinois
Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities) correlate with success
on the Visual-Oral (V-O) test procedure?

The error responses were classified into three types:
Type I--between class error, where the subject received forms
of two dissimilar shapes (example: oval-triangle) but
perceived the forms as identical. Type II--within class
error, where the subject received different sizes of the same
form, but perceived them as identical. Type III--within
class error, where the subject received the same forms but
perceived them as different.

Results indicated that the articulatory-defective
children were significantly poorer than normal children on
both oral stereognosis tests (V-O and 0-0). The two testing
methods did not result in a significant difference in terms
of total errors, but did evidence a different error type
profile. The V-O strategy resulted in more Type II errors
but the 0-0 was associated with more Type I and Type III
errors. In addition, the two subject groups showed different

error type profiles. Specifically, the articulatory-defective

Sally Jame Bain
had many more Type I and Type III errors but were not
differentiated from normals with regard to Type II errors.
No correlation was found between articulation proficiency
and V-O performance. However, a significant correlation
between number of articulation errors and 0-0 performance
was noted. Finally, no correlation was found between
visual perceptual skill and V-O performance.

The results are discussed with reference to
previous literature and a proposed model which accounts for
oral stereognosis ability. Clinical implications are also

presented.

Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Audiology
and Speech Sciences, COllege of Communication Arts, Michigan

State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Master of Arts Degree.

Thesis Committee:

 

Director

 

hn M. H tchinson, Ph.D.

 

W3
/;4¢¢¢§&

/( f \

Daniel S. Beasley, Ph.D.

@243 .f'M/A M

William F. Rintelmann, Ph.D.

 

A COMPARISON OF TWO ORAL STEREOGNOSIS TESTING STRATEGIES

WITH ARTICULATORY-DEFECTIVE CHILDREN

BY

Sally Jame Bain

I

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences

1974

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks to the members of my committee, Dr. Daniel
S. Beasley and Dr. William F. Rintelmann who gave their time
on my behalf. Special thanks to my thesis director, Dr. John

M. Hutchinson, for his time, efforts, ideas, and encouragement.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . .

’II. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . .

Subjects . . . . . . .
Test Materials . . . .
Procedures . . . .
Analysis of the Data .

III. RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of the 0-0 and V-O Testing Methods.
Oral Stereognosis Performance and Articulatory

Proficiency. . . . . .
Visual Perceptual Skills and V- O Findings . .

IV. DISCUSSION 0 O C O O C O O O O O O O O O O I O 0

General Discussion . . . . . . . . . . .
Comparison of the Two Testing Methods . . . .
Discrimination strategy . . . . . . . . . .
A model for "same-different" response
processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Explanation of present results within the
proposed model . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Articulatory Proficiency and Oral Stereognosis
Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-.
Visual and Perceptual and V-O Performance . .
Clinical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. SUWARY AND CONCLUSIONS 0 o o o o o o o o o o o

Implication for Further Research . . . . . . .

iii

Page

vi

U'Ii-I‘

\)

Hmmfl

12

16
18

20
20
22
24
28
31
35
36
39

APPENDICES

A. STIMULI

O

0

AND RECORDING FORM
B. ORAL PERIPHERAL EXAMINATION

C. INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS .
D. RAW DATA .

E. POST HOC STATISTICAL ANALISES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

iv

FORM

0 0 O O O

41

41
43
47
49
51

53

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Average number of errors for the two oral
stereognosis testing methods (V—O = visual-
oral; 0-0 = oral-oral) arranged according to
subject group and error type. . . . . . . . . . . 13

2. Analysis of variance summary table. . . . . . . . . 15

3. Correlations between method of presentation and
articulatory performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4. Correiations between visual perception (using
selected ITPA subtests) and V-O performance for
the articuIatory-defective children . . . . . . . 19

5. Discrimination errors for each oral stereognosis
error type. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 23

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Single modality processing model. . . . . . . . . . 25

2. Cross-modality processing model . . . . . . . . . . 27

vi

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

Review of the Literature

Historically, several models have been develOped to
account for the ongoing control of speech. One model involves
closed-100p regulation of speech activities (Fairbanks,

1954; Mysak, 1966). In this servo-system, feedback from
various sensory channels is employed to ensure accuracy in
the production of Speech segments. As such, peripheral
sensory data is crutial to acceptable speech motor program-
ming. The sensory channels which have received the greatest
theoretical and experimental attention have been the auditory
and oral tactile systems.

Fairbanks (1954) considered the auditory system to
be dominant in speech motor control. The research involving
delayed auditory feedback (Fairbanks, 1955; Fairbanks and
Guttman, 1958; McCroskey, 1959; Ham and Steer, 1967) and
high.intensity masking (Ringel and Steer, 1963) has demon-
Stlrated a disturbance in speech which results from disruptions
in auditory monitoring. These findings were interpreted as
5Hu3port for the Fairbanks model. However, other sensory

modzalities have been investigated as well. The oral

anesthetization studies of McCroskey (1958) and Ringel

, and Steer (1963) have illustrated the potential role of oral
sensory feedback to the ongoing control of speech.
Articulation with reduced sensory feedback is characterized
by a loss of precision and refinement in reaching certain
spatial targets (Scott and Ringel, 1971a and 1971b; Putnam,
1973). At least one investigation (Gammon §£_a1., 1971)
has documented significant "manner" of production disturbances
under conditions of reduced oral sensation. Therefore,
there is considerable evidence supporting at least some role
for closed-100p regulation of Speech.

A second explanation for the motor control of speech
is exemplified by the Open-loop model advanced by MacNeilage
(1970). He has suggested that sensory feedback plays a
minor role in speech production and that certain articulatory
events are "run off" without reference to the periphery.
However, despite this predominantly open-100p command
structure, MacNeilage does acknowledge the physiological
potential for closed-loop sampling and accords it a minor
role in his model.

Further evidence in support of the closed-loop
concept comes from the clinical literature in Speech pathology.
It is well-known that persons with hearing problems will
gerierally experience inaccuracies in speech production.
Mor‘eover, it has been shown that patients born without

aderquate oral sensory systems will not exhibit acceptable

3

speech (MacNeilage 31 31., 1967; Zlatin, 1972).

These general observations led investigators to
examine systematically the oral sensory skills of normal
talkers. For example, two point discrimination (Ringel and
Ewanowski, 1965), texture discrimination (Ringel and Fletcher,
1967), mandibular kinesthesia (Ringel 33 31., 1967), labial
kinesthesia (Ringel and Putnam, 1972), and oral stereognosis
(Ringel 31 31., 1970; Shelton 33 31., 1967) have been
investigated.

Of these several oral sensory testing procedures,
the greatest experimental attention has been devoted to oral
stereognosis, which may be defined as the ability to identify
objects placed for examination within the oral cavity (Arndt
33 31., 1970). Presumably, the conscious sensations of touch-
pressure and kinesthesia (Hardy, 1970) are critical for
accuracy of identification in any oral stereognosis task.

Two primary experimental strategies have been imple-
mented to assess oral stereognosis. One technique involves
the examination of two forms within the oral cavity and a
same-different judgement is made, hereafter referred to as
oral-oral. The second technique involves comparing the form
in the mouth with a visual representation of a form, hereafter
referred to as visual—oral. It has been suggested that this
latter technique makes the task one of oral form recognition
rather than one of oral stereognosis (Weinberg 31 31., 1970;

Arndt 31 31., 1970). That is, the task is not limited to

oral sensory examination alone, but involves visual integra-
tion and intersensory association as well. In addition, it
should be noted that a variety of geometric forms and investi—
gative procedures have been studied (For a review of this
literature, see Torrans, 1972).

It is significant that oral stereognosis has been
used clinically in the evaluation of persons having so called
"functional" articulation problems. Several studies designed
to measure oral stereognosis have concluded that children
with "functional" articulation problems have poorer results
than children with articulation patterns that are considered
to be normal (Ringel 3331., 1968; Grossman 3’3 31., 1970;
Ringel 31_31., 1970). These data strongly suggest the
potential for minimal oral sensory perceptual deficits in persons
having poor articulation skill. Ringel 33 31. (1970),
emphasized the potential clinical value of oral stereognosis
when they concluded:

The ability to differentiate between normal-speaking
and articulatory-defective persons on the basis of a
task of sensory discrimination is of significance
both from an applied and a theoretic point of view.
Evidence supporting the view that normal articulation
is reflected in orosensory functioning argues for the
acceptance of a speech-production model that incor-
porates some servo-mechanical features, and for a

variety of therapeutic practices that are compatible
with such a model (p. 10).

Statement of the Problem

 

If oral stereognosis is to be used as,a clinical
tool, the testing strategies must be clearly understood.
Little is known as to why the two aforementioned testing
procedures ("same-different" and "point—to-outline") differ
in the degree Of difficulty. It could be hypothesized that
because of the integration of oral sensory and visual moda—
lities in the point-to-outline task, the degree of difficulty
is increased (Torrans, 1972). However, the degree of
difficulty may also be a function of the different test items,
test lengths, and response forms. Since these two tests may
be of some clinical value, efforts should be made to clarify
reasons for differences in response difficulty with children,
particularly those with articulation problems. Therefore,
the primary purpose of the present study was to determine if
the crossing of modalities causes a difference in the level
of oral stereognosis difficulty in children with articulatory
problems as opposed to a matched control group. Testing
techniques matched in terms of test items, test length, and
method of response will be employed. Specifically, three
experimental questions were asked: (1) What relationship
exists between articulatory performance, method of oral
stereognosis testing, and error type profile? (2) Is there
a correlation between articulatory proficiency (as measured
by number of errors on a standard articulation inventory)

and oral stereognosis performance? (3) Does visual

perceptual ability (as measured by selected subtests of the

Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities) correlate

 

with success on the V-O procedure?

CHAPTER TWO

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Subjects

Thirty school age children, ranging in age from
seven to ten years (mean age = 8.05), served as subjects
in the present study. The subjects were enrolled in regular
classrooms in the Eaton Rapids, Michigan, public schools.
All children were judged to have normal hearing as measured
by a pure tone air conduction audiometric screening test
at 20 dB HTL (re. ANSI, 1969) for the frequencies of 500,
1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz. An oral peripheral examination was
conducted to rule out significant oral structural deviations.
(Huaexamination form is found in Appendix B).

Fifteen of the children constituted a control group.
They were judged normal in articulation skills as measured

by the screening subtest of the Fisher-Logemann Test of

 

Articulation Competence. The remaining fifteen children

 

were judged to have articulation disorders, ranging in
seaverity, as measured by the Fisher-Logemann Test of Articu-

IEItion Competence. An error was considered to be a defective

 

SCJIJnd in any position. For example, if the subject demon-
st:1‘ated a defective /s/ in all three positions, he would be

7

considered to have 3 articulation errors. No subject was
included unless he had at least two errors. Each group,
control and experimental, were matched for age and sex.

(See Appendix D for the characteristics Of each subject.)

Test Materials

 

The set of ten forms chosen by Ringel 33 31, (1968),
were used throughout this investigation. These forms were
selected for three major reasons: (1) There is a sizeable
body of data existent in the literature regarding this form
set, (2) This set of forms has been reported as being most
discriminating for adults (Torrans, 1972), and (3) The time required
for testing is not unduly long. Each form was individually
represented on a 3x5 inch card for use in the V-O task.
(This form set is illustrated in Appendix E.)

Inasmuch as visual perceptual abilities are involved
in any V-O stereognosis task, it was reasoned that a measure
of visual perception could provide some insight regarding
performance on a V-0 test. Accordingly, all children were
tested on the Visual Reception and Visual Sequential Memory

subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities.

 

Procedures

 

In the initial testing session, approximately 1/2

IMDLIr, each child was given the Visual Reception and Visual

Sequential Memory subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycho-

 

linguistic Abilities, the oral peripheral examination,

 

audiometric screening, and appropriate articulation test.
During the following two sessions, approximately 15 minutes
in length, the oral stereognosis tests described below were
conducted. Standard instructions were presented to each
subject (see Appendix B).

Procedure I--Visual-Oral (V-O): Each subject was
blindfolded and presented one of the test forms for examina-
tion within the oral cavity. He was allowed to manipulate
the form at will for an unlimited period of time. NO time
constraint was placed upon the child, in view of the conclu-
sion reached by Torrans (1972) that an unlimited examination
tinua'wilfil result in minimal test score differences as compared to the
same task with a time limit imposed with adult subjects.

After examination of the form orally and removal of
the blindfold, the subject was then shown the visual
representation of a test form. (Each form was paired with
itself and every other form to yield a total of 55 pairs.

In addition, 10 pairs of the same geometric form were added
to "balance" the number of ”same" and "different" presenta-
tions.) The subject was presented 65 pairs which were
nandomized 3 priori for each subject. No feedback from the
examiner was provided concerning the correctness of the
response.

In anticipation of possible order effects, the test

10

protocol was counterbalanced such that in half of the pairings
the visual representation was presented first and for half
of the pairings the oral was presented first.

Procedure II--Oral-Oral (O—O): The subject was
blindfolded throughout the entire procedure. The subject
was presented one test form for examination orally for an
unlimited amount of time. Upon removal of the first form
the subject was presented with another test form to examine
orally. Upon removal of the second form, the subject was
asked to make a judgement of "same” or "different." Each
subject received the same 65 presentations as described
above. Again, order of presentation was randomized 3 priori
for each subject. To eliminate the possibility of the subject
receiving clues from previously examined forms, each test
form was dried after each presentation. NO feedback
concerning correctness of the response was given. Again, in
anticipation of possible order effects, half of the subjects
performed the V-O task first and half performed the 0-0 task
first.

An important variable in both tasks is interstimulus
interval, which is defined as that period of time between
the presentation of two forms in any given pair. Smith (1973)
discerned that if this interval were less than 5 seconds no
notable deterioration in performance occurred. Therefore,
in the present study, interstimulus interval in both
procedures was controlled only to the extent that it would not

be allowed to exceed the critical time limit of 5 seconds.

11

Analysis of the Data

 

The errors recorded for each subject were classified
according to the procedure develOped by Ringel 33 31., (1968).
Basically, three categories of responses were utilized with
this scoring strategy: (1) between class error, where the
subject received forms of two dissimilar shapes (example:
oval-triangle) but perceived the forms as identica1--Type I,
(2) within class error, where the subject received different
sizes of the same form, but perceived them as identical--Type
II, and (3) within class error, where the subject received
the same forms but perceived them as different.

The resulting data was analyzed using a three-factor
factorial design (Subject Group x Method of Presentation x
Error Type) with repeated measures on the last two factors
(Winer, 1971). Where significant main effects were discovered,
the Newman-Keuls post hoc procedure was employed (Winer, 1971)
to determine more specifically where significant differences
occurred. In the case of significant interactions, simple
main effects tests were conducted and further probed using
the Newman-Keuls approach (Winer, 1971).

In addition, the relationships of visual sequential
memory and visual recognition to visual-oral discrimination
performance were evaluated using correlation procedures.
Similarly, the severity of the articulation problem was
correlated with the performance on both oral stereognosis

tasks.

CHAPTER THREE

RESULTS

Theresults of this investigation will be discussed in
three sections. In.the first section, a comparison of the O-O
and V-O strategies will be made with reference to experimental
group differences for each of the error classes. In the
second section, correlations will be made between the severity
of articulation defectiveness and oral stereognosis perfor-
mance. Finally, the relationship of visual perceptual Skill
and V—O stereognosis score51vi11 be presented. The raw data

for the present experiment are contained in Appendix 0.

Comparison of the O-O and V-O Testing Methods

The total number of oral stereognosis errors catego-
rized by error type and testing method for each experimental
group is presented in Table 1. Inspection of this table
indicates that children with articulation problems evidenced
poorer oral stereognosis scores than did the control group
of normal children. This patterns was evident in each
error type category for both testing strategies. The most
notable differences between the two groups were Observed in

the case of Type I errors (different form class, response was

12

13

Snow 65mm - mmmao canvas. "HHH omxe
oNflm ucmpommaw .ommam 05mm "HH maze

Hesse mmmao coozuom “H ease

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

am.N mm.m am.N ma.H m~.a AQ.H cam: aaaau
am.m mH.m om.H oo.m mm.~ oa.e No.N ma.~ Ha.H mm.a ow.m mm.N .puacaa OHOH<
an. 00. 0H.H oo.m 0H.H ma. ac. mm. aH.H ma.m an. ca. Haewoz
mm .m mm .M mm .M. mm .m. mm .M mm .M aaoau puahaam
_HHH make HH mass H ease HHH wasp HH mass H mass
85m: 0.0 85% o->

 

 

macaw newnnnm on wcvaouuw pomcmhhm flamuo-amho

.mmsu Moshe wen
u 0-0 ”auscuflm5mfi> u ou>v

muocpoe wpfipmou mflmocwoOHOHm Hugo ozu on» now muchpo mo popes: owmpo>< .H ofinme

 

LL

5‘

14

"same") and Type III (same form class, response was "dtfikmenvfl.
However, the distinction between experimental and control'
group was much less pronounced for Type II errors (same form
class, but different size, response was "same"). In addition,
it Should be noted that the articulatory defective group
exhibited greater variability in the number of errors for

all error types within each testing method.

The data presented in Table 1 were subjected to an
analysis of variance which is summarized in Table 2. This
procedure confirmed statistically significant difference
between the subject groups (p = .01). However, the two testing
methods were not observed to differ in terms of the overall
number of errors recorded. The error type factor was also

found to be significant. 3 Posteriori testing using the

 

Newman-Keuls approach (see Appendix E) revealed Type II errors
to be significantly greater than Type I or Type III errors
for both subject groups. However, the number of Type I and III

errors did not differ in a statistical sense.

Table 2 also indicates a significant subject groups
by error type interaction (p = .01). A simple main effects
test (see Appendix E) revealed that Type I and Type III errors
significantly differentiated the articulatoryédefective
children from their normal counterparts (p = .01) but that
the two groups did not differ significantly with respect to
Type II errors. A further two—way interaction was noted

between the testing method and the error type. The simple

15

 

 

 

 

om Hmo.on aaaoam :HHHHz apuaHHam x um
aaaam.a mma.NH H 00H.m~ um<
aaowa.o mamm.om N aao.oa um
aaOHo.A maa.m om oaw.o- maaoaw aHHHHz mauahaam x u
aaao.mH HOHo.am H HHa.mm u<
N mmo.wOH Haaso Hoaamv u
aam.a ”N mao.mmH maaoam aHHsz mHuaHHam x m
AOH. ama. H «ma. m<
MHO.H www.w H www.w Heogpazv m
omH amm.HmA mauahaam aHHHHz
moo.a mm aao.omH maaoam aHHHHz muuamaam
aaamw.am HNw.mmH H Hmw.mmm Hmaaoaov <
mm ooa.awm aouohnam aaozHam
m m: up mm ouhsom

 

 

 

 

 

 

.oanwp meEESm oocmflhw> mo mflmxfim2< .N magma

16

main effects procedure (see Appendix E) confirmed that the 0-0
presentation generally resulted in more Type I and Type III
errors (p = .01) when compared with the V-O technique, but

the V-O procedure caused the subjects to make more Type II
errors (p = .01) than the O-O technique.

Finally, a significant three way interaction (p = .01)
appeared between the subject groups, method of testing, and
error type. Results of the simple main effects tests
(see Appendix B) may be summarized as follows:

1. For the V-O presentation, the normals made

I significantly fewer Type I and Type III errors
than did the articulatory-defective children
(p = .05).

2. For the V-O presentation, the normals and
articulatory-defective children were not
differentiated with respect to Type II errors.

3. For the 0-0 presentation, the normals made
significantly fewer Type I and Type III errors
than did articulatory-defective children (p = .01).

4. For the 0-0 presentation, the normals and arti-
culatory—defective children were not differen-

tiated with respect to Type II errors.

Oral Stereognosis Performance and Articulatory Proficiency

 

Table 3 summarizes the product moment correlations

between method of presentation and articulatory proficiency.

Table

3. Correlations between method of presentation and

articulatory performance.

 

 

 

Correlation r t
Nunber of articulation errors with
overall V-O performance .063 .23
Number of articulation errors with
overall O-O performance . 62 3 2 . 8 8 **
Number of articulation errors with
Type I errors (V-O method) . 088 . 32
NUmber of articulation errors with
Type II errors (V-O method) .226 .857
NUmber of articulation errors with
Type III errors (V-O method) . 187 . 686
Number of articulation errors with
Type I errors (O-O method) . 440 l . 77*
Number of articulation errors with
Type II errors (O-O method) . 516 2 . 17*
Number of articulation errors with
Type III errors (O-O method) .033 .12

 

 

 

*1):

.05, **p = .01

It is clear that while children with articulation problems

did poorer than their normal speaking counterparts on both

oral stereognosis tests, there was not a perfect correlation

between stereognosis scores and articulation "defectiveness."

Clearly, for the V-O method of presentation, essentially

no correlation existed between the number of articulation

errors and the number of oral stereognosis scores.

true for all three error types.

However,

This was

the O-O testing

18

strategy was associated with a significant correlation

(p = .01) between number of articulation errors and oral
stereognosis errors. With respect to the 0-0 method,

Type I and Type II errors correlated significantly (p = .05)
with the number of articulation errors, but Type III responses

did not.

Visual Perceptual Skills and V-O Findings

The correlations between visual perception, as
measured by two subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycho-

linguistic Abilities, and the total number of errors for the

 

V-O method are presented in Table 4. Generally, significant
correlations were observed between each of the 11£3_subtests
and the number of V-O errors (p = .05) when both the normal
and articulatory-defective children were pooled. Similar
correlations were not significant within the latter
experimental group. This finding suggests that, as a sample,
the articulatory defective children were poorer on the 1123
subtests and poorer than the normals in oral stereognosis
proficiency. However, beyond this general observation, a
nonsignificant correlation between visual perception and V-O
performance was noted within the sample of articulatory-

defective children.

19

Table 4. Correlations between visual perception (using
selected ITPA subtests) and V-O performance for
the articulatory-defective children.

 

 

Correlation r t

 

Visual Sequential Memory with
overall V-O performance .072 .37

Visual Reception with -
overall V-O performance .250 1.36

Total visual score* with
overall V—O performance .216. 1.20

 

*Total visual score = sum of Visual Sequential Memory and
Visual Reception subtest scores.

CHAPTER FOUR

DISCUSSION

General Discussion

 

By way of review, the results of the present study
revealed that normal and articulatory-defective children
were Significantly different with respect to oral stereognosis
performance using both the oral-oral (0—0) and visual-oral
(V-O) testing strategies. These differences were restricted
to Type I (different forms, but response was "same") and
Type III (identical forms, response was "different") error
categories, whereas the Type II (forms different in size but
not shape, response "same") error pattern did not differen-
tiate the experimental and control groups. Differences in error type
profile were also observed. Specifically, the V-O procedure
resulted in more Type II errors than the O-O strategy, but
. the latter technique was associated with more Type I and
Type III errors. In addition, performance on the O-O task
correlated significantly with articulatory proficiency.
However, V-O performance and number of articulation errors
were not correlated. Finally, whereas visual perception

(as measured by selected subtests of the Illinois Test of

 

Psycholinguistic Abilities--ITPA) was generally poorer for

 

20

21

the articulatory—defective children, there was no signifi-
cant correlation between visual perception test scores and
performance on the V-O task.

The findings of the present study are consistent
with previous research involving comparison of normal
children and those having "functional" articulation disorders
using an 0-0 testing technique (Ringel 33 31., 1968; Grossman
‘33 31., 1970; Ringel 33_31,, 1970) as well as a V-0 examina-
tion procedure (Weinberg 33 31., 19703; 1970b; Shelton 33 31.,
1967).

The one study which most closely resembles the present
investigation in terms of experimental design, was that of
Ringel 33 31., (1970). They reported more errors on the
average for both normal and articulatory-defective children
than found in this study (Ringel 33_31.: Normals - x = 11.7
errors, Artic. Defective - x = 16.6 errors; Present study:
Normals - x = 4.5 errors, Artic. Defective - x = 13.3 errors).
This difference in 0-0 test performance was expected in view
of the five-second form retention time limit imposed by
Ringel 33 31. Torrans (1972) found that a five-second limit
inflated error scores slightly when compared with an unlimited
form-retention time for adult subjects.

In addition, Ringel 33 31. (1968) and Ringel 33 31.
(1970) reported that persons with disordered articulation and
normal talkers do differ significantly in their ability to

discriminate between class shapes (Type 1). However, the two

22

groups showed essentially no difference with respect to
within-class discriminations (Type II and Type III).
Generally, these results were confirmed in the present
investigation for both O-O and V-O testing methods.

The results of the previous research have documented
that a point-to-outline task has generally been much more
difficult than an O-O discrimination task (Torrans, 1972).
However, the use of a V-0 presentation strategy which requires
a "same-different" response, as used in the present study,
was not found to be more difficult than the O-O technique.
Therefore, when the two testing methods involved the same
paired-comparison paradigm, the level of task difficulty
was minimized in terms of total number of oral stereognosis

errors.

Comparison of the Two Testing Methods

 

Discrimination strategy

 

Before examining the specific differences in error
type profile for the two experimental groups with regard to
each testing procedure, an overview of the decision-making
process for a paired-comparison oral stereognosis task is
warranted. Table 5 summarizes the errors in discrimination
which occur for each error type. Inspection of this table
reveals that when the two test forms are different with

respect to shape, an erroneous decision indicates failure to

23

Table 5. Discrimination errors for each oral stereognosis
error type.

 

 

 

 

Type of Response Error
Presentation Same Different Type
Two forms differ Indicates an erro- Proper decision I
in shape eous decision with

regard to shape
(and size).

Two fOrms differ Indicates a prOper Proper decision II
in size, but not decision concern- '
shape ing shape but an

erroneous decision
with regard to size.

Two forms identical Proper decision Indicates either: III
(1) A proper de-
cision with regard
to shape, but an
error in size, or
(2) An incorrect
decision with re-
gard to both size
and shape.

 

 

 

 

discriminate the shape and/or Size of the forms. If the

two stimuli are in the same form class but differ only in
Size, an erroneous decision suggests that the subject
properly identified shape but not size. Finally, a response
error when the two stimuli are identical indicates at least
one of two incorrect decisions. First, the subject properly
identified shape, but could not discriminate the size.
Second, the subject may have made an incorrect decision with
regard to both size and shape. Unfortunately, neither

incorrect decision can be pinpointed using the present

24

testing procedure.

A model for "same-different” response processing

The exact nature of this decision making process
from a neuro-psychological standpoint is very difficult to
specify. Moreover, this process may differ in important
ways depending upon the presentation strategy (V-O versus
O-O). However, it is possible to infer several stages of
perception involved in reaching a "same-different" response
decision.

A hypothetical model which may account for the
decision-making process during an O-O task is presented in
Figure l. The sensory data derived from touch-pressure
and kinesthetic inputs are extracted by means of special
feature analysers develOped to detect specific characteristics
of the stimulus forms. For example, certain detectors may
respond to such features as rounded edges, straight edges,
points, weight, volume, etc. There has been considerable
neurOphysiological evidence marshalled to support the existence
of specialized neurosensory receptive fields within the
visual system (Galambos 33_31., 1967; Pribram, 1971) and the
auditory system (Nelson 33 31., 1966; Frishkopf and Goldstein,
1963; Abbs and Sussman, 1971). There is no reason to suspect
that such detectors are absent in the oral-sensory perceptual
system. Once the feature matrix of the stimulus form has

been specified, the outputs of the specialized feature

25

.Houoe mcfimmOOOHm xpfiamwoe mamcflm .H whamflm

 

—I II I. In I. IV “Ham: HOHNHNQEOU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_
_ TVA
_ _
H _
H H
_ _
H EHow _ N Egom “
_ _
_ .
_ _
_ H
_ _
_ I: p
ommpoum H Show._ Eoumxm Eoumzm
Al .I .l coaumumofl: A! pouoouom ,Allll “EH5
Sumpnupoam _[ OHSHmom OHSHmom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

detectors are integrated for proper identification.
Presumably, sophisticated subjects recognize the form as a
small oval, large triangle, etc. Less sophisticated 4
subjects, such as children, may not be able to attach the
proper geometric label, but nevertheless they codify the
features according to some other categorization strategy.
OnCe the form has been properly identified, its
integrated features are placed in short term storage. In a
paired-comparison task, the second form must be identified
according to the same feature detection and integration
procedure. However, the output of the second integration
process may be channeled to a comparator unit. Simultaneously,
the stored representation of the first form is tendered to
the comparator and the discrimination process is activated.
While this oversimplified model provides a reasonable
explanation of 0-0 discrimination, which involves only oral
sensory integration, it is inadequate to account for the V-O
matching process. Perhaps a more appropriate model for the
latter task is presented in Figure 2. This model incorporates
two separate feature detection and integration systems for
the visual and oral channels respectively. Of course, the
principal difference between this model and the first, is the
demand for cross-modality matching. Input from the oral
channel is extracted and codified according to a feature
System which may be quite different from that utilized in
the visual channel. Intuitively, this matching of forms

from two different sensory systems would appear to place a

27

.Hovoe mcfimmoOOHm xpfiamwosummopu

 

 

 

.N opsmfim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eoumxm
Houoouom
eunumom

m usmcH

HaamH>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omwuoum Empmkm
TI I I 1 83338.5 I
Spouuuuocm ouSpwom
H _
_ _
_ _
_ _
e
_ WI. .+
_ pHca
__.l I I I I I w .Houmpmeou
_ >
_ _
H, .
_. _
_ _
_ Ir
mmmuoum Eoumxm
AI .I I I. cofipmnmofifi A:
Epouapponm . mucuaom

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eopmxm
Houuouon
manumom

.AIIIIHHHHQHHH H95

 

 

28

greater burden on the comparator unit than if the matching

is within a single system.

Explanation of present results
within tEe proposed modeI

 

 

The results of the present study suggest a possible
hierarchy within the feature analysis process. Both
experimental groups made more size errors. In view of this
fact, we must conclude that size differentiation was much
more difficult than shape discrimination. These results are
consistent with those of Bishop 33 31. (1973) who concluded:

In performing the form discrimination task, the
observer must establish internal criteria upon which
to base his decision of "same" or "different." These
criteria can be set, for example, to avoid identical
(Type III) errors by permitting a judgment of
"different" to be made when differences are absolutely
identifiable . . . In the present study, the effect of
such a strategy would be greater on size than on
shape errors, since differences in size were more
difficult to detect than differences in shape (p. 262).
The exact reasons for the greater inaccuracy in size
differentiation are difficult to specify. One might specu-
late that the feature detectors for parameters critical to
size discrimination are fewer or less sensitive than those
for shape. It is also possible that shape identification
is prepotent and resistant to decay in the short term
storage, whereas size features may decay more easily. Support
for such hierarchical storage in short term memory is

provided by Norman (1969).

It is interesting that the V-O task resulted in more

29

Type II errors than the O-O procedure, whereas the latter
produced more Type I and Type III errors. The observation
that the V-O method rendered subtle size differentiation mOre
difficult for the subjects is conSistent with previous
observations. First of all, the cross-modality matching,
which requires comparison of feature sets from different
sensory channels, should be less sensitive to size analysis
as opposed to the relatively gross shape distinctions.

This would help to explain the difficulty encountered

by both groups on the Type II discrimination using a

V-0 method presentation.

The greater Type I and Type III error patterns fOr the
0-0 method are somewhat more difficult to explain using the
proposed model. It is possible that the oral manipulation
strategy and short term storage limitations could account
for these findings. Many subjects made a relatively rapid
decision concerning the first stimulus item in the pair but
manipulated the second form at some length before releasing
it. Presumably, this extended form retention time was
employed to increase the sensory data available upon which
to make a decision. This prolonged manipulation may have
necessitated extraction of specific features in~a relatively
slow sequential fashion. For example, the subject may have
received a triangle and rather than execute a cursory manipu-

lation in order to achieve a rapid Gestalt as to the shape

30

and size of the form, he may have elected to manipulate the
form very slowly with considerable attention to feature
detail. This data sampling strategy may have required
momentary storage of features until the entire manipulation
was complete and proper integration was achieved. In the
process, the identifying features of the first form might
have begun to decay out of the short term storage or possibly
the input of more recent features would tend to overload the
storage capacity and confusion of form characteristics might‘
have resulted. This possibility would not be as great for
the V-O technique since two potentially different storage
units may be involved and confusion of visual and oral
features would not be as likely. These findings for the O-O
task would appear to be strengthened by the experimenter's
observation that extended manipulation of the second form
'often caused the child to report forgetting the first.
Further, some of the subjects even forgot that the form
being examined was the second stimulus, indicating complete
decay of the features stored for the first form.

As mentioned earlier, children with articulation
problems generally had more difficulty with both the 0-0
and V-O tasks. Specifically, the two groups were differentia-
ted with respect to total Type I and Type III errors. The
observation that Type II errors were produced with essen-
tially the same frequency in both experimental groups

suggests that subtle size differentiation is difficult for

31

all children in the age range studied. Unfortunately, the
nature Of the proposed model and the type of testing strategy
do not permit clarification as to why the articulatory-
defective children did not perform as well as their normal
speaking counterparts. Possibly, the feature detectors are
not as "well-tuned" or as consistent in articulatory-defective
children. Moreover, the normal children may be more skilled
in integrating the features. One intriguing possibility is
that the short term storage unit may be weaker in the poor
speakers and as a result some of the stored information may
decay more rapidly. It is interesting to speculate that

the short term storage unit may also be responsible for
holding the touch-pressure and kinesthetic patterns
associated with a given articulatory gesture. If this unit
is weak, the movement patterns will decay more rapidly and
the learning of prOper articulation may be delayed. Finally,
the comparator unit may not be as effective in children
With.articu1ation problems. However, these suggestions are
Speculative at the present time and must await further

research.

Articulatory Proficiency and
Oral Stereggnosis Perfbrmance
There has been some controversy in the literature
reSarding the relationship between articulatory proficiency

and oral stereognosis performance. Ringel 33 31., (1970)

32

found that children having more numerous articulation problems
did poorly on an 0-0 stereognosis test. Conversely, Shelton
33 31. (1970) reported essentially no correlation between
articulatory skills and performance on a multiple-choice,
point-to-outline testing method. Torrans (1972) suggeSted
that this failure to find a correlation may have been the
result of using a particular set of forms. She concluded:

Since the testing instruments gave significantly

different results, no conclusion can be made con-

cerning whether or not articulation ability and

oral stereognosis are in fact related, or, if so,

how they are related (p. 87).

The observation that oral stereognosis performance

using an O-O procedure in the present study correlated
highly (.63) with number of articulation errors is consistent
with the findings of Ringel 33 31. (1970). However, the fact
that V-O performance did not correlate (.07) with articula-
tory proficiency is supportive of the results of Shelton
33 31. (1970). These findings may provide some clarification
to the uncertainty expressed by Torrans. Specifically, it
appears as if the O-O strategy is better at delineating
subjects with successive degrees of articulatory proficiency.
This suggests that any potential neuro-physiological relation-
ship between oral stereognosis and articulation skill is
best tapped with single modality oral sensory testing.
(This conclusion will be amplified in the section concerning
clinical implications.)

Despite the confirmation that the 0-0 technique

33

correlated highly with articulation errOrs, extreme caution'
must be exercised in interpreting this finding as evidence
of a significant oral sensory perceptual deficit. Ringel
33 31. (1970) pointed out that retention, anatomical matura-
tion, and motor development all underlie successful form
discrimination and articulation. Implicit in this assumption
is the idea that deficiencies in oral stereognosis reflect
either a cause-effect relationship between form discrimina-
tion and speech development, or a subtle neurological
disturbance which is reflected in both oral perception and
articulation. Fucci and Robertson (1971) were somewhat
more specific on this issue:

Astereognosis is attributed to lesions of the

parietal lobe (Post-Rolandic Gyris) or subcortical

regions. Therefore, it may be contended that

information about the quality of oral sensory

functioning may lead to important insight into the

nature of oral-motor proficiency. In other words,

it may be hypothesized that there is a relationship

between oral stereognosis and oral articulation (p. 711).
However, it must be emphasized that in all oral stereognosis
studies, the articulatory-defective have performed with better
than chance accuracy. In the present study, this group
missed fewer than 20/65 errors on both tasks. Clearly, this
relatively high degree of success does not reflect a gross

neurological lesion and cannot be interpreted as evidence of

a consistent oral sensory perceptual deficit.

34

Visual and Perceptual and V—O Performance

 

In general, the articulatory-defective.children
performed at a lower level than normal speaking children on
visual perceptual skills (as measured by subtests of 1133).
Articulatory-defective children also performed below normal
speaking children on the V-O task. Ringel 33 31. (1968),
state that an individual may be "tactually normal" but
"visually deficient" which would account for the generalized
lowering of scores for the articulatory-defective children
for both the visual perceptual and V-O testing. However, no
significant correlation between visual perceptual scores and
V-O test performance could be found in this investigation.
Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the lowering of
scores for the V-O method by articulatory-defective children,
was caused by a visual perceptual deficit.

McDonald and Aungst (1967) and Weinberg 33 31. (1970)
suggested that the V-O deficits may be due to a lack of
perceptual maturity in the articulatory-defective children.
Implicit in this statement is the assumption that children
with articulation problems have a generalized perceptual
deficit which affects several sensory modalities. However,
this certainly does not imply that visual perceptual and oral
sensory perceptual problems are extant in each child with an

articulation defect.

35

Clinical Implication

 

The comparison of the two testing techniques used
in this study suggests that the crossing of modalities as
measured by a V-0 test procedure, dOes reflect a difference
between the experimentaland control group, but is unable to make
any distinctions as to the severity of an articulation
problem. The 0-0 task does, however, permit this distinction.
The results of this study, supported by those of Ringel

33 l. (1968) and Ringel 33 31. (1970) would suggest the

visual-oral task to be of less clinical diagnostic value than
the oral-oral technique.

In this context, McDonald and Aungst (1967)
suggested that increased familiarity with test forms through
manual manipulation, tactile experience, or visual examina-
tion, does not improve scores on oral stereognosis testing.
However, they also suggested that oral stereognosis scores
can be improved by a brief training program consisting of
describing the distinguishing characteristic of each form
to the subject while he examines it orally. This would
suggest that the person with a diagnosed oral stereognosis
deficit may benefit from a therapy program developed using
oral-sensory based methods. The results of this study
would suggest that therapeutic procedures should not involve
exercises requiring cross-modality matching. However,

the utility of oral stereognosis training in articulation

therapy must await further research.

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

It was the purpose of this investigation to evaluate
whether or not the crossing of modalities in oral stereogno-
‘sis testing causes a difference in degree of difficulty for
children with defective articulatory functioning when
compared with a matched control group. Subjects were fifteen
children, aged 7 to 10 years, with defective articulation
ranging in severity and fifteen normal speakers matched
for age and sex. To determine the effects of modality-
crossing, each child was given two tests developed for test-
ing oral stereognosis abilities. One method consisted of
stimuli presented orally (O-O). The other involved both
visual and oral presentation (V-O). In both cases, the
subject was required to make a "same or different" judgment
concerning the pairs of stimuli presented. Three experimental
questions were asked: (1) What relationship exists between
articulatory performance, method of oral stereognosis testing,
and error type profile? (2) Is there a correlation between
articulatory proficiency (as measured by number of errors
on a standard articulation inventory) and oral stereognosis
performance? (3) Does visual perceptual ability (as measured

by selected subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic

36

37

Abilities) correlate with success on the‘V-Otest procedure?

 

The salient results of this investigation may be

summarized as follows:

1.

The articulatory-defective children were
significantly poorer than the normal children

on oral stereognosis tests (both methods).

The two methods of testing (0-0 and V-O) did

not differ significantly with regard to the total
number of errors. I

The error types were significantly different.
Type II errors were significantly more common
than Type I and Type III errors for both experi-
mental groups. Types I and III did not differ
in a statistical sense.

The two subject groups showed different error
type profiles. Specifically, the articulatory-
defective groups showed many more Type I and
Type III errors, but did not differ statistically
from the control group for Type II errors.

The methods of presentation (0-0 and V-O)
elicited different error type profiles. The 0-0
method produced more Type I and Type III errors,
but the V-O method produced more Type II errors
for both subject groups.

The number of errors produced on the 0-0 task

correlated significantly with the number of

38

articulation errors. However, no such correla-
tion was revealed for the V-O presentation method.

7. Whereas the articulatory-defective children, as

a group, were inferior to the normal children
on selected visual perceptual subtests of the
1133, no correlation was found between visual
perception and V-O test performance.

The results of this investigation are in general
agreement with previous literature, inasmuch as the articu-
latory-defective children did poorer than normal speaking
children on oral stereognosis test scores. The error type
profiles are also commensurate with previous research.

The observation that both testing strategies produced
similar overall error rates is not consistent with the
existing literature.

The following conclusions appear warranted:

(1) Oral-oral and visual-oral stereognosis testing
differentiate articulatory-defective children from normal
speaking children. (2) In particular, the oral-oral strategy
was more discriminatory and predictive of articulatory
deficiency. (3) Visual perception scores and V-O task
performance do not correlate statistically. (4) For experi-
mental groups, the resulting error type profiles supported the
conclusion that cross-modality matching produces greater

size discrimination errors whereas single modality testing

resulted in more errors involving shape discrimination and

39

differentiation of identical forms.

 

Implication for Further Research

A considerable body of experimental evidence has
been accumulated regarding oral sensory perceptual skills
in normal and articulatory-defective children. In addition,
considerable research attention has been devoted to a
determination of the variables associated with oral stereogno-
sis testing. In view of these substantialfindings, perhaps
the focus of oral stereognosis research should be shifted
from methodological and diagnostic considerations to
therapeutic application. Several investigators have called
for experimental therapy programs designed for oral
stereognosis training and/or articulation therapy which
emphasizes sensory feedback monitoring. Certainly, the
last type of clinical management has some precedent in
speech pathology. However, it has been applied rather
indiscriminately to heterogeneous populations of articulatory-
defective children. It may be more appropriate to use oral
sensory based methods with those children who evidence a
clear deficit on an oral-oral testing procedure.

The hypothetical model offered in this experiment
provides some additional impetus for research.‘ Specifically,
testing oral stereognosis with more rigorous control of the
size dimension with finer discriminations in shape of test

forms may provide insight concerning the particular

40

features employed for detection and the hierarchy (size
versus shape) of feature storage. For example, using forms.
which have very similar shape features (squares, rectangles,
and parallelograms) may be more appropriate for determining I
the importance of particular geometric features. Rossman
(1970) and Bishop 33 31. (1973) made some advances in this
respect but their forms were not controlled for area.
Finally, the extension of oral sensory testing to
other populations having speech disturbances has been frag-
mented and incomplete. Some investigators have studied the
various dysarthrias, aphasia, and apraxia with conflicting
results. Additional research which controls rigorously
testing variables and subject selection would appear to

be warranted.

APPENDIX A
STIMULI AND RECORDING FORM

APPENDIX A

Stimuli and Recording Form

 

 

Ringel forms used in this investigation.

41

V 42

RECORDING FORM

(Circle One) V-O O-O Method
lst 2nd Presentation

Name Number

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age ' Birthday
V’= Correct Response - = Incorrect.Response
l. 34.
2. 35.
3. 36.
4. 37.
5. 38.
6. 39.
7. 40.
8. 41.
9. 42.
10. 43.
ll. 44.
12. 45. .11
13. 46.
14. 47.
15. 48.
16. 49.
17. 50.
18. 51.
19. 52.
20. S3.
21. 54.
22. 55.
23. S6.
24. 57.
25. 58.
26. 59.
27. 60.
28. 61.
29. 62.
30 63.
31. 64.
32 6S.

 

 

(N
‘14
o o

 

APPENDIX B

ORAL PERIPHERAL EXAMINATION FORM

Date:

I.

I1.

APPENDIX B

ORAL PERIPHERAL EXAMINATION

Summary Work Sheet

 

 

IDENTIFICATION

 

Name ' Sex D.o.B. Age‘

 

School

 

 

Subject Number

 

MAXILLO-FACIAL EXAMINATION

 

Structure (General Comments)

 

 

Maxilla (in relation to mandible)

A.P. Normal Lateral:

 

Anterior

 

Posterior

Mandible (in relation to maxilla)

A.P. Normal Lateral:

 

Anterior

 

Posterior

43

Normal

Wider

 

Narrower

Normal

Wider

 

Narrower

44

 

 

 

Lips
Upper Length: Shape:
Too Long Notched
Too Short ' Un-notched
Adequate Other

 

 

Lower: (in relation to upper lip)

Too Full

 

Too Short

Adequate

 

Alveolar Process

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cleft Describe Cleft

Non-cleft

Repaired or Fused Prosthesis
Premaxilla

Cleft Describe Cleft

Non-cleft

Repaired or Fused "Floating"

 

 

Hard Palate

 

 

 

 

 

Width: Height:
Narrow ' High Vault
Wide Low Vault
Normal Normal

 

 

Tissue over Cleft: Thin

 

Adequate

 

Soft Palate

 

Short

 

Long

 

Normal

 

gvula

 

Short

 

Long

 

Normal

 

OrOpharyngeal §pace

 

Small

 

Large

 

Normal

 

Tonsils

Present

45

Asymmetrical

Symmetrical

Absent

 

 

 

Bifid

 

Absent

 

 

Condition

 

Tongue

Too Large

 

Too Small

 

Normal

 

Dentition

 

Lips

Good Closure

Comments

 

Inadequate Closure

Adequacy for Speech:

 

 

 

46

Soft Palate

 

Very Good Movement Comments

 

 

Limited Movement

 

 

No Movement

 

VP Closure

 

Adequacy for Speech: 1 2 3 4

 

Tongue Movements

 

Comments

 

Adequacy for Speech: 1 2 3 4

Rating System:
1 - Normal

2 - Slight deviation; probably no adverse effect on
speech ,

3 F Moderate deviation; possible adverse effect on
speech; remedial services may be required,
particularly if other structures are also deviant

4 - Extreme deviation; sufficient to prevent normal
production of speech; modification of structure
required, either with or without clinical speech
services

APPENDIX C

INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS

APPENDIX C

INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS

Oral-Oral Presentations

 

See these forms? I am going to blind fold you. I
will then put a form in your mouth and let you feel it for
as long as you would like. You may move the form arOund in
your mouth in any manner you wish, but you must not feel it
with your hands. When you are finished feeling the form,
spit the form out on the towel I have in front of you. ‘I
will then place another form in your mouth and you may feel
it the same way you did the first form. When you are done,
spit the second form out. I then want you to tell me if the
two forms you just felt were the same or it they were different.
Now what are you going to do with the first form? (feel it)
What are you going to do with the second form? (feel it)
What are you going to tell me about the two forms? (same or

different)

Oral-Visual Presentations

 

See these forms? I am going to ask you to close
your eyes and I will place one of these forms in your mouth.
You will feel the form for as long as you would like. When

you are finished spit the form out on the towel in front of

47

48

you. Open your eyes and I will Show you a picture of a

form. I want you to tell me if the form you felt in your
mouth is the same or different from the picture that I show
you. What are you going to do with the form? (feel it)

What are you going to do with the picture? (look at it)

What are you going to tell me about the form and the picture?

(same or different)

Visual-Oral Presentations

 

See these forms? I am going to show you a picture
of one of them. I will then ask you to close your eyes
and I will put a form in your mouth. You may feel it for
as long as you like any way you like, except with your hands.
You must remember to keep your eyes closed and not look at
the form with your eyes. When you are finished feeling the
form, spit it out on the towel in front of you. After I
have removed the form I will ask you to tell me if the form
that you felt with your mouth is the same or different
from the picture that I showed you. Now what are you going
to do with the picture? (look at it) What are you going to
do with the form? (feel it) What are you going to tell me

about the form and the picture? (same or different)

APPENDIX D

RAW DATA

APPENDIX D

RAW DATA

Normal Speaking Children

 

 

HHH mask

 

HH onNH

 

H maze

 

Lyceum oz

O-O Method

62 1 1 1

59 1 3 2

62 O 3 0

57 4 4 0

63 O 2 0

63 0 2 0

62 0 3 0

60 2 3 0

59 1 5 0

62 0 3 0

62 O 2 1

58 2 4 1

59 0 5 1

60 0 4 1

61 0 2 2

 

 

HHH waxy

 

HH maze

 

H muse

 

V-O Method

HoHHm oz

 

60 0 4 1

58 1 6 0

62 0 3 0

61 0 4 0

63 0 2 0

60 1 4 0

60 0 5 0

59 0 6 0

61 0 3 1

58 2 4 1

63 0 2 0

60 O 4 1

56 2 .5 2

60 0 4 1

61 0 3 1

 

 

kahm GOHH
-aHauHaH< mo aaaasz

 

flmhmox :HV :ofluaoouom
HmSmH>

9.25 O

8.83 0

 

 

mmgmoz :HV >hoemz
Hmfiucoscom HMSmH>

6.5

8.33 10.83 0

8.33 10.33 0

9.75 10.83 0

6.5

7.25 8.83 0

6.83 9.25 0

7.25 10.33 0

8.33 10.83 0

7.25 8.83 0

7.25 9.83 0

8.83 9.83 O

8.33 9.25 0

 

xom

NI

F

 

om<

7.75 F

8.88 M

9.16 M

7.25 F 10.41 9.83 0

9.33 F 10.0 10.83 0

10.08

7.08 F

7.08 M

7.33 M

7.33 F

7.41 M

7.58 F

7.66 M

8.41 F

8.5

 

Subject
Number

 

1.

 

2.

 

3.

 

4.

 

5.

 

6.

 

.7.

 

8.

 

 

10.

 

11.

 

12.

 

13.

 

14.

 

15.

 

49

50

Articulatory-Defective Children

 

 

H:H2:e

6

7

4

4

5

3

0

1

5

9

5

6

1

 

HHoEQ

 

Hag?

 

O-O Method

Hospm oz

48 3 3 11

52 4 3

47 8 3

49 7 5

51 7 3

56 0 4

.50 5 7

55 5 5

57 3 4

50 6 4

53 0 1 11

52 3 1

49 8 3

52 4 4

57 3 4

 

 

HHHaefi

 

HHaeQ

 

.HaII

 

V-O Method

popHm oz

 

56 3 4 2

59 0 5 1

59 0 5 1

42 ll. 8 4

57 2 2 4

51 2 5 7

54 1 5 5

57 3 4 1

61 O 3 1

60 1 3 l

55 2 5 3

55 1 5 4

58 0 4 3

41 ILZ 6 6

60 0 4 1

 

 

mHOHHm,:0HumH
-soHuH< mo Honesz

2

8

2

5

7

 

Ampmmx :Hv
cofiumoopom HmSmH>

7.08 24

 

mmhmox cfiv xpoEoz
Hmflucoscom HmSmH>

6.16 8.33 10

4.08 8.33 25

4.8

2.58 6.83 26

8.33 10.83 12

8.33 8.33

5.83 6.58 40

6.83 8.33

6.16 8.33

5.58 8.33 34

5.83 7.75 23

6.16 10.33 12

6.16 10.33

6.83 8.33

4.33 9.83 14

 

 

xom

F

F

 

om<

.75

7

8.88 M

9.16 B1

7.25 F

9.33 F

10.08 M

7.08 F

7.08 M

7.33 M

7.33 F

7.41 M

7.58 F

7.66 M

8.41 F

8.5

 

Subject
Number

 

 

Z.

 

 

4.

 

5.

 

6.

 

7.

 

8.

 

9.

 

10.

 

11.

 

12.

 

13.

 

14.

 

15.

 

APPENDIX E

POST HOC STATISTICAL ANALYSES

APPENDIX E
POST HOC STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Newman-Keuls Test for Error Type Factor

 

Type I 1ype III Type II r Critical value

 

 

Type I > - 17 106* 3 17.772
Type III - 89* 2 21.315
Type II _
r = 2 3
q.95 (r,84) = 2.83 3.40
q.95 (r,84) \Gwserror = 17.772 21.351

********

Simple Main Effects Test (Subject Groups x Error Type)

 

 

 

Level MS F
Subjects @ Error Type I 252.300 76.269**
Subjects @ Error Type 11 9.634 2.912
Subjects @ Error Type 111 73.331 108.989**
**p = .01

********

Simp1e Main Effects Test (Testing Method x Error 1ype)

 

 

Level MS F
Methods @ Error Type I 36.299 12.973**
Methods @ Error Type 11 24.299 8.681**
Methods @ Error31ype III 38.533 13.767**

 

713p = .01

51

52

 

Simple Main Effects Test (Subject Groups x Testhing Method 3 Error Type)

 

Level MS F
Subjects @ V-O Type I 17.070 3.734*
Subjects 0 V—O Type 11 1.349 .295
Subjects @ V-O Type III 21.600 4.725**
Subjects @ O-O Type I 50.417 ll.029**
Subjects @ O-O Type II 1.067 .233
Subjects @ O-O Type 111 77.066 16.860**

 

* p = .05, ** p = .01

********

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbs, J. H. and Sussman, H. M. "Neurophysiological Feature
Feature Detectors and Speech Perception: A
Discussion ofTheoretical Implications." Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research 14 (1971): 23-36.

 

Arndt, W. B.; Gauer, J.; Shelton, R. 1.; Crary, D.; and
Chisum, L. "Refinement of a Test of Oral Stereog-
nosis." In J. F. Bosma (ed.) Second Symposium on
Oral Sensation and Perception. Springfield, Ill.:
Charles C. Thomas (1970). ‘

 

Arndt, W. B.; Elbert, M.; and Shelton, R. I. "Standardi-
zation of a Test of Oral Stereognosis." In
J. F. Bosma (ed.) Second Symposium on Oral
Sensation and Perception. Springfield} 111.:
Charles C. Thomas (1970).

 

 

Bishop, R. B.; Ringel, R. L.; and House A. S. "Orosensory
Perception, Speech Production, and Deafness."
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 16 (1973):
257-65.

 

Fairbanks, G. "Systematic Research in Experimental
Phonetics: l. A Theory of the Speech Mechanism
as a Servosystem." Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders 19 (1954): 133-39.

 

Fairbanks, G. and Guttman, N. "Effects of Delayed
Auditory Feedback on Articulation." Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research 1 (1958): 12-22.

 

 

Frishkopf, L. and Goldstein, M. "Responses to Acoustic
Stimuli from Single Units in the Eighth Nerve of
the Bullfrog.” Journal of the Acoustical Society

of A'DEILEE. 35 (1W2T‘H"‘" r

—--—c——.— -

Fucci, D. J. and Robertson, J. H. "'Fundtional' Defective
Articulation: An Oral Sensory Disturbance.”
Perception and Motor Skills 33 (1971): 711-14.

 

Galambos, R.; Norton, T. T.; and Frommer, C. P. "Optic
Tract Lesions Sparing Pattern Vision in Cats."
Exper1mental Neurology 18 (1967): 8-25.

 

53

54

Gammon, S. A.; Smith, P. J.; Daniloff, R. C.; and Kin,
C. W. "Articulation and Stress/Juncture Production
Under Oral Anesthetization and Masking." Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research l4_(l97l): 271-82.

Growwman, R. C.; Hattis, B. F.; and Ringel, R. L. "Oral
Tactile Experience." Archives of Oral Biology
10 (1965): 691-705.

 

Hardy, J. C. "Development of Neuromuscular Systems
Underlying Speech Production." In ASHA Reports
No. 5. Washington, D.C.: American Speech and
Hearing Association (1970).

 

Ham, R., and Steer, M. D. "Certain Effects of Altera-
tions in Auditory Feedback." (Folia Phoniatrica
19 (1967): 53-62.

 

MacNeilage, R. F. "Motor Control of Serial Ordering
of Speech." Psychological Review 77 (1970): 182-96.

 

MacNeilage, R. F.; Rootes, T. P.; and Chase, R. A.
”Speech Production and Perception in a Patient
with Severe Impairment of Somesthetic Perception
and Motor Control." Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research 10 (1967): 449-68.

 

McCroskey, R. L. ”Relative Contribution of Auditory
and Tactile Cues to Certain Aspects of Speech."
Southern Speech Journal 24 (1958): 84-90.

 

McDonald, E. T. and Aungst, L. F. "Studies in Oral
Sensorimotor Function." In J. F. Bosma (ed.)

Symposium on Oral Sensation and Perception.
Springfield, 111.: Charles C} Thomas (1967).

 

Mysak, E. "A Servo-model for Speech Therapy." Journal
of Speech and Hearing Disorders 24 (1959): 144-9.

 

Nelson, P. G.; Erulkar, S. D.; and Bryan, S. 8.
"Responses of Units of the Inferior Colliclus to
Time-varying Acoustic Stimuli." Journal of
Neurophysiology 29 (1966): 834-60.

 

 

Pribram. Languages of the Brain. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 1971.

 

Norman. Memory and Attention. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
New York, 1969.

 

55

Putnam, Anne H. D. "Articulation with Reduced Sensory
Control: A Cineradiographic Study." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University,(1973).

Ringel, R. L.; Burk, K. W.; and Scott, C. M. .
"Tactile Perception: Form Discrimination in the
Mouth." British Journal of Disorders of Communica-
tion 3 (1968): 150-55.

 

Ringel, R. L. and Ewanowski, S. J. "Oral Perception:
l. Two-Point Discrimination." Journal of Speech
and Hearing3Research 8 (1965): 389-98}

 

 

Ringel, R. L. and Fletcher, H. M. "Oral perception:
Texture Discrimination." Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research 10 (1967): 642-49.

 

 

Ringel, R. L.; House, A. S.; Burk, K. W.; Dolinsky,
J. P.‘ and Scott, C. M. "Some Observations of
Articulation During Labial Sensory Deprivation."
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 15 (1972):
529-42.

 

Ringel, R. L. and Putnam, Anne H. B. "Some Observations
of Articulation During Labial Sensory Deprivation."
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 15 (1972):
529-42.

 

Ringel, R. L.; Saxman, J.; and Brooks, A. "Oral
Perception: II Mandibular Kinesthesia." Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research 10 (1967): 637-11.

 

Ringel, R. L. and Steer, M. D. "Some Effects of Tactile
and Auditory Alterations on Speech Output."
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 6 (1963):
369-78.

 

Rossman, A. "The Effects of Controlling Stimulus
Size and Shape Upon Oral Form Discrimination in
Articulatory Objective and Normal Speakers."
Master's Thesis, Purdue University (1970).

Scott, C. M. and Ringel, R. L. "Articulation Without
Oral Sensory Control" Journal of Speech and Hearing

 

333ear33 14 (19713): 804-18.

Shelton, R. L.; Arndt, W. B.; and Heatherington, J. J.

— "Testing Oral Steriognosis.” In J. F. Bosma (ed.)
Symposium on Oral Sensation and Perception.
SpringfieId, 111.: Charles CZ Thomas (1967).

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIB

3 1293

III! | l IIIRIIIIIES
0316J5607