TABLE I. EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOL®

Activity
Day No. Weekday AM. P.M. Remarks
1 Mon. Orientation Simulator No recording
Medical Exam Training No drugs
2 Tue. Simulator Testing 1st recording
Training at CARI No drugs
3 Wed. Simulator Testing 2nd recording
Training at CARI No drugs
4 Thur. Simulator Testing 3rd recording
Experimental at CARI No drugs
5 Fri. Simulator Testing 4th recording
Experimental at CARI No drugs
6 Sat. No testing No testing Placebo
7 Sun. No testing No testing Drug
8 Mon. Simulator Testing 5th recording
Experimental at CARI Drug
9 Tue. Simulator Testing 6th recording
Experimental at CARI Drug
10 Wed. Simulator Testing 7th recording
Experimental at CARI Drug
ll Thur. Simulator Testing 8th recording
Experimental at CARI No drugs
12 Fri. Simulator Testing 9th recording
Experimental at CARI No drugs
13 Sat. Simulator Testing 10th recording
Experimental at CARI Placebo

*Medical examinations were formed by Samuel F. Flynn, M.D., Clinical Examinations Branch, Clinical Services
Division, FAA; drug dosage schedule was established by Richard W. Payne, M.D., Department of Pharmacology, Okla-
homa University Medical Center. Experimental protocol was workéd out by a committee of CARI scientists consistin;

of Dr. George ‘T. Hauty, Acting: Director and Chief, Psychology Branch; Dr. P. F. Iampietro, Chief, Environment:

Physiology Branch and Project Director; Dr. Bruno Balke, Chief, Biodynamics Branch; Dr. Paul W. Smith, Chief
Pharmacol ogy Biochemistry Branch; Dr. P. C. Tang, Chief, Neurophysiology Branch; Dr, David K. Trites, Chief,
Selection Section, Psychology Branch; Dr. William F. O’Connor, Research Psychologist; and Dr. C. E. Melton, Chief,
Electrophysiology Section, Neurophysiology Branch,

-3-



was under constant visual observation via
closed-circuit TV.

After he was seated in the simulator the
subject was instructed to lean back comfortably,
refrain from smoking and rest for 15 minutes.
The physiological measurements made during
this rest period were taken as baseline
measurements.

At the termination of the rest period, the
subject began a series of 10 simulated flight
maneuvers consisting of precision turns, some
of which involved precise’ gain and loss of alti-
tude. The “flight” lasted about 2 1/2 hours
and was terminated with an Instrument Land-
ing System approach and landing. The subject
then took another 5 minute rest period after
which he left the simulator. Post-flight deter-
minations were made of his oral temperature,
pulse rate, respiratory rate and blood pressure.

During each of the 2 to 3 hour “flights,”
1000 to 1250 feet of physiological recordings
were obtained. The seven channels of informa-
tion, each of which was at least. 1000 feet in
length, constituted over a mile of record for
each flight. It was obviously impossible to
reduce all of the data on each record; there-
fore, a time sampling technique was developed
so that about 1/3 of the record taken during
each flight maneuver was analyzed. The
measurements taken were of heartrate, respira-
tory rate, skin resistance, blink rate and lateral
eye movements. Mean values, their deviations
and ranges, were recorded in chart form. The
electroencephalograms were not subjected to
critical analysis because of interfering muscle
potentials during activity. These tracings will
be considered in conjunction with a subsequent
CARI Report dealing with the clinical elec-
troencephalographic records of these pilots.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There was no difference in the mean values
for blink rate, lateral eye movements, heartrate
and respiratory rate on and off of drug treat-
ment. The skin resistance was higher during
rest on the days when a drug was given than
on days when no drug was given. The skin
resistance after the subject was aroused, how-
ever, fell to the same level regardless of treat-
ment (Figs. 4-8). The pre- and post-flight

values of oral temperature, blood pressure and
respiratory rate were not different, nor were
they consistently different on drug and non-
drug days.

These results can simply be summarized by
saying that neither of the drugs used had any
effect on the physiological parameters meas-
ured under these experimental conditions.
Several reasons for the essentially negative
nature of these results are apparent. This
population of subjects, healthy pilots, did not
represent the problem population, emotionally
disturbed or allergic pilots. The doses used
were recommended for relief of specific disease
states; if the subject population had been suf-
fering from conditions for which these drugs
might ordinarily be prescribed, there might
have been a measureable normalizing effect.
However, the amount of these drugs necessary
to depress normal function must be consider-
ably greater than the therapeutic dose.

It has been found in other studies involving
the operation of automobile simulators by nor-
mal subjects that twice the usual therapeutic
amount of meprobamate given as a single dose
had no identifiable behavioral toxicity." Those
investigators found, however, that sweating was
significantly increased.

It is probably unnecessary to point out that
the negative findings in this preliminary or
feasibility study are not to be interpreted as
expressing or implying that tranquilizers or
antihistamines can safely be used in the actual
flight situation. Some of the reasons why such
a conclusion is not allowable are listed as
follows:

1. None of the subjects in this study was
hyper-reactive to the drugs tested; a larger
population might reveal exaggerated responses
by some people.

2. Use of a simulator closely replicates many
features of actual flight but the effects of alti-
tude and acceleration are lacking.

3. The drugs may have had effects on func-
tions not measured, for example, depth percep-
tion, and other visual functions.

4, Responses to truly dangerous situations
could not be evaluated.

~8—


ECG

HEART RATE

RESPIRATION .

Yn OD TM

GSR 48,650
END OF REST , tines
80,000 OHMS AROUSAL at
’ a i
t 10 SEC—4 t REBALANCE t
Ficure 1: Record from Machine I.
“ FRONTAL-CENTRAL EEG 190
mean Ma nee fn [or [rene
BLINK
Q PARIETAL-OCCIPITAL EEG
senna Anaya nance =

3 E0G

mM BLANK

HSEG

Ficure 2. Record from Machine IL.

5H



Weekday
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat

Sun.
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thur
Fri
Sat

® Placebo (Lactose)

TABLE I. DAILY SCHEDULE FOR DAYS

TABLE III. DISTRIBUTION

Time

0630

0730

0730-0800
0800-0830
0830-0845
0845-1245
1245-1315
1315-1400
1430-1630

2-10

Activity
Arise
Arrive at simulator
Psychological testing
Preparation for flight
Physiological testing
Flight
Psychological testing
Lunch
Other testing at CARI

OF MEPROBAMATE AND

CHLORPHENIRAMINE AMONG THE SIX SUBJECTS

Simulator

Day No. Run No.

1

oon Oa kw bd

m
SoRES

+ Meprobamate, 400 mg q.id.
} Chlorpheniramine, 4 mg q.id.

eR oO De

COND wm

Subject No.
1 2 3 4
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Pl Pl Pl Pl
Mt ct M Cc
M Cc M Cc
M Cc M Cc
M Cc M Cc
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
Pl Pl Pl Pl

ooo ocUm68 lH

~
4

mocozwzg zz

zmaooco coo em

eoorogaagqaa


Ficure 3, Subject seated in simulator.

terminals of two Grass input cables which, in
turn, connected to the inputs of Grass Model
5P5C EEG preamplifiers. Records were taken
on Channel 1 (frontal-central) and Channel 2
(parietal-occipital) of Machine II at a paper
speed of 25 mm/sec (Fig. 2).

Electro-oculogram (EOG): Lateral eye move-
ments were detected with EEG electrodes at-
tached to the outer canthi of the eyes in a man-
ner identical to the attachment of scalp
electrodes (Fig. 3). The previously-mentioned
ground electrode situated on the forehead was
the reference. Changes in the geometry of the
corneo-retinal potential produced by lateral eye
movements were detected at the electrode site.
Lead wires from the electrodes were fixed to
the headstrap assembly and terminated in the
14-prong connector. Input was via a Grass
shielded cable to a Grass Low-Level preampli-
fier, Model 5P1, operated in the D.C. mode.
Input polarity was arranged so that a look to
the right was registered as a downward deflec-
tion and a‘look to the left as an upward deflec-
tion (Channel 3, Machine II, Fig. 2). Since
the subjects operated the simulator from the

left seat, most of the time the gaze was di-
rected either straight ahead or to the right.
These six sets of sensors were attached to the
subjects outside the simulator. Lead wires
from the EKG-heartrate, GSR, EEG and EOG
electrodes were pig-tailed to the 14-prong mini-
ature connector and the respiration lead ter-
minated in a phone plug.. When the subject
was seated in the simulator the 14-prong con-
nector was joined to its mating connector and
the thermistor probe was plugged into the Tele-
thermometer (Fig. 3). The subjects were in
two-way voice contact with one of the investi-
gators inside the simulator who monitored the
track of the flight and gave maneuvering in-
structions. The subjects received instructions
from a speaker located on the left side of the
cockpit and spoke into a conventional hand
microphone which was connected to the in-
vestigator’s headset. The investigator outside
the simulator had a speaker over which he
could hear both the subject and the investigator
inside the simulator. A television camera was
set up on the right side of the cockpit; each of
the investigators had a receiver so that the pilot

-~7-



AM 64-18

PHYSIOLOGICAL RECORDING FROM PILOTS
OPERATING AN AIRCRAFT SIMULATOR

CARLTON E. MELTON, JR., Ph.D.

Chief, Electrophysiology Section
Neurophysiology Laboratories

Approved by Released by
Stamtey R Heber Y ih Whee
Sraney R, Monter, M.D. M. S. Ware, M.D.

Dmucror, CARI Feperat Amn SURGEON

FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY
Office of Aviation Medicine
Civil Aeromedical Research Institute
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
September 1964



HEART RATE

MEPROBAMATE CHLORPHENIRAMINE
e—e No. | J.B. e--e No.2 G.L.
a—=8No. 3 LA. o--0 No. 4 R.C.
s—4No. 5 OF. a--a No.6 E.M.
BEATS/MIN.
10

100

90

80

70

L L 1 L
60 8 9 10

5 6
\—prus pays— Placebo
RUN NUMBER

Ficune 6, Average heartrate for each subject during each simulated flight.

RESPIRATORY RATE

MEPROBAMATE CHLORPHENIRAMINE
retoro No. | J.B. e--e No.2 G.L.
=—eNo. 3 L.A. o--9 No.4 RC.
a—aNo. 5 0.F. 4--4 No.6 E.M.

FREQUENCY/ MIN.
25

eS.
om soe
20F

or

a-

~a----a----

a

5 6 T 8 9 10
‘\—prus pays— Placebo

RUN NUMBER

Ficure 7. Average respiratory rate for subjects 2-6 during each simulated flight. No record
was obtained from subject No. 1.

—~10~


BLINK RATE

MEPROBAMATE CHLORPHENIRAMINE.
e—e No. | J.B. e--0 No. 2 G.L.
@—8No. 3 L.A. a--Q No.4 RC.
4—4No. 5 O.F, 4--8No. 6 E.M.
BLINKS/ MIN.
25

20F

Ficure 4.

5 6 Tr 10
‘_prus pays— Placebo

RUN NUMBER

Average rate of blinking for each subject during each simulated flight, Subject
No. 5 showed a depression of blink rate on the second day of meprobamate treat-
ment, but high rates on the first and third days of drig intake. This subject also
showed a depressed blink rate during flight No. 2 when no drug was given.

LATERAL EYE MOVEMENTS

MEPROBAMATE CHLORPHENIRAMINE
e—e No. | J.B. e--o No.2 GL.
No. 3 L.A. a--o No. 4 RC.
4—4No. 5 0.F. o--4No.6 E.M.
MOVES /MIN.
120
took “~~~ ag
\
\
Bor \ oe
8. Px, 28
com LK
ser oN, “so 07 8 .
a N
4o- _ 1. oO
—_— _——
20 2s v0
‘_prus pays— * Placebo
RUN NUMBER
Ficure 5. Frequency of lateral eye movements by each subject on each simulated flight.

~9-



was calibrated to record heartrates between the
limits of 60 bpm and 120 bpm. The length of
the deflection is inversely related to the heart-
rate; ie., directly related to the interval be-
tween two successive R waves. The triggering
R wave was obtained by simply wiring across
from the EKG binding posts to the cardiotach-
ometer binding posts.

Respiratory rate: Two different methods were
tested for obtaining respiratory rate, (1) the
Yellow Springs Instrument Company Pneumo-
graph operated with a Pneumograph Amplifier
and (2) a Yellow Springs thermistor probe
(#812) inserted about 3/4 inch in the left
nostril. The probe was connected to a Yellow
Springs Telethermometer. Both the Pneumo-
graph Amplifier output and the Telethermom-
eter output were connected directly to a third
Grass input terminal, the cable from which led
to the input of a Grass Low-Level preamplifier
operated in the D.C. mode with 20K input re-
sistance. The first method proved unsatisfac-
tory because of the extreme lability under these
experimental conditions of the mercury-filled
pneumograph tube. The walls of the tube,
made of siliconized rubber, admitted minute
quantities of air which resulted in separation of
the mercury column. The second method
proved adequate for the purpose of the experi-
ment. As air was inspired the thermistor was
cooled thereby changing its resistance and un-
balancing the Telethermometer bridge circuit
and thus producing a writing pen deflection.
The polarity of the input was selected so that
inspiration of air resulted in an upward deflec-
tion of the pen (Channel 3 of Machine I,
Fig. 1).

Galvanic Skin Response (GSR): The measure-
ment of this function, also known as the psy-
chogalvanic response (PGR), required no in-
strumentation other than the Grass Low Level
preamplifier, Model 5P1, which has a PGR
position on the input mode selector. When the
instrument is properly calibrated the amplifier
balance controls read directly in ohms. The
skin resistance was determined simply by bal-
ancing the amplifier so that the pen rested on
the baseline. Changes in GSR could be read
without rebalancing directly from the paper

chart within the limits of resistance represented
by the chart width (Channel 4, Machine I,
Fig. 1).

The sensor for this function was a disc-type
silver electroencephalograph electrode. Several
locations of attachment were tested—forehead,
palm of the hand, sole of the foot and nape of
the neck. Of these locations only the palms of
the hands and the soles of the feet were found
to respond well enough for the purposes of
these experiments to startling stimuli (loud
noises or slaps) or to embarrassing accusations.
However, it was soon found that the use of the
hands and feet in controlling the simulator pro-
duced movement artifacts. Further experi-
mentation revealed that the heel of the palm of
the left hand was responsive enough to reveal
changes in skin resistance and that such meas-
urements were not affected by the normal
movements involved in control of the simulator.
The skin of that area was cleaned with alcohol,
the electrode together with its wire lead was
passed through the left sleeve of the subject’s
shirt, attached with Bentonite electrode paste
to the heel of the palm of the left hand and
taped firmly in position (Fig. 3). The wire
lead from the electrode was attached to the
previously-mentioned miniature plug. The
ground reference connection for this measure-
ment was located on the forehead symmetri-
cally between the eyes and served as a
ground for the electro-oculogram and electro-
cardiogram as well as GSR.

Unsuccessful attempts were made to record
changes in skin potential by means of a needle
electrode inserted into the earlobe. A Keithley
Model 603 electrometer input d.c. amplifier was
used in those experiments.

Electroencephalograms (EEG): Two chan-
nels of bipolar EEG were recorded, frontal-
central and parietal-occipital. Sensors were
conventional silver disc electrodes attached to
the scalp with Bentonite electrode paste and
secured with plastic tape. The wires from the
electrodes were taped to a welder’s headstrap
assembly from which the eye shield had been
removed (Fig. 3). The lead wires terminated
in the miniature 14-prong connector. Wires
from the mating connector were passed to the

~6—


by flyers for symptomatic relief of respiratory
passage congestion.

The questions to be answered were reduced
to the following: (1) to determine whether or
not therapeutic doses of two common drugs,
a tranquilizer and an antihistamine, cause de-
crements in the operating proficiency of pilots,
and (2) do those drugs when given in thera-
peutic doses have measureable effects on se-
lected physiological functions? This report
deals with the recording and interpretation of
physiological data obtained from drug-treated
pilots operating a C-97 simulator.

METHODS

Six volunteer subjects were studied in this
preliminary investigation. They ranged in age
from 37 to 42 years. All six subjects were
highly experienced (8,000 :— 16,000 hours)
multiengine pilots; five were FAA Flight In-
spectors and one was an FAA Air Carrier In-
spector. None of the subjects was familiar
with the operation of the C-97 aircraft.

Each subject was assigned to CARI for two
weeks. His schedule for that period is shown
in Table I. His daily schedule is shown in
Table J, with the exception of the first day
which was devoted to orientation and medical
examination.

All of the subjects were in good health and
were not at the time of experimentation taking
any drugs, nor had they knowingly in the past
taken either of the drugs to be tested.

The two drugs chosen for assay were mepro-
bamate (2-Methyl-2-propyl-1, 3-propanediol
dicarbamate ),+ a tranquilizer, and chlorphenir-
amine (2-[p-chloro-a-(2-dimethylamino-ethyl )
benzyl]pyridine),! an antihistamine. Mepro-
bamate was given 400 mg q.i.d. and chlorphenir-
amine 4 mg q.id. according to the schedule in
Table I. The study was carried out under
double-blind conditions; all drugs and placebos
were given in identical capsules and care was
taken not to suggest to the subjects what the
f Placidon, Nervonus, Cirpon, Perequil, Calmiren, Ecuanil,

Mepavlon, Equanil, Miltown, Mepantin, Biobamat, Pane-

diol, Pertranquil, “Perquietil, Harmonin, Quanil, Pro-

bamyl, Oasil, Cyrpon, Sedazil, Apascil, Atraxin, “Uzbil,

Meprosin
} Chlor-Trimeton, Allergican, Piriton.5

possible effects might be. Table III shows the
distribution of the two drugs among the six
subjects. Each subject got only one of the two
drugs.

Upon arrival at the simulator each subject
took a battery of psychological tests. He was
then weighed and determinations were made of
his oral temperature, radial pulse rate, respira~
tory rate and blood pressure. Each subject
was then fitted with sensors to yield seven
channels of physiological information: (1)
electrocardiogram, (2) heartrate, (3) respira-
tory rate, (4) skin resistance, (5) electro-
encephalogram (frontal-central), (6) electro-
encephalogram (parietal-occipital), (7)
electro-oculogram.

Electrocardiogram: The skin of a small area
of the lateral chest wall was cleaned with
alcohol. Electrocardiograph paste was then
massaged into the prepared site and conven-
tional rectangular silver limb lead electrodes
were fastened in place with a rubber strap
passed around the chest. A ground electrode
was located on the forehead between the eyes.
Connections to the electrodes were made with
#18 plastic-coated stranded copper wires, which
were: brought up the subject’s back and
taped into place. The wires terminated in a
miniature 14-prong connector (USC MI1-14
HR). Wires from the mating connector were
passed behind the padding of the overhead of
the simulator and connected to the input ter-
minal binding posts of a Grass shielded input
cable. The cable was passed out through the
front of the simulator and was connected to
the input of a Grass EKG plug-in preamplifier.
The preamplifier was fitted into a D.C. driver
amplifier and power supply of a Grass 4
channel Polygraph (Machine I). The contour
of the electrocardiogram corresponded to Stand-
ard Lead I and was recorded at a paper speed
of 5 mm/sec on Channel 1 of Machine I
(Fig. 1). This 1aeasurement was made pri-
marily as a validity check on the heartrate
record.

Heartrate: The R wave of the EKG was used
to trigger a Grass cardiotachometer preampli-
fier. The heartrate was recorded on Channel 2
of Machine I (Fig. 1). The cardiotachometer

-2-


PHYSIOLOGICAL RECORDINGS FROM PILOTS
OPERATING AN AIRCRAFT SIMULATOR

CARLTON E. MELTON, JR., Ph. D.

The following quotation is the synopsis of a
Civil Aeronautics Board Aircraft Accident
Report."

“About 2040, October 30, 1959, Piedmont
Airlines Flight 349 crashed on Bucks Elbow
Mountain located about 13 miles west of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle County, Virginia Air-
port. The crew of 3 and 23 of 24 passengers
were killed; the sole survivor was seriously in-
jured. The aircraft,,a DC-3, N-55V, was de-
molished by impact.

“From the available evidence it is the deter-
mination of the Board that this accident oc-
curred during an intended instrument approach.
More specifically, it occurred during the in-
bound portion of the procedure turn which was
being flown 8 to 11 miles west of the maneu-
vering area prescribed by the instrument ap-
proach procedure.

“The Board concludes that the lateral error
resulted from a navigational omission which
took place when the pilot did not turn left
about 20 degrees in conformity to V-140 airway
at the Casanova omni range station. Conse-
quently, when the pilots believed the flight was
over the Rochelle intersection it was in fact 13
miles northwest of that position. As a result of
this position, when the pilot turned left and
flew the heading normally flown from Rochelle
intersection, the path of the aircraft over the
ground was displaced 8 to 11 miles west of the
prescribed track. The Board further concludes
that the error was undetected because tracking
and other instrument approach requirements
were not followed precisely.

“From information regarding the personal
background of [the Captain] and expert medi-
cal analysis of this information, it is the Board’s
opinion that preoccupation resulting from men-

tal stress may have been a contributing factor
in the accident cause.”

In view of the fact that this air carrier Cap-
tain was undergoing psychotherapy and that a
part of that therapy had involved the adminis-
tration of psychopharmacologic agents, the CAB
recommended that the FAA initiate exploratory
studies to determine how the use of such drugs
related to the safety of flight.

The question was referred to the Bureau of
Aviation Medicine, Research Requirements Di-
vision,* and finally to the Civil Aeromedical
Research Institute for consideration. It was
quickly appreciated by the researchers at CART
that this was a complex question of more far-
reaching significance than providing an ex-
planation of the Piedmont crash.

A committee of CARI senior scientists im-
mediately convened to explore the many aspects
of drug usage in Civil Aviation. Federal Avia-
tion Regulations are clear’ in stating that no
person shall fly as pilot or crew member while
under the influence of intoxicating liquor or
any drug which affects his faculties in any
manner contrary to safety. This committee
considered many questions relating to drug
usage by both ground personnel and flight
crews.

However, the committee decided that the
most urgent problem was the effects of drugs
with central nervous system depressing activity.
The rapid burgeoning of tranquilizers reflected
their widespread use and it was quickly decided
that this drug represented the logical starting
point for this investigation. Antihistamines
likewise represented one of the most commonly-
used drugs and one certainly likely to be used

*Presently, Office of Aviation Medicine, Research and Edu-
cation Division.

-1-





GALVANIC SKIN RESPONSE
OWNS «1000 MEPROBAMATE
ed 8°No SLA. j, — 60 No 5 OF. YN

iy
ool L\ (BY >~

f 4
FI 0 f
;

20 ZS
Y fp

. GOI) | GG te
SF"

ees!
3 KE. geeris LZ, 7a
RunNo. | 23 45 67 8 910 12345678910 12345678910
‘oruGS] Pl ‘oRUGS+ Pl. ‘oRUGS+ PL
ous «1000 CHLORPHENIRAMINE
160 340 16
No.2 6. YY Fino. 4 R.c. Ys No. 6 EM.
LA" Li
120 f Lilo 120|

| EE

Vi
sol YY 200 id

00}

40

e7° We
sol gy]

‘ Yi. 7

o °
RunNo. | 23 45 6 7 8 9 10 123456

“oruss+ PA Corussy

o!
78 910 12345678910
Pl. “oruss+ PI

Ficuns 8 Amplitude of chango in GSR (dashed line) and range of values (upper and

lower lines) for each subject during each simulated

ight. On each day the

highest skin resistance was reached during the pre-flight rest period.

5. Long-term effects of the drugs could not
be evaluated. 1

These data do not, therefore, indicate any
alteration of the recommendation that flight 9.
activities be suspended for 24 hours after in-
gestion of the standard dose of either meproba-
mate or chlorpheniramine.’ 3.

From a positive point of view, this study
shows the feasibility of obtaining reliable in-
terpretable physiological records from subjects 4.
in the work situation. The sensitivity of the
GSR recording was particularly gratifying since
it was possible in some subjects to anticipate
action by the drop in skin resistance before any
overt movement was made.

REFERENCES

. Civil Aeronautics Board Aircraft Accident Report SA-

348, File No. 1-0065, released April 24, 1961.

Code of Federal Regulations. Title 14, Aeronautics and
Space, Parts 20-199, Section 43.45, “Use of liquor,
narcotics, and drugs.”

Cutting, Windsor C. “Guide to Drug Hazards in
Aviation Medicine.” Federal Aviation Agency, Aviation
Medical Service, 1962.

Marquis, Donald G., E. Lowell Kelly, James G. Miller,
Ralph W. Gerard, and Anatol Rapaport. “Experimental
studies of behavioral effects of meprobamate on normal
subjects.” Ann. N.Y, Acad. Sci. 67: Art. 10: 701-711,
1957.

. Merck Index, 7th Ed. pp. 249 and 647, Pub. Merck

and Co., Rahway, N.J., 1960.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The generous help given by Mr. Paul Young, PT-956.1, Chief, Aircraft
Simulator Section, and his entire staff is gratefully acknowledged.

—-ll-—