PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES IN INIRASENSGAII. Z _ ~ AND INIEASENSGNY INTEGRATION OFIAUDITORY ;§:;_3;;;;§_§g:g 5; AND VISUAL SIGNALS BY NORMAL AND DEFICIT fif}?ét: READERS i~ ' I : Dissertationfor the Degreeof PhD z , I ' MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY" MAUREEN IULIANNE LEVINE 1974 LA 4:3”? '23 E, s " LI.‘}_1/j a... & fig; .‘-.: ..-.. «M - ”ILL--37..” 0:3 {'9 V Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll\llllllllllll n ‘_ 3 1293 10519 3126 I»? Dams-SEE}! hp. !' -. v— This is to certify that the thesis entitled PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES IN INTRASENSORY AND INTERSENSORY INTEGRATION OF AUDITORY AND VISUAL SIGNALS BY NORMAL AND DEFICIT READERS presented by Maureen Julianne Levine has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. degree in Psychology cw PM 0/ j“)! ,, DateOctober 16, 1974 0-7 639 ABSTRACT PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES IN INTRASENSORY AND INTERSENSORY INTEGRATION OF AUDITORY AND VISUAL SIGNALS BY NORMAL AND DEFICIT READERS By Maureen Julianne Levine This study compared the psychophysiological para- meters of attention involved in the processing of bisensory memory tasks and their recall in groups of normal and defi- cit readers. The specific experimental predictions derived from the major hypotheses were tested using physiological measures. Differences among the physiological measures employed; the interactions of the modality characteristics of the tasks (auditory or visual) and the intersensory and intrasensory parameters of the tasks were observed in a set of eight experimental conditions. Auditory and visual stimulus pairs composed of digits one through nine, which incorporated variations of inter- sensory and intrasensory conditions were administered simu- taneously by means of a Bell and Howell language master. The same digits were not paired and the presentation was balanced using a Latin square design. Maureen Julianne Levine Eight experimental tasks (four intersensory and four intrasensory) which required paired and serial verbal recall with an alteration of the first recalled modality (auditory or visual) were used. Ten trials of each of the eight experi- mental conditions were given. Each trial was divided into three, six second periods, preperiod, stimulus presentation and recall. On each trial, three pairs of stimuli were presented two seconds apart during the stimulus period. Con- tinuous monitoring of cardiac activity and GSR responsivity was recorded on an E & M physiograph during the entire experiment. The §s were composed of l6 normal readers (NR), 16 primary reading deficit (PRD), and l6 secondary reading deficit (SRD). Operationally, primary and secondary reading deficit groups were established on the bases of performance on the Minnesota Percepto-Diagnostic Test (MPD), a standard- ized measure of visual motor performance. Both reading deficit groups, primary and secondary, read one or more grade levels below the standard expected fOr age and IQ. The independent variables used in the various experimental conditions were the following: reading classi- fication consisting of three reading groups, to which gs belonged, NR, PRD and SRD; the three experimental periods, preperiod, stimulus and recall; the eight tasks and five recall error types. The recall error scores, GSR, mean heart Maureen Julianne Levine rate, heart rate variability, heart rate deceleration and heart rate acceleration were the dependent variables. Magnitude and frequencies of heart rate deceleration in the normal reading group exceeded that of the reading" deficit groups. Differences in mean heart rateand heart rate acceleration measures among reading groups were not observed. Mean heart rate of the total sample was dependent on inter- action of the intersensory and'intrasensory‘parameters of the tasks. A decrease in heartrate variability was found to be consistent with proposed increase in "attentivity." Increased GSR activity was observed during the recall period. Since during this period a heart rate decrease occurred, it was interpreted that the GSR increase was a measure of cog- nitive activity. As expected, recall performance of the reading deficit groups was inferior to the normal reading group on all bisensory tasks. Recall performance between the reading deficit groups was found to differ for visual information processing and sequential recall with more errors for both observed in the secondary reading deficit group. A model composed of "attentivity" and "cognitive processes" factors is.proposed to explain the results obtained. Analyses of physiological and performance results indicate that the normal reading group can adjust the “atten- tivity" and "cognitive processing" factors to optimize the effectiveness of the stages in the total processing chain. Maureen Julianne Levine The primary reading deficit group appears to have difficulty with the "attentivity" factor. For the secondary reading deficit group, "overattending" which seems to cause a delay in effective cognitive activity along with defective visual information processing and sequential recall appears to be sources of their reading problems. PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES IN INTRASENSORY AND INTERSENSORY INTEGRATION OF AUDITORY AND VISUAL SIGNALS BY NORMAL AND DEFICIT READERS By Maureen Julianne Levine A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1974 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to Professor Hiram Fitzgerald for his continuing guidance from the begin- ning of the study to the final writing. Assistance with the statistical design was given by Professor William Crano. The computer programming was done by Mr. William Brown, an associate of the Stat System Pro- gramming Laboratory, at Michigan State University Computer Center. Ms. Lynn Glasscock, graduate student at Central Michigan University, assisted in the experimental aspects of the study as well as scoring the data. Mr. Robert Allers of Central Michigan Univeristy also assisted with the scoring of the data. Mr. Arthur Fredricks, electronic specialist at Cen- tral Michigan University, designed the instrumentation and kept it operating during the course of the study. Dr. Dianne Dolley and Dr. William Sleeper of Central Michigan University helped in obtaining the subjects. The personnel of the Fancher Reading Clinic, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan and Central Michigan University Reading Clinic facilitated the scheduling of the subjects. ii The stenographic assitance given by Ms. Jean Miller of Midland, Michigan, is gratefully appreciated. The members of my dissertation committee are espe- cially appreciated for their contribution to the profess sional quality of the final draft. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Sensory Integration in Normal Groups Visual-Kinesthetic Intrasensory and Intersensory Studies in Normal Groups . . Auditory and Visual Intrasensory and. Intersensory Studies in Normal Groups . . . Summary and Review . Sensory Integration in Reading Deficits Groups . . Visual and Kinesthetic Intersensory Study in Reading Deficit Groups Auditory and Visual Intrasensory and Intersensory Studies in Reading Deficit Groups . . . Summary and Review Physiological Measures of Sensory In- put . . . . . . . . . Implication . . Classification of Reading Deficit Groups . . . . Summary and Analysis II. METHOD . Subjects Reading Deficit Criteria . Reading Deficit Definition . . Classification of Reading Deficit Groups . . . . . . Normal Reading Group . iv Page KONG-h 15 17 20 20 23 32 32 35 36 36 Chapter Apparatus Stimuli Procedure . Physiological Methods Experimental Conditions Intersensory Tasks . Recall Order Conditions Intrasensory Visual Tasks Recall Order Conditions . Intrasensory Auditory Tasks Recall Order Conditions Design Independent Variables Dependent Variables Mean Heart Rate . Heart Rate Variability Heart Rate Deceleration . Heart Rate Acceleration GSR . . Errors . Data Analysis . Analysis of Variance . Simple Effects . Newman- Keuls Comparisons of Means t- Test . . . . Sign Test . Wilcoxon Matched- Pairs Test 111.. RESULTS . Heart Rate Measures . Heart Rate Variability Measures Heart Rate Deceleration Measures Heart Rate Acceleration Measures Galvanic Skin Response Measures Performance Measures . . IV. DISCUSSION Discussion of Physiological Responses Discussion of Performance Measures LIST OF REFERENCES 109 116 Table l. 2. LIST OF TABLES A summary of experimental hypotheses A statistical summary of the ages, and IQ of the reading classification group and for total sample . . . . . . . A summary of the analysis of variance of the mean heart rate as a function of reading classification, task and period A summary of the analysis of variance of the mean heart rate as a function of reading classification, task and period for inter- sensory data . . . . . . . . A summary of the analysis of variance of the mean heart rate as a function of reading classification, task and period for intra— sensory data . . . . . A summary of analysis of variance of the mean heart rate variability as a function of reading classification, task and period . . . . . . . . . A summary of the analysis of variance on the mean heart rate variability as a function of reading classification, task and period for intersensory data . . . . . . Newman-Keuls comparisons of mean heart rate variability of reading classifications across periods for intersensory data A summary of the analysis of variance on the mean heart rate variability as function of reading classification, task and period for intrasensory data . . . . . vi Page 31 34 52 54 55 57 60 60 61 Table Page 10. A summary of analysis of variance of heart rate deceleration as function of reading classification, task and period . . . . 65 11. A summary of analysis of variance on mean heart rate deceleration as function of read- ing classification, task and period for intersensory data . . . . . . . . . 67 12. A summary of analysis of variance on mean heart rate deceleration as function of read- ing classification, task and period for intrasensory data . . . . . . . . . 68 13. A summary of analysis of variance for mean heart rate acceleration as a function of reading classification,task and period . . 71 14. A summary of analysis of variance on mean GSR as function of reading classification, task and period . . . . . . . . . . 73 15. A summary of analysis of variance on mean GSR as function of reading classification, task and period for intrasensory data . . 76 16. A summary of analysis of variance on mean GSR as function of reading classification, task and period for intersensory data . . 76 17. A summary of analysis of variance on mean errors as function of reading classifica- tion, task and error type . . . . . . 80 18. Mean errors for reading classification, task and error type . . . . . . . . 81 19. A summary of analysis of variance on mean errors as a function of reading classifi- cation, task and error type for intrasensory data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 20. Mean errors for reading classification, task and error type for intrasensory data . 85 21. A summary of analysis of variance on mean errors as a function of reading classifica-' tion, task and error type for intersensory data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 ' O “0....A- ’- “94.”. n q._ .w H, ‘ .--'-" no ' ,O Table 22. 23. Page Mean errors for reading classification, task and error type on intersensory data . . . 88 Simple effects analysis of variance for intersensory tasks across error types for total sample . . . . . . . . . . . 92 viii Figure LIST OF FIGURES Diagrammatic illustration of four intersen- sory experimental conditions, V = visual;‘ A = auditory; PR = pair recall, LR linear recall; subscript l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 order of recall in LR and Pr . . . . Diagrammatic illustration of four intrasene sory experimental conditions, V = visual; A = auditory; PR = pair recall; LR linear recall; subscript l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 recall in LR and PR . . . . . . . . Mean heart rate for intrasensory and inter- sensory tasks as function of periods for total sample . . . . . The effect of tasks on the mean heart rate variability of the three reading classifi- cations . . . . . . . . . Mean heart rate variability for tasks across periods for total sample . Mean heart rate variability for intrasensory tasks across periods for total sample Mean heart rate deceleration (from minimum HR (bmp) in preperiod) for reading classifi- cation groups for total data (inter and intra) . . . . . . . . . Mean heart rate deceleration for intersen- sory and intrasensory tasks across periods from minimum HR (bpm) in preperiod Mean heart rate deceleration for intrasen- sory tasks across stimulus and recall period for total sample . ix Page 42 45 52 58 59 63 65 66 69 Figure Page 10. Mean GSR for reading classification groups across intersensory and intrasensory tasks . 74 ll. Mean GSR for intrasensory and intersensory tasks over preperiod, stimulus and recall periods for total sample . . . . . . . 75 12. Mean GSR for reading classification across intrasensory tasks . . . . . . . . . 77 13. Mean GSR for intrasensory tasks over pre- period, stimulus and recall periods . . . 78 14. Mean errors of reading classification groups across error types (gross, order and interchange) . . . . . . . . . . . 82 15. Mean error for intersensory and intrasensory ' tasks across error types (gross, order and interchange) . . . . . . . . . . 83 16. Mean errors for reading classification groups in intersensory and intrasensory tasks across error types (gross, order and interchange . . . . . . . . . . 86 17. Mean errors of reading classification groups across error types in intersensory tasks . 89 18. Mean errors for intersensory tasks across error types for total sample‘ . . . . . 90 19. Mean errors for deficit reading groups (primary and secondary) across error types on intersensory tasks . . . . . . . . 93 20. Mean error types for reading classification groups and total sample on intersensory and intrasensory pairing tasks . . . . . . 96 21. Mean error types for reading classification groups and total sample on intersensory and intrasensory linear tasks . . . . . . 97 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The inability of significant numbers of children to make adequate progress in educational programs has become a matter of increasing concern. Since reading is a basic learning skill many studies have been directed toward eluci- dating the psychological attributes characteristic of child- ren with reading deficits. The act of learning to read involves the integration of the perception of sound with the sight of printed words. Consequently, the understanding of intrasensory and intersensory modality integration is impor- tant if reading deficits are to be ameliorated. In review- ing the literature of sensory integration, findings with normal groups will be examined first and then the evidence of sensory integration in reading deficit groups will be reviewed. Sensory Integration in Normal Group§_ Visual-Kinesthetic Intra- Sensory and Intersensory Studies in Normal Groups Connolly and Jones (1970) compared the performance of SS ranging in age from 5 years 4 months to 11 years 1 month with a group of adults on intrasensory and intersen- sory matching tasks. Estimation of length of straight line was the task used in the following four conditions: visual- visual (V—V), kinesthetic-kinesthetic (K-K), visual-kines- thetic (V-K), and kinesthetic-visual (K-V). The kinesthetic measure was the drawing of the stimulus line by S5. Perform- ance scores decreased for the experimental conditions in the following order, V-V, K-K, K-V, V—K. For all experimental conditions performance improved with age. The asymmetrical intersensory results, i.e., K-V processing being better than V-K supports the model proposed by Connolly and Jones in which kinesthetic storage is less efficient than visual. In light of the fact that a drawing task was used the possibility exists that time estimation was a mediating variable, thereby the K-V condition would have provided more information than the V-K condition. The overall results confirm the observations of Pick, Pick and Klein (1967) and Blank and Bridger (1964). According to these authors inter- sensory discrimination is inferior to intrasensory perform- ance in normal groups. However, both intersensory and intra- sensory performance increases in accuracy with age. The findings reported by Rudel and Teuber (1964) conflict with the above studies in that intrasensory trans- fer in tactile tasks was found to be poorer than visual- tactile and tactile-visual performance in the normal group. The discrepancies may be related to the experimental designs of the respective studies as well as differences in tactile and kinesthetic processing as defined by respective authors. Further, Rudel and Teuber used three dimensional stimuli, whereas two dimensional stimuli were used in the other stud— ies. Doehring (1968) and Levine and Fuller (1972) used three dimensional stimuli to measure tactile performance. The reading deficit group in the latter studies were super— ior to normal reading group on tactile discrimination tasks. As noted by Connolly and Jones (1970) the "purely tactile as distinct from kinesthetic or haptic, processing may have diminishing significance for the normally developing child." An interesting postulate is that the significance of tactile stimulation may persist in reading deficit groups. However, Bakker (1966) proposed that children with reading deficits differ from normal readers not from a greater kinesthetic discriminative ability as much as a lower visual sensitivity. [Bakker's (1966) work will be discussed in greater detail later.] In an investigation of intersensory transfer of learning, Rasof (1968) found the order of accuracy for modal discrimination of form to be visual-visual, visual-haptic, haptic-visual, and haptic-haptic in groups of S5 four years- to eight years of age. These results confirm the dominance of visual systems found by Connolly and Jones (1970) as well as inferiority of tactile (haptic) systems reported by Rudel and Teuber (1964). As noted previously the discrepancies may result from differences in haptic and kinesthetic proc- esses. Since most of the above work is limited to analysis of visual and kinesthetic systems a brief review of studies dealing with auditory and visual systems will be examined next. The following review is limited since the major inter- est in this section is the comparison of children with read- ing deficits and normal readers. Auditory and Visual Intra- sensory and Intersensory Studies in Normal Groups Hancock, Moore and Smith (1969) investigated the effectiveness of providing groups of second graders and fourth graders with programmed spelling via visual, auditory and visual-auditory modes. Achievement, retention, and effectiveness of single vs. two channel presentation were analyzed. Two channel presentation of stimulus was no more effective than one channel in learning spelling for the total sample, confirming, according to the author, Broad- bent's (1958) position that a single channel system operates most efficiently only for perceptual processing. An inter- esting finding from this study was that S5 with the lowest IQ and lowest reading comprehension in both grades achieved the most via the auditory mode and S5 with the highest IQ and reading comprehension achieved most from auditory-visual combination. £5 with intermediate IQ and reading compre- hension achieved the most with visual stimuli. In a study designed to measure recall performance with auditory, visual and auditory-visual presentation, for S5 in two groups with mean age of 5 years 4 months and 8 years 4 months, Horowitz (1969) found that recall under visual and auditory-visual modes was better than under auditory presentation. SS were divided into groups of "label" and "non label" in which labeling SS recited the name of the stimulus following pres- entation. Labeling facilitated performance, however the differences among the modalities were in the same direction as previously reported. No significant age X modality inter- action was found. Both 5 year olds and 8 year.olds showed better recall with visual mode. The author suggests that "age preference for different modalities as measured by recall scores may not exist." Since the stimulus material used in visual and auditory presentation differed, words were read to S for auditory mode (via tape recording) and pictures of stimulus material were presented for the visual mode. Failure to control for effects of imagery may have influenced the results. A number of researchers have expanded the study of intrasensory and intersensory relationships, i.e., effects of modal preference on learning, (Nelson, 1970); concept of body image on intersensory integration, (Majaron, 1970); speed of intersensory shifting, (Jones, 1970). Although the focus of the above studies differs,they generally provided data confirming the findings of Connolly and Jones (1970). The difficulty of determining modal preferences in young S5 was demonstrated by Nelson (1970). Only 13.6 percent of a sample of 457 S5 could be identified as having a visual or auditory preference, 5.3 percent were classified as visual dominant and 8.3 percent were classified as audi- tory dominant. Nelson noted that the auditory and visual scales of the reading readiness test used in the study were not Sufficiently sensitive to determine modal preference in normal groups. Summary and Review Overall, the literature suggests that intrasensory and intersensory discrimination improves with increasing age in normal groups. Children, five years and older, appear capable of dealing with intrasensory and intersensory transfer of stimulus inputs. The information on sensory integration in children under five years of age is limited. Allen and Fitzgerald (1974) have provided some insights into methodological limitations of intermodal study with infant and pre-school age groups. As noted by these authors, the design of intersensory and intrasensory experimental studies involves the use of language and the negative findings with infants and pre-school children may be due to linguistic incompetence rather than lack of sensory integration. In view of this limitation, Allen and Fitzgerald (1974) used a habituation paradigm to study intrasensory and intersensory integration. The results of their study will be covered in more detail in following sections. Since linguistic compe- tence is a factor in reading deficit groups the same limiL tations as noted by Allen and Fitzgerald in the above studies may exist with the reading deficit group. The findings related to efficiency of intrasensory vs. intersensory integration are not clear-cut, although more supportive evidence favors intrasensory integration. The dominance of one sense modality over another is also unclear. The differences in cited studies may be attributed to experimental design. However, the findings generally support a more efficient visual mechanism. Research on sensory integration with reading defi- cit groups will be considered next. Sensory Integration in Reading Deficits Groups The most consistent overall finding from a number of studies that have examined dimensions of intrasensory and intersensory integration in reading deficit groups is that sensory integration in these children is inferior to that of normal readers. As a result of a number of studies which showed that a relationship existed between reading achievement and auditory-visual integration, Birch hypothe- sized that failure of a dominant visual system might lead to reading deficits (Birch, 1962; Birch & Belmont, 1964, 1965). A number of authors have noted the limitations inherent in the Birch g;_gl, studies such as the lack of ceiling in measures of auditory-visual integration (A-V), omission of intrasensory comparisons, inadequate control groups, etc. (Berry, 1967; Ford, 1967; Rubenstein & Gruen- berg, 1971). The A-V integration measure used by Birch g£_gl. and adapted by other authors such as Ford (1967) and Berry (1967) is an auditory-visual matching-to-sample task. The procedure requires S to listen to a pattern of beats and then match the standard auditory pattern to a similar visual configuration from a set of three choices. Rubenstein and Gruenberg (1971) observed that in the above studies results on A-V measure may have been confounded by the following factors: (1) lack of control for temporal mediations, (2) number of elements varied in items, (3) vari- ation in item length. As pointed out by these authors, rhythmic pattern recognition experiments are subject of spatial and temporal controls in particular with children and brain damaged groups. Berry (1967) redesigned the A-V measure to control for spatial and temporal factors and replicated the Birch (1964) study. She found, in a sample of American children, that reading deficit groups were inferior to normal readers on auditory-visual integration. Intrasensory measures were not used. Visual and Kinesthetic Inter- sensogy Study in Reading Deficit Groups In a study designed to compare deficit readers and normal readers on visual and kinesthetic sensitivity using a difference-threshold measure, Bakker (1966) found in a sample of 32 Dutch children matched with a control group of normal readers that deficit readers have higher visual thres- hold. Kinesthetic threshold for deficit readers was lower than normal, but not at significant levels. The rank differ- ences, visual minus kinesthetic threshold, were larger in the deficit reading group than normal group (low threshold scored low rank) in the direction of higher visual threshold. In view of these results, Bakker suggests that the lower visual sensitivity found in deficit readers may account for differences found in sensory dominance between the groups. Auditory and Visual Intra- sensory and Intersensory Studies in Reading Deficit Groups Senf and Freundl (1971) report the most recent results of a continuing series of studies (Senf, Rollin & 10 Madsen, 1967; Senf, 1969; Madsen, Rollin & Senf, 1970; Senf & Feshbach, 1970) which deal with attempts to elucidate the psychological factors of auditory and visual intersensory and intrasensory integration involved in reading deficit groups. These factors are defined as (l) auditory masking, (2) auditory distraction, (3) deficient visual information processing, and (4) deficient information-organization abil- ity. The experimental methods all involved bisensory memory tasks (BMT) and the stimuli consist of single digits pre- sented aurally or visually. In an early experiment the audio digit was presented simultaneously with a different digit shown visually and three such pairs were presented in serial order. The task was to recall the order of the pair presentation. A deficit reading sample, labeled learning disabled children (LDC) was compared with a matched group of normal readers (NC). On the ordering task the LDC and NC performed equally well. However, the LDC group performed worse when the task required recalling the individual stimuli in each modality separately, V1 V2 V3 A1 A2 A3, in the order presented. On the basis of these initial results it was hypothesized that LDC group had greater difficulty in proc- essing simultaneously presented auditory-visual stimuli. To test this hypothesis an experiment was devised to determine whether LDC had higher preference than the NC for a modality recall rather than recalling the individual items pairwise. 11 The sample consisted of 48 LDC and a matched group of NC. These were divided into three age groups with a mean of 9.5, 12.2, and 14.6 years and designated young, middle, and old respectively. Half of the experimental and control Ss were given preinduction exercises designed to develop a preference for recalling the stimuli pairwise, i.e., V1 A], V2 A2, V3 A3 rather than modality grouping, i.e., V1 V2 V3, A1 A2 A3. In the experimental task Ss were simply instructed to recall stimuli which had been presented in the usual three pairs of simultaneous V-A stimuli. It was found that for the control condition (no preinduction) the LDC and NC Ss preferred the modality to the pairwise recall about ten to one and that there were no significant changes in pref- erence for the control group with age of S. Similarly the pre-set, LDC group showed the same preference for modality recall as control groups. However, the preferences of the pre-set NC group for pairwise recall rapidly increased with age, from that of the young group which was the same as the other S5 of that age to about half of the responses being pairwise for the old group. These results suggest that the LDC group resist pairing V-A stimuli and do not respond to external orienting experiences which promote pair recall. These results are not in complete agreement with the related experiments of Siller (1968), who found in a sample whose age corresponded with the middle and old group that success 12 on V-A integration tasks correlated with reading ability and that performance of the poorest group improved with V-A integration training. Using the same Ss as in the experiment described above, Senf and Feshbach (1970) modified the tasks. In this series of studies half the Ss were directed to recall the stimuli pairwise (DP) in the order presented and the remain- ing Ss were to recall the three visual followed by three audio stimuli (DM). For half the presentation the interval between the stimuli was 0.5 seconds and for the remainder 2 seconds. The replies were scored for visual order errors, i.e., correct digits in wrong serial order. The intervals between paired stimuli did not significantly effect the error scores. The authors suggested that intersensory deficiency of the LDC is not related to attentional switching diffi- culty which would be expected to depend upon length of the time between stimulus pairs. The "young“ LDC Ss scored more errors than the NC sample for the DM tasks, but there was no difference in errors for DP tasks. The error scores of the "middle" and "old" Ss were the same and not different for the LDC and NC for the DM task. However, there was a large decrease in the DP error scores with increase age for the NC group. The results were also scored for gross error scores in which a digit was omitted or an erroneous one substituted. 13 Differences for gross error score were not found for any age, experimental or normal sample. However, an analysis of total order error scores was different for the LDC and NC group. The authors interpret the results of the experi- ment to support the view that poor readers have deficit storage or memory capacity. In the most recent series of experiments reported by Senf and Freundl (1971), only S5 in the "young" age bracket were used. Using the "young" group Senf and Freudl (1971) tested the auditory masking hypothesis. Three dif- ferent methods of bisensory stimuli presentation were used: (1) simultaneous, (2) visual followed 0.5 second later by auditory complement and (3) visual followed 0.4 second later by auditory. It was reasoned that if masking occurs then there should be less recall errors for the delay than for simultaneous presentation. Both DP and DM recall tasks were used. Differences in errors were not found for the presentation paradigms. The authors interpret the results to indicate that auditory masking of the visual stimuli is not related to causes of reading deficits. Unfortunately, the authors do not report variations of their experiment in which the auditory stimuli is presented ahead of the visual. Physical simultaneity may not correspond to neurological simultaneity when bisensory stimuli are presented. It has been known for some time (Shipley, 1964) that auditory I4 reaction times are faster than visual ones. Thus, the separation (V-A) of the stimuli would tend to produce a neurological simultaneity which may have been greater than that found in the presentation of physically simultaneous signals. Differences in gross error and the order error scores for visual recall on DP tasks were not found between LDC and NC groups. However, more errors (both gross and order) were found for the LDC than NC group on DP auditory recall. Greater errors (both order and gross) were found on the DM tasks in visual and auditory recall for the LDC than NC group. Senf and Freundl (1971) interpret the differences on the DM visual recall and lack of difference on DP visual recall between the LDC and NC groups to support a hypothesis that deficit readers have a greater auditory dominance over the visual modality than do normal readers. Shipley and Jones (1969) used a visual matching task to test the recall capabilities of dyslexic and normal child- ren in a closely matched sample (including IQ). The age range was similar to the sample used by Senf and Feshbach (1970). Noise was interjected during different phases of the experiment and the errors were scored. Four experi- mental conditions were studied, (1) no noise (control), (2) noise during exposure to visual stimuli, (3) noise during rest delay, (4) noise during recall test. 15 Shipley and Jones (1969) found that more recall errors were made by the dyslexic group than the normal control group for all conditions. An increase in errors occurred for the dyslexic Ss when the noise was presented during the exposure period with no differences when noise was presented during rest delay or recall test period. An increase~ir1errors for the normal group (over control con- ditions) occurred only when noise was presented during test recall period. Shipley and Jones' (1969) results support the view that dyslexics have deficit ability to reject audi- tory distraction when receiving a visual stimulus. It is reasonable to expect that inadequate capacity to integrate V-A stimuli would have an associated deficit to reject auditory stimuli affecting visual processing. The results of Shipley and Jones (1969) support the hypothesis that in dyslexics auditory distraction rather than auditory domi- nance is an important characteristic. This is indicated by the finding that visual recall of normal readers was affected by noise in the test recall period, whereas the dyslexic group had visual recall impaired when noise was presented during the exposure period when auditory distraction or masking would be expected to be important. Summary and Review Although there are contradictory views regarding the specific factors involved, evidence exists which supports 16 the view that reading deficit is associated with a poor ability to integrate sensory information from different modalities. The complexity of the visual stimuli used in these studies appears to be an important factor which has not received adequate attention. The apparent inconsistencies in thefjndings of Senf and Freundl (1971) and those of Shipley and Jones (1969) might be the result of the rela— tively simple stimuli used by the former authors compared to those used by the latter. The very interesting age effects which Senf (1969) reported in his studies have not been noted by other experimenters using the same range of ages in their samples. The approach described by Senf and Freundl to study the sensory integration capabilities using a non-mechanistic model of stimuli masking and higher order cognitive factorsappears.to provide a worthwhile approach to the problem. Separation of the masking process from that of distraction may prove to be arbitrary and not empirically possible. Treating these two factors as part of a more generalized attentional capability in an experimental design to study sensory integration in deficit readers is indicated. Using physiological methods to measure attentional factors associated with sensory input is suggested since it could provide estimation of an independent variable. Previous work cited above assumed theoretical models in order to analyze for an attentional factor. The capability to 17 measure this factor by physiological measurements should lead to elucidation of the models. Physiological Measures of Sensory Input A very useful perceptual theory dealing with physi- ological measure of sensory processing was proposed by Sokolov (1960, 1963). An important aspect, for the present study, involves the attentional response. According to Sokolov, S reacts to an input stimulus by building a model in the central neural system. The incoming intrasensory stimulus is compared to the cortical model and if they match then habituation takes place. On the other hand, a lack of correspondence or mismatch leads to evocation of the orient- ing reflex. There is general agreement with Sokolov's view that an increase occurs in the receptivity to sensory input during the orienting reflex. This characteristic of the orienting reflex model makes it reasonable to use it as a basis for formulating hypotheses to be used in designing experiments for studying intrasensory and intersensory processes related to reading deficits. The orienting reflex clearly involves attentional capability which is also an important factor in reading deficits. Attentional factors have been extensively considered by theorists dealing with discrimination learning. A com- parative review is given by Zeaman and House (1963). A 18 common element in the various theories is the probabilities that relevant and non relevant stimulus cues can be observed. The subsequent probabilities of cue processing are also taken into account. Models based on conditional probabilities may be of value for studies in bisensory integration. In their own work Zeaman and House found that attending to the rele- vant stimulus dimension and approaching the correct cue in that dimension were important factors in learning. Sokolov's (1960, 1963) theory of reflex behavior pro- posed that autonomic activity increased during the orienting reflex with a resultant increase in heart rate. Lacey (1959) and Lacey g;_gl. (1963) have demonstrated that heart rate deceleration is a specific component of the orienting reflex and generally occurs when there is a greater sensitivity to environmental stimuli. A large body of research supports Lacey's position. Graham and Clifton (1966) reviewed the experimental evidence relating to changes in heart rate as a component of the O.R. and essentially their analysis supports Lacey's view. Lewis g£_gl. (1966) reviewed much of this work as well as reporting a study on 24 week old infants in which they obtained significant rank order correlation (.54 for boys and .44 for girls) between attention as measured by fixation time and heart rate deceleration. Kagan, Moss and Siegel (1963) and Lee, Kagan and Rabson (1963) suggest that grade school children can be 19 classified as “analytic" or "non analytic" in regard to the methods used to process a set of presented pictures of objects. The "analytic" child will group according to the similarity of detail, whereas, the "non analytic" will class- ify according to other conceptual categories which are more general. Kagan and Rosman (1964) hypothesized that "analytic" Ss would have a greater measure of attentiveness than "non analytics," and therefore should show greater heart rate deceleration than "nonanalytic" Ss. Using first and second grade boys who were classified as "analytic" and "non ana- lytic," decrease in heart rate was found for both groups dur- ing the period when Ss were attending to the presented stim- uli than during the prior rest or task durations. Neverthe- less, the decrease was greater for the "analytic" Ss than for "non analytic" Ss supporting Lacey's view that attention to sensory input results in heart rate deceleration. The research reviewed above indicates that heart rate decelera- tion occurs during attention to stimuli being received in a single modality, i.e., intrasensory. Is this the case for intersensory perception? Some indirect support for this view is afforded by the work of Allen and Fitzgerald (1974). They used a habituation paradigm to investigate intrasensory and intersensory integration of form. Haptic or visual stimuli were presented in the first phase of the experiment. In the second phase similar or different stimuli were pre- sented. Habituation was measured by touching time, fixation 20 time, and GSR frequency. GSR supplied the best measure of habituation. Results were consistent with the Sokolov's theory, suggesting that cortical models formed from one mode of sensory stimulation facilitate transfer and provide a basis for habituation to stimuli in another modality. Implication The present study will attempt to elucidate the factors involved in visual-auditory bisensory integration tasks and their relation to reading deficits. It will operationally separate the attentional variable by using physiological measures for its estimation. In most experi- mental designs which use a matching paradigm for visual- auditory integration investigation, the intrasensory compara- tive base is not well established. It is planned to provide an intrasensory experimental task which would provide mean- ingful parameters for interpreting the results of the inter- sensory experiments. The extensive series of studies reported by Senf and Freundl (1971) did not alter the order of the recall tasks, i.e., the visual stimulus had to be reported first. In the present study the effects of alteration in recall order will be studied. The classification system for reading deficits which will be used in the present study will be considered next. Classification of Reading Deficit Groups Clearly indicated in studies of reading deficit groups is the need for a better scheme for classifying reading 21 \ deficit. Rabinovitch (1954) reviewed the etiologies which can be used as a basisfor a better classification of read- ing deficits. Fuller (1969) combined an instrument, Minn- esota Percepto-Diagnostic Test (MPD) a measure of visual motor perception, with the Rabinovitch theoretical con- structs to provide a method which classified reading deficit with an acceptable exactness and in which the results .allowed for an etiological interpretation. Accordingly reading deficit is classified as primary, secondary, and organic as given by Rabinovitch (cited in Money, 1962). Primary Reading Deficit (PRD): "The capacity to read is impaired without definite brain damage being sug- gested in the case history or upon neurological examination. The defect is in the ability to deal with letters and words as symbols with resultant diminished ability to integrate the meaningfulness of written material. The problem appears to reflect a basic disturbed pattern of neurological organi- zation." Secondary Reading Deficit (SRO): ”The capacity to read is intact but is utilized insufficiently for the child to achieve a reading level appropriate to his intelligence. The causative agent is exogenous, the child having a normal reading potential that has been impaired by negativism, anxiety, depression, emotional block, psychoses, limited schooling opportunity, or other external influences." 22 Organic Reading Deficit (0RD); "The capacity to read is impaired by neurological deficit. The case history ' reveals the cause of brain injury as being anoxiar head injury, encephalitis, or prenatal toxicity." Children classified as having organic reading defi- cits were excluded from the present study. The methodologi- cal demands were judged to be too much for them since one hour and fifteen minutes (1' 15") was required to complete the experimental session. Difficulties would also have been. encountered in obtaining the required number of Ss in this classification due to the limited number in the local popu- lation. The Minnesota Percepto-Diagnostic Test (Fuller, 1969) is used to classify the reading deficit groups into the three etiological categories established by Rabinovitch (1954). Perceptual motor stability is based on degree of rotation, which occurs when the subject reproduces Wertheimer designs (cited in Bender, 1939). Two of Wertheimer's designs, used by Bender (1938) as Figures A and S appear in three different orientations each, i.e., vertically on diamond card, horizontally on diamond card, and vertically on oblong card. The subject is instructed to copy each of the six stimulus figures. In the study reported by Fuller (1964) each figure drawn by S was measured for degrees of rotation from the 23 original axis. The total rotation score for 6 cards was used for correlational and significance analysis for Ss classified by the methods listed above. For the whole group of Ss, 89% were correctly identified on the basis of their scores on the MPD. In the work reported by Fuller (1964) the good reader rotated 12.620 and the primary 13.120. The differ- ence in means was not significant. The mean score of the secondary readers was 45.100 and that of the organics 72.100. These scores were significantly different than those of normal readers and readers with primary deficits. Fuller (1964) recommends that good and primary readers rotate 250 or less, that secondary readers rotate 260 to 540, and that organic more than 550. The review also states that the MPD test is most successful in its prediction for those within the IQ range of 80 to 110. In the revision of the MPD Test (Fuller, 1969) where raw scores were controlled for age and IQ and reported in T scores new cut-off scores were established for the reading disability groups as follows: primary reading disability 45-80, secondary disability 31-44, organic 0-30. Primary reading deficit groups appear to function as normal readers in that their visual integration is considered to be intact. Summary and Analysis Research on three topics germane to the study of children with reading deficits has been reviewed in this 24 chapter. First, the evidence from the literature on sen- sory integration supports the view that deficit readers have a less efficient capacity to integrate information from auditory and visual channels than normal readers (Birch, 1962; Ford, 1967; Berry, 1967; Senf & Freundl, 1971; Shipley & Jones, 1969). Interpretations of findings from the studies in this area are diverse. They include the following: fail- ure of dominant visual system (Birch, 1962); dominance of the auditory over visual modality (Senf & Freundl, 1971); defi- cit ability to reject auditory distraction with presentation of visual stimuli (Shipley & Jones, 1969). An analysis of the experimental designs used in the above studies indicates that in the investigation of visual-auditory integration, the intrasensory comparative bases were not well established and also that an important alteration of the order of sensory modality (i.e., having auditory recalled first in the tasks) was not carried out. Experimental designs which do not have the shortcomings mentioned above should provide more meaningful data for interpreting results of intersensory experiments. As already noted, the conflicting evidence found in these studies, particularly between Senf and Freundl (1971) and Shipley and Jones (1969), may be due to difference in experimental design. However, a commonality which all the studies appear to share is the emergence of an attentional factor in the processing of information via auditory and visual modalities. 25 Since psychophysiology has provided the means to separate the attentional from other variables, the use of physiological measurements are suggested for an estimation of this factor. Sokolov's (1962, 1963) neurophysiological theory proposes that the physiological changes which occur with stimulus presentation are dependent upon the presence or absence of a cortical neuronal model of the stimulus parameters. The physiological responses of heart rate measures and galvanic skin responses (GSR) to stimulation have been the focus of a number of recent studies. Heart rate deceleration and increased GSR responsivity have been reported to occur during stimulus presentation Lacey g£_gl., 1965 and, Kagan g1_gl, (1963). Graham and Clifton (1966) reviewed the experimental evidence relating to heart rate change and concluded that heart rate deceleration occurs with presentation of non painful stimuli. Heart rate accel- eration and GSR responsivity are also reported to occur in association with cognitive activity, such as solving mental arithmetic problems (Johnson & Campos, 1967; Steele & Lewis, 1968; Lacey, Kagan, Lacey & Moss, 1963). Specifically,these studies suggest that heart rate deceleration and GSR respon- sivity will occur during periods of stimulus presentation, whereas heart rate acceleration and GSR responsivity will occur during periods of recall or mental activity. The research reviewed generally employed physiologi- cal measures with stimulus input directed at a single 26 sensory modality, i.e., intrasensory. An exception is the work of Allen and Fitzgerald (1974) who used a habituation paradigm in a study of intrasensory and intersensory inte- gration. An interesting question is whether the heart rate response generally found with intrasensory stimuli would be the same for intersensory stimuli. In an experimental design that uses intersensory and intrasensory stimuli with recall tasks, the attentional level demands of intersensory task would appear to exceed those of the intrasensory tasks particularly with auditory and visual stimuli. In such a case, a concomitant heart rate deceleration and GSR respon- sivity that exceeds that which occurs with intrasensory stimuli should be found for the intersensory stimuli. The final issue considered in the review of sensory integration in children with reading deficits was a classifi- cation system for reading deficits. All the research reviewed used a construct of reading deficit based on a singular entity, akin to Stern‘s "IQ. In such an approach, all children with reading problems are destined to experience a singular process which includes symptoms of deficit visual perception, motor and laterality functions; impaired audi- tory discrimination; sensory inattention; writing abnormal- ities; impaired body schema; finger agnosia; dyscalculia; topographic disorder; speech disorders and least of all a reading problem (Belmont & Birch, 1962; Silver & Hagan, 1960; 27 Money, 1968; Rabinovitch, 1954; Critchley, 1964). Investi- gators who compare groups of "good" and "poor" readers or "learning disability“ to normal control groups do not pro- vide controls for the heterogeneity in groups of children with reading deficits. Recently, several psychometric studies have attempted to devise a systematic approach to the understanding of subgroups within reading deficits (Boder, 1973; Bannatyne, 1971; Smith, 1970). However, only a minority of experimental investigations are presently con- cerned with the heterogeneity within deficit reading groups. Since this discussion of sensory integration in read- ing deficits focused on visual and auditory modalities, a classification scheme based on an etiology (Rabinovitch, 1954) which has been incorporated into a quantitative meas- ure of visual-motor functioning (MPD, Fuller, 1969) was determined to be the best standardized system. Briefly, three groups of reading deficits, Primary, Secondary and Organic are classified according to the number of degrees of rotation and distortions produced while draw- ing geometric designs (MPD Test). Primary readers, who score in the normal range, are considered to have adequate visual motor functions. According to Rabinovitch, a defect of basic neurological organization exists in the primary group and would account for their reading problems. Secondary readers produce a moderate degree of rotation on the MPD 28 and experience defects in visual motor functions. The visual motor problem found in the secondary group are sup— posed to be derived from states of anxiety, tension, inat- tention and distractibility. The third reading classification group, organic readers, appear to have severe problems in visual motor functions. Rotation and distortion scores are extremely high, well beyond that which would be expected for CA and 10 values. The organic group differs significantly from the primary and secondary groups on all measures of performance (Fuller, 1974). The capacity to read appears to be impaired by neurological damage. In view of the severity of the organic's performance, an experimental investigation would have to be designed specifically to fit their low tolerance level. Therefore Ss who are classified as organic readers will not be included in the present study and only primary and secondary groups will be used. The overriding concern of this paper has been to elucidate the factors involved in visual-auditory integra- tion and their relation to reading deficit. A fruitful approach appears to be one that incorporates the results from the three areas in the above discussion; visual-auditory integration in reading deficit group; physiological measures of attention and a reading classification system. The experimental design used by Senf and his asso- ciates with intersensory auditory-visual stimuli is flexible 29 enough to be expanded to include intrasensory stimuli and visual-auditory alteration within the recall tasks. Physi- ological measurement can be continuously recorded during the experiment to provide estimation of attentional levels in groups of Ss classified according to Rabinovitch's constructs of primary and secondary reading deficits and in a control group of normal readers. Based on reported studies in literature summarized above, the experimental design of this study should measure differences in physiological responses and recall responses between a control group of normal readers and two groups of reading deficit S5. The two reading deficit groups, primary and secondary, would also differ on the physiological and performance measures. Specifically, cardiac deceleration and GSR responsivity would be expected to occur during stimulus presentation in the normal reader group and conversely, acceleration and GSR responsivity would be predicted to also occur in the recall period. Between intersensory and intrasensory conditions heart rate deceleration and GSR responsivity is predicted to occur with intersensory condi- tions exceeding that in the intrasensory conditions in the normal readers group. However, within the intrasensory and intersensory conditions, physiological response should remain stable, e.g., deceleration occurs across all inter- sensory conditions, in the normal readers group. 30 Between the two reading deficits groups, primary and secondary, one would expect the primary deficit readers group to have physiological responses similar to those of normal readers with visual stimuli during stimulus presenta- tion and recall. Therefore, the direction of autonomic changes predicted for normal readers should occur in primary readers group compared to secondary readers group in condi- tions which enhance the visual stimuli. The recall performance of the both reading deficits group would further be expected to be inferior to the normal readers group under all experimental conditions. Table 1 summarizes the experimental hypotheses framed in terms of the above discussion. 31 TABLE 1.--A summary of experimental hypotheses. Autonomic Responses flypothesis Number 1 Normal readers group (NR) will exhibit cardiac deceleration and GSR responsivity in the stimulus period. Normal readers group (NR) will exhibit cardiac acceleration and GSR responsivity in the recall period. Normal readers group (NR) will exhibit cardiac deceleration and GSR responsivity in the intersensory conditions exceeding those in the intrasensory condition in the stimulus period. Within intersensory conditions and within intrasensory conditions no differences in autonomic responses will be observed in the normal readers group (NR). Primary readers group (PRO) will exhibit cardiac deceleration and GSR responsivity with intrasensory conditions in the stimu- lus period. Primary reading group (PRO) will exhibit cardiac deceleration and GSR responsivity with the intersensory conditions which cite the visual stimuli first in the stimulus period. Primary reading group (PRD) will exhibit cardiac acceleration and GSR responsivity with the intrasensory and intersensory conditions which cite the visual stimuli first in the recall period. Performance Responses Reading deficits groups will make more gross and other errors under all inter- sensory and intrasensory recall condi- tions than normal readers. CHAPTER II METHOD The following is a description of the selection of Ss including the descriptive statistics of S populations as well as the criteria used to define reading deficits. A description of stimuli, apparatus and procedures by which the hypotheses presented in Chapter I were tested is given. This isfbllowed by a description of physiological methods, experimental conditions and the design which includes the data analysis. Subjects A total of forty-eight1 males ranging in age from nine years to thirteen years with a mean chronological age (CA) of eleven years served as S5. Clinical reports of sex differences in reading deficit groups indicate a male to female ratio of 5:1 (Rice, 1970). In view of these findings only male Ss were used. 0f the total sample, sixteen Ss 1Testing was actually started with fifty Ss, but was discontinued for two reading deficit Ss. One S had symptoms of motion sickness with the onset of visual stimuli and the experiment was discontinued immediately. Another S was hold— ing his breath at onset of stimulus and the testing was dis- continued. 32 33 composed the control group of normal readers (NR) (n = 16, mean CA = 11 years, 3 months, mean 10 = 119). The remain- ing thirty-two were reading deficits S5, of these, sixteen Ss met the criteria for primary readers group (PRD) (n = 16, mean CA = 11 years, 5 months, mean IQ = 106) and sixteen Ss met the criteria for secondary readers group (SRO) (n = 16, mean CA = 11 years, 0 months, mean IQ = 111.) The reading deficit Ss were selected from two read- ing remedial programs conducted during the summer months. Of the thirty-two reading deficit Ss, ten were enrolled in Central Michigan University Reading Clinic located on the campus of the university. The remaining twenty-two Ss were enrolled in Fancher School Reading Clinic at Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. The Fancher Clinic is located in a public school, however, personnel from the Department of Education, Central Michigan University administer the program. The control group of normal reading Ss were obtained through referrals from private individuals with whom per- sonal contacts had been made. Parental permission was obtained directly without involvement of school officials. Testing was conducted outside the normal school day, e.g., weekends and summer months. The total pool of S5 was white, attended public schools located in the surrounding areas of Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, and lived in urban and rural areas which have been '34 characterized as middle class neighborhoods. Parental per- mission was obtained for all Ss. Feedback in form of psyé chological reports was given to reading clinicians who worked individually with reading deficit Ss and in some cases to parents of Ss in the control and reading deficit groups. Table 2 presents a statistical summary of the ages and IQ of the total sample. TABLE 2.--A statistical summary of the ages and IQ of the reading classification group and for total sample. ’ a Reading Chronolog1cal Age Performance IQ Group Mean Range SQ_ Mean Range $0 Normals 16 11 yrs 3 mos 9-13 yrs 12.6 mos 119 99-133 11.3 Primary 16 11 yrs 5 mos 9-13 yrs 13.9 mos 106 90-135 13.8 Secondary 16 11 yrs 0 mos 9-13 yrs 12.0 mos 111 92-128 7.8 TOTAL 48 11 yrs 2 mos 9-13 yrs 12.9 mos 112 90-135 11.2 aWechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Performance Scales were administered to total sample. Reading Deficit Criteria The following criteria were used to determine suita- bility for inclusion in the sample: A reading level of one or more years below expected grade level. Average range of intelligence as determined by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 1949). The average range is defined as a Perform- ance scale IQ of 90-110. 35 Normal general health was required with corrected visual or hearing defects as recorded in school records. Two instruments were used in establishing reading deficit: (a) Wide Range Achievement Test, Reading subtest (Jastak & Jastak, 1965), (b) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 1949). Scores from both of these tests were used to determine the level of reading deficit. Reading Deficit Definition The extent of reading deficit was defined in the following way. The measure of the actual reading level was taken as the grade level performance which corresponded with the scores of S on the Wide Range Achievement Test (Jastak & Jastak, 1965). The expected reading level of S was taken as that given on the Wide Range Achievement Test (Jastak & Jastak, 1965) which corresponded with scores on the performance 10 of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 1949). The non verbal IQ was used in order to minimize the extent to which the measure of potentiality and the reading deficit would be related by a common factor (Rabinovitch, 1954). Reading deficit was taken as the difference between 36 the expected and actual reading grade level of S. To be considered for inclusion in this study S had to have a read- ing deficit in excess of one grade. Classification of Reading Deficit Groups The classification categories proposed and defined by Rabinovitch (1954) and extended by Fuller (1969) using the Minnesota Percepto-Diagnostic Test were used in this study. Children classified as having organic reading defi- cits were eliminated from the study leaving only primary and secondary categories as subject to investigation. Normal Reading Group The normal reading control group was composed of S5 who were reading at grade level or above that expected for age and IQ with no past history of a reading lag. Apparatus A Bell and Howell Language Master (Model #711B) was used to present the auditory and visual stimuli. A shield with a 7.62 cm. (3 in.) high by 3.81 cm. (1 1/2 in.) wide window was placed between S and the stimulus allowing for display of only one visual stimulus at a time. Cardiac activity and GSR were continuously recorded on an E & M 37 physiograph. A Lehigh Valley solid state programming sys- tem was used to trigger a signal to the E & M physiograph at stimulus onset. Stimuli The six stimuli were digits 1 through 9 randomly selected without replacement for each S with the restriction that the same digit was not used twice in a given trial. The visual stimuli were printed on Language Master cards in 0.64 cm. (1/4 in.) black type. The auditory stimuli came from the speaker of the Language Master via tape in a female voice. Procedure Thirty-two reading deficit S52 were tested in a session prior to the experiment to determine suitability for inclusion in this study. During the initial session the performance scales of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 1949), The Wide Range Achievement Test (Jastak & Jastak, 1965) and Minnesota Percepto-Diagnostic Test (Fuller, 1969) were administered. The performance scales of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale were also adminis- tered to sixteen 55 in normal reading group. 2Thirty-seven reading deficit Ss were actually tested. As noted, experiment was discontinued with two Ss who exhibited negative reaction to the experimental conditions. Three other Ss were dropped from the study because their measured IQ was below criterion. 38 Each S in the reading deficit groups was escorted individually by the experimenter to the physiological psy- chology laboratory located in Rowe Hall at Central Michigan University from the classrooms of the respective reading clinics. Approximately fifteen minutes were used for trans- portation and to familiarize the child with the experi- menter's assistant and the new surroundings. All the child- ren in the reading clinics had met the experimenter during the initial testing session, therefore, the experimenter was familiar to S5. The children in the normal reading group were escorted to the physiology laboratory by their parents or were escorted by experimenter from their home to the laboratory. Five of these children met the experimenter for the first time at the physiology laboratory. Psycho- metric data was gathered at a later date on these children. In all cases approximately fifteen minutes were used to familiarize S with the experimenter, the assistant and the surroundings. During the warm up period the children appeared familiar with heart rate readings taken on astro- nauts and did not appear apprehensive to take part in the experiment. After the experiment the children were escorted back to the reading clinics or home. In the experiment proper, the child was asked to sit in front of the language master. Partitions which always remained in place were used to enclose the area and screen 39 the physiograph equipment from the view of S. The stimulus display area and procedures were then described to S with the following instructions: You will see numbers through this opening and you will hear numbers from this speaker (both areas on language master were pointed out to S). Now I am going to place one of the electrodes on your wrist, one on your arm, one on your leg and one on your finger. These are like little microphones that listen to your heart beat. Specific instructions, described in Figure l and 2, for performing the individual tasks were then given and the stimuli presented. The S was asked to perform the tasks by verbal recall until he understood what was required of him. After the practice trials (an average of 2 trials) the actual experimental series was given. All Ss participated in the same intrasensory and intersensory conditions. Two experi- menters were present, at all times, one worked with S5 and the other monitored the output on the physiograph. Physiological Methods Heart rate was recorded from standard leads I, II, and III (active electrodes on left arm and right wrist and ground electrodes on left leg). All cardiotach electrodes were applied with sodium chloride electrode paste. EKG-R waves were used to trigger input signal to the cardiotach which measured the rate as the reciprocal of the average R-R time interval. The change in GSR during the experimental period was measured using the "Record AC" mode of the E & M 40 physiograph preamplifier. A constant DC of 20 microamperes was applied across the electrodes and changes in resistance amplitude and frequency were recorded on a strip chart. A soft lead Sensing electrode was strapped around the middle finger. The ground electrode was attached to the wrist with sodium chloride electrode paste. Responses of resistance change of 750 ohms or more were counted. Experimental Conditions Intersensory Tasks Bisensory visual-auditory paired stimuli (digits 1 through 9) were presented simultaneOusly. Three pair of stimuli were presented two seconds apart. Four separate recall conditions were used. Recall Order Conditions 1. Recall V1 V2 V3 A1 A2 A3 Pair recall (PR) i.e., V1 A1 V2 A2 V3 A3 citing the visual stimuli first. 2. Recall A1 A2 A3 V1 V2 V3 Pair recall (PR) i.e., A V A V A V citing the audio first. 1 1 2 2 3 3 3. Recall V1 V2 V3 A1 A2 A3 Linear recall (LR) i.e., V1 V2 V3 A1 A2 A3 citing the visual first. 41 4. Recall A1 A2 A3 V1 v2 v3 Linear recall (LR) i.e., A1 A2 A3 V1 V2 V3 citing the audio first. Ten trials were performed in each task. The inter- trial interval was an average of 20 seconds with range of 15 to 25 seconds and the intertask interval was an average of 60 seconds with range of 55 to 65 seconds. After completion of four tasks an average rest period of ten minutes was given. Since the same Ss were given all the eight tasks, any effects which might result from the order of presenta- tion were balanced out by using a latin square design. Within the latin square design for order, 24 Ss were randomly assigned to intersensory conditions first and 24 S5 to intra- sensory conditions first. Diagrammatic illustration of the four intersensory experimental condition are shown in Figure 1. Intrasensory Visual Tasks Three pairs of stimuli (digits 1 through 9) were pre- sented two seconds apart. The two stimulus digits in each pair were placed in a vertical spatial relation, i.e., one above another separated by 0.32 cm (1/8 in.) blank space. Recall Order Conditions There were two separate recall tasks employed: 5. Linear recall (LR), i.e., the correct order was V V V V V VI 3 5 2 4 6 42 2N 44 u > .mZOHPHQZOu 4mom2mmmuth «Dom no zo_hm0hmzo< n < umh maomcequewm e .uxmc Law; :0» .m0: ecu _Po can» umgwm mucoumm a wow so» .moc mzu p_m \ ....... -1-----\ we __m» cmgmwc_w m_ mucoumm N .La aLN an» we emam ump>fiev_ Amvm Aevm < N m-----w < m_aFLe o_ m< .moc mo .mL m . Lee; N mam _NNz =e> NS Amve ANVN A_VN > N m N > mseaeaNFeeem m .LQ on» em Low; :0» .0: any cum: mcwugwum .La tem mucoumm o ..La ucN ..La um. mg» \ ...... I ...... \ mag—Pm» vmcmwcwm m_ wocoomw N m< u¢mow;womwmumom umF m a N < mPNNLu o_ wee N Lee; .FN; =e> Na m m e N N _ N a > maeaeee_=e_m N .La mg» :_ wow :0» .oc mg» ;u_3 mcwucmum .La tem mucoumm 0 ..ga ucN ..La amp on» \IIIIIIItmmmmwwm N we __mu uwcm_cwm mm .La pen on» me cmom um_>onN ANVN ANVN < N N\----m < mpepcu op m< .moc mo .mL m . Lea; N aaa __N3 30> me Amve Amvm A_vm > a N m > meeaeee_=ewm _ wCOmHUJLHmCH UOwLmQ Ucoumm O UOwLmQ UCOwa O COwumucwmmLQ LNDEDZ xmmh cowuwucou ppeuwm cowuwucou mzpnewum ALOmcmmLmuch 43 6. Pair recall (PR), S was required to recall pa1rwise V1 V3 V V2 V4 V6 5 The correct order was V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 Intrasensory Auditory Tasks Three pairs of auditory stimuli (digits 1 through 9) were presented two seconds apart. The time interval between stimuli in a pair was one half second. The time interval in auditory intrasensory task was the following: A1 2 sec. A3 2 sec. A5 2 sec. .5 sec. .5 sec. .5 sec. A2 A4 A6 Recall Order Conditions The PR and LR recall tasks were the same as those employed in visual intrasensory recall order conditions: 7. Pair recall (PR), S was required to recall pairwise A1 A3 A5 A2 A4 A6 The correct order was A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 8. Linear recall (LR), i.e., the correct order was A] A3 A5 A2 A4 A6 Each S performed ten trials in each task condition. The intertrial and intertask intervals were the same as in 44 the intersensory conditions. Diagrammatic illustration of the four intrasensory experimental conditions are shown in Figure 2. Design The experimental objectives provided that Ss be dis- tributed into categories represented by variable (p). Assignment to conditions was necessarily A priori. Repeated measures on two of the independent variables [(q) and (r)] by each S was an integral part of the experiment. These considerations favored choosing a design based on multi- factor analysis than on a multivariate design. Independent Variables Three independent variables were involved in the designs for all the experiments. Reading classification, p, consisted of three fixed levels, normal, primary and secondary. The tasks, four each for intersensory and intra- sensory, were taken as an independent variable, q. The third independent variable, r, for all the phy- siological measures, except heart rate (HR) deceleration and acceleration, consisted of the three six second inter- vals, preperiod, stimulus and recall periods. For the HR deceleration and acceleration measures the two intervals 45 .am oz< m4 . z~ 44mowmzo< n < .4<3m~> u > mzouhmozou 4momzmm .uxe: .mec we so; coupon egg cog» umgww .me: we 3e; no» on» we Ppou eezmwcww mw .La eLm as» we ceem m< .Legue one we no» no use ..me: we .mge m oem apce ppm: new SAN mm“ Nev, Nave Nave a 2: EN ES 3: EL EN E.» is E N e Ea Em EN amp ”W“ 3: EN EN NS NNVN ANVN vam < < meceumm o \I---I---------\ p m o meceeem m. N m e \1....\ meceeem N meceuem N \1111111 ...... -\ F o m meceuem m. N v m < \I----\ meceoem N meceuem m \ ........ 1-----\ meceemm N \-----N m m N m m N >> meceuem o \ 11111 IIIIIIIII\ meceemm N . \11w11\ e N m > P w m > m_ewgu o. mcwpecgmup< mwewgu o— mcwuecgeu_< mwewgu o_ meemceupeswm m_aeee o_ meomceupeswm mcewuuesumcH eewgme eceuem m :ewuweceu ppeuom eewgea eceuem o cewuwecee mepeewum :ewueucmmmea geesez xmew xgemcmmegucm 46 are the difference between the base in the preperiod and the subsequent stimulus and recall periods. For the per- formance measures, r, variable was taken as the gross, order and interchange error types for the intrasensory and total data. Gross auditory, gross visual, order auditory, order visual and interchange error types were used as, r, variable for the intersensory tasks. Qgpendent Variables All the physiological data and recall responses were taken at the same time for each S. Each of the eight tasks was presented ten times in a counterbalanced array. The different physiological measurements, and the recall errors made on the tasks were each taken as dependent variables for an analysis of variance. Mean Heart Rate For the three experimental intervals, preperiod (r1), stimulus period (r2) and recall period (r3), the time of each interval was six seconds. The HR (bpm) for each six seconds was recorded. If more than one beat occurred within one second then the average beat was taken for that second. The mean HR over ten trials for S for each task in the r1, r2, r3 periods was taken as the measure of dependent varia- ble. 47 Heart Rate Variability The variance of the six beats in a period was taken as a measure of HR variability in that period. The depend- ent variable was taken as the mean of the ten trials for a task by a S during a period (r1, r2, r3). Heart Rate Deceleration The extent of the occurrence of HR deceleration was determined by taking the lowest of the six beats in the pre— period on each trial as a base for comparison with the lowest beat in the stimulus and recall periods for that trial. The mean differences over ten trials for each task for each S was used as the measure of dependent variable in the r1, r2 periods. Heart Rate Acceleration The extent of the occurrence of HR acceleration was determined by taking the highest of the six beats in the pre— period on each trial as a base for comparison with the high- est beat in the stimulus and recall period for that trial. The mean differences over ten trials for each task for each S was used as the measure of dependent variable in the r1, r2 periods. GS The GSR criterion was a change of 750 ohms from immediately preceding level. The dependent variable measure 48 was taken as the frequency of GSR's over the ten trials for a single task during r1, r2, r3 periods for S. Errors For the intrasensory tasks, the independent varia- bles r1, r2, r3 represent the three error types, gross, order and interchange. Gross error was scored for omissions of the correct digit or substitution by another digit. One point was given for each gross error. Order errors were scored for digits properly recalled but out of sequence. Therefore, only correct digits were scored for order error. One point was given for each digit out of order. Inter- change errors were counted for pairs of digits properly recalled in which inversion occurred, i.e., in a VA pair, the auditory digit was recalled as a visual digit. One point was scored for each digit inverted. The measure of dependent variable is the mean of errors during recall for ten trials for each task for each S. Similar measures are used for the intersensory errors except that there are five independent error types: gross auditory, gross visual, order auditory, order visual and interchange. Data Analysis Analysis of Variance A three variable multifactor design with repeated measures on two variables was chosen for all the experiments 49 (Winer, 1962, p. 319). Such a design assumed additive main effects and interactions which in this design were easily interpreted. A counterbalanced ordering of the task by a latin square arrangement of presentation was used to avoid non random sequencing effect. The correlation between pairs of experimental errors which was of concern in a repeated measures design of this type was treated by nesting the subject variance under the classification variable. Simple Effects If in the repeated measures analysis of variance significant two way interactions (p < .05) were found, then simple effects, single factor analyses of variance were carried out for the two interacting variables (Winer, 1971, p. 457 and 545). One of the multifactor analyses of variance con- tained a significant three way interaction. Simple inter- action analysis (Winer, 1962, p. 252) was then carried out on the three,two by two tables. Single factor simple, sim- ple main effect analyses (Winer, 1962, p. 252) treatment were applied to those two way tables showing interaction significance (p < .05). Newman-Keuls Comparisons of Means Where means for a single factor were found to be significantly different either by a multifactor or simple 50 effect ANOVA then pairwise comparisons by the Newman-Keuls method was carried out for "logical grouping" (Winer, 1962, p. 238). L125}. Comparison of the means for errors during intra- sensory tasks with those errors during intersensory tasks was carried out using the procedure of Welch and described in Winer (1962, p. 37). Sign Test For HR data, an estimate of deceleration was obtained by testing the number of decreases against chance for the means over the eight tasks using a one-tailed sign test (Siegel, 1956, p. 68). A similar analysis was applied to the acceleration data. Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Test The eight tasks were assumed to be independent of each other. A comparison against random distribution of the differences of the means of the paired HR variability for each task was carried out for the normal reading-primary reading deficit and secondary reading deficit-primary read- ing deficit group. Since magnitude as well as direction was considered important a two-tailed Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Test (Siegel, 1956, p. 75) was used in the analyses. CHAPTER III RESULTS In this chapter, the analyses of the physiological and performance dependent measures which are the following: heart rate, heart rate variability, heart rate deceleration, GSR, and recall errors collected through procedures des- cribed in Chapter II are presented as evidence related to the hypotheses described in Chapter I. The analyses are described first for all 8 tasks followed by separate treat- ments of intersensory and intrasensory tasks. Significances had to reach the p < .05 level to be considered. Heart Rate Measures A summary of analysis of variance of the mean HR scores as a function of Reading Classification, Task and Period for all 8 tasks is given in Table 3. Significant interaction was obtained for Tasks X Periods (S = 4.18, g: = 14/630, p < .0005). This interaction is shown graphi- cally in Figure 3. Comparison of simple effects of the mean HR of the eight tasks for the preperiod, stimulus and recall periods revealed significant differences for the preperiod and stimulus periods (E = 45.75 and 21.55, g: = 7/630, 51 52 TABLE 3.--A summary of the analysis of variance of the mean heart rate as a function of reading classification, task and period. Source g: NS E 2 Between subjects Classification (c) 2 345.36 0.7181 ns Ss within group 45 480.91 Within subjects Task (T) 7 15.152 1.50 ns C X T 14 7.726 0.763 ns T X Ss within group 315 10.12 Period (P) 2 5.293 1.50 ns C X P 4 3.391 0.961 ns P X Ss within group 90 3.537 T X P 14 3.219 4.18 <.0005 C X T X P 28 0.6771 0.882 ns T P X Ss within group 630 0.7676 TASKS RECALL a———¢11VA: 91-h INTERSENSORY Hon 3 OX . 909-1 . a——-¢ 4 AV 9 '6‘ 2 ::-3 211’ 3 9Geu - E 1 INTRASENSORY .__.‘. 7 M : '5 90“" 3 ‘ O----o 8 AA 0 m - t-aa E 90'2“ gt/r \: w 9G0 _____——cN s i .1 63¢:f*:“' ~N\ 1.6 3 SAS- ~\\\\ ~\:2$$, 2 89 6- 7k~\ / \‘93 . \N / ‘ WAN \\ ./ '_--_”—"'7 ‘v/ 89'2 PREPERIOD STIMULUS RECALL PERIODS FIG. 3--MEAN HEART RATE FOR INTRASENSORY AND INTERSENSORY TASKS AS FUNCTION OF PERIODS FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 53 p <.Ol respectively). Similar significance was not obtained for the means in the recall period. Consequently, the mean of the four intersensory tasks in the preperiod was compared with a Newman-Keuls test with that of the four intrasensory tasks and was found to be significant (p < .01). Similarly, for the stimulus period the mean of the four intersensory tasks exceeded that of the intrasensory ones as shown by a Newman-Keuls significance (p < .01). The simple effects analyses for individual tasks across the three periods were also carried out. Simple effects for the mean HR of the first three intersensory tasks were significant (S = 3.86, 17.69, 3.62, Si = 2/630, 2 < .05, .01, .05 respectively). Newman-Keuls indicated that the mean HR during the recall period for these three tasks decreased from the stimulus periods (p < .05, .01, .05 respectively). For the first two intrasensory tasks (5, 6) which are visual, simple effect significances (5 = 15.74, 6.11, g: = 2/630, p < .01), were obtained. For both tasks, New- man-Keuls tests indicated that the mean HR decreased between the preperiod and stimulus periods, and increased for the stimulus and recall periods, (p < .01 for all cases). Simi- lar results were not obtained for the two auditory, intra- sensory tasks (7, 8). 54 Separate analyses of variance of intersensory and intrasensory tasks are summarized in Tables 4 and 5 respec- tively. Treatment of intersensory data did not yield sig- nificant results. TABLE 4.--A summary of the analysis of variance of the mean heart rate as a function of reading classification, task and period for intersensory data. Source df MS E E Between subjects Classification (C) 2 172.31 0.661 ns Ss within group 45 260.71 Within subjects Task (1) 3 2.240 0.548 ns C X T 6 2.339 0.572 ns T X Ss within group 135 4.091 Period (P) 2 7.904 2.91 .06 C X P 4 1.128 0.415 ns P X Ss within group 90 2.717 T X P 6 1.239 1.861 ns C X T X P 12 0.394 0.592 ns T P X Ss within group 270 0.666 0n the intrasensory tasks HR means in the preperiod, stimulus and recall periods were 89.95, 89.60, 89.77 respec- tively. The main effect of period was significant (5 = 3.20, g1 = 2/90, E < .05, Table 5). However, a Newman-Keuls com- parison did not indicate any meaningful differences between mean HR for the individual periods. No significant effects for reading group were found in any of these analyses. The mean HR data are presented in 55 TABLE 5.--A summary of the analysis of variance of the mean heart rate as a function of reading classification, task and period for intrasensory data. Source df MS f p Between subjects Classification (c) 2 196.45 0.785 ns Ss within group 45 250.13 Within subjects Task (T) 3 2.788 0.291 ns C X T 6 7.891 0.825 ns T X Ss within group 135 9.564 Period (P) 2 5.816 3.20 <.05 C X P 4 3.740 2.06 .09 P X Ss within group 90 1.829 T X P 6 3.441 4.36 <.0005 C X T X P 12 0.6938 0.879 ns T P X Ss within group 270 0.7888 Tables 3, 4, 5 and in Figure 3. Consequently, these data do not support hypotheses l, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 (given in Chapter I) all of which predicted differences in HR among the reading classification groups as a function of task and period. Hypothesis 3 proposed HR deceleration in intersen- sory would exceed that in intrasensory tasks for normal reading group. The mean HR data do not support this predic- tion. The finding of a higher mean HR for the intersensory tasks in the preperiod and stimulus periods compared to intrasensory tasks was in the opposite direction to that expected. PU P L. x . l P .. l I . . I III p ._ . 11: I I: P1. .4 N . r l I I} a . A J . s _ . . l V . L I . 4 N . e il . \r .. F. .1 N \ .5 Iran- r~l . . \- 0 3' ’1 A.) 23.116 "1.7: I .. L -\ .. 921110 .1318 I'\ .3 56 For the total sample, mean HR decreases in recall period from the stimulus period were found in the intersen- sory tasks 1, 2 and 3 and mean HR decreases occurred in intrasensory tasks 5 and 6 from preperiod to stimulus period followed by increases in recall period (Figure 3). These tasks, 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, use visual stimuli with instructions for recall which require that the visual stimuli be given first or in paired recall with the auditory stimuli. Changes in mean HR across periods were not obtained for intrasensory auditory tasks 7 and 8 nor for the linear recall intersen- sory task 4 which requires that the auditory stimuli be cited first in recall. These results suggest that the modality characteristic of the task (auditory or visual) as well as the presentation (intersensory or intrasensory) produced a change in direction of mean HR as a function of periods. Heart Rate Variability Measures A summary of analysis of variance of the mean HR variability as a function of Reading Classification, Task and Period for both intrasensory and intersensory modes of presentation is given in Table 6. No main effects reached statistical significance. However, the interaction of Classification X Task (5 = 1.74, g: = 14/315, p < .05) and Task X Period (5 = 2.16, g: = 14/630, p < .001) were significant. For the Classification 57 TABLE 6.-~A summary of analysis of variance of the mean heart.rate variability as a function of reading classification, task and period. Source df MS 5 E Between subjects Classification (C) 2 482.57 ‘0.336 ns Ss within group 45 1433.54 Within subjects Task (T) 7 139.68 1.37 ns C X T 14 176.95 1.74 <.05 T X Ss within group 315 101.54 Period (P) 2 113.58 2.65 .10 C X P 4 82.37 1.92 ns P X SS within group 90 42.76 T X P 14 59.14 2.16 <.001 C X T X P 28 29.39 1.07 ns T P X Ss within group 630 27.30 X Task interaction the mean HR variability is shown graphi- cally in Figure 4. Simple effect significance was obtained for the intrasensory auditory pairing task (7) (E = 13.75, g: = 2/315, p < .01) across the reading classifications. The HR variability of the NR group was higher than those of the deficit reading groups, Newman—Keuls (p < .05), for this task (7). Significant simple effects were obtained for the NR group across the tasks (5 = 4.40, g: = 7/315, p < .01),but not for either of the deficit reading classifi- cations. For the Task X Period interaction, simple effects significance was obtained for the preperiod (E = 3.93, 19.0 18.5 AIEAN HEART RATE VARIANCE G J co 0'! d —I d .4 _I q .1 q INTERSENSORY INTRASENSORY TASKS FIG. 4—- THE EFFECT OF TASKS ON THE MEAN HEART RATE VARIABILITY OF THE THREE READING CLASSIFICATIONS _j = 7/630, p < .05) across the tasks. Mean HR variability of tasks across periods is shown graphically in Figure 5. Across the periods, simple effect significances were obtained for the intersensory linear task (3), (S = 3.22, g: = 2/630, p < .05) and for the intrasensory auditory pair- ing task (7) (S = 5.92, g: = 2/630, p < .01). The HR varia- bility during recall period was higher than that of the stimulus period, Newman-Keuls (p < .05) for task (3). For task (7), the preperiod HR variability was higher than those of the stimulus and recall periods, Newman-Keuls (p < .05 and p < .01).respectively. Separate analyses of variance were carried out for the intersensory and intrasensory tasks. For the 59 TASKS ' RECALL 1S9 o~——431 VA 7 \\\ o———434.Mlc- ‘I \\‘ Ch—-—o;gvvi> o—--—o vv 1‘3 12.5 _1 INTRASENSORYI . 7 M g 12.0-A O-——0 8 AA o g . m 11.5% 2 m 1L0- E < ms- E z 1G0- < e 93- ” mo~ 8.5" 8.0 PREPERIOD STIMULUS RECALL PERIODS FIG. 5-- MEAN HEART RATE VARIABILITY FOR TASKS ACROSS PERIODS FOR TOTAL SAMPLE intersensory data, significant main effects for Period with mean HR variabilities of 10.35, 9.12 and 10.82 for preperiod, stimulus and recall periods respectively,(£ = 4.88, g: = 2/90, p < .01, Table 7) were obtained. The summary of analy- sis of variance for intersensory data is shown in Table 7. A Newman-Keuls comparison of pairs of means of HR variability for the reading classification across the three periods is given in Table 8. For the total population, the results indicated that the HR variability decreases between the preperiod and stimulus periods and then increases in the recall period (Newman-Keuls p < .05). However, similar results were obtained independently only for the SRD group 60 TABLE 7.--A summary of the analysis of variance on the mean heart rate variability as a function of reading classification, task and period for intersensory data. Source 9: NS 5 E Between subjects Classification (C) 2 12.08 0.019 ns Ss within group 45 628.09 Within subjects Task (T) 3 46.78 1.93 ns C X T 6 7.801 0.322 ns 1 x Ss within group 135 24.20 Period (P) 2 147.53 4.88 .01 C X P 4 56.52 1.87 ns P X Ss within group 90 30.22 T X P 6 29.18 1.64 ns C X T X P 12 21.29 1.20 ns T P X Ss within group 270 17.75 Table 8.--Newman-Keuls comparisons of mean heart rate vari- ability of reading classifications across periods for intersensory data. Classification Periods Groups I . Pre p* Stim. p* Recall Control . 9.758 . ns 9.060 0.01 11.975 Primary 10.448 ns 9.478 ns 9.504 Secondary 10.842 '0.01 8.835 0.05 10.988 Total 10.349 0.05 9.124 0.05 10.832 * p represents significance between two periods on either side of the p column. 61 (Newman-Keuls p < .01 and p < .05 respectively). An increase in HR variability in recall period over stimulus period was found for the NR group (Newman-Keuls p < .01). A summary of analysis of variance of the mean HR variability for intrasensory data is shown in Table 9. Only 2.53, one interaction, Tasks X Periods, was significant (5 g: = 6/270, p < .02) for the intrasensory tasks (Table 9). TABLE 9.--A summary of the analysis of variance on the mean heart rate variability as function of reading classification, task and period for intrasensory data. Source 9: NS E p Between supjects Classification (C) 2 784.29 0.819 ns Ss within group 45 956.47 Within subjects Task (T) 3 116.94 0.720 ns C X T 6 300.50 1.85 T X SS within group 135 162.39 Period (P) 2 25.08 0.558 ns C X P 4 36.91 0.822 ns P X Ss w1thin group 90 44.90 T X P 6 89.16 2.53 <.05 C X T X P 12 43.62 1.23 ns T P X Ss within group 270 35.18 62 Mean HR variability of intrasensory tasks across periods is depicted in Figure 6. Simple effect analysis showed significance for the intrasensory task (7) across the three periods (S = 4.60, g: = 2/270, 2 < .01, Figure 6). For task 7, both the stimulus and recall variability decreased from the preperiod mean (Newman-Keuls p < .01, 5.59, .05) respectively. Simple effect significance (E g_ = 3/270, p < .01) was obtained for the preperiod across the four intrasensory tasks. A comparison of the HR vari- ability in preperiod for the two visual tasks (5, 6) indie cated that it was lower than for the auditory tasks (7, 8) (Newman-Keuls p < .01). The HR variability means of task 7 and 8 were combined for the three periods and these new means compared across periods. A decrease and subsequent increase was obtained between preperiod and stimulus and stimulus and recall (Newman-Keuls p < .01, .05 respectively, Figure 6). The HR variability data presented in Table 6 and Figure 4 support the finding that change in HR variability occurred in NR group across all eight tasks but not for the two deficit reading groups, PRO and SRD. Higher HR varia- bility occurred for NR group for intrasensory auditory task 7. For the total sample change in HR variability as a function of periods was found for intersensory task 3 and intrasensory task 7. A common element which might account 63 TASKS RECALL ‘5'0'1 7 VISUALH 5 vv-0 145- \ INTRASENSORY "5”“. I 6 V" ' AIIpITORY0—-0 7 AA “.0 .. \ AUDITORY o——-o 3 M .. 13.5 4 13.0 - 12.5 -I 12.0 - 11.5 -« MEAN HEART RATE VARIANCE 11.0 d 10.5 - 10.0 "‘ 9.5 PREPERIOD STIMULUS RECALL PERIODS FIG. 6--MEAN HEART RATE VARIANCE FOR INT RASENSORY TASKS ACROSS PERIODS FOR TOTAL SAMPLE for change in HR variability in both these tasks is unclear. However, the HR variability data on the tasks do differ; task 7, HR variability was higher in preperiod than in stimu- lus and recall periods, whereas, in task 3 the HR variabil- ity in recall period was higher than in stimulus period (Figure 5). The increase in HR variability in task 7 for the total sample may have resulted from the very high value, (14.75) for the NR group on this task 7 (Figure 5). For the total sample, the HR variability decreased in the stimulus period from the preperiod followed by increase in recall period for intersensory tasks (Figure 5). For these tasks, the direction of change in HR variability 64 was opposite to that found for direction of change in mean HR measure. The intrasensory results presented in Figure 6 indi- cated that HR variability was related to modality character- istics of the tasks (auditory and visual). The combined HR variability of visual task 5 and 6 was lower than the com- bined means of auditory tasks in the preperiod. The com- bined, mean HR variability of auditory tasks,decreased in stimulus and subsequently increased in recall period. Heart Rate Deceleration Measures The summary of analysis of variance of HR decelera- tion as function of Reading Classification, Task and Period for all 8 Tasks is given in Table 10. For each trial the lowest beat in preperiod was used as base for comparison with the lowest beat in each of the other periods. The mean difference over the 10 trials for each task was the dependent variable. Main effects signifi- cance was obtained for the reading classification groups with mean HR deceleration of -.60, +.17, and +.09 for NR, PRD and SRO respectively (E = 3.68, g__= 2/45, p < .03). Mean HR deceleration of reading classification groups is shown graphically in Figure 7. HR deceleration occurred for the NR group, but not for each of the deficit reading groups. 65 TABLE 10.--A summarycnianalysis of variance of heart rate deceleration as function of reading Classifica- tion, task and period. Source df MS S p Between subjects Classification (C) 2 46.95 3.68 < .05 Ss within group 45 12.76 Within subjects Task (T) 7 8.775 1.59 ns C X T 14 4.397 0.799 ns T X SS within group 315 5.506 Period (P) l 15.58 2.55 ns C X P 2 7.438 1.22 ns P X Ss within group 45 6.116 T X P 7 14.36 8.33 < .0005 C X T X P 14 1.423 0.825 ns T P X Ss within group 315 1.725 2 Q .— & Ej-+Loa I.“ N; +.s~ E o a g ___________ 4.31.1.7. _______ ‘ +409 3‘: E E -.5-‘ 21" ._ _ 60 9:5 -1.o-I g E D 95‘ NORMAL PRIMARY SECONDARY READING CLASSIFICATION FIG. 7-- MEAN HEART RATE DECELERATION (FROM MINIMUM HR(bpm) IN PREPERIOD) FOR READING CLASSIFICATION GROUPS FOR TOTAL DATA (INTER AND INTRA) 66 The Task X Periods interaction was significant (5 = 8.33, d_ = 7/315, 9 < .0005). Mean HR dece1eration for tasks across period for tota1 samp1e is depicted in Figure 8. Tests of simp1e effects showed HR dece1eration for the inter- sensory tasks (1, 2, and 3) in the reca11 period (5 12.57, 11.95, 12.44, g: = 1/315, 3 < .01 respective1y). The HR dece1eration in the reca11 period for the three intersensory tasks was indicated re1ative to their respective stimu1us periods asweII (Newman-Keu1s g < .01). For the two intra- sensory visua1 tasks (5,6), HR dece1eration during the stimu- 1us periods was obtained (E = 10.45, 11.30, gj.= 1/315, 2 < .01 respectiveTy). HR dece1eration occurs for task 8 in TASKS RECALL z>———«3 IMA: (SI—A 2 AV INTERSENSORY C C 3 VA .. H 4 AV 0 5 +10" O----O 5 vv 9 _ o—-——o 6‘W': INTRASENSORY E +1.54 . ..___. 7 AA 3 +L0- 0"'-‘ 8am ‘- 3 g +.5 -‘ 4 :4 E oq;___ wgzfl7..- m o E __.5 .4 E 6/ ‘Iz\.8 < a: A g 43..3 50”” Z I“ < -1.5 - B I.“ z o -2.0 - I STIMULUS RECALL PERIODS FIG. 8—- MEAN HEART RATE DECELERATION FOR INTERSENSORY AND INTRASENSORY TASKS ACROSS PERIODS FROM MINIMUM HR(bpm) IN PREPERIOD 67 reca11 period re1ative to the stimu1us period (f = 13.34, g: = 1/315, 3 < .01, Newman-KeuIs p < .01, Figure 8). A separate treatment of intersensory data is sum- marized in Tab1e 11. A significant main effect for HR dece1eration in the stimu1us and reca11 periods with means of +.36 and -.37 respective1y (5 = 10.38, g: = 1/45, E < .002) was obtained. TABLE 11.--A summary of ana1ysis of variance on mean heart rate dece1eration as function of reading c1assi- fication, task and period for intersensory data. Source df MS 5 E Between subjects C1assification (C) 2 27.13 2.95 .06 S5 within group _ 45 9.178 Within subjects Task (T) 3 8.608 1.50 ns C X T 6 2.957 0.5187 ns T X §s within group 135 , 5.702 Periods (P) 1 51.92 10.38 < .002 C X P 2 3.390 0.678 ns P X §s within group 45 4.998 T X P 3 4.058 2.37 .07 C X T X P 6 1.497 0.877 ns T P X §s within group 135 1.706 Treatment of intrasensory data is given in Tab1e 12. A Task X Period interaction significance was obtained for the separate ana1ysis of variance of the intrasensory tasks (5 = 9.39, g: = 3/135, 3 < .0005, Tab1e 12). Mean HR 68 TABLE 12.--A summary of ana1ysis of variance on mean heart rate dece1eration as function of reading c1assi- fication, task and period for intrasensory data. Source df MS E p Between subjects C1assification (C) 2 25.82 2.45 .09 S5 within group 45 10.50 Within subjects Task (T) 3 9.117 1.88 ns C X T 6 5.302 1.09 ns T X §S within group 135 4.841 Periods (P) 1 2.633 0.935 ns C X P 2 7.145 2.53 .09 P X SS within group 45 2.814 T X P 3 16.46 9.39 < .0005 C X T X P 6 0.7898 0.450 ns T P X 55 within group 135 1.752 dece1eration for intrasensory tasks across stimu1us and reca11 periods is depicted in Figure 9. A simp1e effects test supported the resu1ts obtained from the tota1 data, i.e., for the two visua1 tasks (5, 6) HR dece1erations were indicated in the stimu1us period (5 = 18.97, 6.45, d: = 1/135, 3 < .01 respective1y, Figure 9). ' Since the 1owest beat in the preperiod was taken as a base to compare with the 1owest beat in the stimu1us and in the reca11 periods, the number of decreases (independent of magnitude) for the means of the eight tasks was taken as a measure of the probabiIity of dece1eration. For the NR 69 TASKS RECALL é VISUAL0—-O 5 W -> VISUALH 6 vv 9 S “'54 INTRASENSORY .I AUOITORYO--O 7 AA 0 In +1.0- . g AUOITORYO-- 8 AA - ‘3 +.su E z < O-II-Q 6 ————— m i? .— q 05 g -05 B m In I 4.01 U Z I“ 3 15 ° 3 STIMULUS RECALL PERIODS FIG. 9-— MEAN HEART RATE DECELERATION FOR INTRASENSORY TASKS ACROSS STIMULUS AND RECALL PERIOD FOR TOTAL SAMPLE group the combined (stimu1us and reca11) decreases for the eight tasks shows dece1eration, n = 14, the decreases, n = 11, p < .02 with a one tai1ed, Sign test. Dece1eration was not Obtained for the PRO group, n = 16, the decreases, n = 5, being 1ess than ha1f the Observed changes. Dece1eration was indicated in the reca11 period, n = 8, the decreases n = 7, p < .03, by the Sign test, but not for stimu1us or combined decreases for the SRD group. Simi1ar Sign test ana1yses did not indicate that acce1eration, based upon preperiod maximum HR as a base occurs for any of the groups or periods. Hypothesis 1 predicted HR dece1eration wou1d occur in NR group with stimu1us presentation. The data presented 70 in Tab1e 10 and Figure 7 indicated that HR dece1eration occurred on1y in NR group. A C1assification X Period Inter- action was not found. Hypothesis 1 as stated wou1d not be supported by the resu1ts. Hypotheses 5 and 6 predicted HR dece1eration wou1d occur in PRO group but not in SRO group with stimu1us presentation of intrasensory and intersensory conditions which cite the visua1 stimu1i first. The resu1ts do not support either of these hypotheses. For the intersensory data, a main effect for Periods was Observed (Tab1e 11). HR dece1eration occurred in reca11 period which was in direction Opposite to initia1 expecta- tions. The ana1ysis of direction of change in HR dece1era- tion for tasks across periods indicated simi1ar resu1ts for the intersensory tasks 1, 2, 3 and auditory, intrasensory task 8; intersensory task 4 and intrasensory, auditory task 7; intrasensory, visua1 tasks 5 and 6 (Figure 8). These resu1ts fo1IOw the data for mean HR except for task 8 where the change in mean HR across periods was not signifi- cant. The ana1yses Of the number of decreases independent of magnitude by the Sign test indicated that for NR group, HR dece1eration occurred in combined stimu1us and reca11 periods, HR dece1eration was not observed for PRO group whereas, HR dece1eration was found in reca11 period for 71 SRO group. The intrasensory visua1 tasks 5 and 6 were the on1y tasks in which HR dece1eration was observed in stimu- 1us period for tota1 samp1e (Figure 9). Heart Rate Acce1eration Measures The ana1ysis of variance of HR acce1eration in the stimu1us and reca11 periods for a11 8 tasks is given in Tab1e 13. TABLE 13.--A summary of ana1ysis of variance for mean heart rate acce1eration as a function of reading C1assification, task and period. Source 9: SS 5 g Between subjects C1assification (C) 2 1.140 0.117 ns SS within group 45 - 9.768 Within subjects Task (T) 7 1.952 0.974 ns C X T 14 2.327 1.16 ns T X Ss within group 315 2.003 Period (P) 1 0.197 0.067 ns C X P 2 3.348 1.13 ns P X Ss within group 45 2.957 T X P 7 1.628 2.60 < .01 C X T X P 14 0.654 1.04 ns T P X SS within group 315 0.627 For each tria1 the highest beat in the preperiod was used as base for comparison with the highest beat in each of the other periods. The mean difference over the 10 tria1s for each task was the dependent variab1e. For HR 72 acce1eration from the preperiod maximum HR on1y a Task X Period interaction was significant (E 2.60, g: = 7/315, 2 < .01). Decreases which occurred were rejected since the criteria for acce1eration was chosen to be an-increase and therefore the Obtained significance was meaning1ess. A separate treatment of intersensory data yie1ded a significant Task X Period Interaction (S = 3.25 gj_= 3/135, 2 < .02). The direction Of change (decrease) was not in accord with stated criteria for acce1eration and therefore meaning1ess. An ana1ysis of variance for the intrasensory tasks did not yie1d any Significant resu1ts. Hypothesis 2 predicted a HR acce1eration wou1d occur for NR group during the reca11 period. Data present in Tab1e 13 as we11 as the separate treatment for intersensory and intrasensory tasksdo not support the hypothesis. In hypothesis 7 HR acce1eration in PRO group for intrasensory and intersensory tasks which cite the visua1 stimu1i first was a1so predicted. No support for this hypothesis was found. The direction of change (decrease) in reca11 period for SRO that was obtained was not anticipated. Ga1vanic Skin Response Measures The summary of an ana1ysis of variance of the mean GSR as a function of Reading C1assifiction, Task and Period for a11 8 tasks is given in Tab1e 14. Significance for the main effect, Period, was Obtained (S = 27.14, g: = 2/90, E < .01). The mean, 4.497, 73 TABLE 14.—~A summary Of ana1ysis of variance on mean GSR as function of reading c1assification,task and period. Source g: ES 5 2 Between subjects C1assification (C) 2 20.96 0.2309 ns Ss within group 45 90.75 Within subjects Task (T) 7 10.90 0.8955 ns C X T 14 30.38 2.49 < .01 T X SS within group 315 12.17 Period (P) 2 418.15 27.14 < .01 C X P 4 10.05 0.6530 ns P X SS within group 90 15.40 T X P 14 7.360 1.71 < .05 C X T X P 28 3.659 0.8522 ns T P X Ss within group 630 4.293 4.471 and 6.292 decreased from preperiod to stimu1us period and then increased from stimu1us period to reca11 period. An increase in mean GSR during the reca11 period compared to those in the pre and stimu1us periods was indicated by the Newman-Keu1s test, B < .01 for both. A significant interaction was found for the Reading C1assification X Task (E = 2.49, g: = 14/315, 2 < .002). Mean GSR for reading c1assification across tasks is shown graphica11y in Figure 10. 0n1y the two auditory intrasen- sory tasks (7, 8) showed simp1e effects significances across the three reading c1assifications (S = 38.60, 3.05, g: = 2/315, E < .01 and .05 respective1y). A Newman-Keu1s 74 comparison test, B < .01, indicated that in task (7) the mean GSR was higher for the NR group than for either of the deficit reading groups (Figure 10). For task (8) a simp1e effects significance was found across the reading c1assifi- cations (S = 3.05, g: = 2/315, 2 < .05). Newman-Keu1s com- parisons indicated that in the NR group the mean GSR for task (8) exceeded that of the SRO group, R < .01, and that of the PRD group, B < .05, and that the PRD group is higher than the SRO group (B < .05). Task X Period interaction was significant (5 = 1.71, f = 14/630, 3 < .05).~ For a11 the eight tasks simp1e effect —-—- significances were obtained across the experimenta1 periods 9.0 ~ READING GROUPS 8.5 .. NORMAL (NR) O-—-0 «n PRIMARY (PRO) o—--¢ :g 8.0- SECONDARY (SRD) F—4 & r—7s- 2 3 Lo- u. g as- 0 g 60— 2 a 154 5 m 5.0-1 1 45- 4D— I l I l l T I l I z 3 4AJ[ 5 6 7 SJ INTERSENSORY INTRASENSORY TASKS FIG. IO--MEAN GSR FOR READING CLASSIFICATION GROUPS ACROSS INTERSENSORY AND INTRASENSORY TASKS 75 at E < .01, (Figure 11), a1so for each task it was indicated that the reca11 GSR exceeded both the preperiod and stimu- 1us periods at the Newman-Keu1s, g < .01 1eve1 except for tasks 2 and 5 where the significances for comparison of reca11 and stimu1us periods and of reca11 and preperiods were 2 < .05 respective1y (Figure 11). Separate treatments of the intrasensory and inter- sensory GSR measurements were carried out and are shown in Tab1es 15 and 16 respective1y. In both cases significant main effects for Period were Obtained (E = 17.10, 20.35, g: = 2/90 respective1y with E < .005 for both). The means are 4.729, 4.465 and 6.260 for the intrasensory tasks and TASKS INTERSENSORY A———A 1‘4 INTRASENSORY .— — -o 54 Lo— SSA ao— ss— S.0 -I Ls~ L04 3.5 -4 3.0 .I 2.5 -I 2.0 J l l PREPERIOD STIMULUS RECALL MEAN SUM OF GSR: FOR 10 TRIALS PERIODS FIG. II--MEAN GSR FOR INTRASENSORY AND INTERSENSORY TASKS OVER PREPERIOD, STIMULUS AND RECALL PERIODS FOR TOTAL SAMPLE 76 TABLE 15.--A summary of ana1ysis of variance on mean GSR as function of reading c1assification, task and period for intrasensory data. Source g1 MS f_ 3 Between subjects C1assification (C) 2 90.07 1.57 ns Ss within group 45 57.32 Within subjects Task (T) 3 20.09 1.82 ns C X T 6 34.36 3 11 < 01 T X Ss within group 135 11.03 Period (P) 2 180.60 17.19 < .0005 C X P 4 4.075 0.387 ns P X Ss within group 90 10.50 T X P 6 8.780 2.34 < .05 C X T X P 12 4.128 1.10 ns T P X Ss within group 270 3.745 TABLE 16.--A summary of ana1ysis of variance on mean GSR as function Of reading c1assification, task and period for intersensory data. Source g: flS f_ 2 Between subjects C1assification (C) 2 18.61 0.287 ns Ss within group 45 64.78 Within subjects Task (T) 3 3.761 0.543 ns C X T 6 7.310 1.06 ns T X SS within group 135 6.923 Period (P) 2 245.68 20.35 < .0005 C X P 4 9.234 0.765 ns P X SS within group 90 12.07 T X P 6 5.681 1.46 ns C X T X P 12 3.326 0.857 ns T P X Ss within group 270 3.881 77 4.266, 4.479 and 6.323 for the intersensory tasks during the pre,stimu1us and reca11 periods respective1y. These resu1ts are congruent with the overa11 ana1ysis. NO other effects were significant for intersensory data. For intrasensory tasks, significance was Obtained for the Reading C1assification X Task interaction (E = 3.11, g: = 6/135, E < .007, Figure 12). Simp1e effects signifi- cance was on1y found for task 8 across the reading c1assifi- cation. However, a Newman-Keu1s test indicated that in the NR group the mean for the two visua1 tasks (5, 6), 4.740 was 1ess than that Of the two auditory tasks (7, 8), 6.928 (R < .01). READING GROUPS NORMALINR) H PRIMARY(PRD) °---0 7 5 SECONDARYISRD) *"9 -1 10— 3 S 6.5 - D: I— S 6.0 -" g 5.5 -1 g SO- % 45- § w 4D- 5 g 35« 30- 2-5 1 T 1 1 S 6 7 a INTRASENSORY TASKS FIG. 12—— MEAN GSR FOR READING CLASSIFICATION ACROSS INTRASENSORY TASKS 78 Interaction significance was a1so Obtained for Task X Period (5 = 2.34, g: = 6/270, 3 < .03). Simp1e effect significances were found for the three periods, preperiod, stimu1us and reca11 (S = 3.92, 2.93, 3.33, g: = 3/270, with E < .01, .05 respective1y (Figure 13). For each of the tasks (5, 6, 7, 8) simp1e effect significances were obtained (5 = 17.05, 8.64, 15.08, 14.65, gj_= 2/270 respective1y with E < .01 for a11). Newman-Keu1s comparisons indicated an increase in GSRs for a11 of the tasks during reca11 period over the respective stimu1us and preperiod va1ues at the E < .01 1eve1. For the task (5) a significant decrease between preperiod and stimu1us period was found (Newman- Keu1s, E < .01). 7.0 - )D: INTRASENSORY V’ 6.5 / TASK g 1 éy/.5 O~——4Isvv:» E 6.0-I .———Q 6 VV 2 c o~—-017AAI a: 5.5-1 O-—-. 8 AA- I.” _—— > AUDITORY g 5°°"‘ VISUAL 3 4.5-1 8 3 A04 3 z 3.5-I < E 30~ 25- PREPERIOD STIMULUS RECALL PERIODS FIG. 13-—MEAN GSR FOR INTRASENSORY TASKS OVER PREPERIOD, STIMULUS AND RECALL PERIODS 79 Hypothesis 1 predicted GSR responsivity for NR group with stimu1us presentation and hypothesis 2 predicted GSR responsivity for NR group in the reca11 period. Neither hypothesis was supported by the data. An increase in GSR responsivity was found in reca11 period across a11 eight tasks for tota1 samp1e (Figure 11). GSR responsivity was greater in NR group on1y for intrasen- sory auditory tasks 7 and 8. This evidence did not support hypothesis 3 which predicted GSR responsivity in intersen- sory tasks wou1d exceed that in intrasensory tasks for NR group. GSR responsivity was a1so found to be greater for PRD group than SRD in task 8 (Figure 10). These resu1ts were the on1y evidence to suggest differences between the deficit reading groups in GSR responsivity. Therefore hypotheses S, 6 and 7 a11 of which predicted GSR responsiv- ity in PRD group were not supported. Evidence was presented in Figure 12 which indicated differentia1 GSR responsivity among intrasensory tasks for NR group. Mean GSR for the intrasensory visua1 tasks 5 and 6 was 1ower than mean Of intrasensory aduitory tasks 7 and 8. This evidence wou1d not support hypothesis 4 which predicted no difference in autonomic responses wou1d be observed within intrasensory and within intersensory tasks in NR group. Performance Measures The dependent variab1e was taken as the number Of errors on reca11. A summary of ana1ysis of variance on 80 mean errors as function of Reading C1assification, Task and Error Type for a11 8 tasks is given in Tab1e 17. Main effect significances were found for Reading C1assification, Task and Error Type, (E = 17.14, g: = 2/45, E = 23.77, g: = 7/315, 5 = 95.56, g: = 2/90 respective1y, with a11 p < .0005). The means for the variab1es are shown in Tab1e 18. As predicted, a comparison of the means for the reading c1assification groups indicated that the mean errors for the SRD group exceeded those of the NR and PRD groups (Newman—KeuTs p < .01, .05 respectively) and the mean errors of the PRD group exceeded those of the NR group (Newman-Keu1s p < .05). TABLE 17.--A summary of ana1ysis of variance on mean errors as function of reading c1assification, task and error type. Source g: fl§ E 3 Between subjects Classification (C) 2 33.32 17.14 < .0005 §s within group 45 1.944 Within subjects Task (T) 7 4.983 23.77 < .0005 C X T 14 0.2264 1.08 ns T X §s within group 315 0.2097 Error type (ET) 2 74.84 95.56 < .0005 C X E T 4 6.579 8.40 < .0005 E T X §s within group 90 0.7831 T X E T 14 1.454 10.06 < .0005 C X T X E T 28 0.1617 1.12 ns T E T X §s within group 630 0.1445 81 TABLE 18.--Mean errors for reading c1assification, task and error type. Reading C1assification Task Error Type 0.310 (1) 1 0.613 (2) 0.899 (3) methN 0.404 0.403 0.262 0.232 0.778 0.616 0.399 0.896 0.899 (1) 0.833 (2) 0.099 (3) Reading c1assification: readers, (3) Secondary readers. Task: (1-4) Intersensory (1) ContrO1, (2) Primary (5-8) Intrasensory. Error Type: (1) Gross, (2) Order, (3) Interchange. 82 Significant interactions were Obtained for Reading C1assification X Error Type (E = 8.40, g: = 4/90, 2 < .0005) and Task X Error Type (E = 10.06, g: = 14/630, 3 < .0005, Tab1e 17). Mean'errors for reading c1assification group across error types is shown graphica11y in Figure 14. Simp1e effect significances were obtained for both the gross errors 3.63, (f = 3.79, g: = 2/90, E < .05) and order error (E if = 2/90, E < .05) means across the three reading c1assifi- cations. Newman-Keu1s comparisons indicated that for both the gross and.order errors the SRD group made more errors than the NR group, p < .05 for both cases. The mean errors for each of the reading deficit groups were not significant1y different between the gross and order error types. 1.30 4 ‘_ __ SRD READING GROUPS \ NORMAUNR) H PRIMARY1PRD)o--—o L \ SECONDARY1SRD).——-A _l S K \ a: ’- u 5 .90 -+ \. \ a‘, .80 — \. 8 \¢\PRD \ l .70 -I . {E .60 1 \. \ CZ : .50 - \ \ ‘ NR 22’ .40 ~ \ \ .30 .. \ .20 -I \X\ A .10 GROSS WDER .chnnne ERROR TYPE FIG. 14—- MEAN ERRORS OF READING CLASSiFICATION GROUPS ACROSS ERROR TYPES (GROSS ORDER AND INTERCHANGE) 83 Treatment of the Task X Error Type interaction is depicted in Figure 15. For the three error types, gross, order and interchange, simp1e effect significances were found across the eight tasks, (5 = 28.44, 23.69, and 4.29, g:,= 7/630, 3 < .01 respective1y, Figure 15). Task 5, visua1 intrasensory, showed a significant decrease in order over gross errors (Newman—Keu1s, p < .01). For the remain- ing tasks the gross and order means were not significant1y different. 1.40 o TASKS 1.30 1 a. 5.: —-- “' T" ‘- ‘I’ —\ INTERSENSORYH "4 \ \INTRASENSORYO- — - -0 5-0 1.00 .- ' .90 '- .80 - .70 -I .60 -I .50 - .40 d .30 -' .20 -( MEAN ERRORS FOR EACH TRIAL .10 - 0 l GROSS ORDER INTERCHANGE ERROR TYPES FIG. 15--MEAN ERROR FOR INTERSENSORY AND INTRASENSORY TASKS ACROSS ERROR TYPES (GROSS, ORDER AND INTERCHANGE) ' 84 A summary of the ana1ysis of variance on the intra- sensory data is given in Tab1e 19. Main effect signifi- cances, p < .0005, were obtained for Reading C1assifica- tion, (5 = 14.23, gj_= 2/45, Task (5 = 31.99, g:,= 3/135) and Error Type (E = 85.55, g: = 2/90) and the means are 1isted in Tab1e 20. A Newman-Keu1s comparison of the C1assification means indicated that the SRO group made more errors than the NR group (p < .01). The means for the gross and order error types were not significant1y different. TABLE 19.--A summary Of ana1ysis of variance on mean errors as a function Of reading c1assification, task and error type for intrasensory data. Source df MS 5 ' 2 Between subjects C1assification (C) 2 19.31 14.23 .0005 SS within group 45 1.356 Within subjects Task (T) 3 6.669 31.99 .0005 C X T 6 0.2083 0.9998 ns T X 55 within group 135 0.2084 Error Type (ET) 2 47.72 85.55 .0005 C X ET 4 3.618 6.486 .0005 ET X §S within group 90 0.5578 ‘ T X ET 6 2.8611 18.02 .0005 C X T X ET 12 0.1078 0.6791 ns T ET X SS within group 270 0.1587 v— 85 TABLE 20.--Mean errors for reading c1assification, task and error type for intrasensory data. Reading C1assification Task . Error Type 1 0.356 5 0.778 1 0.992 2 0.670 6 0.616 2 0.927 3 0.991 7 0.399 3 0.098 8 0.896 Reading C1assification: (1) Contro1, (2) Primary, (3) Secondary Task: (5) & (6) Visua1, (7) & (8) Auditory. Error Type: (1) Gross, (2) Order, (3) Interchange For the intrasensory data, significant interactions were found for Reading C1assification X Error Type inter- action (5 = 6.49, g: = 4/90,'p'< .0005). Mean errors for reading c1assification groups in intersensory and intrasen- sory tasks across error types (gross, order and inter) are shown graphica11y in Figure 16. Intersensory tasks are inc1uded to a11ow for diagrammatic comparison, however, the fo11owing findings are based on ana1yses Of intrasensory data. Simp1e effect significances for reading c1assifica- tion across error types were found for the PRD group (i = 7.13, g: = 2/90, E < .01)and for the SRD group (5 = 15.23, g: = 2/90, E < .01), but not for the NR group. For the gross error type, simp1e effect significance was found (5 = 4.50, g: = 2/90, E < .05) and for the order error type I so — 1.4: READING GROUPS / / \ NORAIAL (NR) 0 SRD l sar’ \ PRIUARY (PRO) A ' SECONDARY ISRDI A J' \ INTERSENSORY TASKS " \ INTRASENSORY TASKS -—.— PRD 1.04 g 1.00 "i SRDI.02°‘ I- 5 ‘90 7 PRO .09 13 .00 -< 8 IL .70 '4 60 g '60 '1 NR sex 6 .50 -I . \ z 3 40‘ i . .30 - NR .30 .20 -I .10 -I GROSS ERROR TYPE FIG. 16--IAEAN ERRORS FOR READING CLASSIFICATIQI GROUPS IN INTERSENSORY AND INT RASENSORY TASKS ACROSS ERROR TYPES (GROSS, ORDER AND INT ER) (5 = 7.35, g: = 2/90, E < .01). Newman-Keu1s comparisons indicated that for both types of errors (gross and order), the errors in SRO group were higher than those of the NR group (p < .01). Differences between deficit reading groups for gross and error types were not found. For the Task X Error Type interaction for intrasen- sory data (E = 18.02, g: = 7/630, 3 < .0005, Tab1e 19), simp1e effect significances for a11 tasks (5, 6, 7 and 8) were obtained (5 = 119.12, 41.26, 21.80, and 171.59, d: = 2/270, 3 < .01, respective1y). A Newman-KeUTs comparison of the mean of tasks (6, 7), pairing responses, with the mean of tasks (5, 8) 1inear responses, indicated that more 87 gross and order errors were made on the 1inear than on the pairing responses. The mean of the gross errors of the intrasensory tasks was significant1y higher than those of the intersen- sory tasks (t = 3.00, g: = 197, p < .005). Simi1ar1y, the order error mean of the intrasensory tasks was higher than that of the intersensory tasks (t = 2.90, g: = 282, p < .005). I For the fo11owing ana1yses of intersensory data, the error types, gross and order, were scored separate1y for the auditory and visua1 moda1ities. Therefore, the error types for intersensory data were analyzed as fo110ws: ET 1 (gross auditorY); ET 2 (gross visua1); ET 3 (order auditory}; ET 4 (order visua1) and ET 5 (interchange). An ana1ysis of variance for the intersensory data is summarized in Tab1e 21. Main effect significance was found for Reading C1asSifications, (E = 15.52, g: = 2/45, E < .0005), Task (E 19.41, g: = 3/135, 2 < .0005), Error Type (F = 34.40, g: 4/180, 2 < .0005). Means are 1isted in Tab1e 22. Newman-KeuTs comparisons of the C1assification means indicate that the intersensory errors were higher for the SRO group than those of the NR group, p < .01 and those of the PRD group p < .05, and that the PRO group,errors Exceeded the NR group (p < .05). Significant differences between any 88 TABLE 21.--A summary of ana1ysis of variance On méan errors as a function of reading c1assification, task and error type for intersensory data. Source g: MS 5 E Between subjects CTassification (C) 2 8.529 15.52 < .0005 SS within group 45 0.5495 Within subjects Task (T) 3 1.993 19.41 < .0005 C X T 6 0.1492 1.45 ns T X SS within rOUp 135 0.1027 Error type (ET? 4 3.752 34.40 < .0005 C X ET 8 0.5859 5.372 < .0005 E T X SS within group 180 0.1091 ‘ T X ET 12 0.9955 17.70 < .0005 C X T X ET 24 0.1333 2.37 < .0005 T ET X Ss within group 540 0.0562 TABLE 22.--Mean errors for reading c1assification, task and error type on intersensory data. Reading Ciassification Task Error Type 1 0.264 1 0.404 1 0.322 2 0.555 2 0.403 2 0.483 3 0.807 3 0.262 3 0.371 4 0.232 4 0.348 5 0.101 Reading CTassification: (3) Secondary. Task: Error Type: (3) Order auditory, (4) Order visua1, (5).Interchange. Intersensory tasks, pairing, (3) & (4); Linear. (1) Contro1, (2) Primary (1) 3 (2); Directed (1) Gross auditory, (2) GrOss viSua1, 89 of the first, four error type means were not found. The first two tasks (1, 2) required paired responses and the 1ast two (3, 4) were 1inear. The mean of the former pair was compared with that of the 1atter. A Newman-Keu1s test indicated that the errors of the pairing responses were higher than that of the Tinear (p < .01). For the Reading C1assification X Error Type inter- action the means errors are shown graphica11y in Figure 17. Simp1e effect significances were obtained for the PRO groupIIE= 3.05, g: = 4/180, 0 < .05) and SRO group (£_= 7.61, d: = 4/180, p < .01), but not for the NR group. For the error types across reading c1assification, significances READING GROUPS NORMAL (NR) 0—0 10- PRIMARY (PRD) cr-o—O .90 A SECONDARY (SRD) k—* i E '80 " .72 z .70 -I k S: / \ 8 [U .60 ~ / \.5 g // .n ‘K‘xC 49 0 '5° " .49/ ./‘\ \\ o q ./ \, .33 5 .% \Nym__. ° ,\ z 30- ‘*k\ < 2 ' \ w 20- J9 J9 ' \\ 1 . \\ J0- J0 8‘“' 0 .m GROSS GROSS ORDER ORDER INTER AUDITORY VISUAL AUDITORY VISUAL ERROR TYPE FIG. 17-—MEAN ERRORS 0F READING CLASSIFICATION GROUPS ACROSS ERROR TYPES IN INTERSENSORY TASKS 90 were Obtained for the ET 1, ET 2, ET 3 and ET 4 (E = 5.74, 10.67, 5.82, and 21.16, g: = 21180, p < .01 respective1y). Newman-KeuTs comparisons, p < .05, were found for error types: ET 1 (gross auditory, NR < PRO, SRO); ET 2 (gross visua1, NR < PRO, SRO); ET 3 (order auditory, NR < SRO, PRO < SRO); ET 4 (order Visua1, NR < SRO). For the Task X Error Type interaction a summary of mean errors is shown graphica11y in Figure 18. Significant simp1e effects were Obtained for tasks 1, 2, 3 and 4 across the error types (5 = 14.74, 21.54, 11.20, 54.65, g: = 4/540, 2 < .01 respective1y). For a11 RECALL IVA! 1.00 - INTERSENSORY g cv I TASK A ’ .90 -I s 4 AV T. 2‘ E .80 -‘ g... 6 .70 '1 < m 30— n: E 50 ' 1 a: .40 -I I.“ g .30 -I Iu ’5 .20 - .10 -I 0 ' GROSS GROSS ORDER ORDER INTER AUDITORY VISUAL AUDITORY VISUAL ERROR TYPES FIG. 18-— MEAN ERRORS FOR INTERSENSORY TASKS ACROSS ERROR TYPES FOR TOTAL SAMPLE .91 the error types across tasks simp1e effect significances were found (5 = 9.44, 9.78, 9.53, 3.69, and 3.14, d: = 3/54, E < .01. .01, .05, .05 and .05 for error types; 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respective1y). Simp1e effect ana1yses for tota1 sam- p1e are summarized in Tab1e 23. A significant (5 % 2.37, _: = 24/540, 2 < .0005) three way interaction, Reading C1assification X Task X Error Type was aISO Obtained for the intersensory data (Tab1e 21). Simp1e Task X Error Type interaction ana1yses were subsequent1y carried out for the NR, PRO, and SRO groups. Interaction significances were found for the PRO group (F = 62.62, g: = 12/540, 2 < .01) and SRD group (E = 14.29, g: = 12/540, 2 < .01). Simi1ar significance was not obtained for the NR group. The mean errors for the deficit reading groups across error types are shown graphica11y in Figure 19. For a11 the tasks across the error types in the PRD and SRO group, simp1e effect significances were found at E < .01. For error types 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 simp1e effect significances across the tasks were found at the p < .01 1eve1, in the SRD group. For error type 1, 2, 3 simp1e effects significance across tasks were found at the p < .01 and for error type 4 and 5 at p < .05 in the PRO group. The data presented in above tab1es and figures sup- ported hypothesis 8 which predicted that deficit reading groups wou1d make more errors under a11 bisensory reca11 92 Acopwea< u < . _a=mm> u > 3.va _o. v a SS po_.o mem.o. th.o mm¢.o Nmm.o .aca: S¢_.m Amo.m SSmm.m IAmA.a Axee.m m «Smo.¢m ooo.o m~¢.o No_.o mum.o mmo.o e Sso~.__ _~o.o _m_.o m_¢.o o_~.o Rfie.o m Seem.P~ mA_.o ¢o¢.o mma.o o_o.o mom.o N Ssmh.e_ Eo~.o mum.o mcm.o mmm.o mmm.o _ I Cmpcm > Congo < swuso > mmogw < mmogw L xmap mmaxh Coggm mmogom mgmou .mpasmm page“ no; mwaxp Coggm agomcmmgmucw LoC mocmwgm> mo mwmxpmcm muummmm mpaswmii.mm m4m .90 —I '95 8 g 30 PAIRING TASKS '8 TOT“- 5‘ g ' " .79 PRO Iu _ .71 3 .70 Ow3:=_.<:——— —o.70 TOTAL 55 I; .60— 7 mm PRO .54 NR .50- .40 - :35 .30 — .288 K .20 - "“‘----o .2I NR .10 - o GROSS ORDER ERROR TYPE FIG. 20—- MEAN ERROR TYPES FOR READING CLASSIFICATION GROUPS AND TOTAL SAMPLE ON INTERSENSORY AND INTRASENSORY PAIRING TASKS ' 11.-III IIIII'I 17ll|l70l||llsl|ll7 III“- MEAN ERRORS FOR EACH TRIAL .50 -i .40 - .30 '— .20 - .10 -— LINEAR TASKS 97 TOTAL 55 O NORMAL (NR) 0 PRIMARY (PRD) A SECONDARY (SRD) O INTERSENSORY TASKS INTRASENSORY TASKS ---- 1.67 L— ——————— A 1.67 SRD 1.35 A\ 1.30 0‘ 3 \ § \\\\ \ \ \\o 1.16 TOTAL §_s ‘0 1.11 PRD 1.02 .87 SRD .86 .\ \ \ \ \ 70 \ \ ' \ .66 «o .69 NR .56 TOTAL _S_ .51 PRD W//—4 .30 NR .25 GROSS ORDER ERROR TYPE FIG. 21—-—MEAN ERROR TYPES FOR READING CLASSIFICATION GROUPS AND TOTAL SAMPLE ON INTERSENSORY AND INTRASENSORY LINEAR TASKS CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION One Of the two basic hypotheses Of this study was that physiologica] changes which occur with the simu1tane- ous presentation of a pair of intersensory or intrasensory auditory and visua1 stimu1i and during reca11 tasks invoIv- ing those stimu1i wou1d be different for a samp1e of SS from the norma1 reading popUTation than those from deficit reading groups. Furthermore, the physioIogicaI measures wou1d a1so differ for the two c1assified groups Of reading deficit chi1dren and be a function of the moda1ity parameters of the stimu1i. The second major hypothesis predicted was that chi1dren with reading deficits wou1d make more errors' On a11 the reca11 tasks than norma1 readers. In testing the specific experimenta1 predictions derived from these major hypotheses, differences among the physioIogica1 measures emponed; the interactions of the moda1ity characteristics of the tasks (auditory or visua1) and the intersensory and intrasensory parameters, were Observed in a set of eight experimenta1 conditiOns.. 98 99 Discussion of Physio1ogica1 Responses The hypothesis predicting differences in heart rate among the reading c1assification groups was not supported by data on mean heart rate. The measure empTOyed, an aver- aged heart rate over ten triaIs, was not sensitive to heart rate changes on each tria1 resu1ting in a masking of the differences among SS which were Observed with the heart rate dece1eration measure. For the tota1 samp1e, higher heart rate means in preperiod and stimu1us period were found for intersensory than for intrasensory conditions. These resu1ts were in a direction Opposite to that which wou1d have been expected. Since the intersensory conditions used stimu1i from two moda1ities (auditory and visua1) greater attentiona1 effort with a concomitant heart rate dece1eration wou1d have been expected. The Observed finding may be due to a higher anticipatory stress for intersensory tasks which resu1ted in a higher mean heart rate in preperiod and stimu1us peré iods. A decrease in mean heart rate occurred in reca11 period for the intersensory tasks 1, 2 and 3 (Figure 3). No significant change in mean heart rate was found for the tasks 4, 7 and 8. The 1atter two were pure auditory and task 4 was 1inear intersensory with auditory reca11 first. The direction of mean heart rate change for the intrasensory 100 visua1 tasks, 5 and 6, differed from those of the intersen- sory and intrasensory auditory tasks since there was a mean heart rate decrease in stimu1us period fOI1owed by an “ increase in reca11 period. Campos and Johnson (1966, 1967) have proposed that the verba1ization demands of Visua1 tasks produces heart rate acce1eration with Visua1 stimUIi whereas heart rate dece1eration occurs on1y under conditions which do not require verbaIization in the processing of Visua1 stimu1i. These authors noted that the heart rate dece1era- tions were genera11y non-significant. Campos and Johnson suggested that, "rather simp1e instructionaI or set varia- b1es can inf1uence physioIogicaI responses and c1ear1y over- ride factors as modaIity, affective tone and compIexity of stimUIUs, and direction Of attention." The Campos and John- son hypothesis that the verbaIization requirements of a task accounted for differences in cardiac responses was not supported by the findings in the present study. Evidence was found to suggest that other task requirements may mediate the heart rate response. Lewis and WiISon (1970) have pro- posed that "cardiac responsivity is inf1uenced by at 1east three factors: (1) the intent of S (i.e., his taking in or rejecting externaI stimu1ation); (2) S's state (i.e., his capacity in terms of generaI IQ and personaTity variab1es such as achievement needs); and (3) the objective environ- mentaI situation (i.e., the difficuIty of the task).“ The 101 resu1ts of the present study wou1d support the suggestion that the perceived 1eve1 of difficuIty of the task by S (menta1 set) mediated the 1eve1 Of mean heart rate and the direction Of change in mean heart rate across periods. The mean heart rate data indicated that instructions in inter- sensory tasks produced anticipatory stress; instructions requiring auditory response first, or soIe1y auditory response, resuIted in no significant cardiac change, whereas instructions requiring visua1 responses produced decreases in stimu1us period with no apparent mediation from the menta1 set. Support for the variabi1ity of heart rate being an indicator of attention has been reported by a number of studies (Porges, 1972; Porges & Raskin, 1969; Porges, ArnOId & Forbes, 1973). Uniform1y, it was found that a decrease in mean heart rate variabi1ity accompanied an increase in attention. These findings have been rep1icated in the pres- ent study. A main effect significance showed that a decrease in mean heart rate variabi1ity occurred for total samp1e dur- ing attention to intersensory stimu1i, (expectEd to require greater attention than intrasensory), fo110wed by an increase in mean heart rate variabi1ity during reca11 period (Tab1e 7). Simi1ar significant mean heart rate variabi1ity was not obtained for intrasensory data a1one (Tab1e 9). For the intrasensory data, an ana1ysis Of Task X Period interaction 102 indicated that the preperiod mean heart rate variabi1ity was higher for auditory than for the other intrasensory tasks which indicated a Iower 1eve1 Of anticipatory atten- tion for the pairing auditory task 7. ApparentIy the 1inear requirement of the auditory task 8 tended to increase atten- tivity. It appeared that the norma1 reading group had a greater capacity for the adjustment Of attentivity 1eve1s than did the deficit reading groups. This conc1usion was supported by the data shown in Figure 4, where greater pIasticity in heart rate variabi1ity for the eight experi- menta1 conditions was found for the norma1 reading group than for the reading deficit groups. The mean heart rate variabi1ity Of primary reading deficit group was Iower than that Of norma1s on each Of the eight tasks. These resu1ts have a E < .01 Of occurring by chance (Wi1coxon Matched-Pairs Test, two tai1ed, n = 8, n+= 0, Siege1, 1956, p. 75). 0n1y for task 3 did the mean heart rate variabi1ity of the primary reading deficit group exceed that of secondary reading deficit group. The 1ower heart rate variabi1ities found in primary reading deficit than in secondary reading deficit group on each Of the remain- ing seven tasks were better than random, E < .02 (WiIcoxon Matched-Pairs Test, two tai1ed, n = 8,rH-= 1, Siege1, 1956, p. 75). 103 For the intersensory data an ana1ysis of heart rate variabi1ity for reading classification groups indicated that in the secondary reading deficit group heart rate variabi1ity decreased between preperiod and stimu1us period and then increased in reca11 period. An increase in heart rate vari- abi1ity occurred in the reca11 period over the stimu1us period for the norma1 reading group, whereas the heart rate variabi1ity of the primary reading deficit group remained stab1e across the period. Consideration of heart rate variability resu1ts in association with the characteristics Of the reading c1assifi- cation groups indicates that attentiona1 factors conf1ict with cognitive processing. It was assumed that menta1 or cognitive activity wou1d occur during the reca11 period. The primary reading deficit group, which maintained a stab1e 1eve1 of heart rate variabi1ity in the three periods does not sufficientIy adjust the attentivity (heart rate variabi1ity doeSn't increase for intersensory reca11) to a110w effective cognitive processing to occur in the reca11 period. The norma1 reading group whose heart rate variabi1ity increased in reca11 can apparentIy "switch off" the attentivity factor to pursue cognition without the disturbing effect of atten- tivity. I The secondary reading deficit group apparentIy over- attended during stimu1us presentation as shown by decreased 104 heart rate variability. The secondary reading deficit group, whose etiology contains an element of emotional distress, overact to the stimulus presentation when compared to the other two groups who are considered less prone to emotional stress. The secondary reading deficit group can relax the "attentivity" during recall period. However, the excessive attention during the stimulus presentation may prevent the early (in stimu1us period) initiation of cognitive process- ing, consequently the stimu1us cues are not adequately processed. The normal reading group can maintain a moderate and apparently adequate attentional level during stimu1us presentation andinitiateccgnitive activity during this period. These Ss then relax the attentiona1 elements during recall for more effective, final cognitive processing. A conservative criterion for heart rate deceleration was used in which the lowest beat in the preperiod on each trial was taken as a base and compared to lowest beat in the succeeding periods (stimulus and recall): Significant (based on an ANOVA) heart rate deceleration was observed only for the normal reading group (Figure 7). These results for normal reading groups support the reported findings in the literature that a heart rate decrease is associated with increased attention (Lacey, 1959; Kagan & Lacey, Moss, 1962; Graham & Clifton, 1966). For the eight tasks and two periods an analysis Of the frequency of heart rate dece1eration without regard to 105 magnitude found that the heart rate in the normal reading group dece1erated (Sign test p < .02) for the combined stimulus and recall periods in accord with the ANOVA results. The heart rate in the primary reading deficit group did not dece1erate according to the frequency analysis. However, the heart rate in the secondary reading deficit group did dece1- erate in recall (Sign test a < .03). The heart rate dece1- eration as operationally defined here is analytically a function of the heart rate variability and the mean heart rate and would be expected to reflect the causative factors for both measures. The heart rate decelerations found in normal reading group and secondary reading deficit group during recall should be considered in the light of the increased heart rate variability found in the recall period for both groups. The heart rate dece1eration data support the hypo— thetical model of attention proposed for the reading deficit groups. This measure provides evidence Of defective atten- tiona1 mechansims in the deficit reading groups. The magni- tude and frequency Of heart rate deceleration differs for the three reading groups. Greater magnitude and more fre- quent occurrences of heart rate deceleration occurred in stimulus and recall periods for normal reading groups (n = 11). Fewer heart rate decelerations were Observed for the primary reading deficit group in both periods (n = 5). 106 Although the magnitude of change was too low to be signifi- cant in the secondary reading deficit group, the frequency of occurrence (n = 7) was high in the recall period. The analysis Of occurrences of heart rate deceleration was carried out in order to elucidate whether the pattern of cardiac activity differs in the reading groups or if differ- ences that were observed by the ANOVA are attributed solely to differences in the level of magnitude. These results indicate that both the magnitude and the frequency Of occurrences Of heart rate dece1eration are attributes of the differences in attentiona1 mechanism found among the reading classification groups. For the total sample, the role of the stimulus para- meters of the tasks in mediating heart rate dece1eration parallels the results found in the mean heart rate. Heart rate deceleration occurred in the stimulus periods for intra- sensory Visual tasks 5 and 6, whereas heart rate decelera- tion was found in the recall periods for intersensory tasks 1, 2, and 3 with no change occurring for intersensory task 4 and auditory task 7. A dece1eration occurred in the recall period for task 8. These results appear to indicate that the processing of intrasensory, visual stimuli require higher levels Of attentivity in the initial stages than for auditory or intersensory information. As previously indicated, this response may be a function of the reduced anticipation of the 107 level Of task requirements or that the heart rate dece1era- tion response may be specific to intrasensory, visual stimuli. Graham and Clifton (1966) have pointed out that acceleratory heart rate responses found in a number of studies may be modality specific. The results of heart rate deceleration data did not indicate support for the hypotheses which predicted heart rate dece1eration would be observed in primary reading deficit group with presentation Of visual tasks. However, it should be noted that the only heart rate decelerations (magnitude was non-significant) to be observed for the reading deficit groups during stimulus period occurred with intrasensory vis- ua1 tasks 5 and 6. A common assumption throughout many of the hypotheses postulated for testing by this study was that S would exhibit stress as well as cognitive activity during the recall peri— ods. Such stress should be Observed by an increase in the mean heart rate which has been established as a measure of increased anxiety. However, during the recall period heart rate dece1eration was found to be the dominant cardiac response for normal reading group and secondary reading defi- cit group. An increase in heart rate variability was also found for both these groups. For normal reading group and secondary reading deficit groups it would appear that the heart rate dece1eration was associated with a reduced stress 108 which may be related to the reduced attentivity. An increase in heart rate variability could result in a deceleration which is measured from the lowest beat in the recall period relative to the lowest beat in the preperiod. Thus the evi- dence is interpreted to indicate that attentivity which may have an associated stress factor is reduced during recall for the normal reading group and secondary reading deficit groups but not for the primary reading deficit group. Stress or increased cognitive activity are both interpreted to result in GSR responsivity. Increased GSR activity was obtained for each task during the recall period, but not for the stimulus period (Figure 11). Main effects significances for periods are obtained for both intersen- sory and intrasensory data (Table 15 and 16). These results considered with those of no heart rate acceleration during reca11 periods suggests that the increased GSR may be due to cognitive activity rather than stress during the recall period. The conclusions are supported by the findings of Lacey, Kagan, Lacey and Moss (1963) and Johnson and Campos (1967) who reported an increased GSR responsivity in situa- tions soliciting cognitive activity. Thus the expected increased cognitive activity was found for all Ss in recall. A change in the level of attentivity during the recall per- iod was found for normal reading group and secondary reading deficit group but not for primary reading deficit group. 109 Again the greater capacity for normal reading group to adjust levels of physiological activity was Observed in the greater GSR responsivity for intrasensory, auditory tasks than for the intrasensory, Visual ones (Figure 12). Similar adjustment capability was not indicated for the deficit reading groups. Discussion of Performance Measures As expected, the level Of recall errors was related to the reading classification groups (Table 17), in support of the view that reading ability is dependent upon a set of attentional and cognitive skills. Mean, total, reca11 errors observed for the secon- dary reading deficit group exceeds that of primary reading deficit group and mean, recall errors of both reading defi- cit groups exceed that Of norma1 reading group (Figure 14). Examination of the data for error types showed that for the deficitreadinggroups gross and order errors did not differ significantly across the eight experimental conditions. The interchange (reversal Of pairs of digits) error type was unusually low and did not differ for reading classification groups. Analysis of Task X Error Type interaction showed that only in the intrasensory, visual task 5 were order errors less than gross errors. For the remaining tasks no differences were found between gross and order means. These 110 results support the validity Of the reading classification system (Rabinovitch, 1954) for differentiating groups of deficit readers. Comparison of intersensory and intrasensory condi- tions for mean, gross and order errors showed that more errors of both types occurred in intrasensory conditions than in the intersensory ones. These results do not neces- sarily contradict the frequently reported finding in the literature that the performance Of deficit readers is inferior on intersensory tasks since most of the studies reviewed (Birch g;_gl., 1964; Ford, 1964; Berry, 1967) did not incorporate an intrasensory, comparative base in the experimental designs. One of the important goals of the present experi-. mental design is the study Of sensory interaction and its relation to reading ability. The use of linear and pairing tasks in the intersensory and intrasensory conditions pro- vided design features to deal with this Objective. Although linear tasks are inherently more difficult, as shown by the intrasensory results, a higher level of confounding occurs for pairing tasks which is sufficient to cause more errors than for the corresponding linear, intersensory tasks. Figures 20 and 21 show that these results which are found for the total sample holds for the gross and order error types Observed in normal reading and 111 primary reading deficit groups and for gross error type in secondary reading deficit group. However, for the latter, the intersensory and intrasensory, order errors on pairing tasks are the same. The order errors reflect a capacity to use cues to process a sequential memory task. For the pair- ing tasks, Figure 20, the secondary reading deficit group madeifewerintrasensory than intersensory gross errors indi- cating modality confounding, but made the same amount of order errors in both intrasensory and intersensory experi- mental conditions. These results indicate that compared to the other reading groups the secondary reading deficit group has a poorer ability for memory sequencing. This conclusion is also supported in Figure 21 where the secondary reading deficit made the same number Of gross and order errors for intrasensory tasks, whereas, the other groups made fewer order than gross errors. The inference based on the physiological measures that the normal reading group has greater controlled atten- tivity than the deficit readers is supported by lack of Task X Error Type interaction for this group, whereas sig— nificant interactions are found for both reading deficit groups. Apparently, normal reading group appears better able to adjust attentive and cognitive factors to the requirements of the task and thus the performance was more uniform. 112 One of the four factors cited by Senf and Freudl (1971) as possible basis for reading déficits was auditory dominance which they defined as, "(1) the preference for, or (2) the disrupting effect of auditory stimulation on recall of visual material when the auditory stimuli also must be recalled." Senf and Freudl postulated the auditory dominance hypothesis based on a preference exhibitEd by the learning disabled S of their study for this modality and differences in errors on auditory and visual reca11 between the groups Of normal and deficit readers. The results Obtained with present study argue against an auditory dominance hypothesis and suggest that Senf and Freundl's conclusions may be a specific consequence of their experimental design. For the total sample, Intersensory Task X Error Type data, Table 23, the gross visua1 errors exceeded the gross auditory. In task 1 where the recall of visual stim- u1i is first in the paired response, order errors in audi- tory exceed those found in the visual and implies that the visual mode is "dominant" and effects the auditory perform- ance. The results on task 2, which has the auditory response first, support this view since order errors in auditory do not significantly exceed those in the Visual. For the linear responses, tasks 3 and 4, any "dominance" effects are blanked by the obvious results in which fewer errors are 113 made in the modality where the first responses are required. The data shown in Figure 19 for the primary and secondary reading deficit groups are analogous to those found for the total sample. For the normal reading group, the Task X Error Type did not exhibit interaction significance. Greater auditory errors did not occur for task 1, indicating that for normal reading group the confounding or aUditory moda1ity by the visual was not observed. However, the generalized effect for the linear responses in which the errors are less for the tasks in the modality recalled first is found. This interpretation is supported by the results for task 4, (gross auditory < order visual and gross visua1; gross Visual > order auditory; order auditory < order Visual). The mean of the four highest values in task 3 and 4 is compared with that of the four lowest, (1 = 3.56, gj_= 56, E < .005) and supports the view that in linear tasks less errors are made in the first reca11ed moda1ity. Senf's finding that poor readers confound stimuli in two modalities to a greater extent than normal readers is supported. However, the evidence Of this study indicates a "primacy effect" for modality reca11 occurred in experi- mental conditions which alternate the instructions and that visual processing "dominates“ over the auditory. The analysis of reading classification across error type indicate that the normal reading group make fewer errors 114 than both reading deficit group across all error types except for visual and auditory order errors Of ET 4 and ET 3, where difference was not Observed between normal read- ing and primary reading deficit groups. From these results it appears that the primary reading deficit and normal read- ing groups have a more efficient processing of visual infor- mation than the secondary reading deficit group. The results of the present study are consistent with a hypothetical model based on attentiona1 and cognitive factors which are important for the processing of Visual and auditory stimuli and relate to reading ability. Adjust- ing the levels of the factors as well as their intéractions with specific modality appear to be important for each step in the overall process. Normal readers appear to be able to adjust the factor levels to a greater extent than do deficit readers. The reading problems Of S5 with primary reading deficits appear to be primarily caused by lacking sufficient "attentivity" for the initial processing steps. Major problems for S5 with secondary reading deficits appear to be derived from an inability to relax the attentivity factor which apparently interfers with reaching the proper cognitive level for optimum performance on a step in the processing chain. These Ss also appear to have more defi- cient capability for processing visual information and sequential recall Of auditory and visual stimuli. Whether 115 these are separate independent factors or are related to the quality Of attentivity-cognitive interaction has not been determined in the present study. LIST OF REFERENCES 116 LIST OF REFERENCES 116 LIST OF REFERENCES Allen, I. w., & Fitzgerald, H. E. Habituation as an index of intrasensory and intersensory integration of form. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1974, 124, 131-144. Bakker, D. J. Sensory dominance in normal and backward readers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1966, SS, 1055-1058. Bannatyne, A. Language, Reading and Learning Disabilities: Psychology, Neuropsychology, Diagnosis and Remedia- tion. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas, 1971. Belmont, L., & Birch, H. G. Lateral dominance, lateral awareness and reading disability. Child Develop- ment, 1965, SS, 57-71. . Bender, L. A visual motor gestalt test and its clinical use. American OrthopsychiatryyAssociation Research, Monograph, 1938, NO. 3. Berry, J. W. Matching of auditory and visual stimuli by average and retarded readers. Child Development, 1967) §__8_, 827-833. Birch, H. G. Dyslexia and the maturation of visual function. In J. Money (Ed.) Reading Disability. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1962, 161-169. Birch, H. G., & Belmont, L. Auditory-visual integration in normal and retarded readers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatyy, 1964, SS, 852-861. Birch, H. G., & Belmont, L. Auditory-visua1 integration, intelligence and reading ability in school chi1d- ren. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1965, SS, 295- 305. Blank, M., & Bridger, W. H. Crossmodal transfer in nursery school children. Journal Of Comparative Physio- logical Psychology, 1964, SS, 277-282. 117 118 Boder, E. Developmental dyslexia: Prevailing diagnostic concepts and a new diagnostic approach. Bulletin Of the Orton Society, 1973, SS, 106-118. Broadbent, D. E. Perception and Communication, New York: Pergamon, 1958. Campos, J. J., & Johnson, H. J. The effects of verbaliza- tion instructions and visual attention on heart rate and skin conductance. Psychophysiology, 1966, g. 305-310. Campos, J. J., & Johnson, H. J. The effects of affect and verbalization instructions on directional fraction- ation of autonomic response. Psychophysiology, 1967, S. 285-290. Connolly, K., & Jones, B. A developmental study of afferent- reafferent integration. British Journal of Psychol- ogy, 1970, S1, 259-266. Critchley, M. Developmental Dyslexia, London: Heinemann, 1964. Doehring, D. G. Patterns of Impairment of Specific Reading Disability: Bloomington, 111.: Indiana University Press, 1968. Ford, M. P. Auditory-visual and tactual integration in rela- tion to reading ability. Perceptual and Motor Ski175919673 2i, 831‘841. Fuller, G. B. Perceptual consideration in children with reading disability. Psychology in the Schools, 1964.1. 314- 317. Fuller, G. B. The Minnesota Percepto- Diagnostic Test (Rev. ). Journal of Clinical Psychology, Monograph Supple- ment, No. 28,1969. Fuller, G. B. Three diagnostic patterns for children with reading disabilities. Paper presented at the International Conference of the Association for Children with Learning Disabilities, Houston, Texas, 1974. Graham, F. K., & Clifton, R. K. Heart rate change as a com- ponent of the orienting response. Psychological Bulletin, 1966, SS, 305-320. 119 Hancock, J., Moore, W., & Smith, W. 1. Note on two-channel transmission of information. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1969, SS, 269-270. Horowitz, A. B. Effect Of stimulus presentation modes on children's recall and clustering. Psychonomic Science, 1969, 11, 297-298. Jastak, J. G., & Jastak, S. R. The Wide Range Achievement Test (Rev.), Wilmington, Delaware: Guidance Asso- ciates, 1965. Johnson, H. J., & Campos, J. J. The effect Of cognitive tasks and verbalization instructions on heart rate and skin conductance. Psychophysiology, 1967, S, 143-150. Jones, J. P. A study of the relationship among intersen- sory transfer, intersensory perceptual shifting, modal preference, and reading achievement at the third grade level. Dissertation Abstracts Inter- national, 1971, S (8-A), 4038. Kagan, J., Moss, H. A., & Siegel, I. E. Psychological sig- nificance of styles of conceptualization. Mono- graphs of the Society for Research in Child Devel- 0pment, 1963, SS, 73-112. Kagan, J., & Rosman, B. L. Cardiac and respiratory corre- lates of attention and an analytic attitude. Jour- nal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1964, l (I), 50-63. Lacey, J. I. Psychophysiological approaches to the evolu- tion of psychotherapeutic process and outcome. In E. A. Rubenstein and M. B. Parloff (Eds.), Research in Psyphotherapy, Washington, D. 0.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1959. Lacey, J. I., Kagan, J., Lacey, B. C., & Moss, H. A. The visceral level: Situational determinants and behavioral correlates of autonomic response pattern. In P. H. Knapp (Ed.), Expression of the Emotions in Man, New York: International University Press, 1963. Lee, C. L., Kagan, J., & Robson, A. Influence of a pref- erence for analytic categorization upon concept acquisition. Child Development, 1963, SS, 433- 442. 120 Levine, M., a Fuller, G. Psychological, neuropsychological and educational correlates of reading deficit. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1972, S, 50-58. Lewis, M., Kagan, J., Campbell, H., & Kalafat, J. The cardiac response as a correlate Of attention in infants. Child Development, 1966, SS (1), 63-71. Lewis, M., & Wilson, C. D. The cardiac response to a per- ceptual cognitive task in the young child. P y- chophysiology, 1970, S, 411-419. Madsen, M. C., Rollins, H. A., & Senf, G. M. Variables affecting immediate memory for bisensory stimu1i: Eye-ear analogue studies of dichotic listening. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970, SS, (3, pt. 2). Majarov, M. R. Development of visual and kinesthetic dis- crimination and integration in elementary school Children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1971, SS (l-B), 565. Money, J. Reading Disability: Progress and Research Needs in Dyslexia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1962. Nelson, J. B. The effect of visual-auditory modality pref- erence on learning mode preference in first grade children. Dissertation Abstracts International, 1970, Sl_(5-A_. 2219-2220. Pick, H. L., Pick, A. 0., & Klein, R. E. Perceptual inte- gration in children. In L. P. Lipsitt and C. C. Spiker (Eds.) Advances in Child Development and Behavior, London: Academic Press, 1967, Vol. 3. Porges, S. W. Heart rate variability and deceleration as indexes of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, SS, 103-110. Porges, S. W., Arnold, W. R., & Forbes, E. J. Heart rate variability: An index of attentional responsivity in human newborns. Developmental Psychology, 1973, S, 85-92. Porges, W. W., & Raskin, D. C. Respiratory and heart rate components Of attention. Journal Of Experimental Psychology, 1969, S1, 497-503. 121 Rabinovitch, R. 0., Drew, A. L., Dejong, R. N., Ingram, W., & Withey, L. A. Research approach to reading retardation. Research Publication in Nervous and Mental Diseases, 1954, SS, 363-396. Rasof, B. Sensory preference and intersensory functioning in children. Dissertation Abstracts, 1969, SS (9-8), 3514-3515. Rice, 0. B. Learning disabilities: An investigation in two parts. Journal of Learninngisabilities, 1970, S, 149-155. Rubenstein, L., & Gruenberg, E. M. Intramodal and cross- modal sensory transfer of visual and auditory tem- poral patterns. Perception and PSychophysics. 1971, 2. 385-390. Rudel, R. G., & Teuber, H. L. Crossmodal transfer of shape discrimination by children. Neuropsychologia, 1964, 2, 1-18. Senf, G. M., Rollins, H. A., & Madsen, M. C. Recall order of dual-channel input as a function of induced reca11 strategy and stimulus rate. Proceeding Of the 75th Annual Convention of the American Psy- chologjcal Association, 1967, S, 57-58. Senf, G. M. Development of immediate memory for bisensory stimuli in normal children and Children with learn- Eng disorders. Developmental Psychology, 1969, l 6 pt. 2 . Senf, G. M., & Feshbach, S. Development Of bisensory memory in culturally deprived, dyslexic, and normal readers. Journal of Educational PSychology, 1970, S1, 461-470. Senf, G. M., & Freundl, P. C. Memory and attention factors in specific learning disabilities. Journal Of Learn- ing Disabilities, 1971, S, 36-48. Shipley, T. Auditory flutter-driving of Visual flicker. Science, 1964, 145, 1328-1330. Shipley, T., & Jones, R. W. Initial observations on sensory interaction and the theory of dyslexia. Journal Of Communication Disorders, 1969, S, 295-311. Siege1, S. Nonparametric Statistics.fortMe Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1956. 122 Siller, H. The relationship of auditory-visual integra- tion to reading disability in adolescents. DissSS- tation Abstracts International, 1969, SS, (l-B), 392. Silver, A. A., & Hagin, R. Specific reading disability: Delineation of the syndrome and relationship to cerebral dominance. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 1. 126-134. Smith, M. Patterns of intellectual abilities in education- ally handicapped children. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Claremont, California, Claremont College Graduate School, 1970. Sokolov, E. N. Neuronal model and the orienting reflex. In M. A. B. Brazier (Ed.), The Central Nervous Sys— tem and Behavior, New York: Josiah Macey Founda- ation, 1960. Sokolov, E. N. Perception and the Conditioned Reflex. New York: Macmillan, 1963. Steele, W. G., & Lewis, M. A longitudinal study of the cardiac response during a problem solving task and its relationship to general cognitive function, Psychonomic Science, 1968, 11, 275-276. Wechsler, 0. Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. New York: Psychological Corpora- tion, 1949. Wertheimer, W. Studies in the theory of gestalt psychology ESycholog. Forsch., S, 1923, Cited in Bender, L. A. Visual motor gestalt test and its clinical use. American Orthopsychiatry Association Research Mono- graph, 1938, NO. 3. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1962. Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design (Second Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Zeaman, D., & House, B. J. The role of attention in retard- ate discrimination learning. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.) Handbook of Mental Deficiency. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1963. HICHI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIS