EN?EROCULAR TRANSFER WfiTH CONTROL
FOR CONJUGATE EYE. MOVEMENT

Thesis for the Dogma oé Ph. D.
MiCHiGAN STATE COLLEGE
Eugene S. Ecfigingmn
W55

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

Interooular Transfer‘flith Control for
Conjugate Eye Movement

presented by

Eugen S. Edgington

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

ML. degree in My

Md;

Major professor \

Date m MAJ I? 5‘ 5.

0-169

 

 

 

INTEKOCULAR TRANSFER WITH CONTROL

FOR CONJUGATE EYE MOVEMENT

By

I ’3'
<= \‘J

{V
Eugene SG‘Edgington

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1955

THt.b.$

\‘k':

..
’r
.«k;
‘

ACKNOWLEDGmthS

The author is sincerely grateful to his major
professor, Dr, S, howard bartley, for his many help-
ful suggestions and constant encouragement, and for
his assistance in numerous other ways during the
course of this investigation.

The author is also indebted to Mr, William Buss
and Er, Harold Cox, both of Columbia Research and
Deve10pment Corporation: Mr, Buss, for help with
the statistical analysis, and fir, Cox, for making the
sketches and graphs.

\ u v \ \r . \I_}I__,I__\r r
*‘A—Ii‘15’n‘knnn JC'LC
.V..V.)' ‘-‘...‘ V ."._V .‘

n n‘"\ [\L’nn’ll’
J' _\/‘.\I ‘I'_\I-___\J \

K A A1 I\ I‘
-“_.‘L."_..
J; n A n X'
‘l \! a
'1‘ n'h'

ii

FRQHH‘I

ABSTRACT

Such phenomena as stereosc0pic vision and binocular rivalry in
animals with binocular experience appears to be inconsistent with Hebb's
idea that binocular experience builds up common visual pathways in the
brain. Stereoscopic vision is not a simple superposition of two images:
the effect is different if the stimuli for the two eyes are exchanged.
Why should this exchange of stimuli make any difference if there is a
simple fusion through a common path in the brain without respect to
which eye originated the visual impulse?

Since one of Hebb's main arguments for common neural pathways is
interocular transfer, consideration should be given to the problem of
interocular transfer to see if it might be explained without recourse to
tfle concept of common visual paths.

One such explanation might be that the interocular transfer is
carried out through conjugate eye movement, by reinstating an "approach
pattern" of eye movement in the original trained eye, even when it is
covered. No common visual pathways would be needed.

This thesis is based on two experiments that were carried out to
test the hypothesis that conjugate eye movement is not necessary for
interocular transfer. The first experiment was concerned with interocu-
lar transfer of the ability to read inverted words; the second with

transfer of mirror-tracing ability. Six experimental subjects were used

iii

in the first experiment and five experimental subjects in the second
experiment. All subjects were adult humans with considerable binocular
visual experience. Tie hypothesis that conjugate eye movement is not
necessary for interocular transfer could not be rejected in either
experiment.

After these experiments had been carried out, the writer received
unpublished experimental results from Dr. Chow that indicate that con-
jugate eye movement, in the absence of binocular vision, is not suffi-
‘cient for interocular transfer. Dr. Chow's results, in conjunction with
the lack of evidence from the present study for the necessity of
conjugate eye movement in interocular transfer, suggest that other
factors than conjugate eye movement will probably be more profitable
for study to determine whether conditions other than common visual
pathways in the brain might explain interocular transfer.

Hebb's concept of common neural pathways is not necessarily incon-
sistent with the concept of separate visual pathways: the region in
the nervous system where the impulses from the two eyes arouse a common~
pattern may be beyond the region involved in stereoscopic perception and
other phenomena that apparently necessitate a distinction between the
impulses from the two eyes; i.e., certain perceptual processes may occur
while the impulses from the two eyes are still distinct, whereas the

paths may later converge into a common pattern of excitation.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION........ .......................... .... ............... 1
Definition of Interocular Transfer ..... . .................... l
The Relationship of Interocular Transfer Experiments to

Psychology.. ..... ......... ...... ......... .......... ........ 2

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM........ ....... .......................... 10

INTRODUCTIODI: mmfi’imT I...0..0.0.000..0..000 ...... .00. ....... 12

METHODS 1ND MATERIALS............................... ...... ....... 15
Determination of Equality of Vision.................. ....... .. 19
Test Sessions....... ..... .... ............. ......... ..... ...... 20
Practice Session8..................... ......... .......... ..... 21

RESULTS...0.000....... 00000 .0000.....O..0... ...... O 000000000 .0... 22

Method of.AnalysiS....... ..... ...... ..... ...... ......... ...... 23
Qualitative ReSlfl'tS0000..O.0..O00000.00.0000.00.000.000.000... 33

CONCLUSIONS............................ ..... ..................... 3h
SUMMARY........................................ ...... ............ 37
INTRODUCTION: EXPERIMENT II.. ..... .... ...... . ...... ............. hO
METHODS AND MATERIALS........... ..... ...... .......... ............ bl
RESULTS.... ......... ...... ..... . ........ . ........ . ............. .. h?

Method of AnalysiS.. ..... ......... ............... ... ....... .... D7
Data.............000...........000O.0......OOOOO00......000000 b9

CONCLUSIONSt.................. ...... ............................. 52
SUMiARY.... ...................................................... 53
APPENDIX A....................................................... 55
APPENDIX B.............. ........ ........... ....... ...... ......... 56

BIBLIOWWOOO.OOO.......00.........00.....0.0.000...... 00000 ... 66

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page
I Rotation of Test Rolls for Subject-Test Combinations..... 18

II Mean Response Times and Standard Deviations.............. 31
III Comparison of Mean Response Times...........,,,...,...,.. 31

IV Mirror-Tracing Errors (In Square IncheS)................. 50

vi

LIST OF FIGUhaS

FIGUha Page
1. Set-up for inverted words eXperiment............ ......... .. 16

20 Eye tl-lbeOOOOOOoo0.0.0.000... ooooo 00.0.0000... ..... 00.0.0... 1-13

3, Mirror-tracing apparatus (with head rest).... ....... ....... Db

h, Mirror-tracing pattern..................................... ES

vii

GRAPH

LIST OF GRAPES

Frequency of responses per time interval: Test l............

. Frequency of responses per time interval: Test 2............

Frequency of responses per time interval: Test 3............
Frequency of reSponses per time interval: Test h............

Frequency of reSponses per time interval: Interocular
TranSfer TestOOOO0.00.....0000...0....0.0.0.00......0...0.0..

Frequency of responses per time interval: Composite of all

tests......000..000..0....000.0..000......OOOO.....0.0.000...

Logaritlmico-normal response frequency curve....,............

viii

Page
2h
25
26
27

28

29
32

INTRODUCTION

The two experiments upon which this dissertation is based are con-
cerned with interocular transfer of training for tasks learned with
inverted vision.

The experiments may be understood without previous experience in
the area of inverted vision, so the discussion of inverted vision is
in appendix.B rather than in this introduction. Appendix B, entitled
"Inverted Vision," briefly reviews the history of the use of inverted
vision as an experimental technique, discusses what "right-side-up"
means and outlines an experiment for obtaining an answer to the question
"Is seeing things right-side-up innate or learned?"

To enable the reader to more adequately comprehend and evaluate the
experiments which are the bases for this dissertation, a preliminary
discussion of the relevance of interocular transfer experiments to
psychology is essential. In the course of the discussion reference will
be made to experiments performed by previous investigators in the area
of interocular transfer, in order to aid the reader in visualizing

certain aspects of the problem of interocular transfer.

Definition of Interocular Transfer

Interocular transfer is manifested by the influence of previous
experience with one eye on current performance with the Opposite eye.

Expressed in another way, interocular transfer is a bilateral transfer

of training from one eye to the other. Usually the amount of transfer
that occurs is determined by a comparison of the number of trials re-
quired by either eye to reach a Specific criterion for the same task.
In a manner analogous to other tests for bilateral transfer, one eye is
trained on a task and the Opposite eye is tested on that task. For
interocular transfer experiments, it is necessary to occlude the vision
of one eye while the other is being trained, and then, for the test of
interocular transfer, the shield is shifted to the trained eye. The

amount of interocular transfer is customarily determined by the formula
X1’X2
X1

eye being trained and X2 being the number of trials to reach the

, X1 being the number of trials to reach the criterion for the

criterion for the test eye. Incomplete transfer is a term applied to
any transfer greater than 0, but less than 100%. "Immediate transfer"
and "complete transfer" are equivalent expressions. In this thesis,
the amount of interocular transfer was measured in a different way:
a comparison was made between the level attained by the trained eye
immediately before it was occluded and the level attained by the test
eye immediately after it was exposed.
The Relationship of Interocular Transfer
Experiments to Psychology
The significance of interocular transfer experiments to psychology
is largely through the implications that interocular transfer experi-

ments have for two theories of perception: Lashley's field theory and

Hebb's cell assembly theory.

Lashley's field theogy. Lashley (1929) carried out learning experi-

 

ments with rats after destroying regions of their brains. From these
experiments he deveIOped a theory Opposing the specific localization of
learning in the brain. The theory presumes that previous involvement

of the Specific cortical region is not a prerequisite for transfer Of
visual training. Lashley's field theory demands that there be an innate
equipotentiality of the two retinas and Optic pathways; i. e. what is

learned with one eye is always learned with the other eye.

Hebb's cell assembly theogy. Hebb (1937) has challenged the

 

position that equipotentiality, whether between different parts of the
same retina or between the two retinas, must be innately given. Rebb's
complex neurOpsychOlogical theory of behavior prOposes that interocular
transfer is the consequence Of neural associations, some possibly innate
and some built up in the brain due to simultaneous or alternate stimula-
tion Of the two eyes. The neural associations serve as a type of common
path so that stimulation of one eye arouses the same pattern of neural
firing as does similar stimulation of the other eye. Thus Hebb's theory
suggests that a certain part of the equipotentiality Of the two retinas
is due to simultaneous or alternate learning with the two eyes. So
Hebb's theory implies that there is not complete interocular transfer

if there has been no Opportunity for simultaneous or successive stimu-
lation of the eyes; if, for example, an animal were raised from birth
with one eye occluded it would be predicted that what the seeing eye

learned would not completely transfer to the other eye.

A few historical examples will show how experimenters have designed
experiments that tested Lashley's and Hebb's conflicting theories

(although this may not have been the experimenter's purpose).

History Of interocular transfer experimentation. Levine (l9h5)
experimented with interocular transfer in pigeons. Pigeons which were
trained, with one eye blindfolded, to discriminate various stimuli,
displayed bilateral transfer Of these habits only when the stimuli were
situated in their lower visual field. When the stimuli were in the
upper visual field, no interocular transfer occurred. These results
were obtained with two different experimental methods: a modified jump-
ing stand and a pecking situation.

This relationship between the location of the stimuli in the visual
field and the presence or absence of interocular transfer, could be
accounted for by either Hebb or Lashley in terms Of the involvement of
different retinal regions: The pigeons had Often used both eyes
simultaneously for stimuli in the lower visual field and, in accordance
with Hebb's theory, would have built up associations so a stimulus fall-
ing on the upper hemiretina of one eye was functionally equivalent to
its falling on the upper hemiretina of the other eye. This explains the
complete transfer when the stimuli were located in the lower visual
field. Incomplete transfer occurred when the stimuli were in the upper
visual field, because this position caused the image to fall on the

lower hemiretina, and the pigeons had no experience in seeing things

with both lower hemiretinas at once: no functional connections had
been brought about through learning. But Lashley's theory would also
be adequate here, if one notes that the association between the upper
hemiretinas might have been innate, rather than acquired.

Siegel (1953) used doves as subjects. He used a plastic hood to
cover the test eye. This plastic hood allowed diffuse light, but no
patterned light to enter that eye. He found incomplete transfer of a
fonm discrimination in doves that had been raised with one eye covered
with the hood. Normally reared doves showed immediate transfer Of the
discrimination. It will be noted that Siegel raised his experimental
animals from birth to control their visual experience, whereas Levine's
pigeons had former visual experience. With his demonstration of the
incomplete transfer for naive doves and complete transfer for visually
experienced doves, Siegel clearly showed that doves, through experience,
acquired transfer that was not innate. This Opposes Lashley? and fits
into Hebb's theory quite well.

Riesen and associates (1953) conducted extensive experiments with
cats. They used twelve animals: six control and six experimental.

The experimental cats were raised in darkness from birth to 1h weeks of
age. They were then given diffuse light in one eye and patterned light
in the other for 30 minutes daily until the age of 17 to 20 weeks; the
control cats received patterned light in both eyes. it 17 to 20 weeks,
training Of one eye was begun. The experimenters covered the test eye
with a diffusing goggle to allow unpatterned light to fall on that eye.

Both form and brightness discriminations were required. For both types

of discrimination, transfer tests to the test eye showed immediate
(complete) transfer for the control cats and incomplete transfer for
the experimental cats. Riesen and his co-workers had now shown that
what Siegel had discovered in doves also held true for a higher form of
animal, a mammal: animals deprived of binocular visual experience
showed incomplete transfer on tasks where animals with binocular experi-
ence showed complete transfer. This further substantiated Rebb's theory.
Chow and Nissen (l95h) trained two chimpanzees with patterned
light to one eye, and diffused light to the other eye (1.5 hours per day
for each eye). One chimpanzee was trained to discriminate horizontal
versus vertical striations With the patterned light eye first; the other
was trained on this discrimination with the diffused light eye first.
Both of them showed incomplete transfer. Subsequently each Of these
chimpanzees was trained with the Opposite eye on a red square versus
blue square discrimination, and a circle versus triangle discrimination.
Incomplete transfer again resulted. Since there was incomplete transfer
in both directions: from the patterned light eye to the diffused light
eye and then from the diffused light eye to the patterned light eye, in
the same animal, the lack Of complete transfer could not be attributed

to anatomical or'pkwsiological deficiencies of the diffused light eye.

Phenomena indicating partial independence of the visual areas.
Although the preceding experiments showed incomplete transfer in animals
'with no binocular experience, there was complete transfer in animals

with binocular experience. Hebb's explanation for complete transfer in

animals with binocular experience is that associations have been built
up between the visual areas Of the brain so that either eye arouses

the same pattern Of neural excitation, even utilizing the same neurones
(common path). If this actually occurs, then in the experienced animal
it would seem that there should be no way of distinguishing between the
impulses arising from one eye and those arising from the other; there
should be an inseparable fusion.

A superficial consideration Of binocular vision might lead one to
contend that, indeed, one can not distinguish between the impulses
aroused by the two eyes. HOwever, a consideration of binocular disparity
Of images in depth perception reveals that there can not be a simple
fusion in the organism, without respect to which eye it was in which the
impulse originated. Otherwise, we would have no binocular cues other
than convergence to distinguish concavity from convexity.

A demonstration utilizing the stereoscOpe can show that even in the
case Of so—called binocular "fusion", the organism discriminates between
impulses from the two eyes. The organism does not simply superimpose
the two patterns. If it did, it would not matter if the stereoscOpe
card were changed so that the pictures for the two eyes were reversed.
But, as Carr (1935) said, "When the pictures are interchanged in position,
the depth effect is inverted for diagrammatic drawings and simple
pictures such as the surface Of the moon where but few monocular cues
are present. In pictures of landscape scenes in which many monocular
cues are present the two groups of factors work in opposition, and the

depth effect is primarily one Of confusion."

The occurrence of binocular rivalry also favors the concept of a
certain degree of independence between the two eyes. WOOdworth (1938)
on page 573 of "Experimental Psychology" said, "Radically different
colors or figures presented simultaneously to correSponding areas Of
the two eyes are usually not combined. it first only one is seen, the
other being entirely invisible, but sooner or later a shift occurs, what
was invisible coming into view and what was visible disappearing. The
reverse shift follows and the alternation becomes more rapid as the
double exposure continues." This process is known as binocular rivalry.

The term "suppression" is sometimes applied to a situation in which
a person does not see out of one eye while tie other is Open, but can
see out Of it when the other is closed. He “suppresses" (in a sense,
ignores) the vision of one eye while the other is Open. But to be able
to ignore what is seen with one eye, the organism must be able to dis-
criminate in some manner between what came in through one eye and what
came in through the other. Binocular rivalry and ocular dominance
(right- or left-eyedness) appear to have an element of "suppression" in
them.

The preceding phenomena indicate a degree of visual independence,
even in animals with considerable binocular experience. How can the
impulses from the two eyes be distinguished by the organism if there is
a common path as Habb suggests? This is the question which led the
experimenter to wonder whether the complete interocular transfer observed
in various experiments actually utilized a I'common path" of visual im-

pulses. This consideration led him to this possibilityt

Even in visually experienced animals, there is no common path for
the impulses from the two eyes. The "complete interocular transfer"
that has been observed actually does not involve a common path for
visual impulses from the two eyes, but is a transfer through a different
means-~through conjugate eye movement. The following section will point
out the feasibility of conjugate eye movement being the vehicle for

"interocular transfer."

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This section is an attempt to show how observed cases of interocu-
lar transfer might be explained by conjugate eye movement.

Hebb (19h9) points out that eye movements are involved in the early
learning of form discrimination. He quotes Senden as saying that a
patient was trained to discriminate squares from triangles Over a period
of 13 days, and had learned so little in this time "that he could not
report their form without counting corners one after another." Hebb
continues, "My point is not that eye movements are essential to perception
by a SOphisticated Observer (nor, in the following paragraph, that they
are completely necessary for an image), but that the perception is
definitely clearer, more effective, with them than without. This is
really an evident fact. It is to be interpreted in the light Of all
evidence, cited above,showing that the perception of a square or circle

is slowly learned and depends originally on multiple visual fixations . . .

 

Receptor adjustment (head-and-eye movement) is the most prominent feature
Of visual perception whether in rat, chimpanzee, or man-~gngpt in long-
practiced habits." If one accepts the previous statements of Hebb, it
could well be assumed that animals might tend to make definite eye move-
ments when forced to discriminate between two geometrical forms. If the
animals did make definite eye movements in learning the form discrimi-
nation task, then we could assume that the learning could be that of

approach to a pattern arousing a certain eye movement pattern. Through

lO

conjugate movement of the eyes, the movement pattern set up in one eye

is reproduced by the other eye. 80, when the second eye is tested, as
soon as it traces the "approach" geometrical form, the "approach"

pattern is reinstated in the learning eye, just as it was in the original
learning.

It should be pointed out that this study does not pertain to interocu-
lar transfer Of brightness discrimination tasks. There is a basis for
considering form discrimination separately from brightness discrimination:
it has been shown that animals can still make brightness discriminations
after their capacity for form discrimination has gone, when higher levels
of the brain are removed. 30 it is conceivable that interocular transfer
of brightness discrimination might occur in the absence of interocular
transfer of form discrimination.

On the basis Of the previous arguments it was considered that a
study should be carried out to see if incomplete transfer would occur
if the Opportunity for transfer through conjugate eye movement is minim-
ized. The hypothesis tested in this study is that conjugate eye movement
is not necessary for interocular transfer. It is tested by using
visually experienced animals and minimizing the Opportunity for conjugate
eye movement serving as the vehicle for interocular transfer. Signifi-
cant lack of transfer under such conditions would suggest that conjugate
eye movement is necessary for interocular transfer to occur: the

rejection of the hypothesis.

ll

INTRODUCTION: EXPERIMENT I

The first experiment was concerned with the transfer from one eye
to the other Of the proficiency in reading inverted words. The Objective
was to train one eye to read inverted words and then see if the acquired
proficiency transferred to the other eye. Since language is ordinarily
considered peculiar to man, this type of experiment could only be done
with peOple. The Opportunity for transfer through conjugate eye movement
was considered virtually absent, since eye movements in tracing out the
letters of a word would indeed be quite complicated to transfer.

The measure of proficiency in reading inverted words was the time
from projecting the word onto a screen to the time when the subject spoke
the projected word to indicate that he recognized it.

Inverted words were used for training the eye because the subjects
were adult and already skillful in reading ordinary upright words.
Conceivably a similar experiment might be carried out with children who
cannot read, by teaching them to read ordinary upright words with one
eye and testing their reading proficiency with the other eye.

If complete transfer of reading ability for inverted words should
occur, how do we know that it is interocular transfer? Is it not
possible that the subject learned that whatever looks like a "b" is a
'p", and that whatever looks like a "d‘ is a 'q' and so on? In such a
case what appeared to be "interocular transfer" could occur even though

the eyes Operated completely independent of each other, because the

person would have given himself a sort of verbal "conversion table" to
convert new symbols into old: ‘verbal transfer." SO the problem was
whether an experiment could be set up that would measure responses that
were so fast that it could reasonably be assumed that the subject did

not have time to spell out the word to himself. If SO, then the transfer
Of such fast responses could be considered to require interocular
transfer.

Let us visualize the task of the subject in the experimental
situation. He is looking at a slit of light on a screen when a word is
flashed in the slit. It is a six-letter word and all the letters are
inverted. Right-left relationships are not changed; the word is only
inverted in the vertical dimension. The first letter of the word is
still at the left. The subject, considering a letter at a time, eventual-
ly figures out all the letters. Then he goes over them again, this time
Spelling out the word. He recognizes the Spelling and speaks the word
into the micrOphone. The total time from time of flashing the word
onto the screen until the subject says the word into the micrOphone is
considered in this experiment as the time that it took the subject to
recognize the word. It was believed that, as training proceeded, the
subject would be able to immediately see this inverted "b" as equivalent
to "b", without any talk like, "It looks like a 'p', SO it must be a
'b'." This would be similar to our seeing "A" as equivalent to "a" in
certain contexts. When he immediately sees all the letters Of the in-
verted word as their upright equivalents, he sees the total word without

Spelling it out, just as we don't have to Spell out the word CONTINENTAL

13

even though we may never have seen it in capital letters previously.
This was manifested during the execution of the SXperiment when subjects,
after training, commented that they were beginning to "see' the words
instead of spelling them out.

In a preliminary test, several subjects were timed to determine how
rapidly they could Spell out six-letter combinations when all tie letters
of the combination were familiar (upright). A total Of 30 timings was
made. The six-letter combinations in this test were not words, because
the purpose of the test was to find out how fast the subjects could
spell out a word if they had to look at each letter; if a six-letter
familiar 325d had been presented, the subject would have been able to
simply spell it from memory without looking at the individual letters.
For all cases (30 timings) it took at least two seconds for a subject to
spell out six letters to himself, looking at each letter, and then say
"now" to indicate that he had spelled it out. It took at least two
seconds for a subject to Spell out a six-letter word,_ when he had to

look at each letter, even when the letters were familiar to him.

 

SO tle experimenter decided that he could measure these faster
responses that could only be transferred through interocular transfer,
since he had already measured many responses made within 1/2 to 2 seconds
in a pilot study.

The preliminary "speed test", the report Of subjects that they began
to "see' words, and the pilot study did not supply data used in the
analysis or conclusions in this study, but rather served to aid the

experimenter in carrying out the experiment.

1h

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The experimental setup is schematized in Figure l. A projector (a)
for Opaque material was adjusted to project onto a projection screen (b).
To expose a word on the projection screen, the experimenter pulled back
cover plate (0), thereby tripping switch (d), which activated the
electromagnet (e). The electromagnet caused the stylus (f) to make a
mark across the moving kymograph paper (g) and immediately return to its
former position. When the subject recognized the word exposed on the
screen, he said.tle word into a micrOphone (h) immediately in front Of
him and this completed a circuit through the voice key (1), activating
electromagnet (e) again and making another mark across the kymOgraph
paper. The voice key is a circuit-breaking device which can be adjusted
for sensitivity to keep the microphone from activating the electromagnet
through.moderate background noises, such as those arising from the fan
in the projector. Because the electric powered kymOgraph pulled the
paper through at a constant rate of Speed, the time to respond can be
determined by measuring the distance between the two stylus marks across
the kymo grap h paper .

Each roll of test material contained 100 words. Fifty Of the words
were upright and fifty were inverted. There was alternately an inverted
word and an upright one. The inverted words were inverted in the verti-
cal dimension only; right-left relationships were not changed. The in-

verted words appeared the way normal words do when the page is turned

15

 

 

 

 

:7 ' e f"
9
l
l
I
l
I
I
r
i
i
l
1
i I,“
it, .3
f.
5
l
‘ l
l
I...“ L

Figure l.

Set-up for inverted words

16

-——-—o——~——¢.__... 7- ..

experiment.

upside down and the words are looked at through the back of the page.
All of the words were taken from Thorndike's word list. According to
Thorndike's list, each word had a frequency of occurrence in written
material of at least once in every million words. All of the words used
were six~letter words. Due to the nature of the projector, the words
had to be printed along the length Of the roll in order to be projected
prOperly. in L. C. Smith typewriter, with pica type, was used for
typing on the rolls. Each roll consisted Of several strips, which were
typed separately and taped together. The inverted words were typed by
placing a carbon paper between the paper and typewriter platen, with
the carbon side touching the paper. A charcoal fixative was used on
the inverted words to keep the carbon from smearing.

As previously indicated, the six rolls Of test material were made
up of words of the same length, and Of moderately frequent occurrence
to minimize inequality Of difficulty. The rolls were made up in this
way: six-letter words that showed a frequency Of occurrence in reading
material of at least once in a million words were written on slips Of
paper and placed in a container. WOrds that often have more than one
pronunciation, such as "either", were not put in the container because
it might be anticipated that such words could cause subjects to hesitate
in their pronunciation after they had recognized the word. Also, no
words containing a capital letter were used. The rolls were typed from
the slips as they were randomly drawn from the container.

Table I shows the design for matching subjects, test sessions, and

rolls Of test material. Test sessions T-l, T-2, T-3, and T-h indicate

17

the first, second, third, and fourth test session, and I. T. represents
the interocular transfer test session, which followed the fourth test
session. A, B, C, D, E, and F are the six different rolls of test
material.

Thus, the rolls were "rotated" to compensate for any inherent dif-
ference in difficulty that otherwise might tend to bias comparisons
between test sessions.

in eye patch served to occlude one eye. The subjects were requested
to keep the occluded eye Open. This was done to relieve the tension or
strain of holding one eye closed.

The subjects were six male college students between 20 and 30 years

 

 

 

Of age.
TABLE I
ROTATION OF TEST ROLLS FOR SUBJECT-TEST COMBINATIONS
Test Sessions
Subject T-l T-2 T-3 TIE I. T..

 

0“??me
wOUm’IJh’
OUtIJ'TJPUJ
CJeJer-UJCD
F’rilthJOU
"rleDOUPJ

 

The 10-day schedule for each subject was as follows:

18

Day Task

 

1 Determination of equality Of vision

2 Test 1 (T-l)
3 Practice Session 1
h Practice Session 2
5 Test 2 (T-2)
6 Test 3 (T-3)

Practice Session 3
8 Practice Session h
9 Test h (T-h)
10 Test Of interocular transfer (I.T.)

The schedule was for ten consecutive days.

Determination Of Equality of Vigipn

 

One hundred upright words were presented monocularly, fifty to each
eye, alternately occluding the right and left eye. This test was used
to screen out subjects wiose vision in the experimental situation was
better for one eye than for the other. There are two essential differ-
ences between this test and test sessions 1 through ht

1. Right and left eye were occluded in this test, in contrast

to occluding only one for test sessions 1 through h.
2. Only upright words were used in this test, whereas the other
tests included both upright and inverted words.
Except for these two differences, the procedure was the same as that

for the other tests discussed below under "Test Sessions."

19

Test Sessions

 

For Tests 1, 2, 3, and h the same eye was occluded. For three of
the subjects the occluded eye was the right eye for these tests; for
the other three it was the left eye. For the test of interocular trans-
fer on the tenth day, the patch was Shifted to the Opposite eye. While
putting the patch over the eye on the day of the test for interocular
transfer, the experimenter told the subject, "I just want to test your
other eye again to make sure this one is as good as the first one."

The instructions to the subject were to Speak the word into the
micrOphone as soon as he recognized it. They were told not to guess and
that guessing wrong would only slow down their response time because
the experimenter would measure their reSponse time from the time the
word was presented until the subject said the correct word. They were
told that this was a test to find out how rapidly subjects could learn
a new visual task, such as reading inverted words, when only one eye
could be used. After fifty words were presented there was a rest break
Of ten minutes. A word was presented about five seconds after the
previous word was recognized. About two seconds before a word was
exposed on the screen the experimenter cued the subject by saying
"normal" (meaning upright) or "inverted" so that the subject knew which
kind Of word to expect. As mentioned previously, upright and inverted
words were alternately presented. If a word was not recognized within

a minute, the experimenter told the subject what the word was, and

20

proceeded to the next word. The subject was always given at least 30

seconds to figure out a word before he was prompted.

Practice Sessions

 

For each practice session, inverted typewritten passages from a
book were projected, so that several lines of words were on the screen
at a time, instead Of a single word. About 1500 inverted words were in
the passages for each day. The passages were chosen from a book and
slightly altered, so that none of the words presented in practice sessions
were used in test sessions. The subjects were not timed during the

practice sessions.

21

RESULTS

The response time is the time from the exposure of a word to the
time when the subject spoke the word. If the subject was incorrect when
he Spoke, the experimenter said "wrong" and marked out the response mark
on the kymOgraph paper. The subject would then continue until he
determined what the word was. The reSponse time used in the analysis
Of the data was the time from exposure to correct recognition of the
word (recognition being indicated by speaking into the micrOphone).
There were very few instances in which a subject's first reSponse was
wrong.

The reSponses were measured to the nearest quarter-second. .Appendix
A Shows the number Of responses for each quarter-second time interval for
each subject on each test.

Graphs l, B, C, D, and E were made by plotting the reSponse times
against number of responses, for all subjects combined, for each test,
from the data in appendix A. Then curves were visually fitted to these
data, (except for Graph 1). NO curve was fitted to the data in Graph A,
because the trend Of the data is indefinite. Test 1, which gave the
data for Graph A, was administered before any training was given the
subjects. Each of these graphs shows the points used in determining the
curve.

Graph.F shows the curves plotted on Graphs B, C, D, and E all on

the same graph. This graph Shows that Tests 2, 3, and h (labelled T-2,

22

T-3, and T-h) and the interocular transfer test (labelled I.T.) yield
curves Of essentially the same shape.

The T-2, T-3, T-h and I.T. curves fitted by eye resemble a curve
known as the logarithmicO-normal curve, seldom used in the analysis Of
psychological data. The logarithmico-normal curve, like the normal
curve, is a family of curves, all derived from the same formula by simply

varying the parameters: m and d" .

Method of Analysis

 

The logarithmico-normal curve becomes an ordinary normal curve
when the natural logarithms of the units on the X axis are scaled
instead Of the original units. SO the values for m and d' for the
logarithmicO-normal curve are computed in the same manner as any other
m and d- for a normal curve. It must be emphasized however, that this
m and d- are in lOgarithmic units, because those are the units which
are normally distributed.

If a person bad data that he thought was normally distributed and
he wished to see how clOsely it fit a normal distribution, two easy
approaches would be:

1. Plot the data and fit a curve by eye (as was done by Graphs

B, C, D and E).

2. Construct a normal curve by substituting into the normal curve

formula the m and 6- determined from his sample of data and

superimpose this mathematical curve over his raw data.

 

23

.H pmoe 39535 mews. poo momcoommn mo mocmscmpm «4T I395

 

«maifi .w To? o R WM. ma

_ IN
I. _

I'll I! or!!! I.’

WQ\<QUIVW

 

Io w ,. m:

 

 

 

 

 

T I . I. . I
. T I I
I _ I I
_ n . w I . _
I .p ..... ... . I I I .
. _ . _ _ . _ I I o o
I I H a . c I
0 . I , . I . _
I: II I . . T. . ..TIITI IT .T I . III .II IIOII III IIIOIIlIIrIllIl..I lIllOlO . I 0. It I .I . . III t . ‘I r I .I T ..llI IO lllle I III. I II! I IIIO I I .III a T III In TT .III I T \\\\\\\
O In . . .. h I I. _ . I . . I ._ . . I . . I
o q . I I . . . . . T e G .
v p . . T T . I I T. T T O I I I v . . . IITI T . I.T ,, . . T I . a . . c II c . T I T . I T I I T .
I I . I . _ w m I Q I , , . I I
I _ e . I . I I . H I . I T . .. Q
‘ I 7T II II I. h I! I l 4ft ”Ill ll" l H II. III 9 IIII “Tl-L I..I.. T IlTJIII IITIQ IIIIFITI I. VIII I. .wt I ai Ill :4. III I III H. . T IIO 'II Ia, l O. .I II .r I . I l Ta I 5 II III. I
. . . v . _. T . I . I . _. . I . u ..
_ I m . .— . . w . u I _ . I o _ _ T I c
I . . I M _. a . _ I I
. . v I I . II .I . . o . I I . I . I . II
I I . I I. _ _ . I _ _ h
I . .
I O I . u H u 0 _ .I H w I I. I
l I a. I . I I I I“. I .I IIII‘lI II wlilll l I. luv IIII Ill! It“! IllOIIIIIIH.lllIIlllII Ilflllll II III I IIAIIII Ill! I '4 III Ill I III I III II III III I I H I l I- If I I v I II II I
I . . I I . _ I I. . . _ I
_ ~ N v . . m a I .
_ . . . . I .
h II. IT” I I . ..... I4 I — I v I 4 T h S .d T . T e I HI I I . M V I
w I —. I . n T . , . . . ~ _ I
I n . . . w w . .
I _ I _ I _ . I I I _
F m ~ H w . . T a
I III III. 0.! I II .IlvllOll lllOllII Ill II trill III..- III. I III II. II II!- IIIJI It I Ill ~IlI.II‘ IIIIITII I! I I II o I kIt I I!» I... I I II
a .I _ I+ III” * # I“ Is. 4. a a I I
_ I . k I . . . _ w _ #
I I _ I I . I I . _ I _ _
O I .w I #.I . I . h .. I H . .
I. u _ _ a ._ — m # . a .
” _ ~ I .. V , . . . .A . a .
. _ I H .I e T . a _
I H iI r I IIIWIII II I (III . 4.. [ll IIIIlIfII III I II | l+tilllt 9 IIlIIMllll! I Ill I..I.MT II '9 IllT .v.II llIlO.I loll” I I 'llvVIII If}! lfi l I I I III I I I ..I I I I all t L I lie; lIlIILI ' I IIII
“ . d i . . ~ m . m . . .
. I I . . I . I . I _ I . . I T
I Q — n v I O
_ ,T. I u I | t +T IOIIII.~ITI I II -.. . .9; H . I. To. T . . I_.T II T I a
. .. _ . .. , I I I I .
I . w I
. . I .I a . m I ~ _ I m
. H . w . I . I . I M M . . k
I I) I I O I It III! lIlIPIIIII OIIIII+II I'll4lll {ll .aOIIIITlTIjTlITlINTIlI llIIIIMIiilllbl+llt.lIIIllII4IIlIlII Isl $11 II . TII. T 1 ....III. III I I T Il|.ll
I . M . .I .I. “ H “ ~ I H I I I I H T . I T I I
_ I I I I I I I . I _ I I I . I _ .
. A I .I HI s . .«T I . I ..I I .. I I a ..... MI I e I I I I o. I Iv. I F. U I o
. M I. . I . a T T . " fl . I I I I H I
I _ I . ¢ _ . t T % W . . _ _ m I
T I I III .I. II IIITIIII IIITHTITIIITIIIT, ITITITLII II, III. I r I I II II I- TT ..IILI- I I I T - T- I.-- I. -ILIIIITT T
_ I . v . . . .
I _ N . m * . _ I I I
_ w I . , I I W I I . v I
_ m a I h . . . _ A . — . ..
I I .a I , IP. I I * I II? T*6 I“ I; I w I. “ o II I I. . . — ... . I I. a
I _ h I . _ . .I . I . A . . . . I.
I w . ., . I a _ _ . I I I . I I I .
I . . _ T I » I v I I * . . _
I . T. I . I I“ I I I I I I Ia ,
.l IIIO I [1 Il loll...t II.lII.lII.lO II. II If [ill I.-- II ll Illlll loll l-fI|II lt‘ Ill III!!- .II I. III Illtllll .IIOIII IIIIITIOIOIlI I) I II CD II'IIvt I II. IOlIlT IIIllOlIIII‘I VII Ill
I I . I I! IT I . T. I . _ T
I w . _ . I . I I I .,
I I . . . I T I I . I I I I .
I I T . .. . _ g I ...... - T . , I - . I I - I. . I .1 _ I .
fl « I . . H _ I _ a I I .
I w . I _ . ‘ u .
. v I Q . . . . . I I ”
~ . . _ .I I
I O I I III. I III I . IIIlI III-ll ”It: IQ.IIlITI I .IlllYlIiTIlIIIIIPIItlllf. [limlll A II .9 III I1 .I It. i ‘ II .r It! llI I _v.. II.- II <IO l r O .I I iiel I! [ll
. _ . I . . I h . I . I
I . . I . . . . I I
u I. , . _ I H m . . _ u . H I .
I T _ . T . * . . . m _ a . II
o a 4 o .. T | I IT. T vI I II. 9 IT a . I. . o l IO. I IQ T .. I * IIIIII + I . I II . I . a . v s u .
~ - - _ O a w . ’ — .- H
I . I I I. . _ I I I I _
. I . _ I I I . I I _ I I I
I . , I T . I _ I _ I
i I l I I . tilt VIII! IIII IllITIlIllelTIITTVIIII OllIATII‘. llllll Y IQIIIIIIIlI III II II lwllllllll ,wlIlIlI III 1.:IIIIlOIIII bl lIIfll T 4 III. III JOI I II? ..TTI T‘IT . , T . .TV I If!
H _ . I I. . v . _ I . ~ . . u . _. I
_ . - . I I I u . .. T. k I u _ I _
I . I . I . I ._ . . . _ . I _ _ I I
u . M bk I 0.. I . i.. It.“ I . l l O I v I! b O %, ...I+ . h C I ..w I k w .1 a
_ . . _ I . . . , I . I . . I
I _ I .I . h_ . g . _ ~ ~ "T . . * w II T d .
_ a I a I I I _ . . . . I . ..
I'Ill lIDIIl. IIII'IIllllllllrlo r H III? II III III p a L y . r r I III . 0|, {aer‘F I-.. Pitt!!! ...."

 

 

 

 

.. 21.3.... .40 refined TI IIIIIvI A: ..
:Tmoar. a z: . wienfia; I. ...: a

.5.

._ I_._

I”

v

5J§N0d$3c¥ JP [IV/“10511.“

 

 

.N pmme

”Hm>pmpcw meflp awn mmmcoammg mo mocmSGmpm .

m :9th

 

 

  
     

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I . I I I I I III... T - I _ _ I I I I
_ I , _ I I I . Ir ml . T: .I I I
I . ..w. I I -.I I . WQQQKM I M3§K .va.>\QQIUTwQ«. “.71.? f- TI - IT
T .. n _ ._ . . I . o I
.I .0- . I I. .IIv I . m. . . N I I I \ I I
r P I III III“ 0 0 V II I Q IOIWI I III I II I I
. . T” I — I I . . .— . h h T w .I
_ I k I . * ~ ~ I — . I.
I I I I I I . . . * I _ . .I
I +.T.TII. v. 4. II o «T . I...II.IT «II I.wI I Qal. I A III I. I ..II I T. IIIII IIII ... I I. o I II I.
w. . H h I I W _ I. . . _ . * fl
_ I I I I I I I . % TI I . I I I I I I. I
I I . I . . I I .
LIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII -.I I I I. I III-” I I: T. T. . I. III I -- I- - T-
_ “ m m I “I . I I. u I I I JJ
I . .. I ,. . .. I. .
I I I T V II-“ - I.TI T. + I . .w I IIIII- I I- -TIT ...T- I I I .I I III..- I. “d T”!
. . . T . . o . . .
I I I :. I I I I I TI W . . I I I . 3 M
T, .-...T..- .-.IIITII III? III -ITIII I - F I .T . III T _ . mi - I
I. ,. I" Q. I PI .. I I IIHII I II IT .I I. . 4 III . II .a 4 III-
I . u I . .. . _ . . . I . .
I I I ;I . I TI .I I I. T _ I. _ I . n. I
I . . . . I. . . . . . I
II- I. - .I _ 1-3.I--I--..-.IJ-..TI I 433.--- .. --.” -- 41-11.} - ET..- TT...:-TI-- ..I .-T T- .I J TI
I. I I . . .I ... I. I . . I I . I I .I . I I N w
v c . . . . . I. . .
TIIIII LIIIIIIIO IJIHII‘III‘I‘I'IIIWIIIII — III! III“. II IIW . p I TI‘I‘- D I IIIIII+IIIIIIII|III
. . . I . . .
. I . . IA
. I I I“ I. .I I I I I. I I .
m . IIWIIIII IT.“ II.VII MIII.» I . 0 II v I04! .. ..I.. _ IIIIII I . I
. I . .I. I. I T, I I I. I _I I n. I
_ IN . . — . c . . h — . m . T u Q I: I.
..III IOIIITIPIIIQIIIIII.‘ I’!‘ 4 ”A. l I OOLii‘T Itj II. ‘IIIIIIII.I.IIIIIA It Ir 1’! VI N I I l IIIIIIIQII|IOIIITr|lI
I I . T I I . . I . . . .
II I I .. , I I . I _ I I I I I I I I . I
_ . . . . . . . . .. . .
fl I I T wl! I] I - IIWII II O O I w. 9.. WIIA .I I o o I . . 0.. o I I Q II: J. I. v JII ul‘I ole. I I; I. I W‘O . a I IIIIII 0. I .1 I a *I . . I
I .I I. . .I I I I .I . _ I ..I I I I I I J I
YIII II ..II («I .I IIII I I Q. I111 TJIV HI. I .IV I.|I ..ll'loui A .OIII'IIIIILY‘IIII - _ I , Aw. .' I 1 0.! g II‘I . IIIOII‘... Ill]!
. _ m I .T I _ I I ‘ I . fl .. n. I . _ IIfi
.. u . ~ . «T. H .. .I H I I. . _ . r d I I
II: -71.. - . - - TI..- ._ 2:: 2137---.” v-13- I . ... .IIII- :L. T T TI; ...... .rv . I; -
I T .. .. I . .. . T .T . . I . T. I T I
I I _I I _ . I I I I I I . I m. :I +_ A“ I
I: .. -- ..IITIIIII III...“ - . # IIIwITIIHTIII-T..IIIIr I I I. T IIIIIIIFII - II QM”! S .. -.IIIIII III- I
. . I _ . I . T.I .. I I I I .T I _ I J _
I .— _ u T. . .. . . I . I W _
I. .I I -TI. ---I. -.. - I - I: . I I I. 1-...--IT-T._ - --.:I- ---.-.I ..-T I T : 9 . .I: -T -
I m I I a I I I-.. . . I I .I _ I _ I. I I
I _ a I . . . . h . _ _
r- T I. I I .T III I I III I . I I , v . I I . . I ._ .I
. . I . I . I I . . . I w T. q «I. I I II I . . - . III- T-«II.IIIIIIIIII-.-T---1.I -141!
w . . 4 _ . I . . . I I I a . I * . I. —. . I. +
I I I I. .I . I._ . I I I I I I I . . _.T. I I .
I I I I. It HI IIrTIl..*I I III .AIITI. ....... I II. T... VIII IIIII I I4 7 ..I IIIIIII..IIYITITITI¢4TIII1.LTI If I. II c l OIII “I .. III... I. +II I .r. I IIIIIIIII w. a
. T . I I . I I I . I . I I. . . . I . . . T . II
_ q u .I W . .w v m . w I _ . I_ I M . _ _ .
. . I I . . . . I T _ T .
I. T I. III ITIr . III.« II II I II. 4 I I I . I . 4. - I I III I I” I. T III I. If QWVIII IIIIWIII pIIIIIIIIIII.
_ fi I N .I ‘ . . . I # . I I I T . I w I . . H
_ . T . o . . . I I I H . . I. g . _ I . . . .~
. . u I I . . I _ . . T I T . ~ .
I TT¢ .. I oTI . IIT>TI IIIII IIIIIo I.fi.TIIIIV II I I4 ..... +TI I. *T I. I AYII .II f. blot wI.ITI III ITOII II. IIoIIIIJTIT o I I OIIIIII I.—I IIIII II I . .II .TI. O I
~ g . fl . ~ _ . . ~ . . I . . . . — . . m _ *
_ , . I . . . . I I . . . . . . I .
. . a u. I. . . I H I . .I. I. H . I. ~ . _ H
. ..... AI II. TI , p. TI I . T. TITIIIIII T ..- I T I .. r T. .I I --.TITT-I.IIIFI-. II T. III...
I . IT: I I .. .. I . . I I I fl I . I I . I
I . I I I ,T+ . I . . I . T I I I I . . . _ .
I .I - T ......... I- ..T If T- T. .T LTII .II -- -TI. . 4;}--. ..... I..-IIIII .. 3*IIIII T 31“..-. T. , .. .... -.. I
T I . I I T I . I. I I I . I I I T _ I I . I I - I. .
I I I I I . . .I I I _ _ I . _ _. . I I . .
_ . .. .. II III I IIII- . . .T . _ _ I T I . I.
, .T .--I I. - IT. Ir IT I. . . , I. I I . I w I. L.. . w I II _T.- II .......
I I I. . I I _ I T. T, I I _ . T I . I I I . .
I . . . I « . I I I . g h
I M u I III w.. m I U I. ».IIII.I.IIII. IIWTII II.I ..... w IIIIIIII vI I .v...... II. M. ITTI “T .I . IIII..w. I ITII I. .m.-. III .IIrII | PI..m T I I
I . . ._ . I . .. . a . _
_ H I ~. I _ m “ w I H I~. . T. H . . T .. . . .o T I
F H. o I T . . n I I ” a . _ . I
v I! DIIIIII . I‘III' T llrllllILTllIIIlll III‘ I I‘H‘IIIIIIIPI'IIIIIIFII.‘ IIIOI’III III I If!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.m pmme

 

ufim>meCfi mafia pmm

mmmcoammp

mo AcumSmmpm

o sawho

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. - . .
__ M .. _ 11 1. ..11 J o 1.1 01 fl W ~ A r
. u |' 1‘) . . . w . .
1o \ \1 . .1. .\t.. \. . _ .. .
..- - .r. UQEQUMU 1 k3\k WU?CQ..1HW ”1 .... _ w .H h .
. . . _ . . m N H
m V H _ _ n1 " w N _. W. M M \ u
T - p r . 11 a - 1 r 4 . .
. - . .. .. _ - - _ 1 Q 1 -. -
w m _ f .. . w M m . . W h . . w . W
. . . . _ . . , . . .
. . - fl... 1. ...+ -.H .---... 4.1..”13 -..-1 11 . H1? ; L - ..1- 1- . -- .- T w 4”
. . .1 c . . . o . . w
. , . v . . ‘ a a . . . _ . . “ . . n .
. 1 . . a - .. v m . . - w n .
T . . . . _ 4 . 4 . 4 . L . _ ._
1’ '10.! .1 '11 l-tl'o r . r
,. .. M . a . . M . .. . . H 7111.11. 11.1 -1.-. 1 - . -.1
, _ . . . . . . . .. , .
w . . u u . .. w w .. . W . . . _ H
n . _ . . . . _ . J
v 7 w. . - e . -4 Q. q; 1“- -4 1-1 - 1 - -.- - -.---Fz1 $1 . -..? 4. ”.17 4 .
. . . 4 .... . . a . .
F M _. . . H .. n f H _ ; . ..f. . n M M; .
1- 11- 3.11. . - r 11L.-111111--_ 11.111111111111... . H . 9 .1. . . . 5 . . _ \ .3 .
w . .. M M _ . ~. a . . . fl (H . q H _ .Infillj .. *0 a [011.fi111. 1 1
. H . . h . - (u . . . 4 p . . .. . I ..
.. w . . w . n 4. h . . . k . _ H 1» . . U H * T/ H
. * + m1 - --.. 71 --.-.27!“ ..- .... 4“. . ....- 1-;..1--1-1-..---H.114-- 1- 4. :1
. _ . . a . . u u. _ . 1.? .
m . w . . .. . - . Q . . . . h *Al .
. . . _ . . .7
m 11111-1411. 1...-114141- [11111111144411 L4. 1w1 - 1411,1144. 1 1.1 w 1.. -.fi - 1 111-111 ed 111 1.. -11 -
. ~ .. ” . . p . . . v . . o A r
..... ..-. -. L4- _ . H _ .. . w ._ _ .
w 4 . ' . A J J a :16 1 11.4 1.10 ”I . .1 I Hi 11! n 1 . 1| . ‘. '1 ”.11 1 L 1 .m I? 4 11-1IIH 1 I 1 v1- .14 '01.] *3 c It _ . 1 1 a
. m . + H n . .w H N . n 4. My _ .nu _ _
. _ fl . . . . . . r
* 1 - 1 1 ll! 1 111 V .11-fl“ > . > . 1 r . H Id .
. . fl . . . . _. H . . P ~ .. _. Q * .
_ . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ,
~ 11 w 10 . .wool- A 1 .1H1 111A 11». 1 .1-91m110-1l14 1111-11-1...- v... T [.11-A 111.11.u-11|1.v. 1m 1 4111-11-ah11‘1 111%1110 11 «.- ma . H 1 H
. . .. . . . . .. . .4 . 3 . .
. _ . . . .. u .. .- u H u . m _ fi .
m1 111.11.1141 1 LA. 4? 4 . . 11w . lhll. 4.. .1 V 'ciri «5 llLv-‘u .1111111
. _ ._ . . h h H . .
H . .4 .. 4. .. H. M . .. _ . . . .19 _
. ._ . . . L . .. . . _ . __ “
W - . 1 1 .Y 115.111.1A $1111 111‘ .... W111...1ul101-1.4 1 ...M. Iv111-.111911|1 o 11 111b o- . 01-1. 1111151 ."1 0.1 s 0 l .4111 a
_ . 1 . . . . . . . . . .l
. . . . . . 4 Q q . A _
a . .. . . .. «. . .o a _
. , . , . . . . . fl .
v11 II 11‘ ..Tbld 11 11.1.1611. I‘l‘lIQ‘IIIII 0 ,I 011" .1 11 > . .1 5 .
. . . . . . 141 . H . w . . .. . me ..J - 1%11111
m « . H . _ M . ._ M .. .. . _ .
. . . . h . . . . . . _
. 1 4.1--p1- - -111. .- 1..-.-- 1.1;}. -. L . - .4 1. 1...... 171-1 .- 1.11 - 1... . . -. .
. . . 4. . . a a . a . J. . . 4 . ......v- . ...- .
. _ . . . 4 . . . __ _ . . U __ . p
— _ c o . . 5. . k . n . . . u h
71-.- h 1..- “1- 4 -. . . . .. . . w w . . . _
. 4 1|1J 1| x
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - -4-1
_ H . . .. o . . . . v . . . . . . a . _ .. .h
.. . . . .. .. w .. . . . . W . . ,. .. . w . . fl
. . .. . . f M 4 U . . . w . L h . m 4 . . , . fl . . a .
w “ ., L. . .. .. _ . . . . . . .. - . . .. a . . n
.1111..- 11.. 1 . . . 4L. w .. .u .11 . .11 . . . . , . fl . . . . _
“1 $ .Afvt 411 . «I . 1.11 101 H, T . _ 1.1 . + 7141,1114. vllll'ljjli.’ I‘1ItILrlitinQV d 4 w
. a n .. . . _ H . . . 1* a . .. . .. . . .n.- . ,. — . . . _ .
. _ . .. . _ x” W. m . . . .m . H” .;.h .. H _ . .
— 1 1 1 01 1 111 .1». n . 1' [-1 11. I] 91. A .I .1 v H - I, 101-.. a W. o u w! . WIWI. N ..‘1‘ 1 IO .. A .411 O II. V I c o 01 9 114v 1 v - 0| 11" .01. ‘ b Illui 1‘- 1 0- ”1 1 0 I Av '- Vlt ‘1 Ar '01- 1 . I 11. .11. Q 1 o I 1611‘ (III: 1201 111? w 11' I v 111 H1 I A
_ H 4 . .. . . .. , . .. , a m m. N . -. . . . . H w
. . .. . . . fl . -. n .- ~ H .h- .“ ... m . .
_ . . . H U _ a _ L . _ . . . . .. _ H. _ n _
n .- fi 4. . 1 w .. . .1 . 1. .1 .1 1. a w . . H + 11111 .11-.111 111.1
M . m . V ..... .. .. _ k . ~ ~ . . 4. . .. _. . .
1 . . _ . ._ . k . . a . ... ... .- W . m H . ...m .H
.v k . .. . . u ‘ . . . < . .. o .‘ . . .
M - -..- ..- --. 1 .a.--- -..-a. - ------- 14- - ... - .9--- --.- . 1. -.--.-.--.1d-- ..1-. .-...11H - . -1441 -.-- 4.1-..1--M. - 1.. -4----. .1..-- . 11-. . . P
. , . . . . . . . . . . g .. _. . . . . .
.4 . _ . T _ . .. . . . .
. w .. . w .. . . N H . T u. . M N .
71111 .1 DIP: 111.111 11.17 II.’ I 1 L r » 1
. .11 . _ . m . . " _ 4. _ . . . 1- . 111111.11 ....... +11-- - . - -
M . _ ... U ._ .. U .. . w “ ... h .... ‘ . 4 . . h ..
. . .. .. - . - . . .
.--. .. .. -.-f.-- 1.71 1L41111.. ”111 1;. .g: .11.- . H: :11: . “:1111H11. -. H . . _ _
m . .. . . ¢ .. _ # -. . .. . .. . . .. 4 I11 fi. col 11 l. 1.1 11.1.11- 1. § :- -H1o.ao -. U
A . . . v a . . . o. H _ q — ¢ . . o .. .. . . m * 1
. _ . . .. . . .. . -.. . . u ._ _ ~ . . .
. . . . . . H . . . - 7 u . * .. _
w .1 . .r .1 . p F . . . . 1* r . . . _ _
111 r . 1..- 1.F1 Fb’L‘1IL‘I-1 11-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.‘ a I In nd<l

..—.Omumn

:U Inna“ O JumLJHK
X or

ILZ.

.NIPOP Ow

.g pmme

“Hm>pmpCH asap Lma mmmcoammp mo haC¢5vmpm «

 

Q cmmho

 

  

 

 

 

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- - ... -|.. g N W h
I . 1‘ . I .31. I‘ m _ ._ _ _
wQéoULuw .- ..urlk khxxcuv-Nnvs w w w . _. .
m. . w. . m- . . V m. . _ . \ W ..
.r 4 F <‘ + m < » 1< .r L 4 Q c- ft... I 7 IT
“ a. . . _ w . m . . W . m . m m a m w . 7 . H
4 1' . u ..v. .. . I” w «1‘ ; w o . o M. . . u.“ I a o . o. H. . o * u. .o: i..I.€ ....h.. . ..... i. ..... ... .
_ . . . _ . .. q . . ". f ~ . _ fl . , . . k
. . . . n .. . . . _ w _ . . . . . . .
i g'.l . . . _ . . _. k _ m — n . _ . p H . .
- -21.? .---.. .m. . . UIJIIJHIFD.’ . . ab - ...- + -.--.-.-I+-lfu. -..-11......1 ii.- gff-.. III-IXKILWWII .- :L-l-_.l! 7:116:19--. - ...-.I..i+:fi..-&:;.f¥ o
w _ . . . w _ . . m . . w _ n . _ . J. _
. n . . . . . .. 4 .
7 ~ . 7 u H u . J _ U . a M . W . 3.
_ n . _ . . . +
- ; . -.- -- 1m- L;s-4 4. -4:- - + w + 1 w + w . A w. m U H .2- .nwh an :1!..: -r
w 7 . . w n . h . . . . w a m _ . _ .m . m h M m L _ .H M .
- “1-. i g g. .H ...-.......--.+-._. . . . . ..... ..-... -z.- .. .- 11.--; -...--J; h -
7 H. 7 M . _ M g h m H Av H w . .. w H h 7 m «J _ g .
.u m h . . _. .. _. . .. .. . W . .N . .
_ii?3%-li .§$iiliT.Li:1 % _ -fi fl. .!+§iil¢14?1:tw . A r¢|t1l41!ol7.hY.--1¥?s
M . M w H _ 7 .. 7 _ M h ._ ... . H 7 . .A _ .
. .. .- w. w. 7..-H e- ---- .... .-.-w -.. . U- ...M ..u - - .. - .-.- - ..-- ...... " .
4 n _ . u . " fl 4 . _ . . 4 w a _ k _
. a . . .
W . .m M 7 . .. u w M u “ _ . . nu . H .
. . _ . . . . a . w 7
... M --I , 4 - -. J . . H . ...-1&- .y.-. .. .
7 m . . . . _ . . . . . ._ .. _ .
y d _ 7 _ . M m . . . m fl . .. w
F .I . u .....I . — u .v d. w .H...-* .u1w 0 a a I. +. o n .- *y..l‘6 .fi...u.. .r o 6 :4 Of. “v ‘IIIQ o 4- A J . ..n
. . .. . . .. . ~ - _
w . m . w m . P m w w M a ... M : . W m
fi:: ..... A, w A. +1 .. . A ..ra - q-r:¢;-s+..ww. 7 .. ...:;T:;u.-r1.r-.a-1+. gg e:--fl 7:.---
" u ,M . n H H M .. _ .. H “ _
W W ........ *g .L.. .M . -- . h -._.. L .-- -- L--.m. - -. -- - . ..... _.L -. -- z---A-:.. ..... ”w . ‘2
_ _ . 4 ._ . . . . . .
7.7. .7. ... .17
.. L111... . - .1 . M . w . -. T $9.5. i. ....... -
h _ m . ~ H . . f. L. H _ M m . _. h . q: u .
r ..... _. . : .1 - -. -- -.. .... .- r- - p -...1..---.. r - - 7 _ 9 _ .
. .. . . - * .. # . v --..I 4.. . . a - . 4 I :3... :1. 4. --.. . . . -w 4.
w . . _ _ . . p . < . .. .. _ . fl .. . . _
. a . . _. _ m 4 . _ . . _ .
v k . . . . . ; . .. . . ~ . . . .
w . .... Ilif¥- [III p [fYo 10.3... Allal+ 1lolllqi+ - I .Io-t-|F 0.: Ir r 4 0 $ >1 A F . r »L 411 4 »
. . H . t . . fl . . . . . .. . _
fl . ; _ . . H . a. m . . _ h H w
. _ u A _ a H . _ . . u . . v . .
._ ..... w.-. . ...M . , v. .-. Io-.. _-. 0 I - n I ... H .-. ....4 1‘. w ..w..' u .0.-- 1ft: .1 . yoni4r... I H-- . a -.A . Ii. ”-
A . . . . m . _ H W H _ H . . 7 . .
Hf ..--1!T-l..i?...1 14----.(tlltamzll...lt . i4..i1T.lJ-rtJ.-..!.1 ii! .. |t . . w .- w...l-.lL.rQV...-.II{.TI!.-11!.-
_ . fl . 4 . u U . H H H _ H . _ . . m
_ . _ u . . . . n . . . . . .
‘ 7'7 1...“ _ . 2* . .V .. .W- -0. v. 1:; v &-Oll . u ‘ I A A ‘ lo A .t‘nv 1 L 5‘0 I. ‘7 I bl ? I v 9!.“00 T|+-I...o.!t 041 ..... o v- -’. 9.-.: L InllT. v fi.»
. « . . .. . . . n . _ . . . .
“ M H H h M W . . m . m . u . . N . ~ w M .. u.
r .p«.1.:»tsa-+-.+.w-..:+ 1: - .1.-.cu .» ..-....111: u. . .-.. . w - ». . . . w .x»...- -
7 . . h _ fl . H . A“ .. . . . . . . . . w
W H . . . . . . w . .w H. L _ . . 7 . .
* u _ . . .. w . .. . . . . . . . h . .W
a 1 mo . M . c A I H c ofi.. ‘w‘t A l t t I vlc W. .‘III’ r1 1‘“. I Mr t.Wlu'-- .1t’Jmfiwtv v ' lull ..4i'ltu.l u“ |¢.IMI -1 l‘vn-Hi ‘4l.‘.. 1.-....
. . . . w H H . u .. .fi 7 H H .M W _ . A .M .7 u .
Frér-.;.itii-- L 1:.91r3iLII:V . H H L _ . w . L. b. _ L::-
m 7 w _ . _: _ m H . m A h m H H n w . q . .
_ . . . fl . _ _ . . H . . ..
’ .-«-.-.. w - ...-. .- .- .. .....H.. A ........ . ..A.. ‘ . - H; «I -. L [4. -I thllorltO- - n ...+. .Lv- .I.+.& -I--_c.---p w- - ~ - . o._ 4
. . . . . H . . .. . 7. . . . . _
. w ., _ _ w A H q . . m _ . _ .7 .. H ... n ,§ . . m u “
fill!- tlrl I p g r F. H . - . L . .T w .. r.» h L. . h .. ,
:4 -.-...f-...t-.rl..f:oLliLin!.. - -

 

c n 3 I. ...:-

pp-mflm ILZ~

 

.Cu tummy 0 4.1.35.
... qu CFO. K O.

 

IS...

rpaaL

.pmmu memGMLp pm :00
H pmch «Hm>pmpcfi mefip awn mmmzoammp mo hocm w
s mph ”m sauna

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fl 3 .I
.
4 .
w . V m .
A . . . . . M . .
.. - w . _ . . _ .
_ A. 7 .; . .. M . q- .
. . . -. I . 3;. J 3 3
3-13. _ _ A 7 zQéo-xkn3 ... a . 3
. A. _ .v _. . . ..3 F IN . km-}.—MQ.3 .J .. w ._ n
J. 3 3 _ m 7 _ .uaVnwx . _ - . A _ .
M n ._ _ _. . . - . m- . 7 ,. fl . .
_ J H ._ m .7 w. . . M3 33 p H h . . .H. . -. .. m
A ”T . . - _ fl . . A . - .N. H .. . . -- . A. 3 _
‘ ... w . u u 3 9 . _ p _ _ . 3 F . . »
r333: .gll,‘ . A - . 3 »-33 h u A . 4» 3h \ .. h _
. 9 3...-.33-9 3.. . ..n- H . 3 v 3 . . _ n h . .
3.30-! O . . . .
A _ . a e . _ . _ . . - . . m 3-.3
. _ . . .. _. w . _ . # .333“ A. v _ M M - . . 33333333
..-F. - _ .3333 -.3“ .7 ...
N A A _ - _ .. _ . . - A . _
u .. . . _ » 3. . F _ . . a h
H. 33- . . Q . “ .. H .- - 3 . . _ . A
. .fl--3.-33-..3.--3A: 3 -- . -.. A . . . A . - .3. ¢ 3333 . H A
— h . . .033 T3313 39.. o v . a 3A 3 4 n3 33hlo 3h _ . H w . 3.433.C....3|I3_. 3
_ . A— . . . .. . . ........ 3 . - _ .
~ . H ~ A . . .. u . A . . on . 33 o . A
. . 3. fl A .L . . . .. 333 3.3 . j .
, - -. 37 3-“ _. . . . . _ A _ . .. . v
. .. . .2 . . _. . . .d . .
~ . H ._ A 4 ..33.... A _ .
1333. .3 3 . . . -3733! .. . .
_. A. . 33. A . H M 3Q\- - j. N
. A v . . -333 .-3 _ A -- &.33é3z
. A . . . - 3.! .
.3 . .4 .3- .. . 3 n n W
_ _ u -3 . . .H - 3 A.
f . o . _ . . 33.3|. v33 . . .
. . -.-3-.- ... . N .
.:--3- . . . . -:-;-3: . _
. L W.. . . .... .3 -I'
. . _ . .3 _ . _ . --.-.0 3- .
.. , . . . . _ .. . . . - 3.33.-
w . . .. .. . 3 b p ..... - .. . ... - . A ...
3 - I3 * r W 3 - ll .3. - O
M . .. 3.4. -.f H . A m ...... ...-_ . A
A I II». 1 l3 - _. . N 30 VII .
.. . . . - . 7 M- - 3 H 0 _ .
. 33334. 33033 _ H .. . . . .. . - .333 &. - A . Q4 1 _ .
3 3 , . . . Y -. 0
.. _ . - A .- 3 A n . M : .--. . . . n .. .3 3L 3 .-
. . . . . A 3 - w ._ .. _ . m
. - . . 4
m ’l .A ."b|l.t . w H v I Q J . h
h A ..‘.H..-3‘I II Q 0 0|; AI W03 H h . . ”33.0.3
lo 1"! . .A . .H . . #3133” I0. .T.13¢I-#-33 a n j . H
.l'.|lllllla a H A _ Tl . Al: . m
. i‘OI'I 3 N . I v.d ft‘l'nl'lhln‘a
. . . ‘l||
” M _ . .3 .. u _
. 3 3 v . v.
. . . I! all 3.! y ILoIOY _ H . . H A. 3.3. A .0 m .
. * . . ‘ 310“! O #09 4333‘ n f A N I33.Av-.a A.
.3 3.3.3... A u . T .. 53. -313 T3 1 g . . H n.
3 . . . . \I-l
. . _ .
~ .3 A . . 39". -3393 .
. . .m p H m . j . b 33.13!
3 -. ..-3. .. p 3. 331. . .
“-3.3 --h . 3 3..“ W A a . . W3 3. ;$ -_
A . 3.33! v 03-‘33- .. A . . .. . 1. 3‘. t. w 3 ‘
. . H .. . 3n- . - -3-3+.. ..H -. J H . ..
4 -3333? A .. .. . . 33 3A .. A-ll... . 3 . . A H. .
. “L .. .. . A333. 3 . _ . . . .
~ . .. ...- H A . 3 ..3 its . _ . lli'llnA 30
. . _> . . _ .- .3 - . _ 333 33. .333
m . . f ..37 .3. _ - H _. A 4 . 73.33..--- w. .... fi -
.. 3 .-.. A . .... . - . - 3 . . - . A 3 . . .n _.
q A3 3* 30-3 vtuvnl. . . . . * 3+.-- 3o 1. .
_ . ..3 -- 3.-.- -. . . . . . 33-3-3- - u .. . -.---- - -
. . J3 3 3-. - - _ . J . .. .. H . .-
..--3-.. . A _ .. % 3-.333- -.. . A .. . 3
6. . . . . » 0 3.3.3433 -3Oco _ . — . . 3 I103 In. . . A
. J . A . . 33 3- . . 33'
_ ~ _ ? v. n ’ . fl “3. - Af ['L‘.‘ At! a a v - $$ .
. A a 3 .. _ . .. .. - *-33 . .. .. U.
. . . u _ m 3 3 . ,U, . .. e . 3.333333-::; A f .
M :3--. . H . . . . . .. . . .. . . .433 :-;:-. . .
3333- V 33 33...! u . .. . . 33 .43 3 .
* . . .. I A 333333333 o A H p . . A - . .. H . . . . . . . 3 3| .3 ll rll #3
_ _ . .uw A -3 . h ; . . ;. ..3 - r . .._ .-
Tl- 333.3093...- o _ . . A 333 A 3 . fi .. w - . . a.. . .. . n _ . r . . a ..
._ M ..lIIQIDAID v N . .*.Hu19n.2330l?5-3033¢3. u .. _.. . . F . . .- .. ~ . . .1 A .H . .
fl ' 3 - Il"u.'.' -, D . n A. 4. A - ... b u
_ A. H . . a -4...l.3 . . . A... . . . 33Lv313..
h . . . k 6.3 T3 . u . T3 . . w . . . . . . .34333-
. . . . 3 0.3 0.3 - . 33- 334.4 33.3. . . .. .. . _ .
. ’0 31 33 .... . . I.» ul-‘t533.i a
. A M. 2+- . - -.H _ 7 . . . . . H .u . _ .73
A 33 . . . -
. . u . 7 w . .7. --.- . . . 7. - 3 _ .V .
F . H . . 3 3- - -. A . H 3333933. . H .
- . . H ---3 - 3-4-:$- . . . . w . .-3
3 3 A . . 33 ..... r 01 .¢ . ‘ fl _ I III
. ._ . . 3 $1 33 .
H H33 . p H A .. _ . ¥ 4 -.- - T3-.- 3 H . . . m
. _ .h ..M .. _ . 00 4333. . 33‘3333-3 "
F . g . . M . . . ... - g
_ ‘ _ .
- 3 - L33

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a n al.u5¢l -
p7mmm 0U zumnuaJunnaut I1
I32. . . m1» O-r . -.., a

0— x 0' U. tn

.33... a no 330950 ..nazopfi was hon woman-anon mo hoqoswofim ..m 3995

 

Since approach 1 revealed a curve similar to the logarithmic-
normal rather than the normal, approach 2 was used to see how a theo-
retical logarithmico-normal curve, constructed from m and d- of the
data, would fit the data, The parameters needed for the theoretical
logaritlunico-normal curves were 6’ , m, and o: . Otis a constant that
is subtracted from each X value. In this experiment, the experimenter
estimated a: to be 0.375 seconds since no subject ever made a response
to an inverted word faster than that—-¢ may be considered as a correction
factor for a constant lag in the system. m and 6' were computed for
the logarithm of the response times:

m Zln (x -l;)
n

2
3 .. zLdeviations of ln (x -¢.) from m]

d' ‘ n

2 . .
where m and d} are the mean and variance, x is an observed reSponse

 

time, c:,is a correction factor of 0.375, and n is the number of reSponses.
Graph G shows how the logarithmico-normal curve, derived'by insert-

in9 m and 6- of the legarithms of the response times into the logarith—

.3

 

.0

mico-normal curve formula, fits the frequency curve of the pooled
reSponse times of‘f-2, T-3, T-h and I.T.

Now let us consider why the logarithms of the response times should
be more apprOpriate for statistical analysis than the response times them-
selves. The reason is simple: with the reSponse time plotted along a
logarithmic X-axis, equal distances along the X-axis represent equal
difficulties; e.g., the distance between 2 seconds and 3 seconds is less
than the distance between 1 second and 2 seconds, because it is much
easier to improve slow reSponses by 1 second than it is to improve fast
ones by 1 second,

30

Table III shows the results of various comparisons of mean of the

legarithms of the response times for different test sessions.

not included because it had a different shaped distribution.

T-l is

That its

mean response time is significantly longer than that for T-2 can hardly

be questioned, however, if one looks at Graph A and Graph B,

TABLE II

EEAN RESPONSE TIMES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test Mean Response Times Standard Deviations
T_2 o ,u918 0 .599
T-3 O,hth 0,637
T-h 0 .339h 0 .637
I .T . 0.3%.} 0.613
TABLE III
COMPLRISON OF LEAN RESPONJE TIMES
Value of "t" Probability that the
Comparisons for difference difference is*due to
of means chance
T-2 and T-3 0.91 0.18
T-2 and T-h 2.68 0,002
T-3 and T—h 1.78 0,0h
T-h and I.T. l,Oh 0.15

¥

'* These probabilities are for obtained differences, taking into con-

sideration the direction of the differences.

This is valid practice,

since in this experiment the hypothesis tested is not simply about the
difference of means, but also about the direction of the difference.

31

.258 505933 uncommon Hafioqlooafipfinamfi 5 .395

 

_ Q l m in _ W3 imozovkm+m§k wwaoammm. . . m r . n

M
.
...! ..
a
.

lj.

l

I .

4..
3
n.
N
A
0
1
q:

 

‘ : ... coal )0 lumiu ‘ y. :34! Ia.u~—
. ... .

...hll I. r. u:. 3.51;.3. no »

32

Qualitative Results

 

The subjects experienced considerable difficulty in recognizing an
inverted word even when they could spell out the word. In one practice
session the word "apes" appeared as an inverted word on the screen.
Several of the subjects had difficulty figuring out what it was, even
though they had little difficulty with longer words. One subject said,
"I can spell it out, but it doesn't make sense: a - p - e - s . . . .
"uhpez?" hippies? "

Often, when a subject had difficulty with a word after Spelling it,
he would look away from the screen or shut his eyes. His explanation
was that he could concentrate on the spelling better in that way.

Several subjects reported this.

33

CONCLUSIONS

1. Since the shape of T-l distribution is not like tlat of the
other tests, there was no appropriate statistical test for comparing it
with the others, but it appears obvious from Graphs A and B that there
was improvement in speeding up responses from T-l to T-2, indicating
that the practice sessions between T-l and T-2 were effective in helping

the subjects to respond faster to inverted words.

2. The subjects were not significantly faster or slower on T-3 than
on T-2. There was no significant difference of means for these two test
sessions, which occurred on successive days with no intervening practice
session. 80, there is no reason to believe that the factor of having
test sessions on successive days with no intervening practice is in any
way influential in producing a difference in response times for the two

test sessions.

3. The subjects were significantly faster on T-h than on either
T-2 or T-3. This shows that the practice sessions between T-3 and T-h
were probably effective in helping the subjects to respond faster to

inverted words.

h. The results were inconclusive. Therefore, the hypothesis that
eye movement is unnecessary for interocular transfer can not be re-

jected.

3h

The purpose of this experiment and the second experiment of this
thesis was to get information that might lead to the demonstration that
conjugate eye movement is necessary and sufficient for interocular
transfer to occur: "sufficient" meaning sufficient without common path-
ways being formed in the brain.

It was not until the data for these experiments had been gathered
and analyzed that the experimenter received from Dr. Chow a description
of experimental results that would seem to indicate that conjugate eye
movement is 223 a sufficient condition for interocular transfer. The
chimpanzee experiments which gave these results are discussed in the
introduction. The fact that there was incomplete transfer from the
former test eye back to the former trained eye on a second task showed
that although the eye to which the task was transferred had previous
experience in tracing outlines, there was not complete transfer; the
tested eye although experienced at tracing contours did not reinstate
an "approach" pattern (to which the animal responded) in the opposite
eye through conjugate eye movement.

This evidence of Dr. Chow's that conjugate eye movement is not suf-
ficient when there has been no Opportunity for building up common neural
pathways in the brain, together with the lack of evidence in the present
experiment for conjugate eye movement being a necessary condition for
interocular transfer, point strongly against conjugate eye movement being
necessary and sufficient (sufficient without common neural pathways) for

interocular transfer.

35

In ruling out conjugate eye movement, how can the concept of neural
pathways common to the two eyes be compatible with those phenomena such
as stereOSCOpic vision, which apparently require a discrimination between
the impulses from the two eyes? One explanation might be this: the
region in the nervous system where the impulses from the two eyes arouse
a common pattern may be beyond the region involved in stereoscopic per-
ception and other phenomena that apparently necessitate a distinction
between the impulses from the two eyes; i.e., certain perceptual processes
may occur while the impulses from the two eyes are still distinct, whereas

the paths may later converge into a common pattern of excitation.

36

swam

l. The existence of such phenomena as stereOSCOpic vision and
binocular rivalry in animals with binocular experience seems to be in-
consistent with Hebb's idea that binocular vision tends to build up a
common visual pathway in the brain such that a thing seen by either eye
tends to arouse the same pattern of excitation in the brain. Stereoscopic
vision is not a simple superposition of two images: the effect is dif-
ferent if the stimuli for the two eyes are exchanged. 'Why should this
exchange of stimuli make any difference if there is a simple fusion
through a common path in the brain without respect to which eye originated

the visual impulse?

2. Since one of Hebb's main arguments for common neural pathways is
interocular transfer, consideration should be given to the problem of
interocular transfer to see if it might be explained without recourse to

the concept of common visual paths.

3. One such explanation might be that the interocular transfer is
carried out by means of conjugate eye movement: through conjugate eye
movement, an "approach pattern" of eye movement is reinstated in the
original trained eye, even when it is covered. No common visual path~
ways would be needed. Conjugate eye movement might be necessary and
sufficient for interocular transfer to occur in the absence of common

visual pathways.

37

h. The hypothesis tested in this experiment was that conjugate eye

movement is not necessary for interocular transfer.

S. The hypothesis was tested by training one eye Of adult human
subjects on a task where Opportunity for transfer through conjugate eye
movement was minimized and checking for transfer to the Opposite eye.
The task was learning to read inverted words. Six subjects were used.
The criterion for proficiency was the time to give the correct reSponse

to an inverted word projected on a screen.

6. The Twpothesis tint conjugate eye movement is not necessary for
interocular transfer could not be rejected. There was no significant
increase in reSponse times from the test sessions immediately before to

those immediately following exposure of the test eye to inverted words.

7. This lack of evidence for the necessity of conjugate eye movement
for interocular transfer, in conjunction with results obtained by Dr. Chow
(still unpublished at the time of this writing) indicating that conjugate
eye movement in the absence of binocular vision, is not sufficient for
interocular transfer, leaves unsettled the problem of incompatibility
Of stereoscopic vision (and other manifestations of independence of
visual impulses from the two eyes) with the concept of common visual

pathways in the brain.

8. An alternative answer to this problem: the region in the nervous

system where the impulses from the two eyes arouse a cOmmon pattern may

38

be beyond the region involved in stereOSCOpic perception and other
phenomena that apparently necessitate a distinction between the impulses
from the two eyes; i.e., certain perceptual processes may occur while
the impulses from the two eyes are still distinct, whereas the paths

may later converge into a common pattern of excitation.

39

INTRODUCTION: EXPERIMENT II

A second type of interocular'transfer experiment was carried out
upon completion of the experiment with inverted words. The second
experiment dealt with interocular transfer of an eye-hand coordination
task. The objective of the second experiment was to determine whether
there is interocular transfer of an eye-hand coordination task, in
binocularly experienced humans when the Opportunity for transfer through
conjugate eye movement is minimized. In order to proceed toward this
objective it was necessary to develop a new technique for controlling
for conjugate eye movement and a new technique for measuring errors in

mirror-tracing.

ho

IVIEI‘PDDS AND MATERIALS

Fundamentally, in the eye-hand coordination experiment, the tech-
nique used in controlling for interocular transfer through conjugate
eye movement was that of training subjects on one task and testing them
on a different task which had a certain known relationship to the first
task. The first task, the learning task, involved head movement without
eye movement, whereas the second task, the testing task, involved eye
movement without head movement. A control group was used to determine
the nature of the relationship between the performance on the two tasks.

It was desired that a new visual-motor coordination be built up to
see if it would transfer to the other eye. The visual-motor task se- '
lected was mirror-tracing. In mirror-tracing a subject observes his hand
movements in a mirror while tracing a pattern. His hand appears to move
in the proper direction for horizontal movements but appears to be going
Opposite for vertical movements.

Two groups of subjects were used for this experiment. They were
male college students between 20 and 30 years of age. None of them wore
glasses or was aware of any deficiency of vision in either eye. A screen-
ing test was administered by requiring each subject to read a paragraph
of fine print with either eye, although most of the subjects were known
to have 20-20 vision.

The control group was trained with tie right eye on a mirror-tracing

task, wearing the eye tube shown in Figure 2, with the apparatus shown

in Figure 3 (with the exclusion of (c), the headrest). They were tested
with the same eye, using the headrest, instead of the eye tube. The
experimental group followed the same procedure except that it was tested
on the Opposite eye from which it was trained. Thus, the only difference
between the experimental and control groups was that the experimental
group was tested with a different eye from which it was trained.

The figure to be traced is shown to scale in Figure hi. The way
the pattern appeared in the mirror is Figure hB. The subjects were
allowed hS seconds to trace the entire pattern. The experimenter started
the stOp watch, said "now" when it read five seconds, "now" again in ten
seconds, "start" at fifteen seconds, and said "one", "two", "three", and
so on at five second intervals for the next hS seconds to let the subject
know where he should be at each moment.

The apparatus is shown in Figure 2. For the training sessions the
subjects wore the eyetube shown in Figure h, instead Of using the head-
rest. They leaned over the apparatus shown in Figure 2 until the end
of the eye tube was about four inches from the mirror (a). The pattern
to be traced was A in Figure 3 which was positioned on the apparatus at
(b) in Figure 2. During the test sessions, the subject removed the eye
tube and sat at the apparatus with his head against the headrest (c).

The pencils used by the subjects for tracing were kept sharp and were
about 5 inches long to allow easy handling. The subjects were told to

hold the pencils near the tip.

b2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2. Eye tube.

’43

 

 

 

Figure 3. Mirror-tracing apparatus
(with head rest).

hh

’\
,a'
‘v
\
V\‘
\
, s
.a-v' —-‘—
i!
...
\
4
/
/
/ ,
f [/r
I O.
/ \~
55-
5...— «-- - M” \
\

\ K
\ \\
N
g
\
‘
' J
/ -
_"
" V
4
I.
tl‘
‘I,
A“
A > I,
\ \_ .-'
' J

I

I

1

I

Figure h.

I}
f ,2 6
I (
I
/ '4
I
/ . a
I"
x
j
1"
L,

Mirror-tracing pattern.

Schedule for subjects: h consecutive days.

Day 1:

Day 2:

Day 3:

Day h:

(morning) Subjects were told that this was an eye-hand
coordination experiment in which only one eye would be
used. They were fitted with the eyetube. For the first
tracing trial the subject was told to go completely
around the pattern no matter how far off the pattern he
may be. It was explained to him that he would learn
faster this way. Eight tracings (wearing eyetube).

(afternoon) Eight more tracings, wearing the eyetube.

Eight tracings in tie morning and eight tracings in the

afternoon, all with the eyetube.

(morning) The subjects were told that this would be
another experiment similar to the one for the previous
two days. Each subject was told to hold his head against
the headrest and only move his eye. There were eight
tracings, using the headrest and eyetube alternately.
(afternoon) Eight more tracings using the headrest and

eye tube alternately.

Eight tracings in the morning and eight tracings in the
afternoon, using the headrest and eyetube alternately in

both sessions.

ho

RESUDTS

The only difference in treatment of the control and experimental
groups was that the experimental group changed eyes from practise to
test sessions. 80 a comparison of the data for the two groups should

indicate any differences caused by changing from one eye to the other.
Method of Analysis

Various techniques have been used in mirror-tracing studies to
measure the proficiency of the subject on the task. Difficulty in count-
ing errors led G. M. Whipple (1910) to devise the concentric double star.
The subject was instructed to keep tle line he drew between the printed
lines. The error score was the number of times the subject's line
strayed from between the lines, or tie total distance over which the
subject deviated from keeping the line between the printed lines. In
1918 G. R. Wells used Whipple's concentric stars, making the stars from
metal so that when the stylus touched the edges it completed an electri-
cal circuit and rang up an error. The error score was thus the number
of times the stylus hit the inner or outer star. In 1933 C. E. Lauterback
used a star with the contour formed of small circles. He suggested a
scoring method in terms of the number of circles drawn through per minute,
giving a single score, rather than the two, a time and an error score,
traditionally used. Jean Heidensall (1916) suggested a precision scor-

ing technique. She measured the tracings of three mm. or more that did

h?

not cross the pattern-outline or vary more than one mm. on either side
of it. The total distance thus obtained was considered the precision
score.

H. w. Isreal (1925) designed transparent stencils for specific six-
pointed star patterns. By fitting a cross-sectioned stencil over a
traced test-pattern, the tracing may be scored according to the extent
and duration of tracing errors.

Norma Scheidemann (1950) suggested that a plastic ruler could
serve as a cross-sectioned scale for scoring both extent and duration
of tracing errors by means of uniform units, applicable with any mirror-
tracing test pattern comprised of straight lines.

Believing that it is difficult to evaluate precision in mirror-
tracing when both time and errors are variables, the experimenter set
time up as a constant. As mentioned in the "Methods and Materials"
section, the subjects were paced around the pattern, so that each trial
was completed in about hS seconds. None of the trials took longer than
h? seconds or less than h3 seconds, and most of the trials were in
between hh and ho seconds. In measuring the errors, it was considered
by the experimenter that a prOper measure should involve both extent and
duration of error. But extent and duration of error should not be
separate measures. Consideration will show that the area between the
figure to be traced and the line drawn by the subject represents the
extent and duration of the deviations from tie pattern contour. In her
approximation of this area, Scheidemann, using the cross-sectioned

plastic ruler, did not compute the deviation from the pattern for every

point in the drawn line, but for each cross-section used a single
representative deviation for that segment of the drawn line falling
within that cross-section. In the present experiment the experimenter
measured the area between the pattern and the drawn line by using a
planimeter, thereby considering deviations along the full extent of
the drawn line. The area between the pattern and the drawn line was

determined by subtracting the area enclosed by the innermost line from

that enclosed by the outermost line.
Data

Table IV shows the error scores for both the control and experi-
mental groups. These are the error scores for days 3 and h. The first
2 days were practice sessions. E signifies eye movement condition
(using headrest), and H signifies head movement condition (wearing
eyetube).

The results of the control group show that the eye movement condi-
tion was easier for every subject. Although a pattern traced by eye
movement shows only 0.2 square inches less error on the average than a
pattern traced by head movement, it is apparent that eye movement is
more accurate than head movement. Seventeen of the twenty subject-
session blocks show eye movement being more accurate than head movement.

For the experimental group, the pattern for the left eye (eye
movement) shows 0.3 square inches less error on the average than a pattern
traced by the right eye (with head movement). Nineteen of the twenty

subject-session blocks show eye movement being better than head movement.

19

TABLE IV

I~11hfi0R-TRACING mucus (n: SQUARE mo HES)

 

 

Total

Session

Errors

Day h

Day 3

 

Subject

Afternoon Morning Afternoon

Morning

 

A

Control Grout)

 

..UoO
91

2h
22

O!”

23

68

22

62
23

EH

08
33

O2
IUIU

20
lulu

Tom

82
o o
91

’4 h
o o
2 2

06
22

62

23

000
23

95H

Jack

6h

01
11

2/0

22

08
o o
32

60
23

80

23

DO 0U
o o

35
11

2|“

33

lu/O
33

\N..2

Experimental Group

 

x02
0 o

OIU
22

0‘14

22

00.
23

/OIU«
23

E H

Rod

2/0
c
23

6h
23

p.014
0 0
23

EH

Dick

1.14/0

#3?
ll

..HHIU

05
53

Bob

88

23

DB
0

2/0
33

Earl

10.8
11.6

88
22

n60
O O
23

60
23

600

E
H

Aaron

 

50

Evidence of incomplete interocular transfer would be that H minus
E for the experimental group must be less than H minus E for the control
group. There was no such tendency in this experiment, so there is no
evidence against complete interocular transfer of a mirror-tracing habit

when transfer through conjugate eye movement is eliminated.

Sl

CONCLUSIONS

This experiment showed that area measured by a planimeter can be
used as a measure of error in a mirror-tracing task. Furthermore, it is
shown that for all subjects the eye movement condition yielded fewer
errors than the head movement condition. It is concluded that the
methods and materials used would be useful in testing for interocular
transfer of mirror-tracing tasks, if the eye movement and head movement
conditions were equated (by increasing the difficulty of the eye move-
ment condition or decreasing the difficulty of the head movement
condition).

As was pointed out in the "Conclusions' section of Experiment I,
the results of that experiment, in conjunction with the results of
Dr. Chow's chimpanzee experiment, make it unlikely that conjugate eye
movement is the medium for interocular transfer in the absence of common
visual pathways. Furthermore, there was no observable lack of transfer
in this experiment. 80, it probably will be more profitable to investi-
gate other factors in interocular transfer than conjugate eye movement
in trying to determine if common visual pathways need be in the brain

for interocular transfer to occur.

SUI-mar

l. The hypothesis that led to this experiment is the same as that
for the first experiment, which dealt with interocular transfer of the
ability to read inverted words. This hypothesis is that conjugate eye

movement is not necessary for interocular transfer.

2. Five control and five experimental subjects were used in this
experiment. The control subjects were trained with one eye on a mirror-
tracing task, moving their head but holding their eyes still and they
were tested on the same mirror-tracing problem with the same eye, but on
the test, the subjects moved their eyes and held their head still. The
experimental group was trained and tested identically, except for one
condition: the test eye was not the training eye; instead, it was the

Opposite eye which had been shielded during the training period.

3. The errors in mirror-tracing were measured with a planimeter.
The planimeter proved to be capable of detecting small differences in
mirror-tracing ability and the fact that both duration and extent of
error are considered over the entire line traced provides a logical basis
for preferring it over a technique which only took extent or duration

of error, alone, into consideration.

b. There was no evidence of lack of interocular transfer, although

the Opportunity for transfer through conjugate eye movement was

53

eliminated. The negative results of this experiment and the preceding
one, in View of Dr. Chow's evidence for conjugate eye movement not
being sufficient for interocular transfer, suggest that other factors
than conjugate eye movement will probably be more profitable for study
to determine whether conditions other than common visual pathways in

the brain might explain interocular transfer.

5h

 

 

Subject

0.25 0.50 0.7

4.25 b.50 b.75 5.00

 

George
Kwong
Harry
Herb
Don

George
Kwong
Harry
Herb
Don

George
Kwong
Harry
Herb
Don
Ed

George
Kwong
Harry
Herb
Don
Ed

George
Kwong

Herb
Don

C)C>C>C>C>C) CDCDCDCDCDCD C>C>C>C>C>C> (DCDCDCDCDC)

C>C>C>C>C>C>

C)C)F‘F‘C>C> CJCDF‘C>C>C> (DCDFJFJCDCD CDCDCDCDCDC)

CDCDF‘CDCDC)

C)C)C”R)F’C> F‘CJRDKJVJC) C>C>C)F‘C>C> <3<3+4<3rv<3

nnchic>kaJ

F’F‘F‘RDC>C)

RDFJCDF’CDCD

 

u) m l—J 'O—‘b o

F‘CDC)C>C)F1

 

 

_K5FJC>C)A)FJ

 

NI—JOOON

mmwomw HHNHHO

HOOONW

CDNJCDF‘F‘F’

RJRDCDCDFJC) RJCJC)C)C)R) CJRDCDCJCDF‘ RDFJO\C)RJbJ

FJAJC>C>C>FJ

F‘C)F‘C>F‘C) F‘FJCDCDF‘CD CDKJFJFJCDVJ

F-‘C>C>C>C>l-J

F’F‘C)C>C>C>

of the

a few

.ratus

.th

;ical

:al di-

e experi-
e hori-
1er experi-

zt a time.

5!. Tiere
ald in-
verted

L per-

ar co-
ensory-

DHS are

APPENDIX B

IKVERTED VISION

 

This appendix is not an attempt at a comprehensive coverage Of the
topic of inverted vision. Rather it is an attempt to bring forth a few
notions on inverted vision which might be of interest or use to the

readers Of this thesis.

Definition of inverted vision. For the purposes of this report,

 

inverted vision is that vision which results when an Optical apparatus
outside the eye causes the images on the retina to be inverted with

reSpect to the same images on the retina without the external optical
apparatus. This inversion may be in the horizontal or the vertical di-
mension, or both. In the historical section of this appendix, the experi-
menters to be mentioned used lenses that produced inversion in the hori-
zontal and vertical relationships at the same time. however, other experi—

menters have used inversion prisms to invert only one dimension at a time.

The relationship of inverted vision experiments to_psychology. There
are several ways in which inverted vision experimentation may yield in-
formation Of psychological significance. In the first place, inverted
vision may serve as a means of studying the development of visual per-
ception. Also, it may serve as a method by which the visual—motor co-
ordinations may be studied, thereby adding to our knowledge Of sensory-

motor processes. Closely related to the visual-motor coordinations are

the visual-sensory associations: the associations between vision and

the other senses. The use of inverted vision to study visual perception
was mentioned, and it might be pointed out that the concept of perceptual
organization is especially susceptible to study; for example, could a
person wear inversion lenses so long that things would start looking
right-side-up? Several investigators have carried out research on in-
verted vision, but as a source Of psychological data, it has been barely

tapped.

Histgpy of inverted vision experimentation. Stratton (1897) is
Often considered the pioneer of research on inverted vision. He used a
monocular system of two double-convex lenses, which he wore for several
consecutive days. He obtained qualitative data concerning the adaptations
he made to the new visual world (which was inverted in both the horizontal
and vertical dimensions).

Ewert (1931) used a three—lens system which, like Stratton's apparatus,
rotated the visual field 180 degrees. Besides qualitative data like
Stratton's, Ewert also obtained quantitative data by utilizing such tasks
as card-sorting, to obtain time or error scores. He traced the develop-
ment of visual-motor coordination in the performance Of the tasks.

Foley (l9h0) studied a monkey that wore inversion goggles for eight
days. Upon removal of the goggles, slight disturbances in behavior were
noted, but most of these quickly disappeared. There was a slight but
definite motor incoordination, eSpecially in climbing and jumping. ‘When

jumping from a platform to the floor, the animal showed errors in spatial

57

estimation, hitting the floor too soon. This error and the resulting
hesitancy in jumping persisted for approximately three days._

Snyder and Pronko (1952) jointly conducted an experiment in which
the subject wore a binocular lens system for inverting the visual field.
The subject were the lens system for 30 consecutive days. They tested
the visual-motor coordination during the inversion period by means of
several tests: a card-sorting task; the Minnesota Rate of Manipulation
Test (in which 60 cylindrical blocks are fitted into holes in a wooden

base); the Purdue pegboard test; and a mirror-tracing task.

The ambiguity of the expression "seeing things right-side-up".
What does it mean when a subject with inverted vision reports that things
do or do not appear right-side-up? Four possible interpretations are
given below:

1. The person is reporting on impressions aroused when he
directed his attention inward; i.e. when he consciously
introspects.

2. He is reporting on impressions aroused when he was attend-
ing to external things, instead of his introspections.

3. He is reporting on the similarity or difference (as he re-
members it) between his visual experience while wearing
the inversion apparatus and his visual experience before
the inversion apparatus.

b. He is reporting on the relative vividness in his memory
of the inversion apparatus type of images and the pre—

inversion type of images.

The examples which follow will ShOW‘hOW the above interpretations
may lead to ambiguous reports by investigators.

First, let us consider the interpretations dealing with intro-
Spection: interpretations l and 2. It is here proposed that there las
been confusion among reviewers of Stratton's writings primarily because
Stratton shifted from introspective to non-introspective reports. Some
writers claim that Stratton, after wearing inversion lenses for a while,
began to see things right-side-up again, and they quote Stratton to
verify that point. Other writers also quote Stratton to show that
Stratton never arrived at the state Of seeing things right-side-up while
he wore the inversion lenses.

Stratton, in the course of his reports, mentioned that he became a)
adept in his visual-motor coordination that Often he was not aware that

he was using inverted vision. But he also pointed out that at all times

 

when he intrOSpected to see if things looked right-side-up that he was

aware that they looked unfamiliar and not right-side-up. These statements

 

of Stratton are not contradictory. One statement refers to his impressions
while he was intrOSpecting, the other to his impressions while he was not
introspecting. Often he was not aware that he was using inverted vision
because he had acquired new visual-motor coordination sufficiently to be
able to carry out certain tasks more or less unconsciously, without much
concentration. On the other hand, when he consciously considered how
things looked to see if they looked right-side-up, they didn't. This
phenomenon is similar to what occurs repeatedly in everyday life: a

person is not even aware of a multitude of sounds until he directs his

59

attention to them, at which time he can hear and identify them quite
easily.

To clarify the distinction between the third and fourth numbered
interpretations, an hypothetical situation will be used. Let us assume
that a subject has worn a visual inversion apparatus continually from
five years of age until he was 30 years old. Now he is asked whether
things look right-side-up. Since the person asking the question is not
wearing a visual inversion apparatus, the subject assumes that the
interrogator means by right-side-up appearance that appearance which is
obtained without inversion apparatus. 80 he concentrates On the visual
experience he had before he wore the apparatus, and recalls that it was
different from the experience he had after donning the apparatus, al-
though it is vague in his memory since it was so long ago. SO, because
his interpretation Of right-side—up is that given in number 3 above, he
replies that things do not look right-side-up. Clearly, using this
interpretation Of right-side-up appearance, things could never appear
right-side-up so long as the subject had any memory Of the difference
between the type of visual impressions he has with the inversion appara—
tus and the type of visual impressions he had before wearing the appara-
tus. Now, let's assume that the subject used number h interpretation of
right-side-up appearance. Using this interpretation, he would interpret
the question as being an inquiry into the comparative vividness Of the
memory of the type of visual experience before the wearing of the

inversion apparatus and the memory of his visual experience since wearing

the apparatus. Through the use of number h interpretation of right-side-
up appearance, the subject would reply that things certainly do look
right-side-up; he would mean that inversion apparatus type images are

more vivid in his memory than pre-inversion type images.

Cues that tell a person his vision has been inverted. Suppose a

 

person were to wake up some morning and find that he had on a pair Of
spectacles with some kind Of lenses. Without removing the spectacles,

how could he tell whether his vision was inverted? The cues that he could
use to tell him that his vision has been inverted might be broken into

two categories:

1. Intrasensory conflict. This refers to the inverted arrangement
of visually familiar Objects on the retina. This is the most obvious
cue, and many people are not aware that there are other cues. It is
called intrasensory conflict, since no other senses than vision are re-
quired for this to serve as a cue.

2. Intersensory and sensory-motor conflict. For intersensory con-
flict to serve as a cue, naturally other senses than vision must come
into play. It is the conflict between vision and the other senses such
as hearing and the kinesthetic sense that serves as a cue. For example,
a person sees his hand move up, but feels it move down. Another example
of intersensory conflict is the conflict between sensations from the
neck muscles and visual sensations during movements of the head: when
the head is felt to be lifted, the upper part of the visual field

vanishes (instead of the lower part vanishing, as with ordinary vision).

61

An example of sensoryhmotor conflict would be the difficulty encountered
in reaching and grasping a seen object; it might be called visual-motor

conflict, since the visual-motor coordination is disrupted.

The question of the innateness of right-side-up vision. The problem

 

of the extent to which right-side—up vision is innate has been Speculated
on, but never subjected to experiment. Right-side-up vision might be
Operationally defined as that vision which accompanies behavior which is
indistinguishable from the type Of behavior exhibited by a normal animal.
Through the use of this definition, it can be determined whether it would
make any difference in an animal's behavior if it were raised from birth
with inversion goggles.

Perhaps what has led many peOple to assume right-side-up vision, and
any behavior dependent on vision, to be entirely learned is their belief
that the intrasensory conflict (the inverted arrangement of visually
familiar Objects on the retina) is thg cue for inverted vision. Their
question is: how can you recognize the inverted arrangement of visually
familiar objects unless you have had a chance to become visually familiar
with some objects? With no previous arrangement of the objects on the
retina, where is the basis for comparison to say if this arrangement
is inverted?

Such reasoning neglects an important aspect of inverted vision:
intersensory conflict, which may not require visually familiar Objects.
There may be a conflict with innate associations between the visual

sensations and those arising from the kinesthetic or other senses.

62

That there may be such innate associations is suggested by the Observa-
tions Of investigators that animals turn their head or eyes toward a
flash of light when they first Open their eyes, apparently with no learn-
ing required. What seems to be another unlearned reSponse is the turning
Of the head in the direction Of a sharp sound.

If inverted vision can produce a conflict between vision and tie
other senses in animals with no visual experience, then such a conflict
should be demonstrable in an experimental situation. One such eXperi-
mental situation is as follows: 7

Su jects: Three groups Of kittens.

haterials: Dark room for raising kittens; right angle "inversion

prisms" on spectacle frames; clear Optical glass.

Procedure: Kittens are born in the darkness, raised from birth

wearing the spectacles.‘

Group I: spectacles with inversion prisms for
both right and left eye.

Group II: spectacles with inversion prism for
one eye and Optical glass for the
other eye (to restrict the size of
the visual field and the amount Of
entering light to the same extent as
the prism eye).

Group III: spectacles with Optical glass for

both eyes.

63

Thus, Group I will have inverted vision in both eyes; Group II will have
inverted vision in one eye and normal vision in the other; and Group III
will have normal vision in both eyes.

Visual-motor tasks could be set up on which the animals could be
tested and the performance of the groups could be compared. Since it
would be possible for an animal in Group II to suppress vision in either
the normal or inverted eye, the animals in this group should also be
tested with each eye separately and the performance Of one eye compared

with that of the other.

The role of gquilibrium in right-side-up vision. Some relationship

 

between vision and the sense Of balance has been Observed by most people.
watching things spin around or rock from side to side Often makes peOple
dizzy. And conversely, when a person has had his vestibular sense thrown
into confusion by Spinning or the like, it sometimes appears that things
change their spatial orientation by tilting from side to side, or spinning
around. It would be necessary to assume extreme cyclotorsional movements
(rotary movements Of the eye in its socket) if one were to explain this
apparent tilt on the basis Of eye movement causing a change in the angle
at which the image strikes the retina. An alternative explanation could
be that the uprightness of vision is dependent on vestibular and kines-
thetic sensations being in harmony with the visual sensations. ‘Whether
these associations between vision and kinesthetic-vestibular sensations

are primarily innate or acquired might be determined through experiment.

Ob

Such a relationship could account for certain disturbances of equilibrium
due to vision, as well as certain disturbances Of vision due to disturb-
ances of equilibrium. WOuld there be any right-side-up vision in the

absence of kinesthetic and vestibular sensations?

65

10.

ll.

12.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carr, Harvey.A. An Introduction to¥§pace Perception. Longmans,
Green & CO., New York 1935, hl3 p.

 

Chow, K. L. and Nissen, H. w. Personal communication from Dr. Chow,
dated Oct. 25, l95h.

Cramer, Harald. Mathematical Methods of Statistics. Princeton:
Princeton University Press. l9h5, 120 p.

 

Ewert, P. Harry. .1 Study Of the effect of retinal stimulation upon
Spatially coordinated behavior. Genetic_psychol. Monog. 7, 1930,
177-363 pp.

 

Foley, John P., Jr. An experimental investigation of the effect of
prolonged inversion Of the visual field in the rhesus monkey (macaca
mulatta), J._genet. Psychol. 19h0, 56, 21:51.

 

Hebb, D. O. The innate organization Of visual activity. Perception
of figures by rats reared in total darkness. J. gen. Psychol., 1937,
51, 101-126 pp.

 

Hebb, D. 0. The Organization of Behavior. New York: Wiley. l9h9,
335 p.

 

Isreal, Hg‘w. Scoring Stencil for mirror-tracing, J. educ. Psychol.

16, 1925, 537 r.

 

Lashley, K. 8. Brain Mechanisms and Intelligence: A Quantitative
Study of Injuries to the Brain. Chicago: Univ. Chic. Press. 1929,
166 pp.

 

 

Lauterbach, C. E. An improved technique in the mirror-tracing experi-
ment, J. exp. Psychol., 1933, 16, hSl-hSB pp.

Levine, Jacob. Studies in the interrelations of central nervous
structures in binocular vision: II. The conditions under which
interocular transfer of discriminative habits takes place in the
pigeon. J. genet. ngchol., l9h5, 67, 131-lh2 pp.

 

Riesen, Austin H., gt El- Interocular Transfer of habits learned
monocularly in visually naive and visually experienced cats.
J. comp. physiol. Psychol. June, 1953, v. hO, no. 3, 166-171 pp.

 

66

13.

1h.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

Scheidemann, Norma V. (A ruler for scoring mirror-tracing errors.
Am. J. Psychol., 1950, 63, hhS-hhé pp.

 

Siegel, Arthur I. Deprivation of visual form definition in the ring
dove: II. Perceptual-motor transfer. J. comp. physiol. Psychol.
Aug. 1953, v. LO, no. h, 2h9-252 pp.

 

Snyder, F. W, and Pronko, N. H. Vision with Spatial Inversion.
Wichita: University of Wichita Press, 1952, 1hh pp.

 

Stratton, G. M. Vision without inversion of the retinal image.
Psychol. Rev. 1697, h, 3hl-BOO; h63-h8l pp.

 

weidensall, Jean, The mentality Of the criminal woman, Educ. Psychol.

Monog. It, 1916, 1‘332 PP-

 

Wells, G. R., An apparatus for mirror-drawing test, J. Educ. Psychol.
1918, 9, 99-101 pp.

 

Whipple, G. M. Manual of mental and physical tests. Baltimore:
Warwick & York, 1910.

 

WOodworth, Robert S. Experimental Psychology. New York: Henry
Holt and CO., 1938, 573 pp.

 

6?

”gin”
Wan“ v.5

I ..v

"V

5»an

.1.

2. l
.1.

. a
f. .. 1 .

V... .0...

Q » ‘h

.

3., I:

 

     

      

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

"mum:ItummIllumgmll4l

93 0307