According to the literature, a relationship exists between auditory discrimination and articulatory production (Weiner, 1967). The possibility of a difficulty in auditory discrimination as an etiological factor in functional articulatory disorders has been suggested (Prins, 1963). Recently Ringel, et al. (1970) have demonstrated that so called functionally articulatory defective individuals, both adults and children, frequently commit more errors than do normally speaking persons in discriminating oral-stereognostic forms in the oral cavity. This would indicate that these people receive faulty sensory input from the oral cavity. The motor theory of speech perception implies that sensory information from the oral cavity is required in the perception of phonemes. Therefore, it would seem that sensory information from the oral cavity would be necessary in discriminating between phonemes especially when these phonemes are removed from each other by place of articulation. It follows then that these individuals would also have difficulty receiving sufficient sensory information to discriminate between the oral-stereognostic forms. This study was designed to determine whether the oral-stereognostic test proposed by Ringel, et al. (1970) could be employed in predicting those adults with normal articulation who perform inadequately on the auditory discrimination test of sounds removed by place of articulation. Fifty adults with normal articulation were selected from a college population. They presented no evidence of motorical involvement. Their hearing was within normal limits. They received the Ringel, et al. oral-stereognostic test and the Goldman-Fristoe-Woodcock Test of Auditory Discrimination (1770) noise subtest only. The discrimination test was presented through earphones (Rotel RH 630) at a sensation level of 30 dB SPL in a sound treated booth. Both tests were randomized and presented in the suggested manner. Results of the testing indicated a low but significant correlation of .39 (p = 0.05) between errors on the audirory-discrimination task and the oral-stereognostjc [ask. The mean number of errors for the oral-stereognostic test was 4.9 (SD of 2.0). This did not vary to a great degree from the mean of 4.0 (SD of 1.7) for normal adults as teported by Ringel, et al. The mean number of errors for the auditory discrimination task was 4.7 (SD of 2.3) which was below the mean of 5.78 (SD of 2.08) recorded by Goldman, Fristoe, and Woodcock. The relatively low correlation does not allow the authors to predict difficulty in auditory discrimination in an adult population from scores on this standardized oralstereognosric test. Many explanations may be put forth as possible reasons for achieving this low correlation. First of all, the stereognostic test may not be sophisticated enough to isolate the subtle difficulties of sensory input experienced by a normal adult population. A second group of deviant adults and possibly a group of children may have scores which would correlate more highly. Possibly using only the more difficult forms from the Ringel, et al. test might eliminate some measures of the oral-stereognostic task which are not sensitive to 'place' discrimination defects in adults. The authors are presently investigating these possibilities.