Talk:Perceptual noise exclusion hypothesis

Hi

Hi Arm

This is a model of Auditory Processing Disorder, which has been recognised and documented in the USA for some years. So this just proves my poin that APD is just one of many underlying causes of dyslexia. I will go find all the docunationation All of the web pages have changes regarding USA APD since i last did it some years ago, most now charge for their papers or no longer allow extracts from their books to be published. the reason for all the changes the ASHA unification program, so that now all of the old real research has now become very marketable. How ever I will provide a list of links when i find them.

SCAN-A (Test for Auditory Processing Disorders In Adolescents and Adults) http://www.capdtest.com/scan_a.cfm

SCAN-C© (Test for Auditory Processing Disorders In Children-Revised) http://www.capdtest.com/scan_c.cfm

Colorado Department of Education Auditory Processing Disorders: A Team Approach to Screening, Assessment & Intervention Practices

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/download/pdf/CI-APD-Gu.pdf (pages 8 - 11 initially)

Florida Department of Education Auditory Processing Disorders Technical Assistance Paper (TAP) http://www.fldoe.org/ese/pdf/y2001-9.pdf (pages 2- 7 best initially)

not exactly a scientific paper but usuful National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders

NIDCD http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/voice/auditory.asp

dolfrog 05:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dolfrog - I think you are confused by the use of the word "noise". The studies cited are primarily studies of the visual system -- "noise" is used to refer to visual interference, though the researchers also think that their findings for the visual system relate to the auditory system. I created this topic and the reason I used the phrase "perceptual noise exclusion" is that I sent an email to one of the researchers, Dr. Lu, and told him I was working on an article, and I asked him what he thought his theory should be called. But if you would look at the abstracts of the research, you will see that these are visual experiments. If you like I would be happy to send you the full research articles. Armarshall 08:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arm

I hate to state the obvious but any sound interferance or distraction must be derived from an auditory sensory source, and this is an an auditory source of distraction which then reflects on the concentration abilities of an idividual to use their visual sensory skills. So sounds like this is an APD related problem causing the initial distraction, which then deflects the ability od a visual dyslexic to cope with their visual problems. This is very similar to the problems I am experiencing with my broken arm the pain and disability caused by having a beoken arm is preventing me from running my APD coping strategiesd affectively. So the existance of one sensory or motor deficit can magnify the effects of another sensory or motor deficit. And the sound based destrctions you describe are auditory in nature otherwise they would be not be noise or sound based problems and they then distrawct the individual visual capabilities. May be Dr. Lu needs to research APD as a contributory factor, if APD is not part of his area of speciality.

If Dr lu wishes to describe a totally visual disctraction then he needs to define what he means posibly in terms of relative changes of light intesity or some other measurable visual distraction, but noise is an auditory issue and auditory distraction related to dyslexia would be APD related. So Dr. Lu needs to be more specifc one way of the other. AS this theory has alrady hit the UK Newspapers and their interpretation was auditory noise causing the destractio, which is APD.

best wishes

dolfrog 05:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But there was no "sound interference" in the studies that these researchers did. By "noise" they mean visual interference like dots on a screen -- here's a direct quote from one of the studies: "Signal and noise dots were the same light gray in

luminance (and color) and were presented against the darker gray background." The study DOES describe the light intensity, etc. If you don't believe me, you can email the researchers yourself and ask -- or if you would like the full text reports of the research I will send them to you. These are all studies of visual perception tasks. The researchers do note a correlation with auditory perception, but all of the tasks that they set up for their research subjects were visual.

I'm sorry you are confused by the researchers' choice of words -- look up the phrase "visual noise" and you will see that the term "noise" is used sometimes to refer to visual clutter. Armarshall 14:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arm

I have looked up the word noise in the Oxford Dictionary which is the ENGLISH dicttionary. There are 4 main entries all related to sound, louad unpleasant or undesired sounds and variations on the sound theme,

and the only non sound specific definition is

irregular fluctuations accompanyinga trans mitted signal but not relevant to it.

But this is so vague that it would require greater clarification if referring to other sensory input. So may be if you were to insert visual next to all of the noise words others may begin to understand what you mean.

And no I have not heard of "visual noise" probably another americanism in the language. And Clutter seems to have a different meaning as well. the best known difference of the meaning of words between the US and other English speaking countries is the word "fag" in the UK and elsewhere the word means cigerette, so if we say we are goint out to buy a packet of fags, it means we are going out to buy a packet of 10 or 20 cigerettes, and I have become aeare that you have a different defintion of this word in the USA, which is not so complimentary.

May be you should define waht you mean by visual noise in both articles as those outside of the USA will have no idea waht you are talking about.

best wishes

dolfrog 14:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog, you are probably right, but I didn't come up with the name, "perceptual noise exclusion"... the researchers did. (Honestly -- you will see the word "noise" in the title of the some of the articles cited, and I emailed Dr. Lu and asked him what they called their theory. It makes sense to explain it -- but at the same time it is important to respect the researcher's usage simply because that makes it easier in the future to follow the research through searches on the commonly used phrase.

This isn't the only case of researchers messing up on the way they name things. "Scotopic sensitivity syndrome" doesn't mean what it says either -- ("scotopic" = "relating to or being vision in dim light") - but the Irlen lens people are talking about issues related to color-sensitivity or problems with bright light, glare, or contrast. I'll look over the article to see if there are ways to clarify it further, but I don't think it is my place to mess with the terminology the researchers are using. Armarshall 02:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)