Notes on Raymond Carhart, [EliFischerJørgensen1948-51] 038-0200

Raymond Qarhart: hearing Jeficiencie& _and Speech Problems Journal of Speech Disorders, 8, 1945 , no. 3 C 8p; Wef t, Kennedy ..ni Carr is&xixxaxaci that the discrimination of stops and. fricatives depends u./on ability to hear adec uarely in the frequency range from 24oo to 8ooo cps. -- this ±a.:in^xue:need' view is influenced by the acoustic investigations of jsletcher etc, but it has not been confirmed by experiments, ansberi-y J. Speech, 1938, 26, p.331-89) concludes that persons familiar with English sounds are not handicapped in discrimination oetween speech sounds when free uencies above 4ooo are eliminated. the xravis-Rasmus test (C.J. Speech, 1931, 17, p. 217-2-Vj) was constructed for measuring speech.sound, discrimination, it consists of syll Die-pairs, Templin ( J. Speech Disorders 1943, 8, 127-32) found that children find discriminatLon more fide' difficult .vhen consonant nants are in medial or final positions than, when they are in the initial position, xioiiatcanx^x L.M. Linton (An experimental Ctudy of opeoch-bound discrimination , iJira 14.A. Thesis Stanford Univ. 1939) stresse'' that exis— ting tests do not differentiate sufficiently between speech sound discrim mination abilities of normal hearers. Non familiar sounds should be used. Siacaasarx A.N. Plummer, ^Comparison of Auditory acuity to Pure Tones am ability to discriminate between 16 Engl. Consonants, Ph.l). Lis;;., Lousiana otate Univ. 194o) found correlation between extent of hearing loss and total number of errors, However , difficulty in discrimi nating a specific sound was not related to a hearing loss at a specific frequency. This is in conformity with ansberrys results , and j3aca Bunco reported an extreme case of a young doctor whose hearing dropped abruptly beyond lo24 c., but until given an audiometric test the man ad no suspici>n that his hearing was defective. This obvious iiscre- pancy emphasizes a long realized fact - that the hearing necessary to learn speech is not identical with that needed to understand it. -when first speech has been learned correctly, then a subsecueat auditory loss is not an of so great importance. Certain cues suf ice t r the under standing. if. Cpeech correctionists have tried to found correlations between speech deiects and hearing deficiencies by testing speech defectives, out those investigations ■ ave not given any really reliable results. lbi . On the other hand , investigations concerning the speech of dval people or people very hard of hearing , show evident speech defects Bear people speak much more slowly, intonation and rhytm are false, etc. and the sounds s and t d were x >st often defective, (most ox the persons had -.recites t loss for high free uencies). - Heider and Heider ( Anon, studies in the psychology of the deaf (prepared by the Psychological division, Clarke Behool for the Deaf, Psych. Ho.nogr. 194o, 52, 1 (v.hole number 232 ) p. 23-41) found t at deaf children gave aumbolic valuesta to phonetic combinations. Kinaest. etic factors played a major role. -- Training by auricular methods seems to give the* bent results. »iUc i work remains to be done, e.g. research must be done concerning t e nature of normal auditory discrimination of speech sounds, an<! the effects of I agrees anc; types of hearing losaupon auditory discrimination and upon learning of normal speech :abits.