The Open Collections website will be unavailable July 27 from 2100-2200 PST ahead of planned usability and performance enhancements on July 28. More information here.

Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Determinants of auditory-visual integration in elementary school education Kerr, Andrew Stewart 1970

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1970_A2 K47_2.pdf [ 3.42MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104112.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104112-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104112-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104112-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104112-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104112-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104112-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104112-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104112.ris

Full Text

DETERMINANTS OF AUDITORY-VISUAL INTEGRATION IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN By ANDREW STEWART KERR B.A., University of V i c t o r i a , 1966 M.A.(Ed.), Simon Fraser University, 1968 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in the Faculty of Education We accept t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September, 1970 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r ag ree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my Depar tment o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l no t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . flopa rtmern: The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Co lumbia Vancouver 8, Canada ABSTRACT Chairman: Professor Robin N. Smith . Kerr, A. S. Determinants of Auditory-Visual Integration i n Elementary School Children. This study was designed to examine a number of factors which might a f f e c t the a b i l i t y to equate auditory and v i s u a l non-verbal stimuli as measured by performance on the auditory-v i s u a l integration (AVI) test of Birch & Belmont (1964, 1965) and Kahn & Birch (1968) . In t h i s test S_ i s presented with an auditory dot pattern and i s required to i d e n t i f y the one of three printed v i s u a l dot patterns which i s the same as the one heard. Short-term auditory memory, stimulus length and sex differences were studied as"possible factors a f f e c t i n g perform-ance on the AVI test . A random sel e c t i o n , from three elementary schools, of 108 third-grade children, 54 males and 54 females, were assigned to one of two groups. Two modified forms of the AVI test defined as'the consecutive presentation and the simultaneous presentation, were administered, one to each group of Ss. The f i r s t of these tests presented the auditory and visual, stimuli consecutively; i that i s , the auditory stimulus, a f t e r a delay of 5 sec., was followed by three v i s u a l stimuli presented one at a time, of which one corresponded to the auditory stimulus. I t was proposed that t h i s presentation format would involve short-term auditory memory as a possible factor a f f e c t i n g the judgments of auditory-visual equivalence. The second test presented the auditory and v i s u a l stimuli simultaneously as p a i r s ; that i s , there was no delay between the auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i . Each of three v i s u a l stimuli was presented simultaneously with the same auditory stimulus. I t was assumed that t h i s presentation would eliminate short-term auditory memory as a factor a f f e c t i n g auditory-visual integration competence. It was found that third-grade children were able to process the simultaneous presentation of auditory and v i s u a l non-verbal s t i m u l i , at certain stimulus lengths, with more f a c i l i t y than they were when the same stimuli were presented i n the consecutive mode. This r e s u l t supported the hypothesis that there might be a s i g n i f i c a n t short-term auditory memory factor i n performance of the AVI test and that t h i s memory component might be s i g n i f i c -antly related to judgments of auditory-visual equivalence. The position of the v i s u a l stimuli was also found to a f f e c t the recognition of auditory and v i s u a l pairs i n the AVI t e s t . The e f f e c t , s i g n i f i c a n t though small, occurred for both the consecutive and simultaneous -presentations, indicating that interference or decay of sensory processing did occur whether the presentation was consecutive or simultaneous'for s t i m u l i i n the t h i r d p o s i tion. I t was suggested that interference and/ or decay i n short-term memory, might account for the impaired a b i l i t y to make correct judgments of auditory-visual equivalence for s t imuli i n position three as compared to sti m u l i i n positions one and two for the consecutive presentation. The assumption of proactive interference was invoked to account for the occur-rence of the same phenomenon i n the simultaneous presentation. Another finding indicated that stimulus length per se might-not be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor a f f e c t i n g the d i f f i c u l t y of auditory-v i s u a l equivalence judgments, but that a factor related to length might be. The results are consistent with a theory of recoding input stimuli and suggest that an increase i n the number of units of stimuli to be retained and not the number of stimuli per unit, might be the factor a f f e c t i n g the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of auditory-visual equivalence judgments. Sex of the children was not found to a f f e c t performance on the AVI tests s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Further research considerations'in the area of AVI were ad-vanced. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT . i CHAPTER I Introduction . 1 Auditory-Visual Integration (AVI) and Reading . . . 2 CHAPTER II Survey of the Literature - Theory and Research . . 4 Theory Auditory-Visual Integration (AVI) 4 Research The Development of the Auditory-Visual Integration (AVI) Test . . 5 Factors Associated with AVI 7 1. Intelligence 7 2. Auditory Rhythm and Visual Pattern Discrimination 8 3. Short-Term Auditory Memory . 9 4. Methods of Approaching AVI 9 CHAPTER III Examination of the AVI Test and Problem . . . . . . 12 Components of the AVI Test 12 Auditory Rhythm and Visual Pattern Discrimination . 13 i v V PAGE Visual Scanning 13 Short-Term Auditory Memory . . 14 Cross-Modal Interference and Stimulus Length . . . . 16 Considerations A r i s i n g from Previous Research . . . . 17 The Problem 19 CHAPTER IV Method 22 Subjects 22 AVI Test Description 22 Presentation A^ (consecutive) . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Presentation A^ (simultaneous) . 24 Test Materials 26 Test Situation 29 Experimental Design 30 Hypotheses 34 S t a t i s t i c a l Treatment 35 CHAPTER V Results . . . . . . . . . 37 CHAPTER VI Discussion 48 Stimulus Length and M i l l e r ' s Theory of "Chunking" . . 48 Presentations and Short-Term Auditory Memory . . . . 51 v i PAGE Position of the Visual Stimulus 54 A. The' Consecutive Presentation . 55 B. The Simultaneous Presentation 59 Sex Differences . 60 Other Findings . . . 61 Conclusions . . . 62 Research Considerations 63 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 66 APPENDIX A 71 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I Summary of the Analysis of Variance 38-39 II Tests of Simple Ef f e c t s Between Presentation-Means Within Levels of L for the A x L Inter-action 43 III Tests of Simple Ef f e c t s Between Length-Means Within Levels of A^, for the A x L Inter-action 44 IV Tests of Simple Ef f e c t s Between Length-Means Within Levels of , for the A x L Inter-action 46 v i i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Auditory-visual dot patterns for Group 1 (A,0,) 28 2 Testing Situation 29 3 La t i n Square of position and items at each length for A . 3 2 4 Order of presentation of the v i s u a l stimuli within each item for each group of Ss i n A^ from L^ - L^ 33 5 Mean AVI scores for position 40 6 Mean presentation AVI scores as a function of length 42 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGMENT I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. R. N. Smith, Chairman of thi s d i s s e r t a t i o n committee, and to Dr. C. E. Smith, Dr. G. M. Chronister & Dr. J. L. Conry for t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . I am grateful to Dr. D. M. McKie, Dr. G. J. Johnson and Dr. P. R. Koopman for t h e i r advice and assistance on a l l sections of this study. I am also grateful to Dr. D. C. Shalman, Educational Director of the B r i t i s h Columbia Youth Development Centre, for his understanding and patience during the f i n a l preparation of thi s paper. Dr. A. L. Benton i s thanked for acting as the External Examiner for the f i n a l presentation of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . i x CHAPTER I .INTRODUCTION The current emphasis i n education on reading problems and ind i v i d u a l learning differences of children has led to the emergence of the area of "learning d i s a b i l i t i e s . " A number of approaches to the study of th i s area are being investigated. This introduction deals with one of these approaches, the process of sensory integration. Numerous tests have been developed and studied which measure the integration of various combinations of sense modalities. One of the most extensively examined tests i s the auditory-visual integration test developed by Birch'and Belmont (1964, 1965) and expanded by Kahn and Birch (1968) . This t e s t has' been found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to a number of aspects of reading a c q u i s i t i o n and not to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y influenced by v i s u a l and.auditory discrimination, verbal mediation or auditory memory. The purpose of this study was to examine a number of factors which may influence AVI. The variables of short-term auditory memory, stimulus length and sex differences have been selected for study. S p e c i f i c hypotheses are presented and r a t i o n a l i z e d in Chapter I I I . -2-Auditory-Visual Integration (AVI) and Reading Judd (1927) states: "Oral language i s the natural basis upon which the reading of beginners must be developed... recognition of printed words depends upon the analysis of v i s u a l sensory materials ... these units must at f i r s t be made to coincide with t h e i r o r a l counterparts." Buswell (1947) adds: "The reading process i s b a s i c a l l y a kind of perceptual learning i n which v i s u a l symbols are perceived and related to already known auditory symbols of spoken language." Learning to read as an educational task requires the a b i l i t y to transform s p a t i a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d v i s u a l patterns into temporal-ly d i s t r i b u t e d auditory ones. Harris (1948) has suggested that for the beginning reader "reading i s largely concerned with learn-ing to recognize the symbols which represent spoken words." A primary disturbance i n the a b i l i t y to integrate stimuli from the 2 c r i t i c a l sense modalities, hearing and v i s i o n , may well serve to increase the r i s k of becoming a poor reader. Consequent-l y , one of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s underlying reading readiness as well as some types of reading retardation may be the development of the a b i l i t y to make judgments of auditory-visual equivalence. These judgments require the tr a n s l a t i o n from a v i s u a l stimulus to the auditory equivalent. One of the f i r s t studies concerned with the process of AVI was carried out by Birch & Belmont (1965). They concluded - 3 -that by the time a c h i l d has reached the eighth year of l i f e he must be able to use information gained from both auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i . Their study explored intermodal integration: i . e . , the chil d ' s a b i l i t y to equate intersensory (auditory and visual) information. I t was found that the capacity to make such equivalence judgments was s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated with reading test scores i n f i r s t and second grades, and thus suggested that t h i s competence may be c r u c i a l for the a c q u i s i t i o n of reading s k i l l s . CHAPTER II SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE - THEORY AND RESEARCH Theory Auditory-Visual Integration (AVI) Vision and hearing d i f f e r from each other i n a number of ways, one of which i s that v i s i o n gives us a great deal of information about pr e c i s e l y how things are l a i d out from l e f t to r i g h t , up and down, etc., that i s , how things are arranged i n space. Hearing, on the other hand, gives us only a crude picture of s p a t i a l arrangements, but i s organized instead as a sequence of events strung out i n time. Therefore, when we talk about AVI we are usually also r e f e r r i n g to temporal-s p a t i a l integration which i s the a b i l i t y to integrate inform-ation that i s arranged as a s t r i n g of events in time with i n -formation given as an arrangement i n space. A number of people (e.g., Judd, 1927;Buswell, 1947; Edfeldt, 1960) have pointed out that when the c h i l d reaches school age, he has previously acquired an auditory language, defined as the a b i l i t y to understand and produce speech. The f i r s t step i n learning to read i s for the c h i l d to recognize that a new language-code, the printed page, i s equivalent to the already f a m i l i a r auditory one. His -4--5-task then i n v o l v e s l e a r n i n g to " t r a n s l a t e " from speech-language i n t o and out of the new language code of p r i n t e d words. The speech-language code i s an a u d i t o r y one and i s arranged purely as a sequence i n time, while the p r i n t e d page i s not a u d i t o r y and has no time o r g a n i z a t i o n . Thus i n l e a r n i n g to read, the c h i l d must be able to make t r a n s l a t i o n s between auditory and v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n as w e l l as between temporal and s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . A d e f i c i t or developmental l a g i n e i t h e r of these t r a n s l a t i o n a b i l i t i e s would seem to place severe l i m i t a t i o n s on the a b i l i t y to l e a r n to read ( S t e r r i t t , M a r t i n & Rudnick, 1968). Research The Development of the A u d i t o r y - V i s u a l I n t e g r a t i o n (AVI) Test The study of AVI was i n i t i a l l y a p p l i e d to c h i l d r e n and the e d u c a t i o n a l process by B i r c h and h i s co-workers ( B i r c h , 1962; B i r c h & Belmont, 1964, 1965). In order to examine c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y to t r a n s l a t e between au d i t o r y and v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n B i r c h & Belmont developed the AVI t e s t which explored the r e -l a t i o n s h i p between a temporally s t r u c t u r e d set of a u d i t o r y s t i m u l i and a s p a t i a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d set of v i s u a l ones. The task was" the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a v i s u a l dot p a t t e r n t h a t c o r r e s -ponded to the p a t t e r n i n g of a rhythmic a u d i t o r y stimulus. The -6-auditory dot pattern was tapped once with a p e n c i l , followed by the exposure of three v i s u a l dot patterns presented to-gether, one of which was the same as the auditory stimulus. The studies of Birch & Belmont have shown s i g n i f i c a n t relationships between children's performance on the AVI test and reading a b i l i t y and i n t e l l i g e n c e . The analysis suggests that the a b i l i t y to treat v i s u a l and auditory patterned i n -formation as equivalent i s one of the factors that d i f f e r e n -t i a t e good from poor readers. Auditory-visual pattern test performance did d i f f e r e n t i a t e subjects with lower than those with higher reading scores i n t h e i r groups of normal and re-tarded readers. However, t h e i r 1965 results were attenuated at older age levels due to a lack of s u f f i c i e n t c e i l i n g i n t h e i r measure of AVI and they reported no r e l i a b i l i t y data for t h e i r ten-item test. In an unpublished study of boys i n Grades 2 through 6, Kann (1965) remedied these d e f i c i e n c i e s by adding ten items to the test and by obtaining t e s t - r e t e s t r e l i a b i l i t y data (published i n 196 8 by Kahn & Birch). Test-retest r e l i a b i l i t y r e s u l t s , obtained approximately 10 days apart, yielded re-l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s of .76 for the t h i r d grade group and .90 for the f i f t h grade group. Ford (1967) reported the t e s t -retest r e l i a b i l i t y for 30 grade four boys tested 7 days apart, as .60. -7-Birch & Belmont's study was extended by Beery (196 7) with more precise control of i n t e l l i g e n c e . She examined the matching of auditory equivalents to a v i s u a l standard. Her findings were consistent with those of Birch & Belmont; retarded readers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d e f i c i e n t i n recognizing the equivalence of stimuli presented i n succession to two modalities, the e f f e c t being present whether the v i s u a l or auditory stimulus was the standard. Muehl & Kremenak (1966) were concerned with the a b i l i t y to match information within and between auditory and v i s u a l sense modalities, and subsequent reading achievement. They used tasks requiring v i s u a l - v i s u a l , visual-auditory, auditory-v i s u a l and auditory-auditory matching. Their results indicate that when used as predictors, only scores made under v i s u a l -auditory and auditory-visual input conditions made s i g n i f i c a n t contributions to predicting reading success. Factors Associated with AVI Several researchers have examined the AVI test i n an attempt to define possible mechanisms involved i n AVI competence which may also be found i n the reading process and thus influence the relationship between AVI and reading. 1. Intelligence Ford (1967) reported a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p to e x i s t between -8-i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y and both reading achievement and AVI scores, as have Birch & Belmont (1964, 1965), S t e r r i t t & Rudnick (1966) and Kann & Birch (1968). These studies re-ported that measures of reading and i n t e l l i g e n c e share a large common variance. Ford computed p a r t i a l correlations —p which indicated that whatever the AVI test has i n common with reading i s also i n large part what i t has i n common with i n t e l l i g e n c e so that when i n t e l l i g e n c e i s held constant the relationships are reduced to near zero. Because of the close r e l a t i o n generally found between measures of i n t e l l i g e n c e and reading achievement, as usually measured, Ford concludes that these p a r t i a l correlations have r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e meaning. The results of Ford's study d i f f e r from those of Kahn & Birch (1968) and S t e r r i t t & Rudnick (1966) who reported that i n t e l l i g e n c e does not account for a l l the variance. Par-t i a l l i n g for either Verbal or Nonverbal I.Q. did not eliminate the s i g n i f i c a n t association between AVI scores and reading achievement. 2. Auditory rhythm and v i s u a l pattern discrimination Kahn & Birch (1968) found i n s i g n i f i c a n t auditory rhythm and v i s u a l pattern discrimination differences between children scoring highest and lowest on the AVI t e s t . They concluded that the r e l a t i v e ease of the discrimination task suggested that -9-the degree of v i s u a l and auditory discrimination s k i l l re-quired for accurate performance on the test was well within the range of a l l subjects i n the sample. 3. Short-term auditory memory Ford (1967) correlated the AVI scores of t h i r t y subjects at the grade four l e v e l with t h e i r scores on the D i g i t Span subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children i n order to determine to what extent auditory memory was related to performance on the AVI t e s t . The Pearsonian r between the two tests was found to be .03 in d i c a t i n g that auditory memory s k i l l s are not s p e c i f i c a l l y associated with AVI test performance at the grade four l e v e l . These re s u l t s are consistent with those of Kahn & Birch (1968) but contrast to those of Rodenborn & Brown (19 70) and S t e r r i t t , Martin & Rudnick (1968) who found auditory memory to be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n the AVI t e s t . The former authors reported that 16.3 per cent of the variance of AVI was accounted for by auditory memory. These results suggest that there may be a memory factor inherent i n the design of the AVI t e s t which may hot be i d e n t i f i e d by the use of the D i g i t Span subtest. 4. Methods of approaching AVI Ford analyzed AVI test performance i n terms of two aspects: -10-(1) position choices and (2) methods used to solve the task. She found the making of systematic position choices was associated with poor performance on the task and that the majority of subjects used a counting procedure i n solving the task. The other Ss used body movements primarily to do the task, usually by tapping fingers. Some used both methods. Reliance on body movements alone to solve the task was found predominantly i n Ss scoring below the mean on the t e s t . Kahn & Birch (1968) also noted differences i n methods used by t h e i r Ss on the AVI t e s t . They categorized the methods as counting, v i s u a l i z a t i o n , f e e l i n g and unknown. The r e s u l t s show the percentage of Ss able to express t h e i r method of approach increased with age, with.counting procedures forming the largest group of reported methods at a l l grade l e v e l s . The findings do not suggest that the a b i l i t y to apply verbal labels to the auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i affected AVI t e s t performance i n a p o s i t i v e manner or that a s p e c i f i c method was related to I.Q. Rather, inspection of the results indicate that the children who used counting procedures, a method which applied verbal labels to the test s t i m u l i , showed the lowest AVI mean scores at each age. Moreover, the group which stated that they t r i e d to v i s u a l i z e the auditory patterns d i r e c t l y , an approach with l i t t l e , i f any, verbal mediation implied i n i t s execution, tended to show higher AVI mean scores than the counting group at a l l grade l e v e l s . -11-( T h i s i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g s i n c e t h e v i s u a l i z a t i o n g r o u p i m p l i e s t h e f o r m i n g o f t h e v i s u a l e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e a u d i t o r y p a t t e r n and t h i s , i t i s s u s p e c t e d , w o u l d f a c i l i t a t e t h e a u d i t o r y -v i s u a l e q u i v a l e n c e j u d g e m e n t ) . T h u s , a l t h o u g h c o n c l u s i o n s b a s e d on d a t a u s i n g v e r b a l r e p o r t s a b o u t methods s h o u l d be t r e a t e d w i t h c a u t i o n ( B i r c h & R a b i n o w i t z , 1951; M a i e r , 1932), t h e s e f i n d i n g s o f Kann & B i r c h do n o t s u g g e s t t h a t e i t h e r t h e a t t e m p t by t h e c h i l d t o a p p l y v e r b a l l a b e l s t o t h e a u d i t o r y and v i s u a l s t i m u l i o r t h e g e n e r a l c a p a c i t y o f v e r b a l i z i n g a method o f a p p r o a c h were i m p o r t a n t i n f l u e n c e s on AVI competence i n t h e sample t e s t e d . A l t h o u g h B l a n k & B r i d g e r (1966) have s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e a b i l i t y t o a p p l y v e r b a l l a b e l s t o t h e a u d i t o r y and v i s u a l s t i m u l i i s a p e r t i n e n t v a r i a b l e i n m e d i a t i n g c r o s s - m o d a l competence, t h e e v i d e n c e o f t h e s t u d y does n o t s u p p o r t t h i s p o s i t i o n (Kahn & B i r c h , 1968). CHAPTER III EXAMINATION OF THE AVI TEST AND PROBLEM Components of the AVI Test Examination of the AVI test suggests a number of variables, as well as those i d e n t i f i e d by Kahn & Birch (1968) and Ford (1967), which may influence performance on t h i s t e s t . These variables are l i s t e d below:' 1. Auditory a) Rhythm discrimination b) Short-term auditory memory 2. V i s u a l a) Pattern discrimination b) Scanning *- 1. within each stimulus; 2. across s t i m u l i . 3. Cross-modal Interference a) Within each stimulus b) Across stimuli 4. Auditory-Visual Equivalence Judgment a) Yes or No written response -12--13-Auditory Rhythm and Visual Pattern Discrimination The results of Kahn & Birch (1968) suggest that these factors are not related to AVI competence. Visual Scanning In a recent paper concerned with ocular m o t i l i t y (eye movements) and reading Goldberg (1970) concludes that i t i s l i k e l y that the degree of comprehension produces the type of ocular movement and not ocular m o t i l i t y that determines the degree of comprehension. That i s , i t has been assumed that learning d i f f i c u l t i e s i n some cases were due to lack of binocular coordination and in-coordinate eye movements were noted i n children who had d i f f i c u l t y i n reading. Goldberg has shown that eye movement may be to a considerable degree dependent upon the conceptual d i f f i c u l t y of the reading material. This does not discount the p o s s i b i l i t y that a c h i l d affected by in-coordinate eye movements may have d i f f i c u l t y reading but does l i m i t i t to very s p e c i f i c cases. Due to the s i m p l i c i t y of the v i s u a l patterns i n the AVI t e s t , the findings of Goldberg suggest the effects of v i s u a l scanning may be minimal i n AVI performance. Assuming that auditory and v i s u a l pattern discrimination as well as v i s u a l scanning have n e g l i g i b l e e f f e c t , the AVI test has the following components: 1. Auditory a) Short-term auditory memory 2. Cross-modal Interference a) Within each stimulus b) Across stimuli 3. Auditory-Visual Equivalence Judgment a) Yes or no written response Short-Term Auditory Memory Although both Kahn & Birch (1968) and Ford (1967) have found i n s i g n i f i c a n t correlations between the AVI test per-formance and the D i g i t Span subtest of the Wechsler I n t e l l i -gence Scale for Children, auditory memory would appear on a p r i o r i grounds to be an important variable inherent i n the design of the test. The consecutive presentation (in which the auditory pattern i s followed after a delay by the 3 v i s u a l patterns) requires the retention of the auditory pattern i n order to equate the auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i . Also since the dot patterns progressively increase i n length, auditory retention i s involved i n order to retain these longer sequences of dots. I t would appear reasonable to assume that i f any -15-portion of the auditory stimulus i s "forgotten" before the equivalent v i s u a l stimulus i s selected the correct judgement w i l l not be made. This assumption i s congruent with the statements on auditory memory by Senf (1969). Senf notes that i t would appear f r u i t f u l to consider immediate memory as playing a s i g n i f i c a n t r ole i n learning to read. C l e a r l y , s u f f i c i e n t immediate memory capacity i s necessary so that the beginning of a word or sentence i s not forgotten by the time the end of the word or sentence i s read (Senf, 1969). This would appear.to apply to judgments of AVI and the tests designed to measure this a b i l i t y . Further examination of the D i g i t Span subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children indicates that i t may measure d i f f e r e n t aspects of auditory memory than those found i n the AVI te s t . .Although D i g i t Span appears si m i l a r to the AVI test i n that i t requires retention of increasing lengths of material, i t d i f f e r s i n that i t employs verbal material (numbers) i n contrast to the AVI test's non-verbal material (dots) . I t has been previously suggested by Belmont, Birch & Belmont (1968), Kimura (1961,1964) and Mountcastle (1962) that verbal and non-verbal tasks are not equivalent. D i g i t Span also requires an input (auditory) and output (verbal r e c a l l ) modality combination which the AVI test does not. The above points taken together with the results of S t e r r i t t , Martin & - 1 6 -R u d n i c k (1968) and Rodenborn & Brown (19 7 0 ) , who r e p o r t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t memory e f f e c t f o r t h e i r s e q u e n c e - p e r c e p t i o n t e s t s , r a i s e enough q u e s t i o n s ' t o s u g g e s t t h a t f u r t h e r s t u d y o f t h e r o l e o f s h o r t - t e r m memory i n p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h e AVI t e s t i s r e q u i r e d . C r o s s - M o d a l I n t e r f e r e n c e and S t i m u l u s L e n g t h The p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s o f c r o s s - m o d a l i n t e r f e r e n c e have n o t been e x a m i n e d . D u r i n g t h e r e t e n t i o n p e r i o d f r o m t h e o n s e t o f t h e a u d i t o r y s t i m u l u s t o t h e f i n a l p r o c e s s i n g and r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e e q u i v a l e n t v i s u a l s t i m u l u s , t h e p r o c e s s i n g o f i n t e r v e n i n g v i s u a l s t i m u l i may i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e r e t e n t i o n o f t h e p r e v i o u s -l y p r e s e n t e d a u d i t o r y s t i m u l u s . S i n c e c r o s s - m o d a l i n t e r f e r e n c e i s i n v o l v e d i n t h e memory p r o c e s s e s o f t h e a u d i t o r y s t i m u l u s , i t s e f f e c t may be c o n f o u n d e d w i t h those, o f s h o r t - t e r m a u d i t o r y memory. T h i s e f f e c t may i n c r e a s e as s t i m u l u s l e n g t h i n c r e a s e s and t h e number o f s t i m u l i e n c o u n t e r e d p r i o r t o e a c h v i s u a l s t i -mulus i n c r e a s e s . Fewer e r r o r s may r e s u l t when t h e v i s u a l s t i m u -l u s i s t h e f i r s t e n c o u n t e r e d , w i t h no i n t e r v e n i n g s t i m u l i , t h a n when i t i s t h e s e c o n d o r t h i r d , w i t h one and two i n t e r v e n i n g s t i -m u l i , r e s p e c t i v e l y . P o s s i b l y s t i m u l u s l e n g t h may a l s o i n c r e a s e t h e f r e q u e n c y o f e r r o r s due to . t h e r e q u i r e d r e t e n t i o n o f l o n g e r a u d i t o r y p a t t e r n s , i n c r e a s e d t i m e t o p r o c e s s v i s u a l p a t t e r n s and t h e r e s u l t i n g i n c r e a s e d t o t a l r e t e n t i o n p e r i o d . -17-The process of cross-modal interference i s one of the interference effects of poststimulus events referred to by Aaronson (1968). Sperling (1963) has found that post-exposure f i e l d s of "visual noise" (made of jumbled pieces of le t t e r s ) "erased" the i n i t i a l v i s u a l stimulus information from memory. Interpolated events occuring within about one s e c , af t e r the i n i t i a l stimulus presentation caused large decrements i n re-c a l l accuracy, but decrements decreased and l e v e l l e d o f f with further increases i n the interpolated delay (Brown, 1955). Brown concludes that interpolated events occuring immediately after the presentation may i n t e r f e r e with the perception of the stimuli,-while l a t e r interpolated events would i n t e r f e r e only with rehearsal. Aaronson states that perceptual processes con-tinue to occur af t e r the physical stimulus presentation — either auditory or v i s u a l — i s terminated. Interference with or term-ination of these postpresentation perceptual processes can lead to decreased r e c a l l accuracy i n short-term memory tasks, whether the interference i s in t e r - or.intra-modal. Considerations A r i s i n g from Previous Research The use of heterogeneous samples of children from grades two through six by Kahn & Birch (1968) and of grade four boys by Ford (1967), may have obscured s i g n i f i c a n t relationships of auditory memory at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of reading achievement. -18-A p i l o t study c a r r i e d out by the w r i t e r w i t h grade one and grade four s u b j e c t s , grouped according to below-average and above-average reading achievement, suggests th a t a u d i t o r y memory may be a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r w i t h the below-average group only. This e f f e c t , i f o c c u r r i n g i n the above s t u d i e s , would tend to be obscured by the heterogeneous nature of the samples employed by Kahn and B i r c h (196 8) and Ford (1967). Most previous s t u d i e s of AVI have not examined sex d i f f e r -ences (e.g., B i r c h & Belmont, 1965; S t e r r i t t , M a r t i n & Rudnick, 1968) or have l i m i t e d t h e i r samples to male subjects to e l i m i n -ate sex d i f f e r e n c e s commonly found i n reading achievement and thus thought to a l s o a f f e c t performance on the AVI t e s t (Rud-n i c k , S t e r r i t t & F l a x , 1967; Ford, 1967). Hurley (1968) and Rodenborn & Brown (1970), using i n t e r s e n s o r y i n t e g r a t i o n t e s t s , have found no i n d i c a t i o n of sex-based d i f f e r e n c e s contrary to the above assumptions. Further evidence i s r e q u i r e d i n t h i s matter. A number of s t u d i e s concerned w i t h AVI and employing the AVI t e s t can be questioned i n regard to the research methods used. S t e r r i t t & Rudnick (1966) pointed out t h a t i n the o r i -g i n a l s t u d i e s of B i r c h & Belmont the auditory patterns were tapped out w i t h a p e n c i l on the edge of a t a b l e . No mention was made of any screen or other arrangement to prevent S from seeing the tapping p e n c i l and S_ apparently received v i s u a l as w e l l as -19-a u d i t o r y c u e s i n t h e a u d i t o r y p a t t e r n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . They c o n c l u d e t h a t i t i s n o t c l e a r t o what d e g r e e B i r c h & B e l m o n t ' s t e s t may r e f l e c t t h e a b i l i t y t o t r a n s p o s e f r o m t e m p o r a l t o s p a t i a l f o r m a t s w i t h i n t h e v i s u a l m o d a l i t y r a t h e r t h a n t h e a b i l i t y t o t r a n s p o s e between a u d i t i o n and v i s i o n . Kahn & B i r c h as w e l l as F o r d c a n a l s o be q u e s t i o n e d on p r o c e d u r e . B o t h s t u d i e s s t a t e t h a t t h e a u d i t o r y p a t t e r n s were t a p p e d o u t by hand; Kahn & B i r c h b e h i n d a c a r d b o a r d s c r e e n and F o r d u n d e r a t a b l e on a m e t a l p l a t e . T h e r e i s no m e n t i o n o f t h e number o f e x a m i n e r s i n v o l v e d , and t h e p o s s i b l e v a r i a n c e i n t h e a u d i t o r y p a t t e r n p r e s e n t a t i o n s due t o w i t h i n e x a m i n e r d i f f e r e n c e s f r o m p a t t e r n t o p a t t e r n and s u b j e c t t o s u b j e c t o r between e x a m i n e r d i f f e r e n c e s , a l t h o u g h F o r d s t a t e s t h a t t h e r e was a Js-second p a u s e between s h o r t i n t e r v a l s and a 1 - s e c o n d p a u s e between l o n g i n t e r v a l s i n t h e a u d i t o r y s t i m u l u s . The d e l a y between t h e c e s s a t i o n o f t h e a u d i t o r y s t i m u l u s and t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e v i s u a l s t i m u l u s i s a l s o n o t n o t e d and may r e s u l t i n v a r y i n g r e -t e n t i o n p e r i o d s . The l a c k o f s t a n d a r d i z e d p r e s e n t a t i o n p r o c e -d u r e s may p r o d u c e c o n f o u n d i n g e f f e c t s on t h e r e s u l t s o f s e v e r a l o f t h e s t u d i e s on a u d i t o r y - v i s u a l i n t e g r a t i o n . The P r o b l e m The p u r p o s e o f t h i s s t u d y was t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r s h o r t -t e r m a u d i t o r y memory, s t i m u l u s l e n g t h & sex d i f f e r e n c e s a f f e c t -20-c h i l d r e n ' s a b i l i t y t o e q u a t e a u d i t o r y a n d v i s u a l n o n - v e r b a l s t i m u l i . S h o r t - t e r m a u d i t o r y m emory was s e l e c t e d d u e t o t h e i n -c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g s o f p r e v i o u s r e s e a r c h . S t i m u l u s l e n g t h a n d s e x d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e i n c l u d e d d u e t o t h e l a c k o f r e s e a r c h o n t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o A V I . A n u m b e r o f o t h e r f a c t o r s w h i c h m i g h t h a v e c o n f o u n d e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s w e r e i n -t r o d u c e d t o a l l o w s t u d y o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s a n d a n y i n t e r a c t i o n s t h e y m i g h t h a v e . I t was s u g g e s t e d t h a t i f a t e s t o f A V I w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e f a c t o r s o f s h o r t - t e r m a u d i t o r y m e m o r y a n d c r o s s - m o d a l i n t e r -f e r e n c e a n d t h e i r p o s s i b l e i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h s t i m u l u s l e n g t h w as a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a g r o u p o f c h i l d r e n a n d a s e c o n d t e s t o f A V I w h i c h e x c l u d e d o r r e d u c e d t h e s e f a c t o r s was a d m i n i s t e r e d t o a s i m i l a r g r o u p o f c h i l d r e n , t h e f o r m e r g r o u p o f c h i l d r e n w o u l d s c o r e a t a l o w e r l e v e l t o t h e d e g r e e t h a t t h e s e f a c t o r s a n d t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s a f f e c t e d A V I . I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t A V I m i g h t b e i n h i b i t e d b y t h e p r e s e n c e o f : (1) S h o r t - t e r m a u d i t o r y m emory (2) I n c r e a s i n g s t i m u l u s l e n g t h (3) I n t e r f e r e n c e e f f e c t s o f p o s i t i o n s o f v i s u a l s t i m u l i ( c o n f o u n d e d w i t h i n s h o r t - t e r m a u d i -t o r y m emory) -21-(4) Positions of v i s u a l stimuli and short-term auditory memory intera c t i n g with stimulus length, and (5) Sex differences. Research hypotheses based on the experimental design are stated i n Chapter IV. CHAPTER IV METHOD Subjects The sample consisted of 108 third-grade elementary school children from the West Vancouver School D i s t r i c t , West Van-couver, B.C. Each c h i l d was randomly selected from a population of males and females from one of three elementary schools and assigned to one of 18 groups of Ss each consisting of three males and three females. Each group of Ss was then randomly assigned to a group position from one to 18. The group position determined the treatment condition that i t would receive. No c h i l d was included i n the study who evidenced any uncorrected auditory or v i s u a l defect, as determined by the school screening tests. AVI Test Description In order to study the eff e c t s of short-term auditory memory, and stimulus length as they relate to the task of auditory-visual integration, two modified forms of the auditory-visual integration test (Birch & Belmont, 1964, 1965) were presented to these sub-jec t s . For both presentations the task for each S_ was to equate an auditory-temporal dot pattern with a v i s u a l - s p a t i a l dot pattern. -22--23-The S was required to determine whether or not each of three v i s u a l dot patterns was equivalent to the pattern of the auditory stimulus. Presentation (consecutive) Each auditory stimulus, presented v i a a tape recorder, was repeated three times with an i n t e r v a l of 3-sec. between repet i t i o n s . The t h i r d r e p e t i t i o n was followed by a delay of f i v e seconds before exposure, one at a time, of the three v i s u a l dot patterns. Each v i s u a l dot pattern was displayed for a period of time equivalent to the time taken for one r e p e t i t i o n of the auditory stimulus. There was a 3-sec. delay between v i s u a l s t i m u l i . Immediately preceding onset of the auditory stimulus, a verbal signal "ready" was given and between each auditory r e p e t i t i o n a verbal signal "again" was given. During the f i v e seconds between the cessation of the auditory repetitions and the onset of the v i s u a l stimuli was a verbal signal "Now you w i l l see the dots, ready." The three v i s u a l dot sequences were cued by "number one", "number two" and "number three" i n that order. An i l l u s t r a t i o n of one auditory stimulus and i t s three v i s u a l dot patterns as well as the presentation format follows: Auditory .Visual 3 <D -p = c • H 0 m o > i = > i TJS T j r H rH (0 • & rH a) Q) O O - H Xi \% 2 • 3 & -P = = •o • O 3 3-sec .3-sec 5- sec 3-sec 3-sec -24-P r e s e n t a t i o n A^ (simultaneous) T h i s form a l s o presented three r e p e t i t i o n s of the a u d i -t o r y p a t t e r n t o g e t h e r with the three v i s u a l p a t t e r n s i n suc-c e s s i o n , and three r e p e t i t i o n s of the a u d i t o r y p a t t e r n , but each of the v i s u a l s t i m u l i o c c u r r e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y with one of the a u d i t o r y r e p e t i t i o n s . That i s , the three v i s u a l pat-t e r n s from which the s p e c i f i c s e l e c t i o n was to be made were presented i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the same a u d i t o r y p a t t e r n . Each a u d i t o r y and v i s u a l stimulus combination was repeated once with an i n t e r v a l of 3-sec between r e p e t i t i o n s . Each v i s u a l dot p a t t e r n was d i s p l a y e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y with the onset of the a u d i t o r y stimulus and terminated w i t h the c e s s a t i o n of the a u d i t o r y s t i m u l u s . Immediately p r e c e d i n g onset of each a u d i -t o r y and v i s u a l p a i r , a v e r b a l s i g n a l "ready" was g i v e n . Each of the a u d i t o r y and v i s u a l p a i r s was cued by "number one", "number two", and "number t h r e e " i n t h a t order. An i l l u s t r a t i o n of one a u d i t o r y stimulus p a i r e d w i t h i t s three v i s u a l s t i m u l i as w e l l as the p r e s e n t a t i o n format f o l l o w s : -A u d i t o r y V i s u a l CD 0 « S5 CN 0 o 3-sec 3-sec Examination of the two methods of presentation shows that A^ includes the factors of auditory memory and stimulus length. The auditory memory factor i s involved since there i s a delay between the cessation of the auditory stimulus and the exposure of the v i s u a l s t i m u l i . Due to the fac t that the v i s u a l stimuli are displayed successively there i s a greater delay between the cessation of the auditory stimulus and the exposure of the v i s u a l stimulus in the t h i r d p o sition than the v i s u a l stimulus i n the f i r s t p o s i t i o n . Auditory memory i s also involved i n the retention of longer auditory patterns and i t was thought that t h i s increasing stimulus length might i n t e r a c t with position e f f e c t . As mentioned previously (Chapter III) intervening v i s u a l stimuli might i n t e r f e r e with the retention of the auditory stimulus and Presentation A^ includes the p o s s i b i l i t y of this post-stimulus interference. This e f f e c t i s confounded with the short-term auditory memory e f f e c t for presentation A Presentation A^ reduced auditory memory as a factor due to the simultaneous presentation of the auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i . Stimulus length w i l l remain as a factor only within an auditory stimulus and can no longer i n t e r a c t with the po-s i t i o n of the correct v i s u a l stimulus. Due to a number' of variables involved i n the AVI tes t of Birch & Belmont that might confound inter p r e t a t i o n , other fac - 2 6 -tors were introduced into the design of the two presenta-tions to exercise some measure of control of possible order e f f e c t s and to allow study of these variables and any i n t e r -actions they might have. At each stimulus length there were three d i f f e r e n t v i s u a l dot patterns. Three v i s u a l items at each length were selected in order to allow each of the three positions to be represented once as a correct choice. The position of the correct v i s u a l stimulus was varied systematically at each length. This allowed study of any influence the position of response i n the multiple-choice sequence of three positions might have. The order of item presentation was also systematically varied across groups of Ss. The "system" employed was one that gave no advantage to any group of Ss i n regard to the order of item presentation, or presentation of the correct response within the items (refer to Figures 3 and 4). Test Materials The auditory patterns were presented v i a a Sony TC-900 S tape recorder, i n order to standardize presentation and to eliminate intra-examiner differences. The auditory tone was generated by a Buchla attack generator through a touch-control voltage source to an o s c i l l a t o r . The sound from the o s c i l l a t o r was given attack and decay c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r e s u l t i n g i n a sine -27-wave of 700 cycles/sec recorded on a Hewlett Packard Elec-tronic Counter, Model 3 73 4A. The durations of the "short" and "long" pauses between the auditory stimuli of a given pattern were 1/2-sec and 1-sec, respectively. Each of the three v i s u a l stimuli was presented on a separate 2 x 3 inch white index card. The lengths of the "short" and "long" spaces'between the v i s u a l s t i m u l i of a given pattern were 5/16-in. and 5/8-in., center to center of two adjacent dots, repectively. Each dot had a diameter of 1/4-in. One set of 18 auditory stimuli and the 54 v i s u a l stimuli from which selections were made i s shown i n Figure 1. The format and stimuli varied across groups of Ss but Figure 1 i l l u s t r a t e s a l l the types of auditory and v i s u a l stimuli used. Six stimulus lengths, four dots/pattern to nine dots/pattern, were included i n the present study as were included by Birch & Belmont (1964) and Kahn & Birch (1968). Test Format The Ss were tested i n groups of six for both presentations. The groups of Ss were tested i n a random order which resulted in the order of the administration of or A^ also being ran-dom. In order to increase the number of observations of AVI, the study was replicated over groups at an i n t e r v a l of approxi--28-Auditory Tap Patterns Visual Stimuli Examples A B C Test Items L i i . 2 , 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. 9 , 10. 11. 12 , 13, 14. 15, 16. 17. 18. Figure 1. Auditory-visual dot patterns for Group 1 ( A 1 0 1 ) * * * L - Stimulus length ** A^- Presentation; 0^ - order -29-mately 24 hours. The r e p l i c a t i o n followed the same random order of administration of A^ and A^. Test Situation Each group of Ss, 3 males and 3 females, were seated in a semi-circle around a projection screen (Figure 2). Behind the Ss was an opaque projector and tape recorder. Each S_ was given a score'sheet numbered 1-18 which. also included practice items a, b and c. Screen Tape Recorder Table Projector E Figure 2 Testing Situation S = subject; E = examiner -30-The auditory tap patterns were presented v i a the tape recorder. The v i s u a l dot patterns were presented by the projector on the projection screen located i n front of the Ss. E controlled the tape-recorder and also was responsible for coordinating the presentation of the v i s u a l patterns. Experimental Design The study was analyzed b y a 2 x 3 x 3 x 2 x 6 x 3 re-peated measures f a c t o r i a l design re p l i c a t e d twice with Latin Square arrangement for two order e f f e c t s . The between Ss variables under study were method of presentation (A^, A ^ ) , order of stimuli (0^, O^r O3)' groups of Ss at each present-ation and order combination (G^ - G-^g) and sex of Ss. The within Ss variables were length of stimuli (L 1 - Lg) and position of correct v i s u a l stimulus (p^/ P2' P3^" Method of presentation, order of s t i m u l i , sex, length of stimuli and position of correct v i s u a l stimulus were fixed factors. The subject factor was random. The dependent variable was the number of correct AVI judgments for each S under the d i f f e r e n t position-by-length combinations, over the two r e p l i c a t i o n s . Each S could obtain a score ranging from zero to six by making six AVI judgments for each position at each length. The possible range of scores for each r e p l i c a t i o n was zero to three. -31-A schematic representation of the design i s shown i n Figures 3 and 4. The basic design (Figure 3) included the two methods of presentation, the six stimulus lengths, the three positions of the v i s u a l stimuli and the three orders of item present-ation. Each position was represented an equal number of times at each stimulus length. Three orders of item present-ation were employed to counterbalance i n d i v i d u a l stimulus item d i f f i c u l t y over positions within each length. This was done by the La t i n Square method. Each item was also represented an equal number of times at each po s i t i o n . Each item was composed of three d i f f e r e n t v i s u a l s t i m u l i . Each of these v i s u a l s t i m u l i occupied either stimulus position one, two or three within an item. Figure 4 indicates the method i n which i n d i v i d u a l stimuli within each item were re-presented an equal number of times across Ss at each position. This arrangement was used as a method of c o n t r o l l i n g i n d i v i d u a l stimulus d i f f i c u l t y within each item. Groups of Ss (G-. - G,0) nested within presentation-by-order — 1 l o (AXO) are introduced i n Figure 4 as well as the sex factor (M,F). It w i l l be noted that groups r e f l e c t differences i n the c o n s t i -tution of the groups, differences i n the l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y within items and differences i n the l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y between stimuli within items. L l L2 L3 4 6 P l P2 P3 P3 P l P2 P2 P3 P l repeat °1 J l J 2 X3 repeat repeat repeat A l °2 X3 X l Z2 repeat repeat repeat °3 J3 Xl repeat repeat repeat A2 repeat repeat repeat repeat I = item (3 v i s u a l stimuli) L = length of stimuli (dots/pattern) P = position of correct v i s u a l stimulus 0 = order of items A = method of presentation Figure 3 Design: Latin. Square of position and items at each length for A^. This design i s repeated for L^ - Lg and for A^. -32-4 6 P P P *1 2 3 P P P 3 1 2 P P P 2 3 1 repeat G, M 1 F M °1 G2 P G, M 3 F A B C D E F G H I C A B F D E I G H B C A E F D H I G A B C D E F G H I C A B F D E I G H B C A E F D H I G A B C D E F G H I C A B F D E I G H B C A E F D H I G repeat G. M 4 F A ! ° 2 G 5 M F G c M o F G H I A B C D E F I G H C A B F D E H I G B C A E F D G H I A B C D E F I G H C A B F D E H I G B C A E F D G H I A B C D E F I G H C A B F D E H I G B C A E F D repeat G_ M 7 F 6 9 ? D E F G H I A B C F D E I G H C A B E F D H I G B C A D E F G H I A B C F D E I G H C A B E F D H I G B C A D E F G H I A B C F D E I G H C A B E F D H I G B C A repeat G10 A2 ! G18 repeat repeat repeat repeat A B C C A B - order of v i s u a l s t i m u l i within item 1 (1^); correct v i s u a l stimulus underlined B C A for length 1 (L^). Figure 4 Design: Order of presentation of the v i s u a l stimuli within each item for each group of Ss i n A n from L n-L_. This design i s repeated from L.-L c and for A_. — JL ± j 4 b 2 -33--34-Figure 4 also i l l u s t r a t e s the order of presentation of the v i s u a l stimuli within each item (I) for each group of Ss (G) at each stimulus length (L) and the position of the correct v i s u a l stimulus (P) within each item at each length. I t w i l l be noted that for a T ° I (0^ refers to the order of items, not order of s t i m u l i within items) G 1 i s presented the three v i s u a l stimuli (A, B, C) comprising 1^ i n the order A B C while G^ re-ceives the order C A B and G^ the order B C A. Position of the correct v i s u a l stimulus remains constant at which results i n the correct v i s u a l stimulus being A, C and B for G^, G^ and G^ of A]_0T. r e s P e c r - i v e l y . G^ i s then presented the three v i s u a l stimuli (D, E, F) comprising 1^ i n the order D E F while G^ re-ceives the order F D E and G^ the order E F D. Position of the correct v i s u a l stimulus changes to which re s u l t s i n the correct v i s u a l stimulus being E, D and F for G 1, G^ and G 3 of A, 0, res-pectively. This system i s repeated for G.^ , G^ and G^ with the v i s u a l s t i m u l i G, H and I. The position of the correct v i s u a l stimulus changes to P^. This procedure of counterbalancing the order of items and the order of the three v i s u a l stimuli within each item at. each length i s duplicated for a l l groups of Ss. Hypotheses The research hypotheses set out i n Chapter III are cast as follows:. -35-There w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n AVI scores as a function of: (1) Presentations ( A^ > A 1 ) (2) Stimulus lengths (L^> L 2 > L 3 > L 4 > L $ > L g ) (3) Positions of stimuli (P- L>P 2>P 3) (4) Positions x stimulus lengths (P x L) (5) Positions x presentations ( P x A) A further hypothesis i s cast as a " n u l l " hypothesis: There w i l l be no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n AVI scores as a function of: (6) Sex (males vs. females) S t a t i s t i c a l Treatment The data consisted of the number of correct AVI judgments made by each S under the d i f f e r e n t position-by-length combin-ations over the two r e p l i c a t i o n s . Each response to an auditory and v i s u a l p a i r of stimuli was treated as an independent AVI judgment. The- t o t a l number of AVI judgments was 54 per r e p l i c -ation with three AVI judgments being made for each position and length combination. , To test the hypotheses, the data were analyzed using the Bio-Med 08V analysis of variance program, revised January 30, -36-1969 at the Health Sciences Computing F a c i l i t y , U.C.L.A. A one-tailed F-test was employed for hypothesis (1);hy-potheses (2) and (3) were analyzed by the Newman-Keuls (Winer P.309) procedure for examining differences among pairs of ordered means; and two-tailed F-tests for hypo-theses (4), (5) and (6) . Also i n order to avoid assump-tions about equal covariances i n the pooled variance-co-variance matrices, a more conservative test, Greenhouse & Geisser (1959) & Box (1954), was-applied to the s i g n i f i c a n t main and i n t e r a c t i o n a l e f f e c t s . Though not an exact t e s t , t h i s provides a lower.bound on tabled p r o b a b i l i t i e s for given'^-levels. CHAPTER V RESULTS Table I presents the complete summary of the a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e of the between Ss and w i t h i n Ss v a r i a b l e s . Hypothesis ( 1 ) (A^ > A^) was not confirmed by the data. ( F ( l , 7 2 ) = 2 . 2 6 ; p > . 1 0 ) . The mean AVI scores f o r p r e s e n t -a t i o n A^ (consecutive) and A 2 (simultaneous) were 5 . 1 8 and 5 . 3 9 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . These r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n AVI scores between the s i m u l -taneous and c o n s e c u t i v e p r e s e n t a t i o n s , when averaged over the l e v e l s of the oth e r f a c t o r s . Hypothesis ( 2 ) (L-, >L„ . . . L c ) was a l s o not confirmed 1 Z b by the data. ( F ( 5 , 3 6 0 ) < 1 . 0 ) . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n AVI scores were not found among stimulus l e n g t h s . T h i s r e -s u l t , h e l d when means were f o r the combined A^ and A^ pre-s e n t a t i o n s . H q f o r hypothesis ( 3 ) ( P^ > P 2> P^) was r e j e c t e d . ( F ( 2 , 1 4 4 ) = 5 . 4 8 ; p < . 0 0 5 ) . T h i s p o s i t i o n e f f e c t remained s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t w i t h a p p l i c a t i o n of the Greenhouse and G e i s s e r F - t e s t . ( F ( l , 7 2 ) = 5 ; 4 8 ; p < . 0 2 5 ) . The mean AVI scores f o r P^, P 2 arid P 3, i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 5, were 5 . 3 3 , 5 . 3 0 and 5 . 2 2 , r e s p e c t i v e l y . I n d i v i d u a l comparisons with -3 7-TABLE I SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE Source of Variation df SS MS F Prob. P rob.* (G-G) Between Ss (Subjects) 107 A (presentation) 1 21.62 21.62 2.26 0 (order) 2 15.99 7.99 .83 S (sex) 1 13.67 13.67 1.43 G/A x 0 (groups) 12 213.27 17. 77 1.85 A x 0 2 46.34 23.17 2.42 A x S 1 19.96 19.96 2.08 0 x S 2 24. 41 12.20 1.27 . A x S x 0 2 46.63 23.31 2.43 G x S/A x 0 12 200.32 16.69 1.74 Ss/S x G/A x 0 72 690.02 9.58 Within Ss 1836 L (length) 5 3.72 .75 .93 L x A 5 28.13 5.63 7.05 <.001 <. 005 L x 0 10 6.19 .62 .78 L x S 5 6.18 1.24 .55 L x A x 0 10 11.69 1.17 1.47 L x S x A 5 3.60 .72 .90 L x S x 0 10 10.97 1.10 1.37 L x G/A x 0 60 109.94 1.83 2.30 <.01 <.05 L x S x 0 x A 10 6.78 .68 .85 L x S x G/A x 0 60 47.40 .79 .99 L x Ss/S x G/A x 0 360 287.36 .80 -38-TABLE I - c o n t i n u e d S o u r c e o f V a r i a t i o n d f SS MS F . P r o b . P r o b . * (G-G) P ( p o s i t i o n ) 2 4.26 2.13 5.48 <.005 < . 025 P' x A 2 .51 .26 . 66 P x 0 4 3.76 .94 2.42 P x S 2 1.76 .88 2.26 P x 0 x A 4 .54 .14 .35 P x S x A 2 1.24 . 62 1.59 P x S x 0 4 2 . 20 .55 1.41 P x G/A x 0 24 10.19 .42 1.09 P x S x 0 x A 4 .38 .96 .25 P x S x G/A x 0 24 6 .40 .27 .68 P x Ss/S x G/A x 0 144 56.04 .39 L x P 10 2.37 . 24 .70 L x P x A 10 1.19 .12 .35 L x P x 0 20 18.58 .93 2 .76 <.01 > . 05 L x P x S 10 2.40 .24 .71 L x P x A x 0 20 12 .65 .63 1.88 <• 05 >.10 L x P x S x A 10 1.13 .11 .34 L x P x 0 x S 20 7.77 .39 1.15 L x P x G/A x 0 120 63 . 26 .53 1.57 <.01 >.10 L x P x S x O x A 20 5.08 . 25 .75 • L x P x S x G/A x 0 120 34. 53 .29 .86 L x P x Ss/S x G/A x 0 720 242.23 .37 * T h e s e a r e c o n s e r v a t i v e p r o b a b i l i t i e s as d e t e r m i n e d by Greenhouse. & G e i s s e r ( 1 9 5 9 ) . -39-Mean AVI Scores -41-Newman-Keuls among the position-means indicate that the mean AVI scores for P^ were s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower (p < .05) than those of P^ and P 2, which did not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y . Hypotheses (4) (P x L) and (5) ( P x A) were not con-firmed by the data. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n AVI scores were found for positions as a function of stimulus length (F(10,720)< 1.0) or for positions as a function of presentation. (F(2,144) < 1.0) . Hypothesis (6) (males vs. females) was not rejected by the data. (F(l,72) = 1.42; p >.10). These re s u l t s indicate that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n AVI scores for males and females averaged over presentation methods and the other factors. The mean AVI scores were 5.37 and 5.18 for males and females, respectively. The i n t e r a c t i o n a l e f f e c t of presentation x length (A x L) was s i g n i f i c a n t . (F(5,360) = 7.05; p<.001). This e f f e c t re-mained s i g n i f i c a n t with application of the Greenhouse & Geisser F-test. (F(l,72) = 7.05; p <.005). The mean AVI scores for this i n t e r a c t i o n are i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 6. Tests of simple , effects between presentation-means (Table II) indicate that s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n AVI scores occurred between present-ations A^ and A^ but only from stimulus lengths 3 to 5. Tests of simple effects between length-means for present-ation A, (Table III) indicate that there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t decrease 5 . 8 -43-TABLE I I TESTS OF SIMPLE EFFECTS BETWEEN PRESENTATION-MEANS WITHIN LEVELS OF L FOR THE A x L INTERACTION F -values between p a i r s L l L 2 L 3 L 4 L 5 A l A 2 A l A 2 A l A 2 A l A 2 A l A 2 . 291 . 569 6.15* 4.65* 6.72** L 6 A l A 2 2.26 MSe = .798 d.f. = 360 n = 54 c r i t i c a l v a l u e s : F(l,360) = 3 .84; p < .05* F(1,360) = . 6 .63; p < . 01** -44-TABLE III TESTS OF SIMPLE EFFECTS BETWEEN LENGTH-MEANS WITHIN LEVELS OF A, FOR THE A x L INTERACTION F-values between pairs L, L„ L, L„ L, L „ L, L r L, 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 .01 4.38* 3.04 3. 46 • 76 L„ L., L„ L, L„ L,. L„ L,. L, 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 3 4 4.88* 3.46 3.91* .97 • 12 L_ L,. L. L_ L, L,. 3 5 3 6 4 5 4 6 5 6 .05 1.49 .01 .76 • 98 MSe = .798 d.f. = 360 n =54 c r i t i c a l values: F (1,360) = 3.8 4; p < .05* F (1,360) = 6.63; p < .01** -45-in. AVI scores at L_ and a non-significant increase at L... Table IV indicates the tests of simple e f f e c t s between length-means for presentation A^ and the non-significant increase i n AVI scores at L^. Examination of the data shows that there were no s i g n i -f i c a n t differences attributable to the e f f e c t of order of stimulus items. (F(2,72) < 1.0). Mean AVI scores for 0^, C>2 and 0^ were 5.32, 5.16 and 5.3 7, respectively. Significance, however, was found for the three-way i n t e r a c t i o n a l e f f e c t of order x length x position (0 x L x P) . (F (20,720) = 2.76; p <.01). This e f f e c t did not remain s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t with application.of the Greenhouse & Geisser F-test. (F(2,72) = 2.76; p > .05). A type I error might well be made i f 0 x L x P were regarded as s i g n i f i c a n t . The i n t e r a c t i o n a l e f f e c t of groups x.length within pre-sentation and order (G x L/A x O) was s i g n i f i c a n t . (F (60,360) =2.29; p < .01). This e f f e c t remained s i g n i f i c a n t with applic-ation of the Greenhouse & Geisser F-test. (F(12,72)=2.29;p < .05). This in t e r a c t i o n was found too complex to interpret i n any reasonable way. The i n t e r a c t i o n a l e f f e c t of groups x length x p o s i t i o n within presentation and order (G x L x P/A x 0) was s i g n i f i c a n t (F(120,720) =1.56; p <.01) but did not remain s i g n i f i c a n t with -46-TABLE IV TESTS OF SIMPLE EFFECTS BETWEEN LENGTH-MEANS WITHIN LEVELS OF A- FOR THE A x L INTERACTION F-values between pairs L l ^2 L l ^3 L l ^4 L l ^6 .01 1.08 1.32 1.77 1. 77 L2 L3 L2 L4 L2 L5 L2 L6 L3 L4 1.00 1.23 1.67 1.67 • 01 L3 L5 L3 L 6 " L4 L5 L4 L6 L5 L6 .08 MSe n .08 = .798 - 54 .03 d.f. = 360 . 03 • 00 c r i t i c a l values: F (1,360) = 3.84; p < .05* F (1,360) = 6.63; p < .01** -47-the Greenhouse- & Geisser F-test. (F(12,72)= 1.56; p > .10). Presentation x order x length x p o s i t i o n (A x 0 x L x P) was also s i g n i f i c a n t . (F(20,720) = 1.88; p<.05). This e f f e c t also did not remain s i g n i f i c a n t with the Greenhouse & Geisser F-test. (F(2,72) = 1.88; p >.10). CHAPTER VI  DISCUSSION Stimulus Length and M i l l e r ' s Theory of "Chunking" Third-grade children's a b i l i t y to process auditory and v i s u a l non-verbal stimuli presented consecutively decreased s i g n i f i c a n t l y when the stimulus length increased from 5 dots/ pattern (length 2) to 6 dots/pattern (length 3). This i s sug-gested by the breakdown of the AXL i n t e r a c t i o n . A fixed-effects analogue of the components of variance approach es-2 timates the "variance component" to be .0298. This figure i s 8.9 per cent of the value estimated for experimental error 2 (6 =.3364). The e f f e c t , though s i g n i f i c a n t , i s of small magni-tude , and i t i s hazardous to attempt t h e o r e t i c a l explanations of such small e f f e c t s . But i n so far as they are r e l i a b l e , though small, the following suggestions seem consistent with the data. According to M i l l e r ' s (1956) theory of chunking, immediate memory appears to be limited by the number of items to be re-tained, regardless of the information content of the items. Be-cause of t h i s , M i l l e r found that the apparent memory span could be increased by a recoding process. In order to speak more -48--49-p r e c i s e l y , therefore, we must recognize the importance of grouping or organizing the input sequence into units or chunks. Since the memory span i s a fixed number of chunks for each set of conditions, we can increase the number of b i t s of information that i t contains simply by building larger and larger chunks, each chunk containing more information than be-fore. M i l l e r uses an example of a man who, just beginning to learn radio-telegraphic code, hears each d i t and dah as a separate chunk. Soon he i s able to organize these sounds into l e t t e r s as chunks, then words and phrases. Input i s given a code that contains many chunks with few b i t s per chunk. The operator recodes the input into another code that contains fewer chunks with more b i t s per chunk. There are many ways to do t h i s recoding but probably the simplest i s to group the input events, apply a new name to the group and then remember the new name rather than the o r i g i n a l input events. Investig-ation of the "methods" used by children would perhaps help to explain t h i s phenomenon. An application of the "chunking" theory to the present study appears quite reasonable. I f each dot can be concept-ualized as a b i t of information, examination of the dot patterns reveals that the stimulus of 4 dots/pattern (length 1) and that of 5 dots/pattern (length 2) are composed of 4 and 5 b i t s each, -50-respectively. Each stimulus pattern can then also be separated into chunks since the physical presentation of the dots presents the patterns with some dots separated by one-half a second and others by one second. The stimuli both auditory and v i s u a l , therefore, are presented as groups of dots separated by one second i n t e r v a l s or longer spaces. The dot pattern .. .. which i s composed of 4 b i t s i s also divided into 2 chunks, 2 b i t s / chunk;. This also applies to which i s 5 b i t s i n 2 chunks, 3 and 2 bits/chunk. A l l the stimuli from length 1 to length 2 are separated into 2 chunks. At length 3 ( 6 b i t s ) the patterns are divided into 3 chunks each. This i s true of a l l stimuli from length 3 to 9 dots/pattern (length 6). The increase i n errors from length 2 to length 3 for the consecutive presentation may not be the r e s u l t of the increase i n the number of dots/length since there i s no corresponding increase i n errors as the number of dots increases from length 3 through 6, but of the increase from 2 chunks to 3 chunks of i n -formation which must be processed. Children may fi n d i t more d i f f i c u l t to switch from retaining 2 chunks (lengths 1 and 2) to 3 chunks (lengths 3, 4, 5 and 6). The lack of increase i n errors from length 3 through length 5 may be accounted for by this theory since these children should f i n d i t no more d i f f i c u l t to r etain increasing stimulus lengths as long as the number of chunks remains the same. Practice e f f e c t s and greater f a c i l i t y -51-at the recoding.process w i l l also tend to decrease error scores. This may have occurred at length 6 with t h i s sample, re s u l t i n g i n a s l i g h t decrease i n error scores. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences attributable to length occur-red for the simultaneous presentation although there was a tendency i n t h i s sample for the number, of errors to decrease as the stimulus length increased. This may be.attributable • to practice e f f e c t s and f a m i l i a r i t y with the presentation format. This i s speculation but consistent with the findings of Loveless, Brebner & Hamilton (1970). Presentations and Short-Term Auditory Memory The third-grade children were able to process auditory and v i s u a l non-verbal s t i m u l i presented simultaneously with more f a c i l i t y than the same stimuli presented consecutively i n the recognition task. This difference was a s i g n i f i c a n t one for lengths 3, 4 and 5. The lack of s i g n i f i c a n t differences at lengths 1 and 2 may be attributable to the r e l a t i v e ease of pro-cessing the shorter stimulus lengths (2 chunks/stimulus) and also to the children's i n i t i a l adjustment to.the tasks. At length. 6 the increase i n AVI scores for the consecutive present-ation might have been due, as previously mentioned,to greater f a c i l i t y of the children at recoding the stimuli consisting of three chunks/stimulus r e s u l t i n g from p r a c t i s i n g t h i s task at three d i f f e r e n t lengths. The s i g n i f i c a n t differences i n AVI scores between pre-sentations both o v e r a l l and as a function of length i s con-si s t e n t with the hypothesis that the consecutive presentation includes a factor, or factors, which i n h i b i t s children's a b i l i t y to make accurate judgments of AVI. I t might be argued that children would score higher on a test of AVI which presented the stimuli v i a two sense modalities at the same time (simul-taneous presentation), implying the presence of a sensory-sum-ming e f f e c t i n learning. However, Witty and Sizemore (1958), having reviewed numerous studies of auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i presentation, concluded that learning i s not always f a c i l i t a t e d by simultaneous presentation involving a combination of senses such as audition and v i s i o n . They state that sometimes a p a r t i r cular approach rather than a combination proved more e f f e c t i v e . In such cases, the f a i l u r e of one sensory modality to f a c i l i t a t e another might be attributed to the habitual tendency of the children to use and prefer one sensory modality to another. An alternate interpretation i s the presence of a short-term auditory memory factor and/or a cross-modal interference factor within auditory memory in the consecutive presentation that i n -h i b i t s performance of the AVI te s t . This explanation i s s i m i l a r to the hypothesis of S t e r r i t t & Rudnick (1966) that memory for auditory temporal patterns may be an important factor common to -53-performance on the AVI test. S t e r r i t t , Martin & Rudnick (1968) and Rodenborn & Brown (1970) found auditory memory to be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n the AVI te s t . The l a t t e r authors calculated the c o e f f i c i e n t of the de-termination between auditory memory and AVI and found th i s to be 16.3 per cent. These results are contrary to those of Kahn & Birch (1968) and Ford (1967) who, using the D i g i t Span.subtest of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children to measure au-ditory memory, found no s i g n i f i c a n t r elationship between c h i l -dren's performance on th i s test and the AVI t e s t . The present study suggests that the D i g i t Span test may measure other aspects of auditory memory than those involved i n AVI. The difference i n AVI scores between the consecutive and simultaneous presentation i s somewhat more impressive than i t appears at f i r s t sight since there are a number, of research findings which suggest that the consecutive presentation of t h i s experiment was biased, due to the three repetitions of the audi-tory stimulus, i n a d i r e c t i o n that should favor lower error scores. Yet, for the stimulus lengths 3, 4 and 5 the consecutive present-ation produced the higher error scores. Hebb (1961) and Hellyer (1962) have both stated that short-term retention improves when the material to be r e c a l l e d i s repeated before, a test of retention, or when i t i s repeated between successive tests. Tulving & Ma-digan (1970) state that a l l current theories and almost a l l extant data t e l l us that the best way to learn verbal material beyond the immediate memory span i s to allow i t s r e p e t i t i o n — exactly the same item presented t r i a l a f t e r t r i a l . In the present study the consecutive presentation included three repetitions of the auditory stimulus p r i o r to exposure of the v i s u a l s t i m u l i . The AVI test of Birch & Belmont included one r e p e t i t i o n of the auditory stimulus. If one can assume that r e p e t i t i o n f a c i l i t a t e s the retention of the auditory stimulus, then the short-term auditory memory effects to be estimated bet-ween the AVI test of Birch & Belmont and the simultaneous pre-sentation of thi s study would be underestimated. This underestim-ate would be to the degree that the three repetitions of the au-ditory stimulus f a c i l i t a t e d short-term auditory memory. Position of the Visual Stimulus The positions of the v i s u a l stimuli had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the recognition of auditory-visual p a i r s . However, the com-ponents of variance approach attributes to i t an e f f e c t less than 1 per cent of the error variance. The grade three children made fewer errors of AVI when responding to sti m u l i i n pos i t i o n 1 (P.^ ) and position 2 (P 2), than i n position 3 ( p 3)« Although t h i s e f f e c t was small, i t was r e l i a b l e ( P <.005), and two alternate in t e r p r e t -ations of the position e f f e c t w i l l be considered. The pos i t i o n e f f e c t for the consecutive presentation w i l l be considered i n terms of decay and interference assumptions i n short-term memory -55-and proactive interference. The pos i t i o n e f f e c t for the simultaneous presentation w i l l be considered i n terms of the assumptions of proactive interference. It should be kept i n mind that t h i s discussion does not purport to shed l i g h t on the decay-interference controversy or on proactive interference. They are used only as a means of interpreting the present data. A. The Consecutive Presentation Although the auditory stimulus was repeated, which pre-sumably would f a c i l i t a t e auditory memory, i t was' noted that children i n the consecutive presentation tended to tap fingers or feet, make l i p movements, e t c . , between the cessation of the auditory stimulus and i n i t i a t i o n of the f i r s t v i s u a l s t i -mulus and also during the presentation of the v i s u a l s t i m u l i . This would appear to indicate rehearsal methods which may sug-gest a memory mechanism or the presence of interference. This obvious rehearsal was.not noticed during the simultaneous pre-sentation. Waugh & Norman (1965), i n t h e i r model of sensory-primary-secondary memory, reported that rapid decay of material from memory occurs only under limited experimental conditions which include the presence of some i n t e r f e r i n g (or rehearsal-preventing) task. This finding i s also supported by Aaronson (1968), Brown (1955) and Sperling (1963); This suggests that the span of immediate memory i s limited by a lack of opportunity to rehearse. -56-A p o s s i b l e memory system i s one i n which the l i m i t e d c a p a c i t y of immediate memory i s due to d i f f i c u l t y i n rehearsing many items at once. Rehearsal might serve both to maintain m a t e r i a l i n immediate memory and help t r a n s f e r i t to a more permanent s t o r e . In t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n s , Waugh & Norman place heavy emphasis on the r o l e of r e h e a r s a l i n prolonging the pe r i o d of storage of m a t e r i a l i n primary memory and i n c r e a s i n g the l i k e l i h o o d of entry i n t o secondary memory. Norman (1969) s t a t e s t h a t the v o c a l aspect of r e h e a r s a l i m p l i e s that m a t e r i a l i s remembered i n au d i t o r y form even when i t was o r i g i n a l l y presented i n v i s u a l form. S p e r l i n g (1963, 1967) ad-vocated the view t h a t v i s u a l input i s t r a n s l a t e d i n t o an au d i t o r y analogue. This view receives support from the f a c t t h a t s h o r t -term memory f o r a s e r i e s of a c o u s t i c a l l y s i m i l a r items was found to be impaired when compared wi t h a c o u s t i c a l l y d i s s i m i l a r items, regardless of whether the input modality was aud i t o r y or v i s u a l (Hintzman, 1967, Murray, 1967). I t should be noted t h a t the author has found no evidence to discount the p o s s i b i l i t y that the aud i t o r y stimulus might be t r a n s l a t e d to a v i s u a l or k i n e s t h e t i c analogue dependent upon each c h i l d ' s p r e f e r r e d modality. This a l s o suggests the p o s s i -b i l i t y t h a t the v i s u a l s t i m u l i might be t r a n s l a t e d to e i t h e r an auditory or k i n e s t h e t i c analogue. The methods of approaching the AVI t e s t mentioned by Kahn & B i r c h (1968) tend to support t h i s -57-notion. Although this remains as a p o s s i b i l i t y the following interpretations w i l l be made on the basis of the research f i n d -ings reported above (e.g., Norman, 1969; Sperling, 1963, 1967; Hintzman, 1967; Murray, 1967). It would appear that the visual-to-auditory analogue trans-l a t i o n phenomenon readily occurs i n the present study i f children's l i p movements are any in d i c a t i o n . Each v i s u a l stimulus may be translated to an auditory analogue and the judgment as to equiva-lence made between the auditory stimulus and the auditory analogue. As the v i s u a l stimulus i n i s being translated to i t s auditory analogue, rehearsal of the auditory stimulus may be discontinued i n order to avoid confusion. This break i n rehearsal may re s u l t i n decay and possible intra-modal interference between the audi-tory analogue and auditory stimulus and may tend to i n t e r f e r e with the retention of the auditory stimulus. This procedure would be repeated at P 2- The tra n s l a t i o n would again tend to discontinue rehearsal of the auditory stimulus r e s u l t i n g i n decay and i n t e r -ference between the auditory stimulus and auditory analogue. The results suggest that t h i s e f f e c t i s cumulative and judgments of AVI are not impaired u n t i l P^. The decay-interference interpretation of the pos i t i o n e f f e c t for the consecutive presentation i s consistent with the findings of proactive interference. The normal explanations for proactive interference are based on the assumptions that stimulus traces -58-from e a r l i e r learned material become confused with incoming traces from material presently being learned and performance on early items i n a l i s t suffer least from proactive i n t e r -ference e f f e c t s . This approach to interpreting.the p o s i t i o n e f f e c t i s s i m i l a r to the interference assumptions of short-term memory. Proactive interference w i l l be discussed further i n r e l a t i o n to the position e f f e c t for the simultaneous pre-sentation . M i l l e r ' s (1956) theory of recoding input, s t i m u l i i s con-sis t e n t with.either i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the position e f f e c t for the consecutive presentation. Each auditory stimulus might be recoded into chunks i n order to aid retention. Each v i s u a l stimulus might also be recoded into chunks, translated to i t s auditory analogue and equated.with the auditory stimulus carried i n memory. This procedure would be repeated for each v i s u a l stimulus. The t r a n s l a t i o n of each successive v i s u a l stimulus to i t s auditory analogue might r e s u l t i n decay, as a r e s u l t of the interuption of rehearsal of the auditory stimulus, and i n t e r -ference due to intra-modal interference between the auditory stimulus and non-equivalent auditory analogues. Also the reten-t i o n period, from cessation of the auditory stimulus to present-ation of each v i s u a l stimulus, increases as each successive v i s u a l stimulus i s presented. The decrease i n AVI scores at P^ might be due to any one of these factors, a combination, or a l l of them, -59-since the amount of decay, interference and o v e r a l l retention time increases as each successive v i s u a l stimulus i s processed. B. The Simultaneous Presentation Although i t was thought that the simultaneous presentation of the auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i would control for the p o s i t i o n e f f e c t , the p o s i t i o n of the v i s u a l stimulus was also found s i g n i f -icant for t h i s presentation. It w i l l be considered on the basis of proactive interference. The auditory-visual pair presented i n P 1 would tend to be processed free of any i n t e r f e r i n g s i m i l a r stimuli while the auditory-visual pairs i n a n <^ ^3 would be subject to i n t e r f e r -ence from one and two previous s i m i l a r processing tasks, respect-i v e l y . The interference would tend to impair subsequent AVI judg-ments due to the stimulus traces of the proceeding stimuli i n t e r -fering with the r e g i s t r a t i o n of the present stimuli.. This finding i s consistent with those of Aaronson (1968) who reports evidence ind i c a t i n g that perceptual processes continue to occur after the physical stimulus presentation — either auditory or v i s u a l — i s terminated. I f stimulus-pairs are presented at a rate exceeding the perceptual processing rate, then memory traces from previous stimulus-pairs could i n t e r f e r e with the processing of the following stimulus-pairs. The- evidence indicates that t h i s e f f e c t must be thought of as cumulative and occurring following the v i s u a l stimulus -60-in P2> An assumption of sensory-overloading may be c a l l e d upon to explain why thi s e f f e c t did not occur at P 2 also. That i s , the interference of one auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i -pair (P^) was -not s u f f i c i e n t to increase the pr o b a b i l i t y of an error being made at the adjacent position ( p 2) ^ u t t n e interference of two auditory and v i s u a l s timuli-pairs (P^,P2) was s u f f i c i e n t to increase t h i s error p r o b a b i l i t y for the adjacent pair (P^). Sex Differences Most previous studies of auditory and v i s u a l information processing have not examined sex differences (e.g., S t e r r i t t , Camp & Lipman, 1966; S t e r r i t t , Martin & Rudnick, 1968) or have limited the sample to male subjects to eliminate sex differences known to exis t i n reading achievement (e.g., Rudnick, S t e r r i t t & Flax, 1967; Ford, 1967; Senf, 1969). The present study found no s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n AVI scores for males and females. The- o v e r a l l mean AVI scores for male and female children were 5.36 and 5.19 respectively, giving a difference whose p r o b a b i l i t y (i f the true difference i s zero) was.greater than .25. The ten-dency for males to score higher occurred i n the simultaneous pre-sentation where t h e i r mean AVI score was 5.57 as compared to the females who, obtained a mean AVI score of 5.20. The mean AVI scores of males and females for the consecutive presentation were 5.16 and -61-5.19 respectively. The presentation x sex (AxS) interaction, yielded a p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l of greater than .25 and no other interactions involving sex were s i g n i f i c a n t . These re s u l t s are consistent with those of Hurley (1968) and Rodenborn & Brown (1970) who, using intersensory integration t e s t s , have also found no ind i c a t i o n of a sex-based difference. Other Findings As noted i n Chapter V, there i s some doubt about the significance of differences among positions of stimuli as a function,of stimulus length across the three orders (OxLxP) and also across the presentation and order combinations (AxOxLxP). Because of t h i s , and because of the complexity of these i n t e r a c t i o n effects no interpretation i s attempted. S i g n i f i c a n t performance differences occurred among the groups as a function of stimulus length across presentation and order combinations (GxL/AxO). No clea r interpretation of th i s e f f e c t could be found. -62-CONCLUSIONS The results support the notion that there may be a s i g n i f i c a n t short-term auditory memory factor which may include cross-modal interference i n performance on the tes t of AVI. They also indicate that t h i s memory component i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y related to impairment of judgments of AVI when compared with results of an AVI test which reduces auditory memory as a factor. Third grade children are able to process the simultaneous presentation of auditory and v i s u a l non-verbal stimuli at certain stimulus lengths with more f a c i l i t y than they are when the same stimuli are presented i n a consecutive manner. Although some previous studies using popular tests of auditory memory have found no s i g n i f i c a n t relationship with performance on the test of AVI, the present evidence suggests that the auditory memory tests previously employed may measure a d i f f e r e n t aspect, or aspects, of auditory memory than those involved i n the performance on the AVI test. Another finding indicates that stimulus length per se may not be a s i g n i f i c a n t factor a f f e c t i n g the d i f f i c u l t y of AVI judgments, but that a factor related to length may be. The results are consistent with a theory (Miller, 1956) of recoding input stimuli and suggest that an increase i n the number of units• of stimuli to be retained, and not the number of sti m u l i per unit, -63-may be the factor a f f e c t i n g the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l of AVI judgments. The position of the v i s u a l s t i m u l i was also found to af f e c t the recognition of auditory and v i s u a l pairs i n the AVI t e s t . This e f f e c t , small though s i g n i f i c a n t , occurred for both the consecutive and simultaneous presentations, i n -dicating that interference or decay of sensory processing does occur whether the presentation i s consecutive or simul-taneous for stimuli i n P^. I t i s suggested that the assump-tions of interference and/or decay in-short-term memory and proactive interference, may account for the impaired a b i l i t y to make correct judgments of AVI for stimuli i n po s i t i o n three as compared to stimuli i n position one and pos i t i o n two for the consecutive presentation. The assumption of proactive interference i s suggested to account for the sim i l a r phenomenon occuring i n the simultaneous presentation. RESEARCH CONSIDERATIONS Further study of the differences between the consecutive and simultaneous presentations might.be undertaken to es t a b l i s h whether the present findings also apply to children at other age-grade l e v e l s . The simultaneous presentation should be exam-ined to determine whether the a b i l i t y i t i s measuring i s s i g n i -f i c a n t l y related to reading processes at d i f f e r e n t age-grade l e v e l s . -64-The simultaneous'presentation of auditory and v i s u a l s t i m u l i may f a c i l i t a t e learning for some children due to the elimination of memory as a factor and also due to any f a c i l i t a t i v e e f f e c t one modality may have for another for any p a r t i c u l a r c h i l d . This does not say, however, that the simultaneous presentation w i l l be related s i g n i f i c a n t l y to any of the reading processes at any age-grade l e v e l . I t may be more r e l i a b l e as an instrument for determining the most e f f i c i e n t way a c h i l d learns rather than as a diagnostic t o o l s p e c i f i c a l l y related to reading. In order to examine more thoroughly and attempt to account for a number of the present findings, further research might investigate the ef f e c t s of stimulus length and stimulus position. Since stimulus length (bits/stimulus) appeared to a f f e c t s i g n i -f i c a n t l y the AVI judgments for the consecutive presentation and the results could be accounted for by a recoding or chunking theory, i t would be inter e s t i n g to increase the number of chunks per stimulus independently of the number of dots per stimulus length. This would be done to determine whether the increase i n the number of chunks did i n fact impair AVI judgments. A decrease i n AVI scores would be predicted to occur for each increase i n the number chunks. An increase i n AVI scores would be predicted to occur as the number of t r i a l s increased and a subsequent de-crease to occur when the number of chunks increased. I t would also be i n t e r e s t i n g to increase the number of dots per chunk to determine -65-what l i m i t , i f any, there i s to the number of pieces of information per chunk that can be recoded and retained. The-number of chunks that can be recoded and retained could also be estimated by systematically increasing the number-of chunks per stimulus. Position e f f e c t s for the consecutive presentation could be further examined by increasing the number of v i s u a l s t i m u l i , and thus increasing the possible interference and decay factors of short-term memory to determine whether AVI performance de-teriorates as the number of p o t e n t i a l l y i n t e r f e r i n g factors increases. If t h i s did occur i t would lend more support to the assumption concerning interference and decay e f f e c t s of interven-ing s t i m u l i . Position e f f e c t s for the simultaneous presentation could also be,further examined by increasing the iriterstimulus i n -te r v a l to determine whether the possible influences of proactive interference decrease as th i s i n t e r v a l increases, and vice versa. This design would tend to allow more time for perceptual processing, of previous stimuli to terminate and thus decrease the interference e f f e c t . BIBLIOGRAPHY - 6 6 --67-BIBLIOGRAPHY Aaronson, D. Temporal Factors i n Perception and Short-Term Memory i n Contemporary Theory and Research i n Visual, Perception, R.N., Haber (ed.) Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1968, 215-232. Beery, J.W. Matching of Auditory and Visual Stimuli by Average and Retarded Readers. C h i l d Development, 1967, 38 / 827-833. Belmont, L., Birch, H.G. & Belmont, I. Auditory-Visual Inter-sensory Processing and Verbal Mediation. Journal of Nervous  and Mental Disease, 1968, 147 (6), 562-569. Birch, H.G. Dyslexia and the Maturation of Vi s u a l Function. M.J. Money (ed.), Reading D i s a b i l i t y , Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1962, 161-169. Birch, H.G. & Belmont, L. Auditory-Visual Integration i n Normal and Retarded Readers. American Journal Orthopsy- chiatry, 1964, 3_4, 852-861. Birch, H.G. & Belmont, L. Auditory-Visual Integration, I n t e l l i -gence and Reading A b i l i t y i n School Children. Perceptual  and Motor S k i l l s , 1965, 20_, 295-305. Birch, H.G. & Rabinowitz, H.S. The Negative E f f e c t of Previous Experience on Productive Thinking. Journal of Experimental  Psychology, 1951, 41, 121-125. Blank, M. & Bridger, W.H. Deficiencies i n Verbal Learning i n Retarded Readers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1966 , 36_, 840-847. Box, G.E.P. Some Theorems on Quadratic Forms applied i n the Study of Analysis of Variance Problems. Annual Mathematical  Statistics,1954, 25,-290-302, 484-498. Brown, J. An experimental Study of Immediate Memory. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Cambridge, .1955. -68-Buswell, G.T. The Subvocalization Factor i n the Improvement of Reading. Elementary School Journal, 1947, 4_8, 190-196. Edfeldt, A.W. S i l e n t Speech and Si l e n t Reading. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. Ford, M.P. Auditory-Visual and Tactual-Visual Integration i n Relation to Reading A b i l i t y . Perceptual and Motor  S k i l l s , 1967, 24, 831-841. Goldberg, H.K. Ocular M o t i l i t y i n Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . Journal of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s , 1970, 3_ (3), 40-42. Greenhouse, S.W. & Geisser, S. On Methods i n the Analysis of P r o f i l e Data. Psychometrika, 1959, 2_4, 19-112. Harris, A.J. How To Increase Reading A b i l i t y . (2nd ed.), Longmans, Green, 1948. Hebb, D.O. D i s t i n c t i v e Features of Learning i n the Higher Animal. In J.F. Delafresnaye (Ed.), Brain Mechanisms  and Learning. London: Oxford University Press, 1961. Hellyer, S. Supplementary Report: Frequency of Stimulus Presentation and Short-Term Decrement i n Recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 6_4, 650. Hintzman D.L. A r t i c u l a t o r y Coding i n Short-Term Memory: Jour-nal-: of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1967, 6_, 312-16. Hurley, O.L. Perceptual Integration and Reading Problems. Exceptional Children, 1968, 3_5 (3), .207-15. Judd, CH. Reduction of A r t i c u l a t i o n . American Journal of  Psychology, 1927, 39, 313-322. Kahn> D. & Birch, H.G. The Development of Auditory-Visual Integration and Reading Achievement. Perceptual and  Motor S k i l l s , 1968,-27, 459-468. Kimura, D. Cerebral Dominance and the Perception of Verbal Stimuli. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1961, 15_, 166-171. Kimura, D. Left-Right Differences i n the Perception of Melodies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 16 , 355-358. -69-Loveless, N.E., Brebner, J . , & Hamilton, P. Bisensory Presentation of Information. Psychological B u l l e t i n , 1970, 73 (3), 161-199. Maier, N.R.F. Reasoning i n Humans: I I . The Solution of a Problem and Its Appearance i n Consciousness. Journal  of Comparative Psychology, 1932, 12, 181-194. M i l l e r , G.A. Human Memory and the Storage of Information IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 1956, I•T-2, 129-137. Mountcastle, V.B., ed. Interhemispheric Relations and Cerebral Dominance. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1962. Muehl, S. and Kremehak, S. A b i l i t y to Match Information Within Auditory & Visual Sense Modalities and Subsequent Reading Achievement. Journal of Educational  Psychology, 1966, 5_7 (4), 230-239. Murray, D.J. The Role of Speech Responses i n Short-Term Memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1967, 21, 263-76. Norman, D.A. Memory and Attention. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969. Rodenborn, L.V. & Brown R.S. The Developmental Characteristics of Auditory-Visual Integration i n Normal Elementary School.Children. Paper Presented at AERA Annual Meeting, 1970. Rudnick, M. S t e r r i t t , G.M. & Flax, M. Auditory and Visual Rhythm Perception and Reading A b i l i t y . C h i l d Development, 1967, -3_8, 581-587. Senf, G.M. Development of Immediate Memory for Bisensory Stimuli i n Normal Children and Children with Learning Disorders, Developmental Psychology Monograph, 1 (6,2). Sperling, G.A. A Model for Visual Memory Tasks. Human Factors, 1963, 5, .19-31. Sperling, G.A. Successive Approximations to a Model for Short-Term Memory. Acta Psychology, 1967, 27, 285-292. -70-Sterritt> G.M. Camp, B.W.Lipman, B. E f f e c t s of Early-Auditory Deprivation Upon Auditory and Visual In-formation Processing. Personal Communication. S t e r r i t t , G.M., Martin, V.E. & Rudnick, M. Sequential Pattern Perception and Reading. In Press, 1968. S t e r r i t t , G.M. & Rudnick, M. Auditory and Visual Rhythm Perception i n Relation to Reading A b i l i t y i n Fourth Grade Boys. Perceptual and Motor S k i l l s , 1966, 22, 859-864. Tulving, E. & Madigan, S.A. Memory and Verbal Learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 1970, 21, 447-484. Waugh, N.C. & Norman D.A. Primary Memory. Psychology.Review, 1965, 72, 89-104. Winer, B.J. S t a t i s t i c a l P r i n c i p l e s i n Experimental Design, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Witty, P.A. & Sizemore, R.A. Studies i n Listening: I. Relative Values of Oral and Visual Presentation. Elementary English, 1958, 3_5, 538-552. APPENDIX A --71-APPENDIX A TEST INSTRUCTIONS Presentation A-^  After seating the Ss and gaining t h e i r attention, the E said, "I'm going to tap out some patterns. L i s t e n . " Three examples, a, b, and c were tapped with a pause of 3-sec bet-ween examples. The Ss were then shown (on a screen) example a and t o l d "Each pattern you hear i s going to be l i k e a dot pattern you w i l l see on the screen. Now we w i l l practice. You w i l l hear the same dot pattern three times. I w i l l say 'ready' before they begin and when they have ended I w i l l say' 'Now you w i l l see the dots on the screen.' You w i l l be shown three d i f f e r e n t dot patterns,.one at a time. You are to t e l l me i f each pattern i s the same or not the same as the pattern you just heard. I w i l l say 'number one, number two or number three before each dot pattern i s shown so you w i l l be ready. As you make a decision for number one, number two and number three, you w i l l put either a 'yes' or a 'no' on the answer sheet under th i s number. 'Yes-' means they are the same and 'no' means they are not the same. I w i l l t e l l you which number we are on before each tap pattern you.hear." -73-After the Ss lis t e n e d to the i n s t r u c t i o n s , E said " l e t ' s try example a." Example a was presented again with three repetitions and the Ss were.shown three v i s u a l patterns successively. E then asked "Let's see i f you did that one c o r r e c t l y . Do you think number one was the same or not the same?" Simultaneously with the S s' response and independent-ly of t h e i r choices, E t o l d them the correct answer and said "It's the same (or not the same)." This procedure was repeated for numbers two and three. For the next two examples, b and c, E said "Listen again and you, write down whether each one i s the same or not the same. Remember put 'yes' i f they are the same and 'no' i f they are not the same." In each instance, E presented the auditory pattern and asked "Was number one the same or not the same?" After the presentation of examples a, b and c, the 18 tasks of the test were given. The Ss were t o l d , "Now that you know how to do i t , I want you to l i s t e n c a r e f u l l y and pick out the dots which look l i k e the taps you hear." E instructed the Ss to l i s t e n before each new auditory pattern and also signaled the onset of the v i s u a l patterns. Only f i r s t choices were accepted and no., changes' in response were permitted i n order to eliminate comparisons -among the v i s u a l s t i m u l i . Presentation A^ Preliminary instructions and the introduction to the -74-tap and dot patterns were the same as Presentation A^. E to l d the Ss for Presentation A^ "You w i l l hear the same dot pattern three times and each time you hear i t you w i l l see a dot pattern on the screen. I w i l l say 'ready' before the dot pattern begins and t e l l you whether the dot pattern you are seeing i s number one, number two or number three. You are to decide whether the one you see i s the same or not the same as the one you hear. When you have decided number one, number two and number three as the same or not the same, . you w i l l put either a 'yes' for the same, or a 'no' for not the same on the answer sheet under each number. I w i l l t e l l you which number we are on before each dot pattern you hear." After the Ss liste n e d to the instructions E said "Let's try example a." Example a was presented three times with three v i s u a l dot patterns. The instructions following t h i s were the same as those for Presentation A,. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104112/manifest

Comment

Related Items