6 JOSEPH U. Y ARE ROUGH 



for the simultaneous and 33.2 for the successive; in the second 

 group, 36.8 and 34.4, respectively. Hence, he concludes: i) 

 "The simultaneous experience is more favorable for the learn- 

 ing of pairs than the successive experience." 2) "All associations 

 are due to simultaneity or simultaneity of the succeeding ex- 

 perience with the akoluthic phase of the preceding experience." 

 On the whole, Wohlgemuth's article is far from convincing. 

 It seems that his evidence is insufficient to warrant such positive 

 statements, and one is inclined to agree with Froeberg 6 in his 

 criticism of the work. Froeberg says that Wohlgemuth's method 

 of presentation must be rejected, but that even if this might be 

 admitted "no safe conclusion could be drawn from the results 

 because the differences in favor of simultaneity are in every case 

 less than the P. E., and in five cases out of sixteen they are 

 negative." Froeberg calls his own investigation an "attempt 

 to repeat Wohlgemuth's experiment with the objectionable 

 features removed." He used psychology students for subjects, 

 and had them memorize series of five pairs of syllables. Each 

 term of the pairs was exposed for a period of 1/3 of a second, 

 and the time between the terms varied from o to 5 seconds. The 

 interval between the successive pairs was a constant. The recall 

 came 10 seconds after the last presentation (each series having 

 been presented twice), and was conducted by presenting the 

 stimulus syllables in a new order and requiring the subjects to 

 supply the missing member of the pair. As usual, all memory 

 devices were barred during the learning. The average percent- 

 ages of correct response for the group of seven subjects were 

 61, 49, 45, 48, 51, 49, and 49 for the simultaneous and con- 

 tinuous presentations and the intervals of i, 2, 3, 4, and 5 sec- 

 onds, respectively. a finding which would indicate that the dif- 

 ference between the simultaneous and successive series is small, 

 and that in successive presentation the length of the time interval 

 is not effective. The simultaneous exposure yielded better re- 

 sults in every case, however, and the average difference of 12 

 percent in its favor seems significant. Froeberg does not think 



6 Froeberg, S., Psychol Rev., 1918, Vol. XXV, pp. 156-163. 



