Download Electromagnetic characteristics of the Staggered Spondaic Word Test

University of Montana
ScholarWorks at University of Montana
Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers
Graduate School
1984
Electromagnetic characteristics of the Staggered
Spondaic Word Test
Holli J. Bell
The University of Montana
Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd
Recommended Citation
Bell, Holli J., "Electromagnetic characteristics of the Staggered Spondaic Word Test" (1984). Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers.
Paper 2204.
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more
information, please contact [email protected].
COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT IN WHICH COPYRIGHT SUB­
SISTS. ANY FURTHER REPRINTING OF ITS CONTENTS MUST BE APPROVED
BY THE AUTHOR.
MANSFIELD LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY^OE IJQNJANA
DATE
ELECTROMAGNETIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
STAGGERED SPONDAIC WORD TEST
by
Holli J. Bell
B.A., Communication Sciences and Disorders
University of Montana, 1981
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the
Department of Communication Sciences
and Disorders
in the Graduate School of
the University of Montana
November, 1984
Approved by:
,
-
desn, Graduate Sdnool
UMI Number: EP34660
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMT
Dimw^dlkm MMhg
UMI EP34660
Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuesf
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 -1346
ELECTROMAGNETIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
STAGGERED SPONDAIC WORD TEST
by
Holli J. Bell
B.A., Communication Sciences and Disorders
University of Montana, 1981
An Abstract
Of a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the
Department of Communication Sciences
and Disorders
in the Graduate School of
the University of Montana
November, 1984
Thesis Director:
Charles D. Parker, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
Bell, Holli J., M.A., November, 1984 Communication
Disorders
Electromagnetic characteristics of
Test (81 pp.)
Director:
the
Staggered
Sciences and
Spondaic
Word
Charles D. Parker, Ph.D.
Thesis approved;
The Staggered Spondaic Word (SSW) test, which is comprised of
pairs of spondees recorded in a partially dichotic manner, was
developed for the purpose of assessing the integrity of the
central auditory system.
Various response patterns have been
outlined and are considered to be indicative of sites or general
areas of dysfunction.
Scores and response patterns are used in
making diagnoses as well as in intervention planning in various
populations.
Upon analyses of 10 reel-to-reel recordings of the
SSW,
discrepancies as large as 10.5 dB among recording levels of
syllables were found. Not only is it impossible to accurately
predict the effects of recording level differences on various
populations, but the random nature of the differences makes
prediction of individual performance on more than one recording
impossible, as well.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
LIST OF TABLES
v
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
INTRODUCTION
1
METHOD
Test Materials
Apparatus and Calibration
Procedure
6
5
6
7
RESULTS
Recording Levels of Syllables
Channel Effects
Measurement Reliability and Validity
Harmonic Distortion
16
17
27
28
28
DISCUSSION
34
CONCLUSION
41
REFERENCES
42
APPENDIX A: Central Auditory Function:
The Process and Tests Designed to Evaluate It
49
APPENDIX B: The Staggered Spondaic Word Test
Scoring
Interpretation
53
57
58
APPENDIX C: The Association Between Learning Disabilities
and Central Auditory Processing Disorders
62
APPENDIX D1:
List C-EC
69
APPENDIX D2:
List EC
70
APPENDIX D3:
List EE
71
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
APPENDIX E: Playback Calibration of the Akai
Tape Recorder
Head Alignment
Tape Speed
Frequency Response
72
72
72
72
APPENDIX F1:
75
Syllable Ranges per Item — List EC
APPENDIX F2: Syllable Ranges per Item — List C-EC ....
77
APPENDIX F3:
Syllable Ranges per Item — List EE
78
APPENDIX G:
Instrument Settings
80
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
page
Description of Tape Sample
9
2 Differences between Conditions — Tape #1
18
3
Differences between Conditions — Tape #4
19
4 Differences between Conditions — Tape #7
20
5
Differences between Conditions — Tape #8
21
6
Differences between Conditions — Tape #10
22
7 F Values for Scheffe Test for Right-Competing
Condition Between Tape Differences
23
8 F Values for Scheffe Test for Left-Competing
Condition Between Tape Differences
24
9
F Values for Scheffe Test for Right-MonCompeting
Condition Between Tape Differences
25
F Values for Scheffe Test for Left-NonCompeting
Condition Between Tape Differences
26
Recording-Level Ranges of Individual Test Items
for Each Condition by List
29
12
Inter-Channel Differences for Competing Syllables ...
30
13
Differences Between Syllable Recording Levels
for Conditions by Tape
31
14
Harmonic Distortion
33
B1
SSW Scoring Symbols
59
CI
Auditory Abilities Important to the Learning Process
67
El
Frequency Response of Akai Recorder Upon Initial
Optimalization
73
10
11
E2 Frequency Response Upon Final Characterization of
Akai Tape Recorder
V
74
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1
page
Recording Level Measurements;
Equipment Arrangement
2 Harmonic Distortion Measurements:
Arrangement
3
B1
10
Equipment
12
Example of a Tracing
14
Example of Two Test Items
56
B2 SSW-Gram
61
vi
Page 1
INTRODUCTION
The Staggered Spondaic Mord test (SSW) was developed by
in
the
early
I960's
to
difficult
speech
central auditory
material
in
order
processing
to
bypass
peripheral auditory mechanism and heavily stress the CANS (Katz,
(An
explanation
of
this
function, due
primarily
existing
especially
those
1963).
tests
with
of
to the prevalent use of monosyllabic
words. Performance on monosyllabic word tests by listeners with
CANS,
the
phenomenon may be found in Appendix A.) Katz
(1962) cited lack of specificity and reliability in
central
Katz
assess the integrity of the central auditory
nervous system (CANS). Existing tests of
(CAP) utilized
Jack
peripheral
impairment,
indistinguishable from the performance of those with
central
intact
may
be
pathology
(Speaks & Jerger, 1965).
The
prevented
lack
the
populations.
to
so,
reliability
inherent
in
monosyllabic
word
introduced
which
tests
establishment of normative data for particular tests and
Examiners were forced to carry out lengthy test
compensate
fatigue
of
batteries
for reliability and specificity weaknesses, but in doing
the
could
possibility
conceivably
of
psychological and
physiological
cause deleterious effects on patient
Page 2
performance (Katz, 1962).
Katz developed the SSW
to
provide
a
more
valid
and
reliable
measurement tool to evaluate the integrity of the CANS without artifact,
even in the presence of peripheral impairment (Katz, 1962). He employed
spondees, "...those (words) composed of two monosyllabic words which are
spoken with equal stress" (Katz, Basil & Smith, 1963) as test items. (A
description
of
the
SSW may be found in Appendix B.) In support of his
choice of stimuli, Katz cited the work of Calearo and
and
Bocca (1961) who
demonstrated
a
tendency
Lazzaroni (1957)
for
improved
test
reliability when utilizing Italian trisyllabic words and short sentences
in a group of normal-hearing individuals with a broad range of abilities
on tests of intelligence, vocabulary and memory.
three
variables
(1963)
stressed
thresholds
for
did
not
that
English
affect
the
test
reliable
spondees
They found that
scores.
these
Katz, Basil and Smith
relationship
between
reception
and thresholds for pure-tones in the
speech frequencies, for hearing-impaired and normal-hearing
individuals
further supports the use of spondees.
Since its inception, over 20 years
widely-used
diagnostic
tool.
In
ago,
1972,
the
Auditec
SSW
has
foreign
them
throughout
countries (Carver,
the
United
1983).
In
a
a
of St. Louis began
reproducing the SSW at a rate of approximately 175 tapes
distributing
become
States as
per
year
and
well as several
questionnaire survey
of
audiometric practice, Martin & Forbis (1978) found that in 1977, the SSW
was one of the three most frequently used tests
for
the
diagnosis
of
central auditory disorders among the audiologists surveyed in the United
Page 3
States.
Upon examination of the literature one finds that the SSW has
used
clinically
and experimentally to assess central auditory function
in various populations including learning
Enfield
& Sherman,
1981;
disabled
children (Johnson,
Dempsey, 1977) (see Appendix C), stutterers
(Hall & Jerger, 1978), a vasculitis patient (Musiek &
patients
with
been
temporal
lobe
Morgan,
1981),
lesions (Balas, 1971; Jerger & Jerger,
1975), patients with cortical lesions and temporal lobe seizures (Balas,
1971),
1980;
children
with
auditory processing problems (Musiek & Geurkink,
Dempsey, 1977), autistic children and adults (Wetherby, Koegel &
Mendel,
1981),
children
with
previous
middle
ear
effusion
(Hoffman-Lawless, Keith & Cotton, 1981), chronic alcoholics (Spitzer
Ventry,
1979;
Welsh&
180),
patients
&
with corpus callosum lesions (Musiek & Wilson,
Katz, Avellanosa &
Aguilar-Markulis,
1980), dyslexies (Welsh,
Healy, 1980), normal adult listeners (Arnst, 1981), older adults
(Amerman & Parnell,
patients
with
1980), adolescents (Otto & Johnson,
penetrating
head
1983) and
injury (Mueller, Sedge and Salazar,
1983).
Several investigators have been concerned with the
of
competing
syllables on the SSW (Rudmin & Katz, 1982;
Mathies & Garstecki, 1980;
Beasley,
onset-alignment
Katz, Habner & Lohnes, 1977;
Rudmin, 1981;
and Freeman
1976). They have employed oscilloscopic studies using as many
as six different reference points from which to measure the onset
single
&
monosyllable, as
of
a
well as an "auditory-manual" method (Rudmin &
Katz, 1982) in which the tape was marked (by hand) at
the
point
where
Page 4
the
listener
judged the onset to occur.
Upon reviewing these studies,
the most significant feature which emerges is
results.
Considerable
debate
among
these inconsistencies has ensued.
results
include
procedural
the
inconsistency
investigators over the cause of
Explanations offered
error
among
for
discrepant
and inaccurate data reporting.
example, Katz and Rudmin (1982) compared their oscilloscopic tracing
the
competing
syllables
"shore"
(1976) tracing of the same.
and
"out"
of
to Freeman and Beasley's
Katz and Rudmin found that "shore" preceded
"out", while Freeman and Beasley obtained the opposite result.
Rudmin concluded from their comparison that Freeman and
reversed
For
Katz and
Beasley
simply
all positive and negative signs when reporting their data.
It
is unclear, however, how they arrived at this conclusion.
In addition to onset-alignment discrepancies, inconsistencies exist
among
normative
data
generated
1983;
Mueller, Sedge & and
Schultz, Freed, Fournier
by different authors (Otto & Johnson,
Salazar,
1983;
& Hughes, 1984).
and
Berrick, Shubow,
It has been suggested that
the use of different forms or lists of the SSW could account
for
these
differences.
Another possible explanation which
which
could
account
for
both
has
not
been
addressed,
but
onset-alignment differences as well as
inconsistencies among normative data is
differences
characteristics among individual tapes.
Shea and Baffin (1983) analyzed
the recording characteristics of tapes
Auditory
Processing
Test
intra-tape, but inter-tape
Battery.
in
the
recording
of
Willeford's (1976) Central
They
were interested not only in
reliability, as
well.
They
found
large
Page 5
discrepancies
in the recording levels between tapes, tests and channels
and concluded that use of the Willeford Test
measurement
tool
is
Battery
as a
diagnostic
inappropriate until standard recordings and norms
are developed.
The purpose of this
recording
levels
of
study
test
is
to
determine
items, within
when
a
sample
of
recordings
distortion
levels
items on the tapes
calibration
tone);
are
are
tone.
insignificant (re:
recorded
in
a
of
harmonic
distortion
are generated through a clinic
audiometer at levels above the calibration
that
reliability
and among recordings of the
Staggered Spondaic Word test and measure levels of
present
the
like
The
hypotheses are
N.A.B.) and that all
manner (re:
reference
and if not, that deviance from the calibration tone
is uniform across tapes in both magnitude and direction.
Page 6
METHOD
Test
Materials.
totalling
10,
clinics in the
Recordings
were
of
obtained
United
the
from
States.
Staggered
Auditec
(see
Table
Spondaic
Word
test,
of St. Louis and various
1
for
a
more
complete
description of the tapes used.)
Apparatus and
four-track
with
Calibration.
tape
For
intensity
promulgated
Broadcasters (NAB) Standard
by
Magnetic
the
National
Tape
(1965), was used as the playback instrument for
E
measurements,
a
recorder (Akai, model 1722), calibrated in accordance
specifications
Appendix
level
Association
of
Recording and Reproducing
the
recordings.
(see
for a description of equipment calibration procedures.) The
output of the tape recorder was fed to a microphone amplifier
Kjaer, Type 2112).
(Bruel &
Output of the microphone amplifier was connected to
the input of a continuously recording graphic-level
recorder (Bruel &
Kjaer, Type 2305).
For
distortion
four-track
tape
level
recorder
measurements, a
Sony
(model
TC-377),
calibrated in accordance with specifications
set forth by the NAB Standard Tape Recording and Reproducing (1965), was
used as the playback instrument.
The output of the taperecorder was fed
Page 7
to a Grason Stadler audiometer (model GSI-10), calibrated
in a
manner
compliant with requirements specified by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI-S3.5-1978), via the left earphone (Telephonies TDH-50P,
held
in a Telephonies MX 41 AR cushion).
The earphone was coupled to a
sound level meter (Bruel & Kjaer, Type 2603) via
coupler.
(Figures
1
and
2
provide
block
a
2-cubic-centimeter
diagrams
arrangements). Tape recorder heads were cleaned and
begining
of
each
of
equipment
degaussed
at
the
measurement session and each track was then recorded
graphically (see Figure 3).
Procedure. Prior to intensity level measurements, both channels of
tape
recorder
the
were set to a convenient reference point relative to the
1000-Hertz (Hz) calibration tone present at the beginning of both tracks
of
each
tape.
The calibration tone from each track was then recorded
graphically (see Figure 3)levels
of
Following the calibration
intensity
each monosyllable were also recorded (graphically) and their
maximum root-mean-square (RMS) values were measured
respective
tone,
calibration
session, one of the
tone
tapes
tracings.
was
At
re-analyzed
the
to
with
reference
to
end of a measurement
determine
measurement
reliability.
Levels of
harmonics
of
harmonic
the
distortion
so
determined
by
summing
the
1000-Hz calibration tone on one channel of each tape
when played at 70 dB HL, with the
adjusted
were
audiometer
volume
unit (VU) meter
that the SLM reading reflected the energy generated by the
calibration tone plus 10 dB. This level was chosen as it is one of
the
Page 8
highest
recording
levels (re:
the reference calibration tone).
The
output level of 70. dB (HL) was chosen arbitrarily and would simulate the
presentation
of
the
test to a patient with speech thresholds of 20 dB
(HL) as the test is to be presented at 50 dB (SL).
Page 9
Table 1
Description of Tape Sample
A = Tape purchased directly from Auditec
0 = Tape dubbed by amateur
List
A
1
EC
X
2
EC
3
EE
4
D
Age
Use
1 ÏR.
Research Only
5 YRS.
Clinical & Research
X
1 YR.
Research Only
C-EC
X
1 YR.
Research Only
5
EC
X
2 Mos.
Research Only
6
C-EC
X
2 Mos.
Research Only
7
EE
X
2 Mos.
Research Only
8
EC
X
8--10 Yrs.
Clinical & Research
9
EC
X
5-•6 Yrs.
Clinical & Research
10
EC
5--6 Yrs.
Clinical & Research
X
X
Page 10
Figure 1
Recording Level Measurements:
Equipment Arrangement
Tape Recorder
(Akai)
Microphone
Amplifier
Graphic Level
Recorder
Figure 1
Page 12
Figure 2
Harmonic Distortion Measurements:
Equipment Arrangement
Tape Recorder
(Sony)
Audiometer
Sound level
PhOr :
Coupler
Meter
I
Figure 2
Figure 3
Example of a Tracing
Bruel & Kjaar
Tbr
"1
rx
i
-rfSi-tï=t
i—h
iti
< I il'H
-U• I \ "!|
' ^ 'II *
vvT
1
44^
-i !'-TT'•
n TTi tt
HM
Calibration i'u!: '
Tone
OP 1102
Figure 3
-1
nr
1,1*! v;'t
tt±i m:
Carrier Phrase
"Are you ready?"
m
-TT-t-
S
m
Practice Item
"North-West"
Page 16
Results
In nearly all cases,
Deviance
from
direction;
the
monosyllables
calibration
however,
the
were
not
recorded
at 0-VU.
tone was nearly always in the positive
magnitude
of
the
discrepancies
varied
at
random.
Analyses of variance (ANOVA) performed on intensity levels revealed
a
significant
difference
1430;
f= 12.691;
among
separate
among
monosyllables on the 10 tapes (df= 9,
p < 0.001) Significant differences
listening
conditions
-
(RC),
Left-noncompeting
p <
0.001) such
recording levels vary as a function of listening condition and the
degree to which they fluctuate varies as a function
tape
found
A two-way ANOVA revealed an interaction between
tape and listening condition (df= 27,1400; f= 3-369;
that
also
Right-competing
Left-competing (LC), Right-noncompeting (RNC) and
(LNC) - within 5 tapes.
were
being
examined.
Scheffe
follow-up
determine the source of the interactions.
tests
of
were
the
particular
undertaken
to
The results are summarized in
Tables 2 - 10. Significant inter-channel differences were noted on tape
numbers 8 and
10 (see Tables 5 & 6).
Page 17
Recording
Levels
of Syllables.
The
highest
intensity
level (re:
calibration
tone) of an individual syllable across the 10 tapes is 10.0
dB and
lowest
the
is
-0.5
dB.
individual syllable levels for tapes
The
overall
1 through
intensity
10 are:
ranges
of
8.5, 6.5, 9.5,
6.5, 8.5, 5.0, 9.5, 7.5, 6.5 and 9.5 respectively (see Appendix F).
Page 18
Table 2
F Values for Scheffe Test for
Differences Between Conditions
Tape
LeftCompeting
(LC)
RightCompeting (RC)
LeftCompeting
RightNoncompeting
0.850
1**
RightNoncompeting
(RNC)
LeftNoncorapeting
(LNC)
0.238
0.688
1.088*
0.163
0.925
*significant at the .05 level of confidence
**purchased from Auditec and used for research only
played less than 6 times
Page 19
Table 3
F Values for Scheffe Test for
Differences Between Conditions
Tape
LeftCompeting
(LC)
RightCompeting (RC)
LeftCompeting
RightMoncompeting
1.000*
4**
RightNoncorapeting
(RNC)
LeftMoncompeting
(LNC)
0.225
0.975
0.775
0.025
0.750
*signifleant at the .05 level of confidence
**purchased from Auditec and used for research only
played less that 6 times
Page 20
Table 4
F Values for Scheffe Test for
Differences Between Conditions
Tape
LeftCompeting
(LC)
RightCompeting (RC)
LeftCompeting
RightNoncompeting
1.050*
7**
RightNoncorapeting
(RNC)
LeftNoncompeting
(LNC)
0.375
1.063*
0.675
0.013
0.688
«significant at the .05 level of confidence
««purchased from Auditec and used for research only
played less than 3 times
Page 21
Table 5
F Values for Scheffe Test for
Differences Between Conditions
Tape 8**
Left—
Competing
(LC)
RightCompeting (RC)
LeftCompeting
RightNoncompeting
1.200*
Right—
Noncompeting
(RNC)
LeftNoncompeting
(LNC)
0.413
1.300*
0.788
0.100
0.888
•significant at the .05 level of confidence
••purchased from auditec and used for research only
played less than 3 times
Table 6
F Values for Scheffe Test for
Differences Between Conditions
Tape
LeftCompeting
(LC)
RightCompeting (RC)
LeftCompeting
1.175*
10**
RightNoncompeting
(RNC)
LeftNoncompeting
(LNC)
0.300
1.288*
0.875
0.113
RightNoncompeting
*significant at the .05 level of confidence
**borrowed from private practice
5-6 years old at time of analysis
0.988
Page
Table 7
F Values for Scheffe Test for Right-Competing Condition
Between Tape Differences
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
3
4
0.41
0.68
0.27
5
6
7
8
9
1.22
0.03
0.95
0.95
2.09*
1.45*
1.89*
0.21
0.81
0.44
0.54
1.68*
1.04*
1.48*
0. 4 8
0.54
0.71
0.27
0.68
0.34
0.52
1.02*
0.23
0.75
1.89*
1.25*
1.69*
1.25*
0.27
0.87
0.23
0.67
0.98
2.12*
1.48*
1.92*
1.14*
0.50
0.94
0.64
0.20
9
1 0
0.44
*significant at the .05 level of confidence
Page
Table 8
F Values for Scheffe Test for Left-Competing Condition
Between Tape Differences
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.52
0.77
0.35
0.59
0.05
0.95
0.04
0.01
0.14
0.25
0.87
1.11* 0.57
0.43
0.56
0.51
0.38
1.12*
1.36* 0.82
0.18
0.81
0.76
0.63
0.24
0.30
1.30* 0.31
0.36
0.49
0.54
1.54* 0.55
0.60
0.73
6
1.00* 0.01
0.06
0.19
7
0.99
0.94
0.81
0.09
0.18
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
0.13
•significant at the .05 level of confidence
Page
Table 9
F Values for Scheffe Test for Right-Noncompeting Condition
Between Tape Differences
2
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.05* 0.67
1.30* 0.54
0.82
1.92*
0.62
0. 2 4
0.87
0.11
0.39
1.49* 0.87
0.38
0.25
0.51
0.23
0.87
0.63
0.13
0.15
1.25* 0.63
1.16*
0.76
0.48
0.62
0.00
0.53
0.28
0.28
0.76
1.29*
7
1.10* 0.48
1.01*
8
0.62
2
3
4
5
6
0.43
I. 3 0 *
1 0
0.25
9
1.83*
1 .40*
0.78
0.09
0.53
•significant at the .05 level of confidence
Page
Table 10
F Values for Scheffe Test for Left-Noncompeting Condition
Between Tape Differences
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0.43
0.59
0.49
0.64
0.16
0.80
0.10
0.03
0.09
0.16
0.92
1.07* 0.79
0.37
0.53
0.46
0.34
1.08*
1.23* 0.85
0.21
0.69
0.62
0.50
0.15
0.33
1.29* 0.39
0.46
0.58
0.48
1.44* 0.54
0.62
0.73
0.96
0.06
0.13
0.25
0.90
0.83
0.71
0.07
0.19
0.12
9
•significant at the .05 level of confidence
Page 27
Compiled ranges per item of each condition by list (see Table 11) reveal
that
in
this sample,
the
largest ranges exist on List EC, while the
smallest can be found on List C-EC.
there
are 6
It should be noted,
however,
that
tapes of List EC and 2 tapes of Lists EE and C-EC in this
study.
Channel Effects.
Differences between syllables recorded on Channel
1 and Channel 2 result in an ear bias, as all syllables presented to the
right ear have been recorded on Channel 1 and all syllables presented to
the left ear have been recorded on Channel 2.
Channel 1 (right ear) has
the greatest bias on 6 tapes while Channel 2 (left ear) has the greatest
bias
on 4 tapes (see Table 12).
Tape #8 shows the greatest percentage
of bias with the right ear being favored in nearly 80% of
pairs (see
Table
12).
Overall
ranges
of
the
dichotic
the (10) tapes for the
conditions RC, LC, RNC and LNC are 8.5, 9.0, 10.5 and
9.0
respectively
(see Appendix F).
The maximum difference between the conditions RC and LC is 7.0
Between
RC and RNC conditions, the maximum difference is 8.5 dB and the
maximum difference between the conditions LC and LNC is 8.5 dB
minimum
dB.
is 0.0
dB (see Table 13).
and
the
In each of the cases, the minimum
difference found among this sample is 0.0 dB.
Page 28
Measurement Reliability and Validity. The maximum
each
syllable
measured
were
RMS
values
clearly visible. Signal-to-noise ratios
present on the recording with the most tape noise, Tape #2, were 2:1
the
very
of
least (see Figure 3)»
at
Re-analysis of a tape at the end of a
measurement session revealed a maximum error of 1.5
dB.
In
the
vast
majority of cases, however, readings were off by 0.0 to 0.5 dB.
Harmonic Distortion.
audiometer
Harmonic distortion levels, obtained with the
VU meter adjusted so that the output of the calibration tone
at the earphone was 10 dB above the intensity level
0-VU
meter
setting (see
generated
using
a
"Procedure" section of this document), range
from 155 to lOyt in this sample (see Table 14)
Page 29
Table 11
Recording-Level Ranges* of Individual Test Items
for Each Condition** by List
COND
LIST EC
(6 Tapes)
LIST EE
(2 Tapes)
LIST C-EC
(2 Tapes)
RC
0.5 - 5.0
0.0 - 3.0
0.0 - 0.5
LC
0.5 - 3.5
0.0 - 3.0
0.0 - 1.0
RNC
0.5 - 6.5
0.0 - 2.5
0.0 - 0.5
LNC
1.0 - 3.5
0.0 - 1.5
0.0 - 0.5
*Ranges in dB re: reference calibration tone
**RC = Right-Competing
LC = Left Competing
RNC = Right-Noncompeting
LNC = Left-Moncompeting
Page 30
TABLE 12
Inter-Channel Differences* for Competing Syllables
for Individual Tapes (#'s 1-10)
Tape
Channel 1>Channel 2
Channel 2>Channel 1
Equal
1
7
24
9
2
17
16
7
3
21
15
2
4
5
14
1
5
15
19
5
6
4
12
4
7
24
13
3
8
31
4
5
9
22
11
7
10
26
5
9
*represented by numbers of items
Page 31
TABLE 13
Differences Between Syllable Recording Levels*
for Conditions** by Tape
TAPE #1
RC-LC
RC-RNC
LC-LNC
TAPE #2
RC-LC
RC-RNC
LC-LNC
TAPE #3
RC-LC
RC-RNC
LC-LNC
TAPE #4
RC-LC
RC-RNC
LC-LNC
TAPE #5
RC-LC
RC-RNC
LC-LNC
TAPE #6
RC-LC
RC-RNC
LC-LNC
LOW
HIGH
MAX. DIFF
-4.5
-4.5
-2.5
+2.0
+5.0
+5.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
-3.5
-4.0
-2.5
+3.0
+4.0
+4.5
3.5
4.0
4.5
-4.0
-6.5
-8.0
+7.0
+7.5
+7.0
7.0
7.5
8.0
-3.5
-3.5
-3.0
+1.0
+4.5
+3.0
3.5
4.5
3.0
-3.5
-5.0
-2.5
+2.5
+5.0
+5.0
3.5
5.0
5.0
-4.0
-2.5
-3.0
+0.5
+4.5
+2.5
4.0
4.5
3.0
Page
TABLE 13 (continued)
TAPE #7
RC-LC
RC-RNC
LC-LNC
TAPE #8
RC-LC
RC-RNC
LC-LNC
TAPE #9
RC-LC
RC-RNC
LC-LNC
TAPE #10
RC-LC
RC-RNC
LC-LNC
-3.5
-5.5
-8.0
+6.5
+8.5
+6.0
6.5
8.5
8.0
-1.5
-2.5
-4.0
+4.0
+5.0
+4.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
-2.0
-4.0
-3.5
+3.0
+5.5
+4.0
3.0
5.0
4.0
— 1.0
-4.5
-4.0
+4.0
+6.5
+4.5
4.0
6.5
4.5
*Levels in dB re: reference calibration tone
**Conditions: RC-LC = Right-Competing minus Left-Competing;
RC-RNC = Right-Competing minus Right-NonCompeting
LC-LNC = Left-Competing minus Left-Noncompeting
Page 33
Table 14
Harmonic Distortion
HARMONIC DISTORTION
TAPE #1
<
n
TAPE #2
10%
TAPE #3
2%
TAPE #4
2.2%
TAPE #5
2$
TAPE #6
2%
TAPE #7
2%
TAPE #8
1.8%
TAPE #9
TAPE #10
<
1%
2%
Page 34
Discussion
The purpose of this study
was
to
determine
the
reliability
of
recording levels of test items and measure levels of harmonic distortion
on a sample of 10 recordings of the Staggered Spondaic Word
results
indicate
that
the
null
Levels
of
harmonic
distortion
violate
tapes
in
a
in
this sample
which
were
random
specified tolerance
limits (N.A.B.) on Tape #2, only. This particular tape was one
two
The
hypothesis cannot be accepted as the
recording levels vary both within and among the 10
manner.
Test.
of
the
dubbed by amateurs following unknown
procedures.
Since distortion levels on the rest of the tapes of this sample
not
even
approach the level of distortion present on Tape #2, it seems
safe to assume that the source of distortion in this case
unique
to
Tape #2,
Tape
#2.
therefore,
remaining 9
distortion.
by
do
tapes
is
a
factor
Any further discussion of harmonic distortion on
is
irrelevant
demonstrate
and
will
not
between
less
than 1% and 2% harmonic
Although these levels comply with the 3%
be
pursued.
limit
The
stipulated
N.A.B., the affects of 2% distortion on a dichotic task among normal
listeners or listeners with damaged auditory systems is not known.
Page 35
Bode
and
Kasten (1971) demonstrated
normally-hearing
subjects
on
a
that
of
performance
speech-discrimination
significantly when 5% distortion was present.
performance
the
normally-hearing
of
test decreased
In a similar study of the
listeners, Gionnini and Frazen (1978)
found that the addition of less than 1% harmonic distortion to a test of
speech
discrimination
reduced listener-scores by 10%.
If all items in
this sample were recorded 10 dB above the calibration tone
effects of
and
if
the
distortion on speech recognition were the same for spondees
presented in a partially-dichotic manner as they
are
for
monosyllabic
words, then one might conclude that low levels of distortion will reduce
scores by at least 10%.
tape
are
recorded at 10 dB above the calibration tone;
up to 2.2% distortion.
harmonic
In this case, however, no more than 2 items per
In view of that fact, the affects
of
low-level
distortion on spondees recorded in a partially dichotic manner
is not an issue in this
question
thus producing
of
study.
distortion
In
affects,
order
however,
to
completely
it
would
actually test subjects of various populations with a
answer
any
be necessary to
recording
of
the
reliability
and
SSW whose electromagnetic characteristics are known.
Katz's major concerns in developing the SSW
validity.
He
reasoned
that
by
employing
were
more
reliable
material, he could develop a test sensitive to central auditory
which
would
be
existing tests.
more
reliable
and
stimulus
lesions
would require less test time than
Page 36
It is conceivable that when a test is produced in recorded form and
utilizes relatively reliable stimulus material, there will be consistent
test, re-test results. That is an assumption which is commonly held and
it
has
been
the
assumption
of
Katz and
others who have generated
normative data for performance of various populations on the SSW.
assumption, however,
is
valid
only
variables associated with the test.
that
in
the
That
absence of uncontrolled
The results of this study
indicate
a source of variability which has not been carefully controlled is
in the reproduction of the SSW.
Recording levels of monosyllables vary across tapes by as
10.5
dB, so
that
much
on a given test tape, one syllable may be presented
10.5 dB higher than a syllable on another tape. Once the test has
administered,
the
the
listening
as
scorer
been
computes the percentage of error for each of
conditions
i.e.,
Right-competing,
Left-competing,
Right-noncompeting and Left-noncorapeting and adjusts them for peripheral
hearing loss when appropriate.
ear (RE),
the
Scores are then averaged for
the
right
left ear (LE) and finally RE and LE scores are averaged
together for total percentage of error.
In addition
to
comparing
the
overall percentage of error against ranges for "normal, mildly abnormal,
moderately abnormal" and "severely abnormal", the scorer also totals the
number
of
errors
when
the
right
ear
is stimulated first (REF) and
compares them to the number of errors when the left
ear
is
stimulated
first (LEF) to determine if an order effect exists.
Finally, the scorer
compares the overall performance of the two ears, i.e., RC & RNC vs LC &
LNC, to determine if an "ear effect" is present.
Page 37
In the event of inter-channel recording-level discrepancies such as
those
found
in
this study (see
Table
12),
interaural
differences are effected. The degree of channel/ear bias
random
manner
varies
in
a
from item to item within a tape as well as between tapes
as does the magnitude of the effect.
conditions
intensity
on
Tape
#8,
For
example, for
the
competing
the right ear is favored in nearly 80% of the
items while on Tape #1, the right ear is favored only 18% of the time in
the
competing
This constitutes a 12% difference between RC
condition.
conditions on the two tapes.
percentage
of
error
for
Not only could these differences alter the
each
ear, but they could greatly affect the
outcomes of other scoring procedures, as well. Since all
for
the
left
advantage
or
ear
and
the
disadvantage
disadvantage
for
the
right
for
one
corresponding
ear
are
channel
ear.
presentations
on separate channels, an
is
In
an
the
advantage
case
of Tape #8,
inter-channel differences could be responsible for a false RE effect
mask
a
true
could occur.
focus
on
conditions,
complex
and
LE effect.
the
of
effects
highly
or
In the case of Tape #1, however, the opposite
Because of the rather involved
performance
or
individual
of
scoring
ears
recording-level
unpredictable;
under
procedures
various
discrepancies
especially
which
listening
are
very
since the patterns of
these discrepancies vary from tape to tape.
Of this sample of 10, 6 tapes were purchased new from
this study
and
4 others
were
borrowed
from
Auditec
for
clinics and a private
practice. Comparison among tapes obtained directly from Auditec reveals
significant differences among that group (see Tables 2,3 & 4) as well as
Page 38
a main effect for individual listening conditions, while the
condition
responsible
for
the
particular
main effect varies by tape (see Tables
2-6 ).
As decibel values of the
interaural
intensity
levels
vary, one
wonders at what level differences affect listener performance, and how.
The
actual
effects
of
roughly-controlled
dichotic
been
In
documented.
interaural
intensity
differences
on
speech tasks, such as in the SSW, have not
dichotic
tasks
utilizing
carefully-controlled
speech (e.g., consonant-vowel syllables), however, a 5-dB attenuation is
sufficient to
reduce
Bissonette, 1975;
RE
performance
in
normals
by
14% (Speaks &
Berlin, Lowe-Bell, Cullen & Thompson, 1973).
Results
of other studies utilizing carefully controlled
dichotic
shown
differences
are highly
by
interaural
that
dependent
affects
upon
such
of
interaural
factors
as
intensity
the
method
stimuli
which
have
differences are accomplished (i.e., RE attenuation, RE amplification, LE
attenuation
and
LE
amplification) as
the
methods
do
not
yield
complimentary results (Speaks & Bissonette, 1975).
In light of this information, it is clear that it is very difficult
to
accurately
predict
exactly
how
discrepancies
sample of 10 tapes will affect listener performance.
interaural
intensity
differences
even
as
much
identified in this
It is likely
as 10.5 dB, will not
affect the performance of normal listeners, but it is unknown how
differences
systems.
may
affect
abnormal
listeners
that
these
who have damaged auditory
Page 39
Traditionally, based on a sample size of
attempt
to
make
10, researchers
generalizations about a
much
However, upon speculation, it seems likely that
observed
larger
given
do
not
population.
the
variability
here, a larger sample might yield even greater discrepancies.
It has been the case in this study that the larger the sample the larger
the
range of recording levels (see Table 11).
that this study happened to
which, for
some
obtain
six
reason, demonstrate
It seems highly unlikely
tapes
random
directly
from
Auditec
variablity in recording
levels which is not present on other tapes.
Users of the SSW may be well-advised
of
normative data.
Researchers who have argued about
competing
tapes
they
are
determine
characteristics
of
the
to
the
recording
using and generate their own
the
onset-alignment
syllables may also wish to consider the possibility that,
while the differences among results which they have observed may be
result
of
different
measurement procedures or measurement error, they
may also be reflecting a difference among the
producer
of
the
SSW
the
tapes,
themselves.
has made no claim to the contrary.
The
In fact, the
only claim which Auditec makes about their recordings is that
they
are
violated
any
dubbed from "high-quality" recordings.
Although Auditec has apparently broken no laws,
regulations
Association;
adopted
they
by
are
the
American
distributing
nor
Speech, Hearing
a
product
with
and
Language
demonstrated
quality-control problems which is used as a diagnostic tool.
In view of
that fact, it is essential that specific information about the recording
characteristics of the tapes be made available to the diagnostician.
In
Page 40
addition, information
recording
in
order
concerning
the
proper
care
and
usage
of a
to maintain the specified characteristics could be
very helpful to the consumer.
Page 41
Conclusion
In conclusion the findings of this study
levels
of
individual
indicate
that
recording
monosyllables on the SSW (lists EC, C-EC and EE)
vary by as much as 10.5 dB with no discernable patterns in the direction
or
magnitude of intensity differences.
The random nature discrepancies
between tapes, items and listening conditions make it very difficult
accurately
predict
listener
performance patterns.
Close adherence to
recommended scoring procedures and available normative data
in
mis-diagnoses
to
may
result
or different diagnoses, depending on the tape used to
evaluate the patient.
Page 42
REFERENCES
AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE. Specifications for audiometers
(S3.6-1978).
New York, New York: Acoustical Society of America,
1978.
AMERMAN, J. and PARNELL, M.
The staggered spondaic word test:
a
Normative investigation of older adults. Ear and Hearing, 1980, 2?
42-45.
ARCISZEWSKI, R. The effects of visual perception training on the
perception ability and reading achievement of first grade students.
Dissertation Abstracts, 29 (12 A), 4174, 1969 In J.
Northern and
M.Downs (eds.) Hearing iji children.
2nd ed. Baltimore: The
Williams & Wilkins Company, 197^1
ARNST, D.
Overview of the staggered spondaic word test and the
competing environmental sounds test.
In D. Arnst and J. Katz
(eds.) Central auditory assessment ; The SSW test, development and
clinical use. San Diego: College Hill Press, 1982.
ARNST, D. Errors on the staggered spondaic word (SSW) test in a group
of adult normal listeners. Ear and Hearing, 1981. 2, 112-116.
BALAS, R. Staggered spondaic word test: Support.
Rhinology and Laryngology,80, 132-134, 1971.
Annals
of
Otology
BEASLEY, D. and RINTELMANN, A. Central auditory processing.
In W.
Rintelmann (ed.) Hearing assessment. Baltimore: University Park
Press, 1979.
BELL, H. and RAFFIN, M.
Electromagnetic characteristics of auditec
recordings of the staggered spondaic word test. Paper presented at
the Annual Convention of the Canadian
Speech
and
Hearing
Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May 13, 1983.
BERLIN, C., LOWE-BELL, S., CULLEN, J. and THOMPSON, C. Dichotic speech
perception:
An interpretation of right-ear advantage and temporal
offset effects. Journal of the Auditory Society of America , 1973,
52, 699-709.
BERRICK, J., SHUBOW, G., SHULTZ, M., FREED, H., FOURNIER, S.
AND
HUGHES, G., Auditory processing tests for children: Normative and
clinical results on the SSW test. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders. 1984. 49, 318-325.
Page 43
BOCCA, E. Factors influencing binaural integration of periodically
switched messages. Acta Otolaryngologica, 1961, 5^, 142-144.
BOCCA E., CALEARO, C., CASSIMARI, V.
and
"cortical"
hearing
in
temporal
Otolaryngologica, 1955, 45, 289-304.
MIGLIAVACCA, F.
Testing
lobe
tumours.
Acta
BODE, D.
AND KASTEN, R.
Hearing and distortion and
consonant
identification.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1981, j4,
323-331.
BRUNT, M. The staggered spondaic word test. In J. Katz (ed.) Handbook
of clinical audiology (2nd ed.) Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins
Co., 1978.
BYRNE, P. and LESTER, L.
Psychoeducational correlates of central
auditory processing dysfunction. In E. Lasky and J. Katz (eds.)
Central auditory processing disorders. Baltimore: University Park
Press, 1 9 8 3 .
CARVER, W.
1983.
President, Auditec of St. Louis;
personal
correspondence,
CALEARO, C. and LAZZARONI, A. Speech intelligibility in relation
the speed of the message. Laryngoscope, 1957, §7, 410-419.
to
COHEN, R.L. Auditory skills and the communicative process.
In R.
Keith, (ed.) Seminars in speech language and hearing. New York:
Thieme-Stratton, Inc. 1930.
COHEN, S.A. Cause vs. treatment in reading achievement.
Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 1970,
I63-I66. In J. Northern and M.
Downs, Hearing in children. (2nd ed.) Baltimore: The Williams &
Wilkins Co., 1975.
DEMPSEY, C. Some thoughts concerning alternate explanations of central
auditory test results.
In R.
Keith (ed.) Central auditory
dysfunction. New York: Grune & Stratton, 1977.
DUCHAN, J. and Katz, J.
Language and auditory processing.
In E.
Lasky and J.
Katz (eds.) Central auditory processing disorders.
Baltimore: University Park Press, 19^3^
DYBKA, M. and SANSONE, F. Performance on measures of central auditory
function by learning disabled children: A report of clinical data.
In D. Arnst and J. Katz (eds.) Central auditory assessment:
The
SSW test, development and clinical use. San Diego: College Hill
Press, 1 9 8 2 .
Page 44
FREEMAN, B. and BEASLEY, D. Lead and lag effects associated with the
staggered spondaic word test.
Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research. J9, 572-577, 1976.
GIONNINI, L. AND FRANZER, R. Comparison of the effects of hearing aid
harmonic distortion on performance scores for the MRHT and a
PB-50/CM test. Journal of Auditory Research, 1978, _18, 203-208.
GOLDSTEIN, R. Neurophysiology of hearing. In N. Lass, L. McReynolds,
J.
Northern, and D. Yoder (eds.) Speech, language and hearing.
Vol. 1 (Normal Processes) Philadelphia: M.S. Saunders Co., 1982
HALL, J. and JERGER, J.
Central auditory function in stutterers.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1978, 21^, 324-327.
HALLAHAN, D. and BRYAN, T. Learning disabilities. In J. Kauffman and
D.
Hallahan (eds.) Handbook of special education. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981.
HODGSON, W.
Basic audiologlc
Wilkins Co., 1980
evaluation.
Baltimore:
Williams &
JACOBS, J. et aJL.
A followup evaluation of the frostig visual
perception
training
program.
Education Leadership Research
Supplement. 169-175, November, 19681
In J.
Northern and M.
Downs Hearing in children. (2nd ed.) Baltimore: The Williams &
Wilkins Co., 197S~
JERGER, J. and JERGER S. Clinical validity of central auditory
Scandinavian Audiology, 1975, 4,147-163-
tests.
JERGER, S. and JERGER, J. Diagnostic value of crossed versus uncrossed
acoustic reflexes. Archives of Otolaryngology, 1977, 103, 445-453JOHNSON, D. Preliminary analysis of ssw test and ces test data in 7
normal and 13 learning disabled school children 6-9 years old. In
D. Arnst and J. Katz (eds.) Central auditory assessment; The ssw
test, development and clinical use.
San Diego: College Hill
Press, 1 9 8 2 ,
KATZ, J. Clinical use of central auditory tests. In J.
Katz (ed.),
Handbook of clinical audiology. (2nd ed.) Baltimore: Williams &
Wilkins Co., 197B1
. The use of staggered spondaic words for assessing the integrity
of the central auditory nervous system.
Journal of Auditory
Research, 1962, 2, 237-337.
Page 45
KATZ, J., AVELLANOSA, A. and AGUILAR-MARKULIS, N. Evaluation of corpus
callosum lesions using ssw, ces & pica. Paper presented at the
Annual Convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association,
November 24, 1980, Detroit, Michigan.
KATZ, J., BASIL, R. and SMITH, J. A staggered spondaic word test for
detecting central auditory lesions. Annals of Otology Rhinology &
Laryngology, 1963, 72, 908-918.
KATZ, J., HABMER,M. and LOHNES, P.
Lead/lag analysis of ssw test
items.
Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American
Speech and Hearing Association, 1977, Chicago, Illinois.
KEITH, R.
Tests of central auditory function.
In N.
Lass, L.
McReynolds, J.Northern and D. Yoder (eds.) Speech, language and
hearing Vol.
Ill
(Hearing
Disorders) Philadelphia:
W.B.
Saunders, Co., 1982.
. Central auditory dysfunction.
New York:
Grune & Stratton, 1977.
KEITH, R. Tests of central auditory function. In R.
Roeser and M.
Downs (eds.) Auditory disorders in school children. New York:
Thieme-Stratton, Inc., 1981.
KUSHNER, D., JOHNSON, D. and STEVENS, J.
Use of ssw/ces tests for
identifying children with learning disabilities. Paper presented
at the annual Convention of the American Speech and Hearing
Association, 1977, Chicago, Illinois. In D. Arnst and J. Katz
(eds.) Central auditory assessment: The SSW test, development and
clinical use. San Diego: College Hill Press, 1982.
LARSON, C. and PFINGST, B. Neuroanatomic basis of hearing and speech.
In N.
Lass, L.
McReynolds, J. Northern and D. Yoder (eds.)
Speech, language and
hearing.
Vol
1
(Normal
Processes)
Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, Co., 1982.
LASKY, E. Parameters affecting auditory processing. In E.
J.
Katz (eds.) Central auditory processing disorders.
University Park Press, 1983.
Lasky and
Baltimore:
LASKY, E. and KATZ, J. Perspectives on central auditory processing.
In E.
Lasky and J.
Katz (eds.) Central auditory Processing
disorders.. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1983.
LEWIS, T.
and WINKELAAR, R.
Identification of central auditory
dysfunction in children with learning disabilities. In D. Arnst
and J. Katz (eds.) Central auditory assessment:
The SSW test,
development and clinical use.
San Diego; College Hill Press,
1982.
Page 46
LEHISTE, I. Suprasegmental features of speech.
In N.
Lass (ed.)
Contemporary issues in experimental phonetics. Mew York: Academic
Press, 1976.
LIDEN, G.
and KORSAM-BEMGSTON, W.
Audiometric manifestations
retrocochlear lesions. Scandinavian Audiology, 1973» 2, 29.
of
LOWE, A. and CAMPBELL, R.
Temporal discrimination in aphasoid and
normal children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1965, 8,
313-314. In E.
Lasky and J.
Katz (eds.) Central auditory
processing disorders. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1 9 8 3 .
LUBERT, N. Auditory perceptual impairments in children with specific
language disorders; A review of the literature. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Disorders, 1981,
3-9.
LUDLOW, C., CUDAHY, E., BASSICH, C. and BROWN, G. Auditory processing
skills of hyperactive, language-impaired and reading disabled boys.
In E. Lasky and J.
Katz (eds.) Central auditory processing
disorders. Baltimore: University Park Press, I 9 8 3 .
LUKUS, J.
and ESCHENHEIMER, 0.
Performance of learning disabled
children " and language handicapped children on central auditory
tests. Paper presented at the annual Convention of the American
Speech, Hearing and Language Association, 1978, San Francisco. In
D. Arnst and J. Katz (eds.) Central auditory assessment ; The SSW
test, development and clinical use.
San Diego; College Hill
Press, 1 9 8 2 .
MARTIN, L. and CLARK, J. Audiologic detection of auditory processing
disorders in children. Journal of the American Audiologic Society,
1977, 2' 140-146.
In J.
Northern and M.
Downs Hearing ^
children. (2nd ed.) Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co., 1978.
MARTIN, F. and FORBIS, N. The present status of audiometric practice:
A follow-up study. American Speech and Hearing Association, 1978,
22.
MATHIES, M. and GARSTECKI, D. Normal adult performance on a temporally
modified staggered spondaic word test. Scandinavian Audiology ,
1980, 9, 89-92.
MILLER, G. The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on
our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review,
1956, 6^, 81-96.
MUELLER, G., SEDGE, R. and SALAZAR, A. SSW results in head injury:
Preliminary report of 200 cases. Paper presented at the annual
convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association,
Cleveland, Ohio, November, I 9 8 3 .
Page 47
MUSIEK, F. and GEURKINK, M. Auditory perceptual problems in children:
Considerations
for
the
otolaryngologist
and
audiologist.
Laryngoscope, 1980, 90, 962-971.
MUSIEK, R. and MORGAN, G. The use of central auditory tests in a
of vasculitis. Ear and Hearing, 1981, 2, 100-102.
case
MUSIEK, R. and WILSON, D. SSW and dichotic digits results pre- and
post-commissurotomy: A case report. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, 1979, M.
N.A.B. Standard magnetic tape recording and reproducing (reel-to-reel).
Washington,
D.C.:
National
Association
of
Broadcasters,
Engineering Dept., 1965.
NOFFSINGER, P.
and KURDZIEL, S.
Assessment of central auditory
lesions.
In W. Rintelmann (ed.) Hearing assessment. Baltimore:
University Park Press, 1979.
NORTHERN, J. and DOWNS, M. Hearing in children. (2nd ed.) Baltimore:
The Williams & Wilkins Co., 1978.
OTTO, W. and JOHNSON, M. Central auditory function, language/learning
disabilities and the adolescent male.
Paper presented at the
annual
convention
of
the
American
Speech-Language-Hearing
Association, Cleveland, Ohio, November, 1983
REES, N. Auditory processing factors in language disorders:
the view
from procrustes bed.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
1973, M, 304-315.
RUDMIN, F. SSW study alignment weaknesses. (letter
Scandinavian Audlology, 1981, jO, 269-270.
to
the
editor)
RUDMIN, F. and KATZ, J. Dichotic onset and offset parameter n the ssw
test.
In
D.
Arnst and J.
Katz (eds.) Central auditory
assessment: The SSW test, development and clinical use.
San
Diego: College Hill Press, 1982.
SHEA, S. and RAFFIN, M. Assessment of electromagnetic characteristics
of the willeford central auditory processing test battery. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research, 1983, 26, 18-21.
SPEAKS, C. and BISSONETTE, L.
Interaural-intensive differences and
dichotic listening.
Journal of the Auditory Society of America
1975, 58, 893-898.
SPEAKS, C.
and JERGER, G.
identification.
Journal
185-194.
Method for
measurement
of
speech
of Speech and Hearing Research, 1965. 8,
Page 48
SPITZER, J. and ÏENTRY, I. Central auditory dysfunction among chronic
alcoholics. Archives of Otolaryngology, 1980, 106, 224-229.
TALLAL, P. Auditory processing disorders in children. In P.
Lewiston
and C. Sloan (eds.) Auditory processing and language-Clinical and
research prospectives. Grune & Stratton, New York, 1980 In J.
Duchan & J. Katz Language and auditory processing. In E. Lasky &
J. Katz (eds.) Centralauditory processing disorders.
Baltimore:
University Park Press, 1983.
TALLAL, P. and NEWCOMBE, F.
Impairment of auditory perception and
language comprehension in dysphasia. Brain and language, 1978, 5,
3-24 In Lasky, E. Parameters affecting auditory processing. In E.
Lasky and J.
Katz (eds.) Central auditory processing disorders.
Baltimore: University Park Press, 1933%
TALLAL, P. and PIERCY, M.
Developmental aphasia, rate of auditory
processing
and selective impairment of consonant perception.
Neuropsychologica, 1974, _12, 83-93, In E.
Lasky and J.
Katz
(eds.) Central
Auditory
Processing
Disorders.
Baltimore:
University Park Press, 1983.
WELSH, L., WELSH, J.
and HEALY, M.
Central auditory
dyslexia. Laryngoscope, 1980, 90, 972-984.
testing
and
WETHERBY, A., KOEGEL, R.
and MENDEL, M.
Central auditory nervous
system dysfunction in echolalic autistic individuals. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 1981,
420-429.
WILLEFORD, J. Central auditory function in children with learning
disabilities. Audiology and Hearing Education , 1976, 2, 12-20.
WILLEFORD, J. Assessing central auditory behavior in children wslh
learning disabilities:
A test battery approach. In Keith, R.
(ed.) Central auditory dysfunction. New York:
Grune& Stratton,
Inc., 1977, 43-72
YOUNG, E. and TRACY, J. An experimental short form of the staggered
spondaic word list for learning disabled children. Audiology and
Hearing Education, 1977, 3, 7, December/January.
ZACK, L. and KAUFMAN, J. How adequate is the concept of perceptual
deficit for education.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 5,
351-356, 1972, In J. Northern and M. Downs, Hearing in children.
(2nd ed.) Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co., 1978.
ZIGMUND, N. Maturation of auditory processes in children with learning
disabilities.
In L.
Tarnpol (ed.) Introduction to learning
disabilities. Springfield Illinois: Charles C." Thomas, 1973 In
J.
Northern & M.
Downs (eds.) Hearing in children. (2nd ed.)
Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Co., 1978.
Page 49
APPENDIX A
Central Auditory Function:
The Process and Tests Designed to Evaluate It
The terms "central auditory function" as well as "central auditory
ability, central auditory perception" and "central auditory processing"
are used interchangeably in the literature to refer to particular
and
functions
involved
in
hearing (Keith,
auditory signal travels through the middle- and
the
haircells
of
the
organ
of
Corti,
1982).
is
described
as
When an incoming
inner-ear
and
reaches
the mechanical nature of the
signal, thus far, gives way to an electrical impulse.
hearing
sites
Up to this point,
"peripheral" and beyond it as "central." The
signal leaves the inner-ear via the cochlear
branch
of
cranial
nerve
VIII and enters the brainstem, where it arrives first at the cell bodies
of the cochlear nuclei (Goldstein, 1982;
The physiology
operates
in
a
of
the
highly
auditory
fairly simple fashion;
does not (Goldstein, 1982).
a
central
Larson & Pfingst, 1982).
nervous
system (CANS)
a nerve cell either fires or it
Anatomically, however, the system
complex, intricate
presents
pathway of contralateral and ipsilateral
ascending and descending fibers, some of which sysnapse early (Beasley &
Page 50
Rintelmann,
1979) or
leave
the auditory pathway to travel in another
sensory or motor pathway (Beasley & Rintelmann,1979; Goldstein,
Other
fibers share
Pfingst, 1982;
information
1982).
with contralateral pathways (Larson &
Goldstein) and still others
are
purported
to
act
as
"rapid transporters" between integrating centers (Goldstein, 1982) after
they leave the superior olivary complex.
Traditional psycholinguistic measures used in assessing
hearing
are
network
of
redundancy
insensitive
neural
of
to central auditory disorders due to the vast
intercommunication (Katz,
1962).
The
intrinsic
the CANS which makes a breakdown less likely, also makes
discrete testing of the system more difficult.
assessing
peripheral
central
auditory
function
Therefore,
lies
in
the
reducing
key
to
extrinsic
redundancy present in the stimulus itself (Beasley & Rintelmann,
1979),
thereby placing greater stress upon the CANS.
In the 1950's, researchers began developing techniques for reducing
extrinsic
redundancy
normally
order to challenge the
(Keith,
1982).
In
involved in the processing of speech in
system
1955,
to
to
limits
of
normal
functioning
Bocca and his associates first demonstrated
this phenomenon by administering
speech
the
a
test
of sensitized
or
difficult
a group of patients with temporal lobe tumors, and also to a
control group. The control group experienced little difficulty with the
test,
while
and others
difficult
the tumor group performed poorly.
provided
speech
the
ground
tests and
work
their
for
The early work of Bocca
further
usefulness
auditory dysfunction (Katz, Basil & Smith, 1963).
in
investigation
detecting
of
central
Page 51
Reduction of stimulus redundancy may be accomplished by introducing
a
competing
stimulus
or by altering the message itself (Miller, 1956;
Moffsinger & Kurdziel, 1979).
auditory
function
in
There
are
numerous
tests
of
central
use today which utilize monosyllables, spondees,
sentences, nonsense sentences, consonant-vowel syllables as
pure-tones as stimuli.
well
as
These stimuli may be altered by increasing or
decreasing content length, filtering or reducing the frequency spectrum,
introducing interruptions, or temporally manipulating the message.
While the primary message is intact, competition may be
in
the
forms
of
white
noise, narrow-band noise, cafeteria noise and
sentences (Noffsinger & Kurdziel, 1979;
be
presented
monotically (one
dichotically (both
independent
ears
introduced
ear
receiving
Keith, 1982).
receiving
different
one
Test stimuli may
or more signals),
signals
generated
from
delivery channels) or binaurally (the same stimulus to both
ears, simultaneously) (Noffsinger & Kurdziel, 1979).
The
listener
is
required to repeat or indicate (by pointing to a picture) the primary or
altered stimulus.
make
judgments
Most tasks involving tones require
about
perceived location of
the
the
emergence
tone
or
the
listener
to
and disappearance of a tone, the
relative
loudness
of
two
tones
(Noffsinger & Kurdziel, 1979).
Objective tests of central auditory function or those which do
require
listener
thresholds and
participation,
decay
and
include
tests
electrophysiologic
of Stapedial
assessment.
not
reflex
Stapedial
reflex tests are very sensitive to lesions of cranial nerve VIII and are
useful in
differentiating
between
peripheral
and
central
pathology
Page 52
(Liden & Korsan-Bengston, 1973»
Johnson, 1977;
Jerger & Jerger, 1977;
Moffsinger & Kurdzlel, 1979).
Electrophysiologic
neuroelectric
potentials
using electrodes placed
electrical
assessment
potentials
also
on
is
carried
out
by
measuring
called auditory evoked potentials (AEP)
the
head.
The
AEP
consists
of
minute
which are generated by activity of cranial nerve
VIII and the brainstem in
response
to
click
stimuli (Keith,
1982).
Responses to multiple stimuli are amplified and averaged by a computer.
Results
analyzing
are
the
interpreted
latency
of
by
the
comparing
AEP's
between
ears
averaged response (Keith, 1982).
and
Most
authors recommend administering subjective as well as objective tests of
CANS
integrity
as
diagnostic measure.
part of a battery of tests, rather than as a single
Page 53
APPENDIX B
The Staggered Spondaic Word Test
The SSW is a recorded test designed to measure the integrity of the
CANS.
Recordings
are
produced
by
Auditec
of St.
Louis
and are
available commercially.
Numerous versions of the SSW, utilizing different word lists, have
been
produced.
Auditec catalog.
by
Presently
there
are
three
test forms listed in the
They are lists EC, C-EC and EE.
List EC was described
Katz (1968) as the most useful clinical tape because of its "clear
speech" and "good signal-to-noise ratio."
List C-EC is comprised of 20 items of list EC which are
to
have
the simplest vocabulary and is therefore considered to be more
appropriate for small children (Katz,
dubbed
considered
1968).
List
EC
and
C-EC
are
by Auditec from originals which were produced by Katz in his own
facility. He has commented that although many different tapes have been
Page 54
produced, using different equipment, techniques and speakers, "there is
considerable similarity among the various recordings" (Katz, 1968).
List EE is reportedly considered very similar to list
1984).
EC (Carver,
Its original, however was produced by Auditec in their studios.
When asked to compare EC to EE, Carver (1984) described tapes of test EC
as
"very
noisy" and "full of thumps;" and tapes of EE as having "less
noise." He reported that Katz still advocates use of list EC over EE.
The test consists of either
recorded
on
one portion
a
of
twenty
or
forty
pairs
of
spondees
two-track tape in a partially-competing manner, so that
each
test
item
is
presented
dichotically
or
with
different monosyllables arriving at each ear, simultaneously (see Figure
B1).
In the first example in Figure I, the listener is
presented
"up"
in the right ear, then "stairs" in the right ear and "down" in the
left ear, simultaneously; and finally, "town" in the left ear.
with
In this
example, the right ear receives the leading spondee, while in the second
example, the left ear receives the
alternate
throughout
leading
spondee.
These
sequences
the test and are referred to as "right-ear-first"
(REF) and "left-ear-first" (LEF) conditions.
The items are further
referring
ear
only;
presented
to
the
designated
as "right-noncompeting" (RNC),
monosyllables presented monotically, or to the right
"left-competing" (LC), referring
dichotically
to
the
left
referring to the monosyllable presented
ear;
to
the
monosyllable
"right-competing" (RC),
Page 55
dichoticâlly to the right ear; and "left-noncompeting" (LNC), referring
to the syllable presented monotlcally to the left ear.
Figure B1
Example of Two Test Items
1.
Right Ear
Left
2.
up
stairs
Ear
down
town
Right Ear
in
law
Left Ear
out
Time
side
Page 57
The listener is instructed as follows;
1. "Groups of words will be presented to one or both ears.
2.
Respond by repeating the entire group of words presented.
3. Guessing is permitted."*
Listeners are given four practice items at the beginning of the test.
Scoring
A response form is provided on which the
forty
paired
items are
listed with space provided for the scorer to evaluate each response (see
Table B1).
analyzed
SSW scores are based on
in
terms
of
the
number
two response patterns:
of
errors
which
"ear effect" and "order
effect." Ear effect reflects errors made in the REF compared to the
sequences.
Significant
ear
of
errors
lagging spondee.
errors
on
the
LEF
effect exists when the difference between
REF and LEF errors equals or exceeds five.
number
are
Order effect refers
to
the
made on the leading spondee compared to those on the
Significant order effect is present when the number of
leading
compared
to
number
of errors on the lagging
spondee equals or exceeds five.
* reprinted from D.
and
Arnst, Overview of the staggered spondaic word test
the competing environmental sounds test.
(eds.).Central auditory
clinical use.
assessment;
San Diego;
In:
The SSW
D.
Arnst & J. Katz
test, development
College Hill Press, 1982.
and
Page 58
The scorer also notes the order in
repeated;
although
sequences
which
other
"reversals," are not considered errors.
the
than
monosyllables
those
were
presented, or
A test item with
two
or
more
errors, despite sequence change, cannot be counted as a reversal. The
three response patterns - ear effect, order effect and reversals
known
collectively
-
are
as "response bias." Scores are plotted on the graph
to form an "SSW-gram" which illustrates response bias (see Figure B2).
Interpretation
All aspects of the SSW are to be evaluated together and interpreted
in
the
context
of
a complete audiometric test battery.
stressed that SSW test results reflect an
than lesion-specific pathology.
area
of
Arnst (1982)
dysfunction
rather
Page
TABLE B1
SSW Scoring Symbols*
Response
1.
2.
No error on any word
All mistakes (except word
order)
3 . Word omission
4. Substitution
5.
Distortion
6. Patient indicates the
presence of a word but
cannot repeat the stimulus
7 . Addition or omission of a
final "s"
8. Different word order
9.
Reversal
10. Intrusive word (patient
adds extra word to
stimulus sequence)
11. Need to replay stimulus
item
Marking
Dot (.) in error column
Draw a horizontal line
through word
Dash above word omitted
Write in substitution
above stimulus word
Write in distortion
above stimulus word
Enter DK above stimulus
word
No error; diagonal mark
(/) through sound
omitted or at place
where sound added
No error; enter numbers
(1-2-3-4) indicating
order in which patient
repeated stimuli below
stimulus words
No error; abnormal word
sequence and no more than
one error in the stimulus
sequence: indicate
reversal in REV column
on score sheet
No error; insert a caret
where the word was added
and write word above
symbol (e.g., "cat")
No error; enter R in
stimulus I.D. number box
Page 60
Table B1 (continued)
12. Fast start; quick response
13. Delay in response
Mo error; enter Q in
stimulus I.O. number box
occurred
Mo error; insert X to
indicate where delay
occurred
If an item was scored correctly, circle the word and indicate "OK."
•reprinted from D.
and
the
competing
Arnst, Overview of the staggered spondaic word
environmental sounds test.
(eds.) Central auditory
assessment;
clinical use. San Diego:
The
SSW
In D.
Arnst & J.
test, development
College Hill Press, 1982, p.
13
test
Katz
and
Page 61
FIGURE B2
SSW-Gram*
100
75
100
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
+
+
+
+
I
I
I
I
I
I
X
^0
25
75
5^
+————— + —
X
I
-+
25
I
0
X
+
+
Right
NC
C
C
Left
NC
X = R-SSW
0 = C-SSW
A = A-SSW
•reprinted from D. Arnst, Overview of the staggered spondaic word test
and the competing environmental sounds test. In D. Arnst & J. Katz
(eds.) Central auditory assessment;
The SSW test, development and
clinical use. San Diego: College Hill Press, 1982, p. 29-
Page 62
APPENDIX C
The Association Between Learning Disabilities
and Central Auditory Processing Disorders
A child who possesses average or above average
been
exposed
to
appropriate
intellect
and
has
learning experiences for his/her age and
ability, but fails to achieve commensurate with his/her age and ability,
often
is labelled as "learning disabled, language disordered, dyslexic"
or as having a "central auditory processing problem (Hallahan &
1981).
seems
The
to
particular
depend
a
label
great
Bryan,
which is applied to an individual child
deal
upon
the
bias
of
the
examiner
(psychologists, special education teachers, speech-language pathologists
or audiologists) and the measurement tool(s) with
the
child (Duchan &
Katz,
1983).
which
they
The labels mentioned are the most
current in use today and comprise only a few of a long list
been
evaluate
which
have
used and rejected by investigators striving to accurately describe
behaviors or define symptoms which are observed in children experiencing
Page 63
learning
difficulties. The incidence, or perhaps the identification of
these behaviors and symptoms has been increasing among
with
learning
problems, although
they
(Ludlow, Cudahy, Bassich & Brown, 1983;
are
school children
not unique to this group
Johnson, 1982;
Keith,
1981).
Many authors stress that the increase in learning disorders has grown in
direct proportion to the growth of knowledge and technology as
increased
1978;
emphasis
Keith,
Disabilities
well
as
on "keeping-up-with-one's-peers" (Northern & Downs,
1981).
The
Association
for
Children
with
Learning
estimated in 1981 that there were between 8 and 12 million
children in the United States who are "learning disabled" (Keith, 1981).
The terra "learning disability" generally refers to a
which
one
or
more
understanding or in
manifest
itself
of
using
the
"disorder
in
basic psychological processes involved in
language;
spoken
or
written, which
may
in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read,
write, spell or do mathematical calculations" (Hallahan & Bryan, 1981).
Page 64
This includes conditions which
handicaps,
brain
injury,
have
minimal
developmental aphasia and excludes
result
of
visual,
hearing
environmental, cultural or
been
or
referred
brain
problems
motor
economic
to
as
perceptual
dysfunction,, dyslexia and
which
are
handicaps;
primarily
the
mental retardation
disadvantage (Hallahan &
Bryan,
1981).
The
terms
"central
perception, central
auditory
auditory
refer to the "manipulation and
central
processing,
central
auditory
ability" and "central auditory function"
utilization
nervous system..." (Lasky &
of sound
Katz).
signals
by
the
(see also Appendix A).
Various authors have broken down the process into specific
subprocesses
or "auditory abilities" which they have determined to be necessary for a
child to learn auditorily, including those listed
1981).
A
child
who
experiences
difficulty
in
diminished
learning
hearing, even though peripheral auditory sensitivity is normal,
is said to have a
perceptual
central
disorder,
auditory
nonsensory
processing
auditory
dysfunction, auditory
deficit, auditory language
disorder or an auditory processing problem (Keith, 1981).
refer
4 (Keith,
in one or more of these
areas, and the difficulty (purportedly) results in
through
Table
This does not
to children with peripheral impairment who have failed to develop
language or communication skills, but rather, to
difficulties
when
they
begin
to
use
children
who
exhibit
language for learning, despite
normal intelligence (Lasky, 1983; Keith, 1981).
Page 65
Often children who have been labelled "learning disabled"
specifically,
"dyslexic,"
characteristics.
perform
poorly
Many
on
or
"language
investigators
tests
Newcombe,
1978;
that
some
children
1981;
Tallal, 1980;
Tallal & Piercy,
1971;
Lukas & Eschenheimer, 1978),
Welsh,
Welsh & Healy,
and "learning disabled" (Byrne & Lester, 1983;
Kuchner, Johnson
& Stevens, 1977;
1981;
found
of central auditory processing who have been
"dyslexic" (Cohen, 1980; Zigmund, 1973;
1980);
more
disordered" share similar
have
termed "language disordered" (Lubert,
Tallal &
or
Young & Tracy,
Dybka & Sansone,
1977;
1982;
and
Johnson,
Enfield
& Sherman,
Lewis & Winkelaar, 1982 and Dempsey,
1977).
Although
cognitive
the
relationship
processes
in
unclear,
poorly when tested in one or
interest
among
the
more
of
linguistic,
and
fact that many children perform
these
areas
has
invited
much
on the part of investigators attempting to more clearly define
the behaviors and characteristics of children
problems (Lasky, 1983;
Rees, 1973).
have served as the basis upon which
devised
perceptual,
demonstrating
scholastic
Often the results of these studies
therapeutic
procedures
and implemented (Northern & Downs, 1978).
have
been
This has taken place
in the midst of much controversy concerning the inability of researchers
to
identify
a
disease
scholastic failure,
cognitive
and
the
site-of-lesion
questionable
which
is
responsible for
relationship among
linguistic,
perceptual abilities evaluated and their relationship to
behaviors observed, as
consequences
or
of
well
as
intervention
the
reliability
(Arciszewski,
of
1969;
tests and
Jacobs,
the
1968;
Page 66
Northern & Downs, 1978;
&
Bell,
1982;
Shea & Raffin, 1983;
Rees, 1973;
Bell & Raffin, 1983 Cohen, 1970;
and Keith, 1981).
Raffin, Shea
Zack & Kaufman, 1972;
Page
TABLE CI
Auditory Abilities Important to the Learning Process*
Descriptive Term
Discrimination
Ability
To differentiate among sounds
of different frequency,
duration or intensity
Localization
To localize the source of
sound
Auditory Attention
To pay attention to auditory
signals, especially speech,
for an extended time
Page 68
Table CI (continued)
Auditory Figure
To identify a primary speaker
Ground
from a background of noise
Auditory Discrimination
To discriminate among words
and sounds that are
acoustically similar
Auditory Closure
To understand the whole word
or message when part is
missing
To synthesize isolated
Auditory Blending
phonemes into words
Auditory Analysis
To identify phonemes or
morphemes
Auditory Association
To identify a sound with its
source
Auditory Memory;
To store and recall auditory
sequential memory
stimuli of different length
or number in exact order
*from R. Keith, Tests of central auditory function.
Downs
(eds.)
Auditory
Thieme-Stratton, Inc.
disorders
1981, p.
160
in
In R.Roeser and M.
school children.
New
York;
Page 69
Appendix D1
List C-EC
1. day light
lunch time
11. back door
play ground
2. wash tub
black board
12. school boy
church bell
3. corn bread
oat meal
13. snow white
foot ball
4. bed spread
mush room
14. ice land
sweet cream
5. meat sauce
base ball
15. hair net
6. black board
air mail
16. fruit juice
7. house fly
wood work
17. ash tray
8. green bean
home land
18. nite light
9. sun day
shoe shine
19. key chain
suit case
10. white walls
dog house
tooth brush
cup cake
tin can
yard stick
20. play ground
bat boy
Page 70
Appendix 02
List EC
1. up stairs
down town
1 5 . back door
2. out side
in law
1 6 . school boy
3 . day light
1 7 . snow white
lunch time
play ground
church bell
foot ball
4. wash tub
black board
1 8 . band saw
5 . corn bread
1 9 . blue jay
oat meal
first aid
black bird
29. day break
lamp light
3 0 . door knob
milk man
3 1 . bird cage
crow's nest
3 2 . book shelf
work day
33- book shelf
drug store
6. bed spread
mush room
20. ice land
sweet cream
34. wood work
beach craft
7 . flood gate
21. hair net
tooth brush
35. hand ball
milk shake
8. sea shore
out side
22. fruit juice
cup cake
3 6 . fish net
9 . meat sauce
2 3 . ash tray
3 7 . for give
flash light
base ball
tin can
sky line
milk man
10. black board
air mail
24. night light
yard stick
3 8 . sheep skin
11. house fly
wood work
2 5 . key chain
39. race horse
street car
12. green bean
home land
2 6 . play ground
13. sun day
shoe shine
2 7 . corn starch
14. white house
dog house
2 8 . birth day
suit case
bat boy
soap flakes
first place
bull dog
40. green house
string bean
Page 71
Appendix D3
List EE
1. up stairs
down town
1 5 . black board
2. work day
church bell
1 6 . flood gate
3 . air port
1 7 . school boy
jet plane
air mail
flash light
church bell
4. play mate
white house
1 8 . week end
5 . oil well
1 9 . cream pie
mail man
red cross
work day
29. race horse
street car
3 0 . day light
lunch time
3 1 . snow white
foot ball
32. white walls
dog house
33" door knob
cow bell
6. blue jay
black bird
20. red cross
street light
34. bird cage
crows nest
7 . back door
21. out side
in law
35. corn bread
oat meal
8. mail man
phone call
22. book shelf
drug store
3 6 . back door
9 . meat sauce
2 3 . freight train
37. wood work
beach craft
wish bone
base ball
street car
play ground
10. floor plan
chalk board
24. fruit juice
cup cake
3 8 . sun day
11. sea shore
out side
2 5 . rail road
39. key chain
suit case
12. night light
yard stick
2 6 . wash tub
13. house fly
wood work
2 7 . dish pan
14. corn starch
soap flakes
2 8 . stop light
hall way
black board
wet rag
road sign
shoe shine
40. head line
watch band
Page 72
Appendix E
Playback Calibration of the
Akai Tape Recorder
HEAD ALIGNMENT
Prior to output-level adjustments, the playback and reproduce heads
of the tape recorder were aligned to allow maximum voltage in compliance
with the National Association for Broadcasters (N.A.B., 1965) standard.
This was accomplished using a Magnetic Reference Laboratory (M.R.L.)
full-track, reproducer calibration tape (type #21T104) with a reference
fluxivity of 200 nW/m.
TAPE SPEED
Tape speed was timed at 7.5 in/s with less than 0.3%
which conforms with N.A.B. (1965) specifications.
fluctuation
FREQUENCY RESPONSE
Frequency response of the tape recorder was optimezed using the M.R.L.
calibration tape. The output of the tape recorder was fed to the input
of an analyzer (Tektronix, type AA501, PC 984071) and the reproducer
gain was adjusted at spot frequencies so that the output at frequencies
measured fell within specified allowable limits (N.A.B., 1965) (see
Table El).
After the data were gathered, the frequency response of the tape
recorder was characterized and output-level values obtained were found
to be compliant with N.A.B. (1965) specifications.
Comparison of tape recorder-output levels, before and after data
acquisition, results in differences of no greater than +/- 0.5 dB at any
reference frequency (see table E2).
Page 73
Table El
Frequency Response
of Akai Tape Recorder Upon Intial Optimalization.
FREQUENCY
(Hz)
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
10,000
12,500
16,000
20,000
CHANNEL 1
(dB)
+
+
+
+
+
-
0.1
2.9
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.9
0.3
0.0
0.4
0.7
1.4
CHANNEL 2
(dB)
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
0.3
3.7
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.5
0.1
1.1
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.4
Page 74
Table E2
Frequency Response
Upon Final Characterization of Akai Tape Recorder.
FREQUENCY
(Hz)
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
10,000
12,500
16,000
20,000
CHANNEL 1
(dB)
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
0.5
2.5
0.7
0.8
0.0
0.6
0.0
1.1
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.3
1.2
CHANNEL 2
(dB)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
0.4
3.7
0.2
0.4
0.0
0.5
0.2
1.1
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
Page 75
Appendix F1
Syllable Ranges per Item (in decibels)
List EC (6 Tapes)
*ranges in dB re:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
reference calibrations tone
RC
LC
RNC
LNC
5.0
1.5
3.0
3.5
2.5
5.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
4.5
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
5.0
2.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
1.0
2.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
3.5
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
0.5
4.0
1.5
3.5
1.0
1.0
2.5
3.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
1.5
4.0
2.0
3.5
5.0
3.0
5.0
4.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
6.5
0.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
5.5
2.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
2.5
3.5
2.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.5
0.5
2.0
1.0
Page
Appendix F1 (continued)
35
36
37
38
39
40
1.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.5
Page 77
Appendix F2
Syllable Ranges per Item (in decibels)
List C-EC (2 Tapes)
•ranges in dB re:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
reference calibrations tone
RC
LC
RNC
LNC
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
Page 78
Appendix F3
Syllable Ranges per Item (in decibels)
List EE (2 Tapes)
*ranges in dB re:
1
2
3
4
5
6
J
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
reference calibrations tone
RC
LC
RNC
LNC
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.5
0,0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
2.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
2.5
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.0
Page
Appendix F3 (continued)
35
36
37
38
39
40
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.0
Page 80
APPENDIX G
Instrument Settings
When taking intensity level measurements, the tape recorder was set
to "play-forward" and a speed of "7.5 cm/sec."
The meter range of the beat frequency oscillator (BFO) was
80 dB
set
to
SPL, the function selector to "1/3 octave", the range multiplier
to "-30", the meter switch to "RMS", the input potentiometer at "9".
On the graphic level recorder, the potentiometer range was
"50
dB",
the
rectifier
response
was "100
mm/sec." and
the
to
was on "RMS" and the lower limiting
frequency was "20 Hz." The writing speed was "400
speed
set
mm/sec.",
the
paper
drive shaft speed was set to "120
r.p.m." While recording, the input potentiometer setting ranged from "3"
to "6" with an attenuator setting of "20."
Page 81
When measuring harmonic distortion, the tape recorder
was set
to
"play-forward" and a speed of "7.5 cm/sec."
The audiometer was in "speech" mode, and set
either
on
"channel
2"
and
"tape A" or "tape B". The attenuator dial was set to "70 dB HL"
and the "interrupt" button was depressed.
The meter function of the sound level meter (SLM, Bruel &
type
Kjaer,
2603) was set to "fast" with the weighting network at "linear" and
the meter range from 25 to 105 dB. Output energy levels were noted
recorded
and
by hand at the filter settings of "1000, 2000, 3100, 4000, and
5200." All instruments were set to power "on" at least 5
to gathering data.
minutes
prior