The purpose of this was to test the predictable learning pattern over a given number of trials obtained from part one. One-hundred and twenty male and female participants were split into groups of thirty and were exposed for one, three, nine, and eighteen trials. These groups of thirty were divided into groups of ten. Each subgroup was given the first, second, or third degree test sheet and tested immediately after exposure. They were asked to mark the position of the prototype in the same manner as in part one. The results of this test were compared with the predicted learning pattern and showed no significant differences. This shows that learning is predictable based on the amount of exposures. So, the question is, "What did their experiment prove?" The first part is the most significant because it shows that the longer the retention interval, the more similar things seem to be. This theory is what will get developed and tested in future studies. One of the problems with this study is that it relies upon the fact that all of the participants had some discriminatory skill. This however is a safe assumption to make because humans are hard-wired to be able to discriminate between objects. Another problem with the study was that it assumed that all of the participants would see the drawings as cups, when many of them in fact could be seen as bowls because they are wider and have no handles.
Stephen R. Schmidt of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University performed a study in 1985 entitled "Encoding and Retrieval Processes in the Memory for Conceptually Distinctive Events." This study analyzed the opposite, but not opposing, theory from the previous Bahrick, et al. study. That is, it analyzed the theory that it is easier to remember things that are very different from each other. First the study defines "distinctiveness" to be the number of features that are shared by other items in memory.