14 190 138 -52 175 175 0 -52 10 68 88 20 70 135 65 -45 23 150 141 - 9 122 140 18 -27 1 135 120 -15 106 115 9 -24 9 149 135 -14 144 150 6 -20 21 152 132 -20 140 138 - 2 -18 22 164 183 19 120 157 37 -18 24 157 142 -15 155 155 0 -15 27 108 97 -11 115 112 - 3 - 8 20 105 110 5 150 155 5 0 15 172 170 - 2 140 137 - 3 1 26 137 138 1 125 125 0 1 25 140 150 10 148 151 3 7 3 136 139 3 135 129 - 6 9 13 160 142 -18 150 122 -28 10 18 133 135 2 100 84 -16 18 28 150 162 12 178 170 - 8 20 8 113 110 - 3 131 101 -30 27 11 125 98 -27 155 101 -54 27 2 105 112 7 152 114 -38 45 17 90 150 60 125 121 - 4 64 Av. 135.19 132.95 - 2.24 136.47 134.14 - 2.33 .09 M - 2 - 2 0 75%ile 6.5 4.5 16.0 25%ile -15 -14 19.5 Q 10.75 9.25 17.75 P. E. (distribution) 12.24 7.33 18.09 P. E. (average) +-2.66 +-1.59 +-3.10 Av. = .03 P. E. M. = .0 P. E. lost in I.Q., as compared with 7 in the control group. Thirteen test cases lost in comparison with their respective controls. Two gained equally with their controls, and the remaining thirteen showed a larger gain. In regard to the three pairs taken from the nutrition class, number 7 gained 8 points and his control, 4. Number 10 lost a point and his control lost 4, while number 11 lost 3 points with a gain of 1 point by his control. So that these cases, in spite of most favorable conditions, show no consistent gain in I.Q. The results of the Healy tests are similar. There is a slightly higher average gain in the control group. The test group contains eight cases which made a poorer score at the end of the interval, the control group six. The range of gains is from -22 to +44, or 66 points, in the test group, while in the control group the gains range from -14 to +41.5 or 55.5 TABLE VIII Decrease in fatigue in tapping--Difference in rates of second half minute over first half minute. Sixteen pairs N[16] Test Group (A) Control Group (B)