commonalityjavmoo.com

increasingageandtheirpresumablylesssensitivitytosexualodors,especiallythoselaiddowninlinearapparatuses.
Ontheotherhand,therehasbeensomesuggestionindatacollectedinthislaboratorythatmalesarealsomoresensitivetovariationsinsucroseconcentration(oratleastthattheyaremoreattractedbyhigherconcentrations).
Thus,whilethechoiceofonesexortheothershouldofcoursebemadeinaccordancewiththeparticularrequirementsoftheexperiment,itisreassuringthatuseoffemaleratsisnotgenerallycontra-indicatedforinstrumentalappetitivelearningonthebasisoftheirestrouscycle.
REFERENCESCOURTNEY,R.
J.
,JR.
,REID,L.
D.
,&WASDEN,R.
E.
Suppressionofrunningtimesbyolfactorystimuli.
PsychonomicScience,196812315-316.
',DAVIS,S.
F.
,&LUDVIGSON,H.
W.
The"depressioneffect"andtheproblemofodorcontrol.
PsychonomicScience,1969,14,93-94.
HlIT,F.
C.
,GERALL,A.
A.
,&GIANTONIO,G.
W.
DetectionofestrousactivitycyclebyI-hoursamplesofrunningbehavior.
PsychonomicScience,1968,10,159-160.
LESTER,D.
EffectsofolfactorystimulionY-mazeexplorationofrats.
PsychonomicScience,1968,12,97.
LUDVIGSON,H.
W.
,&SYTSMA,D.
Thesweetsmellofsuccess:Apparentdoublealternationintherat.
PsychonomicScience,1967,9,283-284.
MARX,M.
H.
,TOMBAUGH,T.
N.
,HATCH,R.
S.
,&TOMBAUGH,J.
W.
Controlledoperantconditioningboxeswithdiscrete-trialprogrammingformultipleexperimentaluse.
Perceptual&MotorSkills,1965,21,247·254.
McHOSE,J.
H.
,&LUDVIGSON,H.
W.
DifferentialconditioningwithnondiffeRntialreinforcement.
PsychonomicScience,1966,6,485486.
MOSS,R.
L.
Changesinbar-pressdurationaccompanyingtheestrouscycle.
JournalofComparative&PhysiologicalPsychology,1968,66,460-466.
NOTE1.
ThisresearchwassupportedinpartbyUnitedStatesPublicHealthServiceResearchGrantHD-00895fromtheNationalInstituteofChildHealthandHumanDevelopment,ResearchCareerAwardl-K6·MH-22,023fromtheNationalInstituteofMentalHealth,andNationalScienceFoundationResearchGrantGB5853.
Ameasureofpronunclabilityofevetrlgrams1CALVINF.
NODlNE2andJAMESV.
HARDT,CARNEGIE-MELLONUNIVERSITY,Pittsburgh,Po.
15213All2100CVCtrigramswerescaledforpronunciabilitybymeasuringpronunciationlatency(PLat).
Theresultingdistribu-tionofPLatscoreswasextremelyIeptokurticandpositivelyskewed.
Scoresrangedfromaminimumof.
531sectoamaximumof1.
726sec.
AveragePLatwas.
81sec.
TherelationshipofPLattoArchermeaningfulnesswaslinear;however,thedegreeofrelationshipwasslight(r=-.
37).
ThisfindingisinterpretedasindicatingthatPLatisrelativelyfreeofbiasfromsuchotherstimulusattributesasmeaningfulness.
Assuch,PLatisviewedasreflectingabasicprocessingtimeforsuchstimulusmaterials.
Thedemonstratedpotencyofmeaningfulnessinverballeaminghasbeenamplyattestedtoinseveralreviews(e.
g.
,Goss&Nodine,1965;Underwood&Schulz,1960).
Oneoftheimportantunderlyingdimensionsofmeaningfulnessispronun-ciability.
Severalstudieshavereportedhighpositivecorrelationsbetweenratedpronunciabilityandratedmeaningfulness(e.
g.
,Underwood&Schulz,1960;Wilson&Becknell,1961).
Recently,Gorfein(1967)usedpronunciationlatency(PLat)asameasureofpronunciability.
Using144evesfromUnderwoodandSchulz'slist,Gorfeinobtainedanrof-.
66betweenPLatandratedmeaningfulness.
Thiscorrelationislowerthanthosereportedwithratedpronunciability,whichledGorfeintoarguethattheselattercorrelationsarespuriouslyhighduetosignificantcommonalitybetweenratingsofpronunciabilityandmeaning-fulness.
Oneshortcomingofallofthesestudies,whethertheyuseratingsorPLattomeasurepronunciability,isthattheyarelimitedtosmallsubsetsofCVCtrigrams.
Thissituationmaypresentanunrepresentativepictureoftherelationshipbetweenpronunciabilityandmeaningfulness.
Thepresentexperimentcorrectsthissituationbyscalingthepronunciabilityofall2100evetrigramsusingPLatasameasurethereof.
210METHODMaterialsAllpossiblecvetrigramcombinationswereusedexceptthosecontainingduplicationofconsonantsininitialandterminalpositions(e.
g.
,"BAB")andthosecontaining"Y"asavowel(e.
g.
,"BYC").
Analphabeticallistingofthese2100trigramswasrandomizedbyusingtheordinalpositionsofeachitemasinputsinacomputerprogramthatgeneratednewrandomordinalpositionsforeachitemasoutputs.
TheresultingrandomlistingofevcswasdividedintofoursubIistsof525itemseach.
SubjectsFortySswererandomlyassignedtooneoffoursublistscontaining525trigramseach.
TheorderofpresentationforeachsublistwasconstantforallSs.
Thelatterwereundergraduatesfulfillingcourserequirementsinpsychology.
Therewereninemalesandonefemaleforeachsublist.
EachSwasrunindividuallyandwasreadthefollowinginstructions:"Thisisanexperimentdesignedtoseehowpeoplepronouncenonsensesyllables.
Whentheexperimentbegins,nonsensesyllableswillappearoneatatimeonthescreeninfrontofyou.
Iwantyoutotryandpronounceeachoftheseascarefullyaspossible.
Eachnonsensesyllablewillappearonthescreenfor1sec,oruntilyoupronounceit.
IfyouhavenotpronounceditwithinIsec,itwillgooff,butyouwillstillhave2sectomakearesponsebeforethenextsyllableappears.
Trytobecarefultogivethecorrectpronunciation.
Doyouhaveanyquestions"Aftertheinstructionswereread,thesensitivityofthevoicekeywasadjustedtoeachindividualbyhavingSarticulatepauses(e.
g.
,ahh,err).
ApparatusandProcedureStimuluspresentationanddatacollectionwereaccomplishedbymeansofaDDP·116computer(ControlDataCorporation)andauxilliaryequipmentthatincludedoscilloscope,voicekey,andmicrophone.
Themicrophonewaspositioned6in.
fromS'sBebav.
Res.
Meth.
&Instnl.
,1969,Vol.
1(6)lipsandheldinplacebya"chesty"microphonesupport.
Thethreeletters.
ofeachtrigramweredisplayedasI-in.
capitalsonanoscilloscope.
TheSwasseatedapproximately2ftinfrontofthedisplay.
Aseachtrigramwaspresented,PLatwasobtainedbymeasuringthetimebetweenonsetofthestimulusandtheinitiationofS'spronunciationresponse,whichactivatedthevoicekey.
Themeasurementswerecomputedtowithin1/100secandpunchedoutonpapertape.
AnauxilliaryoscilloscopeandsoundsystemwasusedbyEtomonitorSs'pronunciationresponseandtocheckforextraneoussounds(e.
g.
,coughs.
Iaughs,sneezes,etc.
)thatwouldactivatethevoicekeyandresultinerroneoustimes.
Ssweredisqualifiedfromtheexperimentiftheirrecordscontainedmorethan6%erroneousresponse(32/525errors).
ThreeadditionalSsweredisqualifiedonthisbasis.
EachSwasrequiredtopronounceeachofthe525trigramsofasublisttwice.
Aself-pacedformatwasusedinordertoobtainminimumtimesforpronunciationofeachtrigram.
ItwasassumedthatthePLatscoresobtainedundertheself-pacedformatwouldbeinfluencedlessbyassociativefactorsthanthoseobtainedunderaconstantrate.
Amaximumof3secresponsetimewasallowedforpronouncingeachtrigram.
ThistimewasvariabledependingonSs'responselatency,andwassubdividedintoamaximumdisplaytimeof1secfollowedbyamaximum"off'timeof2secduringwhichthedisplaywasdarkbutScouldstillrespond.
TheinitiationofaresponsebySatanypointduringthe3-secperiodwouldactivatethevoicekeyandterminatethepresentationsequenceforthattrigram.
IfSinitiatedaresponseduringthedisplaytime,thepresentationsequencewasinterrupted,and,afterabriefpause(.
25sec),thepresentationsequencewasrepeatedwithanewitem.
Undertheself-pacedformatDisplayTime=MIN(l,PLat)sec,andResponseTimeMIN(3,Plat)sec.
ForDisplayTime,MINreferstotheminimalvalueofeitherIsecorPLat,whicheverisless;forResponseTime,itrefersto3secorPlat,whicheverisless.
Usingthisformat,theaveragetimerequiredtopronounceall525itemswas12.
5min.
Ifthepresentationratehadbeenconstantat3secperitem,itwouldhavetakenover26mintopronounceall525items.
Afterabriefrestperiod(2min)thelistwasrepeated(sameorder)andSwasagainrequiredtopronounceeachtrigram.
TheaveragetimetocompletethetaskonthesecondrepetitionwasIImin.
RESULTSANDDISCUSSIONDistributionofScoresPLatrepresentsmeanlatencybasedonthescoresoflOSs.
3ThePLatscoresforall2100evetrigramsonTrialIonlyarepresentedinFig.
I,whichshowsthefrequencyofPLatvaluesforsuccessive.
00-secintervalsfrom0.
531secto1.
725sec.
AllCVCswithlatenciesfallingwithinthe.
04-secintervalsareprintedinasinglecolumnoneabovetheother.
Theresultisafrequencyhistogramwiththe2100trigramsflllingthecolumns.
Assuch,thehistogramnotonlyshowstheoverallshapeofthelatencydistribution,butalsopresentsthedatainawaythatallowsonetoselecttrigramsfromanygivenlatencyrangebysimplyreferringtothecolumnthatspansthedesiredrangeofvalues.
fWithineachcolumn,latenciesincreasefrombottomtotop.
ThePLatvaluesoftrigramsinagivencolumnaregreaterthanthelowerboundandlessthanorequaltotheupperbound.
Thus,thePLatofatrigramcanattaintheupperboundofthecolumn,but,withtheexceptionofthefirstcolumn,cannotattainthelowerbound.
TheaveragePLat(overall)onTrialIwas.
81secwithanSOof.
27sec.
Latenciesrangedfrom.
53to1.
72sec.
ThisrangeoflatenciesisconsiderablygreaterthanthatfoundbyGorfeinusingasubsetof144evctrigrams.
GorfeinreportedmedianBehav.
Res.
Meth.
&Instru.
,1969,Vol.
1(6)pronunciationlatenciesrangingfrom1.
54to2.
04sec.
ThePlatscoresofthepresentexperimentforthesame144itemscorrelated+.
47withGorfein'sdata.
Proceduraldifferencesbetweenthetwoexperimentsareundoubtedlyresponsiblefortherelativelylowagreementbetweenthetwosetsofdata.
Gorfeinusedaconstantpresentationrate.
ThisproceduraldifferencemayalsoaccountforthediscrepanciesinrangeandabsolutemagnitudeofPLatscoresbetweenthetwostudies.
ThedistributionofPLatisextremelyleptokurticandpositivelyskewedasindicatedbythefactthat95%ofthetrigramsfallwithin±ISD.
Thisfindingcanbetakenasevidencethatthenonsensesyllableistrulyasyllable(i.
e.
,itispronounceable).
ThefactthatPLatcorrelatedonly+.
27withJohnson's(1964)associativelatencymeasure(169items)suggeststhatassociativefactorsplayedaminorroleinthePLatscores.
PLatscoresaccumulatedatthelowerendofthedistributiontosuggestalowerlimittoPLatat.
5sec.
Thislowerlimitagreeswithpaired-associateexperimentsinwhichtheanticipationintervalwasvaried(e.
g.
,Nodine,1963,1965).
Inthesestudies,itwasfoundthatSswereunabletomakeananticipationresponseunderconditionsinwhichtheanticipationinterval(stimulusduration)was.
5sec.
BecauseoftheshapeoftheobtaineddistributionofPlat,itissuggestedthatitemsbeclassifiedintothreecategoriesofpronunciabilityaccordingtoPLat:(l)Medium-whichincludesitemsrangingfrom.
686-.
945sec(±.
5SO).
Thisrangecontains1663itemsor79.
2%ofthedistribution.
(2)High-whichincludesitemsfrom.
531-.
675sec.
Thereare197itemsor9.
4%ofthedistributioninthisrange.
ReferringtoFig.
I,thelastiteminthisrangeisGAP.
(3)Low-whichincludesitemsfrom.
946-1.
726sec.
Thereare240itemsor11.
4%ofthedistributioninthisrange.
AgainreferringtoFig.
I,thefirstiteminthisrangeisKAV.
PracticeEffectsBecausetheorderofpresentationofeachsublistwasconstantforallSs,itwasnecessarytodeterminewhetherornotlatenciesincreasedfromthefirsttolastiteminthesuhlist.
Meanlatenciesforsuccessiveblocksof15itemseachwereanalyzedbyanalysisofvariance.
TheresultingF(35,1904)=1.
06wasnonsignificantanditwasconcludedthatPLatwasunaffectedbypracticeeffects.
RepetitionEffectsEachSpronouncedthe525trigramsofasublisttwice.
AveragePLatdecreasedfrom.
81to.
76seconthesecond-repetition,F(l,36)=2.
97,n.
s.
Amodifiedsplit-halftechniquewasusedtoobtainameasureofstabilityofPLat.
EachgroupofSsreceivedadifferentrandomsublistofthe2100items.
Afterarrangingthelatencyscoresforindividualitemsinincreasingorderofmagnitudeforeachsublist,correlationswereperformedonequivalentitemsbetweensublists.
Thesesixcorrelationsrangedfromr=.
94tor=.
98,suggestinghighintersubjectagreementonequivalentitemswithinthelist.
TheprocedureofcorrelatingsublistsafterrankingtheitemsfromlowtohighprovidesawayofcomparingthedistributionofPLatscoresfordifferentsublists.
Theextenttowhichthedistributionsofthesublistsaresimilarisreflectedbythemagnitudeofthecorrelationsobtained.
SublistEffectsAlthoughSswererandomlyassignedtoeachofthefoursublists,analysisofvarianceindicatedthataveragePLatscoresforSublist2weresignificantlyfasterthanthoseforSublistsI,3,and4,F(3,56)=6.
73,P-uZ.
.
.
.
.
.
~·ISZQ.
.
.
Uz.
'0:;)z0'".
.
.
'SPLatandMeaningfulnessTheoverallcorrelationbetweenPLatandArchermeaning-fulnessbasedon2100scoreswasr=-.
37.
Figure2showstherelationshipbetweenPLatandArcher(1960)meaningfulness.
ThePLatvaluesshownareaveragePLatvaluesobtainedbysummingthePLatvaluesofindividualtrigramscontainedinsuccessivetenthsoftheArchermeaningfulnessscaleanddividingthissumbytheappropriateN.
Thenumberofcvesateachofthe10datapointsare:0·10,121;11·20,187;21·30,204;3140,233;41·50,164;51-60,142;61-70,181;71·80,165;81·90,223;91·100,480.
Figure2indicatesalinearrelationshipbetweenPLatandmeaningfulness.
ThisfindingisatvariancewithUnderwoodandSchulz'sconclusionsforratedpronunciability,whichindicatethatthe".
.
.
ratedeaseofpronouncingthesyllablesincreasesfrom0percentMtoapproximately50percentM,withnoappreciablechangethereafter[p~282].
"Clearly,thisisnotthecaseinthepresentstudy.
GorfeinsuggeststhatUnderwoodandSchulz'sconclusionsregardingthecorrelationbetweenratedpronunciabilityandmeaningfulnessarespuriouslyhighduetothefactthatSs'pronunciabilityratingsarecontaminatedbymeaningfulness.
Thefindingsofthepresentexperimentareconsistentwiththisview.
ThePLatmeasureobtainedunderaself-pacedformatappearstoberelativelyfreeofbiasfromotherattributesofthestimuli,inparticularmeaningfulness.
Thus,PLatmaybeinterpretedasreflectingabasicamountoftimenecessarytoprocessinformationaccordingtopronunciationrulesprimarily.
Assuch,thedataofthepresentexperimentprovideresearcherswithauniquesetofstimulusmaterials.
REFERENCESARCHER,E.
J.
Are-evaluationofthemeaningfulnessofallpossibleCVCtrigrams.
PsychologicalMonographs,1960,74,WholeNo.
497.
GORFEIN,D.
S.
MeasurementofthepronunciabilityofCVCtrigrams.
PsychologicalReports,1967,21,879·880.
GOSS,A.
E.
,&NODINE,C.
F.
Paired-associateslearning.
NewYork:AcademicPress,1965.
ErrorsinMeasurementTwokindsoferrorsinmeasuringSs'pronunciationlatenciesoccurredinthepresentexperiment.
Onekindoferrorresultedfromerroneousresponsesduetoextraneousnoisesthattriggeredthevoicekey.
Thesewereusuallycharacterizedbyveryshortlatencies(.
18secorless).
Anotherkindoferrorresultedfromfailureofthevoicekeytotriggerbecauseofasoft-spokenresponsebyS.
Theseerrorswerecharacterizedbymaximumlatencies(3.
0sec).
Thesetwokindsoferrorscouldintroducebiasthatwouldaffectspuriouslytheaveragepronunciationlatencyforatrigram.
Inordertoreducetheseeffects,Chauvenet'scriterionwasusedtorejectextremescores(young,1962).
Afterdeviantscoreswererejected,theaveragelatencieswererecomputed.
ThePLatscorespresentedforeachtrigramhavebeencorrectedusingChauvenet'scriterion.
216BeJaay.
Res.
Meda.
&l.
.
.
.
.
.
,1969,Vol.
1(6)