.----------------------------·----·---····.
San Fernando Valley State College
EFFECTS OF LOCAL FATIGUE ON BILATERAL TRANSFER
OF SKILL IN A SELECTED FINE MOTOR TASK
A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in
Physical Education
by
John Stanley Van Arsdale
September, 1970
Committee Chairman
San Fernando Valley State College
September, 1970
ii
'------------------------------
-------~'
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was made possible through the cooperation
of the Human Performance Laboratory at San Fernando Valley
State College and the many hours of consultation and adlvisement provided by Dr. Adran Adams, Dr. George Holland,
I
and Dr. George Rich.
A special recognition and thanks must
be given to the subjects who volunteered their time and
energy throughout the study.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page:
LIST OF TABLES .
.
LIST OF FIGURES
vi
ix
ABSTRACT . . . . .
1
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION
3
The Problem
Statement of the Problem
Statement of the Purpose
Hypothesis
Importance of the Study
Scope and Limitations
Assumptions
Definition of Terms
Organization of the Remaining Chapters
II.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . . .
9
Physiological Aspects of Fatigue
Psychological Aspects of Fatigue
Influence of Fatigue on Motor Learning
Nature of Transfer
Bilateral Transfer in Motor Learning
Summary
III.
RESEARCH PROCEDURES
. . . . 16
Preliminary Procedures
Selection and Assignment of Subjects
Orientation of Subjects
General Design
Testing Procedure
Instrumentation
Training Schedule and Procedure
Statistical Design
Summary
iv
'
!chapter
IV. PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA
Page
24
Reliability of the Time, Error, and
Total Testing Scores on the Snoddy
Star-Trace Maze
Significance of Difference Between the
Groups
Discussion
Summary of the Major Findings
V.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
51
Summary
Major Findings
Conclusion
Recommendations for Future Studies
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendices
APPENDIX A:
55
DATA COLLECTION FORMS
60
APPENDIX B:
MEAN TESTING SCORES FROM STARTRACE MAZE . . . . . . . . .
65
APPENDIX C:
MEAN PRACTICE SCORES FROM STARTRACE MAZE . . . . . . . . . .
75
APPENDIX D:
GRAPH OF MEAN PRACTICE SCORES
FROM STAR-TRACE MAZE . . .
82
APPENDIX E:
MEAN FATIGUE SCORES FROM THE
SMEDLEY HAND DYNAMOMETER .
86
APPENDIX F:
GRAPH OF MEAN FATIGUE SCORES
FROM THE SMEDLEY HAND DYNAMOMETER . . . . . . . .
88
APPENDIX G:
PILOT STUDY: MEAN FATIGUE
SCORES FROM SMEDLEY HAND
DYNAMOMETER . . . . . .
90
FATIGUE CONVERSION CHART FOR
THE SMEDLEY HAND DYNAMOMETER
92
APPENDIX H:
v
LIST OF TABLES
I
ITable
Page:
1.
Reliability Coefficients for Time Testing
Results on the Snoddy Star-Trace Maze .
26 i
2.
Reliability Coefficients for the Error Testing
Results on the Snoddy Star-Trace Maze . . . .
26
3.
Reliability Coefficients for the Total Testing
Results on the Snoddy Star-Trace Maze . . . .
4.
Significance of Difference Between Mean Time
Testing Scores of Group I, II, and III on
the Pre-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.
Significance of Difference Between Mean Error
Testing Scores of Group I, II, and III on
the Pre-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Significance of Difference Between Mean Total
Testing Scores of Group I, II, and III on
the Pre-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
.28
Analysis of Variance Between the Mean Time
Testing Scores of Groups I, II, and III on
the Ere-Test, Mid-Test, and Post-Test . .
29
Analysis of Variance Between the Mean Error
Testing Scores of Groups I, II,and III on
the Pre-Test, Mid-Test, and Post-Test . .
30
Analysis of Variance Between the Mean Total
Testing Scores of Groups I, II, and III on
the Pre-Test, Mid-Test, and Post-Test . . .
3li
Significance of Difference Between the Pre-Test,
Mid-Test, and Post-Test Results Using Mean
Time Testing Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33:
Significance of Difference Between the Pre-Test,
Mid-Test, and Post-Test Results Using Mean
Error Testing Scores . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
Significance of Difference Between the Pre-Test,
Mid-Test, and Post-Test Results Using Mean
Total Testing Scores
. . . . . . . . . . .
35::
~----------------------------~vi~-------
!
1
;
_j
Table
13.
Page
Significance of Difference Between Mean Time
Testing Scores on the Pre-Test, Mid-Test,
and Post-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37
Significance of Difference Between Mean Error
Testing Scores on the Pre-Test, Mid-Test,
and Post-Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
Group II: Individual Mean Error Testing Scores
on the Star-Trace Maze . . . . . . . . . . .
70
22.
Group II: Individual Mean Total Testing Scores
on the Star-Trace Maze
. . . . . . . . . .
71 •
23.
Group III: Individual Mean Time Testing Scores
on the Star-Trace Maze
. . . . . . .
72 .
24.
Group III: Individual Mean Error Testing Scores
on the Star-Trace Maze . . . . . . . .
73
25.
Group III: Individual Mean Total Testing Scores
on the Star-Trace Maze
. . . . . . . .
74 i
Group I: Individual Mean Time Practice Scores
on the Star-Trace Maze . . . . . . . . . . .
76!
Group I: Individual Mean Error Practice Scores
on the Star Trace Maze . . . . . . . . . . .
77
14.
21.
26.
27.
28.
Group I: Individual Mean Total Practice Scores
on the Star-Trace Maze . . . . .
. . . . .
vii
i
'
iI
I'
I
78
i
l
. ---'
Table
29.
I
I
Group II: Individual Mean Time Practice
Scores on the Star-Trace Maze . . . . .
Page.
77:
30.
Group II: Individual Mean Error Practice
Scores on the Star-Trace Maze . . . . .
so:
31.
Group II: Individual Mean Total Practice
Scores on the Star-Trace Maze . . . . . . . .
81!
Mean Fatigue Scores on the Smedley Hand
Dynamometer . . . . . . . . . . . . .
87
33.
Pilot Study: Mean Fatigue Scores on Smedley
Hand Dynamometer . . .
. . . . . .
911
34.
Fatigue Conversion Chart
93
32.
viii
I
I
LIST OF FIGURES
I:Figure
I.
Page;
Comparison of Mean Time Testing Scores on the
Star-Trace Maze . . . . . . . . . . .
42
II.
Comparison of Mean Error Testing Scores on the
Star-Trace Maze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III.
Comparison of Mean Total Testing Scores on the
Star-Trace Maze . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV.
Comparison of Mean Time Practice Scores on the
Star-Trace Maze . . . . . . . . . . .
83
Comparison of Mean Error Practice Scores on the
Star-Trace Maze . . . . . . . . . . . . .
84
v.
VI. Comparison of Mean Total Practice Scores on the
Star-Trace Maze . . . . . . . . . . .
VII. Mean Fatigue Scores on the Smedley Hand
Dynamometer . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
85 •
89'
ABSTRACT
EFFECTS OF LOCAL FATIGUE ON BILATERAL TRANSFER
OF SKILL IN A SELECTED FINE MOTOR TASK
by
John Stanley Van Arsdale
Master of Arts in Physical Education
September, 1970
The purpose of this investigation was to determine
whether practice of a fine motor task with one limb, under'
the state of local muscular fatigue, resulted in significantly different bilateral transfer than that which occurred in a non-fatigued state.
Seventy male volunteers, enrolled in San Fernando
Valley State College physical education and recreation
activity classes, served as subjects for the study.
The
subjects were ranked based on their pre-test scores.
Group
I was the fatigue and practice group, Group II was the
practice group, and Group III was the control group.
The
study lasted for seven weeks, with two practice sessions
and one testing session per week.
Group I fatigued the dominant arm, using a hand
dynamometer, and immediately trained on the star-trace
maze for two sessions a week, with five trials a session.
Group II trained with the dominant arm on the star-trace
1
2
maze for two sessions a week, with five trials a session.
Group III did not receive any training with the dominant
arm.
All three groups received one testing session a week
with the non-dominant arm, with five trials a session.
The data were statistically analyzed using the mean
time, error and total (time plus error) scores for each
subject.
The null hypothesis, stating that performance of
fine motor tasks with one limb, while in a state of local
fatigue, will not significantly effect the amount of bilateral transfer to the opposite limb, was found to be
untenable.
The following general conclusion appears to be
justified:
Performance of fine motor tasks with one limb,
while in a state of local muscular fatigue, will effect
the amount of bilateral transfer to the opposite limb.
This effect will be in the form of faster times and lower
total (time plus errors) scores.
- - - - - - - - - ----------------·-·-----··--·-·-·····------
--······
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Interest in the bilateral transfer phenomenon developed when it was observed that performance of a skill
with one hand seemed to transmit to some degree the same
skill to the other hand.
Although bilateral transfer has
been extensively studied and various kinds of motor and
perceptual-motor tasks have been employed, many ramifications for human performance are still vague.
Research has indicated that bilateral transfer of a
skilled act always occurs to some degree (2, 4, 5, 7, 8,
10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23, 28, 30).
Several
theories for the occurrence of the bilateral transfer phenomenon have been given.
A summary of the studies in this
area suggested the following theories:
cues from verbal
self-instruction, visual cues, relaxing effects of practicing a skill, muscular tension accompanying the skill,
eye movements, past learning of highly similar skills,
consistency and stability of approach, solutions to problems in the handling of equipment, fatigue effects, emotional adjustments, and feelings of confidence or boredom
'(2 :290-291).
3
4
There was some conjecture as to whether more transfer occurred from the dominant to the non-dominant limb,
or whether the reverse was true (2:290).
Briggs and Bro-
den (14) found that transfer from right to left hand was
less when the proficiency of the left hand was lower.
Cratty (2) reviewed findings concerning the effects:
of fatigue upon accuracy and concluded that one might
i
practice longer, and with more positive results, by utili-~
zing the non-dominant hand while resting the dominant one.
He hypothesized that if skill was partially a function of
the central nervous system, practice at the cortical levelj
!
might continue, while localized muscular fatigue in a
particular limb might impede continued practice with a
single body member (2:291-292).
Investigations of these
hypotheses are at present nearly absent in the literature.
The present study, therefore, has been designed to examine
the effects of local fatigue on the bilateral transfer of
skill.
The Problem
Statement of the Problem
The problem of this study was to investigate effects of local muscular fatigue on bilateral transfer of
skill during the performance of a selected fine motor
task.
---------------------------------------~- ---~----
----
!
5
--------------------------------------------------
Statement of the Purpose
The purpose of this study was to determine whether
practice of a fine motor task with one limb, under the
state of local muscular fatigue, resulted in significantlydifferent bilateral transfer than that which occurred in
a non-fatigued state.
Hypothesis
The investigation was designed to test the following null hypothesis:
Performance of fine motor tasks with'
one limb, while in a state of local fatigue, will not significantly effect the amount of bilateral transfer to the
opposite limb.
Importance of the Study
The effects of fatigue on the bilateral transfer of
skill have not been fully determined.
If it can be demon-
strated that fatigue enhances or diminishes bilateral
transfer, such information would serve as a valuable means
in teaching and learning certain motor skills.
The physi-
cal education teacher might make effective use of fatigue
and bilateral transfer in teaching young basketball players to shoot and dribble well with either hand, or in
teaching the baseball player to switch hit.
Scope and Limitations
The study dealt with seventy-nine volunteer
men between the ages of eighteen and thirty-two.
~ollege
Seventy
6
subjects completed the study.
The men were enrolled in
physical education and recreation activity classes at San
Fernando Valley State College.
The study was conducted
over a seven week period and during the sixth week circumstances beyond control of the investigator forced postponement of the study for two days.
The study was limited
to the effect of the experimental condition on the amount
of bilateral transfer.
Subjects were asked to refrain
from outside practice and to avoid related activities.
The investigation was limited to measuring skill improvement and bilateral transfer on the star-trace maze.
Assumptions
The study was based on the following assumptions:
(1) bilateral transfer can be measured in terms of improvement in speed and accuracy while performing fine
motor tasks; and (2) maximum contractions on the Smedley
hand dynamometer, at a rate of one contraction every two
seconds until a subject can only perform at forty-five
percent of his maximum plus an additional fifteen contrac- •
tions, was a sufficient work-load to induce local fatigue.;
Definition of Terms
The following terms were used in the study and were:
defined for use in this investigation.
1.
Bilateral Transfer.
Learning skills that trans-
fer to a corresponding member of the opposite side of the
------------------------------------------------------- ..•
7
, body is termed bilateral transfer.
2.
Dominant Hand.
The most effective hand and
normally used by the subject when performing common skills
such as throwing and writing is termed the dominant hand.
3.
Fatigue.
Fatigue is a condition reached when a
subject can perform at only forty-five percent of his
maximum grip strength, plus fifteen contractions, on the
hand dynamometer.
4.
Fine Motor Task.
A fine motor task requires
the use of small distinct muscle groups in which the
body's center of gravity does not change position (2:11).
5.
Gross Motor Task.
A gross motor task is one
requiring the use of large muscle groups in which the
body's center of gravity changes position (2:11).
6.
Hand Dynamometer.
The Smedley hand dynamometer
is an instrument used for measuring grip strength.
7.
Steady-state Strength.
Steady-state strength
is the capacity to perform muscular work under specific
conditions when fatigue and recovery have come to apparent.
equilibrium (25:487).
8.
Task.
A task is a specific skilled activity
used to measure performance.
· 9.
Transfer.
Transfer is the effect that the
practice of one task has upon the learning or performance
of a second.
8
_Organization of the Remaining Chapters
The study is organized into five chapters.
Chapter
' II contains a review of literature which is deemed relevant to the present investigation.
Chapter III describes
research methodology by which the study was conducted.
A
presentation and interpretation of the data, and a discussion relating to the study is included in Chapter IV.
Chapter V includes a summary, conclusions, and recommendations for future study.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RElATED LITERATURE
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
effects of local fatigue on bilateral transfer of a fine
motor skill.
The literature contains many studies in the
areas of fatigue and bilateral transfer.
However, no at-
tempt appears to have been made to investigate fatigue and
its influence on bilateral transfer.
For purposes of this
investigation, the literature was categorized and discussed
under the following headings:
physiological aspects of
fatigue; psychological aspects of fatigue; influence of
1 fatigue on motor learning; nature of transfer; and bilat1
eral transfer in motor learning.
The chapter is concluded
with a summary of implications for the present study.
Physiological Aspects of Fatigue
Physiological fatigue is important because it serves·
as a danger signal.
To prevent exhaustion during exercise
there is a feed-back mechanism composed of sensory im1
1
pulses and metabolic by-products.
I
I condition
I tractions
i
j
This produces a state or·
in the brain that tends to pr~vent future confrom being initiated.
Involved in this cessation.
of contraction is an increasing desire to stop on the con-,
I scious
!_ _______ _
level (1:397-398).
9
10
,.-------------------------·-----·-····· --When a muscle is caused to contract repeatedly and
with very short rest intervals (1-2 seconds), a decrement
in response can be seen in an intact muscle and in an excised muscle resulting in contracture.
This contracture
is a result of the inability of the muscle to relax or
return to its normal resting length.
At the point of
complete local fatigue there is no further visible response resulting from stimulation, however the muscle ac-
I
I
tion potentials are undiminished (3:23-24).
Fatigue is characterized by (1) a state of impaired,
efficiency, (2) a reduced capacity for work, and (3) a
!I
feeling of weariness.
:i
It may be general or it may be
specific to an appendage or organ
~:228).
'~en
intra-
musculer tension contributes to vasoconstriction and metabolites accumulate, fatigue is hastened." (9:228)
For
example, intermittent and static exercise causes exertion
which decreases or arrests the blood flow through the
working appendage and hastens fatigue (9:229).
Psychological Aspects of Fatigue
There are various psychological phenomena associated with fatigue which sometimes make it difficult to interpret the personal opinions of subjects regarding their ,
physiological state.
The role of motivation also makes it.'
difficult to study the effects of fatigue (2:296).
The factor of motivation cannot be overlooked in
any performance.
Some researchers consider work output to
11
be a function of motivation and that the subject's performance is related to his egotistic drive to satisfy his
own demand for quality of performance (2:297).
In some
situations when an individual is highly motivated he is
l
/ not aware of his physiological condition.
There are re-
ports of subjects who were brought to near collapse, yet
they apparently felt no fatigue (1:386).
Motivation will increase the period of time before ·
·I
f
exhaustion sets in (25:133-134).
In
man~
cases as an inl
dividual becomes fatigued he feels he should not exert him-!
s~lf
because of the fear of some type of injury (1:399).
The interpretation of fatigue is very subjective.
In some cases subjects experience fatigue without much
work involved (1:402).
Nunney (24) reports a very low re-
lationship of feelings of fatigue and heart rate, while
Huetine (22) reports a significant relationship between
feelings of fatigue and work load.
He found that subjects
had surprisingly adequate judgements of the intensity of
their fatigue.
Influence of Fatigue on Motor Learning
Several investigations have dealt with the influences of fatigue on the learning of various tasks.
Nunney
(24) studied the effects of various states of fatigue on
the learning of star-tracing and a pursuit rotor task.
His results indicated that learning was impaired on the
task undertaken immediately following
an exercise bout.
------------·-·-·--- -----. --- -- ----- .. ---·- ----· --
12
. - - - - - - - - - - - ------·-·------··· ---------------- --.
Alderman (11) studied the influence of local fatigue on
performance and learning in two related tasks.
His re-
sults indicated that learning was not impaired even though
speed and accuracy of performance were affected immediately following the imposition of local fatigue.
In a
study by Benson (12) the findings suggest that fatigue has
a differential effect on learning dependent upon the nature of the task.
His results showed that the learning of
the speed component in a jumping task was impaired in the
fatigued state, while learning of the accuracy component
in a jumping task was enhanced by practice in a fatigued
state.
Learning to juggle was also enhanced by practice
performed in a fatigued state.
Nature of Transfer
Transfer is the effect that the practice of one task
has upon the learning or performance of a second task.
The
transfer concept may be studied in several contexts.
Transfer may be negative, have no influence, or be positive
in its effect.
Practice of an initial task may facilitate,:
have no significant influence, or impede the learning of a •
second task (2:284).
In 1899, Woodworth (29) discovered that the ability
to draw straight lines was transferable between limbs.
Transfer studies concerned with the cross-education effect
continued during the years and utilized stylus mazes, adding machine tasks, mirror targ_~t__p:t:-:ac_t_=I:E~?---~.!1~ __ !=_1!:~- ~ike ____ _
13
··----------·--- .
The extent to which transfer occurred among vari-
r;---~----------------------
(2:285).
:ous mental and motor tasks has been at the core of educaltional theory for the past hundred years.
Numerous theories
!have been devised explaining transfer of skill.
While the
!identical elements theory and general factors theory are
I
/most popular, several others become apparent upon reviewing'
I
I
!literature.
A third category might include statements ac- :
i
cepting both a general and specific explanation of transfer!
The initial proponent of the general factors theory
was Judd, who concluded that general instructions were
transferable.
I
I
I
Other studies have pointed out transfer was !
possible only when elements of two tasks correspond exactly;
Several investigators have suggested transfer may have occurred due to a combination of general and specific factors,
implying that individuals not only transferred generalities
and general work methods but also learned new tasks through
acquisition of stimulus and/or response patterns (2:284-288)
Bilateral Transfer in Motor Learning
In general, the research indicates that transfer
from hand-to-hand of a skilled act always occurs to some
degree.
In studies in this area by Woodworth (29) and by
Bray (13), a motor task observed by the performer in a
mirror was utilized.
Woodworth used mirror-star tracing;
Bray utilized target spotting with a pencil while viewing
the act from a mirror.
Both found that transfer not only
occurred from hand-to-hand, but also from hand-to-foot and
14
from foot-to-foot.
Cook (15) found that transfer between
all four limbs of the body occurred when learning a maze
task.
Ewert (20) studied bilateral transfer on the star-
shaped maze and found that in every case of mirror drawing
there was improvement of the idle hand.
Eberhard (19) pub-;
I
lished an investigation on transfer that emphasized the im-:
portance of the visual process in the learning of visualmotor skills.
It was found that as much transfer occurred
in a one-hand manipulative task as was derived by the subjects when they simply watched another individual perform
the task first.
Yoakum and Calfee (30) analyzed mirror drawing
equipment and found the star-trace maze to be valuable in
the investigation of bilateral transfer because of its
simplicity and high degree of reliability.
Their findings
were supported by the studies of Bray (13), Cook (15, 16),
Ewert (20), and Woodsworth (29).
Several theories for the occurrence of the bilateral
transfer phenomenon have been given.
A summary of the
studies in this area suggested the following theories: cues;
from verbal self-instruction, visual cues, relaxing effects!
of practicing a skill, muscular tension accompanying the
skill, eye movements, past learning of highly similar
skills, consistency and stability of approach, solutions to
problems in the handling of equipment, fatigue effects,
emotional adjustments, and feelings of confidence or boredam (2:290-291).
_
__c__ _ _ _ __
15
--------·------
--·-·-·-··- .. -·
Summary
Fatigue is characterized by (1) impaired efficiency,
(2) reduced capacity for work, and (3) weariness.
be general and/or it may be specific.
It may
Intermittent exer-
cise decreases blood flow and hastens physiological fatigue.
An important psychological factor associated with
fatigue is motivation.
Some researchers feel motivation
may be a major factor in both the quality and quantity of
performance.
Motivation can increase the period of time
before exhaustion sets in.
Yoakum and Calfee (30) analyzed mirror drawing
equipment and found the star-trace maze to be valuable in
the investigation of bilateral transfer because of its simplicity and high degree of reliability.
Their findings
were supported by the studies of Bray (13), Cook (15, 16),
Ewert (20), and Woodsworth (29).
The findings of Benson (12) and Alderman (11) suggest that fatigue has a differential effect on learning
pending on the nature_ of the task.
de~
Bray (13), Cook (15,
16, 17), Ewert (20), and Woodsworth (29) have found in
their studies that bilateral transfer occurs when learning
a maze task.
In view of these findings, it appears that
fatigue may influence the degree of bilateral transfer and,,
therefore, the
vestigation.
hypothes~s
of this study is worthy of in-
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH PROCEDURES
The purpose of this study was to investigate the
effects of local fatigue on bilateral transfer of a fine
motor skill.
Included in this chapter is a discussion of
preliminary procedures and the selection, assignment, and
orientation of subjects.
Also included is the general de-
sign of the study, as well as an outline of the testing
procedures, instrumentation, training schedule and procedure, and statistical design.
Preliminary Procedures
Thirteen student volunteers from San Fernando Valley
State College were used in the pilot study.
The volun-
teers were male students enrolled in physical education and
recreation classes.
All pilot study subjects used the Smedley hand
dynamometer and the Snoddy star-trace maze.
Each subject
adjusted the hand dynamometer to a comfortable position
and then performed one series of maximum contractions with
the dominant hand.
Subjects worked in a standing position
holding the hand dynamometer down and to the side.
An
electric metronome regulated the rate of contractions at
16
c __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _:__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
17
--
·- -·- - ---·
thirty contractions per minute until the subject reached
his steady-state strength.
After steady-state strength
was attained, the subject performed an additional fifteen
contractions.
Then the subject performed five trials on
the star-trace maze.
The findings of the pilot study gave
the investigator an opportunity to use the experimental
equipment and practice techniques for data collecting.
Selection and Assignment of Subjects
Seventy-nine student volunteers from San Fernando
Valley State College were used as subjects in this study.
Seventy subjects completed the study.
The volunteers were
male students enrolled in physical education and recreation
classes.
were:
The criteria for being accepted as a volunteer
(1) no participation in outside activities which
might influence the amount of transfer, and (2) agreement
to participate for seven consecutive weeks.
All subjects received one pre-testing session (five
trials) on the Snoddy star-trace maze at the beginning of
the study.
Subjects were ranked according to the total
scores (speed in seconds plus number of errors) of their
best trial and then assigned to groups by a random numbers
table.
Orientation of Subjects
The subjects were informed of the nature of the
I st~~y
at the time they volunteered.
At this time they were
18
:------------------------------·-·-·
·-·--·-···
-··-·
.. ···- -·
..
told that they would be participating in a fatigue and bilateral transfer study, and that it would take approximately ten minutes per week for seven consecutive weeks.
It was also explained that the fatigue task consisted of a
series of maximum contractions of the dominant hand and
that all practice trials and testing sessions would be on
the Snoddy star-trace maze.
Prior to the investigation, each subject was sent a
letter to confirm his participation and determine the exact days and time which he would practice.
At that time
each subject was instructed as to the Group he was as-
I signed to and the procedures
to be followed by that Group.
General Design
I
I
The study lasted seven weeks.
Group I and Group II
subjects practiced twice a week at the same time of day
I throughout
the study and were tested during the last ses-
sion of each week.
I
I
Group III subjects were tested once a
week at the same time of day.
Each subject was tested in-
dividually on an appointment basis and was allotted approximately a ten minute period to complete the session.
I
I
Group I (Experimental Group) fatigued the dominant
hand on the hand dynamometer and immediately trained on
the Snoddy star-trace maze.
Group II (Experimental Group),
trained with the dominant hand on the star-trace maze.
Group III (Control Group) did not train with the dominant
19
non-dominant hand tested one day each week.
Testing Procedure
Group-equating tests.
The group-equating tests
were designed to provide a basis on which the three groups
were formed.
i
The basic criterion was the lowest total
score (time in seconds plus number of errors) on the
Snoddy star-trace maze.
ducted for one week.
The group-equating test was con-
Each subject reported to the testing
i
room and performed five trials on the star-trace maze
using the non-dominant hand.
All subjects were ranked ac-
cording to their lowest total score and then assigned to
Group I, Group II, or Group III.
Pre-tests.
The Group-equating tes;ts served as the
Pre-tests.
Mid-training tests.
One mid-training test was given
each week to determine any trends in scores and to determine if differences between the three groups existed during
the training program.
These tests were identical to those
given in the pre-test and post-test.
Post-tests.
Post-tests for all three groups were
conducted in week seven of the study.
The tests were iden-·
tical to those given in the pre-test and mid-training
tests.
Test protocol.
The test on the Snoddy star-trace
maze consisted of five trials with the non-dominant hand.
The subject entered the tes ting_f.QQ~_..§.n~ W..§._§__~_??t;..?<J__in__? _____ .
20
-------straight-back chair in front of the star-trace maze.
When
the subject indicated he was ready the investigator gave
a signal to begin and started the timing mechanism.
The
investigator told the subject his time and error score
after each trial.
No other forms of motivation were given
during the testing period.
Instrumentation
All subjects used the same Snoddy star-trace maze.
Subjects were seated comfortably in a chair and a shield
adjusted to provide only a view of the maze through a
mirror.
The maze was electronically scored for errors.
Everytime the metal stylus touched the metal boundary of
the star an error was automatically recorded.
The edges
of the star were serrated to prevent constant "tracking"
contact.
Time for the trials was measured by a stop-watch
to the nearest half second.
A Smedley adjustable hand dynamometer was used to
, induce local fatigue.
The subject adjusted the size of
the hand grip to a position most comfortable to him.
This
position was noted on the subject's score card to enable
the same position to be taken during each trial.
Then the
subject executed maximum contractions while in a standing
position.
The dynamometer was held down and to the side,
but not touching any other part of the body, with the dial
facing the investigator.
An electric metronome was used to regulate
21
. contractions for the Group
-r-·--(i:at::fgue)- subjects.
The
; metronome was adjusted to tick sixcytimes per minute.
The
subject would exert a maximum contraction on every other
tick so that there was a total of thirty contractions and
thirty relaxations each minute.
Training Schedule and Procedure
Subjects registered on Monday and Wednesday or Tuesday and Thursday, depending on their available free time.
A faculty office, which provided a quiet and controlled
testing environment, was used for the testing sessions.
Subjects in Group I (Fatigue Group) were given the
following procedure:
(1) adjusted Smedley hand dynamome-
ter and performed maximum contractions with their dominant
hand (standing position) at a rate of thirty per minute
until the subject could perform at only forty-five percent
of his maximum contraction and then an additional fifteen
contractions were given; (2) immediately sat down and performed three trials with the dominant hand on the startrace maze; (3) stood up and re-fatigued dominant arm; and
(4) sat down and performed an additional two trials with
the dominant hand on the star-trace maze.
Subjects in Group II (Practice Group) entered the
testing room and were seated at the star-trace maze.
They
were given five trials with the dominant hand on the startrace maze.
Group III subjects (Control Group) did not receive
·------------------- -· --- ·-·-·· ---------- . - . - ....
22
practice with the dominant hand.
This group was tested one
day per week using their non-dominant hand.
Statistical Design
The analysis of variance, F test, was used to determine if significant differences in speed, accuracy and
total (speed plus accuracy) scores existed among the
groups.
The coefficient of correlation was obtained by
using the Pearson Product-Moment method.
The t test was
used to determine if significant differences in mean gains ,
in speed, accuracy, and total scores occurred between the
groups when the F was significant at
·<.os.
Summary
Thirteen student volunteers were tested in the pilot study with the Smedley hand dynamometer and the Snoddy
star-trace maze.
The findings of the pilot study were used
to establish fatigue criteria for the main study.
The pi-
lot study allowed the investigator the opportunity to use
the experimental equipment and practice techniques for all
data collecting.
Seventy-nine student volunteers were used as subjects in the study.
ing.
Seventy subjects completed the test-
All subjects received one pre-testing session on the
Snoddy star-trace maze.
The subjects were ranked and as-
signed to groups based on the pre-test data.
The study lasted seven weeks.
_9Es>.~P__
f_§:!1:<!__ Q_E~!P _::CI
23
--------~------------·--··-··-···.----·-·-·-·
··-·
-··
-·
subjects practiced twice a week throughout the study and
were tested during the last session of each week.
Group I
: (Experimental Group) fatigued the dominant hand on the hand
:dynamometer and then trained on the star-trace maze.
Group
!II (Experimental Group) trained with the dominant hand on
'
ithe star-trace maze.
Group III (Control Group) did not
'train with the dominant hand on the star-trace maze.
All subjects used the Snoddy star-trace maze.
A
Smedley adjustable hand dynamometer was used to induce local fatigue.
An electric metronome was used to regulate
the contractions for the Group I subjects.
I
I
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA
I
i
The problem in this study was to investigate the
effects of local muscular fatigue on bilateral transfer of
j skill during the performance of a selected fine motor task.!
The specific purpose of the study was to determine whether
practice of a fine motor task with one limb, under the
state of local muscular fatigue, resulted in significantly
different bilateral transfer than which occurred in a nonfatigued state.
The subjects were divided into three
groups based on the results of the pre-testing session:
Group I (fatigue and practice), Group II (practice), and
Group III (no practice).
The study lasted seven weeks.
Group I trained two days per week by fatiguing the dominant
hand on the hand dynamometer and then performing on the
Snoddy star-trace maze.
Group II trained two days per week.
with the dominant hand on the star-trace maze.
Group III
did not train with the dominant hand on the star- trace
I All
maze~.
i
i
three groups had their non-dominant hand tested one dayi
each week.
The purpose of this chapter is to present an
i
i
analysis of the data pertinent to the study of the problem.!
i
The data of the study were analyzed to determine:
I
(1) whether time, error, and total testing scores on the
l
Snoddy star-trace maze used provided reliable measures, (2)1
l
_______ 24--------------------- ___________________ _j
25
,whether subjects were divided into three equal groups, and
'(3) whether significant changes in time, errors and total
scores (time plus errors) occurred during the training program.
Also included in the chapter is a discussion and
summary of major findings.
Reliability of the Time, Error and Total Testing
Scores on the Snoddy Star-Trace Maze
Reliability of the testing procedure was determined
by the use of test retest reliability coefficients.
Pear-
son's Product Moment Correlation Coefficients were calculated.
The correlations between the pre-test and post-test
were found to be significant only for Group I error and
total score results.
Correlations between pre-test and
mi~
test were found to be reliable in error testing for all
three groups and reliable in total score for Groups I and
III.
The time factor was reliable only for Group I in the
pre-test and mid-test.
These results were probably due to
the large amount of learning which occurred in the early
stages while performing a novel task.
However, correla-
tions between mid-test and post-test were found to be reliable (.01 level) for all three groups in time, errors and:
total score.
The comparisons are shown in Tables 1, 2, and
3.
L _____
26
TABLE 1
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR THE TIME TESTING RESULTS
ON THE SNODDY STAR-TRACE MAZE
Measurement
Group I
Group II
Group III
Pre-test &
Mid-test
. 46 7\.10
.36
Pre-test &
Post-test
.31
.03
.19
Mid- test &
Post-test
. 60~\-*
.69**
.83**
TABLE 2
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR THE ERROR TESTING RESULTS
ON THE SNODDY STAR- TRACE MAZE ,
Measurement
Group I
Group II
Group II
Pre- test &
Mid- test
Pre-test &
Post-test
Mid- test &
Post-test
• S2*"k
.41
.36
.61**
. 72•k*
.63**
. 63*i"
.81-/('-,'('
.68**
TABLE 3
RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR THE TOTAL (TIME PLUS ERRORS)
TESTING RESULTS ON THE SNODDY STAR-TRACE MAZE
Measurement
Group I
Group II
Group III
Pre-test &
Mid-test
Pre- test &
Post-test
Mid-test &
Post-test
. 607b\.35
. 60 7\-*
.34
.22
.62**
.69**
. 58**
.74**
*Significant
~~*
at .05 level.
Significant at .01 level.
27
1 - .- - · - -
Significance of Difference Between the Groups
An analysis of variance test was used to determine
if a significant difference existed between the three
groups on the parameters of time, errors, and total scores
(time plus errors).
The analysis of the mean scores on the
pre-test produced F values which were not statistically
significant.
A summary of the analysis is contained in
Tables, 4, 5, and 6.
It was concluded that the three
groups were statistically equal at the start of the experiment.
TABLE 4
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN TIME TESTING
SCORES OF GROUP I, II, AND i l l ON THE PRE- TEST
Source of
Variation
Sum of
Squares
Degrees of
Freedom
Between Samples
212.88
2
Within Samples
8094.00
67
Total
8306.88
69
Mean
Square
F
106.44 0.88
120.81
28
TABLE 5
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN ERROR TESTING
SCORES OF GROUP I, II, AND II ON THE PRE-TEST
Source of
Variation
Degrees of
Freedom
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Square
F
0.29
244.74
2
122.3 7
Within Samples
28634.50
67
427.38
Total
288 79 ~ 24
62
Between Samples
TABLE 6
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN TOTAL
(TIME PLUS ERRORS) TESTING SCORES OF
GROUP I, II, AND III ON THE PRE-TEST
Source of
Variation
Between Samples
Sum uf
Squares
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Square
F
0.47
853.43
2
426.72
Within Samples
60779.42
67
907.16
Total
61632.85
69
Tables 7, 8, and 9 depicted the significance of dif-
I ference
of the mean scores between Groups I, II, and II on
1
the pre-test, mid-test, and post-test.
1
ference (.01 level) was found among Groups I, II, and III
I on
the mid-test and post-test.
A significant dif-
This indicates that a
!l change occurred among the groups during the five week
!
Ltraining period.
· - - - - - - · - · - · · ---·------·------------·-----
-----------------
----
TABLE 7
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN MEAN TIME TESTING SCORES OF GROUPS I, II, AND III
ON THE PRE-TEST (TEST 1), MID-TEST (TEST 4), AND POST-TEST (TEST 7)
Degrees of
Freedom
Mean
Square
Source of
Variation
Sum of
Squares
Groups I,II,III
Pre-Test
Between Samples
Within Samples
Total
212.8 7
8094.00
8306.76
2
67
69
106.44
120.81
Groups I,II,III
Mid-Test
Between Samples
Within Samples
Total
65.20
545.63
610.83
2
67
69
32.60
8.14
4.00**
Groups I,II,III
Between Samples
Within Samples
Total
85.06
519.34
604.40
2
67
69
42.53
7.75
5. 49~b\-
Measure
F
0.88
* Significant at .05 level.
**Significant at .01 level.
N
\0
TABLE 8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN MEAN ERROR TESTING SCORES OF GROUPS I, II, AND III
ON THE PRE-TEST (TEST 1), MID-TEST (TEST 4), AND POST-TEST (TEST 7).
i;
I
!
Degrees of
Freedom
Source of
Variation
Sum of
Squares
Between Samples
Within Samples
Total
244.74
28634.50
28879.24
2
67
69
122.37
42 7. 39
0.29
Groups I,II,III
Mid-Test
Between Samples
Within Samples
Total
405.04
2991.60
3396.64
2
67
69
202.52
44.65
4. 54~""*
Groups I,II,III
IPost-Test
Between Samples
Within Samples
Total
513.78
2245.55
2759.33
2
67
69
256.89
33.52
7. 67~""* !I
I! Measure
I
I
Mean
Square
F
j
'f
!Groups I,II,III
Pre-Test
I
I
I
1
'
*Significant
~~~~
at .05 level.
Significant at .01 level.
-----------~··---------
----------------
···-· --
w
0
r-,
TABLE 9
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN MEAN TOTAL (TIME PLUS ERRORS) TESTING SCORES OF
GROUPS I, II, AND III ON THE PRE-TEST (TEST 1), MID-TEST (TEST 4),
AND POST-TEST (TEST 7)
I
Mean
Square
F
2
67
69
426.72
907.16
0.47
821.84
4130.92
4952.76
2
67
69
410.93
61.66
6 6 71-:~'(
1021.11
2469.52
3490.63
2
67
69
510.55
36.80
13 .85*"~"
Measure
Source of
Variation
Sum of
Squares
Groups I,II,III
Pre-Test
Between Samples
Within Samples
Total
853.43
60779.41
61632.84
Groups I,II,III
Mid-Test
Between Samples
Within Samples
Total
Between Samples
Within Samples
Total
I Groups
I,II,III
Post-Test
*Significant
**Significant
Degrees of
Freedom
0
at .05 level.
at .01 level.
w
I-'
- ....
32
Tables 10, 11, and 12 included tbe--resu1ts·--or the t
tests which were used to determine whether significant
changes were made during the pre-test, mid-test, and posttest within each group on the star-trace maze.
Results in-
dicated that significant differences (.OS and .01 levels)
occurred within Groups I, II, and III.
These significant
differences appeared in time, error, and total score testing results.
This was expected because all three groups
were learning with their non-dominant hand during the testing sessions on the star-trace maze.
TABLE 10
-I
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRE-TEST, MID-TEST, AND POST-TEST RESULTS
USING MEAN TIME TESTING SCORES
Measure
Mean
Pre-Test
Group I
34.65
Group I
34.65
Mean
Mid-Test
37.16
Group II
37.16
12.97
Group III
33.02
Group III
33.02
22.14
8.46
9.81
2.70
2.90
11.17
25.99
11.11
24.19
9.70
12.97
Group II
14.73
~b'(
**
**
**
**
2 . 42 ;'(
11.17
1.80
12.54
20.48
9. 79
"~•*
18.29
8.90
**
2.19
2. 13
~'(
14.73
Group III
t
9.51
12.51
12.51
Mean
Difference
24.85
9.81
Group I
Group II
Mean
Post-Test
12.54
*Significant
"~•;'(
at .05 level.
Significant at .01 level.
-····
.
w
w
~
.~···
~--·
-~----· ~-
·-··
-~
·-
TABLE 11
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRE-TEST, MID-TEST, AND POST-TEST
RESULTS USING MEAN ERROR TESTING SCORES
Measure
Mean
Mid-Test
Mean
Pre-Test
Group I
76.61
Group I
76.61
36.91
80.51
Group II
80.51
38.32
I
Group III
76.54
Group III
76.54
31.30
45.31
10.58
·k;'(
39.70
9. 21
*~'(
31.30
5.61
3.37
-;b'c
33.99
46.52
10.23
-;b'(
9. 15 •/(-;'(
33.99
4.33
2. 33 -;'(
37.92
38.62
8. 72
~b'c
34.00
7. 58
*';'(
42.54
Group III
42.54
t
42.19
38.32
Group II
1
Mean
Difference
36.91
Group I
Group II
Mean
Post-Test
37.92
2.26 ';'(
4.62
I
I
II
I
-;'(
Significant at .05 level.
**Significant at .01 level.
II
t ,. . . . ... ···-····-· . .,_ . """ -· ··-· ·-- ··--······ . ··------- .. ---···-- .
......
.
..
-- __________________ __________
"
.
w
+'
r------·-------·
I
I
--
---------
-
-------
- ·-··
····---~----------~---~-~--------
TABLE 12
····-~-
-
..
-
--···· -----···
.
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRE-TEST, MID-TEST, AND POST-TEST
RESULTS USING THE MEAN TOTAL (TIME PLUS ERRORS) TESTING SCORES
I,
l Measure
Mean
Pre-Test
Group I
110.90
Group I
110.90
Mean
Mid-Test
Group II
117.63
Group II
117.63
Group III
109.86
Group III
109.86
Group III
~'r*
61.54
9. 70
*-,'r
41.07
8.29
4. 15
~'r*
45.17
72.46
10.96
*-,'r
66.47
9. 95
'1(-,'r
45.17
5.99
2.94
*-,'r
50.45
59.41
9.69
-,b'r
52.55
8.42
*-,'r
6.86
3. 28
-,b'r
51.16
57.31
57.31
t
11. 11
49.36
51.16
Group II
Mean
Difference
69.83
41.07
49.36
Group I
Mean
Post-Test
50.45
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i
*Significant
**Significant
at .OS level.
at .01 level.
w
lrl
36
Tables 13, 14, and 15 illustrated the results of t
tests which were used to determine whether significant
changes were made between groups during the pre-test, midtest, and post-test on the star-trace maze.
Results indi-
cated that significant differences (.05 and .01 levels)
occurred in the following comparisons:
(1) Groups I and
III on mid-test time, error and total mean score results;
(2) Groups II and III on mid-test time, error and total
mean score results; (3) Groups I and II on post-test time
and total mean score results; (4) Groups I and III on posttest time, error and total mean score results; and (5)
Groups II and III on error and total mean score results.
'
Measure
Pre-Test
Groups I
II
Groups I
III
Groups II
III
Mid-Test
Groups I
II
Groups I
III
Groups II
III
Post-Test
Groups I
II
Groups I
III
Groups II
III
TABLE 13
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN TIME TESTING SCORES
ON THE PRE-TEST, MID-TEST, AND POST-TEST
Degrees ()I
Mean
Standard
Standard
Mean
Error Mean
Freedom
Difference
Deviation
34.65
37.16
34.65
33.02
37.16
33.02
2.51
12.51
12.97
12.51
14.73
12.97
14.73
0.46
9.81
11.17
9.81
12.54
11.17
12.54
1. 36
1. 63
4.14
2.22
1. 76
2! 73 .
1.37
t
11.79
11.51
11.79
9.71
11.51
9.71
2.64
2.51
2.64
1. 94
2.51
1. 94
43
- 0. 72
44
0.51
47
1.36
2.15
2.82
2.15
3.34
2.15
3.34
0.48
0.62
0.48
0.67
0.62
0.67
43
- 0. 62
44
-
47
- 1. 99*~
1.30
2.31
1.30
3.89
2.31
3.89
0.29
0.50
0.29
0. 78
0.50
0. 78
43
- 2. 46*-~
44
- 3. 29•b~
47
- 1. 51
2.71*~
...
nSignificant at .05 level.
Significant at .01 level.
;b~
1
L............ ·-········- --·- ······--·-·-···-·········--· ·-··· ········--···-··· ... -· ···-
.
·-·------------------- ··- ··--·------
!
w
'-.I
----·-·-~-·-----·-···
;
Measure
Pre-Test
Groups I
II
Groups I
III
Groups II
III
Mid-Test
Grcoups I
II
Groups I
III
Groups II
III
Post-Test
Groups I
II
Groups I·
III
Groups II
III
TABLE 14
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN ERROR TESTING SCORES
ON THE PRE-TEST, MID-TEST, AND POST-TEST
Standard
Standard
Degrees of
Mean
Mean
Error Mean
Freedom
Difference
Deviation
76.61
80.51
76.61
76.54
80.51
76.54
3.90
36.91
38.32
36.91
42.54
38.32
42.54.
1.41
31.30
33.99
31.30
37.92
33.99
37.92
0.07
3.97
5.63
4.22
2.69
6.62
3.93
t
18.94
21.67
18.94
21.08
21.67
21.08
4.24
4.73
4.24
4.21
4. 73
4.21
43
- 0.64
44
0.01
47
0.65
5.63
6.40
5.63
7.69
6.40
7.69
1.26
1.39
1.26
1.54
1.39
1.54
43
- 0. 78
44
- 2 . 8 6"''""'""
47
- 2.09*
5.16
5.15
5.16
6.78
5.15
6.78
1.15
1.13
1.15
1. 36
1.13
1.36
43
- 1. 75
44
- 3. 76"'""
47
- 2. 30•"""'""1
I
I
";\-
. Significant at .05 level.
~*
Significant at .01.... level.
L....---------------------~·- ~----
----------·--····-"·---- -
i
I
t
I
···-
..
----
----
-·-··-
______
_.
-···
..•
-
i
w
00
l
TABLE 15
SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEAN TOTAL TESTING SCORES
ON THE PRE-TEST, MID-TEST, AND POST-TEST
Measure
Mean
Pre-Test
Groups I
II
Groups I
III
Groups II
III
Mid-Test
Groups I
II
Groups I
III
Groups II
III
Post-Test
Groups I
II
Groups I
III
~
1
....... r"\,,nc_,
TT
Mean
Difference
110.90
117.64
110.90
109.86
117.64
109.86
6.74
49.36
51.16
49 .• 36
57.31
51.16
57.31
1.80
1.04
7. 78
/, c;.
c;.
Degrees of
Freedom
t
6.31
6.94
6.31
6.01
6.94
6.01
43
- 0. 75
44
0.12
47
0.88
7.06
7.83
7.06
8.48
7.83
8.48
1. 58
1. 71
1.58
1. 69
1. 71
1.69
43
- 0.81
44
- 3. 4 7;b'(
47
- 2. 64 1b'c-
5.84
6.21
5.84
6.13
1.31
1.36
1. 31
1.23
43
- 2. 28 1'(
44
- 5.3l;b'(
h
1
~h
/, 7
_
6.15
4.10
Standard
Error Mean
28.21
31.78
28.21
30.03
31.78
30.03
7.95
41.07
45.17
41.07
50.45
17
Standard
Deviation
9.38
?Q
?1
?
aa,b'<-
**Significant at .05 level.
L..·--·····-··- --·-·-·-- ...... -·· s~~~=ficant at . 01 level.
w
\D
40
Discussion
The purpose of this investigation was to determine
whether practice of a fine motor task with one limb, under
a state of local muscular fatigue, resulted in significantly different bilateral transfer than occurred in a non-·
fatigued state.
During this chapter the significance of
the differences of means between the groups and among the
groups has been shown; the reliability coefficients computed; and equality of groups established.
Significant
differences between Groups I, II, and III were found and
I
Tables 1 througH
I
15 illustrated differences using mean scores. These tables~
some interesting changes were identified.
I/ coupled
with Figures I, II, and III, indicated some of the
changes.
The reliability of time, error,and total (time plus
I
errors) testing scores was determined by the use of test
retest reliability coefficients.
Correlations between pre-
test and post-test were found to be reliable only for
I Group I
I tions
error and total score testing results.
Correla-
between pre-test and mid-test were found to be re-
liable in error testing for all three groups and reliable
in total score for Groups I and II.
I reliable only for Group I
The time factor was
in the pre-test and mid-test.
Correlations between mid-test and post-test were found to
I
I
! be reliable for all three groups in time, error, and total
score.
These results were probably due to the novelty of
41
the star-trace maze.
~
-- ·-- .. ·- ---
~--·-·-
·--
A large amount of learning which
occurred in the early tests tended to lower pre-test and
mid-test reliability coefficients.
However, after be-
coming more familiar with the star-trace maze, subjects
. performed more consistently as was demonstrated by the
significant correlations between the mid-test and posttest in time, error, and total score for Groups I, II, and
III.
A comparison of mean testing scores is illustrated
in Figures I, II, and III.
The figures show that Groups I!
and II had faster times, fewer errors, and a lower total
score than Group III on Test 2 through Test 7 (post-test).
The figures also show Group I scoring faster times, fewer
errors, and a lower total score than Group II in Test 6
and Test 7 (post-test).
'-------------------------------------·--·------·--·---·---··
42
FIGURE I
COMPARISON OF MEAN TIME TESTING SCORES ON THE STAR-TRACE
MAZE
50
48
46
li
44
42
Jm 40
e
38"
i
s
e
c
0
n
d
s
30
28
26
24
22
2i0
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
\.
......
... . .
........... ""_ . .. ....
---.---
4
2
0
,
T1
._ _ _ _Group I
---------Group II
·········Group III
T4
Tests
43
FIGURE II
COMPARISON OF MEAN ERROR TESTING SCORES ON THE
STAR-TRACE MAZE
fN
iu
jffi
;b
e
r
0
f
E
r
r
0
r
s
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
so
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 T
1
T2
T4
Tests
_ _ _ _Group I
---------Group II
·········Group III
44
FIGURE III
COMPARISON OF MEAN TOTAL TESTING SCORES ON THE
STAR- TRACE MAZE
130
125
120
Total
115
Score
110
(Time
&
Errors) 105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
..._., . . . .
- .... . . ....... ., " .....
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
T2
Tl
~
Group I
----------Group II
· · · · · · · · · ·Group III
45
From the original seventy-nine subjects, nine subjects were unable to complete the study, leaving a total
of seventy subjects.
ject dropouts.
Table 16 shows the breakdown in sub-
Even with the loss of nine subjects, it was
illustrated in Tables 4, 5, and 6 that there were no statistical differences between groups based on the pre-test
results.
TABLE 16
COMPARISON OF SUBJECT DROPOUTS IN GROUPS I, II, AND III
Measure
Subjects Beginning
Study
Subjects Ending
Study
Subject
Dropouts
Group I
26
21
5
Group II
26
24
2
Group III
27
25
2
Total
79
70
9
An analysis of variance test was used to determine
_,
if significant differences existed between Groups I, II,
and III on the mid-test and the post-test.
Tables 7, 8,
and 9 revealed all groups to be significantly different at
the .01 level for time, errors, and total score results.
All groups statistically improved (.01 and
~OS
levels)
from pre-test to the mid-test, mid-test to the post-test,
and pre-test to the post-test in time, errors, and total
scores.
Improvements in Group III (control group) were
due to learning which occurred during non-dominant hand
46
: tes-ting-sess-ionS:-Tne-1mprovemerits--in:-- Gr-oup-- I -(fatigue
I
i and practice group) and Group II (practice group) were due
to both learning which occurred during the non-dominant
hand testing sessions and to bilateral transfer from the
Tables 10, 11, and 12
dominant hand practice sessions.
illustrate these improvements.
Improvements made by Groups
I and II supported the findings of Bray (13), Cook (15,
16), Ewert (20), and Woodsworth (29).
Significance of difference between Groups I and II,
I and III, and II and III are illustrated in Tables 13, 14
and 15. ·The post-test results indicated that Group I performed better statistically (.01 level) than Group III in
time, error, and total scores.
Group II was shown to have
performed better statistically (.01 level) than Group III
in time and total score results.
These findings show that
Group I (fatigue and practice group) and Group II (practice group) performed better statistically than Group III
(control group) on the post-test.
These findings also
supported research by Bray (13), Cook (15, 16), Ewert (20),
and Woodsworth (29).
The post-test results indicated that time and total,
scores for Group I (fatigue and practice group) were statistically higher (.05 level) than for Group II (practice
group).
This would indicate that practicing on the star-
trace maze with the dominant hand in a fatigued state had
statistically improved the performance with the non-dominant hand, resulting in faster times and lower total
47
scores.
These findings reflect on other studies dealing with
fatigue.
In a study by Benson (12) the findings suggested
that fatigue has a differential effect on learning dependent upon the nature of the task.
His results showed that
learning of the speed component in a jumping task was impaired in a fatigued state.
The learning of the accuracy
component in a jumping task was enhanced by practice in a
fatigued state.
Benson also found that learning to juggle
was enhanced by practice performed in a fatigued state.
These findings conflict with results of this study in both;
speed (time) and accuracy (errors).
However, two major
differences existed between the studies.
First, Benson
used general physiological fatigue and the present study
used local fatigue; and second, Benson tested gross motor
tasks whereas this study tested fine motor tasks.
Alderman (11) studied the influence of local fatigue on performance and learning in two related tasks and
found that learning was not impaired even though speed and
accuracy of performance were affected immediately following the exercise bout.
Nunney (24) studied the effects of
various states of fatigue on learning star-tracing and a
pursuit rotor task.
His results indicated that learning
was impaired on the task undertaken immediately following
the fatiguing session.
Testing at a later date revealed
learning was not influenced because of the fatigue.
Cratty
(2:290-291) summarized several theories for the occurrence:
48
of bilateral transfer.
These theories included visual
cues, relaxing effects of practicing a skill, eye movements, consistency and stability of
of confidence.
approac~
and feelings
It is possible that under local fatigue
subject will use greater concentration in performing on
the star-trace maze, resulting in more precise hand and
eye movements and a greater consistency and stability of
approach.
None of the previous studies investigated the influence of fatigue on bilateral transfer.
From the re-
sults of this study it is concluded that when fatigue is
introduced prior to practicing on the star-trace maze,
over a seven week period, the effect will be in the form
of faster times and lower total scores (time plus errors).
However, the results of the study have certain
limitations that must be taken into consideration.
The
post-test results showed Group I (fatigue and practice
group) to have performed statistically higher than Group
II (practice group).
The mid-test results showed no sta-
tistical differences between the groups.
During the sixth
week of the study circumstances beyond any control of the
tester forced postponement of the study for two days.
The
missed practice and testing sessions were completed during.
the seventh week.
Figures II and III clearly show a re-
gression in the performance of Group II on Test 6 for both
errors and total scores.
There were no apparent fluctua- ;
tions in Group I or Group III due ·-----------·------·
to the postponement.
--------- ----- ---- ------------------ ..
--~---------------
50
---------------------------------------------
total scores.
·-·.
All three groups showed significant 1m-
provement on time, errors, and total scores during the
study.
6.
There was a significant difference between
Group I and Group III on time, errors, and total scores.
Group I had a faster time, fewer errors, and a lower total
score during the study.
I
7.
,,Jn
1
Il
There was a significant difference between Group
and Group III on errors and total scores.
Group II per-
formed with fewer errors and had a lower total score than
Group III.
I
I Group
i
I test.
I
8.
There was a significant difference between
I and Group II on time and total scores on the postGroup I performed in less time and with a lower
total score than did Group II on the star-trace maze.
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----~---------------------·-·----·····-------
- - - - - - - · - · - - -·-- --
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The purpose of this investigation was to determine
practice of a fine motor task with one limb, under
a state of local muscular fatigue, resulted in significantly different bilateral transfer than occurred in a nonfatigued state.
Seventy male volunteers. enrolled in San Fernando
Valley State College physical education and recreation activity classes, served as subjects for the study.
were ranked based on their pre-test scores.
Subjects
Group I was
the fatigue arid practice group; Group II was the practice
group; and Group III was the control group.
The study
lasted for seven weeks, with two practice sessions and one
testing session per week.
Group I fatigued the dominant arm using a hand dynamometer and then trained on the star-trace maze for two
sessions a week, with five trials a session.
I trained
Group II
with the dominant arm on the star-trace maze for
I two
sessions a week, with five trials a session.
I did
not receive any training with the dominant arm.
Ithree groups
received one
tes;~ng
Group III.
All
session a week with the
52
: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · · - - · - - · - · - - - - · - · · - · · · - - ..
non-dominant arm, with five trials a session.
Analyses of variance tests were used to determine
significance of among-group differences; and
the~
tests
were used to determine significance of between-group differences.
Reliability of testing procedure was determined
by the use of Pearson's Product Moment correlation coefficients.
Major Findings
1.
The test procedures used in this study provided:
reliable measures of the subject's time, error, and total
scores between the mid-test and post-test on the Snoddy
star-trace maze
2.
There were no significant differences found be-
tween groups using the mean scores on the pre-test.
3.
There was a significant correlation between mid-
test and post-test results of Groups I, II, and III using
mean scores.
The lowest coefficients were found to be be-
tween pre-test and post-test in Group I (fatigue and pract:1.ce group) and Group II (practice group) in time, error,
and total scores, and in Group III (control group) for time
scores.
4.
There was a significant difference among Groups
I, II, and III on the mid-test and post-test using mean
time, error, and total scores.
5.
There was a significant difference between pre-
53
i
and post-test within Groups I, II_;_arid--III--on- time-,- errors,
and total scores.
All three groups showed significant im-
provement on time, errors, and total scores during the
study.
6.
There was a significant difference between
Group I and Group III on time, errors, and total scores.
Group I has a faster time, fewer errors, and a lower total
score during the study.
I
7.
I II
There was a significant difference between
and Group III on errors and total scores.
Gr~
Group II
I performed with fewer errors and had a lower total score
I than
Group III.
8.
There was a significant difference hetween
I and Group II on time and total scores on the postI Group
test. Group I performed in less time and with a lower
I
total score than did Group II on the star-trace maze.
Conclusion
The null hypothesis used in this study stated that
performance of fine motor tasks with one limb, while in a
state of local fatigue, will not significantly effect the
amount of bilateral transfer to the opposite limb.
hypothesis was found to be untenable.
This
The following gen-
eral conclusion appears to be justified:
Performance of
fine motor tasks with one limb, while in a state of local
fatigue, will effect the amount of bilateral transfer to
the opposite limb.
This effect will be in the form of
54
Recommendations for Future Studies
Due to the limitations of this study, the following
recommendations are made for future research:
1.
Future studies might investigate other lengths
of training times.
2.
Since only local fatigue was administered prior
to the training sessions, a future study might include
I
I
l
gen~
eral physiological fatigue during each training session.
3.
Future research might investigate this pheno-
menon in various age and sex populations.
4.
In view of the novelty of using the star-trace
maze, it is suggested that more common tasks, such as kicking or hitting a ball, be considered for future studies.
I
i
[___
___________________________________________________________________ _
BIBLIOGRAPHY
55
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
1.
Bartley, S. and Chute, E. Fatigue and Impairment in
Man. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1947.
2.
Cratty, Bryant J. Movement Behavior and Motor Learning. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1967.
3.
DeVries, Herbert. Physiology of Exercise for Physical
Education and Athletics. Dubuque, Iowa: William
Brown Company, 1966.
4.
Ellis, Henry. The Transfer of Learning.
The Macmillan Company, 1965.
5.
Grose, R. F. and Birney, R. C. Transfer of Training.
Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, Inc., 1963.
6.
Holding, D. H. Principles of Training.
Pergamon Press, 1965.
7.
Gingsley, Howard L. The Nature and Conditions of
Learning. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1955.
8.
Mouly, George J. Psychology for Effective Teaching.
Atlanta: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968.
9.
Ricci, Benjamin. Physiological Basis of Human Performance. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1967.
I
110.
I
Iill.
I
I
112.
I
New York:
New York:
Seagoe, May V. A Teacher's Guide to the Learning Process. Dubuque: William Brown Company, 1961.
Periodicals
Alderman, Richard. "Influence of Local Fatigue on
Speed and Accuracy in Motor Learning," Research
Quarterly, 36: 131-140, May, 1965.
Benson, David W. "Influence of Imposed Fatigue on
Learning a Jumping and a Juggling Task," Research
Quarterly, 39: 251-257, May, 1968.
56
57
113.
I
Bray, Charles W. "Transfer of Learning," Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 11: 443-467, 1928.
I
!14.
l
!I
I
!15.
I
116.
17.
Cook, Thomas W. "Studies in Cross-Education. Mirror
Tracing the Star-Shaped Maze," Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16: 144-160, 1933.
l
"Studies in Cross Education. Further
Experiments in Mirror Tracing the Star-Shaped
Maze," ,Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16:
679-700, 1934.
"Studies in Cross-Education. Kines-------t~h-e_t_i~c---L~ea-rning of an Irregular Pattern," Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 17: 749-762, 1934.
1
1
1
j
I
.
I
18.
Day, R. H. "Relative Task Difficulty and Transfer of !
Training in Skilled Performance," Psychological
Bulletin, 53: 160-168, 1956.
19.
Eberhard, Ulrich. "Transfer of Training Related to
Finger Dexterity," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 17:
274-279, 1963.
20.
Ewert, P. H. "Bilateral Transfer in Mirror Drawing,"
Journal of Genetic Psychology, 33: 235-249, 1926.
21.
Freedman, G. L. "Studies in the Psycho-Physiology, of
Transfer. The Problem of Identical Elements,'
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2: 521-526,
1937.
22.
Huetine, J. and Saraphati, H. "Measuring Fatigue,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, 50: 535-538, Decem-:
ber, 1966.
!
23.
Munn, Norman L. "Bilateral Transfer of Learning,"
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15: 343-353,
1932.
24.
Nunney, Derek. "Fatigue, Impairment, and Psychomotor
Learning," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 16: 369375, April, 1963.
/25.
I
Briggs, G. E. and Brogden, W. J. "The Effect of Component Practice on Performance of a Level-Position-,
ary Skill," Journal of Experimental Psychology,
48: 375-380, 1954.
Rich, George Q. III. '~u~cular Fatigue Curves of Boys:
and Girls," Research Quarterly, 31: 485-498, 1960. j
58
Schwab, Robert and Puchard, John. "Neurologic Aspects.
of Fatigue," Neurology, 1: 133-135, March-April,
1951.
27.
Walters, Etta. "The Application of the Overload Prin-;
ciple to the Learning of Motor Skill," American
,
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 10: 1-6, January-:
February, 1956.
28.
Weig, E. L. "Bilateral Transfer in Motor Learning of
Young Children and Adults," Child Development, 3:
247-267, 1932.
29.
Woodworth, R. S. "Accuracy of Voluntary Movement,"
Psychological Monographs, 3: 3-7, 1899.
30.
Yoakum, C. S. and Calfee, M. "An Analysis of the
Mirror Drawing Equipment," Journal of Educational
Psychology, 4: 283-299, 1913.
APPENDICES
59
------------------
------------------··---·-------------------- ----
APPENDIX A
DATA COLLECTION FORMS
60
,--·-·--· _________ ____________________
,
'NAHE
.ADifRESS
I'
..DOMINANT HAND
STREET
CITY~----ZIP
AcE
Trial
Practice
P-1
··-l
DATAccf11Ec'i'!5N-F6RM·-GROUP I
1
Trial
2
Trial
3
SCHEDULE
DOMINANT HAND
Trial Trial Total
Time
4
5
CODE
TELEPHONE
DAYS
TIME
Total Total Mean
Errors T & E Time
Mean
Mean
Errors Total T&E
NON-DOMINANT HAND
Tri9l · Trial Total Total Total Mean
4
~
Time
Errors T & E Time
Mean
Mean
Errors Tota 1 T&E
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-8
P-9
P-10
Tri!l
iPre- test
Tri~l
Tri~l
; T-1
i T-2
j T-3
I T-4
T-5
T-6
!Post- test
I
I
-
i '1'-
)
l ..
7
0\
j-1
62
DATA COLLECTION FORM=-=-- -----------------····
GROUP I
NAME
DOMINANT HAND
GRIP
FATIGUE DATA
P-1 P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 P-9 P-10 Total
Score
a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b a b
SIZE
Mean
S:core
a b
Maximum
Cmtrac-
tion
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
60
75
80
85
90
95
jlOO
105
1 110
115
120
125
130
FATIGUE = 45% of maximum contraction plus 15 additional
contractions.
-----··-------·-------····------------·-------·-·--------··----·--·····--·-- ----------··--·---- --·--·····
--,
DATA COLLECTION FORM
GROUP II
1
DOMINANT HAND
NAME
STREET
ADDRESS
CITY
AGE
Practice
P-1
P-2
P-3
P-4
P-5
P-6
P-7
P-8
P-9
P-10
SCHEDULE
Trial
1
Trial
Pre-test
I
T-1
T-2
T-3
T-~
TT-6
Post-test
1
I
ZIP CODE
1
Trial
2
Trial
2
Trial
3
DOMINANT HAND
Trial Trial Total
Time
5
4
Trial
3
NON-DOMINANT HAND
Trial Trial Total
Time
4
5
TELEPHONE
DAYS
TIME
Total Total Mean
Errors T & E Time
Total
Errors
Total Mean
T & E Time
Mean
Errors
Mean
TotalT&Ei
Mean
Mean
Errors Total T&E
!
T-7
~
w
DATA COLLECTION FORM
~--------------
l
---------------- ···--- .... -
--- .. -·
GROUP III
NAME
DOMINANT HAND
ADDRESS
STREET
CITY
ZIP CODE
.ACE
.TELEPHONE
SCHEDULE
DAYS
TIME
NON-DOMINANT HAND
Trial
1
Trial
2
Trial
3
Trial
4
Trial
5
Total
Time
Pre-test
T-1
Total
Errors
Total
T &E
Mean
Time
Mean
Mean
Errors Total T&El
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5
T-6
Post-test
T-7
DATA-
TIME
ERRORS
0'\
+:--
APPENDIX B
MEAN TESTING SCORES FROM STAR-TRACE MAZE
65
'------------------------~---------
66
--------- ------
·--~--
-·· ---
----
-- ---------
TABLE 17
INDIVIDUAL MEAN TIME TESTING SCORES ON THE STAR- TRACE MAZE
:croup 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
*
*
*
*
*
Test
1
Test
2
Test
3
Test
Test
Test
Test
4
5
6
7
19.6
13.5
9.6
9.5
8.4
8.9
8.5
23.3
32.2
32.5
20.4
24.2
32.1
22.8
34.0
25.1
65.4
36.2
38.5
.39.7
31.0
16.2
12.2
24.3
13.3
14.1
23.6
15.9
18.6
14.7
17.2
21.4
13.9
26.7
20.4
12.8
11.5
16.6
10.1
11.4
18. 7
15.2
21.8
12.2
13.8
14.9
12.4
12.9
11.9
10.5
9.9
12.6
9.5
9.6
14.1
15.1
13.6
11.3
13.2
14.0
11.6
11.7
15.6
8.8
9.5
11.9
8.9
8.0
10.5
14.2
12.5
10.6
11.4
11.4
11.0
10.8
10.9
9.3
8.4
9.7
8.4
8.2
12.1
11.1
12.5
9.9
10.8
11.9
10.4
11.2
11.8
8.2
7.6
9.7
9.0
9.6
11.4
10.6
11.7
8.9
10.5
10.7
8.1
10.3
10.8
31.1
44.3
18.6
31.8
15.8
22.6
15.1
13.8
10.2
12.5
10.5
8.9
9.4
9.4
33.4
52.2
33.8
55.8
26.6
22.8
31.8
19.4
15.0
14.3
14.0
29.6
11.7
14.0
10.1
16.0
12.4
11.2
9.7
13.6
10.6
11.4
9.0
10.7
12.3
11.0
8.0
10.3
*Dropped
67
----~-------·-··--
·-
--·----
-~·--·
TABLE 18
INDIVIDUAL MEAN ERROR TESTING SCORES ON THE STAR-TRACE MAZE
:croup 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
*
*
*
*
*
Test
1
Test
2
Test
3
Test
4
Test
5
Test
6
Test
7
61.0
40.0
35.0
33.0
31.8
28.2
26.2
47.8
62.4
73.0
57.2
74.2
47.8
55.8
67.8
69.4
84.0
73.6
103.2
65.8
79.4
31.2
33.4
47.4
42.0
47.2
24.4
54.8
47.0
47.2
46.2
41.0
41.6
39.6
47.6
27.6
32.8
44.0
33.6
38.2
26.8
47.4
40.0
35.2
43.0
42.4
45.4
32.0
39.6
31.4
30.0
38.2
30.8
34.0
29.8
35.2
38.4
37.8
38.8
34.6
42.6
27.2
45.6
32.2
30.2
40.4
30.0
31.8
29.8
43.2
30.8
37.2
36.8
35.2
37.6
28.6
39.4
28.4
27.4
30.8
29.0
31.8
30.4
32.6
37.0
36.8
32.0
29.6
38.0
25.0
40.8
31.4
25.8
26.2
27.8
33.8
2 7. 0
26.4
36.8
33.8
31.8
29.2
29.4
25.4
42.2
80.6
108.2
64.0
81.6
48.6
77.6
48.2
42.6
34.0
44.6
38.2
34.2
38.0
37.0
101.2
105.4
90.2
100.8
83.6
56.0
89.4
52.2
59.0
40.4
48.6
62.8
41.4
39.4
33.8
41.4
44o8
31.2
26.0
35.0
35.4
33.4
30.6
32.2
40.6
32.2
26.4
29.8
*Dropped
68
·---·--·-·-·--··- ---.
.
---·--··.- ..
TABLE 19
INDIVIDUAL MEAN TOTAL (TIME
&
ERRORS) TESTING SCORES ON
THE STAR-TRACE MAZE
Test
2
Test
3
Test
4
Test
5
Test
6
Test
7
80.6
52.5
44.6
42.5
40.2
37.1
34.7
71.0
87.4
105.4
77.6
98.4
79.8
78.6
101.8
94.5
149.4
109.8
141.7
105.5
110.4
47.4
45.6
71.7
55.3
61.3
48.0
70.7
65.6
61.9
63.4
62.4
55.5
66.3
68.0
40.4
44.3
60.6
43.7
49.6
45.5
62.6
61.8
47.4
56.8
57.3
57.8
44.9
51.5
41.9
39.9
50.8
40.3
43.6
43.9
50.3
52.0
49.0
52.0
48.6
54.2
38.9
61.2
41.0
39.7
52.3
38.9
39.8
40.3
57.4
43.2
47.8
48.2
46.6
48.6
39.450.3
37.7
35.8
40.5
37.4
40.0
42.5
43.7
49.4
46.7
42.8
41.5
48.4
36.2
52.6
39.6
33.4
35.9
36.8
43.4
38.4
37.0
48.5
42.7
42.3
39.1
37.5
35.7
53.0
111.7
152.5
82.6
113.4
64.4
100.2
63.3
56.4
44.2
57.0
48.7
43.1
47.4
46.4
157.6
124.0
156.6
78 .8
121.2
71.6
54.7
62.6
92.4
53.1
53.4
43.9
57.4
57.2
42.4
35.7
48.6
46.0
44.8
39.6
42.9
52.9
43.2
34.4
40.1
Group 1 Test
1
1 ")'(
2
3 *
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 *
19
20
21 *
22
23
24
25
26 *
-----
---------· ----134.6 110.2
74.0
-----
*Dropped
'---------------
-------------·--
--·------·---··--
·----
··--·---·
69
, - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------.
.. .
---·
··-·
TABLE 20
INDIVIDUAL MEAN TIME TESTING SCORES ON THE STAR-TRACE MAZE
i
Group II
Test
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
*
*
Test
2
Test
Test
3
4
Test
5
Test
6
Test
7
25.4
27.2
21.0
34.3
34.7
25.8
24.4
22.7
23.9
31.7
54.5
36.7
34.8
46.7
47.2
16.4
26.9
12.8
17.5
19.5
18.3
14.7
17.4
15.0
32.6
18.9
16.2
14.7
15.9
17.1
10.2
22.7
12.2
17.0
13.9
18.0
11.4
12.0
12.6
14.9
16.8
12.6
13.8
10.1
18.7
12.1
19.5
13.4
14.0
15.1
17.1
8.4
10.7
10.1
13.8
15.5
9.8
13.2
10.5
15.1
10.7
12.9
11.4
12.0
14.7
14.3
6.9
14.8
10.9
14.0
16.4
9.3
10.1
10.9
12.2
10.2
12.8
10.4
9.3
12.3
14.4
8.0
13.6
8.2
12.8
13.4
9.5
11.8
10.1
9.5
10.5
16.6
10.0
9.3
13.8
11.9
8.8
13.0
9.0
9.8
16.4
10.1
11.7
9.4
10.5
47.1
31.7
35.9
33.8
12.3
18.1
20.6
14.4
10.6
15.9
13.7
15.0
12.0
15.7
12.3
12.8
10.0
13.1
10.5
9.9
11.6
11.5
12.5
10.2
10.3
12.3
11.8
8.5
58.3
12.7
15.1
15.4
15.1
21.1
10.8
12.0
16.9
19.2
14.6
11.4
9.2
17.5
10.9
11.1
9.0
9.4
13.8
10.5
12.6
10.8
10.2
14.3
8.4
11.2
11.9
10.0
14.1
7.7
10.6
40.6
41.6
54.3
57.6
*Dropped
_______________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------- --------
,___
-----
70
,----------------
--·-·--··--·-·-·- -·
·····--··
.
TABLE 21
INDIVIDUAL MEAN ERROR TESTING SCORES ON THE STAR-TRACE MAZE
Group II
1
2
3
I
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
*
*
Test
1
Test
2
Test
3
Test
4
Test
5
Test
6
Test
7
54.6
58.0
49.2
76.8
53.4
50.6
71.8
69.0
62.6
74.8
103.6
59.0
75.2
101.2
107.8
47.8
42.0
39.4
48.4
40.6
42.4
48.4
49.8
46.6
55.0
56.8
51.6
44.4
52.8
52.6
36.0
43.0
40.6
49.6
38.0
44.4
41.8
36.4
36.6
33.6
56.8
42.4
32.4
31.8
62.6
30.0
34.8
38.8
45.4
33.6
32.2
32.0
28.4
29.8
38.4
51.6
33.0
39.8
43.2
45.6
30.4
26.0
34.2
40.0
34.2
30.0
30.4
36.2
28.0
34.4
51.2
30.6
29.4
37.8
37.8
33.2
30.2
34.8
32.6
29.6
34.4
27.8
39.8
27.8
46.6
43.6
41.6
37.8
39.2
33.8
30.6
28.0
32.2
34.8
25.6
29.2
29.2
38.4
27.6
37.0
42.8
37.0
36.8
37.4
37.4
99.0
80.4
90.4
88-.4
47.4
55.2
60.2
53.2
42.2
51.8
46.2
46.6
39.4
51.0
40.8
40.4
27.4
40.2
38.2
34.8
33.0
42.8
42.4
36.8
30.0
40.0
40.4
31.0
80.4
93.4
88.4
117.2
127.0
38.6
53.8
40.6
53.8
61.8
38.0
49.4
40.0
66.8
44.0
36.6
36.2
42.4
33.8
41.4
31.2
38.2
32.4
31.2
38.0
37.4
39.4
42.0
25.0
36.6
31.0
37.4
39.2
24.6
38.2
-:,..-.-
*Dropped
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · ---·---------···-------.. -··---·-- -·-·-·····-·---···-
71
·--·--·------·-·······-~--···-··-··-
-
TABLE 22
INDIVIDUAL MEAN TOTAL (TD1E
&
ERRORS) TESTING SCORES ON
THE STAR-TRACE MAZE
j
·Group II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
*
*
Test
1
Test
2
Test
3
Test
4
Test
5
Test
6
Test
7
80.0
85.2
70.2
111.1
88.1
76.5
96.2
91.7
86.4
106.1
158.1
95.7
110.0
147.8
155.0
64.2
68.9
52.2
65.9
60.1
60.7
63.1
66.8
61.6
76.6
75.7
67.8
59.1
68.7
69.6
46.2
65.7
52.8
66.6
51.9
62.4
53.2
48.4
49.2
48.5
73.6
55.0
46.2
41.9
81.3
42.1
54.3
52.2
59.4
48.7
49.2
40.4
39.1
39.9
52.2
67.1
42.8
53.0
53.7
60.7
41.1
38.9
45.6
52.0
48.9
44.3
37.3
51.0
38.9
48.4
67.6
39.9
39.5
48.7
50.0
43.4
43.0
45.2
41.9
41.9
48.8
35.8
53.8
36.0
59.4
57.0
51.1
49.6
49.3
43.3
41.1
44.6
42.2
44.1
39.4
41.0
38.0
51.4
36.6
46.8
59.2
47.0
48.5
46.8
47.9
146.0
112.1
126.3
122.2
59.7
73.3
80.8
67.6
52.8
67.7
59.9
61.6
51.4
66.7
53.1
53.2
37.4
53.3
48.7
44.7
44.6
54.3
54.9
47.0
40.2
52.3
52.0
39.4
138.7
134.0
130.0
171.4
184.6
51.2
68.9
56.0
68.9
82.9
48.8
61.4
56.8•
86.0
58.6
46.2
45.4
59.8
44.7
52.5
40.2
47.6
46.2
41.6
50.6
48.2
49.6
56.2
33.4
47.8
42.8
47.4
53.2
32.3
48.8
*Dropped
72
TABLE 23
:INDIVIDUAL MEAN TIME TESTING SCORES ON THE STAR-TRACE MAZE
!Group III Test
Test
2
Test
3
Test
4
Test
5
Test
6
Test
7
16.2
23.1
20.4
19.0
25.2
25.3
28.0
24.4
29.8
30.4
32.7
40.5
35.7
26.7
34.5
44.3
30.3
45.1
41.8
34.6
22.1
17.1
21.0
14.4
24.9
18.5
14.3
14.8
16.5
15.4
24.2
22.2
26.0
19.4
20.9
29.0
19.9
21.0
25.2
25.4
13.0
15.3
11.8
14.8
15.9
17.1
14.9
11.2
14.7
13.3
17.8
14 . 6
23.2
15.4
13.6
22.0
15.1
19.2
17.0
19.6
14.4
12.4
11.6
12.9
11.9
14.1
11.1
15.0
12.5
12.6
13.3
15.3
26.2
10.7
14.7
16.4
14.7
12.7
13.6
16.2
11.3
12.1
9.4
9.9
13.0
14.0
11.8
11.8
12.5
12.2
10.9
16.6
22.2
11.0
12.1
18.2
13.0
13.0
11.2
14.5
11.1
12.8
9.4
12.7
11.1
13.1
10.6
12.9
9.3
13.1
11.0
13.4
19.3
10.6
11.7
15.4
13.3
13.8
12.3
14.2
9.8
11.3
11.8
11.1
12.8
11.5
10.2
11.5
8 .. 5
1L3
9.7
13.4
22.2
8.8
14.3
15.2
11.7
12.0
11.0
12.6
40.9
54.2
49.6
39.1
16.8
39.0
21.9
20.2
15.3
21.7
19.1
16.8
16.0
17.5
14.9
15.7
17.3
13.4
16.3
14.8
17.7
14.7
12.6
11.7
13.9
11.8
11.3
9.7
33.6
35.7
27.2
21.8
20.1
22.5
26.1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
*
*
.t.
"Dropped
-------------
..
___ ----·--···----·-··---------------.-
73
TABLE 24
INDIVIDUAL MEAN ERROR TESTING SCORES ON THE STAR-TRACE MAZE
:Group III Test
1
Test
2
Test
3
Test
4
Test
5
Test
6
Test
7
45.4
66.6
56.4
54.6
59.8
58.0
89.8
82.4
53.4
76.2
61.0
100.6
66.0
69.8
75.8
68.6
73.6
96.4
92.6
88.4
46.2
44.6
43.8
47.0
40.8
56.0
54.0
59.2
37.8
50.0
66.0
54.2
50.2
56.0
60.2
53.2
55.6
60.2
61.6
61.8
37.6
45.6
40.2
50.8
36.6
·53.2
51.0
48.8
42.8
46.4
37.2
41.0
41.2
31.8
42.0
39.8
52.4
46.2
45.4
48.4
53.8
52.2
61.4
46.0
42.8
46.4
32.6
44.8
49.4
39.2
49.0
39.4
43.6
43.4
40.8
45.8
40.0
51.6
31.6
31.2
36.0
32.6
41.4
49.8
43.6
45.4
26.4
38.0
44.2
40.4
42.6
38.8
40.6
33.2
44.6
46.2
40.2
46.6
28.8
36.2
33.2
33.6
37.0
46.0
40.2
45.0
28.6
40.6
47.2
39.6
42.2
35.2
39.8
36.0
40.8
46.8
44.2
46.0
31.2
37.0
39.2
30.8
39.4
39.6
40.8
39.0
31.4
30.6
42.6
46.6
37.8
34:8
39.8
40.6
39.0
42.6
41.0
44.4
98.0
121.6
122.4
87.4
48.2
91.4
66.8
60.8
44.2
68.2
60.8
52.4
39.8
56.4
53.6
49.0
33.6
46.6
55.6
45.0
31.6
50.6
36.0
43.8
35.0
44.2
47.4
39.0
48.6
36.0
23.4
19.0
19.2
16.8
14.2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
I 8
9
110
I 11
I
!
12
113
114
i 15
16
17
18
19
20
21 *
22
23.
24
2s
I 26
I 27
1
*
*Dropped
I
52~2
39.8
74
I
-·---~-------·--
_,
··--·-
TABLE 25
INDIVIDUAL MEAN TOTAL (TIME & ERRORS) TESTING SCORES ON THE;
I
Icroup
I III
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
STAR-TRACE MAZE
Test
1
Test
2
Test
3
Test
4
Test
5
Test
61.6
89.7
76.8
73.6
85.0
83.3
117.8
83.2
106.6
93.7
141.1
101.6
110.3
112.8
103.9
141.5
134.4
123.0
62.3
61.7
64.8
61.4
65.7
74.5
68.3
54.3
65.4
90.2
76.4
76.2
75.4
81.1
82.2
75.5
81.2
86.8
87.2
50.6
60.9
52.0
65.6
52.5
70.3
65.9
57.5
59.7
70.0
56.6
63.0
67.8
59.8
67.4
63.5
73.0
69.2
81.0
51.6
54.2
52.2
44.7
51.7
60.1
53.8
45.1
57.4
62.7
54.5
75.2
50.0
58.3
59.8
55.5
58.5
53.6
67.8
43.1
43.3
45.4
42.5
54.4
63.8
55.4
38.9
50.2
55.1
57.0
64.8
49.8
52.7
51.4
57.6
59.2
51.4
61.1
39.9
54.0
42.6
46.3
48.1
59.1
59.8
37.9
53.7
58.2
53.0
61.5
45.8
51.5
51.4
54.1
60.6
56.5
60.2
41.0
48.3
51.0
41.9
52.2
51.1
51.0
39.9
41.8
52.3
60.0
60.0
43.6
54.1
55.8
50.7
54.6
52.0
57.0
138.9
175.8
179.2
127.3
65.0
130.4
88.7
81.0
59.5
89.9
80.7
69.2
55.8
73.9
68.5
64.7
50.9
60.0
71.9
59.8
49.1
65.3
48.6
55.5
48.9
56.0
58.6
48.7
71.7
50.6
40.8
39.3
39.3
40.3
96~4
* -----
6
Test
7
ic -----
82.2
..."
Dropped
~-------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX C
MEAN PRACTICE SCORES FROM STAR- TRACE MAZE
75
r··---·---- ------- ..........._____. ________.__________. ___.. ____ .._________
-
------~--·~-
TABLE 26
i
I
Group I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
'
Te~t
Te~t
Te~t
Tegt
Tegt
Te7t
Te§t
Te§t
Tetb
---- ---24.0
9.4
---10.2
----
----
----
----
----
----
--·--
23.9
21.9
30.5
20.6
18.1
25.6
24.8
23.8
25.9
46.2
29.2
28.1
25.7
25.2
20.7
19.1
16.3
14.2
10.5
21.6
14.2
19.6
14.3
20.7
17.2
14.4
15.7
22.2
15.8
12.7
14.9
10.3
9.8
15.9
10.8
24.8
10.8
12.9
13.5
11.0
16.3
11.6
12.3
8.9
11.1
9.8
8.6
19.3
14.6
24.1
9.9
11.7
12.8
10.2
11.8
14.1
9.5
9.0
8.6
11.4
9.1
13.3
11.5
19.3
9.7
9.7
11.5
10.6
11.4
10.1
10.0
8.2
9.2
10.2
8.1
. 10.3
13.1
12.0
8.1
9.5
13.1
8.4
12.1
8.7
9.3
7.3
8.2
9.9
7.3
10.4
12 .8
12.6
7.5
9.9
11.4
8.4
12.1
8.0
8.7
7.5
7.7
10.1
7.2
10.0
12.9
12.4
6.9
10.6
11.3
8.5
10.9
9.1
8.6
10.1
7.6
10.4
6.2
9.7
10.6
12.3
8.2
8.9
11.5
8.6
9.3
9.2
7.7
7.8
7.1
8.7
7.3
9.5
10.0
12.0
7.3
8.-0
10.2
7.7
10.7
7.9
20.7
32.4
16.4
26.5
19.0
17.6
14.2
13.6
13.7
9.9
12.5
10.1
12.5
9.6
9.8
8.3
8.8
7.8
8.2
7.0
32.3
21.1
21.5
43.2
19.7
16.1
12.6
15.6
14.9
12.7
11.9
16.6
10.9
11.2
11.1
14.3
10.2
10.2
12.4
13.8
9.6
11.1
10.6
13.7
10.5
10.1
8.7
12.8
9.3
10.0
8.1
12.8
8.4
10.2
10.1
11.3
8.6
9.5
9.2
10.5
Telt
·k
*
*
*
*
~~
t ··--·
····-- ..
INDIVIDUAL MEAN TIME PRACTICE SCORES ON THE STAR-TRACE MAZE
I
I
····-~·-
8.2
7.1
8.1
8.3
8.2
Dropped
. .,
·····-
-
.....
7.4
7.2
-....!
(j\
"·'
·-- ·····-·
.
--···-
·-··---------~---
--····-···-···· ··-
.
--·· --
·-
···------------------------~·-··-------------------·---------·-··--------------------
TABLE 27
INDIVIDUAL MEAN ERROR PRACTICE SCORES ON THE STAR- TRACE MAZE
!'
Group I
1.
1 *
2
3 ~..
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Test
1
Test
2
Test
3
Test
4
Test
5
Test
6
Test
7
Test
8
Test
9
Test
10
51.6
35.2
34.2
31.8
26.4
30.2
30.4
26.6
29.8
26.2
47.2
58.6
49.4
61.8
71.4
44.6
60.0
61.8
58.0
108,0
76.4
71.2
52.6
72.2
31.4
45.8
42.8
47.0
49.5
22.0
40.2
47.8
43.6
60.6
47.8
49.0
37.8
57.6
28.2
37 .a·
37.6
38.2
42.8
36.4
40.6
35.8
39.2
42.4
43.0
40.2
34.0
39.6
28.0
29.4
36.6
38.6
38.6
26.2
37.4
30.4
32.8
38.4
39.0
38.2
29.8
46.0
24.6
30.0
29.4
34.0
41.5
31.0
29.6
31.0
32.8
34.4
36.2
35.6
30.8
37.8
27.2
26.8
28.4
30.0
35.3
23.8
31.6
37.0
28.6
29.6
38.0
29.2
26.0
34.4
29.0
25.2
26.8
28.2
33.3
24.0
30.6
41.2
23.4
31.4
34.6
30.4
23.8
32.0
27.2
25.2
27.0
27.4
30.8
28.0
25.8
39.4
25.8
32.8
36.4
30.4
27.2
34.6
29.8
33.2
25.4
29.2
31.6
26.2
31.4
37.8
27.2
32.0
36.6
25.0
27.4
35.4
27.0
26.8
23.4
28.4
31.1
21.0
26.8
37.8
27.0
28.8
28.2
22.8
24.6
30.6
62.6
98.2
56.2
71.0
50.6
56.0
45.8
50.8
41.0
36.2
42.6
33.6
38.6
37.2
35.8
31.0
33.8
27.8
34.8
24.8
86.0
56.0
72.2
75.8
68.2
47.6
49.8
48.6
52.8
39.0
41.8
49.4
42.2
30.8
35.6
46.6
34.8
29.6
38.8
36..,4
37.8
26.2
32.4
41.2
39.0
27.4
27.4
37.0
30.8
27.8
28.6
36.2
29.8
27.8
29.2
35.4
32.6
27.0
32.2
28.6
18~
! 19
I
20
21~'>
I
22
23
24
25
26""
~~
Dropped
-·-·-·----··-·-
"'-J
"'-J
..
·---~----···-----------·
TABLE 28
..... -·
.. ... .. . . ..
INDIVIDUAL MEAN TOTAL (TIME & ERRORS) PRACTICE SCORES ON THE STAR- TRACE MAZE
Group I
1 -~
2
3
Test
Test
4
-s
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 •/(
19
20
21 ";~
22
23
24
25
Dropped
Test
Test
8
Test
9
l,
Test
4
5
6
75.6
44.6
44.4
40.0
33.5
38.3
38.7
34.8
37.2
33.4
71.7
80.5
79.9
82.4
71.5
70.2
84.8
85.6
83.9
154.2
105.6
99.2
78.3
98.4
52.1
64.9
59.1
61.2
49.5
43.6
54.4
66.4
57.9
8L3
65.0
93.4
53.5
79.8
44.0
50.5
52.4
48.5
42.8
52.3
51.4
60.6
50.0
55.3
56.4
51.2
50.3
51.2
40.3
38.3
47.7
58.4
38.6
45.5
54.5
42.7
50.1
51.8
48.4
41.6
60.1
34.1
39.0
38.0
45.4
41.5
44.3
41.1
50.3
42.5
34.1
47.7
46.2
42.2
47.9
37.2
35.0
37.6
40.2
35.3
34.1
44.7
49.0
36.7
39.1
51.1
37.6
38.1
43.1
38.3
32.5
35.0
38.1
33.3
34.4
43.4
53.8
30.9
41.3
46.0
38.8
35.9
40.0
35.9
32.7
34.7
37.5
30.8
38.0
38.6
51.8
32.6
43.4
47.7
38.9
38.1
43.7
38.4
43.3
33.0
39.6
31.6
35.9
42.0
50.1
35.4
40.9
48.1
33.6
36.7
44.6
34.6
34.6
30.5
37.1
31.1
30.5
36.8
49.8
34.3
36.8
38.4
30.4
35.3
38.5
83.3
130.6
72.6
97.5
69.6
73.6
60.0
64.4
54.7
46.1
55.1
43.7
51.1
46.8
45.6
39.3
42.6
35.6
43.0
31.8
118.3
77.1
93.7
119.0
87.9
63.7
62.4
64.2
67.7
51.7
53.7
66.0
53.1
42.0
46.7
60.9
45.0
39.8
51.2
50.2
47.4
37.3
43.0
54.9
49.5
37.5
36.1
49.8
40.1
37.8
36.7
49.0
38.2
38.0
39.3
46.7
41.2
36.5
41.4
39.1
sa·.o
7
Test
3
---- ----
';~
Test
2
---- ----
26. •/(
Test
1
---- --
";~
Test
···1
10
'-1
00
·----------
·---------
---·-----
-··---·-··-·-·
TABLE 29
... -·-····
-·-·······
INDIVIDUAL MEAN TIME .PRACTICE SCORES ON THE STAR-TRACE MAZE
I
Group II
Test
1
Test
2
Test
3
Test
4
Test
5
Test
6
Test
7
Test
8
Test
9
Test
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1.11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
18.9
31.8
16.8
23.6
20.2
21.1
22.1
26.7
20.7
28.3
33.1
20.4
31.6
38.0
35.2
12.2
33.8
14.1
19.7
16.4
18.2
15.9
17.0
14.9
19.0
36.6
14.7
15.0
20.3
22.7
11.8
35.2
11.7
17.3
13.9
17.2
12.5
12.7
11.5
14.4
33.0
11.5
13.6
15.6
13.6
12.1
30.2
10.5
15.0
13.2
17.4
10.8
11.8
11.1
13.7
30.0
11.0
12.4
12.7
18.6
11.0
25.8
11.6
13.9
15.0
15.2
8.2
9.2
11.1
14.9
25.4
9.3
11.0
12.6
16.5
11.3
32.0
10.9
12.3
13.2
12.0
9.1
10.5
11.0
11.7
22.4
8.7
10.1
12.2
13.7
12.1
18.3
10.1
13.1
13.7
13.5
8.1
9.7
9.9
12.0
19.4
7.5
10.5
11.6
13.1
10.4
29.7
11.1
8.8
13.6
12.8
7.4
10.2
8.8
14.7
17.5
8.4
9.9
12.5
13.4
11.5
21.3
9.1
10.8
10.8
11.9
7.5
13.8
9.0
11.8
22.0
8.8
11.7
12.2
11.7
10.0
18.2
8.9
8.9
12.3
11.9
7.3
12.6
7.7
10.8
15.8
9.4
10.2
10.2
10.8
20.9
26.2
31.6
31.5
14.9
14.4
20.3
13.1
14.3
16.0
17.2
13.4
11.0
12.3
13.9
12.8
9.4
12.9
14.9
13.1
10.5
10.8
11.0
12.3
11.6
9.3
10.2
9.1
9.6
9.3
9.9
8.8
12.2
9.2
10.3
8.0
12.1
11.1
10.3
7.7
27.4
26.4
20.8
18.5
43.3
13.1
18.3
11.2
15.0
16.8
10.3
10.5
9.6
15.3
13.5
9.2
11.6
12.6
10.8
11.6
9.5
9.8
11.4
10.1
12.0
9.6
8.8
16.1
9.8
10.0
11.0
8.9
11.0
7.9
10.2
9.2
8.3
10.2
8.2
11.3
9.0
8.8
10.5
7.8
10.7
8.4
9.1
11.7
8.8
8.5
';~
i~
*Dropped
---- ----·
-......J
1.0
·--~-·.
-····-··-··------------··--
.. ··-".
---·-------
·-·-- ....
--
~··- ----~---·.
TABLE 30
INDIVIDUAL MEAN ERROR PRACTICE SCORES ON THE STAR- TRACE MAZE
Group II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JO
11
12
13
14
15
16 ..~
17
18
19
20
21 ";'(
22
23
24
25
26
-;'(
·-·------. ········-··.
Test
1
50.6
63.8
50.8
68.6
36.9
45.0
57.0
67.4
54.4
70.4
82.4
57.2
58.4
105.8
90.2
Test
2
22.8
49.8
45.4
60.6
38.0
39.2
49.2
43.6
47.0
58.6
56.2
44.4
46.2
71.4
69.0
'Test
3
44.6
45.2
37.2
52.4
30.6
38.2
44.8
40.4
42.6
42.8
52.0
35.8
40.8
53.0
43.6
Test
4
44.8
36.8
39.4
47.2
32.2
29.8
39.8
33.8
36.4
42.4
47.2
42.2
34.6
43.0
51.8
Test
5
36.0
28.2
37.8
46.6
47.2
28.2
36.0
31.4
32.4
46.2
49.0
35.2
31.6
43.6
46.2
Test
6
36.2
40.6
33.0
45.6
29.4
24.8
39.0
35.8
43.5
34.8
36.8
35.8
32.6
46.2
39.4
Test
7
37.6
26.6
34.6
45.0
24.4
24.4
31.0
30.2
28.8
32.2
39.0
28.0
37.6
47.2
34.0
Test
8
33.2
36.6
37.2
23.8
27.0
28.8
31.0
30.8
28.0
38.6
41.0
30.4
34.8
44.0
40.4
Test
9
33.8
35.8
33.2
40.6
24.6
24.4
27.8
25.8
24.2
37.4
41.8
32.6
37.0
39.6
38.8
Test
10
31.2
32.2
31.2
35.2
16.2
24.4
28.8
29.0
24.6
32.8
34.0
31.8
34.8
40.4
37.8
57.4
96.2
76.2
83.2
43.4
51.8
62.8
41.6
38.6
50.6
54.2
31.8
39.8
44.4
47.6
32.8
34.4
43.2
43.2
33.2
35.6
38.6
41.2
35.0
34.6
32.4
39.2
34.6
28.4
35.2
41.2
28.0
28.4
34.4
37.0
31.4
29.4
31.8
36.8
27.4
54.0
77.0
55.0
63.4
113.4
40.4
47.8
33.6
50.6
48.8
35.0
46.4
34.8
35.2
49.0
32.6
48.2
38.6
34.8
41.0
32.8
39.2
38.4
24.8
43.6
33.8
37.6
40.4
33.4
34.6
31.4
40.6
36.4
28.0
35.8
28.4
38.2
34.2
28.0
38.2
26.4
38.4
31.0
26.0
40.4
25.0
41.6
29.4
25.8
31.2
Dropped
II .
I
I
00
0
+•+•••••
·-·-••••••••••·•-••···-•H••-
..---•••---·- •·-· ••--•w-
----•-••••-•··-~·-·-·-·-··•·--•·-----------·-·-
··-----·-··---·-·---···--·•·-·•·•--·---·•·-·-·---
TABLE 31
INDIVIDUAL MEAN TOTAL (TIME & ERRORS) PRACTICE SCORES ON THE STAR-TRACE MAZE
Group II
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 -.'(
17
18
19
20
21 -.'(
22
23
24
25
26
Test
1
Test
2
Test
3
Test
4
Test
5
Test
6
Test
7
Test
8
Test
9
Test
10
69.5 35.0
95.6 83.7
67.6 59.5
92.2 80.3
36.8 38.0
66.1 57.4
79.1 65.1
94.1 60.6
75.1 61.9
98.7 77.2
115.5 92.8
77.6 59.1
90.0 61.2
143.8 91.7
125.4 91.7
56.4
80.4
48.3
69.7
30.6
55.4
57.3
53.1
54.1
57.2
85.0
47.3
54.4
68.6
57.2
59.9
67.0
49.9
62.2
32.2
47.2
50.6
45.6
47.5
56.1
77.2
53.2
47.0
55.7
70.4
47.0
54.0
49.4
60.5
47.2
43.4
44.2
40.6
43.5
61.1
74.4
44.7
42.6
56.2
62.7
47.5
49.7
72.6
44.9
43.9
44.7
58.1
57.9
29.4
24.4
36.8
37.9
48.1
39.1
46.3
39.9
39.8
37.9
46.5
44.2
59.2
58.5
44.5
35.5
42.7 . 48.1
58.4
58.8
53.1
47.1
43.6
66.3
48.3
32.6
27.0
41.6
38.4
41.0
33.0
53.2
63.8
38.8
44.7
56.5
53.8
45.2
57.1
32.3
51.4
24.6
36.3
35.3
39.6
33.6
49.2
41.8
41.4
48.7
51.8
50.5
41.2
50.4
40.1
44.1
28.5
36.3
36.1
41.6
32.3
43.6
34.0
41.2
45.0
50.6
48.6
80.3
123.4
107.8
114.7
58.2
66.2
83.0
34.7
52.9
66.6
71.4
45.2
50.8
56.7
61.5
45.6
43.8
56.1
58.1
46.3
46.0
49.4
52.2
47.3
46.2
41.7
49.4
43.7
38.0
44.5
51.0
36.8
40.6
43.6
47.2
39.4
41.5
42.9
47.1
35.0
81.4
103.4
75.8
81.8
156.7
53.5
66.1
44.8
65.6
65.6
45.3
56.8
44.4
50.5
62.5
41.8
59.8
51.2
45.6
52.6
42.2
49.0
49.8
34.9
55.6
43.4
46.4
56.5
43.2
44.6
42.4
49.5
47.4
35.9
46.0
37.6
46.5
44.4
36.2
49.5
35.4
47.2
41.5
33.8
51.1
33.4
50.7
44.1
34.6
39.7
*Dropped
00
. ..
············-~
---··-·- -·---··-·
1-'
------------------
-·----·---····-···-··-·
-
.
APPENDIX D
MEAN PRACTICE FIGURES FROM THE STAR TRACE-MAZE
82
' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------··-···--··-··--- ·~
83
FIGURE IV
II
COMPARISON OF MEAN TIME PRACTICE SCORES ON THE
STAR-TRACE :MAZE
I
I
I
IIT
48
46
44
i
m 42
40
38
i
n 36
s 34
e 32
c
30
0
n
28
d
s 26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
le
--- -
~
..............
-~------..:--:_--
p1
p2
P3
P4
Ps
P6
P7
P8
Practice Session #
_ _ _Group I
-------Group II
_....
..._ ......
~
84
, - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ·-----------·
FIGURE V
COMPARISON OF MEAN ERROR PRACTICE SCORES ON THE
STAR-TRACE MAZE
IN
I
IU
m
b
e
r
0
f
E
r
r
0
r
s
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
\
\
\
\
\
\.
\.
p1
...
'
P2
p3
Practice Session #
_ _ _Group I
-------Group II
85
FIGURE VI
COMPARISON OF MEAN TOTAL PRACTICE SCORES ON
THE STAR-TRACE MAZE
120
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
(T
75
i
m
70
e
65
p
60
1
55
u
s
50
E
45
r
40
r
35
0
r
30
s)
25
20
15
10
5
--- --
-----~--------~--~---............
o·
p1
p2
Practice Session #
_ _ _Group I
------Group II
~--------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX E
MEAN FATIGUE SCORES FROM SMEDLY ADJUSTABLE
HAND DYNAMOMETER
L--------------------------~86
87
--------
------------------ -·-·-··----- -----· ..
TABLE 32
MEAN FATIGUE SCORES ON THE SMEDLEY ADJUSTABLE
HAND DYNAMOMETER
1fo of Contractions
• Maximum
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
so
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
Wt. in Kilograms
Fatigue
50.6
42.8
39.7
36.8
37.9
33.2
31.3
29.7
28.3
27.2
27.5
25.1
24.3
24.3
23.1
23.1
22.6
23.8
24.1
23.4
23.6
23.5
23.5
22.2
23.5
23.0
1f: of Fatigue
Subjects
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
18
14
12
12
10
6
5
3
2
2
Wt. in
Kilograns
Re-Fatigue
38.2
34.8
32.0
30.0
28.0
26.1
25.0
24.0
23.2
22.6
22.3
22.0
22.5
23.4
23.9
23.3
22.7
23.5
24.7
22.5
of ReFatigue
Subjects
:f1;
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
20
15
11
7
7
5
4
3
2
APPENDIX F
MEAN FATIGUE FIGURES FROM THE SMEDLEY ADJUSTABLE
HAND DYNAMOMETER
88
1-
FIGURE VII
MEAN FATIGUE SCORES ON THE SMEDLEY HAND DYNAMOMETER
60
55
Wt.
45
in
Kilo- 40
grams
35
30
25
\
\ ,,
' ...... .........
..................
~
....... _..... ~.,
20
.............
~~~-~·--~~-~-~-~--~
I
""""
..... --
/
, >-... --
-
:,
-
15
10
5
0
Max.~~------------~----------------~~-------------------------------------------5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120U5
_________Fatigue
# of Maximum Contractions
--~---~-~Re-Fatigue
00
\0
·,----------------------···---··-···-··
.
APPENDIX G
PILOT STUDY:
MEAN FATIGUE SCORES FROM SMEDLEY
ADJUSTABLE HAND DYNAMOMETER
90
--------········--·-···-·-
-····
····-··
----····
91
TABLE 33
PILOT STUDY:
MEAN FATIGUE SCORES ON THE SMEDLEY
ADJUSTABLE HAND DYNAMOMETER
·Number of
. Contractions
1 (maximum)
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
:ff: of Subjects
Mean Scores in
Kilograms
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
11
11
10
8
8
7
5
~-----·-------
50.1
43.9
41.8
39.9
38.9
37.0
34.5
31.5
29.5
27.3
25.5
25.0
26.4
25.2
22.9
22.7
22.6
22.5
23.5
23.5
22.5
----··------------·-----···--··
------·
--
-------- - - -
APPENDIX H
FATIGUE CONVERSION CHART FOR THE SMEDLEY ADJUSTABLE
HAND DYNAMOMETER
92
·-----
93
TABLE 34
FATIGUE CONVERSION CHART
CONTRACTION IN
KILOGRAMS
M~IMUM
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
;
l
45% OF MAXIMUM
CONTRACTION
9.0
9.9
10.8
11.7
12.6
13.5
14.4
15.3
16.2
17.1
18.0
18.9
19.8
20.7
21.6
22.5
23.4
24.3
25.2
26.1
27.0
27.9
28.8
29.7
30.6
31.5
32.4
33.3
34.2
35.1
36.0
_________________ ------·------------·--------·-
: