iris science 2012 screening report annexures 20 aug 2012
TRANSCRIPT
1
Part 2A: Supporting documents:
A1: Communication with experts through email - Summary
S l .
N
N a m e D a y S e n t D a y
R e s p o n d e d
R E P L Y
1 J u l i a n T r e as u re
T E D . c o m ,
j u l i a n .t re a s u r e @ t h e s o u n d a g e n c y .c o
1 - M a y -1 2 9 - M a y - 1 2 R e s p o n d e d
2 T h e A u s t r a l a s i a n C o l l e g e o f
B e h a v i o u ra l O p t o m e t r i s t s ,
i n f o @ a c b o .o r g .a u
1 - M a y -1 2 2 - M a y - 1 2 R e s p o n d e d
3 D o u g l a s H . W h a l e n , D i s ti n g u i s h e d
P r o f e s s o r
S p e e c h P r o d u c ti o n , S p e e c h
A c o u s t i c s a n d P e r c e p t i o n ,
C i t y U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w Y o r k ,
d w h a l e n @ g c .c u n y .e d u
6 - M a y -1 2 6 - M a y - 1 2 R e s p o n d e d
4 R i c h a r d G . S c h w a r t z , P r e s i d e n t i a l
P r o f e s s o r
L a n g u a g e a n d P h o n o lo g i c a l
A c q u i s i t i o n a n d
D is o r d e r s , S p e e ch P e r c e p t i o n a n d
P r o d u c t i o n
i n C h i ld r e n , C i t y U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w
Y o r k , r s c h w a r t z @ g c .c u n y . e d u
6 - M a y -1 2 6 - M a y - 1 2 R e s p o n d e d
5 L i n n e a C . E h r i ,
D is t in g u is h e d P r o f e s s o r ,
E d u c a ti o n a l P s y c h o lo g y
L i te r a c y , P s y c h o l in g u is ti c s o f
R e a d in g a n d S p e l l i n g , C i t y
U n i v e r s i ty o f N e w Y o r k ,
l e h r i @ g c .c u n y .e d u
6 - M a y -1 2 1 8 - M a y - 1 2 R e s p o n d e d
6 P r e m a R a o
A ll I n d i a in s t i t u te o f s p e e c h a n d
H e a r i n g , p r e m a _ r a o @ y a h o o .c o m
6 - M a y -1 2 1 6 - M a y - 1 2 R e s p o n d e d
7 J u l i a E v a n s ,
S a n D i e g o S ta t e u n i v
1 4 - M a y - 1 2 1 4 - M a y - 1 2 R e s p o n d e d
8 W h it m a n R i c h a r d s , P h .D .
P r o f e s s o r o f C o g n i t i v e S c i e n c e s ,
M I T
1 8 - M a y - 1 2 2 1 - M a y - 1 2 R e s p o n d e d
9 N a d i n e G a a b
A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r o f P e d i a t r i c s ,
H M S
1 9 - M a y - 1 2 2 1 - M a y - 1 2 R e s p o n d e d
1 0 I n g r i d O ls o n , P h . D ., T e m p l e
U n i v e r s i ty
2 1 - M a y - 1 2 2 1 - M a y - 1 2 R e s p o n d e d
1 1 D r J a m u n a R a j e s w a r a n ,
A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r a n d C o n s u l t a n t
C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y , N IM H A N S ,
B a n g a l o re ,
j a m u n a r a j a n @ n i m h a n s .k a r .n i c . i n
2 5 - M a y - 1 2 1 8 - J u n - 1 2 R e s p o n d e d
1 2 D r G a y a th r i, P s y c o l o g i s t 6 - J u n - 1 2 1 2 - J u n - 1 2 R e s p o n d e d
1 3 D r . J a m u n a R a j e s w a r a n ,
c o n s u l t a n t fo r t h e N e u r o -
p s y c h o l o g y u n i t
8 - M a y -1 2 R e s p o n d e d
L e a r n i n g E n h a n c e m n e t s i n S t u d e n ts b a s e d o n p e r c e p t i o n a s s e s s m e n t a n d t r a i n i n g
o f v i s u a l & a u d i to r y f a c u l t i e s f o r b o t h n o rm a l a n d s e n s o r y i m p a i r e d p e r s o n s
- A s u m m a r y o f c o m m u n ic a t i o n w it h E x p e r ts
2
1 4 U ll a S un d b e rg S t oc k h o lm
U ni v e rs i ty
u ll a . su nd b e rg @ li n g .s u .s e
1 -M a y -1 2 M a i l
B o u n c ed
1 5 M i c ha e l M . C oh e n
E x p e ri m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y a t t h e
U n i v e rs i ty o f C a l if o rn i a – S a n t a
C ru z . , m m c oh e n @ r a n x . u c s c .e d u
1 -M a y -1 2 M a i l
B o u n c ed
1 6 W i n i f re d S t ra n g e , ( e m e r it a )
S p e e c h A c o u s t ic s a n d P e rc e p t io n ,
S e c o n d -L a n g ua g e S p e e c h
P e r c e p ti o n a n d P ro d uc t i o n , C i t y
U n i v e rs i ty o f N e w Y o r k ,
s t ra n g e p in @ a ol . co m
6 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
1 7 K a th e r in e S . H a rr is , D i s t i n gu i s h e d
P r o fe s s o r ( E m e ri t a )
S p e e c h P ro d u c ti o n , M ot o r T h e o ri e s
o f S p e e c h , C i t y U n i v e rs it y o f N e w
Y or k
6 -M a y -1 2 M a i l
B o u n c ed
1 8 A m y R . L e d e rb e rg
A ss o c i a t e V ic e P r e s i d e n t fo r
R e s e a r c h &
P r o fe s s o r o f E d u c a t io n a l
P s yc h o lo g y a nd S p e c i a l E d u c at i o N ,
a l e de r b e rg @ g su .e d u
6 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
1 9 S u s a n E a s t e rb r o o k s ,
E d .D .P r o f e s so r , G e o rg i a S ta t e
U n i v e rs i ty , s e a s t e rb ro o k s@ g su . e d u
6 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
2 0 C a ro l C o n n o r
F l o ri d a C e n t e r fo r R e a d in g
R e s e a r c h , c c o n no r @ f c rr. o rg
6 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
2 1 U S S E L L G E R S T E N ,
j o e . d im i n o@ i nr e s g .o rg
6 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
2 2 M A D H A V I J A Y A N T H I,
a d ha v i @ i n re s g . o r g
6 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
2 3 J A M E S S . K I M ,
j a m e s _ k i m @ gs e .h a rv a r d . e du
6 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
2 4 L A N A E D W A R D S S A N T O R O ,
l a na . s a n t o r o @ e a rt h l i nk . ne t
6 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
2 5 A nn E . G e e r s , a ge e r s @ e a rt h li n k .n e t 6 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
2 6 S t e p h e n P ow e rs ,
s . g . po w e rs @ b h a m . a c. u k
6 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
2 7 D r. S h o b i n i L . R a o ,
s h o b in i @ n i m h a n s . k a r .n i c .i n
8 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
2 8 D r. M a h e nd r a P . S h a rm a ,
m a h e n d ra s @ n im h a n s .k a r. n ic . i n
8 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
2 9 D r. K e sh a v ,
k e sh a v j k@ n im h a n s .k a r. n ic . in
9 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
3 0 J o h n N . W i l l i a m s
U ni v e rs i ty o f C a m b r id g e , U K
9 -M a y -1 2 N o R e p l y
3 1 M a ry C . P o t t e r, P h .D ., M IT 1 8 -M a y- 1 2 N o R e p l y
3 2 K im C u r b y , P h .D . : C o g n i t i v e
N e ur o sc i e nc e : L ea r n in g & p l a s t i ci t y
i n t h e v is ua l s ys t e m a n d b e yo n d
1 8 -M a y- 1 2 N o R e p l y
3
A2: Communication with experts through email – Response Summary
A summary of communication with Experts - replies
Sl.
No.
Name Reply Summary
1 Julian Treasure
TED.com,
Suggests to also test interference
- for each condition add one
more: audio interference
(background noise, especially
discernable human chatter).
With that, the degradation in
performance from noise and be
studied
2 The Australasian College of
Behavioural Optometrists,
The expectation is that by
repeat exposure to the same tests
improvements can be obtained.
This could be valid only if the
material is the same but if the
material is different each time, it
may not be the case
3 Douglas H. Whalen, Distinguished
Professor
Speech Production, Speech Acoustics
and Perception, City University of New
York, [email protected]
Having different set of words in
each of the conditions, is a
confound - may not be able to
distinguish differences in word
difficulty from differences in
presentation mode. Need 3
groups - one for each set of
words in each condition of
Audio, Visual and A+V. This
still means comparing across
groups, but that is much safer
than comparing across items.
4 Richard G. Schwartz, Presidential
Professor
Language and Phonological
Acquisition and
Disorders, Speech Perception and
Production
in Children, City University of New
York, [email protected]
One suggestion I have is that
you make sure you vary the
order of the tasks conditions or
counterbalance (create all
possible orders and dived the
subjects equally). Also, it might
be interesting to do this with one
semantic category (e.g.,
animals) and one phonological
(sound) category (words that
begin with the same sound or
words that rhyme with...).
4
5 Linnea C. Ehri,
Distinguished Professor,
Educational Psychology
Literacy, Psycholinguistics of Reading
and Spelling, City University of New
York, [email protected]
IN ADDITION TO
EXAMINING WHETHER
SIMPLE PRACTICE
IMPROVES PERFORMANCE,
YOU MIGHT EXAMINE
WHETHER DIRECTING
STUDENTS TO EMPLOY
SPECIFIC STRATEGIES
MIGHT IMPROVE THEIR
PERFORMANCE: IN THE
AUDIO CONDITION, TELL
STUDENTS TO IMAGINE
THE SPELLINGS OF WORDS
THEY HEAR; IN THE
VISUAL CONDITION, TELL
STUDENTS TO PRONOUNCE
ALOUD THE WORDS THEY
SEE. I HOPE THIS GIVES
YOU SOME ADDITIONAL
THOUGHTS ABOUT YOUR
STUDY.
6 Prema Rao
All India institute of speech and
Hearing, [email protected]
Appreciable project theme for
high school level.
Fairly well designed study with
controls over presentation and
stimuli
Please find more comments &
suggestions in the following
text.
It appears to me that you have a
baseline (pre-training phase)
followed by training phase (10-
15 trials)
(A-B Design). You could have
used the same group (after
training) in the 3rd phase to
examine the effect through one
of the modes. The proposal does
not highlight the advantage of
one mode over the other (or
combined mode though the
design is focused towards this
objective. With a few
modifications in the stimuli and
design, you may arrive at
beautiful results with
5
implications for student
learning :-))Good luck.
7 Julia Evans,
San Diego State univ
I would pick a category that
everyone is familiar with, say
animals, give them the list and
then have them write them down
in order of size or some other
parameter. There will be small
differences in the lists that you
want to control for so that you
can see what effect the different
conditions have on students
ability to remember
information.I would consider
between 10- 15 items per list so
that you can be assured that you
are giving the students more
items that they can retain in
memory which would be about 7
normally.
8 Mary C. Potter, Ph.D., MIT
9 Whitman Richards, Ph.D.
Professor of Cognitive Sciences, MIT
I have forwarded your request to
Prof. Rajesh Kasturirangan,
who has appointments in
Bangalore.
6
Best to contact him directly --
10 Nadine Gaab
Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, HMS
This sounds good! Good luck,
nadine
11 Dr Jamuna Rajeswaran,
Associate Professor and Consultant
Clinical Psychology, NIMHANS,
Bangalore,
The experiment seems ok.
However I understand that your
interest is to study perception,
the experiment seems to address
learning and memory. It would
be better if you could meet me
or call me up to take it forward.
Good Luck
7
A3: Field Visits – face to face discussion with experts - Summary Field Visit Summary
Experts/Institution Date, Venue,
Attendees
Discussion
summary
Project Course
modification
Dr Gayatri Koran,
Psychologist
04-June-
2012: Sishu
Girha School,
Library
Attendees:
Ajay, Ajay's
parents,
Srivatsan,
Srivatsan's
parents, SRS
Rao Sir
The current focus of
experiments are
centered on
testing/enhancement
of memory and not
perception, per say.
Focus could be on
study of the
perceptions of a
given sensory
impaired person and
utilize the same for
training the normal
persons for a better
perception.
"Word recall" based
worksheets were to be
modified to
picture/sound
discrimination based
word list. This is to be
used at sensory impaired
schools and compared
with that in the normal
persons.
Hypothesis modification
was required.
Sishu Girha
School,
15-June-
2012: Class
VIII - C:
Visual pilot
tests with
worksheets
done for a
set of 20
students
22-June-
2012: First
tests on
auditory
stimulus
worksheets
Attendees:
Ajay,
Srivatsan &
SRS Rao Sir
Results obtained for
analysis
Analysis showed a good
correlation between their
perception performance
and their class
performance
(specifically in subjects
such a Maths & Science)
8
National
Association of
Blind (NAB)
School at Jeevan
Bheema Nagar,
Bangalore
21-June-
2012: NAB
campus
Attendees:
Ajay, Ajay's
parents,
Srivatsan,
Srivatsan's
parents, SRS
Rao Sir
Results obtained for
analysis of Auditory
stimulus worksheets
Observarions: NAB
students are having very
different language,
background and
exposure. Their
awareness/knowledge is
different compared to
the normal students. It is
quite difficult to compare
the results with the ones
of the normal students.
Modify hypothesis and
work sheets
Dr. Jamuna
Rajeswaran,
Neuropsychologist
30-June-
2012:
NIMHANS
campus,
Bangalore
Attendees:
Ajay, Ajay's
parents,
Srivatsan,
Srivatsan's
parents, SRS
Rao Sir
Approach of Visual
work sheets
preparation is quite
perfect. However,
auditory worksheets
need relook. The
key aspect is to give
a sound stimulus
that would be
independent of the
prior knowledge,
awareness of the
subject persons
Inference:
Modification of
hypothesis is necessary.
To have three different
categories of subjects:
Normal, visually
impaired and auditory
impaired - assess their
perception separately,
establish a correlation
with their performance in
subject groups and
select the sub-category
of lower performers and
design a separate training
session for them with
these worksheets towards
enhancing their
perception abilities.
• Visual worksheets are
perfect.
• Auditory worksheets
need change
modification: can be
based on non-sense
syllables based words,
multi tone
discrimination, etc.
9
A4: References & web links
References
1 Perception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percepti
on
2 Methods to study perception http://www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculu
m/perception_intro/intro_to_method
s_short.php
3 Memory may skew visual perception http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2011/07/
memories-visual-perception/
4 Visual perception http://academics.tjhsst.edu/psych/old
Psych/memory1/percep.html
5 Perception & Memory http://www.scientificamerican.com/a
rticle.cfm?id=perception-and-
memory
6 Knowledge, Perception & Memory http://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstrea
m/1813/81/1/KPM-Ginet-
040218.pdf
7 How Amnesia works? http://science.howstuffworks.com/en
vironmental/life/human-
biology/amnesia1.htm
8 Modelling Memory & Perception http://maplab.cogs.indiana.edu/pubs/
Shiffrin03.pdf
9 Ebbinghaus - on memory http://www.intropsych.com/ch06_m
emory/ebbinghaus.html
10 Why Can Some Blind People Process
Speech Far Faster Than Sighted Persons?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a
rticle.cfm?id=why-can-some-blind-
people-process
11 Do deaf people see better? Texture
segmentation and visual search
compensate in adult but not in juvenile
subjects.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubme
d/10511644
10
A5: Project Plan
Project initiation
Literature Survey
Communication with experts
Field visits
Experiments
Ananysis of Results
Documentation
Submission for IRIS
Registration
Participation at National Science fair
Future scope of work for IRIS 2013
Oct Nov
2012
Learning performance enhancement in students by tuning the Audio-Visual perception
Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Project plan
11
A6: Photos – in field visits and during experiments
At NIMHANS, Bangalore – Professor Jamuna Rajeswaran, her PhD students, Mr Rao and
our parents
12
At Sishu Girha with Dr. Gayatri Kiran and Mr Rao
13
At NAB, Bangalore with Mr Rao and the visually impaired persons
\
14
At Sishu Girha Class 8 (C) - Visual work sheet administration
At Srivatsan’s home, Srivatsan’s father on web conference review of the screening report
with Rao sir
15
A7. Permission/consent letter form samples
Letter draft to parents for consent of participation in experiments
Note: As per the agreement with the parents, the identity of the students has been
codified and would be kept strictly confidential. Would be shared only with the
respective parents if and when required
16
A8. Work sheets – some samples
Visual Perception – Find the odd picture out in 30 seconds:
Work Sheet Samples – Visual – B1
Work Sheet Samples – Visual – B2
17
Auditory perception – Find the odd sounding ones out:
Work Sheets – Audio – B1 to B5
18
A9. Some extracts from the log book (Log book would be presented in original at the venue)
19
20
A10. Test Manuscripts – some samples
21
A11. Results
22
23
24
25
Perception performance & Class subjects performance percentage results
summarized
26
Auditory Perception results summarized
27
Visual Perception results summarized