UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Body schema development in 3 to 6 year old children Campbell, Sharon Weatherbee 1973

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
UBC_1973_A7_5 C34_6.pdf [ 14.38MB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0055283.json
JSON-LD: 1.0055283+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0055283.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0055283+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0055283+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0055283+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0055283 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0055283.txt
Citation
1.0055283.ris

Full Text

BODY SCHEMA DEVELOPMENT IN 3 TO 6 YEAR OLD CHILDREN  by  SHARON U. CAMPBELL B.P.E., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION i n t h e Department of P h y s i c a l Education  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o t h e required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JUNE  1973  In p r e s e n t i n g an  this  thesis in partial  advanced degree at the  the  Library  University  f u l f i l m e n t of the  of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree  s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and  I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r extensive for by  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may his representatives.  be  thesis for financial  written  permission.  Department o f  gain  6) CoJL  The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h V a n c o u v e r 8, C a n a d a  ^&J$  g r a n t e d by  the  Head o f my  s h a l l not  £ ^ g £ u C ^ i j~lcrv^  Columbia  2*<^U<  be  Zf  lUZr  that  thesis  Department  copying or  for  study.  copying of t h i s  I t i s understood that  of t h i s  Date  requirements  or  publication  allowed without  my  ii  ABSTRACT  T h i s developmental study the p r e f e r e n c e  attempted to d i s t i n g u i s h between  d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , sensorimotor  d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and  language d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f body p a r t s by 3 to 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n . The  development o f the body schema d e f i n e d as the n e u r o l o g i c a l  model o f the sensorimotor  aspects  o f body p a r t s was emphasized.  S i x t y - f o u r c h i l d r e n served  as s u b j e c t s i n t h i s  There were e i g h t boys and e i g h t g i r l s  study.  i n each age c a t e g o r y .  These  s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d from a group o f 3 to 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n with play s c h o o l experience  at Sunset R e c r e a t i o n  Four Task S e r i e s were a d m i n i s t e r e d ;  hand-finger  Task S e r i e s I was  f i n g e r l o c a l i z a t i o n ; Task S e r i e s II  sensorimotor  Centre.  was  sensorimotor  o r i e n t a t i o n ; Task S e r i e s I I I was hand p r e f e r e n c e and  foot preference;  Task S e r i e s IU was the v e r b a l understanding  of  body p a r t s with r e s p e c t to the r i g h t and l e f t c o - o r d i n a t e s o f the  body. Four d i f f e r e n t experimental  presentations  c o n d i t i o n s that i n v o l v e d v i s u a l  and t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c p r e s e n t a t i o n s  for visual  movement response and n o n - v i s u a l movement response were used i n Task S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I . The frequency and  data o f Task S e r i e s I and I I was submitted  a n a l y s i s and an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e .  to b i v a r i s t e  In Task S e r i e s I I I  Task S e r i e s IV age group p e r c e n t i l e s f o r c o r r e c t responses  across t r i a l s were c a l c u l a t e d .  This  data  analyses  in  the  differentiation  at  the  sensorimotor  development sensory  the  mental  level  reflected  a  body of  that  parts  at  the  3 to  organization.  reliance  upon  major years  6  This  the  development Df  age  is  sensorimotor  tactual-kinesthetic  system. The  •f  of  indicated  results  were  discussed  neurological  term  body  and  educational  significance  Df  implications  for  disorders;  and  integrative  indicated.  the  the  schema  psychology  awareness  the  tD  concerned  in  3  relationships  considerations  terms  to  6  the  the  applicability  research uith  year  reported for  of  the  old  develop-  developmental  children;  between  limited  in  the  neurological  research  in  processing.  Future developmental  body  in  directions study  of  for  physical  effective  cues  education for  motor  research learning  in were  the  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  I would l i k e to express my a p p r e c i a t i o n assistance  given to me throughout  f o r the  the course o f t h i s  H e l p f u l advice uas g r a t e f u l l y  received  from Dr. E.  Koopman o f the F a c u l t y o f E d u c a t i o n ; Dr. Marteniuk Schutz, both o f the F a c u l t y  graduate  and Dr.  of Physical Education.  A l a r g e debt o f g r a t i t u d e Faculty  study.  i s oued to Miss A. T i l l e y ,  of P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n , who has, at both the underand graduate  l e v e l s , been an i n s p i r a t i o n a l educator and  advisor. The  completion o f t h i s study i s due to the e x c e p t i o n a l  o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a b i l i t y o f my long-time c o l l a b o r a t o r , R i c h a r d .  Table of Contents Page L i s t of Tables  ix  L i s t of Figures  xi  Chapter I  INTRODUCTION  1  Body Schema Psychological Considerations Neurological Considerations Berges and Lezine (1965) L e f f r j r d (1970)  2 2 3 5 5  Statement of the Problem  6  Subproblems  II  °  6  Hypotheses  6  Definitions  7  Limitations  9  Significance of the Study  9  REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE  11  Cerebral L a t e r a l i z a t i o n Considerations....  • 17  Neuropathological Considerations Functional inequivalence o f the cerebral hemispheres  IS ,  18  Functional inequivalence of the p a r i e t a l lobes  19  Left p a r i e t a l region - body image....  2D  Gerstmann's syndrome: o c c i p i t a l region  20  left parietal  Cross-modal-integration: l e f t p a r i e t a l lobe Integrative Processing Considerations Sensory Systems  22 22 23  Sensory Integration  25  Form Perception Tasks  26  Berges and Lezine (1965)  30  Chapter  Page  Lefford  (1970)  31  Response  complexity  31  Stimulus  presentation  31  Developmental III  METHODS AND  trends  33  PROCEDURES  34  Subjects  34  Apparatus  35  Free  Play  Task Task Task  Series Series Series  Experimental Task  ^5 I and III IU  II  Conditions  Series  . .•  and  •.  35 36 36  Procedures....  36  I  Experimental  38 Conditions  38  Presentation Response Experimental  Task  38 38  Procedures  38  Presentation Response M e t h o d of r e c o r d i n g  38 39 39  Series  responses....  II  Experimental  40 Conditions  40  Presentation  40  Response  40  Experimental  Procedures  40  Presentation Response Method Task  of  Series  Procedures  Series  42 42 42 responses....  IV  Experimental Verbal Verbal Method  recording  Df  41 42  preference preference  Method Task  responses....  III  Experimental Hand Foot  recording  40 41  42 42  Procedures  42  presentation response Df r e c o r d i n g  42 42 43  response  vii  Chapter  Page  E x p e r i m e n t a l Design  k3  Data A n a l y s e s  kk  B i v a r i a t e Frequency A n a l y s i s  kk  A n a l y s i s of Variance  kk  Methods f o r T e s t i n g t h e Hypotheses Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis IV  1 2 3 k 5  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  kS k9  R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n o f the Hypotheses... H y p o t h e s i s 1. Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis k Hypothesis 5  50 51 5k GO 62 6k  General Discussion  66  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary E x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s and p r o c e d u r e s . Subjects Experimental analyses Experimental f i n d i n g s  BIBLIOGRAPHY  ^5 ^6 ^6 kl kl  Observations  Body Schema Psychological Considerations Neurological Considerations Integrative Processing Considerations.. V  ^5  66 67 69 70 73 73 73 75 75 75  Conclusions  77  D i r e c t i o n s f o r F u t u r e Research  78 79  viii  Page APPENDICES Appendix A - wooden Frame Apparatus f o r Task Series  I and I I  87  Appendix B - Photographs f o r Task S e r i e s I  89  Appendix C - Photographs f o r Task S e r i e s I I  92  Appendix D - Experimental Design  100  Appendix E - I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r Task S e r i e s I-IV  105  Appendix F - B i v a r i a t e Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r Task S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I Appendix B - A n a l y s i s o f Variance Table f o r Task S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I  114 117  ix  L i s t of Tables  Table 1 2 3  Page S i g n i f i c a n t Variables Which Should be Considered Under SOR  2k  S i g n i f i c a n t Factors i n Three Form Perception Studies  28  Cross-Modal  Description o f Finger D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Tasks (Lefford, 1970)  32  if  Experimental Conditions i n Task Series I and Task Series II  37  5  Age Percentages for Hand Preference and Foot Preference..  52  6  Age Percentages for the Language D i f f e r entiation Df Body Parts, Right/Left  53  7  Mean Scores f o r the Age and Sex (Age) Main Effects  53  8  Mean Scores f o r the Age x Task Series Interaction..  55  9  Mean Scares f o r the Age x Conditions Interaction  62  10  Mean S C O T E S f o r the Age x Dominance Interaction..  Gk  Appendix 1.1  Latin Square Replicated f o r Each Age x Sex Group  101  1.2  4x2x2x2x4 Experimental Design for the Sensorimotor Task Series I and II  102  1.3  Method o f Recording Responses i n the k Experimental Conditions o f Task Series I  103  Method o f Recording Responses i n Task Series III  ±Qk .  l.k  X  Table  1.5 1.6  1.7  1.8  Page  Method Df R e c o r d i n g Responses i n Task S e r i e s IU  104  B i v a r i a t e Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Scores i n Task S e r i e s I . O r d i n a l S c a l e (0-5)  115  B i v a r i a t e Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Scores i n Task S e r i e s II'. O r d i n a l Scale (0-6)...  116  A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e f o r Scores i n Task S e r i e s I and I I  118  xi  L i s t of Figures  Figure 1 2 3 k  Page Mean Scores f o r T a c t u a l - K i n e s t h e t i c P r e s e n t a t i o n s ori Task S e r i e s by Age  57  Mean Scores f o r the Age X Task S e r i e s x Conditions Interaction  58  Mean S c o r e s f o r t h e Age x C o n d i t i o n s Interaction Mean Scores f o r the Age x Task S e r i e s x Dominance I n t e r a c t i o n  .59 Sl  -1-  CHAPTER  I  INTRODUCTION  For years, the developmental  significance of body schema  has perplexed researchers i n developmental Goodenough, 1945; 1960;  psychology  Piaget, 1956), educational psychology  McCarthy and McCarthy, 1970), and developmental  (Benton, 1959,  (Gesell,  1962;  Head, 1920;  Lange, 1930;  1946;  (Kephart, medicine  Stengel, 1944).  More recently, the phenomenon of body schema has been re-examined in terms of the motor u t i l i z a t i o n of t h i s schema (Berges and Lezine, 1965;  Lefford, 1970). Numerous theories pertaining to the developmental  sig-  nificance of a c h i l d forming an organized model of his body have been proposed.  Moreover, p r a c t i c a l applications of these theor-  e t i c a l contentions have been construed and disseminated.  What i s  peculiar to t h i s research area i s the r e l a t i v e neglect of two intermediary phases which are t y p i c a l l y present in the s c i e n t i f i c advancement of knowledge:  f i r s t , the c o l l e c t i o n of systematic data  and second, the accumulation  of relevant findings across the con-  cerned d i s c i p l i n e s (Bruner, 1964).  The absence of a generally  accepted d e f i n i t i o n of body awareness, body concept, body representation or body schema may  explain why  phenomenon has often been inadequate.  the s c i e n t i f i c study of this Closely associated with  t h i s , i s the lack of precise and v a l i d measures for the study of t h i s phenomenon (Chalfant and S c h e f f l i n , 1969).  -2-  In view of the above, the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n has been d i r e c t e d touards a c l e a r e r understanding o f body schema and i t s developmental  significance.  Body Schema  In h i s o r i g i n a l f o r m u l a t i o n , Head (1920) conceived t h a t a f f e r e n t sensory components are u n i f i e d and s y n t h e s i z e d i n t o the body schema.  Head (1920) c o n s i d e r e d the body schema to be a  sensory mechanism.  More r e c e n t l y , Berges  and Lezine (1965) have  argued t h a t w h i l e the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the body schema i s based on past i m p r e s s i o n s , predominantly  k i n e s t h e t i c and p r o p r i o c e p t i v e , '  the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h i s p h y s i o l o g i c a l and subconscious model i n i t s use.  Berges  and L e z i n e (1965) have, thus, c o n s i d e r e d the  body schema to be a sensorimotor mechanism. by A y r e s  1  lies  T h i s has been supported  and Reid's (1966) d e s c r i p t i o n of the body schema as the  n e u r o l o g i c a l model of the sensorimotor a s p e c t s of body p a r t s .  This  d e f i n i t i o n of body schema has been adapted f o r use i n the present investigation.  Psychological Considerations The s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t a c h e d to body schema has stemmed to a l a r g e degree,  from the works of one of the major t h e o r i s t s i n  developmental  psychology, Jean P i a g e t .  of l o g i c a l thought  P i a g e t ' s (1953) theory  development has been based on the h y p o t h e s i s  t h a t schemata ( s e t s Df a c t i o n s ) are the s t r u c t u r e s of the . i n t e l l e c t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the c h i l d ' s a d a p t a t i o n to the environment.  Piaget  -3-  (1953) child this has  has are  also  suggested  predominantly  theoretical been  objects  saiv and  by  Piaget  object  the  active  extent  of  his  organize  the  differentiation  necessarily lationship  of  precedes outside  components  in  the  sensorimotor Uithin  understanding  Kephart, this  to  A brief  be  have  discussion  he  right  actions,  suggested  that  first  varied  widely  the  Piaget's  Denhoff  et  left  al.  explain  neurological  for  has  him  objects  as  space  of  of  the  movements, by  argued, in  the  the  child  space,  relationships  similar  seen  spatial  Thus, a  re-  differentiation  significant  laterality  have  (Chalfant  (1968)  early  I960).  space  which  observable  his  part  of  of  comprehension  co-ordinates  of  (1953)  notion  factor  space.  categories may  a  Uithin  comprehension  body  been of  1)  with  context,  notion  procedures  external,  the  has  the  (1953)  and  pre-school  of  limited  (Kephart,  and  Considerations  able  parts  body  Neurological  from  is  interacts  self  functioning  schemata  2)  the  schemata.  During  Piaget  neurological  IMot u n l i k e  a  If  the  of  and  which  theoretical  The  on  space  organization  the  depend  differentiation  the  the  1960).  concept  of  this of  to  as  of  development  position.  as  the  notions  sensorimotor  the  body  of  the  said  a  space  of  been  in  in  movement.  only  to  (1954)  shifts  can  the  relationships,  own  is  tied  framework,  individual's child  that  to  and  this  in  and  (Radler  used  the  internal  body  to  has and  measure  Schefflin,  1969).  development  of  diversity.  hierarchial actions  the  the  develop  been  studied  of  or  to  Semmes  lateralization  organization internal,  of  unobserv-  et  al.  (1968)  of  function  have  proceeds  -k-  from s i m p l e , p r e f e r e n c e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , through i n t e r m e d i a r y , sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  to complex,  language  differentiation.  While the p r e c i s e n a t u r e of t h i s n e u r o l o g i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n  has  not been r e v e a l e d , the s e n s o r i m o t o r f u n c t i o n s which do not r e q u i r e a h i g h degree o f s y m b o l i c p r o c e s s i n g have been r e p o r t e d to s t a b i l i z e around 5 t o S y e a r s o f age (Benton, 1959, Right-left  1962).  d e t e c t i o n and f i n g e r l o c a l i z a t i o n procedures have  been used t o a r r i v e  at t h i s f i n d i n g .  Right-left  detection pro-  cedures have a l s o been used t o s t u d y l a t e r a l i t y ( K e p h a r t , 1960). F i n g e r l o c a l i z a t i o n procedures have a l s o been used as a somatosensory s p a t i a l measure f o r y e a r s ( S t o n e , 1968). has r e p o r t e d t h a t 'body awareness  1  i n the t y p i c a l c h i l d by s c h o o l age.  Kephart  (1960)  and l a t e r a l i t y are e s t a b l i s h e d Stone (1968) r e v i e w e d the  f i n d i n g s o f s e v e r a l f i n g e r l o c a l i z a t i o n s t u d i e s and r e p o r t e d t h a t , i f response c o m p l e x i t y i s m i n i m i z e d , t h i s s e n s o r i m o t o r a b i l i t y s t a b i l i z e s around 5 t o 6 y e a r s o f age. I t would seem r e a s o n a b l e , i n view o f the above, t o suggest t h a t w h i l e body d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n has been a u s e f u l  developmental  and e d u c a t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g y c o n s t r u c t , the developmental importance of body schema may the  be r o o t e d i n the n e u r o l o g i c a l development  of  child. Two  s t u d i e s which examined the motor u t i l i z a t i o n o f the  o r g a n i z e d body model i n 3 t o 6 year direction  o l d c h i l d r e n have g i v e n  t o the f o r m u l a t e d hypotheses o f t h i s  investigation.  -5-  Berqes and  Lezine  (1965)  In an attempt to p r o v i d e e x a m i n a t i o n of p r e - s c h o o l and  Lezine  procedures f o r the  neurological  c h i l d r e n , by p e d i a t r i c i a n s , Berges  (1965) s t u d i e d the a b i l i t y of 3 to 6 year o l d  c h i l d r e n to i m i t a t e a g e s t u r e were c o n s i d e r e d  to be s i m p l e  o f the e x p e r i m e n t e r .  The  or complex depending on the  l a t i o n s h i p between 1) the l e v e l of v i s u a l p e r c e p t u a l i z a t i o n required  ( g e s t a l t , s p a t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n ) and  o f motor c o - o r d i n a t i o n r e q u i r e d .  A l l gestures  gestures re-  organ2) the  level  involved either  the upper limb schemata or the h a n d - f i n g e r schemata.  The  old  while  c h i l d r e n had  d i f f i c u l t y w i t h the s i m p l e  gestures,  4 to 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n d i s p l a y e d d i f f i c u l t y o n l y on the gestures  performance.  body was  seen to precede a c c u r a c y along  of the body.  IMo d i f f e r e n c e was  the  the non-dominant s i d e  observed between the  level  the  complex  Accuracy along the dominant s i d e o f  Df boys and g i r l s at each age Lefford  3 year  performance  studied.  (1970) Lefford's  (1970) study used 12 f i n g e r l o c a l i z a t i o n  to examine the development of v o l u n t a r y children.  tasks  a c t i o n s i n 3 to 6 year o l d  Four d i f f e r e n t response a c t i o n s were s t u d i e d under  three presentation  c o n d i t i o n s 1) v i s u a l and  t a c t u a l 2) v i s u a l and  3) t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c . L e f f o r d ' s f i n d i n g s were e x t e n s i v e next c h a p t e r .  and  are d i s c u s s e d  i n the  In s h o r t , he suggested t h a t the v i s u a l h a n d - f i n g e r  schemata appeared to be more advanced at the 3 year o l d l e v e l than  -6-  d i d the t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c hand-finger schemata. age,  By k years o f  L e f f o r d found that hand-finger schemata were e q u a l l y  d i f f e r e n t i a t e d a c r o s s the v i s u a l system system.  and the t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c  Response complexity was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  to d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  related  accuracy.  Statement o f the Problem  The  concern o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s to study the body  schema development o f the 3 t o 6 year o l d c h i l d as r e f l e c t e d i n the development o f h i s a b i l i t y  to make d i f f e r e n t i a t e d v o l u n t a r y  movements on two s e r i e s o f h a n d - f i n g e r sensorimotor t a s k s .  Subproblems There First,  are two secondary  concerns  in this  investigation.  the a b i l i t y o f 3 to 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n to make p r e f e r e n c e  d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s o f the body p a r t s i s s t u d i e d . of 3 to 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n t o make language  Second, the a b i l i t y  d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s of  the body p a r t s with r e s p e c t to the r i g h t and l e f t  co-ordinates of  the body i s s t u d i e d .  Hypotheses It i s h y p o t h e s i z e d (1)  that:  The major development i n the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f body p a r t s i s at the sensorimotor l e v e l , as opposed to the p r e f e r e n c e l e v e l and the language l e v e l , i n 3 to 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n . The age o f the c h i l d , not the sex o f the c h i l d , i s the determining f a c t o r i n t h i s development.  I t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t the sensorimotor development o f handf i n g e r schemata i n 3 to 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  -7-  the  following  trends: The  (2)  ability  entiations aspects, the  to is  not  make  voluntary  dependent only  the  upon  movement the  sensory  differ-  sensorimotor  aspects,  of  task.  T h e a b i l i t y t o make v o l u n t a r y m o v e m e n t differentiations requiring visual organization p r e c e d e s t h e a b i l i t y t o make v o l u n t a r y movement differentiations requiring tactual-kinesthetic organization.  (3)  The  (4)  ability  entiations tegration to  make  an  the  The  (5)  to on  make  voluntary  movement  tasks  requiring  intra-modal  develops  voluntary tasks  ability  entiations precedes  to  movement  make the  ability  differentiations the  advance  requiring  along  the  in  the  dominant to  make the  in-  ability  differentiations  inter-modal  voluntary  along  of  differ-  integration.  movement side  of  differthe  voluntary  non-dominant  body  movement side  of  body.  Definitions  Body  The n e u r o l o g i c a l m o d e l o f t h e s e n s o r i m o t o r a s p e c t s o f body p a r t s ( A y r e s and R e i d , 1966)  Schema  Differentiation  The a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e discriminated sensory s t i m u l i f o r r e s p o n s e ( C h a l f a n t and S c h e f f l i n , 1969). T h i s a b i l i t y r e f l e c t s t h e t h r e e levels of psychoneurological functioning p r e f e r e n c e , s e n s o r i m o t o r and l a n g u a g e (Denhoff et a l , 1968)  Egocentricity  Taking t h e p o s i t i o n o f s e l f as t h e permanent centre of reference in s p a t i a l organization of the environment. D u r i n g t h e a g e s 2J& - 5 years (approximately), children typically p r o g r e s s from t h i s p o i n t to awareness of the e f f e c t of changes in s e l f p o s i t i o n on t h e p o s i t i o n o f o b j e c t s ( P i a g e t , 1970).  Fine  Neuromuscular c o - o r d i n a t i o n which i n v o l v e s p r e c i s i o n .oriented c o n t r o l of small muscle groups; t h i s o f t e n r e f e r s to eye-hand co-ordination.  Gross  Motor  Motor  Skill  Skill  Neuromuscular c o - o r d i n a t i o n c o n t r o l of the l a r g e muscle  which i n v o l v e s groups; this  -a-  often  refers  to  the  movement  of  the  whole  body. Integratian  The  organization  going  neural  of  both  events  incoming  (Chalfant  and  and  out-  Schefflin,  1969). In  Kinethesis  behavioral  the  parts,  the  amplitude actively  Lateralization  of  function  terms,  discrimination  kinesthesis  of  the  discrimination of  and  movement passively  of  Templeton,  1966).  The  cross-over  principle  both  the  spinal  ascending  tracts  and  (Reitan,  of body  that  of  movement parts  produced  and  includes  position  body and  both  (Howard  applies  descending  to  cortico-  1971).  Modality  An a v e n u e o f a c q u i r i n g s e n s a t i o n : the v i s u a l , auditory, t a c t i l e and k i n e s t h e t i c systems are c o n s i d e r e d the most i m p o r t a n t modalities in learning (Chalfant and S c h e f f l i n , 1969).  Neurology  The b i o l o g i c a l s t u d y o f t h e n e r v o u s (Chalfant and S c h e f f l i n , 1969).  Perceptual-motor theory  The e s s e n c e o f t h i s t h e o r y i s t h a t c o m p l e x l e a r n i n g s are b u i l t upon e a r l i e r integrative l e a r n i n g s i n a s e q u e n t i a l and h i e r a r c h a l f a s h i o n (McCarthy and M c C a r t h y , 1970).  Pre-operational stage of logical thought development  T h o u g h t d e v e l o p m e n t d u r i n g t h i s s t a g e moves from e x t e r n a l to i n t e r n a l actions. The development o f images enhances the child's ability to o r g a n i z e and adapt to the environment ( P i a g e t , 1956).  Sensorimotor neurology  Integration of incoming sensory information f o r motor r e s p o n s e . In t e r m s o f n e u r o l o g i c a l organization this level is intermediary to p r e f e r e n c e and language lateralization (Chelfant and S c h e f f l i n , 1969; Denhoff et al, 1968; Semmes e t a l , I960).  Sensorimotor  Piaget (1956) r e f e r s to the s e n s o r i m o t o r s t a g e o f l o g i c a l t h o u g h t d e v e l o p m e n t as the i n i t i a l phase where a c t i o n s are predominantly external.  developmental psychology  system  -9-  Limitations  The  u s u a l d e l i m i t a t i o n s of study  the same socio-economic uho  participated  (the s m a l l sample  size,  grouping) apply; i n a d d i t i o n , the c h i l d r e n  as s u b j e c t s i n t h i s study  a l l had p l a y  school  experience.  S i g n i f i c a n c e o f the Study  The  long-term  o b j e c t i v e o f r e s e a r c h concerned u i t h body  schema development i n p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n l i e s i n r e v e a l i n g the p r e c i s e nature  o f t h i s phenomenon and i t s developmental  sig-  nificance . The  r e l e v a n c e o f t h i s study  to the f i e l d o f human perform-  ance and motor l e a r n i n g may be e x p l a i n e d i n s e v e r a l ways. very l i t t l e  As  i s known about the p r e - s c h o o l development o f the  k i n e s t h e t i c system and i t s i n t e r c o - o r d i n a t i o n s with other systems ( C h a l f a n t and S c h e f f l i n ,  1969), t h i s study may  sensory  provide  d i r e c t i o n f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h i n the k i n e s t h e t i c i n t e g r a t i o n o f children.  The study may c o n t r i b u t e t o the l i m i t e d r e s e a r c h which'  has been r e p o r t e d on the development of v o l u n t a r y movements i n the pre-school c h i l d . re-examination  Furthermore, i t may p r o v i d e  i n f o r m a t i o n f o r the  of v o l u n t a r y movement development i n terms o f  r e l a t e d developments i n sensory  integration.  of v o l u n t a r y movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  Perhaps the accuracy  i s dependent on the p r e s e n t -  a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n to a p a r t i c u l a r sensory o r d i n a t e d systems and v a r i e s with age.  system or i n t e r c o -  T h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n would  seem t o be  of p a r t i c u l a r importance  cues f o r motor l e a r n i n g . appear to h o l d broad  i n determining  This aspect  implications  effective  of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n would  for physical  educators.  CHAPTER I I  REVIEW OF THE  The developmental study  LITERATURE  of the body schema i s complex  i n t h a t i t has been d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y r e s e a r c h e r s i n developmental psychology, neuropsychology, and neurology.  c o n s i d e r e d by  educational  psychology,  For the purposes o f t h i s  study,  body schema has been d e f i n e d as the n e u r o l o g i c a l model of the sensorimotor  a s p e c t s o f the body p a r t s and s t u d i e d i n an i n t e r -  d i s c i p l i n a r y manner. T h i s chapter  has been s u b d i v i d e d as f o l l o w s :  l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , both nature;  psycho-  developmental and e d u c a t i o n a l i n  n e u r o l o g i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g  considerations. Since t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n has r e c e i v e d d i r e c t i o n  from  each o f the above r e s e a r c h areas, the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s these  between  areas with r e s p e c t to body schema development w i l l a l s o  be d i s c u s s e d .  I t should be c l a r i f i e d ,  however, t h a t such  a r d i n a t i o n s have not been commonly r e p o r t e d . formulated  As a r e s u l t , the  r e l a t i o n s h i p s have, with few e x c e p t i o n s ,  been drawn  from the f i n d i n g s of r e s e a r c h e r s working i n the v a r i o u s ciplines.  interco-  dis-  Psychological  Cognitive  Development  To has in  not the  date,  been  ation)  far  Elkind  The  significance  Piaget's  works.  Piaqet's  Theory  Piaget development the  motor the  the a  its  of  on  the  schemata, of  has  growth  of  process of  information  the  study  to  body  has  of  the  in  the  models  In  involved represent-  phenomenon  nature.  According  framework  cognitive works  theory  has to  presently  p r o c e s s e s has  of  of  of  schemata  Jean  body  Piaget.  schema  originated  so  on  to  and  of  spatial  have of  logical  (sets  Thus,  Piagetian  the  and  of  by with  Development  his  external of  processes  p s y c h o l o g i s t s has  and  absence  this  the  associated adaptation  form  of  representations  assimilating  the  procedures  the  integration  intellect.  schemata  and  development  that  development  refined  growth  from  the  based  intelligence.  to  of  Thought  hypothesis of  of  theoretical  entirety,  integrated  also  lack  theoretical  Logical  (1953)  cognitive  understanding  educational  structures  basis  Piaget  our  attached  and  the  examination  (1969),  in  to  of  cognitive  developmental  almost  nature  (differentiation,  1964)  Flavell  developmental  are  direct  growth  the  stemmed,  of  predominantly,  and  for  Due  study  the  (Bruner,  remained,  precise  resolved.  cognitive  used  the  behavioral  techniques in  Considerations  been  the  the  thought actions)  schemata,  considered  environment.  environment  terms,  internal  environment,  with  adaptation  is  environmental and  then,  testing  -13-  the  applicability  environment. by  Piaget  of these  models through i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the  L o g i c a l thought development then,  as an a c t i v e i n w a r d  Adaptation  and o u t w a r d b u i l d i n g  has been seen t o b e g i n  with external,  a c t i o n s and t o p r o c e e d t o i n t e r n a l , Bruner's  (1964) c o n t e n t i o n  conceived  process.  observable  unobservable a c t i o n s .  t h a t c o g n i t i v e growth o c c u r s ,  m a j o r way, f r o m t h e o u t s i d e has  h a s been  in a  i n as w e l l a s f r o m t h e i n s i d e o u t  b e e n b a s e d on t h e r e p l i c a t i o n  of Piagetian studies.  W h i l e t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f body a w a r e n e s s , w i t h i n disciplines, space p r i o r  h a s b e e n b a s e d an t h e s e n s o r i m o t o r t o and d u r i n g  organization of  the p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l stage  t h o u g h t development, t h e above d i s c u s s i o n ^ w o u l d  of l o g i c a l  seem t o i n d i c a t e  t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f body a w a r e n e s s i s s i g n i f i c a n t •ne may  d e d u c e t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f an o r g a n i z e d  s e l f * not u n l i k e other  lished.  model o f t h e  information regarding  c o n t i n u a l accomodation o f the organized  schema e f f e c t i v e  in itself,  p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t s , i s b a s e d on t h e  c o n t i n u a l a s s i m i l a t i o n of sensory the  these  t h e body a n d  schemata u n t i l  f o r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h t h e e n v i r o n m e n t becomes  The d e v e l o p m e n t of. t h i s  phenomenon, t h e n ,  the sensorimotor  The D e v e l o p m e n t o f S p a t i a l  Poincaire irrespective stood  in  development o f the c h i l d .  Organization  (1953) has s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e  i s no s p a c e  Df o b j e c t s ; t h e n o t i o n o f s p a c e c a n o n l y be u n d e r -  as a f u n c t i o n o f o b j e c t s and o b j e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  to P i a g e t ' s  estab-  w o u l d seem t o be  d e p e n d e n t upon t h e n e u r o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e c h i l d : particular,  a body  (1954) C o n s t r u c t i o n  of R e a l i t y i n the C h i l d ,  According two f a c t o r s  have been c o n s i d e r e d  to be e s s e n t i a l i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f  space: (1)  a comprehension o f the s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s between o b j e c t s and a b j e c t p a r t s ,  (2)  a comprehension of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s own i n body p o s i t i o n .  T h i s reasoning  i s c o n s i s t e n t with P i a g e t ' s  the  developing  understanding o f the environment r e q u i r e s  and  outward b u i l d i n g .  (1953) c o n t e n t i o n  separated  f o l l o w s t h a t the o r g a n i z a t i o n  inward  events.  o f space can not be  from the sensory and motor development o f the c h i l d .  Spatial organization phylogentic and  that  In n e u r o l o g i c a l terms t h i s development  r e q u i r e s an i n t e g r a t i o n o f incoming and outgoing n e u r a l It  shifts  has been s a i d to o r i g i n a t e very e a r l y i n the  development o f the human organism with the movement  e x t e r n a l a c t i o n s o f the c h i l d  ( P i a g e t , 1954).  At f i r s t , the  c h i l d t r e a t s the o b j e c t s he manipulates as a p a r t a f a simple u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d body a c t i v i t y .  As the c h i l d ' s motor  activity  becomes l e s s d i f f u s e and u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d h i s a c t i o n s l o s e global nature.  One c o u l d d e s c r i b e  the c h i l d as f i r s t  their  a c t i n g with  the o b j e c t , then a c t i n g on i t , and f i n a l l y a c t i n g without i t . S i m i l a r i l y , as the c h i l d ' s sensory d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f the topography of the body becomes more acute, he l o s e s h i s e g o c e n t r i c to space; no longer  incorporating himself  as the c e n t r a l  approach reference  p o i n t f o r understanding the s p a t i a l a s p e c t s o f the environment. Piaget's  (1953) P r e - o p e r a t i o n a l  ment (approximately 2 - 7  stage o f l o g i c a l thought develop-  y e a r s ) has been seen t o c h a r a c t e r i z e  t h i s development o f s p a t i a l  organization.  Educational  Hypotheses  Within body  parts  this  theoretical  and  body  part  framework,  relationships  advance  of  the  understanding  of  outside  of  the  self  1954).  said  develop  of  to  right  have  and  is  (Piaget, that  left.  suggested  that  of  or  found  to  the  time  by  1960).  This  (space the  an  most  awareness, with  If  aspects  and of  a  finding,  in  the  for  in  the  and of  (1960)  inter-related  directionality  and  child  space  (1954)  abstract  notions  laterality by  tenet  6  years and  that  between  (Piaget,  theory.  and  in  understanding  (Radler  (space  the  of  Piaget  more  Kephart,  directionality  develop  laterality,  the  the  of  relationships  internal  school  with  to  notion  of  typical  distance  Kephart's has  to  formal  seen  (1960)  before  combination  aspects  Kephart  In  has of  Kephart, form  objects) 1954)  this  are  has  perceptual-  establishment  visual^motor  age  of  body  integration  ability. child  Radler space which  lished  the  Kephart  or  According  enters  occupies)  hasis  abilities in  established  child  laterality,  reading  (1960)  the  important  theory,  be  established  object  provided'the motor  be  first  projection  formulated.  been  object  the  of  be  and  Kephart  must  can  been  Furthermore, concrete  understanding  has  The  laterality  directionality, space  object  the  displays and  Kephart  (laterality, underlie  child.  (1960),  difficulty  and  for  remediating  and  directionality  As  these a  Radler  reading  (1960)  notions  argued  These  have  Godfrey  Kephart  difficulty  training.  have  learning  directionality)  result, and  in  and  (196D)  through ideas  read,  that  and not  to  the  the  been  clearly  been  estab-  (1964),  provided  visual-motor, have  concrete  integrative  Kephart have  Kephart  ideas  laterality  utilized  in  -16the designs o f numerous "perceptual-motor" programmes f o r c h i l d r e n uith  reading d i s a b i l i t i e s  (McCarthy  inadequacies o f t h i s developmental  and McCarthy, 1970). trend l i e f i r s t  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n , r a t h e r than s p e c i f i c f o c a l i z a t i o n , difficulty  causes and second,  The  i n the broad of r e a d i n g  i n the l a c k of data on the  development of s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n i n the p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d . The  literature  c h i l d may  p e r t a i n i n g to the n e u r o l o g i c a l development of the  be r e l a t e d to the l i t e r a t u r e  i n developmental  and  e d u c a t i o n a l psychology to provide a c l e a r e r understanding o f s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n development i n the c h i l d .  Neurological Considerations Kephart  (196D) and P i a g e t (1954) have emphasized  portance of an i n t e r n a l  understanding of the r i g h t  the  and l e f t  imco-  o r d i n a t e s of the body i n the s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n development of the p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d .  Moreover, r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s i n space  development at the P r e - o p e r a t i o n a l stage ( P i a g e t , 1953) r e p o r t e d t h a t the a b i l i t y  to u t i l i z e  particular  not n e c e s s a r i l y accompanied by the a b i l i t y these concepts 1920;  (Ames and Learned,  G e s e l l , 1940,  1946;  1948;  King, 1971;  concept  have  space concepts i s  to v e r b a l l y  explain  Asso and Uyke, 1971;  Meyer (1940).  Court,  In view o f  the c a t e g o r i e s commonly employed i n the study of n e u r o l o g i c a l development i n c h i l d r e n  (Semmes et a l , I960)  (1)  preference  differentiation  (2)  sensorimotor  (3)  language  differentiation  differentiation  the p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d has not developed a s o p h i s t i c a t e d  language  -17-  differentiatian  of  standing  right  be  of  further  the  space.  The. r e l e v a n c e  and  interpreted  left  by  of  an  internal  under-  co-ordinates  of  the  may  considering  the  cerebral  lateralization  of  Cerebral  Lateralization  Considerations  Pathways levels from  of  the  the  lower  length  of  spinal  tracts  to  apposite  phenomenon (Reitan, of  and  has  been  1971).  by  foot  performance cedures  It  on  at  the  localization, (painting) response  by  detection  been  et  (1959,  1962)  has  finger  localization  is  tracts  the  the  and  the  all  finger  at  verbal  cortico-  cross-over of  three  functioning  categories  the  preference level  response;  detection, labels  (pointing)  entire  localization  motor  right-left  impulses  cross-aver  sensorimotor  for  higher  the  lateralization  information on  is This  reflected  at  detection  for  by pro-  at  the  finger movements  indication  for  verbal  1968).  has  to  the  It  movement  al,  the  descending  level.  the  presenting  or  (I960)  in  as  preference;  performance  procedures  established  medullary  the  associated with  indication  Kephart  both  has  hand  in  motor  descend over  ta  procedures  (Denhoff  to  to  conduct  referred  right-left  level  that  ascending sensory  organization.  and  stimulation  a s c e n d and  Peculiar  presenting .sensory  language  is  the  sensory  pathways  levels,  side  neurological  level  and  neuraxis.  literature  function.  conduct  neuraxis,  higher.to  the  that  body  employed  arrive  typical  reported  that  abilities  at  sensorimotor  the  child the which  right-left  conclusion that  by  formal  right-left are  not  school  laterality age.  detection  symbolic  and  Benton the  stabilize  - 1 8 -  around that  5  to  the  6  years  educational  and  directionality  the  theoretical  spatial may  be  based  to  literature  the  the  should  In  this  reported  will  in  reasonable  body  do  not  cerebral  this  to  of  of  laterality,  be  based  pertaining  pre-school  consideration  the  need  development  suggest,  awareness,  hypothesis the  to  on  to  child,  but,  sensorimotor  neuropathological  organization  of  spatial  reasoning.  Considerations  of be  the  neuropathological  cerebral  presented.  differences  hemispheres  ability Piaget's  The  solidify  seem  relating  neurological  section,  differences  would  development  child.  [\leuropathological  abilities  of  concerned with  functioning  It  reading  extension  on  in  age.  hypotheses  understanding  functions  the  of  (Smith,  in  the  1966)  evidence  hemispheric  While  not  numerous  organization  all  functioning  of  related of  researchers the  researchers  right have  to spatial  have  and  left  cerebral  indicated  a  difference.  Functional on  the  findings  damaged  adults,  significantly brain when and  damage left  Piero  be  Arrigoni  which  higher and  (1967)  when  studied  differently  findings organized  of De  that  right  the  were  137 in  constructional  the  brain  lesions was  cause damaged  spatial  the  (1964),  cerebral  suggested in  cerebral  Renzi  disorientation  lesions  differences  (1967)  and  showed  spatial  cerebral  hemispheric Piero's  of  inequivalence  two  with  175  apraxia were  of  brain  adults  was  the  cause  spatial  De  De  Renzi  determine Renzi's  abilities  hemispheres;  of  higher  damage, to  Based  brain  significantly  functioning. that  hemispheres.  their  may  and indeed  represent-  • 1'J  a t i o n b e i n g more f o c a l i z e d on the l e f t s i d e of the b r a i n more d i f f u s e on the r i g h t s i d e o f the b r a i n . the p u r p o r t e d  and  Consideration  of  d i s t i n c t i o n between the f u n c t i o n s of the r i g h t  l e f t p a r i e t a l l o b e s may Functional  clarify this  and  contention.  i n e q u i v a l e n c e of the p a r i e t a l l o b e s .  According  to R e i t a n (1971), Semmes (1968) and Sparrow and S a t z (197Db) t h e r e have been many s t u d i e s which have shown t h a t the r i g h t and l o b e s are not f u n c t i o n a l l y e q u i v a l e n t .  F u r t h e r , the d i f f e r e n c e s  have g e n e r a l l y been seen t o l i e i n the sphere of and  language d i s o r d e r s .  The  left  sensorimotor  d i s o r d e r s commonly r e f e r r e d t o are  ( R e i t a n , 1971): (1)  Agnosia  d e f e c t s i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and r e c o g n i t i o n o f f a m i l i a r o b j e c t s e.g. f i n g e r agnosia  (2)  Apraxia  d e f e c t s i n the development o f c o n c e p t s f o r sequencing a c t i o n s f o r p u r p o s i v e movement  (3)  Aphasia  d e f e c t s i n the comprehension o f more complex, s y m b o l i c  (4) The  Anomolies of s p a t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n . a p r a x i a s , as i n d i c a t e d by De R e n z i and P i e r o  have been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h r i g h t h e m i s p h e r i c De R e n z i , 1964; behavior  language a c t i v i t i e s  C r i t c h l e y , 1968;  l e s i o n s ( A r r i g o n i and  Reuben and Bakwin, 1965).  Apraxic  has a l s o been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h l e s i o n s i n the pre-motar  c o r t i c a l r e g i o n assumed t o be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r sequencing (Luria,  (1967),  abilities  1964). In c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n t o the above, the a p h a s i a s ,  agnosias  and anomolies o f s p a t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n have been commonly l i n k e d w i t h l e s i o n s i n the l e f t p a r i e t a l r e g i o n (Semmes e t  al.,1960).  —  -2U-  Left years, the  a  number  left  image been  parietal of  parietal  (Benson seen  in  and  region  -  investigators regions  often  Geschwind,  combination  image.  have  During  suggested  disturbs  1968).  the  This  the  that  past  forty  damage  concept  of  distrubance  to  body  has  further  1971;  Reubin  uith:  (1)  Apraxic  behavior:  (2)  Aphasic  behavior:  (3)  body  Visual-motor  Lange, 1940; and B a k u i n , Critchley,  Reitan, 1968.  1964,  Satz,  1970a,  1965;  LJeinstein,  spatial  b;  1968;  Reitan,  and  and  Benton,  1968.  disorientation:  1960;  Sparrow  Spreen  Birch  1971;  and  Rubin  Bortner,  and  Braun,  1968. In  view  of  this  associated awareness to  adopt  of  be  and  visual-motor  have  instances  a  clear.  these  seem  disability  Myklebust's  more  why  would  reading  disabilities may  it  minimal  behaviors  and  not  in  have  others  between  body  syndrome  provide  an  may  view  image  many  remains  shown  (Chalfant  delays  children  to and  be  rationale  in  the in  Schefflin,  for  If  has  body one  were  learning  association  related  and  in  with  this  lies  disturbances  i n i t i a l  (1960)  establishment.  dysfunction,  that  been  that' Kephart  developmental  that  brain  query  relationship  with  integration  (1964)  The  reasonable  explanation some  1969).  The  Gerstmann's  explaining  this  inconsistency.  Gerstmann's Gerstmann's to  the-  1968;  syndrome  syndrome: has  parietal-occipital Stone,  present  out  1963). of  The  in  left  the  past  region  of  symptoms  neurological  parietal-occipital-region.  favour  been the  of  seen  left  this  (Stone,  to  result  hemisphere  syndrome, 1968)  from  (Kinsbourne,  which  are:  damage  is  at  -21-  (1)  dyscalculia  (2)  dysgraphia  (3)  right-left  (4)  finger  Furthermore 1940;  More  the  of  (1)  body  (2)  constructional  (3)  spatial  and  suggested  to  the  or  (Benton,  that  would  reveal  deficits  at  possible  1962); by  that  enumerated  inter-related  inherent  similarity  Another  view  Gerstmann's of  .common  this,  Poeck  denominator  used  while  the  this  to  the  and for  explanation,  the  and  level,  as  finger  local-  has  procedures to  lateral-  measured  detection  well  may  the as  have  used the  not  lateralization  between  (1960)  pertaining  of  sensorimotor  right-left  study  organization.  (1960)  section  the  symptoms  cerebral  study  Kephart  Kephart  in  the  in  sensorimotor  relationships  in by  that  detection  employing the  employed  neurological  right-left  commonly  establishment  disorders  behaviors.  1959,  the  that  typically  with  ization  the  categories  dealing  are  In  is  literature  procedures  from  aphasia.  of  ization  delays  found  levels,  indicated  mental  (1966)  language  of  logical  (Lange,  syndrome.  reflect  the  seem  with  anomalies  aphasia  organization  syndrome  preference  would  that  Reference  Furthermore  It  without  this  laterality  associated  apraxia  Orgass  of  function  been  disturbances  symptoms  Gerstmann's  has  orientation  occurs  neurological  the  image  Poeck  rarely  (1966)  four  syndrome  1944):  recently,  Orgass  agnosia  Gerstmann's  Stengel,  syndrome  disorientation  to  measures. neuro-  the  develop-  resulted assess  manner  in  these which  -22-  incoming  and  outgoing  neural  events  became  integrated,  has  been  reported.  Cross-modal (1965), left  cited  by  inferior  Butters  parietal  afferent  inputs  cortices  of  from  bath  Butters  and  that  in  and  lobe  the  and  visual,  crass-modal integration  stated, with  lesions  body  in  image  orientation.  the  left  disability.  It  would  integration,  at  a  significance  of  body  seem t o  reading  schema.  logical  level  attention.  The  which  have  been  originally sensory have  c o n c e i v e d the  components  becomes  in  relating while  model  associated  to  the  dis-  reading  then,  that  developmental  development  has  discuss  the  not  the  been  of  received  few  wide  research  Processing Considerations  the  body  introductory  schema to  be  a  chapter, synthesis  to  the  body.  Berges  and  this  may  be  way  which  established,  subconscious  explain  already  spatial  related  children  will  been  deficits  reported.  mentioned  suggested that  schema and  was  in  section  Integrative  As  may  displayed  and  assoc-  proposal  deduction,  Unfortunately  processing abilities  studies  a  this  As h a s  aphasia,  be  receives  cross-modal  have  been  the  somatosensory  damage  region  also  integrative  following  and  s k i l l s .  have  sensorimotor  region)  parietal  Geschwind  proposed that  mediating  agnosia,  behaviors  lobe.  investigated  parietal  disturbance,  These  thereby  and  left  gyrus  auditory,  (1968)  with  parietal  (1968), has  (angular  Brady  patients  left  Brody  hemispheres;  iations. found  integration:  lies  the in  the  significance its  use.  in of  this  Similarly,  Head  (1920)  of  afferent  Lezine the  (1965) body  physiological researchers  -23-  concerned  u i t h i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g have c o n c e n t r a t e d on the  c e n t r a l s y n t h e s i s o f m u l t i p l e s t i m u l i which a r e p r e s e n t e d t o the same sensory m o d a l i t y or d i f f e r e n t sertsory m o d a l i t i e s . and S c h e f f l i n ( 1 9 6 9 ) , K o n o r s k i  (1967), Munn  (1965),  Chalfant  Myklebust  (1964), Rubin and Braun (196S) and o t h e r s have suggested the a b i l i t y  to d i s c r i m i n a t e and u n i f y sensory i n f o r m a t i o n , per s e ,  i s d i f f i c u l t t o measure w i t h the u n r e f i n e d b l a c k - b o x presently available.  These r e s e a r c h e r s contend  ment o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n a b i l i t i e s  (the a b i l i t y  procedures  t h a t the a s s e s s to u t i l i z e  c r i m i n a t e d s e n s o r y s t i m u l i ) c o u l d y i e l d more m e a n i n g f u l Bryant  (1968) has suggested  quirements  that  data.  t h a t i n p u t , p r o c e s s i n g , and output r e -  o f a t a s k s h o u l d a l l be c o n s i d e r e d i n drawing  from e x p e r i m e n t a l f i n d i n g s .  dis-  conclusions  C h a l f a n t and S c h e f f l i n (1969) p r e s e n t e d  a format f a r c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f these v a r i a b l e s ; t h i s has been shown i n Table 1.  Few r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s i n i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g have  c l e a r l y d e s c r i b e d these v a r i a b l e s ; as a r e s u l t the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d have been d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e t .  Before  dis-  c u s s i n g these f i n d i n g s , the s e n s o r y systems c o n s i d e r e d t o be u n i f i e d i n t o the body schema are d i s c u s s e d . Sensory  Systems Based p r e d o m i n a n t l y  on c l i n i c a l f i n d i n g s w i t h b r a i n damaged  a d u l t s , K o n o r s k i (1967) has p o s t u l a t e d t h a t the body schema develops  i n d e p e n d e n t l y of language.  T h i s s u p p o r t s the d e f i n i t i o n  of body schema which has been adopted i n the p r e s e n t  investigation  (Ayres and R e i d , 1966). K o n o r s k i (1967) has a l s o h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n  -2k-  Table 1.  S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a b l e s Which Should be Considered under SOR ( C h a l f a n t and S c h e f f l i n , 1969, p. 5 7 ) .  Made o f S t i m u l i  Mode o f Response  Organism  Intramodal  Sex  Intramodal  Intermodal  C.A.  Intermodal  M.A.  Symbolic  Simultaneous Successive Symbolic  presentation  presentation  stimuli  Non-symbolic  stimuli  I.Q.  a. motor  Organic involvement  b. v o c a l  P r i o r experience or training  Non-symbolic  Intensity  a. motor  Number o f u n i t s  b. v o c a l  Rate  Production  Duration  a.  latency of response  Interval  b.  duration of response  Instructions  c.  frequency o f response  Order  d.  i n t e n s i t y of response  Complexity Distortion  Judgemental  Response  a.  same  b.  different  c.  recognition  d.  recall  e.  equivalence  f.  correspondence  g.  recoding rule  to a  -25-  coming  from  the  information)  is  acquisition.  of  Schilder esized of  that  the  the  system the  body  at  the  sensory  appear  the  The  responsible  research  integrations  Sensory  asserted stimuli  the  of  acquisition  related  of  systems w i l l  these  these  have  to  the  has h y p o t h -  information  reported  impressions  predominantly  contentions  of  the  discussed  it  systems body  intrasensory  be  visual  understanding  provide  and k i n e s t h e t i c  findings  original  that  works  intramodal  along  integration  of  Sherrington  integration  one m o d a l i t y )  (the  and  would  are  pre-  schema. intersensory  below.  is  integration  (the  a necessary  of  sensory  (1950)  and B i r c h  integration  of  antecedent  to  stimuli  between  (1954)  sensory intermodal two  or  modalities). More  gested  that  affected ular  tactual for  an p a s t  the  inter-  level.  (1965)  with  posture  schema  and the  cortices  and L e z i n e  view  body  contended,  system  involved of  in  (position  Integration  The  more  visual,  (1967)  and L e z i n e  dependent In  joints  system  associational  Berges  schema i s  the  feedback  maintenance  and t a c t u a l .  dominantly  Honorski  systems  schema.  of  sensory  by B e r g e s  kinesthetic that  i s ,  movement  cited  and the  body  displacement  predominant  limb,  (1950),  that  the  with  the  movement  about  the  This  co-ordinated aspects  angular  recently, even  the  or modified  relevance  contention  that  to  the  very  Munn  simple  (1965) sensory  by t h a t . o f direction early  and H o n o r s k i  in  functioning  other of  the  sensory  this  study  infant's  (1967) of  sug-  one m o d a l i t y  systems. is  have  Of  Piaget's  development  is  partic(1953)  visual  - <_ u -.  information  becomes  Uhile information  numerous  is  the  the  years  of  other  researchers  genetically Montessori system  in  that  gustatory placed  the  systems,  then  the  visual has  nervous from  of  and  only  been  system a  auditory  relatively  functions,  to  functioning  in  a  global a  differ  of  Munn on  seven  1969), phylo-  modalities. the  tactual  (1965)  the  gradually  has  tactile,  more  agreement  manner  olfactory,  demands  to  the  are  effect  characterized  condition,  hierarchial  (Hebb,  first  modalities.  theoretical  develops  visual  the  sensory  placed  systems.  Schefflin,  organisms  audition.  kinesthetic  through  integration  1944;. L u r i a ,  1964;  by  increasing and  Munn,  co1965;  Piaget,  1954). In  the  understanding object  view of  of  body  relationships  self.  the" s p a t i a l  The  relationships (in  has  particular  developmental  children  Perception  It  developmental  organization  pre-school  Form  and  that  development  and  ordination  in  vision  the  is  differentiated  the  of  that  sensory  during  and  different  reliance  progression  1953,  that  argued  system  that  upon  other  suggested  (Chalfant  ascertained  reliance  has  have  initially,  There that  their  with  sensory  development  have  (1964)  suggested  researchers  predominant  child's  precedes  on  interca-ordinated  of  are  studies object  and  psychology  precedes  the  form  distance)  and  which  forms  discussed  educational  have  and  understanding outside  concommitantly  integrative  the of of examined  processing  below.  Tasks  only  been  within  commitantly  concerned with  cross-modal  integration  has  the  the  last  decade  development  been  reported.  of  that  form  These  research  perception experiments  conand have  -27been c l a s s i f i e d as cross-modal matching s t u d i e s .  They have  been d e s i g n e d t o t e s t the a b i l i t y o f c h i l d r e n t o t r e a t two i d e n t i c a l s t i m u l i as e q u i v a l e n t uihen i n f o r m a t i o n about each s t i m u l u s comes through two s e n s o r y m o d a l i t i e s .  The v a r i a b l e s  which C h a l f a n t and S c h e f f l i n (1969) have c o n s i d e r e d t o be s i g n i f i c a n t i n i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g r e s e a r c h ( T a b l e 1) have been used t o c o n c i s e l y d e s c r i b e t h r e e c r o s s - m o d a l matching experiments i n Table 2. B i r c h and L e f f o r d (1963) found t h a t c r o s s - m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n improves w i t h age ( T a b l e 2 ) . Furthermore, t h e i r  findings  showed v i s u a l - h a p t i c matching t o be e a s i e r than bath v i s u a l k i n e s t h e t i c matching and h a p t i c - k i n e s t h e t i c matching a t 5 y e a r s o f age.  B l a n k and B r i d g e r (1964) and Conners e t a l . (1967)  reported s i m i l a r  findings.  The above e x p e r i m e n t s however, o m i t t e d w i t h i n - m o d a l i t y conditions (visual-visual, haptic-haptic,  kinesthetic-kinesthetic).  As a r e s u l t i t might be argued t h a t the improvement o f c r o s s - m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n w i t h c h r o n o l o g i c a l age may r e s u l t from an i n c r e a s e d a b i l i t y t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e and i n t e g r a t e a l o n g one m o d a l i t y ( B r y a n t , 1968). Teuber  The s t u d i e s o f B a i t e r and F a g a r t y (1971) and Rudel and (1964) s e p a r a t e d w i t h i n - m o d a l i t y e f f e c t s from  modality  between-  effects. B a i t e r and F a g a r t y (1971) and Rudel and Teuber  (1964) found  t h a t a c r o s s a l l age l e v e l s s t u d i e d more e r r o r s were made on the h a p t i c - h a p t i c i n t r a m o d a l matching c o n d i t i o n than on t h e c r o s s modal matching c o n d i t i o n s u t i l i z i n g h a p t i c and v i s u a l  information  ( T a b l e 2 ) . V i s u a l - v i s u a l matching e r r o r s were l o w e s t a c r o s s a l l  -28-  T a b l e 2.  Study Birch and Lefford (1963)  S i g n i f i c a n t F a c t o r s i n Three C r o s s - M o d a l Form P e r c e p t i o n D e v e l o p m e n t a l S t u d i e s  Age Range  Shape o f Object  Mortality Condi t i o n s  Mode o f Presentation  Mode o f Response  5-11 yrs.  geometric  visual-haptic visual-kinesthetic haptic-kinesthetic  successive presentation of p a i r s  verbal report "same" or di f f erent  Analysis  Findings  Correct number of responses  1) v i s u a l - h a p t i c Lias easiest condition: 17% o f 5 y r . o l d s made no e r r o r s  Salter and Fogarty (1971)  3-6 yrs.  k yrs 2 mos. to 5 yrs. 11 mos.  Series I: geometric Series I I : abstract  visualgeometric  visual-visual haptic-haptic visual-haptic haptic-visual  visual-visual haptic-haptic visual-haptic  Findings Presentation  2) v i s u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c , haptic-kinesthetic: no 5 y r . o l d s s c o r e d perfectly  haptic: active manipulation of object kinesthetic: E p a s s i v e moving S's hand u i t h s t y l u s around object  Rudel and Teuber (1961.)  Modality  3) i n t e g r a t i o n o f k i n esthetic uith haptic and v i s u a l m o d a l i t i e s occurs at 6-7 y r s .  successive BUT simultaneous on S e r i e s I for 3 y r . olds; Series I I <» y r . o l d s present standard 5 comparisons (5 s e c . )  successive and simultaneous f o r each of the 3 conditions -pairs (5 s e c )  "is this it" for 5 variable stimuli yes o r no verbal report  verbal report "same" o r 'Wifferent"  correct number of responses  1) e a s i e s t t o h a r d e s t visual-visual, visual-haptic, haptic-visual haptic-haptic. 2) a c c u r a c y i n c r e a s e d u i t h age.  correct U of  responses ANOVA MeumanKeuls  1) e a s i e s t t o h a r d e s t visual-visual, visual-haptic, haptic-haptic 2) s i g n i f i c a n t (.01) difference between c o n d i t i o n s 3) Neuman-Keuls: significant d i f f e r e n c e betueen v i s u a l - v i s u a l and haptic-haptic only. U) no s i g . i n t e r a c t i o n b e t u e e n mode o f p r e s e n t a t i o n and modality.  successive presentation impossible f o r 3 y r . o l d s on Series I, by r . o l d s on S e r i e s I I , b u t they c o u l d do i t i f presented simultaneously  successive presentation not s i g n i f icantly different from s i m u l taneous presentation  -29-  conditions  and  age  levels.  in  the  cross-modal matching  improvement haptic the  systems  haptic  and  age  trend  Pick's  information the  an  increased  of  et  merely 5  -  7  would  years  integrations and  indicate  haptic-haptic  a  the  an  the  information  of  As two  the  the  visual  differentiate  studies  the  and  along  led in  been These  for  to  the in  that  form  the  may  suggest may  this  study,  kinesthetic  consideration  of  of  of  "  kinesdifficulty  system  the  re-  from  this  the  the  a  the  earning  Presentation  task  the  reflect  aspect  a  yield  that  information  one  perception  integration,  the  joints.  for  tactual-  study.  introductory  influential  in  studies  discussed  are  in  haptic-visual,  for  fram  differentiate  while  (texture) to  in  until  improvement  body  present the  to  the  earlier  kinesthetic  systems.  sensory  movement,  the  and  of  information  mentioned  have  investigation.  the  ability  visual-haptic,  topography  As m e n t i o n e d  has  these  Lefford's  information  causes rapid  extrapolate  of  and  haptic  visual  differentiation  passive  tactual  that  suggested  trend  might  called  system was  involving (1964)  Birch  increased  system responsible  purposes  kinesthetic  One of  system.  extracting  testing  haptic  displacement is  reinforce  visual-visual,  trend.  angular  thetic  to  support  information  Teuber  to  differentiation liance  attributed  between  argument  the  developmental  conducive  different  haptic  to  when  cross-modal  Rudel  seem t o  serves  and  more  ability  al.(1966)  kinesthetic  tasks  researchers  system.  This (1963)  to  These  the  chapter  design  of  below.  of  the  this  study,  present  -  Berges and Lezine (1965) This study was based on the tenet that the body i s oriented i n space by a c t i v i t y before the c h i l d knows i t s component parts or before the c h i l d can name these component parts.  More-  over, Berges and Lezine (1965) have suggested that the development of motor a c t i v i t y i s accomplished i n space in relationship to the body. The development of hand-finger schemata and upper limb schemata i n 364 children, 3 to 6 years o l d , was investigated by using procedures referred to as the imitation of gestures.  The  gestures were varied i n terms of the (1)  s p a t i a l organization of the stimulus,  (2)  motor organization of the response.  Two levels of task complexity (simple, complex) based on these variables were examined.  One condition, the continual present-  ation of a v i s u a l stimulus (E gesture) for a visual-kinesthetic response ( S imitation of the gesture) was studied. While these investigators were d i r e c t l y concerned with developing standardized procedures for the neurological, in particular apraxic, examination of pre-school children, several aspects of t h i s study have been s i g n i f i c a n t in the formulated hypotheses of this i n v e s t i g a t i o n . less accurate was i t s imitation.  The more complex a gesture, the Simple gestures were reproduced  accurately at age 6 while the complex gestures s t i l l presented d i f f i c u l t y at t h i s age l e v e l . Across a l l age l e v e l s , there was an interaction between the s p a t i a l organization required and the motor schema required.  There  JU-  -31-  uas' a or  tendency  hand  in  Lefford,  for  the  which  in  167  complexity have  been  from  the  (1970)  studied  children tasks  and  concisely easiest  requiring  required  the  by a  reported)  this  is  reported  abilities  the  Df  -  12  adult  years  of  Stimulus that the seem  visual  becomes  dominant  arm  them.  and  support  that  that  and  the  the  these  last  requiring  to  of  is  These  tasks  ranging  3.  self  responses  the  imitation  This  finger  may  Benton  (1968),  and  (not Rice  right-left  difficult  reportedly  if  categories  and  be  movements  Furthermore  response  are  response  tasks  differentiation  which  to  Table  responses.  schema.  reversals  functioning  in  requiring  two  finger  reference,  pointing  understandable. finger  respect  that  imitation  motor  Twelve  for  found  tasks  voluntary  employed.  task,  indication  fine  in  with  numbered  Lefford  of  even  at  reached  around  age.  presentation.  r e s p o n s e s were  to  the  for  age.  were  difficult  model  readily  detection level  and  than  organized involved  of  varied  apposition  considering  well  have  most  and  were  11  on  development  conditions  easier  movements  the  were  complexity.  reversals  (1968)  difficult  5>2 y e a r s  described  to  significantly  explained  to  which  finger-thumb  finger  3  integrative  Response  of  were  reliance  (1970)  differentiation  were  place  tD  gestures  Lefford actions  children  easiest  Lefford's  when  information  tactual-kinesthetic Piaget's  interco-ordinated  (1953) with  study  systems  contention other  indicated  was  presented  (Table that  sensory  3).  This  visual  systems  to  both  would  information  very  early  -32-  Table 3.  Condition number  D e s c r i p t i o n of Finger D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Tasks ( L e f f o r d , 1970)  M o d a l i t y i n which f i n g e r s were i n d i c a t e d t o s u b j e c t  Response r e q u i r e d of the s u b j e c t  Modalities availa b l e t o guide response  visual, tactual-kinesthetic  finger-thumb opposition  visual,  (2)  visual, tactual-kinesthetic  pointing to s e l f  (3)  visual  pointing to s e l f  (4)  visual  finger-thumb opposition  (1)  proprioceptive visual, proprioceptive visual, proprioceptive  (5)  tactual-kinesthetic  finger-thumb opposition  visual,  (6)  tactual-kinesthetic  finger-thumb opposition  proprioceptive visual proprioceptive proprioceptive  (7)  tactual-kinesthetic  p a i n t i n g to s e l f  (8)  visual  visual imitation  proprioceptive  (9)  visual, tactualkinesthetic  p o i n t i n g t o model  visual, vp ir os pu ra ilo c e p t i v e  (ID)  visual  p o i n t i n g t o model  visual  (11)  visual  non-visual imitation  proprioceptive  (12)  tactual-kinesthetic  p a i n t i n g t o model  visual  visual,  -33-  in  the  development  crass-modal  kinesthetic 3:  uas  information movement  response  age  over  topography  90% of  kinesthetic  of  the  year  old  hand  modalities.  schemata schemata.  level,  may  be  far is  uell  (Table  the  findings  p . 2k).  significantly  easier  the  tua  easiest  interesting  uas  as  1,  presented  response  trends.  his  tactual-kinesthetic k  be  as  (5)  to in  (5)  uas  Visual than  tactual-  response  note  that  and  easier  in  conditions  when  (6) than  tactual-  (Table the  3)  visual  (6).  Developmental of  to  It  (l)-(k)).  non-visual  movement  found  infant,  research  presentation  kinesthetic the  the  integration  presentation  (Table  of  subjects when  While  Lefford's  could  perceived  schemata  more  Lefford  no  and data  advanced  in  found fully by  bath  3  year  the  k  years  that  olds  visual  difference  schemata  indicated  by  differentiate  significant visual  that  uas  and  tactual-  between  found  visual  than  the  at  the  .  tactual-kinesthetic  -3k-  CHAPTER I I I  METHODS AND PROCEDURES  The  hypotheses o f the present  i n v e s t i g a t i o n were s t u d i e d  by employing f o u r s e r i e s of body p a r t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  tasks.  Task S e r i e s I:  The sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f body p a r t s , as r e f l e c t e d i n the s u b j e c t ' s a b i l i t y to make accurate v o l u n t a r y movements on f i n g e r l o c a l ization tasks.  Task S e r i e s I I :  The sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f body p a r t s as r e f l e c t e d in. the s u b j e c t ' s a b i l i t y to make accurate v o l u n t a r y movement r e p r o d u c t i o n s o f s p a t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n p o s i t i o n s o f the hands and f i n g e r s .  Task S e r i e s I I I  The d i f f e r e n t a t i o n o f body p a r t s as r e f l e c t e d i n the s u b j e c t ' s hand p r e f e r e n c e and f o o t p r e f e r e n c e .  Task S e r i e s IU:  The d i f f e r e n t a t i o n of body p a r t s as r e f l e c t e d i n the s u b j e c t ' s a b i l i t y to (a)  p o i n t to the body p a r t v e r b a l l y i n d i c a t e d by the experimenter, and  (b)  give the v e r b a l l a b e l o f the body p a r t p o i n t e d to by the experimenter.  Subjects The  s u b j e c t s uere s i x t y - f o u r 3 to 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n , 8  g i r l s and 8 boys i n each age c a t e g o r y . d e l i m i t e d to 3 years months, and 6 years  - 3 months, k years - 3 months.  The age c a t e g o r i e s uere - 3 months, 5 years  - 3  The s u b j e c t s uere drawn from a  -35p o p u l a t i o n D f c h i l d r e n u i t h play s c h o o l experience  uho,  at the  time D f t e s t i n g , uere  a t t e n d i n g programmes at Sunset  Centre.  a c c o r d i n g to census data, i s l o c a t e d i n a  T h i s Centre,  lou-middle  income socio-economic  area.  The  Recreation  same 64 s u b j e c t s  p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the 4 Task S e r i e s .  Each s u b j e c t uas  f o r 2 t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s subsequently  r e f e r r e d to as Day  Day  II.  A l l t a s k s uere  Experimenter  administered  to the Subject  present I and  (S) by  the  (E).  Apparatus  The  t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s uere  conducted  i n a room a d j o i n i n g  the Play School F a c i l i t i e s at Sunset R e c r e a t i o n  Centre.  Free Play At the beginning  and  the end of each S's  t h e r e uas an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r f r e e p l a y .  The  testing session  equipment a v a i l a b l e  f o r t h i s i n c l u d e d cosom hockey s t i c k s and pucks, mats, balls,  a slide,  a tricycle  Task S e r i e s I and  and  playground  a uagon.  II  These Task S e r i e s uere  administered  i n an area of the  t e s t i n g room auay from the p l a y equipment. S uas seated at a t a b l e IS" i n h e i g h t ; E uas the t a b l e f a c i n g  across  S.  A uooden frame 22" x IQ" x 5" uas c u r t a i n uas  seated  p l a c e d on the t a b l e .  a t t a c h e d to the f r o n t of the frame (S;s v i e u ) and  open at the r e a r (E's v i e u ) .  T h i s apparatus  uas  designed  A uas  to a l l o u  E to absent v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n from S, on the sensorimotor tasks i n v o l v i n g the t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c system, while p e r m i t t i n g E t D present s t i m u l u s i n f o r m a t i o n and to r e c o r d responses (Appendix A ) . The photographs used i n Task S e r i e s I are shown i n Appendix B.  The photographs used i n Task S e r i e s I I are shown i n  Appendix C. Task S e r i e s I I I  A playground b a l l 4" i n diameter was used to observe S's hand p r e f e r e n c e and f o o t  preference.  Task S e r i e s 1V/  No equipment was needed f o r t h i s Task S e r i e s .  Experimental C o n d i t i o n s and Procedures The e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s and procedures are d i s c u s s e d under the headings o f Task S e r i e s I, Task S e r i e s I I , Task S e r i e s I I I and Task S e r i e s IU. The s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s given to S by E are i n c l u d e d i n Appendix E.  Table  4.  Experimental C o n d i t i o n s i n Task S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I  Condition Number  Name o f the Condition  Stimulus  Modalities Available for Stimulus Differentiation  Response  Modalities Available for Response  (1)  visual for visual movement  visual indication (photograph)  visual  visual movement  visual, tactualkinesthetic  (2)  visual for non-visual movement  visual indication (photograph)  visual  non-visual movement  tactualkinesthetic  (3)  tactualpassive kinesmovement t h e t i c f o r on the visual subject movement  tactualkinesthetic  visual movement  visual, tactualkinesthetic  (4)  tactualpassive kinesmovement t h e t i c f o r on the non v i s u a l subject movement  tactualkinesthetic  non-visual movement  tactualkinesthetic  -38-  Task S e r i e s I  Experimental  Conditions  Here S uas r e q u i r e d to i d e n t i f y the f i n g e r s o f the r i g h t hand and the l e f t  hand i n d i c a t e d to S by E.  The experimental  c o n d i t i o n s are d e s c r i b e d i n terms o f E's i n d i c a t i o n ( p r e s e n t a t i o n ) and S's response. Presentation.  Each o f S's 10 f i n g e r s uere  i s o l a t e d and  presented i n 2 uays: (1)  v i s u a l i n d i c a t i o n o f the i s o l a t e d f i n g e r an the photograph (Appendix B ) ,  (2)  p a s s i v e movement o f the i s o l a t e d f i n g e r on S.  Each f i n g e r was presented to S f o r 3 seconds; responded  then S  (successive presentation f o r response).  Response.  1 v o l u n t a r y movement was s t u d i e d i n 2 ways:  (1) l i f t i n g movement o f the i s o l a t e d f i n g e r with cues, (2) l i f t i n g movement o f the i s o l a t e d f i n g e r v i s u a l cues. Table k shows haw these p r e s e n t a t i o n s and responses  visual  without were i n c o r -  porated i n t o the k experimental c o n d i t i o n s . Experimental  Procedures  Each o f S's 10 f i n g e r s was presented once i n each e x p e r i mental c o n d i t i o n . Presentation.  In c o n d i t i o n s (1) and (2) (Table 4 ) ,  E i n d i c a t e d the f i n g e r s v i s u a l l y t o S by p o i n t i n g to a f i n g e r f o r 3 seconds on the corresponding photograph o f the hand (Appendix B ) .  -39-  During  these  presentations  both  of  frame  apparatus  S's  (4)  the  finger S's  k)  (Table up  vieu  hands  and  indicated  doun  for  underneath  uere  painting ations  E  kept  in  tauards  fingers  by  passively  of  (3)  moving  hands  uere  the  frame  apparatus.  position  doun  an  the  hidden  uith  table  the  top  and  S's  prone  pressed  The  the  isolated  the  table.  The  (1)  and  (Table  experimental  (3)  finger  uith  visual  apparatus  4)  far  S's  underneath  information  uere  conditions  of  Method  the of  conditions,  (2)  the  of  left  uere  S's from S's  fingers  betueen  uere ordinal  and  present-  condition  uas  a  studied  lifting  fingers  uith  hands  S's  non-visual  (4)  (Table  of-the  fingers  frame  uas  responses. the  4)  not In  action  in  placed  uere  an  apparatus;  of  hand  the  and  5  on  the  movement  given  available  of  conditions  voluntary  each  right  across  p r e s s e d doun  responses  responses of  uith visual  for k  responses.  experi-  responses  required. movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s numerical value of 1.  voluntary  a s s i g n e d the scale  and  response  movement  The  curtain  Correct voluntary uere a s s i g n e d the Incorrect  4)  remaining  vieu.  hands  5  (Table  given  recording  mental  hand  the  movement  voluntary  S's  in  hands  voluntary  conditions  responses  mental  conditions  on  and r e s p o n s e s .  k  The  placed  In  seconds.  constant  E and  all  the  3  the  uere  view.  the- c u r t a i n a  Response.  frame  for  photographs  ranged  movement  numerical from  (Appendix  D).  0 - 5  of  differentiations value for  of  each  each  of  finger  each  finger  • . hand  in  each  experi-  Task S e r i e s I I  In t h i s S e r i e s , S was r e q u i r e d to reproduce the s p a t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n p o s i t i o n s o f the hands and the f i n g e r s i n d i c a t e d to S by E.  The experimental  c o n d i t i o n s are d e s c r i b e d  i n terms  of E's i n d i c a t i o n ( p r e s e n t a t i o n ) and S's response.  Experimental  Conditions  Presentation. i d u a l l y presented  The 6 p o s i t i o n s (Appendix C) uere i n d i v -  i n 2 ways.  (1)  v i s u a l presentation photograph,  (2)  p a s s i v e movement p r e s e n t a t i o n on the s u b j e c t .  Each p o s i t i o n was presented (successive presentation Response.  Table  o f the p o s i t i o n  f o r 3 seconds; S then responded  f o r response).  S's v o l u n t a r y  p o s i t i o n s presented  o f the p o s i t i o n on a  movement r e p r o d u c t i o n s  o f the  were s t u d i e d i n 2 ways.  (1)  movement r e p r o d u c t i o n v i s u a l cues,  o f the p o s i t i o n with  (2)  movement r e p r o d u c t i o n v i s u a l cues.  o f the p o s i t i o n without  k shows how these p r e s e n t a t i o n s  ated i n the k experimental  and responses were i n c o r p o r -  conditions.  Experimental Procedures Each o f the 6 p o s i t i o n s (Appendix C) was presented i n each experimental Presentation.  once  condition. In c o n d i t i o n s  (1) and (2) (Table 4) E  -41-  presented for to  3  the  seconds.  S by  In  This  hidden  and  (4)  to  S's  hands  pointing  hands  position  uas  held  absent  visual  kept  towards  all  4  the  reproduction  given In  S's  condition  uere so  uith  and  given  that  the  the  top  (4)  of  of  recording  hand  6  and  of  subject's  response.  left  frame  hands the  Incorrect in  value The  ordinal  voluntary each  uhich  hand  of  scale  S's  hands (3)  and  uith  fingers.  S's  studied  position to  S by  E.  apparatus  across  accuracy In  reproductions  In  fingers  for  in  conuere  S's  vieu.  reproductions  the  frame  apparatus  fingers  uas  not  each  the  4  Df  positioning  experibath  presented.  differentiations of each a s s i g n e d the numerical  uere  differentiations  assigned  the  of  each  numerical  • . ranged  from  mental  condition.  In  addition  of  development  of  the  the  position  response  and  positions  responses.  involved  uere  movement  position  and  underneath  responses.  the  the  hands  movement  hands  apparatus  conditions  position  final  the  to  the  movement  C o r r e c t v o l u n t a r y movement hand i n each p o s i t i o n uere value of 1.  hand  in  indicated  4),  frame  seconds.  about  S's  the  positions  the  3  movement  the  (Table  the  conditions,  right  4)  information  Method mental  and  uith  for  (Table  fingers  prone  uas  the  E presented  presentations  position  on  for  constant  conditions  (3)  (4)  apparatus  voluntary  the  top. o f  and  information  a  The  of  (2)  frame  betueen  hands  visual  available  in  E,  experimental  (1)  the  on and  S's  underneath  uere  (3)  moving  Response.  ditions  photographs  conditions  passively  required. uere  position  •  to  6  for  this  voluntary  each  hand  ordinal  movement  in  data,  each  experi-  observations  differentiations  of  -Wl-  the dominant hand and t h e non-dominant hand u i t h r e s p e c t t o each p o s i t i o n uere r e c o r d e d  (Appendix D).  Task S e r i e s I I I  Experimental  Procedures  Task S e r i e s I I I was not i n c l u d e d i n the e x p e r i m e n t a l d e s i g n and may be best d e s c r i b e d i n terms o f the p r o c e d u r e s employed. Hand p r e f e r e n c e . hand.  S was asked t o throw a b a l l w i t h one  There were k t r i a l s on Day I and k t r i a l s an Day I I . Fopt p r e f e r e n c e .  S was asked t o k i c k a b a l l .  There were  h t r i a l s on Day I and k t r i a l s an Day I I . Method o f r e c o r d i n g r e s p o n s e s .  The number o f r i g h t hand  and r i g h t f o o t responses and the number o f l e f t hand and l e f t responses on each t r i a l s e r i e s was r e c o r d e d  foot  (Appendix D ) .  Task S e r i e s IU Experimental  Procedures  Task S e r i e s IU was not i n c l u d e d i n the e x p e r i m e n t a l and may be best d e s c r i b e d  design  i n terms o f the procedures used.  Uerbal p r e s e n t a t i o n .  E i n d i c a t e d v e r b a l l y a body p a r t  ( r i g h t eye) and S was r e q u i r e d t o p o i n t t o the body p a r t on h i m s e l f . There were 3 t r i a l s an Day I and 3 t r i a l s on Day I I ( r i g h t eye, l e f t f o o t , r i g h t hand). Uerbal response.  E i n d i c a t e d a body p a r t by p o i n t i n g t o  -43-  i t on S.  S uas then r e q u i r e d t o g i v e t h e v e r b a l l a b e l s D f t h i s  body p a r t ( l e f t eye, r i g h t f o o t , l e f t hand).  There uere 3 t r i a l s  •n Day I and 3 t r i a l s an Day I I . Method o f r e c o r d i n g  responses.  The  number o f c o r r e c t  body p a r t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s and the number o f c o r r e c t r i g h t - l e f t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s on each t r i a l s e r i e s uere r e c o r d e d Experimental The  experimental  the 4 e x p e r i m e n t a l  Design  d e s i g n f o r Task S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s  I I uas a 4 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 4 the l a s t 3 f a c t o r s .  (Appendix D).  f a c t o r i a l u i t h repeated  A L a t i n Square uas used t o  measures on  counterbalance  c o n d i t i o n s and t h e 2 o r d e r s o f s t i m u l u s  a t i o n s o f each Task S e r i e s (Appendix D ) .  present-  The f a c t o r s and l e v e l s  uere: Factor I :  Age Al A2 A3 A4  Factor I I :  Task S e r i e s I Task S e r i e s I I  Dominance DI: D2:  F a c t o r U:  boys girls  Task S e r i e s II: 12:  F a c t o r IU:  years years years years  Sex (Age) Gl: G2:  Factor I I I  3 4 5 6  Dominant Hand Non-dominant Hand  Conditions Cl:  U i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r v i s u a l movement response  -44C2: C3: C4:  V i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r n o n - v i s u a l movement response Tactual-kinesthetic presentation f o r v i s u a l movement response T a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r nonv i s u a l movement r e s p o n s e .  Data A n a l y s e s The  d a t a from Task S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I was s u b m i t t e d  tD t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . B i v a r i a t e Frequency A n a l y s i s The  dependent measure f o r the b i v a r i a t e frequency a n a l y s i s  of Task S e r i e s I was t h e score on an o r d i n a l s c a l e o f ( 0 - 5 ) ; f o r Task S e r i e s I I i t was t h e s c o r e on an o r d i n a l s c a l e o f ( 0 - 6 ) .  These  analyses  were conducted t o determine t h e f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f s c o r e s for  each age l e v e l on each o f the 4 e x p e r i m e n t a l  c o n d i t i o n s o f Task  S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I . Analysis o f Variance The  dependent measures on Task S e r i e s I I were m u l t i p l i e d  by 5/6, thus g i v i n g a s c a l e o f 0.5.  This permitted  comparisons be-  tween t h e mean s c o r e s o f Task S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I i n t h e 4 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 4  parametric  ANOVA w i t h r e p e a t e d measures on the  last 3 factors. A parametric  AIMOVA was used as n o n - p a r a m e t r i c  statistical  t o o l s f o r a n a l y z i n g f a c t o r i a l d e s i g n s w i t h r e p e a t e d measures were not a v a i l a b l e . While n o n - p a r a m e t r i c s t a t i s t i c a l be more a p p r o p r i a t e  t e s t s have been s a i d t o  f o r data c o l l e c t e d on an o r d i n a l o r r a n k i n g  -US-  scale  o f measurement, the case i n the present  study, Brumback  (1969) has argued that the l e g i t i m a c y o f a s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t i n the e v a l u a t i o n  o f c o l l e c t e d data does not depend upon the  measurement s c a l e used, but, r a t h e r upon the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f scale values.  Reference to the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n t a b l e s i n  Appendix F, r e v e a l s t h a t while there  appeared to be a c e i l i n g e f f e c t  on the 6 year o l d s Task S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I scores l e s s e r degree, on the 5 year o l d s Task S e r i e s I s c o r e s , bivariate categories The  the remaining  showed r e l a t i v e l y normal d i s t r i b u t i o n s .  presence o f a c e i l i n g  variability  and, to a  and t h e r e f o r e  e f f e c t does, however, reduce  intra-cell  decreases the denominator i n the F r a t i o .  Thus, any s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e has to be i n t e r p r e t e d c a u t i o u s l y .  Methods f o r T e s t i n g the Hypotheses The  hypotheses o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n are tD be t e s t e d by  the f o l l o w i n g methods.  Hypothesis 1, p. 6 In order  to accept t h i s h y p o t h e s i s i t must i n i t i a l l y be  shown, as i n d i c a t e d by Berges and Lezine scores  on Task S e r i e s I I I ( p r e f e r e n c e  (1965), t h a t the mean  d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ) and an Task  S e r i e s IV/ (language d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ) do not r e f l e c t  continual  development at each age l e v e l i n the 3 to 6 year o l d age range studied.  To t e s t t h i s ,  l e v e l who obtained  the percentage o f s u b j e c t s  maximum scores  S e r i e s IV/ are to be examined.  at each age  on Task S e r i e s I I I and Task  -1*6-  F u r t h e r , i n order to accept h y p o t h e s i s 1, an F t e s t must r e v e a l t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e between the mean s c o r e s f o r the Age main e f f e c t  i s significant  while the F r a t i o  main e f f e c t  i s not s i g n i f i c a n t .  f o r the Sex (Age)  Hypothesis 2, p. 7  In order to accept h y p o t h e s i s 2 i t must be e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  abilities  are a f f e c t e d by both  the i n p u t and output aspects o f the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  task.  To t e s t  t h i s , the mean s c o r e s f o r the Age x Task S e r i e s i n t e r a c t i o n are to be, i n i t i a l l y ,  c o n s i d e r e d i n terms o f the r e l a t i v e  differences  i n the input and output a s p e c t s r e q u i r e d f o r the neuromuscular responses o f each Task S e r i e s . differentiation  can, then, be d i s c u s s e d i n terms D f the Age x Task S e r i e s  x Conditions interaction, interaction  The i n p u t aspects o f sensorimotor  while the Age x Task S e r i e s x Dominance  can be used t D d i s c u s s the output aspects o f sensorimotor  differentiation. I f the above i n t e r a c t i o n s are shown to be significant  statistically  and can be m e a n i n g f u l l y i n t e r p r e t e d , t h i s would i n d i c a t e  t h a t the output aspects o f sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n the input aspects o f sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n terminants o f 3 to 6 year o l d performance  as w e l l as  are the de-  on the tasks s t u d i e d .  Thus, under these f i n d i n g s h y p o t h e s i s 2 c o u l d be a c c e p t e d .  Hypothesis 3, p. 7 To t e s t  f o r the e f f e c t s  p r e s e n t a t i o n at two l e v e l s ,  of input i n terms o f sensory  t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c and v i s u a l , on  -47sensorimotor  differentiation  abilities  a t e a c h age l e v e l t h e mean  s c a r e s f a r t h e Age x C o n d i t i o n s i n t e r a c t i o n If  this  interaction  a r e t o be e x a m i n e d .  i s shown t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  and t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n t h e mean s c o r e s f o r c o n d i t i o n s c a n be i n t e r p r e t e d i n t e r m s o f t h e t r e n d f o r v i s u a l  (conditions 1  and 2 ) mean s c o r e s b e i n g h i g h e r t h a n t h e t r e n d f o r t a c t u a l k i n e s t h e t i c mean s c o r e s  (condition  age l e v e l s s t u d i e d , h y p o t h e s i s  3 and c o n d i t i o n 4) a c r o s s t h e  3 c a n be a c c e p t e d .  can be f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d i n t e r m s o f a s i g n i f i c a n t x Conditions interaction,  Hypothesis  i f this  i s obtained  This  hypothesis  Age x T a s k S e r i e s  i n the analyses.  4, p . 7  To t e s t f o r t h e e f f e c t s o f i n t r a m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n a n d i n t e r m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n on s e n s o r i m o t o r at  e a c h age l e v e l ,  t h e mean s c o r e s  a c t i o n a r e t o be e x a m i n e d . statistically  significant  differentiation  f o r t h e Age x C o n d i t i o n s  I f this  interaction  4 c a n be  accepted.  c a n be f u r t h e r i n t e r p r e t e d i n t e r m s o f t h e Age x  Task S e r i e s x C o n d i t i o n s i n t e r a c t i o n  i f this  i s shown t o be  significant.  5, p . 7  To t e s t f o r t h e e f f e c t s o f d o m i n a n c e on s e n s o r i m o t o r entiation,  higher  ( c o n d i t i o n s 2 and 3)  a c r o s s t h e age l e v e l s s t u d i e d , t h e n h y p o t h e s i s  Hypothesis  i s shown t o be  ( c o n d i t i o n s 1 and 4) b e i n g  than the t r e n d f o r i n t e r m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n  statistically  inter-  a n d c a n be i n t e r p r e t e d i n t e r m s o f t h e  trend f o r intramodal integration  This hypothesis  abilities  differ-  t h e mean s c o r e s f o r t h e d o m i n a n t hand a n d t h e n o n - d o m i n a n t  -48-  hand at each age l e v e l i n the Age x Dominance i n t e r a c t i o n are to  be c o n s i d e r e d .  I f t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s shown to be  statistically  s i g n i f i c a n t and can be i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms of the t r e n d f o r the dominant hand s c o r e s being higher than the t r e n d f o r the nondominant hand s c o r e s across the age l e v e l s s t u d i e d , h y p o t h e s i s 5 can be accepted.  I f the Age x Task S e r i e s x Dominance  i s s i g n i f i c a n t , h y p o t h e s i s 5 may  be d i s c u s s e d f u r t h e r .  interaction  CHAPTER IU  RESULTS AND  DISCUSSION  The findings of the investigation indicate that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t development in the body schema, as defined  and  studied, in 3 to 6 year Did children. The major findings of the data submitted to s t a t i s t i c a l analyses  are presented in terms of the hypotheses that were  formulated.  Before these findings are prBsented the  observations  that uere made during the actual testing sessions, and that uere considered  pertinent to the neurological development of 3 to 6  year old children u i l l be outlined.  Observations The a b i l i t y of children to attend to presented appeared to improve as a function of chronological age.  information The  majority of 3 year old children tested found i t d i f f i c u l t to be attentive for more than one experimental condition of both Task Series I and Task Series I I .  As a result, free play periods uere  introducted between experimental conditions when the c h i l d noticeably distracted.  By 6 years of age,  was  the majority of children  could complete the 4 experimental conditions of Task Series I or Task Series II without displaying the outward signs of i n attentiveness.  -50-  C l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d u i t h the above o b s e r v a t i o n s  uas the  l e n g t h o f time c h i l d r e n took t o i n i t i a t e t h e i r response i n Task S e r i e s I and t o p o s i t i o n t h e i r hands i n Task S e r i e s I I .  This  response time uas observed t o decrease over the ages s t u d i e d , becoming immediate at the 6 year o l d l e v e l . The development o f g r o s s motor c o - o r d i n a t i o n advances over the 3 t o 6 year o l d age l e v e l s .  shoued  At 3 y e a r s o f age,  h i t t i n g the puck from a s t a t i o n a r y p o s i t i o n seemed t o be a continuous  t r i a l and e r r o r p r o c e s s .  I t appeared t h a t the d i f f i c u l t y  i n t h i s t a s k uas a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the motor a s p e c t s o f d i r e c t i n g the s t i c k t o the puck, as the c h i l d r e n seemed t o f i x a t e on the puck.  By 6 y e a r s o f age, h i t t i n g the puck from a s t a t i o n a r y  p o s i t i o n d i d not appear t o be a d i f f i c u l t t a s k , but the same t a s k from a moving p o s i t i o n seemed more complex as the c h i l d r e n d i s played  d i f f i c u l t y i n judging  distances  and t i m i n g .  R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n o f the Hypotheses  The s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s are p r e s e n t e d under the 5 hypotheses of t h i s study.  The dependent measures t h a t uere c a l c u l a t e d u e r e :  i n Task S e r i e s I the score o b t a i n e d i n Task S e r i e s I I the score o b t a i n e d  on an o r d i n a l s c a l e o f 0-5, on an o r d i n a l s c a l e o f 0-6,  and i n Task S e r i e s I I I and IU the number of c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s . The data o f Task S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I uas s u b m i t t e d t o b i v a r i a t e f r e q u e n c y a n a l y s i s and v a r i a n c e  analysis.  The data on  Task S e r i e s I I uas t r a n s f o r m e d t o an o r d i n a l s c a l e o f 0-5 f o r the a n a l y s i s of variance.  The b i v a r i a t e frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r  -51-  Task S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I are shown i n Appendix F.  These  d i s t r i b u t i o n s showed t h a t the s c o r e s o b t a i n e d by the s u b j e c t s s h i f t e d over the age l e v e l s s t u d i e d .  There was a c e i l i n g  effect  on the s c o r e s i n Task S e r i e s I f a r 5 year o l d s and 6 year o l d s and i n Task S e r i e s I I f o r 6 year o l d s . in  The AIMOV/A t a b l e i s shown  Appendix G.  Hypothesis  1  I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d  that:  The major development i n the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f body p a r t s i s at the sensorimotor l e v e l as opposed to the p r e f e r e n c e l e v e l and the language l e v e l , i n 3 to 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n . The age of the c h i l d , not the sex of the c h i l d , i s the determining f a c t o r i n t h i s development. To t e s t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s the data o b t a i n e d i n Task S e r i e s I I I and Task S e r i e s IU was c o n s i d e r e d . of  c h i l d r e n , at each age l e v e l , who  to  throw a b a l l on S t r i a l s  trials.  Table 5 shows the percentage  c o n t i n u a l l y used the same hand  and the same f o o t to k i c k a b a l l on 8  The data c o l l e c t e d i n d i c a t e s t h a t the major development  i n p r e f e r e n c e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n occurs p r i o r to age 3 y e a r s .  While  t h i s supports the f i n d i n g s of Berges and Lezine (1965) that dominance  can be e x t r a c t e d even at the 3 year o l d l e v e l ,  i t does  not support a body o f r e s e a r c h which suggests the dominance i s u s u a l l y not e s t a b l i s h e d u n t i l age 5 years i n the t y p i c a l (Benton,  1962; Kephart,  present study may  I960).  child  The methods employed i n the  have confounded the f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d .  The  data i n Table 5 does suggest, however, t h a t the o r g a n i z a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r p r e f e r e n c e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n d i d not c o n t i n u a l l y at  each age l e v e l s t u d i e d .  improve  -52-  Table 5.  Age Percentages f o r Hand P r e f e r e n c e and Foot P r e f e r e n c e  Hand P r e f e r e n c e  Age  Foot P r e f e r e n c e  3 years  93.75%  100.00%  k years  100.00%  100.0D%  5 years  10H.00%  100.00%  6 years  100.00%  1D0.0D%  Table 6 shous the percentage of c h i l d r e n , at each l e v e l who,  age  on t a s k s r e q u i r i n g e i t h e r a v e r b a l response t o i n d i c a t i o n  o f the body p a r t on the s u b j e c t , or an i n d i c a t i o n response on  self  to v e r b a l commands, c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d the eye, hand, and f o o t on 12 t r i a l s 12 t r i a l s .  and the r i g h t and l e f t  a s p e c t s o f these body p a r t s  The data i n Table ID presumably  i n d i c a t e s t h a t the  u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the v e r b a l l a b e l s , eye, hand, f o o t , uas by 3 y e a r s of age.  on  established  S i g n i f i c a n t developments i n the u n d e r s t a n d i n g  o f the v e r b a l l a b e l s , r i g h t and l e f t , uas not c l e a r l y u n t i l 6 y e a r s of age.  Thus, the language  apparent  differentiation  s t u d i e d d i d not shou c o n t i n u e d improvement at each age  tasks  level.  I t u o u l d seem r e a s o n a b l e , t h e n , to examine the Task S e r i e s r e q u i r i n g s e n s o r i m o t o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n an attempt to  determine  i f the developmental s i g n i f i c a n c e of body p a r t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n at t h i s l e v e l of n e u r o l o g i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n .  lies  -53-  Table 6.  Age Percentages f o r t h eLanguage D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f Body P a r t s , Right/Left  Age  Body  Parts  Right/Left  3 years  100.00%  • .•0%  4 years  100.00%  0.D0%  5 years  100.00%  6.25%  6 years  1D0.00%  75.D0%  The e f f e c t s o f Age on s e n s o r i m o t o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , d i d , as shown i n Table 7, r e f l e c t c o n t i n u a l improvement a t each age l e v e l studied.  An F t e s t r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e mean  s c o r e s f o r Ages i n Table 7 were s i g n i f i c a n t , t h u s , t h e Age main e f f e c t was s i g n i f i c a n t  ( F = 269.40, p<:.01).  e f f e c t was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y  significant  The Sex (Age) main  (F = .031, p < . D 5 ) .  F u r t h e r i n t e r a c t i o n s o f Sex (Age) were a l s o n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . H y p o t h e s i s 1 can be a c c e p t e d ; t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t the mean s c o r e s f o r age l e v e l s but t h e performance  difference i n  a t each age  l e v e l was not a f f e c t e d by t h e sex o f t h e c h i l d . Table 7.  Age  Mean Scores f o r t h e Age and Sex (Age) K u i n E f f e c t s  Boys and G i r l s  Boys  Girls  3  1.8  1.8  1.7  4  3.3  • 3.3  3.2  5  2.9  3.8  3.9  6  4.4  4.4  4.5  -54-  The remaining hypotheses t h i s .developmental  are concerned u i t h the nature o f  t r e n d f o r sensorimotor  differentiation.  Hypothesis 2 The a b i l i t y to make v o l u n t a r y movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s i s dependent upon the sensorimotor a s p e c t s , not o n l y the sensory aspects o f the task. To t e s t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s the mean s c o r e s f o r the Age x Task S e r i e s i n t e r a c t i o n uere c o n s i d e r e d to determine  i f the output  aspects o f the sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n t a s k s s t u d i e d as u e l l as the i n p u t aspects o f the sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n t a s k s s t u d i e d a f f e c t e d performance  s c o r e s at each age l e v e l .  Before  dis-  c u s s i n g these f i n d i n g s , i t should be c l a r i f i e d t h a t the output requirements o f Task S e r i e s I appeared neuromuscular  t o r e q u i r e a more p r e c i s e  c o - o r d i n a t i o n than d i d the output requirements f o r  Task S e r i e s I I .  The i n p u t requirements f o r Task S e r i e s I I ,  a l t e r n a t i v e l y , appeared  t o r e q u i r e a more comprehensive  spatial  o r g a n i z a t i o n than d i d the i n p u t requirements of Task S e r i e s I . The mean s c o r e s f o r the Age x Task S e r i e s i n t e r a c t i o n are shoun i n Table S.  An F t e s t r e v e a l e d t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e  these mean s c o r e s uas s i g n i f i c a n t . tinually  improved  betueen  While the mean scores con-  as a f u n c t i o n of i n c r e a s e s i n c h r o n o l o g i c a l age  i n both Task S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I ; Table 8 shous t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s betueen  the mean s c o r e s f o r both Task S e r i e s , at each  age l e v e l uere not aluays i n the same d i r e c t i o n .  -55-  Table 8.  Age  Mean S c o r e s f o r t h e Age x Task Series Interaction  Task S e r i e s I  Task S e r i e s I I  3 years  1.5  2.0  4 years  3.3  3.3  5 years  4.3  3.9  6 years  4.6  4.4  The mean s c o r e s f o r t h e Age x Task S e r i e s i n t e r a c t i o n , t h e n , suggest t h a t the i n p u t and output v a r i a b l e s o f s e n s o r i m o t o r  differ-  e n t i a t i o n do not a f f e c t performance c o n s i s t e n t l y a t each age l e v e l studied.  While t h e Task S e r i e s I f u n c t i o n appeared t o be s t e e p e r  than t h e Task S e r i e s I I f u n c t i o n ( F i g u r e 1) s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e motor o r g a n i z a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r Task S e r i e s I p r o g r e s s e d more r a p i d l y d u r i n g 3 t o 6 y e a r s o f age than d i d t h e s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r Task S e r i e s I I , the d e s i g n o f these s e n s o r i m o t o r t a s k s does not p e r m i t the c o n c l u s i o n t h a t the output a s p e c t s o f s e n s o r i motor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n are t h e most i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r s i n the p e r formance s c o r e s o f 3 t o 6 year o l d s .  S i m i l a r l y , u h i l e performance  s c o r e s under t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c p r e s e n t a t i o n s were h i g h e r than performance s c a r e s under v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n s , these i n p u t f a c t o r s can not be c o n s i d e r e d the most i m p o r t a n t aspect o f the s e n s o r i m o t o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s as t h e a b i l i t y t o o r g a n i z e the sensory i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d uas i n t e r - r e l a t e d u i t h t h e output v a r i a b l e s r e q u i r e d f o r movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n on each Task S e r i e s .  -56-  At 3 years o f age, the mean scare uas  higher  than the mean score  motor o r g a n i z a t i o n  f a r Task S e r i e s I I  f o r Task S e r i e s I ( F i g u r e 1 ) . The  v a r i a b l e , then, appeared to be the determining  f a c t o r i n performance a t t h i s age l e v e l . The  majority  more a c c u r a t e l y  o f c h i l d r e n could  d i f f e r e n t i a t e the f i n g e r s  i f they used a p o i n t i n g response, as opposed  to the i s o l a t e d f i n g e r a c t i o n r e q u i r e d .  Although t h i s  pointing  response to the f i n g e r i n d i c a t e d uas not s t u d i e d i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i t uas a more automatic response at each age l e v e l The  use o f t h i s p o i n t i n g response i n d i c a t e d t h a t the c h i l d r e n  d i s c r i m i n a t e betueen the f i n g e r s before  illustrated organization  i n Figure required  at 3 years o f age.  The f i n d i n g s  1, then, presumably i n d i c a t e t h a t the motor f o r Task S e r i e s  I uas D n l y minimally  By k years o f age, the mean score  S e r i e s I c l o s e l y approximated the mean score  developed  f o r Task  f o r Task S e r i e s I I  ( F i g u r e 3 ) . T h i s uDuld seem to suggest t h a t the motor required  could  they c o u l d use them f o r the  movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n r e q u i r e d on Task S e r i e s I .  organization  f o r Task S e r i e s I had p r o g r e s s e d to the p o i n t uhere the  simple l e v e l o f motor or output o r g a n i z a t i o n  r e q u i r e d f o r Task  S e r i e s I I uas not the determining f a c t o r i n Task S e r i e s and  studied.  comparisons,  both the i n p u t and output aspects uere the determinants o f  sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s . By 5 years o f age the a b i l i t y to organize  the input and the output aspects o f Task S e r i e s I seems to  have p r o g r e s s e d to the p o i n t uhere a c e i l i n g e f f e c t uas place mean s c o r e s .  on the  S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s uere observed on Task S e r i e s I I at the  6 year o l d l e v e l , but, only on the c o n d i t i o n s r e q u i r i n g t a c t u a l kinesthetic organization  o f the i n f o r m a t i o n  presented.  -57-  Figure  1.  Mean  Scores  for  Presentations on  Task  Series  Tactual-Kinesthetic  and by  Visual Age.  Presentations  5.0 j  1.0 1  •  1  1  1  2  1  1  3  4  CONDITIONS  'Figure  2.  Mean Scores f o r the Age X C o n d i t i o n s  Interaction.  -60-  I t does seem, then, and  the output  aspects  that at each age l e v e l both the input  o f the sensorimotor  differentiation  s t u d i e d mere the determinants of performance. was  tasks  Hypothesis 2,  supported.  Hypothesis 3 The a b i l i t y to make v o l u n t a r y movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s r e q u i r i n g v i s u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n precedes the a b i l i t y to make v o l u n t a r y movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s r e q u i r i n g tactual-kinesthetic organization. The  mean scores f o r the Age x C o n d i t i o n i n t e r a c t i o n are  shown i n Table  9.  While an F t e s t r e v e a l e d t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e  betweem these mean scores was s i g n i f i c a n t , the g r a p h i c a n a l y s i s i n F i g u r e 3 i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l f i n d i n g was not meaningful. level.  The same t r e n d f o r c o n d i t i o n s was found at each age  Ranging from the e a s i e s t c o n d i t i o n to the hardest  condition,  t h i s t r e n d was c o n d i t i o n 4:  t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c presentation f o r n o n - v i s u a l movement response  c o n d i t i o n 3:  t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c presentation f o r v i s u a l movement response  c o n d i t i o n 2:  v i s u a l presentation f o r non-visual movement response  c o n d i t i o n 1:  v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r v i s u a l movement response.  Hypothesis 3 was, thus, r e f u t e d . scores  f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t  The d i f f e r e n c e between mean  C o n d i t i o n s main e f f e c t  (F = 185.56),  appears to be a t t r i b u t a b l e to the d i f f e r e n c e between t a c t u a l kinesthetic presentations  and v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n s  (Table 7 ) .  p<.01)  TA3< Figure h.  II  T/SK  Mean Scores f o r the Age X Task Series X Dominance Interaction (DI = Dominant; D2 = Non-Dominant)  -62-  Table 9.  Mean Scores f o r the Age x C o n d i t i o n s Interaction  V i s u a l -Visual Movement  Visual— Non-visual Movement  3 years  1.3  1.4  2.1  2.4  4 years  2.8  3.1  3.4  3.8  5 years  3.6  3.6  4.0  4.4  6 years  4.0  4.1  4.7  4.8  Age  11.7  Hypothesis  12.2  Tactualkinesthetic visual movement  14.2  Tactualkinesthetic Non-visual movement  15.4  4  I t mas h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t (4)  The a b i l i t y t o make v o l u n t a r y movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s on t a s k s r e q u i r i n g i n t r a - m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n develops i n advance o f t h e a b i l i t y to make v o l u n t a r y movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s on t h e t a s k s r e q u i r i n g i n t e r - m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n .  At t h e time when t h i s h y p o t h e s i s was f o r m u l a t e d , t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r i n t e r p r e t e d t h e v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n f o r v i s u a l movement response  ( c o n d i t i o n 1) t o be an i n t r a - m o d a l c o n d i t i o n . T h i s was  an i n c o r r e c t assumption.  Previous i n t e g r a t i v e processing studies  had d e s c r i b e d t h i s type o f c o n d i t i o n as i n t r a - m o d a l ( B r y a n t , 1968; L e f f o r d , 1970) but t h e movement response  employed seem t o r e q u i r e  m i n i m a l motor, o r g a n i z a t i o n ( p o i n t i n g on s e l f ) i n comparison t o the a c t i o n s s t u d i e d i n t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  The r e s e a r c h i n  -63-  i n t e g r a t i v e processing  had r e v e a l e d t h a t v i s u a l  i n t e g r a t i o n develops i n advance o f i n t e r - m o d a l  intra-modal processing i n v o l v i n g  v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e 'response o r i n the p r e s e n t a t i o n and intra-modal 1971; 1964).  h a p t i c and k i n e s t h e t i c p r o c e s s i n g  ( B a i t e r and F o g a r t y ,  B i r c h and L e f f o r d , 1963; L e f f o r d , 1970; Rudel and Teuber, One would e x p e c t ,  then, t h a t Task S e r i e s I I which r e q u i r e d  a l e s s e r degree o f motor o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r the response r e l a t i v e to Task S e r i e s I would r e f l e c t the r e p o r t e d r e l i a n c e Dn v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r v i s u a l movement response a t t h e 3 year Did l e v e l i n p a r t i c u l a r ( L e f f o r d , 1970).  T h i s was not shown ( F i g u r e 1 ) .  I t was c o n c l u d e d , t h e n , t h a t the o n l y i n t r a - m o d a l i n the experimental  d e s i g n o f t h i s study was c o n d i t i o n 4, t h e  tactual-kinesthetic presentation  ( p a s s i v e movement w i t h o u t  c u e s ) f o r n o n - v i s u a l movement ( a c t i v e movement w i t h o u t The  condition  visual  visual  cues).  mean s c o r e s f o r t h i s c o n d i t i o n were h i g h e r than the r e m a i n i n g  mean s c o r e s f o r c o n d i t i o n s on both Task S e r i e s and a t each age level studied.  H y p o t h e s i s 4 i f r e v i s e d t o read  and not ' i n t r a - m o d a l  'intra-modal  task'  t a s k s ' was s u p p o r t e d .  During t h e a c t u a l t e s t i n g s e s s i o n s , i t was observed t h a t the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n f o r response ( c o n d i t i o n s 1 and 3) o f t e n confused the c h i l d r e n . which i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g  While the m o d a l i t y  through  the hands and f i n g e r s i s o b t a i n e d  appears t o be the s i g n i f i c a n t a s p e c t o f the c o n d i t i o n s employed i n t h i s s t u d y , the s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e s between the mean s c o r e s o f c o n d i t i o n s 1 and 2 and between the mean s c o r e s o f c o n d i t i o n s 3 and 4 s h o u l d not be t o t a l l y d i s c o u n t e d .  The data does seem t o s u p p o r t  however, Rudel's and Teuber's (1964) s u g g e s t i o n  t h a t the developmental  -64-  t r e n d s f o r i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g may m o d a l i t y which most r e a d i l y employed  be dependent upon the  permits d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n  ( v i s u a l f o r o b j e c t form d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ,  texture d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ,  on the task  haptic for  t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c f o r body p a r t  differentiation).  Hypothesis  5  I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t : (5)  The a b i l i t y to make v o l u n t a r y movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s along the dominant s i d e o f the body precedes the a b i l i t y to make v o l u n t a r y movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s along the non-dominant s i d e of the body.  An F t e s t r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t  Dominant main  effect  (F = 199.06, p < . 0 1 ) f u r t h e r i n t e r a c t i o n s with Dominance were significant  (Appendix G).  interaction  are shown i n Table 10.  Table 10.  also  The mean s c o r e s f o r the Age x Dominance  Mean Scores f o r the Age x Dominance Interaction  Age  Dominant Hand  Man-Dominant  3 years  2.3  1.3  4 years  3.5  3.0  5 years  4.2  3.5  6 years  4.7  4.2  Hand  -65-  Table ID shous t h a t dominant hand mean s c o r e s uere than non-dominant hand mean s c o r e s  higher  a t each age l e v e l s t u d i e d .  I t uas  f u r t h e r determined i n t h e s i g n i f i c a n t Age x Task S e r i e s x Dominance i n t e r a c t i o n (F = 4.58, p< .DI) t h a t t h i s t r e n d a p p l i e d t o both Task S e r i e s ( F i g u r e 4 ) . One u a u l d  expect t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e  betueen these mean s c o r e s u o u l d be more n o t i c e a b l e on Task S e r i e s I u h i c h r e q u i r e d a complex motor o r g a n i z a t i o n i n comparison t o Task S e r i e s I I .  T h i s r e s u l t uas o b t a i n e d  l e v e l s but not a t t h e 3 year o l d l e v e l .  a t t h e 4, 5 and 6 year o l d The c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f  the p o s i t i o n s used i n Task S e r i e s I I and t h e uay i n u h i c h t h e c h i l d r e n r e p r o d u c e d these p o s i t i o n s may c l a r i f y t h i s apparent sistency.  incon-  A l l 6 p o s i t i o n s p r e s e n t e d i n v o l v e d both t h e r i g h t hand  and t h e l e f t hand.  The m a j o r i t y o f 3 year o l d c h i l d r e n approached  t h e i r p o s i t i o n reproductions  by l e a d i n g u i t h t h e dominant hand.  They u o u l d p o s i t i o n t h i s hand and then t r y t D determine t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p D f t h e non-dominant hand.  I f t h e dominant hand uas  p l a c e d i n t h e c o r r e c t p o s i t i o n i t uas r e c o r d e d as a c o r r e c t e n t i a t i o n and a s s i g n e d reproduction  (1).  differ-  By 4 y e a r s o f age, t h i s approach t o t h e  o f t h e p o s i t i o n shoued a more comprehensive i n t e r -  p r e t a t i o n o f t h e g e s t a l t o f t h e 2 hands i n o r i e n t a t i o n as they uere moved t o g e t h e r .  I t uas not as r e a d i l y o b s e r v a b l e uhether  the i n c o r r e c t p o s i t i o n i n g s uere a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the dominant o r the non-dominant hand.  As a r e s u l t , t h e d i f f e r e n c e s betueen these  v a r i a b l e s on Task S e r i e s I I uere not as n o t i c e a b l e as on Task S e r i e s I . There u a s , houever a r e l i a n c e on t h e dominant hand i n t h e c r o s s over p o s i t i o n s (2 and 3 ) , a s , u n t i l 6 y e a r s o f age t h e dominant hand uas u i t h f e u e x c e p t i o n s ,  p o s i t i o n e d an t o p o f t h e non-dominant  -66-  hand r e g a r d l e s s of the a c t u a l p o s i t i o n The  f i n d i n g s , then, presumably q u a l i f y the manner i n which  motor o r g a n i z a t i o n proceeds. to support  Hypothesis 5 was  supported; and  of  age.  data of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n suggests t h a t  s i g n i f i c a n c e of an o r g a n i z e d  .General  child.  Discussion  f i n d i n g s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t  the r e l e v a n c e and  developmental  model of the body l i e s i n the  sensorimotor development of the 3 to 6 year o l d  The  seems  the f i n d i n g s of Task S e r i e s I I I t h a t dominance e f f e c t s  can be e x t r a c t e d as e a r l y as 3 years The  presented.  of body p a r t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n to the n e u r o l o g i c a l  c o g n i t i v e development of the 3 to 6 year o l d c h i l d l i e s i n  the o r g a n i z a t i o n of tv-insorimotor  functions.  Body Schema The  f i n d i n g s of t h i s study are i n agreement with the view  adopted by Berges and  Lezine  (1965); i f the development of  body schema i s s t u d i e d by observing subconscious,physiological the p r e - s c h o o l  the motor u t i l i z a t i o n o f  by Head (1920).  e s s e n t i a l to t h i s s y n t h e s i z e d  while  this  model, the perceptual-motor f a c t o r s of  c h i l d ' s development predominate over the  f a c t o r s considered  the  perceptual  schema  the topography of the hands and  formulated fingers  appeared t D be more r e a d i l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d when p e r c e i v e d  by  the t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c system than by the v i s u a l system; t h i s perceptual  aspect  was  both Task S e r i e s and  i n t e r - r e l a t e d with motor o r g a n i z a t i o n at each age  l e v e l ( F i g u r e s 1 and  2).  on  -67-  The  f i n d i n g s of t h i s study  r e l a t e d to higher mean s c o r e s  for t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c presentations presentations contention  da seem to support,  i n comparison to  however, Konorski's  t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n coming from the angular  of the j o i n t s  ( p o s i t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n , i n t h i s study  visual (1967)  displacement presented  through p a s s i v e movement or the t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c system i n the absence of v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n )  i s the predominant sensory  system  i n body schema a c q u i s i t i o n . In view of Head's (1920) tenet t h a t hand-finger may  schemata  be used as an e x c e l l e n t i n d i c a t i o n of the development of  the  t o t a l body schema, the f i n d i n g s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e t h a t the development of the body schema s t a b i l i z e s around 5 to 6 years of age. apparently,  The  t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n of the body,  s t a b i l i z i n g before  the v i s u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of  the  body ( F i g u r e 2 ) . Psychological  Considerations  Piaget  (1954) has  a t t r i b u t e d the s i g n i f i c a n c e of body  awareness to the development of s p a t i a l schemata at the o p e r a t i o n a l stage 2 to 7 y e a r s ) .  of l o g i c a l thought development  Furthermore, Piaget  n o t i o n of space, at t h i s l e v e l , motor schemata.  (1953) has  pre-  (approximately  suggested t h a t  the  i s predominantly t i e d to s e n s o r i -  I t would seem, i n l i g h t of the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n ,  that the use of the n e u r o l o g i c a l term, body schema as a s y n t h e s i s of body schemata ( h a n d - f i n g e r  schemata) i s an a p p r o p r i a t e , more  o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of body awareness. Piaget  (1954) has  a l s o emphasized the importance of  differ-  -68-  e n t i a t e d motor a c t i v i t y of space.  The  f o r the development of an  f i n d i n g s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n  understanding  ( F i g u r e 1;  h y p o t h e s i s 2 ) , d i s c u s s e d i n the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n would seem to support t h i s c o n t e n t i o n . W i t h i n P i a g e t ' s (1954) t h e o r e t i c a l framework f o r the development of s p a t i a l comprehension, l a t e r a l i t y or the understanding of the r i g h t and l e f t the f i r s t  c o - o r d i n a t e s of the body i s  n o t i o n of space s a i d to develop.  suggested t h a t l a t e r a l i t y f o r m a l s c h o o l age.  Kephart  (I960)  i s e s t a b l i s h e d i n the t y p i c a l c h i l d  laterality  by  to r e f e r to the understanding of  at the sensorimotor l e v e l of n e u r o l o g i c a l  i z a t i o n , as the f i n d i n g s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e  organthat  sensorimotor f u n c t i o n s , p e r t a i n i n g to the body, s t a b i l i z e 5 t o 6 years of age Kephart  has  It. would seem, then, t h a t these p s y c h o l o g i s t s  have used the term r i g h t and l e f t  internal  around  ( F i g u r e 3, Appendix F ) .  (1960) suggested t h a t i n the p r o j e c t i o n of  later-  a l i t y , termed d i r e c t i o n a l i t y , form and d i s t a n c e are the most important  aspects i n l e a r n i n g to r e a d .  lishment of l a t e r a l i t y and Kephart  In a d d i t i o n to the e s t a b -  and d i r e c t i o n a l i t y , Kephart  (1960) have contended  (1960) and  t h a t the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of v i s u a l -  motor i n t e g r a t i o n i s necessary f o r l e a r n i n g to r e a d . to Radler and Kephart if  Radler  According  (1960), the c o r o l l a r y of t h i s a l s o h o l d s ;  a c h i l d d i s p l a y s r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t y he should be given t r a i n i n g  i n these s k i l l s .  IMow, i n the present study i t was  indicated  that  the sensorimotor o r g a n i z a t i o n of body p a r t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s not the same as the sensorimotor o r g a n i z a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r form perception  ( B a i t e r and Fogarty, 1971;  B i r c h and L e f f o r d ,  1963;  -69Rudel and Teuber, 1964). displays reading  I t may be argued, t h e n , t h a t i f a c h i l d  d i f f i c u l t y the n a t u r e Df t h i s d i f f i c u l t y  be i n i t i a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d .  should  I f the problem l i e s i n s e n s o r i m o t o r  o r g a n i z a t i o n , the s p e c i f i c o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t y s h o u l d be i d e n t i f i e d t o ensure t h a t the r e m e d i a l t r a i n i n g i s a p p r o p r i a t e to d e v e l o p i n g the s e n s o r i m o t o r a b i l i t i e s Neurological  required.  Considerations  In view o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i t would seem t h a t Geschwind's (1965) p r o p o s a l ,  c i t e d by B u t t e r s and Brody (196B), r e f e r r i n g to  the l e f t p a r i e t a l - o c c i p i t a l r e g i o n  as t h e mediator f o r c r o s s -  modal i n t e g r a t i o n s may e x p l a i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h e s p a t i a l d i s o r d e r s , i n c l u d i n g body image d i s t u r b a n c e ,  associated  w i t h c e r e b r a l l e s i o n s i n the l e f t p a r i e t a l l o b e . I f the c e r e b r a l area r e s p o n s i b l e  f o r inter-modal  integ-  r a t i o n i s damaged i t would seem t o f o l l o w t h a t b e h a v i o r s r e q u i r i n g t h i s a b i l i t y would be a f f e c t e d d e t r i m e n t a l l y .  Moreover, i f t h e  p r o c e d u r e s used t o measure these a b i l i t i e s are c l o s e l y approximated i n terms o f s p e c i f i c i n t e g r a t i v e demands r e q u i r e d i t would seem t h a t r e c o r d e d performances would be n e c e s s a r i l y s i m i l a r . neuropathological  conditions discussed  s p a t i a l organization  of a visual-motor  measurements o f a p h a s i a ) ;  i n Chapter I I a l l r e q u i r e d n a t u r e ( e x c l u d i n g some  i t does n o t seem u n u s u a l , t h e n , t h a t  p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between these d i s o r d e r s have been r e p o r t e d . associated  The  frequently  I t may be deduced t h a t the d i s s i m i l a r r e p o r t s o f  r e l a t i o n s h i p s may be a t t r i b u t a b l e t o the i n h e r e n t  d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f u n c t i o n a l measures o f these b e h a v i o r s employed by v a r i o u s  researchers.  A s i m i l a r argument c o u l d be used t o e x p l a i n  -70-  the c o n f l i c t i n g f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d f o r r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y r e l a t e s ( C h a l f a n t and S c h e f f l i n , Integrative Processing The sensory  cor-  1969).  Considerations  i n t e g r a t i o n s t u d i e s i n form p e r c e p t i o n  ( B a i t e r and F o g a r t y , 1971; B i r c h and L e f f o r d , 1963; and Rudel and Teuber, 1964) have i n v e s t i g a t e d the a b i l i t y o f p r e - s c h o D l c h i l d r e n to t r e a t s t i m u l i presented  t o one m o d a l i t y o r t o two  m o d a l i t i e s as the 'same' or ' d i f f e r e n t ' .  I t has been d i s c u s s e d  elsewhere i n t h i s c h a p t e r t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l t r e n d r e p o r t e d f o r these s t u d i e s i s d i f f e r e n t from the developmental t r e n d i n d i c a t e d i n t h i s study.  T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s e l a b o r a t e d below.  The f i n d i n g s o f these form p e r c e p t i o n s t u d i e s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n i t i a l l y r e l i a n c e i s p l a c e d on the v i s u a l system, i r r e s p e c t i v e o f t h e i n t r a - m o d a l ( m i n i m a l motor response r e q u i r e d ) o r the i n t e r modal a s p e c t s o f t h e t a s k .  Mot u n t i l 5 t o 7 y e a r s o f age was an  e q u i v a l e n c e between t h e v i s u a l system and t h e k i n e s t h e t i c system ( B i r c h and L e f f o r d , 1963) o r between the v i s u a l system and t h e h a p t i c system ( B a i t e r and F o g a r t y , 1971; Rudel and Teuber, 1964) reported.  While these i n v e s t i g a t o r s have r e f e r r e d t D an e q u i v a l e n c e  between these systems, i t may be as was t h e case i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y , t h a t the d e s i g n o f the s e n s o r i m o t o r  tasks placed a c e i l i n g  e f f e c t on t h e performance s c o r e s o f 5 and 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n . In t h i s s t u d y , r e l i a n c e seemed t o be p l a c e d on t h e t a c t u a l k i n e s t h e t i c system as opposed t o t h e v i s u a l system.  The f i n d i n g s  o f the p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e n , seem t o be i n agreement w i t h honorski's  (1967.) c o n t e n t i o n t h a t p o s i t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n  (tactual-  -71-  k i n e s t h e t i c p r e s e n t a t i o n s ) i s the predominant sensory  system  i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of the body schema. The  r e s u l t s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i l l now  i n terms of L e f f o r d ' s (1970) study  be  discussed  which concommitantly examined  the development of k v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n s i n 3 to 5)k year o l d c h i l d r e n with the development of the sensory  aspects of the  hand-finger  schemata. By  4 years Df age,  of the hands and  L e f f o r d suggested t h a t the topography  f i n g e r s was  e q u a l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d when p e r c e i v e d  v i s u a l l y or t a c t u a l l y - k i n e s t h e t i c a l l y .  T h i s may  have been  attrib-  u t a b l e to the c e i l i n g e f f e c t on performance as r e v e a l e d i n the present  study. L e f f o r d a l s o suggested t h a t the v i s u a l hand-finger  appeared tD be more advanced at the 3 year o l d l e v e l , than t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c schemata. present  study  and may  T h i s was  be p a r t i a l l y e x p l a i n e d by c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t  o u t s i d e Df the f i e l d of v i s i o n while the  i n t h i s study were p a s s i v e movements without available.  the  not i n d i c a t e d i n the  L e f f o r d ' s t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c p r e s e n t a t i o n s were d e s c r i b e d heavy touch  schemata  visual  presentations information  Perhaps, the i n f o r m a t i o n conveyed by these  t i n g u i s h a b l e t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c p r e s e n t a t i o n s was  as  two  dis-  of a d i f f e r e n t  nature. L e f f o r d f u r t h e r suggested t h a t h i s f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h a t the sensory co-ordinated t h i s study  systems are i n i t i a l l y  u n r e l a t e d and  with the development of the c h i l d .  support  Lefford's reasoning;  The  become i n t e r f i n d i n g s of  and presumably i n d i c a t e  the importance of n e u r o l o g i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n to the p s y c h o l o g i c a l  -72development of the c h i l d u i t h u h i c h L e f f o r d (1970) uas  concerned.  L e f f o r d i n t e r p r e t e d these sensory i n t e g r a t i o n f i n d i n g s i n terms of the development o f motor r e s p o n s e s : i t must be e v i d e n t t h a t uhen the e x e c u t i o n o f a movement or an a c t i o n depends on the t r a n s l a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n from one sensory m o d a l i t y to a n o t h e r , the a c t i o n cannot be e f f e c t e d u n t i l an e q u i v a l e n c e betueen the schemata i n the d i f f e r e n t sensory domains i s e s t a b l i s h e d . L e f f o r d (1970.) In v i e u of the f i n d i n g s i n t h i s s t u d y , i t seems t h a t L e f f o r d suggesting  t h a t v o l u n t a r y movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s  uas  inherently  r e q u i r e an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c topography o f the body.  U n t i l an e q u i v a l e n c e  v i s u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and  i s approached betueen the  the t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n  of  the body r e q u i r e d f o r the v o l u n t a r y movement response r e q u i r e d , a c t i o n s r e q u i r i n g i n t e r c o - o r d i n a t i o n , betueen these tuo o r g a n i z a t i o n a l systems u i l l not be e f f e c t i v e .  Thus, i t seems t h a t  development of v o l u n t a r y movements d u r i n g the p r e - s c h o o l  y e a r s must  be s t u d i e d concommitantly u i t h the s e n s o r y o r g a n i z a t i o n o f topography of the body r e q u i r e d .  the  the  -73-  CHAPTER M  SUMMARY AND  T h i s developmental  CONCLUSIONS  study attempted  to d i s t i n g u i s h  the p r e f e r e n c e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , sensorimotor and language children.  betueen  differentiation,  d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of body p a r t s by 3 to 6 year o l d The  development of the body schema d e f i n e d as the  n e u r o l o g i c a l model of the sensorimotor aspects of body p a r t s uas  emphasized.  Summary  Head (1920) o r i g i n a l l y formulated the term body schema and c o n c e i v e d t h i s phenomenon to be a s y n t h e s i s of the sensory a f f e r e n t s p e r t a i n i n g to the body.  Berges  and Lezine (1965) have  suggested t h a t the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s subconscious model l i e s i n i t s use. Berges'  and  The  f i n d i n g s of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n d i c a t e  L e z i n e ' s (1965) approach  may  that  d i s s i p a t e the c o n f u s i o n  i n the i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y r e s e a r c h concerned  u i t h the r e l e v a n c e  of t h i s o r g a n i z e d model of the body i n the development of p r e school  children. E x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s and  procedures  Four Task S e r i e s uere a d m i n i s t e r e d ; Task S e r i e s I uas sensorimotor f i n g e r l o c a l i z a t i o n ; Task S e r i e s II uas  sensorimotor  h a n d - f i n g e r o r i e n t a t i o n ; Task S e r i e s I I I uas hand p r e f e r e n c e and  -74foot  preference;  Df  body  of  the  parts  Task  uith  respect  different  visual  presentations  visual  movement  in  Task  studied finger uas  in  the  schema  Task  of  did  of  Series  I,  differentiation. ordinal  scale  orientation  an  to  and body  the  and  understanding  left  II,  co-ordinates  of  •  uhile Task  III  Series  IU  uith  on  trials.  part  of  uas  the  Task  Series  II  complex more  motor  complex condition  presented uas  the  for  score  an  hand-finger  6  uere  measure  one  presented studied  in  uas  each  the  trials  4  of  of  throuing  kicking  administered  a  tuice  a  ball  ball  uith  (foot  and  no  intra-  the  eye,  obtained.  to  These  indicated  a  uere  II,  response  orientation  more  studied  uere  5.  uas  required  respect  a  hand  hands  4 trials  Series  the  of  experimental  Series  dependent  and  in  required  each  both  -  movement  in  for  response  movement  studied  each  Task  •  The  measures  involved  preference) Task  of  II  involved  presentations  required  In  involving The  I  I.  In  -5.  II.  fingers  Task  fingers  scale  variability  6  Series  that  movement  isolated  and  dependent  foot  body  hands  Task  did  conditions  response  The  This  Task  the  5  Series  (hand  individual  the  right  Series  the  ordinal  preference).  hand  verbal  nan-visual  Task uas  condition.  Task hand  I  the  positions  experimental  and  movement  Task  schema than  one  the  the  tactual-kinesthetic  and  the  presented.  than  on  I  Series  placement  Task  and  Series  spatial  score  to  uas  experimental  response  presented;  position  an  IU  body. Four  used  Series  by  the  the  identification  left  trials E on  and  right  involved S  (3  S's  trials);  of  co-ordinates verbal and  S's  of  response indication  -75-  of the body part on s e l f to the v e r b a l i n s t r u c t i o n s given to S (3 t r i a l s ) .  T h i s Task S e r i e s uas administered  6 years o f age i n t r a - i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a b i l i t y Day  I I performance uas h i g h .  by E  tuice; until  i n the Day I and  T h i s presumably i n d i c a t e s the  v e r b a l i n s t r u c t i o n s r e q u i r i n g a comprehension o f r i g h t and l e f t uas  an i n v a l i d procedure f o r t e s t i n g body part d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s  of 3 to 5 year o l d c h i l d r e n . Subjects. and  8 girls  S i x t y - f o u r 3 to 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n , 8 boys  i n each category, p a r t i c i p a t e d as s u b j e c t s  in this  study. Experimental analyses. uas  discussed  i n terms o f the percentage o f c h i l d r e n at each age  l e v e l completing the t a s k s the a b i l i t y The  The data o f Task S e r i e s I I I and IU  i n a manner t h a t uould i n d i c a t e t h a t  t e s t e d uas e s t a b l i s h e d . data o f Task S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I uas submitted  to b i v a r i a t e frequency analyses  and a 4 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 4  AIMDUA u i t h repeated measures on the l a s t 3 f a c t o r s . the  d i f f e r e n c e s betueen mean scores  the scores  parametric  To analyze  f o r Task S e r i e s I I  uere transformed to the 0-5 o r d i n a l s c a l e used i n Task S e r i e s I . The  s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e shoun i n t h i s parametric  statistical  t e s t uas i n t e r p r e t e d c a u t i o u s l y u i t h the use o f graphic Experimental f i n d i n g s . development i n the p r e f e r e n c e III  occurred  I t uas determined t h a t the major organization  p r i o r to 3 years o f age.  development i n the performance s c o r e s at  analyses.  r e q u i r e d f o r Task S e r i e s  There uas a s i g n i f i c a n t on Task S e r i e s IU observed  6 years o f age, presumably i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the language organ-  ization required  f o r t h i s Task S e r i e s improved r a p i d l y betueen  -76-  5 and 6 y e a r s o f age. The major developments observed i n t h i s study uere on t h e s e n s o r i m o t o r t a s k s . The Conditions,  analysis of variance  revealed  t h a t t h e Age, Task S e r i e s ,  and Dominance main e f f e c t s and f i r s t o r d e r i n t e r a c t i o n s  were s i g n i f i c a n t .  The s i g n i f i c a n t Age X C o n d i t i o n s i n t e r a c t i o n  uas not m e a n i n g f u l as t h e same t r e n d f o r c o n d i t i o n s uas observed a t each age l e v e l .  The Sex (Age) main e f f e c t uas n o t s i g n i f i c a n t  and f u r t h e r i n t e r a c t i o n s u i t h t h i s v a r i a b l e uere a l s o n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . The  i n c r e a s e i n Task I mean s c o r e s uas more r a p i d  3 t o 6 y e a r s than t h e i n c r e a s e i n Task I I mean s c a r e s .  across  This  pre-  sumably i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e motor o r g a n i z a t i o n improved more t h a n the s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n r e q u i r e d f a r t h e h a n d - f i n g e r schemata s t u d i e d over t h e age range i n v e s t i g a t e d .  These o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  a b i l i t i e s u e r e , houever, i n t e r - r e l a t e d u i t h t h e s e n s o r y a s p e c t s o f t h e hands and f i n g e r s a t each age l e v e l .  U n t i l 5 y e a r s o f age,  the v i s u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e topography o f t h e hands and f i n g e r s d i d n o t appear t o be as developed as t h e t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e topography o f t h e hands and f i n g e r s . uas  This  comparison  drawn from t h e mean s c o r e s o f Task S e r i e s I i n t h e Age X Task  Series X Conditions  i n t e r a c t i o n . S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s uere not o b t a i n e d  uhen Task S e r i e s I I uas c o n s i d e r e d .  Even a t 6 y e a r s o f age, t h e  mean s c o r e s  f o r t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c presentations  uere h i g h e r  than those f o r v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n s .  The  above f i n d i n g s s u p p o r t B e r g e s  view t h a t t h e body schema s h o u l d  and L e z i n e ' s  (1965)  be s t u d i e d as a sensory-motor  mechanism and not as a sensory mechanism. support Konorski's  1  o f Task S e r i e s I I  (1967) c o n t e n t i o n  These f i n d i n g s a l s o  that the information  coming  -77from the  changes i n the angular displacement of the j o i n t s i s the  predominant sensory system i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of. the body schema. I t uas  f u r t h e r determined that u n t i l an equivalence  approached betueen the v i s u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n kinesthetic organization  of the hands and  and  systems u i l l  not  translation.  development of v o l u n t a r y  the  re-  organizational  be as e f f e c t i v e as the a c t i o n s r e q u i r i n g t a c t u a l -  k i n e s t h e t i c intra-modal  to the  the t a c t u a l -  fingers, actions  q u i r i n g i n t e r c o - o r d i n a t i o n s betueen these tuo  is  development D f the  Thus, i t seems that  movements i n the p r e - s c h o o l  the  child is tied  i n t e g r a t i o n of sensory impressions  on  body.  Conclusions The'follouing f i n d i n g s of t h i s  conclusions  are based on the  experimental  study.  1.  The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the developmental phenomenon d e s c r i b i n g the a b i l i t y of p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n to form an o r g a n i z e d model of t h e i r body appears to l i e i n the n e u r o l o g i c a l development of the c h i l d at the sensorimotor l e v e l of o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h i s suggests t h a t the n e u r o l o g i c a l term body schema i s a p p l i c a b l e to the r e s e a r c h i n developmental and e d u c a t i o n a l psychology concerned u i t h the development of body auareness i n the p r e - s c h o o l child.  2.  In s t u d y i n g the motor u t i l i z a t i o n of the body schema, the perceptual-motor o r g a n i z a t i o n appears to.be more determinant than the p e r c e p t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n r e q u i r e d f o r hand-finger d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n .  3.  The development of body schema appears to s t a b i l i z e around 5 to 6 years of age i f the t a c t u a l k i n e s t h e t i c hand-finger schemata are used as an i n d i c a t i o n of the establishment of t h i s phenomenon.  4.  U n t i l the v i s u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of the topography of the hands and f i n g e r s approximates the t a c t u a l -  -78-  k i n e s t h e t i c o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the topography of the hands and f i n g e r s v o l u n t a r y movements r e q u i r i n g i n t e r c o - o r d i n a t i o n s betueen these systems w i l l not be as e f f e c t i v e as those r e q u i r i n g t a c t u a l k i n e s t h e t i c intra-modal t r a n s l a t i o n .  Directions  f o r Future Research  The f i n d i n g s further  o f t h i s study have i n d i c a t e d  avenues f o r  developmental r e s e a r c h concerned u i t h the a s s o c i a t i o n s  betueen v o l u n t a r y movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and sensory i n t e g r a t i o n in  children. 1.  There uould seem to be a need f o r r e s e a r c h concerned u i t h the e f f e c t s o f sensory i n t e g r a t i o n on the development o f v o l u n t a r y movements i n c h i l d r e n .  2.  There uould seem to be a need f a r r e s e a r c h concerned u i t h the development o f the k i n e s t h e t i c system and i t s i n t e r c o - o r d i n a t i o n u i t h o t h e r sensory systems f o r more p r e c i s e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s than those used i n t h i s s t u d y .  3.  There uould seem to be a need f o r r e s e a r c h concerned u i t h the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of d i f f e r e n t cues f o r motor l e a r n i n g or movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n at v a r i o u s age l e v e l s .  -79-  B I B L I O G R A P H Y  BIBLIOGRAPHY'  Abravanel, E. "The development of i n t e r s e n s o r y p a t t e r n i n g : h a p t i c v i s u a l i n t e g r a t r a t i o n of l e n g t h and diameter", Monograph Soc. Res. C h i l d Development, 1968. Ames, L„ and Learned, J . "The development o f v e r b a l i z e d space i n the young c h i l d " , J o u r n a l o f Genetic Psychology, 1948, 12, 63-84. A r r i g o n i , G. and De Renzi, E. " C o n s t r u c t i o n a l apraxia and hemis p h e r i c l o c u s o f l e s i o n " , Cortex, 1964, 2, 170-197. Asso, D. and Wyke, M. " S p a t i a l l y confusable l e t t e r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology, 1971, 2, 11-20. Ayres, A . J . and Reid, W. "The s e l f - d r a w i n g as an e x p r e s s i o n of perceptual-motor d y s f u n c t i o n " , Cortex, 1966, 2, 254-262. B a i t e r , L. and Fogarty, J . " I n t r a - and i n t e r - s e n s o r y matching by nursery s c h o o l c h i l d r e n " , P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 1971, 33, 467-472. Bateman, B. "An educator's view o f a d i a g n o s t i c approach to l e a r n i n g d i s o r d e r s " , J o u r n a l o f Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1968, 15, 759-769. Belmount, I . , B i r c h , H.G. and Harp, E. "The d i s o r d e r i n g o f i n t e r s e n s o r y and i n t r a s e n s o r y i n t e g r a t i o n by b r a i n damage", J o u r n a l o f Nervous and Mental Disease, 1965, 141, 410-418. Benson, D.F. and Geschuind, N. " C e r e b r a l turbances , "Pe_d^ajtrJ c_CJjjT^ 759-769. ;  dominance and i t s d i s 1968, 15,  Benton, A.L. R i g h t - L e f t D i s c r i m i n a t i o n and Finger L o c a l i z a t i o n , New York: Hoeber-Harper, 1959. '_. " R i g h t - l e f t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n " , P e d i a t r i c C l i n i c s o f North America, 1968, 15, 747-758. and S c h u l t z , L.M. "Observations on t a c t u a l form perception (stereagnosis) i n pre-school c h i l d r e n " , Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1949, 5, 359-364. , Sutton, S., Kennedy, J . , Brokaw, J . "The cross-modal r e t a r d a t i o n i n r e a c t i o n time of p a t i e n t s with c e r e b r a l d i s e a s e " , J o u r n a l o f Nervous and Mental Disease, 1962, 135 413-418...  -81-  Berges,  J . and L e z i n e , I. "The Developmental Medicine,  Birch,  H.G.  and  Belmount,  imitation of gestures", 1965, Whole n o . 18,  "Auditory-visual  I.  Clinics  integration  n o r m a l and r e t a r d e d r e a d e r s " , A m e r i c a n psychiatry, 1964, 34, 852-861.  Journal  in  in  of  Ortho-  . "Auditory-visual integration, i n t e l l i g e n c e and r e a d i n g a b i l i t y in school children", P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 1965, 20, 295-305. o r  '  a n d B o r t n e r , M. " P e r c e p t u a l and p e r c e p t u a l motor d i s s o c i a t i o n i n b r a i n damaged p a t i e n t s " , J o u r n a l of Nervous and M e n t a l D i s e a s e , 1960, 130, 49. and  Lefford,  Monographs no. Blank,  for  A.  "Intersensory  Soc.  Child  development  Development,  in  children",  1963,  Whole  89.  M. and A l t m a n , D. " E f f e c t of s t i m u l u s m o d a l i t y and t a s k c o m p l e x i t y on d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and r e v e r s a l l e a r n i n g in pre-school c h i l d r e n " , Journal of Experimental Child P s y c h o l o g y , 1968, 6, 598-606. a n d B r i d g e r , W. children", Journal 1964, 58, 277-282.  Bortner,  Boyle,  Res.  "Cross-modal transfer in nursery school of Comparative P h y s i o l . Psychology,  M.-, B i r c h , H . G . " P e r c e p t u a l and p e r c e p t u a l motor diss o c i a t i o n in cerebral p a l s i e d c h i l d r e n " , Journal of IMervous and M e n t a l D i s e a s e , 1960, 134, 103-108.  D.G. A Student's .1969.  Guide  to  Piaget,  New  York:  Pergamon  Press  Brumbach, W.B. "A r e s p o n s e t o P e t r i e ' s r l o t e on s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of a t t i t u d e scale s c o r e s " , Research Quarterly, 1969, 40, 436-437. Bruner,  J . S . 1964,  Bryant,  P.E. "Comments on t h e d e s i g n o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t u d i e s o f c r o s s - m o d a l m a t c h i n g and c r o s s - m o d a l t r a n s f e r " , Cortex, 1968, 4, 128-127.  Butters,  N.  "The 19,  "The  course 1-15.  role  of  of  the  cognitive growth",  parietal  some d e v e l o p m e n t a l - c o g n i t i v e and S a t z , 1970a. and  Brody,  B.  "The  mediation of i n t r a 1968, 4_, 3 2 8 - 3 4 3 .  and  role  lobes  in  American P s y c h o l o g i s t ,  the  phenomena",  of  the  left  mediation  cited  in  parietal  of  Sparrow  lobe  cross-modal associations",  in  the  Cortex,  -82-  C a r l s o n , J . "Same r e l a t i o n s h i p s betueen .verbal and p e r c e p t u a l c a p a b i l i t i e s and the development of r e l a t i v e t h i n k i n g " , J o u r n a l of Genetic Psychology, 1971, 118, 115-119. C a t t e l , P. The Measurement of I n t e l l i g e n c e of I n f a n t s and Young C h i l d r e n , Neu York: P s y c h o l o g i c a l Corp., 1940. C h a l f a n t , J.C. and S c h e f f l i n , M.A. C e n t r a l P r o c e s s i n g Dysfunctions i n C h i l d r e n : A Revieu of the Research, U.S. Dept.of H e a l t h , Education and Welfare, 1969. Chaney, C M . and Kephart, (M.C. Motoric Aids to P e r c e p t u a l T r a i n i n g , Columbus, Ohio: C.E. M e r r i l l Pub. Co., 1968. Conners, G.R., Schuette, C. and Goldman, A. "Informal a n a l y s i s of i n t e r s e n s o r y communication i n c h i l d r e n of d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l c l a s s " , C h i l d Development, 1967, 38, 251-266. C o r n i s h , R. " E f f e c t s of n e u r o l o g i c a l t r a i n i n g on psychomotor a b i l i t i e s i n kindergarten c h i l d r e n " , J o u r n a l of Experimental E d u c a t i o n , 1970, 39, 15-24. Court, S.R. "Number, time and space i n the f i r s t f i v e years of l i f e " , J o u r n a l of Genetic Psychology, 1920, 27, 71-89. C r i t c h l e y , M.  Developmental D y s l e x i a , London:  Heinemann,  1964.  . "Dysgraphia and other anomolies of u r i t t e n speech", P e d i a t r i c C l i n i c s of North America, 1968a, 15_, 639-650. ;. "Reversals i n language: the importance of k i n e s t h e t i c f e e d b a c k s y s t e m s " , J o u r n a l of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1968b, 1, 722-725. " Cronbach, L . J . E s s e n t i a l s i n P s y c h o l o g i c a l T e s t i n g , Neu Harper and Rou, 1970. Denhoff, E., Hainsuorth,  P. and S i q u e l a n d , M.  pschDneurolDgical  factors  "The  measurement  R e n z i , E.  and  Piera,  i m p a i r m e n t and 327-341.  F.  "The  of  c o n t r i b u t i n g to l e a r n i n g  e f f i c i e n c y " , J o u r n a l of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 636-643. De  York:  relationship  betueen  1968,  I,  visuo-spatial  c o n s t r u c t i o n a l a p r a x i a " , Cortex,  1967,  3_,  Egan, D.F., I l l i n g u a r t h , R.S. and MacKeith, R.C. "Developmental s c r e e n i n g 0-5 y e a r s " , C l i n i c s i n Developmental Medicine, 1970, Whole no. 30. E l k i n d , D. and F l a v e l l , Oxford: Oxford  J . eds. S t u d i e s i n C o g n i t i v e Development, U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1969.  -83-  Gaddes, W.H. "Can e d u c a t i o n a l psychology be n e u r o l o g i z e d " . Canadian J o u r n a l of B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e , 1969, Whole no. G e s e l l , A. The C h i l d from F i v e to Ten, New B r o t h e r s , 1946.  York: Harper  . The F i r s t F i v e Years of L i f e , New B r o t h e r s , 1940. G e t z e l s , J . and Jackson, P.U. C r e a t i v i t y and York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962.  York:  1.  and  Harper  and  Intelligence,  New  Ginsburg, H. and Qpper, I . P i a g e t ' s Theory of I n t e l l e c t u a l Development, Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l ,  1969.  Godfrey, B. and Kephart, N.C. Movement P a t t e r n s and Motor E d u c a t i o n , New York: A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y - C r o f t s , 1969. Goodenough, F. Developmental Psychology, New Century-Crof t s , 1959.  York:  G u i l f o r d . J.P. " S t r u c t u r e o f the i n t e l l e c t " , B u l l e t i n , 1956, 53, 226-293.  Psychological  Head, H.  S t u d i e s i n Neurology,  Appleton-  1920.  Hebb, D.O. The O r g a n i z a t i o n of B e h a v i o r : A N e u r o p s y c h o l o g i c a l • Theory, New York: John Wiley, 1949. Hunt, J . McU. I n t e l l i g e n c e and Experience, New Co., 1961. . Co.,  Psychology i n the S c h o o l s . 1968.  Howard, I.P. and Templeton, W.B. York: John Wiley, 1966.  New  York: York:  Ronald Press Ronald Press  Human S p a t i a l O r i e n t a t i o n ,  Isaacs, N. The Growth of Understanding i n the Young C h i l d , Ward Lock Co., 1966. Jammer, J .  Concepts  of Space.  New  York:  Ronald Press Co.,  New London: 1961.  Kephart, N.C. The Slow Learner i n the Classroom, Columbus, Ohio: M e r r i l Books, 1960. King, W.L. "A non a r b i t r a r y b e h a v i o r a l c r i t e r i o n f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n of i l l u s i o n d i s t o r t e d l e n g t h i n f i v e year o l d s " , J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l C h i l d Psychology, 1971, _11, 171-181. Kinsbourne, M. "Developmental Gerstmann's syndrome", P e d i a t r i c C l i n i c s o f North America, 1968, 15, 771-777.  -84-  K a n o r s k i , J . I n t e g r a t i v e A c t i v i t y of the B r a i n , An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Approach, Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1967.  Hflrner, S. Conceptual T h i n k i n g , a L o g i c a l I n q u i r y , Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1 9 5 5 . Krathammer, G. "Form p e r c e p t i o n across sensory m o d a l i t i e s " , American P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1959, 14, 396. Lange, J . "Finger agnosie and agraphie", Mschr. P s y c h i a t . 1930, 7 6 , 1 2 9 - 1 8 8 . c i t e d by Stone ( 1 9 6 8 ) .  Neurol.  L e f f o r d , A. "Sensory, p e r c e p t u a l and c o g n i t i v e f a c t o r s i n the development of v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n s " , i n Mechanisms of Motor S k i l l Development, ed. K.J. C o n o l l y , Neu York: Academic Press, 1970, 207-217. L u r i a , A.R. "Neuropsychology i n the l o c a l d i a g n o s i s of b r a i n damage", Cortex, 1964, JL, 3 - 1 8 . McCarthy, J . J . "The importance of l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t y i n the m e n t a l l y r e t a r d e d " , Mental R e t a r d a t i o n , 1954, Whole no. , and McCarthy, J.F. A l l y n and Bacon, 1 9 7 0 .  Learning  Disabilities,  90.  Boston:  Martens, R. "Subject and experimenter e r r o r s i n b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h u i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e to motor behavior", J o u r n a l of Motor Behavior, 1970, 1 1 , 5 2 - 6 7 . Meyer, E. "Comprehension of s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s i n .pre-school c h i l d r e n " , J o u r n a l of Genetic Psychology, 1940, 5 7 , 1 1 9 - 1 5 1 . Montessori,  M.  The  Montessori  Method, Neu  York:  Schocken Books,  1964.  Muehl, S. and Kremenak, S. " A b i l i t y to match i n f o r m a t i o n betueen a u d i t o r y and v i s u a l sense m o d a l i t i e s and subsequent r e a d i n g achievement", J o u r n a l of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology, 1966, 41, 230-238.  Munn, N.L. The E v o l u t i o n of Grouth and Houghton M u f f l i n , 1 9 6 5 .  Human Behavior,  Boston:  Myklebust, H.R. "Learning d i s o r d e r s : p s y c h o n e u r o l o g i c a l d i s t u r b ances i n c h i l d h o o d " , R e h a b i l i t a t i o n L i t e r a t u r e , 1964, 25, 354-360.  P i a g e t , J . Judgement and Reasoning i n the C h i l d , Neu Brace and Co. 1928.  York:  Harcourt,  -85-  P i a g e t , J . The B r i g i n s o f I n t e l l i g e n c e i n the C h i l d , London: Routledge and P a u l , 1953. . The C o n s t r u c t i o n o f R e a l i t y i n the C h i l d , New York: B a s i c Books, 1954. . The Mechanisms o f P e r c e p t i o n , London: Routledge and P a u l , 1964. . The C h i l d ' s C o n c e p t i o n o f Movement and Speed, London: Routledge and P a u l , 1970. , and I n h e l d e r , B. The C h i l d ' s C o n c e p t i o n o f Space, London: Routledge and P a u l , 1956. P i c k , A.D., P i c k , H.L. and Thomas, M.L. "Cross-modal t r a n s f e r and improvement i n form d i s c r i m i n a t i o n " , J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1966, 3, 279-288. Poeck, H. and Orgass, B. "Gerstmann's syndrome and a p h a s i a , " C o r t e x , 1966, 2, 421-437. P o i n c a r e , H. Mathematics and S c i e n c e , L a s t E s s a y s , New York: Dover P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1953. R a d l e r , D.H. and K e p h a r t , N.C. Success Through P l a y , New York: Harper and B r o t h e r s , 1960. Rice, J . "Right-left discrimination: systematic reversal i n b r i g h t c h i l d r e n " , J o u r n a l o f L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1968, 1, 654-659. R e i t a n , R. C l i n i c a l E x a m i n a t i o n s i n Neurology, P h i l a d e l p h i a : U. B. Saunders, 1971. Reuben, R.N. and Bakwin, H. "Developmental c l u m s i n e s s " , P e d i a t r i c C l i n i c s o f North A m e r i c a , 1968, 15, 601-610. Rubin, E.Z. and Braun, J.S. " B e h a v i o r a l and l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h c o g n i t i v e motor d y s f u n c t i o n , " P e r c e p t u a l and Motor S k i l l s , 1968, 26_, 171-180. R u d e l , R. and Teuber, H. "Cross-modal t r a n s f e r d i s c r i m i n a t i o n by c h i l d r e n " , N e u r o p s y c h o l o g i a , 1964, 2_, 1-8. S c o t t , L.H. and B a l l , R.S. " I n t e l l i g e n c e a changing concept", Monographs o f t h e S o c i e t y f o r Res, i n C h i l d Development, 1965, 30, 4-45. Semmes, J . "Hemispheric s p e c i a l i z a t i o n : a possible clue to mechanism", N e u r o p s y c h o l o g i a , 1968, 6_, 11-26.  -86-  Semmes, J . , W e i n s t e i n , S., Ghent, L. and Teuber, H.L. Somatasensory Changes A f t e r P e n e t r a t i n g B r a i n Wounds i n Man, Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 196D. S h e r r i n g t o n , C S . Man on H i s Nature, Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1950.  Cambridge  Smith, A. " C e r t a i n h y p o t h e s i z e d hemispheric d i f f e r e n c e s i n language and v i s u a l f u n c t i o n s i n human a d u l t s , "Cortex, 1966, 1_, 109-126. Sparrous, S. and S t a t z , P . " S p e c i f i c developmental d y s l e x i a : a t h e o r e t i c a l f o r m u l a t i n g , " S p e c i f i c Reading D i s a b i l i t y , eds. D. Bakker and P. S a t z , Amsterdam: Rotterdam U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1970a. . " D y s l e x i a , l a t e r a l i t y and neurop s y c h o l o g i c a l development, S p e c i f i c Reading D i s a b i l i t y , e d s . D. Bakker and P. S a t z , Amsterdam: Rotterdam U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1970b. Spreen, 0. and Benton, A. "Comparative s t u d i e s o f some p s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t s f o r c e r e b r a l damage", J o u r n a l o f Nervous and Mental Disease, 1965, 140, 323-333. , M i l l e r , C G . , Benton, A.L. "The p h i t e s t and measures of l a t e r a l i t y i n c h i l d r e n and a d u l t s " , Cortex, 1968, 2, 308-321. S t e n g e l , E. "Loss o f s p a t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n , c o n s t r u c t i o n a l a p r a x i a and Gerstmann's syndrome", J o u r n a l o f Mental S c i e n c e , 1944, 90, 753-760. Stone, F.G. and Robinson, D.L. " E f f e c t o f response mode on f i n g e r l o c a l i z a t i o n e r r o r s , " Cortex, 1968, 4-, 233-244. Wallach, M. and Kogan, N. Modes o f T h i n k i n g i n Young C h i l d r e n , Neu York: H o l t , R e i n h a r t , and Winston, 1965. Weinstein, S. " D e f i c i t s concommitant u i t h aphasia or l e s i o n s of e i t h e r c e r e b r a l hemisphere", Cortex, 1964, 1, 154-169. Werner, H. Comparative Psychology o f Mental Development, York: I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1957.  Neu  APPENDIX  A  WOODEN FRAME A P P A R A T U S FOR TASK S E R I E S  I  AND  II  APPENDIX A  S u b j e c t ' s View  Experimenter's  \7iew  Scale:  wooden Frame Apparatus  f o r Task S e r i e s I and II  1/10" =  APPENDIX B  PHOTOGRAPHS FOR TASK S E R I E S I  -91-  APPENDIX C  PHOTOGRAPHS FOR TASK SERIES  Position 1  I VD Ln  Position 2  '  Position k II I  r  Position 5  Position 6  APPENDIX D  EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN  -101-  Order of P r e s e n t a t i o n The o r d e r o f p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the f i n g e r s i n Task S e r i e s I and the p o s i t i o n s i n Task S e r i e s I I uas randomly s e l e c t e d from a t a b l e o f random numbers f o r Order I and u a s - r e v e r s e d f o r Order II.  Task S e r i e s I .  The l i t t l e  d e s i g n a t e d (1) and the l i t t l e ignated  (10).  f i n g e r o f the r i g h t hand uas  f i n g e r o f the l e f t hand uas des-  The numbers ranged a c r o s s the r i g h t hand t o the  l e f t hand from (1) t o ( 1 0 ) . Order 1  5  1  Order 2  7 4  6 10  9  3  8  2  10  2 8 3 9  4 7 6 1 5  Task S e r i e s I I . The 6 p o s i t i o n s uere randomly a s s i g n e d a number (Appendix C ) .  Latin  Order 1  1  3  6  5  2  4  Order 2  4  2  5  6  3  1  Square The c o n d i t i o n s and o r d e r s o f p r e s e n t a t i o n uere c o u n t e r -  b a l a n c e d by r e p l i c a t i n g the f o l l o u i n g L a t i n Square f o r each Age X Sex group ( e . g . 3 y e a r  T a b l e 1.1.  o l d males).  L a t i n Square R e p l i c a t e d f o r each Age X Sex Group  Order o f S t i m u l u s P r e s e n t a t i o n 01  Oil  SI S2 S3 S4  S5 S6 S7 S8  Order of C o n d i t i o n C4 Cl C2 C3  Cl C3 C4 C2  C2 C4 C3 Cl  C3 C2 Cl C4  Presentation  T a b l e 1.2.  4 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 4 Experimental Design f a r t h e S e n s o r i m o t o r T a s k S e r i e s I and I I  Task S e r i e s Dominant  Cl  C2  Hand  C3  C4  (5) (5) (5) (5)  I  Task S e r i e s I I  Nan-Dominant  Cl  C2  C3  Hand  C4  (5) (5) (5) (5)  Dominant  Cl  C2  Hand  C3  C4  (5) (5) (5) (5)  Non-Dominant  Cl  C2  C3  Hand  C4  (5) (5) (5) (5)  Boys 6  years Girls Bays  5  y  e  a  r  s  Girls Bays  4  years Girls Boys  3  years Girls  •  r\3  Table 1.3.  Individual finger presentation  Left  Index  (7)  Method of Recording Responses i n the k Experimental Conditions of Task Series I.  R i g h t Index  <<0  Left L i t t l e  Right Ring  (10)  Left Middle  (2)  (8)  Right Middle L e f t Ring  ("3)  (3)  L e f t Thumb  (6)  R i g h t Thumb L e f t (5)  Little  lavement Differentiation C o r r e c t (1) I n c o r r e c t (0) '.ature o f t h e Error difficulty in isolating " i n g e r movement  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  Lt:  TIMRL  L t : TIMRL  L t : TIMRL  Lt:  TIMRL  L t : TIMRL  L t : TIMRL  Lt:  TIMRL  L t : TIMRL  L t : TIMRL  L t : TIMRL  jrong  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  R t : TIMRL  Lt:  L t : TIMRL  L t : TIMRL  Lt:  L t : TIMRL  L t : TIMRL  Lt:  L t : TIMRL  L t : TIMRL  finger  RIMRL  TIMRL  TIMRL  _. , M O  Lt :  Totals N i g h t Hand  (1)  1 IMrlL  L e f t Hanc  -10k-  Table  Testing  l.k. Method of Recording i n Task S e r i e s I I I  Session  k  Day I trials  k  Day I I trials  Hand Right  Responses  Foot Right  Preference Left  Preference Left  Total  Table 1. 5. Method o f Recording i n Task S e r i e s IU  Body P a r t  Day I Body Part  Uerbal  indication  right  eye  l e f t foot right  hand  Uerbal response right foot left  eye  left  hand  Totals  Responses  Right-Left  Day I I Body Part  Right-Left  -IDS-  A P P E N D I X  I N S T R U C T I O N S  FOR  E  T A S K  S E R I E S  I - I V  -IDS-  APPENDIX E Instructions  Day  Day  Investigation Phase I  Approach subject  to  f o r Task S e r i e s  I - IU  Uerbal I n s t r u c t i o n s given to the s u b j e c t  Clarification Instructions  of  Would you l i k e to play some games u i t h me?  S: No; E d i d not f o r c e the c h i l d i n t o the t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n S: Yes; E took c h i l d to the t e s t i n g room  Day  I  Hand, f o o t  Would you l i k e to play u i t h the b a l l or the bike or the s l i d e  Free  Why don't ue p l a y u i t h the b a l l ? Can you throu i t to me?  I f tuo hand used i n i t i a l l y , S asked to use one hand f o r throuing. Hand p r e f e r e n c e on k t r i a l s observed  Goad, nau can the b a l l ?  Foot p r e f e r e n c e on 4 t r i a l s observed  you  kick  play  Nou I ' l l cover t h i s eye, i s your f i n g e r s t i l l p a i n t i n g at the spot?  L e f t eye  Hand-finger differentiation  L e t ' s play some f i n g e r games nau. Come u i t h me and u e ' l l s i t daun at the t a b l e  Appendix A  Condition 1 visual-visual  Do you are?  Photographs of hands shoun  knou uhat these  covered.  the  Nou I uant you to put your hands Dn the box, like this. Push your f i n g e r s doun on the box, l i k e t h i s . Good!  Appendix A  In t h i s f i n g e r game I'm going to p o i n t to one f i n g e r on the picture, like this  L i t t l e f i n g e r of the l e f t hand i n d i c a t e d  -107-  APPEMDIX E ( c o n t i n u e d )  Day  Investigation Phase  Verbal i n s t r u c t i o n s given t o the s u b j e c t  C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Instructions  Then I'm going tD h i d e the p i c t u r e f i n g e r , like this  Cardboard p l a c e d over both photographs for successive presentation  As soon as I h i d e t h e f i n g e r I want you t o f i n d the one f i n g e r on your hand and shou i t t o me Try t o shou me t h e one f i n g e r by moving i t up and down l i k e t h i s . I f you can't do t h a t shou me t h e one f i n g e r anyuay you l i k e , then t r y and u i g g l e t h e one finger, like this  Condition 2 visualkinesthetic  Point to the f i n g e r , then c u r l a l l t h e o t h e r f i n g e r s under then u i g g l e i t .  Let's t r y i t  L i t t l e f i n g e r on l e f t hand i n d i c a t e d for 3 sec. to c l a r i f y instructions  Good, nDu l e t ' s t r y some more. Remember . shou me t h e one f i n g e r t h a t I p a i n t e d tD on the p i c t u r e . L e t ' s go!  Proceed as t h e o r d e r of f i n g e r presentation indicates, r e c o r d as i n Appendix D  In t h i s game I uant you t o put your hands i n t h e box l i k e t h i s , and push them daun on t h e t a b l e . Good!  Hands kept i n a c o n s t a n t prone posi t i o n throughout presentations Appendix A  In t h i s f i n g e r game, I'm g o i n g t o p o i n t t o one f i n g e r on t h e picture like this  l i t t l e f i n g e r on the l e f t hand i n d i c a t e d  Then I'm going t o h i d e the p i c t u r e f i n g e r , like this  Cardboard p l a c e d over both photographs f o r successive presentation  -IDSAPPENDIX E Day  Investigation Phase  (continued)  Uerbal i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o the s u b j e c t  Clarification Instructions  of  As soon as I h i d e the p i c t u r e f i n g e r I uant you to f i n d the one f i n g e r on your hand and shou i t t o me. But you have t o keep your hands h i d i n g i n the box a l l the t i m e . Try to shou me the one f i n g e r by moving i t up and down, l i k e t h i s . I f you can't do t h a t , shou me the one f i n g e r any way you l i k e but then t r y and u i g g l e i t , l i k e this  Condition 3 kinestheticvisual  p o i n t to i t u i t h o p p o s i t e hand or c u r l a l l other f i n g e r s under then u i g g l e i t  Let's t r y i t  L i t t l e f i n g e r on the l e f t hand i n d i c a t e d f o r 3 s e c . to c l a r i f y instiu ctions  Good, nou l e t ' s t r y some more. Remember shou me the one f i n g e r . t h a t I p o i n t t o on the p i c t u r e . L e t ' s go!  Proceed as the o r d e r of f i n g e r p r e s e n t ation indicates, r e c o r d as i n Appendix D  In t h i s game I uant you to put your hands i n the box, l i k e t h i s , and push doun on the table  Hands kept i n a c o n s t a n t prone p o s i t i o n throughout presentations Appendix A  In t h i s f i n g e r game, I'm going to move one of your f i n g e r s up and doun l i k e t h i s  L i t t l e f i n g e r on the l e f t hand indicated  When I stop moving your one f i n g e r I uant take your hands out of the box, l i k e t h i s ( f a s t ) put them on top of the box, l i k e t h i s Try to shou me the one f i n g e r t h a t I moved by moving i t up and doun  -IDSAPPENDIX E ( c o n t i n u e d ) Day  Investigation Phase  Verbal i n s t r u c t i o n s given to the s u b j e c t  C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Instructions  like this. I f you can't do t h a t shou the one f i n g e r any uay you l i k e , then t r y and u i g g l e the one f i n g e r l i k e t h i s  Condition k kinesthetickinesthetic  Let's t r y i t !  L i t t l e f i n g e r on the l e f t hand i n d i c a t e d by moving i t up and doun 3 times, 3 s e c . to c l a r i f y i n structions  Good, nou l e t ' s t r y some more! Remember to shou me the one f i n g e r I move. Let's go!  Proceed as order o f finger presentation indicates, record as i n Appendix D  In t h i s game I uant you to put your hands i n the box l i k e t h i s , and push doun on the t a b l e  Hands kept i n a constant prone p o s i t i o n throughout p r e s e n t ations. Appendix  In t h i s f i n g e r game, I'm going t o move one o f f i n g e r s up and doun l i k e t h i s  L i t t l e f i n g e r on l e f t hand i n d i c a t e d f o r 3 seconds t o clarify instructions  Ulhen I stop moving your one f i n g e r I uant you to t r y and shou me the one f i n g e r I moved by moving i t up and doun like this. I f you can't do that shou me the one f i n g e r any uay you l i k e , then t r y and u i g g l e the one f i n g e r l i k e t h i s , you have to keep your hands h i d i n g i n the box Let's t r y i t  L i t t l e f i n g e r on the l e f t hand i n d i c a t e d by moving i t up and doun 3 times, 3 sees, to c l a r i f y i n structions  Good, l e t ' s t r y some more! Remember shou me the one f i n g e r I move. L e t ' s go.  Proceeds order o f finger presentation indicates, record as i n Appendix D  -11DAPPENDIX E ( c o n t i n u e d ) Day  Day  Investigation Phase  I  Uerbal i n s t r u c t i o n s given to the s u b j e c t  C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Instructions  Uerbal comprehension o f r i g h t and l e f t uith respect to body p a r t identification  Let's nou  Presented a f t e r the f i r s t 2 conditions i n each s u b j e c t ' s Day I t e s t i n g s e s s i o n . Move auay from t a b l e to o f f s e t boredom and learning  Clarification of i n s t r u c t i o n s  What's t h i s ? What's t h i s ? Which ear? What's i t ' s name?  E verbalS pointing  Can you f i n d your r i g h t eye and p o i n t  t r y another game  nose i n d i c a t e d r i g h t arm i n d i c a t e d r i g h t and l e f t clarified to i t ?  Can you f i n d your l e f t f o o t and p o i n t t o i t ? Can you f i n d your r i g h t hand and p o i n t to i t ? E pointingS verbal Day  I I Approach to Subject  What's t h i s ? What's t h i s ? What's t h i s ? "Hi did you l i k e the games ue played l a s t time? Do you uant toplay some more?"  l e f t eye i n d i c a t e d r i g h t foot i n d i c a t e d l e f t hand i n d i c a t e d S: "No". E played uith child until ready t o come f o r testing S:"Yes". E took c h i l d to the t e s t i n g room immediately  Hand-foot preference  "Let's play u i t h the b a l l again...."  Hand-foot p r e f e r e n c e observed i n the same manner as Day I  Hand-finger orientations  "We've got some neu f i n g e r games today. Neu p i c t u r e s too - Look!"  T r i a l photographs shoun Appendix C  "You s i t at the t a b l e r i g h t here and I ' l l s i t over here, put your hands on the box, like this."  Appendix A  -111-  APPENDIX E ( c o n t i n u e d ) Day  Investigation Phase  Verbal i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n to the s u b j e c t  C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Instructions  Condition 1 visualvisual  l\lou I'm going to shou you a p i c t u r e l i k e t h i s  T r i a l photograph (Appendix C) p r e s e n t e d for 3 sees.  Then I ' l l hide the hands i n the p i c t u r e like this  Cardboard p l a c e d over the photograph  And then I uant you t o do the same t h i n g s u i t h your hands as the p i c t u r e hands d i d  Condition 2 Visualkinesthetic  "Let's t r y i t . 'Remember i t ' s a q u i e t game, uatch c l o s e l y ! "  T h i s photograph (Appendix C) shoun f o r 3 s e c . S response, to ensure i n structions clear  "Good, l e t ' s t r y some more "  Proceed as o r i e n t ation order i n d i c a t e s ; Record as i n Appendix D  "In t h i s game I uant you to keep your hands i n the box l i k e t h i s "  Hands kept i n a constant prone p o s i t i o n betueen responses  "IMou I'm going t o shou you a p i c t u r e l i k e this"  T r i a l photograph (Appendix C) shoun  "Then I'm going to hide the hands i n the picture like t h i s "  Cardboard p l a c e d over the photograph  "And I uant you to da the same t h i n g , u i t h your hands i n the box as the p i c t u r e hands d i d " "Let's t r y i t . Remember i t ' s a q u i e t game, uatch c l o s e l y " "Good, l e t ' s t r y some more"  T r i a l photograph (Appendix C) shoun f o r 3 s e e s . Proceed as o r i e n t a t i o n order i n d i c a t e s ; r e c o r d as i n Appendix  -112-  APPENDIX E ( c o n t i n u e d )  Day  Investigation Phase  Condition 3 kinestheticvisual  Uerbal i n s t r u c t i o n s given to the s u b j e c t  C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Instructions  "In t h i s game I want you to put your hands i n the box l i k e t h i s "  Constant prone p o s i t i o n i n betueen S's response and E's p a s s i v e movement of the S's hands  "Nou I'm going to move E aluays s t a r t s your hands i n t o • a p o s i t i o n u i t h thumbs, p r o like this" ceeds to l i t t l e fingers i n positioning "Then you b r i n g them out o f the box, put them on top o f the box l i k e t h i s ( f a s t ) "And then you shou me uhat I d i d t o your hands"  Condition 4 kinesthetickinesethetic  "Let's t r y i t . Remember i t ' s a q u i e t game!"  T r i a l position Appendix C, h e l d f o r 3 sees, response, to ensure i n s t r u c tions clear  "Good l e t ' s t r y some more  Proceed as o r i e n t a t i o n order i n d i c a t e s ; r e c o r d as i n Appendix D  In t h i s game I uant you to put your hands i n the box  Constant prone posi t i o n i n betueen S's response and E"s p a s s i v e movement of the S's hands  Nou I'm going to move them l i k e t h i s  E aluays s t a r t s u i t h thumbs, proceeds to l i t t l e f i n g e r s i n positioning  "Then I'm going to put them back, l i k e t h i s " "And uhat but, them  then you shou me I d i d to your hands, you have to keep i n the box."  -113-  APPEMDIX E Day  Investigation phase  (continued)  Verbal i n s t r u c t i o n s g i v e n t o the s u b j e c t  C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Instructions  " L e t ' s t r y i t , Remember i t ' s a q u i e t game"  Trial position (Appendix C) h e l d f o r 3 sees.  "Good, l e t ' s t r y some more!"  Proceed as o r i e n t a t i o n order i n d i c a t e s ; r e c o r d as i n Appendix D  Day I I V e r b a l comprehension o f r i g h t and left uith r e s p e c t t o body part i d e n t i fication  " L e t ' s t r y another game nou!"  Presented a f t e r each S's f i r s t 2 conditions; conducted i n t h e same manner as on Day I  Day I I C o n c l u s i o n  Thanks f o r p l a y i n g u i t h me....that uas f u n !  APPENDIX F BIVARIATE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR TASK SERIES I AND TASK SERIES II  APPENDIX  Table 1.6 .  F  B i v a r i a t e Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r S c o r e s i n Task Series I . O r d i n a l S c a l e (0-5)  6 years Dominant  Hand  V-V  P-V  V-P  5 years Dominant Hand  IMon Dominant Hand P-P  V-V  V-P  P-V  P-P  ,  V-V  7  6  3  3  8  7  it  it  1  V-P  P-V  IMon Dominant Hand V-V  V-P  P-V  P-l  10  8  9  1  1  it  7  it  11  P-P  0 1 2 3  1  it  1  1  5  15  15  16  16  6  7  8  9  12  12  lit  15  2  1  3  Total  16  16  16  16  16  16  16  16  16  16  16  16  16  16  16  16  it years  3 years  0 1  1  2  1  1  3  7  5  6  k  5  8  10  5  2  2  16  16  Total  16  it  1  5  8  it  2  0  6  10  2  2  2  it  9  1  12  11  9  11  8  2  5  1  it  16  16  9 3  1  16  16  6  6  7  9  2  2  3  7  13 1  6 10  16  16  16  16  16  16  16  16  16  Table 1 . 7 . B i v a r i a t e Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Scores i n Task Series I I . Ordinal Scale ( 0 - 6 ) 6 years Dominant Hand V-V  V-P  P-V  5  IMon Dominant Hand P-P  V-V  V-P  P- V  P-P  years  Dominant Hand V- V  V-P  P-V  IMon Dominant Hai P-P  V-V  V-P  P-V  P-l  0 1 2 3  k  3  5  13  12  6  Total  k  1  16  16  5  5  11  12  16  16  5  2  a  5  1  3  9  5  16  16  •5  10  11  16  16  6  3  6  12  2  3  1  13  13  1  3  16  16  16  16  k years  1  k  3  9  7  k  6  6  9  6  3  7  10  5 6  1  Total  16  11  1 7  3  9  10  16  16  15 9  1  1. 16  16  10  8  5  5  3  5  1  1  1  7  k 16  16  16  16  •3 years  0  2  9  16  1 7  8  6  7  3  2  3  16  16  16  16  7  5  8  7  1  k  5  10  9  6  2  16  16  a a  16  16  16  16  APPENDIX G  ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TASK SERIES I AND TASK SERIES II  APPENDIX G T a b l e 1.8.  A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e f o r S c o r e s i n Task S e r i e s I and I I . Source o f Variance  Age Sex(Age) Task S e r i e s  332.20 0.39 1.23  269.40  < .0  1 3 4 56  7.27 17.67 0.25 0.44  16.45 39.96  < .0 < .0  45.85 0.70 0.75 0.25  185.56 2.85  <.o <.o  C  3 9 12 168  118.61 3.43 0.56 0.60  199.06 5.76  *.D ^.0  X D  1 3 4 56  I X C 3 X I X C 9 G(A) X I X C 12 S L J G ( A ) X I X C 168  5.33 0.43 0.85 0.21  25.15 2.03  <.0  I X D 1 A X I X D 3 G(A) X I X D 4 S u G ( A ) X I X D •56  3.46 12.03 0.28 0.38  9.08 4.58  C X D 3 A X C X D 9 12 G(A) X C X D S u G ( A ) X C X D 168  4.75 0.57 0.65 0.25  18.70 2.26  G(A)  SuJ I  G(A)  X I  G(A)  X I  SuG(A)  C A  X C  G(A)  D A  X D  G(A)  X I  X C  SiuG(A)  Dominance  Mean Square  3 4 56  A  A  Conditions  df  X  X D  SuG(A)  A  -  -  .o:  <.o  *.0!  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 30 0
Canada 12 0
United Kingdom 9 1
China 8 28
South Africa 7 1
Spain 7 5
El Salvador 6 0
Republic of Korea 5 0
Czech Republic 4 0
India 4 1
Italy 4 0
Lebanon 3 0
Greece 3 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 49 3
Montreal 6 0
San Salvador 6 0
Shenzhen 6 28
Johannesburg 5 0
Stockton-on-Tees 4 1
Ashburn 4 0
Athens 3 0
Brescia 3 0
Menlo Park 3 0
Beijing 2 0
Selkirk 2 0
Jihlava 2 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055283/manifest

Comment

Related Items