<%BANNER%>

Divided Attention, Perception, and Auditory Recall


PAGE 1

DIVIDED ATTENTION, PERCEP TION AND AUDITORY RECALL By LYNNETTE BOSSE BARDOLF A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Lynnette Bosse Bardolf

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated, with much l ove, to my husband, Keith; my older daughter and niece, Shauna; to my two younger daughters, Michaela and Rainey; to my extended family and friends; and to my God, all of whom make my life meaningful and worth living.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, no accomplishments in my life w ould be possible without the love and graciousness of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, because through faith in Him, all things are possible. I am very thankful fo r His presence in my life and sustaining me during this Ph.D. program. Second, and of n early equal importance, is the undying love and support of my husband, Keith. He has grac iously and unselfishly supported me and has placed my career, and my well-being in life, ahead of his own. For his support during this process, I will forever be thankful. I also want to thank my two younger daughters, Micheala and Rainey, for their understanding during the times when their “mommy” had to study for classes, con duct research, or prepare this dissertation. This endeavor also would not have b een possible without the support of my immediate family and friends: my mother, De lores Bosse; my sisters, Janelle Hayes and Jodi Day; my niece, Jaclyn Esslinger, all who made me laugh, listened to my struggles, and supported me when I needed it; my Ar my Audiology “buddy” LTC Marc Stevens, who was always there to provide an enc ouraging word when I needed it; and my “statistics buddy” and friend, Cheri Brodeur, whom I immediately bonded with when we both had the “deer in the headlig hts” look the first day of our statistics class when neither of us had a clue what the professor was talk ing about. However, mostly I would like to acknowledge and thank my father and mothe r-in-law, David and Faye Bardolf, who retired early from their jobs and moved to Fl orida specifically to help us care for and

PAGE 5

v provide much needed transportation for our daughters while I was busy pursuing this degree. I will always be tha nkful for what they did in helping me achieve this goal. I thank my major professor and chair of my committee, Dr. Scott K.Griffiths for being patient and understanding with me as I stumbled through this process. I am sure he probably had his doubts occasionally, especially during the times wh en it did not seem like I would “get it!” But he was always supportive and patient waiting for my “light bulb” to turn on! I will never forget his words of wisdom: “Pick a topic you can be passionate about, because during the down times that passion will carry you through.” That advice was very useful in this process, and is applicable to most things in life as well. I would also like to thank my dissertation committee, a ll who provided invaluable support, information, and guidance during this process: Dr. Ken Gerhardt; Dr. Bhramar Mukherjee; and the late Dr. Carl Crandell, who unfortunately passed away during my Ph.D. program. I would also like to tha nk LTC (Dr.) Dale Ostler, for mentoring me during my program and stepping in as an adj unct member of my dissertation committee. I would also like to thank all of the staff and faculty in th e Department of Communication Disorders at the University of Florida, who were more than willing to provide information and services when I needed it. I would also like to thank the many pe ople whom mentored me, supported me, guided me, and befriended me throughout my Army career and in Army Audiology. There are too many to mention, but they know who they are. It has been a good ride, and I will always be very thankful for all the wonderful opportunities I have had in learning new things during this Ph.D. process, in the Army, and in life.

PAGE 6

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..............................................................................5 Speech Perception, Dichotic Digits, Auditory Encoding and Retrieval.......................6 Speech Perception.................................................................................................6 Encoding and Retrieval.........................................................................................6 Noise and Sound Effects.......................................................................................7 Memory.......................................................................................................................10 Memory and Divided Attention...........................................................................10 Implicit and Explicit Memory.............................................................................12 Older vs. Younger Adults and Divided Attention...............................................15 Anatomy..............................................................................................................16 Reaction Time.....................................................................................................18 Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB)................................................................18 Socialization and Divided Attention...................................................................19 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS...............................................................................21 Materials.....................................................................................................................2 1 Participants..........................................................................................................21 Experimental Conditions.....................................................................................22 Overview......................................................................................................22 Visual-Motor Task...............................................................................................29 Hypotheses..........................................................................................................30 Statistical Analysis..............................................................................................31

PAGE 7

vii 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................32 Demographic Profile...................................................................................................32 HINT Identification Performance...............................................................................34 Between Groups..................................................................................................34 HINT Reliability..................................................................................................35 Task Effects.........................................................................................................35 Within Groups--Combined..................................................................................36 HINT Key-Item Priming.....................................................................................36 Auditory Recall and Priming......................................................................................37 Between Group Comparisons..............................................................................37 Within Group Comparisons.................................................................................38 Reaction Times...........................................................................................................41 Between Groups..................................................................................................41 Within Groups.....................................................................................................42 Video Games..............................................................................................................42 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................45 Quiet vs. Noise Conditions.........................................................................................46 Single vs. Divided Attention Conditions....................................................................47 Priming By Item and in Auditory Recall....................................................................48 Reaction Times vs. Divided Attention and Age.........................................................49 Limitations of the Research........................................................................................51 Future Directions........................................................................................................51 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARTICIPANTS..............................................................53 B INFORMED CONSENT FORM................................................................................54 C INSTRUCTIONS FOR DIVI DED ATTENTION STUDY.......................................56 D FORWARD AND REVERS E DIGIT SPAN TEST..................................................57 E IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT PRIMING STUDY LISTS BY VERSION..................58 F HINT SENTENCES...................................................................................................60 G HINT QUESTIONS BY VERSION...........................................................................62 H EXAMPLE OF RESPONSE TIME PRINTOUT FROM THE MATB.....................70 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................71 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................78

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Summary of Demographic Data for M ilitary Group and N on-Military Groups......33 4-2 Mean HINT Key-Item Performance Scores.............................................................37

PAGE 9

ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Layout of speakers and particip ant within audiometric soundbooth........................27 3-2 Sample combat noise waveform..............................................................................28 4-1 HINT identification performance am ong the participants (military vs. nonmilitary)....................................................................................................................35 4-2 HINT primed key-item identification performance for the noise and noise+task conditions by groups................................................................................................37 4-3 Mean recall performance for implicit, explicit, and unprimed items per group and condition............................................................................................................39 4-4 Mean reaction times by group..................................................................................42 4-5 Reported video game frequency and skill ratings among the participants...............43

PAGE 10

x Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy DIVIDED ATTENTION, PERCEP TION AND AUDITORY RECALL By Lynnette Bosse Bardolf August 2006 Chair: Scott K. Griffiths Major Department: Communica tion Sciences and Disorders The purpose of this research was to eval uate the effects of divided attention on speech perception and auditory recall. Participants included 16 military and 16 nonmilitary adults, aged 18-50, with hearing thresholds no worse than those categorized as the U.S. Army’s Hearing 1 profile, and with forward and reverse dig it spans of at least four. Participants studied selected word s and sentences prior to testing to accomplish implicit and explicit priming. Speech percep tion was assessed usi ng Hearing-In-Noise (HINT) sentences presented with and wit hout uncorrelated combat noise in the sound field at 65 dB SPL at 0 azimu th. The combat noise was presented at 5 dB less than the sentences. Participants were required to repeat 30 HINT sentences in each of four conditions: 1) in quiet, 2) in combat noise, 3) in quiet with an addi tional task, and 4) in combat noise with an additional task. Fo llowing each condition, participants were asked to answer questions to assess recall of the HINT sentence material. There were no group differences in HINT ite m identification in the four conditions. Significant differences were found in HINT ite m identification scores between the quiet

PAGE 11

xi and noise conditions, and among priming conditions. Auditory recall performance was significantly altered by noise, task and priming conditions, wi th significant interactions noted between each pairing of conditions. The mean reaction times for the military group were generally longer than the nonmilitary group. Demographic comparisons showed considerable disparity between the groups, in particular with regard to gender a nd age. Because of the mean age differences between the groups, a comparison between ag e and reaction times was made for the divided attention task conditions, which did not reveal any signifi cant effect. Although age and gender differences were significant, th ey did not appear to affect the outcome of the results when comparing the groups. No statistical differences were noted when comparing reaction times to video game frequenc y or self-rated skill, thus indicating that the amount of time a person plays video games, or his/her self-rated skill, has little impact on reaction times.

PAGE 12

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Divided attention, or an intentional effo rt to be aware of two or more items simultaneously, has been studied fairly ex tensively in its relation to perceptual performance. Two other terms relating to this construct appear in the body of literature on divided attention: multi-tasking (i.e.,, doi ng two or more things at once), and dualtasking (i.e.,, when an indi vidual does two task simultaneously). Human listeners must frequently dual-task or multi-task while attempting to comprehend speech, often in the presence of noise. These situations require complex and adaptive attentional control to produce successful speech perception. Attention has many facets: selective attention, divided attention, sustained attention, switching attention, etc ., each of which is fascinatin g in its own right when it comes to the role it plays in speech percep tion. According to Hartley (1992), James in 1890 defines attention as “the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration of consciousness ar e of its essence. It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectivel y with others.” (pg. 3) Hartley also claims James emphasized attention as a filtering as pect. By selecting certain information for priority processing, people can attend to and manage different input at the same time. Generally, the nature of the information managed, and how the information is managed, is often debated. Agreement exists when tasks are performed simultaneously. A person needs to manage simultaneous tasks differently than when the tasks are performed alone.

PAGE 13

2 Because of this, Hartley (1992) redefines atte ntion as being responsible for selectively preparing, maintaining preparation, and proces sing certain aspects of experience. When coordinating multiple tasks, attention is a key factor. Another construct, working memory, is difficult to separate from attenti on because it could be considered a broader attention task. Gottwald, Mihajlovic, Wild e, and Mehdorn (2003) essentially describe working memory as the ability to re-org anize and coordinate new information by perceiving and processing it. Some of the types of attention mentioned above may play a role in how speech is perceived when a person is required to divi de his/her attention between two tasks. For instance, selective attention, or “the ability to atte nd selectively,” is very important because if an individual can not attend to relevant information while ignoring irrelevant information, then that individual may not be able to effectively complete a task requirement. Sustained atten tion, or vigilance, is also deemed important because it describes a person’s ability to “maintain co ncentration or focus over time,” which of course is important in divided attention ta sks. Vigilance and attention are closely associated. According to Keith (1994), vigila nce integrates three dimensions of attention that are distinct: alertness, selection and effort. And when switching attention between tasks, researchers have found there may be a cost to performance by the individual (i.e., slower performance or less efficient perfor mance), if the task requires the individual alternate between tasks (McDowd and Shaw 2000; Rubenstein and Meyer and Meyer, 2001; Shellenbargar, 2003; Multitasking, 2005). How does all of this relate to speech perception? According to McDowd a nd Shaw (2000), people typically comprehend

PAGE 14

3 language when multiple sources are compe ting for attention, by focusing on relevant information and disregarding othe r irrelevant information. How attention affects one’s memory and ability to encode or retrieve words has been fairly extensively studied. People have more difficulty with recall and recognition if their attention is divided (i .e., performing another task, etc) during encoding than if divided during retrieva l (Craik, Naveh-Benjamin, Isha ik, and Anderson, 2000; Fernandes and Moscovitch, 2003; Mulligan, 1998; NavehBenjamin, Craik, Perretta, and Toney, 2000; and Naveh-Benjamin, Cr aik, Guez, Kreuger, 2005; Wallace et al., 2001). Other research comparing the divided attention ta sks of older and younger adults has shown that divided attention tasks are more di fficult for older individuals than for younger individuals (Castel and Craik, 1999; Fern andes and Moscovitch, 2003; Hartley, 1992; McDowd and Shaw, 2000). This may be due to many factors, possibly including a reduction in attentional resources or a reduction in the ability to control the allotting of attention with aging. Generally, older adul ts may have more difficulty than younger adults when forming new associations, bindi ng features together and combining items (Castel and Craik, 1999). Memory itself is not a simple construct. Two apparent factors are implicit and explicit memory. Implicit memory is knowledge that can be retrieved without conscious recollection, while explicit memory is knowledge that can be retrieved only through conscious recoll ection and usually involves a particular event (Anderson, 1995; Schacter, 1996). The purpose of the proposed research is to assess to what exte nt divided attention affects a person’s speech unders tanding ability, or causes a br eakdown in auditory input, memory encoding and retrieval, and performance. Specifically, this project will evaluate

PAGE 15

4 recognition of sentences in combat noise and in divided attention conditions, as well as auditory recall in implicit and explicit memo ry paradigms in listeners with and without military training.

PAGE 16

5 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Divided attention is the intentional effort to be aware of two or more things simultaneously. More importantly, sustained a ttention (or vigilance) is a person’s ability to continue to focus or concentrate on so mething over time, as mentioned previously. Sustained attention is require d for information processing (D eGangi and Porges, 1990). According to DeGangi and Porges (1990), sustaine d attention is “the ability to direct and focus cognitive activity on specific stimuli,” and includes three stag es: attention getting, attention holding, and attenti on releasing. The authors desc ribe attention as alerting a person to the stimulus, and requiring “comple x active thought processi ng.” Attention is important to learning and requires a stimulus that is qualitative in nature. Attention holding is essentially described as the main taining of the stimulus, which must be “intricate or novel” in order for a person to continue to attend to the stimulus and “encourage information processing.” It reli es on how complex the stimulus is and the energy needed to attend to a stimulus. It also requires a person to remain motivated to the stimulus. If a person has an attention pr oblem, low motivation, processing problems, a cognitive impairment, or learning problems, the motivation to hold their attention to a stimulus will be low. The final stage of sust ained attention is atten tion releasing. This is defined as “the releasing or turning off of attention from a stimulus.” It can occur because a person has lost interest in the stimul us, is fatigued, or the stimulus is no longer present. Releasing of attention from the stim ulus permits closure from a task and allows

PAGE 17

6 a person to “switch attention to something else.” Attention releasing is also an important factor in learning (DeG angi and Porges, 1990). Speech Perception, Dichotic Digits, Auditory Encoding and Retrieval Speech Perception The perception of speech is multifaceted. Speech perception is basically defined as decoding a message from varying sounds delivered from a speaker. Speech is unique in that it contains individual sounds, syllable s, words, sentences, phonemes, allophones, etc., and generally has different prosodic features, as well as differential features that may affect how it’s perceived (Borden and Harri s, 1984; Pickett, 1986). There are many theories of speech perception. How speech is perceived is not the focus of this research. Instead, the focus will be on the use of sp eech perception tests in divided attention research to assess a person’s ability to recognize words or speech in a variety of situations (in quiet and in noise) while perf orming a secondary task (i.e., dividing their attention). Encoding and Retrieval Encoding is, in effect, the process of putti ng data (something we see, hear, think or feel) into our memory. The term “storage” is used to describe where we put the data. Retrieval is how the data is accessed, by using associated clues (Anderson, 1995; Schacter, 1996). Dividing a ttention during encoding genera lly impairs recognition and recall when a secondary task is performed. Some studies have s hown that for some memory tests, dividing attention during the encoding process caused li ttle to no decrease in performance. (Mulligan, 1998; Naveh-Benjamin et al., 2005; Wallace, Shaffer, Amberg, and Silvers, 2001) Memory essentiall y has three parts: en coding, storage, and retrieval (recall). For implicit memory test s without a strong conceptual component,

PAGE 18

7 dividing attention at encoding doe s not appear to impair them. Research showed that for the consciously controlled factors in memory, attention is relevant. Attention has little relevance for memory that occurs automatically (Wallace, 2001). Crai k et al. (2000) also reported that dividing atte ntion during encoding reduces subsequent memory performance when doing a memory task. A ccording to Craik et al., researchers found when dividing attention at enco ding, a larger decline in s ubsequent memory performance occurred than when dividing attention at re trieval (2000). Primi ng effects may actually improve recall performance on dual-task conditi ons. Priming effects are basically items we see or hear that may influence subsequent judgments or behavior s. Reported studies done by Murdock et al. in 1965, and confirmed by Baddeley et al. in 1969, indicated that free-recall performance improved under dual-ta sk conditions when performance of the memory task was emphasized at study as oppos ed to performance of the secondary task (Craik et al., 2000). Craik et al. (2000) also reported that only minimal effects occurred when attention was divided duri ng the retrieval phase and retrieval of memories actually “consumed more attentional capacity than enco ding” (pg. 1744). Craik also reported that reaction time on the divided attention task dur ing retrieval in the “free recall paradigm” was slower than reaction time on the divided attention task during encoding. The researchers noted that recent neuroimaging studies also suggested that prefrontal activation showed different patterns duri ng episodic encoding and retrieval (2000). Noise and Sound Effects Noise, in effect, is any unwanted sound. The Miriam Webster online dictionary (2005) defines noise as: “a: sound, especially: on e that lacks agreeable musical quality or is noticeably unpleasant; b: any sound that is undesired or interferes with one’s hearing of something; c: an unwanted signal or a disturba nce (as static or a va riation of voltage) in

PAGE 19

8 an electronic device or instrument (as radi o or television); br oadly: a disturbance interfering with the operation of a usually mechanical device or system.” Noise effects on a participant’s ability to understand sp eech has been studied with a multitude of various stimuli, including words and senten ces. Studies have reported that perhaps background noise may cause direct effects (s ensory input degradation) and indirect effects (requirement of additional effort to process the speech signal), which may increase cognitive load, thus impairing the elderly adults (Tun, 1998). Tun (1998) compared the ability to u nderstand sentences in the pr esence of background babble in elderly participants and younger participants, fi nding that age did affect a person’s ability to understand speech in the presence of bac kground noise. Older listeners were less able to repeat the last word in the sentences in noise than younger listeners, and particularly so when speech was presented at faster rates. Younger adults were not exempt from the effects of background noise on speech unde rstanding. Pichora-Fuller, Schneider, Daneman (1995) demonstrated similar differenc es between older and younger listeners in the identification of speech in background noise. This mainly affected concurrent memory load for both younger and older adults Pichora-Fuller et al. (1995) also attributed age differences in performance prim arily to perceptual processing rather than cognitive processing, and noted th at elderly listeners expended more attentional resources in order to more effectively deal with th e combined effects of the background noise and perceptual processing deficits. In looking at yet another aspect of divided attention, a study done by ShinnCunningham and Ihlefeld (2004) explored the wa y sounds interact with each other (both acoustically and perceptually), and demons trated that 1) overall performance was

PAGE 20

9 generally better in both selec tive and divided-attention ta sks when “the sources are perceived at different locations than when they are perceived at the same location; and 2) if perceived sound locations are randomly changed between trials, performance is degraded compared to if source locations are fixed.” These two effects were greater for selective attention tasks than for divided atte ntion tasks. The authors’ results suggest listeners tend to focus their attention toward the location where they expect the noise source will originate, and th ey do not expect that listeners “listen everywhere.” Multitalker babble, a source of noise commonly used as background noise for speech perception testing, is us ed because it is “the most common environmental noise encountered by listeners in everyday life a nd because babble is more unfavorable to speech perception than othe r types of competition (Wils on, Abrams, Pillion, 2003).” The Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) test is one test that can be used with multitalker babble or in quiet. The test measures speech intellig ibility performance. Developed at the House Ear Institute in the early 1990s by Nilsson et al., the HINT cons ists of 25 word lists, each consisting of 10 short English sentences. It uses an adaptive threshold technique to estimate a 50% correct level for the patient responding to the senten ces. If a patient responds correctly to the senten ce, the level is decreased. An incorrect response causes the level to increase (Nilsson, Gelnett, Sull ivan, Soli and Goldberg, 1992). The HINT test is valuable because using sentences help s to target a person’s processing ability (i.e., auditory memory load, temporal processing ), as well as providing more contextual information, rather than using single word response tests like the Northwestern University-6 (NU-6) test.

PAGE 21

10 Memory Memory and Divided Attention Memory is the retention of information over time. There are several types of memory: long-term memory, short-term memory, working memory, implicit memory, explicit memory, etc. Long-term memory is the retention of memories thought to be stored for over 30 seconds (and retention ma y exceed decades). Short-term memory is the temporary retention of memory thought to be stored under 30 s econds. No research has been able to definitely isolate th ese suggested times (Anderson, 1995; Schacter, 1996). Short-term memory is integral to th e allocation of cognitive resources to perform various mental tasks. Digit span is commonly used to m easure short-term memory, and involves the number of digits re called by an individual in corr ect serial order after either seeing or hearing them. For young childre n, the correct number the participant is expected to repeat corresponds to the partic ipant’s age; for exam ple, a two-year-old should be able to repeat two numbers, a thre e-year-old three numbers, and so on up to age 7. From age 7 through adulthood the average digit span numbers repeated remains at seven. “Two processes are invo lved in digit span: the identification of the items, and the retention of order information. Individuals w ho are slow in identification have a shorter memory span” (Groth-Marnat, 2003). Digit span can be assessed in either a forward or backward test. Digit forward primarily invo lves sequential processing. Digit backward seems to engage both planning ability and sequential processing and requires much attention and concentration. “The ability to repeat digits backward is not only dependent on attention and concentration, general cogni tive, and short-term memory functioning, but also requires verbal and visual (nonverbal visualization) mediation (pgs. 1209-18) .”

PAGE 22

11 Working memory refers to the processes involved when a person tries to remember something, such as a string of numbers without writing it down (Anderson, 1995; Schacter, 1996). This research will highlig ht how implicit and explicit memory relates to divided attention tasks. As stated pr eviously, implicit memory is basically knowledge retrieved without conscious recollection; wh ile explicit memory is basically knowledge retrieved only with consci ous recollection (Anderson, 1995; Schacter, 1996). Research has shown that if attention is divided duri ng encoding, explicit test performance can be diminished although repetition priming may be unaffected (Mulligan, 1998; Shanks, 2004). Implicit and explicit memory will be discussed more fully later in this document. Researchers have determined that divi ding attention during encoding appears to produce little decrement in performance on th e divided attention task for implicit memory tests. For explicit memory tests, dividing attention impairs performance (Wallace et al., 2001). A study by Mulligan (1998) focusing on fi ve experiments where participants read study words under conditions of divided or full attention showed that dividing attention reduced conceptual priming on the word-associ ation task, the matche d explicit test, and associate-cue recall, as well as showing a reduced performance on the general knowledge test. Mulligan’s overall conclusion is per ceptual implicit tests rely only minimally on attention-demanding encoding proc esses relative to other types of memory tests (1998). Craik and his colleagues (2000) concluded that when attention is divi ded during retrieval, it has little affect on recalling episodic memories; while dividing attention during encoding may have a negative impact on recall. The researchers proposed this might be due to the fact that the expe rimenter controls stimulus pr esentation and the operation and response is controlled by the pa rticipant. They tested the proposal by presenting word

PAGE 23

12 lists for learning and recall with paired-a ssociative words (Craik, et al..2000). These words were either controlled by the participant or presented at a fixe d rate. Their results point to more recall at retrieval for divided attention than at encoding, which was able to be “held” under the varying combinations of both experimenter and participant control. Craik et al. (2000) continued by reporting their results are co mpatible with the views of Fernandes and Moscovitch (2000) who conclude that tasks utilizing attentional resources will reduce simultaneous memory performance when they are performed at the time of memory encoding. Implicit and Explicit Memory Implicit memory is basically “knowledge th at can be retrieved without conscious recollection (Yeates and Enrile, 2005).” Implicit memory is best revealed when performance on a task is improved. We de monstrate implicit memory when performing certain tasks, by activating sensory and motor systems. Implicit memory types include repetition priming and skill learning. We can use repetition priming when processing a stimulus because we’ve had previous experi ence with the stimulus. An example of implicit memory is when a participant is pe rmitted to study a list of words included in a test, prior to testing. The prem ise is that participants will have the ability to match words or complete words seen before. Rajaram et al. (2001) reports implicit memory can be indirectly measured. This is done by using tests in which a person studies degraded or incomplete words and then assessing the advantage of studying the words. Skill learning requires automatic skills or movements that are learned. A person can only access these memories by executing or using them, and requi res associating a certain stimuli with a response. Tests of implicit memory that do not have a “strong conceptual component” are typically not impaired at encoding when dividing attention (Wallace et al., 2001).

PAGE 24

13 Implicit memory is a data driven phenomenon because physical featur es of the stimulus are required to process it. Once again, an example of implicit memory is when a person sees a particular word (i.e ., CABIN) during the study period, and then recalls that same word during the testing period. It is essentially perceptual identification. Some tasks, known collectively as repetition priming tasks and are commonly used to elicit implicit memory are: tachistoscopic identification (t he ability to identify and reproduce briefly presented visual stimuli, usually with durat ions less than 1/25 of a second, perceptual clarification, word fragment s, and anagrams (Baddeley, 1997; Blaxton, 1989). Research on memory has shown that presenting words to be studied prior to testing will enhance performance on the test. This is considered a priming effect. Priming effects are said to arise in the perceptual representation system s (PRS) that permit us to translate sensory inputs into perceptions of objects, faces, or words (Mulligan, 2001; Rajaram et al., 2001, Shulman, 1997). Explicit memory is “knowledge that can be retrieved only with conscious recollection” and usually i nvolves a particular event Explicit memory is conceptually driven and involves recognition. It relies on the stimulus be ing conceptually processed (Kim et al., 2005; Willingham and Preuss, 1995; Yeates and Enrile, 2005). The temporal lobe is responsible for explicit memories. An example of explicit memory would be when a person sees the sentence; “the log ______ is in the woods” during the study period, and then sees the word “CABIN” during the test. Explicit memories are memories a person has of events that happen in the world around them, at a specific time and place. According to Rajaram et al (2001) “Explicit memory is measured directly by tests that assess the participant’s ability to recollect studied words on tests of recall or

PAGE 25

14 recognition. (pg. 920) When a person stores explicit memories, the memories are stored with related experiences, and can be recalled or remembered. Explicit memories rely on previous knowledge and experiences. A theory of implicit and explicit memory was initially developed to explain the finding that some memory func tions in amnesia patients ar e spared, while others are impaired. (Graf and Masson, 1993) Graf a nd Masson (1993) reported amnesic patients would have a normal performance on memory te sts entailing recall, although they were severely impaired on explicit memory test s. The researchers also reported that performance on implicit memory tests remained invariant across the lifespan, while test performance on explicit memory tests improves through early childhood and later declines in late adulthood. Previously acquired information can e nhance performance on an implicit memory task, although the person may not be consci ously aware of previ ously acquiring the information. Willingham (1995) uses Graf and Sc hacter’s 1985 definition to explain that implicit memory refers to a set of memory ta sks and does not refer to episodes of initial encoding. People are not necessarily aware of e ngaging in recall. Implicit memories consist of memories that are needed to perf orm a task or produce a response, but cannot be remembered to use for actions and reasoning. Divided attention does, in fact, appear to degrade performan ce on explicit memory tests. In essence, attention is needed fo r “consciously-controlled factors” when dealing with memory (Wallace et al., 2001).

PAGE 26

15 Older vs. Younger Adults and Divided Attention Hartley (1992) concluded ag e-related differences in at tentional functioning may be explained by a reduction in the energy fueling cognitive processing. Regarding how adults comprehend text in the presence of irrelevant information, McDowd and Shaw (2000) state older adults have difficulty when trying to i gnore any distracters that are embedded into the text. Distracters that are se mantically related negatively affect adults. These authors continue by saying that attent ion is very relevant to how well a person comprehends speech. For speech to be perceive d, the listener must extensively use their “working memory resources,” and auditory proc esses, which decline with aging (2000). McDowd and Shaw also reports studies have shown that aging adu lts do well in speech comprehension, even though their component processes or “skill domains” may have deteriorated. Because older adults have language skills that have become more “automatic and encapsulated” and a lifetime of experience from which to draw their linguistic knowledge, they may be able to compensate for deficits in lower-level cognitive skills. Other researchers have que stioned whether aging adults maintain their language processing abilities in conditions of increased processing load (McDowd and Shaw, 2000). The researchers report some studi es show aging adults seem to perform more poorly on secondary tasks when atten tion is divided, and seem to have more memory deficits in studies using text with le sser degrees of redundanc y or predictability. The authors conclude that speech comprehensio n is sensitive to aging (2000). A study by Kemper, et al. (2003) revealed, older adults had speech that was less complex and fluent than their younger counterparts, and that younger and older adults adopted different strategies to dual-task demands. The dual ta sks consisted of the older and younger adults

PAGE 27

16 being required to respond to questions while walking, finger-tapping, and ignoring speech in noise. McDowd and Shaw (2000) also discuss th e role of the executive process in the control of attention. They describe the execu tive process as “a superordinate, executive mechanism that controls the changing allocati on of attention in complex tasks, such as dividing attention between tw o inputs, or dynamically switc hing between two tasks.” (pg. 275) Baddeley, in 1993, concluded that the esse nce of executive contro l is the ability to control action and integrate information (McDowd and Shaw, 2000). Executive control relates to divided attention in the fact that researchers commonly use divided attention and task switching to study executive contro l. A processing executive controls divided attention performance by allocating attention between tasks and by managing the flow of input and output from the two tasks. Becau se of this, older adults typically perform poorer under dual-task conditions than younger adults (McDowd and Shaw, 2000). Naveh-Benjamin et al. (2005) cited many studies that conclude recall in older adults demands greater attenti onal resources and that secondary task costs are higher in older adults both during encodi ng and retrieval than for younger adults. Older adults also had more difficulty with cu ed-recall than younger participants I would suspect that the proposed research would support the findings th at older subjects have more difficulty with recall than younger subjects. Anatomy Many studies have been performed to try to determine what areas in the brain are responsible for attention using functiona l magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) imaging pr otocols. The prefrontal cortex (bilateral), temporal area, and parietal co rtex, as well as the cerebellum have been

PAGE 28

17 implicated in attention-related tasks (Barrett, Large, Smith, Karayanidis, Michie, Kavanagh, Fawdry, Henderson, O’Sullivan, 2003; Behrmann, Beng, and Shomstein, 2004; Dannhauser, Walker, Stevens, Lee, Seal and Shergill, 2005; Gottwald et al., 2003; Hugdahl, Thomsen, Erlsand, Rimol, and Niem i, 2003; Loose, Kaufmann, Auer, Lange, 2003). Prince, Daselaar, and Cabeza (2005) re ported that association-related memory, or relational memory, is linked to the medial te mporal lobes and the pre-frontal cortex. Specifically for encoding and retr ieval, Prince et al. (2005) re port that several regions of the brain that were activated during encoding we re re-activated during retrieval, more so in a manner which was content-specific manne r. The left hippocampus was the only region of the brain associated with relational memory and content. For speech perception, few studies have b een performed; therefore, researchers know little about “neuronal substrates” related to focused attention in speech perception (Hugdahl et al., 2003). In a passive list ening condition, Hugdahl et al. (2003), determined “bilateral activation in the inferior section of the superior temporal gyrus” was noted, and participants attending to vowel sounds showed an increase in activation within the superior/medial temporal lobe, w ith leftward asymmetry.” When participants focused on pseudo-and word-stimuli, there was more activity noted in the middle temporal lobe areas, extending more anteri or when compared with passive listening conditions. Barrett et al. (2003) sought to determine what regions of the brain were responsible specifically for divi ding and switching of attentio n between two features of a single object. They revealed activation in the prefrontal a nd temporal cortices of the brain as well as the cerebellum.

PAGE 29

18 Reaction Time One way in which the allocation of atten tional resources can be quantified is by measuring reaction time. When a secondary task requires greater attention, reaction times in a primary task may be lengthened. Reaction time is an vital concept in performance during divided attention because dividing attention during tasks typically increases the time it takes for a person to comp lete a task (Craik et al., 2000; Fernandes and Moscovitch, 2002 and 2003; Naveh-Benjamin et al., 2000; Rajaram, 2001). Craik et al. (2000) measured reaction times for correct responses in their study regarding encoding and retrieval and found substantially longer reaction times in a ll divided attention conditions, suggesting that cons iderable attentional resour ces were required for both encoding and retrieval. Again, it is interesting to note that the reaction times were longer when the reaction time task was performed at retrieval rather than at encoding, suggesting that retrieval is more demanding than enc oding when it comes to reaction times. Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB) The Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MAT B) for Human Operator Workload and Strategic Behavior Research, developed by Comstock and Arnegard (1992), is a DOSbased computer test battery that has been used in many laboratory studies by researchers wishing to evaluate operator performance a nd workload. The task battery, initially developed for research conducted at the Na tional Aeronautics a nd Space Administration (NASA), revolves around the simulation of ta sks performed in ai rcraft or flight simulation; however, the task ba ttery is adaptable for non-flight participants as well. The MATB primarily consists of four task areas : 1) a systems monitori ng task, 2) a tracking task, 3) a communications ta sk, and 4) a resource mana gement task (i.e., fuel adjustment). The researcher can manipulate the parameters of the tasks in the setup

PAGE 30

19 program via a script file. Some or all of the tasks can be used If the researcher runs the entire task battery, five data files will be cr eated. Separate data f iles do exist for each of the four task conditions mentioned above, with an additional file for responses to the NASA Task Load Index Rating Scales. This allo ws the subtasks to be used in research, without having to use the full task battery. Socialization and Divided Attention Kosson and Newman (1989) conducted studies on divided attention and the effects of socialization on it. The research de scribed two studies co nducted to show how socialization affects one’s ability to pay attention and focus dur ing divided attention conditions. The studies involved compar isons between undersocialized and highsocialized college students who were given “informationprocessing tasks, a visual search, and a ’go-no go’ audito ry probe reaction time task.” Undersocialized people, defined as those who tend to behave without considering social norms as measured by the Socialization scale developed by Gough in 1960, generally have difficulty considering others’ perspectives when ev aluating or perceiving their ow n behavior. The tasks used involved incentives and were administered by both male and female experimenters. The results of the study showed evidence that undersocialized participants were more sensitive when dealing with attentional allo cations requiring dual ta sk-situations and at least one manipulation where focus is re quired. Both studies demonstrated that individuals who scored low on the Socialization scale “perfo rmed relatively poorly on the auditory task under focusing conditions but displayed no primary task advantage and no significant performance deficits under divide d attention conditions.” Overall, the authors conclude, “undersociali zed individuals focus on events of immediate significance and have less residual attenti on to process other events than more socialized individuals.

PAGE 31

20 There was no association between undersocia lization and the inabil ity to perform under dual-task or focused conditions. The main effects for incentives and concurrent load concluded that when the individuals allocate d their additional processing resources to one task, it interfered with the performance on the other. On the other hand, high-socialized participants had more difficulty on the dual-task situation once an incentive was introduced. The authors attribute this to the possibility that for many people, when dividing attention equally betw een two meaningful inputs, it may be easier to attend preferentially to one of them (Kosson and Newman, 1989).

PAGE 32

21 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS Materials Participants Thirty-two participants were recruited for this study, sixteen military soldiers and sixteen adults without military experience. A questionnaire was given to the participants prior to testing to obtain most of the demographic data (See Appendix A). All participants included in this study met the following criteria: 1. Participants were between 18 and 50 years of age 2. Participants all held at least a high-school diploma 3. Hearing threshold levels equal to or better than that categorized as H-1 profile, or Hearing 1 profile, thresholds defined as follows: Average hearing thresholds, bilaterally, can not exceed 25 dB HL at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz, with no individual threshold greater than 30 dB. Four thousand Hz cannot exceed 45 dB HL, bilaterally (Army Regulati on 40-501, 2004). The H-1 profile criteria are being used because they pose no restriction on an Army soldier’s assignment and therefore reflect the population of soldie rs needing to recall speech information delivered in a combat noise environment. 4. Participants were in generally good hea lth, with no handicapping condition that would prevent them from completing the desired tasks. Handicapping conditions excluding participants were vision problem s prohibiting easy use of a computer; hand, arm, or shoulder problems that would prohibit easy operation of a joystick; or speech problems that would obviate clear repetition of experi mental stimuli. 5. Participants were all fluent in English. 6. Prior to participating in the study, each participant was required to sign an Informed Consent Form approved by the Un iversity of Florida Institutional Review Board (IRB) and must indicate a willingness to participate in the study. A copy of the Informed Consent Form may be found in Appendix B. This research study evaluated the particip ant’s ability to r ecognize sentences in combat noise and in divided attention conditi ons, as well as assessi ng auditory recall in

PAGE 33

22 implicit and explicit memory paradigms. Each participant completed four stages of the study in sequence: 1) digit span testing to a ssess short-term auditory memory status, 2) priming for implicit and explicit memory, 3) auditory sentence identification, and 4) recall testing. Experimental Conditions Overview Prior to participation in the experiment each subject was asked to fill out an informed consent (IRB) form (see appendix B) and given a questionnaire to complete. The questionnaire asked for the following info rmation: visual deficits, demographic information, and video game experience (see appendix A). After completion of the questionnaire, the examiner asked the participan t to repeat a series of digits, both forward and backward, to test short-term memory (s ee digit span testing below). Following the digit span test, the particip ant was seated in the sound boot h and given an audiometric evaluation (air conduction thresholds only, 0.25 to 6 kHz) to ensure hearing threshold levels were within the Army’s H-1 hearing standards. Following the hearing evaluation, the participants were given an implicit/expl icit priming study sheet (see Priming below) and were asked to study it for 3 minutes. Afte r the participant studied the list, s/he was given an instruction sheet to read (see appendix C) expl aining requirements for the computer divided attention task. The examiner then repeated the instructions verbally with the participant again to ensure the participant understood the task requirements. The participant was also reminded they were to re peat the HINT sentences after each sentence was heard, exactly as they heard it. Gue ssing was allowed and encouraged. For the divided attention condition, the participant was asked to repeat the HINT sentences while doing the computer-based MATB systems monitoring task. The computer was placed on

PAGE 34

23 the participant’s lap for the quiet + task a nd the noise + task conditions. Following each of the four test conditions, the participant was given a sheet with 30 questions to answer. The participants were asked to answer the ques tions to the best of his/her ability. Again, guessing was encouraged (see Implicit/Explicit Recall section below). Reaction times for the MATB divided attention task were record ed in the computer database and printed later for statistical comparison. Digit Span Testing. A forward and reverse digit span test was administered to each participant prior to testing to assess shor t-term memory. The fo rward digit span test was presented in a monotone voice by the exam iner. The participant was asked first to repeat the numbers as heard in the forward sequence, beginning with four numbers (e.g., if the examiner says “1, 4, 3, 2,” the particip ant would repeat back “1, 4, 3, 2”). If the participant repeated the numbers correctly, the examiner presented a series of five numbers, then six numbers, etc.... until the pers on was unable to correctly repeat back all the numbers. If the participant missed one or more numbers in a series, another series of numbers of the same length was presented. If the participant re peated those numbers correctly, the examiner then increased the seri es of numbers by one. This test continued until the participant missed two series of nu mbers in a row, or until the participant repeated a series of nine nu mbers in a row correctly. The participant’s digit span score was then recorded as the total numbers correct ly repeated prior to missing the two series of numbers in a row. The reverse or backward digit span test was presented in a similar manner to the forward test except that the examiner presen ted the series of numbers forward (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4) and the participant was required to repe at the numbers back in the reverse order

PAGE 35

24 (e.g., 4, 3, 2, 1). The examiner continued increasing the series of numbers presented until the participant missed two series in a row, or until the participant reach ed a series of nine numbers in a row. Each participant was re quired to accurately repeat back at least 5 digits in the forward recall condition and 4 digits in the reverse recall condition. (See Appendix D). Priming. For memory priming, each particip ant was provided a list of 30 words (for implicit priming) combined with a list of 30 conceptually si milar sentences (for explicit priming). The list of words was ex tracted from those contained within the Hearing-in-Noise Test (HINT; to be discusse d in the next section) The participant was asked to study the list of words and sentences for 3 minutes prior to the auditory sentence identification testing. The explicit priming se ntences, while conceptually similar, did not contain the words used in the HINT sentences. (see appendix E). Auditory Sentence Recognition. An adapted version of the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT), developed by the House Institute in Los Angeles, California was used as an assessment tool for this research. As stated pr eviously, the HINT is “a test that measures speech intelligibility using both ears (binaural di rectional hearing) and plays a critical roll in assessing one’s ability to communicate wi th speech in noisy settings.” The test consists of 25 phonemically-balanced lists of 10 short sentences, and requires the participant to recognize and re peat short sentences under both noisy and quiet conditions. Sentences included in the HINT test are spoken by a male voice, are of approximate equal difficulty (1st grade level), and cont ain approximately equal number of syllables (6 to 8). (Hearing in Noise Test, 2005; Nilsson et al., 1994; Soli and Nilsson, 1994). This research used the first 12 HINT sentence lists, each containing 10 sentences (120

PAGE 36

25 sentences total). Appendix F contains the 12 HI NT sentence lists used in this research. The individual lists of HI NT sentences were randomized and presented under four varying conditions (30 sentences in each conditi on). The order of the conditions was also randomized among the participants. The four conditions were as follows: A. in a quiet sound field environment with 1 sp eaker at 0 azimuth (d irectly in front of the participant). B. with combat noise at a +5 signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) with the sentences delivered at 0 azimuth and the noise delivered over 4 speakers at 45, 135, 225 and 315 (See Figure 3-1). C. in the quiet sound field environment (as de scribed in A.) with a distracter task (MATB). D. with the combat noise (as described in B.) and a distracter task (MATB). Sentences and Noise Compact disc (CD) recordi ngs of the HINT sentences and combat noise were made using Adobe Audition 1.0 software. Track one of the CD consisted of a 1 kHz frequency-modulated (FM) calibrati on tone equal to the RMS of the HINT sentences. Groups of thirty HINT sentences we re recorded on the subsequent 4 tracks of the CD (e.g., track two contained HINT lists 1 through 3, track three contained HINT lists 4 through 6, track four contained HINT lists 7 through 9, and track five contained HINT lists 10 through 12). The combat noise, recorded on separate CDs, was attenuated 30 dB (using Adobe Audition 1.0) between each of the sentences to allow a quiet period for the participant to repeat the sentence. Th e combat noise was recorded to begin at full volume .4 sec before the HINT sentence began and attenuated at .4 sec after the HINT sentence ended. To achieve uncorrelated noi se in the sound field condition, three of the combat noise sources were delayed (by 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 ms using Adobe Audition 1.0). The four uncorrelated noise sources were r ecorded on two separate CDs (two on the two

PAGE 37

26 channels of one CD, and two on the two channe ls of a second CD). Each combat noise CD also contained a 1 kHz frequency modulat ed calibration tone e qual to the RMS level of the noise. All four noise speakers were located 36 inches away from the participant at the angles listed above and were 37 inches above the floor of the booth. The HINT sentences were presented to the par ticipant through a singl e speaker (Tannoy sy stem 600) placed 40-inches in front of the part icipant. The sentences were presented at 64.4 dB SPL using a Sony 5 CD Change Disc Exchange System (Model No. CDP-CD 375), routed through a Grason Stadler 61 Audiometer (model no. 1761). The uncorrelated combat noise used was simulated battlefield noise containing continuous (aircraft and vehicular) and impulse (weapons discharge and explosives) so unds. These recordings were obtained as .wav files from LTC Lorraine Babeu at th e Army Research Lab in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. The noise was presented ut ilizing two separate Sony 5 CD Changer Disc Exchange Systems (Model No. CDP-CE 375), routed through two Crown D75A amplifiers, with two channels each, to f our Definitive Technology speakers (Model BP2X). A brief sample of the combat noise wa veform is included in Figure 3-2. The overall SPL output at the position of th e participants for the 4 noise speakers, measured within the sound booth using a Quest Technologi es, Type 2, sound level meter (serial no. HUA040046), A-rating scale was 59.8 dB. The e ffective signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was therefore +4.6 dB. All CD pl ayers were started and stopped simultaneously with a single remote control device.

PAGE 38

27 Figure 3-1. Layout of speakers and particip ant within audiometric soundbooth. HINT sentences were played through Sony CD player and delivered through the Tannoy speaker located at 0 azimuth, 40 inches in front of the participant; and the combat noise was played usi ng two Sony CD players and delivered through four Definitive Technology sp eakers each 36 inches from the participant at the following angl es: 45, 135, 225 and 315. Door H i 45 135 225 315 40 inches 36 inches 36 inches 36 inches 36 inches 0 Crown Amp Sony CD Sony CD Sony CD GSI-61 Audiometer

PAGE 39

28 Sample Combat Noise Waveform-35000 -25000 -15000 -5000 5000 15000 25000 35000 0.130.230.330.430.530.630.730.83 TimeRelative Amplitude Figure 3-2. Sample combat noise waveform. Each participant listened to the HINT se ntences and noise in an IAC, double-walled sound booth (resealed/calibrated 2005). The participant was aske d to repeat each sentence after it was heard. The examin er marked wrong any key words repeated incorrectly, or not repeated at all, by the participant. The total number of key words per 30-sentence groups used in each test conditi on ranged from 156 to 162 (each 10-sentence list ranged from 51 to 57 key words). An a udiotape recording was made of the testing sessions for 4 of the participan ts at random for scoring by a ra ter blinded to the subject’s group and task condition. The comparison of HINT key word scores between raters provided an assessment of scoring reliability. Implicit/Explicit Recall Following the presentation of the sentences in each condition, thirty questions were given to the participant to test his/her recall: ten questions designed to elicit implicit memory, ten designed to elicit explicit memory, and ten designed to elicit unprimed recall. Two separate versions of the questions, matched to the same study sheet version given to the pa rticipant to study earlier, were used. Half

PAGE 40

29 of the participants were given list one, and th e other half of the participants were given list two, in randomized fashion. An example of a question that ma y stimulate explicit memory for the sentence, “A boy fell from the window” would be, “Who fell from the window?” The participant’s response should then be, “a boy.” An example of an implicit item is when the participant reads a question, “What did the ball break,” and then sees the broken word in the answer column, “w _ d w.” The person would then need to write the word, “window” in order for the an swer to be counted as correct. Since this example has an implicitly-based answer, the pa rticipant would only have to recall part of the word by filling in the blank letters. Fo r explicitly-based questions and unprimed questions, the participant would have to recall the correct answer to the questions with no assistance. The implicit and explicit ques tions were randomized per set of 10 sentences per participant (See appendix G). When refe rencing appendix G, be reminded that the participant was only given the implicit, exp licit, or unprimed ques tions, along with the implicit helper answer (columns 1 and 2), and not th e correct response and paradigm which are also listed in appendix G in columns 3 and 4. Visual-Motor Task The visual-motor test used as the distract er task in this research was the systems monitoring portion of th e Multi-Attribute Task Battery (M ATB). As stated previously, this task battery has been used in many la boratory studies involvi ng operator performance and workload. The task battery originally revolved around aircraft or flight simulation, but is adaptable for non-flight participants as well. The MATB computer task was presented using a Gateway 450 Notebook comput er placed on the participant’s lap. The monitoring portion of the task battery involved several components. One component consisted of monitoring gauges and warning li ghts. During this portion of the test, the

PAGE 41

30 participant was asked to respond to the warning light by pressing the corresponding function key if he/she saw the green light go OF F (F5) or if the red light went ON (F6). Another part of the systems monitoring task required the participant to monitor four separate arrows contained with in rectangular boxes. The pa rticipant was asked to press the corresponding function key (F1 through F4) if the arrows, which were moving throughout the duration of the te st, moved more than one de viation above or below the midpoint line at any time during the test (s ee instructions Appendix C). When the participant pressed the corre sponding function key, a yellow line at the bottom of the space where the arrow was moving would appear. Once the corresponding function was pressed, the arrow would then move quickly back to the midpoint and stop moving for a brief time before it began moving up and down again. Test performance was reported in terms of response time (in seconds) to events occurring at eight preset times (57.01, 63.05, 81.01, 102.05, 152.03, 163.01, 178.01, and 204.04). Each participant’s response times were recorded in both the quiet + task and noise + task conditions. (See appendix H for an example of response time printout). Participants who did not respond to the even t within 20 seconds were assigned a reaction time of 20.01 seconds. Hypotheses The hypotheses for this research included, but were not limited to, the following: Regarding HINT identification performance: 1. All participants’ mean performance will be better on single tasks than on the divided attention tasks. 2. Both military and non-military participants will have a similar mean performance on the HINT sentences alone.

PAGE 42

31 3. Military participants will have better mean performances on the HINT sentences using the combat background noise than non-military adults. Regarding Recall performance: 1. Non-military participants will have hi gher mean implicit and explicit recall performance than military participants. 2. Mean recall performance will be poorer w ith the addition of the background noise among the groups. 3. Mean performances on recall tasks for olde r participants, age 40-50, will be slightly worse than participants younger than age 40. Regarding Reaction Time measures: 1. Mean reaction time on the MATB divided attention tasks will increase with the addition of the combat noise. 2. Mean reaction time for military participants on the MATB divided attention tasks will be better than non-military adults. 3. Participants with prior vi deo game experience will ha ve better reaction times on MATB divided attention task than those without prior video game experience. Statistical Analysis The data were analyzed using independent t-tests for between-groups comparisons and repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc t-testing to evaluate significant main effects for within subject comparisons. Non-parametric analyses (Kruskal Wallis, Mann Whitney and Friedman’s tests) were undertak en to verify parametric results. All statistical analyses were tested at alpha = .05, to determine the signi ficance of the results.

PAGE 43

32 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This research study measured the effects of noise and divided attention on auditory perception and memory recall. The data obtained included descri ptive results from a questionnaire to obtain demographic informati on, a forward and reverse digit span test to assess short-term memory, and an audiometri c screening to assess hearing sensitivity. Experimental data regarding sound field spee ch identification performance was obtained in four test conditions: 1) in quiet, 2) in noise 3) in quiet with an a dditional task (quiet + task), and 4) in noise with an additional ta sk (noise + task). The Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB), a computer-bas ed task requiring the partic ipant to respond to specific onscreen events by pressing the corresponding function key served as the additional task. Demographic Profile Table 4.1 contains a summary of the data obtained from the questionnaire given to the two groups (military and non-military) of pa rticipants. As shown, there are several differences between the groups. Specificall y, the military group, averaging 37.4 years of age (SD =6.7), was 15.6 years older than the non-military group, which averaged 21.8 years of age (SD=2.6). McDowd and Shaw (2000) demonstrated that age can impact how well a person comprehends speech and attends to various divided attention tasks, but that this effect is most pronounced in older individuals (usually 60+ years). Because the mean age for the older group in this st udy was only 37.4, age is not expected to significantly affect identification and recall scores These results will be discussed in the HINT identification and Recall sections.

PAGE 44

33 Table 4-1: Summary of Demographic Data for Military Group and Non-Military Groups ________________________________________________________________________ Group Military (N=16) Non-Military (N=16) Variable ______________________________________________________________________________ Age (years) Mean 37.4 21.8 SD 6.7 2.6 Gender (N) Male 14 1 Female 2 15 Education Level (N) High School 3 1 Current College Student 5 14 College Graduate 8 1 Degree (N) None 8 15 Bachelors Degree 7 1 Masters Degree 1 0 Handidness (N) Right 15 14 Left 1 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ (SD = Standard Deviation) Education level for both groups varied, with the military group having 3 high school graduates, 5 currently enrolled colle ge students and 8 college graduates; nonmilitary had 14 currently enrolled college st udents and 1 each in the high school graduate and college graduate categories. Degrees obtained varied between the groups, with the military group having 8 participants with no college degree, 7 with a Bachelors degree,

PAGE 45

34 and 1 with a Masters degree. The non-military group had 15 participants with no degree, and one with a Bachelors degree. The military group had 14 males and 2 females, while the non-military group had 15 females and 1 male. A Fisher’s exact test was used to analyze the distribution of gender between the groups and indicated gender was significantly related to group membership (p < .000). HINT Identification Performance Between Groups Both the military and the non-military group appeared to perform equally well in terms of HINT key-item identification. Inde pendent t-tests were used to compare the scores between the groups with no significan t differences being observed (p > .05). The mean identification scores for each group in each of the four test conditions are displayed in table 4-2. Non-parametric analyses (Kruskal-Wallis) showed no significant differences in the test conditions between the gr oups, as well. A scatter plot of the HINT key item identification scores is presented in Figure 4-1. Noteworthy in this figure are the extremely high levels of performance in quiet without and with the additional task, and the greater spread of identification scores in the presence of the combat noise for both the military and non-military groups. Because of the age disparity

PAGE 46

35 HINT IDENTIFICATION PERFORMANCE0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.000 5Participant Group and Listening Condition% Correct Single Task Distractor Task MilitaryNon-Military QuietNoiseQuiet Noise Figure 4-1: HINT identifica tion performance among the participants (military vs. nonmilitary) between the groups, an analysis of covari ance (ANCOVA) was conducted adjusting for age in each condition. This analysis yiel ded no significa nt differences between the military and non-military groups. HINT Reliability An individual blinded to te st conditions (other than the noise condition) scored 10% of the participants’ HINT results via audio tape recordings to a ssess reliability. The inter-rater scoring agreement of 99.7%, ove rall (100% for items in quiet, and 98.7% for items in noise), suggested good reliability in scoring of the HINT sentences. A Chisquare test of association revealed a str ong association (p<.0001) between the raters’ scoring.

PAGE 47

36 Task Effects Comparisons between HINT key-item identif ication scores in the single and dualtask conditions for each group (military and non-military, separately) were conducted using paired t-tests. There were scores no significant differences in either the military or non-military groups (p>.05). The non-parametric analyses (Friedman’s test) also showed no significant difference for task condition. Within Groups--Combined Because no significant differences were observed between groups, participant groups were combined and a repeated measur e ANOVA used to analyze the scores in the four test conditions. HINT key-item perfor mance was found to be significantly impacted by noise condition, but not by task condition. Sp ecifically, the noise condition (quiet vs. noise) produced differences in HINT item identification scores (F=91.655, p < .000). Participants repeated fewer key items correctly in noise than in quiet. HINT Key-Item Priming Priming effects were also noted for HI NT key items. Specifically, a repeated measures ANOVA was used to make between participant comparisons in the noise and noise + task conditions. These analyses revealed priming di d appear to improve primeditem scores (p < .013). Also, an interaction between priming and task was noted (p <.008). This interaction reflected the resistance of implicitly and explicitly primed scores to the interference from the additional task, while unprimed scores dropped significantly (p = 0.03). Figure 4-2 shows mean HINT primed key-item identification performance for the each of the groups in the noise and noise + task conditions. Both military and nonmilitary participants appeared to do better on implicitly and explicitly primed key-items

PAGE 48

37 with the additional task in noise, overall. However, without an additional task in noise, explicitly primed items produced similar scores to the unprimed items for both the military and non-military participants. Table 4-2. Mean HINT Key-Item Performance scores Military Non-military Quiet 1.00 1.00 Noise .881 .912 Quiet + Task .997 1.00 Noise + Task .894 .905 Mean HINT Identification in Noise by Item Priming0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 MilitaryNon-MilitaryMilitaryNon-Military Group and Test Condition% correct Implicit Explicit Unprimed Figure 4-2: HINT primed key-item iden tification performance for the noise and noise+task conditions by groups. Auditory Recall and Priming Between Group Comparisons Both the military and the non-military groups showed no differences in their ability to recall primed items in any of the four te st conditions (p > .05). Comparisons between the groups (military vs. non-military) were made using independent t-tests and repeated W/O Task With Task

PAGE 49

38 measures ANOVA to evaluate the performa nce on auditory reca ll and recall priming effects. Again, because of the age dispar ity between the groups, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducte d adjusting for age in each condition. This analysis yielded no significant differences between the military and non-military groups. Within Group Comparisons A repeated measures ANOVA was undertaken with the part icipants from both groups combined to assess the effects of priming, task condition, and noise condition on auditory recall. This analysis revealed priming, task and noise signific antly affect auditory recall. In particular, recall performance was higher in the noise than in the quiet condition (F=8.368, p=.007), in the single task than in the dual-task condition (F=54.063, p<.000), and in the implicit priming condition than in the explicit or unprimed conditions (F=328.267, p<.000). Interactions were also not ed in the quiet vs. noise and priming (F=15.056, p<.000), and between the single vs. dual-task and priming (F=4.857, p=.011). See figure 4-3 for mean recall performance for each group in each condition. This is consistent with studies reported by Craik ( 2000) that priming may actually improve recall performance on dual-task conditions, as well as with the studies reported by Milligan (1998), Shanks (2004) and Wallace (2001) that dividing attention during encoding can affect explicit recall. Aud itory recall was also compar ed between male and female participants using an independent t-test which revealed no differences in recall performance between genders.

PAGE 50

39 Mean Recall Performance in Quiet 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 ImplicitExplicitUnprimed Priming Condition% Correct Military Non-Military Mean Recall Performance in Noise 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 ImplicitExplicitUnprimed Priming Condition% Correct Military Non-Military Figure 4-3: Mean recall performance for imp licit, explicit, and unprimed items per group and condition

PAGE 51

40 Mean Recall Performance in Quiet + Task 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 ImplicitExplicitUnprimed Priming Condition% Correct Military Non-Military Mean Recall Performance in Noise + Task 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 ImplicitExplicitUnprimed Priming Condition% Correct Military Non-Military Figure 4-3. Continued

PAGE 52

41 Reaction Times Between Groups Reaction times, in general, did not diffe r between the groups for the noise + task condition (p = .230). However, a difference in reaction times between the groups on the MATB task was noted during the quiet + task condition (p = .033). The average reaction times for the military group were longer in this condition. Inde pendent t-tests were utilized to make the statistical comparisons Prior to the anal yses being conducted, a log10 transformation was performed on the mean reaction times per participant (Salthouse and Hedden, 002). Figure 4-4 shows the mean reaction times for each group for the quiet + task and the noise + task conditions. The number of instances of response times marked as 20.01 seconds (“timed-out” which may have included instances of no response or uncorrected erroneous response) were compared between the groups for both the quiet + task and the noise + task conditions. This comparison revealed that the military group had more “timed out” responses than the non-military group in the quiet + task c ondition (Chi-Square = 4.73, df =1). It is interesting to note that this corresponds w ith the significant difference in mean reaction time reported above. However, an additiona l comparison of mean reaction times when the “timed out” responses were excluded revealed no significant differences between groups for the quiet + task or the noise + ta sk conditions. Because the MATB program only reported reaction time in terms of the elapsed time between an event requiring a response and the occurrence of the correct re sponse, it is not known whether some longer reaction times were obtained through partic ipants pressing the in correct function key.

PAGE 53

42 Mean Reaction Times for Each Group per Condition 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 Mil Quiet + TaskNon-Mil Quiet + Task Mil Noise + TaskNon-Mil Noise + Task Task ConditionReaction Times in seconds Figure 4-4: Mean reaction times by group Within Groups Reaction times for the divided attention ta sks were also assesse d using a paired ttest collapsed across the part icipant groups, and yielded no si gnificant differences among the participants within the gr oups. In addition, an analysis to evaluate age effects on reaction times in both the qui et + task and noise + task conditions was performed, including all participants. A linear regressi on model was used to make these comparisons and showed no significant differences (F =2.087, p=.142) among the participants for age vs. reaction time. Video Games The amount of time a particip ant played a video game, and their self-assessment of video game skill were compared to the reaction times obtained from the MATB task in both the quiet + task or noise + task c onditions. The Mann-Whitney non-parametric statistical test was used to compare video game frequency to reaction times in both the

PAGE 54

43 quiet + task and the noise + task conditi ons and revealed no si gnificant differences (p=.796 and p=.921, respectively). Likewise, no significant differences were noted using the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test to comp are self-rated video game skill to reaction times in the quiet + task and the noi se + task conditions (p=.710 and p=.767, respectively). Figure 4-5 displays the partic ipants’ reported video game frequency and skill ratings. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12345 Video Game FrequencyNumber Military Non-Military Figure 4-5: Reported video game frequenc y and skill ratings among the participants

PAGE 55

44 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 12345 Video Game SkillNumber Military Non-Military Figure 4-5. Continued

PAGE 56

45 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The purpose of this research was to determine if divided attention affects speech perception and auditory recall in listeners w ith and without military training. Recall that the HINT test was used as a tool to measure speech perception in a sound field environment under four conditions: 1) in quiet, 2) in noise, 3) in quiet with a divided attention task, and 4) in noi se with a divided attention task. HINT sentences were delivered at 0 azimuth at 64.4 dB SPL. For the noise conditions, the noise was delivered through four speakers located at the following azimuths: 45, 135, 225 and 315. The signal to noise ratio for the HINT sentences to noise was +5 dB. Independent t-tests were generally used to make between group statisti cal comparisons of the data, while repeated measures ANOVA and paired t-tests were us ed to make total participant and within group statistical comparisons. An ANCOVA was also conduct ed for HINT scores and auditory recall scores to adjust fo r age disparities between the groups. No significant between group differences were observed with the exception of longer reaction times for the pa rticipants with military tr aining in the quiet + task condition. These results revealed that military soldiers did not have an advantage over non-soldiers when it came to understanding speech-in-noise or when performing an additional task. These results beg the following questions: 1) did these particular military soldiers have enough experience or tr aining working in noise, to have performed better than the non-soldiers; 2) does the type of job experience or training actually matter;

PAGE 57

46 and 3) was the signal-to-noise ratio e nough to produce sufficient difficulty for understanding speech-in-noise? It may be that the recorded combat noise used in this study did not sufficiently recreate the sensation of combat which woul d prove more distracting for those without military training, or that the participants without military training have had more extensive experience with combat noise si milar to that used in this study through entertainment media. It may be that any effect military training may have had was obscured by the age and gender differences be tween the groups. At present there are insufficient data to draw conclusions re garding which, if a ny, of these possible explanations is valid. Significant differences were observed for several of the within group and total participant statistical comparisons for HI NT key item identification by condition, HINT key item priming effects, auditory recall by c ondition, and auditory re call priming effects. These will be considered here. Quiet vs. Noise Conditions As reported by Crandell and Smaldino (2002), background noise can affect how speech is perceived due to masking of both the linguistic and acoustic cues of the message. However, speech perception for normal hearing adults typically won’t be significantly affected until signal-to-ratios r each 0. Miller and Nicely in 1955 reported that wide-band noise affected speech intelligibility, causing confusions among consonants in a similar manner as low-pass filtering and in particular altering the identification of place of articulation (G elfand, 1998). The vast majority of the participants in this study performed better in the quiet than the noi se conditions, resulting in a statistically significant difference betw een these conditions. Previous studies have

PAGE 58

47 documented that older adult listeners (Pichor a-Fuller et al., 1995; Tun, 1998) as well as children (Stansfield et al. 2005) had more difficulty understanding speech in noise, however, no current literature exists demons trating the specific effects of noise on understanding speech in noise for younger and middle-aged adults (18-50). A regression analysis comparing age to HINT noise scores did not reveal a signifi cant relation between these variables in our sample. Single vs. Divided Attention Conditions The current research revealed participants did not show any significant differences in HINT key item sentence iden tification between th e single and dual task conditions. However, HINT performance for the quiet vs. noise and for priming recall was degraded. According to McDowd and Shaw (2000) Rubenstein and Meyer (2001), and Shellenbarger (2003), switching attention between tasks should produce a cost to performance; however, when people typica lly comprehend language during a competing source scenario, they are genera lly able to focus on relevant information and disregard other information, which could have been what was occurring in this research for HINT identification. A question remains, howev er, whether or not the divided attention condition used in this research was difficult enough to produce a cost to performance. Dividing attention did produce degraded r ecall performance in the quiet and noise conditions. This result is s upported by previous literature (C raik et al., 2000; Fernandes and Moscovitch, 2003; Mulligan, 1998; Naveh-Benjamin et al., 2000 and 2005; Wallace et al., 2001) showing that people do have more difficulty with recall and recognition if their attention is di vided during encoding.

PAGE 59

48 Priming By Item and in Auditory Recall Statistically significant priming effects we re observed in identification and recall performance, indicating that item identif ication and recall can be enhanced when priming, particularly implicit priming is used. These results are cons istent with previous research reported by Mulligan (2001), Rajara m et al (2001), Shulma n (1997) and Wallace et al (2001) citing implicit memory is typically not affected when attention is divided at encoding, and implicit priming effects do aid us in retrieving words, as well as with memory. However, previous research done by Craik et al. (2000) and Mulligan (1998) reported dividing attention could negatively a ffect conceptual (or explicit) priming and recall. Wallace et al. (2001) also reported explicit memory and explicit test performance could be diminished if attenti on is divided at encoding. Our results were consistent with this body of literature, as our research study re vealed that participants had lower explicit scores in noise and in divided attention scenar ios, while maintaining scores in the implicit condition. Significant differences in auditory recall performance were noted between the quiet and noise conditions, the single and dual -task conditions, and among the priming conditions. In addition, signifi cant interactions were found be tween each pairing of the quiet vs. noise, single vs. dual task, and pr iming effects on recall performance. Again, these significant results and interactions reveal that auditory recall is affected by noise and divided attention. Pichor a-Fuller and her colleagues (1995) reported effects of concurrent memory load produced decrements in speech understanding in noise for both younger and older adults. The interaction be tween noise and task condition may reflect the additional effort required for proce ssing the speech signal in noise (indirect component) as reported by Tun (1998). The interaction between task condition and

PAGE 60

49 priming condition is consistent with the prev ious literature stated above (Craik et al., 2000 and Mulligan, 1998) reporting dividing at tention at encoding can affect both conceptual priming and recall, specifically explicit priming more so than implicit. Reaction Times vs. Divided Attention and Age Reaction time comparisons made between the groups revealed a significant difference between the groups in the quiet + task condition only; how ever, no significant findings were statistically observed between the groups for the noise + task condition, or within the groups for age or video game freque ncy or self-rating. Additional analyses of reaction time data excluding instances of reaction times marked as 20.01 seconds revealed no significant differences between the groups for the task conditions. In addition, while significant diffe rences were noted between the groups for age and gender, these differences did not appear to be re lated to HINT identification or recall. No significant differences were noted when comparing reaction times between the groups in the noise + task condition, and w ithin each group (military vs. non-military) for the quiet + task and noise + task condition. A significant difference was noted between the groups, however, for reaction times in the quiet + task condition. Since reaction times were not assessed for the MATB test alone, it is difficult to quantify these results as being consistent with previous research (Craik et al., 2000; Fernandes and Moscovitch, 2002 and 2003; Naveh-Benjamin et al., 2000; Ra jaram, 2001) stating reaction times are typically lengthened in divi ded attention scenarios. It is important to note that, according to Cr aik et al. (2000), reaction times appear to be much longer when attention is divided at retrieval than at encoding, suggesting more demands are placed on personal resources when dividing attention at retrieval. These results beg the questions: 1) was the divided a ttention task used in this research difficult

PAGE 61

50 enough to significantly delay reaction times, 2) were the participants concentrating more on the computer-based divided attention task th an to the auditory task, and 3) should the divided attention task have been presented dur ing retrieval of the sentences, rather than during encoding of the sentences? Of notable mention is the fact that the military group had slightly longer reaction times in the divided attention tasks than the non-military group. Since the military group had a greater mean age compared with th e non-military group (37.4 years to 21.8 years), a statistical comparison was made to assess whether or not age played any roll in the causing longer reaction times for the milita ry group. This comparison yielded no significant differences for age, for the milita ry vs. non-military participants. Little research has been done to evaluate reaction times for adults aged 30-60. Most research for divided attention has focused on compar isons of older adults (aged 60 and older) compared with younger adults (aged 18 to 30). However, in a recent research study by Williams et al. (2005), inconsistency in reac tion times across the lifespan was evaluated revealing that across age, inconsistency in reaction times varie d. These results are consistent with individual differences in “moment-to-moment change.” A U-shaped curve described the relationship between ag e and inconsistency in reaction times. Williams et al. (2005) reported that as age increased among the participants in childhood, lower levels of inconsistency were noted; however, as age increased among the adult participants, higher levels of inconsistency in reaction times were observed. Beginning between the ages of 30 and 40, Williams’ partic ipants demonstrated a larger spread of scores. This could describe what occurred in the current research study regarding the observed longer reaction times of the milita ry group compared with the non-military

PAGE 62

51 group: that reaction times may become more inconsistent among the older participants. One might also predict that inconsistency woul d show up if the current research protocol were to be undertaken with younger children as well. Limitations of the Research As with any research, potential limitations are possible. This research study is no different. The age and gender differences between the groups represent sampling artifacts that mitigate some potential conclu sions from the obtained data. Although some of the data obtained in this research are c onsistent with previous published research, the data can only be generalized for, younger to middle-aged healthy adults with essentially normal hearing. The data obtained may not be applied to older, hearing impaired, or unhealthy adults. Another notable limitation regarding this research is that the sentences were presented in a sound field condition in front of the participant, at a 0 azimuth, while uncorrelated combat noise was presented at th e same time in the sound field condition at 45, 135, 225 and 315. While consistent with other research, this speaker-listener orientation may not be applicab le to other listening conditions Also, the listener was not afforded the opportunity to gain additional information through visual cues of speech, which may have helped overall performance for HINT key item sentence identification. However, it should be noted that many milita ry soldiers are not always afforded the opportunity to obtain visual speech cues when listening and tryi ng to understand speech in noisy combat conditions. Future Directions As with any research, the current research poses ideas for future research. First, it would be interesting to tailor future research to specifically obtain data on the effects of

PAGE 63

52 divided attention and personal resource deplet ion in middle-aged a dults. Since little research has been done in this area, it would be interesting to determ ine at what age, if any, a significant decrease in performa nce is observed for aging adults. Second, it would be interesting to delve more into researching what effects dividing attention during retrieva l of information has on military soldiers. Third, an additional area interest for research would be to assess how well military soldiers understand specific j ob-related phrases or sentences in the presence of combat noise, and while doing more job-related tasks as the divided attention component. This research could possibly compare military soldiers within military occupational specialties (MOSs) to see if differences exist regarding speech understanding and performance relating to their specific jobs within and between MOSs. Fourth, future research using divided attention and speech understanding comparing participants who have been diagnos ed with auditory processing disorder or attention deficit disorder, compared with t hose who do not have those disorders, would also be of interest.

PAGE 64

53 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARTICIPANTS Divided Attention, Perception and Audi tory Recall Research Questionnaire Participant # ______________ Thank you for you time and for participating in this research. Please answer the following questions completely and to the best of your ability. Your identity will be kept confidential and the researchers will only know you as a participant numb er. If you have any questions regarding this questionnaire, please ask the examiner to assist you. Your participation in this research is completely voluntary and grea tly appreciated. Please CIRCLE the yes/no answers, put an X in fron t of, or fill in the blanks as indicated for the following questions: 1. Do you have any visual color deficiencies (i .e., red/green color blind)? Yes No If yes, please tell the examiner before completing the rest of this questionnaire. 2. Do you have vision problems prohibiting you to clearly see a computer screen? Yes No If yes, please tell the examiner before completing the rest of this questionnaire. 3. Are you a member of the U.S. military? Yes No If yes, what is your current rank _______: and how many total years of service do you have? _______ 4. What is your current age? _____ years 5. What is your gender? male female 6. What level of education have you obtained thus far? ____high school graduate only ____current college student ____college graduate 7. If you are a college graduate, what level of degree have you obtained thus far? ____Bachelors Degree ____Masters Degree ____Doctoral Degree 8. Are you (please circle one): a) right handed b) left handed? 9. In the past 5 years how often have you played video games? Please circle one of the following: a) Very frequently b) Frequently c) Occasionally d) Rarely e) Never 10. How would you rate your video game skills? a) Very Good b) Good c) Fair d) Poor e) No skill

PAGE 65

54 APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT FORM Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders 336 Dauer Hall P.O. Box 117420 Gainesville, Florida 32611-7420 (352) 392-2113 Fax (352) 846-0243 Informed Consent Protocol Title: Divided Attention, Perception, and Auditory Recall Please read this consent document carefully befo re you decide to participate in this study. Purpose of the research study: To obtain information on listening and memory in people with and without military training. What you will be asked to do in the study: In this study you will be asked to complete several tasks: 1) to repeat back a series of numbers in both forward and backward order, 2) to study a list of words and sentences for 5 minutes, 3) to perform a video game task and repeat back sentences both in quiet and in the presence of battlefield-type background noise presente d via speakers, and 4) to respond to questions regarding sentences heard in step 3. Time required: The approximate time required for th is study is a total of 1.5 hours. Risks and Benefits: The rating procedures used in this study has no potential risks or benefits. Compensation: You will be paid $10 per hour for your time, with a cap of $20. Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your name will not be used in any recording or reporting. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating.

PAGE 66

55 Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Lynnette Bardolf, Ph.D. candidate, Communication Sciences and Disorders, (352) 283-1 633, 356 Dauer Hall, P.O. Box 117420 Gainesville, FL 32611-7420, lbardolf@ufl.edu; or you may contact Dr. Scott Griffiths, Communication Sciences and Disorders, (352) 392-2113, x248, 356 Dauer Hall, P.O. Box 117420, Gainesville, FL 32611-7420, sgriff@csd.ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gain esville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________

PAGE 67

56 APPENDIX C INSTRUCTIONS FOR DIVI DED ATTENTION STUDY Thank you for participating in this re search study. Your time is greatly appreciated. This study will require you to pay close atte ntion to the tasks at hand. You will be listening to sentences in 4 sepa rate conditions (120 sentences total). After you hear each sentence, please repeat it back. If noise is present along with the sentence, please repeat the sentence back after the noise has finished. When we get to the computer-task por tion of the study, it will require that you monitor the red and green light s, as well as monitoring some arrows, at the top left portion of the screen. When you see the green light go OFF please push the F5 key as soon as possible. When you see the red light go ON please press the F6 key as soon as possible. When you the arrows moving up and down, press the corresponding labeled keys (F1, F2, F3, and F4) You will need to press th e corresponding function keys as soon as possible once you see the arrows deviate more than 1 line above or below the center mark If the computer screen stops as any time during the testing, please let the examiner know. The examiner will familiari ze you with the computer before you begin the computer-task portion of the test. Please continue to repeat back the sent ences no matter what task you are doing (in addition to repeating the sentence s), if a secondary task is re quired. If you need a break during the testing, please wait until after the test condition is finished. Each test condition takes approximately 3 minutes, 45 se conds. You will be given a sheet to fill out after each condition. Do you have any questions at this time?

PAGE 68

57 APPENDIX D FORWARD AND REVERSE DIGIT SPAN TEST Participant # _________ Forward Digit Span Test : Reverse Digit Span Test : 4 digits : 4 digits : 1st try: 5 9 7 1 1st try: 9 7 1 3 2nd try: 4 8 2 3 2nd try: 0 8 4 1 5 digits : 5 digits : 1st try: 8 6 5 1 4 1st try: 6 8 9 0 4 2nd try: 9 3 4 2 8 2nd try: 9 5 8 6 1 6 digits : 6 digits : 1st try: 5 9 6 1 3 2 1st try: 7 4 6 9 0 1 2nd try: 4 8 9 7 6 3 2nd try: 5 4 0 7 2 9 7 digits : 7 digits : 1st try: 9 4 7 8 2 6 3 1st try: 0 8 4 3 1 9 0 2nd try: 0 4 1 8 3 2 7 2nd try: 5 3 1 9 6 7 2 8 digits : 8 digits : 1st try: 4 8 6 3 5 9 0 2 1st try: 9 8 1 6 5 3 0 3 2nd try: 9 4 0 3 1 8 2 7 2nd try: 4 9 6 2 4 9 0 2 9 digits : 9 digits : 1st try: 0 5 7 9 8 4 3 1 2 1st try: 3 6 7 8 9 2 1 5 0 2nd try: 2 5 3 7 5 9 6 8 1 2nd try: 7 9 5 4 2 8 6 1 3 Forward Score: __________ Reverse Score: __________

PAGE 69

58 APPENDIX E IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT PRIMING STUDY LISTS BY VERSION Divided Attention, Perception and A uditory Recall Research Study Sheet (Version 1) picture drinking An open flame is dangerous. The vehicle needs to slow down. dirty police The robber took all their cash. The competitor’s cleat fell off his foot. faucet strawberry The plant blossomed in the soil. The citrus arrived in a square container. sister credit card The store is not open during the noon eating hour. Th e dirt sweeper is at the edge of the room. funny noise matches The pages reveal a tale. The pasteurized cow’s liquid is by the anterior entryway. mother yellow The small child ran away from his house. The woman relaxes in her seat. saucer vacation The lady placed her items in her suitcase. The not-so-short guy fastened his sneakers. pitcher closet Some people viewed the frightening film Some people sat for sixty minutes. flowers plates Some people brought their meal outdoors. The supermarket worker vends margarine. vacation mailman The infant cracked his sippy glass. The large branch toppled onto the roof. dishcloth chocolate The baking appliance is ajar. The woman dressed in a jacket. mother football The person is walking to the other side of the street. The boy injured his lower appendage for the second time. children shopping Mom baked a goodie to celebrate the child’s birt h. The toy sphere propelled into the air. window school The clear crystals we eat taste honey-like. The infant wants his milk feeder. firetruck mother There was an atrocious locomotive collision. The little guy escaped from his learning environment. police dinner The man misplaced his cap the other day. The male child destroyed the pine gate. truck nervous The hen produced some offspring shells The aquati c creature moved through the natural fresh-water holding area orange bakery Mom closed the glass panes. The man took the canines for a stroll. sister cold cuts The young lady is merry. Frigid flakes of precipitation occur in the season after fall. lemon pie street The male child fell asleep before his bedtime. The kid tore apart the sack.

PAGE 70

59 Divided Attention, Perception and A uditory Recall Research Study Sheet (Version 2) husband The open flame was too warm. The child toppled through the glass pane. drinking bad dogs The vehicle needs to slow down. The plant blossomed in the soil. dirty floor The cop assisted the person manning the vehicle. The boy frightened his female sibling. mirror faucet The woman misplaced her pi ece of plastic capable of buying things. The pages reveal a tale. strawberry brother The fire starters are located on the ledge. The feline sprung across the gate. stick going out Mom pulled out the sliding clothes hanger. The grown kitty sipped from the bowl. little boy vacation The woman is cleaning the outfit she just bought. The male child stood on his hands. shoes letter Some people sat for sixty minutes. The infant cracked his sippy glass. closet outside The large branch toppled onto the roof. The kids rinsed the circular dishes. butter vacation Some people ate cocoa flavored mousse. Mom mixed her herbal liquid. string pasture The woman dressed in a jacket. The glasses are on furniture used for eating. bread football The feline slept on the furniture used for sleeping. The clear crystals we ea t taste honey-like. spoon kitchen The learning institution closed sooner than usual this day. Mom picked up the pot. laughing birthday The irate gentleman bellowed. The hen produced some offspring shells. bottle yesterday The vehicle crept to the top of the peak. The amphibious creature moved thr ough the Wooden fence fresh-water holding area nervous Drops of precipitation fell from the sky. Mom closed the glass panes. neighbor mother The girls female sibling remained for the noon eating hour. The lady tidied her home winter strawberries The male child proceeded to his sleeping area be fore his normal time. The kid tore apart the sack. cold cuts friend The little ones assisted their professor. The group is good at co mpeting. lemon pie train Mom pulled out the sliding holder.

PAGE 71

60 APPENDIX F HINT SENTENCES Track 1 Track 4 1. A boy fell from a window. 1. The little boy left home. 2. The wife helped her husband. 2. They're growing up too fast. 3. Big dogs can be dangerous. 3. A cat jumped over the fence. 4. Her shoes were very dirty. 4. He wore his yellow shirt. 5. The player lost a shoe. 5. The lady sits in her chair. 6. Somebody stole that money. 6. He needs his vacation. 7. The fire is very hot. 7. She's washing her new silk dress. 8. She's drinking from her own cup. 8. The cat drank from the saucer. 9. The picture came from a boo k. 9. Mother opened the drawer. 10. The car is going too fast. 10. The lady packed her bag. Track 2 Track 5 1. A boy ran down the path. 1. The boy did a handstand. 2. Flowers grow in the garden. 2. They took some food outside. 3. Strawberry jam is sweet. 3. The young people are dancing. 4. The shop closes for lunch. 4. They waited for an hour. 5. The police helped the driver. 5. The shirt is in the closet. 6. She looked in her mirror. 6. They watched a scary movie. 7. The match fell on the floor. 7. The milk is in the pitcher. 8. The fruit came in a box. 8. The truck drove up the road. 9. He really scared his sister. 9. The tall man tied his shoes. 10. The tub faucet is leaking. 10. A letter fell on the floor. Track 3 Track 6 1. They heard a funny noise. 1. The silly boy is hiding. 2. He found his brother hiding. 2. The dog growled at the neighbors. 3. The dog played with a stick. 3. A tree fell on the house. 4. The book tells a story. 4. Her husband brought some flowers. 5. The matches are on the shelf. 5. The children washed the plates. 6. The milk is by the front door. 6. They went on vacation. 7. The broom is in the corner. 7. Mother tied the string too tight. 8. The new road is on the map. 8. The mailman shut the gate. 9. She lost her credit card. 9. A grocer sells butter. 10. The team is playing well. 10. The baby broke his cup.

PAGE 72

61 Track 7 Track 10 1. The cows are in the pasture. 1. The boy broke the wooden fence. 2. The dishcloth is soaking wet. 2. The angry man shouted. 3. They had some chocolate pudding. 3. Yesterday he lost his hat. 4. She spoke to her eldest son. 4. The nervous driver got lost. 5. The oven door is open. 5. The cook is baking a cake. 6. She's paying for her bread. 6. The chicken laid some eggs. 7. My mother stirred her tea. 7. A fish swam in the pond. 8. He broke his leg again. 8. They met some friends at dinner. 9. The lady wore a coat. 9. The man called the police. 10. The cups are on the table. 10. The truck made it up the hill. Track 8 Track 11 1. The ball bounced very high. 1. The neighbor's boy has black hair. 2. Mother cooked a birthday cake. 2. The rain came pouring down. 3. The football game is over. 3. The orange was very sweet. 4. She stood near the window. 4. He took the dogs for a walk. 5. The kitchen clock was wrong. 5. Children like strawberries. 6. The children helped their teacher. 6. Her sister stayed for lunch. 7. They carried some shopping bags. 7. The train was moving fast. 8. Someone is crossing the road. 8. Mother shut the window. 9. She uses her spoon to eat. 9. The bakery is open. 10. The cat lay on the bed. 10. Snow falls in the winter. Track 9 Track 12 1. School got out early today. 1. The boy went to bed early. 2. The football hit the goalpost. 2. The woman cleaned her house. 3. The boy ran away from school. 3. A sharp knife is dangerous. 4. Sugar is very sweet. 4. The child ripped open the bag. 5. The two children are laughing. 5. They had some cold cuts for lunch. 6. A fire truck is coming. 6. She's helping her friend move. 7. Mother got a sauce pan. 7. They ate the lemon pie. 8. The baby wants his bottle. 8. They are crossing the street. 9. The ball broke the window. 9. The sun melted the snow. 10. There was a bad train wreck. 10. The little girl is happy.

PAGE 73

62 APPENDIX G HINT QUESTIONS BY VERSION HINT Sentences (Version #1) Subject # _____________ Condition #1 Correct response Paradigm Track 1 1. Who did the wife help? her husband unprimed 2. What was very hot? the fire explicit 3. Where did the boy fall from? the window unprimed 4. What came from the book? (p _ ct _ e) picture implicit 5. The car is going too what? fast explicit 6.. What is she doing from her cup? ( _r_ nk_ _ng) drinking implicit 7. What did somebody steal? money explicit 8. What is dangerous? big dogs unprimed 9. Her shoes where what? (d r _) dirty implicit 10. What did the player loose? a shoe explicit Track 2 1. Where did the match fall? on the floor unprimed 2. What grows in the garden? flowers explicit 3. Who helped the driver (p l _c _) police implicit 4. What did she look into? a mirror unprimed 5. The fruit came in what? a box explicit 6. What is leaking in the tub? (f _ c t) faucet implicit 7. Where did the boy run? down the path unprimed 8. What kind of jam is sweet? (_ tr w _ r r _) strawberry implicit 9. What closes for lunch? the shop explicit 10. Who did he scare? (s st_ _) sister implicit Track 3 1. What is in the corner? a broom explicit 2. What did she loose? (c _ d t c _ d) credit card implicit 3. Where did he find his brother? hiding unprimed 4. What did they hear? (f _ ny n _ se) funny noise implicit 5. What did the dog play with? a stick unprimed 6. What tells a story? a book explicit 7. What is the team doing? playing well unprimed 8. Where is the new road? on the map unprimed 9. What is on the shelf? (m _ ch _) matches implicit 10. What is by the front door? milk explicit

PAGE 74

63 Condition #2 Correct response Paradigm Track 4 1. What are they doing too fast? growing up unprimed 2. What did the cat jump over? the fence unprimed 3. Who left home? the little boy explicit 4. Who opened the drawer? (_ oth_ ) mother implicit 5. What color shirt did he wear? (_ el _ w) yellow implicit 6. Where did the lady sit? in her chair explicit 7. What did the cat drink from? (s _ c r) saucer implicit 8. What did the lady pack? her bag explicit 9. What does he need? (_ aca __n) vacation implicit 10. What was she washing? her silk dress unprimed Track 5 1. What are the young people doing? dancing unprimed 2. What did the tall man tie? his shoes explicit 3. Where is the milk? (p _ ch r) pitcher implicit 4. Where did the letter fall? on the floor unprimed 5. What did they watch? scary movie explicit 6. Where is the shirt? (cl _ e _) closet implicit 7. What type of acrobat did the boy do? a handstand unprimed 8. How long did they wait? an hour explicit 9. Where did the truck drive? up the road unprimed 10. Where did they take the food? outside explicit Track 6 1. What did the dog do to the neighbors? growled at them unprimed 2. What does the grocer sell? butter explicit 3. What did the baby br eak? his cup explicit 4. What did the husband bring her? (f _ er _) flowers implicit 5. What fell on the house? tree explicit 6. What was the silly boy doing? hiding unprimed 7. What did the children wash? (_ ate _) plates implicit 8. Where did they go? (_ cat _ _) vacation implicit 9. Who shut the gate? (m _ lm n) mailman implicit 10. What did the mother do with the string? tied it too tight unprimed

PAGE 75

64 Condition #3 Correct response Paradigm Track 7 1. What is soaking wet? (di _ cl _ _) dishcloth implicit 2. Where were the cows? in the pasture unprimed 3. What flavor pudding did they have? (_ oco _ te) chocolate implicit 4. Whom did she speak with in her family? her eldest son unprimed 5. What is open? oven door explicit 6. Who stirred her tea? (m _ th _ ) mother implicit 7. What did the lady wear? coat explicit 8. What did he break again? his leg explicit 9. What was she paying for? the bread unprimed 10. Where were the cups? on the table unprimed Track 8 1. What type of game was over? (f _ tb _) football implicit 2. Who helped their teacher? (_ ild _ n) children implicit 3. What is someone cros sing? the road explicit 4. Where did the cat lay? on the bed unprimed 5. What is she using to eat? her spoon unprimed 6. What type of bags did they carry? (_ op _ ng) shopping implicit 7. What did she stand near? (w _ d w) window implicit 8. The kitchen clock was what? wrong unprimed 9. What type of cake did mo ther cook? birthday explicit 10. What did the ball do? bounced very high explicit Track 9 1. What is very sweet? sugar explicit 2. What does the baby want? bottle explicit 3. What got out early today? (sc _ l) school implicit 4. What hit the goalpost? the football unprimed 5. What is coming? (fi _ tr _k) firetruck implicit 6. Who got a sauce pan? (m th _) mother implicit 7. What are the two children doing? laughing unprimed 8. What did the ball break? the window unprimed 9. What type of wreck was there? train explicit 10. Who ran away from school? boy explicit

PAGE 76

65 Condition #4 Correct response Paradigm Track 10 1. What did the angry man do? he shouted unprimed 2. When did he loose his hat? yesterday explicit 3. What did the boy break? wooden fence explicit 4. What is she baking? a cake unprimed 5. What laid some eggs? chicken explicit 6. Who did the man call? (_ ol _ e) police implicit 7. When did they meet some friends? (d i _ r) dinner implicit 8. What made it up the hill? (tr _ _) truck implicit 9. Where did the fish swim? in the pond explicit 10. What type of driver got lost? (n _ v _ s) nervous implicit Track 11 1. What came pouring down? rain unprimed 2. What color was the neighbor boy's hair? black unprimed 3. What was very sweet? (_ ran _ ) orange implicit 4. What did he take for a walk? dog explicit 5. Who shut the window? mother explicit 6. What is open? (ba _ y) bakery implicit 7. When does snow fall? winter explicit 8. Who stayed for lunch? (s st _) sister implicit 9. How was the train moving? fast unprimed 10. What kind of fruit did the children like? strawberries unprimed Track 12 1. What did the woman clean? her house unprimed 2. What was dangerous? the sharp knife unprimed 3. What did they have for lunch? (c _ d c ts) cold cuts implicit 4. Who is she helping move? her friend unprimed 5. What did they eat? (le _ n p e) lemon pie implicit 6. What are they crossing? (_ tr _ t) street implicit 7. What did the sun melt? the snow unprimed 8. Who went to bed early? boy explicit 9. What did the child rip open? bag explicit 10. Who is happy? little girl explicit

PAGE 77

66 Hint Sentences (Version #2) Participant # ________ Condition #1 Correct Response Paradigm Track 1 1. The wife helped whom? (h_ b_ nd) husband implicit 2. What was very hot? the fire explicit 3. Who fell from the window? the boy explicit 4. Where did the picture come from? a book unprimed 5. The car is going too what? fast explicit 6.. What is she doing from her cup? ( _r_ nk_ _ng) drinking implicit 7. What was stolen? money unprimed 8. What can be dangerous? (b g d _ s) big dogs implicit 9. Her shoes where what? (d r _) dirty implicit 10. What did the player loose? his shoe unprimed Track 2 1. The match fell where? (f_ _ r) floor implicit 2. What grows in the garden? flowers explicit 3. Who helped the driver? police explicit 4. What did she look into? (m _ r r) mirror implicit 5. What came in a box? fruit unprimed 6. What is leaking in the tub? (f _ c t) faucet implicit 7. What did the boy run down? path unprimed 8. What kind of jam is sweet? (_ tr w _ r r _) strawberry implicit 9. What closed for lunch? the shop unprimed 10. Who did he scare? sister explicit Track 3 1. What was in the corner? a broom unprimed 2. What did she loose? credit card explicit 3. Who did he find hiding? (br _h r) brother implicit 4. What did they hear? a funny noise unprimed 5. What did the dog play wit h? (st _ k) stick implicit 6. What tells a story? a book explicit 7. What is the team doing well? playing explicit 8. What was on the map? new road unprimed 9. What is on the shelf? matches explicit 10. What was by the front door? yes unprimed

PAGE 78

67 Condition #2 Correct response Paradigm Track 4 1. What are they doing tonight? (g _ ng o_t) going out implicit 2. What did the cat jump over? a fence explicit 3. Who left home? (li _ l b y) the little boy implicit 4. Who opened the drawer? mother explict 5. What color shirt did he wear? yellow explicit 6. Where did the lady sit? in her chair unprimed 7. What did the cat drink from? saucer explicit 8. What did the lady pack? her bag unprimed 9. What does he need? (_ aca __n) vacation implicit 10. What is she washing? her new silk dress explicit Track 5 1. What were the young people doing? dancing unprimed 2. What did the tall man tie? (sh _ s) his shoes implicit 3. What was in the pitcher? milk unprimed 4. What fell on the floor? (_ et _ r) letter implicit 5. What did they watch? a scary movie unprimed 6. Where is the shirt? (cl _ e _) closet implicit 7. What did the boy do? handstand explicit 8. How long did they wait? an hour explicit 9. Where did the truck drive? up the road unprimed 10. Where did they take the f ood? (ou_ s _ e) outside implicit Track 6 1. What did the dog do to the neighbors? growled at them unprimed 2. What does the grocer sell? (b t _ r) butter implicit 3. What did the baby br eak? his cup explicit 4. What did the husband bring his wife? flowers unprimed 5. What fell on the house? tree explicit 6. Who was hiding? silly boy unprimed 7. What did the children wash? plates explicit 8. Where did they go? (_ cat _ n) vacation implicit 9. Who shut the gate? mailman unprimed 10. What did the mother tie too tight? (s _ ng) string implicit

PAGE 79

68 Condition #3 Correct response Paradigm Track 7 1. What was soaking wet? dishcloth unprimed 2. Where are cows? (_ ast _ e) in the pasture implicit 3. What flavor pudding did they have? chocolate explicit 4. Whom did she speak to? the eldest son unprimed 5. What was open? the oven door unprimed 6. Who stirred her tea? mother explicit 7. What did the lady wear? coat explicit 8. What did he break again? his leg unprimed 9. What is she paying for? (br _ d ) bread implicit 10. What are the cups on? table explicit Track 8 1. What type of game was over? (_ oo b ll) football implicit 2. Who helped their teacher? children explicit 3. Who was crossing the road? someone unprimed 4. Where did the cat lay? the bed explicit 5. What is she using to eat? (_ po n ) spoon implicit 6. What kind of bags did they carry? shopping unprimed 7. What did she stand by? the window unprimed 8. Which clock was wrong? (_ tch _) kitchen implicit 9. What type of cake did mother co ok?(_ rt d y) birthday implicit 10. What bounced very high? the ball unprimed Track 9 1. What is very sweet? sugar explicit 2. What does the baby want? (b_ tt _ ) bottle implicit 3. What got out early today? school explicit 4. What hit the goalpost? (_ o o b l _) football implicit 5. What is the fire truck doing? coming unprimed 6. Who got a sauce pan? mother explicit 7. What are the two children doing? (_ aug _ in_) laughing implicit 8. What broke the window? ball explicit 9. What type of wreck was there? (_ ra n) train implicit 10. Where did the boy run away from? from school unprimed

PAGE 80

69 Condition #4 Correct response Paradigm Track 10 1. What did the angry man do? shout explicit 2. When did he loose his hat? ( est _ d_ y) yesterday implicit 3. What did the boy break? (w _ d n f _ c _)wooden fence implicit 4. What is baking? the cake unprimed 5. What laid some eggs? chicken explicit 6. Who did the man call? the police unprimed 7. Who did they meet for dinner? their friends unprimed 8. What made it up the hill? truck explicit 9. Where did the fish swim? in the pond explicit 10. What type of driver got lost? (n _ v _ s) nervous implicit Track 11 1. What did the rain do? came pouring down explicit 2. Which boy had black hair? (nei _ or) neighbor implicit 3. What was very sweet? the orange unprimed 4. Who did he take for a walk? the dog unprimed 5. Who shut the window? (m _ t er) mother explicit 6. What is open? the bakery explicit 7. When does snow fall? (_ in _r) winter implicit 8. Who stayed for lunch? sister explicit 9. What was the train doing? moving fast unprimed 10. What did the children like? (st _ be _ ies) strawberries implicit Track 12 1. What did the woman do to her house? cleaned it explicit 2. What is dangerous? the sharp knife unprimed 3. What did they have for lunch? (c _ d c ts) cold cuts implicit 4. Who is she helping move? (_ ri _d) friend implict 5. What did they eat? (le _ n p e) lemon pie implicit 6. What are they doing? crossing the street unprimed 7. What did the sun melt? the snow unprimed 8. Who went to bed early? boy explicit 9. What did the child rip open? bag explicit 10. Who is happy? the little girl unprimed

PAGE 81

70 APPENDIX H EXAMPLE OF RESPONSE TIME PRINTOUT FROM THE MATB Appendix H: Example of response ti me printout from the MATB test 02-09-2006 12:53:20 MD020912.49M 57.01 6 1.70 63.05 2 4.23 81.01 3 4.12 102.05 5 2.03 152.03 5 1.65 163.01 3 4.95 178.01 5 1.76 204.04 2 1.65 Ela p sed time at be g innin g of monitorin g event Event Code Res p onse Time

PAGE 82

71 REFERENCES Anderson JR (1995). Review: human memory encoding and storage. Cognitive psychology and its implications; Chapter 6, 4th edition, Freeman, 169-197. Accessed from http://www.scism.sbu.ac.uk/inmandw /review/cogpsy/review/rev5653.html on 11/29/2005. Anderson P (2001). Study: multitasking is counterproductive. Accessed from website http://archives.cnn.com on 3/15/2005. Army Regulation 40-501. Standards of Medical Fitness Headquarters, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. 12 April 2004. Baddeley A (1997). Human memory: theory and practice (revised ). United Kingdom: Psychology Press. Accessed online at www.amazon.com on 11/30/05. Barrett NA, Large MM, Smith GL, Karayanidi s F, Michie PT, Kavanagh DJ, Fawdry R, Henderson D, O’Sullivan BT (2003). Cognitive Brain Research 17 (1), 1-13. Behrmann M, Beng JJ, and Shomstein S ( 2004). Parietal cortex and attention. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 14, 212-217. Blaxton, TA (1989). Investigating dissocia tions among memory measures: support for a transfer-appropriate processing framework. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Learning, Memory and Cognition 15, 657-668. Boman, E. (2004). The effects of noise and ge nder on children’s episodic and semantic memory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 407-416. Brauer SG, Broome A, Stone C, Clewett S, and Herzig P (2004). Simplest tasks have greatest dual task interf erence with balance. Human Movement Science 23, 489502. Castel AD and Craik FIM (1999). The effects of aging and divided attention on memory for item and associative information. Psychology and Aging 18 (4), 873-885. Comstock Jr. JR and Arnegard RJ. (1992) The multi-attribute task battery for human operator workload and strategic behavior research. NASA Technical Memorandum 104174 Langley Research Center : Hampton, VA. January.

PAGE 83

72 Craik FIM, Naveh-Benjamin M, Ishaik G, and Anderson ND (2000). Divided attention during encoding and retrieval: di fferential control effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26 (6), 1744-1749. Crandell CC and Smaldino J (2002). Room acoustics and auditory rehabilitation technology. In J. Katz (Ed), Handbook of clinical audiology (5th Ed) pp. 608. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. Dannhauser TM, Walker Z, Stevens T, Lee L, Seal M, and Shergill SS (2005). The functional anatomy of divided attention in amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Brain Advance Access, 1-10. DeGangi, G and Porges, S. (1990). Neurosci ence Foundations of Human Performance. Rockville, MD: American Occupational Ther apy Association Inc. Accessed from http://penta.ufrgs.br/edu/telelab/3/sustaine.htm on 7/20/2005. Fernandes MA, Davidson PSR, Glisky EL, a nd Moscovitch M (2004). Contribution of frontal and temporal lobe function to memo ry interference from divided attention at retrieval. Neuropsychology, 18 (3), 514-525. Fernandes MA and Moscovitch M (2003). Inte rference effects from divided attention during retrieval in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging 18 (2), 219230. Fernandes MA and Moscovitch M (2002). F actors modulating the effect of divided attention during retr ieval of words. Memory and Cognition 30 (5), 731-744. Fleck, DE (2001). Directed forgetting in e xplicit and implicit memory: The role of encoding and retrieval mechanisms. The Psychological Record. Accessed at http://www.findarticles.com on 8/16/2005. Gelfand SA (1998). Hearing: an intr oduction to psychological and physiological acoustics (3rd ed). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Gottwald B, Mihajlovic Z, Wilde B, Me hdorn HM (2003). Does the cerebellum contribute to specific aspects of attention? Neuropsychologia 41 (11), 1452-1460. Graf P and Masson MEJ (1993). Implicit memory: new directions in cognition development, and neuropshychology. Online book: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. Accessed at http://www.questia.com on 7/18/2005. Groth-Marnat G and Baker S (2003). Digit Sp an as a measure of everyday attention: a study of ecological validity. Perceptu al and Motor Skills. 2003 Dec;97(3 Pt 2):1209-18. Accessed from http://www.nacdtheproject.com/research/digit.html on 10/3/2005.

PAGE 84

73 Hafter ER, Bonnel AM, Gallun E, and Cohen E (1998). A role for memory in divided attention between two independent stimuli. In Palmer AR, Rees A, Summerfield AZ and Meddis R (eds). Psychophysical and Physiological Advances in Hearing London: Whurr Publishing, 228-238. Hartley A (1992). Attention. In Cr aik F. & Salthouse T. (eds) Handbook of aging and cognition Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-49. Hearing-in-Noise Test. Accessed at http://www.maico-diagnostics.com on 7/22/2005. Herath P, Klingberg T, Young J, Amunts K, and Roland P (2001). Neural correlates of dual task interference can be dissociated fr om those of divided attention: an fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex 11 (9), 796-805. Hommel G and Eglau B (2002). Control of stimulus-response transl ation in dual-task performance. Psychological Research 66, 260-273. Hugdahl K, Thomsen T, Erlsand L, Rimol LM, and Niemi J (2003). The effects of attention on speech perception: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 85 (1), 3748. Hugdahl K, Law I, Kyllingbaek S, Bronnick K, Gade A, and Paulson OB (2000). Effects of attention on dichotic li stening: an O-PET study. Human Brain Mapping 10, 8797. Iacoboni M (2004). Divided attention in the normal and the split brain: chronometry and imaging. Neurobiology of Attention Chp. 60, 363-367. Retrieved from internet on 3/15/2005. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology New York: H. Holt and Company. Keith, RW. (1994). Auditory Continuous Perf ormance Test. San Antonio: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Kemper S, Herman RE, and Lian CHT (2003). The costs of doing two things at once for young and older adults: talking while walki ng, finger tapping, and ignoring speech or noise. Psychology and Aging 18 (2), 181-192. Kim MS, Kim YY, Kim EN, Lee KJ, Ha TH, an d Kim JS (2005). Implicit and explicit memory in patients with obsessive-compulsi ve disorder: An event-related potential study. Journal of Psychiatric Research. Aug 2, 1-9. Kosson DS and Newman JP (1989). Socializat ion and attentional deficits under focusing and divided attention conditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (1), 87-99.

PAGE 85

74 Lipschutz B, Kolinsky R, Damhaut P, Wi kler D, & Goldman S (2002). Attentiondependent changes in activation and c onnectivity in dich otic listening. Neuroimage 17, 643-656. Loose R, Kaufmann C, Auer DP, Lange KW (2003). Human Pref rontal and sensory cortical activity during di vided attention tasks. Human Brain Mapping 18, 249259. Martin DR and Cranford JL (1991). Age-re lated changes in bina ural processing: II Behavioral findings. The American Journal of Otology. 12(5), September. McDowd J & Shaw B (2000). Attention and agi ng: A functional perspective. In Craik F. & Salthouse T. (eds) Handbook of aging and cognition (2nd Ed). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 221-292. Meyer GF and Suerger SM (2001). Cross-m odal integration of auditory and visual motion signals. NeuroReport 12 (11), 2557-2560. Mourant RR, Tsai F-J, Al-Shihabi T, and J aeger BK. Measuring the divided attention capability of young and older drivers. Accessed from website http://www1.coe.neu.edu on 3/15/2005. Mulligan NW (1998). The role of attention during encoding in implicit and explicit memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 24 (1), 27-47. Mulligan NW (2002). Attention and perceptual implicit memory: effects of selective versus divided attention and number of visual objects. Psychological Research Psychologische Forshung Accessed from website http://www.springerlink.com on 3/15/2002. Multitasking and task switching (2005) Accessed from website http:// www.umich.edu on 3/15/2005. Naveh-Benjamin M, Craik FIM, Perretta JG and Toney ST (2000). The effects of divided attention encoding and retrieval pr ocesses: the resiliency of retrieval processes. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 53A (3), 609-625. Navel-Benjamin M, Craik FIM, Guez J, Kre uger S (2005). Divide d attention in younger and older adults: effects of strategy a nd relatedness on memory performance and secondary task costs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. May, 31(3), 520-537. Nilsson M, Gelnett D, Sullivan J, Soli SD and Goldberg RL (1992). 3pPP3: Norms for the Hearing in Noise Test: The influence of spatial separation, hearing loss, and English language experience on speech reception thresholds. 124th meeting of the Acoustical Society of America Nov 1992, New Orleans.

PAGE 86

75 Nindl BC, Leone CA, Tharion WJ, Johnson FR Castellani JW, Patton JF, and Montain SJ (2002). Physical performance responses during 72 h of mili tary operational stress. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise. 1814-1822. Noise: Miriam Webster online dict ionary. Accessed from website http://www.m-c.com on 7/25/2005. Peres SC and Lane DM (2005). Auditory gr aphs: the effects of redundant dimensions and divided attention. Proceedings of ICAD 05-Eleventh Meeting of the International Conference of Auditory Display Limerick, Ireland, July 6-9, 2005. Pichora-Fuller MK, Schneider BA, Danema n M (1995). How young and old adults listen to and remember speech in noise. Journal of the Acoustic al Society of America Jan: 97(1): 593-608. Pilotti M, Beyer T, Yasunami M (2001). Enc oding tasks and the proc essing of perceptual information in young and old adults. Journal of Gerontol ogy: Psychological Sciences Vol. 56B, No. 2, 119-128. Piheiro ML and Musiek FE (1985). Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: foundations and clinical correlates. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 201-217. Pollman S, Lepsien J, Hugdahl K, Cramon DY (2004). Auditory target detection in dichotic listening involves the orbitofrontal and hippocampal paralimbic belts. Cerebral Cortex, 14, 903-913. Prince SE, Daselaar SM, Cabeza R (2005). Nu eral correlates of relational memory: successful encoding and retrieval of sema ntic and perceptual associations. J Neurosci. Feb 2; 25(5): 1203-10. Rajaram S, Srinivas K, and Travers S (2001). The effects of attention on perceptual implicit memory. Memory and Cognition 29 (7), 920-930. Rubinstein J and Meyer D (2001) Is multitaskin g more efficient? Shifting mental gears costs time, especially when shifting to less familiar tasks. Accessed from website http:// www.apa.com on 3/15/2005. Salthouse TA and Hedden T (2002). Interp reting reaction times in between-group comparisons. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology 24 (7), 858872. Schacter DL (1996). Searching for Memor y, the Brain, the Mind, and the Past. Basic Books; New York. Accessed from http://www.brainchannels.com/Memory/ encoding/encoding.html on 11/29/05. Schulman HG (1997). Priming. Accessed at http://www.phsy.ohio-state.edu on 11/18/2005.

PAGE 87

76 Shanks DR, Rowland LA, Ranger MS. (2005). Attentional load and implicit sequence learning. Accessed from http://www.springerlink.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu on 7/21/2005. Published online 23 April 2005. Shellenbarger S (2003). Mu ltitasking makes you stupid, st udies say. Accessed from website http:// www.dfw.com on 3/15/2005. Shinn-Cunningham B and Ihlefeld A (2004). Sel ective and divided attention: extracting information from simultaneous sound sources. Proceedings of ICAD 04-Tenth Meeting of the International Conference on Aud itory Display Sydney, Austrailia, July 6-9, 2004. Shinn J, Baran JA, Moncrieff DW, and Musiek FE (2005) Differential attention effects on dichotic listening. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 16: 205-218. Soli SD and Nilsson M (1994). Assessment of communication handicap with the HINT. Hearing Instruments 45:2; 12-16. Stansfield SA, Berglund B, Clark C, Lopez-Barr io I, Fischer P, Ohrstrom E, Haines MM, Head J, Hygge S, van Kamp I, Berry BF. ( 2005) Aircraft and road traffic noise and children’s cognition and hea lth: a cross-national study. The Lancet June 5, 2005; 365: 1942-49. Stroop JR (1935). Studies of interfer ence in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology 18, 643-662. Accessed from website http://physchclasics.yor ku.ca/Stroop on 3/15/2005 Strouse A, Wilson RH, Brush N. (2000). E ffect of order bias on the recognition of dichotic digits in young and elderly listeners. Audiology Mar-Apri; 39(2): 93-101. Thomas JR, Lockwood PA, Singh A, and De uster PA (1999). Tyrosine improves working memory in a multitasking environment. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 64 (3), 495-500. Tun PA. (1998). Fast noise speech: age di fferences in processing rapid speech with background noise. Psychology and Aging, 13(3), 424-434. Wallace WP, Shaffer TR, Amberg MD, and S ilvers VL (2001). Divided attention and prerecognition processing of spoken words and nonwords. Memory and Cognition 29 (8), 1102-1110. Whittlesea, BWA (2004). The perception of integrality: remembering through the validation of expectation. Journal of Experimental Ps ychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Vol. 30, No.4, 891-908.

PAGE 88

77 Wickens CD, Goh J, Helleberg J, Horrey WJ, and Talleur DA (2003). Attentional models of multitask pilo t performance using advanced display technology. Human Factors 45 (3), 360-380. Williams BR, Hultsch DF, Strauss EH, Hunter MA, and Tannock R (2005). Inconsistency in reaction time across the life span. Neuropsychology, 19 (1), 8896. Williams KE and Voigt JR (2004). Evalua tion of a Computerized Aid for Creating Human Behavioral Representations of Human-Computer Interaction. Human Factors, 46 (2), 288-303. Willingham DB and Preuss L (1995). The death of implicit memory. Psyche 2(15), October. Wilson RH, Abrams HB, Pillion AL (2003). A word-recognition task in multitalker babble using a descending presentation mode from 24 to 0 dB signal to babble. JRRD 40(4), July/August. Yeates KO, Enrile, BG (2005). Implicit and e xplicit memory in chil dren with congenital and acquired brain disorder. Neuropsychology ; Sep, Vol 19(5) 618-628.

PAGE 89

78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lynnette Bosse Bardolf was born on 27 Ma y 1964 in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The youngest of seven children, she grew up mos tly in Jacksonville, Florida, graduating from Fletcher High School in 1982. She ear ned her B.S. in Communication Disorders and her M.S. in Audiology from the Flor ida State University (FSU) in 1989 and 1990, respectively. Also a gradua te of the FSU Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) as a Distinguished Military Graduate, she received a commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Medical Service Corps in 1989. Upon gra duating in December 1990 with her M.S. in Audiology, Lynnette entered the active duty Army as a 1st Lieutenant at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas, in January 1991. As an Army audiolog ist for the past 15 y ears, and currently ranked a Lieutenant Colonel (LTC), Lynnette’s past assignments took her to Colorado, Alabama, Germany, and Hawaii working as a clinical audiol ogist and hearing conservationist serving active duty members, retirees, and military family members in all branches of the U.S. milita ry. Lynnette’s distinguished career has afforded her many wonderful opportunities includi ng a military mission to Nairobi, Kenya, in January 1999 to provide audiology servi ces to victims of the August 1998 Embassy bombings; and selection to the Army’s Long-Term Health Education and Training Program, where her current assignment at the University of Florida in the Depart ment of Communication Sciences and Disorders allowed her the oppor tunity to earn her Ph.D. in Audiology. Upon completion of her Ph.D. program, Lynne tte will be assigned to the U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Lab (USAARL) at Ft Rucker, Alabama. Lynnette has been

PAGE 90

79 married to MAJ M. Keith Bardolf (U.S. Army) for 14 years. They have three daughters: Shauna, age 21 (a U.S. Marine); Michaela, age 6, and Rainey, age 3.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110217_AAAABW INGEST_TIME 2011-02-17T18:04:09Z PACKAGE UFE0014926_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 51571 DFID F20110217_AABPMM ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH bardolf_l_Page_61.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
f03af98e956bb10aa1117a50dde76fc1
SHA-1
535dc6197b681b1c21aba6f7f13e051d10de028e
32977 F20110217_AABPLY bardolf_l_Page_44.pro
a0c80953203b0d48a21ec60f3031365f
7717cd0247cde65d20d5ca61f370187e35b64518
49096 F20110217_AABPNB bardolf_l_Page_80.pro
1a0c4147164a15035be167a3b2e65bd4
1a1ac6145108c4a93cc08b6341164bf2a2e79c25
47857 F20110217_AABPMN bardolf_l_Page_62.pro
4635bb7f6dde909f96998cb675aab44a
4ee458e6af54e985ee8e3fe9b57425b85bca4d11
26726 F20110217_AABPLZ bardolf_l_Page_46.pro
33c77599fe15aeadcbab6631f6e5c7cb
b5b8ef09e2c6a542f0a78a344c5e775ce8a07b8e
8357 F20110217_AABPNC bardolf_l_Page_81.pro
ab8aea1f82bc0ef97e87677459064dc5
e0a3ebcacf0a66880909a0bc9e94903461264f0e
47042 F20110217_AABPMO bardolf_l_Page_64.pro
24bc190f8d9650e035501d9e2856d05b
f8efbe6c23fb772df545d60ae4efbc3ccf4409e7
48845 F20110217_AABPND bardolf_l_Page_82.pro
777076df4ad0e6dd1beb909c6185ae94
666ff5c0f117d468793cab1c156267173a71336c
40955 F20110217_AABPMP bardolf_l_Page_65.pro
2446fbdf8efdabe187c9102c083c506b
5007e88fd81c0a1dfc4e687612d12af915721295
56798 F20110217_AABPNE bardolf_l_Page_84.pro
c0f149925e16849ac59e4972d97c140b
c2b2fe506996c3654cda597610eed05a7f2c1e66
24090 F20110217_AABPMQ bardolf_l_Page_66.pro
93cd3e9e28bd0100c3ed401ebc299ed4
8d20fd6af0b740bfafa91e16c7d63609f7612564
62449 F20110217_AABPNF bardolf_l_Page_85.pro
57e5f23957cc13aee3cdfae45d95a043
a96867f09b6380f8ee57005987aa82971c6c93e3
44000 F20110217_AABPMR bardolf_l_Page_67.pro
d116797685555a6fb27bab077a6f966f
b247cf405b89a0372210a5378af25daa044f7cde
59749 F20110217_AABPNG bardolf_l_Page_86.pro
c94a32aff82dd0a789c4b319a8cd10ee
6c616138725f796f10cfbebe82bdbe239bcf044b
21620 F20110217_AABPMS bardolf_l_Page_68.pro
27727ae80c2567d47e6f4ae503ab0732
6db10d331b080726e12e21295f75f75df605f790
57477 F20110217_AABPNH bardolf_l_Page_87.pro
ee0cd43257106a932701c6810090dece
0313392d0a12a9e7794147413e16c4598714aa46
55523 F20110217_AABPMT bardolf_l_Page_69.pro
ab8cf049df4d14abe6d2af9036a26bc4
623f1852ff6f21897b4ce03fc436fc2b863c0b33
25004 F20110217_AABPNI bardolf_l_Page_88.pro
632656f0ce0967dfe64aaea7145ca33d
44fe662e54e738bff783e757eb66e4be89c7366b
51810 F20110217_AABPMU bardolf_l_Page_70.pro
1f074f7afb838a80327a0e0c339dc3d0
9eded570f14be42f83d585322c408a13da152ec7
45179 F20110217_AABPNJ bardolf_l_Page_89.pro
e9bb383bf90d3cedf8032a9f05fd10e5
8960f96a39fd0f45571cbc34ca8b3cbc63ffd1ad
56364 F20110217_AABPMV bardolf_l_Page_71.pro
d6a005c68f2b18863add8ddd1476906f
7ff9c59bc5c8ff8cb260cfe2547a915bdcac56a3
4339 F20110217_AABPNK bardolf_l_Page_90.pro
1711fad95a75e615d8c956a5b9011464
4e31ba0f284475b99c7e442da7c56ace860400e1
55575 F20110217_AABPMW bardolf_l_Page_72.pro
c6e4dfe55da6513eca3e6ab28899dd32
6404ab74e2408bbbe6c2841c56899eb205196c7c
23379 F20110217_AABPNL bardolf_l_Page_01.jpg
927e8d3cce9fb89e42c7a7d960d4ea1b
db293ab881c4f847413a0231086f1a4a9ccef274
47814 F20110217_AABPMX bardolf_l_Page_76.pro
024b94b24b424958d8959bf9d2893381
72fd6dc20fd293d464a2655f9a91cef57d271d19
97769 F20110217_AABPOA bardolf_l_Page_20.jpg
27354744368d8026abe9169a1d67f64b
770bbac8589545a5ea9f4815d93e491f9cfb94f8
45990 F20110217_AABPMY bardolf_l_Page_77.pro
728fc2b59740bde81ab8a53c1b0e638c
553a3c24b51cf0d6247bda8fcfbb96325aee2cf1
99787 F20110217_AABPOB bardolf_l_Page_21.jpg
de700bc868df98ce8a01e4c188e34fea
df23a244e37e1af6801758a47934278a3ae4a642
5155 F20110217_AABPNM bardolf_l_Page_02.jpg
c60108a28323312322ebeceb37386901
041328dbf2e26fa4745223895fdde4aaa40c43cf
48820 F20110217_AABPMZ bardolf_l_Page_78.pro
5e8c2632857288a318ba3157e1fd8b8a
cae75850825b392503116d82cebfad6a0e5a2927
106033 F20110217_AABPOC bardolf_l_Page_23.jpg
e9427bd7386885d4c792ba70583d023c
03aeec1f88898347c8f743e5b1fdc5de1dae7acf
89415 F20110217_AABPNN bardolf_l_Page_04.jpg
c6571a274bf3a7f71a74a73a03a0bc97
c17d3cef461ee0e4702fff9cddba012a4638244e
102279 F20110217_AABPOD bardolf_l_Page_24.jpg
f993ad4be03a043796b10eb4edd58d2b
c2654fa82cd3e9ca7f1ea9993071a2a4efa4afe8
98368 F20110217_AABPNO bardolf_l_Page_05.jpg
383945446edc6db48a4824e9be8f46f2
73bcf62ffaa65003b8db3437532eee9f1324992a
87005 F20110217_AABPOE bardolf_l_Page_25.jpg
1f64635c95a64792e662a92eb208f09d
1abc1ff818b519ca92f8b76b2558e0f77b071ce0
70705 F20110217_AABPNP bardolf_l_Page_06.jpg
eba7d3d901b18428f2e0609142255a10
a4b81816b3f63b9efaaf6f9d6bdf0f275d1841d8
105351 F20110217_AABPOF bardolf_l_Page_26.jpg
a223f9de24516e67fff459e0c061c34e
752f7691aab8286ccce28c3258537fd429e3d8b7
94056 F20110217_AABPNQ bardolf_l_Page_07.jpg
9b2b6f51d8b8f9a22fba38a0e524e9f2
d1c68b9cfd5c409af60e00d7b1d565e4882d5388
100800 F20110217_AABPOG bardolf_l_Page_27.jpg
5c86f2d29546b3686b5784888b1834d0
a4685af11d448b4b913eb2944182b49b91f201ef
40099 F20110217_AABPNR bardolf_l_Page_09.jpg
c554769207d387fc499e670a585b8793
f7ccd5438fac0190680c79beeb08d1a97dc59422
98801 F20110217_AABPOH bardolf_l_Page_28.jpg
6673d9154039448362d48aab7fdb29a4
c545b40c5241ea09671d6ab08cbbee99837c3e09
85413 F20110217_AABPNS bardolf_l_Page_10.jpg
0725ad72dff1f7fb231e3da659b6747c
1fcbbffeec025380a7f8ef8c6a4b7342727892b5
105877 F20110217_AABPOI bardolf_l_Page_30.jpg
fdd7e3965f1b92f349b175951f6f713f
1e35dde142171315a763ec47d42777c2a7a71323
92292 F20110217_AABPNT bardolf_l_Page_12.jpg
fff8c6b18b817c6054c44edef38b5f17
d1c3020d016cb33a6ee233754470c1de8a11c522
37987 F20110217_AABPOJ bardolf_l_Page_31.jpg
c4771d8141a2604865bbc25035ef6a33
788c7210bc6448cf6f3a8e639c8cbd52b04d246b
99126 F20110217_AABPNU bardolf_l_Page_13.jpg
db59a92017a402d99be4ae02fed26688
347f7918f913154b821aa2fa6efc3bf5910947c4
105687 F20110217_AABPOK bardolf_l_Page_32.jpg
8a3941b3f2fddb883eddc0b3f2d7e1e2
7b4b80b72700f9a52388975ac975538b031302ec
102239 F20110217_AABPNV bardolf_l_Page_14.jpg
6c8c0337560bc541e37755ed427c217e
ca64f992d671b2cc1c76a4f7fb73dca5f569571d
101271 F20110217_AABPOL bardolf_l_Page_33.jpg
45e178cedc88a575703d506f115a4148
629072e7330238149167796b12a36434c139d2eb
90993 F20110217_AABPNW bardolf_l_Page_16.jpg
e2830abe1043ca36bd7ef9f6612b97fc
3a841940ce2b81b943f3f4deaf03578d0db1977f
74117 F20110217_AABPPA bardolf_l_Page_53.jpg
9a7b5bcbade8c055e240c3bd5e91e85a
3f937ceb5f748de1e36bf040e791c3a113d51073
99441 F20110217_AABPOM bardolf_l_Page_34.jpg
7b477a2ee51353664642fd2dfee0a3eb
b24f312ef691e9341bb947ab789fced8ea3b45dd
97881 F20110217_AABPNX bardolf_l_Page_17.jpg
8373c959f765304d96dbc64312bf5c9f
76df35cb84b65608e6387d7f08dabc50875f7acc
44742 F20110217_AABPPB bardolf_l_Page_54.jpg
68f82ef8937429bdf8a8c9ac57e5c3a6
4f3e97fb3cf05c885aeeb60e3530757e8e2edd09
108914 F20110217_AABPNY bardolf_l_Page_18.jpg
c3406b339d761e3cb19ff95d14b2f622
a96e310017d78aa9607f7751d5a8a3efcc0a5f9f
17283 F20110217_AABPPC bardolf_l_Page_55.jpg
4b0b582077d9825dc42022839e6d735e
eae9f73f40bc2016bc565471de8d2136f6ce9a5d
103034 F20110217_AABPON bardolf_l_Page_35.jpg
b84de23ffe301b29451301993ad66d27
d0fac51f32207aa704e20104a0b0e50625829641
102762 F20110217_AABPNZ bardolf_l_Page_19.jpg
762c7b0570cd383c86a63c3bfd450634
687c4fa515db86e6d54edc0d048d10fa5a689aee
88482 F20110217_AABPPD bardolf_l_Page_56.jpg
ee5349beae56ef584da01fbe0960db7f
fd730defa5456756658b140280ac59a089a86892
101103 F20110217_AABPOO bardolf_l_Page_36.jpg
6f5fb149dd226e0a89febae3fd2f0b9b
fd1ce40a29ea713c29308c2c04d90057f64c3587
96878 F20110217_AABPPE bardolf_l_Page_57.jpg
47eeb806f475068868a401d14236390e
74790595cccb3978946aef724a49b80233e2029c
93135 F20110217_AABPOP bardolf_l_Page_37.jpg
4674bb008004ff69c7b13a58fb873461
5056e36887465b9ad3b3d0eceafaa7aeea51a7db
95021 F20110217_AABPPF bardolf_l_Page_58.jpg
ff1cb6525a963fd2c21649e4a794b8f4
ce83cc7a2bdf10d8516dd45ffd8d31fa5967e135
89002 F20110217_AABPOQ bardolf_l_Page_39.jpg
1c128fe0303e4dd5b4dde2c6fdc6f5e4
61349bc02cbbc7e0d66699be9caa707f3f97ed06
105820 F20110217_AABPPG bardolf_l_Page_59.jpg
83ded2de35fd725765d6a7080317e6f1
84e685fb12552d4b09647a49d7a3bfd0c90ab01a
77416 F20110217_AABPOR bardolf_l_Page_42.jpg
87e54551a8744f7360493c5f3de5f33b
72e4c2521a464d6d8569f03c4a5cc46b6da5206c
107115 F20110217_AABPPH bardolf_l_Page_60.jpg
23866861cc83f91bbe9a247f99c79933
01ee7ae49dfc1ca3d07932cb6d752bbd8a864eaa
89836 F20110217_AABPOS bardolf_l_Page_43.jpg
a312edd16a65991d6ae49058ca6b19f9
417f016833a8c9e7739c94e0d6c722ba02442022
103237 F20110217_AABPPI bardolf_l_Page_61.jpg
067c293214eef74991c153a60799fcde
108821d98d1965481e05311221726e44aa115347
51109 F20110217_AABPOT bardolf_l_Page_44.jpg
a39dfb88f0fc4fc7ae49859971646648
09c1e762b232f70a18240645bc23d1b30e4b3d5e
96114 F20110217_AABPPJ bardolf_l_Page_62.jpg
a8f53ad209314227aa93be0f454d8976
db9f705b1ae651d309f2ff3b4c1487ede38942b1
71556 F20110217_AABPOU bardolf_l_Page_45.jpg
f38553d8ddc68b21961f03848993bfd6
0630590b23b5bfc59139ae04eed4c43a024b6cf7
78450 F20110217_AABPPK bardolf_l_Page_64.jpg
9b492fe17d390ddd033afc0ceb665054
019285de8a6a5a78276637aecdc2ecfc599b45d0
67914 F20110217_AABPOV bardolf_l_Page_46.jpg
26db8d197e724972b24fb13ae7210f0b
a364ccded8ecff4c1bc8772a4475fb66b24553b3
75534 F20110217_AABPPL bardolf_l_Page_65.jpg
4f8cfa0fedbcde1331130f23eab45e60
2555cb92a27958925b1dc5fd70257eb7074a28e4
94874 F20110217_AABPOW bardolf_l_Page_47.jpg
8ec5a0acee074c0c5bc3ab2aee071348
b33caeae731ff69e8834ee0523cb8c9643fddc87
41079 F20110217_AABPPM bardolf_l_Page_66.jpg
75fffaf23bfb5acb4bf3f9978e94d635
d47ae4ec8ce864e464b84e725612cab19160ac53
68522 F20110217_AABPOX bardolf_l_Page_48.jpg
04591f7bde7d35f255b833ad770f636f
1e62f4f7c9fb0059ca3fd63c3363f27ddc83b8af
82510 F20110217_AABPQA bardolf_l_Page_80.jpg
632f9cae3a9316f54b28ea82369dff81
f43178f94724edfb8c536cd9649662106d0abcfd
87249 F20110217_AABPPN bardolf_l_Page_67.jpg
d6def4fb4078df358330f9f3f231fdb5
141c2b9c9ba146abaf041f014fe59b7326039952
86565 F20110217_AABPOY bardolf_l_Page_49.jpg
3cbdf559affa9ecda7bca3f69c14beb4
b5493237d487d2369dbe5e9baceccc0015b48a73
23396 F20110217_AABPQB bardolf_l_Page_81.jpg
b49b1022b2ad713b4824c86ee44c91c1
f6ccf32e8f15b8582387785366f0851b332e8569
92784 F20110217_AABPOZ bardolf_l_Page_52.jpg
38381b83c6c9200dbc74b2c813222efa
7573c9f16f63d0ecb778831fe5810d4ba5071634
97688 F20110217_AABPQC bardolf_l_Page_82.jpg
ea3c9bf95a22d8d731ab59ec0ed7adbf
5a3130a5dfc87b0e17ffd46f27831bfe68590771
46725 F20110217_AABPPO bardolf_l_Page_68.jpg
9cca08ec10c4b2a713abd6bd22a16f0d
93abfe24c47fe15000589557087dc6f1ef59b6bf
121559 F20110217_AABPQD bardolf_l_Page_83.jpg
31f6279626369e5d26bcddeee31767a5
882c5304d0324ac7b2a0c51f704a99cd70f48442
79120 F20110217_AABPPP bardolf_l_Page_69.jpg
67fb182925b9418c6bc0d0e966178bfa
1ec4dff35e14b003712fb7f5e607419932630efd
123374 F20110217_AABPQE bardolf_l_Page_84.jpg
24c14525d46cd9dd48870309f907255c
8f14f6811164f81b017c36eb9f7f17539539dd07
70878 F20110217_AABPPQ bardolf_l_Page_70.jpg
bace7e7856e0de51a907a589421751ae
e407563f4bec89c41104a3104f7619f56728a3c0
128677 F20110217_AABPQF bardolf_l_Page_85.jpg
6b79d3491194907f21b8f2a674cf5dcf
549d4368a81b5949867f1a56b7c30424cb35391a
88325 F20110217_AABPPR bardolf_l_Page_71.jpg
4881445a2fddd037efe4202a4a712bd9
8319fe71dec7b79ab7666372b00bb0851adfa179
121137 F20110217_AABPQG bardolf_l_Page_86.jpg
a16e2d5d1098bde84d2a1094fb971d01
e852e40af54ae09a7b49bdd8690548db9b58b438
88845 F20110217_AABPPS bardolf_l_Page_72.jpg
6031188f67ed0711f12da1eff8039711
ce7029c14bb63113de9170a99d388a75c97751e2
116750 F20110217_AABPQH bardolf_l_Page_87.jpg
24851524a782b83c24bb3df3e2aadeef
9d7dc41b165553db2c429e9574b3798de914b0aa
85546 F20110217_AABPPT bardolf_l_Page_73.jpg
dab357e7b14a1f7d81e3028d5bca9149
21c3b190a3d3a03f0ce7b961390c2623063d09f4
57179 F20110217_AABPQI bardolf_l_Page_88.jpg
11b504a70a7355b593af30b84fd790ac
f73e52d181a0440049a31082fde67e39671fb506
84196 F20110217_AABPPU bardolf_l_Page_74.jpg
c4379cc2e43d9aef9bae46b320bdf116
e652033449ebb19b4bd764d60d98ed645d93fc8c
95199 F20110217_AABPQJ bardolf_l_Page_89.jpg
26807f8ed7651a4ddc841b19ff4155e5
2634e97efba9abe838ae9f63c886043840e2f4be
11876 F20110217_AABPQK bardolf_l_Page_90.jpg
f5aa618b5576b6592b2cca6836708696
17232cf6181d3478afe39143d21062719f6bfbd4
82026 F20110217_AABPPV bardolf_l_Page_75.jpg
c12498af7453e4f3e0d9c646c6781b5b
9c08a29667948c0c2b534df66086fdeb58774ab0
221474 F20110217_AABPQL bardolf_l_Page_01.jp2
29a48368d229dc73809e29b7de25b8e5
2c1ee1ec7a3df891c02761708989b39eee8b189e
80810 F20110217_AABPPW bardolf_l_Page_76.jpg
f39561158c183730983df1b1b44851df
18f680dd04e676dd20c4a968af31e6decc4bb53f
1051979 F20110217_AABPRA bardolf_l_Page_18.jp2
45f72dc71d874e2f56b24c4d95377b9a
5f79644b93ee8985ea7a6c026dab0d3f2c68f240
32040 F20110217_AABPQM bardolf_l_Page_02.jp2
57f01d93ac35812e5873b5499c89891f
3f12b16c54b77c89344277a27fdf94c74b837f12
81608 F20110217_AABPPX bardolf_l_Page_77.jpg
fe8671fca4c11a015f4de1ed5fb158b7
b3cd85d01728be39ce57766f6627c8ca22100b56
1051939 F20110217_AABPRB bardolf_l_Page_19.jp2
666da41620136f95aef51a90edd47bbd
7499ec26f60f7df2f36162ee5415de20c1aa20ec
961561 F20110217_AABPQN bardolf_l_Page_04.jp2
a3afa7cf624bfe6124ee37a3877952af
3ececf1074346342fc97b010e91042fa1857bef4
79736 F20110217_AABPPY bardolf_l_Page_78.jpg
5970a94317224950cc686665a9fdaef5
f42729e4139cb3e8e8ef869af3f051ab886beabe
1051982 F20110217_AABPRC bardolf_l_Page_20.jp2
f75f4d57ebd553436a604d91322fa73d
b1aca54877da6fe6add9de33dea6f93351897a12
1051929 F20110217_AABPQO bardolf_l_Page_05.jp2
8a08a31a4f318989f35d29401944b184
6f0fff78a1d10eeb63708da6a96397b46c8e8739
80383 F20110217_AABPPZ bardolf_l_Page_79.jpg
51efccd161d657a4bcf054315cadf3b0
e84e39259a82afa3cfc29d9bbb8e0b1fd5d74a4d
1051973 F20110217_AABPRD bardolf_l_Page_21.jp2
88a2314d391cbe21db976786c6c57360
c030fe9661f4cab04ea41f40445692be65f331fa
1051963 F20110217_AABPRE bardolf_l_Page_22.jp2
176cf28c009aa9a89bb3a5beb195f178
f3560daf84ecb6a79df4f8f5227889c954d4ff3e
702015 F20110217_AABPQP bardolf_l_Page_06.jp2
f4b31cdf7c5421c8ca5d31ba6622a61d
6b77504d92d57c0afadb1e89ba3eb8ab94db6b43
1051954 F20110217_AABPRF bardolf_l_Page_23.jp2
b243d7a56696eaa1b46bdc849c870521
eab84a703d4581f6d5c9c99177a02af1c20bb915
933525 F20110217_AABPQQ bardolf_l_Page_07.jp2
cef268fa071720e562aa55a8c3c0cdff
575f6c76ab6ea619fe197a7162cf3b166ccf7fe1
1051978 F20110217_AABPRG bardolf_l_Page_24.jp2
6213c1268358220189c8bb4be7331feb
f8af0f2bba5c58f253494d3a10c280d96b0dcc98
112412 F20110217_AABPQR bardolf_l_Page_08.jp2
989030516ee649fa96ce1a0d6472d078
8912787cfec47b1075085a86a701b49d8ccb2267
1051946 F20110217_AABPRH bardolf_l_Page_26.jp2
68d8496bce320378f36335c9464497f9
ae4f18de8e3c50af1c61011cf2c896b3a6b1a276
389019 F20110217_AABPQS bardolf_l_Page_09.jp2
1c73b5090c5f65111a2dd127da609946
db2b706802b02d3dffb117616eaef1f3fa46682d
1051970 F20110217_AABPRI bardolf_l_Page_27.jp2
8e4a6057726d9c181791410ee3d3223f
900809caadeebdddab8ce170481662a8451d5d7d
914151 F20110217_AABPQT bardolf_l_Page_10.jp2
bf53d58a9f91ea1ca5115b1a4a104f15
0f4c97de5f4df4d86efb81d1e34a2beb5992ec87
1051952 F20110217_AABPRJ bardolf_l_Page_28.jp2
c2be87dee5169169859ca599175f4a95
19b9afab6c23c7925a0b4a21f4042424282ab3b8
993295 F20110217_AABPQU bardolf_l_Page_12.jp2
dd7a79c145950ed50321ed96d2d00c71
cbb5c549f4d0452473ed9d2be7a1031c333bf240
1051944 F20110217_AABPRK bardolf_l_Page_30.jp2
7ce1207fe08586cc54b88e1b5016c191
e0576fc40abd9c1d87f42fd4fbfac283b25f2d45
F20110217_AABPQV bardolf_l_Page_13.jp2
c6b5c00a557de6b4e38875fbf19d38b2
48a839d01e2dc1b1bbaaeed0b8036654a1fbdc1f
395185 F20110217_AABPRL bardolf_l_Page_31.jp2
4b3b0ee7d7859bc671ede9114656f722
d6664cebab3fc4a11cebe761db6e5deab198b152
1051980 F20110217_AABPQW bardolf_l_Page_14.jp2
b91036d8d4d402d27c1544b79f1c8b46
c59137d56c30ffd51b7c4a86522d34a8309f93fb
1051975 F20110217_AABPRM bardolf_l_Page_32.jp2
c7d4dec5ae3235b2aa6b470c656b7530
491c408f15e5a93d056cd88ecd6773802512aeaa
119589 F20110217_AABPQX bardolf_l_Page_15.jp2
26dc36b5babb6a149293eb8c3d933369
7251265a19f27daaf3b8e3aa853ac6397b49b0aa
243751 F20110217_AABPSA bardolf_l_Page_51.jp2
08d7baddcad1b239aeba4965e17b8346
216e16aa02f719fca690018f2045851c4df19159
1051947 F20110217_AABPRN bardolf_l_Page_33.jp2
f16d48350dea5d0483f353bbf77af147
29755d7cf5baa089b28903af8e6fc5a41e7da8ea
986020 F20110217_AABPQY bardolf_l_Page_16.jp2
53959a3a2ef153fccc2505cf719ee653
f452802977d557bea19ff851680541895276d087
1005516 F20110217_AABPSB bardolf_l_Page_52.jp2
aa07d8b79c9b2a0f507aad1a354aa2ae
46a12e16003a0f15fa8f865fb16bb74253734f96
1051984 F20110217_AABPRO bardolf_l_Page_34.jp2
75725e8fb19f8dea12813b2746a8d089
d70a119b14c6014a0d10a8e6ca5f400b755b220d
F20110217_AABPQZ bardolf_l_Page_17.jp2
ee2af8e013560d22ed71716dc15ace50
a66b84c0e9f074f1c7fc06345b025850cf71775c
715105 F20110217_AABPSC bardolf_l_Page_53.jp2
f90c2f52e1027b9f7b7139a5751187ce
b0d1bc5c61cf9908e475dfac6423b5b018370e5b
1051906 F20110217_AABPRP bardolf_l_Page_36.jp2
b83a7b55b961a1979b533bacaf7e7870
a3786db47f40df056eb80c23e35efe292e50acb2
963316 F20110217_AABPSD bardolf_l_Page_56.jp2
028d096be09631a18d801abf741b2869
edf181824f5c2197a2205f7ac114413e57be1f3d
F20110217_AABPSE bardolf_l_Page_57.jp2
5fa25d29d463e4642e73b0a7b0b61df4
cb9713766cd738fe68b0150412aa5d86e6ff3228
997267 F20110217_AABPRQ bardolf_l_Page_37.jp2
891c3ef1a3197f634c259dc35389cb2e
43bfc8a765b67689c30fad5ccb08e13369c014ca
1039301 F20110217_AABPSF bardolf_l_Page_58.jp2
2411389e860cf0f7075f4d5b08f10a3b
294231dd9f108c8cb485007d20181f1bedaf2f6c
478150 F20110217_AABPRR bardolf_l_Page_38.jp2
66fa078b94931c47c94729a032400b8e
f2c1d2446520309b9460c665515ccdbd3273d12b
1051907 F20110217_AABPSG bardolf_l_Page_59.jp2
280eeb0e94202020e697d2401f70d3c8
4f7c17ef23ee43cbf9ec80b196e401ebf7191280
1013520 F20110217_AABPRS bardolf_l_Page_41.jp2
273b55ffa400e7893f9eeb1820ef2152
a6d8d1209003ff87c6c6e892cfc8aa4a969d2086
1051937 F20110217_AABPSH bardolf_l_Page_60.jp2
ecb99b9b9ba832af52616c5b005f2144
755a30b1334f6a2c5f431c1cd67cbcb3c17220f5
523125 F20110217_AABPRT bardolf_l_Page_44.jp2
fb97af866a0e37292e887292928e8b8b
9a6ffa97424fb3de0854cb65a697e734d1f80b2a
1051902 F20110217_AABPSI bardolf_l_Page_61.jp2
d04f065f68576a898fb9f1b1429567e7
23fb2cad63ecfee9608c39b64e51470a13fa3159
767979 F20110217_AABPRU bardolf_l_Page_45.jp2
9c6d7b9481281fdfedd92b211b51d782
cfd503bec3ca1110c71d91407636fa6b4f4f448e
1050260 F20110217_AABPSJ bardolf_l_Page_62.jp2
8312169af15cc598eee5ffbe2b221f87
728b6c36d9857bd2ec8a44284cc3da4a51793304
671760 F20110217_AABPRV bardolf_l_Page_46.jp2
9f85061858b42c084fa53265710ab7c9
935948f3f56262a2af5921619ff8735b2f70f697
691102 F20110217_AABPSK bardolf_l_Page_63.jp2
602e32e17249ddd5c56adb593c51f5f5
4997a69393ed86b7fa7cadb56e82fa3c1806f3dc
1031991 F20110217_AABPRW bardolf_l_Page_47.jp2
7ef5c7c6f482f8f474807814ef7bac84
4f9f771422292eae14cff9c68ced98659251d2a8
872667 F20110217_AABPSL bardolf_l_Page_64.jp2
7a08e2f3ae8d83ac6f47e00206ae2370
dfebac8707ab924e6ac330bb315bfd521caff4b4
652336 F20110217_AABPRX bardolf_l_Page_48.jp2
93bfe93de6b7e7757a21ad4ce7c780f8
6925f2cb7fc0d28e7c1369b494db3ed706a1e116
217370 F20110217_AABPTA bardolf_l_Page_81.jp2
630928426efd82ca39a79e4f88ff7731
3a854882af05eed0627aef696b68ced1446cbc2c
804727 F20110217_AABPSM bardolf_l_Page_65.jp2
aa6022e6e427528e0d99988470c62547
8fee9334242059fb8d1b957022e40c7bd882af41
948458 F20110217_AABPRY bardolf_l_Page_49.jp2
a88862f269ee320f9f753a71c66cad46
4aeebb73b2c796b5307cc975981b630812afdc43
F20110217_AABPTB bardolf_l_Page_82.jp2
cff4372e6b5614e897eb75d4e762b370
8ce3b3d2b9b5f0065fbc2a8dd86c50b49a6c21fc
439614 F20110217_AABPSN bardolf_l_Page_66.jp2
f8bebde2acd7bf52ab82688ff0cffc83
35a08e1899fb9823087aa2b5b492c308e0b92290
292411 F20110217_AABPRZ bardolf_l_Page_50.jp2
97e8000ccc507d6079b3fbb3d8074630
1e83239a689b3891d0f8380a2051fe33cd466994
1051895 F20110217_AABPTC bardolf_l_Page_83.jp2
ac965a005eae4703f5dcd4c02c65e00e
ac338428b7b394d451bbf7384c290bf004a7c2d6
949881 F20110217_AABPSO bardolf_l_Page_67.jp2
d01d7b41d8ec3a282c85b84360d98c63
4e0f65e755faa1b012e86d004e326051d324869f
1051960 F20110217_AABPTD bardolf_l_Page_84.jp2
ee903e92a4bd316841e5bf2584f0259e
7a06ead7f6d0541f6e404c7165e0f47c24279ae8
427222 F20110217_AABPSP bardolf_l_Page_68.jp2
6ae7a2fd853bd1d5e4075e1aceda88ab
070fee64e7b1d94e37d0474c03a2ce1dab972a26
F20110217_AABPTE bardolf_l_Page_85.jp2
ac7be687a861146ee3a868a22a29d426
f91b950c7232696598395274e4cb174dde67e2be
898702 F20110217_AABPSQ bardolf_l_Page_69.jp2
d6d7f8bb0b636e0ca599ff775ab466bf
ae5edcb595bf354754fe2b89d77a960e08f987b4
F20110217_AABPTF bardolf_l_Page_87.jp2
a75c47d2728f1b07bf1da3be7b441713
0c887d23c2a96af5ab14015dd922e6054cc6359d
582294 F20110217_AABPTG bardolf_l_Page_88.jp2
01163eccaee942b05043f796885818c6
b56e2b259210a9da9505d5c77f4fe63b1c0b6ffe
823702 F20110217_AABPSR bardolf_l_Page_70.jp2
4c8aa9cc8dea8e63cf9628656cf3c647
df5a925e779fa5c6b5589f3a762dc97a79e80b03
99477 F20110217_AABPTH bardolf_l_Page_90.jp2
dcfae28b10995b223a6032d4c3a25c55
75af4363ce12685812b0f710299d625aee9685fb
903378 F20110217_AABPSS bardolf_l_Page_72.jp2
5d1e27c2fc6c0b4b462ad07fe3464213
c1f8219d20a6e44b3ef043d987fae89de9409a46
335607 F20110217_AABPTI bardolf_l.pdf
1796189238ba37a9efa25d19ce869300
fe6e4ea887244667922d86720ac0e58e3a4cd7d2
835899 F20110217_AABPST bardolf_l_Page_73.jp2
009023d834bf923b2b8c5edcbc8c6e6f
8f334cc98394902976b6c195fea3b13e04004c5f
14752 F20110217_AABPTJ bardolf_l_Page_50.QC.jpg
b549fef9d71923311d47b7daa4ee7aee
225bd4527fb7e7d3aa2ede9021cca91d50f7d4ef
823044 F20110217_AABPSU bardolf_l_Page_74.jp2
202a8153e33edf008441d6ac6ab0d1e6
842283ed292767b2c0460b18c0f410b5bb04372a
30514 F20110217_AABPTK bardolf_l_Page_58.QC.jpg
0671c31bbb0c00b09b41089d3969cdd6
6f56e6629953a7259b9e950655da9597135a7959
820405 F20110217_AABPSV bardolf_l_Page_75.jp2
dc01f02e030e85b63ca56efe9f0abec6
596bc537d2b289b1aae861347c98c99c1d094aa6
7859 F20110217_AABPTL bardolf_l_Page_20thm.jpg
57badd56c2b2c43042a3164599bb826b
07ff2468c88d024f26c59e7f1517b3da50528d5f
785462 F20110217_AABPSW bardolf_l_Page_76.jp2
76cce1571e38c2f08cf1a439617061a7
c021ac420131484df578ae905a499a074c24dc06
22531 F20110217_AABPUA bardolf_l_Page_07.QC.jpg
a1574ff070a8be34b62891a605d8d2fa
b23c6df237bc5ec49a83c3475435945129aa87e5
6016 F20110217_AABPTM bardolf_l_Page_42thm.jpg
30e12b82c7872c9afad742df3f2d3578
3aec4d21fd9b35022360dfe0a45f4752c4524f18
801716 F20110217_AABPSX bardolf_l_Page_78.jp2
95953cc04dd96e3bb93410c364f30cc6
732eee3d1a89071696fdd6d76b1a64af4a7b0642
32417 F20110217_AABPUB bardolf_l_Page_27.QC.jpg
791cad7eceb99584bcd8366befb3b55d
28db832429ce90c1248a02a3c282346423d22889
33313 F20110217_AABPTN bardolf_l_Page_35.QC.jpg
908ced50dc494368bcb9a1e930ada6b7
739bd0c0aa57b0367e9f9117f005f357cdc90edc
803580 F20110217_AABPSY bardolf_l_Page_79.jp2
9d0a99fa31e7aadfb9ff542fd48d401f
82e82b3421c0be93c6219763467602d423b7a8b9
5365 F20110217_AABPUC bardolf_l_Page_38thm.jpg
2e1237cb5df5f613e6c69a7ce50e32f4
2bd014b8c0be61cce626565afb241da5d364185f
7328 F20110217_AABPTO bardolf_l_Page_43thm.jpg
fd3d76f050dfa8402f28b01630a18ebf
831d9f71764678811a43e1764581608afb7b9365
806090 F20110217_AABPSZ bardolf_l_Page_80.jp2
8915bcdee8c527f21435e2a60e85b023
5067759ff3ee6827d0a7482115798f2cbd96c5a6
8212 F20110217_AABPUD bardolf_l_Page_19thm.jpg
04c8fa6797b0e4c75cc2abca9170d621
991916c950b04dd2b62f1e414a91b033549196aa
7432 F20110217_AABPTP bardolf_l_Page_47thm.jpg
6ef2ea0655db58f946764649770959c6
55ba8fd4f5310de7cc7f7975c024825164942b20
4419 F20110217_AABPUE bardolf_l_Page_03.QC.jpg
27a77e941e4952536c09c7a0cc91409d
93f52ec6ef58237a9392efbde79b86bc13b512c3
4556 F20110217_AABPTQ bardolf_l_Page_54thm.jpg
c8c67ff0ff65307e12ed14f02856c0fe
2779fd76c28fee5f27544517b18ee6c5e87cd8bc
629 F20110217_AABPUF bardolf_l_Page_02thm.jpg
eb206e75c5a78438a988df12710a941a
02341e0dc5eba3a4b6fe1266da40026c0e3b7b86
20467 F20110217_AABPTR bardolf_l_Page_70.QC.jpg
24701edb385ad06cf25b3e2a33109b78
7868e1739baba238a1a643dad812b49e56f8249e
6686 F20110217_AABPUG bardolf_l_Page_80thm.jpg
6c6c7de9f19c4a36c3d22062d8789ed4
14470e2b98f50ceea202ce69355fc098c02adafc
8124 F20110217_AABPUH bardolf_l_Page_21thm.jpg
53b15785fc6542b63013f8ff9a831021
f50644682ed2d20bdee589ca42991484f60693e9
8325 F20110217_AABPTS bardolf_l_Page_05thm.jpg
ba9c1cfee833c24ce07bbd78e7e409b6
157e5b82c575042168bc9a50517c368f91e19b4e
1228 F20110217_AABPUI bardolf_l_Page_90thm.jpg
804270a13002a5aaeb414e1b00307dd8
905a1e9cd1be775a0763dd7d875b3e6caf9ac5e1
30847 F20110217_AABPTT bardolf_l_Page_41.QC.jpg
63a402cd0e3dc49c7007b6920881d879
60a90541c273be463c91e8176f4a8d38a0995abb
32416 F20110217_AABPUJ bardolf_l_Page_62.QC.jpg
10e96e4779fbdb4cf723b8c8e67ececc
f2d64159b857df9b7afb5367247201463798287d
32300 F20110217_AABPTU bardolf_l_Page_14.QC.jpg
3cbdec7fbcca2056b2bd09b7adb3d86f
ad82ba7d7a812665c10653815b016012441f9ae4
4107 F20110217_AABPUK bardolf_l_Page_08.QC.jpg
6732f5fe1e8a66785c1c9361fb60ee36
89594f85aa53438f4bb5db70b3670202802e538b
30945 F20110217_AABPTV bardolf_l_Page_57.QC.jpg
faae1474fc6c9ee0934a01350d9e1800
34376e150c593e7e3ec22a16bcb864f960b6c33a
8482 F20110217_AABPUL bardolf_l_Page_30thm.jpg
8e7bdb63b9c6b277410ba96fe9d5b5b3
76614aac168177f05d1953894e10f021521f04b9
24106 F20110217_AABPTW bardolf_l_Page_71.QC.jpg
8b5a640d155065baec2c0f1662bd94b7
ff19e242a0375508fc0b37e6393711e4d6097279
4161 F20110217_AABPUM bardolf_l_Page_68thm.jpg
65278f52ab10f0630fb60f387c7c2623
daf2e53a24c96b4e78ee8ac0935cb1949193be95
7763 F20110217_AABPTX bardolf_l_Page_52thm.jpg
ae4ae003e06977755a35ff146d48c4f7
787eba4f0825b0595a3a7c51e2ff24d0dd1d2d2f
8404 F20110217_AABPVA bardolf_l_Page_84thm.jpg
5140040749ec81e02ce25e9170c18151
076589ceb870af22efb354d564f9ac1ca4186ec8
8134 F20110217_AABPUN bardolf_l_Page_29thm.jpg
70a3ad36129dc370fe9a79122534fe8a
4e717c9f38e7eaa779c63d970d043a57f01bd9f3
32950 F20110217_AABPTY bardolf_l_Page_87.QC.jpg
632827ac3640817c9df940ac84135cb3
d55814003d7eefab7588d193a317d39fc121ebe8
6023 F20110217_AABPVB bardolf_l_Page_65thm.jpg
64c9fa2f79ecd9f82d6f009f5f18211d
0ed2ecbd6f19023ffeaeb5ab78bfff47e9583137
24415 F20110217_AABPUO bardolf_l_Page_74.QC.jpg
ca86ff5aa62db95789c63c61b8a4dcdb
2178ba3ae36a49708b6aa564dd1da8028e3ea76b
8210 F20110217_AABPTZ bardolf_l_Page_14thm.jpg
670e648b8cb3d9a584d0df1b4bdc3c49
ead084bd9a6dec20dc25fc3ef605769f61ab1c8a
28706 F20110217_AABPVC bardolf_l_Page_43.QC.jpg
76fc283cdf52aad14ca2900a95e85425
9f72cc8c980109eb97b350f92a9784ed2b0aebe9
2389 F20110217_AABPUP bardolf_l_Page_55thm.jpg
8bbcc107ec73c40dbf1a5dbe438e747c
7806513d3fa62cb1107ee37d266946e614ebd32c
8286 F20110217_AABPVD bardolf_l_Page_83thm.jpg
07819f70b3ecd22931deaa0cd5d47d6a
86adeccf72fb52206b79481d5ab546ae27d9c0ce
5951 F20110217_AABPUQ bardolf_l_Page_76thm.jpg
8915b4df9a4a2241e55c3c3f9a9770ba
d7b76c4534e3a626494d56cddee1ddd242b8db03
4430 F20110217_AABPVE bardolf_l_Page_50thm.jpg
aea0a1c9169ce7a090653c34ab957450
9191930e4b0b374d30814d6db2d34f6c0682994d
33979 F20110217_AABPUR bardolf_l_Page_83.QC.jpg
8be5ce3f539ba195011a77813f71f94c
ea4747c077c021e18ab6889f98cfe94064ded395
22216 F20110217_AABPVF bardolf_l_Page_48.QC.jpg
6d9f37d044254ef8ec40fea64ecc7cf1
11ce3263a4eede00cc55ad77f792c1060e519f70
8413 F20110217_AABPUS bardolf_l_Page_26thm.jpg
3242d9557d90ecdddf6beff44b1f78bc
100cce0bad97f5d36ebf8609e4c788536232eae6
24992 F20110217_AABPVG bardolf_l_Page_73.QC.jpg
4d0bfc8d8aab5dad88ed458ecf148448
daf4060b48a34e98edcd58e9121e1b1c44257c93
7925 F20110217_AABPVH bardolf_l_Page_28thm.jpg
3c04111ad1bca2e0fe9f34e60d4e6df5
a89238414c6e8c285f16052d8ba30a6b4c7fb47c
28425 F20110217_AABPVI bardolf_l_Page_49.QC.jpg
79a1e2b7e23710cd54e575d80ce79ee3
8554682b5bb6ad842a5ad7d0d4b1ae89bad69624
5549 F20110217_AABPUT bardolf_l_Page_67thm.jpg
7b973d3dad83fdce812578b033f62552
dd5da0179eff7f53dbaf4e4e296bd7fd20c4cf37
31652 F20110217_AABPVJ bardolf_l_Page_13.QC.jpg
ea7959aaba9cc0f6ada8177f5cf5f808
a697ebeab51e54088dd99a4dfb5d520f36061a3b
29647 F20110217_AABPUU bardolf_l_Page_52.QC.jpg
56a7aacbac67721a3e1aeaf99f8c1086
43110d2874aeb47d5827f3bd4fc1dc905d13e1f7
6796 F20110217_AABPVK bardolf_l_Page_75thm.jpg
3e2f3e9e4d82dbf01def92b855a54ead
f0be59eb8eb3dfe436ba1d2765df9c775a49aadf
32733 F20110217_AABPUV bardolf_l_Page_36.QC.jpg
0446fe2f9a98c4c18008d66516615850
dd4b10632686951ed4d2e13d6c2fc28b0087563e
23200 F20110217_AABPVL bardolf_l_Page_76.QC.jpg
ccb75b4b3ff72c5e7562d4c191330050
aeeade49ddaa619757bcfe233312fa9703cea47c
23151 F20110217_AABPUW bardolf_l_Page_69.QC.jpg
d2089523f124d81e76be129bca9e5e7b
390fef2e41cf61eddb9ea0c5403feb09d3fbabde
8614 F20110217_AABPWA bardolf_l_Page_22thm.jpg
2f0ac20c1cd2b161bdc0f6507a584f57
0bad25ca42aad330947dc78de625b05bdec36257
17457 F20110217_AABPVM bardolf_l_Page_38.QC.jpg
1877ea8826e959f2b6806091fa838575
55d3da0e5c22d0802f9fa2d19cc1ac850117fdd3
32240 F20110217_AABPUX bardolf_l_Page_21.QC.jpg
4aefbbf4a2d73f33bad6b08c496c3c8d
2c35cd094c4d0564f6c8e58569d47b786ff31e3c
7817 F20110217_AABPWB bardolf_l_Page_13thm.jpg
4bab80afb9c0f9255c726b1f99b5ff7e
ff5c96652b51de9096285c65d18d7d4883e48cbc
23051 F20110217_AABPVN bardolf_l_Page_80.QC.jpg
7eca6834d7ee2cf257bda4c4646ceb3a
9c22736bc9cd8cedd6d7f1be82b116cace76cc9d
23506 F20110217_AABPUY bardolf_l_Page_42.QC.jpg
3bdc365a6d1ddff8336d85812485e29f
d8ab9e3f1f3d9e0d39ec3cadf65868f54f0a71b6
6481 F20110217_AABPWC bardolf_l_Page_77thm.jpg
c120b9cdd69a967d245b31b1d87ed27f
5b51aff1d7e8ce0ac94a158a233da66fefdb2aff
8470 F20110217_AABPVO bardolf_l_Page_35thm.jpg
d98950d04064fe9a61bfeb02f53993a8
6a432d6914e87cfec93e4bed5bfc09adeb253fff
18788 F20110217_AABPUZ bardolf_l_Page_11.QC.jpg
e7649ca46914eb0a5163dc9190088eba
7da177e22fe04bcd9470483bdcef7e4c2d5c0e4c
7211 F20110217_AABPWD bardolf_l_Page_04thm.jpg
e926f46722cbb0ca3c759fe2fd9327ca
3cd00831ae47c49f352e08103fd0ec5fb50ac538
23445 F20110217_AABPVP bardolf_l_Page_45.QC.jpg
d6362b2e3e322b72b7773fd783d29327
83ce752ba4778262fae026d126a17226e82c7c18
16216 F20110217_AABPWE bardolf_l_Page_06.QC.jpg
7f2fd6618316f09af23a3cff8abf0aa3
8fbb95f6a37c102387cb08c4c2392937af7e9f45
7252 F20110217_AABPVQ bardolf_l_Page_12thm.jpg
64d969d57bc2a814604a0f64dc732041
6c325c62a1856799746977610819c88b308d5e16
34099 F20110217_AABPWF bardolf_l_Page_26.QC.jpg
0e374a1c9b2773b99416e9bdf0e76c7d
b88a2912c9e023e5942580a2fe84015b8bcdda5d
8211 F20110217_AABPVR bardolf_l_Page_59thm.jpg
1c8c45514122d216a2c1fa54667a364d
6c052c1d68a8601c3f8888208938b33b8cc5bd90
7233 F20110217_AABPWG bardolf_l_Page_16thm.jpg
79c9bafe3b432a34f17258c11f1b88b3
d2f5302c9316fbd52eaabe294c32db618eab510d
3977 F20110217_AABPVS bardolf_l_Page_51thm.jpg
e117be29094bb477ca37e74c40a94826
13283538bbbb5ca4e18cbfa676dcca2b6d1970ff
28813 F20110217_AABPWH bardolf_l_Page_25.QC.jpg
d36d08ed60aa3828018eda473dff6eba
7de8fe7d3a05bb84dd888acd42bd1e6f5c7785fe
35140 F20110217_AABPVT bardolf_l_Page_40.QC.jpg
4a86d3b56a2104ddd3beeb905d1bb4db
35b30578d8c1766e68b66757d355c5721d98b897
6514 F20110217_AABPWI bardolf_l_Page_78thm.jpg
39fbe6bd8e3ca2533cd0fd56abe59515
f51c5495b705f0ffb4ad83ec0d0199227be24a2a
29221 F20110217_AABPWJ bardolf_l_Page_04.QC.jpg
b1cbed7b795859a783c610257c8852b7
eccf61384658f8b4d770f28dbf1dffebe2c15ccf
31997 F20110217_AABPVU bardolf_l_Page_28.QC.jpg
98f4bb059f0a2535e49c80419ee14db2
d47078661e83e0c6b520cb46678b3b8ba5a1541b
8599 F20110217_AABPWK bardolf_l_Page_40thm.jpg
e7737e6e012e31dd52eeaa0266175eba
7eaf735e5066d75edb0aa57234d929049eb9ad84
15303 F20110217_AABPVV bardolf_l_Page_68.QC.jpg
46e57333e0cb8e85dfa2be88da4242c4
853154e096c6333c0112d24a1f9bc5e5cc910b29
5866 F20110217_AABPWL bardolf_l_Page_71thm.jpg
a4874361ff96bcad3d3d89e846c215d7
780af70b685c807693dda81793bb1917707026fc
5000 F20110217_AABPVW bardolf_l_Page_15.QC.jpg
f3dc99c80ae67883bfae0b393f2c4e10
4f28f1be68938655b25a6bb05eb845279303225c
7235 F20110217_AABPWM bardolf_l_Page_32thm.jpg
2c6abaebd4cabc10a384af742302da8e
70ea1b831606551b1e1cd9262fa62a81a3cf9ff8
34368 F20110217_AABPVX bardolf_l_Page_30.QC.jpg
71819456798a9efa9cb03c8f0fe9ddd1
ec3c17393dfbeed38b8036d81e14d04bf65903ff
16238 F20110217_AABPXA bardolf_l_Page_54.QC.jpg
5a4859d85e795a9c5a12011179f99714
20ea1a1b109aa36c48501814a64ea16b68e3ff97
34031 F20110217_AABPWN bardolf_l_Page_59.QC.jpg
ad5953b8d6cc4ded3a93a33f10eee033
acbe57f4a1663cbff24dff391e084adcb4496117
31118 F20110217_AABPVY bardolf_l_Page_89.QC.jpg
b7e658eff03e5b06cb94753d32512ce1
7c5021c6d45d369d18c90364d0decdada06fbbbe
28527 F20110217_AABPXB bardolf_l_Page_82.QC.jpg
1a199c7cb7802c3b0a7b3a85afbf6b0a
8debb43db90d87cb025456a3b0e79a504e286781
31378 F20110217_AABPWO bardolf_l_Page_32.QC.jpg
b64f7aa6a8c3e6f2744ae9306273afef
20cbb9fcf08312e3f10ad5516cb6d074ddcaa212
8186 F20110217_AABPVZ bardolf_l_Page_34thm.jpg
c89a7581008e227f02a1b2b698ca0a1a
9d893957a4f5a392705e3d29aebc41a102ce03be
5471 F20110217_AABPXC bardolf_l_Page_07thm.jpg
d82598fccc580a4c121bd1583ffced8a
b6c54a709801e9eda93b44516909a11b3d5c673f
5366 F20110217_AABPWP bardolf_l_Page_63thm.jpg
62365024a3ccc4f0a3e80cf11226ff59
d8fb985f9c9a1642b38ba3aaab24c1708b90efc9
29041 F20110217_AABPXD bardolf_l_Page_39.QC.jpg
dc497bd8595232441ae6b675932f1821
710bcf8025262dd2ab142ebde4e7757f2afda7a1
33128 F20110217_AABPWQ bardolf_l_Page_33.QC.jpg
239fbcd6e0f4952c47550f1a52befeff
ea803b392a806289e695cc6ca8755eaf9ec2c253
7427 F20110217_AABPXE bardolf_l_Page_25thm.jpg
e1ba6f564fea3bfefca7d9f072fc7ab6
f3d8241f68a1b60cd793f649f951e6e5bb71a8e6
6661 F20110217_AABPWR bardolf_l_Page_73thm.jpg
0adb74a06b62c83be3bfd975dfc6d3bc
18f2a4c9dbe622f6a34bc013568c2cf64562dd4b
8348 F20110217_AABPXF bardolf_l_Page_86thm.jpg
b0a41e5df0df9aca5737038a8e4a3c11
21737fe664e7b4266b3b8dc5cb7913feafb684cd
4225 F20110217_AABPWS bardolf_l_Page_06thm.jpg
2a5b221c3e063ebada07183be2e74738
2b1ffec92b0e165d19e5805f43f0905efd835347
7034 F20110217_AABPXG bardolf_l_Page_49thm.jpg
33394d7d3e30c821bc3b42bfae7762c7
186a61c2a1ba11325618404dc00387b41f421150
1726 F20110217_AABPWT bardolf_l_Page_02.QC.jpg
7a3097e360038ad52e0d69f00c40ce69
7eed687536997fde7e139e162522483488db9e5a
4806 F20110217_AABPXH bardolf_l_Page_11thm.jpg
0453b3aa38b75730c7191456b073e8d5
524cab351e76da6e4030fe5a37fc948678d4023e
6715 F20110217_AABPWU bardolf_l_Page_74thm.jpg
78a7a3cc18a2373a00c5374daf43b1bc
d00ca6c9784ba843d7e779edc84dce9c9d15461b
34073 F20110217_AABPXI bardolf_l_Page_86.QC.jpg
9a29a5f2ed6559f0dafcdbd63750f992
519e33990a68d897404f9f80f403c545d400094d
4595 F20110217_AABPXJ bardolf_l_Page_90.QC.jpg
8e87c7acd86ea14ccacf46a4cdcb73e6
bc15e437af402f398e76069313b518eaddfd1b32
29492 F20110217_AABPWV bardolf_l_Page_16.QC.jpg
3c7e3f430a3167a3f7297bc3b0811489
66035179a9225a67148ed9f88726bb1711f7da68
12596 F20110217_AABPXK bardolf_l_Page_51.QC.jpg
1302247bf79776258b3bb850cee0fa11
a821fe75f7f23939c8a8ad6da193b743544d4efa
22614 F20110217_AABPWW bardolf_l_Page_46.QC.jpg
de6697be6b837b77f183e742240f6fd8
1b78c5374a67cbc93b7306cb547ec5aae571ae2b
7171 F20110217_AABPXL bardolf_l_Page_82thm.jpg
190b224f91a532a7b494dcdbffb868a3
5928c34556afece7c13f16a02fd389b1dbdfa052
30205 F20110217_AABPWX bardolf_l_Page_47.QC.jpg
656dae5db6447f65f3b651b996353f13
8a0e6a82813c1fa3d97fe7c2d6f256cb7a75ac35
23637 F20110217_AABPYA bardolf_l_Page_77.QC.jpg
08047a258b9398e2227bb79903ff7570
6e6980e9a67659a3c286ca60010255e519517d7d
1366 F20110217_AABPXM bardolf_l_Page_15thm.jpg
2b6c2445bd9ae05acf35f521e4de4521
c9e7350d1727c68af95c33175816089bfeed0d47
7711 F20110217_AABPWY bardolf_l_Page_39thm.jpg
5ee13c24c506acfe0605f2639d7e48fc
771acd8c65b72165e1f3f7a1386cc2646d66583e
21827 F20110217_AABPYB bardolf_l_Page_79.QC.jpg
3211f64189892ef15c490435c6a99fd8
f2cb85d93a7c06a42f959b873ac59e8ab9339753
8417 F20110217_AABPXN bardolf_l_Page_23thm.jpg
7fe31ee0a38e8905a8e64886af4e706e
8d30a5f1861b01a4c5c8f6f720401da54b8ddfb2
33475 F20110217_AABPWZ bardolf_l_Page_61.QC.jpg
fe32137437f92c02a83dd6838b90cada
3d5a41b472161cc6611849eec2dcd216a3062d28
7782 F20110217_AABPYC bardolf_l_Page_81.QC.jpg
fac97b6fe1e7047caaf4cf88c5be9073
9e0f7e06903c36b590d9baf0eb75d78da5a51002
146245 F20110217_AABPXO UFE0014926_00001.xml FULL
0d4f51b4e974e0eb63663247ce134496
c36defccf24c1d931307d6ce4015d782da06a7af
34242 F20110217_AABPYD bardolf_l_Page_84.QC.jpg
de7c2e782051b439bd940ccbe0038fbd
c9e21fd13484d2919606e1ef99aa9dc45f5a3233
7297 F20110217_AABPXP bardolf_l_Page_01.QC.jpg
ca9a58d34fdee1785629c9bde1494205
38be524f46fa36d6ac6e068b924ed10884ed9ccb
35352 F20110217_AABPYE bardolf_l_Page_85.QC.jpg
71081fe45772bf9ec78863134dc66468
b22a4de0fb28e328a89ae4595e9ed82eb6ce2ecc
31869 F20110217_AABPXQ bardolf_l_Page_05.QC.jpg
e7d823029be0211075f2807f9563b163
89cc4f8fc38e20e9bcd2464b114dfe3793a1ec0b
2101 F20110217_AABPYF bardolf_l_Page_01thm.jpg
e4df9ebf559ce209cef4e85f03b7bf3b
949a7485e16d0a465b1c7ffcbf0fcff007899b42
11436 F20110217_AABPXR bardolf_l_Page_09.QC.jpg
7181a9a2aff8a82b51a113d55002f77d
6dfe89652ad07eb2c6ccfa80dbebe45a7c5188c3
1368 F20110217_AABPYG bardolf_l_Page_08thm.jpg
3bfea85cda7c7aa729a7b4013b067749
7e78a233c2ae413efdd31e06c0f744d6af0ed401
26699 F20110217_AABPXS bardolf_l_Page_10.QC.jpg
6eee0aba40d294b588b75783336dbe0f
177ae1c69251ce07903b06950f04d3f0d482bf5d
8341 F20110217_AABPYH bardolf_l_Page_17thm.jpg
e36794aea72a5cd671d8717c81eb9bda
a99b085af273f57a668b65eddfd121fff06ddda0
29263 F20110217_AABPXT bardolf_l_Page_12.QC.jpg
5ebb1436231d48d2a6c91dad82c06caf
2b95b85525b2a371d254d4be6224100303413c43
8585 F20110217_AABPYI bardolf_l_Page_18thm.jpg
6da131978ca1c67a491f6d0b008b2d58
6e675557bd0bc749be73f1a9107cccd101c2eca2
34943 F20110217_AABPXU bardolf_l_Page_23.QC.jpg
e8fd13ef48c815de0b170f34dc2cc122
dd5a17113d1466c707063b2914b56e7bc53449ad
1028468 F20110217_AABPBA bardolf_l_Page_89.jp2
2dfdb5602266c4dd315c408a3570b6c6
49ded88d762baf7e95238381439ff4d26a22ac4e
44068 F20110217_AABPAN bardolf_l_Page_43.pro
5ee302280cfee78ee52ddc6492182522
0739eb4478e1d5688d49aedceef972d7e5e054bb
8323 F20110217_AABPYJ bardolf_l_Page_24thm.jpg
86bb223d9f1f2ff9226c1a0ad4aa9816
6b9b2dcc4319b3248b39e27adcdf139985a279df
12799 F20110217_AABPXV bardolf_l_Page_31.QC.jpg
ff9c20d4af76e0180af297369e242b99
ad80e2cf6a26ad1b43281e9a3852eb6a51ef6661
6438 F20110217_AABPBB bardolf_l_Page_79thm.jpg
8e292e9929ae3e2cd5d9a36a848ada82
e2b2731844fad842604496bf1f52b983cadbd88d
23590 F20110217_AABPAO bardolf_l_Page_72.QC.jpg
94418993674e7f982a78c1e063f89a0c
246832646b699b259beaeaf7503a35593f7bd6eb
3233 F20110217_AABPYK bardolf_l_Page_31thm.jpg
678d53f3059f45f7bc57134f373c970f
80c40c18656f11fc5356f67fe3f67a8e290c414a
5299 F20110217_AABPBC bardolf_l_Page_44thm.jpg
420e04dc07d00a8606afeb2077069298
380954eb665ba3bcb29248eba53bc2bdd781463c
12348 F20110217_AABPAP bardolf_l_Page_66.QC.jpg
9e58d3981bc7a9fc982e00a20b530711
df75bd84a192cbc970d90fc1e5576438001832f1
8042 F20110217_AABPYL bardolf_l_Page_33thm.jpg
6d37be3c6e7b57a6db44d220be6f39fe
f4b7d4ca86fdcf2575e8c913cfc7a4d26daee0b6
32089 F20110217_AABPXW bardolf_l_Page_34.QC.jpg
8c0e53a6d5dd3d5c6a69f583cfa07287
f1e1708e8e8582847082585a7417098978887577
33543 F20110217_AABPBD bardolf_l_Page_24.QC.jpg
2453c58d5003a1daaa0285977275c59d
9c1434dd69cf573e27b16124dea8905bd54d3e5d
8162 F20110217_AABPAQ bardolf_l_Page_87thm.jpg
1ca922e166f808a504a6d1ba85350400
6b3912eca39bc95df339721720d6b09d66ee1226
7684 F20110217_AABPYM bardolf_l_Page_37thm.jpg
e68a675dfd3b0cf26f0dfdcae2fbd785
b69fe77013b2a8e45528dd5bfe48d1e7b6b7dc93
35444 F20110217_AABPXX bardolf_l_Page_60.QC.jpg
1dea181eb32a3b274afe83ebc07667ee
ed46c9a85d6fa00da9770aeca232e6aecc4f969b
8423998 F20110217_AABPBE bardolf_l_Page_70.tif
e99279aa1909ee4575a4a2054a35317f
a9e751f416714406033f7531a4d1c7401a3e9c78
3013 F20110217_AABPAR bardolf_l_Page_09thm.jpg
45abdce42b6128bd1ce367ef4e4d7812
71b3aae984dc9f5a8ab5ae1f56cdca7abe0cdc95
5902 F20110217_AABPYN bardolf_l_Page_45thm.jpg
fadbc3b92b0955e545536e3714bebab6
d2ba5ec4b1cea71bc7cf20ee0143bd30ab552711
22989 F20110217_AABPXY bardolf_l_Page_67.QC.jpg
d0555ce0585b760281bba16b0def9cd1
d74b927c63370d01fa4b9c91da55c33142d37b82
5711 F20110217_AABPBF bardolf_l_Page_72thm.jpg
fdb0abc466108e139316832140ab85a5
8a81b09a94363e052c7aa58acbdf599a4ea6b8b9
32036 F20110217_AABPAS bardolf_l_Page_20.QC.jpg
bd34e895fd7f7bbd0f3cf9d9006662a2
bd51a6978412ea74f6f1e428196eb5bd1bec0a05
6479 F20110217_AABPYO bardolf_l_Page_46thm.jpg
cc67b737ba08d4c95f0efc260ad65d78
f67b2274e1210abe3ec7a3b669b11933fdc2d0c7
23735 F20110217_AABPXZ bardolf_l_Page_75.QC.jpg
40f9baa2fc7e8be31ed4ce986b1c0616
7aa654c865cdfd8978a11a2677199ea5535c8a64
2747 F20110217_AABPBG bardolf_l_Page_55.pro
226e5dc7d62d893a0f9afe47a14ce27d
9028283b2b062c7e9ad6e36d3bcac1a8927ae480
39586 F20110217_AABPAT bardolf_l_Page_50.jpg
ae0c94998be7a3f2d1bda902edb7979f
65038383986272f33bce0a3c0cda1ed08f91c998
6500 F20110217_AABPYP bardolf_l_Page_48thm.jpg
177bdb9e25b77eb04730ff5f8d4fa9a9
53471d530baa7c0f2e3247c517ae032d51073b8c
1997 F20110217_AABPBH bardolf_l_Page_19.txt
0bab517f90cbdce96b5dcf8d90b7fd09
5f89fdb0b6ec857796863fff88bddce6d6a6b1f8
892755 F20110217_AABPAU bardolf_l_Page_71.jp2
a238846ea133da6cb1784d57bd03ce38
7b089967ed12881a359dcbd98f5cfadee910a5c7
7160 F20110217_AABPYQ bardolf_l_Page_56thm.jpg
9089f76d1827a912663d15251c57c25e
86d2a49cb2242430a14905e7bf0ba4c73ad02298
8548 F20110217_AABPBI bardolf_l_Page_60thm.jpg
15d7967cc157be4eaceccc1ea8f1813c
bbb1b38b235abf1aa35a73990f3cf9cc10174414
F20110217_AABPAV bardolf_l_Page_88.tif
b77b0c96d756ae1aa059aadb725d7b55
d62be3c0071405860b663a20e0245b91b92d8a1d
7916 F20110217_AABPYR bardolf_l_Page_57thm.jpg
e202932b60d4531bccabb4796d89ae22
17c45f49ac7f0565673e3eea8d6741839ccc19d9
32902 F20110217_AABPBJ bardolf_l_Page_19.QC.jpg
5e0245018c69cb5f3da97c7b33d005bc
7b26adbede5fc2faf133d47948441bb6629295cc
51206 F20110217_AABPAW bardolf_l_Page_26.pro
22f8269285a4e5f02f57c07e9bd5cd64
f04fb969919891d64751ba78d5110b73a9dec9c7
7674 F20110217_AABPYS bardolf_l_Page_58thm.jpg
51e3370ffc25cca3b347decbcbd906a0
59ad482c26525fa3a7e11718699cadd11176d3a9
2085 F20110217_AABPBK bardolf_l_Page_71.txt
fb1d2c96abb3ea42aabf0aee30d87e04
9a47b600400f2ffc251a5ad13aa074ecad7dcf6b
F20110217_AABPAX bardolf_l_Page_50.tif
ef602090d8718b6d94def5223d64e28f
de4ac116a1cb28b906c92ab4851cf4805d50bc88
8171 F20110217_AABPYT bardolf_l_Page_62thm.jpg
5dff344261f87a145cb2b8ab493fdeda
5c78ad3d4820ac401be7f7fb0be989f6d31a5686
F20110217_AABPCA bardolf_l_Page_21.tif
44f109cb7897b0f4dee8b01cfb2a2c47
e0f93177298c6b75300eb2f6c4c12106bd8765cc
34608 F20110217_AABPBL bardolf_l_Page_22.QC.jpg
19acc037e83f30f867025eba899b9c32
5534ca181b6419dead70d74393ac3c833c36e185
261 F20110217_AABPAY bardolf_l_Page_15.txt
0a30992c84315018da89adba7645d4fd
8725872efe2e25b124ef1b026b657494d9eb5ba6
3537 F20110217_AABPYU bardolf_l_Page_66thm.jpg
5ec005f1568995ddd28a7c4d0695f23c
c8eb2270dd6b5015f8f76904f23674104d2baf4f
611957 F20110217_AABPBM bardolf_l_Page_11.jp2
161b36a7baaa2226e937e317f563b3cc
69e2ced8f8b0a6a285a13859b443f2ca1f708571
F20110217_AABPAZ bardolf_l_Page_36thm.jpg
71ab78fb050d8fe493c586e337727f4f
2bf8348f48e8c8ca3a9e4405bf3e75f2e0f5e6c3
5340 F20110217_AABPYV bardolf_l_Page_70thm.jpg
af0a44df7d3f1f3d13c0add7aee0e157
13d7b740989420a72b16177745a5d99c03558f01
33265 F20110217_AABPCB bardolf_l_Page_29.QC.jpg
3fc91b7ea7e3050667d11045d149218b
9036f084afa927657a0fb928de2b7ab48dfc8005
50496 F20110217_AABPBN bardolf_l_Page_34.pro
11a1fb2865f5b419e1e65c0dbcbf254a
ba85582f9e966a62cde23109639ebfae287323a2
2312 F20110217_AABPYW bardolf_l_Page_81thm.jpg
8fb951cc5f5bfca963c2791e5caf0197
d051bcca3f71ca8bb5d874c5f5b7fa59c314f025
1808 F20110217_AABPCC bardolf_l_Page_56.txt
ec6291ac7a3119927484b12799ee6138
292e2fa509c091094d3fb33839c9f66a94c9bd69
22603 F20110217_AABPBO bardolf_l_Page_78.QC.jpg
f1f41a3dfddf1bf4d4a951460c0d1591
3588ae098846dfe9a22dd812fd100d40282744c5
1781 F20110217_AABPCD bardolf_l_Page_77.txt
7971591bfdb230c250f5646d7db85bd0
0c210e2d10646da19f3e707d8c75f4b5087f5866
F20110217_AABPBP bardolf_l_Page_76.tif
e8ac7380c982eabae554f7311223ac3f
3ae8a017c4484ce3c69eb8c742ebef4e77a93a43
8493 F20110217_AABPYX bardolf_l_Page_85thm.jpg
30b6d700195b1529f6442db4f8bde0bd
cbf4f96484b132dde43c593f50c83769b9461226
1948 F20110217_AABPCE bardolf_l_Page_74.txt
69a903ed2dc9abc4f5e360d3d32f5f87
e8ac502c78c85812ecd94851aa3896512e642817
2040 F20110217_AABPBQ bardolf_l_Page_23.txt
c00fd989aaa429138ee3684d99469d94
841b03c1beb3caf36505c85642ff691540951a8b
49186 F20110217_AABPCF bardolf_l_Page_27.pro
ae83f73b446ea9135c827c92b005dda2
16ca3233a701ef2c5aba78565b76461c849a9e94
156509 F20110217_AABPBR bardolf_l_Page_03.jp2
816e796a054c3dd9e483426b8e608114
2ea23d24b34d08254b1c69a4168844ca60f79919
16190 F20110217_AABPCG bardolf_l_Page_03.jpg
1290c025e150a199aefd129f70a04d6d
640dc7d21fa62ed9973354c81aa22bffc9c004bf
6461 F20110217_AABPBS bardolf_l_Page_55.QC.jpg
1774e8f25f38f01d93e48a3595f60306
479eb59df74b9b975af09e0d4be054c54a0260c0
7884 F20110217_AABPCH bardolf_l_Page_27thm.jpg
189a3b3da2c0f961626b43f226c6f245
05e19288f5ad43fc7270b54786af468ece58b57b
53376 F20110217_AABPBT bardolf_l_Page_60.pro
998bafe9f4dc5b6768d2c8de1e88c3fe
a1aef28bce5474cfeff2180ecd0dcf08a1b1f5f9
7728 F20110217_AABPCI bardolf_l_Page_89thm.jpg
89513b3eefe2c5832a38fc07eef6c286
fe4ed7583addd47fc401384f357c561f232496cd
93129 F20110217_AABPBU bardolf_l_Page_41.jpg
ef64a8aec4d6562bf3c71a436d6b7b88
bc58113258e814a1b51c7a317b5d926579779ef7
22152 F20110217_AABPCJ bardolf_l_Page_65.QC.jpg
a9117956544b0b5366308145ebbfe7b4
c1da10c10189b4486c2f54d7fa353980c5e80403
8526 F20110217_AABPBV bardolf_l_Page_61thm.jpg
febb5817dcf41cc213d3d727689ece02
afde97d133ab5ad81da2dc27841c0b84a017757d
F20110217_AABPCK bardolf_l_Page_06.tif
f32ca647629324d2152e6349e4b1e3ed
4012b12719df9dbed1a5b825d3108c408e359303
34004 F20110217_AABPBW bardolf_l_Page_45.pro
ad38410e181d66a51d4580465e5ec812
0d5167c35d607473f3c659aa65b7115f4a14fa6a
F20110217_AABPDA bardolf_l_Page_35.tif
69df86da40ff7ce56667b2998d4e346b
88c62222fe60596d380784e4fa2d2bb1c7708f37
106817 F20110217_AABPCL bardolf_l_Page_40.jpg
4d50839a0e32c81cd7a6f0cc6ac5009e
fc34fb62ddb6993282804fb50d02693ba24eaa01
408840 F20110217_AABPBX bardolf_l_Page_54.jp2
8457e8821f6b8004e64e7dbe976a5ff5
825fd99f5140e36991b1f92ea0574b6fa1ea628e
F20110217_AABPDB bardolf_l_Page_38.tif
c29833f9f12b3dcbf90c77da6e57e8d9
09adb33168dc82d36471a3921b3300f4c32eacd9
12932 F20110217_AABPCM bardolf_l_Page_08.jpg
9d52ecb4249638e125e6e84c63052c85
7728c9eb3b6dc96f0faa95201398ca66a7738dc7
32292 F20110217_AABPBY bardolf_l_Page_17.QC.jpg
d07ed91574fb3c2f1fa1144e16679405
9457e3d18f4cf61cec6001c82b8e113d79a86f8f
F20110217_AABPCN bardolf_l_Page_18.tif
379413c7d8236e669d8a79671cedb828
ab36374829630b7b3d4351249e44225d9fbafd7a
F20110217_AABPBZ bardolf_l_Page_63.tif
95ebb909e2a39364f83374167d7aba50
c1b5893c009b7a90da6254b24391e37c9c6a2b79
917773 F20110217_AABPCO bardolf_l_Page_39.jp2
52c74c29e28c3e9aa637ec814a17a2be
5eed38d4e66f938d4ceb7af10411923a3da19137
5611 F20110217_AABPDC bardolf_l_Page_69thm.jpg
1f48bfd9c08a13493e15c02eb571f663
6d6000321bbddecb8fdcd585c8d09e29dce08ebd
6847 F20110217_AABPCP bardolf_l_Page_53thm.jpg
91d6575da2c3995c6a864da58db24d7e
cd72c63c508e9bc71abb72bff63a21f904928afa
107547 F20110217_AABPDD bardolf_l_Page_55.jp2
ce7d5f164acc481edf8694ba132fd8df
2b5fe81204b9f654f7f1b99ad45d0bd7910fe790
1051964 F20110217_AABPCQ bardolf_l_Page_86.jp2
f9c450fef6d913b246bd4d6b0074cef7
8b6c57efb3472bd8ef73b193eeda4694b796bfda
104286 F20110217_AABPDE bardolf_l_Page_29.jpg
7abd191d2cb5771ea6757586c5cfff1e
0faddbf46294152160b290b5152cbd0880dae560
1051922 F20110217_AABPCR bardolf_l_Page_29.jp2
25a0d7d834d3e30ee2f4434713f4ed92
be4dea82c0962bc8ec18de3ae137053e675d882c
1268 F20110217_AABPDF bardolf_l_Page_03thm.jpg
81199d7e9ee1c45d2822fa10df2f795b
7397290225d77c86512f2fdd173df63c9017b1d1
6264 F20110217_AABPCS bardolf_l_Page_64thm.jpg
2bb4254f607d522199fb1880c807c5b8
f0c053eeaf116dcf8486c63ada8c6d0b2800998e
51002 F20110217_AABPDG bardolf_l_Page_24.pro
a221d78670384b78539b7545dea6fe82
5f77e94cbf97fdfeb01b811ee741bef9645f33f1
52622 F20110217_AABPCT bardolf_l_Page_38.jpg
f6823bbddd29a6db6d4dbe40f24876db
84efc96f105245b22e7571a6010af06f1d724d32
F20110217_AABPDH bardolf_l_Page_15.tif
7bb481ab3ca8080755c0eb715244aa66
43a9008917399a352971e62c9148cab84f91efe7
4129 F20110217_AABPCU bardolf_l_Page_88thm.jpg
b4ebe48266976313c123286cbae09974
929c3b754fafd7a91b76d6f566ea8e928d0da8fa
106925 F20110217_AABPDI bardolf_l_Page_22.jpg
2c6398d8f6c6d3e39749e1daf1b06d83
24219b2f64adf1d91a44e132d86905cf79ba20c8
F20110217_AABPCV bardolf_l_Page_20.tif
465115ba7f5c0d6ccf811ce12be42dfa
a415e1c7f278c506c5d6c3c7b02909f4dfef4953
53743 F20110217_AABPDJ bardolf_l_Page_18.pro
9dd60ee6fc9e7d28d6fca2d1bca4a4c5
f8c63fd54f3ef1c75fd5f00d4a8e542f803b2622
F20110217_AABPCW bardolf_l_Page_40.jp2
6d7e36f0cee3421546edb65ca11dfd96
eb4d0b7a90cc4f934ffd21c917a20d756f2fb5fb
45481 F20110217_AABPDK bardolf_l_Page_12.pro
3e13583ca96dcc8af7c632d6aeef01c3
ace282b07b6c7e70baa1162b7edf3cc281b8b619
23373 F20110217_AABPCX bardolf_l_Page_64.QC.jpg
05d1084611e364f6c9a52fb86434a340
777bea0f7ab49cf22db655e52af8ff1d8b44d4a9
F20110217_AABPEA bardolf_l_Page_35.jp2
b7e5659251f3b6f1169b8d16ab608d04
429dce93bac90148692f51ba953e5b6497e40b9e
68260 F20110217_AABPDL bardolf_l_Page_06.pro
c9b12d5a9eeac3a4f3d21bb5111761c6
85ea0b6b849edbca522365b7417222462ad8cc89
2490 F20110217_AABPCY bardolf_l_Page_83.txt
762a0ca4e1e248906602fdbfefe004fe
5cd9f92bcfbd788d7149f882f8e782fbd1daa6b6
33183 F20110217_AABPEB bardolf_l_Page_51.jpg
c68820e3f647f263ec5203e272f9d053
b0615d4d08630f51adaf27ead59e297037264bd9
F20110217_AABPDM bardolf_l_Page_89.tif
f4daad87819db8fcb880643553046b77
f44b396db4b0660e694171956b18d90edfc97d61
1495 F20110217_AABPCZ bardolf_l_Page_42.txt
93542963494285b39c9a6edb8e90ea07
b171c7fd5fb806fcf7bbd85c2c3e76f2ad0e1853
61349 F20110217_AABPEC bardolf_l_Page_83.pro
b2aa12789401054bb63a9fed179b45e1
0404451b3448955f360638ae4da74e7446043870
784626 F20110217_AABPDN bardolf_l_Page_77.jp2
ee40ec7b4a08b4d4514191ea9def8310
3649fd7385daa00a7c7db17805e76b1a389bb67a
48718 F20110217_AABPDO bardolf_l_Page_75.pro
5426145b3ef45bea7e844e0e85f49131
91914fb491bb660a27640b19b4af469b5c46a55b
35530 F20110217_AABPED bardolf_l_Page_18.QC.jpg
796e0dc9e9e8bdbc1477b48afa56c9a6
89743e444901b1fe736734f0d6471da17d34f983
53327 F20110217_AABPDP bardolf_l_Page_32.pro
d4e839818c07d65c17ed63321d700b5d
f227c7f3e55df574066ff27a0aabc595a8656bd1
13732 F20110217_AABPEE bardolf_l_Page_15.jpg
90611ccf085f90b881a27f7c520e2826
f9463d99a9901bfbfdd2c0d1b2cdfdc67d303ff9
24684 F20110217_AABPDQ bardolf_l_Page_53.QC.jpg
93792e68c5a42d367208ee99fcb3164e
88e5e1821d0ff032f182ecf19256f5c741b2a57d
3517 F20110217_AABPEF bardolf_l_Page_07.txt
24db2fe999fc09925964d0b2e3ef0ece
2af326aa0ef1fbd4c800e67e38c4e41cbc7a3c84
2083 F20110217_AABPDR bardolf_l_Page_59.txt
7cba019bcdb555587ed35a579a24e218
a34a9309b46452f8f72ed8a992e5646b516451e0
6838 F20110217_AABPEG bardolf_l_Page_10thm.jpg
f903894397bc6386e2184d7c5b4412fd
7a6cff5dc7cf9eb9149ee28c26a0bea03208ec29
63746 F20110217_AABPDS bardolf_l_Page_63.jpg
ac236c34f71c604f136079149849d25c
f384dfea3c853cf35a9d8ada6f8b467a39795354
983 F20110217_AABPEH bardolf_l_Page_66.txt
b00ccd139ac1e661333e860a9080d314
0adbeefd7a2b0501576225497c5d9d96cf504555
1719 F20110217_AABPDT bardolf_l_Page_37.txt
524ea0df6e64f9057ae65f8d2e135ecb
991c7a0567a0a9f62cc75257f5131f6e6ba8057c
30553 F20110217_AABPEI bardolf_l_Page_63.pro
7804b1df35e945aa902f5145e0ae0fe1
b04273eb801b72a82455c1d56e8076f42f7cc2bc
20752 F20110217_AABPDU bardolf_l_Page_63.QC.jpg
58d413d3d5903f13b4cc2453b35eb17b
769ec8facf973af8138f9916837c9fe9931cf65b
1697 F20110217_AABPEJ bardolf_l_Page_48.txt
d9d283416c7b8644ca78806f8c817f36
3884fff00495d85e0fc777bff6e57d50d2575a26
7738 F20110217_AABPDV bardolf_l_Page_41thm.jpg
093b7eb5e4f42c5d1857d8dab05cfc22
6a556a319e5837a4e6b1713f0a0d35371a4a4abd
982534 F20110217_AABPEK bardolf_l_Page_43.jp2
3bf21fe85b3dd1544249c8449720fcda
11bf1840681ad4895ba126a6359ad5abb5df4c7c
50034 F20110217_AABPDW bardolf_l_Page_74.pro
ea5a4e2497854aff96481d1597b37a95
44ca0ba9c694c08893510afbdf3eb5ee2e428faa
F20110217_AABPFA bardolf_l_Page_05.tif
43e3019f491179a00f9c1306c2ccbcc6
93b03c749bec45c6ee696f06e05468825038f974
F20110217_AABPEL bardolf_l_Page_51.tif
f34d0271f63398badd8d4fc622609178
1a87b02df2a85f3b4278f6a2401d218b37d09951
F20110217_AABPDX bardolf_l_Page_40.tif
09dae1c9d876043d5b8f4f2a012d60d6
626160f7d450bb1c5bb6e8004e90ae1d2e0be65d
F20110217_AABPFB bardolf_l_Page_07.tif
e810718108b62b895f1bed5250c8a09e
22c235154d9bc1e23c68389cd755944e3cfc45c6
832305 F20110217_AABPEM bardolf_l_Page_42.jp2
56c2d99f58dcf16407e08d1c747973c8
8f51eb23a27139dee24d3efa7add6f1d4e9c26b7
28786 F20110217_AABPDY bardolf_l_Page_56.QC.jpg
38cfe39dc41a862eff810b622539f673
5846829d255256827e9039a44674ad6f1db05a3b
F20110217_AABPFC bardolf_l_Page_08.tif
c15831f920973e6359d36e515158debe
3d672f3dddb7fc355eb157f45fc1aa138f69c8fe
31165 F20110217_AABPEN bardolf_l_Page_37.QC.jpg
9653cb52bb539b25b57343f60cfdd99c
b9b6b6cc7c2533bf487988f10ac58f0acb892694
15812 F20110217_AABPDZ bardolf_l_Page_88.QC.jpg
f83ee5f7bf57895436ef030de36288e9
37e829ee2dfe04eed03f90d025d10805efe08d4f
F20110217_AABPFD bardolf_l_Page_09.tif
4ad0c3cc432c0f73e0a81e20ed160e57
5f53351ba299139948403f26f44b883bbd0c0f4d
49851 F20110217_AABPEO bardolf_l_Page_33.pro
0e29e6d3ace885fa1ca28f3b7d36116e
5494a457ddfa381c93bd2bae4e2ba8ed67c4e144
17132 F20110217_AABPEP bardolf_l_Page_44.QC.jpg
26fa9a8d27cc67febf9b43e2c3662cb6
ff1875eed5de121fb2821eedbc33bf371429db93
F20110217_AABPFE bardolf_l_Page_10.tif
7a8e944bfb2954b4ea1914f758c07a10
5adf1bc567fa4cee4aedd180e041c65ab3cafde6
947790 F20110217_AABPEQ bardolf_l_Page_25.jp2
1e21a42abb5ac7c1008633474145d03f
fa2d3750593bd7c182d513049a9051c006a9cae6
F20110217_AABPFF bardolf_l_Page_11.tif
faa6503b499bdde286e6a7f85896e633
1c13f7584c7e908248957b1b1753553c0f2c1cc3
49650 F20110217_AABPER bardolf_l_Page_73.pro
9974ae22407fae1c208298ba03b4469e
3d5573b934741e5e705c7c99767baa2d4117029a
F20110217_AABPFG bardolf_l_Page_12.tif
3474652dce3f836b7340f01f86d837e7
30c4e40391c9ac5ed10ff7df429791ab5c7437fb
57017 F20110217_AABPES bardolf_l_Page_11.jpg
8e3905f70b213dfdc910086d1e987fbd
492f7fae1b8bfe5ef4c4791ad318928904a2cce3
F20110217_AABPFH bardolf_l_Page_13.tif
83fbe4f453364c2b6ae31583e1382f89
f3912fd7b0bc8c55734d81e6e13c95f7671b205f
107287 F20110217_AABPET UFE0014926_00001.mets
46651abf3940c521709f0f323ab2aab5
97d3b12a620d908ef773367d2c1a365a75f75175
F20110217_AABPFI bardolf_l_Page_14.tif
d9e34620bf227fb31b294e5d7efa851d
c3b2bdb350e00218ebe29b77320536344f0b6937
F20110217_AABPFJ bardolf_l_Page_16.tif
7f11b630e391e9cda2a05fce2c1f8998
f6f8fbb7e6c989d1d1a1df1e49342b41075f36e8
F20110217_AABPFK bardolf_l_Page_17.tif
248336d421903fabf33905bf8760ad2f
00b764427f0f722296847733c5a8167a478dd19f
F20110217_AABPEW bardolf_l_Page_01.tif
be50f8163f3cdaf153f25f25d6483443
b2986ad8e43776b54086ea509791d6b83772cb37
F20110217_AABPFL bardolf_l_Page_19.tif
2d4ec426dc71cedb1529fe7ed5772812
e50b3393374dc0955697d0c6dac0e9a1e2d77f31
F20110217_AABPEX bardolf_l_Page_02.tif
e23b8dea196ea3b49c043b82bd6fcb27
4b83b85a4c9f77fd76d92f3455742b77a6263d9b
F20110217_AABPGA bardolf_l_Page_37.tif
d112fe81b181f75df8a5adcc909e90d2
da2e2942c70f824c1859e9c451f5c0dafe46ed1b
F20110217_AABPFM bardolf_l_Page_22.tif
d1bfa566130fd09e7754ac8c4f3f22bb
f4b4aeb87c6d7597303d4d161052b21f90751921
F20110217_AABPEY bardolf_l_Page_03.tif
c25fdc5d05d7ff34d352eef5a3d9300e
a764db290d7101cc38f79411d66650a826cb9e0a
F20110217_AABPGB bardolf_l_Page_39.tif
ad7e8ee65d514b818167d4fdabe851c9
68523f8a2adb00aca7eebf53d76a3e6d0706cb4d
F20110217_AABPFN bardolf_l_Page_23.tif
b5be76ed31f62c8eba456872afef17e6
9eb40f9a7817b747ffb082a9160535ca115fceef
F20110217_AABPEZ bardolf_l_Page_04.tif
3ed308ce8d5a6446100c8d845e542ed8
e8474536fdbab502e8081e4e2e92484217030076
F20110217_AABPGC bardolf_l_Page_41.tif
7e4b5d855780b30ff037b697aa88e32c
c6ebf3d98d640e34b807a857a216d6782eea560c
F20110217_AABPFO bardolf_l_Page_24.tif
10cbeb56dc40ccd8f3a04eff88e54e91
e493a44bffc8c133f6b3fed9ab95cf826c5e1eaa
F20110217_AABPGD bardolf_l_Page_42.tif
90c0713ca0d7b9b952290b53cc426637
13616accbecb342a1b200ba2a3c217e45b146d8b
F20110217_AABPFP bardolf_l_Page_25.tif
c7be4d0248ef2ee67c75016a1e9fa183
d4af384be555e90662da3dc26ff664bef1f7e781
F20110217_AABPGE bardolf_l_Page_43.tif
b5681ef5d60e32e1440fa15382f88bda
dad7c9b04f341ee9db3f9484486f49bbfb83a4e3
F20110217_AABPFQ bardolf_l_Page_26.tif
69f432e6bde00675ce03626d2cf61cbf
cdcf44a898a190db3fcca14dcd3a68a670f9e721
F20110217_AABPFR bardolf_l_Page_27.tif
473fae3f1e71a3d4c6dfaf6cc3cdfe75
94b176968a571dc9f9253de1ab5ab35a6a6fdcb8
F20110217_AABPGF bardolf_l_Page_44.tif
f3c281a0fe40b7c25db1e0ca6e6eb03b
9bb32f606729c4c485c120b3afeecc4a79b819f9
F20110217_AABPFS bardolf_l_Page_28.tif
a9d5ce3d65732e3834e3a78d251304a9
4680d0e0aa82bfbaa89faea369eaa9ca1e7e2ada
F20110217_AABPGG bardolf_l_Page_45.tif
0ac1786753a801f2c6450f80367190c4
2b8d2aa462325e38686254510549f197231f0216
F20110217_AABPFT bardolf_l_Page_29.tif
c18b89e920499a9652f22a5ca0251be0
718d8a6add4e71bbacae92cad635b3a06f198d0c
F20110217_AABPGH bardolf_l_Page_46.tif
40c05b94fc51330037658ae22ac54b00
4d1c7b9a033008a0b6051cdb0e336411d3eec199
F20110217_AABPFU bardolf_l_Page_30.tif
826b0e408c08f36cde267a3945910973
076c87d80c10665a074ff3a35d86f83a3dbc660a
F20110217_AABPGI bardolf_l_Page_47.tif
2465ba05256e1c44b1722e0644d66818
db4a2d908bda2d9da914fc21601e319f7743d323
F20110217_AABPFV bardolf_l_Page_31.tif
51f7ad03780a1b8c9398f654fc339b30
77f623590e6588f095939d8d216b155ecf75067d
F20110217_AABPGJ bardolf_l_Page_48.tif
aca0269c0551741493ef6605d86a06e1
d02b0776f03f778b918a1c6bf9181d908a4ce3e2
F20110217_AABPFW bardolf_l_Page_32.tif
b00f6ae3ce654ec698750a07f52b528e
f7b10a8c8512fab05d18fc7d045c6cd97e59128d
F20110217_AABPGK bardolf_l_Page_49.tif
f8dfa23213950f94a49e42681b6bf302
b7fd68451844effffe9eb95b4bd1d12698b00051
F20110217_AABPFX bardolf_l_Page_33.tif
b437195a83633a877ccbdb39c773bbb8
e253c9759513fee4880272c4c673d90f13259899
F20110217_AABPHA bardolf_l_Page_68.tif
c67ee966ccb918b8f0694280859672bd
01fe002567daa1b1fb447b0dd723af220870a200
F20110217_AABPGL bardolf_l_Page_52.tif
1d31fe7b7cd9b50d12861fae1549f7ec
c013d1b3126cc99e52e3ba1d0b3a1d41505740c0
F20110217_AABPFY bardolf_l_Page_34.tif
15bc03ff714ec1910f26f8def94fb72c
e9845105150504f88b78ccb5cc47887633c4c72d
F20110217_AABPHB bardolf_l_Page_69.tif
b824ccdf79fc0721d01d5b815caab84b
08c40673972bace961f37ba497af0e425c9ccd94
F20110217_AABPGM bardolf_l_Page_53.tif
7a5ae5c274b05b654a03129f0b9566d5
08b431621f2b401887e75c4bcebdd2365be0c5ed
F20110217_AABPFZ bardolf_l_Page_36.tif
f3e00d4a9d94f841da643066ffcc1cb5
76fb9f0e7f979ebc0b98235f12fe57a184ef372f
F20110217_AABPHC bardolf_l_Page_71.tif
35787cc8ee056db708545fb8f2a4ab20
ce2f5108a11255993dd0ee882c4879ca9939b240
F20110217_AABPGN bardolf_l_Page_54.tif
f5f43c41947f703d39bf43334e81ea5b
91d559933092581985475498dd563022f67880d9
F20110217_AABPHD bardolf_l_Page_72.tif
8628d8998fa5cef187913eec8b4ebb94
16b923e6f0b9f77abc9f810f64471458a57a36c6
F20110217_AABPGO bardolf_l_Page_55.tif
e0af102fe21772e51c9df0b5c0db9d54
f3b132fce11029305b7307d4e7f0482b93891c29
F20110217_AABPHE bardolf_l_Page_73.tif
15d7d3dcbcb0c8697b75d1242b0aa1f1
cc56e8f00002df46b1f4bb49851ecab6869ea84e
F20110217_AABPGP bardolf_l_Page_56.tif
8cc60680fb501c5584fa8d4b7a77aef7
def46d9965c67113d8b86a892b2785dcf55da31c
F20110217_AABPHF bardolf_l_Page_74.tif
779b04b9852cfb9be738259d374376fd
6329cd397d92aafc8e92f1bd7be3fb8f52ec1390
F20110217_AABPGQ bardolf_l_Page_57.tif
1e43d4df2b32715526df59bb4a247476
b765c2bc07b13b187c8559de654499fd7dcfee51
F20110217_AABPGR bardolf_l_Page_58.tif
ab5c6ebb22a6d4bd97ff6e034202cc6a
b53e387aba3cf53543dff7934805c93998f821f9
F20110217_AABPHG bardolf_l_Page_75.tif
817a1fb32b0122d838d63a704846fcdf
2d5c247195153bf8d0589ef726d30f8ea37eedb4
F20110217_AABPGS bardolf_l_Page_59.tif
e675d3fc5872f066ed5234afbcc81783
4cc180bff9c1795077b410ba4a834d8a117f68f2
F20110217_AABPHH bardolf_l_Page_77.tif
f87ec58f446c1a64a38678bff6783765
d4981529b8b9c2e3eedda6349e9106228c8410f6
F20110217_AABPGT bardolf_l_Page_60.tif
3d17f1c76a5f092b6e0a146b78059cae
6cbd55b288da54244cd8033a3072a642b0f7904b
F20110217_AABPHI bardolf_l_Page_78.tif
8b5f80aa23b5a7294577bd082b232049
48034fe622207d12f5896342901d07bf53e65029
F20110217_AABPGU bardolf_l_Page_61.tif
3f7c50e72725064a2baada893d73b965
9fb17bd695e960bfbf92b153d7b20ec8a029671a
F20110217_AABPHJ bardolf_l_Page_79.tif
8a3411daa92bf2cd8c5a7dc9bfc79a58
039797e712779f49f45d5189ee1e648d5685e0b6
F20110217_AABPGV bardolf_l_Page_62.tif
4e3e20b8c1674f71811e383c1a7d2413
1b59a61b69a8aea89c246f87b630fb07801ce8e4
F20110217_AABPHK bardolf_l_Page_80.tif
e3275c936db960157476eb282e0e393b
e71ef62ea12e7c6fc7749cd8cff76c41dd73e70a
F20110217_AABPGW bardolf_l_Page_64.tif
8fcdc4a6b6a495f717459908bb73660e
31d4fbbd62d769b9aac52d5b9042386d07cd45a9
F20110217_AABPHL bardolf_l_Page_81.tif
2a26dfdf08e61866a4fc8d6bea4ece86
ee303702273b27b99621ff9733b699f221d42120
F20110217_AABPGX bardolf_l_Page_65.tif
32713b5baf780c87787dfcd26ade7788
c03081b7b939a5c75d8918a100f409db450ae673
1097 F20110217_AABPIA bardolf_l_Page_09.txt
d48261c10b4ef7dbebbcb060b82023cb
7a55e6f1de5b6968e476584cb6f57e0cdde72933
F20110217_AABPHM bardolf_l_Page_82.tif
590f9c199fce6ba4bb6d84c262b29c98
f05fdd1c5dd8233daad2cfcd426db47f0a9cbfdb
F20110217_AABPGY bardolf_l_Page_66.tif
3c5b5abffde4ec041199a7b4fa36fead
ef5e05f47807db3cfb49a1cb79cb198ee2d7715c
1783 F20110217_AABPIB bardolf_l_Page_10.txt
90a010da7ab6dd13224f8db0a996650d
ccb4b64ac05bccf68690c0196af7fdc181c03216
F20110217_AABPHN bardolf_l_Page_83.tif
e9f9efe7a09727daf89ca506b0a43f5f
134ec276a287310865e5c1e35b886ae5a91a1142
F20110217_AABPGZ bardolf_l_Page_67.tif
86b4c14985f516338712c1502650eb1c
0df635024593f7fa3a4aebe9e7530552b302be38
1075 F20110217_AABPIC bardolf_l_Page_11.txt
00a38ec3417bf912dd36eb5bc84d0736
454b0399c11f01eddaa70447656ee57ce309e47e
F20110217_AABPHO bardolf_l_Page_84.tif
c6713e8fd6161853cb90b29b8d8017ff
4f09cb51b7d6f38e65fd808a42c27c75dad2d76a
1866 F20110217_AABPID bardolf_l_Page_12.txt
571e49a9fa5a7f88c14113ba5549d814
75baf6cc3a8e5ed2788d7dc123975fcd72e6f838
F20110217_AABPHP bardolf_l_Page_85.tif
5e2be8f121a4ad5aafc276ec9c352ea2
89279b8af9a128128fe23d72688ad3143ac849db
1907 F20110217_AABPIE bardolf_l_Page_13.txt
4a85ca9ca4aa0f38aa93971c11e14c1f
43a9e7a52092e0e781690a8b985103bda218f44a
F20110217_AABPHQ bardolf_l_Page_86.tif
dc7a53343c839c264aaafc6125a2257f
fcf02862be5836b037272900de03d13015d6f829
1977 F20110217_AABPIF bardolf_l_Page_14.txt
aa722586560ac003ade6c5dc2bc080b7
d18ce327a80a03df0db73ee8639127daaff57a8d
F20110217_AABPHR bardolf_l_Page_87.tif
596fbaef93e0a0fd324d883254458d51
c6a251dc117d623f573b40671757b7d2a93fa64a
1857 F20110217_AABPIG bardolf_l_Page_16.txt
8d0eb7349e5a58a61f9a27e2aea9c7cd
b3c6b298f886da76ae82babafac585b1c33e44c1
F20110217_AABPHS bardolf_l_Page_90.tif
83aabcfe9c2007b5592da568698a3c61
fec24c64538672cbcaaa788b48aeef07eff4b8a0
405 F20110217_AABPHT bardolf_l_Page_01.txt
9f614e7faf6b13ff7f3bc66c91cb55bc
89c6f6369c495e913ff0ceebf7589f42a40bec6d
1909 F20110217_AABPIH bardolf_l_Page_17.txt
1a83e536757fe30ae462f5bf9cebbbef
5544eac2765fc3c4de0abf4b3d97e919d68c7e1f
123 F20110217_AABPHU bardolf_l_Page_02.txt
5e0f88d42ca857c5b45bb3f6e9a98aff
513a1777f05f2ffd2660c218dbda73109f671cd2
2105 F20110217_AABPII bardolf_l_Page_18.txt
fba3c411ea4779f151e862d5e368c086
9a03653d694b164cf2c3371f0b7258096673c822
312 F20110217_AABPHV bardolf_l_Page_03.txt
c46ccd2c09208ec48db6175d1496ca6e
c01be40a62494e1cf935af0478ac430fd250296d
1921 F20110217_AABPIJ bardolf_l_Page_20.txt
524327a8175338bfd8065152176365ac
a57feca68e865953c8200427dd21369cdc77391f
1727 F20110217_AABPHW bardolf_l_Page_04.txt
9f4e4410818584f1bdadb2c487252a5b
6831f17e86c895ce3a4158fd4933f33f4ac675b3
1958 F20110217_AABPIK bardolf_l_Page_21.txt
6b67f91ebc2121975bf65d067912559d
3df346b5560733c93567a7a4d02913b713adf82c
1899 F20110217_AABPHX bardolf_l_Page_05.txt
86eb1622009843435927b08f5af26c87
18125af1fcfd93c18c9496f06a188cd6f9d897d2
1545 F20110217_AABPJA bardolf_l_Page_39.txt
b9a068bffec2c130f8263218efb3bf85
5c7da82411f1dea4e3496c14e00211bd7e6cf88e
2089 F20110217_AABPIL bardolf_l_Page_22.txt
3ffe351f3cfcfff2f584c94464b7893c
cb58917baa0e66b05add2649cd817c1a82df9995
2883 F20110217_AABPHY bardolf_l_Page_06.txt
931852d5e4fc4d6188a8b107d304664f
d0e0dd3e3397fec1c2b80d4eaa0af7a52c517728
2065 F20110217_AABPJB bardolf_l_Page_40.txt
36b8fc1bde94ea39bcefe458cb86036a
8102345144c5b6c9b29c2f07b0e1877820d189cc
2002 F20110217_AABPIM bardolf_l_Page_24.txt
f5c668ca6142ab5bee5165b6444be0c1
c3a2ef2fbd732b901c50a62cd5bcfa34bfae54a2
313 F20110217_AABPHZ bardolf_l_Page_08.txt
4e3c6ebe34ba9c026637ebbae4a674c3
75e3e3aef91a4beeeafd7dd113f925436ff61bfc
1810 F20110217_AABPJC bardolf_l_Page_41.txt
58e8dcbfbd3c3ba6f79d468ccaee8ef8
584f462d8a5124aa848c09899acaf7264dccc08f
1677 F20110217_AABPIN bardolf_l_Page_25.txt
157e36ea844aa25916e0de10c1c9f0e7
5baccb9a47a3fa62ce5a6c32415c57ceee4b809a
1852 F20110217_AABPJD bardolf_l_Page_43.txt
b408ad9963eb16dded9d4eb0e7a6aa3e
0eae6c0a450a97430fb2ddfadf2b7b563eece113
2009 F20110217_AABPIO bardolf_l_Page_26.txt
e0178bbd5c9133312f3f7423242651ad
1d479d3f4723c1d0c86d2ee27c44c70a094be4d5
1848 F20110217_AABPJE bardolf_l_Page_44.txt
7a4c56fba128676b4b7d3d8fd84d8364
d1e918b7bcb704b8446aea1663d148293a951bee
1946 F20110217_AABPIP bardolf_l_Page_27.txt
1ee8a5865b456be8d2067da9ef95ba0e
680922bdf155768e132234e7a0846e16f69e3ac5
1392 F20110217_AABPJF bardolf_l_Page_45.txt
87289ae5e631fcef51cf1c038284643e
d6e0eda30dc06be6d7adc803e53db9d0975ba71e
1890 F20110217_AABPIQ bardolf_l_Page_28.txt
98ef50239214f0407bad90c67074ac61
aa99fc980ab949bae051b2395be2a68c00d12332
1335 F20110217_AABPJG bardolf_l_Page_46.txt
5b82048530d0af0bec074e88653a8fec
2d37b13cb986868e27046fb91c567195bcbe1200
2015 F20110217_AABPIR bardolf_l_Page_29.txt
dce25dd5a2f3c34c151d94fb0406bbe5
bf8150e194906db3ccf6070bfd20bf244eaec0fa
1832 F20110217_AABPJH bardolf_l_Page_47.txt
8eaecf5b94a5ef0d001042111e3b1bbf
e863382d27b60de5529be35dbf7d30006ce901e1
2062 F20110217_AABPIS bardolf_l_Page_30.txt
f12791111fb53f4c48332d3e7492c848
c3da98b2f3c17cad1310a968d0011102ad459fb1
699 F20110217_AABPIT bardolf_l_Page_31.txt
bf5dc580ec4369f4433490d14c375d9e
d0af0b0d89d18c890d891c14b8c92b3d77abf420
1659 F20110217_AABPJI bardolf_l_Page_49.txt
8ada64825fc4b39dcaeb3f29e6d8faa0
722881b49a152017bd2f5f27af8a6b36b3f5760e
2294 F20110217_AABPIU bardolf_l_Page_32.txt
2d156683399285cc5367916c40966d47
f5c5529bcd7a46f5069bbc008e8b323382dcc948
413 F20110217_AABPJJ bardolf_l_Page_50.txt
f0f10e1cc04b2bda2f3478e570f176f3
52ecb897043274571fbd8973127e9e5fb900b276
1955 F20110217_AABPIV bardolf_l_Page_33.txt
6ce831e4838d3ab7fae30f00233e32f6
b7f86310b5b21ad108c8c65a5efeb0f6a552243c
361 F20110217_AABPJK bardolf_l_Page_51.txt
ad8e41f187b099f92ca8c9edc9f4a221
92176647f300249264405698985331a30266df64
1992 F20110217_AABPIW bardolf_l_Page_34.txt
9d5af3a70aa3d7b62d6db94f49e41ad8
e845b0d7f8e3f6b41ae2f0c5a324240e32add3ba
2161 F20110217_AABPKA bardolf_l_Page_70.txt
c9285f4a619f9a99a651e8a6e320f5c8
3b45307c1b01a41cafbed13794f8cad0d56e8f7f
1828 F20110217_AABPJL bardolf_l_Page_52.txt
9f33e092b82fa97a2d6ea72d227a6bf5
b1ddef6c5f62e1418c79531634f4bf6e4c4f888b
2001 F20110217_AABPIX bardolf_l_Page_35.txt
0e972ed7d189f3a0ac118b7154ea79f0
1a310ad0c27d3e8c9ad7d2e9227804e2c7a53a2f
2047 F20110217_AABPKB bardolf_l_Page_72.txt
acf5d8d2bdf3d9cbc092ef3305a5e5fa
2a4007c20c197e950b0a26006f095ab03e8a6b93
1464 F20110217_AABPJM bardolf_l_Page_53.txt
76d77e4ce25a5a2e60833216da8fe659
ca643eb0ac84a6bf32f75f0e207c1e053d9f48f9
2025 F20110217_AABPIY bardolf_l_Page_36.txt
0b6eb2a7193eb0fa6d3451d94a74be22
6a3515b030469a37f3a61cd9fc2bf9b72f37d286
1994 F20110217_AABPKC bardolf_l_Page_73.txt
caf1e3643ef9b4ba662e4a49ca9da749
63ed57b8a9173184bf1896e8f356b48f8d61ef39
1049 F20110217_AABPJN bardolf_l_Page_54.txt
7de5daea97b07a4ada8d149813303e37
a1f970227a0d5bf932dc72c4ed0bed522feb6c06
742 F20110217_AABPIZ bardolf_l_Page_38.txt
89f721687e993d69fb4d5e264cc83143
5e2320a93a2e5bb9747d70e84fa0bd485ce3bd30
1908 F20110217_AABPKD bardolf_l_Page_75.txt
0e3e327a163ed41862e388564e796b64
3b3c07fe1fe4c07a1ebff754a6d01faaa509e697
150 F20110217_AABPJO bardolf_l_Page_55.txt
1be9bb62510721ad48a6a4a10e3bd00d
708d4e31e648585707f3ea039a131f792fa370ca
1879 F20110217_AABPKE bardolf_l_Page_76.txt
dd83296a6f93370fb47b4754483f117a
121979b2afcf60ee41746ab800dbaf438a28fea5
1927 F20110217_AABPJP bardolf_l_Page_57.txt
fd43341e8761380a087dab00afe17c2e
b8fd4ab15da8e4887fce4b3231997f4294ca99a7
1914 F20110217_AABPKF bardolf_l_Page_78.txt
1f22d91487819c12fc8012be902f4186
4d38552ae79045719db7131d22debc82498b702a
1839 F20110217_AABPJQ bardolf_l_Page_58.txt
7d7ed09b6cb97bb76fcefc4f5dee134d
1a8c1010127ba8f5e8800bedc6cda46cd8463711
F20110217_AABPKG bardolf_l_Page_79.txt
f4f20d436255a798a0be0e2624fdb1dc
d271a5d3b02cd622189aa51fd03785dd762cb3d5
2121 F20110217_AABPJR bardolf_l_Page_60.txt
20ce9b010e3f7c973888dbeb2708d7cd
ba5f094ed8f07029ba3fcd4b8d7a90607eb63a03
1926 F20110217_AABPKH bardolf_l_Page_80.txt
1bd68f2d1efd8d3b1691999a754a9830
ee1b530ad09c690437e709c272d3678f6db2e071
2023 F20110217_AABPJS bardolf_l_Page_61.txt
29368e7e18bd010518679a5be21c8ba6
050defc70b104ff9d42b50744c665ce46a8ea0fd
F20110217_AABPKI bardolf_l_Page_81.txt
59555aab26a7d7b96b6faa321770180b
d9713bcbc6e300d8f39cee1ca5adf45a1ed6af94
1965 F20110217_AABPJT bardolf_l_Page_62.txt
e23e35a4111145eebbbe78247002479c
fb288b1727f4a01ce137af27a0a6ccc61eb14545
1233 F20110217_AABPJU bardolf_l_Page_63.txt
e3d2060ccda3586de7134bff66b97513
5df92a0f178f23b9a92473cf074728b04d6576ac
1986 F20110217_AABPKJ bardolf_l_Page_82.txt
35202c7b1e4e944e9292754a188099a7
18394def1d45100c010be60abc2cbf2d05c045f5
2120 F20110217_AABPJV bardolf_l_Page_64.txt
8997598944afef86f82fe5c366901e30
e446c41b6adbbc08b6e633168e5913af639ac13f
2307 F20110217_AABPKK bardolf_l_Page_84.txt
63b37eb7863573bb259d290afdb723a8
d47ad372ba6924111d8ba6654222a3d639e3a715
1929 F20110217_AABPJW bardolf_l_Page_65.txt
0611d2830f6df477f004c6d35fe1810f
0bc5d8f7227bf3099084e76957e051e40fad5cf7
2537 F20110217_AABPKL bardolf_l_Page_85.txt
d629ce16e5503f09f95932ed4b896d6b
73c8e6eb9b0a26104a6b8486a328e5a4f7ac0262
1818 F20110217_AABPJX bardolf_l_Page_67.txt
cccdaafe1b4efe1ee0b4d0b0e3d29f98
9420e94075c88c12f8a248b89d845de5f4689d76
26883 F20110217_AABPLA bardolf_l_Page_11.pro
7a3a5a3c40eaed2f8c1f3014bfe0d16a
beb5e0f2a25db5bb89a90fd1c9741554b9898d8b
2434 F20110217_AABPKM bardolf_l_Page_86.txt
9d73b9d24a29f0b93893a71ba8886b1a
36fda89050695341107509a1ccf68f754b55e505
966 F20110217_AABPJY bardolf_l_Page_68.txt
e42325cfef9b23bba87c49a936c33218
b2b77142f559ae800f90ea4dea19015c2f5cce8d
48410 F20110217_AABPLB bardolf_l_Page_13.pro
7d874cc14a6acc8611f82683a892009c
53d6a21ab78d6e6bb6254aeafa37339adb4f8bd2
2343 F20110217_AABPKN bardolf_l_Page_87.txt
8347b18e37ca37f3a936478bf672d0b6
601c2518c40859fc6699f00105ff737433cc6957
2328 F20110217_AABPJZ bardolf_l_Page_69.txt
a5e005c9d797458437f431821f37d188
436386a37fd48dae13a6206299e0b4dcaa934a43
50109 F20110217_AABPLC bardolf_l_Page_14.pro
814fe9c9f135c14187ab5d144f946c83
83dc79a089f56e52e66a953a09cb0a34aad1acea
1034 F20110217_AABPKO bardolf_l_Page_88.txt
1bab0445f09fe6604d567bbdd63d5456
3e37b56175388043d655674db3279357c645ecdf
5448 F20110217_AABPLD bardolf_l_Page_15.pro
48e396ba03802ca7ee82d4e104509cc3
340c63b01e217a9f0cdb9db1905ff49cfea23466
F20110217_AABPKP bardolf_l_Page_89.txt
c91ea1a935ef711a2b023de1dbe947c3
4ebf0d385235b0102f31ada2adf01fdc48032c47
45500 F20110217_AABPLE bardolf_l_Page_16.pro
360a51efb154c5679ac87a752b229109
853a6598bca754602f2780e0037acf0fe475984c
211 F20110217_AABPKQ bardolf_l_Page_90.txt
2381efe80c9f0c987ebaa2c99bd8969d
6dae7f24995da28a0d6c0243f3b20c2f5df80c15
48277 F20110217_AABPLF bardolf_l_Page_17.pro
66c7fdc1343ad606326575356745a4bd
411adf02f12d5e4f49a63ed2c5038b62ff5ec0e2
7397 F20110217_AABPKR bardolf_l_Page_01.pro
8c70bc7cbcee4367c2d899ad973f1eee
118234e3044a6407dcbe6de14ffb8d61624479dc
50773 F20110217_AABPLG bardolf_l_Page_19.pro
5ec93afe794ec6c0bf99aacab6334c45
b44f28c08ecd0fb662e3fd72c181ae72b406efdc
1356 F20110217_AABPKS bardolf_l_Page_02.pro
750b37c2ad8a35fb742068e81ce19d98
79464b84836e31b3ea55fc41d8771a046e93f746
48672 F20110217_AABPLH bardolf_l_Page_20.pro
3c2c5930b14fd8fb834515895752ab20
2f62b2c9eece994bcea8e1f35c8e848aa5be65ea
6987 F20110217_AABPKT bardolf_l_Page_03.pro
b0a30e94e34739ba54c712a1b5853014
358be1aa6d0edd23d80b1ff0db0fb90d0c525fec
48865 F20110217_AABPLI bardolf_l_Page_21.pro
b0bb3d0cddbe120b19c9816f1d2d1a77
eb0ab0782242ab14dd847c219a44d0a9287746fa
42852 F20110217_AABPKU bardolf_l_Page_04.pro
3c1777f12893ea1b06dfaf6a0322910e
f80ed822d8e5a0d3064eea19e736a259067d7ec6
53135 F20110217_AABPLJ bardolf_l_Page_22.pro
0cd3969850a65474f9857a45934e0d3c
16943fdc1bbcc1f969f619ef06ddb271a27f842f
48061 F20110217_AABPKV bardolf_l_Page_05.pro
073544bd8b5d7feab71de425dd3391a1
fe98df622fe0d8468baeb83b6657bcf0b966e5aa
88668 F20110217_AABPKW bardolf_l_Page_07.pro
d595b5c133c5d7ed4756aef4fc871a23
82839ee9bfb54f153950c850a47dfbe62284ae4b
52113 F20110217_AABPLK bardolf_l_Page_23.pro
1bf8c76f726d8c7d7aef6eef5f80865e
1f990a91a5791187817f6dd90cf0851989e6a545
6692 F20110217_AABPKX bardolf_l_Page_08.pro
8c0295f9f38bc0ea5f0b9d477cbd8ebf
9c3689ea5da8bdc8f3a35ed4c8dce64ba150728a
46192 F20110217_AABPMA bardolf_l_Page_47.pro
a9cdbb5240d5cafc16b21e9ab6eecd87
7b00f31b2c07f82ff98bde650dfc7061dfedef0f
41949 F20110217_AABPLL bardolf_l_Page_25.pro
aa43b29cc32098b8ad5c183ed61d0e7b
dfcf2199f9452b49431597f85524c5bfc96814c7
32312 F20110217_AABPMB bardolf_l_Page_48.pro
c8a482ab10c6e7c34a41c1e9a61d3894
937eda646f024265f4fdb9e69a8714c73091ce62
47903 F20110217_AABPLM bardolf_l_Page_28.pro
7c602c1b7b24bcf34b28d992136595fc
ad0529d08e0cf527dfc9c1df486ea67f74c4efdd
26063 F20110217_AABPKY bardolf_l_Page_09.pro
3136813c56de5c8d1de2d821e558821a
1f1f0f30b05ff87ab3046560ab532fb35bd8cb8f
41837 F20110217_AABPMC bardolf_l_Page_49.pro
7334551430518126c7346423962a5ec5
305d34c8197a0344b6527ad2cc5625f401f66475
51242 F20110217_AABPLN bardolf_l_Page_29.pro
af5029a08394ff6c67b35f8b15d9206f
8a75b51af27de78286ac939778161f5daa527e2c
40874 F20110217_AABPKZ bardolf_l_Page_10.pro
a8efaae370319f304e6988fcfd4625d5
a2d04ab6dc4351d3a30b55fb04cb4300c4d8882e
9677 F20110217_AABPMD bardolf_l_Page_50.pro
8680b32648e80e15c0bf831c311a04d2
2f21e5718c0cd471f67022d5d4f71e429737e8f4
52703 F20110217_AABPLO bardolf_l_Page_30.pro
6926e02b94cc9a6ca2f8725b700457cb
cf260db2c980ff4da411f9c55ccd900392ce53ce
7970 F20110217_AABPME bardolf_l_Page_51.pro
7da742027538ee92a70b052516177449
4ebb5262ee04ef7b14672bb4dcaf2564618b5b32
17577 F20110217_AABPLP bardolf_l_Page_31.pro
f31a70da372335f955421090b6f82d47
da7c25d912cedc87e378c937f90980f061bcb686
45450 F20110217_AABPMF bardolf_l_Page_52.pro
2869f6c032b89303b850846f810e2ed8
6c611f979c763a4dfa0fcf6ec8a424170a6cb17c
50844 F20110217_AABPLQ bardolf_l_Page_35.pro
dbc9223b2d00d58c3baec4890d89ebe4
852da0266e683831c1632a0267eab9acddeab57f
32244 F20110217_AABPMG bardolf_l_Page_53.pro
394b0561f4b7d4e761400418b2dcd62c
e43768865cfd0b29fb98c9aa0ebde498259a5f64
51020 F20110217_AABPLR bardolf_l_Page_36.pro
d43c81ebf7ed2c3c63969f0051f47fb2
6fb4b2ad393741596ea037469ff7468c8995e36a
18356 F20110217_AABPMH bardolf_l_Page_54.pro
fc858fb195ebd3ebcef185cc226ebfb2
99f41a8b56d76fc2aeccdb78a55dbc1e1d08d425
43343 F20110217_AABPLS bardolf_l_Page_37.pro
25210bdf1b76c191607362cc9b894676
f98adecb0689557123c16668fdfc3a7c0d3d6532
43667 F20110217_AABPMI bardolf_l_Page_56.pro
fe33339f81d0e0f13caeda4343c60634
cdb502a03cd31fa5d1aaa60ac6b55f13aedb30e9
13192 F20110217_AABPLT bardolf_l_Page_38.pro
1f510dae671edb4f7792626c76a98fe4
95c580e216e4d558ce10643695578018364d3693
48078 F20110217_AABPMJ bardolf_l_Page_57.pro
bade38065fe33fb266c55afc07907b10
25ba4c6f3e852cc74153d9ef5b2c1e82a716a7c8
36483 F20110217_AABPLU bardolf_l_Page_39.pro
925f079cef1b81b99729121a8ea7f6c3
4895cedaa5366d27f0f6fd8817053d25ae011a96
46003 F20110217_AABPMK bardolf_l_Page_58.pro
3e350ffa29cbdb48be536e7ec9732a5e
810ea7d24929252389a5b8790939c61ea2011060
52745 F20110217_AABPLV bardolf_l_Page_40.pro
a3f7f760fdf78d2c485633a24d2dea6c
50ace0ba4a3f3e934b5ccf8d92c04fc85b2a7424
45574 F20110217_AABPLW bardolf_l_Page_41.pro
c31593235b03013deb7995a9a6114529
aac004b4c35fb761b418fc78030e617b8b78b0dc
52470 F20110217_AABPML bardolf_l_Page_59.pro
fd9c3f55ad9ee253b098042ecc289f2a
32f08b7fccaccbb961b9dc0d0adfb610f4999ea5
37002 F20110217_AABPLX bardolf_l_Page_42.pro
8af1f174bae5f15ef43a240f3063346d
1644f2865eaf38ab35f643ffd1f97b492e75b9c6
46202 F20110217_AABPNA bardolf_l_Page_79.pro
08efcc7fd4514b2ee3ad0cb398d37546
d385736606d5454126463a3f47dcca0f1418ad9a


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014926/00001

Material Information

Title: Divided Attention, Perception, and Auditory Recall
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014926:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014926/00001

Material Information

Title: Divided Attention, Perception, and Auditory Recall
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014926:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












DIVIDED ATTENTION, PERCEPTION AND AUDITORY RECALL


By

LYNNETTE BOSSE BARDOLF













A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Lynnette Bosse Bardolf



























This document is dedicated, with much love, to my husband, Keith; my older daughter
and niece, Shauna; to my two younger daughters, Michaela and Rainey; to my extended
family and friends; and to my God, all of whom make my life meaningful and worth
living.















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First, no accomplishments in my life would be possible without the love and

graciousness of my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, because through faith in Him, all

things are possible. I am very thankful for His presence in my life and sustaining me

during this Ph.D. program. Second, and of nearly equal importance, is the undying love

and support of my husband, Keith. He has graciously and unselfishly supported me and

has placed my career, and my well-being in life, ahead of his own. For his support during

this process, I will forever be thankful. I also want to thank my two younger daughters,

Micheala and Rainey, for their understanding during the times when their "mommy" had

to study for classes, conduct research, or prepare this dissertation.

This endeavor also would not have been possible without the support of my

immediate family and friends: my mother, Delores Bosse; my sisters, Janelle Hayes and

Jodi Day; my niece, Jaclyn Esslinger, all who made me laugh, listened to my struggles,

and supported me when I needed it; my Army Audiology "buddy" LTC Marc Stevens,

who was always there to provide an encouraging word when I needed it; and my

"statistics buddy" and friend, Cheri Brodeur, whom I immediately bonded with when we

both had the "deer in the headlights" look the first day of our statistics class when neither

of us had a clue what the professor was talking about. However, mostly I would like to

acknowledge and thank my father and mother-in-law, David and Faye Bardolf, who

retired early from their jobs and moved to Florida specifically to help us care for and









provide much needed transportation for our daughters while I was busy pursuing this

degree. I will always be thankful for what they did in helping me achieve this goal.

I thank my major professor and chair of my committee, Dr. Scott K.Griffiths for

being patient and understanding with me as I stumbled through this process. I am sure he

probably had his doubts occasionally, especially during the times when it did not seem

like I would "get it!" But he was always supportive and patient waiting for my "light

bulb" to turn on! I will never forget his words of wisdom: "Pick a topic you can be

passionate about, because during the down times, that passion will carry you through."

That advice was very useful in this process, and is applicable to most things in life as

well.

I would also like to thank my dissertation committee, all who provided invaluable

support, information, and guidance during this process: Dr. Ken Gerhardt; Dr. Bhramar

Mukherjee; and the late Dr. Carl Crandell, who unfortunately passed away during my

Ph.D. program. I would also like to thank LTC (Dr.) Dale Ostler, for mentoring me

during my program and stepping in as an adjunct member of my dissertation committee.

I would also like to thank all of the staff and faculty in the Department of Communication

Disorders at the University of Florida, who were more than willing to provide

information and services when I needed it.

I would also like to thank the many people whom mentored me, supported me,

guided me, and befriended me throughout my Army career and in Army Audiology.

There are too many to mention, but they know who they are. It has been a good ride,

and I will always be very thankful for all the wonderful opportunities I have had in

learning new things during this Ph.D. process, in the Army, and in life.















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TABLES .................................................... ....... .. .............. viii

LIST OF FIGURES ......... ............................... ........ ............ ix

A B ST R A C T ................. .......................................................................................... x

CHAPTER

1 IN TRODU CTION ................................................. ...... .................

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ......................................................... ....................5

Speech Perception, Dichotic Digits, Auditory Encoding and Retrieval.......................6
Speech Perception ................. .... ...................... ............. ................ .6
E ncoding and R etrieval ............................................................................. 6
N oise and Sound E effects ............................................... ............................ 7
M em ory .....................................10.............................
M em ory and D ivided Attention...................................... ......................... 10
Implicit and Explicit M em ory ........................ ........................... 12
Older vs. Younger Adults and Divided Attention ............................................15
A natom y ................................................................... 16
Reaction Tim e ..................... ............................ 18
Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB).....................................................18
Socialization and Divided Attention ....................................... ............... 19

3 M ATERIALS AND M ETHOD S ........................................ ......................... 21

M a te ria ls ..............................................................................2 1
P articip an ts ...............................................................2 1
Experim ental Conditions ......................................................... ............. 22
Overview ................................................................. .. ......... 22
V isual-M otor Task ................................................. ....... .. ............ 29
Hypotheses ............................... ... ...... ... ................3 30
Statistical A analysis ........................................................... 3 1









4 R E SU L T S ....................................................... 32

D em graphic P rofile............ ... ........................................................ ........... ...... 32
H IN T Identification Perform ance..................................... ........................ .. .......... 34
B etw een G groups ........................................ .... ....... .... ....... 34
H IN T Reliability ....................................................... ................. 35
Task Effects .................. 5................................................
W within G roups--Com bined ...................... .... ............................. ............... 36
H IN T K ey-Item Prim ing .............................................................................. 36
A uditory R ecall and Prim ing ......................................................... .............. 37
Between Group Com parisons.................................................... ...... ........ 37
W within G roup Com prisons ....................................................... .... ........... 38
R e a ctio n T im e s ..................................................................................................... 4 1
B etw een G groups ........................................ .... ....... .... .. .....41
W ith in G ro u p s ............................................................................................... 4 2
V ideo G am es ................................................................... 42

5 D ISC U S SIO N ............................................................................... 4 5

Quiet vs. Noise Conditions ................................. .......................... .........46
Single vs. D ivided Attention Conditions ................................................................ 47
Priming By Item and in Auditory Recall ...........................................48
Reaction Times vs. Divided Attention and Age ................ ....................... 49
L im stations of the R research ................................................................. ................ 5 1
F utu re D direction s ............................................................................................5 1

APPENDIX

A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARTICIPANTS ................................... .................53

B INFORM ED CON SEN T FORM .......................................... .......................... 54

C INSTRUCTIONS FOR DIVIDED ATTENTION STUDY ..................................... 56

D FORWARD AND REVERSE DIGIT SPAN TEST .................................................57

E IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT PRIMING STUDY LISTS BY VERSION..................58

F H IN T SE N T E N C E S ........................................................................ .....................60

G H IN T QUESTION S BY VER SION ................................................ .....................62

H EXAMPLE OF RESPONSE TIME PRINTOUT FROM THE MATB .....................70

R E F E R E N C E S ........................................ ........................................................... .. 7 1

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ..................................................................... ..................78
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Summary of Demographic Data for Military Group and Non-Military Groups......33

4-2 M ean HINT Key-Item Performance Scores.................................. ............... 37
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p

3-1 Layout of speakers and participant within audiometric soundbooth.....................27

3-2 Sample combat noise waveform ........................................ ......................... 28

4-1 HINT identification performance among the participants (military vs. non-
m military) ............................................................... .... ..... ......... 35

4-2 HINT primed key-item identification performance for the noise and noise+task
conditions by groups. ....................................... ............... .... ....... 37

4-3 Mean recall performance for implicit, explicit, and unprimed items per group
and condition ............. ... ......................................... ... ....... .. 39

4-4 Mean reaction times by group ................. ......... .......................... 42

4-5 Reported video game frequency and skill ratings among the participants...............43













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

DIVIDED ATTENTION, PERCEPTION AND AUDITORY RECALL

By

Lynnette Bosse Bardolf

August 2006

Chair: Scott K. Griffiths
Major Department: Communication Sciences and Disorders

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the effects of divided attention on

speech perception and auditory recall. Participants included 16 military and 16 non-

military adults, aged 18-50, with hearing thresholds no worse than those categorized as

the U.S. Army's Hearing 1 profile, and with forward and reverse digit spans of at least

four. Participants studied selected words and sentences prior to testing to accomplish

implicit and explicit priming. Speech perception was assessed using Hearing-In-Noise

(HINT) sentences presented with and without uncorrelated combat noise in the sound

field at 65 dB SPL at 0 azimuth. The combat noise was presented at 5 dB less than the

sentences. Participants were required to repeat 30 HINT sentences in each of four

conditions: 1) in quiet, 2) in combat noise, 3) in quiet with an additional task, and 4) in

combat noise with an additional task. Following each condition, participants were asked

to answer questions to assess recall of the HINT sentence material.

There were no group differences in HINT item identification in the four conditions.

Significant differences were found in HINT item identification scores between the quiet









and noise conditions, and among priming conditions. Auditory recall performance was

significantly altered by noise, task and priming conditions, with significant interactions

noted between each pairing of conditions.

The mean reaction times for the military group were generally longer than the non-

military group. Demographic comparisons showed considerable disparity between the

groups, in particular with regard to gender and age. Because of the mean age differences

between the groups, a comparison between age and reaction times was made for the

divided attention task conditions, which did not reveal any significant effect. Although

age and gender differences were significant, they did not appear to affect the outcome of

the results when comparing the groups. No statistical differences were noted when

comparing reaction times to video game frequency or self-rated skill, thus indicating that

the amount of time a person plays video games, or his/her self-rated skill, has little

impact on reaction times.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Divided attention, or an intentional effort to be aware of two or more items

simultaneously, has been studied fairly extensively in its relation to perceptual

performance. Two other terms relating to this construct appear in the body of literature

on divided attention: multi-tasking (i.e.,, doing two or more things at once), and dual-

tasking (i.e.,, when an individual does two task simultaneously). Human listeners must

frequently dual-task or multi-task while attempting to comprehend speech, often in the

presence of noise. These situations require complex and adaptive attentional control to

produce successful speech perception.

Attention has many facets: selective attention, divided attention, sustained

attention, switching attention, etc., each of which is fascinating in its own right when it

comes to the role it plays in speech perception. According to Hartley (1992), James in

1890 defines attention as "the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of

one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought.

Focalization, concentration of consciousness are of its essence. It implies withdrawal

from some things in order to deal effectively with others." (pg. 3) Hartley also claims

James emphasized attention as a filtering aspect. By selecting certain information for

priority processing, people can attend to and manage different input at the same time.

Generally, the nature of the information managed, and how the information is managed,

is often debated. Agreement exists when tasks are performed simultaneously. A person

needs to manage simultaneous tasks differently than when the tasks are performed alone.









Because of this, Hartley (1992) redefines attention as being responsible for selectively

preparing, maintaining preparation, and processing certain aspects of experience. When

coordinating multiple tasks, attention is a key factor. Another construct, working

memory, is difficult to separate from attention because it could be considered a broader

attention task. Gottwald, Mihajlovic, Wilde, and Mehdorn (2003) essentially describe

working memory as the ability to re-organize and coordinate new information by

perceiving and processing it.

Some of the types of attention mentioned above may play a role in how speech is

perceived when a person is required to divide his/her attention between two tasks. For

instance, selective attention, or "the ability to attend selectively," is very important

because if an individual can not attend to relevant information while ignoring irrelevant

information, then that individual may not be able to effectively complete a task

requirement. Sustained attention, or vigilance, is also deemed important because it

describes a person's ability to "maintain concentration or focus over time," which of

course is important in divided attention tasks. Vigilance and attention are closely

associated. According to Keith (1994), vigilance integrates three dimensions of attention

that are distinct: alertness, selection and effort. And when switching attention between

tasks, researchers have found there may be a cost to performance by the individual (i.e.,

slower performance or less efficient performance), if the task requires the individual

alternate between tasks (McDowd and Shaw, 2000; Rubenstein and Meyer and Meyer,

2001; Shellenbargar, 2003; Multitasking, 2005). How does all of this relate to speech

perception? According to McDowd and Shaw (2000), people typically comprehend









language when multiple sources are competing for attention, by focusing on relevant

information and disregarding other irrelevant information.

How attention affects one's memory and ability to encode or retrieve words has

been fairly extensively studied. People have more difficulty with recall and recognition if

their attention is divided (i.e., performing another task, etc) during encoding than if

divided during retrieval (Craik, Naveh-Benjamin, Ishaik, and Anderson, 2000; Fernandes

and Moscovitch, 2003; Mulligan, 1998; Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Perretta, and Toney,

2000; and Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Guez, Kreuger, 2005; Wallace et al., 2001). Other

research comparing the divided attention tasks of older and younger adults has shown

that divided attention tasks are more difficult for older individuals than for younger

individuals (Castel and Craik, 1999; Fernandes and Moscovitch, 2003; Hartley, 1992;

McDowd and Shaw, 2000). This may be due to many factors, possibly including a

reduction in attentional resources or a reduction in the ability to control the allotting of

attention with aging. Generally, older adults may have more difficulty than younger

adults when forming new associations, binding features together and combining items

(Castel and Craik, 1999). Memory itself is not a simple construct. Two apparent factors

are implicit and explicit memory. Implicit memory is knowledge that can be retrieved

without conscious recollection, while explicit memory is knowledge that can be retrieved

only through conscious recollection and usually involves a particular event (Anderson,

1995; Schacter, 1996).

The purpose of the proposed research is to assess to what extent divided attention

affects a person's speech understanding ability, or causes a breakdown in auditory input,

memory encoding and retrieval, and performance. Specifically, this project will evaluate






4


recognition of sentences in combat noise and in divided attention conditions, as well as

auditory recall in implicit and explicit memory paradigms in listeners with and without

military training.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Divided attention is the intentional effort to be aware of two or more things

simultaneously. More importantly, sustained attention (or vigilance) is a person's ability

to continue to focus or concentrate on something over time, as mentioned previously.

Sustained attention is required for information processing (DeGangi and Porges, 1990).

According to DeGangi and Porges (1990), sustained attention is "the ability to direct and

focus cognitive activity on specific stimuli," and includes three stages: attention getting,

attention holding, and attention releasing. The authors describe attention as alerting a

person to the stimulus, and requiring "complex active thought processing." Attention is

important to learning and requires a stimulus that is qualitative in nature. Attention

holding is essentially described as the maintaining of the stimulus, which must be

"intricate or novel" in order for a person to continue to attend to the stimulus and

"encourage information processing." It relies on how complex the stimulus is and the

energy needed to attend to a stimulus. It also requires a person to remain motivated to the

stimulus. If a person has an attention problem, low motivation, processing problems, a

cognitive impairment, or learning problems, the motivation to hold their attention to a

stimulus will be low. The final stage of sustained attention is attention releasing. This is

defined as "the releasing or turning off of attention from a stimulus." It can occur

because a person has lost interest in the stimulus, is fatigued, or the stimulus is no longer

present. Releasing of attention from the stimulus permits closure from a task and allows









a person to "switch attention to something else." Attention releasing is also an important

factor in learning (DeGangi and Porges, 1990).

Speech Perception, Dichotic Digits, Auditory Encoding and Retrieval

Speech Perception

The perception of speech is multifaceted. Speech perception is basically defined as

decoding a message from varying sounds delivered from a speaker. Speech is unique in

that it contains individual sounds, syllables, words, sentences, phonemes, allophones,

etc., and generally has different prosodic features, as well as differential features that may

affect how it's perceived (Borden and Harris, 1984; Pickett, 1986). There are many

theories of speech perception. How speech is perceived is not the focus of this research.

Instead, the focus will be on the use of speech perception tests in divided attention

research to assess a person's ability to recognize words or speech in a variety of

situations (in quiet and in noise) while performing a secondary task (i.e., dividing their

attention).

Encoding and Retrieval

Encoding is, in effect, the process of putting data (something we see, hear, think or

feel) into our memory. The term "storage" is used to describe where we put the data.

Retrieval is how the data is accessed, by using associated clues (Anderson, 1995;

Schacter, 1996). Dividing attention during encoding generally impairs recognition and

recall when a secondary task is performed. Some studies have shown that for some

memory tests, dividing attention during the encoding process caused little to no decrease

in performance. (Mulligan, 1998; Naveh-Benjamin et al., 2005; Wallace, Shaffer,

Amberg, and Silvers, 2001) Memory essentially has three parts: encoding, storage, and

retrieval (recall). For implicit memory tests without a strong conceptual component,









dividing attention at encoding does not appear to impair them. Research showed that for

the consciously controlled factors in memory, attention is relevant. Attention has little

relevance for memory that occurs automatically (Wallace, 2001). Craik et al. (2000) also

reported that dividing attention during encoding reduces subsequent memory

performance when doing a memory task. According to Craik et al., researchers found

when dividing attention at encoding, a larger decline in subsequent memory performance

occurred than when dividing attention at retrieval (2000). Priming effects may actually

improve recall performance on dual-task conditions. Priming effects are basically items

we see or hear that may influence subsequent judgments or behaviors. Reported studies

done by Murdock et al. in 1965, and confirmed by Baddeley et al. in 1969, indicated that

free-recall performance improved under dual-task conditions when performance of the

memory task was emphasized at study as opposed to performance of the secondary task

(Craik et al., 2000). Craik et al. (2000) also reported that only minimal effects occurred

when attention was divided during the retrieval phase and retrieval of memories actually

"consumed more attentional capacity than encoding" (pg. 1744). Craik also reported that

reaction time on the divided attention task during retrieval in the "free recall paradigm"

was slower than reaction time on the divided attention task during encoding. The

researchers noted that recent neuroimaging studies also suggested that prefrontal

activation showed different patterns during episodic encoding and retrieval (2000).

Noise and Sound Effects

Noise, in effect, is any unwanted sound. The Miriam Webster online dictionary

(2005) defines noise as: "a: sound, especially: one that lacks agreeable musical quality or

is noticeably unpleasant; b: any sound that is undesired or interferes with one's hearing of

something; c: an unwanted signal or a disturbance (as static or a variation of voltage) in









an electronic device or instrument (as radio or television); broadly: a disturbance

interfering with the operation of a usually mechanical device or system." Noise effects

on a participant's ability to understand speech has been studied with a multitude of

various stimuli, including words and sentences. Studies have reported that perhaps

background noise may cause direct effects (sensory input degradation) and indirect

effects (requirement of additional effort to process the speech signal), which may

increase cognitive load, thus impairing the elderly adults (Tun, 1998). Tun (1998)

compared the ability to understand sentences in the presence of background babble in

elderly participants and younger participants, finding that age did affect a person's ability

to understand speech in the presence of background noise. Older listeners were less able

to repeat the last word in the sentences in noise than younger listeners, and particularly so

when speech was presented at faster rates. Younger adults were not exempt from the

effects of background noise on speech understanding. Pichora-Fuller, Schneider,

Daneman (1995) demonstrated similar differences between older and younger listeners in

the identification of speech in background noise. This mainly affected concurrent

memory load for both younger and older adults. Pichora-Fuller et al. (1995) also

attributed age differences in performance primarily to perceptual processing rather than

cognitive processing, and noted that elderly listeners expended more attentional resources

in order to more effectively deal with the combined effects of the background noise and

perceptual processing deficits.

In looking at yet another aspect of divided attention, a study done by Shinn-

Cunningham and Ihlefeld (2004) explored the way sounds interact with each other (both

acoustically and perceptually), and demonstrated that 1) overall performance was









generally better in both selective and divided-attention tasks when "the sources are

perceived at different locations than when they are perceived at the same location; and 2)

if perceived sound locations are randomly changed between trials, performance is

degraded compared to if source locations are fixed." These two effects were greater for

selective attention tasks than for divided attention tasks. The authors' results suggest

listeners tend to focus their attention toward the location where they expect the noise

source will originate, and they do not expect that listeners "listen everywhere."

Multitalker babble, a source of noise commonly used as background noise for

speech perception testing, is used because it is "the most common environmental noise

encountered by listeners in everyday life and because babble is more unfavorable to

speech perception than other types of competition (Wilson, Abrams, Pillion, 2003)." The

Hearing in Noise Test (HINT) test is one test that can be used with multitalker babble or

in quiet. The test measures speech intelligibility performance. Developed at the House

Ear Institute in the early 1990s by Nilsson et al., the HINT consists of 25 word lists, each

consisting of 10 short English sentences. It uses an adaptive threshold technique to

estimate a 50% correct level for the patient responding to the sentences. If a patient

responds correctly to the sentence, the level is decreased. An incorrect response causes

the level to increase (Nilsson, Gelnett, Sullivan, Soli and Goldberg, 1992). The HINT

test is valuable because using sentences helps to target a person's processing ability (i.e.,

auditory memory load, temporal processing), as well as providing more contextual

information, rather than using single word response tests like the Northwestern

University-6 (NU-6) test.









Memory

Memory and Divided Attention

Memory is the retention of information over time. There are several types of

memory: long-term memory, short-term memory, working memory, implicit memory,

explicit memory, etc. Long-term memory is the retention of memories thought to be

stored for over 30 seconds (and retention may exceed decades). Short-term memory is

the temporary retention of memory thought to be stored under 30 seconds. No research

has been able to definitely isolate these suggested times (Anderson, 1995; Schacter,

1996). Short-term memory is integral to the allocation of cognitive resources to perform

various mental tasks. Digit span is commonly used to measure short-term memory, and

involves the number of digits recalled by an individual in correct serial order after either

seeing or hearing them. For young children, the correct number the participant is

expected to repeat corresponds to the participant's age; for example, a two-year-old

should be able to repeat two numbers, a three-year-old three numbers, and so on up to age

7. From age 7 through adulthood the average digit span numbers repeated remains at

seven. "Two processes are involved in digit span: the identification of the items, and the

retention of order information. Individuals who are slow in identification have a shorter

memory span" (Groth-Marnat, 2003). Digit span can be assessed in either a forward or

backward test. Digit forward primarily involves sequential processing. Digit backward

seems to engage both planning ability and sequential processing and requires much

attention and concentration. "The ability to repeat digits backward is not only dependent

on attention and concentration, general cognitive, and short-term memory functioning,

but also requires verbal and visual (nonverbal visualization) mediation (pgs. 1209-18) ."









Working memory refers to the processes involved when a person tries to remember

something, such as a string of numbers without writing it down (Anderson, 1995;

Schacter, 1996). This research will highlight how implicit and explicit memory relates

to divided attention tasks. As stated previously, implicit memory is basically knowledge

retrieved without conscious recollection; while explicit memory is basically knowledge

retrieved only with conscious recollection (Anderson, 1995; Schacter, 1996). Research

has shown that if attention is divided during encoding, explicit test performance can be

diminished although repetition priming may be unaffected (Mulligan, 1998; Shanks,

2004). Implicit and explicit memory will be discussed more fully later in this document.

Researchers have determined that dividing attention during encoding appears to

produce little decrement in performance on the divided attention task for implicit memory

tests. For explicit memory tests, dividing attention impairs performance (Wallace et al.,

2001). A study by Mulligan (1998) focusing on five experiments where participants read

study words under conditions of divided or full attention showed that dividing attention

reduced conceptual priming on the word-association task, the matched explicit test, and

associate-cue recall, as well as showing a reduced performance on the general knowledge

test. Mulligan's overall conclusion is perceptual implicit tests rely only minimally on

attention-demanding encoding processes relative to other types of memory tests (1998).

Craik and his colleagues (2000) concluded that when attention is divided during retrieval,

it has little affect on recalling episodic memories; while dividing attention during

encoding may have a negative impact on recall. The researchers proposed this might be

due to the fact that the experimenter controls stimulus presentation and the operation and

response is controlled by the participant. They tested the proposal by presenting word









lists for learning and recall with paired-associative words (Craik, et al..2000). These

words were either controlled by the participant or presented at a fixed rate. Their results

point to more recall at retrieval for divided attention than at encoding, which was able to

be "held" under the varying combinations of both experimenter and participant control.

Craik et al. (2000) continued by reporting their results are compatible with the views of

Fernandes and Moscovitch (2000) who conclude that tasks utilizing attentional resources

will reduce simultaneous memory performance when they are performed at the time of

memory encoding.

Implicit and Explicit Memory

Implicit memory is basically "knowledge that can be retrieved without conscious

recollection (Yeates and Enrile, 2005)." Implicit memory is best revealed when

performance on a task is improved. We demonstrate implicit memory when performing

certain tasks, by activating sensory and motor systems. Implicit memory types include

repetition priming and skill learning. We can use repetition priming when processing a

stimulus because we've had previous experience with the stimulus. An example of

implicit memory is when a participant is permitted to study a list of words included in a

test, prior to testing. The premise is that participants will have the ability to match words

or complete words seen before. Rajaram et al. (2001) reports implicit memory can be

indirectly measured. This is done by using tests in which a person studies degraded or

incomplete words and then assessing the advantage of studying the words. Skill learning

requires automatic skills or movements that are learned. A person can only access these

memories by executing or using them, and requires associating a certain stimuli with a

response. Tests of implicit memory that do not have a "strong conceptual component"

are typically not impaired at encoding when dividing attention (Wallace et al., 2001).









Implicit memory is a data driven phenomenon because physical features of the stimulus

are required to process it. Once again, an example of implicit memory is when a person

sees a particular word (i.e., CABIN) during the study period, and then recalls that same

word during the testing period. It is essentially perceptual identification. Some tasks,

known collectively as repetition priming tasks and are commonly used to elicit implicit

memory are: tachistoscopic identification (the ability to identify and reproduce briefly

presented visual stimuli, usually with durations less than 1/25 of a second, perceptual

clarification, word fragments, and anagrams (Baddeley, 1997; Blaxton, 1989). Research

on memory has shown that presenting words to be studied prior to testing will enhance

performance on the test. This is considered a priming effect. Priming effects are said to

arise in the perceptual representation systems (PRS) that permit us to translate sensory

inputs into perceptions of objects, faces, or words (Mulligan, 2001; Rajaram et al., 2001,

Shulman, 1997).

Explicit memory is "knowledge that can be retrieved only with conscious

recollection" and usually involves a particular event Explicit memory is conceptually

driven and involves recognition. It relies on the stimulus being conceptually processed

(Kim et al., 2005; Willingham and Preuss, 1995; Yeates and Enrile, 2005). The temporal

lobe is responsible for explicit memories. An example of explicit memory would be

when a person sees the sentence; "the log is in the woods" during the study

period, and then sees the word "CABIN" during the test. Explicit memories are

memories a person has of events that happen in the world around them, at a specific time

and place. According to Rajaram et al (2001), "Explicit memory is measured directly by

tests that assess the participant's ability to recollect studied words on tests of recall or









recognition. (pg. 920) When a person stores explicit memories, the memories are stored

with related experiences, and can be recalled or remembered. Explicit memories rely on

previous knowledge and experiences.

A theory of implicit and explicit memory was initially developed to explain the

finding that some memory functions in amnesia patients are spared, while others are

impaired. (Graf and Masson, 1993) Graf and Masson (1993) reported amnesic patients

would have a normal performance on memory tests entailing recall, although they were

severely impaired on explicit memory tests. The researchers also reported that

performance on implicit memory tests remained invariant across the lifespan, while test

performance on explicit memory tests improves through early childhood and later

declines in late adulthood.

Previously acquired information can enhance performance on an implicit memory

task, although the person may not be consciously aware of previously acquiring the

information. Willingham (1995) uses Graf and Schacter's 1985 definition to explain that

implicit memory refers to a set of memory tasks and does not refer to episodes of initial

encoding. People are not necessarily aware of engaging in recall. Implicit memories

consist of memories that are needed to perform a task or produce a response, but cannot

be remembered to use for actions and reasoning.

Divided attention does, in fact, appear to degrade performance on explicit memory

tests. In essence, attention is needed for "consciously-controlled factors" when dealing

with memory (Wallace et al., 2001).









Older vs. Younger Adults and Divided Attention

Hartley (1992) concluded age-related differences in attentional functioning may be

explained by a reduction in the energy fueling cognitive processing. Regarding how

adults comprehend text in the presence of irrelevant information, McDowd and Shaw

(2000) state older adults have difficulty when trying to ignore any distracters that are

embedded into the text. Distracters that are semantically related negatively affect adults.

These authors continue by saying that attention is very relevant to how well a person

comprehends speech. For speech to be perceived, the listener must extensively use their

"working memory resources," and auditory processes, which decline with aging (2000).

McDowd and Shaw also reports studies have shown that aging adults do well in speech

comprehension, even though their component processes or "skill domains" may have

deteriorated. Because older adults have language skills that have become more

"automatic and encapsulated" and a lifetime of experience from which to draw their

linguistic knowledge, they may be able to compensate for deficits in lower-level

cognitive skills. Other researchers have questioned whether aging adults maintain their

language processing abilities in conditions of increased processing load (McDowd and

Shaw, 2000). The researchers report some studies show aging adults seem to perform

more poorly on secondary tasks when attention is divided, and seem to have more

memory deficits in studies using text with lesser degrees of redundancy or predictability.

The authors conclude that speech comprehension is sensitive to aging (2000). A study by

Kemper, et al. (2003) revealed, older adults had speech that was less complex and fluent

than their younger counterparts, and that younger and older adults adopted different

strategies to dual-task demands. The dual tasks consisted of the older and younger adults









being required to respond to questions while walking, finger-tapping, and ignoring

speech in noise.

McDowd and Shaw (2000) also discuss the role of the executive process in the

control of attention. They describe the executive process as "a superordinate, executive

mechanism that controls the changing allocation of attention in complex tasks, such as

dividing attention between two inputs, or dynamically switching between two tasks." (pg.

275) Baddeley, in 1993, concluded that the essence of executive control is the ability to

control action and integrate information (McDowd and Shaw, 2000). Executive control

relates to divided attention in the fact that researchers commonly use divided attention

and task switching to study executive control. A processing executive controls divided

attention performance by allocating attention between tasks and by managing the flow of

input and output from the two tasks. Because of this, older adults typically perform

poorer under dual-task conditions than younger adults (McDowd and Shaw, 2000).

Naveh-Benjamin et al. (2005) cited many studies that conclude recall in older

adults demands greater attentional resources and that secondary task costs are higher in

older adults both during encoding and retrieval than for younger adults. Older adults also

had more difficulty with cued-recall than younger participants. I would suspect that the

proposed research would support the findings that older subjects have more difficulty

with recall than younger subjects.

Anatomy

Many studies have been performed to try to determine what areas in the brain are

responsible for attention using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and

positron emission tomography (PET) imaging protocols. The prefrontal cortex

(bilateral), temporal area, and parietal cortex, as well as the cerebellum have been









implicated in attention-related tasks (Barrett, Large, Smith, Karayanidis, Michie,

Kavanagh, Fawdry, Henderson, O'Sullivan, 2003; Behrmann, Beng, and Shomstein,

2004; Dannhauser, Walker, Stevens, Lee, Seal, and Shergill, 2005; Gottwald et al., 2003;

Hugdahl, Thomsen, Erlsand, Rimol, and Niemi, 2003; Loose, Kaufmann, Auer, Lange,

2003). Prince, Daselaar, and Cabeza (2005) reported that association-related memory, or

relational memory, is linked to the medial temporal lobes and the pre-frontal cortex.

Specifically for encoding and retrieval, Prince et al. (2005) report that several regions of

the brain that were activated during encoding were re-activated during retrieval, more so

in a manner which was content-specific manner. The left hippocampus was the only

region of the brain associated with relational memory and content.

For speech perception, few studies have been performed; therefore, researchers

know little about "neuronal substrates" related to focused attention in speech perception

(Hugdahl et al., 2003). In a passive listening condition, Hugdahl et al. (2003),

determined "bilateral activation in the inferior section of the superior temporal gyms"

was noted, and participants attending to vowel sounds showed an increase in activation

within the superior/medial temporal lobe, with leftward asymmetry." When participants

focused on pseudo-and word-stimuli, there was more activity noted in the middle

temporal lobe areas, extending more anterior when compared with passive listening

conditions. Barrett et al. (2003) sought to determine what regions of the brain were

responsible specifically for dividing and switching of attention between two features of a

single object. They revealed activation in the prefrontal and temporal cortices of the

brain as well as the cerebellum.









Reaction Time

One way in which the allocation of attentional resources can be quantified is by

measuring reaction time. When a secondary task requires greater attention, reaction

times in a primary task may be lengthened. Reaction time is an vital concept in

performance during divided attention because dividing attention during tasks typically

increases the time it takes for a person to complete a task (Craik et al., 2000; Fernandes

and Moscovitch, 2002 and 2003; Naveh-Benjamin et al., 2000; Rajaram, 2001). Craik et

al. (2000) measured reaction times for correct responses in their study regarding encoding

and retrieval and found substantially longer reaction times in all divided attention

conditions, suggesting that considerable attentional resources were required for both

encoding and retrieval. Again, it is interesting to note that the reaction times were longer

when the reaction time task was performed at retrieval rather than at encoding, suggesting

that retrieval is more demanding than encoding when it comes to reaction times.

Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB)

The Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB) for Human Operator Workload and

Strategic Behavior Research, developed by Comstock and Arnegard (1992), is a DOS-

based computer test battery that has been used in many laboratory studies by researchers

wishing to evaluate operator performance and workload. The task battery, initially

developed for research conducted at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA), revolves around the simulation of tasks performed in aircraft or flight

simulation; however, the task battery is adaptable for non-flight participants as well. The

MATB primarily consists of four task areas: 1) a systems monitoring task, 2) a tracking

task, 3) a communications task, and 4) a resource management task (i.e., fuel

adjustment). The researcher can manipulate the parameters of the tasks in the setup









program via a script file. Some or all of the tasks can be used. If the researcher runs the

entire task battery, five data files will be created. Separate data files do exist for each of

the four task conditions mentioned above, with an additional file for responses to the

NASA Task Load Index Rating Scales. This allows the subtasks to be used in research,

without having to use the full task battery.

Socialization and Divided Attention

Kosson and Newman (1989) conducted studies on divided attention and the effects

of socialization on it. The research described two studies conducted to show how

socialization affects one's ability to pay attention and focus during divided attention

conditions. The studies involved comparisons between undersocialized and high-

socialized college students who were given "information-processing tasks, a visual

search, and a 'go-no go' auditory probe reaction time task." Undersocialized people,

defined as those who tend to behave without considering social norms as measured by the

Socialization scale developed by Gough in 1960, generally have difficulty considering

others' perspectives when evaluating or perceiving their own behavior. The tasks used

involved incentives and were administered by both male and female experimenters. The

results of the study showed evidence that undersocialized participants were more

sensitive when dealing with attentional allocations requiring dual task-situations and at

least one manipulation where focus is required. Both studies demonstrated that

individuals who scored low on the Socialization scale "performed relatively poorly on the

auditory task under focusing conditions but displayed no primary task advantage and no

significant performance deficits under divided attention conditions." Overall, the

authors conclude, "undersocialized individuals focus on events of immediate significance

and have less residual attention to process other events than more socialized individuals.









There was no association between undersocialization and the inability to perform under

dual-task or focused conditions. The main effects for incentives and concurrent load

concluded that when the individuals allocated their additional processing resources to one

task, it interfered with the performance on the other. On the other hand, high-socialized

participants had more difficulty on the dual-task situation once an incentive was

introduced. The authors attribute this to the possibility that for many people, when

dividing attention equally between two meaningful inputs, it may be easier to attend

preferentially to one of them (Kosson and Newman, 1989).









CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials

Participants

Thirty-two participants were recruited for this study, sixteen military soldiers and

sixteen adults without military experience. A questionnaire was given to the participants

prior to testing to obtain most of the demographic data (See Appendix A).

All participants included in this study met the following criteria:

1. Participants were between 18 and 50 years of age

2. Participants all held at least a high-school diploma

3. Hearing threshold levels equal to or better than that categorized as H-l profile, or
Hearing 1 profile, thresholds defined as follows: Average hearing thresholds,
bilaterally, can not exceed 25 dB HL at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz, with no individual
threshold greater than 30 dB. Four thousand Hz cannot exceed 45 dB HL,
bilaterally (Army Regulation 40-501, 2004). The H-l profile criteria are being
used because they pose no restriction on an Army soldier's assignment and
therefore reflect the population of soldiers needing to recall speech information
delivered in a combat noise environment.

4. Participants were in generally good health, with no handicapping condition that
would prevent them from completing the desired tasks. Handicapping conditions
excluding participants were vision problems prohibiting easy use of a computer;
hand, arm, or shoulder problems that would prohibit easy operation of a joystick; or
speech problems that would obviate clear repetition of experimental stimuli.

5. Participants were all fluent in English.

6. Prior to participating in the study, each participant was required to sign an

Informed Consent Form approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review

Board (IRB) and must indicate a willingness to participate in the study. A copy of

the Informed Consent Form may be found in Appendix B.


This research study evaluated the participant's ability to recognize sentences in

combat noise and in divided attention conditions, as well as assessing auditory recall in









implicit and explicit memory paradigms. Each participant completed four stages of the

study in sequence: 1) digit span testing to assess short-term auditory memory status, 2)

priming for implicit and explicit memory, 3) auditory sentence identification, and 4)

recall testing.

Experimental Conditions

Overview

Prior to participation in the experiment, each subject was asked to fill out an

informed consent (IRB) form (see appendix B) and given a questionnaire to complete.

The questionnaire asked for the following information: visual deficits, demographic

information, and video game experience (see appendix A). After completion of the

questionnaire, the examiner asked the participant to repeat a series of digits, both forward

and backward, to test short-term memory (see digit span testing below). Following the

digit span test, the participant was seated in the sound booth and given an audiometric

evaluation (air conduction thresholds only, 0.25 to 6 kHz) to ensure hearing threshold

levels were within the Army's H-l hearing standards. Following the hearing evaluation,

the participants were given an implicit/explicit priming study sheet (see Priming below)

and were asked to study it for 3 minutes. After the participant studied the list, s/he was

given an instruction sheet to read (see appendix C) explaining requirements for the

computer divided attention task. The examiner then repeated the instructions verbally

with the participant again to ensure the participant understood the task requirements. The

participant was also reminded they were to repeat the HINT sentences after each sentence

was heard, exactly as they heard it. Guessing was allowed and encouraged. For the

divided attention condition, the participant was asked to repeat the HINT sentences while

doing the computer-based MATB systems monitoring task. The computer was placed on









the participant's lap for the quiet + task and the noise + task conditions. Following each

of the four test conditions, the participant was given a sheet with 30 questions to answer.

The participants were asked to answer the questions to the best of his/her ability. Again,

guessing was encouraged (see Implicit/Explicit Recall section below). Reaction times for

the MATB divided attention task were recorded in the computer database and printed

later for statistical comparison.

Digit Span Testing. A forward and reverse digit span test was administered to

each participant prior to testing to assess short-term memory. The forward digit span test

was presented in a monotone voice by the examiner. The participant was asked first to

repeat the numbers as heard in the forward sequence, beginning with four numbers (e.g.,

if the examiner says "1, 4, 3, 2," the participant would repeat back "1, 4, 3, 2"). If the

participant repeated the numbers correctly, the examiner presented a series of five

numbers, then six numbers, etc.... until the person was unable to correctly repeat back all

the numbers. If the participant missed one or more numbers in a series, another series of

numbers of the same length was presented. If the participant repeated those numbers

correctly, the examiner then increased the series of numbers by one. This test continued

until the participant missed two series of numbers in a row, or until the participant

repeated a series of nine numbers in a row correctly. The participant's digit span score

was then recorded as the total numbers correctly repeated prior to missing the two series

of numbers in a row.

The reverse or backward digit span test was presented in a similar manner to the

forward test except that the examiner presented the series of numbers forward (e.g., 1, 2,

3, 4) and the participant was required to repeat the numbers back in the reverse order









(e.g., 4, 3, 2, 1). The examiner continued increasing the series of numbers presented until

the participant missed two series in a row, or until the participant reached a series of nine

numbers in a row. Each participant was required to accurately repeat back at least 5

digits in the forward recall condition and 4 digits in the reverse recall condition. (See

Appendix D).

Priming. For memory priming, each participant was provided a list of 30 words

(for implicit priming) combined with a list of 30 conceptually similar sentences (for

explicit priming). The list of words was extracted from those contained within the

Hearing-in-Noise Test (HINT; to be discussed in the next section). The participant was

asked to study the list of words and sentences for 3 minutes prior to the auditory sentence

identification testing. The explicit priming sentences, while conceptually similar, did not

contain the words used in the HINT sentences. (see appendix E).

Auditory Sentence Recognition. An adapted version of the Hearing in Noise Test

(HINT), developed by the House Institute in Los Angeles, California was used as an

assessment tool for this research. As stated previously, the HINT is "a test that measures

speech intelligibility using both ears (binaural directional hearing) and plays a critical roll

in assessing one's ability to communicate with speech in noisy settings." The test

consists of 25 phonemically-balanced lists of 10 short sentences, and requires the

participant to recognize and repeat short sentences under both noisy and quiet conditions.

Sentences included in the HINT test are spoken by a male voice, are of approximate

equal difficulty (1st grade level), and contain approximately equal number of syllables (6

to 8). (Hearing in Noise Test, 2005; Nilsson et al., 1994; Soli and Nilsson, 1994). This

research used the first 12 HINT sentence lists, each containing 10 sentences (120









sentences total). Appendix F contains the 12 HINT sentence lists used in this research.

The individual lists of HINT sentences were randomized and presented under four

varying conditions (30 sentences in each condition). The order of the conditions was also

randomized among the participants. The four conditions were as follows:

A. in a quiet sound field environment with 1 speaker at 0 azimuth (directly in front of
the participant).

B. with combat noise at a +5 signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) with the sentences delivered at
0 azimuth and the noise delivered over 4 speakers at 450, 1350, 225 and 3150 (See
Figure 3-1).

C. in the quiet sound field environment (as described in A.) with a distracter task
(MATB).

D. with the combat noise (as described in B.) and a distracter task (MATB).

Sentences and Noise. Compact disc (CD) recordings of the HINT sentences and

combat noise were made using Adobe Audition 1.0 software. Track one of the CD

consisted of a

1 kHz frequency-modulated (FM) calibration tone equal to the RMS of the HINT

sentences. Groups of thirty HINT sentences were recorded on the subsequent 4 tracks of

the CD (e.g., track two contained HINT lists 1 through 3, track three contained HINT

lists 4 through 6, track four contained HINT lists 7 through 9, and track five contained

HINT lists 10 through 12). The combat noise, recorded on separate CDs, was attenuated

30 dB (using Adobe Audition 1.0) between each of the sentences to allow a quiet period

for the participant to repeat the sentence. The combat noise was recorded to begin at full

volume .4 sec before the HINT sentence began and attenuated at .4 sec after the HINT

sentence ended. To achieve uncorrelated noise in the sound field condition, three of the

combat noise sources were delayed (by 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 ms using Adobe Audition 1.0).

The four uncorrelated noise sources were recorded on two separate CDs (two on the two









channels of one CD, and two on the two channels of a second CD). Each combat noise

CD also contained a 1 kHz frequency modulated calibration tone equal to the RMS level

of the noise.

All four noise speakers were located 36 inches away from the participant at the

angles listed above and were 37 inches above the floor of the booth. The HINT sentences

were presented to the participant through a single speaker (Tannoy system 600) placed

40-inches in front of the participant. The sentences were presented at 64.4 dB SPL using

a Sony 5 CD Change Disc Exchange System (Model No. CDP-CD 375), routed through a

Grason Stadler 61 Audiometer (model no. 1761). The uncorrelated combat noise used

was simulated battlefield noise containing continuous (aircraft and vehicular) and

impulse (weapons discharge and explosives) sounds. These recordings were obtained as

.wav files from LTC Lorraine Babeu at the Army Research Lab in Aberdeen Proving

Ground, Maryland. The noise was presented utilizing two separate Sony 5 CD Changer

Disc Exchange Systems (Model No. CDP-CE 375), routed through two Crown D75A

amplifiers, with two channels each, to four Definitive Technology speakers (Model BP-

2X). A brief sample of the combat noise waveform is included in Figure 3-2. The overall

SPL output at the position of the participants for the 4 noise speakers, measured within

the sound booth using a Quest Technologies, Type 2, sound level meter (serial no.

HUA040046), A-rating scale was 59.8 dB. The effective signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was

therefore +4.6 dB. All CD players were started and stopped simultaneously with a single

remote control device.











































Crown Amp
GSI-61 Sony CD
Audiometer Sony CD
Sony CD

Figure 3-1. Layout of speakers and participant within audiometric soundbooth. HINT
sentences were played through Sony CD player and delivered through the
Tannoy speaker located at 0 azimuth, 40 inches in front of the participant;
and the combat noise was played using two Sony CD players and delivered
through four Definitive Technology speakers each 36 inches from the
participant at the following angles: 450, 1350, 225 and 315.





























Figure 3-2. Sample combat noise waveform.

Each participant listened to the HINT sentences and noise in an IAC, double-walled

sound booth (resealed/calibrated 2005). The participant was asked to repeat each

sentence after it was heard. The examiner marked wrong any key words repeated

incorrectly, or not repeated at all, by the participant. The total number of key words per

30-sentence groups used in each test condition ranged from 156 to 162 (each 10-sentence

list ranged from 51 to 57 key words). An audiotape recording was made of the testing

sessions for 4 of the participants at random for scoring by a rater blinded to the subject's

group and task condition. The comparison of HINT key word scores between raters

provided an assessment of scoring reliability.

Implicit/Explicit Recall. Following the presentation of the sentences in each

condition, thirty questions were given to the participant to test his/her recall: ten

questions designed to elicit implicit memory, ten designed to elicit explicit memory, and

ten designed to elicit unprimed recall. Two separate versions of the questions, matched

to the same study sheet version given to the participant to study earlier, were used. Half


Sample Combat Noise Waveform

35000
25000
15000
E 5000
-5000
-15000
, -25000
-35000
0.13 0.23 0.33 0.43 0.53 0.63 0.73 0.83
Time









of the participants were given list one, and the other half of the participants were given

list two, in randomized fashion. An example of a question that may stimulate explicit

memory for the sentence, "A boy fell from the window" would be, "Who fell from the

window?" The participant's response should then be, "a boy." An example of an

implicit item is when the participant reads a question, "What did the ball break," and then

sees the broken word in the answer column, "w d w." The person would then need

to write the word, "window" in order for the answer to be counted as correct. Since this

example has an implicitly-based answer, the participant would only have to recall part of

the word by filling in the blank letters. For explicitly-based questions and unprimed

questions, the participant would have to recall the correct answer to the questions with no

assistance. The implicit and explicit questions were randomized per set of 10 sentences

per participant (See appendix G). When referencing appendix G, be reminded that the

participant was only given the implicit, explicit, or unprimed questions, along with the

implicit helper answer (columns 1 and 2), and not the correct response and paradigm

which are also listed in appendix G in columns 3 and 4.

Visual-Motor Task

The visual-motor test used as the distracter task in this research was the systems

monitoring portion of the Multi-Attribute Task Battery (MATB). As stated previously,

this task battery has been used in many laboratory studies involving operator performance

and workload. The task battery originally revolved around aircraft or flight simulation,

but is adaptable for non-flight participants as well. The MATB computer task was

presented using a Gateway 450 Notebook computer placed on the participant's lap. The

monitoring portion of the task battery involved several components. One component

consisted of monitoring gauges and warning lights. During this portion of the test, the









participant was asked to respond to the warning light by pressing the corresponding

function key if he/she saw the green light go OFF (F5) or if the red light went ON (F6).

Another part of the systems monitoring task required the participant to monitor four

separate arrows contained within rectangular boxes. The participant was asked to press

the corresponding function key (F 1 through F4) if the arrows, which were moving

throughout the duration of the test, moved more than one deviation above or below the

midpoint line at any time during the test (see instructions Appendix C). When the

participant pressed the corresponding function key, a yellow line at the bottom of the

space where the arrow was moving would appear. Once the corresponding function was

pressed, the arrow would then move quickly back to the midpoint and stop moving for a

brief time before it began moving up and down again.

Test performance was reported in terms of response time (in seconds) to events

occurring at eight preset times (57.01, 63.05, 81.01, 102.05, 152.03, 163.01, 178.01, and

204.04). Each participant's response times were recorded in both the quiet + task and

noise + task conditions. (See appendix H for an example of response time printout).

Participants who did not respond to the event within 20 seconds were assigned a reaction

time of 20.01 seconds.

Hypotheses

The hypotheses for this research included, but were not limited to, the following:

Regarding HINT identification performance:

1. All participants' mean performance will be better on single tasks than on the divided
attention tasks.

2. Both military and non-military participants will have a similar mean performance on
the HINT sentences alone.









3. Military participants will have better mean performances on the HINT sentences
using the combat background noise than non-military adults.

Regarding Recall performance:

1. Non-military participants will have higher mean implicit and explicit recall
performance than military participants.

2. Mean recall performance will be poorer with the addition of the background noise
among the groups.

3. Mean performances on recall tasks for older participants, age 40-50, will be slightly
worse than participants younger than age 40.

Regarding Reaction Time measures:

1. Mean reaction time on the MATB divided attention tasks will increase with the
addition of the combat noise.

2. Mean reaction time for military participants on the MATB divided attention tasks will
be better than non-military adults.

3. Participants with prior video game experience will have better reaction times on
MATB divided attention task than those without prior video game experience.

Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using independent t-tests for between-groups comparisons

and repeated measures ANOVA with post hoc t-testing to evaluate significant main

effects for within subject comparisons. Non-parametric analyses (Kruskal Wallis, Mann

Whitney and Friedman's tests) were undertaken to verify parametric results. All

statistical analyses were tested at alpha = .05, to determine the significance of the results.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This research study measured the effects of noise and divided attention on auditory

perception and memory recall. The data obtained included descriptive results from a

questionnaire to obtain demographic information, a forward and reverse digit span test to

assess short-term memory, and an audiometric screening to assess hearing sensitivity.

Experimental data regarding sound field speech identification performance was obtained

in four test conditions: 1) in quiet, 2) in noise, 3) in quiet with an additional task (quiet +

task), and 4) in noise with an additional task (noise + task). The Multi-Attribute Task

Battery (MATB), a computer-based task requiring the participant to respond to specific

onscreen events by pressing the corresponding function key served as the additional task.

Demographic Profile

Table 4.1 contains a summary of the data obtained from the questionnaire given to

the two groups (military and non-military) of participants. As shown, there are several

differences between the groups. Specifically, the military group, averaging 37.4 years of

age (SD =6.7), was 15.6 years older than the non-military group, which averaged 21.8

years of age (SD=2.6). McDowd and Shaw (2000) demonstrated that age can impact

how well a person comprehends speech and attends to various divided attention tasks, but

that this effect is most pronounced in older individuals (usually 60+ years). Because the

mean age for the older group in this study was only 37.4, age is not expected to

significantly affect identification and recall scores. These results will be discussed in the

HINT identification and Recall sections.










Table 4-1: Summary of Demographic Data for Military Group and Non-Military Groups


Group



Military (N=16) Non-Military

(N=16)

Variable


Age (years)
Mean 37.4 21.8
SD 6.7 2.6

Gender (N)
Male 14 1
Female 2 15

Education Level (N)
High School 3 1
Current College Student 5 14
College Graduate 8 1

Degree (N)
None 8 15
Bachelors Degree 7 1
Masters Degree 1 0

Handidness (N)
Right 15 14
Left 1 2


(SD = Standard Deviation)

Education level for both groups varied, with the military group having 3 high

school graduates, 5 currently enrolled college students and 8 college graduates; non-

military had 14 currently enrolled college students and 1 each in the high school graduate

and college graduate categories. Degrees obtained varied between the groups, with the

military group having 8 participants with no college degree, 7 with a Bachelors degree,









and 1 with a Masters degree. The non-military group had 15 participants with no degree,

and one with a Bachelors degree.

The military group had 14 males and 2 females, while the non-military group had

15 females and 1 male. A Fisher's exact test was used to analyze the distribution of

gender between the groups and indicated gender was significantly related to group

membership (p < .000).

HINT Identification Performance

Between Groups

Both the military and the non-military group appeared to perform equally well in

terms of HINT key-item identification. Independent t-tests were used to compare the

scores between the groups with no significant differences being observed (p > .05). The

mean identification scores for each group in each of the four test conditions are displayed

in table 4-2. Non-parametric analyses (Kruskal-Wallis) showed no significant

differences in the test conditions between the groups, as well. A scatter plot of the HINT

key item identification scores is presented in Figure 4-1. Noteworthy in this figure are the

extremely high levels of performance in quiet without and with the additional task, and

the greater spread of identification scores in the presence of the combat noise for both the

military and non-military groups. Because of the age disparity










HINT IDENTIFICATION PERFORMANCE


1.00

0.80

0.60
0
0.40

0.20 0 Single Task
+ Distractor Task
0.00
Quiet Noise Quiet Noise
Military Non-Military
Participant Group and Listening Condition



Figure 4-1: HINT identification performance among the participants (military vs. non-
military)

between the groups, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted adjusting for

age in each condition. This analysis yielded no significant differences between the

military and non-military groups.

HINT Reliability

An individual blinded to test conditions (other than the noise condition) scored

10% of the participants' HINT results via audio tape recordings to assess reliability. The

inter-rater scoring agreement of 99.7%, overall (100% for items in quiet, and 98.7% for

items in noise), suggested good reliability in scoring of the HINT sentences. A Chi-

square test of association revealed a strong association (p<.0001) between the raters'

scoring.









Task Effects

Comparisons between HINT key-item identification scores in the single and dual-

task conditions for each group (military and non-military, separately) were conducted

using paired t-tests. There were scores no significant differences in either the military or

non-military groups (p>.05). The non-parametric analyses (Friedman's test) also showed

no significant difference for task condition.

Within Groups--Combined

Because no significant differences were observed between groups, participant

groups were combined and a repeated measure ANOVA used to analyze the scores in the

four test conditions. HINT key-item performance was found to be significantly impacted

by noise condition, but not by task condition. Specifically, the noise condition (quiet vs.

noise) produced differences in HINT item identification scores (F=91.655, p < .000).

Participants repeated fewer key items correctly in noise than in quiet.

HINT Key-Item Priming

Priming effects were also noted for HINT key items. Specifically, a repeated

measures ANOVA was used to make between participant comparisons in the noise and

noise + task conditions. These analyses revealed priming did appear to improve primed-

item scores

(p < .013). Also, an interaction between priming and task was noted (p <.008).

This interaction reflected the resistance of implicitly and explicitly primed scores to the

interference from the additional task, while unprimed scores dropped significantly (p =

0.03). Figure 4-2 shows mean HINT primed key-item identification performance for the

each of the groups in the noise and noise + task conditions. Both military and non-

military participants appeared to do better on implicitly and explicitly primed key-items










with the additional task in noise, overall. However, without an additional task in noise,

explicitly primed items produced similar scores to the unprimed items for both the

military and non-military participants.

Table 4-2. Mean HINT Key-Item Performance scores
Military Non-military
Quiet 1.00 1.00
Noise .881 .912
Quiet + Task .997 1.00
Noise + Task .894 .905


Mean HINT Identification in Noise by Item Priming

1.00

0.95

0.90
0.85

S0.80
U Implicit
0 0.75 -
U 0.75 -Explicit

s 0.70 aUnprimed

0.65

0.60

0.55

0.50
Military Non-Military Military Non-Military
W/O Task With Task
Group and Test Condition

Figure 4-2: HINT primed key-item identification performance for the noise and
noise+task conditions by groups.

Auditory Recall and Priming

Between Group Comparisons

Both the military and the non-military groups showed no differences in their ability

to recall primed items in any of the four test conditions (p > .05). Comparisons between

the groups (military vs. non-military) were made using independent t-tests and repeated









measures ANOVA to evaluate the performance on auditory recall and recall priming

effects. Again, because of the age disparity between the groups, an analysis of

covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted adjusting for age in each condition. This analysis

yielded no significant differences between the military and non-military groups.

Within Group Comparisons

A repeated measures ANOVA was undertaken with the participants from both groups

combined to assess the effects of priming, task condition, and noise condition on auditory

recall. This analysis revealed priming, task and noise significantly affect auditory recall.

In particular, recall performance was higher in the noise than in the quiet condition

(F=8.368, p=.007), in the single task than in the dual-task condition (F=54.063, p<.000),

and in the implicit priming condition than in the explicit or unprimed conditions

(F=328.267, p<.000). Interactions were also noted in the quiet vs. noise and priming

(F=15.056, p<.000), and between the single vs. dual-task and priming (F=4.857, p=.011).

See figure 4-3 for mean recall performance for each group in each condition. This is

consistent with studies reported by Craik (2000) that priming may actually improve recall

performance on dual-task conditions, as well as with the studies reported by Milligan

(1998), Shanks (2004) and Wallace (2001) that dividing attention during encoding can

affect explicit recall. Auditory recall was also compared between male and female

participants using an independent t-test, which revealed no differences in recall

performance between genders.












Mean Recall Performance in Quiet


Implicit


Explicit
Priming Condition


* Military
* Non-Military


Unprimed


Mean Recall Performance in Noise


Implicit


Explicit
Priming Condition


* Military
* Non-Military


Unprimed


Figure 4-3: Mean recall performance for implicit, explicit, and unprimed items per group
and condition







40



Mean Recall Performance in Quiet + Task


Implicit


Explicit
Priming Condition


-It


Unprimed


* Military
* Non-Military


Mean Recall Performance in Noise + Task


Implicit


* Military
* Non-Military


Explicit Unprimed
Priming Condition


Figure 4-3. Continued









Reaction Times

Between Groups

Reaction times, in general, did not differ between the groups for the noise + task

condition (p = .230). However, a difference in reaction times between the groups on the

MATB task was noted during the quiet + task condition (p = .033). The average reaction

times for the military group were longer in this condition. Independent t-tests were

utilized to make the statistical comparisons. Prior to the analyses being conducted, a

log 10 transformation was performed on the mean reaction times per participant

(Salthouse and Hedden, 002). Figure 4-4 shows the mean reaction times for each group

for the quiet + task and the noise + task conditions.

The number of instances of response times marked as 20.01 seconds ("timed-out" which

may have included instances of no response or uncorrected erroneous response) were

compared between the groups for both the quiet + task and the noise + task conditions.

This comparison revealed that the military group had more "timed out" responses than

the non-military group in the quiet + task condition (Chi-Square = 4.73, df=l). It is

interesting to note that this corresponds with the significant difference in mean reaction

time reported above. However, an additional comparison of mean reaction times when

the "timed out" responses were excluded revealed no significant differences between

groups for the quiet + task or the noise + task conditions. Because the MATB program

only reported reaction time in terms of the elapsed time between an event requiring a

response and the occurrence of the correct response, it is not known whether some longer

reaction times were obtained through participants pressing the incorrect function key.


































Figure 4-4: Mean reaction times by group

Within Groups

Reaction times for the divided attention tasks were also assessed using a paired t-

test collapsed across the participant groups, and yielded no significant differences among

the participants within the groups. In addition, an analysis to evaluate age effects on

reaction times in both the quiet + task and noise + task conditions was performed,

including all participants. A linear regression model was used to make these comparisons

and showed no significant differences (F=2.087, p=. 142) among the participants for age

vs. reaction time.

Video Games

The amount of time a participant played a video game, and their self-assessment of

video game skill were compared to the reaction times obtained from the MATB task in

both the quiet + task or noise + task conditions. The Mann-Whitney non-parametric

statistical test was used to compare video game frequency to reaction times in both the


Mean Reaction Times for Each Group per Condition

10.00
9.00
. 8.00
0 7.00
S6.00
5.00
R 4.00
. 3.00 -,
S 2.00-
1.00
0.00
Mil Quiet + Task Non-Mil Quiet + Mil Noise + Task Non-Mil Noise +
Task Task
Task Condition







43


quiet + task and the noise + task conditions and revealed no significant differences

(p=.796 and p=.921, respectively). Likewise, no significant differences were noted using

the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test to compare self-rated video game skill to reaction

times in the quiet + task and the noise + task conditions (p=.710 and p=.767,

respectively). Figure 4-5 displays the participants' reported video game frequency and

skill ratings.


7


6


5-


4-
.~ U Military
-E 3 Non-Military
z3


2-


1 --


0
1 2 3 4 5
Video Game Frequency



Figure 4-5: Reported video game frequency and skill ratings among the participants






















2 3
Video Game Skill


5


Figure 4-5. Continued


I I


* Military
SNon-Military














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to determine if divided attention affects speech

perception and auditory recall in listeners with and without military training. Recall that

the HINT test was used as a tool to measure speech perception in a sound field

environment under four conditions: 1) in quiet, 2) in noise, 3) in quiet with a divided

attention task, and 4) in noise with a divided attention task. HINT sentences were

delivered at 0 azimuth at 64.4 dB SPL. For the noise conditions, the noise was delivered

through four speakers located at the following azimuths: 450, 135, 225 and 3150. The

signal to noise ratio for the HINT sentences to noise was +5 dB. Independent t-tests were

generally used to make between group statistical comparisons of the data, while repeated

measures ANOVA and paired t-tests were used to make total participant and within

group statistical comparisons. An ANCOVA was also conducted for HINT scores and

auditory recall scores to adjust for age disparities between the groups.

No significant between group differences were observed with the exception of

longer reaction times for the participants with military training in the quiet + task

condition. These results revealed that military soldiers did not have an advantage over

non-soldiers when it came to understanding speech-in-noise or when performing an

additional task. These results beg the following questions: 1) did these particular

military soldiers have enough experience or training working in noise, to have performed

better than the non-soldiers; 2) does the type of job experience or training actually matter;









and 3) was the signal-to-noise ratio enough to produce sufficient difficulty for

understanding speech-in-noise?

It may be that the recorded combat noise used in this study did not sufficiently

recreate the sensation of combat which would prove more distracting for those without

military training, or that the participants without military training have had more

extensive experience with combat noise similar to that used in this study through

entertainment media. It may be that any effect military training may have had was

obscured by the age and gender differences between the groups. At present there are

insufficient data to draw conclusions regarding which, if any, of these possible

explanations is valid.

Significant differences were observed for several of the within group and total

participant statistical comparisons for HINT key item identification by condition, HINT

key item priming effects, auditory recall by condition, and auditory recall priming effects.

These will be considered here.

Quiet vs. Noise Conditions

As reported by Crandell and Smaldino (2002), background noise can affect how

speech is perceived due to masking of both the linguistic and acoustic cues of the

message. However, speech perception for normal hearing adults typically won't be

significantly affected until signal-to-ratios reach 0. Miller and Nicely in 1955 reported

that wide-band noise affected speech intelligibility, causing confusions among

consonants in a similar manner as low-pass filtering and in particular altering the

identification of place of articulation (Gelfand, 1998). The vast majority of the

participants in this study performed better in the quiet than the noise conditions, resulting

in a statistically significant difference between these conditions. Previous studies have









documented that older adult listeners (Pichora-Fuller et al., 1995; Tun, 1998) as well as

children (Stansfield et al. 2005) had more difficulty understanding speech in noise,

however, no current literature exists demonstrating the specific effects of noise on

understanding speech in noise for younger and middle-aged adults (18-50). A regression

analysis comparing age to HINT noise scores did not reveal a significant relation between

these variables in our sample.

Single vs. Divided Attention Conditions

The current research revealed participants did not show any significant differences

in HINT key item sentence identification between the single and dual task conditions.

However, HINT performance for the quiet vs. noise and for priming recall was degraded.

According to McDowd and Shaw (2000), Rubenstein and Meyer (2001), and

Shellenbarger (2003), switching attention between tasks should produce a cost to

performance; however, when people typically comprehend language during a competing

source scenario, they are generally able to focus on relevant information and disregard

other information, which could have been what was occurring in this research for HINT

identification. A question remains, however, whether or not the divided attention

condition used in this research was difficult enough to produce a cost to performance.

Dividing attention did produce degraded recall performance in the quiet and noise

conditions. This result is supported by previous literature (Craik et al., 2000; Fernandes

and Moscovitch, 2003; Mulligan, 1998; Naveh-Benjamin et al., 2000 and 2005; Wallace

et al., 2001) showing that people do have more difficulty with recall and recognition if

their attention is divided during encoding.









Priming By Item and in Auditory Recall

Statistically significant priming effects were observed in identification and recall

performance, indicating that item identification and recall can be enhanced when

priming, particularly implicit priming is used. These results are consistent with previous

research reported by Mulligan (2001), Rajaram et al (2001), Shulman (1997) and Wallace

et al (2001) citing implicit memory is typically not affected when attention is divided at

encoding, and implicit priming effects do aid us in retrieving words, as well as with

memory. However, previous research done by Craik et al. (2000) and Mulligan (1998)

reported dividing attention could negatively affect conceptual (or explicit) priming and

recall. Wallace et al. (2001) also reported explicit memory and explicit test performance

could be diminished if attention is divided at encoding. Our results were consistent with

this body of literature, as our research study revealed that participants had lower explicit

scores in noise and in divided attention scenarios, while maintaining scores in the implicit

condition.

Significant differences in auditory recall performance were noted between the quiet

and noise conditions, the single and dual-task conditions, and among the priming

conditions. In addition, significant interactions were found between each pairing of the

quiet vs. noise, single vs. dual task, and priming effects on recall performance. Again,

these significant results and interactions reveal that auditory recall is affected by noise

and divided attention. Pichora-Fuller and her colleagues (1995) reported effects of

concurrent memory load produced decrements in speech understanding in noise for both

younger and older adults. The interaction between noise and task condition may reflect

the additional effort required for processing the speech signal in noise (indirect

component) as reported by Tun (1998). The interaction between task condition and









priming condition is consistent with the previous literature stated above (Craik et al.,

2000 and Mulligan, 1998) reporting dividing attention at encoding can affect both

conceptual priming and recall, specifically explicit priming more so than implicit.

Reaction Times vs. Divided Attention and Age

Reaction time comparisons made between the groups revealed a significant

difference between the groups in the quiet + task condition only; however, no significant

findings were statistically observed between the groups for the noise + task condition, or

within the groups for age or video game frequency or self-rating. Additional analyses of

reaction time data excluding instances of reaction times marked as 20.01 seconds

revealed no significant differences between the groups for the task conditions. In

addition, while significant differences were noted between the groups for age and gender,

these differences did not appear to be related to HINT identification or recall.

No significant differences were noted when comparing reaction times between the

groups in the noise + task condition, and within each group (military vs. non-military) for

the quiet + task and noise + task condition. A significant difference was noted between

the groups, however, for reaction times in the quiet + task condition. Since reaction times

were not assessed for the MATB test alone, it is difficult to quantify these results as being

consistent with previous research (Craik et al., 2000; Fernandes and Moscovitch, 2002

and 2003; Naveh-Benjamin et al., 2000; Rajaram, 2001) stating reaction times are

typically lengthened in divided attention scenarios.

It is important to note that, according to Craik et al. (2000), reaction times appear to

be much longer when attention is divided at retrieval than at encoding, suggesting more

demands are placed on personal resources when dividing attention at retrieval. These

results beg the questions: 1) was the divided attention task used in this research difficult









enough to significantly delay reaction times, 2) were the participants concentrating more

on the computer-based divided attention task than to the auditory task, and 3) should the

divided attention task have been presented during retrieval of the sentences, rather than

during encoding of the sentences?

Of notable mention is the fact that the military group had slightly longer reaction

times in the divided attention tasks than the non-military group. Since the military group

had a greater mean age compared with the non-military group (37.4 years to 21.8 years),

a statistical comparison was made to assess whether or not age played any roll in the

causing longer reaction times for the military group. This comparison yielded no

significant differences for age, for the military vs. non-military participants. Little

research has been done to evaluate reaction times for adults aged 30-60. Most research

for divided attention has focused on comparisons of older adults (aged 60 and older)

compared with younger adults (aged 18 to 30). However, in a recent research study by

Williams et al. (2005), inconsistency in reaction times across the lifespan was evaluated

revealing that across age, inconsistency in reaction times varied. These results are

consistent with individual differences in "moment-to-moment change." A U-shaped

curve described the relationship between age and inconsistency in reaction times.

Williams et al. (2005) reported that as age increased among the participants in childhood,

lower levels of inconsistency were noted; however, as age increased among the adult

participants, higher levels of inconsistency in reaction times were observed. Beginning

between the ages of 30 and 40, Williams' participants demonstrated a larger spread of

scores. This could describe what occurred in the current research study regarding the

observed longer reaction times of the military group compared with the non-military









group: that reaction times may become more inconsistent among the older participants.

One might also predict that inconsistency would show up if the current research protocol

were to be undertaken with younger children as well.

Limitations of the Research

As with any research, potential limitations are possible. This research study is no

different. The age and gender differences between the groups represent sampling

artifacts that mitigate some potential conclusions from the obtained data. Although some

of the data obtained in this research are consistent with previous published research, the

data can only be generalized for, younger to middle-aged healthy adults with essentially

normal hearing. The data obtained may not be applied to older, hearing impaired, or

unhealthy adults.

Another notable limitation regarding this research is that the sentences were

presented in a sound field condition in front of the participant, at a 0 azimuth, while

uncorrelated combat noise was presented at the same time in the sound field condition at

450, 135, 225 and 3150. While consistent with other research, this speaker-listener

orientation may not be applicable to other listening conditions. Also, the listener was not

afforded the opportunity to gain additional information through visual cues of speech,

which may have helped overall performance for HINT key item sentence identification.

However, it should be noted that many military soldiers are not always afforded the

opportunity to obtain visual speech cues when listening and trying to understand speech

in noisy combat conditions.

Future Directions

As with any research, the current research poses ideas for future research. First, it

would be interesting to tailor future research to specifically obtain data on the effects of









divided attention and personal resource depletion in middle-aged adults. Since little

research has been done in this area, it would be interesting to determine at what age, if

any, a significant decrease in performance is observed for aging adults.

Second, it would be interesting to delve more into researching what effects dividing

attention during retrieval of information has on military soldiers.

Third, an additional area interest for research would be to assess how well military

soldiers understand specific job-related phrases or sentences in the presence of combat

noise, and while doing more job-related tasks as the divided attention component. This

research could possibly compare military soldiers within military occupational specialties

(MOSs) to see if differences exist regarding speech understanding and performance

relating to their specific jobs within and between MOSs.

Fourth, future research using divided attention and speech understanding

comparing participants who have been diagnosed with auditory processing disorder or

attention deficit disorder, compared with those who do not have those disorders, would

also be of interest.
















APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARTICIPANTS


Divided Attention, Perception and Auditory Recall Research Questionnaire

Participant #

Thank you for you time and for participating in this research. Please answer the following
questions completely and to the best of your ability. Your identity will be kept confidential and the
researchers will only know you as a participant number. If you have any questions regarding this
questionnaire, please ask the examiner to assist you. Your participation in this research is completely
voluntary and greatly appreciated.

Please CIRCLE the yes/no answers, put an X in front of, or fill in the blanks as indicated for the
following questions:

1. Do you have any visual color deficiencies (i.e., red/green color blind)? Yes No If yes, please tell
the examiner before completing the rest of this questionnaire.

2. Do you have vision problems prohibiting you to clearly see a computer screen? Yes No If yes,
please tell the examiner before completing the rest of this questionnaire.

3. Are you a member of the U.S. military? Yes No If yes, what is your current rank :and
how many total years of service do you have?

4. What is your current age? years

5. What is your gender? male female

6. What level of education have you obtained thus far?

high school graduate only
current college student
college graduate

7. If you are a college graduate, what level of degree have you obtained thus far?

Bachelors Degree
Masters Degree
Doctoral Degree

8. Are you (please circle one): a) right handed b) left handed?

9. In the past 5 years, how often have you played video games? Please circle one of the following:

a) Very frequently b) Frequently c) Occasionally d) Rarely e) Never

10. How would you rate your video game skills?
a) Very Good b) Good c) Fair d) Poor e) No skill















APPENDIX B
INFORMED CONSENT FORM


UNIVERSITY OF

FLORIDA

Department of 336 Dauer Hall
Communication Sciences & P.O. Box 117420
Disorders
Gainesville, Florida 32611-7420
(352) 392-2113
Fax (352) 846-0243


Informed Consent
Protocol Title: Divided Attention, Perception, and Auditory Recall

Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study.

Purpose of the research study: To obtain information on listening and memory in people with and
without military training.

What you will be asked to do in the study: In this study you will be asked to complete several tasks: 1) to
repeat back a series of numbers in both forward and backward order, 2) to study a list of words and
sentences for 5 minutes, 3) to perform a video game task and repeat back sentences both in quiet and in the
presence of battlefield-type background noise presented via speakers, and 4) to respond to questions
regarding sentences heard in step 3.

Time required: The approximate time required for this study is a total of 1.5 hours.

Risks and Benefits: The rating procedures used in this study has no potential risks or
benefits.

Compensation: You will be paid $10 per hour for your time, with a cap of $20.

Confidentiality: Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your name will not
be used in any recording or reporting.

Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for
not participating.










Right to withdraw from the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without
consequence.

Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Lynnette Bardolf, Ph.D. candidate,
Communication Sciences and Disorders, (352) 283-1633, 356 Dauer Hall, P.O. Box 117420 Gainesville,
FL 32611-7420, lbardolf@ufl.edu; or you may contact Dr. Scott Griffiths, Communication Sciences and
Disorders, (352) 392-2113, x248, 356 Dauer Hall, P.O. Box 117420, Gainesville, FL 32611-7420,
sgriff@csd.ufl.edu

Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: UFIRB Office, Box
112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433.

Agreement:

I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have
received a copy of this description.




Participant: Date:


Principal Investigator:


Date:














APPENDIX C
INSTRUCTIONS FOR DIVIDED ATTENTION STUDY



Thank you for participating in this research study. Your time is greatly
appreciated.


This study will require you to pay close attention to the tasks at hand. You will be
listening to sentences in 4 separate conditions (120 sentences total). After you hear each
sentence, please repeat it back. If noise is present along with the sentence, please repeat
the sentence back after the noise has finished.

When we get to the computer-task portion of the study, it will require that you
monitor the red and green lights, as well as monitoring some arrows, at the top left
portion of the screen. When you see the green light go OFF, please push the F5 key as
soon as possible. When you see the red light go ON, please press the F6 key as soon as
possible. When you the arrows moving up and down, press the corresponding labeled
keys (Fl, F2, F3, and F4). You will need to press the corresponding function keys as
soon as possible once you see the arrows deviate more than 1 line above or below the
center mark. If the computer screen stops as any time during the testing, please let the
examiner know. The examiner will familiarize you with the computer before you begin
the computer-task portion of the test.

Please continue to repeat back the sentences no matter what task you are doing (in
addition to repeating the sentences), if a secondary task is required. If you need a break
during the testing, please wait until after the test condition is finished. Each test
condition takes approximately 3 minutes, 45 seconds. You will be given a sheet to fill
out after each condition.

Do you have any questions at this time?















APPENDIX D
FORWARD AND REVERSE DIGIT SPAN TEST



Participant #


Forward Digit Span Test:


4 digits:


4 digits:


1st try: 5 9 7
2nd try: 4 8 2


1st try: 9 7 1 3
2nd try: 0 8 4 1


5 digits:

1st try: 8
2nd try: 9

6 digits:

1st try: 5
2nd try: 4

7 digits:

1st try: 9
2nd try: 0


5 digits:


1st try: 6 8
2nd try: 9 5

6 digits:

1st try: 7 4
2nd try: 5 4

7 digits:

1st try: 0 8
2nd try: 5 3


1st try: 4 8
2nd try: 9 4


6 3 5 9 0 2
0 3 1 8 2 7
635902
031827


9 digits:


1st try: 0 5
2nd try: 2 5


1st try: 9
2nd try: 4

9 digits:

1st try: 3
2nd try: 7


7984312
3759681
3 7 5 9 6 8 1


8 1 6 5 3 0 3
9 6 2 4 9 0 2
8165303
9624902


67892150
95428613


Forward Score:


Reverse Digit Span Test:


904
861


6 9 0
690
072


4 3 1
1 9 6
431
196


Reverse Score:



















APPENDIX E
IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT PRIMING STUDY LISTS BY VERSION





Divided Attention, Perception and Auditory Recall Research Study Sheet
(Version 1)


picture
An open flame is dangerous.
dirty
The robber took all their cash.
faucet
The plant blossomed in the soil.
sister
The store is not open during the noon eating hour.
funny noise
The pages reveal a tale.
mother
The small child ran away from his house.
saucer
The lady placed her items in her suitcase.
pitcher
Some people viewed the frightening film.
flowers
Some people brought their meal outdoors.
vacation
The infant cracked his sippy glass.
dishcloth
The baking appliance is ajar.
mother
The person is walking to the other side of the street.
children
Mom baked a goodie to celebrate the child's birth.
window
The clear crystals we eat taste honey-like.
firetruck
There was an atrocious locomotive collision.
police
The man misplaced his cap the other day.
truck
The hen produced some offspring shells

orange
Mom closed the glass panes.
sister
The young lady is merry.
lemon pie
The male child fell asleep before his bedtime.


drinking
The vehicle needs to slow down.
police
The competitor's cleat fell off his foot.
strawberry
The citrus arrived in a square container.
credit card
The dirt sweeper is at the edge of the room.
matches
The pasteurized cow's liquid is by the anterior entryway.
yellow
The woman relaxes in her seat.
vacation
The not-so-short guy fastened his sneakers.
closet
Some people sat for sixty minutes.
plates
The supermarket worker vends margarine.
mailman
The large branch toppled onto the roof.
chocolate
The woman dressed in a jacket.
football
The boy injured his lower appendage for the second time.
shopping
The toy sphere propelled into the air.
school
The infant wants his milk feeder.
mother
The little guy escaped from his learning environment.
dinner
The male child destroyed the pine gate.
nervous
The aquatic creature moved through the natural fresh-water
holding area
bakery
The man took the canines for a stroll.
cold cuts
Frigid flakes of precipitation occur in the season after fall.
street
The kid tore apart the sack.























Divided Attention, Perception and Auditory Recall Research Study Sheet
(Version 2)


husband
The child toppled through the glass pane.
bad dogs
The plant blossomed in the soil.
floor
The boy frightened his female sibling.
faucet
The pages reveal a tale.
brother
The feline sprung across the gate.
going out
The grown kitty sipped from the bowl.
vacation
The male child stood on his hands.
letter
The infant cracked his sippy glass.
outside
The kids rinsed the circular dishes.
vacation
Mom mixed her herbal liquid.
pasture
The glasses are on furniture used for eating.
football
The clear crystals we eat taste honey-like.
kitchen
Mom picked up the pot.
birthday
The hen produced some offspring shells.
yesterday
The amphibious creature moved through the
fresh-water holding area
nervous
Mom closed the glass panes.
mother
The lady tidied her home
strawberries
The kid tore apart the sack.
friend
The group is good at competing.
train


The open flame was too warm.
drinking
The vehicle needs to slow down.
dirty
The cop assisted the person manning the vehicle.
mirror
The woman misplaced her piece of plastic capable of buying things.
strawberry
The fire starters are located on the ledge.
stick
Mom pulled out the sliding clothes hanger.
little boy
The woman is cleaning the outfit she just bought.
shoes
Some people sat for sixty minutes.
closet
The large branch toppled onto the roof.
butter
Some people ate cocoa flavored mousse.
string
The woman dressed in a jacket.
bread
The feline slept on the furniture used for sleeping.
spoon
The learning institution closed sooner than usual this day.
laughing
The irate gentleman bellowed.
bottle
The vehicle crept to the top of the peak.
Wooden fence

Drops of precipitation fell from the sky.
neighbor
The girl's female sibling remained for the noon eating hour.
winter
The male child proceeded to his sleeping area before his normal time.
cold cuts
The little ones assisted their professor.
lemon pie
Mom pulled out the sliding holder.
















APPENDIX F
HINT SENTENCES


Track 4


Track 1


1. A boy fell from a window.
2. The wife helped her husband.
3. Big dogs can be dangerous.
4. Her shoes were very dirty.
5. The player lost a shoe.
6. Somebody stole that money.
7. The fire is very hot.
8. She's drinking from her own cup.
9. The picture came from a book.
10. The car is going too fast.


Track 2


1. The little boy left home.
2. They're growing up too fast.
3. A cat jumped over the fence.
4. He wore his yellow shirt.
5. The lady sits in her chair.
6. He needs his vacation.
7. She's washing her new silk dress.
8. The cat drank from the saucer.
9. Mother opened the drawer.
10. The lady packed her bag.


Track 5


1. A boy ran down the path.
2. Flowers grow in the garden.
3. Strawberry jam is sweet.
4. The shop closes for lunch.
5. The police helped the driver.
6. She looked in her mirror.
7. The match fell on the floor.
8. The fruit came in a box.
9. He really scared his sister.
10. The tub faucet is leaking.


Track 3


1. The boy did a handstand.
2. They took some food outside.
3. The young people are dancing.
4. They waited for an hour.
5. The shirt is in the closet.
6. They watched a scary movie.
7. The milk is in the pitcher.
8. The truck drove up the road.
9. The tall man tied his shoes.
10. A letter fell on the floor.


Track 6


1. They heard a funny noise.
2. He found his brother hiding.
3. The dog played with a stick.

4. The book tells a story.
5. The matches are on the shelf.
6. The milk is by the front door.
7. The broom is in the corner.
8. The new road is on the map.
9. She lost her credit card.
10. The team is playing well.


1. The silly boy is hiding.
2. The dog growled at the neighbors.
3. A tree fell on the house.
4. Her husband brought some
flowers.
5. The children washed the plates.
6. They went on vacation.
7. Mother tied the string too tight.
8. The mailman shut the gate.
9. A grocer sells butter.
10. The baby broke his cup.


















Track 7
1. The cows are in the pasture.
2. The dishcloth is soaking wet.
3. They had some chocolate pudding
4. She spoke to her eldest son.
5. The oven door is open.
6. She's paying for her bread.
7. My mother stirred her tea.
8. He broke his leg again.
9. The lady wore a coat.
10. The cups are on the table.


Track 8


Track 10
1. The boy broke the wooden fence.
2. The angry man shouted.
3. Yesterday he lost his hat.
4. The nervous driver got lost.
5. The cook is baking a cake.
6. The chicken laid some eggs.
7. A fish swam in the pond.
8. They met some friends at dinner.
9. The man called the police.
10. The truck made it up the hill.


Track 11


1. The ball bounced very high.
2. Mother cooked a birthday cake.
3. The football game is over.
4. She stood near the window.
5. The kitchen clock was wrong.
6. The children helped their teacher.
7. They carried some shopping bags.
8. Someone is crossing the road.
9. She uses her spoon to eat.
10. The cat lay on the bed.


Track 9


1. The neighbor's boy has black hair.
2. The rain came pouring down.
3. The orange was very sweet.
4. He took the dogs for a walk.
5. Children like strawberries.
6. Her sister stayed for lunch.
7. The train was moving fast.
8. Mother shut the window.
9. The bakery is open.
10. Snow falls in the winter.


Track 12


1. School got out early today.
2. The football hit the goalpost.
3. The boy ran away from school.
4. Sugar is very sweet.
5. The two children are laughing.
6. A fire truck is coming.
7. Mother got a sauce pan.
8. The baby wants his bottle.
9. The ball broke the window.
10. There was a bad train wreck.


1. The boy went to bed early.
2. The woman cleaned her house.
3. A sharp knife is dangerous.
4. The child ripped open the bag.
5. They had some cold cuts for lunch.
6. She's helping her friend move.
7. They ate the lemon pie.
8. They are crossing the street.
9. The sun melted the snow.
10. The little girl is happy.

















APPENDIX G
HINT QUESTIONS BY VERSION

HINT Sentences (Version #1)


Subject #


Condition #1


CnrrArct rasnnnsf


Track 1
1. Who did the wife help?
2. What was very hot?
3. Where did the boy fall from?
4. What came from the book?
5. The car is going too what?
3.. What is she doing from her cup?
7. What did somebody steal?
B. What is dangerous?
9. Her shoes where what?
10. What did the player loose?



Track 2
1. Where did the match fall?
2. What grows in the garden?
3. Who helped the driver
4. What did she look into?
5. The fruit came in what?
3. What is leaking in the tub?
7. Where did the boy run?
B. What kind of jam is sweet?
9. What closes for lunch?
10. Who did he scare?

Track 3
1. What is in the corner?
2. What did she loose?
3. Where did he find his brother?
4. What did they hear?
5. What did the dog play with?
3. What tells a story?
7. What is the team doing?
B. Where is the new road?
9. What is on the shelf?
10. What is by the front door?


(p_ ct e)

(_r nk _ng)



(d r_








(p I _c


(f_ c t)

( tr w rr)

(s st _)


(c_ d_t c__d)

(f_ ny n se)





(m ch _


her husband
the fire
the window
picture
fast
drinking
money
big dogs
dirty
a shoe




on the floor
flowers
police
a mirror
a box
faucet
down the path
strawberry
the shop
sister



a broom
credit card
hiding
funny noise
a stick
a book
playing well
on the map
matches
milk


Paradinm


unprimed
explicit
unprimed
implicit
explicit
implicit
explicit
unprimed
implicit
explicit




unprimed
explicit
implicit
unprimed
explicit
implicit
unprimed
implicit
explicit
implicit



explicit
implicit
unprimed
implicit
unprimed
explicit
unprimed
unprimed
implicit
explicit


Condition.. #1 Corc response













Cond,,itinn, ,- #,Correct r onnn, P, arai i"


Track 4
1. What are they doing too fast?
2. What did the cat jump over?
3. Who left home?
4. Who opened the drawer?
5. What color shirt did he wear?
3. Where did the lady sit?
7. What did the cat drink from?
B. What did the lady pack?
9. What does he need?
10. What was she washing?



Track 5
1. What are the young people doing?
2. What did the tall man tie?
3. Where is the milk?
4. Where did the letter fall?
5. What did they watch?
3. Where is the shirt?
7. What type of acrobat did the boy do?
B. How long did they wait?
9. Where did the truck drive?
10. Where did they take the food?


(_ oth_ _)
(_ el w)

(s__ c_ r)

(_ aca n)


(p __ ch r)



(cl_ e


growing up
the fence
the little boy
mother
yellow
in her chair
saucer
her bag
vacation
her silk dress


dancing
his shoes
pitcher
on the floor
scary movie
closet
a handstand
an hour
up the road
outside


Track 6
1. What did the dog do to the neighbors?
2. What does the grocer sell?
3. What did the baby break?
4. What did the husband bring her? (f er )
5. What fell on the house?
3. What was the silly boy doing?
7. What did the children wash? (_ ate _
B. Where did they go? ( cat _
9. Who shut the gate? (m Im n)
10. What did the mother do with the string?


growled at them
butter
his cup
flowers
tree
hiding
plates
vacation
mailman
tied it too tight


unprimed
unprimed
explicit
implicit
implicit
explicit
implicit
explicit
implicit
unprimed


unprimed
explicit
implicit
unprimed
explicit
implicit
unprimed
explicit
unprimed
explicit


unprimed
explicit
explicit
implicit
explicit
unprimed
implicit
implicit
implicit
unprimed


Condition #2


Correct res onse


Parade m













Co,,,ndition #3 Correct r,,nn, Pad ri"


Track 7


1. What is soaking wet? (di cl
2. Where were the cows?
3. What flavor pudding did they have? (__ oco te)
4. Whom did she speak with in her family?
5. What is open?
3. Who stirred her tea? (m th_ )
7. What did the lady wear?
B. What did he break again?
9. What was she paying for?
10. Where were the cups?


dishcloth
in the pasture
chocolate
her eldest son
oven door
mother
coat
his leg
the bread
on the table


Track 8
1. What type of game was over?
2. Who helped their teacher?
3. What is someone crossing?
4. Where did the cat lay?
5. What is she using to eat?
3. What type of bags did they carry?
7. What did she stand near?
B. The kitchen clock was what?
9. What type of cake did mother cook?
10. What did the ball do?



Track 9
1. What is very sweet?
2. What does the baby want?
3. What got out early today?
4. What hit the goalpost?
5. What is coming?
3. Who got a sauce pan?
7. What are the two children doing?
B. What did the ball break?
9. What type of wreck was there?
10. Who ran away from school?


(f tb _)
(_ ild __n)




(__op __ ng)
(w_ d _w)


(sc )

(fi tr _k)
(m _th _)


football
children
the road
on the bed
her spoon
shopping
window
wrong
birthday
bounced very high


sugar
bottle
school
the football
firetruck
mother
laughing
the window
train
boy


implicit
unprimed
implicit
unprimed
explicit
implicit
explicit
explicit
unprimed
unprimed


implicit
implicit
explicit
unprimed
unprimed
implicit
implicit
unprimed
explicit
explicit


explicit
explicit
implicit
unprimed
implicit
implicit
unprimed
unprimed
explicit
explicit


Condition #3


Correct res onse


Parade m













Cov.nndition # Corret r.. nn, P. rn" i i' "


Track 10
1. What did the angry man do?
2. When did he loose his hat?
3. What did the boy break?
4. What is she baking?
5. What laid some eggs?
3. Who did the man call?
7. When did they meet some friends?
3. What made it up the hill?
9. Where did the fish swim?
10. What type of driver got lost?


(_ ol __e)
(d i ___ r)
(tr__)

(n __ v__ s)


he shouted
yesterday
wooden fence
a cake
chicken
police
dinner
truck
in the pond
nervous


Track 11
1. What came pouring down?
2. What color was the neighbor boy's hair?
3. What was very sweet? ( ran _
4. What did he take for a walk?
5. Who shut the window?
3. What is open? (ba __ y)
7. When does snow fall?
3. Who stayed for lunch? (s st _
9. How was the train moving?
10. What kind of fruit did the children like?


rain
black
orange
dog
mother
bakery
winter
sister
fast
strawberries


Track 12
1. What did the woman clean?
2. What was dangerous?
3. What did they have for lunch?
4. Who is she helping move?
5. What did they eat?
3. What are they crossing?
7. What did the sun melt?
3. Who went to bed early?
9. What did the child rip open?
10. Who is happy?


(c d c ts)

(le __ n p e)
(_ tr t)


her house
the sharp knife
cold cuts
her friend
lemon pie
street
the snow
boy
bag
little girl


unprimed
explicit
explicit
unprimed
explicit
implicit
implicit
implicit
explicit
implicit


unprimed
unprimed
implicit
explicit
explicit
implicit
explicit
implicit
unprimed
unprimed


unprimed
unprimed
implicit
unprimed
implicit
implicit
unprimed
explicit
explicit
explicit


Condition #4


Correct res onse


Parade m










Hint Sentences (Version #2)


Participant #_

Condition #1


Track 1
1. The wife helped whom?
2. What was very hot?
3. Who fell from the window?
4. Where did the picture come from?
5. The car is going too what?
3.. What is she doing from her cup?
7. What was stolen?
B. What can be dangerous?
9. Her shoes where what?
10. What did the player loose?


Track 2
1. The match fell where?
2. What grows in the garden?
3. Who helped the driver?
4. What did she look into?
5. What came in a box?
3. What is leaking in the tub?
7. What did the boy run down?
B. What kind of jam is sweet?
9. What closed for lunch?
10. Who did he scare?



Track 3
1. What was in the corner?
2. What did she loose?
3. Who did he find hiding?
4. What did they hear?
5. What did the dog play with?
3. What tells a story?
7. What is the team doing well?
B. What was on the map?
9. What is on the shelf?
10. What was by the front door?


(h_ b_ nd)





(_r nk _ng)

(b g d s)
(d r_


(fL r)


(m r r)

(f__ c t)

(_tr w rr _


(br h _r)

(st k)


husband
the fire
the boy
a book
fast
drinking
money
big dogs
dirty
his shoe


floor
flowers
police
mirror
fruit
faucet
path
strawberry
the shop
sister


a broom
credit card
brother
a funny noise
stick
a book
playing
new road
matches
ves


Correct Resoonse


Paradigm

implicit
explicit
explicit
unprimed
explicit
implicit
unprimed
implicit
implicit
unprimed


implicit
explicit
explicit
implicit
unprimed
implicit
unprimed
implicit
unprimed
explicit


unprimed
explicit
implicit
unprimed
implicit
explicit
explicit
unprimed
explicit
unDrimed


__~~___~_____~~__











Condition....2.Co...ect .. ....o... 1""


Track 4
1. What are they doing tonight? (g __ng o_t)
2. What did the cat jump over?
3. Who left home? (li I b_y)
4. Who opened the drawer?
5. What color shirt did he wear?
3. Where did the lady sit?
7. What did the cat drink from?
3. What did the lady pack?
9. What does he need? ( aca _n)
10. What is she washing?



Track 5
1. What were the young people doing?
2. What did the tall man tie? (sh s)
3. What was in the pitcher?
4. What fell on the floor? (_ et r)
5. What did they watch?
3. Where is the shirt? (cl__ e )
7. What did the boy do?
3. How long did they wait?
9. Where did the truck drive?
10. Where did they take the food? (ou_ s e)



Track 6
1. What did the dog do to the neighbors?
2. What does the grocer sell? (b_ t__r)
3. What did the baby break?
4. What did the husband bring his wife?
5. What fell on the house?
3. Who was hiding?
7. What did the children wash?
3. Where did they go? L cat __ n)
9. Who shut the gate?
10. What did the mother tie too tight? (s __ ng)


going out
a fence
the little boy
mother
yellow
in her chair
saucer
her bag
vacation
her new silk dress




dancing
his shoes
milk
letter
a scary movie
closet
handstand
an hour
up the road
outside


growled at them
butter
his cup
flowers
tree
silly boy
plates
vacation
mailman
string


implicit
explicit
implicit
explicit
explicit
unprimed
explicit
unprimed
implicit
explicit




unprimed
implicit
unprimed
implicit
unprimed
implicit
explicit
explicit
unprimed
implicit


unprimed
implicit
explicit
unprimed
explicit
unprimed
explicit
implicit
unprimed
implicit


Condition #2


v


Correct response Pa m












Track 7


1. What was soaking wet?
2. Where are cows?
3. What flavor pudding did they have?
4. Whom did she speak to?
5. What was open?
3. Who stirred her tea?
7. What did the lady wear?
B. What did he break again?
9. What is she paying for?
10. What are the cups on?


Track 8
1. What type of game was over?
2. Who helped their teacher?
3. Who was crossing the road?
4. Where did the cat lay?
5. What is she using to eat?
3. What kind of bags did they carry?
7. What did she stand by?
B. Which clock was wrong?


(_ ast e)







(br_ d)


(_oo b II)




(_ po n)


(_ tch _


9. What type of cake did mother cook?( rt d y)
10. What bounced very high?


Track 9
1. What is very sweet?
2. What does the baby want? (b_ tt _)
3. What got out early today?
4. What hit the goalpost? (_o b )
5. What is the fire truck doing?
3. Who got a sauce pan?
7. What are the two children doing? (_ aug __ in_)
B. What broke the window?
9. What type of wreck was there? (_ ra n)
10. Where did the boy run away from?


dishcloth
in the pasture
chocolate
the eldest son
the oven door
mother
coat
his leg
bread
table


football
children
someone
the bed
spoon
shopping
the window
kitchen
birthday
the ball


sugar
bottle
school
football
coming
mother
laughing
ball
train
from school


unprimed
implicit
explicit
unprimed
unprimed
explicit
explicit
unprimed
implicit
explicit


implicit
explicit
unprimed
explicit
implicit
unprimed
unprimed
implicit
implicit
unprimed


explicit
implicit
explicit
implicit
unprimed
explicit
implicit
explicit
implicit
unorimed


Condition #3


Correct response


Paradigm











Condition......Co...ect .. .....o......


Track 10
1. What did the angry man do?
2. When did he loose his hat?
3. What did the boy break?
4. What is baking?
5. What laid some eggs?
3. Who did the man call?
7. Who did they meet for dinner?
3. What made it up the hill?
9. Where did the fish swim?
10. What type of driver got lost?


Track 11
1. What did the rain do?
2. Which boy had black hair?
3. What was very sweet?
4. Who did he take for a walk?
5. Who shut the window?
3. What is open?
7. When does snow fall?
3. Who stayed for lunch?
9. What was the train doing?
10. What did the children like?


(_ est d_ y)
(w__ d _n f__








(n v s)


(nei or)



(m t er)

(in __r)


(st be ies)


shout
yesterday
c _)wooden fence
the cake
chicken
the police
their friends
truck
in the pond
nervous


came pouring down
neighbor
the orange
the dog
mother
the bakery
winter
sister
moving fast
strawberries


Track 12
1. What did the woman do to her house?
2. What is dangerous?
3. What did they have for lunch? (c d c_ ts)
4. Who is she helping move? ( ri __d)
5. What did they eat? (le __ np e)
3. What are they doing?
7. What did the sun melt?
3. Who went to bed early?
9. What did the child rip open?
10. Who is happy?


cleaned it
the sharp knife
cold cuts
friend
lemon pie
crossing the street
the snow
boy
bag
the little girl


explicit
implicit
implicit
unprimed
explicit
unprimed
unprimed
explicit
explicit
implicit


explicit
implicit
unprimed
unprimed
explicit
explicit
implicit
explicit
unprimed
implicit


explicit
unprimed
implicit
implict
implicit
unprimed
unprimed
explicit
explicit
unprimed


Condition #4


Correct response Pa m

















APPENDIX H
EXAMPLE OF RESPONSE TIME PRINTOUT FROM THE MATB




Appendix H: Example of response time printout from the MATB test

02-09-2006 12:53:20 MD020912.49M


57.01
63.05
81.01
102.05
152.03
163.01
178.01
204.04
A


1.70
4.23
4.12
2.03
1.65
4.95
1.76
1.65


Elapsed time at beginning of monitoring event















REFERENCES


Anderson JR (1995). Review: human memory encoding and storage. Cognitive
psychology and its implications; Chapter 6, 4th edition, Freeman, 169-197.
Accessed from
http://www.scism.sbu.ac.uk/inmandw/review/cogpsy/review/rev5653.html on
11/29/2005.

Anderson P (2001). Study: multitasking is counterproductive. Accessed from website
http://archives.cnn.com on 3/15/2005.

Army Regulation 40-501. Standards of Medical Fitness, Headquarters, Department of the
Army, Washington, D.C. 12 April 2004.

Baddeley A (1997). Human memory: theory and practice (revised). United Kingdom:
Psychology Press. Accessed online at www.amazon.com on 11/30/05.

Barrett NA, Large MM, Smith GL, Karayanidis F, Michie PT, Kavanagh DJ, Fawdry R,
Henderson D, O'Sullivan BT (2003). Cognitive Brain Research, 17 (1), 1-13.

Behrmann M, Beng JJ, and Shomstein S (2004). Parietal cortex and attention. Current
Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 212-217.

Blaxton, TA (1989). Investigating dissociations among memory measures: support for a
transfer-appropriate processing framework. Journal ofExperimental Psychology;
LIearniing. Memory and Cognition, 15, 657-668.

Boman, E. (2004). The effects of noise and gender on children's episodic and semantic
memory. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 45, 407-416.

Brauer SG, Broome A, Stone C, Clewett S, and Herzig P (2004). Simplest tasks have
greatest dual task interference with balance. Human Movement Science, 23, 489-
502.

Castel AD and Craik FIM (1999). The effects of aging and divided attention on memory
for item and associative information. Psychology and Aging, 18 (4), 873-885.

Comstock Jr. JR and Arnegard RJ. (1992) The multi-attribute task battery for human
operator workload and strategic behavior research. NASA Technical Memorandum
104174. Langley Research Center: Hampton, VA. January.









Craik FIM, Naveh-Benjamin M, Ishaik G, and Anderson ND (2000). Divided attention
during encoding and retrieval: differential control effects? Journal of Experimental
Psychology: L-earnilug,. Memory, and Cognition, 26 (6), 1744-1749.

Crandell CC and Smaldino J (2002). Room acoustics and auditory rehabilitation
technology. In J. Katz (Ed), Handbook of clinical audiology (5th Ed), pp. 608.
Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

Dannhauser TM, Walker Z, Stevens T, Lee L, Seal M, and Shergill SS (2005). The
functional anatomy of divided attention in amnestic mild cognitive impairment.
Brain Advance Access, 1-10.

DeGangi, G and Porges, S. (1990). Neuroscience Foundations of Human Performance.
Rockville, MD: American Occupational Therapy Association Inc. Accessed from
http://penta.ufrgs.br/edu/telelab/3/sustaine.htm on 7/20/2005.

Fernandes MA, Davidson PSR, Glisky EL, and Moscovitch M (2004). Contribution of
frontal and temporal lobe function to memory interference from divided attention at
retrieval. Neuropsychology, 18 (3), 514-525.

Fernandes MA and Moscovitch M (2003). Interference effects from divided attention
during retrieval in younger and older adults. Psychology andAging, 18 (2), 219-
230.

Fernandes MA and Moscovitch M (2002). Factors modulating the effect of divided
attention during retrieval of words. Memory and Cognition, 30 (5), 731-744.

Fleck, DE (2001). Directed forgetting in explicit and implicit memory: The role of
encoding and retrieval mechanisms. The Psychological Record. Accessed at
http://www.findarticles.com on 8/16/2005.

Gelfand SA (1998). Hearing: an introduction to psychological and physiological
acoustics (3rd ed). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.

Gottwald B, Mihajlovic Z, Wilde B, Mehdorn HM (2003). Does the cerebellum
contribute to specific aspects of attention? Neuropsychologia, 41 (11), 1452-1460.

GrafP and Masson MEJ (1993). Implicit memory: new directions in cognition
development, and neuropshychology. Online book: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
Accessed at http://www.questia.com on 7/18/2005.

Groth-Marnat G and Baker S (2003). Digit Span as a measure of everyday attention: a
study of ecological validity. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 2003 Dec;97(3 Pt
2): 1209-18. Accessed from http://www.nacdtheproject.com/research/digit.html on
10/3/2005.









Hafter ER, Bonnel AM, Gallun E, and Cohen E (1998). A role for memory in divided
attention between two independent stimuli. In Palmer AR, Rees A, Summerfield
AZ and Meddis R (eds). Psychophysical and Physiological Advances in Hearing.
London: Whurr Publishing, 228-238.

Hartley A (1992). Attention. In Craik F. & Salthouse T. (eds) Handbook of aging and
cognition, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3-49.

Hearing-in-Noise Test. Accessed at http://www.maico-diagnostics.com on 7/22/2005.

Herath P, Klingberg T, Young J, Amunts K, and Roland P (2001). Neural correlates of
dual task interference can be dissociated from those of divided attention: an fMRI
study. Cerebral Cortex, 11 (9), 796-805.

Hommel G and Eglau B (2002). Control of stimulus-response translation in dual-task
performance. Psychological Research, 66, 260-273.

Hugdahl K, Thomsen T, Erlsand L, Rimol LM, and Niemi J (2003). The effects of
attention on speech perception: An fMRI study. Brain and Language, 85 (1), 37-
48.

Hugdahl K, Law I, Kyllingbaek S, Bronnick K, Gade A, and Paulson OB (2000). Effects
of attention on dichotic listening: an O-PET study. Human Brain Mapping, 10, 87-
97.

Iacoboni M (2004). Divided attention in the normal and the split brain: chronometry and
imaging. Neurobiology ofAttention, Chp. 60, 363-367. Retrieved from internet on
3/15/2005.

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: H. Holt and Company.

Keith, RW. (1994). Auditory Continuous Performance Test. San Antonio: Harcourt,
Brace & Co.

Kemper S, Herman RE, and Lian CHT (2003). The costs of doing two things at once for
young and older adults: talking while walking, finger tapping, and ignoring speech
or noise. Psychology andAging, 18 (2), 181-192.

Kim MS, Kim YY, Kim EN, Lee KJ, Ha TH, and Kim JS (2005). Implicit and explicit
memory in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder: An event-related potential
study. Journal of Psychiatric Research. Aug 2, 1-9.

Kosson DS and Newman JP (1989). Socialization and attentional deficits under focusing
and divided attention conditions. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,
57 (1), 87-99.









Lipschutz B, Kolinsky R, Damhaut P, Wikler D, & Goldman S (2002). Attention-
dependent changes in activation and connectivity in dichotic listening.
Neuroimage, 17, 643-656.

Loose R, Kaufmann C, Auer DP, Lange KW (2003). Human Prefrontal and sensory
cortical activity during divided attention tasks. Human Brain Mapping, 18, 249-
259.

Martin DR and Cranford JL (1991). Age-related changes in binaural processing: II
Behavioral findings. The American Journal of Otology. 12(5), September.

McDowd J & Shaw B (2000). Attention and aging: A functional perspective. In Craik
F. & Salthouse T. (eds) Handbook of aging and cognition (2nd Ed). Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 221-292.

Meyer GF and Suerger SM (2001). Cross-modal integration of auditory and visual
motion signals. NeuroReport, 12 (11), 2557-2560.

Mourant RR, Tsai F-J, Al-Shihabi T, and Jaeger BK. Measuring the divided attention
capability of young and older drivers. Accessed from website
http://wwwl.coe.neu.edu on 3/15/2005.

Mulligan NW (1998). The role of attention during encoding in implicit and explicit
memory. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Letuiriig. Memory, and Cognition.
24 (1), 27-47.

Mulligan NW (2002). Attention and perceptual implicit memory: effects of selective
versus divided attention and number of visual objects. Psychological Research
Psychologische Forshung. Accessed from website http://www.springerlink.com on
3/15/2002.

Multitasking and task switching (2005). Accessed from website http://www.umich.edu
on 3/15/2005.

Naveh-Benjamin M, Craik FIM, Perretta JG, and Toney ST (2000). The effects of
divided attention encoding and retrieval processes: the resiliency of retrieval
processes. The Quarterly Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 53A (3), 609-625.

Navel-Benjamin M, Craik FIM, Guez J, Kreuger S (2005). Divided attention in younger
and older adults: effects of strategy and relatedness on memory performance and
secondary task costs. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Lerniniiiii. Memory,
and Cognition. May, 31(3), 520-537.

Nilsson M, Gelnett D, Sullivan J, Soli SD and Goldberg RL (1992). 3pPP3: Norms for
the Hearing in Noise Test: The influence of spatial separation, hearing loss, and
English language experience on speech reception thresholds. 124 meeting of the
Acoustical Society ofAmerica. Nov 1992, New Orleans.









Nindl BC, Leone CA, Tharion WJ, Johnson FR, Castellani JW, Patton JF, and Montain
SJ (2002). Physical performance responses during 72 h of military operational
stress. Medicine & Science in Sports and Exercise. 1814-1822.

Noise: Miriam Webster online dictionary. Accessed from website http://www.m-c.com
on 7/25/2005.

Peres SC and Lane DM (2005). Auditory graphs: the effects of redundant dimensions
and divided attention. Proceedings oflCAD 05-Eleventh Meeting of the
International Conference ofAuditory Display. Limerick, Ireland, July 6-9, 2005.

Pichora-Fuller MK, Schneider BA, Daneman M (1995). How young and old adults listen
to and remember speech in noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica,
Jan: 97(1): 593-608.

Pilotti M, Beyer T, Yasunami M (2001). Encoding tasks and the processing of perceptual
information in young and old adults. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological
Sciences, Vol. 56B, No. 2, 119-128.

Piheiro ML and Musiek FE (1985). Assessment of central auditory dysfunction:
foundations and clinical correlates. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 201-217.

Pollman S, Lepsien J, Hugdahl K, Cramon DY (2004). Auditory target detection in
dichotic listening involves the orbitofrontal and hippocampal paralimbic belts.
Cerebral Cortex, 14, 903-913.

Prince SE, Daselaar SM, Cabeza R (2005). Nueral correlates of relational memory:
successful encoding and retrieval of semantic and perceptual associations. J
Neurosci., Feb 2; 25(5): 1203-10.

Rajaram S, Srinivas K, and Travers S (2001). The effects of attention on perceptual
implicit memory. Memory and Cognition, 29 (7), 920-930.

Rubinstein J and Meyer D (2001) Is multitasking more efficient? Shifting mental gears
costs time, especially when shifting to less familiar tasks. Accessed from website
http://www.apa.com on 3/15/2005.

Salthouse TA and Hedden T (2002). Interpreting reaction times in between-group
comparisons. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24 (7), 858-
872.

Schacter DL (1996). Searching for Memory, the Brain, the Mind, and the Past. Basic
Books; New York. Accessed from http://www.brainchannels.com/Memory/
encoding/encoding.html on 11/29/05.

Schulman HG (1997). Priming. Accessed at http://www.phsy.ohio-state.edu on
11/18/2005.









Shanks DR, Rowland LA, Ranger MS. (2005). Attentional load and implicit sequence
learning. Accessed from http://www.springerlink.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu on
7/21/2005. Published online 23 April 2005.

Shellenbarger S (2003). Multitasking makes you stupid, studies say. Accessed from
website http://www.dfw.com on 3/15/2005.

Shinn-Cunningham B and Ihlefeld A (2004). Selective and divided attention: extracting
information from simultaneous sound sources. Proceedings oflCAD 04-Tenth
Meeting of the International Conference on Auditory Display. Sydney, Austrailia,
July 6-9, 2004.

Shinn J, Baran JA, Moncrieff DW, and Musiek FE (2005) Differential attention effects
on dichotic listening. Journal of the American Academy ofAudiology 16: 205-218.

Soli SD and Nilsson M (1994). Assessment of communication handicap with the HINT.
Hearing Instruments, 45:2; 12-16.

Stansfield SA, Berglund B, Clark C, Lopez-Barrio I, Fischer P, Ohrstrom E, Haines MM,
Head J, Hygge S, van Kamp I, Berry BF. (2005) Aircraft and road traffic noise and
children's cognition and health: a cross-national study. The Lancet June 5, 2005;
365: 1942-49.

Stroop JR (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 18, 643-662. Accessed from website
http://physchclasics.yorku.ca/Stroop on 3/15/2005.

Strouse A, Wilson RH, Brush N. (2000). Effect of order bias on the recognition of
dichotic digits in young and elderly listeners. Audiology. Mar-Apri; 39(2): 93-101.

Thomas JR, Lockwood PA, Singh A, and Deuster PA (1999). Tyrosine improves
working memory in a multitasking environment. Pharmacology Biochemistry and
Behavior, 64 (3), 495-500.

Tun PA. (1998). Fast noise speech: age differences in processing rapid speech with
background noise. Psychology andAging. 13(3), 424-434.

Wallace WP, Shaffer TR, Amberg MD, and Silvers VL (2001). Divided attention and
prerecognition processing of spoken words and nonwords. Memory and Cognition,
29(8), 1102-1110.

Whittlesea, BWA (2004). The perception of integrality: remembering through the
validation of expectation. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Learning. Memory,
and Cognition. Vol. 30, No.4, 891-908.









Wickens CD, Goh J, Helleberg J, Horrey WJ, and Talleur DA (2003). Attentional
models of multitask pilot performance using advanced display technology. Human
Factors, 45 (3), 360-380.

Williams BR, Hultsch DF, Strauss EH, Hunter MA, and Tannock R (2005).
Inconsistency in reaction time across the life span. Neuropsychology, 19 (1), 88-
96.

Williams KE and Voigt JR (2004). Evaluation of a Computerized Aid for Creating
Human Behavioral Representations of Human-Computer Interaction. Human
Factors, 46 (2), 288-303.

Willingham DB and Preuss L (1995). The death of implicit memory. Psyche 2(15),
October.

Wilson RH, Abrams HB, Pillion AL (2003). A word-recognition task in multitalker
babble using a descending presentation mode from 24 to 0 dB signal to babble.
JRRD, 40(4), July/August.

Yeates KO, Enrile, BG (2005). Implicit and explicit memory in children with congenital
and acquired brain disorder. Neuropsychology; Sep, Vol 19(5) 618-628.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Lynnette Bosse Bardolf was born on 27 May 1964 in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The youngest of seven children, she grew up mostly in Jacksonville, Florida, graduating

from Fletcher High School in 1982. She earned her B.S. in Communication Disorders

and her M.S. in Audiology from the Florida State University (FSU) in 1989 and 1990,

respectively. Also a graduate of the FSU Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC)

as a Distinguished Military Graduate, she received a commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in

the Medical Service Corps in 1989. Upon graduating in December 1990 with her M.S. in

Audiology, Lynnette entered the active duty Army as a 1st Lieutenant at Ft. Sam Houston,

Texas, in January 1991. As an Army audiologist for the past 15 years, and currently

ranked a Lieutenant Colonel (LTC), Lynnette's past assignments took her to Colorado,

Alabama, Germany, and Hawaii working as a clinical audiologist and hearing

conservationist serving active duty members, retirees, and military family members in all

branches of the U.S. military. Lynnette's distinguished career has afforded her many

wonderful opportunities including a military mission to Nairobi, Kenya, in January 1999

to provide audiology services to victims of the August 1998 Embassy bombings; and

selection to the Army's Long-Term Health Education and Training Program, where her

current assignment at the University of Florida in the Department of Communication

Sciences and Disorders allowed her the opportunity to earn her Ph.D. in Audiology.

Upon completion of her Ph.D. program, Lynnette will be assigned to the U.S. Army

Aeromedical Research Lab (USAARL) at Ft. Rucker, Alabama. Lynnette has been






79


married to MAJ M. Keith Bardolf (U.S. Army) for 14 years. They have three daughters:

Shauna, age 21 (a U.S. Marine); Michaela, age 6, and Rainey, age 3.