e 1. Means of performance by viewing condition by eye adapted (S.D.’s in brackets).Eye adapted Viewing conditionDominantNon Dominant MON15.853(4.655)15.421(3.976)IOT12.803(4.024)12.700(4.539)A 2x2 within subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out on mean MAE magnitudes (seconds) by viewing condition with eye adapted and the analysis are summarised in Table 2.Table 2. Summary table for ANOVA of MAE magnitudes for two levels of Viewing condition and two levels of Eye adapted.SourceVIEWCONDEYEADAPTSSdfMSFP.VIEWCONDLinear 283.0471283.04735.683*0.001Error(VIEWCOND)Linear 261.763337.932 EYEADAPT Linear2.43612.436.410NSError(EYEADAPT) Linear195.854335.935 VIEWCOND * EYEADAPTLinearLinear.9221.922.212NSError(VIEWCOND*EYEADAPT)LinearLinear143.308334.343 The main effect of viewing condition was statistically significant (F(1,33)=35.683; p*0.001]. The main effect of eye adapted was not found to be statistically significant. Also there was no significant interaction between viewing condition and eye adapted.Mean MAE magnitudes (seconds) for levels of viewing condition and eye adapted are shown in Figure 1.Figure 1. Profile Plot depicting mean magnitude (seconds) for levels of viewing condition and eye adapted.There was no significant interaction between viewing condition and eye adapted, although it can be seen that there is a consistency with reduction in MAE magnitude from monocular testing to interocular testing. DiscussionThrough analysis of the results, it may initially seem that the experimental hypothesis is supported. The encoding category shows that there is no significant main effect between recall scores for visual and auditory encoding preference subjects. The learning instruction method factor however, shows that performance between the two groups has a highly significant main effect at the 1% level. It can also be seen from Table 2. and the profile plot in Figure 1. that there is a significant interaction (a...
