UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Body schema development in 3 to 6 year old children 1973

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1973_A7_5 C34_6.pdf
UBC_1973_A7_5 C34_6.pdf [ 14.38MB ]
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
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 of 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 the 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 to the req u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JUNE 1973 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C olumbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p urposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f 6) CoJL £^g£u C ^ i j~lcrv^ The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date ^&J$ 2*<^U< Zf lUZr i i ABSTRACT This developmental study attempted to distinguish between the preference 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 of body parts by 3 to 6 year old chi l d r e n . The development of the body schema defined as the neurological model of the sensorimotor aspects of body parts was emphasized. Sixty-four children served as subjects in t h i s study. There were eight boys and eight g i r l s i n each age category. These subjects were selected from a group of 3 to 6 year old children with play school experience at Sunset Recreation Centre. Four Task Series were administered; Task Series I was sensorimotor finger l o c a l i z a t i o n ; Task Series II was sensorimotor hand-finger o r i e n t a t i o n ; Task Series III was hand preference and foot preference; Task Series IU was the verbal understanding of body parts with respect to the ri g h t and l e f t co-ordinates of the body. Four d i f f e r e n t experimental conditions that involved v i s u a l presentations and tac t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c presentations for v i s u a l movement response and non-visual movement response were used in Task Series I and Task Series I I . The data of Task Series I and II was submitted to b i v a r i s t e frequency analysis and an analysis of variance. In Task Series III and Task Series IV age group percentiles for correct responses across t r i a l s were calculated. T h i s d a t a a n a l y s e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e m a j o r d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f b o d y p a r t s a t 3 t o 6 y e a r s Df a g e i s a t t h e s e n s o r i m o t o r l e v e l o f o r g a n i z a t i o n . T h i s s e n s o r i m o t o r d e v e l o p m e n t r e f l e c t e d a r e l i a n c e u p o n t h e t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c s e n s o r y s y s t e m . T h e r e s u l t s w e r e d i s c u s s e d i n t e r m s o f t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y • f t h e n e u r o l o g i c a l t e r m b o d y s c h e m a tD t h e r e s e a r c h i n d e v e l o p - m e n t a l a n d e d u c a t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g y c o n c e r n e d u i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l s i g n i f i c a n c e Df b o d y a w a r e n e s s i n 3 t o 6 y e a r o l d c h i l d r e n ; t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e p o r t e d b e t w e e n n e u r o l o g i c a l d i s o r d e r s ; a n d t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r t h e l i m i t e d r e s e a r c h i n i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g . F u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s f o r p h y s i c a l e d u c a t i o n r e s e a r c h i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t u d y o f e f f e c t i v e c u e s f o r m o t o r l e a r n i n g w e r e i n d i c a t e d . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to express my appreciation for the assistance given to me throughout the course of t h i s study. Helpful advice uas g r a t e f u l l y received from Dr. E. Koopman of the Faculty of Education; Dr. Marteniuk and Dr. Schutz, both of the Faculty of Physical Education. A large debt of gratitude i s oued to Miss A. T i l l e y , Faculty of Physical Education, who has, at both the under- graduate and 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 of th i s study i s due to the exceptional organizational a b i l i t y of my long-time collaborator, Richard. Table of Contents Page List of Tables ix List of Figures xi Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1 Body Schema 2 Psychological Considerations 2 Neurological Considerations 3 Berges and Lezine (1965) 5 L e f f r j r d (1970) 5 Statement of the Problem 6 Subproblems ° 6 Hypotheses 6 Definitions 7 Limitations 9 Significance of the Study 9 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11 Cerebral Lateralization Considerations.... • 17 Neuropathological Considerations IS Functional inequivalence o f the cerebral hemispheres , 18 Functional inequivalence of the parietal lobes 19 Left parietal region - body image.... 2D Gerstmann's syndrome: left parietal occipital region 20 Cross-modal-integration: lef t parietal lobe 22 Integrative Processing Considerations 22 Sensory Systems 23 Sensory Integration 25 Form Perception Tasks 26 Berges and Lezine (1965) 30 C h a p t e r P a g e L e f f o r d ( 1 9 7 0 ) 31 R e s p o n s e c o m p l e x i t y 31 S t i m u l u s p r e s e n t a t i o n 31 D e v e l o p m e n t a l t r e n d s 33 I I I METHODS AND PROCEDURES 34 S u b j e c t s 34 A p p a r a t u s 35 F r e e P l a y 5̂ T a s k S e r i e s I a n d I I . .• •. 35 T a s k S e r i e s I I I 36 T a s k S e r i e s IU 36 E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n d i t i o n s a n d P r o c e d u r e s . . . . 36 T a s k S e r i e s I 38 E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n d i t i o n s 38 P r e s e n t a t i o n 38 R e s p o n s e 38 E x p e r i m e n t a l P r o c e d u r e s 38 P r e s e n t a t i o n 38 R e s p o n s e 39 M e t h o d of r e c o r d i n g r e s p o n s e s . . . . 39 T a s k S e r i e s I I 40 E x p e r i m e n t a l C o n d i t i o n s 40 P r e s e n t a t i o n 40 R e s p o n s e 40 E x p e r i m e n t a l P r o c e d u r e s 40 P r e s e n t a t i o n 40 R e s p o n s e 41 M e t h o d o f r e c o r d i n g r e s p o n s e s . . . . 41 T a s k S e r i e s I I I 42 E x p e r i m e n t a l P r o c e d u r e s 42 H a n d p r e f e r e n c e 42 F o o t p r e f e r e n c e 42 M e t h o d Df r e c o r d i n g r e s p o n s e s . . . . 42 T a s k S e r i e s IV 42 E x p e r i m e n t a l P r o c e d u r e s 42 V e r b a l p r e s e n t a t i o n 42 V e r b a l r e s p o n s e 42 M e t h o d Df r e c o r d i n g r e s p o n s e 43 v i i Chapter Page Experimental Design k3 Data Analyses 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 Testing the Hypotheses ^5 Hypothesis 1 ^5 Hypothesis 2 ^6 Hypothesis 3 ^6 Hypothesis k kl Hypothesis 5 kl IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION kS Observations k9 Results and Discussion of the Hypotheses... 50 Hypothesis 1. 51 Hypothesis 2 5k Hypothesis 3 GO Hypothesis k 62 Hypothesis 5 6k General Discussion 66 Body Schema 66 P s y c h o l o g i c a l Considerations 67 N e u r o l o g i c a l Considerations 69 I n t e g r a t i v e Processing C o n s i d e r a t i o n s . . 70 V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 73 Summary 73 Experimental c o n d i t i o n s and procedures. 73 Subjects 75 Experimental analyses 75 Experimental f i n d i n g s 75 Conclusions 77 D i r e c t i o n s f o r Future Research 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY 79 v i i i Page APPENDICES Appendix A - wooden Frame Apparatus for Task Series I and II 87 Appendix B - Photographs for Task Series I 89 Appendix C - Photographs for Task Series II 92 Appendix D - Experimental Design 100 Appendix E - Instructions for Task Series I-IV 105 Appendix F - Bivariate Frequency Distributions for Task Series I and Task Series II 114 Appendix B - Analysis of Variance Table for Task Series I and Task Series II 117 ix List of Tables Table Page 1 Significant Variables Which Should be Considered Under SOR 2k 2 Significant Factors in Three Cross-Modal Form Perception Studies 28 3 Description of Finger Differentiation Tasks (Lefford, 1970) 32 if Experimental Conditions in Task Series I and Task Series II 37 5 Age Percentages for Hand Preference and Foot Preference.. 52 6 Age Percentages for the Language Differ- entiation Df Body Parts, Right/Left 53 7 Mean Scores for the Age and Sex (Age) Main Effects 53 8 Mean Scores for the Age x Task Series Interaction.. 55 9 Mean Scares for the Age x Conditions Interaction 62 10 Mean SCOTES for the Age x Dominance Interaction.. Gk Appendix 1.1 Latin Square Replicated for Each Age x Sex Group 101 1.2 4x2x2x2x4 Experimental Design for the Sensorimotor Task Series I and II 102 1.3 Method of Recording Responses in the k Experimental Conditions of Task Series I 103 l.k Method of Recording Responses in Task Series III ±Qk . X Table Page 1.5 Method Df Recording Responses i n Task S e r i e s IU 104 1.6 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 Scale (0-5) 115 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 S e r i e s II'. O r d i n a l Scale (0-6)... 116 1.8 A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Scores i n Task S e r i e s I and I I 118 x i L i s t of Figures Figure Page 1 Mean Scores f o r T a c t u a l - K i n e s t h e t i c Presentations ori Task S e r i e s by Age 57 2 Mean Scores f o r the Age X Task S e r i e s x Conditions I n t e r a c t i o n 58 3 Mean Scores f o r the Age x Conditions I n t e r a c t i o n .59 k 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 S l - 1 - CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION For years, the developmental significance of body schema has perplexed researchers in developmental psychology (Gesell, 1946; Goodenough, 1945; Piaget, 1956), educational psychology (Kephart, 1960; McCarthy and McCarthy, 1970), and developmental medicine (Benton, 1959, 1962; Head, 1920; Lange, 1930; Stengel, 1944). More recently, the phenomenon of body schema has been re-examined in terms of the motor utilization of this schema (Berges and Lezine, 1965; Lefford, 1970). Numerous theories pertaining to the developmental sig- nificance of a child forming an organized model of his body have been proposed. Moreover, practical applications of these theor- etical contentions have been construed and disseminated. What is peculiar to this research area is the relative neglect of two intermediary phases which are typically present in the s c i e n t i f i c advancement of knowledge: f i r s t , the collection of systematic data and second, the accumulation of relevant findings across the con- cerned disciplines (Bruner, 1964). The absence of a generally accepted definition of body awareness, body concept, body represent- ation or body schema may explain why the s c i e n t i f i c study of this phenomenon has often been inadequate. Closely associated with this, is the lack of precise and valid measures for the study of this phenomenon (Chalfant and Schefflin, 1969). -2- In view of the above, the present investigation has been directed touards a clearer understanding of body schema and i t s developmental s i g n i f i c a n c e . Body Schema In his o r i g i n a l formulation, Head (1920) conceived that afferent sensory components are u n i f i e d and synthesized into the body schema. Head (1920) considered the body schema to be a sensory mechanism. More recently, Berges and Lezine (1965) have argued that while the organization of the body schema i s based on past impressions, predominantly kinesthetic and proprioceptive,' the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h i s p h y s i o l o g i c a l and subconscious model l i e s i n i t s use. Berges and Lezine (1965) have, thus, considered the body schema to be a sensorimotor mechanism. This has been supported by Ayres 1 and Reid's (1966) description of the body schema as the neurological model of the sensorimotor aspects of body parts. This d e f i n i t i o n of body schema has been adapted for use i n the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Psychological Considerations The s i g n i f i c a n c e attached to body schema has stemmed to a large degree, from the works of one of the major theor i s t s i n developmental psychology, Jean Piaget. Piaget's (1953) theory of l o g i c a l thought development has been based on the hypothesis that schemata (sets Df actions) are the structures of the . i n t e l l e c t responsible for the chi l d ' s adaptation to the environment. Piaget - 3 - ( 1 9 5 3 ) h a s a l s o s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e n o t i o n s o f t h e p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d a r e p r e d o m i n a n t l y t i e d t o s e n s o r i m o t o r s c h e m a t a . U i t h i n t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l f r a m e w o r k , t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e n o t i o n o f s p a c e h a s b e e n s a i v by P i a g e t ( 1 9 5 4 ) t o d e p e n d on 1) a c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f o b j e c t s a n d o b j e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s , a n d 2 ) a c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s own s h i f t s i n p o s i t i o n . D u r i n g h i s e a r l y m o v e m e n t s , t h e c h i l d i s a c t i v e i n a s p a c e w h i c h i s l i m i t e d f o r h i m by t h e e x t e n t o f h i s m o v e m e n t . I f a s P i a g e t ( 1 9 5 3 ) h a s a r g u e d , t h e c h i l d c a n o n l y o r g a n i z e s p a c e a s he i n t e r a c t s w i t h o b j e c t s i n s p a c e , t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f b o d y p a r t s a n d b o d y p a r t r e l a t i o n s h i p s n e c e s s a r i l y p r e c e d e s t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f s i m i l a r s p a t i a l r e - l a t i o n s h i p o u t s i d e o f t h e s e l f ( K e p h a r t , I 9 6 0 ) . T h u s , d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e b o d y h a s b e e n s e e n a s a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n t h e s e n s o r i m o t o r o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s p a c e . U i t h i n t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l c o n t e x t , l a t e r a l i t y o r t h e i n t e r n a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e r i g h t a n d l e f t c o - o r d i n a t e s o f t h e b o d y h a s b e e n s a i d t o be t h e f i r s t n o t i o n o f s p a c e t o d e v e l o p ( R a d l e r a n d K e p h a r t , 1 9 6 0 ) . T h e p r o c e d u r e s w h i c h h a v e b e e n u s e d t o m e a s u r e t h i s c o n c e p t h a v e v a r i e d w i d e l y ( C h a l f a n t a n d S c h e f f l i n , 1 9 6 9 ) . A b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e c a t e g o r i e s s t u d i e d i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f n e u r o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n i n g may e x p l a i n t h i s d i v e r s i t y . 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 IMot u n l i k e P i a g e t ' s ( 1 9 5 3 ) h i e r a r c h i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s c h e m a t a f r o m e x t e r n a l , o b s e r v a b l e a c t i o n s t o i n t e r n a l , u n o b s e r v - a b l e a c t i o n s , D e n h o f f e t a l . ( 1 9 6 8 ) a n d Semmes e t a l . ( 1 9 6 8 ) h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e n e u r o l o g i c a l l a t e r a l i z a t i o n o f f u n c t i o n p r o c e e d s -k- from simple, preference d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , through intermediary, sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n to complex, language d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . While the p r e c i s e nature 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 revealed, the sensorimotor f u n c t i o n s which do not r e - quire a high degree of symbolic processing have been reported to s t a b i l i z e around 5 to S years of age (Benton, 1959, 1962). R i g h t - l e f t 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 to a r r i v e at t h i s f i n d i n g . R i g h t - l e f t d e t e c t i o n pro- cedures have also been used to study l a t e r a l i t y (Kephart, 1960). Finger l o c a l i z a t i o n procedures have also been used as a somato- sensory s p a t i a l measure f o r years (Stone, 1968). Kephart (1960) has reported that 'body awareness 1 and l a t e r a l i t y are 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 by school age. Stone (1968) reviewed the f i n d i n g s of 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 reported t h a t , i f response complexity i s minimized, t h i s sensorimotor a b i l i t y s t a b i l i z e s around 5 to 6 years of age. I t would seem reasonable, i n view of the above, to suggest that while 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 psychology c o n s t r u c t , the developmental importance of body schema may be rooted i n the n e u r o l o g i c a l development of the c h i l d . Two s t u d i e s which examined the motor u t i l i z a t i o n of the organized body model i n 3 to 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n have given d i r e c t i o n to the formulated hypotheses of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . -5- Berqes and Lezine (1965) In an attempt to provide procedures f o r the n e u r o l o g i c a l examination of pre-school c h i l d r e n , by p e d i a t r i c i a n s , Berges and Lezine (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 gesture of the experimenter. The gestures were considered to be simple or complex depending on the r e - 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 perceptual organ- i z a t i o n r e q u i r e d ( 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 2) the l e v e l of 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 i n v o l v e d e i t h e r the upper limb schemata or the hand-finger schemata. The 3 year o l d c h i l d r e n had d i f f i c u l t y with the simple gestures, while the 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 only on the complex gestures performance. Accuracy along the dominant sid e of the body was seen to precede accuracy along the non-dominant side of the body. IMo d i f f e r e n c e was observed between the performance Df boys and g i r l s at each age l e v e l s t u d i e d . L e f f o r d (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 tasks to examine the development of voluntary a c t i o n s i n 3 to 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n . Four d i f f e r e n t response a c t i o n s were st 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 extensive and are discussed i n the next chapter. In s h o r t , he suggested that the v i s u a l hand-finger schemata appeared to be more advanced at the 3 year o l d l e v e l than -6- did the tact u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c hand-finger schemata. By k years of age, Lefford found that hand-finger schemata were equally d i f f e r e n t i a t e d across the v i s u a l system and the tact u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c system. Response complexity was found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n accuracy. Statement of the Problem The concern of t h i s investigation i s to study the body schema development of the 3 to 6 year old c h i l d as r e f l e c t e d i n the development of his a b i l i t y to make d i f f e r e n t i a t e d voluntary movements on two series of hand-finger sensorimotor tasks. Subproblems There are two secondary concerns in t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . F i r s t , the a b i l i t y of 3 to 6 year old children to make preference d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s of the body parts i s studied. Second, the a b i l i t y of 3 to 6 year old children to make language d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s of the body parts with respect to the ri g h t and l e f t co-ordinates of the body i s studied. Hypotheses It i s hypothesized that: (1) The major development i n the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of body parts i s at the sensorimotor l e v e l , as opposed to the preference l e v e l and the language l e v e l , in 3 to 6 year old ch 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 factor in t h i s development. It i s hypothesized that the sensorimotor development of hand- finger schemata in 3 to 6 year old children i s characterized by -7- t h e f o l l o w i n g t r e n d s : (2) 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 i s d e p e n d e n t u p o n t h e s e n s o r i m o t o r a s p e c t s , n o t o n l y t h e s e n s o r y a s p e c t s , o f t h e t a s k . (3) 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 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 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 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 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 . (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 d e v e l o p s i n a d v a n c e o f t h e 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 a n 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 . (5) 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 a l o n g t h e d o m i n a n t s i d e o f t h e b o d y 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 d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s a l o n g t h e n o n - d o m i n a n t s i d e o f t h e b o d y . D e f i n i t i o n s T h e 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 b o d y p a r t s ( A y r e s a n d R e i d , 1966) The a b i l i t y t o u t i l i z e d i s c r i m i n a t e d s e n s o r y 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 a n d 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 l e v e l s o f p s y c h o n e u r o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n i n g p r e f e r e n c e , s e n s o r i m o t o r a n d l a n g u a g e ( D e n h o f f e t a l , 1968) T a k i n g t h e p o s i t i o n o f s e l f a s t h e p e r m a n e n t c e n t r e o f r e f e r e n c e i n s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t . D u r i n g t h e a g e s 2J& - 5 y e a r s ( a p p r o x i m a t e l y ) , c h i l d r e n t y p i c a l l y p r o g r e s s f r o m t h i s p o i n t t o a w a r e n e s s o f t h e e f f e c t o f c h a n g e s i n s e l f p o s i t i o n o n 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). F i n e M o t o r S k i l l N e u r o m u s c u l a r c o - o r d i n a t i o n w h i c h i n v o l v e s p r e c i s i o n . o r i e n t e d c o n t r o l o f s m a l l m u s c l e g r o u p s ; t h i s o f t e n r e f e r s t o e y e - h a n d c o - o r d i n a t i o n . G r o s s M o t o r S k i l l N e u r o m u s c u l a r c o - o r d i n a t i o n w h i c h i n v o l v e s c o n t r o l o f t h e l a r g e m u s c l e g r o u p s ; t h i s B o d y S c h e m a D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n E g o c e n t r i c i t y -a- I n t e g r a t i a n K i n e t h e s i s L a t e r a l i z a t i o n o f f u n c t i o n M o d a l i t y N e u r o l o g y P e r c e p t u a l - m o t o r t h e o r y P r e - o p e r a t i o n a l 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 - ment S e n s o r i m o t o r n e u r o l o g y S e n s o r i m o t o r d e v e l o p m e n t a l p s y c h o l o g y o f t e n r e f e r s t o t h e movement o f t h e w h o l e b o d y . The o r g a n i z a t i o n o f b o t h i n c o m i n g a n d o u t - g o i n g n e u r a l e v e n t s ( C h a l f a n t a n d S c h e f f l i n , 1 9 6 9 ) . In b e h a v i o r a l t e r m s , k i n e s t h e s i s i n c l u d e s t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f t h e p o s i t i o n o f b o d y p a r t s , t h e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n o f movement a n d a m p l i t u d e o f movement o f b o d y p a r t s b o t h a c t i v e l y a n d p a s s i v e l y p r o d u c e d ( H o w a r d a n d T e m p l e t o n , 1 9 6 6 ) . The c r o s s - o v e r p r i n c i p l e t h a t a p p l i e s t o b o t h t h e a s c e n d i n g a n d d e s c e n d i n g c o r t i c o - s p i n a l t r a c t s ( R e i t a n , 1 9 7 1 ) . 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 : t h e v i s u a l , a u d i t o r y , t a c t i l e a n d k i n e s t h e t i c s y s t e m s a r e c o n s i d e r e d t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t m o d a l i t i e s i n l e a r n i n g ( C h a l f a n t a n d S c h e f f l i n , 1 9 6 9 ) . 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 s y s t e m ( C h a l f a n t a n d S c h e f f l i n , 1 9 6 9 ) . T h e 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 a r e b u i l t u p o n e a r l i e r i n t e g r a t i v e l e a r n i n g s i n a s e q u e n t i a l a n d h i e r a r c h a l f a s h i o n ( M c C a r t h y a n d M c C a r t h y , 1 9 7 0 ) . 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 m o v e s f r o m e x t e r n a l t o i n t e r n a l a c t i o n s . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f i m a g e s e n h a n c e s t h e c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y t o o r g a n i z e a n d a d a p t t o t h e e n v i r o n - ment ( P i a g e t , 1 9 5 6 ) . I n t e g r a t i o n o f i n c o m i n g s e n s o r y i n f o r m a t i o n f o r m o t o r 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 o r g a n i z a t i o n t h i s l e v e l i s i n t e r m e d i a r y t o p r e f e r e n c e a n d l a n g u a g e l a t e r a l i z a t i o n ( C h e l f a n t a n d S c h e f f l i n , 1 9 6 9 ; D e n h o f f e t a l , 1 9 6 8 ; Semmes e t a l , I 9 6 0 ) . P i a g e t ( 1 9 5 6 ) r e f e r s t o t h e 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 a s t h e i n i t i a l p h a s e w h e r e a c t i o n s a r e p r e d o m i n a n t l y e x t e r n a l . -9- Limitations The usual delimitations of study (the small sample si z e , the same socio-economic grouping) apply; i n addition, the children uho participated as subjects in th i s study a l l had play school experience. Significance of the Study The long-term objective of research concerned uith body schema development in pre-school children l i e s in revealing the precise nature of t h i s phenomenon and i t s developmental s i g - nificance . The relevance of t h i s study to the f i e l d of human perform- ance and motor learning may be explained in several ways. As very l i t t l e i s known about the pre-school development of the kinesthetic system and i t s interco-ordinations with other sensory systems (Chalfant and S c h e f f l i n , 1969), t h i s study may provide d i r e c t i o n for future research i n the kinesthetic integration of chil d r e n . The study may contribute to the limit e d research which' has been reported on the development of voluntary movements in the pre-school c h i l d . Furthermore, i t may provide information for the re-examination of voluntary movement development in terms of related developments in sensory i n t e g r a t i o n . Perhaps the accuracy of voluntary movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s dependent on the present- ation of information to a p a r t i c u l a r sensory system or inter c o - ordinated systems and varies with age. This consideration would seem t o be o f p a r t i c u l a r i m p o r t a n c e i n d e t e r m i n i n g e f f e c t i v e cues f o r motor l e a r n i n g . T h i s a s p e c t o f the i n v e s t i g a t i o n would appear t o h o l d broad i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r p h y s i c a l e d u c a t o r s . CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The developmental study of the body schema i s complex in that i t has been d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y considered by researchers i n developmental psychology, educational psychology, neuropsychology, and neurology. For the purposes of t h i s study, body schema has been defined as the neurological model of the sensorimotor aspects of the body parts and studied i n an i n t e r - d i s c i p l i n a r y manner. This chapter has been subdivided as follows: psycho- l o g i c a l considerations, both developmental and educational i n nature; neurological considerations and integrative processing considerations. Since t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n has received d i r e c t i o n from each of the above research areas, the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s between these areas with respect to body schema development w i l l also be discussed. It should be c l a r i f i e d , however, that such i n t e r c o - ardinations have not been commonly reported. As a r e s u l t , the formulated relationships have, with few exceptions, been drawn from the findings of researchers working i n the various d i s - c i p l i n e s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s C o g n i t i v e D e v e l o p m e n t To d a t e , t h e p r e c i s e n a t u r e o f c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t h a s n o t b e e n r e s o l v e d . Due t o t h e l a c k o f r e f i n e d p r o c e d u r e s i n t h e b e h a v i o r a l s t u d y o f c o g n i t i v e g r o w t h a n d t h e a b s e n c e o f t e c h n i q u e s f a r t h e d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e s s e s i n v o l v e d i n c o g n i t i v e g r o w t h ( d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , i n t e g r a t i o n a n d r e p r e s e n t - a t i o n ) ( B r u n e r , 1 9 6 4 ) o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h i s p h e n o m e n o n h a s r e m a i n e d , p r e d o m i n a n t l y , t h e o r e t i c a l i n n a t u r e . A c c o r d i n g t o E l k i n d a n d F l a v e l l ( 1 9 6 9 ) , t h e t h e o r e t i c a l f r a m e w o r k p r e s e n t l y u s e d f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t u d y o f t h e c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s h a s s t e m m e d , a l m o s t i n i t s e n t i r e t y , f r o m t h e w o r k s o f J e a n P i a g e t . The s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t a c h e d t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f b o d y s c h e m a by d e v e l o p m e n t a l a n d e d u c a t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s h a s o r i g i n a t e d w i t h P i a g e t ' s w o r k s . P i a q e t ' s T h e o r y 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 P i a g e t ( 1 9 5 3 ) h a s b a s e d h i s t h e o r y 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 on t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t s c h e m a t a ( s e t s o f a c t i o n s ) a r e t h e s t r u c t u r e s o f t h e i n t e l l e c t . T h u s , s p a t i a l s c h e m a t a , m o t o r s c h e m a t a , b o d y s c h e m a t a a n d s o o n h a v e b e e n c o n s i d e r e d t h e b a s i s o f i n t e g r a t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t . P i a g e t h a s a l s o a s s o c i a t e d a d a p t a t i o n t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t w i t h t h e g r o w t h o f i n t e l l i g e n c e . In P i a g e t i a n t e r m s , a d a p t a t i o n i s a p r o c e s s o f a s s i m i l a t i n g e x t e r n a l a n d i n t e r n a l e n v i r o n m e n t a l i n f o r m a t i o n t o f o r m m o d e l s o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t , a n d t h e n , t e s t i n g -13- the a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e s e models t h r o u g h i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the en v i r o n m e n t . L o g i c a l thought development t h e n , has been c o n c e i v e d by P i a g e t as an a c t i v e i n w a r d and outward b u i l d i n g p r o c e s s . A d a p t a t i o n has been seen t o b e g i n w i t h e x t e r n a l , o b s e r v a b l e a c t i o n s and t o pr o c e e d t o i n t e r n a l , u n o b s e r v a b l e a c t i o n s . B r u n e r ' s (1964) c o n t e n t i o n t h a t c o g n i t i v e growth o c c u r s , i n a major way, from the o u t s i d e i n as w e l l as from the i n s i d e out has been based on the r e p l i c a t i o n o f P i a g e t i a n s t u d i e s . W h i l e t he s i g n i f i c a n c e o f body awareness, w i t h i n t h e s e d i s c i p l i n e s , has been based an the s e n s o r i m o t o r o r g a n i z a t i o n o f space p r i o r t o and d u r i n g t h e p r e - o p e r a t i o n a l s t a g e o f l o g i c a l t h o u g h t development, the above d i s c u s s i o n ^ w o u l d seem t o i n d i c a t e t h a t the development o f body awareness i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n i t s e l f , •ne may deduce t h a t t h e development o f an o r g a n i z e d model o f the s e l f * not u n l i k e o t h e r 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 based on the c o n t i n u a l a s s i m i l a t i o n o f s e n s o r y i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e body and the c o n t i n u a l accomodation o f the o r g a n i z e d schemata u n t i l a body schema e f f e c t i v e f o r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the environment becomes e s t a b - l i s h e d . The development of. t h i s phenomenon, t h e n , would seem t o be dependent upon the n e u r o l o g i c a l development o f the c h i l d : i n p a r t i c u l a r , the s e n s o r i m o t o r development o f the c h i l d . The Development o f S p a t i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n P o i n c a i r e (1953) has s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e i s no space i r r e s p e c t i v e Df o b j e c t s ; t h e n o t i o n o f space can o n l y be under- s t o o d 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 . A c c o r d i n g t o P i a g e t ' s (1954) 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 , two f a c t o r s have been considered to be e s s e n t i a l in the organization of space: (1) a comprehension of the s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s between objects and abject parts, (2) a comprehension of the in d i v i d u a l ' s own s h i f t s i n body p o s i t i o n . This reasoning i s consistent with Piaget's (1953) contention that the developing understanding of the environment requires inward and outward b u i l d i n g . In neurological terms t h i s development requires an integration of incoming and outgoing neural events. It follows that the organization of space can not be separated from the sensory and motor development of the c h i l d . S p a t i a l organization has been said to originate very early i n the phylogentic development of the human organism with the movement and external actions of the c h i l d (Piaget, 1954). At f i r s t , the c h i l d treats the objects he manipulates as a part af a simple undifferentiated body a c t i v i t y . As the c h i l d ' s motor a c t i v i t y becomes less d i f f u s e and undifferentiated his actions lose t h e i r global nature. One could describe the c h i l d as f i r s t acting with the object, then acting on i t , and f i n a l l y acting 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 of the topography of the body becomes more acute, he loses his egocentric approach to space; no longer incorporating himself as the central reference point for understanding the s p a t i a l aspects of the environment. Piaget's (1953) Pre-operational stage of l o g i c a l thought develop- ment (approximately 2 - 7 years) has been seen to characterize t h i s development of s p a t i a l organization. E d u c a t i o n a l H y p o t h e s e s W i t h i n t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l f r a m e w o r k , t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f b o d y p a r t s a n d b o d y p a r t r e l a t i o n s h i p s h a s b e e n s e e n t o d e v e l o p i n a d v a n c e o f t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f o b j e c t a n d o b j e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s o u t s i d e o f t h e s e l f ( P i a g e t , 1 9 5 4 ) . T h e f i r s t n o t i o n o f s p a c e s a i d t o d e v e l o p i s t h a t o f l a t e r a l i t y o r t h e i n t e r n a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f r i g h t a n d l e f t . F u r t h e r m o r e , K e p h a r t ( 1 9 6 0 ) a n d P i a g e t ( 1 9 5 4 ) h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e c o n c r e t e p r o j e c t i o n o f l a t e r a l i t y , d i r e c t i o n a l i t y , m u s t be e s t a b l i s h e d b e f o r e t h e more a b s t r a c t n o t i o n s o f s p a c e c a n be f o r m u l a t e d . A c c o r d i n g t o K e p h a r t , l a t e r a l i t y h a s b e e n f o u n d t o be e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e t y p i c a l c h i l d by 6 y e a r s o f a g e o r by t h e t i m e t h e c h i l d e n t e r s f o r m a l s c h o o l ( R a d l e r a n d K e p h a r t , 1 9 6 0 ) . T h i s f i n d i n g , i n c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h t h e t e n e t t h a t f o r m ( s p a c e an o b j e c t o c c u p i e s ) a n d d i s t a n c e ( s p a c e b e t w e e n o b j e c t s ) a r e t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t s o f d i r e c t i o n a l i t y ( P i a g e t , 1 9 5 4 ) h a s p r o v i d e d ' t h e h a s i s f o r K e p h a r t ' s ( 1 9 6 0 ) t h e o r y . In t h i s p e r c e p t u a l - m o t o r t h e o r y , K e p h a r t h a s i n t e r - r e l a t e d t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f b o d y a w a r e n e s s , l a t e r a l i t y , d i r e c t i o n a l i t y a n d v i s u a l ^ m o t o r i n t e g r a t i o n w i t h r e a d i n g a b i l i t y . I f a c h i l d d i s p l a y s d i f f i c u l t y i n l e a r n i n g t o r e a d , K e p h a r t ( 1 9 6 0 ) a n d R a d l e r a n d K e p h a r t ( 1 9 6 0 ) h a v e a r g u e d t h a t t h e c o n c r e t e a s p e c t s o f s p a c e ( l a t e r a l i t y , d i r e c t i o n a l i t y ) a n d t h e i n t e g r a t i v e a b i l i t i e s w h i c h u n d e r l i e t h e s e n o t i o n s h a v e n o t b e e n c l e a r l y e s t a b - l i s h e d i n t h e c h i l d . As a r e s u l t , G o d f r e y a n d K e p h a r t ( 1 9 6 4 ) , K e p h a r t ( 1 9 6 0 ) , a n d R a d l e r a n d K e p h a r t ( 1 9 6 D ) h a v e p r o v i d e d i d e a s f o r r e m e d i a t i n g r e a d i n g d i f f i c u l t y t h r o u g h v i s u a l - m o t o r , l a t e r a l i t y a n d d i r e c t i o n a l i t y t r a i n i n g . T h e s e i d e a s h a v e b e e n u t i l i z e d i n -16- the designs of numerous "perceptual-motor" programmes for children uith reading d i s a b i l i t i e s (McCarthy and McCarthy, 1970). The inadequacies of t h i s developmental trend l i e f i r s t in the broad generalization, rather than s p e c i f i c f o c a l i z a t i o n , of reading d i f f i c u l t y causes and second, i n the lack of data on the development of s p a t i a l organization in the pre-school c h i l d . The l i t e r a t u r e pertaining to the neurological development of the c h i l d may be re l a t e d to the l i t e r a t u r e i n developmental and educational psychology to provide a clearer understanding of s p a t i a l organization development in the c h i l d . Neurological Considerations Kephart (196D) and Piaget (1954) have emphasized the im- portance of an i n t e r n a l understanding of the right and l e f t co- ordinates of the body in the s p a t i a l organization development of the pre-school c h i l d . Moreover, research findings i n space concept development at the Pre-operational stage (Piaget, 1953) have reported that the a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e p a r t i c u l a r space concepts i s not necessarily accompanied by the a b i l i t y to verbally explain these concepts (Ames and Learned, 1948; Asso and Uyke, 1971; Court, 1920; Gesell, 1940, 1946; King, 1971; Meyer (1940). In view of the categories commonly employed in the study of neurological development i n children (Semmes et a l , I960) (1) preference d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n (2) sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n (3) language d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n the pre-school c h i l d has not developed a sophisticated language -17- d i f f e r e n t i a t i a n o f s p a c e . The. r e l e v a n c e o f an i n t e r n a l u n d e r - s t a n d i n g o f t h e r i g h t a n d l e f t c o - o r d i n a t e s o f t h e b o d y may be f u r t h e r i n t e r p r e t e d by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e l i t e r a t u r e i n t h e c e r e b r a l l a t e r a l i z a t i o n o f f u n c t i o n . C e r e b r a l L a t e r a l i z a t i o n C o n s i d e r a t i o n s P a t h w a y s t h a t c o n d u c t s e n s o r y s t i m u l a t i o n t o t h e h i g h e r l e v e l s o f t h e n e u r a x i s , a n d p a t h w a y s t h a t c o n d u c t m o t o r i m p u l s e s f r o m h i g h e r . t o l o w e r l e v e l s , a s c e n d a n d d e s c e n d o v e r t h e e n t i r e l e n g t h o f t h e n e u r a x i s . P e c u l i a r t o b o t h t h e d e s c e n d i n g c o r t i c o - s p i n a l t r a c t s a n d t h e a s c e n d i n g s e n s o r y t r a c t s i s t h e c r o s s - a v e r t o t h e a p p o s i t e s i d e a t t h e m e d u l l a r y l e v e l . T h i s c r o s s - o v e r p h e n o m e n o n h a s b e e n r e f e r r e d t a a s t h e l a t e r a l i z a t i o n o f f u n c t i o n i n g ( R e i t a n , 1 9 7 1 ) . I t h a s b e e n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l l t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s o f n e u r o l o g i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . I t i s r e f l e c t e d a t t h e p r e f e r e n c e l e v e l by f o o t a n d h a n d p r e f e r e n c e ; a t t h e s e n s o r i m o t o r l e v e l b y p e r f o r m a n c e o n r i g h t - l e f t d e t e c t i o n a n d f i n g e r l o c a l i z a t i o n p r o - c e d u r e s p r e s e n t i n g . s e n s o r y i n f o r m a t i o n f o r m o t o r r e s p o n s e ; a t t h e l a n g u a g e l e v e l by p e r f o r m a n c e on r i g h t - l e f t d e t e c t i o n , f i n g e r l o c a l i z a t i o n , p r o c e d u r e s p r e s e n t i n g v e r b a l l a b e l s f o r m o v e m e n t s ( p a i n t i n g ) i n d i c a t i o n o r movement ( p o i n t i n g ) i n d i c a t i o n f o r v e r b a l r e s p o n s e ( D e n h o f f e t a l , 1 9 6 8 ) . K e p h a r t ( I 9 6 0 ) h a s e m p l o y e d s e n s o r i m o t o r r i g h t - l e f t d e t e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s t o a r r i v e a t t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t l a t e r a l i t y i s e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e t y p i c a l c h i l d by f o r m a l s c h o o l a g e . B e n t o n ( 1 9 5 9 , 1 9 6 2 ) h a s r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e r i g h t - l e f t d e t e c t i o n a n d t h e f i n g e r l o c a l i z a t i o n a b i l i t i e s w h i c h a r e n o t s y m b o l i c s t a b i l i z e - 1 8 - a r o u n d 5 t o 6 y e a r s o f a g e . I t w o u l d seem r e a s o n a b l e t o s u g g e s t , t h a t t h e e d u c a t i o n a l h y p o t h e s e s r e l a t i n g b o d y a w a r e n e s s , l a t e r a l i t y , a n d d i r e c t i o n a l i t y t o r e a d i n g a b i l i t y do n o t n e e d t o be b a s e d on t h e t h e o r e t i c a l e x t e n s i o n o f P i a g e t ' s h y p o t h e s i s p e r t a i n i n g t o s p a t i a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g d e v e l o p m e n t i n t h e p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d , b u t , may be b a s e d o n 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 s e n s o r i m o t o r f u n c t i o n s i n t h e c h i l d . T h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f n e u r o p a t h o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e c e r e b r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s p a t i a l f u n c t i o n i n g s h o u l d s o l i d i f y t h i s r e a s o n i n g . [ \ l e u r o p a t h o l o g i c a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s In t h i s s e c t i o n , n e u r o p a t h o l o g i c a l e v i d e n c e r e l a t e d t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s o f t h e c e r e b r a l h e m i s p h e r i c o r g a n i z a t i o n o f s p a t i a l a b i l i t i e s w i l l be p r e s e n t e d . W h i l e n o t a l l r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e r e p o r t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e f u n c t i o n i n g o f t h e r i g h t a n d l e f t c e r e b r a l h e m i s p h e r e s ( S m i t h , 1 9 6 6 ) n u m e r o u s r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e i n d i c a t e d a d i f f e r e n c e . F u n c t i o n a l i n e q u i v a l e n c e o f t h e c e r e b r a l h e m i s p h e r e s . B a s e d on t h e f i n d i n g s o f A r r i g o n i a n d De R e n z i ( 1 9 6 4 ) , w i t h 175 b r a i n d a m a g e d a d u l t s , w h i c h s h o w e d t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n a l a p r a x i a was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r when r i g h t c e r e b r a l l e s i o n s w e r e t h e c a u s e o f b r a i n damage a n d s p a t i a l d i s o r i e n t a t i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r when l e f t c e r e b r a l l e s i o n s w e r e t h e c a u s e o f b r a i n d a m a g e , De R e n z i a n d P i e r o ( 1 9 6 7 ) s t u d i e d 137 b r a i n damaged a d u l t s t o d e t e r m i n e h e m i s p h e r i c d i f f e r e n c e s i n s p a t i a l f u n c t i o n i n g . De R e n z i ' s a n d P i e r o ' s ( 1 9 6 7 ) f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t e d t h a t s p a t i a l a b i l i t i e s may i n d e e d be d i f f e r e n t l y o r g a n i z e d i n t h e two h e m i s p h e r e s ; t h e i r r e p r e s e n t - • 1'J — a t i o n being more f o c a l i z e d on the l e f t side of the b r a i n and more d i f f u s e on the r i g h t side of the b r a i n . Consideration of the purported 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 and l e f t p a r i e t a l lobes may c l a r i f y t h i s c o n t e n t i o n . F u n c t i o n a l inequivalence of the p a r i e t a l lobes. According to Reitan (1971), Semmes (1968) and Sparrow and Satz (197Db) there have been many s t u d i e s which have shown that the r i g h t and l e f t lobes are not f u n c t i o n a l l y e q u i v a l e n t . Further, the d i f f e r e n c e s have g e n e r a l l y been seen to l i e i n the sphere of sensorimotor and language d i s o r d e r s . The d i s o r d e r s commonly r e f e r r e d to are ( R e i t a n , 1971): (1) Agnosia defects 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 of f a m i l i a r objects e.g. f i n g e r agnosia (2) Apraxia defects i n the development of concepts f o r sequencing a c t i o n s f o r purposive movement (3) Aphasia defects i n the comprehension of more complex, symbolic language a c t i v i t i e s (4) Anomolies of s p a t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n . The a p r a x i a s , as i n d i c a t e d by De Renzi and Piero (1967), have been as s o c i a t e d with r i g h t hemispheric l e s i o n s ( A r r i g o n i and De Renzi, 1964; C r i t c h l e y , 1968; Reuben and Bakwin, 1965). Apraxic behavior has a l s o been a s s o c i a t e d with l e s i o n s i n the pre-motar c o r t i c a l region assumed to be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r sequencing a b i l i t i e s ( L u r i a , 1964). In c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i o n to the above, the aphasias, agnosias and anomolies of 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 with l e s i o n s i n the l e f t p a r i e t a l region (Semmes et al.,1960). - 2 U - L e f t p a r i e t a l r e g i o n - b o d y i m a g e . D u r i n g t h e p a s t f o r t y y e a r s , a n u m b e r o f i n v e s t i g a t o r s h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t damage t o t h e l e f t p a r i e t a l r e g i o n s o f t e n d i s t u r b s t h e c o n c e p t o f b o d y i m a g e ( B e n s o n a n d G e s c h w i n d , 1 9 6 8 ) . T h i s d i s t r u b a n c e h a s f u r t h e r b e e n s e e n i n c o m b i n a t i o n u i t h : ( 1 ) A p r a x i c b e h a v i o r : L a n g e , 1 9 4 0 ; R e i t a n , 1 9 7 1 ; R e u b i n a n d B a k u i n , 1 9 6 8 . ( 2 ) A p h a s i c b e h a v i o r : C r i t c h l e y , 1 9 6 4 , 1 9 6 8 ; S p a r r o w a n d S a t z , 1 9 7 0 a , b ; S p r e e n a n d B e n t o n , 1 9 6 5 ; L J e i n s t e i n , 1 9 6 8 . ( 3 ) V i s u a l - m o t o r s p a t i a l d i s o r i e n t a t i o n : B i r c h a n d B o r t n e r , 1 9 6 0 ; R e i t a n , 1 9 7 1 ; R u b i n a n d B r a u n , 1 9 6 8 . In v i e w o f t h i s i t w o u l d s e e m r e a s o n a b l e t h a t ' K e p h a r t ( 1 9 6 0 ) h a s a s s o c i a t e d r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y w i t h d e v e l o p m e n t a l d e l a y s i n b o d y a w a r e n e s s a n d v i s u a l - m o t o r i n t e g r a t i o n e s t a b l i s h m e n t . I f o n e w e r e t o a d o p t M y k l e b u s t ' s ( 1 9 6 4 ) v i e w t h a t many c h i l d r e n w i t h l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s h a v e a m i n i m a l b r a i n d y s f u n c t i o n , t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n may be more c l e a r . T h e q u e r y t h a t r e m a i n s l i e s i n t h e e x p l a n a t i o n o f why t h e s e b e h a v i o r s h a v e b e e n shown t o be r e l a t e d i n some i n s t a n c e s a n d n o t i n o t h e r s ( C h a l f a n t a n d S c h e f f l i n , 1 9 6 9 ) . T h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n b o d y i m a g e d i s t u r b a n c e s a n d G e r s t m a n n ' s s y n d r o m e may p r o v i d e an i n i t i a l r a t i o n a l e f o r e x p l a i n i n g t h i s i n c o n s i s t e n c y . G e r s t m a n n ' s s y n d r o m e : 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 . G e r s t m a n n ' s s y n d r o m e h a s i n t h e p a s t b e e n s e e n t o r e s u l t f r o m damage t o the- p a r i e t a l - o c c i p i t a l r e g i o n o f t h e l e f t h e m i s p h e r e ( K i n s b o u r n e , 1 9 6 8 ; S t o n e , 1 9 6 3 ) . T h e s y m p t o m s o f t h i s s y n d r o m e , w h i c h i s a t p r e s e n t o u t o f n e u r o l o g i c a l f a v o u r ( S t o n e , 1 9 6 8 ) a r e : -21- ( 1 ) d y s c a l c u l i a ( 2 ) d y s g r a p h i a ( 3 ) r i g h t - l e f t d i s o r i e n t a t i o n ( 4 ) f i n g e r a g n o s i a F u r t h e r m o r e G e r s t m a n n ' s s y n d r o m e h a s b e e n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h ( L a n g e , 1 9 4 0 ; S t e n g e l , 1 9 4 4 ) : ( 1 ) b o d y i m a g e d i s t u r b a n c e s ( 2 ) c o n s t r u c t i o n a l a p r a x i a ( 3 ) s p a t i a l o r i e n t a t i o n a n o m a l i e s M o r e r e c e n t l y , P o e c k a n d O r g a s s ( 1 9 6 6 ) f o u n d t h a t G e r s t m a n n ' s s y n d r o m e r a r e l y o c c u r s w i t h o u t a p h a s i a . In v i e w o f t h i s , P o e c k a n d O r g a s s ( 1 9 6 6 ) s u g g e s t e d t h a t a p h a s i a i s t h e .common d e n o m i n a t o r f o r t h e f o u r s y m p t o m s o f t h i s s y n d r o m e . R e f e r e n c e t o t h e c a t e g o r i e s t y p i c a l l y e m p l o y e d i n t h e s t u d y o f n e u r o l o g i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n w o u l d r e v e a l t h a t t h e s y m p t o m s o f G e r s t m a n n ' s s y n d r o m e r e f l e c t d e f i c i t s a t t h e s e n s o r i m o t o r l e v e l , n o t t h e p r e f e r e n c e o r l a n g u a g e l e v e l s , o f n e u r o l o g i c a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . F u r t h e r m o r e t h e l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g w i t h t h e c e r e b r a l l a t e r a l i z a t i o n o f f u n c t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t r i g h t - l e f t d e t e c t i o n a n d f i n g e r l o c a l - i z a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s a r e c o m m o n l y u s e d t o s t u d y s e n s o r i m o t o r l a t e r a l - i z a t i o n ( B e n t o n , 1 9 5 9 , 1 9 6 2 ) ; w h i l e K e p h a r t ( 1 9 6 0 ) h a s m e a s u r e d l a t e r a l i t y e s t a b l i s h m e n t by e m p l o y i n g r i g h t - l e f t d e t e c t i o n m e a s u r e s . I t w o u l d seem p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n t h e n e u r o - l o g i c a l d i s o r d e r s e n u m e r a t e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n a s w e l l a s t h e d e v e l o p - m e n t a l d e l a y s i n t e r - r e l a t e d by K e p h a r t ( 1 9 6 0 ) may h a v e r e s u l t e d f r o m t h e i n h e r e n t s i m i l a r i t y i n t h e p r o c e d u r e s u s e d t o a s s e s s t h e s e b e h a v i o r s . A n o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n , p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h - 2 2 - i n c o m i n g a n d o u t g o i n g n e u r a l e v e n t s b e c a m e i n t e g r a t e d , h a s b e e n r e p o r t e d . C r o s s - m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n : l e f t p a r i e t a l l o b e . G e s c h w i n d ( 1 9 6 5 ) , c i t e d by B u t t e r s a n d B r o d y ( 1 9 6 8 ) , h a s p r o p o s e d t h a t t h e l e f t i n f e r i o r p a r i e t a l l o b e ( a n g u l a r g y r u s r e g i o n ) r e c e i v e s a f f e r e n t i n p u t s f r o m t h e v i s u a l , a u d i t o r y , a n d s o m a t o s e n s o r y c o r t i c e s o f b a t h h e m i s p h e r e s ; t h e r e b y m e d i a t i n g c r o s s - m o d a l a s s o c - i a t i o n s . B u t t e r s a n d B r a d y ( 1 9 6 8 ) i n v e s t i g a t e d t h i s p r o p o s a l a n d f o u n d t h a t p a t i e n t s w i t h l e f t p a r i e t a l damage d i s p l a y e d d e f i c i t s i n c r a s s - m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n a n d r e a d i n g s k i l l s . As h a s a l r e a d y b e e n s t a t e d , l e s i o n s i n t h e l e f t p a r i e t a l r e g i o n h a v e b e e n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h b o d y i m a g e d i s t u r b a n c e , a g n o s i a , a p h a s i a , a n d s p a t i a l d i s - o r i e n t a t i o n . T h e s e b e h a v i o r s h a v e a l s o b e e n r e l a t e d t o r e a d i n g d i s a b i l i t y . I t w o u l d s e e m t o be a l o g i c a l d e d u c t i o n , t h e n , t h a t i n t e g r a t i o n , a t a s e n s o r i m o t o r l e v e l may e x p l a i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f b o d y s c h e m a . U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g a b i l i t i e s i n c h i l d r e n h a s n o t r e c e i v e d w i d e a t t e n t i o n . T h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n w i l l d i s c u s s t h e few r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s w h i c h h a v e b e e n r e p o r t e d . I n t e g r a t i v e P r o c e s s i n g C o n s i d e r a t i o n s As was m e n t i o n e d i n t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y c h a p t e r , H e a d ( 1 9 2 0 ) o r i g i n a l l y c o n c e i v e d t h e b o d y s c h e m a t o be a s y n t h e s i s o f a f f e r e n t s e n s o r y c o m p o n e n t s r e l a t i n g t o t h e b o d y . B e r g e s a n d L e z i n e ( 1 9 6 5 ) h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t w h i l e t h i s may be t h e way i n w h i c h t h e b o d y s c h e m a b e c o m e s e s t a b l i s h e d , t h e 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 a n d s u b c o n s c i o u s m o d e l l i e s i n i t s u s e . S i m i l a r l y , r e s e a r c h e r s -23- concerned u i t h i n t e g r a t i v e processing have concentrated on the c e n t r a l s y n t h e s i s of m u l t i p l e s t i m u l i which are presented to the same sensory modality or d i f f e r e n t sertsory m o d a l i t i e s . Chalfant and S c h e f f l i n (1969),Konorski (1967), Munn (1965), Myklebust (1964), Rubin and Braun (196S) and others have suggested that 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 se, i s d i f f i c u l t to measure with the unrefined black-box procedures p r e s e n t l y a v a i l a b l e . These researchers contend that the assess- ment of 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 to u t i l i z e d i s - c r i m i n a t e d sensory s t i m u l i ) could y i e l d more meaningful data. Bryant (1968) has suggested that input, processing, and output r e - quirements of a task should a l l be considered i n drawing conclusions from experimental f i n d i n g s . Chalfant and S c h e f f l i n (1969) presented a format f a r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of these v a r i a b l e s ; t h i s has been shown i n Table 1. Few research s t u d i e s i n i n t e g r a t i v e processing have c l e a r l y described these v a r i a b l e s ; as a r e s u l t the research f i n d i n g s reported have been d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t . Before d i s - cussing these f i n d i n g s , the sensory systems considered to be u n i f i e d i n t o the body schema are discussed. Sensory Systems Based predominantly on c l i n i c a l f i n d i n g s with b r a i n damaged a d u l t s , Konorski (1967) has p o s t u l a t e d that the body schema develops independently of language. This supports the d e f i n i t i o n of body schema which has been adopted i n the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n (Ayres and Reid, 1966). Konorski (1967) has als o hypothesized that the information -2k- Table 1. S i g n i f i c a n t Variables Which Should be Considered under SOR (Chalfant and S c h e f f l i n , 1969, p. 57). Made of Stimuli Organism Mode of Response Intramodal Intermodal Simultaneous presentation Successive presentation Symbolic s t i m u l i Non-symbolic s t i m u l i Intensity Number of units Rate Sex C.A. M.A. I.Q. Organic involvement Prior exper- ience or tr a i n i n g Intramodal Intermodal Symbolic a. motor b. vocal Non-symbolic a. motor b. vocal Production Duration a. latency of response Interval b. duration of response Instructions c. frequency of response Order d. in t e n s i t y of response Complexity Judgemental Response Disto r t i o n a. same b. di f f e r e n t c. recognition d. r e c a l l e. equivalence f . correspondence g. recoding to a rule -25- c o m i n g f r o m t h e a n g u l a r d i s p l a c e m e n t o f t h e 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 s t h e p r e d o m i n a n t s e n s o r y s y s t e m i n b o d y s c h e m a a c q u i s i t i o n . T h i s s y s t e m i s , H o n o r s k i ( 1 9 6 7 ) c o n t e n d e d , i n t e r - c o - o r d i n a t e d w i t h t h e movement f e e d b a c k s y s t e m a n d t h e v i s u a l a s p e c t s o f t h e l i m b , a t t h e a s s o c i a t i o n a l c o r t i c e s l e v e l . S c h i l d e r ( 1 9 5 0 ) , c i t e d by B e r g e s a n d L e z i n e ( 1 9 6 5 ) h a s h y p o t h - e s i z e d t h a t t h e s e n s o r y s y s t e m s i n v o l v e d w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f movement a n d t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f p o s t u r e p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e b o d y s c h e m a . B e r g e s a n d L e z i n e h a v e r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e b o d y s c h e m a i s d e p e n d e n t a n p a s t i m p r e s s i o n s p r e d o m i n a n t l y k i n e s t h e t i c a n d t a c t u a l . I n v i e w o f t h e s e c o n t e n t i o n s i t w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t t h e v i s u a l , t a c t u a l a n d k i n e s t h e t i c s y s t e m s a r e p r e - d o m i n a n t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f t h e b o d y s c h e m a . T h e r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s r e l a t e d t o t h e i n t r a s e n s o r y a n d i n t e r s e n s o r y i n t e g r a t i o n s o f t h e s e s y s t e m s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d b e l o w . S e n s o r y I n t e g r a t i o n T h e o r i g i n a l w o r k s o f S h e r r i n g t o n ( 1 9 5 0 ) a n d B i r c h ( 1 9 5 4 ) a s s e r t e d t h a t i n t r a m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n ( t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f s e n s o r y s t i m u l i a l o n g o n e m o d a l i t y ) i s a n e c e s s a r y a n t e c e d e n t t o i n t e r m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n ( t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f s e n s o r y s t i m u l i b e t w e e n two o r more m o d a l i t i e s ) . M o r e r e c e n t l y , Munn ( 1 9 6 5 ) a n d H o n o r s k i ( 1 9 6 7 ) h a v e s u g - g e s t e d t h a t e v e n t h e s i m p l e s e n s o r y f u n c t i o n i n g o f o n e m o d a l i t y i s a f f e c t e d o r m o d i f i e d by t h a t . o f o t h e r s e n s o r y s y s t e m s . O f p a r t i c - u l a r r e l e v a n c e t o t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h i s s t u d y i s P i a g e t ' s ( 1 9 5 3 ) c o n t e n t i o n t h a t v e r y e a r l y i n t h e i n f a n t ' s d e v e l o p m e n t v i s u a l - <_ u -. i n f o r m a t i o n b e c o m e s i n t e r c a - o r d i n a t e d w i t h o t h e r s e n s o r y s y s t e m s . U h i l e n u m e r o u s r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n i s t h e p r e d o m i n a n t s e n s o r y s y s t e m d u r i n g t h e f i r s t s e v e n y e a r s o f t h e c h i l d ' s d e v e l o p m e n t ( C h a l f a n t a n d S c h e f f l i n , 1 9 6 9 ) , o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t o r g a n i s m s d i f f e r p h y l o - g e n e t i c a l l y i n t h e i r r e l i a n c e u p o n d i f f e r e n t s e n s o r y m o d a l i t i e s . M o n t e s s o r i ( 1 9 6 4 ) h a s a r g u e d t h a t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e t a c t u a l s y s t e m p r e c e d e s t h a t o f v i s i o n a n d a u d i t i o n . Munn ( 1 9 6 5 ) h a s s u g g e s 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 t h e t a c t i l e , o l f a c t o r y , g u s t a t o r y a n d k i n e s t h e t i c s y s t e m s , t h e n g r a d u a l l y more demands a r e p l a c e d o n t h e v i s u a l a n d a u d i t o r y m o d a l i t i e s . T h e r e h a s o n l y b e e n t h e o r e t i c a l a g r e e m e n t t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t t h e n e r v o u s s y s t e m d e v e l o p s i n a m a n n e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p r o g r e s s i o n f r o m a r e l a t i v e l y g l o b a l c o n d i t i o n , t h r o u g h i n c r e a s i n g d i f f e r e n t i a t e d f u n c t i o n s , t o a h i e r a r c h i a l i n t e g r a t i o n a n d c o - o r d i n a t i o n o f f u n c t i o n i n g ( H e b b , 1 9 4 4 ; . L u r i a , 1 9 6 4 ; M u n n , 1 9 6 5 ; P i a g e t , 1 9 5 3 , 1 9 5 4 ) . In t h e v i e w o f d e v e l o p m e n t a l a n d e d u c a t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g y t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f b o d y r e l a t i o n s h i p s p r e c e d e s t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f o b j e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( i n p a r t i c u l a r f o r m a n d d i s t a n c e ) o u t s i d e o f t h e s e l f . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l s t u d i e s w h i c h h a v e c o n c o m m i t a n t l y e x a m i n e d the" s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f o b j e c t f o r m s a n d i n t e g r a t i v e p r o c e s s i n g i n p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n a r e d i s c u s s e d b e l o w . F o r m P e r c e p t i o n T a s k s I t h a s o n l y b e e n w i t h i n t h e l a s t d e c a d e t h a t r e s e a r c h c o n - c o m m i t a n t l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f f o r m p e r c e p t i o n a n d c r o s s - m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n h a s b e e n r e p o r t e d . T h e s e e x p e r i m e n t s h a v e -27- been c l a s s i f i e d as cross-modal matching s t u d i e s . They have been designed to t e s t the a b i l i t y of c h i l d r e n to t r e a t two i d e n t i c a l s t i m u l i as equivalent uihen information about each stimulus comes through two sensory m o d a l i t i e s . The v a r i a b l e s which Chalfant and S c h e f f l i n (1969) have considered to 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 processing research (Table 1) have been used to c o n c i s e l y describe three cross-modal matching experiments i n Table 2. B i r c h and L e f f o r d (1963) found that cross-modal i n t e g - r a t i o n improves with age (Table 2 ) . Furthermore, t h e i r f i n d i n g s showed v i s u a l - h a p t i c matching to 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 at 5 years of age. Blank and Bridger (1964) and Conners et a l . (1967) reported s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s . The above experiments however, omitted with i n - m o d a l i t y c o n d i t i o n s ( v i s u a l - v i s u a l , h a p t i c - h a p t i c , k i n e s t h e t i c - k i n e s t h e t i c ) . As a r e s u l t i t might be argued that the improvement of cross-modal i n t e g r a t i o n with c h r o n o l o g i c a l age may r e s u l t from an increased a b i l i t y to d i f f e r e n t i a t e and i n t e g r a t e along one modality (Bryant, 1968). The s t u d i e s of B a i t e r and Fagarty (1971) and Rudel and Teuber (1964) separated w i t h i n - m o d a l i t y e f f e c t s from between- modality e f f e c t s . B a i t e r and Fagarty (1971) and Rudel and Teuber (1964) found that across 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 intramodal matching c o n d i t i o n than on the 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 (Table 2 ) . V i s u a l - v i s u a l matching e r r o r s were lowest across a l l -28- Table 2. 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 Study Age Range Shape of Object Mortality Condi t i o n s Mode of P r e s e n t a t i o n Mode of Response A n a l y s i s F i n d i n g s M o d a l i t y F i n d i n g s P r e s e n t a t i o n B i r c h and L e f f o r d (1963) 5-11 y r s . geometric v i s u a l - h a p t i c v i s u a l - k i n e s - t h e t i c h a p t i c - k i n e s - t h e t i c h a p t i c : a c t i v e m a n i p u l a t i o n of o b j e c t k i n e s t h e t i c : E pa s s i v e moving S's hand u i t h s t y l u s around o b j e c t s u c c e s s i v e p r e s e n t a t i o n of p a i r s v e r b a l r e p o r t "same" or d i f f erent C o r r e c t 1) v i s u a l - h a p t i c Lias number e a s i e s t c o n d i t i o n : of 17% of 5 y r . o l d s responses made no e r r o r s 2) v i s u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c , h a p t i c - k i n e s t h e t i c : no 5 y r . o l d s scored p e r f e c t l y 3) i n t e g r a t i o n of k i n - e s t h e t i c u i t h h a p t i c and v i s u a l modal- i t i e s o c curs at 6-7 y r s . Rudel and Teuber (1961.) 3-6 y r s . S e r i e s I : geometric S e r i e s I I : a b s t r a c t v i s u a l - v i s u a l h a p t i c - h a p t i c v i s u a l - h a p t i c h a p t i c - v i s u a l s u c c e s s i v e BUT simultaneous on S e r i e s I f o r 3 y r . o l d s ; S e r i e s I I <» y r . o l d s present s t a n d a r d 5 comparisons (5 sec.) " i s t h i s i t " f o r 5 v a r i a b l e s t i m u l i yes or no v e r b a l r e p o r t c o r r e c t 1) e a s i e s t to hardest number v i s u a l - v i s u a l , of v i s u a l - h a p t i c , responses h a p t i c - v i s u a l h a p t i c - h a p t i c . 2) accuracy i n c r e a s e d u i t h age. s u c c e s s i v e p r e s e n t a t i o n i m p o s s i b l e f o r 3 y r . o l d s on S e r i e s I , b y r . o l d s on S e r i e s I I , but they c o u l d do i t i f presented s i m u l t a n e o u s l y S a l t e r and Fogarty (1971) k y r s 2 mos. to 5 y r s . 11 mos. v i s u a l - geometric v i s u a l - v i s u a l h a p t i c - h a p t i c v i s u a l - h a p t i c s u c c e s s i v e and simultaneous f o r each of the 3 c o n d i t i o n s - p a i r s (5 sec) v e r b a l r e p o r t "same" or 'W i f f e r e n t " c o r r e c t U of responses ANOVA Meuman- Keuls 1) e a s i e s t to hardest v i s u a l - v i s u a l , v i s u a l - h a p t i c , h a p t i c - h a p t i c 2) s i g n i f i c a n t (.01) d i f f e r e n c e between c o n d i t i o n s 3) Neuman-Keuls: s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e betueen v i s u a l - v i s u a l and h a p t i c - h a p t i c o n l y . U) no s i g . i n t e r a c t i o n betueen mode of p r e s e n t a t i o n and m o d a l i t y . s u c c e s s i v e p r e s e n t a t i o n not s i g n i f - i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from s i m u l - taneous p r e s e n t a t i o n - 2 9 - c o n d i t i o n s a n d a g e l e v e l s . T h e s e r e s e a r c h e r s a t t r i b u t e d t h e i m p r o v e m e n t i n t h e c r o s s - m o d a l m a t c h i n g b e t w e e n t h e v i s u a l a n d h a p t i c s y s t e m s t o 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 a l o n g t h e h a p t i c s y s t e m . T h i s t r e n d w o u l d seem t o s u p p o r t B i r c h a n d L e f f o r d ' s ( 1 9 6 3 ) a n d P i c k ' s e t a l . ( 1 9 6 6 ) a r g u m e n t t h a t h a p t i c a n d k i n e s t h e t i c i n f o r m a t i o n m e r e l y s e r v e s t o r e i n f o r c e v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n u n t i l t h e age o f 5 - 7 y e a r s when t h e 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 k i n e s t h e t i c a n d h a p t i c i n f o r m a t i o n c a u s e s r a p i d i m p r o v e m e n t i n t h e c r o s s - m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t h e s e s y s t e m s . R u d e l a n d T e u b e r ( 1 9 6 4 ) s u g g e s t e d t h a t w h i l e f o r m p e r c e p t i o n t a s k s i n d i c a t e a v i s u a l - v i s u a l , v i s u a l - h a p t i c , h a p t i c - v i s u a l , h a p t i c - h a p t i c d e v e l o p m e n t a l t r e n d f o r s e n s o r y i n t e g r a t i o n , a t a s k m o r e c o n d u c i v e t o h a p t i c d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ( t e x t u r e ) may y i e l d a d i f f e r e n t t r e n d . One m i g h t e x t r a p o l a t e t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f t h e t o p o g r a p h y o f t h e b o d y may r e f l e c t t h e r e - l i a n c e a n t h e s y s t e m r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n earn ing f r o m t h e a n g u l a r d i s p l a c e m e n t o f t h e j o i n t s . P r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h i s " i n f o r m a t i o n i s c a l l e d p a s s i v e m o v e m e n t , o n e a s p e c t o f t h e k i n e s - t h e t i c s y s t e m . A s m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s s t u d y , t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f e x t r a c t i n g t a c t u a l i n f o r m a t i o n f r a m k i n e s t h e t i c s y s t e m f o r t e s t i n g p u r p o s e s h a s l e d t o t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c s y s t e m i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y . A s was m e n t i o n e d i n t h e i n t r o d u c t o r y c h a p t e r o f t h i s s t u d y , two s t u d i e s h a v e b e e n i n f l u e n t i a l i n t h e d e s i g n o f t h e p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n . T h e s e s t u d i e s a r e d i s c u s s e d b e l o w . - JU- Berges and Lezine (1965) This study was based on the tenet that the body is oriented in space by activity before the child knows i t s component parts or before the child can name these component parts. More- over, Berges and Lezine (1965) have suggested that the development of motor activity is accomplished in space in relationship to the body. The development of hand-finger schemata and upper limb schemata in 364 children, 3 to 6 years old, was investigated by using procedures referred to as the imitation of gestures. The gestures were varied in terms of the (1) spatial 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 visual stimulus (E gesture) for a visual-kinesthetic response ( S imitation of the gesture) was studied. While these investigators were directly concerned with developing standardized procedures for the neurological, in particular apraxic, examination of pre-school children, several aspects of this study have been significant in the formulated hypotheses of this investigation. The more complex a gesture, the less accurate was i t s imitation. Simple gestures were reproduced accurately at age 6 while the complex gestures s t i l l presented di f f i c u l t y at this age level. Across a l l age levels, there was an interaction between the spatial organization required and the motor schema required. There -31- u a s ' a t e n d e n c y f o r c h i l d r e n tD p l a c e r e l i a n c e on t h e d o m i n a n t arm o r h a n d i n t h e g e s t u r e s w h i c h w e r e d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e m . L e f f o r d , ( 1 9 7 0 ) L e f f o r d ( 1 9 7 0 ) s t u d i e d t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n s i n 167 c h i l d r e n 3 t o 5>2 y e a r s o f a g e . T w e l v e f i n g e r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n t a s k s w h i c h w e r e v a r i e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o r e s p o n s e c o m p l e x i t y a n d i n t e g r a t i v e c o n d i t i o n s w e r e e m p l o y e d . T h e s e t a s k s h a v e b e e n c o n c i s e l y d e s c r i b e d a n d n u m b e r e d f o r r e f e r e n c e , r a n g i n g f r o m t h e e a s i e s t t o t h e m o s t d i f f i c u l t t a s k , i n T a b l e 3 . R e s p o n s e c o m p l e x i t y . L e f f o r d f o u n d t h a t t a s k s r e q u i r i n g f i n g e r - t h u m b a p p o s i t i o n a n d p o i n t i n g t o s e l f r e s p o n s e s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y e a s i e r t h a n t h e t a s k s r e q u i r i n g t h e i m i t a t i o n o f f i n g e r m o v e m e n t s a n d m o d e l i n d i c a t i o n r e s p o n s e s . T h i s may be 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 t h e i m i t a t i o n o f f i n g e r m o v e m e n t s r e q u i r e d a w e l l o r g a n i z e d f i n e m o t o r s c h e m a . F u r t h e r m o r e i f r e v e r s a l s w e r e i n v o l v e d i n t h e s e l a s t two r e s p o n s e c a t e g o r i e s ( n o t r e p o r t e d ) t h i s i s r e a d i l y u n d e r s t a n d a b l e . B e n t o n ( 1 9 6 8 ) , a n d R i c e ( 1 9 6 8 ) h a v e r e p o r t e d t h a t f i n g e r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n a n d r i g h t - l e f t d e t e c t i o n a b i l i t i e s r e q u i r i n g r e v e r s a l s a r e d i f f i c u l t e v e n a t t h e l e v e l Df a d u l t f u n c t i o n i n g w h i c h i s r e p o r t e d l y r e a c h e d a r o u n d 11 - 12 y e a r s o f a g e . S t i m u l u s p r e s e n t a t i o n . L e f f o r d ' s s t u d y i n d i c a t e d t h a t r e s p o n s e s w e r e e a s i e s t when i n f o r m a t i o n was p r e s e n t e d t o b o t h t h e v i s u a l a n d t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c s y s t e m s ( T a b l e 3 ) . T h i s w o u l d s e e m t o s u p p o r t P i a g e t ' s ( 1 9 5 3 ) c o n t e n t i o n t h a t v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n b e c o m e s i n t e r c o - o r d i n a t e d w i t h o t h e r s e n s o r y s y s t e m s v e r y e a r l y -32- Table 3. 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) Con- Modality i n which f i n g e r s Response r e q u i r e d M o d a l i t i e s a v a i l - d i t i o n were i n d i c a t e d to subject of the subject able to guide number response (1) (2) (3) v i s u a l , t a c t u a l - k i n e s - t h e t i c v i s u a l , t a c t u a l - k i n e s - t h e t i c v i s u a l (4) v i s u a l (5) t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c (6) t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c (7) t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c (8) v i s u a l (9) v i s u a l , t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c (ID) v i s u a l (11) v i s u a l (12) t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c finger-thumb o p p o s i t i o n p o i n t i n g to s e l f p o i n t i n g to s e l f finger-thumb o p p o s i t i o n finger-thumb o p p o s i t i o n finger-thumb o p p o s i t i o n p a i n t i n g to s e l f v i s u a l i m i t a t i o n v i s u a l , p r o p r i o c e p t i v e v i s u a l , p r o p r i o c e p t i v e v i s u a l , p r o p r i o c e p t i v e v i s u a l , p r o p r i o c e p t i v e p r o p r i o c e p t i v e v i s u a l p r o p r i o c e p t i v e v i s u a l , p r o p r i o c e p t i v e v i s u a l , p r o p r i o c e p t i v e p o i n t i n g to model v i s u a l p o i n t i n g to model v i s u a l n o n - v i s u a l p r o p r i o c e p t i v e i m i t a t i o n p a i n t i n g to model v i s u a l -33- i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e i n f a n t , a s u e l l a s t h e f i n d i n g s i n c r a s s - m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n r e s e a r c h ( T a b l e 1 , p . 2k). V i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n u a s f o u n d t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y e a s i e r t h a n 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 a r t h e t u a e a s i e s t r e s p o n s e c o n d i t i o n s ( T a b l e 3 : (l)-(k)). I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t when t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c i n f o r m a t i o n u a s p r e s e n t e d i n ( 5 ) a n d ( 6 ) ( T a b l e 3 ) t h e n o n - v i s u a l movement r e s p o n s e ( 5 ) u a s e a s i e r t h a n t h e v i s u a l movement r e s p o n s e (6). D e v e l o p m e n t a l t r e n d s . L e f f o r d f o u n d t h a t by k y e a r s o f a g e o v e r 90% o f h i s s u b j e c t s c o u l d f u l l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e t h e t o p o g r a p h y o f t h e h a n d when p e r c e i v e d by b a t h t h e v i s u a l a n d t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c m o d a l i t i e s . W h i l e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c s c h e m a t a a n d v i s u a l s c h e m a t a u a s f o u n d a t t h e k y e a r o l d l e v e l , L e f f o r d ' s d a t a i n d i c a t e d t h a t v i s u a l . s c h e m a t a may be more a d v a n c e d i n 3 y e a r o l d s t h a n t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c s c h e m a t a . -3k- CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES The hypotheses of the present investigation were studied by employing four series of body part d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n tasks. Task Series I: Task Series I I : Task Series III Task Series IU: The sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of body parts, as r e f l e c t e d in the subject's a b i l i t y to make accurate voluntary movements on finger l o c a l - i z a t i o n tasks. The sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of body parts as r e f l e c t e d in. the subject's a b i l i t y to make accurate voluntary movement reproductions of s p a t i a l orientation positions of the hands and f i n g e r s . The d i f f e r e n t a t i o n of body parts as re f l e c t e d i n the subject's hand preference and foot preference. The d i f f e r e n t a t i o n of body parts as r e f l e c t e d in the subject's a b i l i t y to (a) point to the body part verbally indicated by the experimenter, and (b) give the verbal l a b e l of the body part pointed to by the experimenter. Subjects The subjects uere sixty-four 3 to 6 year old children, 8 g i r l s and 8 boys in each age category. The age categories uere delimited to 3 years - 3 months, k years - 3 months, 5 years - 3 months, and 6 years - 3 months. The subjects uere drawn from a -35- population Df children uith play school experience uho, at the time Df test i n g , uere attending programmes at Sunset Recreation Centre. This Centre, according to census data, i s located in a lou-middle income socio-economic area. The same 64 subjects par t i c i p a t e d i n the 4 Task Series. Each subject uas present for 2 testing sessions subsequently referred to as Day I and Day I I . A l l tasks uere administered to the Subject (S) by the Experimenter (E). Apparatus The testing sessions uere conducted i n a room adjoining the Play School F a c i l i t i e s at Sunset Recreation Centre. Free Play At the beginning and the end of each S's tes t i n g session there uas an opportunity for free play. The equipment available for t h i s included cosom hockey s t i c k s and pucks, mats, playground b a l l s , a s l i d e , a t r i c y c l e and a uagon. Task Series I and II These Task Series uere administered in an area of the testing room auay from the play equipment. S uas seated at a table IS" in height; E uas seated across the table facing S. A uooden frame 22" x IQ" x 5" uas placed on the table. A curtain uas attached to the front of the frame (S;s vieu) and uas open at the rear (E's vieu). This apparatus uas designed to a l l o u E to absent v i s u a l information from S, on the sensorimotor tasks involving the ta c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c system, while permitting E tD present stimulus information and to record responses (Appendix A). The photographs used i n Task Series I are shown i n Appendix B. The photographs used i n Task Series II are shown i n Appendix C. Task Series III A playground b a l l 4" i n diameter was used to observe S's hand preference and foot preference. Task Series 1V/ No equipment was needed for th i s Task Series. Experimental Conditions and Procedures The experimental conditions and procedures are discussed under the headings of Task Series I, Task Series II, Task Series III and Task Series 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 included in Appendix E. Table 4. Experimental Conditions in Task Series I and Task Series II Con- Name of Stimulus Modalities Response Modalities d i t i o n the Available Available Number Condition for for Stimulus Response D i f f e r - e ntiation (1) v i s u a l for v i s u a l movement v i s u a l i n d i c - ation (photo- graph) v i s u a l v i s u a l movement v i s u a l , t a c t u a l - kinesthetic (2) v i s u a l for non-visual movement v i s u a l i n d i c - ation (photo- graph) v i s u a l non-visual movement ta c t u a l - kinesthetic (3) t a c t u a l - passive tactual- kines- movement kines- t h e t i c for on the t h e t i c v i s u a l subject movement v i s u a l movement v i s u a l , t a c t u a l - kinesthetic (4) t a c t u a l - passive tactual- kines- movement kines- t h e t i c for on the t h e t i c non v i s u a l subject movement non-visual movement t a c t u a l - kinesthetic -38- Task Series I Experimental Conditions Here S uas required to i d e n t i f y the fingers of the right hand and the l e f t hand indicated to S by E. The experimental conditions are described i n terms of E's ind i c a t i o n (presentation) and S's response. Presentation. Each of S's 10 fingers 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 of the i s o l a t e d finger an the photograph (Appendix B), (2) passive movement of the i s o l a t e d finger on S. Each finger was presented to S for 3 seconds; then S responded (successive presentation for response). Response. 1 voluntary movement was studied i n 2 ways: (1) l i f t i n g movement of the i s o l a t e d finger with v i s u a l cues, (2) l i f t i n g movement of the i s o l a t e d finger without v i s u a l cues. Table k shows haw these presentations and responses were incor- porated into the k experimental conditions. Experimental Procedures Each of S's 10 fingers was presented once in each experi- mental condition. Presentation. In conditions (1) and (2) (Table 4), E indicated the fingers v i s u a l l y to S by pointing to a finger for 3 seconds on the corresponding photograph of the hand (Appendix B). - 3 9 - D u r i n g t h e s e p r e s e n t a t i o n s b o t h p h o t o g r a p h s u e r e p l a c e d on t o p o f t h e f r a m e a p p a r a t u s f o r S ' s v i e w . In c o n d i t i o n s ( 3 ) a n d ( 4 ) ( T a b l e k) E i n d i c a t e d t h e f i n g e r s by p a s s i v e l y m o v i n g S ' s f i n g e r up a n d d o u n f o r 3 s e c o n d s . S ' s h a n d s u e r e h i d d e n f r o m S ' s v i e u u n d e r n e a t h the - c u r t a i n o f t h e f r a m e a p p a r a t u s . S ' s h a n d s u e r e k e p t i n a c o n s t a n t p r o n e p o s i t i o n u i t h t h e f i n g e r s p a i n t i n g t a u a r d s E a n d p r e s s e d d o u n a n t h e t a b l e b e t u e e n p r e s e n t - a t i o n s a n d r e s p o n s e s . R e s p o n s e . T h e v o l u n t a r y movement r e s p o n s e s t u d i e d a c r o s s a l l k e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s ( T a b l e 4 ) u a s a l i f t i n g a c t i o n o f t h e i s o l a t e d f i n g e r u i t h t h e r e m a i n i n g f i n g e r s p r e s s e d d o u n on t h e t a b l e . T h e v i s u a l v o l u n t a r y movement r e s p o n s e s i n c o n d i t i o n s ( 1 ) a n d ( 3 ) ( T a b l e 4 ) u e r e g i v e n u i t h S ' s h a n d s p l a c e d a n t h e f r a m e a p p a r a t u s f a r S ' s v i e u . T h e n o n - v i s u a l v o l u n t a r y movement r e s p o n s e s i n c o n d i t i o n s ( 2 ) a n d ( 4 ) ( T a b l e 4 ) u e r e g i v e n u i t h S ' s h a n d s u n d e r n e a t h t h e c u r t a i n o f - t h e f r a m e a p p a r a t u s ; v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e h a n d s a n d f i n g e r s u a s n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r r e s p o n s e s . M e t h o d o f r e c o r d i n g r e s p o n s e s . In e a c h o f t h e k e x p e r i - m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s , 5 r e s p o n s e s o f t h e r i g h t h a n d a n d 5 r e s p o n s e s o f t h e l e f t h a n d u e r e r e q u i r e d . C o r r e c 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 o f e a c h f i n g e r u e r e a s s i g n e d t h e n u m e r i c a l v a l u e o f 1 . I n c o r r e c 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 o f e a c h f i n g e r u e r e a s s i g n e d t h e n u m e r i c a l v a l u e o f • . T h e o r d i n a l s c a l e r a n g e d f r o m 0 - 5 f o r e a c h h a n d i n e a c h e x p e r i - m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n ( A p p e n d i x D ) . Task Series II In t h i s Series, S was required to reproduce the s p a t i a l orientation positions of the hands and the fingers indicated to S by E. The experimental conditions are described i n terms of E's i n d i c a t i o n (presentation) and S's response. Experimental Conditions Presentation. The 6 positions (Appendix C) uere i n d i v - i d u a l l y presented i n 2 ways. (1) v i s u a l presentation of the position on a photograph, (2) passive movement presentation of the position on the subject. Each position was presented for 3 seconds; S then responded (successive presentation for response). Response. S's voluntary movement reproductions of the positions presented were studied in 2 ways. (1) movement reproduction of the position with v i s u a l cues, (2) movement reproduction of the position without v i s u a l cues. Table k shows how these presentations and responses were incorpor- ated i n the k experimental conditions. Experimental Procedures Each of the 6 positions (Appendix C) was presented once in each experimental condition. Presentation. In conditions (1) and (2) (Table 4) E - 4 1 - p r e s e n t e d t h e p o s i t i o n p h o t o g r a p h s on t o p . o f t h e f r a m e a p p a r a t u s f o r 3 s e c o n d s . In c o n d i t i o n s ( 3 ) a n d ( 4 ) E p r e s e n t e d t h e p o s i t i o n s t o S by p a s s i v e l y m o v i n g S ' s h a n d s a n d f i n g e r s t o t h e p o s i t i o n r e q u i r e d . T h i s p o s i t i o n u a s h e l d f o r 3 s e c o n d s . S ' s h a n d s u e r e h i d d e n u n d e r n e a t h t h e f r a m e a p p a r a t u s i n c o n d i t i o n s ( 3 ) a n d ( 4 ) t o a b s e n t v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e h a n d s a n d f i n g e r s . S ' s h a n d s u e r e k e p t i n a c o n s t a n t p r o n e p o s i t i o n u i t h S ' s f i n g e r s p o i n t i n g t o w a r d s E , b e t u e e n p r e s e n t a t i o n s a n d r e s p o n s e s . R e s p o n s e . The v o l u n t a r y movement r e s p o n s e s t u d i e d a c r o s s a l l 4 e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s u a s S ' s f i n a l p o s i t i o n a c c u r a c y i n t h e r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e d t o S by E . In c o n - d i t i o n s ( 1 ) a n d ( 3 ) ( T a b l e 4 ) t h e movement r e p r o d u c t i o n s u e r e g i v e n u i t h S ' s h a n d s on t o p o f t h e f r a m e a p p a r a t u s f o r S ' s v i e u . In c o n d i t i o n ( 2 ) a n d ( 4 ) ( T a b l e 4 ) , t h e movement r e p r o d u c t i o n s u e r e g i v e n u i t h t h e s u b j e c t ' s h a n d s u n d e r n e a t h t h e f r a m e a p p a r a t u s s o t h a t v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n o f t h e h a n d s a n d f i n g e r s u a s n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e r e s p o n s e . M e t h o d o f r e c o r d i n g r e s p o n s e s . In e a c h Df t h e 4 e x p e r i - m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s , 6 p o s i t i o n s u h i c h i n v o l v e d p o s i t i o n i n g b a t h t h e r i g h t h a n d a n d t h e l e f t h a n d u e r e p r e s e n t e d . C o r r e c 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 o f e a c h h a n d i n e a c h p o s i t i o n u e r e a s s i g n e d t h e n u m e r i c a l v a l u e o f 1 . I n c o r r e c 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 o f e a c h h a n d i n e a c h p o s i t i o n u e r e a s s i g n e d t h e n u m e r i c a l v a l u e o f • . The o r d i n a l s c a l e r a n g e d f r o m • - 6 f o r e a c h h a n d i n e a c h e x p e r i - m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n . In a d d i t i o n t o t h i s o r d i n a l d a t a , o b s e r v a t i o n s o f t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e 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 o f -Wl- the dominant hand and the non-dominant hand u i t h respect to each p o s i t i o n uere recorded (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 included i n the experimental design and may be best described i n terms of the procedures employed. Hand preference. S was asked to throw a b a l l with one hand. 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 preference. S was asked to 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 of recording responses. The number of r i g h t hand and r i g h t foot responses and the number of l e f t hand and l e f t foot responses on each t r i a l s e r i e s was recorded (Appendix D). Task S e r i e s IU Experimental Procedures Task S e r i e s IU was not included i n the experimental design and may be best described i n terms of 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 part ( r i g h t eye) and S was re q u i r e d to point to the body part on hi 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 part by p o i n t i n g to -43- i t on S. S uas then r e q u i r e d to give the v e r b a l l a b e l s Df t h i s body part ( 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 . body part d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s and the number of 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 recorded (Appendix D). The experimental design 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 f a c t o r i a l u i t h repeated measures on the l a s t 3 f a c t o r s . A L a t i n Square uas used to counterbalance the 4 experimental c o n d i t i o n s and the 2 orders of stimulus present- a t i o n s of each Task S e r i e s (Appendix D). The f a c t o r s and l e v e l s uere: Factor I : Age Method of recording responses. The number of c o r r e c t Experimental Design A l A2 A3 A4 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years Factor I I : Sex (Age) G l : boys G2: g i r l s Factor I I I Task S e r i e s I I : Task S e r i e s I 12: Task S e r i e s I I Factor IU: Dominance DI: Dominant Hand D2: Non-dominant Hand Factor U: Conditions C l : U i s u a l presentation f o r v i s u a l move- ment response -44- C2: V i s u a l presentation f o r non-visual move- ment response C3: 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 C4: T a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c presentation f o r non- v i s u a l movement response. Data Analyses The data from Task Se r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I was submitted tD the 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 the score on an o r d i n a l s c a l e of (0-5); f o r Task Se r i e s I I i t was the score on an o r d i n a l s c a l e of (0-6). These analyses were conducted to determine the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s of scores f o r each age l e v e l on each of the 4 experimental c o n d i t i o n s of Task Ser i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I . A n a l y s i s of 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 of 0.5. This permitted comparisons be- tween the mean scores of Task S e r i e s I and Task S e r i e s I I i n the 4 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 4 parametric ANOVA with repeated measures on the l a s t 3 f a c t o r s . A parametric AIMOVA was used as non-parametric s t a t i s t i c a l t o o l s f o r analyz i n g f a c t o r i a l designs with repeated measures were not a v a i l a b l e . While non-parametric s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s have been s a i d to be more appropriate f o r data c o l l e c t e d on an o r d i n a l or ranking -US- scale of measurement, the case i n the present study, Brumback (1969) has argued that the legitimacy of a s t a t i s t i c a l test i n the evaluation of c o l l e c t e d data does not depend upon the measurement scale used, but, rather upon the d i s t r i b u t i o n of scale values. Reference to the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n tables i n Appendix F, reveals that while there appeared to be a c e i l i n g e f f e c t on the 6 year olds Task Series I and Task Series II scores and, to a lesser degree, on the 5 year olds Task Series I scores, the remaining biva r i a t e categories 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 . The presence of a c e i l i n g e f f e c t does, however, reduce i n t r a - c e l l v a r i a b i l i t y and therefore 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 interpreted cautiously. Methods for Testing the Hypotheses The hypotheses of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n are tD be tested by the following methods. Hypothesis 1, p. 6 In order to accept t h i s hypothesis i t must i n i t i a l l y be shown, as indicated by Berges and Lezine (1965), that the mean scores on Task Series III (preference d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ) and an Task Series 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 in the 3 to 6 year old age range studied. To test t h i s , the percentage of subjects at each age l e v e l who obtained maximum scores on Task Series III and Task Series IV/ are to be examined. -1*6- Further,in order to accept hypothesis 1, an F test must reveal that the difference between the mean scores for the Age main ef f e c t i s s i g n i f i c a n t while the F r a t i o for the Sex (Age) main e f f e c t i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . Hypothesis 2, p. 7 In order to accept hypothesis 2 i t must be established that sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n a b i l i t i e s are affected by both the input and output aspects of the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n task. To test t h i s , the mean scores for the Age x Task Series i n t e r a c t i o n are to be, i n i t i a l l y , considered in terms of the r e l a t i v e differences in the input and output aspects required for the neuromuscular responses of each Task Series. The input aspects of sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n can, then, be discussed i n terms D f the Age x Task Series x Conditions i n t e r a c t i o n , while the Age x Task Series x Dominance in t e r a c t i o n can be used t D discuss the output aspects of sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . If the above interactions are shown to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and can be meaningfully interpreted, t h i s would indicate that the output aspects of sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n as well as the input aspects of sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n are the de- terminants of 3 to 6 year old performance on the tasks studied. Thus, under these findings hypothesis 2 could be accepted. Hypothesis 3, p. 7 To test for the ef f e c t s of input i n terms of sensory presentation at two l e v e l s , 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 -47- 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 a b i l i t i e s a t each age l e v e l the mean s c a r e s f a r the Age x C o n d i t i o n s i n t e r a c t i o n are t o be examined. I f t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s shown t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and the d i f f e r e n c e s between the mean s c o r e s f o r c o n d i t i o n s can be i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms o f the t r e n d f o r v i s u a l ( c o n d i t i o n s 1 and 2) mean s c o r e s b e i n g h i g h e r t han the 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 ( c o n d i t i o n 3 and c o n d i t i o n 4) a c r o s s 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 3 can be a c c e p t e d . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s can be f u r t h e r d i s c u s s e d i n terms o f a s i g n i f i c a n t 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 t h i s i s o b t a i n e d i n the a n a l y s e s . H y p o t h e s i s 4, p. 7 To t e s t f o r the 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 and 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 d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n a b i l i t i e s a t each age l e v e l , the mean s c o r e s f o r the Age x C o n d i t i o n s i n t e r - a c t i o n a r e t o be examined. I f t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s shown t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y 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 o f the t r e n d f o r i n t r a m o d a l i n t e g r a t i o n ( c o n d i t i o n s 1 and 4) b e i n g h i g h e r than t h e 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 ( 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 , then h y p o t h e s i s 4 can be a c c e p t e d . T h i s h y p o t h e s i s can be f u r t h e r i n t e r p r e t e d i n terms o f the 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 t h i s i s shown t o be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . H y p o t h e s i s 5, p. 7 To t e s t f o r the e f f e c t s o f dominance 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 , the mean s c o r e s f o r the dominant hand and the non-dominant -48- hand at each age l e v e l i n the Age x Dominance in t e r a c t i o n are to be considered. If t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n i s shown to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t and can be interpreted in terms of the trend for the dominant hand scores being higher than the trend for the non- dominant hand scores across the age le v e l s studied, hypothesis 5 can be accepted. If the Age x Task Series x Dominance int e r a c t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t , hypothesis 5 may be discussed further. CHAPTER IU RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The findings of the investigation indicate that there is a significant 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 ab i l i t y of children to attend to presented information appeared to improve as a function of chronological age. 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 II. As a result, free play periods uere introducted between experimental conditions when the child was noticeably distracted. By 6 years of age, 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 associated u i t h the above observations uas the length of time c h i l d r e n took to 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 to p o s i t i o n t h e i r hands i n Task Se r i e s I I . This response time uas observed to 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 of gross motor c o - o r d i n a t i o n shoued advances over the 3 to 6 year o l d age l e v e l s . At 3 years of 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 to be a con- tinuous t r i a l and e r r o r process. I t appeared that the d i f f i c u l t y i n t h i s task uas a t t r i b u t a b l e to the motor aspects of d i r e c t i n g the s t i c k to the puck, as the c h i l d r e n seemed to f i x a t e on the puck. By 6 years of 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 to be a d i f f i c u l t task, but the same task 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 . Results and Discussion of the Hypotheses The s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s are presented under the 5 hypotheses of t h i s study. The dependent measures that uere c a l c u l a t e d uere: i n Task S e r i e s I the score obtained on an o r d i n a l s c a l e of 0-5, i n Task S e r i e s I I the score obtained on an o r d i n a l s c a l e of 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 responses. The data of 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 a n a l y s i s and variance a n a l y s i s . The data on Task S e r i e s I I uas transformed to an o r d i n a l s c a l e of 0-5 f o r the a n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e . 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 Series I and Task Series I I are shown in Appendix F. These d i s t r i b u t i o n s showed that the scores obtained by the subjects s h i f t e d over the age le v e l s studied. There was a c e i l i n g e f f e c t on the scores in Task Series I far 5 year olds and 6 year olds and i n Task Series I I for 6 year olds. The AIMOV/A table i s shown in Appendix G. Hypothesis 1 I t was hypothesized that: The major development in the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of body parts i s at the sensorimotor l e v e l as opposed to the preference l e v e l and the language l e v e l , i n 3 to 6 year old 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 factor i n t h i s development. To test t h i s hypothesis the data obtained i n Task Series I I I and Task Series IU was considered. Table 5 shows the percentage of children, at each age l e v e l , who continually used the same hand to throw a b a l l on S t r i a l s and the same foot to kick a b a l l on 8 t r i a l s . The data c o l l e c t e d indicates that the major development in preference d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n occurs p r i o r to age 3 years. While t h i s supports the findings of Berges and Lezine (1965) that dominance can be extracted even at the 3 year old l e v e l , i t does not support a body of research which suggests the dominance i s usually not established u n t i l age 5 years i n the t y p i c a l c h i l d (Benton, 1962; Kephart, I960). The methods employed in the present study may have confounded the findings indicated. The data in Table 5 does suggest, however, that the organization re- quired for preference d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n did not continually improve at each age l e v e l studied. -52- Table 5. Age Percentages f o r Hand Preference and Foot Preference Age Hand Preference Foot Preference 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 age l e v e l who, on tasks r e q u i r i n g e i t h e r a v e r b a l response to i n d i c a t i o n of the body part on the s u b j e c t , or an i n d i c a t i o n response on s e l f 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 foot on 12 t r i a l s and the r i g h t and l e f t aspects of these body parts on 12 t r i a l s . The data i n Table ID presumably i n d i c a t e s that the understanding of the v e r b a l l a b e l s , eye, hand, f o o t , uas e s t a b l i s h e d by 3 years of age. S i g n i f i c a n t developments i n the understanding of 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 apparent u n t i l 6 years of age. Thus, the language d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n tasks s t u d i e d d i d not shou continued improvement at each age l e v e l . I t uould seem reasonable, then, to examine the Task S e r i e s r e q u i r i n g sensorimotor 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 part d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n l i e s 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 . -53- Table 6. Age Percentages f o r the D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of Body R i g h t / L e f t Language P a r t s , Age Body Parts R i g h t / L e f t 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 of Age on sensorimotor 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 at each age l e v e l s t u d i e d . An F t e s t revealed that the d i f f e r e n c e s between the mean scores f o r Ages i n Table 7 were s i g n i f i c a n t , thus, the 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). The Sex (Age) main e f f e c t was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (F = .031, p<.D5). Further i n t e r a c t i o n s of Sex (Age) were also n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . Hypothesis 1 can be accepted; there was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the mean scores f o r age l e v e l s but the performance at each age l e v e l was not a f f e c t e d by the sex of the c h i l d . Table 7. Mean Scores f o r the Age and Sex (Age) Kuin E f f e c t s Age Boys and G i r l s Boys G i r l s 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 are concerned uith the nature of th i s .developmental trend for sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . Hypothesis 2 The a b i l i t y to make voluntary movement d i f f e r - entiations i s dependent upon the sensorimotor aspects, not only the sensory aspects of the task. To test t h i s hypothesis the mean scores for the Age x Task Series i n t e r a c t i o n uere considered to determine i f the output aspects of the sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n tasks studied as u e l l as the input aspects of the sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n tasks studied affected performance scores at each age l e v e l . Before d i s - cussing these findings, i t should be c l a r i f i e d that the output requirements of Task Series I appeared to require a more precise neuromuscular co-ordination than did the output requirements for Task Series I I . The input requirements for Task Series II, a l t e r n a t i v e l y , appeared to require a more comprehensive s p a t i a l organization than did the input requirements of Task Series I. The mean scores for the Age x Task Series i n t e r a c t i o n are shoun i n Table S. An F test revealed that the difference betueen these mean scores uas s i g n i f i c a n t . While the mean scores con- t i n u a l l y improved as a function of increases i n chronological age in both Task Series I and Task Series II; Table 8 shous that the differences betueen the mean scores for both Task Series, at each age l e v e l uere not aluays in the same d i r e c t i o n . -55- Table 8. Mean Scores f o r the Age x Task S e r i e s I n t e r a c t i o n Age 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 scores f o r the Age x Task S e r i e s i n t e r a c t i o n , then, suggest that the input and output v a r i a b l e s of sensorimotor d i f f e r - 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 at each age l e v e l s t u d i e d . While the Task S e r i e s I f u n c t i o n appeared to be steeper than the Task S e r i e s I I f u n c t i o n (Figure 1) suggesting that the 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 progressed more r a p i d l y during 3 to 6 years of age than d i d 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 o r Task S e r i e s I I , the design of these sensorimotor tasks does not permit the conclusion that the output aspects of s e n s o r i - motor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n are the most important f a c t o r s i n the per- formance scores of 3 to 6 year o l d s . S i m i l a r l y , u h i l e performance scores under t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c presentations were higher than performance scares under v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n s , these input f a c t o r s can not be considered the most important aspect of the sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s as the a b i l i t y to organize the sensory inform- a t i o n presented uas i n t e r - r e l a t e d u i t h the output v a r i a b l e s r e - quired 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 of age, the mean scare far Task Series II uas higher than the mean score for Task Series I (Figure 1). The motor organization variable, then, appeared to be the determining factor i n performance at t h i s age l e v e l . The majority of children could d i f f e r e n t i a t e the fingers more accurately i f they used a pointing response, as opposed to the i s o l a t e d finger action required. Although t h i s pointing response to the finger indicated uas not studied i n t h i s i n v e s t i g - ation, i t uas a more automatic response at each age l e v e l studied. The use of t h i s pointing response indicated that the children could discriminate betueen the fingers before they could use them for the movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n required on Task Series I. The findings i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 1, then, presumably indicate that the motor organization required for Task Series I uas Dnly minimally developed at 3 years of age. By k years of age, the mean score for Task Series I cl o s e l y approximated the mean score for Task Series II (Figure 3). This uDuld seem to suggest that the motor organization required for Task Series I had progressed to the point uhere the simple l e v e l of motor or output organization required for Task Series II uas not the determining factor i n Task Series comparisons, and both the input and output aspects uere the determinants of sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s . By 5 years of age the a b i l i t y to organize the input and the output aspects of Task Series I seems to have progressed to the point uhere a c e i l i n g e f f e c t uas place on the mean scores. Similar findings uere observed on Task Series II at the 6 year old l e v e l , but, only on the conditions requiring t a c t u a l - kinesthetic organization of the information presented. -57- F i g u r e 1. 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 P r e s e n t a t i o n s a n d V i s u a l P r e s e n t a t i o n s o n T a s k S e r i e s by A g e . 5.0 j 1.0 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 CONDITIONS 'Figure 2. Mean Scores f o r the Age X Conditions Interaction.  -60- It does seem, then, that at each age l e v e l both the input and the output aspects of the sensorimotor d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n tasks studied mere the determinants of performance. Hypothesis 2, was supported. Hypothesis 3 The a b i l i t y to make voluntary movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s requiring v i s u a l organization precedes the a b i l i t y to make voluntary movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s requiring t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c organization. The mean scores for the Age x Condition i n t e r a c t i o n are shown i n Table 9. While an F test revealed that the difference betweem these mean scores was s i g n i f i c a n t , the graphic analysis in Figure 3 indicates that t h i s s t a t i s t i c a l finding was not meaningful. The same trend for conditions was found at each age l e v e l . Ranging from the easiest condition to the hardest condition, t h i s trend was condition 4: ta c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c presentation for non-visual movement response condition 3: tac t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c presentation for v i s u a l movement response condition 2: v i s u a l presentation for non-visual movement response condition 1: v i s u a l presentation for v i s u a l movement response. Hypothesis 3 was, thus, refuted. The difference between mean scores for the s i g n i f i c a n t Conditions main e f f e c t (F = 185.56), p<.01) appears to be attributable to the difference between t a c t u a l - kinesthetic presentations and v i s u a l presentations (Table 7). TA3< Figure h. II T/SK Mean Scores for the Age X Task Series X Dominance Interaction (DI = Dominant; D2 = Non-Dominant) -62- Table 9. Mean Scores f o r the Age x Conditions I n t e r a c t i o n Age V i s u a l -- V i s u a l Movement V i s u a l — Non-visual Movement T a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c v i s u a l movement Ta c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c Non-visual movement 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years 1.3 2.8 3.6 4.0 11.7 1.4 3.1 3.6 4.1 12.2 2.1 3.4 4.0 4.7 14.2 2.4 3.8 4.4 4.8 15.4 Hypothesis 4 I t mas hypothesized that (4) The a b i l i t y to make voluntary movement d i f f e r - e n t i a t i o n s on tasks r e q u i r i n g intra-modal i n t e g r a t i o n develops i n advance of the a b i l i t y to make voluntary movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s on the tasks r e q u i r i n g inter-modal i n t e g r a t i o n . At the time when t h i s hypothesis was formulated, the i n v e s t i g a t o r i n t e r p r e t e d the v i s u a l p r e s entation f o r v i s u a l movement response ( c o n d i t i o n 1) to be an intra-modal c o n d i t i o n . This 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 s t u d i e s had described t h i s type of c o n d i t i o n as intra-modal (Bryant, 1968; L e f f o r d , 1970) but the movement response employed seem to r e q u i r e minimal 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 to 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 research i n -63- i n t e g r a t i v e processing had revealed that v i s u a l intra-modal i n t e g r a t i o n develops i n advance of inter-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 the 'response or i n the presentation and intra-modal h a p t i c and k i n e s t h e t i c processing ( B a i t e r and Fogarty, 1971; 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, 1964). One would expect, then, that Task Se r i e s I I which r e q u i r e d a l e s s e r degree of 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 reported 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 at the 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). This was not shown (Figure 1 ) . I t was concluded, then, that the only intra-modal c o n d i t i o n i n the experimental design of t h i s study was c o n d i t i o n 4, the t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c p r e sentation (passive movement without v i s u a l cues) f o r non - v i s u a l movement ( a c t i v e movement without v i s u a l cues). The mean scores f o r t h i s c o n d i t i o n were higher than the remaining mean scores f o r c o n d i t i o n s on both Task S e r i e s and at each age l e v e l s t u d i e d . Hypothesis 4 i f r e v i s e d to read 'intra-modal task' and not 'intra-modal t a s k s ' was supported. During the 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 that the a v a i l a b i l i t y of v i s u a l information f o r response ( c o n d i t i o n s 1 and 3) oft e n confused the c h i l d r e n . While the modality through which inform a t i o n regarding the hands and f i n g e r s i s obtained appears to be the s i g n i f i c a n t aspect of the co n d i t i o n s employed i n t h i s study, the s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e s between the mean scores of co n d i t i o n s 1 and 2 and between the mean scores of con d i t i o n s 3 and 4 should not be t o t a l l y discounted. The data does seem to support however, Rudel's and Teuber's (1964) suggestion that the developmental -64- trends for integrative processing may be dependent upon the modality which most r e a d i l y permits d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n on the task employed ( v i s u a l for object form d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , haptic for texture d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c for body part d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ) . Hypothesis 5 It was hypothesized that: (5) The a b i l i t y to make voluntary movement d i f f e r - entiations along the dominant side of the body precedes the a b i l i t y to make voluntary movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s along the non-dominant side of the body. An F test revealed a s i g n i f i c a n t Dominant main e f f e c t (F = 199.06, p<.01) further interactions with Dominance were also s i g n i f i c a n t (Appendix G). The mean scores for the Age x Dominance in t e r a c t i o n are shown i n Table 10. Table 10. Mean Scores for the Age x Dominance Interaction Age Dominant Hand Man-Dominant Hand 3 years 2.3 1.3 4 years 3.5 3.0 5 years 4.2 3.5 6 years 4.7 4.2 -65- Table ID shous that dominant hand mean scores uere higher than non-dominant hand mean scores at 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 the 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) that t h i s trend a p p l i e d to both Task S e r i e s (Figure 4 ) . One uauld expect that the d i f f e r e n c e betueen these mean scores uould be more no t i c e a b l e on Task S e r i e s I uhich 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 to Task S e r i e s I I . This r e s u l t uas obtained at the 4, 5 and 6 year o l d l e v e l s but not at the 3 year o l d l e v e l . The c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the p o s i t i o n s used i n Task S e r i e s I I and the uay i n uhich the c h i l d r e n reproduced these p o s i t i o n s may c l a r i f y t h i s apparent incon- s i s t e n c y . A l l 6 p o s i t i o n s presented i n v o l v e d both the r i g h t hand and the l e f t hand. The maj o r i t y of 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 lea d i n g u i t h the dominant hand. They uould p o s i t i o n t h i s hand and then t r y t D determine the r e - l a t i o n s h i p D f the non-dominant hand. I f the dominant hand uas placed i n the c o r r e c t p o s i t i o n i t uas recorded as a co r r e c t d i f f e r - e n t i a t i o n and assigned ( 1 ) . By 4 years of age, t h i s approach to the reproduction of the 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 of the g e s t a l t of the 2 hands i n o r i e n t a t i o n as they uere moved together. I t uas not as r e a d i l y observable 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 to the dominant or the non-dominant hand. As a r e s u l t , the 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 no t i c e a b l e as on Task Se r i e s I . There uas, houever a r e l i a n c e on the dominant hand i n the c r o s s - over p o s i t i o n s (2 and 3), as, u n t i l 6 years of age the dominant hand uas u i t h feu exceptions, p o s i t i o n e d an top of the non-dominant -66- hand regardless of the actual p o s i t i o n presented. The findings, then, presumably qualify the manner in which motor organization proceeds. Hypothesis 5 was supported; and seems to support the findings of Task Series III that dominance e f f e c t s can be extracted as early as 3 years of age. The data of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n suggests that developmental s i g n i f i c a n c e of an organized model of the body l i e s in the sensorimotor development of the 3 to 6 year old c h i l d . .General Discussion The findings of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n seem to indicate that the relevance of body part d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n to the neurological and cognitive development of the 3 to 6 year old c h i l d l i e s i n the organization of tv-insorimotor functions. Body Schema The findings of t h i s study are i n agreement with the view adopted by Berges and Lezine (1965); i f the development of the body schema i s studied by observing the motor u t i l i z a t i o n of t h i s subconscious,physiological model, the perceptual-motor factors of the pre-school c h i l d ' s development predominate over the perceptual factors considered e s s e n t i a l to t h i s synthesized schema formulated by Head (1920). while the topography of the hands and 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 perceived 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 i n t e r - r e l a t e d with motor organization on both Task Series and at each age l e v e l (Figures 1 and 2). -67- The findings of t h i s study related to higher mean scores for t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c presentations in comparison to v i s u a l presentations da seem to support, however, Konorski's (1967) contention that information coming from the angular displacement of the j o i n t s (position information, i n t h i s study presented through passive movement or the t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c system in the absence of v i s u a l information) i s the predominant sensory system in body schema a c q u i s i t i o n . In view of Head's (1920) tenet that hand-finger schemata may be used as an excellent i n d i c a t i o n of the development of the t o t a l body schema, the findings of t h i s i nvestigation indicate that the development of the body schema s t a b i l i z e s around 5 to 6 years of age. The t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c organization of the body, apparently, s t a b i l i z i n g before the v i s u a l organization of the body (Figure 2). Psychological Considerations Piaget (1954) has attributed the significance of body awareness to the development of s p a t i a l schemata at the pre- operational stage of l o g i c a l thought development (approximately 2 to 7 years). Furthermore, Piaget (1953) has suggested that the notion of space, at t h i s l e v e l , i s predominantly t i e d to sensori- motor schemata. It would seem, in l i g h t of the present investigation, that the use of the neurological term, body schema as a synthesis of body schemata (hand-finger schemata) i s an appropriate, more operational d e f i n i t i o n of body awareness. Piaget (1954) has also emphasized the importance of d i f f e r - -68- entiated motor a c t i v i t y for the development of an understanding of space. The findings of t h i s investigation (Figure 1; hypothesis 2), discussed i n the previous section would seem to support t h i s contention. Within Piaget's (1954) t h e o r e t i c a l framework for the development of s p a t i a l comprehension, l a t e r a l i t y or the i n t e r n a l understanding of the r i g h t and l e f t co-ordinates of the body i s the f i r s t notion of space said to develop. Kephart (I960) has suggested that l a t e r a l i t y i s established i n the t y p i c a l c h i l d by formal school age. It. would seem, then, that these psychologists have used the term l a t e r a l i t y to r e f e r to the understanding of ri g h t and l e f t at the sensorimotor l e v e l of neurological organ- i z a t i o n , as the findings of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n indicate that sensorimotor functions, pertaining to the body, s t a b i l i z e around 5 to 6 years of age (Figure 3, Appendix F ) . Kephart (1960) suggested that i n the projection of l a t e r - a l i t y , termed d i r e c t i o n a l i t y , form and distance are the most important aspects in learning to read. In addition to the estab- lishment of l a t e r a l i t y and d i r e c t i o n a l i t y , Kephart (1960) and Radler and Kephart (1960) have contended that the establishment of v i s u a l - motor integration i s necessary for learning to read. According to Radler and Kephart (1960), the c o r o l l a r y of t h i s also holds; i f a c h i l d displays reading 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, in the present study i t was indicated that the sensorimotor organization of body part d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s not the same as the sensorimotor organization required for form perception (Baiter and Fogarty, 1971; Birch and Lefford, 1963; -69- Rudel and Teuber, 1964). I t may be argued, then, that i f a c h i l d d i s p l a y s reading d i f f i c u l t y the nature Df t h i s d i f f i c u l t y should be i n i t i a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d . I f the problem l i e s i n sensorimotor 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 should be i d e n t i f i e d to ensure that the remedial t r a i n i n g i s appropriate to developing the sensorimotor a b i l i t i e s r e q u i r e d . N e u r o l o g i c a l Considerations In view of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , i t would seem that Geschwind's (1965) proposal, c i t e d by Butters 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 region as the mediator f o r cr o s s - modal i n t e g r a t i o n s may e x p l a i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the 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 disturbance, associated with 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 lobe. 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 i n t e g - r a t i o n i s damaged i t would seem to f o l l o w that behaviors 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 the procedures used to measure these a b i l i t i e s are c l o s e l y approximated i n terms of s p e c i f i c i n t e g r a t i v e demands re q u i r e d i t would seem that recorded performances would be n e c e s s a r i l y s i m i l a r . The neu r o p a t h o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n s discussed i n Chapter I I a l l r e q u i r e d s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of a visual-motor nature (excluding some measurements of aphasia); i t does not seem unusual, then, that p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between these disorders have f r e q u e n t l y been reported. I t may be deduced that the d i s s i m i l a r reports of assoc i a t e d 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 to the inherent 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 of these behaviors employed by various researchers. A s i m i l a r argument could be used to 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 reported f o r reading d i s a b i l i t y cor- r e l a t e s (Chalfant and S c h e f f l i n , 1969). I n t e g r a t i v e Processing Considerations The sensory i n t e g r a t i o n s t u d i e s i n 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; 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 of pre-schoDl c h i l d r e n to t r e a t s t i m u l i presented to one modality or to 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 discussed elsewhere i n t h i s chapter that the developmental trend reported 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 trend i n d i c a t e d i n t h i s study. This d i s t i n c t i o n i s elaborated below. The f i n d i n g s of these form perception s t u d i e s have i n d i c a t e d that i n i t i a l l y r e l i a n c e i s placed on the v i s u a l system, i r r e s p e c t i v e of the intra-modal (minimal motor response required) or the i n t e r - modal aspects of the task. Mot u n t i l 5 to 7 years of age was an equivalence between the v i s u a l system and the 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) or between the v i s u a l system and the ha p t i c system ( B a i t e r and Fogarty, 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 equivalence between these systems, i t may be as was the case i n the present study, that the design of the sensorimotor tasks placed a c e i l i n g e f f e c t on the performance scores of 5 and 6 year o l d c h i l d r e n . In t h i s study, r e l i a n c e seemed to be placed on the t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c system as opposed to the v i s u a l system. The f i n d i n g s of the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n , then, seem to be i n agreement with honorski's (1967.) contention that p o s i t i o n information ( t a c t u a l - -71- kinesthetic presentations) i s the predominant sensory system in 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 nvestigation w i l l now be discussed in terms of Lefford's (1970) study which concommitantly examined the development of k voluntary actions i n 3 to 5)k year old children with the development of the sensory aspects of the hand-finger schemata. By 4 years Df age, Lefford suggested that the topography of the hands and fingers was equally d i f f e r e n t i a t e d when perceived 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 . This may have been a t t r i b - utable to the c e i l i n g e f f e c t on performance as revealed i n the present study. Lefford also suggested that the v i s u a l hand-finger schemata appeared tD be more advanced at the 3 year old l e v e l , than the t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c schemata. This was not indicated i n the present study and may be p a r t i a l l y explained by considering that Lefford's t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c presentations were described as heavy touch outside Df the f i e l d of v i s i o n while the presentations in t h i s study were passive movements without v i s u a l information a v a i l a b l e . Perhaps, the information conveyed by these two d i s - tinguishable t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c presentations was of a d i f f e r e n t nature. Lefford further suggested that his findings indicated that the sensory systems are i n i t i a l l y unrelated and become i n t e r - co-ordinated with the development of the c h i l d . The findings of t h i s study support Lefford's reasoning; and presumably indicate the importance of neurological organization to the psychological -72- development of the c h i l d u i t h uhich 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 of motor responses: i t must be evident that uhen the execution of a movement or an a c t i o n depends on the t r a n s - l a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n from one sensory modality to another, the a c t i o n cannot be e f f e c t e d u n t i l an equivalence 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 study, i t seems that L e f f o r d uas suggesting that voluntary movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s i n h e r e n t l y r e q u i r e an understanding of the t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c topography of the body. U n t i l an equivalence i s approached betueen the v i s u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and 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 voluntary 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 organ- 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 that the development of voluntary movements during the pre-school years must be stu d i e d concommitantly u i t h the sensory o r g a n i z a t i o n of the topography of the body r e q u i r e d . -73- CHAPTER M SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This developmental study attempted to distinguish betueen the preference 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 of body parts by 3 to 6 year old c h i l d r e n . The development of the body schema defined as the neurological model of the sensorimotor aspects of body parts uas emphasized. Summary Head (1920) o r i g i n a l l y formulated the term body schema and conceived t h i s phenomenon to be a synthesis of the sensory afferents pertaining to the body. Berges and Lezine (1965) have suggested that the si 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. The findings of t h i s investigation indicate that Berges' and Lezine's (1965) approach may dissipate the confusion in the i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y research concerned uith the relevance of t h i s organized model of the body in the development of pre- school c h i l d r e n . Experimental conditions and procedures Four Task Series uere administered; Task Series I uas sensorimotor finger l o c a l i z a t i o n ; Task Series II uas sensorimotor hand-finger orientation; Task Series III uas hand preference and -74- f o o t p r e f e r e n c e ; T a s k S e r i e s IU u a s t h e v e r b a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g Df b o d y p a r t s u i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e r i g h t a n d l e f t c o - o r d i n a t e s o f t h e b o d y . F o u r d i f f e r e n t e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s t h a t i n v o l v e d v i s u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n s a n d 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 f o r v i s u a l m o v e m e n t r e s p o n s e a n d n a n - v i s u a l movement r e s p o n s e u e r e u s e d i n T a s k S e r i e s I a n d T a s k S e r i e s I I . T h e movement r e s p o n s e s t u d i e d i n T a s k S e r i e s I u a s t h e i s o l a t e d movement o f t h e one f i n g e r p r e s e n t e d ; t h e movement r e s p o n s e s t u d i e d i n T a s k S e r i e s I I u a s t h e p l a c e m e n t o f t h e h a n d s a n d f i n g e r s i n t h e o r i e n t a t i o n p o s i t i o n p r e s e n t e d . T a s k S e r i e s I r e q u i r e d a more c o m p l e x m o t o r s c h e m a t h a n d i d T a s k I I , u h i l e T a s k I I r e q u i r e d a more c o m p l e x s p a t i a l s c h e m a t h a n d i d T a s k I. I n e a c h e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n o f T a s k S e r i e s I, t h e 5 f i n g e r s o f e a c h h a n d u e r e p r e s e n t e d f o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . T h e d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s s t u d i e d u a s t h e s c o r e a n an o r d i n a l s c a l e o f • -5. In T a s k S e r i e s I I , 6 h a n d - f i n g e r o r i e n t a t i o n p o s i t i o n s i n v o l v i n g b o t h h a n d s u e r e p r e s e n t e d i n e a c h e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n . T h e d e p e n d e n t m e a s u r e s t u d i e d u a s t h e s c o r e on an o r d i n a l s c a l e o f • - 5. T a s k S e r i e s I I I i n v o l v e d 4 t r i a l s o f t h r o u i n g a b a l l u i t h o n e h a n d ( h a n d p r e f e r e n c e ) a n d 4 t r i a l s o f k i c k i n g a b a l l ( f o o t p r e f e r e n c e ) . T h i s T a s k S e r i e s u a s a d m i n i s t e r e d t u i c e a n d no 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 u a s o b t a i n e d . T a s k S e r i e s IU r e q u i r e d t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e e y e , h a n d a n d f o o t u i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e l e f t a n d r i g h t c o - o r d i n a t e s o f t h e b o d y on 6 t r i a l s . T h e s e t r i a l s i n v o l v e d S ' s v e r b a l r e s p o n s e t o t h e b o d y p a r t i n d i c a t e d by E o n S (3 t r i a l s ) ; a n d S ' s i n d i c a t i o n -75- of the body part on s e l f to the verbal instructions given by E to S (3 t r i a l s ) . This Task Series uas administered tuice; u n t i l 6 years of 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 in the Day I and Day II performance uas high. This presumably indicates the verbal i n s t r u c t i o n s requiring a comprehension of right and l e f t uas an i n v a l i d procedure for testing body part d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s of 3 to 5 year old chi l d r e n . Subjects. Sixty-four 3 to 6 year old children, 8 boys and 8 g i r l s i n each category, p a r t i c i p a t e d as subjects in t h i s study. Experimental analyses. The data of Task Series III and IU uas discussed i n terms of the percentage of children at each age l e v e l completing the tasks i n a manner that uould indicate that the a b i l i t y tested uas established. The data of Task Series I and Task Series II 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 parametric AIMDUA ui t h repeated measures on the l a s t 3 f a c t o r s . To analyze the differences betueen mean scores the scores for Task Series II uere transformed to the 0-5 ordina l scale used in Task Series 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 s t a t i s t i c a l test uas interpreted cautiously u i t h the use of graphic analyses. Experimental f i n d i n g s . It uas determined that the major development in the preference organization required for Task Series III occurred prior to 3 years of age. There uas a s i g n i f i c a n t development in the performance scores on Task Series IU observed at 6 years of age, presumably i n d i c a t i n g that the language organ- i z a t i o n required for t h i s Task Series improved rapidly betueen -76- 5 and 6 years of age. The major developments observed i n t h i s study uere on the sensorimotor t a s k s . The a n a l y s i s of variance revealed that the Age, Task S e r i e s , Conditions, and Dominance main e f f e c t s and f i r s t order 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 Conditions i n t e r a c t i o n uas not meaningful as the same trend f o r c o n d i t i o n s uas observed at each age l e v e l . The Sex (Age) main e f f e c t uas not 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 als o n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t . The increase i n Task I mean scores uas more r a p i d across 3 to 6 years than the increase i n Task I I mean scares. This pre- sumably i n d i c a t e s that the motor o r g a n i z a t i o n improved more than 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 the hand-finger schemata s t u d i e d over the 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 uere, houever, i n t e r - r e l a t e d u i t h the sensory aspects of the hands and f i n g e r s at each age l e v e l . U n t i l 5 years of age, 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 d i d not appear to be as developed as the t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c organ- i z a t i o n of the topography of the hands and f i n g e r s . This comparison uas drawn from the mean scores of Task S e r i e s I i n the Age X Task S e r i e s 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 obtained uhen Task S e r i e s I I uas considered. Even at 6 years of age, the mean scores f o r t a c t u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c presentations of Task S e r i e s I I uere higher 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 support Berges 1 and Lezine's (1965) view that the body schema should be st u d i e d as a sensory-motor mechanism and not as a sensory mechanism. These f i n d i n g s a l s o support Konorski's (1967) contention that the information coming -77- from the changes in the angular displacement of the j o i n t s i s the predominant sensory system in the a c q u i s i t i o n of. the body schema. It uas further determined that u n t i l an equivalence i s approached betueen the v i s u a l organization and the t a c t u a l - kinesthetic organization of the hands and fingers, actions re- quiring interco-ordinations betueen these tuo organizational systems u i l l not be as e f f e c t i v e as the actions requiring t a c t u a l - kinesthetic intra-modal t r a n s l a t i o n . Thus, i t seems that the development of voluntary movements in the pre-school c h i l d i s t i e d to the development D f the integration of sensory impressions on the body. Conclusions The'follouing conclusions are based on the experimental findings of t h i s study. 1. The s i g n i f i c a n c e of the developmental phenomenon describing the a b i l i t y of pre-school children to form an organized model of t h e i r body appears to l i e in the neurological development of the c h i l d at the sensorimotor l e v e l of organization. This suggests that the neurological term body schema i s applicable to the research i n develop- mental and educational psychology concerned uith the development of body auareness in the pre-school c h i l d . 2. In studying the motor u t i l i z a t i o n of the body schema, the perceptual-motor organization appears to.be more determinant than the perceptual organization required for 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 - kinesthetic 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 organization of the topography of the hands and fingers approximates the t a c t u a l - - 7 8 - kinesthetic organization of the topography of the hands and fingers voluntary movements requiring interco-ordinations betueen these systems w i l l not be as e f f e c t i v e as those requiring t a c t u a l - kinesthetic intra-modal t r a n s l a t i o n . Directions for Future Research The findings of t h i s study have indicated avenues for further developmental research concerned uith the associations betueen voluntary movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and sensory integration in c h i l d r e n . 1. There uould seem to be a need for research con- cerned u i t h the eff e c t s of sensory integration on the development of voluntary movements i n ch i l d r e n . 2. There uould seem to be a need far research con- cerned u i t h the development of the kinesthetic system and i t s interco-ordination uith other sensory systems for more precise 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 study. 3. There uould seem to be a need for research con- cerned u i t h the effectiveness of d i f f e r e n t cues for motor learning or movement d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n at various 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 intersensory patterning: haptic v i s u a l i n t e g r a t r a t i o n of length and diameter", Monograph Soc. Res. Child Development, 1968. Ames, L„ and Learned, J. "The development of verbalized space in the young c h i l d " , Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1948, 12, 63-84. Arrigoni, G. and De Renzi, E. "Constructional apraxia and hemi- spheric locus of 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 discrimination Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971, 2, 11-20. Ayres, A.J. and Reid, W. "The self-drawing as an expression of perceptual-motor dysfunction", Cortex, 1966, 2, 254-262. Baiter, L. and Fogarty, J . "Intra- and inter-sensory matching by nursery school children", Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1971, 33, 467-472. Bateman, B. "An educator's view of a diagnostic approach to learning disorders", Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1968, 15, 759-769. Belmount, I., Birch, H.G. and Harp, E. "The disordering of intersensory and intrasensory integration by brain damage", Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1965, 141, 410-418. Benson, D.F. and Geschuind, N. "Cerebral dominance and i t s d i s - turbances , "Pe_d^ajtrJ ;c_CJjjT^ 1968, 15, 759-769. Benton, A.L. Right-Left Discrimination and Finger L o c a l i z a t i o n , New York: Hoeber-Harper, 1959. '_. "Ri g h t - l e f t discrimination", P e d i a t r i c C l i n i c s of North America, 1968, 15, 747-758. and Schultz, L.M. "Observations on tactual form perception (stereagnosis) in pre-school children", Journal of C l i n i c a l Psychology, 1949, 5, 359-364. , Sutton, S., Kennedy, J., Brokaw, J. "The cross-modal retardation i n reaction time of patients with cerebral disease", Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1962, 135 413-418... - 8 1 - B e r g e s , J . a n d L e z i n e , I. " T h e i m i t a t i o n o f g e s t u r e s " , C l i n i c s i n D e v e l o p m e n t a l M e d i c i n e , 1 9 6 5 , W h o l e n o . 1 8 , B i r c h , H . G . a n d B e l m o u n t , I. " A u d i t o r y - v i s u a l i n t e g r a t i o n i n n o r m a l a n d r e t a r d e d r e a d e r s " , A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f O r t h o - p s y c h i a t r y , 1 9 6 4 , 3 4 , 8 5 2 - 8 6 1 . . " A u d i t o r y - v i s u a l i n t e g r a t i o n , i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d r e a d i n g a b i l i t y i n s c h o o l c h i l d r e n " , P e r c e p t u a l a n d M o t o r S k i l l s , 1 9 6 5 , 2 0 , 2 9 5 - 3 0 5 . o r ' a n d B o r t n e r , M. " P e r c e p t u a l a n d p e r c e p t u a l m o t o r d i s s o c i a t i o n i n b r a i n d a m a g e d p a t i e n t s " , J o u r n a l o f N e r v o u s a n d M e n t a l D i s e a s e , 1 9 6 0 , 1 3 0 , 4 9 . a n d L e f f o r d , A . " I n t e r s e n s o r y d e v e l o p m e n t i n c h i l d r e n " , M o n o g r a p h s f o r S o c . R e s . C h i l d D e v e l o p m e n t , 1 9 6 3 , W h o l e n o . 8 9 . B l a n k , M . a n d A l t m a n , D . " E f f e c t o f s t i m u l u s m o d a l i t y a n d 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 a n d r e v e r s a l l e a r n i n g i n p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n " , J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l C h i l d P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 8 , 6 , 5 9 8 - 6 0 6 . a n d B r i d g e r , W. " C r o s s - m o d a l t r a n s f e r i n n u r s e r y s c h o o l c h i l d r e n " , J o u r n a l o f C o m p a r a t i v e P h y s i o l . P s y c h o l o g y , 1 9 6 4 , 5 8 , 2 7 7 - 2 8 2 . B o r t n e r , M.-, B i r c h , H . G . " P e r c e p t u a l a n d p e r c e p t u a l m o t o r d i s - s o c i a t i o n i n c e r e b r a l p a l s i e d c h i l d r e n " , J o u r n a l o f IMervous a n d M e n t a l D i s e a s e , 1 9 6 0 , 1 3 4 , 1 0 3 - 1 0 8 . B o y l e , D . G . A S t u d e n t ' s G u i d e t o P i a g e t , New Y o r k : P e r g a m o n P r e s s . 1 9 6 9 . B r u m b a c h , W . B . "A r e s p o n s e t o P e t r i e ' s r lo te on s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f a t t i t u d e s c a l e s c o r e s " , R e s e a r c h Q u a r t e r l y , 1 9 6 9 , 4 0 , 4 3 6 - 4 3 7 . B r u n e r , J . S . " T h e c o u r s e o f c o g n i t i v e g r o w t h " , A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t , 1 9 6 4 , 1 9 , 1 - 1 5 . B r y a n t , 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 a n d c r o s s - m o d a l t r a n s f e r " , C o r t e x , 1 9 6 8 , 4 , 1 2 8 - 1 2 7 . B u t t e r s , N . " T h e r o l e o f t h e p a r i e t a l l o b e s i n t h e m e d i a t i o n o f some d e v e l o p m e n t a l - c o g n i t i v e p h e n o m e n a " , c i t e d i n S p a r r o w a n d S a t z , 1 9 7 0 a . a n d B r o d y , B . " T h e r o l e o f t h e l e f t p a r i e t a l l o b e i n t h e m e d i a t i o n o f i n t r a - a n d c r o s s - m o d a l a s s o c i a t i o n s " , C o r t e x , 1 9 6 8 , 4_, 3 2 8 - 3 4 3 . -82- Carlson, J. "Same relationships betueen .verbal and perceptual c a p a b i l i t i e s and the development of r e l a t i v e thinking", Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1971, 118, 115-119. Ca t t e l , P. The Measurement of Intelligence of Infants and Young Children, Neu York: Psychological Corp., 1940. Chalfant, J.C. and S c h e f f l i n , M.A. Central Processing Dysfunctions in Children: A Revieu of the Research, U.S. Dept.of Health, Education and Welfare, 1969. Chaney, CM. and Kephart, (M.C. Motoric Aids to Perceptual Training, Columbus, Ohio: C.E. M e r r i l l Pub. Co., 1968. Conners, G.R., Schuette, C. and Goldman, A. "Informal analysis of intersensory communication in children of d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l c l a s s " , Child Development, 1967, 38, 251-266. Cornish, R. "Effects of neurological t r a i n i n g on psychomotor a b i l i t i e s i n kindergarten children", Journal of Experimental Education, 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 " , Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1920, 27, 71-89. Cri t c h l e y , M. Developmental Dyslexia, London: Heinemann, 1964. . "Dysgraphia and other anomolies of u r i t t e n speech", Pe d i a t r i c C l i n i c s of North America, 1968a, 15_, 639-650. ;. "Reversals in language: the importance of kines- t h e t i c feedback systems", Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1968b, 1, 722-725. " Cronbach, L.J. Essentials in Psychological Testing, Neu York: Harper and Rou, 1970. Denhoff, E., Hainsuorth, P. and Siqueland, M. "The measurement of p s c h D n e u r o l D g i c a l f a c t o r s 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 " , Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1968, I, 636-643. De Renzi, E. and Piera, F. "The r e l a t i o n s h i p betueen v i s u o - s p a t i a l impairment and c o n s t r u c t i o n a l apraxia", Cortex, 1967, 3_, 327-341. Egan, D.F., I l l i n g u a r t h , R.S. and MacKeith, R.C. "Developmental screening 0-5 years", C l i n i c s i n Developmental Medicine, 1970, Whole no. 30. Elkind, D. and F l a v e l l , J . eds. Studies i n Cognitive Development, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969. -83- Gaddes, W.H. "Can educational psychology be neurologized". Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science , 1969, Whole no. 1. Gesell, A. The Child from Five to Ten, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1946. . The F i r s t Five Years of L i f e , New York: Harper and Brothers, 1940. Getzels, J. and Jackson, P.U. C r e a t i v i t y and Intelligence, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Ginsburg, H. and Qpper, I. Piaget'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.: Prentice-Hall, 1969. Godfrey, B. and Kephart, N.C. Movement Patterns and Motor Education, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969. Goodenough, F. Developmental Psychology, New York: Appleton- Century-Crof ts , 1959. Gui l f o r d . J.P. "Structure of the i n t e l l e c t " , Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1956, 53, 226-293. Head, H. Studies i n Neurology, 1920. Hebb, D.O. The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological • Theory, New York: John Wiley, 1949. Hunt, J. McU. Intelligence and Experience, New York: Ronald Press Co., 1961. . Psychology in the Schools. New York: Ronald Press Co., 1968. Howard, I.P. and Templeton, W.B. Human S p a t i a l Orientation, New York: John Wiley, 1966. Isaacs, N. The Growth of Understanding in the Young Child, London: Ward Lock Co., 1966. Jammer, J. Concepts of Space. New York: Ronald Press Co., 1961. Kephart, N.C. The Slow Learner in 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 behavioral c r i t e r i o n for conservation of i l l u s i o n distorted length in f i v e year olds", Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1971, _11, 171-181. Kinsbourne, M. "Developmental Gerstmann's syndrome", Pediatric C l i n i c s of North America, 1968, 15, 771-777. - 8 4 - Kanorski, J. Integrative A c t i v i t y of the Brain, An I n t e r d i s - c i p l i n a r y Approach, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967. Hflrner, S. Conceptual Thinking, a Logical Inquiry, Cambridge: University Press, 1955. Krathammer, G. "Form perception across sensory modalities", American Psychologist, 1959, 14, 396 . Lange, J. "Finger agnosie and agraphie", Mschr. Psychiat. Neurol. 1930, 76 , 129-188 . c i t e d by Stone ( 1968 ) . Lefford, A. "Sensory, perceptual and cognitive factors i n the development of voluntary actions", i n Mechanisms of Motor S k i l l Development, ed. K.J. Conolly, Neu York: Academic Press, 1970, 207 -217 . Luria, A.R. "Neuropsychology in the l o c a l diagnosis of brain 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 mentally retarded", Mental Retardation, 1954, Whole no. 9 0 . , and McCarthy, J.F. Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1970. Martens, R. "Subject and experimenter errors i n behavioral research u i t h p a r t i c u l a r reference to motor behavior", Journal of Motor Behavior, 1970, 11 , 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 children", Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1940, 57 , 119 -151 . Montessori, M. The Montessori Method, Neu York: Schocken Books, 1964. Muehl, S. and Kremenak, S. " A b i l i t y to match information betueen auditory and v i s u a l sense modalities and subsequent reading achievement", Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966, 41 , 230 -238 . Munn, N.L. The Evolution of Grouth and Human Behavior, Boston: Houghton Mufflin, 1965. Myklebust, H.R. "Learning disorders: psychoneurological disturb- ances in childhood", Rehabilitation Literature, 1964, 25, 354 -360 . Piaget, J. Judgement and Reasoning in the Child, Neu York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. 1928. -85- Piaget, J . The B r i g i n s of I n t e l l i g e n c e i n the C h i l d , London: Routledge and Paul, 1953. . The Construction of R e a l i t y i n the C h i l d , New York: Basic Books, 1954. . The Mechanisms of Perception, London: Routledge and Pau l , 1964. . The C h i l d ' s Conception of Movement and Speed, London: Routledge and Paul, 1970. , and Inhelder, B. The C h i l d ' s Conception of Space, London: Routledge and Paul, 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 " , Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 3, 279-288. Poeck, H. and Orgass, B. "Gerstmann's syndrome and aphasia,"Cortex, 1966, 2, 421-437. Poincare, H. Mathematics and Science, Last Essays, New York: Dover P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1953. Radler, D.H. and Kephart, N.C. Success Through Play, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. Rice, J . " R i g h t - l e f t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n : systematic r e v e r s a l i n b r i g h t c h i l d r e n " , J o u r n a l of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1968, 1, 654-659. Reitan, R. C l i n i c a l Examinations 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 clumsiness", P e d i a t r i c C l i n i c s of North America, 1968, 15, 601-610. Rubin, E.Z. and Braun, J.S. "Behavioral 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 with c o g n i t i v e motor dysfunction," Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1968, 26_, 171-180. Rudel, 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 " , Neuropsychologia, 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 of the Soci 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 p o s s i b l e clue to mechanism", Neuropsychologia, 1968, 6_, 11-26. -86- Semmes, J., Weinstein, S., Ghent, L. and Teuber, H.L. Somata- sensory Changes After Penetrating Brain Wounds i n Man, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 196D. Sherrington, C S . Man on His Nature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950. Smith, A. "Certain hypothesized hemispheric differences i n language and v i s u a l functions i n human adults, "Cortex, 1966, 1_, 109-126. Sparrous, S. and Statz,P. "Spec i f i c developmental dyslexia: a t h e o r e t i c a l formulating,"Specific Reading D i s a b i l i t y , eds. D. Bakker and P. Satz, Amsterdam: Rotterdam University Press, 1970a. . "Dyslexia, l a t e r a l i t y and neuro- psychological development, S p e c i f i c Reading D i s a b i l i t y , eds. D. Bakker and P. Satz, Amsterdam: Rotterdam University Press, 1970b. Spreen, 0. and Benton, A. "Comparative studies of some psychological tests for cerebral damage", Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1965, 140, 323-333. , M i l l e r , CG., Benton, A.L. "The phi test and measures of l a t e r a l i t y in children and adults", Cortex, 1968, 2, 308-321. Stengel, E. "Loss of s p a t i a l o rientation, constructional apraxia and Gerstmann's syndrome", Journal of Mental Science, 1944, 90, 753-760. Stone, F.G. and Robinson, D.L. "Effect of response mode on finger l o c a l i z a t i o n errors," Cortex, 1968, 4-, 233-244. Wallach, M. and Kogan, N. Modes of Thinking in Young Children, Neu York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, 1965. Weinstein, S. " D e f i c i t s concommitant u i t h aphasia or lesions of either cerebral hemisphere", Cortex, 1964, 1, 154-169. Werner, H. Comparative Psychology of Mental Development, Neu York: International University Press, 1957. A P P E N D I X A WOODEN FRAME A P P A R A T U S FOR T A S K S E R I E S I AND I I APPENDIX A Subject's View Experimenter's \7iew Scale: 1/10" = wooden Frame Apparatus for Task Series I and II APPENDIX B PHOTOGRAPHS FOR TASK SERIES I  - 9 1 - APPENDIX C PHOTOGRAPHS FOR TASK SERIES  P o s i t i o n 1 I VD Ln Position 2 '  Position k II I r P o s i t i o n 5 Position 6 APPENDIX D EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN -101- Order of P r e s e n t a t i o n The order of presentation of the f i n g e r s i n Task Se 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 of random numbers f o r Order I and uas-reversed f o r Order I I . Task S e r i e s I . The l i t t l e f i n g e r of the r i g h t hand uas designated (1) and the l i t t l e f i n g e r of the l e f t hand uas des- ignated (10). The numbers ranged across the r i g h t hand to the l e f t hand from (1) to (10). Order 1 5 1 6 9 3 8 2 10 4 7 Order 2 7 4 10 2 8 3 9 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 assigned a number (Appendix C). L a t i n Square The c o n d i t i o n s and orders of pr e s e n t a t i o n uere counter- balanced 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 year o l d males). Order 1 1 3 6 5 2 4 Order 2 4 2 5 6 3 1 Table 1.1. 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 of Stimulus Presen t a t i o n Order of Condition P r e s e n t a t i o n 01 O i l SI S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 C4 C l C2 C3 C l C3 C4 C2 C2 C4 C3 C l C3 C2 C l C4 Table 1.2. 4 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 4 E x p e r i m e n t a l D esign f a r the S e n s o r i m o t o r Task S e r i e s I and I I 6 y e a r s Boys G i r l s Bays 5 y e a r s G i r l s 4 y e a r s Bays G i r l s 3 y e a r s Boys G i r l s Task S e r i e s I Task S e r i e s I I Dominant Hand Nan-Dominant Hand Dominant Hand Non-Dominant Hand C l C2 C3 C4 (5) (5) (5) (5) C l C2 C3 C4 (5) (5) (5) (5) C l C2 C3 C4 (5) ( 5) (5) (5) C l C2 C3 C4 (5) (5) (5) (5) • r\3 Table 1.3. Method of Recording Responses in the k Experimental Conditions of Task Series I. I n d i v i d u a l f i n g e r L e f t Index R i g h t Index L e f t L i t t l e R i g h t Ring L e f t M i d dle R i g h t M i d d l e L e f t Ring L e f t Thumb R i g h t Thumb L e f t L i t t l e p r e s e n t a t i o n (7) <<0 (10) (2 ) (8) (3 ) ("3) (6) (5 ) (1) T o t a l s N i ght Hand L e f t Hanc lavement D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n C o r r e c t (1) I n c o r r e c t (0) '.ature of the E r r o r d i f f i c u l t y i n i s o l a t i n g " i n g e r movement j r o n g f i n g e r R t : TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL L t : TIMRL L t : TIMRL L t : TIMRL R t : TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL L t : RIMRL L t : TIMRL L t : TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL L t : TIMRL L t : TIMRL L t : TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL L t : TIMRL L t : TIMRL L t : TIMRL R t : TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL L t : TIMRL L t : TIMRL L t : TIMRL L t : TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL L t : TIMRL L t : TIMRL L t : TIMRL _. M O, L t : 1 IMrlL -10k- Table l.k. Method of Recording Responses in Task Series III Testing Session Hand Preference Right Left Foot Preference Right Left Day I k t r i a l s Day II k t r i a l s T otal Table 1. 5. Method of Recording Responses in Task Series IU Body Part Day I Day II Body Part Right-Left Body Part Right-Left Uerbal i n d i c a t i o n r i g h t eye l e f t foot r i g h t hand Uerbal response ri g h t foot l e f t eye l e f t hand Totals - IDS- A P P E N D I X E I N S T R U C T I O N S F O R T A S K S E R I E S I - I V -IDS- APPENDIX E Instructions for Task Series I - IU Day Investigation Phase Uerbal Instructions given to the subject C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Instructions Day I Approach to subject Day I Hand, foot Would you l i k e to play some games ui t h me? 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 S: No; E did not force the c h i l d into the testing s i t u a t i o n S: Yes; E took c h i l d to the testing room Free play Hand-finger d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Why don't ue play u i t h the b a l l ? Can you throu i t to me? Goad, nau can you kick the b a l l ? Nou I ' l l cover t h i s eye, i s your finger s t i l l painting at the spot? Let's play some finger games nau. Come ui t h me and u e ' l l s i t daun at the table If tuo hand used i n i t i a l l y , S asked to use one hand for throuing. Hand preference on k t r i a l s observed Foot preference on 4 t r i a l s observed Left eye covered. Appendix A Condition 1 v i s u a l - v i s u a l Do you knou uhat these are? Nou I uant you to put your hands Dn the box, l i k e t h i s . Push your fingers doun on the box, l i k e t h i s . Good! Photographs of the hands shoun Appendix A In t h i s finger game I'm going to point to one finger on the picture, l i k e t h i s L i t t l e finger of the l e f t hand indicated -107- APPEMDIX E (continued) Day I n v e s t i g a t i o n Phase Verbal i n s t r u c t i o n s given to the subject C l a r i f i c a t i o n of I n s t r u c t i o n s Then I'm going tD hide the p i c t u r e f i n g e r , l i k e t h i s As soon as I hide the f i n g e r I want you to f i n d the one f i n g e r on your hand and shou i t to me Cardboard placed over both photographs f o r successive presentation 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 that shou me the one f i n g e r anyuay 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 Let's t r y i t Point to the f i n g e r , then c u r l a l l the other f i n g e r s under then u i g g l e 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 f o r 3 sec. to c l a r i f y i n s t r u c t i o n s C o ndition 2 v i s u a l - k i n e s t h e t i c Good, nDu l e t ' s t r y some more. Remember . shou me the one f i n g e r that I painted tD on the p i c t u r e . Let's go! 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 them daun on the t a b l e . Good! In t h i s f i n g e r game, I'm going to point to one f i n g e r on the p i c t u r e l i k e t h i s Then I'm going to hide the p i c t u r e f i n g e r , l i k e t h i s Proceed as the order of f i n g e r present- a t i o n i n d i c a t e s , record as i n Appendix D Hands kept i n a constant prone pos- i t i o n throughout presentations Appendix A 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 Cardboard placed over both photographs f o r successive present- a t i o n -IDS- APPENDIX E (continued) Day I n v e s t i g a t i o n Phase Uerbal i n s t r u c t i o n s given to the subject C l a r i f i c a t i o n of I n s t r u c t i o n s As soon as I hide 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 to me. But you have to keep your hands h i d i n g i n the box a l l the time. 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 t h i s point to i t u i t h opposite 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 sec. to c l a r i f y i n s t i u c t i o n s C o n dition 3 k i n e s t h e t i c - v i s u a l Good, nou l e t ' s t r y some more. Remember shou me the one f i n g e r . that I point to on the p i c t u r e . Let's go! 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 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 Proceed as the order of f i n g e r present- a t i o n i n d i c a t e s , record as i n Appendix D Hands kept i n a constant prone p o s i t i o n throughout presentations Appendix A 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 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 that I moved by moving i t up and doun -IDS- APPENDIX E (continued) Day Investigation Verbal i n s t r u c t i o n s C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Phase given to the subject Instructions l i k e t h i s . If you can't do that shou the one finger any uay you l i k e , then try and uiggle the one finger l i k e t h i s Let's try i t ! L i t t l e finger on the l e f t hand indicated by moving i t up and doun 3 times, 3 sec. to c l a r i f y i n - structions Condition k k i n e s t h e t i c - kinesthetic Good, nou l e t ' s try some more! Remember to shou me the one finger I move. Let's go! 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 In t h i s finger game, I'm going to move one of fingers up and doun l i k e t h i s Ulhen I stop moving your one finger I uant you to try and shou me the one finger I moved by moving i t up and doun l i k e t h i s . If you can't do that shou me the one finger any uay you l i k e , then try and uiggle the one finger l i k e t h i s , you have to keep your hands hiding i n the box Let's t ry i t Proceed as order of finger presentation indicates, record as i n Appendix D Hands kept in a constant prone pos i t i o n throughout present- ations. Appendix L i t t l e finger on l e f t hand indicated for 3 seconds to c l a r i f y i n s t r u c t i o n s L i t t l e finger on the l e f t hand indicated 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 try some more! Remember shou me the one finger I move. Let's go. Proceeds order of finger presentation indicates, record as in Appendix D -11D- APPENDIX E (continued) Day Investigation Phase Uerbal instr u c t i o n s given to the subject C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Instructions Day I Uerbal compre- hension of rig h t and l e f t u i t h respect to body part i d e n t i f i c a t i o n C l a r i f i c a t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n s E verbal- S pointing E pointing- S verbal Let's t ry another game nou What's th i s ? What's th i s ? Which ear? What's i t ' s name? Can you f i n d your ri g h t eye and point to i t ? Can you f i n d your l e f t foot and point to i t ? Can you f i n d your r i g h t hand and point to i t ? What's t h i s ? What's t h i s ? What's t h i s ? Presented after the f i r s t 2 conditions in each subject's Day I test i n g session. Move auay from table to o f f s e t boredom and learning nose indicated r i g h t arm indicated r i g h t and l e f t c l a r i f i e d l e f t eye indicated r i g h t foot indicated l e f t hand indicated Day II Approach to Subject "Hi did you l i k e the Hand-foot preference Hand-finger orientations games ue played l a s t time? Do you uant to- play some more?" "Let's play uith the b a l l again...." "We've got some neu finger games today. Neu pictures too - Look!" "You s i t at the table r i g h t here and I ' l l s i t over here, put your hands on the box, l i k e t h i s . " S: "No". E played u i t h c h i l d u n t i l ready to come for tes t i n g S:"Yes". E took c h i l d to the testing room immediately Hand-foot preference observed in the same manner as Day I T r i a l photographs shoun Appendix C Appendix A -111- APPENDIX E (continued) Day Investigation Verbal instr u c t i o n s C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Phase given to the subject Instructions Condition 1 v i s u a l - v i s u a l l\lou I'm going to shou you a picture l i k e t h i s T r i a l photograph (Appendix C) presented for 3 sees. Then I ' l l hide the hands i n the picture l i k e t h i s And then I uant you to do the same things uith your hands as the picture hands did "Let's t ry i t . 'Remember i t ' s a quiet game, uatch c l o s e l y ! " Cardboard placed over the photo- graph This photograph (Appendix C) shoun for 3 sec. S response, to ensure i n - structions clear Condition 2 Vi s u a l - kinesthetic "Good, l e t ' s try some more " "In t h i s game I uant you to keep your hands in the box l i k e t h i s " "IMou I'm going to shou you a picture l i k e t h i s " Proceed as o r i e n t - ation order indicates; Record as i n Appen- dix D Hands kept in a constant prone pos i t i o n betueen responses T r i a l photograph (Appendix C) shoun "Then I'm going to hide the hands in the picture l i k e t h i s " "And I uant you to da the same thing, u i t h your hands in the box as the picture hands did" "Let's try i t . Remember i t ' s a quiet game, uatch c l o s e l y " "Good, l e t ' s try some more" Cardboard placed over the photograph T r i a l photograph (Appendix C) shoun for 3 sees. Proceed as ori e n t - ation order i n d i c - ates; record as in Appendix -112- APPENDIX E (continued) Day Investigation Phase Uerbal instr u c t i o n s given to the subject C l a r i f i c a t i o n of Instructions Condition 3 kin e s t h e t i c - v i s u a l "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 position in betueen S's response and E's passive movement of the S's hands "Nou I'm going to move E aluays s t a r t s your hands into•a position u i t h thumbs, pro- l i k e t h i s " ceeds to l i t t l e fingers i n positioning "Then you bring them out of the box, put them on top of the box l i k e t h i s ( f a s t ) "And then you shou me uhat I did to your hands" "Let's try i t . Remember i t ' s a quiet game!" T r i a l position Appendix C, held for 3 sees, response, to ensure i n s t r u c - tions clear "Good l e t ' s try some more Proceed as o r i e n t - ation order i n d i c - ates; record as in Appendix D Condition 4 kin e s t h e t i c - kinesethetic In t h i s game I uant you to put your hands i n the box Constant prone pos- i t i o n i n betueen S's response and E"s passive movement of the S's hands Nou I'm going to move E aluays s t a r t s uith them l i k e t h i s thumbs, proceeds to l i t t l e fingers in positioning "Then I'm going to put them back, l i k e t h i s " "And then you shou me uhat I did to your hands, but, you have to keep them in the box." -113- APPEMDIX E (continued) Day I n v e s t i g a t i o n Verbal i n s t r u c t i o n s phase given to the subject C l a r i f i c a t i o n of I n s t r u c t i o n s "Let's t r y i t , Remember i t ' s a quiet game" T r i a l p o s i t i o n (Appendix C) held f o r 3 sees. Day I I Verbal comprehension of r i g h t and l e f t u i t h respect to body part i d e n t i - f i c a t i o n "Good, l e t ' s t r y some more!" "Let's t r y another game nou!" Proceed as o r i e n t - a t i o n order i n d i c - ates; record as i n Appendix D Presented a f t e r each S's f i r s t 2 c o n d i t i o n s ; conducted i n the same manner as on Day I Day I I Conclusion Thanks f o r p l a y i n g u i t h me....that uas fun! APPENDIX F BIVARIATE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR TASK SERIES I AND TASK SERIES II A P P E N D I X F Table 1.6 . 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 Ser i e s I . Ordinal Scale (0-5) 6 years 5 years Dominant Hand IMon Dominant Hand Dominant Hand IMon Dominant Hand V - V V - P P-V P-P V - V V - P P-V P-P , V - V V - P P-V P-P V - V V - P P-V P - l 0 1 2 3 7 6 1 10 8 9 1 it 1 1 3 3 8 7 it it 1 1 it 7 it 11 5 15 15 16 16 6 7 8 9 12 12 lit 15 2 1 3 it T o t a l 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 it years 3 years 0 1 5 8 6 1 1 it 2 0 6 10 2 6 7 9 2 2 1 1 2 2 it 9 1 12 11 2 3 7 13 3 7 5 6 9 11 8 2 5 1 k 5 8 10 9 1 it 6 5 2 2 3 1 10 T o t a l 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Table 1 . 7 . Bivariate Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n for Scores i n Task Series I I . Ordinal Scale ( 0 - 6 ) Dominant Hand 6 years IMon Dominant Hand 5 Dominant Hand years IMon Dominant Hai 0 V-V V-P P-V P-P V-V V-P P-V P-P V-V V-P P-V P-P V-V V-P P-V P-l 1 2 1 k 3 5 2 6 3 9 10 8 k 3 a 5 1 6 12 2 5 5 3 5 5 13 12 5 5 3 9 5 •5 3 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 7 6 11 12 10 11 1 3 k Total 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 0 1 k years •3 years 7 8 5 7 5 2 k 1 1 1 k 10 9 3 9 7 11 7 3 15 7 8 6 2 k 6 6 9 6 9 10 9 6 7 a 5 3 7 10 1 3 a 6 1 1 . 2 3 Total 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 APPENDIX G ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE FOR TASK SERIES I AND TASK SERIES II APPENDIX G Table 1.8. A n a l y s i s of Variance f o r Scores i n Task S e r i e s I and I I . Source of Variance df Mean Square Age Sex(Age) Task Se r i e s Conditions Dominance A 3 332.20 269.40 G ( A ) 4 0.39 SuJ G ( A ) 56 1.23 I 1 7.27 16.45 A X I 3 17.67 39.96 G ( A ) X I 4 0.25 - S u G ( A ) X I 56 0.44 C 3 45.85 185.56 A X C 9 0.70 2.85 G ( A ) X C 12 0.75 -SiuG ( A ) X C 168 0.25 D 1 118.61 199.06 A X D 3 3.43 5.76 G ( A ) X D 4 0.56 S u G ( A ) X D 56 0.60 I X C 3 5.33 25.15 A X I X C 9 0.43 2.03 G ( A ) X I X C 12 0.85 S L J G ( A ) X I X C 168 0.21 I X D 1 3.46 9.08 A X I X D 3 12.03 4.58 G ( A ) X I X D 4 0.28 S u G ( A ) X I X D •56 0.38 C X D 3 4.75 18.70 A X C X D 9 0.57 2.26 G ( A ) X C X D 12 0.65 S u G ( A ) X C X D 168 0.25 < .0 < .0 < .0 <.o <.o *.D ^.0 <.0 .o: <.o *.0!

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 13 0
Canada 8 0
Spain 3 4
Lebanon 3 0
France 3 0
United Kingdom 2 0
Australia 2 0
Philippines 2 0
Taiwan 2 0
Japan 2 0
China 2 28
India 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 23 1
Montreal 6 0
Beijing 2 0
Artes 2 2
Oshawa 2 0
New Delhi 1 0
New York 1 0
Great Yarmouth 1 0
Barcelona 1 0
Grove 1 0
Solihull 1 0
Fort Lauderdale 1 0
Ashburn 1 0

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

Share

Share to:

Comment

Related Items