The results will be analyzed and compared with reference to the two hypotheses.
The results of the experiment were statistically significant with respect to all three experimental hypotheses and all three experimental hypotheses were confirmed. Specifically, (1) reaction times were shorter in the second sequence of each sequence set, averaging a .040/second difference as between the first and second random sequences and averaging .080/sec difference as between the first and second fixed-interval sequences; (2) reaction times were shorter in connection with regular or fixed-interval sequences than in connection with random-interval sequences by an average of .064 as between the first random sequences and the first fixed-interval sequences, and by an average of 0.80 as between the second random sequence and the second fixed-interval sequences; and (3) the differential increased by an average time of .024 as between the first trials and the second trials of random/fixed-sequence measurements.
All three of the initial experimental hypotheses were confirmed. In 6 out of 10 test subjects, average reaction time was faster in connection with fixed-interval stimuli than in connection with random-interval stimuli. In 7 out of 10 subjects, reaction time decreased as between the first and second set of random-interval sequences. In 8 out of 10 subjects, reaction time decreased as between the first and second set of both the fixed-interval sequences and as between the first and second set of fixed-interval sequences.
Further, the subjects whose relative differences in reaction time were greatest were those who improved as between successive trials and subjects whose reaction times improved in the fixed-interval trials over their performance in the random-interval trials. By far, a much greater degree of difference was recorded in connection with improved reaction times than in connection with subjects whose performance decreased. This differential was consistent in both successive sequences if each type and also between improvements recorded in connection with fixed-interval stimuli.
The experimental results seem to support the conclusion that in both random-interval stimuli perception and response and fixed-interval stimuli perception and response, there is an improvement in reaction time that is apparently attributable to learning. Additional testing (using more trials) would allow the determination of how many trials are required to eliminate this variable. The experimental results also seem to support the conclusion that reaction time to fixed-interval stimuli is faster than reaction time to random-interval stimuli. Finally, the experimental results seem to suggest that learning occurs more readily in connection with successive fixed-interval stimuli perception than it does in connection with successive random-interval stimuli perception.