. . - W- 1-“ , . .. 2'1”??? rv—vazz- 5* .. IWWu Jar.» * ’ army” ~, 1 8‘! I ‘ V ‘W "‘ Q "W ~ ifh‘mzkv‘.‘ 25g. " . 2;: : s? .15.»: -r‘- Y3: Me: 463 '. ‘11" 13%”,1-3 ‘u liiffg‘m ’ _ . t ‘62:? ‘3-2 3‘” .'-3‘rh..t.“.1m.uu‘7 C. r' .. " ‘ ‘ .- n. .5, . - "t ¥(..g,.‘..r 5.1:“: 2.33%;an 3:: ."' $9?$n I”; R q '5: ’3': LL 1 LL”: . ‘1 1.1?! .n' . I" . ,T V _ ~— 45,. 'i fig u $.23]..- .~ 4.2% . , 1 . .. .. 1 . > it 3;: ».. ‘ " 4: -~ F L pcuit r n“ , C ”v. '.._! .. . . :L‘::' V . -u,-. r 1m . . . .u 111.”? I ' . ~ .. (fr A . -.'\r v: 4.1"?! "_,-¢4_~ L - t d. ‘ I'il'J' . a fire 35:3 v30. “1'50: wt” ?’ 11' .L;: . “MP?" 32"- ‘r: ' 1.. :‘WJHI IND"; 5‘2'3'“ ”Alf, “‘4‘fl‘ps A vm.~..‘.--.". .'» -. 'v€‘ . 7-". {3“ 12:4;31. . ‘tzl" , A 1 . .V 'r v ’ :‘J‘zv 0‘1: ' " I’I :v'qV-u w- “MHJ ' vlflhfinf— , \ignmugnflguluww This is to certify that the thesis entitled "A Comparison of Fence" and Nonfencers by Certain Psychomotor, Space Perception and Anthropometric Measures" presented bg William Russell Pierson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MA Physical Education C - degree In Major professor Date _ W 0469 .‘Y‘d A COMPARISON OF FENCERS AND NONFENCERS BY CERTAIN PSYCHOMOTOR, SPACE PERCEPTION, AND AN THROPOME TRIC MEASURES By William Rus sell Pierson A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State‘Collegegof Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Departmentmf Physical Education, Health, and Recreation for Men 1953 3115515 (9/12/53 ACKNOWLEDGMEN TS To the following persons, whose cooperation and guidance have made this study possible, the experimenter wishes to express his gratitude: Dr. Henry Montoye, Mr. Charles R. Schmitter, and other members of the Physical Education Staff of Michigan State College; Dr. L. L. Thurstone, of the University of North Carolina; Mr. Bela deTuscan, of the Salle deTuscan; Mr. Richard Berry, Michigan A.F.L.A. and Western Conference fencing champion; Mr. William H. Pierson, who did the photography; the subjects, who frequently inconvenienced themselves in the interests of the study; and Ann, David, and Susan, who must at times have felt themselves bereft of husband and father. WOROP. 304201 TABLE OF CONTEN TS CHAPTER I. INTRODUC TION Statement of the Problem ............... . Purpose of the Study ............ . . . . . . . Need for the Study ..................... Definitions of Terms Used ............... Nonfencer ......................... Feiicer . . . . Movement time ..................... Finge r-p re s 5 re action time ............. Movement wre action ......... . ......... Discrimination and choice movement- reactiontime ............ Discriminatory re action ............... Serial reaction ....... . . . . . . . ........ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CHAPTER II. III. IV. Limitations of the Study ................. GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE ....... Testing Environment . ................... The.Apparatus ...................... . . The stimulus unit ...... . ............. The response unit ................ . . . The control unit ..................... Recording unit with stimulus ~producing mechanism ............. . .......... The Subjects ......................... Organization and Analysis ........... . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............. Literature on Fencing ................... Psychomotor Activities Literature .......... Serial action tests ..... . .............. Primary abilities in visual thinking ....... Literature on Anthropometry . . . ........... Related Studies ....................... Summary RESULTS ..... . ........... . ........... The P sychomoto r Me as ure 3 ............... 10 10 11 ll 12 l4 14 16 18 20 22 29 38 39 41 42 49 51 51 CHAP TER Discrimination and choice movement reaction ............. . ............ Finger-press reaction ......... . ....... Discriminatory reaction ............... McCloy .“Blocks Test" ................ Thurstone ”S” test ................ . . The ”Unknowns” . ................. . . Summary . . . ....................... The Anthropometric Measures . . . ......... Summary . . . . . ..................... Further Analysis of the Data .............. Discussion of Results .............. . . . . . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . ....... Summary ............................ Conclusions .................... . ..... Recommendations ...................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................... APPENDIXES ................................. 53 53 54 54 57 57 58 6O 66 66 68 71 71 71 73 75 84 LIST OF TABLES TABLE I. Significance of F and "t" for Psychomotor Scores ................................ II. Significance of F and "t" for Anthropometric Measurements .................. . ........ III. Interco rrelation s ......................... IV. Raw Scores for Fencer Group ................ V. Raw Scores for Nonfencer Group . . . . . ......... VI. Computational Data . . . ..................... VII. Sequence for Presentation of Stimuli ........... P age 64 67 94 95 96 98 LIS T OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1. Distribution of Apparatus . . . ................ 12 2. Mean Scores of Psychomotor Measures . . . . ..... 52 3. Mean Scores of Anthropometric Measures . . . . . . . .‘ 65 4. Measures of Significance .................. . . 69 5. Circuit Diagrams of the Apparatus . . . . . ..... . . . 86 6. Learning Curves ......................... 87 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ILLUSTRATION Page 1. The Stimulus and Respdnse Units ............ l3 2. Recording Unit With Stimulus-Producing Mechanism ........................... 15 3. The McCloy "Blocks TestH ................ 56 4. Testing With the McCloy ”Blocks Test" ....... 57 5. Method of Measuring Standing Height . . . . . . . . . 61 6. Method of Measuring Sitting Height .......... 61 7. Method of Measuring Chest Width ........... 63 8. Method of Measuring Arm Span ............. 63 9. Method of Measuring Hand Width ............ . 63 CHAP TER I IN TRODUC TION It has long been a common belief that one must possess cer- tain attributes in’order to'become a successful fencer. Furthermore, most authors of fencing texts cite certain benefits, both physiological and psychological, to be gained by participation in the sport. Although there is little agreement as to the identity of these benefits and at— tributes, among those most cited are fast reactions, quickness of bodily movement, and the ability to make rapid correct judgments. Certain physiques have also been named as being a definite factor in the achievement of success: tall, thin persons or those having long arms usually being the ones enjoying the supposed advantage.1 The majority of these contentions has been based on limited observations and in no instance have experimental or statistical data been used to suppo rt a claim. 1 Elmer D. Mitchell, ed., Sports for Recreation (New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1936), p. 135. Statement of the Problem The principal question to be answered in this investigation was, "Do fencers and nonfencers differ in speed of arm movement, space perception, the ability to make rapid correct judgments, and certain reaction and anthropometric measures?” Secondary prob- lems of the study were: (1) intercorrelations of some of the tests, (2) comparison of the data with previous experimentation along sim- ilar lines, and (3) comparisons with previously established norms wherever possible. Purpose of the Study It was the purpose of this study to identify and investigate the differences, if any, which exist between fencers and nonfencers as a step toward placing the sport on a more scientific basis and to validate or repudiate certain popularly held concepts concerning these differences. A secondary purpose was. the establishment of procedures which could be used in measuring the psychomotor ef- fects of participation in other sports. Need for the Study Fencing as an intercollegiate sport has increased considerably 2,3 . in the past twenty years. In 1933, the Intercollegiate Fencing Association consisted of fifteen schools; in 1952, thirty-seven schools were in the N.C.A.A. tournament and 140 schools were listed as having fencing on an intramural or interscholastic basis. Fencing is a sport in which the basic skills of running, 4 throwing, or jumping are not utilized; therefore it is essential that 5 6 8 much time be spent in the learning of fundamentals. ’ ’7’ ’9 It is 2 . Julio M. Castello, The Theory and Practice p_f. Fencing (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1933), p. 10. Personal communication with Charles R. Schmitter, president of the National Collegiate Fencing Coaches Association, 1951. 4 . Scott D. Breckinridge and Scott D. Breckinridge, Jr., Sword Play (New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1941), p 5 Ibid., p. 7. 6 Luigi Barbasetti, Th___e_ Lrt p_f the Sabre and theE Epee (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1936), p. 6 7 Castello, 3p. git” pp. 14, 24. 8 Clovis Deladrier, Modern Fencing (Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute, 1948), pp. xv, 58. 9 Aldo Nadi, 93 Fencing (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1943), p. 231. 4 customary for the collegiate fencer to have at least one semester of fundamental training before engaging in varsity competition, and train- ing continues throughout his college career. Coaches have long felt the inadequacy of present methods for selecting team candidates with the greatest potential as well as for the determination of the candidate with little or no possibility for success. The former is necessary in producing successful teams and the latter is important in advising the candidate so that he might select a sport in which he would have less chance for failure.lo’11 Before a predictive battery can be established it must first be determined whether or not differences do exist‘between fencers and nonfencers. If there are differences, it must next be determined if these are inherent or are the results of training in the sport. 10 Fred D. Sheffield, "Spread of Effect Without Reward or Learning,” Journal of Experimental Pjycholiaggy, XXXIX (August, 1949), pp. 575-579. 11 Carnie H. Smith, "Influence of Athletic Success and Failure on the Level of Aspiration," The Research Quarterly, XX (May, 1949), PP. 196‘208. Definitions of Terms Used Nonfencer. For the purposes of this study, a nonfencer is one who has never fenced nor had fencing lessons. Fencer. A fencer is one who is either a member of an or- ganized fencing team or has been classified as a Junior by the Ama- teur Fencers League of America. Movement time. (M). Movement time is that measured inter— val of time taken to move the dominant hand forward eleven inches. No external stimulas is applied. 12 Finger-press reaction time (a—reaction). Bills states that a simple reaction consists of a single constant response to a single . 13 constant stimulus. For the purposes of this study, the time 12 Cf. post. For a more detailed and explicit definition of finger-press reaction, as well as for movement-reaction, discrimi- nation and choice movement-reaction, and discriminatory reaction, refer to the. description of the recording unit of the apparatus on pp. 12 to 14. 13‘ . . Arthur G. Bills, General Experimental Psychology (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1934), p.. 401., elapsing between the introduction of the stimulus and the completion 14 of the response is defined as reaction time. Movement-reaction (M-reaction). Movement-reaction is sim- ilar to Movement, with the exception of an external stimulus. Time from the introduction of the stimulus to the completion of the response may be defined as movement—reaction time. Discrimination and ychoice myoyvernentyreaction time (b'-reaction). ' If a subject is given a choice of two responses (correct choice de- pendent upon the stimulus), the interval between the introduction of the stimulus and the completion of the response is the b'-reaction time . Discriminatory reaction (c-reaction). Whereas choice reac- Q tion involves complexity on the response side, discriminatory reac- 15 16 tion assumes a variety in the stimulus. ’ The interval between Normand L. Hoerr and others, eds., Blakyiston's Pocket Medical Dictionary (New York: The Blakiston Company, 1952), p. 613. ' 15 Bills, 123.. git. 6 James Drever, A Dictionary 23; Psychology (Harmodsworth, England, 1952), p. 68. the introduction of a designated stimulus and the completion of re— sponse is the c—reaction time. Serial reaction. In serial reaction tests, the response to stimulus determines the following stimulus and so continues to the completion of the test.. The attention of the individual has only one stimulus which must be acted upon before any further steps can be 1 7 taken. Sgace perception (S). Space perception is the ability to iden- 18,19,20,21 tify objects in space or the vizualization of spatial relationships. The ability to recognize a rigid object when seen from different angles, 22 designated S by Thurstone, is the space factor with which this study 1 was concerned. 17 C. F. Hanson, ”Serial Action as a Basic Measure of Motor Ability," Psyghological Monograph No. 31 (1922). 18 L. L. Thurstone, "Some Primary Abilities in Visual Thinking,” Universiyty _o__f_ Chicago Psychometric Laboratoy Reports, No. 59 (August, 1950), pp. 1-3. 1 9 C. H. McCloy, "A Preliminary Study of Factors in Motor Educability," The Researih Quarterly, H (May, 1940), p. 32. 0 Drever, pp. _c___it., p. 273. 1 Harvey A. Carr, An Introduction _t__o_ Space Perception (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1935), 413 pp 22 Thurstone, pp. 212., p. 2. Unknown 1 (u-l). The difference between Movement time and Movement-reaction time is a factor designated "u-l." Unknown: (u-Z). The difference between Movement-reaction time and discrimination and choice movement-reaction time is the factor ”u-Z.” Unknown 3 (u-3). The difference between discriminatory reac- tion time and reaction time as measured by the finger-press is des- ignated ”u-3.” Limitations of the Study The subjects were college men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-seven, twenty-five of whom were fencers and twenty-five, nonfencers. Differences which were not significant with this number might have been,‘ were the number of subjects greater. Further, thirteen of the nonfencer group had earned athletic awards while in high school. The differences might have been greater, were the en- tire group composed of those who had not earned any athletic award. Because sixteen items were measured for each subject and 3 riori knowledge of these items was lacking, it is possible that one of these items may show significance due to chance alone. 9 Many areas in which differences might occur were not inves- tigated,because of the lack of time and the difficulty of arranging more than one testing period for most of the subjects, especially those of the fencer group. Those areas which were not covered include movement and reaction of the legs, tests of kinesthesis, personality tests, and tests of visual thinking such as the speed of perceptual closure. CHAPTER II GENERAL EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Testing Environment All subjects were tested in either the Sports Research Labora- tory of Michigan State College or the Salle DeTuscan of Detroit, Mich- igan. The testing in both instances was conducted in windowless rooms below the ground level. ‘Temperature and lighting were similar in both, as were the opportunities for external distractions. However, it was possible to lock the room in which the subject was being tested at the college, while such was not possible at the Salle DeTuscan. The most striking difference between the two testing areas was that the sports laboratory consists of two adjacent rooms separated by an eighteen-inch concrete-block wall while the Salle is a single room in which the psychomotor stimulus and response units were placed thirty feet from the stimulus-producing, control, and recording units. At this distance the sounds of the key and control switches were 1 John E. Evans, The Effect of Distraction pp Reaction Time (New York: The Science Press, 1916), p. 53. 11 inaudible. Testing in the sports laboratory was conducted with the subject in one room and the experimenter in the other. Again the . . 2 key and control sounds were inaudible to the subject. Fourteen fencers were tested in Detroit, and the remainder of the subjects were tested in the Sports Research Laboratory. Testing of the fenc- ers was not conducted on a day in which they were to participate in an interscholastic competition. The Apparatus For the psychomotor tests the apparatus consisted of a stim- ulus unit, a response unit, a control unit, and a recording unit. The stimulus production mechanism was housed with the recording unit. 3 4 The stimulpsyunit. Two lamps, one red and one yellow, were used as visual stimuli and were centered one inch above and five inches behind the response targets. A preparatory set buzzer was incorporated in the unit. 2 Figure 1. 3 Illustration 1. 4 General Electric NE-34. Pow!!! ‘ 3 Scout 5 ‘: G 2 a D U " O RESPONSE WW" I———_...._ I O 5TINutU$ : ) UNN‘ : g . 1 2%: u .. D 1 2 1 1 ‘ Rand" fluoqomo i g umr mm? 5 :1 “may: I—I i j \ UNIT 1. i i . Sports Research Lab. b. Salle DeTuscan FIGURE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF APPARATUS . 5 . The resppnse unit. Movement, M-reaction, and b'-reaction were measured by the response unit; a-reaction and cerevaction em- ployed the standard telegraph key set to 0.05 inch. Movement times were recorded by a chronoscope which started when the subject re- leased a microswitch6 which required but fifty grams to hold open and 0.02 inch for contact and was stopped when he struck one of two 7 hinged targets backed by a microswitch requiring 500 grams and 5 Illustration 1. Circuit normally closed. Circuit no rmally open. 13 ILLUSTRATION 1. THE STIMULUS AND RESPONSE UNITS 14 0.04 inch for contact. The targets were constructed of one-quarter inch lucite and were covered on the front by foam rubber one -half inch thick. The entire target assembly was mounted in an oak frame— work. The distancei‘from the center of the start switch to the point Where the stop switph made contact was eleven inches. In measuring M-reaction and b'«reaction the stimulus was instigated by a telegraph key which at the same time actuated the chronoscope. Release of the start switch in M-reaction and b'-reaction signalled the experi- menter so that premature reactions could be noted. The contrql unit. Because the experimenter was at a distance from the subject, it was necessary to construct a unit which would permit only correct responses to be recorded. This was accom— plished by placing bat-handle toggle switches in the circuit between each response target and the chronoscope, permitting one or both circuits to be open or closed. . 8 Recordingyunit with stimulusy-Lproducingmevchanism. Reaction and Movement times were recorded by means of a chronoscope v 8 Illustration 2. 15 ILLUSTRATION 2. RECORDING UNIT WITH STIMULUS-PRODUCTION MECHANISM B. D. H. M. N. Stimulus selection knob Chronoscope unit Button for preparatory set buzzer Chronoscope start Chronoscope stop 16 graduated in 0.01 second units.9 Stimuli selection and activation of the preparatory set buzzer were accomplished through mechanisms built into the unit. The Subjects Fifty volunteer subjects, of whom twenty-five were fencers and Wenty-five were nonfencers, were tested at approximately the same time of day.10’11'lz’l3 All subjects were naive as to the purpose of the tests and the nature of the items measured. Twenty- four of the nonfencers were of the freshman or sophomore classes of Michigan State College; the majority of the fencers were either 9 Chronoscope model S-l-P manufactured by Standard Electric Time Company, Springfield, Massachusetts. 1 10 Howard D. Marsh, The Diurnal Course _0_f_ Efficiency (New York: The Science Press, 1906), p. 19. 11 H. L. Hollingsworth, ”Variations in Efficiency During the Working Day," Psychologicwal Review, XXI (1914), p. 490. 0‘ 2 Robert A. Cowan, "A Study of Diurnal Variations, the Ef- fect of Different Methods of Breathing and Exercise on the Accuracy of Movement of the Upper Extremities" (Unpublished Master's Thesis, State University of Iowa, 1931), 57 pp. 13 Arthur I. Gates, Xariatippys .11; Efficiency Duripg the Day (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1916), p. 79. 17 juniors or seniors of Wayne University, the University of Detroit, Lawrence Institute of Technology, or Michigan State College. While the average age of the nonfencers was 231 months (19-1/4 years), that of the fencers was 287 months (23-11/12 years). The range in age of all subjects was from eighteen to twenty-seven years. Twelve of the nonfencers neither earned an athletic award while in high school nor had ever been a candidate for a varsity sport in college. The remainder of the nonfencer group had earned major awards while in high school but were not permitted to volun- teer for the tests if the award were from other than a class ”C” or ”D” school. These restrictions were an effort to equate the non- fencer subjects as to training. Nonfencer subjects were from the required physical-education classes of Michigan State College that involved individual athletics of a running nature; testing was conducted only after the subject had had at least four weeks of class participa- tion. Of the fencer group, twelve were considered to be expert fencers and all but three of the entire fencer group had participated in interscholastic or A.F.L.A. competitions in 1952. Testing of the fencers was accomplished during the regular fencing season of 1953 when they were engaging in scheduled competitions. 18 Organization and Analysis Arithmetic means were computed for the Movement and reac- tion scores, while scores for the derived measures‘were determined by a subtraction method involving those means. For the "Blocks The result of a single trial or measurement was used as the score for the "S” test and the anthropometric measures, the latter of which was recorded in centimeters. Weight was recorded in pounds to the nearest half-‘pound. In order to test the homogeneity of variance in the scores of fencers and nonfencers, the F test was applied.15 Because there were but twenty-five subjects in each group, the method selected for testing the hypothesis that differences in the means were nonexistent was the Student small sample technique.16 The significance of "t" was determined by entering the "t" table with 48 degrees of freedom 14 For description and administration of the test refer to Appendix A. 15 F _ greater 0' lesser.e 16 "1" . IéigtfmiMy) 4 m NY WW2, VIA/1311*- NY 5’ V W.— 14 Test," the score was the time, in seconds, of the faster of two trials. 19 (n + n - 2), when the F was not significant. However, if the F was significant at the 0.05 level, the table was entered with just half that 1 number (n - 1). 7 Product-moment coefficients of correlation were calculated from ungrouped raw scores but only of selected measures, because correlations of the data were secondary to the comparison of the means of the two groups. Allen Edwards, Statistical Analysis (New York: Rinehart and Company, 1950), p. 297. 18 ml; Z”: ET y —— fl? smaizyaez CHAPTER III REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Very little experimental work regarding the comparison of fencers and nonfencers in the determination of qualities essential to success in the sport has been‘done, although some attempts were made in 1948 at the University of Illinois to correlate body weight and speed of lungs. The results were never published. A questionnaire study was conducted by Lance Flanagan in which thirty-six of the 221 questioned were members of beginning, intermediate, or advanced fencing classes at'college level.1 An analysis of the data collected from the following standardized tests was employed: (1) the items of factor M (masculinity-femininity) from the Guilford-Martin Inventory, (2) Allport's Ascendence-Submis- sion Scale, (3) the Guilford Introversion-Extroversion Scale, and (4) the Emotional Stability section of Smith's Human Behaviour Inventory. - On the basis of his. analysis, Flanagan states that: ”Fencers, as a 1 Lance Flanagan, I'A Study of Some Personality Traits of Different Physical Activity Groups," The Research Quarterly, XXII (October, 1951), pp. 312-323. 21 group, indicated by their inventory scores that they were more as- cendent than any of the other groups taking a class in badminton, 2 basketball, volleyball, boxing and swimming." These differences were statistically significant when compared to basketball. players, volleyball players, and boxers at the three, one, and three percent level of probability respectively. He further concluded that: "Mas- culinity-Femininity scores indicated the fencers to be more feminine, as a group, than any of the other groups tested. . . . Fencers indi- cated by their scores that they were more extroverted than any of the other groups with the exception of badminton players. . . . Fencers, again, profess to be more emotionally stable than any of i 3 the other groups. . . .” In his conclusions Flanagan states: In looking at the fencing and volleyball groups as a whole the writer gained the impression that fencers demonstrate the personality traits mentioned above because fencing, being an in- dividual sport, requires more extroversion and a more dominant personality for success. Fencers cannot depend on other team members to win for them. Observation of fencing groups over a number of years has led the writer to believe that they are ”exhibitionists,” especially when performing before a feminine audience. This believe has been substantiated.4 Ibid., p. 32.1. 3 Ibid., p. 322. Loc. _c__i_t. 22 While these conclusions may be valid when applied to members of fencing classes, they do not necessarily portray the personality of fencers or those who continue beyond classroom work. Then, too, there are often external factors which influence the selection of ac— tivity classes in large schools which do not reflect the personality. Literature on Fencing Writers of works on fencing, many of them expert fencers and coaches, have generally credited the sport with certain benefits and advantages which, according to some, are to be found to such a 6 7 8 l 1 degree in no other physical activity.5’ ’ ’ ’9’ 0’ l Aldo Nadi asserts fi—v—vv fl 5 M. W. Berriman, Capt, The Militiaman's Manual and Swprd- play without 3.. Master (New York: D. Van Nostrand,filv864)v, p. iv. 6 Fred G. Blakeslee, Sword Plyay fpr Actors (New York: The M. W. Hazen Company, 1905), p. 9. 7 Scott D. Bredkinridge and Scott D. Breckinridge, Jr., Sword Play (New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1941), p. xiii. 8 Raoul Cléry, Lt., Iraité d'Escrime pp Pointe (Paris: So- ciété Franqaise de Presse, 1948), p. 15. 9 Hans Kufahl, Dpy Fecthsport (Leipzig: Grethlein and Com- pany, no date), p. 9. 10 Lucien Gaudin and Gilbert Gros, IiiEscrime (Paris: Li- brairie S. Bornemann, 1949), p. 1. ll Aldo Nadi, _O_p_ Fencing (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1943), pp. 11-14. 23 12 ". . . with profound conviction that fencing develops intelligence." His profound conviction is based upon his observation of a mentally deficient boy of eight who developed into a successful businessman and upon the statement, ". . . among the athletes p_f_‘_ _a_._l_l_ our univer- 13 sitiep, the fencprs have the highest scholastip ratingp." Many European doctors, some of whom call fencing the Elixer of Long Life, have written concerning its physiological benefits.14 Dr. Alexis Carrel has stated: ”Fencing increases the speed and precision of motor reactions, and contributes very effectively to the harmonious development of the body."15 Dr. Riccardo Elti de Rodeano writes that fencing reduces the curve of the stomach by automatically mas- saging the intestinal mass, improves organic vigor, makes greater the functions of the organs of respiration and circulation, which latter is essential in active muscular work, and that muscular con- tractions stimulate the motor and sensory nervous centers. He fur- ther states that fencing is also of importance in the education of the 12 Ibid., p. 14. 13 Loc. 533' 1 4 Ibid., p. 7. 15 Loc. cit. 24 spirit and character and it develops, in a special manner, the talents . . 16 of attention, energy, perseverence, decismn, and courage. Cléry, discussing the physiological effects of fencing, says that it demands of different segments of the body maximum elongation; that muscles must instantaneously obey the orders of the will. He continues, ”L'escrime constitue un moyen de choix pour discipliner, amplifier, juxtaposer et coordonner les impressions sensorielles (tactiles, visuelles, auditives, musculaires), et les actions psycho-motrices . l7 dans les diverses phases de l'assaut." He concludes with the ob- servation that the fencer represents the highest expression of the sensory type. Julio Castello states: Fencing as a sport cannot be excelled as a developer of trigger-speed movement, adaptation to the opponent, and of greater reliance upon skillful deception than upon brute strength, all of which requires a severe disciplining of the muscles to respond correctly and instantaneously to the rapid commands of the brain. All conventions of sword play are fundamentally alike in one respect: they emphasize strategy, nervous strength, mental control; and put a premium upon intelligence of conception and accuracy of execution in the various movements of the bout. w v 16 Angesilao Greco, .113: Spada_ e la sua Disciplina D'Arte (Rome: G. U. Nalato and Company, 1912), p. xi. . 17 Cléry, pp. pit... p; 15. 25 The necessity of watching even the slightest oscillations of the opponent's blade develops and speeds up the power of observation. The need of parrying and returning the attack in- stantaneously quickens the decisions of the conscious will. Barbasetti believes that fencing is an incomparably useful sport be- cause it not only promotes physical well-being but also exerts a most beneficial effect on the mental development by reason of the 1 qualities of observation, dexterity, and initiative which it fosters. 9 E. D. Mitchell supports the right of fencing in a physical education program because of the health factor. "It gives excellent coordination of body. Furthermore, investigation shows that it is extremely bene- . 7-0 . ficial as a corrective and reducing exercise . . ." Characteristics developed by fencing, according to Deladrier, are grace of carriage, coordination of eye, brain, and muscle, speed of reaction, wind, and 21 . an improvement in muscle tone. The effects of fencmg may be sum- marized as follows: Muscular contractions are quickened, there is . v—v v 18 Julio M. Castello, The Theogy and Practice pf Fencing (New York: Charles Scribnerq'sISonsv, 17933), p. 15?" 19 Luigi Barbasetti, The Art pf the Foil (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1932), p. v. 20 . . Elmer D. Mitchell, editor, Sports fpr Recreation (New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1936), p. 112. 21 Clovis Deladrier, Modern Fyencing (Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute, 1948), p. xiv. 26 an increase in reaction time performance, correct decisions can be made faster, and a beneficial effect is exerted on muscle tone. The development of courage, intelligence, spirit, or character may be ig- nored as the evidences are too isolated and uncontrolled. There appears in the literature a distinction between qualities developed by fencing and qualities which are essential to success in the sport, although there is a frequent overlapping of the two. Cléry, in discussing the qualities essential to successful fencing, divides them into (1) physical qualities and (2) intellectual and moral qualities. Physical qualities include muscular vigor, integrity of internal organs, and speed. Speed takes two forms: natural speed and speed of exe- cution. The first is the result of individual reactions and nervous conductability and is alone not enough. One must also have the second type of speed which is the result of the harmony and perfec- tion with which the different actions are executed. Intellectual quali- ties are judgment, which is the faculty of studying and analyzing the (adversary and determining the proper tactics; will, which is the es- sential quality of the fencer as it permits the execution of the move- ments already determined without hesitation; and the "ii-propos," the art of profiting by the inattentions of the adversary at the precise 27 22 , moment they present themselves. Regarding the attack in fencing, Reynolds says: "Much depends on the E propos of the attack, which 23 is of even greater importance than quickness." Barbasetti states: "The success of the simple thrust may be due either to your superior rapidity or to your correct choice of the moment for thrusting; on the other hand, it may also be due to your having become an excel- 24 lent judge of distance." Castello writes: We may use the following subdivisions for treating the essentials involved in a bout 1. Distance 3. Calculation 2. Timing ' 4. Decision 5. Co-ordination. Appreciation of the above is a real requisite for success- ful fencing and will result from the application in the bout of what the fencer has acquired through lessons. It is true that some of these qualities depend on the natural make-up and con- dition' of the man, physically and mentally; but others can be acquired only by perseverance and practice under able fencing masters. Deladrier states: "To become a good fencer, two qualities are es- sential: (l) instantaneous judgment, which in turn requires good 'vfivv v 22 Cléry, pp. _c_i_t_:_., p. 21. 23 F. C. Reynolds, The Book p_f_ the Foil (London: Ernest Benn Limited, 1932), p. 161. 24 Barbasetti, pp. pip, p. v. 5 Castello, pp. pip, p. 54. 28 condition and well tempered nerves; (2) muscular strength and speed." According to Aldo Nadi: "Eye, timing, speed, co-ordination, sense of distance, mechanical skill and the ability to relax completely 27 whenever possible are the attributes a good fencer must possess." The Breckinridges contend that fencing . requires the meticulous attention to technique that characterizes ' golf; the explosive energy of the sprint runner; the split second decisions of the tennis player and boxer; and above all and before all, it requires for its fullest achievement a power of analysis that is not equalled by any other game in the athletic group-«much more nearly resembling chess in this characteristic. . . . It is a game of speed and coordination, of technical finesse and intellectual acuity, and offers full reward, both physical and mental, to those who will pursue its intra- cacies. 8 Mitchell says that a good "swordsman" should possess the qualities of (l) a good eye, (2) correct judgment, (3) sensitive touch, (4) quick- ness, (5) precision, or exact execution of the rules of the art, (6) 29 determination, and (7) presence of mind. "Fencing is not a game for unintelligent people, or for people who are merely strong. One 6 Z Deladrier, pp. pip, p. 82. 2 7 Nadi, pp. pip, p. 260. 8 Breckinridge, loc. pat. 2 9 Mitchell, pp. 33'." p. 134. 26 29 does not fence so much with the muscles as with the nerves and brain."30 In- summarizing fencing literature, the most cited qualities which a fencer should possess, whether inherent or the results of participation, are speed of both movement and reaction, the ability to make rapid correct decisions and judgments, a sense of "dis- tance," and a sense of E propos or timing. It is not unreasonable to assume, from the literature, that the fencer possesses these characteristics to a greater extent than does the nonfencer. Prac- tically no experimental work has been done to justify this assump- tion. Psychomotor Activities Literature Actions which utilize both mental and muscular processes may be said to be psychomotor in character. An action of this nature 31 involves three general phases: reception, conduction, and response. Hypothetically, a complete sensory reaction may be divided as follows: (1) the latent period in the sense organ, (2) conduction to the 0 Castello, pp. pip, p. 15. 31 Perry D. Strausbaugh, Elements p_f_ Biology (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1944), p. 160. 30 appropriate sensory center, (3) cortical and spinal elaboration, (4) conduction of the nerve impulse from the motor areas to the striate muscles, and (5) the latent period of the striate muscle itself. Con- duction along nerves involves the speed with which the impulse can be transmitted and the time consumed in transmission through the synapses.32’33'34’35’36'37 Lawther avers that the time elapsing from the occurrence of a stimulus to the beginning of the muscle movement includes perception time and that muscle contraction com- 38 pletes the response. Other than nerve conduction speed, which he fiv—V f 32 J. V. Breitweiser, "Attention and Movement in Reaction Time," Archives pf Psychology, XVIII (August, 1911), pp. 1, 23. 33 Arthur G. Bills, General nyperimental Psychology (New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1934), p. 399. 3 4 Robert S. Woodworth, Psychology (fourth edition; New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1945), pp. 258-273. 3 5 Charles H. Best and Norman B. Taylor, The Living Body (revised edition; New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1944), pp. 395-397. 36 Floyd L. Ruch, Psychology and Life (third edition; Chicago: Scott, Foresman, and Company, 1948), pp. 304, 710. 37 Clyde Marshall and Edgar L. Lazier, _An__ hitrpplucpion tp flip-nan Anatomy (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1946), pp. 297-305. 38 . John D. Lawther, Psychology pf Coaching (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951), p. 223. 31 . . . 39 says is so short that it can be ignored, he mentions no factors in- volved in reaction time. Concerning the concept of reaction as a unitary system consisting of a sense organ with its afferent, central, and efferent neural connections and the muscle, Bills states that "no psychologist would be guilty of assuming that the simple reaction, as studied in the laboratory, involves any such limited system. There is the inertia of the sense organ, the inertia of the muscle, and the 40 central delay to be considered." In human nerve fibers the average . speed has been variously estimated at from thirty to one hundred 41,42,43,44,45,46 meters per second. In an exploratory study concerning ‘1 7— . v 39 Ibid., p. 222. 4 0 Bills, pp. pip, p. 400. 41 Loc. __c_i_t.. \ 1 ' 42 A. J. Poffenberger, "Reaction Time to Retinal Stimulation," Archives pf; Psychology, XXIII (July, 1912), p. 25. 43 M. Abercrombie, C. J. Hickman, and M. L. Johnson, A Dictionfiary pf Biology (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, Ltdf,‘ 1951), p. 115. 44 Best and Taylor, pp. pi}, p. 393. 4 5 Ruch, pp. p_i_t_., p. 703. 46 Robert S. Woodworth, Experimental {syphology (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1938), p. 299: 32 the factors of perception, Thurstone tentatively identified eleven fac— tors, each of which represents one or more hypotheses concerning . 47 . the basic parameters of perception. Five of these seem to be concerned with the speed of different functions. Three of the five, namely C (reaction time), F (Speed of perception), and J (speed of judgment), "seem to represent speed of distinguishable perceptual functions and represent an increasing amount of central participa- 48 . . . 49 tion." A typical value for reaction to light is 0.18 second. Movement reaction time has been found to be from 0.18 to 0.25 second for unpracticed adults, when the response involves movement 50 . of one hand and arm and the same response over a distance of eleven inches was 0.417 second when members of various required . . . 51 phySical education classes were measured. Although the latent period of an exiced and not loaded striate muscle may be measured 4 7 L. L. Thurstone, A Factorial Study pf Perpgption (Chicago: University of Chicago Press-:l944ffi148 pp? 48 Ibid., p. 118. 4 9 Woodworth, Experimental Psychoylpgy, pp. pit.” p. 324. 50 W. R. Miles, "Studies in Exertion. II. Individual and Group Reaction Time in Football Charging," The Reseaych Quarterly, II (October, 1931), p. 8. 1 . See page 87. 33 as only 0.001 second, it hardly represents the true situation in the human body where muscles are attached to heavy bony levers. Therefore a latent period of 0.01 second could be considered closer to the true measure of the latent period for the muscle in moving 2 53 5 ’ Time consumed in synaptic transmission has been these levers. calculated to be 12 percent of the total reaction process, 2 percent of which is consumed in transmission between the motor areas of the brain.54 Rarick found the mean of the muscle-thickening time of the triceps to be 0.01337 second for fifty-one varsity athletes and physical education students.55 He found a correlation of 0.1357 between muscle-thickening (latent period)_of the triceps and reaction time of the same muscle as measured by means of photographing the string of a standard Cambridge type galvonometer used in connection with 2 5 Best and Taylor, pp. 213., p. 399. 53 Edward C. Schneider and Peter V. Karpovich, Physiology of Muscular Activity (third edition; Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Gbmpany, 1949), p. 12. 4 Poffenberger, pp. _c_i_t_., p. 72. 55 Lawrence Rarick, "An Analysis of Speed Factors in Sim- ple Athletic Activities," The Rpiearch Quarterly, VII (December, 1937), p. 97. 34 , 56 the electrocardiograph. Lanier has demonstrated that there is little, if any, relationship between simple reaction time and latency ' 57 of eyelid or psychogalvanic reflex. He concluded that the lack of correlation between these simple. types of activities would constitute a strong argument against the view that any single organic factor 58 conditions speed in diverse motor activities somewhat uniformly. It is not illogical to assume that a great part of movernent— 59,60 reaction time is consumed in cortical elaboration. although the precise nature of the conditions operating within the central nervous system to determine the speed at which a single or succession of 61,62 motor acts occurs is unknown. 6 Ibid., pp. 92, 99. 57 Lyle H. Lanier, "The Interrelations of Speed of Reaction Measurements," Journal p_i'_ Eigeflmpptm Psycholpgy, XVII (April, 1934), pp. 371-399. 58 Ibid., p. 396. 59 Bills, loc.‘ 59;. 60 Thurstone, pp. pip, p. 118. 6 1 Ibid., p. 1. 6 2 Lanier, pp. pip, p. 398. 35 63 Donders advanced the theory that complex reaction time is simple reaction time with additional processes inserted and that the speed of these processes could be obtained by subtracting simple RT from the complex. Ach and Watt made pertinent studies discrediting . _ 64 this procedure and its underlying assumption. They found that in preparing for simple reactions the motor readiness, which occurs before the stimulus, reached a higher pitch than when preparing for complex reactions, whether the complexity was of stimuls or of re- sponse. "The disjunctive reaction is not the simple reaction with discrimination and choice inserted; the two reactions differ from the 65 . . . start.” Disjunctive reaction times are from 0.02 to 0.20 second longer than simple reactions, and discrimination time (c-reaction) is 66 67 68 a little faster than discrimination and choice RT (b-reaction). ’ ’ 63 F. C. Donders, "Die Schnelligkeit psychischer Processe," fichiv fur Anatomie und Phypiologie (1862), pp. 657-681. 4 Cited in Woodworth, Experiyrynyentyal Psycholpgy, pp. _c__i_t_., p. 309. 65 Loc. pip. 66 Ibid., p. 331. 7 Lanier, pp. p_i_t_., p. 395. 68 Ruch, pp. pit.” pp. 308, 309. 36 Lange discovered'that a subject's reaction time varies, depending on whether his attention is directed 'to the stimulus or the movements involved in making the response. 9 For this reason three forms of simple reaction have been distinguished: (1) the sensory, in which the attention is directed toward the stimulus, (2) the muscular, or motor, in which the attention is directed to the preparation to re- 3pond, and (3) the "natural reaction" in which the subject is left 70,71,72 free to direct his attention to either or both. Reaction time is generally faster when the attention is directed toward the move- t‘73,74,75,76,77 men Ruch states that the foreperiod on the interval 6 9 Ludwig Lange, "Neue Experimente fiber den Vorgang der einfachen Reaction auf Sinneseindrflke," Philosophische Studien, IV (1888), pp. 479-510. 70 Bills, pp. pip, p. 401. l 7 Woodworth, Exp_erimental Psychology, pp. _<_:_i_t_., pp. 306-308. 72 Breitweiser, pp. pi_t_., p. 3. 3 7 Ibid., p. 37. 74 Lawther, pp. _c_i_t_., p. 222. 75 Bills, loc. pig. 6 7 Woodworth, Experimental Psmhology, pp. pit... p. 308. 77 C. H. Judd, C. H. McAllester, and M. W. Steele, "Analysis of Reaction Movements," Paypholoflgical Monographs, VII (1905), pp. 141-184. 37 between the ready signal and the stimulus, should vary from one to 78 . . . . four seconds, although the majority of investigations seem to favor a period of one to three seconds. Maximum efficiency is effected at two seconds and any interval shorter than one second gives a greatly 7 80 81 82 83 84 prolonged response time. 9’ ’ ’ ’ ’ -Reaction times to light 85,86,87,88,89,90,91 stimuli are slower than those to sound, necessitating 4.— r 78 Ruch, pp. p_i_t., p. 307. 7 9 H. Woodrow, "The Measurement of Attention," Psycholog- ical Monogpaphs, XVII (1914), 158 pp. 8 0 C. W. Telford, "The Refractory Phase of Voluntary and Associative Responses," Journal p_f_ Experimenpal: Psychology, XIV (February, 1931), p. 10. 81 Breitweiser, pp. pip, p. 22. 2 8 Bills, pp. pip, p. 405. 83 Woodworth, Experimental Ppychology, pp. .213." pp. 314-316. 84 Preliminary studies indicated that reaction times tend to increase if the period extends beyond 3 seconds. 85 Ruch, pp. _c_i.t_., p. 306. 6 8 John W. Todd, "Reaction to Multiple Stimuli," Archives pf Psychology, XXV (August, 1912), p. 65. 87 H. Nakamura, "An Experimental Study of Reaction Time of the Start in Running a Race," Th: Repearch Quarterly, V (March, 1934), pp. 33-35. 88 Woodworth, Egerimental Ppychology, pp. pit." p. 321. 89 90 Bills, pp. pip, p. 400. Breitweiser, pp; pip, p. 22. 1 Brent Baxter, "A Study of Reaction Time Using Factorial Design," Journal pf Eigpprimental Ppycholpgy, XXXI (November, 1942), pp. 430-437. 38 a stimulus key which is inaudible to the subject if a visual stimulus is desired. Serial actiony peysts. Serial reaction tests are similar to mul- tiple reaction tests in that a certain "reaction process" is involved; they differ in that while the multiple reaction tests usually have the relevant stimulus set in the midst of an array of foreign appeals, in serial reaction testing the attention of the subject has only one stimulus which must be acted upon before any further steps can be taken.92 Farnsworth and others conducted an experiment which dis- closed that there is a very low correlation between speed in simple reaction and multiple serial reaction (r: 0.15), and that serial reac- tion has an appreciable correlation with intelligence, particularly as measured by the Army Alpha Test, although they state that the serial action test cannot be regarded as an intelligence test analogous to other forms of intelligence tests.93 Seashore, after studying serial action tests, established the following criteria to which a serial action vfi 92 C. F. Hanson, "Serial Action as a Basic Measure of Motor Ability," Psychological Monographs, XXXI (1922), p. 380. 3 9 Paul Farnesworth, Robert Seashore, and Miles Tinker, "Speed in Simple and Serial Action as Related to Performance in Certain 'Intelligence Tests,l " Pedagogipyal Semyinapy XXIV (1927), pp. 537-551. 39 test should conform: (1) the serial should be novel enough not to be influenced by practice in any previous activity, (2) results should be easily recorded, (3) the test should be economical to purchase and maintain and easily constructed, (4) the performance should be easily understood by the subject, (5) it should be of sufficient length for statistical reliability and to avoid easy memorization of the series, and (6) procedure should create little or no fatigue for the partici- p ato r. P9337, abilities in visual thinlpinjg. A primary mental ability that was isolated in early experiments using multiple factor methods, principally by L. L. Thurstone, is the ability to identify objects in space. This is called the space factor and is denoted by the letter 95 . . "S." Perhaps the simplest of the primary factors involved in visual thinking is the one called perceptual speed, denoted by the letter "P." In recent years several space factors have been found and three have been denoted SI’ 52’ and S3. The first of these v v *v—V 4 . Robert Seashore, "Techniques for Measuring Serial Ac- tion," Journal pi Experimental Psychology, XI (February, 1928), pp. 45-55. 95 L. L. Thurstone, "Primary Mental Abilities," University pf Chicagp Psychometric Laboratory Reports, No. 50 (September, 1948), p. 4. " T I ' 40 represents the ability to recognize the identity of an object when it is seen from different angles. "It is rather easily differentiated from the perceptual speed factor which is concerned with the identifi- cation of flat figures or surface figures which are essentially flat."96 Concerning the second space factor, a psychological interpretation that fits the experimental findings of the University of Chicago Psy- chometric Laboratory is that it represents the ability to imagine the movement or internal displacement among the parts of a configuration that .one is thinking about. Both the first and second factors are concerned with the imagination of movement, but differ in that the first concerns itself with rigid objects while the second is concerned with objects that show internal displacement or movement.97 S3 rep- resents the ability to think about those spatial relations in which the body orientation of the observer is an essential part of the problem. In all, about twenty primary abilities have been identified, but not all have been given adequate psychological interpretation. 6 9 L. L. Thurstone, "Some Primary Abilities in Visual Think- ing," Univeprsityyw pf Chicago Psychpyrnetric Laborptoyry Reports, No. 59 (August, 1950), p. 1. 97 Ibid., pp. 2, 3. 41 Literature on Anthropometry Anthropometry, or the systemized measurement of man, has been a means of research since before the early Greeks. A signifi- cant step toward the standardization of techniques was taken at the Geneva convention of 1912, when it was decided to use the erect position for measuring living subjects.98 Tildesey, after statistically analyzing various units of measure, recommended that the centimeter be used for Span, arm length, chest girth, waist girth, and height measures (standing and sitting) if they are to be used directly.99 Studies by Cureton generally indicate that men with slender build and relatively long legs excell in speed and agility events, those with massive build are very strong, and those of medium build are best at such sports as boxing, swimming, and baseball.100’101 8 9 Cited in Ales Hrdlicka, Practical Anthroppmetry (third edition; Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 1947), p. 13. 99 M. L. Tildesey, "Choice of the Unit of Measurement in Anthropometry," Man, XLVII (May, 1947), pp. 72-77. 1 00 Thomas K. Cureton, Physical Fitnyeps: Appraisal and Gui- dance (St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company, 1947), 566 pp. 101 Thomas K. Cureton, Physical Fitness p__f Champion Ath- letes (Urbana: The University of Illinois Press, 1951), 458 pp. 42 Rel ate (1 Studie s Friedman conducted an experimental study comparing what he termed ”reaction time” and the Cozens Indoor Wet Weather Test, Battery No. 12.102 Subjects were 191 males from undergraduate physical education classes of New York University. He found the mean ”reaction time” to be 1.632 seconds, which gave a correlation coefficient of 0.409 :I: 0.0562 (PE) when compared to the Cozens test, indicating that there is a low positive relationship between ”reaction time” and general athletic ability. He concludes that ”the reaction time test, in its present form, is not a highly reliable index of gen- 03 1 eral athletic ability." That the tests were separated by quite a long period mightbe responsible for some of the low correlation was a possibility advanced. What Friedman calls. ”reaction time" is in reality a complex movement reaction, because the subject responds to the stimulus by arising from a back prone position and striking a telegraph key placed shoulder high on the wall. 1 Z 0 Edward A. Friedman, ”The Relationship of Reaction Time to General Athletic Ability" (Unpublished Master‘s thesis, New York University, New York, 1937), 59 pp. 103 Ibid., p. 46. 43 Keller104 devised an apparatus which measured the movement time of the combined action of one arm, one foot, and the trunk to the right, left, or front of the subject. The direction of the response depended upon an illuminated stimulus ”arrow" controlled by the ex- perimenter. Thirty-six movements were recorded for each subject, in eighteen of which the direction of movement was known to the subject beforehand; a total of twelve movements were made in each of the three directions and the mean of the thirty-six was the figure representing the "quickness of bodily movement.” The subjects were 515 University of Minnesota men and 240 high school men; 259 of the total were considered athletes (letter winners in baseball, basketball, football, gymnastics, swimming, track, and wrestling), and 277 nonathletes. Athletes as a group scored significantly better than the nonathletes in all phases. He concluded: "There seems little doubt that 'quickness of bodily movement' or 'total body reaction 105 time' is definitely related to success in athletics." Keller has not considered the mental factors involved in his ”quickness." With 104 Louis F. Keller, ”The Relation of 'Quickness of Bodily Movement' to Athletic Success" (Doctor's dissertation, New York University, New York, 1940, 100 pp.), published in The Research Quarterly, XIII (May, 1942), pp. 146-155. 105 Ibid., p. 60. 44 the direction of movement known to the subject, bodily response to a stimulus is actually movement-reaction time or ”total body reac- tion time,” but when the direction of response is unknown, what is measured is no longer."movement-reaction, but choice movement- reaction, which involves not only the added factor of choice but may also change the response from a motor or muscular reaction to a sensorial one as well as influencing the nature of the preparatory set.106 Miles107 experimented with eighty-seven football players, fifty-three of whom were on the varsity squad at Stanford University, in an attempt to determine the relationship of the ”charge” of eight men at a time and found that the average charging time of the total group was 0.389 second while that of the varsity squad was 0.381 second. The coefficient for weight with charging time was 0.22 :1: 0.09, which gives some slight evidence that the heavier a player, the slower he gets into action. Height with reaction time gave a correlation coefficient of 0.08 :l: 0.09. In attempting to establish a predictive battery for baseball ability, Everett tested thirty University of Iowa varsity baseball iv vv—v—vvv—Vfif l 6 0 Woodworth, Eagerifmental Psgfchologgy! op. git.” p. 60. 1 07 Miles, pp. 2}}, pp. 5-13. jib-I’ll N! Hilafbflk .nnaé."fiifiui19 ‘ n 45 players in baseball throw for distance, Sargent jump, shuttle run, squat thrust, McCloy "blocks test,” Iowa Revision of the Brace Test, . 108 General Motor Capac1ty Score, and the Thurstone ”S'I test. The criteria used were ratings by the coach of each player based on his performance the previous year. A simplified formula for predicting baseball ability was established which included the Sargent jump (r 0.523 with rating), ''5” test (r = -O.521) and the ”Blacks test" (r = «0.264). Rarick, in an effort to isolate and identify the various factors which influence the speed of muscular movement, statistically analyzed a. group of sixteen athletic and six physiological measures taken of fifty-one varsity athletes and physical education students.109 He iden- tified six factors: (1) general strength, (2) velocity, or speed of movement, (3) height, (4) arm strength, (5) dead weight, or that part of weight which is not included in the active musculature of the body, and (6) muscle latency. The conclusions were that strength contribd utes little, if anything, to speed of performance when present in quantities greater than a certain minimum; the velocity factor appears 1 8 0 Peter W. Everett, "The Prediction of Baseball Ability,’I The Research Quarterly, XXIII (March, 1952), pp. 15-19. 1 09 Rarick, 9p. _c_i_1_:_., pp. 88-105. 46 to be the chief limitation to man's speed; height is quite an important factor in adding distance in events which depend on rapid extension of the arm such as shot-putting; dead weight seems to act as an op- posing force to speed of muscular movements; and muscle latency response seems to exert no significant influence on speed of move- ments. ”The results of this study indicate that normal individuals with a high degree of motor ability or skill and an average amount of strength cannot increase their speed of muscular performance to 110 any appreciable extent." Henry measured sixty college men in ball snatch coordination movement of eleven inches by means of an apparatus employing two chronoscope's which fractioned their time into reaction time and move- , 111 ment time. Another group of forty—three men were similarly measured on a treadle press. The reaction and movement functions were found to be independent and uncorrelated (r = -0.07 and 0.003 for the within-sample correlation in the first experiment and r = 0.15 and 0.10 in the second), indicating that ”there was no correlation “0 Ibid., p. 104. 111 Franklin M. Henry, ”Independence of Reaction and Move- ment Times and Equivalence of Sensory Motivators of Faster Re- sponse," The Research Quarterly, XXIII (March, 1952), pp. 43~53. vfi v f 47 between reaction time and speed of movement—-the two functions . . 112 must therefore be con31dered as independent and unrelated." lA serial action test designed to measure the ability to make , . 113 rapid correct judgments was devised by McCloy. He found that the test correlation with composite ratings of the abilities of 300 senior high school girls in basketball, volleyball, diving, and the 114 dance was 0.510. Using the same test, Smith measured the ”ath- letic smartness” of forty football and thirty-four basketball letter winners. There was no correlation between the test and the coaches' ratings of football players, but there was a correlation of 0.65 be- tween the test and the ratings of basketball players. Smith believes that "athletic intelligence apparently is a more essential factor in 11 basketball than in football, generally speaking." 5 He concludes that the ”blocks test" may be used to some extent in predicting basket- ball ability insofar as this success is based on athletic intelligence. 112 Ibid,, p. 51. 113 Charles H. McCloy, " 'Blocks Test' of Multiple Response,” Psychometrika, VII (September, 1942), pp. 165-169. 1 4 1 Stanley M. Smith, "The 'Blocks Test' as a Measure of Adaptive Athletic Response" (Unpublished Master's thesis, State Uni- versity of Iowa, Iowa City, July, 1943), pp. 22. “5 Ibid., p. 19. 48 DiGiovanna conducted a study, the purpose of which was to determine the relationship between various factors of body build, muscular strength, and explosive power to success in college ath- letics.116 He, found substantial differences in anthropometry of base- ball players, basketball players, football linemen and backfield, gym- nasts, shot-putters, and discus men. From the statistical analysis he concluded that within its limits the investigation tended to sub- stantiate the common claim that factors of body structure, muscular strength, and explosive power are associated with athletic success. However, the study revealed no substantial differences in anthropom- etry of tennis players and most individual sports were not included in the study. Jarnoff, Beck, and Child117 experimented With fifty-one sopho- more men at Yale University who had been somatotyped as freshmen. They were tested as to resistance to pain and measured as to reac- tion time in several modalities, particularly auditory and visual 116 Vincent G. DiGiovanna, "The Relation of Selected Struc‘ tural and Functional Measures to Success in College Athletics," The Research Qufiarterlg, XIV (May, 1943), pp. 199-216. - 117 Irma Z. Janoff, Lloyd H. Beck, and Irvin L. Child, "The Relation of Somatotype to Reaction Time, Resistance to Pain, and Expressive Movement,’I Journal of Personality, XVIII (June, 1950), pp. 454-460. ' j. I , “JAIME... ,.....|..I.|.|. . Liam 21'; “Mi.” #1. . g . .... 49 discrimination. The conclusion was: "It may be concluded that somatoty'pe is not a very important determinant of measures of re- 11 action time and resistance to pain such as have been used here.” 8 Summary Fencers should differ from nonfencers in speed of movement and of reaction, the ability to make rapid correct judgments, the ability to make the proper decision, the sense of timing, and they should be taller and thinner, if one is to believe the literature on the subject. Henry has shown that reaction and movement times are inde- pendent and unrelated; and Rarick, that normal individuals with a high degree of motor ability cannot appreciably increase their speed of muscular performance. Although the subtractive method for de- termining the speed of a single factor has been generally discred- ited, it is not illogical to assume that fencers and nonfencers will differ in those measures, whatever they may be, that are obtained when Movement time is subtracted from Movement-reaction time because reaction is relatively unaffected by training. The same may 118 Ibid., p. 459. (a. It . H .. ":11... wtru..1rnn.u.gimwr«'.k .4 50 be said when discrimination and choice are inserted in the experi- ment, although what is measured may not necessarily be only those items inserted. CHAPTER IV RESULTS The Psychomotor Measures The psychomotor measures were either of a direct nature or were derived from direct measures. These latter were designated "Unknowns” because, although they could be measured, their exact identities were not known. Preliminary studies1 indicated that trials twenty to forty occurred on a plateau so they were used in comput- ing the mean for each subject. Movement, M-reaction, and b'-reac- tion were measured with the response target placed at a distance equal to the extension of the subject's arm and hand. What then was measured was the last eleven inches of the extension of his dominant arm and hand. Psychomotor testing was conducted in the following order: (1) Movement, (2) M-reaction, (3) b'-reaction, (4) a-reaction, (5) c-reaction, (6) "S” test, and (7) the "Blocks Test.” The entire series of psychomotor tests was completed in forty-five minute 5 . 1 Figure 6, Appendix A. 52 MEAN SCORES OF PSYCHUMOTER TIME IN 0 .IOO .090 .080 .070 0 50 M M‘R b' c a u-l u-Z u-3 """n'r FENCER FIGURE 2. ——— NON-FENCER 53 Movement. In measuring Movement, the subject was instructed to hit either target as fast as possible any time after hearing a pre- paratory set buzzer which would indicate that the experimenter was ready to record. The F score indicated that the fencers and non- fencers were not of the same population with respect to variance and the differences in means was probably not due to chance, as 2 evidenced by a ”t” score which was significant at the 0.01 level. Movement-reaction. In Movement-reaction, the subject was 7 fiv‘ r instructed to respond to a light stimulus by striking either response target. The same stimulus lamp was used throughout the test. The instructions to the subject were so worded as not to influence him . 3 . With regard to either sensory or motor responses, and the stimulus occurred between one and three seconds after the introduction of the 4 preparatory set buzzer. No more than five seconds elapsed between trials. Again the two groups were probably of different population 2 For significance of F and "t" see Table I. 3 . Robert S. Woodworth, Experimental Psychology (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1938), pp. 306-308. 4 C. W. Telford, ”The Refractory Phase of Voluntary and Associative Responses,” Journal of Experimental Psychology, XIV (February, 1931), p. 10. 54 variances and the difference in means was significant beyond the 0.01 level. Discrimination and choice movement-«reaction. b'-reaction was administered the same as was M-reaction with the exception that the subject was instructed to strike the yellow target when the yellow stimulus occurred and the red when the stimulus was red. To pre- vent alternation of guesses, a systematic sequence was followed in the presentation of stimuli.5’6 The fact that the first twenty trials were not considered in the determination of the mean was convenient in demonstrating the inadvisability of ”pattern” responses to the subject. As in the other two measures involving movement, both the F and ”t” were significant. Finger-press reaction. Administration of the a-reaction was similar to that of M-reaction, but the subject in this instance was instructed to respond to the stimulus by depressing a telegraph key with the index finger of the dominant hand. While the indications 5 Table VII, Appendix B. Richard L. Solomon, ''A Note on the Alternative of Guesses,‘I Journal of Experimental Psychology, XXXIX (June, 1949), pp. 322-326. 55 were that the groups were not of the same population as regards variance, the difference in means was not significant. Discriminatory reaction. If the subject were right-handed he was told to respond to a red stimulus by depressing a telegraph key; if the stimulus were yellow, no response was to be given. Left- handed subjects were instructed to respond to the yellow stimulus and to ignore the red. Again a systematic sequence for the presenta- tion of stimuli was used. Because only half the trials elicited re- sponses, the mean was computed from only ten responses of trials twenty to forty. Responses to the wrong stimuli were noted but ig- nored in computing the mean. Neither the F nor the "t” were sig- nific ant in c-re action. 7 8 McCloy "Blocks Test." ’ The "Blocks Test," a measure of adaptive athletic response or "athletic intelligence," although having rather a high correlation with success in various intercollegiate fi 7 C. H. McCloy, "'Blocks Tes't' of Multiple Response,” Psy- chomjgika, VII (September, 1942), pp. 165-169. Illustrations 3, 4. ti- 56 SHEER. mMUOAM: $04002 Hmh m ZOHH>|~>’IU~J Now look at the next row of figures.The first figure is like the letter F. But none of the other figures looks like an F, even if they were turned right side up. They are all made backward. VIIIYI—UlY/léllg Some of the figures in the next row are like the first figure. Some are made backward. A . B C D E 'r Figures C , E , and F are LIKE the first figure.X’s have been marked incl, E], and III ‘ on the Answer Pad. Notice that ALL the figures which are LIKE the first figure have been marked. In the row of figures below, mark an X in the box of EVERY figure which is LIKE = the first figure. Do NOT mark the figures which are made backward. B the AM You should have marked an X in W and in [E]. In the two rows below, mark an X in the box of EVERY figure which is LIKE the first figure in that row. If you wish to change an answer, draw a circle around this box like ®.Then mark the new answer in the usual way. ELI] e «v ia-n- *_ J 5 In the first row, you should have marked I, I, and m. In the second row, you should have marked and (E. I 5 Remember that in each row, there may be any number of figures LIKE the first one. Be sure- you understand how to work this kind of problem. When the examiner gives the signal, you are to work more problems like those above. Work quickly, but try not to make mistakes. You will have 5 minutes for the test. You are not expected to finish in the time allowed. STOP HERE—DO NOT TURN THE PAGE UNTIL THE EXAMINER TELLS YOU SPACE C [Mi‘lwalé/lé] Mliola‘olklfilVJ IQIO‘Ibl‘OIBMI l/9IELIUJIIIIFFHIJ lelrjfiltlxlcfl lawlh—lrclxsxlll lAlVlVlAlAng IIIHIIII :iéléimils’mfilé—I Ffl-lblélql’ZIUT [alslalmltlel [P‘IYMIYIMV] IIEI -I§I€1—&Ji>iilfl PlélwlAI/Llw Wlfllw'l‘llalwl WIfliélil—SIM Filmlotl‘c—Wllfl rA-IAlPldl-AIIAW WIO’I‘OI/QIDICW FilfiIEIG/lfllui ,III@II Ffilflblelalu] STOP HERE—DO NOT TURN THE TELLS YOU EXAMINER UNTIL THE PAGE xmcmc3..ono «urn-_quwimdzo .502: gen :5 mw> 222.22 ZquZ. >2r_.:mml_:.23m&m8lmo_. >mmm :-: ZEM OaOCv >Om a): 1:24 .5: 2:. .230. 318.2173 v < ezm>z_zo H _ minm E J ”$32.2...” h _ 2:25: _ _ 808.2529 _ _ II.I|I.| IIIIIL ) O m > 0 m > O m > 0 m > O m _N _V a _V :3. . : 5 _u _. G .o om” : S 5 r G _o 90: : 5 a i _u _o om" : 5 J I G _o S...” : 5 J i J .0 mm.“ .8 I I_8 3 1 8 8 t a... 8 .u S 8 o» o. S ww mu m.» 3 .3 ma N. 3 am as am 8 z. om o p... m 2 a, S f 3 5 go 3 .m 2. an a» 3 3 so om » ? so nu mo 8 8 wm .2 t a H o. 2 i 3 I .. i S H... 8 .9 r s m 8, ,. _ 8 S 8. . .U. 1% 3 “M .8 G on 3 wk 8 M. a ”M ”a ww m m . M... “x .3 »w ”w Na 8 x. 3 8 mm. 2 I B H 1 mo ,5. ... a» 3 - 3 8 a... 3 S. .o 8 8 S E B 8 mo mo .8 m; an mm ”m Mn N. a on V». a. S S 8 r .11. \ I . t. . 1 I I .. #I. D 9 w 0. T m. 1 mo M...“ on. S on .6 3 an 2. we so 6 mm ”M mo N» no mo 8 me we a. 2. 3 L m H c on co cm N nu 1|1 N. me as .o a» a: so up WM us ue . on .0 Ho we we mm mu No we mm mo we we on as an am an ac an ac 0H nu R 1 am a an a 6 3. a a 2 8 S .2 mn ”m , a». .5 S We ”a 3 8 I R E 1 mm 8 < 2 P. a mo um an a... 3 2 mm m. S . r 8 at 3 a o. oo o u... I E P 1 3 ms .3 8 am 3 no u» on. as so am i 5 No 5 mm me an 2 a 3 8 as I P 1 8 m as 3 C .u u. 2. 3 S t S .3 .8 .2 mo Mm um an .8 t 5 on 2, .. um I 3 Id 3 8 mm a we so a» me up ; an S we 8 5 3 pa mw 2 ma mm W on .u S S 2 mo 3 HI 3 1 S B 3 8 we 3 no w as wm 3 mo mm 3 .2 . 2. .5 8 8 .3 ”a. I 1 a... a... 5 E 8 no me 8 2 I 1 B S on 3 me u 3 S 8 3 S 3 3 i T IL 2... we w” 8 mm. 3 i 3 Z S S 5 5 no mo 3 we no so 3 3 mm 8 8 HI 1 S no m. i 3 nm 8 a». 3 3 mm mm m. mm 00 2 I H S S c m... “5 no no mo 3 3 3 u. 3 5 5 S G 8 8 3 a .3 on H 8 1H .2 mm B .6 8 m. me am 5 5 No i Z .2 8 mo mu u. 8 aw : .o S 8 HI .0 H 5 E 8 .3 mo 2 S no we 8 S 8 8 t r K B S 5 mm 2 mo 3 3 an 3 oo H uInIIIII INNI NOIINWI. WUI MOI. VINO av NUAvhflITmav I IUNI vgl I I IHMIL I I I IIH§I¢ HQII I I I II I IINOI IAI I I Ii IBII I jfiOI “#I h¢IA .@ It” ”I H r S . (6 mo 5 8 mo am 8 H 11. 8 .8 mm mm 8 an m. ma S 8 5 5 Z z. 8 N. a 3 .8 B H No In 3 mo m. ms 3 a. 8 mo 3 we a» .. K E 5 mm B 3 we a» .0 HI No I. no mo we we we r .4 oo 1. 11. 5 ma 2.. we 8 2. t r 5 H K E No 8 as t t 3 H M pm 5 5 mm mu m... ,6 no m.» m. we 3 8 S p». 5 S 3 a 8 8 mo 8 .2 8 on so m 8 lm S 5 B 2 mm w& 5 S 8 mo no no a S 5 S S 5 5 S 2 mo .0.» a» ,3 ac to. 3 HM Wu 8 m S 3 8 mo 8 No no 5 e. S F we 3 S we 3 S S m Im 5 3 we we no ma 5 mo - m. .3 R p. S S r 3 up u. an” .E a 3 WI 1 8 mo 1. . S n 8 .IH... HOITHN IWI Helvmwltwalvmol qu'wwatmwll If. I a ”a I'm-IOLJHII alwullu IIHbI. r- AII ATHuiLU H MOI. .Im ILWIIUUIIUOIV uclvslrpq 8 m 5 E 8 8 B N. No .3 . r o S. r 2.. S S m u» a", S .5 3 H 8 In 8 5 2 m. 5 S 5 mm m. e 5 r c 5 E E N. 3 8 8 um am. .5 HI 3 .1. m S S 8 mo mu mo 8 S 2 3 mo mm on. a; on 3 H im. a K 5 5 MN m» 2 H... S S E N» m. ... S H» 5 q o no pm 5 5 3 NM 8 mm 8 v“ 3 .o W1 .1. 5 mo . . H 8 Il q up ya ya ya Np Hm Ho ”M pm we NH mu 0 a 0 Ho c 5 w. we Nu no N... Ur. WW an we ”I U0 1 mo 8 mm .5 am. I 1 m a 5 we r mo mm S K a a S we I . 1 5 ma 8 o. ,3 I III.. IGI I I1 HOL ml |HI§I HQIIHOJ T PHI; IHU Av HUI; I L WWI HOI NHI w! I I I I I I C I DI I I I I T I I9 1 I IFO j I PU Ifilww 7 PO n4 NM lINO A .i I 0.1. I If I WI 1 q u u 1 e c S S S K S S 3 mo ., o q 8 Z a 5 E B w. No me am a W 3 IL 5 5 5 E o 5 5 S S 5 I q a o o c H» x 5 .8 8 m, mm .t an. WI no I 0 Ho v. a HH Ho we Nu m w I l q o S S a S 5 3 u . a u a 8 me I 1 5 o m. G o a a o o 3 mo .. 8 m w W 1 a o 5 S E Z S o 5 i z... 3 mm m. .m a 3 I“ a e Ho 5 w o s . to. 5 5 8 ma 2 We HI .0 11 p o o 0 pp p. o a a 0 yo w wm o u o m u a u o a 0 pp H. ya we m» .. I 1 u a a S 5 a o .\ m o S :m s Wy 5 w». E S w W I 1 o c S o c u a o a 8 r .. .. mo n I 1 c on u a u g m a 8 a q a o o 5 r S S .8 we I l m u a o q a S m u a M g .V c u a s u . m a a q a 8 5 X E Q 8 I 1 u a a H m a a o o a u a o m u u o c s m 5 i S 2 w. I J m m a q 8 p m u u a o u u . o m a u q o q 8 5 Z we 8 I l w u o o o w w w W w n m m m a o p H H m u a o o o o 5 I 3 N» T A c w m a u u o m 5 5 2. 8 N a o 5 5 . I p u w u o e p w u w p H N u p N m a p u a o w» r E I _ m m u p p a u u a w p u o .. I I I .. V's-"v—mITOL .U< Wn—Mznfl ”MMM)QOI >wwon.hr4mw. .36: 0M0 MOE-7. San—Una? ’(3360‘ nfmnaumuo I. .-:30.-. 0031107. ~080. 7‘ P. P- d.,—suite}- nus-l 4.70.30- 0‘m33 47.51‘9030. III. LI‘ ’- - nanofloh 1°I--(ulqn “.lfi°flh ulwd. o'cl- CIHm-IA- Mono-I.-. AU. >I¢IIRPHE= .- v‘N-a...-.I.:.:I~.vv\ 3:? \J—"rzun lafim- : VIP 56‘ . .v:.-.Qo\lb§. 080000 000 00» 0000000 000 100000000 00000 000 £00.50» 3000— 00» 000000 00.0. .3000: 000003000 05000— 000 .0000000 000000 .000500 _00000 50» M08003 E 00» 000000 000 »00.—. 0000000000? 000 000m00000 .50» 030 -m0000 00 0000 000L003 \000000HV08000V00 2 00» E00 »00.H .2300 1550:0000: 50» 5000 50 mE000 000 50 .0000» 0 E00000 000 00.00.00.000... 03:05 DEER V5. 00». .. 0000000 00 0000000 .50» 0000 mE0000 0000000000 00 0>00 0000 00003 00» 0000 300 000 00000000.. 000000 -000> .»0:000000& .50» 00 0000 .0000000 00000 0000000000 -00 00 000— 000 00—00 0503 00000 000 0000 H .0000 005 -00000 000 0003 00003 0000320000 00 00000 00000 000 0000». .00: 00000 E 00 000000 E 0000000 300:0 .50» 00 000E A000 05 0000000000 00 000 05000 000000 <20 00000 0000009000 000 0000 0000 00 00003 50» 00 005000 000 0000? 080—0000 0000000000000 0003 .000 00 5500 0000000 50» 000 0.5001 000000m 0 :0» 03m 00000 0000 00000 E 000000 000. 0000:0052 000 0.000000 .8000 .m E000 E000 000000000 00000 .0000000 000000 E 00» 300 03000 3 E 0000 0000mm .008 50000000 000 .0000? 000000000 .00000500 00000000 00000005000 .000 -00 0000000 .3 9000000000 000000U .3 E 030 000 30000:. 000 300000 00000 00003 5003 00 0000000 .»=000 0:00 000 00003 00 5:000 000 00 >UZMDAKIOMOB Us -0000 0000000000 60000000000 000E000 E 0000000 00.0 3008 00 00:30 000202 .2 a 002 B 2800... 30000 »00000>E 000 000000000000 .000200 0000 0000000030000 0000000000 000 0000000— 000000000 0000000000000 .00000000 .0000000000< $0000 .0005 ‘00 000.0%: 0.05305 20.003.000.000 ENE: $0000 8 I005m0 0003 0003 00 »0=000 000 00 Mums—dz D 2 4:0 00— 0 000—00 0000000000000 000 0000000 00000000000003 0000000 00.0 0000 00» M 00000 000 400000 E 0» 00» 000000 00 H 0000000050 0000300000 000 .000000050 .0000 -000000 00350000 .00000000 .0000000 .000000>E 00—08 00 00:00 0000 5:000 000 00 00 .0300 Van 000.000» al.080— 000m _000m3 0200 00 5:000 000 00 WZ-ZOm 0000000 000 .»000 .0000 0000000000 0000000000 03000.0 .00:me 00 000500 000000 0000 E 00.0000 300000000 00 > E »0:000 0mm: 0000000: 00 mE0000 »0 00000800000 00m 00» 00003 00000 -3000 E 000000 00 00 00003 E 00000098 00000 00000 .0000: 00 50:00 000» 00 wz_z U > .00000w000m 000 00 00mm: 000 00 000000— 00080 000 E 00000 0000000000 .50» 00000 »08 00» 000000000 »000 000— 00008 00000 <35 0000 0003 00» :00 30000 0000030000 000. 0:000... 52.. 03$ .00: 0000. E 0000000 .50» 000 0000000000 00000 00 0033 .0000.0 «0.30 0... 33 00.00030 »=000 000 00» .000: -000< 0000000 »000E0m .50» mEE000 000000». .mEE000 0000000 r0050» 0.000900 E00005 000 00» .00000 00000 E 000003000 0005 030000 0005 0>00 »000 00» 0:03 .300 000 00» 00003 E 0.00200 000 000_m00 000 000000 :0» 00m 00.00.0000“ ‘03 $000,030 0000.3.» 00.00000 00:0 0000 K0 4.003 Ngm 00» V00 g02~ 032. 2 60.00.30 .000». 030.0000.» 000.0 $00.00.:w 00». 0.83 000 .VEN \ 0.0 0.00 .0300? asfihémmax 3H. .00000 E 0000000 000 000000 00000000 000 0>00 5000000 00» 0000000 .0. .000000 E 0000 0.00200 0500 E 00030 ».03000000 000 00» 610000 00000 003 00.000050 00 000 00000000 00000 00000 -00000 E00000 00000 0000 000 .00002000 000000.000 »005 00 a: 00000 00 0000050000 0000 3000— 03 302 .00— 500000000 0500 000 00000 00000500 0000 00 00 50005 E00000 0 0003 0000 003 000000 »00>0 0000 000 .»00=00 000 0000 0005 000002—0000 0000 00000 00 0000 00000.0 .<2m 0000 E Bo— 000 00» .005 0000000 E00000 000 30000 00 00000 .000» 3 .»00=00 0000 E 0w0u0>0 00000 000 00» .30.: 000000 030 000 000.0000 00 00000 .50» a 0.0.0.2 000002 »0.0800m 0000 E 0&3 000 00» .00.: 000000 «8 000 0030 00 00000 000» 00003 <35 0000 00 ”0008 00.0000 .50» 00 20300000 0.0? 000 0003 00 0001 .0008 _00008 00 0000b 0000009000 006 0300 00 50:00 0000000 50» 03000 0000000 <33 50% .3200 1300:0000: .50» 00000 a; :8 9.0.20 0.0.0.00. 3...: 0.00.0.0 50. 2F 93 APPENDIX B Raw Scores of Fencer Group. Raw Scores of Nonfencer Group. Computational Data. Sequence for Presentation of Stimuli. 94 0000;.0000 .00 “0000 000 .> 00000; 00000 .00 "000003 .000 ”000000 0000000 .00 “000000 00000000 00 0 “=0: 00 0 “0000 000000 00 am 0 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.400 0.00 0.400 00 0.00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.040 0.00 0.000 00 0.00 0000 0040 0040 0000 0000 0444 0004 0000 04 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.400 00 0.00 0000 0040 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 04 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 40 0.04 0000 0000 0000 0000 0400 0004 0000 0000 04 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 00 0.00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0040 0000 04 0.0 0.000 4.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 00 0.00 0000 0000 0040 0000 0000 0004 0000 0040 04 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 00 0.00 0000 0000 0000 0040 0000 0000 0000 0000 44 0.0 0.000 4.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 00 0.00 0000 0000 0000 0040 0000 0044 0000 0000 04 4.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 40 0.00 0000 0400 0040 0000 0000 0004 0404 0000 04 0.0 4.000 0.00 0.000 4.00 0.000 40 0.00 0000 0040 0000 0000 0400 0004 0000 0040 04 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.040 0.00 0.000 00 0.04 0040 0040 0000 0000 0040 0004 0000 0000 04 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 4.000 40 0.00 0040 0000 0000 0000 0000 0004 0004 0000 00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 00 0.00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0004 0000 0400 00 4.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 00 0.40 0040 0000 0000 0040 0000 0004 0000 0400 00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 4.000 00 4.00 0000 0000 0400 0000 0000 0004 0000 0000 00 0.0 4.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 00 0.00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0044 0440 0000 00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 00 0.000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 40 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 00 0.04 0000 0000 0000 0040 0000 0000 0000 0000 00 4.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 00 4.00 0000 0000 0040 0040 0000 0004 0000 0000 00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 04 0.00 0040 0040 0000 0000 0040 0004 0000 0000 00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 00 0.04 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0044 0000 0000 00 0.0 4.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 4.000 00 0.00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0004 0000 0400 00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.040 0.00 0.000 00 0.000 0000 0440 0000 0044 0000 0000 0004 0400 00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 40 0.000 0000 0040 0000 0040 0040 0404 0004 0000 00 0.0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000 00 0.000 000q 0000.0000.0000.0400.0000.0000 000 .00 00 0 00 000 00 0 0 000 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 .0 02 2 .02 0 mDOmO mmozmm mom mmmoom Bdm >H mqm4H 95 >0 00000 000 0000800 mo CO0pmc00axm pow * 5.0 4.400 0.00 0.m00 0.00 0.000 5m o.mm0 0000 0mmo 004m 00mm 0m0m 0mom 000m omm0 0m 4.x 0.450 5.0m 0.040 0.00 0.050 4m m.50 0040 om0o 00mm 004m 000m 0004 0040 0000 4m 5.0 0.000 0.wm 0.000 5.40 0.050 40 4.00 0000 0000 000m 0000 00mm om44 00mm 0000 mm 0.0 4.000 m.0m 0.000 0.00 4.000 m4 0.00 0400 om0o 000m 00mm 00mm 0004 0004 0000 mm 5.0 0.mm0 0.0m 0.000 0.40 4.000 00 0.00 0000 0000 040m omen oomm 0004 000m 0000 0m 0.0 m.mw0 5.0m 0.000 4.00 0.050 0m 0.00 0000 0050 000m om5m ooom 0054 0004 0040 om 4.0 4.050 0.0m 0.000 m.mo 0.050 mm 0.00 0000 0540 000m 054m 0500 0m0m 000m 0000 00 m.o 0.000 m.mm 0.050 m.m0 m.mw0 mm 0.05 0000 0000 0000 005m oomm 0mmm 000m 0000 00 0.0 0.000 o.mm 0.040 0.00 5.550 m4 m.50 0050 0000 005m O0mm 050m omm0 0000 00mm 50 0.0 0.000 o.mm 0.050 4.00 0.500 04 0.00 0mmo 0400 000m 0000 0m0m 00mm 00mm om40 00 0.0 0.000.0.mm 0.000 0.00 0.050 40 0.000 0000 0000 0000 000m 0000 0004 0000 0m40 00 m.m 4.000 0.0m 0.000 0.50 0.450 44 0.05 0500 0500 0050 00mm 000m 0004 0500 0000 40 0.0 0.000 m.5m 0.000 4.00 4.050 mm 0.00 0mo0 0000 00mm 0400 000m 0490 0054 om4m 00 0.0 m.0w0 0.0m 0.050 0.m© 0.050 00 0.000 0040 0000 000m oomm 000m 0004 0044 0050 m0 w.m 0.500 m.5m 0.540 5.00 0.000 00 0.000 0m0o 05mo 04mm comm 00mm 0004 ommm 0500 00 0.0 4.000 0.0m 0.000 0.00 4.500 mm 0.om0 0500 0omo 004m 0000 00mm 0040 0500 0000 00 0.0 0.550 0.mm 0.500 0.0m 0.550 mm o.m0 .0000 0540 00mm 040m 0mom o0m0 0054 O54m o 0.0 0.00 m.5m 0.m40 4.00 0.550 mm m.m0 0400 0000 00mm 0000 O0mm 0044 0004 0450 w 0.0 5.00 m.mm 0.500 4.mm 0.050 m 0.00 0000 0040 0mmm ommm 0000 0004 0004 0050 5 0.0 0.00 m.mm o.m0m m.0o m.mm0 00 0.000 0000 0000 000m 055m 004m 0044 0044 0040 0 0.0 0.050 m.5m 0.000 0.00 0.050 00 0.05 0540 0550 004m 050m 000m 0400 00m4 0000 0 0.0 0.000 o.mm 0.040 0.00 5.550 m4 m.50 0000 0mmo oaom owmm 050m 0om0 0004 omw0 4 0.0 0.450 0.00 0.000 4.00 0.000 5: 0.500 0000 0000 0000 0504 0000 0000 0054 0050 m 0.0 m.mw0 m.om 0.400 0.00 0.000 5m o.m0 0000 O0m0 0000 005m 050m 0000 0000 0000 m 0.00 4.000 m.0m 0.050 0.00 4.500 om 0.00 0000.005o.00mm.om0m oomm.0oo0.0om0.oMm0m0 H> 5 >0 00H 00 H 0 *9m 0:5 mn: 0rd 0 m ..n ma 2 .oz . m 4.x!li... i).‘ll.‘¢. .1. l. 3.0- -‘t'lll‘- I x. ‘ b . lx‘ l: . I mDOJU mmozmmlzoz mam wmmoom Edd > 00000. ll IO 9 00040. 00500.05 040.0 00.4000 0.000 mnoucownqoz 00500. 00005.05 000.0 00.0000 0.000 mucocom mwmmg mamm 000.4 00000.000 000.00 00.04000 0.005 mucocculcoz 00000.0 00040.000 000.00 00.00000 0.005 muooaoMI. wmmmg wmoMp om00m.m ooqo¢.mm5mm 400.000 «0.000440 0.0000 mnoocou-aoz 00000.5 00000.04000 055.000 05.000500 0.4404 mnoocmhl. ammm 80¢ 00005.0 0004.50400 04.000 05.400040 0.0000 wagon-macoz 00450.0 0500.00000 40.000 00.005000 0.0004 mnoomoMI. . , an 0.3. o400m.m cmowm.54mw 40m.0m 00.wamom 0.4mmm whoocounaoz 00000.0 05000.4000 050.00 50.005000 0.0400 mnooaom .pm mn0ppmm. 50540.0 00000.00000 004.050 00.004005 0.0044 manocomucoz om000.o momm5.5o00m 040.000 om.m40om5 o.m044 mnooamml. .pm mnmcqmpm 40000. 4000004000. 00000. 0000.0 000.5 mnmocomncoz 00040.. 0000500500. 00000. 0000.0 000.5 muoocom GOHPomonno 000mo. 050400ommo. 4~0mm. moomwom.0 005.0 muuocou-coz 00000. 0000000540. 44500. 0000000.0 004.0 mpoocom do owonnm 40000. 0000000000. 40054. 00045000.0 0005.00 mnooaomucoz 40500. 4404000000. 00004. 05000000.4 0005.00 mnooaumr . c00pomonu.n 50000. 05000450. 0504. 000544.4 044.00 mnoocomscoz 00500. 00440500. 0050. 000004.0 000.0 muooaom . . . .., . :00uomonJE 00400. 4050000000. 00050. 044405. 500.4 muooqoMtaoz 00000. 4005500000. 00000. 000054. 004.0 mnoocom unoao>oz b Maw x2 “0w, xw 3.8 0420095328 0H 040400 97 4H4wm.ma #404.mmu NH.§N camm wno muooaouuqoz 0930.0 4mwa.oob mQKN omom moo mucus-h. pace Fm.» 040m in 4mom0m $me. «3.3 3. 3.13m m was mnoocouucoz qqmoo.mm qomoou.wonm www.mn mm.omoaoa m.mama mgeocom “MMMHHMMMMHMMH ooomo. Jqommmomoo. mmmoo. cmuwoa.a mum.a muooaou-noz ommmo. 48300000. «0000. mooonmé 0404 mnoouofil mus woomo. aooommwmoo. ammo. «gamma. ommJ muooaounnoz domAd; ooouuammoo. comma. camoomo. 04¢.a muooawww mom4o. 4mwanoaaoo. mmn¢~. omu¢uum.a mma.o mpooaou-cozs mammo. qoqqmoano. magma. mmm§mom.a mow.m mauoa.m H09 \0 4B mqm<fi TABLE VIII SEQUENCE FOR PRESENTATION OF STIMULI* ‘— -".va .m...—n--_ -—-~~v.- . -—...._...- M~———v--—--~-- -.--._. -W- ~—<—- Trial Stimulus Trial Stimulus 1. Red 21. Red 2. Red 22. Red 3. Yellow 23. Yellow A. Yellow 26. Yellow 5. Red 25. Red 6. Yellow 26. Yellow 7. Red 27. Red 8. Red 28. Red 9. Red 29. Red 10. Yellow 30. Yellow 11. Red 31. Red 12. Yellow 32. Yellow 13. Yellow 33. Yellow 1h. Yellow 3L. Yellow 15. ‘ Red 35. Red 16. Yellow 36. Yellow 17. Yellow 37. Yellow 18. Red 38. Red 19. Yellow 39. Yellow 20. Yellow A0. Yellow * For right-handed subjects u...— '0— 2..— .- .u—u— 98 1. 2. APPENDIX C Gene ral Recording Form. Recording Form for the Chronoscope. 99 DATE . CLASSIFICATION SUBJECT NUMBERummwwmmmm NAME HCME ADDRESS CITY STATE m, wwmmm- BIRTHDATEuMW_mwmiMONTH YEAR Years of Fencing experience Percentage of wins in dual meets last year: 10 20 3O ho 50 6O 7O 80 Championships, wins, or placings in last five years: Conference N.C.A.A. A.F.L.A. A.F.L.A. rating; FOIL.” WWWWIMEPEE_,. ............. SABRE-MWWW. Prep Novice Junior Intermediate Senior I. Anthropometric measurements 1. Standing height cms. 2. Sitting height cms. 3. Weight lbs. 028. h. Chest width _Wcms. 5. Reach ems. 6. Hand width ems. II. Motor Speed III. "S" Test Percentile c/t norms IV. Reaction Time (apparatus) Perception time (IV minus II) Reaction Time (key) Perception time (IV minus II) V. "Blocks" Test first errors second errors third errors VI. Choice Reaction Time (apparatus) Decision time (VIa minus IVa) Choice Reaction Time (key) errors Decision time (VIk minus IVk) (701“) errors . . .- . . a H. ,. TABULATION SHEET ii i _i #7 S number I .3 RT1 01321;... . 1 D8 t6 .-- ii Time " U1 U2 il_ __ .____._._-....J._.._..& (U2) 1 ____,___ ---ri_. n- +L I. a. .mi ..,_T_.-. I. Li _flr‘fir .Jflél ww————-—r Ardth Mean M24 '5! Mazda 111113 ‘53 Aug 6 '57 Dm13 ’57 30 Jul 5? 55“. .. | 1“}!. . .II as}!!! .. . tlf's' I.|.Ie|l. 9. III \ li‘i’i "I7'11!Iiii‘IWlfl'fl‘MW’Is