UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Haptition: intra-modal and cross-modal comparisons between normal and brain-injured children Wormeli, Charles T. 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 W67.pdf [ 3.43MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054350.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054350-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054350-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054350-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054350-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054350-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054350-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054350-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054350.ris

Full Text

HAPTITION: INTRA-MODAL AND CROSS-MODAL COMPARISONS BETWEEN- NORMAL AND BRAIN-INJURED CHILDREN  by CHARLES T. WORMELI, JR. B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f Denver, 1968 M.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE  THE  FACULTY OF EDUCATION  DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION  We a c c e p t t h i s  t h e s i s as conforming  to the required  THE  standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 1976  "c)  C h a r l e s T. Wormeli, J r . , 1976  In p r e s e n t i n g  this thesis in p a r t i a l  f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r  an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e  and  that  study.  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s .  be g r a n t e d by  the Head o f my  I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g or  o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be written  permission.  Department o f S p e c i a l  Education  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h 2075 Wesbrook P l a c e Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5  Date:  30 June  1976  Department or  Columbia  publication  allowed without  my  ABSTRACT  The purpose o f t h i s study was  t o e x p l o r e the p o s s i b i l i t y o f d i s -  c r i m i n a t i n g between t h r e e groups o f c h i l d r e n  ("normal," " m i l d l y  damaged," and " s e v e r e l y brain-damaged") by e v a l u a t i n g t h e i r  brain-  respective  a b i l i t i e s t o compare the s i z e , shape, and t e x t u r e o f c e r t a i n o b j e c t s by means o f t a c t i l e p e r c e p t i o n .  To t h i s end seven subtasks were d e v i s e d  to measure the h a p t i c p e r c e p t i o n o f these q u a l i t i e s s e p a r a t e l y and i n combination.  Two  o f the subtasks i n c l u d e d v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n as w e l l i n  a c r o s s modal s i t u a t i o n . Twenty-one s u b j e c t s were used i n a p i l o t study which r e s u l t e d i n minor changes b e i n g made t o the s u b t a s k s .  In the e x p e r i m e n t a l study  twelve s u b j e c t s o f b o t h sexes between the ages o f seven and t e n y e a r s formed  each o f the t h r e e groups. A n a l y s i s o f the r e s u l t s o f the study showed s i g n i f i c a n t  ences  differ-  (at the .05 l e v e l ) between normal and s e v e r e l y brain-damaged  j e c t s f o r two s u b t a s k s .  sub-  No d i f f e r e n c e s between m i n i m a l l y brain-damaged  and s e v e r e l y brain-damaged s u b j e c t s were shown f o r any o f the subtasks a t the .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , and no d i f f e r e n c e was normal cance.  shown between  and m i n i m a l l y brain-damaged s u b j e c t s a t t h i s l e v e l o f  signifi-  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Chapter I.  Page THE PROBLEM  1  Introduction  1  Definitions  •  Hypothesis  II.  III.  9  SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE  11  METHODOLOGY  16  Subjects  16  Materials  17  Procedure  19  Scoring  IV.  6  .  23  P i l o t Study  24  Design  24  Hypothesis  25  CONCLUSION  26  Results  26  Discussion  33  Educational Implications  36  Limitations  38  F u t u r e Research  39  iii  iv  Page BIBLIOGRAPHY  41  Appendixes A.  INSTRUCTIONS AND DATA-GATHERING  FORM .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  45  Task A d m i n i s t r a t i o n  B.  46  RELATED LITERATURE  51  M a t e r i a l Parameters and C o n d i t i o n s S u b j e c t Parameters  .  .  .  .  .  .  ...  .  52 60  LIST OF TABLES  Table I. II. III. IV. V.  Page Normal Scores  27  mbd  Scores  28  sbd Scores  29  Combined Groups  30  Subtask Comparisons  32  LIST OF FIGURES  Figure I. II. III. IV.  Page Task O b j e c t s  18  S u b j e c t a t Task  20  T r a i n i n g O b j e c t s i n S u b j e c t ' s Hands  21  Subtask Means  37  v  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  A number o f i n d i v i d u a l s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s went o u t o f t h e i r  way  t o h e l p the w r i t e r g a t h e r d a t a f o r t h i s paper: Ms .. T. M. Brown (Queen E l i z a b e t h Annex) Mr. A. F. C l a r k ( L a u r i e r Elementary) Mr. S. E. C u t h e r b e r t s o n (Wolfe Elementary) Dr. H. Dunn (Vancouver G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l ) Ms. L. Eaves (Vancouver G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l ) Dr. W. Gaddes ( U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a ) Mr. G. E. G l a s s ( C a r l e t o n Elementary) Ms. L. H a f t (Queen V i c t o r i a Elementary) Mr. E. H. H i n t z (Hudson Elementary) Mr. R. N. H o l l i n s (Shaughnessy Elementary) Ms. K. Hunter ( C h i l d r e n ' s H o s p i t a l D i a g n o s t i c Center) Dr. P. K. Johnston (G. R. Pearkes C l i n i c ) Ms. D. K e n d a l l Mr. F. G. L i n d s e y (Seymour Elementary) Mr. C. Lorimer (Rhodes Elementary) Mr. A. G. Moodie (Vancouver S c h o o l Board) Ms. Payne ( V a r i e t y Treatment Center) Ms. R. P e r e l Mr. K. F. N e a l e . ( B r o c k Elementary) Ms. F. M. Robertson Dr. J . A. Robinson ( C h i l d r e n ' s H o s p i t a l D i a g n o s t i c Centeri Ms. H. Runsy Mr. J.. Sparks ( N i g h t i n g a l e Elementary) Mr. J . S t u a r t (Nootka Elementary) Mr. E. H. V o l l e n s ( K i t c h e n e r Elementary) S t a f f o f G. F. S t r o n g R e h a b i l i t a t i o n C e n t e r S t a f f o f G. R. Pearkes C l i n i c f o r Handicapped C h i l d r e n S t a f f o f V a r i e t y Treatment Center i n S u r r e y I w i s h t o thank Dr. R. B e n n e t t who  provided s t a t i s t i c a l  I e s p e c i a l l y w i s h t o thank the members o f my  committee:  services;  Dr. B. C l a r k e ,  Dr. J . C r i c h t o n , Dr. P. Koopman, and my a d v i s o r , Dr. David K e n d a l l out whom none o f t h i s would have  (with-  happened).  I would a l s o l i k e t o thank the c h i l d r e n who  p a r t i c i p a t e d i n my  study and t h e i r p a r e n t s , and I w i s h t o note my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o Dr. B. Wong, who  listens well.  vi  HAPTITION: INTRA-MODAL AND CROSS-MODAL COMPARISONS BETWEEN NORMAL AND BRAIN-INJURED CHILDREN  vii  CHAPTER I  THE  PROBLEM  Introduction  i t h i n k i t s h a l l be roses and spring w i l l b r i n g her worms r u s h i n g through loam. (afterward i ' l l climb by t a l l  c a r e f u l muscles  i n t o nervous and a c c u r a t e  s i l e n c e . . . . But f i r s t  you) press e a s i l y at f i r s t , i t w i l l be l e a v e s and a l i t t l e harder for roses only a l i t t l e last  harder  we  on the groaning flame o f neat huge trudging k i s s moistly climbing hideously l a r g e minute hips, 0  with  .press worms r u s h i n g s l o w l y through l o a m  1  Most poems o f e. e. cummings attempt t o produce v i s u a l but a few a l s o employ t h e sense o f touch  t o c r e a t e impressions  e. e. cummings, Poems 1923-1954 (New York: H a r c o u r t , World, Inc., 1954), p. 55.  1  images, of t a c t i l e  B r a c e , and  2  sensations.  The  f i r s t use o f the word " r o s e s " i n the above poem may  duce a v i s u a l image i n the mind o f the r e a d e r because t h e r e i s no t u a l c l u e t o accompany i t . memories a r e mostly  An  i n d i v i d u a l ' s environmental  contex-  sensations  and  v i s u a l perhaps because v i s i o n i s the most e f f i c i e n t  p e r c e p t u a l t o o l t h a t we  possess.  By u s i n g i t , we  can p e r c e i v e  i n f o r m a t i o n such as the dimensions o f a room o r the shape o f a w i t h i n a few  pro-  seconds.  spatial flower  The p e r c e p t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n t a c t u a l l y r e q u i r e s  much more time. With l o n g vowels and on the f o u r t h l i n e and  " s " sounds, cummings slows down the  i n t r o d u c e s a memory o f t a c t i l e s e n s a t i o n :  reader the  reader remembers t h a t w h i l e he can p e r c e i v e loam v i s u a l l y , he can a l s o walk on i t , d i g i n i t , and a rich,  f e e l i t running  s o f t , y i e l d i n g substance.  Two  through h i s f i n g e r s ; loam i s  more words, " c l i m b " and  urge the reader t o become aware o f h i s own  "muscles,"  body, p r o p r i o c e p t i v e l y , so  t h a t he can e a s i l y become i n v o l v e d i n s e n s u a l , t a c t i l e , k i n e s t h e t i c experience  i n the next s t a n z a where the word " r o s e s " evokes more than a  v i s u a l image. In the l a s t s t a n z a the t a c t i l e k i n e s t h e t i c e x p e r i e n c e ated; the reader may  p e r c e i v e s e p a r a t e l y the s e n s a t i o n s o f orgasm, much  as he p e r c e i v e s , v i a touch, comprehends the whole  is fraction-  each p a r t o f a geometric  figure before  he  figure.  Cummings i s not concerned w i t h the mechanics o f p e r c e p t i o n ; he i s concerned w i t h i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .  A g r e a t p a r t o f contemporary educa-  t i o n a l r e s e a r c h , however, i s concerned w i t h the e x p l a n a t i o n o f the ceptual processes  t o which cummings a p p e a l s .  One  outcome o f t h i s  perresearch  3  has  been t h e p o s t u l a t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n a l m o d a l i t i e s t o t r a c e t h e p e r c e p -  t i o n o f information. The researchers  two m o d a l i t i e s which have r e c e i v e d most a t t e n t i o n from a r e v i s i o n and audition;, t h e f a c t t h a t c h i l d r e n e x i s t who do  not l e a r n through these m o d a l i t i e s has been p a r t i a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t upsurge o f r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t i n the m o d a l i t y o f t o u c h i n g and f e e l i n g (haptic) modality  ("haptition").  1  Additional interest i n this  has been encouraged by the c o n s t r u c t i o n o f s e v e r a l  l e a r n i n g models which p u r p o r t  t o d e s c r i b e t h e p e r c e p t u a l and motor d e v e l -  opment o f p e o p l e from b i r t h , t o adulthood; mental importance t o these  h a p t i c p e r c e p t i o n i s o f funda-  designs.  The h a p t i c system p r o v i d e s two major k i n d s o f i n f o r m a t i o n . The f i r s t c a t e g o r y i n c l u d e s i n f o r m a t i o n about the environment such a s : (a) geometric i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g s u r f a c e a r e a o r s i z e , shapes, l i n e s and a n g l e s ; (b) s u r f a c e t e x t u r e ; (c) q u a l i t i e s o f c o n s i s t e n c y such as hard, s o r f , r e s i l i e n t , o r v i s c o u s ; (d) p a i n ; (e) temperature; and ( f ) p r e s s u r e . In the second c a t e g o r y , b o d i l y movement ^provides i n f o r m a t i o n about.the body i t s e l f such a s : (a), dynamic movement p a t t e r n s o f the trunk, arms,.legs, mandible, and tongue; (b) s t a t i c limb p o s i t i o n s o r p o s t u r e ; and (c) s e n s i t i v i t y t o t h e d i r e c t i o n o f l i n e a r and r o t a r y movement o f t h e s k u l l , l i m b s , and e n t i r e body. (O'Donnell 1969, p. 41) These two forms o f i n f o r m a t i o n , cutaneous and p r o p r i o c e p t i v e , a l l o w us t o p e r c e i v e space and t h e o b j e c t s w i t h i n t h a t space w i t h o u t t h e use o f v i s i o n .  Perceptual-motor t h e o r i s t s a s s e r t that t h i s  must be r e c e i v e d i f such a phenomenon as v i s u a l - m o t o r  information  coordination i s to  be e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e p e r t o i r e o f b e h a v i o r s :  a child's  Use o f the term " h a p t i t i o n " t o d e s c r i b e t o u c h i n g and f e e l i n g seems-as r e a s o n a b l e as use o f " v i s i o n " and " a u d i t i o n " t o d e s c r i b e s e e i n g and h e a r i n g .  4  a b i l i t y t o p e r c e i v e develops  from the use o f p r o p r i o c e p t i v e t o o l s t o the  use o f d i s t a l - p e r c e p t u a l t o o l s ,  i f the c h i l d has l e a r n e d the b a s i c s k i l l s  n e c e s s a r y f o r the h a p t i c p e r c e p t i o n o f h i s body and s p a t i a l movement. " I t i s l o g i c a l t o assume t h a t a l l b e h a v i o r i s b a s i c a l l y motor, t h a t the p r e r e q u i s i t e s o f any k i n d o f b e h a v i o r a r e muscular and motor responses.  B e h a v i o r develops out o f muscular a c t i v i t y , and  h i g h e r forms o f b e h a v i o r a r e dependent upon lower (Kephart 1971,  p. 79).  so-called  forms o f b e h a v i o r  . . ."  In the development o f eye-hand c o o r d i n a t i o n , f o r  example, the hand i n i t i a l l y  i s the e x p l o r i n g p a r t ; the eye  follows i t .  As e x p e r i e n c e grows, as the eye l e a r n s what the hand f e e l s , i t b e g i n s t o l e a d the hand because i t i s a q u i c k e r and more e f f i c i e n t r e c e p t o r o f information.  The hand may  c o n t i n u e t o monitor  the eye, t o check i t and  supply a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , but the eye becomes the d i r e c t o r .  In a  normal c h i l d p e r c e p t s from the eye can even be t r a n s l a t e d t o the hand f o r t a c t u a l d u p l i c a t i o n , o r a t a c t u a l l y p e r c e i v e d o b j e c t can be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o a v i s u a l image. The  A "perceptual-motor  match" i s e s t a b l i s h e d .  same p e r c e p t can be o b t a i n e d from e i t h e r v i s u a l o r h a p t i c s e n s a t i o n s . One  c h i l d r e n who  a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s l e a r n i n g d e s i g n i s the s u g g e s t i o n t h a t have d i f f i c u l t y  l e a r n i n g t o r e a d through one m o d a l i t y  may  b e n e f i t from the use o f m u l t i - s e n s o r y s t i m u l a t i o n which s i m u l t a n e o u s l y "bombards" them w i t h the same i n f o r m a t i o n through v i s u a l , a u d i t o r y and haptic modalities.  The  i n t e n t i s t o produce a p e r c e p t u a l - m o t o r  match  More r e c e n t l i t e r a t u r e suggests d e f i n i t e l i m i t a t i o n s on t h i s e x c h a n g e a b i l i t y o f m o d a l i t y . While the same p e r c e p t can be o b t a i n e d from e i t h e r m o d a l i t y , the e x c h a n g e a b i l i t y i s l i m i t e d by s t i m u l u s c o m p l e x i t y . See Appendix B, p. 57.  1  5  which w i l l a l l o w such c h i l d r e n t o i n t e g r a t e  i n d i v i d u a l data i n t o usable  percepts. Two procedures f o r p e r c e i v i n g  environmental i n f o r m a t i o n  a l l y have been proposed: t o u c h i n g and b e i n g touched. cedure may be l a b e l e d receptors labeled  "passive  haptic-  The second p r o -  touch" and p h y s i o l o g i c a l l y i n v o l v e s  i n the s k i n and u n d e r l y i n g  " a c t i v e touch" and i n v o l v e d  tissue. receptors  only  The f i r s t procedure may be i n the s k i n and  underlying  t i s s u e and a l s o i n the j o i n t s and tendons . (Gibson 1962, p. 478). I t might a l s o be l a b e l e d  "purposive t o u c h , " f o r i t i n v o l v e s  the q u a l i t i e s o f an o b j e c t .  exploration of  The f i r s t procedure i s t h e concern o f t h i s  study, f o r i t i s t h i s p a r t i c u l a r h a p t i c p e r c e p t u a l  a c t i v i t y which i s  invoked by a number o f educators i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t i t s use w i l l  allevi-  a t e d i f f i c u l t i e s which many c h i l d r e n e x p e r i e n c e i n o u r s c h o o l s . Among the f a c t o r s which may a f f e c t p e r c e p t i o n and  which have been c o n s i d e r e d by s e v e r a l  by a c t i v e  touch  i n v e s t i g a t o r s a r e age, sex,  and i n t e l l i g e n c e . ' ' ' At  l e a s t two i n v e s t i g a t o r s have c o n s i d e r e d a f o u r t h f a c t o r : b r a i n  damage, the s u b j e c t  o f t h i s study, about which the w r i t e r has asked: " I s  there a d i f f e r e n c e i n haptic perceptual  ability  (specifically,  touch) between 'normal' and 'brain-damaged' i n d i v i d u a l s ? "  i n active  Demonstration  o f a d i f f e r e n c e may a f f e c t (1) t h e employment o f e d u c a t i o n a l  practices  which u t i l i z e a c t i v e touch as an i n s t r u c t i o n a l m o d a l i t y and (2) the usefulness o f medical diagnosis  f o r educational  practices.  Appendix "B" c o n t a i n s a d e s c r i p t i o n o f s t u d i e s which have examined t h e s e f a c t o r s .  6  Definitions "Normal" s u b j e c t s  i n the context  o f t h e comparison made i n t h i s  e x p e r i m e n t a l study a r e c h i l d r e n who have been examined by one o f two n e u r o l o g i s t s a t Vancouver General H o s p i t a l and who, as a r e s u l t , have been diagnosed as n o t h a v i n g a n e u r o l o g i c a l "Minimally  brain-damaged" s u b j e c t s  impairment. (mbd s u b j e c t s )  a r e those  chil-  dren who have been examined by one o f two n e u r o l o g i s t s a t Vancouver General H o s p i t a l o r by p s y c h o l o g i s t s  a t G. E . Pearkes G l i n i c , and who as  a r e s u l t have been diagnosed as h a v i n g some s i g n s o f n e u r o l o g i c a l  impair-  ment w i t h o u t gross motor involvement. The  v i a b i l i t y o f t h e term "minimal b r a i n damage" has been d i s -  puted, e s p e c i a l l y i n r e g a r d basis f o r the dysfunctions t h i s organic  to i t s i m p l i c a t i o n that there  i s an o r g a n i c  a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e mbd syndrome and whether  b a s i s may be s i m i l a r i n k i n d b u t l e s s i n t h e e x t e n t  of i t s  e f f e c t t o t h e more severe and e a s i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e b r a i n i n j u r y s u f f e r e d by  i n d i v i d u a l s who cannot, as a r e s u l t o f such i n j u r y , r e a d i l y c o n t r o l  c e r t a i n muscular Strauss  activities. and L e h t i n e n  (1947).stated  t h a t c h i l d r e n may have  intel-  l e c t u a l and b e h a v i o r a l problems caused by b r a i n i n j u r y and proposed a complete d i a g n o s i s  o f minor b r a i n i n j u r y which i s s t i l l w i d e l y a c c e p t e d  by e d u c a t o r s and p s y c h o l o g i s t s : (1) a h i s t o r y showing evidence o f i n j u r y t o t h e b r a i n by trauma o r inflammatory p r o c e s s e s before,, d u r i n g o r s h o r t l y a f t e r b i r t h (2) s l i g h t n e u r o l o g i c a l s i g n s a r e p r e s e n t which i n d i c a t e a b r a i n lesion (3) measurable r e t a r d a t i o n (which i s n o t common t o o t h e r s i b l i n g s or p a r e n t s ) (4) p e r c e p t u a l and c o n c e p t u a l d i s t u r b a n c e s observed i n performance on v a r i o u s p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s . (Strauss and L e h t i n e n 1947, p. 112) 1  7 Birch  (1964) d e f i n e d b r a i n i n j u r y as "any a n a t o m i c a l o r p h y s i o -  l o g i c a l a l t e r a t i o n o f a p a t h o l o g i c k i n d p r e s e n t i n the nerve t i s s u e s o f the b r a i n " and noted t h a t the consequences c o u l d range a l t e r a t i o n i n b e h a v i o r t o p a r a l y s i s and death.  from no  Furthermore,  b r a i n damage v a r i e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o a number o f f a c t o r s  observable  because  (etiology,  ex-  t e n t , type o f l e s i o n , l o c u s , e t c . ) , B i r c h f e e l s t h a t t h e r e i s no s t e r e o t y p i c brain-damaged c h i l d but r a t h e r many v a r i e t i e s o f brain-damaged children.  He a p p a r e n t l y o b j e c t e d t o the use o f mbd  because i t was  non-  s p e c i f i c and s t e r e o t y p i c and a l s o because ". . . a l l o f our d e s i g n a t i o n s o f nervous  system damage, whether t h i s be d e s c r i b e d as minimal,  d i f f u s e o r as n o n f o c a l , remain presumptive l i s h e d d a t a demonstrating structure  as  i n the absence o f w e l l e s t a b -  the n a t u r e o f the damage t o the u n d e r l y i n g  itself."  C r u i c k s h a n k e t a l . (1968), however, a s s e r t e d t h a t . . . the h y p o t h e s i s o f b r a i n i n j u r y w i l l be borne o u t w i t h the v a s t m a j o r i t y o f c h i l d r e n now l a b e l e d h y p e r a c t i v e , d y s l e x i c , c h i l d r e n w i t h s p e c i a l o r s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g problems, exogenous, h y p e r k i n e t i c , c h i l d r e n w i t h m a t u r a t i o n a l l a g , o r any o f a v a r i e t y o f d i f f e r e n t labels. In the m a j o r i t y o f cases these a r e c h i l d r e n who have most l i k e l y e x p e r i e n c e d b r a i n i n j u r y a t some stage o f t h e i r e a r l y d e v e l o p ment. . . . (Cruickshank e t a l . 1968, p. 11) There have been o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n s o f the b a s i s f o r the mbd drome p r e s e n t e d : these i n c l u d e c h e m i c a l l e s i o n s , p h y s i o l o g i c a l unusual home environments There may  immaturity,  and the c u r r e n t l y p o p u l a r "food a d d i t i v e s . "  not be d e f i n i t i v e e v i d e n c e f o r the e x i s t e n c e o f b r a i n  as a determinant  syn-  f o r the c h i l d r e n who  injury  a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the mbd  drome, but t h e r e is,however, the s u s p i c i o n o f such a p o s s i b i l i t y .  synBecause  o f t h i s and because o f the c o n t i n u e d use o f the term by many e d u c a t o r s ,  8  p s y c h o l o g i s t s and p a r e n t s ,  t h e author f e l t  i t would be a p p r o p r i a t e t o  i n c l u d e i n t h i s study s u b j e c t s who a r e b e l i e v e d t o r e p r e s e n t " S e v e r e l y brain-damaged s u b j e c t s "  (sbd s u b j e c t s )  t h e term.  a r e those  chil-  dren who have been examined by n e u r o l o g i s t s i n the Vancouver o r V o c t o r i a a r e a and who, as a r e s u l t have been diagnosed as h a v i n g o f the s p a s t i c h e m i p l e g i c  cerebral palsy  variety.  "Intra-modal" a c t i v i t y r e f e r s t o s t i m u l u s - r e c o g n i t i o n which o c c u r s w i t h i n one m o d a l i t y ;  f o r example, h a p t i c  a c t i v i t y occurs when a s u b j e c t i s p r e s e n t e d  intra-modal  with a stimulus  e x p l o r e by a c t i v e t o u c h and then i s p r e s e n t e d  activity  object to  w i t h a second o b j e c t t o  e x p l o r e by a c t i v e touch and subsequently i s asked t o i n d i c a t e i f the objects are s i m i l a r or not s i m i l a r .  The s u b j e c t i s n o t a l l o w e d  t o t h e o b j e c t s through any o t h e r m o d a l i t y auditory modality  access  although the operation o f the  i s e s s e n t i a l f o r the subject's understanding o f the  t a s k , and t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f a u d i t o r y p e r c e p t s  w i t h motor a c t i v i t y i s  n e c e s s a r y f o r the c o r r e c t c o m p l e t i o n o f t h e t a s k .  (It i s e s p e c i a l l y  p l a u s i b l e t h a t b r a i n - i n j u r e d s u b j e c t s may form an i m p e r f e c t  understanding  o f t h e t a s k o r be unable t o i n t e g r a t e a u r a l i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h  appropriate  motor responses.) "Cross-modal" a c t i v i t y r e f e r s t o s t i m u l u s - r e c o g n i t i o n  activity  which i n v o l v e s two m o d a l i t i e s ; f o r example, a s u b j e c t may i n s p e c t a ; stimulus  o b j e c t through t h e . v i s u a l m o d a l i t y  t o compare i t w i t h  o b j e c t which can be i n s p e c t e d o n l y through t h e h a p t i c  another  modality.  "Simultaneous" p r e s e n t a t i o n r e f e r s t o a c o n d i t i o n i n which a subj e c t i s presented  with stimulus  and r e c o g n i t i o n o b j e c t s a t t h e same  9  moment; f o r example, a s u b j e c t may e x p l o r e hand w h i l e t h e o t h e r hand e x p l o r e s  a recognition  "Consecutive" presentation presentation  o f a stimulus  a stimulus  object.  r e f e r s t o a c o n d i t i o n i n which the  o b j e c t i s separated  a r e c o g n i t i o n o b j e c t by a temporal i n t e r v a l ; inspect a stimulus  from the p r e s e n t a t i o n o f  f o r example, a s u b j e c t  may  o b j e c t h a p t i c a l l y , r e l i n q u i s h i t and then i n s p e c t one  o r more r e c o g n i t i o n o b j e c t s h a p t i c a l l y o r v i s u a l l y comparison.  o b j e c t w i t h one  f o r t h e purpose o f  Memory i s a more important f a c t o r i n t h i s c o n d i t i o n than i n  the c o n d i t i o n o f simultaneous  presentation.  Hypothesis The the t h r e e  purpose o f t h i s study i s t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y  groups o f c h i l d r e n d e s c r i b e d  haptic a b i l i t i e s to recognize  that  above d i f f e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r  the q u a l i t i e s o f s i z e , shape, and t e x t u r e .  The  n u l l hypothesis i s that there  and  sbd s u b j e c t s  i s no d i f f e r e n c e between normal, mbd,  i n t h e i r a b i l i t i e s to recognize  the q u a l i t i e s o f s i z e ,  shape, and t e x t u r e by t h e use o f a c t i v e t o u c h . I t i s proposed t h a t i n j u r y t o t h a t p a r t  (or those p a r t s )  b r a i n which i s i n v o l v e d i n s e n s o r i - m o t o r a c t i v i t y w i l l mance on a t e s t o f t a c t i l e p e r c e p t i o n  o f the  so a f f e c t p e r f o r -  t h a t t h e s c o r e s o f such b r a i n  i n j u r e d s u b j e c t s w i l l d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from t h e scores o f s u b j e c t s who have n o t s u f f e r e d b r a i n i n j u r y . w i t h more e x t e n s i v e  I t i s f u r t h e r proposed t h a t  i n j u r y w i l l be l e s s s u c c e s s f u l on t h e t a s k s  subjects than  w i l l be s u b j e c t s w i t h r e l a t i v e l y minor i n j u r y (assuming t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s d i f f e r i n degree and n o t i n k i n d ) . should  have a lower score  A minimally  brain-damaged  subject  than a normal s u b j e c t w h i l e a s e v e r e l y - b r a i n -  10  damaged s u b j e c t s h o u l d I f there  have a s t i l l  i s an o r g a n i c  lower  b a s i s f o r the mbd  s u b j e c t s d i f f e r i n degree but not  i n kind  t i o n s f o r t h i s study become apparent: (Barsh  1967,  Kephart 1971,  score.  R a d l e r 1959)  syndrome such t h a t  from sbd  subjects,  t i o n a l information may  be  provided.  motiva-  (1) c e r t a i n l e a r n i n g t h e o r i s t s have p o s i t e d i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a -  t e g i e s which r e l y on a c t i v e touch; r e s u l t s o f t h i s study may r e e v a l u a t i o n o f these s t r a t e g i e s ;  two  these  (2) t h e r e  suggest a  i s the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t  addi-  f o r d i s c r i m i n a t i n g b r a i n - i n j u r e d from normal c h i l d r e n  CHAPTER I I  SURVEY OF LITERATURE  The  study d e s c r i b e d l a t e r i n t h i s paper focuses on one s u b j e c t  parameter: t h e e f f e c t o f b r a i n i n j u r y on the s c o r e s o b t a i n e d by the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a t a s k o f a c t i v e touch t o t h r e e groups o f c h i l d r e n . Very l i t t l e r e s e a r c h was found which e x p l o r e s t h i s parameter, b u t a number o f p e r i p h e r a l r e f e r e n c e s which a r e d e s c r i b e d i n some d e t a i l i n Appendix B e x p l o r e d age, sex, i n t e l l i g e n c e , and p e r s o n a l i t y .  Although  c r i t i c i s m s may be d i r e c t e d t o these s t u d i e s , i t would appear t h a t : (1) the v a r i a b l e o f sex has no s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e o f h a p t i c p e r c e p t i o n o b t a i n e d through a c t i v e touch;  (2) i n t e l l i g e n c e does n o t appear t o s i g -  n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e p e r c e p t i o n o b t a i n e d through a c t i v e touch;  (3) e v i -  dence f o r the i n f l u e n c e o f p e r s o n a l i t y i s i n c o n c l u s i v e ; and (4) age seems t o be an important  v a r i a b l e although  t h e r e i s disagreement  i n g which age between t h e y e a r s o f t h r e e and nine i s important  concern-  to the  development o f p e r c e p t i o n by a c t i v e touch. H a p t i c p e r c e p t i o n may be s a i d t o o c c u r when cutaneous and k i n e s t h e t i c information i s processed  c e n t r a l l y and s y n t h e s i z e d .  This  proces-  s i n g appears t o be l o c a t e d i n t h e p o s t e r i o r p a r i e t a l l o b e o f t h e b r a i n and  i n the somato-sensory c o r t e x  ( M i l n e r 1970, p. 173). I n a b i l i t y t o  p e r c e i v e h a p t i c a l l y i n f o r m a t i o n from a p a r t i c u l a r hand i n d i c a t e s a poss i b l e l e s i o n i n the c o n t r a l a t e r a l sensory  c o r t e x and p a r i e t a l a r e a and  p o s s i b l y i n t h e i n s i l a t e r a l motor c o r t e x as w e l l . 11  L e s i o n s may produce  12  o b s e r v a b l e d e f i c i t s i n complex a c t i v i t i e s block designs),  (e.g., d r e s s i n g , and c o p y i n g  and severe sensorimotor l e s i o n s w i t h p a r i e t a l area damage  may produce the b e h a v i o r o f t h e s p a s t i c h e m i p l e g i c confined  t o one s i d e  s p a s t i c hemiplegia;  i f the l e s i o n s are  ( l e s i o n s may a f f e c t t h e p y r a m i d a l t r a c t as w e l l i n 60 p e r c e n t  o f t h e axons o r i g i n a t e i n t h e p r e c e n t r a l  and p o s t c e n t r a l g y r i ) : i n v o l u n t a r y c o n t r a c t i o n . o f t h e a f f e c t e d muscles i f they a r e suddenly s t r e t c h e d and v i s u a l - m o t o r turbance o f t h e a f f e c t e d s i d e  d i s a b i l i t y and t a c t i l e  dis-  ( M i l n e r 1970, p. 175).  I f c e r e b r a l p a l s y i s l i k e l y t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r e l a t i v e l y widespread b r a i n i n j u r y , then on a s c a l e o f b r a i n damage, r a n g i n g to s e v e r e l y  i n j u r e d , there  from  healthy  i s placement f o r l e s s s e v e r e b r a i n i n j u r y  which would n o t m a n i f e s t i t s e l f  i n the u s u a l l y obvious behavior  deficits  o f c e r e b r a l p a l s y b u t which might d i s p l a y more s u b t l e d e f i c i t s o f minimal b r a i n damage."''  Denhoff and Novak (1967) s t a t e t h a t t h e p a s t h i s t o r i e s o f  i n d i v i d u a l s diagnosed as having minimal b r a i n damage (whether o r n o t organic  involvement can be shown) may be s i m i l a r t o t h e h i s t o r i e s o f i n d i -  v i d u a l s diagnosed as h a v i n g c e r e b r a l p a l s y . t o suggest t h a t hearing  "There i s growing evidence  . . . c h i l d r e n who have a r t i c u l a t i o n d e f e c t s ,  slight  l o s s e s , and l e a r n i n g problems a r e m i l d o r s u b c l i n i c a l cases o f  c e r e b r a l p a l s y and as such a r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e minimal b r a i n category"  dysfunction  (Denhoff and Novak 1967, p. 365).  "*"The most o f t e n c i t e d s i g n s and symptoms o f mbd a r e : (1) hypera c t i v i t y ; (2) p e r c e p t u a l - m o t o r impairments; (3) emotional l a b i l i t y ; (4) g e n e r a l c o o r d i n a t i o n d e f i c i t s ; (5) d i s o r d e r s o f a t t e n t i o n ; (6) impuls i v i t y ; (7) d i s o r d e r s o f memory and t h i n k i n g ; (8) s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s ( r e a d i n g , w r i t i n g , a r i t h m e t i c , s p e l l i n g ) ; (9) d i s o r d e r s o f speech and h e a r i n g ; (10) e q u i v o c a l n e u r o l o g i c a l s i g n s and e l e c t r o e n c e p h a l o g r a p h i c i r r e g u l a r i t i e s (Clements 1966, p. 13).  13  The  somato-sensory c o r t e x  ( a n t e r i o r and p o s t e r i o r c e n t r a l g y r i )  i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be t h e a r e a which i n t e r p r e t s and c o n t r o l s c e r t a i n t a c tile  stimuli  (form and s i z e e s p e c i a l l y > M i l n e r 1970, p. 176).  Injury i n  t h i s a r e a , n o t so severe as t o cause t h e b e h a v i o r a l d e f i c i t s o f c e r e b r a l p a l s y , might cause impairments a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e mbd syndrome. e t a l . (1955) found t h a t i n j u r y t o t h e p a r i e t a l lobe  Semmes  (which i n c l u d e s t h e  p o s t c e n t r a l gyrus) was a p p a r e n t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i n f e r i o r performance on i n t r a - m o d a l v i s u a l and cross-modal tasks.  (visual-tactile)  map-following  Her s u b j e c t s were a d u l t war v e t e r a n s who had s u f f e r e d p e n e t r a t i n g  m i s s i l e wounds t o t h e b r a i n and were d i v i d e d i n t o groups a c c o r d i n g t o the l o c u s o f i n j u r y  ( e s t a b l i s h e d by m e d i c a l r e c o r d s ) .  A n a l y s i s o f task  s c o r e s i n d i c a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between p a r i e t a l s and nonparietals.  Because no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between i n t r a - m o d a l and  cross-modal  p r e s e n t a t i o n was found,  t h e authors concluded  s p a t i a l d i s o r i e n t a t i o n factor operating across modality  t h e r e was a  lines.  Semmes e t a l . (1965) r e t u r n e d t o t h i s n o n - m o d a l i t y - s p e c i f i c f a c t o r t o ask i f t a c t u a l sensory impairment and a s t e r e o g n o s i s  (inability  t o r e c o g n i z e o b j e c t dimensions) c o u l d o c c u r s e p a r a t e l y .  found  (using t h e v e t e r a n s again)  They  t h a t performance on i n t r a - m o d a l t a c t i l e  n i t i o n w i t h s u c c e s s i v e . p r e s e n t a t i o n was s e v e r e l y impaired when defect  1  was p r e s e n t .  j e c t s without  recog-  sensory  In a d d i t i o n t h e performance o f b r a i n - i n j u r e d sub-  sensory d e f e c t was s i g n i f i c a n t l y i m p a i r e d when compared t o  ''"The authors d e f i n e d sensory d e f e c t as abnormal performance on one o f f o u r p a s s i v e t e s t s o f t a c t i l e p e r c e p t i o n : (1) p r e s s u r e s e n s i - , t i v i t y ; (2) two-point d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ; (3) p o i n t l o c a l i z a t i o n ; and (4) sense o f p a s s i v e movement.  14  the performance o f normal s u b j e c t s on t e s t s o f form and p a t t e r n but not impaired  on roughness, t e x t u r e , and  concluded t h a t sensory d e f e c t and f u n c t i o n s which tended t o o c c u r lesions  size evaluations.  The  s p a t i a l d i s o r i e n t a t i o n were  together  authors separate  w i t h r i g h t hemisphere p a r i e t a l  (perhaps because these f u n c t i o n s are not l o c a l i z e d i n the  hemisphere) and  number o f cases was  s m a l l , and  not performed;  i n j u r i e s was  not p o s s i b l e ;  (1)  the  a s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s supporting  the  (2) a n a t o m i c a l  o b j e c t s was  very  (3) the t e s t s o f form may  short  ( f i v e seconds),  t i o n o f the n a t u r e o f the motor handicap subjects with  con-  v e r i f i c a t i o n o f the b r a i n  by the v a r i a b l e o f size;"'" (4) the time a l l o w e d stimulus  right  s e p a r a t e l y w i t h l e f t hemisphere p a r i e t a l l e s i o n s .  S e v e r a l c r i t i c i s m s o f these f i n d i n g s seem n e c e s s a r y :  c l u s i o n was  was  have been confounded  for t a c t i l e inspection of and  ( i f any)  t h e r e i s no  descrip-  o f those b r a i n - i n j u r e d  sensory d e f i c i t s i n t h e i r hands; the low  scores of  the  b r a i n - i n j u r e d s u b j e c t s might be a t t r i b u t e d to motor d i f f i c u l t y i n p a l p a t i n g the s t i m u l u s The not be  o b j e c t s , e s p e c i a l l y i n the s h o r t time  b r a i n i n j u r i e s of s o l d i e r s traumatized  allowed.  by m i s s i l e wounds  s u f f i c i e n t l y s i m i l a r to c o n g e n i t a l or d i s e a s e - c a u s e d  may  brain i n -  j u r i e s as t o a l l o w t h e i r symptoms to be g e n e r a l i z e d t o i n d i v i d u a l s bel o n g i n g t o the l a t t e r group. i n d i v i d u a l s who Nevertheless,  differ B, pp.  There are a l s o d i f f e r e n c e s between  have l o s t a f u n c t i o n and  the a u t h o r s '  those who  p o s t u l a t i o n of separate  have never had i t . locations for spatial  I t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a v o i d t h i s problem. How does a from a square i n o t h e r than the l e n g t h o f i t s s i d e s ? 53-54, f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f t h i s o b s t a c l e .  rectangle See Appendix  15  perception,  form p e r c e p t i o n , and t a c t i l e p e r c e p t i o n o f o t h e r  qualities  i s v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g and should be i n v e s t i g a t e d f u r t h e r . Solomon's (1957) r e s e a r c h i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a tion.  Scores o f normal and b r a i n - i n j u r e d s u b j e c t s were compared on  t e s t s o f t a c t i l e p e r c e p t i o n o f s i z e , shape, t e x t u r e , and weight.  Analyses  were performed on the i n f l u e n c e o f sex, age, handedness, p r e f e r e n c e , and on t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s . Solomon's b r a i n i n j u r e d s u b j e c t s those w i t h  (32) and those w i t h o u t  (48 i n t o t a l ) were d i v i d e d i n t o  (16) motor involvement o f one hand.  P r e s e n t a t i o n o f s t i m u l u s o b j e c t s was s u c c e s s i v e .  F o r normal s u b j e c t s  the f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t : nine years) and  on a l l s u b t e s t s ;  (1) age ( f i v e t o  (2) handedness on s i z e and form s u b t e s t s ;  (3) sex on s i z e and t e x t u r e .  F o r b r a i n i n j u r e d s u b j e c t s motor  involvement was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r s i z e , weight, and t e x t u r e ; handedness was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r shape; age was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t e x t u r e .  When s c o r e s  f o r normal and b r a i n i n j u r e d s u b j e c t s were compared, s i g n i f i c a n t  dif-  f e r e n c e s were found f o r s i z e and t e x t u r e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and no d i f f e r e n c e f o r weight.  No d i f f e r e n c e was found f o r shape between normal and b r a i n -  i n j u r e d s u b j e c t s w i t h motor involvement. S e v e r a l c r i t i c i s m s o f t h i s study  a r e p o s s i b l e : (1) each s u b j e c t  viewed t h e t a c t i l e t e s t m a t e r i a l s and had them demonstrated b e f o r e s u b t e s t was a d m i n i s t e r e d ; a t e s t o f intra-modal to p l a y a r o l e ;  i t does n o t seem r e a s o n a b l e  haptic perception,  (2) the r e a d e r  t o r e g a r d t h i s as  i f v i s u a l memory was  i s not informed  each  permitted  o f how the s u b j e c t s p a l -  pate t h e p o o l o f r e c o g n i t i o n o b j e c t s ; t h a t i s , i t i s not known whether  15 the o b j e c t s are p l a c e d (3) the c r i t e r i a  i n the s u b j e c t ' s hand or i f the s u b j e c t  f o r the s e l e c t i o n o f the normal s u b j e c t s was  r i g o r o u s as f o r the  s e l e c t i o n of brain-injured subjects;  were not examined by n e u r o l o g i s t s ;  introduces  research  to the author improved  reviewed above and  perception  are compounded by  eliminate  inadequately  and  The  inaccurate  l a b e l i n g and  variations  recognition objects).  l a c k o f knowledge o f what e f f i c i e n t  writer's research  some o f these  be  c o n t r o l l e d sub-  i s , the l e n g t h o f time i t r e q u i r e s to operate and  t i o n to v i s i o n .  study.  i n Appendix B appears t o  (which p e r m i t s u n c o n t r o l l e d  f o r and p a l p a t i o n o f s t i m u l u s  difficulties  their  assumption, which, even i f t r u e ,  d e s c r i p t i o n s o f what i s b e i n g measured o r by test administration  as  t h a t i s , they  contaminated by u n i n t e n t i o n a l cross-modal i n t e r f e r e n c e o r by  i n search  not  a f u r t h e r s e t o f p o o r l y c o n t r o l l e d v a r i a b l e s to the  The  searches;  (4) the b r a i n - i n j u r e d s u b j e c t s were  u s i n g d i f f e r e n t m e d i c a t i o n s which a c c o r d i n g performance; t h i s i s a q u e s t i o n a b l e  A  difficulties.  described  below has  These haptic  its rela-  attempted  to  CHAPTER I I I  METHODOLOGY  Subjects Three s u b j e c t groups were used i n t h e main s t u d y : group one was composed o f twelve normal, c h i l d r e n weight  ( c o n t r o l s i n a study o f low b i r t h -  i n f a n t s a t Vancouver G e n e r a l H o s p i t a l ) who had been examined by a  n e u r o l o g i s t and a s s e s s e d as h a v i n g no n e u r o l o g i c a l impairments;  group  two was composed o f twelve s u b j e c t s , t e n from t h e above study o f low b i r t h - w e i g h t i n f a n t s who had been examined by a n e u r o l o g i s t and diagnosed as h a v i n g minimal b r a i n damage and two from t h e Pearkes C l i n i c i n V i c t o r i a thought by p s y c h o l o g i s t s t o have minimal b r a i n damage (but n o t examined by a n e u r o l o g i s t ) ;  group t h r e e was. composed o f twelve s u b j e c t s  from t h e G. F. S t r o n g R e h a b i l i t a t i o n C e n t e r , S u r r e y Treatment  Center,  and G. R. Pearkes C l i n i c who had been diagnosed as h a v i n g c e r e b r a l p a l s y of  the s p a s t i c hemiplegic v a r i e t y .  S i x were most i m p a i r e d i n t h e r i g h t  hand, s i x were most i m p a i r e d i n t h e l e f t . The ages o f t h e s u b j e c t s ranged to  t e n y e a r s , e l e v e n months.  The f i r s t  from e i g h t y e a r s , zero months, two groups were mostly e i g h t o r  n i n e y e a r s o l d , w h i l e t h e t h i r d group was more e v e n l y d i s t r i b u t e d over the age range. to  upper  Income l e v e l s o f f a m i l i e s appeared  t o range  lower  middle. S u b j e c t s ' p a r e n t s were c o n t a c t e d by t e l e p h o n e .  to  from  I f they agreed  t e s t i n g a t s c h o o l , a form l e t t e r was s e n t t o them f o r t h e i r s i g n a t u r e , 16,  17  g i v i n g the w r i t e r permission  t o t e s t t h e i r c h i l d a t s c h o o l ; i f they  d e s i r e d t e s t i n g a t home, arrangements were made a t t h e i r convenience. Sample s e l e c t i o n was determined by (1) t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s u b j e c t s  with-  i n t h e Lower Mainland and V i c t o r i a a r e a , and (2) t h e w i l l i n g n e s s o f parents  and c h i l d r e n . t o p a r t i c i p a t e .  Materials The  t a s k s used f o r the study were based on a s e r i e s o f t a s k s con-  s t r u c t e d by K e n d a l l and K e n d a l l  (1969) and a p p l i e d by them t o a normal  p o p u l a t i o n o f c h i l d r e n aged t h r e e t o e i g h t y e a r s . i n a follow-up  (In t h i s study, and  by Dumaresq, i t was found t h a t l i t t l e  improvement o f  s c o r e s o c c u r r e d a f t e r age s i x and t h a t normal f o u r - y e a r - o l d s were a b l e to comprehend and c a r r y o u t t a s k s i n v o l v i n g h a p t i c d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . ) The  t a s k o b j e c t s c o n s i s t e d o f geometric forms and a s m a l l number  o f common objects."*"  The t a s k was composed o f seven subtasks,  each o f  which attempted t o e v a l u a t e performance on one o r more o f t h e q u a l i t i e s o f s i z e , shape, and t e x t u r e , as i n d i c a t e d : Subtask Subtask  I:  shape  I I : size  Subtask I I I :  texture  Subtask  IV:  shape and s i z e  Subtask  V:  Subtask  VI:  Subtask V I I :  s i z e , shape, and t e x t u r e cross-modal shape cross-modal s i z e  "*"Most o f the o b j e c t s a r e shown on p. 18 ( F i g u r e I)  18  19  Subtask I o b j e c t s were geometric designs  (circle,  square,  tri-  angle, octagon, and f i v e - p o i n t e d s t a r ) made o f smooth p l a s t i c o f uniform t h i c k n e s s and s u r f a c e a r e a . squares o f u n i f o r m  Subtask I I o b j e c t s were smooth p l a s t i c  t h i c k n e s s and t h r e e d i f f e r e n t s i z e s .  o b j e c t s were s t r i p s o f m a t e r i a l s o f uniform ferent surfaces ranging o f uniform  Subtask IV o b j e c t s were  wooden s o l i d s o f v a r y i n g s i z e and shape. dimensional  s i z e and shape w i t h s i x d i f -  from rough t o smooth, p a s t e d  shape and a r e a .  geometric and common o b j e c t s  Subtask I I I  on cardboard  surfaces  three-dimensional  Subtask V used t h r e e ( p l a y - s i z e spoon, k n i f e , f o r k ,  and c o i n s ) which d i f f e r e d i n one, two, o r t h r e e q u a l i t i e s from each other.  Subtasks VI and V I I used t h e o b j e c t s o f t h e f i r s t two subtasks  i n a cross-modal c o n d i t i o n .  1  Procedure A l l t e s t i n g was c a r r i e d o u t by t h e w r i t e r .  S u b j e c t s were t e s t e d  e i t h e r i n t h e i r s c h o o l s o r i n t h e i r homes, u s u a l l y a l o n e .  Each s u b j e c t  s a t on a low c h a i r so t h a t h i s / h e r arms c o u l d be comfortably  thrust into  the c u r t a i n e d f r o n t o f a s t u d e n t ' s  d i v i d e r sep-  s c h o o l desk.  A cardboard  a r a t e d h i s / h e r arms i n s i d e t h e desk, and a c u r t a i n h e l p e d i n s i d e o f t h e desk from t h e s u b j e c t s a t on t h e f l o o r on t h e o p p o s i t e  ( F i g u r e s I I and I I I ) .  s i d e o f t h e desk  t o conceal the The w r i t e r  (from which t h e back  had been removed) so t h a t he c o u l d p l a c e t h e o b j e c t s i n t h e s u b j e c t ' s  "''Subtasks I - I I I examined t h r e e separate dimensions o f t h e s e n s i t i v i t y o f a c t i v e touch i n t r a - m o d a l l y . Subtasks IV and V were i n t e n d e d t o examine s e n s i t i v i t y t o more than one d i f f e r e n c e , i n t r a - m o d a l l y , and subt a s k s VI and V I I were i n t e n d e d t o examine t h e e f f e c t o f t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of the v i s u a l modality.  FIGURE  II  21  FIGURE I I I  22  hands i n the a p p r o p r i a t e sequence and observe the a c t i v i t y o f the hands. F o r the f i r s t t r i a l o f each o f the f i r s t s t i m u l u s o b j e c t was  p l a c e d i n the p r e f e r r e d hand  the s u b j e c t t o w r i t e h i s / h e r name) and w h i l e examined Me  ( w i t h i n the desk) two  o t h e r hand.  The  '"pool" o b j e c t was  a  ( i . e . , the hand used by  i t was  being held  and  p o o l o b j e c t s were p l a c e d s u c c e s s i v e l y i n  s u b j e c t was  asked t o i n d i c a t e o r a l l y whether each  the "same" o r " d i f f e r e n t " when compared to the  o b j e c t i n the p r e f e r r e d hand. , The  d i f f e r e d i n even one way,  stimulus  s u b j e c t s were t o l d t h a t i f the  were the same, the c o r r e c t response would be  O r a l naming was  f i v e subtasks,  objects  "same" but t h a t i f they  the c o r r e c t response would be  "different."  discouraged.  For the second t r i a l  i n each o f the f i r s t  f i v e subtasks  the  s t i m u l u s o b j e c t s were p l a c e d i n the n o n - p r e f e r r e d  hand, and the  pool  o b j e c t s were p l a c e d i n the p r e f e r r e d hand. this  Subsequent t r i a l s  continued  alternation. The  first  trial  f o r subtasks  VI and VII r e q u i r e d the  stimulus  o b j e c t to be p l a c e d i n the p r e f e r r e d hand beneath the desk top w h i l e p o o l o b j e c t s were p l a c e d on the desk top i n view o f the s u b j e c t who asked t o p o i n t to but not touch hand. The  The  s u b j e c t was  second t r i a l  top and  the  "same" o b j e c t w i t h the  warned t h a t both o b j e c t s might be  the was  non-preferred  "different."  r e q u i r e d the s t i m u l u s o b j e c t to be p l a c e d on the desk  the p o o l o b j e c t s t o be p l a c e d s u c c e s s i v e l y i n the p r e f e r r e d hand;  an o r a l response was  requested.  the procedure o f the f i r s t and hand to p a l p a t e the o b j e c t s . procedure.  The  t h i r d and  second t r i a l s , The  last  fourth t r i a l s u s i n g the  four t r i a l s  repeated  non-preferred  repeated  the  entire  23  O b j e c t s were p r e s e n t e d memory.  simultaneously  T h i r t y seconds were a l l o w e d  the average time taken was  to minimize the e f f e c t  f o r each response b e f o r e  prompting;  f i f t e e n seconds f o r most s u b j e c t s  the t a s k i n about t w e n t y - f i v e m i n u t e s ) .  of  (who  Because s e a r c h i n g was  not  finished con-  s i d e r e d as p a r t o f the t a s k , o b j e c t s were p l a c e d i n each s u b j e c t ' s hands. So t h a t e x p l o r a t i o n f o r each s u b j e c t would be as s i m i l a r as p o s s i b l e , the hemiplegic  s u b j e c t s were g i v e n the a d d i t i o n a l h e l p o f h a v i n g  the f i n g e r s  o f the a f f e c t e d hand wrapped around the o b j e c t s when necessary when necessary  having  tasks.  The  also  the o b j e c t s r o t a t e d i n t h e i r hands.  Task o b j e c t s were not seen by the s u b j e c t s d u r i n g the t i o n o f subtasks  and  I to V which were a d m i n i s t e r e d  o r d e r o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f subtasks  minimize the e f f e c t o f  administra-  b e f o r e the l a s t two I t o V was  sub-  v a r i e d to  training.  Scoring There were a t o t a l o f f o r t y - e i g h t t r i a l s first  f o u r subtasks  and  e i g h t i n the l a s t t h r e e s u b t a s k s .  were r e q u i r e d f o r each t r i a l ,  and both had  as c o r r e c t .  Most t r i a l s  response; two  r e q u i r e d two  "same" responses;  Each t r i a l was  the s u b j e c t ' s s i g h t a f t e r the two  See Appendix A, pp.  r e q u i r e d a "same" and three required  responses  a  to  "different"  two  marked on an answer sheet out  responses were made."*"  46-50.  Two  to be c o r r e c t f o r the t r i a l  be c o n s i d e r e d  " d i f f e r e n t " responses.  i n the t a s k , s i x i n the  of  24  Pilot  Study Because the r e v i s i o n o f the t a s k composed by K e n d a l l and K e n d a l l  was  e x t e n s i v e , i t was  f e l t n e c e s s a ry  to determine whether o r not normal  s u b j e c t s c o u l d s c o r e w e l l on i t b e f o r e the e x p e r i m e n t a l To e v a l u a t e the r e v i s i o n , to p r o v i d e a c r i t e r i a s c o r e s and to a l l o w the w r i t e r t o develop a p i l o t study was  begun.  f o r normal  f i e l d e x p e r i e n c e w i t h the t a s k ,  undertaken w i t h twenty-One elementary  e i g h t to t e n , r e p r e s e n t i n g b o t h sexes, who  study was  s t u d e n t s , aged  were c o n s i d e r e d by  their  t e a c h e r s and p r i n c i p a l t o be normal o r average students i n academic physical  and  activities. I t was  d e c i d e d t h a t any  i t e m missed by more than two  j e c t s i n the p i l o t study would be e l i m i n a t e d o r rearranged. a l t e r a t i o n s were made w h i l e t e s t i n g the f i r s t f i n a l v e r s i o n was  o f the subSeveral  fourteen subjects.  a d m i n i s t e r e d t o seven s u b j e c t s  ( f o u r male and  female) whose s c o r e s ranged from 42 to 47 w i t h a mean o f 44.5.  such  The three Although  the sample s i z e i s not l a r g e , i t appeared t o the w r i t e r t h a t these r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t a normal s u b j e c t s h o u l d be a b l e t o s c o r e a b l y w e l l on the  reason-  revision.  Design The e x p e r i m e n t a l  study proposed t o measure assumed degrees o f  b r a i n damage a g a i n s t a s c a l e o f a c t i v e touch. d e s i g n was  A m u l t i - f a c t o r i a l ANOVA  employed t o a n a l y z e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t a s k means f o r the t h r e e  groups o f s u b j e c t s .  When the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was  p a r i s o n s were performed t o d i s c o v e r which subtask  r e j e c t e d , m u l t i p l e comd i f f e r e n c e s were  respon-  s i b l e f o r the MANOVA r e s u l t s , and 95 p e r c e n t c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l s were calculated.  25  Hypothesis '.  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s t h a t t h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t between t h e a b i l i t i e s o f normal, mbd and sbd s u b j e c t s  difference  to discriminate  the q u a l i t i e s o f s i z e , shape, and t e x t u r e by t h e employment o f a c t i v e touch i n intra-modal  and c r o s s - m o d a l c o n d i t i o n s .  t h e s i s i s that there i s a d i f f e r e n c e . s e t a t .05.  The a l t e r n a t e hypo-  The l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n e was  CHAPTER IV  CONCLUSION  Results^ Hoyt's ANOVA was employed t o examine t h e r e l i a b i l i t y o f each subt a s k f o r a l l s u b j e c t s combined and f o r each group o f s u b j e c t s . data a r e p r e s e n t e d The  especially  i n Tables I t o IV.  r e l i a b i l i t y coefficients  s i d e r a b l y lower  These  f o r t h e normals  (Table I) a r e con-  than f o r t h e o t h e r groups f o r subtasks  f o r subtasks  I I I , IV, V I , and V I I .  I and I I and  I t would appear t h a t chance  has p l a y e d a much g r e a t e r r o l e i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f s c o r e s than has the t a s k d e s i g n , a l t h o u g h t h e r e l a t i v e l y  s m a l l n and the s m a l l number o f  e r r o r s suggests  t h a t these c o e f f i c i e n t s s h o u l d be regarded w i t h s u s p i c i o n .  The  f o r subtask V, on t h e o t h e r hand, i s i n f i n i t e l y l a r g e ;  coefficient  no e r r o r s were made.  R e l i a b i l i t y c a l c u l a t e d f o r the t o t a l t a s k f o r t h e  normals i s mediocre. C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h e mbd and sbd groups a r e r e l a t i v e l y (Tables I I and I I I ) , e s p e c i a l l y t o each group.  high  f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e t o t a l  Table IV i n d i c a t e s t h a t f o r t h e combined groups  task  reli-  a b i l i t y i s very r e s p e c t a b l e ( . 9 3 f o r the t o t a l ) . I n s p e c t i o n o f Tables I t o I I I a l s o d i s c l o s e s t h e d i f f e r i n g means  ''"The w r i t e r i s i n d e b t e d t o Dr. R i c h a r d Bennett who s e l e c t e d the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s and performed the necessary" o p e r a t i o n s a t the U.B.C. Computing C e n t e r . 26  27  TABLE I  NORMAL SCORES  Standard Deviation  Percent Correct  High Score  Low Score  I  6  3  5.42  .90  90  .36  II  6  4  5.5  .79  92  .29  III  5  3  4.67  .65  78  -0.0  IV  6  4  5.17  .83  86  -0.0  V  8  8  8.0  VI  8  7  7.92  .29  99  0.0  VII  8  7  7.83  .39  98  -0.0  47  39  2.39  93  Subtask  Total  .'Mean  44.5  0.0  r  Cronbach's Alpha  100  .50  .60  28  TABLE I I  mbd SCORES  High Score  Low Score  I  6  0  4.42  1.56  74  .68  II  6  • 3  4.83  1.19  81  .38  III  5  2  4.0  .85  66  IV  6  1  4.08  1.73  68  .65  V  8  2  6.58  1.78  81  .74  VI  8  3  7.42  1.44  93  .83  VII  8  5  6.92  1.16  86  .83  46  18  38.25  7.44  80  .89  Subtask  Total  Mean  Standard Deviation  Percent Correct  Cronbach s Alpha 1  r  -0.0  .87  29  TABLE I I I  sbd SCORES  High Score  Low Score  I  5  0  2.42  1.56  40  .46  II  5  1  3.0  1.41  50  .32  III  6  0  2.92  1.62  49  .87  IV  5  0  3.25  1.82  54  .66  V  7  1  3.67  2.19  46  .65  VI  8  4  6.17  1.4  77  .44  VII  8  2  6.08  1.78  76  .61  42  15  7.99  59  .85  Subtask  Total  Mean  27.5  Standard Deviation  Percent Correct  Cronbach s Alpha 1  r  .80  30  TABLE IV  COMBINED GROUPS  Standard Deviation  Percent Correct  High Score  Low Score  Mean  I  6  0  4.08  1.84  68  .74  II  6  1  4.44  1.56  74 '  .64  III  6  0  3.86  1.31  64  .43  IV  6  0  4.17  1.68  70  .66  V  8  1  6.08  2.42  76  .86  VI  8  3  7.17  1.36  90  .69  VII  8  2  6.94  1.41  87  .64  47  15  36.75  9.48  77  .93  Subtask  Total  Cronbach s Alpha 1  r  .91  31 o f t h e groups on t h e subtasks and t h e whole t a s k . R a t i o T e s t w i t h s i x dependent v a r i a b l e s  1  A MANOVA L i k e l i h o o d  was performed on t h e d a t a t o  determine i f t h e means d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y .  Because i t i s d e s i r a b l e  2 to d i s c o v e r t h e source o f s i g n i f i c a n c e  f o r an "F" v a l u e which exceeded  the .05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , m u l t i p l e comparisons were performed between a l l p o s s i b l e p a i r s , o f s u b t a s k s . examined  The f o l l o w i n g hypotheses were  f o r each subtask: - 3 H„: X = X = X 0 n m s H, : X J X ? X 1  n  m  s  and i n t h e event t h a t t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s c o u l d be r e j e c t e d i n f a v o r o f the a l t e r n a t e h y p o t h e s i s , t h e m u l t i p l e comparisons f o r each subtask were: H„ : X = X 01 n m H„ : X = X 02 m s H„,: X = X 03 n s  H,,: X ^ X 11 n m H.,„: X ^ X 12 m s H _: -X ^ X 13 n s  n  0  n  The MANOVA c a l c u l a t i o n s showed an F - v a l u e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 level  [F,..„ = 2.66, p < .01] f o r t h e whole t a s k . (12,56)  Table V describes  c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l s f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e means f o r a l l subt a s k s : t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e means f o r t h e normal and sbd groups  "'"Subtask V was e x c l u d e d from t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n because o f f a i l u r e t o meet t h e assumption o f homogeneity o f v a r i a n c e . 2 G l a s s and S t a n l e y , pp. 381-83. 3X r e f e r s t o t h e mean o f t h e normal group; X r e f e r s t o t h e mean o f t h e m i n i m a l l y b r a i n damaged group; X r e f e r s t o t h e mean o f t h e s e v e r e l y brain-damaged group. n  m  s  32  TABLE. V  SUBTASK COMPARISONS  95% C o n f i d e n c e Subtask I  Groups  Intervals  n vs. mbd  Shape  mbd vs. sbd n vs. sbd  II  Size  IV  VI  VII  Texture  S i z e , Shape  Cross-modal Shape  Cross-modal  Size  0.28 to 5.72* -1.63 to 2.96  mbd vs. sbd  -0.46 to 4.13 0.20 t o 4.80*  n vs. mbd  -1.55 t o 2.88  mbd vs. sbd  -1.13 to 3.30  n vs. sbd  -0.47 t o 3.97  n vs. mbd  -1.93 t o 4.10  mbd vs. sbd  -2.18 t o 3.85  n vs. sbd  -1.09 to 4.93  n vs. mbd  -1..82 to 2..82  mbd vs.  sbd  -1..07 t o 3..57  n vs.  sbd  -0.,56 to 4.,07  n vs. mbd  -1.55 t o 3. 38  mbd vs. sbd  -1.63 to 3.30  n vs. *  -0.72 to 4.72  n vs. mbd  n vs. sbd  :n  -1.72 to 3.72  sbd  S i g n i f i c a n t a t the 95 p e r c e n t l e v e l o f c o n f i d e n c e .  -0.72 to 4.28  33  are s i g n i f i c a n t f o r subtasks  I and I I ; d i f f e r e n c e s between normal and  mbd groups and between mbd and sbd groups a r e not s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .05 level. Assuming t h e t a s k t o be v a l i d ,  1  the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e :  (1) t h a t  t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e between t h e a c t i v e touch p e r c e p t u a l s k i l l s o f the normal and mbd s u b j e c t s t e s t e d ;  (2) t h a t t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e between  the a c t i v e touch p e r c e p t u a l s k i l l s o f t h e normal and sbd s u b j e c t s t e s t e d ; and  (3) t h a t t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e between the a c t i v e touch  s k i l l s o f the mbd and sbd s u b j e c t s t e s t e d .  perceptual  The n u l l h y p o t h e s i s i s  r e j e c t e d f o r d i f f e r e n c e s between normal and sbd means on subtasks  I and  I I and the whole t a s k ; i t i s n o t r e j e c t e d f o r d i f f e r e n c e s between normal and mbd means o r between normal and sbd means on subtasks  I I I to VII or  between mbd and sbd means ( e x c l u d i n g subtask V ) .  Discussion The  low r e l i a b i l i t y  c o e f f i c i e n t f o r t h e normal group may be the  r e s u l t o f the w r i t e r ' s attempt t o c o n s t r u c t a task on which normals would s c o r e very w e l l .  T h i s may have d i s t o r t e d t h e v a r i a n c e o f normal  s c o r e s and perhaps a c t e d as a c e i l i n g t o depress group.  C a l c u l a t i o n o f Cronbach's r e l i a b i l i t y  the means o f t h e normal  (Table I) i n d i c a t e s t h a t  "'"The v a l i d i t y o f t h e t a s k i s based upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f what i s b e i n g measured (see K e r l i n g e r , pp. 445-47, f o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f "content v a l i d i t y " and how i t can be measured). The items and procedures used are s i m i l a r t o those o f o t h e r s t u d i e s a l t h o u g h the author p a r t i c u l a r l y attempted t o c o n t r o l t h e e f f e c t o f language, memory, v i s u a l i n t r u s i o n s , and the v a g a r i e s o f s e a r c h i n g and g r a s p i n g . C o n f u s i o n o f s i z e and shape was a l s o c o n t r o l l e d i n s o f a r as p o s s i b l e . The w r i t e r b e l i e v e s t h a t t h i s t a s k may be regarded as b e i n g as v a l i d as any d e s c r i b e d i n t h e Review o f L i t e r a t u r e o r Appendix B.  \  34 increased r e l i a b i l i t y  might be o b t a i n e d by l e n g t h e n i n g t h e t a s k .  c o u l d lower r e l i a b i l i t y  f o r the o t h e r groups and the groups  This  combined  (Tables I I t o IV) b u t n o t by as much as i t might r a i s e r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the  normal group. R e j e c t i o n o f the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s f o r normal and sbd means on sub-  t a s k s I and I I demonstrates t h a t even w i t h a s s i s t a n c e from the t a s k a d m i n i s t r a t o r t o e l i m i n a t e t h e e f f e c t o f motor d y s f u n c t i o n the hemip l e g i c s u b j e c t s d i d n o t appear t o p e r c e i v e the q u a l i t i e s o f s i z e and shape as w e l l as t h e normal s u b j e c t s d i d . Acceptance o f t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s f o r subtask I I I and examination of all  the means i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e q u a l i t y o f t e x t u r e was d i f f i c u l t f o r subjects to discriminate.  The normal, and mbd groups a c h e i v e d  their  lowest p e r c e n t c o r r e c t on subtask I I I and t h e sbd group a c h i e v e d i t s second l o w e s t .  Subtask IV, where the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s was a l s o a c c e p t e d ,  was t h e second most d i f f i c u l t  s e c t i o n f o r t h e normal and mbd groups b u t  o n l y t h e f i f t h most d i f f i c u l t  f o r the sbd group.  The w r i t e r expected  s c o r e s on t h i s subtask t o be h i g h e r than f o r t h e f i r s t t h r e e subtasks because o f t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n to  the s u b j e c t s .  (more than one q u a l i t y )  available  I t would appear t h a t t h e normal and mbd s u b j e c t s were  e i t h e r c o n f u s e d by the a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n o r n e g l e c t e d i t . Subtask V was n o t i n c l u d e d i n t h e MANOVA procedure because the s c o r e s o f the normal group were regarded as v i o l a t i n g the p r e r e q u i s i t e of  homogeneity  o f v a r i a n c e ; t h e w r i t e r succeeded perhaps t o o w e l l i n t h e  c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a subtask on which normals would a c h i e v e h i g h s c o r e s . I n s p e c t i o n o f the p e r c e n t a g e c o r r e c t  (Tables I t o I I I ) shows t h e w i d e s t  35  spread between t h e means o f a l l the s u b t a s k s , and i t i s not unreasonable to suggest t h a t t h i s subtask does d i s c r i m i n a t e a t l e a s t between normals and  sbd s u b j e c t s .  I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n  t h r e e q u a l i t i e s ) a v a i l a b l e on each o b j e c t s t i m u l a t e d the normal s u b j e c t s , c a u s i n g brain-damaged s u b j e c t s All  them t o e x p l o r e  the c u r i o s i t y o f  more c a r e f u l l y .  Severely  may have been c o n f u s e d by the i n c r e a s e d  groups a c h i e v e d  (up t o  data.  t h e i r g r e a t e s t percentage c o r r e c t on subtasks  VI and V I I ( e x c l u d i n g subtask V f o r t h e normal s u b j e c t s )  which a r e essen-  t i a l l y r e p e t i t i o n s o f subtasks I and I I i n a cross-modal c o n d i t i o n . A l l groups i n c r e a s e d  t h e i r p e r c e n t a g e c o r r e c t more on t h e q u a l i t y o f shape  than on s i z e , e s p e c i a l l y the sbd s u b j e c t s t i o n seemed t o be most b e n e f i c i a l . considerable  f o r whom the cross-modal  condi-  The improvement i n sbd s c o r e s was so  t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e emerged.  Acceptance o f the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s f o r t h e means o f the mbd subj e c t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t these a r e n o t d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from those o f sbd subjects.  T h i s suggests a d y s f u n c t i o n  s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f t h e sbd sub-  j e c t s i n r e l a t i o n t o involvement o f those areas o f t h e b r a i n  responsible  f o r h a p t i t i o n , and t h i s i n t u r n suggests t h a t the argument f o r an organic  basis  f o r the mbd syndrome i s n o t w i t h o u t f o u n d a t i o n .  The mbd  means a r e a l s o , however, n o t d i s t i n g u i s h e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the means o f t h e normal s u b j e c t s ;  t h a t i s , i n r e l a t i o n t o h a p t i t i o n , mbd  p r o b a b l y do not d i f f e r by o r g a n i c  or other  f a c t o r s from normal  subjects subjects.  Three p o s s i b i l i t i e s emerge: (1) t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f minimal b r a i n damage i s ambiguous;  (2) t h e r e may be an i n c i d e n c e o f h a p t i c d e f i c i e n c y i n t h e  mbd s u b j e c t s which ranges from none t o a d e f i c i e n c y s i m i l a r t o t h a t i n  36  sbd s u b j e c t s  ( i n c l u d i n g the p o s s i b i l i t y o f o r g a n i c involvement);  c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s o f the mbd o f a t t e n t i o n may The  ( F i g u r e IV)  subjects' scores.  does not r e p e a l any  o f n o n s i g n i f i c a n c e , nor does i t support bilities  o f the v e r d i c t s  d i r e c t l y any o f the t h r e e p o s s i -  mentioned above; i t does show a p a t t e r n o f s c o r e s f o r the groups  which resembles t h a t a n t i c i p a t e d by the w r i t e r b e f o r e The  (3)  syndrome such as h y p e r a c t i v i t y o r d i s o r d e r s  have a c t e d t o depress some mbd  graph below  and  normal s c o r e s are the h i g h e s t ; the mbd  the sbd s c o r e s a r e the lowest. reasonable,  t e s t i n g began.  s c o r e s are the second h i g h e s t ;  Possibilities  (2) and  (3) seem more  e s p e c i a l l y i n view of the f a c t t h a t the sample s i z e s are  not  large. To summarize: subtasks  I and I I d i f f e r e n t i a t e the normal and  sbd  groups; subtask I I I does not, perhaps because t e x t u r e s a r e d i f f i c u l t  for  any  s u b j e c t t o d i s c r i m i n a t e ; subtask IV does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e , and  i s no apparent reason why  i t should not;  there i s a strong suggestion from sbd s u b j e c t s ; subtasks t h e s i s , apparently the sbd  subtask V was  there  not a n a l y z e d ,  but  t h a t i t c o u l d d i f f e r e n t i a t e a t l e a s t normal VI and V I I a l s o do not r e j e c t the n u l l hypo-  because o f the e f f e c t o f the employment o f v i s i o n  by  subjects.  Educational  Implications  D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between normal and  sbd s u b j e c t s on a t a s k o f hap-  t i t i o n i s s u r e l y not a r e v e l a t i o n ; the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e may  not extend t o the q u a l i t y o f t e x t u r e and  t h a t cross-modal c o n d i t i o n s  a l l o w c o n s i d e r a b l e improvement f o r sbd s u b j e c t s i n r e l a t i o n t o h a p t i c p e r c e p t i o n suggests t h a t i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques  f o r sbd c h i l d r e n s h o u l d  37  o  I  _(  1  I  II  . _|  ,  III  1  J  ,  __j  IV  V  VI  VII  S u b t a s k s .  Normal  scores  M i n i m a l l y brain-damaged S e v e r e l y brain-damaged  six.  scores scores  * The maximum number o f c o r r e c t responses f o r subtasks The maximum f o r subtasks V t o V I I i s e i g h t .  FIGURE IV SUBTASK MEANS  I t o IV i s  38  utilize  intra-modal  v i s u a l and cross-modal methods which do n o t emphasize  h a p t i t i o n . . Cross-modal c o n d i t i o n s may have t h e e f f e c t o f a l l o w i n g sbd children to perceive  haptic information  as w e l l as normal c h i l d r e n do.  A c t i v i t i e s which emphasize the development o f a c t i v e touch may be e i t h e r i r r e l e v a n t o r even a f r u s t r a t i n g waste o f time. Nonsignificance other  o f d i f f e r e n c e s between mbd means and those o f  groups suggests t h a t c h i l d r e n who might be diagnosed as h a v i n g  minimal b r a i n damage should functional s k i l l s ;  be t r e a t e d e d u c a t i o n a l l y a c c o r d i n g  i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t some o f t h e mbd s u b j e c t s  to their tested  who s c o r e d within..one S.D. o f t h e sbd mean might have s i m i l a r p e r c e p t u a l dysfunctions  (which may o r may n o t be o r g a n i c a l l y b a s e d ) .  p r o p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n and e x p e c t a t i o n s tion.  In t h i s respect,  instrument t o e v a l u a t e its utility  I f so, ap-  must be a p p l i e d t o t h e i r  situa-  t h e subtasks c o u l d be used as a s c r e e n i n g an i n d i v i d u a l ' s h a p t i c p e r c e p t i o n  as an e d u c a t i o n a l  i n regard t o  modality.  Limitations A number o f problems, f o r e s e e n  and unforeseen, a r o s e i n t h e  course o f t h i s study which may be regarded as i n i m i c a l t o t h e r e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d above: 1)  s u b j e c t s w i t h i n each group were n o t randomly s e l e c t e d ; in obtaining subjects could  difficulty  r e q u i r e d t h e w r i t e r t o t e s t whomever he  f i n d and o b t a i n p e r m i s s i o n  to test;  2)  task v a l i d i t y i s n o t e s t a b l i s h e d ;  3)  t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f subtasks VI and VII was so complex t h a t the w r i t e r s e v e r a l times a d m i n i s t e r e d  trials  t o t h e wrong hand.  39  Because o f the d i f f i c u l t y o f o b t a i n i n g s u b j e c t s these s c o r e s were not excluded 4)  t h e r e was  from a n a l y s i s ; "*"  little  c o n t r o l over how  w e l l o b j e c t s were e x p l o r e d ;  sometimes responses were made b e f o r e t h e r e was tion; 5)  and  d e f i n i t i o n o f the groups d i d not p r o v i d e homogeneous motor involvement  Future  groupings;  v a r i e d c o n s i d e r a b l y among sbd s u b j e c t s , v a r y i n g e x p r e s s i o n s o f the mbd  and  mbd  subjects presented  The  v a l i d i t y and u s e f u l n e s s o f the d e f i n i t i o n s i s q u e s t i o n a b l e .  syndrome.  Research The  1)  complete e x p l o r a -  f o l l o w i n g suggestions  while comparatively on v i s i o n ,  a r e made f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h :  g r e a t e f f o r t has been expended f o r r e s e a r c h  t h e r e i s s t i l l much t h a t i s not known about the oper-  a t i o n of that modality.  Relatively l i t t l e  expended f o r r e s e a r c h on h a p t i t i o n , and more t h a t i s not known about i t . can be measured; we  been  there i s l i k e l y  even  V i s u a l a c u i t y , f o r example,  do not know how  to measure h a p t i c a c u i t y ( i f  such a p a r a l l e l concept, i s p e r m i s s i b l e ) . "What i s good h a p t i t i o n ? " and  e f f o r t has  Questions  such as  "What i s the minimum temporal i n -  t e r v a l r e q u i r e d t o p e r c e i v e an o b j e c t h a p t i c a l l y ? " must be answered; 2)  f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f what i s b e i n g p e r c e i v e d by a c t i v e touch  "'"At the time o f t e s t i n g , a l l a v a i l a b l e sbd s u b j e c t s (who d i d not have o t h e r s e r i o u s d i s o r d e r s ) i n the Lower Mainland and V i c t o r i a area were used. The sbd sample, t h e r e f o r e , i s c l o s e to a t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n .  40  i s necessary;  f o r example, i t would be d e s i r a b l e to d i s c o v e r  shape and s i z e can b e s t be s e p a r a t e d 3)  how  f o r measurement;  c o r r e l a t i o n s o f v i s u a l and h a p t i c p e r c e p t i o n of q u a l i t i e s would be d e s i r a b l e ;  4)  r e p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s study which would i n c l u d e a c o r r e l a t i o n w i t h a measure o f a t t e n t i o n span might a l l o w us to judge the  effect  o f b r a i n i n j u r y more c l e a r l y ; 5)  some comparisons f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s between group means approach s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h i s study a t the task  ( e s p e c i a l l y subtasks  .05 l e v e l .  Refinement o f the  I I I and V) and e x p l o r a t i o n s w i t h  groups seem d e s i r a b l e b e f o r e the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s  larger  i s permanently  accepted or r e j e c t e d ; 6)  i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t s who  s c o r e d more than one  standard d e v i a t i o n  from the mean s h o u l d be e v a l u a t e d w i t h o t h e r p s y c h o l o g i c a l and e d u c a t i o n a l instruments  t o determine i f these s u b j e c t s m a n i f e s t  other.exceptional characteristics.  The  data a v a i l a b l e on them  i s n e i t h e r complete nor so s t a n d a r d as to be 7)  comparable;  the e f f e c t on h a p t i c d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f combinations  of  qualities  s h o u l d be compared; t h a t i s , are o b j e c t s d i f f e r i n g by s i z e texture  (with shape r e m a i n i n g  s t a t i c ) more e a s i l y d i s c r i m i n a b l e  than those d i f f e r i n g by shape and static)? 8)  and  texture  (with s i z e  remaining  and  the e f f e c t o f p e r s o n a l i t y v a r i a b l e s and c o g n i t i v e s t y l e a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d  (see Appendix B, p.  64).  should  BIBLIOGRAPHY  B a r s c h , Roy. The Perceptual Motor Curriculum. C h i l d P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1967.  S e a t t l e , Wash.: S p e c i a l  B a r t l e y , Howard. "The P e r c e p t i o n of S i z e o r D i s t a n c e Based on T a c t i l e and K i n e a s t h e t i c Data." Journal of Psychology SSSVI (1953):401-8. Benton, A r t h u r . " S t e r e o g n o s i s T e s t , " Dept. o f Psychology, V i c t o r i a , 1960.  University of  Benton, A r t h u r and S c h u l t z , Leonard. "Observations on T a c t u a l Form Perc e p t i o n (Stereognosis) i n P r e s c h o o l C h i l d r e n . " Journal of Clinical Psychology V (1949):359-64. B i r c h , H e r b e r t . Brain Damage in Children. W i l l i a m s , 1964. Blank,  B a l t i m o r e , Md.:  Williams  and  Marion e t a l . "Crossmodal T r a n s f e r o f Form D i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n P r e s c h o o l C h i l d r e n . " Psychonomic Science, 1968, X(2):51-52.  Boshes, Benjamin and Myklebust, Helmer. "A N e u r o l o g i c a l and Study o f C h i l d r e n w i t h L e a r n i n g D i s o r d e r s . " Neurology  Behavioural (1963):7-12.  Clements, Samuel. "Minimal B r a i n D y s f u n c t i o n i n C h i l d r e n , " P u b l i c H e a l t h S e r v i c e P u b l i c a t i o n , N a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e s of N e u r o l o g i c a l Diseases and B l i n d n e s s , 1966. Compton, C a r o l y n . "The R e l a t i o n s h i p Between I n t e r s e n s o r y I n t e g r a t i o n and M u l t i - s e n s o r y Approaches i n Remedial Readers." Ph.D. dissertation, U n i v e r s i t y o f S t a n f o r d , 1970. Concannon, S i s t e r J o s e p h i n e . "A Review o f Research on H a p t i c P e r c e p t i o n . " The Journal of Educational Research, 1970, LXIII(6):250-52. C o n n o l l y , K e v i n and Jones, B i l l . "A Developmental Study o f A f f e r e n t R e a f f e r e n t I n t e g r a t i o n . " British Journal of Psychology, 1970, I I : 259-66. Cruickshank, W i l l i a m , J u n k a l a , J . B., and P a u l , J . C. The Preparation of Teachers of Brain-Injured Children. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1968. Cummings, E. E. Poems 1923-1954. New Inc., 1954.  York: H a r c o u r t , Brace, and  Denner, Bruce and Cashdan, Sheldon. "Sensory P r o c e s s i n g and the t i o n o f Forms i n Nursery S c h o o l C h i l d r e n . " British Journal Psychology, 1967, LVIII:101-4. 41  World,  Recogniof  42  Dumaresq, M a r i l y n . " S t e r e o g n o s i s . " C l a s s paper, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971. Eastman, Robert. "The R e l a t i v e Crossmodal T r a n s f e r o f a Form D i s c r i m i n a t i o n . " Psychonomic Science, 1967, IX(4):197-98. F i l l i p o v , A. V. "K Voprosu ob Adekvatnom O t r a z h e n i i Passivno-osyazaemogo Ob'ekta." Voprosii Psikhologii, 1965, no. 4:103-10. F i s h e r , G e r a l d . " V i s u a l and T a c t i l e - K i n e a s t h e t i c Shape P e r c e p t i o n . " British Journal of Psychology, 1965, XXXV:69-78. Gaines, B e v e r l e y and Raskin, L a r r y . "Comparison o f Crossmodal and I n t r a modal Form R e c o g n i t i o n i n C h i l d r e n w i t h L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . " Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1970, I I I ( 5 ) : 2 4 3 - 4 6 . Gibson, James. " O b s e r v a t i o n s on A c t i v e Touch." Psychological 1962, LXIX(6):477-91. ..  "The U s e f u l Dimensions o f S e n s i t i v i t y . " American (1963):1-15.  Review,  Psychologist  G l a s s , Gene and S t a n l e y , J u l i a n . Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . , 1970. G l i n e r , C y n t h i a . " T a c t u a l D i s c r i m i n a t i o n T h r e s h o l d s f o r Shape and Text u r e i n Young C h i l d r e n . " Experimental Child Psychology, 1967, V:536-47. H a l l a h a n , D. and Cruickshank, W. Psycho-Educational Foundations of Learning Disabilities. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.-: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1973. Hermelin, Beate and O'Connor, N. " R e c o g n i t i o n o f Shapes by Normal and Subnormal C h i l d r e n . " British Journal of Psychology, 1961, L I I ( 3 ) : 281-84. K a u f f e r , G. " P e r s o n a l i t y O r i e n t a t i o n and S i z e - D i s t a n c e P e r c e p t i o n . " In Perceptual Changes in Psychopathology. E d i t e d by I t t l e s o n and Kutash. Rutgers, N.J.: Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1961. K e n d a l l , D. L. and K e n d a l l , D. M. " S t e r e o g n o s i s i n Young C h i l d r e n . " Research Report, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969. Kephart, N e w e l l . The Slow Learner in the Classroom. C h a r l e s E. M e r r i l P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1971. K e r l i n g e r , F r e d . Foundations of Behavioral R i n e h a r t and Winston, I n c . , 1964.  Research.  Columbus, Ohio:  New  York: H o l t ,  43  K r a n t z , Murray. " H a p t i c O b j e c t R e c o g n i t i o n . " Ph.D. s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1969.  d i s s e r t a t i o n , Penn-  K r e n z e l , Ken. "Development o f E q u i v a l e n c e o f Amount i n the V i s u a l and H a p t i c M o d a l i t i e s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Y e s h i v a U n i v e r s i t y , 1970. Lobb, H a r o l d . "Asymmetrical T r a n s f e r o f Form D i s c r i m i n a t i o n A c r o s s Sensory M o d a l i t i e s i n Human A d u l t s . " Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, LXXXVI(3):350-54. Lomov, B o r i s . "Lenin's Theory o f R e f l e c t i o n and Psychology." T r a n s l a t e d by D. Kovach and P. Tkach. I n s t i t u t e o f General and E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, Academy o f P e d a g o g i c a l S c i e n c e s , Moscow, Studia Psychologica, 1971, XIII(3):173-80. Mackay, C. and MacMillan, J . "A Comparison o f S t e r e o g n o s t i c R e c o g n i t i o n i n Normal C h i l d r e n and S e v e r e l y Subnormal A d u l t s . " British Journal of Psychology, 1968, LIX(4):443-47. Medinnus, Gene and Johnson, Diane. " T a c t u a l R e c o g n i t i o n o f Shapes by Normal and Retarded C h i l d r e n . " Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, no. 22, p. 406. M i l n e r , P e t e r . Physiological Winston, 1970.  Psychology.  New  York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t  Myklebust, H. e t a l . "Guidance and C o u n s e l l i n g f o r the Deaf;:" Annals for the Deaf (Sept. 1962):370-415. N e t t e r , Frank. Nervous  System. New  York: CIVA P h a r m a c e u t i c a l  and  American  Co.,  1967.  Northman, John. " V i s u a l and H a p t i c I n f o r m a t i o n P r o c e s s i n g i n C h i l d r e n . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Purdue U n i v e r s i t y , 1970. O'Donnell, P. A. Motor and l i s h i n g Co., 1969. Perez,  Haptic  Learning.  C a l i f o r n i a : Dimensions Pub-  P a u l . "Size-Constancy i n Normals and S c h i z o p h r e n i c s . " Perceptual Changes in Psychopathology. E d i t e d by I t t l e s o n and Kutash. Rutgers, N.J.: Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1961.  P i a g e t , Jean and I n h e l d e r , B a r b e l . The Child's Concept of Space. London: Routledge and Kegan P a u l , 1963. T r a n s l a t e d by F. J . Langdon and J . L. Lunzer. R a d l e r , D. H. w i t h Kephart, N. Success 1959.  Through Play.  New  York: Harper,  Ryan, Sarah. "A Developmental I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f Crossmodal T r a n s f e r o f  44  Shape and T e x t u r e . " Ph.D. 1970.  d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota,  Semmes, J o s e p h i n e . "A Non-Tactual F a c t o r i n A s t e r e o g n o s i s . " chologia, 1965, 111:295-315.  Neuropsy-  Semmes, J o s e p h i n e e t a l . " S p a t i a l O r i e n t a t i o n i n Man A f t e r C e r e b r a l I n j u r y : I . A n a l y s e s by Locus o f L e s i o n . " The Journal of Psychology, 1955, XXXIX:227-44. S i e g a l , A l e x a n d e r and Vance, B i l l i e . " V i s u a l and H a p t i c Dimensional P r e f e r e n c e : A Developmental Study." Developmental Psychology, 111(2):264-66.  1970,  Solomons, Hope. "A Development 1 Study o f T a c t u a l P e r c e p t i o n i n Normal and B r a i n - I n j u r e d C h i l d r e n . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Boston U n i v e r s i t y , 1957. Spreen, 0. and Gaddes, W. "Developmental Norms f o r F i f t e e n N e u r o l o g i c a l T e s t s , Ages S i x t o F i f t e e n . " Cortex, 1969, V:171-91. S t r a u s s , A. and L e h t i n e n , L. Psychopathology and Education of the Injured Child. New York: Grune and S t r a t t o n , 1947, v o l . 1.  Brain-  Vaught, Glen. "Form D i s c r i m i n a t i o n as a F u n c t i o n o f Sex, Procedure and T a c t u a l Mode." Psychonomic Science, 1968, X(4):151-52. W l o d a r s k i , Ziemowit. " P e r c e p j a a Rozponawanie." T r a n s l a t e d by R. Psychologia Wychowawcza, 1966, IX(1):32-41.  Perel.  Wormeli, C. T. " H a p t i c P e r c e p t i o n i n Normal and H a r d - o f - H e a r i n g C h i l d r e n . " C l a s s paper, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1972. Zinchenko, V. and Ruzkaya, A. " S r a v n i t e l ' n i i A n a l i z O s y a z a n i y a i Z r e n i y a . " In Vospriyatie and Deistvie. E d i t e d by A. Z a p a r o z z h e t s . Moscow: P r o s v e s h c h e n i e , 1967.  APPENDIX A  INSTRUCTIONS AND DATA-GATHERING FORM  45  46  Task 1.  Administration Request the s u b j e c t to w r i t e h i s / h e r name to e s t a b l i s h the " p r e f e r r e d " hand  (or ask w i t h which hand does the s u b j e c t w r i t e ) .  2.  Note sex, age,  3.  E s t a b l i s h whether o r not s u b j e c t knows " s a m e - d i f f e r e n t " w i t h p i c t u r e cards.  Do not c o n t i n u e  are same o r 4.  Do  group, and  date.  i f the c h i l d i s unable t o t e l l why  different.  three explanatory  t r i a l s w i t h the l a r g e wooden b l o c k s ; i f the sub-  j e c t i s u n s u c c e s s f u l , a d m i n i s t e r the f i r s t responses a r e a l l i n c o r r e c t , t e r m i n a t e 5.  pictures  subtask  chosen.  I f the  testing.  Begin the t e s t i n g w i t h the s t i m u l u s o b j e c t i n the c h i l d ' s p r e f e r r e d hand; p l a c e p o o l o b j e c t s i n o t h e r hand s u c c e s s i v e l y and ask to  subject  i n d i c a t e "same" o r " d i f f e r e n t " ; r e c o r d responses when completed  (both must be c o r r e c t i f the response sheet i s to be marked as c o r rect) .  Switch hands f o r the second t r i a l  f a s h i o n f o r each o f the f i r s t  and  f i v e subtasks.  alternate in this • For the l a s t two  sub-  t a s k s , b e g i n by p l a c i n g the s t i m u l u s o b j e c t i n the p r e f e r r e d hand and the p o o l o b j e c t s on the desk top; f o r the second t r i a l p l a c e  the  s t i m u l u s o b j e c t on the desk top and p l a c e the p o o l o b j e c t s i n the p r e f e r r e d hand, s u c c e s s i v e l y . p r e f e r r e d hand; the next two 6.  Allow  Position  ( f o r I to V ) .  t r i a l s w i t h the  non-  w i t h the p r e f e r r e d hand, e t c .  t h i r t y seconds b e f o r e prompting.  t e s t i n g begins 7.  Do the next two  Choose subtask  order  Always a d m i n i s t e r VI and VII  before  last.  the s u b j e c t on a low c h a i r on the c u r t a i n e d s i d e o f the desk  w i t h arms t h r u s t i n t o the desk on each s i d e o f the d i v i d e r .  Be  47  c a r e f u l to c o n c e a l o b j e c t s from s u b j e c t . 8.  Vary the chosen o r d e r o f the f i r s t m a i n t a i n the s u b j e c t ' s a t t e n t i o n .  f i v e subtasks,  i f necessary,  to  ACTIVE TOUCH  group ciste  i-i ayes  48  Ksndednas  <{7 Ir.  1  r  Shsps Pool  ». i ~  i  3, I  II,  1  _  Size  1, 3  3  ?, 5  5  5„ 3  3  3, X  5  3,  5  5  5  >  9  Response  Pool  ..li-  I  'Rest;o»;f*  4, 10 __"Si5:  _  fe  IX  • 10  9  5•  ?--r 10'  X  ZSLJ^ _ 9  .. . ...  AT  i0 ' 6  '  .._ _ l:b....lZ... ._ . i i  11, 12' 15, !-"-  . yi..  u.  S  .  .  ,  13 -  . libber' • -ball  3'soon  __..„_ 17, 16 '  I  .... ,ia*-J3 ball,  14  .... . 2 ' .6 „ 15  _~ ..J?.*. § ' 1  _ik.iL. _  _ :  cf  APPENDIX B  RELATED LITERATURE  51  52  A number o f r e s e a r c h e r s modal and  have i n v e s t i g a t e d a c t i v e touch i n i n t r a -  cross-modal c o n d i t i o n s .  While t h e i r experiments are  d i r e c t l y p e r t i n e n t t o the study p r e s e n t e d  above, they are r e l e v a n t i n  terms o f the m a t e r i a l s and procedures used by the w r i t e r . w i t h m a t e r i a l s and procedures and and cross-modal c o n d i t i o n . parameters: sex,  age,  not  i s subdivided  into:  Part I  deals  form, s i z e ,  Part II contains descriptions of  texture,  subject  b r a i n i n j u r y , i n t e l l i g e n c e , p e r s o n a l i t y , and  deaf-  ness.  J.  Material A.  Parameters  Shape:  quently  Ability  and  Conditions  t o i d e n t i f y shape seems t o be the most  examined s u b j e c t o f i n q u i r y i n t o m a t e r i a l q u a l i t i e s .  i n v o l v e the use o f g e o m e t r i c a l common household o b j e c t s and  s o l i d s which have two  t o p o l o g i c a l s o l i d s which vary  o f p r o t u b e r a n c e s or i n d e n t a t i o n s .  These are p r e s e n t e d  modal or cross-modal c o n d i t i o n s , s i m u l t a n e o u s l y and  l a b e l l i n g may  be encouraged  f i n g e r t i p e x p l o r a t i o n may Conclusions  be  (or i g n o r e d ) .  t i o n o f the 1969,  p.56).  from r e s e a r c h  p o s i t i o n o f the  has  dimensions,  i n the number  in either intra-  or successively.  Memory  Actual manipulation  i n t o shape p e r c e p t i o n shape i s p e r c e i v e d .  f i n g e r bones h e l p s  tend t o be  or  intro-  It i s believed  to determine p e r c e p -  form o f an o b j e c t w i t h which they are i n c o n t a c t Gibson, who  Methods  allowed.  s p e c t i v e because i t i s not known how t h a t the a n g u l a r  or t h r e e  fre-  (O'Donnell  i n v e s t i g a t e d h a p t i t i o n more f u l l y  than  most i n v e s t i g a t o r s , s t a t e s t h a t the hand " i s s e n s i t i v e t o the v a r i a b l e s o f s o l i d geometry, not those o f p l a n e .  . . . The  hand can d e t e c t a l l o f  the f o l l o w i n g p r o p e r t i e s : the s l a n t o f a s u r f a c e , the c o n v e x i t y  or  53  c o n c a v i t y o f a s u r f a c e , the edge o r c o r n e r a t the j u n c t i o n o f two more s u r f a c e s , and the s e p a r a t i o n o f two The  edges" (Gibson 1963,  or  p. 6 ) .  s k i n i s analogous t o the r e t i n a i n terms o f the f u n c t i o n o f i t s r e -  c e p t o r s i n r e c e i v i n g data on  form.  Benton (1960) d e v i s e d a t e s t o f a c t i v e touch which employed dimensional  geometric  modal c o n d i t i o n .  The  forms  1  i n simultaneous  two-  presentation i n a cross-  forms were covered w i t h sandpaper and were  p r e s e n t e d t o the s u b j e c t f o r f i n g e r t i p e x p l o r a t i o n w h i l e a p o o l o f twelve drawings was  presented v i s u a l l y .  the matching form.  Gliner  The  s u b j e c t was  asked  (1967) employed two-dimensional  i n t r a - m o d a l t a c t i l e c o n d i t i o n w i t h simultaneous j e c t s t r i e d t o match a s t i m u l u s o b j e c t i n one  to choose  forms i n an  presentation.  Her  sub-  hand w i t h p o o l o b j e c t s i n  the o t h e r . Fisher  (1965) employed t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l  c o n d i t i o n w i t h simultaneous  presentation.  d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h Benton's and  Gliner's:  forms i n a  cross-modal  His experiment shares s e v e r a l (1) the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the  forms are not s y s t e m a t i c a l l y v a r i e d (except f o r G l i n e r ' s forms which a r e a l l e l l i p s e s ) ; the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f one  form t o another  i s not  de-  s c r i b e d , and the reader does not know to what e x t e n t they can be d i s c r i m i n a t e d from each o t h e r ;  (2) the v a r i a b l e b e i n g measured may  not be t h a t  o f form; G l i n e r ' s e l l i p s e s grow l o n g e r o r s h o r t e r as compared to the stimulus object. may  Is shape o r s i z e b e i n g measured?  be posed f o r the o t h e r experiments.);  (A s i m i l a r q u e s t i o n  (3) the comparative  difficulty  "''The forms are not a c t u a l l y two-dimensional; they a r e c o n s t r u c t e d from t h i n p i e c e s o f wood o r hardboard so t h a t the dimension o f t h i c k n e s s i s minimal and s t a t i c between o b j e c t s .  54  o f d i s c r i m i n a t i n g each o b j e c t i s undetermined h a p t i c experiments  ( t h i s i s common t o a l l  because o f the l a c k o f knowledge o f what i s b e i n g  ex-  plored) . The employment o f some forms t o i n v e s t i g a t e shape i s more accept a b l e than the employment o f o t h e r s .  For example, i t i s e a s i e r t o be  a s s u r e d t h a t the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between a two-inch i n c h octagon  i s based on the p e r c e p t i o n o f form  c i r c l e and a  two-  ( t h i c k n e s s and t e x t u r e  b e i n g s t a t i c ) than i t i s t h a t the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between a r e c t a n g l e and a square i s based on the p e r c e p t i o n o f shape. A c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the q u a l i t i e s s u b j e c t s are a b l e t o d i s c r i m i nate i n an e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n i s p r e s e n t e d by Krantz who a diagram o f h a p t i t i o n  (Krantz 1969,  Haptic Perceptual Activity  Object Presentation  S  p.  R  S-  Evocation of Mediators r  -r  S-  m m  s  m m m  ——  Overt Recognition Behavior  s  — Recognition Response  —— s  m r  r  m  —— s  R i s e x p l o r a t i o n hand movements; S i s p r o x i m a l i s a h a p t i c mediator.  stimulation;  Four s t a g e s o c c u r i n the e x p e r i m e n t a l procedure: i s presented;  (1) the o b j e c t  (2) a s e r i e s o f h a p t i c i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g o r  behaviors occur  us  20):  r Object  offers  (these a r e a complex p r o d u c t o f t a c t i l e and  scanning  kinesthetic  experience, and the p r o x i m a l s t i m u l a t i o n which r e s u l t s cannot be  directly  55  measured nor completely  s p e c i f i e d even when the p h y s i c a l makeup o f  o b j e c t i s e a s i l y measured);  (3) the p r o x i m a l  stimulus  the  evokes a s e r i e s o f  h a p t i c mediators which have been p r e v i o u s l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the  object;  each i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a s p e c i f i c i n t e n s i t y i n r e l a t i o n t o a p a r t i c u l a r object  ( i n t e n s i t y i s a continuous p r o p e r t y  of a l l mediators),  and  for  each mediator i s d e s c r i b e d a q u a l i t a t i v e l y continuous dimension which i s i t s e l f assigned  to a separate  axis i n a multi-dimensional  dimensions c r o s s a t a s i n g l e p o i n t c o r r e s p o n d i n g ordinate  system, and  t o the c e n t e r o f the  co-  the m u l t i v a r i a t e space d e f i n e d by t h i s system i s  termed " h a p t i c space";  (4) i f each h a p t i c mediator evoked corresponds to  a dimension o f the s t i m u l u s  o b j e c t s , the s u b j e c t can i n d i c a t e c o r r e c t l y  on an i s o l a t e d s c a l e dimensions c o r r e s p o n d i n g the mediators  system—all  (Krantz, pp.  t o those r e p r e s e n t e d  by  20-23).  K r a n t z employed common household o b j e c t s i n a cross-modal cond i t i o n o f successive presentation with i s o l a t e d f i v e haptic mediators: (2) rough-smooth ( f r i c t i o n ) ; f i n g e r and  fingers);  (angularity). The (3) and  eight-year-old children.  (1) r e s i s t a n c e  (3) s i z e  (to muscular e x e r t i o n ) ;  ( d i s t a n c e between thumb and  (4) warmth (temperature);  He  and  A s u b j e c t d e f i n e s h a p t i c space w i t h  (5)  fore-  sharpness  these m e d i a t o r s .  d e f i n i t i o n o f a form c o u l d e a s i l y i n v o l v e the o p e r a t i o n  (5);  of  (3) c o u l d e a s i l y a c t as a confounding v a r i a b l e i n many  experiments or c o u l d a c t u a l l y r e p l a c e what the experimenter b e l i e v e s i s b e i n g measured.  B.  Size:  F i n g e r span i s an important source o f i n f o r m a t i o n  smaller objects; together  w i t h the angle o f the  about  f i n g e r j o i n t s i t may  56  produce an a c c u r a t e  percept  o f the dimensions o f s m a l l o b j e c t s .  o b j e c t s can be s t u d i e d by e x t e n d i n g b o t h arms, i n v o l v i n g elbows, w r i s t s , and f i n g e r j o i n t s . gests  Bartley  Larger  shoulders,  (1953) s t a t e s t h a t t h i s  t h a t " T a c t i l e e x p l o r a t i o n i s a p i e c e m e a l a f f a i r , and some  sug-  'tactile'  means must e x i s t t o i n t e g r a t e the m a t e r i a l i n t o a u n i t t o r e p r e s e n t the object,  i f i t i s t o be s a i d t h a t t h e o b s e r v e r apprehends shape,  size,  e t c . t a c t u a l l y " ( B a r t l e y , p. 401). A f t e r a s e r i e s o f experiments, B a r t l e y concluded t h a t  haptic  a p p r e c i a t i o n o f s i z e o p e r a t e d w i t h p r i n c i p l e s s i m i l a r t o those o f vision;  f o r example, the f a r t h e r away an o b j e c t i s the s m a l l e r  perceived  t o be, r e g a r d l e s s  of size.  w i t h s i z e as a p r i m a r y s u b j e c t  C. two  Texture:  i t is  Other experimenters have n o t d e a l t  for inquiry.  I t i s p o s s i b l e f o r an o b s e r v e r t o d i s t i n g u i s h between  s u r f a c e s , one o f which i s r i g i d and one o f which i s y i e l d i n g , by  p r e s s i n g them w i t h h i s f i n g e r s  (Gibson, 1963).  When combined w i t h t h e  f r i c t i o n c r e a t e d by s l i d i n g f i n g e r s over a s u r f a c e , t h e r e s i s t a n c e t o muscular e x e r t i o n o f an o b j e c t h e l d o r p r e s s e d information  can serve  on the t e x t u r e o f the s u r f a c e o f t h a t  T e x t u r e may be c o n s i d e r e d ( S i e g a l and Vance, 1970).  Gliner  as a source o f  object.  as t h e h a p t i c e q u i v a l e n t  of color  (1967) noted a s i g n i f i c a n t l y  better  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n performance f o r h e r s u b j e c t s when m a t e r i a l s were comparat i v e l y rough r a t h e r than smooth. Texture does n o t appear t o be as important t o h a p t i t i o n as s i z e and  shape.  preference  S i e g a l and Vance conducted a comparison o f v i s u a l and h a p t i c f o r form, s i z e , color., and t e x t u r e w i t h f i v e ,  s i x , and e i g h t -  57  year-olds. was  For t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l  the dominant p r e f e r e n c e  Texture was  D.  from s i x y e a r s on,  not dominant a t any  Cross-modal:  objects presented.simultaneously,  form  v i s u a l l y and h a p t i c a l l y .  age.  R e l a t i v e l y few  experiments are l i m i t e d s o l e l y to  consideration of haptic information.  Most i n v o l v e a comparison o f  f o u r p o s s i b l e combinations o f i n s p e c t i o n and  the  r e c o g n i t i o n of stimulus  p o o l o b j e c t s : v i s u a l - v i s u a l ; v i s u a l - h a p t i c ; h a p t i c - v i s u a l ; and  and  haptic-  haptic. Zinchenko and  Ruzkaya  (1967) p o s t u l a t e  t h a t the t o o l s o f p e r c e p -  t i o n are determined or c r e a t e d by r e a c t i o n s t o the problem.of p e r c e i v i n g the environment i n the most e f f i c i e n t way e f f i c i e n t f o r most i n f o r m a t i o n - g a t h e r i n g man  possible.  purposes; t h e r e f o r e ,  operates p r i m a r i l y with visual.forms;  other modalities  V i s i o n i s more  he may  the  normal  t r a n s f e r forms from  i n t o v i s u a l form but r a r e l y v i c e - v e r s a .  Zinchenko  and  Ruzkaya's experiments show the r e s u l t s o f v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n a f t e r v i s u a l r e c o g n i t i o n t o be  s i g n i f i c a n t l y b e t t e r than the r e s u l t s o f h a p t i c  n i t i o n a f t e r h a p t i c i n s p e c t i o n ; moreover, the i n t r a - m o d a l t i o n i s b e t t e r than e i t h e r cross-modal condition.. t h a t the h a p t i c - v i s u a l c o n d i t i o n p e r m i t t e d intra-modal all.  An  distinct  recog-  v i s u a l condi-  They a l s o  reported  b e t t e r comparisons than  the  h a p t i c c o n d i t i o n ; v i s u a l - h a p t i c comparisons were p o o r e s t  e f f e c t i v e exchange between the m o d a l i t i e s , forms f o r b o t h i n s p e c t i o n and  o n l y a t the end  of preschool  age  they noted,  r e c o g n i t i o n , and  of  requires  becomes p o s s i b l e  ( s i x to seven y e a r s o l d ) .  Ryan (1970) i n v e s t i g a t e d asymmetrical cross-modal r e l a t i o n s h i p s with t r a n s f e r of t r a i n i n g tasks  and  concluded that " c e r t a i n  stimulus  58  dimensions are more s a l i e n t  for certain modalities  dimensions . . . "  "Cross-modal t r a n s f e r was  (p. 57).  than are  other  significantly  b e t t e r f o r the m o d a l i t y o r d e r o f v i s i o n t o touch than f o r t o u c h t o vision  . . ."  (p.  Wlodarski  33). (1966) r e p o r t e d  o f Zinchenko-Ruzkaya.  somewhat d i f f e r e n t f i n d i n g s from those  Employing s u c c e s s i v e  d i m e n s i o n a l f i g u r e s , he r e p o r t e d  presentation with  t h a t the i n t r a - m o d a l  haptic  a l l o w e d b e t t e r matching than e i t h e r cross-modal c o n d i t i o n . t h a t a l l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s improved w i t h h i s subj e c t s ' age  twocondition  He  and  noted  suggested a  developmental r e l a t i o n s h i p between the m o d a l i t i e s which improves w i t h age. A n a l y s i s o f d a t a from a p r e f e r e n c e searching  l e d Northman  t e s t f o r v i s u a l and  (1970) t o r e p o r t t h a t more time was  haptic  spent i n  h a p t i c e x p l o r a t i o n than i n v i s u a l e x p l o r a t i o n , but he suggests t h a t may  not mean t h a t the h a p t i c m o d a l i t y was  "preferred";  t h a t the v i s u a l m o d a l i t y i s more e f f i c i e n t . t o be  He r e p o r t e d  indicate  v i s u a l memory  s u p e r i o r t o h a p t i c memory and p o s i t e d a " c e n t r a l o r g a n i z o r "  necessity?)  t o determine the most a p p r o p r i a t e  Connolly son  i t may  and  Jones  (1970) d e v i s e d  strategy  this  for  (or  perception.  a t r a n s f e r o f t r a i n i n g compari-  i n v o l v i n g d u p l i c a t i o n o f a l i n e segment p r e s e n t e d h a p t i c a l l y and  estimation  o f a l i n e segment p r e s e n t e d v i s u a l l y .  also reported  that both intra-modal  modal performances, and  Eastman's  performances were s u p e r i o r t o  l i k e Zinchenko and  h a p t i c - v i s u a l sequence t o be  L i k e W l o d a r s k i , they  Ruzkaya, they found  cross-  the  s u p e r i o r to the v i s u a l - h a p t i c sequence.  (1967) r e s u l t s are  s i m i l a r to those o f C o n n o l l y  and  59  Jones.  Blank e t a l . (1968) r e p o r t e d  the v i s u a l - h a p t i c sequence t o  s u p e r i o r t o the h a p t i c - v i s u a l sequence, but were used, and required  i t i s not  inconceivable  three-dimensional  t h a t the a d d i t i o n a l  f o r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w i t h t h e s e o b j e c t s may  be  objects  information  have produced  this  reversal. In t h i s c o n n e c t i o n by h a p t i c s t i m u l a t i o n and t i o n and  Fillipov  (1965) used v i s u a l t r a i n i n g f o l l o w e d  v i s u a l r e c o g n i t i o n w i t h simultaneous  presenta-  concluded t h a t the s u c c e s s o f the t r a i n i n g t r a n s f e r depended  on the c o m p l e x i t y o f the elements t o be p e r c e i v e d , p o s i t i o n i n space.  Structures  d i d not exceed 64mm  2  t h e i r s i z e , and  most e a s i l y r e c o g n i z e d  by  the  and were not composed o f more than two  their  fingertip elements.  1  I t seems r e a s o n a b l e t o suppose, a t l e a s t by analogy, t h a t s i m i l a r l i m i t a t i o n s may  be a p p l i e d t o e x p l o r a t i o n by  t i v e to v i s i o n , h a p t i t i o n i s simply This conclusion  and  as a s e r i e s o f " c e n t r a t i o n s "  (Piaget and  Jones and  Inhelder,  Summary o f m a t e r i a l s  above i s very  1963)  and  Northman t h a t h a p t i c s t o r a g e  decay than i s v i s u a l s t o r a g e  E.  not a b l e to p e r c e i v e  seems e s p e c i a l l y l i k e l y g i v e n P i a g e t ' s  haptic perception an o b j e c t )  the e n t i r e hand, and  that  rela-  as much data.  d e s c r i p t i o n of  (impressions  the s u g g e s t i o n  of  of parts  of  Connolly  i s more s u b j e c t t o temporal  o f memories.  and  procedures:  To compare the  experiments  d i f f i c u l t because almost t h e i r o n l y common f a c t o r i s the  ^Although F i l l i p o v ' s a r t i c l e may be t r a n s l a t e d as "On the quest i o n o f the Adequacy o f P e r c e p t i o n o f the P a s s i v e l y - T o u c h e d O b j e c t , " the p r o c e d u r e r e q u i r e s the a p p l i c a t i o n o f the f i n g e r t i p t o some f i g u r e s , r a t h e r than h a v i n g the f i g u r e s a p p l i e d to i t , so I have i n c l u d e d the a r t i c l e in this discussion.  60  i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the l i m i t s o f a c t i v e touch. authors who have compared i n t r a - m o d a l of  I t would appear t h a t a l l  and cross-modal matching o r t r a n s f e r  t r a i n i n g agree t h a t t h e i n t r a - m o d a l v i s u a l c o n d i t i o n i s b e s t ; t h e  ranking o f the other three c o n d i t i o n s i s disputed. simple, d i s t i n c t  G i v e n t h e use o f  "two-dimensional" m a t e r i a l s , the h a p t i c - v i s u a l c o n d i t i o n  seems t o be s u p e r i o r t o t h e v i s u a l - h a p t i c c o n d i t i o n . There i s the problem o f confounding  the q u a l i t y o f form w i t h  t h a t o f s i z e , and t h e e f f e c t o f t h e d i s c r i m i n a b i l i t y o f m a t e r i a l s r e q u i r e s more i n v e s t i g a t i o n as does t h e . s i z e and number o f . t h e p o o l o b j e c t s , the f u n c t i o n o f memory, t h e r o l l o f l a b e l l i n g  (voiced or unvoiced),  dif-  f e r i n g t r a i n i n g p r a c t i c e s , and t h e type o f response demanded from t h e subjects.  JJ.  Subject A.  Parameters  Sex:  Vaught  (1968) r e p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t female s u p e r i o r i t y on  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f two-dimensional forms in. a p a s s i v e touch s i t u a t i o n ; i n an a c t i v e touch s i t u a t i o n , .he.found no sex d i f f e r e n c e . (1970), Benton and S c h u l t z  S i e g a l and Vance  (1949) and Spreen and Gaddes' norms (1969) o f  Benton's S t e r e o g n o s t i c Test- (I960)- d i d n o t d i s c r i m i n a t e a c t i v e touch s c o r e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y by sex.  B.  Age:  H a p t i c p e r c e p t i o n develops  gradually  (P.iaget and I n h e l d e r  1963): (1) stage I l a s t s from about .two-and-a-half t o f o u r y e a r s o f age; by t h e end o f t h i s p e r i o d . t h e c h i l d i s a b l e t o r e c o g n i z e f a m i l i a r shapes haptically and  ( i n a t a c t i l e t o v i s u a l c o n d i t i o n ) , b u t he does n o t e x p l o r e  "contents h i m s e l f " w i t h i n i t i a l  impressions  o f p a r t s o f an o b j e c t  61  ("centrations"); o r seven y e a r s ; globally.and  (2) stage I I l a s t s from about f o u r - a n d - a - h a l f i n t h i s p e r i o d the c h i l d begins t o explore  non-methodical; by the end o f t h e p e r i o d he can  some e u c l i d e a n  modal c o n d i t i o n ; and  f i g u r e s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by a n g l e s i n a c r o s s -  (3) stage I I I b e g i n s a t s i x - a n d - a - h a l f  o r seven y e a r s  l a s t s through adulthood; t h e c h i l d b e g i n s s y s t e m a t i c  objects—he  i s able t o return t o the p o i n t i n i t i a l l y  a point o f reference; plex  objects  e s t a b l i s h e s r e l a t i o n s h i p s between some e x t r e m e t i e s o f  objects but i s s t i l l recognize  to s i x  exploration of  f e l t and use i t as  i n a cross-modal c o n d i t i o n he can r e c o g n i z e  com-  forms. In these stages t h e c h i l d p r o g r e s s e s from r e c o g n i z i n g by a c t i v e  touch common household o b j e c t s  to recognizing  t o p o l o g i c a l shapes  w i t h o u t d e f i n i t e geometric form) t o r e c o g n i z i n g geometric shapes. process o f "decentration"  occurs  (Piaget and I n h e l d e r Benton and S c h u l t z  c h i l d r e n three and  labelling.  A  (the t r a n s p o s i t i o n o f one c e n t r a t i o n  onto another so t h a t a g e n e r a l i z a t i o n i s p o s s i b l e ) older  (objects  as the c h i l d grows  1963, pp. 37-41). (1949) conducted a cross-modal examination o f  t o s i x - y e a r s - o l d , employing household o b j e c t s , memory, They r e p o r t e d .that "under t h e s p e c i f i c  testing of tactual appreciation u t i l i z e d  investigations of  i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , stereog-  n o s t i c c a p a c i t y shows some growth i n t h e range o f t h r e e c a p a c i t y extends, back i n t o very  to s i x years"  and  that stereognostic  and  i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y a n t e d a t e s the motor language s k i l l s  naming v i s u a l l y p e r c e i v e d Ryan, Solomons, C o n n o l l y  objects.  early  childhood  involved i n  The experiments o f Spreen and Gaddes,  and Jones, G l i n e r , and Zinchenko and Ruzkaya  62  show r e s u l t s which tend t o agree w i t h the schema o f P i a g e t and Blank e t a l . , however, r e p o r t e d  evidence o f cross-modal t r a n s f e r  o f form d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t r a i n i n g u s i n g t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l ( v i s u a l to h a p t i c c o n d i t i o n )  Inhelder.  f o r c h i l d r e n o f three  geometric  objects  to f o u r y e a r s .  Part  o f F i s h e r ' s experiment r e p o r t s t h a t c h i l d r e n are a b l e to  discriminate  l i n e a r shapes more e a s i l y than t o p o l o g i c a l shapes by age  four.  results  guidelines  (which are as v a l i d as any)  d e s c r i b e d by P i a g e t and  Inhelder  may  suggest t h a t the age not be a c c u r a t e  and  that  These  the  sequence o f development from t o p o l o g i c a l t o geometric shape r e c o g n i t i o n may  not be a d e q u a t e l y  C.  Brain Injury:  described.  The.most p e r t i n e n t l i t e r a t u r e has  been  discussed  above. All  s t u d i e s which have i n v e s t i g a t e d t h i s parameter must contend  w i t h the f a c t t h a t d i r e c t evidence o f b r a i n i n j u r y i s very development o f n e u r o l o g i c a l examinations based on p s y c h o l o g i c a l evidence a l l o w s  physicians  b r a i n i n j u r y , i n s p e c i f i c l o c a t i o n s but  rare.  The  some p h y s i c a l and much  to p o s t u l a t e  the d i f f i c u l t y  the e x i s t e n c e of empirical  of veri-  f i c a t i o n does not p e r m i t complete t r u s t i n these d i a g n o s e s . Educationally,  c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f b r a i n i n j u r y i s important i n  t h a t a number o f programs which p o s t u l a t e b r a i n i n j u r y or d y s f u n c t i o n a cause f o r c e r t a i n d i f f i c u l t i e s  i n s c h o o l have been p r e s e n t e d as  s a r y procedures t o . e l i m i n a t e these d i f f i c u l t i e s . t r a i n i n g i s whether or not h a p t i c p r o c e s s i n g enced by v a r i o u s  disabilities  and  neces-  "A major i s s u e i n can be  forms o f t r a i n i n g e x e r c i s e s o r whether or not  n e c e s s a r y t o work w i t h the r e s i d u a l a b i l i t i e s  as  influ-  i t is  a l l o w the s u b j e c t  to  63  compensate by u t i l i z i n g h i s a s s e t s "  D.  Measured I n t e l l i g e n c e :  (O'Donnell 1969,  c h i l d r e n about twelve y e a r s o l d who  ( c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y ) w i t h a group o f had  cross-modal c o n d i t i o n s  a mean mental age  all  i n the  The  retarded  The  intra-modal  sample produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y  and  authors  Medinnus and u s i n g an i n t r a - m o d a l nonsense b l o c k s .  Johnson  conditions.  h a p t i c d i s c r i m i n a t i o n task employing two-dimensional  o f t h e i r groups.  employed by Hermelin and  no  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the  I t must be noted, however, t h a t the measured  i n t e l l i g e n c e of t h e i r retarded  sample was  higher  than t h a t of the  sample  O'Connor.  M a c m i l l a n performed an experiment more comparable to  t h a t o f Hermelin and  O'Connor i n terms o f the degree o f r e t a r d a t i o n  measured i n the e x p e r i m e n t a l group. o f Hermelin and  signifi-  (1966) performed a s i m i l a r experiment,  They r e p o r t e d  MacKay and  in  superior  h a p t i c c o n d i t i o n but d i d not d i f f e r  c a n t l y from the normal group i n the o t h e r  scores  years.  t h a t the normal sample m a i n t a i n e d s i m i l a r r e c o g n i t i o n s c o r e s  conditions.  scores  o f 5.4  used two-dimensional Greek  Russian alphabet l e t t e r s with successive p r e s e n t a t i o n . reported  46).  Hermelin and O'Connor (1961) compared  normal c h i l d r e n about f i v e y e a r s o l d  Intra-modal and  p.  O'Connor, and  T h e i r r e s u l t s were s i m i l a r to those  they suggest t h a t h a p t i t i o n i s c o n t r o l l e d  by a r e a s o f the b r a i n which may  not be  i n v o l v e d i n the types o f  i n s u l t which are a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s e v e r e r e t a r d a t i o n .  cerebral  This function  develop f u r t h e r so t h a t when matched w i t h normal c h i l d r e n f o r mental the t a c t i l e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f r e t a r d e d  c h i l d r e n w i l l be  superior.  may age,  64  E.  Personality:  T h i s parameter has  not been r e s e a r c h e d  with  refer-  ence t o h a p t i c p e r c e p t i o n ; however, i f the o p e r a t i o n o f the h a p t i c modality  i s p o s t u l a t e d t o be analogous t o the o p e r a t i o n o f the  modality  ( B a r t l e y 1953;.Gibson 1963), i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t p e r s o n a l i t y  v a r i a b l e s such as those  found t o a f f e c t v i s i o n may  W i t h i n the c o n t e x t o f t h i s . c o n s i d e r a t i o n , two Perez  nosed as s c h i z o p h r e n i c on a s i z e constancy t a s k He  also affect haptition.  experiments can be  (1961) compared s c o r e s o f normals and  form, s i z e , and color)..  visual  cited.  individuals diag-  (a p r e f e r e n c e  task f o r  r e p o r t e d t h a t the s c h i z o p h r e n i c group demon-  s t r a t e d a h i g h e r degree o f s i z e constancy than n o n - s c h i z o p h r e n i c s ; is,  t h e i r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f o b j e c t s was  based more on s i z e than  that  any  o t h e r parameter; normals d i s c r i m i n a t e d o b j e c t s on parameters o t h e r  than  size. Kauffer  (1961) r e p o r t e d i n an experiment on s i z e - d i s t a n c e r e l a -  t i o n s h i p s t h a t the s u b j e c t s judged to be personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s to f i l l v i s u a l s t i m u l i , as l a r g e r and  "moving-toward" (seeking  needs o f dependency, etc.)  c l o s e r than s u b j e c t s who  inter-  perceived  had been judged as  "moving-away" (seeking detachment from i n t e r - p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) . These were not s e v e r e l y p a t h o l o g i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f people,  but  simply  a l t e r n a t e c a t e g o r i e s t o which s u b j e c t s were a s s i g n e d by a p a n e l o f  F.  Deafness:  Deaf and h a r d - o f - h e a r i n g  by some w r i t e r s as h a v i n g (Myklebust 1962).  comparatively  Wormeli (unpublished,  c h i l d r e n have been  poor v i s u a l motor 1973)  judges.  regarded  skills  compared h a p t i c p e r c e p t i o n  o f normal c h i l d r e n t o t h a t o f deaf c h i l d r e n , u s i n g the t a s k employed i n the e x p e r i m e n t a l  study above.  No  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found.  65  Assuming t h e t a s k t o be v a l i d , visuo-motor s k i l l s and  i t would appear t h a t whatever may a f f e c t  i n t h e deaf does n o t a f f e c t h a p t i t i o n i n i n t r a - m o d a l  cross-modal c o n d i t i o n s .  G.  Summary o f S u b j e c t  Parameters:  There i s no s t r o n g evidence t o  i n d i c a t e t h a t sex has an e f f e c t on a c t i v e t o u c h .  There i s much e v i -  dence t o i n d i c a t e t h a t age does between t h r e e and n i n e y e a r s .  Explana-  t i o n s f o r t h e e f f e c t o f age i n c l u d e the development o f language, development o f v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n ,  improvement o f an i n t e r n a l t r a n s l a t i o n  mechanism, enlargement o f h a p t i c knowledge, and improved a t t e n t i o n a l skills. B r a i n i n j u r y appears t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t , e s p e c i a l l y when a s s o c i a t e d w i t h severe motor involvement o f the upper limbs as a symptom.  The e f f e c t o f minimal b r a i n damage does n o t appear t o be  significant. In r e g a r d that general  t o measured i n t e l l i g e n c e , i t i s p o s s i b l e t o s t a t e  i n t e l l e c t u a l r e t a r d a t i o n does n o t appear t o reduce t h e  haptic perception  o f those a f f e c t e d .  Nor does a u d i t o r y d y s f u n c t i o n seem  to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a d i f f e r e n c e i n h a p t i c The  e f f e c t o f p e r s o n a l i t y i s unknown except by e x t e n s i o n  i n f l u e n c e on v i s u a l p e r c e p t i o n .  ability.  of i t s possible  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054350/manifest

Comment

Related Items