Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

SOME EFFECTS OF THE COMMON COLD ON SPEECH

SOME EFFECTS OF THE COMMON COLD ON SPEECH Abstract FREQUENTLY heard are remarks which imply that when one has a cold one's speech sounds "different." This commonly alleged difference has evidently been so generally accepted that scientific investigators have not been stimulated to evaluate it; at least, a search that I made through the literature revealed few observations other than what might be furnished by any man on the street. I felt that some attempt should be made to obtain more definite information about the influence a cold might have on speech not only because of the frequency of opportunities that any such relationship has to exert itself, but also because information concerning it might add to the understanding of other voice problems. By way of initiating such an attempt, a number of victims of coryza were found and several possible effects of that condition on their speech were studied. The purpose of this paper is to report findings References 1. Dr. Calvin J. Curts (MC) U.S.N. furnished the evaluations. 2. Haagen, C. H.: Intelligibility Measurement: Twenty-Four-Word Multiple-Choice Tests, report no. 5567, PB no. 12050, Office of Scientific Research and Development, United States Emergency Management Office, Sept. 11, 1945. PB No. 12050 United States Emergency Management Office, Sept. 11, 1945. 3. Vrp < Vrps. 4. Since the second recording of each subject was made within several minutes of the first, it is possible that there was an adaptation effect which diminished the variation among the means. 5. Chi-square values were 1.34 (P = 0.25) for the first discrepancy mentioned and 2.16 (P = 0.15) for the second. 6. Nasal-including words—i. e., those containing m, n or ng—constituted about 35 per cent of the total in most of the lists used. 7. Vrw/Vrws = 1.77 (P > 0.05). 8. Vr/Vrs = 2.19 (P > 0.05). 9. Vw/Vws = 8.92 (P < 0.01). 10. Mason, H. M.: Phonetic Characteristics of Words as Related to Their Intelligibility in Aircraft Noise, report no. 4681, PB no. 12160, Office of Scientific Research and Development, United States Emergency Management Office, Feb. 10, 1945. 11. Stevens, W. E.: Study of Phonetic Factors in Relation to Accuracy of Transmission of Words in Airplane Noise , Speech Monogr. 13:34-40, 1946.Crossref 12. Of possible interest here is the fact that the number of paired speech samples correctly judged by a listener in one comparison was not a good indication of the number he might judge right in the other comparison (r = −0.061). 13. Chi-square = 2.82 (P = 0.09). 14. Chi-square = 1.69 (P = 0.19). 15. Type RA — 243, Electrical Research Products, Inc. 16. Kelly, J. P.: Studies in Nasality , Arch. Speech 1:34-35, 1934. 17. Values of r required for significance at the 1 per cent and 5 per cent levels are, respectively, 0.515 and 0.404. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Otolaryngology American Medical Association

SOME EFFECTS OF THE COMMON COLD ON SPEECH

Archives of Otolaryngology , Volume 51 (4) – Apr 1, 1950

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/some-effects-of-the-common-cold-on-speech-315v0H8WIC
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1950 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0003-9977
DOI
10.1001/archotol.1950.00700020523003
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract FREQUENTLY heard are remarks which imply that when one has a cold one's speech sounds "different." This commonly alleged difference has evidently been so generally accepted that scientific investigators have not been stimulated to evaluate it; at least, a search that I made through the literature revealed few observations other than what might be furnished by any man on the street. I felt that some attempt should be made to obtain more definite information about the influence a cold might have on speech not only because of the frequency of opportunities that any such relationship has to exert itself, but also because information concerning it might add to the understanding of other voice problems. By way of initiating such an attempt, a number of victims of coryza were found and several possible effects of that condition on their speech were studied. The purpose of this paper is to report findings References 1. Dr. Calvin J. Curts (MC) U.S.N. furnished the evaluations. 2. Haagen, C. H.: Intelligibility Measurement: Twenty-Four-Word Multiple-Choice Tests, report no. 5567, PB no. 12050, Office of Scientific Research and Development, United States Emergency Management Office, Sept. 11, 1945. PB No. 12050 United States Emergency Management Office, Sept. 11, 1945. 3. Vrp < Vrps. 4. Since the second recording of each subject was made within several minutes of the first, it is possible that there was an adaptation effect which diminished the variation among the means. 5. Chi-square values were 1.34 (P = 0.25) for the first discrepancy mentioned and 2.16 (P = 0.15) for the second. 6. Nasal-including words—i. e., those containing m, n or ng—constituted about 35 per cent of the total in most of the lists used. 7. Vrw/Vrws = 1.77 (P > 0.05). 8. Vr/Vrs = 2.19 (P > 0.05). 9. Vw/Vws = 8.92 (P < 0.01). 10. Mason, H. M.: Phonetic Characteristics of Words as Related to Their Intelligibility in Aircraft Noise, report no. 4681, PB no. 12160, Office of Scientific Research and Development, United States Emergency Management Office, Feb. 10, 1945. 11. Stevens, W. E.: Study of Phonetic Factors in Relation to Accuracy of Transmission of Words in Airplane Noise , Speech Monogr. 13:34-40, 1946.Crossref 12. Of possible interest here is the fact that the number of paired speech samples correctly judged by a listener in one comparison was not a good indication of the number he might judge right in the other comparison (r = −0.061). 13. Chi-square = 2.82 (P = 0.09). 14. Chi-square = 1.69 (P = 0.19). 15. Type RA — 243, Electrical Research Products, Inc. 16. Kelly, J. P.: Studies in Nasality , Arch. Speech 1:34-35, 1934. 17. Values of r required for significance at the 1 per cent and 5 per cent levels are, respectively, 0.515 and 0.404.

Journal

Archives of OtolaryngologyAmerican Medical Association

Published: Apr 1, 1950

References