Biomedical subjects

N J Cobb

Publications and source records attributed to N J Cobb.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1979

Comparison of accuracy in auditory and tactile recognition memory for environmental stimuli.

Accuracy rates for auditory and tactile recognition of naturalistic stimuli over a 7-day period are compared. 40 subjects listened to 50, 107, or 194 naturalistic sounds and were tested immediately or after delays of 2 or 7 days. 30 other subjects handled but did not visually inspect 150 common objects and were tested over the same three delay intervals. Recognition accuracy for sounds was 87.5%, 82.5%, and 80.4% while common objects were recognized at 96.0%, 93.8%, and 88.5% rates of accuracy. Tactile recognition memory was superior to auditory recognition memory. The recognition accuracies of both modalities were affected by the delay interval. The number of items inspected had no effect on the recognition memory for sounds. Following a delay of 1 wk., the accuracy of recognition relative to the original level of function was 92% for both modalities.

Auditory Perception↗

PubMed1979

Report on blind subjects' tactile and auditory recognition for environmental stimuli.

In two related experiments on recognition-on touch and audition-accuracy rates were obtained from congenitally blind subjects and compared with those for normally sighted subjects. In Exp. 1, 5 blind subjects inspected, i.e., handled, 150 common objects and were tested after a delay of 7 days. In Exp. 2, 9 blind subjects listened to 194 naturalistic sounds and were also tested after a 7-day delay. Accuracy of tactile recognition for the blind was 89.4% while it was 87.9% for the normally sighted. Sound recognition by blind subjects was 76.6% and for the normally sighted it was 78.4%. Neither difference was statistically significant.

Adult↗

PubMed1978

Influence of active encoding on tactile recognition memory for common objects.

Active tactile recognition memory for common objects is compared with passive touch. The recognition memory test occure after a delay between inspection and test of seven days. Three groups of five each have the following conditions and results: Group I manipulated objects at both inspection and test to obtain a recognition rate of 87.9%; Group II manipulated objects at inspection but not at test, i.e., passive touch, to produce a recognition rate of 80.7%; Group III manipulated objects at test but not at inspection to perform at a 72.5% accuracy rate. Object manipulation had a significant effect and the group means were all significantly different (p less than or equal to .05), with the largest performance decrement due to passive touch at encoding. Generally, the findings implicated the importance of object identity in tactile recognition memory which, in turn, is supportive of the depth-of-processing approach to memory.

Discrimination, Psychological↗

PubMed1978

Cross-modal utilization of information: recognition memory for environmental stimuli.

In a study of cross-modal recognition memory for vision and audition photographs were matched for meaningful content with naturalistic sounds. Fifteen subjects inspected pictures and were tested with sounds and for 15 other the procedure was reversed. The two cross-modal groups were further divided into subgroups of 5 to test at one of three delays: immediate, 2 days, or 7 days. Accuracies for recognition of vision-audition for the respective retention intervals were 88.0%, 81.8%, and 75.4% and for audition-vision 87.9%, 85.1%, and 76.7%. Delay interval significantly affected cross-modal recognition. There was no interaction. Vision-audition recognition accuracy did not differ from audition-vision. The cross-modal recognition for both was high. Neither differed from a comparable intra-modal recognition memory for naturalistic sounds (Lawrence, 1974).

Auditory Perception↗