University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The Effect Of Practice On Three Dynamic Components Of Kinesthetic Perception

(USC Thesis Other)

The Effect Of Practice On Three Dynamic Components Of Kinesthetic Perception

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content T h is d isse rta tio n h a s b e e n
m ic ro film e d e x a c tly as re c e iv e d
66-7076
LYON, M uriel Joan, 1928-
THE EFFECT OF PRACTICE ON THREE DYNAMIC
COMPONENTS OF KINESTHETIC PERCEPTION.
U niversity of Southern C alifornia, Ph.D ., 1966
Education, physical
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, M ichigan
THE EFFECT OF PRACTICE OH THREE DYNAMIC
COMPONENTS OF KINESTHETIC PERCEPTION
by
Muriel Joan Lyon
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Physical Education)
June 1966
UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA
T H E GRADUATE SC H O O L
U N IV ER SITY PARK
LO S A N G E L E S, C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
Muriel_ J o a n.Lyon.
under the direction of h.^...Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by the Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements
for the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
D a te..
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
..
7 I Chairman
PLEASE NOTE:
Figure pages are not original
copy. They tend to "curl". Filmed
in best possible way.
University Microfilms, Inc.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I should like to express my appreciation to the
numerous individuals who provided invaluable assistance
in the completion of this study. I am grateful to the
students who willingly gave their time in order to
participate as subjects. Dr. John Frederickson of the
Physics Department at the California State College at
Long Beach assisted in the design of the testing
apparatus. Mr. Wallace Schnitger designed and constructed
the knife-edge planimeter. Dr. Robert Littrell, Director
of Institutional Studies at the California State College
at Long Beach, made possible analysis of the data by
computer. To all of these, the writer acknowledges
indebtedness and expresses appreciation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................
Page
iii
LIST OF TABLES................................. vi
LIST OF PLATES....................... vil
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . .................viii
LIST OF DIAGRAMS................. ix
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM.............................. 1
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Definitions of Terms
Organization of Remaining Chapters
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE......... . 7
Anatomical and Neurophysiological
Aspects of Kinesthetic Perception
Measures of Kinesthetic Perception
Descriptions of Kinesthetic Tests
The Effects of Practice on Learning
and Performance
III. DESIGN AND PROCEDURES . .............. 56
The Learning Task
Pilot Study
Selection of Subjects
Experimental Procedures
Instrumentation
IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . 7^
Comparisons of Differences Between
Mean Scores of the First Five Trials
and the Last Five Trials
Comparison of Relationships
Among Variables
Learning Curves for the Thirty-
Trial Practice Period
V
Chapter Page
Comparisons of Accuracy Among Variables
Net Reduction in Percentage of Error
Between Initial and Final Performance
Comparisons of Tendencies in Performance
Among Variables
Comparison of Differences Between
Standard Deviation Scores of Initial
and Final Performance
Comparisons of Coefficients of
Variability at Selected Intervals
During Practice
Inter-Trial Correlation Coefficients
at Selected Intervals During Practice
Coefficient of Reliability Scores
for Each Variable
V. INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF DATA . . . 123
Changes in Performance as a Result
of Practice
Characteristics of Performance
During Practice
VI. SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION........ 1^3
Summary
Findings
Conclusion
Suggestions for Further Study
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . ................................
m-9
APPENDIX A; INTERPRETATION OF RAW DATA VARIABLES . 158
APPENDIX B: RAW DATA SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS . . . 160
APPENDIX C: INSTRUCTION TO SUBJECTS . . ...........
191
APPENDIX Ds RESEARCH PROJECT SIGN-UP SLIP.........
19^
APPENDIX Es REMINDER OF TESTING APPOINTMENT .... 196
APPENDIX F; LETTER OF APPRECIATION TO SUBJECTS . . 198
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Comparison of Differences Between Mean
Scores of First Five Trials and Last
Five Trials............ 82
2. Zero-Order Correlation Coefficients
Between Variables..................... 83
3. Means of Deviation Scores (With Constant)
for Each Trial and Variable........... 86
Percentage of Deviation From the
Designated Score ........................ 110
Wet Reduction in Percentage of Error Between
Means of First Five Trials and Last
Five Trials 0ooo«oose«Ao*ooo 113
6. Comparison of Differences Between Mean
Standard Deviation Scores of the First
Five Trials and Last Five Trials..... 117
7. Comparison of Coefficients of Variability
at Selected Intervals During Practice • o « 118
8. Inter-Trial Correlation Coefficients .... 121
vi
LIST OF PLATES
Plate Page
1. Apparatus With Subject Traversing
Pathway With Stylus ................... 6b
2. Apparatus With Subject Attempting to
Reproduce the Pathway With Crayon . . « • . 65
3. The Knife-Edge Planimeter................ * 70
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Learning Curve for Variable 1
Movement Speed - Stylus............. 91
2» Learning Curve for Variable 2
Movement Force - Stylus ............... 93
3. Learning Curve for Variable 3
Movement Speed - Crayon .................. 95
b. Learning Curve for Variable 1 +
Movement Force - Crayon .................. 97
5® Learning Curve for Variable 5
Linear Pathway 9^
6. Learning Curve for Variable 6
Area Pathway........................ 100
7. Learning Curve for Variable 7
Horizontal Movement - H to L ...... 102
8. Learning Curve for Variable 8
Horizontal Movement - L to R ...... 10^-
9» Learning Curve for Variable 9
Vertical Movement - Upward ..<.»*<>»• 106
10. Learning Curve for Variable 10
Vertical Movement - Downward . a „ . * „ „ 108
viii
LIST OF DIAGRAMS
Diagram Page
1. Structure of the Muscle Spindle............ 11
2. Electrical Circuit for Maze . « . ........ 67
3. The Principle of the Knife-Edge Planimeter . 68
ix
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
An understanding of the mechanisms which make
possible both .motor learning and effective motor perform
ance is of extreme importance to the physical educator.
A*basic problem is that of isolating factors which
contribute to success. Factors responsible for individual
differences in learning ability and potential capability
remain largely undiscovered.
Numerous physical educators have studied the
kinesthetic sense in an attempt to determine the nature of
the relationship between this particular sensory modality
and motor learning and performance. It seems logical to
assume that an understanding of kinesthesis would contrib
ute to better comprehension of the motor learning process.
Subsequent application of.this knowledge conceivably could
increase teaching effectiveness and consequently enhance
learning.
While some research in physical education has been
concerned with attempts to measure kinesthesis and
ascertain its relationship to motor performance and motor
learning, a review of the literature reveals considerable
1
inconsistency among the findings. Present knowledge with
respect to kinesthesis is exceedingly inconclusive.
In many of the studies batteries of tests which
purport to measure kinesthetic perception have been
employed. Tests of balance are common items in many of
these batteries, as are tests which require an individual
to assume a designated, static position of a limb. Neuro-
physiological literature, however, appears to limit the
sensory receptors, which give rise to the sensations of
position and movement known as kinesthesis, to structures
located in and about the joint capsule. Thus balance, for
i-ghich organs are situated in the bony labyrinth, is
excluded. Neurological investigators clearly differentiate
between these two separate senses and their respective
receptor mechanisms.
Research in neurophysiology presents some evidence
for the presence of at least two types of joint receptors,
each of which gives rise to kinesthetic sensations of
position and movement. One of these, the Ruffini
corpuscle, is thought to serve mainly as a detector of
joint angle, or limb position. It is believed that the
Pacinian corpuscle, which is activated only during move
ment, provides a means of informing the performer
regarding the direction, rate, and extent of movement in
progress.
3
It seems possible, therefore, that studies in which
a subject is required to reproduce a statically held
position may really be involving only the static aspect of
the kinesthetic mechanism. In the performance of motor
activities, it appears that the dynamic aspects of kines
thesis are involved and utilized to a greater degree than
are the static components, and consequently deserve study.
Statement of the Problem
The study was designed to investigate the effect
of practice on three dynamic components of kinesthetic
perception, namely, force, rate, and direction of movement.
The hypothesis was that practice on a novel motor task
which mainly required the use of the kinesthetic sense
would result in improved performance. Practice consisted
of performing a large movement made by the preferred arm
while tracing and then attempting to reproduce a designated
movement pattern. The two main purposes of the study were
to (1) determine if such practice would yield results
similar to those previouly found on other types of motor
learning tasks; and (2) determine the nature of the
performance during the practice period with respect to the
dynamic kinesthetic components of force, rate, and direct
tion of movement.
Scope and Limitations of the Study
The scope of the study and major limitations in
design follows
1. The study was limited to an investigation of
the effects of practice on kinesthetic perception. It was
restricted to an analysis of three dynamic components of
kinesthesis, namely, force, rate, and direction of move
ment. Static, positional measures of kinesthesis were not
included.
2. The investigation was limited to a study on
thirty women undergraduate students of California State
College at Long Beach as subjects.
3. The total learning period consisted of thirty
practice trials distributed over three consecutive days.
During each of three practice sessions, subjects practiced
the novel motor task ten times.
Weaknesses of the Study
It was believed that the chief weakness of the
study resulted from the fact that one portion of the
learning task involved the tactile as well as the kines
thetic sense to some degree. These could not be separated
The extent to which these two sensory modalities interact
conceivably could have influenced the results of the study
Another weakness was related to the validation of
the testing apparatus as a measure of kinesthetic
perception. It was necessary to assume face validity for
this means of measurement on the basis of what is presently
known regarding the kinesthetic mechanism. The testing
equipment could not be validated against any other similar
measuring device as none was known to exist.
Definitions of Terms
The following definition of terms is presented in
order to clarify their meaning as utilized in this studys
Kinesthesis."-The sense which informs an individual
regarding the position of the segments of the body, their
force, rate, and direction of movement. This sense is
probably limited to sensations arising from sensory
receptors situated in and around joint capsules.
Perception.— Recognition of energy impinging on a
sense organ.
Proprioceptors.— A general classification for
various types of sense organs located in muscles, tendons,
and joints.
Organization of Remaining Chanters
A review .of studies deemed pertinent to the present
investigation is presented in Chapter II. These reviews
include studies pertaining to the anatomical and neuro-
physiological aspects of kinesthesis studies,related to
the measurement of kinesthetic perception and investiga
tions related to the effects of practice on performance.
Chapter III explains the procedure followed in
organizing and conducting the study. The design and
conduct of a preliminary pilot study are reported here.
Chapter III also includes a description of the design and
operation of the apparatus and measuring instruments
designed for and utilized in this investigation.
Chapter IV contains an explanation of the
statistical analysis of data.
Chapter V includes an interpretation and
discussion of the findings.
The summary, major findings, and conclusions drawn
on the basis of the results of the investigation are
presented in Chapter VI.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The Review of literature presented in this chapter
is divided into four sections. A general summary of
research findings related to the anatomical and neuro-
physiological aspects of kinesthetic perception is first
presented. A basic understanding of this sensory mechanism
is a prerequisite to attempts to design or interpret
studies dealing with the relationships between kinesthesis
and other phenomena. An evaluation of the many measures
of kinesthetic perception employed by investigators seems
impossible without knowledge of the basic neurophysiology
involved.
The second section is concerned with a review of
studies on kinesthesis conducted in physical education.
The main purpose of this section is to indicate the
numerous methods and devices employed by investigators to
measure kinesthetic perception.
The third section contains a review of studies
which deal with the effects of practice on learning and
performance. As the present study is concerned with the
effects of practice on kinesthetic perception, it seemed
essential to include research findings related to this
area.
Anatomical and Neuronhvsiological Aspects
of Kinesthetic Perception
Perception requires the picking up of stimuli by
means of special receptors and the transmission of nerve
impulses via afferent channels to connections in the
nervous system. These sensory data are then coordinated
and/or interpreted, and behavior appropriately modified.
This study was limited to one type of sensory modality,
kinesthetic perception. To understand the kinesthetic
mechanism, it is necessary to know about the various types
of sensory receptors which are thought to contribute to
the sense of position and movement.
Classification of Receptors
Receptors are those parts of the body which are
excitable to stimuli and which contain the termination of
afferent peripheral nerve fibers (27)® These receptor
organs are capable of transforming various physical and
chemical stimuli into nerve impulses. Sherrington
classified sense organs into three categories on the basis
of where they receive their respective stimuli. Extero-
ceptors, located on the external surface of the body,
receive stimuli from the external environment. Intero-
ceptors, located in internal organs, are stimulated by
various conditions of the viscera. Proprioceptors,
located in muscles, tendons, and joints, are stimulated by
actions of the body itself and give rise to the sensations
of position and movement. They are concerned with the
regulation of movement as the body responds to extero
ceptive stimuli. This study was concerned with the last
type, as proprioceptors give rise to the kinesthetic
sensations.
Types of Proprioceptors
Although Elliott mentioned at least six different
types of proprioceptors located in various body tissues,
the end organs most commonly considered to be proprio
ceptive in function and which contribute to the sense of
position and movement include the muscle spindles, Golgi
tendon organs, Pacinian and Ruffini corpuscles and other
types of joint receptors described by Rose and Mountcastle
( 12) ( 32) .
Muscle spindle
Basic structure and distribution.— The muscle
spindle is a highly organized, complex, sensory end organ
which lies parallel to the surrounding muscle fibers. It
consists of several slender muscle fibers enclosed within
a laminated, connective tissue capsule. The intrafusal
muscle fibers, those fibers within the spindle, are thinner
than ordinary fibers. They are striated, except at the
belly, and run from each pole of the spindle capsule. At
10
the equator of the spindle, the intrafusal fibers contain
a collection of clear nuclei which cause a swelling termed
the nuclear bag. The spindle has its own blood and lymph
supply. Its nerve supply is quite complex. The sensory
endings are of two types. The primary afferent ending
terminates at the equator in the nuclear bag. It is this
ending that is responsible for the classical stretch
reflex. The secondary afferent ending terminates in the
myotube region which is located distally to the nuclear
bag. The motor supply to the spindle terminates in typical
and plates on the intrafusal fibers at the poles.
The size of spindles varies enormously, with the
usual length ranging from two to four mm. Muscle spindles
are found in practically all muscles. They are more
numerous in the extremities and in those areas of mucles
subject to the greatest stretch (7) (16) (27) (33)- A
diagram of the muscle spindle is presented on page 11.
Types of intrafusal muscle fibers.--According to
Boyd, spindles appear to contain two distinct types of
intrafusal muscle fibers (31)• The larger fibers are
packed full of nuclei at the equator, while the smaller
fibers contain a single chain of nuclei; thus, the two
types are differentiated as "nuclear bag fibers" and
"nuclear chain fibers."
With respect to sensory innervation, Boyd found
11
EXTRAFUSAL
MUSCLE FIBER
INTRAMUSCULAR
NERVE TRUNK
SPINDLE NERVE
TRUNK
MOTOR ENDPLATE (GAMMA)
MYOTUBE REGION
PRIMARY SENSORY
FIBER
CAPSULE
NUCLEAR BAG
SECONDARY SENSORY
FIBER
MOTOR ENDPLATES (GAMMA)
EXTRAFUSAL
MUSCLE FIBER
APONEUROSIS
DIAGRAM I
STRUCTURE OF THE MUSCLE SPINDLE
12
that both types of intrafusal muscle fibers are supplied
by Group la type fibers (primary sensory terminals), while
Group II nerve fibers (secondary sensory endings) are
concentrated mainly on nuclear chain fibers. With regard
to the intrafusal motor supply, the nuclear bag fibers
were found to be innervated by gammaj_ efferents, while
nuclear chain muscle fibers were supplied by the smaller
gamma,g type efferents.
Barker, however, recognized a third type of intra
fusal fiber which he designated as intermediate (2).
According to this author these fibers represent a distinct
category, and he suggested that Boyd*s analysis of only
two different muscle fiber systems may be an over
simplification. Barker also disagreed with Boyd regarding
the morphology and motor innervation of the intrafusal
fibers.
Afferent innervation.— The afferent nerve supply
to the spindle consists of two different types of nerve
fibers. The primary (annulospiral or nuclear bag) ending
forms a spiral girdle around the intrafusals at the level
of the nuclear bag. It is connected to large, fast-
conducting Group la nerve fibers. The secondary (flower-
spray or myotube) endings are connected to thinner
afferent fibers which belong to the medium-conducting
Group II type fibers. Each spindle contains one primary
13
ending and from zero to five secondary, sensory endings
(2) (12).
According to Boyd, the primary Group la afferent
fiber supplies both the nuclear bag and nuclear chain
intrafusal fibers, while-the secondary sensory terminals
mainly supply the nuclear chain muscle fibers (13) • Barker
and Matthews stated that the fast-conducting Group la
fiber from the primary ending is responsible for the
stretch reflex, with the la fiber synapsing directly with
the alpha motoneuron (2) (3D*
The stretch reflex is initiated by stretching the
muscle in which the spindle is located, thus stretching
the spindle. This stretch initiates afferent impulses
which are carried to the cord via the primary and secondary
spindle afferents. In the cord, the group la nerve fiber
synapses directly with the alpha motoneuron which carries
the efferent impulse to the extrafusal fibers, causing the
stretched muscle to contract. This entire process is
known as autogenic facilitation. The resulting muscular
contraction causes a slackening of the spindle, resulting
in a decrease in the firing of the primary afferent which
innervates the nuclear bag.
Bessou and LaPorte stated that much less is known
about the discharge of the secondary afferent endings (2).
They are activated by stretch, as are the primary endings,
lb
but their threshold to stretch is much higher. Matthews
indicated that the fundamental difference between the two
endings is that the secondary ending is very much less
responsive to the velocity of stretching than is the
primary ending (31)•
Cooper reported that discharge of the secondary
ending is said to cause a flexion reflex of the limb
whether the ending lies in an extensor muscle or a flexor
(2). This may be part of a protective reflex mechanism.
Efferent innervation.— The motor supply to the
muscle spindle serves as a system which assists in
regulating spindle activity. The sensitivity of the
spindle is regulated by efferent impulses from the central
nervous system. This mechanism is known as the gamma
motor system. Efferent nerve fibers to the muscle itself
(extrafusal) are termed the "alpha fibers;" those smaller
motor nerves to the polar regions of the intrafusal fibers
of the spindle are termed the "gamma efferents." Leksell
found that excitation of the gamma efferents evoked a
strong afferent discharge from the spindle (16).
Evidently gamma discharge causes contraction of the polar
regions of the intrafusal fibers; this stretches the
nuclear bag and causes the primary afferent to fire in the
absence of muscle stretch.
15
When the gamma efferents to the intrafusal fibers
are active simultaneously with the alpha efferents to the
extrafusal fibers, the nuclear bag ending continues to
fire despite the unloading of the spindle caused by the
muscle contraction. “It is apparent that gamma discharge
can compensate for the loss of tension on the spindle due
to muscle contractions." (16;103) The gamma small fiber
motor system keeps the spindle suitably adjusted to the
length of the muscle, thus the spindle can continue to
discharge with changing muscle lengths and the stretch
reflex can be appropriately maintained.
Experimentation and histological evidence have
established the existence of two functionally distinct
types of motor fibers, neither of which is contained
within the alpha group (2) (60). These are termed the
gammaj and gamma2 fusimotor fibers. Both Boyd and Cooper
indicated that the gamma^ fibers terminate on the larger
nuclear bag intrafusal muscle fibers; It is these fibers
which adjust the nuclear bag muscle fibers to the rate and
degree of stretch in conjunction with the primary afferent
ending (2). The smaller gamma2 efferents, according to
these investigators, supply the smaller nuclear chain
Intrafusal fibers. These efferents can cause the
contraction of the muscle fibers which are under the
terminals of the secondary afferent endings. Barker,
16
however, indicated that his research does not support
Boyd's contention that the gamma^ and gammag efferents are
distributed to nuclear hag and nuclear chain fibers,
respectively (2).
Function of gamma efferents.— Some disagreement
exists with regard to the sequence of action of the gamma
efferents on spindle activity. Granit and Eldred reported
that Hunt and Kuffler assume that the role of the spindle
efferents is to keep the intrafusal muscle properly
aligned to the length of the extrafusal fibers; that is,
that the extrafusal muscle length influences the gamma
efferents to react (2) (^7)* This has been the position
taken by other investigators, including Loofbourrow and
Rushworth (16) (69). But Granit and Eldred took the
opposite viewpoint, namely, that the spindles are motor
instruments for adjusting extrafusal length to intrafusal
length (2) (*f7)* They maintained that gamma activity
reflexly controls the contraction of the main muscle.
Eldred found that activity in the gamma system
precedes muscular contraction (*+7).. According to this
investigator, a decisive fraction of the muscle's
excitation is supplied to the alpha motoneurones via the
gamma system and the monosynaptic spindle afferents. The
contraction of the main muscle, then, depends to a large
extent upon the afferent system through gamma excitation.
17
Role of the gamma system In reflex actions•— The
gamma system is also essential for the functioning of tonic
reflexes as they work to excite the spindle afferents.
Granit found the stretch reflex to be greatly diminished
or non-existent without gamma efferents (2),
Rushworth differentiated between two types of
stretch reflexes (31). The phasic stretch reflexes are
typified by tendon jerk reactions. These are monosynaptic
reflexes which employ the large alpha motoneurons, and
exemplify the fastest method of conduction through the
spinal cord. In the phasic reflex, as in the tendon jerk,
the stimulus is a brief, transient muscle stretch. The
second type of stretch reflex is the tonic stretch reflex
which is typical of the postural reflexes. A monosynaptic
pathway does not appear to be a characteristic of the
tonic stretch reflex. Also, In contrast to the transient
stimulus of the phasic reflex, the stimulus which initiates
the tonic reflex consists of a maintained muscle stretch
at a more or less constant elongation.
With respect to gamma influence, the tonic stretch
reflex Is much more dependent on gamma innervation of the
muscle spindle than Is the phasic stretch reflex, for the
former maintains a sensitivity of the spindles and provides
a tetanizing stream of afferent impulses (31).
Effects of the gamma system on movement. — Rushworth
18
indicated that the gamma loop is very important in move
ment, serving as a built-in coordinating mechanism at the
segmental level (31), This is possible due to the fact
that afferent fibers terminate not only on alpha moto-
neurones of the same muscle, but also end on the motor
neurones of synergistic and antagonistic muscles. These
connections of the primary endings of the spindle provide a
mechanism for inhibiting antagonists and facilitating
synergists at the precise moment necessary. This mecha
nism, operating at the segmental level, is not available,
however, if the alpha motoneurone is excited by routes
other than the afferent influx along the la fiber as a
result of gamma activity.
Si^praspinal control of the gamma system. — Central
influence on the gamma system was first studied by Granit
and Kaada. They found that discharges of both the gamma
fibers as well as the muscle spindle afferents were
facilitated or inhibited by stimulation of various parts
of the central nervous system (71).
Granit and Kaada found that, without muscle
contraction, stimulation of the facilitatory area of the
brain stem and diencephalic reticular system resulted in
an acceleration of the firing of muscle spindle afferents,
and greatly increased gamma activity. Regions which, when
stimulated, resulted in an inhibition of discharges from
19
the muscle-spindle afferents and gamma efferents included
the bulbo-reticular inhibitory system, and certain areas
of the cerebellar and cerebral cortexes (51)•
Granit and Kaada explained that the acceleration
and deceleration of spindle activity which they induced
by stimulation, in the absence of changes in muscle tension,
were a consequence of effects mediated over the efferent
gamma system. The most powerful effect, either excitatory
or inhibitory, on the gamma efferents and spindle afferents
was obtained from the brain stem and the diencephalic
reticular system (53).
Magoun explained that by control of the feedback
from muscle spindles through facilitation or inhibition of
their gamma, efferent innervation, the reticulospinal
system thus possesses an additional powerful means of
modifying motor activity (17).
Influence of the gamma system on tone and tension.-
- The tonic nature of the gamma discharge has been
mentioned by Rushworth in his discussion of the tonic
stretch reflex (31). Granit and Kaada found that the
gamma fibers continued to fire for a considerable time
after stimulation of the reticulum, indicating that the
gamma system is suited for prolonged, tonic forms of
activity (52). The tonic discharge may be facilitated
or inhibited from various central regions, including the

20
cerebellum, known to be concerned with the regulation of
muscle tonus, Granit and Kaada concluded that the gamma
system is an important mechanism in the maintenance of
muscular tone.
The interrelationship between heightened emotional
activity and increased muscular tension appears to be
mediated through the gamma system, according to these
investigators. Increased muscular tension may be due to
increased hypothalamic facilitatory influence on the
activity of the gamma efferents and spindles which
secondarily increases the excitability of the ventral horn
cells.
In support of this position, Rushworth indicated
that hypotonia is due to lack of gamma motor activity,
presumably due to the withdrawal of cerebellar facilita
tion, resulting in flaccid intrafusal muscle fibers and
consequent lack of tonic stretch reflexes (31). Voluntary
movement must then take place through the alpha motor
neurone alone, and not through the indirect gamma loop.
As a consequence, due to the lack of gamma bias (gamma
influence on spindle afferents), the gamma segmental
coordinating mechanism which ordinarily assists in
regulating spindle activity for various conditions of load
and velocity, cannot be used, and incoordination of move
ment results.
21
Inhibitory mechanisms.— Several inhibitory mecha
nisms evidently exert influence on the activity of the
musble spindle and gamma system. The Golgi tendon organ
is thought to be involved in the autogenic inhibition
mechanism (16). Afferent fibers from the tendon organ
evidently impinge upon and synapse indirectly with both
alpha and gamma motor neurons, where they exert an
inhibitory influence. Eccles reported that the inhibition
of an extensor muscle by discharge from Golgi tendon organs
in the tendon is also accompanied by inhibition of its
synergists and facilitation of its flexor antagonist (2).
This appears to be the case for extensor muscles only.
Autogenic inhibition of alpha and gamma activity serves
to avoid dangerous muscle tension by causing the muscle to
relax. The Golgi tendon organ has a much higher threshold
than does the muscle spindle; consequently, the force of
the extensor contraction must be fairly high before the
tendon organ responds and relaxation occurs. This sudden
relaxation is referred to as the Mclasp-knife" or “inverse
myotatic reflex.” (2) (5) (7) (16) (65) (68)
The Renshaw feedback system appears to be another
inhibitory mechanism operating at the spinal level. A
system of short interneurons within the cord, termed
Renshaw cells, appears to exert an inhibitory action on
the alpha motoneurons in the ventral horn. The system
22
apparently acts as a governing mechanism which limits
motoneuron discharge frequency to reasonable levels (16).
The gamma svstem and disorders of the nervous
system.— Rushworth indicated that hyperactivity of the
gamma system may be one of the causal factors in some
disorders of the nervous system (31) (68). Spasticity is
known to be a common sign of central nervous system disease
in man. In spasticity, limb muscles involuntarily resist
displacement. This increased stretch reflex may also show
the "clasp-knife" reaction when excessive tensions are
reached. Rushworth suggested that the disorder function
in spasticity is due to hyperactivity of the gamma motor
neurones affecting predominantly either the flexors,
extensors, abductors, or adductors.
Function of the muscle spindle.— The main function
of spindle activity appears to be that of contributing to
the postural reflex mechanisms, maintenance of muscle
tone, and coordination of movement. The highest center
for these activities appears to be the cerebellar cortex.
According to Bourne, muscle receptor discharges do not go
to the cerebral cortex. She stated, "The muscle activity
(from spindle influence) is probably largely a sub
conscious one, allowing a widespread reflex activity, and
keeping the alpha motoneurons ready for the cortical
discharges which cause voluntary movement." (7s^l^)
23
Golgi Tendon Organ
Basic structure and distribution.— The Golgi tendon
organ is a spindle-shaped structure found at musculo
tendinous junctions, in tendinous aponeuroses, and
occasionally in muscle septa and sheaths. Each organ
consists of numerous spray-like nerve endings on the
surface of a bundle of small tendon fascicles, with the
whole structure being enclosed in a delicate capsule (7)
(27) (3D.
The Golgi tendon organs lie "in series" with muscle
fibers, in contrast to muscle spindles, which lie "in
parallel." One end of a muscle spindle may be attached to
the slip of a tendon on which the tendon organ lies,
although the two structures can function quite independ
ently of one another (31) (69).
Innervation.— Each organ gives rise to one large
afferent fiber of the Group lb type, which conducts at a
rate only slightly slower than the Group la afferents. It
has no efferent fibers going to it; the tendon organ,
therefore, is purely a sensory structure, feeding informa
tion into the central nervous system.
Function.— Rushworth described Golgi tendon organs
as stretch receptors, and explained that because of their
f,in series" arrangement, they respond only during muscular
contraction (69). The tendon organ has a much higher
threshold to stretch than do the muscle spindles. Its
impulses pass .through two synapses before exerting a strong
inhibitory action on the motoneuron pool of its own muscle.
The inhibitory effect of the tendon organ on the stretch
reflex is the basis for the "clasp-knife" reflex.
Boyd indicated that for a long time the tendon
organs were thought to be kinesthetic proprioceptors in
that they supplied the brain with information regarding
position; but recent findings, he stated, are against this
view (31).
Joint receptors
Pacinian. corpuscle.— The Pacinian corpuscle is the
largest and most widely distributed of the encapsulated
proprioceptor end organs. These structures are located in
the subcutaneous tissue of the hand and foot. They are
especially numerous in the periosteum, ligaments, and
joint capsules. The Pacinian corpuscle is an elliptical
structure, consisting of a large number of concentric,
connective tissue lamellae, enclosing a cylindrical core
of protoplasm called the "inner bulb" which receives the
corpuscleBs nerve supply (8) (12) (27) (33)•
25
Some Investigators indicated that the Pacinian
corpuscles serve as detectors of pressure; but Buchanan and
Harrison stated that these structures are important in the
sense of position and movement. According to Harrison,
citing Mountcastle and Powell, these corpuscles are thought
to respond only during movement (12) (69) (8) (33). They
cease to discharge when new positions are reached.
Joint receptors of Rose and Mountcastle.— Rose and
Mountcastle mentioned the existence of three types of joint
receptors which include the Pacinian corpuscle, a Ruffini
type, and a Golgi tendon organ type.
The most common type of joint receptor is the
Ruffini type, or "spray-type" ending. Located in the
articular capsule, it is well situated to signal the
steady position of the joint, as well as the direction,
rate, and extent of joint movement. The Ruffini type
receptor responds at a low threshold, and its rate of
discharge is a function of its speed and extent of move
ment.
A joint receptor resembling the Golgi tendon organ
type has been found associated with the ligaments of the
joints. They are less numerous than the Ruff ini type, but
possess similar discharge properties (32).
26
Conscious Awareness of Position
and Movement
Muscle spindles
Muscle spindles are commonly included among lists
of proprioceptive structures which contribute to the kines
thetic sense (8) (12). McIntyre indicated that until
fairly recently, the stretch sensitive spindle and tendon
organ receptors were generally assumed to participate in
conscious proprioception via the dorsal column lemniscal
system, the integrity of which is essential for the normal
sense of position and movement (2).
Recent findings of Matthews and other specialists
in proprioceptor research, however, indicated doubt that
impulses from spindle receptors reach the conscious level
of the cerebral cortex (32) (2) (31) (69). Matthews
concluded that the muscle spindle receptors function mainly
at lower levels of the nervous system for the purpose of
organizing and controlling the execution of movements.
This view was supported by Rushworth who indicated that
most information picked up by sensory nerves from the
muscles is used by centers within the spinal cord, brain
stem and cerebellum to integrate and coordinate muscular
movement (69). Cooper and Whitteridge also stated that
there is very little reliable evidence that messages from
limb muscles reach consciousness (M+).
27
McIntyre concluded that muscle spindle receptors
do not signal information to cortical levels (2). He
indicated that the sense of movement and position is
probably subserved by receptors mostly outside of muscle,
such as Pacinian corpuscles, and those of joints and sub
cutaneous tissues.
Joint receptors
According to Rose and Mountcastle, kinesthesis
depends upon the receptor organs associated with the
joints:
Activity set up in those receptors by the joints is
relayed through the medial lemniscal system to the
somatic sensory cortex. This is contrary to the
widely held belief that kinesthesis depends as well
upon afferent input from muscle stretch receptors.
K32:l f09)
Evidence that joint receptors project into the
lemniscal system to the thalamus and somatic sensory cortex
has been shown through experimentation using gross
electrode recordings of electrical responses obtained by
electrical stimulation of articular nerves. Certain
elements In the postcentral homologue are activated only
by joint movements. These neurons respond not only to
transient rotation of the joint to which they are related,
but continue to discharge impulses steadily when the joint
Is held within the excitatory angle.
28
Summary and Discussion
The muscle spindle appears to be more complex in
structure and function than thought previously* Located
"in parallel" with its surrounding extrafusal muscle
fibers, it has at least two types of afferent nerve fibers,
two types of motor nerve fibers, and two types of intra
fusal muscle fibers. The main functions of spindle
activity appear to be contributing to postural reflex
mechanisms, maintaining muscle tone, and coordinating
movement. The highest center for these activities appears
to be the cerebellar cortex. Evidently the muscle spindle
is not involved in the conscious awareness of body position
and movement.
The Golgi tendon organ is often situated in an
"in series" arrangement with muscle spindles. They, like
the muscle spindles, are primarily stretch receptors.
Unlike the spindle, the Golgi tendon organ has no motor
nerve supply. Afferent impulses from this receptor exert
a strong inhibitory action on the motoneuron of its own
muscle. This serves to protect the muscle from excessively
strong contractions resulting from spindle action. Recent
findings indicate that the Golgi tendon organ is not
involved in supplying the cerebral cortex with information
regarding position and movement.
Research evidence indicated that various joint
29
receptors are the proprioceptors which are responsible for
kinesthesis. The Ruffini corpuscles evidently function as
absolute detectors of the angle of the joints. The
Pacinian corpuscles are thought to respond only during
movement. Recent investigation supports the contention
that impulses from these receptors do reach conscious
level, and are therefore considered to be the receptors
which subserve the kinesthetic sense.
It appears evident that there are two basic aspects
to kinesthetic perception. First, there is the static
aspect which provides information regarding a statically
held position of the body or limb. Second, there is the
dynamic aspect which provides information regarding bodily
movements in progress. In order to design a comprehensive
measure of kinesthetic perception, it would appear
necessary to include appropriate tests of the static as
well as the dynamic components of this sensory modality.
It seems significant that none of the studies
concerned with the neurophysiological aspects of kines
thesis give attention to labyrinthine function and the
sense of balance. Evidently kinesthetic sensations, per
se, are considered to arise solely from receptors located
in and around the joint capsule. Vision, tactile sensa
tions, and impulses from the vestibular organs all
probably contribute to a combined capacity for perceiving
30
body position and movement; however, it would appear, in
light of the studies reviewed, that if the kinesthetic
capacity itself is to be measured, then such tests would
exclude the sensory modalities of vision, balance, and
touch, to the extent that this is possible.
Measures of Kinesthetic Perception
As this study was concerned with ascertaining the
effects of practice on kinesthetic perception, it appeared
important to investigate the means by which other investi
gators have attempted to measure this sensory modality.
In spite of the fact that physical educators have long
recognized that kinesthetic perception must have some
relationship to motor performance, very little, according
to Scott, is really known about how to define and identify
the sensory mechanisms involved (70).
General Approach
The majority of investigators have devised test
batteries which purport to measure an individuals kines
thetic acuity. In most, but not all, instances, the test
items are performed by the subject while he is blindfolded
in order to eliminate the possibility of using visual cues.
Types of items included in batteries ares arm pointing at
a pre-designated target; reproducing certain positions of
the legs, arms, or trunk; balancing; perceiving differences
31
between objects of varying weights; detecting changes In
applied pressure or body position; and reproducing
specified forces of muscular contraction. Scott identified
two additional tests of kinesthetic perception* manipu
lative precision with the hand and the ability to imitate
a simple coordinated movement (70).
Descriptions of Kinesthetic Tests
A brief description of the methods employed by
selected investigators in attempts to measure kinesthetic
perception follows:
Roloff
This investigator utilized a battery of four
kinesthetic tests.
1. Balance Stick: The subject attempts to
balance herself while standing lengthwise on a stick which
is one inch square and twelve inches long. The subject
has three trials for each foot. The score for this test
is the total balancing time.
2. Arm Raisings The subject raises the arms to
a side horizontal position while blindfolded. There are
four trials. The subject's score is the sum of the four
deviations from the horizontal position.
3. Weight Shifting: The subject attempts to put
half of his own weight on a scale. The score is the
deviation from the correct weight,
*f. Arm Circling s The subject attempts to move
the arms in circles, in opposite directions. The score
depends upon a subjective rating of his form which is made
by a panel of judges (68).
Wiebe
Wiebe also utilized a battery of tests which
included the following items:
1. Balancing lengthwise on a stick.
2. From a side-lying position, raising the leg
twenty degrees after viewing a picture of a twenty-degree
angle.
3. Target-pointing at a vertically positioned
yardstick. The subject first viewed the stick, and then
was blindfolded as he attempted to point to the eighteen
inch mark.
bo Attempting to separate the heels to a distance
of twelve inches.
All tests were done with the subject blindfolded.
Because low intercorrelations were found between the
various tests, Wiebe concluded that there apparently is
no such thing as general kinesthetic sensitivity (77).
Young
Young formulated a battery of nineteen test items
which served as a measure of kinesthetic perception. Ten
tests were designed to measure the ability to reproduce
arm and leg positions which had first been explained or
demonstrated by means of stick-figure drawings. Four tests
involved the accuracy with which throwing and kicking
movements were performed. The purpose of another test was
to measure striking ability. Other tests required
subjects to attempt to reproduce certain grip strengths,
balancing lengthwise and crosswise, and arranging weighted
boxes in order from light to heavy. All tests were
performed by the subjects while blindfolded. Performance
scores were translated to deviation scores. As did Wiebe,
Young found the intercorrelations between individual test
items to be generally low (80).
Slater-Hammel
Slater-Hammel observed that a common weakness of
available kinesthetic tests on the perception of muscular
forces was that they also involved tactile stimulation.
In such tests, it is impossible to determine whether the
subject is responding to kinesthetic stimulation, tactile
stimulation, or a combination of the two. The test devised
by Slater-Hammel Is the only one which appears to eliminate
tactile stimulation successfully. It was the purpose of
his study to measure the subject's kinesthetic perception
of muscular force through the measurement of action
potential changes. Each subject practiced contracting
the triceps at an intensity necessary to generate an action
potential of 125 microvolts; the subject then attempted to
reproduce this force of contraction without watching the
volt meter. The subject had five practice trials, then
five test trials. He then repeated the series. His score
was the difference between the actual potential generated
by the subject, and the standard potential of 125 micro
volt s.
Performance was evaluated in terms of constant
error and variable error. Constant error showed both the
direction as well as the magnitude of error. It was equal
to the subject's potential minus the standard potential
of 125 microvolts and was designated as either positive or
negative. The variable error showed the precision or
consistency of response for each individual and was equal
to the standard deviation of the distribution of each
subject's scores.
Slater-Hammel found that the mean constant error
for all subjects was positive, indicating the tendency
for them to "over-shoot" the standard action potential (72).
Mumby attempted to measure kinesthetic acuity by
utilizing some ingenious equipment devised by Henry. Four
test items comprised the batterys (1) Maintaining a
35
constant pressure against a vertical bar whose opposing
pressure was continually changing; (2) maintaining the
vertical bar in a constant position; (3) balance; and (*f)
skin pressure acuity (61).
Wettstone
Wettstone devised a battery of three tests as a
measure of kinesthetic acuity. These were (1) Arm
positioning; (2) Target pointing; and (3) Assuming
designated body positions on the flying rings (76).
Methods Utilized in Treating Data
Reliability
Most of the investigators have utilized the
even method in computing the reliability scores for
comprising the test battery.
Validity
Many investigators have depended upon face validity
for Justifying their particular battery of tests. A few,
however, computed the validity of each test in the battery
by correlating it with the composite T Score of all the
kinesthetic tests that had met the criterion of reliability.
Wiebe admitted that this composite score is not infallible,
but assumed that it offers one measure of kinesthesis,
since it is based on the scores"of individual tests which
odd-
items
36
were devised to measure kinesthesis, within the limits of
the definition of kinesthesis used in his study (77). It
appeared, however, that the most serious problem
confronting investigators was devising tests which are
valid measures of kinesthetic discrimination.
Intercorrelations
As most of the tests which purport to measure
kinesthesis consist of batteries of many items, investi
gators have computed intercorrelations and multiple
correlations between test items. Generally, intercorrela
tions have been found to be quite low, leading investiga-
tors to suggest that the capacity for kinesthetic
perception is not general, but rather is highly specific
for various parts of the body and for different types of
movement s.
Summary and Discussion
Physical educators have attempted to devise tests
with which to measure kinesthetic capacity. Tests which
have been used to measure kinesthesis include such items
as target pointing, reproducing certain arm and leg
positions, balancing, perceiving differences between
objects of varying weights, detecting changes in pressure
or position, and reproducing specified forces of
contraction.
37
Intercorrelations between test items comprising
the batteries used to measure kinesthesis are quite low,
leading investigators to suggest that there is no such
thing as a general kinesthetic capacity, but that kines
thetic perception is highly specific for various parts of
the body, and for different types of movements.
Most studies have been designed to ascertain the
relationship between kinesthetic perception and motor
ability and performance. No studies in physical education
appear to have been conducted to investigate the effects
of practice on kinesthetic perception. The tests which
have been devised which purportedly measure kinesthesis
have mainly been limited to the static, positional aspects
of the kinesthetic mechanism.
The Effects of Practice on_Lear.nln&
and Performance
As the basic purpose of this study was to ascertain
the effects of practice on kinesthetic perception, it
seemed pertinent to review the findings of investigators
whose studies were designed to determine various effects
of practice on learning and motor performance. The
findings of this present study could then be related to
those of previous investigations in this area. In the
following brief review, various aspects of this question
deemed pertinent to the present study are cited! the
38
importance of practice, technicalities important in motor
performance learning curves, distribution of practice,
group variability, accuracy and consistency, and
predictions of performance*
Importance of Practice
Although motor learning requires more than practice
alone, notably motivation, practice is essential to
learning. Without practice, the diffuse and unorganized
movements of the beginner cannot become the smooth and
well-integrated performance of the expert. Anderson
stated,
A very important factor in the development of any
sensori-motor skill is the amount of practice.
Skill does not appear without some practice. In
general, the more complex the skill, the more
practice is necessary. (lslM^f)
Continued repetition of action allows the individ
ual to modify subsequent reactions on the basis of his
prior experiences in the same situation. According to
Welford, as practice continues, (1) the organization
carried over from one occasion or trial to another tends
to become more firm and complete; (2) the individual
develops a more effective and sensitive response to
sensory data which he is receiving; (3) there is an
increase in the speed of the translation process so the
individual is able to interpret incoming sensory data more
quickly; and (*0 the individual^ effector actions become
39
more accurate and better timed (29)*
The Learning Curve in
Motor Performance
McGeoch defined a curve of learning as a level of
regression of performance upon practice (18). Practice
is the known variable; performance, as a result of practice,
is the unknown variable. There appears to be no single
type of curve which is typical for all kinds of learning.
The particular curve which emerges from a given experiment
is a function of a variety of conditions and factors (18)
(HO). Most curves, however, approach one of three basic
forms, with performance being plotted on the "y" axis, and
practice, or number of trials, being indicated along the
"x" axis. The decelerated or negatively accelerated curve
is convex to the "y” axis. This indicates rapid initial
improvement in performance at the onset of practice. The
accelerated or positively accelerated curve is concave to
the "y" axis. This is indicative of rapid improvement in
performance, but only after some practice has occurred.
The "S” shaped curve is one which is initially accelerated,
approaches linearity, then decelerates.
Kae indicated that all one can say regarding the
shape of the learning curve of motor skill is that there
is a very general characteristic of rapid improvement at
the beginning, followed by negatively accelerated improve-
IfO
ment with continued practice until the curve parallels the
"x" axis near the end of learning (58). This general
characteristic is greatly qualified by individual
variations for different tasks and for different individ
uals.
Factors influencing- the shape,
ofthecurve
Batson indicated that both objective and subjective
factors operate to influence the general form of the
learning curve (*+0). Objective factors include those of
temperature, lighting, the nature of the apparatus, and the
nature of the task. Such factors as the attitude,
attention span, and emotional status of the subject are
classified as subjective factors which influence learning
and performance.
According to McGeoch, at least six different
conditions can operate to affect the shape of the curve,
which in turn reflects the nature of the relationship
between practice and performance (18). First, the unit of
measurement being utilized will influence the curve.
Frequently, measuring the results of practice in terms of
time or errors yields curves with deceleration, while
measures in terms of attainment give an initially acceler
ated curve.
Second, the character of the material or activity
learned will influence curve shape. Learning activities
which involve the association of already known and readily
identifiable items, or the organization of already avail
able responses into a new pattern, are more likely to show
negative acceleration. Those learning activities in which
the items to be associated are not easily identifiable, or
in which the responses are not available, are more likely
to show positive acceleration. McGeoch classified dart-
throwing as the type of activity for which known responses
are already available. The plotting of the effect of
practice in such an activity generally results in a
negatively accelerated curve. A task which involves new
and unusual perceptual skills, however, requires the
individual to identify the stimulus, or to learn a new
type of response, or both. Such learning tasks usually
yield positively accelerated or ,,S, t shaped curves.
A third factor affecting curve shape is attribut
able to the characteristics of the subjects, including
their chronological age, and the extent to which they feel
motivated to perform. Motivation tends to decline with
practice.
Transfer effects from prior learning is a fourth
factor which may influence the shape of the learning curve,
according to McGeoch. Relatively low amounts of positive
transfer, or high amounts of negative transfer (inter
ference) at the beginning of practice will favor initial
positive acceleration; a reversal of these favors negative
acceleration.
A fifth factor which may influence the curve is
related to the effects of interference and forgetting. As
learning of a complex activity proceeds, the possibility
of interferences among the responses learned and among the
cues and methods employed increases, and the probability
of deceleration becomes greater.
The sixth factor which may influence curve shape
is related to the physiological limits of the individual.
There is a limit of performance, beyond which, due to
physical limitations of the organism, further practice
cannot be continued. As such a limit is approached,
improvement in performance may become increasingly diffi
cult to attain, with a resultant curve of deceleration.
Plateaus
A plateau is typical in most learning curves, but
is absent in some. A plateau in the curve represents a
period of little or no change. This phase of little or
no improvement has been studied by several investigators
in order to determine its cause (18) (35) (**0) (58).
McGeoch suggested that the plateau might be a result of
the learner not having yet sufficiently automatized lower-
order habits, therefore being unable to handle the next
higher order of units. He cited the study of Bryan and
Harter as an example (18). In this investigation, which
involved the learning of the telegraphic language, It was
found that there was rapid initial Improvement while
letters and words were being learned. A plateau, while
the individuals were learning to handle phrases composed
of the words they had mastered, then followed.
Other possible causes of plateaus, according to
McGeoch, included: (1) a decline in motivation; (2) a
fixation of errors of response, timing, or method; (3) a
change to a new method of approach; (*f) a result of the
investigator’s failure to measure all of the behavioral
changes which may be occurring. He indicated that
plateaus are probably not produced by any single condition,
but rather a group of conditions, one or all of which may
be required to determine a given plateau. Anderson
substantially agreed with McGeoch with regard to possible
causes of plateaus (1).
Batson studied the learning curves of individuals
engaged in a ball-tossing and juggling task (*+0) • He
Identified three basic elements within the task which the
individual needed to learn and which affected learning
progress: judgment in direction of movement; judgment In
the application of force; and judgment with regard to
timing the movements properly. The nature of the learning
Mf
task required individuals to deal with all three factors
simultaneously. In later experiments, he had the subjects
work on improving one element or factor at a time.
Batson found no evidence to indicate that plateaus
occur in learning processes which involve only a single
association. He also found that plateaus may or may not
occur in a more complex learning process. If the factors
are of such a nature that they must be improved together,
or if the individual is able to attend to them as a whole,
then, according to this author, there will be no plateau.
If, however, the nature of the work is such that the
factors must be attended in succession, or the individual
can give his attention to the separate factors as such,
there will be plateaus.
Kae designed complex motor tasks of such a nature
that the subject could attend either to separate factors
or to the whole (53). His complex motor skill, like
Batson*s, involved the three factors of time, direction,
and force. Kae*s findings supported those of Batson.
When the subject"s attention is directed to separate parts
at different times in learning a complex motor skill,
plateaus appear; when attention is evenly distributed
among all factors, however, there are no plateaus of
appreciable length. Kae explained the existence of
plateaus as due to: (1) an attempt to approach a task in a
^5
new way; (2) the necessity for automatization of skills
already acquired before further improvement can be made;
(3) subjective influences operating on the individual, such
as tension, fatigue, and interest.
Kae concluded that plateaus, representing periods
of non-progress of short duration, may occur in the
learning curves of both simple and complex motor skills.
In simple skill learning, short plateaus are due to a
period in which automatization of response is occurring.
This brings relaxation and a reduction in tenseness, and
permits the individual to direct his attention to refine
ment of procedure near the end of the learning period.
In complex skill learning, short plateaus are due to the
difficulty involved in developing new, complex patterns
from simple but formerly independent ones.
Plateaus of long duration do not occur in learning
curves of simple motor skills, according to Kae; they may
or may not appear in curves of complex motor skills. Long
plateaus do not occur when the learner can and does attend
to the whole complex skill throughout the course of
learning. Relatively long plateaus do appear when the
learner attends to separate part processes, one at a time.
He may do this either because the faetors work in
succession, or because he chooses to attend to separate
factors, even though they operate simultaneously.
b6
According to McGeoch, plateaus which occur at the
lower levels of performance, prior to the attainment of
maximum performance, can be "broken" in one of several
ways; (1) by inhibition of fixed errors; (2) by increased
motivation; (3) by adoption of different (more successful)
methods of attack (18). The learning curve is assumed to
show marked deceleration as a very high level of perform
ance is approached or as the learning criterion is reached.
Fluctuations
Most curves which are representative of skill
acquisition contain fluctuations in performance (11) (18)
(*K)) (58). According to Cratty, most investigators
attribute these fluctuations to motivational conditions,
fatigue, and other temporary factors (11). Batson
reported that fluctuations appeared in all the work done
by his subjects in a ball-tossing task; evidently there
are no cases in learning in which fluctuations do not
appear (**0).
McGeoch explained fluctuations in terms of the
numerous chance conditions which the investigator has not
controlled (18). These include distractions, fluctuations
of motivation, and temporary interference among the parts
being learned. These variable conditions, however, do not
obscure the trend of the curve.
Most of Eae*s learning curves for a complex motor
skill showed daily fluctuations (58). These were found to
occur more frequently in the first half of the curve rather
than in the second half. According to Kae, the greater the
difficulty of the task, the greater the uncertainty of the
subject, therefore, the larger the fluctuations.
Distribution of Practice
It is generally agreed that practice periods
distributed over a period of time are more effective than
when practice is massed. Anderson stated that both time
and repetition provide the opportunity for the skill to
become organized (1)« Good learning conditions seem to
involve an alternation of practice periods with periods of
rest or other activity. Anderson indicated that time
itself is an important learning factor. McGeoch stated
that, "The generalization that some form of positive
distribution yields faster learning than does massed
practice holds over so wide a range of conditions that it
stands as one of our most general conclusions." (18*119)
Ammons found continuous practice led to poorer
performance at all stages of practice (35). Riopelle also
found the curve for distributed practice to be consistently
above that for massed practice (67). He contended, as did
Anderson, that massed practice fails to permit the
operation of between-trial learning effects in performance.
Archer, Batson, and Riopelle also indicated that
M-8
distributed practice is superior to massed conditions of
practice (38) (^-0) (67)* Gratty explained that spacing
practice seems to facilitate the learning of motor skills
especially when boredom or fatigue begin to retard
performance (11).
Travis gave an interesting explanation for the
superiority of distributed practice over massed practice
(7^). He theorized that we are dealing with an aspect of
the general "rhythm*' or "periodicity" of the activity of
the organism. Rhythmic refractory phases of the heart
beat, and nerve conduction, are well-known physiological
phenomena. This organic periodicity of activity may be
an essential characteristic of psychological as well as
physiological function. If so, the refractory phase
hypothesis would seem to be logical in explaining the
necessity for a certain distribution in time of practice
and rest periods in motor learning.
Group Variability
An interesting question has been raised with
regard to the effects of practice on group variability, or
how training affects individual differences.
There appears to be general agreement among most
investigators that practice tends to reduce variability
among Individuals, when valid measures of variability are
applied. Results, however, seem- to differ, depending upon
•which measure of variability is used. Garrett indicated
that the standard deviation is an acceptable measure of
group variability (1^). Both Perl and Riopelle used the
standard deviation as the criterion for variability, and
found that the magnitude of individual differences
Increased throughout training (62) (67). Reed stated
that prior to 1923, Thorndike and others contended that
the effect of equalizing opportunity by affording individ
uals equal amounts of practice results in the increase of
individual differences (67). This was believed to be one
of Thorndike*s strongest arguments in support of the theory
that differences in achievement are due to differences in
original capacity.
Reed, however, explained that investigations since
1923 draw an opposite conclusion, namely, that practice
reduces individual differences. According to him, the
contradiction between his and other investigators* conclu
sions is due to methods of measuring group variability.
Reed contended that the use of the standard deviation,
when considered apart from its measure of central tendency,
the mean, is an invalid measure of group variability, as
is the correlation between initial and final performance.
According to Reed, when the results of earlier investiga
tors are measured by the methods recommended by him, most
show that practice reduces individual differences.
The measures of group variability recommended by
Reed are (1) the ratio of the highest to lowest scores at
the beginning of practice compared with the ratio of these
same individual’s scores at the end of practice; (2) the
ratio of the standard deviation divided by the mean at the
beginning and end of practice. This ratio is termed the
coefficient of variability, and is found to decrease as
variability decreases; (3) the correlation between initial
performance and relative gain. According to Reed, when
any of these measures is used as the criterion of varia
bility, a sharp decrease in group variability is usually
seen as a result of practice. The findings of Burns,
Ellis, Harmon and Oxendine, and Hollingsworth support those
of Reed (*+2) (M-8) (53) (56). Kientzle offered an explana
tion for the relationship existing between the standard
deviation and the inter-trial reliability coefficients
(59)- She indicated that the standard deviations are
affected by the reliability of the trial scores comprising
the practice period. If individual practice curves show
many inversions from trial to trial, then the standard
deviations reflect not only differences among subjects,
but also variations of an individual’s scores from a smooth
course of learning. Consequently, inter-trial reliability
may be defined as closeness of conformity with a resulting
smooth learning curve. Her data revealed an increase in
51
mean scores and standard deviations with added practice;
Kientzle pointed out, however, that if the standard
deviation divided by the mean is taken as a measure of
variability, then one would conclude that individuals tend
to become more alike after practice, as the standard
deviation does not rise as rapidly as the mean during the
course of practice.
Accuracy and Consistency
Improved performance which results from practice
is characteristically more accurate and consistent than
is the performance of the less skilled individual. As
Welford has indicated, with practice comes improvement in
the precision and timing of movements, and a decrease in
errors committed (29)• Other studies on motor learning
have produced similar findings (10) (*+0) (58).
Other investigators have attempted to ascertain
the effect of practice on specific aspects of movement
accuracy. Rosentweig stated that blindfolded subjects
found positioning movements are more accurate for an
ascending than for a descending movement (83). Practice
in such movements resulted in significant improvement.
Cratty reported that Fitts and Crandall found, in a target-
locating task in which twenty-four targets were at shoulder
height in front of the subjects, the most accurate move
ments occurred toward the mid-line of the body and slightly
52.
below shoulder height (11), The most common errors
involved reaching too low.
Anderson9 Harmon and Oxendine, and Hollingsworth
indicated that as performance improves with practice, the
individual tends to perform more consistently (1) (53)
(56). It has been found, according to Anderson, that
experts, more often than novices, tend to repeat the same
error. The expert*s very skill makes for the constancy
of error.
Predictions of Performance
Harmon and Oxendine compared early performance
scores with later performances to determine if the skill
exhibited by a person early in the experimental period
gave any Indication of his later performance (53)* On a
selected motor skill, they found all correlations to be
positive and significant; generally, the closer the two
performances were together, the greater the correlation.
Very early performance scores did not correlate as highly
with future performance as did later performance scores.
Riopelle, using the Vector Complex Reaction Time Test,
also found that initial performance predicts later
performance less well as the final stages of practice are
reached (67). Correlation coefficients decrease as one
attempts to predict later and later performance from
initial performance. Based upon a correlation coefficient
of .37 between the first and last trial, Perl concluded
that initial scores are good indicators of final perform
ance (62). She admitted, however, that scores following
a little practice are better indicators of final perform
ance than are initial scores. Ellis indicated that gross
gains are usually positively correlated with initial
scores, but that initial scores and percentage of improve
ment are negatively correlated (H*8). This is because
individuals with lower scores can make relatively larger
gains than those with larger initial scores.
Summary and Discussion
Practice is essential to improved performance in
any motor task; skill cannot be improved without some
amount of practice. In general, the more complex the
skill, the more practice is necessary.
Learning curves serve as a graphic representation
of a continuing relationship between practice and perform
ance. The curve which emerges from a learning experiment
is a function of a variety of factors and conditions. A
very general characteristic of the shape of the learning
curve of motor skills is that of initially rapid improve
ment, until the curve begins to nearly parallel the "x1 1
axis as practice continues. A plateau may not occur in
the curve if the learning task is simple, or when the
subject learns the task as a unified whole. In complex
5^
tasks, plateaus may arise as the subject learns to
integrate sub-habits into more complex ones, or if the
subject chooses to attend to the separate factors of the
complex skill, even though the factors operate simulta
neously.
Most curves which are representative of skill
acquisition contain fluctuations in performance, probably
due to uncontrolled variables related to the physical and
mental condition of the subjects.
It is generally agreed that performance improves
more when practice is distributed than when it is massed.
Several theories have been developed in an attempt to
explain this phenomenon. Travis explained it in terms of
a refractory phase hypothesis, and indicated the necessity
for a certain distribution of time to be interspersed
with practice periods in motor learning.
With regard to the effects of practice on group
variability, there appeared to be some disagreement among
investigators. Those who have used the standard deviation
as the criterion have found individual differences to
increase with continued practice. When other measures of
variability are applied, however, such as the coefficient
of variability (standard deviation divided by the mean),
practice tends to reduce individual differences. Practice
also tends to increase the consistency and accuracy of
performance •
Early performance scores tend to show a low hut
positive correlation with final performance. Scores
following a little practice are better indicators of final
performance than are initial scores, however. The more
the practice the greater the relationship with final
performance.
CHAPTER III
DESIGN AND PROCEDURE
The present study was designed to investigate the
effects of practice on certain dynamic components of kines
thetic perception in the execution of a novel motor task.
In order to accomplish this, it was necessary! (1) to
design an appropriate learning problem; (2) to conduct a
preliminary pilot study; (3) to select and schedule
subjects; (*+) to establish experimental procedures; and
(5) to design and construct the necessary testing equipment.
The Learning Task
The three dynamic components of kinesthetic
perception which were selected for study were force, rate,
and direction of movement. The learning task which was
devised required the subject, while blindfolded, to
perform a novel arm movement in a prescribed direction,
moving at a designated rate of speed and ending with a
designated amount of force.
The testing apparatus consisted of a rectangular
sheet of masonite on which an irregular slotted pathway
had been cut. Each practice trial consisted of two parts:
(1) Stylus Trial. Traversing the pathway once with a
stylus (with the subject being Informed of the time and
56
force scores); and (2) Cravon Trial, Attempting to
reproduce the shape of the pathway in crayon (without the
subject being informed regarding time and force scores)*
The Stylus Trial was conducted as follows: The
blindfolded subject was provided with a stylus constructed
from a six inch length of wooden dowling. She was assisted
in inserting the stylus at the starting point located at
the right end of the slotted track. She was instructed to
move the stylus through the irregularly shaped pathway
which coursed mainly from right to left. As she did so,
she was reminded to attempt to perceive and remember the
shape of the pathway0 She was told that she should
attempt to complete the pathway in exactly seven seconds;
a bell sounded at the end of this time interval. She was
reminded that she should contact the lever arm at her left
with enough force to project a marble, which rested on the
lever, twenty-five inches away from the apparatus.
Immediately following the traversal of the slotted track
with the stylus, the subject was Informed of her total
elapsed traversal time, and the distance which the marble
was propelled. The subject then rested briefly in a chair
while the apparatus was being re-set.
The Crayon Trial was conducted as follows:
Immediately following the traversal of the pathway with
the stylus, the slotted track was covered with a solid
sheet of masonite to which plain white butcher paper was
attached. The subject was provided with a crayon and
assisted in positioning her hand at the starting lever on
the right edge of the apparatus. She was instructed to
attempt to reproduce the shape of the pathway with the
crayon, utilizing exactly seven seconds for traversal,
and hitting the lever on the left with sufficient force to
project the marble exactly twenty-five inches. On the
Crayon Trial, the subject was not informed of her time
and force scores, nor did a bell sound at the end of the
designated seven second interval.
Pilot Study
Prior to initiating the formal study, a pilot study
was conducted for the purpose of checking the operation of
the equipment and establishing appropriate testing proce
dures. Nine women subjects were used; six completed the
entire practice period. As a result of this preliminary
investigation, the following was accomplisheds (1) techni
ques for operating the apparatus and related measuring
instruments were developed; (2) imperfections in the equip
ment were corrected; (3) written instructions to subjects
were clarified; C1 *) optimum distribution of practice and
total length of the practice period were determined; (5)
an optimum time for traversing the pathway was determined;
(6) additional ideas for the analysis of data were
59
formulated; and (7) methods for the analysis of the crayon
data sheets were developed.
Selection of Sub.iects
The test group included thirty women students
enrolled at California State College at Long Beach. The
subjects were randomly selected, using Edward’s table of
random numbers method, from a larger population of 5*+3
women students enrolled in the general education physical
education program (11). It was necessary to contact forty-
one women in order to formulate the test group. Eight
women declined to participate due to conflicts between
their class schedules and the testing periods. One student
began the program, but was unable to complete the testing
period. Two women were not included because they were
left-handed. Only right-handed individuals were used, as
the prescribed direction of the arm movement in the
learning task was more difficult to perform if left-handed.
By including only subjects who were right-handed, the
degree of difficulty in performing the task was kept
constant, at least as far as handedness was concerned.
Ages of the subjects ranged from eighteen to twenty-two
years of age.
Those students who were able to serve as subjects
were asked to complete a three by five card giving their
name, address, phone number, and physical education class
60
In which they were enrolled. At the same time, each
subject received an information sheet which indicated the
date, time, and place to appear for testing. One week
prior to the time they were scheduled for testing,
subjects were notified by mail and reminded of the date,
time, and place of their testing sessions.
Experimental Procedures
Distribution and Length of
Practice Periods
On the basis of the pilot study, it was decided to
distribute the practice sessions over a consecutive three-
day period, with ten trials being completed each day.
This particular distribution appeared optimum; interest
remained high during each daily session and throughout the
three day period. Practice sessions were of such a length
that fatigue did not become a problem, yet each daily
session, which lasted approximately thirty minutes, was
sufficiently long to allow for learning and improvement to
occur.
Testing Procedures
Testing was conducted in a small room which was
connected to a smaller outer room. The door to the
testing room was kept closed. Upon arrival, the subject
was provided with written instructions which explained the
test procedures to be followed. A sample of these
explanations is included in the Appendix. After the
subject had familiarized herself with the general proce
dures to her satisfaction, she was blindfolded and brought
into the testing room. A brief verbal explanation of the
test procedure was then given; the subject was allowed to
orient herself to the apparatus by means of a brief tactile
exploration of the periphery of the apparatus. One warm
up trial on the slotted track was allowed with the wooden
stylus; the subject was informed of her time and force
scores. Formal testing was then initiated. At the
beginning of each subsequent practice period, one warm-up
trial was allowed.
Data “ Which Were Recorded
Following each stylus and crayon traversal of the
pathway by the subject, the force of movement (measured
in terms of distance the marble was propelled) and the
speed of movement (measured by a chronoscope in terms of
total pathway traversal time) were recorded.
Measurements pertaining to accuracy in direction
of movement were taken from the subject®s crayon data
sheets. The crayon recordings were measured for each
trial as followss (1) linear length of the arm movement
pattern; (2) area of deviation from the prescribed pathway
(3) deviation from two designated points of inflection
62
along the pathway In the horizontal plane; and (*+) devia
tion from two designated points of inflection along the
pathway in the vertical plane.
The three dynamic, kinesthetic components of
force, rate, and direction of movement were classified
into ten specific variables as follows; (1) Movement
Speed, Stylus; (2) Movement Force, Stylus; (3) Movement
Speed, Crayon; (h) Movement Force, Crayon; (5) Linear
Pathway; (6) Area Pathway; (7) Horizontal Movement, Right
to Left; (8) Horizontal Movement, Left to Right; (9)
Vertical Movement, Upward; and (10) Vertical Movement,
Downward*
Instrumentation
- j
The Testing Apparatus
The device designed to measure dynamic components
of force, speed, and direction of movement consisted of a
rectangular sheet of masonite, 30” x ^2“ in size, mounted
with its base 1 +2" from the floor so that it was at a
comfortable shoulder height in front of the subject, who
was standing. Across the board was an irregularly shaped
pathway, extending horizontally over the masonite. The
pathway was a slotted track, 3/1 +M wide and 3/*+" in depth*
A micro-switch was mounted at each end of the
pathway and connected with a chronoscope which measured
the total elapsed time through the pathway. Initially a
time-delay relay switch was also included in the electrical
circuit. The relay caused a buzzer to sound five seconds
after the subject initiated the pathway to inform the
subject that the designated pathway completion time had
elapsed. This device was eliminated from the circuit,
however, for two reasonss (1) the results of the pilot
study indicated that a designated time of seven seconds for
completing the pathway would be more effective than five
seconds; and (2) as the relay tube heated during use, the
buzzer was actuated prior to the designated five second
interval. Instead of the buzzer, the investigator rang a
small bell at the end of the designated seven second
period.
A lever arm at the left of the apparatus served as
a device with which to measure the impulse force which
was generated by the subject at the completion of the arm
movement across the pathway from right to left. A small
marble was placed on a ledge of the lever arm. Hitting
the lever arm caused the marble to be propelled into a
sandbox at the left of the apparatus. The horizontal
distance which the marble was sent from the apparatus was
proportional to the impulsive force generated.
A picture of the apparatus is presented in Plate I
and Plate II, pages 6*+ and 65. The electrical circuit is
PLATE I
Apparatus With Subject Traversing
Pathway With Stylus
PLATE 2
Apparatus With Subject Attempting to Reproduce
the Pathway With Crayon
shown in Diagram 2
66
The Knife-Edge Planimeter
One type of data collected consisted of large
sheets of butcher paper cut to the same dimensions of the
apparatus. Each sheet contained five trials during which
the subject had attempted to reproduce the designated path
way with crayon, with the slotted track itself covered,
and the subject blindfolded. It then became necessary to
devise some means by which the area of deviation from the
designated pathway of each trial could be measured.
Planimeters are instruments commonly used in
surveying to determine the area of figures whose perimeters
are irregularly shaped. The best known commercially
manufactured instrument is the optical planimeter C^).
However, according to Thomas and Spalding, and Campbell
and Schnitger, a simple type of instrument, the knife-edge
or glass-cutter planimeter, can also be used in obtaining
area measurements (28) (9)•
A simple knife-edge planimeter can be constructed
from a common jack-knife. One blade is fully extended to
the open position. A second blade, which is in the same
plane as the first, is opened half-way. The open blade
can arbitrarily be termed the displacement blade; the half
opened one the sight blade.
In operating the instrument, the sight blade is
120V AC
STOP MICRO SW ITC H
STOPS CLOCK VftO
OPEN SWITCHES NORMALLY
OPEN TO START
6V
SWITCH MUST BE
CLOSED TO START
OPERATION
120V
CONN.
BO X
5 SEC A
AM PRO
OUTPUT-**
6V AC'
BUZZER
BELL LIGHT
6V
STEP DOW N
TRANSFORMER
120 V AC
DIAGRAM 2
ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT FOR MAZE
ON
- n3
68
DISPLACEMENT
BLADE
SIGHT
FIXED LENGTH
3 —A
JACK-KNIFE PLANIMETER
FINAL POSITION
OF BLADE
STARTING
AND ENDING
POSITION
OF SIGHT
2,3
da
STARTING
POSITION
OF BLADE
3 —B
OVERHEAD VIEW WHEN
CIRCUMSCRIBING A GIVEN PERIM ETER
DIAGRAM 3
THE PRINCIPLE OF THE K N IFE-ED G E PLANIMETER
placed on an arbitrary starting point somewhere on the
perimeter of the area to be measured. The point at which
.the displacement blade is resting is marked, as is the
starting point on the perimeter where the sight blade is
located. The perimeter is then carefully circumscribed
by the sight blade, back to the original starting point.
This maneuver causes the displacement blade to move in a
certain relationship to the sight so that when the opera
tion is completed, the displacement blade now rests at a
new position, which is also marked. The linear distance
between the two marks made by the displacement blade is
found to be proportional to the area which has been
circumscribed by the sight blade. The principle of the
knife-edge planimeter is shown in Diagram 3. A picture
of the knife-edge planimeter used in this study is shown
in Plate 3 on page 70.
Mathematical Principles Upon Which the
Knife-Edge Planimeter Operates
Any given large area can be represented by an
integration of a large number of infinitesimal unit areas.
Such a relationship can be expressed as followss A = dxdy.
In this equation, A is the large area to be integrated;
dxdy is the sum of the products of a large number of
infinitesimal unit areas. This expression can also
represent the unit area which is integrated by the knife-

71
edge planimeter as presented in Diagram 3 on page 68.
Referring to Diagram 3, assume that the unit area
to be circumscribed is da. The sight of the planimeter
is placed on the perimeter at point 1*. The starting
position of the blade is marked at point 1. The perimeter
of da is then carefully circumscribed by the sight in a
counterclockwise direction to points 21, 3% and back
again to 1*. This maneuver causes the knife blade to be
displaced along the lines indicated in the small triangle
of the diagram, as follows!
1. As the sight is moved from 1* to 2B, the
blade moves from 1 to 2. (Translation)
2. As the sight is moved from 2* to 31, the
blade pivots at points 2 and 3. (Rotation)
3. As the sight is moved from 3s to *+*, the
blade moves from 3 to *+. (Translation)
*+. As the sight is moved from M-1 to lf, the
blade again pivots at point (Rotation)
R represents the radius of a circle, which is the
distance of the planimeter arm between the knife-edge
and the sight. This is a constant figure for all measures.
The two triangles thus formed are similar;
therefore:
1. M =
dx R
2. ds = dydx and dydx = da
R
72
3. ds ~ da
R
But R is a constant measure for the instrument;
therefore, ds Is proportional to da.
M-. ds = da
5. A = fds = fda
This series of equations demonstrates that the
linear displacement of the knife blade (ds), is propor
tional to the area circumscribed by the sight (da).
In actuality, segments ds and dy are not straight
lines, but are infinitesimal segments on the arc of a
circle whose radius, R, is the length of the planimeter
arm from the knife blade to the sight. However, ds can
be considered to be equal to an angular measure of the
same distance of the arc of a circle.
Validity and Precision of Instruments
and Measurements
The validity of the apparatus as a whole, as a
true measure of the dynamic components of force, rate,
and direction of movement involved in kinesthetic
perception, of necessity was assumed on the basis of
face validity. Neurophysiological research indicates
that these factors are, indeed, involved in the kines
thetic mechanism. Consequently, every effort was made to
design equipment vhich would require the utilization of
these dynamic kinesthetic components of force, rate, and
73
movement direction during performance. Reliability
coefficients for each of the variables which were studied
are presented in Chapter IV, Analysis of Data, and
discussed in Chapter V, Interpretation and Discussion of
Data.
Pathway traversal time
The time required to traverse the pathway was
recorded by a commercial chronoscope which measured time
to the nearest .01 second.
Force of the arm movement
The impulsive force (f x t) exerted by the
subject8s arm at the completion of the movement through
the pathway from right to left was measured in terms of
the distance through which a marble was projected from a
lever arm which the subject contacted at the left side
of the apparatus. The horizontal distance which the
marble was propelled from the apparatus was measured to
the nearest .50 inch. In terms of units of impulse
generated, impulsive force was measured to the nearest
.0001 slug feet/second. However, for the purposes of
the study, the horizontal distance through which the
marble traveled was taken as being representative of the
amount of impulsive force generated by the subject as the
hand contacted the lever at the conclusion of the arm
7^
movement through the pathway. It was assumed that the
contact time of the subject*s arm against the lever in
each case was a constant.
Measurements of directional
accuracy of the arm movement
The large rectangular data sheets upon which the
subjects attempted to reproduce the designated pathway
with crayon, while blindfolded, were submitted to analysis
in three wayss (1) linear measurement of the subject*s
crayon pathway; (2) measurements of horizontal and
vertical movement accuracy at selected checkpoints along
the designated pathway; and (3) area of deviation of the
crayon pathway from the prescribed pathway.
Linear measurement of the cravon pathway.—
Subjects attempted to reproduce the designated pathway in
crayon while blindfolded. A linear measurement of the
total length of the crayon line was made by use of a
commercially manufactured map measure instrument. Length
of the crayon pathway was measured to the nearest inch.
Measurements of horizontal and vertical movement
accuracy.— A clear plastic overlay was constructed with
the designated pathway printed on it. Certain checkpoints
along the pathway were designated as reference points
which were used to measure the subjects* accuracy in
75
horizontal and vertical movements as they had attempted
to reproduce the pathway in crayon while blindfolded* Two
reference points were used in measuring accuracy in the
horizontal plane— one for a horizontal movement from right
to left, and the other for a horizontal movement from left
to right. Two additional reference points were used in
measuring accuracy in the vertical plane— one for a
vertical movement upward, and the other for a downward
vertical movement.
Measurement of area deviation from the pathway*—
A knife-edge planimeter was used to measure the area of
deviation of the crayon pathway from the designated path
way. The accuracy of the instrument was measured by first
calibrating the planimeter so that one inch of knife blade
displacement was equal to ten square inches of area, then
measuring known areas of various shapes and sizes. Five
different sizes of rectangles, triangles, circles, and
quarter circles whose area were known were subjected to
measurement. Differences between the planimeter area
measures and the known areas were found to occur. The
maximum mean error for all sizes and shapes which were
measured was *+.91 per cent. The mean error for each type
figure ranged from .79 per cent for rectangles to 9«90 per
cent for whole circles.
The cause of the error was thought to arise from
76
the shape of the knife blade which was used on the
instrument. Its relatively broad base may have caused
some blade displacement to occur during a rotational or
pivotal movement while circumscribing a given shape
perimeter, when actually no translational movement of the
blade should occur. If this was the cause of the error,
it was not possible to observe it visually during testing
of the instrument. The use of a circular type blade, such
as used in a glass cutter, may possibly have provided
greater accuracy.
However, the actual accuracy of the planimeter in
r
measuring the areas of deviation on the crayon data sheets
was not possible to measure, due to the great variety in
size and shape of the areas which comprised the total area
deviation from the prescribed pathway for any given trial.
For the area deviation measurements of the data sheets,
the error may be less or greater than that for the shapes
and sizes of the selected figures of known area which were
measured. At least any error which may have been in the
instrument was constantly applied to the measurement of
all the data.
The coefficient of reliability for the operation
of the instrument was measured by selecting fifty crayon
data sheets at random, and measuring their area deviations
a second time. The resulting reliability coefficient was
77
.95.
Admitting its possible limitation with respect to
the ^.91 per cent mean error in accuracy, the planimeter
was the only practical instrument available which could
provide a measurement of the area of deviation from the
designated pathway. In view of its high reliability, it
is possible that the error would be uniformly distributed
throughout all area deviation measurements, and thus still
allow some worth to be placed on its use as an area-
measuring device.
For the purposes of this study, and within the
possible limitations of the planimeter instrument, one
inch of lateral displacement of the knife blade was
arbitrarily selected to represent ten square inches of
deviation of the crayon pathway from the designated path
way. As lateral displacement was measured to the nearest
1/8 inch, this is equivalent to an area measurement of
the nearest 2.5 square inches of deviation.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
Prior to being submitted to analysis, the raw
score data were first converted to deviation scores by
obtaining the difference between the subjects actual
score and the designated score for each variable. The
designated score for each variable was the score which
the subject attempted to reproduce during the learning
period. The designated score for the two speed variables
(Variable One and Three) was seven seconds, which was the
designated pathway traversal time. The designated score
for the two force variables (Variables Two and Four) was
25.0 inches. This was the distance the marble was to be
projected away from the apparatus. The designated score
for Variable Five (Linear Pathway) was 132 inches. For
Variable Six (Area Pathway), the slotted track comprised
the designated movement pathway. Designated scores for
Variables Seven through Ten, representing horizontal and
vertical movement accuracy, were selected points along
the pathway at which changes in direction were required.
A positive deviation score signifies that the subject8s
raw score exceeded the designated score, while a negative
deviation score was assigned when the raw score was less
than the designated score.
78
79
In order to work with positive figures for com
puter analysis, a constant figure of seventy-five was
applied to all deviation scores with the exception of
those for Variable Six, the scores for which were already
positive* A score below seventy-five for any trial,
therefore, signifies that the subject*s raw score was less
than the designated score; a score of seventy-five means
that the subject performed exactly in accordance with the
designated score; a score of above seventy-five indicates
that the subject*s raw score exceeded the designated score
for that particular trial and variable.
The collected data for the ten variables were then
analyzed to determine the effects of practice both on the
accuracy and the consistency of performance. Further
analysis was made to study the relationship between vari
ables, as well as to ascertain characteristic trends in
performance on each of the ten variables. Subjects*
deviation scores, with the constant applied, were analyzed
in the following manners
1. Comparisons of differences between mean scores
of the first five trials and last five trials.
2. Comparisons of relationships among variables
by means of zero-order correlation coefficients.
3. Learning curves for each of the variables
over the thirty trial practice period.
80
Comparisons of accuracy among variables as
measured by the percentage of deviation from the designated
score.
5. Comparisons of net reduction in percentage of
error between initial and final performance.
6. Comparisons of tendencies in performance among
variables.
7. Comparison of differences between standard
deviation scores of initial and final performance.
8. Comparison of coefficients of variability at
selected intervals during practice.
9» Inter-trial correlation coefficients at
selected intervals during practice.
10. Coefficient of reliability scores for each
variable.
Comparisons of Differences Between
Mean Scores of the First Five
Trials and the Last
Five Trials
The mean score of the first five trials for all
subjects was compared with the mean score of the last five
trials for all subjects for each of the ten variables. In
all variables except two (Variable Seven and Variable
Eight, Horizontal Deviation), a significant difference
between mean scores was found, indicating a significant
improvement in performance between the first five and the
81
five trials. In seven of the variables, the difference
was significant at the .01 level of confidence. Table 1,
page 82, presents a summary of these findings.
Comparison of Relationships
Among Variables
Zero-order correlation coefficients were computed
to determine the degree of relationship between variables.
Low inter-correlations were found to exist among most
variables. Only in three pairs of variables was the r .30
or better, with the highest between any variables being
.50— Variables One and Three (Movement Speed, Stylus and
Movement Speed, Crayon). Almost one-half of the coeffi
cients were negative. In three pairs of variables, a
negative correlation of .30 or better was found, with the
highest negative correlation being .38--Variables Three
and Four (Movement Speed, Crayon, and Movement Force,
Crayon). These findings are summarized in Table 2, page
83.
Learning Curves for the Thirty-Trial
Practice Period
Using the deviation score to which a constant of
seventy-five had been applied, learning curves were
plotted for each variable for the thirty trial practice
period. A mean deviation score of less than seventy-five
indicates that the raw score was below the score which
82
TABLE 1
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN SCORES OF
FIRST FIVE TRIALS AND LAST FIVE TRIALS
Mean
First
Variable Five Trials
Mean
Last
Five Trials
»t»
Ratio
1. Movement Speed
(Stylus)
Movement Force
(Stylus)
Movement Speed
78.58*+ 75*096
7.239
2.
63*717 7^.930 16.252
3.
76.8*+7
75A 98 2.577*
i+.
(Crayon)
Movement Force 6*+.380
71.337
5.6W
5.
(Crayon)
Linear Pathway 59*087 71.793
6.221
6. Area Pathway 390.61+5
321A 30
3*591
7.
Horizontal
Movement (R to L) 7^.187
7^.785
1.311 ***
8. Horizontal
Movement (L to R)
68.725 69.^93 .825**
9.
Vertical Move
ment (Upward)
70.855 72.693 i+. 518
10. Vertical Move
ment (Downward)
72.967 7^*657
*+.101
All mean differences are significant at or beyond
the .01 per cent level of confidence except as indicated.
*Significant at or beyond the .05 per cent level
of confidence.
**No significant difference.
NOTE: This table should be read as follows:
On Variable I, Movement Speed (Stylus), the mean of the
first five trials was 78.58*+; the mean of the last five
trials was 75*096; this difference produced a "t” ratio
of 7*239 which was found to be significant at the .01
per cent level of confidence.
TABLE 2
ZERO-ORDER CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN VARIABLES
Variable 1 2
3
b
5
6
7
8
9
10
1, Movement Speed
(Stylus)
-----
-.16 .50 -.36
-.19 .07
-.11 .03 -.13
-.20
2, Movement Force
(Stylus) -.16
- - -
-.06 .06 .01 -.01 -.01 -.06 .02 .O1 *
3. Movement Speed
(Crayon) • 50 -.06
—
-.38 .03 -.09
-.16 .06 ,0b -.12
Movement Force
(Crayon) -.36 .06 — e 3 8
—
.22
-.05 .03 ,1b
.09 .09
5. Linear Pathway
-.19
.01
.03
.22 •— .O^f .06 .16
.37 .07
6e Area Pathway .07
-.01
-.09 -.05
oO^f
-----
.20 -.36 -.18
.07
7. Horizontal
Movement
(R to L) -.11 -.01 -.16
.03
.06 .20 -.12 ,b2 .26
8. Horizontal
Movement
(L to R)
.03
-.06 .06 ,1b .16 -.36 -.12 -.02 -.01
Oo
TABLE 2 (continued)
Variable 1 2
3 5
6
7
8
9
10
9. Vertical
Movement
(Upward)
-.13
.02 .0*f .09 •37
i
•
oo
M
-.02 -.02
10. Vertical
Movement
(Downward) -.20 •
o
-r
— ®12
•09
•07
.07
.26 -.01 -.02
---
NOTE: This Table should be read as follows* the correlation coefficient
between Variable One and Variable Two was -.16; between Variable One and Variable
Three it was .50®
CO
-r
85
the subject attempted to equal. A mean score of seventy-
five signifies that the raw score equalled the designated
score, hence deviation is zero. A mean deviation score
higher than seventy-five indicates that the raw score
exceeded the designated score. The less the deviation,
either above or below the constant score of seventy-five,
the more accurate the performance.
Variable Ones Learning Curve for
Movement Speed, Stylus
The learning curve for Variable One (Movement
Speed, Stylus), was negatively accelerated. The mean
time for the first trial was 81.29 seconds. During the
first eleven trials the mean time dropped rapidly to a
low of 7*+.77 seconds on the eleventh trial. The mean
times then remained fairly constant, slightly above the
designated score of seventy-five, with a mean of 75»07
seconds on the last trial. The standard deviation on
the first trial was **.50, dropping to .71 on trial
fifteen. The standard deviation continued to decrease,
to a low of Al on the last trial. Table 3, page 86
presents a summary of these findings. Figure 1, page 91,
presents a graphic representation of the learning curve
and standard deviation.
TABLE 3
MEANS OF DEVIATION SCORES (WITH CONSTANT) FOR EACH TRIAL AND VARIABLE
Trial
l-Mvt, Speed
Stylus
2-Mvt. Force
Stylus
3-Mvt. Speed
Crayon
l*-Mvt. Force
Crayon
5-Line ar
Pathway
M S,D« M S.D. M. S.D. M. S.D. M. S.D.
1 81,29
*fr.50
59.8?
5.1^ 78.69 **.27 59.53
7.06 1*6.90 19.86
2 7b. 99
3.5^ 61,65 b.65 76.66 3.58 61.83
6,61*
56.96 19.50
3 77.93
2,66 63.18
6.95
76.2^ 3.60
67.15 8.33
62.50 18.69
k 77.13 2,31
65.00 *f.98
76.1*6 3.16 66.13 8.3^ 63.83 17.07
5
76.76 1.68 68.90 6.5^ 76.17 2.1*3 67.25 7.73 65.23 17.79
6 76.20 1.66
68.15 5.92
75.79
2.0*f 68.00 7.81
69A3 16.93
7 75.93
1.12
69.93
7.12 75.76 1.82 69.06
7.65
70.60 17.28
8
76.15
1.02 68.13 6.1*0
75.67 1.85 67.85 5.58 68.23 li*. 52
9 75.75
1.2*+ 68.13 7.33
75.68 1.81*
67.91
6.1i* 68.23
1^.79
10
75.**
i'6 k 72.55 6.75
75.72 1.66 68,ifO 6.09 65.96 13.10
11
7b.77
.86 7^.90 6.69
75.08
1.63
70.18
6.63 66,70
17.^7
12 75.03 .79 71.^1 5.56 75.27 1.56 70.35
6.9 1+
69A 3 15A9
oo
O'
13
l*f
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2k
25
TABLE 3 (continued)
l-Mvt. Speed 2-Mvt. Force 3-Mvt. Speed 4-Mvt. Force
Stylus Stylus Crayon Crayon
M S.D. . M. S.D. M. S.D. M. S.D.
75.33
.81 71. ^8 5.62
75.57
1.30
69.95 5.33
72.27 .57 73.25 6.33 75.^3
1.38 70.23 5.^3
75.13 .71 71.53 5.95
75.26 l»kk 70.^8
5.73
75.18 1.12
73.65 5.55
7 5 M 1.61 69.06 5 M
7 5 M .58 72.56 5.62
75.76 1.55 69.73 6.73
75.32 .51
7^.66 5.92
75.27 1.29 72.13
5.7k
75.25 .57 7^.75
6.50 75.50 1.60 70.58 5.63
75. Ok .5k 75.00 6,22
75.31 1.13
70.^8
5.33
7k a 81 .7k 7^.70
5.63 75.77
1.60 70.38
5.55
75.10 .57
72.76
tf.31 *
75.60
1.39 71.91
k.7k
75.21
.51 71.71 6.97
75.72 l.Mf
71.^3
5.30
75.09
.5k 7*+.l6 ^.89 75.97
1.30 72.13 »t.8o
75.19 .51
73.76 5.52
75.69
1.08
71.73
6.2if
TABLE 3 (Continued)
l-Mvt. Speed 2-Mvt• Force 3-Mvt. Speed 4-Mvt. Force 5-Linear
Stylus Stylus Crayon Crayon Pathway
Trial M. S«D. M. S.Do M. S.D. M„ S.D. M. S.D.
26
75. l*f
.4o 74.78
4.79
75.40 1.04
70.93 5.89 70.73 15.19
27 75.06 .44
73.33
4.20 75.67 1.17
71.26
5.77 71.53
14.58
28 75.08 .41
74.63 3.50
75.35
1.04 71.10
4.37 71.93
16.96
29 75.09 .37 75.11 5.58 75.46
1.15
71.60 6.08
71.53 14.85
30 75.07
.41 76.78 4.46 75.58 1.00 71.78 5.98 70.30 20.69
6-Area 7-Horiz. 8-Horiz. 9-Vertical 10-Vertical
Pathway R-L L-R Up Down
M. S.Do M. S.D. M. S.D. M. Si,D. M. S.D.
1 420.65 110.70 72.85 4.29
69.08 3.81 69.38 4.23 71.36 4.42
2
387.75
146.96 7l +.‘ *0
3.99
68.76
3.97
70.92 3.49
72.88 3.47
3
396.76 136.74
7M-.37
3.60 69.68 4.72
71.45
2.64 72.74 4.66
389.80
122.39
7^.66 3.40 68.28 4.08
71.07 2.34
73.73
3.00
5 358.25
100.08 74.60 3.26 67.80 4.13
71.44 2.76 74.10 2.60
6
375.45
108.00
75.35
3.96 68.07
4.84
71.97
2.48 74.14
2.05 < x
00
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
TABLE 3 (continued)
6-Area 7-Horiz. 8-Horiz. 9-Vertical 10-Vertical
Pathway R-L L-R Up Down
M. S.D. M. S.D. M. S.D. M. S.D. M. S.D.
356-31 103.15 74.91
3.22
68.91 4.67 71.76 2.47 74.86 2.41
357-91
113.28 75.60 3.16 68.8l 4.14 71.72 1.95
73.84
2.67
352.41 96.61 74.52 3.05
67.81 3.90 71.74
2.37 74.11 2.71
378-00 93.69 74.70 3.09 67.39 3.96 71.33
2.16 74.30 2.46
371. **1
87.43 75.07
3.46 68.78 3.80 71.48
2.51 73.98 2.32
346.42 121.78 75.25
3.22 69.54 4.27
71.80 2.08 74.60
2.25
375-71 116.29 75.15
3.00 68.60 3.62
71.93
2.02 74.24
2.55
349.08
91.53 75.03
2.54 68.17 3.70 71.90 2.05 74.67
1.86
360-51
106.82 75.34 2.22 68.58 4.62
11.99 2.33
75.30
2.28
3^6-68 103.86 75.44 2.46 67.87 4.50 72.10 2.44
74.89 2.39
355.66 101.74
75.33 2.05 67.33
3.98 72.19
1.98
75.05 1.93
333.81 101.68 74.46 2.74 69.02
3.89 71.75 1.91 74.87 2.20
331.58 103.04 74.44 2.41 68.72
4.05 71.75
2.04
74.59
2.04
330.06
97.31
74.64 2.08
69.29 3.99
72.16
1.91 74.23 1.72
TABLE 3 (continued)
6-Area
Pathway
7-Horiz.
R-L
8-Horiz•
L-R
9-Vertical
Up
10-Vertical
Down
Trial M. S.D. M. S.D. M. S.D. M, S.D. M. S.D.
21 340.50
103,4-7
2.51 69.2*f
3.11
72.32 2.11 74-.40 2.10
22
334-. 83 124-.32 73.96 3.01 69.67 3.77
72.01 2.28 74- . 80 1.81
23 319.M 101.57 74-.19 2.97 69.4-5 3.6 5
72.08
2.59
74-.83
1.85
24-
308.53
101.63 74-. 31
2.65 68.80
3.05 72.07
2.28 74-. 4-3
1.71
25
321.18
120.15 7^.79 3.10 68.69 3.92 72.4-7 2.23 74-.79 1.55
26
291.86 105.21 73.30 6.27 69.57 3.31 72.25
2.21 72.98 9.05
27
306.00 79.02 7^.60
2. i f 3
69.18 3.92 72.65 2.03
74-. 4-9
1.79
28 340.13 89.27 75.20 2.4-8
69.51
3.80 72.62 2.18
74-.71 1.93
29
317.66
109.93 7^.50 2.55
70.28 3.74- 72.90 2.20 7k.55 1.71
30 310.08 125.26
72.31 5.31 67.4-5 5.05
70.4-7 6.4-7 72.15 4-.15
NOTE: This table should be read as follows: on trial one, for Variable 1.
Movement Speed-Stylus, the mean for all subjects was 81.29 and the standard deviation
was 4-. 50.
so
o
5 10 15
TRIALS
FIGURE I
LEARNING CURVE FOR VARIABLE
MOVEMENT SPEED - STYLUS
MEAN TIME DEVIATION
(SECONDS)
STANDARD DEVIATION
DESIGNATED SCORE
Variable Twos Learning Curve for
Movement Force, Stylus
The learning curve for Variable Two (Movement
Force, Stylus) showed an almost steady rise in force
increments until the eleventh trial. At this point, the
designated score of seventy-five was almost approximated.
For the remaining trials, the scores fluctuated slightly
below the designated score, rising above it on the last
two trials. On trial one, the mean score was 59*85
inches, rising to 71*53 inches on the fifteenth trial.
The mean score for the last trial was 76.78 inches. On
all trials except the last two, mean scores were at or
i
below the designated score. The standard deviation for
trial one was 5*1^* It remained fairly constant through
out the practice period except^for a few fluctuations.
During the last ^ive trials the standard deviation
decreased slightly. Table 3, page 86, presents a summary
of these findings. Figure '2, page 93j presents a graphic
representation of the learning curve and standard devia
tion. '
Variable Three s Learning Curve for
Movement Speed, Crayon
.The learning curve for Variable Three (Movement
Speed, Crayon) is similar to that of Variable One (Move
ment Speed, Stylus). The curve is negatively accelerated.
The mean time for the first trial was 78.69 seconds.
M E A N FORCE DEVIATION
(INCHES)
80
D.S
75
7 0
6 5
60
20 30
TRIALS
FIGURE 2
LEARNING CURVE FOR VARIABLE 2
MOVEMENT FORCE-STYLUS
MEAN FORCE DEVIATION--------
(INCHES)
STANDARD D EV IA TIO N--------
DESIGNATED SCORE D . S .
vO
dropping to 75-08 seconds on the eleventh trial. For the
remaining trials, the mean score was fairly constant,
always being slightly above the designated score. The
mean score of the last trial was 75-58 seconds. On all
trials, the mean score remained above the designated
score of seventy-five* As with Variable One, the standard
deviation decreased fairly rapidly at first, then
continued to decrease slowly throughout the testing
period. The standard deviation for trial one was 4-.27;
for trial fifteen it was 1.4-4-, and for trial thirty it
had dropped still further to 1.00. Table 3, page 86,
presents a summary of these findings. Figure 3, page 95j
presents a graphic representation of the learning curve
and standard deviation.
Variable Four: Learning Curve for
Movement Force, Crayon
The learning curve for Variable Four (Movement
Force, Crayon) is somewhat similar to that of Variable
Two (Movement Force, Stylus). The mean for the first
trial was 59-53 inches. The mean then rose slowly, with
some fluctuation, until it leveled off at trial twenty-
two, with a mean of 71-91 inches. The mean for the last
trial was 71*78 inches. On all trials, the mean score
was below the designated score of seventy-five. The
standard deviation tended to decrease slightly throughout
5 10 15
TRIALS
FIGURE 3
LEARNING CURVE FOR VARIABLE
MOVEMENT SPEED-CRAYON
MEAN TIME DEVIATION
(SECONDS)
STANDARD DEVIATION
DESIGNATED SCORE
96
the thirty trial period. The standard deviation for trial
one was 7.06, dropping to 5*98 on the last trial. Table
3, page 869presents a summary of these findings. Figure
page 97s presents a graphic representation of the
i*
learning curve and standard deviation*
Variable Five s Learning Curve for
Linear Pathway
The learning curve for Variable Five (Linear Path
way) showed an initially fast rise, followed by a slower
rise toward the level of the designated score. The mean
score for trial one was *+6,90 inches; this rose to 70,60
inches by trial seven. The mean score for the last trial
was 70.30 inches. Only in one instance, on trial twenty-
five which had a mean score of 77*l *6, did the mean rise
above the designated score. The standard deviation tended
to decrease during the practice period. For trial one,
the standard deviation was 19.86, dropping to 12.73 on
trial twenty-four. On the last trial, however, it
increased to 20.69. Table 3j page 86, presents a summary
of these findings. Figure 5S page 98, presents a graphic
representation of the learning curve and standard devia
tion.
Variable Six* Learning Curve for
Area Pathway
All scores for Variable Six (Area Pathway) are
M E A N FORCE DEVIATION
(INCHES)
i
80
D.S.
75
70
A
65
60
N /
! v
55
10 15
TRIALS
FIGURE 4
LEARNING CURVE FOR VARIABLE 4
MOVEMENT FORCE-CRAYON
20 25 30
MEAN FORCE DEVIATION--------
(INCHES)
STANDARD D EV IA TIO N ---------
DESIGNATED SCORE D.S.
\0
- s ]
M E A N LEN G TH DEVIATION
(INCHES)
90
80
D . S .
70
50
40
30
0 5 1 5 10 20 25 30
TRIALS
FIGURE 5
LEARNING CURVE FOR VARIABLE 5
LINEAR PATHWAY
M EA N LEN G TH DEVIATION--------
(INCHES)
STANDARD DEVIATION - —
DESIGNATED SCORE D.S. 00
99
reported as raw deviation scores. It was not necessary
to add a constant figure, as all deviations for this
variable were positive. The learning curve for Variable
Six showed a fairly steady decline in deviation scores
throughout the practice period. The mean score for trial
one was *+20.65 square inches. For trial fifteen, the
mean score had dropped to 360.51 square inches, then
dropped to 130.08 square inches on the last trial.
A visual analysis of the crayon data sheets on
which the subjects had attempted to reproduce the maze
pathway while blindfolded was also made. Generally, the
subjects* first five trials were not only highly inaccu
rate, but were very inconsistent from trial to trial. The
last five trials not only were more accurate with respect
to the designated maze pathway, but also showed more
consistency in the movement pattern from one trial to the
next»
The standard deviation fluctuated somewhat through
out the test period. It was 110.70 on the first trial,
and decreased to 87.^3 on trial eleven. The standard
deviation for the last trial was 125.26. Table 3® page
86, presents a summary of these findings. Figure 6, page
100, presents a graphic representation of the learning
curve and standard deviation.
5 1 0 1 5
TRIALS
FIGURE 6
LEARNING CURVE FOR VARIABLE 6
AREA PATHWAY
\ v' > »
1,11 I I ‘ 1 I . I 1 I
20 25 30
MEAN AREA DEVIATION —-----
(SQUARE INCHES)
STANDARD D EV IA TIO N ---------
100
101
Variable Seven: Learning Curve for
Horizontal Movement,
Right to Left
The learning curve for Variable Seven (Horizontal
Movement, Right to Left) began below the designated score,
rose somewhat rapidly, then fluctuated slightly above and
below the designated score. During the latter third of
the practice period, mean scores tended to decrease, with
sharp dips on trials twenty-five and thirty. The initial
mean score was 72.85 inches, rising to a high of 75*1 *1 * on
trial sixteen. On trial twenty-five it dipped to 73*30
inches, again increasing prior to a substantial drop on
the last trial to 72.31 inches, which was the lowest mean
score for all trials. On trial one, the standard devia
tion was *+.28, tending to decrease fairly steadily with
continued practice. On trial fifteen it dropped to 2.22.
On trial twenty-five it increased sharply to 6.27,
decreased rapidly, then increased again on trial thirty
to 5*31* Table 3? page 86, presents a summary of these
findings. Figure 7S page 102, presents a graphic represen
tation of the learning curve and standard deviation.
Variable Eight: Learning Curve for
Horizontal Movement,
Left to Right
The learning curve for Variable Eight (Left to
Right) showed negligible acceleration throughout the
M E A N DEVIATION
(INCHES)
80 -
79
78
77
76
J V 'v
/\
I \
I v
■V
D.S.
74
73
72
69
I / 68-
67-
6§t
1
0
i 11. i i -L i i ■ ■ ■ 1 i . . . i .
10 15
TRIALS
FIGURE 7
LEARNING CURVE FOR VARIABLE 7
HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT-R toL
■ ■
20 25 30
MEAN DEVIATION --------
(INCHES)
STANDARD D EV IA TIO N ---------
DESIGNATED SCORE D.S.
102
103
practice session, with relatively large fluctuations during
the first half of the curve* Throughout all thirty trials,
scores remained well below the designated score of seventy-
five* The score on the first trial was 69*08 inches; on
trial fifteen it was 68*58. During the last ten trials,
mean scores tended to slowly increase to a high of 70*28
inches on trial twenty-nine, dropping to 67.*+5 inches on
the last trial. No clearly evident trend appeared in the
standard deviation throughout the thirty trials, although
they were slightly lower during the last fifteen trials.
The standard deviation for trial one was 3.81; for trial
fifteen it was **.62, and for trial thirty it was at its
highest peak of 5.05. Table 3, page 86, presents a
summary of these findings. Figure 8, page 10^, presents
a graphic representation of the learning curve and
standard deviation*
Variable Nine s Learning Curve for
Vertical Movement, Upward
The learning curve for Variable Nine (Vertical
Movement, Upward) showed an initially rapid increase in
mean scores, followed by a more slow, gradual rise in
scores throughout the practice session. Mean scores for
all trials were below the designated score of seventy-
five. The mean score for trial one was 69.38 inches; for
trial fifteen it had increased to 71-99. Scores continued
M EA N DEVIATION
(INCHES)
D.S.
74
72
69
66
6 4 -
62
20
TRIALS
FIGURE 8
LEARNING CURVE FOR VARIABLE 8
HORIZONTAL MOVEMENT-L toR
MEAN DEVIATION ---------
(INCHES)
STANDARD DEVIATION : ---------
DESIGNATED SCORE D . S .
105
to rise fairly steadily to a high of 71*99 inches on trial
twenty-nine, before dipping to 70.**7 on the last trial.
The initial standard deviation was ^.23. This dropped to
2.33 on trial fifteen. During the last fifteen trials it
remained quite steady, then increased to 6.*+7 on the last
trial. Table 3* page 86, presents a summary of these
findings. Figure 9, page 106, presents a graphic represen
tation of the learning curve and standard deviation.
Variable Tens Learning Curve for
Vertical Movement, Downward
The learning curve for Variable Ten (Vertical
Movement, Downward) began well below the designated score
at 71*36 inches on the first trial. The curve showed
rapid initial acceleration, leveling off as mean scores
approached the criterion or designated score of seventy-
five. The general tendency was for scores to be slightly
below the designated score except on trial fifteen, with
a mean score of 75*30 inches, and trial seventeen, with
a mean score of 75*05 inches. The mean dipped sharply to
72„98 on trial twenty-five, rose, then decreased again on
trial thirty, to a mean score of 72.15 inches. The
standard deviation on trial one was dropping to 2.28
on trial fifteen. These scores showed a tendency to
decrease throughout the practice session except on trials
twenty-five and thirty, where they increased greatly. The
5 1 0 15
TRIALS
FIGURE 9
LEARNING CURVE FOR VARIABLE 9
VERTICAL MOVEMENT-UPWARD
1 * ■ * ■ 1 ■ t ■ . . i
20 25 30
MEAN DEVIATION --------
(INCHES) h
STANDARD DEVIATION---------
DESIGNATED SCORE D . S .
107
standard deviation for trial twenty-five was 9«05, and for
trial thirty was *+.15. Table 3, page 86, presents a
summary of these findings. Figure 10, page 108, presents
a graphic representation of the learning curve and
standard deviation.
Comparisons of Accuracy Among Variables
In order to assess and compare the accuracy in
performance demonstrated by subjects among variables, the
mean deviation from the designated score for all trials
was computed for each variable (except Variable Six, which
had no designated score). This score was then translated
into a percentage deviation score. Mean deviation scores
and percentage deviation scores were also calculated for
the first five trials and the last five trials to show
trends in accuracy between initial and final performance.
For the first five trials, Variable Seven, (Hori
zontal Movement, Right to Left), had the lowest percentage
of deviation, 1.08^- per cent, while Variable Two (Movement
Force, Stylus), had the highest percentage of deviation,
l5.0Mf per cent. On the last five trials, Variable Two
had the lowest percentage of deviation, .093 per cent,
while Variable Eight (Horizontal Movement, Left to Right),
showed the highest percentage of deviation, 7.3^ per cent.
For all trials, Variable Seven (Horizontal Move
ment, Right to Left), had the lowest percentage of
M E A N DEVIATION
(INCHES)
79
77
V
V
D.S.
75
74
70
69
65
64
15 0 5 1 0 20 25 30
TRIALS
FIGURE 10
LEARNING CURVE FOR VARIABLE 10
VERTICAL MOVEMENT-DOWNWARD
MEAN DEVIATION ----- —
(INCHES)
STANDARD DEVIATION---------
DESIGNATED SCORE D . S .
108
109
deviation, .*+73 per cent. The variable having the highest
percentage of deviation for the total practice session was
Variable Five (Linear Pathway), with a percentage devia
tion score of 8.573 per cent. Table L t - , page 110, presents
a summary of these findings.
Net Reduction in Percentage of Error
Between Initial and
Final Performance
The mean percentage of deviation from the desig
nated score on the first five trials was compared with
that of the last five trials for each of the variables.
From these data, the net reduction in percentage of error
was computed as a criterion for improvement in performance.
Variable Seven (Horizontal Movement, Right to Left) showed
the least improvement, with a net reduction in percentage
of deviation of only -797 per cent. Other variables
which showed relatively little improvement were Variable
Eight (Horizontal Movement, Left to Right) with a net
reduction of 1.021 * per cent, and Variable Three (Movement
Speed, Crayon), with a net reduction in percentage devia
tion of 1.799 per cent. Variable Five (Linear Pathway),
with a net reduction of 16.9^1 per cent and Variable Two
(Movement Force, Stylus), with a net reduction of 1^.951
per cent showed relatively large reductions in percentage
deviation from the designated score between initial and
final practice. Variable Six (Area Pathway) showed the
TABLE k
PERCENTAGE OF DEVIATION FROM THE DESIGNATED SCORE
First Five Trials Last Five Trials Total Trials
Variable
Mean Dev.
from
Designated
Score
(75eOOO)
Per cent
Deviation
Mean Dev.
from
Designated
Score
(75.000)
Per cent
Deviation
Mean Dev,
from
Designated
Score
(75.000)
Per cent
Deviation
I 9 Movement Speed
(Stylus) 3.581+ 1+.779
.096 .128 .826 1.101
2. Movement Force
(Stylus) 11.283 15.o¥f .070
.093
3oQli+
1+.019
3.
Movement Speed
(Crayon)
1.81+7
2.1+63 .1+98 .661+
.769 1.025
b0 Movement Force
(Crayon) 10.62 Ilf. 160 3.663
if. 881+ 5.61+6 7.528
5.
Linear Pathway 15c913
21.217 3.207
l+o 276 6.1+30
8.573
6. Area Pathway
- - - - -
7c
Horiz. Movement
(R to L) .813
1,081+
.215
.28 7
.355 .1+73
8, Horiz* Movement
(L to R)
6.275
8.367 5.507 7.31+3
6.171+
8.232
H
H
O
TABLE ^ (continued)
First Five Trials Last Five Trials Total Trials
Variable
Mean Dev.
from
Designated
Score
(75.000)
Per cent
Deviation
Mean Dev.
from
Designated
Score
(75.000)
Per cent
Deviation
Mean Dev.
from
Designated
Score
(75.000)
Per cent
Deviation
9. Vert, Movement
(Upward)
*f.l*f5 5«527 2.307
3.076 3.128
»+.171
10. Vert. Movement
(Downward)
2.039 2.719 .3^3 A57 .756 1.008
NOTE: This tahle should be read as follows: on Variable 1, for the first five
trialsf the mean deviation from the designated score was 3*58^; the percentage devia
tion was if.779* For the last five trials, the mean deviation was from the designated
score was .096; the percentage deviation was .128. On Variable 1 for the total trials,
the mean deviation was .826; the percentage deviation was 1.101.
H
H
H
112
greatest improvement in accuracy with a net reduction in
percentage deviation between the first five and the last
five trials of 17.718 per cent. Table 5, page 113,
presents a summary of these findings.
Comparisons of Tendencies in Performance
Among Variables
An analysis of mean scores was made to ascertain
whether subjects* performances tended to exceed or fall
below the designated score for each variable. The mean
deviation scores (which included the constant of seventy-
five) for the first five trials and for the last five
trials were computed to determine trends during initial
and final performance.
As a constant figure of seventy-five was added to
all deviation scores, a mean score above seventy-five
indicates that performance exceeded the designated score.
A mean score of less than seventy-five indicates that
performance was below the designated score for that
variable, A constant figure was not applied to Variable
Six (Area Pathway), as all deviations from the designated
maze pathway were positive. As a consequence, Variable
Six is excluded from this analysis.
On the first five trials, the lowest mean score
was 59»087 on Variable Five (Linear Pathway). Seven of
the nine variables had mean scores which were under the
TABLE 5
NET REDUCTION IN PERCENTAGE OF ERROR BETWEEN MEANS
OF FIRST FIVE TRIALS AND LAST FIVE TRIALS
Variable
Mean
First 5
Trials
Dev. from
Designated
Score
(75.000)
Per
cent
Dev.
Mean
Last 5
Trials
Dev. from
Designated
Score
(75.000)
Per
cent
Dev.
Net Reduct.
in Per
cent Dev.
1. Mvt. Speed
(Stylus) 78.58*+ 3.58*+ *+.779
75.096 .096
.128 *+.651
2. Mvt. Force
(Stylus) 63.717
11.28 15.0*+*+ 7^.930 .070
.093 l*+.95l
3. Mvt. Speed
(Crayon) 76. 8*+7 1.81+7
2.*+63 75A98 .*+98 .66*+
1.799
*+. Mvt a Force
(Crayon) 6*+.380 10.62 1*+.160
71.337 3.663
*+.88*+ 9.276
5. Linear
Pathway 59.087 15.913 21.217 71.793 3.207
*+.276 16.9*+1
6, Area
Pathway 390.6*+5
- -
321A 30
- -
170718
7® HoriZe Mvt.
(R to L) 7*+. 187
.813 1.08* +
7^.785 .215 .28 7
.797
8. Horiz. Mvt.
(L to R) 68.725 6.275 8.367
69.*+93
5.507 7.3*+3
1.02*+
H
H
U>
TABLE 5 (continued)
Variable
Mean
First 5
Trials
Dev. from
Designated
Score
(75*000)
Per
cent
Dev.
Mean
Last 5
Trials
Dev, from
Designated
Score
(75*000)
Per
cent
Dev.
Net Reduct.
in Per
cent Dev.
9. Vert. Mvt,
(Upward)
70,855 5*527 72.693 2.307
3.076 2A51
10. Vert. Mvt,
(Downward) 72.961 2.039 2.719 7^*657 .3^3 A57
2.376
WOTEs This table should be read as follows! for Variable 1, on the first five
trials, the mean was 78.58^; the deviation from the designated score was 3°58*+; the
percentage deviation was M-.779* On the last five trials, the mean was 75*096; the
deviation from the designated score was .096; the percentage deviation was ,128.
Between the first and last five trials, there was a net reduction of *f,651 in percentage
deviation.
115
designated score on the first five trials. Only Variable
One (Movement Speed, Stylus), with a mean score of 78«58i f,
and Variable Three (Movement Speed, Crayon), with a mean
score of 76.8*+7, exceeded the designated score.
On the last five trials, the lowest mean score
was 69.*+93 on Variable Eight (Horizontal Movement, Left
to Right). As on the initial five trials, the mean score
of the same seven variables was under the designated
score. Variable One (75.096) and Three (75.^98) continued
to exceed the designated score of 75.00. Table 5» page
113, presents a summary of these findings.
Comparison of Differences Between Standard
Deviation Scores of Initial
and Final Performance
A comparison of differences between mean standard
deviation scores of the first five trials and the last
five trials was computed in order to analyze changes in
individual consistency and group variability in perform
ance. All variables except Variable Five (Linear Pathway)
showed a significant difference in the mean standard
deviation scores between the first five trials and the
last five trials of practice. These differences were
significant at the .01 per cent level of confidence,
except for Variable Six (Area Pathway), which was signifi
cant at the .05 per cent level of confidence. Variables
One through Six showed a decrease in the standard devia-
116
tion between initial and final stages of practice.
However, Variables Seven through Ten, representing hori
zontal and vertical movements, indicated a statistically
significant increase in the standard deviation as a result
of continued practice. These findings are summarized in
Table 6, page 117.
Comparisons of Coefficients of Variability
at Selected Intervals During Practice
The coefficient of variability is yet another
means by which the variability of the group may be
measured. It is computed by dividing the standard devia
tion by the mean. Coefficients of variability were
computed for each variable for the first, fifteenth, and
thirtieth trials in order to analyze changes in group
variability at these selected intervals throughout the
practice period. For all variables except three, the
coefficient of variability was reduced steadily as practice
continued. Variable Seven (Horizontal Movement, Right to
Left) and Variable Eight (Horizontal Movement, Left to
Right) showed fluctuations, but had slightly lower coeffi
cients on the last trial than on trial one. Variable Six
(Area Pathway) had a coefficient of variability of .263
on trial one. This increased to .296 on trial fifteen,
and rose to .3^-6 on trial thirty. These findings are
summarized in Table 7S on page 118.
TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN STANDARD DEVIATION
SCORES OF THE FIRST FIVE TRIALS AND LAST FIVE TRIALS
Variable
S.D.
First 5
Trials
S.D.
Last 5
Trials
S.D.
Diff.
S.E.S.D.
Diff. t
1. Movement Speed (Stylus) 3.52 .hi
3.11
.20
15.55
2, Movement Force (Stylus) 6.52 k,70 1.82
M 3.96
3.
Movement Speed (Crayon)
3*59
1.10
2.^9
.20
1 2 M
Movement Force (Crayon) 8.27 5*67
2.60 .58
if.1*8
5*
Linear Pathway 18.90 16.63 2.2 7
1.39 1.71**
6. Area Pathway 126.13
106.89 19.
9.58 2.01*
7.
Horizontal Movement (R to L)
3.79
6.62 2.83
6.33
8. Horizontal Movement (L to R) if. 21
6.87
2,66
.*+7
5.66
9*
Vertical Movement (Upward) 3*26 6.30 3*0^ 6.20
10. Vertical Movement (Downward) 3*8^
6.33 2.^9 5.53
All differences between standard deviations are significant at or beyond the .01
per cent level of confidence except as indicated*
♦Significant at or beyond the .05 per cent level of confidence.
♦♦Significant difference.
NOTEs This table should be read as follows! on Variable 1, the standard devia
tion for the first five trials was 3.52 and for the last five trials was .^1, producing
a difference of 3.11. The S.E. of the difference between S.D. was .20. The
resulting t of 15*55 represents a significant difference at the ,01 per cent level.
117
TAB IE 7
COMPARISON OF COEFFICIENTS OF VARIABILITY AT
SELECTED INTERVALS DURING PRACTICE
Trial No . 1 Trial No,
15
Trial No. 30
Variable M S.D. S.D./M M S.D. S.D./M M S.D. S.D./M
1. Mvt* Speed
(Stylus) 81.29 i*.5o .055 75.1^ 7.19 .009
75.08 .1*11* .006
20 Mvt. Force
(Stylus) 59.85 5.1^
.086
71.53
59.56 .083
76.78 i*.l*6
CO
lT \
O
.
3o Mvt. Speed
(Crayon) 78.69
1*.28 .0 5b 75.26
1.1*5 .019 75.59
1.01
.013
i*. Mvt. Force
(Crayon)
59.53
7.06
.119
70,i *8
5.73
.081
71.78 5.99
.081*
5.
Linear
Pathway *+6.90 19.87 .1*23 69.10 16.li*
.231* • 71.53
ll*.86 .208
6. Area
Pathway 1*20.65 110.70 .263 360.51 106.83
.296
317.67 109.9^
.31 +6
7 o
Soria. Mvt.
(R to L) 72.85 1+.29 .059 75.3^
2.22
.029 7^.50 2.56 .031*
8. Horiz. Mvt.
(L to R)
69.08 3.81
.055
68.58 i*.63 .067
70.28
3.7^ .053
H
H
00
TAB IE 7 (continued)
Trial No. 1 Trial No.
15
Trial No. 30
Variable M S.D. S.D./M M S.D. S.D./M M S.D. S.D./M
9o Vert, Mvt#
(Upward) 69.38 ^.23 .062 71.99 2.3^ .033
72.90 2.21 .030
10o Vert. Mvt.
(Downward) 71.37 k M .062 75.30 2.29 .030
7^.55 1.71 .023
NOTEs This table should be read as followss on Variable 1, Movement Speed
(Stylus) for Trial One, the mean was 81.29* the standard deviation was *f.50, and the
standard deviation divided by the mean was .055.
H
H
vO
120
Inter-Trial Correlation Coefficients at
Selected Intervals During Practice
Inter-trial correlation coefficients were computed
to analyze changes in relationships "between trials as a
result of practice, and to determine the extent to which
early practice was related to later performance.
Inter-trial correlation coefficients were computed
between trials one and two, nine and ten, nineteen and
twenty, and between trials twenty-nine and thirty. For
some variables, these inter-trial correlations were found
to fluctuate widely, showing even negative inter-correla-
tions with continued practice. This was the case with
Variable One (Movement Speed, Stylus), Variable Six (Area
Pathway) and Variable Seven (Horizontal Movement, Right
to Left) showed increased inter-trial correlation coeffi
cients as practice progressed.
Correlation coefficients between trial one and
thirty were found to range from -.21 for Variable Eight
(Movement, left to Right) to .A for Variable Seven
(Horizontal Movement, Right to Left). Correlation Coeffi
cients between trial ten and thirty ranged from -Al for
Variable One (Movement Speed, Stylus) to .52 for Variable
Nine (Vertical Movement, Upward). These findings are
summarized in Table 8, page 121.
TABLE 8
INTER-TRIAL CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS.
Variable
Trials
1-2
Trials
9-10
Trials
19-20
Trials
29-30
Trials
1-30
Trials
10-30
Odd Trials
Even Trials
1, Movement Speed
(Stylus)
« . 77 M -.08
-.29
.02 -Al .82
2. Movement Force
(Stylus) .68
•19
.06
.07 .07 -.37
,1k
3. Movement Speed
(Crayon)
.71 .71
,Qk •7k
.25
.>+6
,77
Movement Force
(Crayon)
*79
,0k ,2k
.17 .09 .52
5. Linear Pathway .66 ,6k .88
.25 -.17
.12 .30
6. Area Pathway
•33
,5k
.63
,6k
-.17
,2k .50
7. Horiz. Movement
(R to L) .*+0 .72 .72 .80 ,kk ,kB .55
8. Horiz. Movement
(L to R) .22 .56 .78 ,5k -.21
.39
.58
9. Vert. Movement
(Upward) .80
.57
.80
.91 .38 .52 .78
10. Vert. Movement
(Downward) »5k .76 .63 .53 .03 A3 .57
NOTE: This table should be read as follows: on Variable 1, Movement Speed
(Stylus), the correlation coefficient between trials one and two was .77 and between
trials nine and ten was .M-l.
121
Coefficient of Reliability Scores
for Each Variable
Coefficients of reliability for each variable were
determined by the odd-even method* The Spearman-Brown
Prophesy Formula was not applied. Reliability coefficients
ranged from .82 for Variable One, (Movement, Speed,
Stylus), to .1*+ for Variable Two, (Movement Force, Stylus).
These findings are summarized in Table 8, page 121.
CHAPTER V
INTERPRETATION AND DISCUSSION OF DATA
This chapter on interpretation and discussion of
data is divided into three sections as follows: (1)
changes in performance as a result of practice; (2)
characteristics of performance during practice; and (3)
summary and theoretical implications.
Changes in Performance as a
Result of Practice
One of the purposes of the study was to determine
whether the effects of practice on a kinesthetic task
would yield results in performance similar to those
observed in other types of motor learning tasks. Analysis
of the data revealed that with practice, performance was
improved; changes in group variability occurred; and
changes in inter-trial relationships were observed.
Improvement in Performance
Consistent with the findings of other studies
dealing with the effects of practice on performance, it
was found that practice on the apparatus resulted in
significant improvement in eight of the ten variables.
The two variables which failed to show significant improve
ment were Variable Seven (Horizontal Movement, Right to
123
/
12*+
Left), and Variable Eight (Horizontal Movement, Left to
Right). It appears that practice may facilitate the
individual's kinesthetic awareness in learning to perform
movement at a designated rate of speed, with a designated
amount of force, along a specified movement pathway.
While directional accuracy was significantly
improved in the vertical plane, horizontal movement
accuracy failed to show significant improvement within
the same practice period. If kinesthetic perception is,
indeed, a highly specific sensory capacity, differing in
sensitivity for various limbs, and for force, speed, and
direction of movement, then one might expect greater
variation in improvement among variables than was found.
The fact that horizontal movement accuracy, in both
directions, was the only variable which failed to improve
might indicate that kinesthetically, movements in the
horizontal plane are more difficult to perceive and
direct with accuracy than those in other planes.
Improvement in performance between initial and
final practice was also observed in terms of a net
reduction in the mean percentage of deviation from the
designated score. Greatest improvement was made in the
ability to accurately reproduce the designated maze path
way, with a net reduction of 17.718 per cent being made
in area deviation off the maze pathway between the first
125
five and the last five trials of practice for Variable
Six. The mean net redaction in percentage deviation from
the linear pathway (Variable Five, Linear Pathway) was
16.9*+1 per cent, which was also a comparatively high
percentage of reduction of error between initial and final
stages of practice. Subjects also showed considerable
improvement in terms of error reduction on both of the
force variables (Variables Two and Four), with a net
reduction in percentage deviation of lM-,951 per cent and
9.276 per cent, respectively. Variables Seven through
Ten, representing horizontal and vertical movement
accuracy, however, all showed relatively small reductions
in error as a result of practice.
Improvement scores which are based upon net
reduction in percentage of error (or net gain in accuracy),
however, are influenced by the quality of the initial
performance as well as that of final performance. If the
initial percentage of deviation is already low, then
chances for the further reduction of error are decreased.
By the same token, if there is a great deal of errcr in
the early stages of practice, then there is a better
opportunity to show a net reduction in error as practice
continues. Consequently, these findings should be
interpreted in light of this factor. It can be said,
with regard to the net reduction in percentage of error
126
scores, that Improved performance appears to be more
possible on some aspects of dynamic kinesthetic perception
than on others. This is probably due, however, to the
fact that initial performance in those variables is more
inaccurate, thus extending the opportunity for improvement
to be demonstrated.
Changes in Group Variability
If the standard deviation is used as the criterion
for group variability, then practice had the effect of
significantly decreasing group variability or differences
between individual performance on some dynamic kinesthetic
components, while significantly increasing group varia
bility on others. The standard deviation changed
significantly with practice on all variables except
Variable Five (Linear Pathway). The standard deviation
decreased with practice on Variables One (Movement Speed,
Stylus), Two (Movement Force, Stylus), Three (Movement
Speed, Crayon), Four (Movement Force, Crayon), and Six
(Area Pathway); it was found to increase on Variables
Seven through Ten, which are the variables representing
horizontal and vertical movement accuracy. These findings
appear to indicate that individual differences tend to
decrease with practice on those kinesthetic components
related to speed of movement, force of movement, and the
127
ability to sense and reproduce a designated movement path
way. But differences between individuals evidently are
increased with practice when attempting to sense designated
movement pathways in the horizontal and vertical planes.
These findings may lend support to the contention that the
kinesthetic sense is a highly specific type of sensory
mechanism.
When group variability is measured in terms of the
coefficient of variability, which is the standard deviation
divided by the mean, the findings are different than when
the standard deviation is used as the criterion. Coeffi
cients of variability were computed for the first,
fifteenth, and thirtieth trials in order to analyze
changes in group variability at these selected intervals
during the practice period. The data revealed that for
all components except Variable Six (Area Pathway), the
coefficient of variability for the first trial was greater
than that for the last trial. These coefficients showed
a steady decline as practice progressed, except for
Variables Seven and Eight (Horizontal movements) which
showed a slight upward fluctuation on trial fifteen before
dropping again at the end of the practice. The coeffi
cients for Variable Six (Area Pathway), however, rose
steadily with continued practice. This is due to the
fact that the mean deviation score tended to drop more
rapidly (as the subjects became more accurate in repro
ducing the designated pathway) than did the standard
deviation. Evidently, the group as a whole improved in
performance, but individuals within the group continued
to vary in individual performance, as represented by the
standard deviation.
These findings appear to support Reed's contention
that varying results will occur when assessing changes in
group variability if different criteria are applied (66).
Using both the standard deviation and the coefficient of
variability as criteria, it generally appears from the
present data, that practice had the effect of reducing
differences in performance among individuals.
Changes in Inter-Trial Relationships
Inter-trial correlation coefficients were computed
to analyze changes in relationships between trials which
might be observed as a result of practice. Kientzle
pointed out that inter-trial reliability is a direct
reflection of the individual's consistency of performance
from trial to trial (59). Other investigators, including
Anderson, indicated that as performance improves with
practice, the individual tends to perform in a more
consistent manner (1). Such an increase in performance
consistency, then, should be reflected in increasingly
higher inter-trial correlation coefficients as practice
129
continues.
The data of the present study produced varying
and rather puzzling results with regard to the inter-
trial correlations. Five of the variables (Three, Move
ment Speed, Crayon; Six, Area Pathway; Seven, Horizontal
Movement, Right to Left; eight, Horizontal Movement, Left
to Right; and Nine, Vertical Movement, Upward) showed a
higher inter-trial reliability coefficient between the
last two trials (final reliability) than between trials
one and two (initial reliability). The increase in the
coefficient, however, was not directly proportional to
the amount of practice, as fluctuations were noted in
reliability coefficients at selected, equally spaced,
inter-trial intervals throughout the practice period.
Variable Six (Area Pathway), for example, had initial
reliability of .33, which increased to .5* + between trials
nine and ten, and to .63 between trials nineteen and
twenty. The final reliability coefficient between trials
twenty-nine and thirty, however, was only slightly higher,
at .6*+. Variable Eight (Horizontal Movement, Left to
Right) had an initial reliability of .22; this rose to
.56 between trials nine and ten, and to .78 between trials
nineteen and twenty. But the final reliability coeffi
cient, although higher than the initial coefficient,
dipped to .5^.
130
The other five variables (One, Movement Speed,
Stylus; Two, Movement Force, Stylus; Four, Movement Force,
Crayon; Five, Linear Pathway; and Ten, Vertical Movement,
Down) showed final reliability coefficients which were
lower than initial reliability scores. Fluctuations in
coefficients at inter-trial intervals were observed in
these variables as with the first five. Variable One
(Movement Speed, Stylus) had an initial reliability of
.77 which dropped to .*+1 between trials nine and ten.
This lowered further to .08 between trials nineteen and
twenty, and finally decreased to .29 for the final *
reliability coefficient between trials twenty-nine and
thirty.
Apparently, increased consistency in performance,
based upon the dynamic kinesthetic components studied, is
not necessarily a result of practice. It might be that
some of the variables required more practice beyond the
thirty trials in order to demonstrate increased relia
bility coefficients and greater consistency.
For some variables, peak coefficients were reached
prior to the end of practice, indicating, perhaps, that
maximum consistency could be attained with less practice
for these variables. The decrease in consistency observed
for some components as practice continued might be attri
buted to boredom, but in actuality, is difficult to
131
explain satisfactorily*
Differences in consistency noted among some
variables might be attributed to the fact that some kines
thetic components are more difficult to learn to perform
than are others. The extremely low final reliability
coefficients obtained for Variable One (Movement Speed,
Stylus) and Two (Movement Force, Stylus) are difficult to
explain particularly in light of a total odd-even relia
bility coefficient of .82 for Variable One. Both of these
variables were performed with the stylus, but the relation
ship between use of the stylus and the low coefficients
is not apparent at this time. Perhaps further study will
help to clarify this enigma.
Visual analysis of the subjects® crayon data
sheets on which they had attempted to reproduce the
designated maze pathway while blindfolded clearly showed
subjects progressed. In the initial trials, the crayon
patterns were very inconsistent with each other; the
subject seemed to be "exploring" in order to determine
the correct pathway. But with continuing practice, each
subject gradually appeared to establish a unique movement
pattern which became increasingly refined and more clearly
delineated, even though it still deviated from the
prescribed maze pathway.
Inter-trial correlation coefficients were also
132
computed between trials one and thirty and ten and thirty
to determine the effectiveness of early practice in pre
dicting future performance. With the possible exceptions
of Variable Seven (Horizontal Movement, Right to Left),
with a coefficient of and Variable Nine (Vertical
Movement, Upward), with a coefficient of .38, inter-trial
coefficients between trials one and thirty were quite low;
some were even negative (Variable Five, Linear Pathway;
Six, Area Pathway; and Eight, Horizontal Movement, Left to
Right). Evidently initial performance on the kinesthetic
components studied cannot be considered as good predictors
of final performance.
Higher correlation coefficients were obtained
between trials ten and thirty, with the exception of
Variables One (Movement Speed, Stylus) and Two (Movement
Force, Stylus) which had negative correlations. The
highest was .52 (Variable Nine, Vertical Movement, Upward),
followed by Variable Seven (Horizontal Movement, Right to
Left), with a coefficient of A 8 between trials ten and
thirty. Generally, the correlation coefficients for speed
and force of movement variables were lower than those-
variables representing horizontal and vertical movements.
From these data, it would appear that performance
in the early stages of practice is a better predictor of
final performance than is initial performance. There
133
appears to be a good deal of variability among dynamic
kinesthetic components with respect to their effectiveness
in predicting later performance on the basis of initial
and early performance.
Characteristics of Performance
During Practice
Another purpose of this study was to analyze
characteristics of performance with respect to the dynamic
components of kinestheses represented by the ten variables.
The data were analyzed to determine the nature of the
relationships between variables, comparisons of accuracy
among variables, comparisons of consistency in performance,
and comparisons of general tendencies in performance among
the various kinesthetic components.
Relationships Between Variables
When zero-order correlation coefficients were
computed, low inter-correlations were found to exist among
most variables. Only three pairs of variables had coeffi
cients of .30 or better, with the highest being .50 between
Variables One (Movement Speed, Stylus) and Three (Movement
Speed, Crayon). Many inter-correlations were negative.
These data appear to support the contention that there is
a great deal of specificity among the various dynamic
components of kinesthetic perception.
Comparisons of Accuracy Among Variables
The mean percentage of deviation from the desig
nated score was computed for each variable in order to
determine the relative accuracy of performance among
variables for the total practice period. Mean percentage
deviation scores ranged from a high of 8.573 per cent for
Variable Five (Linear Pathway) to 1.008 per cent for
Variable Ten (Vertical Movement, Downward). Mean
percentage deviation scores were lower for the two move
ment speed variables (Variable One and Three) than for
the two movement force variables (Variables Two and Four).
A comparison of horizontal and vertical movement
accuracy revealed a lower mean percentage deviation score
for horizontal movements from right to left, than from
left to right. Also, the mean percentage deviation score
for upward movements exceeded that of downward movements.
It appears that accuracy, which is dependent
mainly on dynamic kinesthetic cues is more easily obtained
for speed of movement than for force of movement. Hori
zontal movements from right to left apparently are more
accurate than are horizontal movements in the reverse
direction. Motor patterns for right-handed individuals
tend to occur more often in a right to left direction, as
the arm is moved across the body. Less frequent are
movements from left to right, as in a backhand stroke in
135
tennisc The higher accuracy in the right to left direction
may at least be partially accounted for by the greater
experience subjects have in basic arm movements in the
right to left direction. With respect to vertical move
ments, subjects were more accurate moving downward than
upward.
Variable Five (Linear Pathway) represented another
aspect of directional accuracy. Its comparatively high
mean percentage deviation score seems to indicate that
accuracy in reproducing a designated movement pathway was
the most difficult of all the variables to achieve.
/
Differences in accuracy observed among variables
seem to further substantiate the concept of specificity in
dynamic kinesthetic acuity, with accuracy more easily
obtained to a higher degree in some components than in
others.
While there are no comparable studies with which
these data can be compared, it seems important to note
that the maximum mean percentage deviation obtained on any
variable was less than 9«000 per cent. This indicates
that as a group, subjects were able to approximate the
required performance levels with relatively high accuracy.
With further practice deviation scores might have been
even less. Larger mean percentage deviation scores might
have been expected, in view of the fact that the subjects
136
were blindfolded, and had to rely mainly on dynamic kines
thetic cues alone*
Comparisons of Over-all Consistency
in Performance
Coefficients of reliability for each variable were
determined by the odd-even method. The Spearman-Brown
Prophesy Formula was not applied. Reliability coefficients
ranged from .1*+ for Variable Two (Movement Force, Stylus)
to .82 for Variable One (Movement Speed, Stylus). The
two movement speed components, Variable One (Movement
Speed, Stylus) and Variable Three (Movement Speed, Crayon)
had relatively high coefficients in comparison with the
other variables. The two horizontal movement components,
Variable Seven (Horizontal Movement, Right to Left) and
Variable Eight (Horizontal Movement, Left to Right) and
the two vertical movement variables, Variable Nine
(Vertical Movement, Upward) and Variable Ten (Vertical
Movement, Downward) had reliability coefficients slightly
lower than the two speed variables. The two force compo
nents, Variable Two (Movement Force, Stylus) and Variable
Four (Movement Force, Crayon) were quite inconsistent
with each other in terms of reliability. (Variable Twos
r. 1M-; Variable Four: r. 52). The reliability coeffi
cients for Variable Six (Area Pathway) approximated those
of the horizontal and vertical movement components.
137
The three basic dynamic components of kinesthetic
perception, namely, force, speed, and direction of movement,
tend to differ in so far as consistency of performance on
these variables is concerned. Greatest consistency of
performance was achieved with respect to moving at a
designated rate of speed. Consistency in moving along a
designated pathway, and in horizontal and vertical planes
appears to be more difficult to attain. It might be that
kinesthetic acuity is more highly refined and sensitive
with regard to sensing speed of movements. These data
appear to offer further evidence of the specific nature
of the dynamic kinesthetic capacity.
General Tendencies in Performance
The data were analyzed to determine whether per
formance tended to exceed or fall below the designated
score for each variable. The learning curves which were
plotted for each variable revealed that initial perform
ance tended to fall far below the designated score.
During the early stages of practice, performance
scores improved rapidly. Performance scores tended to
fall below designated scores throughout the entire practice
period, however. The main characteristic of performance
error tended to be that of underestimating the designated
score. Movement speed was slightly slower than that
designated; less force was applied than required; and
138
movements were smaller than designated in both the hori
zontal and vertical planes, as well as in reproducing the
complete linear length of the novel designated movement
pathway prescribed by the maze*
Two explanations might be offered for this
tendency to perform below designated limits. One, perhaps
the tendency is a characteristic of the kinesthetic
sensory mechanism. Underestimation appeared to be a
characteristic of the kinesthetic sensory mechanism which
applied to all variables, and is the only characteristic
observed thus far to be so general in its application to
all of the dynamic components of kinesthesls under study.
A second explanation could be that underestimation
is a characteristic of motor learning during initial
stages of practice. This might be related to hesitancy
on the part of the learner as he explores a new movement
pattern. During the initial practice trials, the
individual may be slightly fearful and timid as he
encounters an unfamiliar, unique learning situation. It
appears significant, however, that underestimation was
observed throughout the entire practice period, even after
subjects had apparently become well oriented to the testing
situation. But if the opportunity for additional practice
had been available, perhaps a trend toward overestimation
might have occurred, at least for some variables.
139
Learning curves for the ten variables contained
features which are typical of motor learning curves in
other studies. Rapid improvement occurred during early
practice, with most curves showing negative acceleration.
Plateaus were observed as performance approximated the
criterion or designated score. Inter-trial fluctuations
in performance were common, but were larger for some
variables than others.
Summary and Theoretical Implications
Practice on a novel motor task which involved
three dynamic components of kinesthetic perception
produced changes in performance which were similar in
general to the effects of practice observed on other types
of motor learning tasks. Significant improvement in
performance occurred as a result of practice in all but
one of the ten variables studied. Improvement was
observed to occur in some variables to a greater extent
than in others.
Practice also had the effect of reducing group
variability. This finding is consistent with that of other
investigations. The effect of practice in increasing the
consistency of performance was not as evident. Consistency
increased with practice on some variables, but not on
others. Gains in consistency were not directly propor
tional to the amount of practice. Early stages of
1^0
performance appeared to be more accurate predictors of
final performance than was initial performance*
The ten variables, representing the dynamic com
ponents of force, rate, and direction of movement, showed
very little relationship to each other. Accuracy varied
considerably among the ten variables. Over-all consistency
of performance for the thirty trial period also differed
widely for each variable.
The general characteristic of performance through
out the entire practice period was that of underestimation;
this was true for all components of kinesthetic perception
which were studied. Learning curves for the ten variables
were typical of motor learning curves in general.
Improvement in motor performance which is observed
as a result of practice might well be attributed partly to
improvement in kinesthetic perception as the individual
refines his ability to perceive the dynamic components of
force, rate, and direction of movement which are involved
in the task.
The specificity of the various components of
kinesthesis apparent in this study lends support to the
findings of related studies in this regard. The learner
might also possess a kinesthetic capacity consisting of
dynamic and static components of varying sensitivity.
These findings appear to have some important
lM-1
implications with reference to instruction in motor skills.
If it may be generalized from these data and those of
related studies reviewed in Chapter II, that the learner
tends to underestimate the required amount of force and
speed, and tends to be restrictive in his movement pattern,
then these problems can be anticipated, and effective cues
provided to learners in order to correct these probable
performance errors.
The importance of assisting the individual in
developing accurate movement patterns as early as possible
during the learning period should be emphasized. The data
revealed that each subject®s movement pattern tended to
become more defined, consistent, and set with practice,
even though the pattern itself may have been inaccurate.
Early instruction should help the learner to develop and
firmly establish those movement patterns which are accurate
and effective for the particular skill being learned, so
that inaccurately formed and set patterns can be avoided.
The complexity of the learning process needs to be
appreciated by the instructor as he assists the beginner
during practice. The numerous possibilities which exist
for making errors should be recognized. Included among
these are errors related to the dynamic kinesthetic com
ponents of force, rate, and direction of limb and body
movement. Learning a motor skill appears to involve a
highly complex process of refining and integrating a
number of components, including the highly specific,
dynamic, kinesthetic elements, all of which subserve
skilled movement*
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
Summary
The study was designed to investigate the effect
of practice on three dynamic components of kinesthetic
perception, namely, force, rate, and direction of movement.
The hypothesis was that practice on a novel motor task
which mainly required the use of the kinesthetic sense
would result in improved performance. Practice consisted
of performing a large movement made by the preferred arm
while tracing and then attempting to reproduce a designated
movement pattern. The two main purposes of the study were
to (1) determine if such practice would yield results
similar to those previously found on other types of motor
learning tasks; and (2) determine the nature of the
performance during the practice period with respect to
the dynamic kinesthetic components of force, rate, and
direction of movement.
A review of literature was conducted in the
following areass (1) investigations regarding neurophysio-
logical aspects of kinesthetic perception; (2) studies on
the measurement of kinesthetic perception conducted in
physical education; and (3) studies dealing with the
14-3
effects of practice on learning and performance,
A testing apparatus and planimeter were designed
and constructed for the purpose of investigating and
measuring the effects of practice on three dynamic compo
nents of kinesthesis.
The subjects were thirty college women, selected
at random from the general education physical education
program at California State College at Long Beach.
Subjects were blindfolded throughout the learning period,
which consisted of ten trials per day for three consecutive
days. The statistical tools utilized in analyzing the
data included the t test for differences between means
and between standard deviations, zero-order correlation
coefficients, and two-variable correlation coefficients.
Findings
Analysis of the data revealed the following major
findings?
1. Practice requiring a high degree of kinesthetic
perception resulted in significant improvement in force,
speed, and direction of movement. The only two variables
in which performance was not significantly improved were
those related to accuracy of movement in the horizontal
plane•
2. Greater improvement in accuracy was made in
cortain variables than in others. Most improvement
a M-5
occurred in the ability to accurately reproduce the
prescribed movement pathway* Relatively small improvement
was shown in variables representing horizontal and vertical
movement accuracy.
3. Practice reduced group variability. Individual
differences decreased as a result of practice.
h. Practice increased consistency of performance
on some variables, while decreasing consistency on others.
5. Performance scores in early stages of practice
tended to be better predictors of final performance than
initial performance scores.
6. Force, rate, and direction of movement showed
very little relation to each other. The data supported
the contention that there is a great deal of specificity
among the various dynamic aspects of kinesthetic
perception.
7. Accuracy of speed was developed to a greater
degree than was force accuracy} horizontal movements from
right to left were more accurate than in the reverse
direction; downward movements were more accurate than
upward movements.
8. Consistency of performance on force, rate,
and direction of movement variables differed widely.
9. The main error in performance was that of
underestimation. Movement speed was slightly slower than
11+6
that designated; less force was applied than required, and
movements were smaller and more restricted than designated
in the horizontal and vertical planes.
10. Learning curves for the dynamic, kinesthetic
variables contained features which were typical of motor
learning curves in general.
Conclusion
The hypothesis that certain dynamic components of
kinesthetic perception, namely, force, rate, and direction
of movement, may be improved through practice directed
only by kinesthetic cues, was found tenable.
Suggestions for Further Study
As a result of this study, several tentative ideas
for further investigation have evolved, as follows;
1. Using the test apparatus and procedures
developed in this study, it would be interesting to
investigate the relationship between dynamic kinesthetic
perception and selected aspects of motor performance.
Comparative studies between athletes and non-athletes or
physical education major students and non-major students
could be conducted to assess possible differences in
kinesthetic perception, as measured by the apparatus,
between the two groups.
As a result of earlier studies, findings have
1 k - 7
revealed surprisingly low relationships between selected
kinesthetic measures and various measures of motor perform
ance. The majority of the kinesthetic test batteries
which have been employed previously, however, appear to
have emphasized only the static elements of kinesthetic
perception. Perhaps a closer relationship might be found
to exist between motor performance and the kinesthetic
measure employed in this study by means of which attempts
were made to assess the dynamic, rather than the static,
aspects of kinesthetic perception.
2. Comparative studies should be conducted to
determine the relationship, if any, between the dynamic
measures of kinesthesis employed in this investigation,
and static measure's of kinesthetic perception which have
been utilized by other investigators.
3. It would be interesting to compare kinesthetic
perception, as measured in this study, between sighted and
blind individuals. One would suspect that non-sighted
individuals would demonstrate greater kinesthetic
sensitivity than sighted persons. A review of the research
literature failed to reveal any studies which have been
conducted to investigate this supposition.
ba Prior to conducting further studies in this
area, a more practical method for the measurement of area
of deviation from the prescribed movement pathway needs to
be developed. Several ideas for obtaining this measure
with greater ease and accuracy are being formulated for
use in future studies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
1. Anderson, John E. Psychology of Development and
Personal Adjustment. New York: Henry Holt
and Co., 19*+9.
2. Barker, David, and others. Symposium on Muscle
Receptors. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University
Press, 1962.
3. Bartley, Howard S. Principles of Perception. New
York: Harper and Bros., 195$*
*+. Bouchard, Harry and Moffitt, Francis H. Surveying.
Scranton: International Textbook Co., 1959*
5. Bouman, H. D. and Woolf, A. L. The Utrecht Symposium
on the Innervation of Muscle. Baltimore:
Williams and Wilkins Co., I960.
6. Bourne, G. H. Structure and Function of Muscle.
Vol. I. Structure. New York: Academic Press,
I960.
7. ________• Structure and Function of Muscle. Vol. II.
Biochemistry and Physiology. New York:
AcadeMcPre ss, 1960.
8. Buchanan, A, R. Functional Neuro-Anatomy.
Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1961.
9. Campbell, John Scott, and Schnitger, Wallace.
Electrical Instruments Calibration. Pasadena:
Pacific Institute of Technology, 1959*
10 e Cratty, Bryant J. Movement Behavior and Motor
Learning. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 196*f.
11. Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Design in Psycho
logical Research. Revised^edition. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.
JL2. Elliott, H. Co Textbook of Neuroanatomv.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1963.
150
13.
m-.
15.
16 e
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
2k 0
25.
26.
151
Fleishman, Edwin A. and Gagne, Robert M. Psycholog
ical and Human Performance. New Yorks Henry
Holt and Co., 1959.
Garrett, Henry E. Statistics in Psychology and
Education. New Yorks Longmans, Green and
Co., 1959.
Granit, Ragnar. Receptors and Sensory Perception.
New Havens Yale University Press, 1955.
Johnson, Warren R. (ed.). Science and Medicine of
Exercise and Sports. New Yorks Harper and
Bros., 19o0.
Magoun, H. W. The Waking Brain. Springfields
Charles C. Thomas, 195^.
McGeoch, J. A. and Irion, A. L. Psychology of Human
Learning. Revised edition. New Yorks
Longmans, 1952.
Penfield, Wilder and Rasmussen, Theodore. The
Cerebral Cortex of Man. New Yorks MacMillan
Co., 19?0.
Ranson, Stephen Walter and Clark, Sam Lillard. The
Anatomy of the Nervous System. Philadelphia s
W. B. Saunders Co., '194-7•
Rasch, Philip J. and Burke, Roger K. Kinesiology
and Applied Anatomy. Philadelphias Lea and
Febiger, 1959-
Reidman, Sarah R. The Physiology of Work and Plav.
New Yorks Henry Holt and Co., 1956.
Resnick, Robert and Halliday, David. Physics for
Students of Science and Engineering, Part I.
New Yorks John Wiley and Sons, Inc., I960.
Scott, Gladys M. Analysis of Human Motion. New
Yorks Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1942.
Smith, C. G. Basic Neuroanatomy. Torontos
University of Toronto Press, I96I0
Straus, Erwin. The Primary World of the Senses.
Londons Free Press of Glencoe, 1963.
152
27. Strong, Oliver and Elwyn, Adolph. Human Neuro-
ana tomv. Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins
Co.,T9f3.
28. Thomas, W. A. and Spalding H. A. The Engineer*s
Vest Pocketbook. Baltimore: Ottenheimer
Publishers, Inc., I960.
29. Welford, A. T. Ageing anH Human. Skill. London:
Oxford University Press, 195^.
30. Wyburn, George M., Pickford, R. W., and Hirst, R. J.
Human Senses and Perception. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 196*+.
Publications of Learned Societies
and Other r' animations
31. Boyd, I. A. and others. The Role of the Gamma
System in Movement and Posture. New York:
Association for the Aid of Crippled Children,
1961*.
32o Field, John. (ed.). Handbook of Physiology. Section
I. Neuronhvsiologv. Washington: American
Physiological Society, 1959.
33. Harrison, Virginia. "The Neuro-Muscular Basis for
Motor - Learning," Proceedings of the National
Association for Physical Education of College
Women. Washington: American Association for
Health, Physical Education, and Recreation,
I960.
Periodicals
3*4-. Ammons, R. B. "Acquisition of Motor Skill: Quanti
tative Analysis and Theoretical Formulation,"
Psychological Review. 5^•263-281, September,
35. Ammons, Robert B. "An Investigation of the Effects
of Massed Practice of a Motor Skill," American
Psychologist. 3:251, July, 19*+ 8.
36. Ammons, C. H. and Ammons, Robert B. "Motor Skills
Bibliography," Perceptual and Motor Skills.
5:31-50, March, 1955.
153
37• Anderson, S. and Gernandt, B. B. “Ventral Root
Discharge in Response to Vestibular and
Proprioceptive Stimulation," Journal of Neuro-
phvsiologv. 19:278-285, November, 19?6.
38. Archer, E. J. "Effect of Distribution of Practice
on a Component Skill of Rotary Pursuit
Tracking," Journal of Experimental Psychology.
22:31-38, 19WT
39. Barlett, F. C, "The Measurement of Human Skill,"
Occupational Psychology. 22:31-39* 19^-8.
Ho« Batson, William Howard. "The Acquisition of Skill,"
Psychological Monographs. 21:1-99* 1918a
H-l. Bilodeau, E. A, and Bilodeau, I, "Motor Skill
Learning," Annual Review of Psychology.
2H- 3:28o, 1981.
H-2. Burns, Z. H. "Practice, Variability, and Motiva
tion," Journal of Educational Psychology,
29:202-2lH, 1938o
H-3. Cook, Thomas W. "Studies in Cross-education: Kines
thetic Learning of an Irregular Pattern,"
Journal of Experimental Psychology. 17 *7^-9-
751, 193H.
Cooper, S. and Whitteridge, D. "Muscle Spindles
and Other Sensory Endings in the Extrinsic
Eye Muscles; the Physiology and Anatomy of
These Receptors and of Their Connections with
the Brain Stem," Brain. 78:56H— 583, 1955«
H-5® Cratty, Bryant J. "Comparison of Learning a Fine
Motor Task with Learning a Similar Gross
Motor Task, Using Kinesthetic Cues," Research
Quarterly. 33:212-221, May, 1962.
H6.__________„ "Transfer of Small-Pattern Practice to
Large-Pattern Learning," Research Quarterly.
33*523-535* December, 1962.
H-7. Eldred, E., Granit, R., and Merton, P. A. "Supra-
Spinal Control of tfee Muscle Spindle and Its
Significance," Journal of Physiology. 122:
H- 98-523, 1953.
Y
15b
*+8. Ellis, R. S. "The 'Laws* of Relative Variability
of Mental Traits," Psychological Bulletin.
Mm 1-33, 19^7.
*+9. Eriksen, C, W. "Effects of Practice With or Without
Correction, on Discriminative Learning,"
American Journal of Psychology. 71*350-358*
June, 1958.
50. Espenschade, Anna. "Kinesthetic Awareness in Motor
Learning," Perceptual and Motor Skills. 8sl^-2,
June, 1958.“
51. Granit, Ragnar. "Reflex Self-Regulation of Muscle
Contraction and Autogenic Inhibition,"
Journal of Neurophvsiology. 13*351-372,
September, 1950.
52. Granit, Ragnar and Kaada, B. R. "Influence of
Stimulation of Central Nervous Structures on
Muscle Spindles in Cat," Acta Physiologies
Scandanavia. 27*130-160, 19^2.
53o Harmon, John M. and Oxendine, Joseph B. "Effect of
Different Lengths of Practice Periods on the
Learning of a Motor Skill," Research Quarterly.
32:3W+1, March, 1961.
5b. Henry, Franklin. "Dynamic Kinesthetic Perception
and Adjustment," Research Quarterly, 2*m176-
187, May, 1953.
55. Hess, A. "Two Kinds of Motor Nerve Endings on
Mammalian Intrafusal Fibers Revealed by the
Cholinesterase Technique," Anatomical Record.
139*173-177, 1961.
56. Hollingsworth, H. L. "Correlation of Abilities as
Affected by Practice," Journal of Educational
Psychology. 1 fsi K)5-^13, 1913.
57. Husband, R. W. "Analysis of Methods in Human Maze
Learning," Journal of Genetic Psychology. 39s
258-278, October, 1931.
58. Kao, Dji-Lih. "Plateaus and the Curve of Learning
in Motor Skill," Psychological Monographs.
M-9S1-81, 1937 o
155
59* Kientzle, M. J. "Properties of Learning Curves
Under Varied Distribution of Practice,"
Journal of Experimental Psychology. 3o:187-211,
1.9WT
60* Matthews, P. B. C. "The Differentiation of Two
Types of Fusimotor Fibres by Their Effects on
the Dynamic Response of Muscle Spindle Primary
Endings," Quarterly Journal of F.-ypeplmental
Physiology* M-7 i32M--333T1962. '
61. Mumby, H. Hugh. "Kinesthetic Aciuty and Balance
Related to Wrestling Ability," Research
Quarterly. 2H-S326, 1953*
62. Perl, Ruth E. "Effect of Practice Upon Individual
Differences," Archives of Psychology. No. 159?
1933.
63. Phillips, Marjorie and Summers, Dean. "The Relation
of Kinesthetic Perception to Motor Learning,"
Research Quarterly. 25*^57-*+69, December, 195^.
6*+. Pubols, B. H. "Reminiscence in Motor Learning as a
Function of Present Distribution of Practice,"
Journal of Experimental Psychology. 60sl55-
161, September, I960.
65. Ralston, H. H. "Recent Advances in Neuromuscular
Physiology," American Journal of Physical
Medicine. Vol. 36, No. 2, April, 1957.
66. Reed, H. B, "The Influence of Training on Changes
in Variability in Achievement," Psychological
Monographs. Vol. *+1, No. 185, 1931®
67. Riopelle, Arthur J. "Psychomotor Performance and
Distribution of Practice," Journal of Experi
mental Psychology. Ho*390-395, June, 195o.
68. Roloff, Louise. "Klnesthesis in Relation to the
Learning of Selected Motor Skills," Research
Quarterly. 21 fs210, 1953.
69. Rushworth, Geoffrey. "Muscle Sense Organs and
Disorders of Movement," Cerebral Palsy
Bulletin. l:3sl*5, 1958.
70. Scott, M. Gladys. "Measurement of Klnesthesis,1 1
Research Quarterly. 26:324—3*+l, October, 1955.
156
71o Shimazu, H., Kongo, T., and Kubota, K0 "Two Types
of Central Influences on the Gamma Motor
System," Journal of Neurophvsiologv. 25*309-
323, 1962.
72. Slater-Hammel, A. T. "Measurement of Kinesthetic
Perception of Muscular Force and Muscle
Potential Changes," Research Quarterly. 28*153-
159, 1958.
73* Stilwell, Donald L. "The Innervation of Tendons and
Aponeuroses," American Journal of Anatomy.
100*289-317, 19^7o
7*+. Travis, R. C. "Length of the Practice Period and
Efficiency in Motor Learning," Journal of
Experimental Psychology. 2^:339-3W7"”l939®
75. Watson, John B. "Kinesthetic and Organic Sensations*
Their Role in the Reactions of the White Rat
to the Maze," Psychological Review Monographs.
8*65-90, 1907.
76. Wettstone, Eugene. "Tests for Predicting Potential
Ability in Gymnastics and Tumbling," Research
Quarterly. 9*115-125, December, 1938.
77® Wiebe, Vernon A. "A Study of Tests of Klnesthesis,"
Research Quarterly. 25*222-230, May, 195^®
78. Witte, Fae. "Relationship of Kinesthetic Perception
to a Selected Motor Skill for Elementary School
Children," Research Quarterly. 33*^76-*f81 +,
October, 19^2.
79® Worshel, Phillip. "The Role of the Vestibular
Organs in Space Orientation," Journal of
Experimental Psychology. 1952®
80. Young, Olive G. "A Study of Klnesthesis in Relation
to Selected Movements," Research Quarterly.
16*277-287, December, 19W.
Unpublished Materials
81. Purdy, Bonnie Jean. "Effect of Number of Practice
Trials in Initial Learning on Retention and
Re-learning of Motor Skills." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
157
California, 196*4- •
82. ______. "Retention of Gross Motor Skills."
Unpublished study, the University of Southern
California, 1959-
83. Rosentsweig, Joel. "Sensory Perception of the Motor
Skilled." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation.
The University of Southern California, 19o3.
APPENDIX A
INTERPRETATION OF RAW DATA VARIABLES
INTERPRETATION OF RAW DATA VARIABLES
VARIABLE
#1 Movement Time, Stylus
#2 Movement Force, Stylus
#3 Movement Time, Crayon
#*+ Movement Force, Crayon
#5 Linear Pathway
#6 Area Pathway
#7 Horizontal Movement, (R to L)
#8 Horizontal Movement, (L to R)
#9 Vertical Movement, (Upward)
#10 Vertical Movement, (Downward)
159
APPENDIX B
RAW DATA SCORES FOR ALL SUBJECTS
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 1
Variables
Trial #1
#2
#3 # * + #5
#6
#7 #8 #9
#10
1
20.9M-
7.0 20.88 2,0 86
512.51
+
3
00 - 8.00 *+.£o - 8.5o
2 8.65 7.0 5.68 12.0 101
267.5
-
2 00 - 8.00
-
3.50 - 5.25
3 8.09
33.0
5.83
28.0 92
277.5
—
1 00 -10.50
—
k.75 - 5.50
* + 8.05 l*+.0 6.72
11.5
81
332.5
—
k 00 - 5.75
—
5.00 - 7.25
5 7.1*+ 10.50 5.*+3 16.5
81 355.0
—
k 00 - 9.50
-
7.50 - *+.50
6
5.97
23.0 5.50 11.0
89 397.5
+
75 rll.5
-
5.25
- *+.00
7
6.56 *+0.5
7.02 l*+,0
93
210.0
-
3 00 - 0.00
-
k.75
- 6.00
8
8.57
18.0
7.39
9.0 132 232.5
4
2 25 - 8.00
-
.75 - *+.25
9
7.M-2
29.5
7.70 19.0 10*+
267.5
+
4.
1 00 - 7.25
-
3.2 5
- k.75
10 7.76 18.5 7.5*+ 10.5 105
220.0
T
0 00 - 3.75
-
2.25 - *+.5o
11 6.61 19.0
7.13 16.5 107
225.0
+
1 50 - 5.50
-
1.75 - 3.75
12 7.k 2 16.0 6.85 17.0 110
182,5
-
1 00 - 5.00
-
.50
- 2.75
13
7M> 20.5
7.01 15.0
99
315.0
+
25 - 6.50
-
3.00 - 1.50
1*+
7.35 2*+. 5
6.22
8.5 105
290.0
+
75 - 6.75
—
3.50 - 1.50
15
6.2 7
3*+. 5 6.25 22.0 98 357.5
4
25 -11.00
-
3.50 - 1.75
16
6.91
38.0 6 M 15.0 105 262.5
4
50 - 7.75
-
*+.25 - .50
17 7.75
13.0 6.63 22,0 102
292.5
+
1 00 - 6.25
-
3.25
- 1.00
18
6.91 2*+. 5
6.31 15.0 96 *+30.0
4
2 00 -11.00
-
2.75
- 3.00
19 7.37 30.5
6.26
17.5 97
* + 05.0
4
75 -10.25
-
3.50 - 3.25
20 7.29
36.0
5.57
28.0 9k 222.5
-
2
25 - 3.50
-
3.50 - 3.00
21
6.67 12.5 7.10 29.0 102
207.5
+
1 00 - 5.25
-
2.75
- 2.50
22 7.76 18.5
I'l1
25.0 101
192.5
-
1 00 - *+.75
-
2.75
- 3.00
2?
7.61 21,0 8Al 25.0
99
205.0
X
1
50 - 5.75
-
*+.25 - 2.00
2k 7.66
20.5
8.22
2*+. 5 103
180.0
T
0 00 - 7.50
-
2.50 - 2.00
25
6.32 26.0 6.67 26.5 97 207.5
-
2 50 - 5.5o
-
3.75
- 2.50
26
7.05
32.0
6.93
30.0 106
202.5
-
25 - 5.75
-
*+.00 - 1.00
27 7.*+9 20.5
7.70 20.0
97 192.5
—
1 5o - 3.00
—
3.25 - 3.25
28
6.9*+ 21.0
6.99 29.5 95
200.0
—
2
75 - k.75
*+.00
- 2.75
29 6.87 26.0
7.7 2 29.5 99
100.0
•m
1
75 - .75
-
3.25 - *+.25
30
7.31 2*+. 5 7.80
29.5 99 117.5
- 1
75 - 1.50
wm
3.75
- 2.50
161
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 2
Trial
#1
#2
#3
Variable s
#5 #6 #7
#8
#9
#10
1 2k .07 10.5 11.37
k.O 80
507.5
+
1
75
-lMO
_
*+.00 9.00
2 18.70 8.0 11,89 k.o 110
337.5
+
2
75
- 3.00
-
3.00
-
k.75
3
12.70 koO
12.37
k.O lk8
387.5
+
3 75
-12.00
+
1.00
M
2.75
11.31 8.5
13.81 7.0
139 377.5
+
3 25
-10.00
-
3.25
+
3.25
5 8.03 11.5 9.7*+ 9.5
128
357.5
+
2
50 -lMO
-
1.00
+
2.25
6 6.90 12.5 9.01 3.0 1^8 505.0
+
t * 00 -17.50
-
.50
-
2.00
7
7.¥+ 18.0 7.70 30.0
133
325.0
+
1 00 -13.00
-
3.50
-
1.00
8
7.11 7.5
7.21
11.5
112
3*+7.5
+
2
75
- 7.00
—
3.5o
Hr
0.00
9 5.93 3^.5
8.60
19.5 153 552.5
+
k 50 - 8.50
-
1.50
+
2.50
10
7.35 39.5 7.09
10.0 123 457.5
+
3 25
-lk.00
-
k.00
+
1.00
11
7.39 28.5 9.90 10.5
l* + 2 k$o.o
+
25
-15.00
-
2.75
+
0.00
12 7.10 3^.0 9.22 19.0 119 ^ 10.0
+
2
75 -10.25
-
M o
+
.50
8.85 2^.0 10.25 10.5 129 525.0
+
k 00 -16.00
-
2.25
+
1.50
Ik 7.34 38.0 8.02
23.5
121 ¥*2.5
+
2 00 -13.00
-
3.00
+
0.00
15
7.5k 31.0 8.68 10.0 126 565.0
+
2
75 -20.25
-
2.75
+
2.50
16 6.86
23.5
7.92 16.0 128
4o7.5
1 00 -16.25
-
3.25
+
3.00
17
8.00 27.0 8.92 13.0 iko 320.0
+
1 50
-13.75
—
4.25
+
3.25
18
7 M
32.0 8.52 25.0 128
282.5
-
3 75
- 7.00
-
k.25
+
2.25
19 7.$+ 2k.0 9.30 19.0 126 385.0
-
2 00 -16.50
—
3.25
+
1.25
20 7.28
35.5 7.91
18.0
123 315.0
-
2 50 -15.00
-
4 e 00
+
.50
21
5.B9
27.0
8.65 10.5 134 317.5
—
k
25 - 8.00
k.75
-
.75
22
7.58 26.5
7.0 19.0 ll*f
377.5
-
3
50 - 9.00
-
5.25
+
1.00
23
7.76 29.0
7.35 20.5
Ilk ¥*5.0
—
5 75 -12.75
-
6.25
+
2.00
2k
7.11
32.0
7.97 32.5
128
312.5
—
3 75
-10.50
-
5.25
-
1.00
25 6.91
25.0
8.57
10.0
135
365.0
-
3
00 - 9.00
-
4.25
+
1.75
26 6.94 36.0
7.99
20.0 132 ¥L5.0
+
25
-11.00
-
5.75
+
2.50
27
6.80 33.0
8.53
22.0
133
250.0
-
75 - 7.50
-
4.25
+
2.00
28
7.55 30.5 8.75 12.5 135
295.0
-
1 00
- 8.75
-
4.25
+
2.75
29
7.02 kk.5 8.08 36.0 132 195.0
-
1 50 - 2.00
-
M o
+
1.00
30 7.20 21.0 8.09
18.0
13^
295.0 -
7 50 - 7.50
—
M o
+
2.00 H
-- ro
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 3
Variables
Trial #1 #2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
1 13.50
Z*5
5.91
8.0
73 302.5 -11.00 - *+.5o -12.00
M
6.50
2
8.77 8.5
5.81
8.5 100
322.5
—
3.00 0
—
5.oo
—
5.50
3
10.76 13.0 4.44 18.0
113 * + 00.0
+ -
5.75 - 7.75
—
3.75
—
6.00
4 9.88
10.5 5.16 9.0
108
*+97 • 5
-
1.75 - 6.75 5.75
—
6.00
5 7.95
10.0
5.71
21+.0
115 372.5
0 - 2.50
-
4.50
+
1.00
6 7 .bo 30.0 b .85 30.0 118
*+*+7.5
—
2.25 - 6.00
—
3.00 0
7 7.17
32.0
6.03 11+.5
120
1+82.5
_
1.75
- 2,00
—
2.75
0
8 8.81+ 10.0 5.6o
ii+.5
108 * + 70.0
+
l.5o - 2.50
—
5.5o 0
9
7.28 16.0 6.1+6 10.0 112 *+55.0
M
.50
- 1.75
—
7.00
+
.50
10 7.20
9.5 6.17 11.5
118 390.0
+
.50 - 5.50
—
5.oo 2.25
11 6.96 16.0 6.90 8.0 98 *+82.5
-
.50 - 7.00
—
2.00
—
5.50
12
6.79
16.0
5.73 12.5
110 *+95.0
—
1.00
- 7.75
2.00
—
1.50
13
7.99
15.0 7.56
ii+.5
100
*+32.5
-
3.00 - 7.00 5.50
—
6.50
14
7.75 25.5
7.21 19.0 103
507.5
—
.50 - 9.50
—
4.00
—
4.50
15 7.91
26.0 6.16
18.5 91 562.5 0 -11.50
-
6.50 4.00
16 7.08
22.5
7.02 10.0 105 **65.0
—
1.50 -11.25
—
6.25
—
5.50
17 7.32
17.5
7.21 21.0 122
392.5
-
1.25 - 6,75
—
6.00 5.00
18 7.4 9 27.0 6.30 23.0
123
*+50.0
+
.50 - 7.50
—
5.25
-
4.50
19 7.00 31.0
5.65
27.0 128 *+i5.o
—
1.00
- 7.50
—
4.75
—
2.00
20 7.98 22.0 6.80
23.5
Ibb
*+30.0
+
.25
- 5.00
m
5.50
—
3.50
21
6.03 10.0 8.21 29.0 122 *+55.o
-
.25 - 3.50
-
4,50
-
2.75
22
7.74 29.0 5.66 27.0 123 *+20.0
-
1.00
- 9.25
—
5.50
—
2.25
2?
6.32 24.0 6.60 19.0 124
*4+7.5
—
1.00
- 5.75 5.00
—
.75
2b
7.*+5
27.0 7.96 19.0 1 * + * +
*+27.5
-
1.25 - 9.25
—
5.50
—
2.75
25
7.01
18.5
6.66
17.5
122
*+87.5
—
.75 * * 7.75
_
5.50
—
2.25
26
7.45 26.5 7.36 10.5
126
*+02.5
0 -14.25
-
4.25 3.50
27
6.6 7 19.0 7.23 10.5 125
* + 90.0
+
1.75 - 9.75
-
4.75 1.25
28
6.51
22.0 6.1+5 21+.0 116 *+27.0
—
.50 - 7.75
-
5.50
-
3.50
29 7.59
21.0
7.13
22.0 129 *+72.5
-
i.5o
- 9.75
-
5.25 3.50
30 7.34 29.0 6.67 27.0 12*+ 380.0
-
.75 - 7.75
—
4.00 —
1.25 H
f l \
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. i f
IMMWUm1WW I M — M P M W — — — — M B — — — I — — — — —
Variables
Trial #1 #2
#3 #t #5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
1
21.29 4.0 19.01 2.0 106 335.0
_
3.25
—
8.50
_
7.50
+
1.00
2
16. ^ 5
9.0 16.69 7.0 114
267.5
-
2.50
—
7.50
-
if. 50 0
3 12,87 12.0 16.07 10.0
139
285.0
-
3.25
-
7.50
-
3.75
+
1.75
k
11.25 8.0
13.47
2.0
123
340.0
-
if.25
-12.00
-
5.00
-
.25
5 11.19 12.5 11.05
10.0
119 302.5
-
3.25
—
5.00
—
4.50
+
.50
6
7.5 10.85 13.5
126
267.5
-
3.00
-
4.50
-
5.00 0
7
8.7k
16.5
10.88
7.5 123 352.5
-
2.50
-
6.50
-
5.25
+
1.00
8
7.79 21.5 9.38 13.0 127 260.0
-
1.75
-
6.50
-
3.50
+
2.25
9 M 1
14.5
10.31
15.0 136 275.0
-
.75
-
k.75
-
if.OO
+
2.50
10
8.55
21.0
8.57
17.0
131 357.5
5.00
-
6.50
-
5.25
+
1.00
11 6.2k 24.0
9.89 9.5
136 335.0
+
.50
—
if. 25
-
2.25
+
1.50
12 6.22 22.0
9.09 13.0 124 295.0
-
1.50
—
5.50
—
3.25 0
13 6.77
15.0 8.89 16.5 130
252.5
-
3.25
-
.50 4.25
+
1.00
Ik
7.67 15.0 8.23
17.5
5J8
295.0
PM
1.75
-
if.OO
-
3.00
+
1.50
15
6.32 19.0 8.12
16.5 335.0
—
.75 1.75
-
3.00
+
2.25
16
6.7*+ 25.0 9.81
19.5 134
377.5
« M
1.25
-
1.00
-
3.50
+
3.25
17
8.02 15.0 9.36 14.5 132
237.5
-
1.50
—
2.75
—
3.00
—
.75
18
6.79
28,0 8.17 17.0
133 282.5
+
if.25
—
3.50
—
1.00 0
19 7.13
21,0
8.51 10.5 137 272.5
-
.25
-
1.00
-
2.00
+
2.25
20 7.03 18.5 7.76 14.0
135 337.5
+
.50
-
5.25
-
1.75
+
1.00
21 7.48 19.0 11.14
8.5
132
257.5
0
-
3.25
-
1.25
+
1.25
22 7.58 19.0
9.65 22.5
128 310,0
+
.50
—
1.00
-
2.00
f
.75
23 7.40 21.0 9.20
18.5
134 230.0
-
.25
—
.25
-
3.00
-
1.00
2k 7.40 23.0 8.60
19.5
132 250.0
+
.50
—
5.50
-
2.00
+
1.00
25 7.05
17.0 8.k7 20.0 lk2
262.5
+
1.50
-
3.00
-
1.25
+
.50
26
7.35
26.0 8,11 26.0 126 290.0
+
2.25
-
.50
—
2.50 0
27 7.50
20.5
7.6k
12.5 131
370.0
+
1.00
—
3.75
-
3.50
-
.25
28
7.09
24.0 7.60
23.5 131 272.5
-
.50
-
.25
-
3.75
+
2.75
29 7.03 21.5 7.50 21.5 133
265.0
-
2.75
-
1.50
-
3.75
+
1.75
30 6.79 26.5
8.11 19.0 130
277.5
-
1.25
-
.75
-
if.25
+
.75
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 5
Variables
Trial #1
#2
#3 #5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
1
15 A5
11.0 20 M 2.0 90 185.0
-
1.50
-
3.50
-
if.OO
-
3.00
2 12.72 l»+,0 19.*+6 2.0
109 187.5
-
2.00
-
6.25
-
3.00
-
5.00
3 10.97 8.5
13.20 10.0 121
212.5
+
2.50
-
7.25
-
.50
-
k.75
10,06 15.0 10.00 10.0 122 190.0
+
3.00
-
6.75
-
1.00
-
if. 50
5 9.07 17.5 10.56 9.0 110
177.5
-
.25
mm
7.75
-
1.50
-
5.50
6 8.58 A. 5 10.32 8.0 110
157.5
-
.25
-
5.50
-
1.25
-
5.75
7
8.05 17.5 9.50 11.0
109 192.5
-
2.25
- 3.00
-
3.50
-
2.75
8
8.35
l*f.O 10.20
10.5
110 2*K).0
+
1.00
-
7.25
-
3.75
-
2.00
9
7.28
13.5
10.10 9.0 115 292.5
+
1.00
-
6.75
-
if.OO
-
1.50
10
7.33
36.0 8.15
19.0 111
257.5
-
1.50
-
k.75
-
3.75
-
2.00
11
7 A 9
16.5 10.31
9.0 111
192.5
-
1.00
+
.50
-
3.50
-
3.75
12 7.70 16.5 7.70
13.5
111
137.5
-
3.25
+
.75
-
2.75
-
if.25
13
6 .8} f 17.0
7.63
13.0 122 205.0
+
1.50
-
3.00
• * *
1.25
-
5.oo
Ik 6.70 11.0 8.32 lif.O 116 220.0
+
2.00
—
2.50
_
2.00
-
3.75
15 7.35
2^.0 8.6*+ 16.0 123 160.0
+
2.75
0
+
.50
-
5.50
16
7J&
20.0
8Al 13.5
120 185.0
-
.50
-
2.25
0 -
3.75
17
6,63 29.0 9.60 11.0 128 160.0
+
.75
-
2.75
+
.75
+
.25
18 7.66
26.5
7.68
22.5
116
167.5 i.5o
-
1.50
-
1.50
—
if.25
19
7.30 29.0
7.65
26.0
115
120.0
-
1.50
-
2.75
-
.50 if. 50
20
7.55
17.0 8A2
22,5
121
122.5
—
.75
-
if.OO
_
.50
-
2.50
21 6.85 27.0
7.37
20.0 121
157.5
am
1.00
-
2.75
-
.50
-
2.50
22 7.06 26.0 7.62
2*t.5
Ilk 160.0 3.00
+
1.00 2.00
-
if.OO
23
7.02 26.0 7.1k 21.0 119 97.5
-
2.25
—
2.00
—
1.25
-
3.00
2k
5.95
25.0 7.k 2 22.5
126
152.5
-
.75
-
2.50
-
.25
-
3.00
25 6.73 23.5 7.75
25.0 120
132.5
-
1.00
-
2.00
-
1.75
-
2.50
26 7.58 25.5
7.28 21.0
119 87.5
-
2.75
0
-
1.50 2.00
27
6.86 2*f.O 8.19 17.0 121 175.0
-
.75
-
1.50 0
-
if.OO
28 7.12 2 5.5 8.15 19.0 129
220.0
-
1.00 1.00
+
l.5o
-
3.00
29 7.31 23.0 7.71
22.0 126 230.0
+
.25
-
2.50
+
1.00
-
k.00
30 6.83 18.5 7.25 28.5
126
117.5
+
.25
- 2.50
+
1.00
—
2.00 on
----- Vji
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 6
Variables
Trial #1 #2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
1 11.09
25.?
5.67
6.34
22.5
l5l 475.00
-
50 - 3.50
-
.25
+
1 50
2 9.22
22.5
19.0
149 417.50
+
1 00 - 5.50
-
1.50
-
1
75
3
11.12
16.5 7.70 19.0 110 322.50
—
1 00 0
-
4.50
+
3
00
4 13.08
11.5
7.5k 19.0 138 302.50
-
3 75 - 1.50
-
4.50
-
1 50
5 11.55 17.5 7.7 2
17.0
1?°
W.50
+
6 00 - 8.00
+
2.25
-
1
75
6 10.23 18.5 7.43 24.0 142 240.00
25
0
—
3.75
0
7
9.96 20.0 7.08
18.5
154 342.50
+
1
75
0 0
+
1 00
8 10.58
21.5 7.7 0 22.5 143
400.00
+
5
50 - 1.50
—
2.25
—
2
25
9
7.04 15.0 6.32 11.0 147 420.00
+
4 50 - 6.00
2.25
-
50
10 7.43
25.5
6.68 19.0 136 342.50
+
1 50 - 6.00
-
2.50
-
75
11 6.6 7 19.0 7.32 15.5 139 527.50
+
3
50
- 3.75
-
1.50 0
12 7.16
8.5 5.71 8.5
138
777.50 +10 00 -13.50
+
1.25
+
1 50
7.i f0 29.5 6.43 34.0
137
520.0 0
- 6.75
0 0
14 6.43 18.5 7.56 19.0 124 230.00
-
3
50
- 3.25
-
1.50
+
50
15
7.30 24.5 7.15 14.5 129 430.00
+
1
25
- 6.00
—
1.50
+
1 50
16 6.66 20,0 6.60
25.5 127 485.50 0
- 8.75
0 0
17
7.44 16.0 7.28 23.0
133
402.50
+
25
-10.00
-
2.75
+
75
18 6.66 18.0 6.00 22.0 121 ^ 2.50 0 -12.00
—
3.00
+
50
19
7.23 25.0 6.5*+
27.0 132 415.00
+
2
75 - 7.25
-
2.50
-
2 50
20 6.00 39.0 6.90 18.0 121 555.00
+
1 50 —12.00
-
2.75
+
50
21 6,21
28.5
7.82 25.0 134 400.00
+
1 00
- 5.25
-
1.25
+
25
22
5.95
26.0 7.32
17.5 155
467.50
+
3 75
-10.00
+
1.00
+
1
25
2?
7.93
32. 0.
7.47
2k ,0 15+ 282.50
+
3 75
- 5.00
+
1.75
+
50
24 27.0
7.69
17.0
137
200.00
+
50 - 5o25
-
2.00
- f
1 50
25 29.5
7.06 26.0
125 182.50
—
l
75 - 5.50
—
2.00 0
26
6.25 26.0 8.62 15.0 138 362.50
+
7
00 - 8.00
+
1.50
+
75
27
8.04 26.0
7 M 27.0
143 337.50
+
2 00 - 8.00
-
.50 0
28 6.30 25.0 6.56 29.0 372.50
+
2 00
- 3.25
“
1.00
+
50
29
7.62
26.5 7.47
26.0 144 267.50
+
3
00 - 4.25
+
.50
—
50
30 6.52 26.0
7.39
15.0 147 492.50
+
2
75
- 9.00
+
1.00
+
2 00
166
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 7
Trial #1
#2
#3
#4
Variables
#5 #6 #7 #8 #9
#10
1
13.73 8.5
10.36 2.0 94 330.00 1 50 - 8.25
_
1.50 - 1.00
2
1^.33 10.5 9.6 7 8.0 98 267.50
—
1
25 - 6.75
-
4.00 + 1.25
3
10.70
13.5
9.10 10.0 104 465.00
+
1 50 -14.50
-
2.50 - 6.25
k 9.89
15.0
8.05 8.5 119 537.50
+
3
00 -14.75
-
.25
- 5.00
5
10.01 30.0 7.30 11.0 110 337.50
-
25 -10.75
—
1.50 - 4.25
6
8.07
19.0 7.02 14.0 120 587.50
+
1 5o -17.00
—
1.25 - 2.00
7
B.kB 18.5 7.40
13.5
l4l 520.00
+
3
50 -16.50
+
.25 - 1.25
8 7.7k 19.0 6.00 21.0 129 600.00
+
2 00 -12.75
_
1.75 + 2.25
9
6.50 18.5 6.7*+ 14.5 115
390.00
-
3
00 -11.00
-
1.75 + .50
10 7.29 20.5 7.19 19.5 115
365.00
+
3
00 - 9.00
-
1.75
- 2.50
11
5.63
21.0 5-46 22.0
123 285.00
-
25 - 6.00
-
2.50 - .50
12
5.33
20.0 4.98
20.5
132 207.50
+
2
00 - 1.75
—
1.25 + 1.25
13 6.09
17.0 6.85 20.0 126 325.00
+
3 75 - 6.00
_
2.00 - 2.25
Ik 6A8 18.0
6.35 14.5 117 392.50
+
6 00 - 7.00
—
2.50 + 1.25
15 6.05
24.0
5.43 25.0 129 332.50
+
3 75 - 7.75
+
.25 - 1.50
16 6.32 21.0 7.36 15.0 124 505.00
+
5
50 -11.00
-
1.75 - 4.25
17 6.4-1
19.5 6.85 19.0 122 367.50
+
2 50 -10.00
-
2.00 - 3.50
18 6.90 25.0 7.30 16.0 116 317.50
—
2 00 - 9.00
_
3.75
— 4. 50
19 7.4-3
25.0
6.51 18.5 117
205.00
+
1 00 - 3.75
—
3.00 - 4.25
20 6.92 26.5 7.75
l4.o 105 247.50
+
1
50 - 7.75
—
3.00 - 4.25
21
6.39
23.0 8.90
i3.0
108
297.50
-
1 50 - 9.50
-
2.25 - 4.25
22
6.97
17.0
9.09
18.0 122 190.00
—
1 00 - 2.25
—
1.75
- 2.50
23
7.k0
17.5
9.o4 16.0 124 245.00
-
3
00 - 5.50 2.50 - 1.50
2k 6.74 23.0
9.53
17.0 132 230.00
-
75 - 3.25
0
- 3.25
25 8.75
17.0 7.66
22.5 123
245.00
-
1 25 - 5.00
-
1.00 - 3.50
26
7.79 16.5 9.05
17.0 123 227.50
+
75 - 6.75
-
1.00 - 2.50
27
6.66 26.0
9.37 16.5
122
287.50
-
50 - 2.75
-
1.50 - 4.50
28 7.21 28.0 8,18 18.0 127 372.50
+
3 50 - 6.75
—
.75
- 4.50
29
6.58
24.5
8.66 18.0
133
382.50
+
25 - 2.25
-
2.00 - .50
30 6.67 21.0 7.34
17.5
127 287.50
+
50 - 1.50
-
2.00
- 2.75
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 8
.rial #1 #2
#3
#b
Variables
#5 #6 #7
#8
#9
#10
1
12.6? 8.0 A. 02 7.0 112 357.50
. .
5.75 - 3.75
_
5.50 - 8.50
2
13.3^
8.0 13.36 2.0 105 287.50
-
1.00 -12.00
-
2.50 - 6.00
3
8.62 10.0
6.59 11.5
100 3^2.50
—
2.00 -10.50
—
2.00 - 6.00
k 8 . i f i f
20.5
10.02
11.5
10b 350.00
-
1.00 -10.50
—
2.75 - 6.75
5
9.76 18.5 11.69 8.5
10*+ 335.00
-
1.25 - 9.00
—
2.50 - i f . 50
6
?.07
21.5 9.00 13.0 110 365.00
-
1.50 -11.25
-
2.25 - 3.75
7 9.69 20.5 10.95
8.0 107 327.50
-
.75 - 2.75
Hit
3.25 - 5.25
8
7 A3
26.0 8.36 15.0 110 205.00
-
3.25 - 5.25
—
2.00 - 3.00
9 6Al 20.0
8.59
13.0 115 177.50
-
1.00
- 5.75
-
1.50 - 2.50
10
7.57 21,5 8.58 18.5
108 222.50
—
2, ,00 - 7.00
-
3.25 - 3.75
11 6.81
2 * + . 5
7.58 25.0 120 275.00
+
2.75
- 7.00
-
1.25 - .25
12
7.39 2 * + . 5 7.33 20.5 113
1H0.00
-
i„5o
- .75
-
3.00 - 2.50
13 6.95
13.0 8.29 21.5 117 180.00 0 - 6.00
-
1.50 - 3.00
lb
7.39 31.5
7.61 21.5 119 197.50
-
.25
- *+.00
—
2.50 - 1.50
15
8.80 11.0
8.39
18.0 123 337.50
+
.50 - 6.50
-
1.75 - .25
16 8.21 18.5
8.83 11.0 111 215.00
-
.25 - 3.75
-
3.25
- 1.00
17 7.23 33.5
9.76 18.5 123
170.00
-
1.50 - 2.50
-
2.00 + 1.25
18 7.2b 29.5 7.15
29.0 123 265.00
—
2.50 - 2.00
•
2.00 - .50
19 8.03 l*f.0
7.37 22.5 113 160.00
3.75
- 2.50
-
i+.50 0
20 7.25
21.5
7.30 28.5
118 197.50
—
2.25 - 2.25
-
2.00 - 1.50
21
7.1b 36.0
8A 7
25.0 12*+ 157.50
—
2.00 0
-
1.00
- .75
22 6.66 18.0 8.76 26.0 120 177.50
-
i f . 50 - .25
-
2.50 - 1.00
2?
7A5
29.0 6,7^ 10.5
122 235.00
+
.75
- 2.50
-
1.25 - 3.00
2b
7.31
27.0 7.6b
22.5
12*+ 152.50
—
, *2?
- if.OO
—
1.00 - .50
25 6.89 30.0
8.59
11.0
119
222.50
-
b.75
- if.50
-
3.00 - .50
26 7.81
20.5 7.27 20.0 117 112.50
—
if .o o - 5.00
-
3.00 - 1.25
27 6.99
20.0 6.58 18.0
119 237.50
-
5.25 - .75
-
3.75
- 1.00
28
6.53
26.0 6.58 22.0 125 307.50
-
3.50 + 1.00
-
2.50 - 2.25
29 7.17
22.0
6.59
25.0 122 230.00
-
3.50 - 1.50
—
1.50 - 2.50
30 6.61
28.5 7.17 20.5
120 317.50
-
*+.25 - .25
-
3.00 - 2.25
168
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT N0o 9
Variables
'rial #1
#2
#3 # * + #5
#6
#7 #8 #9 #10
1 l * + . * + * f 9.0
12.93
13.0 121 355.00
_
3.00 -11.50
_
3.75
—
5.00
2
15.5*+ 11.5
10.80 8.0 117 2*+2 • 50
-
2.75 - 1.00
—
.25
-
6.00
3
17.00 8.0 8.00
15.5
88 365.00
—
5.75 - *+.oo
+
.25
L6.00
b
9.25 16.5 15.17
23.0 112 287.50
—
5.75 - 1.75
-
5.00
—
1.00
5 12.96 25.5 io.5*+
23.0 125 205.00
-
5.00 - *+.75
-
2.25
-
*+.00
6 12. l * f
20.5 9.23
21.0
135
*H0.00
—
1.00 - 5.00 0
—
2.25
7
9.28
18.5 9.*+6 18.0 125 310.00
-
2.75 - 5.75
—
5.00
+
1.00
8 9.01 18.0
9.3*+ 18.5
121 21+7.50
-
*+.50 - 5.25
_
3.50
-
1.75
9
10.76 8.0
9.15
21.0 132 332.50
-
1.50 - 9.50
-
1.00
+
.50
10 8.1+1 19.0
8.35 33.5
116 360.00
—
2.50 - 8.00
-
3.25
+
.25
11
6.65
27.0 7.8*+ 23.0 112 397.50
-
.50 - 8.75
—
3.75
—
1.00
12
7.69
20.0
7.97
18.0 128 310.00
+
.50 - 9.75
-
1.25
+
1.00
13 7.69
18.0 8.87 19.0 130 * + 25.00
+
.50 - 8.75
-
1.25
—
.75
1 * +
7.*+9
19.0 8.52
2 7.5
l*+0 *+75.00
-
.50 -12.25
-
1.50
+
1.00
15 7.25
25.0
6.71
26.5 128
252.50
-
.50 - 7.00
-
1.25
+
1.00
16
6.65 21.5 6.52
23.5
118 302.50
-
2.25 -l*+.00
-
2.50
+
.25
17 7.32 19.5 5.90
17.5 117 *+65.00
+
2.00 -16.50
-
2.00
+
1.00
18 7.10 23.0 7.50 16.5 131 212.50
-
1.00 - 3.50
- M *
3.25
+
.75
19
6.72 28.5 7.02 18,0 122 285.00
-
3.00 - 5.75
-
3.25 0
20
7.25
29.0 6.98
17.5
122 357.50
+
.25 - 9.50
-
2.50
+
2.00
21
7.93
30.0 7.90 19.0 12k 305.00
-
1.00 -10.50
-
1.50
+
2.00
22
7.39
26.0 6.86 22.0 122 355.00
-
1.00 -12.25
—
1.25
+
1.75
2?
7.70 26.0 7.61 25.0 127 350.00
—
3.00 - 7.75
—
.75
+
1.75
2k 7.68
21+.5 7.98 2*f.5
128 162050
—
*+.50 - 2.00
—
1.50
+
1.00
25 6.73
26.0
7A5 15.5
12*+
277.50
-
3.20 - 7.75
—
2.25
+
2.25
26
7.38 30.0
7.85
15.0
125 267.50
-
1.25 - 9.25
—
1.50
+
2.00
27 6.65 30.5 6.93 18.5 125 352.50
-
1.00 -13.75
-
1.25
-
.50
28
7.51
20.0 6.50 27.0 127 210.00
0 - 3.75
-
1.00
-
2.25
29
7.68
2 * + . 5 7.2*+ 18.5 130 165.00
-
1.50 - * + .50
-
.50
+
2.00 1,
30
6.57
27.0 6.58 22.0 118 215.00
-
2.75 - 8.00 - 2.00
-
1.50 ^
VO
1
2
I
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
g
25
26
27
28
29
30
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 10
Variables
#1 #2 #3 #+ #5 #6 #7 #8 #9
1.0 82 1+57.50
1.0 125 5^5.00
10.05
10.0 11.60
8.28 12.0
7.35
8.82
25.5
6.08
6.75 23.5
6.36
7.39
16.0
5.31
7.51 11.5
7.^6
7.70 16.5 8.73
7.50 19.0 7.02
9.35 1.0 6.10
6.70 17.0 6.70
5.05
37.0 i+.io
5.8J+ 18.0
7.11
7 M 28.0
7.5 2
7.18 39.0 6.22
7.26
20.5 7.1+1
7 M 29.0
7.59
7.53 10.5 7.59
7.02 20.0 7.66
7.22
25.5 7.51
6.70 ll+.o 7 M
6.1+6
20.5 7.90
6.98 15.0 7.68
6.93
7.0 8.21
7.31 28.5 10.35
7.13 23.0
9.3*+
7.k0 26.0
8.95
6.6k 19.0 9.58
7.35 30.5 8.71
7.33 26.5
8. 1+0
7.32 33.0 9.81+
7.0 117 307.50
7.5
100 262.50
7.5 95
305.00
7.5
127 310.00
7.5 135
3^5.00
11.5 l * +3
3^0.00
7.5 131
320.00
20.5
21+.0
126
171
387.50
1+20.00
16.5
172 317.50
11.0
159
370.00
li+.O 156 255.00
12.0 156 322.50
15.5
1H-8 237.50
9.0
153
1+02.50
13.0
155 377.50
17.0 160 1+30.00
10.5
160 350.00
16.5
l i + l + 197.50
10.5
li+l 295.00
9.0 ll+l 1 + 07.50
16.0 138 285.00
15.5 139 267.50
15.5
152 267.50
17.0 121+
197.50
13.5 135
295.00
15.5
131 235.00
15.5
ll+l 305.00
- 3.50
-
8.50 -10.50
-10.00
-
8.75
-11.00
+ .25
-
3.00 - 1+.25
- 1.50
-
7.75
- 6.00
- 2.00
—
9.00 - 1+.50
- 8.25
-
8.25 - 1.50
+ 3.75
-
7.50 - 2.00
0
-
6.25 - 2.25
+ .25
-
9.00
- 1.75
- .50
-
l+.OO
- 3.25
- .25
-
7.25
- 3.00
- 1.50
-
1+.25 - 3.50
+ k .75
-
7.75 - 2.25
- 2 .7 5
-
6.25
- l+.OO
+ 1.00
-
9.00 - 3.00
0
-
7.00 - 2.25
+ 2.50
-
9.00 - 1.00
+ .25 -
5.25
- l+.OO
+ 1.25
-
7.75
- 2.00
+ 1+.00
-
5.25
- 2.00
- 1.25
M
6.25 - 1.75
- 1.25
-
8.25 - 2.25
+ 1.00 -12.00
- 2.25
0
-
6.25 - 3.00
- .25
—
7.50 - 2.00
- 3.25
-
.25 - 3.50
- 2.00
tm
2.00 - 2.25
0
—
8.75 - 2.75
- .50
-
i+.oo
- 1.75
+ 1.25 1.75
- l+.OO
1
2
I
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2k
25
26
27
28
29
30
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO* 11
Variables
#1 #2
#3 #5
#6
CO
#9
11.80
9.5
12. lk
9.5 92 312.50 .25 - 7.75
_
3.00
10.92 12.0 10.80
15.5
100 305.00
-
1.00 - 6,25
—
.75
11.82
15.5 1H.29 16.0 lO^f 167.50
—
1.75 - 1.00
-
1.75
13.22
15.5 15.55
17.0
97
362.50
+
1.75 - 9.50
-
2.50
9.68
19.5 11.95
21.0 100 335.00
+
1.50 - 5.25
-
1.75
8.96 20.0 11.50
19.5
10H
3H7.50
+
1.00 - 7.50
—
.75
7.3H
19.0
9.11 19.5 107 3H2.50
+
.50 -10.50
—
.25
8.26 22.0
8.35
22.0 105 330.00
+
1.00 -10.50 0
7.1H 2^.5 7.37 28.5
100
277.50
-
2.25 - 8.75
-
1.50
6,61 30.0 7.36 16.0 100 H27.50
+
2.50 -13.00
+
.50
6.65 20.0
7.03 15.0 96 H60.00
+
3.50 -13.00
-
1.75
7.83 19.5 7.68 21.0 100 285.00
-
1.75 - 8.25
—
2.00
7.H2
19.5 7.35 23.5
100 230.00
—
5.25 - 7.25 2.25
7.05 16.5 6.93 2H.5 98 262.50
-
5.25 - 6.75
-
3.00
7.Ho
20.5 7.75 18.5 99
222,50
-
3.00 - 8.25
-
3.00
7.03 20.5 7.25 17.5
9£
285.00
-
3.25 - 9.25
-
3.00
7.28 25.0 6.83 19.5
98 322.50
-
2.75 -12.00
—
2.50
8.35
22.0
7.69 2H.5
100 267.50
-
H.50 - 9.50
-
2.50
6.77 19.5
7.58 13.0 8k
332.50
-
3.75 - 7.50
-
3.25
7.06 27.0 7.H5 12.5
98 375.00
-
1.50 - 9.50
-
1.75
6.10 33.0 6.H3 22.0 102 317.50
—
1.50 - 6.50
—
2.50
7.00
20.5
8.60 21.0
109
175.00
—
2.75 - 8.00
—
2.00
7.01
20.5 5.73 25.5
88
357.50
-
2.25 -13.25
-
3.50
8.H2
22.5
6.H8 28.0 9H 252.50
—
3.50 -12.25
-
2.50
7.80
20.5 6.37 16.5 95
H00.00
-
1.50 -13 0 50
-
3.00
7.22
25.5
6.50 25.0 96 272.50
-
3.50 - 9.25
-
3.50
7.06 22.0
6.25 23.5 95 317.5°
-
1.75 -13.25
-
3.25
6.90
23.5
6.15
2H.5 97 HH7.50
-
1.25 -13.75
-
2.25
6.7k 25.0 6.k6 28.0 9H H90.00
-
.50 -13.75
-
2.25
6.9k 2H.0 6.60 28.0 101 292.50
-
.50 -11.00 - 2.00
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO* 12
Variables
Trial #1
#2
#3 #+ #5
#6
#7 #8 #9
#10
1
9.15
12.0 6.98 29.0 126 387.50
_
^+.00 - .50
—
.75
+
.25
2
6.23
15.0 8.02
31.5 1+3
392.50
—
3.25 - 1.25
-
.75
+
2.00
3 7.11
19.0 6.06 36.0 1+2 750.00
-
2.75 + 1.75
-
2.00
+
.75
6.17 25.0
5.15
39.0 127
5+5.00
+
1.50 - 5.75 1.50 1.50
5
6.66
2+.5
6.18 38.0
155 657.50
+
3.50 - 5.00
-
.75
+
2.00
6 6.6+
22.5 6.89 37.0 150 395.00
+
2.75 - 5.oo
+
.25
+
.25
7
6.66
8.5 7.27
38.0
131
300.00
-
1.50 - 8.75
-
2.50
-
.50
8 7.66 26.0
8.07 17.5
1+6
507.50
-
.25 -13.00
-
3.00
+
.50
9
7.6+ 30.0
8.65 33.5 13*+
1 + 1+5.00 -
.25 -10.25
- 2.00
+
.50
10
7.57 29.5
9.8+ 31.0 ll+l 1 +55.00
-
2.00 -13.25
-
2.50
-
1.00
11 9.2+ 33.0 7.70 30.0 1+0 1 +25.QO-
-
+.25 - 5.50
-
2.00
-
+.00
12
8.91
17.0 9.30 15.0 136 507.50
—
+.50 -12.25
M
3.25
-
2.25
13 7.39
17.0
8.71
16.0 138 1+37.50
-
+.25 -11.75
-
3.25
—
1.75
1+
7.75 18.5
8.61
13.5
138 517.50
+
.50 -16.50
-
.50
-
3.50
15 7.60
15.5 7.59 18.5
ll+l 537.50
-
.75 -11.75
-
2.00
+
1.50
16
7.M+
22.0 6.72
15.5
138 525.00
+
2.50 -17.00
+
1.50
-
2.00
17
7.02 1+.0
7.33
15.0 li+8 530.00
—
.75 -li+.5o 0
—
.50
18
7.1*+
29.0 6.91 19.0 153
3+5.00
-
1.00 -1+.75
+
1.25
+
.50
19 7.37
21,0 7.81+ 20.0
133
1 +12.50
-
1.00 -1+.50
-
.50
+
2.75
20 8.19 25.5 6.93
29.0 163 380.00
-
2.50 -12.00
+
•2?
—
1.50
21
5.93 21.5
6.58 30.5 179
*+77.50
-
.25 -11.25
+
.75
+
1.50
22 6.36
15.5 7.23 2+.5 155
360.00
-
2.25 -10.75
-
1.00
-
.50
23
7.35
15.0
7.*+3
2+.0 152 307.50
-
.75 -10.25
-
.25
+
.75
2k
6.77 8.5
6.98 31.0 li+6 325.00
-
1.50 - 8.25
-
1.25
+
.50
25 7.55
25.0
7.09
20.0 11+7
500.00
0 -1+.75
0
+
2.00
26 7.2+
3+.5 6.79
25.0
ll+3
+05.00
~
3.00 -12.50
-
1.50
+
.50
27 7.05
16.0 8.17 32.0
159
390.00
—
2.00 - 9.00
-
.75
+
1.50
28 7.66
2 5.5
7.62 20.0 168 575.00
+
1.00 -16.50
-
.50
+
.25
29
7.10 20.0 7.26 18.0
li+5
+12.50
—
2.25 + 2.75
-
2,00
-
.75
30 7.*+2
26.5 7.75
31.0 152 365.00 -
1.25 -11.25
-
1.25
0 | —i
r o
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 13
Variables
Trial #1 #2
#3 #5 .#6 #7 #8 #9
#10
1 8.02 10.0
5 M
ik9 5 98 630.00
+
1 75 -11.00
-
6.00
—
8.00
2 7.62 15.0
6.55 18.5
108 527.50
—
3 00 -10.50
-
5.75
**
6.75
3
6.1+0
io,5
6.58
20.5
116 552.50
+
50 -10.50
-
6.50
—
5.25
k 7.37
13.0 5.76 22.5
118
307.50
-
1
75 -12.50
-
5.25
-
3.25
5
5.68 28.0 6.15 26.0 110 375.00
1 +25.00
—
25 -15.00
—
5.00
—
6.00
6
6.67
11.0
6.83 20.0 123
+
2 50 -16.50
-
5.25
—
1+.25
7 6.71 28.5 5.96 25.5
106 512.50
+
1 00 -11.50
-
6.00
—
3.75
8
7.39
33.0 6.1+2 20.0 108 ^37.50
+
1
75 -15.50
-
if. 50
-
8.75
. 9
6.00 29.0 5.82 29.0
129 355.00 1
00 -13.75
—
6.00
-
6.00
10 7.50 22.0
7.1^ 15.5 99
1+30.00
-
1
50 - 7.25
-
6.25
—
l+.oo
11 6.63
1+0.0 6,06 22.0 108 382.50
+
50 -13.50
-
2.75
—
3.50
12 6.8 7 29.0 6,ll+ 1+0.0 110 307.50
~
75 -10.00
-
6.00
+
1.00
13
7.60
32.5 6.5*+ 25.5 107 232.50
-
75 - 7.50
-
5.25
+
1.25
l*f 6.73
33.0 6.76
25.5
121 300.00
+
50 - 7.50
-
if. 25
—
.75
15 7.85 31.0 6.51
9.5
111 1 + 00.00
+
50 -13.75
—
1.25
—
.50
16 7.60
33.5
7.H-2 lk,0
119 232.50
+
3
00 - 6.75
-
.25
+
.50
17 7.92 28.0
6.97 30.5 113
180.00
+
75 - 6.00
-
2.75
-
1.75
18
7.11 29.5 6.79
20.0 121+ 230.00 0 - 7.00
-
l+.OO
-
.50
19
7.32 26.0
6.75 13.5 125 185.00
+
1
50 - 5.25
-
I f. 25
-
1.25
20 7.22 25.0 6.55 13.0
13*+
275.00
+
1 25 - 7.00
-
2.50
-
.75
21 6.70
28.5
6.16
19.5
121 365.00
-
50 - 7.75
—
l+.oo
—
1.00
22
6.1+ 3
2M-.0 6.58 21.0 120 127.50
-
2 00 - 3.25
_
3.00
—
.75
2, 3
7.53 15.5
6.50
27.5 119
222.50
-
1
75 - k.25
a n *
5.25
-
1.00
2k 7.05
25.5 7.37 23.5
120 282.50 0 - 1+.25
-
5.25
—
.75
25 7.17
27.0
7.39
20.0 123 282.50
-
1
75 - ^.25
-
5.25
• M
1.25
26 7.k 2 19.0
6.77
21.0 118 335.00
-
1 25 - 1+.00
—
1+.00
-
.75
27
6.62
16.5 7.10 21.0
131
262.50
-
50 - 5.00
—
1.25
-
.75
28 7.^2 23.0 7.02
12.5
121 1+70.00
+
1 00 - 7.75
-
I f . 25
0
29
7.20 31.0 6.87 11+.5
126 312.50 0 - 6.75
-
2.50
-
2025
30 7.11 27.0 7.58 17.0 128
21+7.50
-
.25 - 3.25
- 2.50
-
2.25
173
1
2
I
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l l
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2k
25
26
27
28
29
30
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. In
variable s
#1
#2
#3 #5 m #7 #8 #9
#10
10.97 7 .5
6.90 8 .0 81 4-4-2.50
+
1.00 - 9.75 -1 1 .2 5
—
8.50
10.65 9.0 5.92
7 .5
ion- 385.00 6.00 -11.75 -12.50
+
.50
8.96 9.0
5.97
22.0 106 505.00
—
9.00 - 5.00
—
6.75
+
2.00
7.99 21.5
7.62
17.5
116 4-07.50
-
2.25 - 8.00
-
2.75
+
3.25
7.39
25.0 6.85 21.0
123 277.50
-
3.25 - 6.25
-
4-.25
+
3.25
6.53 23.5 7.4-3 1 3 .5
126 4- 10.00
3.75 - 2.25
-
2.00
+
1.50
7 3 2 29.5 7 .9 5
m-.o 127 292.50
w
3.50 + .50
-
3.00
+
3 .2 5
7.56 19.0 8.29
m-.o
139
4-50.00
-
3.50 - t .25
-
4-.50
+
2.50
7.55
13.0
6.79 1 5 .5
108 397.50
-
3.50 -l^ .o o
-
3.50
+
1 .2 5
6.58 2k . 5 6.78
15.5
116 370.00
-
^.50 -11.00
-
3.75
+
1 .7 5
7.02 17.0
7.31 17.5
in-3 332.50
-
5.50 - 5.75
-
3.00
+
1.50
6.86
15.5
7 .7 k 22.0 14-3 385.00
-
3 .75 - 7 .7 5
-
3.50
+
3.25
7.80
1 0.5
7.6^ 19.0 m-2 M +2.50
-
1.00 -1 1 .2 5
—
4-.00
+
.50
7.18 23.0 7.98 19.0 lkO 465.00
-
3 .2 5 -14-.25
-
2.50
-
.50
6.90
8 .5 7.4-7 20.5 136 4-87.50
M
1.25 -1 1 .2 5
-
4-.00
+
2.25
7.^3 27.5
7.80
21.5 136 4-75.00
-
4-.00 - 13.00
3.75
+
1 .2 5
7.24-
27.5
8.81
1 5 .5 125 4-37.50
-
3 .75 -13.25
-
4-.00
+
.75
7.20 27.O 8.31 22.5
12^
367.50
-
7 .75 - 6 .2 5
-
5.50
+
.50
6.53
20.0 7.98
25.5 133
365.00
-
1.75 -11.00
+
.50 0
6.96 18.0
7 .4-3
27.0 m-2 377.50
-
2.75 - 8.50
-
2.00
-
.50
7.21 27.0
7.79 22.5
134- 4-95.00
-
1 .75 -12.25
-
3.50 0
7.73
2n-.o 7.10
1 9 .5 131
505.00
-
3.25 - 10.25
-
4-.75
+
1.25
6.36 10.0 7.18 26.5 136 4-30.00
—
4-.25 - 8.50
_
3.50
+
1.00
1 . 2k 18.0 8.89 20.5
130 4-50.00
-
6 .60 - 6.75
-
4-.75
-
2.75
l.kk 24-.5 9.00 10.0
135
280.00
—
1.00 - 3.25
M
1.00
-
•75
7.37
25.0 8.k7 26.5
1^8 4-22.50
+
.25 - 8.25
-
.50
+
1 .7 5
7.75 29.5 10.71
15.0 14-3 322.50
-
1.25 - 1.75
+
1.75
+
1.00
7.13 24-. 5 8.9>f 18.5
140 327.50 0 - 5.00
-
2.00 0
7 .5 5
26.5
8.63
23.0 120 307.50
-
3.00 - 7.00 - 3.00
+
1.25
6.88 35.0
7.53 21.5 137
^00.00
-
.50 - 9.00
-
1.50
+
2 .00 h - *
- s ]
-r
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 15
Variables
Trial #1 #2
#3 #f #5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
1 26,22 7.0 5 As 21.0
3.03 i f 87.50
+
2.50
- 9.25
—
6.00
+
2.00
2 16.01
9.5 1 n7! + 18.5 10if 677.50
+
6.25 - 3.00
—
3.00
+
3.25
10.10
16.5
7.60 22.0 136 3ft. 50
-
.75 + .50
—
if.00
-
.50
i f
13o05 7.5 7.10 lif.O 126
if32.50
-
1,00
- 7.50 i f . 50
-
2.50
5
8.^ 7 20.0
5.99
23.0 122 317.50
+
i f. 50 - 1.50
—
3.25
+
2.50
6
8.77
20.0
5.35
25.O 12if ifl2.50
-
1,00 - 5.00
—
if.25
-
1.25
7 7.7 8 16,5 5.35 2ft 5
132 if62.50
+
1.00
-13.75
—
3.25
+
1.50
8 8.80 16.0 6.15 26.5
128 300.00
—
.50 - 6.75
—
if.25
+
3.25
9 8.97
18.0 5.ft 22.0
131
ifft.OO -
.25 -10.50 3.25
+
1.50
10 7.28
25.5
8.i f 2
20.5 132 if02.50
+
3.5o - 2.50 .
—
3.75
+
1.75
11 6.80
2 7.5
6.78 23.0
133 367.50
+
2.25 + 1.75
-
3.25
+
1.25
12
7.91
22.0
5.35 28.5 132 i f 22.50
+
3.50 + 2.50
-
if.25
+
2.50
13 7.17
22.0
6.97
25.0 lifO ififO.OO
+
2.25 - 8.25
—
3.25
+
2.75
lk 7.90
25.5
6.23 19.0 138 357.50
+
5.00 - 7.00
-
2.50
+
1.25
15 6.75
19.0 6.50 25.0 130 255.00
+
2.50 - .25
—
2.50
+
1.00
16
7.33
25.0 6.ft 2if.0 lifl 390.00
+
2.75
- 8.25
—
2.00
• f
2.25
17 7.52
25.5
7.18 28.0 lft 375.00
+
3.00 - 8.00
—
3.25
+
1.00
18
7.96 2if.5 6.08 23.0
137
152.50
+
1.75 + .75
—
3.00
+
1.50
19
6.61
30.5
6.02 22.0 ilif 187.50
_
2.75
- if.oo
if.25
+
.50
20 6.82
22.5
7.2if 28.0 130 282.50
+
1.00
- 5.25
—
3.75
+
1.00
21
8.33 19.5
7.62 20.0 115 305.00
+
- 5.00
—
3.25
0
22
6.93 27.5 7.33
25.0 118 220.00
—
*
if.oo - 2.50
—
3.50 0
2?
6.86 28.0
7.7 2
22.0 lif2 197.50
+
.50 - 2.00 2.00
-
.50
2*+
7.25 22.5
7.61 lif.O
123 195.00
-
2.00
- 3.25
—
3.75
+
.25
25 7.91 2if.5 7.80
27.5
132 190.00
+
2.25
- 3.25
3.00
_
.50
26 6.90 22,0 6,65 22.5
1ft 252.50
+
1.25 - ft75
-
1.50
-
.25
27
6.78 26.0 6.90 30.0
139
285.00
+
.75
0
-
1.50
-
.50
28
7.85
20.0
6.33 22.5 131 387.50
-
1.25
- 1.50 - if.00
+
1.25
29 7.25
2if.O 6.09 22,5 125
257.50
-
3.00 - 3.00
-
3.00
+
.50
30 7.55
22.0 6.90 27.5 132 130.00
-
.50 - 1.25
-
2.50
- 1.00 H
Trl
1
2
I
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14-
1?
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 k
25
26
27
28
29
30
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 16
Variables
#1 #2
#3 #4- #5
#6
00
#9
17.93
6 .0 16.76 2.0 88 3^2.50
-
if.5o - .75 - 11.00
13.99 7 .5
12.72 8.0
97
210.00
-
3.00 - 2.75 7.00
10.27 8 .5 19.59
lif.O 136 3if5.oo
—
5.75 - .75
—
8,00
8.67 11.5
lk.ko 1.0 130 325.00
—
3.00 - 1.75
—
6.50
9.37
32.0 12.60 16.0 128 537.50
_
1.50 - 5.50
_
If. 50
9.12 14-. 5
lO.Oif
Ilf. 5 95 212.50
—
5.50 - 5.00
_
5.50
9.17
lif.O 9.50
9 .5
92 272.50
-
6 .7 5 - 8.00
-
k.75
9.04- 10.0 11.81 9.0
95 267.50
~
7.00 - 9.00
—
5.50
9.56 lif. 5 11.83 7 .0
93
560.00
—
6.00 -Ilf. 00
—
7 .2 5
6.10
25.5
9.90 lif.O 107 4-35.00
-
3.00 - l i f .75
-
if. 50
6.19 22.5 7.60 9.0
93
335.00
-
5.50 - 6 .2 5
-
6 .2 5
6.72 20.0
10.35 8 .5 96 502.50
—
2.00 - 11.50
-
if.25
9.14- 23.0 10. if 7 17.0 101 335.00
-
1.00 - 10.25 lf.00
6.71 22.0
10.07
19.0
99 337.50
-
1 .2 5 - 9.75
-
if .75
7.07 11.0 8 .ifl
20.5
102 if 25.50
—
2.75 -1 0 .2 5
—
5.75
7.11
25.0 8.60 8 .0
99
575.00
+
1.00 -lif.0 0
_
7.00
6.6k 20.0 7.68 16.0 96 if35.oo
—
.50 -12.75
_
5 .2 5
6.26 31.0
7.35
19.0 96 if0 5 .oo
—
3.00 -13.30
_
£.25
7.62
32.5
9.20
8 .5
96 1 ^ 7.50
-
3.50 - 12.25
—
if.75
6.96 27.0
7.63
21.0 107 325.50
-
2.75 - 10.00
-
2.50
8.55
22.0
8.39
18.0
93 317.50
-
6.00 - 6.50
—
5.25
7.34- 23.5
16.0 102 317.50
-
4-. 50 - 7.75
_
if.25
6.56 21.0
9.84-
20.0 102 255.00
—
3.50 - 6.00
-
2.50
7.08 25.0 9.72 12.0
105 if 17.50
-
3.00 -lif .00
-
3 .2 5
7.08 22.0
9 .4-5 15.5
106 305.00
3.75 - 9.50
-
lf.00
7 .2 5 25.5
9.81
12.5
108 if 77.50
-
2,25 -1 1 .7 5
_
3.00
7.81 22.0 8.72
2lf.5 105 387.50
-
3.00 -1 1 .2 5
—
2.50
7 .0 5 27.5 8.89 19.5 107 355.00
-
if.25 - 7.25
—
3.50
7 .2 5
22.0 7.78 15.0 102 if32.50
-
3.50 -1 1 .2 5
-
2.75
7.31
31.0 9.60 lif.O 108
1 + 6 7 .50
-
3.00 -11.75
- 2.00
Hi'
1
2
I
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
lk
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2k
25
26
27
28
29
30
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 17
#1
#2
#3
A h.
Tnr
Variables
#5 #6 #7
#8
#9
7.92 1.0 7.6^
7.5
81 362.50
1
75
_
8.25 - i f . 50
9.52
8.5
8A2 9.0 130 4-25.00
+
75
-
6.75 - 2.75
7.88
9.5
7 c8k 20.0 119 190.00
-
2 00
—
if.00
- .75
6.68
19.5 6.83 21.0 120 360.00
+
1 50 0 - 2.50
8.95
15.0 8.83 18.0 132 335.00
+
1 50
-
7.75 - 1.25
7.19
lif.O 8.68 10.0 125 260.00
+
25
-
8.75 - 1.25
7.3^
18.0
7.75 18.5 132 287.50
0 -
6.00 - 1.25
8.27 20.0 10.02
18.5 136 i f 07.50
—■
3
00
+
.25
- 2.00
8.31 22.0 9Al 2* + . 5
112 230.00
+
1 00
-
k.75 - 1.25
7.60 17.0 10 A2 20.0 126 217.50
+
75
-
8.50 - 2.00
7.31
8.0 9.76 21+.0 123 390.00
-
2
75
-
9.75
- if.00
7A5
19.0
10.15 26.5 123 325.00
+
2
25
-
5.25 - 2.50
7 A3
22.5
9.18 28.0 138 337.50
+
5
00
-
6.75 + 1.50
7. (A 18.0
9A7 26.5 257.50
+
k
75
-
7.75
+ 1.00
6.05 27.5
9.21
25.5
Ikk 260.00
+
3 25
-
3.25
0
7.17
26,0 9.25 28.5
lk 7 ^32.50
+
k 50
-
1.75
+ 1.00
7.09 2*f.0 9.0V 16.0 14-5 365.00
+
00
—
6.25 + 1.00
7.29 25.5 9.57
lif.O 132 317.50
+
1 00 -
6.50
- 1.25
6.8if
22.5 10,10 20.0
137
390.00
+ 4.
75
—
9.25
0
7 A3 30.5 9.07 13.5
3^0.00
+
1
75
-
8.00 - 1.00
7A9 29.5 9.93
18.0 128 290.00
—
1 00
—
5.00 - 1.00
7.17
20.0 8.45 15.0 126 272.50
—
1
75
-
5.75 - .75
7.22 25.0 8.61 25.0 129 265.00
-
1
75
-
2.50 - .50
6A0 23.5 9.19 27.5 13k 257.50
+
i f
25
-
7.50 0
6.50
25.5
8.^0 8.0 127 152.50
+
2 00
-
1.25 0
7.2«+ 26.5 7.75
18.0 121 162.50
+
25
—
9.50 - .25
7.05
30.0
8.54
17.0
135 307.50
+
3
00
-
8.50 + 1.00
6.95 25.5 9.95 19.5 139 277.50
+
2 00
-
8.00
+ .75
6.93 25.5
8.70
19.5 127 217.50 0
-
2.50 + ,50
6.68 23.0 9.16 15.0 129 307.50
+
1 ,►00
-
6.50
- .25
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 18
Trial #1
#2
#3
#4
Variables
#5 #6 #7
#8
#9
#10
1 11.84 7 .0
9.85
22.0 126 395.00
+
75
-
^.75
—
5
00
—
2
25
2
9.67 17.5 6.83 22.5 133
400.00
+
4
25
-
6 .2 5
—
2
75
-
3 25
3
7.41 15.0
7.39
27.0
155
472.50
+
7
00
-
4.00
-
1
75
—
1 00
4
7 .25
16,0 6,12 32,0 149 387.50
+
3 75
—
2.25
-
3
00
—
1 00
5
6.88 31.0
6.33
28.0 154 402.50
+
3 25
-
4.50
—
2
75
—
1 50
6 6 .44 26.0 6.70
8 .5 157
452.50
+
7 25
—
5.00
+
1
25
—
25
7
8.14
17.5
6.64 15.0 142 335.00
+
5 50
-
6.75
+
1
25
+
2
25
8 7.96 20.0 5.86 14.0 134 375.00
+
1
75
-
6.50
+
1 00
+
2
25
9
6.20 24-.0 5.87 18.0
131
345.00
+
1
25
-
8.00
+
75
+
1 50
10
6.77 1 9.5 7.32 18.5
l 4 l 412,50
+
2 50
-
7.25
+
75
+
3 25
11
4 .7 5 26.5 5.09 22,5
142 290.00
+
1 50
-
6,50
+
50
+
2
75
12 5.16 20.0 4.66
26.5
142 395.00
+
4 00
—
6.00 0
+
2
25
13
5.56 22.0 6.02 15.0 137
365.00
+
1
75
-
6.25
- 1 00
+
3 25
14
6.07
18.0 5.26
1 6.5 133 277.50
+
75
-
6.50
- 1
25
+
2 00
15 6.23 21.5 5.30
27.5
128 460.00
+
3 75
-
6.50
-
1 50
+
1 5o
16
6.03
20.0 6.4o 22.0 137 262.50
+
1
75
—
6.75
+
5o
+
2
25
17
6.72
19.5 7.17 30.5 131 277.50
+
50
—
6 .7 5
0
+
1 00
18
7.09
25.0 7 .04 29.0
139
397.50
+
2 50
-
7.50
-
2
25
+
2 00
19
7.12 21.0 6.98 19.0 136 305.00
+
2
50
-
6.75
-
75
+
1 50
20 7.30 15.5
6.60 24.0 127 230.00
+
50
-
6.50 0
-
75
21 6.94 19.0 6 .24
20.5
130 342.50
+
2 00
-
5.00
-
25
+
2 50
22
6.99
21.0 6.62
27.5
140 305.00
+
2 50 3.50
-
75
+
2 00
2?
7.07 15.5
6.60 35.0
133
327.50
+
3
00
—
4.25
0 0
2k 6.96
29.5 7.31 31.5
122 252.50
-
1
25
-
4.75
-
2
50
+
50
25
7.10 18.5 7.01 34.0
137 352.50
+
3
00
-
5.50
-
1 00
+
1 00
26
6.51
25.0 6.61 24.0
133 357.50
+
3
00
—
8.00
—
1
25
+
2 50
27
6.74- 22.0 6.84
28.5 129 357.50
+
2 00
—
8.50
-
1
25
+
2
25
28
6.99
22.0
6.59 22.5 124 306.50
+
2 00
—
7.50
—
1
25
+
1 00
29
7.4-4-
29.5 6.85 21.0 130 342.50
+
2
75
-
8.25
+
75
+
25
30
7 .1 5 3 3 .5
7.40 25.0
135 372.50
+
2 00 -
4.50 0
+
2 50 J ;
00
2
I
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2b
25
26
27
28
29
30
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 19
Variables
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7 #8 #9
1 0 .if 2
7 .5 9.87 7 .5 96 325.00
—
5.25 + .75 -1 1 .7 5
9.22 13.0
6.79 8 .5 113
317.50
+
4 00 - 8.00
-
4 .7 5
6.52 10.0 6.82 14.0 120 340.00
+
2
50 - 4.25
-
3.50
7.49 16.5 6 .1 5 11.0
113
542.50
+ 3
25 - 10.25
-
4.25
6. if 9
15.0 8.70 11.0
131
252.50
+
8
50 - 9.75
-
.50
6.91 18.5 6 .if 5 16.5
l4o
3*+7.50
+
4 50 - 7.00
—
.50
6.08
18.5 8.45 17.5
132 202.50
+
2 50 - 4.25
-
1.50
8.03
13.5 7.8?
7 .0 116 137.50
+
1
75 - 1.50
—
1.50
8.21
lif. 5
7.64
17.5
121 210.00
+
2 00 - 2.25
+
1.25
5.77 20.5 5.72 17.0
115
285.00
+
50 - 8.00
-
1.00
5.8M - 1 9 .5 6.71 19.5
126 327.50
+
7 25 - 11.50 0
6.95
20.0
7.69 13.5
130 310.00
+
2 75 - 2.50
-
.75
5.25
17.0
6.73
18.0 121 325.00
+
3
25 - 6.00
-
.75
7.7 6 18.5 7 .7 0 17.5 13 2 395.00
+
3 25 - 6.25
-
.25
7.20 16.0
8.27
23.O 141 227.50
+
1
25 - 3.50
0
8,28
20.5 7 .5 5
31.0 134 307.50
+
1 50 - 6.00
-
1.00
6,60 32,0 7.98 31.0 132 282.50
+
3 75 - 4.00
-
.75
7.56 29.0 6.36 32.0 118 195.00
+
1
75 - 4.25
0
7.25 32.5 7.85 21.5 129 277.50
-
50 - 6.50
-
.50
7.40
24,5 6.85 22.5
120 245.00
+
50 - 6.75
—
2.00
6.56 23.0 9.08 12.0 144 382.50
+
2 50 - 4.00
+
.25
7.73 26.5 8.43 19.0
137
460.00
+
3 75 - 5.50
—
1.00
6.96 33.0 10.84 16.0 145
460.00
+
5
00 - 7.50
—
.50
7.30 3 1 .5 9.07 26.5 129 457.50
+
3
00 - 7.00
-
1.00
7.72
29.5
7.90 18.0
125
360.00
+
2
25 - 7.25
0
6.95 20.5 7,77
11.0 123 502.50
+
1
25 - 6.75
0
7.27 22.5 7.73
13.0 127 430.00
+
3
50 - 8.75
+
.25
7 .bo 17.0 8.90 21.0 130 502.50
+
4 00 - 6.00
-
.25
7.41 27.0 11.21
7
131
545.00
+
5 50 - 13.75
+
1.75
8.13
27.5 9.05
14.0
129 445.00
+
0
00 -11.75
+
.50
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 20
Trial #1 #2
#3
#4
Variables
#5 #6 #7
#8
#9
#10
1
15.75
7.0 13.10 1.0
93
377.50
+
2 00 - 7.25 0 -14.00
2 12.78 9.0 7.66 8 .0 96 845.00
+
8 00 - 18.25
-
2.00 - 3.00
3
10.68
14.5 7.17
1 .0
97
740.00
+
4 50 -17.25
-
2.00
- .75
4 9.50 16.0 7.36
15.5 99
655.00
+
3 25
-14.50
-
1.75 + .75
5
10.01
13.5
9.01 7 .0 146 355.00
-
2 50 -17.50
-
4.75 + .75
6
9.55 10.5 9.79
12.0 136 657.50
+
6 00
-10.75
—
4.25 + 1.75
7
9.32 12.0
6.09 12.5 127 607.50
+
6 00 - 9.25
-
5.25
+ 1.00
8
8.09
15.0
6.33 22.5
121 507.50
+
5 75 - 8.25
-
6.25 + 1.50
9
7.92 22,0
8.57 15.5
136 240.00
+
2
5o - 4.50
-
4.75 + 3.75
10 7.96 11.0 7 .24 22.0 144
487.50
4
75
- 7.00
-
6 .7 5 + .75
11
7.99
27.0
6.73
29.0 127 460.00
+
4 50 - 7.50 7.50 - .25
12 6.65
25.0 7.58 29.0 124 412.50
+
2 50 — 6.00
-
7.25 - .50
13
7 .4 2 24.0 6.42
19.5 129 367.50 0 - 6.00
-
6.50 + 1.00
14 7.k 2 28.0 8.1? 28.5 155
435.00
-
2
25 -13.25
-
8.50
+ .75
15
6,85 21.0 7.94
25.5
130 385.00
—
50 - 3.75
-
5.25 + 3.75
16
6.94 22.5
7.86 26.0
153
475.00
—
2 00 - 1.25
—
4.00 - 1 .2 5
17 6.45 21.0 7.68
20.5
14 7 390.00 0
- 6.75
-
3 .75 - .50
18
7.09
22,0 7.92 25.0 145 475.00
-
1
25 - 3.75
-
4.00
+ .75
19 7.89
26.0
9.95
17.0 156 385.00
-
1 00 - 5.00
-
5.25
+ 1.00
20
6.39
18.0
9.45 1 7 .5
156 385.00
-
1
50 - 6.00
-
4 .2 5 - .50
21
5.73
26.0 12.16 29.0
163 387.50
-
1
75
-12.00
-
4 .2 5 - 1.75
22 7.74 27.0 11.74 26.0 180 575.00
—
4
75
-10.00
-
6 .2 5 - .25
2?
5*87 23 0 5 11.75
27.0 156 367.50
M
5 50 - 10.50
-
6 .7 5 - .25
2k
7.07 23.5 11.37
26.0 114 362.50
-
3 75
- 4.00
-
7.00
+ 1.75
25 6.83 24.5 9.25
24,0 126
357.50
-
3 75 - 3.50
—
6.00 - 2.25
26 7.02
18.5
6.46 30.0
123 352.50
—
4
50 - 2.00
_
6.50 - 1.50
27 6.80
20.5 6.73
33.0 118 305.00
-
5 25
- 1.50
—
6.25 - .75
28 6 .48 28,0 5.94 15.0 106
367.50
-
4 00 - 4.00
-
7.75 - .50
29
6.58 17.0 6.54
32.5
110
287.50
-
4 00 0
-
6.50 - 1.25
30
7 .51
31.0 6.58 25.0
115 267.50 - 2 50 - 3.25
-
6.75
0
08T
HAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 21
181
o
$
CO
%
C D
i —I
c d
•H
P h
cdMo
OD
= t e
C M
i —i
cd
'H
I M
O ^ O O O O M o O M o o M o o Mo Mo l A O O O U M A O O O O O l A O l n ^
> A N O O O O C v M ocvM ocvJ M ocvC M o C\i Mo o Mo c\J C v M o MnM o o O C M Mo C M C M
r o rH J-rHC M H MOCM C M
+ I I 1 + I + + + + I I I +
rO H H t—l H H CM rH H CM CM
1 1 1 ! I 1 1 1 1 1 + I + -I- +
M o M o U o o O M o o O O O O O Mo Mo M o o M o o O O ' A O O ' ^ O o Mo Mo Mo Mo
C ^ t N C U O O t M U N O l A O O O C M C M I N O C M O O I A N O O C M O O I N I N C M I S
C vC vnnM oM oN O M o M onO C vnO MOn O M o C v C v J “ _ ± M oM oM oC vC vU oC M n o n O H rH C M
I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
M o O O M o O C D O O O O O O O O O O MO Mo Mo M o O o o o
C M O O C M O O CD o M o M o O O O CM MOCM O C M O O MoMOCM C M C M
n o C M O nnO rOCOCO J - J - CsrOH C M C M J-M o M o M o m CM C M m M o C v N O .J - J - M onO M o
I I I I I I I I I I I + I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
O M O O O O O M o M o O O O U M a U > o Ia U M a Ia o O O O O M nMo o M o M o o
O C M M o M o U o O C M C v MOMOO C M CN-Cv O C M C M C M (N O M oM oM oM oCN CN O C M C M O
n O O n o Mo M onO \ O J - nQ C v.IO .J- C v J - MO M o m n O N O M O C vnO M3 J - J * M O J- M o j-M o
I I I I I I I t I I I I t I I I I I I I t I I I I 1 I I I I
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o O U 0M0M0O O O O Mo O Mo Mo Mo O M O O M O M O O M o o O M o M o M o M o o M o M o
Mo o C M C M C M M olroM oM O C v-O C M IO.Cv.MoCM U o C v C v O C v Mo Mo C M C M CM I N O I N C v
H O 0 O vCv-O-M ? CO C M r O j - C M M O CO C M M o J - rOCM noM O ^f- rH M O nOOO J - n O M o J- On
Mo J - n o r o M o J - J - n o j - j - J - n O M o n O n o n o r o r o n o n o n O J - r o r o r o n o n o r o r o r o
C M Cv.NO On M O Cv-CO vO O O N H C M J - rOCM J * H tO-OO O Mo NO CO ONnO CTnCOCO O C M
C M O v n O rH CMCMrnCMCMCMiHCMCMCMrHHCMHrHCMCMCMHHCMrHCMCMnOrO
pH ( H i— 11 — 11 —I i —I i—I H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H i —IrHrHrHrH
Mo o O MO MO o O O MO Mo Mo Mo O O O O O O O O O O O O O M o o M o O O
o a e a a a a o v a c a v a e o e a a e c e a a a e a a a a
m O M O M oco ON MO NO M O O O E N J- rH C M OO Cv-M OO C M CM NO J - Cv rH O MOOO OO C M rH
rH i — I i — I i —I i—li—li—li—IrHrHCMCMCM rH rHrHrHCMCMrHCMrHrHCMrHrHiHrHCM
MO O n Mo O C v n O M o pH O MOnO CO 0 \ J - C M O N C v n O O o n n J - OnH H J nO J H O O
r o O n O IN -N O M o O jo o J - C M O C O O NCv-OvM oM orOCM rH Mo n o O C M O O M o CMCOH
o n NO C v M o M o J- MoMomO [V. M O MONO M o M o mo Cv.t0 -C v.00 Cv. C v Cv. Co IN- Cv.OO CO tN-CO
O M O O O O O M o M o M o O M o M o M o M o O M O O M o M o O O Mo Mo Mo Mo M o Mo MO M O O
CO J - rH C v J - ON C M M o ON MO oOMonO O n n o rH C M C vnO O O nvO J I N O nO OONO M O C M
rH H C M H C M H rH C M C M C M H H CM C M C M rH H C M C M H H C M n o C M CM H rH C M
Mo PD M o CvnO C v n O O O O O N O CvOO NO O MonO Cv C M C M CM o n CO-vO MO OJ rH EN-H rO
H C v rH MOOO O J - O O C O nO o n MO C M O C v C M J - n O C v J - nniN -C vO O C M J - CJnMo O C M
• • • • a a o e e * e « e e s Q » o o o o e « « « » « e a o
o n O rH CO O C v C v v O C v n O C v n O n£> Cv n O C v C v C vnO Cv C v n O t V O C v n O NO C v C v C v
H H i —I rH
H C M o n j - M o n o C v OO O N O H C M n n j - M o n O tN-CO ( N O H C M m j - MonO tN-CO O N O
r - { rH rH rH rH rH i— I rH rH rH CM C M C M C M C M C M CM C M C M C v ] m
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 22
Variables
Trial #1 #2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
1
17.45 9.0
13.69
12.0
79
462.50 -10.00
-
5.50 - 12.25 -11.00
2 16.40 15.0 10.00
1 5 .5
98 380.00 - 5.00
-
8.00
- 9.25 - 5.50
3
1 1 . : b 3 15.0 8.89 8 .5 89
277.50 - 6.25
-
4.25
- 5.00 -16.00
10.39
7 .0 10.46 19.0 125 350.00 - 6.00
-
2.50 - 2.50 + 2.00
5
10. b2
17.5
12.76 11.0 160 315.00
- 3.75
—
3.00 - 2.00
- .75
6
11.55
9 .0
11.75
20.0 134 335.00
- 6.75
+
3.50 - 5.75 + 2.25
7
11.68
8 .5
12.86
26.5
146 307.50 - 3.50
+
.50 - 5.50 + 3.50
8
11.76 7 .0
12.53
16.0 122 260.00 - 6.00
+
1.00 - 4.00
- 3.25
9 10.05 19.5
12.41
21.5
270.00 - 7.50
+
1.00 - 6,50 - 2.25
10 11.80 7 .0 14.02 16.0 124 362.50 - 4.50
+
3.50 - 6.25 - 3.00
11 7.12 31.0 10.58 16.0 130 310.00 - 6.00
+
1.75 - 5.75 - 1.25
12 8.60 18.0 10.86 18.0
139
270.00 - 4.25
+
2.00
- 5.25
+ 1.00
13 7.63 28.0 10.91 2 2 .5 137
270.00
- 1.75
-
.25
- 4.00 - .50
14
8.75 29.5
11.67 23.5 147 277.50 + 1.50
-
1.25 - 4.50 - 1.00
15
9.12 15.0 12.43 16.0
133
270.00 - 1.50
+
.25 - 5.25 + .25
16 12.44 9.0
13.55
23.0 154 3W .00 + 2.50
—
.50 - 3.00 + 2.50
17
8.96 30.0 13.74 10.0 147 282.50
+ .75
-
1.00 - 5.00 + 2.50
18 8.85 1 .0 11.78
25.5 131
340.00 - 2.00
4rm
3.00 - 4.50 + 2.00
19
9.60
12.5
12.88 8.0
137 262.50 - 2.50
—
3.00 - 6.25 - 1.50
20 6.80 37.0 11.12
19.5
260.00 - 1.00
—
1.00 - 3.50 - 3.25
21 6.54
25.5 9.69
15.0 144 307.50 - 1.00 0 - 2.00 0
22 6 .88 20.0 10.18
1 7 .5
154 272.50 - 1.50
-
1.50 - 2.50
- .25
2?
7.16 11.5
10.16 13.0 i4i 302.50
- 1.75
-
1.25 - 4.25 - .50
2b
7.25 16.0 10.05 2 9 .5
148 355.00 - 3.00
-
.50 - 4.50 - .25
25 6.97
7 .0 10.72 22.5
148 4o5.oo - 1.50 2.00 - 5.00 + 2.25
26 7.52 14.5 8.68
15.:,5
132 272.50 - 1.00
-
3.25 - 3.50 - 1.25
27 6.51 31.5
10.12 16.0 142 265.00
+ .25
—
1.00
- 3.25
- 1.00
28 6.82 27.0 8.54
1 8 .5 137 277.50 - .75
-
2.00
- 3.25 + .75
29 7 .2 5 11.5 9.59
22.0 139 397.50 - 1.00
—
2.50 - 4.00
+ 1 .7 5
30 6.51 26.0 9.70 11.0
143
362.50 - 3.00
-
4.75 - 4 .7 5 + 2.50
182
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 23
Variables
T ria l #1 #2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7 #8 #9
#10
1 8 . 8l 9 .5 8 .5
108 610.00
—
4.00 + .75
-
7.00
-
6
75
2 7 .3 4 11.0 5.62 11.0 112 460.00
-
1 .2 5 - 4.25
-
6.25
-
7 50
3
7.03
1 0 .5
4.88
18.5
110 545.00
—
1.00 - 2.75
-
7.50
-
2 00
4 6.44
10.5
5.80 16,0
105 567.50
482.50
-
2.25 - 2.75
-
8.00
-
4 50
5 7.50 1 2 .5 5.45 1 9 .5 119
-
2.50 - 6.25
-
6.75
-
1
75
6 7.64
1 8 .5
6.16 18.0 130 307.50
480.00
+
.50 - 6.00
-
3.00
—
1 50
7 7.69 14.5
6.56 11.0 124
-
.25 --9 .7 5
-
6.50
-
1 00
8
7.79
15.0 7.28 21.0 124 590.00
—
3.00 -1 3 .2 5
—
4.25
—
1 00
9 7 .15
8.0 7.30 18.0 124
407.50
-
2.50 -11.75
-
6.75
+
1
75
10
7.13
32.0 6.13 25.5 123 302.50
-
.75 - 12.50
-
5.75
+
50
11 7.6? 20.0
5.57
18.0 119
265.00
—
3 .25 - 4.25
-
7.25
+
1 50
12 6.98
20.5 5.99 25.5
118 395.00
-
2.50 - 6.00
-
6.50
+
50
13 6.77
16.0
6.19
25.0
133
310.00
—
1.50 - 3.75
M *
4.00
+
2 00
14 7.62 21.0
7.39 22.5
126 285.00
—
1 .2 5 - 2.75
-
1.50
—
50
15
8.10 16.5
5.65 1 9 .5
120 285.00
-
2.75 - 7.00
-
3.50
—
2 00
16
6.13 23,0
5.49
16.0 111 307.50
-
1 .7 5 - 7.00
-
5.25
+
2
25
17 7.70 1 8 .5 6.97 32,5
126 465.00
-
1 .2 5 -1 0 .7 5
-
3.50
+
1
75
18 7.06
29.5
6.08
22.5 113 285.00
-
2.75 - 6.00
-
5.25
+
2 00
19
6.81 25.0 5.62
25.5
124 407.50
-
1 .75 - 7 .7 5
-
5.00
+
1
25
20
§*?7
23.5
5.68
1 6 .5 115 257.50
-
3 .2 5 - 5.75
-
5.00
+
75
21 8.40 18.0
5.47 21.0 121 275.00
-
1 .2 5 - 5.00
-
4.50
+
3
00
22
6.39
21.0 5.12 27.0 '116 375.00
-
1 .2 5 - 5.25
-
7o00
+
2
75
2?
6.66
15.5
6.18 27.0 116 212.50
-
2.75 - 4.25
-
6.00
+
3
00
24 7.56 21.0 5.87
22.0
113
370.00
—
2.25 - 8.50
-
6.25
0
25
7 .2 2 25.0 5.61 26.0
115
305.00
-
2.50 - 9.00
-
4.25
+
1
75
26
6.73 22.5
5.18 27.0 111 232.50
-
4.00 - 6.00
-
4.00
+
25
27 7.73
22.0 6.48 22.0
119
230.00
t a m
2.25 - 6.25
—
2.00
—
50
28 6 .2 4 23.0 6.32
1 6 .5
128 280.00 0 - 6.00
—
1.50
+
50
29 7.39
25.0 5.82 16.0 122 302.50
-
.50 - 5.50
-
1.75
_
50
30 6.48 25.0 6.27 27.0
131 312.50
- 1.00 - 6.00 -
1.75
+
1 50
OO
u>
M W DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 24
Variables
T ria l #1 #2
#3
#i.
7 7 * #5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
1 18.45
8.0
8.73 8 .5
92 227.50
-
1 50
- 1.00
-
8.00
-
4.00
2 16.58 8 .5 10.23 10.5 109
295.00
+
1
25 - 3.50
-
.50
-
5.75
3
14,14 1 .0 9.82
1 0 .5
132 417.50
-
1 50 + 2.75
-
2.75
+
loOO
k 14.51 17.5 11.03 1 3 .5 145
382.50
-
1 00 + 1.25
-
4.75
+
3.00
5
10.30 8.0 11.64 11.0 l 4 l 375.00
455.00
7 25 + 2.75
-
5.50
-
4.75
6 10.69 17.0 9.30 18.5 158
-
1
75 + 2.75
-
4.00 0
7
8.92 21.0 7.92 26.0
151 427.50
+
75
+ 2.50
-
2.75
-
.75
8
8.03 18.5 6.59
26.0 156 485.00
+
1
75
- 1.50
-
3.50
-
.25
9
8.04 21.0
6.77 29.5 155
427.50
+
25 + 1.50
-
4.50
-
.25
10 8.01 21.0
7.31
14-.0 148 627.50
+
1 50 - 2.00
-
4.50
+
3.00
11 7.*+8 30.0 5.86 29.0 132 457.50
-
50 - 5.50
-
4.50
+
1.75
12
7.91
36.0 6.17 19.0 141 402.50
+
75 + 3.75
-
4.00 0
13
8.4-2
20.5 8.15 14-.5
150 520.00
+
1
75 - 2.75
-
1.50
+
2.25
14
7 . kk 25.5 6.33 11.5 149 522.50
+
2 50 - 6.25
-
3.50
+
1.75
15
7.01 25.0 6.15
35.0 154 577.50
+
1
25
0
-
4.50
+
2.25
16 6.23 35.0
4-. 91
20.0
139
390.00
+
3
00 - 4.50
-
5.50
-
.25
17
7 .4 1
22.5 5.53 25.5 149 615.00
+
3 75
- 11.50
-
4o75
-
.25
18
7.07 29.5
4.86 30.0
143 467.50
+
4 50 - 6.50
-
4.75
-
.50
19
6.61
27.5
6.4-2 26.0 152 632.50
+
2
75
- 2.50
-
6.00
-
.25
20 5.92 27.0 6.51
18.0 162 457.50
+
75
+ ,50 -
5.00
+
.50
21 6.22 30.0 6.18
29.5
142 550.00
+
3
00
- 2.75
-
4.50
-
2.00
22 7.82
17.5 6.25 20.5 129
620.00
+
5 75 -1 0 .7 5
-
6.00 0
23
8 A 2 20.0
7.57 20.5 159
450.00
+
1 00 - .50
-
5.25
0
2k 6.4-8
30.5
6.70
18.5
126 517.50
+
4 00 - 10.00
-
6.00 0
25
6.74- 13.5
7.36
23.5 131
397.50
+
2 00 - 8.25
-
3.75
-
2.00
26 7.40 22.0 6.48 30.0
155
642.50
+
3 25 - 1.25
-
4.25
- 2.00
27 7.91
23.0
6.39
24-. 0
135
440,00
+
2 00 - 6.50
-
4.50
-
3.00
28 6.61
24-. 5
8.02 24-.0 166 447.50
+
2 00
- 5.75
-
3.50
-
1.25
29
6.74- 26.0 7.02
29.5
164 517.50
+
4
75 - 4.75
-
3.50
-
2.25h
30 6.70 29.0 7.18 29.5 167 387.50 0
- “ t.75
- 4.50
—
2.00 5
jr
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 25
Trial #1
#2
#3
#4
Variables
#5 #6 #7 #8 #9
#10
1 9.69 1 3 .5
5.40 12.0 90 510.00
—
6
00 - 9.75 -13.50
+
.75
2 9.48 10.0 4.76 10.0
93
320.00
—
4 00 - 2.00 - 11.50
+
3.25
3
6.58 25.5
3.26
3 4 .5 89
435.00
-
4 00 - 5.50 -11.50
+
2.25
4
5.73
18.0 4.01 29.0 81 400.00
-
2 75 - 6.00 -1 1 .7 5
+
3.25
5
7.01 16.0 5.61 27.0
95
405.00
+
25 - 9.50 - 8.00
+
2.50
6 7.24 26.0 5.12
24.5 91
432.50
—
1 50 - 11.00 -10.00
+
3.00
7
6.60
26.5 5.56 17.0
95
370.00
—
1 75 - 8.00 - 10.50
+
3.25
8
6.35
10 oO 4.00 26.0 94 397.50 0 - 9.25 - 8.75
+
3.00
9 6.15 10.5
5.01 21.0 98 360.00
+
2 50 - 8.00 - 6.50
+
1.00
10 6.15 28.5 5.57
26.0
99
445.00
+
2 50 - 10.25 - 6.50
+
3.25
11 7.22
33.5 4.51
22.0
103
525.00
+
4
00 - 7.75 - 7.50
+
2.25
12
6.73
26.0 6.32
11.5
101 46o.oo
+
2 50 - 9.00 - 6.00
+
1.25
7.03 27.0
6.33
21.0 98 520.00
—
25 - 3.25
- 8.00
+
3.00
14
7.91
24.0
4.85 19.5 93
462.50
+
1
25 - 7.50 - 8.50
+
1.50
15 6.19 28.5 5.41 12.0 100 327.50
+
1 50 - 7.50 - 9.50
+
1.50
16 6.52
1 5 .5
5.40
14.5 97
485.oo
+
1 50 - 8.50 - 8.25
+
2.00
17
6.63 22.0 5.98 17.0 94 457.50
+
2 00 - 7 .2 5 - 7.50
+
1.00
18
7.27
19.0 5.44
1 3 .5
101 240.00
-
1 00 - 1.50 - 9.00
+
.50
19 7.47
18.0
5.09 22.5 97
370.00
-
1 00 - 9.50
- 8.75
+
2.00
20 5.98
25.5 5.59
18.0 94 430.00
+
75 - 5.25
- 8.25
+
1.00
21 5.96
23.5
5.46 18.0 102 422.50
-
1
75 - 2.25 - 8.75
+
2.00
22
7.25 23.0 6.12 21.0 114 310.00
-
1 50 + .50 - 8.00
+
1.75
23 7.85
20,0
5.87 22.0 112 370.00
—
25 - 1.00 - 9.25
+
2.50
24
6.55
22.0 5.78 20.0 112 412.50
+
2
25 - 6.25 - 7.50
+
1.00
25 6 .3 5 14.5
6.16 31.0
103
360.00
+
75 - 3.50 - 9.00
+
2.50
26
6.59
30.0
5.4?
24.0 100 402.50
+
1 50 - 12.25 - 8.25
+
1.50
27 6.59
22.0 5.94 16.5 94 380.00
+
75 -12.00 - 8.50
+
2.75
28 7.68 25.0 6.01
21.5 99
277.50
+
1 75 - 4.00 - 7.25
+
.75
29
7.40 30.0 5.27 19.5
100 212.50
-
1
50 - 3.75
- 8.00
+
1 .7 5
30
7 .1 5
30.0 6.12 17.0 101 292.50
-
1
25 - .25
- 8.00
+
.50
Tri
1
2
i
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2?
2k
25
26
27
28
29
30
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 26
Variables
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
13.0**
8.5 9 M 8 .5
128 39^.00
+
1.75
-
2.5o
15.72 9.0 6 ,8 7 17.0 120 200.00
+
5.25
-
4.50
H.3k 10.5 5.90 1 6 .5 131
382.50
+
2.75
-
5.25
10.32
8 .5
6.74 1 8 ,5 137
415.00
+
4 .1 5
-
8.00
9.77
18.0
6.75
19.0 132 342.50
+
5.75
-
8.50
8.88 17.0
6.77 18.5
122 250.00
+
2,25
-
5.25
7.9k
8 .5 7.31
18.0 148 305.00
+
4 .2 5
-
5.25
8.68 10,0 6,46 21.0
133
252.50
+
2.00
-
4.25
7.44 24.0 5.66 15.0 117 215.00
+
1.25
-
3.00
7.89 15.0 7 M 19.0 127 290.00
+
1.25 -10.00
7 .2k 25.0
5.93 17.5
120 317.50
+
3.75
-
4.00
6.77
20.0 6.40 21.0
119 312.50
+
5.50
-
4.00
7.69
20.0 6,36 18.0 111 245.00
+
3.00
-
5.00
7.65 22.5 7 A 9 12.5 119 322.50
+
3.50
-
2.00
7.61 24.0 7.78 20.0 128 305.00
+
3.75
-
3.50
7.k? 2k. 5 6.92
1 8 .5
126 275.00
+
3.50
-
2.00
7.60
22.5 7.92 20.0 150 270.00
+
2.75
-
4.50
7.32 25.0 6.58
25.5
148 355.00
+
4.50
+
2.00
6.97 15.5
7.00 2M -.0 148 327.50
+
2.75
+
1.75
8.01 29.0 6.47 26.5 1 k5 310.00
+
2.50
+
5.00
6.82 28.0
5,93 19.5 133
250.00
+
5.00
-
5.25
6.67 27.5 6.71 19.0 142 367.50
+
4 .2 5
+
.25
7.08 18.0
6.77 16.5 l4o 192.50
+
5.00
~
3.25
6.95 26.5 7.Mf 18.5 13k 212.50
+
4.25 4 .2 5
7 .3 5
23.0
7.39 18.5 220.00
+
2.75
0
7.38 22.0
6.93
14 .0 15k 430.00
+
7.75
-
1.50
7.10 21.5 6.73 24.5
143 272.50
+
5.50
-
2.75
6.83
23.5
7.2k
21.5 155 397.50
+
4.50
+
1.50
6.8k 25.0
7.35 25.5
144 3^7.50
+
3.00
-
1.50
7.93
21.0
8.13 11.0 162 517.50
+
6.00
+
3.75
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO, 27
Trial #1 #2
#3 #f
Variables
#5 #6 #7
#8
#9
#10
1 16.11 9.0
12,9V
9.0 111 6if0.00
—
.50 - 8.50
—
3.50
—
i f50
2 13.22
10.5 12.35
19.0 llif if02.50
-
2.75 - 9.75
-
1.00
-
3 75
3 15.19 11.0 10.67 2if.0
137 597.50
-
2*25
- 1,00
-
2.75
-
2 00
10.99
10.0 9.V7 27.0 138 382.50
-
1.50 - 5.25
-
2,25
-
1
75
5
9.00 20.0
9.03 26.5
12if 337.50
+
1.25 - 7.00 0
+
25
6 10.30 22.0 7.30 30.0 118 ifit0.50
+
1.00 - 9.50
-
1.75
+
1
75
7
7.82 26.0
8.99
29.0 123 390.00
+
1.25
-10.00
-
.50
-
1 50
8
8.33 19.5
7.96 2if.0 12if
367.50
-
1.75
- 7.00
-
1.5o
- i f
75
9 10. i f 5 16.0 8.02 26.0 126 ifif2.50
1.75 - 9.50
-
3.00
-
3
50
10
8.77
21.0
6.79
22.0 123 520.00
-
.50 -11.00
-
2.50
—
i f50
11
5.85 2if.5 7.30 30.0
131
i f 25.00 0
- 5.75
-
.50
-
1 50
12 7.06
21.5
7A2
23.5 139
600.00
+
.25
- 6.50
+
.25
-
3
00-
13
7.50 2*i.O
7.87 21.0 119 552.50
-
3.50 - 5.75
-
3.75
- 1
75
l i f
8.25
26.0 7® 66 27.0 129 332.50
-
1.25 - 7.75
-
1.75
-
3 75
15 7.7 2 22.5
7.V1 22.0
119 377.50
-
2.00 - 5.00
-
2.00
+
3
00
16
6.75
23.0 7.50 2if.0 126 if85.00
+
.25
- 8.00
M
1.00
+
25
17
7.82 23.0 7.62 29.0 130 365.00
—
.75
- 6.00
-
1.25
+
2 00
18 6.96 18.0 8.61 26.0
133 532.50
+
1.00 -11.25
—
2.00
+
2 50
19 7.35
29.0
7.75 25.5
127 367.50
+
.50 - 9.00
-
1.50
-
50
20 6.69 23.0 7.61 19.0 13V if67.50
+
.25
- 6.50
-
2.25
+
1 50
21 6.7V 27.5
8.9V 21.0 122 V87.50
-
1.00 - 8.50
-
V.25
+
1
75
22 8.30 2M-.0 8.17 21.5
118 382.50
-
3.75
- if.50
-
2.50
-
2 00
2?
7.V1 26.0 7.78 21,0 112 337.50
—
2.00 - .50
—
3.00
-
1 00
2k 8.08
19.5 7.59
21.0 112 302.50
-
1.50 - 2*25
-
1.75
-
2
75
25 8.07 22.5 7.53 27.5
116 307.50
+
.50 - i f . 25
-
1.00
+
50
26
6.if9 2if.5 8.29 25.0 121 282.50
+
1.50 - 7.50
-
.75
-
1 50
27 7.09
26.0
6.75 20.5
120 255.00
+
2.00
- 7.75
-
.75
-
75
28
7.^9
2if.O 8.12 27.0 123 315.00
+
1.75
- if.00
-
.75
- 2
75
29
7.1k 25.0 6.09 2 7.5
118 300.00
+
.25
- if.50
-
1.75
0
30 6.90
2if.5 6.89
30.0 119 270.00 -
.25 - 6.75
-
1.25
-
if.00
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT RO. 28
Variables
T ria l #1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
1 9.10 10.0 10.04
1!?.!?
122 415.00
+
4 50
-
9.75
-
(*.75
+
.75
2
7.05 8 ,5 5.52 13.0 114 597.50
+
3 75 11.75
-
4 .7 5
-
2.50
3 7.61 16,5
5.09
34.0 104- 375.50
+ —
6.75
—
6.00
-
1.75
4 7.30
18 e 5 5.99
22.0 121 31*2.50
+
25
10.00
—
5.25
0
5
7.64 25.0
*+.99 25.5
107 242.50
+
l 00
-
5.00
—
5.00
+
.25
6
6 .7 5
21.0 5.26
32.5
111 270.00
+
2 00
—
5.75
-
4.00
-
.50
7 8.03 26.0
5.33
31.0 114- 202.50
—
25
—
6.00
-
1.25
+
.50
8 7.96 26,0
7.7 8
20.0 110 270.00 0
-
8.00
-
3.75
-
3.00
9
7.32
1 8 .5
6.20 20.0
119 312.50
-
50
-
7.25
-
3 .7 5
-
1.75
10
7.83
30.0 8.50 4-2.0 117 272.50
-
1
25
—
2.75
—
4 .25
—
1.75
11 6 .05 29.0 6.81
30.5
114 262.50
75
—
6.25
-
5.oo
-
2.50
12 6.68 24.0 6.86
22.5 117 265.00
+
75
-
6.00
-
4.50
-
2.50
13
8.21
30.5
6 .6 7
2 5 .5
110 300.00 0
-
7.50
-
4.00
-
2.00
14
6.63 21*.0 6.21 25.0
123
355.00
+
1
75
—
8.00
—
3.75
—
.75
15 6.87 17.5
5.66
30.5 113 280.00 0
—
6.75
—
4.50
-
2.50
16
6.33 3 0.5
6.56
21.5 115 277.50
—
50
—
3 .7 5
—
5.00
-
3 .7 5
17 7.52 25.0 5.70 25.0 106 262.50
+
50
-
4.00
-
4 .2 5
-
1.00
18
7.33 26.5 6.30
27.5 109 197.50
—
3
00
-
2.50
-
3 .75
-
2.75
19
7.60 25.0
5.55
25.0 111 225.00 0
-
4.00
-
3.50
-
.50
20 6.92 28.0 6.13 1 8 .5
108 252.50
-
1 00
—
3.25
-
5.00
-
2.00
21 6.44-
20.5 5.92 24-.5 3. 11 237.50
+
1
25
-
5.50
—
4.00
-
3.00
22 7.70 24.5 7.18 17.0 113 247.50
+
2 00
-
5.00
M
2.00
-
3.25
23
7.17 2 2.5 6.85 26.5 122 272.50
+
50
—
7 .2 5
-
2.00
-
2.00
24 6.66 19.0 6.12 25.0 114 305.00
+
1
75
-
8.25
-
1.50
-
3-00
25 7.72 22.0 6.62
2 7 .5
120
287.50
+
1 50
-
6.75
-
2.25
-
1.75
26 7.1*6 20.5
6.10 20.0 120 240.00
+
1
25
-
5.00
—
2.00 1.50
27
6.56
24.5 6.72 25.0 121 250.00
+
75
—
5.50
-
1.50
+
.50
28
7.07 2 7 .5
5.26 25.0
115 212.50
+
1 00
-
3.50
-
2.25 0
29 7.53
26.0 6.4-3 21.0 119 242.50
+
1
75
-
7.00
-
1.50
tm
.25
30 6.79
23.0 6 .1 5 25.5
121 255.00
+
2
75
-
6.00
-
1.00 - 1.00 H
oo
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 29
Jrial #1 #2
#3
#4
Variables
#5 #6 #7
#8
#9
#10
X 7 o 28 26.0 6 .6 5 12.0 143 590.00
+
1.50
_
2.50 + 2.25
—
2.25
2 5.60 28.5
3.84
1 9 .5
138 307.50
+
3.25
-
2.75 + 1.75
+
1.50
3 7.35
23.0
4.53 14.5 134 292.50
+
.25
~
5.75 - 3.50
-
.25
i+
7.10
19.5 7.27 9 .5 143 400.00
+
1.00
-
8.50
- 2.75
-
1.00
5
7.66 23.0 7.21 8.0 118
267.50
-
3.00
-
3.25 -1 1 .7 5
+
.25
6
7.14
29.0
6.33
23.O 129 277.50
-
2.25
-
5.25
- 6.50
-
1.00
7 7.03 27.5 5.91 29.5
152 267.50
-
3.75
+
1.25 - 5.25
+
.50
8
7.25 32.0 5.43 26.5 125
285.00
-
5.00
—
2.50
- 4 .7 5
-
1.75
9 7.29 21.5 6.05 17.5 132 295.00
-
3.50
-
7 .2 5 - 4 .2 5
- 2.00
10 6 .85 15.0 5.65
12.0 121 320.00
-
5.25
-
5.50 - 7 .7 5
+
.75
11 7.20 25.0 7.32 25.5 107 337.50
-
2.25
mm
5.25 -1 0 .7 5
-
5.25
12 7 .32 30.0 6.19 23.5 127 350.00
-
2.00
-
6.75 - 5.25
+
.25
13
7.21 32.0 6.38 28.0 123 310.00
-
2.00 5.00 - 4 .2 5 0
14
6.55 18.5 6.90
25.5 125 307.50
-
2.25
-
4.50
- 5.25
+
.50
15
6.72 22.0 6.50
21.5 134 315.00
-
.25
-
6.00
- 3.25 1.25
16 6.44 23.0 6.23 24,5 137
295.00
-
1.25
-
4 .2 5 - 3.00
+
2.00
17
7.41
30.5
7.36 21.0
139 357.50
-
1.25
-
7 .2 5 - 2.25
+
2.00
18 7.86 24.0
7.03
32.0 141 362,50
—
1.50
-
6.00 - 2.00
+
2.50
19 6 .9 5
30.0 6.68
28.5 137 287.50
-
1.50
-
2.00
- 3.25
+
3.25
20 6.38 25.0 6 .81 28.5
139 237.50
—
.75
-
2.00 - 1.25
-
t .50
21 6.70 30.0
5.89
19.0
131
365.00
-
.50
-
6.00 - 1.50
-
4 .2 5
22 6.76 32.0 5.89 31.5 133 262.50
-
1 .25
-
3.75
- 3.00
+
.75
2?
7.27 38.5
5.96 23.0
131
377.50
+
.50
-
8.25 - 1.75
0
24 5.70 30.0
7.57
23.0 332.50
-
.75
—
6.50 - 2.50
+
1.00
25 7.09 25.5
7.02
26.5 134 117.50
-
1.75
-
1.25 - 2.00
-
.75
26
7.54 29.0
7 .0 5 31.5 138 172.50
-
3.00
w
1.50 - 1.00
+
1.25
27
6.82 20.0
7.29
28.0
133 157.50
—
2.25
—
2.00 - 3.00
+
.75
28 7.34 32.0 6.76
22.5 133
270.00
-
.75
-
5.25
- 2.50
+
.50
29
6.21 33.0 7.48
23.5 139 227.50
-
2.00
—
3.75
- 2.50
+
1.00
30 7.56 31.5 7.18 27.6 144 182.50
+
.25
- 2.50
- .25
+
1-7* £
\0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2> 3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
RAW DATA FOR SUBJECT NO. 30
Variables
#1 #2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
8.02
18.5
10.70 1.0
93
“ 375.00
-
1 00
—
4.50 - 3.50
8.72 7.0
8.95 9.5 103
562.50
+
1 50
—
4.75
- 3.00
7.49 8.5
8.38 16.0 100 412.50
+
2
75
—
1.50 - 3.00
6.43
8.5
8.98
14.5
110 592.50
+
3
00
M .
4.00 - 2.25
8.15 10 .0 8.66
17.5
100 407.50
-
50
—
5.75 - 5.25
5.95
7.0 10.67 14.0 120 425.00
+
3
00 4.00 - 4.00
7.58 19.5 8.43 23.5 109 422.50
+
5 25
-
4.50 - 3.00
7.76 21.5 9.07 24.0 120 442.50
+
75
—
3.50 - 2.00
7.83 16.0 9.41 26.0 120 420.00
+
6 00
—
5.75 + .75
7.89 16.5 7.87 11.5 107 470.00
+
5 50
-
9.25
- 1.50
6.33
32.0
7.49
22.0 94 492.50
+
2
75
-
5.00
- 3.25
6.50 18.0 8.00 32.0
117 550.00
+
3
00
—
6.50 - 3.50
7.58 23.O
6.93 21.5 105 594.00
+
6
25
-
7.50 - 3.00
7.10 27.0 7.36
29.5
106 370.00
+
75
-
3.00 - 3.50
6.83 21.0 6.98 24.0
107 417.50
+
1
25
+
.25 - 1.75
6.85 23.0 7.82
17.5
96 340.00
+
2
25
—
3.00 - 3.00
7.01 23.0 8.66 16.0 98 405.00
—
75
2.00 - 3.50
7.18 31.0
7.55 24.5
106 507.00
+
1
75
-
3.50 - 4.50
7.10
21.5 7.97 28.5 98 350.00
+
1 00
—
3.00
- 3.50
7.39 19.5 7.79 24.5
102 530.00
+
2
75
—
2.00 - 3.00
6.82
26.5
8.26
20.5 117 54o.oo
+
3 75
t a *
5.50 - .75
7.40
25.5
7.90 32.0 110 530.00
+
3 75
-
3.00 - 1.00
7.28
25.5
7.56 24.5
120 567.50
+
4 50
-
6.75 - .25
7.09 25.5 ?M 24.0
113
502.50
+
2
75
—
4.25 - 1.50
7.09 24.5 7.97
16.0
113
445.00
+
3
50
-
6.50 - 1.50
6.79
25.0 8.91 20.5 107 445.00
+
2 00
-
9.25 - 1.75
7.52 20.5 8.37
27.0 127 337.50 0
-
. 5 °
- 1.00
7.03 26.0 6.92
24.5 109 387.50
+
5 50
-
8.75 - 1.75
6.61 27.0 7.90 16.0 122 487.50
+
3
00
-
5.75
- 1.00
7.30 25.0
7.23 28.5
110 587.50
+
4 50
-
9.50 - 1.25
APPENDIX C
INSTRUCTIONS TO SUBJECTS
Instructions to Subjects
The purpose of this experiment is to determine the
effect of practice on learning to move your arm along a
certain pre-determined pathway, at a designated rate of
speed, ending the arm movement with a designated amount
of force.
You will have no visual help, for you will be
blindfolded throughout the experiment.
You will be positioned in front of a 31 x b*
panel, holding a wooden pointer in a slotted track at the
right side of the panel. When the experimenter says
'•Ready", you may begin to move the pointer along the
track from right to left, until you contact the padded
stop-board at the left side of the panel.
On Your First Trials As you proceed from right to left
in the slotted track, you should attempt tos
Pathway; Remember the shape of the irregular
pathway which your arm is following
in the track. Keep the pointer in - '
the slot•
Speed: Contact the padded stop-board on the
left simultaneously as you hear the bell.
The bell will ring 7 seconds after you
begin to move. Try to go through the
pathway at a constant rate of speed,
attempting to end the movement as the
bell sounds. You will be informed of
your actual time.
Forces Contact the stop-board with enough
force to propel a marble (which is
resting on the stop-board) 25" out from
the stop-board. You will be told of
the distance which you actually send
the marble.
On Your Second Trials You will repeat everything as
above, except for the followings
Pathways You will use a crayon and attempt to
reproduce the pathway on a solid panel
without the aid of the slotted track.
192
Speed:
Force:
You will attempt to finish the pathway
within the same time (7 seconds), but
the bell will not sound, nor will you
be informed of your total elapsed time.
You will attempt to contact the stop-
board with enough force to send the
marble 25" as before, but you will not
be told the result.
Then you will continue to practice, alternating between
the slotted track and the crayon.
APPENDIX D
RESEARCH PROJECT SIGN-UP SLIP
Research Project - Miss Lyon
Date: Mon Tues Wed _____________________ Time:_____
Thurs Fri Sat____________________
Place: "F" Building (Wooden building, immediately
across the street (East) from
the Womenls Gym)
195
APPENDIX E
REMINDER OF TESTING APPOINTMENT
Date s
Dear
This is just a note to remind you of your appointment
for testing, as a participant in the motor learning
research project.
Days: Mon, Tues. Wed,
Thurs. Fri, Sat,
Time:
Place: "F" Building, immediately across the
street from the east exit of the
Women's Gym (Wooden building).
I'll be looking forward to seeing you. I think you'll
find the experiment unique and interesting. Your
participation in the project is greatly appreciated!
Sincerely,
(s) M. Joan Lyon
M, Joan Lyon
Associate Professor,
Department of Physical
Education
197
APPENDIX F
LETTER OF APPRECIATION TO SUBJECTS
April 1, 1965
Dear
The purpose of this letter is to express my appreciation
to you for your willingness to participate in my research
study on kinesthetic perception.
In view of the many demands placed upon the time of college
students, the fact that you gave up some of your "spare"
moments to be a research subject, is particularly
gratifying.
Most of the women indicated that they thoroughly enjoyed
the testing procedure; I hope this is true for you, too.
Knowing how naturally curious you all were to see what
the testing apparatus and track really looks like, the
research laboratory in F-l will be open for your perusal
on the following days next week:
Wednesday, April 7 12:00 - 1:00 Noon
Thursday, April 8 2:30 - 3*30 P.M.
I hope that you will be able to drop in during one of
these hours.
Thank you again for your participation.
Most sincerely,
(s) M. Joan Lyon
M. Joan Lyon
Associate Professor
Women*s Physical
Education
California State College-
Long Beach
i
199
i

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effects Of Light And Heavy Equipment On The Acquisition Of Sports-Type Skills By Young Children

PDF

Effect Of Training With Ankle Weights On Running Skill

PDF

Flexibility Changes As A Result Of Isometric And Isotonic Exercise Over Limited Ranges Of Motion

PDF

Concepts Derived From Observed Movement Patterns Represented By Visual Forms

PDF

The Effects Of General And Specific Warm-Up On Subsequent Motor Performance

PDF

The Effect Of Selected Conceptualizing Techniques Upon The Early Learningof A Gross Movement

PDF

Economy Of Learning At Beginning Levels Of Gross Motor Performance

PDF

Differential Applications Of Resistance And Resulting Strength Measured At Varying Degrees Of Knee Extension

PDF

The Effects Of Varied Amounts Of Verbal Instruction Upon The Learning Andperformance Of Selected Tasks Of Accuracy

PDF

Heart Rate Response To Stress: A Mathematical Model

PDF

Grade Placement Of Games In The Elementary School Curriculum Of Physical Education

PDF

The Effect Of Body Position On The Development Of Isometric And Isotonic Strength

PDF

The Differential Effects Of Viewing Selected Moving Visual Figure Patterns On The Performance Of A Dynamic Balance Task

PDF

The Effect Of Number Of Practice Trials In Initial Learning On Retention And Relearning Of Motor Skills

PDF

The Effect Of Fatigue On Motor Learning

PDF

The History Of Physical Education In Texas: An Analysis Of The Role Of D. K. Brace

PDF

Effect Of Exercise On Ligament Strength

PDF

An Exploratory Study Of The Relationship Between Visual Representation And Initial Performance Of Selected Movement Sequences

PDF

The Effect Of Three Different Pace Plans On The Cardiac Cost Of 1320-Yardruns

PDF

Sex Differences In Learning A Complex Motor Task

Asset Metadata

Creator Lyon, Muriel Joan (author)

Core Title The Effect Of Practice On Three Dynamic Components Of Kinesthetic Perception

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education, Physical

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, Physical,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format dissertations (aat)

Language English

Advisor Lockhart, Aileene (committee chair), Fredericks, J. Wynn (committee member), Metheny, Eleanor (committee member), Morris, Royce (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-210749

Unique identifier UC11360659

Identifier 6607076.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-210749 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 6607076.pdf

Dmrecord 210749

Document Type Dissertation

Format dissertations (aat)

Rights Lyon, Muriel Joan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA