130 



Effect of Alcohol on Psycho-Physiological Functions. 



liar results of one or two days which have exercised undue weight on the 

 average differences. When from section n of the preceding tables all 

 the signs for the differences in periods 2, 3, and 4 for the 30 measure- 

 ments were counted separately for each day and classified under the 

 three heads inferior, superior, and neutral functioning, the results in 

 terms of per cent were as shown in table 27. 



Table 27. — Comparison of results for the six experimental days. 



For normal days the condition is about 50 to 50, implying that obser- 

 vations made following the preliminary period and the control dose 

 stand even chances of showing superior or inferior functioning. On the 

 other hand, it can be definitely stated that the differences on each alco- 

 hol day show that inferiority is predominant in these periods. This 

 condition or change to inferiority denoted by the difference between 

 preliminary measurements and those made after the ingestion of 30 

 c.c. of alcohol should be designated as absolute, since it is not relative 

 to the normal or control results. There is some indication that the 

 alcohol effect increased from day to day. July 2 shows a higher per- 

 centage of inferior signs than is evident for June 30; this is also true for 

 July 4, notwithstanding a decided spurt on the part of the subject in 

 certain voluntary processes on that day. In general it appears that 

 although there is variation from day to day with specific measurements, 

 no one day can be said to have exercised a predominating influence in 

 producing the ratio of 9 to 1 for inferior functioning of processes in the 

 repetition series. 



For comparison the results found in the Dodge and Benedict series 

 have been entered at the right in table 26. In the column which gives 

 the average for the normal group the proportion of signs indicating the 

 alcohol effect as being inferior, superior, and neutral is 82, 12, and 6, 

 these percentages comparing very favorably with the 90, 10, and for 

 the average of periods 2, 3, and 4 of the repetition series. The signs for 

 the two series disagree at three points. Dodge and Benedict's subjects 

 were nearly all new to the eye-reaction test, and as there was a practice 

 effect and as the first day was normal, this condition largely accounts 

 for the percentile difference being minus. 1 Subject VI did not have a 

 practice change in the repetition series, hence the alcohol effect had a 

 better opportunity to show itself. The disagreement on eye reactions 

 can therefore be discounted. On word reactions the average for the 



1 Dodge and Benedict's report, pp. 89 and 250. 



