By contrast, after the classic learning method, the performance observed in the visuo-auditory (M = 6.07 and SD = 2.16) and audio-visual tests (M = 5.07 and SD = 2.26) did not differ significantly.
Furthermore, performance in the visuo-auditory test was significantly better after the multisensory learning than after the classic one whereas performance was equivalent for the two groups in the audio-visual test (Figure S3).
The Newmans-Keuls comparisons (with a 0.01 alpha level) revealed that participants after the multisensory learning method recognized more associations in the visuo-auditory recognition test (M = 8.37 and SD = 1.47) than in the audio-visual test (M = 5.87 and SD = 2.03).
"Audio and visual tests are very sophisticated," Dr. Srinivasan said, "but the tests clinicians have for the sense of touch, for example, are very primitive". This is primarily because the human haptic system is so complex and because "there's been no dominant clinical need," Dr. Srinivasan said.
There was also a main effect of the direction of association [F 1,28) = 26.38 ; p<.0001; with R2 = .49]: Participants performed better in the visuo-auditory recognition test (M = 7.22 and SD = 2.18) than in the audio-visual recognition test (M = 5.47 and SD = 2.19).
Lists audio visual resources.
Instructional labs and audio visual facilities.
Series V: Audio Visual Material, 1951-1980.
Audio visual aids are important in education system.
The new audio visual law, however, was greatly flawed.
Audio visual aids were also used as per need.
