r ____

TechnIcal ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .1 ~‘ ,/

/ 

~~~~~~~ E~

ó I V .

cOMPREHENSION OFJIME..cOMPRESSED/

SPEECH AS A FUNCTION OF TRAINING 1

~~~ 

1’

~ ~~~~~ ‘ - 

— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

/ ~~ . . ~~~~1 ,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —~ an(J. Douglas,

1Dressel

— - - -

1

~~~a

HUMAN FACTORS IN TACTICAL OPERATIONS TECHNICAL AREA

~AD~D C

1

~E?I~1?flfl [REIn. _____________ I !

~ 

AUC

~~~~~~~~~~ ir ~~~~~~ 

Uth~

U0L~JIJT~~.

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

/

1—- - - -

Approved for public release; distribution u

~~l’ it~~1.

;

~~~~: c

~4

- -

~~~~~ - 

. 

-~ --

~~~~ 

—— -‘.

_.~~ —‘
T~~~~ T ’T ~~~

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating A gency under the Jurisdiction of the

F Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

W. C. MAUS JOSEPH ZEIDNER 

COL, Cs Technical Director (Designate) Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTI ON: Primary distribution of this report has bee n made by API. Please addre ss corre spondence

ATTN: 

concerning 

PERI-P

diatribution of reports to: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, , 5001 Eisenho~~~r Avenue , Alexandria, Virginia 22333

fINAL DISPOSITION: This raport may be destroy,d when it i no longer needed. Please do not return it to the U. S. Army Research Institute for the BChsvioril and SociøI Sciences.

~~IL The finding* in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position , unless so designate d by Other authorized documents.

Ii
-

~-—-~~~~~~ __ _ ______

if’,

Unclassified

4ECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered) ___________________________________

DE~~

t’

~~~ hh1 ~~ E~~TATInhh1 DA~~E READ INSTRUCTIONS n utjn , u~~~~up, n I ‘i I ~~~~ ~ BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

I. REPORT NUMBER ~

2. 30VT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER

/ Technical Paper 295

4. TITLE (end SubtHl.) 5. TYP E OF REPORT C PERIOO COVERED

COMPREHENSION OF TIME-COMPRESSED SPEECH AS A

FUNCTION OF TRAINING S PERrORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(s) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(S)

JOseph V. Larobert, Joyce L. Shields,

Paul A. Gade, and J. Douglas Dressel

~~. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT , T A SK AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue7 2Q762717A723

Alexandria, VA 22333

It. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel June 1978

Washington, DC 20310 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

____________________________________________________________ 22 Ii. MONITORING AGENCY NAME C ADORES$(I1 dlff.r.nt fteni Controlling Offic e) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of this r.port)

Unclassified

IS., OECLASSIFICATI ON/OOWNGRAOING SCHEDUL E

IS. DISTRIBUTION STAT EMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract ent.r.d in Block 20, i different from R.,

~’

ort)

II. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IC. KEY WOR DS (Continue on ,.v.ra. aid. inecessary end id.ntify by block number)

Compressed Speech Listening

Incentive Motivation

Learning

Training

Speech Comprehension 20. ABSTRAC T (Continue on revere, side II necessary end identify by block numb.,)

— -

~~~~~~ This experiment studied five training methods for effective listening of

time-compressed speech. Army subjects trained by two methods using incentives

understood speech played 2.2 times faster than normal without degradation of

performance. Subjects trained by three methods not using incentives had significantly degraded performance when compressed speech was presented at rates

f i ~ ter than 1.85 tines the normal rate.

OD ‘

~~~~~~

‘

~~~ 1473 ~

/ T r

~ ~~ I NOV 65 S O8SOLETE 1 ~~~ ~~~r uR, iV 1. A S SrV Afl’)N O~ i-

~I~ ‘

~~(,E th,.’- S r
F”T. •

~

.• - - - -— — —~~~~~~ .‘ —.

Technical Paper 295

COMPREHENSION OF TIME-COMPRESSED

SPEECH AS A FUNCTION OF TRAINING

Joseph V. Lambert, Joyce L. Shields, Paul A. Gade, and J. Douglas Dressel

Michael Kaplan, Work Unit Leader

• HUMAN FACTORS IN TACTICAL OPERATIONS TECHNICAL AREA

Submitted as complete and Approved By: technically accurate, by

Aaron Hyman,Technical Area Chief ~~ d

flb8

~~~ ACt1fl9 DI1eCt0r

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR (Designate)

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria , Virginia 22333

Office , Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

June1978

Army Project Number Human Performance

2076271 7A723 Enhancement

Appro

~

sd fo~p

~bIic riles,.; diatnbufion unlimited.

1 ”

~;

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •
~

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 recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

I 

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

~~~•- ---~~
FOREWORD

This report is concerned specifically with training people to

comprehend compressed speech. Within the Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), research in human performance

enhancement——locating and expanding the boundaries of sensory percep—

ti-on——is an important facet of the work of the Human Factors in Tactical Operations Technical Area. Although current programs in this

Technical Area emphasize research in spatial orientation and visual

perception , particularly as applicable to night operations and aircrew

performance , the Technical Area also has been concerned with factors

affecting auditory perception. An earli~er publication from the same

progr am , ARI Technical Research Note 236, compared playback techn iques

and speech comprehension . Two other publi cations from this program,

ARI Technical Papers 296 an d 297, deal with the study of thresholds

of intell igibility of compressed speech.

The pr inciples developed in this area of research can be applied

in any agency that needs rapid review and analysis of large amounts

of auditory material. The project reported here was originally conducted at Fort IDevens , Mass., as technology base research under Army

Project 2Q762717A723, contributing to HRN 76—38 for the Army Security

Agency (now part of the Army Intelligence Command) .

~~~~~~~r ~

(4~3~ ~~~~

JO EPH ZE

hnical Director (Designate )

Ir

SItS ~Iilti Sectis,

Doe isit $sctiis 0 UNAvSiI *CEI 0

5, 

LI~OS, ASM~ASILNY ~O0ES

Qp.~

. S i L t ~~CI*L

L • 

~

•-

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

—

~~~~~~~~~~~

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

COMPREHENSION OF TIME-COMPRESSED SPEECH AS A FUNCTION OF TRAINING

BRIEF

Requirement :

An important part of the U.S. Army’s defensive mission worldwide

is the daily reception and processing of a great number of communications , many of them sent by radio and telegraph and taped for later

processing. Army ccmmunications processors need help in rapidly re—

viewing, evaluating, and summarizing the taped communications . Recent

technological advances have made potentially helpful speech compression

devices available at relatively low cost. Such devices play back an

audio recording at rates faster than the original recording rate without a change in pitch. If the Army is to use the technology of compressed speech effectively, it is necessary to determine if Army

personnel can be trained to listen to verbal material with adequate

comprehension when that material is played at rates greater than 1.5

times the normal speed .

Procedure :

Fifty Army enlisted personnel were divided into five groups. Members of each group were trained to listen to compressed speech under

one of five different training methods. Two of the training methods

used the acquisition of leave time as an incentive ; three did not.

After training, all groups were tested for comprehension of five different passages of compressed speech. Each group heard the passages

presented at five rates: 130 words per minute (wpm), 195 wpm , 24 1 wpm ,

286 wpm , or 332 wpm . The performance of the participants who received

tra ining was compared to the performance of a group tha t listened to

all five test passages at normal speed, 130 wpm .

Findings :

Participan ts who were tra ined us ing leave time as an incentive

showed significantly better comprehension under highly compressed

speech conditions than did participants trained without incentives.

-~~~~~~ -— ~~~- - - —~~~~~~ - • .- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
________ _________________ _______ 

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

“ 1

Utilization of Findings :

The results clearly show that the incentive training methods used

in this experiment were effective in producing short—term , positive

changes in performance . At least for this group of Army participants ,

merely giving feedback about performance was not sufficient to insure

good performance .

Users of the speech compression comprehension training methods

may want to employ positive incentives. The positive effects of such

training on performance can be expected to persist for at least short

periods of time ; the long—term effects of incentive training on corn—

prehension of compressed speech , however , need further assessment.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COMPREHENSION OF TIME-COMPRESSED SPEECH AS A FUNCTION OF TRAINING

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

OBJECTIVE 3

METHO D . . 3

Subjects . 3

Apparatus . . 3

Experimental Design 4

Procedure 5

RESULTS 8

Criterion Performance Data 8

Daily Performa nce Data 11

CONCLUSIONS 17

REFERENCES 19

DISTRIBUTION LIST 21

LIST OF TABLES -

Table 1. Mean Comprehension Scores on the ARI Criterion

Test for All Experimental and Control Groups

at Each of the Five Criterion Test Speech Rates . . . 8

2. Analysis of Variance Summary for the Comprehension Scores for All Groups Across All Criterion

Test Speech Rates 9

3. Difference Scores of Each of the Five Experimental and Control Group Means from the Group

Mean of the Cr iter ion Control Group 10

4. Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Number

of Correct Answers to Daily Multiple—Choice

Questions . . . 1 1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •~~~~~~~~• .. _•~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . ~~~ - - -

~~~~~~~~~ -~~~ •- .- ~~~ • •~~~~ •~~~~~~~~~~
Page

5. Analysis of Variance Summary Table for Final

Speech Rates 1 3

6. Analysis of Variance Summary Table for Total

Points Earned 15

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Mean number of correct answers by each

group, Days2through5 12

2. Final speech rates attained by each experimental group 14

3. Mean number of points earned by each experimental group 16 
COMPREHENSION OF TIME-COMPRESSED SPEECH AS A FUNCTION OF TRAINING

INTRODUCTION

An important part of the U.S. Army ’s defensive mission worldwi de

is the daily receiving and processing of a great number of communications, many of wh ich are sent by radio and telegraph and taped for

later processing. Army communications processors need help in rapidly

reviewing, evaluating, and summarizing these taped communications.

Recent technological advances have made potentially helpful speech

compression devices available at relatively low cost. Such devices

play back an audio recor ding at rates faster than the original recording rate without a change in pitch.

In the most widely used method of speech compression , a tape recording is played through a device at a speed that is a preselected

amount faster than the originally recorded rate. By systematically

discarding portions of the speech signal, the device preserves the

pitch and sound characteristics of the original tape, thus eliminating

the “Donald Duck” effect normally caused by increasing the tape speed.

The discard intervals occur in a fixed relationship across time and

are completely independent of the contents of the speech signal itself.

While no entire speech sound is likely to be lost completely because

the interval is generally shorter than any single speech sound , some

critical features may at times be deleted. Although pitch-normalized

output tends to preserve phrasings, stress , and pauses in the or igin al

speech record, increases above tw ice the normal speed tend to produce

some distortions.

The fact that untrained listeners can comprehend compressed speech

has been well documented. For example, Foulke (1968) showed that the

comprehension scores of college students untrained in listening to compressed speech did not decline significantly until the word rate was

increased above 250 words per minute (wpm). Recently, Shields (1975)

demonstrated that Army communications processors, untrained in listening to compressed speech, could accurately identify the subject matter

of highly technical communications compressed to 1.5 times their normal

speed of approximately 100 wpm .

For the Army to make effective use of the technology of compressed

speech , it is necessary to determine if Army personnel can be trained

to listen to verbal material with adequate comprehension when material

is played at rates greater than 1.5 times the normal speed.

In nonmilitary settings , several investigators have reported some

success in tra ining people to comprehend time—compressed speech.

Gruxnpelt and Rubin (1968), for example, trained blind high school

students in two sessions a day for at least 14 days to listen to timecompressed speech at 275 and 300 wpm . A control group heard the same

_
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •

~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~ • -~~~ 

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

. . -

~~

--

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

-----

~~~~~~~~~

—--- —

material at its normal speed of 175 wpm . The performance of the experimental group was significan.1y superior to that of the control group

in a posttest given at 300 wpm , but both groups showed a significant

decline in posttest performance compared with pretest performance .

Harley (1966) reported that the mean comprehension scores of

blind high school students increased from 43% (pretest) to 67% (post—

test) after 1 month of merely listening to compressed speech at the

same rate , 275 wpm , as was used in pre- and posttesting. No appropriate control group, however , was used in this study.

In another experiment (Klineman , 1963), fifth— and sixth—grade }

braille students listened to material compressed to 300 wpm during

six 45—minute periods. Pre— and posttests of material at 300 wpm ad—

ministered to the students and a comparable control group indicated

that the experimental group made significantly greater gains in comprehension than did the control group.

In a study by Orr , Friedman , and Williams (1965), subjects listened to selections presented initially at 325 wpm (175 wpm was the

normal rate). The speed was increased in 25—wpm increments over

several weeks to a final rate of 475 wpm. Tests for comprehension at

this final rate indicated a 210% improvement for the experimental subjects; whereas control subjects showed rio such gain over pretest scores.

It should be pointed out, however , that subjects in the control group

listened to taped material only during test probes. It is conceivable

that the differences in performance between experimental and control

subjects might have been due to differences in amount of practice in

listen ing to any taped material rather than to differences in practice

in listening to time—compressed taped material.

Voor (1962) found a significant improvement in comprehension

scores over five trials when he presented college students with five

taped stories compressed to 380 wpm (double their original rate).

Again , however , appropriate control groups were omitted.

On the other hand , not all investigators have found a significant

gain in listening comprehension as a function of training sessions

using compressed speech. For example , Foulke (1964) presented blind

children with more than 25 hours of speech at 350 wpm , and tested the

children for comprehension at this rate before and after training.

Using equivalent forms of the STEP Listening Test, he found no significant difference in scores. When he increased word rate gradually,

he again found no difference in comprehension as the result of training.

Barnard (1970) has reported similar results.

The equivocal results of past attempts to train subjects to comprehend compressed speech are hard to understand. Because of differences

in methodology, subject characteristics , and motivational variables in

the studies outlined above , determinations of their independent contributions to the comprehension of compressed speech are not possible.

2

_ ~~~~~~~• ••

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

~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ i

~~~:~~

-

~~~---—

The present experiment was designed to explore the affects of introducing incenti~~ s into the training procedure under appropriate control

• conditions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present experiment was to discover (1) if soldiers can be trained to understand compressed speech presented at

286 wpm (2.2 times its original spoken speed) and (2) if training

methods that provide the listener with incentive motivation can facilitate the comprehension of time—compressed speech.

METHOD

Subjects

The participants were 103 enlisted personnel from Fort Devens,

Mass., who had Army General Classification Test ( AGCT ) scores of at

least 110.

Apparatus

An AmBiChron (Koch , 1974) speech-compressor was used to pitch—

normalize all speech passages that were played through a variablespeed Crown Model 800 recorder during daily training for the experimental groups.

1 These two machines also were used to record all

speech passages given to the normal and fast control groups during

their daily training as well as passages given to control and experimental groups during the criterion test.

The listening material used during training and criterion testing consisted of passages taken from The Proud Tower, a nonfiction ,

Library of Congress Talking Book by Barbara Tuchman (1972). Participants in experimental and control groups listened to speech passages

through earphones and were able to control the loudness individually.

A response panel used in the experimental groups had two digital

counters, six push buttons, and six red lights. One digital counter

recorded points that a participant gained or lost, and the other recorded the number of incorrect responses made on the multiple—choice

questions given at the end of each passage during training. One push

1Commercial designations are given only in the interest of precision of reporting and do not constitute endorsement by the Army or

by ARI.

3

j
button was used to avoid slow speech , and another push button was used

to escape from slow speech once it had begun . The remaining four buttons were used to register answers to the multiple—choice questions

given during daily training. Two of the red lights indicated whether

an escape or avoidance contingency~wasin effect; the remaining four

lights indicated the number of points the participants accumulated.

At the end of each training passage, a Kodak Carousel 35mm slide projector presented multiple—choice questions on a rear projection screen

to the experimental groups. A standard electric clock was used to re—

• cord escape/avoidance latencies during training. The presentation of

speech passages, rest periods , and ~tultiple—choice questions during

training was automatically controlled by solid—state and electromechanical control equipment . The same daily comprehension tests were given

to the normal and fast control groups using printed questionnaires instead

of the slide projector . All experimental and control group participants

were tested by printed questionnaire on the criterion comprehension test.

Experimental Design

Ten participants were randomly assigned to each of five training

methods. All groups listened to the same passages selected from

The Proud Tower during five 1—hour daily sessions. Each session was

divided into three segments, and subjects answered multiple—choice

questions on content after each segment. At the end of the week , all

subjects were given a standardized comprehension test. This test was

divided into five subtests, each 10 minutes long when played at normal

speed. Each of the subtests was presented at one of five speeds:

normal speed, 1.5 times normal, 1.85 times normal, 2.2 times normal,

or 2.55 times normal. All subjects listened to all five speech rates.

Briefly, the five experimental groups differed in the following ways.

Point Acquisition and Leave (PAL) Group. During the daily training sessions , participants were given points that counted toward leave

time based on (1) whether they elected to listen to faster—than—normal

speech as opposed to slower—than—norma l speech during each segment and

(2) the numbe r of multiple—choice questions answered correctly at the

end of each speech segment. If 60% of the questions were answered correctly , the rate of fast speech for the next segment was increased by

13 words per minute . The speech rate for both faster—than—normal and

slower—than—normal listening options was controlled by the experimenter.

Participants were given immediate feedback regarding accuracy on each of

the multiple-choice questions.

Point Loss Avoidance and Leave (PLAL) Group. At the beginning of

the first speech segment, subjects were given the maximum amount of

points counting toward leave time. Subjects in this group lost points

if they (1) failed to elect to listen to compressed speech and (2) failed

to answer questions correctly on the multiple—choice test at the end of

each speech segment. If 60% of the multiple—choice questions were answered correctly , the rate of fast speech for the next segment was

4

~ 

- • ~~
__________________

increased by 13 words per minute. As in the PAL group, the experimenter controlled speech rates, and participants were given immediate

f~ edback regarding accuracy on each of the multiple—choice questions .

Point Acquisition and No Leave (PANL) Group. This group was

treated the same way as was the PAL group except that no leave time

~

ould be earned by accumulating points.

Fast Control (FC) Group . Subjects in this group listened to the

same passages as the other groups over the same period. All speech

passages were presented at 2.2 times the normal rate (286 wpm). No

points were given and no leave was earned.

Normal Control (NC) Group. Subjects in this group listened to

the same passages as all other groups over the same time period. All

speech passages were presented at the normal rate. Again , no points

or leave time was given.

After all daily training sessions were completed, subjects were

given the standardized criterion test for comprehension. The leave

time earned by subjects in the PAL and PLAL groups was not affected by

their performance on the criterion test.

Criterion Control (CC) Group. Performance of each of the experimental groups on the comprehension test was compared with the performance of the Criterion Control group, a standardization group of 53 Army

subjects drawn from the same population of soldiers as the experimental

participants . The standardization group had no prior training and

listened only to the criterion passages at normal speed on the criterion

test.

Procedure

Day 1. All participants in the PAL, PLAL , and PANL experimental

groups were presented three 10—minute (when played at normal speed)

segments of speech , each followed by five multiple—choice questions on

content. A slide projector was used to flash questions onto a screen

in front of the participant. The participant had 60 seconds to answer

each question. The response was made by pushing one of the four buttons that corresponded to the answer. The response was manually recorded by the experimenter. Depending on the participant’s response,

points were either added to or subtracted from the counter on the response panel directly in front of the participant.

The first 10—minute segment was presented at normal speed (130

wpm). After answering five questions on this speech segment, the subjects were informed that they would be listening to a period of slowerthan—normal speech. The subjects then listened to a segment of 

speech5
presented at 78 wpm, or 60% of the normal rate. After completing the

five—question multiple—choice test on this segment, the subjects were

told tha t the next passage would be played at a faster speed than the

preceding segment. This segment was followed by another 1 0—minute

segment of normal speech.

Subjects in the NC group listened to three passages of speech

played at normal speed. The FC group listened to those same passages

at 2.2 times the normal rate. After each segment, subjects in both

groups recorded written answers to 10 printed multiple—choice questions.

Day 2 through Day 5. The subjects in the PAL, PLAL , and PANL

groups were told that a period of slow speech (78 wpm ) was about to

begin when a light came on above the right information access key, and

that if they wanted to hear faster speech at any time during this

period they were to press the information—access key until the light

went out. (This key was wired to a dimmer so that each press made

the light progressively dimmer unti l the final press put it out completely. ) After completing this series of presses , the subjects were

presented with faster—than—normal speech for the rest of the passage .

Participants in PAL and PAN T.. groups gained the maximum amount of

points if they chose the faster speech within the first 20 seconds of

the slow-speech period. Subjects in the PLAL group who waited longer

than 20 seconds before turning on faster speech lost points, which

could not be retrieved. At the end of each speech period , all experimental groups were given 10 multiple—choice questions about the material they had just listened to.

After th is testing period , the subjects were given a 3-minute

rest period , during which they were required to remain at their consoles. After this period , they were given the following message :

In a minute a tone will go on. If you do not wish to listen to any slow speech , press the information—access button

labeled “avoid” until the tone goes off. If you do this, no

slow speech will be presented and you will be permitted to

listen to faster speech for the entire period. If, howeve r ,

you fail to turn of f the tone within 10 seconds , a light

will go on and slow speech will start. Then if you wish to

turn off the slow speech and listen to faster speech you may

do so by pressing the information access but ton labeled “escape ” until the light goes out. If you choose to listen to

faster speech , you will avoid the loss of points (PLAL) or

gain points (PAL , PANL). The number of points you keep will

also depend upon how many questions you can answer correctlj

at the end of each period of speech .

If the subjects avoided the slow speech or turned the slow speech off

after it had begun , they had to listen to compressed speech for the

remainder of the passage.

6
On Days 2 through 5, subjects in the NC and FC groups listened

to the same speech passages as the experimental groups. The NC group

heard all passages at the normal ra te, and the FC group listened to

them at 2.2 times the normal rate (286 ~pm ). At the end of each passage,

both groups were given the same multiple—choice questions that the experimental groups received. NC and FC groups, however , rece ived a pr inted

questionnaire to complete.

Point System. The point system was based on an attempt to accumulate

or maintain a 720—point total. On é

~

ach of the 4 experimental days spent

in pursu it of this goal , a maximum of one-quarter (180) of the total

points could be earned or lost. For each choice to listen to the faster

speech within each session ’s 20—minute information block , 60 points (appear ing on the digital counter on the participant’s response panel at

the rate of 3 points per minute) were accumulated automatical ly for participants in the PAL and PANL groups or lost automatically in the PLAL

group. If all 10 multiple—choice questions for each passage were answered

correctly , the point totals remained the same as at the end of the speech

passage. For each wrong answer, 5 points were subtracted from accumulated

total. When 180 points had been accumulated , the lowest light in a column

of four lights wen t on , indicating that one—quarter of the maximum amount

of possible points had been earned. When another 180 points had been accumulated for answering questions correctly on three other information

blocks 1 the second light in the h ierarchy went on , indicating that one—

half the total points had been earned; and so on until the full number

of points had been earned. Conversely, the sessions for the PLAL group

started with all four lights on and 72 0 points on the counter; on light

was turned off for each 180 points lost.

Criterion Comprehension Test. Upon completion of the training period on Day 5, all training experimental and control groups (PAL, PLAL ,

PANL , NC , and FC) were given a 5—minute rest period followed by the

criterion comprehension test. The CC group was given the same test

with no previous training or exposure to compressed speech. The criterion test consisted of five 10—minute (when played at normal speed)

speech passages which were played at each of five speeds : 130 wpm (normal ), 195 wpm , 241 wpm , 286 wpm , or 332 wprn. With the exception of the

CC group, all subjects listened to all passages played at all speech

rates. The CC group listened to all passages at normal speed. The order

of presentation of the passages and speech rates was partially counterbalanced. All groups heard all speech passages through earphones , and

subjects could manually adjust the loudness.

Response Measures. The mean comprehension scores earned on the

criterion comprehension test served as a response measure for all six

groups. During daily training , comprehension scores were recorded for

the PAL , PLAL, PANL , NC , and FC groups. Total points earned , f inal

speech rates attained , and slow-speech avoidance escape latencies

served as additional response measures for the PAL, PLAL, and PANL

groups.

7

~

— - • -— •-—- •--

.

~

--

~ 

-

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

It should be noted that one participant in the PAL group and two

participants in the NC group left the experiment because of illness.

However , only the criterion test data are missing for one of the participants lost from the NC group; the participant ’s daily performance data

were not lost and are included in the analysis of daily performance.

RESULTS

Criterion Performance Data

Table 1 shows the mean comprehension scores for all experimental

and control groups for each of the five speech rates given during the

criterion testing session on Day 5. Clear differences in performance

did not emerge until speech passages were played at ~~6 wpm (2. 2 times

the normal rate). At this point, a relatively large decrement in

performance is readily apparent in the PANL , FC , and NC groups when

compared to the CC group. Although the performance of the PAL and

PLAL groups is somewhat attenuated, the differences are not nearly

so great as those in the other three groups. At 332 wpm (2.55 times

the norn’al rate), the performance of all five groups is markedly depressed when compared with the CC group.

Table 1

Mean Comprehension Scores on the ARI Criterion Test

for All Experimental and Control Groups at Each

of the Five Criterion Test Speech Rates

Criterion Test Speed Rates in wprn

Groups (N) 130 195 241 ~~6 332

PAL (9) 6.8 6.8 6.0 4.7 3.6

PLAL (10) 6.1 6.5 5.0 4.7 3.3

PANt (10) 5.6 5.1 3.8 3.7 3.2

FC (10) 6.0 5.9 5.4 3.7 3.6

NC (8) 4.6 5.0 5.1 3.6 3.0

CC (53) 5.6~ 6 0a 5.7a 6.t 6.?

aAll tests for group CC were given at the normal speech rate of 130 wprn

.8
-

___________

A two—way unweighted means analysis of variance (groups x speech

rate) was performed for the comprehension score data obtained during

criterion testing; the results are shown in Table 2. The main effects

for speech rate as well as the groups x speech rate interaction were

significant (F(4, 376) = 19.76, p < .001; and F(20, 376) = 1.84,

p < .05, respectively). However, the main effect for groups was not

significant (F(5, 94) = 1.95, p < .05).

Table 2

Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Comprehension Scores

for All Groups Across All Criterion Test Speech Rates

Source SS df MS F

Between subjects

Groups (G) 122.27 5 24.45 1.95

Errorb 1180.2 94 12.56

Within subjects

Speech rates (S) 205.18 4 51.29 19.76**

G x S 95.34 20 4.77 1.84*

Error~ 976.02 376 2.60

*p < .05

< .001

Table 3 shows the differences between each of the five experimental and control group means compared with the CC group mean. The

numbers in this table were generated by subtracting the CC group mean

in each column from each of the experimental means for that column.

A positive coefficient for any group indicated that the performance

of that group was superior to that of the CC group; negative coeff i—

cient i are shown where the performance of a group was inferior to that

of the CC group.

9

______ 

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

~~

—-

Table 3

Difference Scores of Each of the Five Experimental and

Control Group Mea ns from the Group Mean

of the Criterion Control Group

Criterion Test Speech Rates in wpm

Groups (N) 130 195 241 286 332

PAL +1.2 +0.8 +0.3 —1.5 _2.6*

FLAt +0.5 +0.5 —0.7 —1.5

PANL 0.0 —0.9 —1.9 —2.5 _3.0**

FC +0.4 —0.1 —0.3 _2.5* _2.6*

NC —1.0 —1.0 —0.6 _2.6* _3.2**

< .05

< .01

• Because the focus of attention in these data was on comparing the

performance of experimental and control groups to the performance of

- the CC group, Dunne tt’s test was used to analyze the simple main effects for each of the five speech rate changes. The results of this

analysis are also shown in Table 3. The difference between means required for statistical significance was 2.31 at p .05 and 2.82 at

p = .01 (df = 6, 268 in each case). Comprehension performance for

PANL , PC , and NC groups was significantly poorer than performance of

the CC group at 286 wprn (2.2 times the normal rate). However , comprehension performance for the PAL and PLAL groups was not significantly

deteriorated until speech rate was 332 wpm , or 2.55 times the normal

rate.

Apparently subjects in the two incentive-trained groups, PAL and

PLAL , were able to comprehend speech as well at 2.2 times the normal

rate as were control group participants (CC group), who listened to the

same material at the normal speed. Since this assertion of “no differences” betwe’n each of the incentive—trained groups and the CC group

is tantamount to arguing for the acceptance of the null hypothesis , the

probability of accepting a false null (i.e., Type II error ) was assessed

using the ~

5 statistic suggested by Winer (1971 , p. 26). The authors

felt that a true 30% decrement in performance from that of the CC group

would represent an important comprehension loss and that any smaller loss

had little practical significance. Consequently , the test for Type II

error was based on this 30% or 1.86 point decrement in performance. The

results of this test indicated that the probability of having committed

a Type II error was small (ô (9) .

~ 2.86, .10 < p < .20).

10
• - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-

~~~~~~

-—

~

——

Daily Performance Data

Comprehension Tests. Day 1 was a practice and familiarization

session for all groups; therefore , only performance data from Days 2

through 5 were analyzed. Because group CC—di d not receive any daily

training , this group was excluded from all analyses of daily performance. Figure 1 shows the mean number of correct answers attained on

the daily multiple—choice test probes by each of the five groups

averaged over Days 2 through 5.

A three—way analysis of variance (.groups x sessions x days )

was performed on the mean number of correct answers to the daily

multiple—choice questions . This analysis, as shown in Table 4 , revealed that the main effects for both groups and sessions were significant (F(4 ,43) = 7.47, p < .01; and F(2,86) = 10.26, p < .01,

respectively).

Table 4

Analysis of Variance Summary Table for the Number of Correct

• Answers to Daily Multiple—Choice Questions

Source SS df MS F

Between subjects

Groups (G) 507.46 4 126.87 7•47*

Error 731.64 43 17.01

Wi-thin subjects

Days (D) 12.70 3 4.23 1.79

D x G 20.51 12 1.71 .72

Error1 305.76 129 2.37

Sessions (S) 43.90 2 21.95 10.26*

G x S 24.38 8 3.04 1.42

Error 2 183.93 86 2.14

O x S 124.62 6 20.77 10.70*

0 x G x S 49.88 24 2.08 1.07

Error3 500.92 258 1.94

< .01

11

~

— -~~

--

~~~-~~

--. --•- — -- -- --~~~~- - —
~ ___

z

0

.c

(-.4

U)

‘I,

__ 0

0

I.’

::::::::::

::::

::::::

::::::::::

:::::

: - W

z ~ .0

U)

W S

U)

.lJ

C) - S

‘

~~~~~

0

C)

. 0

$-i

I I I I I

••

~~

•

’

I I I I

2 

~ 

~ -

MEAN NUMBER OF CORRECT ANSWER S

12

~ 

_ _
The sessions x days interaction was also significant (F(6, 258)

= 10.70, p < .01). No other main effect or interaction was significant. A Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test performed on

the main effects for groups showed that comprehension scores for the

PAL group were significantly higher than those of either the FC or

NC groups (df = 4, 43 , p < .01). None of the other main effects was

significant. Although all subjects tended to perform better on the

session two comprehension test, the significant sessions x days interaction revealed that this tendency was not consistent throughout

the training period.

Final Speech Rates. The final speech rates expressed as a percentage of the normal rate (130 wpm) attained by each of the experimental groups (PAL , PLAL, and PANL) are shown in Figure 2. Although

the final speech rate attained by the PAL group is clearly superior

to that attained by the PANL group, the performance of the PLAL group

appears to be only slightly better than that for the PANL group and

only slightly poorer than that for the PAL group.

The results of a one—way analysis of variance performed on these

data are shown in Table 5. There was a significant difference in

fina] speech rates attained amnng the three experimental groups

(F (2 , 26) = 3.53, p < .05). A Tukey HSD test showed that the final

speech rate attained by the PAL group was significantly higher than

the rate for the PANL group (df = 3, 26 , p < .05). No other difference among the three groups was significant.

Table 5

Analysis of Variance Summary Table for Final Speech Rates

Source SS df MS F

Total 1.308 28

Groups 0.280 2 0.140 3,53*

Error 1.028 26 0.040

< .05

13

~ 

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

04

- 0

z

l’I

~~

aS

S 

: ::::::~:

~~~~ ‘U S S

• — 0 >‘

.

. 

..c .0

(U

4)

4-’

‘U

‘/) • • :.w. ’.w 4)

‘U - i-I

•

‘ a- C)

•:~:~

:~

:•:.: ~~~~~~~~ S “.. - - .-..- .

. ..

.

.

•

.

.

.

•

.

.

.

.

~ .•.. 04U)

(U

I I I I ~~~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cia e o

~ 

so r

~ ~

o ~~~~ cii -

11Y

~ H)33dS 1YW~ON 40 1N3)Md NY3W

14

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

Total Points Earned. The mean total points of each of the three

experimental groups are shown in Figure 3. Once again , the PAL group

performance is superior to the PANL group performance. In addition ,

the performance of the PAL group is much higher than that of the PLAL

group. The differences in performance between the PLAL and PANL groups

appear to be relatively small.

A one—way analysis of variance performed on these data is shown

in Table 6. This analysis revealed a significant difference among the

experimental groups with respect to the mean number of points each

attained (F(2, 26) = 5.95, p < .01). A subsequent Tukey HSD test

showed that the mean number of points the PAL group earned was signif icantly higher than the mean number either the PLAL or the PANL groups

earned (df = 2, 26, p < .05). The differences in performance between

the PLAL and PANL groups were not significant , however. In interpreting these results, note that the total—points measure represents a

combined measure that is dependent on both f inal speech rate attained

and daily comprehension test performance.

Table 6

Analysis of Variance Summary Table for Total Points Earned

Source SS df MS F

Total 96984.00 28

Groups 30458.51 2 15229.26 5~ 95*

Error 66525.49 26 2558.67

< .01

Response Latencies. Analysis of the latency to escape or avoid

slow speech showed no significant differences among the three experimental groups. A three—way analysis of variance (experimental groups x

sessions x days) was performed on the latency data. This analysis revealed significant effects for sessions (F(2, 52) = 4.93, p < .05),

days (F(3, 78) = 12.76, p < .01), and for the sessions x days interaction (F(6 , 156) = 3.4t, p < .01). Because none of the significant

main effects or interactions involved the experimental groups, no analy—

ses of simple effects were performed. These results show that response

latency was not significantly affected by the various incentive manipulations used with the three experimental groups.

15

—

~

-.

_

—_ _ --

~

-_ -•- .-- - -- - •- --~~~~~~ - --.- -

~~~~•- _ _
___

2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •

z —

‘U

aU)

~ 

S

—4

U)

ft

U)

.0

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •

.0

‘0

I’D 0

‘UU)

U)

4-)

0

- ‘.40

04

.

,

. 0

S. a. ~~~~~

— 

~~~~~

s~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ‘ ~~~~~ ‘

~~~~ ‘

GIN~Y] SINIOJ JO ~

31WflN NYIW

L - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
CONCLUSIONS

This experiment found that soldiers receiving incentives compre—

hended speech played at 286 wpm (2.2 times faster than normal) without

deterioration of performance on the criterion test; whereas performance of soldiers trained wi thout incentives had significantly deteri orated when compressed speech was presented at rates faster than

241 wpm on the criterion test. The nonincentive groups included

(1) NC, a group that merely listened to speech segments at normal

rates for 1 week with no knowledge of their performance on the daily

probes; (2) FC, a group that listened to compressed speech at 2.2 - 

times normal speed with no knowledge of performance ; and (3) PANL, a

group that rece ived immediate knowledge of results on e

~ ch of the

dail” test probes as well as performance—dependent increases in compressed speech rates. The only difference between the PANL group and

the PAL group was t

~~ lack of opportunity to earn leave time. For this

population , the results indicate that merely giving feedback about

performance is not sufficient to insure good performance.

It is instructive to compare the present data with those reported by Foulke (1968) on listening comprehension as a function of

word rate for untrained listeners. Foulke found that the comprehension scores of college students untrained in listening to compressed

speech did not significantly decline until word rate was increased

above 250 wpm . Foulke ’s results are similar to those obtained for

the nonincentive groups (PANL , FC, and NC) in the present study. The

comprehension scores in this study declined at about the same number

of words per minute (i.e., above 24 1) as scores in Foulke ’s study.

The performance of those trained using incentive methods (PAL and

PLAL) did not drop off until the groups were presented with rates

faster than 286 wpm .

The results show that the incentive training methods used in

this experiment were effective in producing short—term , positive

changes in performance . However , the long—term effects of incentive

training need to be assessed before these techniques are applied.

17 

------~~~~ -

~~~~~ - - -- -- -- --- -
REFERENCES

Barnard , D. P. A Study of the Effect of Differentiated Auditory Presentation on Listening Comprehension and Rate of Reading Comprehension at the Sixth Grade Level. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Boston , 1970. D.A. 31 :2241A , 1970.

Foulke , E. Comprehension of Rapid Speech by the Blind ( Part 2~~. Fina l

Progress Report covering the period from September 1 , 1961 , to

February 29, 1964, on Cooperative Research Project No. 1370.

Louisville, Ky.: University of Louisville , 1964. (ED 003 264)

Foulke, E. Listening Comprehension as a Function of Word Rate . Journal of Communication, 1968, 18, 198-206.

Garvey, W. D. The Intelligibility of Speeded Speech . Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 1953, 45, 102—108.

Grumpelt, H. R. and Rubin , E. Speed Listening Skill by the Blind as

a Function of Training. Report on U.S. Office of Education Grant

No. OEG—3—8—080024—0021(010). Chesterton , Md .: Washington College, 1968. (ED 025 092)

Harley, R. An Experimental Program in Compressed Speech at the

Tennessee School for the Blind. In Emerson Foulke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Louisville Conference on Time Compressed Speech,

October 19—2 1 , 1966, p. 63—66. Louisville, Ky.: Center foz Rate

Controlled Recordings Perceptual Alternatives Laboratory , University of Louisville, 1967.

Kl ineman , J. Effects of Traini.~.~ 9essions on the Ability to Comprehend Compressed Speech. Unpublished master ’s thesis, University of Pittsburgh, 1963.

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

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

1974.

Orr , D. B., Friedman , H. L., and William s, J. C. Trainability of

Listening Comprehension of Speeded Discourse . Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965, 56, 148-156.

Shields, J. L. Speed Listening for Message Classification. Research

Memorandum 75—2 . Alexandria, Va.: U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1975.

Tuchman , B. W. The Proud Tower. New York : Bantam , 1972.

Voor , J. B. The Effect of Practice upon Comprehension of Time—

Compressed Speech. Unpublished master ’s thesis, Un iversity of

Louisville , 1962.

19 
Winer , B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New

York : McGraw—Hill, 1971.

20

~~~~~~~~~~~ .~~~~~~~~~~ - ----~~~~~ .- -~~~~~~ _ . - _ . _- -~~- 

“

.-—i~~ ~~~~~~~ --— --_ --

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

.- .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —.--- 

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

DISTRIBUTION

ARI Distribution List

4 OASD (M&RA) 2 HQUSACDEC , Ft Ord, ATTN: Library

• 2 HODA (DAMI-CSz ( 1 HQUSACDEC. Ft Ord, ATTN: ATEC—EX—E—Hum Factor, • 1 HQDA (DAPE.PBR 2 USAEEC , Ft Benjamin Harrison , ATTN: Library

1 HODA (DAMA-AR) 1 USAPACDC. Ft Benjamin Harrison, ATTN: ATcP—HR

1 HQDA (DAPE-HRE.P0) 1 USA Comm—Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: ATSN—EA

1 HODA (SGRD-ID) I USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL—CT --HDP

1 HODA (DAMI.DOT.C) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL—PA--P

1 HODA (DAPC.PMZ.A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth , ATTN: AMSEL—S I—C B

1 HQDA )DACH-PPZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth , ATTN: C, Fad Div Br

1 HQDA (DAPE-HRE) 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Aberi

~

een, ATTN: AMXSV— P

1 HODA )DAPE-MPO-C) 1 Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen, ATTN: SAREA— BL-- H

1 HQDA (DAPE-DW I 1 USA Ord Ctr & Sch. Aberdeen, ATTN : ATSL—TEM—C

1 HODA (DAPE.HRL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab, Aberdeen, ATTN: Library/Dir

1 HODA (DAPE-CPSI 1 USA Combat Arms Ing Bd, Ft Benning, ATTN: Ad Supervisor

I HODA (DAFD-MFA) I USA Infantry Hum Rtch Unit, Ft Binning, ATTN: Chief

1 HQDA )DARD.ARS.P) 1 USA Infantry Bd, Ft Benning, ATTN: STEBC—TE—T

1 HQDA (DAPC.PAS-A) 1 USASMA, Ft Bliss , ATTN: ATSS—LRC

1 HQDA (DUSA.OR) 1 USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss . ATTh: ATSA-•CTD--ME

1 HODA (DAMO-RQR( I USA Air Def 5th, Ft Blits. ATTN: Tech Lib

1 HODA IDASG) 1 USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss . AT1’N~ FILES

1 HQDA (DA1O-PI) 1 USA Air Def Bd, Ft Bliss, ATTN: STEBD—PO

I Chief, Consult Div (DA’OTSG), Adelphi, MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leav nworth, ATTN: Lib

1 Mil Asat. Hum Ret , 000R&E , OAD (E&LS) 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATl’N: ATSW—SE—L

1 HO USARAL . APO Seattle, ATTN: ARAGP R 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Ed Advisor

1 HO First Army, ATTN: AFKA.OI-Tl 1 USA Combin.d Arms Crribt Dcv Act . Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: DepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Div Act, Ft Leavenworth, A1’TN: CCS

1 Dir. Army Stf Studies Ofc , ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP) 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Div Act , Ft Leavenworth, ATTh: ATCASA - 1 Olc Chief of Stf , Studies Ofc 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Div Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACO—E

I DCSPER , A’fl’N: CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dee Act, Ft Leavenworth, Ai

~

TN: ATCACC—CI

1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN: RSB Chief 1 USAECOM, Night Vision Lab. Ft Belvoir , ATTN: AMSEL—NV—SD

1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd , Ft Belvoi r , ATTN: Tech Library

1 Ofc , Aist Sect of the Army (R&D) USAMEROC, Ft Belvoir , ATTN STSFB—DQ

1 Tech Support Ofc , OJCS 1 USA Eng 5th, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: Library

1 USASA. Arlington, ATTN: IA RD T 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: ETL-TD—S

I USA Rsch Ofc , Durham, ATTN: Life Sciences Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab. Ft Belvoir , ATTN : STINFO Center

2 USARIEM , Natick , ATT N: SGRD-UE.CA I USA Topographic Lab, Ft Balvoir , ATTN: ETL—GSL

1 USATTC. Ft Clayton, A’flN: STETC.MO-A 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: CTD—MS

1 USAIMA . Ft Bragg, A11’N: ATSU-CTD-OM 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & 5th. Ft Hajachuca , AITN: ATS—CTD.-MS

1 USAIMA, Ft Bragg, ATTN: Marquat Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Scts , Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATS I—TE

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan, ATTN: Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—TEX—GS

I US WAC Ctv & Sch, Ft McClellan. ATTN: Tng Dir 1 USA Intelligence Cu & Sch, Ft HuacPiuca , ATIN: ATSI—CTS—O R

1 USA Quartermaster Sch, Ft Lee, ATTN: ATSM-TE 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—CT O—DT

1 Intelligence Material Div Ofc , EWL , Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATTN: ATSI—CTD--CS

1 USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gordon , ATTN ATSO.EA 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft I’Iuachuc., AT TN: DAS/SRD

1 USA Chaplain Ctr & Sch, Ft Hamilton, ATTN: ATSC.TE-RD 1 USA Intellig ence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huichuca , ATTN: ATSI—TEM

1 USATSCH. Ft Eustis , ATTN: Educ Advisor 1 USA Intelligence Cu & Sch, Ft Huachuca , AT’rN: Library

1 USA War College, Carlisle Barracks , AT’TN: Lib I CDR , HO Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Tech Ref Div

2 WRAIR . Neuropsychiatry Div 2 CDR , USA Electronic Prvg Grd , ATTN : STEEP— MT—S

1 DLI , SDA . Monterey I CDR , Project MASSTER , ATTN: Tech Info Center

I USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda , ATTN: MOCA-WGC 1 Hq MASSTER , USATRADOC , LNO

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy. Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA.MR 1 Research Institute, HO MASSTER , Ft Hood

I USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda , ATTN : MOCA.JF 1 USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sherdian . ATTN: USARCPM—P

1 USA Artic Test Ctr , APO Seattle, ATTN: STEAC.MO.ASL 1 Senior Army Adv. , USAFAGOD/TAC , Elgi n AF Aux FId No. 9

I USA Arlic Test Cu, APO Seattle, ATTh: AMSTE-PL.TS I HO USARPAC , DCSPER , APO SF 96558. AT’TN: GPPE—SE

I USA Armament Cmd, Redstone Arsenal, ATTN: ATSK.TEM 1 Stimson Lib, Academy of Health Sciences, Ft Sam Houston

1 USA Armament Cmd, Rock Island, ATTN: AMSAR-TDC 1 Marine Corps Inst. , ATrN: Dean—MCI

I FAA.NAFEC, Atlantic City , ATTN: Library 1 HOUSMC, Commandant, ATTN: Code MTMT 51

1 FAA.NAFEC , Atlantic City, ATTN: Hum Engr Br 1 HOUSMC, Commandant , ATTN: Code MPI— 20

1 FAA Aeronautical Ctr, Oklahoma City, ATTN: AAC.44D 2 USCG Academy, New London, ATTN: Admission

2 USA Fld Arty Sch, Ft Sill, ATTN: Library 2 USCG Academy, New London, ATTN : Library

1 USA Armor Sct,. Ft Knos , ATTN: Library 1 USCG Training Ctr , NY . ATTN: CO

I USA Armor Sch, Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB.DI.E 1 USCG Training Ctr , NY , ATTN: Educ Svc Ofc

I USA Armor Sch, Ft Knos , ATTN: ATSB.DT.TP I USCG, Ptychol Ret Br, DC, ATTN: GP 1/6 2

1 USA Armor Sch. Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB’CO’AD I HO Mud—Range Br, MC Det, Quantico . ATTN: P&S Div

21
1 US Marine Corps Liaision Ofc , AMC, Alexandria , ATTN: AMCGS—F 1 Def & Civil Inst of En

viro Medicine, Canada

1 USATRADOC . Ft Monroe , ATTN: ATRO—ED 1 AIR CRESS , Kensington. ATTN: Info Sys Br

6 USATRADOC . Ft Monroe , ATTN ATPR—AD 1 Mi

litaerpiykologisk Tjaneste, Copehagen

• 1 USATRADOC , Ft Monroe , ATTN: ATTS—EA 1 Militar y Attache, French Embassy, ATTN: Doe Sec

1 USA Forces Cmd, Ft McPherson , ATTN: Library 1 Medec

in Chef , C.E

.

R

.

P

.A.—Arsenal, Toulon/Naval France

• 2 USA Aviation Test Bd, Ft Rucker , ATTN: STEBG—PO 1 Prin Scientific Off . Appl Hum Engr 

Rsch Div . Ministry

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety , Ft Rucker , ATTN: Library of Defense. New Delhi

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Rucker , ATTN: Educ Advisor 1 Per, 

Rsch Ofc Library. AKA . Israel Defense Forces

• 1 USA Aviation Sch , Ft Aucker , ATTN: P0 Drawer o I Ministe

ris van Defensie, 000P/KI. At d 

Sociaal

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Cmd, St Louis, ATTN: AMSAV—ZDR Psychologische Zaken , The Hague. Netherlands

2 USA Aviation Sys Test Act.. Edwards AFB, ATTN: SAVTE—T

1 USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss , ATTN: ATSA TEM

I USA Air Mobility Rsch & Dcv Lab, Moffett FId , ATTN: SAVDL—AS

1 USA Aviation Sch, Ret Tng Mgt, Ft Rucker . ATTN: ATST—T—RTM

1 USA Aviation Sch, CO. Ft Rucker , 

ATT N: ATST— D—A

1 HO , USAMC , Alexandria, ATrN: AMXCD—TL

1 HQ, IJSAMC, Alexandria , 

A’fl’N: CDR

1 US Military Academy, West Point, ATTN: Serials Unit

1 US Military Academy, West Point, ATTN: Ofc of Milt Ldrahp

1 US Military Academy, West Point, 

A’flN: MAOR

1 USA Standardization Gp, UK, FPO NY , ATTN: MASE—GC

1 Ofc of Naval Rsch. Arlington, ATTN: Code 452

3 Ofc of Naval Rsch , Arlington, ATTN: Code 458

1 Ofc of Naval Rsch , Arlington, ATTN: Code 450

1 Ofc of Naval Rich, Arlington, ATTN: Code 441

1 Naval Aerospc Med Res Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Acous Sch Div

1 Naval Aerospc Med Ret Lab, Pensacola , ATTN: Code L51

1 Naval Aerospc Med Ret Lab , Pensacola , ATTN: Code L5

I Chief of NavPers , ATTN : Pers’OR I NAVAIRSTA . Norfolk , ATIN: Safety Ctr

1 Nay Oceanographic, DC, ATTN: Code 6251. Charts & Tech

1 Canter of Naval An.I. ATTN: Doe Ctr

1 NavAirSysCom , ATTN: AIR—5313C

1 Nay BuMed, ATTN: 713

1 NavHelicopterSubSgua 2, FPO SF 96601

1 AFHRL 

)FT) William AFB

I AFHRL )TT) Lowry AFB

1 AFHRL (AS) WPAF B, OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brooks AFB

1 AFHAL (DOJN) Lackland AFB

1 HQUSAF (INYSD)

1 HQUSAF (DPXXA)

I AFVTG (RDI Randolph AFB

3 AMAL (HE) WPAFB, OH

2 AF Inst of Tech, WPAFB, OH , ATTN: ENE/SI.

I ATC 

)XPTD) Randolph AFB

1 USAF AeroMed Lib, Brooks AFB 

(SUL—4) , AT

’TN: DOC SEC

I AFOSR (NI.). Arlington

1 AF Log Cmd, McClellan AFB, ATTN: ALC/DPCRB

1 Air Force Academy, CO. ATTN: Dept of Sd Sen

5 NavPers & Div Ctr , San Diego

2 Navy Med Neuropsychiatric Rach Unit, Sen Diego

1 Nay Electronic Lab, San Diego, ATTN: Rev Lab

1 Nay TrngCen, San Diego, 

A’fl’N: Code 9000—Lib

I NavPostGraSch. Monterey. ATTN: Code 55Aa

1 NavPostGraSch, Monterey, AT’I’N: Code 2124

1 NavTrngEquipCtr. Orlando, ATTN: Tech Lib

I US Dept of Labor, DC, ATTN: Manpower Admin

I US Dept of Justice, DC, ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin

1 Nat Bur of Standards , DC, ATTN: Computer Info Section

1 Nat Clearing House for MH—Info , Rockville

I Denver Federal Ctr , Lekewood . ATTN: BLM

12 Defense Documentation Canter

4 Dir Psych. Army Hq, Russell Ofcs, Canberra

1 Scientific Advsr, Mt Bd, Army Hq, Russell Ofcs, Canberra

1 Mil and Air Attache, Austrian Embassy

1 Centre de Recherche Des Facteurs , Humaine 

di Ia Defense

Nationale , Brussels

2 Canadian Joint Staff Washington

I C/Air Staff . Royal Canadian AF , ATTN: Pars Std Anal Br

3 Ch 

~

f , Canadian Oct 

Rtch Staff . ATTN: C/CRDS(W I

4 Brut ish Def Staff . Rr tu;Pu Embassy, Washington — -~~~~~~~~~

—--~~~ 

•