MSU

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
PIace in book drop to

 

 

 

LIBRARJES remove this checkout from
—;-a-_ your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
My»...

 

 

FURTHER EXPERIMENTAL EXPLORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP
IBETWEEN HEMISPHERIC FUNCTION AND DEFENSE MECHANISM PREFERENCE

By

Rita V. Rogan

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Deparment of Psychology

1984

 

© Cepyright by
RITA V. ROGAN
1984

ABSTRACT

FURTHER EXPERIMENTAL EXPLORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
HEMISPHERIC FUNCTION AND DEFENSE MECHANISM PREFERENCE

By
Rita V. Rogan
Ph.D. Dissertation
A growing body of literature from both neuropathological and normal

subjects suggests a relationship between hemispheric laterality of function and
personality. The reported studies of the experimental work in this area with
normal subjects are based on the Conjugate Lateral Eye Movement (CLEM) as the
primary measure of laterality. Most of these studies have used the Defense

Mechanism Inventory (DMI) as the measure of defense choice.

Data obtained in a previous study of hearing persons whose first language
was sign language demonstrated this pOpulation to be uniquely lateralized. This
laterality data was used in the present study to examine a hypothesized
relationship between laterality and defense choice. The tachistosc0pic
(T-Scope) paradigm was used and a laterality coefficient (LC) was computed as
the measure of laterality. Defense choice was measured by a composite score of
the DMI. Based on a previous study in this area, it was hypothesized that left
hemisphere reliance would be associated with DMI subscales of Turning Against
the Other (TAO) and Projection (PRO): whereas right hemisphere reliance would be
associated with Intellectualization (INT) and Reversal (REV). This was
predicted to be observable in a negative correlation between LC and DMI scores.
Use of the T—Scope paradigm also permitted an additional comparison of the
relative performances of the separate hemispheres with the personality variables

in question.

 

 

”A

El

 
 

Potential moderating variables attendant to the grouping of the original
study were addressed statistically resulting in an enhanced significant positive
correlation between LC and DMI. A negative correlation was predicted, however.
Review of related studies suggests that this outcome is consistent with previous
findings only when incorporating the complex role of anxiety, and/or emotion in

producing hemispheric shifts in activation level.

Results also suggested that the separate hemiSpheres may differ in their
participation in the Laterality/DMI relationship, with left hemiSphere playing a
more integral role in its relationship to reliance upon Intellectualization and
Reversal in the subject. Discussion of these relationships suggests that they
are highly complex. Simplistic or dichotomized understandings of these isses

are not adequate to the data. Theory and directions for future research are

also discussed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 1
Factors Affecting Lateral Dominance 2
Hemispheric Function 8 Personality 20

Neuropathology 20
Neuropsychological EXperiments With Normal Subjects 28
Summary 44

Present Study . 46

Research Questions Asked in the Present Study 48
Hypothesis I 49
Hypothesis II 52
Hypothesis III 55
Hypothesis IV 57

Method 59

Results 65

Discussion 69

AAppendices 86

References 107

FURTHER EXPERIMENTAL EXPLORATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

HEMISPHERIC FUNCTION AND DEFENSE MECHANISM PREFERENCE

by
Rita V. Hogan, M. A.

Michigan State University

Philosophers have pondered for centuries the enigmatic relationship of
mind, body, thought and action. Personality theorists have troubled over these
relationships in terms of cognition, affect, behavior and neurophysiology. In
1964 Reyher said, "At the present time linkages between neurophysiological,
intrapsychic and behavioral processes are virtually unknown, and will remain
unknown until a method is developed that will produce phenomena in which these
linkages are observable and in which the component processes are manipulable."
(p. 107) We are, twenty years later, still studying neuropsychological

phenomena with no direct link between substrate and function; between neuron,

idea, plan and execution.

In these last two decades however, advances have not only been made, but
the field of neuropsychology has burgeoned into one of the most rapidly growing
sciences of the twentieth century. Many of these advances have come with the
rapid growth of diagnostic technology and the subsequent power to reproduce
Imeuxpanatomy and neurophysiology in the "hard copy" of nuclear imaging. Many
more have been the result of the rapidly growing body of literature on the

f1u1ctdons of the two cerebral hemispheres.

It is the purpose of this study to further explore the question of whether
a relationship exists between substrate and function. Specifically, the goal
will be to evaluate whether the two cerebral hemiSpheres differ in their

participation in the personality of the individual.

Factors Affecting Lateral Dominance

[ Data from studies of neuroanatomy reveal that the two cerebral hemispheres
differ in structure (Geschwind & Levitsky, 1968: Witelson & Pallie, 1973). And
a growing body of research on unilateral brain damage (Geschwind, 1970; Milner,
1971), split-brain patients (Gazzaniga, 1970; Gazzaniga & Sperry,1967), clinical
anaesthesia of the brain (Wada & Rasmussen, 1960) and from performance of
non-brain injured persons on psychological tests (Kimura, 1973; Studdert-Kennedy
& Shankweiler, 1970; White, 1972) has provided substantial evidence that the
right and left hemispheres perform different Specialized functions in
tdgher-order psychological processes in nearly all right-handed persons.
Specifically, the left hemiSphere is considered to be specialized for verbal
language functions; the right for perceptual, visuo-Spatial and emotional
flumtions. More recent research has suggested that the two hemispheres differ
in overall cognitive strategy as well, with left being more suited to analytic,
sequential problem solving and organization methods, while right is more
ruilistic, global and simultaneous in its approach to mentation (Springer &
Deutsch, 1981).) Finally, a considerable body of research has accumulated to
support differences between the hemiSpheres in both the comprehension and

expression of emotion (Campbell, 1982).

These structural, functional and cognitive differences between the
hemispheres may be related. Recent radioisotOpe studies raise the possibility
that the anatomical organization of right hemisphere may be congruent with its
particular conceptual skills (Gur, et a1, 1980). The right cerebral cortex
appears to have a higher relative concentration of white matter as compared to
the left hemisphere. Tucker (1981) points out that this finding is supportive
of earlier clinical observations that "the receptotOpic distribution of
information across the cortex is focal and discrete in the left hemisphere, but
more diffuse and generalized in the right hemisphere" (p. 38). Each
hemisphere's pattern of organization at a neuronal level then, may be uniquely
suited to its preferred cognitive operations. In Tucker's view the left
hemiSphere's more focal and discrete organization seems compatible with the more
analytic cognitive strategy associated with it: and the right hemisphere's more
diffuse and global organization is consistent with its holistic cognitive

strategy, due to the high degree of interconnection among.regions within the

right hemisphere.

These structural differences are also observable over time. Major
structural differences observed between the hemispheres of the adult are
reportedly observed as early as the neonate stage, in the same relative
distribution (Marie, 1975). While major structural differences appear to be
relatively stable, functional specialization varies over the course of
development and is thought to settle by completion of maturation in established
hemispheric dominance for Specific functions and stable patterns of hemiSpheric

functioning within individuals (Lenneberg, 1987).

Although stable hemispheric patterns of function endure in adult

individuals, there are wide ranging differences ACROSS individuals in the degree

of hemispheric specialization and/or sharing in the subserving of these
functions, as they are traditionally understood. This wide range of individual
differences is manifest in structure as well. Levy (1983) says, "Human brains
differ at least as much as human faces." (p. 465) While certain statistical
regularities exist in observations of the right hander's brain and its normative
functioning Levy further notes, "a quite substantial minority differs from the
group-typical pattern." (p. 465) Studies also suggest that various factors
influence individual differences in reliance on the strategies of one or the
other hemisphere, or "hemisphericity" as Bogen calls it. These factors include
handedness, gender (Levy, 1978), bilinguality (Vaid 8 Genesee, 1980), early
cerebral damage (Lenneberg, 1967), culture (Zook & Dwyer, 1976) and language

deprivation (Curtiss, 1977).

Three other factors which have been observed to affect hemisphericity were
evaluated in a previous study by this author (Rogan, 1983). These were: 1)
bilinguality, 2) deafness, and 3) the natural acquisition of a visuo—spatial

language (i.e., sign language).

Bilinguality and Hemisphericity or

 

In a review article Vaid 6 Genessee (1980) summarized the literature as:
"...generally supportive of the hypothesis that hemispheric processing of
language in early bilinguals resembles the pattern characteristically noted in
Imonolinguals, but that late second language (L2) acquisition engages the two
hemispheres differently." (p. 435) These differences are also reported by
Sussman, et al (1982) in their study of hemispheric specialization in

bilinguals. Rogan (1983) summarized these as:

1. Bilinguals D0 lateralize to the left for language;

2. Bilinguals are LESS left lateralized for language than

are monolinguals:

3. Right hemiSphere's participation in L2, especially
for second languages acquired in adulthood, appears

highly likely.

4. As a group the bilinguals clearly revealed a high
degree of variability in hemispheric language
representation compared to the consistent patterns of
left hemiSphere dominance for the single language of

monolinguals (p. 10).

Deafness And Hemisphericity

A small but solid literature suggests that pre-lingual deafness is also a
facun~affecting lateral dominance, with lessened laterality being the observed
Phenomena. This observation has been based on case reports of neuropathology

(Fbizner, et al., 1983) as well as eXperimental studies of lateral function

(Poizner et al., 1979).

LThe issues attendant to deafness which bear directly on any research

conducted using this population are extensive and complicated.) They are also

beyond the scope of this paper. To include them in full explication at this
juncture would be distracting. Because they are foundational understandings
regarding any psychological research of this population however, two appendices
(Appendix A and Appendix B) are provided which overview this basic information.
The body of this paper will merely reference these variables as they are
relevant. The reader who is not conversant with these issues is cautioned,
therefore, to review these documents before proceeding, to assure their

understanding.

[The deaf have come under the scrutiny of neuroscience because of their L/
natural usefulness in evaluating one of the major explanatory hypotheses
regarding the nature of lateral dominance - the importance of the cortical
region known as the left temporal plane, which is larger than the corresponding
region of the right hemisphere (Geschwind 8 Levitsky, 1968). This anatomical
difference had been thought to provide a biological basis for the specialization
of the left hemiSphere for language. Left hemisphere in this view is seen as
having a greater capacity to process auditory stimulation, which may be required
for optimal analysis and manipulation of the highly complex input of human
language. Persons who are deaf obviously do not process auditory stimulation of
the complexity of speech. Congenitally deaf persons never did. Deaf persons
were thought by researchers therefore to provide an excellent test of this
biological theory of lateral dominance for language. If this theory is correct,
such persons, when suffering left hemisphere damage, should not manifest aphasic
symptoms seen in hearing right handed persons suffering similar damage. They
would be eXpected to have acquired either no dominance or, right hemisphere
dominance for language. Such an expectation makes case reports of deaf persons

who have suffered left hemisphere damage particularly interesting. 3 These case

reports were summarized by Hogan (1983):

These observations of existing reports of left hemiSphere
damage in Deaf persons suggest that complete right dominance
for language does not result from auditory deprivation, and
that left lateralization is greater for sign that is
dependent on a spoken language than that which is independent
of it. Complex auditory stimulation does not appear to be a
necessary ingredient for left lateralization for spoken

language (p. 144).

(Experimental investigation of asymmetries in deaf persons have been
conducted primarily in the visual mode and have also suggested unique laterality
patterns in these persons. In normal subjects such studieS'have been conducted
in various ways. The objective of investigators is to lateralize inputs - to
present stimuli to only one hemisphere. One of the oldest of these methods
takes advantage of the natural split in the visual pathways. In humans this
split divides our visual world into two fields, each of which projects into the
hemisphere on the opposite side. If the visual pathway on one side is
stimulated (via stimuli in one visual field) for a very short time before
conjugate lateral eye movement can change the field by scanning (under 200
msec.), it allows investigators to compare the abilities of the separately
stimulated hemispheres. While other methods have been used, this tachistoscopic
presentation, as it is called, seems to be the most frequently used. Classic
patterns of cerebral specialization in neurologically normal right handed
hearing persons show a right visual field/left hemisphere advantage (LHA) for

language stimuli and a left visual field/right hemisphere advantage (RHA) for

faces, geometric shapes, dot localization and other visuo-spatial stimuli

(Poizner & Lane, 1982).

Though few in number, experimental studies of the hemiSpheric functioning
of otherwise neurologically normal deaf persons are heuristic. They typically
consist of visual tachistoscopic presentation of words, visuo-spatial and sign
language stimuli. Summarizing these studies Hogan (1983) says, "Consistent with
the clinical literature, left lateralization for language is possible without
complex auditory stimulation, but the resulting patterns of hemispheric
specialization are different from those in which it is present." (p. 53).
Specifically, deaf subjects when compared to hearing, tend to be left
lateralized for words, but not significantly so, whereas hearing subjects
produce greater asymmetries (Poizner et a1 1979). These findings were based on
comparisons of groups of hearing and deaf subjects. A related observation has
been that within their experimental groups, the individual scores of deaf

persons were marked by a high degree of variability.

Considering this occurrence in their experimental study, Neville 8 Bellugi fr}.

 

 

 

 

 

M

(1978) further examined the data on the basis of the language acquisition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IX 35';
history of their deaf subjects. They found that non-signing, non—speaking deaf
WWW- , \fi___~ ‘7‘—*-._1__‘~~_
subjects were not lateralized for visual spatial tasks while those deaf subjects
who were native signers (whose parents were deaf and used sign as their primary

(I L_ .

mode of communication) showed evidence of significant_LEFT lateralization. This
function however, is within the traditional domain of RIGHT hemisphere in
hearing right handers. The authors concluded in that study, "both biological
and experiential factors, such as language acquisition and the MODE of language

acquisition, interact in determining the functional organization of the brain."

(p. 254)

It is important to note that their deaf subjects were either
non-lateralized persons who learned neither Speech, nor Sign language via
natural acquisition: or those left lateralized (for verbal stimuli) subjects who
learned Sign language naturally in their family home. It was not the bilingual
status of these deaf persons that had been addressed methodologically, rather
whether they had acquired ANY formal language naturally.) Further controlled
studies of these two groups of subjects were suggested by the authors. If
language acquisition variables do contribute to the unique cerebral organization
of these deaf subjects, then it would also be desirable to evaluate the
contribution of this variable to the neuropsychological functioning of persons
who have normal hearing, thereby eliminating the contribution of the deafness

itself.

( With regard to the first non-lateralized group, it is neither possible nor
desirable to set up a controlled study in which either deaf or hearing children
were deprived of language in order to evaluate the contributions of this
language deprivation experience to their subsequent cerebral organization. One
case has been reported however, in which these circumstances tragically occurred
naturally in the life of one hearing child, Genie (CurtiSS 1977). Careful and
lengthy observation of Genie over several years from early adolescence to
adulthood produced the picture of a woman who was deprived of language, was
right handed (lateral dominance had occurred), and who had acquired language
during adolescence. Her language skills (acquired after the posited critical
time for dominance for language) had the limits characteristic of left
hemidecorticates (was telegraphic and without passive negation, complex
syntactic functions, etc.). Her right hemisphere was

electroencephalographically active during language tasks and her scores on

standardized measures of right hemisphere functions were higher than any
recorded. Therefore under these conditions of early language deprivation, that
language which was acquired was subserved by right hemisphere and did not
include complex syntactic functions. This suggests that in the default of left
Specialization during a time critical for this outcome, the right hemisphere

will subserve this function, but will do so less competently.

While as stated, several physiological measures suggested right hemiSphere
involvement in response to these non—language tasks, at the behavioral level
Genie's performance of traditional right hemisphere tasks was higher than any
recorded in the literature, either on children or adults. Neville & Bellugi's
subjects were language deprived also. AS noted above, their performances showed
an equality of competence across both hemispheres. Data are not available to
evaluate whether Genie's right hemisphere is solely responsible for producing
these traditionally right hemisphere Skills. We therefore cannot assume that
her performance was unaided by the contribution of left hemiSphere. Nor can we
assume that her neuropsychological functioning as a result of language
deprivation is not Similar to that of the Deaf language—deprived subjects.
Language deprivation of the nature experienced by these few reported individuals
however, has produced a Significant effect on their neuropsychological

functioning.

The second group of deaf subjects in the Neville 8 Bellugi study were
those who had learned sign language as their native language —— from their
parents. They demonstrated a LEFT hemisphere advantage for visuo-spatial
material. It would be useful to investigate whether this neuropsychological
uniqueness could be attributable to the visuo—spatial language acquisition

rather than to their deafness. This group of subjects does have an analogue in

10

the hearing population. It is the hearing children of deaf parents whose first
naturally acquired language was Sign language. Study of this population
therefore, would permit experimental evaluation of the contribution of this

unique first language and subsequent bilingual eXperience.

Replicating the most advanced tachistoscopic methodology for Sign stimuli
employed by Poizner, et al. (1979), we did this in a previous study (Rogan,
1983).‘ Groups of hearing subjects, whose first naturally acquired language was
sign language, were compared with hearing subjects who had learned sign language
after adolescence (to evaluate the contribution of acquisition of a
visuo—spatial second language after dominance had been established): and with
normal non-signing, hearing control subjects. The first group of native signers
therefore had the same language acquisition experience as the deaf native
signers in Neville 8 Bellugi's 1978 study - they learned Sign at their parents'
knee. Because this previous study figures centrally and foundationally in the
present endeavor, it will be reviewed in more detail. _)

/

Visuo-Spatial Language Acquisition and Lateralityj- Foundation Study

In four experimental conditions, stimuli were tachistoscopically presented

to these 30 subjects who were equally represented across the three Experimental
Groups: Native signers, Late-learn signers and non—signing controls. The four

types of stimuli were English Words, Oriented Lines, Moving Signs and Static
Signs. (Appendix C contains a complete technical description of the method used

in that study.)

All three Groups were compared on Words and Oriented Lines only, whereas

the two signing Groups were also compared on tasks involving the two Sign

11

language stimuli. Each experimental condition included of 40 trials (20 stimuli
randomly distributed and appearing once in each visual field) in which subjects
were asked to identify what they saw. They did this verbally for words, in
Sign for signs, and by point identification with the dominant hand for line

orientation. Instructions were also given in the language being tested.

Accuracy of identification per hemifield was the dependent variable.
Subject responses were recorded by Signing interpreters for all experimental
conditions. All subjects completed a one and a half page questionnaire before
beginning testing. Test sessions for subjects eXposed to all four Experimental
Conditions were approximately 1 1/4 hours with a ten minute break during the
session. For the Control Group about 3/4 of an hour was required. Order of
Experimental conditions was counterbalanced. Two short paper and pencil
personality measures (The Defense Mechanism Inventory, Gleser & Ihilevich, ,
8 the California Personality Inventory) were given to subjects with completion
instructions. These were taken home and mailed back within the week in self
addressed, stamped, anonymously coded envelopes. All subjects returned their

questionnaires promptly.

0n English words and Oriented Lines it was expected that the late-learn
signers and non-signing controls would perform comparably, demonstrating LHA for
words and RHA for Oriented Lines, since there is nothing about learning sign
language late in life which would be expected to alter traditional dominance
patterns. It was also expected that if, as suggested by earlier studies, early
bilingual experience involving one visuo-spatial language does affect laterality
patterns, then a reduction in reliance on left hemisphere for the processing of

verbal stimuli would be obtained in native signers. Additionally, the native

12

V .

1A

‘0-
\

*‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

signers Should be less left lateralized for words and LEFT lateralized for
oriented lines. Late learn signers were expected to Show a RHA for signs
consistent with late acquistion of a second language: and native signers were
expected to show a left hemiSphere trend for signs. Finally, motion was
expected to engage both hemiSpheres equally in native signers. These were the
laterality patterns observed by Poizner 8 Lane (1979) in their use of this

method comparing Deaf subjects and non-signing hearing controls.

The laterality patterns of the hearing native signers were consistent with
the prediction that a visual—spatial first language experience, without auditory
deprivation, is sufficient to produce Significantly different patterns of
asymmetry. There was no Significant difference between the groups in overall
accuracy, suggesting that any differences which did occur were not due to
varying processing abilities among the groups. Because of the experimental
design (all three groups compared on only two experimental conditions, with only
two groups compared on all four experimental conditions) preliminary analyses
were conducted separately. In comparing the two Signing groups in the two Sign
language conditions, analysis of variance revealed a Significant interaction
effect of EXperiment X Hemisphere X Group (F(2) = 5.13, p = .013) indicating

that the groups performed differently across eXperimental conditions.

Analyses of the performances of the two groups on Static Signs alone
revealed a significant Hemisphere by Group interaction (F(l) = 7.13, p = .0156),
and t-tests performed on the mean scores of the separate hemispheres of these
two groups revealed a highly significant RHA for both Groups 1 (t corr (9) =
-3.50, p =.007) and 2 (t corr (9) = -5.06, p = .001). Figure 1 reflects the
mean percent correct scores for each hemifield across all groups in all

conditions tested. These differences between hemifields were greater for

13

Group 2, the late learners of Sign (-2.80), than for Group 1 (-1.10), the native
signers. Comparing the mean LC's calculated for each subject, this difference
between Groups 1 and 2 was significant (t pooled (18) = -2.04, p = .05). These
findings were consistent with the prediction that acquisition of a second
language after adolescence results in greater involvement of the right

hemisphere in processing that language.

In processing moving signs an RHA was also produced by both signing groups.
This was not a significant RHA for the Native signers (t corr (9) = -.88, p=
.399), whereas it was significant for Late learners (t corr (9) = -2.49, p =
.034). Again, as expected, the greater reliance on right hemisphere
processing was found in the group that had acquired this second language after

adolescence.

 

Insert Figure l

 

Both signing groups showed the patterns of RHA for processing Sign stimuli
reported for the deaf and hearing signers in previous studies (McKeever, et a1,
1976: Manning, Goble, Markman, & LaBreche, 1977: Neville & Bellugi, 1977;
Poizner 9 Lane, 1972) including the study from which this methodology was drawn
(Poizner, et al., 1979). The Native signers produced a right hemisphere ratio
(.882) of nearly the same magnitude as the Deaf SS in that study (.90). The
strong RHA for late learners is not only consistent with the patterns of hearing
signers who were used as Controls in previous studies, but as ASL is a second
language for this group their RHA is consistent with the laterality patterns for

second language processing of bilinguals who acquired that language after

14

.mmeamHEoL >3
co museum Ham wo momcogmmu
mmcHH pmquHuo Ewan QCw>QE

>H axm HHH .axa

mxmmu HmucmhwuoaXm spew Ham

ooouuoo ucmouoc coy; .H magmas

 

H
T?
c0
q
3

3331
3331

Jtha

 

swam owumum mpuo3
HH .axm=u. H .wa
m an m;
an .3 on 1:
U. 3U. 3W
3 3
, ri.oe
\ I
\ I
.xxwesxxxxx 7/ ,. [n.0m
\ I/7
/
r|.oo
‘1 On
[I ow

 

..

II

mHouucoo wcwummx

- . . .- m dsouu
mumcwam mung mafiwmm:

m dsouu

 

mumcmam o>aumz wcwummx

 

sasuodsaa 3331103 Juaoiad uqu

H asouo

adolescence (Vaid G Genessee, 1980). The underlying theoretical
conceptualization of non-dominant hemisphere Specialization in processing of a

late acquired second language, was supported by this finding.

The results of this study of the processing of Sign received further
validation by a post hoc analysis of subject's performances on complex versus
simple signs. This was an analysis which Poizner had performed on the scores of
his deaf SS to evaluate Kimura's (1974) findings that left hemisphere is better
able to function in the processing of complex, but not simple movements. The
native signers of this study showed a score nearly equal to that of the Deaf Ss

of the Poizner et al. (1979) study.

More germane to this discussion however, are the results of the
eXperimental conditions containing the English words and Oriented Lines. There
was an overall EXperiment by Group by HemiSphere interaction (F(3) = 3.63, p
<.05), for the three groups compared on these two tasks indicating that stimulus
type played a role in the varying performances of the hemispheres of each of the
groups. Subanalyses of group performances on English Words revealed that the
Non-Signing hearing controls reached the expected significant LHA for words
(t(9) = 3.12, p = .012). Though the group of Native signers produced an LHA, as
predicted, this difference between the performance of the two hemispheres did
not reach Significance (t(9) = .67, p = .522). Their performance on this task
is similar to the laterality response pattern to English Word stimuli, found
repeatedly in Deaf subjects: a reduction in the difference between the
hemifield scores, with only a tendency toward left hemisphere superiority which
usually does not reach significance (Poizner 8 Lane, 1982: McKeever, et a1,

1976; Phippard, 1977; Suter, 1982: Manning, et a1, 1977; Neville, et al, 1983).

15

Further analysis of the ways in which the separate hemispheres performed on
this task revealed that while the left hemispheres of both native signers and
non signers were comparable in their processing ability of words (t(18) = .96, p
= .348), the right hemispheres differed in a way which approached significance
(t(18) = 1.90, p = .074), with a mean percent of correct responses of
non-signers of .3850 and of native signers of .5300. This difference did not
exist between the two signing groups however, with both right (t(18) = .46, p =
.649) and left hemispheres (t(18) = -.45, p = .660) of each group performing
with comparable accuracy. The way in which signers tend toward reduced
laterality for processing words when compared to non—signers then, is in a
greater capacity of the right hemisphere accuracy rather than a lessened
capacity of either hemisphere. This additional capacity of right hemisphere

tended to be the strongest for the native signers.

Subanalyses of all groups' responses to Oriented Lines,resulted in a Group
by Hemisphere interaction (F(2) = 6.07, p = .0067), indicating that this
stimulus type was responded to differently by the hemiSpheres of each group.
The t-tests for correlated means of hemisphere scores Show these differences to
be significant for the late learn signers (t corr(9) = -2.41, p = .039) and the
non-signers (t corr(9) = —4.47, p = .002) and in the direction of the expected
RHA. While the difference score of the relative performance of right and left
hemispheres of the native signers was not significant (t corr(9) = 1.25, p =
.244), it was in the opposite direction (+.90), suggesting native signers have a
somewhat more competent left hemisphere in this visuo-spatial task. On the
basis of comparisons using LC'S for each subject as the dependent measure,
highly significant differences were found between the non-signing control

Subjects and the native signers, as predicted. This is consistent with the

16

reports of performance of Native Signing Deaf Ss studied by Neville (1977),
Phippard (1977), Neville 8 Bellugi (1978), Neville (1980) and Neville, Kutas and
Schmidt (1982). Those Deaf subjects who had no naturally acquired formal
language, where this variable could be controlled, showed a RHA for
visuo—spatial and language skills while those who had acquired sign naturally
produced a LHA for these same skills (Phippard, 1977: Neville 1977: Neville,
1980). The laterality pattern of the hearing native signers then, was like

that of the native signing Deaf subjects previously studied.

Finally, post hoc analysis of the performances of the individual
hemispheres revealed that the native signers and the non—signers differed
significantly in the efficiency of left hemisphere for processing visuo-Spatial
material, (F(l) = 9.16, p = .0054) with the left hemisphere of native signers
reaching the highest efficiency of all groups on all stimuli (mean = .6950).
Once again then, the reduced laterality was NOT produced by a decline in
performance of either hemisphere, but rather by an increase in performance
capacity of left hemisphere. Based on these data, when left hemisphere is able

to process visuo-Spatial material it gives its best performance.

Overall, groups differed from each other in hemispheric performance not
only by direct comparison on separate eXperimental conditions but also in their
hemispheric shifts across tasks. The non—signing controls Showed a strong and
complete shift of hemisphere superiority across the two experimental conditions
in the expected and previously reported directions for right handers. The Late
learn signers, while better overall than non—signers, shifted hemisphere

superiority in performance significantly across all four eXperimental

17

conditions, in the predicted directions previously demonstrated by Deaf persons
who had acquired sign later in life. The Native signers, with insignificant
hemispheric trends only, demonstrated symmetry across all but one experimental
condition: static signs, in which they produced the previously demonstrated RHA
for this stimulus type. Hemispheric functioning is clearly differentially
affected by visuo-spatial first language SXperience in hearing persons,
resulting in a reduced laterality in processing all stimuli when compared to
both Late learning Sign users and Non-signing controls. This study demonstrated
that first language eXperience is sufficient to produce this pattern previously
reported in deaf SS and inferred to be a result of the absence of auditory

stimulation. The author concluded:

...if these performances are correctly inferred to be a
function of a totally different organization of
neuropsychological functioning in this group of hearing
native signers, it is the result of their unique first

language experience. (p. 127)
and finally,

Perhaps the most significant contribution this study has made
is in identifying a new experimental population which offers
this unique laterality pattern as well as skill in a unique
language. That sign language can be processed simultaneously
with a Spoken language adds to its potential to contribute
much to our understanding of the interrelatedness of the two

hemispheres. And this population permits methodological

18

consistency of language mode from instructions, to stimuli,

to response.

Rogan (1983, p. 144)

One of the most intriguing areas of correlational work on cerebral function
to have emerged is that relating personality to the conscious and unconscious
determinants of behavior. The uniqueness of the hemispheres in specialized
function and in style of mentation has been coupled with the observations that

individuals differ in their degree of reliance on the processing capacities of

the two hemispheres. This has led analogically to the question of whether
these stable differences in hemispheric functioning across individuals may be
related to cognitive style: a stable problem solving trait which also varies
across individuals. Furthermore, the question arises whether the cognitive
style an individual characteristically relies on in approaching problems may be
intrinsically related to the unique hemispheric functioning patterns of that
individual. And finally, in what way then, may these be related to the most

general descriptor of the individual, personality?

19~

Hemispheric Function and Personality

NeurOpathology

Not unlike the hemispheric research itself, that which examines the
relationship between hemispheric function and personality components has been
eXplored via many sources of data. Primary among these personality components
have been emotion and cognition. The clinical sources of data from reports of
unilateral brain damage, hemiSpherectomy and unilateral electroconvulsive shock
have provided a foundation of observations of impaired and spared behavioral

function.

Unilateral Brain Damagg

Though clinical reports of unilateral brain damage are among the earliest
sources of observation of impaired behavioral function, the contribution of
damage to the right hemiSphere to more than motor function has been only
recently recorded. This is due to several factors, but the comparative subtlety
of functions which are impaired when the right hemisphere is compromised is
likely the strongest contributor to this lag in recorded neuropsychological
understanding. This data base is nonetheless the earliest to suggest that
emotions are differentially mediated by the two cerebral hemispheres. Ross
(1981) summarized the range of impaired emotional functions resulting from right
hemisphere damage in his categorization of the "Aprosodias". These include
impaired recognition of emotion in the communications of others, as well as an
absence of color, affect and emotional tone in both verbal and gestural

expression of the impaired individual.

20

Hemispherectomy,

Reports of the sequelae of hemiSpherectomy (removal of one of the cerebral
hemispheres) in adults have also contributed to the inferential relationship
between emotion and the separate hemispheres. A case which exemplifies this
clinical literature regarding the removal of the left hemisphere is reported by
Smith (1974) as E. C. Immediately following the removal of his left hemisphere,
E. C. was unable to answer questions with meaningful speech, but he was able to
clearly articulate "expletives and short emotional phrases." (p. 469) Smith
observes the differences in removal of left hemisphere in this case, compared to

reports of the removal of the right hemisphere:

Loss of personality values or bizarre behaviour reported
after similar cases with right hemiSpherectomy (Gardner et
al., 1955). however, was not observed in E. C. Affective
reactions and general behaviour I have observed before and
after hemiSpherectomy were apprOpriate, and consistent with
his wife's report of no noticeable change in emotional

responses or in a basically well-balanced personality.

(Smith, 1974, p. 470)

In spite of the loss of most expressive language, emotion and personality remain
essentially the same without the help of the left hemisphere. To quote from

another case history of one 10 year old patient who eXperienced removal of the

left hemiSphere:

...personality characteristics such as humour, boredom, love

21

and frustration are readily exhibited by right hemisphere
in a pattern reported by the parents to be substantially
the same as before surgery.

(Gott, 1973, p. 1086)

The observations are different when right hemiSphere has been removed.
Gardner (1955) summarizes the observations of ten adults after removal of their

right hemiSphere:

With one exception...they became dependent, regressive and
ineffective people. Systematic psychological tests
demonstrate that in most of these subjects intellect per se
is not the outstanding deficit, for vocabulary and
verbalization appear to suffer the least and memory and more
complex integrations involving insight, emotional control,
initiative, constructive ideation, and imagination that

hemiSpherectomy takes its toll. (p. 501)

Removal of the right hemiSphere appears to result in flat unemotional
speech, whereas removal of the left hemisphere results in an absence of

meaningful speech, leaving none but the most emotional of speech.

Uni-Lateral Electro Convulsive Shock

 

Documented sequelae of unilateral electroconvulsive shock treatment have
added to this construction of right hemisphere's contribution to emotional
aSpects of personality. The work of V. Deglin, a Russian neurophysiologist who
had tested a large number of patients after electroconvulsive shock treatment

(ECT), stresses the importance of lateral considerations in depression. His

22

studies suggest that right hemisphere unilateral ECT may be more effective in
treating depression than bilateral administration. Unilateral right ECT
resulted in his characterization of the "left hemisphere person", who becomes
more talkative with a richer and more varied vocabulary while also becoming less
expressive. Similar changes in the receptive mode are observed. Natural sounds
of coughing, ocean waves, etc., are often unidentifiable to these persons.

There is an inability to Sing. Visual impairment was observed in an inability
to notice essential missing details as well as an inability to see the overall
gestalt of an image. Emotional outlook was easygoing and cheerful, suggesting
that the left brain is optimistic and cheerful (Deglin, 1976). Deglin suggests
this result reflects that the left hemisphere is more active as a result of)

being freed from competition with the right.

In contrast the "right hemisphere person"'s (left unilateral shock)
emotional outlook becomes negative, morose, pessimistic about the present and
future. S/he typically complains of not feeling well. Speech activity is
greatly reduced, using far more mime or gestures with sharply diminished
vocabulary. Speech is limited to simple sentences of isolated words.
Understanding of Speech is similarly limited. S/he shows a lack of attention to
speech that is not very loud, while his hearing for non-verbal sounds is
excellent. S/he is more attentive to natural sounds such as the surf than he
would be if both hemiSphereS were working fully and music is readily recognized.
Deglin suggests that it is the lack of competition from the left hemisphere that
improves performance on these tasks. Such were the observations of the sequelae

of unilateral electroconvulsive shock.

Split-Brain Patients

23

Myriad observations of the unusual behaviors of Split brain patients from
immediately following surgery to long term post recovery have produced a wealth
of theories to describe the relationship between mind and body, brain and
behavior. Split brain surgery, or Commissurotomy, consists of surgically
cutting the corpus callosum which connects the two cerebral hemispheres. As
early animal studies of commissurotomy had shown minimal consequences of split
brain surgery on healthy organisms, it was not until the mid 1960's that the
Nobel Prize winning work of Roger Sperry illuminated not only the importance of
the corpus callosum in humans, but of the separate cerebral hemispheres in

behavioral function and consciousness.

Of particular interest to personality theorists were the accounts of some
of the bizarre experiences of the disconnection patients. One patient, for
example, reported finding his left hand struggling against his right when trying
to pull his pants on in the morning. One hand was pulling them up while the
other hand was pushing them down. On another occasion the same patient was
angry and forcibly reached for his wife with his left hand while his right hand

grabbed the left to stop it (Gazzaniga, 1970).

Though these experiences subside with time resulting for the most part in
coordination of the two sides of the body, the obvious conflict stirs
Speculation on how this may be related to neurotic conflict. Galin (1974)
believes that these phenomena provide a neurological validation for Freud's
notion of an unconscious mind. He points out that right hemisphere's mode of
thought is consistent with Freud's description of the "unconscious" and suggests
that the functioning of an isolated right hemisphere is Similar to processes
that are repressed, unconscious, and unable to control behavior directly:

"Certain aSpects of right hemisphere functioning are congruent with the mode of

:0-

u
..-
u

 

 

 

a.

5“

.57.

 

.4

 

~-

 

 

 

 

cognition psychoanalysts have termed primary process, the form of thought that
Freud originally assigned to the system ch (unconscious)." (p. 576).
Illustrative of this are the extensive use of images, lessened awareness of time
and sequence, and a limited language not unlike that of dreams and slips of the

tongue.

As his theory is fashioned, Galin (1974) believes that there are several
ways in which an ordinary person could function as though they had been
surgically disconnected. Each hemiSphere is exposed to the same sensory input,
though it effectively receives different input because each emphasizes only one
aspect of a message. The left will attend to the verbal cues, and the right
will attend to the non-verbal cues. Using the classic example of the
schizophrenogenic parent, he says, "Imagine the effect on a child when his
mother presents one message verbally, but quite another with her facial
expression and body language; 'I am doing it because I love you, dear', say the
words, but 'I hate you and will destroy you' says the face. (p. 576)". He
believes that during such moments of disconnection, the left hemisphere governs
consciousness while mental events in the right hemiSphere continue a life of
their own and act as a Freudian unconscious, as an independent reservoir of

inaccessible cognition, which may create uneasy emotional states in a person.

Speculative though this theory may be, no clinician can miss the
implications of the report by Gazzaniga G LeDoux (1978) of P.S., one of their
Split brain subjects. P.S. was tested with pairs of visual stimuli presented
via bilateral tachistosc0pe. The picture falling into each visual field was
thus processed by the hemisphere opposite that field. P.S. was asked to use his
hands to point to pictures that were related to what he had seen flashed on the

screen from among several placed in front of him. His right hand pointed to a

25

picture related to one that had been flashed in his right visual field (to left
hemisphere) and his left hand pointed to a picture related to one that had been

flashed to his left visual field (right hemisphere).

When a snow scene was presented to the right hemisphere and a
chicken claw was presented to the left, P.S. quickly and
dutifully responded correctly by choosing a picture of a
chicken from a series of four cards with his right hand and a
picture of a shovel from a series of four cards with his left
hand. The subject was then asked, 'What did you see?’ 'I saw
a claw and I picked the chicken, and you have to clean out

the chicken Shed with a shovel.'

In trial after trial, we saw this kind of reSponse. The
left hemisphere could easily and accurately identify why it
had picked the answer, and then subsequently, and without
batting an eye, it would incorporate the right hemisphere's
response into the framework. While we knew exactly why the
right hemisphere had made its choice, the left hemiSphere
could merely guess. Yet, the left did not offer its
suggestion in a guessing vein but rather a statement of fact
as to why that card had been picked."

(Gazzaniga G LeDoux, 1978, p. 374))

While the Split brain data is enticing, as Kinsbourne (1983) points out,
"The brain is known to be integrated". In normal persons this is true. Given

the methodological problems attendant to drawing from brain damaged or

26

surgically resected populations only, it is important to note the data drawn
from eXperimental studies of the neuropsychological function of normal persons
in exploring these relationships between laterality and personality. Studies
of the relationship between hemisphericity and personality style as seen by
defensemechanism in neurologically normal subjects have begun to emerge in the

experimental literature.

27

Neuropsychological Experiments With Normal Subjects

 

Studies of the relationship between hemiSphericity in neurologically normal
subjects and various personality components have begun to emerge in the
experimental literature. These studies have relied primarily on Conjugate
Lateral Eye Movement (CLEM) as the measure of hemisphericity. Such
characteristics as anxiety (Gur 8 Gur, 1975: Krikorian 8 Rafales, 1982),
hypnotizability (Bakan, 1969: Gur 8 Gur, 1974), psychosomatic complaints (Gur 8
Gur, 1977), cognitive style (Smokler G Shevrin, 1979) and defense mechanism
clusters (Gur G Gur, 1977: Shevrin, Smokler 8 Wolf, 1980; Krikorian 9 Rafales,

1982) have been found to be related to hemisphericity as measured by CLEM.

Measures

Conjugate Lateral Eye Movement

The measure itself has come through an interesting evolution. The early
observations of neurologists (Mott 8 Shafer, 1890; Penfield & Roberts, 1959)
indicated that electrical stimulation of various Sites in one of the cerebral
hemiSpheres could result in a turning, or orienting, of the eyes in the
direction of the opposite Side. This led to the assumption that systematic
observations of the directional eye movement of individuals in their response
process to certain questions, could be used as a suitable method of measuring
the hypothesized contralateral activation. Kinsbourne (1973) had suggested this
interpretation of the CLEM phenomenon and further, that a right-left
distribution of eye movements may reflect a distribution of actual cognitive

function between the cerebral hemiSpheres (Kinsbourne, 1972). In 1964, Day

28

noted that direction of eye movement to the right or left is consistent for a
given individual, so that most persons can be classified as either Right-movers,
or Left-movers. An individual makes about 75% of his CLEMS in one or the other
direction. Numerous studies have since demonstrated the association between
direction of lateral eye movement in response to questions requiring either

verbal or visuo-Spatial content (Gur G Gur, 1977).

While Ehrlichman 8 Weinberger (1978) argue that the link between CLEM
patterns and hemispheric activation remains unproven (consistent with Reyher's
(1964) critique of the substrate/function inferences) they do acknowledge that
studies of individual differences in CLEM patterns have produced a fair degree
of stability and consistency in their correlates. This question however is

complicated by the many conditions that influence CLEM.

The relationship between direction of eye movement and question content is
not a direct left hemisphere/verbal, right hemisphere/visuo-spatial
relationship. Individuals differ in their reliance on the processing capacities
of the two hemispheres as indicated earlier. Women and left-handers tend toward
less lateralization. This individual characteristic pattern of response is also
influenced by the eXperimental situation. Gur (1975) demonstrated that though
the characteristic reSponse pattern will be more directly related to the problem
type of the question when the examiner is behind the subject, a greater

percentage of eye movements, indicating reliance on the preferred hemisphere, is

observed when the experimenter is facing the subject -— regardless of problem

type. According to Gur:

The direction of eye movements in response to questions

appears therefore, to be determined by at least two factors:

29

in

 

s.

u
H

 

 

 

‘l
a
4
t
\F <
v F
I

 

 

 

 

 

(a) problem type and (b) characteristic use of a certain
hemisphere by a given individual.

Gur (1975, p. 755)

The author suggests an interpersonal SXplanation that:
Anxiety, according to Sullivan (1953), is closely tied-up
with interpersonal relationships and tends to stand in the
way of an appropriate problem—solving or need related
behavior.

Gur (1975, p. 756)

Later studies (Gur 8 Gur, 1977) added supportive data to this
interpretation, resulting in a concept of "hemisphere activation bias" as the
phenomenon underlying the tendency to "use" a certain hemisphere in the
face-to—face situation, regardless of its greater or lesser ability to handle

the specific type of problem.

CLEM then, can measure both the pattern of hemisphericity, in the reliance
of an individual on the processing style of the hemisphere which is better able
to handle the type of material in question. Or, when the "pressure" is on, CLEM
can reflect an exaggerated reliance on the preferred hemisphere of the
individual, believed to be due to the influence of anxiety. This may not be the
hemisphere best able to handle the material in question and may, therefore,
occur at a cost in accuracy. Though the mechanism of this phenomena may not be

fully understood, its existence has contributed to some of the earlier and

30

continuing questions about the reliability of this measure of hemisphericity.

CLEM As An Index Of Personality

Concurrently with Day's work as a clinical psychologist, the connection
between hemispheric activation bias, as measured by CLEM, and personality,
evolved (Day, 1964). In the course of his practice, he noticed that patients
tended consistently to look to the left or to the right when answering
questions. Further work suggested that the direction of these lateral eye
movements might be associated with certain personality characteristics (Day,
1967). Supportive data was published a few years later by Paul Bakan (1969).

In advance of Kinsbourne (1973) he proposed that the eye movements are related
to hemispheric asymmetry. He saw CLEM as symptomatic of an easier triggering of
activity in the contralateral hemisphere. These two lines of inquiry - that of
the relationship of CLEM to hemispheric function and the relationship of CLEM to
personality, have generated the body of literature supporting a consistent
relationship between the phenomenon of CLEM and the previously cited personality
traits. The experimental link between hemisphericity and personality

characteristics rests heavily on this link.

Defense Mechanism Inventory: a Measure of Defense Cluster

Experimenters in this area of research, have relied heavily on one

particular measure of personality, the Defense Mechanism Inventory (DMI) (Gleser

8 Ihilevich, 1969). Because of this, the demonstrated relationships between

laterality and personality are heavily based on the DMI as well. The DMI yields

quantitative measures of five basic defense mechanisms:

Turning Against the Other (TAO), characterized by Gleser

31

and Ihilevich (1969) as dealing with conflict "through
attacking a real or presumed external frustrating object"
(p.52):

Projection (PRO), characterized by "SXpression of
aggression toward an external object through first
attributing to it, without unequivocal evidence, negative
intent or characteristics" (p. 52);

Intellectualization (INT), (formerly called
Principalization), characterized by dealing with conflict by
"invoking a general principle that 'splits off' affect from
content and represses the former" (p. 52):

Turning Against the Self (TAS), characterized by
"directing aggressive behavior toward S himself" (p. 52);

Reversal (REV), characterized by repression, denial,
negation and reaction formation: defenses which deal with
conflict by "responding in a positive or neutral" (p. 52) way

to a frustrating object.

Concurrent predictive validity of the DMI was
demonstrated by Gleser 8 Sachs (1973). However, validity
findings of another study (Vickers G Hervig, 1981) which
compared three defense measures: the DMI, the Coping
Operations Preference Enquire (COPE), and the scales
developed by Jaffe and Naditch (JGN), were equivocal with a
trend toward similar patterns of correlation between defenses
Within instruments. The authors observed that "Overall, the
pattern of correlations for the DMI was broadly Similar to

those found in the other two instruments (p. 635)".

32

 

Gleser 8 Ihilevich (1969) reported correlations between
TAO and PRO subscales of r = .63, and between INT and REV of
r = .54, in the original Out—Patient sample. subsequent
studies have replicated high correlations among these scales.
Gleser G Sachs (1973) reported corre = .63 between TAO and
PRO: and corr = .51 between INT and REV. And Vickers 8
Hervig (1981) report correlations between PRO and TAO and

between INT and REV of r = .97 and r = .96, respectively.

Several experimental studies are not only representative
of the literature, but the state of the art of these

findings, as well. ~

Studies of Hemisphericity and Personality in Normals

The first of these studies by Gur & Gur (1975) exemplifies the methods used
by almost all of those that follow. CLEM served as their measure of laterality,
using the criteria suggested by Bakan (1969) of greater than 70% of eye
movements to the left to classify left—movers, more than 70% to the right as
right-movers, and all others, bi—directionals. The experimental paradigm with

experimenter facing the subject, was used. This is considered to produce the

greatest anxiety,

Twenty—eight right-handed male undergraduates subjects were then grouped as
either left-movers (N=12). right—movers (N=8), or bi-directionals (N=8).
Preference of defense mode was measured by the Defense Mechanism Inventory (DMI,
Gleser 8 Ihilevich, 1969). When compared on each of these five defenses, the
three groups differed on only three. On both PRO and TAO the right—movers (left
hemisphere users) were Significantly higher than left-movers (right hemiSphere
users), but they were only significantly higher than bi-directionals (less
lateralized) on TAO. These findings were consistent with the author's
expectations in that persons using TAO and PRO are seen as individuals who
externalize conflict acting against the environment. These defenses require

more cognitive verbal elaboration.

Left-movers (right hemisphere users) were significantly higher than
right-movers (left hemisphere users) on REV only, but did not differ
significantly from bi-directionals. These findings were also consistent with the
author‘s predictions in that REV is seen in an individual's immediate denial of

reality, internalization of conflict, and repression of emotions evoked by

34

external stress, and reaction formation. This was seen as consistent with
expectations of how right hemisphere involvement would be manifest in

personality»

Smokler G Shevrin (1979), in an elegant study, compared laterality patterns
of persons with hysteric personality styles to those with obsessive-compulsive
personality styles. While they relied on CLEM in the Experimenter facing
Subject paradigm as their index of laterality, they used a more clinical
approach to their assignment of personality type. Reasoning that a strongly
left hemisphere dominant individual might appear as one who "analyzed virtually
everything in a piecemeal, analytic manner even in Situations in which this
might not be advantageous." (p. 949) they observed how closely such an
individual would fit the traditional description of the non—pathological
Obsessive—Compulsive personality type:

1. Having a strong tendency to repress disturbing affects,

2. Tending to treat everything in an ideational way even when
inappropriate,

3. Favoring a logico-deductive approach to problem solving, rather

than a concrete stimulus-bound approach.

Similarly, they reasoned a strongly right hemiSphere dominant individual
would seem to deal with situations in a global, holistic manner, relying little
on analytic strategies. Such an individual would fit closely the classic
description of the hysteric personality style having:

1. Strong tendency to repress disturbing ideas,
2. A tendency toward emotional lability,
3. A tendency to solve problems in a stimulus bound, concrete way,

rather than using logic.

35

The authors cite Freud and Charcot as the generators of the long history of

clinical observations of such personality types.

Based on these considerations, a screening for personality style was
completed using responses to six projected Rorschach cards (I, III, IV, VI, IX,
X) in which 316 right-handed undergraduate subjects of both sexes were asked to
write down everything they saw in the card. The card was flashed again for 3
minutes and the Subject was asked, "What about the card made it look like
whatever you saw? (p. 950)". They were also asked to amplify their description
of each percept. Subjects were then asked to self administer the WAIS
Comprehension subtest. Subject protocols were judged by trained clinicians,
using a list of definitive projective characteristics for obsessive-compulsive

and hysterical personality styles drawn from Schafer's (1954) work.

Their objective was to identify individuals with the personality styles -—
not merely cognitive by-products of left, or right hemiSphere function -— of
either hysteric, or obsessive-compulsive type, as these are defined and
implemented in the clinical setting. Though 316 subjects were screened and so
grouped, only 75 subjects were actually run due to the unavailability of
subjects after the end of the academic semester. The final number run were 26
Hysterics (8 male, 18 female): 15 Obsessive style (7 male, 8 female): 33
Controls (23 male, 10 female). The data were analyzed using a repeated—measures
analysis of variance for unbalanced designs with sex and personality style as
the two between-subject factors, and procedure and content of question as the
two within-subject factors. Percent right-looking scores, determined by
dividing the number of right eye movements that could be scored by the total

number of movements that could be scored, were used for this analysis.

36

Results revealed a significant effect for personality and no effect for
sex. Highly significant differences in CLEM were seen between hysteric and
obsessive-compulsive groups. The authors concluded that hysteric personality
style was highly correlated with left looking (right hemisphere user) CLEM, and
that obsessive-compulsive personality style was highly correlated with right

looking (left hemisphere) CLEM.

These authors see in their results an avenue for observing the relationship
between personality as defined in psychoanalytic terms and current knowledge of
laterality. They appear therefore, to be searching for a way to observe a
posited interface of dynamic (intrapsychic) and cognitive (cortical) processing.
They rebut the possibility of criticism of their method as merely itself
reflecting "manifestations of right or left hemisphere functioning in projective
tests (p. 953)" by arguing that the criteria used are separately defined for
several reasons:

First, they are generated from a theoretical and clinical
tradition totally separate from research in neuropsychology
and psychobiology. The conceptualizations and
assessment of obsessive—compulsive and hysteric function
relied on presently were postulated well before and
almost indisputably separately from most empirical
knowledge of how the left and right hemispheres function.

(Smokler 8 Shevrin, 1979, p. 953))

While this is true of the assessment measures themselves, it is not
altogether true of their theoretical underpinnings, at least not to the extent
that the work of Freud is concerned. Though the knowledge of the differential

functioning of the individual hemispheres was absent during Freud's era, the

37

 

 

 

anx-

avl'

 

 

a.

.-

 

‘Q

 

manifestations of these differences in functioning may have been observed and
attributed to different neurological explanations. For instance, left
hemiSphere functions, as we know them today would have been seen as secondary
processes, or higher cortical functions: whereas right hemisphere functions
could have been seen as less corticated, primary process functions. If one's
view of Freud's earlier work is Similar to that of Pribram 8 Gill (1976), then
one cannot assume his conceptualizations of personality to be grounded on
anything but his work as both a clinician AND a
neuropsychologistIpsychobiologist. It may be that intrapsychic phenomena, a la
Freud, are not so easily "separately defined" (Smokler 8 Shevrin, 1979, p. 953)
from neuropsychological phenomena, and therefore are the meat of an unnecessary

struggle for distinction.

The results of this study Show that a Significant portion of subjects with
hysteric personality styles were left-movers in the face—to—face questioning
paradigm. Subjects with obsessive—compulsive personality styles tended to be
Right Movers. This suggests that to the extent that CLEM can be seen as an
index of hemiSpheric activation, hemisphericity may be integrally related to
personality structure, as measured by these more dynamically oriented methods.
The authors emphasized that their efforts were to evaluate the relationship of
laterality with personality structure, avoiding the criticism that they may be,
"...no more than manifestations of right or left hemisphere functioning on

projective tests. (p. 953)"

In counterpoint to these however, Smokler 8 Shevrin (1979b) extended their
study and, using 41 of the same subjects in groups of Controls (N=21, 14 men, 7

women), Hysteric (N=14, 5 men, 9 women) and Obsessive-compulsive (N=6, 4 men, 2

38

women) personality style, compared both their scores for field independence and
DMI defense clusters in an effort to replicate previous correlational findings.
They found no significant relationship among field independence, as measured by
the Rod and Frame Test and the Embedded Figures Test: hemiSphericity, as
measured by CLEM: or defense cluster, as measured by the DMI, thus failing to
replicate the results of Gur G Our (1975). The Authors consider and reject such
possible explanations as "lateral eye movements provide a poor index of
hemispheric lateralization", concluding that "insofar as the main
differentiation between hysterical and obsessive personality styles is often
based upon dynamic as well as cognitive characteristics, it might be useful to
consider the possibility that these dynamic factors may have considerable
Significance with respect to lateralization." (pp. 201-202) No relationship was
evidenced between personality style and DMI defense cluster either however,

raising validity questions about the DMI.

A recent study by Krikorian and Rafales (1982), while providing data
supportive of the existence of a relationship between DMI defense clusters and
directional CLEM, highlights further the tenuousness of this relationship.
Observing that previous studies (Gur et al. 1975, Hiscock, 1977) suggested that
varying levels of arousal can disrupt asymmetrical LEM patterns, they
manipulated the arousal level of the stimulus. They did this not by
manipulating the interpersonal pressures, as had Gur, Gur 8 Harris,(1975) (they
had the EXperimenter out of the room), but rather by varying the intrapsychic
sources of presumed emotional arousal (by varying the degrees of emotionally
arousing question content). Three arousal levels were used: low, moderate and
high: with either verbal or spatial content. An example of high verbal arousal
is "Tell me how you feel when someone tells you that you are no good." and high

Spatial arousal, "Visualize and describe the most upsetting photograph of the

39

Vietnam War that you have seen." (p. 374)

Consistent with the design of Smokler G Shevrin, subjects were grouped by
defensive style, while hemisphericity, as measured by CLEM served as the
dependent variable. Group assignment was made by computation of a composite DMI
score for each subject. The authors derived this composite DMI score using

several factors observed in previous studies. These included:

1. Previous studies produced high intercorrelations of
two pairs of the DMI scales.used both the high
intercorrelations of two pairs of the DMI scales.

2. TAO was highly correlated with PRO and INT with REV.

3. The Gur G Gur (1975) study reported that one pair,
TAO and PRO, correlated with Left-movers, while REV, one of

the other pair, correlated with Right-movers.

The authors therefore, subtracted the sum of INT and REV scores from the sum of
TAO and PRO scores. Subjects were classified according to defensive orientation
as, Projectors - those with positive DMI composite scores (TAO + PRO > INT +
REV), and Rationalizers -— those with negative DMI composite scores (TAO + PRO <
INT + REV). By this method Sixteen subjects were identified as members of the
two experimental groups, Projectors and Rationalizers. Comparisons were made
across groups and arousal levels and between the proportion of initial,

cumulative and frequent CLEMS recorded for subjects.

There were no significant effects for sex, or order of item presentation.
Significant main effects were found for question type and emotional level. Only

at the moderate arousal level was there an increase in leftward movement (right

40

hemisphere activation), which was unrelated to content. An overall asymmetry
(right movement to verbal: left to spatial) was maintained at this arousal
level. Krikorian and Rafales assumed that left hemisphere processing did not
decrease, rather relative right hemiSphere activation was enhanced. Therefore,
the moderate arousal effects were strong enough to override any sub group

effects.

While further analysis of the effects of defensive style grouping Suggested
that these interacted with eye movements, the findings were nonetheless
ambiguous. The Our 8 Gur (1975) study observed higher REV in left-movers, while
Krikorian and Rafales (1982) obtained that relationship only under conditions of
high arousal. However, while Gur 8 Our (1975) observed right-movers scoring
higher on TAO 9 PRO, the Krikorian e Rafales (1982) group (considered
comparable) of positive DMI composite scores, Showed "little rightward
responding." The authors suggest that their use of "emotion as an additional

factor" (p. 379) may explain the discrepancy.

Several other factors may have contributed as well. Selecting subjects on
the basis of style of defense clustering could have two potential effects on the
outcome measured by CLEM. First, if indeed, as suggested by Shevrin, Smokler 8
Wolf (1979), life SXperiences are a powerful variable in the development and use
of various defenses, it would be possible that the effect of these experiences
could produce a defensive pattern which, if activated by stress, could override
a neurological preference in some individuals. Selecting subjects on the basis
of their matured characteristic defensive styles could produce groupings which
are confounded by the work of such an uncontrolled independent variable: the
effect of psycho-social experience. For example, if a bright female were

neurologically inclined toward greater reliance on right hemisphere processing,

41

but was also motivated by the rewards of a special relationship with her father
to excel in academic pursuits and logico—deductive reasoning she might appear to
be reliant on intellectualization as a defense, while neuropsychologically she

was right hemisphere dominant.

Additionally, Our 8 Gur (1975) suggest that the DMI is a poor
differentiator of defense style in bi-directional subjects. Grouping subjects
by DMI Scores then offers no information regarding the percentage of
bi—directionals whose CLEM scores are contributing to overall findings.
Krikorian and Rafales give us a clue to overall laterality of subjects by saying
that "In general, the major predictions were confirmed. Under low-arousal
conditions subjects responded with leftward eye movements to spatial items and
rightward eye movements to verbal items. To the extent that LEMS reflect
contralateral hemiSpheric activation, these results confirm the well-established
ideas concerning specialization of verbal and non-verbal processing modes
between the hemispheres. (p. 377)" This suggests that their total sample was
heavily comprised of Right Movers, whereas the Gur 8 Gur (1975) study by design,
compared the defense clusters of BOTH right—movers, left-movers AND
bi-directionals. According to Gur, Gur 8 Harris (1975), in analyzing individual
performances, greater differentiation in the E facing the S paradigm did not
produce cross—over from left to right movement, rather an increased reliance on
a "preferred" direction was observed. Based on the report in that study, in a
low arousal (E behind S) condition, 86% of subjects can be predicted to function
bi-directionally, with that percentage shifting to 29% in the E facing the S
condition. This Bi-directional population behaved much less predictably in
their responses to the DMI, tending not to be differentiated easily from either
the left—movers or the right-movers, however being closer in DMI scores to the

:right-movers. One could predict that 29% of any sample then would be comprised

42

r —

 

:a

 

.nc

 

=vb.

n».

 

  
 
 

V ~

‘~

 

of Bi-directionals who would tend to produce DMI scores which were much closer
to those of right—movers. If grouped on the basis of DMI scores only then, it
is possible that an overrepresentation of Bi—directionals would be seen in a
group of "Projectors". If this were true, a dependent measure based on CLEM
could be skewed by the less lateralized performance of bi—directional subjects.
As the discrepancy between Gur 8 Gur (1975) and Krikorian G Rafales (1982)
hinges on the relationships of these groups, the contribution of this variable

could be at work.

While these studies suggest a relationship between characteristic defense
style as measured by DMI and laterality as measured by CLEM, the interpersonal,
intrapsychic and methodological plasticity of the laterality measure appears to
contribute a substantial amount of ambiguity. Additional clarity might be
gained by the use of a different measure of laterality - one which measures the
Trait of laterality as minimally affected by these moderating variables.

Control for these three sub—groups of subject hemiSphericity, (RHA, LHA and
Bi-directional performances) then could help to evaluate the contribution of
this variable to the subsequent relationship of hemisphericity to defense
clusters via DMI. This information may possibly be clouded by the important,

but nonetheless obfuscating effects inherent in the fluidity of the CLEM in the

studies to date.

43

Summary

In summary then, based on clinical reports of the effects of cerebral
damage, the removal of an entire hemiSphere, the effects of commissurotomy,
unilateral ECT and neuroanatomy as well as reports of experimental studies of
neurologically normal subjects, stable differences in the cerebral hemispheres
exist. These differences are structural, functional and cognitive. Individuals
differ in their characteristic degree and direction of hemiSphericity, or
reliance on the two separate hemispheres. These differences in hemisphericity
are influenced by handedness, gender, bilinguality, early cerebral damage,
culture, language deprivation, deafness and acquisition of a visuo—Spatial first

language.

The same avenues of research have combined to establish a relationship
between hemisphericity and the personality factors of cognition and emotion.
While the underlying mechanism of this relationship is as yet unclear, the
relationship between the hemiSpheres and their personality correlates is
relatively consistent. The characteristic cognitive strength of the left
hemiSphere is logico-deductive, analytic, sequential, and verbally mediated
thinking, whereas the thought process of the right hemisphere is strongest in
visuo-spatial, holistic, imagoic and gestalt functions. At the emotional level
a picture develops of the operation of the left hemisphere (without full or
normal contribution of the right hemisphere) resulting in a consciousness that
is easy—going, cheerful and inclined to deny catastrophic and painful realities.
The right hemisphere, when unaided by the processing of the left hemisphere,
tends to result in the presence of morose, dysphoric, painful and despondent

affect.

44

An effort to integrate these relationships into a meaningful whole suggests
that an individual's characteristic reliance on the processing strategies of one
or the other hemisphere would be intrinsically related to their characteristic
mode of problem solving, cOping and defending. Studies of these potential
relationships support such an understanding, but these efforts are still in the
germinal stages of inquiry, grappling with complex methodological issues and
constraints. Specifically, the plasticity of CLEM, and its apparent sensitivity
to various demand characteristics of the experimental setting, has contributed
to questions concerning its predictive validity. Groupings baSed on defensive
style do not permit control of the unpredictable response patterns of
bi-directionals. The interrelationship of potentially offsetting psycho—social
eXperiences is totally unexplored. Further exploration of the contributions of
interhemispheric participation in cognitive processing would elucidate
suggestions that such participation may also be contributory. Further inroads

could be made by pursuit of some "next steps" to a better understanding of these

issues therefore, by:

1. Introduction of a less plastic measure of laterality than
CLEM.

2. A methodology which permits exclusion of the unpredictable
effects of bi—directionals from comparisons on the laterality
measure.

3. An opportunity to investigate the relative contributions of
unique psycho-social experiences.

4. A population that is varied in its relative reliance on right

hemisphere, while stable in its reliance on left hemisphere.

4S

 

 

 

Ulla
-

vu-

a
..-.

 

 

~
s.
s.

 

 

Present Study

The present study examines the relationship between hemisphericity and
characteristic defensive style while building on the previous literature in
several ways. It builds on the existing literature by retaining the DMI as the
measure of defense. It modifies previous paradigms by using a measure of
laterality other than the CLEM. A visual measure of laterality, the
tachistoscopic presentation of verbal stimuli, was employed, with accuracy of
identification constituting the dependent variable. The "foundation study"
(Hogan, 1983) referred to earlier in this discussion (Rogan, 1983) was used as
the laterality data base for several reasons. First among these in

methodological significance are those related to validity.

An Alternative Measure of Laterality.

 

The breadth of the original study produced sufficient data and
methodological control to strengthen the validity of the laterality measure
used. Levy (1983) and Hellige (1983) addressed in considerable detail the
methodological pitfalls inherent in doing normative research of lateralization.
The majority of the issues they raised and suggestions they made for offsetting

these problems were incorporated in the base study. These included:

- A Hemisphere by Task interaction analysis.

- A Hemisphere by Population interaction analysis.

- Level of difficulty of the task was manipulated to standardize the
accuracy of responses to 50% for each subject tested

before test data were gathered.

46

- The multi-factor design used was extensively subanalyzed to see
how the two-factor interaction patterns had changed.

- In replicating precisely a method used by another researcher, results
were obtained which were highly concordant with that study with
predictable differences among Subject groups.

- Both LCs and separate hemisphere accuracy scores were used as
dependent measures. This assured that the interaction pattern
obtained was not an artifact of the rescaling of the dependent
variable, often produced by using a laterality index such as LC.
This also assured that left and right hemiSphere scores from which
the index was derived were not obscured, permitting analysis of
the form of the interaction.

- Potential peripheral pathway factors were controlled for by
varying the nature of the experimental task by varying
stimulus type.

- Visual scanning bias was controlled by vertical array of

word stimuli.

Additionally, tachistOSCOpic measures of laterality are based on the assumption
that performance patterns on T—Scope presentations reflect actual differences in
neurologic functioning. Neville, Kutas and Schmidt (1982) have demonstrated in
their work with Event Related Potentials (ERP'S) that these measures (more
direct because of their capacity to measure activation patterns
electroencephalographical1y), combined with tasks designed to elicit lateral
functioning, may be a more sensitive measure of actual neurological functioning
than present experimental methods alone. The former combine a

neurophysiological measure with a concurrent behavioral activity, whereas the

47

..u

.4

.wv

 

g.

A..

 

 

 

latter only permit observations of behavior which are inferred to be a function
of neurological processes. In these studies they have found that while
behavioral measures are not always the same as findings which emerge from ERP'S,
when behavioral asymmetries are produced, these are directionally consistent
with ERP asymmetries. When differences between the measures are seen, it is
when only trends toward behavioral asymmetries are observed. In such cases the
underlying ERP'S demonstrate laterality patterns both in morphological
functioning as well as activation level which, though more pronounced, are in
the same direction as the behavioral trends. It must, nonetheless, be kept in
mind that behavioral performance such as that which is produced by this
experimental method is still only inferentially associated with actual

neurological functioning.

As the validity questions attendant to use of the CLEM as a measure of
laterality have plagued this area of research, information gained from the use

of this current tachistoscopic method would be highly valuable.

Research Questions Asked In The Present Study .1)

 

1. Is there a relationship between laterality and personality?

Our 8 Gur (1977) reasoned that persons who rely on the processing style of
their right hemiSphere would be eXpected to be more holistic and nonverbal,
whereas those relying on their left hemiSphere would be expected to use more
verbal elaborations in their c0ping or defense mechanisms. Based on this
reasoning they predicted that those relying on the left hemisphere would score
higher on defense clusters that externalized conflict and involved verbal

elaborations. The DMI subscales which include these defense clusters are TAO

48

 

h,.-l

,.-\

 

 

Ibr-

 

 

 

U
'~

-,,_

 

 

and PRO. (When using the DMI composite score of Krikorian and Rafales (1982)
persons scoring highest on these scores are called Projectors). Those relying
on the right hemiSphere were expected to score higher on defense clusters that
internalized conflict in a holistic and preverbal fashion. The DMI subscales
which include these defense clusters are INT and REV. (When using the DMI
composite score of Krikorian and Rafales persons scoring highest on these scales
are called Rationalizers.) These results were obtained by these experimenters.
It is the plan of this study to evaluate this finding by using a different
method of measuring laterality —— one that examines this question with minimal

influence of anxiety -- the tachistosc0pe.

Motivated Hypothesis I: Laterality and characteristic defense choice of

 

the individual are related. If this is true then the LC'S will be negatively
correlated with the DMI composite scores. This outcome (Hm: xy > O, p = .05)

will permit rejection of the null hypothesis.

Null Hypothesis I: Laterality and characteristic defense choice are
independent of each other in the function of the individual. If this is true,
then the LC'S will not be negatively correlated with the DMI composite scores.
This outcome (Ho: xy = 0) will not permit acceptance of the motivated

hypothesis.

Expected Results: It is expected that a negative correlation will be

obtained between the LC and the DMI composite score.

Rationale: It is assumed that the LC measures laterality and that the DMI

cxnnposite score measures characteristic defense choice. It is believed that a

49

negative LC, which is inferred to reflect left hemiSphere dominance, is
associated with Projectors, who produce positive DMI composite scores. It is
also believed that the converse is also true: that a positive LC, inferred to
reflect right hemisphere dominance, is associated with Rationalizers, who

produce negative DMI composite scores.

2. IS Thingelationship Independent Of Variables Associated With Acquisition Of

Sign Language?

While the use of a HemiSphere by POpulation interaction analysis (the
comparison of a population with a unique experience which is expected to produce
a unique laterality pattern, with "normal" persons eXpected to produce
traditional laterality patterns) adds validity, it introduces a complicating
issue. The expected results were obtained in the original base study and
defined a uniquely lateralized population. The inference was drawn that this
unique cerebral pattern was the result of a life/environmental experience.
Would this unique life experience, by which the original grouping assignment was

made, be expected to have an effect on personality as well?

The life experience that this experimental group was the natural
acquisition of Sign language from their deaf parents. What could be predicted
in personality development, given what is known about this eXperience? There is
nothing in the literature to guide our understanding in thS area, as this
population had not been identified for study prior to the base study. Indeed,
studies of deaf children of deaf parents indicate that they do very well in
educational, social, emotional and vocational adjustment (See Appendix A).

However, we know nothing of these things about the hearing child of deaf

SO

parents.

Clinical knowledge of this population however, suggests that there could be
many ramifications attendant to this historical fact of their lives. Typically,
the hearing child of deaf parents becomes the interpreter for the family to the
outside world. This usually occurs at about 5 or 6 years of age. This function
in the family places the child between their parents and EVERYONE who hears.

The child communicates for the parents in medical, social, employment and legal
situations. They are therefore, processing more mature information than most
adolescents must deal with - at a much earlier age. They perceive the
attitudes of hearing persons toward their parents and themselves. They feel the
stigma. There are myriad ways in which life is different for them. For
instance, their parents —— not being able to hear: and therefore to monitor
their own sounds - produce all of the sounds that most hearing persons
screen/inhibit. Love-making is not kept "quiet - the children!". The primal

scene therefore, is a quite different experience for these children.

The only generalizations which can be made in a predictive vein are
Speculative at best. Indeed, such an experience would be eXpected to produce a
heightened sense of responsibility very early in the life of the child. They
would quickly be a "little adult", aborting the normal Span of carefree
childhood. But individuals respond differently to this experience. Joanne
Greenberg, in the novel In This Sign (1970) paints a bleak, though beautiful
picture of her childhood. The story is laced with cynicism and an undertone of
anger, while doing a brilliant job of describing her world and the world of the
deaf. I have listened to hundreds of interpreters, themselves hearing children
of Deaf parents, discuss the book. Some heatedly decry its negative tone, some

as aggressively support and endorse it, while others are appreciative of the

51

exposure to the issues -— seemingly free of emotional conflicts about it. How
then could one predict whether this family experience would predispose one to

externalize conflict, or internalize it?

If the research potential of this uniquely lateralized population is to be
maximized, then this potential influence must be separated from the relationship
under investigation: that between the unique hemispheric function of this
population and personality. The correlation of laterality and defense choice
therefore, will be ascertained conditioned upon the partialling out of the

variance produced by the original group membership.

Motivated Hypothesis II: That there is a relationship between laterality

 

and defense choice which is independent of variables associated with the
original group membership. If this is true, then the correlation between LC'S
and DMI composite Scores will remain significant when conditioned on the
partialling out of the variance due to the original group membership. This

outcome will permit rejection of the null hypothesis.

Null Hypothesis II: That the relationship between laterality and defense

 

choice is totally dependent upon variables associated with the original group
membership. If this is true, then the correlation between LC'S and DMI
composite scores will not remain significant when conditioned upon the
partialling out of the variance due to the original group membership. This

outcome will not permit acceptance of the motivated hypothesis.

Expected Results: It is expected that the correlation between LC and DMI

 

will not be weakened significantly when conditioned upon the removal of the

variance due to the original group membership.

52

Rationale: There is no consistent predicted effect on personality due to
the unique psycho-social factors associated with being a hearing child of deaf
parents, or of having acquired Sign language later in life, which could be

expected to over—ride a laterality/defense choice relationship.

3. Does The Inclusion Of Scores Of Bi—Directionals Obscure This Relationship?

The reader will recall that in the base study 29 right-handed hearing Ss
were represented in three experimental groups as: Native signers (N=10),
Late-learn signers (N=9) and Non-signing controls (N=10). Groups were balanced
for gender. Compared on their ability to correctly identify tachistoscopically
presented unilateral stimuli of 4 types, only English words, a measure of

hemiSphere advantage for verbal stimuli are used in this current study.

To evaluate a relationship between laterality and defense cluster, it is
important to have a representation of various defense scores (i.e., both
positive and negative DMI Composite scores), as well as a representation of
various hemisphericity types (i.e., LHA and RHA). A logical question at this
point is raised. How can the necessary representation of RHA be obtained from
this laterality base study in which two groups were shown to produce a LHA while
only the experimental group of Native signers differed —- and then by only a

reduced LHA for verbal stimuli?

The phenomenon of individual differences aids us here. As Levy (1983)
states in discussing functional diversities in normative studies:
This possibility is of great interest because normative
studies of lateralization, although typically revealing the

expected perceptual asymmetry on dichotic and lateralized

53

tachistoscopic tasks for the sample of subjects as a whole,
almost always find that a significant minority of

subjects fails to display a significant asymmetry and

that even among those manifesting the expected direction of
asymmetry, there is a large variability in magnitude.

(Levy 1983, p. 466)

while:

I do not believe that studies of unilaterally

brain-damaged patients versus normative studies with
dichotic or tachistoscopic techniques measure the same
factors in individual patients or subjects. The consistency
that appears is a consistency with reSpect to statistical
averages: neurological investigations reveal that language
is specialized to the left hemisphere in the vast

majority of right-handers while normative studies show that,
on appropriate verbal tasks, there is a right sensory field
advantage for right—handers, as a group. The group
inference from normative studies supports neurological
findings, and in both cases, I believe hemispheric
Specialization is being reflected. However, not all
right—handers Show the expected perceptual asymmetry,

and even among those who do, there is a large variation in

the degree of asymmetry observed."

54

(Levy 1983, p. 475)

In fact, the base study produced data which reflected both LHA and RHA in
subjects in all groups. Figure 3 displays the numbers of subjects who produced
LHA, RHA and bi-directional competence, per experimental group. Therefore, the

necessary variability in laterality is present in this base study.

The Gur & Gur (1975) study reported that Bi—directional subjects did not
produce consistent DMI scores. Other studies have not controlled for this
factor, which could contribute to findings which are obscured by it. This
present study permitted statistical comparisons to be made of only those
Subjects who had demonstrated either a RHA or LHA, thereby controlling the
influence of the Bi-directionals. Though the N's were small, it was believed

‘that any emergent trend would prove instructive.

 

Insert Table 1.

 

Motivated Hypothesis III; That Bi-directionally lateralized subjects do
not produce consistent DMI composite scores and including them in a
correlational study will obscure the LC/DMI relationship which is obtained in
persons who are lateralized either to the right or the left. If this is true,
‘then the correlation of LC's with DMI composite scores will be increased when
the scores of bi—directionals is removed from the comparison. This outcome will

permit rejection of the Null Hypothesis.

nudes 085 9.9.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hose
H N u .
mm.» u H H u
wane N m u .V
E u m m 5.
Ho c S no
H.535 H.

236on ow mcdgooam w: nudge H 96.35 mwmsowmv. 089% N Armani
Hound mwmaonmv man 0896 w Azosbwgwsm 003.8me 55mm banana—53
noomwwowoawm mow. >858. ow Hmonwwwwomfios on. <oHde. amorpmwomoowwomwww.
whomoscoom mews—E.” menu—nova m. 3mg. mos—gunman >Q<magmo 255. Home
moSwmuuoHo Egg M95. on 2o moswmgouo >a<mb+bmo 3913 HS .55
mama map—8. gamma. Ho 3.

Null Hypothesis III: That Bi-directionally lateralized subjects do produce
consistent DMI composite scores as do lateralized subjects and including them in
a correlational study of the LC/DMI relationship will not affect this
relationship. If this is true, then the correlation of LC'S with DMI composite
scores will be unchanged by the removal of the scores of the Bi-directionals.

This outcome will not permit acceptance of the motivated hypothesis.

Expected Results: It was expected that the correlation between LC'S and

 

DMI scores would be increased by the removal of the scores of Bi-directionals

from the comparison.

Rationale: It is assumed that those subjects who do not produce LC'S which
reflect either left or right hemiSphere advantage are Bi-directional in their
lateralization. It is believed that these subjects do not fall within the
predictive range of this study and that they produce scores on the measure of

defense choice which are, for the purposes of this study, Spurious.

4. Do The Two Cerebral Hemispheres Participate Differently In The

Laterality/Defense Choice Relationship ?

Finally, it was deemed useful to exploit the way in which this uniquely
lateralized population differed from comparison groups. Earlier comparisons
demonstrated that the reduced laterality diSplayed by this group was due to a
significantly better performance by their right hemiSphere than that of
comparison groups. No differences between left hemisphere performances were

found.

56

The Krikorian 8 Rafales (1983) study suggested a possible effect of right
hemisphere activation among rationalizers under high arousal conditions. Tucker
(1981) suggests that both an inhibitory role of left hemiSphere and the
observations that "anxiety seemed to impose a processing load specifically on
the left hemisphere (p. 22)" may be involved. He says, "The two hemispheres
seem to exist in some sort of reciprocally balancing, dialectical relationship,
each hemisphere's affective tendency opposing and complementing that of the
other. (p. 21)". It would be useful then, to use the separate hemisphere data
which is available from the base study to evaluate whether such a relationship

exists.

_ Motivated Hypothesis IV: That the two cerebral hemispheres participate
differently in the relationship of laterality and defense choice and that the
inhibitory role of left hemiSphere may be involved in this relationship. If
this is true the relationship between left hemisphere performance scores and
defense choice will be greater than the relationship between right hemisphere

performance scores. This outcome would permit rejection of the null hypothesis.

Null Hypothesis IV: That the two cerebral hemispheres do not participate

 

differently in the relationship of laterality and defense choice. If this is
true, then the relationship between left hemisphere performance scores and
defense choice will not differ from the relationship between right hemisphere

performance scores. This outcome would not permit acceptance of the motivated

hypothesis.

Expected Results: It was eXpected that a larger correlation would be

obtained between the left hemisphere accuracy scores and the DMI composite

57

score, than between the right hemisphere accuracy scores and the DMI composite

score 0

Rationale: The performance scores of the separate cerebral hemiSpheres,
taken together comprised the LC‘S used to derive the LC/DMI relationship. It
was believed that these two scores would contribute differently to the LC/DMI

relationship.

5.

The opposite effect however may not be interpreted as indicating that right
hemisphere contributes relatively more to defensive style unless the partial
correlation for effect of the SXperimental group is not significant. This is
due to the fact that the right hemisphere scores were unique to the experimental
pOpulation of native signers, and could therefore, simply be an effect of the

original grouping.

58

Method

Subjects

Group 1 was comprised of 10 hearing adults who are children of Deaf parents
and whose first language, acquired naturally was American Sign Language. Five
of these were first born. There were seven women and three men. Ages ranged
from 20 to 58 with a mean of 43.7 years. All were right—handed as were their
parents, with 2 SS reporting a left-handed grand-parent. Mean years of highest
grade completed were 15.9, ranging from 12 to 19 years. None had corrected
vision of less than 20/20. Two reported having difficulty learning to do math.

None reported a history of neurological problems of Epilepsy or blackouts.

Group 2 was comprised of 9 hearing persons whose first language was English
and ho acquired ASL as a Second language, after the age of 12. Seven were women
and three were men. Ages ranged from 18 to 59, with a mean of 35.8 years. All
were right handed, only one reported one left-handed parent, with none reporting
a left-handed grand-parent. Four were first born children. Eight reported
having learned another language than Sign, one as early as 10 years; all others
during secondary education. Completed education ranged from 12 years to 20,
with a mean of 16.5 years. None reported corrected vision less than 20/20.

None reported having had problems learning, nor neurological history.

Group 3 was comprised of 10 Hearing controls whose only language is English
and who have no familiarity with ASL. Six women and four men ranged in age from
19 to 47, with mean of 35.7. All were right-handed, one reported one

left-handed parent, none reported left-handed grandparents. Only one was first

59

born. Years of education averaged 15.3, ranging from 12 to 20. Four had never
learned a second languge, two of those wo did earn a second language did so
naturaly in the home, one at age 8. None had corrected vision less than 20/20.

None reported learning difficulties or neurological problems.

All subjects were recruited by open letter to relevant organizations in the

State of Michigan, requesting their participation (see Appendix C).

Information was acquired on handedness, age, sex, highest academic level
achieved, grade point average, profession, birth order, competency in English
and ASL, age and method of acquisition of second language, corrected vision and
history of neurological events or conditions in an effort to control for these
factors. At the same time Informed Consent was obtained in writing. (See

Appendix D).

Stimuli and Apparatus

 

The methodology used by Poizner et al (1979) was used to the extent
possible technically. A few changes were made in an effort to improve fixation.
All stimuli were presented on Super 8 mm movie film. Four stimulus sets were
used, all exposed by a single frame filming technique and described separately

per Experimental condition.

The fixation was controlled by the pseudorandom distribution over one
fourth (10) of the trials of each stimulus set, of a fixation image (the "(?)"
figures of the Helvetica Press-Type Set). which required identification by the
subject when seen. This was a totally nonlinguistic task in order to offset any
possible effects of competing or complementary effects to the experimental

tasks.

6O

Subjects were seated and positioned relative to the projected 8 mm image to
assure a visual angle of three degrees of the stimuli center to the left or
right of fixation. Distance between fixation point and stimulus: and the
distance between Subject and projected image, were varied. For instance, if the
subject was seated 76" from the projected surface, then the projected image was

adjusted to a fixation/stimulus distance of 4".

Stimuli.

Stimulus Set I consisted of the same 20 high frequency three letter English
words used by Poizner, et al (1979), (all words appeared at least 50 times per
million in the Thorndike-Lorge count). These were vertically printed (chart pak
Velvet Touch lettering, Helvetica Bold 72 PT/M10772C) to eliminate the effects
of any scanning from left to right that might take place after exposure. Each
word was presented for a total exposure of 112 msec, on two frames of film. The
words were centered (3 degrees) to the left or right of fixation point and span
(.5 degrees) in width and (1.5 degrees) in height. Words used were: JOY, LEG,
SKY, ROW, WAY, ALL, ACT, CRY, LOW, PUT, BOW, TEN, OUT, TEA, SUM, PAN, MAP, NOD,

RAY, WHO.

Procedure

A warning stimulus was presented by the fixation point rapidly pulsating
(this was done in the production of the film by repeatedly exposing and covering
the lens for two consecutive frames each, while filming the fixation point) for
1 second (a total of 18 frames) before the onset of the stimulus. At stimulus
cuaset either the fixation point remained for the duration of the stimulus

exposure, or the Special fixation image "(?)", appeared for the duration of the

61

stimulus exposure. Subjects were instructed to maintain fixation, Signal the
presence of the Special fixation image when present by raising either index
finger, and then to report the stimulus. Approximately ten seconds (180 frames
of black film) elapsed between trials, with the subject given the time they

required to respond to the film.

Experimental order was counterbalanced across subjects. Subjects received
the following instructions:
You will see a white circle in the center of the screen, like
this. It will begin to pulsate, like this. When it does, I
want you to focus your attention on it. This design may, or
may not, then appear. You must signal when you See this
Special design by raising either index finger. Do not signal

unless you see this design.

At the same time, with or without th Special design, a
picture will appear either to the left or to the right of the
circle. You must then report the word which appeared on the

side. You must make this report by voice.

At all times your focus must be concentrated on the circle.
There will be no advantage to directing your attention to one

side or the oter.

We will do a few practice trials. I will tell you when the

actual test begins.

Five practice trials were used in which the Special fixation was used twice

62

nth :

I
R:
”\U

.A‘
V».

"FA
“ ,

'1 .5 w a
to l.

1,.- n‘ o .1“
o o t . al..
J a new A:
a. c 31. u .

\) Q.-
.s.» Vi
q..- n-
Auv s;-
. 4 up.

\\V

with stimuli. A minimum of two correct responses on these trials was achieved
before proceeding with actual trials: practice trials repeated if necessary.
For the actual test trials responses were recorded on the Subject Answer Sheet

(See Appendices).

Subjects were instructed verbally in English. They were instructed to
respond in English. These words were recorded on the Subject Answer Sheet under
Experiment "Words". five practice trials preceded the 40 test trials.

Responses were scored correct only if the complete exact word was reported by

SS. Two of three letters correctly identified were scored as incorrect.

Subjects were given a paper and pencil personality measure, the DMI: asked
to complete the answer sheet (according to standardized instructions) without
filling in their name or other identifying information, and to return it in the
self addressed, stamped, coded envelOpe within one week. All materials were

returned by subjects within the designated time.

Measures

The Laterality Coefficient (LC) described by Marshall, Caplan 6 Holmes
(1975). considered to be free of influence due to overall accuracy levels, were
computed for all subjects scores for T-Sc0pe responses. This formula is
expressed as RC - LC/RC + LC when total mean correct of subject's responses is
less than 50%; and RC - LC/RE + LE when total mean correct is greater than 50%
(where RC = Right Correct, LC = Left Correct, RE = Right Errors and LE = Left

Errors.Mean LC'S were used for group comparisons of hemiSpheric functioning.

Individual accuracy of identification scores for the separate hemifields

(separate cerebral hemispheres inferred) were used as the dependent measure of

63

the 1

$00!“.

comp:

performance of the separate hemispheres. Group Means were computed and used for

group comparisons of individual hemispheric functioning.

The composite DMI score derived by Krikorian 8 Rafales (1983) were used as
the measure of subject defense mechanism preference. Negative DMI composite
scores were believed to reflect reliance on rationalized defenses, positive DMI
composite scores to reflect reliance on projective defenses. Group Means were

used for comparisons of defense choice.

64

Results

The Laterality Coefficients (LCS) computed on the correct identification
per hemifield of tachistoscopically presented English Words (Rogan, 1983) were
used as the measure of laterality. Negative LCS indicated greater accuracy of
identification in the Right Visual Field (RVF). This was inferred to reflect a
left hemisphere advantage (LHA). Positive LCS were interpreted as reflecting a
right hemisphere advantage (RHA). The composite DMI scores (Krikorian G
Rafales, 1982) were computed ([TAO + PRO] - [INT + REVJ) for each subject as the

measure of defense choice.

A Pearson Correlation was calculated to compare the LCS of all subjects
regardless of original group membership, with their Composite DMI scores. The
results approached significance (r=.27, p = .078). This correlation however, is
a positive one, therefore opposite to the direction predicted based on previous
studies and therefore Opposite in direction to Motivated Hypothesis I, as well.
Thus, though the statistic suggests a relationship between laterality as
measured by LCS and defense choice as measured by Composite DMI Scores, this
relationship is in the opposite direction from those previously reported. LHA
was positively associated with negative DMI scores and RHA was positively
associated with Positive DMI scores, whereas Gur 8 Our (1975) found the opposite
relationship. It was important to determine whether the experimental group
membership of the original study exerts a moderating influence on this

relationship.

To begin to address this question an analysis of variance was performed on
the mean LCS of Groups 1, 2, and 3. There was no Main Effect for Group (F(2) =

.956, p = .40) suggesting that groups did not differ in a consistent mean level

65

from one another on this measure. A one-way analysis of variance was performed
contrasting the mean LCS of Groups 1 and 2 (the signing groups) with Group 3
(non-signing controls). There was no effect for this grouping pattern (t(26) =
1.03, p = .310). Thus, signers did not differ significantly from non-signers in
their performance on this task. A similar contrast of the mean LCS of Group 1
(native signers) with Group 2 (late-learning signers) resulted in no Significant
difference as a function of this grouping pattern (t(26) = .88, p = .384).

Thus, difference of age of acquisition of sign language did not have a
Significant effect on the mean laterality patterns as measured by LC'S in
English Word identification. This is consistent with the previous analysis of

this data (Rogan, 1983).

To evaluate whether any consistent group differences existed on the Mean
Composite DMI Scores an analysis of variance was performed on the Mean Composite
DMI scores of Groups 1, 2 and 3. There was no Main Effect for Group on this
measure (F(2) = 1.278, p = .30). A one-way analysis of variance was performed
contrasting Groups 1 and 2 (the Signing groups) with Group 3 (non-signing
controls). This was done to evaluate whether membership in a signing group
contributed in any consistent way to the overall outcome. There was no effect
for these groupings (t(26) = -1.54, p = .135). To evaluate the contribution of
factors associated with being native signers (i.e., having deaf parents) another
one-way analysis of variance was performed contrasting Group 1 with Group 2. No
Significant difference was found between these groups either (t(26) = .47, p -
.641). Thus, on this measure of defense choice, signers did not differ
Significantly from non-signers, nor did factors associated with age of
acquisition of Sign language (the group definition factor) play a role in this

outcome.

66

To further assure that unidentified variables associated with the original
grouping were not contributing to the correlational relationship between LCS and
Composite DMI scores, a partial correlation was conducted on this data as well.
With the variance due to group membership partialed out, the correlation between
measures is significant (r = .339, p = .042). Thus, the Laterality/DMI
relationship, when the effects of age of acquisition of Sign language are
partialled, is stronger (r = .339: p = .042) than reported earlier (without
regard to group) (r = .270; p = .078). This outcome permitted rejection of

Null Hypothesis II.

To evaluate the influence of the Composite DMI Scores of bi-directional
subjects on the correlation between measures, a Pearson Correlation was computed
comparing the scores on both measures of only those subjects with a positive or
negative LC, thereby omitting subjects who demonstrated no lateral preference.
The results produced a larger correlation (r = .317 compared to r = .2698), but
due to the smaller number (N = 22), only a similar significance level (p =
.075). The actual DMI means were different enough (mean of -LCs = —12.47: mean
of +LCS = 6.6) however, to suggest that this small N could be obscuring the
analysis (due to lack of statistical power). This outcome did not permit
rejection of Null Hypothesis III. Though inconclusive, these results are
nonetheless heuristic in suggesting a greater correlation between LC and DMI in

only those subjects who diSplay a lateral dominance pattern.

Finally, to determine the relative contribution of the processing capacity
of the separate hemispheres without the possible confounding effects of the
Laterality Coefficient itself, a Pearson Correlation Coefficient was computed
separately on the mean number of correct identifications in the Right Visual

Field (LH), and the Left Visual Field (RH), with the Composite DMI Scores. The

67

correlation coefficient comparing the LH with the Composite DMI Scores
approached significance with a negative correlation (r = -.2892, p = .064),
while the correlation of RH was clearly not significant (r = -.0245, p = .450).
Thus, accuracy of identification in the RVF, inferred to be the performance
competence of left hemiSphere, was positively related to reliance on
Intellectualization and Reversal, though not Significantly so. Though left
hemisphere performance appeared to be more important to the relationship of
laterality to defense choice than was the performance of right hemisphere, this

outcome did not permit the rejection of Null Hypothesis IV.

68

Discussion

The correlation between laterality (as measured by the Lc's of hemifield
accuracy of identification of tachistoscopically presented English words) and
defense choice (as measured by the DMI Composite score suggested by Krikorian et
al (1983), approached significance. Though this relationship was not strong
enough to reject Null Hypothesis I, it was nonetheless suggestive of a weak

relationship between laterality and defense choice.

Though the groups of the original study did not differ Significantly in
their performances on the defense choice measure, factors associated with this
original grouping did exert an influence on the laterality/DMI relationship.

The correlation obtained was in fact obscured by factors associated with the
original grouping i.e., by the life experiences of being raised by deaf parents;
of having a visuo-Spatial first language: or of having acquired a visuo—Spatial
language later in life. When the variance due to group differences was
partialed out, the correlation reached traditional levels of Significance (p =
.05). Therefore, the relationship between laterality and personality was
stronger without the effects due to these unique life experiences. It is not
possible to know what these factors were, or how they obscured the underlying
relationship between laterality and defense choice. This could be the subject
of future research. That the correlation of interest was enhanced by removal of
this variance however, permits adoption of Motivated Hypothesis II, that the
LC/DMI relationship would be obtained conditioned upon the removal of variance

due to factors inherent in the original grouping.

One of the benefits of the tachistoscopic paradigm as the measure of

this measure, data was available on the performances of the separate
hemispheres. No Significant difference was obtained between either the left or
right hemiSphere and the DMI performance scores. The significance levels
obtained however placed the left hemisphere relatively closer to significance (p
= .064) than that of the right hemisphere (p = .450). This suggests then, that
the relationship between laterality and defense choice may be tied to the
processing of left hemisphere. The two cerebral hemispheres appear to
participate differently in the relationship between laterality and defense
choice. Left hemisphere appears to be more integrally involved in this
Laterality/DMI relationship. Future research in this topic area would be able
to illuminate further the determinants of this left hemiSphere involvement in
defense choice by utilizing this methological advantage of the tachistoscopic

paradigm.

Additionally, the LC/DMI relationship described earlier was based on the
relative —— not the separate —— performances of both hemispheres. Therefore,
the good performance of the left hemiSphere, if coupled with an equally good
performance by the right hemisphere, would have produced a laterality score
which reflected less advantage by either hemiSphere. It was the advantage that
was used as the measure in that first comparison to the DMI score, not the
performance of one or the other hemisphere. The one measure on which the three
groups differed demonstrably in the original study (Rogan, 1983) was in the
separate hemisphere performances (specifically the right hemiSphere). This
artifact of the LC as a measure of laterality then, may have produced the
variance due to original grouping which exerted a clouding influence (referred

to earlier) on the laterality/DMI relationship.

Based on the observation of Our et al (1975) that bi—directionals did not

70

behave in a predictable way on the DMI, the scores of subjects whose laterality
was bi-directional (not reflecting an advantage for either hemiSphere) were
removed from comparison. The correlation of the LC'S and the DMI Composite
Scores increased as a result (r = .317) This supports the Gur's observation was
correct. Because the total number of subjects was reduced significantly by
removing these subjects however, the significance level was not greater. Though
these findings are inconclusive due to the problem of this reduced sample size,
they do suggest that bi—directionality is a variable which should be controlled
in future research in this area. However, this did not permit adoption of the
Motivated Hypothesis III: that bi—directionals do not produce consistent DMI
scores and inclusion of these subjects' scores to correlational studies of the

Laterality/DMI relationship may obscure results.

71

The interpretive difficulty in the present study rests in the fact that the

correlation obtained between laterality and defense choice is in the direction

opposite from that demonstrated by Gur 8 Gur (1975). There are several factors

which may account for this:

The tachistoscopic measure of laterality may produce
results which, when compared to the CLEM, are

different.

The DMI may not measure the constructs which are important
to this correlational investigation.

An underlying independent variable may be embedded within
either of these measures. or,

The differing demand characteristics of the experimental
settings may be affecting the outcome in an uncontrolled way.
All of the studies involved used a small number of
subjects which could account for Spurious findings.

A combination of the above factors may be at work.

The Tachistos00pe as a measure of laterality would be expected to be

72

different from the CLEM for many of the reasons already discussed. As the
Gur's have demonstrated so effectively, CLEM is subject to significant
malleability due not only to content, but also to interpersonal, intrapsychic
and Situational variables, which have been inferred to result in anxiety. It
can be seen therefore, as an index of the effect these variables have on the
varying activation levels of each of the two cerebral hemiSpheres, with content
and stress alternating the governance of reSponse. While content determines
hemisphere advantage to a greater degree under low stress conditions, reliance
on a preferred hemisphere is believed to be the outcome under high stress

conditions (Gur 8 Gur, 1975).

The studies we are about to examine use the term "stress" interchangeably
with anxiety and various experimental manipulations considered to cause it.
This is an unfortunate example of how the term serves as a catch-all and as
such, can obscure the underlying factors which influence outcome in research.
As it is encountered here it appears to describe demands of the environment
which activate certain cognitive, physiological, affective and intrapsychic
systems in the organism. A more concise use of this term in research should
identify the types of systems activated by the Specific environmental
manipulations. It is hoped that this study and future research will enable such

clarification.

Influences Exerted On Laterality By Anxiety

Anxiety affects the measurement of laterality in the tachistoscopic
paradigm as well as the CLEM paradigm. Tucker et al (1978) reported a
performance decrement in the right visual half-field (left hemiSphere

performance) in subjects reporting high anxiety on a measure of state anxiety,

73

in response to tachistoscopic tasks. There was no decrement in the performance
of these subjects in the left visual half-field (right hemisphere performance).
They used both stress and non—stress conditions and concluded that "Anxiety
imposes a processing load specifically upon the left hemiSphere, which can draw
from the information—processing capacity of that side of the brain." In the low
stress condition, there were no performance decrements and the traditional left

hemiSphere advantage for verbal stimuli was obtained.

While anxiety was not controlled or manipulated in this present study,
several methodological factors would suggest that a low stress/anxiety level
existed. First, the method of recruitment was based on volunteerism. The
recruitment description of the project did not enlist subjects to be evaluated
in a judgmental way. Subjects were all aware of the Deaf community and its
political, social, medical and psychological needs. They volunteered in
response to a request to participate in a study to better understand the
neuropsychological function of Deaf persons by studying the processing of Sign
language. Altruism could be seen as a more primary motivator than performance
related esteem issues. The recruitment letter also emphasized the student
status of the person conducting the study and the fact that this study was being
done in conjunction with the requirements of a doctoral degree. There was no
suggestion that this study would be related to major plans, or decisions which
would have direct impact on others. Instructions emphasized the procedure
subjects should follow with no reference to performance expectations, or
contingencies based on performance. Demeanor and dress of experimenters was
casual. Nothing was done to convey an undue sense of importance to the
subjects. In this regard, this study was comparable to the low stress condition

of the Tucker et al (1978) study.

74

Second, signing subjects were all Registered Interpreters with the
Michigan Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf. As such, these people were
accustomed to performing their signing and communication Skills (reverse Sign
interpreting requires speech with intonation, emphasis and inflection) in large
public gatherings, on television, before large audiences, in courts of law and
in medical emergencies. In short, such performance-related pressures as these
were a part of the normal functioning of these individuals. This project

therefore, held little to challenge their poise.

Third, the interpersonal factors of the Experimenter facing the Subject,
shown to induce the difference in the CLEM results obtained by Gur, Our 8 Harris
(1975) and inferred to be the result of anxiety, was not part of the T—scope
paradigm. Rather, subjects' visual fixation was directed to the center of the
projected image during the entirety of the 40 trials. Their responses were
recorded, in a darkened room, by the recorder who sat behind them. Thus, the
interpersonal stress condition was also in the low range. The performance
scores in this study then, may be viewed as comparable to those of the low
stress condition of the Tucker study (Tucker, et al 1978). As such, the left
hemisphere performance scores would be presumed to be essentially unimpaired by

anxiety.

Fourth, the English Word stimuli were wide in variety, common in usage and
were presented in equal distribution to both hemifields. AS such, the stimuli
could not be considered to contain material which would produce either

significant or consistent arousal.

Fifth, subjects took the DMI materials with them, completing them at home
in the setting of their choice (albeit, though advised otherwise, this could

have been in the company of others in their home environment.).

75

Finally, performance of left hemisphere is expected to be negatively
affected by anxiety. Yet, all subjects produced the traditional LHA for English
Words except the native signers. Their left hemiSphere performances were
Significantly better than all others: their reduced laterality due to greater

right hemiSphere performance.

This study can be seen then, as demonstrating the laterality patterns
produced by the tachistoscopic presentation of material in the low stress
condition. To make the proper comparison of the Laterality/DMI relationship
obtained in this study then, a true low stress measure of CLEM in its
relationship to the DMI Composite Score would be necessary. The only study to
offer this data to date, is the Krikorian et a1 (1983) study. Herein, we find

some clarity.

In that study, though subjects were grouped based on their production of
either negative (greater reliance on INT and REV than TAO and PRO) or positive
(greater reliance on TAO and PRO than INT and REV) Composite DMI scores, the
degree of stress/anxiety was manipulated on the CLEM measure via three "arousal"
conditions. These were low, moderate and high, based on question content.
Though most of their discussion focused on the differences between these two
groups at the higher levels of arousal, the data is reported for performances at
the low level of arousal. The reader will keep in mind that Our 8 Gur (1975)
found that right-lockers (LHA) produced DMI scores which were higher in INT,
whereas, left-lookers (RHA) produced higher scores on TAO and PRO. And these
findings were based on CLEM in the high anxiety condition of Experimenter facing

Subject. The present study based its predictions on their results.

What we find when we review the Krikorian and Rafales (1982) data, is the

possible answer to the positive correlation between laterality and the DMI

76

Composite Score obtained in the present study where, based on the Gur's results,
we predicted a negative correlation. Figure 2 contains the percentage of
inferred left hemisphere activation obtained for low, moderate and high arousal
levels for all subjects, positive DMI subjects and negative DMI subjects by

Krikorian, et a1 (1983), Our, et al (1975) and the present study.

 

Insert Figure 2

 

Using this Figure, we can easily see that in the low arousal condition,
Krikorian's data is consistent with our current findings in a left hemiSphere
advantage for all subjects. For those subjects with positive DMI Composite
scores Krikorian's data reflects a right hemiSphere advantage, as does this
present study. Those who produced negative DMI Composite scores in Krikorian's
study produced a left hemisphere advantage, as did negative DMI scoring subjects

in this study.

In Krikorian and Rafales (1982), rather than the Positive DMI Group
displaying the expected LHA for verbal material predicted by the Gur & Our
(1975) study, under low arousal conditions this group displays a greater
percentage of left looking (RHA) in cumulative duration (.46755 of right

looking) and cumulative frequency (.46064 of right looking). Only when the

direction of the first eye movement was used as the measure did a slight trend
toward greater right looking (LHA) appear (.5234 of right looking). The

Negative DMI group, associated with left-looking (RHA) in the Gur et al (1975)
study, produced a very strong reliance on left hemisphere in this low arousal

condition, in cumulative duration (.57024 of right looking), cumulative

77

Left Hemisphere
Advantage

Right Hemisphere
Advantage

  

R\\mv \.

xsaxosao: we on. Apommvtnw.
men. on ad. Auoumv munmmmume
common” macaw mmmmmmmmmmw

9 a

.u'

 

 

P

 

 

 

(A

 

“I‘-
§ .

                
            

  

\
M
. 1Q“

'\

‘.\.

  

\
-\\.

   

‘1'. Q.
l

.,..~ ‘
' \‘3‘
" ‘. t

\
‘h-

\—

 

§
,' \‘-§

. ‘
ss~
'_\

    
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>5 me .+ as: 1 e5 >5 mm + SE .. S: a: me + an .. c5

.roz . zoemmssm . sue:
smocmsr em<mrm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

muccsm m. pmsnmsaocmm om ”may" rooxasa\mao:a <lmcod mamas mcemsaoslak so:
aysmm macaamm onsomm dos. aoamsoam one saw: osocmoa Lm<m.m.

pal.

'I

 

"i

frequency (.55393 of right looking) and direction of first eye movement (.59375
of right looking). At the high arousal level these relationships reversed in
the Krikorian study. Though not reaching Significance in each case, in this
high arousal condition these Laterality/DMI relationships were in the Opposite
direction. The results of the present study then, based on low anxiety, are

actually consistent with the Krikorian et a1 (1983) findings.

Additionally, the data from the Our et a1 (1975) study which isolated the
contribution of stress inherent in the experimental paradigm (experimenter
facing, vs. experimenter behind the subject) is also consistent with the
understanding of this shift in laterality. This data was produced by the same
subjects in each of the two paradigmatic conditions. The group percentage of
inferred left hemiSphere activation was greatest in the low stress condition,
shifting to greater right hemiSphere activation (below .50 of right looking
behavior) in the high stress condition. This supports the understanding that a

shift in laterality appears as a function of anxiety/stress level.

Combined these data suggest that persons who rely on the processing
strategies of the left cerebral hemiSphere when under low stress, tend to
produce negative DMI Composite Scores (greater reliance on INT 9 REV) (Krikorian
8 Rafales, 1982). These same individuals, when under high degrees of stress
tend to process verbal information with a handicapped left hemisphere, relying
more on their less competent right cerebral hemiSphere (Krikorian 8 Rafales,
1982: Gur 9 Gur, 1975). Accordingly, those individuals who rely on the right
cerebral hemisphere for processing verbal material in low stress conditions
produce positive DMI Composite Scores (greater reliance on TAO 8 PRO) (Krikorian
G Rafales and this present study). Under high degrees of stress these same

individuals will rely more on the processing of their left hemiSphere for verbal

78

material than on their right (Krikorian G Rafales, 1982: Our & Our, 1975).

Issues Related To Personality

 

In dealing with the inverse correlation produced in this present study, Six
possible SXplanations were identified. Of those, the one that has not yet been
discussed, was the second, "The DMI does not measure the constructs which are
important to this correlational investigation." There is reason to suggest that
the DMI may not be a reliable measure of the constructs under investigation in
this study. This consideration brings us to the personality constructs examined

in this study.

In a study by Reyher and Moses (in press) the authors did not find the
performances they expected of their subjects on the DMI, though other aspects of
their investigation were conclusive. They suggested several reasons why the DMI
may not be an accurate measure of the more dynamic factors they were
investigating. These included: "the categories of the DMI are heterogeneous,
subjects are not asked to visualize the stimulus narratives, cognitive processes
rather than affect mediate subjects' choice of defense mechanisms, and subjects'
verbalization of their mentation is susceptible to influence by considerations
of social desirability/social anxiety." (In press) Most important to the
present study may be their identification of the cognitive rather than affective
mediation of subjects' defense mechanism choice on the DMI, as well as the

susceptibility to influence by social/interpersonal factors.

Smokler e Shevrin, (1979) did not find a correlation of CLEM with any of
the DMI subscales. These authors also questioned the constructs which the DMI
may be measuring and their applicability to the traditional clinical/dynamic

approach they had taken to operationalizing defensive style. Addressing the

an

subscale heterogeneity concern, they said, "The DMI appears to be based on a
different clustering of defenses from our own [clinical criteria for defining
personality] (Smokler 8 Shevrin, 1979, p.953). They observed that their schema
isolated hysteric and obsessive—compulsive personality styles, whereas the Gur 6
Our (1975) study (to which they were comparing their results) found correlations
of eye movement with DMI defense clusters (such as PRO and TAO) that are not

usually thought of as either hysteric or obsessive defenses.

The present study however, did produce a correlation between
neuropsychological reliance on left hemiSphere and defense mechanism reliance on
INT and REV. As the composite score was used, we do not know which of these
subscales contributed more to this relationship, or if either did separately.

In this low stress condition it is not surprising to us at a content level, that
this relationship obtained. It suggests that there is an association between
intellectualization and left hemisphere processing style. This is consistent
with what one would expect. It is believed that obsessive—compulsive
personality styles rely heavily on logical, intellectual approaches to problem
solving —— even as Smokler & Shevrin have described, "Could a strongly
left—hemiSpheric individual appear as one who analyzed virtually everthing in a
piecemeal analytic manner even in situations in which this might not be
advantageous?" (p. 949) It would be interesting to know whether the Gur e Gur
(1975) subjects who endorsed DMI items indicating reliance on
intellectualization, would have produced right—looking CLEM had they been tested
in a low stress (Experimenter behind the Subject) paradigm. In addition to
these content issues which seem consistent with the present findings, the
correlation produced by this study, using the DMI, was also consistent with the

data reported by Krikorian and Rafales (1982).

80

What may be a differentiating variable then, between the Smokler G Shevrin
(1979) and the Moses 9 Reyher (In press) experiences with the DMI, in contrast
to the correlations obtained in this study, those reflected in Gur 8 Our (1975),
and those reported by Krikorian et al (1982), may be the different levels of
personality which these groups of studies were examining. Smokler & Shevrin
(1979) and Moses and Reyher, (In press) were evaluating a clinical
understanding that included the active flow of the dynamics of the individual as
that is incorporated in their cognitive processing. The present study, the
Krikorian 8 Rafales (1982) study and that of Our 8 Our (1975) however,
essentially evaluated the very basic hemispheric functioning strategies used at
an information processing level. It may very well be that this entire subject

area is even more complex than had been expected.

The information processing strategies in a low stress condition may have a
more face valid relationship with characteristic styles of defense based on the
different cognitive strategies of the two cerebral hemispheres. When stress is
involved and the dynamic process iS engaged it may elicit, more Significantly,

the overall personality of the individual in a dynamic rather than a static way.

If this were true, then in low stress conditions a more information
processing measure of laterality for various types of material would be indexing
a basic capacity to utilize defenses which rely on these strategies. For
example, left hemisphere processing strategy is sequential, syntactic and
analytic, which would be consistent with a capacity to develop more complete and
elaborate use of intellectualization and rationalization. The right hemiSphere
lends itself to a more gestalt, analogic way of processing information and would
therefore, lend itself more to a defensive style which is global and analogic.

While these hard wiring patterns may exist in the low stress conditions, when

81

stress is increased and anxiety becomes part of the performance level of the
individual, it may be that the dynamics of the individual will be most
influential in producing hemiSpheric activation -— a dynamic rather than a
static reSponse to the environment. At both the dynamic and the neurologic
level Freud's concept of "Facilitation" comes to mind. La Planche 8 Pontalis
(1973) summarize it as a

Term used by Freud at a time when he was putting forward a

neurological model of the functioning of the psychical

apparatus (1895): the excitation, in passing from one neurone

to another, runs into a certain resistance: where its passage

results in a permanent reduction in this resistance, there is

said to be facilitation: excitation will opt for a

facilitated pathway in preference to one where no

facilitation has occurred. (p. 157)

Both the Moses 8 Reyher (In press) and the Smokler 8 Shevrin (1979) were
measuring the personality in its more dynamic aspects. It may be that the DMI
is a less valid and reliable measure for this domain of functioning, as
suggested by the Moses 8 Reyher (In press) observation of its tendency to elicit
cognitive rather than affective involvement in reSponses. Indeed Krikorian 8
Rafales (1982) reported findings which were divergent from Gur 8 Gur (1975) in
the laterality/DMI relationships at high arousal levels. The authors suggested
this divergence, "may reflect the fact that the current study included emotion
as an additional factor, whereas the emotional content of questions was not
controlled in the former." (p. 379) In support of this understanding, is the
Moses 8 Reyher observation that the DMI engages social/interpersonal concerns in

responding in that persons in a high stress condition. They would be expected

82

to become more concerned about the impression that they were making on other
people by identifying various choices in the DMI. The DMI then, could be
subject to Similar mechanisms which produce the changes in the laterality
measures as a function of stress. The domain of personality functioning and

hemispheric functioning may both shift under such conditions.

Overall, the most parsimonious understanding of the positive relationship
obtained in this present study, incorporates each of the possible explanations
considered. The tachistoscope does produce results which compared to the CLEM
are different for the reasons discussed. However, this measure too is
influenced by stress. This study appears to be measuring laterality within the
low stress condition of the tachistoscopic paradigm, thus finding LHA in persons
who rely on INT + REV. The DMI itself may also be malleable to what then may be
the underlying independent variable of anxiety which, embedded within either of
these measures, would produce a difference in outcome. It would have been
contributing to the outcome in an uncontrolled way, in that this particular
study did not begin in an effort to hold constant the factor of stress, or
anxiety. This variable could be manipulated by the differing demand
characteristics of the experimental setting. Indeed, future research must
address this in a controlled way. Finally, all of these studies are based on
small numbers of subjects and as such could produce spurious findings. Taken
together it is believed that these separate explanations each had a part in

contributing to the outcome of this study.

In summary, to the extent that one is willing to make the inference that
tachistosc0pic identification is an index of lateral cerebral functioning, the
data contained in this study support the hypothesis that there is a relationship

between laterality and defense choice in lateralized persons, under conditions

83

of minimal interpersonal and performance stressors.

Once the variance due to the psycho—social components of the grouping used
in the original data base study were partialled out, this correlation emerged as
significant. Bi-directional subjects do not appear to produce DMI scores which
fit neatly into the laterality/defense choice relationship and should be
controlled in future studies of these relationships. Use of the tachistoscopic
method is particularly useful in accomplishing this objective. It also proved
heuristic in contributing new information to the eXperimental literature in this
area, by permitting an assessment of the relative contribution of the two
separate cerebral hemiSpheres to the laterality/defense choice relationship.

The uniquely lateralized population which was objectified in the foundation
study helped to differentiate that left hemisphere may be related to defense

choice, whereas the performance of right hemisphere in this study, does not.

The implications of this laterality/defense choice relationship suggest
that stress may have a complex effect on hemispheric activation as well as on
the level of defensive operation. Some of the interpretive difficulties of this
study may be a function of the differing demand characteristics of the studies
reviewed here. Anxiety brought about by either interpersonal aspects of the
test situation, or by intrapsychic conflict generated by emotional question
content, can produce a shift in hemispheric activation. The present study
observed the laterality/defense choice relationship at the low level of arousal
wherein left hemisphere advantage for verbal stimuli is positively related to

INT + REV.

Though moving into the realm of speculation, efforts to understand the
findings in this area of research lead to thoughts that the interrelationship of

interpersonal, intrapsychic and endopsychic sources of anxiety, have a profound

84

effect on the cognitive, emotional and dynamic aspects of personality.“ These
are believed to be manifest in these complex and confusing data. Though they
are not easily separable in this area of neuropsychological functioning, earlier
models such as Freud's concept of facilitation may be useful in efforts to

conceptualize this process.

Future directions of research would likely utilize both the tachistoscopic
paradigm and the CLEM in varying levels of arousal, while measuring defense
choice both by an instrument which taps the cognitive level of functioning as

well as personality measures that tap the system unconscious.

85

APPENDICES

Appendix A',

Socio-Linguistic Developmental Factors Associated

Cognitive Development of Deaf Persons

In thinking of deafness we assume the absence of sound. Yet
total absence of sound is rare; hearing impairment. with varying
degrees of residual sound is not. The hearing mechanism is ex—
tremely complex and a continuum or range of hearing exists. Au-
diologists measure hearing loss in decibel ranges for each ear
and at different frequencies (pitch). Assessment of Profound
(97-llOdb), Severe (65-96db), Moderate (40-64db). Mild (25-40db).
Slight (lS-24db), and Normal (O-lSdb) ranges of hearing loss are
made. Speech sounds fall approximately between 15 and 65 deci-
bels, rendering some persons in the Moderate range and all in the
Severe and Profound ranges, incapable of using auditory input for
linguistic purposes (Holm. 1978). But only the most profoundly
deaf have NO sound. The degree of impairment then becomes cen—
tral to any generalizations and assumptions made about its effect
on individual functioning and should be reported in relevant
studies. Deafness for our purposes would best be defined by
Furth (1973) description, "a functional hearing loss of suffi-
cient severity to prevent aural comprehension of speech even with

hearing aids."

The residual hearing function in an individual with a hearing
loss can be aided by mechanical amplification. Early interven-

tion in infancy is believed to potentiate the use of this resi-

86

dual hearing.. ”In contrast, the later use of the hearing aid
encounters what amounts to an atrophy of the unused residual
hearing capacity and hence fails.” (Furth, 1973). Report of the
use of a hearing aid and the age at which it was first used

should be given for deaf subjects described in relevant research.

Age of onset is the twin important component with degree of
hearing loss, in defining the population of the deaf for research
purposes. For persons deafened after the acquisition of lan-
guage, even as early as age 2 or 3, the problems are not the same
as for those deafened pre-lingually. If a person has developed a
language it is “practically impossible for him to forget it or
not to use it, although speech may deteriorate." (Furth, 1973).
For such persons expressive and receptive SPEECH is the main
Problem. The later in life the loss is incurred, the less the
impact on speech. For persons pre-lingually deafened the issues

are quite different.

For the pre-lingually deaf, the impact of the handicap is
profound. Lunde (1956) illustrates the impact on the infant’s
normal associations with the hearing world by comparison to the
hearing infant who by the end of 16 weeks seems to identify
sounds and by 28 weeks is at Esper's stage of sound imitation.
vocalizing vowels and consonants which will become words. Toward
the end of the first year the stage of verbal understanding be-
gins: by 2 l/2 years the use of spoken language is understood and
by 3 a hearing child embarks on the logical arrangement of words

in sentences and becomes aware of "self" via expression of ideas.

87

Four years of age brings the "why" questions and S the ability to
discuss remote and difficult concepts. By the time the average
hearing child begins school s/he has the ability to express self

with a vocabulary of 1,006+ words.

By contrast, the deaf infant hears no speech sounds, pho-
nemes, words, verbal cadences, vowels or consonants to imitate.
Nor does s/he hear the sound of his own voice by which to shape
its performance. The deaf child does not receive information via
spoken language. If a deaf infant is born to hearing parents a
problem may not be suspected until 12 to 18 months of age, when
the child should begin to show the development of speech. Given
the effects of parental denial, professional dismissal of paren—
tal anxiety and time spent in various searches for cause, the
diagnosis is often not made until three years of age. (Furth
1966) Thus, vital years are spent without language. The child
is not afforded communication or the medium by which his inner
world can understand, organize and be linked to, the external
world. If the parents rely on spoken language, the child has
neither appreciation to motivate, nor opportunity to experience,
verbal communication via sound. The major communication problem
for these deaf people is the absence of a language frame of re-
ference when they are learning to speak, write or read. Such a
child begins school with a vocabulary of 4 to 26 words, the first
learning task being the understanding that objects have names.
For persons prelingually deafened, LANGUAGE, not speech, is the
Problem. Age of onset should be reported in any study of the

cognitive functioning of deaf persons.

88

If the child's parents are also deaf, as exists in 10% of the
cases. however, the situation is different in a quite profound
way. Though they do not speak their language, such parents have
a language - a mode of communication: a language of sign. Pos-
sibly by way of the same early life experiences conveyed in a
visual mode, by gesturing parents, these deaf children respond
early to parental gestures and sequentially imitate subparts of
these. Deaf infants begin to use communication by way of signs.
an 8 month old forming the hand shape of the sign for milk when
hungry (author's personal observation). Studies of the acqui-
sition of ASL (McIntire, 1977: Bellugi & Klima, 1972) indicate
that chldren learning ASL pass through developmental stages si-
milar to those reported for children learning spoken languages.
However, it appears that a deaf child's progress through these
stages emerges two to three months earlier than the hearing child
learning spoken language. (Wilbur & Jones, 1974). Deaf children
of deaf parents are not totally deprived of language and its
development during the early years of language acquisiiton.
Though clearly a minority of the deaf population these deaf per-

sons are the advantaged. Parental hearing status should be re-

ported in all relevant studies.

Studies comparing Deaf children of Deaf parents with Deaf
children of hearing parents indicate that Deaf children of Deaf
(DoD) score significantly higher on achievement tests even when
matched for 10's and etiology of deafness with their counter-
parts who have hearing parents (Meadow, 1975). Tomlinson-Keasey

& Kelly (1978) interpret these differences as due to the earlier

89

8!

(3

CE

C)

(r)
l_‘.

re
..F

exposure and therefore clearer symbolic world to which these

Deaf children are exposed. They appear to have normal psycholo- ~—
gioal, cognitive, linguistic and familial develoment (Schlesinger
Meadow, 1972: Moores, 1977). In fact, they are four times more
likely to continue their studies into a college program (Steven-
son, 1974). For these children acquisition of the English lan-
guage would mark a second language subsequent to the total foun-
dation of a first language. Hearing status of natural parents

should be reported in any research of the psychological, cogni-

tive, social functioning of Deaf persons.

Some hearing parents who give birth to a deaf child are able
to attain a diagnosis early in the infant's life and learn sign
language, instituting it in the family communication milieu.
This is more likely to be the case in younger deaf children than
older deaf persons, dependent as these circumstances are on the
recent changing trends in diagnostic technique and parental edu-
cation. In such a case, the infants' experience would be much
closer to that of the deaf child born to deaf signing parents
described above. Communication mode of the parents, used with
the child during early developmental years should be reported and
considered in all relevant studies.

Another mitigating factor in the early linguistic environ—
ment of the pre—lingually Deaf child is the hearing status of
older siblings. If they are Deaf AND have learned a system of
sign language they may have an influence on the child's lan-

guage aCQUisition. They will have a language to introduce to

the child.

90

There are cases of hearing loss in which the condition cau-
sing this loss is either directly related to a neurological dis-
order or has also produced residual brain damage. Examples of
such etiologies would be maternal rubella, Usher's Syndrome,
premature birth, meningitis, etc. (Vernon, 1969). Because
one would naturally expect some cognitive manifestation of an
accompanying chronic brain syndrome in the performance of Deaf
persons who have this double condition, the etiology of Deafness
should be reported and considered in decremental performance
observed in Deaf persons participating in research bearing on

related areas of functioning.

These multiple factors of etiology, age of onset, degree of
usable speech sound, early communication milieu, parental hearing
status, education, etc. combine to effect preferred modes of
communication, self perception, cognitive functioning, and de-
pendence and command of spoken language. This data must be in-

cluded as relevant history and used to shape a valid understan-

ding of the cognitive functioning of this population.

91

Appendix B
Communication Modes Available to Deaf Persons

The major handicap of deafness is the barrier tQ,communica—
tion: being cut off from the normal means of acquiring and trans—
mitting language. Though volumes have been written on the sub-
ject, the intimate link between language and thought is not fully
understood. Levine (1977) states that the forms of language in-
clude "all mutually understood codifications used by individuals
in effecting communicative relations with others." Any approach
to researching cognitive functions of Deaf persons must include
therefore, an examination of the communication mode used by the
subjects investigated. Considered here are the basic communica-
tion modes available to Deaf persons: Speech, Speechreading.
Writing, Fingerspelling, the Language of Signs (ASL) and Total
Communication. One major distinction can be made among them in

their reliance on spoken. or phonetic language.

SPEECH - is dependent on English

When we as hearing persons attempt to learn to speak a foreign

language we become aware of how difficult it is. Yet unlike a

Deaf person, trying to learn to speak, we can hear the sound
we are trying to imitate as well as our own efforts to articulate

and pronounce the new language correctly. If however. we did not

92

have a structural linguistic frame of reference, or an under-

standing of why people‘s mouths moved and what meaning they de-
rived from it, the task would seem impossible:-perhapa meaning- m_
less. For a Deaf person without language, learning to speak.En-

glish is a confusing, tedious and largely rote exercise with

little apparent value.
SPEECHREADING - is dependent on English.

Once verbal language is learned it may be "read" from visual scan
of the speaker's lips. The studies conducted by the Tracy Clinic
(Lowell, 1957; 1958) demonstrate how difficult it is for the Deaf
Person. They found that non-Deaf college sophmores who were in-
experienced in speechreading were better at it than Deaf persons
who had studied it all of their academic lives. This is attri-
buted to the fact that the hearing person has a solid language
base of syntax and vocabulary to fill in gaps of what they missed
visually. Forty to 68% of English is homorphemous: looking like

other sounds on the lips. A person who is unequipped to fill in

these gaps understands little. These Studies also indicated that

the best lipreaders in a one-to-one situation understand only 26%
of what is said.

WRITTEN LANGUAGE - is dependent on English.

No universally accepted lexical system of signed language

93

currently exists. Therefore, the only language which can be
written and read by'the Deaf is the spoken one. Vernon (1969) -
cites evidence that 30% of Deaf adolescents are functionally.h
illiterate. The average reading level of the Deaf adult is below
the fourth grade level. It is important to note that literacy

is a measure of the use of spoken language. It is dependent
therefore on the acquisition of a spoken language. It should

not be interpreted therefore as a measure of linguistic com-
petence, rather as an index of the ability to read, what to a.

congenitally Deaf person is. their second language.

glNGERSPELLlNG (also called Dactylology) - is dependent on

English.

In this mode different finger positions in hand signs are
assigned to each of the 26 letters of the alphabet. The dominant
hand of the signer is used alone. (one hand configuration = one
letter.) Communication is thus spelled out manually, letter by
letter, requiring a knowledge of the signed alphabet, a command
of the verbal language used, its spelling and
ATALENTFORGUESSINGWHERETHESPACESGO. The hazards of speechreading
do not exist in this mode and expressive speech articulation pro—
blems are also avoided. Because this mode is acquired for com-
munication purposes not simply as a way to spell English, it is
imprecise in its practical use. It should not be used as a mea-

sure of spelling, or other English based competency skills. Hoe-

94

mann (1978) reports error rates in spelling when sUbjects
switched from written spelling to fingerspelling. slmportant to
neuropsychological studies is the fact that. though spelling En-

glish words, fingerspelling is read from right to left NOT in the

traditional Western mode of Left to Right.
MANUAL ENGLISH - is dependent on English.

In this mode a different single, bimanual static or moving_

hand configuration is used to represent English words. It uses
fingerspelling, often uses standard root signs which are embel-
lished by different letters and literally substitutes these stan-

dard (one sign = one word) signs for each English word: retaining

sentence structure, grammar and syntax of English. Both hands

are used.
SlGLISH — is largely dependent on English.

It incorporates fingerspelling. uses one sign to equal one con-

cept, is heavily though not purely based on English and shifts

between English and American Sign Language idiom. Both hands are

used.
AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE (ASL) - is NOT dependent on English.
It is a manual-visual language that uses standard signs to

95

represent CONCEPTS (one sign = one concept) has a unique
grammar and syntax. and only occasionally uses fingerspelling

(for some proper nouns, names, etc.). _Both hands are used. , -.

There are several misconceptions regarding this autonomous
language. It is often described as a universal language

whose grammar is poor compared to spoken languages: vocabulary
concrete and iconic, and consists of gestures accompanied by

facial expressions. Markowitz (1980) shows that these de-

scriptions are not supported by linguistic analysis.

It is not universal. Danish Sign Language, Japanese Sign Lan-
guage, British Sign Language, etc., are as different from each
other as are their spoken languages. To the unseasoned observer
of cross-cultural Deaf communication, however, the easier tran-
sition made by these persons (for whom pantomime comes easily)
out of their native sign languages and into pantomime will not be

recognized, as such. That is however, how such communication is

accomplished.

ASL has been criticized as being "conceptual" rather than
“word-based". Markowitz points out that “the principal function
of language is to convey concepts. However, in a sign language.

' Put another

concepts are represented by signs rather than words.‘

way'by'Turk (1976). himself a Deaf person. "Oral communication is

only an aural form of sign language with arbitrary sounds stan-

96

ding for ideas.“ -

Sign is not ungrammatical. Transliteration or word-for-word
translations will produce ungrammatical or meaningless sentences
due to the different word order and sentence structure of various
languages. "Throw Mama from the train a kiss.“ is not an indi-
cation that the original language was ungrammatical rather that
translitation has occurred. ASL is an independent structured

language with its own grammar and syntax.

When considering the iconicity of signs there are several

points to keep in mind:

1. Signs for the same concept are different in different

sign languages.

If sign language were iconic it would be quite easy for

h)

the novice to understand sign. It is not.

3. lconicity does not play a major role in the acquisition
of sign language. A child learning the sign for “milk"
has probably never (and need not have) seen either a

cow. or the hand action used to milk one which consti—

tutes the sign.
Though many signs are visual representations of the concepts they

symbolize, there are many more which are as arbitrary as are

words in their representation. Though ASL can express concrete.

97

imagoic. concepts. it is not restricted in its ability to deal
with abstract ideas and includes signs for abstract.thoughts such

as LOVE, FAITH, BELIEF, TRUST, PRIDE, etc.

It is then, not merely universal, ungrammatical, concrete, iconic
or gestural. It is a language independent from all spoken lan-
guages. According to Stokoe (1965) there are three parameters of
sign which are of central importance to lexical, synthetic and

grammatic components of ASL: handshape, motion and location.

GESTEMIC - is totally lNdependent of English.

It is comprised of natural gestures. pantomime and local gestures
(one gesture = one concept) and is often called natural sign &

international sign. Both hands are used.
TOTAL COMMUNICATION - is partially dependent on verbal language.

Also known as Simultaneous Communication this mode is based on
a philosophy of using any'and all communication methods avail-

able simultaneously. It uses both speech. lipreading and sign

options at once, affording maximal information to the receiver

from each of these modes.

Any study of Deaf persons must include a description of the

communication skills and competence of the experimenter and the

98

subject: the mode used in testing and. in studies of language

processing. an account of the contributions of English language.

In summary, all modes of communication available to Deaf
persons except American Sign Language and Gestemic (or natural
sign). are dependent for successful expression and reception of
information, on knowledge and use of verbal language: English.
To adequately evaluate language processing in Deaf persons. one
must consider the dependence of the communication mode used on

English.

99

Appendix C

Good Day;

This letter is a request for your help by participation

in a project designed to increase our understanding of how
the human brain processes information in hearing and Deaf
persons.

While previous studies have suggested that deaf persons seem

to process information in a unique and somewhat different way
from hearing persons, there is still little known about why this
is true. For that matter, a major obstacle in diagnosis and
rehabilitation of deaf persons who have suffered a stroke or
other injury to their head, is the inability of psychologists

and neurologists to use the wealth of information which currently
exists for hearing persons. with deaf persons who need their
serVices.

As a person who uses sign language, you are unique in that

you are hearing. By studying the effect of the use of sign
language on the way hearing persons process information, we

may better be able to understand the effects this unique
language may have on the information processing strategies

of deaf persons. Because Stroke hits hardest at communication.
something our deaf friends and relatives hold dear. it is impor-
tant that we learn as much as possible to provide a realistic
rehabilitation insulation against anything that would threaten
it.

I have designed this study, a portion of my graduate research.
as a way of exploring the effects of sign language use on infor-
nation processing strategies for this purpose.

You can help gather valuable information if you are over age
18 and:

are the hearing child of Deaf parents whose
first language was ASL, or
learned ASL after the age of 19,

 

 

by the time commitment of approximately an hour and a

half during which you will watch a film. identify informa-
tion symbols and complete a short questionnaire. Should
YOu agree to make this voluntary contribution please

contact me:

Ms. Rita Rogan Hull

Department of Psychology
Michigan State University
East Lansing , Michigan

100

Phone: 517 355-9564

It is understood that your participation is totally volun-
tary and there will be complete freedom to withdraw at any

time.
Thank you for your time and interest.

Sincerely,

Rita Rogan Hull
Graduate Student

101

Appendix D
Subject Information Questionnaire

subject Number

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex
Age Birthdate
Handedness Information
Self: Mother:
Writing Grandmother:
Throwing A Grandfather:
father:
Grandmother:
Grandfather:
Hearing Status:
Mother
Rather

 

Birth Order:

 

First Language
How learned

Second La nguag e
Age learned Method learned

 

 

 

 

Competency Achieved

 

Education:
Highest grade completed
Grade point average
Other specialized training

 

 

 

Occupation:

 

Employment Status:
Employed. Full-Time
Employed, Part-Time
Unemployed
Never Employed

 

 

 

 

Vision:
Do you wear glasses?
Vision when corrected
Do you have a restriction on your Driver's License
for vision?

 

 

 

Have you ever had problems learning to:

 

 

 

 

Read If yes, describe
Write If yes. describe
Do Math If yes. describe

 

 

102

Do you sometimes not understand the things you read?

Has a doctor ever told you that you had Epilepsy?

 

Have you ever had blackouts?

 

103

Appendix E

 

 

Experiment I - Words
Word Visual Field Word Vi ua
1. PAN R 21. LEG
2. RAY R 22. PUT
3. PAN L (7) 23. LEG
4. ROW R 24. SKY
5. WHO L 25. WAY
6. SUM R 26. TEN
7. LOW L (7) 27. MAP
8. WAY L 28. ACT
9. NOD R 29. JOY
10. BOW L (?) 38. ACT
11. RAY L 31. MAP
12. SKY R 32. ALL
13. ALL R 33. TEA
14. CRY L 34. CRY
15. NOD L 35. SUM
16. TEA L (?) 36. OUT
17. LOW R 37. ROW
18. JOY L 38. OUT
19. TEN R (7) 39. WHO
20. PUT R (7) 40. sow

104

wwrrxrwarrwwwrwrr‘rx

(7)

(?)

(7)

(?)

mmoousmrmm

I freely consent to take part in a scientific study entitled, "Henispheric Spe-

cialization as a Hmction of Ihique Bi-Language Acquisition: The laterality patterns
of the hearing offspring of deaf parents whose first naturally acquired language was

American Sign Language".

This study is being conducted by Ms. Rita Rogan (Hull) of the Psychology Deparu'omt
of Middgan State Ihiversity. I agree that the following statements are true:
'1) I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in this
experiment- at any time, without recrimination.
2) I understand that all results will be treated with strict confidence.
Should the results be published the subjects will remain anonymous.
3) I understand that if I so desire I will be given a smmary of the re-

wlts of this experiment upon its conclusion.
4) I am aware that the experiment may not produce results which are to

my direct bmefit.
S) The ezqaeriment has been explained to me, I understand what my participa-

tion entails, and that a full explanation of expectation of outcome
will be made to me upon completion of my performance.

 

Signature of Subject

 

Date

105

 

Appendix G

 

 

DATA

GROUP 1 GROUP 2 GROUP3

ID LC DMI LT RT ID LC DMI LT RT 18 LC DNI LT RT
11 ~80 2 13 12 21 ~69 9 6 5 31 74 51 6 7
12 ~87 ~27 12 11 22 308 ~7 5 9 32 ~333 ~12 10 6
13 ~182 9 12 10 23 ~286 2 16 12 33 ~345 13 8 3
14 ~286 ~53 8 4 24 ~286 ~32 16 12 34 ~26? ~12 7 3
15 240 ~14 11 14 25 0 ~34 11 9 35 ~80 39 8 7
16 ~80 -8 13 12 26 ~154 ~27 14 12 36 0 48 11 11
17 0 ~17 17 17 27 ~154 ~8 14 12 37 ~74 ~23 14 13
18 0 3 9 9 28 ~240 ~48 9 6 38 0 ~3 11 11
19 87 ~16 8 9 29 0 3 13 15 39 ~286 ~36 11 8
10 80 19 7 8 30 0 ~40 12 8

"1

106

WORD

WORD 1.0000

p = *‘I‘.
DMI .2898

p = .078
LEFT -.2454

P = .100
RIGHT .3684

P = .025
01 .2483

P = .097

P = .402
GRP —.2573

p = .089

DMI

.2698
p = .078

1.000

p = *‘I’**

-.2892
P = .064

P = .450

—.0753
P = .349

P = .130

.2067
p = .141

LEFT

p = .100

p = .064

1.000

P = ****

.7723
P = .001

.0554
P = .388

.1693
P = .190

—.1578
p = .207

RIGHT

.3684
p = .025

-.0245
p = .450

.7723
P = .001

1.000

P = {MINI}

.2356
P = .109

.1442
P = .228

p = .031

107

01

.2483
p = .097
p = .349

.0554
P = .388

.2356
P = .109

1.000

P = ****
P = .004
p = .001

"\

PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

02
p = .402
-.2163
p = .130
.1693
P = .190
.1442
P = .228
P = .004
1.000
P = ****
0
p = .500

Appendix H

GRP
-.2573

p = .089
.2067

p = .141

P = .207

P = .031

P = .001
0

P = .500
1 .00

p = *‘II’

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
One Way Word by Group

Source D.F. Sum of Squares Mean Squares F Ratio F PROB

Bet Grps 2 52081.3697 26040.6849 .956 .3974
With Grps 26 707859.3889 27225.3611
Tot 28 759940.7586

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
One Way DMI by Group

Bet. Grps 2 1689.5169 844.7584 1.278 .2956
With Grps 26 17191.6556 661.2175
Tot 28 18881.1724

"\

108

Appendix I

LIST OF REFERENCES

"1

REFERENCES

Bakan, P. (1969). Hypnotizability, laterality of eye movement and
functional brain asymmetry. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 28, 927-932.

 

Bell, E. 8 Karnosh, L. M. (1949). Cerebral HemiSpherectomy: Report
of a case ten years after operation. Journal of
Neurosurgery,.§, 285—293.

Campbell, R. (1982). The lateralization of emotion: A critical
review. International Journal of Psychology, 12, 211-229.

Curtiss, S., Genie. (1977). A psycholinguistic study of a modern day
"Wild Child". New York: Academic Press.

 

Day, M. E. (1964). An eye—movement phenomenon relating to attention,
thought and anxiety. Perceptual and Motor Skilng 1g, 443-446.

Day, M. E. (1967). An eye-movement indicator of individual differences
in the physiological organization of attentional processes and anxiety.
Journal of Psychology, .Qé, 51-62.

Day, M. E. (1967). An eye—movement indicator of type and level of anxi-
ety: some clinical observations. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23,
433-441.

Day, M. E. (1968). Attention, anxiety and psychotherapy. Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research and Practice, .63 146-149.

 

Deglin, V. (1976). Split Brain, The Unesco Courier, January
5-32.

 

Deglin, V. L., 6 Nikolaenko, L. (1975). Role of the dominant hemisphere in
the regulation of emotional states. Human Physiology,_1, 394.

 

Ehrlichman, H., & Weinberger, A. (1973). Lateral eye movements and hemisphe-
ric asymmetry: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1080—1101.

Furth, H. G. (1973). Deafness and Learning: a psycho—social
approach. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing.

9“

109

Galin, D. (1974). Implications for psychiatry of left and right cere-
bral specialization. Archives of General Psychiatry, 31, 572-583.

 

Gardner, W. J., Karnosh, L. J., McClure, C. C., 8 Gardner, A. K.
(1955). Residual function following hemispherectomy for tumour and for
infantile hemiplegia. Brain, lg,

Gazzaniga, M. (1970). The Bisected Brain. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.

Gazzaniga, M. S. 6 LeDoux, J. E. (1978). The Integrated Mind, New York:
Plenum Press.

 

Gazzaniga, M. S. 6 Sperry, R. W. (1967). Language after section of the
cerebral commissures. Brain, g9" 131-148.

Geschwind, N. (1970). The organization of language and the brain. Science,

Geschwind, N., & Levitsky, W. (1968). Human brain: Left-right asymme-
tries in temporal speech region. Science, 161, 186-187.

 

Gleser, G. C. 6 Ihilevich, D. (1969). An objective instrument for measuring
defense mechanisms. Journal of Consulting 6 Clinical Psychology, 333
51-60.

Gleser, G. C. 8 Sachs, M. (1973). Ego defenses and reaction to stress:
A validation study of the defense mechanisms inventory. Journal of
Consultinggand Clinical Psychology, 59: 181-187.

 

Gott, P. S. (1973). Language after dominant hemiSpherectomy.
Journal of Neurological Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 3Q, 1082-1088.

 

Gur, R. E. (1975). Conjugate lateral eye movements as an index of hemis-
pheric activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ‘31,
751-757.

Gur, R. C., 6 Gur, R. E. (1974). Handedness, sex and eyedness as mo-
derating variables in the relation between hypnotic susceptibility and

"l

110

functional brain asymmetry. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 88, 635-643.

Gur, R. e., 6 Gur, R. C. (1975). Defense mechanisms, psychosomatic symp-
tomatology, and conjugate lateral eye movements. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 38, 416-420.

Gur, R. C. 6 Gur, R. E., (1977). Correlates of conjugate lateral eye
movements in man, In Harnad, S., Doty, R. W., Goldstein, L., et al, (Eds.)
Lateralization in the Nervous System. New York: Academic Press.

 

Gur, R. C. 6 Gur, R. E., 6 Harris, L. (1975). Cerebral activation,
as measured by subjects' lateral eye movements, is influenced by
experimenter location, Neuropsychologig, 18, 35-44.

Hellige, J. B. (1983). The study of cerebral hemisphere differences
introduction and overview. In Hellige, J. 8. (Ed.) Cerebral
Hemisphere Asymmetry. New York, New York: Praeger.

Kimura, D. (1973). The asymmetry of the human brain. Scientific American,
228, 70-78.

 

Kimura, D. (1974). The neural basis of language qua gesture. In
Avakian-Whitaker, H. A. 6 Whitaker, H. A., (Eds.)
Studies in neurolinguistics. New York: Academic Press.

Kinsbourne, M. (1972). Eye and head turning indicates cerebral la-
teralization. Science, 176, 539-541.

Kinsbourne, M. (1973). The control of attention by interaction between
the cerebral hemispheres. In S. Kornblum (Ed.,), Attention and Performance
IE; New York: Academic Press.

Krikorian, R. 6 Rafales, L. (1982). Emotional stimulation, defensive
orientation 6 hemispheric activation. Brain and Cognition,.;4 371-380.

Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York:
John Wiley 6 Sons.

Levine, E. (1977). Psychocultural determinants in personality
development. Volta Review, October-November, 258.

111

Levy, J. (1978). Lateral differences in the human brain in cognition and
behavioral control, In Buser, P. 6 Rougeul-Buser, A. (Eds.) Cerebral
Correlates of Conscious EXperience, New York: North Holland Publishing Co.

 

Levy, J. (1983). Individual differences in cerebral hemisphere asymmetry:
Theoretical issues and experimental considerations. In Hellige, J. 8.
(Ed.) Cerebral Hemisphere Asymmetry. New York, New York:

Praeger.

 

Lunde, A., (1956). The sociology of the deaf. Paper presented at the
meeting of the American Sociological Society, Detroit.

 

Manning, A.A., Goble, W., Markman, R. 6 LaBreche, T. (1977).
Lateral cerebral differences in the deaf in response to linguistic
and nonlinguistic stimuli. Brain and Language, 3’ 309-321.

 

Marie, P. (1949). Existe-t-il dans le cerveau humain des centre ennes
ou preformes de Iangage? La Press Medicale, 12, 117-181.

Markowitz, H. (1980). Myths about American Sign Language, In
H. Lane 6 F. Grosjean (Eds.) Recent perSpectives in American
Sign Language. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McIntyre, M. (1977), The acquisition of American Sign Language configu-
rations. Sign Language Studies, 16, 247-266.

 

McKeever, W. E., Hoemann, H. W., Florian, V. A., 6 Van Deventer,
A. D. (1976). Evidence of minimal cerebral asymmetries for the
processing of English words and American Sign Language stimuli
in the congenitally deaf. Neuropsychologica, £8,
413-423.

Milner, B. (1971). Interhemispheric differences in the localization
of psychological processes in man. British Medical Bulletin, 82" 272-277.
Moores, D. (1977). Educating the deaf: Psychology, principles and practice
Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Mott, F. W., 6 Shafer, E. (1890). On associated eye movements pro-
duced by cortical faradization of the monkey's brain. Brain, 18, 165-173.

112

Neville, H. 6 Bellugi, U. (1977). Patterns of cerebral specialization
in congenitally deaf adults: a preliminary report. In Siple, P.
(Ed.), Understanding Language Through Sign Language Research.

New York: Academic Press, 239-260.

Neville, H., Kutas, M. 6 Schmidt, A. (1982). Event related potentials:
Studies of cerebral specialization during reading. Brain and Language,
18, 316-337.

 

Penfield, W., 6 Roberts, L. (1959). Speech and Brain Mechanisms.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

 

Phippard, D. (1977). Hemifield differences in visual perception in
deaf and hearing subjects. Neuropsychologica, 18,
555-560.

 

Poizner, H., Battison, R. 6 Lane, H. (1979). Cerebral asymmetry for American
Sign Language; the effects of moving stimuli. Brain and Language, 7, 43
351-362.

 

Poizner, H., Bellugi, U., 6 Iraqui, Vicente. (1983). Apraxia and
Aphasia for a Visual-Gestural Language. Paper presented March.

Poizner, H., 6 Lane, H. (1982). Cerebral asymmetry in the perception of
American Sign Language. Brain and Language,_ZJ 210-226.

 

Reyher, J. (1964). Brain mechanisms, intrapsychic processes and
behavior: A theory of hypnosis and psychopathology. American Journal of
Clinical Hypnosis, Vol VII, 2, 107-119.

 

 

Rogan, R. (1983). Hemispheric specialization and visual Spatial
first language: The laterality patteggs of hearing persons whose first
language was american sign language. Thesis, Michigan State University.

 

 

Ross, E. D. (1981). Functional-anatomical organization of the affective compo-
nents of language in the right hemiSphere. Archives of Neurolggy, Vol. 38,
September.

 

Schlesinger, H. S. 6 Meadow, K. P. (1972). Sound 6 Sign: Childhood
deafness and mental health. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

113

Shevrin, H., Smokler, I. A., 6 Wolf, E. (1979). Field independence,
lateralization and defense style. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 38,

 

Smith, A. (1974). Dominant 6 Nondominant HemiSpherectomy. In Kinsbourne,
M., (Ed.), Hemispheric Disconnection and Cerebral Function. Springfield
Illinois: Thomas.

Smokler, I. A., 6 Shevrin, H. (1979). Cerebral lateralization and per-
sonality style. Archives of General Psychiatry, Vol. 36.

 

Springer, S. P., 6 G. Deutsch. (1981). Left Brain, Right Brain. San
Francisco: Freeman 6 Co.

Stevenson, E. (1964). A study of the educational achievement of deaf
children of deaf parents. California News, 88, 143.

 

Stokoe, W. C. (1978). Sign codes and sign language: two orders of
communication. Journal of Communication Disorders, ll,
187-192.

 

Studdert-Kennedy, M., 6 Shankweiler, D. (1970). HemiSpheric Spe-
cialization for speech perception. Journal of Acoustical Society of
America, 32; 579-594.

 

Sussman, H. M., Franklin, P. , Simon, T. (1982). Bilingual Speech:
bilateral control? Brain and Language, 18’ 125-142.

 

Tucker, D. M., (1981). Lateral brain function, emotion and concep-
tualization. ngcholggical Bulletin, Vol. 89, No. 1, 19-46.

 

Vaid, J. 6 Genesee, F. (1980). Neuropsychological approaches to bi-
lingualism: A critical review. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 83,

 

Vernon, M. (1969). Sociological and psychological factors associated
with hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
12.

 

Wada, J., 6 Rasmussen, T. (1960). Intracarotid injection of sodium

114

amytal for the lateralization of cerebral speech dominance. Journal of
Neurosurgery, 12, 266-282.

White, M. J. (1972). Vocal and manual response latencies to bilateral
and unilateral tachistoscopic letter displays. Quarterly Journal of
§§perimental Psychology, 38, 41-47.

Wilbur R., 6 Jones, M. (1974). Some aSpects of the bilingual/bimodal
acquisition of sign language and english, by three hearing children
of deaf parents. In M. La Galy, R. Fox, 6 A. Bruck (Eds.) Papers from
Tenth Rggipnal Meeting, ChicagggLigguistic Society. Chicago:
Chicago Linguistic Society.

 

Witelson, S. F. 6 Pallie, W. (1972). Left hemisphere specialization
for language in the newborn (neuroanatomical evidence of asymmetry). Brain,
88, 641-646.

Zook, J. A. 6 Dwyer, J. H. (1976). Cultural differences in
hemisphericity: A critique. Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological
Societies, 31, 87-90.

115