Doc 0000146159

. o a nz. .. ~"'"" l I·~ENORIP.L ~--. SAINT FP.li.NCIS HOS?ITAL 900 Hyde Street, San Franc~sco CURRENT PROBLEMS IN RESEARCH Influence of l·~agnesiu~ Pemoline on Learnin$ to Read Progress Report This paper is a preliminary report on an experiment designed to test the influence of magnesium pemoline on a complex learning task, learning to read. Learning may be defined as the modification of behavior by experience, or stated more simply, the acquisition of skill or kno\.;ledge. Memory is the capacity to recall past thoughts, ideas and mental images. Sometimes the definition of memory is extended to include the capacity to perfor~ previously learned skills. For practical purposes, the words learning and memory describe similar or identical things. Learning is a process; memory is a capacity or a . storage bank. For the past five decades it has been accepted gen erally t~a~ ~~P. process of learning must be a chemical or physical and chemical phenomenon. However, ~ v~ry li~~l~ knm·m about its details. Quite a mass of ~1as recently~ research has converged on the problem, as illustrated by one bibliography of 571 papers {1). The vast majority of the reports in this area deal with experiments on animal subjects and in most instances the learning tasks are extremely simple, such as learning T-mazes and learning a avoidance response condit~oned ~n. a jump-out apparatus. Nhere human subjects have been used, learning tasks have been limited to problems such as those using a discrimination-reaction apparatus, or by reproduction of a design or picture, exposed and then removed frorn sight. l·lany investigators exhi:bi t an understandable tendency to •. interpolate data from experiments of this kind to practical problems of education, mental retardation or senile memory deficits. It is novl feasible to test the interpolations from si:7.?le lez.rni::1g tasks to a complex, time-extended learning p~.::::::J.en, S?ecifically, learning to read. A ne\oT syste-:n of Conversational Reading, provides a means for i~s~~~ction, acc~:E=atec readi~g in~truction(2). Persons who are literate b~t ~~o are not necessarily tra1ned teachers perform the teac~i~~ ~ole. Reading sk~lls can ~mprove up to several .. _- _ " • -. - '· I duru:~a:J. pe~d. grade levels 8-12 \·:eeks teaching The system of instruct1on is well adapted to pr1son teaching =1~~ations and was used 1n a pr1son, the Cal1forn1a Med1cal Facility at Vacaville, for the present study~ There is not complete unanimity of opinion regarding the action of magnesium pemoline. Plotn1kof: The image is a webpage graphic with a prominent title "THE BLACK VAULT" in a stylized font. To the left, there is an illustration of a vintage bank vault door, rendered in metallic tones with intricate mechanical details and a glowing blue light source. The right side of the image contains white text explaining that the document was obtained from "The Black Vault," an online database of declassified government documents, specifically mentioning the "MKULTRA/Mind Control Collection," a compilation of over 20,000 declassified CIA pages. Below this text, a yellow link provides the URL "http://mkultra.theblackvault.com" for downloading the collection. There are no photographs, handwritten annotations, official stamps, forms, diagrams, tables, redactions, or visual evidence of experimental procedures. This page features a formal report with a typed header indicating "ANNEX I" and "SAINT FRANCIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL" along with an address. The core of the page contains typed text detailing a research experiment. In the top right corner, there is handwritten annotation, a number "408" and what appears to be "Jan Tiz.". There is also a circular stamp, two of which are partially visible, and another stamp that says "CLASSIFIED". No photographs, diagrams, or experimental equipment are visible on this page. '· I duru:~a:J. pe~d. grade levels 8-12 \·:eeks teaching The system of instruct1on is well adapted to pr1son teaching =1~~ations and was used 1n a pr1son, the Cal1forn1a Med1cal Facility at Vacaville, for the present study~ There is not complete unanimity of opinion regarding the action of magnesium pemoline. Plotn1kof: reported that the drug enhanced the acqu1s1t1on and retentlion of a conditioned avo1dance response to electric shock in rats, in contrast to methamphetamine, which did not enhance this response (3). Beach and K1mble, using a similar appa ratus, found tpat rats injected w1th magnesi~~ pemoline had an increased spontaneous activ1ty, that they tended to jump more quickly at a cond1t1oned stimulus, but they did not exhibit "enhancement by magnes1um pemoline" of learning and memory (4). Concurrently, observations were being ~ade on the effects of magnesium pemoline on human subjects. Cameron administered the drug to a group of·pat~ents with senile brain changes and found an increase in alertness and a reported improvement in the ability of subjects to repro duce geometric draw1ngs (5). Ronald Smith, using refined psychological methods for measuring short-term memory, found no fac1litat1on of learn1ng, memory or performance in normal adult men (6}. Cameron criticized Srnith1s conclusions, stat1ng that Smith tested his subjects 3 hours after drug administration, whereas Cameron felt that the drug achieved statistically significant "improvement" or1ly after one rr~c;-.:.h of c:ld~i:l:..!:t=-a-=io~ (7.). C2..'!leron sub ., mitted a t"ible in this paper \olhich sho't·Ted an increase of "1>1ean I .Q." from 7 3. 5 to 82.2 over a month. Also, Cameron implied that "brain-damaged humans" might respond better to magnesium p~~oline than normal subjects. The literature regarding magnesium pemoline which· has been cited may be summarized as sometimes open to criticism of experimental method, sometimes contaminated by anecdotal material, and generally contradictory. One of the most interesting controversial ·points .in the lit erature \-las the question of '\olhether magnesium pemoline acted to stimulate ~~A polymerase activity. Glasky and Simon reporting in the affirmative (8), and Morris, et.al. defending the negative (9). Experimental Procedures The present study was undertaken at the California Medical Facility at Vacaville, a state prison*. Volunteer * Support~d by a research grant from Abbott Laboratorie&, North Chicago, Ill. Grateful ackno;.:ledgement is made to the Department of Corrections of California, to Lester J. Pope,H~D. I Sup~rin~endent, C.M.F., and to Ralph Urbina, Res~arch Direc- tor, Solano Instit~~e for Med1ca! an~ Psyc~2atric Research. I -2- .., The page is composed entirely of typed text, divided into sections labeled "grade levels during 8-12 weeks teaching period" and "Experimental Procedures." There are no photographs, handwritten annotations, signatures, stamps, forms, diagrams, organizational charts, or tables. There are also no visible redactions or obscured content. The text discusses research on magnesium pemoline and its effects on subjects in a prison setting, with references to experimental procedures. state prison*. Volunteer * Support~d by a research grant from Abbott Laboratorie&, North Chicago, Ill. Grateful ackno;.:ledgement is made to the Department of Corrections of California, to Lester J. Pope,H~D. I Sup~rin~endent, C.M.F., and to Ralph Urbina, Res~arch Direc- tor, Solano Instit~~e for Med1ca! an~ Psyc~2atric Research. I -2- .., - . -, -~=~:~=~~~e;: £~~:==; =z-~.;~~ a::::>ng to follo•.;,ng 85 or 2 ~"1 muL~ y~ax; II the cntena: l·U· abuve OL below the level of sk1ll would be expected read~ng wh~c~ from and I.Q. From a pool of 50 subjects, 20 school~ng pairs of men were selected, so that each member of a pair was as close as possible to opposite I.Q., h~s number~~ schooling, measured skill, race and cult:.ural back- read~ng ground. Through a system of random numbers, t:.he men in ~ each pa1r were split to form the experiment:.al and control groups. Thus, in the begl.nning, experimental and control groups were made as comparable as poss1ble. Later losses of men, through transfers out of the instl.tu- pr~nc1pally tion, but some cases because of abnormal in1tial lab- ~n oratorv findl.ncs such as elevated SGOT, resulted 1n-some replac~ments wfich were not paired as accurately as the - or1g1nal group. Members of.the experimental group received a 25 mg. tablet of magnesium pemoline each members morning~ of the control group a placebo. _Throughout ·che rece~ved experiment there was no instance where1n any ~nd~v~dual, subject, inmate teacher, or investl.gator broke the code. All subJects \'lere led to believe that they v1e.::e taking the no subJect ever this. There were no . drug~ quest~on~d illnesses attributable to· the drug, and no complaints of adverse reactions. The principal teaching was carried out act~vity betv,·een 6 P.M. and9 P.M. Individual l.nstruction even~ngs. was supplemented by language laboratory tapes and by coor reading. Enthus1asrn for the program was d~nated ass~gned great:.. One 17 year-old, deemed unable to sign a \·laiver for liability immunity because of his age, carried his petition to remal.n in the study to such an adm1nistrat:.ive level that he \vas allov:ed to in the teaching progra."lt, rema~n rnedicat1on or placebo. He is not included in the wit~out statl.stics. Most subjects completed the entire 60 lessons of . the Basic Program of Conversational _approximately Reac;!.i~g, 12 \•leeks. They -vrere tested prior_ to the experiment, at the 40th Lesson (8 weeks), and after the 60th Lesson. A fe\v subjects vlere transferred out of the institution before in the wit~out statl.stics. Most subjects completed the entire 60 lessons of . the Basic Program of Conversational _approximately Reac;!.i~g, 12 \•leeks. They -vrere tested prior_ to the experiment, at the 40th Lesson (8 weeks), and after the 60th Lesson. A fe\v subjects vlere transferred out of the institution before completing the 60 Lessons, and for these men, test scores run only to Lesson 40. Measurement of reading skills deserves some discussion. A cardinal rule, often disregarded, is that a method for teaching a skill such as reading be measured by an mus~ or by instruments extrinsic to method being inst~ument ~he studied. Otherwise, if the measurement is intrinsic to the such as a vocabulary test made up of words taught, me~hod, spuriously high improvement scores found. In the a~e - 3 - I prese~t st~dy, two quite different co~~ercially-available tests were used, the Stanford Achieveme~t Tes~ for Reading I and the Gilmore Oral Test. The former has a word Read~ng or vocabulary section and a paragraph-meaning, or mea~ing cornorehension section. The Gilmore is a test \olherein the sub]ect reads selected and standardized ma~erial aldud and is questioned content. It is scored according to o~ vocabulary and comprehension. All subjects were tested \·lith both o£ these instruments before medication or instruc tion began, at the 40th Lesson, and at the end of the experi ment after completion of the study. A fe\v subjects were transferred from the institution after the 40th Lesson and had no testing after the 60th Lesson. Results The results of this experiment are expressed in reading test scores, or measures \'lhich are designed to indicate the grade level·of a subject, measure his improve ment \vith. training, and in this experiment determine if pemoline has a measurable effect on the learning reag~esiurn precess. Measuring instruments are bro commercially-avail able tests, one of which (Stanford Achievement Test) is ~-·---c-"-•-o-A- ~-n-·w·~---A- -e-~-1-o-~-~- -~-c-~-~--··~:nr e~~11e ~--~·~- "--•·~·o--- f.. -~-~-,·~··~---o- Oral) is based on oral reading, -·f-o-l-l~o-w, ed by questioning to determine comprehension. Alternate forms of the tests are used to avoid practise effects. The actual scores of the tests are-expressed in grade levels. Thus if a subject scored 4.0 before training and 5.5 at the end of 60 lessons, it would be concluded that he increased in reading skill, according to the test, by 1 1/2 years. Experimental and control groups fn'this ·experiment were compared \•lith regard to both tests This page is a textual document with no visual elements like photographs, diagrams, or stamps. It is a typed report with standard paragraph formatting. There are no handwritten annotations, signatures, or marginalia. The document appears to be a research report detailing an experiment. There are no redations, filled-in fields, or tables. The page is primarily text, describing the methodology and progress of a study. in grade levels. Thus if a subject scored 4.0 before training and 5.5 at the end of 60 lessons, it would be concluded that he increased in reading skill, according to the test, by 1 1/2 years. Experimental and control groups fn'this ·experiment were compared \•lith regard to both tests and at testing after the 40th Lesson and after the 60th Lesson. Both groups improved, but there was a consistent tendency for the control group to improve more than the experimental group. Although the average differences sometimes appeared to be appreciable, simple statistical measures of signifi cance of difference failed to show that any single differ~ ence vras significant. It was our opinion that the array of differences favoring the control group could not be manipulated as a set of independent variables, statist~cally all were part of a experiment. s~nce s~ngle - 4 - .• .. ~~----------------------------11 0 (:"'\ v ~ It is possible that there are more appropriate ideas regarding statistical interpretation. Therefore, we have decided to confine ourselves to presentation of raw data and means in this preliminary report. Table I indicates the grade level reading scores of 22 experimental subjects on the Stanford Achieveme~t Reading Test, and the Gilmore Oral Reading Test before training or medication, after forty lt;ssons (8-10\oleeks) and after sixty lessons (12 or more weeks) • Table II is similar to Table I, except that control group data are presented. Table Ill presents the means of the Stanford and Gilmore tests for experimental subjects. Table IV presents the means of the Stanford and Gilmore tests for control subjects. 4 Finally, Table V presents the mean grade level gains in reading for the control and the experimental groups, after forty lessons and after sixty lessons, on the Stanford, the Gilmore and the means of the tvro inde pendent tests. This table represents the average gain in grade level years. The average gains range fro~ .61 years to 1.77 years for the learning period. Comparison of the control. group scores \<lith the magnesium pemoline ex?eri mental group scores indicates an 11 out of 12 superiority of control group gains over experimental group gains. One question of experimental design was thought to deserve consideration. It was stated earlier that the original and control groups were set up with experime~tal subjects in each group paired for I.Q., tested reading level and other pertinent variables. Later, with drop- outs This page contains primarily typed text, featuring sections titled "Results" and a discussion of experimental procedures and findings. There are no images of people, locations, equipment, or subjects. No handwritten annotations, signatures, or marginalia are present. There are no official stamps visible, nor are there any forms with filled-in fields, diagrams, schematics, organizational charts, or tables. There are no redactions or obscured content, and no visual evidence of experimental procedures, equipment, or facilities. The visual content is limited to the typed text and a page number "-4-" at the bottom. control group gains over experimental group gains. One question of experimental design was thought to deserve consideration. It was stated earlier that the original and control groups were set up with experime~tal subjects in each group paired for I.Q., tested reading level and other pertinent variables. Later, with drop- outs and transfers, it was necessary to introduce new subjects in one or the other groups who did not have oppo site numbers. To check the possibility that these changes may have introduced ne\v factors, a table was m_ade which included only subjects \·lho were among the original pairs. Table VI presents the means of the Stanford and Gilmore tests for paired individuals only. Members of each pair are opposite one another. It will be noted that controls improved on the average by 1. 32 years, v1hile experimental subjects improved .67 years, at the 40th Lesson. Similar differences are seen at the 60th Lesson level although there were 4 drop-outs among the control group. It is thus apparent that the observed but not statistically significant differ ences bet\veen experimental and control group exists \'lhen the cases are limited to those originally paired. - 5 - , ·- ~· I 0 Discuss:1.on One interpretat~on of the data preser.tec ~n th:1.s paper is that no evidence is adduced to suppor~ the ~ypo­ thesis that magnes~um pemol:1.ne, adm:l.n~sterec :1.~ a daily dose of 25 mg. over a period of many weeks, facilitates learn:1.ng in a complex, long-range learn:1.ng s:Ltuat~on, specifically a reading train:Lng program. The conclusion suggests itself that generalizat:1.on regarc:1.ng the functions of "learn1ng" and "memory" from earl1er exper1ments may have been premature. The possibility sugges~b 1tself that the an1mals in Plotnikoff's exper1ment and th~ human sub jects in Cameron's experiment may have per:fo~med as they d1d because they were stimulated or made mc~e alert, and not because their learning was reinforced. A controlled human experiment reported by Gelfand et al.,· demonstrates the stimulant effects of magnesium pemol1ne of fat1gued subjects llO). Close examination of the data reported here leads to another interpretation. At Lesson 40 and aga1n at Lesson 60, both the Stanford and the Gilmore measures of reading proficiency consistently show the control group to be leading the experimental group in reading improve ment. Preliminary calculations not reported here indicated that no single comparison of control and experimental groups was statistically significant. No final conclusion can be made that the control The page contains text from a declassified document, likely a research report, featuring no photographs, stamps, or handwritten annotations. The primary visual elements are paragraphs of text, with one section presenting structured data in the form of a table that is not fully visible but implied by the text. There are no diagrams, charts, or filled-in forms. Redactions are not present on this page. This document is a typed page of what appears to be a research paper discussing the effects of magnesium pemoline. The page contains no photographs, stamps, forms, tables, or diagrams. There are no visible handwritten annotations, signatures, or marginalia. The content is solely text, consisting of multiple paragraphs describing interpretations of experimental data and theoretical views on learning. Stanford and the Gilmore measures of reading proficiency consistently show the control group to be leading the experimental group in reading improve ment. Preliminary calculations not reported here indicated that no single comparison of control and experimental groups was statistically significant. No final conclusion can be made that the control group subjects 1n this experiment were better learners than those gi~en magnesium pemoline. However, the consistency of the data could lead to the speculat1ve hypothesis that magnesi~~ pemoline could have a deleterious effect on learning and memory • . A modern view of learning is that it can be divided into at least two phases, an early, largely electrochemical or reverberation circu1t phase, and a later consolidation phase which depends on the synthes1s of specific neuronal nucleoproteins (llJ. Conceivably, a drug _could-have a favorable effect on the first phase _and a deleterious effect on the second phase. The data presented in this paper which are at most suggestive that magnesium pemoline may have an adverse effect on learning could be related to the find1ngs of Burns et al. (12) • Subjects \·re::-e required to learn a complex discrimination-reaction preble~. Magnesium pemoline, as \orell as amphetamine vrere reported to have a possible deleterious effect on lea~ni~g, although there . I ·was an insufficient number o£ cases to afford statistically sign1ficant results. The Burns experiment would certainly be an example of first-phase me~ory, ... ,h~le the experiment repor~ed here, dealing w1th long-ter~ acquisition of reading-skills, l.S an exarnple of second-phase rne~o=-y. " I 0 . . One criticism of this study would be that-~he dose of mag~esiurn pemoline was insuffi;ient. It is possible that ad~~nistration of larger amounts of the drug would clari=y so~e of the problems which have been raised, and at the sa~e time afford an opportunity to search for side actions of magnesium pemoline. Summary I Prisoner volunteers, interested in improving educa tional deficiencies in reading, were given an intensive pro gram in reading training over a period of 10-12 weeks and concurrently given a daily dose of 25 mg. of magnesium pemoline. Control subjects, equally motiva~ed and simi larly selected, received the same training and placebo medication. The tested reading skills of both groups of subjects improved markedly. By test, control group subjects improved consistently more than experimental group subjects but the differences in improvement did not reach levels of statistical significance. James A. Hamilton, Ph.D., M.D. Farel The document presents a research paper excerpt, consisting of plain text with no images, stamps, or handwritten annotations. The content is organized into distinct sections: an introductory criticism, a summary of a study involving prisoner volunteers, author attributions, a date, and a "References Cited" section formatted as a numbered list. There are no visual elements that depict experimental procedures, equipment, or facilities. larly selected, received the same training and placebo medication. The tested reading skills of both groups of subjects improved markedly. By test, control group subjects improved consistently more than experimental group subjects but the differences in improvement did not reach levels of statistical significance. James A. Hamilton, Ph.D., M.D. Farel D. Footman, B.~. Number 6 April 9, 1969 References Cited 1. Bogoch, S.: The Biochemistrv of Memory (Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1968), p. 219-243. 2. Hawilton, J.A., Brimley, G.M., Footman_ F.D._, Schauf,E.T., and Petraske, A.R.: Current Problems in Research: Con versational Reading. St. Franc1s Memor1al Hosp1ta1, San Francisco, 1967. 3. Plotnikoff, N.: Magnesi~~ Pemoline: Enhancement of Learning and Memory of a Conditioned Avoidance Response. Science,l51, p. 703 (1966). 4. Beach, G. and Kimble, D.P.: Activity and Responsivity in Rats after Magnesium Pemol1ne Injections •. Science~l55, p. 698.(1967). 5. Caneron, D.E.: Evolving Concepts of Memory. Mss., 1966·. This manuscript was Dr. Cameron's address at the meeting of the Society for Biological Psychiatry as reported in Ti~e, June 24, 1966. & .. r. I 6. Smith, R.G.: Magnesium Pemoline: Lack of Facilitat~on I in Human Learning Memory and Performance Tests. Science, 155, p. 603 ll967J. 7. Cameron, D.E.: Magnesium Pemoline and Human Performance. Science,157, p. 958 (1967). B. G1asky, A.J., and Simon, L.N.: Magnesium Pemoline: Enhancement of Bra~n RNA Polymerases. Sc2ence,l51, p. 702 (1966). 9. Morris, N. R., Aghajanian, G.K., and Bloom, F.E.: Z..1agnesitlr.l Pemol~ne: Fa~ lure to Affect ~n v~ vo Synthesis. Science, 155, p. 1125 (1967). 10. Gelfand, S., Clark, L.D., Herbert, E.~\'., Gelfand, D.M., and Holmes, E .D.: Magnesium Pemoline:' St~:mulam:. Effects on Performance of Fat~gued Subjects. Cl~n. Pharm. and Therapeutics, 9, p. 56 tl968J. ll. Flexner, L.B.: Dissection of Memory in Mice with Ant~biotics. k~erican Scientist, 56, p. 52 (1968). 12. Burns, J.T., House, R.F., Fensch, F.C., and Mille=, J.G.: Effect of Maanes~um Pemoline and Dextroamphetamine on Human Learning. Sc~~ce, 155, p. 849 (1967). .. _- _ - 8 - --------~ > sw::e:w.:-__ ,, owo:e:n .. ...,...,;u••. -· ----·· © 0 I . Table I I . ··- - --- J Grade Level Read ina Scores . ·I Magnesium Pemoline I Subject Stanford Readir1c Achieve;:~ent Gilmore Readincr Test After After After After Base Lesson Lesson Base Lesson Lesson Score Forty Sixty Score Forty Sixty r 13 4.5 6.7 7.5 5.1 5.2 5.5 16 2.5 3.5 3.9 4.5 4.4 4.4 OS 17 4.3 5.3 4.3 4.1 5.2 5.5 n Magnesium Pemoline I Subject Stanford Readir1c Achieve;:~ent Gilmore Readincr Test After After After After Base Lesson Lesson Base Lesson Lesson Score Forty Sixty Score Forty Sixty r 13 4.5 6.7 7.5 5.1 5.2 5.5 16 2.5 3.5 3.9 4.5 4.4 4.4 OS 17 4.3 5.3 4.3 4.1 5.2 5.5 n 21 5.9 6.4 7.1 5.2 6.6 7.1 ~ 23 4.2 5.1 5.1 4.2 4.7 5.2 za 25 5.7 7.2 7.5 3.2 5.4 7.4 6 5.5 7.1 7.3 5.3 6.6 6.5 a 28 5.9 4.9 5.5 4.5 4.8 4.9 38 5.4 4.7 5.2 4.3 5.0 6.1 ~- ~) te 45 5.1 4.9 5.1 4;.4 5.1 5.6 j 1d 47 4.1 4.2 4.6 4.5 5.5 5.3 49 5.2 5.4 6.7 4.~ 5.4 6.2 ))(c) so 2.1 3.0 3.3 3.~ 3.3 3.6 e1 51 5.9, 5.1 5.2 5.0 5.8 5.6 ..... II _C._?. 1:" 5.3 5.5 5.2 6.0 5.6 ~ an 59 2.3 3.6 3.9 2.8 4.0 4.5 ngs 60 4.9 4.9 5.3 3.6 5.5 6.1 48 5.1 6.5 3.8 5.8 .. 52 3.5 4.3 5.6 3.6 ll. 9 S.l. .ns 54 4.8 6.3 6.5 .4.~. 4.7 5.2 .on JC 2.9 3.4 4.5 1.0 1.5 3.0 -·--- - r YC 3.9 4.3 5.~ 3.8 3.9 ·4 .2 .... Sum 988 ~121 ~~47· 894 1093 1126. Mean 4.49 s.~o 5. 4 6: 4.06 4.97 5.36 N 22 22. 2~ 22 22 21. Improvement .61 .97 .9~ ~.30 -- -- • ' :. 0 0 -~ . 1 I I Table II ·I Grade Level Readin9: Scores Control Group Subject Stanford Read Achieverr:ent Gilmore Oral Readin9: Tes in~ 1 After After After After Base Lesson Lesson Base Lesson Lesson Score Forty Sixty Score Forty Sixty i s.o :..1 2 5.2 5.1 6.1 5.9 5.5 s.o 14 3.7 3.5 3.2 5.5 5.5 . 15 5.7 8.0 6.9 4.2 5.9 6.9 rd 18 5.1 6.4 5.9 4.9 5.8 5.B rt 22 4.3 6.8 9.0 4.7 6.2 5.8 s 30 4.9 4.7 5.2 5.4 4.9 . 5.3 2 31 4.0 7.8 9.5 4.5 5.9 6.8 33 1.9 4.9 6.1 2.2 4.6 4.5 35 5.3 5.2 6.8 4.2 5,.5 5.4 ~ ·l 36. 4.2 5.8 6.1 4.3 5'. 2 5.5 s.s ~; ; 37 5.3 6.3 7.0 4.3 5.3 s.s ·. ., .n 46 5.2 6.3 6.1 3.4 s 6 . .4 s . 58 4.1. 5.5 7.4 4.4 6.0 ( b'{(; l 61 4.6 4.2 3.2 4.4 4.5 The page is a typed document containing a numbered list of references, likely a bibliography. There are no photographs, handwritten annotations, signatures, or stamps visible. The text is clean and appears to be a direct printout without any redactions or obscured content. The numbering and formatting suggest a standard academic or research citation style. There is also a page number "-8-" at the bottom center of the page. 5.4 ~ ·l 36. 4.2 5.8 6.1 4.3 5'. 2 5.5 s.s ~; ; 37 5.3 6.3 7.0 4.3 5.3 s.s ·. ., .n 46 5.2 6.3 6.1 3.4 s 6 . .4 s . 58 4.1. 5.5 7.4 4.4 6.0 ( b'{(; l 61 4.6 4.2 3.2 4.4 4.5 4.1 l /-....;_ ../ I I son 63 4.9 7.2 6.1 4.8 6.1 6.5 65 5.4 6.·4 6.7 4.6 6~4 6.8 24 4.6 7.3 4.7 6.6 27 4.5 4.2 4.3 4.4 6.0 5.9 5 .. 8 7.1 \~~ 4.7 5.8 4.7 5.2 l \ 57 3.2 . 5.8 3.4 5.2 .SP 4.6 4 .. 7 5.3 4.4 4.5 5.0 Sum 1014 1278 1084 967 1220 967 Z.lean 4.61 5.81 6.38 4.40 5.55 5.69 . N 22 22 17 22 22 17 IInprover:ten't -l.. 20 1.77 J..lS 1.29 _ . .. :-- .. --------- ~-~~-------~ ·o Table III Grade Level Reading Scores Pemoline Magnesi~u Subject Mean of Stanford and Gilrno-e Tests Number After After Base Lesson Lesson Score Forty Sixty 13 4.7 5.9 6.5 16 3.5 3.9 4.~ 17 4.2 5.2 4.8 21 5.6 6.5 7.3 . 23 4.2 4.8 5.2 25 4.5 6.3 7.6 26 5.4 6.8 6.9 28 5.2 4.9 5.2 38 4.9 4.9 5.7 45 4.7 5.0 5.4 47 4.3 4.8 5.0 49 4.6 5.4 6.5 50 2.6 3.2 3.4 51 5.5 5.5 5.4 53 5.2 5.7 5.5 59 2.6 3.8 4.2 60 4.2 5.2 5.7 48 4.5 5.9 6.2 52 3.5 4.6 5.3 54 4.4 5.5 5.8 JC 1.9 2.5 3.8 YC 3.9 4.~ 4.7 _.Sum 941 ll04 -~2.0 2 Mean 4.28 5.02 5.46 N 22 22 22 .• 74 1.18 Improvement --- -- --- .,. .- () Table IV Grade Level Reading Scores .. __ Control Group Subject !olean of Stanford and Gilno:re Tests Number After After Base Lesson Lesson ·score Forty Sixty 12 5.5 5.~ 5.8 14 3.4 4.5 5.3 15 4.9 6.9 6.9 18 5.0 6.~ 5.9 22 4.5 6.5 7.5 30 5.1 4.9 5.3 31 4.3 6.9 a.~ 33 2.1 4.8 5.3 35 4.7 5.3 6.1 36 - ·-- 4. 2 5.5 5.e 37 4.7 5.8 6.5 46 4.3 6.4 . 5.8 . 58 4.2 5.6 6.7 61 4.5 4.3 3.7 63 4.9 6.6 6.3 65 5.0 6.4 6.8 -~ 24 4.7 7.0 27 4.4 4.3 32 5.9 6.5 41 4. 7. 5.5 57 3.3 5.5 ·s.2 --sP . ·--.. -----4. 5 -4.6 This page from a declassified CIA document contains a table titled "Table I: Grade Level Reading Scores Magnesium Pemoline." The table presents data under two headings: "Stanford Reading Achievement" and "Gilmore Reading Test," each broken down into "Base Score," "After Lesson Forty," and "After Lesson Sixty." The data appears to be numerical scores associated with various subjects identified by alphanumeric codes. Handwritten annotations are visible on the left side of the page, including a circled notation that looks like ") (6)" and a horizontal line. Redactions are present in the cropped image, but not clearly visible on the original. This page contains a table titled "Grade Level Reading Scores Control Group" with data from Stanford Reading Achievement and Gilmore Oral Reading Tests. The table presents "Base Score" and scores "After Lesson Forty" and "After Lesson Sixty" for multiple subjects. Handwritten notes appear on the left margin, including a symbol resembling a circle with lines and a parenthetical notation "(bl(6)". There are no photographs, stamps, diagrams, or redacted areas visible. 37 4.7 5.8 6.5 46 4.3 6.4 . 5.8 . 58 4.2 5.6 6.7 61 4.5 4.3 3.7 63 4.9 6.6 6.3 65 5.0 6.4 6.8 -~ 24 4.7 7.0 27 4.4 4.3 32 5.9 6.5 41 4. 7. 5.5 57 3.3 5.5 ·s.2 --sP . ·--.. -----4. 5 -4.6 Sum 988 ~250 ~030 Mean 4.49 5.68 6.02 N 22 22 ~7 1.53 ~-~9 Improv~ment ~"i<V~i:·;. ~.....a..~_, Table V Mean Grade Level Gains in Readi~g Maanesium Pemoline Control Group Forty Sixty Forty Sixty Lessons Lessons Lessons Lessons .61 .97 1.20 1. 77 Stanford Achievement .91 1.30 1.J.S 1.29 Gilmore oral ; 1·~ean of • 74 1.1.8 ··-