Patent Application
20150118664
A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material that is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
This application is related to my copending application, Ser. No. 13/782,011, filed Mar. 1, 2013, which shows a system and method that tests for presence of neurological change using an aspect of free recall called the recency-primacy shift.
A listing of a computer program that implements the method of the present application is provided before the Claims.
The following lists some prior art that presently appears relevant.
The above references, discussed infra, relate to short-term memory of humans, which is an important part of our everyday life. Variations and deficiencies in its properties are important for identifying gifted individuals, diagnosing memory disorders, and probing temporary or permanent attention issues. One of the more sought-after properties of short-term memory is its storage capacity.
In the end of the 1800s, Wundt (see Carpenter, 2005, supra) found, from varying metronome-beat experiments, that the “scope of consciousness,” as far as recognition is concerned, is limited to 18 different metronome beats. (Sequences of “tic-tocks” were varied according to the time interval between beats and the number of beats was increased until the participant could no longer determine whether the two sequences were the same or different).
George Miller (1956) noted, “everybody knows that there is a finite span of immediate memory and that for a lot of different kinds of test materials this span is about seven items in length.” He coined the “chunk” as the “unit” of what is stored in memory as opposed to counting the apparent bits information content (for example, the number of different metronome beats, the number of characters, phonemes, or the total pronunciation times of words). Thus “202” is one chunk for those who are familiar with the area code of Washington D.C. but perhaps two or three chunks for those who are not. IBM is a chunk for those familiar with the company but perhaps two or three chunks for those who are not.
Sperling (1960) showed that the number of items that can be visually remembered starts out at twelve but decreases quickly to four as the picture on the retina disappears.
Murdock (1962) showed that when presented with a list of 10-40 words, subjects remember an average of only six to nine words.
Simon (1974) argues that the capacity of short-term memory is five, not seven chunks.
Cowan (2001, for a review see Cowan, 2004) claims the true capacity of short-term memory is not seven but four chunks.
Glanzer & Razel (1974) argue that the capacity is just two chunks. A review by Oberauer & Hein (2012) of reaction time experiments, claims that although short-term memory probably has a capacity limit of four chunks, there is only at most a single item in the center of attention. If anything else is added a subject will usually associate it with the first item to create a larger item, which still is only one item (McElree, 1998; Oberauer et al, 2009).
Determining which limit on short term memory is correct—one, two, four, seven or more—is important for understanding and characterizing short-term memory and is, as we have seen, not easy to answer. It is further complicated by the fact that the definition of the unit of measurement is an issue.
Simon (1974) refers to the term “chunk” as an “artfully vague” term for “a particular amount that has specific psychological significance” and but states, “the capacity of short-term memory, measured in chunks, is independent of the material of the chunks—five chunks of words, five chunks of digits, five chunks of colors, five chunks of shapes, five chunks of poetry or prose.” Thus, Simon equates “psychological significance” with a general five-chunk capacity of short-term memory.
Halford et al (2007) enumerates a number of experiments that shows that two to six chunks is the limit of short-term memory. These experiments involved a multitude of probes: spatial arrays (Luck & Vogel, 1997), perfect recall of a series (Broadbent, 1975), running span (a presented list ends unpredictably and the subject is asked to recall the last few items; Bunting et al, 2006), a span with distraction or suppression (Cowan, 2004), categorical retrieval (Graesser & Mandler, 1978), memory updating (Oberauer, 2002), probed recall (in which a particular item is asked to be recalled; McElree, 2001 and Cowan et al, 2003), multiobject tracking (Yantis, 1992), reconstruction by chunks (Gobet et al, 2001), and recollection by chunks (Tulving & Patkau, 1962 and Chen & Cowan, 2005). Halford et al (2007) preface several of these experimental results with “presumably” or “assuming” because the experiments themselves are difficult to understand or require additional non-trivial assumptions. To this list can be added experiments that need to use complex terms or complex mathematical analysis to get a chunk count.
The “precision of recognition” of geometric objects increases up to 3 items after which it plateaus (Anderson et al, 2011).
Awh et al. (2007) showed that visual memory keeps a fixed number of objects but has limited resolving power—if the objects are too similar change detection becomes erroneous.
Rouder et al (2008) showed that a fixed memory capacity (either an item is remembered or it is not) is indicated by what is called the Receiver Operating Characteristics. The curves that plot hit rate versus false alarm rate are straight lines with a unit slope.
Zhang and Luck (2008) studied the balance between capacity and resolution and found that there is no trade-off between the two but rather the capacity to recall is fixed at 3.
There is no simple and intuitive way to show what the number of items that can be remembered. Why should something of “psychological significance” be so difficult to explore? One reason is the lack of a formal way to minimize chunking of an item set, there is no proof that subjects are not “chunking” the items asked to remember; this leaves any experiment vulnerable towards criticism that subjects can associate several items together into one item. Typically item set preparers will just give up if an item set seems to allow chunking.
For example, digits were presumed to always be chunkable, e.g., two digits might be chunked into just one item (Dempster, 1981), and thus integers are not used. Instead researchers focused on visually displaying strange looking symbols to avoid facing the chunkiness of the item set, assuming that the stranger the item set, the less likely it can be chunked. Thus an item set can contain several cut-up circles with the cut-up parts pointing in different directions (Anderson et al., 2013) or other unusual shapes (see http://alertometer.com/shapes/). While this set may look strange and somewhat disconnected from every-day experiences there is nevertheless no proof that it is not chunkable.
Hessels (2002) claimed to minimize chunking of dot patterns on a Mr. Peanut figure by eliminating “symmetrical positions (e.g., two arms), identical positions on consecutive items, and obvious patterns”. However he never defined the chunking concept nor proved that his actions did minimize chunking.
Mulligan (1997) studied “attentional loads” using items that would require different amounts of attention. He constructed these items to minimize chunking by avoiding repetition of letters or digits: “Nonzero loads were constructed by randomly selecting items from a set of digits (1-9) and a set of letters (B, C, D, F, G, H, J, K, L) according to the following rules: (1) digits and letters occupied alternating positions, with a digit in the first position (attentional loads of 1 consisted of a single digit), and (2) no repetition of digits or letters within a load. It was thought that the use of these materials and rules would help to minimize chunking.”
A similar procedure was used by Rossnagel (2004).
Tatum et al (1991) includes a questionnaire with questions about how much chunking the respondents do while typing but this is not directly relevant to a chunking scale of memory test items.
It is known that rehearsal (a subject repeatedly presenting items to himself or herself) plays some role in maintaining short-term memory. This is typically considered a necessary nuisance (Tarnow, 2010) because it is hard to show that everybody rehearses and for those that rehearse, the rehearsal patterns are complex (Laming 2008).
Murdock & Metcalfe (1978) write that, “a controlled-rehearsal procedure may be useful to study rehearsal processes in free recall”. They asked subjects to rehearse aloud to record individual rehearsal patterns and then tried to impose those patterns when they presented lists of 20 words to the subjects. Other writers also tried to impose and test different rehearsal patterns but the issue of rehearsal is like a rainy cloud always hanging over experimental results and ready to empty itself at any moment.
Murdock & Metcalfe (1978) describe a standard item set as follows: “The Toronto word pool, a list of 1040 two-syllable common English words not more than eight letters long with homophones, contractions, archaic words, and proper nouns deleted.” Such a manual scan for homogeneity is good but not perfect. No doubt other categories of words can be excluded to make the set more homogenous and, even within a single word category, there may be words that are special in other ways. For example, included in the word pool is “herald” which may be very easy to remember for those with a subscription to The Boston Herald. Investigations such as Friendly et al (1982) have rated words in the Toronto Word Pool on various properties such as probability of usage, but not in terms of how easy the words are to recall or recognize in an experiment; homogeneity is currently only enforced for properties that are not measured in the experiment at hand. The reason for this is that the Toronto Word Pool is thought of as a way to represent the English language, not as a way to homogenously sample the brain.
The following are some relevant patents relating to memory tests and a discussion of each:
Buschke ('636 and '629) tests the user's memory for immediate and delayed recall of single items consisting of random digits in a phone number pattern with 4, 7 or 10 digits. This test encourages non-homogenous chunking in a phone number pattern (202 can be chunked as “2”, “0” and “2” or “20” and “2” or just “202”) and is not useful to determine the number of similar chunks short-term memory can contain.
Buschke ('086, '058, '444, '563, and '735) tests free recall in conjunction with a recognition test for items not first recalled. He weighs the correct responses to get a single number rating to identify disease and drug effects. The test items are chunkable and cannot be used to directly probe the number of chunks short-term memory can contain.
Bowles et al. ('417) test attention using computer game-like presentations of complex shapes (see http://alertometer.com/shapes/) that move around in which the subject is supposed to tell whether all the shapes are the same or not. It is not a straightforward test of the number of chunks in short-term memory.
Theodoracopulos et al ('638) test for changes over time in cognitive test results but does not directly measure the number of chunks in short-term memory.
Teicher et al. ('828) test for fluctuations in attention by looking at cognitive scores as a function of time but does not directly measure the number of chunks in short-term memory.
Avidan ('483 and '207) tests memory in a variety of ways but no detailed descriptions are made of the test item sets.
Ashford tests short-term memory for the presence of Alzheimer's disease using a variety of pictures. There is no direct test for the number of chunks in short-term memory.
Typically, memory testing is performed in a laboratory setting, either individually or in a group (Murdock, 1962) or in a hospital (Teicher & Lowen). Buschke ('636) stressed the need for standardized testing that can be carried out “at home as well as in medical offices, clinics, emergency rooms, hospital wards, psychiatric facilities, or nursing homes” and suggested that a portable device would be useful. With recent technological advances, testing is also taking place over the Internet (Avidan '207 and '483). The current generation of older people, however, is inconvenienced and embarrassed by having to go to a clinical setting for testing and often has difficulty using computers or portable testing devices.
According to one or more aspects, my system has one or more of the following advantages:
Further advantages of various aspects will be apparent from the ensuing description and accompanying drawings.
I provide a method for determining and constructing the “chunkiness” and homogeneity of an item set to be used for testing human short-term memory. In one aspect, a computer screen begins to display lists of two double-digit numbers that the subject is then asked to recall. Frequently the numbers are remembered in the order they were displayed. The computer screen then displays lists of three double-digit numbers that the subject is asked to recall. Again, the numbers are typically remembered in the order they were displayed. Then the computer screen displays lists of four double-digit numbers. Few, if any, subjects are able to recall all four items. The method allows a tester to probe how many “chunks” short-term memory can contain and how memory breaks down if there is a chunk too many. Prevention of the memory breakdown necessitates a decision-making process for which alertness and attention is required. This test can be used both for time-separated intra-individual comparisons to measure individual memory, decision-making, alertness, and attention, and inter-individual comparisons by measuring similarity of a subject's test profile to a disease/drugged population profile and deviance from a normal population profile. In addition the methods allow scoring the difference between individual current and past test scores as a more accurate measure of the onset and progress of a neurological disease or effects of neuropharmacological drugs.
a shows a slight variation of the first embodiment where the test taker can speak the answers into a microphone and have the computational device(s) 101 recognize the speech.
A slight variation of the embodiment is shown in
The system can be used to test the short-term memory of a subject or test-taker in six steps.
First, an item list is prepared and the “chunkiness” (defined above) and “homogeneity” (define above) are measured, after which the chunkiness is minimized and homogeneity is maximized. This allows us to accurately count the number of items a test taker remembers; if the item set used can be chunked, or if some items are much more easily remembered than others, that count is not well defined. We set the chunkiness scale to be the average number of items remembered for a configuration of item set, subject population, and memory test. For example, suppose integers 11-99 are used as the item set. (Items other than integers can be used.)
We measure the initial chunkiness of this item set using the first embodiment by presenting a subset of items from the item set (where the subset includes at least one item and at most all items of the item set) and requesting the test taker to recall the items. The items can be selected in order that they appear in the first item set or be selected at random taking care that no item is selected more than once. Using all of the items (not necessarily all items on each test taker) and many test takers gives us the chunkiness as well as the recall probabilities of each item in the item set.
We then attempt to construct a second item with lower chunkiness set by starting with the first item set but exclude integers that are next to each other: e.g., if 41 is in the item set, 40 and 42 will not be present. This downchunking can be done before the item set is presented, or even better, using a dynamical set change rule (defined above). A dynamical set change rule can shrink the item set after each item is presented. Thus the downchunking is performed at the same time the test is given. For example, if the original item set consists of all two digit numbers and the single item 34 is presented, then the subset {33, 35} is removed from the original item set if the dynamical set change rule is “exclude integers that are next to integers already presented”. This is preferable than to do it before the test is given. In the latter case many more items would have to be excluded (we could exclude every 2nd integer in this case instead of just exclude the two integers next to the presented integer); the subject may more easily recognize patterns in the presented items and get better at guessing what was presented if they no longer remember what was presented. We can further lower the chunkiness of the second item set by removing transpositions. E.g., if 34 is in the second set, 43 will not be present in the third set. If the total memory score is smaller for the second item set in combination with the new dynamical set change rules, than for the first item set, the second item set and the corresponding dynamical set change rules is the preferred combination of item set and dynamical set change rules.
Thus we have systematically improved (lowered) the item set chunkiness by guessing which items can be chunked, removing them and then measuring the new chunkiness. This procedure can also be completely automatic if the computational device randomly substitutes, adds or deletes items in what we can call the first item set to construct a second item set; then compares the chunkiness of the first and second item sets and then renames the item set with the lower chunkiness the next “first item set”; and then goes back to substitute, add or delete items to make a next “second item set” and so on. Importantly, my method quantifies the chunkiness of the item set so that it can be compared with other item sets. This quantification also potentially allows an item set to be improved by further lowering its chunkiness.
To increase the homogeneity of the initial item list, items that are remembered statistically better than other items, according to the test results, are removed. E.g., the two-digit number 37 is probably going to be more easily remembered than other two-digit numbers if the test takers are members of a labor union called “DC-37”. This number would be removed when testing that population to increase the homogeneity of the item list. Integers that are multiples of 10 (20, 30, etc) are easier to remember than the other two-digit integers. So are integers that are multiples of 11 (22, 33 etc), as are the integers 11-20, which are used much more frequently than the other integers. If the probability of remembering the various test items becomes more similar in a second item set than in a first, the probabilities having a smaller standard deviation, the second item set is the more optimal item set and can be used to further increase the homogeneity. Thus we have systematically improved (increased) the item set homogeneity by removing items that are remembered better than other items. This procedure can also be completely automatic if the computational device randomly substitutes, adds or deletes items in what we can call the first item set to construct a second item set; then compares the homogeneity of the first and second item sets and then renames the item set with the highest homogeneity the next “first item set”; and then goes back to substitute, add or delete items to make a next “second item set” and so on. Importantly, my method quantifies the homogeneity of the item set so that it can be compared with other item sets. This quantification also potentially allows an item set to be improved by further increasing its homogeneity.
Once the test item set has been constructed on one set of test takers, we can use the test item set on other test takers.
Second, the test taker acquires an identity to be used to pay for the memory test. This identity can be acquired in many ways: via a credit card number, by buying a specific identity number in a store, via the test taker's phone number, or via a medical, psychological or research establishment that confers an identity number on the test taker, etc. If the subject is required to enter a number into the telephone, this process serves as practice for the subject to enter numbers into the telephone and makes the subsequent input steps more reliable.
Third, the test taker initiates a call (or a researcher using the test taker as a subject, or a medical or psychological provider caring for the test taker, initiates the call or forwards an active call from or to the test taker) to a particular phone number answered by computational device 101 (
Fourth, a computer program running on device 101, presents items from the test set using a random item selector, performs dynamical set change, and converts the items to voice in the appropriate language. It presents successive lists of two items (six lists), three items (six lists), and four items (six lists). After each list presentation the list is stored by the computational device on storage device 102.
a show how test items 78, 64, and 37 are presented to test taker 105 via telephone earpiece 103. Each item is presented at an interval of two seconds immediately followed by the next number and the items presented and the timings of the items presented are stored by the system. After all the items in a list are presented, a delay of four seconds precedes a request to recall the numbers just presented. After each list presentation test taker 105 is asked to enter the numbers recalled into keypad 104 (
If the caller enters the same number of items that were presented, the next list is automatically presented. If the caller recalls fewer numbers than presented and then waits, the system asks the caller whether they want to go onto the next list. The caller confirms readiness for the next list by pressing a particular number on keypad 104 (
Fifth, at the conclusion of the list presentations, device 101 computes and/or constructs an analysis of the test results and converts them to voice and presents the analysis to the caller via earpiece 103 and also stores them, together with the identity of the caller on storage device 102. The results are then communicated to a researcher using the test taker as a subject, a medical or psychological provider caring for the test taker, or a researcher using the test taker as a subject, together with an identity code via email, or a web service, or printed out and sent via regular mail.
Separately the test taker logs into a website, presents the paid-for identity number, and enters the mail and email addresses he or she wishes to have the report sent do. The results can also be communicated to the test taker directly by device 101 via the output device 103. The analysis can consist of the raw data (items remembered, order of items remembered and timings of items remembered). It can also include the average number of items remembered and how that number compares with normal subjects or subjects with varying degrees of disease progression (Alzheimer's Disease) or drug usage (marijuana). The analysis can also include the average over the timings recorded in which slow response timings may indicate the presence of Alzheimer's disease or drugs. Slopes of the graphs of response probabilities or response timings of particular items versus item presentation order can also be included in the analysis. These slopes indicate how the test taker's short term memory changes with the order of the item presentation and that may indicate varying degrees of disease progressions or drug usage.
Sixth, the results can be used to obtain permission or a license, e.g., to operate heavy machinery, obtain a driver's license, trade on a bank's trading floor, fly an airplane, go on a spy mission, or perform other relatively risky activities as follows: If the test results are good enough for a particular activity the computational device can respond by issuing a pass code that can be used for activity access. The determination of what is “good enough for a particular activity” is established from past correlations of the memory test results and the particular activity. E.g., if the subject needs to qualify for a driver's license and past experience has indicated that a driver should have a short-term memory that can freely recall three items in order to remember which car in addition to the driver's arrived in which order at a four-way stop sign, then a subject must meet this memory test level to qualify for the short-term memory part of the driver's license qualification.
The efficacy of a neuropharmacological agent on memory can be evaluated with this embodiment. Some subjects would have the agent administered before the test and some would not have it administered so that the effects of the agent on test results can be ascertained. Alternatively the same test takers can also be tested twice, once with a neuropharmacological agent and once without.
To refine the test design, it is convenient to add a human experimenter between the computational device and the telephone speaker in
To perform the above described test, various alternative computational hardware can be used including:
Any hardware item can be replaced by several items. E.g., one computer can generate an item set and another computer can use that item list and test subjects.
The first embodiment can be varied to provide other embodiments and variations.
In a second embodiment (
When presented with four items, what item does the test takers tend to leave out? The corresponding experimental results are shown in
The disclosed test tends to impose a rehearsal pattern. The test can start out with only two items in a list, and for two items there is only one simple pattern of rehearsal: item1, item2, item1, item2.
The test can then increases the number of items to three. For three items there are two simple rehearsal patterns: item1, item2, item3, item1, item2, item3 and item1, item3, item2, item1, item3, item2.
Because the test taker became used to rehearsing the sequence item1, item 2 when there were two items, they tend to rehearse in the item1, item2, item3 pattern when there are three items.
The evidence includes that for three items test takers will typically recall them in the item presentation order.
When subjects are presented with a list of four items, the reactions to the question “Can you describe what it felt like to go from trying to remember three numbers to four numbers?” were as follows:
In a third embodiment,
This way a whole population can be randomly tested by an epidemiologist (using a statistical sampling by the computational device 101 of the phone numbers in storage device 102) by phone calls much the same way as their votes are polled by political and commercial polling companies. This can be done for a fraction of the cost if each subject had to be called into a hospital setting and tested by a medical worker.
If the database stored in storage device 102 includes not only phone numbers but subscriber age (which is rather easy to obtain from the Internet), the random testing can be limited to subscribers over a particular age to identify common memory issues of aging including Alzheimer's disease. The telephone area codes include location information allowing the testing to probe potential local-specific environmental factors.
The disclosed tests are of low cost and be used to perform massive screenings of Alzheimer's disease.
The disclosed test can also be used for random drug testing of drugs that impair the memory test results, including by the Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous to keep its members honest about alcohol or drug use.
If the telephone database includes pregnancy status, the effects of pregnancy on short-term memory can be studied. If the telephone database includes potential employees, a company can call them and test their short-term memory.
It can also call those who signed up for a test subscription covering monthly memory tests via robocalls.
A programmer of average skill can implement the robocalling system and interface it with phone number databases.
In a fourth embodiment,
In a fourth embodiment the computational device in
In a sixth embodiment, the test in any of the embodiments focuses on the transition from trying to remember three two-digit items to four two-digit items. As the test taker is initially presented with an item beyond the test taker's capacity to recall, the test taker decision can be quick or slow. If the test taker is alert and makes quick decisions he or she can quickly decide on a reasonable strategy. If the test taker makes a slow decision, it will take time away from the rehearsal time and more than the extra item will drop out of memory. The correspondingly lower memory score will reflect this slow decision. Cusack et al (2009, supra) found a similar effect when subjects were asked to remember a visual display of letters and their conclusion was “it is the additional cognitive process that depresses performance at higher set sizes . . . that couples with intelligence, not VWM [visual working memory] per se.”
This decision point in the test probes attention, alertness, sleep deprivation, diseases, syndromes and drugs that affect short-term memory and/or executive decision making.
A seventh embodiment uses the previously disclosed embodiments 1-5 to present an analysis that compares individual test results with normal distributions and distributions resulting from impaired memory to ascertain the probability of impaired memory. The analysis can include the previously disclosed Recency-Primacy Shift (RPS; defined above) (Tarnow '011, supra). RPS is relatively independent of a person's age and thus particularly useful to separate out the effects of Alzheimer's disease from normal aging.
The Recency-Primacy Shift is calculated from the item free recall probability versus item presentation order curve by subtracting the normal values from the test taker's values, calculating the slope of the new curve and, to normalize, multiply the slope by the number of items presented. Test takers with Alzheimer's disease have a large non-zero Recency-Primacy Shift (Tarnow '011, supra).
The analysis can also include the timings of the responses and how they compare with those of normal distributions and distributions resulting from impaired memory to ascertain the probability of impaired memory
An eighth embodiment stores multiple individual test results over time to track progression of memory impairment or impairment in executive decision making skills.
A ninth embodiment adds a particular distraction such as a radio program, a cell phone conversation, lighting changes and scores the corresponding level of distraction by how much the memory test results change.
According to one or more aspects, my system has one or more of the following advantages:
The embodiments disclosed overcome one or more of the limitations in prior-art systems described above. They also overcome other limitations that will become apparent upon reading and understanding this patent.
While the foregoing disclosure has been described in some detail for purposes of clarity and understanding, it will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, from a reading of the disclosure, that various changes in form and detail can be made. For example
1. The disclosed integer test can be housed in a small box with a keyboard, display, and computer that can be used for repeated self-testing and self-referencing of one's short-term memory to diagnose Alzheimer's disease, sleepiness, drunkenness, and influences of other neuropharmacological drugs including on impaired drivers.
2. The disclosed integer test can be used for inexpensive mass testing of military recruits to identify persons of exceptional short-term memory ability (good or bad). One common display could be used in conjunction with multiple keyboards.
3. The memory recall test in any of the previous embodiments can be varied to include a recognition test (in which items from the test item set are shown after the initial presentation and the subject is requested to say whether those items were initially presented or not), a cued recognition test (in which items are initially displayed in pairs and the subject is requested to fill in the identity of the paired item when only a single item is displayed), free and cued selective reminding and other memory tests. The responses are different from free recall responses. For example recognition responses are true/false responses and the corresponding timings of the response we need to measure are the times elapsed from the item is presented until the true/false answer is indicated by the test taker. Any of these methods of memory testing is applicable to part or all of the disclosures.
4. The integers in the tests described can be replaced by other item sets, including words and pictures, which probe different parts of the brain than do numbers.
5. There is a lot of data present in the test taker responses that are stored including the order of the response as compared to the order of the presentations (does the test taker respond with the first item first?), the time it takes to recall particular items measured from the original request to respond, etc.
6. The disclosed tests test not only memory but also other brain activity including alertness, sleepiness, executive skills, etc.
7. The disclosed test via phone can be used by researchers to inexpensively follow subject cohorts over time since there is no need for the subjects to meet face-to-face with the researcher to take the memory test.
Thus the full scope of the disclosure should be determined by the appended claims and their legal equivalents.
This code can be pasted into an Excel™ spreadsheet after creating an appropriately named worksheet “Test”.
