1.. llllllllllllllllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll i 31293 104452994 ; THESIS Away-51L“: r . .. -. _ f e ii ll r W 0 l w ‘ ti ~‘.:.«»3.:‘-;;?‘:.-3'.4“ ‘ ’5 . ,9 , .1" “i 4. .. -.' 3 . ii -_. N l I ‘5 \ ‘.,_ W 1.5% w; ’4? 8;; (-31: (g: (H .1“ IJf-"bi7; I} '. 7' {‘4 g? a)” ,;.~,;_1,; \ 7, as @‘ggy 3" .3: ill This is to certify that the dissertation entitled COGNITIVE PROCESSES AND BRAILLE READING STRATEGIES IN THE BLIND presented by Jean M. Wilkinson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Psycho logy fl lvlajor professor DatelOI/l [/37/ MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 ‘ MSU LIBRARIES JED-6345' RETURNING MATERIALS: Place 1n booE drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. COGNITIVE PROCESSES AND BRAILLE READING STRATEGIES IN THE BLIND By Jean Mischel Wilkinson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1981 6“// ‘7 ll? Tin", ABSTRACT COGNITIVE PROCESSES AND BRAILLE READING STRATEGIES IN THE BLIND By Jean Mischel Wilkinson The purpose of this study was to investigate cognitive processes and braille reading strategies that are related to hand preference and reading skill in blind children and adults. Because reading braille is a language skill, one might expect that using the right hand or left cerebral hemisphere would result in better performance. Research on reading instruction suggests that this is true. However, Hermelin and O'Connor (1971a, 1971b) found faster left hand reading of braille letters and sentences. In response to this apparent contradiction, it has been hypothesized that braille‘s tactual—spatial features (Millar, 1975; 1977) may be processed before verbal phonological codes are obtained, requiring coordination of left and right hemisphere processes rather than sole reliance on one or the other. As a consequence, readers at any given level of skill develop modality-specific encoding strategies, some of which involve primarily left hand reading and some of which involve Primarily right hand reading. These strategies vary in efficiency and can either facilitate or interfere with the reading process. To investigate these possibilities, the current study assessed hand preference and reading skill for 63 right-handed, totally blind . .' «0 e128 A - ”L tales 3“ " f {381533) L"‘ ‘7 _‘ _ :IVG“ r I. . _ .4;v' '3; r52}.-:5 ”:2": I: e.G: ...‘ | t. 0 Com ..or‘s {actual—spat: Ira: strategies can be dew h vord recall, reader generally demonstrated a tr 0: hand preference. On 311 ..I disrered more in overall 10 re ' hence on tactual versus Jean Mischel Wilkinson readers, 34 males and 29 females. Their performance was then observed in four experimental tasks designed to expose coding strategies: (1) letter identification, (2) word recall with tactually or phonologically confusing words, (3) same—different letter matching with tactually similar or dissimilar letter pairs, and (4) paragraph reading with and without a concurrent verbal/phonological memory load. The reSults were generally consistent with predictions about reading hand strategies and preferred coding processes. Right- preferrers processed phonological codes faster whereas left preferrers processed tactual codes faster. Recognition and discrimination of letters as well as reading of paragraphs suggested an underlying advantage for left hand processing that could either be exaggerated or greatly reduced by preference for left or right hand reading, respectively. This finding provides simultaneous support for Hermelin and O'Connor's tactual—spatial feature hypothesis and for the idea that strategies can be developed that modify the mode of processing. In word recall, readers tended to use both types of codes, but generally demonstrated a greater reliance on tactual codes regardless of hand preference. On all tasks, skilled and unskilled readers differed more in overall level of performance than in their relative reliance on tactual versus phonological coding. Cop Jean Mi Copyrighted by Jean Mischel Wilkinson 1981 Would like to 1.18th .._l rinse, and c Etrijutlor. t( :Eecoateptien and the conpl Zzis': to express njv d8 Feder:eEatchet* for their is: [C Paulette hatchett , J ifihgand retyping of the d Imuld like to thank t the Blind ~ Mr. Lewis Tutti 311 of when encouraged and 1 about braille reading t0 0‘] hay thanks are due to the Illinois School for the V15 the Blind, the Michigan Sch for the Blind, and the Wise for ‘ then enthusiasm and in VEYSEY of the Mid‘Michigan l Whore of Handicapped 5 One re instrumental in fi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my chairman, Dr. Tom Carr, for his support, guidance, and contribution to every aspect of my research. I am also grateful to my committee members, Drs. Lauren Harris, Catherine Bock, and Albert Aniskiewscz, for their encouragement and thoughtful suggestions that sustained me during the months that elapsed between the conception and the completion of the dissertation. I wish to express my deep appreciation to Jeanne Warner and Paulette Hatchett for their time and effort with the data analysis. Also to Paulette Hatchett, Joann Gram and Joyce Burrell for the typing and retyping of the dissertation. I would like to thank three people from the Michigan School for the Blind - Mr. Lewis Tutt, Mr. Jim Borough and Dr. Nancy Bryant — all of whom encouraged and facilitated my efforts to extend my ideas about braille reading to other schools for the visually impaired. Many thanks are due to the students, teachers, and staff of the Illinois School for the Visually Impaired, the Indiana School for the Blind, the Michigan School for the Blind, the Ohio State School for the Blind, and the Wisconsin School for the Visually Handicapped for their enthusiasm and interest in my research. Also, to Glenn Veysey of the Mid—Michigan Center for the Blind, and Steve Polo of the Office of Handicapped Students at Michigan State University, who were instrumental in finding adult volunteers for the study. I’nave been helped, alsc ki‘la, Karen Hinahan, Ovette interest ani 53;;er was appx I have been helped, also, by my undergraduate assistants: Cindy Meijka, Karen Minahan, Ovetta Robinson, and Lenny Silverman, whose interest and support was appreciated during various stages of my work. Finally, let me use this chance to express my appreciation to my family and friends for their patience, support, and understanding. ia 91 .- PMC7131533. . - . ‘ p ' a: n , flp-‘A 11.3w vb ' ‘3“ ‘VA‘H,’ eternal E’rocessing and w v The perceptual learni unitization of braill Familiarity- effects Sraille Reading Strategies Early investigations hand dominance Recent studies of he recognition patterns Braille letter learn subjects Reading Models, Flexible Reading Models Phonological and tac Possible interferent Contributions of th- Rationale for using TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Braille's Perceptual Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . Possible differences between fast and slow readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perceptual Processing and Laterality . . . . . . . . . . Shifts in the cognitive process . . . . . . . . . . The perceptual learning process and the unitization of braille . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Familiarity effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Braille Reading Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early investigations into hand use and hand dominance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recent studies of hand use and haptic recognition patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Braille letter learning in sighted subjects . . . . . . . . . . . Reading Models, Flexible Encoding Mechanisms, and Attention Reading Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phonological and tactual encoding by the blind , , , Possible interference effects in braille reading Contributions of the Current Study . . . . . . . . . Rationale for using the Middle Finger . . . , _ . , _ ii l5 17 20 23 26 29 29 35 42 46 47 51 53 57 64 letbod. . . . ------ Subjects laterials. . . . . The Handedness Qu History of 31 indn Slosson Oral Read band Preference P Single Letter lde 'n'ord Recall Measr Easy and Hard Sat hatching Measure Concurrent Hemorj Data Record Shee‘ Procedure ..... Experiment I . Experiment ll Experiment Ill . Experiment IV Results , Letter Identificatior Time trials Error scores . Word Recall Test Tri: Word recall~erri Word encoding - Buy and hard Same~D Easy trials Method . . . . Subjects . . . Materials . . Procedure . . Experiment Experiment Experiment Experiment Results o l Letter Identification Time trials Error score Easy trials Hard trials 8 0 Word Recall Measure Data Record Sheets , Slosson Oral Reading Test Hand Preference Pre—Test . . Concurrent Memory Measure 0 The Handedness Questionnaire , Test Trials . 9 Word Recall Test Trials Word recall-error scores . Word encoding — time scores Easy and Hard Same—Different Letter Matching Measure . . History of Blindness Questionnaire . Single Letter Identification Measure . Easy and hard Same—Different Letter Matching 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 68 68 69 70 71 71 72 74 75 77 77 78 81 83 84 88 88 91 Concurrent Mary, Dig Reading time inte Digit-Recall: Error Sc listussion...... . . Additional Details . leading Letters . . . Reading lr'ords . . . . Implications of for determinatio Reading Sentences . Concurrent manor Limitations of t Appendices A. Handedness Quest ll. History of Blind C. Slosson Oral Rea D. Single Letter Ic E. Word Recall Mea: P. Experiment II C G. Easy, Hard, Sam Matching Stimul ll. Experiment III H Instructions f Experiment IV J . Experiment IV K. Instructions f Experiment I . L. Instructions f M. Instructions f Same-Di f f erent Concurrent Memory, Digit-Paragraph Reading Trials . Reading time interactions . . . . . . . . . . . Digit—Recall: Error Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Additional Details . . . . . . . . . . . . Reading Letters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reading Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . Readi Appendices A. B. Implications of priming or activation effects for determination of hand preferences in braille . ng Sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . Concurrent memory issues . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the experiment . . . . . . . Handedness Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . History of Blindness Questionnaire . . . . . . . . Slosson Oral Reading Test (SORT) . . . . . . Single Letter Identification Measure . . . . . . Word Recall Measure . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment II Code Sheet . . . . . . . . . Easy, Hard, Same—Different Letter Matching Stimuli . . . . . . Experiment III Code Sheet . . . . Instructions for Concurrent Memory Task: Experiment IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experiment IV Code Sheet . . . . . . . . Instructions for Letter Identification Task: Experiment I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Instructions for Experiment II . . . . Instructions for Experiment III: Easy and Hard Same—Different Letter Matching Task . . . . . . g iv 92 93 98 99 103 103 107 109 113 113 114 116 117 119 120 121 122 125 127 128 E. Additional Analy 0. Parent/Guard ian P. Adult Consent Po List of References . . . . N. Additional Analyses and Tables . O. Parent/Guardian Consent Form . P. Adult Consent Form . List of References . o 141 165 166 167 .9 3" f' 1.." S" N 9‘ \D 0 Sean corrected-(iii fer niddle finger reading and left hand reading task according to han Fear corrected-differ letter identificatior preference groups at: order. Kean time (in second: phonologically simil: function of word typ4 Kean error scores £01 task and hand prefern Mean reading time so: phonologically similn right and left hand Mean reading time sc phonologically simil skilled and unskille than time (in secorrd unskilled readers a hand preference Mean reading time sc finger performance ing task for the ea function of hand pre Mean time in seconds finger performances tion of the same-d1 function of hand pr< Mean digit-paragrap' for three paragraph as a function of he 10. LIST OF TABLES Mean corrected—difference score times in seconds (mean middle finger reading time minus control time) for right and left hand reading during the letter identification task according to hand preference and hand use. Mean corrected—difference errors per hand during the letter identification task for right and left hand preference groups according to sex and hand testing order. Mean time (in seconds) and error scores on heterogeneous, phonologically similar, and tactually similar words as a function of word type and set size. Mean error scores for unskilled readers for each recall task and hand preference. Mean reading time scores (in seconds) for heterogeneous, phonologically similar, and tactually similar words for right and left hand preferrers. Mean reading time scores (in seconds) for heterogeneous, phonologically similar and tactually similar words for skilled and unskilled readers. Mean time (in seconds) and error scores for skilled and unskilled readers as a function of word recall task and hand preference Mean reading time scores in seconds for middle index finger performance on the same—different letter match— ing task for the easy discrimination condition as a function of hand preference and hand. Mean time in seconds and error scores for middle index finger performances for the hard discrimination condi— tion of the same—different letter matching task as a function of hand preference and reading hand. Mean digit—paragraph reading time scores (in seconds) for three paragraphs read without digits with each hand as a function of hand preference and reading hand. vi 78 79 82 83 85 86 87 91 93 94 11. F F F1 E5 2‘5 55" :6! .5 a ' «afl‘ a P E 5" as p. N ken digit—paragraph as a function of hand and reading hand. ken digit-paragraph read with 6 digits as and reading hand. Chi-spine test of h hand preference for Chi-square test of in hand order for exper Chi-square test of h word order for exper Chi—square test of h hand order for exper Chi-square test of hr land order for experi Chi-square test of h( and the proportion 01 experiments. Chi-square test of hi the proportion of ma experiments. . Results of the four-' time in seconds for task. Results of the four— difference scores f Results of the thre time difference sec tion according to h Results of the thre error difference sc cation according to skill . Results of the four time scores on the Results of the four scores on the word ll. 12. N1. N2. N3. N4. N5. N6. N7. N8. N9. N10. N12. N13 MEan digit-paragraph reading time scores (in seconds) as a function of hand preference, reading hand order, and reading hand. Mean digit-paragraph error scores for three paragraphs read with 6 digits as a fucntion of hand preference and reading hand. Chi—square test of homogeneity for skill level and hand preference for all experiments. Chi—square test of homogeneity for skill level and hand order for experiments I and IV. Chi—square test of homogeneity for skill level and word order for experiment II and IV. Chi—square test of homogeneity for skill level and hand order for experiment III. Chi-square test of homogeneity for skill level and hand order for experiment IV. Chi-square test of homogeneity for hand preference and the proportion of males and females for all experiments. Chi-square test of homogeneity for skill level and the proportion of males and females for all experiments. Results of the four—way ANOVA performed on the mean time in seconds for the single letter identification task. Results of the four-way ANOVA performed on the error difference scores for single letter identification. Results of the three—way ANOVA performed on the mean time difference score for single letter identifica— tion according to hand preference and reading skill. Results of the three—way ANOVA performed on the error difference score for single letter identifi— cation according to hand preference and reading skill Results of the four—way ANOVA performed on the mean time scores on the word recall task. Results of the four—way ANOVA performed on the error scores on the word recall task. 96 97 141 141 142 142 143 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 a n4. Results of the four-v the scores for the task. a .5 I2 2 N b = [‘3 u E N 1..) e E2 . ,_‘ a N N . Results of the four error scores for the task. Results of the three- tine on the easy same according to hand pre Results of the three scores on the easy according to hand pre Results of the four scores for the hard task according to h . Results of the four—u scores for the hard a task according to ban . Results of the three- tine on the hard same according to hand pre Results of the three scores on the hard a: task according to her Results of the four-i paragraph time score the concurrent memor hand order, sex, and Results of the four— digit paragraph mea memory digit paragr preference, skill 1 Results of the four of digit errors for the digit paragraph task according to h and set size. Results of the five reading time on the memory task accordi preference and set N14. N15. N16. N17. N18. N19. N20. N21. N22. N23. N24. N25. Results of the four—way ANOVA performed on the easy time scores for the same—different letter matching task. Results of the four—way ANOVA performed on the easy error scores for the same-different letter matching task. Results of the three—way ANOVA performed on the mean time on the easy same—different letter matching task according to hand preference and reading skill. Results of the three—way ANOVA preforemed on the error scores on the easy same—different letter matching task according to hand preference and reading skill. Results of the four-way ANOVA performed on the time scores for the hard same—different letter matching task according to hand order, sex, and hand preference. Results of the four—way ANOVA performed on the error scores for the hard same—different letter matching task according to hand order, sex, and hand preference. ReSults of the three—way ANOVA performed on the mean time on the hard same—defferent letter matching task according to hand preference and reading skill. Results of the three—way ANOVA performed on the error scores on the hard same—different letter matching task according to hand preference and reading skill. Results of the four—way ANOVA performed on the digit paragraph time scores for the no digit condition of the concurrent memory digit paragraph according to hand order, sex, and hand preference. Results of the four—way ANOVA performed on the six digit paragraph mean time scores on the concurrent memory digit paragraph task according to hand preference, skill level, and set size. Results of the four—way ANOVA performed on number of digit errors for four and six digit recall on the digit paragraphs for the concurrent memory task according to hand preference, skill level, and set size. Results of the five—way ANOVA performed on mean reading time on the digit—paragraph concurrent memory task according to hand order, sex, hand preference and set size. viii 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 5'26. Results of the five-u error scores on the 6 memory task according preference and set si Results of the four—x. tine scores on the di task according to hat El N26. N27. Results of the five-way ANOVA performed on the error scores on the digit-paragraphs concurrent memory task according to hand order, sex, hand preference and set size. 163 Results of the four—way ANOVA performed on the mean time scores on the digit—paragraph concurrent memory task according to hand preference and reading skill. 164 ._. N Lu .4. o» ‘1 . Cutparison of how the the tactual letter/no Yeah corrected-differ letter identification preference groups acc testing order. Yean reading time sco recall tasks for each lean reading time sco recall tasks for each group. Yeah error scores for skill level and hand . Mean middle finger St and errors for the he letter matching task hand. Mean digit paragraph each hand according ' and order, and read rim, ,. LIST OF FIGURES Comparison of how the visual word recognition model and the tactual letter/word recognitiOn model may differ. Mean corrected—difference errors per hand on the single letter identification task for right and left hand preference groups according to sex of subject and hand testing order. Mean reading time scores in seconds for three word recall tasks for each hand preference group. Mean reading time scores in seconds for three word recall tasks for each skill level and hand preference group. Mean error scores for three word recall tasks for each skill level and hand preferenc group. Mean middle finger scores per hand for time in seconds and errors for the hard condition of the same-different letter matching task according to hand preference and hand. Mean digit paragraph reading time scores in seconds for each hand according to digits per paragraph, reading hand order, and reading hand. 14 80 86 89 90 92 95 INT The process of reading Eserving zany purposes for Setteea the words that are 3 at the graphic constraints Etures in his abilitv to d hizre “ a aolng becomes more at lfferentiates the graphic Heater facility (Gibson an Braille reading, like an . dmterpretation of graph b I rarlle code consist of rai the dots across and three c re ferred to by number. Th1 usedi n the United States i of complexity within th e w Spell‘ mg) each dot patt ern INTRODUCTION The process of reading can be characterized in many ways and as serving many purposes for the sighted child and adult. The reader is constantly making judgements about the graphic relationships between the words that are printed and the words that are being read. Especially in the early stages of learning to read, the reader must become sensitive to the structures of the words he learns so that what he reads makes sense in terms of the context of the sentence and the graphic constraints of the printed words. As the reader matures in his ability to decode the distinctive features of words, his reading becomes more active and selective, and he naturally differentiates the graphic symbols of the writing system with greater facility (Gibson and Levin, 1975). Braille reading, like visual reading, involves the reception and interpretation of graphic symbols. The symbols used in the braille code consist of raised dot patterns which form a cell of two dots across and three dots down, and each dot in the cell is referred to by number. There are two grades of braille that are 10 04 20 05 30 06 used in the United States, and the braille grades denote the level of complexity within the writing system. In Grade 1 Braille (full spelling) each dot pattern corresponds to one letter in the print 1 “t a mater, u n n I b. 0‘ H u) (L) H n: '\_) t 1 (1' (I, (1) ,1”-.. ' ~setéLCOC. However Rex (‘ s, A . . ”an I J...\ 1? 011 .. P ». L..E 58.9 IaCtOTS ne< :chI1\'El}' perceiving , sell . I Aha aL‘._5. Educators of the blind the ‘ most important differen the ft" at that braille is P9 is ' perceived by means of th means 0f many consecutive ! hESen se of touch does not H . (axfleld, 1928, page 90) brai 119 C911 at a time , and adJ'ace lit text ' 1n the s . ame L Iti alphabet (i.e., the 26 alphabet letters). However, in Grade 1 Braille the dot patterns were expanded to make 63 possible dot combinations (from the original 26 letter dot patterns) so that each combination may also represent a number, punctuation, or composition sign, and thus have more than one meaning. As the grade level advances, the 63 characters in braille are assigned as contractions or short form words which make up Grade 2 Braille. The highly contracted Grade 2 Braille consists of 189 contractions and additional abbreviated word forms, so that there are 263 dot configurations and meanings that most braille readers learn during the acquisition of their reading skills. The cognitive and perceptual processes involved in acquiring braille reading skills are obviously complex and as yet not fully understood. However, Rex (1970) suggests that reading braille involves many of the same factors necessary for successful visual reading, such as actively perceiving, selecting, and discriminating between graphic forms. Educators of the blind, as early as 1928, have stated that perhaps the most important difference between t0uch and visual reading, besides the fact that braille is perceived by means of the fingers, and print is perceived by means of the eyes, was that the "finger must read by means of many consecutive, not simultaneous, simulations," and "...that the sense of touch does not accurately interpret anything at a glance" (Maxfield, 1928, page 90). That is, a finger can sense only one braille cell at a time, and words cannot be perceived in relation to adjacent text in the same way that is possible during visual reading. It is primarily because of this difference between braille and visual reading that most of the past and present research on reading and réCO‘EfllZiflg braille has focu 1°72; Olson, 1976) and on no merieoce tactual patterns 'r" $.41... Q"). -, $51113 (Ch-eons}, l, 3.), it? -r/r ~_:*” rycx 2.: 13,197, b ..... , 13.”) .26 SQE‘IC' If." a C tilt "a... -..fl ”AOOQr— V —-'-Ev—cu ete‘CC‘ ‘ :5 .C. ‘ I a \‘3 .S‘ {M‘> ,9" ‘1‘- -—~¢..\-.L a..'.. e. L... be.:\ L ‘ : ‘ . cat or the twelve hu .....aa1cs of reading braill .mtegies or positions for var ' lation of these reading 'Espite the methods childre a HdHatlen (1969) and Olson o Ethods taught, the child M tat PIOVe successful to hi I recognizing braille has focused on increasing reading rates (Umsted, 1972; Olson, 1976) and on understanding how the braille readers experience tactual patterns as they develop tactual discrimination skills (Critchley, 1953; Fertsch, 1947; Kusajima, 1974; Nolan and Kederis, 1969; Smith, 1929). The search for a cognitive theory for understanding how tactile materials are explored such as the discrimination of distinctive features of the braille code, has frequently been interpreted as an argument between whether the reader should actively focus on the smallest unit of the code, i.e., the word or short phrase. The most noticeable variable suggesting that identifying an appropriate per— ceptual unit is an important question, is reflected by the numberous reading hand strategies that braille readers devise to facilitate the processing of reading material. For example, Maxfield (1925) cites that of the twelve hundred (fast) readers she surveyed on the mechanics of reading braille, she found at least forty-four different strategies or positions for holding the reading fingers. The multiple variation of these reading hand patterns seem to exist even today despite the methods children are encouraged to learn. Lowenfeld, Abel, and Hatlen (1969) and Olson (1976) suggested that regardless of the methods taught, the child will often devise hand movement patterns that prove successful to him and suit his own preferences. So, ultimately the child's task during braille reading is to organize what appear to be spatially arranged tactual patterns with whatever hand movements he prefers, so as to understand waht is written. Which hand positions or strategies are useful for the effective cognitive processing of braille is often discussed in relation to . , .V .112 changing merfectne brai ton movements of the finger grtfer. However, which hand are for a particular hand P is to date been considered (an, hortsley, l9?9)- Lit lying cognitive processes SL totertain features which he iiiferences in. underlying p1 :Eeattuisition of braille i do: do we know that win. tierstanding that the mind [Etat least in the early fccused on the discriminati gem“, e-g-, letters and time the distinctive feat thself to proceed to the 1 and linguistic analysis. 5 0f relationships between a] Investigation of the COED“ st ' age learning process wou] h at level the hands are U recognition, (2) (3) whether 01 whether a division of I abl 9, and (4) at what leve tio ' flooding and decoding a “he - n C0n81dering what changing ineffective braille reading skills such as excessive up and dowu movements of the fingers or one hand reading, which braille readers prefer. However, which hand the reader prefers to use and how prefer— ence for a particular hand position promotes braille reading efficiency has to date been considered only in the context of teaching methodology (e.g., Wormsley, 1979). Little attention has been given to the under— lying cognitive processes such as categorizing, selecting, and attending to certain features which hand preference might indicate. Since such differences in underlying processes could facilitate or interfere with the acquisition of braille reading, they are important to investigate. How do we know that what the finger feels is important for understanding what the mind will interpret? Gibson (1968) suggests that at least in the early stages of learning, visual reading is focused on the discrimination and analysis of graphic symbols as gestalts, e.g., letters and words; when the child learns to discri— minate the distinctive features of the text, he is also preparing lumself to proceed to the later phases of processing that of phonetic and linguistic analysis. Since braille reading involves the learning of relationships between alphanumeric tactual—spatial characters, an investigation of the cognitive processes that influence the stage—by— stage learning process would have implications for determining (l) at what level the hands are responsible for facilitating character or word recognition, (2) whether one—hand or two—hand reading is more efficient, (3) whether a division of encoding labor between the hands is praCtic— able, and (4) at what level errors or deficits might arise in informa— tion coding and decoding as demands on the reader's attention change“ When considering what aspects of the letters and words——tactual, '/cr lin‘éUiStiC” :1 "" nasal, "‘ ' 2: levels of acquiring nap-t. . u o q I-ur_n-O—'q71‘fi .. F o y a f...~v--\~" >’\ c C :c.-:..tc: . kr ‘V'SYA': —-. — ni—nn‘ ——~ ‘ n A ,.. --:- _ -c _.. -n .: uttb ‘ CA‘ -‘ — . vl- , "“ ‘ VA‘ r- n H ‘ .»\.u ..C --.:s L‘C.€ m :t..a'.1s: is more direct ' C .zcnlng of a word can be z .5' g ‘ mon 01 letters or critic ulnulus or "logogen" (Ba‘ ent ' er as lexical entries i (ii): “ ELt dCCESS t0 til lexi e c ( C u an, Dav1dson, and Hawk One startling exampl €ch ' on 18 developed and as ‘ Introduced by four ha . s 607.0 i all possible contr first grade B . y the end Viati 0118, Upper cell and 12 That is, among other things, it is unclear how the braille reader enters his stored body of knowledge about words and language, here ll called the "internal lexicon, to accomplish the reading of braille. " to information that would In visual reading, having "lexical access help distinguish a particular word from another involves some mechanism or process by which the information is extracted from a presentation of letter sequences. For example, there are two different types of processing mechanisms used in visual word recognition for accessing the lexicon. The first depends on structural regularities associated with how a word is spelled or pronounced, so it is more of an orthographic mechanism. Orthographic mechanisms usually involve applying spelling— to—sound translation rules for obtaining lexical access by way of a phonetic code or a visual code (Baron and Thurston, 1973; Hawkins, Reicher, Rogers and Peterson, 1976; Spoehr and Smith, 1973). The second mechanism is more direct and "lexical," for it is also assumed that the meaning of a word can be accessed primarily from the specific combin- ation of letters or critical sensory information represented by the stimulus or "logogen" (Baron and Strawson, 1976). Logogens generally enter as lexical entries which are stimulus-specific, and they achieve direct access to the lexicon once the stimulus is perceived or activated (Carr, Davidson, and Hawkins, 1978). One startling example of the trade-off in terms of how quickly the lexicon is developed and accessed comes from an analysis of contractions as introduced by four basal reading series. Rex (1970) found that only 60% of all possible contractions could be introduced by the end of the first grade. By the end of the third grade, all of the alphabet abbre- viations, upper cell and lower cell contractions (with the exception of ., "Old kflO'gledE‘E) , 7’: I ‘ . .. . fl WM... M- ?..-\. cutout”: c.. . . n . ‘ - vuqrhn" ."‘2‘ f“ V g ..c I't" -h-C‘Kb 5.; ‘ 3:5: \‘ Lesa issues c0232 orthograghj: to the orthoe‘. Princiile, the orthograph used to reduce uncertaint on the reader's ability I Ilgurations. This is ESP early attempts at organiz tainty and impede the dev toregomg considerations 0f the braille reading P1 to Visual reading, both : tlon. At the very least Portrayed in Figure 10)) PI 1gure1(a) correspond 0 marks in the figure F— -ic'. i l. 13 the word knowledge), 94% of the multiple cell contractions, and 74% of the short form words were introduced. Most fourth graders continue to have diffiCulty organizing the patterns as reflected in their relatively slow reading rates: 72 to 84 words per minute (wpm), whereas it is usually not until the eighth grade that reading rates reach fast reading levels of 116 to 149 wpm (Lowenfeld, Abel, and Hatlen, 1969). The example given above highlights the fact that long after Visual readers have become familiar with all of their written symbols and have a well developed lexicon, braille readers are still learning orthogra- phic exceptions and unique aspects of the braille code. It is also noteworthy that the acquisition of word—attack skills such as phonics and syllabication must be quite distorted when words are contracted. Both of these issues complicate how one would apply the rules of English orthography to the orthography of braille. Consequently, at least in principle, the orthographic rules, which is visual reading are often used to reduce uncertainty, place an unusual burden in braille reading on the reader's ability to spatially organize and remember tactual con- figurations. This is especially true for the beginning reader, whose early attempts at organizing the patterns may tend to reinforce uncer— tainty and impede the development of increasing reading speed. The foregoing considerations raise a number of questions about the nature of the braille reading process and its similarities and dissimilarities to visual reading, both in functional and neurophysiological organiza— tion. At the very least, one can ask whether braille lexical access, POrtrayed in Figure l(b), and visual lexical access, portrayed in Figure 1(a) correspond or differ in the ways identified by the question marks in the figure. mt— (5) main LETTE Tactual Codes k Sem; Flgure 1. Comparison of taCtual lette D Hi erachical Processes (a) VISUAL WORD RECOGNITION MODEL Stimulus Input WORD [ Feature Information Visual Codes/\Phonetic Codes __l___ Orthographic Spelling-to Phonetic Analysis Sound Rules Logogens L Semantic Associations |/ (b) TACTUAL LETTER/WORD RECOGNITION MODEL Stimulus Input LETTER/WORD [ Feature Information l Tactual Codes/\ Phonetic Codes T I M | | l E 7 Orthographic ?Spelling—to Phonetic ' Analysis ' Sound Rules -Logogens [ Semantic Associations I Figure 1. Comparison of how the visual word recognition model and the tactual letter/word recognition model may differ. 14 ‘ .' ' " . es °ossib1e 31:.erenc - ~- , ~r 1: lczaice.‘ (31C_L-¢Cr‘ J- 's. 'N ‘R./ K “1L8" : (Am, i ,, Fae :itie: tine a slow reade tend to use sequential ha various featural position strategies produced signi Since knowledge of the st interfered with by subseq memory cues (Jackson, 197 lIhat was indicated earl ie structure may require a c 15 Possible differences between fast and slow readers. In their studies on word recognition in the blind, Nolan and Rederis (1969) found that fast readers had less trouble with contractions and un- familiar words because fast readers identified the braille characters as patterns which helped decisions. The slower and poorer readers were less successful at recognizing such patterns. Kimmel (1976) suggested that faster reading or scanning was the result of sampling out unique features of a stimulus for comparison and then focusing on the appropriate ensemble which helps develop good reading skills. Readers with poor reading skills, on the other hand, do not sample Out the unique features of words by over—use or mis—use stimulus information (Biemiller, 1970), there by increasing the reading time. Millar's (1976, 1977) research on spatial memory and representation in the blind suggests another reason for the increased latency in recog— nition tine by slow readers——that is, in a spatial array, the blind tend to use sequential haptic (touch and movement) strategies to track various featural positions. In these studies sequential scanning strategies produced significantly more time and distance deficits, since knowledge of the stimulus' position diminished with time or was interfered with by subsequent movements due to a loss of the haptic memory cues (Jackson, 1973; Millar, 1977). Moreover, in concert with what was indicated earlier, braille configurations by their very structure may require a detailed analysis in order to resolve the uncertainty inherent in the configuration, as well as to establish some set of distinctive features from the written characters which generate identifiable patterns. Considering the amount of information described by the number of rrt‘nographic categories, t the nmherous uncertaintie fimrations. Little 'xozrde m n. 0 r1 m J m ever, fast reader :aeacode and decode the [1977) findings also sugge :ortaa't in the process c :r [actual lexical mechan: harledge of the stimulus Another difference br froze study of visual rer iemnstrated that good re. henifield superiority for ratz, and Smith (1974) 5” graphical information 51 , or guesses about the sequ the other hand, identifie read ers but remained bene words M - arcel et a1. (19 ha word even when they Primaril y becau se the rel call Ystored in bette r re Eranti a1 lat eraliZa - tion Why ers tend to l6 orthographic categories, the reader's main task is to learn to resolve the numberous uncertainties that arise when identifying braille con- figurations. Little wonder that reading braille takes so long. How- ever, fast readers do manage to surmount these potential problems and can encode and decode the essential structural relationships necessary for reading combinations of letters in words. In this regard, Millar's (1977) findings also suggest that tactual characteristics may be more important in the process of acquiring knowledge of the structural relationships of configurations than the actual naming of the configu— ration. This evidence might imply that there is a tactual orthographic or tactual lexical mechanism at work which helps fast readers retain knowledge of the stimulus' configuration and position. Another difference between fast and slow readers may be drawn from a study of visual reading behavior and hemispheric processing which demonstrated that good readers showed greater right as compared to left hemifield superiority for words and letters than poor readers. Marcel, Katz, and Smith (1974) suggested that good readers tend to ignore some graphical information, since they may be able to form word hypotheses or guesses about the sequences of letters in words. Poor readers, on the other hand, identified more letters in the left hemifield than good readers but remained beneath their letter criterion for hypothesizing words. Marcel et a1. (1974) suggested that good readers tend to guess at a word even when they have identified fewer letters than poor readers primarily because the relevant linguistic information is more asymmetri— cally stored in better readers. Consequently, they reasoned that dif— ferential lateralization of function may be the most substantial reason Why good readers tend to be faster at recognizing words. however, before accep responsible for good reade hro linguistic forms fast ':e considered. If poor vi “mafia-:7 letters bet ore .m.» unique featuri iris exile“ ~xtion has been the have de: nstrated rha 21rd temp: in the blind- ;eessing at words is gene ledge of the configuratio henisphere, how does a 130 particularly since in bra to track various featural and right hemispheric cod 0f laterality effects the ”111 help explain the int Strategies, Pe rceptual Processing an< Most information DU isa ' combination of proc res are selected , acti' 17 however, before accepting differential lateralization as solely responsible for good readers' ability to translate graphic symbols into linguistic forms faster than poor readers, two other factors must be considered. If poor visual readers in Marcel et al.'s (1974) study identified letters before guessing at a word, then their attention may have been directed at letter codes that were being processed more consistently in the right hemisphere. If in the case of poor braille readers, capacity is allocated to the right hemisphere for processing of braille configurations, one might then expect that fostering the imagery of spatially represented tactile characters would improve the sampling of unique features of the code. Partial substantiation for this explanation has been found by Jonides, Kahn, and Rozin (1975), who have demonstrated that imagery instructions for words did improve word memory in the blind. But, if relevant linguistic information for guessing at words is generally stored in the left hemisphere and know— ledge of the configuration and its position are lateralized in the right hemisphere, how does a poor braille reader become a good braille reader, particularly since in braille, improving the haptic strategies necessary to track various featural positions might mean alternating between left and right hemispheric coding abilities. Reviewing perceptual studies of laterality effects that address the information processing issues will help explain the interaction of haptic cues and hemispheric coding strategies. Perceptual Processing and Lateraligy Most information processing models of reading assume that reading is a combination of processes, whereby either visual or auditory fea— tures are selected, actively transformed, and then processed either ariallv or in parallel It a A~WI~ ‘ A . 7 n. 1" tie attusl 34.--..5 or c. — n1‘yh“ " k 5 fl: r -. .. c'-OYC:Y 35635- 1. ‘ H. A a ’ ’ .- ....:.-. r, c'lu C'lLOEC'lLL * Generally, at the it greening, when the tas} Pnjcncal properties of t': t@1181le well, and no sin: n). . . 1.6., Rabinowicz, 1976). en' ‘ hating sensory and ph tw ' Ohemlspheres seem to V‘ Al liner, and RaSmussen l 9 hlgher levels of cogniti info ' rmation, differences (1975) 18 serially or in parallel for meaning (Estes, 1975; LaBerge and Samuels, 1974, 1977; Massaro, I975). The feature—to—meaning process can be described as a series of sequential hierarchical processes that result in the actual naming or categorization of an ' 'input". The lower steps produce the perceptual representations which deal with the sensory and physical features of the verbal, visual, or tactual stimuli. These features are generally preserved at a low level or pre—categorical state for further classification. The hierarchical process as men- tioned, however, appears to vary microgenetically in the extent to which higher-order transformations are applied in any particular situation, and ontogenetically in the degree to which different kinds of higher—order processes become cortically lateralized with development (Buffery and Gray, 1972). Generally, at the lower levels of visual, auditory, and tactual processing, when the task demands the extraction of the sensory or physical properties of the stimuli, both hemispheres appear to function equally well, and no significant asymmetries are usually found (Milner, 1962; Rabinowicz, 1976). Thus, at the pre—categorical level of differ— entiating sensory and physical features such as pressure and touch, the two hemispheres seem to process the information similarly (Corkin, Milner, and Rasmussen, 1970; Corkin, Milner, and Taylor, 1973). As higher levels of cognition are used to process lower level perceptual information, differences do emerge. For example, Nachshon and Carmon (1975) tested right—handed subjects on right and left hand performances on sequential and spatial uni—manual stimulation tasks and found 23 significant differences between the two hands on the sequential task. The latter finding suggested to the authors that though uni—manual emulation tasks :1 1: not 1; as on bi-zanual tasks, [iinra and \‘ander.'olf , 1‘ stultaneous stizulation 1 :ed ascezties were founr :Ee right bani identified crossed letters were u$< discrtination of nonsen! studynere all boys, 6 t' the tactual discriminati concluded that tactual 8 spatial features and the major problem from this t0 the correct shape wit Wild have been cued or have accounted for the 1 On a similar task 1 llrls ages 6 to 13 we re ”35 reported {0 girls w. r the b0‘ ) ltelson proposer enceg found in thi S stu l9 stimulation tasks may not disclose hemiSpheric asymmetries as effective- ly as on bi—manual tasks, the subject's preference for a particular hand (Kimura and Vanderwolf, 1970). When Nachshon and Carmon presented simultaneous stimulation under the bi—manual task conditions, the expec— ted asymmetries were found, and preference was less of a factor since the right hand identified a sequence of taps better than the left, whereas the left hand was significantly more accurate on the spatial task. Witelson (1974) also found results consistent with Nachshon and Carmon's results by using a dichhaptic presentation technique (simultan— eous but different tactual inputs to each hand) to determine left—right perceptual hand asymmetries. When three—dimensional nonsense shapes and embossed letters were used, Witelson found left hand superiority for discrimination of nonsense shapes as early as age six (subjects in this study were all boys, 6 to 13 years old), but asymmetry was not found for the tactual discrimination of letters. From these results, Witelson concluded that tactual stimuli may more likely be analyzed first for its spatial features and then for its possible linguistic features“ One major problem from this study was that the subjects were asked to point to the correct shape with their left hand so that the right hemisphere COuld have been cued or activated for a response, which in turn, could have accounted for the left hand superiority. On a similar task using only nonsense shapes, right-handed boys and girls ages 6 to 13 were tested (Witelson, 1976). Left hand superiority was reported for the boys, but no hand differences were found for the girls, Witelson proposed two explanations for the sex by hand differ- ences found in this study which relates to her original formulation about hand superiority ('vl: superiority on tasks requ Davidson, 1973), and stim aright heaisp'nere proces rare found for the girls, rellegrino, 1979). Conse perceptual processing of necessitate greater cons and (3) a reader's inter] (3) the reader‘s strateg ca ' ndetermine the proces di ' fterences, a general (1 can 4 for a more complete vi sual modality, when su sin ultaneously presented verb ' 31 stimuli are perc 5 visual f' 1eld or 1 eft hen ett er perceived in th e lei n )Moscovitch and w , S . P11t~brain or com 20 about hand superiority (Witelson, 1974). First, boys tend to show a superiority on tasks requiring spatial discrimination (McGlone and Davidson, 1973), and stimuli of that nature might bias them in favor of a right hemisphere processing mode. Second, since no hand differences were found for the girls, the possibility of a processing difference may be considered. Though left hemisphere mediation of tactile stimuli may be disadvantageous for girls (McGlone and Davidson, 1973), specula— tion about how females process spatial stimuli Suggests that females are likely to use strategies which take advantage of their ability to more easily use both hemispheres to process spatially organized tactile stimuli (Bradshaw, Gates, and Nettleton, 1977; Rail, Carter, and Pellegrino, 1979). Consequently, at least for tactile discriminations, perceptual processing of features from lower to haigher stages may necessitate greater consideration for (l) the reader's hand preference, and (2) a reader's internal hemispheric activation and attention, and (3) the reader's strategies for interpreting the stimuli. Shifts in the cognitive process. Since several different factors can determine the processing stages in a hierachy of hemispheric—hand differences, a general description of the lateral asymmetries is neces— sary for a more complete understanding of how it is applied. In the visual modality, when subjects are asked to discriminate between two Simultaneously presented inputs such as words and faces, words or verbal stimuli are perceived faster or more accurately in the right visual field or left hemisphere, and faces or non—verbal stimuli are better perceived in the left visual field or right hemisphere (e,g., Klein, Moscovitch, and Vigna, 1976). Split-brain or commissurotomy studies of patients in whom the two eur ‘euispheres have been 1 . , t'm lraaatic in51gnts lnLC . . 0,, snares (see .teoes, 1,14, or’processin; sensory inf consistent with the getter '1: the data also suggest :2 right he:isp‘neres ope iteasi‘n, respectively. arched or nazea' setter a Eater according to the 9 Several exceptions to the rations have some relevar eous presentation condi t ‘ Accordingly, on tasl oetveen two simultaneous aslmetries were observer 1973). However, also un left visual field advant 1973; Geffen, Bradshaw a Stewart, 1974). These r exPEcted for letter iden hm, because the stimu hemisphere) might be ex: on ' terial. Second, under (cited above) have failc r . Pesented linguist in st: 21 hemispheres have been surgically disconnected have given the most dramatic insights into the basic dissimilarities between the two hemi- spheres (see Nebes, 1974, for a complete review). Briefly, the methods of processing sensory information based on the commissurotomy data are consistent with the general verbal versus nonverbal processing dichotomy, but the data also suggest that particularly on matching tasks, the left and right hemispheres operate along a functional versus structural dimension, respectively. For example, the right hand—left hemisphere matched or named better according to the functional similarities of objects, whereas the left hand—right hemisphere matched or pointed better according to the structural differences or appearances of objects Several exceptions to these findings have been reported, and the obser— vations have some relevance for hierarchical processing under simultan— eous presentation conditions and tactile perception. Accordingly, on tasks where subjects were asked to discriminate between two simultaneously presented physically identical letters, no asymmetries were observed (Gazziniga, 1970; Ledlow, Swanson, and Carter, 1973). However, also under conditions of simultaneous presentation, left visual field advantages in name matching tasks were found (Cohen, 1973; Geffen, Bradshaw and Nettleton, 1972; Hellige, 1976; Wilkins and Stewart, 1974). These results are inconsistent with what might be expected for letter identification presentations for two reasons. First, because the stimuli were letters, the right visual field (left hemisphere) might be expected to have the advantage in processing the material. Second, under simultaneous conditions several other studies (cited above) have failed to show asymmetries when simultaneously Presented linguistic stimuli are processed. One plausible explane :ec'nenisns that respond tc Eetveen low and high levei lecause both the Cohen (1 used very short exposure attention-éezanding distr stimuli, the relative ina preseated under these con attention to the sensor.- sistent with ?irczzclo ar processing of verbal (wor left hemisphere was supe neisphere was superior be-r'ixated words. One m instance would be to act pattern-unit in long ter Gilson and Baddele} Impressions involves a 5 State, tactile stimuli e the tactile impression l onger term memorv is a‘ nu) Determining whi in lo - ng term memory mig b u rallle, especially whe ual movements) which in °°Htrolled. 22 One plausible explanation for these findings is attentional mechanisms that respond to the effect of exposure rate and interference between low and high level feature detection during the coding process. Because both the Cohen (1973) and Wilkins and Stewart (1974) studies used very short exposure durations, and because Hellige (1976) used an attention-demanding distractor which was noted to have degraded the stimuli, the relative inaccessibility or transiency of the letters being presented under these conditions may have led subjects to shift their attention to the sensory properties of the letters which are more easily matched or coded by the right hemisphere. This assumption would be con— sistent with Pirozzolo and Rayner's (1977) finding that on simultaneous processing of verbal (words) and nonverbal (faces) information, the left hemisphere was superior in identifying and naming, but the right hemisphere was superior in carrying out featural analysis of the yet—to— be—fixated words. One might infer that the role of attention in this instance would be to activate feature detectors which respond to the pattern—unit in long term memory. Gilson and Baddeley (1969) suggest that the retention of tactile impressions involves a similar memory processing shift. In the first state, tactile stimuli are likely to undergo rapid decay with time. If the tactile impression is overlearned or recoded over several trails, longer term memory is available (Millar, 1974; Sullivan and Turvey, 1974). Determining which set of codes or pattern—units were encoded in long—term memory might indicate which perceptual codes operate in braille, especially when attentional distractors (e.g., repeated tact— ual movements) which interfere with short-term memory processing can be controlled. -... abnfinr‘r - van-q. - qr ~e~ . ....'..:...ct-: ence: ta..t. ‘ 5» - , _ l '— \Anfi— :- ~r" ._--..: 3 .CLk...C _ ...t . . . A : "."‘""‘.,’“v flAl—A‘ ( mentions- -c..:..u5 .. ‘. .V s ‘ u ...u _ _...- .._, , “a - 3‘3““: “33» h-AE L ilk . .G. - Q v.'\‘\.~ -uE-ter: :ezer': storage ., ,..- ;0 3'3 “H. titticult to encod szrategies if configurat The perceptual lent the preceding section, 1' Processing stage is rel; attention demanding dist mpeated tactual movemer m . ecess1tates a shift in (1955) and Hochberg (19 reade ' r 3 attempts to se a set of codes that can bra' 111e, several teachi read ' er to identifv cert Maxfield (1928) st 23 In summary, it is generally assumed that hemispheric differences emerge after the low—level or pre—categorical traces are synthesized and transformed into categorical representations that reflect the special processing abilities of each hemisphere. Exceptions to this type of hierachical processing have been shown to emerge under simultaneous presentation conditions where: (l) the decay rate of the stimulus may become a factor, and (2) when interference as a result of attentional demands forces a deviation from the hemispheric asymmetry reSults that might normally be expected. Tactile stimuli are particu— larly subject to the shifts in left and right hemispheric processing because tactile impressions decay rapidly, and repeated tactual move- ments may function as attention demanding distractors which affect long~term memory storage. Tactile stimuli like braille are also thought to be difficult to encode, and possibly subject to changes in processing strategies if configurations are not rehearsed or recoded. The perceptual learning process and the unitization of braille. In the preceding section, it was assumed that the input from a low—level processing stage is relayed to higher cognitive stages, unless an attention demanding distractor such as changes in the exposure rate or repeated tactual movements results in a perceptual response which necessitates a shift in the way features might be selected. Gibson (1955) and Hochberg (1968) have suggested that the shifts reflect the reader's attempts to select and combine the appropriate features among a set of codes that can be considered a unit for coding patterns. In braille, several teaching methods have been proposed to encourage the reader to identify certain pattern units. Maxfield (1928) studied teachers' instructional methods and found that teachers essentiall)‘ to learn braille: (1) the and (3) the 18““""°“ C EQPYOEC‘S because she assu :ethod only allow~ the chi :te in a fairly passive Ecrizontal and vertical I :Ee other ‘3 2d, allowed letzers that could 38 en: shniiicantly. Bf: approaching brai encouraging the reader t the, so that he begins Particular word pattern. id of word codes will d CEPtual learning. Atten i‘iature detectors. Maxf by its overall Shape(s) in his early attempts at 19 40). In more recent < C I ardinale (1973) reportf teach ' ers in residential and s tart reading instr l haxfield's concepti visua 1reading and as sui 0f the Whole w 0rd is no 24 that teachers essentially practiced three methods of teaching children to learn braille: (l) the letter method, (2) the whole—word method, and (3) the letter—word method. Maxfield recommended the whole—word approach because she assumed that the letter method and the letter—word method only allow the child to perceive the dot configurations one at a time in a fairly passive way that relied heavily on perseverative horizontal and vertical finger movements. The whole—word method, on the other hand, allowed for the use of contractions in combination with letters that could be encountered as a whole and understood in sweeping "active" hand movements across the line, thus increasing reading speed significantly. By approaching braille reading in this way, the teacher is actively encouraging the reader to pick up more than on letter or feature at a time, so that he begins to observe the arrangement which constitutes a particular word pattern. In effect, the instructions determine that a set of word codes will develop into pattern—units for maximizing per— ceptual learning. Attention in this case is directed toward "word" feature detectors. Maxfield argues that having the child learn a word by its overall shape(s) or as a whole, the child would progress faster in his early attempts at reading (Binder, 1948; Blend, 1944; Miller, 1940). In more recent surveys, Lowenfeld, Abel and Hatlen (1969) and Cardinale (1973) reported that 66% and 95% (respectively) of the teachers in residential and local schools support Maxfield's contention and start reading instruction with the whole—word approach. Maxfield's conceptualization of braille reading parallels that for Visual reading and assumes that the recognition of the pattern and shape 0f the whole word is more than or different from the sum of it parts. " 7*- once “other words, ..er c . ' O'A“ . .- o-b-r... ~;~rwgi Lst .l :IOT. LC..- ..-. -u c g c nabnyu n y) . “-132 -Cc.:.:) 6).. ' 1;- _ ‘ haunt oqv A“ ‘CL C u". \ ‘I‘ ‘“-O.l.:C ..c. ..\.. a- V -‘ - - 1.-.. “‘1' __ =35 lciicf: ..cu a uc... -..t “A A...- a fi. ‘ ‘7‘ . .—.H -cL,:r: “k“: t; ‘ ' A . "3"; ~A-- ...‘__, _‘ . “1 It.» .c:t ..c_.tl‘:, “car-“ :-:ers' tactual recall. Ljects might try to tr. lactual features in memri rehearsal. If this were at the beginning stages reading acquisition beca the haptic movements act would adversely affect t ' 1 Miller 3 study rais 0f Maxfield's wholesword a ,- nalms of word-shapes “Cognition. It would a on Perhaps smaller units m' 1th the orthographic rt si - zeunlts 0f the braill 25 In other words, her concept of the word method is that, the reader eventually constructs a perceptual representation on the basis of his guesses about the shape of the word and expectancies about what letters or words will follow successively. Millar (1978) studied the effect of grouping tactual nonsense shapes and braille letters on short-term serial tactual recall skills of fast namers (skilled at naming letters) and slow namers (less skilled at naming letters). She found that for subjects with short recall spans, grouping shapes and letters had a detrimental effect on their recall of both shapes and letters. However, for subjects with large recall spans, who were fast namers, despite poor recall of nonsense shapes relative to their recall for letter, grouping letters did facilitate fast namers' tactual recall. Millar speculated that if maning is slow, subjects might try to treat letters like shapes and rely on the tactual features in memroy rather than rename them for possible rehearsal. If this were the case, relying on tactual memory codes at the beginning stages of reading would not only appear to hinder reading acquisition because of degraded tactual registration, but the haptic movements across the spaces imposed by the grouping would adversely affect the future recall of the letters. Millar's study raises doubts abOut the total applicability 0f Maxfield's whole—word hypothesis, for it seems unlikely that an analysis of word—shapes alone can be the basis for braille word recognition. It would appear that perceptual analysis is conditional on perhaps smaller units than the word unit. How familiar one is with the orthographic rules that govern the integration of multiple size units of the braille code, and with the haptic movement pattern that augments the recogni reader's ability to guess For these reasons, .‘1 sort recognition studies ‘tebraille cell (i.e., t guraticn). Thej: found t'r :ecoznize the individual :ioa :ust occur as the ri fencer resulting in a interval. Nolan and Red longer, the tire reQUire anc‘Kederis' analysis. Embols are encountered governing the identifies choices for each word. tested the effects of M and found that both sigl lmPronounceable non-wort the Probability of a se wOTdS are recognized. An important excep is ' the interaction betw ami ' liar contracted wor it acted words, and yet ! reco ' game than unfamflj 26 that augments the recognition process, appears to be related to the reader's ability to guess at word patterns. For these reasons, Nolan and Kederis (1969) in a series of braille word recognition studies argued that the perceptual unit in braille was the braille cell (i.e., the character represented by a single dot confi— guration). They found that it took longer to recognize a word than to recognize the individual characters within the word. That is, the 'whole—word' method overlooks the fact that the integration of informa— tion must occur as the reader's finger(s) proceeds from character to character resulting in an accumulation of information over the temporal interval. Nolan and Kederis, therefore, argued that as the word gets longer, the time required to recognize a word may increase. Familiarity effects. Several considerations weight against Nolan and Kederis' analysis. First, it is well known that as successive symbols are encountered and become more familiar, the probabilities governing the identification process eventually influence the possible choices for each word. For example, Pick, Thomas, and Pic (1966) tested the effects of words and pronounceable pseudo—words on reading and found that both sighted and blind subjects read them better than unpronounceable non—words. Hence, familiarity (i.e., experience with the probability of a set of letters) increases the speed with which words are recognized. An important exception noted by Nolan and Kederis (1969), however, is the interaction between familiarity and orthography, which enables familiar contracted words to be recognized easier than familiar uncon- tracted words, and yet, unfamiliar uncontracted words are easier to recognize than unfamiliar contracted words. In both instances, the lrobabilitf‘ and sequent” experience and with the C (re contraction as OPPOSE roishcroft (1969) lower recognize than upper cell corrections require an 2 Layne a replication of . appropriate :eaning to b traction is highly f mil herite for the integra ear; the need for an ana Killiazson, Allan. ascorpared to visual re Empleiity for familiar C0565 than on grammaticz or single letters. If \ phonological (attention Bfaphrfamiliarity fact: braille readers who are stage of orthographic_p me ' anmgs (Rubinstein, L and Kay, 1975) and/or ( dir ect access to a stir: sens‘ ‘ 1t1ve to particulal and Strawson, 1976' S , 21 phonological (orthogr 31 act ually facilitates t' 27 probability and sequential integration of words varies with reader experience and with the complexity of the information conveyed by the contraction as opposed to a single letter. For instance, according to Ashcroft (1960) lower cell contractions would be more difficult to recognize than upper cell contractions primarily because lower cell contractions require an additional analysis and synthesis (since it may be a replication of an upper cell contraction) in order for the appropriate meaning to be assigned. However, if the lower cell con— traction is highly familiar and within the reader's word vocabulary, the time for the integrative process should be reduced, making unneces— sary the need for an analysis per braille character sound. Williamson, Allan, and McDonald (1976) suggest that braille readers as compared to visual readers mediate the differences in perceptual complexity for familiar and unfamiliar words by relying more on phonetic codes than on grammatical and semantic codes when processing characters or single letters. If we consider the likelihood of an additional phonological (attention to sound) mechanism interaction with the ortho— graphy—familiarity factors, at least two possibilities exist: (1) that braille readers who are somewhat experienced or skilled go through a stage of orthographic—phonological encoding prior to accessing word meanings (Rubinstein, Lewis and Rubinstein, 1981; Rubinstein, Richter and Kay, 1975) and/or (2) that a lexical mechanism exists that allows direct access to a stimulus specific or logogen—like system which is sensitive to particular familiar strings of letters and words (Baron and Strawson, 1976; Szumski and Brooks, 1977). Determining whether a phonological (orthographic) or a lexical entry encoding process actually facilitates tactual letter or word recall is a very complex ' "‘- ss noble: because not. go .. ‘ '.'lled ch settlement 0. SM italics-at proportion c recognition after the pr greater correspondence ‘ L lngbj: direct access or instructions we re aimed differences between 8“” assumption of Mangold ' S be done in braille (ff-$1 Therefore, by recoding Phonemes which enter th lishing what seemed to 0f letters, braille ree ( 9. 8', pronounceabl e pc From Mangoldr 28 problem because both possibilities seem equally important for the development of skilled character recognition strategies. However, unskilled readers are confronted with just this problem, as mani— fested by letter recognition problems and poor lexical entry. For instance, Mangold's (1978) development teaching project identified certain subskills of tactile perception strategies and braille letter recognition which shOuld be taught, but which are often not found in reading curricula. Her study was designed to decrease the two most common errors in braille reading: i.e., (l) backtracking and repetitive up and down hand movements, and (2) errors in letter recognition, by providing a sequenced program exposure to braille othography that parallels print orthography. She found a significant proportion of subjects made fewer errors in character recognition after the program which helped in the development of greater correspondence between the specific letter(s) and its mean— ing by direct access or by phonological recoding. Since most of the instructions were aimed at helping the child pinpoint and track differences between groups of letters, it appears that an underlying assumption of Mangold's program was that phonological recoding could be done in braille (e.g., Williamson, Allan, and McDonald, 1976). Therefore, by recoding the tactual letter strings into corresponding phonemes which enter the child's oral vocabulary in addition to esta— blishing what seemed to be stimulus-specific lexical representations of letters, braille readers may learn to identify words more quickly (e.g., pronounceable pseudo—words; Pick, Thomas, and Pick, l966). From Mangold's report, her program might increase the reader‘s ability to read and sound—out groups of letters, but it is not known a nrefernece f {ref ‘ rite“ lexicon (Carr, David son iaritr with braille orth ofthe braille codE, GIT-P 0f the code to build a w learning spelling-to-sou facilitating guesse 3 abc tinned about these latte reading strategies that Bra ille Reading Strategi Early investi atior \8\ Studies have demonstrate 29 whether a prefernece for a particular hand made the difference, or whether males or females might be better suited for such a program. The research in this study was designed to consider whether knowledge about hand preferences might also be used to explain problems that develop when certain braille reading strategies are adopted. Despite shortcomings, Mangold's (1978) research has two implications for understanding the development of reading strategies which relate to the perceptual unit. First, greater familiarity with the tactual orthography of the braille code, which w0uld allow spelling— to—sound translation to occur without direct perceptual access to lexical entry, can serve as a method of building vocabulary in poor braille readers. One might surmise that this would better enable words not in the tactually accessible lexicon to reach the reader's speaking lexicon (Carr, Davidson and Hawkins, 1978). Second, the lack of famil— iarity with braille orthography suggests that because of the complexity of the braille code, emphasis must be placed on extracting smaller units of the code to build a wider tactual lexicon that may later be used for learning spelling—to—sound rules (Rozin and Gleitman, 1977), and for facilitating guesses about the letters in words. More will be men— tioned abOut these latter claims, but is perhaps best to focus on reading strategies that braille readers have been known to use. Braille Reading Strategies Early investigations into hand use and hand dominance. Several studies have demonstrated hand dominance or hand superiority in the recognition of braille characters by examining (l) the reading speed of the reader (i.e., fast vs. slow), and (2) the scanning patterns of the reader's hands or fingers during the reading of letters, words, h” 'urile gal/or paragrap..s (5 ...1. . lo“: for “‘5 aliens. ' ’ ";,:‘- -. rt per ZIECEICEC .Ic;--c .ea. le....e; camel NEEHEDC' see. For this r :ajsritj: of braille read :he"reading finger" ms reader additional inform code that are not percei in the reading process. Smith (1929), perha asl‘u‘unetries, suggested t serves as the motor orge organ. Smith further St It involves moving the l (Page 239). For this r1 In an operation that is probable that they will Smith inferred that the aCtivj - . ty hes in the di ta ' 8k (l’eu Skilled at 3O and/or paragraphs (Burklen, 1932; Maxfield, 1928; Fertsch, 1947; Foulke, 1964; Hermelin and O'Connor, 1971a, 1971b; Wilkinson, 1978; Williams, 1971). For instance, Critchley (1953) observed that the practiced braille reader is able to read with both index fingers effectively, even though many experienced readers have been known to eventually choose one hand, this being the hand with which he reads faster. Though each hand may be accurate in its ability to decode the braille symbols, the two hands often appear to discri- minate dot donfigurations simultaneously. The development of a learned manual preference in often implied as a function of hand differences. For this reason, Critchley suggested that for a majority of braille readers the finger on the hand chosen to be ' and it gives the the "reading finger" must be more "sensitive,' reader additional information or insight into the nuances of the code that are not perceived by the other finger or fingers involved in the reading process. Smith (1929), perhaps in anticipation of later theories of hand asymmetries, suggested that in right—handed people the right hand serves as the motor organ while the left hand acts as a sensory Organ. Smith further suggested that "...reading braille, though it involves moving the hands, is perceiving rather than executing” (Page 239). For this reason, when the blind use the hands together in an operation that is partly sensory and partly motor, it is quite probable that they will prefer the left hand for the sensory purpose. Smith inferred that the distinction between a motor and sensory activity lies in the difference between a hand that carries out the taSk (i.e., skilled at the motor task) and the hand that makes it possible (i.e., skilled a that the less skillful mc task requiring both hands Two of the earlj: obs onebyBurklen (1932, st: lili'tj: of braille characr :ethanits of :raille, wet :ive'naad and/or fingers 1r men Performed Sel'era torere skilled braille recognition for indiVidU rerenaaes of peOPle (so faith he designated as S Tesrschreiber (a tactile of the reading hand and record reading hand Paltt ruth both the right and the index and middle fir more, the right index fl and sentences (names), 2 names or words in the st analysis of the word imt Studies, the ability to aSSOciated with using tl In a second set of Pages of narrative. Th SEQ ond Page With the le 31 possible (i.e., skilled at sensory tasks). For braille, Smith asserted that the less skillful motor hand is used for the sensory purpose on a task requiring both hands. Two of the early observational studies of blind braille readers, one by Burklen (1932, studies published in German, 1917) on the legi— bility of braille characters, the other by Maxfield (1928) on the mechanics of braille, were concerned with determining the most sensi— tive hand and/or fingers for haptically identifying dot configurations. Burklen performed several experiments with 9 to 18 year old subjects who were skilled braille readers. Burklen first examined the rate of recognition for individual characters and grOups of characters that were names of people (some of the names were well known, some were not) which he designated as sentences. Burklen had his subjects wear a Tastschreiber (a tactile recorder which was clasped to the index finger of the reading hand and recorded the finger's movement patterns) to record reading hand patterns. His report is unclear in describing how much both the right and left index fingers read, but he concluded that the index and middle fingers were the chief reading fingers. Further— more, the right index finger was the best for the recognition of letter and sentences (names), and the touch movements increased as unfamiliar names or words in the sentences were read, ostensibly necessitating an analysis of the word image into letters (page 33). In this series of studies, the ability to name or quickly recognize letters or words was associated with using the right hand. In a second set of studies, Burklen had his subjects read three Pages of narrative. The first page was read with both hands, the second page with the left hand alone, the third page with the right and alone. From the ma am both hands was the Ell to the right hand in read consistent with hose of rEPlitated, but inconsiSt reason for the right ham dearly suggests that p0! rerbalstizuli. l'nr'ortu‘ tithe poor or good read rit': either hand, so the fro: these studies must Siggested from the left ing, that when the reads lei t hand was more succe 00 P rer readers benefit r net skilled at identif )7 access. Maxfield (1928) 8% Wading based on her cl mechanics for the Unifo if the reader was not I; the ' Tight hand. F1 rst, ofth e fast er read ers 1 32 hand alone. From the reading times, Burklen concluded that reading with both hands was the most efficient, but the left hand was superior to the right hand in reading skill and speed. His findings were consistent with those of Grasemann (1932), whose procedure Burklen replicated, but inconsistent with regard to his first series of experi— ments. Burklen argued that the reading difficulties encountered by readers in the second set of studies may relate to problems in identi— fying word forms: the size, shape, and spacing s between the dots which implies more right hemispheric activity (Witelson, 1974). Another reason for the right hand reading result for sentences made up of names clearly suggests that possibility of left hemispheric activation for verbal stimuli. Unfortunately, Burklen did not specify what proportion of the poor or good readers in the second series of experiments read with either hand, so the influence of skill on the speed of reading from these studies must remain speculative. However, it might be suggested from the left hand superior reading during "narrative" read- ing, that when the reader had difficulty decoding the word forms, the left hand was more successful and apparently more sensitive. Perhaps poorer readers benefit more from left hand reading because they were not skilled at identifying the appropriate features for fast lexical access. Maxfield (1928) agreed with Burklen's conclusion about two-handed reading based on her classroom observations and studies of reading hand mechanics for the Uniform Type Committee. However, she suggested that if the reader was not using both hands, he should be trained to use the right hand. First, she concluded from her observations that many Of the faster readers read well with either hand but moved the right " pre "'3 ~ore f1uentl,, ap. : 'm‘; 'a'C '3 be the shape 0. . "1 "ast readers used 3C... . 9|- al" 53“: Tour 112,5. Seton: :9 tierceiring during rea .ertsch (191;?) comp '9 I ‘ ."1 A man hand was more effi 00E inance for speed of r Wright-handed and 3 1e grades 3 to 11 attending assessed by grip strengt 1W) those who scored it Stored in the low d er thir ardized silent reading The readers were CI 9(11181 in length, lines, eading silently with U Iee groups emerged: (1 the left hand; (2) left r—w-__.-__ 33 hand more fluently, apprehending the configurations by what appeared to be the shape of thw word as opposed to individual letters. These same fast readers used the left hand only to read ahead on the next line. Secondly, she found that slower readers did not read well with either hand, and they used their left hand to read letter by letter. Since both the Burklen and Maxfield studies indicate that braille reading is performed better when using two hands (two index fingers), it may be concluded that the superiority of the right or left index finger for reading appears to vary according to how the reader prefers to interpret the braille code, as either words or smaller units, i.e., letters. Perhaps a comparison of readers with good and poor reading skills can determine which hand takes on more of a role of executing or perceiving during reading. Fertsch (1947) compared good and poor braille readers to determine which hand was more efficient at executing or perceiving based on its dominance for speed of reading brailled paragraphs. The subjects were 60 right—handed and 3 left—handed students (30 girls and 33 boys) in grades 3 to 11 attending a school for the blind. Handedness was assessed by grip strength and ball throwing. The subjects were divided into those who scored in the upper third (good readers) and those who scored in the lower third (poor readers) in comprehension on a stan— dardized silent reading test. The readers were classified according to how the read paragraphs equal in length, lines, cell units, and the number of composite signs_ Reading silently with the right hand, and then with the left hand alone, three groups emerged: (1) right dominant, right hand more effective than the left hand; (2) left dominant, left hand more effective than the . c, . ,r . A“- ’11 ICCC "c __ n r ’7 Y ‘ {cc-Ctr? 5: ma. “ (7 1]-} 8" :n-w'“ 5835» K‘ ‘ u ' ‘ V:~Lt Lint: Ffi-1‘aflr Ero ' d“ -. .Cub c.» -.A a.» ,. .-.A ‘ A Arfillfi » .. . 9L»- 3 ‘ [‘ka ‘ ' . w ‘ -o- l’\ .- . n'fl‘” ’F- IA. F '— 43. :--..C‘ ...C -t- L 9L. . '. A..- 1? T H ...n— “. a Q “h“: “.3“ “‘5 .. C a L 1 b... r: I b «n . . s“: t‘kx-S \- lIlCE’X I lager ”.s hand dominant “git hand. These findi arguments, but it is um (1947) whether the right 300d readers because thI un' ' its us1ng orthographi mechanisms, or whether greater motor facility This issue is of i 34 right hand; (3) hands equal, both hands equally effective. The best readers were those who read equally well with either hand and used both hands independently. Fertsch found that the right hand dominant readers generally read faster than those in the left hand dominant group. Fertsch (1947) also found that when reading paragraphs, the right hand dominant groups read a larger number of units with the right hand at the end of lines than at the beginning of lines, Whereas the right dominant group read more cells, in general, with their right hand alone, the left dominant readers read more cells with their left hands than with their right hands. When Fertsch categorized her subjects by skill (good or poor), the reading fingers of good readers were either equal in ability or the right index finger was dominant. The left hand was better for very few good readers. Poor readers, on the other hand, showed no particular hand dominance and read with either the left hand or the right hand. These findings confirm Maxfield's observations and arguments, but it is unclear from the evidence presented by Fertsch (1947) whether the right hand emerged as the more dominant hand in good readers because the reader is processing words as perceptual units using orthographic (rule—governed) or lexical (stimulus—specific) mechanisms, or whether the apparent benefit comes from the right band's greater motor facility or the right band's sensory ability. This issue is of interest in determining hand dominance or hand Preference in reading, since by definition (1) reading with hands alone promotes more successive, serial processing, and this type of task would naturally encourage more right hand—left hemispheric processing, and (2) good readers generally need to process fewer letters to guess arauord (Marcel et a1., letters which requires le :ie'nt propose that slower in a letter 5?" lett is r. u. issed a right hand prei tactual features. “if-“01 theiecrease of tactual :er; likely unless menorj i€.g., phonological or 1! .ne converging evid: strategies at least suggi J preference or strate oftaetual features, whe level of determining whe enough to encode or deco tures. It seems essenti i‘ ' ' “9 “aPtic recognition 5 o v - fihat reading strategi a , . m relationship to aspe Reee W of the early work on han determining which hand 1' the tactual information detelonine how braille sh 0fhaptic processing (K1 interac . tlon b etween th e info . rmatlon (Hemeli n at 35 at a word (Marcel et a1., 1974), thus facilitating reading fewer letters which requires less sensory activity. With this in mind, one might propose that slower readers read slowly with their left or right hands in a letter by letter manner because the reader has not esta— blished a right hand preference for facilitating the encoding of tactual features. Without the establishment of such a preference, the decrease of tactual impressions during uni—manual reading seems very likely unless memory processes go through some type of recoding (e.g., phonological or lexical) during the encoding stage. The converging evidence pertaining to the question of hand strategies at least suggest that good readers use a right hand read— ing preference or strategy that incorporates some kind of re—naming of tactual features, whereas poor or slow readers are still at the level of determining whether the right or left hand is sensitive enough to encode or decode the tactual—spatial and linguistic fea— tures. It seems essential to consider more rectnt formulations of the haptic recognition strategies as a means of answering the question of what reading strategies facilitate reading and whether this has any relationship to aspects of the perceptual units encoded. Recent studies of hand use and haptic recognition patterns. Much of the early work on hand use and dominance was concerned more with determining which hand identified braille faster and less with how the tactual information was encoded. In the last decade, efforts to determine how braille skills are acquired have focused on the sequence 0f haptic processing (Kusajima, 1974; Williams, 1971) and how the interaction between the hands and the brain facilitates the coding of information (Hermelin and O'Connor, 19713, 1971b; Wilkinson, 1978). Williams (1971) low hraille readers, 15 to 11 slow readers under 70 wpr (iliwords). his observ. smdies' conclusions abOi :oéeaore specialized fl r530) read with the fort lezt hand alone, and eie‘ meaty-nine read with th :er‘ : sapart. Slow readin ~lfl§er movements and rear 05 the line. of the rem it left hand alone, nine wi Kusajima (1947) km movements of blind child resorded how the braille and ' Intermediate to adva su Bgested that beginning C011 I . ed t the. . . lmi a ZiE‘Za g mOVeme “t3. wi th ‘ em WShated a great er p EVQI than had been ob se A4,," 36 Williams (1971) investigated hand movement patterns of 100 blind braille readers, 15 to 18 years old (50 fast readers over 130 wpm; 50 slow readers under 70 wpm) during the silent reading of paragraphs (537 words). His observations are fairly consistent with the earlier studies' conclusions about two handed reading (Burklen, 1932; Maxfield, 1928; Fertsch, 1947), but neither the right nor the left hand appears to be more specialized for reading. Over half of the fast readers (36 of 50) read with the forefingers of both hands, six read with their left hand alone, and eight read with their right hand alone. Of the 36 fast readers, 32 read with hands separated, and four read with their fingers together. The slow readers had a ver different haptic strategy. Twenty-nine read with their fingers together, while one read with fin- gers apart. Slow reading was characterized by probing up and down finger movements and reading with the forefingers parallel to the end of the line. Of the remaining 20 slow readers, eleven read with their left hand alone, nine with the right hand alone. Kusajima (1947) kymographically recorded individual finger movements of blind children reading braille. In this study Kusajima recorded how the braille reader moved from beginner to intermediate, and intermediate to advanced reading stages of competence. The results suggested that beginning readers, who were unfamiliar with the dot configurations, tended to read letter by letter, predominately with their right hands. Similar to the earlier research, Kusajima noted that these readers characteristically made numerous up and down, Zig—zag movements, with many fixations on the words, but his sample demonstrated a greater preference for right hand reading at this level than had been Observed in the early work. The readers in the lightly pressed together beginning to the end of it appeared that some sh: These results suggest th: lead to greater hand spe. where the up and down no and movements and an in "fine advanced reader fingers and usually read index fingers, respectiv metric, and easy; but of roles cited in the in the point of a synchroni nition skills and hemisp Studies by Hermelin children and adults and specifically addressed accuracy, and the funct to haptic recognition i blllermelin and O'Conno all blind from birth, w edness was determined b hand the children prefe children were right-hen dextrous. Twelve child Close together. Four r V'_r l r 37 The readers in the intermediate stage read with both fingers lightly pressed together. Their fingers moved together from the beginning to the end of the line, but eventually separated so that it appeared that some sharing or exchanging of roles developed. These results suggest that the introduction of the left hand might lead to greater hand specialization and a division of encoding labor, where the up and down movements of slow readers change to smooth hand movements and an interdependence of function. The advanced readers were competent with both left and right fingers and usually read half of eahc line with the left and right index fingers, respectively. The finger movements were smooth, symmetric, and easy; but clearly the speculated sharing or exchanging of roles cited in the intermediate stage of reading had evolved to the point of a synchronized and complex interaction of haptic recog— nition skills and hemispheric processing strategies. Studies by Hermelin and O'Connor (1971, 1971b) with blind children and adults and by Wilkinson (1978) with blind students specifically addressed the issues of hand use, reading speed, and accuracy, and the functional asymmetry of the brain with respect to haptic recognition in braille reading. In the first of two studies by Hermelin and O'Connor (1971a), 16 eight—to—ten year old children, all blind from birth, were tested on a sentence reading task. Hand— edness was determined by asking seven questions to determine which hand the children preferred to use for different tasks. Fourteen children were right-handed, and two were described as being ambi— dextrous. Twelve children read spontaneously with their index fingers close together. Four read with the index finger of their left hand, Each child's index and determine "finger" rea instead of words and 1 tractions were used in The left index fir faster than the right : left middle finger rear reading times for the ‘ (1971a) attributed the that may of the child that because of this h, aleft to right motor In a second study notoric scan bias whil O'Connor (1971b) arran vertical columns. The 25 to 65. Although sp test instructions, th Eleven of the 15 subj left hand even though on the combination of authors suggested tha difference between th adults who were self— at the expense of ace the left because it s in the material (lett Ir— 38 Each child's index and middle fingers were tested separately to determine ”finger" reading speed. Individual symbols were scored, instead of words and letters, because many abbreviations and con— tractions were used in the text. The left index finger reading times proved to significantly faster than the right indexfinger reading times. Similarly, the left middle finger reading times were significantly faster than the reading times for the right middle finger. Hermelin and O'Connor (1971a) attributed the hand differences in reading speeds to the fact that many of the children read primarily with their left hands, and that because of this hand preference they might have benefited from a left to right motor scan bias favoring the left hand. In a second study aimed at controlling the possibility of a motoric scan bias while reading individual symbols, Hermelin and O'Connor (1971b) arranged a random set of alphabetic letters into vertical columns. The subjects were 15 totally blind adults, ages 25 to 65. Although speed and accuracy were both stressed in the test instructions, there were hand differences only in accuracy. Eleven of the 15 subjects made significantly fewer errors with their left hand even though the right hand had read more letters (based on the combination of correct and incorrect letters scored). The authors suggested that two factors contributed to the reading speed difference between the adults and the children. First, many of the adults who were self-taught no longer appeared to value reading fast at the expense of accuracy, and reported that they had switched to the left because it seemed more efficient. Second, the difference in the material (letters versus sentences) made it difficult to compare the two groups experiments the left ha reading and Hermelin an brain treats tactile in' beanalyzed by the righ of the material takes p Hilkinson (1978) t blind right-handed stud to confirm Hermel in and the issue of how readin types of material: lett certain type of hemisph hand differences appear subjects were divided i with respect to hand pr aleft hand advantage i left hand preferring m least support Hermelin braille letters can be preferrers, letters ar hemisphere. The paragraph rea conditions. A left ha (silent and oral) was Examined according to right preference fast readers (silent read in 7—— 39 compare the two groups for reading speed. Nevertheless, in both experiments the left hand proved to be the preferred hand for reading and Hermelin and O'Connor (1971a, 1971b) reasoned "...the brain treats tactile input such as braille as spatial items, to be analyzed by the right hemisphere before or while verbal coding of the material takes place in the Left" (page 434). Wilkinson (1978) tested 27 congentally and adventitiously blind right—handed students, grades 4 through 12, in an attempt to confirm Hermelin and O'Connor's results and possibly to address the issue of how reading speed and hand differences across both types of material: letters and sentences (paragraphs) implies a certain type of hemispheric processing and sex differences. No hand differences appeared on the letter identification task until subjects were divided into right, left, or no preference categories with respect to hand preference. When hand preference was examined, a left hand advantage for reading was demonstrated but only for left hand preferring male and female readers. These results at least support Hermelin and O'Connor's (1971b) contention that braille letters can be spatially coded first and that for left preferrers, letters are more efficiently processed by the right hemisphere. The paragraph reading task had both silent and oral reading conditions. A left hand advantage for both verbalization conditions (silent and oral) was found for females only. When the task was examined according to hand preference and verbalization condition, right preference fast readers (silent reading), left preference fast readers (silent reading), and left preference fast and slow readers (oral reading) demonstr. females, particularly r lage is contrary to stu have demonstrated later type (Harris, 1977). H rely oniboth hemisphere intonation, not only f aspects as well, and th h‘ilkinson (1978) a reading differences in least two distinct "enc tively low levels of r inplications for the st Wilkinson suggest braille in terms of its were mostly slow left—h the potential capabilit the configurations, yet reading style of these O'Connor‘s (1971a, 197 on tactual-spatial lin is processed initially The second type 0 linguistic meanings of than the spatial cues. hand preferring read er Hpabilities of the le 40 (oral reading) demonstrated a significant left hand advantage. Finding females, particularly right preferring females, with a left hand advan- tage is contrary to studies that might have predicted only males to have demonstrated lateralized or asymmetric skill for a task of this type (Harris, 1977). However, as was suggested earlier, females might rely on both hemispheres for processing tactual—spatial, linguistic information, not only for its spatial components but for its tactual aspects as well, and they accomplish the task just as efficiently. Wilkinson (1978) discussed the significant left and right hand reading differences in terms of hand preferences that demonstrated at least two distinct "encoding” groups that could be identified at rela- tively low levels of reading skill. Outlining these groups has further implications for the strategies adopted. Wilkinson suggested that first,some readers seemed to approach braille in terms of its spatial configurations. These readers, who were mostly slow left—hand—preferring readers, appeared not to use the potential capabilities of their left hemisphere to encode/decode the configurations, yet they mde very few detectable errors. The reading style of these readers is consistent with hermelin and O'Connor's (1971a, 1971b) theory which predicts left hand superiority 0n tactual—spatial linguistic codes where the spatial information is processed initially. The second type of reader seemed to identify the verbal or linguistic meanings of the words initially and more consistently than the spatial cues. These readers appeared to be the slow right hand preferring readers and they seemed to overlook the sensory Capabilities of the left hand. Wilkinson proposed that their approach to the tasks v searched for linguisti. characters or word fea initially processed in chuired simultaneousl bytenporal and succes in the left hemisphere from the first style 0 second style of readin of both groups of 510 revealed that the rig at the more complex p It seems plausib enable the cognitive p spatial information to the re-organization of perception is matched second case the re—org Both the first and the structure is characte System, and the symbo or verbal abstract re eventually available function using both p within the nonverbal coding which may Sign It has been suggested 41 approach to the tasks was a serial coding process and that they searched for linguistic features that would help identify the braille characters or word features when reading sentences. Information initially processed in this type of ceding does not appear to be chuired simultaneously, rather it would appear to be processed by temporal and successive ordering of the braille configurations in the left hemisphere. This approach is theoretically distinct from the first style of reading described above. Evidently, the second style of reading was an effective strategy, since a comparison of both groups of slow readers with left and right hand preference revealed that the right preferrers read faster with their right hand at the more complex paragraph—reading level. It seems plausible to propose that both approaches to reading enable the cognitive processing of the internal representations of spatial information to be re—organized, where in the first approach the re—organization of the information from the form given in immediate perception is matched against a spatial representation, and in the second case the re—organization involves an attempt at verbal recoding. Both the first and the second approaches imply that the hierarchical structure is characteristic of a sequentially organized linguistic System, and the symbolic processes are functionally linked to spatial or verbal abstract representations of the word concepts that are eventually available to either hemispher. The reader's ability to function using both processing modes implies that there exists, within the nonverbal system, the capacity for dual (hemispheric) coding which may signal the onset of a division of encoding labor. It has been suggested that this division emerges during the intermediate state of 1 reader's experimence an In addition to tht differences between thi Several studies have b4 differences (as a and the relation betwev and amount of practice 1977; Rudel, Denckla, . in contrast to earlier determining hand diffe braille. They provide determined from hand 8 importantly, these stu my be stored in memor Braille letter 1e children, ages 7 to 14 single—letter braille is, the children named six pairs presented tc were guided over the l to orient the childre1 were encouraged to fer recall the letters in the left hand was 5111’ sex and age. In this the order in which th 42 intermediate state of reading (Kusajima, 1974) as a result of the reader's experimence and increasing familiarity with the code. In addition to the above—named developments, there are functional differences between the hands that may reflect sex differences. Several studies have been designed to determine left-right hand differences (as a function of hemispheric processing strategies) and the relation between these differences and sex, and age of subject and amount of practice (Feinberg, 1979; Rudel, Denckla, and Hirsch, 1977; Rudel, Denckla, and Spalten, 1974; Wagner, 1976). These studies, in contrast to earlier studies, have used various techniques for determining hand differences in sighted subjects who have never read braille. They provide additional insight into the encoding issue determined from hand superiorities in reading braille, but more importantly, these studies suggest how the braille configurations may be stored in memory developmentally. Braille letter learning in sighted subjects. Naive Sighted children, ages 7 to 14, were used by Rudel et al. (1974) to study single-letter braille recognition in a paired—associate task (that is, the children named and then recalled 12 braille letter-pairs, six pairs presented to each hand). The children's index fingers were guided over the braille letters by the experimenter, in order to orient the children to how the letters felt. Then the children were encouraged to feel and name the letters on their own, and then recall the letters in a paired associate procedure. In general, the left hand was superior to the right, but the effect varied by sex and age. In this respect, Rudel et a1. (1974) suggested that the order in which the hands were tested may have had a greater effect on the girls the their left hand regard] left hand first), and 5 exhibited left hand sur first, and then only ai In another study, subjects ranging in age 9-10, 11-12, 13—14, 20- sme-different judgmenl consistent with those 1 but hand order effects showed that 13- to 14- nade significantly few: the males, only the 11‘ errors with their left one of the few to demo abroad age range, the Three different t materials. "Different primarily in number of position of the braill matched all types of I: right. In addition, a the difference was Sig speaking, the magnitud increased with age. 'J age—the point at whit 43 effect on the girls than the boys. The boys were superior with their left hand regardless of the order of testing (right hand or left hand first), and significantly so by age 11. But the girls exhibited left hand superiority only after using their right hands first, and then only after the age of 12. In another Study, Rudel, Denckla, and Hirsch (1977) tested subjects ranging in age from 7 to 40 (12 at each age grOup; 7—8, 9—10, 11—12, 13—14, 20—40). The subjects were asked only to make same—different judgments about braille letters. The results were consistent with those reported by Rudel, Denckla, and Spalten (1974), but hand order effects were less strong and sex by hand interactions showed that 13— to l4— year old girls and 20— to 40— year old women made significantly fewer errors with their left hand, whereas among the males, only the 11— to 12— year olds made significantly fewer errors with their left hands. Since Rudel et al.'s (1977) study is one of the few to demonstrate hand, sex, and error differences over a broad age range, these findings should be reviewed in more detail. Three different types of relations were built into the stimulus materials. "Different” pairs could differ primarily in orientation, primarily in number of dots, or primaily in displacement from one position of the braille cell to another. After age 10, subjects matched all types of materials faster with the left hand than the right. In addition, accuracy was greater with the left hand, though the difference was significant only for number errors. Generally Speaking, the magnitude of the left hand advantage or accuracy increased with age. Ten years appeared to be a significant transition age——the point at which accuracy discriminating differences between dot patterns shifted fr consistent with Lowenfe suggesting that reading grades for braille read from a preference for right hemisphere proce The left hand sup tasks, particularly fo tron early verbal codi representation specific then the left hemispher right hemisphere is act tivity of the left ban: the better performance activation or stimulat: (1974) has described. Wagner (1976) demo for sighted children a byRudel et al. (1974) (1974, 1977) findings, lateralization for the stration of right hemi reached college age. number of dots in any between type of error attribute the age and in boys; that is, age T——f dot patterns shifted from right to left hand. This finding is consistent with Lowenfeld, Abel, and Halten's (1969) research suggesting that reading speed increases arOund fourth and fifth grades for braille readers and possibility also indicates shifts from a preference for let hemisphere processing (right hand) to right hemisphere processing (left hand). The left hand superiority found on both letter identification tasks, particularly for the girls, may be the result of a shift from early verbal coding strategies to the development of lateral representation specific for processing spatial cues, or perhaps when the left hemisphere is activated by right hand reading, the right hemisphere is activated in such a way as to enhance the sensi- tivity of the left hand. Rudel et al. (1974, 1977) have argued that the better performance of one hemisphere may be the result of prior activation or stimulation of the other in the same way Witelson (1974) has described. Wagner (1976) demonstrated an overall left hand superiority for sighted children and adults which was similar to that found by Rudel et al. (1974). However, in contrast to Rudel et al.'s (1974, 1977) findings, the pattern of hand asymmetry revealed lateralization for the boys (at age nine) and no consistent demon— stration of right hemispheric processing in girls until they reached college age. Despite an attempt to determine whether the number of dots in any array affected hand asymmetry, no relationship between type of error and hand was found. Wagner and Harris (1977) attribute the age and sex differences found to invariant lateralization in boys; that is, age did not necessarily determine the level of specialization for spa it could be attributed with results in alter Feinberg (1979) {1 (linen and 24 women, I leaned the braille 1e1 simulate the searching Two sets of eight lettt atotal of 40 trials pi etal. (1974). When tl over an 80 trials peri( to have an advantage 0‘ also another nonpreferi handers. Since the ti] was found to be mostly suggested that women m. discriminating tactile It should be reca the role orthography p or familiar with the c units smaller than a v stimulus-specific lead the tactual lexicon f< about how the reader 1 benefit of phonologic more recent investiga from braille reading 45 specialization for spatial perception by the right hemisphere, and it could be attributed to an increase in memory capacity for girls which results in alternative processing strategies. Feinberg (1979) tested 48 right— and left—handed undergraduates (24 men and 24 women, half left—handed and half right—handed). They learned the braille letters by actively feeling them in order to simulate the searching movements often observed in braille readers. Two sets of eight letters were used: four to each hand. There were a total of 40 trials per hand instead of six trials as used by Rudel et al. (1974). When the hands were tested in straight alternation over an 80 trials period, the left (or nonpreferred) hand was found to have an advantage over the right for right handers. There was also another nonpreferred hand effect (right hand superior) for left handers. Since the right hand superiority effect for left handers was found to be mostly a result of the left—handed women, it was suggested that women may use a different mode of processing for discriminating tactile—linguistic stimuli. It should be recall from the review of unitization issues and the role orthography plays as the reader becomes more experienced 0r familiar with the code, that with greater familiarity, tactual units smaller than a whole word might facilitate the learning of stimulus-specific lexical representations. Also, by increasing the tactual lexicon for such tactual units, hypotheses or guesses about how the reader may use orthographic rules for the possible benefit of phonological recoding was inferred. The early and more recent investigations into hand use patterns that emerged from braille reading strategies suggested that discriminating tactual-spatial, ling read poses a hemispher reader must decide whe focusing on the tactua superiorities for read at verbal recoding via benost beneficial. A encoding mechanisms wo has these hand differe‘ and confused, primaril‘ results in a left or a sords may depend on her since the older reader than the younger reader for reading is often c: to how hand preference encoding mechanisms mi: reading arise. A brie Explain the visual rea how the encoding mecha Reading Models, Flexib Three major types eXplain how cognitive data-driven or bottom- Processing, and inter; three classifications 0f the thesis will de: 46 tactual—spatial, linguistic words at initial stages of learning to read poses a hemispheric processing problem for the reader. The reader must decide whether he can cognitively process braille by focusing on the tactual—spatial aspects as reflected by left hand superiorities for reading letters and sentences, or whether attempts at verbal recoding via a right-hand—left hemisphere strategy will be most beneficial. Again, it is speculated that phonological encoding mechanisms would facilitate the recoding process. But how these hand differences are established is sometimes quite mixed and confused, primarily because determining which cognitive process results in a left or a right hand advantage for reading letters and words may depend on hand preference, sex of the subject, and age, since the older reader would be expected to become more experienced than the younger reader at haptic recognition. Since the hand used for reading is often confused with the hand preferred, attention to how hand preference related to braille reading strategies and encoding mechanisms might help explain how hand differences in reading arise. A brief summary of the processing models used to Explain the visual reading strategies may be helpful in conceptualizing how the encoding mechanisms underlie specific hand preferences. Reading Models, Flexible Encoding Mechanisms and Attention Three major types of processing models that have been proposed to explain how cognitive processes are accowplished during visual reading: data-driven or bottom—up processing, knowledge-driven or top-down processing, and interactive processing. A brief summary of these three classifications of reading will be presented, then the remainder 0f the thesis will describe how hand preferences in braille reading strategies relate to t (for a comprehensive r Friedrich, 1979). Reading models. visual reading hypothe: attention, being triggt Button-up processing fl andthat features (e.g. :2terial. The represer of letters or words are is a linear one where p on information received aodel have been propose and LaBerge and Samuels level analyses are depe Second, the knowle information at a lower one. Reading thus cou] Previous knowledge and Particular hypotheses. and compared vary from and words (Smith, 1971‘ vated early in the real driven reading advocat from visual or phoneti on the role of attenti mining the expectat ior 47 strategies relate to these models and to hemispheric processing (for a comprehensive review of the visual reading literature, see Friedrich, 1979). Reading models. First, the data—driven or bottom—up models of visual reading hypothesize processes that require little conscious attention, being triggered automatically by the arrival of information. Bottom—up processing further assumes that information is read serially and that features (e.g., letters) are extracted from the written material. The representations are matched in memory and combinations of letters or words are processed for meaning. Generally this process is a linear one where processing at each stage is completely dependent on information received from a previous stage. Variations of this model have been proposed by Gough (1972), Massaro (1975), Johnson (1977) and LaBerge and Samuels (1974, 1977), among others, but basically high level analyses are dependent on lower levels. Second, the knowledge—driven or top-down model assumes that information at a lower stage is influenced by the outcome of a higher one. Reading thus could be considered a guessing game derived from previous knowledge and driven by conceptual hypotheses that select particular hypotheses. The level at which expectations are generated and compared vary from letters (Hochberg, 1970) and letter clusters and words (Smith, 1971) to semantic and syntactic cues that are acti— vated early in the reading (Kolers, 1975b). There are also knowledge— driven reading advocates who emphasize that direct decoding is possible from visual or phonetic information (Goodman, 1970), and that focusing on the role of attention during a particular type of reading for deter- mining the expectations and hypotheses necessary for comprehension fi (e.g., skinning or scar Finally, reading I (letter, 1978; Estes, ] that several processes level (e.g., top-down 2 tend to depart from the driven and knowledge—d1 of processing is still any issues that need 1 Friedrich (1979) makes interaction of bottom-1 interfere with the ava‘ case of the active sea: access. Even though t1 braille reading has al: pattern recognition 3.114 suggests that it may bi reader is functioning ‘ tions of either a bott some stages in the res stage, lexical access Which implies bottom—u and information about might benefit from m“ formed by top—down pr matching process ing c Williamson et al. '5 ( 48 (e.g., skimming or scanning) may be important (Hochberg, 1970). Finally, reading theorists who have proposed interactive models (Becker, 1978; Estes, 1977; Morton, 1969; Rumelhart, 1978) imply that several processes can be conducted concurrently at any given level (e.g., top-down and bottom—up). However, because these models tend to depart from the traditional linear orientation of the data- driven and knowledge—driven models, the interaction of both types of processing is still relatively unclear. Consequently, there are many issues that need further research and investigation. For example, Friedrich (1979) makes the point that it is not clear whether the interaction of bottom—up and top—down processes will facilitate or interfere with the availability of information, particularly in the case of the active search and matching processing involved in lexical access. Even though the issue of facilitation and interference in braille reading has already been discussed in relation to haptic pattern recognition and stimulus decay, Friedrich's (1979) point suggests that it may be important to determine at what code level the reader is functioning before one can determine the relative contribu~ tions of either a bottom—up or top—down process. For instance, at some stages in the reading process, particularly at the beginning stage, lexical access may be facilitated by rapid tactual code matches which implies bottom—up processing. But as the reader gains experience and information about the orthographic rules, the matching process might benefit from prior search procedures which might best be per— formed by top—down processing. The number of possible search and matching processing combinations appears to be unlimited. However, Williamson et al.'s (1976) finding that braille readers tend to rely fi onphonetic codes durir semantic dodes, is won interaction of both 130‘ afairly consistent pa' using the tactual-ortht senantic meanings, wha codes or use of phenol. One function alrev codes allow readers to rules to hpothesize no altries but about phon primarily bottom—up ' s encoding might not inv phonological strategy ' differences between wo same, or such a phonol whether irregular word certain letters, sound telephone, or the diff Another viewpoint matching is predomina rather than right hem' that the possibility matching strategy for expectations about 1e order and semantic ef at the semantic level r== r" w" 49 on phonetic codes during reading, perhaps more than grammatical or semantic dodes, is worth re—examining because it suggests that the interaction of both bottom—up and top-down processes may lead to a fairly consistent pattern. That is, if a reader is not primarily using the tactual—orthography or tactual codes to gain access to semantic meanings, what function would attending to phonological codes or use of phonological strategy have in reading? One function already implied earlier suggest that phonological codes allow readers to use their knowledge of spelling—to—sound rules to hpothesize not only about corresponding tactually coded entries but about phonological entries as well. In this case, the primarily bottom—up 'search' process leading to faster phonological encoding might not involve access to words and letters Via a bottom—up phonological strategy might be a reliable source for distinguishing differences between words that feel similar but do not sound the same, or such a phonological strategy might be used for determining whether irregular words or combinations of configurations match certain letters, sounds, or letter clusters (e.g., the “f” sound in telephone, or the differences between the word "reugh" and "though")t Another viewpoint that should be considered is that phonological matching is predominately a verbal strategy characterized by left rather than right hemispheric processing. The implication here is that the possibility exists, when a reader is using a phonological matching strategy for his searching process, to generate also eXpectations about letter probabilities that influence future word order and semantic effects on word recognition. Thus, processing at the semantic level would modify, from a top—down perspective, fi the matching strategies level (Rumelhart, 1977} active processing apprr lexical access because andlluddy, 1974) and 31 and letter code levels Skilled and advanced r both bottom—up and top strategy. Although th strategy seems more ef bottom-up or top—down by left hemisphere pro was inclined to use mo nay prefer to do the a 1947; Kusajima, 1981; an interactive approac interference effects, the matching and searc Several studies 1 at beginning stages 01 code access, produces off (Rudel et a1. , 19 On one hand, the spec inability to make acc knowledge about lette on the other hand, th the necessary informa 50 the matching strategies being performed at the word or letter level (Rumelhart, 1977). This would suggest the use of an inter— active processing approach, where processing meaning facilitates lexical access because of semantic related ness (Meyer, Schvaneveldt, and Ruddy, 1974) and also facilitates matching and searching at word and letter code levels as well (e.g., Marcel, Katz, Smith, 1974). Skilled and advanced readers must eventually learn how to integrate both bottom—up and top-down processes using an interactive processing strategy. Although the interaction of both processes for such a strategy seems more effiient than, for example, using a purely bottom—up or top-down model, a phonological strategy characterized by left hemisphere processing w0uld not only imply that the reader was inclined to use more top—down processing, but that the reader may prefer to do the actual reading with his right hand (Fertsch, 1947; Kusajima, 1981; Maxfield, 1928). However, attempts at using an interactive approach unde these circumstances could lead to interference effects, since the word and letter codes that facilitate the matching and searching process may not be adequately represented. Several studies have found that a right hand approach, particularly at beginning stages of reading, though providing faster letter or word code access, produces more errors indicative of a speed/accuracy trade— off (Rudel et al., 1974; Hermelin and O‘Connor, 1971a; Wilkinson, 1978). On one hand, the speed/accuracy trade—off may result from the reader‘s inability to make accurate guesses about words based on his limited knowledge about letter probabilities at this stage of reading. However, on the other hand, the phonological strategy itself may not provide the necessary information for accessing the internal lexicon (e.g., fi additional right hemisp Speculations abou1 prove to be detrimental facilitative of others‘ between poor “right hax preferring" readers. 1 mphonological stratep night use a phonologica spelling of a word is 1 entries but is more de] process. He suspects l orthographic entries av any to make correction: entries. however, morn accurate and silent 1e fails because the poor are likely to be inacc reader's. These issue braille words for reca efficient tactual cod 1’. Process at this level influences the choice may suggest why one h over another. Phonolo ical and relatively few studie determine how braille 51 additional right hemispheric or tactual code processing is needed). Speculations about why a right hand phonological strategy might prove to be detrimental to the reading process of some readers, and facilitative of others', might be resolved by exploring the differences between poor ”right hand preferring" readers and good "right hand preferring" readers. As ehen comparing poor and good visual readers on phonological strategies, Barron (1980) suggests that poor readers might use a phonological strategy for eading because the actual spelling of a word is not directly based on visual—orthographic entries but is more dependent on spellings compared during a checking process. He suspects by checking word spellings against their visual- orthographic entries and then finding the inaccurate spellings is one way to make corrections without totally depending on visual—orthographic entries. however, more poor than good readers produce phonologically accurate and silent letter omission errors when the checking process fails because the poor reader's Visual (tactual) orthographic entries are likely to be inaccurate and generally less adequate than the good reader's. These issues need further study, for in the case of decoding braille words for recall, it may be difficult to distinguish a less efficient tactual coding process from an inadeuate phonological coding process at this level of reading skill. How the reader's skill influences the choice of tactual—orthographic and phonological codes may suggest why one hand or type of processing strategy is preferred over another. Phonological and tactual encoding by the blind. There are relatively few studies using blind subjects that have attempted to determine how braille reading skills relate to the acquisition of fi phonological and tactual that Millar (1978) did d hada detrimental effect facilitated recall by sl ficantly related to she] (1977) found that tactu: recoding can be done. 1 the relative influence ‘ skills. Two earlier st variables. In the first study blind children were tee varying in set sizes (2 types of letter codes 1 In this experiment the Similar in feel but di: similar in name sound ' letters dissimilar in comparison list which and tactual coding. 1“. 0r tactual items coul features resulted in The results indicated skill and the recall Phonological encod ing of larger set sizes ( size five showed bot 52 phonological and tactual cues during the encoding process. Recall that Millar (1978) did demonstrate that grouping shapes and letters had a detrimental effect on the recall of less skilled namers but facilitated recall by skilled namers and that this effect was signi— ficantly related to short—term tactual recall skills. Also, Millar (1977) found that tactual features may be processed before verbal recoding can be done. However, neither of Millar's studies compared the relative influence of phonological and tactual coding on reading skills. Two earlier studies by Millar (19753, 1975b) examined these variables. In the first study (Millar, 1975a), three— to ten— year old blind children were tested using lists of successive braille letters varying in set sizes (2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 letters per list) and three types of letter codes to compare tactual and phonological processing. In this experiment the three serial lists consisted of: (1) letters similar in feel but dissimilar in name sound (T—type list), (2) letters similar in name sound but dissimilar in feel (P—type list), and (3) letters dissimilar in both name sound and feel (H—type list) as a comparison list which theorectically would require both phonological and tactual coding. Millar assumed that the encoding of phonological or tactual items c0uld be determined if either phonological or factual features resulted in interference during recall at a given set size. The results indicated that tactual encoding was associated with less skill and the recall of smaller set sizes (2 or 3 items), whereas phonological encoding was more evident for skilled readers with recall of larger set sizes (5 and 6 items). Also, subjects tested at set Size five showed both tactual and phonological decrements. Further SUPPOrt f0] inrelatioo to serial re asecond study (Millar. irasuere used, but Vi asskill increased ther he objects tactual P3 at the names assigned focused on the phonolog recoding facilitates mc assnzed that a skilled of automatic recover: z filth are subject to a‘ see processes which c decay as a function of isllillar (1975a) note and phonological—-on t change over from a StI tactual patterns to a and tactual processing Presented Stimuli may the lexicon in long—tn t actual orthographic ‘ Pos W K .. osaJlma (1971,), by t Stage of - readlng, bot is . , both index fringe] P16811111 ably, both fins 53 Further support for a modality—specific encoding strategy varying in relation to serial recall span and skill level was also found in a second study (Millar, 1975b). This time, only objects for recall items were used, but with the same assumptions and list types. Again, as skill increased there appeared to be a change from attending to the objects' tactual patterns, to processing both tactual patterns and the names assigned to the objects, so that attention could be focused on the phonological aspects of the objects. Since verbal recoding facilitates more efficient tactual recall, it could be assumed that a skilled reader's ability to recode is a function of automatic recovery and long—term storage of tactual features which are subject to attentional control but not subject to the same processes which control short—term verbal recall (e.g., rapid decay as a function of identifying successive tactual features), As Millar (1975a) notes, finding both types of decrements——tactual and phonological——on the five item recall set size may imply a change over from a strategy where the reader primarily processes tactual patterns to a strategy that incorporates both phonological and tactual processing as skill improves, verbal recoding of tactually presented stimuli may result from either a direct tactual access to the lexicon in long-term storage or from phonological access to a tactual orthographic mechanism, both processes being equally effective. Possible interference effects in braille reading. According to Kusajima (1974), by the time the braille reader reaches the intermediate stage of reading, both hands are involved in the reading process. That is, both index fingers, pressed together lightly, move across the line, Presumably, both fingers obtain information about the braille message. ltthis stage, We migh‘ gmological and tactual though, that as the rea aJEueQUate level 0f pr along and/or one hand j szrategj: that $32895” lugital and tactual fur Lineage in hand reading is focused on making m responds when one heni: This possibility as skill increases, mu sphere bf: virtue of th timed earlier, those to read with their rig errors as a consequenc Stratew- Although S( from inadequate or in; inmemory) higher lev: Searching process do and attention process the decay rate of bra aset of codes for pr or control HeCEssary Pattern for further I at is during advam i . Vided between the . 54 At this stage, one might begin to assume that the reader is using both phonological and tactual codes to process braille. Kusajima adds, though, that as the reader becomes more competent, both hands reach an adequate level of proficiency and one hand eventually stops reading along and/or one hand just keeps the reader's place on the page, a strategy that suggests that one hemisphere is performing both phono— logical and tactual functions. One factor that may contribute to the change in hand reading style is how the reader's attention, once it is focused on making more complex grammatical and semantic decision, responds when one hemisphere is performing most of the reading. This possibility is raised primarily because it implies that as skill increases, much of the processing is limited to one hemi— sphere by virtue of the one—hand reading style. However, as men— tioned earlier, those less skilled or beginning readers who prefer to read with their right hand tended to produce speed/accuracy errors as a consequence of the preference for such a processing strategy. Although some of the processing difficulties may result from inadequate or inaccurate tactual and phonological codes stored in memory, higher level cognitive problems during the matching and searching process do occur as a result of the internal activation and attention process. To return to an issue raised earlier about the decay rate of braille, the ability to deploy attention across a set of codes for processing should be related to the rehearsal or control necessary for the reader to recognize and recode the Pattern for further processing. When processing is lateralized, that is during advanced one—hand reading, attention is often divided between the motor and the cognitive (i.e., rehearsal) iII______________________________________________l aczivit':. Under such c hoveazanc, and Rubinst Since research evi Stura and Archibald, l "'1 Va 1:, it is suspect .’ (in (I) “A 211:; can be directed t for a response, the Pl“ (Green and Well, 1977) oration in the perform of the opposite hemist and Cox (1976) suggest Stimulus is also impo: m . . emery actiVities, se' 0i presentation inte’f‘ studies by Hicks (197 and Kinura (1976, and concurrent verbal act hand, but not the lef WOUId become a proble the reading materials as a function of the' l 55 activity. Under such circumstances, forgetting or loss of information may be a matter of interference effects during the verbal task (Hicks, Provenzano, and Rubinstein, 1975). Since research evidence (Gardner, 1942; Ingram, 1975; B011, 1975; Kimura and Archibald, 1974) has suggested that bilateral control over different types of bi—manual motor activities distinguishes the two hemispheres along similar lines as in the auditory and visual modalities (i.e., the right hemisphere controls the kinesthetic processing of sen— sations used in regulating spatial movements; the left hemisphere con— trols repetitive, sequential movement processing with the hands and fingers, it is suspected that the amount of attention or stimulation that can be directed toward the neural structures of a given hemisphere for a response, the processing demand may exceed its available rescurces (Green and Well, 1977), thus causing a processing overload and a deteri— oration in the performance of the hemisphere relative to the performance of the opposite hemisphere. Hellige, Cox, and Litvac (1979) and Hellige and Cox (1976) suggest that question of which hemisphere receives the stimulus is also important because, especially during concurrent verbal memory activities, selective hemispheric activation and the hemisphere 0f presentation interact to produce a laterality pattern. Moreover, studies by Hicks (1975), Hicks, Provenzano and Rubinstein (1975), Lomas and Kimura (1976, and McFarland and Ashton (1975), have shown that a concurrent verbal activity will disrupt the motor activity of the right hand, but not the left. It would appear that these circumstances would become a problem for even advanced right preferring readers when the reading materials becomes difficult relative to their skill level as a function of their resources capacity. '{nen evaluating ca cognitive activity, USU cases, the primary task task or probe stimulus Ejiicks (1973), hicks, ma (i976), and “C“ Biateral disruption ft :cre consi‘tently when cf interference differs ltitetions in process hazisp’neric processing interference effects c. that are functionally 1978) as well as from processing. It is not clear w this We of motor act task- One possibility °°ntralatera1 manual a With the ipsilateral n tiVity or a dagradatir One hand takes a less as the demand for int. and meaning, In Summary, the re assumed to Operat hih ger cognitivg Oper 56 When evaluating capacity demand from motor performance or cognitive activity, usually a dual task paradigm is used. In these cases, the primary task is a discrete movement and the secondary task or probe stimulus is a discrete response. For example, studies by Hicks (1975), Hicks, Provenzano and Rubinstein (1975), Lomas and Kimura (1976), and McFarland and Ashton (1978) demonstrated that bilateral disruption for motor actions near in cerebral space occurs more consistently when using a concurrent verbal task. This pattern of interference differs from the capacity modes suggested, since limitations in processing appear to be more related to structural hemispheric processing than rescurce capacity. In other words, interference effects can arise from vocal and/or manual responses that are functionally close in cerebral space (Kinsbourne and Hicks, 1978) as well as from an overload of information being stored during processing. It is not clear why there should be two different results for this type of motor activity (tapping) when using a concurrent verbal task. One possibility is that increases in errors or time on the contralateral manual activity, without increases in errors or time with the ipsilateral manual activity, may indicate a loss in sensi- tivity or a degradation in the memory load might help explain why One hand takes a lesser role in facilitating the cognitive process as the demand for integration of the material shifts to comprehension and meaning. In summary, the preceding section has described how reading models are assumed to operate on stimulus input to transform the codes into higher cognitive operations. The activation of the appropriate codes memertaCtual or phc thetouent, and the he fetter case, when the faihtate ProceSSin; to occur as an autorrai :cre difficult and is divided between motor of code to higher COS; :1 the he2i5pheres' r processing because th in cerebral space. R to processing interfe iepends on the role 0 Contributions of the Four experiments hand use and hand pre Strategies used to re letters, words, and s “’35 on the relation 1 iSSumed that both kl] access, but that the systematically with readin8)and the lev these Changes is imp understanding of bra tion ’ More SPEcific exDer imth 3 57 whether tactual or phonological depends on the attention deployed at the moment, and the hemisphere performing the processing. In the former case, when the codes are familiar patterns attention may facilitate processing as in skilled reading, and this may appear to occur as an automatic process. However, when processing becomes more difficult and is restricted to one hemisphere, attention may be divided between motor and cognitive activities, as when the transfer of code to higher cognitive levels is limited by the capacity demand on the hemispheres' resources or when there is interference during processing because the Operating hemispheric mechanisms are too close in cerebral space. Regardless of which explanation actually applies to processing interferences, the disruption of cognitive processing depends on the role of attention during the reading process. Contributions of the Current Study Four experiments were carried out to address the influence of hand use and hand preference as factors in the development of encoding strategies used to read combinations of dot configuration, i.e., letters, words, and sentences. The general focus of these experiments was on the relation between tactual and phonological coding. It is assumed that both kinds of coding can serve as a means of lexical access, but that their relative efficiencies and dominance vary systematically with the hand used to read, the hand preferred for reading, and the level of reading skill. Documenting the nature of these changes is important both to the further development of an understanding of braille reading and the practice of braille instruc- tion. More specifically, four goals were pursued in the four experiments. First, it was hope some question of ham braille characters. AZ letters are initially i of iezcers is highly 1‘ c: processing that fee ccnzignrations, the ef and phonologically cor [Othe recall of tactr different set sizes ar the kind of code——tac neno v T) performance. (if hand USe, hand pre some conclusions to b be used during readin Third, the natur and hand preference c blind subjects, where and same~different d6 distinguish and hard- Dre . sentatlon 0f pa. In th equestion of wh et‘ 58 First, it was hoped that clearer evidence would appear bearing on the question of hand preference during the recognition of individual braille characters. Although it is generally concluded that braille letters are initially treated as spatial stimuli and the recognition of letters is highly influenced by the reader's preferred hand, sugges— tions of hand differences in the degree of right and left hemisphere specialization for letter processing warrant further study. Second, considering that hand preference is a major determinant of the type of processing that facilitates the encoding and decoding of braille configurations, the effect of tactual and phonological features of braille words on recall is still unclear. It was hoped that evidence w0uld be obtained bearing on the question of how recall of tactually and phonologically confusable braille words were impaired relative to the recall of tactually and phonologically dissimilar words at different set sizes and skill levels. Such evidence would expose the kind of code——tactual or phonological——being used to support memory performance. Also, examination of this evidence as a function 0f hand use, hand preference, and braille reading skill would allow same conclusions to be drawn abOut coding strategies that might be used during reading. Third, the nature of hemispheric specialization differences and hand preference on complex tasks has not been investigated with blind subjects, where pairs of items are presented simultaneously and same—different decisions are made for orthographically easy—to— distinguish and hard-to—distinguish letters. During the simultaneous presentation of paired items, it was hoped that evidence bearing on the question of whether comparisons can be made on the level of tactual a 1 feature codes or at ’ h Tactual and net: natc bcreases. Sucn Chang strategies could barf: 2 cozere'nension. SiciPen' n .,c ..L: :ade earlier 1. In an experir predicted th; demonstrate ; fying single two reasons. providing th right hemisp cessing time Since hand p reading spee that a left adVantage, “111 predict as Well. pk 59 feature codes or at a higher name feature code. Differences between tactual and name match times as a function of hand use, hand preference, and braille reading skill could serve as converging questions on code formation processes and strategies. Finally, it was hoped that more evidence would be generated bearing on the question of how hand preference and the implied hemispheric processing mode might change as verbal memory demand increases. Such changes might suggest ways in which encoding strategies could bary as a function of processing demands during reading comprehension. The following predicitons were made based on the theoretical arguments made earlier and the goals just enumerated. The predictions were: 1. In an experiment on braille letter identification, it was predicted that left hand preference braille readers will demonstrate a significant left hand advantage, when identi— fying single braille letters. This finding is expected for two reasons. First, during letter recognition the hand providing the most direct access to the tactual-spatial right hemisphere should demonstrate an advantage in pro— cessing time and in the number of errors made. Second, since hand preference has been shown to strongly influence reading speed and hemispheric processing, it is likely that a left hand preference will facilitate the hand advantage. It is also likely that the laterality pattern will predict a left hand advantage for right preferrers as well. However, since hand preference has been shown I\J to interact in 1978), it is L advantage will Moreover, it hand preferrir therefore, be In an exper in recall of pho ,. D) rwill be Sl of phonologic hand preferri several reasc performance c (poor or slon have difficul codes either influences n for the recai cOdes are no forgotten. use a modali hand preferr- decrements 1 1readers use 1mg. it is r 60 to interact with the laterality pattern (e.g., Wilkinson, 1978), it is unclear whether a left hand or a right hand advantage will appear for right preferring readers. Moreover, it is likely that reading skill affects right hand preferring readers in addition to preference. Therefore, before predictions about right preferrers will be made, the influence of reading skill will be explored for both preference groups. In an experiment on word recall, it is predicted that the recall of phonologically similar braille words (word type P) will be significantly impaired relative to the recall of phonologically dissimilar words for unskilled right hand preferring readers. This prediction is made for several reasons. First, previous comparisons of the performance of skilled (good or fast) and unskilled (poor or slow) readers sh0w that readers with less skill have difficulty maintaining knowledge of the haptic memory codes either tactual or phonological and that the deficit influences recall. This result is especially the case for the recall of tactual features because if the tactual codes are not renamed for possible rehearsal they are forgotten. Less skilled readers, who are presumed to use a modality specific encoding strategy, such as right hand preferring readers have also been shown to demonstrate decrements in processing the braille code. If unskilled readers use a verbal or phonological strategy during read— ing, it is proposed that since their attention is focused 4_\ on phonologic; h:pnonolog1c sizilar words right hand pr that the reca type T) will recall of tar left hand pr( tactual enco( tactually 51, attEmPts at reveal a dif 1“ light of readers and with the use Strategies , will adSquat Codes. Cons diffErEnces Skilled reaa 61 on phonological codes, they are likely to be most confused by phonologically similar words as opposed to tactually similar words. This would not be the case with skilled right hand preferring readers, who should be capable of attending to both phonological and tactual features of the code without deficits in processing (Millar, 1975a, 1975b; Barron, 1980). The modality specific assumption was extended to address the performance of unskilled left hand preferring readers, who are presumed to use a tactual rather than a phonological strategy for encoding words. Similarly, it is predicted that the recall of tactually similar braille words (word type T) will be significantly impaired relative to the recall of tactually dissimilar words for less skilled left hand preferring readers. Since a tendency to use tactual encoding is associated with less skill, encoding tactually similar words should be more difficult and attempts at recalling the word codes from memory should reveal a difference. In light of the differences between skilled and unskilled readers and the fact that skilled reading is associated with the use of both tactual and phonological encoding strategies, it is predicted that only the skilled readers will adequately encode tactual as well as phonological codes. Consequently, there should be no significant differences in the recall of T- and P—type words for skilled readers. u‘ o\ )fillar (1975a recall Of 11V the number 0 si:ilar soun cularly for the stimulus left henisph on the encoc should be ir deficit. C< of phonolog preferring to recall 0 size 6. The literar that tactua the letter( the reader rEduces th. and discrh Possible, 0r Semanti Millar (1975a, 1975b) noted that as skill increased, the recall of five phonological or tactual items diminished in both types of processing. She proposed that this may have resulted from a "change—over" from primarily tactual to phonological processing. That is, as serial recall span increased, phonological processing should become more characteristic of skilled reading. However, as the number of items to be recalled increases, encoding similar sounding words should be more difficult, parti— cularly for right preferring readers, who are receiving the stimulus and controlling the task response via the left hemisphere. In this case, where attention is focused on the encoding of phonologically similar words, there should be indications of interference in terms of recall deficit. Consequently, it is predicted that the recall of phon010gically similar words by skilled right hand preferring readers will be significantly impaired relative to recall of skilled left hand preferring readers on set size 6. The literature on the acquisition of braille revealed that tactual codes were probably processed first before the letter(s) were renamed for further processing. As the reader becomes more familiar with tactual codes, he reduces the amount of direct attention focused on them and discrimination of other features of the pattern are possible, e.g., processing phonological, grammatical, or semantic codes. Consequently, recognizing well—learned or easy to dl should pose f and finer dis etter featur to hand prete recognizing left hemisph. that a signi hard (same—d for left han The literatu for reading in the effic reviewed has hemispheric quately as d difficult, e becomes impo aCthity are 103d increag Therefore, j and motor ac a Paragraph_ difficulty 1 63 or easy to distinguish tactual letters by both hands should pose few difficulties for the braille reader. However, as tactual—orthography becomes more difficult and finer discriminations are required, processing letter features should vary differentially according to hand preference and skill. In addition, a preference for processing tactual codes through the tactual—spatial right hemisphere should prove to be more efficient for recognizing featural differences than a preference for left hemispheric processing. Therefore, it was predicted that a significant left hand advantage for discriminating hard (same—different) letter pairs would be demonstrated for left hand preferring readers. The literature suggests that selection of a hand preference for reading braille is an important and crucial variable in the efficiency of processing of braille. The literature reviewed has not revealed whether preference for a particular hemispheric process will continue to serve the reader ade— quately as demands on the memory processes become more difficult, expecially as skill increases. This issue becomes important when both the cognitive and the motor activity are controlled by the same hemisphere. As memory load increases, interference in functioning might be expected. Therefore, it was predicted that during a concurrent verbal and motor activity task-~remembering digits while reading a paragraph—-right preferring readers would have more difficulty reading than left preferrers. That is, right preferring re hand advantag in memory set their prefere reading and t readers . Hoe be demonstra hemisphere c this level 0 interference Rationale for Using tl There are a varie However, the techniqm fingers to move across fingertips although 8‘ In an experiment reading to the normal (1964) found that the and made fewer errors the differences to th fingers and the great middle and index fing 1971b) found that bra fingers and adequatel asymmetry effects wer fingers. It could be con 64 preferring readers would demonstrate a significant right hand advantage, for reading paragraphs during the increase in memory set size 0— to 4— digits, primarily because their preference for verbal processing should facilitate reading and this hould be true particularly for skilled readers. However, the right hand advantage should not be demonstrated during the 6—digit memory set because the hemisphere controlling both verbal and motor activity at this level of memory load would be expected to show interference effects. Rationale for Using the Middle Finger There are a variety of methods of teaching braille reading. However, the technique most frequently used requires the two index fingers to move across a line of braille type together. The remaining fingertips although available are generally not used. In an experiment to determine the amount of transfer of braille reading to the normally unused fingers (excluding the thumbs), Foulke (1964) found that the middle finger took significantly less time and made fewer errors than the ring or little fingers. He attributed the differences to the musculature associated with the ring and little fingers and the greater degree of control and manipulation in the middle and index fingers. In addition, Hermelin and O'Connor (1971a, 1971b) found that braille readers were able to use their middle fingers and adequately comprehend the material. More importantly, aSymmetry effects were stronger for the middle fingers than the index fingers. It could be concluded that middle fingers will serve as an adequate substitute f tired middle fingers performance than the fingers will more the two hemispheres by mi to past reading exper 65 adequate substitute for the index fingers and the relatively unprac— ticed middle fingers will make slightly more errors and be slower in performance than the index fingers. But using the unpracticed middle fingers will more clearly indicate the functional asymmetry of the two hemispheres by minimizing the effects of finger sensitivity due to past reading experience. Ellie The sample consi 29 females, who had b and who used braille of the 63 subjects we ranging in age from 1 five state residentia lllinois, Indiana, 0h main grades 5 — 12. and 10 females, who be years of life, partic: {rm-.19 to 70, and thu University Office of l of the Blind, Inc. SI dation, I.Q.'s below i included in the sampl The Handedness in Appendix A consist the Edinburgh Invento new items have been a to the blind. Histor of Blind contains ten items de acquisition of braill METHOD Subjects The sample consisted of 63 totally blind subjects, 34 males and 29 females, who had become blind within the first two years of life and who used braille as their primary means of reading. Forty—one of the 63 subjects were blind students, 22 males and 19 females ranging in age from 11 to 18 years old, and they were attending five state residential schools for the blind (state schools in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin). The students were in grades 5 — 12. Twenty—two adult volunteers, 12 males and 10 females, who had also become blind within the first two years of life, participated in the study. Their ages ranged from 19 to 70, and they were recruited through the Michigan State University Office of Hndicapped Students and the Michigan Association of the Blind, Inc. Subjects with severe brain damage, mental retar— dation, I.Q.'s below 80, recent blindness, or whadow vision were not included in the sample. Materials The Handedness Questionnaire. The handedness questionnaire shown in Appendix A consists of 20 items. Twelve items were obtained from the Edinburgh Inventory for Handedness (Oldfield, 1971), and eight new items have been added to account for characteristics specific to the blind. History of Blindness. This questionnaire contained in Appendix B contains ten items designed to assess the history of blindness and the acquisition of braille reading skills. 66 consists of 10 word 1 high school (Slosson, by the subject‘s scor has been shown (She Gray Standardized Ora an adequate measure f of skill in reading w the SORT; a score two determined that a rea subject in the less 5 reader was at grade 1 and the reader was p1 Hand Preference braille paragraphs of graph was used to int observe his normal br jects, normal readin subjects then were 1 they could with the and to read a third used on the second p Which single hand he Point was identified study. The fourth p middle finger of the measure read ing s ki l 67 Slosson Oral Reading Test (SORT). The reading level measure consists of 10 word lists containing 20 words each from preschool to high school (Slosson, 1963). Level of reading skill was determined by the subject's score on this measure (see Appendix C). This test has been shown (Sherman, 1980) to have a .96 correlation with the Gray Standardized Oral Reading Paragraphs taest and, therefore, is an adequate measure for predicting overall reading ability. Level of skill in reading was determined by the grade score achieved on the SORT; a score two grades below normal age—grade reading level determined that a reader was below reading level and placed the subject in the less skilled category. A score indicating that the reader was at grade level or above determined adequate reading skills and the reader was placed in the skilled category (Lawrence, 1970). Hand Preference Pre—test. Each subject was asked to read five braille paragraphs of equal lengths and difficulty. The first para— graph was used to introduce the reader to the test situation and to observe his normal braille reading style. For a majority of the sub— jects, normal reading style was two—handed (both index fingers). The subjects then were instructed to read the second paragraph as well as they could with the index finger of either their right or left hand, and to read a third paragraph with the index finger of the hand not used on the second paragraph. After this, a reader was asked with which single hand he preferred to read. The hand nominated at this POint was identified as the preferred hand for the purposes of the Study. The fourth paragraph was used to measure reading skill with the middle finger of the preferred hand. The fifth paragraph was used to measure reading skill with the middle finger of the DOD-Preferred hand. to test speed and acc alett to right read were ten lists of 26 sheet of braille pape height and size, sinc Typewriter. The prac and eight experimenta top of the page to th the reader's normal r of errors when readin; The control and exper: There were no abbrevi. If a letter was I entered next to the m: for each column was in was timed separately. Word Recall Meas two, four, or six bra the word list was: (1 liSt), (2) phonologic (c) tactually similar (see Appendix E). Th 0f 98 nouns selected reported by Thorndike Vithin trials (maximu the words were fully 68 Single Letter Identification Measure. This measure was devised to test speed and accuracy of letter reading while controlling for a left to right reading and scanning bias (see Appendix D). There were ten lists of 26 randomized letters typed in braille on a standard sheet of braille paper (30 x 25 cm). The braille dots were of standard height and size, since they were transcribed using a Perkins Braille Typewriter. The practice list was horizontally arranged and the control and eight experimental lists were vertically arranged to read from the top of the page to the bottom. The control list was used to measure the reader's normal reading style (i.e., speed of reading and the number of errors when reading alphabet letters with the preferred index fingefi. The control and experimental lists included a total of 234 letters. There were no abbreviations or contractions on this measure. If a letter was misidentified, the letter given in its place was entered next to the missed letter. The number of misidentified letters for each column was indicated at the bottom of each column. Each column was timed separately. Word Recall Measure. Verbal recall on serial lists containing two, four, or six braille words were tested under conditions in which the word list was: (1) heterogenous in feel and in name sound (H—type liSt), (2) phonologically similar, but dissimilar in feel (P-type listL (C) tactually similar, but phonologically dissimilar (T—type list) (see Appendix E). The words used for the word recall measure consisted 0f 98 nouns selected from the 2,000 most frequently occuring words reported by Thorndike-Lorge (1944) and matched for number of syllables Within trials (maximum number of syllables per word was two). All of the words were fully spelled in Grade 1 braille and none of the words were repeated over th list. Order of admin balanced across subje given last to eaCh SE The braille do“ ILewords f0? each "'C if braille paper (30 letters fro: the Nola :ost frequently C0Dft tn'o lists--one easy, letters (E, V, N, 0, protion of the Nolan few other letters (i then and were random] (5 letters) group. 1 were taken frm the 1 these letters had mar Confused with them at same (5 letters) or ( easY‘different group been COnfused with 0] 0T their configuratir ters that had a spam 2Percent more time the Upper amd/or lef1 tr' “‘13 Per list tyP e 69 were repeated over the three memory set sizes for each word—type list. Order of administration of list types P and T were counter— balanced across subjects for each set size, while the H lsit was given last to each subject. The braille dots agaom were of standard height and size, and the words for each word—type list were typed on a standard sheet of braille paper (30 x 25 cm.) for presentation. Easy and Hard Same—Different Letter Matching Tasks. Twenty letters from the Nolan and Kederis (1969, pages 65—66) table of most frequently confused braille characters were chosen to make two lists——one easy, one hard—— of ten letters each. The easy letters (E, V, N, O, D, C, K, J, S, L) were taken from the lower protion of the Nolan and Kederis table as these letters had very few other letters (i = 1.2, o = 1.2; median = 1.5) confused with them and were randomly assigned to the same (5 letters) or different (5 letters) group. The hard letters (Q, R, T, P, Y, Z, M, W, G, F) were taken from the upper portion of the Nolan and Kederis table as these letters had many letters (2 = 3.9, o 1.4; median = 4.0) confused with them and these letters were randomly assigned to the same (5 letters) or different (5 letters) grOup. The letters in the easy—different group were paired with configurations that they had been confused with or that had a space in the bottom lower right or their configurations. Nolan and Kederis (1969) f0und that charac- ters that had a space in the bottom and/or right of the cell required 22 percent more time to be recognized, than characters with a space in the upper and/or left. Letters were randomly arranged among twelve trials per list type (easy, hard) and easy and hard lists were counter balanced across suhje differenct discrimina c‘f depleting each M So letter pairs were forsttulil- Six tr izset sizes 3, 4. 8T lea: affects reading. is: 9-3, for gradfls reading speed and acc usmg the Ages—HacCiI Wilkinson, 1978), i1 difficult to provide hensich. It was exp. the Paragraph readin; aPPmpriate index f0‘ task conditions for t was asked to read (f “digits, then to r digits. The seconda sentenCES long (16 X Four Words fOIlowed completed the last s The 24 Paragrap so that SUbjECts won difficulty with left transcribed by a b re r7 7O balanced across subjects (6 easy, 6 hard, 6 hard, 6 easy). Same— differenct discriminations were made by subjects on each trial. Speed of completing each list and number of errors per list were recorded. No letter pairs were repeated during the same trial (see Appendix G for stimuli). Six trials were typed on a sheet of braille paper. Concurrent Memory Measure —- Digits and Paragraphs. Random digits in set sizes 2, 4, and 6 were used to measure how increases in memory load affects reading. Prt I of the Gates MacGinitie Reading Test, Form D—2, for grades 4 — 6 was used to measure the dependent variables, reading speed and accuracy (See Appendix I). From a previous study using the Ages—MacGinitie Reading Test with a similar subject population l (Wilkinson, 1978), it was found that paragraph reading was sufficiently difficult to provide an accurate measure of reading speed and compre- hension. It was expected that rather than increase the complexity of the paragraph reading task, the same measure would provide an an appropriate index for measuring hemispheric asymmetries under dual task conditions for all subjects. On the primary task the subject was asked to read (for the purpose of later recall) a random set Of digits, then to read a braille paragraph, and then to recall the digits. The secondary task consisted of reading a paragraph of 2 — 3 sentences long (16 x 22 words). A total of 24 paragraphs were used. Four words followed each paragraph. One of the four words correctly COmpleted the last sentence which was either a statement or question. The 24 paragraphs in the concurrent memory task were distributed 80 that subjects would read paragraphs of an equivalent level of difficulty with left and right index fingers. Each paragraph was transcribed by a braille typist using appropriate braille abbreviations and co: sheet c Those u graph r the con M Tr Partici 1“ the Oral Re subject exPErim he Sub‘ the sUb‘ 71 and contractions. Two paragraphs were typed on one page, a standard sheet of braille paper (30 x 25 cm.). The line lengths approximated those used in braille reading classes. Data Record Sheets. Data coding sheets were designed to aid the recording of the data. The data coding sheet for the first experiment contained each of the alphabetical lists used with an area below each list to record the time and errors for each list (See Appendix D). A coding sheet for the braille letter matching experiment (see Appendix H) had rows of 10 same (S) and different (D) combinations which indi— cated the correct response for each letter pair (e.g., S, D, D, S, S, D, D, S, D, S). The word recall experiment had data recording sheets for each word type which paralled the word list that was to be read and recalled for each serial list of 2, 4, and 6 words (see Appendix F). Space was provided to record the trial by list type reading for time and errors. A data ceding sheet was provided for recording the para— graph reading timeS, digit errorS, and word errors at each level of the concurrent memory task (see Appendix J). Procedure Trained aides (five undergraduates: 1 male and 4 females) Participated as experimenters and assisted the principal experimenter in the administration of the questionnaires, preference test, Slosson Oral Reading Test (SORT), as well as the four experiments. Each subject was introduced to one of the experimenters by the principal experimenter. The subject sat opposite the experimenter, who aSked the subject the questions from both questionnaires and then gave the subject a test booklet containing the brailled copies of each 72 measure or test. The experimenter had a similar booklet containing the non—braille copies of the instruments and the appropriate instruc- tions for their administration. Subjects were tested during two sessions. In the first session the Handedness Questionnaire, the History of Blindness Questionnaire, the pre—test for preference, and the SORT were administered. Following the handedness and hand preference measures in which each subject was determined to be right or left handed and either a right— or left- preferrer for reading, the subjects were randomly assigned to an experimental condition indicating whether they started with their right or left hands on the Single Braille Letter Identification experiment and whether they started with the P-type or T—type word list of the Word Recall experiment. The second session began with the Easy, Hard, Same—Different, Paired Braille Letter experiment followed by the Concurrent Memory (Digits and Paragraphs) experiment. Experiment I. The experimenter began by giving the instructions for the Single Braille Letter Identification experiment (see Appendix K)- The experiment began with the subject reading the practice list. Then each subject was asked to read the control list in his normal reading style. After asking for questions, the experimenter stressed Speed and accuraCy and started the stop watch. When the experimenter said ”Begin", the subject began reading aloud. The time it took to read the list and the number of errors made were recorded. When the subject completed the control list, the experimenter gave the instructions for the eight experimental trails on which the middle fingers were to be used. After checking for questions about the instructions and which fingers were to be used, the experimenter Sit h After Words Examp, but d, the SI [811 l "blah left i Sublet sublet the Sa 73 indicated the appropriate middle finger to start with and reminded the subject to say the letters aloud and to read as fast and as accurately as possible. The experimenter stoped the subject after each trial and reminded him to say the letters aloud and to switch to the middle finger of his opposite hand. This procedure was the same for seven additional trials, a total of nine——one control and eight experimental trials. Experiment TI. Probed tactual word recognition and recall on serial lists containing braille words were tested under conditions in which the words within the list all came from one of the following three types: (1) different in feel and in name sound (H-type), (2) tactually similar, but phonologically dissimilar (T-type), and (3) phonologically similar, but dissimilar in feel (P—type). Words from a given list—type were presented serially in rows of two, four, and six words, and the subject read them with his preferred hand (finger). After a row of word was read, the subject was asked to recall the words in the row. Recognition times and errors were recorded. For example, words that fit into the set of words phonologically similar, but dissimilar in feel, such as "coal” and "bowl" would be read with the subject's left index finger and then the subject was asked to tell the experiment the words he could remember. Then words such as "brain", ”frame", "wane”, and ”reign" were read with the subject's left index finger and then he was asked to recall the words. The subject was then given six P—type words to read and recall. Two more trials of two, four, and six words were given, after which the subject was asked to read a second but different type of word with the same procedure. (In the above example, the P—type words were 74 followed by the T—type list of words.). The H—type words were always read as the third word list and these words were read with the same procedure. With the end of this experiment, the first session was over. Experiment III. The second session began with the third experiment and the experimenter began by giving instructions to the subject indi- cating that the following test was to determine how fast he would tell, whether two letters were the 'same' or 'different' (for instructions see Appendix M). A sample of a same pair and a different pair of letters (not the experimental letter pairs) was given, such as 'AA', 'BB' as same pairs and 'CD', 'EF' as different pairs. The subjects were given practice trials of 5 pairs of letters to identified with their right and left index fingers. Then they were asked to indicate aloud whether the two letters were the 'same' or 'different‘ as fast as possible. The subjects were instructed not to return to a letter pair that they had already identified. Following these instructions the subjects were asked if they had any questions. The subjects were then given control trials of two easy and two hard 10 letter pairs to identify with the index finger of each hand. Time and errors on each trial were recorded. After the control trials were read the experimenter had the subjects feel the sample pairs again but this time with their middle fingers. Following the re—identification of the sample pairs with the middle finger, the subject was given 24 trials of 10 randomly arranged pairs of letters that were read with the subject's middle fingers. An eaSY and a hard row of paired letters were read alternately for 6 trials. (For example, for six trials the subject started with the right middle finger for the first easy trial, followed by left middle fing or i] 75 finger on the first hard trial, followed by right middle finger on the second easy trial, followed by left middle finger on the second hard trial, followed by right middle finger on the third easy trial, followed by left middle finger on third hard trial.) Hand order and task diffi— culty (easy and hard) were counterbalanced. Experiment IV. Following the completion of the paired-letter same- different task the experimenter gave the instructions for the sample paragraphs of the reading test (see Appendix I). After the subject completed reading the first sample by reading the four words and giving the correct answer to the paragraph, the experimenter gave the instruc— tions for the recall of digits before the subject gave an answer for the second sample paragraph. The experimenter then gave the subject two numbers to remember and asked the subject to read the paragraph in his normal reading style and to say the numbers that he could remembers before he read the four words. Then the subject was asked to read the four words and give the word that best answered the para— graph. The experimenter then told the subject that he would be reading paragraphs aloud and some paragraphs had 0, 2, 4, or 6 digits that he must remember while reading the paragraphs with his left or right index finger. After the subject recalled the digits he thought had been presented, he was told to read the four words and to choose the word that best answered the paragraph. The experimenter read the digits at the rate of one per second and recorded the time taken by the subject to read from the beginning of the paragraph to the end Of the last sentence. The experimenter also recorded the number of digits the subject recalled and whether the subject gave the correct or incorrect word for the paragraph. 76 After the first f0ur paragraphs were completed with one index finger the subject was instructed to read the next four paragraphs with the index finger of the opposite hand. The subject was instructed to read aloud and recall digits according to trial. Each subject read 24 paragraphs (12 right and 12 left handed). The subject changed hands after ever two pages or every four paragraphs and the experimenter reminded the subject when to change fingers. Upon completion of the 24 paragraphs, the subject was thanked for his cooperation and was told that he had done a good job. RESULTS The data frOm 63 right-handed subjects as determined by the Handedness Questionnaire will be presented. The data from each of the four experiments were analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA, control— ling for three factors: hand preference, task order, and sex. Hand preference as determined by the hand preference pre—test indicated that 34 subjects preferred to read with their right hand and 29 pre- ferred to read with their left hand. Skill level as determined by the Slosson Oral Reading Test revealed that there were 52 skilled readers and 11 unskilled readers. Because of the distribution 03 subjects in both groups, chi—square tests of homogeneity were computed for differ- ences in the proportion of skilled and unskilled readers in each exper- iment for the variables hand preference, task order, sex and for the proportion of males and females in each hand preference group. In no instance did the proportion of subjects within each group differ significantly (see Appendix N). The analyses are based on the speed (time in seconds) and accuracy (number of errors) scores. The results from the single letter Identification task, Word Recall Task, Easy and Hard Same-Different Letter Matching tasks, and the Concurrent Memory: Digit—Paragraphs task are presented. Letter Identification Test Trials Time trials. To test for Hypothesis 1, left and right hand Performances in the reading of braille letters were compared by subtrac- ting the control reading time (index finger reading) from the mean read— ing time for each middle finger. The computed mean corrected—difference score for each hand was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA with hand preference, hand order, and sex as factors (see Appendix N). 77 l———7 78 A significant hand by preference interaction was found and the mean time scores for each cell of the hand by hand preference interaction are shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 Mean corrected—difference score times in seconds (mean middle finger reading time minus control time) for right and left hand reading during the letter identification task according to hand preference and hand used. HAND PREFERENCE HAND USED (middle finger) n Right Left t d.f. Right 34 14.94 19.21 1.31 33 Left 29 20.87 9.20 6.48* 28 *p< A priori contrasts (t—tests) were preformed on the difference scores between the left and right hand mean reading times for each hand preference group to evaluate the hand advantage effect for both hand preference conditions. The left hand reading time for the left preference group was significantly faster in comparison with their right hand reading times (t = 6.48, d.f. = 28, p < ~001)_ The contrasts between right and left hand reading time for the right Preference groups were not significant. Differences in reading skill were also computed using a repeated measures ANOVA with hand preference and skill as factors (see Appendix N). Significant hand by hand preference interaction was found (F = 11.46, d.f. = 1, 59, p < .001). However, no other significant 79 interactions were fOund indicating that skill level was not a significant factor in this task. Error scores. An error rate was also obtained by subtracting the mean number of trial errors for each hand from the control error rate. The repeated measures ANOVA analyzed the mean corrected— difference scores, controlling for hand preference, hand order, and sex (see Appendix N). A significant difference was found for a four-way interaction between errors per hand, hand preference, hand order, and sex (see Table 2.) TABLE 2 Mean corrected-difference errors per hand during the letter identi— fication task for right and left hand preference groups according to sex and hand testing order. RIGHT FIRST LEFT FIRST SEX HAND PREFERENCE n Right Left Right Left Right 17 2.60 3.08 1.25 1.28 Male Left 17 3.96 .71 1.72 1.28 1 Right 14 1.14 .71 1.09 2.16 Female Left 15 1.67 .79 1.84 .65 Figure 2 shows the mean scores for each hand for both male and female groups by hand order. The figure reveals that the number of errors made according to hand preferences across hand testing order Was different for male and female preference groups. :7.<: v.5: nu. v.0vv— Zn.— r. “~23 KHAIL L. h : lee: ...UB KEOHV ~4=w .QH namomuuzoo .MH macauanmam .NH wHwEfimomw .HH memoocmm .OH Susanom .m ucoaumaummnu .m Hafiuuoafipn .n maoaanauum .o EBHCOvacmm .m mcfiunfiusuoxw .q oHnfimmmunEOU .m N oanmmum . wwnm>flhu .H a umHA saunas .ON cog—cu . ma eusHmHu .ma wwwanowwnm .QH oocmumoaam .mH ucmum> .NH woman .HH ucmumwv .oa vmmzouow .m owmnsou .m maowuom .5 haunEoHa .o noaw>oc .m oucofiww .q n m H moxmau . ocean . mmocum: . q umHA i wovmwuowm .ON ucmpwnoxw .oH ucmamsuco: .wH uEmeuov:« .nH ucmewaanom .cH wu=m>wawuuw .mH wcfiummuucou .qH manoxwmfiwu .MH oumuwunou .NH Nongoveuum .HH voumH35h0u .OH wanawemuaw .m Hmcoaunoaona .w Hmofimfifizz .n sowcmuoeos .o unawawzu .m oovfiuan .q mowaoac .m ucovfi>m .N moauamua .H m umHJ i uoOuwuwvca .ou mwouxm .mH m50Hoaaov .mH woman: .NH monumov .oa Eyewuwo .mH ufisfiu .¢H damn .ma cocoa .NH cmwuo .HH madman .oH w>ouw .o occum .m zuaeo .~ Edwuum .o wmwcw>~ .m upmson .< :chm .m Initillll\lllllumc«mwm .N ammo .H m umflq hamsoscfiucoo cowxoaasou ounooawmoaeou >Ho>wucmuum humuonswucoo oumowuuaa uanMficfieoh vmumamcxm onqvuwvcmuw w>Hm=wn uumzwfiama wuauouuwsoum zuwfioom ouoEonunam maofiuumaucfi mfiwato ufiomuuuaaou acmecouw>cw uoswuu uuumfiuwacm .H n coaumum >>mmz um“; munoEflanHou .ON ucmvconm .mH vocwouuv .mH aomwcat .nH mucwHkuxu .oH mwuowavwmooo .mH huwcwwmfifi .qH moanhmuh .MH zuOucu>aH .Na Hmfloumuuwnm .HH m=0HoHHmE .OH mumEOumao .0 waouomeouu .m vfiseaa .5 wanwmooamwu .o vouuwwafi .m noHHHmauu a mafiUHqu .m N H wocmuuonaa . vUHHMumaa . m,um«u macaw .ON HHHfi .OH umou .wH voow .nH umxmmn .oH so“: .mH umkau .4H xumv .MH ucmsouoa «commune nowuwnan uaufivwno wcawov mHaduHmoun wmmauumfi onwmumucw acmuwmnw oncan wmamannn wumhuwu zuaewan maoaomuw mum; MOHHmu acumao cowswuxw aamoumcmm EOfinmou H H ox E D3 E m yuan mam: on m n: ma on hash 3H .om .aH .mH .NH .eH .mH .qa .MH .NA .HH .OH .3 .m .n .w .m .¢ .m .N .H umHA APPENDIX D APPENDIX D SINGLE LETTER IDENTIFICATION MEASURE Z>QHFH>