UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

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

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

Item Metadata

Download

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

Full Text

BODY SCHEMA DEVELOPMENT IN 3 TO 6 YEAR OLD CHILDREN by SHARON U. CAMPBELL B.P.E., University of British Columbia, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION in the Department of Physical Education We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA JUNE 1973 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of 6) CoJL £^g£u C^i j~lcrv^ The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date ^&J$ 2*<^U< Zf lUZr ii ABSTRACT This developmental study attempted to distinguish between the preference differentiation, sensorimotor differentiation and language differentiation of body parts by 3 to 6 year old children. 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 this study. There were eight boys and eight girls in 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 localization; Task Series II was sensorimotor hand-finger orientation; Task Series III was hand preference and foot preference; Task Series IU was the verbal understanding of body parts with respect to the right and left co-ordinates of the body. Four different experimental conditions that involved visual presentations and tactual-kinesthetic presentations for visual movement response and non-visual movement response were used in Task Series I and Task Series II. The data of Task Series I and II was submitted to bivariste frequency analysis and an analysis of variance. In Task Series III and Task Series IV age group percentiles for correct responses across trials were calculated. This data analyses indicated that the major development in the differentiation of body parts at 3 to 6 years Df age is at the sensorimotor level of organization. This sensorimotor development reflected a reliance upon the tactual-kinesthetic sensory system. The results were discussed in terms of the applicability •f the neurological term body schema tD the research in develop mental and educational psychology concerned uith the developmental significance Df body awareness in 3 to 6 year old children; the implications for the relationships reported between neurological disorders; and the considerations for the limited research in integrative processing. Future directions for physical education research in the developmental study of effective cues for motor learning were indicated. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my appreciation for the assistance given to me throughout the course of this study. Helpful advice uas gratefully 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 is oued to Miss A. Tilley, Faculty of Physical Education, who has, at both the under graduate and graduate levels, been an inspirational educator and advisor. The completion of this study is due to the exceptional organizational ability 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 Leffrjrd (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 of 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: left parietal lobe 22 Integrative Processing Considerations 22 Sensory Systems 23 Sensory Integration 5 Form Perception Tasks 26 Berges and Lezine (1965) 30 Chapter Page Lefford (1970) 31 Response complexity 3Stimulus presentation 1 Developmental trends 3 III METHODS AND PROCEDURES 34 Subjects 3Apparatus 5 Free Play ^Task Series I and II . .• •. 35 Task Series III 36 Task Series IUExperimental Conditions and Procedures.... 36 Task Series I 38 Experimental Conditions 3Presentation 38 ResponseExperimental Procedures 38 Presentation 3Response 9 Method of recording responses.... 39 Task Series II 40 Experimental Conditions 4Presentation 40 ResponseExperimental Procedures 40 Presentation 4Response 1 Method of recording responses.... 41 Task Series III 42 Experimental Procedures 4Hand preference 42 Foot preferenceMethod Df recording responses.... 42 Task Series IV 4Experimental Procedures 42 Verbal presentationVerbal response 42 Method Df recording response 43 vii Chapter Page Experimental Design k3 Data Analyses kk Bivariate Frequency Analysis kk Analysis of Variance kk Methods for Testing the Hypotheses ^5 Hypothesis 1 ^Hypothesis 2 6 Hypothesis 3Hypothesis k kl Hypothesis 5IV 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 6 Body Schema 6Psychological Considerations 67 Neurological Considerations 9 Integrative Processing Considerations.. 70 V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 73 Summary 7Experimental conditions and procedures. 73 Subjects 5 Experimental analyses 7Experimental findingsConclusions 77 Directions for Future Research 78 BIBLIOGRAPHY 79 viii 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 58 Mean Scores for the Age x Task Series Interaction.. 5 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 in Task Series IU 104 1.6 Bivariate Frequency Distribution for Scores in Task Series I. Ordinal Scale (0-5) 115 1.7 Bivariate Frequency Distribution for Scores in Task Series II'. Ordinal Scale (0-6)... 116 1.8 Analysis of Variance for Scores in Task Series I and II 118 xi List of Figures Figure Page 1 Mean Scores for Tactual-Kinesthetic Presentations ori Task Series by Age 57 2 Mean Scores for the Age X Task Series x Conditions Interaction 58 3 Mean Scores for the Age x Conditions Interaction .59 k Mean Scores for the Age x Task Series x Dominance Interaction Sl -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 scientific advancement of knowledge: first, 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 scientific 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 its developmental significance. Body Schema In his original formulation, Head (1920) conceived that afferent sensory components are unified 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 is based on past impressions, predominantly kinesthetic and proprioceptive,' the significance of this physiological and subconscious model lies in its use. Berges and Lezine (1965) have, thus, considered the body schema to be a sensorimotor mechanism. This has been supported by Ayres1 and Reid's (1966) description of the body schema as the neurological model of the sensorimotor aspects of body parts. This definition of body schema has been adapted for use in the present investigation. Psychological Considerations The significance attached to body schema has stemmed to a large degree, from the works of one of the major theorists in developmental psychology, Jean Piaget. Piaget's (1953) theory of logical thought development has been based on the hypothesis that schemata (sets Df actions) are the structures of the .intellect responsible for the child's adaptation to the environment. Piaget -3-(1953) has also suggested that the notions of the pre-school child are predominantly tied to sensorimotor schemata. Uithin this theoretical framework, the development of the notion of space has been saiv by Piaget (1954) to depend on 1) a comprehension of objects and object relationships, and 2) a comprehension of the individual's own shifts in position. During his early movements, the child is active in a space which is limited for him by the extent of his movement. If as Piaget (1953) has argued, the child can only organize space as he interacts with objects in space, the differentiation of body parts and body part relationships necessarily precedes the differentiation of similar spatial re lationship outside of the self (Kephart, I960). Thus, differentiation of the components of the body has been seen as a significant factor in the sensorimotor organization of space. Uithin this theoretical context, laterality or the internal understanding of the right and left co-ordinates of the body has been said to be the first notion of space to develop (Radler and Kephart, 1960). The procedures which have been used to measure this concept have varied widely (Chalfant and Schefflin, 1969). A brief discussion of the categories studied in the development of neurological functioning may explain this diversity. Neurological Considerations IMot unlike Piaget's (1953) hierarchial organization of schemata from external, observable actions to internal, unobserv-able actions, Denhoff et al. (1968) and Semmes et al. (1968) have suggested that the neurological lateralization of function proceeds -k-from simple, preference differentiation, through intermediary, sensorimotor differentiation to complex, language differentiation. While the precise nature of this neurological organization has not been revealed, the sensorimotor functions which do not re quire a high degree of symbolic processing have been reported to stabilize around 5 to S years of age (Benton, 1959, 1962). Right-left detection and finger localization procedures have been used to arrive at this finding. Right-left detection pro cedures have also been used to study laterality (Kephart, 1960). Finger localization procedures have also been used as a somato sensory spatial measure for years (Stone, 1968). Kephart (1960) has reported that 'body awareness1 and laterality are established in the typical child by school age. Stone (1968) reviewed the findings of several finger localization studies and reported that, if response complexity is minimized, this sensorimotor ability stabilizes around 5 to 6 years of age. It would seem reasonable, in view of the above, to suggest that while body differentiation has been a useful developmental and educational psychology construct, the developmental importance of body schema may be rooted in the neurological development of the child. Two studies which examined the motor utilization of the organized body model in 3 to 6 year old children have given direction to the formulated hypotheses of this investigation. -5-Berqes and Lezine (1965) In an attempt to provide procedures for the neurological examination of pre-school children, by pediatricians, Berges and Lezine (1965) studied the ability of 3 to 6 year old children to imitate a gesture of the experimenter. The gestures were considered to be simple or complex depending on the re lationship between 1) the level of visual perceptual organ ization required (gestalt, spatial orientation) and 2) the level of motor co-ordination required. All gestures involved either the upper limb schemata or the hand-finger schemata. The 3 year old children had difficulty with the simple gestures, while the 4 to 6 year old children displayed difficulty only on the complex gestures performance. Accuracy along the dominant side of the body was seen to precede accuracy along the non-dominant side of the body. IMo difference was observed between the performance Df boys and girls at each age level studied. Lefford (1970) Lefford's (1970) study used 12 finger localization tasks to examine the development of voluntary actions in 3 to 6 year old children. Four different response actions were studied under three presentation conditions 1) visual and tactual 2) visual and 3) tactual-kinesthetic. Lefford's findings were extensive and are discussed in the next chapter. In short, he suggested that the visual hand-finger schemata appeared to be more advanced at the 3 year old level than -6-did the tactual-kinesthetic hand-finger schemata. By k years of age, Lefford found that hand-finger schemata were equally differentiated across the visual system and the tactual-kinesthetic system. Response complexity was found to be significantly related to differentiation accuracy. Statement of the Problem The concern of this investigation is to study the body schema development of the 3 to 6 year old child as reflected in the development of his ability to make differentiated voluntary movements on two series of hand-finger sensorimotor tasks. Subproblems There are two secondary concerns in this investigation. First, the ability of 3 to 6 year old children to make preference differentiations of the body parts is studied. Second, the ability of 3 to 6 year old children to make language differentiations of the body parts with respect to the right and left co-ordinates of the body is studied. Hypotheses It is hypothesized that: (1) The major development in the differentiation of body parts is at the sensorimotor level, as opposed to the preference level and the language level, in 3 to 6 year old children. The age of the child, not the sex of the child, is the determining factor in this development. It is hypothesized that the sensorimotor development of hand-finger schemata in 3 to 6 year old children is characterized by -7-the following trends: (2) The ability to make voluntary movement differ entiations is dependent upon the sensorimotor aspects, not only the sensory aspects, of the task. (3) The ability to make voluntary movement differ entiations requiring visual organization precedes the ability to make voluntary movement differentiations requiring tactual-kinesthetic organization. (4) The ability to make voluntary movement differ entiations on tasks requiring intra-modal in tegration develops in advance of the ability to make voluntary movement differentiations an the tasks requiring inter-modal integration. (5) The ability to make voluntary movement differ entiations along the dominant side of the body precedes the ability to make voluntary movement differentiations along the non-dominant side of the body. Definitions The neurological model of the sensorimotor aspects of body parts (Ayres and Reid, 1966) The ability to utilize discriminated sensory stimuli for response (Chalfant and Schefflin, 1969). This ability reflects the three levels of psychoneurological functioning preference, sensorimotor and language (Denhoff et al, 1968) Taking the position of self as the permanent centre of reference in spatial organization of the environment. During the ages 2J& - 5 years (approximately), children typically progress from this point to awareness of the effect of changes in self position on the position of objects (Piaget, 1970). Fine Motor Skill Neuromuscular co-ordination which involves precision .oriented control of small muscle groups; this often refers to eye-hand co-ordination. Gross Motor Skill Neuromuscular co-ordination which involves control of the large muscle groups; this Body Schema Differentiation Egocentricity -a-Integratian Kinethesis Lateralization of function Modality Neurology Perceptual-motor theory Pre-operational stage of logical thought develop ment Sensorimotor neurology Sensorimotor developmental psychology often refers to the movement of the whole body. The organization of both incoming and out going neural events (Chalfant and Schefflin, 1969). In behavioral terms, kinesthesis includes the discrimination of the position of body parts, the discrimination of movement and amplitude of movement of body parts both actively and passively produced (Howard and Templeton, 1966). The cross-over principle that applies to both the ascending and descending cortico spinal tracts (Reitan, 1971). An avenue of acquiring sensation: the visual, auditory, tactile and kinesthetic systems are considered the most important modalities in learning (Chalfant and Schefflin, 1969). The biological study of the nervous system (Chalfant and Schefflin, 1969). The essence of this theory is that complex learnings are built upon earlier integrative learnings in a sequential and hierarchal fashion (McCarthy and McCarthy, 1970). Thought development during this stage moves from external to internal actions. The development of images enhances the child's ability to organize and adapt to the environ ment (Piaget, 1956). Integration of incoming sensory information for motor response. In terms of neurological organization this level is intermediary to preference and language lateralization (Chelfant and Schefflin, 1969; Denhoff et al, 1968; Semmes et al, I960). Piaget (1956) refers to the sensorimotor stage of logical thought development as the initial phase where actions are predominantly external. -9-Limitations The usual delimitations of study (the small sample size, the same socio-economic grouping) apply; in addition, the children uho participated as subjects in this study all had play school experience. Significance of the Study The long-term objective of research concerned uith body schema development in pre-school children lies in revealing the precise nature of this phenomenon and its developmental sig nificance . The relevance of this study to the field of human perform ance and motor learning may be explained in several ways. As very little is known about the pre-school development of the kinesthetic system and its interco-ordinations with other sensory systems (Chalfant and Schefflin, 1969), this study may provide direction for future research in the kinesthetic integration of children. The study may contribute to the limited research which' has been reported on the development of voluntary movements in the pre-school child. Furthermore, it may provide information for the re-examination of voluntary movement development in terms of related developments in sensory integration. Perhaps the accuracy of voluntary movement differentiation is dependent on the present ation of information to a particular sensory system or interco-ordinated systems and varies with age. This consideration would seem to be of particular importance in determining effective cues for motor learning. This aspect of the investigation would appear to hold broad implications for physical educators. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The developmental study of the body schema is complex in that it has been directly or indirectly considered by researchers in developmental psychology, educational psychology, neuropsychology, and neurology. For the purposes of this study, body schema has been defined as the neurological model of the sensorimotor aspects of the body parts and studied in an inter disciplinary manner. This chapter has been subdivided as follows: psycho logical considerations, both developmental and educational in nature; neurological considerations and integrative processing considerations. Since this investigation has received direction from each of the above research areas, the inter-relationships between these areas with respect to body schema development will also be discussed. It should be clarified, however, that such interco-ardinations have not been commonly reported. As a result, the formulated relationships have, with few exceptions, been drawn from the findings of researchers working in the various dis ciplines. Psychological Considerations Cognitive Development To date, the precise nature of cognitive development has not been resolved. Due to the lack of refined procedures in the behavioral study of cognitive growth and the absence of techniques far the direct examination of the processes involved in cognitive growth (differentiation, integration and represent ation) (Bruner, 1964) our understanding of this phenomenon has remained, predominantly, theoretical in nature. According to Elkind and Flavell (1969), the theoretical framework presently used for the developmental study of the cognitive processes has stemmed, almost in its entirety, from the works of Jean Piaget. The significance attached to the development of body schema by developmental and educational psychologists has originated with Piaget's works. Piaqet's Theory of Logical Thought Development Piaget (1953) has based his theory of logical thought development on the hypothesis that schemata (sets of actions) are the structures of the intellect. Thus, spatial schemata, motor schemata, body schemata and so on have been considered the basis of integrated representations of the environment. Piaget has also associated adaptation to the environment with the growth of intelligence. In Piagetian terms, adaptation is a process of assimilating external and internal environmental information to form models of the environment, and then, testing -13-the applicability of these models through interaction with the environment. Logical thought development then, has been conceived by Piaget as an active inward and outward building process. Adaptation has been seen to begin with external, observable actions and to proceed to internal, unobservable actions. Bruner's (1964) contention that cognitive growth occurs, in a major way, from the outside in as well as from the inside out has been based on the replication of Piagetian studies. While the significance of body awareness, within these disciplines, has been based an the sensorimotor organization of space prior to and during the pre-operational stage of logical thought development, the above discussion^would seem to indicate that the development of body awareness is significant in itself, •ne may deduce that the development of an organized model of the self* not unlike other psychological constructs, is based on the continual assimilation of sensory information regarding the body and the continual accomodation of the organized schemata until a body schema effective for interaction with the environment becomes estab lished. The development of. this phenomenon, then, would seem to be dependent upon the neurological development of the child: in particular, the sensorimotor development of the child. The Development of Spatial Organization Poincaire (1953) has stated that there is no space irrespective Df objects; the notion of space can only be under stood as a function of objects and object relationships. According to Piaget's (1954) Construction of Reality in the Child, two factors have been considered to be essential in the organization of space: (1) a comprehension of the spatial relations between objects and abject parts, (2) a comprehension of the individual's own shifts in body position. This reasoning is consistent with Piaget's (1953) contention that the developing understanding of the environment requires inward and outward building. In neurological terms this 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 child. Spatial organization has been said to originate very early in the phylogentic development of the human organism with the movement and external actions of the child (Piaget, 1954). At first, the child treats the objects he manipulates as a part af a simple undifferentiated body activity. As the child's motor activity becomes less diffuse and undifferentiated his actions lose their global nature. One could describe the child as first acting with the object, then acting on it, and finally acting without it. Similarily, as the child's sensory differentiation 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 spatial aspects of the environment. Piaget's (1953) Pre-operational stage of logical thought develop ment (approximately 2-7 years) has been seen to characterize this development of spatial organization. Educational Hypotheses Within this theoretical framework, the understanding of body parts and body part relationships has been seen to develop in advance of the understanding of object and object relationships outside of the self (Piaget, 1954). The first notion of space said to develop is that of laterality or the internal understanding of right and left. Furthermore, Kephart (1960) and Piaget (1954) have suggested that the concrete projection of laterality, directionality, must be established before the more abstract notions of space can be formulated. According to Kephart, laterality has been found to be established in the typical child by 6 years of age or by the time the child enters formal school (Radler and Kephart, 1960). This finding, in combination with the tenet that form (space an object occupies) and distance (space between objects) are the most important aspects of directionality (Piaget, 1954) has provided'the hasis for Kephart's (1960) theory. In this perceptual-motor theory, Kephart has inter-related the establishment of body awareness, laterality, directionality and visual^motor integration with reading ability. If a child displays difficulty in learning to read, Kephart (1960) and Radler and Kephart (1960) have argued that the concrete aspects of space (laterality, directionality) and the integrative abilities which underlie these notions have not been clearly estab lished in the child. As a result, Godfrey and Kephart (1964), Kephart (1960), and Radler and Kephart (196D) have provided ideas for remediating reading difficulty through visual-motor, laterality and directionality training. These ideas have been utilized in -16-the designs of numerous "perceptual-motor" programmes for children uith reading disabilities (McCarthy and McCarthy, 1970). The inadequacies of this developmental trend lie first in the broad generalization, rather than specific focalization, of reading difficulty causes and second, in the lack of data on the development of spatial organization in the pre-school child. The literature pertaining to the neurological development of the child may be related to the literature in developmental and educational psychology to provide a clearer understanding of spatial organization development in the child. Neurological Considerations Kephart (196D) and Piaget (1954) have emphasized the im portance of an internal understanding of the right and left co ordinates of the body in the spatial organization development of the pre-school child. Moreover, research findings in space concept development at the Pre-operational stage (Piaget, 1953) have reported that the ability to utilize particular space concepts is not necessarily accompanied by the ability 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 in children (Semmes et al, I960) (1) preference differentiation (2) sensorimotor differentiation (3) language differentiation the pre-school child has not developed a sophisticated language -17-differentiatian of space. The. relevance of an internal under standing of the right and left co-ordinates of the body may be further interpreted by considering the literature in the cerebral lateralization of function. Cerebral Lateralization Considerations Pathways that conduct sensory stimulation to the higher levels of the neuraxis, and pathways that conduct motor impulses from higher.to lower levels, ascend and descend over the entire length of the neuraxis. Peculiar to both the descending cortico spinal tracts and the ascending sensory tracts is the cross-aver to the apposite side at the medullary level. This cross-over phenomenon has been referred ta as the lateralization of functioning (Reitan, 1971). It has been associated with all three categories of neurological organization. It is reflected at the preference level by foot and hand preference; at the sensorimotor level by performance on right-left detection and finger localization pro cedures presenting .sensory information for motor response; at the language level by performance on right-left detection, finger localization, procedures presenting verbal labels for movements (painting) indication or movement (pointing) indication for verbal response (Denhoff et al, 1968). Kephart (I960) has employed sensorimotor right-left detection procedures to arrive at the conclusion that laterality is established in the typical child by formal school age. Benton (1959, 1962) has reported that the right-left detection and the finger localization abilities which are not symbolic stabilize -18-around 5 to 6 years of age. It would seem reasonable to suggest, that the educational hypotheses relating body awareness, laterality, and directionality to reading ability do not need to be based on the theoretical extension of Piaget's hypothesis pertaining to spatial understanding development in the pre-school child, but, may be based on the neurological development of sensorimotor functions in the child. The consideration of neuropathological literature concerned with the cerebral organization of spatial functioning should solidify this reasoning. [\leuropathological Considerations In this section, neuropathological evidence related to the differences of the cerebral hemispheric organization of spatial abilities will be presented. While not all researchers have reported differences in the functioning of the right and left cerebral hemispheres (Smith, 1966) numerous researchers have indicated a difference. Functional inequivalence of the cerebral hemispheres. Based on the findings of Arrigoni and De Renzi (1964), with 175 brain damaged adults, which showed that constructional apraxia was significantly higher when right cerebral lesions were the cause of brain damage and spatial disorientation was significantly higher when left cerebral lesions were the cause of brain damage, De Renzi and Piero (1967) studied 137 brain damaged adults to determine hemispheric differences in spatial functioning. De Renzi's and Piero's (1967) findings suggested that spatial abilities may indeed be differently organized in the two hemispheres; their represent-• 1'J — ation being more focalized on the left side of the brain and more diffuse on the right side of the brain. Consideration of the purported distinction between the functions of the right and left parietal lobes may clarify this contention. Functional inequivalence of the parietal lobes. According to Reitan (1971), Semmes (1968) and Sparrow and Satz (197Db) there have been many studies which have shown that the right and left lobes are not functionally equivalent. Further, the differences have generally been seen to lie in the sphere of sensorimotor and language disorders. The disorders commonly referred to are (Reitan, 1971): (1) Agnosia defects in the identification and recognition of familiar objects e.g. finger agnosia (2) Apraxia defects in the development of concepts for sequencing actions for purposive movement (3) Aphasia defects in the comprehension of more complex, symbolic language activities (4) Anomolies of spatial orientation. The apraxias, as indicated by De Renzi and Piero (1967), have been associated with right hemispheric lesions (Arrigoni and De Renzi, 1964; Critchley, 1968; Reuben and Bakwin, 1965). Apraxic behavior has also been associated with lesions in the pre-motar cortical region assumed to be responsible for sequencing abilities (Luria, 1964). In contradistinction to the above, the aphasias, agnosias and anomolies of spatial orientation have been commonly linked with lesions in the left parietal region (Semmes et al.,1960). -2U-Left parietal region - body image. During the past forty years, a number of investigators have suggested that damage to the left parietal regions often disturbs the concept of body image (Benson and Geschwind, 1968). This distrubance has further been seen in combination uith: (1) Apraxic behavior: Lange, 1940; Reitan, 1971; Reubin and Bakuin, 1968. (2) Aphasic behavior: Critchley, 1964, 1968; Sparrow and Satz, 1970a, b; Spreen and Benton, 1965; LJeinstein, 1968. (3) Visual-motor spatial disorientation: Birch and Bortner, 1960; Reitan, 1971; Rubin and Braun, 1968. In view of this it would seem reasonable that' Kephart (1960) has associated reading disability with developmental delays in body awareness and visual-motor integration establishment. If one were to adopt Myklebust's (1964) view that many children with learning disabilities have a minimal brain dysfunction, this association may be more clear. The query that remains lies in the explanation of why these behaviors have been shown to be related in some instances and not in others (Chalfant and Schefflin, 1969). The relationship between body image disturbances and Gerstmann's syndrome may provide an initial rationale for explaining this inconsistency. Gerstmann's syndrome: left parietal-occipital-region. Gerstmann's syndrome has in the past been seen to result from damage to the- parietal-occipital region of the left hemisphere (Kinsbourne, 1968; Stone, 1963). The symptoms of this syndrome, which is at present out of neurological favour (Stone, 1968) are: -21-(1) dyscalculia (2) dysgraphia (3) right-left disorientation (4) finger agnosia Furthermore Gerstmann's syndrome has been associated with (Lange, 1940; Stengel, 1944): (1) body image disturbances (2) constructional apraxia (3) spatial orientation anomalies More recently, Poeck and Orgass (1966) found that Gerstmann's syndrome rarely occurs without aphasia. In view of this, Poeck and Orgass (1966) suggested that aphasia is the .common denominator for the four symptoms of this syndrome. Reference to the categories typically employed in the study of neurological organization would reveal that the symptoms of Gerstmann's syndrome reflect deficits at the sensorimotor level, not the preference or language levels, of neurological organization. Furthermore the literature dealing with the cerebral lateralization of function indicated that right-left detection and finger local ization procedures are commonly used to study sensorimotor lateral ization (Benton, 1959, 1962); while Kephart (1960) has measured laterality establishment by employing right-left detection measures. It would seem possible that the relationships between the neuro logical disorders enumerated in this section as well as the develop mental delays inter-related by Kephart (1960) may have resulted from the inherent similarity in the procedures used to assess these behaviors. Another explanation, pertaining to the manner in which -22-incoming and outgoing neural events became integrated, has been reported. Cross-modal integration: left parietal lobe. Geschwind (1965), cited by Butters and Brody (1968), has proposed that the left inferior parietal lobe (angular gyrus region) receives afferent inputs from the visual, auditory, and somatosensory cortices of bath hemispheres; thereby mediating cross-modal assoc iations. Butters and Brady (1968) investigated this proposal and found that patients with left parietal damage displayed deficits in crass-modal integration and reading skills. As has already been stated, lesions in the left parietal region have been associated with body image disturbance, agnosia, aphasia, and spatial dis orientation. These behaviors have also been related to reading disability. It would seem to be a logical deduction, then, that integration, at a sensorimotor level may explain the developmental significance of body schema. Unfortunately the development of integrative processing abilities in children has not received wide attention. The following section will discuss the few research studies which have been reported. Integrative Processing Considerations As was mentioned in the introductory chapter, Head (1920) originally conceived the body schema to be a synthesis of afferent sensory components relating to the body. Berges and Lezine (1965) have suggested that while this may be the way in which the body schema becomes established, the significance of this physiological and subconscious model lies in its use. Similarly, researchers -23-concerned uith integrative processing have concentrated on the central synthesis of multiple stimuli which are presented to the same sensory modality or different sertsory modalities. Chalfant and Schefflin (1969),Konorski (1967), Munn (1965), Myklebust (1964), Rubin and Braun (196S) and others have suggested that the ability to discriminate and unify sensory information, per se, is difficult to measure with the unrefined black-box procedures presently available. These researchers contend that the assess ment of differentiation abilities (the ability to utilize dis criminated sensory stimuli) could yield more meaningful data. Bryant (1968) has suggested that input, processing, and output re quirements of a task should all be considered in drawing conclusions from experimental findings. Chalfant and Schefflin (1969) presented a format far consideration of these variables; this has been shown in Table 1. Few research studies in integrative processing have clearly described these variables; as a result the research findings reported have been difficult to interpret. Before dis cussing these findings, the sensory systems considered to be unified into the body schema are discussed. Sensory Systems Based predominantly on clinical findings with brain damaged adults, Konorski (1967) has postulated that the body schema develops independently of language. This supports the definition of body schema which has been adopted in the present investigation (Ayres and Reid, 1966). Konorski (1967) has also hypothesized that the information -2k-Table 1. Significant Variables Which Should be Considered under SOR (Chalfant and Schefflin, 1969, p. 57). Made of Stimuli Organism Mode of Response Intramodal Intermodal Simultaneous presentation Successive presentation Symbolic stimuli Non-symbolic stimuli Intensity Number of units Rate Sex C.A. M.A. I.Q. Organic involvement Prior exper ience or training 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. intensity of response Complexity Judgemental Response Distortion a. same b. different c. recognition d. recall e. equivalence f. correspondence g. recoding to a rule -25-coming from the angular displacement of the joints (position information) is the predominant sensory system in body schema acquisition. This system is, Honorski (1967) contended, inter-co-ordinated with the movement feedback system and the visual aspects of the limb, at the associational cortices level. Schilder (1950), cited by Berges and Lezine (1965) has hypoth esized that the sensory systems involved with the understanding of movement and the maintenance of posture provide information about the body schema. Berges and Lezine have reported that the body schema is dependent an past impressions predominantly kinesthetic and tactual. In view of these contentions it would appear that the visual, tactual and kinesthetic systems are pre dominantly responsible for the acquisition of the body schema. The research findings related to the intrasensory and intersensory integrations of these systems will be discussed below. Sensory Integration The original works of Sherrington (1950) and Birch (1954) asserted that intramodal integration (the integration of sensory stimuli along one modality) is a necessary antecedent to intermodal integration (the integration of sensory stimuli between two or more modalities). More recently, Munn (1965) and Honorski (1967) have sug gested that even the simple sensory functioning of one modality is affected or modified by that.of other sensory systems. Of partic ular relevance to the direction of this study is Piaget's (1953) contention that very early in the infant's development visual - <_ u -. information becomes interca-ordinated with other sensory systems. Uhile numerous researchers have suggested that visual information is the predominant sensory system during the first seven years of the child's development (Chalfant and Schefflin, 1969), other researchers have ascertained that organisms differ phylo-genetically in their reliance upon different sensory modalities. Montessori (1964) has argued that the development of the tactual system precedes that of vision and audition. Munn (1965) has suggested that initially, reliance is placed on the tactile, olfactory, gustatory and kinesthetic systems, then gradually more demands are placed on the visual and auditory modalities. There has only been theoretical agreement to the effect that the nervous system develops in a manner characterized by progression from a relatively global condition, through increasing differentiated functions, to a hierarchial integration and co ordination of functioning (Hebb, 1944;. Luria, 1964; Munn, 1965; Piaget, 1953, 1954). In the view of developmental and educational psychology the understanding of body relationships precedes the understanding of object relationships (in particular form and distance) outside of the self. The developmental studies which have concommitantly examined the" spatial organization of object forms and integrative processing in pre-school children are discussed below. Form Perception Tasks It has only been within the last decade that research con commitantly concerned with the development of form perception and cross-modal integration has been reported. These experiments have -27-been classified as cross-modal matching studies. They have been designed to test the ability of children to treat two identical stimuli as equivalent uihen information about each stimulus comes through two sensory modalities. The variables which Chalfant and Schefflin (1969) have considered to be signif icant in integrative processing research (Table 1) have been used to concisely describe three cross-modal matching experiments in Table 2. Birch and Lefford (1963) found that cross-modal integ ration improves with age (Table 2). Furthermore, their findings showed visual-haptic matching to be easier than bath visual-kinesthetic matching and haptic-kinesthetic matching at 5 years of age. Blank and Bridger (1964) and Conners et al. (1967) reported similar findings. The above experiments however, omitted within-modality conditions (visual-visual, haptic-haptic, kinesthetic-kinesthetic). As a result it might be argued that the improvement of cross-modal integration with chronological age may result from an increased ability to differentiate and integrate along one modality (Bryant, 1968). The studies of Baiter and Fagarty (1971) and Rudel and Teuber (1964) separated within-modality effects from between-modality effects. Baiter and Fagarty (1971) and Rudel and Teuber (1964) found that across all age levels studied more errors were made on the haptic-haptic intramodal matching condition than on the cross-modal matching conditions utilizing haptic and visual information (Table 2). Visual-visual matching errors were lowest across all -28-Table 2. Significant Factors in Three Cross-Modal Form Perception Developmental Studies Study Age Range Shape of Object Mortality Condi tions Mode of Presentation Mode of Response Analysis Findings Modality Findings Presentation Birch and Lefford (1963) 5-11 yrs. geometric visual-haptic visual-kines-thetic haptic-kines-thetic haptic: active manipulation of object kinesthetic: E passive moving S's hand uith stylus around object successive presentation of pairs verbal report "same" or di ff erent Correct 1) visual-haptic Lias number easiest condition: of 17% of 5 yr.olds responses made no errors 2) visual-kinesthetic, haptic-kinesthetic: no 5 yr.olds scored perfectly 3) integration of kin esthetic uith haptic and visual modal ities occurs at 6-7 yrs. Rudel and Teuber (1961.) 3-6 yrs. Series I: geometric Series II: abstract visual-visual haptic-haptic visual-haptic haptic-visual successive BUT simultaneous on Series I for 3 yr. olds; Series II <» yr. olds present standard 5 comparisons (5 sec.) "is this it" for 5 variable stimuli yes or no verbal report correct 1) easiest to hardest number visual-visual, of visual-hapticresponses haptic-visual haptic-haptic. 2) accuracy increased uith age. successive presentation impossible for 3 yr. olds on Series I, b yr. olds on Series II, but they could do it if presented simultaneously Salter and Fogarty (1971) k yrs 2 mos. to 5 yrs. 11 mos. visual-geometric visual-visual haptic-haptic visual-haptic successive and simultaneous for each of the 3 conditions -pairs (5 sec) verbal report "same" or 'Wifferent" correct U of responses ANOVA Meuman-Keuls 1) easiest to hardest visual-visual, visual-haptic, haptic-haptic 2) significant (.01) difference between conditions 3) Neuman-Keuls: significant difference betueen visual-visual and haptic-haptic only. U) no sig. interaction betueen mode of presentation and modality. successive presentation not signif icantly different from simul taneous presentation -29-conditions and age levels. These researchers attributed the improvement in the cross-modal matching between the visual and haptic systems to an increased ability to differentiate along the haptic system. This trend would seem to support Birch and Lefford's (1963) and Pick's et al.(1966) argument that haptic and kinesthetic information merely serves to reinforce visual information until the age of 5 - 7 years when the increased ability to differentiate kinesthetic and haptic information causes rapid improvement in the cross-modal integrations involving these systems. Rudel and Teuber (1964) suggested that while form perception tasks indicate a visual-visual, visual-haptic, haptic-visual, haptic-haptic developmental trend for sensory integration, a task more conducive to haptic differentiation (texture) may yield a different trend. One might extrapolate to suggest that the differentiation of the topography of the body may reflect the re liance an the system responsible for the information earning from the angular displacement of the joints. Presentation of this " information is called passive movement, one aspect of the kines thetic system. As mentioned earlier in this study, the difficulty of extracting tactual information fram kinesthetic system for testing purposes has led to the consideration of the tactual-kinesthetic system in the present study. As was mentioned in the introductory chapter of this study, two studies have been influential in the design of the present investigation. These studies are discussed below. - 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 its 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 its imitation. Simple gestures were reproduced accurately at age 6 while the complex gestures still presented difficulty at this age level. Across all age levels, there was an interaction between the spatial organization required and the motor schema required. There -31-uas' a tendency for children tD place reliance on the dominant arm or hand in the gestures which were difficult for them. Lefford, (1970) Lefford (1970) studied the development of voluntary actions in 167 children 3 to 5>2 years of age. Twelve finger differentiation tasks which were varied with respect to response complexity and integrative conditions were employed. These tasks have been concisely described and numbered for reference, ranging from the easiest to the most difficult task, in Table 3. Response complexity. Lefford found that tasks requiring finger-thumb apposition and pointing to self responses were significantly easier than the tasks requiring the imitation of finger movements and model indication responses. This may be explained by considering that the imitation of finger movements required a well organized fine motor schema. Furthermore if reversals were involved in these last two response categories (not reported) this is readily understandable. Benton (1968), and Rice (1968) have reported that finger differentiation and right-left detection abilities requiring reversals are difficult even at the level Df adult functioning which is reportedly reached around 11 - 12 years of age. Stimulus presentation. Lefford's study indicated that responses were easiest when information was presented to both the visual and tactual-kinesthetic systems (Table 3). This would seem to support Piaget's (1953) contention that visual information becomes interco-ordinated with other sensory systems very early -32-Table 3. Description of Finger Differentiation Tasks (Lefford, 1970) Con- Modality in which fingers Response required Modalities avail-dition were indicated to subject of the subject able to guide number respons(1) (2) (3) visual, tactual-kines thetic visual, tactual-kines thetic visual (4) visual (5) tactual-kinesthetic (6) tactual-kinesthetic (7) tactual-kinesthetic (8) visual (9) visual, tactual-kinesthetic (ID) visual (11) visual (12) tactual-kinesthetic finger-thumb opposition pointing to self pointing to self finger-thumb opposition finger-thumb opposition finger-thumb opposition painting to self visual imitation visual, proprioceptive visual, proprioceptive visual, proprioceptive visual, proprioceptive proprioceptive visual proprioceptive visual, proprioceptive visual, proprioceptive pointing to model visual pointing to model visual non-visual proprioceptive imitation painting to model visual -33-in the development of the infant, as uell as the findings in crass-modal integration research (Table 1, p. 2k). Visual presentation uas found to be significantly easier than tactual-kinesthetic presentation far the tua easiest response conditions (Table 3: (l)-(k)). It is interesting to note that when tactual-kinesthetic information uas presented in (5) and (6) (Table 3) the non-visual movement response (5) uas easier than the visual movement response (6). Developmental trends. Lefford found that by k years of age over 90% of his subjects could fully differentiate the topography of the hand when perceived by bath the visual and tactual-kinesthetic modalities. While no significant difference between tactual-kinesthetic schemata and visual schemata uas found at the k year old level, Lefford's data indicated that visual . schemata may be more advanced in 3 year olds than tactual-kinesthetic schemata. -3k-CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES The hypotheses of the present investigation were studied by employing four series of body part differentiation tasks. Task Series I: Task Series II: Task Series III Task Series IU: The sensorimotor differentiation of body parts, as reflected in the subject's ability to make accurate voluntary movements on finger local ization tasks. The sensorimotor differentiation of body parts as reflected in. the subject's ability to make accurate voluntary movement reproductions of spatial orientation positions of the hands and fingers. The differentation of body parts as reflected in the subject's hand preference and foot preference. The differentation of body parts as reflected in the subject's ability to (a) point to the body part verbally indicated by the experimenter, and (b) give the verbal label of the body part pointed to by the experimenter. Subjects The subjects uere sixty-four 3 to 6 year old children, 8 girls 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 testing, uere attending programmes at Sunset Recreation Centre. This Centre, according to census data, is located in a lou-middle income socio-economic area. The same 64 subjects participated in the 4 Task Series. Each subject uas present for 2 testing sessions subsequently referred to as Day I and Day II. All tasks uere administered to the Subject (S) by the Experimenter (E). Apparatus The testing sessions uere conducted in a room adjoining the Play School Facilities at Sunset Recreation Centre. Free Play At the beginning and the end of each S's testing session there uas an opportunity for free play. The equipment available for this included cosom hockey sticks and pucks, mats, playground balls, a slide, a tricycle 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 allou E to absent visual information from S, on the sensorimotor tasks involving the tactual-kinesthetic system, while permitting E tD present stimulus information and to record responses (Appendix A). The photographs used in Task Series I are shown in Appendix B. The photographs used in Task Series II are shown in Appendix C. Task Series III A playground ball 4" in diameter was used to observe S's hand preference and foot preference. Task Series 1V/ No equipment was needed for this 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 specific instructions 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 dition the Available Available Number Condition for for Stimulus Response Differ entiation (1) visual for visual movement visual indic ation (photo graph) visual visual movement visual, tactual-kinesthetic (2) visual for non-visual movement visual indic ation (photo graph) visual non-visual movement tactual-kinesthetic (3) tactual- passive tactual-kines- movement kines thetic for on the thetic visual subject movement visual movement visual, tactual-kinesthetic (4) tactual- passive tactual-kines- movement kines thetic for on the thetic non visual subject movement non-visual movement tactual-kinesthetic -38-Task Series I Experimental Conditions Here S uas required to identify the fingers of the right hand and the left hand indicated to S by E. The experimental conditions are described in terms of E's indication (presentation) and S's response. Presentation. Each of S's 10 fingers uere isolated and presented in 2 uays: (1) visual indication of the isolated finger an the photograph (Appendix B), (2) passive movement of the isolated 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 in 2 ways: (1) lifting movement of the isolated finger with visual cues, (2) lifting movement of the isolated finger without visual 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 visually to S by pointing to a finger for 3 seconds on the corresponding photograph of the hand (Appendix B). -39-During these presentations both photographs uere placed on top of the frame apparatus for S's view. In conditions (3) and (4) (Table k) E indicated the fingers by passively moving S's finger up and doun for 3 seconds. S's hands uere hidden from S's vieu underneath the- curtain of the frame apparatus. S's hands uere kept in a constant prone position uith the fingers painting tauards E and pressed doun an the table betueen present ations and responses. Response. The voluntary movement response studied across all k experimental conditions (Table 4) uas a lifting action of the isolated finger uith the remaining fingers pressed doun on the table. The visual voluntary movement responses in conditions (1) and (3) (Table 4) uere given uith S's hands placed an the frame apparatus far S's vieu. The non-visual voluntary movement responses in conditions (2) and (4) (Table 4) uere given uith S's hands underneath the curtain of-the frame apparatus; visual information of the hands and fingers uas not available for responses. Method of recording responses. In each of the k experi mental conditions, 5 responses of the right hand and 5 responses of the left hand uere required. Correct voluntary movement differentiations of each finger uere assigned the numerical value of 1. Incorrect voluntary movement differentiations of each finger uere assigned the numerical value of •. The ordinal scale ranged from 0-5 for each hand in each experi mental condition (Appendix D). Task Series II In this Series, S was required to reproduce the spatial orientation positions of the hands and the fingers indicated to S by E. The experimental conditions are described in terms of E's indication (presentation) and S's response. Experimental Conditions Presentation. The 6 positions (Appendix C) uere indiv idually presented in 2 ways. (1) visual 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 visual cues, (2) movement reproduction of the position without visual cues. Table k shows how these presentations and responses were incorpor ated in 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 -41-presented the position photographs on top. of the frame apparatus for 3 seconds. In conditions (3) and (4) E presented the positions to S by passively moving S's hands and fingers to the position required. This position uas held for 3 seconds. S's hands uere hidden underneath the frame apparatus in conditions (3) and (4) to absent visual information about the hands and fingers. S's hands uere kept in a constant prone position uith S's fingers pointing towards E, betueen presentations and responses. Response. The voluntary movement response studied across all 4 experimental conditions uas S's final position accuracy in the reproduction of the position indicated to S by E. In con ditions (1) and (3) (Table 4) the movement reproductions uere given uith S's hands on top of the frame apparatus for S's vieu. In condition (2) and (4) (Table 4), the movement reproductions uere given uith the subject's hands underneath the frame apparatus so that visual information of the hands and fingers uas not available for the response. Method of recording responses. In each Df the 4 experi mental conditions, 6 positions uhich involved positioning bath the right hand and the left hand uere presented. Correct voluntary movement differentiations of each hand in each position uere assigned the numerical value of 1. Incorrect voluntary movement differentiations of each hand in each position uere assigned the numerical value of •. The ordinal scale ranged from • - 6 for each hand in each experi mental condition. In addition to this ordinal data, observations of the development of the voluntary movement differentiations of -Wl-the dominant hand and the non-dominant hand uith respect to each position uere recorded (Appendix D). Task Series III Experimental Procedures Task Series III was not included in the experimental design and may be best described in terms of the procedures employed. Hand preference. S was asked to throw a ball with one hand. There were k trials on Day I and k trials an Day II. Fopt preference. S was asked to kick a ball. There were h trials on Day I and k trials an Day II. Method of recording responses. The number of right hand and right foot responses and the number of left hand and left foot responses on each trial series was recorded (Appendix D). Task Series IU Experimental Procedures Task Series IU was not included in the experimental design and may be best described in terms of the procedures used. Uerbal presentation. E indicated verbally a body part (right eye) and S was required to point to the body part on himself. There were 3 trials an Day I and 3 trials on Day II (right eye, left foot, right hand). Uerbal response. E indicated a body part by pointing to -43-it on S. S uas then required to give the verbal labels Df this body part (left eye, right foot, left hand). There uere 3 trials •n Day I and 3 trials an Day II. body part differentiations and the number of correct right-left differentiations on each trial series uere recorded (Appendix D). The experimental design for Task Series I and Task Series II uas a4x2x2x2x4 factorial uith repeated measures on the last 3 factors. A Latin Square uas used to counterbalance the 4 experimental conditions and the 2 orders of stimulus present ations of each Task Series (Appendix D). The factors and levels uere: Factor I: Age Method of recording responses. The number of correct Experimental Design Al A2 A3 A4 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years Factor II: Sex (Age) Gl: boys G2: girls Factor III Task Series II: Task Series I 12: Task Series II Factor IU: Dominance DI: Dominant Hand D2: Non-dominant Hand Factor U: Conditions Cl: Uisual presentation for visual move ment response -44-C2: Visual presentation for non-visual move ment response C3: Tactual-kinesthetic presentation for visual movement response C4: Tactual-kinesthetic presentation for non-visual movement response. Data Analyses The data from Task Series I and Task Series II was submitted tD the following statistical analysis. Bivariate Frequency Analysis The dependent measure for the bivariate frequency analysis of Task Series I was the score on an ordinal scale of (0-5); for Task Series II it was the score on an ordinal scale of (0-6). These analyses were conducted to determine the frequency distributions of scores for each age level on each of the 4 experimental conditions of Task Series I and Task Series II. Analysis of Variance The dependent measures on Task Series II were multiplied by 5/6, thus giving a scale of 0.5. This permitted comparisons be tween the mean scores of Task Series I and Task Series II in the 4x2x2x2x4 parametric ANOVA with repeated measures on the last 3 factors. A parametric AIMOVA was used as non-parametric statistical tools for analyzing factorial designs with repeated measures were not available. While non-parametric statistical tests have been said to be more appropriate for data collected on an ordinal or ranking -US-scale of measurement, the case in the present study, Brumback (1969) has argued that the legitimacy of a statistical test in the evaluation of collected data does not depend upon the measurement scale used, but, rather upon the distribution of scale values. Reference to the frequency distribution tables in Appendix F, reveals that while there appeared to be a ceiling effect 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 bivariate categories showed relatively normal distributions. The presence of a ceiling effect does, however, reduce intra-cell variability and therefore decreases the denominator in the F ratio. Thus, any statistical significance has to be interpreted cautiously. Methods for Testing the Hypotheses The hypotheses of this investigation are tD be tested by the following methods. Hypothesis 1, p. 6 In order to accept this hypothesis it must initially be shown, as indicated by Berges and Lezine (1965), that the mean scores on Task Series III (preference differentiation) and an Task Series IV/ (language differentiation) do not reflect continual development at each age level in the 3 to 6 year old age range studied. To test this, the percentage of subjects at each age level 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 effect is significant while the F ratio for the Sex (Age) main effect is not significant. Hypothesis 2, p. 7 In order to accept hypothesis 2 it must be established that sensorimotor differentiation abilities are affected by both the input and output aspects of the differentiation task. To test this, the mean scores for the Age x Task Series interaction are to be, initially, considered in terms of the relative differences in the input and output aspects required for the neuromuscular responses of each Task Series. The input aspects of sensorimotor differentiation can, then, be discussed in terms Df the Age x Task Series x Conditions interaction, while the Age x Task Series x Dominance interaction can be used tD discuss the output aspects of sensorimotor differentiation. If the above interactions are shown to be statistically significant and can be meaningfully interpreted, this would indicate that the output aspects of sensorimotor differentiation as well as the input aspects of sensorimotor differentiation 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 effects of input in terms of sensory presentation at two levels, tactual-kinesthetic and visual, on -47-sensorimotor differentiation abilities at each age level the mean scares far the Age x Conditions interaction are to be examined. If this interaction is shown to be statistically significant and the differences between the mean scores for conditions can be interpreted in terms of the trend for visual (conditions 1 and 2) mean scores being higher than the trend for tactual-kinesthetic mean scores (condition 3 and condition 4) across the age levels studied, hypothesis 3 can be accepted. This hypothesis can be further discussed in terms of a significant Age x Task Series x Conditions interaction, if this is obtained in the analyses. Hypothesis 4, p. 7 To test for the effects of intramodal integration and intermodal integration on sensorimotor differentiation abilities at each age level, the mean scores for the Age x Conditions inter action are to be examined. If this interaction is shown to be statistically significant and can be interpreted in terms of the trend for intramodal integration (conditions 1 and 4) being higher than the trend for intermodal integration (conditions 2 and 3) across the age levels studied, then hypothesis 4 can be accepted. This hypothesis can be further interpreted in terms of the Age x Task Series x Conditions interaction if this is shown to be statistically significant. Hypothesis 5, p. 7 To test for the effects of dominance on sensorimotor differ entiation, the mean scores for the dominant hand and the non-dominant -48-hand at each age level in the Age x Dominance interaction are to be considered. If this interaction is shown to be statistically significant 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 levels studied, hypothesis 5 can be accepted. If the Age x Task Series x Dominance interaction is significant, 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 statistical 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 uill be outlined. Observations The ability 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 it difficult 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 in-attentiveness. -50-Closely associated uith the above observations uas the length of time children took to initiate their response in Task Series I and to position their hands in Task Series II. This response time uas observed to decrease over the ages studied, becoming immediate at the 6 year old level. The development of gross motor co-ordination shoued advances over the 3 to 6 year old age levels. At 3 years of age, hitting the puck from a stationary position seemed to be a con tinuous trial and error process. It appeared that the difficulty in this task uas attributable to the motor aspects of directing the stick to the puck, as the children seemed to fixate on the puck. By 6 years of age, hitting the puck from a stationary position did not appear to be a difficult task, but the same task from a moving position seemed more complex as the children dis played difficulty in judging distances and timing. Results and Discussion of the Hypotheses The statistical results are presented under the 5 hypotheses of this study. The dependent measures that uere calculated uere: in Task Series I the score obtained on an ordinal scale of 0-5, in Task Series II the score obtained on an ordinal scale of 0-6, and in Task Series III and IU the number of correct responses. The data of Task Series I and Task Series II uas submitted to bivariate frequency analysis and variance analysis. The data on Task Series II uas transformed to an ordinal scale of 0-5 for the analysis of variance. The bivariate frequency distributions for -51-Task Series I and Task Series II are shown in Appendix F. These distributions showed that the scores obtained by the subjects shifted over the age levels studied. There was a ceiling effect on the scores in Task Series I far 5 year olds and 6 year olds and in Task Series II for 6 year olds. The AIMOV/A table is shown in Appendix G. Hypothesis 1 It was hypothesized that: The major development in the differentiation of body parts is at the sensorimotor level as opposed to the preference level and the language level, in 3 to 6 year old children. The age of the child, not the sex of the child, is the determining factor in this development. To test this hypothesis the data obtained in Task Series III and Task Series IU was considered. Table 5 shows the percentage of children, at each age level, who continually used the same hand to throw a ball on S trials and the same foot to kick a ball on 8 trials. The data collected indicates that the major development in preference differentiation occurs prior to age 3 years. While this supports the findings of Berges and Lezine (1965) that dominance can be extracted even at the 3 year old level, it does not support a body of research which suggests the dominance is usually not established until age 5 years in the typical child (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 differentiation did not continually improve at each age level studied. -52-Table 5. Age Percentages for 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 children, at each age level who, on tasks requiring either a verbal response to indication of the body part on the subject, or an indication response on self to verbal commands, correctly identified the eye, hand, and foot on 12 trials and the right and left aspects of these body parts on 12 trials. The data in Table ID presumably indicates that the understanding of the verbal labels, eye, hand, foot, uas established by 3 years of age. Significant developments in the understanding of the verbal labels, right and left, uas not clearly apparent until 6 years of age. Thus, the language differentiation tasks studied did not shou continued improvement at each age level. It uould seem reasonable, then, to examine the Task Series requiring sensorimotor differentiation in an attempt to determine if the developmental significance of body part differentiation lies at this level of neurological organization. -53-Table 6. Age Percentages for the Differentiation of Body Right/Left Language Parts, Age Body Parts Right/Left 3 years 100.00% • .•0% 4 years 100.00% 0.D0% 5 years 100.00% 6.25% 6 years 1D0.00% 75.D0% The effects of Age on sensorimotor differentiation, did, as shown in Table 7, reflect continual improvement at each age level studied. An F test revealed that the differences between the mean scores for Ages in Table 7 were significant, thus, the Age main effect was significant (F = 269.40, p<:.01). The Sex (Age) main effect was not statistically significant (F = .031, p<.D5). Further interactions of Sex (Age) were also non-significant. Hypothesis 1 can be accepted; there was a significant difference in the mean scores for age levels but the performance at each age level was not affected by the sex of the child. Table 7. Mean Scores for the Age and Sex (Age) Kuin Effects Age Boys and Girls Boys Girls 3 1.8 1.8 1.7 4 3.3 • 3.3 3.2 5 2.9 3.8 3.9 6 4.4 4.4 4.5 -54-The remaining hypotheses are concerned uith the nature of this .developmental trend for sensorimotor differentiation. Hypothesis 2 The ability to make voluntary movement differ entiations is dependent upon the sensorimotor aspects, not only the sensory aspects of the task. To test this hypothesis the mean scores for the Age x Task Series interaction uere considered to determine if the output aspects of the sensorimotor differentiation tasks studied as uell as the input aspects of the sensorimotor differentiation tasks studied affected performance scores at each age level. Before dis cussing these findings, it should be clarified 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 II. The input requirements for Task Series II, alternatively, appeared to require a more comprehensive spatial organization than did the input requirements of Task Series I. The mean scores for the Age x Task Series interaction are shoun in Table S. An F test revealed that the difference betueen these mean scores uas significant. While the mean scores con tinually improved as a function of increases in 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 level uere not aluays in the same direction. -55-Table 8. Mean Scores for the Age x Task Series Interaction Age Task Series I Task Series II 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 for the Age x Task Series interaction, then, suggest that the input and output variables of sensorimotor differ entiation do not affect performance consistently at each age level studied. While the Task Series I function appeared to be steeper than the Task Series II function (Figure 1) suggesting that the motor organization required for Task Series I progressed more rapidly during 3 to 6 years of age than did the spatial organization required for Task Series II, the design of these sensorimotor tasks does not permit the conclusion that the output aspects of sensori motor differentiation are the most important factors in the per formance scores of 3 to 6 year olds. Similarly, uhile performance scores under tactual-kinesthetic presentations were higher than performance scares under visual presentations, these input factors can not be considered the most important aspect of the sensorimotor differentiations as the ability to organize the sensory inform ation presented uas inter-related uith the output variables re quired for movement differentiation on each Task Series. -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 in performance at this age level. The majority of children could differentiate the fingers more accurately if they used a pointing response, as opposed to the isolated finger action required. Although this pointing response to the finger indicated uas not studied in this investig ation, it uas a more automatic response at each age level studied. The use of this pointing response indicated that the children could discriminate betueen the fingers before they could use them for the movement differentiation required on Task Series I. The findings illustrated in 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 closely 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 level of motor or output organization required for Task Series II uas not the determining factor in Task Series comparisons, and both the input and output aspects uere the determinants of sensorimotor differentiations. By 5 years of age the ability to organize the input and the output aspects of Task Series I seems to have progressed to the point uhere a ceiling effect uas place on the mean scores. Similar findings uere observed on Task Series II at the 6 year old level, but, only on the conditions requiring tactual-kinesthetic organization of the information presented. -57-Figure 1. Mean Scores for Tactual-Kinesthetic Presentations and Visual Presentations on Task Series by Age. 5.0 j 1.0 1 • 1 1 1 1 12 3 4 CONDITIONS 'Figure 2. Mean Scores for the Age X Conditions Interaction. -60-It does seem, then, that at each age level both the input and the output aspects of the sensorimotor differentiation tasks studied mere the determinants of performance. Hypothesis 2, was supported. Hypothesis 3 The ability to make voluntary movement differentiations requiring visual organization precedes the ability to make voluntary movement differentiations requiring tactual-kinesthetic organization. The mean scores for the Age x Condition interaction are shown in Table 9. While an F test revealed that the difference betweem these mean scores was significant, the graphic analysis in Figure 3 indicates that this statistical finding was not meaningful. The same trend for conditions was found at each age level. Ranging from the easiest condition to the hardest condition, this trend was condition 4: tactual-kinesthetic presentation for non-visual movement response condition 3: tactual-kinesthetic presentation for visual movement response condition 2: visual presentation for non-visual movement response condition 1: visual presentation for visual movement response. Hypothesis 3 was, thus, refuted. The difference between mean scores for the significant Conditions main effect (F = 185.56), p<.01) appears to be attributable to the difference between tactual-kinesthetic presentations and visual 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 for the Age x Conditions Interaction Age Visual --Visual Movement Visual— Non-visual Movement Tactual-kinesthetic visual movement Tactual-kinesthetic 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 It mas hypothesized that (4) The ability to make voluntary movement differ entiations on tasks requiring intra-modal integration develops in advance of the ability to make voluntary movement differentiations on the tasks requiring inter-modal integration. At the time when this hypothesis was formulated, the investigator interpreted the visual presentation for visual movement response (condition 1) to be an intra-modal condition. This was an incorrect assumption. Previous integrative processing studies had described this type of condition as intra-modal (Bryant, 1968; Lefford, 1970) but the movement response employed seem to require minimal motor, organization (pointing on self) in comparison to the actions studied in this investigation. The research in -63-integrative processing had revealed that visual intra-modal integration develops in advance of inter-modal processing involving visual information in the 'response or in the presentation and intra-modal haptic and kinesthetic processing (Baiter and Fogarty, 1971; Birch and Lefford, 1963; Lefford, 1970; Rudel and Teuber, 1964). One would expect, then, that Task Series II which required a lesser degree of motor organization for the response relative to Task Series I would reflect the reported reliance Dn visual information for visual movement response at the 3 year Did level in particular (Lefford, 1970). This was not shown (Figure 1). It was concluded, then, that the only intra-modal condition in the experimental design of this study was condition 4, the tactual-kinesthetic presentation (passive movement without visual cues) for non-visual movement (active movement without visual cues). The mean scores for this condition were higher than the remaining mean scores for conditions on both Task Series and at each age level studied. Hypothesis 4 if revised to read 'intra-modal task' and not 'intra-modal tasks' was supported. During the actual testing sessions, it was observed that the availability of visual information for response (conditions 1 and 3) often confused the children. While the modality through which information regarding the hands and fingers is obtained appears to be the significant aspect of the conditions employed in this study, the slight differences between the mean scores of conditions 1 and 2 and between the mean scores of conditions 3 and 4 should not be totally 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 readily permits differentiation on the task employed (visual for object form differentiation, haptic for texture differentiation, tactual-kinesthetic for body part differentiation). Hypothesis 5 It was hypothesized that: (5) The ability to make voluntary movement differ entiations along the dominant side of the body precedes the ability to make voluntary movement differentiations along the non-dominant side of the body. An F test revealed a significant Dominant main effect (F = 199.06, p<.01) further interactions with Dominance were also significant (Appendix G). The mean scores for the Age x Dominance interaction are shown in 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 level studied. It uas further determined in the significant Age x Task Series x Dominance interaction (F = 4.58, p< .DI) that this trend applied to both Task Series (Figure 4). One uauld expect that the difference betueen these mean scores uould be more noticeable on Task Series I uhich required a complex motor organization in comparison to Task Series II. This result uas obtained at the 4, 5 and 6 year old levels but not at the 3 year old level. The consideration of the positions used in Task Series II and the uay in uhich the children reproduced these positions may clarify this apparent incon sistency. All 6 positions presented involved both the right hand and the left hand. The majority of 3 year old children approached their position reproductions by leading uith the dominant hand. They uould position this hand and then try tD determine the re lationship Df the non-dominant hand. If the dominant hand uas placed in the correct position it uas recorded as a correct differ entiation and assigned (1). By 4 years of age, this approach to the reproduction of the position shoued a more comprehensive inter pretation of the gestalt of the 2 hands in orientation as they uere moved together. It uas not as readily observable uhether the incorrect positionings uere attributable to the dominant or the non-dominant hand. As a result, the differences betueen these variables on Task Series II uere not as noticeable as on Task Series I. There uas, houever a reliance on the dominant hand in the cross over positions (2 and 3), as, until 6 years of age the dominant hand uas uith feu exceptions, positioned an top of the non-dominant -66-hand regardless of the actual position 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 effects can be extracted as early as 3 years of age. The data of this investigation suggests that developmental significance of an organized model of the body lies in the sensorimotor development of the 3 to 6 year old child. .General Discussion The findings of this investigation seem to indicate that the relevance of body part differentiation to the neurological and cognitive development of the 3 to 6 year old child lies in the organization of tv-insorimotor functions. Body Schema The findings of this study are in agreement with the view adopted by Berges and Lezine (1965); if the development of the body schema is studied by observing the motor utilization of this subconscious,physiological model, the perceptual-motor factors of the pre-school child's development predominate over the perceptual factors considered essential to this synthesized schema formulated by Head (1920). while the topography of the hands and fingers appeared tD be more readily differentiated when perceived by the tactual-kinesthetic system than by the visual system; this perceptual aspect was inter-related with motor organization on both Task Series and at each age level (Figures 1 and 2). -67-The findings of this study related to higher mean scores for tactual-kinesthetic presentations in comparison to visual presentations da seem to support, however, Konorski's (1967) contention that information coming from the angular displacement of the joints (position information, in this study presented through passive movement or the tactual-kinesthetic system in the absence of visual information) is the predominant sensory system in body schema acquisition. In view of Head's (1920) tenet that hand-finger schemata may be used as an excellent indication of the development of the total body schema, the findings of this investigation indicate that the development of the body schema stabilizes around 5 to 6 years of age. The tactual-kinesthetic organization of the body, apparently, stabilizing before the visual organization of the body (Figure 2). Psychological Considerations Piaget (1954) has attributed the significance of body awareness to the development of spatial schemata at the pre operational stage of logical thought development (approximately 2 to 7 years). Furthermore, Piaget (1953) has suggested that the notion of space, at this level, is predominantly tied to sensori motor schemata. It would seem, in light of the present investigation, that the use of the neurological term, body schema as a synthesis of body schemata (hand-finger schemata) is an appropriate, more operational definition of body awareness. Piaget (1954) has also emphasized the importance of differ--68-entiated motor activity for the development of an understanding of space. The findings of this investigation (Figure 1; hypothesis 2), discussed in the previous section would seem to support this contention. Within Piaget's (1954) theoretical framework for the development of spatial comprehension, laterality or the internal understanding of the right and left co-ordinates of the body is the first notion of space said to develop. Kephart (I960) has suggested that laterality is established in the typical child by formal school age. It. would seem, then, that these psychologists have used the term laterality to refer to the understanding of right and left at the sensorimotor level of neurological organ ization, as the findings of this investigation indicate that sensorimotor functions, pertaining to the body, stabilize around 5 to 6 years of age (Figure 3, Appendix F). Kephart (1960) suggested that in the projection of later ality, termed directionality, form and distance are the most important aspects in learning to read. In addition to the estab lishment of laterality and directionality, Kephart (1960) and Radler and Kephart (1960) have contended that the establishment of visual-motor integration is necessary for learning to read. According to Radler and Kephart (1960), the corollary of this also holds; if a child displays reading difficulty he should be given training in these skills. IMow, in the present study it was indicated that the sensorimotor organization of body part differentiation is not the same as the sensorimotor organization required for form perception (Baiter and Fogarty, 1971; Birch and Lefford, 1963; -69-Rudel and Teuber, 1964). It may be argued, then, that if a child displays reading difficulty the nature Df this difficulty should be initially established. If the problem lies in sensorimotor organization, the specific organizational difficulty should be identified to ensure that the remedial training is appropriate to developing the sensorimotor abilities required. Neurological Considerations In view of this investigation, it would seem that Geschwind's (1965) proposal, cited by Butters and Brody (196B), referring to the left parietal-occipital region as the mediator for cross-modal integrations may explain the relationships between the spatial disorders, including body image disturbance, associated with cerebral lesions in the left parietal lobe. If the cerebral area responsible for inter-modal integ ration is damaged it would seem to follow that behaviors requiring this ability would be affected detrimentally. Moreover, if the procedures used to measure these abilities are closely approximated in terms of specific integrative demands required it would seem that recorded performances would be necessarily similar. The neuropathological conditions discussed in Chapter II all required spatial organization of a visual-motor nature (excluding some measurements of aphasia); it does not seem unusual, then, that positive relationships between these disorders have frequently been reported. It may be deduced that the dissimilar reports of associated relationships may be attributable to the inherent differences in the functional measures of these behaviors employed by various researchers. A similar argument could be used to explain -70-the conflicting findings reported for reading disability cor relates (Chalfant and Schefflin, 1969). Integrative Processing Considerations The sensory integration studies in form perception (Baiter and Fogarty, 1971; Birch and Lefford, 1963; and Rudel and Teuber, 1964) have investigated the ability of pre-schoDl children to treat stimuli presented to one modality or to two modalities as the 'same' or 'different'. It has been discussed elsewhere in this chapter that the developmental trend reported for these studies is different from the developmental trend indicated in this study. This distinction is elaborated below. The findings of these form perception studies have indicated that initially reliance is placed on the visual system, irrespective of the intra-modal (minimal motor response required) or the inter-modal aspects of the task. Mot until 5 to 7 years of age was an equivalence between the visual system and the kinesthetic system (Birch and Lefford, 1963) or between the visual system and the haptic system (Baiter and Fogarty, 1971; Rudel and Teuber, 1964) reported. While these investigators have referred tD an equivalence between these systems, it may be as was the case in the present study, that the design of the sensorimotor tasks placed a ceiling effect on the performance scores of 5 and 6 year old children. In this study, reliance seemed to be placed on the tactual-kinesthetic system as opposed to the visual system. The findings of the present investigation, then, seem to be in agreement with honorski's (1967.) contention that position information (tactual--71-kinesthetic presentations) is the predominant sensory system in the acquisition of the body schema. The results of this investigation will now be discussed in terms of Lefford's (1970) study which concommitantly examined the development of k voluntary actions in 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 differentiated when perceived visually or tactually-kinesthetically. This may have been attrib utable to the ceiling effect on performance as revealed in the present study. Lefford also suggested that the visual hand-finger schemata appeared tD be more advanced at the 3 year old level, than the tactual-kinesthetic schemata. This was not indicated in the present study and may be partially explained by considering that Lefford's tactual-kinesthetic presentations were described as heavy touch outside Df the field of vision while the presentations in this study were passive movements without visual information available. Perhaps, the information conveyed by these two dis tinguishable tactual-kinesthetic presentations was of a different nature. Lefford further suggested that his findings indicated that the sensory systems are initially unrelated and become inter-co-ordinated with the development of the child. The findings of this study support Lefford's reasoning; and presumably indicate the importance of neurological organization to the psychological -72-development of the child uith uhich Lefford (1970) uas concerned. Lefford interpreted these sensory integration findings in terms of the development of motor responses: it must be evident that uhen the execution of a movement or an action depends on the trans lation of information from one sensory modality to another, the action cannot be effected until an equivalence betueen the schemata in the different sensory domains is established. Lefford (1970.) In vieu of the findings in this study, it seems that Lefford uas suggesting that voluntary movement differentiations inherently require an understanding of the tactual-kinesthetic topography of the body. Until an equivalence is approached betueen the visual organization and the tactual-kinesthetic organization of the body required for the voluntary movement response required, actions requiring interco-ordination, betueen these tuo organ izational systems uill not be effective. Thus, it seems that the development of voluntary movements during the pre-school years must be studied concommitantly uith the sensory organization of the topography of the body required. -73-CHAPTER M SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This developmental study attempted to distinguish betueen the preference differentiation, sensorimotor differentiation, and language differentiation of body parts by 3 to 6 year old children. The development of the body schema defined as the neurological model of the sensorimotor aspects of body parts uas emphasized. Summary Head (1920) originally formulated the term body schema and conceived this phenomenon to be a synthesis of the sensory afferents pertaining to the body. Berges and Lezine (1965) have suggested that the significance of this subconscious model lies in its use. The findings of this investigation indicate that Berges' and Lezine's (1965) approach may dissipate the confusion in the interdisciplinary research concerned uith the relevance of this organized model of the body in the development of pre school children. Experimental conditions and procedures Four Task Series uere administered; Task Series I uas sensorimotor finger localization; Task Series II uas sensorimotor hand-finger orientation; Task Series III uas hand preference and -74-foot preference; Task Series IU uas the verbal understanding Df body parts uith respect to the right and left co-ordinates of the body. Four different experimental conditions that involved visual presentations and tactual-kinesthetic presentations for visual movement response and nan-visual movement response uere used in Task Series I and Task Series II. The movement response studied in Task Series I uas the isolated movement of the one finger presented; the movement response studied in Task Series II uas the placement of the hands and fingers in the orientation position presented. Task Series I required a more complex motor schema than did Task II, uhile Task II required a more complex spatial schema than did Task I. In each experimental condition of Task Series I, the 5 fingers of each hand uere presented for differentiation. The dependent measures studied uas the score an an ordinal scale of • -5. In Task Series II, 6 hand-finger orientation positions involving both hands uere presented in each experimental condition. The dependent measure studied uas the score on an ordinal scale of • - 5. Task Series III involved 4 trials of throuing a ball uith one hand (hand preference) and 4 trials of kicking a ball (foot preference). This Task Series uas administered tuice and no intra-individual variability uas obtained. Task Series IU required the identification of the eye, hand and foot uith respect to the left and right co-ordinates of the body on 6 trials. These trials involved S's verbal response to the body part indicated by E on S (3 trials); and S's indication -75-of the body part on self to the verbal instructions given by E to S (3 trials). This Task Series uas administered tuice; until 6 years of age intra-individual variability in the Day I and Day II performance uas high. This presumably indicates the verbal instructions requiring a comprehension of right and left uas an invalid procedure for testing body part differentiations of 3 to 5 year old children. Subjects. Sixty-four 3 to 6 year old children, 8 boys and 8 girls in each category, participated as subjects in this study. Experimental analyses. The data of Task Series III and IU uas discussed in terms of the percentage of children at each age level completing the tasks in a manner that uould indicate that the ability tested uas established. The data of Task Series I and Task Series II uas submitted to bivariate frequency analyses and a4x2x2x2x4 parametric AIMDUA uith repeated measures on the last 3 factors. To analyze the differences betueen mean scores the scores for Task Series II uere transformed to the 0-5 ordinal scale used in Task Series I. The statistical significance shoun in this parametric statistical test uas interpreted cautiously uith the use of graphic analyses. Experimental findings. 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 significant development in the performance scores on Task Series IU observed at 6 years of age, presumably indicating that the language organ ization required for this Task Series improved rapidly betueen -76-5 and 6 years of age. The major developments observed in this study uere on the sensorimotor tasks. The analysis of variance revealed that the Age, Task Series, Conditions, and Dominance main effects and first order interactions were significant. The significant Age X Conditions interaction uas not meaningful as the same trend for conditions uas observed at each age level. The Sex (Age) main effect uas not significant and further interactions uith this variable uere also non-significant. The increase in Task I mean scores uas more rapid across 3 to 6 years than the increase in Task II mean scares. This pre sumably indicates that the motor organization improved more than the spatial organization required far the hand-finger schemata studied over the age range investigated. These organizational abilities uere, houever, inter-related uith the sensory aspects of the hands and fingers at each age level. Until 5 years of age, the visual organization of the topography of the hands and fingers did not appear to be as developed as the tactual-kinesthetic organ ization of the topography of the hands and fingers. This comparison uas drawn from the mean scores of Task Series I in the Age X Task Series X Conditions interaction. Similar findings uere not obtained uhen Task Series II uas considered. Even at 6 years of age, the mean scores for tactual-kinesthetic presentations of Task Series II uere higher than those for visual presentations. The above findings support Berges1 and Lezine's (1965) view that the body schema should be studied as a sensory-motor mechanism and not as a sensory mechanism. These findings also support Konorski's (1967) contention that the information coming -77-from the changes in the angular displacement of the joints is the predominant sensory system in the acquisition of. the body schema. It uas further determined that until an equivalence is approached betueen the visual organization and the tactual-kinesthetic organization of the hands and fingers, actions re quiring interco-ordinations betueen these tuo organizational systems uill not be as effective as the actions requiring tactual-kinesthetic intra-modal translation. Thus, it seems that the development of voluntary movements in the pre-school child is tied to the development Df the integration of sensory impressions on the body. Conclusions The'follouing conclusions are based on the experimental findings of this study. 1. The significance of the developmental phenomenon describing the ability of pre-school children to form an organized model of their body appears to lie in the neurological development of the child at the sensorimotor level of organization. This suggests that the neurological term body schema is applicable to the research in develop mental and educational psychology concerned uith the development of body auareness in the pre-school child. 2. In studying the motor utilization of the body schema, the perceptual-motor organization appears to.be more determinant than the perceptual organization required for hand-finger differentiation. 3. The development of body schema appears to stabilize around 5 to 6 years of age if the tactual-kinesthetic hand-finger schemata are used as an indication of the establishment of this phenomenon. 4. Until the visual organization of the topography of the hands and fingers approximates the tactual--78-kinesthetic organization of the topography of the hands and fingers voluntary movements requiring interco-ordinations betueen these systems will not be as effective as those requiring tactual-kinesthetic intra-modal translation. Directions for Future Research The findings of this study have indicated avenues for further developmental research concerned uith the associations betueen voluntary movement differentiation and sensory integration in children. 1. There uould seem to be a need for research con cerned uith the effects of sensory integration on the development of voluntary movements in children. 2. There uould seem to be a need far research con cerned uith the development of the kinesthetic system and its interco-ordination uith other sensory systems for more precise differentiations than those used in this study. 3. There uould seem to be a need for research con cerned uith the effectiveness of different cues for motor learning or movement differentiation at various age levels. -79-BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY' Abravanel, E. "The development of intersensory patterning: haptic visual integratration of length and diameter", Monograph Soc. Res. Child Development, 1968. Ames, L„ and Learned, J. "The development of verbalized space in the young child", Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1948, 12, 63-84. Arrigoni, G. and De Renzi, E. "Constructional apraxia and hemi spheric locus of lesion", Cortex, 1964, 2, 170-197. Asso, D. and Wyke, M. "Spatially confusable letter 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 Skills, 1971, 33, 467-472. Bateman, B. "An educator's view of a diagnostic approach to learning disorders", Journal of Learning Disabilities, 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 its dis turbances , "Pe_d^ajtrJ;c_CJjjT^ 1968, 15, 759-769. Benton, A.L. Right-Left Discrimination and Finger Localization, New York: Hoeber-Harper, 1959. '_. "Right-left discrimination", Pediatric Clinics of North America, 1968, 15, 747-758. and Schultz, L.M. "Observations on tactual form perception (stereagnosis) in pre-school children", Journal  of Clinical Psychology, 1949, 5, 359-364. , Sutton, S., Kennedy, J., Brokaw, J. "The cross-modal retardation in reaction time of patients with cerebral disease", Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1962, 135 413-418... -81-Berges, J. and Lezine, I. "The imitation of gestures", Clinics in  Developmental Medicine, 1965, Whole no. 18, Birch, H.G. and Belmount, I. "Auditory-visual integration in normal and retarded readers", American Journal of Ortho psychiatry, 1964, 34, 852-861. . "Auditory-visual integration, intelligence and reading ability in school children", Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1965, 20, 295-305. or' and Bortner, M. "Perceptual and perceptual motor dissociation in brain damaged patients", Journal of Nervous  and Mental Disease, 1960, 130, 49. and Lefford, A. "Intersensory development in children", Monographs for Soc. Res. Child Development, 1963, Whole  no. 89. Blank, M. and Altman, D. "Effect of stimulus modality and task complexity on discrimination and reversal learning in pre-school children", Journal of Experimental Child  Psychology, 1968, 6, 598-606. and Bridger, W. "Cross-modal transfer in nursery school children", Journal of Comparative Physiol. Psychology, 1964, 58, 277-282. Bortner, M.-, Birch, H.G. "Perceptual and perceptual motor dis sociation in cerebral palsied children", Journal of IMervous  and Mental Disease, 1960, 134, 103-108. Boyle, D.G. A Student's Guide to Piaget, New York: Pergamon Press .1969. Brumbach, W.B. "A response to Petrie's rlote on statistical analysis of attitude scale scores", Research Quarterly, 1969, 40, 436-437. Bruner, J.S. "The course of cognitive growth", American Psychologist, 1964, 19, 1-15. Bryant, P.E. "Comments on the design of developmental studies of cross-modal matching and cross-modal transfer", Cortex, 1968, 4, 128-127. Butters, N. "The role of the parietal lobes in the mediation of some developmental-cognitive phenomena", cited in Sparrow and Satz, 1970a. and Brody, B. "The role of the left parietal lobe in the mediation of intra- and cross-modal associations", Cortex, 1968, 4_, 328-343. -82-Carlson, J. "Same relationships betueen .verbal and perceptual capabilities and the development of relative thinking", Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1971, 118, 115-119. Cattel, P. The Measurement of Intelligence of Infants and Young  Children, Neu York: Psychological Corp., 1940. Chalfant, J.C. and Schefflin, 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. Merrill Pub. Co., 1968. Conners, G.R., Schuette, C. and Goldman, A. "Informal analysis of intersensory communication in children of different social class", Child Development, 1967, 38, 251-266. Cornish, R. "Effects of neurological training on psychomotor abilities in kindergarten children", Journal of Experimental  Education, 1970, 39, 15-24. Court, S.R. "Number, time and space in the first five years of life", Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1920, 27, 71-89. Critchley, M. Developmental Dyslexia, London: Heinemann, 1964. . "Dysgraphia and other anomolies of uritten speech", Pediatric Clinics of North America, 1968a, 15_, 639-650. ;. "Reversals in language: the importance of kines thetic feedback systems", Journal of Learning Disabilities, 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 pschDneurolDgical factors contributing to learning efficiency", Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1968, I, 636-643. De Renzi, E. and Piera, F. "The relationship betueen visuo-spatial impairment and constructional apraxia", Cortex, 1967, 3_, 327-341. Egan, D.F., Illinguarth, R.S. and MacKeith, R.C. "Developmental screening 0-5 years", Clinics in Developmental Medicine, 1970, Whole no. 30. Elkind, D. and Flavell, J. eds. Studies in 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 First Five Years of Life, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1940. Getzels, J. and Jackson, P.U. Creativity and Intelligence, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Ginsburg, H. and Qpper, I. Piaget's Theory of Intellectual Development, Englewood Cliffs, 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. Guilford. J.P. "Structure of the intellect", Psychological  Bulletin, 1956, 53, 226-293. Head, H. Studies in 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 Spatial 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: Merril Books, 1960. King, W.L. "A non arbitrary behavioral criterion for conservation of illusion distorted length in five year olds", Journal  of Experimental Child Psychology, 1971, _11, 171-181. Kinsbourne, M. "Developmental Gerstmann's syndrome", Pediatric  Clinics of North America, 1968, 15, 771-777. -84-Kanorski, J. Integrative Activity of the Brain, An Interdis  ciplinary 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. cited by Stone (1968). Lefford, A. "Sensory, perceptual and cognitive factors in the development of voluntary actions", in Mechanisms of Motor  Skill Development, ed. K.J. Conolly, Neu York: Academic Press, 1970, 207-217. Luria, A.R. "Neuropsychology in the local diagnosis of brain damage", Cortex, 1964, JL, 3-18. McCarthy, J.J. "The importance of linguistic ability in the mentally retarded", Mental Retardation, 1954, Whole no. 90. , and McCarthy, J.F. Learning Disabilities, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1970. Martens, R. "Subject and experimenter errors in behavioral research uith particular reference to motor behavior", Journal of  Motor Behavior, 1970, 11, 52-67. Meyer, E. "Comprehension of spatial relations in .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. "Ability to match information betueen auditory and visual 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 Brigins of Intelligence in the Child, London: Routledge and Paul, 1953. . The Construction of Reality in the Child, New York: Basic Books, 1954. . The Mechanisms of Perception, London: Routledge and Paul, 1964. . The Child's Conception of Movement and Speed, London: Routledge and Paul, 1970. , and Inhelder, B. The Child's Conception of Space, London: Routledge and Paul, 1956. Pick, A.D., Pick, H.L. and Thomas, M.L. "Cross-modal transfer and improvement in form discrimination", 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 Publications, 1953. Radler, D.H. and Kephart, N.C. Success Through Play, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. Rice, J. "Right-left discrimination: systematic reversal in bright children", Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1968, 1, 654-659. Reitan, R. Clinical Examinations in Neurology, Philadelphia: U. B. Saunders, 1971. Reuben, R.N. and Bakwin, H. "Developmental clumsiness", Pediatric  Clinics of North America, 1968, 15, 601-610. Rubin, E.Z. and Braun, J.S. "Behavioral and learning disabilities associated with cognitive motor dysfunction,"Perceptual and  Motor Skills, 1968, 26_, 171-180. Rudel, R. and Teuber, H. "Cross-modal transfer discrimination by children", Neuropsychologia, 1964, 2_, 1-8. Scott, L.H. and Ball, R.S. "Intelligence a changing concept", Monographs of the Society for Res, in Child Development, 1965, 30, 4-45. Semmes, J. "Hemispheric specialization: a possible 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 in Man, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 196D. Sherrington, CS. Man on His Nature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950. Smith, A. "Certain hypothesized hemispheric differences in language and visual functions in human adults, "Cortex, 1966, 1_, 109-126. Sparrous, S. and Statz,P. "Specific developmental dyslexia: a theoretical formulating,"Specific Reading Disability, eds. D. Bakker and P. Satz, Amsterdam: Rotterdam University Press, 1970a. . "Dyslexia, laterality and neuro psychological development, Specific Reading Disability, 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. , Miller, CG., Benton, A.L. "The phi test and measures of laterality in children and adults", Cortex, 1968, 2, 308-321. Stengel, E. "Loss of spatial orientation, 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 localization 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. "Deficits concommitant uith 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. APPENDIX A WOODEN FRAME APPARATUS FOR TASK SERIES I AND II 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 -91-APPENDIX C PHOTOGRAPHS FOR TASK SERIES Position 1 I VD Ln Position 2 ' Position k II I r Position 5 Position 6 APPENDIX D EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN -101-Order of Presentation The order of presentation of the fingers in Task Series I and the positions in Task Series II uas randomly selected from a table of random numbers for Order I and uas-reversed for Order II. Task Series I. The little finger of the right hand uas designated (1) and the little finger of the left hand uas des ignated (10). The numbers ranged across the right hand to the left hand from (1) to (10). Order 1 5169382 10 47 Order 2 74 10 2839 615 Task Series II. The 6 positions uere randomly assigned a number (Appendix C). Latin Square The conditions and orders of presentation uere counter balanced by replicating the follouing Latin Square for each Age X Sex group (e.g. 3 year old males). Order 1 1 3 6 5 2 4 Order 2 4 2 5 6 3 1 Table 1.1. Latin Square Replicated for each Age X Sex Group Order of Stimulus Presentation Order of Condition Presentation 01 Oil SI S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7 S8 C4 Cl C2 C3 Cl C3 C4 C2 C2 C4 C3 Cl C3 C2 Cl C4 Table 1.2. 4x2x2x2x4 Experimental Design far the Sensorimotor Task Series I and II 6 years Boys Girls Bays 5 years Girls 4 years Bays Girls 3 years Boys Girls Task Series I Task Series II Dominant Hand Nan-Dominant Hand Dominant Hand Non-Dominant Hand Cl C2 C3 C4 (5) (5) (5) (5) Cl C2 C3 C4 (5) (5) (5) (5) Cl C2 C3 C4 (5) (5) (5) (5) Cl 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. Individual finger Left Index Right Index Left Little Right Ring Left Middle Right Middle Left Ring Left Thumb Right Thumb Left Little presentation (7) <<0 (10) (2) (8) (3) ("3) (6) (5) (1) Totals Night Hand Left Hanc lavement Differentiation Correct (1) Incorrect (0) '.ature of the Error difficulty in isolating "inger movement jrong finger Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Lt: RIMRL Lt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Rt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL Lt: TIMRL _.MO, Lt : 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 trials Day II k trials Total 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 indication right eye left foot right hand Uerbal response right foot left eye left hand Totals -IDS-APPENDIX E INSTRUCTIONS FOR TASK SERIES I-IV -IDS-APPENDIX E Instructions for Task Series I - IU Day Investigation Phase Uerbal Instructions given to the subject Clarification of Instructions Day I Approach to subject Day I Hand, foot Would you like to play some games uith me? Would you like to play uith the ball or the bike or the slide S: No; E did not force the child into the testing situation S: Yes; E took child to the testing room Free play Hand-finger differentiation Why don't ue play uith the ball? Can you throu it to me? Goad, nau can you kick the ball? Nou I'll cover this eye, is your finger still painting at the spot? Let's play some finger games nau. Come uith me and ue'll sit daun at the table If tuo hand used initially, S asked to use one hand for throuing. Hand preference on k trials observed Foot preference on 4 trials observed Left eye covered. Appendix A Condition 1 visual-visual Do you knou uhat these are? Nou I uant you to put your hands Dn the box, like this. Push your fingers doun on the box, like this. Good! Photographs of the hands shoun Appendix A In this finger game I'm going to point to one finger on the picture, like this Little finger of the left hand indicated -107-APPEMDIX E (continued) Day Investigation Phase Verbal instructions given to the subject Clarification of Instructions Then I'm going tD hide the picture finger, like this As soon as I hide the finger I want you to find the one finger on your hand and shou it to me Cardboard placed over both photographs for successive presentation Try to shou me the one finger by moving it up and down like this. If you can't do that shou me the one finger anyuay you like, then try and uiggle the one finger, like this Let's try it Point to the finger, then curl all the other fingers under then uiggle it. Little finger on left hand indicated for 3 sec. to clarify instructions Condition 2 visual-kinesthetic Good, nDu let's try some more. Remember . shou me the one finger that I painted tD on the picture. Let's go! In this game I uant you to put your hands in the box like this, and push them daun on the table. Good! In this finger game, I'm going to point to one finger on the picture like this Then I'm going to hide the picture finger, like this Proceed as the order of finger present ation indicates, record as in Appendix D Hands kept in a constant prone pos ition throughout presentations Appendix A little finger on the left hand indicated Cardboard placed over both photographs for successive present ation -IDS-APPENDIX E (continued) Day Investigation Phase Uerbal instructions given to the subject Clarification of Instructions As soon as I hide the picture finger I uant you to find the one finger on your hand and shou it to me. But you have to keep your hands hiding in the box all the time. Try to shou me the one finger by moving it up and down, like this. If you can't do that, shou me the one finger any way you like but then try and uiggle it, like this point to it uith opposite hand or curl all other fingers under then uiggle it Let's try it Little finger on the left hand indicated for 3 sec. to clarify instiu ctions Condition 3 kinesthetic-visual Good, nou let's try some more. Remember shou me the one finger . that I point to on the picture. Let's go! In this game I uant you to put your hands in the box, like this, and push doun on the table In this finger game, I'm going to move one of your fingers up and doun like this Proceed as the order of finger present ation indicates, record as in Appendix D Hands kept in a constant prone position throughout presentations Appendix A Little finger on the left hand indicated When I stop moving your one finger I uant take your hands out of the box, like this (fast) put them on top of the box, like this Try to shou me the one finger that I moved by moving it up and doun -IDS-APPENDIX E (continued) Day Investigation Verbal instructions Clarification of Phase given to the subject Instructions like this. If you can't do that shou the one finger any uay you like, then try and uiggle the one finger like this Let's try it! Little finger on the left hand indicated by moving it up and doun 3 times, 3 sec. to clarify in structions Condition k kinesthetic-kinesthetic Good, nou let's try some more! Remember to shou me the one finger I move. Let's go! In this game I uant you to put your hands in the box like this, and push doun on the table In this finger game, I'm going to move one of fingers up and doun like this Ulhen I stop moving your one finger I uant you to try and shou me the one finger I moved by moving it up and doun like this. If you can't do that shou me the one finger any uay you like, then try and uiggle the one finger like this, you have to keep your hands hiding in the box Let's try it Proceed as order of finger presentation indicates, record as in Appendix D Hands kept in a constant prone position throughout present ations. Appendix Little finger on left hand indicated for 3 seconds to clarify instructions Little finger on the left hand indicated by moving it up and doun 3 times, 3 sees, to clarify in structions Good, let'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 instructions given to the subject Clarification of Instructions Day I Uerbal compre hension of right and left uith respect to body part identification Clarification of instructions E verbal-S pointing E pointing-S verbal Let's try another game nou What's this? What's this? Which ear? What's it's name? Can you find your right eye and point to it? Can you find your left foot and point to it? Can you find your right hand and point to it? What's this? What's this? What's this? Presented after the first 2 conditions in each subject's Day I testing session. Move auay from table to offset boredom and learning nose indicated right arm indicated right and left clarified left eye indicated right foot indicated left hand indicated Day II Approach to Subject "Hi did you like the Hand-foot preference Hand-finger orientations games ue played last time? Do you uant to-play some more?" "Let's play uith the ball again...." "We've got some neu finger games today. Neu pictures too - Look!" "You sit at the table right here and I'll sit over here, put your hands on the box, like this." S: "No". E played uith child until ready to come for testing S:"Yes". E took child to the testing room immediately Hand-foot preference observed in the same manner as Day I Trial photographs shoun Appendix C Appendix A -111-APPENDIX E (continued) Day Investigation Verbal instructions Clarification of Phase given to the subject Instructions Condition 1 visual-visual l\lou I'm going to shou you a picture like this Trial photograph (Appendix C) presented for 3 sees. Then I'll hide the hands in the picture like this And then I uant you to do the same things uith your hands as the picture hands did "Let's try it. 'Remember it's a quiet game, uatch closely!" Cardboard placed over the photo graph This photograph (Appendix C) shoun for 3 sec. S response, to ensure in structions clear Condition 2 Visual-kinesthetic "Good, let's try some more " "In this game I uant you to keep your hands in the box like this" "IMou I'm going to shou you a picture like this" Proceed as orient ation order indicates; Record as in Appen dix D Hands kept in a constant prone position betueen responses Trial photograph (Appendix C) shoun "Then I'm going to hide the hands in the picture like this" "And I uant you to da the same thing, uith your hands in the box as the picture hands did" "Let's try it. Remember it's a quiet game, uatch closely" "Good, let's try some more" Cardboard placed over the photograph Trial photograph (Appendix C) shoun for 3 sees. Proceed as orient ation order indic ates; record as in Appendix -112-APPENDIX E (continued) Day Investigation Phase Uerbal instructions given to the subject Clarification of Instructions Condition 3 kinesthetic-visual "In this game I want you to put your hands in the box like this" 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 starts your hands into•a position uith thumbs, pro-like this" ceeds to little fingers in positioning "Then you bring them out of the box, put them on top of the box like this (fast) "And then you shou me uhat I did to your hands" "Let's try it. Remember it's a quiet game!" Trial position Appendix C, held for 3 sees, response, to ensure instruc tions clear "Good let's try some more Proceed as orient ation order indic ates; record as in Appendix D Condition 4 kinesthetic-kinesethetic In this game I uant you to put your hands in the box Constant prone pos ition in betueen S's response and E"s passive movement of the S's hands Nou I'm going to move E aluays starts uith them like this thumbs, proceeds to little fingers in positioning "Then I'm going to put them back, like this" "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 Investigation Verbal instructions phase given to the subject Clarification of Instructions "Let's try it, Remember it's a quiet game" Trial position (Appendix C) held for 3 sees. Day II Verbal comprehension of right and left uith respect to body part identi fication "Good, let's try some more!" "Let's try another game nou!" Proceed as orient ation order indic ates; record as in Appendix D Presented after each S's first 2 conditions; conducted in the same manner as on Day I Day II Conclusion Thanks for playing uith me....that uas fun! APPENDIX F BIVARIATE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR TASK SERIES I AND TASK SERIES II APPENDIX F Table 1.6 . Bivariate Frequency Distribution for Scores in Task Series 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 Total 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 Total 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Table 1.7. Bivariate Frequency Distribution for Scores in Task Series II. 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 13 13 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. Analysis of Variance for Scores in Task Series I and II. Source of Variance df Mean Square Age Sex(Age) Task Series 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 -SuG(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 SuG(A) X D 56 0.60 IXC 3 5.33 25.15 A X I X C 9 0.43 2.03 G(A) XIX C 12 0.85 SLJG(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) XIX D 4 0.28 SuG(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 SuG(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 20 0
Canada 11 0
South Africa 7 1
Spain 6 5
El Salvador 6 0
Italy 4 0
Lebanon 3 0
United Kingdom 3 0
India 3 1
France 3 0
Chile 2 0
Honduras 2 0
United Arab Emirates 2 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 36 3
Montreal 6 0
San Salvador 6 0
Johannesburg 5 0
Brescia 3 0
Brooklyn 2 0
Selkirk 2 0
Beijing 2 0
Ashburn 2 0
Campinas 2 0
Artes 2 2
Oshawa 2 0
San Pedro Sula 2 0

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

Share

Embed

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

Comment

Related Items