‭1‬

‭BILATERAL TRANSFER‬

‭Experimenter’s Name: V.M Experiment Number: 3‬

‭Subject: S.R Date of Experiment: 06.09.23‬

‭INTRODUCTION‬
‭The‬‭effect‬‭of‬‭past‬‭learning‬‭on‬‭new‬‭learning‬‭is‬‭designated‬‭as‬‭“transfer‬‭of‬‭training”.‬‭According‬‭to‬
‭Hilgard,‬‭“The‬‭influence‬‭that‬‭learning‬‭one‬‭task‬‭may‬‭have‬‭on‬‭subsequent‬‭learning‬‭on‬‭performance‬
‭of‬‭another‬‭task‬‭is‬‭called‬‭“Transfer‬‭of‬‭training”.‬‭Transfer‬‭of‬‭training‬‭is‬‭one‬‭of‬‭the‬‭most‬‭pervasive‬
‭characteristics‬‭of‬‭behaviour‬‭for‬‭it‬‭is‬‭this‬‭which‬‭guarantees‬‭the‬‭continuity‬‭and‬‭lawful‬‭development‬
‭of habits of ever-growing complexity.‬
‭The‬ ‭effects‬ ‭of‬ ‭past‬ ‭learning‬ ‭on‬ ‭new‬ ‭languages‬ ‭may‬ ‭be‬ ‭classified‬ ‭into‬ ‭one‬ ‭of‬ ‭the‬ ‭three‬
‭categories.‬
‭1.‬ ‭Positive‬ ‭Transfer‬ ‭-‬‭occurs‬‭when‬‭past‬‭experience‬‭facilitates‬‭the‬‭acquisition‬‭of‬‭a‬‭new‬‭skill‬
‭or the solution of a new problem.‬
‭2.‬ ‭Negative‬‭Transfer‬‭-‬‭occurs‬‭when‬‭past‬‭experience‬‭renders‬‭it‬‭more‬‭difficult‬‭or‬‭slows‬‭down‬
‭the acquisition of a new skill or the solution of a new problem.‬
‭3.‬ ‭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)‬ ‭was‬‭the‬‭first‬‭to‬‭apply‬‭the‬‭mirror‬
‭drawing method in the study of bilateral transfer.‬
‭Studies‬ ‭indicate‬ ‭that‬ ‭Bilateral‬ ‭transfer‬ ‭is‬ ‭a‬ ‭form‬ ‭of‬ ‭positive‬ ‭transfer‬ ‭where‬ ‭subjects‬ ‭do‬
‭better‬‭after‬‭training.‬‭Here‬‭we‬‭study‬‭the‬‭effect‬‭of‬‭training‬‭the‬‭preferred‬‭hand‬‭on‬‭the‬‭performance‬
‭of the non-preferred hand.‬

‭METHODOLOGY‬
‭Problem:‬‭To study Bilateral Transfer through mirror‬‭drawing.‬
 ‭2‬

‭Hypothesis:‬ ‭Training‬ ‭given‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭one‬ ‭hand‬ ‭has‬ ‭a‬ ‭positive‬ ‭effect‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬ ‭performance‬ ‭on‬ ‭the‬
‭other hand.‬

‭Plan:‬
‭Give‬ ‭one‬ ‭trial‬ ‭to‬ ‭trace‬ ‭the‬ ‭star‬ ‭pattern‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬ ‭non-preferred‬ ‭hand,‬ ‭then‬ ‭five‬ ‭trials‬ ‭with‬ ‭the‬
‭preferred‬ ‭hand‬‭and‬‭then‬‭again,‬‭one‬‭trial‬‭with‬‭the‬‭non-preferred‬‭hand.‬‭Compare‬‭the‬‭performance‬
‭of the non-preferred hand before and after training to the preferred hand.‬

‭Variables:‬
‭-‬ ‭I‬‭ndependent Variable:‬‭-‬‭Training given to the preferred‬‭hand.‬
‭-‬ ‭Dependent‬‭Variable:-‬‭Time‬‭taken‬‭and‬‭errors‬‭committed‬‭in‬‭the‬‭trials‬‭of‬‭the‬‭non-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 Required:‬
‭1.‬ ‭Mirror‬‭Tracing‬‭Board‬‭(Metal‬‭Star‬‭with‬‭built-in‬‭Electronic‬‭Impulse‬‭counter‬‭and‬‭Electronic‬
‭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
‭looking‬‭at‬‭the‬‭star‬‭directly,‬‭but‬‭seeing‬‭its‬‭reflection‬‭in‬‭the‬‭mirror.‬‭The‬‭subject‬‭should‬‭trace‬‭the‬‭star‬
‭without‬ ‭touching‬ ‭the‬ ‭sides.‬ ‭Whenever‬ ‭this‬ ‭happens,‬ ‭the‬‭counter‬‭records‬‭an‬‭error‬‭automatically.‬
‭Give‬‭the‬‭signal‬‭to‬‭start‬‭and‬‭start‬‭the‬‭electronic‬‭timer‬‭on‬‭the‬‭instrument‬‭simultaneously.‬‭Note‬‭the‬
‭time taken and the errors committed to trace the pattern using the non-preferred hand.‬
‭Training-‬‭Give‬‭10‬‭trials‬‭to‬‭the‬‭subject‬‭to‬‭trace‬‭the‬‭star‬‭pattern‬‭with‬‭the‬‭preferred‬‭hand.‬‭Follow‬‭the‬
‭same‬‭procedure‬‭as‬‭above.‬‭For‬‭every‬‭trial,‬‭start‬‭the‬‭timer‬‭and‬‭stop‬‭as‬‭soon‬‭as‬‭the‬‭subject‬‭traces‬‭the‬
‭star.‬ ‭Note‬ ‭down‬ ‭the‬ ‭time‬ ‭taken‬ ‭for‬ ‭each‬ ‭trial‬‭and‬‭the‬‭errors‬‭committed‬‭for‬‭each‬‭trial.‬‭Reset‬‭the‬
‭timer and the digital counter to zero before the start of the next trial.‬
 ‭3‬

‭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 ‭the‬ ‭clockwise‬‭direction‬‭for‬‭the‬‭right‬‭hand‬‭and‬‭the‬
‭anticlockwise‬‭direction‬‭for‬‭the‬‭left‬‭hand.‬‭The‬‭start‬‭point‬‭for‬‭the‬‭tracing‬‭is‬‭always‬‭the‬‭bottom‬‭edge‬
‭of the metal star.‬

‭Instructions:‬
‭“At‬‭the‬‭signal‬‭‘start’,‬‭start‬‭tracing‬‭the‬‭pattern‬‭with‬‭the‬‭stylus‬‭without‬‭touching‬‭the‬‭edges,‬‭as‬‭fast‬
‭as‬ ‭possible‬ ‭until‬ ‭you‬ ‭reach‬ ‭the‬ ‭starting‬ ‭point.‬ ‭When‬ ‭you‬ ‭touch‬ ‭the‬ ‭edges‬ ‭the‬ ‭counter‬ ‭will‬
‭automatically‬‭record‬‭the‬‭errors.‬‭While‬‭tracing,‬‭do‬‭not‬‭look‬‭at‬‭the‬‭star‬‭pattern‬‭directly,‬‭look‬‭only‬
‭at its reflection in the mirror.”‬

‭Precautions:‬
‭1.‬ ‭The‬‭subject‬‭always‬‭has‬‭to‬‭start‬‭tracing‬‭the‬‭pattern‬‭from‬‭the‬‭same‬‭point‬‭and‬‭reach‬‭the‬‭same‬
‭point.‬
‭2.‬ ‭The‬‭subject‬‭is‬‭not‬‭allowed‬‭to‬‭look‬‭directly‬‭at‬‭the‬‭star‬‭instead‬‭he/she‬‭has‬‭to‬‭trace‬‭the‬‭path‬
‭looking at the mirror.‬
‭3.‬ ‭Show‬ ‭him/her‬ ‭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 the 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.‬
 ‭4‬

‭Table 1:‬

‭Time taken and Errors Committed by the subject in each trial of the Preferred Hand.‬

‭Time Taken‬ ‭Errors Committed‬

‭Name‬
‭1‬ ‭2‬ ‭3‬ ‭4‬ ‭5‬ ‭1‬ ‭2‬ ‭3‬ ‭4‬ ‭5‬

‭S.R‬ ‭17‬ ‭16‬ ‭18‬ ‭15‬ ‭16‬ ‭13‬ ‭8‬ ‭14‬ ‭19‬ ‭10‬

‭Table 2:‬

‭Time taken and Errors Committed by the subject in each trial of the Non-Preferred Hand before‬
‭and after training.‬

‭Time Taken‬ ‭Errors Committed‬

‭Name‬ ‭Series - 1‬ ‭Series - 2‬ ‭Difference‬ ‭Series - 1‬ ‭Series - 2‬ ‭Difference‬

‭I‬ ‭II‬ ‭II - I‬ ‭I‬ ‭II‬ ‭II - I‬

‭S.R‬ ‭27‬ ‭17‬ ‭-10‬ ‭42‬ ‭29‬ ‭-13‬

‭Table - 3:‬

‭Time taken and errors committed by the group in each trial of the preferred hand.‬

‭Sl.‬ ‭Time Taken‬ ‭Errors Committed‬

‭Name‬
‭No‬
‭1‬ ‭2‬ ‭3‬ ‭4‬ ‭5‬ ‭1‬ ‭2‬ ‭3‬ ‭4‬ ‭5‬

‭1‬ ‭A.S‬ ‭27‬ ‭21‬ ‭19‬ ‭18‬ ‭17‬ ‭46‬ ‭31‬ ‭18‬ ‭24‬ ‭18‬

‭2‬ ‭A.M‬ ‭16‬ ‭8‬ ‭8‬ ‭7‬ ‭7‬ ‭45‬ ‭28‬ ‭24‬ ‭21‬ ‭21‬
 ‭5‬

‭3‬ ‭A.D‬ ‭21‬ ‭15‬ ‭13‬ ‭9‬ ‭10‬ ‭39‬ ‭24‬ ‭22‬ ‭27‬ ‭15‬

‭4‬ ‭S.M‬ ‭39‬ ‭38‬ ‭29‬ ‭21‬ ‭25‬ ‭21‬ ‭19‬ ‭15‬ ‭8‬ ‭12‬

‭5‬ ‭K.A‬ ‭47‬ ‭36‬ ‭45‬ ‭23‬ ‭20‬ ‭18‬ ‭14‬ ‭20‬ ‭10‬ ‭11‬

‭6‬ ‭C.H‬ ‭26‬ ‭21‬ ‭21‬ ‭28‬ ‭24‬ ‭14‬ ‭16‬ ‭13‬ ‭20‬ ‭14‬

‭7‬ ‭A.S‬ ‭42‬ ‭32‬ ‭33‬ ‭43‬ ‭23‬ ‭18‬ ‭23‬ ‭36‬ ‭40‬ ‭20‬

‭8‬ ‭A.B‬ ‭60‬ ‭53‬ ‭45‬ ‭34‬ ‭30‬ ‭57‬ ‭53‬ ‭33‬ ‭26‬ ‭10‬

‭9‬ ‭A.G‬ ‭41‬ ‭28‬ ‭44‬ ‭41‬ ‭41‬ ‭36‬ ‭23‬ ‭31‬ ‭40‬ ‭35‬

‭10‬ ‭S.B‬ ‭17‬ ‭16‬ ‭18‬ ‭15‬ ‭16‬ ‭13‬ ‭8‬ ‭14‬ ‭20‬ ‭10‬

‭Total‬ ‭336‬ ‭240‬ ‭275‬ ‭239‬ ‭213‬ ‭307‬ ‭239‬ ‭226‬ ‭235‬ ‭166‬

‭Mean‬ ‭33.6‬ ‭24‬ ‭27.5‬ ‭23.9‬ ‭21.3‬ ‭30.7‬ ‭23.9‬ ‭22.6‬ ‭23.5‬ ‭16.6‬

‭Table - 4:‬

‭Time‬‭taken‬‭and‬‭Errors‬‭Committed‬‭by‬‭the‬‭Group‬‭in‬‭each‬‭trial‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Non-Preferred‬‭Hand‬‭before‬
‭and after training.‬

‭Time Taken‬ ‭Errors Committed‬

‭Sl.‬
‭No‬ ‭Name‬ ‭Series - 1‬ ‭Series - 2‬ ‭Difference‬ ‭Series - 1‬ ‭Series - 2‬ ‭Difference‬

‭I‬ ‭II‬ ‭II - I‬ ‭I‬ ‭II‬ ‭II - I‬

‭1‬ ‭A.S‬ ‭42‬ ‭16‬ ‭26‬ ‭58‬ ‭29‬ ‭29‬

‭2‬ ‭A.M‬ ‭10‬ ‭7‬ ‭3‬ ‭33‬ ‭26‬ ‭7‬

‭3‬ ‭A.D‬ ‭18‬ ‭11‬ ‭7‬ ‭28‬ ‭16‬ ‭12‬

‭4‬ ‭S.M‬ ‭45‬ ‭31‬ ‭14‬ ‭25‬ ‭33‬ ‭8‬

‭5‬ ‭K.A‬ ‭14‬ ‭17‬ ‭3‬ ‭48‬ ‭27‬ ‭21‬

‭6‬ ‭C.H‬ ‭44‬ ‭36‬ ‭8‬ ‭27‬ ‭20‬ ‭7‬

‭7‬ ‭A.S‬ ‭37‬ ‭36‬ ‭11‬ ‭78‬ ‭26‬ ‭52‬

‭8‬ ‭A.B‬ ‭49‬ ‭35‬ ‭14‬ ‭32‬ ‭14‬ ‭18‬

 ‭6‬

‭9‬ ‭A.G‬ ‭43‬ ‭30‬ ‭13‬ ‭44‬ ‭44‬ ‭0‬

‭10‬ ‭S.R‬ ‭27‬ ‭17‬ ‭10‬ ‭42‬ ‭19‬ ‭23‬

‭Total‬ ‭329‬ ‭226‬ ‭109‬ ‭415‬ ‭254‬ ‭180‬

‭Mean‬ ‭32.9‬ ‭22.6‬ ‭10.9‬ ‭41.5‬ ‭25.4‬ ‭18‬

‭Graph - 1:‬

‭Time‬‭taken‬‭and‬‭Errors‬‭Committed‬‭by‬‭the‬‭Group‬‭in‬‭each‬‭trial‬‭of‬‭the‬‭Non-Preferred‬‭Hand‬‭before‬
‭and after training.‬
 ‭7‬

‭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.‬
 ‭8‬

‭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.‬
 ‭9‬

‭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.‬
 ‭10‬

‭Graph 8:‬

‭Shows the Error Committed by the Group in each trial by the Non-Preferred Hand.‬

‭Individual Discussion:‬
‭Table‬ ‭-‬ ‭1‬ ‭shows‬ ‭the‬ ‭time‬ ‭taken‬‭and‬‭the‬‭errors‬‭committed‬‭by‬‭the‬‭subject‬‭for‬‭the‬‭preferred‬‭hand.‬
‭There are variations from 1st to 5th trial, both in time taken and the errors committed.‬
‭Time‬ ‭taken‬ ‭for‬ ‭the‬ ‭five‬ ‭trials‬‭are‬‭as‬‭follows‬‭17,‬‭16,‬‭18,‬‭15,‬‭16‬‭and‬‭the‬‭errors‬‭committed‬‭by‬‭the‬
‭subject are‬‭13, 8, 14, 19, 10‬‭.‬
‭The‬ ‭results‬ ‭are‬ ‭graphically‬ ‭depicted‬ ‭-‬‭there‬‭are‬‭fluctuations‬‭in‬‭time‬‭taken‬‭and‬‭the‬‭errors‬
‭committed before and after from 1st to 5th trial.‬
‭Table-‬ ‭2‬ ‭shows‬ ‭the‬ ‭time‬ ‭taken‬ ‭and‬ ‭the‬ ‭errors‬ ‭committed‬ ‭before‬ ‭and‬ ‭after‬ ‭training.‬ ‭The‬
‭time‬ ‭taken‬ ‭in‬ ‭1st‬ ‭series‬‭is‬‭27‬‭seconds‬‭and‬‭in‬‭2nd‬‭series‬‭is‬‭17‬‭seconds‬‭and‬‭the‬‭difference‬‭is‬‭-10‬‭.‬
‭Errors committed in the 1st series are‬‭42‬‭and 2nd series are‬‭29‬‭. The difference is‬‭-13‬‭.‬
‭The‬ ‭graph‬ ‭shows‬ ‭that‬ ‭training‬ ‭given‬ ‭to‬‭the‬‭preferred‬‭hand‬‭has‬‭improved‬‭learning‬‭in‬‭the‬
‭non-preferred‬ ‭hand.‬ ‭Time‬ ‭taken‬‭by‬‭the‬‭subject‬‭is‬‭less‬‭in‬‭the‬‭2nd‬‭series‬‭than‬‭in‬‭the‬‭1st‬‭series.‬‭In‬
‭the case of errors committed, they decreased from 1st to 2nd series.‬

‭Individual Conclusion:‬
‭1.‬ ‭The result of the subject is according to hypothetical expectations.‬
 ‭11‬

‭2.‬ ‭Training given to the preferred hand has a positive 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 ‭the‬
‭hypothesis‬‭because‬‭there‬‭is‬‭a‬‭decrease‬‭in‬‭time‬‭taken‬‭and‬‭errors‬‭committed‬‭by‬‭the‬‭group.‬‭This‬‭is‬
‭because training given to the preferred hand had a positive effect on learning.‬

‭Conclusion:‬
‭1.‬ ‭Result of the group is according to the hypothetical expectation.‬
‭2.‬ ‭There are individual differences in the extent of learning.‬
 ‭12‬

‭REFERENCES‬

‭Hicks, R. E. (1974). Asymmetry of bilateral transfer.‬‭American Journal of Psychology‬‭,‬‭87‬‭(4),‬

‭667.‬‭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.‬‭https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1999.1205‬