________

Techn~

c

~ Paper 297

A SPEECH-RATE INTELLIGIBILITY/

COMPREHENSIBILITY THRESHOLD FOR

SPEEDED AND TIME-COMPRESSED

CONNECTED SPEECH

I 

~~ b c-) Henry J. deHaan

HUMAN FACTORS IN TACTICAL OPERATIONS TECHNICAL AREA

~~~~~~~~~~ 

C ~

~

. i

\\\~ ~ ~ ~

gi8

___ 

\\

__ 

e

~

C

~~~

Li. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

June 1978

Approved for public release , distribution unl,m~?i

~

d

~

1 O T
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdèction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

W. C. MAUS

JOSEPH ZEIDNER COL GS

Technica l Director (Designate) Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary dittr,but.on of thu report has b..n m.d. by ARI. Please Sddr,ss corre spondenc.

~~

nc.rrnng thstribution of report, to: U. S. Army Ru.arch Infl itut. for fbi DeMav,oieS and Social Soences ,

ATTN. PERI.P , 5001 Essenho~~ r Avenue . Alexe ndr ia . Virg. ni• 22333.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report my be destroyed whe n it is no longer needed . Plea,, do not return us to

the U. S. Army Research Institut e for she Bsli pv.o,.l and Socia l Sciences.

~Qjj Tb. findings in thi s report are not to be construed as an offic ial Oipartment of S Its Army position . unl es, so d.signat. d by other authoriz d documents.
Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICAT ION OF THIS PAGE (Iflu i D~~. EnIs,~~

DEDf ~

D1. I ~~

Itu E kJTATItbaJ °41 E READ INSTRUCTIONS I’ I

~ IJV% I W’

..U~~ I

~ I ~~ I 

~~~~~~ ~ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM ( t. _____________ 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3 RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER

\

~~ )i

~~~~~nica’ ,

J~

aper1~~~’f ‘

~

a. ~ r S. TYPE OF REPORT C PERIOO COVERED

1

~ 

J

~ 

pEECH-~~~TE .INTELLIGIBILITY~ çCMPREHENSIBILITY I --

\ ‘

~ ti~~~ESHOL~ FOR~~ ?EEDED AND TIMr-COMPRESSED _________________________ I ~~QNNECTED SPEECH . 5. PERFO RI4ING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

I — -

~~~~ _________________

7. AUTHOR(s) I. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(S)

c

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

~~ . fciei

~aan --

I. PERFORMING OROANIZATIOIIi NAME AND ADDRESS 50. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT . TASK AREA C WORK UNIT NUMB ERS U.S. Army Research I9stitute for the Behavioral1 ( ,

and Social Sciencesf 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, \ ~ ,J2T1611fi1A91B

Alexandria, VA 22333 ~

., ________________________

II. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ,

.- ‘ 1

~.B1~~’ ° ’~~” -.

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (

~ 

3 Jun~~~~78 -

Washington , DC 20310

It MONITORING AGENCY NAME a ADORESS~~I ditMj sn t ire, file.) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this r.port)

Unclassified

- . IS.. DECLASSIFICATION /DOWNGRADING

—— SCH EDULE ——

15. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this k.port)

Approved for public release ; distribution unlimited.

Ii. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of ti. abstract .nt.r.d in Block 20. II diU.rwt from R.p orf)

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IC. KEY WORDS (coannu. an r.v.u. aid. if n.c...ary asd id.ntlfr by block numb.r)

Compressed speech Listening

Speech compression Understanding

Intelligibility Speech rapidity threshold

Comprehensibility

20. ~X~ aT.

~

JCT (Cocitinu. on r.v.ra. aid. if ,,.c...ary oad f d.ntii’) ’ by block numb.r)

‘

~~~rhe speech rapidity threshold is a new method for determining the maximum

rate of speech understood by individual listeners. It involves repeated judgments of the comprehensibility of speech as the rate of speech varies. The

purpose of the present experiment was to determine the relationship of the

speech rapidity threshold to the intelligibility and comprehension of speech.

To accomplish this, two experiments were conducted. The first experiment compared two types of speech reportedly different in intelligibility ,

simple speeded speech and compressed speech. Thresholds for compressed speech _..

..-

‘

~~~

~~~~ 1473 EDITION OF I NOV aS IS OBSOLETE Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Wh.n 0.1. Ent.yS~’) 4

‘1J6’ ~~~~~
U!tC145Sij tie ’

~I

SECURITY CLASSiFICA TION OP THiS PAGE(~~~e, 0.4. Luered)

\

~

were st~jIttticanti y hiqhe r than those for speeded speech , au indication that

the threshold at tlte very least r le,ct~~ intell igib i li t

~~.

The second experiment correlated threshold values with traditional cons—

prehens ion test ~

;cores . In general , correlations were low , an indication

that the method is not a measure of comprehension . Results were interprett’d

to mean that the threshold reflects an intermediate lcvc l of informat ion proct”isjnq involving the perception ot the potential for interpretation or colts—

prehension rather than the complete ~

tct of comprehension per se.

N

- ~~—4 ,~

• Unclassified

• SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PA0E(Btim ’ Dais InI~ p , t)

-~ p .
• ________________________

Technical Paper 297

A SPEECH-RATE INTELLIGIBILITY/

COMPREHENSIBILITY THRESHOLD FOR

SPEEDED AND TIME-COMPRESSED

CONNECTED SPEECH

Henry J. deHaan

Michael Kaplan , Work Unit Leader

HUMAN FACTORS IN TACTICAL OPERATIONS TECHNICAL AREA

Submitted as comp lete and Appro ved By:

techn ically accu rate , by:

Aaron Hyman . Techn ical Area Chi ef Aft Birnbau m , Act ing Director

ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR (Designate)

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

June 1978

Army Prolect Number Human Pe formance

21161 lOlA9lb Enhancement

Approwsd for public rsIe.ss; distobution unliiretSd

3 .

•

~~ i ti.

L
~

pir- - 

- -—.-

~~

-- .-- --

~

--

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

- 

~~

— —,--——, -—

~~~~~~~

-

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

--..- .—----.,-

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

—. .. — — ~~~uuIu,~~

1 •

ARI Research Reports anti Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

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

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

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

dations for official actIon normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

~~~~~~~~~~~

~:
‘ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —--

~~

—--- 

~

-

~

.— •.,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -,•-- - •-—— -,•- .—--- ---— --.—•-=-— -•-—--•- .• -•--

FOREWORD

Within the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences (ARI), research in enhancing human performance by establishing the limits of sensory perception is an important facet of

the Human Factors in Tactical Operations Technical Area. Current research emphasizes visual perception in night operations. Previous re—

search emphasizing auditory perception is reported in several recent

ARI Technical Papers. Technical Paper 295 discusses the comprehension

of time—compressed speech as a function of training. Technical Paper

296 repor ts a method for meas uri ng, through repeated judgments oT~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~Th lity, the maximum rate of speech understood by individual

listeners . This paper attempts to determine whether the method is a

measure of speech intelligibility or of comprehension . (A modified

version of the text was published in Perception & Psychophysics, 1977,

Vol. 22 (4), 366—672.)

Results of the work reported here , done under Army Proje ct

2T161101A9].B, are applicable to a wide variety of situations. The

comprehensibility measures may be used whenever there is a need to

supplement traditional measures of intelligibility and comprehension

in the evaluation of the understanding of speech.

Te hrs ical Director (Designa te)

•

_

~

—

~~~~~

-- - • -

~~~~~~~~~~~

_______
°~~~ -

~

--:

~. • 

~~

‘ T ~~~~’

~~~~~ - • . . - - • --

~~

A SPEECH-RATE INTE LLIGIBILITY/COMPREHENSIBILITY THRESHOLD FOR SPEEDED

AND TIME-COMPRESSED CONNECTED SPEECH

BRIEF

Requ irement:

The Army ’s continuing need for improvement of human communications

in tactical environments has led to research relating the rap idity of

speech to its intelligibility and comprehension . A previous study

(Technical Paper 296 ) described a threshold method for determining the

maximum rate of speech understood by an individual listener . The purpose of the present study is to determine the relationship of this

speech rapidity threshold to the intelligibility and comprehensibility

of speech .

Procedure :

Two experiments were conducted to determine whether the speechrate threshold is related to the intelligibility of speech or to speech

comprehension . The first experiment compared thresholds for two types

of time—compressed speech reportedly different in intelligibility :

(1) simple speeded speech produced by increasing the playback speed of

recorded speech , and (2) compressed speech produced by the sampling

method , which deletes minute sections of speech . The second experiment

investigated the relationship of the threshold to comprehension by

means of traditional multiple—choice comprehension measures.

Findings :

There were clear indications that compressed speech is more intelligible than speeded speech . Thresholds for speeded and compressed

speech differed significantly (218 wpm vs. 266 wpm , respectively) , which

indicates that the threshold at least involves intelligibility. Correlational analysis indicated little relationship between thresholds and

comprehension test scores. The conclusion , therefore , was tha t jud gments of comprehensibility reflect an intermediate step in information

processing that involves the perception of potential for interpretation

or comprehension rather than comprehension per Se.
• •

~~~-~

-‘r,~~--.-~ - . 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ J~

9

~

Utilization of Findings:

The threshold may be used in a number of ways : (1) to supplement

such traditional methods of ev a luatitsj the’ understartd ing of spoken

language as intelligibility and comprehension t t ~~;t ii i q ; (.‘ ) to determine

individua l differences in speech perception which may he r el ated to

practica l skills in communication ; (3) to evaluate the quality ~

i1

speech produced by devices such as speech compressors and speech syilthesizers. Perhaps the threshold may also be used to evaluate the

difficulty of recorded spoken materials and the syntact ic and semantic

variaoles that underlie difficulty.

____________________________________________________________________________ •
______ - -- —f- . 

~•— -~~ • .-

A SPEECH-RATE INTELLIGIBILITY/COMPREHENSIBILITY THRESHOLD FOR SPEEDED

• AND TIME-COMPRESSED CONNECTED SPEECH

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

H METHOD 3

Experiment 1 3

Method 3

Resul ts 6

Experiment 2 9

Method 9

Results 10

DISCUSSION 13

REFERENCES 17

DISTRIBUTION LIST 19

• LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Mean comprehension test scores 11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Mean thresholds of speeded and compressed speech at

four rates of acceleration—deceleration 7

2. Mean difference limens of speeded and compressed

speech at four rates of acceleration—deceleration . . . 8

3. Mean comprehension test scores of experimental and

control groups 12
• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 

-. •

A SPEECH-RATE INTELLIGIBILITY/CC~4PREHENSIBILITY

THRESHOLD FOR SPEEDED AND TIME-COM PRESSED

CONNECTED SPEECH

INTRODUCTION

Although the relationship of the intensity of speech to speech perception has been extensively investigated , the relationship of rapidity

of speech to its perception has been less thoroughly explored . Recent

technolog ical advances have made it possible to reproduce speech at

rates well beyond the limits of human capacity to understand it and

have enabled investiga tors to explore the perception of rapid speech .

Such speech is known as time-compressed , or simply compressed , speech .

The simplest method of producing time-compressed speech is to increase

the speed of a playback device above the speed at which the speech was

originally recorded. This is sometimes referred to as the speed-changing

method , and the speech so produced as speeded speech . This procedure

increases not only the rate of speech but its pitch as well , because

the frequency of the speech components varies directly with playback

speed .

Another method of producing time-compressed speech is the so-called

sampling method ; speech produced this way is usually referred to as

compressed speech . The groundwork for this type of speech compression

was laid by Miller and Licklider (1950), who found that interruptions

of speech at 10 or more time s per second did not interfere with intelligibility of a speech signal until relatively large amounts of the

signal were discarded . Subsequently , Garvey (1953) explored the effec ts of cu tting out short segmen ts of a tape recording and physically

rejoining the remaining parts. The resulting speech was time—compressed

without the distortion in pitch . Fairbanks , Everitt , and Jaeger (1954)

• developed an electromechanical device to compress speech without the

cumbersome manual manipula tion used by Garvey , and more recently a

number of electronic devices have been developed to compress speech

by the sampling method. Such devices sample the speech signal at very

frequent intervals and discard a portion of each sample .

In investigations on the effec ts of the rapidi ty of speech , the

methods for the evaluation of speech have been extensions or applications of methods used for the evaluation of conventional speech ,

namely , the measurement of comprehension and the measurement of intelligibility. The evaluation of compressed speech by these methods

was reviewed by Foulke and Sticht (1969). Co~

nprehension measurement

is applied to speech materials of some length , such as connected dis—

course or free-running speech , and is obtained by asking questions

concerning the content of the materials , usually in the form of objective multiple-choice questionnaires. A frequent finding is that comprehension declines as the rate of speech increases. Foulke (1971)

and Foulke and Sticht (1969) reported that when comprehension of

1

- ~- ., — ----—--
5 omprt ss& d .

~~ ~~~ h l 5t Si~;e~ ; i s m et iired , a ral i .1 d e l in’’ in ~~,mi e’tit ri—

ston is 5 ’un~l Jt.x)ve a spec 5 h rate of ~t ’ j ’r ox imat e1y 250 to . 15 w ords ~ er

m i nit e i esi st vt ci t he w~ i J r a te o t he • r t; i no] pa . s;t

i ~~~~~~ iu:; met h~~1 t

~~~t evaluat 1is~ si~~ t ’ch , intel I i g i hi lit v I , st —

dei ives t rois invest iqit ion:; ci the ibi. lit v ci he it ci hone svst t m

to t ran :~m i t speech. The mctlit .

~ 1 has b t t n used i s , invest iqat e the t n t e l i —

sive aspects ot audition , speci fi 5 ’ti 1 , t he j bi lit\ ’ of a person to h ,sit

speech. In the art i culi t i.:; t e S t , individuals are ; 1tst n t ed with br ief

mcss iqt ’ :; it varying i ut en:; it Ic:; — — iis u a Ii ci nu 1 e words , but occa 51 ona liv

hr ,tst ; r:o r sentences——and asked t o repeat or cur roct ly identify

hem. The t hi c

~~iio hi ot intelligibility is defined is the intensity it

wi L~~~ 50% ci the mater tai s so presented can be reproduced. In comic ss,sl speech research , s m i lar procedure ;; h ive ItO ii emp 1 eyed with

inq I.e w or ds compressed in t ime . For example , ~. tm ve ’

~ ‘3) used t lie

~‘erc eiit aqt u t ~~~~~p tt’sst~~i words correct lv ident i fied ~

.s ti ;t ~n dt x of

i n t , l I iqibi 1 it v; Ctl e iio and I.as

~~

aroni (1~~h7) determir ed t he threshold

i :; ens it v requ i red for com~’lessed word i dent if I cit ion; dnd Fou ike ( l’

~ °~ used react ion t i me for the i d&nt i f i cat toil of single compressed words

is an index of j u t ci jig ibility .

The above 1:1, 1 :;od:; ot eva I s it inq lit cli iq ibm 1 it v ii e con t m e d t o

hi tet sat sr t i ls; t sore have bet :; , however , :5 Vt’I ii attempts to mea: ;urs

the m~~t oil iqibi li. t v ot s s st ’st;es t ~d , running speech iC haikl in , i*~~

t ;

Dab 1 e , flume , & }Ias: ’i ci , 1 ~~

is ~~ ; Fa 1 cone i’ ‘

~ P i v is , 1 ~47 ; Ha s

~ ’ me l ~ Havens

i’1 t ’o ; Hawkins ~ Stevens , l’° s

~ ; Ist ’

~~ ik , Sicqt nt hi l t ’r , s bivis , l

~)i ’ 4

~~‘o5iks , Parke r , Harris , ~ Kuhi , 1 1 ; 2) . In these s t u d ie s , lis teners

were asked t o adjust the m t en:; it of tie speech wit ii t hey could ‘just

understand it , or some percent iqe of it . ~

‘tai;v of the s t u d io s used the

t ccliii i ~p is t o dot ermine speech h it ens it y t lire sho ids , and al 1 of

them we r c ~‘on5s i ned with t lie intetis it y o t the aUdit cry Si ;una 1 required

0i understanding spet ’c h

Desp ite t he precisi i rig work , a threshold method for de t e r m i n in g

the max imum rate of speech un~1e rs t ood by an i iid ivi dua l based on var i a —

t ions in the rate of speech has not been available. Consequently, a

simple , direc t , t’svt ’hol’hy si cal t hresho Id method was level oped , modi .1

at t or the autonut ed threshold technique of B~ késy (1 ~47 ) for determi ia—

• t i ci: of the .in i it orv th re slio id . The subject is i e.~tt i red t o i e s~ ‘otid t o

and cont to! the changing r .it c o t speech in ord er t o bra c ks ’ t a t hre suiold

o t unders and i uig .Intens it v i s not varied. Al 1 st i nni ii ire supra 1 imi nal

in m t ensi v and only the rap idi ty of speech is varied .

The met lio~I assumes t hat as speech become:; pm cures;; i Vt ’ ly more rapid

a point is u ’t ’ .i l;t d where the individua l can no longer understand it.

A c ,or 1 m gI5 , ci at tempt is made t o determine this po l i t by a t hi esliol d

~ cti:i i ~ ue . The t ask :;t t for the 1 i st ener is e sseuit jail y a perceptua l

on~ ‘ : lie nius t per - ce’ ive t he point at which he fails to understand speech

is it i api d it v i nci’ ea Sc;;. Lit t le pub ii stied cv i do ce OX i St ii that rat e

:;p etc h pci sept ion is a var table wh i ch obey:; the same psychoph ysical

L 2

______________ • ._. - — -.—--.,- -r_ ~5’L~~~~~.. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ..:.:;s_:.. • — r

~ ____________
r

relationships a

~ other perceptual variables, although Hutton ( 1955),

using quite brief stimulus materials (ranging from 8.0 to 47 .ts see iii

duration), found tli5it perceived word rate was 1 logarithmic f u n c t i on

of measured rate.

Both int.ell iqibi I ity and comprehension mea~;ur emciiti s -out I ibut ed t o

the conceptual isat i on of I lie I lir esliold of understand i nig . Foulke and

St icht ‘S (I 969) cOils, litsion that a more rapid d e cline in compi’ h ot;:; ion

occurs above 275 words per minute implied some sort of threshold ot

• comprehension . Carver (1973a) furnished odd it ional support for a corn—

prehension I hreshold by deriving a so—cal led duration measure lsi:;ed on

secoiids per word instead of words per minute. Thresholds are well known

iii i n t e l l ig ibility testing . ;.irvey ( 195 1) cone l uded that comprt ’sned

speech was more i n t e l l i g i b le than speeded speech by determining t h e in—

- t elli qib i I ity of sing l eS words by means of the art icu l at ion t e:;t . As

• - described earl ii’ r , minimum loudnit’:; u t hr esho 1 d u ; for unders I aud i ni ; j con—

ne c I. ‘d speech , i nc I md i nsj speech—B~~késy mo t h ted:; , a I so have been sieve 1o~ ted

Because a threshold is implied in hot hi j u t i’ 11 ig i bi Ii ty and compre ’—

li ens ion measurement , i quest ion •l1’ OSt’ as tii wb ichi of I l m c ’ne construct

• i : ; measured by the present threshold. The I ) um’ps ) ;( ’ of the present work ,

thie r s ’fcre , was to dot ermine whet her the t hre: ;hiold wos rel ,tt ott to t lie

comp r ehm en i :;io n ci speech or to speech i nt e i l iq i bi I i t T y. ‘l’s; ,t; s ;; ult l ish

th is , two t ’xper irnoni t , I

~ Wet e per formed . The f i t : ; I cent si i cti I I ns’ nhi o I tIn

for two I ypes of cent rt’:;ses,I ~ teech i previously ropor ted to dii t ’t ’n i n

lute l i i s; ibi ii ty : ;; imp Ic speeded :;pet ’ehi produced by t he speod—t li5ni sq t nig

method arid compressed ;hs’echi I)roducetl by the sam~sl L u g met hod . At t lit’

same t ime , t he effect of tour di t ’ f i ’r et;t maqii i t indes of rate ci change

of :;pet ’ch speed (.u; ’ct ’ I era I i wi—deco I t ’r ,it i on) was :; tud . ‘

~h~ ;;ecotist

experiment prOSe tiled :;t’vera I :;peechi pas:;sige;i comp;sso;ed by dt I to tent

amounts s tilt! dote rmi ned s omj r e h i i’ui: it on iii th e’ I Si :;: ;,Is 1(’s by shtltS ;t i ou iiia i res

The ri’ I at i oii: ;h i ip of t tie t- hres hmc Id dote i-rn iii0t i on;: ; to compre lion ;;; on

measures was St udied .

METH OD

Exj~erimeri t 1

Met lied

Part_icip anit s . Young military en; list ed tw ’m’ ;;

~~

t ;use 1 With apt it tit le

te:;t st ore,; of it I ea,;t 110 (Al’QT ) and no ktiowii hit ’ a n’ i n i si dot eel :; pit —

I icipated in I in’ rew’, ir ebi . Thin y — twe iumihi vidu a l s , inclu ding 25 malt’:;

and 7 I emo I o : ; , were ,is:; iqned rau idoml y t ;

~ 5) 11111 i’ n ’l;5i I ,ins ed oist,’ I :; I c Is ’

described late r.

• — 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • ‘ • ;•~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • . • .— . •
St imulus Materials. ‘rite st imul us mater ia is WC1 t’ SC’! t’s ’t i’d from

“Talk jug Book s, ” tape ne’s,’or sit liSp ; prepared at the Library of Congress ,

Division t o t the Hi iu ;d and Physica lly Handicapped . The ;,t’ h e ’ s ’t t’sl i t ’

s ’on ’sl inys consisted of passages from a book e t It ist or i cal Isn’t ra its

The Proud Towe r by Barb ara Tuchma n ( I9nn ) , cad aloud by a female’ voice

.it the average tat e of I 21 ’ words pen minute (wpm ) anns h t’ es ’ssrde d at a

ape’ speed t)t 1 . / h in. ~ si ’; (9. ‘ .1’s cm ,’ see) F i sj ti I pas ;s,’ttj & ’; ; Weie’ Uiit ’sl

for the t hresito Id de’termi nat j olts.

Apparatus. A Crown (HOt ) ;it ’t’ Li ’S) van i ab l i ’— spe ’od tape i e s ’s,;ndei was

• used to reproduce speech. This t t’s,’en ’den , t osj t ’tli en’ with a ~I seed cent n o I

L 5levtce (Ciown VSD—S ) trxiuc ed I ime ’—compressed spet’s ’h b y t he st t t ’isl —

ch anej lug method (speeded spe;es’lt) . An AniBiChro,i (ABC ) :;pt ’es h compressor

( Koc h , 1974) was used in con t i n i s ’t io u wit Ii t lie ’ aix ’vi’ ts~ et ipment t e

dtis ’t.’ t tmt’—compressed speech by the sampi iutq method (compressed speech)

The Am8iChron con qtn t ’ssor samples speech , writ t’; ; t hit ’ signal i i t t e 1 t em—

por’ary memory , and i cods the sIgma 1 from meme n ’y at a tat t’ t h at may itt’

dm1 t t ’Lt ’ n i t from the wi-it ing rate . ‘l’ite rate of Writ tug into memory is

~

1i re’s’t ly proport ionta 1 to the tape trauis p oit spt’t’ l (wit i si; i t ’t en s I

speed el t h e Crown t apt ’ recorder) . ‘l’he t oad— stint rate is & ‘enist alit . Ii;

e t fo o t , compress ion discords br met segments of t h it ’ spot ’ cli s iquta 1 , while;

exparts ion repeats bi ief segments . This tlt -’vic t’ 1;i edii, ’t ’tl :qs i’t ’ s h i Wi tit

n orma l t

~ it oh despi I e’ s’h t ,ti ;s 1 j ug s}~ ’is1s

Bot ii the speed of l iii’ tape m’e’c erd c ’r and the t’ itch t’onqst ’uisa t toni ‘ st

the AmB i Cit ron wet e i ettiot ely control it’d by a tatter ,it ot y — fabr i cat i’d tie’ —

vice; . h o t a i is of t hc instrumentation are avail ,t i’ I t ’ i’ I : ;t ’w h it’ i t ’ (delloan

~ Sd; cm iderup ) . The tIev ice provided tot an in it Ia 1 st an t i nq speed an~l

constant tat es of as’s, ’t’ lerat ion and des,’i’ lerat ion t hat were st’1e~~tt ’sl by

the ad tustinent of three potent j ome t ( ‘1;; . Potent •iome t ~

‘r st’ It i iiqs hod

previously been cal ibrat e’d Ui U fll t s of t ime reqiii red t oi the rapidity

s it ’ spe’echi to double .

The v s;it age app I jed to t hi: t ape t o~ -

~~n tht ’t by t h~’ tw it it s 1 circuits

wh t cit slot em—rn t ned its ‘Iii I he ;ipei ;tl s s t the I apt’ n es’ s ii di ’ i and t Ito t’ it cit cOtfl —

1s t ’t;SOt i o n ; ot the /\niB i t ’ii ten , was si i :;j t 1 ayi’d on a sI ig it a! Vt ’ It me’t en ansi

I eec! ~h t ~~

i ii; permanent l oin on a t-. — j n . — wj d e ’ (l’ ’.24 ~tn) i t t i

~~’ ~‘hn t

(Atom to Accessories , Model SR ~

2 t )) at 2 iii. ‘Si’s ’ (‘t .OH 5rn ‘

~i ’c ) . Au iet hi’ t

~~~ 

• I c tm ot i n if o rmat ion about momenit ary ~1tt’ed ~ t sl’t’e’ch 5 s ’itld he t tad t rorn

d iq it a! frequency cs’wit en. Al 1 ;;pt ’t ’ch; t api’s s ’ont t a t ned s ’ult ’ chanite I

of a I , 000—hlc t out ’ i oceidesl at 3 .75 in. si’s ’ (1) . 

‘t .’’’ ~

‘m S t’ s ’) . As t h i t ’

:; pt ’t ’ sl of t h ; ’ tat ‘e vat j osh , t he f nt’s l u e n t t ’y s ’itanqeei pI ~‘~~

s ‘t t t onto It ’! y intl

Iii:; in fo rmat ion was ti isp I ayed eu the t its m ont -y s oil;; t t ’i

Add it iona 1 equipment into ! udt’d .i small s ’ t ’n tt i ci box whi oh e’nal; It’s!

t he i ntdi vidual part icipantt t t ’ set I ho I lit i lls it ‘j anti t at t’ itt ~p~ t’s ’hi (the

lot I t’t was i nas’t ivat ed slut ’ i n s! the exh ’ t ’l mont t’~ s t ~’et ) , a t’aii s ; t ;i anon;—

• St oilier h ;t ’ n h 1’ bis s;it ’s (‘rt ’lt ’i sh t o nic ;; , ‘l’t ;ih 1’) ) , and a ; t ,in ont— St ,id Lt ’i and i enut ’t ,‘n

sw it oh USed to ;e’ I t ’ct cit h i t ’ m a ’s ’ t’ lot ~~t islil on ,le~’e loto t (ciii . Th e’ tat os

of ,it ’ct’ li’rat, i on 5tn&t ~

h ,

~st ’ h e ’n ,;t ion; W e l t’ select oil by }‘s’t t ’n ;t i ome t i’I set t l i s t ’ ’

it 2 . 1 , .1. 2 , 8 . 1 , autd i t ’ . H wpnm , sec tot I lie I sf11’ t’X~f’n m oti f a I t .tt to; s’t

4

- ~ • . • • --.‘-- -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- ‘

~-~~~~~.“T -~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ -- ~~ - • 

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

These v’t I mit’’ ; represented nat es at’ wh icli ;;Itec ’c ’h t would chian;’je

I t’om I Is’ normal rote t o double the normal t ,

~

it o dut’ in’~ 5is’~~’t’ b rat i tnt (sit

V Lce Vt’ t ’~,1 during shs ’ ’’t’ lii . mt ion ) in 60 , 10 , I ‘

~ , and 7.5 ;o ’c ns’npe ’t ’t ivy ! y

Expei ~~ ;nt a1_ ,

~~~~in. The Ii nst I ntdeix ’n dont variable was t It o type

of t t me—conipr csscsl ;;

~ i!’s’s ’)i .There were two I yjs’:; , one’ et’ wh L ou Was i ‘it’ —

:;cu it ott at each I n ’ hi I . In t lie first I ypt’ , r at t’ and iii I cit were i i t t en —

[OckiX! and both ~~‘re ilet erm i ~

tt ’tl by t he speed of the taps’ mt ’ s ’ tmmde r . Tb i

1; speeded , sir t ype S , ~~~‘es ’h. In t he si’s ’t m n i tl t YP° ~ 

i t oh Wa S liC’ Id s ’oni—

u~tOnt while rot e ot’ :;

~ns’c ’hi was var it’d . TI; i S i :; compressed , cit I yjs’ C,

The second independent var lab lo was m it . ’ ol s ’htat i qi ’ of stitsi~i ’Ii

of which thet’e We to fou r: 1 eve is. At t’,tt ’h I ii a 1 , speech w-a :; presen t eel at smut’ sit ’ four osiliSt ~

annt n o t on of s ’Ii,iti g.’, .

‘

. 1 , 4. .1 , 0.4, siF

13 wpm/se’t’ . Whet her it. was ,t i ’t ’o I t ’ n , i I I nig <ir slect’ he p’ ,’tt l u g it any q n Vt’ it

moment was sIet’i’fldel;t , e lm the suit l s ’s ’t ‘s i t

~;;ht oui :;t5 .

The t W itm I ypO s of 4 ’t ;m i’ti ’:;sed speech wt’lc cctmimi rued wit It tIn ’ I , ;;nn

rates ot change I s ’ y iv Ed e iqtit expel imeutta I s ’sttish it I sun Ufldc ’ r wh i t ) t

t itreshitmid s weit’ determimit ’tl . Al I subj es’t S WOfl’ exposed to t ho o qbi t

t ’i

~ id i t Ions , bitt order s it ’ in ,‘;;t ’ui t ~ t i t m ~~ ;if c ’euisl it j ot;;; d it I t ’ It ’ s I . Sjss’t h t ’ si

and e ’onnp i t’~~

;;t ’d sttet ’c ’lt We nt ’ tm i’ ~ n eli t t ’sI silt 011 enitat e I t’ I a I n ; Ito ii t hi’ : ; m;t —

~os’t :; rece we’d speed ed sjit’~~

t ’h f i m t , .‘tnd ha I f s ’omt’n’ t’snt’d :‘ it t ’i ’ chi t t i n t

The ol’s!et’ of t a t e ot change t’ond it i ciii: ; Wa ;; part i a lly t ’otlti i e m ’t t ,t 1,i lit ‘t ’d

with half the’ sub joct ii tei ’t ’i V t t i s i rate , if ’ ~-t i ,itm g~’ s ’i mn;sii I i t ’ll:; Hi it;s ’ l t ’ ,ls—

iu ;q sit ’ s!!’ i’ , amid t he’ cit h em’ ha it’ t’ t’ s ’t’ lvi list t’ 5it’ si t s’h ;~it i t 1t ’ cem nidi t iont: ; l i t

stt ’ s ’;’i’~

’ising erslt’r . This yielded four orders ot pi eS,’iit ,it ion , to whiit ’h m

sub ~t’ct wore n ouidoml y ansi sh ied , a;; it ’d lows :

(I) C 2 . 1 S .‘.! C 4 .2 S 4 . 2 C 13 .4 5 13.4 i ’Ii .H SI~~.0

(.~ S 2.1 C 2 . 1 S 4.2 C 4..’ 5 8.4 C 1 .4 5 I ( ~ .0 ( ‘ h ( ’ . O

( 1 ) C16.B Sl6 .H C 11 .4 S 5 .4 C 4 .2 5 4 . 2 C ~ .l S

(4) 51t~.8 Clti .13 S 1 3.4 C 8.4 S 4 . 2 C 4.2 S .‘ .l C .‘. I

llt’c~~ii so of the t’al’t 1.11 t ’e;it l it ciba I,tnis ’ m g shown above’, t In’ tact iii’ sit

tr i ~

i1 s was not ftmi’ma I ly 5-ina I y.~esI

Procedur e. Aft en t’es ’o (vi titi a hi it’ I’ t’ xp I .anat T t ort of’ the expe n i mont

.

~~ts ’It part I ci pant Wa’ : taken into t ho t’xpei ’ iment .11 chambe,’ , I it ted wit h ;

head phones , and preset; t i ’s! wit !; a nm.’m 11 s ’on ;t iii! box wit ii t wo kuotis , one

‘out roll lit! vol tmn~ 5’ttid the sit bet’ ,‘at e of ;;ti. st sdh i . ‘hits’ I apt’ it’ , ‘or5h’t was

turned on , m is! t lie i” u’ I is ’ ipont W i : ; inst riu ct eu t o ad ju st t iit’ vol Chit ’ diii;—

Ito ] to hi:; own t ’t i m lsm t t ~

i ii1. ’ It :;t outing l evel.

Then th_ part ( t ~ I hla n t t was mode t’ .im ‘i a r ’ wit h spc’eslvd .in nl t ’t m flt ttl, s : i ,i, ~ ,t

:qtcs ’s ’li . ‘rho ,‘xp.’t’ ultent demount rat e’d I lie t’ uuts ’t (si t; of fit s’ t it i’ knob by

tur n m g it Iii rough a no ititi’ s it approximat ely 0. ‘

‘ I ci . ti I iflk’S ltOt ’tn ,i 1

speed. The part i t ’l i’a~ t was t hen i t i n t n ’uo t eti I s i 151 Imi :5t the knob I s i n ot

I ii.’ :gt i’t ’tt at tu I en her own ~‘ii ’ I erone’e l eve l . T!;t’ name j’t ~ “ s

~ i i t t .~ w.a;;
- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

--—— -

~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘= :~~~~~~~~~ ‘ 

‘

~~~~~

“

~~~~~

“

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

‘

~~~~~~~~~~

‘

F

t eq*iat ed wi tim coiflprtt~~~tnt1 st’s’t’s ’ii . At I e’t s’olfll ’ let iou itt t iii :.I iou I I alit i I —

tat tea t temli ~‘t s t s ’t’si~~ i t’ , t it. ’ s ’ i t ltt iiii Ettix Wi,. ‘

~~‘t I s ’ sl U t ’ ‘‘isle ’ ~ n t , t ( l i t ’ I .it t’

s’stti t tot was inact ivat eel .

Pitt ’ 11am t it’ ipatt t 11 Wet t’ t ht’ut u tt! tvt slU4 11 y int l u s’slus ’esl I s~ t h is’ I lit r :, t i , ‘Id

task.. A pushibut tout sw it oh (c;r’asi ’un— St ad let’ .t m t st i stun . ’ t e’t SW it , ‘ht I wa’’ stt ’llK ’li —

st r at en! wit i lt’ t ht.~ t ask Wds t’x~ ’ 1.; i ntis! to t hem. ‘l’!mey wt ’tt ’ t s ’l d that t its ’

speech ~~ iu Ed slot last ti atit etmat ica Ely as 1 s tuisj an I lii’ but I out was uiot

p1 i’nnt’d ant e! that it would ej et l s ’wot ,t’; loniij a;; t its ’ hut ton ; wa ’ in

‘ I’ht ’y W O n . ’ luis t t tte ’t s ’st t ci ~‘t 05 :5 t he’ but tout on ;;s’s’nt as it hi,’ e ’ank ’ I sic ’

0 tinciet ’st ~ ut d ait ui let n o I e ’an,’ I lit ’ hut I out ~

t;

~ ;;c’s’ni a:; I Itt~ ’ s ’s ’ii I s ! utitlt’t st ~i s l

i t asJ ,t Lii , , ‘ont tit t lilisI I hiS ~‘t os ’s’nS Unit 1 1 st OI’I’t-fl i ’~ t I tt ’ i ’X~’t ’t I tutt ’lt t t ’t .

Iltost }‘.It I is ’ I i1⁄4iflt S , Its ’ flK’L’ t,’ 1 u st i uct ismil wa:~ I LI t’sl , a I t bought 0 1 oW I t ’ —

~~~ t t ’st a i t ’

~~’.’t t t tent au t ci t

~

inphta s i :

~ ot sony’ pai l s’t t h i t’ inst I cu d toilS . t ’

~~

, I t

i’ .au I i s ’ ii~

a nt t ‘ I iit ’~.lts ’ I ,h wa~ ctt ’t t ’t ’m iu t ee! i ’ ist l it I i nmit ’;~, s ’ ; i t ’ I—mitt t hi t .sh ;s ’ 1st

lit’ C list . t ~’t t’ 1 1111 ut’s! utistt ’t i5ic’Ii s~t I its ’ e’ is itI t s ’s’it ,i it I s ’lt:i ~

sI t’V I ~‘mt ; , iy ~t t ,

~~

,’ ’’t

Result ~

R5jw ~

l.it a Wet’ s’ I e ’s ’s ’t ’s j t ’ ej m um aut o l oci term. ‘liii’ ut ume u ~‘ .i I ia 1 Ui ’:;

f its’ up~ltiz’ ,mnul L owe t’ b ’ e t t l tt si t I lit ’ mi ,’twt chit it t t ’t ’s t i 515 Wi ’t 5 ’ I t ,tli ’ ’s ’l i lk’s! ,mnt ~l

111111 t i

~ t hi 

~ ~~ i

~~ 04 let t ~

‘a~~ t s’tlit volt as~e ’ I t;I 0 W s’t ,t :; ~‘eI’ m i n t ut i ’ . All

tiu I hot auto 1ys i ‘; was stO it ~~ silt t lt i s In ants tot nie ’

~t st ,tt a. ‘lilt ’ nn.’, m n i 5 ’t t’a~’t t

t .‘ 5 ’5 tt sI t .‘pm e’..’iit tSl I Is’ a t’n s i t ut o tb~

’t;shoid , wi;t it ’ t hi’ 5ti t lou t ’ uis ’ t ’ Ei~~t ~~‘i’nt

mt’a nls s it t lie ui’i’e ’n .i n ;,t lsmw i ’t’ l t 5 ui lit :5 I (‘p u t ’St ’us t is! I itt’ ~

lit tot , 11s ,’ I i tttt ’l t

l” i s i mut ,‘ I ~‘t i ’se’n t t s t im. ’ t l it i’:; l isi I,! st,’it .i I si t itm~ it hi ‘.i’et ’sle ’sI ~

t nts l s ’s llll ’

m u t ’’;’;, ’sl ‘;i ’ t ’e ’s ’h .‘tt .‘,m , ’ht 1, 11. ’ s t t ,i s ’s ’t ’ L t ’t at i s ’nt ’ s t t ’ s ’t ’I t ’t ,it io n ;. ‘Phi.’ di t I t ’u —

~‘i;, ’.’ I’t ’t we ’s ’:; t It. ’ t i ;u t ’s h i s ’Isl: , f s ’t :;l’. ’este ’st sills ! s

~s ’fli pt e ’n’;e ’ sl ‘g’. ’t ’

~’lt i

~~ c h . ’,mt i y

t ’vi~l.’ i t t I it . ’ unbolt ia I n s ’ I oj , ‘s tl n t l’ i ,‘n~~~t

~ st ;i1i.’t’s ’i; was ‘t , ’ ’ .

~~)I, w}’ut; w h i 1.,’ I h at

t s ’l ~ I ” ’ ’’

~~

’

~

I :;l’e ’os ’ii Wa’ ’ ~

‘1 ‘ 

. ‘ 5 wpumt . Au; ,-inm ~~1 y: ; Is s ’t VOl t,ilt s ’e t in’ .’,il. ’si

4 ‘ ‘ isits i t t s ’. l n tt t ’t I tnt sit I VI’’’ ~‘t :;j’.’e ’cht e ’OtUi’t t ’S;5 t o n i , I (1 , 251 101 . ‘14 ,

• it ‘ .01 . A It h t etmtisjlt l it.’ ctltVt’S iii ii s

~ ii t O 1 ‘in ‘w ~

tu t ly ~i ~

t I t s)h tt i ’ll edt s~ t

I .115’ s ’t s ’ht ~t n ’ie ’ , I it in t ’t tes t W~ s st at tnt isa! ly ‘ isi tii I m s ’,in mt , 1’ 1 , S ’I

.1. 013, p .01 . ‘I’hte ’ i t it sO .ts ’t tOll i t t 1 ,tt 0 with 01 d e l ot pm t ’n. ’i t t at i s ’u i

h isiWt ’Vs ’ t , won a I :is i i s

~~~ i t s ’Oti t , f ’ ( 1 , 114) ii . .1 1 , p . 0! . e ’s tml’ot’ i ‘~~ ‘ i m

ot t iie ! iv i

~ttia I me ’aums by Tukey ‘ ‘; lISP t t’nt i i’Ve,C ti’ s! t hot , wi; ( i s ’ meammi ; tot

l iii’ V~~t i s’tl ;i tat i’S tnt l iii ’ st t ’s ’ t ’ t’O:% m ist 5 i

~ del ‘ I t sf 1 1 ’ sit e! i;, t t dm1 t ot • t h t t ’

mt’ann tot (hi.’ I Wit I ,t: ; t i’S t t ’ 5it i’s in I lit; t n i e ’ I t ’ ,iS i lts J sO slot 51 1 0111’ W. ’ t , ’

hi L s ) hmt ’u I ba n ; I hat t iii t ltt ’ I siw e ’st at t ’ , q( .

‘ , 112) 1.1)2 .tu ts l 1 . 1 ’ ’ , u . ’

ii’.’ l y, ~

‘ ‘

~ .0’’. ‘l’h it;; siie.i ’t v,tt ts ’u ; tntslt s ’, mI i’

~~ tIt ~*t liii ’ sI i si l it u t ‘s’

itt t his ’ s i lt Vt ’S m U i ’ m sptit t ’ I s ’sili L’s ’ u ’t’uitl ’ l.’t o I y ,l, ’ 5 ’5 ’it n ;t in! I s

~~

l L’t’~’ t Itt ’ itt

st i’s’. (liii s’lsji ’I s it }‘

~ o5t ’ltt ,it i s i l t .

‘1’hie ’ meant s l it t i ’t I ’Us ’O I imolts • wit icl i s ’s ’t s’npoumsl I o I tie amp ! I t lIsle’ 01

I lie ’ n at e ’—sw (list: ; j t ’ ’ t hi’ nit !’ t . ’s ’I i i ~~

s ‘ k: ; hi l iii o shem is! , an o sh~

’.wii i Ii

t ’ i ’ t m il o 2 .mt e ’as ’ii t’.tt . ’ s’t ,is ’ s ’t ’ h t ’ l sit i s ’ n ; s!t ’s ’ .’l . ’l ,t t i, ’tt . ‘I’lmt ’ ~ t It ’d c it

I ~~~~~ t t( SI’t’ .’s ’t l t ’t s lnl’u .‘SSi , ’n ; ~ :; 5 * s i a i u t t ’v t ,ht ’n tt • t ’ (I • .‘S ’) /4.11’ ’ , ~ ‘ . O h

lit c,’ntt 1 .1:11 Is ’ I lie’ u at h t t ’n ;

~iit,t l I .‘t tes t s it u at t’ i t t s ’ h ;, * nis ~.’ ont ( Ii. ’ ,il s :;s ’’

I t ut ,‘ ( hit ,‘shm , ‘1st , t i;s~ .ium ,i I ‘s’,; ~~ i ,‘i’ s ’,t Ie ’~l ,t 1i~~ t t t t t ’t ili t s ’e sd ,‘ I I Os ’t ,‘t 1 01. ’ ~~

t

I:L _ _______________
— ‘v— ‘

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “~ T~~~W -- •‘~—-‘--~-------- • - “-~~~~~~-“ ‘

~~~~~ “ -“-‘

‘0 -

I’m

5’.

0

- 4 ci

I’

C~) ~~ St

511

o

z • ø

• S—a e’~~-’ 4’ 4” 51 ’4 55, 55. .

~~~~~~ — 4, 5,4 -4 o n ,

Sn

- ‘

.0 X ‘-‘ ‘,

~

d .

~~ ~

-

— — si

- IFS ~~~ 5~5 4 i 4 ,

‘-4

O w 4,1)

4, U - ,: ‘e

— C’) 5”

1’ - C ~

4

I I I I I I, _\

%

~

4S_~_____•• 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 IFS 0 I’m 0 i’m 0

3IflN IWf Sa~ OM NI SQ1OHS3~ Hi NYIW

______________________

-

~ 

~~~

- •

‘ 

Si
“

-

~~~~~~

In

\w

4-s

‘5t.i

0 I

C’) ~

J

— 4-s

— .t

• I)

. c

~~~~z 

— ~0.

5’S

~~~— ‘0

-

~~~~~~ • 4)

0 0.

. 0 E

~~~ ‘0 —

I O• •0 (.D w

V

\

V ~ 1

0 ’ SLi -

~~~~~~~ — u i w .

~~~

\

~~~ ‘.4 4)

- s O

‘-a

4)4)

In *4’ ,-4

‘.4 51) ‘0 0U -

~~~~~~~

w e.”

- C ’) (N

‘5Li

• c ~1

- _

Ii

I I 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

(54 0 OS sO

IIflN Iw /Sa~OM NI SN]W I1 ])N1UJJI~ 

NYIW

“ ‘ S

-
chonjo on the difl.’rc’ntcu limen , F(3 , 84) 3 7 0.lt ~ , ~

) - .01. Figure 2

indicate’s that the size of the’ difference limeit is roughly proportional

to the rate of change .

A greater increase in the difference limen for compressed versus

speeded speech also is shown in t ’igure 2 , and the analysis indicated an

interaction of type of speech compression with rate of change , F(3 , 84)

= 43.’)2, p ‘- .01. Further analysis by means of Tukey ’s HSD revealed

that , while the differentos ’ between the pair of means at the slowest rate

was not si gnificant , di fferences between the pair of means at each of

the three higher rates were significant q (2, 11 2) Sn 4.17 , ‘).87 , and

19.00, respective ly , p < .01. Increasing order of presentation also

yi elded higher d ifference limens than did decreasing order of presentation , F(l , 28) Sn 11.34, p ‘- .01 , and there was an interaction between

ra te and orde r of presen tation , F (3 , 84) = 3. 2 0 , p < .05.

Experimen t 2

Method

Participants. The same individuals who had participated in Experiment 1 participated in Experiment 2.

Stimulus Materials. Stimulus materials came from the same source

as those in Experimen t 1, bu t cons isted of d ifferent passages , seven in

all , from The Proud Towe r. Comprehension tests on the content of these

passages had been prepared and standardized for use in another study

( Lambert , Shields, Gade , ~ Dressel). These tests consisted of 10 multiple—

choice questions on each of the passages. Thirty individuals from the

larger standardization group of Army communication trainees had been

exposed to all seven passages. These 30 individuals comprise the standardized control group for the present stud y. All passages had been

presented to the con trol group at normal speed (136 wpm) .

For the experimen tal group, a tape was prepared of the seven passages compressed to the following rates, where x indica tes “times tI’ie

normal speech rate’t ; l.50x (203 wpm), l.75x (249 wpm) , 2.OOx (284 wpm ),

2.25x (306 wpm ), 2.50x (330 wpnt), 2.75x (360 wpm), and 3.OOx (408 wpm) .

Apparatus. The same apparatus was used in Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. The compressed speech tape was prepared with the AmBiChron speech

compressor , and reproduced by means of the Crown recorder at 3.75 in./sec

(9.525 cm/sec).

Procedure. Participants in Experiment 1 were given a 5- or 10-mm

rest period before being brought back to the laboratory to participa te

in Experiment 2. At this time , the purpose of the comprehension experiment was explained to them . They were told that seven passages would be

presented to them , each of which would be faster than the preceding one ,

the final passages being extremely rapid. They were also told that a

9
mu It ipi e—cho L,’s’ test would be 5admi ni st t ’rs ’d I ol low i rtq each ~‘.tssaqe it ;

which they would be e ’xj st ’ s ’t i’d to answer all quest ions . Passages wer e

t lieu ; p reset.: ~‘d ont ~’ at ~t t i me , each foil owed by 10 mu it i I’ I e— clio i Cs’

toils . ‘l’~’ st 1 to I lOwt)d I lit ’ passage }‘i ’e

~~e n it ed at 1 . 5 x , Test 2 t he pas—

s~tq s ’ at I . 75x , ansi SO OLi , through Test 7 fol lowing the I’ ,mSSd sls’ ,mt .Ox.

Results

T5’tbl e I ‘ ,iiow, ; the mean com~’r eIt e ’nis iOti I est ~a’& ) ! ’s’S te ’r bs ‘t in ~‘xp..’ r 1—

ms,’nit al and cots I no I qt ours; I cii e’

~~

s,’h i ‘t t lie St ’Vs ’ti ~~~~~~~~~~ s, t oqet tier wit Ii

ln ’ domi’ l’s’ s

~ ;t on i .i t to at wh ich t’achi passage w5ts presented . The d it 1 s ’ t —

‘t i t ’s ’S between; the ( ‘XI or imental and contt rol groups are .il so shio wut . These’

si itt 0 t’ t ’t i s ’s ’S we re f ound by nubt ract i nig s ’on t no 1 qu siu~’ me’auts from t he it’ t ’ —

S}’t’s ’I ~V e e’xpt’ r imentt a I qr~’u~’ means . Consequent ly , a pos it ive di i t s ’i ’ Ot lc ’t ’

tn.li. ’ , t t i ’s that t he’ e’xIie t’ L mont ~

m 1 group was superior to tbt ,i t 01 t he’ sent us ’ l

q n’ . ‘u~ ‘ ,w hit 1.’ a ti osi, it I Ve d if f e ’r e’nice’ mdi ~

‘a t es I hat the ex~ ‘or i mettt a 1 ;t - -

was in fer j ot I o the dciii t t e l group

F’ iqu ic I ~‘rosert t the group means of the exper i me’nit al and cent n ~‘I

groups , as well as the difference bet We’en the rs’s}’s’c ’t ive means wit bout

t s ”j,mi d to the’ i qn of the di ftc ren;co . It may lie observed that comprehension ot the experimental group 5’le’cro,tse’d as the’ compression i at io in—

c ’n s ’,iss ’sl , but that mean comp rehensiot; scores of s ’or t,l j n’ n of the tests i n

the count rol group were lowe r than that of others , especially Test Ii . In

• q ’neral , com~’rehents ion scores of the experimental group were reduced • r elative to the conitrol group as t h e compression ratio increased.

The comprehension I e’st scores wers’ sub i ecte ’

~

d to a repeated measures

analysis of variance’. Experimental and control group means wore ’ signi fi—

cantly different , F(l , ts,l) = 7.~~

O , p .01. Tests were also a significant source of variat ion , F(6 , 360) Sn 12 .51 , p ~

. .01 , as was the interaction

of tests wit!; conditions , F(ti , 3(sO) Sn 4.7 0 , p ‘- .01. Analysis of variance

for the simple main effects of the experimental variable yielded the fol—

lowing values of F for Tests 1 and through 7 , respectively: 2.36 , 2 .87 ,

1. 04 , 5.37 , 12 .07 , 7 .l~

) , and 11.92 . The values for Tests 5 , 6 , and 7

were s i q n i f i c ant at the .01 leve l , F(l , 60), p .01, wh i le the value

for Test 4 was significant at the .05 level , F(l , 60), p .05 . This

indicates that t ilt ’ e’xpt ’rimental group exhibited a s i q u t ificantly lower

degree of compreheuts ion ; than the control group when I he ’ word rate reached

approximately 306 wpm .

Of pr imary in teres t wa s the correlation of the comprehension test

scores with the thresholds determi ned in Experiment I. Pearson productmoment correlation coefficients were obtained between; each of the eight

threshold conditions anid the seven comprehension tests. The two highest

correlations, .55 and .48 , respectively, were between each of the types

of speech at the slowest rate of change (2.1 wpm/sec) and the first comprehension test (1.5x norma l speed). In general , the other correlation s

we’re quite low . This indicates that there is little relationship between

• thresholds and comprehension test scores in the present experiment.

11)

_______ L. _____- -‘ — *-- ‘-“- .‘. —.•~~
.—

~~~~

-

~~~

“;

~~

-

~

v’ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

,

_.

‘5U

C 

.

~

~~~~~ N at itt .-4 N m 

N

+ I “-I .-I .-4 .-t

‘.4 I I I I

‘ii

‘5

C~~~~~

LI 

~~ ‘ en Oi sQ Qi 

m

.~

~

s o at ~~ sQ ~~ .-4 SQ in

W Q) U . , 

.

Z4J

tn efl ~ ~ m m (N 

m

4) 

~~~~

—“

C > 0 N (N 0 

.-4 

(‘1 (N 

m

tO en 0 N en ~ m

O

4 J 4

~~ 8 oi 

.-i

rZ ’.’t

-‘4 • in ‘4 4) 4J

Li C ‘-4 o

o 

~~~

Li~~~~~0 m 

~~

. o Ci Q (“I 

N • U) ‘.4.414 4) . . . . LiOWU) (‘i ‘-4 0 at at N sQ 4” 4) (fl 4.’ E ‘~4 ‘-4 .‘-I • in4)

‘-I

C

4) 

0 ‘-I ‘.4 

I .0 In in .4 C W CO 0 en 0 en 0 en 

o

~i o . .. in s’- o nit N 

0

4) 5 (4 .-4 .‘-4 (N (N (N (N m • II 0 14 C) oo
• — a!: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — ~~

‘ 

~~~~~~~~~ 

“- ‘

~~

- - - ~~~~

- 

~~

“ ‘ -•-..-“--‘c-’ ‘

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

-

~~~~~

--

‘

5. 4 -

~~~~~~~

• V Li

o

• ‘ ‘-4

2 7

/ I 8 / I

I

, / /

/ .

I -

~~~~~~ I ‘

I -

~~

~

( 0 — ‘ Li

I

f ~~1 / 

. IC

I I , I • I’— 0 I I I p ft - I I • —-in

I ’ ’ /

l

iz

Cd) • I C

2 

. 0

/ ‘-I I In I •

• I 4) I ‘C4) • Li / 0,

• 4 - c5,4

I I U

I • C I ‘4 I ‘5

I

C~

) 

-

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

1)]UO) ~

] 1Wfl N NY]W

- --- ~~~~~~ - “•
__________________ - 

• “

~~~~ T~~~~~~~~~~ ’

j’ 7

~~~;L’7” ‘ -‘

Reliabilities ot the comprt ’hvntsion tests for the control group were

determined by Kuder-t

~ictta rdsort Formula 20 and yielded the following reliability coeffici ents for Tests 1 through 7 , respectively: .56 , .55 ,

.66 , .b2 , • 7b , .42 , and .44. Undoubtedly the relationship bet ween

thresholds and comprehension scores was somewhat attenuated by these

moderate reliabilities.

DISCUSSION

This study was undertaker; to determine the relationship of the

threshold to traditional psychology constructs such as speech irttelli—

gibility and comprehension . The results of Experiment 1 support the

hypothesis that the threshold is a measure of intelligibility for con—

noc ted speech. Garvey ( 1953) compared the intelligibility of single

words compressed by the sampling method with those compressed by the

speed—changing method and foun d a hi gher percentage of intelligibility

f or those compressed by the sampling method . This finding is in agreement with the results of the present experiment on connected speech ,

which found a higher threshold for compressed than for speeded speech .

The agreement is, in fact , rather close . In -i the present experiment , • the thresholds for compressed speech and speeded speech are approximately

.‘.l and 1.7 times the normal speech rate , respectively. Assuming that

the two types of speech are equivalent in intelligibility at these rates ,

a comparison may be made with 0~

’irvey ’s data for intelligibility of single • words. Garvey found t hat approximately 95% of the compressed words were

intelligible at 2.0 times the norma l speech rate , while approximately

90% of the speeded words were intelligible at 1. 7 time s the normal speech

rate.

The results of this experiment also indicated that , not only was

comp ressed speech more in telligible than speeded speech , but changes in

the intelligibility of compressed speech were more difficult to detect.

This may be the result of cues for pitch interacting with intelligibility

in the case of speeded speech in such a way that the detect ion of change

is made easier.

The results of Experiment 2 do not support the hypothesis that the

threshold is a measure of comprehension . Correlations between threshold

values and traditional comp rehension test scores were generally low . In

view of the lack of relat ionship between the thr esholds and trad iti onal

comprehension measures, one fact still demands explanation : The mean

value of the compressed speech threshold , approximately 265 wpm , is in

close agreement with the point at which Foulke and Sticht (1969) have

claimed that comprehension falls off rapidly, namely 250 to 275 wpm .

Although the work of Carver ( 1973a ) also supports the notion of a threshold

in comprehension measurement , his duration measure (seconds per word )

placed the threshold at the equivalent of 150 wpm , which does little to

explain the similarity of the present value to that of Foulke an-id St icht .

1 3

• ‘ • ‘ • —‘ -—~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~~ -_-~~~~~~~~L~~~~
Pr ior to the collect ion and a n a l y si s of the data , it was thought

that it might be possible to measure comprehe ’nsiont by the threshold

method . Nevertheless, during the collection of the data , the neutr a l

term “ understand” was used in the instructions rather than n efe ’r enice’s

to “ comprehension ” or “intelligibility,” since it seeme d to communicate

the task to the participants. In; retrospect , it should be said that

the conditions of the experiment , part icular ly rates of change which

involved potential doubling of the speech rate in 7 .5 to CS) HOc ’, Opt ’ra

tionally defined the concept and perhaps Precluded any ot her inte ’rl ’retation , in spite of differing connotations of “understand” whic h individuals

may have brought to the laboratory.

Deese (1969) has suggested that understanding is a valid psycholoqical construct. Schwartz , Sparkman;, and Deese (1970) found that

subjective judgments of the comprehensibility of isolated sentences

could be validated against structural complexity of the sentences or

• against readability indices. Moreover , the work by Carver ( 1973a , 1973b) ,

was based on the percentage of thoughts in a passage which a listener

judged that he understood , Deese and his students believe that during

rapid reading , intermittent interpretation takes place rather than the

full process necessary for comprehension . Although a person may not interpret everything he read s or hears , he has a kind of monitoring device

which informs him that he has the ability to interpret it. Deese has

called this inward sign the “feeling of unde rstandi ng ” which signals

comprehensibility rather than comprehension per Se. From all of the

foregoing , it must be concluded that comprehensibility is an alternative

construct that should be considered.

Which of these three alternatives is the threshold measuring? There

is evidence for intelligibility and against comprehension . But wha t

about comprehensibility? The notion is intuitively appealing , the term

“unders tand” was used in the instruc tions to sub jects, and comprehensibility would appear to be a construct in search of a measurement method .

Nevertheless , without independent evidence that the threshold is a measure’

of comprehensibility, it would seem that the most defensible interpretation of the threshold at present is that it is a measur e of intelligibility . Accordingly, it may be referred to as the “ threshold of

in telligibility of rapid connected speech .” On the other hand , the term

“ speech—perception rapidity threshold” might be preferable , since it is

descr iptive, theoretically neutral , and serves to distinguish tht’ threshold from those based on loudness.

Beyond the theoretical considerations concerning the psychological

constructs underlying the threshold method , research should be directed

toward the variables to which the method may be sensitive. It has already been demons trated that the method is sensitive to individua l dif-

• ferences: There is a wide range of variation in threshold values among

subjects . If the threshold method is a valid way of measuring the understanding of rapid speech , the implica t ion of this finding is that

group presen tation of rapid auditory information is inappropriate.

14

— ‘

-•- ~~~~~~~~~~ •‘• •

~~~~~~• •~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • • •
--,---

~~~~~~

‘

.

‘- 

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

‘_____

~~~T-’,. ”-~ 

—• --‘ ‘-.--,,—,——- • ‘-- — ---•“--

~~

i

~

s’~’auss’ the t h r esheld var Les t rem s’lS per sell to ,tnot her , provisio ns

shou Id l’~- made to all ow i iisl I Vi dU. Is to listen at t h eir own; rates.

• Research should i 1 so ic ii oct t ’d t oward i rive st i ~ .it i nq how vax’ i OilS

c hara ct e r i st L L ’H ot s pt ’t’c Ii materials affect the threshold. One would cx—

• pect t hat he t lrresii~~ld m t5;ti t well vary with tine di ft l c ’Ul ty e t i-q ’t ecin

mater c al • or even wit h svn t ~~~t I L ’ ~nd seman; t i s ’ v .rr iab 1e~ unth’r l y in q d i t

t i cu it y . it mi ght be i ’~’~~~ i bit ’ to use the t h r eslrold t o de’tenn l lie ’ the

• li stenabi litv of auditory mat e r ial tust es n~~a dabi lrtv of printed material is d etermtn;e d .

• The t i rr esho Id methcxi may also be sensitive to t he quality of speech

• produced by speech compress ion; siev lot -s and speech s

~~nt bc ’S I ~ers . Should

t his prove to t’e the case , one would oxpe ’ct that t he’ 1st ter the quality

of speech , the hi sjher WOU I ci be the t hr esho Id va li n es. Thus , t he’ met hod

might be Used t o evaluate’ and s’slmpa X e ’ t ine so devic es.

It is assumed that the thre shold basical lv r e f l e c ts some temporal

limit ~ t information ; processing . It is not present ly known whether this

l imit is ~‘e~-u 1 i .tr to the auditory modality of whether more ce’ntral pro—

ceSScS are involved. Should the latter prove to be true , rest-arc!; on

Cc)ml’ ressed speech may colts i derably elevate the status of list en; mg as

compared with reading as a way of gaining information .

15

• 

••
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T:T~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

REFERENCES

Békésy, G. von . A New Audiometer. Acta Otolaryngol ogica, 1947, 35 ,

4 11— 422.

Carver , R. P. Effect of Increasing the Rate of Speech Presentation

Upon Comprehension . Journal of Educationa l Psychology, 1973 ,

65, 118—126. (a)

Carver , R . P. Understanding Information Processing , and Learning from

Prose Materials. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973 , 64,

76—84. (b)

Calearo, C., & Lazzaroni , A. Speech Intellig ibility in Relation to

• the Speed of the ~

-i essage . Laryngoscope, 1957 , 67, 410—419.

Chaiklin , J. B. The Relation Among Three Selected Auditory Speech

Thresholds . Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 1959 , 2, 237—243 .

Dahle , A. J ., Flume , W. C., & Haspiel , G . S. Comparison of SpeechBékésy Tracings With Selected Clinical Auditory Measures. Journal

of Auditory Research, 1968, 8, 125—128,

deflaan, H. J., & Schjelderup , J. R. Threshold of Intelligibility!

Comprehensibility of Rapid Connected Speech: Method and Instrumentation’i. In preparation.

Deese , J. Behavior and Fact. American Psycholog ist, 1969, 24 , 515-522.

Fairbanks , G ., Everitt , W. L ., & Jaeger , R. P. Method for Time or

Frequency Compression’-ExpanSiOn of Speech. Transactions of the

Institu te of Radio Eng ineers , professional Group on Audio AV2(l),

7-12 , 1954. (Excerpts in Duker , S. Time Compressed Speech: An

Anthology and Bibliography . Metuchen , N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1974.)

Falconer , G., & Davis , H . The In telli gibility of Connected Discourse

as a Test for the Threshold of Speech. Laryngoscop,~~ 1947, 57 ,

581—595.

Foulke , E. The Comprehension of Rapid Speech by the Blind: Part III.

• Final Progress Report. Cooperative Research Project No. 2430.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Educa tion , and Welfare , Office of Educa tion , 1969.

_________ 

The Perception of Time Compressed Speech . In D. L. Horton

and J. J. Jenkins (Eds.). Perception of Language. Columbus ,

Ohio: Merrill , 1971.

• Foulke, E., & Sticht, T. G. A Review of Research on Time Compressed

Speech . Psychological Bulletin, 1969, 72 , 50—62.

17 _________________________

• - - ~~~~~~~~~~1UuIt ~~~~~~~~~~~ e~~~~.

PRIC1~

D1NG PA~ I 1

~

LA~~

• ‘.- • j_._ ._

— __ _
-• 

~~~~ TL~~T

Garvey , W. D. The Intelligibility of Speeded Speech. Journal of Ex- • perimental Psychology, 1953, 54 , 102-108 .

Haspiel , G., & Havens , R. Comparison of Speech B&k~ sy wi th Pure Tone

Bék~ sy Thresholds . Journal of Aud itory Research, 1966, 6,

235—237.

Hawkins , J. E., & Stevens , S. S. The Masking of Pure Tones and of

Speech by White Noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of Am enCa, 1950, 22 , 6—13.

Hutton , C. L. Psychophysical Study of Speech Rate . Dissertation Abstracts, 1955, 15, 168. (Excerpts in Duker , S., Time Compressed

Speech: An Anthology and Bibliography. Metuchen , N.J. : Scarecrow Press , 1974.)

Koch , R. The AmBiChron . In S. Duker (Ed.), Time Compressed Speech:

An Anthology and Bibliography . Metuchen , N.J.: Scarecrow Press ,

1974.

Lambert , J. V. , Shields, J. L., Gade , P. A., & Dressel , J. D. Comprehension of Time—Compressed Speech as a Function of Training.

Techn ical Paper 2 95, U.S. Army Research Institute , June 1978.

LeZak , R. J., Siegenthaler, B. R., & Davis, A. J. B~ k~ sy -Type Audio-

• metry for Speech Reception Threshold . Journal of Auditory Research, 1964, 4, 181—190.

Miller , G. A., & Licklider , J. C. The Intelligibility of Interrupted

Speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1950, 22 ,

167—173.

Schwartz , D., Sparkman , J. P., & Deese , J. The Process of Understanding and Judgments of Comprehensibility . Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 1970, 9, 87-93.

Speaks , C., Parker , B., Harris , C., & Kuhi , P. Intelligibility of

Connected Discourse . Journal of Speech & Hearing Research,

1972 , 15 , 590—602.

Tuchman , B. The Proud Towe r. New York : Macmillan , 1966.

18

___________ • •- ‘— ~ ‘

•

~~~• ~~ ‘ ••~~~~~ - • • • 

~~~~ ~~~a, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- • • ~~~

-

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

- •

~~~~~~~~

•

DIST1IIIJTION

ARt I ,it ,t

~

..iun C it

4 04’S ’ tM * RA I ,

~ ni~~t i ’ ,A~’(t ~~

t t I ~t .I A l i N ( -h. a.~ 441)()A ()AM4 t •S,’I I 

~

4ttU ’-,At itt I It It.,I AT I N A T I’ I ~ I Hum F ui-tm,

n ‘Sin ’ A U1API P1111 (45*1 I ( It $.,,,i’,,.., - . . ‘

.. Al l N I

I 141)I A IITAMA A Rt I (psAPAt t~ It It.”n.m,.. h a..- ATTN At(~ HR

i HOITA It ~rn 4111 Pet, I I 54 - ..

~.... I .‘i S. I It ~~~~~~~ ti AT IN A T SN I A

I 44t)l)A Si,Iin’ Ins I t nsAi, Fi M.’- .. ,. .,. it. AT TN AM SI C II HIll’

i ~OpA lIIAMI ntttT (‘I I (ISAFi ’ Ft M. n~,i.t n Al IN AMSI I PA r I $4()41A n’Ar ( ’ PN~ Al I I ‘sAt t M,..t,,t,.,,,4’ Al TN ANSI I SI Cp

I ‘t OtIA III 4(’H PI’Z .eI ¶ 11541 , Ii ~~~~~~~~~ Al T N I’ s.t l)a~ P’

I hlt )UA Il’AP I 

~~~ I USA M.t,,,.l, S~ , A.,,I A~ -

~ Al.- . .. Al IN A MX5~ P

I IU)p 4 nI41’I MPO 4 1 I I ,kpw,~

,,,I At,.,,., *l..,$e..~ Al TN SARI A PC H

I 14(ittA IITAPI 1141 I USA 0.1 ci. A Si-I’ AI.,,$... ’ AT T N ATSI TI N

I 44(IOA IIIAI ’ t ,n,n I’,A Hun, Eng I 

~I- Al...4.... Al T N .t~ a. n’ .

I 14011A IOAI’I t PSI I ~~~ ( ,‘mt’.I A..’.~ Y”q 11,4 Ft Re”t Al iN Ad S,i. s,.’.

I h4Unt A nt ’AI ni MI Al I ~I5 A I.tI ..,t.~ $ 4.,,,, n,. i. It ..,t Ft ~~~~~~ ATTN h,.I

• ‘4 11414 II’ A htn ’ AIlS t

~ I (ISA ~~~~~~ 11.1 It fl.,~ ..tg ATTN 51( 111’ II 1

I 140444 lI’APi CA’, Al I USASM A Fi RI.si Al IN AT SS ~Re

I 14 51A ~I

~ tISA 0111 I lISA A.i 0.t 5, I, II Pljii AT IN ATSA (‘I It Mt

I I40(t A IOANCT MUltI n lISA A.. 0.~ S. I, Ft RUt, Al IN T~~’h I 1,

I hI UlTA lflA~

.,,l I lISA Au 11.1 Pd It UI.,, Al TN FIt FS

I ~

4 04’A II’Atl I r U I l ISA A., O.t Rd Fl RI,,, ATTN STI’PIT PIT

t t ’.~ I I’,.

~,i, It U.s II’A 01551 A.$.ln’h. MI) I ISA C-it.I A (

~~n.,aI SI, CuI4.~~ Il l ..s-.nwtw tt, AT TN .1’

I N-I A,,t I4. o’ ~~~ 04)041*1 UAfl II At SI I lISA 0.’,, A Sen.,aI Sit ‘,‘II

~~, Ft I ~~~~~~~~~ ATTN ATSW SI

I 14(1 1 tSAR Al APU S,.tIf, AT TN AuAsr H I I ISA i ’,,,,t & t;.n.,.I Sn Cul4p~~ Ft I .i,-.o ~ ,,,th ATTN I., Adv.i,~.

I $40 Fil A .-”.. AT TN Al t.A Ill TI I ISA 1 ,,,,,4,,...d A.~~

.i ,‘ .,,I’l I’.., Art Ti I.avp,,~~..lh ATT N (i.,w”t.

tti ~ F .111. A. u’~ F ¶ Si” H,,,,,t,s~ I US A C,,mh,n d A ..~

.i “ ,I’i 0,~ A. F I I. •a ,’~~~, II, ATTN O s

I I’-. A .’ ’ ... Sit SI,.,,,, CII, ATT N ,1A\ ’ ,sA (I)St’I I I’S’S l..~ ,I ’-.,e, I A..’., t .uI.I fl,s At II (P.w.,w.’.th ATTN Al,AS A

I oh (‘I

~ .I .,I 1111 Slud.m CII. I I ISA (‘nmt,,..c’,I A..’i~ Cmt.l fl,s A.’I Ii (P ey,n~~

,,tht ATTN AT , AtS’ I

I (TO SPI if At TN 04.1. h Ot’ I I ISA I ,,,,,I.,,w’ ,l A. ’ti I

~. ’.I’t Ft.. A,’I Ft I eavm.am, th Al Il *11 4,-C I I

I lb. A,m~ (-I’ ~~~~~~~ ATTN 14511 ~

‘t,,,f I I SAl , C$M Nu1, t 1. .,. ... 1 .1’ I I ~~~~~ AT TN ANSI I NV SIT

I 11,. A’mv 1 .1’ h’m,I.ii,..~ ATT N ANI1A I 1 lISA I’,

~mu’ut” ‘5~~ t u,, I It fl,Iv ,,u ATTN t.,’l, I

I 0$ , Aul S.,-t .1 tt ,

~ 4, .u~ I 11*01 I tlsAN r 111W II 11.5” .. A Ti N 515111 00

I 1mb S~

.,’,’~’tI CII, CI to SS I USA F ‘$Q Si I’ Ft t%~ Ii,I

~ AT TN F

I (IS ASA A, out . ’. Al TN IAR() I (ISA I ‘,,‘,‘,~

t

~~

’h,r t ~n- Ii P.I~,,., ATTN Fit TO S

I (ISA fl~i-h CII, ITO,,h.n, ATTN II, S,’,..u’es CI~ I I ISA 1 ~~~~~~~~~ I .1. I , fl

~Iso,, ATT N SIINT CI C..tt.’

~ (ISAIIIFM , (l,t,,’k ATTN 55110 I I A I USA T up,~~

Ial.l,,, Id’ Ft 11.4...,., AT TN FIt

i In SAT I L’. It ~~~~ ,. ‘ All N SIT TO MO A I (ISA Ini,lI,g.n, -, i t ’ A S. I. It 44..a.l’.., ATTN il IT MS

I ‘SAUNA II Utai~

u Al IN AT5 I,I C TI) ON I I ISA l’tt,lIiq.n. ~ (‘

I’ A S.’h Ft Il,,a.It,,c. ATTN MS 010 MS

(ISAIMA . It M,

~~~ AT TN M.~

,n,,at 1 .1. I USA Int.II,q,tt.~ Ci. A ‘SI- Ti H,,a,’I

~

,,p, AT TN 4151 ii

I (IS WAC o ’I. A ‘SI, Ii N,, ’ IeIIa., A’ TN II’ I (ISA Int,lI,~m,t’, CI. A SI. It Hu*’hu,-

~ ATTN ATS I TI S US

$5 WAI ’ ~ t, A 5.-i’ Ft M ,-CI.IIrn, ATTN Tug IS. I I ISA IolpI I,u~~

,,. t ’i. A ‘SI. Ft H,sa,-ttu,’., ATTN *154 I’lS OR

I (ISA 0.,a.t.tma.t.. 5.-h. Ft I ., AT TN ATS M IF I (ISA I II,

~~

,it-e CT, A 5c4i . Ft I4oa.~

l’.u-

~ ATTN 4151 CII) 01

I I.’t,Il.,j...r, Nat,,,,I I

~~

l Ill, (WI • Ft I4,dM’...t I (ISA I.tt ,II.qp,,,. Cl’ A Sri’ Ft I’Iu eIt,,p~ ATTN ATSI OTT) CS

I IISA SE S~gn.I SI’ F t U ,..,t.’.’ ATTN AlSO F A I (ISA IoI,It,.~

.,,,

’ I’ tt A 5,-I’ TI Hua,iiui -s ATTN : flASSR fl

I $15 A ~~~~~~~ (‘ I’ A SrI~ Ii $$am.Itmt AT IN A TSC TI til t I (15 A I,,t,IIiIl.t5~ (I, A Si-It It I4uui -t~ u,i ATTN A 151 T IM

I (ISAISI ’h4 Ft F to t ., AT TN Id,,,’ 4,4...,.,, I USA II~

t.lI,,i.n,-, CIt A 5. 4. Ft Hu~ ’hu,-., Al TN F

I (ISA Wa. (‘,,tlml. t- .CIoI. Ila... ”I.. A T TN I .1- n 01)11 140 II Hua,-I’ura, *1114 Tm’h 11.1 ISs

2 WI1A IM ?‘tm, ,ot~

,

~ . t ,.ut ,.. I), ) t ilT, (ISA F Im-iroul,’ P.yg Gid , ATTN STI It ’ MT S

I Ill I 54)4 M,w~

t*rp~ t COIl . P,ot ,I NASSHR ATTN Tmtt I.,I,, c,nta.

I (ISA C.inv.pl 4.-al A,~~ fl.Il,m,Ia ATTN MeW A Wt’,( 1 $4’i MASSTF R . (ISATRAIXS’ I NO

I (ISA I’.Ine.t’t A.,,l Ag.’... P.thm,Iu AT IN NOC A NIl I R.wa..’h I.,t t.t .,1 HOMASSTFR , II Ho(,,l

I (ISA “ ni -itil An~I Ag.t P.It ,.,1. At IN MON A ,t

~ I (ISA R,It’.’UtIIng Cmd, 1t Shmdia.’ ATTN (‘SAITCPM P

I (ISA AU,, T.,t (‘I. APO S...tII. ATTN STEA (’ MO AS I I San... Atmt’ Ads • USAFA 000 Al F I g,. Al Au’. FI.I No P

I (ISA AtI,.’ Ian Ct, API) S#attl. AT IN ANSTI Pt IS I (40 (ISARI’AC . OCSPFR . APO SI I1RRP11. ATTN G~~F SI

I USA A,m.n,.nt Cn,l R.,I,I.’,~ A ’umaI ATTN ATSk TIM I ~~~~~~ (.1 ’ A,’g,bni~ .1 H,uIth 5.,po..* II San’ Ho,u,lo ,~

I (ISA A’m.m.nt Cn~I , 11,,, C IiIa,,, I ATTN AM SAM TITO’ I M.i .t~ (‘OS’, l o t • ATTN 0.a.t MCI

I FAA NAF IC. AlIant,r I , t ~ AT TN I ‘twa’; I IIOIISM(’ Commandant . AT TN C,’.I. MIMI ST

I P AA N A I l I’ Alluo t.. C,t , Al l N I4,,,~

, F .tg. p, I I4UIISNC (‘,imn,a.ld.OI ATTN C,~~ MCI 20

I F A A Aa.,,nauI.t’.I (‘I, (

~kl*It,’.ua it’ , Al TN AA C 441) (45(5’, A,’M$.mS N.~ t

~ w~

,4on ATTN Admm,no

2 (ISA 15 AtI ’, Si-Il. II 501 Al IN I I”a ’~. ,‘ (15( 5 A,’.du’m’, ‘

~

.m 1.w.do,,. ATTN t,,twa. ;

I lISA A,t u,g Sri’ It P..t.,~ ATTN I ,Its a.~ I (t SC(t 1 ,gn~.lg C N~ AT ¶ N 00

I I ISA A.n~

,,, Sri’ T I It.’... At TN A ISA Oi l I I ISI ’S Fv.in.ng Ott , NS’ ATTN I .4.., Sri’ (II,

I t I SA AIm,., Si-h. TI k.~i’s ATTN ATSP (‘I I TI’ I IISCO P,v,’hnI Ii., U~. 00 ATTN OP I 11,

I (ISA A t n~

,

~ 5.-li II Ku,,, AtTN ATSU (‘It 4(1 I 14(1 N.,l Ilgn~~ p, N,’ 0.1 lSu,’II.o Al TN PAS I’-.

~ ‘I
- 

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

‘

~~~~~~~~~

“ ‘— “

~~~~~~~~~

‘.‘

I IS Mi. ,,i

~ (‘

.‘-

~ ‘s I ...,v.n 01,’ AM(’ AIe,a,,,I,,a ATTN AMCUS F I oil A (‘.,.l liii UI l ’ s ,,,. M.,I ., ,., I (.SA lItAl ’lO(’ Ft Mon,s,i *1114 A1’ R() 10 I AIR CRESS lt ...,.ngt...i ATTN I,. t.. Is~ B’ Ii (ISATHA I)O(’ It M.,,,,o. ATTN ATP H At ) I M.I,I.a.p,ykolog.,k I t....st,. C,t,t,,I,a, I,’,,

I (ISAT 1440( 5’ Ii M,,nt,v , AT TN AIlS IA I M.I,t a.’, Att ach. I.,..., I. I .,.l.ns; A T TN I),., Si,

I USA P ,,,,., Cn,d , II Ns’PI’.,,on ATT N L,ts,a.y I M,,I.c,,, Chit (‘ I RCA A ,w ~..iI T,. , i,..,’Nav.4 * ‘ an,’.

L ISA A v at,.u, 1.-st 15,1 Ft H.i~

’k.i ATTN ST I PG P0) I Pt ’. S.’ ,.,,t ,I., Ott AP4.I H,..~

. I ,.q. lI~~ I, II.., N .,.,,.

F I LISA A.n. ’

, I,,, As ,aI,,,n Sah.ty Ft M,v’k .l ATTN I ,L awv 0

~ Def

~titi . N.ai fl.If ~

.

I USA Ag .’, I

~~, Avr&I ,,.,, Satet .. Ft Ru,’ka. ATTN hduc Adsi,u, I Pa., Rich. CII, ( .1...., AKA I

~~

a.I 0.1..,,. I’d,,-.,

I (ISA As ,at,,,., Si-h Ft Rock., ATTN P0 D,ewet 0 1 M..,,,t .i,, ~ao 1S’t,~

.s.,’ (‘lOOP Itt 41,4 ,c~a.l

I HOUSA Av,aI,ori Sys Cmii, St Icsuu, , ATTN AMSAV b R P,y,’h,,laq,s, h. Zak.., 1 4,. (lain.,. N.II,,,IamIs

2 USA Aw ,at ,o ,, Sy, Tan Act Iiea,d, Alp . ATTN SAVTI I

1 USA A,, Del Si-h, Ft BIn,, ATTN ATSA TIM

I USA A., Mobi lity Rsc h A Den Lab , MoIt.ti F Iii , ATTN SAVDI, AS

I USA AiiM.,.,. Si-h, H.’, ‘tng MgI , It Muck. , ATTN ATS T I ATM

1 USA Av ,at ,on Si-h, CO In Muck ., ATTN ATS I C) A

I HO, I,I SAMC . AIe ,iand,,a , ATTN : AMXCD IL

I HO, USAMC . Alesandria ATTN~ CDR

I US M.lit ary Acad emy, Wes t Po,nI , ATT N S.r,aI, Unit

I US M.l,t ~ry Acade my, W.~t Point , AT TN Oh- ot Milt Ld,shp

I US MiI,tat y Ac ademy. Will Po,i,t ATTN NAOR

1 USA Snan,laidu,a t,on Gp. UK , FPO NY , ATTN MASI - GC

1 01,’ of Naval Rich. Arli ngton , ATTN Cod. 452

3 Of- of Naval Rich . At linglo n, ATTN Cod. 458

I Of,’ ~I Naval Rich, Arlt ngton , ATTN Cod. 450

1 Of,’ ~t Nasa l Rich. Ail ingto n, ATTN Cod. 44 1

I Naval A..ro,p,’ Med Re, Lab , Pensacnla. ATTN Aco us Si-f, Di,

I Naval Ausup,’ Med Ru Lab . Pensacola . ATTN. Cod. 1,51

I Naval A.ro,pc Miii A., Lab , Pensaco la , ATTN Cod. Lb

I Ch ief of NavPer, , ATTN : Pert OR

I NAVAIRSTA . Norfolk ATTN S.h.ty CIt

I Ni,v Oct’aitogrsphlc , DC. ATTN Code 625 1 , Cha,ls & Tech

I Canter of Naval Anal . ATT N Doc Ctr

I NavAerSy,Com . ATT N AIR 53I3C

I Na, BoNed, ATTN 713

I NavH.l,coplstS u bSqua 2 FPO ‘

~

F 9*IIIOI

I A T HAL (III WIlliam AFB

1 AFHRL ITT) Lowr y AF R

I AFHRL (AS) WPAFB . OH

2 AFHRL IDOJZ) Brook, *111

I AFHRI. IOOJN) Iackland AFB

I HOUSAF IINYSO)

I HOUSAF (DPXXA I

I A FVTG (AOl Randolph AlP

3 AMRI (H~~~WPAFB . OH

2 AT In,t oh Tech , WPAFB , 014, ATT N: ENE/S I

I ATC IXPTD) Randolph AIR

1 USAF A.roMasi Lib , Brook , 418 (SUL 4), ATTN DOC SIC

I AFOS A (NI). Arlingto n

I Al Log Cmii, McClellan AFB . ATTN ALC/DPCRB

I Air Force Academ y CO, ATTN Dept of 8.1 Si-n

S NasP.m & Dev CI San Diego

2 Navy Med Netiropsychl.trlc Rich Unit , San Deign

I N~V El.ctro nlc Lab , San Diego . ATTN Ret Lab

I Nay TrngCen. San Diego. ATTN~ Cod, 9000. Lib

1 NavPottGraSch. Monterey. AT’TN~ Code 5SAa

1 NavPo,tGraSch, Monterey, ATTN Code 2124

I NavTrngEqulpClr , Orlando, ATTN: Tech Lit.

I US Dept ot Laho. , DC, ATTN Manpower Aiim,.

I US Dept ol Justice , DC, AT’TN: Drug Enforce Admin

I Nat But of Standards. DC, AT’TN: ConspuIel Info S.ct,on

I Nat ClearIng House fo, NH Info , RockvIlle

I Dense. Federal Ct. , Iak.wood, ATTN BIN

17 Detente Documentation Cente,

4 Dir Ptych . Army Hg, Ruwell Ofcs, C.nberra

I Sc,ent,hlc Ad.v , Nil Rd. Ar my Hg, RuueII Ofcs , Canberra

I Nil and A,r Attach. , A,t,I,,en Embassy

I Centre ii. Recherche 0.

~ Fac teur a. Humalne de Ia Detente

National. , Bruss els

7 CanadIan Joint Staff Wa*hington

I CIAtr Staff . Royal Canadian Al , ATTN Part Std Anal 8’

3 d uel , Canadian fli f Rich Staff , ATTN~ CICRDS(W)

4 Bnt,sh Del Stall , Brit ish Embassy, Washington

20

— —~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .—ff ~~~~~~ ~~., ia4