Technical Paper 336 AD ] ‘. 

-

~

~ 

MNEMONIC ENHANCEMENT AND GENERAL

TECHNICAL ABILITY

I ~~

J!T

~

Douglas Griffith and Tomme A. Actklnson

ARI FIELD UNITAT FORT HOOD,TEXAS

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

September 1978

Approved f or public re$ease; distribution unlimited.

~~~) ~

3i O~~—
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

S

U. S. ARMY RESEA RCH INSTIT UTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating A gency under the Jurisdict ion of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEII)NLR Colonel, US Army

Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

Ol$TRt9t.jflO~ Primary distribution of thit report has been ma

~~ by ARI. Please Cdd r,,i correspondunce

A

Concerning 

TTN PERI.P 

distribution 

5001 E

of reports to: U. S. Army Research Inttitut, for the Bihaviorsi and Saci.I Science,. isenhosw,r Avenue . AIex.ndria. Virginia 22333.

flNfi~

L DISPOSITION This report may bs dustroysd when it is no longer needed. Pl.u. do not riturn it to the U. S. Army Research Inslitis,, I or the Behavioral and Soc ial Science,.

~QIL The finding, in thiS r•port are not to t,e construed until. so di.ig n.t.d by Oth •s an of ficiel Dipartment of the Army position. er lutts orited document,.
SECURITY CLASSIPICATION OF THIS PAGE (~~ ios bw. Ent.ra~~

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1. REPORT NUMSER ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

. 2. GOVT ACCESSION $0 3. RECIPIENT S CATALOG NUMBER

Technical Pa r 336

T-f LB (

~~~ I. J4...., 5. T R~~

.—eRT a runt

~~ J4NEMONIC J~

NHANCEMENT AND GENERAL TECHNICAL j 9 Interim /ejt

~

2

~

’

,

~1 /

_________________ 1. ~~~~~~ .Uf t

~~~ MJi ~~~I . .I

1. AUT HO~ (•

~ I. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUM SER( .)

(

~

, 

Douglas~~ rjfflth~~~~ Tome R.

~~~thinsonJ --

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND ADDRESS ~~~~~~ROGRAM CLEMENT. PROJECT . TASK

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral / and Social Sciences (PERI— OH) ~2Q762722A765

5001 Eisenhower Avenue , Alexandria, VA 22333 — __________________________

1 5 . CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS ‘ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘

~~

T —,

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel Sep —*~~~~~78

Washington, DC 20310 ~~~ 

24

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAN & AOORESSQ( dUI.r.nt trout ConfrofUnd Wiles) IS. SECURITY CLASS. (of hi. tepees)

-- /

‘ Unclassified

I IS.. DECLASSIFICA TION /DOWNGRAD ING

Ii. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of Chic R.p ori)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

I?. OISTRIBUTIOP4 STATEMENT cot Cli. .b.tcsct entered hi Block 20. II different from Report)

Si. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Ii. KEY WORDS (Cone m u, On rev.ra• dde if n.c..aay aid Id.nUty by block ns b.r)

Mnemonics Retention

Imagery Training

GT aptitude

Information processing

1*. ABSTRACT (CactISnu. a, rev.ra .i

~~ It iwc..s y aid gd.nHfr by block m bee)

.-~1To increase both training effectiveness and the operational proficiency

of the soldier, techniques which increase the cognitive capacities of soldiers appear to have considerable potential. The current experiment is the

first in a series of studies designed to examine techniques which purport to

enhance the effectiveness of human memory . This first experiment examined

the utility of a simple pegword menmonic for Army enlisted personnel representing three levels of general technical (GT) ability: 90 and below, 91 to

109 , and 110 and above. Twenty—four personnel were sampled from each of the

DO FOMI 1413 EDITION OF 5 NOV 99 IS OSSOLETE Unclassified

~~~~ ~~~ 

~~~ ECUR$TY CLASSIFICATION O~ t HIS PAGE (WPMn Oaf a 
Uncj .aSs~.t3.ea .

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAO((Bhai Data &iMv.~~

20.

~

.~

three GT levels. Half the personnel in each group were instructed in the use

i

of a rhyme pegword mnemonic. All personnel learned three lists of digit-noun

associations. The digits one through ten were employed as the cues for all

lists. The response items were rated in terms of their pétential for evoking

memory iaages.~ . One list had low imagery values, one intermediate, and one

high. At the end of the experiment, the personnel attempted to recall all

three lists. It was found that the initial acquisition of the lists is a

positive function of the imagery level of the response items as well as a

positive function of the GT level of the personnel. It was also found that

only the high GT group (GT ~ 110) is able to employ the mnemonic to advantage.

The final recall test indic$tes a precipitous loas of information across lists

for all conditions. The following conclusions are offered: (1) the utility

of implementing the trainin~ of high GT personnel with mnemonic instruction

needs to be examined; (2) whenever possible, concrete, highly imageable words

should be employed in train~flg 1i~

&teria1s; (3) conditions under which low and

moderate GT ability personnel can e

~~loy mnemonics successfully need to be

investigated; (4) techniques for remadiating the precipitous information loss

when pegwords are employed repeatedly need to be developed.

L

\. - 

.

N: .

N - 

.

\

\

~~~~

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PACjE(d ’isn Da. Ani.~

,d)
— — ..- ..— -. 

~~•1 ————-——.-—-—- ~~~ --—

Technical Paper 336

MNEMONIC ENHANCEMENT AND GENERAL

TECHNICAL ABILITY

Douglas Griffith and Tomme A. Actkinson

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT HOOD, TEXAS

Submitted as complete and Approved By: technically accurate, by: George M. Glviden AN. Blrnbaum, Acting Director

Field Unit ChIef ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidrser

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue. Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office , Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

September 1978

I

Army Project Number Human Performance in

2Q762722A765 Field Assessment

A~

iproved for publit releate; di,tribution unlimited.
TT:T::T~~~~~TT i-

~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommen- dations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

~~~~~~~~ -. —- —-— --~~~~~~~~ - -~~ -—.——~~ -~~ -~~~— — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
—.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - . - :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~ -—-

FOREWORD

The Fort Hood Field Unit of the Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences conducts research to develop a technology

base in support of field testing. To this end research is conducted to

identify potential areas of training which enhances soldierly performance

in an operational environment. Since effective memory is key to the performance of many military tasks , fac tors which have the potential of

enhancing memory deserve experimental attention. The current research

is concerned both with the identification of factors which may enhance

memory, and with the identification of individuals who might benefit

from explicit memory training.

The entire project is responsive to special requirements of the

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel and to Army

Project 2Q762722A765 .

~~~~~ iDire~tor
MNEMONIC ENHANC EMENT AND GENERAL-TECHN ICAL ABILITY

BRIEF

Requirement:

To assess the utility of two techniques (i.e., mnemonic instructions

and words rated high on norms of imageability) for enhancing mnemonic

information processing with personnel of varying general technical (GT)

test ability .

Procedure:

Groups comprising three ranges of GT levels were employed : (90 and

below; 91 to 109; 110 and above). Twenty—four enlisted personnel we:e

employed in each group . Half of each group was instructed in the use

of a mnemonic technique. The remaining half served as a non—instructed

control. Each participant learned three lists of words rated respectively

in imagery as high, intermediate, and low.

Findings:

Only the high GT group was able to employ the mnemonic technique

to advantage. Generally speaking, personnel with higher GT scores

performed better, and recall was a positive function of the imagery

level of the materials.

Utilization of Findings:

This experiment demonstrates the utility of mnemonic instructions

with high (110 or above) GT personnel.

The enhancement of information processing afforded by high

imagery materials Is demonstrated .

A need Is identified for research concerning mnemonic training

for low and moderate ability personnel.

A need is identified for research concerning techniques for

eliminating or reducing retroactive effects when memory pegwords are

employed repeatedly.
MNEMONIC ENHANCEMENT AND GENERAL TECHNICAL ABILITY

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

METHOD 1

Design and Subjects 1

Procedure 3

Lists 4

Dependent Variables 4

RESULTS 4

Trials to Criterion 4

Number Correct on First Trial 6

Final Recall Data 8

CONCLUSIONS 8

REFERENCES 11

APPENDIX A IMAGERY SUBJECT INSTRUCTIONS 13

B CONTROL SUBJECTS INSTRUCTIONS 17

C LIST OF EXPERIMENTAL WORDS AND ASSOCIATED DIGITS . 21

DISTRIBUTION 23

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Counterbalancing sequence 2

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Mean number of trials to criterion 5

2. Mean number correct on first trial 7

3. Final recall as a function of list order 9
~

MNEMONIC ENHANCEMENT AND GENERAL-TECHNICAL ABILITY

INTRODUCTION

The ability to store and retrieve information is key to the

performance of many tasks. Hence, techniques which enhance an individual’s ability to store and retrieve information have po ten tial for

increasing both the training efficiency and the operational effectiveness of the soldier. The present experiment represents an initial

effort to investigate the utility of various techniques for enhancing

the mnemonic capacity of the soldier. Two techniques for enhancing

memory performance were examined over a sample of Army enlisted personnel from three ranges of general—technical ability.

By far, the most potent theoretical construct In studies of

memory enhancement is the construct of imagery (Paivio, 1971).

Two sianipulations predominate in the study of imagery and its relation

to memory. One manipulation is instructional set . Here an experimental

group is instructed to transform the to—be—recalled (TBR) material into

a visual image , and to form an interacting image between the TBR material

and a readily accessible retrieval cue. Typically the group instructed

in the imagery mnemonic recalls significantly more information than a

control group which is merely instructed to learn the material.

A second major manipulation is the varying of the imagery level

(IL) of the TBR material . There are norms (Paivio, YuIlle, &

Madigan, 1968) in which words have been rated in terms of their capacity

for evoking mental images. These normative ratings are proven

powerful predictors of memory performance. Typically, recall is a

positive function of the IL of the material , I.e., the higher the IL

the higher the recall.

A question remains concerning the generality of the above findings , as

a heavy majority of research on imagery and mnemonics has employed college

students as subjects. The purpose of the present experiment was to assei.s

whether effects similar to those obtained with college students could be

rep licated with a re~resentative military sample.

METHOD

Design & Subjects

A 2 (Instructional Set) by 3 (GT Level) by 3 (Imagery Level) factorial

design was employed. The experimental group was instructed in the use of

a rhyme pegword mnemonic whereas the second group served as a noninstructed

control. The three GT levels encompassed the following ranges : 90 and

- — -

~~~~~~~~ . — -~~~~~~~~ --~~~~ -~~
below , 91 to 109, and 110 and above , imagery level was manipulated within

subjects. Each subject learned three word lists, one each with high,

intermediate, and low imagery ratings, respectively. The order in which

the subjects learned the word lists was counterbalanced according to the

scheme portrayed in Table 1. Each of the sequences was represented twice

in each cell of the experimental design.

Table I

Counterbalancing Sequence

Sequence List 1 List 2 List 3

1 HI II LI

2 II LI HI

3 LI HI II

4 LX II HI

5 II HI LI

6 HI LI II

Note. HI = high imagery

II = intermediate imagery

LI = low imagery

2
-~~~~~~ ---~~~~ -

A total of 72 subjects , 24 from each of the (;T levels , was employed

in the data analysis. Subjects were randomly assigned to instructional

sets and list orders with the restriction that an equa l number of subjects

from each CT level be employed in all conditions. The subject sample

included bo th males and females and bo th comba t and noncomb at MOS ’s. Two

subjects in the low CT imagery condition needed rep lacements. One subject

did not speak enough English to serve in the experiment. Another subject

could not understand the experimental instructions.

Proced ure

Subjects were run individually . At the outset of the session the

subject was informed that he was participating in a study on memory. The

instructions for the experimental (imagery) and control subjects are

presented in Appendixes A and B respectively. It should be noted that

these instructions were spoken rather than read to the subjects. The

experimental sublects were instructed in the use of a rhyme pegword mnemonic.

In this technique , rhyme words (pegwords) are associated with the di gits

1 to 10, e.g., one is a bun , two is a shoe, etc. Interacting images are

then formed between the rhyme pegwords and the to—be--recalled (TBR) items .

This particular mnemonic technique was chosen because it can be taught in

a brief period of time. Moreover , the use of pegwords is integral to most

memory systems (Lorayne & Lucas , 1974).

Initially the imagery subjects were read the digits and their peg—

words (see list of words , page A— i , Appendix A). The experimenter

then prompted the subject with the digit and asked him to supply the

pegword. This procedure was essentially subject—paced and eacri subject

was taken to a criterion of two successive perfect recitations. Imagery

subjects were then instructed in the technique of forming images between

the rhyme pegwords and the TBR material . First the technique was

illustrated with two response terms . Then each subject was asked to

describe the images he formed for these additional high imagery items.

Subjects were provided feedback on their images and the technique was

reiterated if the subject apparently did not understand the technique .

Subjects were then instructed how to employ the imagery technique with

abstract words. Subjects were provided with two examples of imagery

med ia tion with abs trac t words and then requ ired to descr ibe thre e

additional examples on their own. Feedback was provided after each

example.

Control subjects also learned the rhyme pegwords to a criterion of

two successive correct repetitions. Cue words for the control subjects ,

however , were those rhyming with the pegwords rather than digits , e.g.,

pun—b un , clue—shoe , etc. (See list of words , page 3—1 , Append ix B.)

This procedure was followed to keep warm—up and practice efforts corn—

parable between the two groups and at the same time to avoid A—B , A—C

interference effects. The same response words were used in the sample

list for the control subjects as were used for the imagery subjects during

the imagery training .

3
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ - --- -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -

~~---~~ - -, -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-~

‘

Aft ’r the instructional phase each subject learned three 10—word lists ,

one each hig h , intermedia te , and low imagery (see Appendix C). The digit—

noun pairs were presented via a Kodak Carousel Slide Projector . The pairs

~ere ~resented at an 8—second rate in a random order. After all 10 pairs

had been presented , a blank slide occurred and the digits were presented

individually for eight seconds each. Subjects responded orally . If the

subject did not recall at least nine pairs correctly, another blank slide

appeared and the study—test cycle was repeated , using a different random

order . Altogether three random orders were employed throughout the

experiment. A maximum of five trials was allowed to reach criterion on

each list. Approximately 45 seconds elapsed between each list——just

enough t ime to change slide trays. After being presented the three lists .

the subject was provided a sheet of paper showing digits 1 to 10 with

three blank spaces alongside each digit . The subject was requested to

write down as many words as he remembered having been projected and , if

poss ible , to record them with the appropriate digit. No time limit was set

for the final recall.

Lists

Three lists of items (see Appendix C) were constructed from the

Paivio , Yuille , & Madigan 1968 norms . Thirty nouns were randomly selected

with the following restrictions : (1) that they all have A or AA Thorndike—

Lorge frequency counts and (2) that 10 have imagery values below 3.02,

10 have imagery values between 3.02 and 6.24, and 10 have imagery values

above 6.24. These subsets of 10 items each comprised the response terms for

the low, intermediate , and high imagery levels, respectively. The words

within each subset then were paired randomly with the digits 1—10 with the

restriction that one noun be paired with each digit.

Dependent Variables

Two dependent measures are regarded as primary : the number correct on

the first trial and the number of trials to criterion. Subjects who did

not reach criterion within five trials were assigned a score of 6. In

addition , a final recall test was administered at the end of the experiment

to assess the accessibility of information across lists.

RESULTS

Trials to Criterion

Figure 1 indicates the effect of GT level and item imagery, and also

indicates that an effect of instructional set is obtained only with the

high GT group . These data were examined by a 2 (Instructional Set) by

3 (CT Level) by 3 (Imagery Level) analysis of variance with repeated measures

on the last factor . The Newman—Keuls test was employed for post hoc comparisons . A statistical significance level of .05 was chosen as the criterion

for rejecting the hypothesis of no difference between the various levels of

Instructional Set , CT Scores , and Imagery .

4

__________ 

—- -
8 —

7 — 

~~~~ High CT — control

— — ~~~ Medium CT — Control

• 4 Low CT — Control

—S High CT — Iwegery

6 — — —S Medium CT - Ima gery

.. . L0w CT — Imagery

S

0 5 —

S. .

•. 

.

. 

. 

. 

*

1

~~~~~

I I

0 Low Int ermedia te H igh

Imagery Level

Figure 1. Mean number of trials to criterion .

5

I1l_ ________________ _______ .—~ 

— .

“—--- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~~~~~ ---- --.----~~

-.. ~~~~~~~~
ihe ef ~ eci or (1 1 leve l i

~

. statistically significant , F (2,66) = 7.55 ,

p - .01, MSe = 2.98. The N~wman—Keuls test Indicates that whereas t l ~~~ high

CT group requires significantl y fewer trials to criterion than the intermediate group (.01 < p < .05) and the low group (p < .01*), the intermediate

and low CT groups do not differ significantly from each other (p < .05*).

The imagery level effect is also significant , F (2 ,132) 49.94, p < .001,

MSe = .719. The Newman—Keuls test (p < .01*) indicates that all three

levels differ significantly from each other with recall being a positive

function of the imagery level of the noun . The instructional set by

CT interaction is also significant , F (2,66) 3.38, (.05 < p < .01),

MSe = 2.98. Tests for simple main effects indicate that the effect of

instructional set Is effective only for the high GT group . Apparently

only the high GT group is able to implement successfully the mnemonic technique . The main effect of instructional set falls short of statistical

significance , F (1,66) = 3.43, (.10 < p < .05). The remaining F ratios are

all less t han 1.25 and not significant at the .05 level.

Number Correct on First Trial

The preceding analysis can be regarded as a conservative estimate of

the experimental effects since the range of possible scores is only 6.

The analysis of the number correct on the first trial is thought to provide

a more valid estimate of experimental effects due to the larger range (1—10) .

The data are depicted in Figure 2. Ihe analysis of variance reveals

essentially the same pattern of effects. The effect of CT Level is

significant , F (2,66) = 11.46, p < .01, MSe = 7.29. A Newman—Keuls Test

(.01 < p < .05) indicates that whereas the high GT group recalls signif i—

cantly more words than the other two groups , the remaining groups do not

differ significantly from each other (p < .05). Again the effect of imagery

level is significant , F (2,132) 36.61, p < .001, MSe = 2.517. The

Newman—Keuls test (p < .01) again indicates that all three levels differ

significantly from each other and that recall is a positive function of the

imagery level of the nouns .

In this analysis , the effect of instructional Set is statistically

significant , F (1,66) = 5.03, (.05 < p < .01), MSe = 7.29. This main etfect

is qualified , however , by the Instructional Set by GT interaction , F (2 ,66) =

6.94, (.01 < p < .001), MSe = 7.29. A test of simple main effects indicate

that the mnemonic instruction is effective only for the high CT group . The remaining F—ratios are less than 1.68 and not significant at the .05

level.

*Tables of critical values for the Newman—Keuls test were available only

for the values of n = .01 and cx = .05.

6

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-

=~~~~~~ —-,—----—- -.-- —

~~

---.-- --- -

~~ 

— —- ---.---, — — — - ____.

~~~~~~~~~

‘

.

U /

, . . ‘.• • •

,

..

*

, .

.

2 •

‘

S High CT — Control

— — S Medium CT — Control

• 4 Low CT — Control

— U High CT — Imagery

— — — • Medium CT — Imagery

U U Low CT — Imagery

I I I

LOW Intermedia te High

Imagery Level

Figure 2. Mean number correct on the first trial.

7

~~~~~ ~ - -—- —— -- - .— . —~~~~~ ,—— - ~~~—— ,—-—~~~ —--—

-——- —~~~ - -——~~ - - - ‘—
_______________________________________________________ —..—-

~~~~~ -—

Fin al Recall Data

The data fro m the find rec all test are summarized in Figure 3. No

statistical analyses are provided since the differences in initial

acquisition would mitigate any conclusions regarding the final recall

data. It is worthy of note , however , that a great deal of information is

lost across the lists for all conditions.

CONCLUSION S

A question central to the current study concerns the generality of

the results which have been obtained from the college student population.

The normative manipulation of item imagery, which typically results in

the mnemonic enhancement of college students , resulted In the mnemonic

enhancement of Army enlisted men regardless of their CT level. Conversely , the instructional manipulation, which typically results in the

mnemonic enhancement of college students, proved effective only for Army

enlisted men in the high CT group. This high CT group was the most

comparable to the college population in general academic ability .

The potency of item imagery as a determinant of recall deserves

special consideration. It is noteworthy that high imagery items are

recalled better than low imagery itemt regardless of the CT level of the

personnel . The implication of this finding is clear——to enhance training

effectiveness , high imagery words should be used whenever possible . To

this end , norms should be developed regarding the imagery values of

military ternis, technical terms, and general words which are commonly

employed in the Army .

The interaction between instructional set and GT level calls into

question the generality of some of the imagery literature. Although the

normative manipulation proved effective for all GT levels, the instructional

manipulation did not . The present data, however, do not indicate that

intermediate and low CT individuals are incapable of successfully employing

a mnemonic strategy. The data indicate only that in situations in which

college students are typically able to use mnemonic techniques to

advantage , the intermediate GT and low GI individuals are not able.

Perhaps if more time is allowed for image formation, the intermediate

and low CT personnel will be able to employ the mnemonic technique

successfully. Or , perhaps , more extensive instruction and practice in

the mnemonic technique is required for these individuals. The identif I—

cation of the conditions necessary for low and moderate ability individuals

to employ mnemonic techniques successfully is a research problem of

immediate interest.

Other points of major interest are the independent effects of

instructional set and item imagery . Typically the effects of these

manipulations are additive rather than interactive ( Paivio , 1971).

In the current study the normative rating affects all CT levels, whereas

the instructional manipulation affects only high GT personnel. These

8

- ~~—- --- -

~~

-

~~ .

~~~~~~ - ---- ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- -.~~~~~~~~~~-
__ — -

~~~

10 —

9 —

‘ P T III

8- III,

I I.. 1• I 1 • / I

/ / L ~ 7— I Ii.

/ 1

~~~~. a) / •

,

— I I’ —

a)

~ 

6 — 1

1 

~~~~~~~

- 

•*‘

/

.

.

. II

-

.9 5__ .

. 

.

,

•

z 1 ’

~~~ w

I.

2 — S High GT - Control

———- .S Medium GT - Control

• 

- . 

• Low CT - Control

5 Hi gh CT - Imagery

1 — — — -S Medium CT - Imagery

• U Low CT - Imagery

0 

I I

List 1 List 2 . List 3

List Order

Figure 3. Final recall as a function of list order.

9

.-

~

.-. - - .. -
findings appear to indicate that the variables are affecting different

underlying processes. This observation has appeared in the literature

previously (Griffith & Johnston, 1973). The additivity of instruc—

tional set and item imagery would appear to indicate that the two

manipulations are affecting different stages of processing . Griffith

and Johnston (1973) have suggested that whereas the instructional manipu—

lation affects the initial processing of information during the study

stage, the normative manipulation has its primary effect on information

accessibility during the retrieval stage. In any case, it Is likely that

the manipulations cf instructional set and item imagery are not equivalent and that they are affecting different underlying processes.

Finally, attention should be given to the precipitous loss of

information across lists. This loss occurred even in the high GT imagery

group , i.e., the group that was able to implement successfully the

mnemonic technique. Practically speaking, this finding does not augur

well for situations where it is desirable to remember several lists of

words linked to the same pegs. The present study indicates a mean recall

loss of considerable magnitude, although a number of individual subjects

indicated high recall across lists. The conditions under which the same

pegwords can be reused without retroactive effects need to be identif led .

10
- - —--~~~~~- - ~~~~ - - -. -----

~~~~~~~~~~

- --- -

REFERENCES

Griffith , D., & Johnston, W. A. An information processing analysis of

visual imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1973, 100,

171—176.

Lorayne, H., & Lucas, J. The memory book. Briarcliff Manor, NY:

Stein & Day, 1974.

Paivio, A. Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston, Inc. 1971.

Paivio, A., Yuille, J. C., & Madigan, S. Concreteness, imagery, and

meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental

Psychology Monograph Supplement, 1968, 76 , (1 & 2).

11 

- .—_ _—---~~~-.- — --—

— — -

_ - -~ _ — — ———-~~.-~~ -- —-—-— .— —- A
APPENDIX A

IMAGERY SUBJECT INSTRUCTIONS

Hello, my name is — and I am from the Army Research

Institute. According to my information you are ______________________

Your ability to remember information is key to your performance of many

tasks. As a result the Army is interested in basic research on memory .

This is an experiment In the Army ’s ongoing research on the topic of

memory . After this session has been completed , I’ll be happy to answer

any questions you might have and provide a brief explanation of this

study , should you so desire . For the time being, however , 1 want you

to follow instructions completely . 01 course, should you have any

questions about what you are supposed to do, don ’t hesitate to ask.

Let ’s warm up by memorizing this simple rhyme scheme.

1 - Bun

2 — Shoe

3 — Tree

4 — Door

5 - Hive

6 — Sticks

7 — Heaven

8 - Gat e

9—Wine

10 - Hen

The words associated with the numbers are called pegwords . Now, whenever

I give you a number from 1—10 , you give me the rhyme pegword . (Prompt ,

if he doesn ’t answer . Repeat each iteration until all ten are correctly

supplied three times in succession.)

1. Again. 7. And Again . 2.

2. 5. 7.

3. 1. 10.

4. 3. 5.

5. 9. 8.

6. 2. 3.

7. 4. 6.

8. 10. 9.

9. 8. 1.

10. 6. 4.

13

I I

.- _ -—— -— _ . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — —-—— — -—-- --— 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

—~

—~

—-~
Now I’m going to show you how to use these rhyme pegwords to help you

remember. The key technique is to use visual imagery , men tal pic tu res , to

help you remember . Say , for example you want to learn the following asso—

ciations~ 1 — Helicopter

2 — Rifle

3 — Jeep

4 — Desk

5 — House

Learn these pairs so that whenever I g ive you the number you can give me

the word that was paired with it. You can use the rhyme pegword you

associated to the number to form an interacting image (a mental picture

containing the word you want to remember). That is, when you hear 1, you

would think of Bun and then form an image of , say, a helicopter in an

enormous hamburger bun . For the pair 2 — Rif le , you could think of the

rhyme word , Shoe, with a rifle sticking through the toe. Later, when

the number 1 is presented , you will think of the rhyme pegword Bun which

will make you think of the mental picture you formed of the helicopter

in the bun . You can then recall the word, Helicopter . Likewise, when

the number 2 is presented you will think of the rhyme pegword Shoe which

will remind you of the image you formed of the rifle sticking through

the toe of the shoe. You can then recall Rifle from this image.

Now , I’ll give you three more 1/ — word pairs. After you have formed

an image for each pair , de scribe it.

(Present Singly)

3 — Jeep

4 — Desk

5 — House

Any questions?

So far , all the words you have used have been relatively concrete. That

Is , the words refer to concrete objects. It is also possible , however ,

to use imagery when words are abstract and refer to no concrete objects.

Consider t he following # — word pairs.

14
6 — Religion

7 — Poverty

8 — Bravery

9-Law

10 — Wealth

The trick here is to use concrete objects to refer to the abstract concepts.

You could handle the pair 6 — Religion in the following way . For the

number 6 you remember the rhyme “Sticks.” Next , you translate the word

Religion into a picture of a group of people having a prayer meeting. Then

you can form a mental image of a group of people having a prayer meeting

on a pile of sticks. Later , when the number 6 is presented , you will

think of the rhyme Sticks which will remind you of the mental picture you

formed of the prayer meeting on top of a pile of sticks. This mental

picture , then , should remind you of the word Religion.

Sound complicated? It becomes easier after you ’ve had a little

practice. Consider the pair 7 — Poverty . Here you might simply translate

the word poverty into a picture of a group of poor peop le. Since the rhyme

pegword for 7 is heaven , you can form an image of a group of poor people

in heaven . Later when you hear 7 , you will think of heaven which will

remind you of the mental picture of the poor people in heaven which will ,

in turn , remind you of the word Poverty.

Any questions? Now I’ll give you several # — noun pairs and have

you describe to me the images you have formed for them .

(Present singly)

8 — Bravery

9—Law

10 — Wealth

Any questions? Remember it is important that you translate any words

which do not already refer to a concrete object into words which refer to

something concrete and form vivid mental images combining the words with

the rhyme pegwords.

You will learn three lists of # — word associations. Each list will

consist of two phases: a study phase and a test phase. In the study

phase # — word pairs will be projected singly on the screen for eight

seconds each. After ten pairs have been presented the test phase will

begin . In the test phase the digits will be presented individually in

a random order . When the digit is presented you are to try to recall

15

---

--

~

-. -. -— - . --- - .

-- - --

-.-- :__ _rn_. - -_- ~~~~~~_.-

~~~~~-- -_ ~~~~~~~~~~ . _ . _ - J
— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — T~~~~- ~~iT~

T

~ —

the word that was paired with it. You ’ll have four seconds to remember

the word . When you think you know the word, say your answer aloud .

Afte r four seconds have elapsed , another digit will be presented and

you ’ll try to remember the word that was paired with it. You ’ll be

tested on all the pairs. Do you have any questions?

Now we’ll try another list. Once again the digits will be 1—10,

but now you are to associate new words to them.

N ow we ’ll try a third list. Once again the digits will be 1—10 ,

and once again you are to associate new words to them.

16

____ — - -.- - - -.

~~~_ - -- —— — -- .—--- - --—------——-— -- _ . - - — —---.--—.
________________ __ 

-‘I ,

APPEN DIX B

CONTROL SUBJECTS INSTRUCTIONS

Hello , my name is ______________________ 

and I am f rom the Army Research

Institute. According to my information , you are _________________________

Your ability to remember information is key to your performance of many

tasks . As a result the Army is interested in basic research on memory .

This is an experiment in the Army ’s ongoing research on the topic of

memory . After this session has been completed , I’ll be happy to answer

any questions you might have and provide a brief explanation of this

study , should you so desire. For the time being , however , I just want you

to follow instructions exactly . Of course, should you have any questions

about what you are supposed to do , don ’t hesitate to ask.

Let ’s warm up by memorizing this simple rhyme scheme .

Pun — Bun

Clue — Shoe

Fee — Tree

Bore — Door

Jive - Hive

Hicks — Sticks

Leaven — Heaven

Hate — Gate

Fine — Wine

Men — Hen

Now , whenever I give you a word , you give me the word I gave you which

rhymes with it. (Prompt if he doesn’t answer. Repeat each iteration

until all ten are correctly supplied three times in succession).

Pun Leaven Clue

Clue Jive Leaven

Fee Pun Men

Bore Fee Jive

17 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ . - - ‘~~~. -
Jive Fine Hate

Hicks Clue Fee

Leaven Bore Hicks

Hate Men Fine

Fine Hate Pun

Men Hicks Bo re

You will learn three lists of # — word associations. Each list will

consist of two phases: a study phase and a test phase. Here is a sample

list:

1 — Helicopter

2 — Rifle

3 — Jeep

4 — Desk

5 — House

6 — Religion

7 — Poverty

8 — Bravery

9-Law

10 — Wealth

In the study phase the # — word pairs will be projected singly on the

screen for eight second s each . After the ten pairs have been presented ,

the test phase will begin . In the test phase the digits will be presented

individually in a random order . When the digit is presented , you are

t o try to recall the word that was paired with it. For example , the

number “4” will be presented and you will try to remember “Desk. ” Then

the number 10 might be presented and you would try to remember Wealth.

You ’ll have eight seconds to remember the word . When you think you know

the wo rd , say your answer aloud . After eight seconds have elapsed ,

another digit will be presented and you ’ll try to remember the word

that was paired with it. You ’ll be te8ted on all the pairs. Do you

have any questions?

____ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now we ’ll try another list. Once again the digits will be 1—10 ,

but now you are to associate new words to them .

Now we ’ll try a third list. Once again the digits will be 1—10,

and once again you are to associate new words to them .

19

j

•1 .—._~

_ —— ~

—-— -—_— .—-- - ~~~~~~~ _

~~ _ ._____ - _— -—— ——-~——— --—_—- -j———--. _—- —.— .— .__—_- .— — .- - - —— —__ --- —--—.~~~ --- — ‘———- —~

—.——~

..—~—- .— —
APPENDIX C

LIST OF EXPERIMENTAL WORD S AND ASSOCIATED DIGITS

High Imagery Intermediate Imagery Low Imagery

(1) Money (1) Month (1) Opportunity

(2) Newspaper (2) Owner (2) Situation

(3) Flower (3) Trouble (3) Fault

(4) Arm (4) Author (4) Answer

(5) Iron (5) Journal (5) Moment

(6) University (6) Vegetable (6) Truth

(7) Star (7) Charm (7) Soul

(8) Ambulance (8) Convention (8) Advantage

(9) Fire (9) Expression (9) Event

(10) Flag (10) Passion (10) Occasion

21

______ ~~~. --_ - - ____ -_ 
___ ____

DISTRIBUT ION

ARI Distribution List

4 OAS O M&RA 2 HousAcoEc . Ft Ord . AFTN: Libra ry

2 HODA IL)AMI CSZ) 1 HQUSACOEC, Ft Ord. ATTN ATEC--EX E -Hum Factors

1 HQOA IOAPE PBR 2 USAEEC , Ft Benjamin Harrison , ATTN : Library

1 HQDA (DANA-AR) 1 USAPACOC. Ft Benjamin Harrison , ATTN ; ATCP-HR

1 HODA IOAPE-HRE-P0l 1 USA Comm—Elect SCH, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: ATSN-EA

I HUDA (SGRD - I0) I USAEC. Ft Monmouth , ATT IJ: AMSEL—CT—HD P

1 HQDA COAM I DOT-C) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATT N AMSEL—PA --P

1 HODA (DAP C-P MZ-AC 1 USAEC, Ft Mortmouth , ATT N: AMS EL—Sl—CB

1 HODA COAC H rP! Al 1 USAEC, Ft Monmoulh, ATTN~ C, Fdct 0ev Br

1 HQDA IDAPL r I R E I 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Aberdeen , AT N: AMXSY—P

1 .

~CDACDAPE \IPO-Cl 1 Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen .ATTN :SARcA -- -BL - H

-‘ODA (DARE OW) 1 USA ()rd Ctr & 5th, Al,erdecn ATT N ATSL - TEM - - C

HQOA (DARE HRLC 2 USA Hum Engr Lab, Aberdeen . ATTN: Library/Dir

HODA IDAPE ;PSI 1 USA Combat Arms Tng Bd, Ft Benniny . ATTN Ad Supervisor

1 HQDA (DM1) MFA 1 USA Infantry Hum Rsch Unit , F, Benrr rr r~

, ATTN: Chief

1 HOOA IDAHO ARSP) 1 USA Infantry Bd, Ft Banning, ATTN: STEBC—TE—T

1 HODA IDAPC-PAS•A) I USASMA , Ft Bliss, A11’N: ATSS—LRC

1 HQDA )OUSA OR) 1 USA Air Oaf Sch, Ft Bliss , ATTN: ATSA- CTD --ME

1 HODA )DAMO-ROR ) I USA Air Def Sch, Ft Bliss, ATTN: Tech Lib

I HODA IDASGI 1 USA Air Oaf Bd, Ft Bliss , ATTN: F I LES

1 HODA (DA 1O-PI) 1 USA Air Oaf Sd, Ft Bliss , ATTN: STEBO—PO

I Chief. Consult Div (DA OTSG), Adeiphi. MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: Lib

1 Mu Asst. Hum Ret, 000R&E, DAD (E&LS ) I USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: ATSW—SE--L

1 HO USARAL . Ar’O Seattle, ATT N: ARAGP R 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College , Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: Ed Advisor

1 HO First Army ATTh: ftuFKA’OI•Tl 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dee Act. Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: DvpCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined Arm s Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: CCS

1 Dr . Army Stf Studies Ofc , ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP) I USA Combined Arms Cmbt 0ev Act , Ft Leavenworth , ATTN: ATCASA

1 Ok Chief of Stf , Studies Ofc I USA combined Arms Cmbt Dee Act . Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACO— E

1 DCSPER , ATT N CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act , Ft Leavenworth . ATI’N: ATCACC—C.

I The Army Lib, Pentagon. ATTN: RSB Chief 1 USAECOM, Night Vision Lab. Ft Belvo~

r, ATTN: AMSEL—NV-—SD

1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: Tech Library

1 Ok , Asst Sect of the Army (R&D) 1 USAMERDC. Ft Belvoir . ATTN: STSFB—DO

I Tech Support Ofc, OJCS 1 USA Eng Sch, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: Library

I USASA, Arlington, ATTN: lARD~

T 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: ETL -TO—S

I USA Rsch Ofc , Durham, ATTN: Life Sciences Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM , Natick , ATTN: SGRD~

UE-CA 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: ETL—GSL

1 USATTC . Ft Clayton, ATJ’N: STETC.MO’A 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: d O—MS

1 USAIMA , Ft Bragg, ATtN ATSU.CTD-OM 1 USA Intelligence Cu & Sch. Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATS—CTD’-MS

1 USAIMA , Ft Bragg, ATTN~ Marquat Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huachuca. ATTN: ATSI—TE

1 US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan , ATTN: Lib 1 USA lr~

teliigence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, ATIN: ATSI—TEX— GS

I US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan , ATTN. Tng Dir 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sctr , Ft 1-luachuca , ATTN: ATSI—CTS—OR

1 USA Quartermaster Sch, Ft Lee, ATTN: ATSM~

TE 1 USA Intelligence CIt & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—CTD—DT

1 Intelligence Material Dcv Ofc , EWL . Ft Holabird I USA Intelligence CIt & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—CTD—CS

1 USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gordon , ATTN: ATSO-EA 1 USA Intelligence Cu & Sch , Ft Huachuca, ATTN: DAS/SRD

1 USA Chaplain Ctr & Sch, Ft Hamilton , AIIM: ATSC-TE-RD I USA Intelligence Ct, & Sch, Ft Huacnuca , ATTN ATSI—TEM

1 USATSCH , Ft Eustis , ATTN: Educ Advisor I USA Intelligence Ct, & Sch, Ft Huarhuca . ATTN: Library

1 USA War College, Carlisle Barracks , ATTN: Lib 1 COB. HQ Ft Huachuca, ATTN: Tech Ref Div

2 NRAIR , Neuropsychiatry Div 2 COB. USA Electronic Prvtj Grd, ATTN: STEEP--MT—S

1 DLI, SDA, Monterey 1 CDR , Project MASSIER. ATTN: Tech Info Center

1 USA Concept Anal Aqcy, Bethesda, ATTh: MOCA.WGC I Hg MASSTER . USATRADOC , LNO

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy. Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA-MR 1 Research lnttitute. HO MASSTER , Ft Hood

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA-JF I USA Recruiting Cmd, Ft Sherdian , ATTN: USARCPM—P

I USA Attic Test Ctr, APO Seattle , ATTN: STEAC.MO.ASL 1 Senior Army Mv.. USAFAGODITAC , Elgin AF Aux FId No. 9

1 USA Artic Test Ct,, APO Seattle. ATTN: AMSTE’PL.TS 1 HO USARPAC , DCSPER . APO SF 96558, ATTN: GPPE—SE

I USA Arm,menl Cmd, Redstone Arsenal, ATIN: ATSK-TEM I Stimson Lib, Academy of Healti’ Sciences , Ft Sam Houston

1 USA Armament Cmd, Rock Island, ATTN: AMSAR.TDC 1 Marine Corps Inst., ATTN: Dean—MCI

~AA- NAFEC . Atlantic City , ATTN: Library 1 HOUSMC. Commandant . ATTN: Codi: MIMI Si

I OA .NAFEC , Atlan’ic City , ATTN: Hum Engr Br 1 UOUSMC, Commandant , ArT I

~ Code MPI—2t)

I FAA Aeronautical Ctr, Oklahoma City , ATTN: AAC-44D 2 USCG Academy, New London, ATTN: Admission

2 USA FId Arty Sd,, Ft Sill, ATTN: Library 2 USCG Academy, New Lonuon, ATTN: Library

1 USA Armor Sth. Ft Knox , ATTN: Library 1 USCG Training Ctr , NY , ATTN: CO

USA Armor Sch. Ft Knott , A’fl’N: ATSB-DI-E 1 USCG Training Ctr , NY , AT”N’ Educ Sec Ofc

I USA Armor Sth, Ft Knox , ATIN: ATSB OT-TP I USCG, Psycho) lIes Br . DC. AITH: GP 1/62

1 USA Armor Sch. Ft Knos, ATTN: ATSB CO~

AD 1 HO Mid—Range Br , MC Dcl, fluantico, ATTN: P&S Div

23

____________ ----~~~~~~~~~~~ - ---- .

~~~~~-
I US Marine Corps Liaision Otc , AMC. Alexandria, ATTPI: AMCGS—F I Def & Clvii Inst of Enviro MedIcine. Canada

1 USATHADOC . Ft Monroe , ATTN: AT RO -ED I AIR CRESS. K...IleISun, ATTN: Info Sye Br

6 USATRADOC . Ft Monroe ATTN:AT PR -AD 1 Mlfl5~~~~$OlO~~ I

~~~~~N,CCMbage4t

1 USATRADOC. Ft Monroe. ATTN: ATI’S-EA I Miliwy AtIed~. ~renth Emti ,y. ATTN: Doe Sec

1 USA Forcer Cmd, Ft McPherron, ATTN: Library I Medicin Ckef . C.E.R.P.A,—A’senal . Toulon/Navel France

2 USA Aviation Tes t Sd, Ft Bucker, AITN: STEBG—PO 1 Pfln Sclanttfic Off , Aaw4 Hun, Ease Reds Dlv. Minsatry

1 USA Agey tot Aviation Safety, Ft Ruck.r. ATTN: Librwy Ot OSfSflSe. New O.*s,

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety. Ft Bucker, ATT’N: Educ AdvIsor I Pars Reds Ofc U~rary. AKA , Israel Defense Forces

1 USA Aviation Sth. Ft Bucker , ATTN: P0 Drawer ~ I MUU,tSrIs van D,f.nsie. 000P/KL AId Socl.al

I HOUSA Aviation Sys C.ssd, St Louis, ATIN: AMSAV-ZDR P,ychofoqledse Zaken. The ‘rl.pa., Netfieri.ndv

2 USA Avlado l Sy, tail Act., Edwards APS, ATTN: SAVTE-T

1 USA Alt Def 5th, Ft Bliss. ATTN: AT SA TEN

- 1 USA Air Mobility Rsch & Dee Lab, Moffett Fld, ATTN: SAVDL—AS

1 USA Aviation Scfl. Rex Tog Mgt , Ft Bucker, ATTN : ATS1’—T—RTM

1 USA Aviation 5th, CO. Ft Rucker . ATTN: ATST—D’-’A

1 HO, DARCOM , Alexandria , ATTN : AMXCD—TL

1 NO, DARCOM , Alexandria. AT1’N: COB

I US Military Academy, West Point, ATTN: Serials Unit

1 US Milita ry Academy, West Point, ATTN : Ofc of Milt Ldiuisp

1 US Military Academy, Wes t Point, ATm: MAOR

- 1 I,ISA Standardization Gp, UK , FPO NY , ATTN: MASE—GC

1 Ofc of Naval Bach, Arlington. ATTN: Code 452

3 Ofc of Naval Bach, Arli ngton . AIIM: Code 458

I Ofc of Naval Rsch, Arlington, ATTN: Code 450

I Ofc of Naval Bach, Arlington, ATIN: Code 441

I Naval Aerospc Med Rex Lab , Pentacola , AIIM: Acous 8th Div

1 Naval Aerospc Med Ret Lab, Pensacola , ATTN: Code L51

I Naval Aerospc Med Re, Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Cods L5

1 Chief of NasPers , ATTN . Pers.OR

1 NAVAIRSTA . Norfolk , ATTN: Safety Ctr

I Nay Oceanographic , DC, A’fl’N: Code 6251. Charts & Tech

I Center of Naval Anal, ATTN . Doc Ctr

1 NavAirSysdom . A’fl’N: AIR—5313C

1 Nay BuMed, ATTN: 713

1 Navi’felicopterSubSaue 2, FPO SF 96601

1 AFHRL (FT) William AFB

I AFHRL ITT I Lo~ r, AFB

1 AFHRLIAS) WPAFB .OH

2 AFHP,L lOOJZ~ BrookS AFB

I AFHRL IDOJNI Leckland AFB

I HOUSAF (INYSDI

1 HOUSAF (DPXXA)

1 AFVTG IRDI Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFB , OH

2 AF Inst of Tech, W PAFIS , OH, ATTN: ENE/SI

1 ATC IXPTO) Randolph AFB

I USAF AvroMed Lib, Brook s AFB )SUL—4), AIM: DOC SEC

1 AFOSR (NL) , Arlington

1 AF Log Cmd, McClellan A FE . ATTN: ALC/DPCRB

I Air Force Academy, CC, ATI’N: Dept o1 Be) Scn

5 NavPcrs & Dxv Ctr , San Diego

2 Navy Med Neuropsychiatric Rsch Unit, San Diego

1 Na’~ Electronic Lab, Sari Diego , AUNt Rex Lab

1 Nay Trng Cen . San Diego . AiIM: Code 9000—Lib

I NavPostGraScts , Montere’j, AT1’N: Code 55Aa

I NevPostGra5ch , Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124

NavlrngtquipCtr, Orlant.io, ATTN: Tech LIb

I US Dept rsi Labor, DC, AIIM: Manpower Admin

I US De pt ~f Justice , DC, ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin

I Nat Bur nt Standards, DC, ,

STTN : Computer Info Section

1 Nat Cinaring House for MH—lrtfn , Rockville

1 Deuuver Federal Ct,, Lakesvood , ATTN: BLM

12 ~

uefen,e Documentation Center

4 Dir Psych , Army )4q, Russell Olca. Canberra

1 Scientific Advsr, Mil Sd, Army Hg, Russell 01st,, Canberra

1 Mil and Air Attache. Austrian Embassy

I Centre ‘lit Recfterche Dan Farteurs , Humalne de Ia Defense

Natun nale , Brussels

2 C~naduan Joint Staff Waehington

I C/Air Staff , Royal Canadian AF , ATT r’l: Pars Std Anal Br

I Chief , Canadian Oaf Bach Staff , A T1’N: C/CBOS(WI

4 B’itish Oaf Staff , British Embassy . Washington

. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .