w‘

'1

“n: KEVIN-i ‘8‘? MERRYUE ‘8‘? T la‘Unh U c I‘IIVW‘L Iv..-

ON PERFORMANCE IN AN AUDETOR‘I‘ \‘ileifiNCE ‘z‘ASK

Thesis éor flu; Dogma aé M. A:

MICHIGAN STATE UNNERSWY

Richerci Edwarci Mammy
1951

   
     

  

L I B R A R Y
Michigan Stab
University

T'a

.CT

LBST R

Fr)
O

THE EFFECT OT [zBSHA CE OF VISUAL STIMULATION

‘ v
.A- H
'3

Q“ PLSF KHAN E IN AN AUDITORY VIGILANCE TASK

by Richard Edward Manley

 

This cvnerivert was designed to determine the effect
of absence of ‘isucl stimulation on performance in an audi-
tory vigilance task. From the point of View of the

arousal theory this can be considered as a reduction of

t+

otal affC"3nt stinilztion and, as such, may be expected
to produce a lower level 0' arwusal and, consequently, a
reduction in vigi 1 use efficiency.

From the viewpoint of the filter theory, it ma y be
ar sled tha' the absence of visual stimulation reduces a
major source of distracting stimuli to which the filter
m1 ight become more favorably disposed as the vigil wears on.
This reduction of an important source of potent-al dis-
traction might result in improved performance. In order
to Laeck on the pcssibility of sex differences in vigi-
lance, the folloving groups were tested:
1. Sig 1.ted males (NzZ 2).
2. Sighted females (3:22).
3. Blindfolded males (N=92).
4. Blindfolded females (Nz22).
An investigation of some subjective variables related

to vigilance is also i. ”c uded in this study.

Richard Edward Manley

Procedure

 

During the vigilance task the subjects were seated in ,
cubicles which afforded semi-isolated conditions. The
vigilance task consisted of picking out and recording sig-
nals (sequences of three digits, all different, in the

order odd—even-odd) from a series of taped digits deliv-

 

ered at the rate of one every second. The digits were pre-
sented continuously for 48 minutes. For the purpose of
analysis the tape could be broken into three separate
periods, each containing six of the total 18 signals. The
inter-signal intervals varied from 25 seconds to about
seven minutes. At the end of the vigilance task the sub-

jects were asked to complete an Adjective Check-List.

Results
The signal-detection performance may be summarized as
follows:
'1. There was a significant decremental trend in
performance.

2. No significant difference was found for the
sighted-blindfolded variable.

3. The females' performance was significantly
superior to that of the males.

4. There was a significant interaction between
the sighted—blindfolded variable and sex.
Blindfolded males were significantly superior
to sighted males. Sighted females were

slightly superior to blindfolded females.

Richard Edward Manley
Four separate analyses of the retrospective data were
made. These comparisons may be summarized as follows:
1. High and low signal-detection performers;
high performers reported having felt more
vigilant than low performers.
2. Sixhted—blindfolded groups; the blindfolded

group reported having felt more vigilant

than the sighted group.

(.3

L4

Sighted and blindfolded males only; the
blindfolded males reported having felt more
vigilant than the sighted males.

4. Males and females, the males reported having

felt more vigilant than the females.

L

, {‘l'
Pip: rolled P Ova BOY/ark ,
7

, v/ .
DB to g/ 3 0/63 /

 

THE EFFECT OF ABSENCE OF VISUAL STIMULATION

ON PERFORMANCE IN AN AUDITORY VIGILANCE TASK

BY

Richard Edward Manley

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1961

/ "I? V I“ '2
" I‘ r , .
l L. ‘F 5..

.r' .’
J v) ~.v ; 1.. I
the g.- i : r ‘41.:

AC KI‘IO‘JLE DC-TI ET 2‘! T

I wish to express my gratitude to the Thesis
Director, Dr. raul Eakan, whose advice and counsel
made this thesis possisle; also, to the members of

he committee, Dr. Gerald King and Dr. Stanley Ratner,

for their helpful comments.

I also wish to express m thanks to Jan m wife
i ) )

for the many hours spent assisting in the preparation

of this thesis.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

INTRODUCTION

THEORIES OF VIGILANCE
THE PROBLEM

PROCEDURE

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX

iii

10
11
16
36
45
48

51

10.

LIST OF TABLES

Signal—detection performance for male and
female subjects in sighted and blindfolded
groups.

Analysis of variance of transformed signal—
detection scores.

Sighted—blindfolded X male—female interaction
(mean overall signal—detection performance).

Number of sighted and blindfolded males and
females making errors of commission during
each period.

Number of sighted and blindfolded subjects
making more errors of commission in Period I
than in Period III and making fewer errors
of commission in Period I than in Period III.

Adjectives used on the retrOSpective check-
list and these comparisons resulting in a
difference significant at the 10% level or
better.

Retrospective check-list adjectives which
differentiate between the high and low
performance groups significant at the 10%
level.

_Retrospective check—list adjectives which
differentiate between the sighted and blind—
folded groups significant at the 10% level.

Retrospective check—list adjectives which
differentiate between sighted males and
blindfolded males significant at the 10%

level.

RetrOSpective check—list adjectives which
differentiate between males and females
significant at the 10% level.

iv

17

22

23

26

28

30

32

33

34

35

LIST OF FIGURES

Mean signal-detection performance for sighted
and blindfolded subjects over periods.

Mean signal—detection performance for males
and females over periods.

Mean signal-detection performance for sighted
and blindfolded males and females over

periods.

18

19

20

INTRODUCTION

 

In recent years there has been an increased interest
in the study of vigilance. During World War II a need for
better selection of monitoring personnel arose. Men were
needed who could stand long watches as sentries, radarmen,
or sonarmen; men who could remain alert over fairly long
periods of time looking for barely perceptible signals
which could appear at any time.

The military needs for the vigilant man still exist.
Along with this the industrial need for man as a monitor
has also increased. The post war trend toward increased
automation has lessened the need for a man's muscle in
industry and increased the need for man's vigilance. Both
in machine control and in inspection the human is expected
to watch for and react to infrequent and often weak sig-
nals occurring over a fairly long period of time.

The importance of noticing the signal may be very
great, as in the case of the radarman monitoring his set
on the early warning line in Alaska or the inspector
looking for flaws in brake drums or jet engines as they
come off the production line.

During the war Mackworth (1950) initiated a series of
studies to discover the optimum length of a radar watch.
He developed the Clock Test in order to distil the prac—
tical problem to one which could be studied in the labora—
tory. His display consisted of a clock hand going around
a blank dial in discrete jumps. One-hundred jumps

1

2
constituted a complete revolution of the dial.
Mackworth's subjects were to watch for and detect double
jumps of the clock hand. The signals (double jumps)
occurred irregularly and infrequently, and when they
occurred they were hard to detect. This incorporates the
essentials of a vigilance task in a laboratory setting.
When the frequency of signal detection was plotted against
time for a two-hour watch, Mackworth found a decremental
trend in performance with the greatest decrement occurring
between the first and second half-hour periods.

Since Mackworth's study (1950) there have been many
investigations in the vigilance area. Many of these
studies have been attempts to define the environmental
variables affecting vigilance performance. Experiments
have been contrived to test for the effects of changes in
noise level (Broadbent, 1953, 1954; Jerison, 1957-0,
1957—A; Loeb & Jeantheau, 1955), temperature (Loeb &
Jeantheau, 1958; Mackworth, 1950), duration of watch
(Mzckworth, 1950; Jerison, 1957-8), single vs. multiple
displays (Jerison, 1957—A, 1957—8), signal intensity

Mackworth, 1950; Adams, 1956), signal duration (Adams,
1956), rate of signal presentation (Jenkins, 1958;
Kappauf & Powe, 1959; Nicely & Miller, 1957), and inter-
signal interval (Baker, 1959). Other experiments have
been designed to investigate the effects of task and sub-
jective differences. Among these we find studies of

knowledge of results (Holland, 1957; Mackworth, 1950),

3
drugs (Mackworth, 1950), reinforcement (Holland, 1957,

1958), and rest periods (Mackworth, 1950).

THEORIES OF VIGILANCE
Four different theoretical approaches have been
advanced to eXplain the empirical findings in the vigi—
lance area. They are:
1. Inhibition (Mackworth, 1950).
2. Expectancy (Deese, 1955).
3. Attention (Broadbent, 1957, 1958).

4. Arousal (Hebb, 1955; Lindsley, 1957, 1961).

Inhibition

 

Mackworth (1950) prOposes that inhibition accounts
for many of the empirical findings in this area. Briefly,
conditioning takes place during the practice trials; the
double jump of the clock hand is the conditioned stimulus,
the experimentir's "now" is the unconditioned stimulus,
and the subject's key-press to the double jump is the con-
ditioned reSponse. Repeated trials without the experi-
menter's "now" lead to extinction of the key~press. As
further evidence that the vigilance decrement is caused by
inhibition, Mackworth points out that when the experi-
menter provides the su ject with knowledge of results the
performance decrement is eliminated. This constitutes
reinforcement in classical terms. Mackworth also reports
that when a telephone message is interjected into the task
the subject's performance level returns to the level of a
fresh subject. This is sighted as evidence of disinhi-

bition. Bakan (1952), McGrath et. a1. (1959) and Deese

5
(1955) point out that this telephone message may not be a
neutral stimulus since it is a message fromthe experi-
menter telling the subject to do better. In fact, it is
more likely to be motivational or to imply to the subject
that his performance is less than satisfactory.

There are several inadequacies in the ability of the
inhibition theory to handle the vigilance phenomena.
Increased signal rate should lead to more rapid extinction
of this reSponse. Jenkins (1958) found the Opposite to be
true. Signal detection performance does not completely
break down as classical conditioning would predict, i.e.,
total experimental extinction. Mackworth's subjects' per-
formance stabilized at about the 70—75% level of detection.
This leads Mackworth to hypothesize that a state of self-

instruction partly replaces the unconditioned stimulus as

reinforcement.

Expectancy

 

Deese (1955) put forth an expectancy model to account
for the decrement found in the vigilance experiments. His
view is that the observer's expectancy level is determined
by his previous experience with the task. The observer's
prediction about the task (in this case the occurrence of
the next signal) is based on his averaging of his previous
eXperience with the task. From this, Deese would expect
that the probability of detecting the next signal would be
a function of the mean inter-signal interval. For an

inter-signal interval considerably shorter than the mean

6

the probability of detection would be low. The proba-
bility of detection would increase as the mean interval
was reached. The subject's expectancy level determines,
at least in part, his vigilance performance. There are
individual differences which Deese feels should be meas-
ured and used to predict the levels of performance which
may be expected from a particular observer.

The expectancy theory would predict that signal-rate
and inter-signal interval would be directly related to the
detection of a signal. Jenkins (1958) has found the
former to be true, but the latter has not yet been effec-
tively demonstrated. Deese also indicates that the char—
acteristics of the vigilance task may lead to decreased
sensory input and, hence, to a decrement in vigilance
performance. He recommends that more investigation
between vigilance performance and the maintainance of a

background sensory input be carried out.

Attention

 

Breadbent (1957, 1958) has laid the groundwork for an
attention or filter theory. Only part of the stimuli
which impinge on the sensory organs will actually be taken
into the system. Much of the stimulation is blocked by a
hypothetical sensory filter. What is taken in is deter-
mined, at first, by the instructions relevant to the task;
but there is a system bias. This bias is for novel stimu-
lation. The filter theory predicts that as time on watch

progresses the observer is more apt to select stimuli from

7
his environment which are irrelevant to his task. These
irrelevant stimuli may be either internal or external but,
in either case, as time progresses they will become more
preferred.

Attending even briefly to these non—task stimuli at
the time when task stimuli (signals) are presented will
cause the observer to miss the signal. It must be remem—
bered that the signals in the typical vigilance design are
of near—threshold intensity, occur at unpredictable inter-
vals, and are highly transitory in nature. Increased
preference for stimuli of a non-task nature as a function
of time on task will cause the customary vigilance
decrement.

Broadbent indicates that the filter theory primarily
accounts for an increase in the tendency to momentarily
miss the individual signal. Overall level of performance,
i.e., task difficulty and/or individual differences, must

be inferred from one or several of the other theories.

Arousal

Hebb (1955) indicates that there are two functions of
stimuli. Stimuli may serve as cues, as in the classical
afferent pattern of stimulation following a relatively
discrete sensory pathway to the specific projection area
within the cortex, or they may serve a motivational
function. The latter concept of stimulus function is
based upon the recent discovery of the reticular formation

and its apparent arousal or activating function.

8

Lindsley (1957, 1961) describes the reticular forma-
tion as necessary for perception. The ascending reticular
activation system (ARAS) receives its stimulation from
regular sensory pathways (there is also speculation that
it can be activated by the cortex via a feedback system)
and, in turn, activates the cortical areas. Direct stimu-
lation of the reticular areas causes a change in the cor-
tical EEG pattern from sleep—like (Alpha Rhythm) to waking
(desynchronized). In cases where the ARAS is occluded by
surgery or barbiturates, specific potentials can be
recorded in the sensory projection areas of the cortex as
a result of stimulation, but neither behaviorally nor in
terms of the EEG patterns does the animal respond to the
stimulation.

The ARAS is seen by Lindsley as a monitor of both
afferent and efferent activity which is capable of
becoming adapted to certain levels of stimulation. This
adaptation allows the ARAS to seek a response level or to,
set a pace, so to Speak. If the ARAS is deprived of its
sensory input it attempts to adjust. This adjustment may
lead to many of the unusual features described in the
literature of sensory deprivation.

Hebb (1955) postulates that efficiency is dependent
on cortical stimulation and that the organism's level of
activity is ultimately dependent, via the reticular sys—
tem, upon external stimulation. If there is not enough

stimulation the activity level lowers and this is

9
accompanied by a drOp in response efficiency. It is also
postulated that there is an optimal level of stimulation
and if stimulation is either too high or too low response

efficiency will be lowered.

THE PROBLEM

 

The experiment reported below is probably most
closely related to the arousal theory. The main variable
is the presence or absence of visual stimulation during
an auditory vigilance task. Reduction of visual stimula-
tion can be considered as a reduction in the total
afferent stimulation. This reduction in stimulation can
be expected to produce a lower level of arousal and, con—
sequently, bring about a reduction in vigilance efficiency.
From the point of view of the filter theory, it might'
be argued that the absence of visual stimulation reduces a
major source of distracting stimulation to which the .
filter might become more favorably disposed as the time on
task increases. The reduction of an important source of
potential distraction might result in improved performance.
The present study represents an eXploration of the
sighted—blindfolded variable in an auditory vigilance task.
It is also designed to check on the possibility of sex
differences in vigilance since an earlier study by Bakan
(1953) has suggested the presence of sex differences in
vigilance performance. An investigation of some subjec—.

tive variables related to vigilance is also included in

the present study.

10

PROCEDURE

 

Selection of Subjects

 

Subjects were obtained through the sign-up program in
the General Psychology course. Each student enrolled in
the General Psychology course is expected to participate
as a subject in one or more experiments. Lists are posted
in a convenient area and the students may select one of
several lists which they will sign.

Those subjects enrolling for this experiment were
telephoned by the experimenter on the eve of their test
session to remind them that they had signed up and to
arrange a meeting place and tranSportation to the testing
site. Subjects met at the Psychology Building (B-3) on
South Campus and were driven to the Experimental
Psychology Laboratory or to Quonset No. 76 where cubicles
were present such that several subjects could be tested
under conditions of semi-isolation.

The subjects were initially seated together in the
main corridor for the purpose of general instruction and
practice. Wrist watches were taken and the subjects were
asked to refrain from smoking, chewing gum, etc. for the
duration of the eXperiment. Instruction sheets were given
to each subject (see Appendix). The experimenter read the
instructions aloud and the subjects were told to follow
the text. Questions were answered at several points or

‘whenever a subject indicated confusion.

11

12
Practice
At the end of the instruction sheet there is a series
of 63 digits. The subjects were told to go through this
series looking for sequences of three successive digits,

all different, in the order of odd—even—odd. They were to

 

write such sequences on a practice sheet provided for that
purpose. When they were finished the experimenter told
them what signals there were and corrected any of the
misconceptions expressed at this time. I

The instruction sheets were taken up and the subjects
were assigned to cubicles. These were arranged in such a
way that the subjecxsin the cubiclescould not see one
another. Each cubicle was provided with a chair and a
work table. Eacn table help a pasteboard shoe box,
several practice cards and an information card. The sub-
jects were asked to fill out the information card which
provided the experimenter with data about their name, age,
sex, scholastic year, and hearing. The subjects were next
asked to listen to the tape and to record any "good
signals" (sequence of three digits, all different, in the

order of odd-even—odd) which they might hear. A few

 

seconds after the occurrence of a signal the experimenter
repeated it aloud.

Two auditory practice sessions were given the sub—
jects. The first was about five minutes in duration and
contained two signals. The second lasted for about ten

minutes and had three signals. At the end of each

l3
practice run the tape was stopped and the experimenter
checked with each subject to see that he understood the
task, and to answer any questions he might have.

After the second auditory trial—run the subjects were
given a five—minute break during which they could leave
the cubicle, smoke, relax, and talk with one another.
When the break ended the subjects returned to their
cubicles.

In order to obtain information about sighted and
blindfolded subjects, and about males and females, four
groups were set up:

1. Sighted males.

2. Sighted females.

3. Blindfolded males.

4. Blindfolded females.

An equal number of males and females were tested
under each of two conditions-~sighted or blindfolded.
Only one experimental condition was run at any one time.
Sighted and blindfolded subjects were never tested during
the same test session; males and females were, however,
tested together. The number of subjects run at one time
varied from two to six.

The sighted subjects were supplied with a pack of
test cards (blank 3" x 2%" white cards), a pencil, and a
pasteboard shoe box with a slot cut in the top thrOugh
which they were to drOp the cards after they had recorded

a signal. The slotted boxtop was used on the sighted

14
subjects so they would not have more knowledge as to sig-
nal frequency than did the blindfolded subjects. The
cards contained code numbers which enabled the experi—
menter to put them into correct order if they became mixed
in the box. The subjects were asked not to change the
order of the cards.

The blindfolded subjects were outfitted with blind-
folds which were set up to insure total blindness and an
Optimal amount of comfort over a long testing period.
Close fitting Army surplus goggles were used. The eye
pieces were filled with foam rubber. The foam rubber was
cut thick enough so that when the goggles were worn it
exerted enough pressure against the eyelids to keep them
closed. Fresh sterile gauze was placed between the sub—
ject's eyes and the foam rubber pads to guard against any
irritation or undue discomfort. The blindfolded subjects
also had a test pack of blank cards and a pasteboard shoe
box. For the blindfolded subjects the tOp of the box was
removed so that they might have less trouble dropping
their recorded signals into it.

Before the test was begun the eXperimenter emphasized
that this was the real thing and pointed out that the
signals would not be repeated as they had on the previous

test runs.

The Test Environment

 

.The tape recorder was placed in a central position

and the volume mas adjusted so that all of the subjects

15
could hear it from their cubicles. The test period was 48
minutes long. The tape was arranged in such a way that it
could be analyzed in three separate 16 minute periods.
Subjectively, it consisted of a continuous series of
digits, delivered one every second in the same tone of
voice and lasted for 48 minutes. The entire test con-
tained 18 signals, six occurring in each of the three
periods. The time between signals was 107, 71, 154, 25,
and 418 seconds. This series of inter—signal intervals
was repeated for each of the three periods although the
actual signals differed. At the end of the listening

period the subjects were asked to complete an Adjective

Check—List.

Adjective Check List

 

While still in their cubicles the subjects were given
a 50 item check—list designed for use in this experiment.
This list contained many adjectives seemingly relevant to
feelings during a vigilance task. The subjects were told
to respond on a seven—point scale bounded by "not" and
"very" with regard to how well the adjective described the
way they felt during the eXperiment. Instructions for
using the scale and an example item were included on the
questionnaire. See Appendix.)

When a subject completed the check—list his watch was
returned, he was given a credit slip for his participation,
and he was released with the request that he not discuss

the eXperiment with other students.

RESULTS

Signal—Detection Performance

The

formance

combinatf

basic C813 in terms of mean signal-detection per—

for each of the four groups, and for various

-ons of these groups, is presented numerically in

Table l and graphically in Figures 1, 2, and 3. The fol-

lowing summary is based on an inSpection of the data:

1.

The

For all subjects combined there is a decre-
mental trend in performance from Period I

to Period III.

Sighted and blindfolded subjects start out
at approximately the same level, but as time
on task progresses the sighted subjects show
more decrement. For the blindfolded subjects
there is actually a slight improvement in
performance between the first and second
periods.

The overall signal-detection performance of
females is superior to that of the males.
This difference, however, is due to the
inferior performance of the sighted males.
Mean signal—detection performance for males

and females is the same in the blindfolded

condition.

 

data were subjectnd to a w/ x + .5 transforma—

tica suggested by Edwards (1950) for use when the means of

16

17

Table 1. Signal Detection Performance
for Male and Female Subjects

in Sighted and Blindfolded Groups

 

 

 

 

No. in Period Period Period

Group Group I II III Total
Sighted Males 22 4.04 3.50 3.09 10.63
Sighted Females 22 4.82 4.77 4.04 13.63
Blindfolded Males 22 4.32 4.59 4.09 13.00
Blindfolded Females 22 4.69 4.59 3.82 13.00
Sum of Sighted 8'5 44 4.43 4.14 3.57 12.14
Sum of Blindfolded 8'3 44 4.45 4.59 3.95 12.99
Sum of Male 8‘5 44 4.18 4.04 3.59 11.81
Sum of Female 8'8 44 4.70 4.68 3.93 13.31
Total Sample 88 4.44 4.36 3.76 12.56

Mean Number of Signals Detected

18
Figure 1. Mean Signal—Detection Performance
for Sighted and Blindfolded Subjects

Over Periods

 

 

 

 

 

Ha!
H
H
H
H
H

(16 Minute Periods)

—————— Sighted
————— Blindfolded
Total

Signals Detected

Mean Number of

 

19

Figure 2. Mean Signal—Detection Performance

for Males and Females

Over Periods

 

 

 

i F1 IIrI
(16 Minute Periods)
--"'-- 31318

————— Female
Total

Mean Number of Signals Detected

20

Figure 3. Mean Signal—Detection Performance

for Sighted and Blindfolded Males and Females

Over Periods

 

 

 

 

i 71 III
(16 Minute Periods)
----- Sighted Males
————— Sighted Feralcs
—.—u- Blindfolded Males
-—x-%- Ilindfolded Females

Total

21

the various groups are small and an analysis of variance

was carried out. A test for homogeniety of variance

(Bartlett) was carried out and the data was found to be

homogeneous. The analysis is modeled after that suggested

by Edwards for repeated measurements of independent groups.

A summary of the analysis is presented in Table 2. This

analysis may be summarized as follows:

1.

The overall decremental trend is significant
at the 1% level (between periods).

None of the interactions involving period
(the course of signal—detection over time)
were statistically significant.

The overall difference between sighted and
blindfolded conditions was not statistically
significant.

The difference between males and females was
significant at the 5% level of confidence.
This difference must be considered in con-
junction with the interaction between the
sighted-blindfolded variable and sex which
was also significant at the 5% level.

The significant interaction between the
sighted-blindfolded variable and sex is

clarified by an inspection of Table 3.

An inspection of Table 3 shows that the sighted—

blindfolded variable influences the performance of males,

producing impaired performance for males in the sighted

22

Table 2. Analysis of Variance of

Transformed Signal-Detection Scores

 

 

 

 

 

Degrees
Source of Sum of of Mean
Variation Squares Freedom Squares

Between Subjects 20.22 87

Between Conditions .57 1 .57
(sight-blindfold)

Between Sex 1.14 1 1.14
(male—female)

Interaction 1.28 1 1.28
(condition X sex)

Between Subjects in 17.23 84 .205

Same Group

(Error Term)
Within Subjects 26.76 176

Between Periods 1.78 2 .890
Periods X Conditions .16 2 .080
Periods X Sex .03 2 .015
Periods X Conditions .23 2 .115

X Sex

Resiiua1(Error Term) 24.56 168 .146

'TOTAL 46.98 263

2.78

NS

.05

.05

.01
NS
NS

NS

23

Table 3. Sighted—Blindfolded X Male-Female Interaction

(Mean Overall Signal—Detection Performance)

 

Sighted Blindfolded t p
Male 10.63 13.00 2.49 .02
13.00 61 N”

Female 13.63

24
condition. For the females there is a slight difference
betwee: the sighted and blindfolded condition favoring the
sighted condition. Apparently males and females are not
reacting in the same way to the sighted—blindfolded vari-
able. The differences between the means were tested with
the t-test and it was found that the mean difference for
the males was significant at the 2% level while the mean

difference for the females was not significant.

Errors of Commission

 

The previous analysis has been concerned with signals
which have been presented to the subject and which have
not been reported by him. This type of error is called an
error of omission. Subjects also make commission errors,
i.e., reports of signals when they do not occur. .It is
necessary to be explicit about the criteria for errors of
commission.

In order to guard against including "good signals"
which have been mishandled by the subject, the following
criteria have been adopted:

1. Only signals which are basically correct,

i.e., three digits, all different, and in

the order of odd—even—odd will be considered.

 

Signals of other forms (1-4-1 or 4—3-6, etc.),
if accepted, would reflect a misunderstanding
of the task and not necessarily errors of

commission.

25
2. Signals containing two out of three correct
signal digits (recording 3-4—9 for 3—4—5)
will not be counted as errors of commission.

Signals constituting a tranSposition of

(.0

correct signal digits (recording 5—4—1 for
1—4—5) will not be counted as errors of
commission.

’There is a difference between the incidence of errors
of commission for sighted and blindfolded subjects.
Sighted subjects averaged 2.82 errors of commission while
blindfolded subjects averaged 4.23 errors. This differ-
ence appears to be caused by a decreased number of errors
of commission during Periods II and III exhibited by the
sighted subjects as Opposed to the fairly stable number of
errors of commission throughout the entire task exhibited
by the blindfolded subjects. The difference between the
ieans of these groups (these data were not transformed)
was tested with the t—test and was not found significant.

In order to further investigate this trend, the num—
ber of subjects making commission errors (disregarding the
number made by each subject) under the sighted and blind-
folded conditions during each of the three periods was
tabulated. The results of this tabulation may be seen in
Table 4. The data of Table 4 indicates that fewer sighted
subjects make errors of commission during the last period
than blindfolded subjects. In order to test this trend a

two x two Chi-Square, corrected for continuity, was

26

Table 4. Number of Sighted and Blindfolded Males and Females
Making Errors of Commission 8

During Each Period

 

 

 

Period Period Period

Condition I II III
Sighted Males 12 12 7
Sighted Females 15 13 8
Blindfolded Males 13 10 9
Blindfolded Females 15 13 12
‘Sum of Sighted I 27 25 15
Sum of Blindfolded 28 23 21

Total 55 48 36

27
computed between the number of sighted and blindfolded
subjects making more errors in Period I than in Period III
and making fewer errors in Period I than in Period III.
This Chi—Square was not significant. Table 5 shows the

results of this tabulation.

RetrQSpective Data

 

The adjective check—list was included in this design
in order to explore the relationship between signal-
detection and some subjective variables. Subjective dif—
ferences between sighted and blindfolded subjects and
between males and females were also investigated. Four
separate analyses were performed. These were designed to
provide comparisons of retrOSpective descriptions of
feelings during the task for the following groups:

1. Performance (high or low signal—detection

groups).

a. The high signal detection group con—
sisted of the five subjects from
eacL group attaining the highest
overall signal—detection score

b. The low signal-detection group con-
sisted of the five subjects from
each group attaining the lowest
overall signal—detection score
(N=20).

2. Experimental conditions (sighted—blindfolded).

3. Conditions (sighted-blindfolded) for males

only. This analysis is included in view of

the significant interaction between the

sighted—blindfolded variable and sex, and

Table 5. Number of Sighted and Blindfolded Subjects

Making Kore Errors of Commission

in Period I than in Period III

and Making Fewer Errors of Commission

in Period I than in Period III

 

More Errors in
Period I than
in Period III

Fewer Errors in
Period I than Total
in Period III

 

 

Sighted 22

Blindfolded 14

C)
C.)

Total

6 28
10 24
16 52

29
the significant difference between sighted
and blindfolded males.

4. Sexes (male—female).

The check-list was composed of 50 adjectives. The
subjects were told to respond to each adjective on a seven-
point scale (0 to 6) bounded by "not" and "very". Item
scores (the sum of the values checked for each item) and
item means were computed for each group tested. A t-test
of significance was performed between the various groups
when the mean difference and variance warranted it.

Table 6 serves as an introduction to the adjectives used,
and also indicates those items which resulted in a sig—
nificant difference between the various groups.

Table 7 presents the data for all adjectives for
which there was a difference between the high and low
signal-detection groups significant at the 10% level or
better.

The analysis of sighted and blindfolded groups with
respect to their retrOSpective data is summarized in
Table 8. This table shows the adjectives which discrimi-
nate between sighted and olindfolded subjects at the 10%
level of confidence.

Table 9 presents those adjectives which discriminate
between sighted males and blindfolded males at the 10%
level of significance.

Table 10 presents those adjectives which discriminate

between males and females at the 10% level.

30

Table 6. Adjectives Used on the Retrospective Check-List
and Those Comparisons Resulting in a Difference

Significant at the 10% Level or Better

 

Comparisons
Item Number Resulting in
Significant t

 

 

1. Alert

2. Deaf

3. Silly Condition, Sex, Male (S—B)*
4. Mindless Performance

5. Bored Condition, Male (S-B)
6. Emotional Performance

7. Spry Sex

8. Dreamy Male (8-3)

9. Weary Sex
10. Enthusiastic Sex
11. Lost Performance
12. Dull

13. Active
14. Upset
15. Drowsy
16. Lively
l7. Inattentive

18. atigued

19. Industrious Sex

20. Calm Condition

21. Sharp

22. Blind Condition, Male (8-8)
23. Tired Sex

24. Dismal Performance

25. Passive

*Male (S—B) refers to the comparison made between sighted
and blindfolded males only.

(Table continued on next page)

Item Number

Table 6 (continued)

 

Comparisons
Resulting in
Significant t

 

 

on
00.
3‘10
35.
’1

37.

I“

392
40.

41.
49

A-e—l.

43.

A 1.1

45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

Quick
Nervous
Apathetic
Sluggish
Intent
Exhausted
Angry
Vigilant
Lifeless
wakeful
Cooperative
Vigorous
Careless
wide-Awake

'Excited

Restless
Alive
delaxed
Energetic
Gone
Frisky
Depressed
Brisk
Fidgity
Watchful

Condition

Sex

Condition

Sex

Performance, Male (S—B)
Sex, Performance

Sex

Performance

Table 7.

the High and Low Performance Groips

Which Differentiate Between

Significant at the 10% Level

Retrospective Check-List Adjectives

 

 

 

 

Item Number
4. Mindless
6. Emotional
11. Lost
24. Dismal
45. Gore
45. Frisky
50. Watchful

Kean of Mean of
High Low
1.70 3.05
4.10 1.75
2.10 2.95
a.4C 3-35
1.30 2.35
1.10 1.90
3.65 2.80

t P
(2 tailed)

3.49 .01
4.93 .01
2.00 .05
1.86 .10
2.17 .05
1.86 .10
1.81 .10

Table 8.

Which Differentiate Between

the Sighted and Blindfolded Groups

Significant at the 10% Level

Retrospective Check—List Adjectives

 

 

 

Item Number
3. Silly
5. Bored
20. Calm
22. Blind
28. Apathetic

Relaxed

Mean of Mean of
Sighted Blindfolded t p
(2 tailed)

1.00 .38 2.35 .05
3.95 2.65 4.11 .01
3.27 4.12 2.07 .05
1.07 3.97 6.77 .01
2.72 1.68 3.17 .01
2.55 3.29 1.85 .10

 

34

Table 9. Retrospective Check List Adjectives
Which Differentiate Between
Sighted Males and Blindfolded Males

Significant at the 10% Level

 

 

 

 

Kean of Mean of
Item Number Sighted Blindfolded t p
Male Male (2 tailed)

3. Silly 1.45 .54 2.02 .10
5. Bored 4.54 2.63 3.15 .01
8. Dre.my 4.23 3.00 2.32 .05
22. Blind 1.00 4.45 5.85 .01
45. Gone 2.62 1.64 2.09 .05

 

w
on

Table 10. Retrospective Check-List Adjectives
Which Differentiate Between
Males and Fenales

Significant at the 10% Level

 

 

 

Mean of Mean of
Item Number Male Female t p
(2 tailed)

3. Silly 1.00 .38 2.32 .05
7. Spry 1.68 .91 2.46 .02
9. weary 3.66 4.34 1.79 .10
10. Enthusiastic 2.45 1.66 2.3 .05
19. Industrious 2.23 1.48 2.39 .05
23. Tired 3.36 4.11 1.98 .05
37. Vigorous 2.29 1.55 2.26 .05
39. Hide-Awake 2.48 1.77 1.98 .05
44. Energetic 2.14 1.39 2.42 .05
46. Frisky 1.64 .98 2.54 .05

48. Brisk 2.00 1.23 2.65 .01

 

 

n

Signal Detection Performance

 

There is a decrement in signal-detection performance
present for all groups in this study. Sighted and b1ind~

iolded subjects have nearly the same score at the end of

"5
Fl

6‘

y.

'od I (after 16 minutes spent on the task). Between
Periods I and II the sighted performance level drOps while
the performance for the blindfolded subjects increases
slightly. Between Periods II and III both groups show a
substantial drOp in signal—detection performance.

Two other studies (Belton, 1958; Toth, 1960) using
this same task to investigate individual differences in
vigilance have obtained performance decrements of a simi—
lar nature. This indicates that this task produces a
decremental trend similar to that found in other vigilance
studies. Generally the decremental trend found here is in
agreement with other studies finding decrement, i.e., the
onset of decrement tak,s place within the first hour of
watch. For the total group in this study it may be seen
that decrement is present at least at the end of the first
period (16 minutes).

The data suggest there is a delay in the onset of the
decremental trend for the blindfolded subjects as compared
to the sighted subjects, though this differential trend is
not statistically significant. The analysis of variance

indicates there are no significant interactions between

36

37 ’
period and any of the other variables. It is interesting
to Speculate, however, that the blindfolded subjects have
in some way delayed the onset of the Vigilance decrement.

The overall signal—detection performance of the
females is superior to that of the males in this task.
This must be explained by the inferior performance of the
sighted males. Both blindfolded groups (males and
females) attained the same overall mean score on this task.
It must be pointed out here that there was a significant
interaction between the sighted-blindfolded variable and
sex. The males are affected by the sighted—blindfolded
variable which produces impaired performance for males in
the sighted condition. The difference in performance
between sighted and blindfolded males is significant at
the 2% level. Females, on the other hand, perform
slightly better sighted than blindfolded. This difference
“.5 no: found significant.

In terms of distractibility, the males appear more
distractible than the females. The nales' overall perform—
ance is depressed significantly under the sighted condi—
tion (sighted males comiared with blindfolded males) while
the overall performance of the females improves slightly
in the sighted condition. The males' performance in this
task is in line with the predictions that might be made
from the filter theory. It would appear that as time on

task progresses the males tend to seek new stimulation.

The sighted males have more visual stimulation in their

38
environment than do the blindfolded males. The filter
theory suggests that as time on task progresses the filter
becomes biased toward novel stimulation, hence, those sub-
jects with more irrelevant stimuli in their environment
should show greater decrement in performance.

The data for female Subjects performing in this vigi-
lance task is not supportive of either of the theories
(filter or arousal). It may be seen that while there is a
slight trend toward increased decrement in signal-
detection performance as a result of being blindfolded,
this is not significant. The most that can be said is
that females and males react differently to the sighted-

blindfolded variable.

Errors of Ccnwissiei

 

In the result sectian it LES pointed out that a trend
existed for blindfolded subjects to commit more errors of
commissian than sighted subjects. This difference was
tested an: not found to be statistically significant.

This difference is largely due to a few blindfolded sub-
jects who make a large number of errors of commission. It
was thed in maling the computations for the t-test that
the varian e was much smaller for the sighted subjects
than for the blindfolded subjects (6.34 as c0mpared to
26.05). It may be said then that the blindfolded group is
much more variable regarding its commission error behavior
than is the sighted group.

In order to reduce the effects of a few subjects in

39
the blindfolded condition making a great number of errors
of commission, a two X two Chi-Square was computed for the
number of sighted and blindfolded subjects mating more
errors in Period I than in Period III and for those making
fewer errors in Period I than in Period III. The Chi-
Square, corrected for continuity, for this data was not
significant.

This may suggest an eXplanation for the seemingly
delayed onset of the performance decrement for the blind-
folded subjec‘s. It may be that one of the things that at
least some of the blindfolded subjects do to keep their
performance up is to invent signals. This suggestion
would be in line with a two-factor theory of vigilance
proposed by Bakan (1953). Briefly, this theory states
that the stimulation level of the usual vigilance task is
so low that subjects have a tendency to go to sleep. This
tendency is in conflict with the instructions they are
usually given. In order to stay awake subjects use vari-
ous methods of self—stimulation (daydreaming, reciting to
themselves, thinking over the day, etc.). It may be that
some of the blindfolded subjects, being deprived of some
of the distracting stimuli, focused upon the vigilance
task as a means of self-stimulation. This would not have
the effect of decreasing their signal—detection perform-
ance as in the case of sighted subjects who focused upon
elements of the stimulus environment irrelevant to the

vigilance task.

40

It would appear, in View of the significant differ—
ence between sighted and blindfolded males in signal-
detection performance, that this means of self—stimulation
is most used by males; or that it is used by both males
and females, but that the males' performance is much more
affected by distracting stimuli than the females'. The
latter formulation seems more reasonable in view of the
errors of commission data. Both the male and fenale
groups made more errors of commission in the blindfolded
condition than in the sighted condition (88—63 for males
and 93-61 for females), and more males and females in the
blindfolded condition made errors of commission in
1

Period III than these in t-3 sighted condition (9-7 males

and 12—8 females). Certainly, this is only a suggestion
and further investigation is necessary before any con-

clusions can be d‘awn.

Retrospective Data

 

The analysis of the retrospective data with respect

to the high and low signal-detection performer indicates

generally, the

V
d

is a relationship between perform-

d
b
c+
‘0
m
*‘3
(‘0

ance and the check—list attitudes. It would be expected
that the good performer would report having felt more
alert, more watchful, etc. on the checl—list than would
the poor performer. Conversely it would be eXpected that
the low performer would report having felt more dreamy,
more fatigued, etc. than the high performer. This, gener-

ally, is what was found. The items for which the

41
difference was significant are listed in Table 7. The
item means for all of the groups for which analyses were
performed will be found in the Appendix. It was found
that high signal-detection performers felt significantly
less mindless, more emotionfl, less lost, less dismal, less
gone, less frisky, and more watchful. The only signifi-
cant item which constitutes a reversal of what might be
expected is frisky, though this might be a predisposing
state to distractibility.

The retrospective data for the sight ed and blind-
folded groups was compared and it was found that, gener—
ally, blindfolded suhjects have a better attitude toward
the task. This is i1 line with the fact that blindfolded
subjects ha’e a hioher overall signal—detection score than
sighted subjects do. This as y al s‘o tend to support the
suggestion that blindfolded subjects, de pr d of external
stimulation, are able to use the vigilance task as a
source of se lf— stimulation and, in so doing, may show less
of a performance decrement as a result of time on task.'
If the subject can use the vigilance task it seems reason-
able that he may have a better attitude toward it.
cince there was a g'nificant interaction be tween
the sighted and blindfolded variable and sex, and in View
of the significant difference betwe een sighted and blind-
folded malss, it was decided that a comparison of the
retrospective data for the sighted and blindfolded males

should be made. This analysis shows that the sighted

42
males felt significantly more silly, more bored, more
dreamy, less blind, and more gone. In addition to the
items which proved statistically significant it may be
seen that sighted males described themselves in terms
which were more sihilar to those found among the low
performers. In ncarly all of the adjectives which would
be thought to describe good vigilance attitudes or
feelings the sighted males scored higher than the blind-
folded males. In other words, the sighted males described
themselves as having attitudes and feelings less conducive
to vigilant behavior than those described by the blind—
folded males. Here again, it may be seen that the retro—
spective attitudes and feelings described by the subject
are related to their performance on the vigilance task.
Those groups of subjects which r p.rtud feeling less
vigilance-oriented generally performed worse than groups
of subjects resortira feelings more readily construed as
vigilant.

The final analysis of retrospective data was made
between males and females. In this analysis it appears
that the males have "superior" retrospective feelings
toward the task. They feel more Spry, more enthusiastic,
less weary, etc.

The retrospective data presented in this experiment
may well have nany facets. It has been found that for all

of the analyses except the male—female analysis, the retro-

Spective data had been a good postdictor for group

43

performance. There may well be social differences which
overshadow the effects of a test of this kind which would
cloud the general effect. It may be that males are used
to thinking of themselves as more active than females, and
that a qugstionnaire like this taps this kind of feeling.
Nevertheless, the retrospective data indicates that males
report feeling more vigilance-oriented.

The items used in this check—list are of a nature to
tap feelings about the vigilance task. Primarily, it must
be assumed that the feelings present at the end of the

task ar' due, at least in part, to the task. The blind-

(I.

folded and sighted males were very different in their
sional—deteetion performance and in their retrospective
dat It is improbable that the differences observed were

caused by group diffepcnces present before the onset of

a sumed (at the 2% level of confidence)

H
5"
O
h
9)
t”)
W
I
#4
("1‘
'J
)

that the change in t air performance is a result of the
task conditions. This also forces the assumption that
their attitudes prior to the task bid a negligible effect

on their performance and that the task, or their perform-

ance on the :asn, influenc d their feelings toward the

(D

task. Certainl;, this does not imply that attitudes and
feelings do not hLV; a part in vigilance. The types of
items used in this check—list were rather specifically
related to the ta:k. It would be ex;ected that these
would tap feelings stemming from the task itself.

This study has been primarily interested in group

retr svective data.

44

the data for the individual subject.

No attempt has been made to

Certainly,

ences could be found which would be pertinent to

ual performance level

individual

dif

’cra
isle

I

ICGS

in such an analysis. Many

are lost in

a

group trend.

analyze
differ-
individ-

Of the

QU‘II“.T;"5'Y “ETD “m""LUSIONS

u . . IL Vvl‘i'v

 

 

'ment was designed to determine the effect

F3
:3
p
U]
C)
M
’O
F)
*5
p

of absence of visual stimulation on performance in an audi-
tory vigilance task. From the point of View of the

arousal theory this can be considered as a reduction of

L1

total afferent stimulatio and, as such, may be expected
to produce a lower level of arousal and, consequently, a
reduction in vigilance efficiency.

From the viewpoint of the filter theory, it may be
argued that the absence of visual stimulation reduces a
major source of distracting stimuli to which the filter
might become mere fryer:bly dispened as the vigil wears on.

This reduction of an imeerfagt sourC» of

‘J

otcntial dis-

(J

*6

LJ

3

traction night result in introve“ pe‘ In order

A

p.
O
’ S
T}.
{O
D
(3
G.
O

to check on the possibilit; of rex differences in vigi—

lance, the fellowi g groups were tested:

‘1

\-

l. Sighted males (N=22).

2. Sig
3. Blindfoldcc xalis (1-22).
4. Blindfolded females (Nz22).

An investigation of some subjective variables related

to vigilance is also included in this study.

Procedure

 

During the vigilance task the subjects were seated in
cubicles which afforded semi—isolated conditions. The

45

46
vigilance task consisted of picking out and recording sig-
nals (sequences of three digits, all different, in the

order odd—even—odd) from a series of taped digits deliv—

 

ered at the rate of one every second. The digits were pre—
sented continuously for 48 minutes. For the purpose of
analysis the tape could be broken into three separate
periods, each containing six of the total 18 signals. The
inter—signal intervals varied from 25 seconds to about
seven minutes. At the end of the vigilance task the sub-

jects were asked to complete an Adjective Check-List.

Results

'on performance may be summarized as

| J
I
Q.
(0
rt-
0
O
H-
}.l

The signa:
follows:

1. There was a significant decremental trend in

2. No significant difference was found for the
sighted—blindfolded variable.

3. The females' nerformance was significantly
superior to that of the males.

4. There was a significant interaction between

the sighted—blindfolded variable and sex.

Blindfolded males were significantly superior

slightly superior to blindfolded f males.
Four separate analyses of the retrospective data were
made. These comparisons may be summarized as follows:

1. High and low signal—detection performers;

47
high performers reported having felt more
vigilant than low performers.
Sighted—blindfolded groups; the blindfolded
group reported having felt more vigilant
than the sighted group.
Sighted and blindfolded males only; the
blindfolded males reported having felt more
vigilant than the sighted males.
Males and females; the males reported having

felt more vigilant tnan the females.

BIELICGRAPHY

 

Adams, J. A. Vigilance in the detection of low—intensity

1

visual stimuli. J. exp. Lsychol., 1956, 52, 204-208.

 

Bakan, P. Vigilance d crement: A critical review of the

 

literature and an esperimental pro; ran. University

 

of Illinois, Hemorandum Report B—l, Task B, May, 1952.

Bakan, P. An analysis of decrement in a prolonged bright—

 

ness discrimination task. Ph.D. Dissertation,

 

New York University, 1953.
Bakan, P. Extraversion——introversion and improvement in

an auditory vigilance task. Brit. J. Psychol., 1959,

C: (3‘)." ’3‘?“
JID’ UHJ’UU-fi.

Baker, C. I. Attention to visual diSplays during a

vigilance task. II: maintaining the level of

Vigilance. Brit. J. chcn01., 1959, 50, 30-36.

C3

Belton, J. A. Individual differences in erformance on an

A

auditory vigilanc . MA Thesis, M chigan State

(D
(‘1
[h
v“!

 

University, 1958.

D. E. Noise, paced performance and vigilance

0?
J
0
£1)
p l
U
m
:5
('+
\-

d
to
U)
p...
m

's. Brit. J. Psychol., 1953, 44, 295-303.

 

Broadbent, D. E. Some effects of noise on visual

per; Wor r.ance. Cuart. J. 823. Psyche ., 1954, , 1-3.

lm
I

 

Broadbent, D. E. A mechanica model for human attention

ard immediate memory. Psychol. Rev., 1957, 64,

 

205—215.

Broadbent, D. E. Perception and Communication. London:

 

Pergamca Press, 1953.

49
Deese, J. Some problems in the theory of vigilance.

’ U
U)
<1
(3
O
P4
.

r
(f)
(.0

5"" (‘9
JD, L)..J’

nev., 1

 

Edwa“ds A L. Exnerimental Design in Psychological
Research. Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1950 (1957),
New York.

Hebb, D. O. Drives and the C.N.S. (conceptual nirvous
system). Psychol..£ev., 1955, 52, 243—254.

Holland, J. G. Technique for behavioral analysis of human
observing. Science, 1957, 125, 348—350.

Holland, J. G. Human vigilance. Science, 1958, £33:
61-67.

Jenkins, H. H. The effect of signal-rate on performance

in visual monitoring. A“°.£° Psychol., 1958, 71,

 

647—661.
Jerison, H. J. and Wing, S. +ffects of noise and fatigue

on a c mplex vigilance task. WADC Tech. Rep., 57—14,

 

l957-A.
Jerison, H. J. and Wallis, R. A. Experiments on vigilance:

One clojk and three clock monitoring. NADC Tech.

 

aco., 57-206, 1957-3.

Jerison, H. J. Exne“ime-t; on vigilance: Performance on
a simple vigilance task in noise and in quiet. YADC

Tech. 339., 57—318, 1957—C.

 

Kappauf, w E. and Powe, W. E. Performance decrement on

an audio-visual checkinn task. J. exn. Ps ch01.
c _ I

 

1959, 57, 49—53.

Lindsley, D. B. Psychoahysiology and motivation. Nebra ka

Symnosium on Motivation, 1. R. Jones (Ed.), 1357,

 

Lincoln: Univer. Hebr. Press, 1957, 44-105.
Lindsley, D. B. Common factors in sensory deprivation,
sensory distortion, and sensory overload. Sensory

Deprivation. Karvnrd Univ. Press, Cambridge, Kass.,

 

1931, 174—194.

Loeb, M. and Jeantheau, G. The influence of noxious

envirormental stimuli on vigilan: . a. appl.

-.

 

1959, a2, 47—49.
Macknorth, N. H. Researches on the measurement of human

.13 “g- ‘-._" '1. A. ' .. ,.' ,
perioiiance. neei,nl t-search swuneil f{3u131 Report

m..~.——~-——

McGrath, J. J., narahedian, A. and Buckner, D. N. Review

and Csitiare e: t1: literature on vigilance performance.
LOS Angeles, Lu :n Factors gesearch, Inc., 1959.

Nicely, P. E. and liller, G. A. Some effects of uneqial
spatial distribution on the detectability of radar
argets. ‘J. erg. Psychol., 1957, ii, 195—198.

Toth, J. Auditcry vigilance as a function of introversion—

extroversion. HA Thesis, Michigan State University,

 

Instruction Sheet.
Adjective Check—List.

*rosnec;i 1V° Cheek-List Adjectives and the

'3
D

11.x. L J a, v
1t3m e as of groups for which analyses were
perfO'r med.

Raw signal—detection data and raw errors of
commission data.

51

I -
‘ I
-
K, - \ ‘ ‘
. g ‘
.. A .
. ,-. . . , , , ,2.
I ,. L 1‘,

j
_a
.4
—I
I
'4‘
- I
I—o'
a
v . l

”a
.1 , pi.‘ '
. . .. I -

n; - '\o‘~n a: I.-'£“.1.-

'. vi ' - av":
.. . . , .
:1 ' - l .1”‘('
, ' ,1. . ‘r I . L"

.12 if: _: r.

a I . :
.v -, -
‘1 ‘ |
L '). .- ._-_.
o h “ 3
\ , 'I, ,, C ,Y A, ..
.‘a\1(\ , J _

‘ _ , . p a ,
. ' f '- . ?"' f } '1‘. ' ' ‘

.h A- . . ,

-.—.—_ .- .~ - ~o-.> -n. -—- n‘ . p-~\'-o.

.
.
.I
x
p.
.
.
,
- r
W 0
,v
.
I
‘
.
x
'x
h

. I

-" D'J J _ . ' .~ , v.

L‘ai'I-{f (1123. .i'f .1.
.,

v"

I, . ,
a? \ '\I ‘. “T '__‘ .? .’ -.§-b’
_-'. J -.I.' . '. 1 ‘-

.
.«A .- ‘a.--l~"~‘ ua’“ «'-

.' - ~ a
. ‘If f- ‘R . .- A < ,
‘1 4 -' ' ‘ a 1 .
- .. -.. .. - ,- .. -- _ . -
p"
~ . ‘.

P. a I
f - I ‘ v-
. -, . - A
‘ ’ ' " "I ‘ \ 1
, . . -v .1

 

~

I.

 

 

flu.“ .— vw...-».—u -~.,a.n.,. '4 ..',_§__... A..."- .~.-..._.-_.,

.‘A

 

 

s...— _._...._.-, u... I..-I-. u—n

 

'
I
-“. "w
u- "'
,\g'., a
‘-)\a

-r a
..l
\

I .
‘ka

-4..-

"3‘2
’ /' I

...-
n «on,
n

.écx 553% re yell-I

.0-

. >._-,.,

V:\

"'1"?
l

12

g
D i 'l
I“‘ 1" ~.'
,7 --
. .. .
D I-
~~ -. r-I. n
M") ,,.V
.-.. ».-#
I
. 5
O
[-4 I
u...
a .
I. ‘1 -

."
I ~ . ’ ‘ .477,
V 0.;
,(3 ’.,L.
I I ‘
. 1 g.‘
l ”t, . ,4.
. r- .
‘ '. , : I
..‘
f" l
_ —,..
I
- 3'1. '
_ V
‘. '3 F’ ‘
1 g h' _ .‘i
4
,.~ ,. I'
:I ax ’-
J‘ . .I. .-
/
u
i '“ .‘K'
s K.. .L
7. - i.
\ I ‘
x
' 1x. _.- MA‘)
' . J 'r.
5 (~. ‘17,

 

a -_.
. I i.‘ ...
.1 - ‘ -r
.
' .pvt --|.
C .-
1~ ".' .H I“
. 3» ~ -,
-. ... —
. ,I‘
F‘ " - .S f‘}'.
' gk . ; 'x -
I 1
.‘ '-u
......A
. . .
‘ - . a ,
‘ '6‘, I f' ‘ I)‘,
v ' l
.3 Id. rv v \
1 i ‘ l
. - _..... .I. as. -

..
,,,. 4.) “.1, ,-
1., .- .
1 3,-.- .I ,.,- -
I .I

 

' V ( ' I
, a . . L I J
. , . _ . _. ,. . ,‘ _ ~ . ‘. . ~ - ‘d . '1‘ ‘ n ‘
1 ‘ I v -_ / ‘ ‘ ‘ I — ' \ .' ‘o - 9 v. I» . . ,' ~ ‘
I.
u i - u
I I —. I ‘ . ,
- , g c . . . I ._ I-
| I - ._ . . _ \ . I \ .~ \. s-
-—,.- .
I- ,4- o, '0 . I a y -' o- a-. I ~ - , r
. -- .. y. -‘ 4n , ., v , . ‘- -..- ., . . v" - , ,, - i . I I . , a - , I, _ . ., . . _'
I - r." . ‘ "r7 i p.’ I . (‘ ’ INI' \ . , I - ’ I - ‘ '1. 1V. " ‘ ’ i ”I ' V ‘ I
. J - h. . Q _,a v- . | -.- 1| .1 .~ - I ‘ ) ,. I. . , ,, ..'.... I-i . . . r I . J
. - - , ._) g

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

   

 

 

 

t .. I
o I , b t: (I ‘I .- H ' ‘ "I ‘ ' ' II .
fin, u r‘ I»'.' ,1, v .1 . W”. -_ J . ~_ , I ”A “\J' 4‘ “ .-"" ‘ - n \. Jy-l .‘ v ’ ‘ . v H.’ .‘I’ ‘ : ., l
.. a» u‘..~~‘- .'I i' l ...I ,1 ‘- . ‘« I A I ". - I\ k ,...-.I ' a I I. x .‘L - «l
’ Odd/\u—v.‘ -
o r_ q p I - as \ - . . I.
-. 2 a ‘., . ‘, , . L, ”,7 - a. .. ,| . . “ . . ) r, ‘ , ., u - 3 ' . . ,_.i
. 2 .. . - .' ’ -' .I 1.4 . \ .L . I r .. I A '. _ ‘ . . ‘ ‘I. ‘ 1.. _ A, I . ."'
. I .
- a g .:
, . i. I e 7‘ . ..-_. . -.‘. v'. I
a.._.' .' \ ~ .1 ' \- c
. .
.. .’ ‘ I| ‘,,“..‘ o. , ' I'. ." , ,3 \c‘“ “ ‘
I t . . . -'. J. I ‘-.’ " ‘. .4 -. -1 r.
Q.‘ g». _. ‘_k.¢. - _-
t I ‘ l q ’ I l "
I‘ l' I"! . 'I " ' I“ ”I .' 7} H -" ‘ ' I I ’ ‘.
- . n I" - - w~ —LI; I'. - c.... II. ,II I I:
, I
.I‘..‘ ..'-< IO< ‘h-‘V H “‘
7"“ v . r' ' ‘ ‘
.. . . .
.\ .I , ,— ‘ ‘9. q ‘ r‘r C A an 0"! _ ’ ‘ ,I 'q
, - .,. r .I A p . - ‘ (J. , , ~‘II _ v_
‘ n 5 v ... . «- —. -.,-‘. o q..- .4 . no.
. , - , , ‘ ' 3 .‘ l - - : .2 n ‘1 . ,t I
. "l 7.. 5 . x . ' w 2' ' I (_n r, '3’ I .". 7 ‘ t I V ‘ E- I 3'“ (' W - ('u I ‘ 1‘ 1‘ , ~: “ . '
-‘ - II I >- --- - I J ‘J l— _ .v\‘. \ . .. -I.. I! . v— .- rkI u I I: .. ‘ c.- a _ I- _ l D J .I I w I
‘, - 'Q -
v 7 ..‘ ' I i 'f’ . ' ' P - ' '
' ‘ “ 0 ' , ‘ . . ' - -., ' ,_ o I r- . .- ‘ I .. . ‘ ,- A
‘.... ' .‘jv‘ nl _-) A," 1" ‘,.”,1<-‘ "'01, 1‘ ,, r ‘7 ,< ‘ 1: (.‘.{‘ , .b .I, v.,‘ ‘
I 4 -I v —I J « . I . - , J ,1 J ”‘4 .1 Lan I I, .. , t ‘ 3. ..I, I. , , , , . , _
, fl "‘ . '
’1 :. ‘1"...1 '.' ~,Y.1...' 1 .
h: \ ‘ > f, l I' , I~ __ ,
.- n . -‘o<- A.. _..y_ , v
. - - ¢ ~
.I r g : i-..fi:~, , .,,.
1 ¢_ .- - ( - ' .' .f ,1
h.”~ Cod ‘ . .I u- I.- vv 1
' \
a r 1 ”’1 w I ' '.\: " ' r"(' A_ 5
.r I I. . . I' I. - — - '-.. 3
—..h‘a c A‘ - ‘ I! . ‘3 -- J- 1"”. ... N
— - . " . .. ‘ .. I a I .
- $1 9‘ ‘ , ' « I I / . ..I . - . q I .
- . I q .- : J 2., __ f , I, . ,, . .! _ ‘ - .
.
I ' I- -. r' n" 7
. .. g I _ I. ‘ 4 g
3 - , - i... . , ,. '3 fl ' ‘ f ,5 a. _ '. ,.. ‘
) U 0.“. ' .. '11“ ’_- " ~ . .l " fi 1.1r3; r‘- ‘. 'C‘ If“; 5" - l ‘n ,4 s — ‘t1,3» I ._'1. ., r ‘ ’I 7 I' V ‘ vI
J g j _ I I ‘r.. , L 5‘; ._~ , --. _.- .. ._ . . . __, .
_ . , I _. .
f- a . -- ' - ‘ . . _ ,
. l ‘i ' ., .J 1:: I I .,..”,'A.nI I. ~_-'I E .,, ' . A” ; - ' . ‘ -' . ' ’ I -' ‘ "
; ' . ' 4' ‘ l f_ “—‘,.I' 1'.» " ‘ . . \’ ' .I . \l I
_I - .
. . . . .. . a .. .4
‘ g n 1 .- I n I . .
') r I- . I ‘. , .7 .— . r‘ . . ~-. , . , .» - - l 4 , . . 0‘ ,
\ I . n- / . z I . \
' K I «u r: ’ ‘ 'A—..-... I ‘ - - ‘. ‘ ' ‘ “', . ‘ . - . ' ."
~‘ o k »a‘ w. - “ ‘
. 'b ‘I I Y " I — . I
. ' (I. .~ ’9’ .’ u .,‘ r -5- - V in \ ( -\ ' 1 I ‘ " ' . '-I-. "J f "g‘ u ' ."l I. : .‘
I , , h . . ‘ A
-.. ... H.. x 1- - -~ b C a II . .‘ , - I u- , J n. - - .n . .:. _ . -~ . .
.—
~ I
I * I' ‘
I _ . «h
' i I i . ' ‘J "I ' r I' '1 ' ‘ " ‘
‘I "r" . ‘Iw .‘I‘I E“ ‘ )‘a mfi‘i 1"“.2 ' :37, - I‘- i 1 .3 N. VI: ..: . -I ‘ I. It!
— ~ 4 ' ' ‘J J.-I‘J ' .- . -. k...) y. < -l 4 - - .. - ' L s vr- z A “ Io' * " ‘r ,/ ‘ ‘ ‘ V "
. , I
,‘
I " - I I ‘ ~ ’ o a '0! ‘ . ,
.-."‘.. _, ,. I ._ v. .- o-_ . I. . . .. . _ '. .. .. .- -- , -_ . , I, 2.1-4 ’\
" " I t. 4 i ,“ .‘ .4- “-' C’ ,‘3 t' " ‘ ." _ ' "° " ‘ - ‘ no} .. >a'
. 9 ' .l ' ~!— 4 . .l ‘ ‘. ‘ \J- | 1 .11. 53‘]. I} .I' u , k4 .' ‘ '- _ . at I *r , . E.) _) .1 o . I . 4 . .. --‘- . (I‘. .7 I '
N. ,_.-V.. 4a ,7-.. _.I 1.7L“. .- ~ -' i . -' “ >- —— «_- ~.b..~ --
‘u ‘l was; . u r - . . . . II “I, a . a 3 . . .
{ r I ' I ‘ - K - 1‘ ~ -, ‘ ,1 r' 3 \‘1' '( "I . I: ' .* _| ‘."'/ ’ ‘ ' r 4‘
. I »-.
' “ J ’ _.‘s 1. I I‘ '. C t '1 . I‘ . ’. ’.-., l. .1”, ._“ is ‘ .- I‘ '....-L-. 14 x.‘--
L I
\ u
, s I r'». ~ 2 ., 3 ~. - ,_. -- I - . ..
- - _ — n. J" . , » \,"._ I~ "- - .. ._ o . .-,.- . ‘7 ,I .1. , ‘ ..3..v-\ .. _. ‘v
‘ H I , | ‘ ‘ (”in l I s 1 - ‘» ‘1 . I ’ .'\', I -I . ,
--~1‘ u - x; -J.‘.J ..'. : ' (.’ . ' ', _ . \a .‘...., \.,3I,“ , 1 1;, ,, . ,_ .'_ I .I V. . _L.\‘:\~I“.' 1.. “1.1
1 ..
’ .I
‘ ' ~ I IN - - .- . I ,
I . . . - ‘l h. '
I-.. *r'L. *5 Ir I I ‘ +I“.-“I I ~» " ~-~=.-. ~ : x I'r -. ~
- 1’ -’ - .4 J . n, J“ 4.1.“ I.“ -. '.I' 4 .' .AJ.\d -- .. ’ .‘ ‘ r“ ‘3 .- M » ‘v- - ' '~ -
, I
" . O ,- ~ 0 _ ‘ 1 _D f‘. o v a. ~, .1 - .g I. a .I . , .
. . u . - n I. - . ‘ ‘ ,' ‘ v\ , " "H' I """' fi'v‘ ' " .
7‘. ..I I )- 1 ) . ' ’. ‘ 1.". 1. -C _. I) .1}. - ' I} .‘.~ I'r' 'r . - _ :1" (1,. I ' g "' ’ "x ' .. . -i 1.‘
I . ’ p ' a . - ' 1‘
- n. ' - o .’ g 0- n q.
,I . ‘. ‘ I,- . ,9 . '. ~ ~I|' - u - ‘ v
, - - ' _ I, I' ~/ .4" 3“ ’3 \"JAI (‘ 5" II
A ' .. I» L I .~. -I Ix-t.tl*‘(I - . I . _:_, p

.g. -...~I. —.~-._- -4'Idh—l

.u‘

 

I

‘
O
a .

 

 

.I,
Q 4,
I

 

 

 

I .~
. ¢ \
V!
I ‘.
- I .

J (I.- '3
’ I . -
‘o
’3 ‘
.v‘ I . .I: .
..I .
a a
I'— . — ,
I

.‘l
I .A
. 'III I
f, I .
. - .
"
‘f I A .
‘ i
. I
' I
‘ I
- . u
i Y
I . a

. ,‘.
|
.r
I .‘
, I
\}_;

 

J
‘»

' ‘n‘
' 1
.‘.- n

("I
_I
.\
.4‘
q
.‘ ‘
I —~.

 

'.
O ‘
II -.
)
..\‘Q
i a:
H‘ .T
VII. I4.
I
4 -
r

r.‘

 

-.
I I ‘
. . .
.
.
‘- u
. __ . - , , ,I. . .I .I
. - I
- ‘ .IV . .-‘
‘ ' - I ‘ _- I , ._
I I I _. . _
. I I I
' ’ - I \l .
I n
L .
I »~ ‘,
. I ‘, 1
\
‘. )I ‘
‘ V
A) I
I
. I '
I
I _ . y
_ I ,‘
. ‘ _
" ~ ., A
I I
I

 

 

I. ,I'
I " a I 3
II' I n ' 'I I ’
‘ ‘ . l u 4 "r
‘I_ I. . u. I- v
,- * “a v n. k j
.I I: . _ ._!, . _,
I
I h
- | , I
.l I I.
.-
3 ‘ ‘_
'v
I II| V

 

1 ‘ .
' n ._ J u .
.l o ' ° ‘. ', i _ . . 1 ‘ V > _
. .l. ( . . -\- , _l L ‘ .su. _‘ \‘ZL . ’ ‘7‘" .. . f ‘ .‘u r' V ‘_' ~ '1‘ H .
1:; _«. 11.0. ,5 ,. - .~. .p -.' H,- a .u , «L .). .. n __ A”: , ‘2’: y \. -..~..-.
‘ , , 3 .‘ .I‘ 4‘ ..S ‘-‘-<‘- u‘ . .I f,. - (‘1 r ',\(’ I" -§‘4\‘fl. ‘1.» li'..'~ f3 -‘.!~.“’~y.‘ '. "r f‘ f “‘7‘ {ffn'v‘ft 'O
... 1 luln‘s) -‘~—‘—L‘ 'I «A a uLJA‘A I ‘ i (l- -v' . ' ‘ k- .‘q'k‘A. - ~‘;..\Il {..-—- 'c'b kl‘u' '.’§.’ -‘Al\¢ -'\. l a '._,
‘ ' 1‘ 1-” r‘~-xr:' '4 \ -"-' "‘1 .. 1+ 3"?"H" ‘3') .3 \’ f‘v' " "
——,' ‘w‘ -’ .‘ w ‘1'" .V.' 'I ~ 'n' ' , ,' ' "" N' . 1 - \ '4
‘4_ ‘1"‘_. » (x.."u1 ‘. .“.|4 .1:— HI! '1-.‘4 \ ["9 91"“). i j-:-‘" ~V;-:-l-\. rJ k~u 14-.) (”.30
\
r C‘ . ‘- ,\- w. 7-.“ ‘
' I‘I .~' .
u‘lv— \H-J-‘O-nsA-lc ‘
‘ ,‘o‘YF
V2.4 ‘.'
r U

“ . u .
‘I 1‘ ‘I'J‘:IY; £111.:

. ‘. .. t1. - .1.-.., »'- -'
bhhpghm‘ -:. fiu'gCulve ‘
:11; L
.-.__\.‘,:.l_ ,1 / / I f /
- ’ _‘i I . . - . :
cu. . - t .'= - x 94 ,~.4In"~ v0 f's. n . .. .av. -~ - ID...-
”of _) «v..- Or an..- )1 It ;" «,0 Ch. o 44 .- -‘J’~M*—~T :-
L1 .L K. K)
~ Q. ,-‘.‘I :- Q '. ‘ .1 . ' 9‘ " Owl r“ "n t". ' ' 4 «
* / m, :..;..~. :19. ; 3:31-113. 1.; tax»: :3. elk-c1: 1:.

\— ~.o -‘-I

‘-C.- d win-«er'rn
I t
Q

 

~- \ ~ I u
I‘ C "Y‘"” 'a”! T" T.
vs.b —-'. .. 0—. -,- . ‘4
n 'V‘ " "' ' _, ' '7 .1 v D
. - 1 ,y ,- .- .c. . ._.. - . . \- . ‘ _ , ,
~ k ‘1 -J. .1 "7.63 3.. ~ ? {”1" .‘7 «'1‘ ,~—.(~~,,.,) ‘H’H‘UQ :1 {war-‘3 "1 q. .
‘ §» - .. ~ , ‘l -/ . - - . n’ . '1 . 1’ wr' A ._ I . .~ _”__ - -5 .- \. ‘ . IJ -4 J~L ‘ t r \ .4
‘ ' ‘ I ‘ ‘ ‘u ‘ 'Q Q. a a u 4 y
"f. ' n ‘ .f5 ‘7 ' . ‘. fiAr ' . r‘ I f; ; f~, K ~ 3 3 4‘1 r‘ 1‘ '3' 1nf. ax-vsvw ' l .A I. n ’- \‘vs‘mfiV- ."i '- ,"}‘1 '. film "1 Y} 3'" , I O, ruyr 0'
.t .- ‘ ) m 0 . - . I t : 1 ,._, H: .z- a
. . .-. -r . _ - -- \.- . V. \- )\ -.,- ,2 ~.r -. L . x. -4 -1. ..~ .. - _ . LA. h..— -\~.. . . .4 .. «N -. . 1.‘ . - - J
M‘)‘ -’.,.. rul- ‘~ ‘ 1~c~|
\ 0' I. 1 ‘ ‘ 1 q I ‘ . L I D -‘ fl
‘ 4 r! " . ‘a 5" ' ’ ' ' A '- ' *‘-~~-x""'-'-r\‘."a kr'vflvzmw I. mar h. rum.» aw, ‘n'r - ‘\. «rm-w . 51*.- - v ~'
~.- 1"” .. . J u ‘A ‘.A .-s . .- a .f . . 2.-.- 4- .I.. , . ,'. u. '- mun-.- L4 «AL .rNg' _ ‘...'..r..: L: ) 9- .2 .. .1. 14$“--.14.» x...” 1 .L,‘ .
-
K .-
. - ‘ ‘ 4' - ,.._ -3 ‘ .g : . ’I.‘ 5‘. - _ - ‘ . ‘ . .,
.‘V I-fl ’{ V : I v ‘1- -‘(A"“. I”\ fi‘.‘ ” I. ’5 It 1"4 :\ '.l' \I-4 'Lk"!- "Irv. - .a‘r \ ‘ .‘, , . ‘. gr...” . ,
J. ‘- . \I I _ ~ .-.J .,‘ ,A 1.. ,- . \ - L «n (- . I V, \A H- \.. _ u. \_. k _‘ ~,' - - l “.7 -
I ' ’ ‘.~‘ -. .,..‘ ., >.
-' ". y | ~a -v ~ -. a u
I ‘ 1 ' p ‘ I x I r - 'V - _r.‘ .- t ’- -_ .v‘ 0 ”*~-‘-.‘ ‘ . P ‘ V‘ ) “, » i ‘ 'p.,r‘n‘ EN ,1- .— - \A - ..‘ (- c- j d v~‘ “
I z . . j ‘ A .‘ A. A‘ . ’ ‘ ‘ Q ‘\ .“ 1 I \ \ r1 ' . ' "
. ‘ 4.- », . ~ . - - - , fl . -_. v 74 .. ._ v, ) . _\
. Ad
. .. v ‘ ‘
. r' . r ' (
K :, .
‘ ‘ : ~ 0 ‘l M v ' ‘ .I O I . r g V- N
,‘V 1 r ‘ u .‘ r v) ‘I" l' _ A? -~' ‘2‘ ‘I ‘- .- 3“ ‘--‘ . 1‘. a V . - " ~~ ‘v. f J y. .- - A ‘. 7‘
i " A. \ $ .» a I .4 ~l c . ~' ) 1.....‘Yu ..’, ‘- I 'I _ . '1- ' 1;.) - ~'_.‘I .g. .‘ .--‘_'.V _, ‘ - .‘ 1. ’ 1"! ~ \.l‘ ‘t
‘ r
-—-( .‘ 1 ' r
' -' ‘ V ', ," "u A‘ ‘ v 3‘ n I ' o, 3". 1 . ‘ " f TV ' .' 1"“. v' ' . "3 2a ‘ M"‘ r"- ‘1 " A“ I" “ on 1‘ - ~ 5‘ ,A v -
v v ‘ ‘ ‘,r -: ' r ‘ '. , :. ~
.. J- ‘ t. r-” _ ‘. g._ ;...p L Vv~~~l 1 . ;»/:~,7 I - .-~ 3 . r n 4- u ., rv. : .11. (
0
M1 . -.. ‘1...
o-x) .-- ‘1 ' - . k.
. |
4 P. .. ‘ . I , / f If / ‘l
« ,, .. , z a r '
A ' f ‘ I ‘l /
u .1, training-cw“. n «In. a II' mun- “ '0», - - A :P“"‘ D-Iuh- m in-“ -A-.--~- On. C "1-4 . AID-nu-- .'- FA :0 “f'v-o-«n M 5-... ‘.~ ’v “‘
1 4’ n . .
~r-..;--'r

k)
I v’ v
‘5
0
I
u

T“ r! t'
. I
A 1 A; r- r' f / f l
4 a 5.1 .“V . ‘. I ‘ /
U’QvWQMU-QI'.» an r 3"- h—Ua ‘Pfi'fl worl >w~.n- - :9... a . n: .~-—~. o ’- ."hwp—n.fl-Cb—" -"fj _‘N>'~l‘l\‘=~‘ > f«.l'w~.
S k 1 ,) ‘
w - - C. 1.1 I; 1_.
verv
\l

. .l

-w~ A -
;;t.b

l I c I

u.
.I
f
”a. Q-‘“ ”1".Mufi‘ :o—LNK M m‘r~ qm‘
I t _ "x
(j .

3 I

. ’- 1, l
‘ Chit-law-
"“ 3:" V,

5 7 ’ " ’fivr
‘J-Lg “ I "1 ..-:.L.,V.-‘v’..m¢~‘;~I--“,
I} ;_ L3
w. «.1»
h..- J

I V
\
n ‘7'
J in. 34'
\ _' I .
_ ~ .V I I
'Q (“-flrgfiwi‘ I, ‘ v,
.,r , J.‘¢~,--4J'.,\’ / ‘ '1 f
o
”-CJI-‘fl—o‘vu'uxfli-Oiw'fl‘In,“"Iv-AI *—r‘i..«-aufi-*~~-.kuufintm,1 “:~5}I '.-.-' Jun.- ‘ u'vP.4¢.—-v
-. '- V "' .
:3 i 1‘ L .
\J . ‘-.- I1. , "1 of. E "
N .'
v: --'
1:\.) I, «:7! '11.},
:-
rd
‘ . . / g g f I 1
,1 , _ H Y T“ 1 {A . l ’3 ,“
. ‘ g ;
‘KII‘DQr-r ‘JwH-M '. ‘upp,pvrh. An: ‘A— t ~‘_ “-1 .l 4...“. ‘1‘. .0 n... w.._”. n . ...\\~ ... ” ~...-..-r.-. ( \h—A...M~v~ n“ cud-$4 AD
_ l .3 .f ' f. ‘1'.
V l- 1 .- .) J ’1‘ x-'
3'33”. 3.: 2...,”
V '.’.a ‘D
. , .
‘ |' * r- . ' I I I ,' I ’
.-.f" 1‘ .- 4- " I ' ‘ ' I I
. ' , l l I ’ J ,,
, —- _.“7 . a I . 1 f
:.|Ar.lp'u( .~‘~-~.44 ._\‘ ‘4 «A A .p-r¢,(‘“.~'d. «"A- , f~-g~n-‘.}‘t.u‘. '1OM.“-.~d'.-‘hl.-O.‘U‘u‘n‘fi'an-Iv.0 ruw— -O
I ) ‘ fl. ‘ I i.
' ' "‘ M) 1 f it & I

VP

 

 

.
I O
.
I
. a
,
r
.v v- r
v .‘
‘ l
. '0‘
v
4
I
A
'I u . . s
1 , ,~\
=¢_ . .. .
. ~.H,.
.
.
A
.J
I
2.3‘
|"
, V .
3 . fl -.
~ {_ »
I1:
‘
'13..
.
‘ .i r‘
( x g‘ .'
. . , .‘ ‘
.7 .. .,
‘f
vn'.
1 1 _ , ‘
. r V ,
7" r n '

 

.
.‘.
.
‘v‘ ’
I 4‘
. :‘h .
~ -m.
‘p
f
.1
. 11
3 ‘ A
._ ‘
.,- ,
..
.w
. v.
L' ,
.
.‘ ‘»
4 t u ’
'a’ , . _ .7
‘., ‘,..
.

'-1
w
a:

v
\

J

 

 

7.»
‘)
“
..‘
.
11

r
‘
,
A
4
”v
v
. - ' r )
4
\,
.._ , . ‘ ‘. \IP'

x, u.

. 7 l

\ d'v '-

;

x u
.
1

‘. "§’I.I ‘.;..~ ' . | - v 0‘ ‘, :3 -‘

 

 

 

 

0
' I
, ‘
‘ :
.
‘ - . ‘.1 , . ,u I nu. . :. .>L~Vv. ,_.
‘4 C ‘
:7 :- I
. r;
a
, .5 I. .
. _l 7
4
, ;
, Z .
u r
. ~ A
- .. o. . - u u . v. u v u _ .,y ‘>"" a. . ,
‘ '~ .
" ‘ J
. I ..
I*.- .
.J ‘
/. ‘
_ .1
) , .
‘ J
' , .
l _ .
“ ' ‘ ' ' ' r 7 u ' « ' 4 n
4
= .
.. . ‘-
I.’
4‘ I
‘ I
‘
I
‘y f ‘
A n . - v . . , ~ ~...- - \ , ,. .
.’ . n
-; .- J
‘ . ‘u
,
. .
1' .
r . 7'
‘ »-. ,. - . , . . ‘1. _\
. '.
‘ . I:
u... V
h _5 I
. -. '-
. t r
I .
7
v. -... I.»- .u - 7 A - J - 1 7 , . ‘49 Ar
,
'3
. a

 

a ' '
4 ‘ ‘
I ' I
, A I c
I I _ v
A. r
' ' . . . r .
4 A ‘ ., _ , , ~. ' ‘
< .- z- .r — ‘n oo- , an.,- u y. 7 .g. I- - .- - n- ‘ . n ‘A ,JI . _. A,. A . o.‘ . - . . “ -- A‘- ‘
4 W
I - I .
I A A I
\- A. .’ .. '1,- A
.
y.tl.‘_.‘. . .. _ ’
‘;»_‘ b 4

 

, -4- ‘1 ‘ _- ' A] f .. A ‘r' f
A I n - “a; va- . - .‘O- U a- A-. _. c I. A...» 6. 1 5 . v . Jx . _~ .- ou— . “w.“ * .. .gn. .r'.
-. . 4 ._
I ) . 'l u a ,
A r
‘1 1 .- A .. J» I
'0'"? H
L). 4 v v . . ,

 

   

 

 

.
I
-. ,u--.—-. ma. ~1G‘o- I .1-: n n A-Jh w ..J,‘, - .- -. .v- 9-»- ,vA ...-rr-I7A. - ¢.,.(.“~q.,o §.¢‘..I. . -_V . , ~v- u -\. -. m a. "u ~1'u" )1.
. u, {-5 ~ I .1 I
X ‘ ‘a ~ I |. ,'
.I u. L- p‘ ‘ : .1 ‘- ’
I r *2 I A ‘1 -
l , . .' A'
J l ' '
‘ . - . l g '
. r
$ . A J J A f I I
.. ‘ ' ' ; .
,, ; - . t . .'
~~ 11‘ 5-01“ ...- - . «.A _\ AA {Lo-v Iv ..‘ . ...‘ ',,7 . .7 ‘.. ._, ,, A- .. ~
‘ I
V
J ‘ ‘ A
4 . .. I . ‘ r, ’
,
'. " Q, . ‘ ~
‘ , U . -
O . ' ' f 1‘ '
' A ‘ , _v .
’l 4 ‘ I
. a ‘ ~ 5 ~ < _ I ' .l '
—’rd- .. mus-Arr w V-i V r ' "I ‘ . ‘ ‘ w - 4 .“JI » l 0. Iva's.‘ - .4 s u v r. A v-‘whv ‘- - I - "‘ --... J ‘ ~'
,.. , .
I ' l ' J' { W
‘3 .. . L_ ; V .-
v \ ‘v
. .
I ' A, ;
‘ 1
, v .
a f ‘ I 0
‘ _ . A r I ,-
L . I A» , ‘ ~' A 4
» ,. k ,_ ,1 A r‘qpuc >-rr .04 u.- --,w~ I A. -~ I« u..r a «‘1 .-
' V ‘
l .
-o " ‘ ' I
u
'n' r' '::‘ 1' " .'
. . .1 -J . .
I a ‘
r I, I ’ ’I u I 1‘ .l
'\ ' A ' 0", ' w I I _‘
‘- 4 . .. ‘. I.) . / ' . (
. -
rd' “1 A v>«‘ I aha l 'vl. .v 5.5} q.- -. Jun“.-. .3 v . y - - A. ..a-A(’--a v ' ‘ -".‘,A!I“ «- nor .suw- x4 \1 .roll A If Ou.‘ A
I _r ' . r -\
~- 7 ‘ l . I '
. ~ . .' “f r
'2’?" I" ‘ ':""-\’.V
a. L’ v; . .1 .
'J
p _. . ‘
( r'1 ‘ l , 3 .' i '
‘ " "*1 r‘ ' ' i v . r
C { " .1); , '-." ’ L” I . l ‘A v .
‘ J 4 a | - ,
‘ '-‘ ' >1 I—Hf'c’v 0.. 01";«0- ‘ J' "—" '-~‘ :" m' l t.’ I 1. ‘0 O 7' "r '-._-. .,.. - .g A 0- .‘ .v .‘ 9: .-.'A _A ”I.-. ”a - t-»
-- . I» A r—J A
u A‘ ‘. . ‘
I .A .— ‘
_._ A. ' k ‘1 g.
l
'-"3' 0.. -»v-
. ‘ A _‘ \
I__‘\,‘ ‘1 n“ .l. r
‘.
H . I 4 A
o- I . a
. :,_r « ‘ A”. hf ‘ a). , '1 .I I I J‘ I,
I A, . ,
AK' , .' l J J ’..;' ‘c ‘I f >
v" in”; r;n~anvo_u -. a! a- rut", OFJL'AA‘ 9» an“: ' o~.: L-‘br -~ arr ‘<‘l\‘l.~<‘l-"4—. 11r.16.r ¢,I¢‘1 .‘.?."1. "‘.f n ‘1... _ J.
y - a . A
. ‘ i , , * .

 

.—
.
.
I
n
’1
.

 

'H 0 - . a.
445') '.' V’ "1": ‘1'.

f F D
,- f— (‘- ¢ , '- i f I I
. l .' ; "‘A "4 ‘ '1 A ' 1 ' ‘ A f A
77/ 5 "’-J-‘A:, ’ . ) ' x ‘ ‘ ’ ‘
‘-, . ' .' ' r l
at. r'". ,- lam-L4 TW-O "rm v-4... . .~~.L. ' ‘ ~v \ao \ r: 7.. , )m-I- Ax- -on,;,n-. \Av‘ g‘ -.—-r~-—‘ -l ”fanny-$41.. «.79
I I “‘ '.r

| -' .L ._.‘ L} \_’

 

   

I‘

 

"n I; ' I I! /i If I I

 

 

J , u I
< L +- “AH-“m: “A. u*~ 5‘ p' 4 .E ,. um.-v~—-~ '"u'f‘". II -~ vd’ -’rv' {Ana-"Mn“?
‘ A
...J H; p) .‘
'Y.“' "19‘ r—w
1.;6 ‘."-.r.v"
L
3 -. .. i .’ F A. I
L I . ) I r
.J . s A r; v I - ' J -
, , - . I
-u.-- -uz;:o J.‘MthcIV-t;fi~t~~‘~a"' A. ~l .1 r7.“ Outow.‘ ~_|= a . .O'-_A. 7*‘1 L‘Aum .x‘a ~55. vv.’:d ‘4‘ av \. -\-'lI-‘V". "'
‘A ‘ ‘ .3 . r t _‘
.L f _, 0L ’ . u
w , .

 

,‘z‘ . ._, . ‘A
Q,
.v (FAA... . “‘4.-. o “-_.;va
.I‘ ,
2,“: 1‘ I \ m '
1'95".) 1). J. ‘ y
' .- Q 0 v. , l l ’ i [I ‘v ‘-
“A '. V, 1".) - ‘A A I . I f I I
' A- ‘ _ _ - ,, . V «. A J c . I v
" . - I . ‘ t

. A , v . .
n “a..-“uq‘w- 4:4.» .9145O-‘u‘o‘h-‘W-‘J'm~M‘H-m.»-mv~.p‘t-.‘...V\..‘w-_\.\A§¢~.-~-a~. I~...c, .f-~\)‘-- v.._u..u »J.-
.

'- rv \ 1 _v
' 1 4 : 1, «A
L) ..'- '. »-' A J ) (~’

I .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~‘

\ K

A".

.
r '5' " ~ i,“
..-’.
n’ J "r : ’
U ’ '
f f I I
p
‘ .
0-. .aor —rv-_Iv,- _L -- n. ..~')""4."-'
J

i .
1 .
. v. '90- ~ .; a. c. -..... ar- 1~c:m-‘a“-- no». 5 a. 9.-.-..m— : a...» .--.~.—.m"'
v I. h I) 1 .’
\_) .L- (a J 1‘; '1’
VFW”?
U ._ .‘. L

I
t
l i
J

‘ . I.
r?‘
“‘3 .1
' I
I I I “‘ I I
I i i 2'
I l I. -
UQI"'w9‘-N-b ->_,c..o un.—-vnws ;.u—vv,)l-qu.-..p “-rl..¢‘ .-..r,)c-«u-n J“!;A“IWI‘». -"'\_.-'\.‘ ...l- I-
,.
I V: I 3 3
(- r' 1‘» ‘2 AV”
‘ ..Iv--9.'
1' h‘ I

.Q.

, /

‘ ,.
.‘L . u' *5-
! ' ' )
.' I I 'l
r / ll I f
l I I ’r
. --'i . \',..A-‘~ .- 4-‘—.n. .1. 4.. -.-‘-uv~--a ’¢.\p:‘--‘I‘A ‘no-u -..~..— ‘ -..v,-"O\- _\
a | -
U, I

.. . o 1.
r .. n...
s u C W.
. a.“
1.. .x‘ O NH.
.1 w- r
. .. J . ~|rd
_fll ~
v2 . \ n.%
P v .. u 0 w!-
. ‘ p .. r...
Jpn ‘.. . .A.
I. - P8
.a .0 . IHI
.1, . n.
J. o .4.
f u C.

n O V
c...: . n‘d
- .~ QL
.. o 1..

. . u
o J.
,
I . .-
. .
Q . . 1...
(. -..
. .. O
a 0 1.!
.
9..
0 ..
.. , O . -
. O
.5
.n .0
.r .
‘. \ ‘ .ac.
. ..| .—

It)..|lo

1“! III! .'

‘5 . ‘KJ
r; 5‘
.J. O ‘4.
f» as
. o ....
a... 5..
.1. 0 so
a .
~J 0 Ha
.I. 5..

v .\J
. ...
I”! . #
I I.
.. a J.
x... .I
.2. o .J
Ix «K
.3 c . w
.‘ .. .
.. O ‘ a
. C
I. o J
. .

;. 3|

\ VI

... O «a

I ii. I- 5"

“I n

..

4...»

c

.n...‘ .
I ..

“‘6.

o.
1.?

fiaN...
“.4
...-
n...
.5."
p‘....\.-.'

an .x

.3 . .

w ~

’ l

w .0

A.

.. I O

_

w I O
—.

I .-

,_.;... .

. ..

a .1.

«a
in.
C

A...

r!

,‘ n

-u-l - ""‘
I r u'q‘

l§.-Il:l‘illl.. .IO

\ I];
.-

Iu lentil“

N...

.' .‘3 "'4
C

.-

0-K.
,.

1"
.9

f...\
.f.‘J
. _\

‘v. K’

a.

.o..\..

p

_. I

. 4

J- 0¢

1.. .

\I

a

..

v

.. \ 5

. . .

h r.

. o I}.

..r u

. U
. .

"."

a

f
b

353M

,-
,
h

P3

‘0

'\-¢ ,f
I 'u \v

I

'I‘ , n
u’ i

uln);..l| t'nl ‘U-‘rll- \‘

i nl‘i.!'l.;\l.‘?’! \i‘.‘. n:

otll. ,

'1

O
.7“
‘l

O
J)L

0
"
I'J y

I
I.‘ u
‘v

7..

‘- 0 ll ~v
H M.F\U m.. r: .

N a n... and
.. v r‘\ ”a
m. . .. o 1,.
J ¢ v f‘
y .. . 0 Ha
a .r x .. U
M w V-l
a .\ w
“.2. . 0 q‘
-. r\
h _. ._ O .60
xx .. . a u
‘14! U o "l
L -. P
M. 0 win
'I‘ k
. . O 5,.
l . . r \

J. . . .
. .. .fl
~ a J I:
,w‘

... a O is
f . f
a . o .
x . ..

n O \
n. .. .
. o. d .
v 0 o
_A.
.. a é ‘ .
. . s
J .
r
. . O b.
. ‘ ..
c .
,u
. O
a
1 II II I ’
a
J \‘v

LIV.9;

.. :15...- 2-0 I’d’i‘

\ «fluiwll :. q ..
In . .
_I .a. u I ,
4-
. .. . .- .r

”1... ,J
.. .v
.6 .1...
.$
.. 0 vi
. .m
C 1.4

.. .
l .
.J. .J
. r.5
\. . ‘ul
n.
.0 .J
n .
O ‘ .
L.
.l‘. ‘l.
a

‘
~.. 0 a.
n r.‘
«a J!
h
0 Gal
. ..

i .V
I. ..o
a

O J
c

5 .4
U I

II" 2"... “1’.

.. ‘
cl .
. 1
. .-
0 .
.
\r \-
I \

p.
‘8

)
I

.u‘l'fllll‘ll.’ ii. “.1“ 1! ‘Qs‘

..‘ fi‘
v I

.

r“

~ v

3“
.. ~

’ ‘J

1... 1, 0 Av c-H..J.-.... .41....
‘

J . . . nil . . .
. . .. .. .. I . . . . .. ., _.
a... . i, .1" (v. . W: a . (to \ at . I‘ .‘x . a /\ w .. . .1
‘ 3
Nu a, . “C .3 Q i v . _-\ . a’ .. . )3! w U ~J \d I; . .‘d - ... l.- H.111 ..
. .. 4 M - . . a .. u H . .. . . .. . ..

f,"
- v

 

.

Q

'I

.2

o

'7' guy. ”3
V I
o

'l

1

f;

5

Pa
0

.‘.n

‘-I J
s

o
I
4
H
'3
o
4
o
:-3
.-.l
O
r." -'
\-
J
o
..." z
r'\
O
C
(“W
N

‘14
. .. m‘n .... I .n. "a. .n .. .n I u . . no I
\r V.. . 1... § r ‘n . :41 3 VII . . s0 ‘ _ ...) . ..M. v} ..vJ . 7.. ... v. D“. . .‘UI ) .. I I..- ”5 HI. 3. -_ _ - . .. o. . r. ..‘n.
\ .~ —. c .n k . . . l
M: "I Ho. ”.1 r\. WI .M r .. ..vt) . n... o! t v .4 ~75 on W ‘-.s “H . no I
.. so. .3)... 9.3.... ~52.-.- ... .. ... -o4 ~ ...-... .-.-... ..
. A MI fl . as W « to. ..v .a .a . wl I“. “I F l a .. a . .s

rm! C."- r”!

 

 

J! u u I 9... , a! ‘ \o I. u . u~ I1 . r

a #0: ”...-...... ”.0...- .0 —. .0.- k ...m. .2, .-

t . H1 r hf: . u. I .1; _ U ”.... . . .-v r. . . .k

:2... .-....3 .25.... 1.-..-. .3 .- . ............- . ...n. . 343-.
.. . . . . . . . . . .. .

v a. ru .1. . .. .... r _x. fu ... . . F a- ...u .. . .. .fu . ..-. .v . .. . .

al. ‘ J . Q. C J ... n . IJ F. a). . 1 v \ I. .. 4 . K” v u v. . .I I ‘sl. 0 . u H I. . 1 A» J A » i \ a . 1~ _‘n .i
. . : . .. H . . ~. 4. ... .-

.. x - ..-. \l . \_ .. ._ . . . ... ... rL .. .. . v . . l. . . ., ~ . . . A ..

3.4.. .... .....xo 3 Jaw.03. .....«o .2. u.:.0 .. .u o ... . . 0 n. “2 .... was“...
. » . N . . . .

.\ .. ... . .. r». w. . I» r .\ w . . . . f. . - .o y . v .

O ..l 9 M}. O. id . . I u”... . I . Hi9 «. . y . . I Mr. I. . .u \ I . ~ a 1. . . NJ 0 . . 1. .nl 1! \ V. . .
I .. fi . n . x .. _ ~ ' . v v . K v v -
x . ..II. a .l. r . «L e I. .. ~ I . a I . .- .‘v .k . .
.3... ‘H o w. ..- o A. ... .... o .33.. 3 o .... ... ..-. - ....H..:.w....1...1

. A l . u .. . l n. .
.. .I _r... .. k r... - - . . m. T .. . .
.\ .4. . N'. ..1 4. O .10 ”...-... . Wu #1. v C 51V .\ ... 0 . I . V «.J \.. t. O .. . n‘ -_ .. . H..:r\ 2‘ ....
. . I . u n - . o .. - I
r . r... .7. .. re . .. .» .... ... ... . .\ L .r. . .i. .

I \J . ‘1 \I 1' . \ i D C . 1!. ‘1 VI . ~ a - l . .1 .4 4 t . 1 v . . . 1 x4 . «_\ ‘1, .u . va
. . - _ .. . x . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . r. g
r .. ..-" - . r. .1? .... r .. -. . . . . . . . ..\ ..

. I c .C n : I. ‘ t . s . I u n n I
\ . . 0 V A: .\ I . \ a A}. ~ . 4 c.« Ir . . . . r. a .- . . . ‘ A... u ’0 . J.I . .- .I .o .. - .... Lu.
... v \. V Tm... .. ..x. T P ...T 1. ..._.
o. -I I. .1 ha I. .0 V ill I .. . 1 - . p\ \u I: a II .n 1) V: l . .~.I
O . .0... .....JJ 1 a0... . O 4 . D... O . .\.u . ... . .. .u

c . o .. . V I. .v. . .~ _ n v . . u . . u . . l n
.1. . .... ‘Wnl. I. u.......1 #1.). .V ‘ .«V ... C .\ .I O . ....v. .....3. .)..

. .. .. p r. .... P ...- ...\ n .... . _ .. a .. . y. ..
...... ....o: 4.50,. 2.0... .. ... ...: .u . 5......-
.. . . h . . a . . , . . . - .
. . f - . .5 u a r .. . u . . . .
. . .1 .a . .t . 344 .a. . u . .< J . . u . . U a . - x . .. . . a . 5 n . \.. ._v. ‘ . ..
... . ... . . _... r .. I. r... . .. . . .u ... ..4 .. f . . .. .
\. ; . ll 21...! . VI: . . 510 r. u. . ...l . . . I. . U . . . I 4 4

q . . _ . .
. .u .- v.- . .. . . r .
. . ~ ‘ _ . 0 ~ ‘ .l‘ x» . .‘ .- . I. . . . 9 U I a 5 . r: .I ..‘J . - - .. .
. . . . a .. . .
- I " G V I u u I o C \ .0 _I ‘ I I
i I. q u .10 o ‘ J u... ‘5 . ..s. . o .. ... a - ,0 J . . . .s .4.
. . . u .. .
. . .i r . u I . .. . . . .
.. .... -. ‘ .o .u . ....J . -... y . a -. 1.; . - .
. .u v .x . . w. . , . . A . , . - . .
. I ..1 ‘ .r' . . 4 a ‘ I I L I WI 1‘ 1 . o W
. O . 0 r . . O .. x . _ . . N .k : , . .
.. x .- ~ 9. ...r. , . .o . . , . . mt . . .
x. v J . um: H. .. . In”! \ .. o 1 . ...»; .L . a In. 4 . t - ¢ 5: U n-u s . . p I}. .. .
. . ‘ .... u. s . F .n r '- .
‘
.. ....d 3..Jo~.. a...\. J... 0 . ...» .. . .0-.. w .0... - 15.... .
. ‘ u w I . . . .
. .1: .u .. owl . .1 . W . A. t . .r‘ . u .
..‘Ttoclxul 'I- ‘1...13:..'-.-"; ...0 r1... s0... 14310113.... .I. avii : ... I: u -. It in... :1.-. .nuu.‘ ...-1.1. 9.13;. ..IvttlJ 410302‘ .u. ..
I 'I n \. .‘ v \ 4 .I l - 1. . . ‘ It . an ‘ . .} . u I -.t .. . \l
. ; m . . m c I. .. . .. . ..l A , . r . . s . .. .w x a _ n .
. .¢ :. .. . I .. .: : . .\ f .-
l . .. a .. -. . A .o p .l . c . u . u . v
V. ' VI. ..I .V ‘lv .! v. - . .v I 5 u I. .t/ p\c
.... ...L 3.. .4. . .... ...-u .3
.. r .. « n- - I.
.. on \I A». .1 . J n “...! . . ‘.| a . J A. I I"... _ 1.: . a I a . : v v
rip » r . . . r a. . nf‘ . .... fl . .. u .I r .
l a » II n lu- - . r

l. 4r}- .L!» r . ..I’\‘~'§|‘ 30 ' I,“ I t‘I la". 5"»! .3 '1 l o‘ I Vv’l" vl‘ t..4(tc¢0‘ ‘I II! .vllll )VQV“ n}&01x| '1 I 0211;);If) ’5! \‘i‘a’t'i

......JJw ...)... ...» J .4 ... «...... 3.254.... ...-:33} 91.43.)... :55.. ..
. .. . . ... . s u .. xi .- _ . ~ . , a“ . . . . - qt: .1\ a .t r . . . I
~ . \ o . o s I ~ . I. .0 Im- . . . a

'u‘

W1
~40

ILXIr

“TED

f‘
U‘..

.3.

Total

III

 

Commission

Raw D3 ta
Per.

II

 

Per.

Errors of

 

 

 

 

Raw

 

 

.IQUBnAQUOnunVlAUQu81InV71I42UQU4,&Qu
l

nuOnu1ZUnuOnunuOndoaOnu1IOainuOnuquO

lno1IOnunuOnunVOaxogOnuogOnuqu2no1I3

OOZlOuOOOlOOA.lO4133llOO

0.3:u7r0761_0n039unboo700.07
l l 111 1
104415514.26515no113045A:

3354.346.06OHOOV_ZCunO.Dn/HOQQ3_01

5 3 no 3 no no 4 l 5 5 5 3 2 5 A; 6 3 5 A... l 5 2

12004:0n07890la/“34:0n070090
1 1 l WIZ

Slnvssn

\JL-A

Signal Detection
Ra W D: t a

FEMALES

Errors of
Ra w

Commission
Data

 

 

Per. Total

 

 

 

 

 

Per. Per For. Total Per. Per.

I II III I II III
4 5 3 12 1 2 2
6 6 6 18 O O O
6 2 2 10 4 2 2
3 4 2 9 O O O
6 3 6 15 l O 0
6 S I 16 0 l l
3 1 Q 4 3 3 2
6 5 5 13 2 1 O
6 5 5 13 l 2 O
5 6 5 16 O G 0
5 C 4 15 l l l
2 5 5 l2 4 2 O
3 5 6 14 O O l
4 4 3 11 2 2 0
6 5 6 18 l l O
3 4 3 12 2 O l
5 S 4 15 l 2 l
5 5 S 16 2 O O
6 6 2 14 l O O
2 4 3 9 3 O O
G 5 3 l4 0 1 O
6 5 5 16 O l O

wawmawwgr—Imwowwmmwomom

BL WDFOLDEI HALES

 

 

 

(.7 (I)

 

 

mt003$(flc>m(ELDU1wCfl#s$CfiOD$ph

h-«- ’3‘

C? O) 03);:- CJ‘) (.3103 Ca.) 0) CD "3. L“ H C57 0) @145. “A“; #3 (.0 (:3

0007

action Errors of Commission
t1 Raw Data

Per. Total Per. Per. Per. Total
III I II III

 

 

 

2 9 2 O 5 7
l 8 O O 0 O
6 3 7 2 6 15
4 13 1 O O 1
4 12 2 O O 2
5 3 O O O O
3 14 O O O O
4 13 O O 0 O
3 14 O 1 O 1
4 10 l 4 1 6
3 14 O O O O
2 12 O l O 1
5 18 O 3 O 3
4 15 1 4 1 6
6 13 4 7 6 17
3 12 5 4 3 12
E 13 1 O O 1
5 16 2 1 5 9
5 3 l O O l
4 ll 2 O 1 3
3 17 1 1 O 2
4 l3 0 O l 1

1' Yi-"Nt‘o' I‘T" TT'I'KT 17‘“
BuiauronunD FUnAUIb

 

Errors of Commission

“nal Detection

C;
C

Si:

Raw Data

x-ta

(4

D

1‘13 W

 

 

Per. Per. Total Per. Per. Per. Total

Per.

Subject

II

I

1 r
.

III

III

«umber

A

 

 

 

04%020nus30"(023‘iao1n4Q3111Q32nvso2
92 1 1
0170000211020031011534

01n000403010309~l5001r42~3

02030010211111.0nd9~12C9~O3

5Afioa5radl7AinoSrO11445mo4n0c33no:35
1:1111111:1 lwilfieiiTiwi 11 :11
5 3 A. 5 3 5 5 1 3 4 E 2 3 5 5 5 1 Al 3 Z 3; 4

5 p0 00 n0 n0 4. PO 0 A. n.) )3 n3 CU rJ n0 4.. .3 r0 ou 00 n0 PO

A; 5 5 A... no 5 ”O 3 3 no fl: 3 5 _D 5 .3 2 A. 3 3 ..O 5

l2rJ4—Dn079umdnu
l

15
22

12
l3
14
15
1

18
:39
21

l
l

P“ If“: .1; 1‘ i “!:E “I? 11 ‘
v * *~ { '
1 bush" 3;; ‘L

.AHN'HE - £301 3;}

 

 

”'TITI'ITIIMIMIJMIIQIJI‘IIJHQMMTES