EARLY AUDITORY STUDIES
ACTIVITIES  IN  THE  PSYCHOLOGY  LABORATORIES
OF  AMERICAN  UNIVERSITIES
Smithsonian Institution
Audrey B. Davis and Uta C. Merzbach




SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY /   NUMBER 31
Early Auditory Studies
ACTIVITIES IN THE PSYCHOLOGY LABORATORIES
OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES
Audrey B. Davis and Uta C. Merzbach

^mit/isonian Ii;istitution Ti^ss
CITY OF WASHINGTON
1975

ABSTRACT
Davis, Audrey B., and Uta C. Merzbach. Early Auditory Studies: Activities in
the Psychology Laboratories of American Universities. Smithsonian Studies in
History and Technology, number 31, 39 pages, 36 figures, 1975.—The last quarter
of the nineteenth century was a formative period for experimental psychology.
American pioneers in the field joined their Continental colleagues in basing the
"new" psychology on the methods, apparatus, and experiments of physics and
physiology. Hermann von Helmholtz, claimed by both fields, was a pilot in their
new endeavors.
  Auditory studies reflect this general pattern. Specialized equipment used in the
psychology acoustics laboratory ranged from models of the anatomy of the ear,
mechanical models to explain the functions of the ear, sound producers, receivers
and measurers, to analyzers and synthesizers. Discussion of the role of the instru-
ments in posing and answering subject-related questions of the psychologist leads to
further questions on the development of the intellectual and physical institutions of
psychological research.
OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded
in the Institution's annual report, Smithsonian Tear. SI PRESS NUMBER 5347. COVER DESIGN : Model
of the human ear by Auzoux (USNMHT 21892.01).
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Davis, Audrey B.
Early auditory studies.
(Smithsonian studies in history and technology; no. 31)
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
Supt. of Docs, no.: SI 1.28:31
1. Hearing.    2. Psychology, Physiological—History.    I. Merzbach, Uta C, 1933- , joint author.
II. Title.    III. Series: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian studies in history and technology,
  no. 31.
BF251.D38    152.r5'0973    75-619025
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.65
Stock Number 047-001-00124-9

Preface
     The following work is based on a paper entitled "Soundings Then and Now:
Audition and the First Fifty Years of Experimental Psychology in American Labora-
tories," presented at the annual meeting of the History of Science Society in Decem-
ber 1972. It is an outgrowth of a collecting program in the National Museum of
History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution, aimed at bringing together a rep-
resentative selection of laboratory equipment in psychology. Until now emphasis has
been placed on items used prior to 1930.
     Of the illustrated objects, those in the National Collections were donated by
Cornell University, Skidmore College, Union College, the University of Maryland,
and the United States Military Academy.
     We wish to acknowledge the assistance of D. J. Elliott and Anita Kordela in
the preparation of the manuscript.
m



Contents
Page
Preface		.            iii
Psychophysics, Physiology, and the Rise of Scientific Psychology.	.       .           1
Helmholtz's Tonempfindungen       .	1
The Decade 1875-1885               .       .                      .	.   .               .2
The Inheritance of Physiology Prior to World War 1.	4
Theoretical Issues         		6
Physical Models	8
The Inheritance of Physics Prior to World War I	10
Experimental Apparatus	10
Theoretical Questions	11
Threshold Determination	.                             12
Resonance and Clang Analysis	16
Sound Localization	19
Tonal Fusion.	19
Transition to the Post-World War I Period	20
Max Friedrich Meyer	22
Carl Emil Seashore                             .	.   .            23
The Background of the Twenties   .	27
Applied Acoustics     ...	.27
Applied Physiology      ...	.   .         28
Conclusion.                   .	.31
Selected Bibliography .	.             33
Index of Auditory Apparatus	36
Index of Names    ...	...         38



Early Auditory Studies
ACTIVITIES IN THE PSYCHOLOGY LABORATORIES
OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES
Audrey B. Davis and Uta C. Merzbach
Psychophysics, Physiology, and the Rise of Scientific Psychology

   In 1860, the 59-year old Gustav Theodor Fechner
published his Elemente der Psychophysik. In 1867, the
25-year-old William James wrote home from Berlin:
   It seems to me that perhaps the time has come for psy-
chology to begin to be a science—some measurements have
already been made and more may come of it . . . Helmholtz
and a man named Wundt at Heidelberg are working at it, and
I hope I live through this winter to go to them in the summer.
(Perry, 1935, 2:1)
James lived, but he did not go to Helmholtz; and as
time went on he increased his distance from the man
named Wundt.
  Whether or not they communicated in person,
whether or not they followed the Germans in their
thinking, the American pioneer experimental psy-
chologists of James' generation studied Hermann
Helmholtz (Figure 1) and tended to follow the experi-
mental paths outlined by Wilhelm Wundt or Her-
mann Ebbinghaus, Carl Stumpf, or G. E. MuUer.
When we look at work in hearing and acoustics per-
formed in American laboratories of experimental
psychology before 1930, we find that the majority of
experiments form part of two traditions that may be
identified either with Wundt or with Stumpf, and
that both of these take Helmholtz as their measure.
Audrey B. Davis and Ula C. Merzbach, Department oj Science and
Technology, National Museum oj History and Technology, Smith-
sonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560-

Helmholtz's Tonempfindungen
  In Helmholtz's classic Lehre von den Tonempfindungen,
published in 1863, his aim was to "connect the
boundaries . . oJ physical and physiological acoustics
on the one side, and of musical science and esthetics on the
other" (Helmholtz, 1954:1). The links are tones and
the sensations of tones. He divided acoustical studies
into the physiological, the physical, and the psycho-
logical parts. The physical deals with the motions of
elastic bodies; the physiological deals with the ear,
including the question of how the excitation of the
auditory nerves gives rise to the sensations of sound;
and the psychological with the perceptions of sound,
that is, with " mental images of determinate external
objects" (Helmholtz,  1954:4).
  Helmholtz's book is divided into three parts: He
begins with a discussion of the physical and physio-
logical aspects of audition and arrives at his famous
"resonance theory of hearing" through a physical
analysis of the nature of partials, in which their
relation to tonal quality is emphasized. The second
part is devoted to the study of beats and combination
tones, which includes Helmholtz's contribution to
theories of consonance and dissonance; here physio-
logical theory is brought into correspondence with
the musical rules for the formation of chords. The
final part deals with music, taking up the question
of   tonality   after    an    introductory    discussion    of
  
1

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY   AND   TECHNOLOGY


FIGURE 1.—Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894).
(SI photo T56571)
musical scales. Trying throughout to interrelate the
physical, physiological, and psychological aspects,
he states that the musical consequences " must be to
the physiologist a verification of the correctness of
the physical and physiological views advanced"
(Helmholtz, 1954:5).
  English-speaking students of the subject read
Helmholtz's revised versions of the book in two
translations by A. J. Ellis that appeared in 1875 and
1885   (Helmholtz,   1954).   These   bound   a   decade

worth noting, since it marks the founding of the first
American  laboratories  of experimental  psychology.
The Decade 1875-1885
   In 1875, William James, teaching physiology at
Harvard, added to his course offering a graduate
course on "The Relations between Physiology
and Psychology" and obtained support for related
laboratory work. In 1876, the American nation
celebrated its Centennial with an exposition at
Philadelphia: The French exhibition featured the
acoustic apparatus of Rudolph Koenig (Figures
2-4), of which the jury, in awarding it a gold medal,
declared, "There is no other [exhibit] in the present
International Exhibition which surpasses it in scientific
interest" (Philadelphia, 1880:489). Among the Ameri-
can exhibitors, Alexander Graham Bell astounded
the multitudes by a demonstration of his newly
patented telephone. Invention is the mark of this
decade: Edison's phonograph of 1877 can be followed
by a yearly listing of audiometers, microphones,
graphic sound recorders, hearing aids, and the like.
Meanwhile in 1878, G. Stanley Hall obtained what is
cited as the first doctorate in psychology at Harvard
with a thesis on "the muscular perception of space"
worked out in Bowditch's physiology laboratory
under William James. In 1879, Wundt's famous
laboratory of experimental psychology was formally
opened in Leipzig. Here, as James McKeen Cattell
noted, "The students come from all quarters (. . .
except from England); there are nearly always
Americans and Russians, and often Scandinavians,
Czechs, Greeks and Frenchmen" (Cattell, 1888:39).
Within a year of its formal founding, Hall went to.
the Leipzig laboratory to do postgraduate work.
In 1880, too, Cattell went to Germany and heard
Hermann Lotze as well as Wundt, to whom he
returned in 1883, becoming his assistant. That was
the year Hall founded the laboratory at Johns Hop-
kins, an event that marks the beginning of a phenom-
enal growth. By 1888 there were five formal psy-
chology laboratories in the United States: at Harvard,
at The Johns Hopkins University, and at the imi-
versities of Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
After another five years, there were twenty, and by
the turn of the century this number had doubled.
The American Journal of Pyschology appeared in 1887,
only four years after the start of Wundt's Philoso-
phische Studien.
  
NUMBER   3 1




FIGURE 2.—R. Koenig's acoustic apparatus at the International "Centennial" Exhibition in
Philadelphia in 1876. Note the large forks in the case on the left, the tonometer and the siren
"telephone" in the center case. (SI photo 74-3810-10)


  
lT?Ta
FIGURE 3.—Tonometer exhibited by R. Koenig in 1876. This
set containing over 650 forks was purchased for the United
States Military Academy at West Point after the Centennial
Exhibition. (SI photo T70524; USNMHT 217544)

FIGURE  4.—"Telephone"   siren   exhibited   by   R.
1876. (SI photo 74-3804-17)

Koenig

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY   AND   TECHNOLOGY
The Inheritance of Physiology Prior to World War I

  American laboratories of psychology showed the
influence of the German laboratories where most of
their directors had been trained. Yet Edward B.
Titchener and other experimental psychologists re-
minded the young instructor in psychology of the
essential characteristic of the American as contrasted
with the German laboratory. The latter was a research
laboratory. Introductory laboratory courses at best ex-
posed the student to experimentation by a series of
demonstration lectures or exercises; further training
consisted of serving as "experimental object" for a
senior person, the experiment depending on the re-
search being conducted at the time. This approach
furthered research, but did not necessarily provide the
student with an understanding of experimental tech-
niques. The function of the New World laboratory was
to meet both needs, that of the researcher and that of
the student. The sophomore student—at Cornell,
at   least—took   a   general   introductory   course   of

lectures and demonstrations. This prepared him for
the laboratory drill-course, with only interspersed
lectures in his junior year. After a systematic course
in his senior year, the graduate student was prepared
to enter into research work (Figure 5).
  In the minds of the American laboratory psycholo-
gists, the distinction between the American and the
European approach was to be an important one; self-
consciously, they were to repeat it again and again.
Thus we find Carl Emil Seashore reiterated the dis-
tinction in his 1930 autobiography when paraphrasing
Titchener. As examples he cited the more factually
oriented laboratory course patterned after the first
American course of Sanford, but especially the
training course furthered by Edward Scripture,
Titchener and, later, himself. Here, according to
Seashore and like-minded American psychologists,
lay the real advantage that the American student
possessed over his European  counterpart, who had
  

FIGURE 5.—Auditory apparatus in the psychological laboratory at Cornell University, ca.  1900.
(SI photo 74-7027)

NUMBER   3 1


-~^
obtained his basic training in some science other than
psychology. Unlike even Sanford's course, the drill-
courses were
not primarily informative but intensive in fundamental drill
exercises. Titchener's four-volume Experimental Piychology is
the highest embodiment of that principle. It is to the discredit
of American psychology that these monumental exercises of
Titchener were driven into innocuous desuetude by the paper
and pencil ravages and extreme forms of objective psychology.
In the present status of psychology this type of laboratory
training has been crowded to the wall. Failure to maintain the
requirement is accountable for much of the slush and trash in
the output from American psychologists of today (Seashore,
1930:262).
  During the first decade of American laboratory
effort in psychology, audition was not one of the pri-
mary research frontiers. The physiological nature of
hearing, as one of the five senses, was discussed in
terms of the dominant theory, which was that of
Helmholtz. These discussions were of interest, be-
cause a number of problems had grown out of in-
creasing familiarity with the detailed structures of
the ear, once microscopic evaluation of the inner ear
structure—so essential to its understanding—had be-
come technologically feasible after 1830.
  American students could learn the essentials of the
anatomy and physiology of the ear from George T.
Ladd's textbook of experimental psychology pub-
lished in 1887. In 1881, Ladd had gone from Bowdoin
to Yale, where he did laboratory work in physiologi-

FIGURE 6.—Model by Auzoux of the human ear: middle ear
bones and inner ear parts are magnified seven times. (SI photo
73-0410; USNMHT 21892.01)
cal psychology that resulted in the founding by
1892 of the Yale Psychological Laboratory, directed
by Scripture. Ladd's book, the first American text-
book in physiological psychology, brought together
the work of a number of physiologists, most of
them German and not all in agreement. These in-








FIGURE 7.—Auzoux model parts: middle ear bones and tympanic membrane. (SI photo 73-0408;
USNMHT 21892.01)

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY  AND   TECHNOLOGY

eluded Victor Hensen, Jakob Henle, Nicolaus Riid-
inger, Carl Stumpf, Ernst Mach, W^illiam Preyer,
W. Kiihne, Max Schultze, and the Swede, Gustav
Retzius. While Ladd accepted the idea that the study
of sound for psychologists is a "wholly subjective
affair" (Ladd, 1887:315), he summed up in text and
illustration by sectional drawings the three major
parts of the ear—external, middle, and inner.
FIGURE  8.—Auzoux  model  parts:  cochlea  and  semicircular
canals. (SI photo 73-0409; USNMHT 21892.01)
  The primary function of the external ear or ex-
ternal auditory meatus is protecting the tympanic
membrane (Figure 6). The middle ear or tympanum
is an irregular cuboidal chamber situated in the tem-
poral bone and containing three small bones, which
transmit sound vibrations to the inner ear (Figure 7).
These bones (ossicles), called the malleus (hammer),
incus (anvil), and stapes (stirrup), translate the sound
waves having greater amplitude but a lesser degree of
intensity into a motion that has a smaller amplitude
and greater intensity. This rectified motion passes
through the oval window into the inner ear or laby-
rinth composed of the vestibule, semicircular canals,
and the cochlea (Figure 8). "It is in the labyrinth
that the acoustic waves transmitted by the tympanum
are analyzed and changed from a physical molecular
process to  a nerve-commotion,  by the  special end


apparatus of hearing" (Ladd, 1887:189). The
cochlea, the most complex part of the labyrinth, is
about one-fourth inch long and coiled like a snail's
shell. Ladd remained skeptical about the function of
the intricate parts of the cochlea. For him the manner
"in which the auditory hairs, the stone and cells of
the vestibule and ampullae, and the rods of Corti, the
fibres of the basilar membrane, and the conical hair-
cells of Deiters, in the cochlea, actually discharge the
required functions''was not known. (Ladd, 1887:195).
Theoretical Issues
  Traditionally the functions of the ear have not
been understood as well as those of the eye. For
example, in 1805 the association between studies of
sense organs and an understanding of the physical
principles underlying their functions was noted with
expectation for a new understanding of the ear's
functions. Anthony Carlisle (1805:198) cited the
value of the anatomy of the eye to the advancement
of optics and speculated that the same benefit might
accrue to acoustics from a study of the ear. Helmholtz,
himself, mirrored this approach, for his major studies
on vision preceded those on audition. Psychologists
depending on the research pattern of the anatomists
and physiologists, were more certain of the functions
of the eye in vision than of the ear in hearing.
Helmholtz extended and united several major
research results, relating them to the ear. The funda-
mental studies he brought together included Ohm's
law of auditory analysis, Miiller's doctrine of specific
energies of nerves and the discovery of the arches
within the inner ear by Corti (Wever, 1970:25-26).
  According to Ohm, a listener has the abihty to
extract and hear the simple harmonic components
of a complex periodic sound stimulus. This statement
is summed up by Ohm's law. Fourier analysis
expresses its mathematical equivalent, and a system
of resonators its physical equivalent. Resonance, the
vibration of materials, such as piano strings and
tuning forks in response to sound waves, was a
prominent physical characteristic crucial to all
explanations of sound transmission. Consequently,
analogies between the vibration of the tuning fork,
the instrument that provided the purest tones, and
the vibration of structures within the ear stimulated
an explanation underlying the function of the ear in
transmitting sound waves to the brain (Bekesy and
Rosenblith,  1951:1094). Indeed Ohm's law was the
  
NUMBER   3 1

raison d'etre of resonance theories, encouraging
Helmholtz and others to seek resonating bodies
within the complex structures of the inner ear
(Boring, 1926:177).
  Helmholtz attributed the ability to disdnguish
between qualitative sensations of pitch and tone to
the presumed physical distinction between the end-
points of the nerve fibers. Johannes Miiller's theory of
the specific energies of the nerves had laid the differ-
ence in perception of the five basic senses at the door
of the various nervous arrangements which received
them, rather than the actions which excited them. For
Miiller, therefore, all forms of stimuladon of the
optic nerve produced some form of light and likewise
all stimulation of the auditory nerve produced the
sensation of sound (Helmholtz, 1954:148-149).
  According to Helmholtz, analysis of sound occurs
within the inner ear. At the time Helmholtz was
developing the resonance theory of hearing and making
it known, beginning with a public lecture in 1857 and
then, in his book published six years later (Helm-
holtz, 1863), some of the intricate structures of the
cochlea were being unveiled (Figure 9). These
studies, though incomplete, exposed enough to con-
vince Helmholtz that proper structures exist to let
individual parts of the ear vibrate independently in
response to each intensity and tone perceived by the
ear. The vibrating structures within the cochlea had
been identified with the strings of a piano or harp
since the eighteenth century. Hence the theory be-
came the "harp or piano theory" of hearing. Still,
Hensen, who in 1863 showed that the basilar mem-
brane is graded to pitch by expanding in size from
beginning to end of the cochlea duct, remained
skeptical and allowed that the ear might function
altogether independently of this theory (Ladd, 1887:
196). Hensen's careful measurements of cochlear
structures forced Helmholtz to modify his theory in
later editions of his treatise (Wever, 1970:32).
  Although Helmholtz did not observe precisely
which parts of the ear vibrate sympathetically with
individual tones, the elaborate structures of the
cochlea, and specifically, Corti's arches appeared
most suited for containing independently vibrating
elements (Helmholtz, 1954:145). These are located
on the surface of the basilar membrane and were dis-
covered by the Marquis Alfonso Corti in 1851 in
Kolliker's physiology laboratory. The basilar mem-
brane divides the cochlea into two elongated cavities:
the scala vestibuli and scala tympani. Helmholtz's de-
scription of the ear depended on Kolliker's claim for


Fee
FIGURE 9.—Diagram of section of inner ear showing cochlea.
(From Helmholtz, Tonempfindungen, 1870:211; SI photo T67012)
" having found the terminations of the auditory nerves
everywhere connected with a peculiar auxiliary ap-
paratus, partly elastic, partly firm, which may be
put in sympathetic vibration under the influence of
external vibration and will then probably agitate and
excite the mass of nerves" (Helmholtz, 1954:142).
He accounted for the degree of tone received by a one
to one ratio between the incoming amount of tone
and the response of the nerve.
  A vibrating tuning fork displayed several responses
to sound that specifically related to the ear. One
was its ability to prolong its vibrations a long while
after being set into motion through sympathetic
vibration (Helmholtz, 1954:142); another was the
change in its vibration frequency from that of the
sounding body to that of the natural vibration of
the fork after the original sound had ceased. No
part of the ear was believed to vibrate as long as a
tuning fork. The upper limit of sustained vibration
within the ear was demonstrated by the duration
of musical intervals recognizable by the ear (Helm-
holtz, 1954:143).
  
SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY   AND   TECHNOLOGY


  This action of the nerve fiber in response to the
degree of stimulation it receives should have been
ruled out by the discovery of the "all or none" prin-
ciple of nerve reaction in 1902. In that year, Gotch
(Wever, 1970:115) observed that a motor nerve
fiber, no matter to what degree it is stimulated,
reacted fully, provided a certain basic or threshold
degree of stimulation was present. As we shall see,
this principle was first applied to the theory of hearing
by psychologists around 1922 (Boring, 1926:158),
and at that time led to one of the cardinal criticisms
of the Helmholtz resonance theory, although other
problems with the i-esonance theory had become
apparent earlier.
  To justify these main theories, experimental
psychologists availed themselves of one of the standard
accoutrements of the physiological and anatomy
laboratory: models.
Physical Models
   Caspar Wistar in 1790 solved the problem of dem-
onstration to a large class at the University of Pennsyl-
vania by using enlarged models of body parts. He
began with an enlarged wax model of the bones
of the ear (Haviland and Parish, 1970:67). More
generally, enlarged models of the car were available
for teaching the anatomy and relationship of its
parts from the first half of the nineteenth century.
Ear models manufactured in France by Louis Thomas
Jerome Auzoux were the finest. This anatomical
model maker, following in the footsteps of a long
tradition of model makers that include Guilio Zumbo,
Guillaume Denoues, Jose de Flores, and Felice
Fontana (Ratier, 1845) perfected the detailed life
size model of the human body, as well as enlarged
models of selected organs. In the course of a life
devoted to this project, conceived while he was a
medical student, Auzoux set out to provide accurate
detailed models to be used in place of the actual
organs. The latter were diflicult to obtain and often
repulsive to students. He developed models he
termed clastique (clastic) from the Greek term
Klao meaning "to break." This description was
apropos as the models were composed of molded
pieces of anatomically distinct parts, which could
be easily separated and recombined. After perfecting
a mannikin of the body he produced greatly enlarged
models of the ear, eye, heart, brain, and other organs
difficult  to  study  and  preserve   (Ratier,   1845:11).
  
Auzoux seems to have first introduced an enlarged
model of the ear in 1839. In April of 1844, a report
of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Paris
lists the ear as new (Blandin, 1843-1844:3). At
the same time George Dexter of Albany, New York,
published a catalogue of anatomical models, which
he offered to import and sell. Among the items he
advertized was an ear model containing the inner,
middle, and outer parts. It was offered in two sizes:
one in which the temporal bone measured 0.6 m
(2 ft) in width sold for $35, and a smaller model
measuring 0.3 m (1 ft) across the temporal bone sold
for $25 (Dexter, 1844:66). Perhaps the greatest
recommendation for these models came from Rudolph
Koenig, who listed them for sale in his earliest catalogue
along with his very carefully made acoustical equip-
ment. These models ranged in size from 30 to 60 cm
(Koenig, 1865:52).
  From their inception, early American psychology
laboratories were equipped with these gigantic French
ear models (Figure 10). Measuring up to ten times
life size, they formed a portion of model collections
that included the other sense organs, brains, and
various additional parts of human and animal bodies
(Harvard, 1893; Baltimore, 1888). Auzoux made
most of these in his firm, which flourished throughout
the nineteenth century. By mid-century, over fifty
craftsmen and laborers were employed in its factory
FIGURE 10.—Auzoux model showing temporal bone surrounding
car structure. (SI photo 73-0409; USNMHT 21892.01)

NUMBER   3 1

located near Paris (Ratier, 1845:22). In his one volume
abridged edition of psychology for beginning students,
William James singled out the largest Auzoux ear
model for use in the laboratory (James, 1892:47).
Also important to the study of sensory psychology
was a second major type of model, a mechanical
analogue or "mechalogue" constructed to illustrate
the mechanical principles believed to underlie the
function of the specific parts of the ear. Perhaps the
first of these was the Helmholtz wood and leather
model of the inner ear bones and membranes.
Helmholtz's construction provided a superb example
of a functional model displaying the motion of the
three bones of the ear. In magnifying the movement
of these tiny bones and the connecting membranes,
Helmholtz offered insight into his theory of the
motion of the ossicles. Inspired by the challenge left
by Bernard Riemann and wanting to complete in
greater detail a section treated cursorily in his
Tonempfindungen, Helmholtz had studied ear bones
before stating his theory (Helmholtz, 1868:1, 2).
To prove and to teach his theory, he constructed a
middle ear bone model measuring 80 by 120 mm,
copies of which were made available through his
assistant, Sittel in the Heidelberg physiological
institute laboratory (Helmholtz, 1868:45). By flexing
the membrane covering the tube leading to the ear
drum substitute,  one  can  readily observe that the
FIGURE 11.—Helmholtz model of middle ear bones and tym-
panic membrane made by R. Jung of Heidelberg. View of
membrane. (SI photo 73-0411; USNMHT 300427.161)

three bones are joined as a single lever forcing inward
the membrane representing the oval window to
which the stirrup bone is attached. The lever attached
to the stirrup bone magnifies its motion. On a larger
scale, these models were manufactured by R. Jung
of Heidelberg (Figures 11, 12). His catalogue of
August 1890 advertizes one for 42 marks (Jung,
1890:56). By 1899 the Cambridge Scientific Instru-
ment Company (1899:117) sold an improved model
described as increasing "the action of the air" by
the installation of an india-rubber membrane over
the mouth of the tube. On striking the membrane
the air moves the leather diaphragm and the bones
are moved.
  Model designing ingenuity was also brought to
bear on mechanical models intended by emphasis of
selected and enlarged parts to elucidate and simplify
the complex functions of the cochlea within the inner
ear. Anatomical differences in various parts of the
cochlea played an important role in support given
the resonance theory. When observation of the ear
failed to confirm the theory sufficiently, as when
James observed in 1892 that "the keyboard of the
cochlea does not seem extensive enough for the
number   of  distinct   resonances   required"   (James,
FIGURE 12.—Helmholtz model of inner ear bones and tym-
panic membrane made by R. Jung of Heidelberg. View of
bones with lever attached. (SI photo 73-0412; USNMHT
300427.161)







10

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY   AND   TECHNOLOGY



1892:57), " mechalogues" of the cochlea were pro-
posed in an attempt to by-pass and clarify the diffi-
culties arising from knowledge of the ear's complex
anatomy.
  Finally, at the beginning of the century, psycholo-
gists wishing to broaden their knowledge of the ear
could turn to the models prepared for the otology
student. This type of model displayed pathological
conditions of the ear drum. One of these models was
constructed by F. Davidson of London in 1903.
Essentially it was a model made of pliable material
formed in the shape of the outer ear with auditory
canal and ear drum. To learn the condition of the
ear drum, the student was expected to peer into it
with an otoscope (a magnifying instrument for viewing
the ear) as he would into the ear of a patient. A variety
of ear drum replicas made to resemble various diseases
were mounted on discs that could be inserted into
the top of the auditory tube and viewed through the
otoscope (Ball, 1903:1584).
  As time passed, anatomical models became second-
ary to apparatus associated with the laboratory of
the physicist. In part, this reflects a drawing away
of many American psychologists from physiology. The
first generation of American psychologists had been
trained in the laboratory of the anatomist and
physiologist. Once established in their own labora-
tories they emphasized their independence. In part.

and notably in the case of audition, this had to do
with the state of knowledge.
  At the turn of the century, it was obvious to authors
of experimental psychology textbooks that the"
physiology of hearing had yet to make its mark. Some,
as Lightner Witmer of the University of Pennsyl-
vania, looked upon the unevenness of physics and
physiology in psychology as the outcome of the nature
of the senses. He regarded auditory perception as being
better analyzed and explained if studied in relation
to the physical stimuli that brought them about
(Witmer, 1902:108). He gave up further effort to
link physiological events with tone sensations. Others,
such as Seashore or Kline, simply felt that physiology
had no business in the experimental psychology
laboratory: "The anatomy and physiology of man
as related to psychology receive no formal consider-
ation here (in the experimental course). The student
is referred to standard works on physiological psychol-
ogy for such study" (Kline, 1927:3). There were
exceptions to this attitude, especially among those,
like Shepard Ivory Franz or Karl S. Lashley, who
devoted themselves to clinical psychology, or those
like Walter S. Hunter, who turned to comparative
psychology. However, in the laboratory of experi-
mental psychology, there was to be more receptivitity
for the experiments and the tools of the physicist than
the physiologist.
  
The Inheritance of Physics Prior to World War I

   The early psychology laboratories had been called
laboratories of "psychophysics." Even William James
used this term for his 1880s laboratory, though in
time he sharpened his criticism of the Leipzig tradi-
tion, noting in 1890:
  The simple and open method of attack having done what it
can, the method of patience, starving out, and harassing to
death is tried; the Mind niust submit to a regular siege, in
which minute advantages gained night and day by the forces
that hem her in must sum themselves up at last into her over-
throw. Ther e is little of the grand style about these new prism,
pendulum, and chronograph-philosophers. They mean busi-
ness, not chivalry (James, 1950, 1:192-193).
Experimental Apparatus
   It is easy to look at auditory apparatus in the
American laboratories as a subset of the acoustic
apparatus of the physicist. The most widely used
instrument   was   the   tuning   fork,   which   reigned

supreme in most areas of auditory experimentation:
There were giant forks for low threshold determina-
tions, and tiny ones for measuring the upper limit of
hearing. There were sets of forks for reproducing cer-
tain chords and there were sets giving a fundamental
with harmonics or other overtones. There were sets
for pitch discrimination and sets for reproducing
vowel sounds. There were sets reproducing the
tempered scale and sets reproducing the scale "of the
physicist"—the even scale. Hugo Muensterberg in
his 1893 inventory of apparatus at Harvard listed
three different auditory sets in addition to a giant
fork: one for harmonics, one for beats, and one for
vowel sounds; besides these, there were general pur-
pose forks for recording vibrations and marking time.
In general, auditory apparatus can be divided into
easily defined categories: sound generators, ampli-
fiers, analyzers, transmitters, recorders and repro-
ducers, measurers, and receivers (Figure 13).

NUMBER   3 1

11






FIGURE 13.—Ensemble of auditory apparatus at the Psychology Laboratory at Clark University
ca. 1893. (SI photo TPY 74-05-25)

  The holdings of psychology laboratories reflect
their specific orientation. There was a host of tradi-
tional and new soui.d generators: stretched strings
and organ pipes, sirens and tuning forks, bells,
whistles, and a variety of musical instruments. Sound
amplifiers were more restricted; there were basic
funnel-horns, resonator boxes and resonators—
indicators of dependence on resonance-theories.
Sound analyzers were limited to devices such as
Helmholtz's "clang-analyser/synthesizer"; there was
no sign of the analogue devices intriguing to mathe-
maticians and physicists concerned with Fourier
analysis. Recorders included tuning forks, with
attachments for graphic recording or manometric
flame combinations, such as the apparatus made
famous by Koenig. Sound reproducers were notably
scarce in the early laboratories, although there were
specialized devices, such as the Helmholtz vowel
apparatus. The phonograph made a remarkably late
appearance in the laboratory of the psychologist.
Of sound measurers there were a number; these were
mostly sound generators to which appropriate scales
had been attached. Some notable ones, in the area of
intensity measurements, were of relatively recent
origin. Finally, among sound receivers, the human ear

stood out in solitary splendor. Eventually, telephone
receivers became more common as accessories to
complex pieces of laboratory apparatus. However,
it was mainly on a theoretical basis that the telephone
served as a guide to the analysis and specification of
the functions of the ear. Thus, among the topics that
made up the laboratory drill-course, the " telephone
theory of hearing" so occupied the attention of
experimentalists that Titchener included it in exami-
nation questions for his course.
Theoretical Questions
  The telephone theory offered the first important
criticism of Helmholtz's theory of resonance. It was
announced by the English physicist, William Ruther-
ford, in 1886 at an evening lecture of the British
Association for the Advancement of Science held in
Birmingham. Few physiologists or physicists adopted
the theory immediately, so that Rutherford published
another version of it in 1898 with more success
(Wever, 1970:77). Drawing on the anatomical con-
clusions of Retzius he determined that the basilar
membrane in the cochlea was merely a supporting
  
572-511 O - 75

12

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY   AND   TECHNOLOGY



structure for the organ of Corti rather than a source
or support of resonating fibers (Rutherford, 1898).
Rutherford's theory, that individual fibers do not
possess unique resonating qualities, was based on his
own suggestive experiments and on Julius Bernstein's
discovery in 1867 of the incredible speed of nerve
conduction. Rutherford only became aware of
Bernstein's impressive evidence after he had published
his 1887 paper. As Helmholtz's assistant, Bernstein
had used a differential rheotome to observe that the
electrical charge which accompanies the transmission
of a nerve impulse lasts only 1/1400 of a second.
(0.0007 sec). Therefore 1400 perfectly discrete impulses
can be transmitted in each second over a single
nerve fiber, in this case the sciatic nerve of a frog.
Rutherford (1887:355) concluded that the number of
impulses was underestimated though considerably
greater than those he managed to detect with his
crude measuring equipment.
  Rutherford (1887:5) next suggested that a single
hair cell, nerve fiber, and sensory cell are capable
of resonating, and therefore transmitting, the whole
spectrum of tones. Like the telephone, cochlea struc-
tures vibrate to all frequencies and transmit all
sounds, transforming them into nerve vibrations.
Comparable to sound vibrations being transformed
into electrical vibrations in the telephone, the nerve
vibrations are then carried to the brain for analysis.
Rutherford (1898:358) also recognized new com-
pelling evidence for the resonance theory provided
by W. von Bezold, and S. Moos and H. Steinbrugge
who investigated deaf individuals. -They found that
specific tone deafness could be correlated with
specific areas of degeneration in the cochlea. Sub-
sequently, debate centered on the resonance and
telephone theories, often treating them as rival and
exclusive explanations of hearing.
THRESHOLD DETERMINATION
  Another auditory topic taken up in the psychology
laboratories was the traditional threshold determina-
tion. The five most frequently measured thresholds
involved the upper and lower frequency or "hearing
of highest and lowest tone," the lowest intensity,
and the least noticeable differences in pitch and
intensity. Frequency threshold studies initially came
from the domain of physical acoustics; intensity
studies were of particular interest to clinicians;
"least  noticeable  differences"   appeared  to  be  the

special province of the psychophysicists. A favorite
of early psychophysicists—as well as otologists—
these experiments have remained a standard topic
in the basic drill course (Woodworth, 1972).
  The most popular device for testing the lower
tone limit was a giant tuning fork (Figure 5). One
made by Koenig ranged from 16 to 24 cycles; to
obtain this variation sliding weights were attached
to the prongs. The fork was sounded by striking it
with a hard-rubber mallet, or, lacking that, with the
fist—preferably gloved. Physicists of the eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries had conducted
such tests using organ pipes or stretched strings.
Following Felix Savart, the spoked wheel came into
vogue for these tests in the 1830s and 1840s (Figure
14). Except for some experimentation with harmon-
ium reeds (Preyer, 1876), the major instrument
used for testing the least audible tone after 1870
was the tuning fork. In the late 1880s, Appunn brought
forth his lamella, a steel blade ranging from 4 to
24 cycles, which was attached to a table by a clamp
with fiber jaws; this was to be the only noticeable
competitor to giant forks in most psychology labora-
tories up to the 1920s.
  As in the instance of the lowest tone, the first major
tests of the highest audible tone were conducted using
organ pipes and spoked wheels. The pipes proved
quite inadequate, a fact not surprising if it is recalled
that one with a mere 7.5-cm (3-in) diameter pro-
duces 2048 cycles. The spoked wheel, and, following
it, a variety of sirens (Figure 4), were more adequate;
Savart in 1830 had obtained the classic result of
24,000 vibrations per second as the upper threshold,
simply by finding a limit when his 720-tooth wheel
ran at 33 revolutions per second. Alternately, Savart
had used a set of short cylinders, a method that later
found favor through the set produced by Koenig.
Thus the Harvard 1893 inventory lists the standard
Koenig set of 22 cylinders designed to produce tones
from 4096 to 32,768 cycles (Figure 36). These were
made by tuning the lower cylinders through differ-
ence tones, then computing the requisite length of
the higher ones. In the late 1890s Schwendt observed
that the cylinders above the 16,000 cycle range were
somewhat too long; Koenig showed how the error
could be compensated for by recomputing.
  Forks for testing the upper frequency threshold
first came to attention in the experiments conducted
by C. Desprez in the 1840s. He claimed a limit of
36,850 cycles. His forks were made by Marloye, the
predecessor of Koenig; Koenig's later forks were con-
  
NUMBER   3 1

13




-Sa\'art wheel made by Rudolph Koenig of Paris.
(SI photo T70277; USNMHT 277678)
FIGURE 14




sidered equally reliable. His best set of 18 forks, seUing
for 900 francs in 1889, ranged from 4096 to 21,845.3
vibrations. Koenig stopped at that limit because he
did not want to be reproached for "entering into the
domain of fantasy" (Koenig, 1889:23). He found
that most ears were not sensitive to the vibrations of
the highest cylinders of the set and that in the case of
elderly people (himself) the upper limit seems to
drop to about 16,389 vibrations.
   Until the 1890s, high forks made by Appunn were
widely acclaimed and were acquired by several psy-
chology laboratories. Preyer may have boosted these
forks to fame in the well-known study (Preyer, 1876)
in which he obtained an upper limit of 40,960 vibra-
tions; the result was cited by Helmholtz (1954) with-
out criticism. However in the 1890s, Melde, Stumpf
and Meyer conducted tests that showed the Appunn
forks—as well as Appunn pipes—to be wrongly cali-
brated. Following a flurry of discussions in the
Annalen der Physik these forks gave way to the Galton
whistle after the turn of the century.
  Francis Galton presented his whistle in London in
1876. In its original form it consisted of a small tin
"organ-pipe" of variable length; a micrometer screw

permitted adjustment of the length of the air column
in the pipe. Well known are the stories of Galton
having built one of these pipes into his walking cane
so that he could observe discreetly the auditory limit
of animals in zoos and on the street.
  Like other instruments of Galton's, his whistle was
sold in England by the Cambridge Scientific Com-
pany. Their description (1899:110) of the whistle in
1899 is of interest:
   [It is] of very small bore with an arrangement for varying its
length by an adjustable plug. It is sounded by squeezing air
out of a small india-iubber bag. The whistle always makes two
sounds at the same time, the high musical note best desciibed
as a very shrill squeak and the noise made by the air leaving
the mouth of the whistle. To apply the test the whistle is
sounded and the length of its pipe shortened, until a point is
reached when the squeak becomes inaudible.
An appropriate scale allowed the experimenter to
read off the length of the whistle in millimeters.
  This type of whistle was also obtainable from
Koenig in France, Hawksley in England, and
Edelmann in Germany (Figure 15); yet, in 1898
Sanford cautioned psychologists and their students
that unless extreme care is taken the instrument does
  
14

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY   AND   TECHNOLOGY




FIGURE    15.—Galton   whistle   made   by   Max   Edelmann   of
Munich. (SI photo 74-7138; USNMHT 300427.196)
little but confirm that some hear tones that others
do not. Harsh criticism of an apparently popular
device that had been in use for a generation was
prompted by contemporary experiments. Sanford
was reacting to the varying results obtained by
psychologists using the Galton whistle in the 1890s.
In 1894, Scripture and Smith at Yale recorded
frequencies to 53,000 cycles; during the same year
Zwaardemaker in Holland reached a high of 20,480.
In 1897, in Berlin, Stumpf and Meyer stopped at
20,000, while the otologist Bezold obtained values of
over 55,000. Scripture and Smith had used a whistle
obtained from Koenig; Stumpf and Meyer criticized
them for applying an invalid method in calibrating
their whistle. Stumpf and Meyer found it necessary to
explain that their value of 20,000 cycles reflected the
physical limitations of the experiment rather than the
physiological limits of the ear; Stumpf, Meyer, and
Bezold had used a whistle produced by Edelmann
(Titchener,  1905b:44-45).
  The problem that was to plague the users and
manufacturers of the Galton whistle for two more
decades was the same that had been at the root
of previous controversies over Koenig's cylinders and
Appunn's forks: A common dilliculty was how to
tune objects to frequencies that exceed the limits of
hearing. The situation was to be substantially im-
proved with techniques made possible after the devel-
opment of electronic apparatus.
  Experiments dealing with intensity thresholds
traditionally had been conducted either by varying
the distance of the subject from a sound source of
fixed intensity or by varying the intensity of the
sound itself. Accordingly, all instruments for measuring
intensity, called acoumeters, fell into two basic
classes: those emitting sounds of fixed or of variable
intensity.
  
For testing the lower intensity threshold, the dis-
tance variation method was in vogue throughout
most of the nineteenth century. Even Titchener used
the traditional pocket watch test in his course, though
supplementing it with an experiment utilizing the
new acoumeters developed in the 1890s (Figure 16).
These instruments all operated on the same basic
principle. An object is dropped at a specified height
at a given distance from the observer. The intensity
of the noise produced when the object made contact
with the receiving surface was usually measured as
the product of the weight of the falling object multi-
plied by the height of fall. Depending upon the
sophistication of the experimenters, attention was
paid to other factors, such as the materials composing
the object, and the receiving surface. A favorite
acoumeter in American psychology laboratories was
that described by Lehmann (in Hansen ^nd Lehmann,
1895). It consisted of a three-legged platform, approx-
imately 15 to 20 centimeters (6 to 8 in) long and
adjustable in height by three set screws. At one end
of the platform was a small trough. At the center of
the platform, an adjustable vertical millimeter screw
carried a pair of forceps. The object to be dropped
was attached to the forceps, which were positioned so
that the object fell into the trough when the forceps
were opened. The platform was originally made of
wood, later of metal. The trough was usually padded,
and a variety of objects was dropped, the standard
items being small pieces of copper, glass, and card-
board.
FIGURE 16.—Lehmann acoumeter made by C. H. Stocking of
Chicago. (SI photo 74-8027; USNMHT 311423.05) ^


NUMBER   3 1

15





FIGURE 17.—Stern variator, designed to produce tones ranging
over 200 vs, made by Max Kohl A. G. of Chemnitz. (SI
72-7048; USNMHT 300427.116)
  
Following the example set at Leipzig, pitch dis-
crimination experiments were initially conducted
with tuning forks and harmonicas or often reed
instruments. Sets of weighted forks were soon pre-
ferred, though an organ-pipe based device of Galton's
found some use in the 1890s, and the more expensive
Stern variator gained favor among psychologists
and physicists (Figure 17). Its usefulness depended
on a well-regulated air supply. One of the few signifi-
cant contributions to apparatus made by an American
laboratory psychologist, Guy M. Whipple of Cornell,
was a gasometer that furnished a regulated air supply.
   Loudness discrimination studies were usually con-
ducted with a sound pendulum of the type developed
at Leipzig (Figure 18). Auditory work at Leipzig
concentrated heavily on psychophysical measure-
ments, with prime emphasis on testing the Weber-
Fechner law. According to Weber, the least noticeable
difference in sensation is proportional to the ratio
of the change in stimulus to the stimulus (Se=kSe/St).
Fechner modified this statement to say that sensation
is proportional to the logarithm of the stimulus
(Se=clog St). In the 1880s these relationships were
tested for auditory sensations at Leipzig, with less
than   conclusive   results.   The   apparatus   consisted
FIGURE 18.—Sound pendulum, designed to measure the
intensity of the sound produced as a function of the angular
distzince transversed by the hard-rubber ball. (SI photo
72-7051; USNMHT 300427.009)

16

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY  AND   TECHNOLOGY



largely of devices that allowed the dropping of an
object with specified shape and mass down a known
height; the problem was to determine whether the
intensity of the sound was in direct proportion to the
weight and height of the object dropped. Other
experiments included study of the least noticeable
difference in pitch: apparatus consisted of tuning
forks, harmonicas, or other reed instruments. A
different class of studies dealt with auditory memory
and fatigue, with special attention devoted to the
effect of rhythmic combinations.
RESONANCE AND CLANG ANALYSIS
   After these psychophysical experiments a group
of essentially " Helmholtzian" experiments followed.
These included the analysis of clangs (the study of
overtones) frequently conducted with the monochord;
determinations of combination tones carried out
with a set of interference tubes, a harmonium or an

Appunn tonometer (Figure 19); studies of beat
phenomena carried out with tuning forks and resona-
tors; studies of pitch and clang-tint (Klangfarbe) using
musical instruments, interference tubes, or piston
whistles. Two related devices closely associated with
the names of Helmholtz and Koenig are the resonator
and the clang-synthesizer.
  Resonators were a "must" on most inventory lists.
A resonator is a hollow device, with an opening at
one end, funnel-shaped at the other (Figure 20). It
is "tuned" to a specific frequency so that as the sur-
rounding air is set into vibration at that frequency,
the resonator vibrates sympathetically. It reinforces
the sound to which it is tuned.
  By the end of the nineteenth century, three basic
forms of resonators were in use: spherical "Helm-
holtz" resonators; cylindrical "Koenig" resonators;
and, less frequently, conical "Appunn" resonators.
Although Helmholtz (1954:372) had begun his
investigations with glass resonators—"at first I em-
  

FIGURE  19.—Chord tonometer made by Appunn.  (SI photo 72-7058;  USNMHT 300427.112)

NUMBER   3 1

17



FIGURE   20.—Glass  resonator,   maximum  diameter   79   mm.
(From Helmholtz, Tonempfindungen, 1870:73; SI photo T67018)

ployed any spherical glass vessels that came to hand,
as the receivers of retorts"—most resonators were of
brass. They could be " tuned" on the basis of Helm-
holtz's formula for the frequency as a function of the
area of the orifice and the volume of the interior.
Helmholtz noted the importance of these dimensions
in another context: Narrower openings produce
greater reinforcement, calling for closer agreement
between the tone to be heard and the tone of the
resonator: "It is just as in microscopes; the greater
the magnifying power, the smaller the field of view"
(Helmholtz, 1954:374).
   Koenig's cylindrical resonators were "universal."
They were made of two cylinders that fit into each
other and could be "tuned" by adjusting this fit.
This made it possible to reinforce various partials of
the given fundamental to which the cylinder Was
tuned. This was in contrast to Appunn's conical
resonators which simultaneously reinforced all par-
tials of their fundamental.
  Resonators were used most easily to reinforce
sounds by holding the funnel-shaped opening against
the ear. They were also used as parts of special pur-
pose devices. Among the most striking of these was
Helmholtz's synthesizer (Figure 21). In the major
form produced by Koenig toward the end of the
century this consisted of a set of ten forks providing
the ten harmonic overtones of 128 cycles as the
fundamental. These are mounted on a board and
hooked to an electromagnetic fork of 128 cycles,
which serves as interrupter. Each of the ten forks is

FIGURE 21.—Clang-synthesizer made by Rudolph Koenig of
Paris. (SI photo 73-407; USNMHT 300427.009-109)
placed in front of a resonator tuned to its frequency
(Figure 22). A keyboard attached to the mounting
board controls the opening and closing of the resona-
tors. A string from the key pulls the cover off the
corresponding resonator.
  Originally the device had been used by Helmholtz
to demonstrate his theory on vowel frequency. It had
been acknowledged that there is a pitch differentia-
tion to vowels so that they appear to rise in the order
U-O-A-E-I; this appears to be implicit even in the
eighteenth century "talking machine" of von Kem-
pelen. Earlier in the century, Helmholtz theorized
that the open mouth acts as a resonator, reinforcing
partials defined by the fundamental. Following
closely the path oudined by Robert Willis and Charles
Wheatstone, Helmholtz thought he had found con-
firmation for his theory in the synthesizer when it
allowed him to imitate vowels by reinforcement of
the appropriate partials. Subsequendy, the synthe-
sizer found more general use in reinforcing a variety
of tonal combinations.
  Musical instruments had always furnished a
convenient means to the study of tones—especially
their pitch, quality and combinations (Figures 23, 24).
Helmholtz had singled out the harmonium (a bellows-
operated reed organ) for pitch studies: "on account of
its uniformly sustained sound, the piercing character
of its quality of tone, and its tolerably distinct com-
  
SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY   AND   TECHNOLOGY



FIGURE 22.—Clang-synthesizer component: fork and resonator.
(SI photo 72-7044; USNMHT 300427.104)


FIGURE 23.—Bellows organ, rear view. Note similarity to
instrument shown on left in Figure 35. (SI photo T60507D;
USNMHT 266154)
     
FIGURE 24.—Laboratory organ.
(SI photo 72-11344; USNMHT 306749.16)
     
NUMBER   3 1

19



binational tones [it] is particularly sensitive to
inaccuracies of intonation" (Helmholtz, 1954:316).
He also noted thatharmonia in "just intonation" lent
themselves well to studies of mathematically precise
tone relationships. In other words, he advocated the
use of evenly tuned harmonia instead of tempered
instruments. Numerous such "enharmonic" instru-
ments were built in the nineteenth century to provide
examples of chords that arise in the discussion of
musical ratios. Of these, the so-called " harmonical"
designed by Ellis became the favorite of American
psychologists. Aside from basic studies on pitch
discrimination and tonal combinations, they used it
especially to show the existence of partials and to
demonstrate the relationship of beat frequency and
pitch.
  The Ellis Harmonical was built by Moore and
Moore of London. Tuned to A at 440 cycles, it had a
basic range of four octaves starting with the "Great
Octave," that is, C at 66 cycles. A special device
furnished a fifth octave so that the highest note
sounded was C with the frequency of 2112 cycles.
Each octave was divided into 12 parts; the inter-
mediate notes were in fixed ratios to C, namely 9:10,
8:9, 5:6, 4:5, 3:4, 2:3, 5:8, 3:5, 4:7, 5:9, 8:15, 1 :2.
We find a characteristically judicious assessment of
the instrument in correspondence between Sanford
and Titchener in 1895. Titchener had apparently
asked for Sanford's comments about the relative
merits of available instruments. Sanford expressed
httle enthusiasm for the "melodeon." He did not
recall having had any experience with it, but was
dubious because it struck him as being an "old
instrument." Of the harmonical he noted that "it
is not necessary for the course—everything mentioned
can I think be shown without it. It is a litde better
in some cases because it is tuned in perfect intonation
and because it has between the c and d digitals an
interval of a "comma," but these are not essential.
Any 5 octave reed instrument would do . . ."
(Ithaca, 1895:14/23/545). Sanford added that he did
not know what other laboratories used, except for
Harvard which had the Ellis (Figure 36).
SOUND LOCALIZATION
  Sound localization was another topic widely
studied in American university laboratories. Two
questions occupied the researcher. One dealt with the

accuracy of estimating sound direction; the other
one dealt with the nature of the mechanism whereby
the observer determines that direction. A variety
of sound cages and sound helmets were used for these
experiments, to be replaced by earphones after 1920.
However, earphones were not new, even the pseudo-
phone having appeared prior to 1880. A widely
used sound cage, favored by Titchener, among others,
consisted of an iron base; two semicircles made of
brass wire, one rotating vertically, the other, slightly
smaller, horizontally; a head clamp; and a telephone
receiver attached to the midpoint of the horizontal
semicircle. Graduated scales could be attached so
that as the circles and the telephone receiver were
moved about, the precise location with respect to
the observer could be measured (Figure 25). These
experiments confirmed that left-right localization
was much better than up-down or front-rear de-
termination: a result that otologists had obtained
with simple watch tests in the nineteenth century.
ToNAL FUSION
  Yet another group of auditory experiments per-
tained to tonal fusion. Although experimentally
closely related to the Helmholtzian studies of con-
sonance and overtones, and philosophically a part
of associationist tradition, the theory of tonal fusion
that determined subsequent laboratory studies was
established by Carl Stumpf. Following Stumpf,
this phenomenon was defined as "that relation of
two sensations in  consequence  of which .	the
total impression approaches more and more closely
to that of a single sensation, and is analysed with
greater and greater difficulty" (Titchener, 1901b:
329). The standard experiment was designed to
measure this change in impression, or "scale of
fusion degrees." Recommended experimental appa-
ratus consisted of a reed organ, which, in practice,
frequently turned into a set of mouth harmonicas;
however, organ pipes, tuning forks, and a variety
of musical instruments from pianos to violins were
used at one time or another. A sequence of single
notes and double notes was sounded; the observer
wrote down which was which, indicating doubtful
impressions. According to Stumpf, the degrees of
fusion ranged from the octave to the fifth, the fourth,
the major and minor thirds and sixths, to other
intervals. For intervals above an octave, the degree

20

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY   AND   TECHNOLOGY






FIGURE 25.—Laboratory room at Harvard University, ca. 1893, showing equipment and subject
arranged for experiment on the influence of dizziness on localization of sound. Subject is seated
in a sound cage. (SI photo TPY74A1)

of fusion was thought to correspond, so that a twelfth
would rank the same as a fifth.
  Tonal fusion experiments were among the most
inconclusive in the area of audition. There was
disagreement  about  everything,   from  the   question

to what extent musical training or ability affected
the results, to the question whether the phenomenon
exists at all. After Pratt's devastating critique of
these experiments in 1934, they practically disap-
peared from the experimental laboratory.

Transition to the Post-World War I Period

  It may appear surprising to begin a discussion of
the first fifty years of American psychology labora-
tories with emphasis on instruments and experiments
that predate the turn of the century and involve
European makers and scientists. Were not the twenties

a period of tremendous technological development in
areas that are important to the study of hearing?
Did not American inventors of the nineteenth
century produce important devices, such as the
telephone  and  the  phonograph that have  scarcely

NUMBER   31

21





lone ForK
been mentioned? Have not applications of electro-
physical techniques changed basically the methods
and approach of psychologists concerned with
audition?
  With few exceptions, apparatus in American
university psychology laboratories was largely that
found in inventory lists at Harvard and Cornell of
the 1890s. Most of the apparatus was imported. Of 70
manufacturers listed by Muensterberg at Harvard
in 1893, only 19 were American; 24 were German,
10 French, 7 English, 4 Swiss, and the rest were
divided among Ireland, Scotland, Sweden, Italy,
Holland, and Bohemia. The two manufacturers
specializing only in acoustic apparatus were Koenig
and Appunn, working in Paris and Hanau, respec-
tively.  American  laboratories  continued  to  import
FIGURE 26.—Laboratory room at the University of Missouri
showing tone-producing arrangement designed by A. P. Weiss,
ca. 1916, as it appeared in his thesis (1916).

their equipment until World War I, offering different
explanations for doing so. Titchener noted that the
apparatus used in the elementary courses is " almost
wholly American just as the research apparatus is
preponderantly German in origin" (Titchener,
1898:321). Others emphasized the originality of
their equipment. Thus, A. P. Weiss, with apparent
satisfaction, called attention to the unique apparatus
contrived by him in the laboratory of Max Meyer
in conjunction with his 1916 Missouri thesis on
sound intensity. He constructed his own equipment
(Figures 26, 27) because "the physicists who are best
prepared to design the apparatus are not interested
in the problem of tone intensity as it presents itself
to the psychologist" (Weiss, 1916:1). Similarly,
when Walter Miles, a clever apparatus designer, was
a student in Seashore's laboratory in 1909, instructors
and students collaborated in building equipment
for their experiments.
  Our preoccupation with what appear to be only
nineteenth-century European prototypes is justified
when we look at a 1930 catalogue of the Stoelting
Company, or the identical 1936 edition. Since the
turn of the century this firm had steadily intensified
its efforts on behalf of psychology. Stimulated by
the reduction of imports after World War I, it had
become the leading supplier of psychological apparatus
FIGURE 27.—^Tone fork frame showing resonators zind tuning
forks at the University of Missouri, ca. 1916. (From Weiss, 1916)

22

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY  AND   TECHNOLOGY



in the United States, and a major exporter, partic-
ularly to the Far East. In the foreword to its cata-
logues, the manufacturer acknowledged the coopera-
tion of experimental pioneers like J. R. Angell, B. T.
Baldwin, Bergstrom, Jastrow, Sanford, Scripture,
Seashore, Titchener, and Whipple, as well as their
assistants, students, and successors in the field.
  The Stoelting section on audition contained 78
lot numbers. Of these, 24 were tuning forks or sets of
forks, with 5 accessories; there were 7 Stern variators,
5 Appunn-type tonometers, 5 sound hammers " a
la Leipzig," 3 resonator sets, 4 whistles (including the
two basic Galton whistles), 4 sound cages or acces-
sories, 2 acoumeters, other traditional pieces such
as a lamella, a set of Quincke's tubes, Koenig's
difference-tone apparatus, and miscellaneous acces-
sories, such as stoppers and tubes. The only items that
represented more than a minor modification or refine-
ment of a nineteenth-century piece of apparatus
were two sets of tunable bars, first described by Paul
Thomas Young in publications of 1918 and 1922. The
bars arose out of work he had done as a graduate
student at Cornell, where he obtained his Ph.D. in
1918; the second type was described as "without
doubt the best piece of apparatus available for the
demonstration of difference-tones" (Stoelting, 1936:
32). The only instrunients in that catalogue new to
our discussion were Seashore's audiometer and tono-
scope, the related stroboscopic disk of Gray, the
phono-projectoscope developed by Metfessel and
Tiffin at Seashore's school, and Dorsey's phonelescope.
  Apparently, we should accept Boring's statement
of 1938 that "really not so very much happened in
the sixty years after Helmholtz" and that one "can
see how much of the psychology and physiology of
hearing has been learned within the last decade and
also how little of it was the product of the preceding
half century" (Stevens and Davis, 1938:vi-vii). This
would also lead us to reject the conclusions of his-
torians who have told us that new movements in
psychology "introduced new kinds of experiments
demanding design, technique and apparatus different
from the 'brass instruments' of the earlier pre-1914
workers" (Thomson, 1970:298).
   Caution is essential, however. The First World War
and the period following it did mark a change. The
change in audition reflects similar changes in psychol-
ogy and other disciplines in this country. To intro-
duce these matters, it will be well to scrutinize the
work of two men who span the period. They received
their Ph.D.s in  psychology in  1895  and  1896  and

continued their productive endeavors until their
deaths in 1949 and 1967, respectively. The two men
are Carl Emil Seashore and Max Friedrich Meyer.
Max Friedrich Meyer
  Max Friedrich Meyer was born in Danzig on
15 June 1873. In 1892 he matriculated in the Theolog-
ical Faculty of the University of Berhn, although
his basic interests appeared to lie in physics. After
hearing Ebbinghaus, he changed to the Philosophical
Faculty in 1894, the year Stumpf came to take the
chair of psychology in Berlin. He worked closely
with Stumpf for the next four years. In 1896 his
doctoral dissertation, approved jointly by Stumpf
and Max Planck, was published; it contained the
first version of his theory of hearing, which was ex-
pressed mathematically. The theory began to assume
its better-known mechanical formulation in the
next two years, during which the young scholar
published eight more papers, some jointly with
Stumpf. In 1898 he and Stumpf parted company;
apparently the main reason was his rejection of
Stumpf s concept of fusion and particularly Stumpf's
notion of musical dissonance and consonance.
  Exiled from Stumpf's laboratory, Meyer was on
the move for the next two years. After visits in London
and New England, including an appointment without
pay with G. Stanley Hall at Clark, he obtained a
position as professor of psychology at the University
of Missouri in 1900. There he remained until 1929.
He had but one Ph.D. student, A. P. Weiss; but
over the years a number of men who were to dis-
tinguish themselves in experimental psychology
joined him as students or assistants. The list begins
with R. M. Ogden, who acknowledged Meyer's
influence in his well-known 1924 work on hearing.
It ends with O. W. Mowrer, who, as an undergraduate
doing a questionnaire study on the status of women
that included some questions on extramarital rela-
tions, precipitated the controversy that resulted
in Meyer's suspension and formal dismissal in
1930.
  Meyer contributed to general psychology, educa-
tional psychology, the psychology of music education,
and questions of laboratory instruction in psychology.
He devised apparatus that included a quartertone
harmonium, a sequence of testing devices, and an
improvement of Scripture's " strobilion" for recording
vibrational  patterns.   He  is  best  known,   however,
  
NUMBER   3 1

23




for two contributions: his pioneering work, The
Fundamental Laws of Human Behavior, which, published
in 1911, guaranteed him notice as a "pre-Wat-
sonian" behaviorist; secondly, his theory of hearing
and the models devised to demonstrate it, which is of
particular interest here.
  According to Meyer (1907) hearing takes place
in the cochlea; it is here that the auditory nerve
endings receive their stimulus. He regarded the
fluid in the cochlea as being inelastic and incom-
pressible because of the short length of the tube;
"to speak of tone waves travelling in the lymph up
and down the tube is like speaking of a horse race
which is to take place within a dog kennel" (Meyer,
1907:2). Meyer rejected the notion of describing
the basilar membrane as composed of stretched strings
that serve as resonators for various frequencies because
they are under different tensions. Such a notion
develops from the belief that the basilar membrane
is under a constant tension. Meyer observed that
organic membranes placed under continuous tension
will break or yield to such tension. Thus, while he
accepted the possibility of the basilar membrane
being capable of resistance, Meyer rejected the
possibility of its being under "permanent" tension,
thereby also rejecting the assumption that there
are resonators in the inner ear.
   Meyer assumed that a bulging to and fro of the
partition (the organ of Corti) causes a shock in the
nerve fibers terminating in that portion of the parti-
tion, and that given a rapid sequence of such shocks,
the frequency of these shocks determines a process,
which he speculated may be chemical. He said that a
tone is perceived that" occupies a definite point in the
tonal series of sensations of hearing" proportional to
the frequency of shocks received (Meyer, 1907:17).
In other words, the frequency of the shocks determines
the pitch and quality of the tone perceived (Meyer,
1907:32).
   Meyer also hypothesized that the intensity of the
tone perceived is a function of "the number of nerve
ends which receive shocks in a definite frequency"
(Meyer, 1907:32).
  To reduce the mathematical complexity of the
mechanical process taking place in the cochlea and to
compensate for the lack of physiological data, Meyer
made several "provisional assumptions." These al-
lowed him to provide rational descriptions of a
variety of auditory phenomena, notably the nature of
difference tones, which, like Stumpf, he  treated  as

FIGURE 28.—Hydraulic model of the cochlea constructed by
Max Meyer in 1964, after one built in 1928. Wooden frame
863 X 165 X 63 mm. (SI photo 72-11336; USNMHT
259279.01)
"subjective." In contrast to Stumpf, he accounted for
subjective tones through localized functions of the
inner ear.
   Meyer retained and explicated his theory for a
period of nearly 60 years. Starting about 1928, he
turned from thought-models to specific mechanical
models to illustrate the theory (Figure 28). These did
not, however, eliminate the major problem, which
was the failure of either Meyer or anyone else to sub-
mit his hypotheses to repeated scrutiny in light of
accumulating physiological data unknown at the
turn of the century. The problem that was of growing
concern to him, namely that of being misinterpreted,
was a by-product of this fundamental omission.
Carl Emil Seashore
  Carl Seashore, a very different man, was born in
Morlunda, Sweden, in 1866, as Carl Emil Sjostrand.
His parents emigrated to this country and settled on a
farm in Iowa when he was three. His college years
were spent first at Gustavus Adolphus College in
Minnesota and later at Yale. Except for two post-
  
24

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY   AND   TECHNOLOGY



doctoral years at Yale, one year at the National Re-
search Council in Washington, D.C, and his last
year spent at the home of a son in Idaho, Seashore
lived and worked in Iowa for the rest of his 83 years.
  Seashore entered Yale and psychology when—in
his words—the latter was" 'pure' and knocked feebly
at the doors of Science for admission" (Seashore,
1930:260). He entered Yale "on the day" that the
psychological laboratory was founded and signed up
for the laboratory course. Ladd introduced him to
psychology, Schopenhauer, and Scripture, and he
remained a student of Ladd's for four years, lauding
his qualities as a teacher long after he had come to
disagree with his system. Seashore reacted negatively
to Scripture's laboratory, in which the experiments
seemed to him "nearer to telegraphy than to psy-
chology" (Seashore, 1930:260). He changed his mind
rather quickly, and after the departmental upheaval
at Yale, which lost not only Ladd and Scripture to
American psychology but also most of the Yale gradu-
ate students of the period. Seashore emerged as the
only one of Scripture's students who remained in
experimental psychology. He was, and considered
himself. Scripture's student; yet, characteristically, he
submitted his thesis, done under Scripture, to Ladd.
   Seashore's two mentors typify two styles in
psychology: the one is represented by Ladd, the
"Sully of America" (Boring, 1957:524), the
philosopher-psychologist who excelled as a teacher
and writer of textbooks; the other, by Scripture,
exponent of the "new" psychology who tried to pry
his students away from books and turn them to the
laboratory techniques that would let this new science
reach the precision of physics. Early exposure to
such contrasts caused Seashore to ride multiple tides
and maintain distance from dominant dogma. In his
autobiography he noted (1930:285) with some
satisfaction:
  Trained in structuralism of the Wundtian type, I rapidly
adjusted myself to functionalism and enriched my point of
view by absorbing freely from all new movements. In this
attitude I faced the French school of abnormal psychology, the
English group of psychical researchers, Hall's school of child
study, the group of animal experimenters, the Freudian and
other forms of psychoanalysis, the statistical methods as applied
particularly to mental tests, the various brands of behaviorism,
paper-and-pencil psychologies of various sorts, the Gestalt
psychology, and the recent neurological and philosophical
approaches to the theory of psychology.
   I owe a great deal to each and all of these and their sequels
and variants but I give allegiance to none. As a rigorous
experimenter I continue to plod along with the feeling that

this point of view and not my particular brand of it, is the
point of view of psychology. If what there is of system in my
teaching deserves a name, it is the name eclectic.
  Seashore went to the University of Iowa in 1898 as
an assistant professor. In 1902 he had become a full
professor; in 1905 he was made head of the depart-
ment of philosophy and psychology; in 1908 he
ascended to the deanship of the Graduate College,
where he remained until he retired as Dean-Emeritus.
He regarded being dean at a graduate school as
doing applied psychology. Many of his major con-
tributions were in applied psychology—and this is
particularly true of his notable achievements in
audition.
  Seashore first became prominent in auditory work
through his development of apparatus. In his first
year at Iowa, Seashore, with the help of Charles
Bowman, then a physics instructor at Iowa, produced
an audiometer. It was a hearing meter of varying
intensity in which the stimulus tones were generated
electrically. This was the same type that was to be
used widely in testing the hearing of pupils through-
out American schools, and that was sold and ad-
vertised by the Stoelting Company as the "Seashore
audiometer" for decades.
  Up to the time of Seashore, hearing meters in which
the intensity of the sound can be varied remained
obscure. However, such hearing meters, particularly
those with electrical resistances to vary the intensity
existed as early as 1878. In that year, A. Hartmann,
working in the laboratory of Emil Dubois-Reymond in
Berlin, devised an instrument of this kind. At the same
time, similar independent efforts were underway in
England. The name "audiometer," now commonly
applied to hearing meters in which "the stimulus tones
are generated electrically" (Bunch, 1941:1100), ap-
pears to have been used first in an 1879 account of a
current balance developed for audiological pur-
poses by D. E. Hughes in England.
  Seashore's audiometer (Figure 29) consisted of (1)
a box into which was built an induction coil, a resisr
tance coil, a galvanometer, as well as a battery and
the necessary switches and terminals; and (2) a
telephone receiver. The secondary coil was wound
in 40 sections, each of which was connected with a set
of corresponding spring terminals. By moving a
sliding carriage along these terminal contacts, any
number of these sections could be included in the
circuit. Since the induced current is a linear function
of the number of turns in the secondary coil,  this
  
NUMBER   3 1

25




FIGURE   29.—Seashore  audiometer.   (From   Seashore,   1899)
enabled the operator to vary the energy emitted by
the circuit, which was connected to the telephone
receiver and transmitted as a series of clicks. Varying
the resistance and observing the galvanometer
reading through a peephole on the box enabled the
operator to standardize the readings.
   A distinctive feature of the Seashore audiometer
was the calibration of the scale. Since, by the Weber-
Fechner law, stimulus and sensation are in a log-
arithmic ratio, so that SE = clog ST, Seashore let the
number of coils in each section increase logarith-
mically, so as to provide " psychologically equal" steps
in the increase of sound intensity. Thus, the increase
in stimulus equalled the corresponding increase in
sensation.
  An optional feature allowed use of the instrument
in tests where a tone is preferred to a click. This
accessory consisted of an electric tuning fork attached
to the box by a double contact; this connection per-
mitted the fork's tone to be introduced into the circuit
for transmission to the receiver. Its intensity could be
varied just as that of the ordinary click.
   Seashore introduced his audiometer with the advice
that "it is adapted to the needs of the psychological
laboratory, the school room and the aurist's office"
(Seashore, 1899:156). The instrument's success in all
three areas confirmed his aim.
  
In 1902 Seashore presented another instrument
destined for long periods of use. This was the tono-
scope, a device for translating vocal vibrations into
visible form (Figure 30). Based on the principle, and
named after, the stroboscope, the tonoscope was
designed primarily to study singing. It was based
on a configuration first used by Scripture in a labora-
tory set-up designed in the 1890s.
  The 1902 tonoscope consisted of an electric tuning
fork, a vacuum tube, a stroboscopic screen, a mano-
metric capsule, a telephone receiver, and the neces-
sary auxiliary switches, circuits, and battery. It was
designed to measure the pitch of a tone produced by
the singer. It would produce a tone, and then compare
that one to the singer's tone by projecting the vibra-
tions of both upon the screen.
  The tonoscope appeared in several different versions
over the years; later models expanded its use from
recording speech or musical tones of the human
voice to transcribing music, speech or other sound
patterns from phonographs and other recording
devices (Seashore, 1914). The tonoscope was applied
by musicians, clinicians, and psychologists alike,
and became a touted example of the value of applied
psychology in music (Seashore, 1912).
  Seashore was responsible for the development of
numerous other instruments, designed by himself
and by students at Iowa. One example is a sound
perimeter created in 1903 to improve upon the existing
gadgets invented for the study of sound localization.
Seashore's early interest in this field proved useful.
During World War I he served as chairman of the
Committee on Acoustic Problems and consultant
on the detection of submarines.
  Seashore's continual applications of his inventions
and investigations are symbolic of one of the aspects
of the psychology of the 1920s. Seashore's students
and others of their generation were to go out and
become resident psychologists in medical schools,
music schools, public schools, record companies,
and industrial research laboratories. They remained
psychologists working on auditory problems. But
they were "mission-oriented" and they no longer
published primarily in the American Journal of Psy-
chology, the Psychological Review, or the Journal of
Experimental Psychology. Instead, their work appeared
in publications like Laryngoscope, Musical Quarterly,
Lyre, Eugenics, Genetics and the Family, The Trans-
actions of the American Otological Society, and eventually,
the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
  
26

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY  AND   TECHNOLOGY


FIGURE 30.—Early version of the Seashore tonoscope. Top of drum diameter 31 cm. (USNMHT
306749.17; inset from Seashore, 1914)

NUMBER   3 1

27

The Background of the Twenties

  If psychologists trained in audition were going
into the outside world, what was the world offering
in return? Again, the chief contributions came from
the domains of the physicist and of the physiologist.
Among physicists there were two groups who con-
ducted research in acoustics that interested the
psychologist. One group worked in the university,
represented by the work of Wallace C. Sabine and
Dayton C. Miller between 1900 and 1920. The
other group worked in industry, and is best repre-
sented by the research teams at the Western Electric
Research   Laboratories   between    1920   and    1930.
Applied Acoustics
  Wallace Clement Sabine laid the twentieth-century
scientific foundation of architectural acoustics. His
classical paper on reverberation was published in
1900, when he was 32 years old. As a rigorous experi-
menter he called to the attention of psychologists
the danger of testing " laws" rather than investigating
phenomena. To stress the importance of boundary
conditions, he singled out the failings of two of the
most revered psychologists. Wundt and Muenster-
berg had neglected boundary conditions when they
simply assumed the law of variation of intensity
of sound with the inverse square of the distance:
"It makes one wonder how they were able to draw
any conclusions from their measurements" (Orcutt,
1933:291).
  Dayton C. Miller's results of special interest to
psychologists centered on recording, composition,
and decomposition of sound waves. Aside from pro-
viding visible characteristics of sound waves generated
by an assortment of instruments, they had special
significance  to  those  who  drew  upon  Ohm's  law.
  Mechanical harmonic analyzers and synthesizers
provided data for Miller. These devices, developed
on the basis of nineteenth-century prototypes invented
by James and William Thomson, are mathematical
analogue calculators. A synthesizer sums up the
components of a sound wave; an analyzer breaks
out the elementary components of the wave, an
operation matheinatically equivalent to computing
the Fourier coefficients in its trigonometric expansion.
As input, both machines use a graph of the simple or
compound  wave.   To  obtain  such  a  graph  Miller

developed the " phonodeik." This instrument focused
the vibrations of the given sound wave onto a dia-
phragm from which they were transmitted graphically
onto a moving film.
  As a result of World War I, such men as Miller
and Sabine participated in acoustic research for the
War Department. Among other things, at Sandy
Hook Proving Grounds, New York, in 1919, a method
of electric-spark photography of the waves generated
by bullets in flight was developed on the basis of
their prior contributions. There, also, basic studies
on shell shock were conducted in collaboration with
physiologists.
  Among the research scientists and engineers
motivated by the requirements of the Great War
were teams from the Western Electric Company.
They had helped to develop a string galvanometer,
based on the principle of the Einthoven galvanometer,
that was intended for use in France and later adopted
at Sandy Hook. They designed microphones to study
sounds emitted by large guns, and continued researches
in telephony. In the 1920s they were prepared to
propagate  basic research in electronic  audiometry.
   C. C. Bunch and L. W. Dean at Iowa had^ de-
veloped the pitch-range audiometer in 1919. In
November of the same year, two groups of researchers—
K. L. Schaefer and G. Gruschke, B. Griessmann and
Schwartzkopf—demonstrated before the Berlin Oto-
logical Society two instruments designed to test
hearing acuity. Both were built with vacuum tubes.
Their designs were characteristic of the two basic
types of electronic circuits used in most electronic
audio devices for the next two decades. Neither of
the two devices was developed commercially for
some time, although the second was to be manu-
factured under the name " Otaudion." In the United
States, J. Guttman in 1921 described an "electric
acoumeter," which was an electronic device. At the
same time J. P. Minton and J. G. Wilson developed
their audio-oscillator. However, it was a series of
audiometers developed at the Western Electric
Company's Research Laboratory that marked the
beginning of regular commercial production of these
devices. It climaxed the breakthrough made possible
with the development and application of the vacuum
tube.
  The first of the Western Electric audiometers was
the Model 1-A (Figure 31). It was presented publicly
  
572-511 O - 75 - 3

28

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY   AND   TECHNOLOGY




FIGURE 31.—Edmund P. Fowler in his sound-proofed room
with the Western Electric 1-A audiometer. (SI photo 74-6750;
USNMHT 256198.01)
at the 1922 meeting of the American Laryngological,
Rhinological and Otological Society by Harvey
Fletcher and Edmund P. Fowler. For this presentation
they produced threshold curves of various types of deaf-
ness. Fowler and Wegel also presented the device to
the American Otological Society that year with a
discussion of the now-classic audiogram chart.
  The 1-A was a pure-tone generator that had a
range from 32 to 16,384 cycles, or 9 octaves; it could
be set to produce any one of 20 tones within that
range and at varying intensities. Although this first
device was produced only in a limited quantity, it was
used in some of the more important studies of the
twenties, including R. L. Wegel and L. E. Lane's
famous work on masking. Masking had been studied
by A. M. Mayer in the 1870s. In 1876 he called atten-
tion to the difference in the masking effects of low and
high sounds, observing that a sound of low pitch can

mask one of high pitch totally, but that the converse
does not hold. Using the 1-A's capability of generat-
ing pure tones and controlling the intensity, Wegel
and Lane were able for the first time to make precise
the variations in the amount of masking between
tones of lower and higher pitch than the masking
tone (Figure 32).
  The 2-A Model (Figures 33, 34) was a smaller,
portable version of the 1-A, having a frequency range
varying seven octaves (from 64 to 8192 cycles), which
was divided into eight positions, corresponding to the
8 c-notes of the range. Like the 1-A it could be set at
varying intensities, thanks to an attenuation poten-
tiometer. It had the advantage of selling at less than
half the price of the 1-A, which cost over $1500.
  A different type of audiometer was represented by
the 3-A model. This relatively simple device gener-
ated a buzzer-sound and had adjustable intensity
control. The 5-A also was a buzzer audiometer. Yet
another type of audiometer was represented by the
4-A. This was essentially a phonograph with multiple
ear phones and was widely used to conduct hearing
tests on school children. The phonograph played a
sequence of numbers in the most widely used test,
usually spoken alternately by male and female voices.
  The Western Electric scientists went beyond labora-
tory experimentation. They collaborated with uni-
versity physicists: Harvey Fletcher in the summer of
1925 delivered lectures on "the physical aspects and
measurement of speech and hearing" at the Uni-
versity of Michigan (Bell Laboratories, 1925:50).
They collaborated with physiologists: Out of such
work came the development of the electrical stetho-
scope. Last but not least, they provided an important
impetus to those like C. C. Bunch who, coming out of
the laboratory of the psychologist, had gone to work
among physiologists, and now conducted studies com-
paring and utilizing new apparatus in the service of
both fields (Figure 35). By the 1920s physiologists had
considerable material to offer to the psychologist, and
psychologists were once again receptive to it.
Applied Physiology
  American psychologists, although aware of its
limitations, had continued to rely on the resonance
theory. Boring and Titchener claimed (1920:101):
  The historian of science must always regard it with admira-
tion since for combined range and detail and directness of
correlation it is still without a rival; and indeed, as a model of
  
NUMBER   31

29



FIGURE 33.—2-A audiometer made by Western Electric.
510 X 255 X 275 mm. (SI photo 72-11333; USNMHT
306749.12)

FIGURE 32.—Pilling-Witting masker made by George P. Pilling
& Son Go. at Philadelphia. 205 X 210 X 210 mm. (SI photo
72-11349; USNMHT 306749.04)

FIGURE 34.—Glose up of control panel of 2-A audiometer.
(SI photo 72-11334; USNMHT 306749.12)


'Dcav-v.  CavC   E. t'ca^lYotC
    ■3h.ii tctcpA^ko^vapfv wets pvitU:c6 /votn. tke unxcfcoiicfvi.^
Kcoctu'c v4vciu«<S "^w-vw 23, l?C5 <3t ?tcvo tVovft Cilu fxonv
efvLcoao ci>«v  a fcctcpfvoac .civculi:   ??'   ntttc;   irt   "CeVtciLfv.
1?6 S'T.oac^wau
?i4U) V^\h City
dmx<.ic<i:r>. JcCcpftOr.C .\ ^CUAvapfv Cc.
FIGURE 35.—Dean Garl E. Seashore. (From University of Iowa
Studies in Psychology, 12 (1928))
what a theory "ought" to be, it will probably figure for many
years to come—with the more or less emphatic warning that
it need not be believed—in textbooks of physiology and
psychology.
Model makers especially continued to seek ways of
testing and demonstrating its validity, at the same time
that new experimental evidence paved the way for
renewal of another basic theory—the telephone
theory of William Rutherford.
  Early debate over the function of the various
components of the cochlea had revolved around the
issue of whether or not it was the seat of auditory
analysis. Where are vibrations transformed? Two
most likely sites were the cochlea and the brain. Of
the models built to illustrate the theories of inner ear
behavior, those of Max Meyer and George Wilkinson
received the most publicity and discussion during the
1920s.
  The Wilkinson model was designed not to support
any specific existing theory, such as the resonance

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY   AND   TECHNOLOGY
theory, but rather to shed light on all theories. Above
all it served to illustrate the movements of stretched
membranes in response to sound vibrations, studied
by C. Rich Ewald thirty years earlier (Wilkinson,
1922a: 53). Wilkinson assumed that the actual
vibration element in the cochlea is the basilar mem-
brane (Wilkinson, 1927:365). The lack of a suitable
material prevented him from duplicating the spiral
curve form of the cochlea and basilar membrane
(Wilkinson, 1930b:834). His model consisted of a
brass box 5 X 5.5 X 6.5 cm divided into two chambers,
an upper or "scala vestibulae" and lower or "scala
tympani" separated by a flat brass plate containing
the "basilar membrane." The top of the upper,
chamber is provided with a glass window, through
which the movements of the membrane may be
observed. Rubber membranes cover the openings
representing the round and oval windows which are
secured by rubber washers. A small wooden plunger,
the "stapes," is attached to the lower (larger) mem-
brane. At the back of each chamber are small holes
closed by screws, "filhng holes," through which
fluid can be introduced by means of a syringe with
a fine nozzle, to fill the chambers. The most difficult
and troublesome parts to represent in the model were
the basilar fibers, which were made of a phosphor-
bronze ribbon }io mm thick and carefully placed
with controls to regulate their tension. The trans-
verse sectors of the "basilar membrane" in the model
were thrown into sympathetic vibration by touching
the "stapes" lightly with a vibrating tuning fork
(Wilkinson, 1922b :459).
  The essential feature of the theory of cochlea
function of Wilkinson is that the fibers of the basilar
membrane are differentiated by length, tension and
mass, just like the strings of a muscial instrument
(Wilkinson, 1927:370). The scale of the model was
not pertinent to the law of vibrating strings. Hence
the model and the cochlea could be expected to
follow the formula for vibrating strings as derived
by Fourier (Wilkinson, 1922b:451). E. W. Scripture
took exception to the Wilkinson model. He voiced
his disapproval in a short letter to the editor of
The Lancet in 1922 pointing out some properties of the
human voice that seemed to contradict a resonance
theory of hearing (Scripture, 1922:779-780).
  By the mid-twenties so many theories of hearing
(Wever, 1970:41, Boring, 1926:157) had appeared
that dismay appeared rampant among experimental-
ists. The psychologist of the period wished "to clean
his slate of theory and to start afresh from a thorough-
  
NUMBER   31

31



going study of the sense-organ, biological, anatomical
and physiological" (Boring and Titchener, 1920:102).
In the next few years, those who accepted this chal-
lenge could not match in deed what was asked in
word. The best a trio of physiologists and several
psychologists could do was adopt and improve an
exciting twentieth-century electrophysical technique.
They sought evidence for a current in the auditory
nerve of a decerebrate cat of the same frequency or
sound presented to the ear. At first, Forbes, Miller, and
O'Connor (1927) used the method of F. J. J. Buy-
tendijk, who had reported on it in 1911 in Akademie
van Wetenschappen (Amsterdam; 13(2) :649-652),
but failed to record responses in frequency higher
than 200 cycles per second. Psychologists Ernest
Glenn Wever and Charles W. Bray (1930:377),
taking on the role of the physiologist, who usually
provided fresh evidence for auditory theories, set
out to improve this experiment. They attached an
electrode to the exposed auditory nerve, added an
amplifier to the circuit and hooked it up to a tele-
phone receiver in a sound proof room. Their contri-
bution to the experiment was to install a telephone
receiver, which made it possible to hear currents of a
much higher frequency. They proved that sound
applied to the ear of the animal produced effects
in the acoustic nerve, which corresponded to the
frequency of the original sound stimulus. Sounds
including the voice were discriminated quite plainly

on the receiver-recorder. Responses continued until
after death, they grew fainter and ceased in approxi-
mately a quarter of an hour.
  Wever and Bray, unable to arrive at a single
theory suggested by their findings, proposed four,
which they labeled as follows: (1) the resonance
telephone theory; (2) the nonresonance telephone
theory (the telephone theory of the type outlined by
Boring, 1926); (3) the resonance volley theory;
(4) the nonresonance volley theory. Wever and Bray
conceived the Volley principle as an alternative to
the telephone theory of frequency transmission. By
the Volley principle they meant the serial interplay
between fibers responding to sound vibrations. "A
given fiber when stimulated . . . responds and then
remains inactive for a time until it is again stimulable.
The fiber will respond to a constantly maintained
stimulus with a regular series of impulses of lower
frequency than the stimulus but in synchronism with
the individual waves of the stimulus" (Wever and
Bray, 1930:376). The fibers may be out of synchroni-
zation with each other, but they are synchronized
with the exciting frequency. Thus by 1930 physio-
logical evidence was conducive to a blending of
auditory theories, a state of affairs still shared by
present day physiologists, psychologists,- and
physicians, though on a more refined level. Sub-
sequent explanations centered on how the inner ear
fibers and the nerve fibers react to sound vibrations.
  
Conclusion

   In the 50-year period between the last edition of
Helmholtz's Tonempfindungen and thb publication of
the experiments of Wever and Bray, audition in
psychology passed through a well-defined phase.
  Helmholtz had brought to the subject a masterful
combination of scientific method, theory, experimenta-
tion, and. technology. He had approached the field
as physicist, physiologist, and psychologist. To each
of these three disciplines he left a base on which to
build.
  Laboratory psychology was in its infancy. Its
promoters were successful in cutting it loose from
philosophy. In seeking to establish its identity as a
science they had to broaden a narrow line of demarca-
tion between physics and physiology. As American
laboratory psychology developed, it bore the scar of

a reaction against its early dependence on physiology.
Problems arose, particularly in audition, where much
depended on adding to our physiological knowledge
of hearing.
  The psychologist wishing to further the study of
audition and to leave upon it the distinctive stamp of
psychology could choose among the following four
avenues of approach:
  1. The Path of Method: He could pursue the
subject in a laboratory setting applying the techniques
and equipment of the physicist to a method that he
could call his own. This was the course followed by
Titchener and other laboratory psychologists using
introspection.
  2. The Path of Theory: He could pursue the
subject   hypothetically,   applying   physical   laws   to
  1. 
32

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY  AND   TECHNOLOGY



the phenomena of auditory perception. By providing
for a range of options to cover the possibilities left
open by insufficient physiological evidence, he could
establish a logically valid theory. This was the course
followed by Max Meyer.
  3. The Path of Applications: He could pursue the
subject eclectically, selecting practical problems to
which existing experimental or theoretical techniques
could provide clues, if not solutions. This was the
course followed by Seashore.
  4. The Path of Experimentation: He could pursue
the subject experimentally, applying physiological
techniques to the study of the ear and the phenomena
of auditory perception. This was the course followed
by Lashley, Hunter, Bunch, and others who turned to
clinical or comparative psychology.
  There should have been a path of technology, but
this path was blocked to the psychologist working
in his own laboratory. He came upon it, if at all,
indirectly by collaborating with the engineer in an
industrial laboratory or the clinician in a state
laboratory. It was the road that led to new frontiers.
But it was costly, and these were no longer the days
when one could rely on the munificence of a King
Maximilian of Bavaria to underwrite an apparatus
for vowel construction, as had Helmholtz, or make
history as a Bell or an Edison on the basis of invention
and entrepreneurship alone. In the industrial society
of the twentieth century scientific advances based on
technological breakthroughs have been made with
the   support  of either   government  or   industry.   A

discipline that had just found its own reason for being,
and was striving hard to convince the rest of the world
of it, was not in a position to win such support.
  In the game of "mirror, mirror on the wall, who is
the most psychological of them all?" Titchener and
his fellow introspectionists may well have scored
highest; their method was distinctive even if their
apparatus was not. But in that game of practicality,
which Titchener refused to play, it was Seashore
who saw success: By keeping before the eyes of the
public the usefulness of his subject, he was able to
convey upon a whole discipline a prestige that was
sorely needed if that discipline was to obtain its
share of the forthcoming pie.
  While Seashore in psychology and Sabine in
physics were making themselves useful in the wings,
electrophysiology took center stage in the field of
audition. But being in the wings gives access to the
entrances. Thus, by 1930 psychologists, as well as
physicists, could join with their colleagues in phys-
iology in reaping the benefits of the technological
advances of the preceding decades. In 1961 a physicist
named Bekesy won the Nobel Price in Physiology
for work done in audition. It was not unexpected
that his recent home-base, a psycho-acoustic labora-
tory, also won renown—and support—for work done
by psychologists, much of it under contract to the
government of the United States. The laboratory was
at Harvard—where William James had related physi-
ology to psychology and allowed psychophysics to
enter.
  
FIGURE 36.—Harvard University Psychological Laboratory, ca. 1893.
(From Harvard University 1893)


Selected Bibliography
     The following reference list is extremely selective. Inclusion has been restricted
to items that either were cited in the text or provide guides to further reading and
study. Boring 1942 and 1957 provide general guidance to the history of psychology
and the history of the study of auditory phenomena within psychology. Students
interested in the nineteenth-century background cannot afford to ignore Fechner
I860 and 1877, Wundt 1883 and 1902-1903, and Helmholtz 1954, or other editions
of these major classics. Detailed nineteenth-century references to instruments and
apparatus are found in Auerbach 1909 and Titchener 1901a, b and 1905a, b. Subse-
quent apparatus developments, with selected references to the literature can be pur-
sued via Zimmermann 1912 and 1928, and Stoelting 1936. Harvard University 1955 is
an excellent guide to twentieth-century work in audition and contains topical indexes.
    
Auerbach, F.
1909.    Akustik.   Volume   2   in   A.   Winkelmann,   editor,
Handbuch der Physik.  2nd  edition.  Leipzig: Johann
Ambrosius Barth.
Ball, J. B.
1903.    A   Model   Ear   for   the   Practice   of   Otology.    The
Lancet, 2:1584.
Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University, Archives
1888.    List  of Apparatus  in   the   Psychology  Laboratory,
October 1888. Manuscript,
von Bekesy, G., and W. A. Rosenblith
1951.    The   Mechanical   Properties   of the   Ear.   In   S.   S.
Stevens,  editor,  Handbook of Experimental Psychology.
New York: John Wiley and Son.
Bell Laboratories
   1925.	[Note.] Bell Laboratories Record, 1:50.
Bernstein, Julius
   1876.     The Five Senses of Man. New York: Appleton.
Bezold, Friedrich
1906.    Lehrbuch  der  Ohrenheilkunde fiir  Arzte und Studierende.
Wiesbaden: J. F. Bergmann.
Blandin, Philippe-Frederic
1843-1844.    Rapport  sur   les   nouvelles   pieces   artificielles
d'anatomic, presentees a I'Academie par M. le docteur
Auzoux.   Bulletin  de  I'Academie  de Medecine (Paris),
9:759-765. Paris.
Boring, E. G.
1926.	Auditory Theory with Special Reference to Intensity,
Volume and Localization. The American Journal of
Psychology, 37:157-88.
1942.
1957.
Sensation and Perception in  the History of Experimental
Psychology. New York: The Appleton-Century Co.
A   History   of  Experimental   Psychology.   2nd   edition.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Boring, E. G., and E. B. Titchener
1920. Sir Thomas Wrightson's Theory of Hearing. The
American Journal of Psychology, 31:101-113.

Bunch, Cordia C.
1941.    The Development of the Audiometer.  Laryngoscope,
51:1100-1118.
Bunch, Cordia C, and L. W. Dean
1919.    The Use of the Pitch Range Audiometer in Otology.
Laryngoscope, 29:453-462.
Cambridge Scientific Instrument Company, Ltd.
1899.    Physiological Instruments. Cambridge, England: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Carlisle, Anthony
1805.    The Physiology of the Stapes, One of the Bones of the
Organ of Hearing;  Deduced from a Comparative
View of Its Structure and Uses in Different Animals.
Philosophical Transactions, pp. 198-210.
Cattell, James McKeen
1888.    The Psychological Laboratory at Leipsic. Mind, 13:
37-51.
Dexter, George
1844.    Catalogue of Anatomical Models, Made by Auzoux, and
for Sale by George Dexter. Albany.
Fechner, Gustav Theodor
1860.    Elemente der Psychophysik.  2  volumes in   1.  Leipzig:
Breitkopf & Hartel.
1877.    In Sachen der Psychophysik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel.
1966.    Elements of Psychophysics. Translated  by  Helmut  E.
Adler.  Edited by Davis H.  Howes and Edwin G.
Boring. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc.
Fletcher, Harvey
1929.    Speech and Hearing.  Introduction by H. D.  Arnold.
New York: D. Van Nostrand.
Forbes, Alexander, R. H. Miller, and J. O'Conner
1927.    Electrical   Responses   to   .\coustic   Stimuli   in   the
Decerebrate Animal.   The American Journal of Physi-
ology, 80:363-380.
Galton, Francis
1883.    Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development. London:
Macmillan.

33

34

SMITHSONIAN   STUDIES   IN   HISTORY  AND  TECHNOLOGY



Gray, A. A.
1900.    On a Modification of Helmholtz Theory of Hearing.
The Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, 34:324-350.
1927.    A Restatement of the Resonance Theory of Hearing.
Acta Oto-laryngology (Stockholm), 11:30-72.
Hansen, F. C. C. von, and Alfred Lehmann
1895.    Ueber unwillkiirliches Fliistern. Philosophische Studien,
11:471-530.
Harvard University, Psychologiczil Laboratory
1893.    Psychological  Laboratory  of Harvard   University.   Cam-
bridge, Mass.: The University.
Harvard University, Psycho-acoustic Laboratory
1955.    Bibliography on Hearing. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Haviland, Thomas N., and Lawrence C. Parish
1970.    A Brief Account of the Use of Wax Models in the
Study of Medicine. Journal of the History of Medicine
and the Allied Sciences, 25:52-75.
Helmholtz, Hermann
1863.    Die Lehre von den Tonempfirulungen alsphysiologische Grund-
lage fiir die Theorie der Musik. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
1868.    Ueber   die   Mechanik   der   Gehorknochelchen   und
des Trommelfells. Pf I tiger's Archiv, 1 :l-60.
1954.     On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for
the Theory of Music. Translated by A. J. Ellis. New
York: Dover.
Ithaca, New York, Cornell University, Coilecdons of Regional
History and University Archives
   1895.    Titchener correspondence.
James, William
1892.    Psychology: Briefer Course. London: Macmillan.
1950.     The Principles of Psychology.  2 volumes.  New York:
Dover.
Jung, R.
1890.     Preis-Verzeichniss    iiber   Inslrumente   und   Apparate    aus
der mechanischen  Werkstdtte von Rudolf Jung in Heidel-
berg. Stuttgart: Stahle & Friedel.
Kline, Linus W., and F. L. Kline
  1927.    Psychology by Experiment. Boston: Ginn.
Koenig, Rudolph
1865.    Catalogue   des   Appareils   d'Acoustique.   Paris:   Racon.
1882.    Quelques Experiences d'Acoustique. Paris.
1889.    Catalogue des Appareils d'Acoustique. Paris.
Ladd, George Trumbull
1887.    Elements  of Physiological  Psychology.   New   York:   C.
Scribner's Sons.
Lotze, Rudolph Hermann
  1886.    Outlines of Psychology. Botton: Ginn.
McPherson, Marion White, and Elliott Pursell
1971.    One Cost of Precision. Proceedings of the 79th Annual
Convention   of   the   American   Psychological   Association.
[Preprint.]
Mayer, Alfred Marshall
1876.    Researches    in    Acoustics.    Philosophical    Magazine,
2:500-507.
Meyer, MaxF.
1907.    An Introduction to the Mechanics of the Inner Ear.
University of Missouri Studies, 2(1): 1—139.
1911.     The  Fundamental  Laws  of Human  Behavior.  Boston:
R. G. Badger.

Ogden, R. M.
  1924.    Hearing. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Orcutt, William Dana
1933.	William Clement Sabine: A Study in Achievement. Nor-
wood, Mass.: Plimpton Press.
Pearce, S. Austen
1891.    Acoustics.  Volume   1   of American Supplement to En-
cyclopedia     Britannica.    9th    edition.     Philadelphia:
Hubbard Bros.
Perry, Ralph Barton
1935.    The Thought and Character of William James. 2 volumes.
Boston: Little, Brown.
Philadelphia, International Exhibition, United States Centen-
nial Commission
1880.    Reports and Awards. Volume 7, Groups 21-27. Edited
by  Francis   A.   Walker.   Washington:   Government
Printing Office.
Pierce, A. H.
1901.    Studies  in  Auditory and  Visual Space Perception.  New
York: Longmans, Green.
Politzer, Adam
  1913.    Geschichte der Uhrenheilkunde. Volume 2. Stuttgart.
Pratt, Carroll C.
1934.	Theoretical Studies from the Harvard Psychological
Laboratory: Tonal Fusion. Psychological Review,
41(l):86-97.
Preyer, William
   1876.     Ueber die Grenzen der Tonwahrnehmung. Jena: H. Duflft.
Pursell, Elliott, and Marion White McPherson
1971.    Psychology in Music. Unpublished paper presented
at the Cheiron meeting, New York.
Ratier, Felix-Severin
1845.    Notice   Biographique  sur   M.   le   docteur  Auzoux.   2nd
edition. Paris.
Richardson, Benjamin W.
1879.    Professor Hughes' New Instrument for the Measure-
ment of Hearing—The Audiometer.  Medical Times
and Gazette,  1(1508): 557-558.
Rutherford, William
1887.    A Lecture on the Sense of Hearing. Lancet,  1:2-6.
1898.	Tone Sensation with References to the Function of
the Cochlea. British Medical Journal, 2:353-358.
Sanford, Edmund Clark.
1894—1898.    A Course in Experimental Psychology. 2 volumes.
Boston: D. C. Heath  & Co.
Schaefer, E. A.
1900.    A Textbook of Physiology. 2 volumes. Edinburgh and
London: Young J. Pentland.
Scripture, Edward Wheeler
1902.    The  Elements  of Experimental  Phonetics.   New  York:
Charles Scribner's Sons.
1922.    The Mechanism of the Cochlea [letter to the editor].
The Lancet, 2:779-780.
Seashore, Carl Emil
1899.	An Audiometer. University of Iowa Studies in Psychology,
2:158.
1912. Apparatus. Psychological Bulletin, 9:235.
1914.    ThcTonoscoT^c. Psychological Monographs, 16(69):1-12.
1930.    Carl  Emil  Seashore   (1866- ).  In volume   1   of A
History   of   Psychology   in   Autobiography.   Worcester,

NUMBER   3 1

35



Mass..    Clark    University    Press.    [Reprinted    by
Russell  & Russell, New York, 1961.]
Stevens, S. S., and H. Davis
   1938.    Hearing. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Stoelting Co., C. H.
1936.    Apparatus,   Tests and Supplies.  3rd edition.  Chicago:
Stoelting. [The 1930 edition is identical to the 1936
edition.]
Stone, William Henry
   1879.    Elementary Lessons on Sound. London: Macmillan.
Taylor, Sedley
   1873.    Sound and Music. London: Macmillan.
Thomson, Robert
   1970.    Pelican History of Psychology. Baltimore: Penguin.
Thurlow, Willard R.
1972.    Audition.  Chapter  8 in R. S. Woodworth, editor,
Experimental Psychology.
Titchener, Edward Bradford
1898.    A Psychological Laboratory. Mind, 7:311-331.
1900.     The Psychological Laboratory of Cornell University. Worces-
ter, Mass.: Oliver B. Wood.
1901a.  Experimental Psychology: A Manual of Laboratory Prac-
tice. Volume 1, part 1. New York: Macmillan.
1901b. Experimental Psychology: A Manual of Laboratory Prac-
tice. Volume 1, part 2. New York: Macmillan.
1905a. Experimental Psychology: A Manual of Laboratory Prac-
tice. Volume 2, part 1. New York: Macmillan.
1905b. Experimental Psychology: A Manual of Laboratory Prac-
tice. Volume 2, part 2. New York: Macmillan.
Wegel, R. L., and C. E. Lane
1924.    The Auditory Masking of One Pure Tone by .Another
and Its Probable Relation to the Dynamics of the
Inner Ear. Physiological Review, 23:266-285.
Weiss, A. P.
1916.    Apparatus   and   Experiments   in   Sound   Intensity.
Psychology Monographs, 22.
Wever, Ernest Glen
   1970.    Theory of Hearing. New York: Dover.
Wever, Ernest G., and Charles W. Bray
1930. The Nature of Acoustic Response: The Relation
Between Sound Frequency and Frequency of Im-
pulses in the Auditory Nerve. The Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology, 13:373-387.

Wilkinson, George
1922a. A Note on the Resonating System in the Cochlea,
with a Demonstration of a Model,  Illustrating the
Action of the Hitherto Neglected Factor. Proceedings
of the  Royal Society  of Medicine   (Otology  Section),
         1922:51-55.
1922b. Analysis   of Sound   by   Resonance.   The Journal   of
         Laryngology and Otology, 37:447-469.
1927.    Have We a Resonance Theory of Hearing or Only
a Resonance Hypothesis.   The Journal of Laryngology
         and Otology, 42:365-374.
1930a. The Bearing of the Fluids Contained in the Cochlea
on Its  Resonance  Mechanism.  Acta  0to-Laryngology
        (Stockholm), 11:134-144.
1930b. Some Mechanical Problems in the Making of Cochlea
Models.    The   Journal   of   Laryngology   and   Otology,
           45:833-840.
Witmer, Lightner
1894.    Experimental   Psychology  and  the  Psycho-physical
        Laboratory. University Extension, 3:230-238.
1902.    Analytical Psychology. Boston: Ginn.
Woodworth,  Robert Sessions
1972.     Woodworth    &    Schlosberg's    Experimental   Psychology.
3rd American edition. J. W. Kling and L. A. Riggs,
editors. London: Methuen.
Wundt, Wilhelm
1883.    Ueber psychologische Methoden. Philosophische Studien,
1:1-38.
1902-1903.    Grundzilge   der   physiologischen   Psychologic.    5th
revised edition, 4 volumes. Leipzig: W. Engelmann.
Young, Paul Thomas
1918.    Tunable  Bars,   and  Some  Demonstrations  With  a
Simple Bar  and  a Stethoscope.  Psychology Bulletin,
15:293-300.
1922.    Series of Difference Tones Obtained From Tunable
Bars. American Journal of Psychology, 33:385-394.
Zimmermann, E.
1912.    Psychologische   und   physiologische   Apparate:    Illustrierte
Lisle No. 25. Leipzig.
1928.    Psychologische   und physiologische   Apparate:    Lisle   50.
Leipzig.

Index of Auditory Apparatus
The following refers to objects cited in this publication, in Stoelting 1936 (S), or in
Titchener 1901 or 1905 (T 1901a, T 1901b, T 1905a, T 1905b). Objects in the collec-
tions of the National Museum of History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution,
are designated by an asterisk (*), although not necessarily mentioned in the texts.

acoumeter (S:34; T 1905b:56-59), 14, 22
  *Lehmann's  (S:34;  T   1905a:23-25;  T   1905b:56-57),   14
adjunct pieces
bottle (as resonance-jar) (T 1901b:55)
*bow (S:121; T 1905b:31)
brush, sonometer (S:3l)
ear protector (S:31)
gasometer, Whipple's (S:34; T 1905b: 141), 15
*hammer, fork (S:31; T 1905b: 13), 12
mallet. See hammer, fork
*manometric flame apparatus (S:121), 11
piano hammer (T 1901b :55)
*resonance box or case (S:121; T 1905b:14), 11
screen, ear (S:31)
sounder (S:31)
starter, fork (S:30)
=^stopper, rubber (S:31), 22
telephone receiver, 31
tube, differential (S:31)
  tubing, rubber (T 1901b:369), 22
amplifier, 10, 11
*analyzer, 10, 11, 27
*audiometer (S:35-37), 2, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28
  Seashore's (S:34; T 1905b: 59-60), 24, 25
audio-oscillator, 27
bar, tunable, and difference tone (S:32), 22
*bell (S:60, 121, 179; T 1905a:167), 11
*bellows
cylinder (S:34; T 1905b: 32-35), 12, 13, 14
difference-tone apparatus (S:33), 22
earphone, 19
*fork  (S:29-32,   121; T  1901a:31,   35-39;   T   1901b:55-58,
60-66,   80,   330,   332,   369-371;   T   1905a:67-69,   154;
T 1905b:2-4,  13-14, 31-35,  125-126), 6, 7, 10, 11,  12,
13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22
funnel-horn, 11
graphic recording, 11
*harmonium   (S:32;   T   1901a:43^6;   T   1901b:70,   72,   79,
410), 12, 16, 17, 19, 22, 25
  harmonical (T 1901a: 43-46; T 1901b:52, 70, 79-80, 330), 19
^hearing aid, 2
lamella (S:3l; T l905a:l-2; T 1905b:l-4, 13, 39), 12, 22
'^metronome (S:70-71; T 1901a:115,  175-178; T 1901b:205-
206,    338-340,    347-348,    351-352;   T    1905b:4,    384)
*microphone, 2, 27
*model (S:l9l-192), 8, 9, 10, 23, 30

musical instrument, 11, 16, 19
*bassoon (T 1901a:47)
*concertina (T 1901b :72)
*harmonica (S:32; T 1901b:330),- 15, 16, 19
harp string, 7
melodeon, 19
*oboe (T 1901a:47)
*organ,  18
■^piano (T 1901b:72, 330; T 1905b:91), 19
*piano string, 6, 7
*trumpet (T 1901b :72)
^violin (T 190la:47; T 1901b:72, 330), 19
*xylophone (S:31, 121)
  *zither (T 1901a:49)
See also harmonium; pipe, organ
^otoscope, 10
phonodeik, 27
*phonelescope (S:39), 22
=^phonograph (S:85), 2, 11, 20, 28
*phonograph record
phonoineter. See acoumeter
phono-projectoscope (S:39—40), 22
pipe (T 1905b:35)
*organ (T 1901b :68, 72, 330, 371), 11, 12, 19
  *pitch (S:31)
pseudophone, 19
*resonator (S:31; T 1901b:77-80), 6, 11, 16, 17, 22
rhythm apparatus (S:89-90, 97-98; T 1905b:411)
*siren, 11, 12
  *tooth (Savart wheel) (T 190lb:52), 12
♦sonometer (S:31, 121; T 1901a: 50-51), 16
sound   cage   (S:35-36,   T   1901a: 179;   T   1901b:358-359;   T
     I905b:l41), 19, 22
*sound generators, 10, 11
*sound hammer, 22
sound helmet (T 1905b: 359), 19
sound measurer, 11
*sound pendulum (S:37; T 1905b: 194-197, 265), 15
sound perimeter, 25
sound receiver, 11
*sound recorder, 2, 10
sound reproducer, 10, 11
sound stimulator (T 1905b:344-345, 384)
Hipp's (S:37; T 1905b :340, 344)
*snapper (S:36; T 1901b:359)
  =^sound hammer (S:37; T l905b:344-345)
stethoscope, 28
  
36

NUMBER   3 1

37



stroboscope, 25
strings, 11,12
stroboscopic disk (S:39), 22
strobilion, 22
'•^synthesizer, 11, 16, 17, 27
♦telephone, 2, 11, 12, 20
tonometer, 22
*fork, 3
  *reed (S:33; T I90lb:89, T 1905b:9l), 15, 16, 19
♦tonoscope (S:38-39), 22, 25
♦transmitters, 10

tube,   Quincke's   (S:33;   T   1901a:34-35,   40-45,   47-49;   T
     190lb:66-72; T 1905b:34), 16, 22
variator, 22
♦bottle (S:3l)
  ♦Stern's (S:3l; T I905b:139-140), 15
vowel apparatus, 11
♦watch (T 1905b:56)
whisde, 11, 22
♦Galton (S:32-33; T 1905a:r2-14; T 1905b:31-41, 44-45),
13, 14, 22
piston, (S:3I;T 1901a:47-49), 16

Index of Names

Angell, James Rowland (1869-1949), 22
Appunn, Anton (1839-1900), 12, 13, 14, 17, 21
Appunn, Georg (1816-1885), 13, 14, 17
Auzoux, Louis-Thomas Jerome (1797-1880), 8, 9
Baldwin, Bird Thomas (1875-1928), 22
Bell, Alexander Graham (1847-1922), 2, 32
Bergstrom, John Andrew (1867-1910), 22
Bernstein, Julius (1839-1917), 12
Bezold, Friedrich (1842-1908), 14
Bezold, Wilhelm von (1837-1907), 12
Boring, Edwin Garringues (1886-1968), 22, 28, 31
Bowditch, Henry Pickering (1840-1911), 2
Bowman, Charles, 24
Bray, Charles William (1904-	), 31
Bunch, Cordia C. (1885-1942), 27, 28, 32
Buytendijk, Frederik Jacobus Johannes (1887-	), 31
Carlisle, Anthony, Sir (1768-1840), 6
Cattell, James McKeen (1860-1944), 2
Corti, Alfonso (1822-1888), 6, 7, 11
Davidson, F. (fl. 1903), 10
Dean, Lee Wallace (1873-1944), 27
Deiters, Otto Friedrich Karl (1834-1863), 6
Denoues, Guillaume (ca 1650-ca 1735), 8
Despretz, Cesar Mansuete (1792-1863), 12
Dexter, George (fl. 1840), 8
Dorsey, Herbert Grove (1876-        ), 22
Dubois-Reymond, Emil (1818-1896), 24
Ebbinghaus, Hermann (1850-1909), 1, 22
Edelmann, Max Thomas (1845-1913), 13, 14
Edison, Thomas Alva (1847-1931), 2, 32
Ellis, Alexander John (1814-1890), 2, 13, 19
Ewald, Julius Richard (1855-1921), 30
Fechner, Gustav Theodor (1801-1887), 1, 15
Fletcher, Harvey (1884-	), 28
Flores, Jose de (1751-1824), 8
Fontana, Felice (1730-1805), 8
Forbes, Alexander (1882-1965), 31
Fourier, Jean Baptiste Joseph, Baron (1768-1830), 30
Fowler, Edmund Prince (1873-1966), 28
Franz, Shephard Ivory (1874-1933), 10
Galton, Francis, Sir (1822-1911), 13, 15
Gotch, Francis, (1853-1913), 8
Gray, Giles Wilkeson (1876-  ), 22
Griessmann, B. (fl. 1919), 27
Gruschke, G. (fl. 1919), 27
Guttman, John (fl. 1920), 27
Hall, G. Stanley (1844-1924), 2, 22, 24
Hartmann, Arthur (1849-1931), 24
Hawksley (fl. 1890), 13
Helmholtz,   Hermann   Ludwig  Ferdinand   von   (1821-1894)
     1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 22, 31, 32
Henle, Jakob (1809-1885), 6
Hensen, Victor (1835-1924). 6, 7

Hughes, David Edward (1831-1900), 24
Hunter, Walter Samuel (1889-1954), 10, 32
James, William (1842-1910), 1, 2, 9, 10, 32
Jastrow, Joseph (1863-1944), 22
Jung, Rudolf (fl. 1880-1895), 9
Kempelen, Wolfgang von (1734-1804), 17
Kline, Linus Ward (1866-1961), 10
Koenig, Rudolph (1832-1901), 2, 8, 11, 12, 13,  14, 16, 17, 21
Kolliker, Albert von (1817-1905), 7
Kuhne, Wilhelm (1837-1900), 6
Ladd, George Trumbull (1842-1921), 5, 6, 24
Lane, C. E. (fl. 1920), 28
Lashley, Karl Spencer (1890-1958), 10, 32
Lehmann, Alfred (1858-1921), 14
Lotze, Rudolf Hermann (1817-1881), 2
Mach, Ernst (1838-1916), 6
Marloye (fl. 1845), 12
Maximilian II (1811-1864), 32
Mayer, Alfred Marshall (1836-1897), 28
Melde, Franz Emil (1832-1901), 13
Metfessel, Milton Franklin (1901-1969), 22
Meyer, Max Friedrich (1873-1967), 13, 14, 21, 22-23, 30, 32
Miles, Walter Richard (1885-        ), 21
Miller, Dayton Clarence (1866-1941), 27
Miller, R. H. (fl. 1927), 31
Minton, John Preston (1889-1967), 27
Moos, Salomon (1831-1895), 12
Mowrer, Orval Hobart (1907-	), 22
Mijller, Georg Elias (1850-1934), 1
MiJller, Johannes (1801-1858), 6, 7
MiJnsterberg, Hugo (1863-1916), 10, 21, 27
O'Connor, J. (fl. 1927), 31
Ogden, Robert Morris (1877-1959), 22
Ohm, Georg Simon (1787-1854), 6
Planck, Max (1858-1947), 22
PraU, Carroll Cornelius (1894-	), 20
Preyer, William (1842-1897), 6, 13
Retzius, Gustav (1842-1919), 6, 11
Riemann, Bernard (1826-1866), 9
Rijdinger, Nicolaus (1832-1898), 6
Rutherford, William (1839-1899), 11, 12, 30
Sabine, Wallace Clement (1868-1919), 27, 32
Sanford, Edmund Clark (1859-1924), 4, 5, 14, 19, 22
Savart, Felix (1791-1841), 12
Schaefer, Karl Ludolf (1866-1931), 27
Schopenhauer, Arthur (1788-1860), 24
Schultze, Max Johann Sigismund (1825-1874), 6
Schwartzkopf (fl. 1919), 27
Schwendt, Anton (1853-1902), 12
Scripture, Edward Wheeler (1864-1945), 4, 5, 14, 22, 24, 25, 30
Seashore, Carl Emil (1866-1949), 4, 10, 22, 23-25, 32
Sittel (fl. I860), 9

38

NUMBER   3 1

39



Smith, W. F. (fl. 1894), 14
Steinbriigge, Hermann (1831-1901), 12
Stumpf, Carl (1848-1936), 1, 6, 13, 14, 19, 22, 23
Thomson, James (1822-1892), 27
Thomson, William (1st Baron Kelvin) (1824-1907), 27
Tiffin, Joseph (1905-        ), 22
Titchener,  Edward Bradford  (1867-1927), 4,  5,   11,   14,   19,
     21, 22, 28, 32
Von Bekesy, Georg (1899-1972), 32
Weber, Ernst Heinrich (1795-1878), 15
Wegel, Raymond Lester (1888-        ), 28
Weiss, Albert Paul (1879-1931), 21, 22

Wever, Ernest Glen (1902-        ), 31
Wheatstone, Charles, Sir (1802-1875), 17
Whipple, Guy Montrose (1876-1941), 15, 22
Wilkinson, George (1867-        ), 30
Willis, Robert (1800-1875), 17
Wilson, J. G. (fl. 1921), 27
Wistar, Caspar (1761-1818), 8
Witmer, Lightner (1867-1956), 10
Wundt, Wilhelm Max (1832-1920), 1, 2, 27
Young, Paul Thomas (1892-        ), 22
Zumbo, Giulio (1656-1701), 8
Zwaardemaker, Henrik (1857-1930), 14

U. S. GOVERNMENT  PRINTING OFFICE : 1975 O - 572-511







SERIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE SJMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
The emphasis upon publications as a means of diffusing knowledge was expressed
by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution. In his formal plan for the Insti-
tution, Joseph Henry articulated a program that included the following statement:
"It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries
in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge."
This keynote of basic research has been adhered to over the years in the issuance
of thousands of titles in serial publications under the Smithsonian imprint, com-
mencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing
with the following active series:
Smithsonian Annals of Flight
Smithsonian  Contributions to Anthropology
Smithsonian  Contributions to Astrophysics
Smithsonian  Contributions to Botany
Smithsonian  Contributions to  the Earth Sciences
Smithsonian  Contributions to Paleobiology
Smithsonian  Contributions to Zoology
Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology
In these series, the Institution publishes original articles and monographs dealing
with the research and collections of its several museums and offices and of profes-
sional colleagues at other institutions of learning. These papers report newly acquired
facts, synoptic interpretations of data, or original theory in specialized fields. These
publications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, laboratories, and other in-
terested institutions and specialists throughout the world. Individual copies may be
obtained from the Smithsonian Institution Press as long as stocks are available.
S. DILLON RIPLEY
Secretary
Smithsonian Institution