By testing eight other individuals with three of the tests in the same manner as the five of the tables, save that the former had no training whatever between the tests, we gained an approximate measure of the improvement to be expected on the after-training tests because of their being a second trial. So no improvement can be demonstrated in their records. It is clear from the tables that the improvement in the function of observing and marking words containing s and c is not equivalent to improvement in the group function of observing the make-up of words. Neither the speed nor the accuracy acquired in the training is a general power equally applicable to other data. And although the functions operative in the tests were so similar to that trained the loss of efficiency with them is considerable.
Speed is more likely to be improved than accuracy.
This may mean that certain habits of eye movements and stops are formed that are identical elements in both functions trained and tested. We cannot ascertain just which of the functions tested improved most and so cannot discuss the way in which greater alteration of the data alters the efficiency of the group function. The reason for this is that we cannot equate time saved with accuracy lost or vice versa . As was stated on page 554, the variability of any single test makes any minute examination of the tables unprofitable. We shall present the experiments of which this is a type in a still more condensed summary.