i I éfié JIIHHIIHII __THS RECQGNEHGN OF D0? PATTERNS AS A. FUNCTEGN 0F LGCUS OF RETINAL EXCITATIQN 751951: {or $50 Dawes 0? M A. MICEEGf-‘éi 3332. E5§€E3:’EZSE?Y Kenneth Norman De Ymmg 1957 ”ES"? LIBRARY Michigan State University THES‘: RECOGNITlON OF DOT PATTERNS AS A FUNCTION OF LOCUS OF RETINAL EXCITATION BY Kenneth Norman De Young AN'ABSTRACT submitted to the College of Science and Arts Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in.partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1957 Approved by /77 @fi/WZ/ Kenneth N. De Young Two major theoretical positions disagree on the importance of locus of retinal excitation in the perception of visual material. Kbhler and Lashley contend that the patterning of the excitation on the retina plays the major role in perception, and that there is innate equipotentiality of the receptor surface of the eye. Hebb, on the other hand, maintains that any functional equivalence between retinal areas is a result of previous learning experience and that the location of excitation on the retina is a factor in determining the quality of the perceptions The present study is an attempt to supply further information on the importance of locus of excitation in visual perception. Sixteen patterns of dots were presented tachistoscOpically to #0 Introductory Psychology students at Michigan State Uniyersity. The duration of exposure was short enough to preclude any eye movement.‘ The patterns were presented randomly to the left or right of a fixation point, 1.e., their projections fell on the right or left hemiretinae. The Be were to reproduce each pattern by placing black balls, corresponding to each dot they saw, in appropriate depressions on a reproduction form.board.‘ Each 8 was also tested to determine which eye was dominant, and an attempt was made to find any relation that might exist between eye dominance and the side on which more patterns were recognized. The results of the study showed that more patterns were Kenneth N. De Young correctly reproduced when they were presented on the left side of the fixation point than when on the right side, but the difference was not statistically significant (p< .lO). . . These results do not appear to be consistent with the doctrine of equipotentiality, nor does it seem necessary to invoke the concept of previous learning as the explanation for the differences in efficiency of retinal areas, such as were found. _ Rather it is suggested that the attentional advantage which seems to exist in the position to the left of fixation may be sufficient to account for the differences found. No relation between eye dominance and-the side on which more patterns were recognized was found. REFERENCES l. Hebb, D. 0., Egg Organization 2; Behavior, New‘Xork, John Wiley Sons, Inc., 1949. 2. Kbhler, W., Dynamics in Psychology, New York, Liveright Publishing 00., 1940. 3. Kbhler, W.,and Wallach, H., Figural After Effects, An Investigation of Visual Processes, £299. £9933. _P_t_1__i|;_]_._. §_o_c_., 1944, 68, 269-357. 4. Lashley, K. 8., The Problem of Cerebral Organization in Vision, In Klfiver, H., Visual Mechanisms, gig;.Sygpos., 1942,7, 30l-322. REC (1—1“? TIC}? CF DOT PAT'I‘ERIES AS A FUNCTIOZ‘T OI" LOC’U'Q‘ OF RE‘l‘IZLAL nXCI'i‘A'l‘IOI-E T? dd, Kenneth EormanIDe Young A THESIS Submitted to the College of Science and Arts Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1957 AC K L C 1 [LED it? E 1 3 TS . -“-‘ 1 fl 1 0 (1:. q 18 ffilflr.+lu,-1‘(V‘,J ' ‘- ‘1 “L .V"*-'1_n A n ”~‘001 . ' .u The writer J1 snes so 0..., ens his 0' I; (‘QT -. ,‘1 L" .AC fl ° ' " -- r" 'llflt‘l" .mose villain... to 413 edVisor, Dr. .4. ha, Den... , um. 0 E] !. rt 1'01? ' 4‘ ‘ .v 7. w’o ~r w much .10]? .1 '5': also '.'."lS‘v-'33 to than... 3,... ”inc, . , th i s ".'.'OI‘ 1-: . TABLE OF C ON’IEZ-T TS I ETRODUCTIOH 00.000000000000000.90.000.000.000... 1 II Itf-ZT‘IC‘D 00000000000000...00.0000oooooooocooooooooo r3, SUbjCCtS 0.0.00.00000000000000o...00000000000 a Appaiatus 00.00000000000000000000.0000...0000 Procedure ................................... '10 III RESULTS ......................................... 16 IV DISCUSSlOII .. 2 V COl-E‘CLUSIOIES ..................................... 30 VI 3151215111125 ......................................... 32 .,T. ’J r”: * 0177‘ '3 DEELIOW&A “i oooooooooocooo000.000.00.000.coo.coo-0.00 )3 IKPPE:DIX OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.00...O.0OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO36 TABLE II. LIST OF TAILES " ’ 1. ° ,.. .3. . , . 1- LUKbCT of Pnptorns Pocrénlded amen Frozenuod to 4" O u C‘“ ’14 p.) 0 '7' O *3 d O '3 :U } o I ,) Fig-20.45102“. Point , v f ,_ Q Cflxfllfis A 3.1!? 73000000000000...00.000000000000000 lb“ fiUmbor of Patterns Recoinized by cht and Rijht q Eyc‘DOLiIant SS wnon Fremonted to the Left 3rd 'r ° n A. - a *1: 4.: - .2-.4,- Iilffnflu ()4. b4313u..01110-x.uu...o..............ooooo. l? T ‘ I! ., ‘ -.r n".‘ . ‘ IV ' ' t- »r OI Patterns hocognxncd UACL Pronontcl V ' on the Left by Loft ani Riqnc Ere Dorinnnt ”103 Prosontefi on the Right by Loft 3 Old. Rirjht E.-e D0111rlarzt 330.cooooooooooooooooooo (-0 \v m 1 {H {h LIST OF FIGLEES FIGURE I. Reproduction Form Board .................... 7 7.1 r IGURE II. Ego Dominance Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 IIT‘J‘RQ‘} "JC I’IOII cal problem in the field of visual perception that remains unsolved is concerned with the importance of location of retinal excitation as a factor in the perception of visual stimuli. Is the pattern of sensory excitation on the retina, within the areas of equal visual acuity, sufficient to account for discriminative visual perception, or is it necessary to consider the locus of excitation? In other words, is the discriminatory response of narception inde- pendent of the location of the excitation or not (within the limits of equal acuity)? There seem to be two prominent, opposing views on this matter. KBhler (1h, 15), with his electrical field theory, and Lashley (17), using the concepts of irradiating waves and interference patterns in the cortex, agree that the patterning of ex itation is the important factor. Hebb, on the other hand, contends that a selective, discrbtinative response requires the excitation of specific neural cells (12). He'maintains that previous learning must account for an: equivalence found between different areas of the retina. Because most of the areas of the retina (of eqxal visual acuity) receive the same amount of overall visual training in the development of the organism, 2 it is not surprising that a given object can be identified almost irrespective of the retinal locus of its projection. thler and Lashley hold that this stimulus equivalence is spontaneous or innate in the organism. This essentially is the doctrine of equipotentiality. Hebb proposes that past learning must be responsible for any equivalence present, and further, that by selective training, non-equivalent areas can be, and are, developed. Recent experimentation by Mishhin and Forgays (l9), Forgays (l0), aid Orbach (20), on the recognition of printed woris (Enfilish, Yiddish, and Jewish) as a function of locus of retinal excitation support Hebb's position. These studies found, among other things, that recognit- ion of printed English words, presented tachistoscopically, is significantly sunerior when words are presented in certain parts of the right visual field thanmvhen presented in corresponding parts of the left visual field. This superiority is said to be due to selective retinal :4- training in past reading experience and is s gnificantly related to educational Trade level. Certain unidirectional factors, such as anisotropy of the visual space (13), dominance of the left occipital cortex in vision and others, were ruled out as possible explanations for the above phenomenon by the use of both 3 English and Yiddish words with bilingual 33. It was found that recognition was hOfl greater for English words to the right of the fixation point than to the loft, and 25% greater for Y"ddish words to the left than to the right of the f'xation point. The English difference was statistically s gnificant at the .01 level, the Iiddish difference was not (p<.lO) (l9). Orbach found, muong bilingual 83 who had learned to read Enqlish before learning to read Jewish, recognition of Jewish words 35% better on the right. Among those who learned to read Jewish first, recognition of Jewish words was 33% better on the left. Both differences were statistically significant at the .01 level. Recognition of English words was 90% better on the right for both.groups. If the differences which the above investigators found were due to increased efficiency of certain.retinal areas as a consequence of past learnin: experience, as would seem to be implied by Hebb, then it would appear that this same difference should be manifest when other t;pes of visual material are presented in similar fashion. It might also be wondered if eye dominance, that is, the more or less universally found tendency for one eye to assume supremacy over the other in ordinary binocular vision, would be a factor in detenfiining the importance of retinal locus in visually perceived material. The present study is an attempt to supply some information relevant to these last questions. Specifically, this study addresses itself to the following problems: (1) Is there a perceptual or recognitionl differential present when patterns of dots are presented (tachistoscop- ically) so that their projections fall on different areas of the retina, or’more accurately, on different hemiretinae? (2) Is there a relation between eye dominance and the locus of greater retinal efficiency, should such locus be found? —-——- 1 Recognition will be indicated by the correct reproduction of the pattern presented. ICETIZCD SUBJECTS: The he SS in this study were Introductor' Psychology students at Michigan State University, each of whom reported himself to have 20-20 uncorrected vision. APPARATUS: A Gerbrands tachistoscope was used in this experiment. The eyepiece was modified somewhat by the insertion of two pieces of white cardboard, each placed one inch in front of 33 eyes, and each having a rectangular opening, 7/16" x 11/16", cut from he center. The card- board acted as a reduction 8 reen, eliminating from SS field of vision, as much as possible, everything inside the tachistoscope except the liahted areas. The rear screen of the tachistosccpe was 2h" fromlds eyes and 7" square. The exposure time was set at .10 second, a duration‘vhich was short enough to preclude eye movements (7). he button controlling onset of exposure was hand operated by E. Eighteen white cards, 9" x 12", onxvhich were drawn different patterns of black, circular dots, were used. Two of these cards were practice cards and not used in obtaining information in the study. Each dot was l/h" in diameter, and the distance between adjacent dots, from center to center, was 3/h"; the ratio of distance between to diameter was thus 3 to l. the number of dots in the patterns varied from 3 to 9. The witterns themselves were e in every case symmetric about their own centers. Six were also bilaterally symmetric. Several sample patterns are presented in the appendix. The center of each pattern of dots was located 1 1/2" laterally from the center of the card. The cards were so rn designed that when placed on one of the long (12") sides _' the pattern was to the right of center, and when placed on the other long side, the same pattern, in the same orientation, appeared to the left of center. The width M g and height of the patterns varied frmn 1 1/2" to 3". The visual angle subtended by the patterns thus varied from 3° 36' to 70 12'. On one additional white card, 9" x 12", a small, black cross, with vertical and horizontal anus each 1/2", was located in the center of the card. A reproduction form board, somewhat similar to the one designed by Krech and Calvin (1:), was constructed and painted white (see Figure l). The board, 11 1/2" square, was mounted on wedges so that it lay at an angle of apnroximately 100 with.the horizontal. Thus when S looked at Jhe board, it lay in the frontal plane. In the uweer surface of the reproduction board were 25 circular deoressions, 1/2" wide and l/h" deep at the centers. The depressions were arranged in the fonn of a square, 3 to a side, with the center depression lying in li'ICrURE I. HEI‘RQDUCL’IO'L.’ FOR}; 1301er TOP VIEW 11 1/2" 11 1/2" 8 II) E V IEW the center of the board. The side of this square of depressions were approximately C" lone. Each depression k.) was separated from the nearest adjacent depressions by 1/2", or the distance between adjacent depressions was in the ratio of 3 to l with the diameter of the depressions, the same ratio as found in the dot patterns on the white rm carts Ten cork balls, 5/8" diameter, were stained black a.d selected so that each wouhi nestle snugly in any of the 5 fl 0 depressions on the board. A white cardboard tray was fitted .1. b0 the lower end of the board to hold the cork balls in $1) convenient location. All dot patterns could be reproduce on the board in correct proportions by placing the cork balls appropriatelr To obtain a fairly rel'ah e measure of eye dominance, T7 113 a si'I‘ e apparatus was constructed (see Fisure II). consisted of a base which rested on a table, through we: ch a long (3'), narrow (3") boa3m could be adjusted up and down, and fixed according to the height of the particular S being tes trd. Near the rounded top of this sliling board was a circular opening, 1 1/2" diameter. nu width . I ,0 3- unur‘ fl " 0f wood surrouzidin" tllS opening 01 one Si 03 and ,on “as l . T518 apparatus was placed 5 1/2' from a wall on which a h" K 8" white card was ulaced 0' above the floor. On the Ho 5-. r! Conter of tnis card was drawn a black, 3/h" X l l/J' ~ alarms II. ea; DOIII...A1$4113 arm uprnjs act V1.33? II .’ 1 1/24" digt'aet er ® 01‘, oninfj 3! o lO PCCtln{]O . S, stanling miether 2 1/2' (3' total) frmu the wall, could see the rectangle through the circular opening with one eye only. With the other eye, he saw the rectangle to one side of the narrow board or the other. Illumination of the room in whic1 the e"worimc nt was conducted was ob ta nei from an overhead 100 we t bulb. r— PR003ltRE: The card on which the fixation areas was drawn was placed in the side arm of the tachis toscope in such a manner that the cross when viewed by S corresponied in ' g: position to the center of the cards on which the patterns were drawn when .Ies cards were placed in the back of the tachistescepe. The cross remained in view in the tachis- to~conc at all times except when the patterns were actually or oosed. The 16 cards followinf the 2 practice cards were presented in the tachistoscepe in Eifferent randomized orders for every pair of Ss, anc in randomized 33o sit ions , (either 1 1/2" to the left or 1 1/2" to the right of the .e., the fixation point). Ei ht cards 1* center of the card, were presented on each side of the fixation 73int, the side on ineh a r L" "1 card was presented havinrt been previouslv anl randomlv Tetoruined. vidod egaallv into two firou73, A al’ 7- ‘. :1 1» "me L5 38 were -th an S in group o, so that L... Each S in aroup A wa paired 1; xfl1cn an S in fireup A was nresent ed certain patterns in, for example, an RLR sequence (one pattern to the rifiht 01 fixation, tire next to the loft, and the net-it to the r:s_,f;.;:t r'J .aain), an S in group B was presented the same patterns in an LRL sequence. When one S was assigned to group A, the next 3 tested was placed in group B and was presented the smue sequence of patterns on the opposite sides. Upon arrival at the experimental room, each S we assirned to one or the other of two experimental groups; the first 3 to group A, the next to group B, and so on. He was first asked whether he were right or left handed. U sked to stand at a location 2 1/2‘ 3 Each S was then (\ a 4-1-5 {from the eye dominance an arntus, faciné it and the wall beyond. The following instructions were given: ”With both eyes open, look at the rectangle on the card on the wall through the opening in this boarc. Move your head back and forth until you have the rectangle located threuch the eficninm. New shut your left eye. Does the rectangle stay inside the Opening?" If the answers were "Yes", S was considered right eye dxnainant, if "he", he was considered left eycciominalt. If km: were unable to locate the rectansle through the ousting vnith.both eyes open, he was juiged neither eye dominant. S vas then seated at the end of the table on which the .‘ii'i ' .. V tachistose0pe and reproduction boardxvere placed. He could see comfortably into the tachistoseepe and by lookin downward, he would be viewing the reproduction board. then save t} k is f ollowing‘, instructions: ”During this OXperiment vou are to ‘ V stare at the cross in tne center of the field J.‘ weic1 you see txroufih the eyepiece. I will v~4 present several patterns of lots at very brief F'h eXposure times. nese patterns may not always appear in the smne place in the field. When you are read? for each pattern to appear, that is, when you are fixated on the cross, you will say 'Ready' and very shortly a uattern will i a. appear. Be sure to DO lixating on the cross {hen you say 'Ready'. Your task is to reproduce each pattern as accurately as you can on the white board that you see before you. Place one of the black balls in each appropriate depression on the board, until you have a black ball correSpond- ing to each and every dot you saw in the pattern. Use any or all of the board, the location on the board does not matter. Twis is not a speed test but you are encouraged to reproduce each pattern as rapidly as you can. ~-1 1:: r, ‘J "a..." ”z. . rhe first tw patterns will be practice trials, which you are to reproduce, to make sure it is understood what you are to do." The first praci1 ice pattern was shown on the left, the second on the right. If S did not make a correct reproduction m either of the practice «atterns, it was presented again and S was shown how to re3roduce it by E. Only two 83 made incorrect reproductions of practice patterns. Each S saw 8 patterns on each sine of fixation, not including the practice pa atterns. 1-"an S placed “ '_s head affainst the e‘re'eicce and said "Readv", Bpre essefl th» button which eXposed the pattorn distOSCOpe. The *‘5 ('1 DJ CD (1- {:3 0 previously placed in the bach o tire between the pres sins of the button and the onset of the exposure was very brief. Aft er seeing the .10" exposure, S looked down at the - reduction board and att empted to reproduce what he saw, using the black cork balls. He'time limit was set, although.nost Ss worked fairly rapidly, in accordance with the instructions given. When the pattern we rejFCLU(Od to:§s satisfaction, E circled the positions, at W“lCF1 S had placed each ball, on prepared scoring sheets. These flnoets had the same patterns that S saw mimcofiraphod on them. Then the board was cleared and S was presented another pattern, which was reproduced, and so on through the remaining; patterns As was previously indicated, two 88 saw the same patterns in identical order, but on opposite sides of the fixation point. The cards were then rearranged according to the randomization schedule, ani the next two 83 were "‘ the cards in this new order. PESULTS In all studies dealing with perceptual problems, some fonn of behavioral response must be utilized to indies to, as nuch as poss'ble, something of the character of the Inn-q perception itself. Often a verbal res pcn‘2e is called for: E as in the word recognition studi-s previously cited; 30m3- l tires S must draw "what he saw". In this study, S reproduced f V on the form board, as accurat613 33 POSSible' "what he saw" ; - during the or ief eXposure time. We must assume that the reproductions fair y accuratel, correspond to the perceptions (an assumption wkich .ve have no we“ to verify). Ss reported little difficulty in reproduction on the board, per se. The difficulties and errors were most often attributed to failure to "see" tae ea ttcrn cloarlr. Taele I s owe the mean nun‘ers of pattv1ns correctly rr=proc uced HJ‘ aroups A and B when they were presented on {1. the left and rivet sides of the fixation point. Although in both groups the left land patterns tended to be correctly reproduced more often than the right hand patterns, the n differences are not significant at the .u; level. Compu- ,wod no significant dii fe crences (at .05 level) between the numbers reproduced correctly, from either the left or right hand *m.tterns, by fireup A and by group B: ‘ SO these two groups were conbincd. This combination, which essentially amounted to doubling the n for trze celCI£ tion of t, still produced a non—sienificant t (a .05 level). Of the MO 33, 13 were considered left eve d right eye dominant, and S neither eve lominant. In Table II the mean numbers of patterns reproduced correctly on each C) [—3. C; :e by Teft and richt ere dominant Ss are s seen the tendency for more 3antt rns WJiCh were presented on b‘ O i...’ ‘3 "5 (.1. U) P. de of the fixation point to be correctly remroduced regardless of eye dorinance, but again the differences are - .357! ‘o statisticali' Jigxificaet. ., " _ , Aw I .' .v. 1.“. ..\ - - _‘ .- , ‘ _ L1 . ,3 -..-- a, .2- --. ‘_ -.. In. nullzors oi lgf b hand patterns :5: re. .ncel co... 40-0 ul“: 7.: «17-0 -0 -.., 3 _,.° , .1. Q L..- , n v ,‘.. 1 .0, . lult cue uOhindnu us and e, no ligas wUC ooh .snt DS is iot .. .. -. "I! J... . v 7 C l 1" \ '1 "I- ,- Sifll'iiCflJt tati ticall; (at too .O~ level), 1 , that bAC $310 is true of the rivht hand patterns. Alth mljh it is Quite a parent from Tables II enl III 9 o 0 that erwrrwrninnnce 1r rm s'weletcd to 1m#"nril arees cm srreater O iency, as determined in this ser§“e of 33 at an? rate, a point biserial product- Heine, correlation was per owned, resulting in an rpb of .013. The information (:013 ected concerning hand eclness was of little innortence, trimarilj becerse, as no effort was xade to match 33 on this variable, there appe ared too few subjects who reported twenselves to be left handed to make any rel able computa.ions. Four 83 vsportod themselves to be lCLt—hnndad. as the nuribor of sattsrns recovn’sed on either siss or these left- 1 U v A harwflod Ss Aid not diffnr signilicnnt?y from fbe mean values J. J- f01° the firoufis as a w“olc no furthsr unsds were inflicated. 18 TABLE I. NUmber of Patterns Recognized when Presented to the Left or Richt of Fixation Point, Groufis A an} 3. Patterns Patterns Recognized Recognized Group on Left on Right t p Mean W {Sean A L25; 1.71;); 3.55 2.207 .9791}. ).30 3 I;..ho 1.985 3.60 1.75:8 1.503;; ).10 Combined h-.325 1.324.? 3.725 1.975 1.8602 (.10 NOTE: Maximum possible number of patterns recognized is 8. t-teSt based on related scores. .VpM'x. _ . TRBLE II. Number of Patterns Recognized by Left and Right Eye Dominant 33 when presented to the Left and Patterns Patterns Eye Recognized Recognized Dominance on Left on Rirht t p Hean 35* Mean SD Left ?~-91‘.!J:-O 1.9."); 3.2222 2.0m 1.125’21L >.1o Right b.7058 1.759 Ju.o,.88 1.919 1.2230 >.2o NOTE: Maximum possible number of patterns recognized is 8. t-test based on related scores. TABLE III. Number of Patterns ReC‘hnized when on the Left by Left and Right Eye'Deminsnt Se and when Presented on the Right EreIDominant 85. q ."l -‘ ‘7‘ L‘ 1 .778 V7311 .Od light by Left 11d Side on which Left Eye Right Eye Recognize. Dominant Ss ‘Doninant Ss gean SD ‘Kean SD '6 Left 3.9Lue 1.98h.b-705 1.759 Right 3.2222 2.071 b.0588 1.919 1.1987 1.9371 2> JR) :>.2e NOTE: Maximum possible number of patterns recognized is 8. t-test based on unrelated scores. DISCUSS the term " recognition" IOIT will be employed to indicate that the p~cs ented pattern was correctly rearoduced, keeping in mind that, although we are forced to ‘tilizc some tebavior al response in rder to demonstrate (~——e%_ some hint of the character of the warticular perception, we E cannot be absolutely su1e that the quality of the perception ; is the onl." variable affectinc twis resionse. g 1 . The results of this studf, at first "lance, seem to be L j at variance with the da,a *orgrgs, and Orbae.. Closer reveal some their work and the present comparisons of results. ‘ For one thing, the substantiallv Hi The 0 a 4- eiriic the most part, letter I w 0 ‘ V O '0 and l/h" nigh, and Wmich suetended awproximately of the stimulus patterns vari and horizontallf, 7O 12' in ten 3 of vi the retinas stimulated by the patterns lying above horizontal band drawn through Riven by His} inspection, study which prevent sizes of the words which hO' horizontally. far" visa. each from 1 1/2" mu 11 anr:les subtended. and below a relatively narrow the center could not be ex— 1kin c1d Forgays however, may differences in experimental design between such strict presented ttrial were above investigators used, for were printed 2" long a visual angle of In this study, the size in two directions, vertically to 3", or from 30 36' to These areas of mls of of those parts re pected to be selectivel" tra ned by previous reading experience. Another factor of difference between the aeove Inentioned stldy of Mishkin and Forgavs and the present one is also related to stimulus properties. The words, regardless 7—1 of the language in which they were printed, were nest often f reco,fln zed on the side of the fixation point thich pl seed the 3 letters of the words nearer the fixation point and final letters of the same word further swag. In other words, the 3 i words themselves were organize» in directions awavzfrom the fi: {etion point. It 's felt that 13 hhin and Forgays did not adequately demonstrate that this inherent organizational property of the word itself was not a contributinfi factor to the results obtained. However, Opoachss flue, 1.11"“ may provide sufficient evidence for discounting this factor. In the present study, the patterns of dots were organized ee‘ from their own centers uttar were all syn etrie with respect to their centers. Six, in addition, were bilaterally 3mm etric. Their were no "frontvards" or "backwards" to these patterns. Because of the lack of statistical significance of the J Li results of this experiment, taej are somewl1at difficult to interpret. One fact 3 apparent, however, and that is the the sane factors t'hich one blc 83 to recognize more words presented to the right of fixation are not sufficient to enable 11450171 .0 l‘echrjnizc 3‘10in ' Q; nattgrns to 3:350 741',” fixatioi. Indeed, it seems alHOSb necessan to look for 0 some explanation for the t ndenev to recognize more nattcrn .i A- o _o ‘. 1 .. . to the left of fixation, even t:ourn inc differences nere One of nebb's mafor criticisms of the theory of KOhler and Lashley is that no way can be founi cf dealinf'with I attention and attitude in their terms (12, p.53 . It may he that attentive Wrocesses, whatever their nature, m: .0 \ some kev to the unflerstandinfi of retinal locus as a factor - -- n 9 1 - 4. ° reiegnicion or Visually presented material. '. ‘ W Qt "‘ '. we -. - ,- .LL‘l V 81;...Lnli1131’ J. .2 J A brief review of son“ of tee litenature on attention seems to he indicated. Dallenbaeh (3), main" circular illuminated areas in taehistoscopie presentation of .10 second, found that, if the areas were equal in intensity of illumination, an area located to the left of or above a fixation point was judged "clearer" than an area located to the ri ht of or below fixation. He conclu‘es that "position is a condition of clearncss, and that the left hand rosition and the position above have a distinct attentional advantage over the right hand position and the position below" (5, p.255). In a later study, Burke and Dallenbach.(h) substantiate ‘ O Dallenbach's previous findinss and added that the attentional advantago of nosition seems to be dependent on handedness. AMJ.4. .A. AC. “'- '1 P '1 ‘1‘ . . . —'—~ Studies b? Curtis and Foster (G), and Bowman (2) also found that the left hand position seems to possess thi attentional advantage. Woodworth and Schlosborg (92, n.75) stltn tlst the ,- ._ n n M '. .. .. ,. _._ . - ° "‘\'\r\ .. a. upper hill of a pace Hots sen, atteniien than the lOnGP half pan 5 La rm. ‘ n -. 21 _\ .21 .2 .1 z- n *- n .-V n - . ; arxi isle Ilei t twill iLOlTB laludl L410 :riialt L;QJJ., .30 ;J1t t {Arc . p - is - A.“ ‘ ‘0 F5 .: ‘ ' ‘| * '7 ~’ ‘1 ,' 0"- W' ‘. 5 l“ l "f" ‘ " ‘ up.e: lulL fliflu quarter Ma, ac three times as favoraole as A. J 0 v V-rtfi‘ ‘3 P‘» J- . 1‘“ C J l'\ ’he 10432 rl,ht .‘ quarter. q- - J- 0 ~ ‘A " _ ‘~ a O _‘- f. in a more peaccieal vein, nosever, Lucas and Brit' lo) 5" V...- tion advantages of advertisenezts is inconclusive, hut that apparently the best out-frter of a noz‘zsnaper 3‘»ar';o is the ucpo r rich-t, and the noorest is the lower left. The: base their conclusions on data which showed the relative nnnher of coupons sent in per 1000 advertisements. 7-. ,a n . , .LJ, .- 4. ...‘! . - ,_ . or ; firqn t (3) leinl ulna “can he exnosel for ;J seconls . 1'1 - Iv . ~1— -. 1 J- -v - Cy- -,- J- -. .n —A", 1-, ‘-‘ i ‘- a large earn Mlufl a bilabcrai;g SJJLetrlc an; n CmOnU of small squares (the s -ject fixating nrevious to exposure on the ‘j‘ioin‘t alt 17:1107‘1 ”3.110 (301131??? of the card was to fall) “hat the median position of the firs‘ fixation afte exposure was I! above and to the left of center and medians for the next two fixations were further in the same direction. he 0 ncluced . . Q n '. J‘ I'\"' 1“ z '. ' .‘ s~L,- a tuat To? and aoove UCSlulOHS have attentional alvantaac over right and below posit ens. An interesting view is presented hy Gaffron (ll). She " - ‘ _. _r .0 has jt'ostu la ted a cert: in fixed .I. 1- o0 :5 particularl, pictures. There i This is siid to he a phenomenon ath 1.hi c at visual 'nvolved. ‘ l ‘e ecnt1el " access of visual perception. This path, '.'.-":_::°lc‘;:‘ she e r713d N' the "(:13 nee curve" begins in the lower eft corner, rises 7 J n 3 . . . .L- .,,..,. 3‘, ..:- ‘ 5 . l‘ iron tnere, penetrates bOanfl JUC dc th (in a tnree : .. . _. . _ .L. ‘ .1. ‘1 fl ,_ L ‘l .31 f‘f v w} _ 1': (insenslonal pieeure), ane turns OVur to bflO 1 1t, ennlng : near tre rifiht hand border of the picture. Recognition of - o ‘ ._ s o ' ‘ _ _ ‘ r'. "it? sJects or n tt3rns l in” in t;is i”bf lS 's_on‘aneous", ”MW anything loo-ital ensife Hurt be longed for :‘301')s.1"z"‘el '. 'liixe curve describes truld be thst of a r_cht hundee person, a left handed persen should have a reversed glance curve. Excenting the findinfis of Lucas and Fritt, we see that in general, the left hand position eems to have some attent_eneladvan te~3 over the right hand vesitien T“is attentional ad ants e of the left mind position is 130.33.113th as The expuaietien Ol the r3s‘11'" of“ e ‘is study, though, of course, little if .nyt1an Is known about the nature of the attentive erocesses. It is further suggested.tdufl3 the reason that these attentiom1.l factors lid no; operate to the same extent in the studies of Kishkin and Forvnys, Forgevs, anl Oresch.we.s J -3, ‘u t no nherent organizations 'r—‘o " t tan. Stronger influence on their 1 prewcrtv of woris was a perception than retinal locus /fi 3/ '—— V7 ms‘ 0 _c _ . _ L. . . as u h. ian s not to deny pflO )11u31bili:;r of the Iv-x '1'. ‘ r1 {"0" - ‘v T? ‘ 7' . - w' - " ‘ ex;lanations oilered b, uses, it is only to suggest tn_t tneee organizational factors mey have alfved s more dominent , J" n V '1“ 'Q‘ -'~ -’ r -. .h . a J- - -.~ - r ‘ "1 r u - 4‘ rule swan was uicJ,tt. . lS llllical- to lr‘ ine he . sewu or preVious treininn would res lt in t e increasel efficiency P‘th e +3 n MIN-v1 "en- n as ' 1” Ln». 3 ,-,- 3 O... -‘Al-l 1&1 u.‘-l... v Vela.) CL \7’ .111 cat/v.4; 3...; «Kw-Ad ">011“; Q .' _Y-\ 7 ‘ rr-u ‘ ' ‘ ‘ "7"": - ‘ ’ 7 "-7.“ 7- ‘ '- .-..uen 31.3..» seen Jr tten on ..1e .. 4.1013078 of e, e -‘oHl-mnce. : Duke-Elier (8 ) :1escrioes re 0. ocular datinmice as the J .- - .- . - -.-.. - .-.. . ,. , ,. ._ ,, s 3 sliust on ex stln, ..c3 one Ol ”so ”no eyes.3ssus:s tne role : ; _ .J Q'v rfi ‘ 3 "- ‘. 4-: 3 —. -"I ‘ 1- tl'. ‘.\ ' \‘1 ‘- ._.__f" r of .ietor E;e. Jlul Siluaol, \jlied tests, no hoes on so 5 ' v. '- ~ 0 ‘ '. 9‘ .I'I ‘ ' ;1 ‘v \". V .‘ . D ‘ ‘ r ' ‘ “ L 3a,, see 3aele 0; eye -eninance lS lou.d to oe ClMOSU . f!- w - 3* ‘ r1 ' l ‘l'x" \3 .«S unive'se 1; do onstri.le in so 3 do ”so. Be ner and De nor (1) iavc suggested t11e-t snotiew term .. -. .3.- ! . '31.: ,. .-. H l n, J- 1.3. be introsu ed nmml, 3.333 control-llnu cuse , t...» relcr ‘uO tne 0 TO The 3.0,.” - " ' J-L ‘ 13' .3101 eye gains its 1‘:1a:3".1er;f within the Thoujh it meg be, the controllin' ‘ ‘ . 0 La .\ .0 fl ‘ ‘ 0 I t.ne e,e‘w1un unlch a persot 31,, 3‘51: he, that is, 3'3aint:.a.incd {371.170 controllinfi 3ye can be shifted. Oth3r writers seem to the "DO (8, 9). Fi.: (9) states teat which controls eni 1ec binocular trait e"e tiny; be "’ uler act, SHCQ as '3 : ., -.--'.O‘l 3 , :F'SI'CCI 7+ is S .1.-,. nact3r i ”1"!“ 32" .‘ ' k/.'._.‘ . O ulOl’lo sele of ", ego is not n3cr3"*333ilv, '13 .. O - ’ _. 3. inc deninant eye is 1.1 {311011. 1. rfngclson's O O ll-L C 7‘81} tile ‘inwtion of t“is modification of the S sifimts .Xr~u7h a 3 cm OUGYiQS in 1 fiOfifd at 1 small target twen'; feet away. Both hands hold tLe beer at anx's length. S is to locate the tarset tfireufih the cpeninc with <1 eyes oner. 73;" closing one eye, {The r3_o1:1inr1.n‘-.: .70, or the one eye setus‘lf used in locating the tsrret, is ieter- mined. This test has adventefie over host other tests in that 30th hands are used to “old the object e‘rough which the rm .L- oe usual test involves toe use of one ’1' ‘ \‘\ '1 I 1-. I".'. “ ‘ - "xr "“ "‘- ‘i‘fl ‘. ". f1 .L111,:3olx3 >3 ..i1.u,1ise £110 ixnvl 1-.1 s3rnlent se@:s,cc _o on I... - 0 - 1 ., .' . 1 .2 . —. v.‘ J- .1- ‘ -_ {1 " 1 _.- . ,. , ‘ . 0 -._ '1 -. .1 iurtpnx, .LL C._.L.1.l.¢.lAC-LJCS u--C L130 OJ. DS ilullkls Clitll°vlj. - - ‘ Q '. J. . n ‘7‘ .,-~ . \ ~\ 4. § . J— ‘ ' OOO.- \A -. ~ .‘ '- 171110111131? Crlil ‘QtCtOJ’J-S ulC OJ. is a 7739.339.‘ GS 13 b9.) , 1.; {On S S-L;*.L..8 the tareot t“rouifi the openinj wit“ one eye, the target is $3 .1 ca 0 4 {Jo L) EJ. DJ .J O - t' '3 3 \ t‘ O *‘5 O 1-D 0. E.) .‘J O f) ' D {‘1' ’D O .5 O :3 i ‘5 . 1 O *1 3...: (:1 irst. S can.see the target with both eyes, but he flecides upon one eye with which to Look through the opening at the target. As almost f any available test 0 eye dominance mustciepend on a sus- joctive juogenent on the part of the testee, it is believed I". (\ .1 U that the slight quostionability of this ssgoct is ovorcono by tho tcst's virtual elimination of tho chsnce factor. Dlzkc-Eldor state that the right eye is dominant in 0 .’ -"/ n -‘ . :11")_~:*r::v::'_1r:atol:r :->)§.,a Ol tnc nopu tion, 13:10 left ij‘e in 3kg, ‘ v «r 1 I)" “ . L ’9 n .0 ’l ano.r->3“o lILatoly‘LwJ snow no cxnis 1. cnt SJ my: 0; dLthL Mic of oithor 0?o. Fin. Ens gomx d about this save troportion. .. ‘ . . ' - - - - "’ ~‘v '\ “ In t*;: cxporumonn opprvxinltolr M5” of 33 toro Danni \\ n n ‘. ‘ 'n ' " " N ' '. . ‘ ’ ’ °.' " "I KP to have dealnsnt lolt s so. Tho orobabllit; of illilnj lu - .. _ __ J 1 v .0 . h. a ‘ .‘ "1 J1 -"\""' n , ‘H 4. out of a sample of NO naJln‘/;onln-nt loit “you wncn u ' fl -. - s- - '2 I . ‘. I . . a I '0 true population ‘rogortlon 18 34; is .05. Ilia may q 1nmic1te goat tho method uni up1Lurstv3 uscu sore not valid, t tl'zo W11: ortion oi poo-filo i1- the population is I‘Ligflicr )0 just a chance occurrence. t “v rate no relation was i monst ated between eye dmninanco as mos surcd and tho sile on which more patterns 0 -nfor 1 -tion on .0 H‘ *4 As was previously indicated, ‘0 -L . 4. .- a a. _. u,‘ honiodnoss was of 31t,1-:s1uc. I“ is into ostln , :OJovor, ‘ to note tho relation botwccn acnioinoss and cyo fiominmaco. cyoinoss" is the lnflnawntal factor “oi that Hosfloific.s is ‘oponflont on it. The data from Fin}: soor-ls to ‘oo in lino nit? this viov. Ho loun'l practica ly all right 070 dominant pooplo arc rifiht handed, but axons tllc loft oyo dos insnt people, many are founfi to ‘-. J use tho r:Lr;bt hand in writing. This was at ributsd to toe pract hands, that left 1 acts 100 (L. trallllli call rogarilcss of nuts 1 '3‘\ yr "|a'."‘ ‘7.{“‘ 2.1'91’1 U N ..__.}....J. .JJ. - )f‘1 _O ... ‘ 3- r _:__c .A u... le(.1.Ll1LLU.A-O-;O po hams 2x3 to 30; of the popu stion arc nativ L. ”indod. For ‘13:]:ch I‘Canfgl‘L’J’ £1 chcd to tho flats rol lso cvant to very little innorta CONCLUSION With reference to tno tw specific greblons to £Lich 'I this stnd‘ is addresser, ihC follow’ng conchsions are I 77 at '3 . 1*: H3r~11 ‘0"! ."‘ .. Q 140 Q ab :1." {3.1-02.1 0‘ J.-- team-l 00”....1 s1 1.011 was found amonfi the NO Ss test‘d. The’s'was ,1 ., -. - .n. - A 4. :_ .. LI. 1‘ ., ,. ,.:JL ._ .5 ~ . 3- on ego; for Lego pauUanS to so reeo ;ni’ed ”non iresented due to at 't01-t iv 0 factors, ot or exwer uzntors havinfi found positions in tle 10 t vfsdpl fiosl to have greater a+tentive value tfian corrosponfling dositions in the rightv ' mlal Lisld. 2 No relation was demonstrated sotween eye3S, 38ff. KBhler, W.,ngn§mics.in Psvcholqgg, New York, Livcrisht Publishin'j 00., 1911.0, 21. —-—~» K8hler, W., and well? ch, H., Fi~ural After effects, An Investination of Visual Processes. Proc. Amer. Phil. 800., 19th, 83, 269—3; . Krech, D., and Calvin, A., Levels of Perceptual Oreanizetion and Cognition. g. abnorm. soc. Psvchol., 19<3. 13. “sh-hue. Lashlev. K. 3., The Problem of Ccrcore] Orgerization in {4—1 0 r " v 0 7 O ‘ Vision, In Ifih1vcr, h., Visua_ beckonisms. 3391, bymnos., Lucas, D. B., and Rritt, S. 1., 5dvertising_Ps:chelogy and Research, Jew Kerk, Kcflraw Hill Book Co.Inc., IQSO, 236:1. I'ishlcin, II.,'1 :1.an Forgej's, D. G., Word Recognition as a Function of Retinal Locus. .g. @XD. Psvchol., 1952, L3, 14.3 43-8 . 22 35 Orbach, J., Retinal Locus as a Factor in Recognition of Visuall;r Perceived Words. Amer. 11. Ps*rchol., 1952, 65, Parson, B. S., Lefthanderlness, Nev-I York, The Izlacrzlillazz Cc., 11?“: Wood‘s-forth, R. S., and Schlosberg, H” Ezgmrimental Psychologt‘r, New York, Henry Holt and Co., 19"?15-. ‘4} [£1.31] ‘37-‘7‘. b .L v‘V‘ fi ”WW I u" q' a -:'DIX fl~ ’A TV. ‘ .AFL‘. . .. . a I. Illll‘illvirfl ml ‘- O}. ". 0 IA\... 377*.“ I .. f‘ "1 -'r 3 1-; ”’1 - xL DO / TC r" 1'7’”. L _-._...-_ h.‘ it 7 ,vautv: a n.-.1.. Van-i Demco—293 |||1|HullllljlfllflllflilILIILHIflLN\HII|[!MMj|fltII\IH