o

to

o

Technical Report 388

OBSERVER SELF-LOCATION ABILITY AND

ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COGNITIVE

ORIENTATION SKILLS

John R. Milligan and Raymond O. Waldkoetter

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT SILL, OKLAHOMA

!8

i =i

D D C

U. OCT 30 1979

lEBED U li

B

U. S. Army

Retearch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Saptambar 1979

Approved for public reit**«; distribution unlimited.

79 10 29 Ul?

■■■■■■ Ml
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

WILLIAM L. HÄUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel. U S Army

Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Pnnwry diltnbution of thu nporl hat bMn madt by ARI. PIlMt addrtu corratpondcnr«

conctrmng dmribution of rtport« to: U. S. Army Rnaarch Inttitutt for th« Bth«vior«l and Social Scienc<iv

ATTN PERI P, 5001 EiwnhOMar Avtnue, Alaxandna. Virginia 22333

FINAL DISMilTION: Thu rtport may ba dattroyad wfwn it n no longar naadad. Plaaia do not raturn it 10

th« U. S. Army Rawarch Imtituta for th« Bthaviorai and Social Scianoa«.

NOTE Tha finding« in thu raport ara not to ba conitruad at an official Dapartmant of tha Army petition,

uniau w datignatad by othar authontad documann.

^- ,
Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PACE (Whan Data Knl.r.d)

7

(c:

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. WEPORT MI/dJBB«

pchnical Rep«

WSUBIfIISJ '

^88.

2. COVT ACCESSION NO

1 OBSERVER ^LF-ROGATION ^BILITY AND ^TS

| M:LATIONSHIP TO COGNITIVE ORIENTATION SKILLS,

READ INSTRUCTIONS

BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

5. TYPE OF REPORTft PERIOD COVERED

6 PERFORMING CRC. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHORf«;

John R./Milligan and Raymond O. / Waldkoetter

8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERf.)

f. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences »^

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

AREA * WORK UNIT NUMBERS

[2Q1637_31A7j'ier j

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

U.S. Army Field Artillery School

Fort Sill, OK 73503

7/, « REPORT DATE

iT NURRIHUF I«

26

tccrr

79 <

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME ft ADORESSC" älltmtmnl Irom Canlnlllnt Olllc») IS. SECURITY CLASS, (ol thl, tmport)

Unclassified

ISa. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

1«. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol (Ma Rmport)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ol lha abalract antarad in Bloc» 20, II dlllmritl Irom Roport)

1». SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

It. KEY WORDS (Conllnuo on rayaraa aid» II nacaaaary and Idmllly by block numbmr)

Self-location Forward observer (FO) abilities

Spatial orientation Cognitive maps

Geographical location Map reading

Visual imagery test Land navigation

20. AMT* ACT rCaottaua an ravaraa al<l> II ntaaaaqr mtd Idontlly by block numbmr)

'This report presents research on the ability of observers to locate

military targets and to relate that location to their own position by use

of military maps. The experimenters used a one-way analysis of variance

design in which 30 observers were divided into categories of either high or

low self-location abilities (median split) on a previously administered

practical exercise in which the observers were required to locate their

geographical position in relation to their position on a military map.

(Continued)

00 t JAtTn M73 EDITION OF • MOW «» IS OBSOLETE Unclassified

-v

yo/ olo SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE fW»an Oala Bnlmtmd)

'
Unclaiisitied

«tCUWlTY CL*MlflCATjOlj OW TMII PAOtChm Of Knitn4)

Item 20 (Continued)

The experimenters then measured the subjects' ability on three tasks:

(1) use of a pointing instrument to point the direction to a series of

locul landmarks familiar to the subjects, (2) use of a pointing instrument

to point to a scries of cities within the United States, and (3) a visual

imagery exercise which required the subjects to follow mentally a complex

set of directions and then report their direction at the conclusion of the

exercise.

—^Results revealed statistically significant overall differences between

the two groups of observers on all three tasks. Those subjects who scored

high on Iho previous self-location exercise also scored high on the three

experimental tasks.

The experimenters conclude that the pointing instrument and visual

imagery tasks were successful in distinguishing between subjects who

scored well and those who scored low on previous self-location exercises.

The experimenters also suggested that the simple pointing instrument and

visual imagery tasks may, with further testing, be shown to be effective

and low-cost tests to predict which observers will need additional training in self-location skills prior to training in observer skills.

/

ACCESSION for

NTIS White Section

DOC Buff Section O

UNANNOUNCED D

JUSIiriCAUON -

BY

Dismnw/wiiuiiin cooes

Olst, AVAIL. Vnd/or IKCIAC

ff

ii Unclassified

ICCURITV CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEf»?>»n Palm tnl»r*d)
Technical Report 388

OBSERVER SELF-LOCATION ABILITY AND

ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COGNITIVE

ORIENTATION SKILLS

John R. Milligan and Raymond O. Waldkoetter

Submitted by:

Randall M. Chambers, Chief

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT SILL. OKLAHOMA

Approved by:

A.H. Birnbaum, Acting Director

ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS

RESEARCH LABORATORY

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 1979

Army Project Number

2Q163731A770

Individual Training.

Orientation Skills

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

lii

oi.
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

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

for implementation at the time of publication are present ^ in the last part

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

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

lv
FORKWORD

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences (ARI) performs research to improve operational practices and

procedures in the areas of personnel and manaqement systems, education

and training systems, and human factors in system development and operations. One major objective is to determine the relevance, efficiency,

and economy of individual performance-oriented skill development and

evaluation within the Army. Continued and expanded research in individual traiainq and evaluation is critical for redefinition of the role

of service schools--what and how to train in Active, Reserve, and

National Guard units--and for effective traininq by supervisors and

commanders. This report evaluates the use of a personnel screeninq

instrument to identify soldiers who would profit from additional preparatory traininq in self-location and orientation skills to improve

their performance in the critical field artillery duty of being a forward observer for indirect fire weapon systems. The effort represents one phase in the exploration of human requirements and limitations for advanced weapon systems and is part of an on-going research

effort to assist decision makers in determininq traininq requirements

for cost effective traininq of individuals.

Research on individual skill requirements for the field artillery

forward observer is responsive to the requirements of Army Project

2^1637.3^770 and to special requirements of the U.S. Army Field Artillery School, Port Sill, Okla. The work of Donald O. Weitzman, U.S.

Army Research Institute, qenerated an interest and provided a framework for this research. MAJ D. Nemetz and SFC K. Johnson, ARI Field

Unit, Fort Sill, assisted in data collection. Material in this report has also been presented at the 20th Military Testinq Association

Conference, Oklahoma City, Okla., November 1978.

EWKR

hnical Director
OBSERVER SELF-LOCATION ABILITY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COGNITIVE

ORIENTATION SKILLS

BRIEF

Requirement:

To investigate selected variables which may be related to the

ability of human observers to locate military targets and relate that

location to the observers' own position by use of military maps.

Procedure:

The experiment used a correlational and one-way analysis of variance design in which human observers (N = 30) were divided into categories of either high or low self-location abilities (median split)

on a previously administered practical exercise in which the observers

were required to locate their geographical position in relation to

their position on a military map. The experiment then measured the

subject's ability on three tasks: (a) use of a pointing instrument to

point the direction to a series of local landmarks familiar to the

subjects, (b) use of a pointing instrument to point to a series of

cities within the United States, and (c) a visual imagery exercise

which required the subjects to follow mentally a complex set of directions and then report their direction at the conclusion of the exercise.

Findings:

Results of the research reveal significant overall differences

between the two groups of observers categorized on previous selflocation exercises. Statistically significant differences between

groups on all three tasks were found; those subjects who scored high

on the previous self-location exercise also scored high on the three

experimental tasks.

Utilization of Findings:

The results indicate that the pointing instrument and visual

imagery tasks were successful in distinguishing between subjects who

scored well and those who scored low on previous self-location exercises. The experimenters also suggested that the simple pointing

instrument and visual imagery task may, with further testing, be

shown to be an effective and low-cost test to predict which human

observers will need additional training in self-location skills prior

to training in observer skills.

vii
OBSERVER SELF-LOCATION ABILITY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO COGNITIVE

ORIENTATION SKILLS

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 1

METHOD 5

Subjects 6

Apparatus and Materials 6

Procedure 7

RESULTS 7

Local Points 7

Distant Cities 9

Visual Imagery 9

CONCLUSION 12

REFERENCES 13

APPENDIX A. POINTING INSTRUMENT SCORING GUIDE 15

B. VISUAL IMAGERY EXERCISE 17

C. LISTING OF INDIVIDUAL SCORE DATA 23

DISTRIBUTION 25

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Correlation of institutional data 4

2. Correlation of pointing errors, visual imagery,

and self-location scores 8

3. Analysis of variance of mean error in pointing

to local points for Groups 1 and 2 8

4. Means, standard deviations, and errors for

groups on pointing to local points 9

ix

iTfTJIT Pi« tUM.
CONTENTS (Continued)

Table 5.

7.

8.

Page

Analysis of variance of mean error in pointing

to distant cities for Groups 1 and 2 10

Means, standard deviations, and errors for

groups on pointing to distant cities 10

Analysis of variance of scores obtained on visual

imagery test for Groups 1 and 2 11

Means, standard deviations, and errors for groups

on visual imagery test 11

li
•

OBSERVER SELF-LOCATION ABILITY AND ITS RELATIONSHIP

TO COGNITIVE ORIENTATION SKILLS

INTRODUCTION

The ability of human observers to locate themselves on the earth's

surface in relation to other objects or targets on that same surface

has widespread military and civilian application. The importance of

these applications is easily overlooked because the skill is assumed to

exist uniformly among individuals. Self-location and spatial orientation ability is often implicitly assumed to exist at levels common to

all individuals in land and sea navigation training even though there

is extensive evidence to the contrary (Witkin, 1946; Woodring, 1939).

There has been extensive research on spatial orientation related to

localized brain damage (Ratcliff & Newcombe, 1973; Hecaen, Tzortzis, &

Masure, 1972), sex differences (Cohen, 1976; Maxwell, Croake, & Biddle,

1975; Pellegrini & Empey, 1970), age differences (Howard & Templeton,

1966), and race differences (Osborne & Gregor, 1966), but relatively

little research has been specific to self-location or geographical

spatial orientation and military map training involving target acquisition for indirect fire weapons. The purpose of the exploratory research reported here is to examine self-location abilities as they

relate to cognitive directional orientation, by developing an instrument capable of identifying those who do poorly or do well on such

directional tasks.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The Army's Human Engineering Laboratory demonstrated the importance of self-location abilities in a field test of the field artillery

indirect fire system in the early 1970's (Technical Memorandum 24-70).

This field test found that over 50% of the error variance in the indirect fire system was attributed to the forward observer's inability

to locate the target or himself in relation to the target within acceptable standards.

Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP) standards allow a

maximum error of 250 m in target location. Field tests reveal however,

that the average target location error is between 500 to 700 m. This

field test, although well designed and well executed, encountered difficulties in controlling nuisance variables which, as the authors noted

in that study, may have influenced the reliability of forward observer

performance.

The 50% error variance attributed to the forward observer probably

overestimates the error variance. There appears, however, little doubt

either empirically or logically that the accuracy of the forward observer largety determines the accuracy of the indirect fire weapons.
The rifle marksman's accuracy is affected by the condition of his rifle

and the weather conditions, but most importantly by the marksman's aim

or perceptual judgment. With indirect fire weapons, however, the crew

doing the firing neither sees the target nor calculates adjustments due

to weather, distance, etc. These functional tasks are broken down and

performed by other team members who, in the case of the forward observer,

may be separated by many miles from the actual guns being fired.

The forward observer generally is the only member of the indirect

fire team who can actually observe the target being fired upon; he transmits his observations to the fire direction center (FDC) where this information is processed by calculating weather conditions, gun location,

type of ammunition being fired, etc. These calculations are then sent

to the gun crew in the form of elevation and deflections which will be

set on the guns, and the round is fired. The forward observer observes

the impact of the rounds fired and transmits corrections to the fire

direction center, which in turn recalculates and sends new elevation

and deflection information to the gun crew. The essential difference

between the perceptual judgment (aiming) used by the rifle marksman and

the observing done by a forward observer is in the area of what the

researchers call "conceptual associating."

The rifle marksman, once he has established the range of his target and adjusted the sights on his weapon, is faced primarily with a

perceptual alignment task in that he must be concerned with the placement of the adjusted and aligned sights upon the target for accuracy.

The forward observer on the other hand is faced with the much more complex task of associating a target he can see on a horizontal plane to

a military map drawn in the vertical plane. He must be able to analyze

the actual terrain from one perspective and to interpolate what that

terrain looks like when expressed in symbols and from a different perspective. Thus it is primarily a conceptual task requiring extraction

and association of information in a form other than that observed.

Kozlowski and Bryant (1977) studied geographical spatial orientation ability in a series of three experiments in an attempt to investigate further the individual differences in orientation skills reported

in the research literature. The first experiment divided human subjects

(N » 45) into categories of either good sense of direction or bad sense

of direction. The subjects were then tested to see if what people say

about their sense of direction relates to their actual directional and

mapping abilities. The first test consisted of pointing to unseen buildings, map drawing, and pointing to north and nearby cities. The results

of this experiment indicated that the better the self-report of sense of

direction, the better the orientation performance. Average pointing

errors for the combined pointing to unseen buildings and map-drawing

tasks were 19.3° (SD - 9.5) and 33.2° (SD = 14.6) for good and poor

sense-of-direction subjects respectively, t(43) = 3.41, p < .01.

li
The second experiment in this research, a refinement of the first,

included additional independent variables. Subjects were given direction, distance, and time estimation tasks. Results indicated that

self-reports of sense of direction and self-reports of distanceestimation ability are highly correlated; and the better the selfreported sense of direction or distance, the smaller the pointing

error. The mean pointing error was 10.79° (SD 5.08) for good senseof-direction people and 25.71° (SD • 19.53) for poor sense-of-direction

people. Actual performance in estimating time or distance failed to

correlate with anything; this failure was probably due to lack of variation in the performance data, according to the authors.

The third experiment attempted to answer the question, "How well

would self-reports of directional ability be able to predict spatial

performance in a novel environment?" A human-sized maze in the form

of a section of tunnels underneath a dormitory complex was used to

answer this question. The subjects were led through the maze once;

they then traveled the maze as a group for four additional trials.

After the first, second, third, and fifth trials, subjects were asked

to estimate distance traveled and time elapsed, and to point in the

direction from the start to the end of the maze. The subjects' performance revealed that by the second trial the good sense-of-direction

individuals pointed more accurately than the poor sense-of-direction

individuals, F(l, 30) * 7.09, p < .05.

Estimating the distance of the maze was not a significant main

effect for the two groups. However, there was a tendency for poor

sense-of-direction people to overestimate their time spent in the tunnel. Interestingly, these differences were not observed on the first

trial when subjects were not aware of the purpose of the study and

presumably were not attending to the spatial configuration of the

maze.

The results of these three experiments led researchers to conclude

that the good sense-of-direction people, far from having an extreme

facility at orientation (i.e., one that requires little work), appeared

to be more active and to put more effort into the tasks.

The Field Artillery School (FAS) at Fort Sill, as a result of the

Human Engineering Laboratory's analysis of indirect fire systems previously cited, attempted a further analysis of forward observer performance (Directorate of Evaluation, FAS, 1977). The FAS used a comparison of two data groups: One consisted of data gathered from

officer basic classes; the other was composed of artillery officers

from field units. The institutional data consisted of target location

error, observed fire scores (a written portion and live-fire portion),

map-reading scores, and nonverbal tests (Sequential Test of Educational

Progress [STEP], and the Lorge Thorndike). Significant correlations

were found among all variables except target location and observedfire score (live-fire portion). Table 1 displays the results of the

correlation analysis. These results should be accepted with caution

i
<0

•pQ§P3

•H

4J

5

Wo

tr51

0) 0) n u

43 -Ha

o< -< "-o

•H

4JÜa

I

9) UO

0) 0)I

V

<«O

4)O

u«

Q< cr 13

0) -'S ^ c 5 I

99•9P ^i-< a»i-( CMH 0"H t^r

-

»

voo *oo to <NO »nn

HO HO HO HO OH N H u a

00 vO

vOH

oo

NN

U (A

00

ißH

HO

HO

II II U 01

(TlH

mo

HO

II II u m

<Nn

H

ino

r^o

HN

un

ooo• HHN

0)

•P

01

IIN

u«

00in i-i

CMO

<NO

II II u a

coo

CMO

II II u m oooHU

0) |

uo

»H

MM

HHNN

Mw um

I*.

ONH

00O

(NO

II II u m ooo

iiu

NN

Mm

r* vo oo * H OH r»

H

voo c^o coo

HO «NOOO

H II M 0) ooo

IIu

II II u m Nu

« 0) (U

tr

MP

HP

s

c <W -H «w H] ii 0)

01U 4) E.

5

ao

0)M

to0 Si

5 SI gSJ8

üHPU

<ou

a,

ai 8

(0

id0

(A

0)

id

^3502

3

IMo

10

at H

idHPcI

4)

>

0)

0) uo

l-l

•HBmI

en

01 0)

M

to

H vO

5

g

4

0.

GEH

H

II

E~« <d

Z

Wc0 to

•H (U

ß

P

w

s. id idüu

0)

x: Poc

in
because larqe sample sizes such as this (N 12 36) insure that oven

very small correlations will be statistically siqnificant reqardless

of the meaninqfulness of such correlations.

The field unit data (N » 45) consisted of correlations amonq selflocation, tarqet location, shoot scores, map-readinq scores, previous

institutional (school) shoot scores, visual acuity, depth perception,

nonverbal tests (STKP and Lorqe Thorndike), and number of practice

missions. Correlational analysis revealed that only two pairs of the

variables were correlated at a significant level: the nonverbal tests

with self-location and the map-readinq scores with field shoot scores.

No correlations on the field data were presented in the report. However, a chart showinq whether or not the correlation was siqnificant

at the ,05 level was provided. Although the FAS study failed to show

a siqnificant relationship between tarqet-location error and observed

fire scores the study concluded that accurate tarqet-location ability

was the primary shortcominq of the forward observer.

Based upon these results, the FAS conducted an additional study

to analyze the effect of doublinq the amount of map-readinq instruction

qiven. Comparison between qroups of students whose map-readinq instruction was doubled and control qroups revealed no siqnificant differences between the qroups (Directorate of Fvaluafion, FAS, undated).

The studies reviewed here suqqest differences amonq individuall

in sjvitial orientation, self-location, and tarqet-location abilities.

Spatial orientation abilities vary with self-estimates of spatial

orientation ability and are related to later performance on orientation tasks. Experience and traininq may be related to orientation

performance, but as yet the relationships have not been clearly

demonstrated.

The purpose of the present research was to gather additional empirical data on a limited part of spatial orientation abilities. Particularly« the researchers sought information as to the relationships

or differences amonq individuals on self-location abilities and directional orientation abilities. Siqnificant findinqs of relationships

between these two variables would be an important start inq point for

larqer and more comprehensive research designs«

MFTHOD

The researchers used a one-way analysis of variance design in

which observers (N * JO) were divided into categories of either hiqh

or low self-location abilities (median split) on the basis of a previously administered practical exercise in which the observers were

required to locate their qeoqraphical position in relation to their

positions on a military map. The researchers then measured the subjects' ability on three tasks: (a) use of a pointing instrument to

point the direction to a series of local landmarks familiar to the
subjects, (b) use of a pointing instrument to point to a series of

cities within the United States, and (c) a visual imagery exercise

which required the subjects to follow mentally a complex set of directions and then report the direction they were facing at the conclusion

and at various points of the exercise. Correlational analysis (Pearson product moment) of the three tasks and performance on the previously administered self-location test was completed in an attempt

to determine degree of relationship among the tasks.

Subjects

Subjects were 30 male student officers from an officer basic class

at the Field Artillery School at Fort Sill. All students had completed

forward observer and related subject course areas at the time of testing. Self-location scores (percentage correct) were rank-ordered for

all 118 students. Each student was assigned a number, and 15 students

were randomly selected from the top half and 15 from the bottom half

(median split) of the class. None of the students had been previously

assigned to Fort Sill nor had given the Fort Sill area as their home

address. Equal exposure to the various locations was assumed by the

researchers.

Apparatus and Materials

Two test instruments were used in this research. The first instrument was a 38-inch-diameter circular piece of plywood which could be

placed on a flat table. The outer edge of this circle had painted on

it the 6400 mils of a military compass in 10-mil increments. Mils were

used in this research since this measurement unit is used on military

compasses and can be easily converted to degrees. The center of this

circle had a rotating post with a 38-inch pointer which could be

pointed in any direction and the direction read in mils off the circular base.

Subjects were individually tested in a lighted but enclosed room.

They were shown the correct direction to true north with the mils and

the pointer correctly oriented. Each subject was then asked to move

the pointer as close as possible to the actual direction of six local

areas in whic' the student had frequent contact, i.e., student mail

room, post exchange, etc. None of the locations could be observed

from the room. Appendix A contains a scoring guide of all locations

and their correct directions. The subjects were also required to point

the direction to six cities using the pointing instrument, thereby

measuring both local and national geographical orientation.

The second test instrument was a mental imagery exercise consisting of a single sheet with square grids covering approximately twothirds of the page shown to the subjects. Individual subjects were

asked to close their eyes and imagine themselves at the top of the
--.

series of squares or qrids, facing a specified direction. The subjects

were then asked to imagine themselves walking along the grid lines in

whatever direction and for whatever distance the experimenter instructed,

then at various points along this path they were asked which direction

they were facing. Each subject completed three of these mental imagery

exercises. Instructions with the plotted paths for each of the three

exercises are presented in Appendix B to this paper.

Procedure

Subjects were randomly selected for each of the two groups as

previously described and were tested individually. The researcher

briefly described the study to each subject and obtained informed consent. Then each subject was taken into the room that contained the

pointing instrument. The room was lighted and the window curtains drawn

closed. There was no attempt to eliminate directional visual cues

within the room. The subject was shown the operation of the pointing

instrument, and then the instrument pointer was placed on true north

and the subject asked to point to the previously described locations.

Appendix C contains a listing of raw score data for each subject on

each test.

RESULTS

Scores for pointing error (local and distant cities), visual imagery,

and self-location were subjected to correlational analysis. These results are presented in Table 2. As can be seen from an examination of

these results, the strongest correlation is between the visual imagery

scores and the self-location scores.

Local Points

One-way analysis of variance was used to evaluate the group differences in scores for pointing to six local areas with which the subjects had daily to weekly contact. Absolute error scores measured in

mils from the actual azimuth measured from true north were used in this

analysis as the dependent variable. Transformation of scores was not

required, since underlying assumptions of the one-way ANOVA were met.

Group assignment was the independent variable: Group 1 consisted of

subjects who had scored above the median on a field self-location test,

and Group 2 consisted of those who had scored below the median on the

;.ame self-location test. Table 3 presents the results of this analysis.

As expected. Group 1 (high self-location scores) performed significantly (p < .04) letter than Group 2 (low self-location scores) on

pointing to local points. Table 4 presents the means, standard deviations, and errors for these two groups. As can be seen from these

tables, the relative difference is rather small when the mils are
Table 2

Correlation of Pointing Errors, Visual Imagery,

and Self-Location Scores

Self location

2. Pointing error

(local)

3. Pointing error

(distant cities)

1.00 -.40 -.32 .53

* .014 s * .041 s ' .001

1.00 .14 -.29

s * .234 s = .063

1.00 -.36

s = .024

4. Visual imagery 1.00

Note. N * 30; s * significance level.

Table 3

Analysis of Variance of Mean Error in Pointing to

Local Points for Groups 1 and 2

Source SS df MS

Between groups

treatment 34884 1

Within groups

error 212431 28

Total 247315 29

34884

7587

4.60*

Note. N • 30; 15 per group. Numbers rounded to nearest whole number.

Unit of measure is mils (6400 mils = 360°).

Group 1 * subjects scoring above median on self-location test.

Group 2 • subjects scoring below median on self-location test.

»p < .04.

8

-—-M
converted to degrees (17.6° error for Group 1 and 22° error for Group 2).

Although group differences are relatively small, the data suggest that

the ability to point to unseen locations (i.e. , mental mapping ability)

is useful in differentiating between high and low scores in self-location

tasks.

Table 4

Means, Standard Deviations, and Errors for Groups

on Pointing to Local Points

Group Mean SD Standard error

1

2

Total

264

332

298

67

103

92

17.32

26.68

16.86

Note. N 30; 15 per group. Numbers rounded to nearest whole number.

Unit of measure is mils (6400 mils » 360°).

Group 1 subjects scoring above median on self-location test.

Group 2 » subjects scoring below median on self-location test.

)

Distant Cities

One-way analysis of variance as previously described in the analysis of local points was used to analyze the differences in groups for

pointing to distant cities. The results of this analysis are presented

in Tables 5 and 6. As in the previov analysis, significant differences

were obtained between groups (p < .03) on pointing to distant cities.

Again, examination of the results of the analysis of variance and the

means, standard deviation, and errors reveals the pointing instrument

was effective in differentiating between groups.

Visual Imagery

The third analysis, like the first and second, revealed significant differences (p < .002) between the two groups on the visual imagery

task. As can be seen from an examination of Tables 7 and 8, the visual

imagery task appears to be a more reliable indicator of group

differences.
Table 5

Analysis of Variance of Mean Error in Pointing to

Distant Cities for Groups 1 and 2

Source SS df MS

Between groups

treatment 150946 150946 5.43*

Within groups

error

Total

778886

929832

28

29

27817

Note. N =•= 30; 15 per group. Numbers rounded to nearest whole number.

Unit of measure is in mils (6400 mils = 360°).

a

Group 1 = subjects scoring above median on self-location test.

Group 2 » subjects scoring below median on self-location test.

»p < .03.

Table 6

Means, Standard Deviations, and Errors for Groups

on Pointing to Distant Cities

Group Mean SD Standard error

1

2

Total

366

507

437

83

221

179

21.49

56.98

32.69

Note. N ^ 30; 15 per group. Numbers rounded to nearest whole number.

Unit of measure is in mils (6400 mils = 360 ).

Group 1 « subjects scoring above median on salf-location test.

Group 2 subjects scoring below median on self-location test.

10
Table 7

Analysis of Variance of Scores Obtained on Visual

Imagery Test for Groups 1 and 2

Source ss df

Between groups

treatment 2484 2484 11.73*

Within groups

error

Total

5933

8417

28

29

212

Note. N * 30; 15 per group. Numbers rounded to nearest whole number.

Scores represent percent correct.

Group 1 * subjects scoring above median on self-location test.

Group 2 « subjects scoring below median on self-location test.

*p < .002.

Table 8

Means, Standard Deviations, and Errors for Groups

on Visual Imagery Test

Group Mean SD Standard error

1

2

Total

90

72

81

12

17

17

3.04

4.36

3.11

Note. N * 30; 15 per group. Numbers rounded to nearest whole number

Scores represent percent correct.

Group 1 - subjects scoring above median on self-location test.

Group 2 subjects scoring below median on self-location test.

11
—

CONCLUSION

This research examined the relation between self-location abilities and certain spatial cognition skills which enable an individual

to point to unseen locations and to maintain directional orientation

using visual imagery. The results of the preliminary research have

demonstrated that differences between high scores and low scores on

a self-location test can be differentiated by use of a simple pointing

instrument and visual imagery task. These results are promising and

suggest potential value for an expanded investigation in which a multivariate statistical design will allow for greater control of variables

and analysis of their contributions to performance in self-location

and target location abilities.

.

12

"T
•

REFERENCES

Beck, R. J«, & Wood, 0. Cognitive transformation of infomuLion from

urban geographic fields to mental maps. Environment and Behavior,

1976,8,199-238.

Cohen, D. Usefulness of the group-comparison method to demonstrate

sex differences in spatial orientation and spatial visualization

in older men and women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1976, 4_3(2) ,

388-390.

Directorate of Evaluation, U.S. Army Field Artillery School, Fort Sill,

Okla.: Weapon system training effectiveness analysis—the forward

observer. Phase la, base line. ACN 32750, May 1977.

Directorate of Evaluation, U.S. Army Field Artillery School, Fort Sill,

Okla.: Weapon system training effectiveness analysis—forward

observer. Phase 1c. Undated.

Hecaen, H., Tzortzis, C., & Masure, M. Spatial orientation difficulties

in a route-finding test by patients with unilateral cortical lesions.

Perception, 1972, _1(3) , 325-330.

Howard, I. P., & Templeton, W. B. Human spatial orientation. New York:

Wiley, 1966.

Human Engineering Laboratory, Aberdeen Research and Development Center,

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md. Human Engineering Laboratories

Battalion Artillery Test (HELBAT 1), Technical Memorandum 24-70,

September 1970.

Kozlowski, L. T., & Bryant, K. J. Sense of direction, spatial orientation, and cognitive maps. Journal of Experimental Psychology.

Human Perception and Performance, 1977, _3 M) # 590-598.

Maxwell, J., Croake, J., & Biddle, A. Sex differences in the comprehension of spatial orientation. Journal of Psychology, 1975,

91(1), 127-131. ^

Osborne, R. T., & Gregor, A. J. The heritability of visualization,

perceptual speed and spatial orientation. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 1966, 23(2), 379-390. ~

Pellegrini, Robert J., & Empey, J. Interpersonal spatial orientation

in dyads. Journal of Psychology, 1970, 76(1), 67-70.

Ratcliff, G., & Newcombe, F. Spatial orientation in man: effects of

left, right and bilateral posterior cerebral lesions. Journal

of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 1973, 36(3), 448-454.

13
Tryon, R. C. Studies in individual differences in maze learning. VI.

Disproof of sensory components: experimental effects of stimulus

variation. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 1939, 28, 361-415.

Witkin, H. A. Studies in geographic orientation. Yearbook of the

American Philosophical Society, 1946, 152-155.

Woodring, P. D. A technigue for the investigation of direction orientation in human beings. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Sciences, 1939, 24(pt.4), 147-152.

14
APPENDIX A

POINTING INSTRUMENT SCORING GUIDE

Location name Location azimuth (mils)

1. Officers club

2. Main PX

J. Ft. Sill Blvd exit

4. Key Gate

5. Mail room

6. CF department

7. Oklahoma City

8. New Orleans

'J. Dallas

10. Houston

11. Kansas City, Mo.

12. Denver

5855

5075

3610

2490

1825

4900

0710

2150

2550

2670

0620

5610

15

• ' , •
APPENDIX B

VISUAL IMAGERY EXERCISE

Narrative Instructions—Grid 1

1. Graphic representation: See attached sheet.

2. Scoring procedure: Score one point for each correct direction

given by the subject. Ask the subject for his direction at each

place indicated in the narrative.

3. Narration:

a. Close your eyes and imagine yourself facing south on the grid

previously shown to you.

b. Proceed two blocks south. Stop.

c. Turn 90° left, now proceed two blocks and stop.

What direction are you now facing? (Correct answer is east)

d. Now turn left 90° and proceed two blocks. Stop.

e. Turn left 90° and proceed two blocks. Stop.

What direction are you now facing? (Correct answer is west)

If the subject correctly answers both questions, score 2 for

this sample.

4. Now give the subject a blank grid and ask him to draw the directions

he followed in this example.

5. Ask the subject for any questions to clarify the procedure.

6. Proceed to the next exercise if the subject understands the

directions.

17
r

-

--y

i\X X

'/K )C 3

X

X X X

Figure B-l. Visual imagery exercise--Grid 1.

18
,

Narrative Instructions—Grid 2

It Close your eyes. Imagine yourself facing south on the grid you

were just shown.

2. Proceed one block and stop.

3. Turn 90 left, walk one block and stop.

4. Turn 90 right, walk one block and stop.

What direction are you now facing? (A3, south)

o

5. Turn right 90 , proceed one block and stop.

6. Turn right again 90 , proceed one block and stop.

What direction are you now facing? (A5, north)

7. Turn right 90 , proceed one block and stop.

What direction are you facing? (A6, east)

o

8. Turn left 90 , proceed one block and stop.

o

9. Turn left 90 , proceed one block and stop.

What direction are you now facing? (A8, west)

10. On this blank grid page draw the route you have been following.

19

' Hi pi
s 

~ 

Figure B-2 . Visual imagery exercise--Grid 2 . 

20 
Narrative Instructions—Grid 3

1. Close your eyes. Imagine yourself facing east on the grid you were

just shown.

2. Proceed two blocks and stop.

o o

3. Turn right 90 , now turn 45 more to the right, proceed two blocks

and stop.

What direction are you now facing? (A2, southwest)

4. Turn left 90 , now turn 45 more to the left, proceed two blocks

and stop.

What direction are you now facing? (A3, east)

5. Turn left 180°, then turn right 45°.

What direction are you now facing? (A4, northwest)

6. Proceed two blocks in this direction and stop. Turn left 45 .

What direction are you now facing? (west)

21
.

Figure B

_3. Visual imagery exercise-Grid 3.

22
APPENDIX C

LISTING OF INDIVIDUAL SCORE DATA

Group 1

Mean of Mean of

local points distant cities Visual

Subject Self-location pointing pointing imagery

number score (%) errors (mils) errors (mils) score (%)

1 l 98 231 435 70

2 98 265 252 90

3 99 144 360 99

4 98 294 252 99

5 99 306 317 99

6 93 246 457 70

7 95 354 445 99

8 96 224 227 90

9 99 228 400 99

99 171 307 99

95 273 442 99

98 414 468 80

99 288 405 70

95 233 300 99

95 291 423 90

Group 1 = upper half of median split based on self-location scores.

23
b

Group 2

Mean of Mean of

local points distant cities Visual

Subject Self-location pointing pointing imagery

number score (*) errors (mils) errors (mils) score (%)

16 71 592 318 80

17 76 313 428 80

18 79 483 562 40

19 85 233 407 60

20 89 318 460 80

21 88 291 502 90

22 86 284 930 70

23 74 261 960 90

24 70 343 325 99

25 71 431 698 50

26 84 319 240 80

27 79 271 390 70

28 70 244 648 50

29 73 391 500 80

30 65 211 250 60

I

Group 2 = lower half of median split based on self-location scores.

24
OISTIIIUTION

AMI ll.stiilHilinn Lilt

4 OASOIWARAI

.' HODA IDAMI CS/'

I MOOA (OAPJ PBBI

I »inOA (D/>MA AN)

) MDdAlOAft MHt I'OI

I MOllA (SURO 10»

I HUOA(ÜAMtDOTU

I MOOA (OAP( PM/A|

I MOOA (DACH 9P? A)

I HOOA (OAPE HREI

I MOOA (OAt'J MPO l I

I HOOA (OAPI OWI

I MOOA (I)APE MRU

I HOOA (DAPE CPSI

I HOOA(OAFDMFAI

t HOOA (OARO ARS PI

I HOOA (DAPC PAS A)

I HODAIOUSAORI

I MOOA (OAMO RORI

I MOOA (OASCt

I MOOAinAtOPII

I Clmt. CiHtMilt Oiv IDA OTSCil. MlUK MO

t Mil A«M Mi.m Rn, UDOHKl OAO (FftLSI

1 IIOHSAHAl, APOSi'iitlli- ATTN ARAÜP R

I HO Fir« Anny. ATTN: AFKA ()l Tl

.' HO Fiftti Army. Ft S«n Htiutton

I On Aimy SH SludwiOtc ATTN OAVCSA (OSPI

I OI< i in»! nl Stl. RMM 0*r

t IM^il'l R. AUN CPS'OCP

I n« Aimy Lili. IVnlmun. ATTN RSK OMI

I Tho Aimy Lih. Pnitwuii ATTN ANRAl

I Oli. A«l Sact ol (ht Atmy (RftDI

I IrchSupimttOlc. OJCS

I USASA. AIIIIHIII«! ATTN IARO T

I LISA Rich Oli:. Dtirium, AT IN Lilr SCHIHTI OH

;• USARIfM, NiiMk AITN SCiRO UE CA

I USAirr. I iCI.iyliHi Al IN ;.ll l( MllA

I USAIMA. Ft Bt«ri. AHN AISUC1UOM

t USAIMA. Ft BI«KI. ATTN M«i|u(tLib

1 US WAC Cti ft Srh. Ft MrCI«ll*n. ATTN: Uli

I US WAC Clt ft Sri«. F| McCI*ll«n. ATTN: Ti»i On

I USA OMttmmntci Srh, Fl Lt«. ATTN: ATSM TE

I InMllHitncf Matwial Or« Olr FWl Ft Holtlind

t USASESmiwISrh. FiCiuMliin. ATTN ATSOEA

I USA Owlain Cn • Si h. 11 NMMBN, ATTN ATSC TF RO

t USA1SCH. F I E uitii. ATTN F iltK AilvilUf

1 USA Wit Cnllvir CiriiilD Bwrtcki, ATTN Lib

.» WRAIR. Ni'iniMnyhMiiy Oiv

I Oil. SOA. WIHI|«II<V

t USA ConcniH An«l Aqrv. Hrih»»!., ATTN MOCA MR

I USA COIII»|II AIMI Agcy. Btriitirt«. ATTN: MOCA JF

1 USA Aranc TtM Clt. APO SMttl*. ATTN STEAC PL Ml

I USA AlClic T«l Cti, APO S.»ttl» ATTN: AMSTE PL TS

t USA ArnwnMnl Cmrt Rwhtont Antntl. ATTN: ATSKTEM

I USA Amwwnl Ciml. Rock liUml. ATTN: AMSAR TOC

t F AA NAF EC. AllMitic City. ATTN: Library

1 FAA NAFEC. Allanlic City ATTN: Human Engt Bi

1 FAA Aamnaiitiial Cti. Oklahoma City, ATTN: AAC 44D

2 USA Fid Aity Sch. Ft Sill. ATTN Libiary

I USA Armor Sch. Ft KINM, ATTN: Library

I USA Ammr Srh. Fl Km», ATTN AtSH 01 F

I USA Arnmi Vli. 11 Kima. ATTN ATSH OT TP

I USA ArBMM Sch. Fl Kim«. ATTN ATSB CD AO

7 MOUSACULC. 11 Old. ATTN Library

I MOUSACOEC. FtOrd. ATTN ATEC EX F MiimFarloi»

7 USAEEC Fl Saniamin Mammii ATTN lilauy

I USAPACDC. FlRniHiniuMaiiiuHi ATtN AICP HR

I USACiimm {I..I S.li f t Mii.ini.iiiili Al IN ATSN FA

I USAFC, FlMorimiHith. A1TN AMSEl (I HOP

I USAEC. FtMonmoulh. ATTN: AMS(L PA P

I USAEC. FiMnnmmitli. ATTN AMSCL SI CR

I USAEC. FtMonmmilh. ATTN C. FaclO^Bi

I USAMalmaliSyi Anal Agry. Alaiifern. A1TN AMXSV P

1 EdvawiMxl Ai*nal. Ahndwn. ATTN SARFA ML H

I USA Oul Cti ft Sch. AlmüMn. ATTN. ATSL TEM C

1 USA Hum (.Hjr Lah. Alinilrvii. ATTN LiUaiy 'OH

I USA Cumliat Aim» Tiig Bd Ft Hriimivi ATTN Ad Su|iri«iiui

I USA Inlantiy Hum Rwti Unit. Ft Banninq. ATTN Chii'l

I USAInlantiyld. FtBannm«. ATTN STTBC T( T

I USASMA. Fl Blm. ATTN: ATSS I RC

I USA An OvISch f tBI'it ATTN ATSA ('TO Ml

1 USA An IVI Scli. Ft Blm. ATTN Taclilili

I USA An (VI B<l FtRhM. ATTN FILES

I USA An OtIBd Ft Blut. ATTN STEBD P0

I USA Cmd ft Ganaial Sll Cullr»" Fl Lvavanirarlh. ATTN I ill

I USA Cmd ft Gatwial St« Cnlh-f|i>. Fl Laavmwraih. AT TN AISW SF I

I USACmd A OaiwtalSlI Culhnr. f < kMOTNMMi, ATTN EilAdviuM

I USAComlmwd AMMOMM U'V AI I. Fl I I.I«. iitytwlli, ATTN |V|.( 1.

I USA CumlMna4 Arma Cmbl Oav Ai i Ft Laancnuneiih. ATTN: CCS

I USA CiimiDnM Artm Cmbl Oav Art. F« Ltayanworlb. ATTN: ATCASA

I USA CiimliuiMl Am» (ml.i Or« An. Ft I aavrn««orlb. ATTN. ATCACO I

I USA ('iniiliiii.'d Anin Cmlu IV« At i. I t Irmi'iiiMOrIh. ATTN' ATCACC 1:1

I USAFCOM Night ViiHvtLnli FinrlvMi ATTN AMSFL NV SO

1 USA I.milHum Syi Cmd, Fl Balvmi. ATTN Irrh Library

I USAMFROC Fl Brlvon ATTN SISFR OO

t USA Enq Srh, Fl B^ynu, ATTN Library

t USA Tnpoqrwhir Lali. Fl Balnm, ATTN Ml TO S

I USA T'luiquH»!»! I.ili llBri«...! ATTN STINFO Cmiln

I USA 1ii|MH|i,Hihi(: lah, MBnlvou ATTN Fll GSl

I INAIiitillN|iiH-> Cn ASdi, I I HIIH^HK.I. ATTN Clli MS

I USAInlxlliiam.'i Cti ftS<4i. Ft HujihiMj. AITN ATS CTO MS

I USAInlalliiianO'Cli ftSch, FlHiiwhui^. ATTN ATSI TE

t USAInlrllHiaiicrCti ftSch. FlHuachiica ATTN ATSI TFX GS

I USA InlnllKrnct Cti ft Sch, Ft Hiiachm:«. ATTN ATSI CTS OR

I USAIntrllHrncuCli ftSch FtHuartttica. ATTN ATSI CTO DT

1 USAIntfllHianwCii ft VI«. FiHuachnca. ATTN ATSI CTO CS

< USAInmlligimLvCii «Sch, FlHuai-biira, ATTN OAS^HU

I USAIiilrllH|i<nc>'Cli ftSin, liHuaiFi ATTN ATSI TFM

I USAIiilrHiui'nci<(:ii ASrli. Ft HuactHiiM. ATTN I ihrary

I COR. HO Fl Hum Inn « AT TN Tn-h Rrl Oi«

7 COR, USAEIactiiHiicPiviiGid. ATTN STIFF MT S

I HO TCATA. ATTN lech Libraty

I HO. TCATA. ATTN AT CAT OP O. F t MIHUI

TUSARKiuilu^Cmd. FlSharHlan. ATTN USARCPM P

T Samor Army Ad« . USAF AGOO T AC I Igui AI Aim F M Nu •

T HO, USARPAC. DCSPER. APO SF SBfibB. AT TN: CPPE SI

T Stimaon Lib. Aeadamy of Haallb Sritnr»!, Ft Sam Hnmlon

T Marina Corp« Imt. AT TN: Oaao MCI

T HO. USMC, Commamlanl, ATTN: Cod* MTMT

I HO USMC. Commandant. ATTN Coila MPI KM

7 USCG Acadwny Htm London. AT TN Arimiiwnn

7 USCG Acartumy, Naw London. AT TN L ibrary

I USCG TiamintClr. NY. ATTN: CO

I USCG TiammflCli. NY. ATTN tiKic S«r Olr

T USCG. Piychnl Hri Bi DC, ATTN GP 1/6?

IHOMKlRanqaBr MCOal, Ouanliru. AITN PASO«

25
I I .1

1 US Mwwt Cnfvi I»iwn Otc. AMC MaMnddt. ATTN AMCGS f

} USATRAOOC. FlMomnt. ATTN ATRO 10

USATRADOC. Ft Mm..,», ATTN ATPH AO

USATRAOOC. f\ Mo.«ot. ATTN: ATTS f A

USA Fwcm Cmri, Ft MtflwiMMi. Al TN: ( .IHWV

USA MMNM TMI B.I Ft Rurkct. ATTN SUBG fO

USA A«i'y ItM A».jt.o.i S4(.ty Ft RIKIUH, ATTN l.Uwy

USA Afry 1.« Avulmn Sttoly. Ft Ruck«. ATTN; Educ AdviWM

USA AMUR Sch. Ft nuckm. ATTN PO Dia«w O

1 HQUSA AvKl.on Syt Cmil, St Lrant. ATTN: AMSAV 7DR

? USA A*Mt '.ys T, M A. I, Fdwaiih AFR. ATTN SAV IF T

USA Aii Dot Sit.. Ft Hliv. ATTN A ISA TFM

USA A.i M.>M.ly RMII A »••« Ijti. M»llell Flit. ATTN: SAVDL AS

USA A»UtiiHi Sifi. Rn TnqMqt. Ft Rucktt, ATTN ATST .f HIM

USA A«.it.o.. Sch. CO. Ft Ruck«. ATTN; ATST D A

HO. OARCOM, Almtnriiil. ATTN AMXCO TL

MO. DARCUM. AbxtndMl, ATTN COR

US M.litwy Ac«1»my. Wnt Point. ATTN; Stndi Unit

US M.liUiy AcKkmy Wnt Point. ATTN Otc nl Milt Uti^H>

US Milit»y A.«(rmy Wr«! Point. ATTN MAOR

USA Stt».la..l..JI..>n On UK. FPO NV. ATTN; MASf CC

Uli- ol N««*t Ridi. AiliiHiton ATTN Cmt» 463

J (11. at N«y«l Rwh Atlinqtan. ATTN Cortt 4M

I Ott. ol N«v*l Rich. AilinMtan. ATTN: Coitt 4N

1 Olr ol Nay..l Rtch. Ailmqlim. ATTN to.lt 441

I N.ay.il An.i\|H: Mill Rn L «h P*nM<;ol*. ATTN Acoui Sch D.v

l N.ivul $mmm Mml Rn Ldi PmiuroU. ATTN Codf LSI

1 N..y.il AiioM» Mril Rn LMi. PtnMCoU. ATTN. Coil« L5

I fl.M'l ol NMta^ ATTN P»i» OR

I NAVAIRST A. Noilolk, ATTN: Stltty Cti

I N.iv OcMnogiM.hic. K, ATTN: Cortt SKI, Chvtt ft Ttrh

I Onnn ot N..<l Autl. ATTN One Ctf

t NmAiiSytCom. AHN AIR MIX

I Njy BUMKI. ATTN M3

1 Ni»NtHoop««SubSqu*2. rPO$F

1 AFHRL (FT) WlllMim AFB

I AFHRUTTIU*>y AFB

1 AFHRLIAStWPAFB.OH

7 AFHRL (OOJZI Braoki AFB

I AFHRL (OOJNI L«rkl«nd AFB

1 HQUSAF (INVSOI

1 DFI h C.yil twt ot Enviio MMUCIIM. C«I*IIII

I AIRCRESS. ttondnalon. ATTNIntaSytBt

I MilitMrpivkologi* TpnMtt, Ca(i»nh(gtn

\ M.litwy Attich«, Fi«Kh Embauy. ATTN: Doc SM

. Meil»iinClwl, C.E R.P A. AcMnat, Touloii/N«««l Fiwyct1 Pim Scwntihr Ott. Anil Hum Eogi Rich Oi«. MinMiy

ul OctMtw, Nt« l>lh.

I Pti« Rich Otc LIIMWV, AKA, IMMI Ottcnw Fmum

1 MiniiWn van Dtftnti«. OOOP/KL Aid SOCIMI

Pvycholo«nch« Ziktn, Tht Htfu«, NtthMlandi

I HQUSAF (DPXXAI

1 AFVTQ IRDI RKHlnlph AFB

3 AMRt (HEIWPAFB.OH

2 At Inn ol T.Th. WPAFB. OH. ATTN ENE/SL

I ATC (XPTOI Ramtol|.h Al r.

I USAF Ai-i.iMiMllih, RiookxAFBISUl 4). ATTN: OOC SEC

I AIUSH «Nil. AilintiliMi

I At LunCfTvl.MrCIHl.H, AFB. ATTN AIC/DPCRB

I An lore« Acxh-my.l O ATTN Ufptol Bal Sen

S Na«P«i« A Div Cti. San Onqn

V Navy Mwl Nniiotnyclnatnc Rich Unit, San Di«90

I N.iv Etoclronir Lal>. San Diciin. ATTN: Rn Lab

I Nay TinqOn. Sun Dmio ATTN Coil» 9000- Lit)

1 NavPmtCnaSili. MunM.y. AT TN Coil« UAt

1 N.wP.>MGiaSch. Monii.ii>y. ATTN Coil« 71«

1 N.nTiiifEqui|>Cti. Otlaniki. ATTN T(ch Lib

1 US IVin ol Lalm. DC. ATTN MoniMwy« Admin

I US IVpi ol Jinlicr. OC, ATTN: Diu« Entoro« Admin

1 Nat Hu, ul Sta.MU.ih. DC. ATTN: Comimt« Into Sactkin

1 Nal Ctaanmi H.nw loi MH Into. Rockvilh)

I IIVUVM Fnkiial Cti. t akryyood, ATTN; BLM

17 l)«lrn«B Oocumantttion Canwr

4 DII Piyeh, Army Ht[, Runall Otc«, Canbaita

I Sn.«ntilic Admr. Mil Bd, Army Hq. Runall Olci. Canberra

1 Mil and Ait Attach«, AiiiinaK Embany

1 Ci'iiti<> da Rachmche D«t Factaun, Humain« da la Ocltoi»

Natinnal«, BIIIMHII

7 (.jn.i.lian Jon.l Stall Walhington

I ('/A» Stall. Royal Canailian AF. ATTN P«ri Stil Anal Br

i Chipl. Canadian IM RvhSlntt. ATTN: C/CRDSWI

4 H.iiivl. 0*1 Stall, niit.sl. FmlMuy, Waihington

26