Bilateral Transfer

Experiment Number - 3
Date of experiment - 06/09/23
Experimenter - VM
Subject - SM
Introduction:
The effect of past learning on new learning is designated as “transfer of training”. According to
Hilgard, “The influence that learning one task may have on subsequent learning on performance
of another task is called “Transfer of training”. Transfer of training is one of the most pervasive
characteristics of behaviour for it is this which guarantees the continuity and lawful development
of habits of ever-growing complexity.
The effects of past learning on new languages may be classified in one of the three categories.
Positive Transfer - occurs when past experience facilitates the acquisition of a new skill or the
solution of a new problem.
Negative Transfer - occurs when past experience renders more difficult or slows down the
acquisition of a new skill or the solution of a new problem.
Cross- Education - refers to the facilitation of performance with one part of the body, when
practice is given to another part of the body. When cross education is from one body organ to its
symmetrical counterpart it is called Bilateral Transfer. It is usually demonstrated by a mirror
tracing board. Starch (1910) was the first to apply the mirror drawing method in the study of
bilateral transfer. Studies indicate that Bilateral transfer is a form of positive transfer where
subjects do better after training. Here we study the effect of training the preferred hand on the
performance of the non-preferred hand.
Problem: To study Bilateral transfer through mirror drawing
Hypothesis: Training given to one hand has a positive effect on performance of the other hand
Plan: Give one trial to trace the star pattern with the non-preferred hand, then five trials with the
preferred hand and then again, one trial with the non-preferred hand. Compare the performance
of the non-preferred hand before and after training to the preferred hand.
Variables:
Independent Variable: training given to the preferred hand
Dependent Variable: time taken and errors committed in the trials of the non-preferred hand.
Controls/ Precautions:
1. The subject should not see the star pattern directly while tracing.
2. The subject must avoid touching the edge of the groove as much as possible.
Materials:
1. Mirror Tracing Board (Metal Star with built in Electronic Impulse counter and Electronic
Timer)
2. Writing Materials
Procedure:
Connect the mirror tracing board to the power.
Series I: Non-preferred hand before training.
The subject is asked to trace the pattern with the stylus with his/ her non-preferred hand, not
looking at the star directly, but seeing its reflection in the mirror. The subject should trace the
star without touching the sides. Whenever this happens, the counter records an error
automatically. Give the signal to start and start the electronic timer on the instrument
simultaneously. Note the time taken and the errors committed to trace the pattern using the non-
preferred hand.
Training- Give 10 trials to the subject to trace the star pattern with the preferred hand. Follow the
same procedure as above. For every trial, start the timer and stop as soon as the subject traces the
star. Note down the time taken for each trial and errors committed for each trial. Reset the timer
and the digital counter to zero before the start of the next trial.
Series II: Non-preferred hand after training.
Following the same procedure, ask the subject to trace the star pattern with the non-preferred
hand again. Note the time and error scores.
Note: While tracing the star patterns, follow clockwise direction for the right hand and
anticlockwise direction for the left hand. The start point for the tracing is always the bottom edge
of the metal star.
Instructions:
“At the signal ‘start’, start tracing the pattern with the stylus without touching the edges, as fast
as possible until you reach the starting point. When you touch the edges the counter will
automatically record the errors. While tracing, do not look at the star pattern directly, look only
at its reflection in the mirror.”
Precautions:
1. Subject always has to start tracing the pattern from the same point and reach the same
point.
2. Subject is not allowed to look directly at the star instead he/she has to trace the path
looking at the mirror.
3. Show him the time taken and errors committed in each trial after completing each trial.
4. Always reset the timer and the counter to zero before the start of each trial.
Analysis:
1. Compare time and error scores of the non-preferred hand before and after training.
2. Plot time and error scores on the graph for preferred and non-preferred hands.
3. Compute mean for the group.
Points For Discussion :
1. Discuss whether training given to the preferred hand has improved learning in the non-
preferred hand with the help of the graph, for the subject and for the group.
2. Compare the learning curve of the subject and the group for the preferred hand.
Table 1:
Time taken and errors committed by the subject in each trial of the preferred hand.

Name Time taken Errors committed

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
SM 39 38 29 21 25 21 19 15 8 12

Table 2:
Time taken and errors committed by the subject in each trial of the non preferred hand before
and after training.

Name Time taken Errors committed

Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 Series 1 Series 2 Series 3

I II II-I I II II-I
SM 45 31 14 25 33 8
Table 3:
Time taken and errors committed by the group in each trial of the preferred hand.

Sno Name Time taken Errors committed

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1. SM 39 38 29 21 25 21 19 15 8 12

2. AS 27 21 19 18 17 46 31 18 24 18

3. AM 16 8 8 7 7 45 28 24 21 21

4. SR 17 16 18 15 16 13 8 14 19 10

5. AM 21 15 13 9 10 39 24 22 27 15

6. KA 47 36 45 23 20 18 14 20 10 11

7. CH 26 21 21 28 24 14 16 13 20 14

8. AS 42 32 33 43 23 18 23 36 40 20

9. AB 60 53 45 34 30 57 53 33 26 10

10. AG 41 28 44 41 41 36 23 31 40 35

Total 336 240 275 239 213 307 239 226 235 166

Mean 33.6 24.0 27.5 23.9 21.3 30.7 23.9 22.6 23.5 16.6

Table 4:
Time taken and errors committed by the group in each trial of the non preferred hand before and
after training.

Sno Name Time taken Errors committed

Series 1 Series 2 Series 3 Series 1 Series 2 Series 3

I II II-I I II II-I
1. SM 45 31 -14 25 33 8

2. AS 42 16 26 58 29 29

3. AM 10 7 3 33 26 7
 4. SR 27 17 10 42 19 23

5. AM 18 11 7 28 16 12

6. KA 14 17 3 48 27 21

7. CH 44 36 8 27 20 7

8. AS 37 26 11 78 26 52

9. AB 49 35 14 32 14 18

10. AG 43 30 13 44 44 0

Total 329 226 109 415 254 180

Mean 32.9 22.6 10.9 41.5 25.4 18.0

Graph 1:
Shows the time taken by the subject in each trial by the preferred hand.
Graph 2:
Shows the error committed by the subject in each trial by the preferred hand.

Graph 3:
Shows the time taken by the subject in each trial by the non preferred hand.
Graph 4:
Shows the error committed by the subject in each trial by the non preferred hand.

Graph 5:
Shows the time taken by the group in each trial by the preferred hand.

Graph 6:
Shows the error committed by the group in each trial by the preferred hand.

Graph 7:
Shows the time taken by the group in each trial by the non preferred hand.

Graph 8:
Shows the error committed by the group in each trial by the non preferred hand.

Individual discussion:
Table 1 shows the time taken and the errors committed by the subject for the preferred hand.
There are variations from 1st to 5th trial, both in time taken and the errors committed .
Time taken for the five trials are as follows 39, 38, 29, 21, 25 and the errors committed by the
subject are 21, 19, 15, 8, 12.
The results are graphically depicted - there are fluctuations in time taken and the errors
committed before and after from 1st to 5th trial.
Table 2 shows the time taken and the errors committed before and after training. Time taken in
1st series is 45 seconds and in 2nd series is 31 seconds and the difference is 14. Errors
committed in the 1st series are 25 and 2nd series are 33. The difference is 8.
The graph shows that training given to the preferred hand has not improved learning in the non
preferred hand. Time taken by the subject is less in the 2nd series than in the 1st series. In the
case of errors committed, they increase from 1st to 2nd series.
Individual conclusion:
1. The result of the subject is not according to hypothetical expectation.
2. Training given to the preferred hand has a negative effect on the non preferred hand.

Group discussion:
Table 3 shows the result of the group for the preferred hand both for time taken and errors
committed. There is a gradual fluctuation from 1st to 5th trial. The result is graphically depicted.
Table 4 shows the group result for the non preferred hand and the result is according to
hypothesis because there is a decrease in time taken and errors committed by group. This is
because training given to the preferred hand had a positive effect on learning.
Group conclusion:
1. Result of the group is according to the hypothetical expectation.
2. There are individual differences in the extent of learning.

References
Hicks, R.E.(1974). Asymmetry of Bilateral Transfer. The American Journal of Psychology,
87(4). 667-674 https://doi.org/10.2307/1421973
Teixeira, L.A.(2000) Timing and Force Components in Bilateral Transfer of Learning, Brain and
Cognition, 44(3). 455-469, ISSN 0278-2626, https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1999.1205