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., University of Denver, 1968 M.A., University of 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 i n THE FACULTY OF EDUCATION THE DEPARTMENT OF SPECIAL EDUCATION We accept t h i s t hesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 1976 "c) Charles T. Wormeli, J r . , 1976 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Special Education The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: 30 June 1976 ABSTRACT The purpose of t h i s study was to explore the p o s s i b i l i t y of d i s -criminating between three groups of c h i l d r e n ("normal," "mildly b r a i n -damaged," and "severely brain-damaged") by evaluating t h e i r respective a b i l i t i e s to compare the s i z e , shape, and texture of c e r t a i n objects by means of t a c t i l e perception. To t h i s end seven subtasks were devised to measure the haptic perception of these q u a l i t i e s separately and i n combination. Two of the subtasks included v i s u a l perception as well i n a cross modal s i t u a t i o n . Twenty-one subjects were used i n a p i l o t study which res u l t e d i n minor changes being made to the subtasks. In the experimental study twelve subjects of both sexes between the ages of seven and ten years formed each of the three groups. Analysis of the r e s u l t s of the study showed s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ences (at the .05 level) between normal and severely brain-damaged sub-jec t s for two subtasks. No differences between minimally brain-damaged and severely brain-damaged subjects were shown for any of the subtasks at the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , and no diffe r e n c e was shown between normal and minimally brain-damaged subjects at t h i s l e v e l of s i g n i f i -cance. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. THE PROBLEM 1 Introduction 1 Def i n i t i o n s • 6 Hypothesis 9 I I . SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE 11 I I I . METHODOLOGY 16 Subjects 16 Materials 17 Procedure 19 Scoring . 23 P i l o t Study 24 Design 24 Hypothesis 25 IV. CONCLUSION 26 Results 26 Discussion 33 Educational Implications 36 Limitations 38 Future Research 39 i i i i v Page BIBLIOGRAPHY 41 Appendixes A. INSTRUCTIONS AND DATA-GATHERING FORM . . . . . . . . . 45 Task Administration 46 B. RELATED LITERATURE 51 Material Parameters and Conditions . . . . . . . . . 52 Subject Parameters . 60 LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Normal Scores 27 I I . mbd Scores 28 I I I . sbd Scores 29 IV. Combined Groups 30 V. Subtask Comparisons 32 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page I. Task Objects 18 I I . Subject at Task 20 I I I . Training Objects i n Subject's Hands 21 IV. Subtask Means 37 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A number of i n d i v i d u a l s and organizations went out of t h e i r way to help the writ e r gather data for t h i s paper: Ms .. T. M. Brown (Queen Eli z a b e t h Annex) Mr. A. F. Clark (Laurier Elementary) Mr. S. E. Cutherbertson (Wolfe Elementary) Dr. H. Dunn (Vancouver General Hospital) Ms. L. Eaves (Vancouver General Hospital) Dr. W. Gaddes (University of V i c t o r i a ) Mr. G. E. Glass (Carleton Elementary) Ms. L. Haft (Queen V i c t o r i a Elementary) Mr. E. H. Hintz (Hudson Elementary) Mr. R. N. H o l l i n s (Shaughnessy Elementary) Ms. K. Hunter (Children's Hospital Diagnostic Center) Dr. P. K. Johnston (G. R. Pearkes C l i n i c ) Ms. D. Kendall Mr. F. G. Lindsey (Seymour Elementary) Mr. C. Lorimer (Rhodes Elementary) Mr. A. G. Moodie (Vancouver School Board) Ms. Payne (Variety Treatment Center) Ms. R. Perel Mr. K. F. Neale.(Brock Elementary) Ms. F. M. Robertson Dr. J. A. Robinson (Children's Hospital Diagnostic Centeri Ms. H. Runsy Mr. J.. Sparks (Nightingale Elementary) Mr. J. Stuart (Nootka Elementary) Mr. E. H. Vollens (Kitchener Elementary) S t a f f of G. F. Strong R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Center S t a f f of G. R. Pearkes C l i n i c for Handicapped Children S t a f f of Variety Treatment Center i n Surrey I wish to thank Dr. R. Bennett who provided s t a t i s t i c a l services; I e s p e c i a l l y wish to thank the members of my committee: Dr. B. Clarke, Dr. J. Crichton, Dr. P. Koopman, and my advisor, Dr. David Kendall (with-out whom none of t h i s would have happened). I would also l i k e to 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 parents, and I wish to note my appreciation to Dr. B. Wong, who l i s t e n s w e l l . v i HAPTITION: INTRA-MODAL AND CROSS-MODAL COMPARISONS BETWEEN NORMAL AND BRAIN-INJURED CHILDREN v i i CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction i think i t s h a l l be roses and spring w i l l b ring her worms rushing through loam. (afterward i ' l l climb by t a l l c a r e f u l muscles into nervous and accurate 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 leaves and a l i t t l e harder for roses only a l i t t l e harder l a s t we on the groaning flame of neat huge trudging k i s s moistly climbing hideously with large minute hips, 0 .press worms rushing slowly through loam 1 Most poems of e. e. cummings attempt to produce v i s u a l images, but a few also employ the sense of touch to create impressions of t a c t i l e e. e. cummings, Poems 1923-1954 (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1954), p. 55. 1 2 sensations. The f i r s t use of the word "roses" i n the above poem may pro-duce a v i s u a l image i n the mind of the reader because there i s no contex-t u a l clue to accompany i t . An i n d i v i d u a l ' s environmental sensations and memories are mostly 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 perceptual t o o l that we possess. By using i t , we can perceive s p a t i a l information such as the dimensions of a room or the shape of a flower within a few seconds. The perception of information t a c t u a l l y requires much more time. With long vowels and "s" sounds, cummings slows down the reader on the fourth l i n e and introduces a memory of t a c t i l e sensation: the reader remembers that while he can perceive loam v i s u a l l y , he can also walk on i t , dig i n i t , and f e e l i t running through hi s fingers; loam i s a r i c h , s o f t , y i e l d i n g substance. Two more words, "climb" and "muscles," urge the reader to become aware of h i s own body, proprioceptively, so that he can e a s i l y become involved i n sensual, t a c t i l e , k i n e s t h e t i c experience i n the next stanza where the word "roses" evokes more than a v i s u a l image. In the l a s t stanza the t a c t i l e k i n e s t h e t i c experience i s f r a c t i o n -ated; the reader may perceive separately the sensations of orgasm, much as he perceives, v i a touch, each part of a geometric figure before he comprehends the whole figure. Cummings i s not concerned with the mechanics of perception; he i s concerned with i t s representation. A great part of contemporary educa-t i o n a l research, however, i s concerned with the explanation of the per-ceptual processes to which cummings appeals. One outcome of t h i s research 3 has been the postu l a t i o n of educational modalities to trace the percep-t i o n of information. The two modalities which have received most attention from researchers are v i s i o n and audition;, the f a c t that c h i l d r e n e x i s t who do not learn through these modalities has been p a r t i a l l y responsible for the r e l a t i v e l y recent upsurge of research i n t e r e s t i n the modality of touching and f e e l i n g ( " h a p t i t i o n " ) . 1 A d d i t i o n a l i n t e r e s t i n t h i s (haptic) modality has been encouraged by the construction of several learning models which purport to describe the perceptual and motor devel-opment of people from birth, to adulthood; haptic perception i s of funda-mental importance to these designs. The haptic system provides two major kinds of information. The f i r s t category includes information about the environment such as: (a) geometric information concerning surface area or s i z e , shapes, l i n e s and angles; (b) surface texture; (c) q u a l i t i e s of consistency such as hard, sorf, r e s i l i e n t , or viscous; (d) pain; (e) temperature; and (f) pressure. In the second category, bodily movement ^provides information about.the body i t s e l f such as: (a), dynamic movement patterns of the trunk, arms,.legs, mandible, and tongue; (b) s t a t i c limb p o s i t i o n s or posture; and (c) s e n s i t i v i t y to the d i r e c t i o n of l i n e a r and rotary movement of the s k u l l , limbs, and ent i r e body. (O'Donnell 1969, p. 41) These two forms of information, cutaneous and proprioceptive, allow us to perceive space and the objects within that space without the use of v i s i o n . Perceptual-motor t h e o r i s t s assert that t h i s information must be received i f such a phenomenon as visual-motor coordination i s to be established i n the i n d i v i d u a l ' s repertoire of behaviors: a c h i l d ' s Use of the term " h a p t i t i o n " to describe touching and f e e l i n g seems-as reasonable as use of " v i s i o n " and "audition" to describe seeing and hearing. 4 a b i l i t y to perceive develops from the use of proprioceptive tools to the use of 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 learned the basic s k i l l s necessary for the haptic perception of his body and s p a t i a l movement. " I t i s l o g i c a l to assume that a l l behavior i s b a s i c a l l y motor, that the p r e r e q u i s i t e s of any kind of behavior are muscular and motor responses. Behavior develops out of muscular a c t i v i t y , and s o - c a l l e d higher forms of behavior are dependent upon lower forms of behavior . . ." (Kephart 1971, p. 79). In the development of eye-hand coordination, for example, the hand i n i t i a l l y i s the exploring part; the eye follows i t . As experience grows, as the eye learns what the hand f e e l s , i t begins to lead the hand because i t i s a quicker and more e f f i c i e n t receptor of information. The hand may continue to monitor the eye, to check i t and supply a d d i t i o n a l information, but the eye becomes the d i r e c t o r . In a normal c h i l d percepts from the eye can even be translated to the hand for t a c t u a l d u p l i c a t i o n , or a t a c t u a l l y perceived object can be trans-la t e d into a v i s u a l image. A "perceptual-motor match" i s established. The same percept can be obtained from either v i s u a l or haptic sensations. 1 One a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s learning design i s the suggestion that c h i l d r e n who have d i f f i c u l t y learning to read through one modality may be n e f i t from the use of multi-sensory stimulation which simultaneously "bombards" them with the same information through v i s u a l , auditory and haptic modalities. The intent i s to produce a perceptual-motor match More recent 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 exchangeability of modality. While the same percept can be obtained from e i t h e r modality, the exchangeability i s l i m i t e d by stimulus complexity. See Appendix B, p. 57. 5 which w i l l allow such c h i l d r e n to integrate i n d i v i d u a l data into usable percepts. Two procedures for perceiving environmental information haptic-a l l y have been proposed: touching and being touched. The second pro-cedure may be labeled "passive touch" and p h y s i o l o g i c a l l y involves only receptors i n the skin and underlying t i s s u e . The f i r s t procedure may be labeled "active touch" and involved receptors i n the skin and underlying t i s s u e and also i n the j o i n t s and tendons . (Gibson 1962, p. 478). I t might also be labeled "purposive touch," for i t involves exploration of the q u a l i t i e s of an object. The f i r s t procedure i s the concern of 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 haptic perceptual a c t i v i t y which i s invoked by a number of educators i n the b e l i e f that i t s use w i l l a l l e v i -ate d i f f i c u l t i e s which many ch i l d r e n experience i n our schools. Among the factors which may a f f e c t perception by active touch and which have been considered by several investigators are age, sex, and intelligence.''' At l e a s t two investigators have considered a fourth f a c t o r : brain damage, the subject of t h i s study, about which the writer has asked: "Is there a di f f e r e n c e i n haptic perceptual a b i l i t y ( s p e c i f i c a l l y , i n active touch) between 'normal' and 'brain-damaged' i n d i v i d u a l s ? " Demonstration of a differ e n c e may a f f e c t (1) the employment of educational p r a c t i c e s 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 modality and (2) the use-fulness of medical diagnosis for educational p r a c t i c e s . Appendix "B" contains a de s c r i p t i o n of studies which have ex-amined these f a c t o r s . 6 Definitions "Normal" subjects i n the context of the comparison made i n t h i s experimental study are chil d r e n who have been examined by one of two neurologists at Vancouver General Hospital and who, as a r e s u l t , have been diagnosed as not having a neurological impairment. "Minimally brain-damaged" subjects (mbd subjects) are those c h i l -dren who have been examined by one of two neurologists at Vancouver General Hospital or by psychologists at G. E. Pearkes G l i n i c , and who as a r e s u l t have been diagnosed as having some signs of neurological impair-ment without gross motor involvement. The v i a b i l i t y of the term "minimal brain damage" has been d i s -puted, e s p e c i a l l y i n regard to i t s implication that there i s an organic basis for the dysfunctions associated with the mbd syndrome and whether t h i s organic basis may be s i m i l a r i n kind but less i n the extent of i t s e f f e c t to the 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 suffered by i n d i v i d u a l s who cannot, as a r e s u l t of such i n j u r y , r e a d i l y control c e r t a i n muscular a c t i v i t i e s . Strauss and Lehtinen (1947).stated that c h i l d r e n may have i n t e l -l e c t u a l and behavioral problems caused by br a i n i n j u r y and proposed a complete diagnosis of minor brain i n j u r y which i s s t i l l widely accepted by educators and psychologists: (1) a h i s t o r y showing evidence of in j u r y to the brain by trauma or inflammatory processes before,, during or shortly a f t e r b i r t h (2) s l i g h t neurological signs are present which indi c a t e a br a i n 1 l e s i o n (3) measurable retardation (which i s not common to other s i b l i n g s or parents) (4) perceptual and conceptual disturbances observed i n performance on various psychological t e s t s . (Strauss and Lehtinen 1947, p. 112) 7 Birch (1964) defined brain i n j u r y as "any anatomical or physio-l o g i c a l a l t e r a t i o n of a pathologic kind present i n the nerve tissues of the brain" and noted that the consequences could range from no observable a l t e r a t i o n i n behavior to p a r a l y s i s and death. Furthermore, because brain damage varies with respect to a number of factors (etiology, ex-tent, type of l e s i o n , locus, e t c . ) , B i r c h f e e l s that there i s no stereo-ty p i c brain-damaged c h i l d but rather many v a r i e t i e s of brain-damaged ch i l d r e n . He apparently objected to the use of mbd because i t was non-s p e c i f i c and stereotypic and also because ". . . a l l of our designations of nervous system damage, whether t h i s be described as minimal, as d i f f u s e or as nonfocal, remain presumptive i n the absence of well estab-l i s h e d data demonstrating the nature of the damage to the underlying structure i t s e l f . " Cruickshank et a l . (1968), however, asserted that . . . the hypothesis of brain i n j u r y w i l l be borne out with the vast majority of c h i l d r e n now labeled hyperactive, dyslexic, c h i l d r e n with s p e c i a l or s p e c i f i c learning problems, exogenous, hyperkinetic, c h i l d r e n with maturational lag, or any of a v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t l a b e l s . In the majority of cases these are c h i l d r e n who have most l i k e l y experienced brain i n j u r y at some stage of t h e i r early develop-ment. . . . (Cruickshank et a l . 1968, p. 11) There have been other explanations of the basis for the mbd syn-drome presented: these include chemical le s i o n s , p h y s i o l o g i c a l immaturity, unusual home environments and the currently popular "food a d d i t i v e s . " There may not be d e f i n i t i v e evidence for the existence of brain i n j u r y as a determinant for the c h i l d r e n who are characterized by the mbd syn-drome, but there is,however, the suspicion of such a p o s s i b i l i t y . Because of t h i s and because of the continued use of the term by many educators, 8 psychologists and parents, the author f e l t i t would be appropriate to include i n t h i s study subjects who are believed to represent the term. "Severely brain-damaged subjects" (sbd subjects) are those c h i l -dren who have been examined by neurologists i n the Vancouver or Voctoria area and who, as a r e s u l t have been diagnosed as having cerebral palsy of the spastic hemiplegic v a r i e t y . "Intra-modal" a c t i v i t y r e f e r s to stimulus-recognition a c t i v i t y which occurs within one modality; for example, haptic intra-modal a c t i v i t y occurs when a subject i s presented with a stimulus object to explore by active touch and then i s presented with a second object to explore by ac t i v e touch and subsequently i s asked to indic 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 subject i s not allowed access to the objects through any other modality although the operation of the auditory modality i s e s s e n t i a l for the subject's understanding of the task, and the in t e g r a t i o n of auditory percepts with motor a c t i v i t y i s necessary for the correct completion of the task. (It i s e s p e c i a l l y p l a u s i b l e that brain-injured subjects may form an imperfect understanding of the task or be unable to integrate aural information with appropriate motor responses.) "Cross-modal" a c t i v i t y r e f e r s to stimulus-recognition a c t i v i t y which involves two modalities; f o r example, a subject may inspect a ; stimulus object through the . v i s u a l modality to compare i t with another object which can be inspected only through the haptic modality. "Simultaneous" presentation r e f e r s to a condition i n which a sub-j e c t i s presented with stimulus and recognition objects at the same 9 moment; for example, a subject may explore a stimulus object with one hand while the other hand explores a recognition object. "Consecutive" presentation r e f e r s to a condition i n which the presentation of a stimulus object i s separated from the presentation of a recognition object by a temporal i n t e r v a l ; f o r example, a subject may inspect a stimulus object h a p t i c a l l y , r e l i n q u i s h i t and then inspect one or more recognition objects h a p t i c a l l y or v i s u a l l y for the purpose of comparison. Memory i s a more important factor i n t h i s condition than i n the condition of simultaneous presentation. Hypothesis The purpose of t h i s study i s to investigate the p o s s i b i l i t y that the three groups of c h i l d r e n described above d i f f e r with respect to t h e i r haptic a b i l i t i e s to recognize the q u a l i t i e s of s i z e , shape, and texture. The n u l l hypothesis i s that there i s no differ e n c e between normal, mbd, and sbd subjects 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 of s i z e , shape, and texture by the use of act i v e touch. I t i s proposed that i n j u r y to that part (or those parts) of the brain which i s involved i n sensori-motor a c t i v i t y w i l l so a f f e c t p e r f o r -mance on a t e s t of t a c t i l e perception that the scores of such brain injured subjects w i l l d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the scores of subjects who have not suffered brain i n j u r y . I t i s further proposed that subjects with more extensive i n j u r y w i l l be les s successful on the tasks than w i l l be subjects with r e l a t i v e l y minor i n j u r y (assuming that the i n j u r i e s d i f f e r i n degree and not i n kind). A minimally brain-damaged subject should have a lower score than a normal subject while a severely-brain-10 damaged subject should have a s t i l l lower score. I f there i s an organic basis for the mbd syndrome such that these subjects d i f f e r i n degree but not i n kind from sbd subjects, two motiva-tions for t h i s study become apparent: (1) c e r t a i n learning t h e o r i s t s (Barsh 1967, Kephart 1971, Radler 1959) have posited i n s t r u c t i o n a l s t r a -tegies which r e l y on a c t i v e touch; r e s u l t s of t h i s study may suggest a reevaluation of these strategies; (2) there i s the p o s s i b i l i t y that addi-t i o n a l information for d i s c r i m i n a t i n g brain-injured from normal c h i l d r e n may be provided. CHAPTER II SURVEY OF LITERATURE The study described l a t e r i n t h i s paper focuses on one subject parameter: the e f f e c t of brain i n j u r y on the scores obtained by the administration of a task of ac t i v e touch to three groups of ch i l d r e n . Very l i t t l e research was found which explores t h i s parameter, but a num-ber of peripheral references which are described i n some d e t a i l i n Appendix B explored age, sex, i n t e l l i g e n c e , and pe r s o n a l i t y . Although c r i t i c i s m s may be directed to these studies, i t would appear that: (1) the v a r i a b l e of sex has no s i g n i f i c a n t influence of haptic perception obtained through a c t i v e touch; (2) i n t e l l i g e n c e does not appear to s i g -n i f i c a n t l y influence perception obtained through a c t i v e touch; (3) e v i -dence for the influence of personality i s inconclusive; and (4) age seems to be an important v a r i a b l e although there i s disagreement concern-ing which age between the years of three and nine i s important to the development of perception by active touch. Haptic perception may be said to occur when cutaneous and kines-t h e t i c information i s processed c e n t r a l l y and synthesized. This proces-sing appears to be located i n the po s t e r i o r p a r i e t a l lobe of the br a i n and i n the somato-sensory cortex (Milner 1970, p. 173). I n a b i l i t y to perceive h a p t i c a l l y information from a p a r t i c u l a r hand indicates a pos-s 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 cortex and p a r i e t a l area and pos s i b l y i n the i n s i l a t e r a l motor cortex as w e l l . Lesions may produce 11 12 observable d e f i c i t s i n complex a c t i v i t i e s (e.g., dressing, and copying block designs), and severe sensorimotor lesions with p a r i e t a l area damage may produce the behavior of the spastic hemiplegic i f the lesions are confined to one side (lesions may a f f e c t the pyramidal t r a c t as well i n spastic hemiplegia; 60 percent of the axons o r i g i n a t e i n the precentral and postcentral g y r i ) : involuntary contraction.of the af f e c t e d muscles i f they are suddenly stretched and visual-motor d i s a b i l i t y and t a c t i l e d i s -turbance of the affe c t e d side (Milner 1970, p. 175). I f cerebral palsy i s l i k e l y to be associated with r e l a t i v e l y wide-spread brain i n j u r y , then on a scale of brain damage, ranging from healthy to severely injured, there i s placement for les s severe brain i n j u r y which would not manifest i t s e l f i n the usually obvious behavior d e f i c i t s of cerebral palsy but which might display more subtle d e f i c i t s of minimal brain damage."'' Denhoff and Novak (1967) state that the past h i s t o r i e s of i n d i v i d u a l s diagnosed as having minimal brain damage (whether or not organic involvement can be shown) may be s i m i l a r to the h i s t o r i e s of i n d i -viduals diagnosed as having cerebral palsy. "There i s growing evidence to suggest that . . . ch i l d r e n who have a r t i c u l a t i o n defects, s l i g h t hearing losses, and learning problems are mild or s u b c l i n i c a l cases of cerebral palsy and as such are included i n the minimal b r a i n dysfunction category" (Denhoff and Novak 1967, p. 365). "*"The most often c i t e d signs and symptoms of mbd are: (1) hyper-a c t i v i t y ; (2) perceptual-motor impairments; (3) emotional l a b i l i t y ; (4) general coordination d e f i c i t s ; (5) disorders of attention; (6) impul-s i v i t y ; (7) disorders of memory and thinking; (8) s p e c i f i c learning d i s -a b i l i t i e s (reading, w r i t i n g , arithmetic, s p e l l i n g ) ; (9) disorders of speech and hearing; (10) equivocal neurological signs and e l e c t r o -encephalographic i r r e g u l a r i t i e s (Clements 1966, p. 13). 13 The somato-sensory cortex (anterior and pos t e r i o r c e n t r a l gyri) i s considered to be the area which i n t e r p r e t s and controls c e r t a i n tac-t i l e s t i m u l i (form and si z e especially> Milner 1970, p. 176). Injury i n t h i s area, not so severe as to cause the behavioral d e f i c i t s of cerebral palsy, might cause impairments associated with the mbd syndrome. Semmes et a l . (1955) found that i n j u r y to the p a r i e t a l lobe (which includes the post c e n t r a l gyrus) was apparently responsible for i n f e r i o r performance on intra-modal v i s u a l and cross-modal ( v i s u a l - t a c t i l e ) map-following tasks. Her subjects were adult war veterans who had suffered penetrating m i s s i l e wounds to the br a i n and were divided into groups according to the locus of i n j u r y (established by medical records). Analysis of task scores indicated a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between p a r i e t a l s and non-p a r i e t a l s . Because no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between intra-modal and cross-modal presentation was found, the authors concluded there was a 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 l i n e s . Semmes et a l . (1965) returned to t h i s non-modality-specific factor to ask i f t a c t u a l sensory impairment and astereognosis ( i n a b i l i t y to recognize object dimensions) could occur separately. They found (using the veterans again) that performance on intra-modal t a c t i l e recog-n i t i o n with successive .presentation was severely impaired when sensory d e f e c t 1 was present. In addi t i o n the performance of brain-injured sub-jec t s without sensory defect was s i g n i f i c a n t l y impaired when compared to ''"The authors defined sensory defect as abnormal performance on one of four passive tests of t a c t i l e perception: (1) pressure se n s i - , t i v i t y ; (2) two-point discrimination; (3) point l o c a l i z a t i o n ; and (4) sense of passive movement. 14 the performance of normal subjects on tests of form and pattern but was not impaired on roughness, texture, and s i z e evaluations. The authors concluded that sensory defect and s p a t i a l d i s o r i e n t a t i o n were separate functions which tended to occur together with r i g h t hemisphere p a r i e t a l lesions (perhaps because these functions are not l o c a l i z e d i n the r i g h t hemisphere) and separately with l e f t hemisphere p a r i e t a l l e s i o n s . Several c r i t i c i s m s of these findings seem necessary: (1) the number of cases was small, and a s t a t i s t i c a l analysis supporting the con-c l u s i o n was not performed; (2) anatomical v e r i f i c a t i o n of the brain i n j u r i e s was not possible; (3) the t e s t s of form may have been confounded by the variable of size;"'" (4) the time allowed for t a c t i l e inspection of stimulus objects was very short ( f i v e seconds), and there i s no descrip-t i o n of the nature of the motor handicap ( i f any) of those brain-injured subjects with sensory d e f i c i t s i n t h e i r hands; the low scores of the brain-injured subjects 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 -pating the stimulus objects, e s p e c i a l l y i n the short time allowed. The brain i n j u r i e s of s o l d i e r s traumatized by m i s s i l e wounds may not be s u f f i c i e n t l y s i m i l a r to congenital or disease-caused brain i n -j u r i e s as to allow t h e i r symptoms to be generalized to i n d i v i d u a l s be-longing to the l a t t e r group. There are also differences between in d i v i d u a l s who have l o s t a function and those who have never had i t . Nevertheless, the authors' p o s t u l a t i o n of separate locations for s p a t i a l I t i s d i f f i c u l t to avoid t h i s problem. How does a rectangle d i f f e r from a square i n other than the length of i t s sides? See Appendix B, pp. 53-54, for a discussion of t h i s obstacle. 15 perception, form perception, and t a c t i l e perception of other q u a l i t i e s i s very i n t e r e s t i n g and should be investigated further. Solomon's (1957) research i s s i m i l a r to that of t h i s i n v e s t i g a -t i o n . Scores of normal and brain-injured subjects were compared on test s of t a c t i l e perception of s i z e , shape, texture, and weight. Analyses were performed on the influence of sex, age, handedness, preference, and on t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s . Solomon's brain injured subjects (48 i n tot a l ) were divided into those with (32) and those without (16) motor involvement of one hand. Presentation of stimulus objects was successive. For normal subjects the following variables were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t : (1) age (f i v e to nine years) on a l l subtests; (2) handedness on size and form subtests; and (3) sex on s i z e and texture. For brain injured subjects motor involvement was s i g n i f i c a n t for s i z e , weight, and texture; 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 for texture. When scores for normal and br a i n injured subjects were compared, s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ferences were found for s i z e and texture d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and no differ e n c e for weight. No di f f e r e n c e was found f o r shape between normal and brain-injured subjects with motor involvement. Several c r i t i c i s m s of t h i s study are possi b l e : (1) each subject viewed the t a c t i l e t e s t materials and had them demonstrated before each subtest was administered; i t does not seem reasonable to regard t h i s as a t e s t of intra-modal haptic perception, i f v i s u a l memory was permitted to play a ro l e ; (2) the reader i s not informed of how the subjects p a l -pate the pool of recognition objects; that i s , i t i s not known whether 15 A the objects are placed i n the subject's hand or i f the subject searches; (3) the c r i t e r i a for the s e l e c t i o n of the normal subjects was not as rigorous as for the s e l e c t i o n of b r a i n - i n j u r e d subjects; that i s , they were not examined by neurologists; (4) the brain-injured subjects were using d i f f e r e n t medications which according to the author improved t h e i r performance; t h i s i s a questionable assumption, which, even i f true, introduces a further set of poorly c o n t r o l l e d variables to the study. The research reviewed above and i n Appendix B appears to be contaminated by unintentional cross-modal interference or by inaccurate descriptions of what i s being measured or by inadequately c o n t r o l l e d sub-t e s t administration (which permits uncontrolled l a b e l i n g and v a r i a t i o n s i n search for and palpation of stimulus and recognition o b j e c t s ) . These d i f f i c u l t i e s are compounded by lack of knowledge of what e f f i c i e n t haptic perception i s , the length of time i t requires to operate and i t s r e l a -t i o n to v i s i o n . The writer's research described below has attempted to eliminate some of these d i f f i c u l t i e s . CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Subjects Three subject groups were used i n the main study: group one was composed of twelve normal, c h i l d r e n (controls i n a study of low b i r t h -weight infants at Vancouver General Hospital) who had been examined by a neurologist and assessed as having no neurological impairments; group two was composed of twelve subjects, ten from the above study of low birth-weight infants who had been examined by a neurologist and diagnosed as having minimal brain damage and two from the Pearkes C l i n i c i n V i c t o r i a thought by psychologists to have minimal brain damage (but not examined by a neurologist); group three was. composed of twelve subjects from the G. F. Strong R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Center, Surrey Treatment Center, and G. R. Pearkes C l i n i c who had been diagnosed as having cerebral palsy of the spastic hemiplegic v a r i e t y . Six were most impaired i n the r i g h t hand, s i x were most impaired i n the l e f t . The ages of the subjects ranged from eight years, zero months, to ten years, eleven months. The f i r s t two groups were mostly eight or nine years o l d , while the t h i r d group was more evenly d i s t r i b u t e d over the age range. Income l e v e l s of fam i l i e s appeared to range from lower to upper middle. Subjects' parents were contacted by telephone. I f they agreed to t e s t i n g at school, a form l e t t e r was sent to them for t h e i r signature, 16, 17 giving the writer permission to t e s t t h e i r c h i l d at school; i f they desired t e s t i n g at home, arrangements were made at t h e i r convenience. Sample s e l e c t i o n was determined by (1) the a v a i l a b i l i t y of subjects with-i n the Lower Mainland and V i c t o r i a area, and (2) the willingness of parents and children.to p a r t i c i p a t e . Materials The tasks used for the study were based on a series of tasks con-structed by Kendall and Kendall (1969) and applied by them to a normal population of chi l d r e n aged three to eight years. (In t h i s study, and i n a follow-up by Dumaresq, i t was found that l i t t l e improvement of scores occurred a f t e r age s i x and that normal four-year-olds were able to comprehend and carry out tasks i n v o l v i n g haptic discrimination.) The task objects consisted of geometric forms and a small number of common objects."*" The task was composed of seven subtasks, each of which attempted to evaluate performance on one or more of the q u a l i t i e s of s i z e , shape, and texture, as indicated: Subtask I: shape Subtask I I : s i z e Subtask I I I : texture Subtask IV: shape and s i z e Subtask V: s i z e , shape, and texture Subtask VI: cross-modal shape Subtask VII: cross-modal s i z e "*"Most of the objects are shown on p. 18 (Figure I) 18 19 Subtask I objects were geometric designs ( c i r c l e , square, t r i -angle, octagon, and five-pointed star) made of smooth p l a s t i c of uniform thickness and surface area. Subtask II objects were smooth p l a s t i c squares of uniform thickness and three d i f f e r e n t s i z e s . Subtask III objects were s t r i p s of materials of uniform s i z e and shape with s i x d i f -ferent surfaces ranging from rough to smooth, pasted on cardboard surfaces of uniform shape and area. Subtask IV objects were three-dimensional wooden s o l i d s of varying s i z e and shape. Subtask V used three-dimensional geometric and common objects (play-size spoon, knife, fork, and coins) which d i f f e r e d i n one, two, or three q u a l i t i e s from each other. Subtasks VI and VII used the objects of the 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 out by the wri t e r . Subjects were tested e i t h e r i n t h e i r schools or i n t h e i r homes, usually alone. Each subject sat on a low ch a i r so that his/her arms could be comfortably thrust into the curtained front of a student's school desk. A cardboard d i v i d e r sep-arated his/her arms ins i d e the desk, and a curt a i n helped to conceal the insid e of the desk from the subject (Figures II and I I I ) . The writer sat on the f l o o r on the opposite side of the desk (from which the back had been removed) so that he could place the objects i n the subject's "''Subtasks I-III examined three separate dimensions of the sensi-t i v i t y of active touch intra-modally. Subtasks IV and V were intended to examine s e n s i t i v i t y to more than one dif f e r e n c e , intra-modally, and sub-tasks VI and VII were intended to examine the e f f e c t of the introduction of the v i s u a l modality. FIGURE I I 21 FIGURE III 22 hands i n the appropriate sequence and observe the a c t i v i t y of the hands. For the f i r s t t r i a l of each of the f i r s t f i v e subtasks, a stimulus object was placed i n the preferred hand ( i . e . , the hand used by the subject to write his/her name) and while i t was being held and examined (within the desk) two pool objects were placed successively i n M e other hand. The subject was asked to i n d i c a t e o r a l l y whether each '"pool" object was the "same" or " d i f f e r e n t " when compared to the stimulus object i n the preferred hand. , The subjects were t o l d that i f the objects were the same, the c o r r e c t response would be "same" but that i f they d i f f e r e d i n even one way, the correct response would be " d i f f e r e n t . " Oral naming was discouraged. For the second t r i a l i n each of the f i r s t f i v e subtasks the stimulus objects were placed i n the non-preferred hand, and the pool objects were placed i n the preferred hand. Subsequent t r i a l s continued t h i s a l t e r n a t i o n . The f i r s t t r i a l for subtasks VI and VII required the stimulus object to be placed i n the preferred hand beneath the desk top while the pool objects were placed on the desk top i n view of the subject who was asked to point to but not touch the "same" object with the non-preferred hand. The subject was warned that both objects might be " d i f f e r e n t . " The second t r i a l required the stimulus object to be placed on the desk top and the pool objects to be placed successively i n the preferred hand; an o r a l response was requested. The t h i r d and fourth t r i a l s repeated the procedure of the f i r s t and second t r i a l s , using the non-preferred hand to palpate the objects. The l a s t four t r i a l s repeated the e n t i r e procedure. 23 Objects were presented simultaneously to minimize the e f f e c t of memory. Th i r t y seconds were allowed for each response before prompting; the average time taken was f i f t e e n seconds for most subjects (who f i n i s h e d the task i n about twenty-five minutes). Because searching was not con-sidered as part of the task, objects were placed i n each subject's hands. So that exploration for each subject would be as s i m i l a r as possible, the hemiplegic subjects were given the a d d i t i o n a l help of having the fingers of the a f f e c t e d hand wrapped around the objects when necessary and also when necessary having the objects rotated i n t h e i r hands. Task objects were not seen by the subjects during the administra-t i o n of subtasks I to V which were administered before the l a s t two sub-tasks. The order of administration of subtasks I to V was varied to minimize the e f f e c t of t r a i n i n g . Scoring There were a t o t a l of f o r t y - e i g h t t r i a l s i n the task, s i x i n the f i r s t four subtasks and eight i n the l a s t three subtasks. Two responses were required for each t r i a l , and both had to be correct for the t r i a l to be considered as correct. Most t r i a l s required a "same" and a " d i f f e r e n t " response; two required two "same" responses; three required two " d i f f e r e n t " responses. Each t r i a l was marked on an answer sheet out of the subject's sight a f t e r the two responses were made."*" See Appendix A, pp. 46-50. 24 Pilot Study Because the r e v i s i o n of the task composed by Kendall and Kendall was extensive, i t was f e l t necessary to determine whether or not normal subjects could score well on i t before the experimental study was begun. To evaluate the r e v i s i o n , to provide a c r i t e r i a for normal scores and to allow the w r i t e r to develop f i e l d experience with the task, a p i l o t study was undertaken with twenty-One elementary students, aged eight to ten, representing both sexes, who were considered by t h e i r teachers and p r i n c i p a l to be normal or average students i n academic and phy s i c a l a c t i v i t i e s . I t was decided that any item missed by more than two of the sub-jec t s i n the p i l o t study would be eliminated or rearranged. Several such a l t e r a t i o n s were made while t e s t i n g the f i r s t fourteen subjects. The f i n a l version was administered to seven subjects (four male and three female) whose scores ranged from 42 to 47 with a mean of 44.5. Although the sample s i z e i s not large, i t appeared to the writer that these r e s u l t s indicated that a normal subject should be able to score reason-ably well on the r e v i s i o n . Design The experimental study proposed to measure assumed degrees of brain damage against a scale of active touch. A m u l t i - f a c t o r i a l ANOVA design was employed to analyze differences i n task means for the three groups of subjects. When the n u l l hypothesis was rejected, multiple com-parisons were performed to discover which subtask differences were respon-s i b l e f o r the MANOVA r e s u l t s , and 95 percent confidence i n t e r v a l s were calculated. 25 Hypothesis '. The n u l l hypothesis i s t h a t there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the a b i l i t i e s of normal, mbd and sbd subjects to d i s c r i m i n a t e the q u a l i t i e s of s i z e , shape, and te x t u r e by the employment of a c t i v e touch i n intra-modal and cross-modal c o n d i t i o n s . The a l t e r n a t e hypo-t h e s i s i s t h a t there i s a d i f f e r e n c e . The l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n e was set a t .05. CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION Results^ Hoyt's ANOVA was employed to examine the r e l i a b i l i t y of each sub-task for a l l subjects combined and for each group of subjects. These data are presented i n Tables I to IV. The r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s for the normals (Table I) are con-siderably lower than f o r the other groups f o r subtasks I and II and e s p e c i a l l y for subtasks I I I , IV, VI, and VII. I t would appear that chance has played a much greater r o l e i n the determination of scores than has the task design, although the r e l a t i v e l y small n and the small number of errors suggests that these c o e f f i c i e n t s should be regarded with suspicion. The c o e f f i c i e n t for subtask V, on the other hand, i s i n f i n i t e l y large; no errors were made. R e l i a b i l i t y c a l c u l a t e d for the t o t a l task for the normals i s mediocre. C o e f f i c i e n t s for the mbd and sbd groups are r e l a t i v e l y high (Tables II and I I I ) , e s p e c i a l l y for the administration of the t o t a l task to each group. Table IV indicates that for the combined groups r e l i -a b i l i t y i s very respectable ( . 9 3 for the t o t a l ) . Inspection of Tables I to III also discloses the d i f f e r i n g means ''"The writer i s indebted to Dr. Richard Bennett who selected the s t a t i s t i c a l analysis and performed the necessary" operations at the U.B.C. Computing Center. 26 27 TABLE I NORMAL SCORES Subtask High Score Low Score .'Mean Standard Deviation Percent Correct r Cronbach's Alpha 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 0.0 100 VI 8 7 7.92 .29 99 0.0 VII 8 7 7.83 .39 98 -0.0 Total 47 39 44.5 2.39 93 .50 .60 28 TABLE II mbd SCORES Subtask High Score Low Score Mean Standard Deviation Percent Correct r Cronbach 1s Alpha 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 -0.0 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 Total 46 18 38.25 7.44 80 .89 .87 29 TABLE III sbd SCORES Subtask High Score Low Score Mean Standard Deviation Percent Correct r Cronbach 1s Alpha 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 Total 42 15 27.5 7.99 59 .85 .80 30 TABLE IV COMBINED GROUPS Subtask High Score Low Score Mean Standard Deviation Percent Correct r Cronbach 1s Alpha 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 Total 47 15 36.75 9.48 77 .93 .91 31 of the groups on the subtasks and the whole task. A MANOVA Lik e l i h o o d Ratio Test with s i x dependent v a r i a b l e s 1 was performed on the data to determine i f the 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 desirable 2 to discover the source of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r an "F" value which exceeded the .05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e , multiple comparisons were performed be-tween a l l possible pairs, of subtasks. The following hypotheses were examined 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 the event that the n u l l hypothesis could be rejected i n favor of the alternate hypothesis, the multiple comparisons for each subtask were: H „ n : X = X H,,: X ^ X 01 n m 11 n m H „ 0 : X = X H.,„: X ^ X 02 m s 12 m s H„,: X = X Hn _: -X ^ X 03 n s 13 n s The MANOVA ca l c u l a t i o n s showed an F-value s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l [F,..„ = 2.66, p < .01] for the whole task. Table V describes (12,56) confidence i n t e r v a l s for the differences between the means for a l l sub-tasks: the differences between the means for the normal and sbd groups "'"Subtask V was excluded from t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n because of f a i l u r e to meet the assumption of homogeneity of variance. 2 Glass and Stanley, pp. 381-83. 3-X n r e f e r s to the mean of the normal group; X m r e f e r s to the mean of the minimally brain damaged group; X s r e f e r s to the mean of the severely brain-damaged group. 32 TABLE. V SUBTASK COMPARISONS 95% Confidence Subtask Groups Intervals I Shape n vs. mbd -1.72 to 3.72 mbd vs. sbd -0.72 to 4.72 n vs. sbd 0.28 to 5.72* II Size n vs. mbd -1.63 to 2.96 mbd vs. sbd -0.46 to 4.13 n vs. sbd 0.20 to 4.80* :n Texture n vs. mbd -1.55 to 2.88 mbd vs. sbd -1.13 to 3.30 n vs. sbd -0.47 to 3.97 IV Size, Shape n vs. mbd -1.93 to 4.10 mbd vs. sbd -2.18 to 3.85 n vs. sbd -1.09 to 4.93 VI Cross-modal Shape n vs. mbd -1. .82 to 2. .82 mbd vs. sbd -1. .07 to 3. .57 n vs. sbd -0. ,56 to 4. ,07 VII Cross-modal Size n vs. mbd -1.55 to 3. 38 mbd vs. sbd -1.63 to 3.30 n vs. sbd -0.72 to 4.28 * S i g n i f i c a n t at the 95 percent l e v e l of confidence. 33 are s i g n i f i c a n t for subtasks I and I I ; differences between normal and mbd groups and between mbd and sbd groups are not s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 l e v e l . Assuming the task to be v a l i d , 1 the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e : (1) that there i s no difference between the ac t i v e touch perceptual s k i l l s of the normal and mbd subjects tested; (2) that there i s a differ e n c e between the a c t i v e touch perceptual s k i l l s of the normal and sbd subjects tested; and (3) that there i s no di f f e r e n c e between the active touch perceptual s k i l l s of the mbd and sbd subjects tested. The n u l l hypothesis i s rejected for differences between normal and sbd means on subtasks I and II and the whole task; i t i s not rejected for differences between normal and mbd means or between normal and sbd means on subtasks III to VII or between mbd and sbd means (excluding 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 for the normal group may be the r e s u l t of the writer's attempt to construct a task on which normals would score very well. This may have d i s t o r t e d the variance of normal scores and perhaps acted as a c e i l i n g to depress the means of the normal group. C a l c u l a t i o n of Cronbach's r e l i a b i l i t y (Table I) indicates that "'"The v a l i d i t y of the task i s based upon consideration of what i s being measured (see Kerlinger, pp. 445-47, for a discussion of "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 to those of other studies although the author p a r t i c u l a r l y attempted to con t r o l the e f f e c t of language, memory, v i s u a l i n t r u s i o n s , and the vagaries of searching and grasping. Confusion of s i z e and shape was also c o n t r o l l e d insofar as poss i b l e . The writer believes that t h i s task may be regarded as being as v a l i d as any described i n the Review of Li t e r a t u r e or Appendix B. \ 34 increased r e l i a b i l i t y might be obtained by lengthening the task. This could lower r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the other groups and the groups combined (Tables II to IV) but not by as much as i t might r a i s e r e l i a b i l i t y for the normal group. Rejection of the n u l l hypothesis for normal and sbd means on sub-tasks I and II demonstrates that even with assistance from the task administrator to eliminate the e f f e c t of motor dysfunction the hemi-p l e g i c subjects d i d not appear to perceive the q u a l i t i e s of s i z e and shape as well as the normal subjects d i d. Acceptance of the n u l l hypothesis for subtask III and examination of the means indicates that the q u a l i t y of texture was d i f f i c u l t for a l l subjects to discriminate. The normal, and mbd groups acheived t h e i r lowest percent correct on subtask III and the sbd group achieved i t s second lowest. Subtask IV, where the n u l l hypothesis was also accepted, was the second most d i f f i c u l t section for the normal and mbd groups but only the f i f t h most d i f f i c u l t for the sbd group. The writer expected scores on t h i s subtask to be higher than for the f i r s t three subtasks because of the a d d i t i o n a l information (more than one quality) a v a i l a b l e to the subjects. I t would appear that the normal and mbd subjects were ei t h e r confused by the a d d i t i o n a l information or neglected i t . Subtask V was not included i n the MANOVA procedure because the scores of 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 of variance; the writer succeeded perhaps too well i n the construction of a subtask on which normals would achieve high scores. Inspection of the percentage correct (Tables I to III) shows the widest 35 spread between the means of a l l the subtasks, and i t i s not unreasonable to suggest that t h i s subtask does discriminate at l e a s t between normals and sbd subjects. I t i s possible that the a d d i t i o n a l information (up to three q u a l i t i e s ) a v a i l a b l e on each object stimulated the c u r i o s i t y of the normal subjects, causing them to explore more c a r e f u l l y . Severely brain-damaged subjects may have been confused by the increased data. A l l groups achieved t h e i r greatest percentage correct on subtasks VI and VII (excluding subtask V for the normal subjects) which are essen-t i a l l y r e p e t i t i o n s of subtasks I and II i n a cross-modal condition. A l l groups increased t h e i r percentage correct more on the q u a l i t y of shape than on s i z e , e s p e c i a l l y the sbd subjects f o r whom the cross-modal condi-t i o n seemed to be most b e n e f i c i a l . The improvement i n sbd scores was so considerable that no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e emerged. Acceptance of the n u l l hypothesis for the means of the mbd sub-jec t s indicates that these are not distinguishable from those of sbd subjects. This suggests a dysfunction s i m i l a r to that of the sbd sub-jec t s i n r e l a t i o n to involvement of those areas of the br a i n responsible for h a p t i t i o n , and t h i s i n turn suggests that the argument for an organic basis for the mbd syndrome i s not without foundation. The mbd means are also, however, not distinguished s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the means of the normal subjects; that i s , i n r e l a t i o n to h a p t i t i o n , mbd subjects probably do not d i f f e r by organic or other factors from normal subjects. Three p o s s i b i l i t i e s emerge: (1) the d e f i n i t i o n of minimal brain damage i s ambiguous; (2) there may be an incidence of haptic d e f i c i e n c y i n the mbd subjects which ranges from none to a def i c i e n c y s i m i l a r to that i n 36 sbd subjects (including the p o s s i b i l i t y of organic involvement); and (3) c e r t a i n features of the mbd syndrome such as h y p e r a c t i v i t y or disorders of attention may have acted to depress some mbd subjects' scores. The graph below (Figure IV) does not repeal any of the v e r d i c t s of nonsignificance, nor does i t support d i r e c t l y any of the three p o s s i -b i l i t i e s mentioned above; i t does show a pattern of scores for the groups which resembles that a n t i c i p a t e d by the writer before t e s t i n g began. The normal scores are the highest; the mbd scores are the second highest; the sbd scores are the lowest. P o s s i b i l i t i e s (2) and (3) seem more reasonable, e s p e c i a l l y i n view of the f a c t that the sample sizes are not large. To summarize: subtasks I and II d i f f e r e n t i a t e the normal and sbd groups; subtask III does not, perhaps because textures are d i f f i c u l t for any subject to discriminate; subtask IV does not d i f f e r e n t i a t e , and there i s no apparent reason why i t should not; subtask V was not analyzed, but there i s a strong suggestion that i t could d i f f e r e n t i a t e at l e a s t normal from sbd subjects; subtasks VI and VII also do not r e j e c t the n u l l hypo-th e s i s , apparently because of the e f f e c t of the employment of v i s i o n by the sbd subjects. Educational Implications D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between normal and sbd subjects on a task of hap-t i t i o n i s surely not a r e v e l a t i o n ; the p r o b a b i l i t y that the d i f f e r e n c e may not extend to the q u a l i t y of texture and that cross-modal conditions allow considerable improvement for sbd subjects i n r e l a t i o n to haptic perception suggests that i n s t r u c t i o n a l techniques for sbd c h i l d r e n should 37 o I _ ( 1 . _ | , 1 J , _ _ j I II III IV V VI VII S u b t a s k s . Normal scores Minimally brain-damaged scores Severely brain-damaged scores * The maximum number of correct responses for subtasks I to IV i s six . The maximum for subtasks V to VII i s eight. FIGURE IV SUBTASK MEANS 38 u t i l i z e intra-modal v i s u a l and cross-modal methods which do not emphasize ha p t i t i o n . . Cross-modal conditions may have the e f f e c t of allowing sbd chi l d r e n to perceive haptic information as well 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 of active touch may be eit h e r i r r e l e v a n t or even a f r u s t r a t i n g waste of time. Nonsignificance of differences between mbd means and those of other groups suggests that c h i l d r e n who might be diagnosed as having minimal brain damage should be treated educationally according to t h e i r functional s k i l l s ; i t i s possible that some of the mbd subjects tested who scored within..one S.D. of the sbd mean might have s i m i l a r perceptual dysfunctions (which may or may not be o r g a n i c a l l y based). I f so, ap-propriate i n s t r u c t i o n and expectations must be applied to t h e i r s i t u a -t i o n . In t h i s respect, the subtasks could be used as a screening instrument to evaluate an i n d i v i d u a l ' s haptic perception i n regard to i t s u t i l i t y as an educational modality. Limitations A number of problems, foreseen and unforeseen, arose i n the course of t h i s study which may be regarded as i n i m i c a l to the r e s u l t s presented above: 1) subjects within each group were not randomly selected; d i f f i c u l t y i n obtaining subjects required the writer to t e s t whomever he could f i n d and obtain permission to t e s t ; 2) task v a l i d i t y i s not established; 3) the administration of subtasks VI and VII was so complex that the writer several times administered t r i a l s to the wrong hand. 39 Because of the d i f f i c u l t y of obtaining subjects these scores were not excluded from analysis; "*" 4) there was l i t t l e c o ntrol over how well objects were explored; sometimes responses were made before there was complete explora-t i o n ; and 5) d e f i n i t i o n of the groups did not provide homogeneous groupings; motor involvement varied considerably among sbd subjects, and mbd subjects presented varying expressions of the mbd syndrome. The v a l i d i t y and usefulness of the d e f i n i t i o n s i s questionable. Future Research The following suggestions are made for future research: 1) while comparatively great e f f o r t has been expended for research on v i s i o n , there i s s t i l l much that i s not known about the oper-ation of that modality. R e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e e f f o r t has been expended for research on h a p t i t i o n , and there i s l i k e l y even more that i s not known about i t . V i s u a l acuity, for example, can be measured; we do not know how to measure haptic acuity ( i f such a p a r a l l e l concept, i s permissible). Questions such as "What i s good h a p t i t i o n ? " and "What i s the minimum temporal i n -t e r v a l required to perceive an object h a p t i c a l l y ? " must be answered; 2) further i n v e s t i g a t i o n of what i s being perceived by active touch "'"At the time of t e s t i n g , a l l a v a i l a b l e sbd subjects (who did not have other serious disorders) i n the Lower Mainland and V i c t o r i a area were used. The sbd sample, therefore, i s close to a t o t a l population. 40 i s necessary; for example, i t would be desirable to discover how shape and s i z e can best be separated for measurement; 3) c o r r e l a t i o n s of v i s u a l and haptic perception of q u a l i t i e s would be desirable; 4) r e p l i c a t i o n of t h i s study which would include a c o r r e l a t i o n with a measure of attention span might allow us to judge the e f f e c t of brain i n j u r y more c l e a r l y ; 5) some comparisons for the differences between group means approach s i g n i f i c a n c e i n t h i s study at the .05 l e v e l . Refinement of the task ( e s p e c i a l l y subtasks III and V) and explorations with larger groups seem desirable before the n u l l hypothesis i s permanently accepted or rejected; 6) i n d i v i d u a l subjects who scored more than one standard deviation from the mean should be evaluated with other psychological and educational instruments to determine i f these subjects manifest other.exceptional c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The data a v a i l a b l e on them i s neither complete nor so standard as to be comparable; 7) the e f f e c t on haptic d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of combinations of q u a l i t i e s should be compared; that i s , are objects d i f f e r i n g by s i z e and texture (with shape remaining s t a t i c ) more e a s i l y discriminable than those d i f f e r i n g by shape and texture (with s i z e remaining s t a t i c ) ? and 8) the e f f e c t of personality variables and cognitive s t y l e should also be considered (see Appendix B, p. 64). BIBLIOGRAPHY Barsch, Roy. The Perceptual Motor Curriculum. Seattle, Wash.: Special C h i l d Publications, 1967. Bartley, Howard. "The Perception of Size or Distance Based on T a c t i l e and Kineasthetic Data." Journal of Psychology SSSVI (1953):401-8. Benton, Arthur. "Stereognosis Test," Dept. of Psychology, University of V i c t o r i a , 1960. Benton, Arthur and Schultz, Leonard. "Observations on Tactual Form Per-ception (Stereognosis) i n Preschool Children." Journal of Clinical Psychology V (1949):359-64. Birch, Herbert. Brain Damage in Children. Baltimore, Md.: Williams and Williams, 1964. Blank, Marion et a l . "Crossmodal Transfer of Form Discrimination i n Pre-school Children." Psychonomic Science, 1968, X(2):51-52. Boshes, Benjamin and Myklebust, Helmer. "A Neurological and Behavioural Study of Children with Learning Disorders." Neurology (1963):7-12. Clements, Samuel. "Minimal Brain Dysfunction i n Children," Public Health Service P u b l i c a t i o n , National I n s t i t u t e s of Neurological Diseases and Blindness, 1966. Compton, Carolyn. "The Relationship Between Intersensory Integration and Multi-sensory Approaches i n Remedial Readers." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Stanford, 1970. Concannon, S i s t e r Josephine. "A Review of Research on Haptic Perception." The Journal of Educational Research, 1970, LXIII(6):250-52. Connolly, Kevin and Jones, B i l l . "A Developmental Study of Afferent-Reafferent Integration." British Journal of Psychology, 1970, I I : 259-66. Cruickshank, William, Junkala, J . B., and Paul, J . C. The Preparation of Teachers of Brain-Injured Children. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse Uni-v e r s i t y Press, 1968. Cummings, E. E. Poems 1923-1954. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1954. Denner, Bruce and Cashdan, Sheldon. "Sensory Processing and the Recogni-t i o n of Forms i n Nursery School Children." British Journal of Psychology, 1967, LVIII:101-4. 41 42 Dumaresq, Marilyn. "Stereognosis." Class paper, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971. Eastman, Robert. "The Relative Crossmodal Transfer of a Form Discrimina-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 Otrazhenii Passivno-osyazaemogo Ob'ekta." Voprosii Psikhologii, 1965, no. 4:103-10. Fisher, Gerald. "Visual and T a c t i l e - K i n e a s t h e t i c Shape Perception." British Journal of Psychology, 1965, XXXV:69-78. Gaines, Beverley and Raskin, Larry. "Comparison of Crossmodal and Intra-modal Form Recognition i n Children with Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . " Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1970, III(5):243-46. Gibson, James. "Observations on Active Touch." Psychological Review, 1962, LXIX(6):477-91. . . "The Useful Dimensions of S e n s i t i v i t y . " American Psychologist (1963):1-15. Glass, Gene and Stanley, J u l i a n . Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Pr e n t i c e - H a l l Inc., 1970. Gliner, Cynthia. "Tactual Discrimination Thresholds for Shape and Tex-ture i n Young Children." Experimental Child Psychology, 1967, V:536-47. Hallahan, 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. "Recognition of Shapes by Normal and Subnormal Children." British Journal of Psychology, 1961, L I I ( 3 ) : 281-84. Kauffer, G. "Personality Orientation and Size-Distance Perception." In Perceptual Changes in Psychopathology. Edited by I t t l e s o n and Kutash. Rutgers, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1961. Kendall, D. L. and Kendall, D. M. "Stereognosis i n Young Children." Research Report, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969. Kephart, Newell. The Slow Learner in the Classroom. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. M e r r i l Publishing Co., 1971. Kerlinger, Fred. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964. 43 Krantz, Murray. "Haptic Object Recognition." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Penn-sylvania State University, 1969. Krenzel, Ken. "Development of Equivalence of Amount i n the V i s u a l and Haptic Modalities." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Yeshiva University, 1970. Lobb, Harold. "Asymmetrical Transfer of Form Discrimination Across Sensory Modalities i n Human Adults." Journal of Experimental Psy-chology, 1970, LXXXVI(3):350-54. Lomov, Boris. "Lenin's Theory of R e f l e c t i o n and Psychology." Translated by D. Kovach and P. Tkach. I n s t i t u t e of General and Educational Psychology, Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, Moscow, Studia Psychologica, 1971, XIII(3):173-80. Mackay, C. and MacMillan, J . "A Comparison of Stereognostic Recognition i n Normal Children and Severely Subnormal Adults." British Journal of Psychology, 1968, LIX(4):443-47. Medinnus, Gene and Johnson, Diane. "Tactual Recognition of Shapes by Normal and Retarded Children." Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, no. 22, p. 406. Milner, Peter. Physiological Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Myklebust, H. et a l . "Guidance and Counselling for the Deaf;:" American Annals for the Deaf (Sept. 1962):370-415. Netter, Frank. Nervous System. New York: CIVA Pharmaceutical Co., 1967. Northman, John. "Visual and Haptic Information Processing i n Children." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Purdue University, 1970. O'Donnell, P. A. Motor and Haptic Learning. C a l i f o r n i a : Dimensions Pub-l i s h i n g Co., 1969. Perez, Paul. "Size-Constancy i n Normals and Schizophrenics." Perceptual Changes in Psychopathology. Edited by I t t l e s o n and Kutash. Rutgers, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1961. Piaget, Jean and Inhelder, Barbel. The Child's Concept of Space. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963. Translated by F. J . Langdon and J. L. Lunzer. Radler, D. H. with Kephart, N. Success Through Play. New York: Harper, 1959. Ryan, Sarah. "A Developmental Investigation of Crossmodal Transfer of 44 Shape and Texture." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , University of Minnesota, 1970. Semmes, Josephine. "A Non-Tactual Factor i n Astereognosis." Neuropsy-chologia, 1965, 111:295-315. Semmes, Josephine et a l . " S p a t i a l Orientation i n Man A f t e r Cerebral Injury: I. Analyses by Locus of Lesion." The Journal of Psychology, 1955, XXXIX:227-44. Sieg a l , Alexander and Vance, B i l l i e . "Visual and Haptic Dimensional Preference: A Developmental Study." Developmental Psychology, 1970, 111(2):264-66. Solomons, Hope. "A Development 1 Study of Tactual Perception i n Normal and Brain-Injured Children." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Boston University, 1957. Spreen, 0. and Gaddes, W. "Developmental Norms for F i f t e e n Neurological Tests, Ages Six to F i f t e e n . " Cortex, 1969, V:171-91. Strauss, A. and Lehtinen, L. Psychopathology and Education of the Brain-Injured Child. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1947, v o l . 1. Vaught, Glen. "Form Discrimination as a Function of Sex, Procedure and Tactual Mode." Psychonomic Science, 1968, X(4):151-52. Wlodarski, Ziemowit. "Percepja a Rozponawanie." Translated by R. P e r e l . Psychologia Wychowawcza, 1966, IX(1):32-41. Wormeli, C. T. "Haptic Perception i n Normal and Hard-of-Hearing Children." Class paper, University of 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 Analiz Osyazaniya i Zreniya." In Vospriyatie and Deistvie. Edited by A. Zaparozzhets. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1967. APPENDIX A INSTRUCTIONS AND DATA-GATHERING FORM 45 46 Task Administration 1. Request the subject to write his/her name to e s t a b l i s h the "preferred" hand (or ask with which hand does the subject w r i t e ) . 2. Note sex, age, group, and date. 3. E s t a b l i s h whether or not subject knows "same-different" with p i c t u r e cards. Do not continue i f the c h i l d i s unable to t e l l why pictures are same or d i f f e r e n t . 4. Do three explanatory t r i a l s with the large wooden blocks; i f the sub-j e c t i s unsuccessful, administer the f i r s t subtask chosen. I f the responses are a l l i n c o r r e c t , terminate t e s t i n g . 5. Begin the t e s t i n g with the stimulus object i n the c h i l d ' s preferred hand; place pool objects i n other hand successively and ask subject to i n d i c a t e "same" or " d i f f e r e n t " ; record responses when completed (both must be correct i f the response sheet i s to be marked as cor-rect) . Switch hands for the second t r i a l and alternate i n t h i s • fashion for each of the f i r s t f i v e subtasks. For the l a s t two sub-tasks, begin by p l a c i n g the stimulus object i n the preferred hand and the pool objects on the desk top; for the second t r i a l place the stimulus object on the desk top and place the pool objects i n the preferred hand, successively. Do the next two t r i a l s with the non-preferred hand; the next two with the preferred hand, etc. 6. Allow t h i r t y seconds before prompting. Choose subtask order before t e s t i n g begins (for I to V). Always administer VI and VII l a s t . 7. Position the subject on a low chair on the curtained side of the desk with arms thrust into the desk on each side of the d i v i d e r . Be 47 c a r e f u l to conceal objects from subject. 8. Vary the chosen order of the f i r s t f i v e subtasks, i f necessary, to maintain the subject's attention. i-i ayes Ksndednas ACTIVE TOUCH <{7 group ciste 48 1 Ir. Shsps Pool r ». i ~ i R e s p o n s e 3, I II, S i z e 1 _ 1, 3 3 ?, 5 5 5„ 3 3 3, X 5 3, 5 > 5 9 5 Pool 'Rest;o»;f* ..li- I 4, 10 fe __"Si5: _ I X • 10 i0 9 ' 6 AT 5 • ?--r 10' .. ZSLJ^ _ X . ... ' 9 .._ _ l:b....lZ... ._ . i i 11, 12' 15, !-"-. yi.. u. S . 3'soon . , __..„_ 17, 16 ' I 13 -. libber' • -ball .... ,ia*-J3 b a l l , 14 .... . 2 ' .6 _~ ..J1?.*. § ' „ 15 _ i k . i L . _ _ : cf APPENDIX B RELATED LITERATURE 51 52 A number of researchers have investigated active touch i n i n t r a -modal and cross-modal conditions. While t h e i r experiments are not d i r e c t l y pertinent to the study presented above, they are relevant i n terms of the materials and procedures used by the w r i t e r . Part I deals with materials and procedures and i s subdivided i n t o : form, s i z e , texture, and cross-modal condition. Part II contains descriptions of subject parameters: sex, age, b r a i n i n j u r y , i n t e l l i g e n c e , personality, and deaf-ness. J . Material Parameters and Conditions A. Shape: A b i l i t y to i d e n t i f y shape seems to be the most f r e -quently examined subject of inquiry into material q u a l i t i e s . Methods involve the use of geometrical s o l i d s which have two or three dimensions, common household objects and t o p o l o g i c a l s o l i d s which vary i n the number of protuberances or indentations. These are presented i n e i t h e r i n t r a -modal or cross-modal conditions, simultaneously or successively. Memory and l a b e l l i n g may be encouraged (or ignored). Actual manipulation or f i n g e r t i p exploration may be allowed. Conclusions from research i n t o shape perception tend to be i n t r o -spective because i t i s not known how shape i s perceived. I t i s believed that the angular p o s i t i o n of the finger bones helps to determine percep-t i o n of the form of an object with which they are i n contact (O'Donnell 1969, p.56). Gibson, who has investigated h a p t i t i o n more f u l l y than most in v e s t i g a t o r s , states that the hand " i s s e n s i t i v e to the variables of s o l i d geometry, not those of plane. . . . The hand can detect a l l of the following properties: the s l a n t of a surface, the convexity or 53 concavity of a surface, the edge or corner at the junction of two or more surfaces, and the separation of two edges" (Gibson 1963, p. 6). The skin i s analogous to the r e t i n a i n terms of the function of i t s re-ceptors i n r e c e i v i n g data on form. Benton (1960) devised a t e s t of a c t i v e touch which employed two-dimensional geometric forms 1 i n simultaneous presentation i n a cross-modal condition. The forms were covered with sandpaper and were presented to the subject for f i n g e r t i p exploration while a pool of twelve drawings was presented v i s u a l l y . The subject was asked to choose the matching form. Gliner (1967) employed two-dimensional forms i n an intra-modal t a c t i l e condition with simultaneous presentation. Her sub-jects t r i e d to match a stimulus object i n one hand with pool objects i n the other. Fisher (1965) employed three-dimensional forms i n a cross-modal condition with simultaneous presentation. His experiment shares several d i f f i c u l t i e s with Benton's and Gliner's: (1) the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the forms are not systematically varied (except for Gliner's forms which are a l l e l l i p s e s ) ; the r e l a t i o n s h i p of one form to another i s not de-scribed, and the reader does not know to what extent they can be discrim-inated from each other; (2) the v a r i a b l e being measured may not be that of form; Gliner's e l l i p s e s grow longer or shorter as compared to the stimulus object. Is shape or s i z e being measured? (A s i m i l a r question may be posed for the other experiments.); (3) the comparative d i f f i c u l t y "''The forms are not a c t u a l l y two-dimensional; they are constructed from t h i n pieces of wood or hardboard so that the dimension of thickness i s minimal and s t a t i c between objects. 54 of d i s c r i m i n a t i n g each object i s undetermined (this i s common to a l l haptic experiments because of the lack of knowledge of what i s being ex-plored) . The employment of some forms to investigate shape i s more accep-table than the employment of others. For example, i t i s easier to be assured that the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between a two-inch c i r c l e and a two-inch octagon i s based on the perception of form (thickness and texture being s t a t i c ) than i t i s that the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n between a rectangle and a square i s based on the perception of shape. A consideration of the q u a l i t i e s subjects are able to d i s c r i m i -nate i n an experimental s i t u a t i o n i s presented by Krantz who o f f e r s us a diagram of h a p t i t i o n (Krantz 1969, p. 20): Object Presentation Haptic Perceptual A c t i v i t y Evocation of Mediators Overt Recognition Behavior S Object R S-S-r — m r — m -r — m — s — s m r — m — s Recognition Response R i s exploration hand movements; S i s proximal stimulation; r s i s a haptic mediator. m m Four stages occur i n the experimental procedure: (1) the object i s presented; (2) a s e r i e s of haptic information gathering or scanning behaviors occur (these are a complex product of t a c t i l e and k i n e s t h e t i c experience, and the proximal stimulation which r e s u l t s cannot be d i r e c t l y 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 of the object i s e a s i l y measured); (3) the proximal stimulus evokes a se r i e s of haptic mediators which have been previously associated with the object; each i s characterized 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 to a p a r t i c u l a r object (in t e n s i t y i s a continuous property of a l l mediators), and for each mediator i s described 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 s y s t e m — a l l dimensions cross at a s i n g l e point corresponding to the center of the co-ordinate system, and the multivariate space defined by t h i s system i s termed "haptic space"; (4) i f each haptic mediator evoked corresponds to a dimension of the stimulus objects, the subject 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 scale dimensions corresponding to those represented by the mediators (Krantz, pp. 20-23). Krantz employed common household objects i n a cross-modal con-d i t i o n of successive presentation with eight-year-old c h i l d r e n . He i s o l a t e d f i v e haptic mediators: (1) resistance (to muscular exertion); (2) rough-smooth ( f r i c t i o n ) ; (3) s i z e (distance between thumb and fore-finger and f i n g e r s ) ; (4) warmth (temperature); and (5) sharpness (angularity). A subject defines haptic space with these mediators. The d e f i n i t i o n of a form could e a s i l y involve the operation of (3) and (5); (3) could e a s i l y act as a confounding v a r i a b l e i n many experiments or could a c t u a l l y replace what the experimenter believes i s being measured. B. Size: Finger span i s an important source of information about smaller objects; together with the angle of the finger j o i n t s i t may 56 produce an accurate percept of the dimensions of small objects. Larger objects can be studied by extending both arms, i n v o l v i n g shoulders, elbows, wri s t s , and finger j o i n t s . Bartley (1953) states that t h i s sug-gests that " T a c t i l e exploration i s a piecemeal a f f a i r , and some ' t a c t i l e ' means must e x i s t to integrate the material into a unit to represent the object, i f i t i s to be said that the observer apprehends shape, s i z e , etc. t a c t u a l l y " (Bartley, p. 401). Afte r a series of experiments, Bartley concluded that haptic appreciation of s i z e operated with p r i n c i p l e s s i m i l a r to those of v i s i o n ; f o r example, the farther away an object i s the smaller i t i s perceived to be, regardless of s i z e . Other experimenters have not dealt with s i z e as a primary subject for inquiry. C. Texture: I t i s possible f o r an observer to d i s t i n g u i s h between two surfaces, one of which i s r i g i d and one of which i s y i e l d i n g , by pressing them with h i s fingers (Gibson, 1963). When combined with the f r i c t i o n created by s l i d i n g fingers over a surface, the resistance to muscular exertion of an object held or pressed can serve as a source of information on the texture of the surface of that object. Texture may be considered as the haptic equivalent of color (Siegal and Vance, 1970). Gliner (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 her subjects when materials were compara-t i v e l y rough rather than smooth. Texture does not appear to be as important to h a p t i t i o n as s i z e and shape. Siegal and Vance conducted a comparison of v i s u a l and haptic preference for form, s i z e , color., and texture with f i v e , s i x , and eight-57 year-olds. For three-dimensional objects presented.simultaneously, form was the dominant preference from s i x years on, v i s u a l l y and h a p t i c a l l y . Texture was not dominant at any age. D. Cross-modal: 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 involve a comparison of the four possible combinations of inspection and recognition of stimulus and pool objects: 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 haptic-haptic. Zinchenko and Ruzkaya (1967) postulate that the tools of percep-t i o n are determined or created by reactions to the problem.of perceiving the environment i n the most e f f i c i e n t way p o s s i b l e . V i s i o n i s more e f f i c i e n t for most information-gathering purposes; therefore, the normal man operates p r i m a r i l y with visual.forms; he may t r a n s f e r forms from other modalities into v i s u a l form but r a r e l y vice-versa. Zinchenko and Ruzkaya's experiments show the r e s u l t s of v i s u a l inspection a f t e r v i s u a l recognition to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than the r e s u l t s of haptic recog-n i t i o n a f t e r haptic inspection; moreover, the intra-modal v i s u a l condi-t i o n i s better than e i t h e r cross-modal condition.. They also reported that the h a p t i c - v i s u a l condition permitted better comparisons than the intra-modal haptic condition; v i s u a l - h a p t i c comparisons were poorest of a l l . An e f f e c t i v e exchange between the modalities, they noted, requires d i s t i n c t forms for both inspection and recognition, and becomes possible only at the end of preschool age (six to seven years o l d ) . Ryan (1970) investigated asymmetrical cross-modal r e l a t i o n s h i p s with tran 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 c e r t a i n modalities than are other dimensions . . . " (p. 57). "Cross-modal t r a n s f e r was s i g n i f i c a n t l y better for the modality order of v i s i o n to touch than for touch to v i s i o n . . ." (p. 33). Wlodarski (1966) reported somewhat d i f f e r e n t findings from those of Zinchenko-Ruzkaya. Employing successive presentation with two-dimensional figures, he reported that the intra-modal haptic condition allowed better matching than e i t h e r cross-modal condition. He noted that a l l discriminations improved with his subj ects' age and suggested a developmental r e l a t i o n s h i p between the modalities which improves with age. Analysis of data from a preference t e s t for v i s u a l and haptic searching led Northman (1970) to report that more time was spent i n haptic exploration than i n v i s u a l exploration, but he suggests that t h i s may not mean that the haptic modality was "preferred"; i t may i n d i c a t e that the v i s u a l modality i s more e f f i c i e n t . He reported v i s u a l memory to be superior to haptic memory and posited a "central organizor" (or necessity?) to determine the most appropriate strategy for perception. Connolly and Jones (1970) devised a t r a n s f e r of t r a i n i n g compari-son i n v o l v i n g d u p l i c a t i o n of a l i n e segment presented h a p t i c a l l y and estimation of a l i n e segment presented v i s u a l l y . Like Wlodarski, they also reported that both intra-modal performances were superior to cross-modal performances, and l i k e Zinchenko and Ruzkaya, they found the h a p t i c - v i s u a l sequence to be superior to the v i s u a l - h a p t i c sequence. Eastman's (1967) r e s u l t s are s i m i l a r to those of Connolly and 59 Jones. Blank et a l . (1968) reported the v i s u a l - h a p t i c sequence to be superior to the h a p t i c - v i s u a l sequence, but three-dimensional objects were used, and i t i s not inconceivable that the a d d i t i o n a l information required for d i s c r i m i n a t i o n with these objects may have produced t h i s r e v e r s a l . In t h i s connection F i l l i p o v (1965) used v i s u a l t r a i n i n g followed by haptic stimulation and v i s u a l recognition with simultaneous presenta-t i o n and concluded that the success of the t r a i n i n g t r a n s f e r depended on the complexity of the elements to be perceived, t h e i r s i z e , and t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n space. Structures most e a s i l y recognized by the f i n g e r t i p 2 1 d i d not exceed 64mm and were not composed of more than two elements. I t seems reasonable to suppose, at l e a s t by analogy, that s i m i l a r l i m i t a -tions may be applied to exploration by the e n t i r e hand, and that r e l a -t i v e to v i s i o n , h a p t i t i o n i s simply not able to perceive as much data. This conclusion seems e s p e c i a l l y l i k e l y given Piaget's d e s c r i p t i o n of haptic perception as a s e r i e s of "centrations" (impressions of parts of an object) (Piaget and Inhelder, 1963) and the suggestion of Connolly and Jones and Northman that haptic storage i s more subject to temporal decay than i s v i s u a l storage of memories. E. Summary of materials and procedures: To compare the experiments above i s very d i f f i c u l t because almost t h e i r only common factor 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 ques-t i o n of the Adequacy of Perception of the Passively-Touched Object," the procedure requires the a p p l i c a t i o n of the f i n g e r t i p to some fi g u r e s , rather than having the figures applied to i t , so I have included the a r t i c l e i n t h i s discussion. 60 in v e s t i g a t i o n of the l i m i t s of active touch. I t would appear that a l l authors who have compared intra-modal and cross-modal matching or transfer of t r a i n i n g agree that the intra-modal v i s u a l condition i s best; the ranking of the other three conditions i s disputed. Given the use of simple, d i s t i n c t "two-dimensional" materials, the h a p t i c - v i s u a l condition seems to be superior to the v i s u a l - h a p t i c condition. There i s the problem of confounding the q u a l i t y of form with that of s i z e , and the e f f e c t of the d i s c r i m i n a b i l i t y of materials re-quires more i n v e s t i g a t i o n as does the.size and number of.the pool objects, the function of memory, the r o l l of l a b e l l i n g (voiced or unvoiced), d i f -f e r i n g t r a i n i n g p r a c t i c e s , and the type of response demanded from the subjects. J J . Subject Parameters A. Sex: Vaught (1968) reported s i g n i f i c a n t female s u p e r i o r i t y on dis c r i m i n a t i o n of two-dimensional forms in. a passive touch s i t u a t i o n ; i n an active touch s i t u a t i o n , .he.found no sex di f f e r e n c e . Siegal and Vance (1970), Benton and Schultz (1949) and Spreen and Gaddes' norms (1969) of Benton's Stereognostic Test- (I960)- d i d not discriminate active touch scores s i g n i f i c a n t l y by sex. B. Age: Haptic perception develops gradually (P.iaget and Inhelder 1963): (1) stage I l a s t s from about .two-and-a-half to four years of age; by the end of t h i s period.the c h i l d i s able to recognize f a m i l i a r shapes h a p t i c a l l y (in a t a c t i l e to v i s u a l condition), but he does not explore and "contents himself" with i n i t i a l impressions of parts of an object 61 ("centrations"); (2) stage II l a s t s from about four-and-a-half to s i x or seven years; i n t h i s period the c h i l d begins to explore objects globally.and establishes r e l a t i o n s h i p s between some extremeties of objects but i s s t i l l non-methodical; by the end of the period he can recognize some euclidean figures d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by angles i n a cross-modal condition; (3) stage I II begins at six-and-a-half or seven years and l a s t s through adulthood; the c h i l d begins systematic exploration of o b j e c t s — h e i s able to return to the point i n i t i a l l y f e l t and use i t as a point of reference; i n a cross-modal condition he can recognize com-plex forms. In these stages the c h i l d progresses from recognizing by act i v e touch common household objects to recognizing t o p o l o g i c a l shapes (objects without d e f i n i t e geometric form) to recognizing geometric shapes. A process of "decentration" occurs (the tr a n s p o s i t i o n of one centration onto another so that a generalization i s possible) as the c h i l d grows older (Piaget and Inhelder 1963, pp. 37-41). Benton and Schultz (1949) conducted a cross-modal examination of ch i l d r e n three to six-years-old, employing household objects, memory, and l a b e l l i n g . They reported .that "under the s p e c i f i c i n vestigations of t e s t i n g of t a c t u a l appreciation u t i l i z e d i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , stereog-nostic capacity shows some growth i n the range of three to s i x years" and that stereognostic capacity extends, back into very early childhood and i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y antedates the motor language s k i l l s involved i n naming v i s u a l l y perceived objects. The experiments of Spreen and Gaddes, Ryan, Solomons, Connolly and Jones, Gliner, and Zinchenko and Ruzkaya 62 show r e s u l t s which tend to agree with the schema of Piaget and Inhelder. Blank et a l . , however, reported evidence of cross-modal trans f e r of form di s c r i m i n a t i o n t r a i n i n g using three-dimensional geometric objects (visual to haptic condition) for c h i l d r e n of three to four years. Part of Fisher's experiment reports that c h i l d r e n are able 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. These r e s u l t s (which are as v a l i d as any) suggest that the age guidelines described by Piaget and Inhelder may not be accurate and that the sequence of development from t o p o l o g i c a l to geometric shape recognition may not be adequately described. C. Brain Injury: The.most pertinent l i t e r a t u r e has been discussed above. A l l studies which have investigated t h i s parameter must contend with the f a c t that d i r e c t evidence of brain i n j u r y i s very rare. The development of neurological examinations based on some p h y s i c a l and much psychological evidence allows physicians to postulate the existence of brain injury, i n s p e c i f i c locations but the d i f f i c u l t y of empirical v e r i -f i c a t i o n does not permit complete t r u s t i n these diagnoses. Educationally, consideration of brain injury i s important i n that a number of programs which postulate brain injury or dysfunction as a cause for c e r t a i n d i f f i c u l t i e s i n school have been presented as neces-sary procedures to.eliminate these d i f f i c u l t i e s . "A major issue i n t r a i n i n g i s whether or not haptic processing d i s a b i l i t i e s can be i n f l u -enced by various forms of t r a i n i n g exercises or whether or not i t i s necessary to work with the r e s i d u a l a b i l i t i e s and allow the subject to 63 compensate by u t i l i z i n g h i s assets" (O'Donnell 1969, p. 46). D. Measured I n t e l l i g e n c e : Hermelin and O'Connor (1961) compared normal c h i l d r e n about f i v e years o l d (chronologically) with a group of c h i l d r e n about twelve years o l d who had a mean mental age of 5.4 years. Intra-modal and cross-modal conditions used two-dimensional Greek and Russian alphabet l e t t e r s with successive presentation. The authors reported that the normal sample maintained s i m i l a r recognition scores i n a l l conditions. The retarded sample produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y superior scores i n the intra-modal haptic condition but d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i -cantly from the normal group i n the other conditions. Medinnus and Johnson (1966) performed a s i m i l a r experiment, using an intra-modal haptic d i s c r i m i n a t i o n task employing two-dimensional nonsense blocks. They reported no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the scores of t h e i r groups. I t must be noted, however, that 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 that of the sample employed by Hermelin and O'Connor. MacKay and Macmillan performed an experiment more comparable to that of Hermelin and O'Connor i n terms of the degree of retardation measured i n the experimental group. Their r e s u l t s were s i m i l a r to those of Hermelin and O'Connor, and they suggest that h a p t i t i o n i s c o n t r o l l e d by areas of the brain which may not be involved i n the types of cerebral i n s u l t which are associated with severe retardation. This function may develop further so that when matched with normal c h i l d r e n for mental age, the t a c t i l e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of retarded c h i l d r e n w i l l be superior. 64 E. Personality: This parameter has not been researched with r e f e r -ence to haptic perception; however, i f the operation of the haptic modality i s postulated to be analogous to the operation of the v i s u a l modality (Bartley 1953;.Gibson 1963), i t i s possible that personality variables such as those found to a f f e c t v i s i o n may also a f f e c t h a p t i t i o n . Within the context of t h i s .consideration, two experiments can be c i t e d . Perez (1961) compared scores of normals and i n d i v i d u a l s diag-nosed as schizophrenic on a s i z e constancy task (a preference task for form, s i z e , and color).. He reported that the schizophrenic group demon-strated a higher degree of s i z e constancy than non-schizophrenics; that i s , t h e i r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of objects was based more on s i z e than any other parameter; normals discriminated objects on parameters other than s i z e . Kauffer (1961) reported i n an experiment on size-distance r e l a -tionships that the subjects judged to be "moving-toward" (seeking i n t e r -personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s to f i l l needs of dependency, etc.) perceived v i s u a l stimuli, as l a r g e r and c l o s e r than subjects who had been judged as "moving-away" (seeking detachment from inter-personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) . These were not severely p a t h o l o g i c a l d e f i n i t i o n s of people, but simply alternate categories to which subjects were assigned by a panel of judges. F. Deafness: Deaf and hard-of-hearing c h i l d r e n have been regarded by some writers as having comparatively poor v i s u a l motor s k i l l s (Myklebust 1962). Wormeli (unpublished, 1973) compared haptic perception of normal c h i l d r e n to that of deaf c h i l d r e n , using the task employed i n the experimental study above. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found. 65 Assuming the task to be v a l i d , i t would appear that whatever may a f f e c t visuo-motor s k i l l s i n the deaf does not a f f e c t h a p t i t i o n i n intra-modal and cross-modal conditions. G. Summary of Subject Parameters: There i s no strong evidence to indicate that sex has an e f f e c t on act i v e touch. There i s much e v i -dence to indic a t e that age does between three and nine years. Explana-tions for the e f f e c t of age include the development of language, development of v i s u a l perception, improvement of an i n t e r n a l t r a n s l a t i o n mechanism, enlargement of haptic knowledge, and improved a t t e n t i o n a l s k i l l s . Brain i n j u r y appears to 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 associated with severe motor involvement of the upper limbs as a symptom. The e f f e c t of minimal brain damage does not appear to be s i g n i f i c a n t . In regard to measured i n t e l l i g e n c e , i t i s possible to state that general i n t e l l e c t u a l r e t ardation does not appear to reduce the haptic perception of those affected. Nor does auditory dysfunction seem to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y associated with a differ e n c e i n haptic a b i l i t y . The e f f e c t of per s o n a l i t y i s unknown except by extension of i t s possible influence on v i s u a l perception. 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054350/manifest

Comment

Related Items