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,

ulian.treasure@thesoundagency.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,

info@acbo.org.au

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, dwhalen@gc.cuny.edu

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, rschwartz@gc.cuny.edu

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, lehri@gc.cuny.edu

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, prema_rao@yahoo.com

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,

jamunaRajeswaran@nimhans.kar.nic.in

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