AN INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES UNDER THE STRESS OF HIGH INTENSITY SOUND

96 Pages·04.098 MB·English

by  STAMBAUGH, C.J., JR

The Pennsylvania State College
The Graduate School
Department or Psychology
AN INVESTIGATION OF
CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
UNDER THE STRESS OF
HIGH INTENSITY SOUND
A dissertation
by
C. J. Stambaugh, Jr.
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
June 19^0
Approved:
June £ , 1950
Professor of Psychology
June. ? , 1950
Head, Department of Psychology
ii
AG KNOWLDDGLIHNTS
The writer is indebted to many individuals who have
aided or influenced this study, either directly or in­
directly. I wish particularly to acknowledge my indebted­
ness to Dr. R. G. dernreuter, my advisor, for his invaluable
guidance and suggestions; to my thesis advisory committee
including Dr. K. U. Snyder, Dr. G. D. Lott, Dr. K. R. Smith,
Dr. J. H. Gross light and Dr. G. Li. Guthrie, all of the Depart­
ment of Psychology, and Kiss Gary J. 7/yland of the School of
Education for their guidance and advice; to Dr. 3. V. I-loore,
Head, Department of Psychology, Dr. C. R. Carpenter and
Dr. V.;. 1... Leplsy for their help in olanninu and carrying out
this study; to Lt. Col. J. D. Stewart and Captain J. H. Jacoby
of the U.S.A.F1. and Dr. H. R. Glenn, Director of the College
Health Service for their assistance in securin0 subjects for
this study; I also wish to thank Dr. H. X. Schilling,
Dr. 7/. L. Nyborg, Dr. J. V/. Spencer and Dr. Frank Dietz of
the Physics Depart..ent for the construction and maintenance
of the technical equipment used.
Acknowledgment is also made of the generous assistance
given by my co-worker Mr. Albert LI. Barrett; and Mr. D. Clyde,
fellow graduate student.
Finally I wish to express my appreciation to the Aero-
Medical Section of the U.S.A.F’. for providing the funds for
3437£0
iii
the fellowship under which this study was accomplished; and
to Dr. H. 0. barrack and Captain D. h. ^ldred^e of hri£jht-
i'atterson Air force Base for their advice and help in
securing technical material for this study.
TA3LE OF CONTENTS
I17TR ODUC t I c n .................................. 1
Background of bne Problem ............... 1
Heed Tor Investigation of
the Problem • • • ..................... 5
Statement of the Problem • • • • • • • • • 7
REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH ................. 8
GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
AND PROCEDURES .......................... 23
The Experimental Population • • • • • • •
The Tests Used • • • • ....................
%
Physiological Measurements ............... 25
The Reaction Check List ................. 27
The Noise Generator and
Sound C h a m b e r ................... .. 27
Experimental Procedures •• • 3P
Order of Procedure ....................... 3k
RESULTS .................................... 38
Sound vs. Quiet Test
Scores............... ...................
$
Physiological Measurements ...............
Comparison of the "Up Group"
and "Down Group" with Ref­
erence to Physiological
Measurements ............................ k3
Comparison of the "Non-
Disturbed" and "Somatic"
Groups with Reference to
Physiological Measurements . • ......... 51
SO X'.uVjARY ill'iD CO]'CLUSIONia 62
Suggestions for Further
Experimentation • • • • ............... 65
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................ 67
APPENDIX .................................. 70
Levels of Significance of F Values • . . . 70
California Capacity Questionnaire
Form A 71
Form B 72
Reaction Check List 73
V
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE rAGE
I. Check List Items Interpreted as
Indicating Somatic (S), Non-
Disturbed (N-D), and questionable
(?) Responses • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 28
II. Showing Alternation of Sound-.miet
Periods with. Order of Alternation
or Test Form A and Test Form B ......... 33
III. Complete Test Results Showing Scores
Tor Test I (x), Test II (y), and
Expected Test y (y^-); Differences
Between Tests y and y-*-; and Gain
or Loss In Relation to Sound • • • • • • 1+1
IV. Subjects Listed by Number in Order
of Amount of Gain and Amount of
Loss under S o u n d ........................ 1+2
V. Comparison of the "Up Group" and
"Down Group" with Reference to
Lie an Physiological Measure men ts • • • . • l^i+
VI. Subjects Comprising the "Up Group"
and the "Down Group" Listed by
Number in Order of Amount of
Gain and Amount of Loss under
Sound.......................... . . . • • l\S
VII. Lean Physiological Measurements
of the Total G r o u p ...................... i+6
VIII. Mean Physiological Measurements
of Subjects Included in the
"Up Group" • • • • • ................... 1+7
IX. Mean Physiological Measurements
of Subjects Included in the
"Down Group" .......................... 1+8
X. Levels of Significance of Difference
Between.Physiological Mean for
"Up Group" and "Down Group"............. 1+9
XI. Analysis of Variance, "Up Group"
and "Down Group" in Relation
to Physiological Measurements . . . . . . 50
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE PAGE
XII. "Won-Bisturbed" and "Somatic”
Groups................................... 52
XIII. Items Checked on the Reaction
Chock List by the Total G r o u p .......... 53
XIV. Levels of Significance of
Differences Between Physio­
logical Leans for "Non-
Disturbed" and "Somatic"
Groups................................... 55
XV. Lie an Physiological Measurements
Of Subjects Included in the
"Won-Disturbed" G r o u p ................. 56
XVI. Mean Physiological Measurements
of Subjects Included In the
"Somatic Group .......................... 57
XVII. Analysis of Variance, "Non-
Disturbed" Group and "Somatic"
Group In Relation to Physio­
logical Measurements................... 58
XVIII. Summary of Comparison of
"Non-Disturbed" and "Somatic
Groups with Reference to
Gain or Loss under Sound ......... 59
XIX. Comparison of "Won-Disturbed"
and "Somatic" Groups with
Reference to Gain or Loss
under Sound • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 60
XX. Analysis of Variance 3etween
"Kon-Disturbed" and "Somatic"
Groups with Reference to Gain
or Loss Under S o u n d .................... 6l
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem
The Increased mechanization of modern life has con­
stantly intensified the noise levels to which all of us
are subjected. With the advent of the airplane the
problem of intensification of noise levels became of
increasing import.
Along with the constantly increasing horsepower of
the conventional reciprocating engine and the introduc­
tion of the multiple engined plane; came the growth of
commercial air transportation and a growing concern with
the problem of noise reduction.
In this country the first systematic studies in the
field of high Intensity sound were made by Basset and Zand
of the Sperry Gyroscope Company (I4.). These studies,
published In 193k-t dealt mainly with a survey of the sound
levels In various fields of transportation; criteria for
comfort in transport planes, the various methods and mat­
erials of sound insulation, and basic design. A later and
more comprehensive study in this field was one sponsored
by the Office of Scientific Research and Development and
carried out by the Electro-Acoustic Laboratory at Harvard
University under the direction of Beranek (2). The
Immediate practical problem of this study was to set up
specifications for sound levels on selected Army and Navy
aircraft. !
It was apparent, in surveying the literature, that
the orientation of the earlier studies was almost wholly
in the areas of acoustic engineering and a ©rodynamic design,
with the emphasis upon the reduction of no ise level by
sound proofing of planes.
In May of 194-2* first fully jet propelled plane,
the ME-262, was produced In Germany (11). This develop­
ment of the jet and turbo-jet engines not only Intensified
the noise level problem, but further compl icated It by the
addition of ultrasonic frequencies (the word '* ultrasonic”
as used here refers to frequencies of vibration above
i
20,000 cycles per second, i.e. above 20 k<^.)«
Almost immediately there appeared a growing literature
of somewhat contradictory reports concerning the biological
1
and psychological effects of exposure to ^et engines and
devices used to produce ultrasonic vibrations experimentally,
These deleterious effects have been gener411y attributed to
ultrasonic vibrations, but the reasoning by means of which
the ultrasonic vibrations became the cause is unclear in
many of the reports.
These reports have been almost entirely based upon
incidental reports rather than upon systematic observations
3
under controlled conditions, and have been unsupported,
up to this time, by controlled experimentation. The
effects upon man have been alleged to involve nausea,
disturbance of equilibrium, fatigue, mental confusion,
headache, and auditory, visual, and motor disturbances.
These effects have been generally reported as being trans­
ient in nature•
As examples of the foregoing reports, several are
given here.
1. "Unpleasant and perhaps injurious physio­
logical effects are produced by long exposure to
intense ultrasonic vibrations. After operating
the megnetostrlction oscillator continuously at
sixteen thousand cycles per second, for two hours,
a young woman who, normally, is especially quick
and accurate in making mathematical computations,
is unable to solve simple arithmetical problems.
The incessant hammering of these vibrations upon
the eardrum produces a state of mental confusion.
Reversed digits in the numbers she writes, and
logarithms copied from wrong lines, are the most
obvious manifestations of the physiological
disturbance. When the machine has been operating
for an hour or more, computations have to be
postponed on account of the mental state of the
operator" (13).
It will be noted that the case above does not involve
ultrasonic frequencies, except possibly as harmonics, and,
that the "physiological disturbance" was hardly physiological.
2. "A chemist in one of the large industrial
organizations in this vicinity, working day after
day with a pizoelectric oscillator producing
approximately five hundred thousand vibrations per
second, lost his sense of balance. He could no
longer ride a bicycle and this amounted to a handi­
cap in his case for it was necessary for him to
make frequent trips between widely separated
laboratories. Physicians were unable to diagnose
his trouble. He returned to a normal state of
health, without medical aid, very soon after the
work with the oscillator was completed.” (13)
3. "The first reported case of supersonic
illness, attributed to the effect on the human body
of sound waves too high for human hearing, is being
investigated to-day by the Medical Research Council
of Great Britain. This was revealed in answer to a
question raised in The House of Commons.
"The victim is an unidentified worker ir a
turbo-jet engine factory in Hertfordshire. His
symptoms were not described, but doctors said that
presumably they were lassitude and inability to
walk steadily.••••••." (1)
During a visit to Wright Field A.A.F. Base in June
19l4.9> "the writer interviewed the foreman of a jet test
cell, but, unfortunately, did not talk directly with other
employees, the feeling being that such interviews might,
by means of suggestion, lead to more complaints and further
add to the already highly complicated question of compensa­
tion.
From the interview with the foreman it was clear that
most of the men complained of excessive fatigue, headaches
and general irritability, and that some had, at one time or
another, experienced one or more of the other symptoms here­
tofore enumerated.
Interviews with four jet test pilots at Wright Field,
and with twenty-three jet test and line pilots at a naval
air test center, gave a very contradictory impression. All
pilots interviewed said that they preferred flying jet