TIME VERSUS DISTANCE IN LEARNING 



65 



we are anxious to avoid. It is this same system of taking 

 records, however, which largely accounts for the apparent dis- 

 crepancy in the time curve from the 81st to the 86th trial. Rat 

 No. 22 became erratic, increasing his time record enormously 

 here, while his distance record changed but little. Thus in the 



400 



350 



Q 

 3> 



s 



300 



250 



20a 



150 



100 



50 



U37 



Timet — 1 1ur,if-5sec 

 DisTancif---) 1umt-5dm-50cm 



90 



100 



Hi 



Curve I. Relation of time to distance. The figures above the curve indicate the 

 number of rats running at each trial. Failures are counted in. The first 

 point in the time curve is 350, the second (not shown in curve) 627. Plotted 

 from the figures in Table 1. 



82nd trial, where the first decided rise occurs, his time record 

 was 715 seconds, while the combined time of the other rats 

 running was only 23.6 seconds. Had No. 22 not been running 

 the average time would have been 5.9 seconds instead of 147.7 

 seconds, while the average distance would have been 448 cm. 



