SMITHSONIA N STUDIES IN HISTOR Y AND TECHNOLOG Y / NUMBER 31 

Early Auditory Studies 

ACTIVITIES IN THE PSYCHOLOGY LABORATORIES 

OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES 

Audrey B. Davis and Uta C. Mer^bach 

^mit/isonian Ii;istitution Ti^ss 

CITY OF WASHINGTON 

1975 
ABSTRAC T 

Davis, Audrey B., and Uta C. Merzbach. Early Auditory Studies: Activities in 

the Psychology Laboratories of American Universities. Smithsonian Studies in 

History and Technology, number 31, 39 pages, 36 figures, 1975.—The last quarter 

of the nineteenth century was a formative period for experimental psychology. 

American pioneers in the field joined their Continental colleagues in basing the 

"new" psychology on the methods, apparatus, and experiments of physics and 

physiology. Hermann von Helmholtz, claimed by both fields, was a pilot in their 

new endeavors. 

Auditory studies reflect this general pattern. Specialized equipment used in the 

psychology acoustics laboratory ranged from models of the anatomy of the ear, 

mechanical models to explain the functions of the ear, sound producers, receivers 

and measurers, to analyzers and synthesizers. Discussion of the role of the instruments in posing and answering subject-related questions of the psychologist leads to 

further questions on the development of the intellectual and physical institutions of 

psychological research. 

OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded 

in the Institution's annual report, Smithsonian Tear. SI PRESS NUMBER 5347. COVER DESIGN : Model 

of the human ear by Auzoux (USNMHT 21892.01). 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Davis, Audrey B. 

Early auditory studies. 

(Smithsonian studies in history and technology; no. 31) 

Bibliography: p. 

Includes index. 

Supt. of Docs, no.: SI 1.28:31 

1. Hearing. 2. Psychology, Physiological—History. I. Merzbach, Uta C, 1933- , joint author. 

II. Title. III. Series: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian studies in history and technology, 

no. 31. 

BF251.D38 152.r5'0973 75-619025 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.65 

Stock Numbe r 047-001-00124-9 
Preface 

The following work is based on a paper entitled "Soundings Then and Now: 

Audition and the First Fifty Years of Experimental Psychology in American Laboratories," presented at the annual meeting of the History of Science Society in December 1972. It is an outgrowth of a collecting program in the National Museum of 

History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution, aimed at bringing together a representative selection of laboratory equipment in psychology. Until now emphasis has 

been placed on items used prior to 1930. 

Of the illustrated objects, those in the National Collections were donated by 

Cornell University, Skidmore College, Union College, the University of Maryland, 

and the United States Military Academy. 

We wish to acknowledge the assistance of D. J. Elliott and Anita Kordela in 

the preparation of the manuscript. 

m 
Contents 

Page 

Preface . iii 

Psychophysics, Physiology, and the Rise of Scientific Psychology. . . 1 

Helmholtz's Tonempfindungen . 1 

The Decade 1875-1885 . . . . . . 2 

The Inheritance of Physiology Prior to World War 1. 4 

Theoretical Issues 6 

Physical Models 8 

The Inheritance of Physics Prior to World War I 10 

Experimental Apparatus 10 

Theoretical Questions 11 

Threshold Determination . 12 

Resonance and Clang Analysis 16 

Sound Localization 19 

Tonal Fusion. 19 

Transition to the Post-World War I Period 20 

Max Friedrich Meyer 22 

Carl Emil Seashore . . . 23 

The Background of the Twenties . 27 

Applied Acoustics .. . .2 7 

Applied Physiology .. . . . 28 

Conclusion. . .3 1 

Selected Bibliography . . 33 

Index of Auditory Apparatus 36 

Index of Names .. . .. . 38 
Early Auditory Studies 

ACTIVITIES IN THE PSYCHOLOGY LABORATORIES 

OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES 

Audrey B. Davis and Uta C. Merzbach 

Psychophysics, Physiology, and the Rise of Scientific Psychology 

In 1860, the 59-year old Gustav Theodor Fechner 

published his Elemente der Psychophysik. In 1867, the 

25-year-old William James wrote home from Berlin: 

It seems to me that perhaps the time has come for psychology to begin to be a science—some measurements have 

already been made and more may come of it . . . Helmholtz 

and a man named Wundt at Heidelberg are working at it, and 

I hope I live through this winter to go to them in the summer. 

(Perry, 1935, 2:1) 

James lived, but he did not go to Helmholtz; and as 

time went on he increased his distance from the man 

named Wundt. 

Whether or not they communicated in person, 

whether or not they followed the Germans in their 

thinking, the American pioneer experimental psychologists of James' generation studied Hermann 

Helmholtz (Figure 1) and tended to follow the experimental paths outlined by Wilhelm Wundt or Hermann Ebbinghaus, Carl Stumpf, or G. E. MuUer. 

When we look at work in hearing and acoustics performed in American laboratories of experimental 

psychology before 1930, we find that the majority of 

experiments form part of two traditions that may be 

identified either with Wundt or with Stumpf, and 

that both of these take Helmholtz as their measure. 

Audrey B. Davis and Ula C. Merzbach, Department oj Science and 

Technology, National Museum oj History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560-

Helmholtz's Tonempfindungen 

In Helmholtz's classic Lehre von den Tonempfindungen, 

published in 1863, his aim was to "connect the 

boundaries . . oJ physical and physiological acoustics 

on the one side, and of musical science and esthetics on the 

other" (Helmholtz, 1954:1). The links are tones and 

the sensations of tones. He divided acoustical studies 

into the physiological, the physical, and the psychological parts. The physical deals with the motions of 

elastic bodies; the physiological deals with the ear, 

including the question of how the excitation of the 

auditory nerves gives rise to the sensations of sound; 

and the psychological with the perceptions of sound, 

that is, with " mental images of determinate external 

objects" (Helmholtz, 1954:4). 

Helmholtz's book is divided into three parts: He 

begins with a discussion of the physical and physiological aspects of audition and arrives at his famous 

"resonance theory of hearing" through a physical 

analysis of the nature of partials, in which their 

relation to tonal quality is emphasized. The second 

part is devoted to the study of beats and combination 

tones, which includes Helmholtz's contribution to 

theories of consonance and dissonance; here physiological theory is brought into correspondence with 

the musical rules for the formation of chords. The 

final part deals with music, taking up the question 

of tonality after an introductory discussion of 

1 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 1.—Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894). 

(SI photo T56571) 

musical scales. Trying throughout to interrelate the 

physical, physiological, and psychological aspects, 

he states that the musical consequences " must be to 

the physiologist a verification of the correctness of 

the physical and physiological views advanced" 

(Helmholtz, 1954:5). 

English-speaking students of the subject read 

Helmholtz's revised versions of the book in two 

translations by A. J. Ellis that appeared in 1875 and 

1885 (Helmholtz, 1954). These bound a decade 

worth noting, since it marks the founding of the first 

American laboratories of experimental psychology. 

The Decade 1875-1885 

In 1875, William James, teaching physiology at 

Harvard, added to his course offering a graduate 

course on "Th e Relations between Physiology 

and Psychology" and obtained support for related 

laboratory work. In 1876, the American nation 

celebrated its Centennial with an exposition at 

Philadelphia: The French exhibition featured the 

acoustic apparatus of Rudolph Koenig (Figures 

2-4), of which the jury, in awarding it a gold medal, 

declared, "Ther e is no other [exhibit] in the present 

International Exhibition which surpasses it in scientific 

interest" (Philadelphia, 1880:489). Among the American exhibitors, Alexander Graham Bell astounded 

the multitudes by a demonstration of his newly 

patented telephone. Invention is the mark of this 

decade: Edison's phonograph of 1877 can be followed 

by a yearly listing of audiometers, microphones, 

graphic sound recorders, hearing aids, and the like. 

Meanwhile in 1878, G. Stanley Hall obtained what is 

cited as the first doctorate in psychology at Harvard 

with a thesis on "the muscular perception of space" 

worked out in Bowditch's physiology laboratory 

under William James. In 1879, Wundt's famous 

laboratory of experimental psychology was formally 

opened in Leipzig. Here, as James McKeen Cattell 

noted, "Th e students come from all quarters (. . . 

except from England); there are nearly always 

Americans and Russians, and often Scandinavians, 

Czechs, Greeks and Frenchmen" (Cattell, 1888:39). 

Within a year of its formal founding, Hall went to. 

the Leipzig laboratory to do postgraduate work. 

In 1880, too, Cattell went to Germany and heard 

Hermann Lotze as well as Wundt, to whom he 

returned in 1883, becoming his assistant. Tha t was 

the year Hall founded the laboratory at Johns Hopkins, an event that marks the beginning of a phenomenal growth. By 1888 there were five formal psychology laboratories in the United States: at Harvard, 

at The Johns Hopkins University, and at the imiversities of Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Wisconsin. 

After another five years, there were twenty, and by 

the turn of the century this number had doubled. 

The American Journal of Pyschology appeared in 1887, 

only four years after the start of Wundt's Philosophische Studien. 
NUMBER 3 1 

FIGURE 2.—R. Koenig's acoustic apparatus at the International "Centennial" Exhibition in 

Philadelphia in 1876. Note the large forks in the case on the left, the tonometer and the siren 

"telephone" in the center case. (SI photo 74-3810-10) 

lT?Ta 

FIGURE 3.—Tonometer exhibited by R. Koenig in 1876. This 

set containing over 650 forks was purchased for the United 

States Military Academy at West Point after the Centennial 

Exhibition. (SI photo T70524; USNMHT 217544) 

FIGURE 4.—"Telephone" siren exhibited by R. 

1876. (SI photo 74-3804-17) 

Koenig 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

The Inheritance of Physiology Prior to World War I 

American laboratories of psychology showed the 

influence of the German laboratories where most of 

their directors had been trained. Yet Edward B. 

Titchener and other experimental psychologists reminded the young instructor in psychology of the 

essential characteristic of the American as contrasted 

with the German laboratory. The latter was a research 

laboratory. Introductory laboratory courses at best exposed the student to experimentation by a series of 

demonstration lectures or exercises; further training 

consisted of serving as "experimental object" for a 

senior person, the experiment depending on the research being conducted at the time. This approach 

furthered research, but did not necessarily provide the 

student with an understanding of experimental techniques. The function of the New World laboratory was 

to meet both needs, that of the researcher and that of 

the student. The sophomore student—at Cornell, 

at least—took a general introductory course of 

lectures and demonstrations. This prepared him for 

the laboratory drill-course, with only interspersed 

lectures in his junior year. After a systematic course 

in his senior year, the graduate student was prepared 

to enter into research work (Figure 5). 

In the minds of the American laboratory psychologists, the distinction between the American and the 

European approach was to be an important one; selfconsciously, they were to repeat it again and again. 

Thus we find Carl Emil Seashore reiterated the distinction in his 1930 autobiography when paraphrasing 

Titchener. As examples he cited the more factually 

oriented laboratory course patterned after the first 

American course of Sanford, but especially the 

training course furthered by Edward Scripture, 

Titchener and, later, himself. Here, according to 

Seashore and like-minded American psychologists, 

lay the real advantage that the American student 

possessed over his European counterpart, who had 

FIGURE 5.—Auditory apparatus in the psychological laboratory at Cornell University, ca. 1900. 

(SI photo 74-7027) 
NUMBER 3 1 

obtained his basic training in some science other than 

psychology. Unlike even Sanford's course, the drillcourses were 

not primarily informative but intensive in fundamental drill 

exercises. Titchener's four-volume Experimental Piychology is 

the highest embodiment of that principle. It is to the discredit 

of American psychology that these monumental exercises of 

Titchener were driven into innocuous desuetude by the paper 

and pencil ravages and extreme forms of objective psychology. 

In the present status of psychology this type of laboratory 

training has been crowded to the wall. Failure to maintain the 

requirement is accountable for much of the slush and trash in 

the output from American psychologists of today (Seashore, 

1930:262). 

During the first decade of American laboratory 

effort in psychology, audition was not one of the primary research frontiers. The physiological nature of 

hearing, as one of the five senses, was discussed in 

terms of the dominant theory, which was that of 

Helmholtz. These discussions were of interest, because a number of problems had grown out of increasing familiarity with the detailed structures of 

the ear, once microscopic evaluation of the inner ear 

structure—so essential to its understanding—had become technologically feasible after 1830. 

American students could learn the essentials of the 

anatomy and physiology of the ear from George T. 

Ladd's textbook of experimental psychology published in 1887. In 1881, Ladd had gone from Bowdoin 

to Yale, where he did laboratory work in physiologi-

-~^ 

FIGURE 6.—Model by Auzoux of the human ear: middle ear 

bones and inner ear parts are magnified seven times. (SI photo 

73-0410; USNMHT 21892.01) 

cal psychology that resulted in the founding by 

1892 of the Yale Psychological Laboratory, directed 

by Scripture. Ladd's book, the first American textbook in physiological psychology, brought together 

the work of a number of physiologists, most of 

them German and not all in agreement. These inFIGURE 7.—Auzoux model parts: middle ear bones and tympanic membrane. (SI photo 73-0408; 

USNMHT 21892.01) 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

eluded Victor Hensen, Jakob Henle, Nicolaus Riidinger, Carl Stumpf, Ernst Mach, W^illiam Preyer, 

W. Kiihne, Max Schultze, and the Swede, Gustav 

Retzius. While Ladd accepted the idea that the study 

of sound for psychologists is a "wholly subjective 

affair" (Ladd, 1887:315), he summed up in text and 

illustration by sectional drawings the three major 

parts of the ear—external, middle, and inner. 

The primary function of the external ear or external auditory meatus is protecting the tympanic 

membrane (Figure 6). The middle ear or tympanum 

is an irregular cuboidal chamber situated in the temporal bone and containing three small bones, which 

transmit sound vibrations to the inner ear (Figure 7). 

These bones (ossicles), called the malleus (hammer), 

incus (anvil), and stapes (stirrup), translate the sound 

waves having greater amplitude but a lesser degree of 

intensity into a motion that has a smaller amplitude 

and greater intensity. This rectified motion passes 

through the oval window into the inner ear or labyrinth composed of the vestibule, semicircular canals, 

and the cochlea (Figure 8). "It is in the labyrinth 

that the acoustic waves transmitted by the tympanum 

are analyzed and changed from a physical molecular 

process to a nerve-commotion, by the special end 

FIGURE 8.—Auzoux model parts: cochlea and semicircular 

canals. (SI photo 73-0409; USNMHT 21892.01) 

apparatus of hearing" (Ladd, 1887:189). The 

cochlea, the most complex part of the labyrinth, is 

about one-fourth inch long and coiled like a snail's 

shell. Ladd remained skeptical about the function of 

the intricate parts of the cochlea. For him the manner 

"in which the auditory hairs, the stone and cells of 

the vestibule and ampullae, and the rods of Corti, the 

fibres of the basilar membrane, and the conical haircells of Deiters, in the cochlea, actually discharge the 

required functions''was not known. (Ladd, 1887:195). 

Theoretical Issues 

Traditionally the functions of the ear have not 

been understood as well as those of the eye. For 

example, in 1805 the association between studies of 

sense organs and an understanding of the physical 

principles underlying their functions was noted with 

expectation for a new understanding of the ear's 

functions. Anthony Carlisle (1805:198) cited the 

value of the anatomy of the eye to the advancement 

of optics and speculated that the same benefit might 

accrue to acoustics from a study of the ear. Helmholtz, 

himself, mirrored this approach, for his major studies 

on vision preceded those on audition. Psychologists 

depending on the research pattern of the anatomists 

and physiologists, were more certain of the functions 

of the eye in vision than of the ear in hearing. 

Helmholtz extended and united several major 

research results, relating them to the ear. The fundamental studies he brought together included Ohm's 

law of auditory analysis, Miiller's doctrine of specific 

energies of nerves and the discovery of the arches 

within the inner ear by Corti (Wever, 1970:25-26). 

According to Ohm, a listener has the abihty to 

extract and hear the simple harmonic components 

of a complex periodic sound stimulus. This statement 

is summed up by Ohm's law. Fourier analysis 

expresses its mathematical equivalent, and a system 

of resonators its physical equivalent. Resonance, the 

vibration of materials, such as piano strings and 

tuning forks in response to sound waves, was a 

prominent physical characteristic crucial to all 

explanations of sound transmission. Consequently, 

analogies between the vibration of the tuning fork, 

the instrument that provided the purest tones, and 

the vibration of structures within the ear stimulated 

an explanation underlying the function of the ear in 

transmitting sound waves to the brain (Bekesy and 

Rosenblith, 1951:1094). Indeed Ohm's law was the 
NUMBER 3 1 

raison d'etre of resonance theories, encouraging 

Helmholtz and others to seek resonating bodies 

within the complex structures of the inner ear 

(Boring, 1926:177). 

Helmholtz attributed the ability to disdnguish 

between qualitative sensations of pitch and tone to 

the presumed physical distinction between the endpoints of the nerve fibers. Johannes Miiller's theory of 

the specific energies of the nerves had laid the difference in perception of the five basic senses at the door 

of the various nervous arrangements which received 

them, rather than the actions which excited them. For 

Miiller, therefore, all forms of stimuladon of the 

optic nerve produced some form of light and likewise 

all stimulation of the auditory nerve produced the 

sensation of sound (Helmholtz, 1954:148-149). 

According to Helmholtz, analysis of sound occurs 

within the inner ear. At the time Helmholtz was 

developing the resonance theory of hearing and making 

it known, beginning with a public lecture in 1857 and 

then, in his book published six years later (Helmholtz, 1863), some of the intricate structures of the 

cochlea were being unveiled (Figure 9). These 

studies, though incomplete, exposed enough to convince Helmholtz that proper structures exist to let 

individual parts of the ear vibrate independently in 

response to each intensity and tone perceived by the 

ear. The vibrating structures within the cochlea had 

been identified with the strings of a piano or harp 

since the eighteenth century. Hence the theory became the "har p or piano theory" of hearing. Still, 

Hensen, who in 1863 showed that the basilar membrane is graded to pitch by expanding in size from 

beginning to end of the cochlea duct, remained 

skeptical and allowed that the ear might function 

altogether independently of this theory (Ladd, 1887: 

196). Hensen's careful measurements of cochlear 

structures forced Helmholtz to modify his theory in 

later editions of his treatise (Wever, 1970:32). 

Although Helmholtz did not observe precisely 

which parts of the ear vibrate sympathetically with 

individual tones, the elaborate structures of the 

cochlea, and specifically, Corti's arches appeared 

most suited for containing independently vibrating 

elements (Helmholtz, 1954:145). These are located 

on the surface of the basilar membrane and were discovered by the Marquis Alfonso Corti in 1851 in 

Kolliker's physiology laboratory. The basilar membrane divides the cochlea into two elongated cavities: 

the scala vestibuli and scala tympani. Helmholtz's description of the ear depended on Kolliker's claim for 

Fee 

FIGURE 9.—Diagram of section of inner ear showing cochlea. 

(From Helmholtz, Tonempfindungen, 1870:211; SI photo T67012) 

" having found the terminations of the auditory nerves 

everywhere connected with a peculiar auxiliary apparatus, partly elastic, partly firm, which may be 

put in sympathetic vibration under the influence of 

external vibration and will then probably agitate and 

excite the mass of nerves" (Helmholtz, 1954:142). 

He accounted for the degree of tone received by a one 

to one ratio between the incoming amount of tone 

and the response of the nerve. 

A vibrating tuning fork displayed several responses 

to sound that specifically related to the ear. One 

was its ability to prolong its vibrations a long while 

after being set into motion through sympathetic 

vibration (Helmholtz, 1954:142); another was the 

change in its vibration frequency from that of the 

sounding body to that of the natural vibration of 

the fork after the original sound had ceased. No 

part of the ear was believed to vibrate as long as a 

tuning fork. The upper limit of sustained vibration 

within the ear was demonstrated by the duration 

of musical intervals recognizable by the ear (Helmholtz, 1954:143). 
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

This action of the nerve fiber in response to the 

degree of stimulation it receives should have been 

ruled out by the discovery of the "all or none" principle of nerve reaction in 1902. In that year, Gotch 

(Wever, 1970:115) observed that a motor nerve 

fiber, no matter to what degree it is stimulated, 

reacted fully, provided a certain basic or threshold 

degree of stimulation was present. As we shall see, 

this principle was first applied to the theory of hearing 

by psychologists around 1922 (Boring, 1926:158), 

and at that time led to one of the cardinal criticisms 

of the Helmholtz resonance theory, although other 

problems with the i-esonance theory had become 

apparent earlier. 

To justify these main theories, experimental 

psychologists availed themselves of one of the standard 

accoutrements of the physiological and anatomy 

laboratory: models. 

Physical Models 

Caspar Wistar in 1790 solved the problem of demonstration to a large class at the University of Pennsylvania by using enlarged models of body parts. He 

began with an enlarged wax model of the bones 

of the ear (Haviland and Parish, 1970:67). More 

generally, enlarged models of the car were available 

for teaching the anatomy and relationship of its 

parts from the first half of the nineteenth century. 

Ear models manufactured in France by Louis Thomas 

Jerome Auzoux were the finest. This anatomical 

model maker, following in the footsteps of a long 

tradition of model makers that include Guilio Zumbo, 

Guillaume Denoues, Jose de Flores, and Felice 

Fontana (Ratier, 1845) perfected the detailed life 

size model of the human body, as well as enlarged 

models of selected organs. In the course of a life 

devoted to this project, conceived while he was a 

medical student, Auzoux set out to provide accurate 

detailed models to be used in place of the actual 

organs. The latter were diflicult to obtain and often 

repulsive to students. He developed models he 

termed clastique (clastic) from the Greek term 

Klao meaning "t o break." This description was 

apropos as the models were composed of molded 

pieces of anatomically distinct parts, which could 

be easily separated and recombined. After perfecting 

a mannikin of the body he produced greatly enlarged 

models of the ear, eye, heart, brain, and other organs 

difficult to study and preserve (Ratier, 1845:11). 

Auzoux seems to have first introduced an enlarged 

model of the ear in 1839. In April of 1844, a report 

of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Paris 

lists the ear as new (Blandin, 1843-1844:3). A t 

the same time George Dexter of Albany, New York, 

published a catalogue of anatomical models, which 

he offered to import and sell. Among the items he 

advertized was an ear model containing the inner, 

middle, and outer parts. It was offered in two sizes: 

one in which the temporal bone measured 0.6 m 

(2 ft) in width sold for $35, and a smaller model 

measuring 0.3 m (1 ft) across the temporal bone sold 

for $25 (Dexter, 1844:66). Perhaps the greatest 

recommendation for these models came from Rudolph 

Koenig, who listed them for sale in his earliest catalogue 

along with his very carefully made acoustical equipment. These models ranged in size from 30 to 60 cm 

(Koenig, 1865:52). 

From their inception, early American psychology 

laboratories were equipped with these gigantic French 

ear models (Figure 10). Measuring up to ten times 

life size, they formed a portion of model collections 

that included the other sense organs, brains, and 

various additional parts of human and animal bodies 

(Harvard, 1893; Baltimore, 1888). Auzoux made 

most of these in his firm, which flourished throughout 

the nineteenth century. By mid-century, over fifty 

craftsmen and laborers were employed in its factory 

FIGURE 10.—Auzoux model showing temporal bone surrounding 

car structure. (SI photo 73-0409; USNMHT 21892.01) 
NUMBER 3 1 

located near Paris (Ratier, 1845:22). In his one volume 

abridged edition of psychology for beginning students, 

William James singled out the largest Auzoux ear 

model for use in the laboratory (James, 1892:47). 

Also important to the study of sensory psychology 

was a second major type of model, a mechanical 

analogue or "mechalogue" constructed to illustrate 

the mechanical principles believed to underlie the 

function of the specific parts of the ear. Perhaps the 

first of these was the Helmholtz wood and leather 

model of the inner ear bones and membranes. 

Helmholtz's construction provided a superb example 

of a functional model displaying the motion of the 

three bones of the ear. In magnifying the movement 

of these tiny bones and the connecting membranes, 

Helmholtz offered insight into his theory of the 

motion of the ossicles. Inspired by the challenge left 

by Bernard Riemann and wanting to complete in 

greater detail a section treated cursorily in his 

Tonempfindungen, Helmholtz had studied ear bones 

before stating his theory (Helmholtz, 1868:1, 2). 

To prove and to teach his theory, he constructed a 

middle ear bone model measuring 80 by 120 mm, 

copies of which were made available through his 

assistant, Sittel in the Heidelberg physiological 

institute laboratory (Helmholtz, 1868:45). By flexing 

the membrane covering the tube leading to the ear 

drum substitute, one can readily observe that the 

FIGURE 11.—Helmholtz model of middle ear bones and tympanic membrane made by R. Jung of Heidelberg. View of 

membrane. (SI photo 73-0411; USNMHT 300427.161) 

three bones are joined as a single lever forcing inward 

the membrane representing the oval window to 

which the stirrup bone is attached. The lever attached 

to the stirrup bone magnifies its motion. On a larger 

scale, these models were manufactured by R. Jung 

of Heidelberg (Figures 11, 12). His catalogue of 

August 1890 advertizes one for 42 marks (Jung, 

1890:56). By 1899 the Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company (1899:117) sold an improved model 

described as increasing "the action of the air" by 

the installation of an india-rubber membrane over 

the mouth of the tube. On striking the membrane 

the air moves the leather diaphragm and the bones 

are moved. 

Model designing ingenuity was also brought to 

bear on mechanical models intended by emphasis of 

selected and enlarged parts to elucidate and simplify 

the complex functions of the cochlea within the inner 

ear. Anatomical differences in various parts of the 

cochlea played an important role in support given 

the resonance theory. When observation of the ear 

failed to confirm the theory sufficiently, as when 

James observed in 1892 that "the keyboard of the 

cochlea does not seem extensive enough for the 

number of distinct resonances required" (James, 

FIGURE 12.—Helmholtz model of inner ear bones and tympanic membrane made by R. Jung of Heidelberg. View of 

bones with lever attached. (SI photo 73-0412; USNMHT 

300427.161) 
10 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

1892:57), " mechalogues" of the cochlea were proposed in an attempt to by-pass and clarify the difficulties arising from knowledge of the ear's complex 

anatomy. 

Finally, at the beginning of the century, psychologists wishing to broaden their knowledge of the ear 

could turn to the models prepared for the otology 

student. This type of model displayed pathological 

conditions of the ear drum. One of these models was 

constructed by F. Davidson of London in 1903. 

Essentially it was a model made of pliable material 

formed in the shape of the outer ear with auditory 

canal and ear drum. To learn the condition of the 

ear drum, the student was expected to peer into it 

with an otoscope (a magnifying instrument for viewing 

the ear) as he would into the ear of a patient. A variety 

of ear drum replicas made to resemble various diseases 

were mounted on discs that could be inserted into 

the top of the auditory tube and viewed through the 

otoscope (Ball, 1903:1584). 

As time passed, anatomical models became secondary to apparatus associated with the laboratory of 

the physicist. In part, this reflects a drawing away 

of many American psychologists from physiology. The 

first generation of American psychologists had been 

trained in the laboratory of the anatomist and 

physiologist. Once established in their own laboratories they emphasized their independence. In part. 

and notably in the case of audition, this had to do 

with the state of knowledge. 

At the turn of the century, it was obvious to authors 

of experimental psychology textbooks that the" 

physiology of hearing had yet to make its mark. Some, 

as Lightner Witmer of the University of Pennsylvania, looked upon the unevenness of physics and 

physiology in psychology as the outcome of the nature 

of the senses. He regarded auditory perception as being 

better analyzed and explained if studied in relation 

to the physical stimuli that brought them about 

(Witmer, 1902:108). He gave up further effort to 

link physiological events with tone sensations. Others, 

such as Seashore or Kline, simply felt that physiology 

had no business in the experimental psychology 

laboratory: "Th e anatomy and physiology of man 

as related to psychology receive no formal consideration here (in the experimental course). The student 

is referred to standard works on physiological psychology for such study" (Kline, 1927:3). There were 

exceptions to this attitude, especially among those, 

like Shepard Ivory Franz or Karl S. Lashley, who 

devoted themselves to clinical psychology, or those 

like Walter S. Hunter, who turned to comparative 

psychology. However, in the laboratory of experimental psychology, there was to be more receptivitity 

for the experiments and the tools of the physicist than 

the physiologist. 

The Inheritance of Physics Prior to World War I 

The early psychology laboratories had been called 

laboratories of "psychophysics." Even William James 

used this term for his 1880s laboratory, though in 

time he sharpened his criticism of the Leipzig tradition, noting in 1890: 

The simple and open method of attack having done what it 

can, the method of patience, starving out, and harassing to 

death is tried; the Mind niust submit to a regular siege, in 

which minute advantages gained night and day by the forces 

that hem her in must sum themselves up at last into her overthrow. Ther e is little of the grand style about these new prism, 

pendulum, and chronograph-philosophers. They mean business, not chivalry (James, 1950, 1:192-193). 

Experimental Apparatus 

It is easy to look at auditory apparatus in the 

American laboratories as a subset of the acoustic 

apparatus of the physicist. The most widely used 

instrument was the tuning fork, which reigned 

supreme in most areas of auditory experimentation: 

There were giant forks for low threshold determinations, and tiny ones for measuring the upper limit of 

hearing. There were sets of forks for reproducing certain chords and there were sets giving a fundamental 

with harmonics or other overtones. There were sets 

for pitch discrimination and sets for reproducing 

vowel sounds. There were sets reproducing the 

tempered scale and sets reproducing the scale "of the 

physicist"—the even scale. Hugo Muensterberg in 

his 1893 inventory of apparatus at Harvard listed 

three different auditory sets in addition to a giant 

fork: one for harmonics, one for beats, and one for 

vowel sounds; besides these, there were general purpose forks for recording vibrations and marking time. 

In general, auditory apparatus can be divided into 

easily defined categories: sound generators, amplifiers, analyzers, transmitters, recorders and reproducers, measurers, and receivers (Figure 13). 
NUMBER 3 1 11 

FIGURE 13.—Ensemble of auditory apparatus at the Psychology Laboratory at Clark University 

ca. 1893. (SI photo TPY 74-05-25) 

The holdings of psychology laboratories reflect 

their specific orientation. There was a host of traditional and new soui.d generators: stretched strings 

and organ pipes, sirens and tuning forks, bells, 

whistles, and a variety of musical instruments. Sound 

amplifiers were more restricted; there were basic 

funnel-horns, resonator boxes and resonators— 

indicators of dependence on resonance-theories. 

Sound analyzers were limited to devices such as 

Helmholtz's "clang-analyser/synthesizer"; there was 

no sign of the analogue devices intriguing to mathematicians and physicists concerned with Fourier 

analysis. Recorders included tuning forks, with 

attachments for graphic recording or manometric 

flame combinations, such as the apparatus made 

famous by Koenig. Sound reproducers were notably 

scarce in the early laboratories, although there were 

specialized devices, such as the Helmholtz vowel 

apparatus. The phonograph made a remarkably late 

appearance in the laboratory of the psychologist. 

Of sound measurers there were a number; these were 

mostly sound generators to which appropriate scales 

had been attached. Some notable ones, in the area of 

intensity measurements, were of relatively recent 

origin. Finally, among sound receivers, the human ear 

stood out in solitary splendor. Eventually, telephone 

receivers became more common as accessories to 

complex pieces of laboratory apparatus. However, 

it was mainly on a theoretical basis that the telephone 

served as a guide to the analysis and specification of 

the functions of the ear. Thus, among the topics that 

made up the laboratory drill-course, the " telephone 

theory of hearing" so occupied the attention of 

experimentalists that Titchener included it in examination questions for his course. 

Theoretical Questions 

The telephone theory offered the first important 

criticism of Helmholtz's theory of resonance. It was 

announced by the English physicist, William Rutherford, in 1886 at an evening lecture of the British 

Association for the Advancement of Science held in 

Birmingham. Few physiologists or physicists adopted 

the theory immediately, so that Rutherford published 

another version of it in 1898 with more success 

(Wever, 1970:77). Drawing on the anatomical conclusions of Retzius he determined that the basilar 

membrane in the cochlea was merely a supporting 

572-511 O - 75 
12 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

structure for the organ of Corti rather than a source 

or support of resonating fibers (Rutherford, 1898). 

Rutherford's theory, that individual fibers do not 

possess unique resonating qualities, was based on his 

own suggestive experiments and on Julius Bernstein's 

discovery in 1867 of the incredible speed of nerve 

conduction. Rutherford only became aware of 

Bernstein's impressive evidence after he had published 

his 1887 paper. As Helmholtz's assistant, Bernstein 

had used a differential rheotome to observe that the 

electrical charge which accompanies the transmission 

of a nerve impulse lasts only 1/1400 of a second. 

(0.0007 sec). Therefore 1400 perfectly discrete impulses 

can be transmitted in each second over a single 

nerve fiber, in this case the sciatic nerve of a frog. 

Rutherford (1887:355) concluded that the number of 

impulses was underestimated though considerably 

greater than those he managed to detect with his 

crude measuring equipment. 

Rutherford (1887:5) next suggested that a single 

hair cell, nerve fiber, and sensory cell are capable 

of resonating, and therefore transmitting, the whole 

spectrum of tones. Like the telephone, cochlea structures vibrate to all frequencies and transmit all 

sounds, transforming them into nerve vibrations. 

Comparable to sound vibrations being transformed 

into electrical vibrations in the telephone, the nerve 

vibrations are then carried to the brain for analysis. 

Rutherford (1898:358) also recognized new compelling evidence for the resonance theory provided 

by W. von Bezold, and S. Moos and H. Steinbrugge 

who investigated deaf individuals. -They found that 

specific tone deafness could be correlated with 

specific areas of degeneration in the cochlea. Subsequently, debate centered on the resonance and 

telephone theories, often treating them as rival and 

exclusive explanations of hearing. 

THRESHOLD DETERMINATION 

Another auditory topic taken up in the psychology 

laboratories was the traditional threshold determination. The five most frequently measured thresholds 

involved the upper and lower frequency or "hearing 

of highest and lowest tone," the lowest intensity, 

and the least noticeable differences in pitch and 

intensity. Frequency threshold studies initially came 

from the domain of physical acoustics; intensity 

studies were of particular interest to clinicians; 

"least noticeable differences" appeared to be the 

special province of the psychophysicists. A favorite 

of early psychophysicists—as well as otologists— 

these experiments have remained a standard topic 

in the basic drill course (Woodworth, 1972). 

The most popular device for testing the lower 

tone limit was a giant tuning fork (Figure 5). One 

made by Koenig ranged from 16 to 24 cycles; to 

obtain this variation sliding weights were attached 

to the prongs. The fork was sounded by striking it 

with a hard-rubber mallet, or, lacking that, with the 

fist—preferably gloved. Physicists of the eighteenth 

and early nineteenth centuries had conducted 

such tests using organ pipes or stretched strings. 

Following Felix Savart, the spoked wheel came into 

vogue for these tests in the 1830s and 1840s (Figure 

14). Except for some experimentation with harmonium reeds (Preyer, 1876), the major instrument 

used for testing the least audible tone after 1870 

was the tuning fork. In the late 1880s, Appunn brought 

forth his lamella, a steel blade ranging from 4 to 

24 cycles, which was attached to a table by a clamp 

with fiber jaws; this was to be the only noticeable 

competitor to giant forks in most psychology laboratories up to the 1920s. 

As in the instance of the lowest tone, the first major 

tests of the highest audible tone were conducted using 

organ pipes and spoked wheels. The pipes proved 

quite inadequate, a fact not surprising if it is recalled 

that one with a mere 7.5-cm (3-in) diameter produces 2048 cycles. The spoked wheel, and, following 

it, a variety of sirens (Figure 4), were more adequate; 

Savart in 1830 had obtained the classic result of 

24,000 vibrations per second as the upper threshold, 

simply by finding a limit when his 720-tooth wheel 

ran at 33 revolutions per second. Alternately, Savart 

had used a set of short cylinders, a method that later 

found favor through the set produced by Koenig. 

Thus the Harvard 1893 inventory lists the standard 

Koenig set of 22 cylinders designed to produce tones 

from 4096 to 32,768 cycles (Figure 36). These were 

made by tuning the lower cylinders through difference tones, then computing the requisite length of 

the higher ones. In the late 1890s Schwendt observed 

that the cylinders above the 16,000 cycle range were 

somewhat too long; Koenig showed how the error 

could be compensated for by recomputing. 

Forks for testing the upper frequency threshold 

first came to attention in the experiments conducted 

by C. Desprez in the 1840s. He claimed a limit of 

36,850 cycles. His forks were made by Marloye, the 

predecessor of Koenig; Koenig's later forks were con-
NUMBER 3 1 13 

FIGURE 14 -Sa\'art wheel made by Rudolph Koenig of Paris. 

(SI photo T70277 ; USNMH T 277678) 

sidered equally reliable. His best set of 18 forks, seUing 

for 900 francs in 1889, ranged from 4096 to 21,845.3 

vibrations. Koenig stopped at that limit because he 

did not want to be reproached for "entering into the 

domain of fantasy" (Koenig, 1889:23). He found 

that most ears were not sensitive to the vibrations of 

the highest cylinders of the set and that in the case of 

elderly people (himself) the upper limit seems to 

drop to about 16,389 vibrations. 

Until the 1890s, high forks made by Appunn were 

widely acclaimed and were acquired by several psychology laboratories. Preyer may have boosted these 

forks to fame in the well-known study (Preyer, 1876) 

in which he obtained an upper limit of 40,960 vibrations; the result was cited by Helmholtz (1954) without criticism. However in the 1890s, Melde, Stumpf 

and Meyer conducted tests that showed the Appunn 

forks—as well as Appunn pipes—to be wrongly calibrated. Following a flurry of discussions in the 

Annalen der Physik these forks gave way to the Galton 

whistle after the turn of the century. 

Francis Galton presented his whistle in London in 

1876. In its original form it consisted of a small tin 

"organ-pipe" of variable length; a micrometer screw 

permitted adjustment of the length of the air column 

in the pipe. Well known are the stories of Galton 

having built one of these pipes into his walking cane 

so that he could observe discreetly the auditory limit 

of animals in zoos and on the street. 

Like other instruments of Galton's, his whistle was 

sold in England by the Cambridge Scientific Company. Their description (1899:110) of the whistle in 

1899 is of interest: 

[It is] of very small bor e with an arrangemen t for varying its 

length by an adjustable plug. It is sounded by squeezing air 

out of a small india-iubbe r bag. Th e whistle always makes two 

sounds at the same time, the high musical note best desciibed 

as a very shrill squeak and the noise mad e by the air leaving 

the mouth of the whistle. T o apply the test the whistle is 

sounded an d the length of its pipe shortened, until a point is 

reached when the squeak becomes inaudible. 

An appropriate scale allowed the experimenter to 

read off the length of the whistle in millimeters. 

This type of whistle was also obtainable from 

Koenig in France, Hawksley in England, and 

Edelmann in Germany (Figure 15); yet, in 1898 

Sanford cautioned psychologists and their students 

that unless extreme care is taken the instrument does 
14 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 15.—Galton whistle made by Max Edelmann of 

Munich. (SI photo 74-7138; USNMHT 300427.196) 

little but confirm that some hear tones that others 

do not. Harsh criticism of an apparently popular 

device that had been in use for a generation was 

prompted by contemporary experiments. Sanford 

was reacting to the varying results obtained by 

psychologists using the Galton whistle in the 1890s. 

In 1894, Scripture and Smith at Yale recorded 

frequencies to 53,000 cycles; during the same year 

Zwaardemaker in Holland reached a high of 20,480. 

In 1897, in Berlin, Stumpf and Meyer stopped at 

20,000, while the otologist Bezold obtained values of 

over 55,000. Scripture and Smith had used a whistle 

obtained from Koenig; Stumpf and Meyer criticized 

them for applying an invalid method in calibrating 

their whistle. Stumpf and Meyer found it necessary to 

explain that their value of 20,000 cycles reflected the 

physical limitations of the experiment rather than the 

physiological limits of the ear; Stumpf, Meyer, and 

Bezold had used a whistle produced by Edelmann 

(Titchener, 1905b:44-45). 

The problem that was to plague the users and 

manufacturers of the Galton whistle for two more 

decades was the same that had been at the root 

of previous controversies over Koenig's cylinders and 

Appunn's forks: A common dilliculty was how to 

tune objects to frequencies that exceed the limits of 

hearing. The situation was to be substantially improved with techniques made possible after the development of electronic apparatus. 

Experiments dealing with intensity thresholds 

traditionally had been conducted either by varying 

the distance of the subject from a sound source of 

fixed intensity or by varying the intensity of the 

sound itself. Accordingly, all instruments for measuring 

intensity, called acoumeters, fell into two basic 

classes: those emitting sounds of fixed or of variable 

intensity. 

For testing the lower intensity threshold, the distance variation method was in vogue throughout 

most of the nineteenth century. Even Titchener used 

the traditional pocket watch test in his course, though 

supplementing it with an experiment utilizing the 

new acoumeters developed in the 1890s (Figure 16). 

These instruments all operated on the same basic 

principle. An object is dropped at a specified height 

at a given distance from the observer. The intensity 

of the noise produced when the object made contact 

with the receiving surface was usually measured as 

the product of the weight of the falling object multiplied by the height of fall. Depending upon the 

sophistication of the experimenters, attention was 

paid to other factors, such as the materials composing 

the object, and the receiving surface. A favorite 

acoumeter in American psychology laboratories was 

that described by Lehmann (in Hansen ^nd Lehmann, 

1895). It consisted of a three-legged platform, approximately 15 to 20 centimeters (6 to 8 in) long and 

adjustable in height by three set screws. At one end 

of the platform was a small trough. At the center of 

the platform, an adjustable vertical millimeter screw 

carried a pair of forceps. The object to be dropped 

was attached to the forceps, which were positioned so 

that the object fell into the trough when the forceps 

were opened. The platform was originally made of 

wood, later of metal. The trough was usually padded, 

and a variety of objects was dropped, the standard 

items being small pieces of copper, glass, and cardboard. 

FIGURE 16.—Lehmann acoumeter made by C. H. Stocking of 

Chicago. (SI photo 74-8027; USNMHT 311423.05) ^ 
NUMBER 3 1 15 

Following the example set at Leipzig, pitch discrimination experiments were initially conducted 

with tuning forks and harmonicas or often reed 

instruments. Sets of weighted forks were soon preferred, though an organ-pipe based device of Galton's 

found some use in the 1890s, and the more expensive 

Stern variator gained favor among psychologists 

and physicists (Figure 17). Its usefulness depended 

on a well-regulated air supply. One of the few significant contributions to apparatus made by an American 

laboratory psychologist, Guy M. Whipple of Cornell, 

was a gasometer that furnished a regulated air supply. 

Loudness discrimination studies were usually conducted with a sound pendulum of the type developed 

at Leipzig (Figure 18). Auditory work at Leipzig 

concentrated heavily on psychophysical measurements, with prime emphasis on testing the WeberFechner law. According to Weber, the least noticeable 

difference in sensation is proportional to the ratio 

of the change in stimulus to the stimulus (Se=kSe/St). 

Fechner modified this statement to say that sensation 

is proportional to the logarithm of the stimulus 

(Se=clog St). In the 1880s these relationships were 

tested for auditory sensations at Leipzig, with less 

than conclusive results. The apparatus consisted 

FIGURE 17.—Stern variator, designed to produce tones ranging 

over 200 vs, made by Max Kohl A. G. of Chemnitz. (SI 

72-7048; USNMHT 300427.116) 

FIGURE 18.—Sound pendulum, designed to measure the 

intensity of the sound produced as a function of the angular 

distzince transversed by the hard-rubber ball. (SI photo 

72-7051; USNMHT 300427.009) 
16 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

largely of devices that allowed the dropping of an 

object with specified shape and mass down a known 

height; the problem was to determine whether the 

intensity of the sound was in direct proportion to the 

weight and height of the object dropped. Other 

experiments included study of the least noticeable 

difference in pitch: apparatus consisted of tuning 

forks, harmonicas, or other reed instruments. A 

different class of studies dealt with auditory memory 

and fatigue, with special attention devoted to the 

effect of rhythmic combinations. 

RESONANCE AND CLANG ANALYSIS 

After these psychophysical experiments a group 

of essentially " Helmholtzian" experiments followed. 

These included the analysis of clangs (the study of 

overtones) frequently conducted with the monochord; 

determinations of combination tones carried out 

with a set of interference tubes, a harmonium or an 

Appunn tonometer (Figure 19); studies of beat 

phenomena carried out with tuning forks and resonators; studies of pitch and clang-tint (Klangfarbe) using 

musical instruments, interference tubes, or piston 

whistles. Two related devices closely associated with 

the names of Helmholtz and Koenig are the resonator 

and the clang-synthesizer. 

Resonators were a "must " on most inventory lists. 

A resonator is a hollow device, with an opening at 

one end, funnel-shaped at the other (Figure 20). It 

is "tuned" to a specific frequency so that as the surrounding air is set into vibration at that frequency, 

the resonator vibrates sympathetically. It reinforces 

the sound to which it is tuned. 

By the end of the nineteenth century, three basic 

forms of resonators were in use: spherical "Helmholtz" resonators; cylindrical "Koenig" resonators; 

and, less frequently, conical "Appunn " resonators. 

Although Helmholtz (1954:372) had begun his 

investigations with glass resonators—"at first I emFIGURE 19.—Chord tonometer made by Appunn. (SI photo 72-7058; USNMHT 300427.112) 
NUMBER 3 1 17 

FIGURE 20.—Glass resonator, maximum diameter 79 mm. 

(From Helmholtz, Tonempfindungen, 1870:73; SI photo T67018) 

ployed any spherical glass vessels that came to hand, 

as the receivers of retorts"—most resonators were of 

brass. They could be " tuned" on the basis of Helmholtz's formula for the frequency as a function of the 

area of the orifice and the volume of the interior. 

Helmholtz noted the importance of these dimensions 

in another context: Narrower openings produce 

greater reinforcement, calling for closer agreement 

between the tone to be heard and the tone of the 

resonator: "I t is just as in microscopes; the greater 

the magnifying power, the smaller the field of view" 

(Helmholtz, 1954:374). 

Koenig's cylindrical resonators were "universal." 

They were made of two cylinders that fit into each 

other and could be "tuned " by adjusting this fit. 

This made it possible to reinforce various partials of 

the given fundamental to which the cylinder Was 

tuned. This was in contrast to Appunn's conical 

resonators which simultaneously reinforced all partials of their fundamental. 

Resonators were used most easily to reinforce 

sounds by holding the funnel-shaped opening against 

the ear. They were also used as parts of special purpose devices. Among the most striking of these was 

Helmholtz's synthesizer (Figure 21). In the major 

form produced by Koenig toward the end of the 

century this consisted of a set of ten forks providing 

the ten harmonic overtones of 128 cycles as the 

fundamental. These are mounted on a board and 

hooked to an electromagnetic fork of 128 cycles, 

which serves as interrupter. Each of the ten forks is 

FIGURE 21.—Clang-synthesizer made by Rudolph Koenig of 

Paris. (SI photo 73-407; USNMHT 300427.009-109) 

placed in front of a resonator tuned to its frequency 

(Figure 22). A keyboard attached to the mounting 

board controls the opening and closing of the resonators. A string from the key pulls the cover off the 

corresponding resonator. 

Originally the device had been used by Helmholtz 

to demonstrate his theory on vowel frequency. It had 

been acknowledged that there is a pitch differentiation to vowels so that they appear to rise in the order 

U-O-A-E-I; this appears to be implicit even in the 

eighteenth century "talking machine" of von Kempelen. Earlier in the century, Helmholtz theorized 

that the open mouth acts as a resonator, reinforcing 

partials defined by the fundamental. Following 

closely the path oudined by Robert Willis and Charles 

Wheatstone, Helmholtz thought he had found confirmation for his theory in the synthesizer when it 

allowed him to imitate vowels by reinforcement of 

the appropriate partials. Subsequendy, the synthesizer found more general use in reinforcing a variety 

of tonal combinations. 

Musical instruments had always furnished a 

convenient means to the study of tones—especially 

their pitch, quality and combinations (Figures 23, 24). 

Helmholtz had singled out the harmonium (a bellowsoperated reed organ) for pitch studies: "on account of 

its uniformly sustained sound, the piercing character 

of its quality of tone, and its tolerably distinct com-
SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 22.—Clang-synthesizer component: fork and resonator. 

(SI photo 72-7044; USNMHT 300427.104) 

FIGURE 23.—Bellows organ, rear view. Note similarity to 

instrument shown on left in Figure 35. (SI photo T60507D; 

USNMHT 266154) 

FIGURE 24.—Laboratory organ. 

(SI photo 72-11344; USNMHT 306749.16) 
NUMBER 3 1 19 

binational tones [it] is particularly sensitive to 

inaccuracies of intonation" (Helmholtz, 1954:316). 

He also noted thatharmonia in "just intonation" lent 

themselves well to studies of mathematically precise 

tone relationships. In other words, he advocated the 

use of evenly tuned harmonia instead of tempered 

instruments. Numerous such "enharmonic" instruments were built in the nineteenth century to provide 

examples of chords that arise in the discussion of 

musical ratios. Of these, the so-called " harmonical" 

designed by Ellis became the favorite of American 

psychologists. Aside from basic studies on pitch 

discrimination and tonal combinations, they used it 

especially to show the existence of partials and to 

demonstrate the relationship of beat frequency and 

pitch. 

The Ellis Harmonical was built by Moore and 

Moore of London. Tuned to A at 440 cycles, it had a 

basic range of four octaves starting with the "Grea t 

Octave," that is, C at 66 cycles. A special device 

furnished a fifth octave so that the highest note 

sounded was C with the frequency of 2112 cycles. 

Each octave was divided into 12 parts; the intermediate notes were in fixed ratios to C, namely 9:10, 

8:9, 5:6, 4:5, 3:4, 2:3, 5:8, 3:5, 4:7, 5:9, 8:15, 1 :2. 

We find a characteristically judicious assessment of 

the instrument in correspondence between Sanford 

and Titchener in 1895. Titchener had apparently 

asked for Sanford's comments about the relative 

merits of available instruments. Sanford expressed 

httle enthusiasm for the "melodeon." He did not 

recall having had any experience with it, but was 

dubious because it struck him as being an "old 

instrument." Of the harmonical he noted that "it 

is not necessary for the course—everything mentioned 

can I think be shown without it. It is a litde better 

in some cases because it is tuned in perfect intonation 

and because it has between the c and d digitals an 

interval of a "comma, " but these are not essential. 

Any 5 octave reed instrument would do . . ." 

(Ithaca, 1895:14/23/545). Sanford added that he did 

not know what other laboratories used, except for 

Harvard which had the Ellis (Figure 36). 

SOUND LOCALIZATION 

Sound localization was another topic widely 

studied in American university laboratories. Two 

questions occupied the researcher. One dealt with the 

accuracy of estimating sound direction; the other 

one dealt with the nature of the mechanism whereby 

the observer determines that direction. A variety 

of sound cages and sound helmets were used for these 

experiments, to be replaced by earphones after 1920. 

However, earphones were not new, even the pseudophone having appeared prior to 1880. A widely 

used sound cage, favored by Titchener, among others, 

consisted of an iron base; two semicircles made of 

brass wire, one rotating vertically, the other, slightly 

smaller, horizontally; a head clamp; and a telephone 

receiver attached to the midpoint of the horizontal 

semicircle. Graduated scales could be attached so 

that as the circles and the telephone receiver were 

moved about, the precise location with respect to 

the observer could be measured (Figure 25). These 

experiments confirmed that left-right localization 

was much better than up-down or front-rear determination: a result that otologists had obtained 

with simple watch tests in the nineteenth century. 

ToNAL FUSION 

Yet another group of auditory experiments pertained to tonal fusion. Although experimentally 

closely related to the Helmholtzian studies of consonance and overtones, and philosophically a part 

of associationist tradition, the theory of tonal fusion 

that determined subsequent laboratory studies was 

established by Carl Stumpf. Following Stumpf, 

this phenomenon was defined as "tha t relation of 

two sensations in consequence of which . the 

total impression approaches more and more closely 

to that of a single sensation, and is analysed with 

greater and greater difficulty" (Titchener, 1901b: 

329). The standard experiment was designed to 

measure this change in impression, or "scale of 

fusion degrees." Recommended experimental apparatus consisted of a reed organ, which, in practice, 

frequently turned into a set of mouth harmonicas; 

however, organ pipes, tuning forks, and a variety 

of musical instruments from pianos to violins were 

used at one time or another. A sequence of single 

notes and double notes was sounded; the observer 

wrote down which was which, indicating doubtful 

impressions. According to Stumpf, the degrees of 

fusion ranged from the octave to the fifth, the fourth, 

the major and minor thirds and sixths, to other 

intervals. For intervals above an octave, the degree 
20 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 25.—Laboratory room at Harvard University, ca. 1893, showing equipment and subject 

arranged for experiment on the influence of dizziness on localization of sound. Subject is seated 

in a sound cage. (SI photo TPY74A1) 

of fusion was thought to correspond, so that a twelfth 

would rank the same as a fifth. 

Tonal fusion experiments were among the most 

inconclusive in the area of audition. There was 

disagreement about everything, from the question 

to what extent musical training or ability affected 

the results, to the question whether the phenomenon 

exists at all. After Pratt's devastating critique of 

these experiments in 1934, they practically disappeared from the experimental laboratory. 

Transition to the Post-World War I Period 

It may appear surprising to begin a discussion of 

the first fifty years of American psychology laboratories with emphasis on instruments and experiments 

that predate the turn of the century and involve 

European makers and scientists. Were not the twenties 

a period of tremendous technological development in 

areas that are important to the study of hearing? 

Did not American inventors of the nineteenth 

century produce important devices, such as the 

telephone and the phonograph that have scarcely 
NUMBER 31 21 

been mentioned? Have not applications of electrophysical techniques changed basically the methods 

and approach of psychologists concerned with 

audition? 

With few exceptions, apparatus in American 

university psychology laboratories was largely that 

found in inventory lists at Harvard and Cornell of 

the 1890s. Most of the apparatus was imported. Of 70 

manufacturers listed by Muensterberg at Harvard 

in 1893, only 19 were American; 24 were German, 

10 French, 7 English, 4 Swiss, and the rest were 

divided among Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Italy, 

Holland, and Bohemia. The two manufacturers 

specializing only in acoustic apparatus were Koenig 

and Appunn, working in Paris and Hanau, respectively. American laboratories continued to import 

FIGURE 26.—Laboratory room at the University of Missouri 

showing tone-producing arrangement designed by A. P. Weiss, 

ca. 1916, as it appeared in his thesis (1916). 

their equipment until World War I, offering different 

explanations for doing so. Titchener noted that the 

apparatus used in the elementary courses is " almost 

wholly American just as the research apparatus is 

preponderantly German in origin" (Titchener, 

1898:321). Others emphasized the originality of 

their equipment. Thus, A. P. Weiss, with apparent 

satisfaction, called attention to the unique apparatus 

contrived by him in the laboratory of Max Meyer 

in conjunction with his 1916 Missouri thesis on 

sound intensity. He constructed his own equipment 

(Figures 26, 27) because "the physicists who are best 

prepared to design the apparatus are not interested 

in the problem of tone intensity as it presents itself 

to the psychologist" (Weiss, 1916:1). Similarly, 

when Walter Miles, a clever apparatus designer, was 

a student in Seashore's laboratory in 1909, instructors 

and students collaborated in building equipment 

for their experiments. 

Our preoccupation with what appear to be only 

nineteenth-century European prototypes is justified 

when we look at a 1930 catalogue of the Stoelting 

Company, or the identical 1936 edition. Since the 

turn of the century this firm had steadily intensified 

its efforts on behalf of psychology. Stimulated by 

the reduction of imports after World War I, it had 

become the leading supplier of psychological apparatus 

FIGURE 27.—^Tone fork frame showing resonators zind tuning 

forks at the University of Missouri, ca. 1916. (From Weiss, 1916) 

lone ForK 
22 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

in the United States, and a major exporter, particularly to the Far East. In the foreword to its catalogues, the manufacturer acknowledged the cooperation of experimental pioneers like J. R. Angell, B. T. 

Baldwin, Bergstrom, Jastrow, Sanford, Scripture, 

Seashore, Titchener, and Whipple, as well as their 

assistants, students, and successors in the field. 

The Stoelting section on audition contained 78 

lot numbers. Of these, 24 were tuning forks or sets of 

forks, with 5 accessories; there were 7 Stern variators, 

5 Appunn-type tonometers, 5 sound hammers " a 

la Leipzig," 3 resonator sets, 4 whistles (including the 

two basic Galton whistles), 4 sound cages or accessories, 2 acoumeters, other traditional pieces such 

as a lamella, a set of Quincke's tubes, Koenig's 

difference-tone apparatus, and miscellaneous accessories, such as stoppers and tubes. The only items that 

represented more than a minor modification or refinement of a nineteenth-century piece of apparatus 

were two sets of tunable bars, first described by Paul 

Thomas Young in publications of 1918 and 1922. The 

bars arose out of work he had done as a graduate 

student at Cornell, where he obtained his Ph.D. in 

1918; the second type was described as "without 

doubt the best piece of apparatus available for the 

demonstration of difference-tones" (Stoelting, 1936: 

32). The only instrunients in that catalogue new to 

our discussion were Seashore's audiometer and tonoscope, the related stroboscopic disk of Gray, the 

phono-projectoscope developed by Metfessel and 

Tiffin at Seashore's school, and Dorsey's phonelescope. 

Apparently, we should accept Boring's statement 

of 1938 that "really not so very much happened in 

the sixty years after Helmholtz" and that one "can 

see how much of the psychology and physiology of 

hearing has been learned within the last decade and 

also how little of it was the product of the preceding 

half century" (Stevens and Davis, 1938:vi-vii). This 

would also lead us to reject the conclusions of historians who have told us that new movements in 

psychology "introduced new kinds of experiments 

demanding design, technique and apparatus different 

from the 'brass instruments' of the earlier pre-1914 

workers" (Thomson, 1970:298). 

Caution is essential, however. The First World War 

and the period following it did mark a change. The 

change in audition reflects similar changes in psychology and other disciplines in this country. To introduce these matters, it will be well to scrutinize the 

work of two men who span the period. They received 

their Ph.D.s in psychology in 1895 and 1896 and 

continued their productive endeavors until their 

deaths in 1949 and 1967, respectively. The two men 

are Carl Emil Seashore and Max Friedrich Meyer. 

Max Friedrich Meyer 

Max Friedrich Meyer was born in Danzig on 

15 June 1873. In 1892 he matriculated in the Theological Faculty of the University of Berhn, although 

his basic interests appeared to lie in physics. After 

hearing Ebbinghaus, he changed to the Philosophical 

Faculty in 1894, the year Stumpf came to take the 

chair of psychology in Berlin. He worked closely 

with Stumpf for the next four years. In 1896 his 

doctoral dissertation, approved jointly by Stumpf 

and Max Planck, was published; it contained the 

first version of his theory of hearing, which was expressed mathematically. The theory began to assume 

its better-known mechanical formulation in the 

next two years, during which the young scholar 

published eight more papers, some jointly with 

Stumpf. In 1898 he and Stumpf parted company; 

apparently the main reason was his rejection of 

Stumpf s concept of fusion and particularly Stumpf's 

notion of musical dissonance and consonance. 

Exiled from Stumpf's laboratory, Meyer was on 

the move for the next two years. After visits in London 

and New England, including an appointment without 

pay with G. Stanley Hall at Clark, he obtained a 

position as professor of psychology at the University 

of Missouri in 1900. There he remained until 1929. 

He had but one Ph.D. student, A. P. Weiss; but 

over the years a number of men who were to distinguish themselves in experimental psychology 

joined him as students or assistants. The list begins 

with R. M. Ogden, who acknowledged Meyer's 

influence in his well-known 1924 work on hearing. 

It ends with O. W. Mowrer, who, as an undergraduate 

doing a questionnaire study on the status of women 

that included some questions on extramarital relations, precipitated the controversy that resulted 

in Meyer's suspension and formal dismissal in 

1930. 

Meyer contributed to general psychology, educational psychology, the psychology of music education, 

and questions of laboratory instruction in psychology. 

He devised apparatus that included a quartertone 

harmonium, a sequence of testing devices, and an 

improvement of Scripture's " strobilion" for recording 

vibrational patterns. He is best known, however, 
NUMBER 3 1 23 

for two contributions: his pioneering work, The 

Fundamental Laws of Human Behavior, which, published 

in 1911, guaranteed him notice as a "pre-Watsonian" behaviorist; secondly, his theory of hearing 

and the models devised to demonstrate it, which is of 

particular interest here. 

According to Meyer (1907) hearing takes place 

in the cochlea; it is here that the auditory nerve 

endings receive their stimulus. He regarded the 

fluid in the cochlea as being inelastic and incompressible because of the short length of the tube; 

" t o speak of tone waves travelling in the lymph up 

and down the tube is like speaking of a horse race 

which is to take place within a dog kennel" (Meyer, 

1907:2). Meyer rejected the notion of describing 

the basilar membrane as composed of stretched strings 

that serve as resonators for various frequencies because 

they are under different tensions. Such a notion 

develops from the belief that the basilar membrane 

is under a constant tension. Meyer observed that 

organic membranes placed under continuous tension 

will break or yield to such tension. Thus, while he 

accepted the possibility of the basilar membrane 

being capable of resistance, Meyer rejected the 

possibility of its being under "permanent " tension, 

thereby also rejecting the assumption that there 

are resonators in the inner ear. 

Meyer assumed that a bulging to and fro of the 

partition (the organ of Corti) causes a shock in the 

nerve fibers terminating in that portion of the partition, and that given a rapid sequence of such shocks, 

the frequency of these shocks determines a process, 

which he speculated may be chemical. He said that a 

tone is perceived that " occupies a definite point in the 

tonal series of sensations of hearing" proportional to 

the frequency of shocks received (Meyer, 1907:17). 

In other words, the frequency of the shocks determines 

the pitch and quality of the tone perceived (Meyer, 

1907:32). 

Meyer also hypothesized that the intensity of the 

tone perceived is a function of "the number of nerve 

ends which receive shocks in a definite frequency" 

(Meyer, 1907:32). 

To reduce the mathematical complexity of the 

mechanical process taking place in the cochlea and to 

compensate for the lack of physiological data, Meyer 

made several "provisional assumptions." These allowed him to provide rational descriptions of a 

variety of auditory phenomena, notably the nature of 

difference tones, which, like Stumpf, he treated as 

FIGURE 28.—Hydraulic model of the cochlea constructed by 

Max Meyer in 1964, after one built in 1928. Wooden frame 

863 X 165 X 63 mm. (SI photo 72-11336; USNMHT 

259279.01) 

"subjective." In contrast to Stumpf, he accounted for 

subjective tones through localized functions of the 

inner ear. 

Meyer retained and explicated his theory for a 

period of nearly 60 years. Starting about 1928, he 

turned from thought-models to specific mechanical 

models to illustrate the theory (Figure 28). These did 

not, however, eliminate the major problem, which 

was the failure of either Meyer or anyone else to submit his hypotheses to repeated scrutiny in light of 

accumulating physiological data unknown at the 

turn of the century. The problem that was of growing 

concern to him, namely that of being misinterpreted, 

was a by-product of this fundamental omission. 

Carl Emil Seashore 

Carl Seashore, a very different man, was born in 

Morlunda, Sweden, in 1866, as Carl Emil Sjostrand. 

His parents emigrated to this country and settled on a 

farm in Iowa when he was three. His college years 

were spent first at Gustavus Adolphus College in 

Minnesota and later at Yale. Except for two post-
24 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

doctoral years at Yale, one year at the National Research Council in Washington, D.C, and his last 

year spent at the home of a son in Idaho, Seashore 

lived and worked in Iowa for the rest of his 83 years. 

Seashore entered Yale and psychology when—in 

his words—the latter was " 'pure ' and knocked feebly 

at the doors of Science for admission" (Seashore, 

1930:260). He entered Yale "o n the day" that the 

psychological laboratory was founded and signed up 

for the laboratory course. Ladd introduced him to 

psychology, Schopenhauer, and Scripture, and he 

remained a student of Ladd's for four years, lauding 

his qualities as a teacher long after he had come to 

disagree with his system. Seashore reacted negatively 

to Scripture's laboratory, in which the experiments 

seemed to him "nearer to telegraphy than to psychology" (Seashore, 1930:260). He changed his mind 

rather quickly, and after the departmental upheaval 

at Yale, which lost not only Ladd and Scripture to 

American psychology but also most of the Yale graduate students of the period. Seashore emerged as the 

only one of Scripture's students who remained in 

experimental psychology. He was, and considered 

himself. Scripture's student; yet, characteristically, he 

submitted his thesis, done under Scripture, to Ladd. 

Seashore's two mentors typify two styles in 

psychology: the one is represented by Ladd, the 

"Sully of America" (Boring, 1957:524), the 

philosopher-psychologist who excelled as a teacher 

and writer of textbooks; the other, by Scripture, 

exponent of the "new" psychology who tried to pry 

his students away from books and turn them to the 

laboratory techniques that would let this new science 

reach the precision of physics. Early exposure to 

such contrasts caused Seashore to ride multiple tides 

and maintain distance from dominant dogma. In his 

autobiography he noted (1930:285) with some 

satisfaction: 

Trained in structuralism of the Wundtian type, I rapidly 

adjusted myself to functionalism and enriched my point of 

view by absorbing freely from all new movements. In this 

attitude I faced the French school of abnormal psychology, the 

English group of psychical researchers, Hall's school of child 

study, the group of animal experimenters, the Freudian and 

other forms of psychoanalysis, the statistical methods as applied 

particularly to mental tests, the various brands of behaviorism, 

paper-and-pencil psychologies of various sorts, the Gestalt 

psychology, and the recent neurological and philosophical 

approaches to the theory of psychology. 

I owe a great deal to each and all of these and their sequels 

and variants but I give allegiance to none. As a rigorous 

experimenter I continue to plod along with the feeling that 

this point of view and not my particular brand of it, is the 

point of view of psychology. If what there is of system in my 

teaching deserves a name, it is the name eclectic. 

Seashore went to the University of Iowa in 1898 as 

an assistant professor. In 1902 he had become a full 

professor; in 1905 he was made head of the department of philosophy and psychology; in 1908 he 

ascended to the deanship of the Graduate College, 

where he remained until he retired as Dean-Emeritus. 

He regarded being dean at a graduate school as 

doing applied psychology. Many of his major contributions were in applied psychology—and this is 

particularly true of his notable achievements in 

audition. 

Seashore first became prominent in auditory work 

through his development of apparatus. In his first 

year at Iowa, Seashore, with the help of Charles 

Bowman, then a physics instructor at Iowa, produced 

an audiometer. It was a hearing meter of varying 

intensity in which the stimulus tones were generated 

electrically. This was the same type that was to be 

used widely in testing the hearing of pupils throughout American schools, and that was sold and advertised by the Stoelting Company as the "Seashore 

audiometer" for decades. 

Up to the time of Seashore, hearing meters in which 

the intensity of the sound can be varied remained 

obscure. However, such hearing meters, particularly 

those with electrical resistances to vary the intensity 

existed as early as 1878. In that year, A. Hartmann, 

working in the laboratory of Emil Dubois-Reymond in 

Berlin, devised an instrument of this kind. At the same 

time, similar independent efforts were underway in 

England. The name "audiometer," now commonly 

applied to hearing meters in which "the stimulus tones 

are generated electrically" (Bunch, 1941:1100), appears to have been used first in an 1879 account of a 

current balance developed for audiological purposes by D. E. Hughes in England. 

Seashore's audiometer (Figure 29) consisted of (1) 

a box into which was built an induction coil, a resisr 

tance coil, a galvanometer, as well as a battery and 

the necessary switches and terminals; and (2) a 

telephone receiver. The secondary coil was wound 

in 40 sections, each of which was connected with a set 

of corresponding spring terminals. By moving a 

sliding carriage along these terminal contacts, any 

number of these sections could be included in the 

circuit. Since the induced current is a linear function 

of the number of turns in the secondary coil, this 
NUMBER 3 1 25 

FIGURE 29.—Seashore audiometer. (From Seashore, 1899) 

enabled the operator to vary the energy emitted by 

the circuit, which was connected to the telephone 

receiver and transmitted as a series of clicks. Varying 

the resistance and observing the galvanometer 

reading through a peephole on the box enabled the 

operator to standardize the readings. 

A distinctive feature of the Seashore audiometer 

was the calibration of the scale. Since, by the WeberFechner law, stimulus and sensation are in a logarithmic ratio, so that SE = clog ST, Seashore let the 

number of coils in each section increase logarithmically, so as to provide " psychologically equal" steps 

in the increase of sound intensity. Thus, the increase 

in stimulus equalled the corresponding increase in 

sensation. 

An optional feature allowed use of the instrument 

in tests where a tone is preferred to a click. This 

accessory consisted of an electric tuning fork attached 

to the box by a double contact; this connection permitted the fork's tone to be introduced into the circuit 

for transmission to the receiver. Its intensity could be 

varied just as that of the ordinary click. 

Seashore introduced his audiometer with the advice 

that "it is adapted to the needs of the psychological 

laboratory, the school room and the aurist's office" 

(Seashore, 1899:156). The instrument's success in all 

three areas confirmed his aim. 

In 1902 Seashore presented another instrument 

destined for long periods of use. This was the tonoscope, a device for translating vocal vibrations into 

visible form (Figure 30). Based on the principle, and 

named after, the stroboscope, the tonoscope was 

designed primarily to study singing. It was based 

on a configuration first used by Scripture in a laboratory set-up designed in the 1890s. 

The 1902 tonoscope consisted of an electric tuning 

fork, a vacuum tube, a stroboscopic screen, a manometric capsule, a telephone receiver, and the necessary auxiliary switches, circuits, and battery. It was 

designed to measure the pitch of a tone produced by 

the singer. It would produce a tone, and then compare 

that one to the singer's tone by projecting the vibrations of both upon the screen. 

The tonoscope appeared in several different versions 

over the years; later models expanded its use from 

recording speech or musical tones of the human 

voice to transcribing music, speech or other sound 

patterns from phonographs and other recording 

devices (Seashore, 1914). The tonoscope was applied 

by musicians, clinicians, and psychologists alike, 

and became a touted example of the value of applied 

psychology in music (Seashore, 1912). 

Seashore was responsible for the development of 

numerous other instruments, designed by himself 

and by students at Iowa. One example is a sound 

perimeter created in 1903 to improve upon the existing 

gadgets invented for the study of sound localization. 

Seashore's early interest in this field proved useful. 

During World War I he served as chairman of the 

Committee on Acoustic Problems and consultant 

on the detection of submarines. 

Seashore's continual applications of his inventions 

and investigations are symbolic of one of the aspects 

of the psychology of the 1920s. Seashore's students 

and others of their generation were to go out and 

become resident psychologists in medical schools, 

music schools, public schools, record companies, 

and industrial research laboratories. They remained 

psychologists working on auditory problems. But 

they were "mission-oriented" and they no longer 

published primarily in the American Journal of Psychology, the Psychological Review, or the Journal of 

Experimental Psychology. Instead, their work appeared 

in publications like Laryngoscope, Musical Quarterly, 

Lyre, Eugenics, Genetics and the Family, The Transactions of the American Otological Society, and eventually, 

the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 
26 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 30.—Early version of the Seashore tonoscope. Top of drum diameter 31 cm. (USNMHT 

306749.17; inset from Seashore, 1914) 
NUMBER 3 1 27 

The Background of the Twenties 

If psychologists trained in audition were going 

into the outside world, what was the world offering 

in return? Again, the chief contributions came from 

the domains of the physicist and of the physiologist. 

Among physicists there were two groups who conducted research in acoustics that interested the 

psychologist. One group worked in the university, 

represented by the work of Wallace C. Sabine and 

Dayton C. Miller between 1900 and 1920. The 

other group worked in industry, and is best represented by the research teams at the Western Electric 

Research Laboratories between 1920 and 1930. 

Applied Acoustics 

Wallace Clement Sabine laid the twentieth-century 

scientific foundation of architectural acoustics. His 

classical paper on reverberation was published in 

1900, when he was 32 years old. As a rigorous experimenter he called to the attention of psychologists 

the danger of testing " laws" rather than investigating 

phenomena. To stress the importance of boundary 

conditions, he singled out the failings of two of the 

most revered psychologists. Wundt and Muensterberg had neglected boundary conditions when they 

simply assumed the law of variation of intensity 

of sound with the inverse square of the distance: 

" I t makes one wonder how they were able to draw 

any conclusions from their measurements" (Orcutt, 

1933:291). 

Dayton C. Miller's results of special interest to 

psychologists centered on recording, composition, 

and decomposition of sound waves. Aside from providing visible characteristics of sound waves generated 

by an assortment of instruments, they had special 

significance to those who drew upon Ohm's law. 

Mechanical harmonic analyzers and synthesizers 

provided data for Miller. These devices, developed 

on the basis of nineteenth-century prototypes invented 

by James and William Thomson, are mathematical 

analogue calculators. A synthesizer sums up the 

components of a sound wave; an analyzer breaks 

out the elementary components of the wave, an 

operation matheinatically equivalent to computing 

the Fourier coefficients in its trigonometric expansion. 

As input, both machines use a graph of the simple or 

compound wave. To obtain such a graph Miller 

developed the " phonodeik." This instrument focused 

the vibrations of the given sound wave onto a diaphragm from which they were transmitted graphically 

onto a moving film. 

As a result of World War I, such men as Miller 

and Sabine participated in acoustic research for the 

War Department. Among other things, at Sandy 

Hook Proving Grounds, New York, in 1919, a method 

of electric-spark photography of the waves generated 

by bullets in flight was developed on the basis of 

their prior contributions. There, also, basic studies 

on shell shock were conducted in collaboration with 

physiologists. 

Among the research scientists and engineers 

motivated by the requirements of the Great War 

were teams from the Western Electric Company. 

They had helped to develop a string galvanometer, 

based on the principle of the Einthoven galvanometer, 

that was intended for use in France and later adopted 

at Sandy Hook. They designed microphones to study 

sounds emitted by large guns, and continued researches 

in telephony. In the 1920s they were prepared to 

propagate basic research in electronic audiometry. 

C. C. Bunch and L. W. Dean at Iowa had^ developed the pitch-range audiometer in 1919. In 

November of the same year, two groups of researchers— 

K. L. Schaefer and G. Gruschke, B. Griessmann and 

Schwartzkopf—demonstrated before the Berlin Otological Society two instruments designed to test 

hearing acuity. Both were built with vacuum tubes. 

Their designs were characteristic of the two basic 

types of electronic circuits used in most electronic 

audio devices for the next two decades. Neither of 

the two devices was developed commercially for 

some time, although the second was to be manufactured under the name " Otaudion." In the United 

States, J. Guttman in 1921 described an "electric 

acoumeter," which was an electronic device. At the 

same time J. P. Minton and J. G. Wilson developed 

their audio-oscillator. However, it was a series of 

audiometers developed at the Western Electric 

Company's Research Laboratory that marked the 

beginning of regular commercial production of these 

devices. It climaxed the breakthrough made possible 

with the development and application of the vacuum 

tube. 

The first of the Western Electric audiometers was 

the Model 1-A (Figure 31). It was presented publicly 

572-511 O - 75 - 3 
28 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

FIGURE 31.—Edmund P. Fowler in his sound-proofed room 

with the Western Electric 1-A audiometer. (SI photo 74-6750; 

USNMHT 256198.01) 

at the 1922 meeting of the American Laryngological, 

Rhinological and Otological Society by Harvey 

Fletcher and Edmund P. Fowler. For this presentation 

they produced threshold curves of various types of deafness. Fowler and Wegel also presented the device to 

the American Otological Society that year with a 

discussion of the now-classic audiogram chart. 

The 1-A was a pure-tone generator that had a 

range from 32 to 16,384 cycles, or 9 octaves; it could 

be set to produce any one of 20 tones within that 

range and at varying intensities. Although this first 

device was produced only in a limited quantity, it was 

used in some of the more important studies of the 

twenties, including R. L. Wegel and L. E. Lane's 

famous work on masking. Masking had been studied 

by A. M. Mayer in the 1870s. In 1876 he called attention to the difference in the masking effects of low and 

high sounds, observing that a sound of low pitch can 

mask one of high pitch totally, but that the converse 

does not hold. Using the 1-A's capability of generating pure tones and controlling the intensity, Wegel 

and Lane were able for the first time to make precise 

the variations in the amount of masking between 

tones of lower and higher pitch than the masking 

tone (Figure 32). 

The 2-A Model (Figures 33, 34) was a smaller, 

portable version of the 1-A, having a frequency range 

varying seven octaves (from 64 to 8192 cycles), which 

was divided into eight positions, corresponding to the 

8 c-notes of the range. Like the 1-A it could be set at 

varying intensities, thanks to an attenuation potentiometer. It had the advantage of selling at less than 

half the price of the 1-A, which cost over $1500. 

A different type of audiometer was represented by 

the 3-A model. This relatively simple device generated a buzzer-sound and had adjustable intensity 

control. The 5-A also was a buzzer audiometer. Yet 

another type of audiometer was represented by the 

4-A. This was essentially a phonograph with multiple 

ear phones and was widely used to conduct hearing 

tests on school children. The phonograph played a 

sequence of numbers in the most widely used test, 

usually spoken alternately by male and female voices. 

The Western Electric scientists went beyond laboratory experimentation. They collaborated with university physicists: Harvey Fletcher in the summer of 

1925 delivered lectures on "th e physical aspects and 

measurement of speech and hearing" at the University of Michigan (Bell Laboratories, 1925:50). 

They collaborated with physiologists: Out of such 

work came the development of the electrical stethoscope. Last but not least, they provided an important 

impetus to those like C. C. Bunch who, coming out of 

the laboratory of the psychologist, had gone to work 

among physiologists, and now conducted studies comparing and utilizing new apparatus in the service of 

both fields (Figure 35). By the 1920s physiologists had 

considerable material to offer to the psychologist, and 

psychologists were once again receptive to it. 

Applied Physiology 

American psychologists, although aware of its 

limitations, had continued to rely on the resonance 

theory. Boring and Titchener claimed (1920:101): 

The historian of science must always regard it with admiration since for combined range and detail and directness of 

correlation it is still without a rival; and indeed, as a model of 
NUMBER 31 29 

FIGURE 33.—2-A audiometer made by Western Electric. 

510 X 255 X 275 mm. (SI photo 72-11333; USNMHT 

306749.12) 

FIGURE 32.—Pilling-Witting masker made by George P. Pilling 

& Son Go. at Philadelphia. 205 X 210 X 210 mm. (SI photo 

72-11349; USNMHT 306749.04) 

FIGURE 34.—Glose up of control panel of 2-A audiometer. 

(SI photo 72-11334; USNMHT 306749.12) 
'Dcav-v. CavC E. t'ca^lYotC 

•3h.ii tctcpA^ko^vapfv wets pvitU:c6 /votn. tke unxcfcoiicfvi.^ 

Kcoctu'c v4vciu«<S "^w-vw 23, l?C5 <3t ?tcvo tVovft Cilu fxonv 

efvLcoao ci>«v a fcctcpfvoac .civculi: ?? ' ntttc ; irt "CeVtciLfv. 

1?6 S'T.oac^wau 

?i4U) V^\h City dmx<.ic<i:r>. JcCcpftOr.C .\ ^CUAvapfv Cc. 

FIGURE 35.—Dea n Garl E. Seashore. (From University of Iowa 

Studies in Psychology, 12 (1928)) 

wha t a theory "ought " to be, it will probably figure for man y 

years to come—with the more or less emphati c warning that 

it need not be believed—in textbooks of physiology an d 

psychology. 

Model makers especially continued to seek ways of 

testing and demonstrating its validity, at the same time 

that new experimental evidence paved the way for 

renewal of another basic theory—the telephone 

theory of William Rutherford. 

Early debate over the function of the various 

components of the cochlea had revolved around the 

issue of whether or not it was the seat of auditory 

analysis. Where are vibrations transformed? Two 

most likely sites were the cochlea and the brain. Of 

the models built to illustrate the theories of inner ear 

behavior, those of Max Meyer and George Wilkinson 

received the most publicity and discussion during the 

1920s. 

The Wilkinson model was designed not to support 

any specific existing theory, such as the resonance 

SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

theory, but rather to shed light on all theories. Above 

all it served to illustrate the movements of stretched 

membranes in response to sound vibrations, studied 

by C. Rich Ewald thirty years earlier (Wilkinson, 

1922a: 53). Wilkinson assumed that the actual 

vibration element in the cochlea is the basilar membrane (Wilkinson, 1927:365). The lack of a suitable 

material prevented him from duplicating the spiral 

curve form of the cochlea and basilar membrane 

(Wilkinson, 1930b:834). His model consisted of a 

brass box 5 X 5.5 X 6.5 cm divided into two chambers, 

an upper or "scala vestibulae" and lower or "scala 

tympani" separated by a flat brass plate containing 

the "basilar membrane." The top of the upper, 

chamber is provided with a glass window, through 

which the movements of the membrane may be 

observed. Rubber membranes cover the openings 

representing the round and oval windows which are 

secured by rubber washers. A small wooden plunger, 

the "stapes," is attached to the lower (larger) membrane. At the back of each chamber are small holes 

closed by screws, "filhng holes," through which 

fluid can be introduced by means of a syringe with 

a fine nozzle, to fill the chambers. The most difficult 

and troublesome parts to represent in the model were 

the basilar fibers, which were made of a phosphorbronze ribbon }io mm thick and carefully placed 

with controls to regulate their tension. The transverse sectors of the "basilar membrane" in the model 

were thrown into sympathetic vibration by touching 

the "stapes" lightly with a vibrating tuning fork 

(Wilkinson, 1922b :459). 

The essential feature of the theory of cochlea 

function of Wilkinson is that the fibers of the basilar 

membrane are differentiated by length, tension and 

mass, just like the strings of a muscial instrument 

(Wilkinson, 1927:370). The scale of the model was 

not pertinent to the law of vibrating strings. Hence 

the model and the cochlea could be expected to 

follow the formula for vibrating strings as derived 

by Fourier (Wilkinson, 1922b:451). E. W. Scripture 

took exception to the Wilkinson model. He voiced 

his disapproval in a short letter to the editor of 

The Lancet in 1922 pointing out some properties of the 

human voice that seemed to contradict a resonance 

theory of hearing (Scripture, 1922:779-780). 

By the mid-twenties so many theories of hearing 

(Wever, 1970:41, Boring, 1926:157) had appeared 

that dismay appeared rampant among experimentalists. The psychologist of the period wished "t o clean 

his slate of theory and to start afresh from a thorough-
NUMBER 31 31 

going study of the sense-organ, biological, anatomical 

and physiological" (Boring and Titchener, 1920:102). 

In the next few years, those who accepted this challenge could not match in deed what was asked in 

word. The best a trio of physiologists and several 

psychologists could do was adopt and improve an 

exciting twentieth-century electrophysical technique. 

They sought evidence for a current in the auditory 

nerve of a decerebrate cat of the same frequency or 

sound presented to the ear. At first, Forbes, Miller, and 

O'Connor (1927) used the method of F. J. J. Buytendijk, who had reported on it in 1911 in Akademie 

van Wetenschappen (Amsterdam; 13(2) :649-652), 

but failed to record responses in frequency higher 

than 200 cycles per second. Psychologists Ernest 

Glenn Wever and Charles W. Bray (1930:377), 

taking on the role of the physiologist, who usually 

provided fresh evidence for auditory theories, set 

out to improve this experiment. They attached an 

electrode to the exposed auditory nerve, added an 

amplifier to the circuit and hooked it up to a telephone receiver in a sound proof room. Their contribution to the experiment was to install a telephone 

receiver, which made it possible to hear currents of a 

much higher frequency. They proved that sound 

applied to the ear of the animal produced effects 

in the acoustic nerve, which corresponded to the 

frequency of the original sound stimulus. Sounds 

including the voice were discriminated quite plainly 

on the receiver-recorder. Responses continued until 

after death, they grew fainter and ceased in approximately a quarter of an hour. 

Wever and Bray, unable to arrive at a single 

theory suggested by their findings, proposed four, 

which they labeled as follows: (1) the resonance 

telephone theory; (2) the nonresonance telephone 

theory (the telephone theory of the type outlined by 

Boring, 1926); (3) the resonance volley theory; 

(4) the nonresonance volley theory. Wever and Bray 

conceived the Volley principle as an alternative to 

the telephone theory of frequency transmission. By 

the Volley principle they meant the serial interplay 

between fibers responding to sound vibrations. " A 

given fiber when stimulated . . . responds and then 

remains inactive for a time until it is again stimulable. 

The fiber will respond to a constantly maintained 

stimulus with a regular series of impulses of lower 

frequency than the stimulus but in synchronism with 

the individual waves of the stimulus" (Wever and 

Bray, 1930:376). The fibers may be out of synchronization with each other, but they are synchronized 

with the exciting frequency. Thus by 1930 physiological evidence was conducive to a blending of 

auditory theories, a state of affairs still shared by 

present day physiologists, psychologists,- and 

physicians, though on a more refined level. Subsequent explanations centered on how the inner ear 

fibers and the nerve fibers react to sound vibrations. 

Conclusion 

In the 50-year period between the last edition of 

Helmholtz's Tonempfindungen and thb publication of 

the experiments of Wever and Bray, audition in 

psychology passed through a well-defined phase. 

Helmholtz had brought to the subject a masterful 

combination of scientific method, theory, experimentation, and. technology. He had approached the field 

as physicist, physiologist, and psychologist. To each 

of these three disciplines he left a base on which to 

build. 

Laboratory psychology was in its infancy. Its 

promoters were successful in cutting it loose from 

philosophy. In seeking to establish its identity as a 

science they had to broaden a narrow line of demarcation between physics and physiology. As American 

laboratory psychology developed, it bore the scar of 

a reaction against its early dependence on physiology. 

Problems arose, particularly in audition, where much 

depended on adding to our physiological knowledge 

of hearing. 

The psychologist wishing to further the study of 

audition and to leave upon it the distinctive stamp of 

psychology could choose among the following four 

avenues of approach: 

1. The Path of Method: He could pursue the 

subject in a laboratory setting applying the techniques 

and equipment of the physicist to a method that he 

could call his own. This was the course followed by 

Titchener and other laboratory psychologists using 

introspection. 

2. The Path of Theory: He could pursue the 

subject hypothetically, applying physical laws to 
32 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

the phenomena of auditory perception. By providing 

for a range of options to cover the possibilities left 

open by insufficient physiological evidence, he could 

establish a logically valid theory. This was the course 

followed by Max Meyer. 

3. The Path of Applications: He could pursue the 

subject eclectically, selecting practical problems to 

which existing experimental or theoretical techniques 

could provide clues, if not solutions. This was the 

course followed by Seashore. 

4. The Path of Experimentation: He could pursue 

the subject experimentally, applying physiological 

techniques to the study of the ear and the phenomena 

of auditory perception. This was the course followed 

by Lashley, Hunter, Bunch, and others who turned to 

clinical or comparative psychology. 

There should have been a path of technology, but 

this path was blocked to the psychologist working 

in his own laboratory. He came upon it, if at all, 

indirectly by collaborating with the engineer in an 

industrial laboratory or the clinician in a state 

laboratory. It was the road that led to new frontiers. 

But it was costly, and these were no longer the days 

when one could rely on the munificence of a King 

Maximilian of Bavaria to underwrite an apparatus 

for vowel construction, as had Helmholtz, or make 

history as a Bell or an Edison on the basis of invention 

and entrepreneurship alone. In the industrial society 

of the twentieth century scientific advances based on 

technological breakthroughs have been made with 

the support of either government or industry. A 

discipline that had just found its own reason for being, 

and was striving hard to convince the rest of the world 

of it, was not in a position to win such support. 

In the game of "mirror, mirror on the wall, who is 

the most psychological of them all?" Titchener and 

his fellow introspectionists may well have scored 

highest; their method was distinctive even if their 

apparatus was not. But in that game of practicality, 

which Titchener refused to play, it was Seashore 

who saw success: By keeping before the eyes of the 

public the usefulness of his subject, he was able to 

convey upon a whole discipline a prestige that was 

sorely needed if that discipline was to obtain its 

share of the forthcoming pie. 

While Seashore in psychology and Sabine in 

physics were making themselves useful in the wings, 

electrophysiology took center stage in the field of 

audition. But being in the wings gives access to the 

entrances. Thus, by 1930 psychologists, as well as 

physicists, could join with their colleagues in physiology in reaping the benefits of the technological 

advances of the preceding decades. In 1961 a physicist 

named Bekesy won the Nobel Price in Physiology 

for work done in audition. It was not unexpected 

that his recent home-base, a psycho-acoustic laboratory, also won renown—and support—for work done 

by psychologists, much of it under contract to the 

government of the United States. The laboratory was 

at Harvard—where William James had related physiology to psychology and allowed psychophysics to 

enter. 

FIGURE 36.—Harvard University Psychological Laboratory, ca. 1893. 

(From Harvard University 1893) 
Selected Bibliography 

The following reference list is extremely selective. Inclusion has been restricted 

to items that either were cited in the text or provide guides to further reading and 

study. Boring 1942 and 1957 provide general guidance to the history of psychology 

and the history of the study of auditory phenomena within psychology. Students 

interested in the nineteenth-century background cannot afford to ignore Fechner 

I860 and 1877, Wundt 1883 and 1902-1903, and Helmholtz 1954, or other editions 

of these major classics. Detailed nineteenth-century references to instruments and 

apparatus are found in Auerbach 1909 and Titchener 1901a, b and 1905a, b. Subsequent apparatus developments, with selected references to the literature can be pursued via Zimmermann 1912 and 1928, and Stoelting 1936. Harvard University 1955 is 

an excellent guide to twentieth-century work in audition and contains topical indexes. 

Auerbach, F. 

1909. Akustik. Volume 2 in A. Winkelmann , editor, 

Handbuch der Physik. 2nd edition. Leipzig: Johan n 

Ambrosius Barth. 

Ball, J. B. 

1903. A Mode l Ea r for the Practice of Otology. The 

Lancet, 2:1584. 

Baltimore, Th e John s Hopkins University, Archives 

1888. List of Apparatu s in the Psychology Laboratory , 

Octobe r 1888. Manuscript, 

von Bekesy, G., an d W. A. Rosenblith 

1951. Th e Mechanica l Properties of the Ear. In S. S. 

Stevens, editor, Handbook of Experimental Psychology. 

New York: Joh n Wiley an d Son. 

Bell Laboratories 

1925. [Note.] Bell Laboratories Record, 1:50. 

Bernstein, Julius 

1876. The Five Senses of Man. New York: Appleton. 

Bezold, Friedrich 

1906. Lehrbuch der Ohrenheilkunde fiir Arzte und Studierende. 

Wiesbaden : J. F. Bergmann. 

Blandin, Philippe-Frederic 

1843-1844. Rapport sur les nouvelles pieces artificielles 

d'anatomic , presentees a I'Academie pa r M . le docteur 

Auzoux. Bulletin de I'Academie de Medecine (Paris), 

9:759-765. Paris. 

Boring, E. G. 

1926. Auditory Theor y with Special Reference to Intensity, 

Volume an d Localization. The American Journal of 

Psychology, 37:157-88. 

Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental 

Psychology. New York: Th e Appleton-Century Co. 

A History of Experimental Psychology. 2nd edition. 

N ew York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 

Boring, E. G., an d E. B. Titchene r 

1920. Sir Thoma s Wrightson's Theor y of Hearing. The 

American Journal of Psychology, 31:101-113. 

1942. 

1957. 

Bunch, Cordi a C. 

1941. Th e Development of the Audiometer. Laryngoscope, 

51:1100-1118. 

Bunch, Cordia C , and L. W. Dea n 

1919. Th e Use of the Pitch Rang e Audiometer in Otology. 

Laryngoscope, 29:453-462. 

Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company, Ltd. 

1899. Physiological Instruments. Cambridge , England : Cambridge University Press. 

Carlisle, Anthony 

1805. Th e Physiology of the Stapes, On e of the Bones of the 

Orga n of Hearing ; Deduced from a Comparativ e 

View of Its Structure and Uses in Different Animals. 

Philosophical Transactions, pp. 198-210. 

Cattell, Jame s McKee n 

1888. Th e Psychological Laborator y at Leipsic. Mind, 13: 

37-51 . 

Dexter, George 

1844. Catalogue of Anatomical Models, Made by Auzoux, and 

for Sale by George Dexter. Albany. 

Fechner, Gustav Theodor 

1860. Elemente der Psychophysik. 2 volumes in 1. Leipzig: 

Breitkopf & Hartel. 

1877. In Sachen der Psychophysik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel. 

1966. Elements of Psychophysics. Translated by Helmu t E. 

Adler. Edited by Davis H. Howes an d Edwin G. 

Boring. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc . 

Fletcher, Harvey 

1929. Speech and Hearing. Introduction by H. D. Arnold. 

New York: D. Va n Nostrand. 

Forbes, Alexander, R. H. Miller, and J. O'Conne r 

1927. Electrical Responses to .\coustic Stimuli in the 

Decerebrate Animal. The American Journal of Physiology, 80:363-380. 

Galton, Francis 

1883. Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development. London : 

Macmillan. 

33 
34 SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 

Gray, A. A. 

1900. On a Modification of Helmholtz Theory of Hearing. 

The Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, 34:324-350. 

1927. A Restatement of the Resonance Theory of Hearing. 

Acta Oto-laryngology (Stockholm), 11:30-72. 

Hansen, F. C. C. von, and Alfred Lehmann 

1895. Ueber unwillkiirliches Fliistern. Philosophische Studien, 

11:471-530. 

Harvard University, Psychologiczil Laboratory 

1893. Psychological Laboratory of Harvard University. Cambridge, Mass.: The University. 

Harvard University, Psycho-acoustic Laboratory 

1955. Bibliography on Hearing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard 

University Press. 

Haviland, Thomas N., and Lawrence C. Parish 

1970. A Brief Account of the Use of Wax Models in the 

Study of Medicine. Journal of the History of Medicine 

and the Allied Sciences, 25:52-75. 

Helmholtz, Hermann 

1863. Die Lehre von den Tonempfirulungen alsphysiologische Grundlage fiir die Theorie der Musik. Braunschweig: Vieweg. 

1868. Ueber die Mechanik der Gehorknochelchen und 

des Trommelfells. Pf I tiger's Archiv, 1 :l-60. 

1954. On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for 

the Theory of Music. Translated by A. J. Ellis. New 

York: Dover. 

Ithaca, New York, Cornell University, Coilecdons of Regional 

History and University Archives 

1895. Titchener correspondence. 

James, William 

1892. Psychology: Briefer Course. London: Macmillan. 

1950. The Principles of Psychology. 2 volumes. New York: 

Dover. 

Jung, R. 

1890. Preis-Verzeichniss iiber Inslrumente und Apparate aus 

der mechanischen Werkstdtte von Rudolf Jung in Heidelberg. Stuttgart: Stahle & Friedel. 

Kline, Linus W., and F. L. Kline 

1927. Psychology by Experiment. Boston: Ginn. 

Koenig, Rudolph 

1865. Catalogue des Appareils d'Acoustique. Paris: Racon. 

1882. Quelques Experiences d'Acoustique. Paris. 

1889. Catalogue des Appareils d'Acoustique. Paris. 

Ladd, George Trumbull 

1887. Elements of Physiological Psychology. New York: C. 

Scribner's Sons. 

Lotze, Rudolph Hermann 

1886. Outlines of Psychology. Botton: Ginn. 

McPherson, Marion White, and Elliott Pursell 

1971. One Cost of Precision. Proceedings of the 79th Annual 

Convention of the American Psychological Association. 

[Preprint.] 

Mayer, Alfred Marshall 

1876. Researches in Acoustics. Philosophical Magazine, 

2:500-507. 

Meyer, MaxF. 

1907. An Introduction to the Mechanics of the Inner Ear. 

University of Missouri Studies, 2(1): 1—139. 

1911. The Fundamental Laws of Human Behavior. Boston: 

R. G. Badger. 

Ogden, R. M. 

1924. Hearing. New York: Harcourt, Brace. 

Orcutt, William Dana 

1933. William Clement Sabine: A Study in Achievement. Norwood, Mass.: Plimpton Press. 

Pearce, S. Austen 

1891. Acoustics. Volume 1 of American Supplement to Encyclopedia Britannica. 9th edition. Philadelphia: 

Hubbard Bros. 

Perry, Ralph Barton 

1935. The Thought and Character of William James. 2 volumes. 

Boston: Little, Brown. 

Philadelphia, International Exhibition, United States Centennial Commission 

1880. Reports and Awards. Volume 7, Groups 21-27. Edited 

by Francis A. Walker. Washington: Government 

Printing Office. 

Pierce, A. H. 

1901. Studies in Auditory and Visual Space Perception. New 

York: Longmans, Green. 

Politzer, Adam 

1913. Geschichte der Uhrenheilkunde. Volume 2. Stuttgart. 

Pratt, Carroll C. 

1934. Theoretical Studies from the Harvard Psychological 

Laboratory: Tonal Fusion. Psychological Review, 

41(l):86-97. 

Preyer, William 

1876. Ueber die Grenzen der Tonwahrnehmung. Jena: H. Duflft. 

Pursell, Elliott, and Marion White McPherson 

1971. Psychology in Music. Unpublished paper presented 

at the Cheiron meeting, New York. 

Ratier, Felix-Severin 

1845. Notice Biographique sur M. le docteur Auzoux. 2nd 

edition. Paris. 

Richardson, Benjamin W. 

1879. Professor Hughes' New Instrument for the Measurement of Hearing—The Audiometer. Medical Times 

and Gazette, 1(1508): 557-558. 

Rutherford, William 

1887. A Lecture on the Sense of Hearing. Lancet, 1:2-6. 

1898. Tone Sensation with References to the Function of 

the Cochlea. British Medical Journal, 2:353-358. 

Sanford, Edmund Clark. 

1894—1898. A Course in Experimental Psychology. 2 volumes. 

Boston: D. C. Heath & Co. 

Schaefer, E. A. 

1900. A Textbook of Physiology. 2 volumes. Edinburgh and 

London: Young J. Pentland. 

Scripture, Edward Wheeler 

1902. The Elements of Experimental Phonetics. New York: 

Charles Scribner's Sons. 

1922. The Mechanism of the Cochlea [letter to the editor]. 

The Lancet, 2:779-780. 

Seashore, Carl Emil 

1899. An Audiometer. University of Iowa Studies in Psychology, 

2:158. 

1912. Apparatus. Psychological Bulletin, 9:235. 

1914. ThcTonoscoT^c. Psychological Monographs, 16(69):1-12. 

1930. Carl Emil Seashore (1866- ). In volume 1 of A 

History of Psychology in Autobiography. Worcester, 
NUMBER 3 1 35 

Mass. . Clark University Press. [Reprinted by 

Russell & Russell, New York, 1961.] 

Stevens, S. S., an d H . Davis 

1938. Hearing. New York: Joh n Wiley an d Sons. 

Stoelting Co., C. H . 

1936. Apparatus, Tests and Supplies. 3rd edition. Chicago: 

Stoelting. [Th e 1930 edition is identical to the 1936 

edition.] 

Stone, William Henr y 

1879. Elementary Lessons on Sound. London : Macmillan. 

Taylor, Sedley 

1873. Sound and Music. London : Macmillan. 

Thomson , Robert 

1970. Pelican History of Psychology. Baltimore: Penguin. 

Thurlow, Willard R. 

1972. Audition. Chapte r 8 in R. S. Woodworth, editor, 

Experimental Psychology. 

Titchener, Edwar d Bradford 

1898. A Psychological Laboratory. Mind, 7:311-331. 

1900. The Psychological Laboratory of Cornell University. Worcester, Mass.: Oliver B. Wood. 

1901a. Experimental Psychology: A Manual of Laboratory Practice. Volume 1, part 1. New York: Macmillan. 

1901b. Experimental Psychology: A Manual of Laboratory Practice. Volume 1, part 2. New York: Macmillan. 

1905a. Experimental Psychology: A Manual of Laboratory Practice. Volume 2, part 1. New York: Macmillan. 

1905b. Experimental Psychology: A Manual of Laboratory Practice. Volume 2, part 2. New York: Macmillan. 

Wegel, R. L., an d C. E. Lan e 

1924. Th e Auditory Masking of On e Pur e Ton e by .Another 

and Its Probabl e Relation to the Dynamics of the 

Inne r Ear. Physiological Review, 23:266-285. 

Weiss, A. P. 

1916. Apparatu s an d Experiments in Sound Intensity. 

Psychology Monographs, 22. 

Wever, Ernest Glen 

1970. Theory of Hearing. New York: Dover. 

Wever, Ernest G., an d Charles W. Bray 

1930. Th e Natur e of Acoustic Response: Th e Relation 

Between Soun d Frequency an d Frequency of Impulses in the Auditory Nerve. The Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13:373-387. 

Wilkinson, George 

1922a. A Not e on the Resonating System in the Cochlea, 

with a Demonstration of a Model, Illustrating the 

Action of the Hitherto Neglected Factor. Proceedings 

of the Royal Society of Medicine (Otology Section), 

1922:51-55. 

1922b. Analysis of Sound by Resonance. The Journal of 

Laryngology and Otology, 37:447-469. 

1927. Hav e We a Resonance Theory of Hearing or Only 

a Resonance Hypothesis. The Journal of Laryngology 

and Otology, 42:365-374. 

1930a. Th e Bearing of the Fluids Contained in the Cochlea 

on Its Resonance Mechanism. Acta 0to-Laryngology 

(Stockholm), 11:134-144. 

1930b. Some Mechanica l Problems in the Makin g of Cochlea 

Models. The Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 

45:833-840. 

Witmer, Lightner 

1894. Experimental Psychology and the Psycho-physical 

Laboratory. University Extension, 3:230-238. 

1902. Analytical Psychology. Boston: Ginn. 

Woodworth, Robert Sessions 

1972. Woodworth & Schlosberg's Experimental Psychology. 

3rd American edition. J. W. Kling an d L. A. Riggs, 

editors. London : Methuen. 

Wundt, Wilhelm 

1883. Uebe r psychologische Methoden. Philosophische Studien, 

1:1-38. 

1902-1903. Grundzilge der physiologischen Psychologic. 5th 

revised edition, 4 volumes. Leipzig: W. Engelmann. 

Young, Paul Thoma s 

1918. Tunabl e Bars, and Some Demonstrations With a 

Simple Bar and a Stethoscope. Psychology Bulletin, 

15:293-300. 

1922. Series of Difference Tones Obtained From Tunabl e 

Bars. American Journal of Psychology, 33:385-394. 

Zimmermann , E. 

1912. Psychologische und physiologische Apparate: Illustrierte 

Lisle No. 25. Leipzig. 

1928. Psychologische und physiologische Apparate: Lisle 50. 

Leipzig. 
Index of Auditory Apparatus 

The following refers to objects cited in this publication, in Stoelting 1936 (S), or in 

Titchener 1901 or 1905 (T 1901a, T 1901b, T 1905a, T 1905b). Objects in the collections of the National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution, 

are designated by an asterisk (*), although not necessarily mentioned in the texts. 

acoumeter (S:34; T 1905b:56-59), 14, 22 

*Lehmann's (S:34; T 1905a:23-25; T 1905b:56-57), 14 

adjunct pieces 

bottle (as resonance-jar) (T 1901b:55) 

*bow (S:121; T 1905b:31) 

brush, sonometer (S:3l) 

ear protector (S:31) 

gasometer, Whipple's (S:34; T 1905b: 141), 15 

*hammer, fork (S:31; T 1905b: 13), 12 

mallet. See hammer, fork 

*manometric flame apparatus (S:121), 11 

piano hammer (T 1901b :55) 

*resonance box or case (S:121; T 1905b:14), 11 

screen, ear (S:31) 

sounder (S:31) 

starter, fork (S:30) 

=^stopper, rubber (S:31), 22 

telephone receiver, 31 

tube, differential (S:31) 

tubing, rubber (T 1901b:369), 22 

amplifier, 10, 11 

*analyzer, 10, 11, 27 

*audiometer (S:35-37), 2, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28 

Seashore's (S:34; T 1905b: 59-60), 24, 25 

audio-oscillator, 27 

bar, tunable, and difference tone (S:32), 22 

*bell (S:60, 121, 179; T 1905a:167), 11 

*bellows 

cylinder (S:34; T 1905b: 32-35), 12, 13, 14 

difference-tone apparatus (S:33), 22 

earphone, 19 

*fork (S:29-32, 121; T 1901a:31, 35-39; T 1901b:55-58, 

60-66, 80, 330, 332, 369-371; T 1905a:67-69, 154; 

T 1905b:2-4, 13-14, 31-35, 125-126), 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22 

funnel-horn, 11 

graphic recording, 11 

*harmonium (S:32; T 1901a:43^6; T 1901b:70, 72, 79, 

410), 12, 16, 17, 19, 22, 25 

harmonical (T 1901a: 43-46; T 1901b:52, 70, 79-80, 330), 19 

^hearing aid, 2 

lamella (S:3l; T l905a:l-2; T 1905b:l-4, 13, 39), 12, 22 

'^metronome (S:70-71; T 1901a:115, 175-178; T 1901b:205-

206, 338-340, 347-348, 351-352; T 1905b:4, 384) 

*microphone, 2, 27 

*model (S:l9l-192), 8, 9, 10, 23, 30 

musical instrument, 11, 16, 19 

*bassoon (T 1901a:47) 

*concertina (T 1901b :72) 

*harmonica (S:32; T 1901b:330),- 15, 16, 19 

harp string, 7 

melodeon, 19 

*oboe (T 1901a:47) 

*organ, 18 

•^piano (T 1901b:72, 330; T 1905b:91), 19 

*piano string, 6, 7 

*trumpet (T 1901b :72) 

^violin (T 190la:47; T 1901b:72, 330), 19 

*xylophone (S:31, 121) 

*zither (T 1901a:49) 

See also harmonium; pipe, organ 

^otoscope, 10 

phonodeik, 27 

*phonelescope (S:39), 22 

=^phonograph (S:85), 2, 11, 20, 28 

*phonograph record 

phonoineter. See acoumeter 

phono-projectoscope (S:39—40), 22 

pipe (T 1905b:35) 

*organ (T 1901b :68, 72, 330, 371), 11, 12, 19 

*pitch (S:31) 

pseudophone, 19 

*resonator (S:31; T 1901b:77-80), 6, 11, 16, 17, 22 

rhythm apparatus (S:89-90, 97-98; T 1905b:411) 

*siren, 11, 12 

*tooth (Savart wheel) (T 190lb:52), 12 

•sonometer (S:31, 121; T 1901a: 50-51), 16 

sound cage (S:35-36, T 1901a: 179; T 1901b:358-359; T 

I905b:l41), 19, 22 

*sound generators, 10, 11 

*sound hammer, 22 

sound helmet (T 1905b: 359), 19 

sound measurer, 11 

*sound pendulum (S:37; T 1905b: 194-197, 265), 15 

sound perimeter, 25 

sound receiver, 11 

*sound recorder, 2, 10 

sound reproducer, 10, 11 

sound stimulator (T 1905b:344-345, 384) 

Hipp's (S:37; T 1905b :340, 344) 

*snapper (S:36; T 1901b:359) 

=^sound hammer (S:37; T l905b:344-345) 

stethoscope, 28 

36 
NUMBER 3 1 37 

stroboscope, 25 

strings, 11,12 

stroboscopic disk (S:39), 22 

strobilion, 22 

'•^synthesizer, 11, 16, 17, 27 

•telephone, 2, 11, 12, 20 

tonometer, 22 

*fork, 3 

*reed (S:33; T I90lb:89, T 1905b:9l), 15, 16, 19 

•tonoscope (S:38-39), 22, 25 

•transmitters, 10 

tube, Quincke's (S:33; T 1901a:34-35, 40-45, 47-49; T 

190lb:66-72; T 1905b:34), 16, 22 

variator, 22 

•bottle (S:3l) 

•Stern's (S:3l; T I905b:139-140), 15 

vowel apparatus, 11 

•watch (T 1905b:56) 

whisde, 11, 22 

•Galton (S:32-33; T 1905a:r2-14; T 1905b:31-41, 44-45), 

13, 14, 22 

piston, (S:3I;T 1901a:47-49), 16 
Index of Names 

Angell, James Rowland (1869-1949), 22 

Appunn, Anton (1839-1900), 12, 13, 14, 17, 21 

Appunn, Georg (1816-1885), 13, 14, 17 

Auzoux, Louis-Thomas Jerome (1797-1880), 8, 9 

Baldwin, Bird Thomas (1875-1928), 22 

Bell, Alexander Graham (1847-1922), 2, 32 

Bergstrom, John Andrew (1867-1910), 22 

Bernstein, Julius (1839-1917), 12 

Bezold, Friedrich (1842-1908), 14 

Bezold, Wilhelm von (1837-1907), 12 

Boring, Edwin Garringues (1886-1968), 22, 28, 31 

Bowditch, Henry Pickering (1840-1911), 2 

Bowman, Charles, 24 

Bray, Charles William (1904- ), 31 

Bunch, Cordia C. (1885-1942), 27, 28, 32 

Buytendijk, Frederik Jacobus Johannes (1887- ), 31 

Carlisle, Anthony, Sir (1768-1840), 6 

Cattell, James McKeen (1860-1944), 2 

Corti, Alfonso (1822-1888), 6, 7, 11 

Davidson, F. (fl. 1903), 10 

Dean, Lee Wallace (1873-1944), 27 

Deiters, Otto Friedrich Karl (1834-1863), 6 

Denoues, Guillaume (ca 1650-ca 1735), 8 

Despretz, Cesar Mansuete (1792-1863), 12 

Dexter, George (fl. 1840), 8 

Dorsey, Herbert Grove (1876- ), 22 

Dubois-Reymond, Emil (1818-1896), 24 

Ebbinghaus, Hermann (1850-1909), 1, 22 

Edelmann, Max Thomas (1845-1913), 13, 14 

Edison, Thomas Alva (1847-1931), 2, 32 

Ellis, Alexander John (1814-1890), 2, 13, 19 

Ewald, Julius Richard (1855-1921), 30 

Fechner, Gustav Theodor (1801-1887), 1, 15 

Fletcher, Harvey (1884- ), 28 

Flores, Jose de (1751-1824), 8 

Fontana, Felice (1730-1805), 8 

Forbes, Alexander (1882-1965), 31 

Fourier, Jean Baptiste Joseph, Baron (1768-1830), 30 

Fowler, Edmund Prince (1873-1966), 28 

Franz, Shephard Ivory (1874-1933), 10 

Galton, Francis, Sir (1822-1911), 13, 15 

Gotch, Francis, (1853-1913), 8 

Gray, Giles Wilkeson (1876- ), 22 

Griessmann, B. (fl. 1919), 27 

Gruschke, G. (fl. 1919), 27 

Guttman, John (fl. 1920), 27 

Hall, G. Stanley (1844-1924), 2, 22, 24 

Hartmann, Arthur (1849-1931), 24 

Hawksley (fl. 1890), 13 

Helmholtz, Hermann Ludwig Ferdinand von (1821-1894) 

1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 22, 31, 32 

Henle, Jakob (1809-1885), 6 

Hensen, Victor (1835-1924). 6, 7 

Hughes, David Edward (1831-1900), 24 

Hunter, Walter Samuel (1889-1954), 10, 32 

James, William (1842-1910), 1, 2, 9, 10, 32 

Jastrow, Joseph (1863-1944), 22 

Jung, Rudolf (fl. 1880-1895), 9 

Kempelen, Wolfgang von (1734-1804), 17 

Kline, Linus Ward (1866-1961), 10 

Koenig, Rudolph (1832-1901), 2, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21 

Kolliker, Albert von (1817-1905), 7 

Kuhne, Wilhelm (1837-1900), 6 

Ladd, George Trumbull (1842-1921), 5, 6, 24 

Lane, C. E. (fl. 1920), 28 

Lashley, Karl Spencer (1890-1958), 10, 32 

Lehmann, Alfred (1858-1921), 14 

Lotze, Rudolf Hermann (1817-1881), 2 

Mach, Ernst (1838-1916), 6 

Marloye (fl. 1845), 12 

Maximilian II (1811-1864), 32 

Mayer, Alfred Marshall (1836-1897), 28 

Melde, Franz Emil (1832-1901), 13 

Metfessel, Milton Franklin (1901-1969), 22 

Meyer, Max Friedrich (1873-1967), 13, 14, 21, 22-23, 30, 32 

Miles, Walter Richard (1885- ), 21 

Miller, Dayton Clarence (1866-1941), 27 

Miller, R. H. (fl. 1927), 31 

Minton, John Preston (1889-1967), 27 

Moos, Salomon (1831-1895), 12 

Mowrer, Orval Hobart (1907- ), 22 

Mijller, Georg Elias (1850-1934), 1 

MiJller, Johannes (1801-1858), 6, 7 

MiJnsterberg, Hugo (1863-1916), 10, 21, 27 

O'Connor, J. (fl. 1927), 31 

Ogden, Robert Morris (1877-1959), 22 

Ohm, Georg Simon (1787-1854), 6 

Planck, Max (1858-1947), 22 

PraU, Carroll Cornelius (1894- ), 20 

Preyer, William (1842-1897), 6, 13 

Retzius, Gustav (1842-1919), 6, 11 

Riemann, Bernard (1826-1866), 9 

Rijdinger, Nicolaus (1832-1898), 6 

Rutherford, William (1839-1899), 11, 12, 30 

Sabine, Wallace Clement (1868-1919), 27, 32 

Sanford, Edmund Clark (1859-1924), 4, 5, 14, 19, 22 

Savart, Felix (1791-1841), 12 

Schaefer, Karl Ludolf (1866-1931), 27 

Schopenhauer, Arthur (1788-1860), 24 

Schultze, Max Johann Sigismund (1825-1874), 6 

Schwartzkopf (fl. 1919), 27 

Schwendt, Anton (1853-1902), 12 

Scripture, Edward Wheeler (1864-1945), 4, 5, 14, 22, 24, 25, 30 

Seashore, Carl Emil (1866-1949), 4, 10, 22, 23-25, 32 

Sittel (fl. I860), 9 

38 
NUMBER 3 1 39 

Smith, W. F. (fl. 1894), 14 

Steinbriigge, Hermann (1831-1901), 12 

Stumpf, Carl (1848-1936), 1, 6, 13, 14, 19, 22, 23 

Thomson, James (1822-1892), 27 

Thomson, William (1st Baron Kelvin) (1824-1907), 27 

Tiffin, Joseph (1905- ), 22 

Titchener, Edward Bradford (1867-1927), 4, 5, 11, 14, 19, 

21, 22, 28, 32 

Von Bekesy, Georg (1899-1972), 32 

Weber, Ernst Heinrich (1795-1878), 15 

Wegel, Raymond Lester (1888- ), 28 

Weiss, Albert Paul (1879-1931), 21, 22 

Wever, Ernest Glen (1902- ), 31 

Wheatstone, Charles, Sir (1802-1875), 17 

Whipple, Guy Montrose (1876-1941), 15, 22 

Wilkinson, George (1867- ), 30 

Willis, Robert (1800-1875), 17 

Wilson, J. G. (fl. 1921), 27 

Wistar, Caspar (1761-1818), 8 

Witmer, Lightner (1867-1956), 10 

Wundt, Wilhelm Max (1832-1920), 1, 2, 27 

Young, Paul Thomas (1892- ), 22 

Zumbo, Giulio (1656-1701), 8 

Zwaardemaker, Henrik (1857-1930), 14 

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1975 O - 572-511