__ 

/

~~~ TKi ~~~~r 3g9J

t

~

i.ISTENING TO COMPRESSED SPEECH: , —~~ ~ ThE EFFECTS OF INSTRUCTIONS, ;z

AND ?REFERENCE ! ci. c)~ ‘

~ / Paui A DDC ~~ ade 

~~~~DavIdAertman/ 

~~~~~~~~~~~ iT’ - ~ ~~~ Ir~

S OCT ~

?

~~1979 ~

I

UU~~~inn~ i

E

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND SIMULATION TECHNICAL AREA

~~~~~~ ~~~~~ 

z

r

~

ir

U- U. S. Army

~

Researc h Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

August 1979

Approv.d for public reI.ss.; distribution un mit.d.

~ 

9 L

~~~

L ____ -

~~~ —~~~
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating A gen cy under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAIISER

JOSEPH ZEIDPJ ER Colon. I . U S Army

Technica l Director Comm and•r

NOTICES

DISTRISUTION- Primary distribution of its’s report liss been made by ARI. Pt.., sddr ss corruponden~.

concerning thstrtbution of reports to: U. S. Army s uds Instituta for its. Sgltsvlo,iI and Søc,.I Science.,

ATTN PERI P. 5001 E,ienpiova Avenue . Alenrsdr,s, Virginia 22333

FINAL ot~~O1tTlON: This report .

~

.y be destroyed .W*n its no longer needed. PIHe do no, return it to

1155 U. S ArMy Re.srcts Inslitue. for tbe Bibevior.l nd Social Sciences.

~2IL tIss finding, in tIsis report ere not to be construsd Is en of beip) Deparwnen, of the Ar my position.

unlIs so designated by ot1i r suttsorifld documents.
- .-_r - - — - -.~~.- .- ,- - -

Unclassified

SE CURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (lTh. n 5.1 . Jtnt.,.d)

~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ThI~~ J 

- 

READ INSTRUCTIONS i

~ rui

~ i uut..uMs ri I A I lUI~ l

~ ~~U BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I. REPORT NUMBER • 2. GoVT AC CESSION NO. 3- RECIPIENT S CATA LOG NUMEER

Technical ___________________________

4. TITLE (and 5ub~~i) 3. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

LISTENING TO COMP RESSED SPEECH : THE EFFECTS OF -- INSTRUCTIONS , EXPERIENCE , AND PREFERENCE 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AljTi

~oR(.) S. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(.)

Paul A. Gade and David Gertman --

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS 50. PROGRAM ELEMENT . PROJECT . TASK

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral AREA S WORK UNIT NUMBERS

and Social Sciences

5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandr ia , VA 22333 2T16I1O1A91B

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

August 1979

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel IS. NUMBER OF PAGES

Washington, DC 20310 12

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME S ADORESS(I( dItf.r.,.I from Controtlln4 Olilco) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (ol fhI~ r.port)

— Unclassified

IS.. DECLASSI FICATION /DOWNGRAD ING SCH EDULE

15. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of lAS. R.porf)

Approved for public release ; distribution unlimited .

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of A. ab.i,ect .nt.,.d In flock 2O~ It dltt.r.nt from R.port)

IS. SUPPLEME NTARY NOTES

19. KEY WORDS (CoøtSnu. on r.r. ,.. aId. St n.c..omy and I d.nIlty by block numb .r)

Compressed Speech Epistemic curiosity

Learning Speech rate preference

Training Auding

Speech comprehension

Lis fling

20. A AC1~ (Can5~~,. an roy... . .lde N nro..my and IdentIty by block nomb..)

his experiment attempted to assess the effects of different informationseeking strategies on the rate at which individuals chose to listen to passages of time-compressed speech , and on their comprehension of those passages.

The research also assessed the effects of prior experience with compressed

speech on listening rates and on comprehension of 48 Army enlisted men and

women . The various information—seeking strategies employed , produced no

significant differences in speed or accuracy of performance . Personnel

DD ~~~~~~~ 

~

473 £O~1’1O$S OF I way SI IS o,eoLETE

UfiçL~jsifj.ttd SECURITY CLASSIFICATIOPI OF THIS PAGE (Cl.,. D.ja En,.,.d )
~ .. - ——--~~~~~~-- 

Unclassified

SECURITY CLAUIFICATION OF THIS PAG((Wpian Oaf. IJiI.red )

20.

preferred to listen to speech rates well above normal speaking rates ,~ (p < .001). Although prior experience with compressed speech did not

influence preferred listening rates, it did influence the participants’

listening rates when they were induced to listen to speech as rapidly

as possible (p < 0.001). Results are discussed in terms of Berlyne ’s

epistemic curiosity hypothesis and in relation to the results of prefer—

ence research by Lass , Foulke , Nester , and Comerci (1974).

.‘1C~~ k oij :

~

2

~•_~ —

- .

A; ’, ‘

.

~~~~~.

~~

DiSt Gpecla,j

Unclassified

~~ SECURITY CLASSiFICATION OF THIS PAGE(*3i.n Data Fnt.r.d)

~~~ _ , 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Technical Paper 369

LISTENING TO COMPRESSED SPEECH:

ThE EFFECTS OF INSTRUCTIONS, EXPERIENCE,

AND PREFERENCE

Paul A. Gade and David Gertman

Submitted by: Michael Kaplan, Acting Chief

EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY AND SIMULATION TECHNICAL AREA

Aoproyed by:

Frank J. Harris, Acting Director

ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS

RESEARCH LABORATORY

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria , Virg inia 22333

Office , Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

August 1979

Army Project Number Performance Enhancement

21161101A91B In Auditory Perception

Approved for public rd.ise; distribution unlimited.

iii

________
_..

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommen

dations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

C 

‘I

i

-I

iv

S 

.A~

- _-—

~~

b __ ____ - -

~~~~~-~~

_ .

- ~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _

~~a ._ .._ -_. -.--- — ——-.

~
— - --_ __.

~~~~~~~~

—

~~~~~~~~~~—- -~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-

~~~~~

FOREWO RD

This report is concerned specifically with strategies of training

people to comprehend compressed speech. Within the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences CARl) , basic research in

human performance enhancement--locating and expanding the boundaries of

sensory perception, particularly spatial orientation and visual or auditory perception-—has led to projects in night operations , night training , aircrew performance , and selective listening . Earlier ARI publications

on auditory perception have been ARI Technical Papers 295, 296, and 297

on compressed speech and Technical Research Note 236 on speech comprehension . Research for this report was done under Army Project 2Tl6llOlA9lB ,

In—house Laboratory Independent Research. The principles developed in

this area of research can be applied in any agency that needs rapid review and analysis of large amounts of auditory material.

J SEPH Z NER

echnical Direc tor

~ 

~~ . ~~~~~~~~~~ 
LISTENING TO COMPRESSED SPEEQ4 : ThE EFFECTS OF

INSTRUCTION S , EXPERIENCE , AND PREFERENCE

BRIEF

Requirement:

Human Army communications processors need help in rapidly reviewing ,

evaluating, and summarizing backlogs of taped telecommunications. Speech

compression devices allow audio recordings of telecommunications to be

played at rates faster than the original recording without changes in

pitch. For the Army to make effective use of the technology of timecompressed speech , variables that affect the processing of time-compressed

communications , such as listening rate preferences , prior experience with

compressed speech , and listener motivation , need to be explored more

fully .

Procedure :

Forty-eight Army enlisted personnel were asked to listen to four

passages of speech in a self—paced situation . They were told to listen

to the passages at rates that would allow them to process the information as rapidly as possible with no loss in comprehension . Before listening to these four passages , half (N 24) of the participants were required to listen to speech compressed to twice the normal rate ; the other

half listened to speech at the normal rate . Half of each of these two

prior—experience groups (N = 12) were given instructions designed to

• induce epistemic curiosity motivation . The remaining 12 participants in

each of the prior—experience groups were given neutral instructions . All

participants were given 10—item , multiple—choice comprehension tests at

t~~

. ~ d of each speech passage . After listening to the fourth speech

passage, participants were asked to indicate their preferred listening

rates.

Findings :

Speed and accuracy in listening to compressed speech were not affected by the epistemic curiosity conditions . Prior exposure to compressed speech led to consistently faster listening rates on each of the

four passages of speech. Preference data indicate that personnel preferred to listen to speech at rates well above the normal speaking rate .

However , prior exposure to compressed speech did not affect subsequent

preferred listening rates.

~~~CZtLlI~ P

~~ ~ Alt

vii 

.. -

~~-- _- .—~

—-‘•_- ~~.- —•~ ..-.—..•_..-•—._- . - -—--.•~—- ~

— -~. ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ 

- -
--

Utilization of Findings:

Army personnel can be induced to listen to compressed speech at

faster rates than their preferred listening rates. This effec t can be

enhanced by giving personnel brief exposure to highly compressed speech

before asking them to listen to compressed speech in a self-paced situation. The duration of this enhanced performance is unknown , however .

- I

viii 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —.. -— .~~~~ - - ~,

- -~~~~- ----~~ - ~~

._ •___ ,

~

_ y

~~~_~
LISTENIN G TO COMPRESSED SPEECH : THE EFFECTS OF

INS TRUC TIONS , EXPERIENCE , AND PREFEREN CE

CONTENT S ______

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

OBJECTIVE

METHOD 2

Participants 2

Apparatus 

Stimulus Materials 3

• Design and Procedure 3

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4

Comprehension Scores 4

Selected Listening Rates 4

Pre ferred Listening Rates 5

CONCLUS IONS 7

REFERENCES 9

DISTRIBUTION 11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Induced listening rates 

ix
LISTENING TO COMPRESSED SPEECH : THE EFFECTS OF

INSTRUCTIONS , EXPERIENCE , AND PREFERENCE

INTRODUCTION

Berlyne (l954b) and others (Wa tts & Anderson , 1971 , and Fr ick &

Cofer , 1972) have demonstrated that instructions based on interrogative

statements are far more effective in facilitating the learning of reading material than are instructions based on declarative or impera tive

statements. These studies show that people who are asked questions about

a passage before reading that passage remember more than do people who

are not given prior questioning .

Berlyne (l954a , 1960) hypothesizes that interrogative statements

enhance learning because they arouse epistemic curiosity . According to

Berlyne , epistemic curiosity is a motivational state that develops whenever a person perceives a discrepancy between available and needed knowledge . This motivational state can be observed in the mental or overt

behaviors people show when attempting to resolve the uncertainty created

by this discrepancy. Apparently , questions help motivate the learner by

arousing curiosity. To date , however , epistemic curiosity has been explored in reading tasks only. It is not known if prior questioning f acilitates learning when material is presented aurally.

-

• Speech compression devices enable audio recordings to be played back

at rates faster or slower than originally recorded without chanciinq the

pitch. Research has shown that untrained listeners can comprehend compressed speech. For example , Foulke (1968) showed that co1le~

.ie students ’

comprehension scores did not decline s ignificantly until word rate was

increased to above 250 words per minute ( wpm) . Shields (1975) demen—

strated that Army communications processors could accurately identify

the subject matter of highly technical communications compressed to 1.5

times their normal rate . Recently, deHaan (1977 ) found good comprehen~

-

sion in subjects who listened to historical material compressed to twice

the normal speed .

Numerous studies have shown that subjects can be traincd to listen

to compressed speech at more than twice the normal rate with no a~~’reciable loss in comprehension (Grumpelt & Rubin , 1972; Lambert , Shields ,

Gade , & Dressel , 1978) . Relatively little is known , however, about how

listening rate preferences are influenced by exposure to compressed speech

or how these rate preferences influence performance when listening to

compressed speech . To make effective use of the technology of ratecontrolled speech , the military must fully explore variables such as

instruction—induced motivation and listening rate preferences .

1

• . ~ —.-- --.- -. • •

- .

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- 

-- ,•. ~~~~~

- •. 

This experiment explored the influence of several variables on the

pertorm .mct’ of Army personnel in a self—paced learning situation usim.~ cem t ~~ssed speech . The first question to be answered was whether instrucions that o~;t . ered ei istemic curiosity would have the posit ive influence

on ~omprohen~; ion for compressed ~

;h’eech that they have been shown to have

on readiuq . -u rthermore , would epistemic curiosity affect the rate at

which subject clec t td to 1 isten to m rossed SpeeCh F inal )..y , the ox—

pcrimcnt examined the relationship between preferred lis~ t~ni iiq rates and

the maximum at es at which subjects cocl.d list en to compressed speech

~~~~~~~~ Leo; , Foulke , Nester , & Comerci , 1974 ; and Levine , lt)75 , fo r dis—

cu so i rio of oj eecti rate pit ferences)

OBJECTIVE

• The oh~~ective of this research was to assess the relative influence

of epistemic curiositx , prior experience with compressed speech , and proferred listening rates on the performance of Army personnel in a self—

paced learning situation u oiiiq compressed opeoch.

t4ETHOD

Particij~

ants

Part ici pari t were 37 male and 11 female Army enlisted personnel .

All participants had scores of l

~~

) or better on the General Technical

scale of the classification battery .

Apparatus

Participants were seated in an IAC 1 acoustical chamber during the

experiment. A Crown 800 variable-speed tape recorder/p layer was used in

conjunction with an AmBiChron (Koch, 1974) speech compressor/expander to

present passaqes of speech . Participants listened binaurally to the

speech through headphones. Participants controlled speech rates by manipulating a knob on a control box in the audio chamber. All participant

responses were automatically recorded on a stri p chart and on a small

laboratory computer . This computer , an ADDS 1

~~~0-~~, was used to regulate

the onset and offset of the tape recorder and to record listening times.

1

Use of commercial names is for purposes of cI.iii ty only and does n~~t

represent indorsement by t ho Department of t he Army .

2

___________ - 

____________________________________________________ 

—-- -~~~ 

__~

—~ iM;_ __-_i_~

,.___
Stimulus Materials

Five passages of speech were selected from a Library of Congress recording ( talking book) , The Proud Tower (Tuchman , 1966). A professional

female reader read the passages at an average rate of 130 words per minute

(wpm). One of the passages was used as a practice passage . For purposes

of counterbalancing and data analysis , the remaining four passages (A , B,

C, and D) were combined into pairs (ZtB and CD). Each pair was treated as

a single unit for controlling order effects and in subsequent data

analyses .

Design and Procedure

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the 16 cells of a 2~ completely randomized factorial design . The four factors defining the

cells were (a) type of instructions (declarative or interrogative) , (b)

practice passage speed (normal or twice normal rate), (c) passage presentation order (AB followed by CD, or the reverse) , and (d) order of

instruction (AB had instructions , while CD had no instructions , or the

reverse) .

Upon arriving at the laboratory , participants were given a brief

description of the experiment and the tasks they would be performing .

They were given a practice session during which they were shown how to

control the rate of compressed speech . Next , the participants were told

to listen to a practice passage and that they would be asked questions

later about the passage . They were also told that they would not be able

to control the speed of the speech during this practice passage , but that

they would have to listen to the passage at either normal speed or twice

normal speed , depending on their group assignment . After they finished

the questions at the end of the practice passage , partic ipants were told

that they would next listen to four more passages , during which they could

control the rate of speech . They were asked to listen to each passage as

rapidly as possible, but not so fast that they would be unable to answer

the questions at the end of each passage.

Overall listening rates for each passage and the number of correct

answers on each test served as response measures. After completing the

test for the fourth passage , participants were asked to listen to the

fourth passage again . While listening , they were asked to adjust the

speed of the speech to the rate they preferred . Participants were also

asked to adjust the speed of the speech to the rate they least preferred .

The order of these two preference judgments was counterbalanced between

participants .

3

-

~~~~~AL~~~ - - -

~~~
- .— —.——.— —•--- •— .— .— .•—•-- 

~

,-.-. .--.• .

~

.—.—•.

--.—-—.-—--- •.

~~~

.

,-—•-

RESULTS AND DI SCUSSION

Comprehension Scores

A five—way ANOVA with repeated measures on the last factor was performed on the total number of correct answers achieved by participants.

The factors analyzed were type of instruction, prac tice passage speed ,

passage presentation order, order of instruction , and passage instructed

(i.e., whether ~r not preceded by instructions) . The factors of passage

presentation order and order of instruction were not independent variables

in the truest sense but were created to balance out the possibility of

those two types of order effec ts .

Based on the epistemic curiosity hypothesis , it was expected that

comprehension scores for passages preceded by instructions would be significantly higher than scores on passages not preceded by instructions.

However , this was not the case , since nonh of the main effects or interactions of primary concern was significant. The only significant effect

was the practice passage speed x passage presentation order x order of

instruction x passage instructed interaction (F(1, 32) = 5.58, p < .025).

Although subsequent simple effects testing using Tukey ’s HSD test (Kirk ,

1968) revealed a few significant differences , none of the instructional

manipulations had any significant effect on comprehension performance .

The most parsimonious explanation for this failure is that the instructions used were ineffective instructions . Instructional attempts

to induce epistemic curiosity effects in auding tasks may be inappropriate, however . McGraw and Grotelueschen (1972) and Boyd (1973) have

suggested that prequestion-induced increases in comprehension of written

material are produced by fostering rehearsal and review of the answers

to the prequestioned material. Review and rehearsal are severely limited

by the listening techniques used in the present study; therefore , the

failure to find comprehension differences between differentially instructed conditions and groups may be because participants had limited

opportunities for review and rehearsal.

Selected Listening Rates

A five—way ANOVA was performed on the listening speed the participants chose. The factors analyzed were the same as those examined in

the analysis of the comprehension scores . A significant main effect for

practice passage speed was found (El i, 32) = 20.01, p < .001). Participants who were required to listen to the practice passage at twice the

normal rate chose to listen to the four subsequent passages at faster

rates than those who listened to the practice passage at a normal rate

CX = 1.69 times normal versus X = 1.39 times normal , respectively ). Two

interactions were also significant: (a) practice passage speed x passage

presentation order x passage instructed (F(i, 32) = 5.34, p < .05) and

4

. -

. • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(b) passage presentation order x order of instruction x passage instructed

(F( l , 32) 5.88 , p .

~ .05) . As wi th the comprehension data , however , simple effects analyses for both t hene interactions failed to yield any

significant defects for instructional manipulations . No other main of -

— t ecti; ot interactions were s i qit i fj c ~t n t

ro determine if participants had modified their sel oct i’d ii ten i uq

rates during the course of listening to the tour oxper imenta 1 speech ‘as—

saqes , a two—way ANOVA was performed on the selected listen itni t a t e dat a.

The two factors aita I y ~ed wore prac t i ce passage rn ~eed and (ii a 1:; ( j .o •

Tri al 1 — first passage heard , Trial 2 second l~a

~~;aut’ heard , et c

As Figure 1 shows , no changes in mean select ed listening rates were observed in either of the two prac t ice ‘a ;age spoed groups during the out

experimental passages . Only t he main oft ect for p rae t i ci’ fla:; :sele spei’

was significant (E U , 31) 2’) .79 , p . 0 01) . Clearly, the et let - t o established by listening to the j’rac t ice par;s.tqe at normal or twice normal

spee’du were not modified at any time dun tei t.he exper imetit

Preferred Listening Rates~

A four—way ANOVA was performed on the preferred ii stoning t a t e data.

The factot s analyzed were type of instruction, practice passage speed ,

passage presentation order , and order of instruct ion . As in the pr ev ious analyses, passage presentation order and order of inst ruct ion were

pseudo tact urn c r ea t ed to control t hose two types of order effects . No ne

of the main eff ects or interactions i n this analysis wa s si ijir i l i cait t . A

four—way ANOVA of the data on least —preferred listening rate yielded

similar results; that in , no nra in eflect or interaction s were si u nit t —

cant. The results of these two analyses clearly indicate that nei I her

instruct tonal set nor prior experience with compressed speech a I 1 oct ed

participant preferences in any sign it i cant way . It is jut or out i rig to

note , however , that otT t lit’ 33 sub je ct 5 , -

~ I pro totted I o list en I o speech

at a faster than norma l rat.e (\‘~(l) 25.48, p .001). l’ nu t hennore , the

mean preferred rate (142% of normal rate) was signi fit -ant ly higher t han

the norma l rate Ct ( 32) 10.24 , p .001)

A two—way ANOVA was used to analyze the di ffcr ences between preferred and selected npeeds for group :; recel vi rig t lie pract ice pass age

either at the norma l rate or at twice the normal t a te. ‘rho group ieee iving the practice passage at t wi ct’ the norm.r l rate so I ec ted .1 ni grit t I —

cantly (Ft 1, t

~2) - 8 .~~2 , p . 05) higher rate ( X I t’ et~ ot nonn a I ) th air

did the qroup r-ece ivi ng practice at the norma l rat o ( X 140% uI normal)

h owever , t host’ two groups diii ito t dill or in I lit’ i r pro let re d ‘;peech ra t or;

as the respect ivt’ mean di ft ereticeo show (144% txxripaied to 141% of the

normal r a te)

2

All t lie •tira 1 yr;es for pr eferetico dat a were performed us i iiq lea :; I —:s ~ t i.I t i ’

solutions , because these dat a were based on the reShxMlses ut 13 ot I lii’ 48

part ici pattI i • l’ri’ It’ t i ~iiC,~ d.i t •i Were not co 1 1 oct i’d from t he fir :; I 1’ ,‘t ’oh’ I 0

who p~

t r t it: i 1511 Oil in ti; iii experiment

• ‘n
• •

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

INDUCED LISTENING RATES

190~

~~~~ 

______ 

______

.— ____ uI

__lI__

_____. s

~ 

160 -

- 0

~ 

150 -

0

.— 140 - —. -.

.—

w

~ 1

• ~~~~~ 130 -

~ 

120 - TWICE NORM. •

NORM. • • 110-

100 - I I

1 2 3 4

TRIALS

Figure 1. Induced listening rates.

T 

- .-— - - .‘-•-,--.- -• - — ---• • 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
I

Furthermore , the group given practice at twice normal speed selected

speeds CX = 166% of normal) significantly higher (F(l, 62) = 13.90,

p < .001) than their preferred speed CX = 144% of normal). No such mean

differences between selected and most preferred speeds were found for

the normal speed practice group . In fact , only 47% of participants in

the normal speed practice group elected to listen at a mean rate that

was faster than their mean preferred rate; while 94% of the participants

in the twice normal group elec ted a mean li stening rate that was fa ster

than their mean preferred rate . This difference in the proportion of

individuals selecting mean listening rates above their preferred rates

between normal and twice normal practice groups was statistically

reliable (z = +3.49 , p < .005).

Taken together , these results seem to indicate that although prior

exposure to compressed speech modified the rate at which subjects elected

to listen to fur ther passages of speech , it did not influence their preferred listening rates in any significant way . The fact that practice

passage speed showed a moderately high point—biserial correlation with

selected listening rate (r(31) = +.55, p < .01) but did not correlate

with most-preferred listening rate (r(31) = +.06, p > .05) lends support

to this notion . Preferred listening rate , however , did show a sign if ican t

and moderately high correlation with selected listening rate (r(31) =

+.47 , p < .01). Apparently, preferred listening rate and prior forced

exposure to compressed speech combine in an additive fashion to influence selected listening rate . The multiple correlation coef ficient using

preferred listening rate and prac tice passage speed as predic tors of

selected listening rate was relatively high (i~ = .68) .

~~~ The proportion

of selected listening rate variance accounted for by combining these two

predictors CR 2 = .46) was very nearly the sum of proportion of selected

listening rate variance accounted for by each of these predictors considered separately (.22 for most preferred listening rate arid .30 for

prac tice passage speed, ~ = .52).

CONCLUSI ON S

The results of this experiment are inconclusive with respect to the • effects of epistemic curiosity on listening to time-compressed speech .

In this experiment, neither comprehension of speech passages nor listening rates were affected by instructional attempts to induce episteniic

curiosity . These results may be attributed to one of three causes .

First , the instructions used may have been ineffective in inducing epistemic curiosity . Second , the limited opportunity for review of the aurally

3

To better estimate the population correlation coe t licieti t , tIre multi ple

correlation coefficient (R) was “shrunken ” CR) according to the formula

suggested by Guilford and Fruchter (1978 , p. 377). The multiple regression equation based on R is X1 = l07.ui l + .125 X1 + .184 X3 where X 1 =

predicted selected speed , X 2 = pract ice passage speed , and X 3 Preferred

• listening rate .

• 7

__ 

~~~~ .~~~~~~~ •~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

______
I

presented passages may have prevented epistemic curiosity from having it :;

usual effects on comprehension performance. Third , it may be that epistemic curiosity simply does not influe nce comprehension performance when

listening as it does when reading . In our opinion , the first two possible

causes are the most probable. The third cause scents most unlikely to us.

The results of this experiment clearly indicate that Army p ’isonhrel

can be induced to listen to speech at rates well above their preferred

listening rate with no loss in comprehension . It is also clear that

listening rates in a self—paced listening task cat; be modified relatively

easily by recent experience with time-compressed speech. Our results

show that people who arc required to listen to compressed speech at

faster than normal rates subsequently elect to listen to compressed

speech at rates further above their preferred rates that ; do ~‘oopie ’ who

are not given such prior exposure . Prior exposure t o compressed speech

does not seem to influence subsequent accuracy of listening performance

nor does it appear to apprec iably affect listening rate preferences . A

person ’s least—preferred speech rate seems to have lit tie influence urn

his or her self—selected aud ing rate. However , a person ’s pr et t ’r r e d

lis tening rate has a moderate , positiVe influence on his or her listen—

j ntj rate in a self-paced listening tank .

In summary , it seems that preferences for speech rate are not modified by brief listening exper ien ces, whereas induced rat on are Very ear; ; ly

influenced by such experiences . People given brief exposure to highly

time—compressed speech; subsequently elect to list err to speech at rat or;

well above their own preferred rates without any loss in comprehension.

I t appears tha t a person ’s listening rate in a self—paced task tlt ’j’ernd:;

on that person ’s recent experience with ; time—compressed speech and hi;;

or her preferred listening rate.

8

— 

~~~~ LU ~~~~~—
REFEREN1~ES

Berlyne , D. E. A theory ot human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 1954, 45 , 180—191. (a)

Berlyne , D. E. An experimental study of human curiosity. British

Journal of Psychology, 1954, 45 , 256-265. (b)

Berlyne , D. E. Curiosity, conflict, and arousal. New York : McGrawHil , 1960.

Boyd, W. M. Repeating questions in prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 64, 31—38.

deHaan, H. J. A speech—rate intelligibility threshold for speeded and

time-compressed connected speech . Perception and Psychophysics,

1977 , 22(4), 366—372 .

Foulke , E. Listening comprehension as a function of word rate. Journal

of Communication, 1968, 18, 198—206 .

Frick , J. W., & Cofer , C. N. Berlyne’s demonstration of epistemic curiosity : an experimental re-evaluation . British Journal of Psychology,

1972 , 63, 221—228.

Gruinpelt, H. R., & Rubin , E. Speed listening skill by the blind as a

function of training . The Journal of Educational Research, 1972,

65 , 467—471.

Guilford , J. P., & Fruchter , B. Fundamental statistics in psychology

• and education (6th ed.) New York : McGraw-Hill , 1978.

Kirk , R. J. Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences,

Belmont, Calif .: Brooks/Cole, 1968.

Koch, R. The PdnBiChron. In S. Duker (Ed.), Time compressed speech: an

anthology and bibliography . Metuchen , N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1974.

Lanibert , J. V., Shields , J. L., Gade , P. A ., & Dressel , J. D. Comprehension of time—compressed speech as a function of training . ART • Technical Paper 295 , June 1978. (AD A058204)

Lass , N. J., Foulke , E., Nester , A. A., & Comerci , J. The effect of

exposure to time—compressed speech on subjects’ listening rate

preferences and listening comprehension skills. The Journal of

Auditory Research, 1974, 14, 179-186 .

l~ vine , S. .7. Preferences for the rate of presentation of recorded

information . Proceedings Third Annual Conference on Rate-Controlled

Speech. New York : P.rnerican Foundation for the Blind , 1975.

9

- ___ -~~~-~~~-. . -~~~--~~~ “-
McGraw, B., & Grotelueschen , A. Direction of the effect of questions

in prose material . Journal of Educational Psychology, 1972, 63 , 580—588.

Shields, 3. L. Speed listening for message classification . ARI Research

Memorandum 75—2 , 1975.

Tuchman , B. The proud tower. New York : MacMillan, 1966.

Watts, G. H., & Anderson , R. C. Effects of three types of inserted

questions on learning from prose . Journal of Educational Psychology, = 1971, 62, 387—94.

— 

10 

-- 

___________
DISTRIS

UTION

A R> 

P’I t ~~~~~ (.1

4 (lASt) 

~~~

.I>Ai 2 4I()US

ACUL U It (Id ATTN • 

(~> ,q

,r

~

2 tIOflA iII\VI CSZI I IIOUSACOLI ’ 

V t Oid ATTN. ATIC (

~~ I Io’~ 

I

I is II I InAPt PBR .

‘ SAt I C F Hesr

p,rn,rr 

Ha son 

Al TN i It

IIi)tI

~i l t

’AMfs AR) I USAPACOC . Vt lie ns F ,,ss us 

A ll N Al ;>‘ HR

I liii! A IU

AI’F H HI I’S I LISA 

Conun F kit Ss ii Ft Monsnouttt Al 1 N ATSN I A

I 

H(fl)A 

> 5GM)) ID> I USAF C I 

Moir irouth , A t IN AMSE I C I h oP

hIt)UA lOAM> 50 I (ISAVC , Ft 

Nanrn

~ uth All N 

A MSE I PA P

HOQA IDAPC PM? .~ > I USAIiC ft 

M u,s, ,sIs ATTN AMSIL SI (‘U

I HUt1A 

>OAC H PP

.’ AS 

IPSAIC . Ft Motsnuu th . A TT N C . lad Des 

Hs

I HODA )t)APF HUE> i USA Mat e ,iaIs 

Svs An ,> 

A> ~ 

Al~

~r.1s.c . AT TN AM\;,~ I’

1 IIODA 

>L)API MPO 1 1 Ia>r’w.,

o i Ais.,, .I 

AI~

~

deen . A T TN. SARI A II( H

I MOnA 1041 1 IIWI I USA 

Oi l Ct, & Sch . Ale’iiIe,’,,. AT TN. ATS I I FM U

I HODA (DAPI HUt. ) 2 USA Hun 

Fniit I.,), Att’okw

i. ATTN t I’M) il,

1 IIODA (DAPI Ct’S> I USA 

Conitit Aims log BdFt Bess unii. ATtN Ad 

Ss

i’ ’ i”’

I HODA (t)AFD MFA I I USA 1>4 1,) Hum Rs

~

It U~~i ft Renn ug, ATTN. ChI

HODA (DARn ARS I’> r USA 

i,,tast,

~. 8i1, Ft 

Bisnni sg . ATIN: SHill’ 10 1

I HODA (OAPC PAS A> I (ISASMA . Ft Bliss . ATTN ATSS I RC

I hIi fl.) A (OUSA (Tn> I (ISA A Opt Sch . Ft Bi ts Al TN ATSA 

(‘T

I) 

Mt

I Ii

(TDA 

lOAM >> NOR> 1 

liSA Asi DPI ScIs ft BI ts . All N 

t

~ e I it

i lilmA > i

~~

i’

, n, i 1 USA 

Asi I).’> Rd Ii Hi ss ATTN I lUS

I IIIISA IDAIOPI> 0 USA A s 

Opt 

Rd . Ft Bi nS. A TTN STERD P0

I i . ~ t Cs’ s SI P. 1 A 

UT 5(1 A ls’i~ I MD 1 (iSA 

Cimi & G.ne,,i SIt CoIie

~

’

, 

Ft 1i’,ven

~~

s, ii . 

All N Its

I Mt As,t H im R

~s 01

) 11MM 

041) iF &IS) I (iSA Cud & 

Geiwiai Sit C>l ’q. ’ It 

Le

~

,e

wo i>i, All N Al 

SW St

I ho (‘

S A RA ! AP

() 

S r.ItJ . ATT N 

AIIAGP ~ I (ISA Cml A 

(~

~

np,,l Sit C.iIienp’, II Le,v.

’ii

~~~iii , ATT N I,> Aiim.,

”

I HO I itt A,n~ ATTN A > l.A 

~ > I (154 C.

’ ’ > ‘‘‘‘‘d A nis I 551st (l’s 

“

si

- s I I I 

e .ss. ,ss

~ s ii ATTN 

V

~

’h ’s .5

2 HO F Nh Ain~ Ft 

Sjn, Houston 1 USA Combinid Attn. Cmbt Des ~~~ Ft Leav,nwotth. AT’Tt4: CCS

I 

I’.’ A ,

n~ Sit 

Si,,.Iw, UI ATTN OAVC SA PSi’! 1 USA Combined Armi Cn*

,t Des Adt. Ft Le

~

vq

~nwo,Itn. ATTN: ATCASA

0, Cl

ip! ml Si> . Sluil’s 

~

h’ I 

(ISA (‘om> ,s,,d Arms C’

nl’l Des 

A.’t , Ft Ii,tvenworth ATIN: ATCA(’O I

(li St ’ ! H A I 1 N (‘PS 00’ I (ISA 

(

‘

,

‘n

i’,su’ii As Cmt’i Des Au • I I Lp,sv.’mnn,ith. ATTN ATCA(

’

i ’ • 

I

I the Asm~ I ‘I’ i’

u

~

,t.i,io All N RSU Ciu,t I (ISA F 

COLt . Night Vision I i> I i I>s ’is ’ m ’ ATTN AMSE I NV • SD

I liii A,m~ I i P’m

t

~~

, i AT TN AN

RAL • i 

USA Computer Sts 

(‘smi Ii Beisni, , AT T N I ,‘i-h t hi~iy

I (SI. , AtM S.’ui mi lIe 

A imim ~ (R&D ) I (ISAMFRDC F> Ri

’Ivoii . ATTN 51SF IT DO

I Ti-i-i Suppoi l Si.’ OJCS 1 USA Enq 

Sch. Ft Be>. , ATTN 

LuIwit

y

t (>5454 , 

A,I i.it, ’ i 

An N ARt) r I USA Topographic 1,1’. Ft Bely

s

u, ATTN : I TI TL~ 

S

I 1 > 54 Rst I, (II.

., Diirh ,,i

n, AT 

IN I ii

~ Si

’ ,,

’ , Sri’s ISis I I ISA 

Tispoqraphic I i> 

Ut 

Beivissi ATTN SI iNFO (

‘i’,,

i” ,

liSAfl hEM, N.,i

~~

( ATTN 5Gm) UI 

CA 1 LISA 1 .i’ ssp, ,>i h ,c a>, Ii Beivosi ATTN ilL GSL

I 111,Ai I’ I t i .e 

.

‘.

A I iN r;i i li • 

Mi) A I 

> i ’

~A is Is- i

m p i’, II, A Sets , Ii I4i,.us ’IIi ,i , 

A I T N (‘II) MS

I (ISA IMA . Ft Iti,siiq. Al 

IN A ISU Cli) UM I USA inIi’I> iWitc,’ Ci’ A 

Set. , Ft I4u.

~

’hii,.i At TN MS ClIl 

M

1;

I USAIMA. Vi K. viii Al TN Ma Iiu.i t Lu I (ISA I u

teil ,,wnci’ Cii A 

Sets . F t Hi ar’hur.i ATTN 4151 II

(IS WAC 

Cti & Srh It MrCIpiian Al IN: II. I 

(‘Sit lul

piliqenep Ci. A 

SeN. Vt Huas ’hus ,’i ATI N AISI II \

I (ISW AC Cli A 

Si-li, ft 

M~CieiI

~n Al TN: Tmi Di I USA >,steiliqencp 

Ct’ & 

Sets, Ft HsmeIsur~. A T 1 t’4 415> (‘IS OR

1 LISA (iuar(,imaste, S I liii’ AT TN• AISM I1 I 

ISA Inte ii iqence Ci, & Sets . Vt Ii.iM4IL.C., ATTN ATS I CT)) ITT

I iisleli .jpnce Mj tp, u

~~> p,. ilk 

IWI F i H,’>aI’,i,> 1 I SA Inielliqenc, 

I

’,. A S is . Ft 

Huaeh.ica . A1TN A1’Si 1’ 

ID (‘5

I USA 51 Sup ,,> 

S,’I~ Ii 

‘

,,‘,,l,s, ATTN 

Also LA I (ISA 

I telliqence (

‘is A Si-h Ft 

Huarhi,,’a . ATTN (lAS 

Silt’

I (‘54 Ch,si ’I,som C A 

S i Ii II.u,,,Ii .s Al TN AISC TV ftP 1 (ISA I’’

tpllu,WflCi’ Ci’ A Ss’I’ Ii Hu~’hu .u ATTN Al SI II 

M

1 (‘SAIS CII I it si. Al IN ),h,, u\,huu , 1 1>54 iu,t,

’II,sti’nc,’ 

(‘ is A 5,’! , Ft IIm

~

hu ,,

.. ATTN t ,iv ~~ I LiSA War (‘ illi’s’ Carl ,.> ,’ R.ii.avks ATT N is>’ I (‘1111 lii) Vi Mii i, I’u..s Al T N li’eh 11, 1 i)s

WRAI A , 

N...s

,’.tmi ’ ui,, I),. 

.

‘ CI)R LISA > I.cti,im,’ Pyg Ciii Al TN SIt> P MI 

S

I DLI SDA ti,,.,ii- i-~ I 

HO. TCATA , ATTN Ted s Litwaip

I (ISA 

Cowei,I Au, ,,> 

A’ti ’, 

Upihesta ATTN MOC A MR I HO, IC

ATA . ATTN AT CAT Of’ (1 Ft list

>

(ISA Coin

-pi t An,I Airy Rcthesd, , ATTN. MOC A 

Jf I (ISA 

Rpciust ngCmd , Ii 

She,id

~

n, ATTN (ISARCPM 

P

I (ISA Aic i’u Tpit CI API’) Se,.tt >i’ ATTN. STE AC Pt. Mi I Senior Au nt Ads., (ISA FA COL) TAC . I hp’ Al 

A ,. 

Iii> Nis 9

I LISA Apctui ’ Test Cii APO S.a

ttl ,’ . ATTN. AMSIE P1 ~~ I HO. 

(ISARPAC , DCSPIR, APO

SF 9eM

~8. A T

I N: UPPI SI

I LISA Armam ent Cmii Heii

qtøn* Arsenal . ATTN ATSK

’TEM I St

mtoms lilt, Arademt p1 HealtIl Se iarwps, ft 

Sam HoustOn

I USA Armamei t Cind. Roe). ItI.nd, ATTN • AMSAR TOC I Marine Coups Inst - ATTN. Deem, MCI

I FAA NA FEC . 

AII

~ntic City . ATTN Lilw

~ry I HO. USMC , 

Commandant, ATTN 

Code MIMI

I FAA NAF It ’ Ailaivuc CiT, AT’TN: thiinsan I ng, it I HO. USMC. Commmns$an%, AT TN Code Ml’> 

~

O 

~

B

I FAA A.tnnautu’aI Ci , Cliul ahonsa Cly, ATTN 

41IAC 440 ? USCG AcademtW . New 

London Al IN - 

Admission

2 USA FId 

Arty 

Sih, ri Sill . ATTN I 

h iat t 2 05CC 

A

~

.den5t. New t ondon , ATTN L ittiar

~ • I (ISA Armis 5th, Fl knot . ATTN L ihuar t I 115CC Ttaifling Cti • N~~ ATTN CO

I lISA Arm ,, 

Sih, Ft p,,s, s ATTN A TSR (II I I USCG 

Tiasnu iCti . 

N~ . ATTN 

Iduc Ste Oh’

I (iSA Aim., Si’ It f’ . ’. ATTN 415K 01 Ti’ I 115CC,, Psych,) Ret B , (I

C. AT TN 

(‘,i’ I 

Ii?

I LISA Am iw 5,1, II P. m u os ‘d IN 

AISH 

(

‘U) Al) I HI) M.d Range Ui , MC Del Ou

~

ntiep, Al IN PAS 

IS.
• •

~~~ - __

I US Mau i(‘,.‘ps I ,a,son ill, , ANC. AIe,etw>mia . ATTN AMCGS I I Del & I’ ...! inst o il s ,,, ’ Medii-,,w , Ca.iaiij

I LISA) RADOC Ft Monuo p All N A uto PD I AIR CRESS Kan.amIgt, iui ATTN I to Sy, Si

8 >JSAIRADOC . Ft Misismi.. . AT TN AT PR Au I Muisteerptykniogisk i

~enaste. Corwishagen

I USATRADOC . Pt M,,nrne, ATTN AIlS PA 1 M,>ita, s Attac he, Fitneti Emtsas.y A’I l’N Doe S.i

1 USA F our.. Cnsd Ft McPiies s,sil . All N i >’ . .,, I Mi-dc. ,r (‘0.1 1’ F A I’ A A,wms.i, looks.’. Nasuit l u

7 (ISA Anal,,.,, lest Bil , ft Ru ’>..’, Al IN Sit BC Pt,’) I Ptm n Se enu.Iur 1,511 Ajy’I Hunt Engr R,i-I, (‘i,s Ni~

,isI’,

I (ISA Age y I.,, Avs j t ,o,m Salr’Iy, Ii Ri n k.., A) IN I,iwa.y I)i’ieuise . New Dells ,

I USA Agi’ > In Av iation Safety F I Rue>..,. Al IN’ I uiuc A,li.so. I Ptu. Rich Ole lili. a,y , AKA . itt .,) 0~t,ns.’ I s m ’s

I USA Avi.tion 5,’>, Fi H.,,~~

ps , ATTN P0 Otiwe, 0 I N,,iutemus we., D.>.nsl. 000P.’k>. Aid Soc,aai

I FIOUSA 4. .ii, ’. Si’ Curs,> , Sr I mu,., ATTN : AMSAV ZDR P.ych,iior~

iiciw faIue n . The Hegu. N,tiseiler’uis

7 (ISA Anal,,,,, “

,s I, st A .t , I:dw,w.is Al It, Al IN SAV T I I

1 USA Air (Tel S.’> Vi h u ts A 1IN (LISA 1PM

I (ISA it., N ul ’ .>.t 5 N.,>. & I). ’. t.,iI’ Mi,IIm’ti Phi , Al TN~ SAVI)L AS

I (ISA Anal,,,, Sets , Re. log MgI , Ft Rocket , ATTN 41ST 1 ATM

1 (iSA Aviation Sc>,, (10. Ft Aud i. ’. ATTN: 41ST. D A

I Ill) t)ARC (IM. Alesiandrie, ATTN AMXCI) 71

1 HO, DARCUM . Al,,au’.dria, ATTN. CUR

I US Milita ry Acade my. West Point, A1TN~ Seuials Unit

I (IS Msl i lam y Academy West Paint ATT N Ole i,f N.H Lu>, .1,1,

I (IS Muli t a,m , A,’.ii~,ny West Pusini . ATTN P.14011

I IISA SteniIa,dirat ,on C,i’ UK . FPO Ne . ATTN MASt CC

I 01,’ of Nasal AscIi , A’> u.’qt ~ .s . ATTN Code 452

.1 (Nc of Nav.,i Rich, Ariissqto.i, ATTN Code 458

I Oic of Naval Rich, Arlinqton, ATTN: Cod. 450

1 Dir u s> N..,,> Rtcis , Aul.,sql,,ms , ATTN (‘utte 44 1

I N.ival A .s’ti’e M.’,i Ret I if Pens.* o>a , ATTN Acout kit Div

I N,ival Alt,,.,” Neil Ri’. Lab , l’rs,s,,c,,i,,. ATTN Cod. 151

1 N,,...> Alr. ,s.’c Me,l H’ s lab , P.nsa~o>a , ATTN Code LB

I Ci ,,’> .,f NivPi ’is . A TTN Per..OR

1 NAVAIRSTA , Noifoik , AtTN~ Safety Civ

I Na. Ons.iroquaiihic . (‘IC, ATTN: Code 625 1, Chiets & Tsch

I Cs ’s let 01 Naval Anal. ATTN Doe’ Cii

I NatA,rSy sCom , ATT N AIR 53I3C

I Rem, BuMe.1, ATTN 11 3

I NavHelicopte.SutsSqua 2, FPO SF 96601

I AFHRI. (UI Williams AFO

I AFHRL ITT> Lowr y AFB

I AFHRI (AS) WPAFB . OH

2 AFHRI, (DOJZ) Brni,).s AFB

I AFHR L >DOft4l Lac),iand AFO

1 HOIJSA F IINYSOI

I HOUSAF (Df’XXA)

I AFVTG IRDI Randolph Alit

3 ANAL (HF) W PAFB. OH

2 AU lint cii Ti-ri, WPAFII OH, ATTN ENEISL

Alt ’ IXPTD> Ranilo>,’h AF IT

I (1SAF A.i.sMril L,h , Rr,,ssk, AFU (S(. IL 4> , ATIN: DOG SEC

I AIOSR (Nil , ArI.ngton

I Al Log Cmii . Mi-CipIl,,,. Alit. ATTN ALC/DPCRB

1 Aim F orce Academy, (‘0. ATIN: Dept of 8.1 Scn

S NavPprs & Dpi, Cli , San Omaqo

Navy Mail Nenrops ych i.tric Rich Unit , San Diego I N,,v Ei,~tronic 1.>’ , San Dingo . ATTN. Re, Lab

I Nat Irnqcen . San Diego, ATT N: Code 9000’ lii ,

I NavPostGr aS,’li , Muntr’u” y, ATTN: Code SM.

I NavPis,tGrm$ch, Monte,,’>, ATTN. Code 7)24

I NavT inftgusp Ctv , Orlando, ATT N Tech Lilt

I 1,15 (‘I.t.t cii LaIty , DC, ATTN Nanpowet A,dmmn

I (iS Dept of ,Iuslir.. DC, A1’TN: Drug Enforce Admin

I Nat Bs.r cil Standauds, DC, AT I’M Computer lnfn S.ct,on

I Nat Clearing House for NH Into , Rcckv ille

I Denser Federal Cu, , L akestood, ATTN: RIM

17 Defense Documentation Canter

4 Dir Puydi, Army Hq, Ru sse ll Ole,. Canherra

I Scientific Ads.’, Ml Rd. Army Mg, Ruiwli Otcs, Ceniwer.

I MI and Apr Atta chie, Ausfrian Embaisy

I Cent,. uW RpcPwe,,’h. Des Far tpun, Romaine tip Ia fl.fenie

Ne tnnai~, Bnnt.’Is

2 CinaiSet, .Jninl Stall Washington

I C/Air St.ff . Rnyai Canadian AF , ATTN Pars Sid Anal It.

,I Chiel . Oanethan Del fl .rh Stall , ATTN: C/CROS)W)

4 fl,.rush Del SIaN, 1151 ,1, Fi’vbaiap, Wa,h,ngton

12