3.: ,_,__._._.. :— . ,: ._ _._._.__ 7:: 3_,.,_¥_#,.._..,.,_.,_i 7“? K ‘o i *3 'l IVER ea 91‘ ~53 A. 0 3 . "'TATE ’QN (I. E, the $953 ”4" € ' aham ' {NC :1 233%. . 1.15 ‘L. University u ‘IIIILWLWWWI‘ L- [1% a ‘J Michxgan State ”a-“ .,..,~ NOV 0 6 ms ABSTRACT THE EFFECTS OF EXAGGERATED AND RON-EXAGGERATED STIMULI 0H LIPREADIHG ABILITY Lipreeding is one wey in which deer end herd- of-hesring persons csn communicste with others. Very little research hes been done concerning lipresding end how to tesch it. Seversl suthors hevezdiscussed the' q uesticn or exsggersted lipresding stimuli versus non- exsggersted liprssding stimuli, but none hsee done studies to support their ststenents. These suthors feel thet exsggereted stimuli should not be employed in tesching lipresding. This study use designed to determine the relstion- ship between lipresding scores thst result from the use. of non-exsggereted stimuli end lipresding scores thst result from the use or exsggersted stimuli. Thirty-two fourth firsde students were subjects in this study. Sixteen of these students received non-exeggersted stimuli end the other sixteen received the some stimulus sentences presented in en exsggersted esnner. Ststisticsl enslysis showed no significent differ- ence between the neen scores of the group receiving the exsggersted stimuli end the nesn scores of the group receiving the ncn~exeggereted stimuli. Since the exegger— sted stimuli did not significsntly incresse lipreeding scores. it would probshly be wise to use the non-exsgger- sted stimuli until further resesrch would indicste other- wise. On the besis or the results of this study, sug- gestions for further resesrch were msde. THE EFFECTS OF EXAGGERATED AND HOflgEXAGGERATED STIMULI OH LIPREADIHG.ABILITY 5’ Linds Jerrine Was A THESIS Submitted to Michigan Stste University in psrtisl fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Depsrtment of Speech 19 65 ACKKOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to sckncwledge the following for their cocperstion end sssistsnce in completing this study: Mr. Robert Clements, Principsl Beckwith Elementsry School Grand Rspids, Hichigsn Hrs. Ive Prits, Fourth Grsde Tescher Beckwith Elementsry school Grsnd Rspids. Hichigsn Member: of the Fourth Grsde Beckwith Elenentsry School Grsnd Rspids, Hichigsn Mrs. R. H. Vcs, Bpesker Grsnd Rapids. Michigan -11- TABLE OF CONTENTS Pegs ACKHOHLEDGHEETSe e s e e e s e s e e e s e e e s e s e 11 LIST OF TABLESs e e s e s e e s s e e e s s e s e s e 111 LIST OF APPEHDICESe e s e e e s s e s s e s e e s s s t' Chspter 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction - Purpose of the Study Bull Hypothesis Importence cf the Study Definition of Terms Organisstion of the Thesis II. REVIW OF THE LITERATURE. . Q Q . Q Q Q Q Q . 8 III. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, Ann PROCEDURES' . . . . 15 1‘3 ‘NAEYSIS AND DISCUSSone s e e e e s s e e s 19 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . 23 APPERDICESO O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O 26 BIBLIOGRAPHY. O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O 29 LIST OF TABLES Table Pegs l. The difference between the neen scores of e group of fourth grade children who received non-exeggereted lipreeding stimuli end s group of fourth grede children.who received the seas stimulus sentences but spoken in en exeggereted uenner....................21 -111- LIST 0' APPENDICES Appendix Pegs A. smote USED roe LIPRBADING TESTING. . e s e 26 'OWmA'SmSHEnOOOOOOOOOOI.OOO27 C. “W SCORES 701 m SIXTEEN CHILDREN WHO RECEIVED m EXAGGERATED STD‘IULI MID THE SIXTEEN CHILDREN HBO mmn m ION-EXAGGERATBD STIMULI. . s s .3. civ- CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM IHTRODUCTIOH Lipreeding cen.provide en importent evenus of ccmmunicetion between the world of the hesring end the world of the doef end herd-of-heering. By wetching e speeker's lips, some dsef or herd-of-heering persons cen leern to understend whet is being seid without heving to resort to pencil end peper or sign lenguege. Both of these letter methods ettrect ettention to themselves end to the person using them es being different from the wey other people communicets. The method by which lipreeding is teught hes been the subject of much controversy. In the pest theere heve erisen four different methods of teeching lipreeding. Severel minor methods heve evolved. but these minor methods ere besicelly modifioetions end continuetions of the '. mejor methods. These four mejor methods ere: (l) the Ritchie method. (2) the Kinsie method, (3) the Bruhn or Huellsrehelle method, end it) the Jens method. Ritchie set forth siv underlying principles which he felt the teecher-of liprceding should elweys -1- keep in mind. 1. Be natural. 2. Be thorough. 3. Make the work interesting. h. Get the maximum values out of all work. 5. Prevent the formation of bad habits. 6. Seek to meet the particular 1 needs of each individual. ° The Kinzie sisters made a contribution to the field of lipreading in the form of three graded lessons. In the Preface to Grade I, they have this to say about their method: In a word, the method, which has been prepared to cover completely the needs for the successful handling of this important subject, makes the study of lipreading for children highly pleasurable as well as distinctly systematic and practical. All material has been carefully expressed in visible movements in Grade I, with ekilful adaptation of both movement and idea in Grade II, furnishing proper extension approp- riate to the child's speech-reading progress. Bruhn, in the Mueller-Walls method of lipreading, places particular emphasis on syllables. The following paragraph from her book of lessons illustrates this point. It would be possible to conduct the rhyth- mical syllable practice to the extent of practically covering the entire field of possibilities of combinations in our language. And one might think that in doing so the necessary training of the eye to read speech from the lips would thereby be com- plete. And, from one point of view it would be so, for the elements of speech as represented by move- ments and positions would be mastered. 1Elisabethfl. Nitchie, New Lessons in Li readin (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1930), pp. 2- 3. 2Cora Elsie Kinzie and Rose Kinsie, Lipreading for Children, Grade‘I (Cora Elsie Kinzie and Rose Kinsie, l93€),p.2. 3Martha E. Bruhn, Conversational Efficiency (Boston: May H. Leavis, 1936), Introduction. -3- Karl Brauckmann's Jena Method was introduced to the United States by Bessiewhitaker and by Anne Banger. This method placed a great deal of importance upon syllables and rhythms as well as upon kinesthetic cues. The Jena Method owes its demonstrated success to the emphasis on the syllable, and on the syllable in context. The grouping and stress of the syllables in feet and in phrases constitutes the rhythm of the syllable train which is th; vital factor in understanding spoken language. . These methods are similar in that they emphasise the whole or synthetic approach to teaching lipreading: however, they vary considerably in their approach to ‘the teaching of lipreeding. From this arises a need for research to determine the best way of teaching lipreeding. There are at least four areas to be considered in the field of lipreading research. These include: (1) the speaker, (2) the listener. (3) the environment, and (u) the stimulus. 003.111 and Oyer further divide these areas into subcategories. Speaker~8ender l. Facial characteristics 2. Articulatory movements a. Rate of speaking b. Distinctivensss of speaking 3. Gesture activity h. Amount of voice used 5. Feedback characteristics Environment f 1. Lighting conditions 2. Physical arrangements h ' . Anna M. Hunger SEeech Readin Jena Method . (Danvilhe, Illinois: The terstate PrEnters and Publishers Inc., l9hh), p. 12. -h- . Number of senders . Physical distractions Lipreeder-Receiver 1. Visual acuity and discrimination 2. Communication ”set” 3. Residual hearing h. Personality a. Intel igence b. Behavior patterns c. Pest communicative experience d. Visual feedback Code or Stimulus l. Visibility 2 s Familiarity 3. Structure h. Ease of transmission 5. Auditory-visual aspectss In the area of speaker characteristics under the subcategory of articulatory movements, it has been said that the speaker should not exaggerate his lip movements but should allow his lips to move only as they do in.normal speech. Newby6, in setting forth some general principles to be follow in teaching lipreading, states that the speaker must talk naturally and not exaggerate. He states that if the listener does not comprehend, one must repeat what was said or rephrase it but still not exaggerate. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY Since Kewby offers no research evidence to support 5John J. O'Heill and Herbert J. Oyer, Visual Communi- cation for the Hard of Hearin (Englemwood Cliffs. Few 3erssyt’73efitice-Hallj Inc.. E962). p. 35. 6 Hayes A. Hewby, Audiology (New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts. 1953). P. -5- the statement paraphrased above and since in the course of this investigation no other research evidence has been found to support it, the purpose of this study will be to determine the validity of his statement. The following question is asked: Do people more easily lipread exaggerated or non-exaggerated lip movements? It would seem, from casual observation, that one eight more easily liprsed the exaggerated lip movements. NULL HYPOTHESIS The following null hypothesis was devise‘ to correspond to the question asked above: There is no difference between the lipreading performance of persons given exaggerated stimuli and of persons given non-exaggerated stimuli. IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY In.order to communicate effectively with others, the deaf or hard-of-hsaring person must be able to under. stand what others say. An important way of accomplishing this is through lipreading. It would be beneficial to determine the best way of teaching the deaf or hard-of-hearing person to lipread. If more effective lipreading results from exaggerated stimuli being presented during the learning process. then exaggerated stimuli should be presented during lipreading training: however, if the reverse is ~6- true -- that is, if non-exaggerated stimuli during training should prove to be the more effective -- then such stimuli should be used during training. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS Within the limits of this study, the following terms are defined as: l. Lipreading: the ability to gain information from watching a speaker's lips, this information to be written on.paper. 2. Stimulus: that which the speaker says. The stimuli in this study are presented without voice. 3. Exaggerated stimuli: the movements of any person's lips when he is told to exaggerate his articu- latory movements. ‘ h. Hon-exaggerated stimuli: the movements of any person's lips in ordinary conversation when he is told not to exaggerate his articulatory movements. ORGAUIZATIOH OF THE THESIS Chapter I is a consideration of the problem to be studied, the statement of the purpose of this study, the mull hypothesis to be tested, the importance of the study, definitions of the major terms, and the plan of organisation of the thesis. ' 1 Chapter II will be a review of the literature on speaker characteristics in lipreading,_and more speci- fically, on the articulatory movements of speakers. -7- Chapter III will discuss the subjects, the materials, and the procedures used in this study. Chapter IV will contain a statistical analysis of the results obtained in the study. Chapter V'will summaries and draw conclusions from the results of this study and will make recommen— dations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In reviewing the literature in the area of lipreading, the thing which impresses one most is the startling lack of literature to review. To be sure, Journals such as ths.!gl§g.§gzigg display many articles offering materials ,to be used in lipreading and articles written by deaf or hard-of-hsaring people who have learned to liprsad as a means of communication. But objective studies con- csrning lipreading are few in number. This chapter will be a review of the literature concerning the speaker- .ssnder in the lipreading situation with particular sm- phasis placed upon the articulatory movements of the speaker-sender. wilmer Pomsroy had an article published in the ‘Ig;£3.§gzggg concerning what he called ”trained lips.I The following quotation which consists of the first and last paragraphs of Hr. Pomeroy's article, would seem to indicate that he feels that articulatory movements should be emphasised in order to be more easily read by the liprsedsr. .9- “He had a different mouth." So spoke a man of a public speaker whom he had seen engaged in quiet conversation a few minutes before be- ginning a public address to soldiers. To the army boys he spoke with fervor, and every move- ment of his visible organs of opecch.was clear, distinct, and true, whereas in the quiet conver- sation scarcely a movement was seen. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Movement is the grist of the lipreader's mill. He cannot read lips which make no movement. Hence, a little thought, a little practice, a little care on your part in making the proper. natural movements for the vowels (the consonants will take care of themselves, as they cannot be sounded without their own special movement). will give him his grist and make you the happy possessor of those "trained lips” for which he has so often to search in vain, and which 0 hin seem to be heavenly messengers of hearing. Hiriam D. Paulsz says that careless, indistinct, shouted, er exaggerated speech serves only to increase the lipreader's difficulties. She claims, also, that the person with an sxpressionless face is much more diffi- cult to lipread than is the person.with a mobile face. Several persons who are concerned with the teaching of lipreading have stated the opinion that the speaker should keep his lip movements as natural as possible and not exaggerate at any time. These persons, however, do not offer research evidence to support their opinions. _Hitchie feels that one should speak naturally 1Wilmer Pomeroy ”Have You Trained Lips?,' Volta Review (xx, 1919). p. 232 """"" zfliriam D. Paula, "Speech Reading,” Hesrin and Eeefness, ed. 8. Davis (Hew Yorke Hurray Hill FEoEs, s PP. 257‘276e -10- while being lipreadt There are certain underlying principles which a teacher should make so much a pert of his mental equipment that he cannot forget them, and they are: 1. Be natural in everything that you do. That was the mderlying principle in all Mr. Hitchie's work in lipreading. He said “The teacher who 'mouths‘ or speaks word-for-word or very slowly is deviating from the natural and is doing the student positive harm rather than good. It may make the work easier for the student temp porarily, but ultimate success is made more diffi- cult. Phrases or sentences not in accord with natural speech and utterance, or in the literary 3 style rather than the spoken style are not natural.“ In giving instructions to her student lipreaders, Anna Bunger says! Our friends are eager to help, and they appreciate having from.us suggestions similar to these: 00000....0...0.0000000.... 3. Speak in the same tone of voice as you would if we were going to hear you. 0.0..0.....0. 0.0.0.000... Es careful not to become unnatural in any way. Ordnan and Ralli list several 'do's and don'ts' to be used as a guide by the teacher of lipreading. When you are giving the lesson: Do 1. Speak at an average rate of speed. 2. Speak with natural inflection. 3. Always say a whole sentence without stopping. 3Elisabeth Eels Ritchie, Lew Lessons in Li resdin (Haw York: J. B. Lippincott Company, I555), p. “uE. hAnna H Bun . gsr eech Reading,” Jena Method (Danville, Illinois: The Interstate Printersm dFESlishers InCe’ 1933). PP. 19-200 -11- Don't 1. Don't speak over slowly. 2. Don't pause between words. 3. Don't exaggerate the movements of your mouth. h. Don't repent one word or phrase over and over.5 Grace Harris Lassman, in her book, says! TALK! DON'T GESTURE There is often a temptation to gesture to a deaf child, even while talking to him, especially if he does not understand immediately. For instance, while saying, '00 and get your coat, ‘we're going out,” it may seem easy to make the gesture of putting on a coat. Unfortunately, the child will pay more attention to the gesture than to the speaker's face. This is natural for him since he tends to be impressed by the "bigness“ of things and the movements of the arms and the body are "bigger” agd more noticeable than the movements of the month. These have been the opinions of people who have been concerned with lipreading as a teacher of lipreading or as a student of lipreading or as an observer. The next section of this chapter will be a discussion of some of the research evidence which pertsins to this area of study. Byers and Lieberman7 did a study comparing lip- SKathryn Alling Ordman and Mary Pauline Halli, tht Peo 1e 8a , The Ritchie School Basic Course in Lipresding as ngeon 5. 0.: Volta Bureau, l9§53g P. iii. 6Grace Harris Lassman, Lenggege for the Preschool Deaf Child (Rew‘Yorkt Bruno and Stratton, 19357. P. 35. 7V. H. Byers and L. Lieberman, ”Lipreading Per- formance and the Rate of the Speaker, JSHR, II (1959), P. 271e -12- reading ability with the rats of the speaker. In order that they might precisely measure the number of words spoken per minute, the test was photographed at a normal rate and the speed of the projector was varied to produce the desired rate of speaking. The subjects were students at the Kentucky School for the Deaf, Danville, Kentucky. The subjects were divided into four groups, each group consisting of six good lipreaders and six poor lipreaders.» The results of this test were treated by an analysis of variance. The results showed that the only significant difference was the difference between the means of the good and the poor lipreaders. There were no significant relationships between lipreading ability and speaking rate. A particularly interesting point was that the speaker was asked to speak all sentences “with the same ’expressionless' countenance in order to cut down ex- traneous visual cues89' This might imply that an ex- pressive countenance would be distracting, an opinion 'which is in direct opposition to Pauls' opinion, namely that an sxprsssionless face is more difficult to read than a mobile face. O'Rsill9 explored the possibility that speakers 8121...- 9John J. omun “Contributions of the Visual Components of Oral Symbols to the Speech Comprehension of Listeners with normal Hearing” (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University Department of Speech, 1951). .13. may differ in their ability to communicate visually and suditcrily. He concluded that the speakers who were most intelligible in the lipreading situation were also the most intelligible under auditory conditions. Aylesworth1° investigated the differences of scores on a lipreading test as a result of presentation by the same speaker, presentation by different speakers, and the sex of the speakers and lipreaders. He used forty-eight subjects and four speakers in a.face-tc-face test. He found no significant difference on any of these variables. He did find, however, that as a group, female lipreaders scored significantly higher than did the male lipreaders as a group. The study that relates most directly to the subject of this chapter is one by Louie atone as discussed by O'Neill and chr.11 Stone studied the influence of three variables of facial context upon lipreading. These three variables were facial exposure, facial expression, and lip mobility. Stone presented colored motion pictures of a trained actor to 256 college students who had normal hearing. (The results of the test showed that better lipreading performance was evident when the speaker 11Donald L. Ayleswcrth, ”The Talker vs the Lip- reader as a Variable in Pace-to-Face testing of Liprsading Ability“ (Masters thesis Michigan State University Department of Speech, l9éh). 11John J. O'Heill and Herbert J. Oyer, Visual Communication for the Hard of Eesrin (Englewood_ali?fs, 'fiew Jersey7—frentics-Ha II Inc., , p.h 8. -1h- used normal articulatory movements. This did not occur ‘when the speaker used tight articulatory movements. Better lipreading performance was found when.the speaker's expression‘was plainly set rather than smiling. Of the opinions presented in this chapter, most seem to agree that natural articulatory movements should be used for lipreading; however, Mr. Pomeroy suggested that the better and more clearly lips move, the better it is for the person who is trying to read them. Research evidence leads one to the concluaion.that lip mobility. must be natural for the best lipreading results. Lip movements that are too exaggerated or are too tight seem to make it more difficult for the lipreader. caerrpa III SUBJECTS, MATERIALS. AHD pnecgouaas SUBJECTS The subjects in this study were thirty-two children enrolled in the fourth grade in a public elementary school. It was originally planned to use thirty subjects in this study. but since the class contained thirty-two children, all participated as subjects. School rccords indicate that none of these children.had hearing losses. Six of the subjects had mild vision losses that were corrected by glasses. Ions or the children had any previous formal lipreading training. One speaker was chosen by a trained speech clinician for the purpose of presenting the test stimuli to both groups. She was chosen as an example or a standard American speaker who has had no experience as a lipreading teacher or as a public speaker. MATERIALS ‘The stimulus material that was employed consisted of sentences frequently used in everyday speech.1 The spec- IHallowell Davis and 3. Richard Silvernan, Hesrin and Deafness (Bew‘Yorkt Holt, Rinehart. and Winston, Inc.. 1551!, Pposu§~550- -15- o 16- ifications for these sentences, prepared at Central Institute for the Deaf. were laid down by a Working Group of the Armed Forces -- national Research Council Committee on Hearing and Bio-Acoustics. Two groups of ten sentences each.were used. Each group of ten sentences contained titty italicised words which were used for purposes of scoring. For each italicised word that a subject wrote on his answer sheet he was given.one point: no points were given for words which were not of tha; italicised one hundred and no points were subtracted for‘wcrds omitted. PROCEDURES The subjects were divided randomly into two groups of sixteen each. Each group or subjects received the same twenty sentences presented in the same order as stimuli. The same speaker presented the words to both groups. This was done in the same room.and with the same seating arrangements for each group. The lighting and the roomnnoise level were approximately the same for both groups. The experimental variable was the exaggeration of the speaker's articulatory movements while presenting the stimulus sentences. The first group received the stimuli spoken in a non-exaggerated way, the speaker being told to say the sentences without voice and to speak them.as normally as possible. The second group received the stimuli spoken in an exaggerated way. the -17- speaker being told to say the sentences without voice and to exaggerate her articulatory movements. The experiment took place in the Art Room of the school in which the subjects were enrolled. One wall of this room.consisted completely of windows. The subjects sat with their backs toward these windows. The speaker stood facing the subjects and approximately ten feet from the middle row of the subjects. The school had a noise level such as is found in most schools. There was the noise in the background of another grade playing outside for recess. of the janitor emptying wastebaskets, etc. The subjects sat at small tables (approximately 1} feet by 5 feet) facing the speaker. The tables were placed in three rows of two tables each. Five subjects eat at each of the first two rows of tables and six eat at the last row. The subjects were told to watch the speaker's lips carefully and to see if they could tellwhat the speaker said. Two sample sentences (not from the list of twenty) were presented without voice and the subjects responded to these orally. The two sentences were. "What is your name?“ and "How old are you!” The subjects were then instructed to watch the next twenty sentences carefully and to write them on the paper provided. The sentences were presented in the following sequence: the number of the sentence was said aloud, the sentence was immediately said without voice. and then the subjects were given thirty seconds to write their responses. This same procedure was followed for every sentence. The list of sentences from‘which the speaker read contained no italicised words. This was to guard against the possibility of the speaker emphasising these words more than the other words. CHAPTER IV ANAEYSIS AND DISCUSSION In scoring the responses of the subjects. each italicised word was given one point if it was correct. If an italicised word was incorrect or omitted. no point was given. When these points were tallied for each group, a‘g test was employed to determine if the difference between the means of the two groups was statistically significant.1 In calculating these statistics. the following symbols were used: x1 -- each score of the group which received the non-exaggerated stimuli. x -- each score of the group which received the exaggerated stimuli. '2 -- the mean of the scores of the group which received the nonvexaggerated stimuli. 'X -- the mean of the scores of the group which received the exaggerated stimuli. 1Hubert M. Blalock Jr., Social Statistics (Few York: HoGraw-Hill Book Company, I555). pp. 169-187. -19- .20- s -- the number of subjects in each group. 81 .- the standard deviation of the scores of the group which received the non-exaggerated stimuli. 8 -- the standard deviation of the scores of the group which received the exaggerated stimuli. 8% «a the variance of the scores of the group which received the nonpexaggerated stimuli. 2 -- the variance of the scores of the group which received the exaggerated stimuli. E -- the sign which represents the process of summation. The mean of the scores for each group was obtained by using the formula! Ex 1"‘13— The standard deviation of the scores for each group was obtained by the formulatz s -‘% Nzx2-(EX)2 The variance for the scores of each group was obtained by squaring the standard deviation for each 8MP e The value cf;§, for determining if the difference between the means of the two groups was statistically significant, was obtained by the formulas3 2gb1 . p. 69. 31bid. pp. 172-17u. ‘? -'R t - 1 2 s1 s? + H2 a? N1 + R2 ‘1 0 '2 ' 2 N1 H2 By using a two-tailed test and a .05 level of significance, it was possible to determine whether there was a significant difference between the means of the two groups. 1.3 test was computed on the results of the lipreading test. The results of thelt test are presented in Table 1. TABLE 1. The difference between the mean scores of a group of fourth grade children who received non-exaggerated lipreading stimuli and a group of fourth grade children who received the same stimulus sentences but presented in an exaggerated manner. x1 X2 df ts 11.675 12.125 30 .073 s at the .05 level of confidence t - 2.0h2 DISCUSSION At the .05 level of confidence with a two-tailed test, there was no significant difference between the mean scores of the subjects who received the non-exagger- ated lipreading stimuli and the scores of the subjects who received the exaggerated lipreading stimuli. The subjects who received the exaggerated lipreading stimuli .22- had a total score of 19h while the subjects who received the non-exaggerated lipreading stimuli had a total score of 190. This shows that the subjects who received the exaggerated stimuli were able to lipread more words than were the subjects who received the non-exaggerated stimuli. but this difference was not large enough to be significant statistically. The results of the.t test indicate that there is no significant difference in the lipreading ability of persons receiving non-exaggerated stimuli and of persons receiving exaggerated stimuli. Since the exaggerated stimuli did not significantly increase lipreading scores, it would probably be wise to use non-exaggerated stimuli until further research.wculd indicate otherwise. These findings corroborate the opinions and evidence of those persons. referred to in Chapter II, who feel that lipreading should be taught using normal or natural articulatory movements. They do not agree with fir. Pcmcrcy's5 opinion that the movements of a speaker's articulatcrs should be clear and distinct. SWilmer Pomercy, "Have You Trained Lips?.' Volta Review (XX, 1919): P. 262. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY Deaf and hard-of-hearing persons have lost part of their means of communicating with others. Lipreading is one means by which these persons can compensate'for their problem. A still relatively unanswered question is how best to teach these persons to lipread. ’Beveral authors have emphasized that the stimuli to be lipread should not be exaggerated, whereas others feel that exaggerated stimuli makes lipreading easier. There has been no research dealing directly with this question of exaggeration versus non-exaggeration. This study has attempted to show whether a rela- tionship exists between lipreading ability and degree of articulatory movement. Thirty-two fourth grade children from a public elementary school were chosen as subjects. ' Sixteen of these received non-exaggerated lipreading stimuli. and the other sixteen received the same stimulus sentences presented in an exaggerated manner. s.§ test was employed which showed that there was no significant -23- ‘Zh- difference between the mean scores of the two groups of subjects. A clinical application of these results was discussed. CONCLUSIONS This study has attempted to determine whether there was a significant difference between the lipreading ability of persons receiving non-exaggerated stimuli and the lipreading ability of persons receiving exaggerated stimuli. The results of this investigation lead to the following conclusions: There is no significant difference between the mean score of the subjects who received the non-exaggerated lipreading stimuli and the mean score of the subjects who received the exaggerated lipreading stirsali. This would indicate that one could use either exaggerated stimuli or non-exaggerated stimuli in teaching lipreading. Since the exaggerated stimuli did not significantly increase lipreading scores. it would probably be wise to use non-exaggerated stimuli until further research would indicate otherwise. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Much further research needs t1 be done in the area of lipreading. In reference to this investigation, the same procedures could be employed with subjects of different age groups to determine whether the same .25- results would hold. This could also be done with differ- ent stimuli and with different types of masking noise in the background. The same procedures could be used with deaf or hard-of-hearing persons .- controlling such additional variables as amount of hearing loss and amount of lipreading training each subject has received previous to the administration of the lipreading test. APPENDIX A 1. SENTENCES USED FOR LIPREADIHG TESTING l. Walking's 51 favorite exercise. 2. Here's a nice guiet place to rest. 3. Our anitor sweeps the floor evegy nigh . h. It would be much easier if. everyone would he 2. S. gggg morning. 6. 21.9.92 ywmm messages. 7- 2.2 tonnes commune noun? 8. £33 £3 you £933.: about changigg the g3: 33.9.3 3.7.2 w 3333? 9. .322 2.: £2- 10. m 393 of the 331. ll. The water'g gag _c_o_l_d for swimming. 12. 1h]; W _I_ g_e_t_ up Lo. 53331 in the morning? 13. £333 5;; your 333.945. 114.. ms raining. 15- £123.: 5...!!! you A9213? 16. 9.9112 1123‘: £19...“ 1 3.9.3.1 123 17.223.12.92: tomausgfiiflisiics- 18. Should 1! let little children gg to the movies by themselves7_' 19. There isn't enough paint to finish the room. 20. £9 you want an m for breakfast? -26- APPENDIX B SAMPLE ANSWER SHEET 10. 11. 12.. g 13. __ 1h. W 15. 16. 17. 18. _ 19. 20. .27- APPENDIX C RAW SCORE! 10! m 8131'!!! CHILDREN WHO RECEIVED THC mccmm LIPREADINC STDIULI AND THE SIXTEEN CHILDREN W0 RECEIVED m m-mcosnm STIHU'LI hon-exaggerated Exaggerated Stimuli Stimuli 6 l 2 21 15 27 8 2&2’2- 9 13 20 10 l 33 0 3 l9 2 25 t 19 17 0 5 18 7 21 5 8 3 9 14 TOTAL 190 196 -23. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books BlaLock, Hubert H. Jr. Social Statistics. New York: Hcdraw-Hill Book Company, I§35. Bruhn, Martha E. Conversational Efficiency. Boston: Kay 3. Leav s, . Illinois .ers ate FrInters and Publishers. 1110., 19 e Davis, Hallowell and Silverman, 3. Richard. Hearin and Deafnessé New York: Holt, Rinehart, and nston, 110., 10 Hunger in... n. 3 sec Reading Jena Method. Danville ‘ I ’1" . a. I 9 Kinsie, Cora Elsie and Kinsie, Rose. Lifreading for Children, Gradell. Cora Elsie ns e and Rose no e, 19 . baseman, Grace Karrie. Lan a e for the Preschool Deaf Child. Hew'Tork: arune and Stratton, I§55. . Hewby Hayes A. Audiology. new York: Appletoancntury- ’ Cthl, 0 , Ritchie, Elisabeth.fi. New Lessons in Lipreading. Hew‘Tork: :. Be Lippincogt dompmy’ “3 . O'Ieill, John J. and Dyer, Herberth. Visual Communication for the Hard of Hearin . Englewooa Cl s, ew Jersey: FrentTEe-fiaII Inc., 1962. Ordnan, Kathryn Alling and Halli, nary Pauline. What Peogle Sa , The Ritchie School Basic Course in ipread ng. mhfngton D. 5.: VoIta Bureau, I555. Pauls, Miriam D. "Speech Reading," Hearin and Deafness, Hallowell Davis (ed.). new ork: urray EIII 300k. ’ 19b? 0 .30- Articles and Periodicals Byers, Y. H. and Lieberman, L. 'Lipreading Performance and the Rate of the Speaker,” JSHR, II (1959), p. 271. Pomeroy Wilmer. ”Have You Trained Lips?,' Volta Review, xx (1919). p. 262. Unpublished Material Aylesworth, Donald L. ”The Talker vs the Lipreader as a Variable in Face-to-Face testing of Lipreading Ability.‘ Unpublished Heaters thesis, Department of Speech, Michigan State University, l96h. O'Beill John J. “Contributions of the Visual Components of Oral Symbols to thl-Spcech Comprehension of Listeners with Normal Hearing.” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Department of Speech, Ohio State University, 1951. HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRQRIES II III II ill 1 u; umnmu ll 312930 0 36145