SIZE CUES AND THE ADJACENCY PRINCIPLE?

WALTER C. GOGEL

ABSTRACT

The purpose of the present study was to apply the adjacency principle to the per-

ception of relative depth from

A recent report has identified a factor which
has been demonstrated to be effective in the
perceptual organization of the three-dimension-
al world (Gogel, 1963). This factor labeled
the “adjacency principle” asserts that the per-
ceived size or position of an object is determin-
ed by whatever size or distance cues are present

between it and adjacent objects. The adjacency
principle has been demonstrated mainly with
respect to the cue of binocular disparity. The
present study will be concerned with the appli-
cation of the adjacency principle to size cues
of relative depth. It is predicted from the ad-
jacency principle that size cues to relative
depth between adjacent rather than displaced
objects are the size cues most effective.,in de-
termining apparent depth position. '

A schema for applying the jadjacency prin-
ciple to the perceived depth resulting from size
cues is illustrated in Fig. 1. Figure la shows a
top view of the physical position of three objécts
(A, B, and D) all at the same tise
the observer (0). The dashed lines in ig la
represent lines-of-sight (directions from O to
the objects). It is clear that Object A is direc.
tignally closer to Object B than to Object D
(©: > @:). The gdjacency principle states that
the apparent deph position of A (with respect
to B and D) is determined mainly by whatever
depth cues occur between ‘A and B. The depth

size cues. In agreement with the adjacency Principle, it

cues between A and D are considered to be of
less importance than those between A and B in

determining the apparent depth position of A:
In Fig. 1, Objects A, B, and D are similar
objects with the visual angular size of A equal
to that of D and with both A and D half the
visual angular size of B. Therefore, according
to the relative size cue, A and D should appear
at the same distance as each other with both A
and D appearing more distant than B. Thus, if
all distance cues other than relative size were
absent, Objects A and D should appear at the
same distance behind Object B. The apparent
depth positions of A, B, and D as they would
be expected from the size cue are shown in Fig.
lb as A’, B’, and D’. Under the circumstances
indicated by Kig. 1b, it cannot be determined
whether the equality of visual angular size be-
tween A and D or the angular size difference
between A and B was most significant in deter-
mining the apjient depth position of A.
Therefore, the adjacency principle cannot be
investigated by using the conditions illustrated
by Fig. 1b.
" In Fig. 1c, a situation is illustrated in which
an additional object (Object C) has been intro-
duced. Object C, as a consequence of the cue

1The author wishes to thank Henry W. Mertens, Frank L.
Agee, Jr., and James C. Hester for their assistance in
collecting and analyzing the data of this study:

—



cue to relative depth between one object and
a displaced object independently of size cues
between this object and adjacent objects. How-
ever, the results also indicate that while the size
cue between Playing Cards A and D was not

very effective in determining the perceived .

position of A, it was not completely ineffective
as shown by the statistical significance of the
3.5 com. difference in Table 1. This is interpret-
ed to mean that both the size cues between Cards
A and B and between Cards A and D were sig-
nificant in determining the perceived position
of Card A. However, Card B, the most adjacent
object to Card A, was considerably more effect-
ive than Card D in this process.

It is clear that the adjacency principle can
be successfully applied to the perceived depths
between the cards. Nevertheless, it is possible
that the effectiveness of a size relation between
two objects might be enhanced ,by the task of
judging the depth between them. Suppose, for
example, that the task of judging the depth be-
tween Cards A and D (task-set) had enhanced
the relative effectiveness of the size cue between
Cards A and D over that between Cards A and

Observer O +

B. In this case, the apparent depth position of
A in the visual field would have been closer to
O when judging the depth between Cards A and
D than when judging the depth between Cards
A and B.

An illustration of the possible effect of task-
set upon cue-enhancement is shown in the top
view drawing in Fig. 4. In Fig. 4, the position
of O is to the left. Card D is indicated as per-
ceived in front of the gray square (C) which
is perceived in front of Card B. Thus, Card B
is perceived to be a distance d’ps behind Card
D. Suppose that the perceived depth of Card A
with respect to Card B (d’s) is as shown. It
is clear that the perceived depth between Cards
A and D which would be expected is d’v» plus
d's, ie, Card A should have appeared at A’.
Assume, however, that the judgment of the
depth between Cards A and D had enhanced the
effectiveness of the relative size-cue between
Cards A and D. Under these conditions, the ap-
parent position of Card A would have been at
A’, instead of at A’. Thus, the difference
between A’: and A’. is a measure of the in-
influence of task-set upon the effectiveness of

d: ~-2P—~
oat a |

dos — ds ‘ _

Ficure 4. A schematic top view drawing illustrating the possible enhancement of the effective-
ness of size cues as a function of task-set.

—6—

es

eer a!


spades
nt sur-

, <eo—>

fe]
Observer

Ficure 2. A schematic top view drawing illustrating the
positions of the light-sources (L, and ‘f.), the
mirror (M), and the rods pf the hand alijustment
apparatus (R; and Ry).

faces of Li and Le in order to produce the Ob-
jects A, B, or D of Fig. 1. When viewed injthe
otherwise dark environment, 'the positive jfans-
parencies appeared to O as sevén-of-Kpades
playing cards. Object C in Fig. 1c was formed
from a 17.8 cm. square of neutral density film

fastened on the front surface of Li and Le. As‘

indicated in Fig. 3a, Object C appeared to be
interposed in dewh between Cards B and D.
This was accomplished by cutting away 4%
of the upper right area of Object C and 22.4%
of the upper right area of Object B and care-
« fully fitting the objects together. Object C ap-

peared to O to be a gray square partially cov-
ering Playing Card B and partially covered by
Playing Card D. Actually, of course, all of the
objects (Objects A, B, C, and D) were at the
same distance (305 cm.) from O. The portions
of the front surfaces of the light boxes Li and
Lz not used in producing the playing cards or
gray square were completely covered by black
opaque cardboard. The visual stimuli presented
by means of Li are illustrated in Figs. 3a and
3b, The presentation shown in Fi ig. 3b was pro-
duced from that of Fig. 3a by carefully cover-
ing Card B. The visual stimulus presented by
means of Lz is illustrated in Fig. 3c. It will be
observed that Fig. 3b and Fig. 3c are the same
as Fig. 3a except that Card B is missing from
Fig. 3b and Card D is missing from Fig. 3c.
The luminance of Object C and of the white
portions of the playing cards was 0.5 and 3.0
ft.-L, respectively, as measured from the posi-
tion of O’s eye.

The viewing position of O was enclosed in
black cloth and contained a head and chin rest
together with a pair of eye-pieces. The right
eye-piece had an opening which enabled O to
see the stimuli through an invisible neutral den-
sity filter (19% transmission). The left eye-
piece was occluded. Thus, the stimuli were seen
by O with his right eye only. Only one light-box
was turned on at a time with the remainder of
the field-of-view completely dark. The position
and orientation of the light-boxes were such that
regardless of which light-box was turned on the
size, brightness, direction, and distance of the
particular object (A, B, or C) were the same.
A light-adaptation surface (3 ft.-L) located to
the left of O's position could be turned. on or
off by the experimenter (£) to control O’s light-
adaptation.

A device for measuring the perceived depth
between the sefefal playing cards was also
located.at the position of O. This device con-
sisted of two vertical metallic rods (15.2 em.
high and 1.3 cm. in diameter) which O could
Grasp, one in each hand. The right rod (Re in
Fig. 2) was movable laterally, with the left rod
(Ri in Fig. 2) fixed in position. The lateral
distance between the inner edges of the rods
was adjusted by O to be perceptually equal to
the perceived depth between the designated

—3—



of interposition, appears to be in front of Object
B and behind Object D. The interposition cue
generated by Object C is effective such that the
introduction of C will cause B to appear more
distant than D in spite of the visual size differ-
ence between B and D. Under these conditions,
the adjacency principle can be investigated by
measuring the apparent distance position of A.
If A appears at A’: in Fig. 1c, the size cue to
relative depth between A and B is dominant in
determining the apparent distance position of
A. However, if A appears at A’: in Fig. 1c, the
size cue to relative depth between A and D is
dominant in determining the apparent distance
position of A. From the adjacency principle, it
would be predicted that the apparent position
of A is more nearly A’: than A’2.

a

METHOD

Apparatus

A top view schematic drawing of the appa-
ratus used in the experiment is shown in Fig. 2.
A partially transmitting-partially _ reflecting
mirror, labeled M in Fig. 2, (45.9 cm. wide by
31.9 cm. high) was oriented at 45° both with
respect to two light-boxes Li and Lz and with
respect to 0. The optical distance from the front
surface of both light-boxes Li and Lz to O was
the same (305 cm.). Boxes Li and Lz were
fluorescent light sources with a diffusing glass
as a front surface. Positive transparencies of
normal-sized (5.7 cm. by 8.9 cm.) or double-
sized (11.4 cm. by 17.8 cm.) seven-of-spades
playing cards were fastened to the front sur-

Physical Usual Perception | Modified Perception
U 1 '
A oo AL
8 B'
Cc
1
Ae a
vw
t
7
, °
Observer , / Observer te Observer
0 A Cc
‘
e
»
. Ficure 1. A schematic top view drawing illustrating a method of testing the application of

the ‘adjacency principle’ to size cues to relative depth.

—2—



would have normally been expected as a conse-
quence of the size difference between these
two objects.

In the instructions to O, prior to the experi.
ment, care was taken to be certain that O under-
stood that the distance between the playing
cards which was to be measured by the hand
adjustment was the perceived depth component
only. A small pegboard with two pegs was used
to illustrate the difference between frontoparal-
lel and depth extents. Following the experiment,
O was questioned to further determine that the
extent which O had indicated by means of the
hand adjustment was the perceived depth (not
the frontoparallel) separation between the play-
ing cards. ‘

Following a set (three) of hand adjustments
to indicate the perceived depth between a speci-
fied pair of playing cards, O turned and faced
the light-adaptation surface which was turned
on for approximately ten seconds. This proced-
ure of obtaining three measurements of appar-
ent depth followed by a period of light-adapta-
tion was repeated until’ all five tasks had been
completed.

RESULTS

The average results from the hand adjust-
ments are shown in Table 1. The terms d’u
and d’e indicate the average perceived flepth
between Playing Cards A and D or between

i

f

Playing Cards A and B, respectively. A positive
value indicates that the left card of the two
cards being considered appeared to be behind
the right card. A negative value indicated the
converse. One potential O who failed to per-
ceive Card A as behind Card B in the situation
in which Card D was absent (Task 3) was not
used in the experiment. A Positive response
value on Task (3) was considered to be essential
to the experiment, since it indicates that the O
was responsive to the size cue to relative depth.
The 38.5 cm. difference in Table 1 represents
the effect of Card B upon the perceived depth.
position of Card A and the 3.5 cm. difference
represents the effect of Card D upon the per-
ceived depth position of Card A. It seems that
the size cue between Playing Cards A and B
was more effective than the size cue between
Playing Cards A and D in determining the ap-
parent position of Playing Card A. The present
study supports the validity of applying the ad-
jacency principle to size cues of relative depth.

The average result from the measurements
of the perceived depth between Cards B and D
is that Card B appeared to be located 20.4 cm.
behind Playing Card D.

DISCUSSION
The results from this study demonstrate that
the size cue between Cards A and B was
dominant in determining the perceived depth
position of Card A. This occurred even when
O's task was to judge the depth between Cards
A and D. It is clear that O cannot use the size

TABLE 1 *

THE AVERAGE PERCEIVED DEPTH (d’) IN CENTIMETERS BETWEEN PLAYING
CARDS AS MEASURED BY THE HAND ADJUSTMENTS

Presence or | Perceived’ Depth Presence of Perceived Depth
Absence of B | Bet. A and D (d’o) | Absence of D | Bet. A and B (d’sa)
B Present 38.2** D Absent 30.5**
; B Abgent ~ 0.3 D Present 27.0**
Diff. 38.5** Diff. 3.5*
* p< .05 (¢ test)

» **p <.01 (¢ test)



SIZE CUES — !
AND THE
ADJACENCY PRINCIPLE



that of the displaced card (D). These consider-
ations suggest that a more specific statement
of the adjacency principle is as follows: The
perceived size or distance of an object (Object
A) in a configuration of objects is determined
by whatever size or distance cues are present
between Object A and other objects, with the
effectiveness of such cues being inversely re-
lated to the perceived relative separation of the
objects from Object A.

It is likely that the apparent characteristics
of objects other than size and distance (such
as brightness) would also be determined by the
adjacency principle. It is suggested that the ad-
jacency principle can be applied to a variety of
cue systems under a variety of stimulus con-
ditions.

7

REFERENCES

1. Gogel, W. C. The tendency to see objects
as equidistant and its inverse relation to
lateral separation. Psychol. Monogr., 1956,
70, No. 4, 1-17.

2. Gogel, W. C. The visual perception of size
and distance. Vision Res., 1963, 3, 101-120.

3. Gogel, W. C., & Harker, G. S. The effective-
ness of size cues to relative distance as a

function of lateral visual separation. J. exp.
Psychol., 1955, 50, 309-315.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1964 0—732~439



osition of

the cue of relative size between the objects being
closer to

judged. Since two judgments of depth with re-
spect to the relative size cue are involved (d’pa
and d's), the enhancement effect (T) of task-
set is given as

d’on + d’ss — d’nn
2

The obtained average value of T in the present
study is 4.6 cm. which, using a single-tailed
test, is significantly different from zero at the
.05 level (¢ = 1.80). This suggests that in the
present experiment O showed some enhance-
ment of the effectiveness of the relative size
cue between two objects as a consequence of
the task of judging the depth between them.
However, compared to the magnitude of the

adjacency effect, the set-enhancement effect was
minor.

T

In a previous study (Gogel & Harker, 1955)
it had been found that the relative effectiveness
of size cues increased with an increase in their
lateral separation. It was later found (Gogel,
1956) that this result was attributable to a de-
crease in the effectiveness of the “equidistance
tendency” as a function of the increased lateral
separation, not to an, increase in the effective-
ness of the size cue to relative depth. Thus, the
results from the present study and the previous
study are compatible.

The “equidistance tendency” (Gogel, 1956)
states that there is a tendency for objects to
appear equidistant with the strength of this
tendency inversely related to the directional
separation between the objects. Althougl’ most
effective when the depth cues between objects
are eliminated, the equidistance’ tendency pos-
sibly could have had a significhnt effect upon
the results of the present experiment. In the
present study, the addition of Card B or D jn-
troduced the equidistance tendency as well/ as
the size cue between that card and Card A/The
equidistance effect would have made Card A
appear closer in depth to Card B when B was
added and closer in depth to Card D when D
was added, with the latter effect being less than
the*former. However, the equidistance tendency
could not have refalted in Card A being per-
ceived behind Card B. As given in Table 1, on
the average, Card A was perceived to be 38.2

4m. behind Card D with Card B present. This

‘is 17.8 cm. more than the average perceived
depth (20.4 cm.) between Card B and D, with
the 17.8 cm. difference statistically significant
beyond the .01 level (¢ = 3.24). Also, the value
of 17.8 cm. is significantly greater (p < .01,
t= 2.70) than the total effect attributed to Card
D (3.5 cm. in Table 1). Thus, it is clear that
the size cue between Cards A and B was the
most significant factor present in determining
the apparent depth between Cards A and D. In
agreement with the adjacency principle, the
Present study demonstrates that the size cue be-
tween Card A and the more adjacent card was
considerably more effective than that between
Card A and the displaced card in determining
the apparent depth position of Card A.

In a previous discussion of the adjacency
principle, it has been pointed out that the term
“adjacency” needs clarification (Gogel, 1963).
It was noted that adjacency can be either phy-
sical, retinal, or perceptual. When objects are
Positioned at physically different distances
from O, with effective depth cues present, they
may be adjacent on the retina even though both
physically and perceptually they are separated
in depth. But, it has been demonstrated that
depth as well as directional adjacency is im-
portant in the adjacency principle (Gogel,
1963) and, therefore, it is unlikely that the
adjacency factor can be defined as retinal ad-
jacency. Also, since the adjacency principle ap-
plies to the size cue to relative depth, as the
present study demonstrates, it is unlikely that
the adjacency factor can be defined as physical
adjacency. In the present study, Objects A, B,
C, and D were all at the same distance from 0.
It is clear, however, that they could have been
located at different distances and could have
resulted in the same perceived depths if (1)
the physical sizes of the objects had been ap-
Propriately changgd.to produce the same visual
angles (retinal sizes) and (2) all perceptual
cues as to physical’ distances had been removed.
It seems, therefore, that the term “adjacency”
in the adjacency principle is neither a retinal
nor a physical adjacency. It is a Perceived ad-
jacency!

The presence of both Cards B and D con-
tributed to the apparent depth position of Card
A even though the perceptual effect on Card A
of the adjacent card (B) was much greater than

—7—


Ficure 3. A schematic front view drawing illustrating the positions of the normal-sized cards
(A or D), the double-sized card (B), and the gray square (C) for the condition in
which all three cards were present (Fig. la) or in which one card was absent (Fig.

1b or Fig. lc).

playing cards. The hand adjustment apparatus
was invisible to O and the adjustment was made
kinesthetically. By means of a centimeter-rule
attached to the apparatus, EF could measure the
adjusted separation between the rods.
Procedure ,

The three displays illustrated in Fig. 3 were
presented to each of twenty Os (17 men and 3
women). Each 0 had a visual. acuity in his
right eye (corrected if necessary) of at least
20/20. The perceived depth between playing
cards which O was asked to indicate by means
of the hand adjustments (task) and the condi-
tions under which each task was completed
were as follows: : ,

Task (1). To indicate the pergeived depth
between A and D under conditions illustrated
in Fig. 3a, ie, B present. :

Task (2). To indizate the perceived depth)
between A and D under conditions illustrat
in Fig. 3b, i.e., B absent. ' 7

Task (3). To indicate the perceivéd depth
between A and B under conditions illustrated
in Fig. 3c, ie., D absent.

Tapk (4). To indicate the perceived depth
between A and B ugder conditions illustrated
in Fig. 3a, ie., D present.

Task (5). To indicate the perceived depth
between B and D under conditions illustrated
iw Fig. 3a.

The order in which these five tasks were com-
pleted was systematically varied between Os,
with each perceived depth being measured
three times.

If the size cue between Cards A and B con-
tributed to the perception of the depth position
of Card A, the perceived depth position of Card
A as judged with respect to Card D should be
more distant (farther behind Card D) when
Card B was present (Task 1, Fig. 3a) rather
than absent (Task 2, Fig. 3b). Therefore, the
obtained difference between Tasks (1) and (2)
is a measure of the effect of Card B on the per-
ceived depth position of Card A. Similarly, if
the size cue between Cards A and D contributed
to the perception of the depth position of Card
A, the perceived depth position of Card A as
judged with respect to Card B should be more
distant (farther behind Card B) when Card D
was absent (Task 3“fig. 3c) rather than pres-
ent (Task 4, Fig. 3a). Therefore, the obtained
difference between Tasks (4) and (3) is a
measure of the effect of Card D on the per-
ceived depth position of Card A. According to
the’ adjacency principle, the effect of Card B
on the apparent position of Card A should be
greater than that of Card D. The purpose of
Task (5) was to determine that the interposi-
tion cue was effective in modifying the per-
ceived depth between B and D from that which

4

wo

que
twe

sto
cal
ad

on
to
le

ex
he
th
in

tc
fi

Aer arom



ABSTRACT

was found that the size cue between adja
objects. An additional, although minor,

A recent report has identified a factor which
has been demonstrated to be effective in the
perceptual organization of the three-dimension-
al world (Gogel, 1963). This factor labeled
the “adjacency principle” asserts that the per-
ceived size or position of an object is determin-
ed by whatever size or distance cues are present

between it and adjacent objects. The adjacency
Bnciple has been demonstrated mainly with
i binocular disparity. The
ered with the appli
cation of the adjacency principle to size cues
of relative depth. It is predicted from the ad-
jacency principle that size cues to relative
depth between adjacent rather than displaced
objects are the size cues most effective,in de-
termining apparent depth position. i
A schema for applying the jadjacency prin-
ciple to the perceived depth resulting from size
cues is illustrated in Fig. 1. Figure la shows a
top view of the physical position of three objécts
(A, B, and D) all at the same tsa
the observer (0). The dashed lines in ig la
represent lines-of-sight (directions from O to
the objects). It is clear that Object A is direc.
tignally closer to Object B than to Object D
(©: > G1). The gdjacency principle states that
»|- the apparent depth position of A (with respect
to B and D) is determined mainly by whatever
depth cues occur between ‘A and B. The depth

ception of relative depth from size cues. In

—~1—

SIZE CUES AND THE ADJACENCY PRINCIPLE?

WALTER C. GOGEL

The purpose of the present study was to apply the adjacency principle to the per-

agreement with the adjacency principle, it
cent objects was more effective than the size
cue between displaced objects in determining the perceived relative depth position of

, factor concerned with task-set was tentatively
identified as contributing to the Perception of depth from size cues.

cues between A and D are considered to be of
less importance than those between A and B in

determining the apparent depth position of A:
In Fig. 1, Objects A, B, and D are similar
objects with the visual angular size of A equal
to that of D and with both A and D half the
visual angular size of B. Therefore, according
to the relative size cue, A and D should appear
at the same distance as each other with both A
and D appearing more distant than B. Thus, i
all distance cues other than relative size were
absent, Objects A and D should appear at the
same distance behind Object B. The apparent
depth positions of A, B, and D as they would
be expected from the size cue are shown in Fig.
1b as A’, B’, and D’. Under the circumstances
indicated by Kig. 1b, it cannot be’ determined
whether the equality of visual angular size be-
tween A and D or the angular size difference
between A and B was most significant in deter-
mining the apfw¥ent depth position of A.
Therefore, the adjacency principle cannot be
investigated by using the conditions illustrated
by Fig. 1b.
* In Fig. 1c, a situation is illustrated in which
an additional object (Object C) has been intro-
duced. Object C, as a consequence of the cue

1The author wishes to thank Henry W. Mertens, Frank L.
Agee, Jr, and James C. Hester for their assistance in
collecting and analyzing the data of this study:



SIZE CUES AND THE ADJACENCY PRINCIPLE

WALTER C. GOGEL, Ph.D.
Chief, Spatial Perception Section
Psychology Branch

63-28

FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY
. CIVIL AEROMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
AERONAUTICAL CENTER
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA
NOVEMBER 1963


“sand azis way yydap
jo uondaozed ayy 0} SuRNqiyu0s se payruap! ATeAEyUE; sem
3a8-4Se) YIM pausaou0 0jDeF ‘IOUTUT YBNoYTe ‘TeuoTIppe UY
‘syalqo jo uomsod wdep aanejar peataored ayy SuruTULa}p
ur syelqo paseidsip usemjaq and azis ay} uey eAnoayo
aioul sem sjoafqo jueoefpe usamjaq ano azIs ay} 1ey) PUTO;
sem qt ‘ajdrourd Aouasefpe ayy ym juauIaede Ul ‘sand 221s
wory tpdap aayefer Jo uodaored ay} 0} afdyoursd Aouacetpe
ayy Ajdde 0; sem Apnys quaserd oy jo asodmd ayy

Te80H *D serem Aq

‘sono zis woay wdep
Uap! Ajaareyue} sem
yaS-yse} TIM pausaduos rope; ‘Our YsnoysTe ‘TeuoTHIppe uy
“syaafqo jo uortsod yjdep aaneyar paateored ayy Bi
ur spafgo paoedsip uaemjaq ano azis ayy ey aAnoaya
aiour sem sjafqo juscefpe usemjeq end azIs ayy yey} PUNOy
sem 3 ‘ajdioursd Aouaoefpe ayy yyIM yueusaZBe Uy ‘send azIs
woy yydap eanejar jo uoRdeosed ay3 03 afdrourad Aousoelpe
ayy Ajdde 0} sem Apnys yueserd ayy jo asodind ayy,

Jo uondaosed ay) 0, BuNNqrquca se

80H *D sarem Aq

sang azig *
uondooog © W1dIONIUd LNFOVLaV AHL GNV SAND 3ZIS 82-£9 wonboes © A1dIONIYd LNAOVEGV AHL GNV S409 AZIS 8-09
wdeq -¢ yodey TUVD ‘euoyeTyO ‘AyD eutoyeTyO ‘Aouesy voy " wded 2 yrodey Tayo -ewoyepyo ‘AD euoyeTyo ‘Aouesy voy
ABopoyoAsa “1 “BIAY [eIepag ‘ayNIsUL Yoreasey [eorpewuorey [AID ABopouDASg “T -eray jedepag ‘omynsuy Yyoreasay [eorpaworsy [AID
“send azts woly yydep > ‘sano azis wool yidep
Jo wondered ayy oy Buyngiyuos se payriuap! Ajeaneuay sem Jo uondacrad ay} 0} Buynqiyuos se paynuep! ApeayE}UA} sem
328-34Se) YIM pausaoueo JojoRs “IOUT YBnoyj[e ‘[euoRIppe uy jas-yseq yyIm psua|QUCD JO}Ie} ‘JOUTU YBNoyy[e ‘TeuoNIppe UY
“spatgo jo uonsod ydep aaneler poatsored ayy BuruTue}ep ‘syatqo jo uonisod tygep aatjeyas pastaored ayy Bururuuzap
Ur syalqo padetdsip usemjaq and azis ey} wey} eAraqe Tar swatqo pacgdsip udemjaq ono ozs ayy weg) esaroaqe
tour sem syatqo yuacefpe ueemjaq and azIs oy) yey} Puno; a1ou se syoatqo jueoelpe usemjeq ano az{s ay) yey} PUTIOS
sem 4f ‘a[diourid Aouasefpe ayy yim juaulaaZe Uy ‘sand azis sem 31 ‘a[diourid Aouagefpe ayy yyM quaurserZe uy ‘sand azs
woay wdep eanejar jo Uondsoied ayy oy ajdroutsd Aousoefpe wo Wdap aanejer jo Uondeored ayy 0} afdroulsd Aouesefpe

ayy Ajdde 0} sem Apmys quasaad ayy jo asodind ayy ay} Ajdde 0} sem Apnys quasasd ayy jo asodind ayy,

a
, 80D “9 seem Aq . 80D ‘9 seem Aq
song eis 7 sang azig ‘£ :

uondaoiag WIdIONIAd LNAIVEGY IHL NV SAND AZIS 82-€9 uopdaosag WIdIONIAd INSOVLGY AHL GNV SAND FZIS 82-£9
wide -z yroday THVD “euoyeyyQ ‘A317 ewoyeTyO ‘Aouasy voy wnded “2 yodey TVD ‘eUCYETYO ‘AyD ewWoYLTYAO ‘Aoussy uoy
ABojOUDAS “T -BlAY [erepag ‘omIysU] Yyoreassy [wo|pewory [LAID ABojoyoASg “T -lay yexepag ‘omgNsuy Yyorvessy [estpamoray [AID

>



sang a7s €

‘sono azis woay widep
Jo uondassad ayy 0} Supnqiquoa se patynuepr Ajeanezue; sem

3as-4se} YIM pauiedu0s sojeF ‘FOUTW YBNoyyTe ‘euoNNppe uy

‘syaafqo jo uorisod wdep aanefer pasteoiad ey} Suyuruszaep
ur syafqo paseldsip usemjeq and azis ayy wey) eanoaye
aiou sem sjoatqo juedefpe useMaq afd azIS oy} Jey) RUNOS
sem yf ‘a[droupid Aouace(pe ayy yy yuauTEasZe UT “send az1S
woay wydap eayeyer Jo Uondeored ayy 0} aydrourid Aousoefpe
ayy Aydde 0; sem Apnys juasasd ayy jo asodind ayy,

P80p ‘OD sexe 44

ai

‘sano azis wozy wydep
jo uoydeorad ayy oy Suynquyucs se paynuapr Apeaneyuey sea
398-¥se] UWA PaUg9UCo sojoey ‘JOUTUT Ysnoyye ‘TeuONIPpe UY
‘sjoatqo jo woRTsod? wdep aaneyer peateored oyy Suruyutisyep
ur spafqo paoeydsip usamjeq ano ozs ayy Ue eanosyye

_ alow sem sjalqo jueoefpe usemjoq ano ozIs oy} Yeyy PUTIOZ

sem 3 ‘a[djourid Aouacelpe ayy yyM juuiaarBe U] ‘send oz1s
wosy yydap eAWeIaI Jo UoNdeoied ay) 0} eIdrourid Aouaoefpe
ayy Ajdde oj sem Appys quoserd amy jo asodmd ayy,

80H °D Jenem Aq

uondeoieg S1dIONIUd LNSOVEAV FHL GNV SAND BZIS 82-29 aoneared WIAIONIdd ENSOVFGK AHL GNV S4N9 IZIS 8-9
wdeq ‘z podey THUVD “ewoyeP{O ‘AyD eWOYeTAO ‘AouaBy UO  wadea “2 yroday TUVO “ewoYEPIO ‘AWD ewOYeTYO ‘Aouasy u0H
ABojoypAs_ “T -eIay [esapag ‘anysu] yoreasay [eo[pemoisy [AID ABooypAsq ‘T -BIAY [eiepeg ‘omnNsUl Yeasey TeoTpewoley jap
NN
~ ~
oe

“sand azis wo yydep . ‘sano azis wos tWdep
Jo uondaoiad ay} 0} Buynqinuos se payuapr ATeaqeyuey sem jo uoydaored ayy 04 BuTNgu0D se payuep! Ajaaneyuey sem
jas-yse, yJIM pausadtica Joye} ‘ZouTW Ysnoyy[e ‘euoNIPpe UV jas-yse] UPIM paureou0s s0}ey ‘FouTUI YsnoyyTe ‘TewoNIPpe UY
‘safqo Jo wontsod wdep aaneyar paataored ayy Bururuayep — | ‘Spalgo Jo wonTsod wdep eafejer pearsored eyy BuruuLr}ep
uy spaqo paoeidsrp usemjaq ono ais ayy wemy eanoaye tr swatqe pagerdsyp wesmjeq ano azis ayy wey) eanoaye
Bou! sem sjoafqo jusoelpe Ueamjoq ano azis ayy yey) PUTIOY pious sem spoatqo yueoefpe usemioq gM ezis oy; Jey} PUNoy
sem 3 ‘a[dioutd Aouacefpe ayy yzm quouIeaWse Uy “send az1s Sem if ‘a[dioulid Aouaoetpe ayy wm Bueussase uy ‘send az1s
way ydep aamejar Jo UoNdeored ayy 04 afdiowrd Aousoelpe Uowy Wdop aanefar Jo UoRdeored ayy oF aIdroulsd Aousoefpe

amy Afdde oy sem Apmys juasard ay) Jo osodind eq, bp Ajade oy sem Apnys queserd oy; jo esodind ayy,
song aug t 8D “9 soa 4q ons - [8D “O seHeA Aq
uondesseg WIdINd LNZOVEAY AHL GNV SEND BZIs 82-£9 womborss AAIONIMA LNIOVEAV SHL GNV SAND IZIS 82-89
mdac “Z wodey TEVD “ewoUETAO ‘AI eWOYETIO ‘ouasy vo ser Hoda THO BwoHRPIO ‘Aug ewOYEP{ ‘souesy WOR
ABoj0yDAsg “T ~siay [esepag ‘aMINSUY Yoreasoy [eoIpewoIIY [AID sBojoupésd t veay Texopag ‘ommpsupNpressoy [esIpauorey TAI

4