STEMULUS SATEATFGN AND MENU“. RETARDATION Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MiCH‘IGAN STATE UNWERSETY Leif (3. Tardal 1965 mssxs LIBRA R Y Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled ‘3"T?" T"Q '%.*"‘TA"‘T"‘I AV“) yr“ ' '“ I)? i ‘fii :g1 Ab‘g‘.-.n .a .. v- '1‘! fi-‘XTTKN‘ .4 ii: .4 _. E) . 7 I i n A L . presented by [off ’7. Tehiil has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for degree in __,.-l’-,,h.}..2__3 “V fii/flq fief MajorWQ fessor 7)% "\ .__. 4.1a“. Date ”ZZZ/L} 9/ f /¢é 1’ 0-169 RQBM USE ONLY M . V (”V-.1 STIMULUS SATIATION AND MENTAL RETARDATION By. Leif Ga Terdal A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1965 ACID? O ”[1433 GELQN T3 The writer wishes to express his appreciation to all those who made this study possible. The writer is especially grateful to Dr. M. Ray Denny, Chairman, whose insights in the field of mental retardation inspired the writer to investigate this field. Members of the dissertation committee-Dr. Paul Bakan, Dr. RWIE. MCMichael, and Dr. Stanley Ratner—— deserve special thanks for their helpful suggestions and constructive criticisms. In collecting data, the writer appreciated the assistance he received from Elsie Berdach, Phil Snett, and his wife Marjorie Terdal, who also gave many hours of her time. The writer is also grateful to Roy Olson for his assistance with apparatus equipment and to Jim Clark for his computer assistance. To the many peeple who c00perated with the writer in obtaining subjects for his study go the writer‘s special thanks-~Dr. Maureen Bailey, Plymouth State Home and Training School- Dr. James Louisell and Mrs. Virginia Young, Fort Custer State Home; Mrs. E. Sandborn, Tower Garden School; Dr. Gerald Walker, Kellogg Community College; Mrs. Mariella Aikman, Spartan Nursery School; and Mr. Harry Groulx and Harvey Tilker, Wardcliff Elementary School. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION .................. 1 II. METHOD .................... 16 III. RESULTS ...... ..... ........ 34 Iv. DISCUSSION .......... ....... 51 v. SUMMARY 59 RSFSREVCES ....................... 62 APEEIWDICBS 0.00.00.00.000000000000 65 iii Table 1. 1.13 T OF TABLES Page The means and standard deviations of the chron- ological ages for the six groups, and the mean IQS and mental ages for the retarded subjects. Over-all analysis of variance for looking times on the varied designs for five groups over four blocks of trials. mean scores are indi- cated in Figures 1-5, given above. . . . Duncan's Multiple Range Test applied to the differences between five group means for Block 1 of looking times on the varied designs. The analysis of variance for the same data is given in Table 2. . . . . . . . . . Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Block 4 of looking times on the varied designs. . . . Over-all analysis of variance for looking times on the constant designs for five groups over four blocks of trials. Mean scores are indicated in figures 1—5. . . . . . Duncan's Multiple Range Test applied to the differences between five group means for Block 1 of looking times on the constant designs. The analysis of variance for the same data is given in Table 6. . . . . Multiple Range Test for Block 4 of looking times on the constant designs. . . . . Over-all analysis of variance for looking times on neither design for five groups over four blocks of trials. Mean scores are indicated in Figures 1-50 o e e o o o o Duncan's multiple Range Test applied to the differences between five group means for Block 1 of looking times on neither esign. The analysis for variance for the same data is given in Table 9. . . . . . . . iv 17 38 39 4O 41 42 42 43 44 Table 10. ll. 13. LIST or TABLES (Continued) Page Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Block 3 of looking times on neither design. . . 45 Analysis of variance 0 mparisons between two pre-adolescent retarded samples, one in- stitutionalized and one non-institution- alized with fifteen subjects in each group. The table presents separate analysis for looking times on each of three variables. Kean scores for the two groups are indi- cated in Figures 5 and 6. . . . 46 requencies grouped in clusters of five rep- resenting reSponse rates by subjects in each of five groups for button presses with each button press correSponding to a slide exposure. . . . . . . 47 Chi-square analyses for individual compar- isons of response rates for Phase 2 of eXperiment. Data on which the Chi- squares are based are given in Table 12. 49 IST OF FIGURES Figure Mean Looking times on Varied, Constant and Neither designs for two groups: each trial block representing means of six trials Figure 1. Young adult control Figure 2. Young adult retarded Mean Looking times on Varied, Constant and Neither designs for two groups: each trial block representing means of six trials (D ”cent Control Figure 3. Pre-adol Figure 4. Fre-school gontrol Mean Looking times on Varied, Constant and Neither designs for two groups: each trial block repre enting means of six trials Figure 5. Pre-adolescent retarded institutionalized Figure 6. Pre-adolescent retarded non-institutionalized vi page 35 35 36 37 Plate 1. Photo from one slide of a pair of geometric designs. The design on the right is the constant design. The projected size of each design was twelve inches with a twelve inch space separating the two designs. Drawings of this and other pictorial material a re given in Appendix A. . . . . . Page 23 vii Appendix A. Page Pictorial Material . . . . 65 Sex, Chronological age, IQ and Type of IQ Test or Equivalence for retarded and control groups. . 68 Over-all analysis of variance for Vawjed, raficznnt and ”wither Designs for five groups over four blocks of trials, Showing Degrees of Freedom, Sources of Variation, Mean Squares and F-ratics . . 71 Mean looking times on the Vaaied Constant and Neither Designs for six groups on each of 27 trials. 72 Analysis of Variance for comparisons between institutionalized and non- institutionalized Pre-adolescent Retarded groups, showing sources of variance, degrees of freedom, Mean Squares and F-ratios . . 75 viii nid'fi/«fii ILLJ L-L.A1 -’ "-T m "(‘7' «x 7W ’ "T‘l'" ET Diem w an i “T “:3 Leia-AVA! 1X -»/ ...._J -.l.-.‘-J _.5;_~’ -Q‘-J.n by Leif 3. Tsrdal ‘. ibis 'fi Mir COfi;££TELlDCbh instahoei :gri normal.5niagecc€ CW1 ,? stimulus s tiatizn in an exocriment in which one ,,. ,- J. ' .‘..'~ ,. ,J. 9,, J. , . .‘ ,_ .—~.. L'.. 1. ‘ “3‘"PhFlC gen: Q was reneited l/r uUUrLY-LBVQn emu Ucdulve uriols , Q - o _ v :_ Iv- f‘l ‘ I” ‘_ - .".__ ard haired With a vervel cesa'n. in all ll? srhgacts JCTQ Uuutfld. ‘D These included twenty control snojccts in each of the following Troupe: Young adult, Pre-aflolefcent, and Dre—school; twentv a y " f- “ " 1‘ ‘ 4““ -~‘1~- -‘ " '\'~' \--. '. r r"'r‘ t‘” each a: 10 n” adult LMO P“U-elsl?:f:flt instiuuh'tnal rat rccd, aid Fifteen ran—instituti nwlised Pro~fitolesco t retarded. Tt ' t“ .1 Hrogns were arranged to provjde approximate CA nod YA controls for two age levels of retarded suojects, as ;ell as to prevido a *9 .J 3 ' l -—‘- d‘ H .3 w [.J .J 'N ,. + .J u 3 :5 C control for efiects o_ Specificallv, the hypotheses were that the retarded are slcwer satiaticrs than nwrrals, and that, within both normal :nd retirded groves, there 18 a developmental relzticnsnfip with younger indi fidus .3 ring sloz-rer s":ti?.'tc~rs than older individual.s. In this study slow satiation was equated with relatively high responding .o a constant design, and to back round stimuli. Conversely, fast Leif G. Terdal to novel silyuli~—t e varied de:‘““ Toe JVL? contistel of Uny.’ . s 1, ".‘r t ‘j ‘u ‘ (Y tn. “(rue S (37". r} (3 'Nr‘ 5" "f‘ c‘) 1', i‘ 1":(3‘11. ‘.‘_Y': 1 X‘f-y‘rv: {3(* .1011 ‘r‘. .2» V1(i hp :- t lie!‘ .; ~ .s -. \_) in; ...- . J , _ -- ., v 73093 “n. ’n.e., fix-ray {run both desifinm The rejwlts -.71“e 11.7“.izl'7: r1"? . - 1 l _ .' . .' . .. -. - bV means of analvsis Cf ver11nc; one two DissatinulLi—rsr e tth. The T‘J":~]1..: (3 enn'fihriyerl the hztmjr,thgflc_xg. Detailqunptqlly, filje l i \ U A l ". three control gro rs and two retsr ed san?les were orfiero< w;t rcsosct to 2"e with the youn or showing slower satiation than the older groups. The obtained difference we: signiTECOFt ““tveen the Pre-schcol control ”rows and th two older central =rouns. Revurdinfl n . V \ o a \ ,fi . . ‘ .‘ V' w o _ n o . ; qre ef“ect of retavoativn, coth oA Curtrcl erctps Son es SlvnlflC“S~1V l“. f‘ I“ ': r\ . 4 n L . ‘q o“\ " 7: ‘- ' 1‘ A , T‘ V! J ‘ fl foster ”at__tion oh.n the cor7e mending retirded sgrples. JUiuQGl— tore, the Pre-adolescert contr_l grown showed sienitioun'lv faster .. k4 V . "~ . l ‘ 1- -. -- - r‘ - r‘ I ‘ . ‘ ‘ searc,3on thin the Young l*vlt returced rang for wiom it served ”1‘ T" 1' L ‘7 _ _ . ‘ v '- _ ‘ V V“ ‘ _ as a MA central. ins :re—SCIHOl eve rel err D also sqohwo ”aster L r. -. 1 . . ‘e .\ . ‘ f ,' x L A 1% r -a ' ~ .— r\ ‘ -. v. . - ”x “ no sltxauicn twin 1L: 1A Conn»;zgait, the Pre— ocleice t retirced nroun, V o 1 a —1 o o a but two obtained oif‘eren“e W‘s not SlgfllrlC”Nt. Che hf- thesis was not soonertedg the hvsothe is stated that ncrral subjects would show more avoidance lehrning to 1 constant . n r L r‘ '1': ~‘ A ‘ -: \ J— r‘ T“ ‘ .... L a‘. . - A s‘ V n - P. J 1 stinulus thin TQU1 ufld suogacts. -fl? re llos .fisrou tout neither 0 1 I u the control dcr the retarded iron 9 snowed avoidance lj'rrin? in 1| _ L ".‘_ 0 1 _l_ . 1. r‘:_ ‘3‘ 7'1}, ' -,L. o. jfh" - ' d P ..“.-J_, tie CCnbELu CL tne Dre era \ohflf. Lne ne 1hlV€ fricing 7.~ attrlvdt d to the particular conditioning Parifii"n (tr”ce conditioninfl that kl. \ he efiect of $10? satiation on the henavior of retardates {.1 Leif C} Terdal '7fir xii V“l$f%”l cl: lwrln;;7”t¢;r?j1eni,il 7 0 l7“ r"rwn¥, iri tn;%.e vr-vs: (l) it hinders alsptaticn to irrelevant cues—~oafiticclarlf in connlex le'ri’r; 1i _a‘icns, (_) f’ i n:ies 7”ci§:rt 1 lo rV'n; i.e-, lP'F“l“_ ‘Q w'iCL “'nsiste7+ ”t;”'rj “Civcen Lti'hlus and rev1o 3e denct‘s on uh? rsin+e1aurg of inter il sets, ell (5) it ”33736: fllrt'hfifi m|hh hr; :Li1yli. m . . I- ,r . n - .. ,- ,7, ‘ ‘ ~‘ 1 n . 3""11’3 lT'iTlllPE‘Fl ‘il'S IT‘T‘ FULUFB lain-Elm. CH «ALL-Cl Cg‘v.Cl-i,.:_l.‘c1n ls-re‘ffie also discuss d. V" -\~- I Auprc,el , . I Lager Profesanr Date 224/4”) 1272 4 vii? 5/ / f CHAPTEA I IETRODUCTION In this study the performance of mentally retarded and normally intelligent subjects was compared on two stimulus satiation variables: (1) amount of stimulus sati- ation, and (2) avoidance learning mediated by stimulus satiation. This was done in an experiment in which a series of designs were projected in pairs onto a screen so that one design of each pair was projected repeatedly and one design was new with each pair. Because stimulus satiation, as a basic psychological process, may enter into intellec- tual activity, a careful investigation of this variable may clarify the nature of learning and performance in humans of widely different intelligence levels. More specificallx stimulus satiation may operate differently for different levels of intelligence. Hopefully, the investigation of stimulus satiation may ultimately aid in the development of improved educational and rehabilitation programs for the mentally retarded. Stimulus satiation represents a reduction of respon- siveness to a stimulus as a result of exposure to the stimulus. Glanzer employed the concept to account for spontaneous alternation behavior in rats, and stated the following postulate about stimulus satiation: When an organism observes a stimulus, a quantity of stimulus satiation is built up. This quantity reduces the responsiveness of the organism to the stimulus. The longer the stimulus is present, the greater the amount of stimulus satiation is built up. In the absence of the stimulus, the quantity dissi- pates. It is also postulated that stimulus satiation generates to similar stimuli. (Glanzer, 1958, p. 305) The phenomenon has been observed among a wide range of species and investigated in numerous ways. The most in- tensive investigations have involved spontaneous alterna- tion studies, using typical T and + mazes, in which rats show a strong tendency to avoid entering the same arm on successive trials. Other investigations include the use of exploratory situations in which an animal is placed in a complex environment (as in a Dashiell maze), and reactivity tests, in which the approach, manipulatory, and avoidance behavior of animals is seen to vary in accordance with the introduction of objects into an otherwise very familiar environment. The essential point in stimulus satiation studies is that a stimulus is presented repeatedly and res- ponsiveness to it--or to alternative stimuli--is noted on successive presentations. Recent work on the tendency to avoid encountering the same stimuli on successive trails (stimulus satiation) has shown the following: Stimulus satiation increases with (1) long exposure time (Glanzer, 1953), (2) short inter- trial interval (Walker, 1956), and (3) frequency of presen- tation (Berlyne, 1958). 3 Studies have also shown that with the passage of time the stimuli regain their elicitation value (Walker, 1956), and that some stimuli are more resistant to stimulus satiation than others (Welker, 1956). Denny (1957) and Leckart (1963) have shown that stimulus satiation can mediate avoidance learning. Backggpund. Both clinical observation and theoretical lines of thought point to stimulus satiation as both a characteristic of and a contributing factor to mental re- tardation. Clinically, a complex of behaviors including perse- veration, stereotyped movements, and distractibility, all of which are frequently attributed to the mentally retarded, may be related to slow stimulus satiation. Davenport and Berkson (1963) have observed and recorded stereotyped behaviors among severely retarded institutionalized sub- jects and reported that subjects high on stereotyped behavior show little responsiveness to novel and manipulable objects. In other words, novel stimuli compared to the elicitation value of.baCkground stimuli have relatively low elicita- tion value for the severely retarded because familiar or background stimuli do not undergo much satiation and habitual responses are attached to them. While behaviors such as rocking, pacing, posturing, head banging, and repetitive hand movements do not generally characterize the less severely retarded, perseverative behaviors are fre- quently reported as contributing a large number of errors in the performance of even the mildly re- tarded in learning and performance tasks. This may be interpreted as reflecting an inability to shift attention and a tendency to repeat behaviors when different tasks are presented in relatively rapid succession. Feldman (1953) reported such findings regarding the performance of retardates on the Bender Gestalt test, and Barnett (1960) on a variety of verbal and visual-motor tasks. Distractibility like perseveration can be attributed to a failure to inhibit re- sponding to stimuli that one has encountered innumerable times; therefore, it, too, may be interpreted as representing slow stimulus satiation. Lewin (1935) reported that distracti- bility and excess numbers of responses to irrelevant stimuli accounted for much of the poor performances of mentally retarded children in his studies. Berkson and Mason (1964) studied the feasibility of repeatedly introducing retardates to a testing situation in order to habituate them to the surroundings and reduce interfering orienting behaviors. They found no habituation of stereotyped behaviors accom- panying six repeated exposures to the test situation. Theoretically, slow stimulus satiation can relate to inefficient learning in three related ways: (1) slow habituation to learning conditions, (2) poor incidental learning and (3) reduced contact with new stimuli. These are discussed as follows: Adaptation. Historically, the importance of adaptation in learning was perhaps first recognized by Pavlov, who found that even in simple classical conditioning experiments, his experimental animals did not show acquisition of conditioned responses until they were thoroughly habituated to the ex- perimental setting, i.e., so that extraneous stimuli were not eliciting competing responses in the context of the CS - UCS - response paradigm. More recently Bindra (1959) has elaborated on this point by stating that in new learning situations a large part of the incorrect responses are reactions to irrelevant stimuli. As the animal habituates to these stimuli, such incorrect responses are eliminated. In incidental learning situations habituation must occur rapidly for learning to take place because, by definition such learning situations are likely to be transient, chang- ing, and lacking in structured, defined tasks. Egor incidentgl learningI The principle of stimulus sati- ation or adaptation is central to elicitation theory (Denny and Adelman, 1955). According to this theory, learning occurs only when a response is consistently elicited in a given stimulus situation. To elaborate, the response must be elicited in some way which involves the afferent nervous system, and it must be elicited each time the stimulus in question is present. Since contiguity of response and stimulus is postulated as the critical factor in learning, it follows that adaptation to irrelevant elicitors is im- perative. Denny (1964) has asserted that mental retardates have, in comparison with normals, a very small backlog of information because they are poor incidental learners. In incidental learning an individual must maintain sets which are not established for him as they are in intentional learning. Because the mentally retardate is stimulus bound and may be distracted by almost any stimulus, he shows poor ability to establish sets, and thus does not encounter con- sistent pairings of stimulus and response. Singer (1963) tested and verified the hypothesis that mental retardates are poor incidental learners; at the same time he found no significant differences between his mentally retarded sub- jects and normally intelligent subjects on an intentional learning task. Reduced contact Elgh,ggg stimuli. Berlyne states that novelty seeking also affects learning and behavior in that it widens the scope of stimulus selection, that is it ".... enables stimuli that are not at present acting on receptors to be placed in command of behavior." (Berlyne, 1960, p. 134) This advantage is forfeited by individuals who are stimulus bound and who respond indiscriminately to stimuli regardless of recent or past exposures to the stimuli. Berlyne has done a lot of research with human subjects in this area. He prefers the concept of novelty seeking which stresses approach behavior to new or novel stimuli, rather than the concept of stimulus satiation, which stresses the avoidance of recently encountered stimuli. By and large both sets of concepts have similar applicability. The differences will not be discussed in this study. Relevant research. While no research involving mentally retarded subjects has been reported in the specific area of the effects of repeated eXposure to a stimulus on its elici— tation value, related research involving a complex of be- haviors has yielded related findings. Lewin (1935) tested "...the process of satiation," (p 198) by having mentally retarded children and normally intelligent children, each divided into three age groupings, draw moon faces for as long a time as they could. As the name implies the moon faces consisted of a circle, two dots for eyes, one dot for a nose, and a line for a mouth. In Lewin's study slow satiation is represented by high persistence on the tedious task of drawing moon faces. He found that young normal children, aged 8-9, showed more persistence than older normal children, aged 10-11, and that older retardates, aged 10-11, showed more persistence than all three groups of normally intelligent subjects, as well as more persis- tence than the younger retardates. After drawing moon faces, his subjects were encouraged to draw anything they liked for as long as they wished. In this less structured task, many of the older retardates refused to draw and as a group they drew for only two - three minutes. The normally in- telligent controls drew many times as long as the retardates. Lewin's study is somewhat different from those in- vestigating stimulus satiation variables; i.e., in his study a task was repeated until it apparently became so unpleasant that it was stopped. In stimulus satiation studies a stimulus--not a task--is presented, and respon- siveness to the stimulus is observed to decrease with re- peated exposure. Lewin's study is reported here because there may be a relationship between the behaviors he in- vestigated and those of this study. Kounin (1941) varied Lewin's study to test the gen- erality of satiation effects. He had three groups of sub- jects: old feeble minded (42.0 years old), young feeble minded (14.5 years old), and a normal group (6.8 years old). All groups had comparable mental ages. The subjects were required to draw a cat repeatedly until they tired of it, and in turn to draw a bug, and then a turtle, and then a rabbit--each until they wanted to draw no more. Mild pres- sure and encouragement were applied. Kounin hypothesized that older individuals and mentally retarded individuals would show least amount of generalization; i.e., they would show a high rate of drawing response on the bug, turtle, and rabbit. His findings supported his hypotheses, as he found that older retardates showed less generalization of satiation than younger retardates and both retardate groups showed less generalization of satiation than the normal control. Unfortunately, he did not have an older group of children of average intelligence to further test his hypoth- esis that older individuals show less generalization of satiation than younger children. Actually his prediction regarding age is the opposite of that of this study. This will be discussed below in the section containing hypotheses. In addition, however, Berlyne (1958) has shown with humans, and Welker (1956) with chimpanzees, that younger animals satiate slower than older. More recently Zigler, Hodgen, and Stevenson (1958) repeated aspects of Kounin's study with some variations: the principal one is that one half of their subjects received no support from the eXperimenter during the experiment, while the other half were given both verbal and non-verbal encour- agement and support. As in Kounin's study, the mentally retarded and M.A. control subjects were presented with a series of simple, repetitive games with the instructions to play each one intnun1until they wanted to play no more. Zigler, et. al., found that the retarded subjects spent longer times on the games under both support and non-support con- ditions than the M.A. control subjects; but that, unlike the control subjects, the retardates showed longer play times under the conditions of support than non-support. Their interpretation is that mental retardates are more compliant and more responsive to social rewards than normals, and that this high motivation for social interaction among 10 retardates rather than a basic deficit of slow satiation can account for their own and for Kounin's findings. The three studies reported above used the term satiation in its more general meaning of behavioral bore- dom. In contrast Spitz has incorporated a concept of satiation as representing a neurophysiological process §.lg Kohler and Wallach, using visual figural after effects and reversible figure tests. In a series of studies investi- gating such satiation phenomena among retardates and con- trol subjects, Spitz has reported that'retardates satiate slower than control subjects, that satiation effects when they occur last longer among retardates, and that retar- dates show high perceptual rigidity (on the Rubin Vase- Profile Reversible Figure Test). (Spitz and Blackman, 1959; Spitz, 1963). Lipman and Spitz (1961) have suggested a similarity between satiation as postulated by Kohler and Wallach (1944) and inhibition in learning. The present study, as well, postulates that slow satiation is related to failure to inhibit responding. Several studies have shown a relationship between intelligence factors and satiation in animals. Thompson and Kahn (1955) compared bright and dull rats in an experi- ment in which both groups were tested successively in a black T maze, a gray Y maze, and then the original black T maze. They found that the bright rats showed a sharper 11 rate of decline of exploratory behavior in the first T maze test (faster stimulus satiation than the dull rats), but that the dull rats showed less activity in the interposed Y maze--this was attributed to poorer discrimination, on the part of the dull rats, between the two situations. Thompson and Woodburn (1954a) have shown that early restriction of activity in dogs has a lasting effect of prolonging their exploratory behavior of even the simplest of new situations--a bare room. If we accept Sarason's assertion (1953) that severe restrictions during‘early life permanently affect learning and intelligence, then this study further indicates a relationship between intelligence and stimulus satiation. Thompson and Woodburn (1954b) also found that the dogs reared in a restrictive environment showed hyperactivity, perseverative behavior, and poor performance on problem solving tasks, as compared with a control group of dogs. Hoats, Miller, and Spitz (1963) reported a study which has some similarities with this study both in behaviors investigated and procedures employed. They investigated the looking behavior of normal and retarded children on stimulus materials which were projected in pairs onto a screen. The stimulus materials consisted of thirty pairs of figures-one simple and one complex figure in each pair. The complexity factor was broken down into six variables: irregularity of l2 arrangement, amount of material, heterogeneity of elements, irregularity of shape, incongruity, and incongruous juxtaposition. The task was presented as follows: the E presented the stimulus pairs one at a time for three seconds. The subjects were in- structed to bring back one of the two figures by pressing and holding down a lever corresponding to the figure of his choice-- for any time up to thirty seconds. The critical measures were the number of complex as compared with simple designs chosen for repeat viewing, and their exposure time. Their results were equivocal: there were no group differences regarding the choice of complex versus simple figures for re- viewing. Furthermore, both the retarded and the CA and MA ccantrol groups showed a preference for bringing back simple designs for re-viewing. The normal groups, however, held down the button significantly longer for the complex than for the simple designs. The retarded did not show such a differentia- tion. ,A puzzling finding was a significant negative correlation between preference for bringing back complex figures and IQ among retardates,l.e., in their study the low IQ retardates performed more like the normals than the high IQ retardates. Assuming that retardates differ from normals regarding their looking behavior on complex versus simple designs, certain aspects of their procedure may have served to minimize such differences. For example, the initial three-second exposure time of the figures was probably not long enough to reflect the retardates' alleged inability to attend effectively for any length of time, nor long enough for the nommal groups to have satiated to the simpler designs. This problem is handled in this study by having figures eXposed for longer time periods--l2.30 seconds. l3 Terminology and hypotheses. Slow satiation is equated with comparatively long attending to repetitious stimuli and to non—task or background stimuli. Fast satiation is equated with aversion to repetitious stimuli and to background stimulim-as a function of exposure to such stinuli-—and by high rates of attending to varied stimuli. In this study the re etitious stimulus was a geomet" ric design (from the point called the constant design) which was shown to each subject for 27 successive trials of 12.30 seconds per trial. Non~task or ackground stimuli were not Specifically identified in this study, but were indicated by seconds per tr'al during which a subject was not attend— ing to one or the other of two geometric designs. Such times were recorded as looking times on neither design. Looking times on neither design were interpreted in this study as distractibility, i.e., as a failure to inhibit responding to familiar background stimuli and therefore as indicating slow stimulus satiation. The varied stimuli in this study were fourteen dif— ferent geometric designs which were shown no more than twice in 27 trial exposures of 12.30 seconds per trial. These were identified as varied designs. The specific procedures involved in using the stinu~ lus material is discussed in the following chapter. The hypotheses are the followinco k). (l) Retardates show slower rates of increase of l4 attending to new stimuli than individuals of average or higher intelligence. That is, in the looking time study the retardates will not show an increase over 27 trials of looking times on the varied design, as mark-d as that of control groups. (2) Retardates show higher rates of attending to repetitious stimuli and to non-task or background stimuli than individuals of average or higher intelligence. That is, in the looking time study the re ardates spend rela~ tively high looking times away from both designs~~on neither designr-and on the constant design. (3) Developmentally, comparing young retardates with older retardates--and young normals with older nor- mals, younger subjects will Show slower satiation than older subjects. Measures of slow and fast satiation remain as described in Hypotheses One and Two; i.e., slow satia- tion is equated with (l) slower rate of increase of attend~ ing to the varied design, and (2) higher looking times on neither design and the constant design. (4) Due to their slower stimulus satiation, re— tardates show less avoidance learning in the context of stimulus satiation than individuals of average intelli- gence. The experimental context of this hypothesis is that the subjects were permitted to push a buttom rs many times as they wished to see brief slide —xposures of three individual geometric desicns. Re atively low response (7 l5 rates of pushing a button to see a design that was paired with a constant color stimulus, in comparison with response rates to see designs that were paired with varied color stimuli, indicated avoidance learning. A minor and subsidiary hypothesis to hypothesis Four is as follows: (5) In a free responding situation, retarvates show higher response rates than normal control subjects. That is, they show high response rates of pushing a button to see individual slides. This study incorporated both chronological age (C.A.) and mental ace (M.A.) control groups, to allow for I" *0 ’1' more specific pin pointing 0L retardates' deficits tnan when only one control group is used. In this study poorer performance on the part of retardates than corresponding M.A. control groups is described as a Low~Ix deiicit. In the same manner poorer performance on the part of retar~ dates than corresponding C.A. control groups is described as a Low~M.A."-Low—IQ deficit. It is expected that on the three hypotheses described above, comparing retarded with normal subjects, that the re- tardates will perform at or below the level of corresponding M.A. subjects. HAPTER II METHOD Subjects. Six groups, including three retarded groups and three control groups, totaling 115 subjects were used in this study. The six groups were chosen to allow for three kinds of comparisons involving stimulus satiation variables regarding: (1) Development -- to test for relationships be- tween chronological age and rate of stimulus satiation among both retarded and control groups. (2) Intelligence -- to provide both mental age and chronological age control groups for each of two age groups of retarded subjects. This permits a pin pointing of the relative severity of behavioral deficit, if any, of re- tardates as compared with control subjects. A pre-adoles- cent control group serves a double function of a M.A. control for a young adult retarded group and a C.A. control for a pre-adolescent retarded group. (3) Effects of institutionalization -- to provide a control for possible effects of institutionalization on stimulus satiation variables. This was done because the 16 17 normal control groups were not institutionalized, whereas two retarded groups were institutionalized. Descriptive data regardingthe six groupseue given in Table 1. TABLE 1. - The means and standard deviations of the chron- ological ages for the six groups, and the mean IQs and mental ages for the retarded subjects. S.D. of C.A. in C.A. in M.A. in Years& Yearsé. Yearsé: IQ Groups N Months Months Months IQ Range Young Adult Control 20 19-6 1-5 * Young Adult Institutionalized Retarded 20 20-5 2-9 10-3 57 34-70 Pre-adolescent Control 20 10-8 -5 * Pre-adolescent Institutionalized Retarded 20 11-4 1-7 5-0 44 24-72 Pre-adolescent Non- Institutionalized Retarded 15 10-7 2-6 4-11 46 26-67 Pre-school Control 20 4-9 -4 * *See Text As is indicated in Table l, the chronological ages of the normal control groups were essentially similar to the chronological ages and to the mental ages of the re- tarded groups for whom they servedas C.A. and M.A. con- trols. Individual intelligence test data was not available 18 for the control subjects as they were for the retarded sub- jects; however, comparable information was available which indicates that the control subjects as a group have average to slightly above average intelligence levels. The fol- lowing describes the control subjects. The twenty young adult control subjects were selected from the Kellogg Community College in Battle Creek, Michigan. Actually, twenty-six were selected because six of the initial twenty who were selected chose not to participate. The college students were enrolled in the technical and secretarial programs at the college. Data from the Cali- fornia Mental Maturity Test, The Detroit Advanced Form V, and the Otis Gamma I.Q. Tests was available for eighteen of the subjects. The range was from 91 to 122 and the mean IQ was 104. The pre-adolescent control subjects were drawn randomly from the fifth grade classes at the Wardcliff Elementary School in Okemos, iichigan. Data from the Iowa Basic Achievement Test was available for all the subjects. The scores in per centiles ranged from 18 to 85 with a mean of 60. This test is used nation wide and correlates fairly well with intelligence tests (Stake, 1961 ). On this basis it is assumed that as a group the pre-adoles- cent control subjects are at least within the average range of intelligence, and probably not much above average. 19 The pre-school children were selected randomly from the Spartan Nursery on the Michigan State University cam- pus. All the children in the Nursery are children of hich- igan State University students. No data is kept on file regarding these children. However, a nursery school staff member reported that previous testing with individual intelligence tests on comparable children at the Nursery school have generally yielded IQ scores ranging from 90 to 120. Sixteen of the young adult retardates came from the Plymouth State Home and Training School in Northville, Michigan. The remaining four young adults were selected randomly from the Fort Custer State Home in Augusta. Ten of the Pre-adolescent subjects were also selected from the Plymouth State Home and Training School. Again, the re- maining ten institutionalized, pre-adolescent retardates were drawn randomly from the population of the Fort Custer State Home. Four of the non-institutionalized, pre-adolescent retardates came from the Woodhaven Center in Lansing. The remaining eleven were selected from the Tower Garden School, also in Lansing, Michigan. No differentiation was made in this study between 'brganics" and alleged "non-organics." 20 Test materials and eguipment. The test materials con- sisted of 35mm slide photos which elicit looking behavior from subjects. The photos were of geometric designs and squares of color. A standard size was used throughout, so all designs and squares of color cover an equal area of a slide screen, when projected from comparable distances by a slide projector. The following describes in detail the kinds of photos that were used: (1) 35mm slide photos of pgigg g; geometric designs. Slide photographs were taken of pairs of designs made from.§glgg gaggg, a block design game produced by the Embossing Company in Albany, New York. The slides were taken as follows: One-inch square, wooden, multi-colored blocks were arranged into symmetrical, geometric designs. Two designs, each constructed from 49 blocks, were placed seven inches apart, adjacent to each other, on a green vinyl material which served as a background. They were then photographed. From a large number of slides four series of four- teen slides each were selected and arranged as follows: Each slide in a series had one design repeated throughout all of the fourteen slides; this gggggggg design was paired with a design that was xggigg, i.e., appeared only once, throughout each of the fourteen slides. The four series 21 were based on four different constant designs, each of the four series shared the same fourteen varied designs. The four series, consisting of different constant designs, were developed to offset an effect should groups which differ in intelligence show either consistent initial preference or aversion to a particular constant design. For example, perhaps the mentally retarded, as a group, would show preference for a particular constant design and show aversion to another constant design, and vice versa for the brighter control groups. Therefore the use of several de- signs, in this case four, enhanced the probability that the mean elicitation value of the four constant designs relative to the varied designs would be comparable for both retarded and control groups. (2) 35mm slide photos of individual geometric designs. These pictures were similar to the slide photos of pairs of designs, described above, except that each slide contained one, not two designs. As stated above, each design consisted of 49 one-inch square, colored, wooden blocks. A green vinyl material served as background for the block designs. To assure that the green background would not predominate, when only one design appeared on the screen, aluminum foil was placed over the slide covering all but the design, plus a small area of green background. Three slides of this kind were developed. 22 (3) 35mm.slides of pairs of homogenous squares 2; pplpg. Two slides were developed to project square patches of blue and red colors. The color squares were the same size as the geometric designs described above; they were also similarly positioned adjacent to and apart from each other. When projected from comparable distances by a slide pro- jector, the squares of colors cover the same area as the designs. (4) 35mm slides of individual sguares p; pplpp. These slides were similar to the slides of pairs of squares of color, described above, except that each slide contained one, not two, squares of color. Three slides were develOped to illuminate the colors red, blue, and yellow. ‘When shown at comparable distances, the individual squares of color cover the same area on a screen as the three slide photos of individual geometric designs. A photo of one slide of a pair of geometric designs used in this study appears on the following page. As is true of all the pictorial material, each design covered about 12 inches square on the slide screen. Drawings of this and the other pictorial material are given in Appendix A. Slide projectors and related apparatus. In addition to the slides described above, the following equipment was used: Two remote control slide projectors, two electric OJ wwnam H. wmono Hues one mwueo ow p ewes ow mmosmauuo mmwumum. are dowumu on «so upmwn Hm are onbmdmbd ammumd. awn pneumonon mess on one: mmuumd sum daow5 24 timers (Hunter, model 115D), two electric clocks which re- cord events in seconds and hundreds of seconds, a standard height table to support the projectors, and a 50" X 50" slide screen. The Hunter timers were set in series and wired to respond to electric impulse and to turn on the light of one projector for 2.00 seconds and then simultane- ously to turn off the first projector and to turn on the second projector, and after 12.30 seconds to turn off the second projector. Both slide projectors were rewired so that the power source for the lights was independent of the power source for the remote control slide changer, automatic focus, and air blower. This enabled the assistant to change slides after the Hunter Timers turned power off for the lights. The electric clocks were solenoid operated and "clicked” when started. To reduce the noise, the clocks ‘ were encased in a box made from one-inch thick sound proof- ing material. Procedure. Two tasks were presented to the subjects; however, the apparatus set-up and the seating position of subject, experimenter, and assistant were essentially the same for both of the experimental tasks. The experiments were conducted in the various institutional or school settings of the subjects. In each case a room was used which was as bare as possible, to prevent unusual stimuli from distracting the subjects from looking at the pictures. 25 The rooms were long enough so that the slide projector could be placed 12 feet away from the screen; this provided a standard image size for the 35mm slides for all subjects. Illumination was controlled and kept dim to provide for easy viewing of the slides, which were shown from a pair of 500 watt slide projectors. The two slide projectors were placed on a standard height table, facing a slide screen which was 12 feet away. The subject was seated five feet in front of and slightly to the right of the screen. An assistant sat next to the slide projectors, behind the subject, and was responsible for changing slides and making minor adjustments on the focus when necessary. Both of those operations could be done by remote control, and therefore without commotion. The ex- perimenter sat behind a partition which was attached to the bottom of the screen and extended to the floor. He was not visible to the subject; however, he could observe the subject by looking through a one-inch square opening in the partition. The air blowers on the slide projectors, which cool the projector bulbs, were running continuously, even when the subject was first brought into the room. This was done to help the subject adapt to the noise and prevent him from turning around each time the projector lights were turned off or on. In an additional effort to help the sub- ject adapt to the situation comfortably, he was encouraged to explore the room, talk to the experimenter and assistant, 26 look at the equipment, etc., if he showed any inclination at all to do so before the pictures were shown to him. The subject was seated and shown pictures only after it appeared he was ready to do so. Phase 1. The purpose of Phase 1 was to test for satia- tion effects of repeated exposure to one design when an alternative, novel design was available, and to set the stage for testing for avoidance learning mediated by stimu- lus satiation. The subject was introduced to the testing situation in the manner described above. When ready for the pictures, he was told: "We are going to show you some pictures. They will appear on the screen in front of you (pointing to the screen). Look at the pictures.“ Whenever necessary the experimenter used gestures to insure that the subject understood the task. The visual materials used were the pairs of squares of colors, and the fourteen pairs of geometric designs. Twenty-seven trials were run with each subject. Each trial consisted of a 2.00 second exposure to pairs of color squares, one red and one blue color. Simultaneously with the turning off of the color squares, a pair of geometric designs would flash on the screen over the area which was just previously occupied by the color squares. The designs would remain exPosed for 12.30 seconds. Each trial con- sisted of slide exposures of both color squares and geo- metric designs, and was followed by a 10 second inter-trial 27 interval. The twenty-seven trials were based on showing the fourteen pairs of geometric designs in forward succes- sion, and, after the fourteenth, showing the remaining thirteen designs in reverse order from the first showing. Thus, each design except the fourteenth was shown twice. Three critical factors in the procedure are the following: (1) one of the designs (the constant design) was repeated in each of the twenty-seven trials, and was paired in each trial with a design (the varied design) that was shown no more than twice in twenty-seven trials; (2) the color squares were paired with the geometric designs in a consistent manner, i.e., one color was always paired with the constant design, while the other color square was always paired with the garied design. For one*half of the subjects in each group, red was paired with the constant and blue with the varied designs. The converse was true for the other half of the subjects. The use of color squares in this manner served to direct the subject's eyes back to the screen in time to view the geometric designs when they flashed on after each 10 second inter-trial interval, more importantly, it enabled a test of the hypothesis that stimu- lus satiation may mediate avoidance learning. In this case the hypothesis was that avoidance learning will be built up to the color that is consistently paired with the constant design; and (3) the constant and ygpigg geometric designs were shown alternately on one side and then on the other 28 side of the screen in runs of three. For all subjects the design on the left side of the screen was constant for the first three trials. During the next three trails the con- stant design appeared on the right side of the screen, and so forth for the twenty-seven trials. Alternating the sides on which the constant and varied designs appeared was done to counter balance the effect of position preference, i.e., the tendency to look at one side of the screen throughout the twenty-seven trials regardless of what design appeared there or adjacent to it. The data was recorded by the experimenter who sat behind a partition attached to the slide screen. He was not visible to the subject but could observe the subject by looking through a one-inch square hole in the partition. Although the room.was darkened, the slide screen reflected back sufficient light to enable the experimenter to observe the subject's eye movements. The data consisted of the amount of time in seconds and fractions of seconds that the subject's eyes were focused on the cpnstant design, the varied design, or neither design of each of the 27 slide exposures. More specifically, the experimenter observed continu- ously during each slide exposure whether the subject's eyes were focused on the picture area on the left side of the screen, right side of the screen, or neither side. Of course the subject generally looked at one design, then the 29 other, back again, or away from both, and so forth. The experimenter observed this behavior and recorded it by pressing one of two buttons which were wired to a pair of electric clocks--each clock summed up the time for one of the two designs. Since each slide exposure was fixed at exactly 12.30 seconds by electric (Hunter) timers, the amount of time of each slide exposure that the subject spent looking at neither picture was indicated by the examiner releasing hold of both buttons wired to the electric clocks, and recorded by totaling the times recorded on the two clocks and subtracting that figure from 12.30 seconds. A word about whatvkm involved in looking at neither picture is in order. Looking at neither picture is inter- preted in this study as a measure of distractibility, and included such behavior as looking about the room, turning around to look at the slide projector, looking and scratch- ing oneself, closing one's eyes, etc., while a slide is projected on the screen. Momentary eye blinks were not re- garded nor recorded as looking at ppgphgp picture. Specific behaviors involved will be discussed in the Results Section, but the data in terms of time will be inclusive and will not be differentiated into various activities engaged in while not looking at the designs. Reliability of recording looking time behavior. The experi- mental procedure was subjected to a series of pilot studies 30 to determine the reliability of coding looking time behavior. This was accomplished by two coders recording independently the looking behavior of subjects. The procedure was con- tinued until the agreement, expressed in.product moment correlation, reached .85 or better. The writer served as one coder, and Elsie Berdach, a graduate student in psychol- ogy, as the other coder. The experimental procedure in the pilot study was similar to that, described above, which was subsequently used with the retarded and control subjects that made up the body of data reported in this study. In short, the subjects, tested one at a time, were seated in a darkened room facing the slide screen, and were asked to look at pictures. One variation in procedure was that the coders were not posi- tioned behind the screen, but sat on opposite sides of the slide screen and faced the subject. The reason for the variation in procedure was to eliminate the possibility that the coders would be influenced by each other's record- ing, i.e., by hearing a "click“ or some movement as times were being recorded. By sitting several feet apart from each other, the background noise from the air blowers on the slide projectors satisfactorily masked whatever sounds might have been involved in recording, both from the subject and from the other coder. A second variation in procedure was that, for each subject, the fourteen slides of pairs of geometric designs were shown through once, not twice. 31 Twenty undergraduate students who were enrolled in an introductory psychology course at Michigan State Univer- sity served as subjects. The first nine were used for practice in recording looking time behavior, and the data obtained was not statistically analyzed. The independent time recordings taken by the two coders for the last eleven subjects were statistically analyzed. The formula used was the product moment correlation in which 142 measures of time spent viewing both constant designs and varied designs, recorded by the two coders, were correlated. The resultant correlation was .915. This was regarded as satisfactory and the remaining data were re- corded by the writer. Phase 2. The second phase of the study was designed to test the hypodnesis that stimulus satiation can mediate avoidance learning involving looking behavior. The stage for testing the hypothesis was set up during the showing, in Phase 1, of 27 exposures of pairs of geometric designs. Each of the 27 exposures was immediately preceded by a 2.00 second exposure of pairs of color squares, one red and one blue color. The color squares were paired with the geometric designs in a consistent manner; i.e., one color (red for one half, blue for the other half of subjects in each group) was always paired with the constant design, while the other color was always paired with the varied design. Avoidance learning 32 would be indicated by aversion, on subsequent trials, of designs paired with a color that had previously been paired with a constant design. This was tested by showing three slides of indivi- dual geometric designs and pairing each one of the designs with a slide of an individual square of color, of either red, blue, or yellow. A difference in procedure in Phase 2 was that the subject had control over his seeing the pic- tures; he was instructed that he could see a picture as many times as he wished by pushing a button--once for each exposure. Each press of a button resulted in a color square being illuminated for 2.00 seconds and simultaneously with its turning off, a geometric design would be flashed on the screen over the same area and be turned off after 1.50 seconds. Specifically, avoidance learning would be indicated by a subjectkpushing a button less frequently for a design paired with a color square that had previously been paired with the constant design, and, conversely, more frequently for a design paired with either a color square that pre- viously was paired with the varied designs or a color square (yellow) that was not shown previously. The instructions given to the subjects were the following: "We have three more pictures to show you, but this time you must push a button to see a picture. Each time you push this button (showing the child the button) a 33 picture will go on and off by itself. Push the button as many times as you want to see the picture. When you don't want to see the picture any more say, 'next picture,‘ or stop pushing the button. Then I will get the next picture ready for you." When necessary the instructions were re- peated. For a few young retarded children, the task was demonstrated once by the exPerimenter pushing the button. A limit was set at 30 exposures per picture. If a child pressed the button 30 times, he was told: "Now I will put the next picture on, push the button to see it, and when you don't want to see it any more say 'next picture,’ or stop pushing the button." To assure that preferences for a particular design would not affect group averages, the order of showing the three slides of designs, and the color squares they were paired with, were systematically varied. CHAPTER III RESULTS Phase 1. Looking times pp pairs 9; geometric designs. Figures 1-6 graphically represent the mean looking times for the varied design, constant design, and neither design for all six groups. The graphs indicate widely different looking behaviors among the groups. All groups showed higher mean looking times on the varied, than on the con- stant design. However, the retarded groups in comparison with the control groups had more trials in which the mean looking times for the constant was higher than for the varied designs. The two older control groups had low mean looking times away from both designs. In contrast the young adult retarded group and the pre-school control group had higher mean looking times away from both designs than they had on the constant designs, but not as high as on the varied designs. The two pre-adolescent retarded groups Spent about as much time looking away from the designs as looking at them. A separate analysis of variance was computed for each of the three looking time measures. Table 2 gives the over-all analysis of variance for looking times on the varied designs for five groups, over four blocks of six 34 acme Hoowam rwamm on «payee. casuamza wan :mwasme mmnmnun ace aao mwaxwmu was: aeamw :MQQ awmammq. ammbm ow mwx aemem 4‘) .rC 5.71% \ ..ee oosaeuw widgem m Moses macaw xymaemma It ( \ I\ ‘3. a 35 Stutoruis f‘x) \ \\\. \\\ Nat m a \n e 3 _ d a a m e «.0 .w a m a, 4. Li m r H m a :m HHHMH madman tall: I 8, 51'. l'.( L... (D Amer. 0. Dent. Doiic., H ‘ lz‘ ‘ "r‘ . r\ t ’\ ”‘ T~r\-:"- 1.7“ . "‘1‘ A/ 1‘?! . r . ‘1 _ r (fl Be."lfnc, D. h. COLllle and lh101maLlon incory «ariauies as U H w a n .. r ‘ q /'. D fl‘r",‘~ D ierWfi r1u1Ms_I\‘7_CL-J'. LgilV :- pi J-1! Cut, :)0) l/JCL. Feldman, I. S. ‘SIcholorica manual Def ctives as E 2;:ic., 106“ 57, tar—i9:. Ikoats, 9.1., Killer, h.3., Emmi Spitz, 3.x. Echrif'm nts on Pcr.optual Curiosity in Lcnfal Retarca es and b(flfl81§. chr. Jour. tent. Dcfic., 1903, 68, SCC-BQS 62 i3 WLSVO, E. U., drce, n. Tu rg-inHWJldual Response YarLaleté. 2') ..- - .“ fli' - y L !'(-‘.O:1.. 1‘1., l//S, 52, 23.7-LSO. ‘ r‘; - —-1 1 :‘I : I. r ' . . V V" ‘jrv -.‘ r " ‘. ‘ (1 ‘, -, J a \ ‘3 1,}u GlgA-néJfl-31 , J.‘¢ I '.) LIL! ail—L‘s 1) 14‘-l a. leJJl: l‘L-l .J‘.L>-1'(,,4 LCLL/J.\Jn ()1 in)u-l leL.£t/‘\.;L X) Al? (7. x n; 'r . d 315., L "ad VOLQVu’T C. 11 T: ”(‘1 ‘1 CUT 1 Cilfi y‘arnl' ..... )n Lm :LL .. .1VL1\...'.,‘.1 Q A. J/\. .'.... Au4V J ....’ /), r' _ Q 60, 257-26.. in? r. ’.-"v ' i w :l “#1.: '- ““_7.A‘_1.,l'.‘ro\ "r f-“'o' ‘7‘ 'V‘. _‘ "L_" 171‘ C“ C'DT'; .~_~L-~i \ dA—‘rflkécr , 1'..:uI"-. .L U] , £1-11" 31.14li .4 L :L‘JLV, JANA 0‘2} i1". kl.) n.)o. J,-.n.1.b- 1-1'1. 1\-. 1.. if if 31H lii’lfCEIClo 4.5.111. ’11.?[58’ //’ 302- J‘.L./O V: w1-‘ . - T C. '1—‘1'? ”H1. \ ' . . ,x.‘~ —- h :‘f ~: f“. “ - I .' ’ Kounin, a. o. LAQQLIWC.L31 ShUdl.h 1. a-.L«.wY i. usa--1 .,nf u . —-. I . 'r . r ‘7‘ w."\ V3“? ‘ ~1 \ .fi ' 1 1 It .~ . “'- r1;1sty 1n nelmr and .eedle-H_nued bergonu. Ska-.uue. gnu 3-”-H..:1: - . c an“ 0 o ‘. .12‘1..J-.l-l11‘ l/l]-§., /, L’,_L-(_7l_. '7 ‘ - -“ TT r t“ ‘7 . “‘ ‘f."r‘ J‘ ‘ . \ 1 ~ .. 'A “D nonlar nnu “w.17.«1 F3Ow731 aft er-e-.ecus: An 1vH~L1 dbl n 0. l‘ A « '..-' \ "\'. q'\ W / qrj Dual pruCGSbeS. Pr 0. a er. ngl. S 3., 19 Lb, uu, 209-),7. _,‘*‘,.. .,,,1. :3“.-- r‘w‘ A," ,-. C‘." . ' ,. - . ,- :\u' — Le L Lb, aluhc 1...“- 0a,-aLi n 1,“1n. 6: One Tr 1lP1cr Udy. ;; 1‘1. -.° - “1",... .1- 1 1’ —,,.:.. _‘/_, n. A. .heulr. .Lhulomn Swat; kniveiarby, l/J}. o 1 A , -..‘ r71}, ‘- . - , iLeijjn K. .1. .. D:”“1m14: - ”a [ (:fP1rQIW1Wthnf N-?I fan: ii~ I' an? 1‘ Lf-Jr Wi-I'I:A]..]x.~, ,‘4'2/ . '. 1‘" L 1‘ N “I r.“ . L“. ’ h -~ . r. .1 ’1‘ ,3. vr'l ! \r‘ 7‘ Lin? n, ".S., -Li oylu., H. The Lelaklo mhmg -etwc-n Arie *P {we (VI‘LO ’_'0 ‘ T 1 o o o o a]: . ‘ ‘P‘ .-. ~ . ‘l r S-uldblan 39d _nnIhltlcn 7n W tfiry PM arrb Perf01w.nce. T W '7‘)- T‘ pq‘ fl - -"W - O ‘ L! 1'. _JJ-". f): I -'-" 1., lg{.']-, (.5, h((')—:"7S. ‘ -. ‘2 - 1.: 0 *r 4“ y Vr‘ r“ 2 r1... -: ~~ 1 . l ‘A avlov I. .., Crndrbrwlcd R?a‘“ Gu' AA InVc t -1*fvfl Li IA? p Vfiiolnrléal Activ-bf 0? the Cerebral Carter. 0nd 7n. P»_. .n .° 73 ,, - Aw \.J".L\'L'L L L' If. Ll.‘ pg), 104‘. Sar-s-n, S. POIChOlO'fcgl rwnWO " 5n Yan+al ‘ee‘niencv. -.— . " r if...- “W -. 1,7— . .. “r’ “pf lorh, “--pcr Srqt...., 1,, . r." ’~ o" - u“ c a \ l ’ P N 1. ' l '3 I 9+“ Or, R0n-1d Y. Inclde;tal and Irtenblonal 31.n'ng In Retdruefi ~a ‘7 ~\.y ,F‘l-' I~ $\ fly“ F.. r<~ . \ ~ ' 7.“: -'* n and mornm3_1.a11.rwx;. _¢.D. -1..xvrfi-b (mg 1-10- ban 5 413 Lnlver31ty, 1963. rfv : r. *T 7* . . rn1 ' 7 - .-.. T‘ r't,.: - . : r‘ ' a - ufi.b., 1. J.) yield raemry Ln gLnqu JULLD.SUCf. .n ($113 , dd.) Y ~A W 1.— . ‘Ifl‘fi “\"rl: : A . 'I“ _' f7, , ‘ — V 1 13001 cf 1 £11 4v..c.p 3 . I, grin"ulll, Ne: VorL, 1963. r‘ ". ' YT ’7 I . . ‘I" " r ’ O V . ,~»-'- 1“ ,A‘. 4. .QLLLZ, g. :.., &nd BléuflJndn, L. .J. A CL QW‘rLoun of *‘v1+.1 ..;51T.1L and Vera 13 on Visual rirmral ASLETEDOGDLR and RGVer‘inle Ti 1 A, a D,‘\' ‘4, r‘ I,“ ,‘I i. _ fi'WTIO‘I‘W. S - C o l LLf-C' 1.)]. o , 1957, 5L." ’ lk§~lj-i:). Stafie, Robert Achlcvenent 1961, 21, Ac‘licvetnlf wi1:h the California and Psvc} oJori cal 2.10 9.5urcmcnt. Overefitifln+inn of Test. Eh 111C? tioflfl 59-62 E. 64 i m1“ ‘v hr r‘r‘ a - F '\ y" ' ~I' r 1 A T‘ ‘ J" l “‘ :.. ‘ no " “I !' f‘ . '1 ‘i' " 7"""‘ ' J.MH;N.VJ». “Ad nann,a. xJLNLflCuLVe e; u,ug:u1:)»,.bxiorauory .‘ .L.’ -3 1-, o ”1., - .1_.4.'y may "7.17 '11] #1., - " ,. T ..,,.1.~ -. MCUI‘LLQJ L1. _.Lj ._"_. .‘u‘ le 4h]--. -y"th (\J'll‘L. LU. PL'fiM-L. 19,?) ~/, 17)”1‘J‘—0 ”11 -—.-.~,— '.r W '.T~\, V41- .. 1' r1 n ”P, ‘ ,- _.e . « u- ..- . - 1‘3L11)U‘)n’ I; .__(.. I ’ '21, if]. I:. g l)‘, .VVJ‘V’. r»? 3 -1. J . TTLCE e L 4. CC+I~‘ ()f I LLJ ’fl - '~-l J1. ‘ r earn¢f ex“crfi'rfine rwx th: *wv3w1971::31i’r1‘ cgh:n*+xr of flawtg. L y M ) Mn N: * "r. 1 ,3! cf! '7 anVV. .6. P VGA ;. 1924 3,8, 11—31. ”N ‘w‘ “ v fl 1‘ 5“"- 7"». _V‘ ‘1 _ -v 4‘ m1 p ‘ p ‘ v, -.‘ ‘ a ' Aquhpqon, J.;., g.» JUMVC.“W} ..,. LPG Q;fOCuS UL e ”‘1 "natVWCV ° ' r - .LV '. 7‘ V..- -. A r‘. w-.-[- T) n w [ , 1n GCBLVLUY 1Q JJQL. J». U¢_fi. P.» k“. g” o; l. 19 “\ L7, .- “J— J “—- .J n par: -. n q ,, 1 mm . . 77-. dj ,l-_~, —o T! n ‘1 . 47‘ m T‘ . ‘- f \ r n V v" - > 1' ' ~ - - . ' ' ‘ .¢1&é” ;. L. LhC unratl n “? Cyvr;a of fie Reapbl n Dccrewant T p -\ . . I T r VA in.1ance of Rcvdrfl. we. a- fi. . - *,,V, 1 j.‘ 1- ‘ '1 ’5 ; flfila ?, u. I. some De I'D :~ \ I - _, ~ amp 6 - ~ -m " *alsr, g. 7., Hongen, L., nu) atevenmun, 1. su¢port and non—suppnrt on the perfurhzrce 0 ‘K O r O N _ I I minflad chlldren T“ 0”“3. 1938, 2%, 106-122. 0 < o -9...J_ V} f“.‘,""" ":1 Cl‘f\( DO;".‘~}"“1 ‘. ..‘~-. A;L. .A 'A )'_.'I 66 .\'\" U: 68 AUPQUQIX B Sex, Chvonnngical Age, IQ qhd Tyne of IQ Test or equivglsfice * I - ‘ ,. .. ”V. v 1 .- K ., for [oung a141, and Pre—awzfljxxywlb controL ;ruupo Ynan admit Pre-admle?ceht CA in Type CA 1n Type 1‘ j. V' r C.‘ .wr “Yr ?_ T! ,‘l. V ex {ears 1 IQ of web Learsu* L.“ Of d c II 1" ‘ J-‘ -‘ 7“."1‘. m f" onths Tert .Vonuns 4rgJJT L9,t gnxn :* quu k4 \0 I'J Q .J ;4 10 L I {—1 \ I I._J [\- 0 .¢_ H \J'L -\ FJI4 I4 +4 CD -\] LA ‘0 I \J N 18—h 91 Otis G 'u 13-9 I3 I x 18—3 102 3:1 1 H a 11-2 81 133T I M 10- 112 Cal I T N 11—1 81 tf\? ‘2 C) *3 )3 I It H _.J do K] g, 3" J _a 5* V }.4 C) I \0 w Lu CO I J L} I 3 M 18-7 93 323 V M h )1.7 19 133W x ?9-6 92 3&1 r " P 3n—n 53 7°? 3 0-6 112 Cfil m M m 11—2 M? IiiT O PI '3) k I 3 ”d “1 ’YJ *1? :7 H H D, H l—’ UO 1 O J I o I I I I I I4 b) C) {‘0 II“ H I4 14 hJIJ H Q i—1 o \o I-J k» H \0 IL (3 C) U ‘ 3 J I) f (D ' I J I‘J ‘J QT I J .J I” 1 *4 r: 2 L: E: ;:t; :1 *fi *fi *4 *4 a: H I“ ‘4 I—J t‘J <3 L4 3 (3 r4 I I I I I H H 7\ C \fl ’ J N \I O\ J‘.‘ CO CO ‘0 p\ ~\I ro C\ -I H H J N ’J‘ 1 :3 ,, 3 J 3 ‘4 3 3 I “\I *4 r3 r-J U k) cI‘ ""I \I *1) H C.) I ’\I F21 I" J I I J ; i ' {I I? O I ‘0 \f'L I--‘ ‘\I \0 Note: Otis C - Otis anma :1 test 331 K " - CdlLfmrnia Hehfial Kafurity Text Dot Fm f - Detruit Afivanccd Farm V IQ Test 133T ' Iowa Qasic SVills Te;t * Scares a"e exfireased i PercentiTés H i) N \u n) v1 5‘ C‘)\ PC) ~J O\\H I‘ V\ \J——' p—J , u—a v—aa O-\ ffi 5‘0 b-rd ‘J F0 (‘0. Ir} h) .4 .‘ ir‘ L) (2") U) ' r. >—-—\ II N (J k.) a- T ‘\ V , “w A 'I“ '1 ‘1 3‘1. :XQL’ ‘ 1; “hi .f‘“? _'f I" II: JI '<,F “‘b a I "rn—adolv cent Vo+ar39’ "3“‘Ps my: 1A,! ing—I I‘W c, ‘1 nit- “DI 'qvni‘fxf; Tvro w? Jex CA .u1 IQ TTWQ n “r!“ hv‘rj - TAI _.V‘ 4 K. . -.~ V- _ .0 'I0"t 7V0n+L" 'V~"t 7'?“ " r F r‘ - :' IIIL;, I; ji)-1. 3‘ ‘J ~3 g - y i" .‘ k a 0! 1T; AI '-2~3 b0 S-j"—J. T“: AJ‘IS ‘ 1L—9 I: Svowz-T), 7'» H 1,: r n MILID ll 11-11 1 )‘? (1“ 1 -. -‘ ,' (‘ ‘7 Q r" .-\ 7‘ L010 m u-Q 3: o-w-L .- V ‘ 'T'f‘fi ‘I.LLL) IVi 1-3-L’r l'li 10*»)J {“QTCI . ,3 . 'f 1*» I IL-IQ If S—9-L JAIS I 17-1 b6» 1133 fl! (3! fif T “‘(‘ 31:11.) II 0.0 2 If: ka Q 3”“ r . ‘. ”~Ju I 11 g 57 C~:- .? :AIS m 12-11 LS S~?-L 311“ F 11—3 LL 3-x-2-1 S-‘—L F 11-8 L7 u SC S—B—M F 11-1 30 K- S-B—R F J-3 2L 3—7—C 1-1—u F 13 S 2 S-G—R S-j-L J 10—1 L: 3 D S (f) It" I L 'U I L—I o_-j Fjj I—’ m \Q I l CDq r11 m lj‘llll'l'l'ilillu. 71 H 1 ‘ ‘1 .‘nfih‘qn :‘L L 111;“--- b '“v. . - 'Y " ° « \T- ‘ i“ Tr '— , —' 4 4‘ ' - , . v ‘» . (fl (1 ‘ P ,n Dr “(3 I r I ‘ -\ 1 'y—I . 1 r‘fi ‘ y» . L, "f - ‘ f‘ 'h->- - _.YJ— \J. .4 Jr‘ 1— k I { v-1] \’ d J- .‘ 3 r ( ‘ ( ‘ J “ . \J — .— I- 7 - ~ 1~\ 1 A n— n r‘ ‘ -. 1. 1. , '- - ~' I. ’ ' ~ ‘ ~ ~ — .‘ -‘ ‘1 .1 n '7 "‘~ w ~ « Jul" 1 {-13.1 3) . "21.1,- - ‘17." 1.1, 3 -_ ‘ T . 1.) 1, l‘irC .2 ‘- 4:1 (,5. gm: .) 1.1 1i 1: 1 ‘n Y! r- ”.1 .1 I Y. - {‘1' Y". ‘- '1 " xi ‘ ‘ ’ ,3 v f (- .1- :4 v '. ACA- LL‘ .J 2...; 4 ‘ - "- ., , \ SmlI‘C-T ‘3 r~ 4p c A, :9 V ‘5‘ 1;; J11!“ (\. 4%.. -4 11.8. .L' .. "O 1"‘17' ‘-I.L J _A . n .~ fir if/ R a? 3 d _rfffl PS 711302.30 ‘l—l 19703“? “x0273 "0“ 1 c.11pg SS hpt 90°.“0fl Qfi R.LLV ‘ . ‘ ._* J . ~- ‘ /’ ' " -/ m 3 ‘v , . 0 30m H 11‘181 “17701.8 10.7)'\ 3 3053’0 3ot:' 90,) "v. 1 ‘f '1 ,3 r A 1 a! .,.‘ I‘J A ()1.):‘S ‘3. L 7. I W‘]-S .13 .793‘ )..j 1. .1'49 1 .1‘-h“«A\ \4 73. '\ A' ’ ‘ .- \ _f L-fi r‘orj ‘llfi C ’7’ 0/ -I(‘l:m SJ p r*;. L/;.;1w 2&5 1.0-1 Ii hwirls 1r+1 th?‘*?i: “f Ifivwnncc for Constafit Dew rm Qfl11V1C1fi ‘ ".2 .. -_ _- ;_’) ‘ (.1 ‘1‘ .1, n q 1 “am “f 17. U; n... F P ()7 1' 7‘ ‘- _ u’ .3. C n ‘ ‘ '3’0 ,CH (I. (*5, A 0 1 C1DIj5 159.1 3 L )1.r;. 13.101 .001 TwnTm‘ SS bet. (2.9h0: I: 4-RQM i .. - _ r L‘ I I ' _ (‘ C Tr131 b1 Chg 71.72: 3 23.03? L .211 .r01 ’1 3n ‘ ~. T"? m fr 3‘ ’ f F) p . r\/ > _fi ‘7. Ilv?|1.1)s .W‘ ~ Y.» ‘31.) 1"21 .1 7 _fi; . x, L147 1 .‘l I (I \‘T w r ,n -m-F 1‘ n . ' n‘ ’r kdwflefi sunJucts _1L.h3?5 115 l7:¢1 I hWials int. Ah’7Y810 0' Tbr1ance JUr Vbfithnw 5““ifn Cn‘1 1 u JuI‘CQS- a , n v n _ ~- ‘ J -'- (J. Jy~ll d"? 1"00. F“ I.) ("f 'JCLI' o J '3ruups 19fl£.?3b P307Pfl 33 “9%. 1601.037 9 16.353 Trial blocks 33.fi19 11.150 10.133 GFQUfS Y Trial? 15.216 1. 1.35” 1.267 Pooled subjecfiq "(173.01"?!~ ”Q“ 1.067 / 'i‘fi' ‘-~ Y tvlils int. 1164,3311. 27 .671 QKp\R£T «L -13.. .A n 0.11 .. j. v" w? l mu (1 n L) 1 r1 wwp '3 t:. 1' r- C: +- o I‘ .Jr\ A..“ J Haf‘ 7 ’W‘" ’: C ‘md v‘ 'j‘ “W- r‘x-‘I 3 run nnnn . P fich<fiT " 6n t Dn;_ _ ' k Grown. v of) 1 1«115101 (3 pr 1 («:FJ’“: $5 r‘,‘ ’L: Tf‘cx L. K" I"- ?‘3 +3 1" v 1371 :5 N 1173(- “' n53 .auk (‘Q '1 L~ . FUN". g) ' 3 0. n-/ 9.12 3H; 2 O on. 7- 2 30, L.- 01H» 2 A». 7. 213 3.7” n; .r. n HTQ... 2 .-.. 3, 19C 1.- 3 -..H1-,n.n1!...H1...:1100/.1 00 2 320 7 n... 1H.) 0. . ( 1 soc-cocoorfoooooo 0.0000000. Uzi--1114!“ 3J7. I.“ 323...- H/_ 0,. 31- 3J3 ,DJLn 32b- 9; 0.10,. .22 32\)1 -—o 12. OQrQ,‘v%thn/~7Ipl1fiflt17tfi7./> WHMV.U9131_‘WH08hfiOlO r/lwby1,.,.,1n.?.,1r/.,<( C 2 P. 3 f 7r; C QR. Ola-27,00 O ? OH;K,1 0000000.000.90.0000I00000000 L32222 33-23123: 2223333323142 714/501-11. (.8 0.1:! H/DJ7AK1K.7 07914.5qu HDQ/l/h Cir-11+ L?2?21/.n/1n15,7-71 /. ,/ OH 0.1.101-nO_n./1_.lflz..H-1./Q)w)n43 O O o o O o o a O o I o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o E/uflf/ 711.1...VH12C..,C/ 321L14LH6 L? 3 31ElrL-L-HLLL1- 3fi-..,HDHT 9181871n- 0/140 0322-7 1Q- 74130-6; 0-10 003 9.1 3H Co. 7-] ...-1).. 51.49.?- 1271K A C 7F; /W.7-O./n-H-,3)7-,C>:l1. O a o o o O o O O o o 0/ 0 O O o O O O O O \U-HDH? 3 32 1H..- Han/A H114) 2,,H1..,fi..,r1£\w1r «2 2,-1.1. b,.C,C.., 3,1.-.._.-h-_..1U.).H,C) lax-"070.7 Q/n./3../1_/mfln;_0_030 131/. «In—H59) 7- 7-7.:07771U-1L H37K,flU?/fld _.1._// \-._n7 «III-.40, 0-101 .u {CO/r. 010730 n...Q../H.K)-1n1 o o o O o o o 0 o O o 0 Q o o o o o o o o o o o o o H1-,.K.,../h L/h 41K, / 4 Hfz (n K1KUHH..C../m 6.1/0 6 7 HT/m xO/bq,7- 7- «1000/? h 1N1Q.1L.n:.0_71.-,Or,33o)016)38:40.0.77-{1 .2 3 7 7. O 1 7nd - ..- 2 0-1H- 0,» fl. 1 Lb/r-I; O H. O. 1-, 15/271,; 0 O o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o O o o o o o I K F4 67-f.../O77-/n;{7-7.rn 7777/7887838 l 91. 7,-1.1. H731 7-37.. 0., O 1 9-. «51.1.6135 7mm. Q» 0 19. 321L526 7- 111 11.1.1111 1 2 2 2 O1 32 O1 2 ll"\l'l' I'l- 73 1-. .T-1 .3 a Dre- I’1 on 417:: :‘-= - :1 ‘1 j (1“ 1 .- mp}. Te 1 J1 afiult -. . Youn oung adult ‘J' ,/ .. OM. mu (U H17. n-v n- . n0 O... “.../A ..-. O... u- .Hl/r.1L.~L./H.\ . -, - o o -O,\. s¢.1q.1.sq:5q.1n13. 9 > ’)( (.../JLH-IHn-UAHU/(Jll ”...-,gfiJ/‘NL/C o 1/ 04. n1 3) ...) 3 , .... 0... 2 9.1. ,Vfix/m}.1-+JL,O I‘ll..(‘vll1}~0vl... 3.1.17.1321/9C Pl .(J QCKMACn-nu .01K.Aun/ -..4— 8'7 5‘1 3 J0 1:. Ia 3L1HL 3 «41.05 0... 3/ AL «J 32 n1; «.../0; ad \ r) E, 3.3. 1H. 1U- 1r? l C). O. 14.1.33 2 _I. H? 3) 1. L417. 0/ K). 0.. Q; 0,. o 330L0LOLO/"OL21wlln, 67/ 36 ()‘3 Q. 3.29 L75? 34.30 3.73 2.82 3.“ ’) Jo ") J‘J" 1 . O .k ’1- 31,? 3.13 3). «L. O... fiJ-IJvfixfl. 7-9. 0,. n.) 74 A 'endix J (“onbinnci) D H J?4 O K) P.) ..J [‘0 . r1 ‘ \ J \J 7‘ ’v K - . ‘. \J) ‘“"D~d.%‘" . . . C O \_Q If" 71. .51 .5 J\ O \ 7L ‘JJ 14 O F O /\ ‘J ~4'2\nx kg . \JI \fl \fl LfTD M v.2 Oeb ‘ \J . rm... f»... n 1 \131": *~ 9:; on.i?ée TTaifl?W“r iVsii‘7i fnr' 3‘3t.“r n1 S cm ewch uf 2? trial? anbrol Grouhs Retarded 3rmufis .b Pwa-WTWT Prc—Cchocl YOUR; QEJlt Prc-g‘~7 T.€--€cl .'. flat 11"“7—1 .-.} 1,Lo 3.75 2.L1 b.19 h.37 / 1 1.0L 3.c3 3.39 6.7h 5.03 1039 Lofiq 3978 7.16 F097 1-.,§3 2.0311 )_;.)15’ A.?:’ 16.07 1030 Ruiz 1.39 (.2h goQ H 1.39 ’.? b.1b 5.00 5.77 1993 3.3 3.73 5.?3 {.71 1.50 3.99 3.95 6.: 4.73 1.20 1100'? ) 016 go'7R (3.3:); \ J 1.92 5.UO L.72 6.33 L.QO 19240 13006 T082 7.11; (0?)! _./ 2’ / I , 1063 3.w6 3073 6.16 rojh 1.99 b.92 b.36 5.7§ 7.10 v- / 10., ' )iol'? [Io-’13 50/7} (703!- 1.82 5.23 L_RL 7.1C ...1 1076 geyB 50;? A00” (.11 r-lr-I / . 1.F3 F.23 L.93 3.91 U.{W 1.9? 5.13 b.61 6.16 F.5N 2.14 5.39 b.59 §.9§ F..O 1.33 b.31 L.36 6.78 <.75 /9 1 , , ’ 2QCJ'.) 94.111 5.241. {.061 C 07].: 2.7-1 5?. L: 5.34 6.90 5.921 A 4 ~ 9 403:? ADJ-3 1.09 {.)'0 7.:7 l.u4 5.30 b.15 7.67 5.73 O ‘, r-w ’ _ ‘ 3.11 509‘.) "0313 {053 {Jot—‘6 .’ r" ,5 n - x 2.3() 30' L: 51.41 6'0119 7.27 » H {Q . , ’ 1.9() : 0.‘ II I .( / El .11) {0:11 A ~. . 1.’ - YT “1‘A.( ALr4 1-}. ..J Aw:fl'r“’;‘<fi? Vflrfix;nccz T“? rrx r:uw:;