STIMULUS S-IMKAR'IW AND SEQUENCE,
INTER-STIMULUS {NTERVAL AND

LEARNING METHOD IN AN AUDITORY
PAIRED-ASSOCIATE TASK

Thesis for Hm ”Degree of DH. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Joseph R. Levine
1964

 

jHEQS

3 129 10

Ill mun”ml1113mmInllllliliirililmtiluglil

This is to certtfg that the

thesis entitled
Stimuiu: similarity and sequrnce,inter—
stimu“us interval and learning method
in an auditory paired associate task.

presented by
Joseph R. Levine

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D

. qv ' '1. g-
. degree m 13.“,cnoiovy

W )jgfimoz

Major professor

Date Wéy

0-169

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
‘lVIESl_J FIace inbook drop tof

remove th s checkout rom
w your record. FINES W‘lll
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

ME?"
=.. x 3‘35

News

 

 

 

STIMULUS SIMILARITY AND SEQUENCE. INTER-STIMULUS
INTERVAL AND LEARNING METHOD IN AN

AUDITORY PAIRED-ASSOCIATE TASK

4
\.
\‘l

Joseph RC Levine

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1964

ABSTRACT

STIMULUS SIMILARITY AND SEQUENCE: INTER-STIMULUS
INTERVAL AND LEARNING METHOD IN AN
AUDITORY PAIRED-ASSOCIATE TASK

by Joseph R. Levine

Results of previous studies on the affect of the
sequence of similar stimuli in paired-associate learning
are contradictory. Gagné (1950). using visual stimuli
(nonsense shapes), found that grouping similar stimuli
during practice trials (as opposed to maximally separating
them) facilitated learning. Rothkopf (1958), using
auditory stimuli (International Morse Code signals),
found that maximally separating the similar stimuli facili-
tated learning.

Differences:hnstimulusnaterials. paired-associate
learning method, timing. and the subjects' "knowledge"
of the grouping were present in these studies.

The present study was designed to assess the
effects of stimulus sequences while varying several of
these factors. The subjects. 480 M.S.U. undergraduates.
were given 16 alternating study and test trials on a list
of 12 paired-associates. The stimuli were Morse Code
signals; the responses were two-digit numbers. The

design of the experiment is a 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 factorial

Joseph R. Levine

with two types of stimulus sequence (Grouped Similar vs.
Maximally Separated). two methods of paired-associate
learning (Anticipation and Recall). two different "effective"
inter—stimulus intervals (Single vs. Dougle Signal) at
two levels of subjects' "knowledge" of the sequence within
the list (Informed vs. Non-Informed).

The hypotheses were the following: 1) Performance

on the Maximally Separated List will be superior to

 

performance on the Grouped Similar List when the antici-
pation learning method is employed in conjunction with
a long "effective" inter-stimulus interval (Single Signal).

2) Performance on the Grouped Similar List will be superior

 

to performance on the Maximally Separated List when the
recall method is employed and the "effective" inter—

stimulus interval is shorter (Double Signal). 3) Information
concerning the stimulus sequences will facilitate learning.
and the facilitation will be greater for the Grouped

Similar List than for the Maximally#Separated List.

 

The results indicate: 1) When the "effective"
inter-stimulus interval was short (as in the Gagné
experiment, 1950) grouping the similar stimuli facilitated
learning. 2) When the "effective" inter—stimulus interval
was long (as in the Rothkopf experiment, 1958) there was
no difference in performance with the two sequences.

3) Informing the subjects of the nature of the sequences

interfered with their learning in the Grouped Similar

 

sequence. 4) Differences between performance in the

Joseph R. Levine

Recall and Anticipation conditions were not significant.
and learning method did not interact with the other
variables.

The main finding of this experiment was that. when
the timing of the auditory task was made comparable to
that of the Gagné visual task. the learning rates were
affected by the same variable (List Sequence) in the same

way.

References

 

Gagné, R. M. The effect of sequence of presentation of
similar items on the learning of paired associates.
J. exp. Psychol., 1950. 40. 61-73.

Rothkopf. E. Z. Stimulus similarity and sequence of
stimulus presentation in paired—associate

learning. J. exp. Psychol.. 1958. 56. 114-122.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author wishes to express his gratitude and
appreciation for the guidance and assistance in the
planning and execution of this research to Dr. Abram M.
Barch. chairman of his committee. In addition. he wishes
to thank Dr. Paul Bakan, Dr. M. R. Denny and Dr. Herbert

Oyer for their contributions and comments.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Prior Studies
Comparison of Prior Experimental Procedures
Purpose of the Experiment

METHOD AND PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Subjects

Materials

Experimental Treatments
Instructional Set
Procedure

Design of the Experiment

RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Total Scores
Analysis of Stages of Practice
Analysis of Rate of Learning
Substitution Data

DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Results of the Present Experiment
Comparison of Results to Prior Experiments

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

Page

@NH

11

11
12
13
18
18
19

20
20
28
38
45
49

49
50

54
56

57

Table

10.

ll.

Differences between the Gagné (1950) and
the Rothkopf (1958) experiments

Sequence and intervals of S and R for
all conditions

Means and standard deviations of total
number of correct responses

Summary of analysis of variance of total
correct responses

Means and standard deviations of
number of correct responses of Trial

Block 1

Summary of analysis of variance of correct
responses on Trial Block 1

Means and standard deviations of correct

LIST OF TABLES

responses on Trial Block 4 .

Summary of analysis of variance of correct

responses on Trial Block 4 .

Means and standard deviations of gain

scores

Summary of analysis of variance of gain

scores

Correlations of distribution of substitution

errors

iv

the

Page

18

21

23

29

3O

33

34

40

42

47

Figure

10.

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Mean number correct for single and double
signals per trial block of 4 trials . . . 24

Mean number correct on similar and
separated lists for informed and non-
informed groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Mean number correct of similar and separated
lists as a function of instructions
and signal repetition . . . . . . . . . . 27

Mean number correct on Trial Block 1 of
single and double signal groups as a
function of instructions . . . . . . . . . 32

Mean number correct on Trial Block 4
of grouped similar and maximally
separated lists as a function of
instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Mean number correct on Trial Block 4 of
single and double signal groups on
the similar and separated lists . . . . . 37

Mean number correct on Trial Block 4 of the
recall and anticipation groups on the
grouped similar and maximally separated
lists asa function of instructions . . . . 39

Mean number gained (T.B.4 - T.B.l) of
informed and non—informed §§ on
similar and separated lists . . . . . . . 43

Mean number gained (T.B.4 - T.B.l) of
grouped similar and maximally separated
lists as a function of learning
method and instructions . . . . . . . . . 44

Mean number gained (T.B.4 - T.B.l) of
grouped similar and maximally separated
lists as a function of signal repetition
and instructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix ' Page
A. Paired Associate Instructions . . . . . . . . 58

E. Special Instructions for Informal Groups . . 65

C. Response Sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

vi

INTRODUCTION

The effects<xfsequence of stimuli on paired—
associate learning have been studied by Gagné (1950).
Rothkopf (1958). Rotberg and Wolman (1963). and Rotberg

(1964).

Prior Studies

Gagné (1950) constructed a 12 item list of nonsense
shapes paired with nonsense syllable responses. The
stimulus items were four sets of three shapes each. The
stimuli within each subset were highly similar. while the
similarity among stimuli in different subsets was low.

Four lists varying in distribution of similar
stimulus items were learned by 15 subjects each. In
List 1. the grouped similar lisp. the items within each
subset of similar stimuli were presented continuously.

(On each trial the serial position of each subset within
the list was randomly varied: also. the position of each
stimulus within each subset was randomly varied.) In

List 2. the_maximallyfiseparated list. a given stimulus was
always separated from the other two members of its subset
by three dissimilar stimuli. In List 3. the grouped
dissimilar list. four subsets of three dissimilar stimuli

were delimited and presented in the same fashion as in

List 1. In List 4. the random list. the position of each
pair was randomly varied from trial to trial.

Gagné found that during the later stages of
learning performance on the similar list was superior to
performance on the other three lists.

Rothkopf (1958) replicated the experimental conditions
in the Gagné experiment. Instead of visual nonsense shapes
he used International Morse Code Signals as stimuli with
their letter or number equivalents as responses. He found
that performance on the maximally separated list was
superior to performance on the other three lists.

Rotberg and Wolman (1963) also studied the effects
of clustering or grouping similar stimuli and similar
response terms on paired-associate performance. The stimuli
were three sets of three nonsense terms paired with common
English words. Two lists (grouped similar and grouped
dissimilar) were learned by their subjects. They found
that performance on the grouped similar list was superior.

Rotberg (1964) found no difference in performance
between the grouped similar and maximally separated sequences.
Although the same materials and sequences were used as in
her earlier experiment. a change in the paired-associate

procedure produced a change in results.

Comparison of Prior Experimental Procedures

There are several procedural differences as well as
differences in stimuli which may account for the differences

in results among these four experiments.

Gagne used the recall method of paired-associate
learning. The 12 S-R pgigg were sequentially presented
for study purposes at the rate of one every two seconds.

A recall trial in which only the stimulus terms were pre-
sented followed each study trial. During the recall trial.
subjects attempted to respond to each stimulus with the
appropriate nonsense syllable.

Since Rothkopf used aural stimuli and aurally
presented responses. it was not possible for him to
present the stimulus and the response terms simultaneously.
Furthermore. his study trial procedure was radically dif-
ferent from that of Gagné in another respect. In Rothkopf‘s
practice trials each signal was followed by a three second
silent period during which subjects were required to respond
with the appropriate letter or number. After this three
second interval the correct letter or number was announced.
Rothkopf's subjects anticipated in practice trials while
Gagné's subjects did not.

The test for learning was the same in both experi-
ments; i.e., recall trials were given in which only the
stimulus term occurred. and the subjects responded with
the term they thought appropriate to each stimulus. In
the Gagné experiment practice and recall trials were
alternated. while in the Rothkopf experiment a recall trial
occurred after every fourth study trial.

The timing relations in the Rothkopf experiment

were radically different from those in the Gagné experiment.

In Rothkopf‘s experiment each signal on the study trials
was followed by a three second delay. The correct response
was then announced, and the next signal followed 1.6
seconds later. Estimating that the response took .5 — 1.0
seconds. the time between stimuli was 5.1 - 5.6 seconds.
In the Gagné study the S—R pairs occurred at the rate of
one every two seconds. It is important to note that each
S—R pair was continuously exposed until the next pair
occurred. The 81-82 interval was the length of time it
took the memory drum to advance one frame. A conservative
estimate of this time is .5 seconds.

Rothkopf (1958) offered several suggestions to
account for the difference between his and Gagné's results.
First. shapes in the Gagné study elicited labeling or
naming responses from the subjects. Thus. the stimuli may
have been coded. Rothkopf‘s Morse Code signals transmitted
at 20 words per minute could not be so coded. Subjects
were unable to describe the signals in such terms as
"three dots." "dot-dash-dot." etc. Second. Rothkopf used
an anticipation method which resulted in many overt substi-
tution errors during practice while Gagné's procedure
minimized these errors.

Another possible source of the discrepancy in
results not mentioned by Rothkopf is the radical difference
in the timing of the two experimental tasks.

The "effective" inter-stimulus interval in the

visual experiment was a half second. while in the auditory

experiment it was approximately five seconds. Gagné argues
that the facilitative effect of grouping similar stimuli
is to bring the level of confusion among similar stimuli
to its peak early in learning. Then. differential reinforce—
ment begins to take place earlier in learning. Gagné (1950)
said:
. . . while the number of correct responses shows
a steady increase from beginning to end. generali-
zation. as measured by number of overt confusions
of similar items. increases at first. passes
through a maximum. and subsequently decreases.
It is possible to draw the implication that this
later process. because it does involve the
expression of a large number of overt errors
during the early stages of learning. thereby
makes possible a most effective application of
differential reinforcement. In other words.
perhaps this initial "confusion" is itself a
factor which tends to speed up acquisition of
discriminative responses by fostering elimination
of overt errors.

The underlying assumption of Gagné's argument is
that the course and the distribution of overt errors re-
flects the course of stimulus differentiation. McGuire
(1961) designed an experiment in which he was able to
measure the level of stimulus generalization (the reciprocal
of stimulus differentiation) independently of overt errors.
He found, as Gagné did. that overt errors increased to a
maximum. then decreased. but also that the curve for stimulus
generalization showed a steady decrease. It is likely.
therefore. that the facilitation of learning on the Grouped

Similar List is not due solely to an increase of overt

errors early in learning.

Furthermore. although Gagné's theoretical specu-
lations revolve around increasing overt errors. his experi-
mental procedure (recall method of paired-associate learning)
minimized overt errors.

Another effect of grouping similar stimuli was that
a more direct "comparison" between similar stimuli could
be made or that the conditions for making a differential
response would be more favorable. Since the similar
stimuli were successively presented in the Grouped Similar
condition. the subject is better able to note the differen-
tial features among the stimuli which were initially the
main source of confusion. In the Maximally Separated List.
the successive stimuli were initially well differentiated
and no benefit from the more direct comparison was forth-
coming.

In Rothkopf's experiment the time between signals
may have been sufficiently long such that any benefit from
successive presentation of similar signals was lost because
of forgetting in the intervsignal intervals.

These differences between procedures in the two
experiments may offer a clue to why the Grouped Similar
List did not show facilitation in the Rothkopf experiment.
However. they do not explain why the Maximally Separated
condition was superior to the Random and Grouped Dissimilar
conditions. Rothkopf offers no hypothesis to account for
the differences in his experiment.

Rotberg and Wolman (1963). using verbal nonsense

terms as stimuli and common English words as responses.

found that grouping of similar stimuli facilitated
learning. Their list was composed of three sets of three
similar stimuli each. Two lists were used in the
experiment: Grouped Similar and Grouped Dissimilar.
The learning method was anticipation. but the whole list
of nine pairs was not learned at the same time.

During learning. each three-word group was

presented for five trials. Words were

randomized within groups each time they were

repeated. The five trials for each three-word

group were completed before the next group

was presented.
After learning. five test trials with stimuli in random
order were presented.

Rotberg (1964) used the same materials as the
previous study. The anticipation method was again
employed. but the three groups of stimuli were not
"isolated” as in the previous study. Each trial con—
tained: 1) a learning period in which the nine pairs
were presented; 2) a test trial in which the stimuli were
randomized; and 3) a second test trial in which the
responses were presented in random order and the subject
was required to respond with the matching stimulus.
There was no significant difference between the Grouped
Similar and Grouped Dissimilar conditions in this
experiment. The presence of the second test trial may

have interfered with the discriminations that occurred

in the learning.

 

 

 

Table 1. Differences between the Gagné (1950) and the
Rothkopf (1958) experiments.
Gagné Rothkopf
1. Visual stimuli l. Auditory stimuli
2. Recall method 2. Anticipation method
3. Short (.5 sec.) 3. Long (5.0 - 5.5 sec.)
"effective" inter— "effective" inter-
stimulus interval stimulus interval
4. 1:1 ratio of training to 4. 4:1 ratio of training to
test trials test trials
5. CVC responses 5. Single letter or number
response
6. College women 6. Airmen
7. Categories of similar 7. Categories of similar

stimuli relatively

apparent to subjects

stimuli not apparent

to subjects

 

Rotberg hypothesized that no difference was found

in the later study because the similar categories were not

"isolated" during learning. whereas they were "isolated"

in the first experiment.

She reported different distri-

butions of errors in the 1963 and 1964 experiments. In

the earlier experiment most of the errors on the Grouped

Similar List were confusions between similar stimuli.

while in the later study the errors on the Grouped Similar

List were not so predominantly confined to substitutions

within similar groupings.

This change may throw some light on the Gagné
results. The four subsets of stimuli that he used were
highly dissimilar. Perhaps, due to the great differences
among them. his subsets were "effectively" or "functionally"
isolated despite the fact that they were combined in one
list.

Since there are so many differences among the
materials. timing and procedures in these experiments. it
is not possible to relate the differences in results to one
factor. Table 1 presents the differences between the
Rothkopf (1958) and Gagné (1950) experiments which might

account for the discrepancy in results.

Purpose of the Experiment

Previous studies have reported discrepant results
concerning the affects of sequence of similar stimuli on
paired-associate learning. Differences in stimulus materials,
paired-associate learning method, timing, and the subjects'
"knowledge" of the grouping were present in these studies.

The present study was designed to assess the affects
of stimulus sequence in an auditory task while varying
several of these factors. Specifically, two methods
(Anticipation and Recall) of paired-associate learning
were employed. with two different "effective" inter-stimulus
intervals (Single vs. Double Signal) at two levels of
subjects' "knowledge" of the sequences within the list.

The hypotheses are the following:

10

1) Performance on the Maximally Separated List will be
superior to performance on the Grouped Similar List when
the anticipation learning method is employed in conjunction
with a long "effective" inter-stimulus interval (Single
Signal).

2) Performance on the Grouped Similar List will be
superior to performance on the Maximally Separated List
when the recall method is employed and the "effective"
inter-stimulus interval is shorter (Double Signal).

3) Information concerning the stimulus sequences will
facilitate learning, and the facilitation will be greater
for the Grouped Similar List than for the Maximally

Separated List.

METHOD AND PROCEDURE

Subjects

The subjects, 609 M.S.U. undergraduates, partici-
pated in the experiment to fulfill the requirements of the
introductory psychology or education course.

Subjects were tested in groups of 5 - 50, with
each group (or class) haphazardly assigned to one of the
16 experimental conditions. On several occasions the
number of subjects tested in a single administration
exceeded the number required. Since it was desirable to
have an equal number of subjects in each experimental
condition, subjects were non—systematically eliminated
from the analysis until each of the 16 experimental
conditions had 30 subjects each. Subjects who had parti-
cipated in previous experimentation utilizing Morse Code
signals were also excluded from the analysis.

Since the actual testing began late in the winter
quarter of 1964, it was not possible to test subjects
under all 16 experimental conditions before the termination
of the quarter. Instead. half the subjects in eight of
the conditions were tested in the winter quarter: the
remaining half in these conditions plus all the subjects
in the other eight conditions were tested during the spring

quarter.

11

12

Materials

The experimental list was composed of 12 paired-
associates. The stimuli were 12 aural International Morse
Code signals and the responses were two-digit numbers.

As in the Rothkopf (1958) experiment, the 12 stimulus
terms were subdivided into four subsets of three signals
each. The stimuli and the responses. with the English
equivalents in parentheses. were as follows: Subset A:

(W) .-- 37, (G) --. 80. (R) .-. 26; Subset B: (1) .---— 32,
(2) ..--— 48, (3) ...-- 96: Subset C: (P) .—-. 14.

(F) ..—. 63, (L) .-.. 85: Subset D: (s) ... 93, (H) .... 51,

The average similarity of the stimuli within each
subset was 42.5% and the average similarity of stimuli not
in the same group was 16.6%. These percentages are based
on a psychophysical study by Rothkopf (1957) in which
subjects judged pairs of International Morse Code signals
as being either "same" or "different." The similarity
percentage refers to the percent of presentations in which
the two signals were judged "same."

The similarity among the 12 response numbers was
minimized. None of the responses paired with stimuli in
the same subset employed the same digit. The mean
association value (Battig and Spera. 1962) for all 12
responses is 1.50, and the mean association values for
responses in Subsets A, B, C, and D are 1.41, 1.82, 1.58

and 1.20 respectively. Responses with low association

13

value were chosen to minimize "extravexperimental"
associations which might inadvertently facilitate the
learning of one pair. The responses were assigned to
stimuli such that there was no apparent correlation
between the magnitude of the response number and the
duration or number of elements in the signal.

The signals (pure tones of 1000 cps) were trans-
mitted at the same rate as in the Rothkopf (1958) experiment.
A dot had a duration of 49; seconds: a dash had the duration
of pl; seconds: and the silent period between elements was
49; seconds.

The signals were produced by a Great Northern
Telegraph Model 113 automatic keyer coupled with a Hewlett
Packard audio oscillator. The keyer is essentially a
device for "reading" two-channel punched paper tape.

Each punched hole results in a tone of a given uniform
duration. Use of the automatic keyer eliminated extraneous
variations in tone speed and accent.

The stimuli and the spoken responses were recorded
with an Ampex Model 602-2 tape recorder on Scotch low

print magnetic tape.

I§xpe£imental Treatments

The experiment compared the following four treat-
ments: 1) stimulus sequence during study or practice trials:
2) paired-associate learning method: 3) level of stimulus

repetition: 4) instructional set.

14

In each of the conditions the subjects were given
16 alternating study and test trials. The timing and
sequence of stimuli on the test trials were identical for
all treatments. On the test trials, each signal was
followed by a 4 second silent period, with a 10 second rest
between study and test trials.

The signals in the test trials were randomized
with the restriction that each signal appeared in each
serial position at least once but no more than twice.
Furthermore, no two signals were adjacent more than four
times. and each signal was adjacent to every other signal
at least twice.

A response sheet was devised which could be used
for group administration of the task. Each response sheet
contained 16 test trials (see Appendix C). In each test
trial, the 12 response numbers were printed in 12
consecutive rows. The rows were labeled with the letters
A - L. The subject responded to the first signal of the
test trial by circling the two-digit response number in
Row A which he thought was paired with that signal. He
responded to the second signal of the test trial by
circling a response number in Row B. and so on until the

twelfth signal. Row L.

Stimulus Sequences. Two basic lists were constructed

differing only in the sequence of items during the practice

trials.

15

Grouped Similar List. In the Grouped Similar List.

 

the study trials were arranged so that the signals of each
subset were serially presented: i.e., no signal from a
different subset was interposed between two signals from
the same subset. Each study trial was in a different
order and each subset occurred at each serial position an
equal number of times. The order within each subset also
varied from trial to trial, and each signal appeared at
each serial position within the subset approximately an
equal number of times. x

If the letters A. B, C, D represent the subsets.
and subscripts 1, 2, 3 represent the members of the subsets.
then the sequences of two trials on the Grouped Similar
List might be the following:

Trial 1 = A1A2A3B1B2B3C1C2C3D1D2D3 and

Trial 2 = C2C3C1A3A2A1D3D1D232B1B3-

Maximally_Separated List. In the Maximally Separated
List the signals of each subset were maximally temporally
separated during study trials. After the presentation of
a signal of any given subset. three signals (one from each
of the other subsets) were presented before another member
of that subset occurred. Sequences for two study trials
on the Maximally Separated List might be the following:

Trial 1 = A1B1C1D1A232C2D2A3B3C3D3 and

Trial 2 = B2D3C3AZB3D1C3A1E1D2C2A1.

16

Learning Method and Stimulus Repetition. Two
learning methods (Recall and Anticipation) at two levels
of stimulus repetition (Single and Double) were compared
for both the Grouped Similar and the Maximally Separated

Lists.

Recall — Single Signal. During the study trials
the 12 signal-number pairs were serially presented for
study purposes. Subjects were not required to make any
overt response during the study trials. On the study
trials, one second after the termination of a signal, the
two—digit response number was announced. The stimulus of

the next pair occurred four seconds later.

Antigipation — Single Signal. The anticipation
and the recall method differed only in the timing of the
study trials. The timing on the study trials was the
following: three and one-half seconds after the termination
of the signal, the two—digit response number was announced.
The stimulus of the next pair occurred 1.6 seconds after
the termination of the response. Subjects were not required
to respond on the first study trial. They were instructed
merely to listen to each of the S-R pairs. On all subse—
quent study trials subjects responded to each signal during
the interval between the response announcement. They
responded by circling the number they thought was paired
with each signal. (The response sheets for the anticipation

conditions contained study trials as well as test trials.

17
All trials were clearly labeled with the type and number

of each trial; e.g., "Study Trial 1,“ "Test Trial 1," etc.)

Recall - Double Signal. In this condition the
response number was announced one second after termination
of the signal. The same signal was then repeated. The
interval between the termination of the signal and the
beginning of its repetition was 2.2 seconds. The interval
between the termination of the repetition and the first
signal of the next pair was three seconds. Subjects were
not required to make any overt response during these study

trials.

Anticipation - Double Signal. On the study trials
in this condition, a signal was presented, then repeated
2.2 seconds later. One second after the termination of
the repetition the response was announced. The first
signal of the next pair occurred three seconds after the
termination of the repetition.

Table 2 graphically summarizes the sequences and
intervals of the stimuli and responses for all experimental
conditions. The 81-82 interval in the single signal
conditions was approximately 5.6 seconds and the interval
between the first occurrence of S1 and the first occurrence
of $2 in the double signal condition was approximately

6.5 seconds.

18

Table 2. Sequence and intervals of S and R for all

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

conditions.
Recall - Single Signal S1 1 RI 4
. . . _ . . 1 A
AntiCipation Single Signal Sl --- RI—l—6__Sz
— . . 2’2 2
Recall Double Signal 'I’ RI.____Sl -
' ‘ ' - ' 2.2
AntiCipation Double Signal SI_______ 81 1 R1
' A
Test Trials S1 52

 

Instructional Set

Informed. Half the subjects were instructed about
the nature of the lists: i.e., there were four subsets of
three signals and the signals in each subset were highly
similar. They were also told about the rule by which the
sequences were formed. TWO charts (one for Grouped Similar
List and one for Maximally Separated List) in which geo—
metric figures represented the stimuli were used for
demonstration purposes (see Appendix B for the complete

instructions).

Non-informed. The remaining half of the subjects
were given no information about the order of signals on

the study trials.

Procedure

All testing took place in one of several class—
rooms at M.S.U. Although none of the classrooms was an

ideal acoustic environment for sound field auditory

l9

discrimination testing, the experimenter was assured that
subjects were able to hear all signals clearly. It is known
that loudness level per se has little influence on Morse
Code discrimination.1 (The data from one of the testing
session were eliminated from the analysis because of
excessive echo in the testing room.)

The experimenter read a brief description of the
experiment, followed by the paired-associate instructions.
The subjects were allowed to ask questions concerning the
paired—associate instructions. The experimenter attempted
to answer such inquiries as briefly as possible: when
possible, he repeated the relevant part of the instructions.
The special instructions for the informed groups were read
after the experimenter was reasonably sure that the subjects
understood the paired—associate instructions.

The tape recorded lists were then presented to the
subjects. There was a five minute rest between Test Trial 8
and Study Trial 9. The second half of the task was completed

with no further rest periods.

Design of the Experiment

The design is a 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 factorial with two
types of stimulus sequences (Grouped Similar vs. Maximally
Separated); two methods of paired-associate learning (Recall
vs. Anticipation): two levels of stimulus repetition (Single
vs. Double Signal): and two levels of Instructions (Informed

vs. Non-informed).

 

1Personal communication from Dr. E. Rothkopf.

RESULTS

Analysis of Total Scores

The number of correct responses. with omissions

scored as errors. was tabulated for each subject.

Performance of subjects tested in the winter
quarter was compared to performance of subjects in the
same experimental groups tested spring quarter. A‘p
ratio was calculated for each of these eight groups.

None of the eight p tests was significant at the .05 level
of confidence. The combined mean number correct of the
winter subjects (N = 108) was compared to the combined mean
number correct of the spring subjects tested in the same
experimental conditions (N = 132). The difference was

not significant (p = .93, 238 df). Since these differences
were not significant, the data from the two quarters were
combined for all subsequent analyses.

The means and standard deviations of the correct
responses for all experimental groups are presented in
Table 3. Examination of Table 3 indicates that the task
was extremely difficult: i.e., the "best" group achieved
only 34% correct. Bartlett's Test of Homogeneity of
Variance (Edwards, 1960) was performed, and the X2 was
significant at the .01 level of confidence (X2 = 34.01.

15 df). Despite the fact that the variances were not

20

21

 

 

m.o~ m.H¢ m.m~ ¢.m¢ m.m~ o.~m o.mm >.b¢ Hmcmwm manson

H.mm m.m¢ n.0m o.o¢ 5.0m H.¢v H.v~ N.Hv Hmcmwm wamcflm
poumummom aaamfifixmz

o.hm o.vo m.om ©.m¢ o.¢H n.mm o.ma N.¢v Hmcmww wansoa

e.m~ N.ne o.- e.ae o.m~ m.mm e.mH m.wm daemon osmcam

cm 2 mm s cm 2 am 2 umaasam codsouo

admomm cofiummfloflucd Hamoum COHDMQHUHDC<
pOEHOHCHIcoz UoEHONCH

 

 

.MOwcommmu uomuuoo mo amass: Hmuou mo mcoflumfl>®p tumvcmum 6cm mama: .m dance

22

homogeneous. an analysis of variance was performed to

assess the effects of the treatments. [Edwards (1960).

p. 132) states, ". . . since the 3 test is very insensitive
to nonnormality and since With equal p's'it is also insensi-
tive to variance inequalities, it would be best to accept

the fact that it could be used safely under most conditions."]

A 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 factorial analysis of variance was
performed to assess the overall effects of the treatments
and their interactions. Table 4 is a summary of this
analysis. The 3 ratio for Signal Repetition. and the
interactions of List Sequence X Instructions, and List
Sequence X Signal Repetition X Instructions were statisti-
cally significant. The learning curves for the Single and
Double Signal treatments are presented in Figure 1. As
can be seen in Figure 1, the overall performance of the
Double Signal group was superior to performance of the
Single Signal group.

Inspection of Figure 2 indicates that the significant
interaction of List Sequence X Instructions is due to
superior performance by the Non—Informed subjects on the
Grouped Similar List, while the difference in performance

of the Informed and Non-Informed groups on the Maxipglly

 

Separated List is not significant. Comparison of individual
treatment means reveals: 1) Performance of the Similar
Non-Informed groups was superior to all other groups;

2) Performance of the Separated Informed groups was

2

3

 

 

 

Table 4. Summary of analysis of variance of total correct
responses.
Source _ ‘ df Mean Square F-Ratio
Method (M) 1 957.68
List Sequence (L) l 38.53
Signal Repetition (SR) 1 3090.68 5.22*
Instructions (I) 1 1680.01
M X L l 1.40
M X SR 1 70.52
M X I 1 1178.13
L X SR 1 343.41
L X I 1 6586.01 ll.l3**
SR X I 1 104.53
M X L X SR 1 76.81
M X L X I 1 1968.31
M.X SR X I 1 118.02
L X SR.X I 1 2745.63 4.64*
M.X L X SR X I 1 1274.00
Error (w) 464 591.50
Total 479

 

*Significant at alpha

**Significant at alpha

.05
.01

MEAN NUMBER CORRECT

Figure 1.

24

SINGLE SIGNAL 0—0
DOUBLE SIGNAL H

 

l 2 3 4

TRIAL BLOCKS

Mean number correct for single and double
signals per trial block of 4 trials.

25

60
SIM O——O.
SEP H
e
u 50
m
‘53
o
U
m
E
E
52' 40
E
30

L.._..l—___.L_

Non-Informed Informed

Figure 2. Mean number correct on similar and separated
list for informed and non-informed groups.

26

superior to the Similar Informed groups; 3) The difference
between the Separated groups was not significant. It
appears that the instructions interfered with learning in
the Similar Informed group.

As can be seen in Figure 3, on the Similar List.

 

the difference between the Single Signal Non-Informed and
the Double Signal Non-Informed groups is markedly greater
than the difference between the Single and Double Signal
Informed groups. On the Separated List this relationship
is reversed; i.e., the difference between the Single and
Double Signal Informed groups is greater than the dif-
ference between the Single and Double Signal Non-Informed
groups.

Comparisons of the individual treatment means

(Q 05 8k, 60 df) reveal: l) The Double Signal Non-Informed

 

group on the Similar List was superior to all other groups:

2) The Double Signal Informed group on the Separated List

 

was superior to all groups except the Double and Single
Signal Non—Informed groups on the Similar List: and

3) Performance of the Double Signal Informed group on the
Separated List was superior to performance of the Informed
groups on the Similar List.

The interpretation of this interaction is that the
instructions interfered with the facilitative effects of
the additional signal on the Similar List, while the
instructions enhanced the facilitative effects of the

signals on the Separated List. Rothkopf (l958..experiment

27

mo coauocsm o no mumfla Umumwmmmm paw umaflaflm mo uoouuoo Hones: com:

UmfiwowcH UmEHOMCHIcoz

 

I 1268 3866
QIIIO Hmcmflm mamcflm

.HmHA Qmagmmm

 

og

om

00

on

.cofluflummwu Hmcmflm tam mcofluusuumcfl

UGEMOMGH UoEuomcchoz

1

I Hmcmfim cannon
OIIO Haemsm 393m

.HmHA MSHZHm

0m

0%

om

00

Oh

.m musmflm

IOHHHOO HEHWHN NVSIW

28

III) found that subjects with superior scores on the army

code test gave better performance on the Maximally

t

Separated List than on the Grouped Similar List. In the

 

present experiment there were no independent measures of
”code receiving ability" available. Instead, the scores
of the subjects above the median in each experimental
group were analyzed separately. Theresultscdfan analysis
of variance of the total scores for these subjects are in
essential agreement with the results of the analysis of

the scores of the entire group.
Analysis of Stages of Practice

Trial Block 1

In order to assess the effects of treatments at
different stages of learning. the task was divided into
four trial blocks of four trials each. Bartlett's Test
of Homogeneity of Variance was performed, and the assumption
of homogeneity of variance was found tenable (X2 = 23.87,
15 df). Analyses of variance were performed on Trial
Block 1 (Test Trials 1 - 4) and Trial Block 4 (Test
Trials 13 — 16).

The means and standard deviations for Trial Block 1
appear in Table 5. The summary of the analysis of variance
for Trial Block 1 appears in Table 6. The E ratio for

Signal Repetition is significant, and the Signal Repetition

X Instructions interaction is statistically significant.

29

 

m.v n.o o.m m.o o.e H.R m.m m.o Hmcmsm mansoo

s.~ v.6 o.m o.e m.m o.n m.m o.o daemon maoenm
Umumummmm haamfiflxmz

o.e H.m m.e R.o ~.m m.m m.m H.o Haemam cannon

o.m o.o e.m ~.m m.m e.o R.m e.o Haemam mamenm

am 2 am 2 on 2 am 2 umaasam coosowo

Hamomm COHDMQAUHucm Hamomm codummflofluc<
mequcchoz poEHowcH

 

 

.H

define co noncommou Doowuoo mo Hones: Gnu mo mCOHumH>oo unopcmum tam

XOOHm
names .m manna

30

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6. Summary of analysis of variance of correct
responses on Trial Block 1.
Source .df_ Mean Square F—Ratio
‘Method (M) 1 38.53
List Sequence (L) 1 1.87
Signal Repetition (SR) 1 56.03 4.39*
Information (I) 1 4.03
M X L 1 .14
MX SR 1 9.07
M,X I l 21.68
L X SR 1 .04
L X I 1 34.14
SR X I l 75.21 5.89**
M X L X SR 1 10.20
M X L X I 1 5.20
M.X I X SR 1 1.64
L X SR.X I 1 9.07
MXLXSRXI 1 10.81
Error (w) 464 12.77
Total 479
*Significant at alpha = .05
**Significant at alpha = .01

31

The means of the Single and Double Signal groups as
a function of Instructions are plotted in Figure 4. It
appears that instructions interfered with the facilitative
effects of the repetition of the signal in the Double
Signal group.

Comparisons of the individual treatment means show
that the difference between the Single and Double Signal
groups in the Non-Informed conditions was statistically
significant. No other difference reached significance
at the .05 level.

Thus, at an early stage of practice in the Non-
Informed condition the Double Signal groups are superior
to the Single Signal groups irrespective of stimulus
sequence. In the Informed condition, none of the differences

are significant.

Trial Block 4

The means and standard deviations for Trial Block 4
(Test Trials 13 - 16) appear in Table 7. Bartlett's Test
of Homogeneity of Variance was performed, and the assumption
of homogeneity of variance was found tenable (X2 = 13.60,
15 df). An analysis of variance of the scores of Trial
Block 4 was performed. The summary of the analysis of
variance for the scores on Trial Block 4 appears in Table 8.
The 3 ratios for Signal Repetition, Instructions.
and the interactions of List Sequence X Instructions,

Method X List Sequence X Instructions, and List Sequence X

32

Single Signal 0"‘0
Double Signal H

MEAN NUMBER CORRECT

‘EE-I-n-nI1I-IIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIJ-IIIII

Non-Informed Informed

Figure 4. Mean number correct on Trial Block 1 of single

and double signal groups as a function of
instructions.

33

 

 

H.m «.ma m.m m.ea o.m e.nH R.oH «.ma Haemam cannon

~.m R.ma R.m m.ea e.m m.eH m.m H.4H Hmcmflm mamcam
Umumummmm maamfifixmz

RN.oH m.m~ o.oH e.ms m.m m.HH H.R m.oa Hmcwam cannon

Hm.oH m.oH m.m e.mH H.HH H.~H m.o m.eH Hmemnm mameam
am 2 am 2 am 2 am 2 HMHHEAm pomsoww

Hamowm coflummaoflucd Hamowm coflummfioauc<
poEuomcchoz meHOMCH

 

 

.v MUOHm HMHHB co noncommou Duwuuoo mo mcoflumfl>op pamcflmum pom mama: .h magma

34

 

 

 

Table 8. Summary of analysis of variance of correct
responses on Trial Block 4kg

Source df X‘ Mean Square F-Ratio
Method (M) 1 k46
List Sequence (L) 1 166.85
Signal Repetition (SR) 1 355.35- 3.96*
Instructions (I) 1 574.21 6.40*
MX L 1 28.06
MX SR 1 .26
M.X I 1 131.27
L X SR 1 212.01
L X I 1 1006.31 ll.22**
SR XII l 5.86
M X L X SR 1 1.76
M.X L X I 1 347.99 3.88*
M X I X SR 1 5.40
L X SR X I 1 462.16 5.16*
MXLXSRXI 1 146.81
Error (w) 464 89.65
Total .479

 

*Significant at alpha

**Significant at alpha

.05
.01

35

Signal Repetition X Instructions are statistically
significant.

The List Sequence X Instructions interaction is
shown in Figure 5. Comparisons of individual treatment
means reveal that the Similar Non-Informed group was
superior to both the Similar Informed group and Separated
Non-Informed group (alpha = .05). These differences are
the same differences reflected in the List Sequence X
Instructions interaction for the total scores.

The List Sequence X Signal Repetition X Instructions
interaction is shown in Figure 6. The Double Signal
Similar Non-Informed group was significantly superior to
all groups except the Single Signal Similar Non-Informed
group and the Double Signal Separated Informed group.

No other differences between individual treatment means
were significant.

In general the above interaction on Trial Block 4
reflects the same differences as does the same interaction
on the total scores.

On the total scores, however. the Single and
Double Signal groups in the Similar Informed condition
.were significantly different. This difference was not
significant on Trial Block 4.

The Method X List Sequence X Instructions inter-
action was not significant in the analysis of total scores.
but it was significant in the analysis of the scores on

Trial Block 4.

36

19
SIM

SEP

1 I

18

17

16

15

MEAN NUMBER CORRECT

 

14

13

12

Non-Informed Informed

Figure 5. Mean number correct on Trial Block 4 of
grouped similar and maximally separated
lists as a function of instructions.

37

Hmcmflm GHQSOU tam mamcflm «0 v Muoam HMHHB co Doouwou Hones: com:

Hmcmflm cannon

III—IIJJ

Dill. mmm
nYIIO sz

.mumHH pmumummom pom meHEHm onu co mmsoum

Haemhm mamcam

QHEMOhZHIZOZ

NH

MH

GA

ma

Haemam baboon Daemon mameam

IIJllllll]

nrllc mum
nYIIu sz

QHSMOWZH

.w madman

NH

ma

dd

ma

0H

NH

ma

ma
ON

AN

$333803 HEHWDN NVEW

38

The means for the two lists as a function of learn-
ing method and instructions are presented in Figure 7.

The only significant difference among these means occurred
between the Recall Similar Non-Informed group and the
Recall Similar Informed group. It appears that the
instructions interfered with performance of the Recall
Similar group to a greater extent than in the Anticipation
Similar group.

Analysis of total scores indicates that the
interactions involving instructions, stimulus sequences.
and repetitions of signals were significant sources of
variance. At early stages of practice (Trial Block 1)
the repetition of signals and instructions interacted.

In general, the results of the analysis of later stages of
practice (Trial Block 4) conform to the results of the

analysis of the total scores.

Analysis of Rate of Learning

In order to assess the effects of experimental
treatments on the rate of learning. a set of gain scores
between performance on Trial Block 1 and Trial BloCk 4
was calculated. Each subject's score on Trial Block 1
was subtracted from his score on Trial Block 4. The
means and standard deviations of the gain scores are pre-
sented in Table 9.

The variances were assumed homogeneous (Bartlett's

test. x2 = 17.63, 15 as) and a 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 factorial

39

.mcofluosquCA mo cofluocsm

m mm mumHH poumummom AHHGEmeE cam wmafififlm pompoum on» so mmsoum
coflummfluflucm pom Hamoow mnu mo w xUOHm away? so Duouuoo Hones: coo:

poEHOMGH poEMOMCHIcoz ooEuomcH pofiwomcchoz

 

 

I mum om I mmm

OIIO 5m OIIO. 5m
3

DOEBmZ ZOHBdQHUHBZfl DONBMZ AAflUfim

.h Guzman

.LOSHHOD HHHWHN NVEW

ON

AN

4O

 

 

«.6 R.o m.o R.R m.m m.oa ~.m o.m Daemon mansoo

m.n m.m e.m m.oH o.» m.s m.m o.e shaman oameam
pmumummmm >HHMEHRME

~.m H.ms m.s R.NH m.e 6.8 m.o H.0H Daemon manson

o.a m.oH m.m m.oa m.m s.m H.o m.n daemon oamcam

am 2 am 2 am 2 am 2 umfiasam oomsouo.

Hamumm cohomaauHuca Hamomm coaumoaoauea
UOEHOMCHICOZ UTEONCH

 

 

.mouoom Gama mo mcoflumfl>op pumpcmum paw memo: .m wanna

41

analysis of variance was performed on the gain scores. A
summary of this analysis appears in Table 10. The g

ratios for Instructions and the interactions of List

Sequence X Instructions, Method X List Sequence X Instructions.
and List X Signal Repetition of X Instructions were
statistically significant.

The means of the gain scores of both lists as a
function of instructions are plotted in Figure 8. Per-
formance of the Non—Informed subjects on the Grouped Similar
List was superior to performance of the Informed subjects
on the Grouped Similar List. No other differences
were significant.

The means of the gain scores of both lists as a
function of learning method and instructions are plotted
in Figure 9. Comparison of individual treatment means
reveals: 1) None of the differences among the Informed
group are significant: 2) In the Non-Informed condition.
the Recall Similar group is superior to.the Recall Separated
group, while the difference between lists with the antici—
pation method is not significant.

The means of the gain scores for both lists as a
function of Signal Repetition and Instructions are plotted
in Figure 10. Comparison of individual treatment means
reveals: l) The differences between treatment means among
the Informed groups are not significant: 2) In the Non-
Informed condition only the difference between the Double

Signal Similar group and the Double Signal Separated group

4

2

 

 

 

 

Table 10. Summary of analysis of variance of gain scores.
Source df Mean Square F-Ratio
Method (M) 1 34.67
List Sequence (L) 1 ' 214.67
Signal Repetition (SR) 1 ,137'60
Instructions (I) 1 693.60 10.6l**
M X L l 20.42,
MX SR 1 15.05
L X SR 1 206.72
L X I 1 651.01 9.97**
SR X‘I l 43.80
M.X L X SR 1 4.22
M»X L X I 1 256.66 3.92*
M X I X SR 1 10.51
L X SR X I 1 355.35 5.44*
MXLXSRXI 1 84.17
Error (w) 464 65.31
Total 479
*Significant at alpha = .05
**Significant at alpha = .01

14

13

12

11

10

MEAN NUMBER GAI NED

Figure 8.

43

 

SIM GI—O
SEP H
.___
Non-Informed Informed

Mean number gained (T.B.4 - T.B.1) of
informed and non-informed §e_on similar
and separated lists.

44

.mcofluosuumcfl cam ponuoe mcflcumoa mo coHDocsm m we named cmumummom
haamaaxmfi cam HGHHEHm pomsoum mo AH.m.B I v.m.9v pocflmm uwnEsc and: .m owsmflm

coflummflofluc¢ Hamomm cowummfloflucd Hamomm
m m
o m
A n W
m m
N
n
m m m
3
H
0H CA
W
Ha
HH 0
3 3
I mam MH Immm .MH
OIIO sz 0.10:8

QMEMOEZHIZOZ DMZMOEZH

45

.mCOAuUSHumcw tam cofluwuomou chmflm-MnocoHuocsw o no nomad poumummmm
waamswxmfi 0cm HmHHEAm pmmsoum mo Aa.m.9 I.¢.m.av pocflmm quEsc com:

Hmcmflm OHDSOQ Hmcmfim oamcflm

]

\

I new
OIIO sz

QMEMOEZHIZOZ

w

m

m

CH

Ha

NH

ma

dd

ma

Hmcmflm OHQSOG Hmcmflm mamcflm

.oa ousmflm

JIIII]
o
a
m
m

I. new
OIIO sz

QNZmOEZH

OH

AH

NA

ma

vd

ma

QENIVD HSHWHN NVEW

46

is significant. It appears that when timing arrangements
allow for comparisons among stimuli. the rate of learning

on the Grouped Similar List is facilitated.

Substitution Data

Rothkopf (1957) has reported that the level of
similarity among Morse Code Signals is positively related
to substitution errors. Rothkopf (1958) found that the
distribution of errors was not related to sequence of
stimuli in the list (Grouped Similar vs. Maximally
Separated). He states, ". . . errors generally were found
to be in keeping with the relative standing of the four
treatments as far as correct responses were concerned."

In order to assess the affects of the present.
experimental treatments on the distribution of substitution
errors, the substitution errors of four experimental groups
were examined. The groups examined were the following:

(A) Informed Anticipation Single Signal Separated.

(B) Informed Anticipation Double Signal Separated.

(C) Non-Informed Recall Single Signal Similar, and (D) Non—
Informed Recall Double Signal Similar.

The responses to each signal on Trials 13 - 16
were recorded for each subject. For each signal the fre»
quency that each response was given to that signal was
tabulated. Substitution error frequencies of each of the
four groups were correlated with the other groups. The

correlations appear in Table 11. All the correlations in

47

Table 11. Correlations of distribution of substitution

 

 

errors.
___ Recall Recall Anticipation
Non-Informed Non-Informed Informed

Recall Single Signal

Non—Informed

Double Signal .85

Anticipation
Non—Informed

Single Signal .81

Anticipation
Informed

Double Signal .78

Double Signal Single Signal

.75

.76 .82

 

48

Table 11 are significantly different from zero. and none
of the differences between the correlations reaches
significance at the .05 level of confidence.

These results confirm Rothkopf's results.

The correlation between the substitution errors in
the four groups of the present experiment and the percentage
of confusions in a psychophysical situation (Rothkopf,

1957) are .69, .78, .74 and .72 respectively. It appears
that irrespective of experimental conditions, the main
source of errors was perceptual confusions among the

signals.

DISCUSSION

Results of the Present Experiment

’Previous experiments on the effects of stimulus
sequence on paired associate learning report contradictory
results. Differences in stimulus materials and procedures
among these experiments may account for the differences in
results. The present experiment manipulated several pre-
sumably salient features of these previous experiments to
determine their effects on an auditory paired-associate
learning task.

The results indicate the following:

1) Performance on the Grouped Similar List was
superior to performance on the MaximallyeSepegated List
when the effective inter—stimulus interval was short.

2) There was no significant difference in performance
on the two lists when the effective inter—stimulus interval
was long and the subjects were not informed of the nature
of the sequence of the list.

3) Instructions concerning the nature of the sequence
of stimuli "depressed" performance on the Grouped Similar
Lie; but facilitated performance on the Maximally Separated
List-

4) At the later stages of practice. the interfering

effect of the instructions on the GroupegpSimilar List

49

50

was greater with the recall method than with the antici—

pation method.

Comparison of Results to Prior Experiments

The present results agree with the Gagné (1950)
results. but are in apparent disagreement with the Rothkopf
(1958) and the Rotberg (1964) results.

Decreasing the time between the stimuli to more
closely approximate the timing in the Gagné experiment
resulted in superior performance on the Groupegeeimileg
'piep. Rothkopf has argued that the discrepancy between his
and Gagné's results may be due to the difference in stimulus
materials. However, the results of the present experiment
indicate that, even with transitory auditory stimuli.
grouping the similar stimuli facilitates learning if the
effective inter-stimulus interval is short.

The present experiment contained several experi-
mental conditions which were similar to Rothkopf's (1958)
experiment with respect to timing and learning method. He

found facilitation on the MaximallySepareted List. In

 

the present experiment performance on the Grouped §imilar

and Maximally Separated Lists was not significantly different
when the effective inter-stimulus interval was long. How—
ever, the differences Rothkopf (1958. experiment II)

reported were based on 160 study trials and 40 test trials.
He did not report an analysis at different stages of

learning. Careful examination of his Figure 2 (Rothkopf.

51

1958) reveals that at the stage of practice equivalent to
the practice given in the present experiment, the dif—
ferences between lists were not significant.

Rotberg (1964) argued that the successive presenta—
tion of similar stimuli is facilitative only when the sub—
sets of similar stimuli are temporally or perceptually
isolated. In the present experiment half the subjects were
instructed about the similarities and sequences in the
lists. It was expected that these instructions would
facilitate learning by facilitating perceptual isolations.
It was further expected that the instructions would inter—
act with stimulus sequence such that the Grouped Similep
EASE would show greater facilitation from instruction
than the Maximally Separated List. This did not occur.

On the contrary. when the effective inter-stimulus interval
was long (Single Signal condition), the difference between
the Informed groups and the Non-Informed groups was not
significant. On the other hand, when the effective inter-
stimulus interval was short, the performance on the Grouped
Similar List was "depressed" by the instructions while
performance on the Maximally Separated List was facilitated
by the instructions.

The special instructions for the Grouped Simileg
peep stressed similarities among the stimuli, while the
special instructions for the Maxipelly Separated List did
not have this emphasis (see Appendix B). Perhaps the

emphasis on similarities set the subjects to attend to

52

similarities rather than to differences among the stimuli.
thereby interfering with learning.

The present results indicate that learning method
per se was not a significant source of variance. The
significant M X L X I interaction on the scores of Trial
Block 4 and on the gain scores indicates that performance
on the Grouped Similar List was superior to performance
on the Maximally Separated List in the Non-Informed Recall
condition. This difference is probably due to the facili-
tative effect of the short effective inter-stimulus
interval in the Grouped Similar List, rather than being
due to learning method.

Recent studies (Battig and Brackett, 1961, and
Lockhead, 1962) utilizing visual and verbal stimuli reported
contradictory results on the effects of the recall and
anticipation methods in paired-associate learning. The
recall method either yielded superior performance or there
was no significant difference in performance with both
methods. Using International Morse Code Signals as
stimuli, Levine and Barch (1963) found that performance
with the anticipation method was superior to performance
with the recall method. Although there were several S-R
pairs common to both the 1963 and the present study. learn-
ing method (recall vs. anticipation) was not a significant
source of variance. In the prior study the list consisted
of eight pairs. while the present study had 12 pairs.

Perhaps increasing the list length also increased the

53

opportunity for subjects in the anticipation condition to
"practice errors." This change may have depressed per—
formance in the anticipation condition while not affecting
performance in the recall condition. There was also a
procedural difference in the present study and the Levine
and Barch (1963) study which may account for the difference
in results. In the prior study all trials of the
anticipation condition used the study trial anticipation
procedure and there were no separate test trials.

The present study, although confined to auditory
stimuli. throws light on the comparison of learning with
auditory vs. learning with visual stimuli. The main
finding of the present study is that, if the timing of
the auditory task is made comparable to that of the
visual task, the learning rates will be affected by the
same variable (List Sequence) in the same way. A timing
characteristic of central importance may be the effective
inter-stimulus interval as well as the rate of presentation.
In studies utilizing visual materials the stimuli are
usually left in view of the subject until the next
stimulus occurs. This is not possible in studies utilizing

patterned auditory stimuli.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The effects of stimulus sequence on a paired-
associate auditory learning task were studied while varying
learning method (Anticipation vs. Recall). Instructions on
list sequence (Informed vs. Non-Informed) and effective
inter-stimulus intervals (Single vs. Double Signal). The
stimuli were International Morse Code Signals transmitted
at the rate of 15 words per minute and the responses were
two-digit numbers. Subjects were given 16 alternating
study and test trials.

The hypotheses were the following:

1) Performance on the yegimelly Separated List will
be superior to performance on the Grouped SimilegfiList
when the anticipation learning method is employed in con-
junction with a long effective inter-stimulus interval.

2) Performance on the Grouped SimilepeList will be
superior to performance on the Maximally Separated List
‘when the recall learning method is employed in conjunction
with a short effective inter-stimulus interval.

3) Information concerning the stimulus sequences
will facilitate learning and the facilitation will be
greater for the Grouped Similar List than for the Meximally

§eparated List.

54

55

The results supply confirmatory evidence for

hypothesis 2. but not for hypotheses 1 and 3.

REFERENCES

Battig, W. F. and Brackett, H. R. Comparison of
anticipation and recall methods of paired-
associate learning. Psychol. Rep., 1961. 9.
59-65.

Edwards, A. L. Experimental design in psychological
research. Revised edition. New York, Holt.
Rinehart and Winston, 1960.

Gagné, R. M. The effect of sequence of presentation of
similar items on the learning of paired associates.
J. exp; Psychol., 1950, 40. 61-73.

Levine. J. R. and Barch, A. M. Stimulus familiarization
and learning_method in auditory identification
learning. Paper read at M.P.A. Chicago, 1963.

Lockhead, G. R. Methods of presenting paired—associates.
J. verb. Learn. Verb. Behav., 1962, 1, 62-65.

McGuire, W. J. A multiprocess model for paired-associate
learning. J. exp; Psychol., 1961, 62. 335-347.

Rotberg. I. C.. and Wolman, M. Verbal paired—associate
learning as a function of grouping similar stimuli
or responses. J. exp; Psychol., 1963, 65, 47—51.

Rotberg, I. C. verbal paired-associate learning as a
function of grouping similar stimuli or responses.
J. exp. Peychol., 1964, 67, 298-299.

Rothkopf, E. Z. A measure of stimulus similarity and
errors in some paired-associate learning tasks.
J. exp. Peychol., 1957, 53, 94-101.

Rothkopf, E. Z. Stimulus similarity and sequence of

stimulus presentation in paired-associate
learning. J. exp. Psychol., 1958, 56. 114-122.

56

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

PAIRED ASSOCIATE INSTRUCTIONS

Recall — Single Signal

 

This is an auditory identification experiment. We
are interested in investigating the circumstances and
situations under which sound patterns are best learned.

This is not a test of personality or intelligence. We

are interested only in the average scores of various groups;
so please do not look at your neighbor's paper. Cheating
will invalidate the information we gather. Please listen
to the following instructions very carefully.

You will hear 12 different sound patterns or signals.
Each of these signals is paired with a two-digit number.
Your job is to learn which number belongs with or is
associated with each signal. Look at your answer sheet.
The numbers that will be used are printed there.

We will present two kinds of trials: study trials
and test trials. Study trials present the 12 signals with
their numbers so that you can learn the pairs. Test trials
present only the 12 signals and test whether you can give
the number part of the pair. You will have 16 study trials

and 16 test trials. Remember: Study trials are only for

the purpose of learning the pairs; so do not write anything

58

59

during the study trials. Listen carefully and try to
associate each signal with its number.

Look at your answer sheet. Look for Test Trial 1.
Notice the numbers are arranged in 12 rows labeled A
through L. When you hear the first signal of the test trial,
circle its paired number in Row A. For example, if you
think its paired number is 14. circle the number 14 in
Row A. When you hear the second signal of a test trial,

circle its number in Row B, and so on until the twelfth

signal.

Recall - Double Signal

 

This is an auditory identification experiment. We
are interested in investigating the circumstances and
situations under which sound patterns are best learned.
This is not a test of personality or intelligence. We
are interested only in the average scores of the various
groups; so please do not look at your neighbor's paper.
Cheating will invalidate the information we gather. Please
listen to the following instructions very carefully.

You will hear 12 different sound patterns or
signals. Each of these signals is paired with a two-
digit number. Your job is to learn which number belongs
with or is associated with each signal. Look at your
answer sheet. The numbers that will be used are printed
there.

We will present two kinds of trials: study trials

and test trials. Study trials present the 12 signals with

60

their numbers so that you can learn the pairs. Test trials
present only the 12 signals and test whether you can give
the number part of the pair. You will have 16 study trials
and 16 test trials. During the study trials a signal will
be presented. Immediately after the signal its paired
number will be announced. Then the same signal will be
sounded again. A new signal will follow after a brief
pause. Study trials are Only for the purpose of learning
the pairs; so do not write anything during the study
trials. Listen carefully to the signal, its paired
number and the repetition of the signal. In this way you
will be able to learn what number is paired with each
signal. During the test trials we will test your learning
of the pairs by presenting only the signals. On test
trials each signal will be presented only once.

Look at your answer sheet. Look for Test Trial 1.
Notice the numbers are arranged in 12 rows labeled A
through L. When you hear the first signal of a test
trial. circle its paired number in Row A. For example.
if you think its paired number is 14, circle the number 14
in Row A. When you hear the second signal, circle its

paired number in Row B, and so on until the twelfth signal.

Non-Informed — Recall

The pairs will occur in a different order from
trial to trial; so do not learn the pairs in order. Learn
each signal with its number. Do not write anything during

the study trials. During the test trials, circle the

61

number that you think is paired with each signal. Leave

no blanks. If you are not sure. make the best guess you
can.
Anticipation - Single Signal

 

This is an auditory identification experiment. We
are interested in investigating the circumstances and
situations under which sound patterns are best learned.
This is not a test of personality or intelligence. We
are interested only in the average scores of various groups;
so please do not look at your neighbor's paper. Cheating
will invalidate the information we gather. Please listen
to the following instructions very carefully.

You will hear 12 different sound patterns or
signals. Each of these signals is paired with a two—
digit number. Your job is to learn which number belongs
with or is associated with each signal. Look at your
answer sheet. The numbers that will be used are printed
there.

We will present two kinds of trials: study trials
and test trials. Study trials present the 12 signals and
after each signal the correct two-digit number will be
announced. Test trials present only the 12 signals and
test whether you can give the number part of the pair.
Each study trial will be followed by a test trial. You
will have 16 study trials and 16 test trials.

Respond to each signal by circling the number that

you think is paired with that signal. When you hear the

62

first signal of a trial, circle its paired number in Row

A. For example, if you think its paired number is 14,

then you would circle the number 14 in Row A. When you
hear the second signal of a trial, circle its paired number
in Row B, and so forth through the twelfth signal.

During the study trials a signal will be followed
by a brief pause. After this pause the correct two-digit
number will be announced. Circle the number that you think
is paired with the signal during the pause between the
signal and the announcement of the correct number. Then
listen to the announcement of the correct response. In
this way you will be able to learn which number is paired
with each signal.

During the test trials only the signals will be
presented. Respond to each signal by circling the number

you think is paired with each signal.

Anticipation — Double Signal

 

This is an auditory identification experiment. We
are interested in investigating the circumstances and
situations under which sound patterns are best learned. This
is not a test of personality or intelligence. We are
interested only in the average scores of various groups; so
please do not look at your neighbor's paper. Cheating will
invalidate the information we gather. Please listen to
the following instructions very carefully.

You will hear 12 different sound patterns or signals.

Each of these signals is paired with a two-digit number.

63

Your job is to learn which number belongs with or is associat-
ed with each signal. Look at your answer sheet. The numbers
that will be used are printed there.

We will present two kinds of trials: study trials
and test trials. Study trials present the 12 signals.
After each signal the correct two—digit number will be
announced. Test trials present only the 12 signals and
test whether you can give the number part of the pair.

Each study trial will be followed by a test trial. You
will have 16 study trials and 16 test trials. Respond

to each signal by circling the number that you think is
paired with that signal. When you hear the first signal

of the first trial, circle its paired number in Row A.

For example, if you think its paired number is 14, then

you would circle the number 14 in Row A. When you hear the
second signal of a trial, circle its number in Row B,

and so forth through the twelfth signal.

During the study trials a signal will be followed
by a brief pause and then the same signal will be sounded
again. After the repetition of the signal, the number that
is paired with that signal will be announced. Circle the
number that you think is paired with the signal during the
pause between the first and second sounding of the signal.
Listen to the announcement of the correct number. In
this way you will be able to learn which number is paired

with each signal.

64

During the test trials each signal will be pre-
sented only once. The correct number will not be announced.
Respond to each signal by circling the number you think is

paired with each signal.

Non-Informed — Anticipation

 

The pairs will occur in a different order from trial
to trial: so do not learn the pairs in order. Learn each
signal with its number.

Respond to each signal by circling the number that
you think is paired with that signal. Leave no blanks.

If you are not sure. make the best guess you can.

APPENDIX B
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR INFORMED GROUPS

Informed — Grouped Similar List

The pairs will occur in a different order from
trial to trial. However, the pairs are arranged in a
special way. You will notice that certain signals are
very similar. As a matter of fact, the entire set of
12 signals is made up of four groups of signals. Within
each of the four groups there are three similar sounding
signals.

Now, during the study trials the three signals
within a group will always be presented together.

Suppose for demonstration purposes, each of these
forms represents a signal. Notice there are 12 forms.
This list contains four subgroups: circles, triangles,
crosses and squares. On any trial the circles would be
presented together as would the other forms.

From trial to trial, the location of any subset
wall vary. Notice that on Trial 1, the group of crosses
is presented first. Similarly. the triangles are in the
second position on Trial 1 and in the last position on
Trial 2.

Furthermore, within each subgroup the order of

signals changes from trial to trial. Notice that on

65

66

Trial 1, the closed circle is first, while on Trial 2. the
closed circle is second.

In summary, the location of the four groups will
vary from trial to trial, and the order within each group
will also change from trial to trial. The similar signals
will always be presented together on the study trials.
There is no specific arrangement of signals on the test
trials.

Remember to listen carefully to the signals and
their paired numbers on the study trials. On the test
trials only the signals will be presented. You will
respond to each signal by circling its paired number in the
appropriate row.

Leave no blanks. If you are not sure, make the

best guess you can.

Informed — Maxima11y_Separated List

 

The pairs will occur in a different order from
trial to trial. However. the pairs are arranged in a
special way. You will notice that certain signals are
very similar. As a matter of fact, the entire set of
12 signals is made up of four groups. Within each of the
four groups there are three similar sounding signals.

Now, during the study trials, the three signals
within a group will never be presented together.

Suppose, for demonstration purposes each one of

these forms represents a signal. Notice there are 12

67

forms. This list contains four subgroups: circles.
triangles, crosses and squares.

Notice that each member of a subgroup is always
separated from any other member of that subgroup by three
dissimilar signals.

From trial to trial the order of the signals will
change. Furthermore, the same member of the subgroup will
not always appear first. Notice that the right triangle
appears as the first member of its group on Trial 1,
while the equilateral triangle appears as the first member
on Trial 2.

There is no specific arrangement of signals on the
test trial.

Remember to listen carefully to the signals and
their paired numbers on the study trials. On the test
trials only the signals will be presented. You will
respond to each signal by circling the paired number you
think is correct in the appropriate row.

Leave no blanks. If you are not sure, make the

best guess you can.

 

 

Weojnsouuecuh

 

ObnvaCAnmmED Aim!

MeeeDGCIUDARA

 

mocouhaeeevju

APPENDIX C

RESPONSE SHEETS

uni: DATE

STUDENT NUMBER SEX

AGE #

 

PSYCHOLOGY 151 INSTRUCTOR

 

A. 1h
26.32 37 us 51 63

B- 11. 26 32
C- IN 26 32
D- 11. 26 32
:E— 1h 26 32
F- 11. 26 32

0- 1h
25 32337 h8 51 63

H; 1h 26 32
I- 1h 26 32
J- 11. 26 32
K- 11. 26 32
L_ IN 26 32

A- 11'. 26 32
s- 11. 26 32
C- 11. 26 32
D- IN 26 32
E- In 26 32
F- 11. 26 32
6- 1h 26 32
H- 11. 26 32
I- 1h 26 32
J- In 26 32
K- in 26 32

STUDY TRIAL 1

 

72
37 ha 51 63
37 h8 51 63
37 h8 51 63
37 NB 51 63
37 NS 51 63

72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72

37 ha 51 63
37 NB 51 63
37 118 51 63
37 N8 51 63
37 NS 51 63

STUDY TRIAL 2

 

37 N8 51 63 72
37 218 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 118 51 63 72
37 NS 51 63 72
37 h8 51 63 72
37 h8 51 63 72
37 NB 51 63 72
37 he 51 63 72
37 1.8 51 63 72
37 h8 51 63 72

11‘

'80.

80
80
80
80
80

80

80

80

80

85 93 '

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

85 93‘-

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

96

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

as 93 96

I
‘0‘.

TEST TRIAL 1

 

A- IN '
26 32 ‘
37118516372808
5 93
85 93 96

B- in 26 32
0- 1h 26 32
D- 1].; 26 32
E- 1h 26 32
F- It 26 32
G -1h 26 32
H -15 26 32
I- in 26 32
J- 1h 2h 32
K- in 26 32
1» 1h 26 32

A- 11. 26 32
B- 1h 26 32
0- lb 26 32
D- 1h 26 32
E- 1h 26 32
F- 11. 26 32
0- 1h 2? 32
H- in 26 32
I- In 26 32
J- 11. 26 32
K- in 26 32
L- 1h 26 32

37 1:8 51 63 72
37 178 51 63 72
37 NB 51 63 72
37 ha 51 63 72
37 118 .51 63 72
37 ha 51 63 72
37 h8 51 63 72
37 NS 51 63 72
37 N8 51 63 72
37 118 51 63 72
37 ha 51 63 72

TEST TRIAL 2

 

37 148 51 63 73
37 ha 51 63 72
37 ha 51 63 72
37 NB 51 63 72
37 L18 51 63 72
37 ha 51 63 72
37 148 51 63 72
37 NS 51 63 72
37 ha 51 63 72
37 178 51 63 72
37 148 51 63 72
37 N8 51 63 72

80
80
80

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

96

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

A- 1b 26 32
B- 1b 26 32

c-
M263237 118 51 ‘

D- 1b 26 32
E- 1b 26 32
F- 1b 26 32
3- 1b 26 32
H- 1b 26 32
I- 1b 26 32
J- 1b 26 32
K- 1b 26 32
L- 1b 26 32

A- lb 26 32
B- 1b 26 32
0- 1b 26 32
D- 1b 26 32
E- 1b 26 32
F- 1b 26 32
G- 1b 26 32
H— 1b 26 32
I- 1b 26 32
J- 1b 26 32
K- 1b 26 32
L. 1b 26 32

STUDY TRIAL 3

37 M) 51 63
37 118 51 63
37 h8 51
37 b8 51
37 88 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 h8 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 b8 51 63

SflmYTKMLh

72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72

 

37 b8 51 63
3712351
37 b8 51 63
37 h8 51 63
37 b8 51 63

37 DB 51 63

37 U8 51 63
37 h8 51 63
37 h8 51 63
37h85l63
37 h8 51 63
37 118 51 63

63'

80

80
8f)
80

80

8O
80

80

, 93
93
93
93

93
93
93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

96

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

A- ll; 26 32
B- 11; 26 32
C- 13.1 26 32
1);
114

26 32
26 32
F- 17.1 26 32
1).;
131
174
111 26 32
1.11

lb

26 32
26 32
26 32

26 32
26 32

1b 26 32
174. 2 6 32
1b
lb
1};

26 32
26 32
E- 26 32

F— 1b 26 32
G- 1b 26 32
77- 1b 26 32
1- 1b 26 32
J- 1b 26 32
K- 1b 26 32

17-1742632

£13347? TRIAL 3

 

37 b8 51 63
37 148 51 63
37 ’48 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 b8 5163
37 148 51 63
37 be 51 63
37 be 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 ’48 51 63
37 b8 51 63

72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72

TEST TRIAL b

 

37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 £18 51 63 72
37.b8 51 63 72
37 b3 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 178 51 63 72
37118 51 63 72
37 178 51 63 72‘
37 178 51 63 72

72
72

E5
E? E? E5 E? E?
E5 E?

E?

89

85 93 96
85 93 96

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

96
96
96
96

96
96
96

96
96
96

96
96

85 93 96

A- 1b 26 32
B- 1b 26 32
0- 1b 26 32
D- 1b 26 32
E— lb 26 32
F- 1b 26 32
G- 1b 26 32
H- 1b 26 32
I- 1b 26 32
J- 1b 26 32
K- 1b 26 32
L- 1b 26 32

A- 1b 26 32
:3- 1b 26 32
0- 1b 26 32
D- 1b 26 32
17- 1b 26 32
17- 1b 26 32
G- 1b 2632
I-I— 1b 26 32
I- 1b 26 32
J- 1b 26 32
K- 1b 26 32
L- 1b 26 32

STUDY 13151;;
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 h8 51 63 72
37 88 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72

STUDY TRIAL 6

 

37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51,63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 h8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72

80
80
80

8O

80

80
80
80
8O

80

80
80

8’8

80
80
80
80
8O

80

8O
8O

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
e5 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 .93

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

85 93

593

96
96
96
96
96

96
96
96
96
96

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

71151 TRIAL 5
A- 1b 26 32 37 b8 51 63 72
B- 1b 26 32 37 b8 51 63 72
c- 111 26 32 37 b8 51 63 72
D- 1b 26 32 37 b8 51 63 72
E- 1h 26 32 37 h8 51 63 72
F- 12; 26 32 37 b8 51 63 72

G- 1h 26 32 37 88H51 53°72~

HF 1h 26 32 37 h8 51 63 72
I- 1b 26 32 37 b8 5163 72
J- 1b 26 3a 37 b8 51 63 72
K- 1b2632 37 11851 63 72
L-1b26 32 371185163 72

TEST TRIAL 6

1.. 1b 26 32 3718 51 63 72
B- 1b 26 32 3718 51 63 72
0- 1h 26 32 37 h8 51 63 72
D- 1b 26 32 37 b8 51 63 72
121- 1b 26 32 37 b8 51 63 72
F- 1b 26 32 37 b8 51 63 72
G- 1b 26 32 37.118 51 63 72
H- 111 26 32 372118 51 63 72
I- 1b 26 32 37.18 51 63' 72
J- 1b 26 32 37 b8 51 63 72
K- lb 26 32 37 h8 51 63 72
.1- 1b 26 32 37b8 51 63 72

80

80

85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93.96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96

85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85.93 96

'85 93 96

85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96

2- lb 26 32
B- 1b 26 32
0- 1b 26 32
D~1b26 32
E- 1b 26 32
F- 1b 26 32
G- 1b 26 32
H- 1b 26 32
I- 1b 26 32
J— lb26 32
K- 1b 26 32
L- 1b 26 32

A- 1b 26 32
B- 1b 26 32
0- 1b 26 32
D- 1b 26 32
E- 1b 26 32
F; 1b 26 32
G- 1b 26 32
H- 1b 26 32
I- 1b 26 32
J- 1b26 32
K- 1b 26 32
1, 1b 26 32

STUDY TRIAL 7

 

37 b8 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 ’48 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 118 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37248 51 63

72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72

STUDY TRIAL 8

 

37 118 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b3 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72

80

80

80

80
8O
83
80
80

80

8O

80
80
80
8O
80
80
80

80

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

85 933 96

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

96

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

71- 1b 26 32.

B- 111 26 32
C- 111 26 32
D- 1).; 26 32
E- 1b 26 32
F- 1b 26 32
G- 124 26 32
I- 117, 26 32
I- 111 26 32
J» 111 26 32
K— 111 26 32
1- 1b 26 32

A- 1b 26 32
B- 1b 26 32
0- 1b 26 32
D- 1b 26 32
E- 1b 26 32
F- 1b 26 32
G- 1b 26 32
H- 1b 26 32
I- 1b 26 32
J- 1b 26 32

.K—lb2632

L- 1b 26 32

. TEST TRIAL 7

37 b8 51 63 72
37 118 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 118 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 118 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 118 51 63
37 118 51 63
37 118 51 63
37 118 51 63
37 h8 51 63

TEST TRIAL_8

 

37 b8 51 63 72
37118 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 118 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 b8 51 63 72
37 118 51 63 72

80

E5
E? E? E? E3 E? E?

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

96
96

96

85 93 96

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

96
96
96
96
96
96
96

A-

c-
D-
E?
F-
a-

H-

STUDY 1211122

14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72

14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72

14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72

80 85 93 96

80 85 93 96 ,
80 85 93 96 -

80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96

80-85 93 96'
'80 85 93 96'

80 85 93.96
80 35 93 96

80 85 93 96~

§TUD§ TRIAL 10

14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 5163 72
14 26 32 37 48 51-63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72

14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72-

14 26_32 37 48 51.63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63.72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72

80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80.85 93 96

.80 85 93 96

80-85 93 96

.80 85 93 96. ..

80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96

A.

B-

c-
D-

I-

G-

TEST TRIAL 2

14 26 32 37 485163 72
14 26 32 3748 5163 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26.32 37 48 5E 63 72
14 26 32 37 48- 51 63 72
14-26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37-48 51.63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 ‘32 ‘37 4851 63 72

80 85 93 96
80 84 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85:93 96»
80 85 93 96
8o 85 93 96
>80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96'
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96 -
80 85 93 96

EE§EIEELAL__19

14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72

80 35 93 96

80 35 93 96 *

80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96

A- 14 26 32
B- 14 26 32
C- 14 26 32
D- 14 26 32
E- 14 26 32
F- 14 26 32
G- 14 26 32
H- 14 26 32
I- 14 26 32
J- 14 26 32
K-‘14 26 32
L- 14 2632

A- 14 26 32
B- 14 26 32
C- 14 26 32
D- 14 26 32
E- 14 26 32
F- 14 26 32
G— 14 26 32
H- 14 26 32
I- 14 26 32
J- 14 26 32
K- 14 26 32
L- 14 26 32

STUDY TRIAL 11
37 48 51 63 72
37 48 51 63
37 43 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 53
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
3? 48 51 63
37 48 51 63

72 80
72
72 80
80

80

72
72
72
72
72
72

80
80

88°

72
72 80
STUDY TRIAL 12
37 48 51 63 72
37 48 51 63 72
37 48 51 63 72
37 48 51 63 72
37 48 51 63 72
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63

 

80
8O
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80
80

72
72
72
72
72
72

72 80

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
85 93

85
85
85
85
85

85

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

96

96

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

A- 14 26 32
B- 14 26 32
c— 14 26 32
D- 14 26 32
E- 14 26 32
F- 14 26 32
G- 14 26 32
H- 14 26 32
I- 14 26 32
J- 14 26 32
K- 14 26 32
L- 14 26 32

11- 14 26 32
B- 14 26 32
c- 14 26 32
D- 14 26 32
E- 14 26 32
F- 14 26 32
G- 14 26 32
H- 14 26 32
1- 14 26 32
J- 14 26 32
K- 14 26 32

M142632

TEST TRIAL

ll

 

37 4851' 63 72

37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63

TEST TRIAL

72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72

 

37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
3748 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48. 51 63
37 48 51 63
37 48 51 63

72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72

85-93 '96

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

96
96
96

96

96
96
96
96
96
96
96

96
96
96
96

85 93 96

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

A-1h2632
B-1h2632
c-1h2632
D-1h2632
E-1h2632
F-1h2632
G-1h2632
H-lh2632
I—1h2632
J-1h2632
K-lh2632
b182632

A-ZU42632
B-lh2632
C-1h2632
D-lh2632
E-Jh2632
F-1h2632
G-1h2632
H-1h2632

STUDY TRIA I_,__ 13

37 I18 51 63
37 118 51 63
37 £78 51 63
37 178 51 63
37 118 51 63
37 us 51 63
37 148 51 63
37 ha 51 63
37 b8 51 63
37 118 51 63
37 1:8 51 63
37 he 51 63

72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72

80

8888

8

80

80

80

ST
UDY TRIAL lb,

 

37 ’48 51 63
37 118 5k 63
37 148 '51 63
37 118 51 63
37 I48 51 63
37 h8 51 63
37 178 51 63
37118 51 63

i. 11: Z: 32 37 1:8 51 63
K- In 26 32 37 118 51 63
I”114263237 1185163

32 37 M 51 63

72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

8085 93

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

TEST TRIAL 13

 

:: :1; :: 32 37 118 51 63
C- m 26 32 37 1:8 51 63
D- 114 26 32 37 h8 51 63
E- m 26 i2 37 118 51 63
F-m ,2 371485163
G- M Z: 32 37 148 51 63
HI. 1h 26 32 37 h8 51 63
I“ M 26 32 37 178 51 63
J- M 26 32 37 118 51 63
Kb D4 26 32 37 I48 51 63
I, 32 371185163

111 26 32 37 14851 63

72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
22
72
72

TEST .‘RIAL 1h

 

A-lh
26 32 37h8 51 63 72

B-lh
C m263237h8 5163
26 32 37 h8 51 63

72
72

D- 11:
26 32 37 18 51 63 72

:11: Z: 32 37 ha 51 63
G- m 26 32 37 178 51 63
H- 114 26 32 37118 51 63
I- m 26 32 37118 51 63
J- 1h 26 32 37 18 51 63
K- m 26 32 37 1:8 51 63
L”M2632 37 1185163

32 37 118 51 63

72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72

80

80
80
80

8

8888

8

8O

80

80

80

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93
85 93

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96

31121332212.

A- 14 26 32 37 1+8
B~lh263237l+8
0-14263237h8
D-14263237h8
Fr- 14 26 32 37 1+8
133-1426323748
G-lh263237h8
H— 1h 26 32 37 A8
I-lh263237h8
J—lh26323748
1911426323768
LP 14 26 32 37 A8

STUDY
A- 11+ 26 32 37 48
B—1426 32371.8
0-111263237118
D—lh26323748
E—»lh 26 32 37 18
F- 14 26 32 37 1+8

51 63
51 63
51 63
51 63
51 63
51 63
51 63
51 63
51 63
51 63
51 63
51 63

TRIAL
51 63
51 63
51 63
51 63
51 63
51 63

72 8O 85 93 96
72 80 85 93 96
72 80 85 93 96

72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72

16
72
72
72
72
72

72

(Tr—1426 3237 1+8 5163 72
H- 14 26 32 37 48 51 63 72
I- ll; 26; 32 37 [+8 51 63 72
J-lh 26 32 37 48 53- 63 72
K- lb, 26 32 37 1+8 51 63 72 80

80

80

85 93 96
85 93 96

80 85 93 96

80
80
80
80
80
8O

L-lh263237l4851637280

85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96

85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96

TEST TRIAL 12

A- ll. 26 32 37 118
B- 14 26 32 37 118
0-»1h 26 32 37 AB
D~ lb 26 32 37 £78
E~ 1h 26 32 37 [+8
F—71h 26 32 37 #8
G— 14 26 32 37:48
H la 26 32 37 A8
I— 11+ 26 32 37 [.8
J— 11:, 26 32 37 68
K- 111 26 32 37 118
L— 14 26 32 37 48

51 63 72
51 63 72
51 63 72
51 63 72
51 63 72

80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
8O 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96

51 63 72 80 85 93 96

51 63 72
516372
516372
51 63 72
51 63 72
516372

TEST TRIAL 16

A- ll; 26 32 37 [+8
B— 14 26 32 37 118

51 63 72
51 63 72

8o 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
so 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
so 85 93 96

80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96

0—111 26 32 37 48 51 63 72 so 85 93 96

D-1426323748

5163 72

80 85 93 96

E~lh263237l+85163 7280859396
F-1h2632374851637280859396
G—lh 26 32 371118 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
H—lh2632374851637280859396
I-lh263237h851637280859396
J—lh2632374851637280859396
K-14263237h85163 72808593 96
14-1426323711851637280859396

N315 %5/ 323425221" &7 giflo/L/T DATF¢z//227
1. "7T / v /L /’
STUDENT NIMBER «3 9.5113) ’3 SEX ~_‘z' 312(26):.--

AGE 257/: Z # /é

PSYCHOLCGY 151 INSTRUCTOR /Z/Z3 29g; 112/ E14?) Aer—(3"

.7 ”VOL/TL L ”-0., ‘7 73

/ / ’ r/

)7- , I 71
”(14" /—f’ “ LL, C- "2.1/ I / I

TEST: TRIAL;
A- 11 26 32 37 18 51 @72
B- 11 26 32 37 18551 63 72

c- 11 26 32 37 18 5316362”?

D- 11 26 32 37 18 516372
E- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72
F- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72
G- 11 26 32 37@51 63 72
H- 11 26 32 37 1851 63 72
I- 11 26 32 37 18@ 63 72
J- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63@
K-1126é23718516372
L— 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72

TEST TRIAL 2
A- 11 26 32 37 18751 63 72
B- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72
c- 11 26 @87 18 51 63 72
D- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72

 

80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80(85/93 96
80 85QE§J96
80 85 93 96
80 85793 96
80 85 93 96
8O 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 Q67

80 85 93 96
80 8 93’96
80 85 93 96
8O 85 93 96

E- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63@ 80 85 93 96

F— 11 26627137 18 51 63 72

G— 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 62
H- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 C72

I— 11 26 32@‘ 18 51 63 72
J-112632 37 1851637
K- 112@ 3718 51 63 72
L- 11 26 32 37 1861 63 72

80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96

TEST TRIAL 3
1- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63672 80 85 93 96
B- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 63:96
0-112632 37185163 72 80859396
I). 11 26 32 37 Q8 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
1:- 11 26 32 376851 63 72 8O 85 93 96
F- 11 26 32 37 18 51 (6372 80 85 93 96
G- 11 2662,? 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
H— 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72@: 85 93 96
I- 11 26 32 37,18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
J- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 93667
x.@ 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
L- 11 26 3267‘ 18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96

 

TEST TRIAL h
A- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 @396
B- 11 26 32 37 18 5,163 72 8o 85 93 96
c- 11%?32 37 18 51 63 72 8o 85 93 96
D- 11 26®37 18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
E- 11 26 32 37 18 @63 72 80 85 93 96
F— 11 26 32 37 1a 51 63 @980 85 93 96
G— 11 26 32@18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
H- @26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
I- 11 26é2‘,37 18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
J- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85693796
K- 1126332 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
L- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 (937 96

 

TEST TRIAL S
1-@J26 32 37 18 51 63 72
B- 11 26 32 ’37! 18 51 63 72
0-1126323718 5163 72
D- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72
E- 112832 37 18 51 63 72
F- 11 26 32 37 18 51163 72
G- 11 26 32 37 1851'. 63 72
8-112632 3718 5163 72
I- 11 26 32 Q7 18 51 63 72
J- 1126 32 37185163 72
2:- 11 26:33: 37 18 51 63 72

 

L-1126 32 37 1185163 72.

TEST TRIAL 6

A- 11 26 32 37 18 51@ 72

 

80 85 93 96

’86 85 93 96

80 W96
86Q5. 93 96

80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96

TEST TRIAL '7

 

c- 11 26 32 37 1815163 72

‘ D- Q1326 32 37 18 51 63 72
86 8593 95 1

8-1126323718516372
-112632 3718 5163 72
G---11 26732 37 18 51 63 72

80
8O
80
80

'86

V’

80

B- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 @386

c- 11 26 321318 51 63 72
D- 11 26Q2/f37 1851 63 72
E- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72
F-@26 32 37 18 51 63 72
G- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72
H- 11 26 32 3718 51 63 72
I- 11 2632 37 185963 72
J- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72
K- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72
L- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72

80

8888

8

85 93 26‘

85 93 96
85 93 96

 85 93 96

85 93 96

85 93 96

85 93 96

85 93 96
85 93 96
85 x93 96
85 93 96

85 93 : 9:6}

85 93 96
85 93 96

86 8593 96

80
80

85193 96
85 93 96

H- 11 26532
I- 11 26 32

8-112632

K- 11%2
L- 11 267.32

A- Q1 26g
B-QE26 32
c- 11 26 32
D- 11 26 32
E- 11 26 32
F- 11 26 32

' G- 1126*) 32

H-lh 2632
I- 111, 2'3 32

37 18 51 63 72
3711881 63 72
37 31851163 72
37 18 751763 72
37 18 51 63 72

TEST TRIAL 8

 

27 37 18 51 63 72

37 118 51 83 72

37 18 51 63 77:2“

37 18-51 63 72
37,18 51 63 72
37 18 51 63 72
37 18 51 63 72
37 18 51 63 72
37 18 51 63 72

' A- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63@-86 85 93 96
‘ B- 11 26 32@18 51 63 72

86 85 93 96‘
86 85 93 96
86 85 93 96
8689(QE
8o 85(93D96
86 85 93 96
86385§93 96
86@58396
86 85 93 96
86 85 93 96
80 85 93 96

86 85 93 96
86 85 93 96
86 85 93 96 _
86 85 93 (236:1
86 85 93 96
80 8563396
86 85 93 96
86@ 93 96
80 85637 96

J- 11 26 32 /37 18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
K- 11 26 32 37 18g 63 72 @985 93 96
L- 11 26 32 3718555863 72 86 85 93 96

TEST TRIAL 9

 

A-\\26 32 37 L8 51 63 72 80 85 93 96

B- 11 26 32 37 18 51663) 72 8o 85 93 96
c- 11 26 32 3718 51 63 7219,02 85 93 96
D- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 7280
E- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 @980 85 93 96
F- 11 26 32 37 7851 63 72 F0 85%? 96
c;- 11 26 32 37 18:3[37 63 72 80 @193 96
H- 11 26 32 6:18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
1- 11 2632/37 1.8 51 3 72 80 85 93 96
J- 11 26 32 37 18 f5} 9 72 80 85 93 96
- 11 26 32 3718 51
L- 11 {532371851

0\

0
1»

PF\
.\v
\I.)

72 80 853:? 96
72 80 85 93 96

O\
\A.)

TEST 77119.ng
A- 11 26 32 37 18 5@72 8o 85 93 96
B- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96)
c—@26 32 37 1.8 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
D- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85‘ 93 96
E- 11 2632 37 18 51 63 72 8o 85 93 96
1?..ng 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
G- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63®8o 85 93 96
H- 11 26 32 37 18@ 63 72 8o 85 93 96
I- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72® 85 93 96
J- 11 266937 18 51 63 72 8o 85 93 96
K- 11 26 32 37®51 63 72 83 85 93 96
L- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 8o 85C9§ 96

 

9085 93 .96 9'

TEST TRIAL 11

A- 11 26 32 37@}51 63 72 8o 85 93 96
B- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 9@
c- 11 26 32 @18 51 63 72 8o 85 93 96
8.6126 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
E- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 8o 85"; 93 96
F- 11 26 32 37 18 Q? 63 72 80 85 (93 96
G- 11 ’56: 32 37 18 51 63 72 8o 85 93 96
H— 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72639 85 93 96
1.. 11 26 32 37 18 51 631?; 80 85 93 96
J- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 8:3: 96
1(- 11 266; 37 18 51 63 72 8o 85 93 96
L- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63372 80 85 93 96

TEST TRIAL 12
A- 11 26 3237@51 63 72 8o 85 93 96
13.- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 806993 96
c- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 9366
D- 11 26 32 37 18®63 72 80 85 93 96
E- 11 26 32 @18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
17- 11%» 37 18 51 63 72 8o 85 93 96
G- @6 32 37 18 51 63 72 @93 96
H- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 80 85 @96
I- 11 26 @3337 18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
J- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72@ 85 93 96
7.. 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 @80 85 93 96
L- 11 26 32 37 18 51363172 80 85 93 96

 

TEST TRIAL 13
1.@}26 32 37 18 51 63 72
2- 11 26 32 37 18 Q1 63 72
C- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72
D- 11 @332 37 18 51 63 72
E- 11 26 32 @718 51 63 72

- lb 26 32 37 18 51 63 72
G- 11 26 32 37 @6‘ 51 63 72
H- 11 25(32 37 18 51 63 72
1- 11 26 32
J- 11 26 32
x- 11 26 323
L- 112632 37 18516362

TEST TRIAL 11

 

1- 11 26 32 37 1861 63 72
B- 11@ 32 37 18 51 63 72
0- 1h 26 32 37 18 51 63 72
D- 11,26 32 37 18 51 63 72
E- 11 26 32 37 @511 63 72
F- 11 26@3718 51 63 72
G- 1h 26 32 37 ha 51 63 72

80 66/93 96

80 85 93 96

86 85 93 Q6:

80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96

80 85@ 96 -

80 85 93 96

80 (66' 93 96

37 18 51 63 72Q66 85 93 96
37 18 51 @3/ 72 C8 85 93 96
851 Q3628 85 93 96

80 85 93 96

80 85 93 96

1- 11 613732
B- 11 26 32
c- 11 26 32

D- 11 26 32"

E- 11 26 32
F- 11 26 32
G- 11 26 32
H- 11 26 32
I- 11 26 32

3 J- 1126 32

K- 11 26 32

L- 1126 32

A- 11 26 32

TEST TRIAL 15
37 18 51 63 72
37 18 51 63 72
37 18 1f 63 72 86
37 18 51.63 72 80
37 18 51 63 72 86-
3711851 63 72 86
37 18 51 63 72 86
37 18 51 63 7? 80 85 93 96
37 18 51 63 72 8o 85 93 96
37 18 51 63 72 86 85 93 96
37 1851' 63 72 86 85 93 96
37 18 51 63 72 86 85 93 96

 

E?

85 93 96
85763?96
85 93 96
85 93 96
83) 93 96
85 93 96
85 93 96 7

E?

TEST TRIAL 16
37 18 51 63 72 80 BBQ/3’ 96

 

86 85 93
86(85 93

86 85Q3

80 85 93

96
96
96
96

B- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72
0- 1h 26 32kg7l18 51 63 72

80 85 93 96

86 85 93696

H- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63 72 @385 93 96

I- @26 32 37 18 51 63 72
J- 11 26 32 37 18 51 63d2
K- 1h 26 32 37 7h8 51 63 72

80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96
80 85 93 96

1,1126 32 37 18 5163 72 8685 93 96

D- 11 26 32
E- 11 26 32
F- 11 26 32

G- 1827 72

H— 13326132‘

I- 11 26 32

J- @26 32

K- lh 26 32
L- 11 26 32

37 18 51 63 72
37 18 “51:63 72

86 85 93 96
86 85 93 96
86 85 93 9'6
86 85 93 96

37 18 51 63 7L86 85 93 96
37 18 51 63 72 86 C93 96
37 18 51 63 72 86 85 93 96
37 7757372 87 85 73 77
37 18 51 63 72 80 85 93 96
37 (8'51 63 72 86 85 93 96
37 18 51 63 72@}8§ 93 96