Memory for the pitch of a tone

Observers attempted to detect the presence of a pitch difference between two successive tones. The percentage of correct judgments was equivalent for tones separated by .95, 4.5, and 8.9 sec. There was a general increase in reports of a pitch difference with increased intertone interval, which is interpreted as arising from hypothesized shifts in the neural locus of the first stimulus during the intertone interval.     

Visual and acoustic confusability a visual search task

Visual and acoustic confusability between a target item and background items was varied in a visual search task. Visual confusability was a highly significant source of difficulty while acoustic confusability had no effect. The results do not seem to be interpretable within a theory which assumes compulsory auditory encoding of visual information.     

Specificity of a cutaneous receptor

Absolute vibrotactile thresholds are determined on the human tongue and compared to corresponding data obtained on the hand. The mucosa of the tongue is devoid of Pacinian corpuscles but the hand is richly with these nerve endings. Summation of energy is characteristic of responses recorded from tissue containing Pacinian corpuscles and absent where the corpuscle is specifically sensitive to mechanical vibration.     

Oculomotor adaptation to wedge prisms with no part of the body seen

When S looks at a visual target through prisms, adaptive shifts in reaching behavior occur even though he sees no part of his body through the prisms. These shifts are caused by a change in the judgment of the direction of gaze (oculomotor change), which in turn is caused by two secondary prismatic effects: (a) asymmetry of the visual display and (b) apparent rotation about a vertical axis of a panel or wall facing S. The “asymmetry” factor contributes 22% of the total oculomotor change, and the “rotation” effect contributes the remaining 78%. Oculomotor change is not facilitated by eye-movzment activity. The adaptive oculomotor change induces a non-adaptive proprioception change about one-tenth as large as the oculomotor change. These findings are capable of accounting for the previously unexplained results reported by Wooster in 1923, and also for the current controversy about the role of reafferent stimulation in sensorymotor adaptation.