l \ 1 WU i | HI fig lllfllllhfilflll THE EFFECT OF {SGPREL ON VISUAL RECOGNiTEQN THRESR‘OLDS Hit-385$ {0? {$2 Degree (2’: DH D tigle'fl‘z' ‘ Q‘i' I 1“?! gr ‘ygt 19v 3* mpg mmlfim STA-:1: mfisfishf u‘rra ‘5. t.‘ ~K“ I fie :i-t ‘sfv zigzam x: mums 5mm: 1958 TH ESIS U‘» MimiT”IUHHIIHIIHMIUH"MW!!! 2 300627 9271 This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Effect of Iuoprel or. Visual Recagni’; in n Thresholds \‘ presented by William “ran; is Smith has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PI‘I.D degree in F5YChL‘105'V Ajfi‘edé 8Die Major professor 13mm“ 6', I956 C . Lamb V. ‘eA" THE EFFECT OF ISOPREL ON VISUAL RECOGNITION THRESHOLDS By WILLIAM FRANCIS SMITH A THESIS Submitted to the School of Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied S cience in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOC TOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1956 ABSTRACT The present investigation was designed to explore some physio- logical mechanism that may be involved during perceptual defense behavior and to lend support to the hypothesis that threshold alterations characteristic of the perceptual defense reaction are influenced by autonomic feedback loops. Since the present design could not demon- strate these directly, the interpretations are inferential ones. Sixty-nine patients at Dearborn General Medical and Surgical Veterans Administration Hospital served as 53. Only patients without records of previous or present neuropsychiatric disorders were used. Because a drug was employed, medical clearance was obtained for each of the patients prior to acceptance as a Subject. Ages of the Ss ranged from 20 to 45. Education of the members ranged from completion of the eighth grade through completion of seven years of college. All 85‘ had 20/20 or better vision. Stimulus materials consisted of two practice lists of three five- letter words each, and two stimulus lists of twelve five-letter words each. The stimulus words were judged to be neutral in content for the V. A. population. All stimuli were typed in capitals on No. 3 gray graded art paper by means of an IBM electric typewriter, Executive Continental Model. ii A Gerbrands mirror type tachistoscope and Gerbrands timer were employed to present the stimuli. The pre-exposure field was of the same material as the stimulus background. The size of the pre- exposure and exposure fields were 7 x 71/2 inches, with a rectangle of l x 31/2 inches, centered in the pre-exposure field. Since preliminary work indicated that the latencies for the stimuli were too rapid, six layers of clear acetate paper were placed over the aperture in front of the stimulus words. The resulting intensity of illumination at the aper- ture for the exposure field was 9 foot candles. The intensity of illumi- nation of the pre-exposure field at the point of fixation was 16 foot candles. Experiment I: Twenty—one pairs of Ss matched on the basis of performance on List I were utilized in this study. Each S was run on two consecutive days. On the second day, each member of a pair received a coded package containing 10 mgm of Isoprel Hydrochloride or a placebo and List II. The manner of assignment of drug approximated the double blind procedure. 53 were not aware of the nature of the medicine, nor was E aware of which medicine was received by any one S. E, however, was aware that 53 were receiving a drug or a placebo. The method of limits used in an ascending series of durations was employed to determine the thresholds for each word. Initial ex- posure was set at . 01 seconds and increased in .01 second steps until the words were correctly identified on two successive exposures. Experiment II: A second experiment was designed to insure representativeness of sampling and to reduce the possibility of extraneous variables that may have operated in the matching procedure. Twenty 83 were randomly assigned to the experimental con- ditions regardless of their performance on List I. The procedure was in all other respects identical to that of Experiment I. The hypothesis tested was stated as follows: If sympathetic activity is provoked by a sympathomimetic drug, normal 53 will manifest significant alterations in recognition thresholds for neutrally affective (non-threat provoking) verbal stimuli. Statistical analyses of the results of Experiment I and II were significant at the .05 and .03 levels respectively. A second finding was t Eat of no significant psychological effect produced by taking a placebo under the guise of medicine. Nor could the obtained results be attributed to practice effects alone. The changes that did occur were in the direction of lowered thresholds. These data are interpreted as supporting the hypothesis of this investigation and were seen consistent with the view that alterations characteristic of perceptual defense reactions are produced by feed- back loops. 74' I. I f“ [2’ [75" {It yea/ted? iv ACKNO WL EDGM EN TS The author would like to express his appreciation to all who have contributed to this inxestigation. My foremost intellectual and personal obligation is to Dr. Alfred G. Dietze, Chairman. I am indebted to him not only for his generous gift of time and wise counsel, but as well for conveying by action and deed the meaning and need for honesty and objectivity in human relationships and their value in scientific endeavor. , I should also like to thank Drs. M. Ray Denny, Carl Frost and Eugene Jacobson for their cogent, timely criticism and expressions of interest. Dr. Charles Hanley also contributed immeasurably to this investigation. For their assistance, but more important for providing an atmosphere in which this research could be conceived and implemented, I am most grateful to Drs. John Brownfain, Herbert Malos, Helen Wardsworth, William Alexander, Mrs. Maime Gernay, and particularly Dr. Bernard Chodorkoff, members of the psychological staff at Dearborn Veterans Administration Hospital. Among the medical staff I am most indebted to Dr. Milton C. Weed, Chief Medical Officer, who served as medical consultant; read and critically evaluated portions of this manuscript. Special thanks also go to Drs. Nedwicki, Chornikoff and the many other physicians that were helpful. I can but inadequately express my appreciation to Dr. William K. Knapp, Chief, Psychology Training Unit, who was instrumental in making the study possible, donated the services of his secretary, Miss Rosemary Szilagy, and offered encouragement at times of need. I would also like to express my appreciation to the Lansing Bureau, International Business Machine Corporation, for their cooperation. Finally, deep appreciation is also due to my constant moti- vators, my wife Barbara, and two sons, Bill and Keith. This thesis I should like to dedicate to all of those above and the many unmentioned who were helpful and interested. vi ‘sz ' TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . Experimental and Theoretical Background . Review of Psychological Studies . Review of P‘iysiological Studies . S TATEMENT OF'THE PROBLEM . HYPOTHESES . EXPERIMENTAL METHOD . . Subjects . Stimulus Material and Apparatus . Main Independent Variable . Procedure Experiment I . Experiment II . RESULTS Experiment I Experiment II DISCUSSION . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . REFERENCES . APPENDIX . vii 10 11 .16 2.0 .22 25 .30 35 .37 41 . . .‘. «rhn' LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Page FIGURE 1 Photograph of Experimental Situation. . . . . . . . 17 2 Illustration of Lighting Relative to Ss and Apparatus. . 18 TABLE 1 Summary of Mean Threshold Values for Subjects in Experimentl....................Z3 2 Difference Scores for each S in Experiment I . . . . . 24 3 Summary of Mean Threshold Values for subjects in Experimentll...................26 4 Analysis of Variance Between Drug and Placebo Group onListI.....................25 5 Analysis of Variance Between Drug and Placebo Group onListII.....................27 6 Sums of Squares and Cross Products for the Two Groups oszinExperimentlI. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 '7 Analysis of Covariance Between Mean Threshold Values for the Placebo and Drug Groups . . . . . . . . . . 28 APPENDIX TABLE A Summary'of Characteristics of the Ss Experimentl....................42 ExperimentII...................43 viii Page TABLE B Summary of Visual Measurements . . . . . . . . . . 44 C Practice and Stimulus Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 FIGURE 3 DataSheet..................... 46 ix INTRODUCTION Within the past decade psychologists have shown considerable interest in perceptual defense. Such interest is shown in the increasing number of clinical and experimental studies dealing with perceptual phenomena, particularly perceptual recognition and identification of stimuli, and in controversies concerning methodological details, theo- retical significance and interpretation. That this phenomenon, regard- less of varying approaches and interpretations, merits careful consid- eration as part of our general body of psychological knowledge is dem- onstrated by the attention devoted to it in Floyd Allport's monumental Work, Theories of Perception and the Concept of Structure (1). The concept of perceptual defense was developed to explain the finding that negatively valued verbal stimuli, e. g. taboo words, elicit Elevated recognition thresholds in comparison with neutral verbal stimuli. The threatening, i. e. negatively valued stimuli in these in- VeStigations were thought to have been previously associated with aLhXiety-producing conditions which accounts for the resulting elevated tht‘esholds. In accordance with this view are the experiments of McGuinnies (33, 34), Lazarus and McCleary (2.7), and the earlier ex- Planations of Bruner and Postman (6). Subsequent investigators have 1n"Oked other explanations to similar findings: Frequency of occurranc c and usage of verbal stimuli (22), adequacy of personal adjustment of Ss (3, 10), and response suppression, i. e. reluctance to mention taboo words in the presence of E (23). In some of these studies the possibility that some physiological mechanism may be operating along with perceptual defense has been implied (7. 11,27, 28). In an earlier discussion of their views Bruner and Postman s.--.e the organism as having numerous response tendencies to presented stimuli. Veridical reporting was seen as one such response possibility llogether with other responses thought to be "largely affective in nature". In perceptual defense phenomena affectiveax-oidance was seen as having a lower threshold than the veridical reporting response, thus accounting for differential recognition thresholds to threatening and non-threatening Stimuli. The finding of elevated PGR to threatening stimuli has been in- terpreted as evidence that subjects can discriminate stimuli before fully I‘ecognizing them. PGR has been recognized as an indication both of threat Or anxiety on the one hand, and of sympathetic nervous system activity On the other. Threat and anxiety have been considered important in Perceptual defense, and both of these have been traditionally concept- ualized as end product changes of autonomic nervous system activity. Such implied physiological underlying reactions appear in the research Of McGuinnies (32), Lazarus and MCCleary (28), earlier views of Post- man and Bruner (7), and more recently in assertions by Chodorkoff and Chodorkoff (l l) in their attempt to integrate various research find- ings. Inasmuch as these studies and theoretical formulations suggest the possibility that physiological events are related to the perceptual defense reaction, the present study attempts to explore certain physio- logical mechanisms that may be involved in perceptual defense behavior. Experimental and Theoretical Background No attempt will be made here to give a complete coverag: to Studies attempting to demonstrate perceptual defense. Since compre- hensive summaries may be found in the literature (1, 6) only relevant Psychological and physiological studies and their results will be reported he re. Inasmuch as the McGuinnies, McCleary and Lazarus studies are most pertinent to the development of the present problem, they will «be reported in some detail. In essence these studies tested the hypoth- ersis that "Verbal stimuli that are emotionally disturbing or threatening to the individual tend to require longer recognition times than neutral Words and/or tend to be so misperceived as to radically alter their f0 rm or meaning and tend to arouse their characteristic emotional re- Sponses even before they are recognized (1)". McGuinnies (32) tested this notion by presenting a series of 18 WOrds, comprising eleven neutral and seven taboo items, tachisto- SCopically to sixteen 53. Using recognition thresholds as the depandent Variable and Galvanic Skin response recordings as a measure of phys- 4 iological activity, McGuinnies found that thresholds for the taboo words were significantly greater than for neutral words and that PGR's for taboo words as compared with neutral. words were heightened. Com- parison of PGR's for pre-recognition thresholds of taboo and neutral words also revealed elevations for the former. Subsequent analysis further indicated that the neutral word guesses were structurally more Similar than guesses for so-called critical stimuli. McGuinnies con- Cluded that his findings demonstrate the existence of motivational factors Operating in perception. Howes and Solomon (23) later questioned the findings of Mc- Guinnies. After demonstrating that an inverse relationship exists between familiarity with a stimulus word as measured by frequency of occurrence in samples of the English language, they asserted that such familiarity might be an important factor in explaining the threshold differences. In a subsequent study McCleary and Lazarus (28) attempted to C ontrol for familiarity and other factors which others suggested might be operating in the McGuinnies study. In order to control for familiar- ity these authors used ten five-letter nonsense syllables instead of meaningful taboo and neutral words. In addition, to circumvent differ- ences in threat-value to different S_s_, five of the words were associated With electric shock to establish conditioned PGR's. Following the Conditioning period each nonsense syllable was presented tachistoscop- ittally. Galvanic Skin response measures were obtained subsequent to each presentation of a syllable and prior to the next presentation of a syllable. The results of this procedure revealed that the syllables that had been previously associated with shock, although incorrectly perceived at sub-threshold levels, resulted in autonomic responses, i.e. PGR's, of greater magnitude than non-shock syllables. These authors concluded that "at tachistoscopic exposure speeds too rapid for correct recognition is were able to give discriminatory responses as measured by PGR's. " The process by which some kind of discrimi- nation is made when the S is unable to make a correct conscious dis- crimination was labeled subception. In another attempt to attack the problem of McCleary and Lazarus, Bricker and Chapanis (4) used "guessed" responses to tachistoscopically presented nonsense words, but without shock- reinforcement. These workers found that, after the first wrong guesses, fewer trials were needed to perceive the stimulus correctly than would be expected by chance. Bricker and Chapanis interpreted these re- sults to signify that "incorrectly perceived tachistoscopic stimuli con- vey some information. " In turn, they rejected the subception-uncon- scious determination of behavior implied by McCleary and Lazarus in favor of the more parsimonious view that information conveyed prior to recognition comes from partial cues within the word. Although the findings of Bricker and Chapanis have been duplicated by Murdock (35), since no measure of conditioned PGR‘s were obtained they do not sub- stantiate the case against "the subception hypothesis" and related autonomic involvement. Although the above studies have been severely criticized by a number of workers, including the most recent article by Erickson (16), they nevertheless suggest the possibility that autonomic activity may be operating along with the perceptual mechanisms. The increased PGR's indicate specifically a functioning of the. sympathetic segment. Thus far, however, there have been no attempts directly to invoke sympa- thetic nervous system activity to determine its effect on visual recogni— tion thresholds. If sympathetic provocation could be shown to bring about alterations in visual thresholds, we would be in, a better position to understand the relationships between the autonomic nervous system and perceptual thresholds. Summary of Relevant Physiological Studies Numerous studies (9,17, 20, 22, 49) have appeared attempting to demonstrate relationships between physiological activity, overt behavior, and personality. For the most part these studies have received their impetus from rapid pharmacological advances. Summaries of this literature may be found in the various Annual Reviews (43, 48), and more recently in Kempe's unpublished doctoral dissertation on Person- ality and Stress (24). The physiological studies selected for consid- eration here will be those that demonstrate autonomic nervous system changes in relation to psychological and perceptual functions. Most pertinent to the present discussion is the Calloway and Thompson (8) endeavor to relate personality and physiological stress reactions. These authors studied the effect of endogenous sympathetic activity on the perception of size and distance. Using both a cold- pressor procedure and arnyl nitrate inhalations as methods of inducing sympathetic activity, these investigators found that if adequate cues for distance were established and sympathetic activity provoked a decrease in apparent size of a distant subject was obtained. To explain their results Calloway and Thompson made use of a negative feedback hy- pothesis. The negative feedback hypothesis as it applies here can be stated as follows: Most biological systems have a feedback, and this may be negative in sign; that is, if a receiving system drives an output system some of that output is fed back into the receiving line in such a way that the threshold of the receiving system will be raised (1, 8). Calloway and Thompson consider such a governing device to be part of the organisms homeostatic mechanism. Thus, a hypothesized negative feedback loop from the autonomic system should result in a decrease in exteroceptive input. In essence this is what is demonstrated in the Calloway and Thompson study. This would suggest that when threat is present the feedback system can act to prevent panic by re- ducing the magnitude of the perceived threat, i. e. sympathetic activity is provoked and the deviation in size constancy is interpreted as due to decreased exteroceptive input or a narrowing of awareness. Calloway and Thompson argue that support for a negative feed- back hypothesis resulting in decreased exteroceptive input, i. e. narrow- ing 0f awareness and reactivity, is found in the work of Lindeman and Finesinger (30), Krakov (25), and others. -1 H." I?“ Lindeman and Finesinger observed patients after adrenalin and mecholyn, a parasympathetic stimulant, were administered. They found that adrenalin was followed by a decrease in speech output, an increased preoccupation with self, and a general decrease in extero- ceptive activity particularly in 53 for whom adrenalin produced an anxiety attack. In contrast, mecholyn provoked increased speech and environmental interest. Funkenstein (20), working with schizophrenics, also found similar results from mecholyn. Krakov (25) found that the administr ation of adrenalin and anodal stimulation produced increased sensitivity to blue-green light, while the administration of pilocarpine, a parasympathetic stimulant, and cathodal stimulation produced in- creased orange-red sensitivity. In many respects the interpretation of a negative feedback loop and the resulting decreased awareness of reactivity to threatening stim- uli seems to correspond to the primary emphasis which perceptual de- fense research has placed on the avoidance reaction to threatening stimuli. Other studies, however, have suggested a positive feedback loop (14,17, 47) between autonomic discharge and perception. These findings have been abandoned by Calloway and Thompson. However, it may be premature to do so since the finding of positive feedback loops would seem to parallel those perceptual studies in which sensitization appears (10, 26,41, 42), sensitization and positive feedback both implying increased awareness and reactivity to threatening stimuli. These results and considerations can be viewed together, enabling us to arrive at an understanding of possible mechanisms that may oper- ate in perceptual defense behavior. Here we essentially follow the theoretical formulations of Chodorkoff and Chodorkoff (11). Threatening stimuli may be discriminated by the individual be- fore he fully recognizes them because the affective reaction of fear or anxiety and its physiology precede recognition. Alt erations in recog- nition thresholds. are thus affected as a consequence of the affective reaction and are mediated by feedback loops. Such a feedback loop would then operate between autonomic discharge and perception to either raise or lower recognition thresholds so that there will be decreased or increased awareness of threatening stimuli and corresponding change in reaction to such stimuli. The developmental basis for this can be understood within the psychoanalytic framework. Here it is assumed that preconscious per- ception is an early stage of the perceptual process ontogenetically speaking, and that with growth and maturation this early stage of per- ception, originally operating under the pleasure principle, may become inhibited in the sense that it is relegated to the control of the ego process and reality demands. Thus, in the course of ego development and its characteristic modes of adaptation, the ego develops a more selective function and becomes capable of delaying or suppressing percepts. Prior to maturation the organism responds more readily in terms of autonomic reactions than in terms of the higher nervous system effects. This would mean that threatening stimuli would lead to rela- n .EE. .nV 10 tively diffuse, gross, and overwhelming kinds of responses. In the course of development, then, we would expect that these autonomic reactions are gradually incorporated into the services of the higher centers so that what is threat:ning at first no longer produces overwhelming responses later. Feedback between autonomic nervous and the various exteroceptive systems is a probable mechanism by which the autonomic nervous system remains in the service of the high- er centers, which in turn maintain the organism's integrity. The re- sult of such feedback is threshold alteration of the exteroceptive system. Whether the alteration in threshold is in terms of an increase or decrease in thresholds probably depends upon the stimulus situation, the nature of the stimuli, learning experiences, and constitutional factors. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study is to lend support to the hypothesis that the threshold alterations characteristic of the perceptual defense reaction are influenced by autonomic feedback loops. That is, we assume that an affective reaction yielding a lower threshold precedes recognition and an ensuing feedback alters visual recognition thres- holds. Since this cannot be demonstrated directly at this time, our ex- perimental results will lead to inferential interpretations. This study will take its starting point just prior to where feed- back presumably occurs, i. e. sympathetic provocation. 58 under the 11 influence of sympathetic nervous system provocation will be subjected to visual recognition threshold procedures using neutral stimuli. If thresholds are different when we compare results obtained under sym- pathetic provocation with results obtained under neutral conditions, we shall infer that these threshold alterations are produced by feedback loops. Such findings of threshold alterations would parallel perceptual defense findings, a result that would be consistent with the hypothesis that the perceptual reaction is based on such mechanisms as have been discussed. The hypothesis to be tested may be stated specifically as follows: If sympathetic nervous system activity is provoked by the ad- ministration of a sympathomimetic drug, normal 55 will manifest a significant alteration in recognition thresholds for affectively neutral (non-threat provoking) verbal stimuli. The sympathomimetic drug to be investigated is Isoprel. 12 METHOD Subjects Sixty-nine patients at Dearborn General Medical and Surgical Veterans Hospital served as subjects in the two phases of this investi- gation. Forty-nine served in Experiment I and twenty in Experiment II. Their ages ranged from twenty to forty-five. Education of the various members ranged from completion of the eighth grade through comple- tion of seven years of college. Mean estimated intelligence, based on Wechsler Adult Intelligence, Vocabulary Scale, was 107. Only patients without records of previous or present neuropsychiatric disorders were used. Medical clearance was obtained for each patient prior to accept- ance as a subject in this investigation. All subjects had 20/20 or better vision. Patients wearing glasses had vision corrected to 20/20. A summary of the characteristics of the subjects may be found in Table A. Stimulus Materials and Apparatus Stimulus materials for this investigation consisted of two prac- tice lists of three five-letter words each, and two stimulus lists con- sisting of twelve five-letter words each. All words were neutral in content as determined by judgments of experts. The lists were con- structed in the following manner: One hundred five-letter words 13 selected from the Thorndike-Lorge Word Count List (44) were presented to four judges1 with instructions to select words that in their judgment would be neutral for a Veterans Administration population. Thirty words judged to be neutral were randomly assigned to two lists. Three words were designated as practice words for List I, and three were designated as practice words for List II. Apparatus A Gerbrands Mirror-Type Tachistoscope and Gerbrands Timer were used to present the stimuli. All stimuli were typed in capitals on No. 3 gray graded art paper by means of an IBM electric typewriter, Executive Continental Model. The timer was calibrated in one-hundred- ths of a second and allowed for variation from one-hundredth of a second to one second. The pre-exposure background was of the same material as the material on which the stimuli appeared. The size of the pre-exposure field was 7 x 71/2 in. with the fixation point, a cross of 1/2 in. x 1/2 in. , within a rectangle ofl in. x 31/2 in. centered in the pre-exposure field. The intensity of illumination of the pre-exposure field at the fixation point was 16 ft. candles. The size of the exposure field was 71/2 in. x 71/2 in. , with the stimulus words exposed through an aperture 1 in.. x 31/2 in. Prelimi- lJudges were advanced clinical trainees and staff members. All judges had been at the installation for more than ten months. l4 nary experimentation seemed to indicate that the unobstructed presen- tation of the stimuli resulted in too easy recognition with insufficient spread of latencies. In order to make the task more difficult six layers of clear acetate paper were placed over the aperture in front of the stimulus words, thus reducing clarity. The resulting intensity of illumination of the exposure field measured at the aperture was 9. 7 ft. candles. The distance of the exposure aperture from S's eye was approximately 23 inches. All illumination intensity measures were made with a Photovolt-Corporation Light Meter 200m. The Medicine -Independent Variable Ten milligram tablets of Isoprel Hydrochloride served as a sympathetic provocator. Control group subjects received a sugar coated placebo tablet. Placebo and drug were taken sublingually. Both ”medicines" were in sealed coded packages. The method of adminis- tration of the medicine in this study was similar to but no identical with a double blind procedure. Subjects were not aware of the nature of the medicine nor was E aware of which medicine was obtained by any one 5. E did know that 53 were receiving either a drug or a placebo. The drug Isoprel Hydrochloride was selected under medical ad- vice. Isoprel is a close congenar of epinephrine and is classified among those sympathomimetic amines having adrenergic releasing properties (38). Chemically Isoprel or Isopropylaternol Hydrochloride is 15 C11H17NO3HCL. Its most prominent actions are on the cardial vascular system and on the smooth muscles of the bronchial tree. Very small dosages cause an increase in heart rate, stroke volume and work per beat. The combined effects of the cardiac and peripheral actions in man result in a marked increase in cardiac output, variable effects on sys- tolic pressure and a fall of diastolic pressure. The powerful bronchio- dilator properties make it useful in the treatment of asthmatics. O'-'er dosages may lead to headache, nauseau, nervousness, tremor, dizzi- ness, weakness, sweating and vomiting (21, 36). The drcg is adminis- tered sublingually, the time elapsing before such administration pro- ducing some effect on the body 30 to 60 seconds or sooner. Its duration of action is dependent upon the condition of the patient and may vary from 1 up to4 hours, that is an asthmatic may have relief of his symptoms with one tablet up to four hours. The effect on a normal person may wear off in an hour or so. Ten milligrams, like any potent drug, is suffi- cient to produce effects on normal people (39). Because no literature was available on the effect of this drug on the eye mechanism a pre- liminary investigation was carried out. 2 With an N of 5 no consistent differences were found under drug and non drug conditions on pupillary changes, accomodation or visual acuity (Table B). Z The measurements were made by the Staff Ophthalmologist at Dear- born Veterans Administration Hospital. 16 Experiment I Experimental De sign: Twenty-one pairs of subjects matched on the basis of performance on List I were utilized in this investigation. Seven subjects who had no matches were eliminated. Each subject was tested on two consecutive days. On the second day, each member of a pair received either a drug or a placebo, and then was tested on List 11. Mean ages, years of ed- ucation, and estimated intelligence for the subjects, according to their experimental treatment, are summarized in Table A. The general experimental situation is depicted in Figure l. The experiment was conducted in a room equipped with dark shades. The shades were drawn and the room was illuminated by two 100 watt over- head bulbs. Figure 2 illustrates the placement of the lighting relative to the subject and the apparatus. Session I: At the beginning of the first session, all subjects were tested for visual acuity using the Snellen Eye Chart. Following this, each subject was seated in front of the tachistoscope and given the following instructions: I am going to show you some words at varying rates of speed with this instrument. 3 Your task is to tell me what you see each time they are shown. You may not be able to see them clearly at first, but I would like you to report what you see 3(Subjects referred to the tachistoscope as. . . the eye blinker or peep box. Photo by Medical Illustration Dept. Dearborn Veteran's Hospital renew) PLACEMENT or LIGHTING RELATIVE TO SUBJECT AND APPARATUS Subject Apparatus EXperimenter 0V e rhead Lighting 18 s a u v I .3 'H'. 19 each time they are shown. You may guess if you like. Are there any questions? Next, each subject received practice List I to familiarize him with the visual recognition procedure. After the practice list was ad- ministered, each subject was tested with the twelve stimulus words of List I. The method of limits, used in an ascending series of duration was employed to determine the thresholds for each word. The initial exposure was set at .01 seconds and increased in .01 second steps until the word had been correctly identified on two successive exposures. Threshold values for each word were recorded, and mean threshold values on the twelve words were used to obtain the matched pairs for the experimental session. Ses sion 11: At the beginning of the second session, each member of a pair received a coded package containing either 10 mgm of Isoprel or a placebo, along with the following instructions: This time we would like to see what effect this medicine will have on the various procedures we have here. . .The medicine is one that is commonly used in the hospital, and is not harm- ful. You do not swallow it, you merely place it under your tongue. . . As you know, we have checked with your doctor and he has consented to its use. We hope that this procedure will give us some information about each of you, and that it will be of some value in understanding future patients as they enter the hospital. . . Now let us turn to the task. . .As you remember in yesterday's session, I am going to show you some words at varying rates of speed with this. instrument. Your task is to tell me what you see each time they are shown. You may not be able to 2.0 see them clearly at first, but I would like you to tell me what you see each time they are shown. . . You may guess if you like. . . Are there any questions? Relatively few subjects asked questions about the nature of the medicine. Those who did were told that the experimenter did not know. There were no refusals. Approximately 30 seconds after sublingual administration of drug or placebo, each subject received the three practice words for List II. Immediately following the practice words, List 11 was admin- istered. As in Session I, the method of limits used in an ascending series was employed to determine the thresholds for each word. The initial exposure was set at .01 seconds and increased in .01 second steps until the word had been correctly identified on two successive exposures. Recognition thresholds and pre-recognition hypotheses were recorded. In order to insure representativeness of sampling and to reduce possibility of extraneous variables that may have operated in a matching procedure a second experiment was run. Experiment Il Twenty subjects randomly assigned to either drug or placebo in the exPerimental condition, regardless of their performance on List I were used in the second study. As in Experiment I, all subjects were run on two consecutive days. Mean ages, years of education, and estimated intelligence for the subjects are summarized in Table A. 21 The general experimental situation and procedure was essen- tially the same as in Experiment I. As already noted, the subjects in this experiment received drug or placebo regardless of their perfor- mance on List 1*. Drug and placebos had been previously randomly placed in packages by a colleague and coded. Code numbers were re- corded by E. *Ten SS received placebo and ten 55 received isoprel and List 31. 22 RESULTS Experiment _I: Mean recognition thresholds for the two stimulus lists for match- ed subjects served as the basic data in this investigation. Table I summarizes the mean recognition thresholds for List I and List II for each subject according to the experimental conditions. Since the subjects were not exact matches, difference scores for each member of a pair were calculated. Mean recognition threshold values on List I and List II were used to calculate the difference scores. Table 2 summarizes the difference scores for each member of a pair according to his designation in the experimental condition. To obtain matched pairs and therefore matched groups, subjects were paired on the basis of their performance on List I. A statistical test (45) of the assumption of matched groups was then carried out by means of a iratio. The resulting t ratio of .03 for 40 degrees of freedom was found not significant. The two groups may, therefore, be considered as randomly selected from a single population. A t_ test was also computed between the mean recognition thres- hold values of the placebo group on List I and List II. This was done to test the possibility that the mere receiving of something in the guise of medicine may have produced changes. The resulting: ratio of . 36 for 20 degrees of freedom was not significant. The mere taking of a sub— stance into the mouth may, therefore, be considered as having no sig- nificant effect on thresholds. inn—513M“ in» gamma—u. TABLE I. MEAN RECOGNITION THRESHOLDS OF 21 SUBJECTS BEFORE AND AFTER ADMINISTRATION OF ISOPREL AS COMPARED WITH CORRESPONDING VALUES OF 21 COMPARISON SUBJECTS RECEIVING PLACEBOS Experimental Control List I ._.- List II _ .Ligt'k __ List 11 No Drug Isoprel No Drug Placebo 14. 58 10.66 14. 58 14. 33 19.17 23.83 19.92 14.83 7.58 6.75 7.75 9.08 10.08 6.75 10.83 10.08 8.25 6.42 8.17 8.00 8.91 8.00 8.92 7.83 13.08 11.08 13.33 13.08 13.58 14.92 13.50 16.75 13. 58 22.25 13.75 20.25 6.75 5.17 7.08 8.67 10.75 10.83 11.42 15.58 36.42 8.75 36.42 31.83 6.33 5.33 6.66 6.75 9.67 6.08 9.92 9.83 23.83 21.08 24.41 24.92 15.50 11.00 15.25 12.08 5.25 5.33 5.42 5.67 17.08 12.16 17.02 14.00 10. 67 8.08‘ 10. 83 8.25 6.50 8.17 6.00 6.33 11.91 6.58 11.50 9.91 269. 39 219.22 272. 68 268.05 TABLE 2. DIFFERENCE S CORES FOR EACH S UBJECT ACCORDING TO THE EX- PERIMENTAL CONDITIONS 1N EXPERIMENT I Experimental Group Control Group (Isoprel) (Placebo) 3.92 .25 4.66 5.09 6.75 1.33 3.33 .75 1.83 .17 .91 1.09 2.00 .25 1.34 3.25 8.67 6.50 1.50 1.59 .08 4.16 27.67 4.59 1.00 .09 3.59 .09 2.75 .51 4.50 3.17 .08 .25 4.92 3.02 2.59 2.58 1.67 .33 1.33 1:32 80.25 40.65 24 a. par-1A1?! 0‘. r‘T&\I~. - u: 25 A _t_test for matched pairs utilizing the calculated difference scores was used to test the major hypothesis of this investigation. The resultant _t_ratio of 2. 11 for 20 degrees of freedom was found sig- nificant at beyond the .05 level of confidence. Thus, the null hypothe- sis of no effect may confidently be rejected. Experiment 11: Mean threshold values for the subjects on List I, the initial measure, and for List 11 under the experimental conditions are summa- rized in Table 3. The results were subjected to an analysis of co- variance (13). An analysis of variance was first computed between the mean recognition threshold values for the two experimental groups on List I. The resultant F of .00052 (Table 4) for 1 and 18 degrees of freedom was not significant. TABLE 4. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MEAN THRESHOLD VALUES FOR THE DRUG AND PLACEBO GROUP ON LIST I Source of Sum of Mean Variation Squares df Squares F Between groups . 01 1 . 01 . 00052 Within groups 348. 33 18 19. 35 Total 348. 34 19 A second analysis of variance was computed between the two ex- perimental groups for List 11. The resultant F of . 05 (Table 5) was not significant. 26 TABLE 3. SUMMARY OF MEAN THRESHOLD VALUES FOR THE SUBJECTS ACCORDING TO THEIR EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNATION ON LIS T I AND LIST 11 IN EXPERIMENT II Experimental Group Control Group No Drug Isoprel No Drug. Placebo List 1 List 11 List I List II 17.67 14.00 8.92 7.17 12.75 10.42 10. 33 9. 50 11.33 7.67 10.58 8.25 11.67 11.58 16.08 15.50 13.75 13.42 25.17 22.25 12.25 9.42 9.08 9.08 9.25 6.17 6. 67 6.42 8.42 5. 83 9.00 10.42 9.08 8.42 , 15.92 16.42 16.08 14.00 10.67 9.17 122.25 100.93 122.42 114.18 27 TABLE 5. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF MEAN THRESHOLD VALUES ON LIST 11 FOR THE DRUG AND PLACEBO GROUPS Source of Sum of Mean Variation Squares df Squares F Between groups 8.78 1 8.78 .05 Within groups 313. 91 18 17.44 Total 322. 69 19 A summary of the analysis of the total sum of cross products may be found in Table 6. TABLE 6. SUM OF SQUARES AND CROSS PRODUCTS FOR THE TWO GROUPS OF SUBJECTS ON LIST I AND FOR LIST II UNDER THE EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS. Source of Sum Sum Sum Variation df List I (List I) (List II) List 11 Between groups 1 .01 .11 8. 78 Within groups 18 348.33 315. 22 313.91 Total 19 348.34 315. 33 322.69 From the data of Table 6 the total sums of squares of estimate ( 3 7 .24) and the sums of squares of errors of estimate within groups (28. 64) were computed and used to obtain the adjusted sum of squares between groups (8. 60). A summary of the analysis of covariance may be found in Table 7. 28 TABLE 7. ANALYSIS OF COVARIANCE OF MEAN THRESHOLD VALUES FOR THE PLACEBO AND DRUG GROUPS Source of Sums of Squares of Mean Variation Errors of Estimate df Square F Total 37.24 18 Within groups 28. 64 17 1. 68 Adjusted means 8. 60 1 8. 60 5. 12 The obtained F value of 5. 12 for 1 and 17 degrees of freedom was found to be significant at beyond the .03 level of confidence. The correlation within and between groups were found to be .95 and .13 respectively. In summary, an analysis of variance was computed between the performance of the drug and placebo subjects on List I. The variation between the two groups was found not significant. Thus, it would appear that differences between the mean threshold values may be accounted for on the basis of chance variations and that the groups are random samples from a common population. The results of an analysis of variance between the same two groups for List 11 under the experimental condition also was not signifi- cant. Accordingly, the hypothesis that the groups are random samples from a common population must be considered tenable. The results of the analysis of covariance procedure yielded an F value of 5.12 for l and 17 degrees of freedom. This value has a 29 probability of less than .03, and is significant. Accordingly it would appear that the differences in the means of the two experimental groups with List II cannot be accounted for by differences in mean level of initial ability as measured by List I since the means of the groups on List 11 have been adjusted by the analysis to a common mean initial level of performance on List I. The correlation within groups of .95 indicates that there is a decided tendency for 55 who were high in initial p -rformance on List I also to be high when tested under the experimental conditions. The be- tween group correlation of . 13, on the other hand, would indicate that there is no decided tendency for groups with higher initial means on List I to have a higher mean under the experimental condition with List 11. The results of the analysis of covariance procedure yielded a level of significance such that the null hypothesis of no effect could be rejected. Inspection of the data revealed that the alterations were in the direction of lowered thresholds. 30 DISCUSSION The results of the two experiments of this investigation are viewed as supporting the hypothesis that "if sympathetic activity is provoked by the administration of a sympathetico-active drug, normal 55 will manifest significant alterations in recognition thresholds for neutral (non-threat provoking) verbal stimuli. " Thus a comparison of the control and experimental groups of the two experiments of this investigation indicated that the introduction of 10 mgm of Isoprel, the main independent variable, resulted in significant effects on recog- nition thresholds. ' While control subjects tended to improve, i. e. obtain lowered thresholds on List 11, this tendency was not significant, whereas experimental 55 obtained significantly lowered threshold values. In this study, then, it has been demonstrated that when a sym- pathomim etic drug is administered 85 manifest significant alterations in recognition thresholds for neutral stimuli. In general, the alteration seems to be in the direction of decreased thresholds. These results are seen as consistent with the view that thres- hold alterations characteristic of perceptual defense reactions are re sultants of autonomic feedback loops. This study took its starting point just prior to where feedback was presumed to occur, that is sympathetic provocation. Under drug conditions threshold change . m... .1“, u‘ 1, 31 appeared and it was assumed that these changes were related to feed- back loops. The sympathomimetic drug employed in this investigation was presumed to produce physiological changes which are similar to the components of anxiety. In perceptual defense studies where 53 re- spond to taboo or threatening stimuli, anxiety is also assumed to be evoked. In these cases anxiety may occur prior to recognition since the threshold for affective reaction, anxiety included, is lower than those for recognition (7,11, 27, 28). The physical changes of anxiety that is produced in response to taboo or personally threatening words we assume to be relatively similar to those that are produced’by an artificial sympathetic provocator. In this study the threshold alterations produced were in the direction of decreasing recognition thresholds. Such results appear similar to ”sensitization" as it occurs in more traditional perceptual defense studies. However, it should be made clear that responses to threat of so called sensitizers and of the Ss in the present study may be quite different. In those studies where sensitizers and avoiders are reported, it is presumed that 85 were responding to stimuli that have been previously associated with threatening situations. Such an assumption is not tenable here. Calloway and Thompson have shown that when sympathetic activity is provoked a significant decrease in apparent size of distant objects is obtained. These investigators interpret their findings as La. .1 ...,: P.- 32 support for a negative feedback hypothesis. The finding of lowered thresholds under the level of drug administered in the present investi- gation are, as already noted, consistent with a hypothesized positive feedback loop between autonomic discharge and the perceptual mechan- ism. Positive feedback seems to suggest increased exteroceptive in- put, and increased awareness. It is not clear why the results of the present study do not support the interpretation of Calloway and Thompson. There are several possible explanations, one of which is differences in drug level. In the Calloway and Thompson study 85 were instructed to breathe the fumes of a broken amyl nitrite vial "until they felt uneasy. " Such a procedure does not provide for control oser concentrations of drug from indi- vidual to individual. In the present investigation experimental 85 received identical dosages--10 mgm sublingual tablets of Isoprel. If the concentrations of the drug in the Calloway and Thompson study were greater than in the present study, it is not unlikely that still larger dosages of Isoprel would lead to greater discomfort and possibly elevated thresholds. Such findings would be similar to avoidant behavior in perceptual de- fense studies. In this case a negative feedback hypothesis might be invoked. Only one of the 55 of the present study was reported to have had severe side effects, although several 55 reported some discomfort. Inspection of the code No. of this case revealed that he had received the drug and that his thresholds on List 11 were higher. 33 Other factors of importance leading to different interpretation in the two experiments may have been the greater subjectivity of dis- tance judgments, individual reaction sensitivities and difference in the pharmacological properties of the drugs employed. One serious criticism of the Calloway and Thompson study was their choice of drug (46). Although amyl nitrite does stimulate the heart and has vasodilation properties it is not a sympathomimetic. As such one cannot assume that it mimics the sympathetic nervous system in its adrenergic releasing properties as these occur under physiological conditions of stress and anxiety. Further, Calloway and Thompson have not convincingly demon- strated that their results were not explainable in terms of pupillary changes produced by the drug. This too is a failing of the present ex- periment. A preliminary study of changes in pupillary sizes, accommo- dation, and visual acuity with an N of five under drug and non-drug conditions revealed no consistent differences. Although no physiological or psychological measures of threat or anxiety were included in this study, it should be noted that the find- ing of lowered thresholds for the experimental 55 are consistent with numerous other studies (12, 31, 34) that have suggested that under cer~ tain conditions moderate threat and anxiety may be facilitating. One factor commonly overlooked in experimental studies is the meaning of the task to the subjects. Although no quantitative data was accumulated here the spontaneous comments of the subjects, ward and 34 medical personnel, all indicated that the 85 viewed th: procedure as a test of mental alertness, reaction time, and visual acuity. Viewed in this light one might conjecture that 85 were set to respond rapidly and accurately. The effect of Isoprel then may have produced physiological components of set. Such an explanation of the data would be consonant with Freeman's views of the organism responding in his environment (18,19). . Research which is suggested by this study would involve the incorporation of additional variables in a much larger design. It was I previously suggested that a different drug level might have yielded elevated thresholds. An examination of this possibility seems impera- tive if we are to arrive at a fuller understanding of some of the mechan- isms operating in perceptual defense. The present study involved the use of neutral verbal stimuli. Other investigations could be designed to include comparisons of neutral and personally-relevant, threatening stimuli under drug and non-drug conditions. Finally, efforts should not be limited to studies of vision. Other sensory modalities and psychological functions are equally in need of inve stigation. 35 SUMMARY The present investigation was designed to test the hypothesis Ki; . that so-called perceptual defense phenomena may be influenced by l ‘1 autonomic feedback loops. On the assumption that a sympathomimetic ‘ V1 . -. drug activates segments of the autonomic system in a manner similar to that which is widely assumed to be the case under conditions of "J "t f-‘n‘ ‘—. anxiety, two experiments were conducted on two groups of adult sub- jects to determine whether perceptual changes similar to perceptual defense phenomena would occur under drug conditions as compared with no drug. In Experiment I experimental and control subjects were paired on initial performances in a tachistoscopic word recognition situation, the words used being emotionally neutral. In a second session experimental subjects received 10 mgm of the drug Isoprel, whereas controls received placebos prior to the recognition test on any second set of verbal stimuli. Statistical analysis revealed no signif- icant change from situation 1 to situation 2, whereas the change in the case of experimental subjects could not have occurred by chance. Correspondingly, the difference between control and experimental groups on the second recognition test could not have occurred by chance. It is concluded that Isoprel significantly affects the recognition 36 threshold of normal subjects. The direction of the change appears to be in the direction of lowered threshold and seems to agree with the hypothesis of positive feedback in perceptual defense studies. - r! 18E» -' 10. ll. 37 REFERENCES Allport, F. D. Theories of perception and the concept of structure. New York: Wiley, 1955. Blake, R. R. and Ramsey, G. V. Perception--an approach to persona1i_t_y. New York: Ronald Press, 1951. Blum, G. Perceptual defense revisited. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1955, 51, 24-29. Bricker, P. D. and Chapanis, A. Do incorrectly perceived tachistoscopic stimuli convey some information, Psychol. Rev. , 60, 181-188. Bruner, J. S. Emotional selectivity in perception and reaction. J. Peri, 1947, 56, 69-77. Bruner, J. S. and Krech, D. Perception and personality. Durham: Duke University Press, 1949. Bruner, J. S. and Postman, L. Perception, cognition and be- havior. J. Pers., 1949, 18, 14-31. Calloway, E. and Thompson, S. V. Sympathetic activity and perception: an approach to the relationships between autonomic activity and personality. Psychosom. Med. , 1953, 15, 443-455. Cannon, W. B. The wisdom of the body. New York: W. W. Norton, 1932. Chodorkoff, B. Self perception, perceptual defense, and adjust- ment. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1954, 49, 508-512. Chodorkoff, B. and Chodorkoff, J. Perceptual defense: an integration with other research findings. J. gen. Psychol. , in press. 12. l3. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 38 Courts, F. A. Relations between experimentally induced mus— cular tension and memorization. J. exp. Psychol. , 1941, 28, 235-258. Ed wards, A. L. Experimental design in psychological research. New York: Rinehart, 1950. Eppinger, H. and Hess, L. Vagotonia: a clinical study in vegetative neurology. New York: Nerv. and ment. dis. monog_r. , 1917. Eriksen, C. W. Case for perceptual defense. Psychol. Rev., 1954, 61, 175-182. Eriksen, C. W. Subception--fact or artifact. Psychol. Rev., 1956, 63, 74-80. Fleetwood, M. F. and Diethelm, O. Emotions and biochemical findings in alcoholisms. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1951, 108, 433-438. Freeman, G. L. Set or perceptual defense? J. exp. Psychol. , 1954, 48, 283-288. Freeman, G. L. T_he energetics of human behavior. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1948. Funkenstein, D. H., Greenblatt, M. and Solomon, H. C. A test which predicts the clinical effects of electric shick treatment on schizophrenic patients. Amer. J. Psychiat. , 1950, 106, 889. Goodman, L. and Gilman, A. The pharmacological basis of therapeutics. A textbook of pharmacology, toxicology and therapeutics for physicians and medical students. New York: Macmillan, 1955. Hirschstein, R. The significance of characteristic autonomic nervous system responses in the adjustment, change and out- come in schizophrenia. J. nerv. ment. Dis. , 1955, 122, 254-262. — Howes, D. H. and Solomon, R. L. Anote on McGuinnies' "Emotionality and perceptual defense". Psychol. Rev. , 57, 229—234. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 39 Kempe, J. E, An experimental investigation of the relationship between certain personality characteristics and physiological responses to stress in a normal population. (Doctoral dissertation unpublished). Michigan State University, 1956. Krakov, S. V. Cited by London, I. D. Contemporary psychol- ogy in the Soviet Union. Science, 1951, 114, 227-233. Lacy, O. W., et a1. Foreknowledge as a factor affecting perceptual defense. J. exp. Psychol., 1953, 45, 169-174. Lazarus, R. Subception--fact or artifact - a reply to Erickson. 1956, 63, 5.“ Lazarus and McLeary. Autonomic discrimination without aware- ness; a study of subception. Psychol. Rev. , 1951, 58, 113-122. Lindemann, E. The subjective response of psychoneurotic patients to adrenalin and mecholyn. Psychosom. Med. , 1940, 2, 231-248. Lindemann, E. and Finesinger, J. E. The effect of adrenalin and mecholyn in states of anxiety in psychoneurotic patients. Amer. J. Psychiat., 1938, 95, 353-370. Mandler, G. and Sarason, S. B. A study of anxiety and learning. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 47, 166-173. McGuinnies, E. Emotionality and perceptual defense. Psychol. Rev., 1949, 56, 244-251. McGuinnies, E. and Sherman, H. Generalization of perceptual defense. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1952, 47, 81-85. McKnelly, T. T. The effect of anxiety level upon stimulus generalization in paired-associate learning and recognition memory. 7Doctoral dissertation unpublished). Michigan S—t-afiollege, 1952. Murdock, B. B. Perceptual defense and threshold measurements. J. Pers., 1954, 22, 565-571. Osol, A. and Farrar, G. The dispensatory of the United States o_f_America, 25th edition, Lippencott Co. , 1955. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 40 Postman, L., Bronson, W. C. and Grapper, G. L. Is there a mechanism of perceptual defense? J. Abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1946, 48, 215-224. Salter, W. T. Atextbook of pharmacology. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia: 1952. Sayers, R. V. Personal communication, 1956. Selye, H. Stress, Montreal A. C. T. A. , 1950. Siegman, A. Some factors associated with the visual threshold for taboo words. J. Clin. Psychol., 1956, 12, 282-286. Stein, K. B. Perceptual defense and perceptual sensitization under neutral and involved conditions. J. Pers., 21, 467-478. Taub, N. Abnormalities of behavior in C. P. Stone (ed.) Annual review of Psychology. Stanford, California: Annual Review, Inc. , 1951, 217-238. Thorndike, E. L. and Lorge, I. The teachers wordbook of _3___0,000 words. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1944. Underwood, B. Duncan, C. P. and Cotton, J. W. Elementary statistics; Appleton-Craft, 1954. Weed, M. Personal communication. Wenger, M. A. Preliminary study of significance of measures of autonomic balance. Psychosom. Med., 9, 301, 1947. White, R. W. Abnormalities of behavior. C. P. Stone (ed.) Annual review of Psychology, Stanford, California: Annual Review, Inc. , 1953, 273-293. Wolf, S. and Wolff, H. G. Human gastric function. Oxford Press, 1947. APPENDIX 42 TABLE A SUMMARY OF CHARACTERISTICS OF PATIENT POPULATION EXPERIMENT I Drug Placebo Age 1. Q. Education Occupation Age 1. Q. Education Occupation — Self-emp. 21 ’3‘ 10 Truck Driver 27 99 10 Gardner Helper in 36 118 10 Power plant 36 112 14 Bookkeeper 24 - 14 Bartender 28 99 14 Student 41 94 8 Factory wk. 26 150 16 Chem. eng. 31 120 19 Optometrist 25 112 12 Utility wk. 20 106 10 Student 22 118 13 Floor planner 24 - 13 Student 27 105 12 Inspect. 23 106 12 Student 30 - 10 Steel Mill 24 106 12 Tool maker 25 105 15 Student 29 107 ll 45 120 13 Printer 44 88 12 Grocery 31 - 12 Soldier 28 99 9 Machine opr. 25 117 12 Mechanic 32 93 12 Dept.Sa1es Mg 28 87 11 Shoe repair 31 93 8 lns. Agent 37 129 12 Supervisor 33 106 10 Salesman 45 96 39 123 14 Cost. Accnt. 20 95 9 Radio opr. 24 112 12 Const. insp. 26 106 13 Clerk 26 89 12 Student 23 94 12 None 23 106 9 Const. work 26 111 12 Student 33 103 13 Carpenter 32 111 12 None 24 95 9 Factory wk. 21 106 11 Laborer Mean: 29 104 12 29 108 12 * Those subjects without estimate I. Q. had been discharged prior to testing. 43 TABLE A SUMMARY OF CHARACTERISTICS OF PATIENT POPULATION EXPERIMENT II 1'“, j Drug Placebo . Age I.Q. Education Occupation Age I.Q. Education Occupation 39 106 11th Polisher 26 105 14 Student Semi-Skilled 27 117 14 Student 26 105 ll laborer B. S. 24 hr. 23 101 12 None 24 - l7 stu.Cred. mast. 25 - * 12 Coal 31 99 12 Press Opr. 29 99 11 Clerk 24 101 10 Groc. Clerk 38 106 16 Mechanic 27 129 12 Bus Opr. 23 . 106 8 Cook 26 117 16 B.A. Teacher 28 - 10 Mechanic 23 101 12 None Adv. Dir. of 27 123 16 Publishing 23 106 11 Student Inspect. mo- 38 106 9 tion picture plant 24 95 11 Factory wk. Mean Values 29.7 108 11.9 25.4 106 12.6 * Those subjects without estimate 1. Q. had been discharged prior to testing. Total Mean Values 1. Q. 107 Yrs. of Educ. 11.9 Age 28.5 44 TABLE B INDIVIDUAL DATA MEASUREMENTS OF VISUAL ACUITY, PUPILLIARY SIZE AND ACCOMMODATION UNDER DRUG AND NON DRUG CONDITIONS Subjects Best Visual Acuity Pupil Size Accommodation 1 Before O. D 20/20 2.5mm 8.5 diopters O.S 20/20-4 2.5 9.0 After O.D 20/30-1 2.5 8.0 O.S 20/30-1 2.5 8.5 2 Before O.D 20/20 3.0 10.0 0.5 20/30-2 3.0 11.0 After O.D 20/20 3. 0 10.0 O.S 20/20-2 3.0 11 0 3 Before O.D 20/20-2 2.5 7.0 O.S 20/20-2 2.5 6.0 After O.D 20/20-2 3. 0 6.0 0.5 20/20-2 3.0 7. 0 4 Before O.D 20/20-2 2. 0 6. 0 O.S 20/20-2 2.0 5.0 After O.D 20/20-1 2.0 5. 0 O.S 20/20-2 2.0 4. 5 5 Before O. D 20/20-1 3. 0 6.25 O.S 20/20-1 3.0 6. 75 After .D 20/20-1 3.0 6.25 00 .S 20/20-1 3.0 7.25 sag-aunt.” 4.: vl‘.‘ \ \ TABLE C PRACTICE AND STIMULUS WORDS 45 List 1 Practice 1. 2. 3. 10. ll. 12. CHAIR PLAIN SHADE Stimulus EVENT DERBY SLEET PLAID FOGGY SEDAN VOWEL TALLY PECAN MOOSE BEGIN SCALE 1. 2. 3. '1. 10. ll. 12. List II Practice PAPER MONTH SHADE Stimulus CHESS ‘ WINDY DOZEN TREND VOCAL FLINT ERASE NORTH PEDAL SYRUP MURAL LEVER 4“.“ Mom wm ..ol'. (in: Iledic ne Code Jumber “lard IQL __ Hosoital Diagnosis“ __ N-mcflw= _-_ “‘ 77""“"‘ ‘lducs tion Occupation Age fl Vision Mice ‘Jorés lgg~VngoL Practicg 'Jords _1_.._9_g Valueg 1._ __1. __ Fan 2. = is _ ' 3. .__.__.....__..___._. .______ 3. __ i.ean flean _ Stimulug tiorde_ §tinm1us loggL 1.: 1. _~T c ._ Ls: ——. v 2. j .= as» 3 .== 3. fl 3. W 40.....i....__.__ EL; :2: 5. - 54 ,- 6. __, 61 . . 7L 8. ._.._____. as: 9. 9;. 10. 10._. ___ 11. L w s like 12.# . ' 13, II Mean Mean _____ 13a to solve I ‘, I L a a. o J-........ n-.~_,.,. . a , . . . . . ‘ . . . . . ‘ Art I o' .0... .o- .o---.'-.m o..‘.. v- ‘O-‘Ql’l- . * a....... . -. .,, . . .. . \ o .v.‘ _' v c.‘ ‘3‘ n . .. .,« 0 00 ' ' 1 . . o .. ..'. . I , I .0 . a ., ,‘ _ . ,. I ..~......- . . . u‘. 0. ' g , ‘ . . . . n . u- . . .. -.. . -¢--p .- p l n . - - .a O p . . -. . f'l" 0 O. - ' I0: 3 IOW* - - I .n , g r . v ' O I -a...-n -‘... .. . .. . ' . . . - . .....~ -- I '1 n f - . s... o .0... v. .-.7 a 0.. - . ..¢ ‘« I"' ‘ - 0" u ‘- ‘ ' 9 o . . v. .. a .. ['1' a 7 . . . . o ., . . x ._ " . . .. . . . I . ‘u. ,a:.. «wt. ' . o It. , ' . .. _. .. _a .--.o. a. - - u..-.. ail‘r-I- 7‘ . vs- ~Ip n-o '~~ o - . - ' ,uq.-.~ Q's. v. .. .0. .'~. .u. ,.~ 0 ' ,.__ . -. c ~- lo . ~, ,,..,., ,.,., v... _. cos. .n, - .v ,. , I" ._ ,,.. , .,.... _.. , ,‘ .. , . -. .. ....—. - .~. - ¢ . -~“--. . - n.. s ‘. . - . - o- - I O .. . o. . u- . A. .. numglb-oo...o‘ In. . u.- - ~ I. . r-».| .. , o . . ..- - - . .I . ‘.--I n I. u . - . n. .n- r .. on- - . h ' - . . . ‘ ~ . . I - -‘ C... ‘ ‘ t ‘ D .- - . --. .. cv- . - - «a . ‘ . . . O y. a... .. ~.. . . . . . . . I1:- - I. o . '~’I .. IV‘ - O ,. . . .,. . .. _.. ,_ ,_ . . . _ _ D ‘ o o, n u- .a 0 . . . u“. .~c .u .. o g... ,.,. a.. -5 .‘u n . .. . . . . uni . . '...~ .. .- --_I-.,-.~-.- a ... ..\ .1» ~ .. . n. ‘ . . 'wu. -~y.- . ~ .. . .,...‘.'v‘ n..nn .... .. , h‘ . . . . . .. g.- ,. .- ,....... , .. . ‘ ..,. . .. . ‘. . .. . v 4 ° .1 In. OJ .f 5“]. "71111111111111.1111I