\HIWMWI

|
t
?

WIN“

1
l

M
I

W

WM

1

m

118
294

 

THS.

LIP'READEVNG FEfiFCRMANCE AS A
FUNCTEGN €25? {EQRTQNQQUS
VégifiAL DifiMCNGNS

The“: for ‘i’he Degree of M. A.
MECBKGAN STATE UNWERSITY
Charles A. Milier
1965

 

THESIS F)

LIBRARY

Michigan State
1 UniverSIty

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

LIPREADING PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION OF

CONTINUOUS VISUAL DISTRACTIONS

BY
Charles A. Miller

The purpose of this study was to analyze the
effects of selected continuous visual distractions upon
the lipreading performance of untrained subjects. The
primary goals of the researcher were to determine which
visual distraction had the greatest effect, if any, upon
lipreading performance and to determine whether the lip—
reading subjects could adapt to visual distractions.

The subjects participating in this study were four
male and ten female college students enrolled in speech
courses at Michigan State University. All of the subjects
had from two to five years of college education and all
subjects were judged to have normal speech, hearing, and
vision as determined by speech, hearing, and vision tests.

I

Charles A. Miller

None of the subjects had lipreading experience or training
prior to the study and they were not given any lipreading
instruction or permitted to study the word lists for the
lipreading tests.

One female adult presented all of the test words
to all of the lipreading subjects. The test words were
fifty single words randomly selected from Voelker's gng
Thousand Most Frequent.Spoken Words.1 The speaker pro-
nounced a word every ten seconds to allow the subjects
time to record each word they identified on an answer
sheet. There were four lipreading tests for this study.
The same vocabulary of fifty words was used for each test
but the‘words were presented in a different random order
for each test.

The lipreading experiment consisted of a presenta—
tion of fifty words at ten second intervals under a control
and three experimental conditions. The first experiment

consisted of a presentation of fifty words with no visual

 

1Charles H. Voelker, "The One Thousand Most Fre-
quent Spoken Words," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXVIII
(February, 1942), 189—197.

Charles A. Miller

distractions. For the second experiment the same fifty
words were presented in a different random order and a
flashing light was introduced. The third experiment con-
sisted of a presentation of the same fifty words in a
different random order with the introduction of a spinning
disc during the presentation of the words. The final ex—
periment consisted of a nonpurposeful hand movement on
the part of the speaker-sender during her presentation
of the same fifty words in a different random order. In
each experiment white noise was generated through a
speaker—amplifier to mask the voice of the speaker-sender.
The findings of this study reveal that the non—
purposeful hand movement on the part of the speaker—sender
increased lipreading performance significantly. The reason
for this significant increase in lipreading performance is
unknown because the hand movement was intended to distract
the lipreader. The lipreaders did not adapt to the visual
distractions. They did appear to fatigue on three of the
four tests with significantly lower scores on the second-

half on one test.

LIPREADING PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION OF

CONTINUOUS VISUAL DISTRACTIONS

BY

Charles A. Miller

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Speech

1965

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv

LIST OF APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Chapter

I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . I

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of Problem and Purpose of Study 5

Null Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Importance of Study . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Limitations of the Study. . . . . . . . . 8

Definitions of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . lO

Organizaion of the Thesis . . . . . . . . 12

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . l4

Disagreement Concerning the Correctness

of Terminology. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Factors Related to Lipreading Proficiency 16
Factors in Lipreading-—Point of View from

Good and Poor Lipreaders. . . . . . . . l9
Attention Factors and Lipreading. . . . . 23
Various Types of Distractions and Perform—

ance Tasks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

III. SUBJECTS, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, AND PROCEDURE 31
Subjects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3l
Speaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

ii

Table of Contents-—continued.

Chapter

Materials . . . . . . . . . . . .
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . .

Results 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . .

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . .

APPENDIX.

sumary O. O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . .
Implications for Further Research

BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

Page

35
36

46

46
5O

56

56

58

61

63

70

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I. RESULTS OF E_TESTS FOR EVALUATION OF DIFFER-
ENCES BETWEEN MEANS OF CORRECT IDENTIFICA-
TIONS OF SINGLE WORDS IN FOUR TEST CONDI-
TIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

II. RESULTS OF‘E TESTS FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

MEANS OF FIRST-HALF AND SECOND-HALF TEST
SCORES IN FOUR TEST CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . 50

iv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
A. LIPREADING VOCABULARY OF FIFTY WORDS PRE-

SENTED IN FOUR DIFFERENT RANDOM ORDERS. . . 68

B. LIPREADING SCORE SHEET. . . . . . . . . . . . 72

C. RAW SCORES OF LIPREADING SUBJECTS. INDICATING
THE NUMBER OF WORDS IDENTIFIED CORRECTLY IN
FOUR LIPREADING TEST CONDITIONS . . . . . . 73

LIPREADING PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION

OF CONTINUOUS VISUAL DISTRACTIONS

CHAPTER I

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction

The greatest loss to anyone who is deaf is the
inability to understand speech. One who is unable to
hear music or the voices of nature is certainly deprived,
but inability to hear spoken language is a calamity, un-
less means other than the ear can be found to convey the
message to the brain. This ability to understand the

spoken language is a key to the pleasures of life.1

 

1Edward B. Nitchie, Lip—Reading Principles and
Practice (New York: Frederick A. Stoles Co., 1930),
14-15 0

 

A deaf person or one who has little residual hear—
ing must rely on some other method to receive and under-
stand spoken language. Manual language or sign language
was one of the early methods taught to the deaf and se-
verely hard-of-hearing, and this method is being taught
and utilized in some training centers at the present time.
The exclusive use of the manual method, sign language, or
finger spelling (communication with the hand) has a serious
limitation. Communication with the use of the hand is
limited to those who understand the language, and this
limits the environment in which the deaf or hard—of-hear-
ing person can communicate. Another time-tested method
for understanding language is lipreading. Lipreading is
the most widely used method practiced by the deaf and hard—
of-hearing for understanding spoken language. Lipreading
enables the person with the faculty of speech but with
little or no hearing to communicate with normal hearing
individuals. Goldstein,1 in his discussion of the prob-

lems of the deaf. states that every human with defective

 

l . .
Max A. Goldstein, Problemg of the Deaf (St. Louis:

Laryngoscope Press, 1933), p. 267.

hearing should seek to become a fluent and accurate lip-
reader and to make this asset his most dependable one.

Some individuals with sufficient residual hearing
may find that a hearing aid is invaluable as a means for
additional cues and as a means of identification with the
world of sound, but lipreading is often recommended in
addition to wearing a hearing aid.

To the partially or incurably deaf, the

acquisition of lip-reading is a manifold bless-
ing; it releases him from the constant handicap
of his aural infirmity; it relieves the con-
stant nervous strain and embarrassment of iso-
lation from the rest of his fellows; it restores
his social status and his means of communication
with his fellow-men.

Lipreading as a substitute for hearing has its lim-
itations. The lipreader may find occasions when his skill
will be limited by conditions which are beyond his control.
Rapid speech, obscure movements of speech, extraneous con-
ditions of poor lighting, distance from the speaker, and

View of the speaker may be serious handicaps to the lip-

reader.2

 

lGoldstein, op. cit., p. 296

2Irving Fusfeld, "Factors in Lipreading as Deter-

mined by the Lipreader," American Annals of the Deaf, CII
(March, 1958), p. 240.

4

Lipreading, then, is not a cure for deafness.

nor is it a cure for all the ills of deafness;

but from some of the worst ills it is a true

alleviation. It takes first place for the

majority of occasions over all mechanical

devices. For those completely deaf. or so

deaf as to make mechanical devices out of

the question, lipreading is the only resource.l

Lipreading does require certain skills, and one of
the primary requirements for lipreading is visual percep-
tion and visual concentration. Visual concentration, then,
is one of the most valuable agents in the acquisition of
. . 2
lipreading.
Inattention or a lack of visual concentration is
. . 3

one of the chief faults of lipreaders. Brandt states
that there are many occasions when the task of the indi—
vidual and distracting or interesting stimuli present
themselves simultaneously and result in a conflict of
"two brands of attention." One "brand" appeals to the
senses in terms of the freedom and enjoyment of turning

the attention to that Which is distracting, and the other

"brand" makes its appeals on the basis of purpose or

 

1Nitchie, op. cit., p. 16.
2Goldstein, op. cit., p. 295.

3Nitchie, op. cit., p. 4.

duty.l Many authorities on the subject of lipreading
mention the importance of the lipreader's ability to con-
centrate on the face and lips of the Speaker, and several
studies have been completed on the subject of various
types of distractions including visual distractions. How-
ever, this researcher could not find a single study re-

garding lipreading as a function of visual distractions.

Statement of Problem and Purpose of Study

 

The purpose of this study is to investigate and
analyze the effects, if any, of predetermined visual dis—
tractions upon the lipreading ability of a group of un-
trained subjects.

From the investigation and analysis it is hOped
that the following general questions may be answered: Do
visual distractions affect lipreading ability; and if so.
which type of distraction has the greatest effect upon lip-
reading ability? Can the lipreader adjust to visual dis—

tractions and thus maintain high performance in lipreading?

 

1Herman F. Brandt, The Psychology of Seeing (New
York: The Philosophical Library, 1945), p. 194.

Null Hypotheses

1. There is no significant relationship between lipread-

ing performance and visual distractions.

2. There is no significant difference between various
types of continuous visual distractions and their

effects upon lipreading performance.

3. There is no significant difference between first-half
lipreading performance scores and second-half perform-

ance scores as a function of adaptation to visual dis-

tractions.

Importance of the Study

A few studies have investigated the relationship
between lipreading performance and intelligence, lighting
conditions, distance from the speaker, and auditory dis-
tractions; but this researcher could not find any evidence
of a controlled study on the relationship between visual

distractions and lipreading performance.

It is known that lipreading performance is related
to the ability of the lipreader to concentrate his or her
attention on the speaker. Speech therapists and teachers
of the deaf are familiar with the problems of visual and
auditory distractions during initial sessions of lipread-
ing instruction. O'Neill and Dyer cite the need for re-
search in controlled studies dealing with the effects of
lighting, physical environment, distractions, and viewing
distance.1

Knowledge of the effects of visual distractions
upon lipreading performance could have important implica-
tions for future methods in lipreading instruction because
it is possible that sudden visual distractions may greatly
affect learning rate and performance of lipreaders.

It is h0ped that this study will provide groundwork
for future investigations on the relationship between vis-

ual distractions and lipreading performance.

 

1John J. O'Neill and Herbert J. Oyer, Visual
Communication for the Hard of Hearing: History, Research,
and Methods (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1961), p. 44.

Limitations of the Study

The subjects for this study were students enrolled

in Speech 108 and Speech 373 at Michigan State University.

All subjects were American born English speaking students

who were judged to have normal speech and hearing as de—

fined in this thesis.

1.

All subjects must have 20—20 corrected vision in
the poorest eye and must be able to pass the

Snellen E Chart Vision Test.

All subjects must be able to hear pure tones at
15dB or less re audiometric zero at frequencies
of 250 cps through 6,000 cps. Audiometric zero
refers to the calibration standards set by the
American Standards Association in 1951. The sub-
jects were tested monaurally in each ear with ear-

phones with a Beltone Model 12-A audiometer.

All subjects must have normal speech as judged by
a Speech Therapist who is certified by the Ameri-

can Speech and Hearing Association.

The lipreading subjects will be tested on their
ability to lipread a given vocabulary of fifty
single isolated words at ten second intervals.
The same vocabulary will be used in the control
and experimental conditions with a different ran-

dom word order for each test condition.

A subject with normal speech will present the test
vocabulary to the lipreading subjects in a full-
face forward position using quiet voice of a speci-
fied intensity and at a specified distance from

the lipreading subjects. White noise masking will
be introduced through a loud—speaker to prevent
them from hearing auditory clues from the speaker-

sender.

Specified visual distractions will be introduced
in a predetermined schedule at a specified height

and distance from the speaker.

The test room will be controlled as much as possible

for ambient visual and auditory distractions.

defined

1.

2.

4.

10
Definitions of Terms

For the purpose of this study, the terms used are

in the following manner:

Lipreading.--The ability of an individual to re-
ceive and comprehend specific words Spoken by an-
other person while being deprived of auditory com-

ponents of speech.

Normal Hearing.—-The ability to hear pure tones
binaurally with earphones at lSdB re audiometric
zero at frequencies of 250, 500, 1,000, 2,000.

3,000, 4,000, and 6,000 cycles per second.

Normal Vision.--Persons who have at least 20—20

corrected vision in the poorest eye.

Normal Speech.--Persons whose Speech is free of
distortions, omissions, substitutions, repetitions.
and prolongations of Speech sounds, syllables, or
words and whose speech is judged as being within
the norms of average Speech by a certified Speech

therapist.

ll

5. Normal Speaker.-—A person whose Speech is repre-
sentative of normal speech in terms of articula-
tion and has been trained to pronounce a specified

vocabulary in a quiet voice without undue stress.

6. Vocabulary.—-Fifty words chosen at random from a
list of "The One Thousand Most Frequent.Spoken

Words."1

7. Full-front View of Speaker.--The Speaker will be
directly facing the lipreading subjects so that
face and lips of the speaker will be plainly vis-

ible to the lipreader.

8. Visual Distractions.--The visual distractions Shall
be 1) a flashing light oscillating at a rate of
of 4.5 cycles per second; 2) a Spinning red on
white archimedean spiral 18 inches in diameter.
driven by a small quiet running motor; 3) a non-

purposeful movement of the right hand of the

 

1Charles H. Voelker. "The One Thousand Most Fre-
quent Spoken-Words." Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXVIII
(February, 1942), 189-197.

12

speaker from a relaxed position parallel with the
body to a position with the forearm extended and
the elbow near the body. This lifting and thrust-
ing movement of the right arm will be performed
by the Speaker-subject at an approximate rate of

one cycle per second.

Organization of the Thesis

Chapter I contained an introduction to the problem
of lipreading and a statement of the problem which led to
this study along with the purpose for which this study is
being conducted. Specific questions were posed and null
hypotheses were stated. The importance and limitations of
this study were discussed, and major terms were defined.

Chapter II will contain a review of the literature
which pertains to the subject of lipreading and factors
related to lipreading ability as well as a discussion of
various types of visual and auditory distractions.

Chapter III will include a discussion and descrip—
tion of the subjects, equipment, materials. and testing

procedures employed in this study.

13

Chapter IV will consist of a discussion of the re-
sults of this study.
Chapter V will contain a summary, conclusions, and

recommendations for further research.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Disagreement Concerning the Correctnaas
of Terminology

The terms "lipreading." Speech reading," "visual

communication," "visual hearing,‘ and "visual listening"
reveal that there has been considerable disagreement con-
cerning the nature of the process whereby one person is
able to understand the Speech of another person without

the benefit of auditory stimuli. Although the term "lip-
reading" has remained pOpular in the literature and with
professional workers in the area of the aurally handicapped.
several persons have challenged the validity of the word
"lipreading." Mason attempted to discredit the terms "lip-
reading" and "speech reading" because she felt that these

terms did not adequately describe the process of reception

and interpretation of spdken language through the process

14

15

of visual observation.1 She suggested the use of the term
"visual hearing." O'Neill and Oyer suggest that the term
”visual listening" might be even more accurate and descrip-
tive. They believe the process of understanding speech by
visual observation only has the need for an even broader
term, and they use the term "visual communication."2 Mor-
koven stated that one can readily recognize the inadequacy
of the commonly accepted term "lipreading" and that this
term is a misnomer because lip movements cannot be conclu-
sive clues for speech.3 Muyskens questioned the term "lip-
reading" because he concluded that only 11 to 17 percent

of the movements involved in Speech were visible on the

lips.4

 

1Marie K. Mason. "A Cinematographic Technique for
Testing Visual Speech Comprehension," Journal of Speech
Disorders, VIII (September. 1943), 271-278.

2John J. O'Neill and Herbert J. Oyer. 0p. cit., 5-6.

3Boris V. Morkovin, "Rehabilitation of the Aurally
Handicapped Through the Study of Speech Reading in Life
Situations," Journal of Speech Disorders, XII (December.
1947), p. 363.

4John H. Muyskens, "The Building and Maintenance
of Clear Speech for the Deaf," The Volta Review, XXXX (No-
vember, 1938), 655-656.

16

Factors Related to Lipreading Proficiency

 

A review of the literature concerning factors re-
lated to lipreading proficiency reveals that there is no
one factor that fully accounts for lipreading proficiency.
Many of the skills formerly associated with lipreading
have been discredited because of a total lack of evidence.

Studies concerning the correlation between lipread-
ing and intelligence, education, age, language, reading
ability, synthetic ability, and perception of form and
color can be found in the literature.1 O'Neill and David-
son,2 in their discussion of psychological factors related
to lipreading, state that there is no Significant relation-
ship between lipreading and levels of aspiration, intelli-
gence, reading comprehension, or digit memory span. They
did find a Significant relationship between lipreading

ability and non-verbal concept formation.

 

1Audrey Ann Simmons, "Factors Related to Lipread-

ing," Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, II (December,
1959). 343-344.

2John J. O'Neill and JoAnn L. Davidson, "Relation-
ship Between Lipreading and Five Psychological Factors,"

Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, XXI (December,
1956), p. 481.

 

17

Utleyl states that lipreading ability cannot be predicted
from reading level, school achievement, chronological age.
age of onset of deafness, or grade placement in school.
Brannon2 found that there was little difference between
skilled and unskilled lipreaders in visual identification
of monosyllabic words, whereas the skilled lipreaders
greatly excelled the unskilled lipreaders in lipreading
sentences.

Byers and Lieberman3 studied rate as a variable of
lipreading performance and c0ncluded that there was no sig-
nificant relationship between rate and lipreading perform-
ance. Nitchie,4 however, states in his book that it is

necessary to speak Slowly to the lipreader and that the

 

1Jean Utley. "A Test of Lipreading Ability," Jour-

nal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, XXI (December, 1956),
p. 481.

2John B. Brannon, Jr., "Speechreading of Various

Speech Materials,“ Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders.
XXVI (November, 1961), 348-353.

3Vincent W. Byers and Lewis Lieberman. "Lipreading
Performance and the Rate of the Speaker." Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, II (September. 1959), p. 275.

4Nitchie, 0p. cit., p. 10.

18

delivery Should be smooth and not word by word. Blackl
found that word accent and the type of sounds within the
words could account for certain words being easier to lip-
read than other words. Lowell2 found that parts of Speech
are factors related to lipreading. He states that the
rank-order from the easiest to the most difficult parts

of Speech to lipread are as follows: pronouns, verbs.
nouns, adverbs, adjectives. prepositions, and conjunctions.
O'Neill3 studied the behavior and personality patterns of
college lipreaders. He found no significant relationship
between the ability to judge emotions and lipreading abil-
ity and no Significant relationship between personality

traits and lipreading ability. Kitson4 in his early

 

1John W. Black, "Accompaniments of Word Intelligi-

bility," Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders. XVII
(DeCember, 1952). 409-417.

2E. L. Lowell, "New In-Sight into Lipreading,"

Rehapilitation Record. II (July—August, 1961), p. 4.

3John J. O'Neill, "An Exploratory Investigation

of Lipreading Ability Among Normal Hearing Students."
Speech Monographs, XVIII (August, 1951). 309-311.

4H. D. Kitson, "Psychological Tests for Lipreading
Ability." The Volta Review. XVII (1915). 471-476.

l9

experiment found that there was a relationship between vis-
ual awareness and attention Span and high performance on
lipreading tests. Brannon1 concluded that there is no
great difference between male and female lipreading abil—
ity. O'Neill and Oyer,2 in their summary of experimental
studies of lipreading, state that while some studies Show
possible relationships between lipreading skills and per-
sonality or behavioral factors, there is no definite in-
dication of what constitutes typical behavior of a good

lipreader.

Factors in Lipreading--Point of View from
Good and Poor Lipreaders
Much of the literature on lipreading is written by
normal hearing individuals who do not lipread or practice
it as a skill simply because they do not need to acquire

the skill. Certainly most of these people are well

 

lBrannon, op. cit., p. 352.

2O'Neill and Oyer, op. cit., p. 40.

20

qualified as authorities on the subject, and their writings
are based upon their experiences in teaching lipreading or
upon research. However, as a dichotomy, it might be worth—
while to obtain some information from the lipreaders them-
selves. Some information may be gained from opinions of
both good and poor lipreaders. Fusfeldl interviewed a
panel of twenty lipreaders. All of the members of this
panel were college graduates, and all of them were in a
field of work requiring an intellectual background. The
main difference was that ten of these college graduates
were good lipreaders and ten of them had never been able

to develop proficiency in lip-reading. The central ques—
tion directed to these twenty lipreaders concerned the
process of lipreading. Those who were good lipreaders
listed the following factors: acquaintance with the sub—
ject matter or a preparatory set; awareness of current
events; filling—in the obscure and hidden elements of
speech; obtaining the thought of spoken communication

through key words; striving for gross meaning instead

 

lIrving S. Fusfeld, "Factors in Lipreading as De-
termined by the Lipreader,” American Annals of the Deaf,
CII (March, 1958), 229-242.

 

21

of isolated words; having a realistic attitude toward the
difficulties of lipreading; having a dynamic personality;
and a natural aptitude for lipreading as others may have

an aptitude for art or music.

The poor lipreaders gave the following factors
which they felt contributed to their inadequacies: lip—
reading is a Shallow, artificial experience which is
stripped of the emotionally satisfying experiences that
go with normal speech; a lack of understanding often leads
to feigning the ability to understand others; success in
the classroom often leads to failure in the real world;
lipreading is a compensatory activity with certain demands
of aptitude; efficiency in lipreading is a prolonged and
weary learning procedure, and fatigue is a deterrent to
acquiring skill in lipreading; too often unfavorable con-
ditions of extraneous nature such as uncertainties of
light, position, movement and distance from the speaker
make lipreading an uncertainty at best; residual hearing,
vocabulary, and general intelligence are important; extro—
version is a great help; many people enunciate poorly; and
the lack of assurance from a lack of feedback makes the

Skill of lipreading self—defeating.

22

 

A quick review of the above factors which were
listed by the groups of good and poor lipreaders will re-
veal that both groups generally agreed on the requirements
for proficiency in lipreading and one of the main differ-
ences can be attributed to the backgrounds, attitudes.
personalities, and driving forces of these individuals.
For example, while both groups agreed that the skill of
lipreading is not usually attained with ease, those who
were good lipreaders found a challenge and with stubborn.
persistent practice and experience were able to acquire
the necessary skills. Those who were poor lipreaders
found that the process of lipreading was so unrewarding.
so fatiguing, and so self-defeating that they were dis—
couraged to continue with the practice which is necessary

for acquiring the necessary skills. From this survey it

 

may also be seen that personality factors such as inherent i
qualities as well as desire to acquire the skill and a
willingness to accept the challenge despite the unfavor-
able odds may also be a very important factor.
For the deaf person or one who has little residual

hearing. lipreading can be compared to watching a movie

23

or T.V. when fifty percent of the picture is missing and
it becomes necessary to fill in the missing parts in order
to make any sense out of the total experience. For per—
sons with normal hearing the initial process of lipread—
ing might be compared with attempting to talk with another
person in a background of extreme noise. Indeed, the pro—
cess of lipreading involves many types of ”noise" which
serve as variables in the process of understanding spoken

language solely by means of visual perception.

Attention Factors and Lipreading

Many books and articles on the subject of lipread-
ing discuss the factors of visual perception and visual
attention and their close relationship with lipreading
ability. Tatoul and Davidson1 state that one of the most
promising variables for further study is that of synthetic

ability which is the ability to anticipate the whole from

 

lCorrine M. Tatoul and G. Don Davidson, "Lipread-
ing and Letter Prediction,” Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, IV (June, 1961), p. 178.

 

24

the knowledge of a few of its parts. Visual perception,
which includes concentration and attention, is a very
important factor in synthetic ability. Concentration is
the first essential for the would—be lipreader and without
it lipreading is impossible.1 Ewing2 states that lipread—
ing does not involve staring but it does involve atten-
tive watching. According to Bruhn,3 the lipreader must
be trained in the art of noticing. Glorig4 states that
not enough attention has been given to the teaching of
visual awareness and that visual observation is the basis
of good lipreading.

Few, if any, authorities on the subject of lipread—

ing have questioned the importance of visual perception.

 

1Introduction to Lipreading (Elmsford, New York:
Sonotone Corporation, 1958), p. 22.

2 . . . . . .
Irine R. Ewing. Lipreading and Hearing Aids (4th
ed.; London: Manchester University Press, 1962), p. 15.

 

3Martha Bruhn, The Mueller-Walle Method of Lip—
reading for Hard of Hearing (Boston: M. H. Leavis. 1947).
p. 8.

 

4 . . . . .
Aram Glorig. "Visual Aids in Speech Reading In—

struction," Hearing News, XVII (1949), p. l.

 

25

concentration, and observation. Yet, these factors demand
a necessary state of attention. Berry and Eisenson have
defined attention in the following way:

Attention is a state in which the individual

becomes set to select and respond to a spe-

cific pattern or stimuli or to one situation

to the exclusion of others. In order for an

individual to be capable of selection, he

must be able to inhibit potential responses

to competing and at the moment extraneous
(non—relevant) stimuli.l

Various Types of Distractions and
Performance Tasks
Since there are no known studies dealing with the
relationship between visual distractions and lipreading
performance, one must turn to the literature on the effects
of various types of distractions upon lipreading perform—

ance as well as other performance tasks.

 

lMildred F. Berry and Jon Eisenson, Speech Dis—
orders—-Principles and Practices of Therapy (New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1956), p. 394.

 

 

26

Vogel—Sprott,l in his study of the influence of
peripheral visual distractions on perceptual motor per-
formances, states that there is a real need for additional
studies dealing with distractions in the periphery of vis-
ual focus. He states that most studies have been concerned
with distracting stimuli in the central visual field or
have been concerned with other sensory receptors such as
touch or sound. For one thing, it is practical to study
the effects of peripheral visual distractions because this
situation occurs so frequently in our daily lives. A com—
mon example is automobile driving, with stimuli such as
the passing landscape in the visual periphery continuously
competing for the driver's attention.

Freeman,2 in his study of changes in tension pat—
terns and energy expenditure during adaptations to distrac—

ting stimuli, states that distracting stimuli temporarily

 

1M. Vogel—Sprott, "Influence on Peripheral Visual
Distractions on Perceptual Motor Performance," Perceptual
and Motor Skills, XVI (June, 1963), p. 765.

2G. L Freeman, "Changes in Tension-Pattern and
Total Energy Expenditure During Adaptation to Distracting
Stimuli," American Journal of Psychology, CII (July, 1939),
359-360.

 

 

27

unbalance the bodily economy and greater energy is ex—
pended to compensate for the distraction and the person
becomes tired more readily. After a period of time, how—
ever, the body can readjust to the distraction and an ec-
onomical pattern is reestablished. Cassel and Dallenbachl
in their experiments with auditory distractions upon sen—
sory reactions found that the effect of the distraction

is dependent upon the nature of the distraction and the
conscious attitude of the person being distracted.

. There is considerable disagreement concerning the
effects of auditory distractions upon various types of mo—
tor tasks as well as intellectual functioning. Many of
the experiments with the effects of auditory distractions
were not adequately controlled in terms of the variables (E
that were controlled; and for this reason, the validity

of many of the results of experiments must be questioned.

 

2 . . .
Morgan found that although his subjects were dis—

tracted by noise while performing motor tasks. they were

 

1E. E. Cassil and K. M. Dallenbach, "The Effect of
Auditory Distraction Upon the Sensory Reaction,“ American
Journal of Psychology. XXIX (April, 1918), 129-143.

2J. J. B. Morgan. "The Overcoming of Distractions
and Other Resistances," Archives of Psychology. XXXV (Feb-
ruary, 1916), p. 295.

28

able to adapt to the noise after a period of time. With
increased tension and effort they were able to compensate
for the distraction and perform as well in a condition of
noise as they were in a quiet condition. Butler and Har—
lowl also found that monkeys can adapt to auditory dis—
tractions. They trained their monkeys to perform a simple
task and then studied and analyzed the performance of the
monkeys in a control condition and three experimental con—
ditions. Monkey sounds, laboratory sounds, and white

noise were introduced as three separate conditions; and

in each experiment the researchers found that while there
was a decrement of performance initially, the monkeys adap-
ted to the noise and performed as well as they were able

to do without the noise. Cassel and Dallenbach2 found that
auditory distractions had no given effect upon the reaction
time of their subjects. In some cases, subjects had slower

reaction times to visual stimuli in the presence of noise

 

1

RObert A. Butler and Harry A. Harlow, "The Effects
of Auditory Distractions on the Performance of Monkeys,"
Journal of General Psychology. LIV (1956). P. 19.

 

2Cassel and Dallenbach, loc. cit., p. 143.

29

while other subjects increased the speed of their reaction
time and others remained unchanged. Their research did
indicate that the distractors which were the most resist—
ant to habituation where intermittent distractions and
that continuous distractions were adjusted to more readily.
Mechl studied the factors influencing the perform-
ance of routine tasks under conditions of verbal noise and
found that noise of a given intensity did not have any
effect upon the execution of routine tasks and states that
his findings are compatible with the results of other
studies. He does state that his subjects were able to
adapt to noise but did not state whether there were any Sig—
nificant changes throughout his experiment. Dolch,2 in
his discussion of distractions and Silent reading ability
states that the school child is easily distracted by noise

and movement about him and that the child must.learn to

 

ignore distractions, an ability which is accomplished by

learning to pay continuous attention.

 

E. Victor Mech, "Factors Influencing Routine Per—
formance Under Noise: The Influence of 'Set'," Journal of
Psychology. XXXV (1953), p. 297.

 

2Edward William Dolch, Teaching Primary Reading.
Champaign, Illinois: The Garrard Press (1960), p. 53.

30

Lipreaders have expressed the thought that paying
attention to the speaker is vital to lipreading success
and that the would-be lipreader must learn to pay attention
as a conscious process. Unfortunately, the human being
can only focus his attention on a given act or process
for a short period of time, and the external visual dis-
tractions are constantly competing for the lipreader's
attention. Furthermore, many of the visual distractions
are intermittent and occur unexpectedly and with varying
degrees of frequency and intensity. On the other hand.
proficient lipreaders state that they can not and do not
rely on seeing every word, and for this reason visual dis—
tractions may not be as detrimental to lipreading profi-

ciency as it would appear.

CHAPTER III

SUBJECTS. EQUIPMENT. MATERIALS, AND

PROCEDURE

Subjects

Four male and ten female college students served
as subjects for this experiment. The subjects were all
enrolled in either Speech 108 or Speech 373. Their edu-
cational background ranged from two to five years of col—
lege. None of the subjects had lipreading experience or
training prior to this study. The subjects were not given
any lipreading instructions for this study, and their po-

tential lipreading ability was not measured.

1. Speech Screening: Each subject was screened indi-

 

vidually for speech proficiency by a certified

Speech therapist in conversational speech.

2. Vision Screening: Each subject was individually

 

given a Snellen Vision Test using the Snellen E

31

32

Chart. Both eyes were tested individually for vis-
ual acuity as a function of distance. Each subject
included in the lipreading study evidenced at least

20-20 vision in the poorest eye.

3. Hearing Screening: Each subject was individually
given a hearing acuity screening test. Both the
right and left ears were screened separately for
hearing acuity at frequencies of 250, 500, 1,000,
2,000, 3,000, 4,000, and 6,000 cycles per second
using a Beltone model 12—A audiometer. The sub—
jects selected for this study were able to hear
pure tones at the above frequencies at a level of

15 dB re audiometric zero.

Speaker

One female adult presented all of the test words

to all of the subjects.

33

Equipment

 

The following equipment was used:

Allstate stop—watch (Hanhart model, 7 jewel, with

sweep second hand).

Ampex 620 speaker-amplifier (speaker 7 inches in

diameter).

Beltone 12-A audiometer (TDH—39 lOz telephonics

earphones).

Bruel and Kjaer precision sound level meter (type

2203).

Grason-Stadler white noise generator (model 455B).

Hewlett-Packard low frequency audio oscillator

(model 202 C).

Indicator lamp (push button switch).

Kodak Slide projector (model 500—B).

Sawyer slide projector (model 500R).

10.

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

34

Snellen E Chart (No. P318P).

Tone—operated relay for flashing light (four and

one—half cycles per second).

Small battery operated motor (one and one-half

volt, full power 1,000 RPM).

Rheostat (350 OHM, type J) for controlling motor

speed to approximately 300 RPM.

One and one-half—volt batteries (three batteries

connected for motor power source).

Six-volt batteries (three connected together for

flashing light power source).

Two small. clear light bulbs (No. TS 1881, 3/8
inches in diameter) centered and mounted on a

black cardboard 20 X 30 inches.

Black drape (seven feet by twelve feet).

Wooden stand for projectors and signal light (Six

feet high).

35

19. Metal table for placement of distraction devices
(41—3/4 long by 26—1/4 inches wide by 30 inches

high).

20. Metal adjustable stool for speaker (seat adjusted

to 30 inches from floor).

21. Archimedean spiral (red—on—white, 18 inches in di-

ameter).
22. Fourteen desk chairs for lipreading subjects.
23. Fourteen #2 lead pencils.

24. Fifty-six scoring sheets.

Materials

Fifty single words were randomly selected from
Voelker's One Thousand Most Fregpentlngpoken Words.l

Five words were randomly selected from each of the ten

 

1Charles H. Voelker, op. cit., 189-197.

36

groups of one-hundred words were listed according to their
relative frequency of occurrence in the spoken English
language. The test words were composed of monosyllabic
and disyllabic words. These lists of test words may be

found in the appendix.

Procedure

 

Testing Procedures: The experiment was conducted

 

in the Michigan State University Speech and Hearing Science
Laboratory. The windows were closed, the Shades were drawn,
the doors were closed, and immediately before the test the
ambient noise level in the test room ranged from 45 to 55
dB as measured by a sound pressure level meter at the po-
sition of the speaker. A black drape seven feet high and
twelve feet long was hung on the front wall of the test
room, two feet behind the speaker. This black drape also
covered the table which was used for the distraction de—
vices. The drape was used to minimize the effect of uncon-
trolled visual distractions near the Speaker. The audio

oscillator and batteries for the power supply of the visual

37

distractors were also placed behind the drape to minimize
the effect that this equipment might have as a visual dis—
traction. The speaker—sender was seated on a wooden stool
near the center of the black drape and two feet in front
of it. The lipreading subjects were seated in three rows
of desk chairs which were staggered in position to give
each subject the best view possible of the speaker-sender
and the distraction devices. The three rows of chairs
were positioned twenty-eight inches apart with the front
row being Six feet from the stool of the speaker-sender.
The speaker amplifier, which was used for masking the
quiet voice of the speaker-sender, was positioned three
feet to the right of the lipreading subjects and in line
with the back row of chairs. The two slide projectors
which served as spotlights to be directed on the speaker
subject and the distraction devices were located on a six
foot high wooden stand at the back of the test room at a
distance of eighteen feet from the Speaker-sender, and in
a nearly direct line with the Speaker-sender. The red
signal light which was used to cue the speaker-sender at

ten second intervals was positioned between the two Slide

38

projectors. This red signal light was turned on every ten
seconds by the time keeper with a push button switch. The
time keeper was equipped with a stop watch and was seated
near the back of the test room behind the last row of lip~
reading subjects.

The experimenter read the following instructions
to the lipreading subjects immediately before the beginning
of the first lipreading experiment:

This experiment is designed to determine the
effects of visual distractions, if any, upon
lipreading performance. Your task is to lip-
read a vocabulary of fifty single monosyllabic
and disyllabic words spoken in quiet voice by
one female speaker who will be seated where I
am now seated.

The single words will be presented at ten sec-
ond intervals. You are to record the word which
you believe you have identified in the correct
space on your score sheet. You are to record
this word immediately after each word has been
presented by the speaker. A ten second inter-
val will be provided for recording your re-
sponses. Spelling is not of great importance
and should be no problem since all of the
words presented are commonly spoken words.

You are urged to guess at the words if you

are unsure of the correctness of the word you
think you have identified. If you can not
identify the word, draw a line through the
space provided for that word. This will en-
able you to record each word in flie correct
Space. If you should require a new pencil

39

or if you become confused on the number of

the word which was just presented. raise your

hand and you will receive assistance.

This experiment will consist of four parts.

In each experiment the same fifty words will

be presented in a different random order.

You will not be able to hear the quiet voice

of the speaker because of masking noise which

will be presented through a loud-speaker.

Your eyes will be your primary source for

communication.

Please do your best in attempting to identify

the words presented by the speaker-sender.

You are not expected to be able to identify

all of the words correctly. Are there any

questions?

Each lipreading subject was given a score sheet

and a pencil. The speaker-sender took her position on
the stool at the front of the room. The white noise gen-
erator was turned on to acquaint the lipreading subjects
with this masking noise. The level of the white noise
used for masking the voice of the speaker—sender was ad-
justed so that the fans on the Slide projectors, the motor
used for the distraction device, and ambient room noise
were at a level of 80 dB with a sound pressure level meter.
One Slide projector was turned on and the beam of the light

was centered on the face of the speaker—sender. The diam-

eter of the spot was adjusted to approximately two feet in

40

diameter by placing into the slide projector a piece of
cardboard 2" X 2" with a 5/8 inch hole in the center.
The time keeper took his position two feet behind the
back row of chairs provided for the lipreading subjects.
The experimenter turned off fiie Six overhead fluorescent
lights and left on the three fluorescent lights in the
back of the test room. This provided enough residual
light for the subjects to be able to record their re—
sponses. The experimenter took a position at the back
of the test room where the lipreading subjects, the
speaker—sender, and timekeeper could be viewed; and the
first lipreading experiment was ready to begin.

The first lipreading experiment served as the con-
trol condition. No visual distractions were introduced.
and the objective of this experiment was to determine each
subject's lipreading proficiency while peripheral visual
and auditory distractions were controlled as much as pos-
sible.

The speaker-sender sat as motionless as possible
looking straight ahead. The 500 watt beam from the slide

projector was elevated slightly above the eyes of the

41

speaker-sender to avoid looking directly into the light
source. Shadows were for the most part nonexistent except
for a small shadow under the lower jaw of the speaker-
sender. The speaker—sender's tongue and teeth were clearly
visible during speech with open mouth sounds, and the lips
and jaw were clearly visible at all times throughout the
lipreading experiment.

Upon seeing the red signal light in the back of
the room, the speaker-sender pronounced the first word and
the following words were given at ten second intervals.
The speaker-sender had a typed list of the test words on
her lap and was able to glance down at the list while the
lipreading subjects were recording their responses.

The duration of this experiment was eight minutes
and twenty seconds. The score Sheets were collected and
identical new score sheets were handed out to the lipread-
ing subjects. The lipreading subjects were then given a
two—minute break so the second experiment could be set up.

The purpose of the second experiment was to deter-
mine whether a continuous flashing light affected lipread-

ing performance. The second experiment served as the first

42

experimental condition. In this experiment, the environ-
mental conditions remained the same as that of the first
experiment, including the seating position of the lipread-
ing subjects. On this experiment, however, the first vis-
ual distraction was introduced. Two small clear light
bulbs mounted in the center of a piece of black cardboard
20 X 30 inches were positioned on a table, two feet to

the right of flie speaker subject. These light bulbs were
mounted one inch apart in a vertical position and flashed
on and off at a rate of four and one—half cycles per sec-
ond. The rate of oscillation was controlled by an audio
oscillator and the power supply was furnished by three
six-volt batteries.

The speaker-sender again pronounced each single
word at ten-second intervals using the same list of fifty
words in a different random order. This experiment lasted
eight minutes and twenty seconds. The score Sheets were
collected and new score Sheets were handed out to the
lipreading subjects. The lipreading subjects were then
given a two—minute break while the third experiment was

being set up.

43

The third experiment consisted of a presentation
of the same vocabulary of fifty words in a different ran—
dom order by the same speaker—sender. Each word was pro-
nounced at ten second intervals. The environmental con-
ditions remained the same with two exceptions. The flash-
ing lights were replaced with a red—on—white Archimedean
spiral eighteen inches in diameter. This spiral was
driven by a small battery-operated motor. The speed of
the motor was controlled by a rheostat so that spiral
turned at the rate of approximately three cycles per sec-
ond. The Archimedean spiral turned in a manner which
made it appear that the red line was flowing in toward
the center of the red-on-white disc.

During this experiment, a second slide projector
was employed. This time the beam of the 500 watt bulb
was directed on the Archimedean spiral to make it appear
as prominenet as that of the face of the speaker-sender.
The red-on-white Archimedean spiral operated continuously
at a rate of three cycles per second while the speaker-
sender pronounced the list of fifty words at ten second

intervals. At the termination of this experiment. the

44

score sheets were collected, new score sheets were handed
out, and the lipreading subjects were given a two—minute
break before the start of the fourth experiment.

The fourth and final experiment, which served as
the third experimental condition, consisted of a presenta—
tion of the same list of fifty words in a different random
order. During this experiment, the lipreading subjects re-
mained in the same seating order, the speaker-sender re-
mained in the same position as that of the other three ex-
periments, and the only change introduced was a nonpurpose—
ful hand movement of the speaker-sender.

This nonpurposeful hand movement consisted of a
movement of the right hand of the speaker-sender. The e1-
bow was held close to the body and forearm of the speaker-
sender moved in a verticle lifting action with the palm of
the right hand extended. In the position with the right
hand lowered, the right hand rested on the right thigh of
the speaker-sender, and in the raised position the right
hand was at a level approximately even with the chin of
the speaker. The right hand was raised and lowered at a

rate of one cycle per second. During this experiment, the

45

beam of light directed on the speaker-sender was lowered
slightly so that the hand of the speaker was illuminated
as well as the face of the speaker.

This experiment lasted eight minutes and twenty
seconds, and the score sheets were collected immediately
after the termination of this experiment. The lipreading

subjects were then dismissed.

Scoring and Recording: Each lipreading subject's
list of words for each of the four experiments was examined
and scored separately since each subject was compared only
with himself concerning lipreading proficiency in the con-
trol and experimental conditions. A word was scored as
correct only if it was recorded in the correct form with
the correct suffix. Two scores were recorded for each

score sheet: a total score was given for the total num-

 

 

ber of correct responses, and a first-half and second-
half score was recorded to determine whether adaptation

to the visual distractions occurred.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results

The number of words that were correctly identified
by the lipreading subjects were tabulated and recorded.
Raw scores were derived for each lipreading subject for
each of the four lipreading experiments.

The proportion of words identified correctly by
the lipreading subjects was low. This was expected by the
researcher since the subjects for this study were untrained
lipreaders. They were requested to identify single words,
and they were not permitted to see or study the test vo-
cabulary of fifty words. The above procedures made the
lipreading task more difficult, but they were employed
by the researcher to minimize the learning effect since
the same vocabulary of fifty words was presented in a dif-
ferent random order for each of the lipreading experiments.

46

47

Since considerable variability was expected from
untrained lipreaders, this researcher was interested in
individual test scores as well as group test scores in
each of the test conditions. Tables 1 and 2 present the
data which were obtained in response to the questions
posed in Chapter I. The following three questions were
posed by this researcher:

1. Do visual distractions affect lipreading perform-

ance?

2. If visual distractions affect lipreading perform-
ance, which distraction will produce the greatest

effect?

3. Can the lipreader adjust to visual distractions
and thus improve his test score during the second

half of each test?

A_p—test involving the difference between two means
was employed to determine whether a significant difference

existed in relation to the following questions:

 

 

48

Is there a significant difference between the test
scores in the control condition of no distractions
and the test scores in the experimental condition

of flashing lights?

Is there a Significant difference between the test
scores in the control condition of no distractions
and the experimental condition of a spinning red—
on-white Archimedean spiral herein labeled a

"spinning disc"?

Is there a Significant difference between first-
half test scores and second-half scores in the

control condition of no distractions?

Is there a significant difference between the test
scores in the control condition of no distractions
and the experimental condition of a nonpurposeful

hand movement?

Is there a Significant difference between the
first—half test scores and the second-half test
scores in the experimental condition of a flashing

light?

49

6. Is there a significant difference between the
first—half test scores and the second-half test
scores in the experimental condition of a spinning

disc?

7. Is there a significant difference between the
first—half test scores and the second-half test
scores in the experimental condition of a nonpur-

poseful hand movement?

TABLE I

RESULTS OF §_TESTS FOR EVALUATION OF DIFFERENCES
BETWEEN MEANS OF CORRECT IDENTIFICTION OF SINGLE
WORDS IN FOUR TEST CONDITIONS

 

 

Group* Mean df .p Level of Confidence
I 9.00 13 .13 Not significant at .05
II 8.93
I 9.00 13 1.69 Not significant at .05
III 9.78
I 9.00 13 3.47 Significant at .01
IV 11.28
*Key: I = Lipreading experiment with no visual distrac—
tions.

II = Lipreading experiment with a distraction of
flashing lights.

III = Lipreading experiment with a distraction of
spinning disc.

IV = Lip reading experiment with a distraction of
a hand moVement.

 

TABLE II

50

RESULTS OF‘E TESTS FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEANS OF
FIRST—HALF AND SECOND-HALF TEST SCORES IN FOUR TEST

 

 

 

 

CONDITIONS
Test Portion Level
Condition of Test Mean df ‘p of Confidence
No distraction lst. half 4.64 13 .45 Not significant
2nd. half 4.36 at .05
Flashing light lst. half 4.14 13 .98 Not significant
2nd. half 4.78 at .05
Spinning Disc lst. half 6.57 13 5.10 Significant at .001
2nd. half
Hand Movement lst. half 6.14 13 1.72 Not Significant
' 2nd. half 5.14 at .05
Discussion

 

Analysis of the data indicates that there is a sig—

nificant difference between the mean number of correct

words identified in the control condition of no distrac-

tions and the experimental conditon of a hand movement.

There was not a significant difference between the mean

number of correct identifications of words in the control

51

condition of no distractions and the experimental condition
of flashing lights. There was also no significant differ-

ence between the mean number of words identified correctly

in the control condition of no distractions and the experi-
mental condition of a spinning disc.

Examination of the raw scores of each subject in
the control and experimental conditions reveals that only
one subject had a lower score in the condition of a hand
movement when compared with the condition of no distrac—
tions. Immediately this led the researcher to suspect a
learning effect; however, further examination of the raw
scores revealed that four subjects improved their scores
by only one word when comparing the conditions of no dis-
tractions and a hand movement. Four subjects improved
their scores by only two words, one subject improved his
score by five words, three subjects improved their scores
by six words, and one subject had equal scores. This re-
veals that four subjects were responsible for 71.8% of the
total improvement. Furthermore, these four subjects did
not Show conclusive evidence of a learning effect because

two of them did not evidence consistent improvement in

52

their test scores from the first lipreading test with no
distractions to the last test with a hand movement. Only
one subject demonstrated consistent improvement in the
number of correct identifications in the successive lip—
reading experiments.

Evidence in favor of a learning effect is weak,
and this researcher has drawn alternate conclusions. This
researcher had concluded that the non-purposeful hand move-
ment, which was thought to serve as a distraction device.
did not constitute a distraction device at all. It is the
contention of this researcher that the hand movement may
have enhanced the lipreading proficiency of the subjects
because it may have focused the attention of the lipread-
ing subjects upon the Speaker subject instead of serving
as a visual distraction. There is some evidence to support
this contention in the literature on general speech.
Gauger,l in his study on listener comprehension, found

that his high school subjects had higher scores when the

 

1P. W. Gauger, "The Effect of Gesture and the

Presence or Absence of the Speaker on Listening Compre-
hension of Eleventh and Twelfth Grade High School Pupils,"
Speech Monograph, XIX.(1952), 116-117.

53

speaker used gestures as opposed to the speaker who used
no gestures at all. Clark.l in his research on audience
attitudes toward public speaking, suggested that perhaps
speech with no gestures at all is abnormal. A review of
other research studies on the values of gesture in speech
delivery reveals that there is conflicting evidence con-
cerning the relative importance of gestures and body
movements in speech.

The second alternate conclusion drawn by this re-
searcher is that some unknown factor may have been intro-
duced during the lipreading experiment involving the non—
purposeful hand movement. It is also possible that the
significance which was found in favor of the hand movement
was a chance event. In any case, this finding should be
subjected to further study.

The data were examined to determine whether the
subjects had adapted to the visual distractions and im-
proved their scores on the second—half of the test or

fatigued and thus decreased their scores on the second-

 

1W. K. Clark, "A Survey of Certain Audience Atti-

Itudes Toward Commonly Taught Standards of Public Speaking,"
Speech Monograph, XVIII (1951), 62—69.

54

half of each test. The slightest difference between the
number of words that were correctly identified on the

first and second halves of each test occurred in the first
experiment which served as the control condition with no
distractions. The lipreading subjects as a group itenti-
fied more words correctly in the first-half of the experi-
ments involving the tests with no distractions, a spinning
disc, and a hand movement. In the experiment involving

the flashing light, the subject had slightly more correct
identifications on the second-half of the test. Only in
the experiment involving the spinning disc was there a
significant difference in the number of correct indentifi-
cations of words. This Significant difference was in favor
of the first-half of the test. Slightly more than one—half
of the words were identified correctly on the first-half of
the test. In the experiment involving the spinning disc.
this researcher cannot attribute the magnitude of the dif—
ference between the first-half and the secondehalf scores
to any specific factor. Certainly adaptation is not a
contributing factor. Fatigue may have been the factor

that contributed to this difference although the lipread-

ing subjects had higher scores on the second—half of the

 

55

previous experiment. The lipreading subjects did have
Slightly more correct identifications on the first—half
of two of the other experiments and this may tend to sup-
port the factor of fatigue even though the differences

in these two experiments were not significant.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

There are many statements in the literature and
in research reports on lipreading which point out the im-
portance of visual perception, attention, and concentra—
tion which are necessary for success in lipreading. One
does not need to search very long to find such statements
as these: "Lipreaders must be trained in the art of no—
ticing," "The teaching of visual awareness is the key for
successful lipreading," and "Lipreaders must watch atten-
tively." Most of these statements and similar ones found
in lipreading literature carry the central theme that at-
tention is necessary for lipreading and that distractions
will decrease lipreading proficiency. The lipreader must
‘be capable of selecting competing visual stimuli and at-
tending to only fluose which aid him in the process of

lipreading.
56

57

The purpose of this study was to examine lipread—
ing performance as a function of visual distractions in
order to determine whether visual distractions actually
decrease lipreading proficiency.

The subjects for this study were four male and
ten female college students who were enrolled in speech
courses at Michigan State University. The subjects were
screened for hearing, speech, and vision to assure that
their speech skills were at least average, that they could
see well enough to clearly observe the speaker—sender.
and'that their hearing was acute enough to make lipread-
ing Skill unwarranted.

The fourteen subjects were not trained lipreaders.
were not given lipreading instruction, and were not given
an opportunity to study the test vocabulary prior to the
lipreading experiment. Their task was that of lipreading
a vocabulary of fifty Single words pronounced at ten sec—
ond intervals by a female speaker-sender whose voice was
masked by white noise delivered through a loud speaker

system.

58

The lipreading subjects were presented the same
vocabulary of fifty words in different random orders under
four test conditions. The control condition was that of a
presentation of fifty single words with no visual distrac-
tions. The experimental test conditions consisted of a
presentation of the same vocabulary of fifty words in dif-
ferent random orders with the three following visual dis—
tractions: l) a flashing light, 2) a spinning red-on-
white Archimedean spiral, and 3) a non-purposeful hand
movement by the speaker-Sender.

The primary goal of this experiment was to deter-
mine the effect of visual distractions, if any, upon lip-
reading proficiency. The secondary goal of this experi-
ment was to determine whether the lipreading subjects

could adapt to the visual distractions.

Conclusions

 

The results of this study indicate that there was
a significant relationship between lipreading performance

and a nonpurposeful hand movement on the part of the

59

speaker—sender. This relationship was such that the hand
movement which was intended to serve as a distraction de—
vice actually enhanced lipreading proficiency. This re-
sult would not be expected if the hand movement were dis-
tracting and if the lipreaders attended to this distrac-
tion. Although the learning effect cannot be positively
ruled out, analysis of the data does not strongly point
out the fact that learning took place on the part of the
lipreading subjects. The researcher has therefore drawn
the conclusion that the Significant difference in lip-
reading performance may be attributed to the fact that
the hand movement was not a distracfion device but actu-
ally drew the attention of the lipreading subjects. This,
in conjunction with a possible learning effect, may ex-
plain the findings of this study.

The second portion of this study was concerned
with possible adpatation to the visual distractions.
Analysis of the data revealed that the lipreading sub-
jects did not appear to adapt to the visual distractions
as reflected by their test Scores on the first and second

halves of each test. The lipreading subjects scored

6O

slightly higher on the first-half of the test in the
control condition with no distractions. The first-half
scores of the test involving the hand movement were
greater than those involving the test with no distrac-
tions, and the lipreading subjects scored significantly
higher on the first-half of the test involving the spin-
ning disc. These findings would lend support to the
conclusion that the subjects became fatigued on the
later portions of each test and therefore scored lower
on the second-half of the test. This conclusion is con-
tradicted by the fact that in the condition of the flash-
ing light, the subjects scored higher on the second-half
of the test.

From this study the researcher has concluded that
there is a significant correlation between lipreading per-
formance and hand movement, but the reason for this corre-
lation is unknown. It was the conclusion of this research-
er that there is a relationship between lipreading perform-
ance and fatigue, since the subjects scored lower on the
second-half of three of the four tests, with significantly

lower scores on the second-half of one test.

61
Implications for Further Research

Since there are no other known studies concerning
the relationship between visual distractions and lipread-
ing performance, the findings of this study cannot confirm
or disagree with the findings of other research studies.
We would not, however, expect to find a significant posi—
tive correlation between lipreading performance and a vis-
ual distraction by the very definition of the word dis-
traction. That is, we would not expect the subjects to
improve their lipreading scores if the visual stimuli
were actually distracting and assuming that they attended
to the distraction. The findings of this study do not
support the idea that visual distractions should be kept
at a minimum during lipreading instruction.

More extensive research concerning the relation-
ship between 1ipreading proficiency and visual distrac-
tions is recommended. A valuable type of research in
this area would be that of determining the relative
strengths of certain visual distractions. It should

also be determined whether hand movements and body

62

movements distract or aid the lipreader in visual communi-
cation. Practical distractions such as additional speaker-
senders or other non-speaking subjects in the background
as well as various facial expressions on the part of the
speaker-sender should be investigated.

This type of research could have valuable implica—
tions for the purpose of lipreading instruction and could
add to the body of knowledge concerning the process of lip—

reading and visual perception.

APPENDICES

64

APPENDIX A

LIPREADING VOCABULARY OF FIFTY WORDS PRESENTED IN

FOUR DIFFERENT RANDOM ORDERS

List No. 1

.1. that 26. create

2. have 27. institution
3. all 28. concerning
4. as 29. training
5. know 30. none

6. us 31. history

7. now 32. impossible
8. over 33. .1ater

9. example 34. sister

10. part 35. brother
11. right 36. grown
12. university 37. wrong

13. trained 38. trees

14. head 39. youth
15. business 40. drive

16. read 41. standard
17. yet 42. allowed
18. big 43. characters
19. finish 44. junior

20. future 45. negro

21. method 46. pointing
22. against 47. population
23. greater 48. religion
24. helped 49. scene

25. maybe 50. type

l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
l6.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

history
now
characters
youth
head
none
finish
example
trees
part
sister
as
helped
trained
training
over
maybe
brother
greater
scene
all
wrong
standard
religion

university

65

List No.

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

2

impossible
business
concerning
big

drive

pointing

.institution

type
know
right
future
yet
negro
that
junior
create
population
alloWed
have
against
grown
later
read
method

US

l.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

head
brother
type

now
junior
know
create
have
impossible
youth
training
right
that

us

drive
big
university
trained
over
pointing
sister
business
later
all

finish

66

List No.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

3

yet
allowed
against

as

greater
scene
negro

read
standard
part
method
example
future
religion
grown
trees
maybe
institution
characters
population
concerning
helped
wrong

none

history

l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

later
brother
business
maybe
right
head
negro
none

as
create
greater
allowed
example
method
type
against
that
yet
university
us

over
read
trees
standard

part

67

List No.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

4

future
grown
finish
wrong

have

now
training
all
concerning
Sister
religion
know

scene
characters
history
institution
helped
drive

big

youth
impossible
pointing
trained
junior

population

68

APPENDIX B

LIPREADING SCORE SHEET List NO. 1
(Circle One) 1 2 3 4

Name: Chair Number:

 

Please record the word which you believe was
spoken, by observing the visual clues of the speaker.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l. 26.
2. 27.
3. 28.
4. 29.
5. 30.
6. 31.
7. 32.
8. 33.
9. 34.
10. 35.
ll. 36.
12. 37.
13. 38.
14. 39.
15. 40.
16. 41.
17. 42.
18. 43.
19. 44.
20. 45.
21. 46.
22. 47.
23. 48.
24. 49.

 

 

25. 50.

 

 

69

APPENDIX C

RAW SCORES OF LIPREADING SUBJECTS. INDICATING THE
NUMBER OF WORDS IDENTIFIED CORRECTLY IN FOUR
LIPREADING TEST CONDITIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Flashing Spinning Hand
Subjects Distraction Light Disc Movement
#1 19 18 20 20
#2 9 8 10 10
#3 5 3 5 7
#4 14 13 13 16
#5 2 2 3 7
#6 8 10 12 14
#7. 8 9 8 9
#8 4 7 6 5
#9 7 8 6 13
#10 9 9 ll 15
#11 6 7 5 7
#12 l7 l7 17 19
#13 9 10 13 9
#14 9 4 8 7
Totals 126 125 137 158
Means 9.00 8.93 9.78 11.28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Berry, Mildred F., and Eisenson, Jon. Speech Disorders:
Principles and Practices of Therapy. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.. 1956.

Blalock, Hubert M. Jr. Social Statistics. New York:
McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960.

 

Brandt, Herman F. The Psychology of Seeing. New York:
The Philosophical Library. 1945.

Bruhn, Martha. The Mueller-Walle Method of Lipreadipg
for Hard of Hearing. Boston: M. H. Leavis.
1947.

Davis, Hallowell (ed.). Hearing and Deafness. New York:
Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1955.

Davis, Hallowell, and Silverman, Richard S. Hearing ang
Qeafness: A Guide for Layment. Revised ed. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1960.

Dolch, Edward William. Teaching Primary Reading. Cham—
paign, Illinois: The Garrard Press. 1960.

Ewing, Irene B. Lipreading and Hearing Aids. 4th ed.
London: Manchester University Press, 1962.

Ferguson, George A. Statistical Analysis in Psychology
and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co..
Inc., 1959.

70

71
Goldstein, Max A. Prdblems of the Deaf. St Louis:
Laryngoscope Press, 1933.

Leavis. May Hadnutt. Beginning Lipreading. Boston:
Privately printed, 1951.

Nichols, R. G., and Stevens, L. A. Are You Listening?
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1959.

 

Nitchie, Edward B. Lip-reading Principles and Practice.
New York: Frederick A. Stoles Co., 1930.

O'Neill, John. The Hard of Hearing. Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964.

O'Neill, John, and Oyer, Herbert J. Visual Communica—
tion for the Hard of Hearing: History, Research,
and Methods. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961.

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behav-
ioral Sciences. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co..
Inc., 1956.

Articles and Periodicals

Black, John W. "Accompaniments of Word Intelligibility."
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, XVII
(December, 1952), 409-418.

Brannon, John B. Jr. "Speechreading of Various Speech
Materials," Journal of Speech and Hearinngis—
orders. XXVI (November, 1961), 348-354.

Butler, Robert A., and Harlow, Harry A. "The Effects of
Auditory Distractions on the Performance of Mon—
keys," Journal of General Psychology, LIV (January—
April, 1956), 15-20.

72

Byer, Vincent W., and Lieberman, Lewis. "Lipreading
Performance and the Rate of the Speaker," Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research, II (September,
1959), 271-276.

Cassil, E. E., and Dallenbach, K. M. "The Effect of
Auditory Distractions Upon the Sensory Reaction,"
American Journal of Psychology, XXIX (April, 1918),
129—143.

 

Freeman, G. L. "Changes in Tension-Pattern and Total
Energy Expenditure During Adaptation.to Distract—
ing Stimuli," American Journal of Psychology,

LII (July, 1939), 354-360.

 

Fusfeld, Irving S. "Factors in Lipreading as Determined
by the Lipreader," American Annals of the Deaf,
CIII (March, 1958), 229-242.

Gloric, Aram. "Visual Aids in Speech Reading Instruction,"
HearingiNews, XVII (January, 1949), 1—2.

Hovey, H. B. "Effects of General Distractions on the
Higher Thought Processes," American Journal of
lgaychpioqv. XL (Octdber, 1928), 585-581.

Kitson, H. D. "Psychological Tests for Lipreading Ability.”
The Volta Review, XVII (April, 1915), 471-476.

Lowell, E. L. "New In-sight into Lipreading," Rehabili-
tation Record, II (July-August, 1961), 1-6.

Mason, Marie K. "A Cinematographic Technique for Test-
ing Visual Speech Comprehension," Journal of
Speech Disorders, VIII (September, 1943), 271-
278.

Mech, Victor E. "Factors Influencing Routine Perform-
ances Under Noise; the Influence of 'Set',"
Journal of Psychology, XXXV (January—July, 1953),
283-289.

73

Morgan, J. J. B. "The Overcoming of Distractions and
Other Resistances," Archives of Psychology,
XXXV (February, 1916), 79-84.

Morkovin, Boris V. "Rehabilitation of the Aurally
Handicapped Through the Study of Speech Reading
in Life Situations," Journal of Speech Disorders,
XII (December, 1947), 263-268.

Muyskens, John H. "The Building and Maintenance of Clear
Speech for the Deaf," The Volta Review, XXXX
(November, 1938), 655-657.

 

O'Neill, John J. "An Exploratory Investigation of Lip—
reading Ability Among Normal Hearing Students."
Speech Monographs, XVIII (August, 1951), 309-311.

Simmons, Audrey Ann. "Factors Related to Lipreading."
Journal of SpeeCh and Hearing Research, 11 (De-
cember. 1959), 340-352.

Sonotone Corporation, Introduction to Lipreading. Elm-
Sford, New York: Privately printed. 1958, 1-68.

 

Tatoul, Corinne M., and Davidson, G. Donald. "Lipreading
and Letter Prediction," Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, IV (June, 1961), 178—181.

Utley, Jean. "a Test of Lip Reading Ability," Journal
of Speech Disorders, XI (March, 1946), 109-116.

Voelker, Charles H. "The One Thousand Most Frequent
Spoken—Words," anrterly Journal of Speech, XXVIII
(February, 1942), 189-197.

Vogel-Sprott, M. "Influence on Peripheral Visual Distrac-
tions on Perceptual Motor Performances," Percep-
tual and Motor Skills, XVI (June, 1963), 765—772.

\Ia1|nullwill»mmmmmnuwmuunun»

973