. A COMPARISON OF TNE POLARISCOPE WITH THE _ __ v_ .. - .. . .... 1:". ’:"“"I.H:-g‘~_‘vc .._.‘;.._. ‘3 -‘._.. F .- L . 4’“ t‘..:,«,._.r..1.;,; 1: -‘-‘*:W m . *1 '5 -'-‘- w .0 r :1 2*. . TACHISTOSCOPE FOR EVALUATING SURFACE DESIGNS OF CONSUMER PACKAGES-'~”-*~‘- ::: Thesis for the Degree of M S. :h-‘i’§-_'-'5§§5T7 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY A ” L‘ESLTE w BARTON 1958 " LIBRARY TH"' LilChigan Siam University Till/WillNIN/lfll/l/UI/l/IU/f//l///II///I///I/////ll ._ _ . 3 1293 10396 0955 l .4 -. I f‘ w- A I) 4 4. J T‘ V' '1 l j. ;‘.‘ *‘ ‘ v“ 1"."77 a“ w J, .LSFF/ ABSTRi01 A COL-EL’PKIL‘SOI‘E OE TEIE .‘OLF'LR'CSCOF’II hi‘I‘H TIT?) 3A." glk‘-,LJT.3 OR EVALUATING SURIACED .3 GNS CF C(KS Had PA .CKAGES by LES LIE w. BART ON The comparison of these two instruments used in determinu irg attention, leeibility'and.visibility characteristics of sur— face designs of me1.ges was undertaken to eliminate one te3t methoc.if both of these tests revealed the same information con- cerning the package, or to determine the merit in Using both tests if they revealed dibferent but worthy information. Backgroiad research consistec of a study of the history and.uses of‘ eoth the tachist scope and polariscope and revealing controversial topics concerning the comparison of the two test methods. The comparison use determined.by evaluating four consumer packages using eighty students as the evaluators. The test results showed that the color of an element of a surface design and the background color of the design played a significant role, along with illusn trations on the sur ace design, in determining that these two tests do not reveal the same cM aceeris.ies of a surface design, A COMPARISON e? T’E POLARISCOPB erH THE TACHISTCSCOPE FCR EVALUNT Ne SUT?ACE oasIst ow coxsursa PACKkGTS By Laslie w. Barton A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Packaging 1968 ACKNOE‘IIEDG EM SITE 3 I wish to thank Dr. Harold J. Raphael, Professor of the. School of Packaging, I-fichigan State University, for his inspi— ration and guidance in helping me prepare this thesis. I also'I-Fish to thank my wife and family for the encourage- ment and patience which the;r have shown me throughout 27v work. -ii... TI-LBLE O? CON'I‘EJ'J‘I)‘ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................... LIST OF TABLES............................................ LIST OF ILLUSTRhTICHS..................................... LIST 0? APPENDICES....................................o... INPRODUCTION.............................................. CHAPTER I. THLE rlfiACEI-ISTCSCOE)EO.O............C.‘O.........0... HiStOI‘y Of the TaChiStoscopeoooo00000000000000... 131338 03? TaChj-StOSCOPGSoooooooooooooooooooooooooo Uses Of TaChiStOScopeSoooooooo00000000000000.0000 II. THE; POLp-}21SCO?EOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOO HjStOKy Of the POlariSCOPeoo00.000000000000000... U503 Of the POlariscopeocoo00000000000000.0000... III. THEORETICAL DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS.........o... IV. "DES‘T PLQOCEDUIZEOOOOOOO00.0.0.0...0.0.0.000....0... IntrOduCtionoooooooo00000000000000.00000000000000 TaChiStOSCOPiC Procedureooooooooooooooooo00000000 POlariSCOpic Procedure.oooooooooo0000000000000... Summary........o.......9.......oo.o..o......o...o v. RESULP‘S 0? TESTS....................0...‘........ COZ‘JCL ISIOII JAZIIT. R:CO:’3'EE‘IMTIOIJSCO.C.0....O............ 0.... BIBLIOmeubc‘I-{YO9OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0...0.00.00.00.00... APPEIV’DICESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO0.0.0.0....000.00.000.00... -iii~ Page ii iv vi VDNJT? #3 13 17 21 27 27 28 3o. 32 1+1 1&9 53 56 Table Pag e l. 0RDLJI1 R! LN.- {II GS FCR PACK’U. “3 OOOOOOOOOOQIOOOOOOOQOOOO “’3 N o A ORDER PL’WT‘GS FOR PACKAGE B M» 3. ORDER RJ-NYT Ics FOR PNCRNGE c........................ 45 N. ORDRR RANKINGS F OR PACEi CE D........................ N6 5. HEARS LU ‘D 81“- 3Lth ‘1‘) DEVIATICI‘IS FOR EACH ELEI'IL‘ATT FOR BOIH TEgj-‘SOOOO0.0.0.0....OOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0." 1*? 6. T‘IE VJ'LUE‘S 01‘ TI 1E STAT ISTIC T FOR EACH ELEII‘WT AND THE ACC:LT[‘.1Y“ 0:1 RLLJECI‘IOIT OF THE LIYPOTHLL)”‘IS....... ‘48 a-lV-- LIST OF ILIJLN51‘R;1:‘IU:~13 PAClilflXGE (“0.00.00.00.000.000......GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000 PACKI‘GE BO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. PACK-A‘GE COO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PACICAGE DOOOOOOOCOOOOOOO0.0000000000000000000000.0... TACHISTOSCOPE Ill-TH TMDE RECORDER-coooooooooooooooooooo POLARI'jaPE—J'OOOOO.G.0.00.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PAR‘PII‘IOIJOOOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SCHEZ-D’NTICS OF THE TACHISI‘O’SCOPE FIRING M‘E HMIISM. 0000 Page 33 31+ 35 36 37 38 39 1&0 LIST OF APPENDICES - Appen (3:12: , Pa £59 A. DATA 0? POLARISCOPIC EVALUATIC‘?‘"!S. . . . . . . . ,. . . . . .. .~ . . . . 57 B. DATA 0? TACH STOSCOPIC EffiL-UAI‘IONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 72 IETRODUCTION The correct selection and.placement of texture, size, color, typography, layout and copy of a surface design is indeed a pri— mary factor as to whether a package is accepted or rejected by the American consumer. The determination of the correct surface design may involve consumer panels, test mazlceting and.the use of one or more mech— anical devices. This thesis is concerned with two of these mach- anical deVices used to evaluate surface designs of packages. They are the tachistoscope and the polariscope. The comparison of the polarisnope with the tachistoscope is to determine if both of these tests are desirable in the evalu- ation of the surface designs of consumer packages. The polari— scope as defined by Ebbster's Unabridged.Iflctionary is "An in- strument for studying the properties of, or examining substances in, polarized light consisting essentially of two Nicol prisms or other polarizing devices." In the evalua ion of a surface design using a polariscope, an instrument having rotating lenses that admit various degrees of light, the surface design is perceived after the lenses of the polariscOpe have 10 tated to a point that a component of the surface design is legible and its perception is recorded. As A— .- h—_ *h - _‘ —_ ‘ —-—- —‘. H vbbster's The 1rd Nzw Interim tional Lictionarv of the Eng- ” can" 1". v-O< o” "4!" ”-“h- is Lan ~ua e unabriiged (Jnrlu’llalfl, 3253., G. t C. Ferriam -u.“ “/‘r O “Obuo n- “-ath -2— used.in evaluating surface designs the polariscope is believed to be a device for recording legibility and.visibility. The tachis- toscope as defined by webster's Unabridged Dictionary is "An ap- paratus for the brief exposure of visual stimuli that is used in the study of learning, attention and perception."2 In the evalu- ation of surface designs using a tachistoscope the surface design is exposed for a short period of time and.the visual response of what was perceived during this brief exposure is recorded. The tachistoecope is believed to record rec0gnition factors and indi— cations of impact of the surface design. Even though the polari- scope is believed.to be evaluating legibility and.visibility and the tachistoscope is believed to he evaluating recognition factors and.indications of impact, these two testing devices may actually be evaluating the same properties of the surface design. This thesis then is not concerned with the validity or relevance of the tachistoscope and polarisc0pe in their evaluation of consumer packages but is to determine if the tachistoscope and.polariscope are measuring the same properties of surface designs. In the comparison of the tachistoscope and polariscope both. theoretical and practical conclusions will be drawn. The theo. retical conclusion will be based on the theoretical reaction of a person's eyes from.perceiving stimulus in the evaluation of surface designs using both a tachistoscope and polarisc0pe. .— -_.__ --___ “A.“ A __ —— '— _ Ibid. The practical conclusion will be based on the actual testing of surface designs of consumer packages using both the tachistoacope and.polariscope. Based on both the theoretical and practical conclusions as to the comparison of the tachistoscope and polariu scope in the evaluation of surface designs of consumer packages a statement will be made as to the desirability of using both tests in the evaluation of surface designs of consumer packages. CHAPTER 1 - THE TACHISTOSCOPE The definition of the tachistoscope for evaluatiug surface designs of packages can be altered from the dictionary's general definition to that of an instrument which measures legibiliuy, recognition, attention and.memory value which may be correlated with shelf visibility. hfith this test, as with that of the po- lariscope, a package designer may be able to determine the unity of a surface design, that is, the order in which each component is perceived by a consumer. This order is determined by viewing a surface design through a tachistoscope. figstory;gf;the Tachistoscope The following in tabular form is a brief history of the de- velopment of tachistoscopic uses since its conception in 1859. 1859 - Sir hilliam.Hamilton developed the Tachis- toscope as a measurement of the span of apprehension. His crude experiments dwelled on the problems of the number of objects that would be perceived at one glance. 1871 - The first experimental control using a ta. chistoscope was developed.by'hfilliam Je— vons. By throwing black beans into a box and having the observer judge the number as soon as they came to rest he showed that as the number of beans increased.there ‘Was a steadily declining curb in apprehen- :ion. 1895 - J. MCK. Cattell begin using the tachisto— scope as a device to he used for both exp perimentation of reading problems and to increase the speed of the indiviéual's read. ing. 1895 n Miss Catherine Aiken, a teacher at Stanford, Conn. used a revolving blackboard.uhich could be exposed.for short periods and then have studnnts repeat what they had seen in an ef- -5- fort to insure a student's memory rc- tention. 1938 - Dr. Rebert P. Carroll of Pennsylvania State College was the first person to use the tachistoscope as a device in teaching reading. He reported that those pupils who used tachistoscopic training impro— ved.twice as much as those in a control group. 19HO - Er. R. E. Green, superintendent at Fuller- ton, California, was the first to use the tachistoscope as a means to improve spell- ing. He reported that poor spelling stu- dents showed up to a fifty percent improve- ment in their spelling in a three week span. l9h2 - Er. Samuel Renshaw, a psych010gist at Ohio State University, developed a tachisto- scopic recOgnition pregram used in spotting enemy aircraft for the Navy. This prOgram was very successful and later in the war was used by the Army. 19h? - The use of the tachistoscope as an instru- mcnt in evaluating surface designs of packages was reported in Modern Packaeing. It was used in an effort to correlate ta- chistoscopic evaluations with shelf visi— bility. The tachistoscope gained national rec0gnition during hbrld hhr II in the Renshaw System of Recognition. The importance of the use of this system in horld War II and.its success has increased the research studies of other uses for the tachistoscope such as the one this thesis is concerned with. Therefore a detailed review of the Renshaw'System will shed some light as to the treu mendous potential which the tachistoscope may have to offer. At the beginning; of I-brld Tfar II the training system f (3* identifying enemy aircraft was I'EEFT. I'IEFT was a system in uhich servicemen would.learn the differences in wings, empetnage. fuse~ lage and tail structures of aircraft, but too often it occurred that there wasn't enough time to study the entire aircraft when viewing it in parts and in many instances happenings such as the following would occur. "Var records show that of the 92 planes lost in the Eeippe raid, 60 were shot down by British aircraft."3 New methods of training men to identify enemy aircraft were sought and.in 19U2 Er. Renshaw'demonstrated.his system for the Navy. In his dbmonssracion he shoved.how-untrained persons were onhy 20 percent correct in identifying familiar aircraft at 1/25 second while persons who had.had tachistoscopic training in the RenshaW’ Identification System were 98 percent correct in identifying fami- liar aircraft at 1/100 of a second. Dr. Renshaw reported that "things are only seen when grasped as unitary wholes."u Ybung children have the ability to grasp things in unitary wholes but when they begin reading they tend.to loose this abili- ty, because reading requires that you.break sentences and words into parts and.view them this way. The Renshaw Identification System.defied.this and.broke the disjunctiVe responses of the eye to objects and brought back the childhood.abi1ity of view; ‘- ._A_ *‘ “_ M P. Fountain, "Tachistoscopic Projectors, Eyes That See; Renshaw Identification Training System," Flying, Vol. 37 (Aug., 19u5), p. 1320 “see. p. 132. ing objects as unitary wholes. Dr. Renshaw’s system began by first training Navy instructors. He trained 5,000 and then had them train pre-flight cadets. They’traiued 285,000. The Renshaw System had.three fundamental objectives: 1. To improve general vision effectiveness. 2. To train the Observer to accurately'estinate the number of objects in the field of vision. 3. To train the observer to instantly reCOgnize aircraft, surface vessels and armored land ve- hicles. Dr. Renshaw trained his instructors for 4 weeks, 36 hours per week and they trained prsuflight cadets for 36 hours. The training began with digits or letters because he believed they were the most familiar symbols and thus the best to use for early train- ing. Then they were trained to identify aircraft, surface vehi- cles and armored land.vehicles. He used a projector with a upl— hensak Alphax f 3.5 lens with speeds to 1/100 of a second. The Renshaw Identification System was reported as an overwhelming suc- cess and it is reported.that no allied aircraft were mistakenly shot down by a person who had gone through the Renshaw'System. It is interesting to note that the Army tried to copy the Renshaw System.but shortened.it considerably and was not as successful as the Navy. Iypes of Tachistoscopes .g .‘o...- In.using a tachistoscope the data and conclusions are only A 5"Sp1it-Second Recognition...A NEU’Allin weapon," griatign, Vol. #2 (July, 19h3), p. 119. —---_ h . _ __ h- ' r—u'\ w~ -8" as accurate as the triggering devices which may flash a light on an object, a projection of an image on a screen or by a mechan- ical process which exposes an object for a small duration of time. Three types of tachistoscopes are discussed. The most common type of tachistoscope in use today is the slide projection type. It is a still-projector with a shutter similar to that used in a camera. The slide projector flashes the image on a screen and.the duration is thus determined.by changing the setting on the shutter. The projection type tachisu toscope has the following advantages: 1. It is a-means of showing targets to a group rather than individually. 2. The size of the targets are easily changed. 3. USing slides which are small to provide a large image allows for an accurate timing device at a reasonable cost. h. The targets being slides are small and.com- pact and.thns easy to store. 5. By showing a lighted.area in a dark room the attention of the subjects is increased. The mechanical process by which an object is exposed can also employ the shutter principle, but much larger than the ones used.in the projector type. Another form used is similar to a revolving blackboard_on which a multitude of objects are placed and then recording what is viewed by the observer. Ih the re- volving blackboard.version of the tachistoscope the viewing per- iod is usually in seconds rather than fractions of seconds. The advantages in using mechanical processes is that there is no change in.lighting and.that objects -- not images -- are viewed. The third type of tachistoscope which uses the flash of light on an object, is the one used'by the author in the comparison with the polariscope. The method usedin obtaining the flash is the firing of a flash of light by accurate durations of electrical impulses on a magnetic tape. This method is further discussed in Chapter h of this thesis. Another method for causing a flash of light is the construction of-a tachistoscope using a high speed.photolight. Exposures lasting only one three-millionth of a second can be achieved by using a photolight although at these short durations after images creatod.hy the illumination are a problemo The major advantages of the flash of light type of tachistoscope is the accuracy at short durations achieved and that objects a- not images -- are viewed. Uses of Tachistgscopes The tachistoscope is used in the field of education. Tech- istoscopic training affects students in the following construe- tive ways: 1. They lengthen the span of recognition. 2. They shorten the reader's fixation time. 3. They instill the concept of reading by phrases. -10- a. They provide whatever motivation may be pe- culiar to mechanical contrivances. Besides reading, tachistoscopic training in education can be used to increase speed and accurac in spelling, arithmetic, typewriting, shorthand, reading of music and.the vocabulary and phraseology for clerical training. The tachistoscope is frequently used in psychology. In perceptual tests it is used in degrading the stimulus when em- phasizing personal factors, for example, using the tachistoscope to flash dirty and clean words to see how long it takes to rec— ognize each. It is also used in attention studies in determin- ing the factors involved to make a person pay attention. The tachistoscope as discussed earlier was used in the Ben- shaw Identification System in World War II. Dr. Renshaw has broadened.the use of tachistoscopic training by employing it in optometrics to cure patients of nearsightedness rather than using glasses. Tachistoscopic training has also been employed.in industry to improve efficienqy and reduce fatigue. It is used in indus- try to improve reading speed, improving reading speed.up to 50 percent and comprehension up to 60 percent. many banks have found that tellers can attain better accuracy with increased __ .— _. h. _ M. .___ A.- _ _ v w— 6L. It Gilmore, "Pros and Cons of Tachistoscopes," Nation- £l_ggadingiggnference, Eighth Yearbook, 1959, p. 55. output yet reduce fatigue after participating in a tachistoscopic training prOgram. This thesis is primarily'concerned with the use of tachisto- scopic tests in evaluating surface designs of consumer packages. In packaging all three types of tachistoscopes: slide projection, mechanical and.light flash can be used. In the slide—projection method, slide pictures of packages are taken and then projected on a screen at short intervals each in succession from shortest to longest and the observation is recorded at each interval. The major disadyantages of using slides is that you are onty viewing an image and not the actual package and this image is usually larger than the actual package. [jhe mechanical method is not usually used.because of the size of lens required and be— cause of the size and mechanical shutter principle it is not one- hundred percent accurate at the short duration required in surface design evaluations. [The method.used by the author consists of a flash of light inside a cabinet, illuminating the cabinet and.mak- king the package visible. This method.has the advantages that actual packages are used and.that accurate time durations are easily'obtained. The method used is the same as for the slide- projector method. l5th.a tachistoscopic evaluation, hor'fast each element of the design is perceived and in what order it is pertaixai, can be determined. The major disadvantages of using the tachistoscope in evaluating packages is that only one package is being evaluated and it is isolated while in a store it is surrounded with many other packages. Also the correlation of a dark room with a quick flash of light to a testing room kept at normal conditions is in question. The advantages of the tachistoscopic test in evaluating sur- face designs as a sophisticated testing method are as follow : tit is a standard.by which surface design can be tested which eliminates the designer's personal or bias opinions. It deters mines which elements stand out and.their order so that the unity intended for a package's front panel can be obtained. It is a comparative test so that the order in which elements of a surface design are perceived by a few are perceived by most others regardu loss of the condition of the perceiver's eyesight. x The tachistoscope in packaging, then, is a useful testing device where individtal word.legibility is in question or sing- ular elements of a surface design for a package are in question with alternatives for the same package. In order to be used as a useful tool in comparing a package with the ones it will be placed.vith in a store, a correlation method needs to be de- veloped. CHAPTER 2 - THE POIARISCCPE The definition of the polariscope for evaluating surface designs can be altered from.the dictionary definition to that of an instrument which records the various degrees of visibili— ty or legibility of the different components of a surface de- sign. hath this test a package designer can determine the unity of a surface design, that is the order in which each component is perceived.by a consumer. Histo3y49ffithe‘Eplariscope The polariscope is based on the properties of polarized light, therefore; a brief history of polarization and a discussion concerning the polarization of light is helpful in understanding how'the polariscope is used.in evaluating surface designs of consumer packages. The following is a tabulation of the principal advances made concerning the history of understanding polarized.light: 1669 a Erasmus Bartholinus, a Danish scientist, discovered double refraction. 1690 — Christian Huyghens, a Dutch scientist, dis- covered.polarization of light; he demon. strated.the polarization with the aid of two calcite crystals arranged in series. 1757 u Robert Hooke, an English physicist, ten- - tatively'suggested (perhaps before this year) that light vibrations are trans- verse. 1808 - Etiennc-Lcuise Melus, a French scientist, discovered.polarization by reflection. -13- 1811 - 1812 - 1812. 1815 - 1816 - l 81' ~ 1828 - 181m .. 1845 _ 18’47 .. -112”. He happened to be looking through a cal- cite crystal at the light reflected ebli- quely from a window of the Luxembourg Pa— lace, in Paris, and.observed.that the two images produced.by the calcite were ex- tinguished alternately as he rotated the crystal. D. F. J. Arago, a French scientist, dis- covered optical rotation. Arago invented the pile—ofaplates polariu zer. Invid Brewster, a Scottish physicist, dis- covered ”Brewstor's law" regarding polaria zation by reflection. Biot discovered tourmaline's peculiar pro- perty, dichroism. Angustin Fresnel, a French physicist, found that two rays that are polarized at right angles cannot interfere. But he was unable to explain the matter until enlightened'uy Ibung. Thomas Young, an English physicist, was the first to prove that light vibrations are transverse, as had.been suggested by Hooke in 1757 or before. lfllliam.Nicol, a Scottish physicist, ina vented.the nicol prism. bfllhelm Haidinger, an Austrian.mineralo. gist, discovered.the "Haidinger's brush" phenomenon by means of which one may per— ceive directly that a broad, uniform.beam of linearly polarized light is indeed.po- larized. Michael Faraday, an English physicist, discovered.the Faraday effect. Haidinger discovered circular dichroism. -15- 1852 — tfllliam B. Herapath, an English physician, discovered a synthetic crystalline materi- al that polarizes light of all wavelengths in the visual range. 1852 - George G. Stokes, an English physicist, invented the four "Stokes parameters" for describing a beam of partially polarised 1875 - John Kerr, a Scottish physicist, discov- ered.tho Kerr effect. 188? - Heinrich Hertz, a German physicist, pro- duced Hertzian waves, giving much support to Maxwell's theony. 1892 - Henri Poincare, a French mathematician, in. vented.the "Poincaresphera" method of rep- resenting a beam of polarized.light. 1928 - Edwin H. Land, then a 19 year old student at Harvard College, invented the first suc- cessful sheet-type dichroic polarizer. 1933 - Bernard F. Lyot, a young French scientist, invented the polarization-type, narroweband filter that now bears his name. 1938 — Edwin E. Land invented Husheet, a dichroic sheet-type polarizer that relies on a poly; meric molecular type of absorber rather than a crystalline absorber. 19h0 - Robert Clark Jones, an American physicist, invented.the Jones calculus for computing the changes produced in beams of light by polarizers and retarders. 1942 - Francis Porrin, a French scientist, found how'to put the four Stokes parameters and sixteen Soleillst transformation constants into compatible form.-- a form.involving matrix algebra. 1993 - Hans Mueller, a professor of physics at Massachusetts Institute of Technolo; , in” Vented in this year, or shortly before, a phenomenological approach to p: oblems in- volving polarized and partially polarized light; the approach made extensive Use of #'X # matrices. 19u3 - Robert P. Blake, an American scientist, invented.the thtype polarizer, the first sheet-type polarizer suitable for use throughout an appreciable part of the in- frared range. C. H. Land's invention of what was cal. cd.Polaroid was very significant in the eventual development of the polariscope used for package testing by Alf Nelson in the 1930’s and.published in an article "The Eyes Have It“ in the Cbteber, 1950 issue of £9er Pac} 33:331.; on pages 121.1...125 and 207. Polaroid consists of a thin, transparent film of cellulose made up of crys vhich lie parallel to one another, between two plates of glass. The invent ion of Polaroid immediately made the production of polarized light inexpensive. Up until this time the use of polarized.light was limited due to its high cost. Thus many new uses of polarized.1ight were developed. A few of these uses in. volve a polarisccpe. Other uses of the pol Mi scope than as a package tester are discussed later. Polarized light consists of light waves traveling 186,282 miles per second. Their vibration is perpendicular to the direc- tion in which a beam of lig nt is traveling. In ordinary light .— — A ._ 4 w w 0...»- hilliam A. Shurcl iff, Polarised Light Production and Use 01%.2- u-IJOI'IOQC-O 5 9",”- (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Uni"Lrs ity Press, 1900}, pp. 12-1%. -17- this direction of Nibration of the light wave is changing millions of times a second. hhen.this direction of vibration is at a con- stant direction then the light is said to be constant. To polarise light, normal light vibrating in all phases is passed.through a polaroid lens. Only that part of the light which is vibrating in the same plane as the plane of crystals in the polaroid lens can pass through. This then is vibrating constantly in one direction and is polarized.light. The light vibrating in other directions was absorbed.by the polaroid lens. :§.In a polariscOpe two polaroid lenses are used, one called a polarizer, the other the analyzer. Light is polarized.by the first lens, the polarizer and.then is passed.through the anaLyzer. If the planes of the polarizer and analyzer are parallel the light passing through the polarizer will pass through the analya zer. If the planes of the polarizer and analyser were perpen- dicular then no light would.emit as all light passing through the polarizcr would.be absorbed.hy the anrlyzer. This degree of total transparency or total darkness depends upon the relative orientation of the disks. By.rotating the disks, conditions can vary from a ready transmission of light, to opaque and.to almost total opacity. To have a further understanding of the polari- scope some uses of it will be briefly discussed before discuss- ing its use in evaluating surface designs. ‘Qses of the Polgggsgggg The polariscope can be used by the mineralogist and geolo- —u~v— gist in identifying most minerals frcm their optical properties 'by studyi g the color phenomena and.the general behavior of the minerals under polariscopic observation. The polariscope can be used.by the chemist. He can use it in determining the content of crystallizable sugar in raw sugar by the rotation of the plane of polarization in solutions of cane sugar. It may also be used in the chemistry laboratory or other laboratories. By placing a clear sheet of cellophane between the two disks of a polariscope brilliant colors of every hue may be obtained. 9 The polariscope can be used to detect strains in glass ob- jects by examining these glass objects under polarized light and observing color differences. Thus this method can be used by manu- facturors to discover faulty products and to make tests of com- plicated structures. The pclariscope was used in this study to determine the sali- ence of different surface design elements of a package. [h.packagc placed in a cabinet illuminated within with polarized disks serv- ing as a window is viewed through that winieu by an observer. This cabinet with the polarized disk is a polariscope. At the beginning of the test the crystals of the disk are perpendicular so the surface design of the front panel of the package cannot be seen. As the disks are rotated.the surface design sltmdy‘becomes -J. visible until the crystals of the lens are in the same plane and the surface design is totally visible. Kr. Alf Nelson states that "These lenses interpose a precisely controlled.variable vis- O O ual barrier between the subject taking the test and the design 8 being tested." The order and nu.erical reading at which each element of the surface design is perceived is then recorded. This order and a numerical reading at each lens rotation can be used then in selecting a surface design which meets the goals of the designer as to unity or order. Or a weakness in the visi- bility of a component thus detected by the polariscope can be redesigned to meet the goals of the designer. The polariscopic test of surface designs compensates for various levels of visual differences among different individuals. [it is claimed by Alf Nelson, the developer of the polarisc0pic tests for surface de- signs, that these eyesight differences are not a consequence of the test since all surface designs are rated comparatively by each indiuidual. Eyen though the numerical readings may vary on different elements the relative numerical order is the same. Advantages of using the polariscope as a sophisticated me- thod.in selecting or improving surface designs are as follow : First it is a standard by which surface designs can be tested which eliminates the designer's personal or bias opinions. By rating surface designs comparatively by individuals it can be -‘—k__~ .— _— _ “ “fir’"-~QW---~u G... “4-4——‘ 8"‘I'he ayes Have It," govern Packaging, Vol. 34, Mo. 2 (Oct., 1960) p. 125. .. 2.0.. used.to determine the ease of identification of a package in a store even though the shopper has forgotten her glasses as com- pared.to the other products on a shelf. Its most important ad. vantage or use is that in determining which design elements of a surface design stands out the most and.the order in which they are perceived by the consumer as a tool in improving or selecting the most appropriate surface design for the package, product, consumer and.producer. [Ehe major disadvantage of the polariscopic tests of surface designs is that they indicate nothing as to how the design will perform among others as in a store display. Ibpending on the colors or shapes of the many packages in a store, an element may stand out among the others of a particular surface design but when viewed in isolation as in a polariscope test it may not stand out at all. CHAPTER 3 - THE RtTICAL DISCUSSIO: ‘4 b.- ‘3 :1 5) LL! La? *2: e: $4 L3 The problem in using and comparing these two testing devices in evaluating surface designs is the complexity of the designs. For instance, in a common surface design there may no as many as four different colors composing trademark, illustration and'wcrds. The questions which arise when comparing the tests themselves, the testing environment and.the surface designs are discussed in this section. 1. In the tachistoscopic tests time is a controlled factor [:while in the polariscopic examinations of packages time var and ‘J does vary. fibuld the difference of a controlled.time versus one which is non controlled, have an effect on the order in which each element is perceived? Tests have shown that the viewing time gen— erally increases aith stimulus complexity for geometric designs and line drawings and in 1965 Bruce T. locker and.Paul Bakan stated that "The relationship between complexity for geometric designs and.looking time holds true for realistic photographs as well as for designs and.line dr wings."9 Phile these photographs are not surface designs they do illustrate that for complex surface de- signs longer time is required to grasp all of the elements. If the tachistoscop'c test is flexible than longer durations can be used, while with a polariscope, as stated, the tire of the test depends on the individual doing the evaluations. Vhether or not ‘ A M —. - ___! _. w k ————v 9Bruce T. Leckart and Paul Bakan, "Complexity Judgements of Photographs and Looking Time," Perceptual and NOEEZEQEEEEE! v01. 21 (11.965), p. 170 this affects the order of perception of elements of a complex design, as compared'to simple designs requires additional infor. mation. In short duration versus long duration tests does the amount of illumination have an effect? In 1939 Hunter and Sigler stated that "As the duration of exposure is increased the intensity neces- sary for a limited discrimination of a given number of dots de- creases."10 This, when applied.to a surface design becomes more complex because of the multitude of colors which make up surface designs. Some colors are easier to see than Others but it doesn't mean that it affects the order in which they are perceived. that could.affect the order is the type of lighting, for example in- candescent versus daylight. Therefore, in comparing the tachisto- scope with the polariscope the same type of lighting should.be used although it is not yet conclusive whether the type of lighting would.play a significant role in determining the order in which different elements of a surface design are perceived. 2. The tachistoscope evaluations of surface designs common- ly occur in a dark room and a flash of light is projected.onto a package or the image of the surface design is flashed onto a screen while the polariscopic evaluations are commonly performed in an environment of constant lighting. The effect of this prob— *A L... _ H..__ ____._. ——v—-v ’— lovzaiter 3. Hunter and Marion Sigler, "The Span of Visual Discrimination as a Function of Time and Intensity of Stimula- tion," Journal‘s: Egperimental Psychology) Vol. 26 (l9h0) p. 178. -23.. lem is Open to discussion.. Alf Nelson, the inventor of the po. lariscope for package evaluation, states that "legibility cannot be accurately measured during changes of illumination, because the time lag necessitated.by the pupilany adjustments of the eye under varying levels of illumination creates false reading results."11 It appears that his statement concerning pupilary adjustment has merit but this situation is further complicated by the studies of Ludwig and Polak concezning thi 3 subject. They state that "Dark adaptation, or the absence of it, does not appear to effect the threshold of recOgnition of tachistoscopi-‘ cally'presentedwordstimuli."12 At this point the author was thoroughly confused.until his interview with Dr. Paul Bakan, Pro~ fessor of Psychology at Rflchigan State University; Dr. Eskgr believed.that the results of the author's tests were the only way in which this answer could.be obtained. He stated.that "If they do give similar results, if you get a high correlation or same measurement then.you can assume that it doesn't make any difference what this person does in te1.s of what you're inter- estod.in."13 The answer to this question thus will be present in the conclusion of this thesis. m ‘ _ __ _—_~ 4 ———- __ ”000...“: “a, (0990, 1960): pp. 124-3.25o lerneld H. Ludwig and Paul a. Pololc, Some Dificult ies mu Tachistcscope Research, " Journal of Genera l szcholog33 Vol. 72(3.) 1965) p0 1090 13Dr. Paul Bakan, Professor of Psycholc: J, interviewed.by Leslie LL Barton (Michigan State Univexsity, E. Lansing, Mic h.) 10 ‘tgl'l- , t‘rdrCh 79. 1908. ~24- 3. In tachistOScopic evaluations are surface designs viewed as wholes and in polariscopie evaluations are they‘viewcd in parts and if this statement is true what effect might this have? It is true that the trained tachistoscopic observer will see the surface design in its whole and.not in its parts. Samuel Renshaw states that "For the attainment of the maximum skill in.visual perception of forms, wholes must be seen rather than a succession of discrete and disjoined parts. Brief exposure is one item in lb But forcing to perceive to see shapes coherently3 unitarily." as Renshaw states to see objects of wholes is an attainment. As stated in the section on the Renshaw Idetnification System, young children see objects as wholes and.lose this skill when they learn to read. Therefore, to have this skill later in life is a rest- tainment. This means that different individuals may be at diff- erent levels in losing or reattaining this skill which could.be a very significant factor in comparing tachistosccpic observers. But this may'again be offset by the fact that the untrained sub- jects of polariscopic examinations are used. Wbuld it not seem reasonable that if a person who could see an object as a whole on the tachistoscope he wouldialso see it as a whole on the polari- scope? Dr. RenshaW’disbelieves this. It is his belief that more can be seen in a flash than by concentrating on a subject. Thus he believes that in a flash an Object is more likely to be viewed 1n 3 0 Samuel Renshaw; "The Visual Perception and Reproduction of Forms by Tachistoscopic Kethods,"‘£purnal of Egychology, Vol. 20 (19%5). p. 228. as a whole such as a tachistoscopic evaluation and that in a test such as the polariscopie, evaluations that the subject is concen- trating on different aspects of the package just as he does when he learns to read. Dr. Renshaw's belief does have merit and stu. dies comparing the rec0gnition of non-alphabetical material with alphabetical material on the tachistoscope reinforces his belief. Bryden in 1957 stated that "Since one does not have as much ex. perience in reading; non. alphabetical material as alphabetical material, there presumably would not be the sane tendencies to- wards eye movements established for forms as there are for let... tex‘s."15 But then again the question might arise that even if one person saw an object in its whole and another in parts would the order in which the elements are perceived be the same? Another question which arises is, aresfamiliar words or trade- marks more readily observed on the tachistoscope than the polari- scope? Tests have been conducted concerning this problem by Killer, Bruner and Postman usingthe tachistOscope. They state that "An observer can identify fewer letters of an unfamiliar se- quence than of a familiar sequence when such sequences are pre- sented tae31 1i: +oscopically for exposures too brief. for complete 16 identification." It is the author's belief that the same would “W‘FA‘ _ WW---¢——-hflwuwnw-m-U*-~-~O-~O-”~ 15II. P. Bryd. en, "Tachistosc0pic Recognition of IIomAlpha- betical 1v aternl," Canadian Jouzflal of Psvchologi, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1960, p. 78. 16 G. A. Miller, J. S. Bruner, and L. Postman, "Familiarity of Let' ter Sequences and Tachistcsc0pic Identification,’ Jo*.u‘n‘a_;l 93 General fsizeholor , Vol. 51} (1951+) p.139. W- "- -25.. hold.true in polariscopic examinations because as the image of a word or trademark becomes faintly visible the observer will make an accurate assumption as to what the stimulus is if he is familiar with it. Thus the complexity of the tests themselves, the environ— ment and the surface designs may play a significant role in dot- ermining whether polariscopic and tachistoscopic evaluations com- pare. Possibly simple surface designs may shou'no significant differences as to which test method is used where complex surface designs may. Also surface designs which are familiar to the ob— servers may compare significantly while unfamiliar ones do not. The same may be said concerning the techniques used. By compar- ing several different surface d.signs some familiar and some com- plex under both techniques and determining if there is no signifi- cant differences then the following conclusion is made. If there are no significant differences among all surface designs then the factors discussed.in this section may be irrelevant. If some or all surface designs show a significant difference then further research is needed to determine which factors are relevant and which factors are irrelevant in an attempt to achieve a correla- tion between these two tests for evaluating surface designs of packages. CHAPTER 4 - TEST PROCEDURE lnLrosl‘l'eiaa Testsx war e conducted to determine if the tachistoscope and polariscope gave the same information when used in evaluating surface desi'ns of consumer packages. In these tests eighty stu- dents of the School of Packaging evaluated four different surface designs of consur er packages on the polariscope and tachistoscope. sachic evaluations of consumer L packa ages mus t be correlated. ith their performance in the store otherwise they are worthless ands myo onl* satisfly the package C‘ -52. designer's ago in that he has designed a good package.' The prob- lem is how can these tests be correlated to actual performance in the store where it is among a mass of other packages. It is the author's Opinion that a revolving laboratory display case similar to the revolving blackboard Miss Catherine Aikin used in 1895 could be used. With this display. case the packages in which the package you are designing to compete with would be in this display in the manner in which they are most commonly displayed in a store. Under normal lighting conditions a subject would stand or be seated in front of the display. The display would revolve and the subject would report each package and their ele- ments as he saw them. This would be a control. Then the newly designed package would be placed in the display where it would commonly be placed in a store when marketed and another subject would repeat the above procedure. The revolving display could be controlled as to the time duration it would be in view of the sub- ject. Then each package on the display would be tested tachisto- scopically and polariscopically by other subjects and correla- tion, if any, could be made. [Thug further study is needed in correlating the results of polariscopic and tachistoscopic evalu... ations of surface designs to actual shelf conditions in determin.. ing their usefulness as testing procedures in the development of surface designs for consumer packages. BIBLIOGRAPHI 9. 10. ll. 112-. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bakan, Paul, Dr., Professor of Percholog' interviewed‘b~ Leslie J _ 9 ML Barton, Michigan State University, E, Lansing, Mich., 10:00 A.M., March 22, 1968. Barnette, Gasper C., Learning Throu;1 Seeinr l-5th T*chi°+o~cooic -~*” 0") ud’.-.am Teaching Techniques, Dubugue , Iowa, km. C. bro 1 Com.any', 1(5). Eggghglggiggl Revigg,'Vol. 60, 1953, pp. 181—188. Bricker Peter D. and Charanis A. "Eb Incorrectlv Perceived 9 P 9 a . Tachistoscopic Stimuli Convey Some Information?" Journal of ”D- Bryden, M. P., "Tachistoscopic RecOgnition of Non-Alphabet:$cal Materiel,"_‘anai1~'n qur 13] of 'vachjlcrr, Vol. 14,3960, pp.c78.86. ”Ebsi Lecisions by latnjne?" lflode~n Pm keginv Vol. 37 No. 8 9 9 9 My “(2.1—0'95 April, 196+, pp. 162, 163, 165 , 163“an 323. "Evaluation :5 Visual Stimuli,"} micrn [tjfjjjh’g Vol. 20, No. 8, April. 1957, pp. 152-;53. Farber, Paul, “Cross Polarized Color," U.S. Camera, Vol. 27, 1965, Fountain, P., "“aehlotosco i.c Projectors, Eyes That See; Ren— shaW'Identifjcation Train ng System," ~lv1ng, vol. 37, Aug., 19453 Ppo 30'310 Frcrnd, John 3. and Williams, Frank J., bioder Bu siness Static .— oath—D! b-u MUG-l.- tics. E131.;: .)od Cliffs, N. J., Preztwce-n-11;'1n,., 1958. .m‘- Gilmore, I. 3., “P”or and Cons of Tachistos :opes," National Readfin" ('nrc one; 3, b.1ghth Yearb omk 1959, pp. 55-59. ., Hunter, 55.103 3. 2rd. Sior gler, harion, "The Span of Visual Dis- criminetion as a Function of Time and Into}: ity of Stimulation, " Journal of nxnrvzmontil iiynholpav Vol. 26, 19% at, pp. 1601179. '- ”. “d‘ ,1. ya. -..-.uu~.-.- o...- Keystone l'iew Company, 'fhg_$achi:t ognops, fleadville, Penn. Leckart, Bruce T. and Bakan, Paul, "Complexi‘y Tudg3nents of PhotOgr rapks‘ and 100‘ :i.ng T‘i.me " Perceptual and "otor Skil.ls: h‘hv‘. m nun—