The Effect Of Auditory Masking Upon Oral Reading Rate

Winchester, Richard; Gibbons, Edward W.

doi:10.1044/jshd.2303.250

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is known that if an S has to speak under loud noise, he will naturally compensate by raising his voice (Atkinson, 1952), though his reading rate is apparently not affected (Winchester & Gibbons, 1958). SN and NN groups therefore were allowed to raise their voice during recall; it was felt that asking them to inhibit this natural tendency would introduce an undesired distraction.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of white noise upon the recall of vocalized lists.

Dj¹

1965

Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ss either silently read, mouthed, whispered, soft-voiced, or loud-voiced lists of 8 consonants foT immediate free recall. White noise of an intensity sufficient to mask S's hearing of his own soft voice (as far as possible) was present during presentation and/or recall. The results showed that when there was no noise at presentation, recall increased as vocalization activity increased; when there was noise throughout presentation and recall, loud voicing was significantly superior to whispering; when the noise was switched off for recall, loud voicing gave insignificantly inferior recall to soft voicing and whispering. The results are interpreted as being consistent with the view that when lists are vocalized Ss try to attend particularly to the auditory feedback, but that if this is prevented, more attention is paid to the motor cue. Presentation rate was not found to play a significant role in this experiment. 1 This work was done while the author held a Studentship at Trinity College, Cambridge. He is particularly grateful to A. J. Watson for advice and discussion, and to Prof. O. L. Zangwill for his encouragement. The noise generator was kindly lent by M. E. Parlett.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of white noise upon the recall of vocalized lists.

Dj¹

1965

Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been shown by Butler and Galloway (1957) that the effects of DAF are not simply due to interference effects of a noisy background, since the condition of random delay produced no disturbance. Winchester and Gibbons (1958) investigated the effects of a masking tone, presented uniaurally to one group, binaurally to another, at 80 db. above sensation level on the time to read a 500syllable prose passage under no delay.…”

Section: Noisy Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delayed auditory feedback.

Yates¹

1963

Psychological Bulletin

283

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When S hears his own voice with a small time delay his speech may be seriously affected. The effects produced by delayed auditory feedback (DAF) include prolongation of vowels, repetition of consonants, increased intensity of utterance, and other articulatory changes. The significance of individual differences in susceptibility to DAF is considered in relation to personality and physiological characteristics. The technique may prove useful in the detection of auditory malingering and has possible implications for the understanding of stammering. The discussion relates the findings to models of speech control. Methodological problems and future research needs are outlined. (74 ref.)

show abstract

Physiologie der Sprachlaute

Luchsinger

Arnold

1970

Handbuch Der Stimm- Und Sprachheilkunde

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Effect Of Auditory Masking Upon Oral Reading Rate

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

The effect of white noise upon the recall of vocalized lists.

The effect of white noise upon the recall of vocalized lists.

Delayed auditory feedback.

Physiologie der Sprachlaute

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About