. THE EFFECTS OF PERIPHERAL VISUAL STIMULI 0N LIPREADING PERFORMANCE Thesis for the Degreehof Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JANICE M. KEII. 1968 {name This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE EFFECTS OF PERIPHERAL VISUAL STIMULI ON LIPREADIM} PERFORMANCE presented by JANICE M . KEII. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for $2.10— degree in AUDIOLOGY AND SPEECH SCIENCES LIBRARY Michigan State University 11M “TAIL (l1 U Major pffyessor /'__ .- C‘ Date 5 /(7 [‘7’ 0-169 I / I I . V -. «1052. ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF PERIPHERAL VISUAL STIMULI (N LIPREADING PERFOEMANCE By Janice Me K011 The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of peri- pheral visual stimuli on lipreading performance. In order to accomplish this purpose, a black and white 16 mm. motion picture experimental test film was deve10ped. This test film was comprised of sixty items; which were fifteen spondee words spoken by a female speaker-sender in front of four different backgrounds (designated as the peripheral visual stimuli). Fifteen hard of hearing males with a mean age of 47.7 years, a median age of 55 Years, and a mean hearing level of 56 db in the better ear (ISO 1964); fifteen males with normal hearing and with a mean age of 46.9 years and a median age of 57 years; fifteen hard of hearing females with a mean age of 43.9 years, a median age of 46 years, and a mean hearing level of 53 db in the better ear (ISO 1904); and fifteen females with normal hearing and with a mean age of 44.1 years and a median age of 47 years participated in the study. The sixty subjects viewed Part 1 of the lipreading test Egg, W21 and the experimental test film under constant enVircnmental conditians and in groups no larger than six. The data Obtained were subjected to statistical analyses, and on the basis of the results of the analyses the followins conclusions appeared to be warranted: Janice M. Keil 1. Peripheral visual stimuli, as employed in this study, have no significant effect upon the lipreading performance scores of subjects. It appears that persons confronted with a visual task are able to select the relevant information and filter out the irrelevant peripheral visual stimuli. 2. There are no significant differences among the various types of peripheral visual stimuli employed in this study and their effects on the lipreading performance scores of normal hearing subjects or hard of hearing subjects. All of the peripheral visual stimuli em— ployed in this study may be classified as irrelevant and nondistracting stimuli. 3. Normal hearing females and hard of hearing females as a group are significantly better lipreaders than normal hearing males and hard of hearing males as a group. This difference in lipreading perfor- mance cannot be attributed to the effects of peripheral visual stimuli. 4. There is no significant difference between the lipreading performance scores of normal hearing subjects and the lipreading perfor. nance scores of hard of hearing subjects. Thus, it appears that normal hearing subjects and hard of hearing subjects perform in similar ways under various peripheral visual stimuli test conditions. 5. There is a statistically significant negative correlation between chronological age and lipreading ability with older persons exhibiting poorer lipreading scores. 6. Taking into account the sex and age differences in lip- reading ability found in this study, if a person were confronted with two persons (one an elderly male and one a.young female), it would Janice M. Keil appear that one might predict that the young female would be a better lipreader than the elderly male. Although the experimental film was not designed as a lipreading test, it was found to be correlated with Part 1 of the lipreading test W72 at the .001 level of significance (r : .7949). lJOdH Utleyv £2E.Esll_Es£.¥22.§s2§.Lins? (Chicago: DeVry Corporation, 1946). 21.249.- THE EFFECTS OF PERIPHERAL VISUAL STIMULI ON LIPREADING PERFORMANCE B! Janice M. Keil A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR 0F PHIIDSOPHI Department of Audiology and Speech Sciences 1968 4.97%”? ACKNOHLEDGMERTS Any research endeavor of this nature is never the sole effort of one person. Therefore, the author would like to acknowledge the con- tributions of the following persons. Particular acknowledgment is due Dr. Herbert J. der, who served as chairman of the guidance committee and directed the entire research project. His keen insights and helpful suggestions improved the quality of this thesis immeasurably. Special recognition must also be given Dr. Bernice Borgman, Dr. Lee V. Deal, and Dr. Bradley Lashbrook, who gave generously of their time to serve as members of the guidance com. mittee and who provided numerous helpful suggestions on various facets of the study. The author is deeply grateful for the technical assistance of Mr. Keith Hawkins,who prepared the eXperimental film, and for the sta- tistical assistance of Mrs. Carol Walker and Dr. Kenneth Walker. An expression of appreciation is due my research assistant, Mrs. Cheryl Marshall,and the many subjects who consented to participate in the study. This appreciation is also extended to Dr. Edward M. Hardick, Dr. James Hillis, Dr. RObert Schell, and Dr. William Marshall for their assistance and guidance during the early phases of the study. Special recognition is in order for my husband,Dr. Raymond L. Keil,and our children,Karen and Linda,whose encouragement and sacrifices will always be remembered. ii ACKNOHLEDGMENTS . . TABLE OF CONTENTS . LIST OF TABLES . . LIST OF FIGURES . . Chapter TABLE I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction Purpose of the Study Definition of Terms Assumptions Limitations Hypotheses II. REVIEU OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Characteristics of the Characteristics of the Sex Age OF CONTENTS Speaker—sender Lipreader-receiver Hearing level and duration of loss Intelligence and educational level Visual and perceptual skills Personality Characteristics of the Stimulus Visual stimuli and other sensory stimuli Lipreading tests Characteristics of the Environment The Effects of Distractions on Performance Related to Lipreading Summary III. SUBJECTS,IMATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND PROCEDURES Subjects Materials Equipment Procedures Summary iii Page ii iii vi 10 29 Chapter Page Iv. RESJLTS, ANAIJYSIS, MD DISCUSSION 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O 37 Results Analysis and Discussion Sex and lipreading performance as measured by the experimental film Hearing level and lipreading performances on the experimental film Peripheral visual stimuli and lipreading performances on the experimental film Age and lipreading ability The experimental test film as a test of lipreading ability Smmary V. SUIV‘MABI, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 5o Summary Conclusions Implications for Future Research BImJImRAPHYCoeeeeeeeeeeee0000000000000 63 me‘DIES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 70 A. THE EXPERIMENTAL TEST ITEMS, THE SEQUENCE OF APPEARANCE, AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER HHICH ITIMS APPEAR . . . . . . 71 B. TESTLFOIM FOR HowwELL CAN YOU READ LIPS? . . . . . . . . 73 C. TEST Foms O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 76 iv LIST CF TABLES Table Page 1 . Summary of the Data Obtained From the Hard of Hearing MaleSuhjects ...................... 38 2. Sumary of the Data Cbtained From the Male SubjectsllithNormalI-Iearing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 3. Sumary of the Data Qatained From the Hard of HearingFemaleSubjects ................. 40 4. Summary of the Data Qatained From the Female SubjectsUithNormalHearing. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . 41 5. Three-way Analysis of Variance Hith Repeated Measures TablefortheExperimentalFilm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 0. Female Mean Scores and Male Mean Scores for the Four Conditions of the Experimental Test Film . . . . . . . . . 43 7. Two-way Analysis of Variance Table for Conditions One,Two,Three,andFour ................ 44 8. Spearman's Rank—difference Correlation Coefficients and 3 Values for the Relationship Between Age “LimaadingAbflity eeeeeeeeeeeeeee LIST OF ILLU STRATI ON S Figure Pa“ 1. Physical Arrangement of the Equipment in the Test Rooms . . 34 2. Chronological Age and Lipreading Performance . . . . . . . 53 CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM W A person who is deprived of normal hearing has a severe disadvan- tage in establishing and/or maintaining contact with his environment. If the loss of hearing is great and occurs in the early years, speech and language development are greatly affected;for the normal development of both is dependent upon a functioning hearing mechanism. If the hear- ing loss occurs after normal speech and language have developed, the effect is somewhat different in that the person must attempt to maintain communication with the hearing world he once know. The sense of hearing is nondirectional in that it enables one to understand what people are saying and to know what is going on in the dark, around the corner, or in the next room. Uhen hearing acuity is impaired, a person must rely on other senses in order to compensate for this loss. Vision is the sense most frequently utilised for this purpose. However, vision itself cannot fully compensate for loss of hearing, because vision is a directional sense and permits a person to attend only to that which is within his immediate visual field. Chen a person.loses hearing acuity, one way he attempts to lessen his disadvantage in communicative situations is by learning to use his visual sense in the most efficient manner possible. He learns to utilise the visual clues available in most speaking situations. For 1 2 many years this process has been referred to as lipreading. The term lipreading has persisted in spite of the fact that more comprehensive terms have been suggested. In the early 1940's Marie K. Mason; employed the term visual hearing, and in the 1900's O'Neill and Dyer2 suggested that the term visual listening would be more descriptive. In deference to contemporary usage, the term lipreading will be employed in this Study. O'Neill and Char} have suggested that there are four variables, which might be examined, present in the usual lipreading situation. These variables are (1) the speaker-sender, (2) the code or stimulus, (3) the environment, and (4) the lipreader-receiver. Of these four variables "very little research has been accomplished or projected in the area of the environment and its effects on lipreading."4 This study was focused on this somewhat neglected aspect of the experimental study of lipreading. L * k _._ i 1Marie K. Mason, "A Cinematographic Technique for Testing Visual Speech Comprehension,“ W VIII (1943)» pp. 271.278. 2John J. O'Neill and Herbert J. Oyer, Wm ' - . :-- o-es. Englewood Cliffs, 3mg” p. 35. 4Me, D. 43s W Specifically, the purpose of this study was to explore the effects of selected peripheral visual stimuli on lipreading performance. Brandt has stated : In many cases the task of the individual and distraction or interesting stimuli, present themselves simultaneously and thus result in a conflict of two brands of attention. The one brand appeals to the senses in terms of freedom and enjoyment, the other makes its appeals on the basis of purpose or duty. Berry and Eisenson have noted that: Attention is a state in which the individual becomes set to select and respond to a specific pattern of 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 responseg to competing and at the moment exmraneous (non-relevant) stimuli. Data concerning the effects of stimuli which do not appear in the center of an individual's visual field on his lipreading performance may help persons in the field of hearing rehabilitation understand the factors which affect lipreading performance and may help therapists plan more effective therapy. The present study was conducted in an attempt to answer the following questions: 1. "bet effects will peripheral visual stimuli have on the lip- reading performances of hard of hearing subjects? 1Herman F. Brandt, 2hg_£gzghglggx_g£_§ggipg, (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1945), p. 194. 2Mildred F. Berry and Jon Eisenson, d : Pr 1 gggg;;gg§igg§_gf_§hgzggx. (New York: Appleton-Century—Grofts, Inc., 195 , p. 394. I. 2. flat effects will peripheral visual stimuli have on the lip- reading performances of normal hearing subjects? 3. Hill different peripheral visual stimuli have similar effects on the lipreading performances of hard of hearing subjects? 4. Hill different peripheral visual stimuli have similar effects on the lipreading perfornanoes of normal hearing subjects? W Wonk the present study the term lipreading refers to the ability of the subjects to identify the items spoken by the speaker in the test film and to the ability of the subjects to identify the items in Part I of the lipreading test g9; an cg; You ggad 1.12271 while being deprived of the auditory components of speech. W.—Peripheral visual stimuli are those stimuli which do not appear in the center of a person's visual field. In the present study they were the three experimental test item back- grounds against which the speaker-sender was filmed, and a colored 35mm. slide of two girls which was projected on either side of the condition twa test items segments during the showing of the test film. W.—Twse were fifteen spondee words as they were filmed against the various backgrounds. ent t ns.--The following four experimental condi- tions were utilized in this study: W'" This condition was comprised of the 1Jean Utley, Hog He]; Can You Read Lips? (Chicago: De Vry Corporation, 1946) . D fifteen spondee words as they were filmed with the speaker-sender in front of a gray background. anfiitign_§gggfifiél.-—This condition was comprised of the fifteen spondee words as they were filmed with the speakerbsender in front of the same gray background as in condition one and with the experimental slide projected onto the screen simultaneously during the showing of the film. Egggitigp_2h£gg_(§21,--This condition was comprised of the fifteen spondee words as they were filmed with the speaker-sender in front of a stationary background, which was a slide of a building with cars and trees, projected onto the screen behind the speaker-sender. W.— This condition was comprised of the fifteen spondee words as they were filmed with the speaker-sender in front of a moving background (a lb mm. motion picture of people on a busy street corner which was projected onto a screen behind the speaker-sender). §pgndee words.—-Spondee words have been defined as "words of more than one syllable which are properly pronounced with each syllable re— ceiving equal stress."1 The spondee words utilized in the present study were selected from C.I.D. Auditory Test‘H—jl2 and the words proposed by Newby3 for use with children. 1JeanUtley, yhgtlg_lt§_§age? (Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1950), p. 125. 21". J. Hirsh et 2.1., "Development of Materials for Speech Audio- metry,“ J 8 He Dis 17 (1952), p. 336. 3Hayes A. Newhy, gudiglggy, (New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts, 1964), p. 127. e Igg1_§l1gg,-The test slide was a 39 mm. colored slide of two female college students. It had its center blackened so that it could be projected on either side of the condition two segments of the test film. mama—This film was a 16 mm. black and white silent motion picture film prepared for the present study in which fifteen spondee words were presented under four different conditions. The entire film was comprised of 60 test segments. §pg§ke;-§endeg.-The speaker-sender was an adult female who was filmed as she pronounced the spondee words. ‘§ghjg£1§,-—The subjects were thirty hard of hearing persons and thirty normal hearing persons. The thirty hard of hearing persons were each of the same sex and age (within plus or minus five years) of one of the thirty normal hearing persons. fig;g£1_hgg;igg.-The criterion of normal hearing was established as the ability to hear pure tones binaurally (with earphones) at 26 db re audiometric zero (ISO 1964) at frequencies of 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, and 6000 Hz. l§§;g_g£_hgg;igg,--The criterion of hard of hearing was established as a three frequency average (500, 1000, and 2000 Hz.) in a subject's better ear of equal to or greater than 40 db (ISO 1964). Eggmll_xi§igg,—-The criterion for normal vision was established as 20/20 vision in both eyes (with or without correction). Visual status was determined with the use of a Snellen E Chart. Ass n The following assumptions were established for the present study: 1. That the ambient auditory and visual distractions in the test 7 room will be controlled adequately, so that they will not influence the lipreading performances of the subjects. 2. That the auditory and visual tests to be administered to the subjects are reliable. 3. That the researcher will administer all tests to all subjects in the same manner. Lymitations The following limitations were established for the present study: 1. All subjects must be American born English speaking persons who are judged to have normal vision as defined in the definition of terms. 2. The sample of this study will be limited to thirty normal hearing persons and thirty hard of hearing persons. 3. Peripheral visual stimuli will be limited to those appearing in the experimental segments of the test film, and the slide which will be projected onto the screen during the condition two segments. Wags If persons who are lipreading are distracted by visual stimuli in their immediate environments which are not relevant to their lipreading tasks, it is expected that they will miss some of the conversation or information that is being transmitted. In other words, it is expected that peripheral visual stimuli will adversely affect lipreading perfor— mance. In order to determine the nature of the effects of selected peripheral visual stimuli on lipreading performance, the following null hypotheses were established: b' 1. There is no significant difference between the scores achieved by normal hearing subjects and those achieved by hard of hearing sunjects within conditions one, two, three, and four. 2. There is no significant difference between the scores achieved by female normal hearing subjects and those achieved by male normal hear- ing subjects within conditions one, two, three, and four. 3. There is no significant difference between the scores achieved by female hard of hearing subjects and those achieved by male hard of hearing subjects within conditions one, two, three, and four. 4. There are no significant differences among the scores achieved by the normal hearing subjects under the four conditions of peripheral visual stimuli as employed in this study. 5. There are no significant differences among the scores achieved by the hard of hearing subjects under the four conditions of peripheral visual stimuli as employed in this study. In addition to the foregoing null hypotheses, three supplemental null hypotheses were posited for investigation. They were as follows: 1. There is no significant correlation between the chronological ages of the female subjects and the total scores they achieved on Part 1 of the lipreading test figu_!§ll_§§g Igu Bead L;ps?l lutiey, w Can You ad Li 8? 02, c; . 9 2. There is no significant correlation between the chronological ages of the male subjects and the total scores they achieved on Part 1, of the lipreading test 139! we}; Cap ggu Read pipgfl 3. There is no significant correlation between the total scores achieved by the subjects on the experimental test film and those achieved on Part 1 of the lipreading test Egg Hell Can You flggg £12§72 1321a. CHAPTER II REVIEU OF THE LITERATURE Introduction In 1913 Edward B. Nitchiel reported that he had constructed a filmed lipreading test to assess the lipreading ability of the aurally handicapped. Since this first systematic effort to assess lipreading ability, a number of lipreading tests have been deveIOped and the ex- perimental study of lipreading has ensued. In addition to the discussion of the experimental study of lipreading, some data from experimental psychology are presented in this chapter. Four of the tOpics under which data are presented are the variables cited by O'Neill and Dyer2 i.e. the speaker.sender, the lipreader-receiver, the code or stimulus, and the environment. In addition, studies pertaining to the effects of distractions (primarily visual) on performance related to lipreading are discussed. Characterisitcs of the Spgakgr-sender It has often been noted that some persons are easier to lipread than others. In 1928 Day, Fusfeld, and Pintner3 reported that familiarity lEduard B. Nitchie "Moving Pictures Applied to Lipreading," The Volt; Review, XV (1913 , pp. 117;125. 2 O'Neill and der, 02, cit., p. 35. 3H. E. Day, gt gl., A Surv of American 8 for e Deaf: 1225:22. (Hhshingtcn, D.C.: National Research Council, 1928 . 10 11 with the speaker appeared to enhance lipreading performance. In 1947 Reid1 utilized three separate speakers who differed in educational backgrounds in her test of lipreading. She concluded that there was apparently little relationship between the speaker's speech background or accent and the ability of the subjects to read his lips. In 1952 O'Neill2 examined the ability of three speakers to con— vey information auditorily and visually. He noted that the speaker who conveyed the most information visually, i.e. by lipreading, was also the most intelligible auditorily. Louis Stone3 found a significant rela- tionship between lip mObility and lipreadability. He noted that a "normal speaking" mouth was easier to lipread than a "tight speaking" mouth. He also found that full torso exposure was usually preferable to limited mouth exposure and that a grim facial expression tended to be easier to lipread than a smiling one. In 1954Mulligan4 reported that a slower speed of projection (16 frames per second as compared with 24 frames per second) resulted in 1Gladys A. Reid, "A Preliminary Investigation in the Testing of Lipreading Achievement," Journgl of Spgegh Disorders, III (1947), pp. 77-82. 2John J. O'Neill, "Contributions of the Visual Components of Oral Symbols to the Speech Comprehension of Listeners Uith Normal Hearing," W XIX (1952), pp. 119-120. 3Louie Stone, "Facial Cues of Context in Lip Reading," John W (L08 Angela“ John Tracy Clinic, 195 )- AMarigene Mulligan, "Variables in the Reception of Visual Speech from Motion Pictures" (unpublished Master‘s thesis, Department of Speech, Ohio State University, 1954). 12 more correct identification of the filmed materials. This study seems to be contradicted by a later study by Byers and Lieberman1 who con- cluded that slowing down the speaker's rate had no significant effect on lipreading performance. Lott and Levy2 reported that lipreading performance was not in- fluenced by a subject's perception of a communicator as aggressive, likeahle, or passive. They did note, however, that the most preferred speaker was significantly better lipread than the least preferred speaker and that each speaker was significantly better lipread in the role which was most natural to her. In 1964 Aylesworth3 reported that analyses showed no signifi- cant differences among subjects' lipreading scores as a result of dif- ferent talkers, talker sex, or different presentations by the same talker. No significant interaction between lipreader and talker sexes was noted. In 1966 V034 reported that her fourth grade subjects did not lipread exaggerated stimuli significantly better than they lipread nonexaggerated stimuli. 1Vincent U; Byers and Louis Lieberman, "Lipreading Performance and the Rate of the Speaker," Journal of Spgggh 22d gigging figgggrgg, II (1959). pp. 271-276. 23ernice E. Lott and Joel Levy, "The Influence of Certain Com. municator Characteristics on Lipreading Efficiency," gggzgal of Social filzghglggz, LI (1960). pp. 419-425. 3Donald L. Aylesworth, "The Talker and the Lipreader as Varia— bles in Face-to—Face Testing of Lipreading Ability" (unpublished Mas- ter's thesis, Department of Speech, Michigan State University, 1964). ALinda J. Vos, "The Effects of Exaggerated and Nonexaggerated Stimuli on Lipreading Ability" (unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Speech, Michigan State University, 1966). 13 ct istic of e Li ead -r ceiver According to Lowell,1 the ability to lipread varies consider- ably from person to person. He found this to obtain for both hearing impaired and non-hearing impaired persons. ‘§g;.-Many researchers have investigated sex as a variable. Studies of both hearing impaired and non-hearing impaired persons have demonstrated rather conclusively that female lipreaders (as a group) are more proficient lipreaders than male lipreaders (as a group). The following researchers have supported this conclusion: Taaffe2 in 1957, Taaffe and Wong3 in 1957, Costello‘ in 1958, Lowell5 in 1961, Brannonb in 1961, and aylesworth7 in 1964. Although Brannon8 found females to be better lipreaders than males, he felt that there was no great differ- ence between male and female lipreading ability. 1Edgar L. Lowell, "New Insights Into Lipreading," a ita— iiss.§s22:i. II (July 1961). pp. 3-5. 2Gordon Taaffe, "A Film Test of Lipreading: Studies in Visual Communication," John Tragy Clinic flggeargh Eapgra II, (Los Angeles: John Tracy Clinic, November 1957 . 3Gordon Taaffe and Hilson Bong, "Studies of Variables in Lip— reading Stimulus Materials," Jo a in c Pa rs III (Los Angeles: John Tracy Clinic, December 1957). 4Mary Rose Costello, "a Study of Speechreading as a Deve10ping Language Process in Deaf and in Hard of Hearing Children," §E£22§ EEEEKIIRHI: XXV (1958), pp. 137-138. 5Lowell, loo, cit. 6John B. Brannon Jr., "Speechreading of Various Speech Mater- ials." £2aIaal_2f_§a22sh_2as_§2a£ias_21§2zaass. XXVI (November. 1961). pp 9 “8-353. 7Aylesworth, loc, cit. 8 Brannon, locI cit. 14 £gg,--Minski1 has suggested that some deaf children under the age of two years can learn to lipread. However, no tests have been developed which would help us assess the lipreading ability of children this young. In 1917 Conklin2 reported no significant correlation between lipreading ability and chronological age. However, Conklin's subjects were all adolescent students at the Oregon State School for the Deaf. The Heiders3 reported a correlation coefficient of approximately .19 for children 8 to 17 years old. Reid‘ reported the same corrg1a_ tion for students 10 to 22 years old. he a result of their studies, both Utleys and Simmons6 “concluded that age was not an important variable in lipronding. In 1959 Farrimond7 specifically examined age differences in the ability to use visual cues in auditory communication and concluded that a person's lipreading ability improves from the second to third _ h A ; —— i — —— 1Louis Minski, DeafnessI MutismI and Mantel Defigigngz in thldggn, (New York: The Philosophical Library, 1957 , p. 1. 213.3. Conklin, "A Method for the Determination of Relative Skill in Lipreading," The Vglta Review, m (1917), pp. 216.220. 3 F.K. Heider and Grace M. Heider, "An Experimental Investigation of Lipreading." MW L11 (1940). pp. 124.153. 4Reid, loo. git. 5Jean Utley, "Factors Involved in the Teaching and Testing of Lipreading Ability Through the Use of Motion Pictures," Tb; Volta EIIIIHJ XL (1948), pp. 657-659. 6Audrey A. summons, "Factors Related to Lipreading," Jgugnal WW II (1959). pp- 340-352. 7T. Farrimond, "Age Differences in the Ability to Use Visual Cues in Auditory Communication," Lagggggg_ggg_§pgg§h, II (1959). pp. 179-192. 15 decade of life and declines thereafter. Thus, the data concerning the relationship between age and lipreading ability are inconclusive. v dur .-—In 1958 Costellol reported that her hard of hearing subjects were significantly better lipreaders than her deaf subjects. In 1959 Simmons2 reported the duration of loss of her subjects as being significantly related to their lipreading abil- ity as determined by a panel of judges. In 1965 Evane3 reported degree of hearing loss as a principal variable in predicting lipreading poten- tial. Thus, it appears that the greater a hearing loss a person has, and the longer he has had that loss, the poorer a lipreader he is likely to be. I ucet o ev .-—Pintner4 found no significant correlation between intelligence and lipreading ability. Reid5 and Simmons6 also found a low correlation between intelligence and lipreading ability. O'Neill7 reported a correlation coefficient of 1Costello, log. git. 2Simmons, looI cit. 3L. Evans, "Psychological Factors Related to Lipreading," W LX111 (1965). pp- 131-136- 4audo1ph Pintner, ”Speech and Speech-reading Tests for the Deaf," J A P o XII (1929). pp. 220-225. 5Reid, log. cit. 6Simmons, log, cit. 7John J. O'Neill, "An Exploratory Investigation of Lipreading Ability Ame Normal Hearing Students," S c a , XVIII (August 1951 , Ppe 309-311" 16 .55 between intelligence as measured by the Hechsler-Bellevue Performance Scale and lipreading ability for a group of normal hearing college stu- dents. In.1956 O'Neill and Davidson; found a significant relationship between.lipreading ability and nonpverbal concept formation. In 1965 $1ch reported that the mentally retarded as a group were poor lipreaders. 3 noted that profoundly deaf children of below normal intelligence Evans and with poor visual recognition scores were poor lipreaders. The studies the Heiders4 conducted at the Clarke School for the Deaf showed a low correlation between educatiOnal achievement and lip- reading ability. Reid5 also tested students in a school for the deaf and found no correlation between lipreading ability and scholastic achievement. 1iggel_eng_pprggptgsl_sgillg,..In.1936 the Heidere6 found that good lipreaders were more responsive to color than to form. O'Neill and Davidson? also found this relationship in their study. In 1940 skill on gymnastic tasks was reported to be related to lipreading ability 1John J. O'Neill and JoAnn L. Davidson, "Relationship Between Lipreading and Five Psychological Factors," .%§%§f£l.2£.§2122h.12§. W IV (December 1956), PD. 1.7 . 2 Richard Smith, "An Investigation of the Relationship Between Lipreading Ability and the Intelligence of the Mentally Retarded" (unpublished Master‘s thesis, Department of Speech, Michigan State University, 1965)- 3Evans, 19c, git. 4Heider and Heider, loo, cit. 5Reid, loc, cit. bF.K. Heider and Grace M. Heider, Sigtz-ninth £93231 figport of C r t Deaf. (Nerthampton, Massachusetts: Clarke School Research Division, 1930). 7O'Neill and Davidson, loo, cit. 17 by the Heiders.l Costello2 found the Digit Memory Span scores and the Picture Arrangement test scores of her subjects to be related to lip— reading ability. The lipreading scores of her hard of hearing group were related to their scores on the Progressive Matrices. 1 found reading ability, as measured by the Gates Read— Costello ing Survey, to be related signifiCantly to the lipreading ability of her hearing impaired subjects. Simmons4 found the ability to abstract sen- tence meaning and key words to be related to lipreading ability as measured by the filmed tests. She also found the Digit Symbol, the Block Design, and the Picture arrangement subtests of the Wechsler-Bellvue to be related significantly to lipreading ability. The scores of her sub- jects on the Object Span test and the Seashore Rhythm Test (Part A) were related to their lipreading scores, and the Fragmentary Sentence test scores of her subjects were related to lipreading ability as measured by the filmed lipreading test. Eggpggplisz,-O'Neill5 utilized a battery of tests and concluded that attitude toward speech, ability to judge emotions, and the projective personality test scores of his subjects were nOt related to their lipread- lHeider and Heider, ngcpologicpl Monogpaphp, 0p, cit. 2Costello, loo, cit. JIpid. “Simmons, loc, cit. 5O'Neill, §pgech Monographs, XVIII, 0p, cit. 18 ing scores. In 199o worthingtonl founc no apparent relationship between the degree of adjustment of congenitally deaf high school students and their lipreading ability. O‘heill anc Davidson‘ found no significhnt relationship between lipreading ability uHC level of aspiration. In 1958 “bug and Tariffs3 cited reasoning, lLeuLlODdl fluency, spentaneous flexibility, and associational fluency as the important factors in lip- reading. Tney found general activity, personal relations, and emotional stability as the personality factors important to lipreading. In 1958 Fusreld" reported that good lipreaders cited the fol- lowing factors as being essential in learning to lipread: acquainting oneedlf with the subject matter or assuming a preparatory eet, being aware 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 of isolated words, having a realistic attitude toward the diffieulties of lipreading, having a dynamic per. eonality, and having a natural aptitude for lipreading. s of 8 Of the studies concerning the characteristics of the stimulus, 1Anna M. Worthington, "An Investigation of the Relationship Be—— tween the Lipreading Ability of Congenitally Deaf High School Students and Certain Personality Factors," W mv (1956). p. 150. 20'Neill and Davidson, m. 3UiIson Hong and Gordon Taaffe, "Relationships Between Selected Aptitude and Personality Tests and Lipreading Ability," J M W (Los Angeles: John Tracy Clinic, February 1 . ‘Irving Fusfeld, "Factors in Lipreading as Determined by the Lipreader," W 0111 (March 1958). pp. 229-242. 19 the following seem pertinent to the present study. In 1952 Black1 noted that word accent and the type of sounds within words could account for some words being easier to lipread than others. In 1952 O'Neill2 report- ed that vision contributed most to the recognition of consonants (57%), and less to the recognition of vowels (29.5%), words (38.6%) and phrases (17.4%). Taaffe and Hong3 reported that lipreading performance was af- fected by the number of words in a sentence, the number of syllables in a sentence, the number of vowels and consonants in a sentence, and the length of the stimulus words. Brannon‘ found little difference between skilled and unskilled lipreaders in the visual identification of mono- syllabic words. In 1961 Lowells found the Optimum sentence length for ease of lipreading to be three words. He also ranked the parts of speech, from.the easiest to the most difficult to lipread, in the follow- ing order: pronouns, verbs, nouns, prepositions, adjectives, adverbs, and conjunctions. In 1961..Fulton6 found appreciable differences in the size and/ or amount of lip Openings, mouth widths, jaw movements, and mouth and teeth areas between voiced and unvoiced filmed words. A 1966 study by lJohn w. Black, "Accompaniments of word Intelligibility," Waders. XVII (December: 1952): PP- 409- 1.1 . 20'Nefll. Wrasse. XIX. w- 3Taaffe and Wong, loo, pl}. 4Brannon, lp£‘_gl§, 5Lowell, log, clt. Richard M. Fulton, "Comparative Assessment of Visible Differ- ences Between Voiced and Unvoioed Verde? (unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Speech, Michigan State University, 1964). 20 Nielsen1 revealed that repeated unreinforoed exposure to Spoken words did not result in improved ability to recognize words as they were pre- sented singly. lem “Ml ang ophgr sgsoy stlpullu—In 1928 (lault‘a re— ported that a deaf student recognized twice as many words when vision was supplemented by touch than were recognized by vision alone. In 1951 Wagner3 reported that in order to receive speech via the avenue of touch it must be transformed into a "carrier frequency" of 200 cps. He felt that a combination of speechreading plus "transformed Speech" would re- sult in an almost complete sign system to the deaf. In 1963 Johnsonl" reported that trained subjects achieved significantly higher scores when lipreading was supplemented by cutaneous stimulation by speech than they achieved by lipreading alone. In 1963 Pickett5 reported that in tests 1Karen Marie Nielsen, "The Effect of Redundancy on Visual Recognition of Frequently Enployed Spoken Hords" (unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966). 2Robert H. Gault, "0n the Identification of Certain Vowel and Consonantal Elements in Horde by Their Taotual Qualities and by Their Visual Qualities as Seen by the Lipreader, " J o o W XXII (1927-1928), pp. 33-39. 3P. Wagner, "Experimental Investigations of the Acquisition of Speech Through Touch," 0 C ven A so 0 D 1 1, pp. 94—101. Abstracted by P. B. Mueller, W, V April 1965), p. 140. "Gerald Franklin Johnson, "The Effects of Cutaneous Stimula- tion by speech on Lipreading Performance" (unpublished Ph.D disserta. tion, Michigan State University, 1963). 5J.M. Pickett, "Taotual Communication of Speech Sounds to the Deaf: Comparison with Lipreading," Journ of S ee and He Dis- m 11mm (1963). pp. 315-330. 21 which combined lipreading and tactual reception, the ’0th information on consonants and on syllables was found to improve transmission without detracting from lipreading the visible features of speech. In 1950 Reams1 found no significant relationship between auditory intelligibility and the visual identification of the same stimuli. In 1951. Sumby and Pollack2 reported that the visual contribution to speech increased as the Speech-tO-noise ratio decreased. The visual contribu- tion also increased with an increase in vocabulary size (8 words to 256 words). In 1958 Neely3 reported that vision supplemented by auditory cues raised the intelligibility of speech about twenty percent. In 1960 Evans4 reported that 45 of his so deaf subjects had better speech recog- nition scores when canbining listening and lipreading than when lip— reading alone was employed. In 1962 Keys m. concluded that "to make the assumption that, by training audition and vision in isolation, lMary H. Rsams, "An Experimental Study Comparing the Visual Aocompaniments of Word Identification and the Auditory Emperience of Hord Intelligibility" (unpublished Master's thesis, Chic State University, 1950). 2w.H. Sumby and I. Pollack, "Visual Contribution to Speech In. telli‘ibility," Jppgpgl of tpg Acggtlgl Soggy of Ameplg, XXVI (1954 . pp. 212.215. 3Keith K. Neely, "Effect of Visual Factors on the Intelligi- bility 01' 5 each," WW XVIII (1958 , pp. 1275;1277. 4L. Evans, "Factors Related to Listening and Lipreading," W LVIII (1960). pp. 417-423. 22 the individual will be able to achieve a level of performance equal to that yielded by bisensory training, seems hazardous in view of the finding that the bisensory performance of these individuals (in the present study) is not a simple arithmetic sum of their visual and and- itory performances measured in isolation.“1 W.—In 1913 Ritchie2 developed the first filmed lipreading test in which he utilized three proverbs as the testing material. Kitson3 in 1915, Conklin4 in 1917, and Day gt_pl,5 in 1928, all deve10ped early face-to-face lipreading tests. After the filmed lipreading tests became popular, only a few face-to—face tests were developed. In 1940 the Heiders6 constructed three filmed tests which utilized unrelated nouns, meaningless phonetic units, names of animals, unrelated sentences, related sentences, and stories. In 1942 Mason? constructed a filmed multiple choice test for children. She used proper nouns as her testing material. There were three forms to her test and there was a high correlation among the various forms. In 1945 1John H. Keys, Richard Krug, and Henry Spuehler, fifggps and ea: 0 ‘ e eg ; e V - g ; eogu g : e. . Norman, OklahOma: The University of Manama Research Institute, l°-2 , p. 28. 2Nitchie, 2p; V2122 figview, Op, cit. 311.11. Kitson, "Psychological Tests for Lipreading Ability, " Was. mm (1915). pp- 4-71-4763 ‘Conklin, log, 0 3. 5Day £5.2l3’ lREa—El—P 6Heider and Heider, szchologlopl Monogpapps, Op, cit. ZMason, loo, clt. 23 Paula1 utilized Naval Training Films and film clips edited from commer- cial motion pictures as training and testing material. In 1946 Utley2 deveIOped what has become one of the most widely used lipreading tests. Her film, entitled How We}; can You Read Li227, tests a person's ability to lipread sentences, words, and stories. In 1947 Reid3 utilized vowels and diphthongs, consonants, unrelated sentences, related sentences which told a story, and a short story. In 1947 Morkovin‘ developed ten life situation lipreading training films. Although these were not developed as lipreading test films, DiCarlo and Katajas found the second film of the series to be correlated highly with the Utley test. In 1955 Kelly6 reported a test of lipreading ability which utilized lists of letters, multiple choice word lists, and sentences. This test could be presented on film.or face-to—face. In 1957 Taaffe7 reported an unrelated sentence filmed test of lipreading ability, and in 1960 Moser gt, 21.8 reported 1Miriam Pauls, "Speech Reading," H ~ D af ess ed. HallowaLl Davis (New York: Murray Hill Books, Inc., 1947,, p.209. 2Utley, gm Volta Review, 02, cit. 3Reid, loo, cit. 4soris v. horkovin, "Rehabilitation of Aurally Handicapped Through the Study of Speech Reading in Life Situations," Journal of §pgggh_22§g;g2£§, XII (December 1947): PP.363-368. 5Louis DiCarlo and Raymond Kataja, "an Analysis of the Utley Lipreading Test," Jgprppl of speegp and Hearing Disorders, XVI (1951), pp. 226-240. 6J.C. Kelly, "Audio—Visual Speech Reading," (University of Illinois, 1955), 35 pp. (Mimeographed). 7Taaffe, loo, git. 8H,“. Moser at al., "Selection of Items for Testing Skill in Visual Recognition of One-Syllable Words,“ (The Ohio State University Development Fund Project Number 5818, 1960). 24 that they had develOped a one.sy11ahle test of lipreading ability. Few of the lipreading tests have been standardized on large populations. C c e i s h Envir nt In 1954 Mulliganl reported that the distance of her subjects from the screen did not affect significantly their lipreading scores, and in 1950 Neely2 reported that distances of from three to nine feet (gale not a significant factor in a person's ability to lipread. In 1962 Arthur3 reported that contextual cues were significantly related to his subjects' lipreading scores. In 1962 Thomas4 reported that the lipreading efficiency of individuals who are highly familiar with the content of the message decreases only slightly and not significantly as the intensity of the room illumination decreases. In 1958 Miller gt_§l.5 reported that after subjects had been exposed to a delayed sidetone of .19 seconds their lipreading ability increased. In 1962 Leonard6 determined that continuous auditory A A A ——‘_.—_ —-—.. —— —...._ A...__ w—w W W ‘——. ———— lMulligan, loc, git. 2Keith K. Neely, "Effect of Visual Factors on the Intelligi- bility of Speech," J or of th Aceusti al is I Am ica, XXVIII (1956). pp. 1275-1277. 3Robert Harvard Arthur, "The Effect of Contextual and Non- Contextual Motion Pictures on the Speech Proficiency of Comparable Adult Males" (unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of Florida, 1902). 4Sharon Lynn Thomas, "Lipreading Performance as a Function of Light Levels" (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1962). 5.1. Miller, C.L. Rousey, and 0.8.. Goetzinger, "An Exploratory Investigation of a Method of Improving Speech Reading," Americgn Annals 9f tag Deaf, CIII (1958), pp. 473-478. oRalph Leonard, "The Effects of Continuous Auditory Distractions on Lipreading Performance" (unpublished Master's thesis, iichigan State University, 1962). 25 distraction significantly adversely affected the lipreading performance scores of his trained subjects. In 1965 Miller1 reported the only study, which has been accom- plished to date, concerned with the effects of visual distractions on lipreading performance. He found a significant positive relationship between lipreading performance and a non-purposeful hand movement on the part of the speaker. There was no significant relationship between lipreading performance and the other two experimental conditions (a flashing light and a red-on—white Archimedian design). His data seem to indicate that some visual distractions may enhance lipreading performance. The Effgcts of Distractions on Performance Related to Lipreading Morgan2 found that his subjects were distracted by noise while performing motor tasks, but they were able to adapt to the noise after a period of time. Uith 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. Cassel and Dallenbach3 found thattauditory distractions had no given effect upon the reaction times of their subjects; some subjects had slower tines; some subjects had _ _ 1Charles A. Miller, "Lipreading Performance as a Function of Continuous Visual Distractions" (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1965). ‘J.J.B. Morgan, "The Overcoming of Distractions and Other Re— sistances," ‘Agghizg§_gf_§§zghglggg, XXXV (February 1916), p. 295. 3E.E. Cassel and K.M. Dallenbach, "The Effect of Auditory Distraction Upon Sensory Reaction," Am r c Jo 0' P XXIX (April 1918), pp. 129-143. 26 faster times; and some subjects remained unchanged. Intermittent dis— tractions were more resistant to habituation than continuous distractions. Freeman1 has stated that distracting stimuli temporarily unbalance the bodily economy, and greater energy is expanded to compensate for the dis- traction, and the person becomes tired more readily. Mach2 studied the performance of routine tasks under conditions of verbal noise and found that noise of a given intensity did not here an effect upon the execu— tion of routine tasks. He did not note whether changes in performance occurred throughout the experiment. Vogel—Sprott3 found that the presen. tation of irrelevant stimuli beyond the center of attention or visual focus retarded the responses of his subjects to irregular signals for action, but accuracy in responding to predictable signals was unaltered. He stated that there is a particular need for studies dealing with dis- tractions in the periphery of visual focus. In 1963 Watkins4 found that the presentation of auditory stimuli of moderate intensity exerted a facilitory effect upon the visual signal detection performances of his subjects. McGrath5 reported that his 1G.L. Freeman, "Changes in Tension-pattern and Total Energy Expenditure During Adaptation to Distracting Stimuli,“ Amerigen Journal 2§_g§zghplggz, 011 (July 1939). pp. 359-3o0. 2Victor E. Mach, "Factors Influencing Routine Performance Under Noise; the Influence of 'Set'," Jggrpal_g£_§§yghglggl, (1953), PP.283_289. 3M. Vogel-Sprott, "Influence of Peripheral Visual Distractions on Perceptual Motor Performance ," Pgrceptggl 9nd Mote; we, XIV (June 1963). pp. 7oo.772. 4w.H. watkins, "Effect of Certain Noises Upon the Detection of Visual Signals," 2gp ébgtracts, III (1963). p. 201. 5James Joseph MoGrath, "The Effect of Irrelevant Environmental Stimulation on Vigilance Performance" (unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of Southern California, 1964). 3.3. 4. ST. ti”. I‘E Viv ii vu RIVIl‘ 27 subjects detected a significantly greater percentage of auditory signals when irrelevant environmental stimuli were introduced into the "watch. standing"environment than when this stimulation was absent. Keenanl had his subjects tap out a constant rhythm when dictated by the periodic flashing of visual pacers or the sounding of a blazer. Temporarily in-phase pacer-distraction relations did not improve either the subjects' accuracy or timing. Temporarily out-of-phase pacer-distractor relations hindered the accuracy but not the timing of the subjects‘ res- ponses. In the auditory pacer mode, accuracy was not poorer under distraction than under no distraction; however, under the visual pacer mode out-of-phase distractor relations significantly reduced response accuracy over the no distraction and other temporal relationships used. In 1965 Hagen2 studied the effects of distraction upon the ability of grade school children to recall task-relevant and task—irrele- vant information. Distraction had a very significant effect on the recall of task relevant materials. This effect was to lower scores consistently. Distraction did not hinder the performance on the incidental measure except for seventh grade subjects. The effect again was to lower scores. No interactions between type of recall measure and distraction-no distrac- tion conditions were found at any age level. _— —_—— i * *— 1James Joseph Keenan, Jr., "A Study of the Effects of Distraction Upon the Rhythmic Sensori-motor Performance When Task Difficulty, Stimulus Condition, and Temporal Relation Between Pacers and Distractor are Varied" (unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Columbia University, 1964). 2John Hilliam Hagen, "A Deve10pmental Study of Task-relevant and Task-irrelevant Information Processing Under Distraction and Nondistract- ion gonditions" (unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Stanford University, 1965 e 28 al‘ EEEEEEL Many experimental studies of lipreading and other studies re- lated to lipreading have been accomplished. However, only one re— searcher specifically attempted tc determine the effects of visual dis- tractions on lipreading performance. The results of this study indica- ted that lipreading performance might have been facilitated by at least one visual distraction. Distraction studies related to other motor performances have shown that some distractions facilitate performance and others hinder performance. These data would seem to indicate the need for further research in this area. CHAPTER III SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND PROCEDURES cts Four groups of sUbjects participated in this research. The first group was comprised of fifteen hard of hearing males. The second group was comprised of fifteen males with normal hearing. The third group was comprised of fifteen hard of hearing female subjects, and the fourth group was comprised of fifteen females with normal hearing. Each normal hearing subject was within plus or minus five years of a hard of hearing subject of the same sex. The fifteen hard of hearing male subjects ranged in age from 10 to 78 years with a mean age of 47.7 years and a median age of 55 years. They had a mean hearing level of 56 db, in the better ear (ISO 1964). Six of the fifteen subjects had received previous lipreading training. The fifteen male subjects with normal hearing ranged in age from 10 to 78 years with a mean age of 46.9 years and a median age of 57 years. All of these subjects met successfully the hearing and vision require- ments. The fifteen hard of hearing female subjects ranged in age from 10 to 74 years with a mean age of 43.9 years and a median age of 46 years. They had a mean hearing level of 53 db in the better ear (ISO 1964). Six of these fifteen subjects had received previous lipreading training. 29 30 The fifteen female subjects with normal hearing ranged in age from 11 to 73 years with a mean age of 44ml years and a median age of 47.years. All successfully met the hearing and vision requirements. Materials The following materials were utilized in the present study: 1. the vision chart (Snellen E) 2. One lipreading test film (How Well Can Ygg gen Ligs'zl) 3. One 7" recording tape of white noise 4. One colored 35 mm. slide of two girls (center blackened) 5. The exPerimental test film 6. 60 score sheets for use with the test film 7. 60 subject information sheets 8. 60 instruction sheets 9. 60 forms for recording reaponses to Part 1 of the filmed lipreading test How Hell Can You Read Lips?2 10. One roll of paper masking tape The eXperimental test film consisted of sixty test segments. The sixty segments were each preceded by three seconds of the segment number and followed by seven seconds of blank film. The time required to view the film was approximately fourteen minutes. The sixty test segments were constructed in the following man- ner. Each of the fifteen Spendee words (selected from C.I.D Auditory lUtley, Boy. well Can fou Reeg Lipg? cg, cit. 22m- 31 2 for use with children) Test U—l,1 and the words prepcsed by Newby was presented in each of the four test conditions which were as follows: C n n C .-—A grey background was accomplished by turning the lights on behind the multi-screen (that the Speaker-sender stood in front of) during the filming session. Qgggitign_§lg_figgl,-—A grey background was accomplished by turning the lights on behind the multi-screen (as in condition one) during the filming session,and the colored 35 mm. slide of two girls was projected on either side of the condition two segments when they appeared on the screen when the film was shown. W.—A background of a building with trees and a car was accomplished by projecting a 35 mm. slide onto the multi-screen behind the speaker-sender during the filming session. C n ur C .-A moving background of people on a busy street corner was accomplished by projecting a silent black and white 16 mm. motion picture film onto the multi-screen behind the Speaker- sender during the filming session. The spondee words as they appeared in the silent black and white 16 mm. experimental test film and the conditions under which they were presented appear in Appendix A. fi'v —— #- 1Hirsh 25 31., 12c, ci . 2Newby, log, git. 32 mm The following items of equipment were utilized in the present study: 1. An audiometer (Beltane model lO-l) 2. Two movie projectors (RCA model 410) 3. Two tables 4. mmojeaion tables (Pimoblle, models 41.0 and 442) 5. A screen (Radiant educator, 50" X 60") o. A slide projector (Revere model 555) 7. A tape recorder (Hollensak model 150085) 8. Two ceramic magnet speakers (Jensen syntox-o) 9. 60' of insulated electrical wiring 10. Six chair desks ll. A sound survey meter (General Radio model 1555) Two different classrooms were utilized in the present study. One was in the Laboratory School at Indiana State University and the other was in the Auditorium Building at Michigan State University. Both rooms were approximately the same size. The same equipment was utilized in both test rooms with the exception of the movie projector. All equipment was placed in the same position in both rooms. The movie projectors were fifteen feet from the screen. The six chair desks were ten to twelve feet from the screen and all afforded an unimpeded view of the screen. All windows were darkened except one which had the shade raised one fourth in order 33 to allow enough light to enter the room to enable the subjects to write their responses on the test forms. The physical arrangement of the equipment in the test rooms is presented in Figure 1. Procedure; Upon entering the test room the subjects were given screening tests to determine their hearing and visual acuity. These screening tests were administered as follows: 1. ‘Xigigp_§g;ggpigg.-Each subject was given a Snellen Vision Test using the Snellen E Chart. Each subject included in the study evidenced at least 20/20 vision in the poorest eye (with or without correction). 2. figfigigg_g§£ggpi§g,-Each subject was given an individual hearing screening test. Both right and left ears were tested separately for hearing acuity at frequencies of 250, 500, 1000, 2000, 4000, and 6000 Hz. with a Beltone model lO—A audiometer. A subject was considered to have normal hearing if he or she was able to hear pure tones at the aforementioned frequencies at 26 db. re audiometric zero (ISO 1964) in both ears. A subject was considered hard of hearing if he or she had a three frequency average (500, 1000, and 2000 Hz.) in the better ear of equal to or greater than 1.0 db. re audiometric zero (ISO 1964). The test room was examined to determine if all equipment was in its prOper place. « The subjects were seated in chair desks of their I @“numw «m'~mMm-wW , Screen 1‘ Speaker (ceramic magnet) Chair deskfi 1 .4...— va v—rv 16 mm. projector-'9 1 Tape recorder (Slide projector audiometer —F ' 1 I I Speaker—Lg) G ' fiw—v—v—v—v."—rvv—_—_-vv- -—— v I‘I w Fig. 1.--Physical Arrangement of the Equipment in the Test Home 35 own choosing (in groups no larger than six). The subjects were then given the test form for Part 1, the sentence test of the black and white 16 mm. filmed lipreading test How Hell Can Yog_head_§ip§?l an example of this form is found in appendix B. The subjects read the in- structions on the form; after which the investigator answered all of their questions. The lights were turned off one minute prior to the film pre- sentation so that the subjects' eyes became adjusted to the lighting conditions. The projector was turned on, and Part 1 of the sentence test of fig! [all can You 5299 Lips?Z was run. Upon completion of this task the test forms were gathered and the lights were turned on. The subjects were asked to complete the information sheet (appen- dix C) while the researcher rewound and removed the film Hgg Hell Can You Bflfid L123? from.the projector. The experimental film was threaded on the projector, and the subjects were given the instruction sheet for the experimental film (Appendix C). While the subjects were reading the instructions, the researcher took an ambient noise level reading with a sound survey meter at the level of the subjects' ears. The information sheets were gathered and questions were answered. Subjects were then given the score sheets for the experimental film (Appendix C). The researcher turned on the tape recording of white noise and adjusted the volume so that the white noise exceeded the ambient room noise by at least 5 db. at the level of the subjects' ears. The lights —— 1Utley, Hog "9L1 05g You fieag Lips? Op. git. 22m- 311s.- 36 were extinguished. One minute passed in order for the subjects to adjust to the lighting and sound conditions. The experimental film with its four peripheral visual stimuli conditions (Cl—no peripheral visual stimuli; C2—a slide of two girls projected on either side of the test film image; 03-a stationary scene of a building with trees and cars in front of it; and C4—a moving background of a busy street corner) was run. Upon completion of the testing procedures, the subjects' score sheets were gathered and the subjects were thanked and dismissed. Summggy Fifteen hard of hearing males with a mean age of 47.7 years, a median age of 55 years, and a mean hearing level of 56 db. in the better ear (ISO 1964); fifteen males with normal hearing and with a mean age of 46.9 years and a median age of 57 years; fifteen hard of hearing females with a mean age of 43.9 years, a median age of 46 years, and a mean hearing level of 53 db. in the better ear (ISO 1964),- and fifteen females with normal hearing and with a mean age of 44.1 years and a median age of 47 years participated in this study. All sixty SUbjects met the vision requirements, and met the hearing requirementsestablished for their respective groups. The sixty subjects viewed Part 1 of the lipreading test Hog Hell 93g Ignifiead Lips?and the experimental film which contained four peripheral visual stimuli conditions (Cl-no peripheral visual stimuli; C2-a slide of two girls projected on either side of the test film image; C3-a stationary scene of a building with cars and trees in front of it; and 04_a moving background of a busy street corner) in groups no larger than six, and under constant environmental conditions. Chapter IV Realms, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION Bilhlis The subjects' information sheets, score sheets for the eXper- imental film, and score sheets for Part 1 of the filmed lipreading test W71 were read and scored. Table 1 contains a summary of the data Obtained from the hard of hearing male subjects. Table 2 presents a smnmary of the data obtained from the male subjects with normal hearing. Table 3 contains a summary of the data obtained from the hard of hearing female subjects; and Table ,4 presents a sum. many of the data Obtained from the female subjects with normal hearing. A three—way analysis of variance with repeated measures on the last factor (2 X 2 X 4)2 was used to analyse the effects of sex (factor A, male vs. female) and hearing (factor B, hard of hearing vs. normal hearing) on the lipreading scores of the subjects under the four test conditions (factor 0). A significant variation was found for the sex factor at the .01 level. No significant variation was found for the factor hearing; nor were there any significant interactions. The re- sults of the threeaway analysis of variance are presented in Table 5. 23. J. wider, .- , ‘ ,_ A . (New York: MeGrewhHill Book Chmpdny, Inc., l'o2 , pp. 33 -343. 37 38 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF THE DATA OBTAINED FROM THE HARD OF HEARING MALE SUBJECTSa DO H N n q a a a a a E“ in 53% fig Ea Es is at .2 33 a is tag 33 in as an an 33 1 lo 55db. yes 3 5 o 21 3o 2 13 56db. yes 7 o e o 25 24 3 lo 40db. yes 8 4 9 8 29 19 4 10 92db. yes 2 1 3 2 8 4 5 l9 oOdb. yes 14 12 13 14 53 49 6 47 52db. no a 10 11 1o 39 14 7 55 60db. no 6 4 3 4‘ 17 22 3 55 fiodb. yes 14 12 12 12 5O 53 9 63 AOdb. no 11 13 ll 12 47 32 10 64 60db. no 1 l O 2 4 8 ll 65 4Sdb. no 5 3 2 2 12 9 12 66 58db. no 5 o o o 23 12 13 72 76db. no 3 2 2 2 9 1a 14 76 47db. no C) 0 0 0 0 b l 5 78 53db . no 1 l O 0 2 1 8Raw scores. *k 39 TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF THE DATA OBTAINED FROM THE MALE SUBJECTS UITH NORMAL HEARINGa + L ‘— ji— _—_.-_._ AAA ___ k‘ A— _ —— — ——-— — Subject age Cl Score 02 Score C; Score C4 Score Total Utley Number Score Score l 10 6 o 8 8 28 39 2 i} 10 10 8 ll 19 )6 J 21 9 8 7 4 28 19 4 ll 5 5 o o 22 14 5 22 ll 1) l5 1) 52 50 o 44 7 7 5 5 24 10 7 55 13 ll 13 13 5O 15 8 57 7 11 ll 7 36 34 9 58 4 5 4 3 lb 32 10 67 0 0 0 O O 0 ii 61 O 0 0 l 1 9 12 61 8 8 7 8 BL l9 13 68 5 4 8 o 23 25 14 75 0 0 0 O 0 o 15 78 2 0 O 1 3 o ‘ __ ___ _— — — _ ____ E ! u aRaw scores. 4O TaBLE 23 SUMMARY OF THE DATA OBTAINED FROM THE HARD OF HEARING FEMALE SUBJECTSa on H N m ‘2 352 § § § § 33.: 33". «331 at at a: at 2?: .3 . a ego g g8 E3 3 a as 55 a a5 sea ed on e 33 ed an 1 10 71db. yes 10 8 9 9 36 40 2 12 45db. yes 12 11 12 11 46 18 3 2O 55db. yes 15 14 15 15 59 51 4 22 40db. yes 15 15 15 15 6O o7 5 31 45db. no 13 12 10 11 46 47 6 43 JOldb. yes 5 6 4 6 21 16 7 43 esdb. no 12 12 12 ll 47 35 8 46 6ldb. no 13 11 13 12 49 36 9 50 55db. no 10 8 9 10 37 28 10 54 55db. yes 11 12 12 12 47 38 11 62 40db. no 10 9 5 ll 35 14 12 62 43db. no 8 7 7 8 30 13 13 64 40db. no 10 10 11 10 41 27 14 65 406b. no 5 6 5 6 22 21 15 74 8066. no 3 2 3 1 9 17 _ aRaw scores. 41 TABLE 4 SUMMARY OF THE DATA OBTAINED FROM THE FEMALE SUBJECTS HITH NORMAL HEARINGa A _ Age Cl Score 02 Score 03 Score C4 Score k ‘ aRaw scores. . subject Total Utley Number Score Score 1 13 9 9 10 ll 39 32 2 11 10 10 8 8 36 1 5 3 21 14 13 13 14 54 46 4 22 l4 14 14 15 57 57 5 36 14 15 15 15 59 47 6 46 O 4 2 6 l 2 O 7 43 10 '12 11 12 45 46 8 47 12 11 ll 13 47 30 9 49 ll 13 11 ll 46 25 10 54 10 10 13 11 44 37 ll 57 10 10 9 ll 40 15 12 60 O 0 1 1 2 21 13 68 7 5 6 5 23 20 14 62 5 4 4 4 17 6 15 73 3 1 4 2 10 7 42 TABLE 5 THREE—HA! ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE WITH REPEATED MEASJRES TABLE FOR THE EXPERIMENTAL TEST FILM 4 k ; * Degrees of Source of Variation gzfiaggs Freedom 82:2:9 Va1ue Between Subjects 4756.00 59 A (Hearing) 7.00 1 7.00 .985 B (Sex) 749.00 1 749.00 10.548a AB (Hearing x Sex) 19.00 1 19.00 .287- Error (Between) 3981.00 56 71.10 within subjects 224.00 180 0 (Condition) 3.00 3 1.00 .787 AC (Hearing 1 Condition) 4.00 3 1.33 1.047 BC (Sex x Condition) 2.00 3 .67 .528 ABC (Hear. x Sex x Cond.)2.00 3 .87 .528 Error (within) 213.00 168 1.27 A 3Significant at the .01 level (F2 7.12 required). 43 A two-way analysis of variance was performed on the scores achieved by the subjeCts under each of the four conditions of the experimental test film. The two independent variables were hearing and sex, and the dependent variables were the scores achieved by the subjects under each of the four conditions of the experimental test film. Significance was found for the sex factor at the .01 level with direction not predicted. Hearing was not found to be significant nor was there any significant interaCtion. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 6. The analyses utilized revealed that the only significant variable was sex. An examination of the mean female scores and the mean male scores on the four conditions revealed that for each condition the mean female score was higher than the mean male score (Table 7). TABLE 7 FEMALE MEAN SCORES AND MALE MEAN SCORES FOR THE FOUR CONDITIONS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL TEST FILM II==u====================:- -::E‘ “ -:=-._..-:—na -r 4::;;_ Condition Female Mean Scores Male Mean Scores Condition One 9.367 5.833 Condition Two 9.133 5.667 Condition Three 9.133 5.833 Condition Four 9.567 5.733 E y k A ~ Thus, females as a group performed significantly better than males as a group on all four conditions of the experimental test film. THO-HA! ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR CONDITIONS ONE, 7110, THREE, AND FOUR 44, TABLEéa —— Sum of Degrees of Mean F Source of Variation Squares Freedom Square Value Condition One Hearing 9.600 1 9.600 .535 Sex 187.267 1 187.267 10.1.30a Hearing X Sex 8.067 1 8.067 .449 Error 1005.467 56 17.955 Condition Two Hearing 0.600 1 .600 .032 Sex 180.207 1 180.267 9.71.3a Bearing X Sex 5.400 1 5.400 .292 Error 1036.133 50 18.502 Condition Three Hearing .017 l .017 .001 Sex 163.350 1 163.350 8.244a Hearing X Sex 6.017 1 6.017 .304 Error 1109.600 56 19.814 Condition Four Hearing 1.350 1 1.350 .073 Sex 220.417 1 220.417 11.81.03 Hearing X Sex 1.350 1 1.350 .073 Error 50 18.617 8‘Significant at (F 2 7.12 required). 1042.533 ——~ the .01 level with direction not predicted 45 Based on the foregoing results, it was decided to reject,the following null hypotheses: 1. There is no significant difference between the scores achieved by the female normal hearing subjects and those achieved the male normal hearing subjects within conditions one, two, three, and four. 2. There is no significant difference between the scores achieved by female hard of hearing subjects and those achieved by male hard of hearing subjects within conditions one, two, three, and four. In view of the other outcomes of the analyses of variance, it was obvious that it was nn1_pg§11hlg_tg_;gjggt the following null hypo- theses: 1. There is no significant difference between the scores achieved by normal hearing subjects and those achieved by hard of hearing subjects within conditions one, two, three, and four. 2. There are no significant differences among the scores achieved by the hard of hearing subjects under the four conditions of peripheral visual stimuli as employed in this study. 3. There are no significant differences among the scores achieved by the normal hearing subjects under the four conditions of peripheral visual stimuli as employed in this study. The female subjects were ranked by age from one to thirty, and ranked from one to thirty on the basis of the scores they achieved on Part 1 of the lipreading test film flow as}; Can You Read Lips? Spearman‘s rank- difference correlation coefficient was utilized to compare these rank wt: luuay, H2! Hg; Can You 5995; Lips? 02. cit. 4 'J order scores, and 3.2 value (as described by Ferguson3) was calculated. The same analysis was utilized with the data obtained from the male subjects. These data are presented in Table 8. TABLE £3 SPEARMAN'S RANK—DIFFERENCE CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AND 3 VALUES FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AGE AND LIPREADING ABILITY Sex Ififi> t,value Male subjects -.551 3.4958 Female SUbjects -.536 3.3593 A th$ .____‘._ L aSignificant at the .01 level (312.763 required) The t,va1ue for the male subjects (3.495) and the t,value for the female subjects (3.359) were statistically significant at the .021 level 0f confidence. These results indicate that a negative correla- tion exists between age and lipreading ability. 0n the basis of these data, it was decided to ggjggt_the following null hypotheses: 1. There is no significant correlation between the chronological ages of the female subjects and the total scores they achieved on Part 1 of the lipreading test a9; ugij Can 192 Bead Lips?2 1George A. Ferguson, Statistical Agalygig in ngchglggy and Edu— cation. (Second Edition; New Iork: McCraw-Hill Book Company, 1966 , p. 217. zUtley, How Egll~0an You Read Lips? cg, cit. 47 2. There is no significant correlation between the chronological ages of the male subjects and the total scores they achieved on Part 1 of the lipreading test W71 Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient was used to determine the correlation between the total scores achieved by the sub- jects on the experimental test film and those they achieved on Part 1 of the lipreading test figw Hell an You Read Lips?2 This analysis yielded a r of .7949. A t_va1ue was calculated and the .05 level of significance was selected. The resulting ; value of'7.929 was signifi- at the .001 level of significance. On the basis of these results, it was decided to £21223 the following null hypothesis: There is no signi- ficant correlation between the total scores achieved by the subjects on the experimental test film and those adhieved on Part 1 of the lipreading test how Hell Can You Read Lips?3 Analysis and Discgssion Sex a r adi erf oe as mea ed b t e erime a] 111m,-The data indicated that both normal hearing and hard of hearing females had significantly higher lipreading performance scores on all four conditions of the experimental test film than the normal hearing and hard of hearing male subjects. These results support similar find- 48 inga by Lowell,1 Taaffe and Wong,2 Costello,3 and Ayleswcrth.‘ Hearing level and lipreading performancgs on the ggpggimentgl test film.-No statistically significant differences were found among hard of hearing subjects and normal hearing subjects on any of the four experimental film test conditions. Other studies have found that hard of hearing subjects have scored lower as a group than normal hearing subjects. This has been explained on the basis of the language defi- ciency often found in the deaf or severely hard of hearing. Only a few of the subjects in this study could have been classified as severely hard of hearing. The lipreading performance scores of these few persons were somewhat offset by the scores of several persons with mild losses who had received extensive lipreading training and were excellent lip- -readers. In looking at the scores of the hard of hearing subjects, one is impressed by the range of lipreading scores demonstrated. The fact that the hard of hearing subjects as a group were not better lipreaders than the normal subjects could be construed as support for the concept of lipreading as learned behavior and as evidence against the compensa- tony theory which states that a person deprived of the use of one sense naturally compensates through the more efficient use of another SWOe lLowell, loo, git. zTaaffe and Hong, loo. cit. 3Costello, 122, git. 4Aylesworth, lgg‘_£i§, 49 Pa v adi fo n t W.—The peripheral visual stimuli as employed in the four conditions of the experimental test film had no significant effect upon the lipreading performance scores of the subjects. In order to discuss this finding, it is necessary to examine the concept of work, vigilance theories, time, motivation, attention or "set"to respond, and the nature of visual sensory input. Research has demonstrated time and again that human beings are unable tonnaintain vigilant watches for long periods of time if the working conditions are monotonous. Broadbent1 has been associated with the "filter" theory of vigilance which states that a decrease in vigi- lance occurs because the observer tends to select more and more irrele- vant information from his environment as a monotonous watch lengthens or that his filtering mechanism shifts away from the relevant informa- tion to irrelevant information. If the "filter" theory had been evid- enced in this study, there would have had to have been statistically significant differences among the scores of the subjects under the four experimental conditions. Since no significant differences were found, it is necessary to turn to the "arousal" theory of vigilance which was proposed by Hebb.2 “ m; A“ k A ‘ ‘ lDonald E. Broadbent, ggvior. (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 19(31): p0 199. 200naId Qlding Hebb A Tgnbogx or zgzmiog. (Philadelphia: 3.3. Saunders Company, 19585, p. 62. 50 According to the "arousal" theory, efficient or continued response behavior is dependent upon an optimum level of cortical arousal. This level of cortical arousal is dependent upon sensory stimulation which may be either relevant or irrelevant. If a vigilance decrement occurs, it is assumed to have resulted from the lack of sensory stimulation during the task. Since no decrement in the performances of the subjects occurred, it is suggested that the "arousal" phenomenon was evidenced. The reader will recall that the test items of the four conditions were randomly distributed throughout the experimental film, so that an item with no peripheral visual stimuli was preceded and/or followed by items of any of the three conditions with peripheral visual stimuli or by other items with no peripheral visual stimuli. Thus, it appears that the experimental film with its changing backgrounds might have been more stimulating or arousing to the subjects' senses than if the backgrounds had never changed. The task, then, was not as montonous as it might have been. It should also be noted that the period of time involved in viewing the experimental film was only seventeen minutes. This period of time could hardly be considered prolonged or lengthy, even though it did require vigilance on the part of the subjects. If an hour or two had been involved, a vigilance decrement might have occurred as a result of the subjects' filtering mechanisms shifting to the background infor- mation or to the irrelevant peripheral visual stimuli. Another operant factor appears to be the fact that many of the subjects for this sttidy were volunteers, and new of the hard of hearing 51 subjects were motivated by the fact that they had been in lipreading therapy and wanted to know how they had progressed. Others were about to begin lipreading rehabilitation programs. Thus, most of the subjects could be considered to have been.highly motivated to do their best on the task before them. This motivation might have contributed to increased vigilance on the part of the subjects. Attention or"set” to respond is another factor which may have affected the performances of the subjects. Although the subjects weren't told to watch the speaker-sender exclusively, the fact that they knew they must recognize what was said and record it on paper was sufficient information for them to know exactly where to direct their attention. Or in psychological terms, they assumed a "set"to respond only to the spondee words as presented by the speaker-sender. Several of the sub- jects commented on the fact that they felt a desire to look at the back— grounds, but recognized the fact that such an act might«amse them to miSS the test items. They directed themselves mentally to ignore or filter out the peripheral visual stimuli. In the first chapter it was noted that vision is a directional sense, and as such it appears that it is easier to attend or not to attend to information visually than it is auditorily. For example, it is easier to turn our eyes away from a fire truck than it is to "shut out" the sound of its siren. Thus, it appears that a person who intends to lipread is able to attend to his visual task (that of receiving rele— vant information) and to filter out irrelevant information o; as in the 52 case of this study, the peripheral visual stimuli. Agg_§£g_lip§§§§igg_ghilitx,-The results of this study indicated that there was a statistically significant negative correlation between chronological age and lipreading ability as measured by Part 1 of the lipreading test film Egg gel; Can Ygu B§a§_L£2§?1 This correlation indicates that the older a lipreader is, the poorer a lipreader he or she is likely to be. This finding is in accord with Farrimond'32 research and illustrates the need for lipreading training for the aging as well as for children with hearing problems. A close examination of the scores of the subjects revealed that the negative correlation between age and lipreading ability was not linear throughout all age categories. For instance, up to the age of twenty or thirty knowledge of age would not be a good predictor of lipreading ability. However, after the age of forty the negative correlation between age and lipreading ability is quite linear. This relationship is graphically presented in. Figure 2. Iha_axaaziaa2ial_22§£.£ils.22.2_&:§i.2£.lisassdins_ahiliixs-In view of the fact that the experimental film correlated significantly (r=.791.9) with Part 1 of the lipreading test film How Hal]. Can You §§3g_§;2§23 , it appears that although the experimental film was not designed as a test of lipreading ability, it may be used as such. — A“ 1Utley, loo, cit. 2Farrimond, loo. cit. 3Utley, locI cit. Age in Years 75 '70 65 55 45 53 x :1 § 0 o 1 x I x x o x r i o o x o o I I i ” 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1.0 45 Score on How Hell Can 1'0}; Read Lips? Figm‘e.2.-—Chronlogical Age and Lipreading Performance. m: leale subject, O:female subject. 55 54 steam Based on the results, analysis and discussion presented in this chapter, the following conclusions were reached: 1. Peripheral visual stimuli, as employed in this study, had no significant effect upon the test film lipreading performance scores of the subjects. This was explained on the basis of the concept of work, the "arousal" theory of vigilance, time, motivation, attention or set to respond, and the nature of visual sensory input. 2. There were no significant differences among the various types of peripheral visual stimuli and their effects upon the test film lipreading performance scores of the normal hearing subjects or the hard of hearing subjects. 3. Normal hearing females and hard of hearing females as a group were significantly better lipreaders than normal hearing males and hard of hearing males as a group. A. There was no significant difference between the lipreading performances of the normal hearing subjects and the lipreading perfor- mances of the hard of hearing subjects. 5. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between chronological age and lipreading ability with older persons exhibiting poorer lipreading scores. 6. The experimental test film was found to be correlated with Part 1 of the lipreading test How yell Can You Bead LipSZIat the .001 level of significance (r::.7949). Thus, although the experimental film 13119; - 55 was not designed as a test of lipreading ability, it appears that it may be used as such. CHAPTER V SUMMARI, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Summary The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of peri- pheral visual stimuli on lipreading performance. In order to accomplish this purpose, a black and white 16 mm. motion picture experimental test film was deveIOped. This test film was comprised of sixty items which were fifteen spondee words spoken by a female speaker-sender in front of four different backgrounds (designated as the peripheral visual stimuli). The first background was grey and represented the control condition (no peripheral visual stimuli). The second background was grey, as in the first condition; however, a colored 35 mm. slide of two girls ‘was simultaneously projected on either side of the image in the test film. The third background was a stationary one of a building with cars and trees in front of it. The fourth background was a moving scene at a busy street corner. Eight null hypotheses were investigated. The first five were specifically related to the purpose of the study; the last three were supplemental. These null hypotheses were as follows: 1. There is no significant difference between the scores achieved by normal hearing subjects and those achieved by hard of hearing subjects within conditions one, two, three, and four. 56 57 2. There is no significant difference between the scores achieved by female normal hearing SUbjects and those achieved by male normal hearing subjects within conditions one, two, three, and four. 3. There is no significant difference between the scores achieved by female hard of hearing subjects and those achieved by male hard of hearing subjects within conditions one, two, three, and four. 4. There are no significant differences among the scores achieved by the normal hearing subjects under the four conditions of peripheral visual stimuli as employed in this study. 5. There are no significant differences among the scores achieved by the hard of hearing subjects under the four conditions of peripheral visual stimuli as employed in this study. e. There is no significant correlation between the chronologi- cal ages of the female subjects and the total scores they achieved on Part 1 of the lipreading test W71 7. There is no significant correlation between the chronologi- cal ages of the male subjects and the total scores they achieved on Part 1 of the lipreading test agg_ue;;_gen_xgg_§egg_ggggg2 8. There is no significant correlation between the total scores achieved by the subjects on the eXperimental test film and those achieved on Part 1 of the lipreading test my ye}; egg Igu Read Lips?3 — 11am. 2mm. 3mm. 58 Four groups of subjects participated in this study. The first group, comprised of fifteen hard of hearing male subjects, had an age range of from 10 to 78 years with a mean age of 47.7 years and a median age of 55 years. They had a mean hearing level of 56 db in the better ear (ISO 1964). Six of these fifteen subjects had received previous lipreading training. The second group was comprised of fifteen male subjects with normal hearing who ranged in age from 10 to 78 years with a mean age of 46.9 years and a median age of 57 years. All of these subjects were within plus or minus five years of a hard of hearing male subject. Fifteen hard of hearing female subjects comprised the third group. They ranged in age from 10 to 74 years with a mean age of 43.9 years and a median age of 46 years. They had a mean hearing level of 53 db. in the better ear (ISO 1964). Six of these fifteen subjects had received previous lipreading training. The fourth group was comprised of fifteen female subjects with normal hearing who ranged in age from 11 to 73 years with a mean age of 44.1 years and a median age of 47 years. Each of these subjects was within plus or minus five years of a hard of hearing female subject. All sixty subjects viewed the experimental test film and Part 1 of the lipreading test Hog Hell Can You Read Lip§71 under constant environmental conditions and in groups which did not exceed six.. llbi . 59 The data were subjected to statistical analyses and on the basis of the results of the analyses; the following null hypotheses were mass: 1. There is no significant difference between the scores achieved by female normal hearing subjects and those achieved by male normal hearing subjects within conditions one, two, three, and four. 2. There is no significant difference between the scores achieved by female hard of hearing subjects and those achieved by male hard of hearing subjects within conditions one, two, three, and four. 3. There is no significant correlation between the chronolo- gical ages of the female subjects and the total scores they achieved on.Part l of the lipreading test Ho! yell Can fog Read gi2371 4. There is no significant correlation between the chronolo- gical ages of the male subjects and the total scores they achieved on Part 1 of the lipreading test hog;!§1; Can You Read LipsTZ 5. There is no significant correlation between the total scores achieved by the subjects on the experimental test film and those achieved on Part 1 of the lipreading test How Hell Can fou,§eag Lips?3 On the basis of the same statistical analyses, the following null hypotheses fgilfl to be rejected: 1. There is no significant difference between the scores ~__ ¥ *;*-._ A“.— 60 achieved by normal hearing subjects and those achieved by hard of hear- ing subjects within conditions one, two, three, and four. 2. There are no significant differences among the scores achieved by the normal hearing subjects under the four conditions of peripheral visual stimuli as employed in this study. 3. There are no significant.differences among the scores achieved by the hard of hearing subjects under the four conditions of peripheral visual stimuli as employed in this study. Wises The following conclusions appear to be warranted on the basis of the findings of this study: 1. Peripheral visual stimuli, as employed in this study, have no significant effect upon the lipreading performance scores of subjects. It appears that persons confronted with a visual task are able to select the relevant information and filter out the irrelevant peripheral visual stimuli. 2. There are no significant differences among the various types of peripheral visual stimuli and their effects on the lipreading performance scores of normal hearing subjects or hard of hearing subjects. All of the peripheral visual stimuli employed in this study may be classified as irrelevant and nondistracting stimuli. 3. Normal hearing females and hard of hearing females as a group are significantly better lipreaders than the normal hearing males and the hard of hearing males as a group. This difference in lipreading performance cannot ‘be attributed to the effects of peripheral visual stimuli. 61 4. There is no significant difference between the lipreading performance scores of nomal hearing subj acts and the lipreading perfor— mance scores of hard of hearing subjects. Thus, both normal hearing subjects and hard of hearing subjects perform in similar ways under various peripheral visual stimuli test conditions. 5. There is a statistically significant negative correlation between chronological age and lipreading ability with older persons exhibiting poorer lipreading scores. 6. Taking into account the sex and age differences in lipread- ing ability found in this study, if a person were confronted with two persons (one an elderly male and one a young female), it would appear that one might predict that the young female ' would be a better lipreader than the elderly male. WW It is suggested that the following might offer possibilities for future research: 1. Research should be conducted to determine which environ- mental stimuli serve an 'aronmal' function and which serve a "filtering" function during lipreading performance. 2. Since the peripheral visual stimuli in this study did not affect lipreading performance, it is suggested that other stimli which are more compelling might be utilized. aich stimuli as flashing lights or written messages might be employed. If such stimuli could be pre— sented without the person knowing he is to lipread a particular subject, 11mg- 62 a more accurate appraisal of the effects of peripheral visual stimuli on lipreading performance might be accomplished. 3. Two or more speakers might appear in the same segments and take turns presenting the message. 4. The exact nature of the negative relationship between age and lipreading ability should be explored. Is this negative correlation linear or curvilinear? How old does a person have to be before he can be taught to lipread? At what age is an individual likely to exhibit his best lipreading performance? At what age does a person begin to lose his ability to lipread? Do good lipreaders lose their lipreading ability at the same rate as poor or average lipreaders? th are so many elderly people such poor lipreaders? Can elderly persons improve their lipread- ing ability with training? In addition to the foregoing, factors such as age of onset of hearing loss, degree of loss, and sex might be examined in relation to age. 5. Studies should be conducted to determine why females (as a group) are better lipreaders than males (as a group); and at what age or ages is this sex difference most prominent? Is there something inherent in the sex role training a female receives that makes her a better lip- reader? Are males who have not identified strongly with the male sex image better lipreaders than those who have high masculinity scores? Do females have stronger visual images than males? Dc males tend to be .more analytical than females? Is there a significant difference between male and female lipreading ability before the age when children have established their sex role identities? BIBLI WRAPHY 63 64 QEI GRAPE Books Berry, Mildred F., and Eisenson, Jon. Speech Disorders: Principles ag W. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1956. Brandt, Herman F. W. New York: The PhilosOphi- cal Library, 1945. Broadbent, Donald E. W. New Iork: Basic Books, Inc., 1961. Day, H.E., Fusfeld, 1.3., and Pintner, R. A Survey 9: American §ggoglg D a ° -2 . Hashington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1928. Ferguson, George A. a sti s PS’ cho 0 nd Educa on. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1966. Babb, Donald aiding. A t ook P . Philadelphia: ".8. Saunders Co., 1958. Keys, John 3., Krug, Richard F., and Spuehler, Henry E. Effects and Intggactigng of Auditgrz and Visual Cugg in gg ngicangp. Norman, Oklahoma: The University of Oklahoma Research Institute, 1962. Minski, Louis. D 1% De 1 in d n. New York: The PhilosOphical Library, 1957. Newby, Hayes. Audiology . New fork: Appleton—Century-Crofts, 1961.. O'Neill. John J-. and Qver. Herbert J- W r m. Englewood iffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 19 1. Paula, niriam. "Speech Reading," WW. ed. Hallowell Davis, New York: Murray Hill Books, Inc., 191.7. Utley, Jean. M? Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1950. Hiner. B-J-. Wm- New York: HcGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1 2. Periodigs Elack, John H. "Accmpaniments of Uord Intelligibility,‘ J of WW XVII (1)-camber 1952): PP- ~418- 65 Brannon, John B. Jr. "Speechreading of Various Speech Materials " J S a H ar D e 8 (November 1901;, PD. 34 353. Byers, Vincent 3., and Lieberman, Lewis. "Lipreading Performance and the Rate of the Speaker," Jo _c arin fippppppp, II (September 1959 , pp. 271-276. Cassel, Edna E., and Dallenbach, K.M. "The Effect of Auditory Distrac— tion Upon the Sensory Motion." W Conk1in, E.S. "A Method for the Determination of Relative Skill in Lipreading," m Volga gnaw, xxx (1917), pp. 216-220.» Costello, Mary Rose. "A Study of Speechreading as a Developing Language Process in Deaf and in Hard of Hearing Children," §pee§p W XXV (1958). pp. 137.133. DiCarlo, Louis, and Kataja, Raymond. "An Analysis of the Utley Lip— reading Test," J ur o S c a He rd 8 XVI (1951). pp. 226—240. Evans, L. "Factors Related to Listening and Lipreading," Tgacpp; 2; 312.2221.» LVIII (1960). pp- 417-423- Evans, L. "PsychOIOgical Factors Related to Lipreading," Teacher of mg, 1.1111 (1965). pp. 131-136. Farrimond, T. "Age Differences in the Ability to Use Visual Cues in Auditory Communication," nggppgg_ppg_§ppppp, II (1959), pp e 179-192 a Freeman, C.L. "Changes in Tensiongpattern and Total Energy Expenditure During Adaptation to Distracting Stimuli," gnppippn Jgurpp; of W (July 1939), pp. 354-360. Fusfeld, Irving. "Factors in Lipreading as Determined by the Lipreader," WW 0111 (Mob 1958). pp- 229-242- Gault, Robert B. "On the Identification of Certain Vowel and Consonantal Elements in Hords by Their Tactual Qualities and by Their Visual Qualities as Seen by the Speaker," W 10111 (1927-1928), pp. 33-39. Heider, F.K., and Heider, Grace M. "An Experimental Investigation of Lip Radius." W L11 (1940): PP- 124-153- Hirsh, Ira J., Davis, Hallowell, Silverman, S.R., Reynolds, E061, Endert, E., and Benson, R.U. "DeveIOpment of Materials for Speech Audiomotry." W XVII (1952). pp. 3 - 37. 66 Kitson, H.D. "Psychological Tests for Lipreading Ability," The Vplta m MI (1915), pp. 471.4%. Lott, Bernice E., and Levy, Joel. "The Influence of Certain Communica— tor Characteristics on Lipreading Efficency," Jo of W LI (1960), pp. 1.19.425. Lowell, Edgar L. "New Inpsight Into Lipreading," t n rd II (July-August 19p1), pp. 3-5. Dhson, Marie K. “A Cinematographic Technique for Testing Visual S ech Comprehension." WW VIII (1943 . pp. 271—278. Mech, Victor E. "Factors Influencing Routine Performance Under Noise: the Influence of 'Set'," WW, XXXV (January- July 1953). pp- 283-289- Miller, June, Rousey, Clyde L., and Goetzinger, C.R. "An Exploratory Investigation of a Method of Improving Speech and Reading," W cm (1958). pp- 473-478- Morgan, J .J .B. "The Overcoming of Distractions and Other Resistances," Argflvgp pf Ppychplpgz, V (February 1916), pp. 1-84. brkovin, Boris V. "Rehabilitation of the Aurally Handicapped Tm‘owh the Study of Speech Reading in Life Situations,” Jognal of W XII (December 1947), pp. 363-368. Neely, Keith X. "Effect of Visual Factors on the Intelligibility of Speech," J A rica XVIII (1956 , pp. 1275-1277. Nitchie, Edward B. "Movi ' Pictures Applied to Lipreading," The V9132 m xv (1913 , pp. 117.125. . "Tests for Determining Skill in Lipreading," W m XIX (1917), PP. 222-223. O'Neill, John J. "An Exploratory Investigation of Lipreading Ability Among Normal Rearing College Students," W XVIII (August 1951), pp. 309-311. O'Neill, John J. "Contributions of the Visual Components of Ck'al Sym- bols to the Speech Canprehensicn of Listeners with Nonal 30831118." W m (1952). pp. 119-120. O'Neill, John J ., and Davidson, JoAnn L. "Relationship Between Lipreading and Five Psychological Factors," J o S and ar m XVI (December 1956), pp. 47 . 67 Pickett, J .M. "Tactual Communication of Speech Sounds to the Deaf: Comparison With Lipreading,” J 0 He 21291512122: xxvnI (19o3). pp. 315-330. Pintner, Molph. "Speech and Speech-reading Tests for the Deaf," qur- W XIII (1929). pp- 220-225- Reid, Gladys. "A Prelininary Investigation in the Testing of Lipreading Achievement." WW 1111 (1947). pp. 77-82e Simona, Audrey A. "Factors Related to Lipreading," W WW II (1959). pp. 340-352- Stcne, Louis. "Facial Cues of Context in Lipreading," W W (L08 males: John Tracy Clinic. 1957 . Sumby, U.H., and Pollack, I. "Visual Contribution to Speech Intelligin bility in Noise," J t i t mm (1951.). pp. 212.225. . Taaffe, Gordon. "A Film Test of Lip Reading: Studies in Visual Commun— ication." W (Lop Anselm J ehn Tracy Clinic, Novuber 1957 . Taaffe, Gordon, and Hong, Hilson. "Studies of Variables in Lipreading Stimulus Materials," J C c a r (Los Angeles: John Tracy Clinic, December 1957 . Utley, Jean. "Factors Involved in the Teaching and Testing of Lipread- ing Ability Through the Use of lbtion Pictures," Tpg Vpna mg, mm (1948). pp. 657—659. Vogel-Sprctt, M. "Influence of Peripheral Visual Distractions on Per- ceptual Motor Performance," P M0 or $11 XVI (June 1963). pp. 766-772. lbgner, P. "Eanerimental Investigations of the Acquisition of Speech Through Touch," 0 - -- - -f Go a... - . . .. 5. u . pp. 94-101, Abstracted by Mueller, P.B. W v EApril 1965], p. 140.). htkins, H.H. "Effect of Certain Noises Upon the Detection of Visual Signals,‘ W III (July 1963), p. 201. Hong, Eileen, and Taaffe, Gordon. "Relationships Between Selected Apti- tude and Personality Tests and Lipreading Ability," Jppp Trpg C -' (Les Angeles: John Tracy Clinic, February 1958 . 68 Hbrthington, Anna M. “An Investigation of the Relationship Between the Lipreading Ability of Congenitally Deaf High School Students and Certain Personality Factors," 3 c a s XXIV (1956) , p.150. T tio Arthur, Robert Harward. "The Effect of Contextual and anpcontextual Motion Pictures on the Speech Reading Proficiency of Comparable Adult Males." Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of Florida, 1962. Aylesworth, Donald L. "The Talker and the Lipreader as Variables in Face-to-face Testing of Lipreading Ability." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1964. FUlton, Richard M.. "Comparative Assessment of Visible Differences Bet- ween Voiced and Unvoiced Horde." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1964. Hagen, John Hilliam. "A Developmental Study of Task-relevant and Task— irrelevant Information Processing Under Distraction." Unpub- lished Ph.D dissertation, Stanford University, 1965. Johnson, Gerald Franklin. "The Effects of Cutaneous Stimulation by Speech on Lipreading Performance." Unpublished Ph.D disserta— tion, Michigan State University, 1963. Keenan,James Joseph Jr. "A Study of the Effects of Distraction Upon Rhythmic Sensori—notor Performance Hhen Task Difficulty, Stimulus Condition, and the Temporal Relation Between Pacers and Distractor are Varied." Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Columbia University, 1964. Leonard, Ralph. "The Effects of Continuous Auditory Distractions on Lipreading Performance." Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1962. McCrath, James Joseph. "The Effects of Irrelevant Environmental Stimu— lation on Vigilance Performance.“ Unpublished Ph.D disserta- tion, University of Southern California, 1961. Miller, Charles A. "Lipreading Performance as a Function of Continuous Visual Distractions." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1965. Mulligan, Marigene. "Variables in the Reception of Visual Speech From .Motion Pictures." Unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State University,.1954. 69 Nielsen, Karen Marie. "The Effect of Redundancy on the Visual Recog- nition of Frequently Employed Spoken Horde." Unpublished dissertation, 1966. O'Neill, John J. "Contributions of the Visual Components of Oral syn. bols to the Speech Comprehension of Listeners Uith Normal Hearing." Unpublished Ph.D dissertation, Ohio State Univer- sity, 1951. Beams, Mary H. "An Experimental Study Comparing the Visual Accompani- 4ments of lord Identification and the Auditory Experience of ‘Ubrd Intelligibility." Unpublished Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1950. Smith, Richard. "An Investigation of the Relationships Between Lip— reading Ability and the Intelligence of the Mentally Retarded." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1965. Thomas, Sharon Lynn. "Lipreading Performance as a Function of Light L Levels." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1962. v VOs, Linda J. "The Effects of Exaggerated and Nonexaggerated Stimuli on Lipreading Ability." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1966. Other Spgcps Heider, F.K. and Heider, Grace M. "Reports of the Clarence U. Barron Research Department Included in the School Reports for 1933-34 and 1935-36." Northampton, Massachusetts: Clarke School for the Deaf, 1936e Kelly, J.C. "Audio-visual Speech Reading." Urbana, Illinois: Univer- sity of Illinois, 1955. (Mimeographed.) lbser, H.M., Oyer, H.J., and O'Neill, J.J., and Gardner, H.J. "Selec- tion of Items for the Testing of Skill in Visual Recognition of aim-syllable Hords," Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Development Fund Project Number 5818, 1960. Utley, Jean.. Hep gill Esp Ipu Read ggps? Chicago: De vry Corporation, 1940 e I. APPENDIXES APPENDIX A. THE EXPERIMENTAL TEST ITEMS, THE SEQUENCE OF APPEARANCE, AND THE CONDITIONS UNDER HHICH ITEMS APPEAR 72 THE EXPERIMETAL TEST ITEMS, THE SFHUDJCE 0F APPEARANCE, AND THE CONDITIONS»UNDER.HHICH ITEMS APPEAR g a g g 21 . .8. . .5. * (I 0 4’ c: a '0 d H tr! 3 g 3! 1 3% i 3 ..F_ .. «8‘ .11 1. toothbrush Cl 21. bathtub C4 41. outside C1 2. bathtub Cl 22. hairbrush C1 42. wigwam C1 3. wigwam CZ 23. wigwam 03 43. JumprOpe C4 4. baseball 03 24. coughdrOp 03 44o ashtray C2 5. woodwork Cl 25. hairbrush C4 45. wigwam C4 6. downtown C1 26. mousetrap C4 46. birthday 62 7. football C4 27. downtown 03 47. outside 03 8. downtown 02 28. bathtub CZ 48. birthday Cl 9. coughdrop 03 29. woodwork 03 49. JumprOpe C2 10. football Cl 30. Jumprope 63 50. cowboy 03 11. mousetrap C3 31. woodwork 04 . 51. birthday 03 12. toothbrush CB 32. outside C2 52. ashtray 03 13. woodwork C2 33. cowboy 02 53. hairbrush C2 14. baseball CZ 34. coughdrop G4 54. baseball Cl 15. cowboy 04 35. baseball C4 55. football CB 16. toothbrush 02 36. mousetrap 02 56. coughdrop Cl 17. bathtub 03 37. ashtray Cl 57. cowboy Cl 18. downtown C4 38. toothbrush C4 58. jumprOpe Cl 19. birthday 04 39. ashtray 04 59. football CZ 20. hairbrush 03 40. .mousetrap Cl 60. outside C4 APPENDIX B. TEST FOm FOR HOV WELL CAN YOU READ LIPS? 73 74 W? rm 1. am... so. __ Ippfigpggigpp: Before we begin the actual experimental film we would like to have you view and respend to Part 1 of this lipreading test. The first five sentences are practice sentences. Record your responses to all items by the appropriate number on this form. W 1. _ 2. 3. . _, 4. .1 5. _._‘ _._ W 1. __ __ 2. 3. 1 __ 4. _. ._l 5. __ ._ .._ 6. 7. ll: 3. 9. _ 10. _ __ _ 12. __ __ 13. __ .1 75 Page 2 14. 1 15. 16. 17. * APPENDIX C. TEST FONS 77 INSIEHCTICNS You will be viewing a silent film of compound words. Streetcar and boyfriend are examples of this kind of word. These words will be presented one at a time in the following manner: The number of the word to be spoken will appear on the screen. Then the speaker will appear on the screen and will say the word (such as bellhOp). Following this, the film will go blank for seven seconds. You are to record the word you believe you have identified on your score sheet during the seven second interval of blank film following each presentation. You are urged to guess at all or part of the word. Remember that each word will contain two smaller words. They may be words that are usually written as one word or they may be written as two small words. The words may be repeated. Spelling is not important. If you cannot identify the word, draw a line through the space provided for that word on your score sheet. This is important because it will enable you to record each response in the correct space. If you should need a new pencil, raise your hand and you will receive assistance. Iou will m be able to hear the speaker. Your eyes will be your primary source of commmication. If you have am questions, raise your hand. If not, let's begin. Thank you for your time and cooperation. 78 Subject Number W Name: 11 -:1,1__. 11 Age: Address: __ 11 1 1;_1111_ Sex: 111 1__, 11 GPA: Phone : 1 V : S : Occupation:‘__ 20/20 with correction 20/20 without correction Nermal hearing Hard of hearing Three frequency average (500, 1000, 2000 Hz.) in subject's better ear .1 _11 _ 11 1 (ISO 1901.) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 22. 23. 25. 26. 27. 79 SCORE SHEET CZ Subject No. 53. 54. 55. 57. 58. 59. 60. 03 C4 I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 22. 23. 25. 26. 27. 79 SCORE SHEET CZ Subject No. 53. 54. 55. 57. 58. 59. 60. C3 C4