UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An investigation of the Voeks postremity hypothesis Koppenaal, Richard John 1956

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1956_A8 K6 I6.pdf [ 2.57MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106303.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106303-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106303-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106303-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106303-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106303-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106303-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106303-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106303.ris

Full Text

AN INVESTIGATION OP THE VOEKS POSTREMITY HYPOTHESIS by  RICHARD JOHN KOPPENAAL  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N P A R T I A L FULFILMENT OF THE  HEQUIREMENTS FOB THE DEGREE OF . MASTER  in  OF ARTS  t h e Department  of  P h i l o s o p h y and  We  accept  standard  this  thesis  required  from  Psychology  as conforming  to the  candidates f o r the  d e g r e e o f MASTER OF ARTS .  Members o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f P h i l o s o p h y and P s y c h o l o g y THE  UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H May,  1956  COLUMBIA  AN  INVESTIGATION OP  THE  VOEKS  POSTREMITY HYPOTHESIS  Abstract T h i s experiment was undertaken to i n v e s t i g a t e the v a l i d i t y of the p o s t r e m i t y p r i n c i p l e . T h i s p r i n c i p l e p r e d i c t s , f o r r e c u r r i n g s i t u a t i o n s , such as maze, that a response to a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n w i l l be- the same response t h a t was l a s t made to the s t i m u l i present i n that s i t u a t i o n . The p r i n c i p l e i s hypothesized as e v e r - o p e r a t i n g . The l a c k of p e r f e c t p r a c t i c a l p r e d i c t i o n s i n the maze s i t u a t i o n i s explained by the i n s t a b i l i t y of s t i m u l i , e s p e c i a l l y p r o p r i o c e p t i v e s t i m u l i , from t r i a l to t r i a l at the same choice p o i n t . While the importance of p r o p r i o c e p t i v e s t a b i l i t y upon s u c c e s s f u l p r e d i c t i o n s has been f r e e l y h y p o t h e s i z e d , very l i t t l e has been done to t e s t t h i s . One s p e c i f i c purpose of the present experiment was to t e s t p o s t r e m i t y i n t h i s r e g a r d . The o t h e r s p e c i f i c purpose of t h i s experiment was to determine i n what way, i f any, s u c c e s s f u l p r e d i c t i o n s are r e l a t e d to ' r i g h t responses. I t was noted by one i n v e s t i gator t h a t the number of s u c c e s s f u l p r e d i c t i o n s i n c r e a s e d w i t h the number of t r i a l s (and i n c r e a s e i n ' r i g h t r e s p o n s e s ) . The p o s s i b i l i t y of some r e l a t i o n s h i p h a s b e e n h i n t e d at by s e v e r a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s but never a p p a r e n t l y thoroughly explored. 1  1  T  A mental maze was used i n t h i s experiment. There were twelve choice p o i n t s , each one w i t h one ' r i g h t ' and one 'wrong' choice p o s s i b l e . The methods used to c o n t r o l s t a b i l i t y of p r o p r i o c e p t i v e s t i m u l i c o n s i s t e d l a r g e l y of c o n t r o l of motor responses and p o s t u r e . In one group r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e c o n t r o l of motor responses or posture was e x e r c i s e d , w h i l e i n another group the motor responses and the posture of the s u b j e c t were h e l d constant. In a t h i r d group the s t i m u l i were v a r i e d on c e r tain t r i a l s . A f o u r t h group had, i n a d d i t i o n to stimulus constancy, any choice p o i n t that e l i c i t e d a 'wrong' response repeated immediately, so t h a t the s u b j e c t c o r r e c t e d h i s r e s ponse. T h i s was done to g a i n more accurate r e c o r d i n g of responses, which was h y p o t h e s i z e d as b e i n g v e r y d i f f i c u l t when the l a s t response i s 'wrong'. The a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the number of s u c c e s s f u l p r e d i c t i o n s only between the f o u r t h group (repeated c h o i c e p o i n t s ) , on the one hand, and  each of the o t h e r three groups, on the other hand. Thus, no d i f f e r e n c e s were found between the three groups where only s t a b i l i t y of p r o p r i o c e p t i v e s t i m u l i v a r i e d . P u r t h e r a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e d p o s t r e m i t y was a succ e s s f u l p r e d i c t o r only when i t p r e d i c t e d a ' r i g h t ' response. In r e l a t i o n to t h i s f i n d i n g , a simple p r e d i c t i o n of the •right" response at each choice p o i n t proved as e f f i c i e n t as p o s t r e m i t y . The r e s u l t s l e d to the c o n c l u s i o n that the obtained d i f f e r e n c e s i n the number of s u c c e s s f u l p r e d i c t i o n s between Group IV and the o t h e r three groups was due to the i n c i d e n c e of more ' r i g h t * responses In t h i s group (which had more p r a c t i c e ) . Thus the r e s u l t s of t h i s experiment d i d not support the hypothesized importance of stimulus s t a b i l i t y f o r p o s t r e m i t y , arid a l s o provided an a n a l y s i s which showed i t s s u c c e s s f u l p r e d i c t i o n s were c o i n c i d e n t w i t h r e p e t i t i o n of fright'*" responses. T h i s r e p e t i t i o n of ' r i g h t * responses c o u l d be p r e d i c t e d by many t h e o r i e s . 1  The v a l i d i t y of p o s t r e m i t y as a p r a c t i c a l p r e d i c t o r and as a t h e o r e t i c a l concept was, w i t h i n the l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s experiment, questioned.  ACKNOWLEDGMENT  The w r i t e r would l i k e t o express h i s g r a t i t u d e t o Dr. D.T. Kenny f o r o r i g i n a l l y suggesting t h e area o f r e s e a r c h and f o r h i s stimulating  suggestions and encouragement  i n g the course o f the work.  dur-  CONTENTS CHAPTER I.  PAGE INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . 1  Introduction Purpose o f the Present II.  Experiment  . . . .  18.  ,  Materials  IV..  16  EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS, .SUBJECTS AND PROCEDURE  III.  .  18  Subjects  20  Procedure  21 31  THE DATA AND THEIR TREATMENT CONSIDERATION OF THE RESULTS IN RELATION TO THE HYPOTHESES TESTED  V.  1  1+2  Discussion  1+2  Conclusion  * . 1+7  SUMMARY  1+9 £2  BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES A.  The Mental Maze  .  B. .  R e s u l t s o f the A n a l y s i s o f the C r i t e r i o n l e a r n e d to  f?3  $1+  %  # # *  TABLES  TABLE I.  PAGE Analysis, o f Variance  o f the Number o f  C o r r e c t l y P r e d i c t e d Responses, on T r i a l s 3 , 6 , and 9 II.  3k  D i f f e r e n c e s between the Means o f the Four 3$  Groups III.  Percentage o f C o r r e c t P r e d i c t i o n s by and the Percentage o f 'Right Each of the Four Groups  * *  -£ .  .  .  1  Postremity  Responses, f o r 39  CHAPTER I .  INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OP THE PROBLEM  One o f the c e n t r a l problems In psychology accurate p r e d i c t i o n o f b e h a v i o r .  I s the  Prom t h i s problem a r i s e s  the n e c e s s i t y o f determining what f a c t o r s can be used i n the p r e d i c t i o n o f behaviour  i n a given s i t u a t i o n .  In this  regard  many psychologists, have been concerned w i t h the p r e d i c t i o n o f responses i n maze l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s .  The maze s i t u a t i o n i s  a f r u i t f u l one f o r a n a l y s i n g the p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e o f c e r t a i n f a c t o r s because the same s i t u a t i o n s o r s t i m u l i r e c u r again and a g a i n on succeeding  trials.  (choice p o i n t s )  T h i s makes i t  p o s s i b l e t o take i n t o account what many t h e o r i s t s have cons i d e r e d one o f the main sources o f u s e f u l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r p r e d i c t i n g b e h a v i o u r i n a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n , namely, the previous responses o f the organism to t h a t s i t u a t i o n .  Thus,, i n  a maze s i t u a t i o n , the p r e d i c t i v e c a p a c i t y o f v a r i o u s e t i c a l methods o f t a k i n g i n t o account p r e v i o u s  theor-  responses  can be compared and t e s t e d . T h i s experiment i s concerned w i t h one s p e c i f i c h y p o t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g the use o f past responses i n p r e d i c t i n g the next response t o a s i m i l a r stimulus t h e s i s has been advanced by Voeks ( 8 ) , Guthrie's  (2)  t h e o r y of l e a r n i n g .  s i t u a t i o n . T h i s hypoand was d e r i v e d from  The h y p o t h e s i s  a recency one, t a k i n g i n t o account o n l y the l a s t  is strictly made response  2  to  a s i t u a t i o n and p r e d i c t s t h a t the same response  made the.next  time the s i t u a t i o n o c c u r s .  t h i s hypothesis "postremity"  w i l l be  Voeks has termed  (from the L a t i n postremo,. supers  l a t i y e of " l a t e " ) . Voeks (8,p.ij.9^) has s t a t e d the p o s t r e m i t y p r i n c i p l e as f o l l o w s : In a r e c u r r i n g s i t u a t i o n , such as repeated t r i a l s i n a puzzle-box o r maze, the most probable response on any t r i a l i s the one l a s t made to the s t i m u l i present on t h a t t r i a l . I f some t r a n s i t o r y cause a l t e r s the r e s ponse, t h i s new response i s the one p r e d i c t e d f o r the ' next t r i a l on which t h a t stimulus p a t t e r n o c c u r s . T h i s advantage o f the l a s t made response h o l d s even when some o t h e r response has had I n d e f i n i t e l y g r e a t e r frequency. It  i s important  to emphasize t h a t what I s being p r e d i c t e d by  t h i s p r i n c i p l e i s an i n d i v i d u a l response, n o t o v e r a l l ance.  perform-  I n a maze, f o r example, p o s t r e m i t y would p r e d i c t t h a t  the response made t o choice p o i n t A w i l l be the same response as was made to choice p o i n t A the l a s t time the i n d i v i d u a l met that choice p o i n t . some important  As w i l l be p o i n t e d out l a t e r , there are  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s to t h i s simple p r e d i c t i o n , the  q u a l i f i c a t i o n s C e n t e r i n g around the i s s u e o f the i d e n t i t y o f the stimulus s i t u a t i o n a t any choice p o i n t from t r i a l  to t r i a l .  P o s t r e m i t y r e p r e s e n t s an a p p l i c a t i o n o f G u t h r i e ' s o n e - t r i a l , c o n t i g u i t y theory o f l e a r n i n g .  Voeks ( 8 ) p o i n t s  out t h a t G u t h r i e h i m s e l f has accumulated some evidence on o n e - t r i a l l e a r n i n g which i s d i r e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e t o p o s t r e m i t y . She r e f e r s to the G u t h r i e and Horton study p u z z l e box, i n which i t was observed  ( 2 ) of cats i n a  t h a t a c a t tended to  3 repeat the same " f i n a l movements" In s u c c e s s i v e escapes from the p u z z l e "box even though no two  c a t s used the same movements.  Such a r e s u l t I s , of course, e x a c t l y what p o s t r e m i t y would predict. As Voeks (8)  has  cogently p o i n t e d o u t  seldom r e p o r t e d In maze-learning  i  raw data are  s i t u a t i o n s , and as a d i r e c t  consequence, a study of p o s t r e m i t y e f f e c t s i s i m p o s s i b l e f o r most p u b l i s h e d experiments.  In one maze-learning  where the raw data are r e p o r t e d , P e t e r s o n that recency  (ij.,.p.-290)  concludes  (postremity) i s not a f a c t o r i n l e a r n i n g .  ever, Voeks (8,p.ij.97)» by r e a n a l y s i n g P e t e r s o n ' s shown t h a t p o s t r e m i t y was b e i n g r i g h t 68.1+ chance  experiment,  a good p r e d i c t o r of  per cent of the time.  data,  Howhas  responses,  Such a f i g u r e i s beyond  expectancy. Voeks (8)  performed three p a r a l l e l experiments to  t e s t p o s t r e m i t y and the r e l a t i v e e f f i c i e n c y of p o s t r e m i t y versus frequency  as p r e d i c t o r s In maze s i t u a t i o n s .  to  the frequency p r i n c i p l e , the most frequent past  at  a choice p o i n t was  choice p o i n t .  p r e d i c t e d as the next response  According response at t h a t  I n the f i r s t experiment a m u l t i p l e T f i n g e r  maze was used, f o r the secondj a punch-board s t y l u s maze^ for  the t h i r d , a threaded  and  s t y l u s , which n e c e s s i t a t e d the  screwing o f the s t y l u s i n t o the h o l e s and out again a f t e r every choice was  made.  I n each case the s u b j e c t was  required  to reach a c r i t e r i o n of three s u c c e s s i v e p e r f e c t t r i a l s , each maze, there were two  In  p o s s i b l e c h o i c e s at each c h o i c e p o i n t .  k P o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t i o n s were found t o agree w e l l with, the recorded responses.  extremely  F o r the three experiments,  Voeks (8,p.5>00) r e p o r t s mean percentages o f c o r r e c t of 88.7 p e r cent, 82.3 per cent, and 83.1  predictions  p e r cent.  When the  postreme response was n o t the most f r e q u e n t past response, i t s t i l l o c c u r r e d about 71 per cent o f the time, as compared to 29 p e r cent f o r the most f r e q u e n t past response. Osgood (3)  has c r i t i c i z e d  the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the  l a t e r r e s u l t s by p o i n t i n g out t h a t i n such maze l e a r n i n g , where there i s one r i g h t and one wrong response a t each c h o i c e p o i n t , a s u b j e c t w i l l f r e q u e n t l y g i v e the 'wrong' response t o a choice p o i n t f o r a f e w . t r i a l s u n t i l he l e a r n s the ' r i g h t ? response, a f t e r which he w i l l g i v e t h i s consistently.  'right'  response  I n such a s i t u a t i o n , the p r e d i c t i o n on the  b a s i s o f frequency w i l l be the 'wrong' response u n t i l  enough  t r i a l s on which the ' r i g h t ' response occurs b u i l d up to make the  ' r i g h t ' response the most f r e q u e n t .  Thus, the frequency  p r e d i c t i o n w i l l prove i n c o r r e c t d u r i n g t h i s time.  He f u r t h e r  p o i n t s out t h a t p r o b a b l y t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s the one where frequency and postremity would most often d i s a g r e e s i n c e p o s t r e m i t y would be p r e d i c t i n g the ' r i g h t ' response as soon as i t had been made once. Osgood's p o i n t can be countered by m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t , whether he i s r i g h t or n o t , p o s t r e m i t y i s a b e t t e r p r a c t i c a l p r e d i c t o r , and frequency i s a poor p r e d i c t o r perhaps j u s t f o r the reason he p o i n t s out.  Of more i n t e r e s t ,  however, i s the p o s s i b i l i t y that he i l l u m i n a t e s , namely, that, p o s t r e m i t y as a good p r e d i c t o r may be dependent upon the f a c t that w i t h most s u b j e c t s i n a maze many choice p o i n t s are passed  c o r r e c t l y on t r i a l a f t e r t r i a l w h i l e a few c h o i c e p o i n t  are being  'learned . 1  T h i s would g i v e l o n g s u c c e s s i o n s o f  c o r r e c t p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t i o n s merely because the s u b j e c t i s g i v i n g the same ' r i g h t ' response choice p o i n t s .  on t r i a l  after t r i a l  t o these  T h i s would be p a r t i c u l a r l y emphasized where  the s u b j e c t s are l e a r n i n g t o a c r i t e r i o n o f three s u c c e s s i v e perfect t r i a l s .  By d e f i n i t i o n , the l a s t two t r i a l s  would have  a l l postreme p r e d i c t i o n s c o r r e c t , and f u r t h e r ; the few  trials  p r e c e d i n g the l a s t two would p r o b a b l y have a v e r y l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f repeated two  ' r i g h t ' responses  choice p o i n t s are s t i l l being  (while o n l y one o r  'learned')  and thus a very  l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f postreme p r e d i c t i o n s would be c o r r e c t ones However, p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t i o n s a r e often- c o r r e c t through  'wrong' responses  being repeated.  The problem here  would be to determine j u s t how dependent p o s t r e m i t y , as a p r e d i c t o r above chance, i s upon repeated  'right'  responses.  By d e f i n i t i o n , o f course, p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t i o n s a r e c o n f i n e d to  these two s i t u a t i o n s .  As such, i t may appear  meaningless,  as f a r as p r o v i n g p o s t r e m i t y the b e s t p r e d i c t o r i n maze s i t u a t i o n s , to be concerned  w i t h whether i t s h i g h p r e d i c t i v e  r a t e depends more upon one sequence than another.  However,  i f p o s t r e m i t y as a good p r e d i c t o r i s proven to be e n t i r e l y dependent upon repeated  ' r i g h t ' responses,  then some doubt  6 about the g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s p o s s i b l e to o t h e r s i t u a t i o n s t h e r e a r e no  'right  is. more t h a n  one.'right'?' r e s p o n s e ,  the p o s s i b i l i t y  1  entirely  a simple  dependent upon r e p e a t e d  challenged.  predictions  1  and  there  created.  Also,  a s good o r a b e t t e r since i f postremity  'right?  responses  then  response  f o r every  response  postremity, both  i n maze s i t u a t i o n s  m i g h t be  'right  o r where  as g o o d o r b e t t e r t h a n p o s t r e m i t y .  type of a n a l y s i s ,  dictor  w o u l d be  i n maze s i t u a t i o n s ,  p r e d i c t i o n of the  might prove this  'wrong? r e s p o n s e s ,  a r i s e s of there being  predictor available is  and  where  Thus,  by  as a p r a c t i c a l  pre-  as a more g e n e r a l phenomenon,  Perhaps the h i g h r a t e o f  i n a maze s i t u a t i o n  i s merely  s o m e t h i n g s i m p l e r and more b a s i c ,  postreme  an a r t i f a c t  the r e p e t i t i o n  of  of.  'right'  responses. I t must be p o i n t e d o u t the  above two  •right?  hypotheses  responses,  and  good a s p o s t r e m i t y ) P o s t r e m i t y may  be  c o u l d be  prediction  Could  vitiate  interpreted  i f . t h e s e two  of the  'right'  the postremity  repeated  response  The  happens t o c o i n c i d e w i t h  In such  a case  as an  artifact  repeated  as.  concept.  a more g e n e r a l phenomena which,, i n t h e  responses.  of postremity.  study which t e s t e d  ( p o s t r e m i t y dependent upon  o f m u l t i p l e T c h o i c e mazes, 'right'  t h a t no  'right?  case  repeated  responses  o f t h e more b a s i c  concept  p o i n t b e i n g made h e r e , h o w e v e r , i s t h a t  hypothesis prove  correct,  then.the  proof of.  " " M u l t i p l e T maze" w i l l be u s e d h e r e a f t e r t o r e f e r t o any maze i n v o l v i n g a number o f c h o i c e p o i n t s where e a c h C h o i c e p o i n t h a s two p o s s i b l e c h o i c e s a v a i l a b l e .  7  p o s t r e m i t y must l i e somewhere e l s e than In the a n a l y s i s of responses  i n m u l t i p l e T mazes. There i s another aspect of Voeks' concept which i s  c e r t a i n l y r e l a t e d to the f o r e g o i n g , but can be i t f o r the purposes, of d i s c u s s i o n .  separated  T h i s a s p e c t can be  from  termed  the t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s o f p o s t r e m i t y , whereas the above d i s c u s s i o n was  p r i m a r i l y concerned  w i t h p o s t r e m i t y as. a p r a c t i c a l  predictor. The q u e s t i o n which Voeks i s t r y i n g to answer i n h e r t h e o r i z i n g i s : i f the p r i n c i p l e of p o s t r e m i t y i s v a l i d , does a s u b j e c t not continue f o r e v e r to make the same at  any g i v e n choice p o i n t ?  I n other words, why  postremity p r e d i c t p e r f e c t l y ? i s not due  l a c k of p e r f e c t p r e d i c t i o n  of the p r i n c i p l e .  c o n s i d e r s i t to be due  Rather,  to t r i a l and to- the  i n r e c o r d i n g the a c t u a l 'last-made' response point.  situation  difficulty  to a c h o i c e  I t w i l l be remembered that, the p r i n c i p l e i s s t a t e d i n  such a way to  gathered  she (8,p.5>03)  to changes i n the stimulus  choice p o i n t s from t r i a l  response  doesn't  to some p r o b a b i l i t y f a c t o r , as might be  from h e r statement  at  The  why  trial  that i f the s t i m u l i s i t u a t i o n changes from  at a g i v e n choice p o i n t then the same  cannot be  response  expected. The  changes she h y p o t h e s i z e s as b e i n g  i n c r e a t i n g d i f f e r e n t stimulus s i t u a t i o n s can be into three d i f f e r e n t categories. F i r s t , important,  trial  important classified  and p r o b a b l y mo.st  are the p r o p r i o c e p t i v e cues (or movement-produced-  s t i m u l i ) of the s u b j e c t .  I f the s u b j e c t changes h i s p o s i t i o n  os posture,- h i s whole p a t t e r n o f p r o p r i o c e p t i v e cues w i l l be changed.  F o l l o w i n g G u t h r i e , Voeks c o n s i d e r s  these  pro-  p r i o c e p t i v e cues to be o f utmost importance i n l e a r n i n g , being  a l a r g e p a r t o f the t o t a l s t i m u l i which become  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a response.  I t n a t u r a l l y follows that, i f  the p r o p r i o c e p t i v e p a t t e r n changes r a d i c a l l y , the t o t a l stimulus  s i t u a t i o n , at a c h o i c e p o i n t w i l l be q u i t e d i f f e r e n t  from the stimulus at  s i t u a t i o n which e x i s t e d on the l a s t  t h a t choice p o i n t .  Since p o s t r e m i t y  same response f o r the same stimulus  trial  p r e d i c t s only the  s i t u a t i o n , i t i s not- i n .  e r r o r i n t h i s case i f the response i s d i f f e r e n t a t the same choice  point. Second, there may be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the e x t e r n a l  s t i m u l i present  on d i f f e r e n t t r i a l s : changes i n l i g h t i n g o r  o l f a c t o r y cues, n o i s e s , motions by the experlmentor, e t c . T h i r d , there are f u r t h e r changes i n the i n t e r n a l s t i m u l i pattern. few  Such Changes operate e s p e c i a l l y d u r i n g the f i r s t  t r i a l s when the subject may be tense,  e x c i t e d , and c u r i o u s  which would cause the p a t t e r n o f i n t e r n a l s t i m u l a t i o n t o chang rapidly.  But i n l a t e r t r i a l s the s u b j e c t may a l s o develop  f e e l i n g s of e l a t i o n , depression visceral stimuli.  o r a n x i e t y , thus changing the  Likewise, Voeks Considers  t h a t fatigue, and  p o s s i b l e changes i n energy l e v e l , muscle tonus, may p l a y a p a r t i n changing the stimulus  (8,p.503) :  situation.  Voeks concludes  9  O c c a s i o n a l l y t h e r e f o r e , the stimulus p a t t e r n i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from t h a t present the l a s t time the s u b j e c t was a t this, choice p o i n t . Consequently, a t t h i s p o i n t a d i f f e r e n t response may be made to t h i s d i f f e r e n t stimulus p a t t e r n ; and the p r e d i c t i o n (based upon the l a s t b e h a v i o r to a d i f f e r e n t stimulus p a t t e r n a t the choice p o i n t ) w i l l be i n c o r r e c t . T h i s does n o t mean n e c e s s a r i l y t h a t the p r i n c i p l e o f postremity i s not completely v a l i d . I t may be. The p r i n c i p l e s t a t e s what response i s t o be expected when the same s i t u a t i o n i s re-encountered. However, f o r p r a c t i c a l reasons,, the p r i n c i p l e , i s used to p r e d i c t b e h a v i o r when o n l y a p a r t o f the s i t u a t i o n i s re-encountered (namely: the 'same' choice p o i n t ) . The for  other main f a c t o r which Voeks uses t o account  the l a c k o f p e r f e c t p r e d i c t i o n s i s the d i f f i c u l t y  i n v o l v e d i n a c t u a l l y r e c o r d i n g the 'last-made'' response to the  stimulus  situation.  P r e d i c t i o n s , o f course, are based  upon the l a s t response recorded ; whereas the response ing  (accord-  to postremity) depends upon the l a s t response made t o a  situation.  I f the two a r e n o t the same, then the p r e d i c t i o n  w i l l be wrong.  Voeks. h y p o t h e s i z e s t h a t , i f the response is.  "'right', then the l a s t - r e c o r d e d response i s l i k e l y t o be the last-made response because the s t i m u l i i n d i c a t i n g that the response i s ' r i g h t ' u s u a l l y do. n o t e l i c i t  a d d i t i o n a l responses  to t h a t choice p o i n t d i f f e r i n g from t h a t r e c o r d e d . However, i f the response i s 'wrong' then the s t i m u l i f o l l o w i n g that r e s ponse which i n d i c a t e i t s i n c o r r e c t n e s s added responses on that t r i a l were o r i g i n a l l y present  often bring  other  to many o f the same s t i m u l i t h a t  a t t h a t choice p o i n t , such added  responses as movement away from the i n c o r r e c t a l l e y and toward the c o r r e c t a l l e y o f a maze, o r i m p l i c i t v e r b a l p r a c t i c e .  10  Voeks (8,p.502)  continues:  These responses (which ponse to some o f the s t i m u l i s i t u a t i o n ) are n o t recorded, f e r e n t from and incompatible recorded.  are now the postreme r e s o f t h a t choice p o i n t however; and they a r e d i f w i t h the one t h a t was  Thus the p r e d i c t i o n s again could f a i l ,  even though  the theory i s sound. T h i s l a s t p o i n t i s o f i n t e r e s t concerning the e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n o f the p o s s i b l e dependency o f p o s t r e m i t y upon repeated  ' r i g h t ' responses.  I t i s apparent  from the  above t h a t Voeks has a ready e x p l a n a t i o n f o r why 'wrong' responses  are not repeated as c o n s i s t e n t l y as ' r i g h t '  responses.  A l a t e r experiment, performed by Voeks, c o n t a i n s r e s u l t s a p p l i c a b l e to p o s t r e m i t y s u b j e c t ' s e y e - b l i n k i n g response  (7)•  I n t h i s experiment the  was c o n d i t i o n e d t o a buzz,  w i t h a p u f f of a i r as the u n c o n d i t i o n e d  s t i m u l u s . The r e s u l t s  of t h i s experiment, when analysed f o r p o s t r e m i t y ,  showed  81+.6 per cent o f the p r e d i c t i o n s c o r r e c t f o r i n d i v i d u a l responses.  Xn other words, the s u b j e c t most o f the time  responded to the buzz ( e i t h e r b l i n k o r not) the same way he d i d the l a s t time the buzz sounded. I n t h i s experiment Voeks s e t out to c o n t r o l the stimulus s i t u a t i o n f a r more r i g i d l y than i s usually,,done, i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the e f f e c t s she and G u t h r i e have hypot h e s i z e d about s h i f t i n g stimulus p a t t e r n s .  A b r i e f consid-  e r a t i o n o f the experimental methods she employed to h o l d constant the stimulus s i t u a t i o n may h e l p t o c l a r i f y the  11  c o n t r o l s she b e l i e v e s to be important i n any  experiment  designed t o t e s t the p o s t r e m i t y p r i n c i p l e . Throughout each t r i a l the. s u b j e c t depressed t e l e g r a p h key w i t h each hand.  T h i s was  designed to i n s u r e  at l e a s t some o f the same p r o p r i o c e p t i v e cues ing  (those r e s u l t -  from the motor responses r e q u i r e d to p r e s s the keys)  wouid remain constant from t r i a l , to t r i a l . b r e a t h i n g was  The s u b j e c t ' s  -  a l s o c o n t r o l l e d , so t h a t he h e l d h i s b r e a t h  as the c o n d i t i o n e d stimulus was was  a  presented.  This, o b v i o u s l y  designed to s t a b i l i z e the s t i m u l i from the muscles o f the  chest and diaphragm.  The  s u b j e c t ' s movements were f u r t h e r  c o n t r o l l e d by a h e a d - r e s t , and h a v i n g him l o o k a t a c r o s s d u r i n g the t r i a l s .  The  s u b j e c t s were g i v e n slow, c o n v e r s a t -  i o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n s and reassurance i n o r d e r to remove e f f e c t s of  changing emotional responses.  and the s u b j e c t ' s head was visual field.  A soundproof  surrounded by a box  room was  used  to l i m i t h i s  Voeks c o n s i d e r e d that f a t i g u e e f f e c t s were  c o n t r o l l e d by the minimal work Involved i n the e y e - b l i n k response and by a l l o w i n g i n t e r t r i a l  r e s t s of from \\$ to  75  seconds. It  i s r e a d i l y e v i d e n t that these c o n t r o l s are i n  keeping w i t h the suspected sources of changes i n stimulus situations., e s p e c i a l l y those of a p r o p r i o c e p t i v e n a t u r e . It  i s important to note that although Voeks goes  i n t o great, d e t a i l about  sources of important  stimulus p a t t e r n  changes, she nowhere p r e s e n t s evidence that these sources have  12  any e f f e c t on o n e - t r i a l l e a r n i n g o r p o s t r e m i t y . P o s t r e m i t y i s viewed by her as an e v e r - o p e r a t i n g p r i n c i p l e , dependent f o r p r a c t i c a l p r e d i c t i o n s upon c e r t a i n requirements  of s t i m u l u s s t a b i l i t y and accurate r e c o r d i n g of  last-made responses..  P o s t r e m i t y , then, should v a r y i n i t s  p r e d i c t i v e e f f i c i e n c y w i t h v a r y i n g degrees of stimulus s t a b i l i t y and of accuracy of r e c o r d i n g responses. I f i t does not then the whole t h e o r e t i c a l f o u n d a t i o n of the would be  suspect.  principle  ( T h i s , of course, assumes a good deal o f  accuracy i n the c o n t r o l of p r o p r i o c e p t i v e cues,  especially.)  However, the h i g h p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e of the p r i n c i p l e i n c e r t a i n experimental s i t u a t i o n s would remain, r e g a r d l e s s . Oh the o t h e r hand i f ,  as was  suggested  as p o s s i b l e  In the e a r l i e r p a r t of t h i s chapter, p o s t r e m i t y ^ s h i g h r a t e of p r e d i c t i o n was. found to be c o i n c i d e n t e n t i r e l y w i t h repeated 'right was  1  responses,, and merely  p r e d i c t i n g the "'right'  response  as good a p r e d i c t o r , then the whole concept of p o s t r e m i t y  would be h i g h l y suspect i f changes i n i t s p r e d i c t i v e r a t e were not found w i t h v a r y i n g degrees  of stimulus  stability  (stimulus s t a b i l i t y In Voeks' sense). Aside from Voeks' own  experiments,  Waters and  R e i t z (6) appear to be the o n l y o t h e r i n v e s t i g a t o r s who  have  been d i r e c t l y concerned w i t h t e s t i n g the p o s t r e m i t y p r i n c i p l e . They were i n t e r e s t e d i n examining  the i n f l u e n c e o f s h i f t s i n  p r o p r i o c e p t i v e s t i m u l a t i o n upon p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t i o n s . Subjects were g i v e n l£ t r i a l s  through a m u l t i p l e T f i n g e r  13  maze.  The experimental s u b j e c t s had  patterns  their  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y changed on t r i a l s  T h i s was accomplished by r e q u i r i n g the s i t and stand; for  and a l t e r n a t e l y use  t r a c i n g the maze.  proprioceptive 11,  12,  13> and  subject to a l t e r n a t e l y  the l e f t  and r i g h t hand  Although they r e p o r t no p r e c i s e  s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f the data,  they conclude that  postremity  p r e d i c t i o n s were no b e t t e r f o r the c o n t r o l group than f o r the experimental group. for  The percentages o f c o r r e c t p r e d i c t i o n s  each group, on each o f the c r i t i c a l  trials,  are  so c l o s e  t h a t t h i s c o n c l u s i o n i s undoubtedly c o r r e c t . I t might be argued t h a t , since the changes took p l a c e as l a t e as they d i d i n the l e a r n i n g t a s k , the responses were cued t o such a l a r g e p a r t o f the  'right'  stimulus  s i t u a t i o n s t h a t the attempted changes, produced l i t t l e in  s h i f t i n g these responses.  T h i s could f o l l o w from Voeks  (8,p.f?08) . . However, the data presented do not argument.  support  Since, as i s reported,. (6,p.25>7), the  there must have been q u i t e a few  be but  this  subjects  were not by the 11th t r i a l even approximating p e r f e c t  free of this effect.  effect  trials,  choice p o i n t s t h a t were  still  Perhaps fewer e r r o r s o f p r e d i c t i o n might  expected than I f the changes had been i n t r o d u c e d  earlier,  some e f f e c t s could be expected to show i n the performance  of postremity  p r e d i c t i o n s , i f Voeks I s c o r r e c t i n h e r  of why p o s t r e m i t y The  i s not  analysis  a perfect predictor.  experiment by Waters and R e i t z a l s o c a s t s some  l i g h t on the q u e s t i o n  o f the o p e r a t i o n  of postremity  possibly  depending upon ment was not 70  d e l i b e r a t e l y designed  master the per  figure the  maze.  Cent o f  postremity.  of  ' r i g h t ' responses of  the  The  The  a u t h o r s a t t r i b u t e the  successive  predictions number o f this  increase  internal trials is  increased  to  8  and  for  trial  trial  anxiety,  Correct  1$.  1$ The  The  was  83  more and  trials,  s e r i e s of  the  tension, the  predictions  cent  the  and  probably trials).  successful as  did  to  the  explain  changing  f o r the  Obtained  to  perfect  first,  curiosity, etc.).  few  But  differences  this in  b e t w e e n , f o r example, 8 was  67  per  trial  cent,, t h a t  (p.25>6).  more ' r i g h t ' r e s p o n s e s .  postremity increases, the  This  subject  creates  postremity i s merely successful  with e i t h e r repeated  cent)  attempt  subjects  i n o t h e r words., as  ' r i g h t ' responses  this  criterion  trials,  Voeks c o u l d  authors conclude that  impression that repeated  of  explain  per  a  by  immediately preceding  figure for t r i a l  "learning" increases, ing  o v e r the  pattern  per  showed C l e a r l y t h a t  responses.  adequate to  percentage of  two  s u c c e s s f u l p r e d i c t i o n s by  stimulus  (due  hardly  of  t o 89  of  (which a s s u r e s  last  f o r the  results also  1  approximately  were c a r r i e d t o  trials  f o r the  predictions  'right  experi-  subjects, would  difference  (82  by V o e k s  perfect  postremity predictions  The  t h a t most  The  r e s p o n s e s were c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t e d  f a c t that Voeks's subjects  near perfect  subjects.  r e s u l t s showed t h a t  from those r e p o r t e d  three  so  the  as  i s makthe  in predicting  ( s i n c e i t can  o n l y be  successful  ' r i g h t ' .or r e p e a t e d  'wrong'  responses).  15  The data r e p o r t e d do not warrant t h i s a d d i t i o n a l c o n c l u s i o n . It  i s o n l y shown that the number of s u c c e s s f u l p r e d i c t i o n s  i n c r e a s e s at the same time t h a t the number o f 'right? responses i n c r e a s e s . may  No r e l a t i o n s h i p is. n e c e s s a r y , though i t  appear p r o b a b l e . If  such a r e l a t i o n s h i p d i d e x i s t , t h i s could  cer-  t a i n l y be e x p l a i n e d i n terms of the d i s c u s s i o n o f the accuracy of  r e c o r d i n g last-made responses.  A c c o r d i n g to Voeks,. when  the  l a s t - r e c o r d e d response i s a 'wrong' response, the r e c o r d -  ing  i s p r o b a b l y somewhat I n a c c u r a t e .  Implicit  practice  supposedly changes the last-made response, to some of the s t i m u l i of the c h o i c e p o i n t , from a 'wrong' response to a ' r i g h t ' response.  In t h i s way  " l e a r n i n g " can be e x p l a i n e d ,  as w e l l as the s u p e r f i c i a l l y apparent improvements i n pre-diction.  A f t e r a ' r i g h t ' response no change i n the l a s t -  made response o c c u r s , the ' r i g h t ' response i s t h e r e f o r e the postreme response, and t h i s response p e r s i s t s i n succeeding t r i a l s ; w h i l e the 'wrong' response i s sometimes not repeated because o f the ambiguity o f the last-made response.  Thus,  a f t e r a s e r i e s o f t r i a l s a l l 'wrong' responses are e l i m i n a t e d , and p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t s a t a h i g h r a t e because recorded responses are  a l l the l a s t -  'right?.  However, i f a l l p o s t r e m i t y i s t e l l i n g us i s t h a t • r i g h t ' responses are v e r y o f t e n repeated and are  'wrong' responses  not so o f t e n repeated, then p o s t r e m i t y as a p r a c t i c a l  p r e d i c t o r i s t e l l i n g us n o t h i n g t h a t we  don't a l r e a d y know.  16  It  gives, o f course,  t h i s phenomena t h a n  a somewhat d i f f e r e n t i s usual.  explanation f o r  This explanation,  given  above, i s b u t a p a r t o f t h e w h o l e t h e o r y u n d e r l y i n g remity.  This theory, being  a one-trial  contiguity  posttheory,  l e a n s h e a v i l y , as does G u t h r i e ' s t h e o r y , upon the importance of  stimulus  stability,  The is:  preceding  showing w h e t h e r o r n o t p o s t -  i s successful only i n predicting  more c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e  more t h e o r e t i c a l  principle  'right*  on t h e v a l i d i t y  responses;  and  o f some o f t h e  aspects of the p r i n c i p l e .  PURPOSE OP THE PRESENT The  stimuli.  a n a l y s i s shows t h a t what i s r e q u i r e d  1 . more c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e  remity 2.  especially of proprioceptive  present  EXPERIMENT e x p e r i m e n t was d e s i g n e d  of postremity  i n both  to t e s t the  i t s p r a c t i c a l and  theoretical  aspects. The vary  a s p e c t was t e s t e d b y an a t t e m p t t o  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y the p r o p r i o c e p t i v e cues,  trial, and  theoretical  i n one g r o u p w h i l e  hold constant  attempting  to control  p r o p r i o c e p t i v e and i n t e r n a l  another  g r o u p , and e x e r t i n g o n l y t h e u s u a l  stimuli  i n a third  was made t o c o n t r o l responses, held  The  the accuracy  i n this  stimuli i n  control  of external  o f r e c o r d i n g o f last-made  The s t i m u l u s  latter  practical  t h r e e ways: f i r s t ,  rigorously  g r o u p . A f o u r t h g r o u p , i n w h i c h an a t t e m p t  was i n c l u d e d .  constant  from t r i a l to  s i t u a t i o n was  also  group.  aspects  o f p o s t r e m i t y were t e s t e d i n  by determining  i f p o s t r e m i t y was a b e t t e r -  17  than-chance p r e d i c t o r ; second, by determining the extent to which p o s t r e m i t y i s dependent upon repeated for  'right'  i t s above-chance p r e d i c t i o n ; and t h i r d , by  comparing  p o s t r e m i t y , f o r p r e d i c t i v e e f f i c i e n c y , w i t h a simple of  the ' r i g h t ' The  responses  prediction  response. s p e c i f i c hypotheses  are:  1. P o s t r e m i t y w i l l be a b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r where the p r o p r i o c e p t i v e and i n t e r n a l s t i m u l i are h e l d constant than where they are s y s t e m a t i c a l l y v a r i e d or l e f t t o chance v a r i a t i o n s , and w i l l be an even b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r where, added to a s t a b l e stimulus s i t u a t i o n , the r e c o r d ing of 'last-made' responses i s more a c c u r a t e than u s u a l . 2. P o s t r e m i t y w i l l be a better-thari-chanc.e p r e d i c t o r ( p o s s i b l y e x c l u d i n g the group where s t i m u l i are s y s t e m a t i c a l l y v a r i e d ) , and w i l l p r e d i c t b e t t e r than a simple p r e d i c t i o n of the ' r i g h t ' response; a l s o , p o s t r e m i t y ' s. above-chance p r e d i c t i o n s w i l l not be e n t i r e l y dependent upon repeated ' r i g h t ' responses. The methods f o r c o n t r o l l i n g and v a r y i n g p r o p r i o c e p t i v e and i n t e r n a l s t i m u l i have been drawn e i t h e r from Voeks* c o n d i t i o n i n g experiment  or designed i n  accordance  w i t h c o n d i t i o n s she and G u t h r i e have h y p o t h e s i z e d as ant .  import-  CHAPTER I I  EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS, SUBJECTS AND PROCEDURE  MATERIALS, A mental maze, patterned used.  a f t e r P e t e r s o n (2), was  T h i s maze (see Appendix A) c o n s i s t e d of twelve  choice  p o i n t s , each c h o i c e p o i n t c o n s i s t i n g o f two l e t t e r s o f f e r e d v e r b a l l y by the experimenter. p a i r was. the ' r i g h t ' c h o i c e , choice  One o f the two l e t t e r s o f each the other l e t t e r was the 'wrong'  ( i n Appendix A, the ' r i g h t ' l e t t e r i s i n d i c a t e d by an  asterisk). In d e s i g n i n g  t h i s maze the l e t t e r s 'X? and 'Z' were  not used as i t was f e l t t h a t a p a i r c o n t a i n i n g would be more e a s i l y l e a r n e d  than o t h e r p a i r s .  e i t h e r o f them The remaining  l e t t e r s o f the alphabet were then p a i r e d randomly,, t h e i r  order  i n the p a i r was l i k e w i s e randomly determined, as was the ' r i g h t ' l e t t e r f o r each p a i r , and the order o f the p a i r s i n the maze.  Any p a i r of l e t t e r s t h a t s p e l l e d a word o r any  meaningful p a r t o f a word was e i t h e r reordered re-paired.  [For example, the l e t t e r s 'W  chosen i n t h a t o r d e r f o r one p a i r .  i n the p a i r o r  and 'E* were randomly  To e l i m i n a t e the p o s s i b l e  memory f i x i n g v a l u e  o f t h a t p a i r , the two l e t t e r s were  reversed  S i m i l a r l y , where the order  i n order.'  of p a i r s or  of ' r i g h t ' responses a f f o r d e d o b v i o u s l y p o s s i b l e memory f i x i n g  19  combinations was  the p a i r s were r e o r d e r e d or a new  'right  response  1  chosen. The  s u b j e c t was. i n s t r u c t e d to choose one  of the  two  l e t t e r s i n each p a i r a f t e r that- p a i r had been presented v e r b a l l y to him.  H i s response was  i f h i s response was Ohe  recorded and he was  then  told  ' r i g h t ' or 'wrong'.  room was used f o r t e s t i n g a l l s u b j e c t s .  This,  room had i t s windowa completely blacked out so t h a t i l l u m i n a t i o n c o u l d be s t r i c t l y c o n t r o l l e d .  The  subject, s a t i n a  s t r a i g h t - b a c k c h a i r at a t a b l e of average h e i g h t .  The  faced a w a l l e n t i r e l y draped w i t h b l a c k c u r t a i n s .  A can,  i n c h e s i n diameter f r o n t of and  and 1$ inches i n h e i g h t , was  j e c t ' s eyes.  The  1$  placed i n  j u s t about f o u r i n c h e s above the t a b l e .  s u b j e c t was. seated, the can was  subject  When the  i n a d i r e c t l i n e to the  can contained a f i f t e e n watt bulb and  suba  small n a i l h o l e of l / l 6 i n c h diameter had been p i e r c e d i n the s u r f a c e of the can d i r e c t l y i n f r o n t of the s u b j e c t . was  oh an e l e c t r i c c i r c u i t  The  bulb  so c o n s t r u c t e d t h a t the b u l b went  on e i t h e r i f both of two  door b e l l buttons were p r e s s e d down  or i f a throw switch was  engaged.  on the experimenter's  The throw switch was l o c a t e d  table,, which was  of s i g h t of the Subject.  The two  d i r e c t l y behind and  out  d o o r - b e l l buttons were  attached to a s m a l l , movable stand on the t a b l e i n f r o n t of the subject so that, the p o s i t i o n o f the buttons c o u l d be changed to s u i t the r e a c h and comfort of the s u b j e c t ' s arms. A few kinds of d o o r b e l l buttons were t r i e d , and the ones  20  f i n a l l y used were s e l e c t e d because they d i d n o t i n v o l v e so much work as t o cause the s u b j e c t t o f a t i g u e r a p i d l y (as judged by p r e l i m i n a r y t e s t s ) .  No s u b j e c t i n the experiment,  when asked i f the buttons, had t i r e d h i s f i n g e r s a p p r e c i a b l y , responded  affirmatively. A c h i n r e s t was so c o n s t r u c t e d t h a t i t could be  moved up and down to accommodate the d i f f e r e n t head h e i g h t s of the s u b j e c t s .  T h i s c h i n r e s t was. p l a c e d on the edge of  the t a b l e d i r e c t l y i n f r o n t of the s u b j e c t .  I t had a s h o r t  s e c t i o n o f 2x1). p r o j e c t i n g from each s i d e a t t a b l e l e v e l f o r the s u b j e c t t o r e s t his. elbows on when h i s hands were on the b ut to ns . The  experimenter's t a b l e was so p l a c e d t h a t the  experimenter'was. n o t v i s i b l e to the s u b j e c t a t any time d u r i n g the experimental  task.  The t a b l e had, b e s i d e s  a s m a l l shaded n i g h t - l i g h t  the throw  (7 watts) On one s i d e , mounted two  inches above the. t a b l e on a p i e c e o f d u l l s u r f a c e d b l a c k board.  switch,  card-  The l i g h t was. f u r t h e r shaded from r e f l e c t i n g -On the  w a l l behind  i t o r towards the s u b j e c t .  The s u r f a c e of the  experimenter's t a b l e was Covered w i t h d u l l - s u r f a c e d b l a c k cardboard  to f u r t h e r l i m i t r e f l e c t i o n  (and i l l u m i n a t i o n o f  the room) . SUBJECTS The students.  s u b j e c t s were e i g h t y - f o u r v o l u n t e e r u n i v e r s i t y  The l a r g e m a j o r i t y were members o f two s e c t i o n s  21  o f the b e g i n n i n g British  psychology course  Columbia.  The  remaining  at the U n i v e r s i t y of  s u b j e c t s were a l l f r o m  a d v a n c e d p s y c h o l o g y .Course i n l e a r n i n g t h e o r y . sophistication of experiment t a s k was  these  s u b j e c t s were r a n d o m l y a s s i g n e d groups  (so t h a t  upon r e p o r t i n g f o r t h e f o r t y female  males n o r  this experimental  the  experiment.  subjects.  the  experimental  n o t be  confounded.  of the  four subjects)  T h e r e were f o r t y - f o u r m a l e ,  one  neither  group.  s e s s i o n e a c h s u b j e c t was the  c o n d i t i o n s upon l e a r n i n g . o f the n a t u r e  the  T h r o u g h random a s s i g n m e n t ,  e x p e r i m e n t was. t e s t i n g  others  to  e a c h g r o u p had- t w e n t y - o n e  females, p r e d o m i n a t e d h e a v i l y i n any After  various  that the  possible  a maze t o be. l e a r n e d .  experimental  that  i s i r r e l e v a n t , to  s i n c e a l l s u b j e c t s were t o l d  The  and  subjects  The  an  differential He  task,  so  was  effects  urged not  t h a t the  told  to  results  of  inform would  PROCEDURE E a c h s u b j e c t was e n t i r e maze. I t was trials,  the  through nine t r i a l s  to. u s e  this  r a t h e r t h a n have e a c h s u b j e c t  criterion, on  decided  'run*  because i t f a c i l i t a t e d  same t r i a l s ,  constant  of  number  the of  l e a r n t h e maze t o a  varying  the  f o r a l l s u b j e c t s i n the  stimulus  "varying  given  situation  stimuli"  group. When t h e maze was  tried  j e c t s , , a l m o s t a l l o f them l e a r n e d  on  a few  t o be  preliminary  a c r i t e r i o n of  subat  22  least  t e n out o f twelve c o r r e c t  Thus i t was c o n s i d e r e d  choices  by the n i n t h  that nine t r i a l s  gave, an a d e q u a t e  s a m p l i n g o f a s u b j e c t ' a , r e s p o n s e s i n t h e maze. number o f t r i a l s the  also  insured  same number o f t o t a l  that  responses f o r the a n a l y s i s  have  o f the  the a n a l y s i s .  f a r as p o s t r e m i t y i s concerned,, a t any r a t e , i t  should p r e d i c t subject  Having a s e t  each subject, would  d a t a , which would g r e a t l y f a c i l i t a t e As  trial.  a s w e l l w i t h t h i s , number o f t r i a l s a s i f t h e  learned  Introduction., to a c r i t e r i o n  to a c r i t e r i o n .  A s was p o i n t e d  out i n the  t h e l a s t , f e w t r i a l s , , when a s u b j e c t o f two o r t h r e e  perfect  trials,  i s learning  are n e c e s s a r i l y  h e a v i l y loaded w i t h c o r r e c t postreme p r e d i c t i o n s because o f the  r e p e t i t i o n o f ' r i g h t ' responses, a v e r y l a r g e  of the time.  No e x p e r i m e n t i s n e e d e d t o t e s t  GROUP I . The The  subject  Typical Learning  postremity  e x p e r i m e n t a l room was n o r m a l l y  illuminated.  was. a s k e d t o s i t down a t t h e t a b l e .  see  f a c i n g the w a l l  there.  Conditions  was f r e e t o move o r change h i s p o s i t i o n w i t h i n Of  percentage  i n f r o n t o f the table  The  subject  the r e s t r i c t i o n s  so. t h a t h e c o u l d n o t  the experimenter.  After t h e s u b j e c t was s e a t e d , t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r r e a d the  following  instructions:  I have a r a t h e r s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d l e a r n i n g t a s k h e r e . I t c o n s i s t s o f p a i r s o f l e t t e r s , s u c h a s 'Z' and 'X' w h i c h w i l l be p r e s e n t e d t o y o u a number o f t i m e s . • F o r e a c h p a i r one o f t h e l e t t e r s i s r i g h t and one i s wrong.  23  Y o u r j o b i s t o l e a r n t h e r i g h t one. I w i l l say each p a i r t o y o u and y o u w i l l t e l l me w h i c h o n e . o f t h e two l e t t e r s you t h i n k i s r i g h t . Now., t h e f i r s t t i m e I p r e s e n t a p a i r t o y o u , y o u w i l l h a v e no i d e a w h i c h one o f t h e l e t t e r s i s right-,, so you m e r e l y guess. I w i l l t h e n t e l l y o u w h e t h e r y o u were r i g h t o r wrong. T h e n t h e n e x t t i m e I s a y t h a t p a i r y o u w i l l t r y and remember w h i c h one w a s . r i g h t , F o r example, i f I s a y "Z, X" and y o u guess- "X" and I s a y "wrong", t h e n t h e . n e x t t i m e I s a y "Z, X" y o u w i l l t r y and s a y "Z". T h e r e a r e t w e l v e p a i r s o f t h e s e l e t t e r s and I w i l l go t h r o u g h and s a y e a c h one t o y o u i n t u r n , f r o m one t o twelve. T h e n I w i l l go b a c k t o t h e b e g i n n i n g and go t h r o u g h t h e l i s t a g a i n , t h e same p a i r s i n t h e same o r d e r . I w i l l do t h i s a g a i n and a g a i n . Y o u w i l l t r y and l e a r n as many o f t h e r i g h t l e t t e r s a s y o u c a n . E v e r y t i m e y o u choose a l e t t e r I w i l l t e l l y o u w h e t h e r y o u were r i g h t o r wrong. T h e r e i s no p a t t e r n o f r i g h t answers,, e i t h e r a c c o r d i n g to the a l p h a b e t o r a c c o r d i n g t o the o r d e r the l e t t e r s , are p r e s e n t e d i n . So d o n ' t b o t h e r t o l o o k f o r a pattern,-, i t w i l l only hinder your learning. T h i s i s j u s t a simple t a s k o f remembering f o r .each p a i r w h i c h one o f t h e l e t ters i s right. Now, t h e l i s t Is., n a t u r a l l y , a l i t t l e . C o n f u s i n g . and d i f f i c u l t so d o n ' t e x p e c t t o l e a r n i t r i g h t away. I t w i l l probably take a l i t t l e , while. Don't be d i s c o u r a g e d because, y o u C a n ' t remember t h e r i g h t a n s w e r s a f t e r o n l y a few t r i a l s . Now, I f y o u ' r e r e a d y w e ' l l s t a r t . Remember., t h e f i r s t time through the l i s t , , you merely guess which l e t t e r o f each i s r i g h t . :  If of  the  j e c t was  'run.!  r e c i t e d by  q u e s t i o n s the p e r t i n e n t , p a r t  1  e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k was  then s t a r t e d  t h r o u g h t h e maze n i n e times..  t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r and  "wrong" a f t e r - h i s  sible was  any  t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s were r e a d a g a i n . The  or  s u b j e c t had  response.  t h e n e x t p a i r was  and  the  Each p a i r  was  t h e s u b j e c t was With  as. l i t t l e  told  made t o k e e p i m p l i c i t  practice  t w e l f t h p a i r had b e e n p r e s e n t e d and  "right"  pause as  t h e n p r e s e n t e d . I n t h i s way  an  a t a minimum.. A f t e r responded  sub-  posattempt the  to f o r the  24  first  time  informed  ( t h e end  of the  t h a t t h a t was  again with sequently  the  first  after  the  pair.,  :  each t r i a l  maze) t h e r e was-  a ten  order  t o keep t h i s  other  g r o u p s had  blocks  a short rest.  through the T h i s was  to rest  the  so  seated  t h a t the  chin rest  entire  since  a t the  t a b l e and  subject f e l t  the  the  subject's  w i t h h i s m i d d l e f i n g e r s . I t was that  the  light  i n the  he  depressed  pointed  the  chin  comfortable.  moved c l o s e r o r f u r t h e r away t o a l l o w while  the  Situation  small  comfortably  the  fingers  the  hands to r e s t  in  buttons.  t h e n i n s t r u c t e d t o p u t h i s e l b o w s on  the  over  Sub-  introduced  i n a l l groups^  door-bell  was.  starting  a p p a r a t u s and  and  of  'run'  pause i n o r d e r  s u b j e c t was  adjusted  s u b j e c t was  before  t h e r e w o u l d be (one  subject,  R i g i d C o n t r o l of the Learning  The re.st was  the  pair,, but  constant  s u b j e c t s used to p r e s s the  GROUP I I .  last  trial),  second pause.  rest  the  first  out  side  stand  c a n went on when b o t h b u t t o n s  was  arms  the  to the  The  buttons  subject were,  depressed. The out,  l e a v i n g o n l y the  table burning. total the  overhead l i g h t s  darkness.  i n the  room were t h e n  shaded n i g h t - l i g h t  turned  on  the  experimenter<s  E x c e p t f o r the n i g h t - l i g h t ,  the  room was  ".Further, when t h e  s u b j e c t was  looking  small p i n - p r i c k of l i g h t w h i c h i s s u e d from the  depressed both buttons  (or- t h e  on h i s t a b l e ) he  probably  could  can  experimenter c l o s e d the see n o t h i n g  in at  as  he  switch  else at a l l .  This  2  e f f e c t was r e p o r t e d b y a l l o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y s u b j e c t s - . A p r e l i m i n a r y task, designed initial  t e n s i o n , , - . c u r i o s i t y and e x c i t e m e n t  was giv.en. It  t o remove some o f t h e of the subjects,  T h i s t a s k was e x p l a i n e d a s a r e a c t i o n - t i m e  c o n s i s t e d o f a s e r i e s o f numbers p r e s e n t e d  subject.  The s u b j e c t was a s k e d  first  verbally  to the  t o keep the l e f t  button  p r e s s e d , down and u p o n h e a r i n g t h e number ' f o u r the r i g h t b u t t o n read  down a l s o .  an i n t e r v a l of  off with  A list  number ' f o u r ' o c c u r r e d f i v e  The  s u b j e c t was t h e n  press the l e f t button A  similar l i s t The  of  the i n i t i a l  told  1  to-press  o f e i g h t e e n numbers was  o n e - h a l f second  The  times  between  each.  a t random i n t h e l i s t .  to. k e e p t h e r i g h t b u t t o n  down and  a l s o when t h e number ' f o u r ' was  heard.  1  o f numbers was t h e n  read..  p r e l i m i n a r y t a s k should have r e l i e v e d tension,, c u r i o s i t y  study.  and e x c i t e m e n t  some  of the  subject,, as w e l l as a c q u a i n t e d h i m w i t h t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l apparatus,  including  t h e l i g h t w h i c h was t u r n e d  on e v e r y  t i m e he responded, c o r r e c t l y t o t h e s t i m u l u s number. the  t a s k was c o m p l e t e d ,  After  t h e s u b j e c t was t o l d he h a d done  q u i t e w e l l on i t and was r e a s s u r e d t h a t he w o u l d p r o b a b l y do q u i t e w e l l i n the- o t h e r h a l f The fingers these  onto  s u b j e c t was t h e n  the buttons  f i n g e r s , when t o l d The  fortable .  of the  experiment.  asked  a n d t o p r e s s , down t h e b u t t o n s t o , f o r the next  s u b j e c t was t h e n a s k e d  He was u r g e d  to s h i f t h i s index with  task.  i f he was s t i l l  to take a comfortable  com-  p o s i t i o n , and  ^  to  pla.ce h i s f e e t  on t h e f l o o r  i n s u c h a manner t h a t h e  c o u l d k e e p them' tiiere f o r a b o u t f i v e m i n u t e s , w i t h o u t ' moving.;  He was. t o l d  that- d u r i n g  as.  little  as p o s s i b l e .  be  difficult  since  the next  He was r e a s s u r e d t h a t  the t a s k would  minutes, ( t h e a c t u a l a v e r a g e The  t a s k he s h o u l d move h i s b o d y this, would n o t  take o n l y about  five,  t i m e was C l o s e t o s e v e n m i n u t e s ) .  i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o Group I were read,,  with the following  addition:  One more t h i n g ; when I s a y " p r e s s down" p l e a s e p r e s s down b o t h k e y s and k e e p them down u n t i l I t e l l you t o r e s t y o u r f i n g e r s . D u r i n g t h i s time p l e a s e l o o k a t t h e l i g h t and t r y n o t t o move y o u r h e a d . A t the end o f e a c h t i m e we go t h r o u g h t h e t w e l v e p a i r s y o u w i l l be g i v e n a c h a n c e t o r e s t y o u r f i n g e r s . OK? T h e n p r e s s down. The maze was p r e s e n t e d i n t h e manner . o u t l i n e d for  Group I .  looked  The s u b j e c t k e p t t h e b u t t o n s , p r e s s e d down and  a t the l i g h t  c o n t i n u o u s l y throughout each t r i a l ,  r e s t e d h i s f i n g e r s , d u r i n g t h e t e n s e c o n d pause After had  t h e s e s s i o n was c o m p l e t e d  felt  any f a t i g u e  No s u b j e c t r e p o r t e d GROUP I I I . The (Including 9. to the  e a c h s u b j e c t was a s k e d  any such f e e l i n g s  I f he  of fatigue.  S y s t e m a t i c Changes i n C o n d i t i o n s p r o c e d u r e was i d e n t i c a l  to that  o f Group I I  except f o r t r i a l s  of each of these t r i a l s  ("face the w a l l  to your l e f t " )  3,  6,  t h e s u b j e c t was  s t a n d u p , p l a c e h i s h a n d s o n h i s hips., f a c e 90 left  trials'.  i n h i s f i n g e r s d u r i n g the experiment.  the preliminary task),  A t the s t a r t  between  and  and told  degree's t o  of h i s o r i g i n a l  27  p o s i t i o n and t u r n h i s h e a d b a c k and l o o k The  light  was t u r n e d  throw s w i t c h  on d u r i n g  a t t h e same  t h e s e t r i a l s b y means o f t h e  on t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ' s t a b l e .  The t r i a l s  c o n d u c t e d a s u s u a l , , e x c e p t f o r t h e change o f body T r i a l s . 1 , 2 , . 1±,  light.  were  posture.  and 8 were r u n e x a c t l y a s t h o s e f o r  7,  Group I I .  GROUP i y .  Rigid  Control Plus  Increased  Accuracy of  R e c o r d i n g Last-Made Responses Voeks to  the stimulus  recorded  (8,p.5>06)  pattern  clearly  of a choice  response i s l i k e l y  s t a t e s that,, i f t h e r e s p o n s e point  Is qorrect,  t o be t h e l a s t - m a d e r e s p o n s e . B u t  if  t h e r e s p o n s e i s i n c o r r e c t , t h e n , when t h e s u b j e c t  of  this,  this  information  will  added r e s p o n s e s ( s u b - v o c a l l y o f the, s t i m u l i p r e s e n t  often  i n the present  at that  choice  e x p e r i m e n t ) t o many  point.  Therefore,  order  g r o u p was t r e a t e d  to.- remove t h i s  difficulty,  response. res-^  response by t h e subject,, t h e c h o i c e r e p e a t e d , , and t h e s u b j e c t s u b j e c t s , were i n f o r m e d were p r e p a r e d  the f o u r t h  i n t h e same manner a s t h e s e c o n d  g r o u p w i t h one added p r o c e d u r e .  subject  the  incorrect. In  No  other  make p r e d i c t i o n s b a s e d u p o n t h e l a s t - r e c o r d e d  ponse o f t e n  control)  i s informed  c a u s e h i m t o make  last-made response i s o f t e n n o t the l a s t - r e c o r d e d This w i l l  the l a s t -  A f t e r each  p o i n t was  gave t h e ' r i g h t '  (rigid 'wrong  1  immediately  response.  The  ahead o f t i m e t h i s w o u l d h a p p e n and  t o c o r r e c t t h e i r r e s p o n s e s when t h i s  in- t h i s group f a i l e d  to correct himself  happened. immediately  28  lie was. t o l d  "wrong" and t h e p a i r o f l e t t e r s was I n t h i s way t h e l a s t - m a d e r e s p o n s e  1  right  1  response  by Voeks*  It group w i l l  'right*  o f the f a c t  that  (according to Voeks),  show b e t t e r p o s t r e m i t y  o f t h i s group i n r e l a t i o n  evaluated with  this  accurate  standards.  t h i s group should  be  was a l w a y s t h e  and t h e r e c o r d i n g c a n he c o n s i d e r e d  In spite  results  repeated.  predictions> the  t o the other groups  caution-.  i s obvious  that the postremity predictions i n  always c o i n c i d e w i t h a p r e d i c t i o n  response.  should  I t i s a l s o obvious  o f the  t h a t t h i s group i s  g e t t i n g more p r a c t i c e - on t h e maze and t h a t anyone w o u l d that, t h e y w o u l d make a l a r g e r number o f ' r i g h t than  the o t h e r groups.  But  the repeated  * right*  responses  i t c o u l d a l s o be e x p l a i n e d  other  concept's,  evidence  and t h u s  i n the other groups  just  could.  and p r e d i c t e d b y a number o f  c o u l d h a r d l y be l o o k e d u p o n as  t u r n i n g t o the r e s u l t s  o f the experiment,  d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e r a t i o n a l e u n d e r l y i n g the. s t i m u l u s  controls u t i l i z e d To stimuli  operating*  f o r postremity. Before  a brief  responses,  The i n c i d e n c e o f more c o r r e c t r e s -  p o n s e s in' G r o u p I V c o u l d be due t o p o s t r e m i t y as  1  expect  i n this  attempt  is a difficult  t o do t h i s w i t h  experiment  to control task.  i s i n order.  internal  arid p r o p r i o c e p t i v e  I t i s . p r o b a b l y now  any h i g h d e g r e e o f a c c u r a c y  impossible  without  29  Incapacitating be  of l i t t l e  the. o r g a n i s m  use  The  u s e d b e c a u s e V o e k s had o r t h e y were f e l t  a l w a y s be way> and  that  mentioned  t o be  that  this  pressing  the  b e t w e e n i t and  type of gross  theory.  f o r the In the  that, t h e  c o n t r o l g r o u p , so  the  fatigue.  even though the  However, i t was match the  as  between I I and  felt  control, i t  lack  present  any  that  case.* f o r  the  of p r o p r i o c e p t i v e theorizing  the  stimulus  eliminated.  any  to  such e f f e c t s  pronounced  extreme i n  show, t h e  This  failed  e f f e c t s of  postural  stimulus,  II,  and  stability  s t i m u l i t h a t i f Voeks i s c o r r e c t i n  r e s u l t s should  from  differences  d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n G r o u p s I and so  her  these  dif-  ferences. One (designed included  mqre p o i n t , h e r e ;  to lessen In  the  the  third  the  changing o f  as w e l l  as  the  can  of r e s u l t s i n  subjects  e f f e c t s of  I I I were c o n s i d e r e d  important  theory.  changes. I n G r o u p I I I i n p r o d u c i n g w i d e l y d i f f e r e n t The  pat-  e f f e c t s of fatigue  that  be  good enough i n some  'change' g r o u p s w o u l d be  would p r o b a b l y not  situations.  can  e x p e r i m e n t were  of her  c o n t r o l was. n o t  claimed  certainly possible,  report  spirit'  i s responsible  be  present  t h e b u t t o n s p r o d u c e d marked changes, i n t h e  situation.of  is  ' i n the  the  accordance with a given examplei> i t c o u l d  A l l that  them s p e c i f i c a l l y  course, w i t h t h i s  claimed  this.  to i n d u c e g r o s s changes i n s t i m u l u s  m e t h o d s employed i n t h e  Of  t h a t h i s b e h a v i o r would  i n experiments, such as  done I s t o a t t e m p t terns.  so b a d l y  preliminary  task  internal stimuli) second group  was.  (where i t -  m i g h t a p p e a r t h a t i t s h o u l d n o t be i n c l u d e d , i n . o r d e r t o v a r y the  s t i m u l i p a t t e r n ) because  a d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two  g r o u p s c o u l d e a s i l y be e x p l a i n e d away b y warm-up the t h i r d  group- was. n o t a d m i n i s t e r e d  difference  Could  be e a s i l y  the p o s t r e m i t y h y p o t h e s i s . to equate  the groups  changes  t h e t a s k . Thus t h e  e x p l a i n e d without- r e f e r e n c e t o I t was c o n s i d e r e d more a d v i s a b l e  i n a l l . other r e s p e c t s , besides the  a c t u a l p o s t u r a l changes postural  effects i f  introduced.  The e f f e c t s  o f these  t h e n c a n be assumed t o be t h e f a c t o r  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a n y d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e two g r o u p s .  CHAPTER I I I  THE  The statistical  present  chapter  i s entirely  devoted  of the r e s u l t s  i s the subject matter of the  chapter. .For t h e c o m p a r i s o n b e t w e e n t h e f q u r  groups,  the responses  These were t h e t r i a l s prioceptive  on t r i a l s  3*  6,  experimental  and 9 were  i n which systematic  analysed.  variation  s h o u l d b e more e v i d e n t b y a n a l y s i n g o n l y t h e s e  to  eight t r i a l s  predict  (the- f i r s t  they  three  t r i a l h a s no p r e v i o u s  If  trials  responses  from). For  s c o r i n g , a response  postremity prediction on t h e l a s t the  of pro-  s t i m u l a t i o n was. i n t r o d u c e d f o r G r o u p I I I .  d i f f e r e n c e s d i d r e s u l t because o f this, v a r i a t i o n ,  than  to the  a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a . The d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e  implications next  DATA AND- THEIR TREATMENT  was c o u n t e d  as a c o r r e c t  i f i t was t h e same r e s p o n s e  t r i a l a t t h e same c h o i c e p o i n t .  a s was  given  For instance, I f  s u b j e c t h a d c h o s e n , o n t r i a l 5>, "N" a t t h e c h o i c e P o i n t  "N, J " , t h e n  a response  p o i n t was c o u n t e d For were t o t a l l e d  as a c o r r e c t p o s t r e m i t y  Choice  prediction.  e a c h s u b j e c t t h e number o f c o r r e c t p r e d i c t i o n s  f o r each o f the t h r e e c r i t i c a l  In order efficiency  o f "N" on t r i a l s i x at- t h e same  trials.  t o d e r i v e i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e r e l a t i v e  o f the p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t i o n s n o t o n l y between t h e "  groups  (methods) b u t a l s o between t h e  i n f o r m a t i o n about the i n t e r a c t i o n  t h r e e t r i a l s , , and  of these  two>  a p p l i c a t i o n o f a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e d e s c r i b e d by (l,.p.288)i was classified another. present on  i n one  T h i s technique  direction  T h i s gave t w e l v e experiment.  trials  columns.  used.  3>  6 and  For  and  separate  table, o f a n a l y s i s .  trials.  The  of  of  be  methods i n i n the scores,  appropriate,  scores In  the  creates a correlation  method g r o u p .  To- a l l o w f o r  of  mean s q u a r e ,  methods i n t e r a c t i o n  this  e r r o r term, i s us.ed f o r the e v a l u a t i o n t h a t u s e d f o r between  e r r o r term used f o r the  scores Into account,  and  three  b e t w e e n methods t h a n  special  between t r i a l  to  groups,, b u t not. b e t w e e n m e t h o d s , where  a different  t h e mean s q u a r e s  trials  subgroups of data,  each s u b j e c t has  e a c h s u b j e c t e n t e r s o n l y one  of  Edwards  s e p a r a t e l y i n the  T h i s , of course,  s c o r e s between t r i a l  experimental  special  e a c h method t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s  9 are entered  I n t h i s way  correlation,  the  allows, t h e  a  also-  designed  to take  evaluation of the. c o r r e l a t i o n  i s a l s o used to evaluate ( a l s o i n f l u e n c e d by  the:  the  the  trials  correlation  scores); Since  sible used  scores>  the  the  s c o r e s were p r o p o r t i o n s o f t o t a l  inverse sine or angular  transformation  (i|.,p.l4lf9), i n an a t t e m p t t o o b t a i n h o m o g e n e i t y  v a r i a n c e s and  n o r m a l i t y of the  Bartletf's test run f o r the twelve  poswas.  of  data.  of homogeneity of v a r i a n c e s  s u b g r o u p s on t h e  transformed  scores.  was  33  The o b t a i n e d  c h i square  of  9.895 was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e  .05 l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e where t h e c r i t i c a l v a l u e i s 19.675 for  eleven degrees o f freedom.  therefore,  be  assumed.  The r e s u l t s sented  i n Table  b e t w e e n methods Is  H o m o g e n e i t y o f v a r i a n c e s may,  I.  o f the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e are pre-  The o b t a i n e d P r a t i o  f o r differences  (Groups I , I I , I I I , and I V i n the. e x p e r i m e n t ) ,  4..6.4, w h i c h i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .0% l e v e l , o f c o n f i d e n c e .  The o b t a i n e d P r a t i o significant ratio  f o r d i f f e r e n c e s between t r i a l s ,  a t t h e .01  level  f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n  significant  of confidence.  of t r i a l s  a t t h e .05 l e v e l  71*9l|, i s  The o b t a i n e d P  and methods, was n o t  of confidence.  I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e where  t h e d i f f e r e n c e s were  b e t w e e n Groups I , I I , I I I , arid I V , t h e f o r m u i a ' : f o r t h e critical  d i f f e r e n c e was u s e d :  V  2 mean s q u a r e  The o b t a i n e d level  of confidence  within  v a l u e f o r d was 5*71  and 7~'57  a t the .01  level.  a t t h e .05 Table I I  shows t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e means o f t h e f o u r g r o u p s . These means a r e f o r s t o r e s on t h e t h r e e As T a b l e  I I indicates,  the s i g n i f i c a n t  trials  combined.  d i f f e r e n c e s between  t h e means a r e b e t w e e n G r o u p TV and e a c h o f t h e o t h e r groups i n t u r n . of  three  S i n c e G r o u p IV h a s a l a r g e r mean t h a n any  t h e o t h e r groups,, i t c a n be c o n c l u d e d  t h a t Group I V h a d  TABLE I RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF THE NUMBER OF CORRECTLY PREDICTED RESPONSES ON TRIALS 3 , 6 , AND 9  Source o f V a r i a t i o n  Sums of Squares  Between Methods  3604.78  3  1201.59  Between S u b j e c t s i n the same Group  20717.38  80  258.97  Between  11367.97  2  5683.98  63.95*  895.35  6  149.23  1.68  Interaction: Pooled Subjects C T r i a l s  14221.10  160  Total  50806.58  251  Trials  Interaction: T r i a l s X Methods  Degrees of Freedom  Mean Squares  * S i g n i f i c a n t a t the . 0 1 l e v e l o f confidence  F  4.64*  TABLE  II  D I F F E R E N C E S BETWEEN T H E MEANS OF THE. FOUR GROUPS 1  Mean  I  I  II  III  .98  2.20 .1.22  II  IV  .  7,^9* 8,47"  9.69  III  algriifleant  a t . 0f>  significant  a t .01  level level  of confidence of confidence  The means and t h e c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e were b o t h comp u t e d from, t r a n s f o r m e d s c o r e s . The d i f f e r e n c e s r e p o r t e d i n t h i s t a b l e s h o u l d h o t be i n t e r p r e t e d a s p e r c e n t a g e s . T r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f these d i f f e r e n c e s back i n t o percentages w o u l d have- g i v e n m e a n i n g l e s s , r e s u l t s , due t o t h e n a t u r e o f the o r i g i n a l t r a n s f o r m a t i o n .  a  s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r number o f c o r r e c t p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t i o n s  than  each o f the other  three groups.  I t c a n a l s o be  that  t h e G r o u p s I , I I , and I I I do n o t d i f f e r  significantly i n  t h e number o f c o r r e c t p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t i o n s . action  e f f e c t was f o u n d  cluded  t h a t these  significant,  total  S i n c e no  inter-  i t can f u r t h e r be c o n -  d i f f e r e n c e s and l a c k o f d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e  s i m i l a r f o r e a c h o f the. t h r e e t r i a l s the  concluded  of t h e three  analysed,  as w e l l as f o r  trials.  When t h e mean s c o r e s  (expressed  i n the inverse  s i n e f o r m w h i c h was u s e d f o r t h e a n a l y s i s . ) a r e c o n v e r t e d to  percentages  Group I , 79,3 76.2  the. mean p e r c e n t a g e s  f o r t h e - f o u r groups a r e :  p e r c e n t ; G r o u p I I 77.9  p e r c e n t ; Group I I I ,  p e r c e n t ; G r o u p I V , 88.8  centages  of responses  To 3,  6,  per cent.  on t r i a l s  were c o r r e c t l y p r e d i c t e d b y  trials  back  3,  6,  These a r e t h e p e r -  and 9 combined  that  postremity.  d e t e r m i n e where t h e d i f f e r e n c e s were b e t w e e n  and 9,  the c r i t i c a l  d i f f e r e n c e formula,, used  above,, was n o t a p p l i c a b l e b e c a u s e o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n o f scores between t h e t h r e e t r i a l s . were r u n , u s i n g t h e f o r m u l a  The 6 was 9.53  obtained  Instead  f o r paired  separate  t-tests  cases:  t f o r the comparison o f t r i a l s  w h i c h was s i g n i f i c a n t  a t t h e .001  3 and  level, o f confidence  37  where t h e  required  t for  83 d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m i s . 3«J|2.  Since  trial  6 had  trial  6 had  s i g n i f i c a n t l y more c o r r e c t p o s t r e m i t y 3«  than t r i a l  the  l a r g e r mean s c o r e ,  I n the  Here the  obtained  r e l a t i o n to  the  of confidence.  t value  required Since  s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher  9 was  same manner t r i a l  l a r g e r number o f c o r r e c t p o s t r e m i t y o f 10.57 t value  scores t h a n -on  on  i t follows  also  .001  at the  6 were, f o u n d  trial 3,  and  to  trial  6,  n e e d e d t o a s c e r t a i n that, s c o r e s  trial  9 were a l s o  f i c a n t l y l a r g e r t h a n t h o s e on number o f  correct postremity 3  cantly from t r i a l number on  to t r i a l  trial  3«  90.9  68.6  per  per  dent; t r i a l  it  not  signithe  signifilargest  are  converted back to  6,.  80.5  three per  trials  cent;  per-  are:  trial  9,  cent. Again,  was  was  words,  9,with the  9  9.  trial  c e n t a g e s t h e mean p e r c e n t a g e s f o r t h e 3»  In other  to t r i a l  When t h e mean s c o r e s  trial  t-test  predictions increased 6  be  trial  s i g n i f i c a n t l y l a r g e r t h a n t h o s e on on  in  level  scores, on no  a 6.  than t r i a l  significant  o f 3 • ^4-2  trial  predictions  found to have  predictions was  that  found  c a n be  t o be  since  e a c h method as w e l l as  e x p e r i m e n t a l and  Interaction of t r i a l s  significant  concluded that  One  the  i n the  a n a l y s i s of  t h e s e r e s u l t s were  and  variance,  similar for  f o r a l l t h e methods, t o t a l l e d .  more a n a l y s i s o f d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n Control  to w h i c h each s u b j e c t  methods  g r o u p s was  "learned"  was  c a r r i e d out.  The  the level  determined by t o t a l i n g  38  t h e number o f A  ' r i g h t ' responses  single c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  after  a l l s c o r e s had  inverse  sine  w h i c h was  on  (9th)  the l a s t  a n a l y s i s , o f v a r i a n c e was.  been converted  transformation.  s i g n i f i c a n t at  The .0$  the  obtained P level  the  between t h e g r o u p s were f o u n d  G r o u p TV, on  the  on  t h e one  other.  concluded  difference  h a n d , and  S i n c e G r o u p IV h a d  that  t h i s g r o u p had  nine  triala,  are  responses for  the  predicted  N  The dictions with remains.  predictions,  as q u o t e d  predictions.  t h e two  figures the  of the  I t c a n be  of  Similar  per  of  i n a l l the they  controlled  exactly  results  per  centj  pre-  response  of c o r r e c t  I n G r o u p IV  principles predict  the  cent.  percentages  t h e g r o u p was  higher  cent of I t s  'right?"  seen t h a t  similar.  same, s i n c e  the  was  postremity  Group I I , . 72  G r o u p IV,. 83.2  a b o v e , and  are very  t h a t made t h e two cases.  per  I I I g i v e s the percentages,  'right?  necessarily  eight  e f f i c i e n c y of  postremity.  predictions  groups  B.)  problem of the r e l a t i o n of p o s t r e m i t y  simple  Table  other three  the l a s t  t o h a v e 73  c o r r e c t l y by  p e r C e n t ; and  between  (Tables i n Appendix  o t h e r g r o u p s were as f o l l o w s :  G r o u p I I I , 71  t o be  and  a h i g h e r mean s c o r e , i t  responses., on  p r e d i c t i o n s , - Group I i s found  Used  1  examined f o r t h e  3.85, (required  " l e a r n e d * t h e maze t o a  c r i t e r i o n -of ' r i g h t ' r e s p o n s e s . When a l l t h e  f o r m u l a was  each of the  the  r a t i o was  of confidence  The  differences  computed  t o angles, t h r o u g h  v a l u e = 2.72).  critical  trial.  the  postremity correct groups are in a  way  same i n a l l  I  39  TABLE I I I  PERCENTAGES OF CORRECT PREDICTIONS BY POSTREMITY AND THE PERCENTAGE OF 'RIGHT* RESPONSES FOR EACH OF THE FOUR GROUPS  Group  I  II  III  Postremity  73  72  71  83  75  73  72  83  'Right-'  IV  In the other  t h r e e g r o u p s , when a product-moment  c o r r e l a t i o n was computed between t h e number o f ' r i g h t ' d i c t i o n s , and p o s t r e m i t y obtained  r was.  interdependence the  efficiency  varied  .80.  p r e d i c t i o n s f o r a l l 63  a necessary  o f t h e two p r e d i c t o r s , i t d o e s i n d i c a t e , that, o f t h e two p r e d i c t o r s , i n a l a r g e measure,,  t o g e t h e r between s u b j e c t s . III.again*  i t appears  that  e a c h o f t h e t h r e e g r o u p s where t h e two p r e d i c t o r s a r e n o t  n e c e s s a r i l y equal  i nefficiency,  s l i g h t l y b e t t e r than available  postremity  'right*  sidering ferently. obtained  p r e d i c t i o n s were  predictions.  The o n l y way  t o analyse whether there is. a s i g n i f i c a n t , d i f f e r e n c e  b e t w e e n t h e two was t o ' s e p a r a t e '  in  subjects the  Though this- does n o t i m p l y  R e f e r r i n g back t o Table in  pre-  t h e two p r e d i c t o r s b y c o n -  o n l y those- r e s p o n s e s - f o r w h i c h t h e y p r e d i c t e d I n doing  t h i s , , e v e n more i m p o r t a n t  i n terms o f t h e h y p o t h e s e s o f t h i s  t h i s way,, t h e r e s u l t s  of postremity  results are  experiment. F o r ,  p r e d i c t i o n s c a n be  e v a l u a t e d , when t h e p r e d i c t i o n s do n o t c o i n c i d e w i t h dictions o f the 'right'  response.  G r o u p s I , I I * and I I I , a t o t a l where t h e two p r i n c i p l e s ponse  F o r t h e 63  o f 1886  disagreed  responses  Of t h i s t o t a l correctly,  less  pre-  subjects In  responses  were  recorded  as - t o t h e p r e d i c t e d r e s -  ( o u t o f a t o t a l number o f r e s p o n s e s ,  o f 6048).  dif-  after  trial  1,  (1886)> p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t e d 917 than h a l f .  ('Right'  predicted  969 responses i s no. b e t t e r  correctly.) a predictor  It  So,, i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t p o s t r e m i t y than chance,  i s important to note  here.  that  d i s a g r e e d o n l y when t h e p o s t r e m e r e s p o n s e previous t r i a l ) predict  was 'wrong'.  In this  other predictor.  case, p o s t r e m i t y would and w o u l d  predictions  dis-  r e s p o n s e made b y t h e  I t f o l l o w s that, when p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t e d  'wrong' r e s p o n s e s i t o p e r a t e d no b e t t e r  Therefore,  .repeated  (on the j u s t  a r e p e t i t i o n o f t h e 'wrong' r e s p o n s e  agree w i t h the p r e d i c t i o n o f a ' r i g h t '  repeated  t h e two p r e d i c t o r s  than  chance.  t h e s i g n i f i c a n t l y above-chance n a t u r e o f p o s t r e m i t y i n this  'right'  e x p e r i m e n t must  responses.  Come f r o m p r e d i c t i o n s o f  CHAPTER IV  CONSIDERATION  OP THE RESULTS IN RELATION  TO THE HYPOTHESES TESTED"  DISCUSSION Before results, test:  starting a discussion  I t is. worthwhile to r e - s t a t e  1.  Postremity w i l l  stimuli are•held  systematically  varied  an even b e t t e r  situation, accurate  are  or l e f t  c o n s t a n t t h a n where t h e y a r e  t o c h a n c e v a r i a t i o n , and  p r e d i c t o r where,, adde.d t o a s t a b l e  the recording  than u s u a l .  chance p r e d i c t o r  the hypotheses, u n d e r  be a b e t t e r p r e d i c t o r where t h e  proprioceptive  be  of the obtained  2.  Postremity w i l l  (possibly excluding and w i l l  be a  above-chance p r e d i c t i o n s w i l l  predict better  of  the a n a l y s i s  are  pertinent.  than a  postremity's  n o t be e n t i r e l y d e p e n d e n t u p o n  r e l a t i o n t o the f i r s t  hypothesis,  the results,  o f d i f f e r e n c e s between the e x p e r i m e n t a l The o n l y  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s found  b e t w e e n G r o u p IV and e a c h o f t h e o t h e r t h r e e  relatively  stimuli  'right'responses. In  group  better-than-  t h e g r o u p where  simple p r e d i c t i o n o f the ' r i g h t ' response; a l s o ,  the  stimulus  o f ' l a s t - m a d e ' r e s p o n s e s i s more  systematically varied),  repeated  will  ( I I ) where t h e p r o p r i o c e p t i v e constant  showed no b e t t e r  groups.  s t i m u l i were  postremi"cy  groups were  Thus held  predictions  than the varied  group  or the  variations. postremity these  ( I I I ) where t h e (1)  group  s t i m u l i were  where t h e  systematically  s t i m u l i were l e f t  to  This, w o u l d a p p e a r t o he. e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t hypothesis,  which would p r e d i c t d i f f e r e n c e s between  m a j o r q u a l i f i c a t i o n h e r e w o u l d be  c l u s i o n depends upon the  assumption that  that  degrees of  stimulus  situation stability,  I n t e r m s o f Voeks,' t h e o r i z i n g , t h i s a s s u m p t i o n . No fulfilled  present  assumption  hypothesized  e x p e r i m e n t by  course.  i s to attempt  theory.  pattern  of  V o e k s h e r s e l f has  the  There can  subjects  stated  only  course  to c o n t r o l advocate  T h i s , was  be  of  that  variability.  Thus t h e  trols  i n Group I can  the u s u a l  the  a l s o be  correct,  t o have had  question  t h a t remains i s whether the  to  only  logithe  proprio-  stimulus, group.  controls  l i k e l i h o o d of  group submitted  varying  doubt t h a t  varying  the  controls  changes i n the  i n the  the  done i n  the. same  little  left  the  o t h e r s , w h i c h seem t o f o l l o w  experiments create  applied  the  important.  methods employed p r o d u c e d p r o n o u n c e d  learning  The  e m p l o y i n g many o f  U s e d by V o e k s h e r s e l f , and  ceptive  described.  adequate t e s t of whether t h i s  i s possible,, of  c a l l y from her  differing  relatively  s i t u a t i o n i n t h e manner t h a t  p r i n c i p l e has  employed  i n t h e ways  seems t o be  con-  a  open f o r t e s t i n g p o s t r e m i t y stimulus  this  the methods  i n d e a l i n g w i t h the.s.e g r o u p s a c t u a l l y d i d r e s u l t i n  was  the  groups. The  safe  chance  employed  in  stimulus the  loose  con-  assumed,. I f V o e k s i s  proprioceptive  stimuli.  g r o u p t h a t was.  The rigidly  c o n t r o l l e d had s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s u a t i o n than possible. case.  these  o t h e r tw.o g r o u p s .  No d e f i n i t e  I t c a n o n l y be s t a t e d t h a t t h i s  I f the r e s u l t s  upon the r e a s o n i n g be  changes i n s t i m u l u s  necessary  p r o b a b l y was t h e  t h a t t h i s , was n o t t h e c a s e ,  then  to r e s t a t e the c o n d i t i o n s under which  As now supported  answer i s  o f t h i s , e x p e r i m e n t a r e t o be  can be c o n s i d e r e d t o remain  The  discounted i t would stimuli  constant.  s t a t e d , the p r i n c i p l e  i n i t s theoretical  sit-  o f p o s t r e m i t y was n o t  aspects by t h i s  question o f the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  experiment. o f the obtained  h i g h e r r a t e o f p r e d i c t i o n s f o r the f o u r t h group remains. this  g r o u p t h e c o n d i t i o n s were so. m a n i p u l a t e d  r e m i t y p r e d i c t i o n was a l w a y s t h e ' r i g h t ' way more a c c u r a t e assured,  i n Voeks'  that the post-  response.  sense. t h a t more o f t h e p r a c t i c a l  p r e d i c t i o n s w o u l d be c o r r e c t t h a n where t h e r e c o r d -  i n g was l e s s  accurate.  However, a s was p o i n t e d o u t i n C h a p t e r  IX,  the p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t i o n s f o r t h i s group w i l l  the  'right'  response  In this  r e c o r d i n g o f l a s t - m a d e r e s p o n s e s , was  Thus, she w o u l d p r e d i c t postremity  In  was  response*, 'right'.  s i n c e i t was Also, with  assured  a l w a y s be  t h a t the postreme  the a d d i t i o n a l p r a c t i c e  this  g r o u p h a d o n t h e maze, a l m o s t  this  g r o u p w o u l d be m a k i n g a l a r g e r number o f ' r i g h t '  responses  than  t h e o t h e r groups..  responses  in  this  group than  anyone w o u l d p r e d i c t  that  The i n c i d e n c e o f more  i n the other groups Could  'right'  that  be e x p l a i n e d b y  postremity but  ( s i n c e the postreme response  t h e g r e a t e r number o f r e p e a t e d  postremity'a high predictive due  t o more  rate)  was a l w a y s  responses  'right'),-  (and thus  c o u l d a l s o be e x p l a i n e d as.  practice.  As  a result,  the obtained  d i f f e r e n c e s between Group  IV and t h e o t h e r g r o u p s c a n h a r d l y h e l d t o be e v i d e n c e helps  support The  postremity,  the postremity  between the f i r s t  f o r the t h e o r e t i c a l aspect of  of the hypothesized' d i f f e r e n c e s  three groups, coupled  ness o f the obtained groups,  principle.  l a c k o f support  i n t h e absence  which  with  the i n c o n c l u s i v e -  d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n Group I V and t h e o t h e r  c a s t s a good d e a l o f d o u b t u p o n t h e t h e o r e t i c a l  ation of postremity.  The f a c t  that postremity  p r e d i c t o r o f a h i g h order,, however, In the present rectly  a h i g h percentage  groups  employed.  significantly  The p r e d i c t i v e  above c h a n c e .  i s a practical  remains.  experiment p o s t r e m i t y o f the time  found-  predicted cor-  f o r e a c h one o f t h e f o u r  ability  i n each group  These r e s u l t s  was  agree w i t h those o f  Voeks. Five that  results  support  the s u s p i c i o n , d i s c u s s e d  c o r r e c t p r e d i c t i o n s by p o s t r e m i t y  depend  earlier,  somehow o n  'right'  responses.. 1. ful 9  The o b t a i n e d  r e s u l t s which i n d i c a t e  predictions increased s i g n i f i c a n t l y  agrees  that  from t r i a l s  success-  3 to 6 to  w i t h Waters.' and R e i t z ' a f i n d i n g s t h a t s u c c e s s f u l  p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t i o n s i n c r e a s e as ' r i g h t '  responses, a r e  46  increased. 2. that  Also  p o s t r e m i t y was  which "learned" 'right*  tested  a better  the  maze t o  predictor the h i g h e s t  The  i s not  second p a r t  u p h e l d by  of  the  t h o u g h no much o f  better.,  (IV)  (gave more  the  second h y p o t h e s i s  point  maze s i t u a t i o n .  4-  an  as  noted  postremity predictions  and  i n the  that  This  ing  them f o r e a c h s u b j e c t , . Was These f o u r  even s i m p l e r  predictions  principle  only  equally two,  fifth  good*  consider-  to  the  possible  suspicion  somehow dependend u p o n r e p e a t e d prediction  were  (*80).  high  r e s u l t s lead  responses f o r i t s high The  removes  a p r a c t i c a l pre-  product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n o f t h e  S>.  good,  r e s u l t s that not  *right'  but  p o s t r e m i t y was  of  suaces.sful.  I t was  the  For  as  being  prediction  proved  attractiveness, of postremity  i n the  The  a p r e d i c t o r as postremity.  o f p r e d i c t i o n i s . as  that  group  criterion  t h i s experiment.  * r i g h t * response at each choice  dictor  i n the  fact  responses). 3.  a  i n agreement w i t h t h i s f i n d i n g i s the  'right'  rate.  result established  this point  con-  4  clusively.  A  separation  r e s p o n s e s a t any w i l l help 2) 2  clarify  r i g h t - w r o n g ; 3)  choice  of  the  point  i n 1 and  trial  They a r e :  wrong-wrong; and  i n c o r r e c t i n 2).  possible  f r o m one  this, d i s c u s s i o n .  postremity p r e d i c t s repeated  rect  four  4)  sequences to  the  1)  right-right;  next,  wrong-right.  'right* responses In 3  and  4  of  In  (it is  postremity  1  and  cor-  predicts  repeated i n ij.).  'wrong' r e s p o n s e s It  was f o u n d  ( i t i s correct  i n 3 and i n c o r r e c t  i n the a n a l y s i s o f the r e s u l t s  p o s t r e m i t y and ' r i g h t '  p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t e d no b e t t e r t h a n c h a n c e . repeated  either a 'right'  Since postremity  o r a 'wrong' r e s p o n s e  appear t h a t the f a c t  In  and  above  That i s ,  * wrong' r e s p o n s e s , o c c u r r e d no more, f r e q u e n t l y t h a n  chance would p r e d i c t .  entirely  (3  predictions disagreed  that, when  o t h e r words, the r e s u l t s  repeated.  is. repeated,  repeated  'right'  i t would  o f this, experiment  responses.. support the  t h a t p o s t r e m i t y i s o f no s i g n i f i c a n t  value except  o n l y when  t h a t p o s t r e m i t y p r e d i c t s above c h a n c e i s  due t o i t s p r e d i c t i n g  hypothesis  i s correct  when p r e d i c t i n g  that  'right'  These remarks a r e o f course  mazes,, where t h e r e i s o n l y one  'right'  predictive  responses  limited  w i l l be  to multiple T  and one 'wrong'  response  possible. When t h i s prediction of  result  o f the ' r i g h t '  the postreme response,  cal  i s coupled with f i n d i n g response  that a  i s a s good a s a p r e d i c t i o n  the v a l u e o f p o s t r e m i t y as a p r a c t i -  predictor i s considerably diminished.  CONCLUSION I t was f o u n d  that the manipulation  of  the stimulus, s i t u a t i o n produced  of  successful postremity predictions.  a  simpler p r i n c i p l e  p o s t r e m i t y performed  of the  no d i f f e r e n c e  stability  i n the rate  A l s o , i t was f o u n d  p r e d i c t e d as w e l l as p o s t r e m i t y ,  that  and t h a t  above c h a n c e o n l y when i t p r e d i c t e d  48  the of  'right?  response  the concept  w o u l d be  of postremity,  mazes, i s c h a l l e n g e d b y The  observed  repeated. as  Therefore,  i t operates  the r e s u l t s , of t h i s  the, s t a t u s  i n multiple T experiment.  d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n G r o u p IV  and  the  o t h e r t h r e e g r o u p s * w h i c h h e r e t o f o r e l e d t o ambiguous  interr-  pretations,  the b a s i s  of  the  c a n now  incidence of  theory which i s not  be  s e e n t o be  'right'  b e t t e r e x p l a i n e d on  responses,  supported  by  this  t h a n by  a  experiment.  postremity  CHAPTER V  .SUMMARY  The the  validity  p u r p o s e o f t h i s , e x p e r i m e n t was t o i n v e s t i g a t e o f the postremity p r i n c i p l e .  predicts., f o r r e c u r r i n g  s i t u a t i o n s , that  This  principle  the next  response  made w i l l  he t h e same re.sponse l a s t made t o t h e s t i m u l i  present.  I t was n o t e d  importance  of stable  prioceptive  that  stimulus,  s t i m u l i , i n making  The  upon s u c c e s s f u l  successful  the s t a b i l i t y  predictions.  of proprioceptive  p o s t r e m i t y predictionsi,-  dependency o f s u c c e s s f u l the  s i t u a t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y o f pror-  h y p o t h e s e s u n d e r t e s t were, c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e  effects of varying  by  t h i s p r i n c i p l e emphasizes t h e  predictions  and t h e p o s s i b l e  upon  'right  1  responses  subjects. The  learning  s i t u a t i o n used  i n t h i s experiment to  obtain  r e s p o n s e s was a m e n t a l maze.  points  i n t h e maze, e a c h one w i t h one ' r i g h t *  'wrong' c h o i c e p o s s i b l e . maze n i n e  T h e r e were twelve- c h o i c e  Each subject  c h o i c e and one  was r u n t h r o u g h t h e  times. The  ceptive  stimuli  methods u s e d  stimuli consisted  p o n s e s and p o s t u r e .  to control  stability  largely of control  I n one g r o u p r e l a t i v e l y  o f m o t o r r e s p o n s e s , o r p o s t u r e was. e x e r c i s e d ,  of proprio-  o f motor little  res-  control  while, i n a n o t h e r  group the motor responses held  constant.  certain  trials..  constancy, repeated ponse.  In a t h i r d  any  and  the p o s t u r e  group the  A f o u r t h group had,  so t h a t t h e  i n a d d i t i o n to a  the l a s t  w h i c h was  response The  on  stimulus  'wrong'  response  subject corrected h i s res-  T h i s . was. done t o g a i n more a c c u r a t e  responses,  s u b j e c t were  s t i m u l i were v a r i e d  choice point that e l i c i t e d  immediately,  of the  hypothesized  as b e i n g  recording of very d i f f i c u l t  when  i s 'wrong'.  a n a l y s i s of the r e s u l t s  indicated  differences in  t h e number o f s u c c e s s f u l p r e d i c t i o n s o n l y b e t w e e n t h e f o u r t h group the  (repeated  choice points),  o t h e r t h r e e g r o u p s , on  ences were found  the  between the  on  the  one  h a n d , and  o t h e r hand.  T h u s , no  each  of  differ-  t h r e e g r o u p s where o n l y  stability  of p r o p r i o c e p t i v e s t i m u l i v a r i e d . Further analysis indicated ful  p r e d i c t o r o n l y when i t p r e d i c t e d a  relation  to t h i s  response  at each c h o i c e p o i n t proved  remity.  The  finding,  results  a simple  l e d to the  d i f f e r e n c e ' s i n t h e number o f Group XV o f more  and  the  Thus t h e  the h y p o t h e s i z e d  postremity,  and  'right'  prediction as  efficient  In  as. p o s t obtained  s u c c e s s f u l p r e d i c t i o n s between due  of t h i s  to the  experiment  importance o f stimulus  also provided  success-  o f the .'right'  i n t h i s group- ( w h i c h  results  a  response.  c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the  o t h e r t h r e e g r o u p s was  ' r i g h t ' responses  practice). port  p o s t r e m i t y was  an  had  incidence more  d i d not  stability  supfor  a n a l y s i s w h i c h showed i t s  successful 'right' could  be  p r e d i c t i o n s were c o i n c i d e n t  responses. predicted The  and this  This  r e p e t i t i o n of  b y many  with r e p e t i t i o n of 'right  1  responses  theories.  v a l i d i t y o f p o s t r e m i t y as a p r a c t i c a l p r e d i c t o r  as a t h e o r e t i c a l c o n c e p t was, experiment*,  questioned.  within  the l i m i t a t i o n s of  52  BIBLIOGRAPHY  1.  Edwards, A.L. Experimental Design New York: R i n e h a r t , 1950.  2.  G u t h r i e , E.R. The Psychology York: Harper, 1952.  3«  Osgood, G.E. Method and Theory i n E x p e r i m e n t a l New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1953.  1+.  Peterson, J . L e a r n i n g when frequency and recency f a c t o r s are n e g a t i v e . J . Exp. Psychol.< 1922, 5, 270-300.  5.  Snedecor, G.W. S t a t i s t i c a l Methods. C o l l e g i a t e P r e s s , 191|.6.  6.  Waters., R.H. and R e i t z , J.G. i n g . J . Exp, P s y c h o l . .  7.  i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l Research. ~~  of Learning  ( r e y . ed.). New  Ames, Iowa:  The r o l e o f recency i n l e a r n -  1950, 1+0, 251+-259.  Voeks,. V.W. A c q u i s i t i o n o f S-R c o n n e c t i o n s : a t e s t o f H u l l ' s and G u t h r i e ' s T h e o r i e s . J . Exp. Psychol-.,  1954, k7r 137-1V7.•  8.  Psychology.  Voeks, V.W. P o s t r e m i t y , Recency, and Frequency. J . Exp. P s y c h o l . . 19l)-8, 38,. 1+95-51.0.  APPENDIX A  THE  MENTAL MAZE  Choice P o i n t  1 2 3 ^ 5 6 7 8 9  1st  Letter  N  2nd  Letter  J* L  U* T* P A  0* B  S  Y* M  D* 0  E  10  11  12  V*  R*  I  P  G*  K* W* H  APPENDIX B RESULTS OP THE ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE OF THE NUMBER OF 'RIGHT' RESPONSES ON TRIAL 9  Source o f V a r i a t i o n  Between Within  Groups Groups  Degrees of freedom  Mean squares  F  2078.53  3  692.84  3.85*  14384.15  80  179.80  Sums of squares  a t t h e .05  significant  l e v e l o f confidence  DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEANS OF THE "POUR GROUPS  Mean  I  I  H I  2.87  5.84  8.57*  2.97  10.44*  II  13.41..  III  w  Iv  II  significant  a t t h e .05  level  of confidence  significant  a t t h e .01  level  o f confidence  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106303/manifest

Comment

Related Items