(1) The reaction time (RT) was significantly shorter when items of single column multiplication were presented orderly according to the multiplication table than when they were presented randomly. The RT was shorter when items of single column multiplicalion were presented randomly than when items of sigle column addition were presented randomly. Thus, the more a cognitive process has been praticed or habitualized, the shorter the RT will be. Habitualization is supposed to be an importomt variable which might facilitate automaticity. 

(2) The RT to the items of single column addition for which the subjects may use certain kinds of learned rules was significantly shorter than the RT to those for which they may not use learned rules. The availability of learned rules is also supposed to be an important variable which might facilitate automaticity. 

(3) Since 2×2=4, 3×3=5, 4×4=16, were so highly procticed, it was assumed that to count dots arranged in a form of square matrix had become an automatic process, therefore little attention was reguired for such a process. Accordingly, it was predicted that the accuracy rate for items with both black dots and blue dots arranged in square matrices was higher than that for item in which both sets of dots was not arranged in square matrix, when subjects were asked to cound and add these two set of dots. The hypothesis was not supported by experimental evidence. Results also tended to support the idea that antomaticity is a matter of degree rather than of a well-defined category (automatic processing vs. controlled processing). 

(4) No predicted interaction effects between laterality and types of cognitive task was found. The assumption that "Left hemisphere is superior to right hemisphere in controlled processing, while right hemisphere is superior to left hemisphere in automatic processing" was not supported.