Ml WIN" \ Ml} \ SIZE CONS‘FANCY IN SCMZG‘EFHRENIA 116 637 7503!: ’33:- ‘L'E'Vt-a {3999223 0% M. A. = W (1'. . ,3“ .- . "-M. sm' ?.'”;‘T-‘.."‘=‘IY...5L {a “7‘1? 'We‘fu‘QQs a" . t . - .. . ‘; .‘ ;. I . . ' . Ayali-L‘hlsaugd-uho.\ Hbéiéud Vat‘h . hat-.u-J“ ohn L. I‘vfiaes 1957 THES‘S 1111111111I111!11111111111111 31293 015914413 SIZE CONSTA CY IE SCHIZOPEREKIA Py John L. Eses A TiJSIS Submitted to the College of Science and Arts 7ichiqen State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of IASTQR OF ARTS Department of psychology 1957 Lm/3o/§7 g /ooo m >1 i—B m 11 111 1V (D r“ L _ ‘__...J r" —v- (‘ 1:33.00 Lean Scores 1‘5 0 Comparison of _.._ .0 \ ‘ n 11 -\ plaLran oi App Comterison of Group ~ n I . - LA C Ol-TTELTTS TA:LLS Age C lVl Teens........... Initial Target for Zach Trial........... duals and Grougs. Means of Groups.......... arat-LlsOOOOOCOOOOOOOO0.00...O. The writer wishes to express sincere apprecia- tion to Dr. I. Ray Denny whose sug esticns, juidance, and cooperation made this thesis possible. Thanks are also due Dr. A. I. Rabin for his helpful sugges- tions and constructive criticism. The staffs at the Fort Custer Veterans Adminis- tration Hospital and at the Ann Arbor Veterans Admin- istration Hospital were most generous in supplying time, space and subjects for the research. The writer is particularly grateful to Dr. John Tilton for his assistance in wiring the apparatus and to Fr. Anthony Graziano and Ir. Joseph MO Donou h for their assistance in testing subjects. History Fenichel (4) has stressed the breakdown in object relationships in schizophrenia. Pecause the clinical patient is withdrawn from reality his ability to differ- entiate between the self and non-self, and between objects in the outer world is believed to he minimal. As a re- sult of this condition, a collapse in reality testing is among the comron features of schizophrenia. Freud (5) has described the breakdown of reality in the psychotic process as a substitution of fantasy for reality. In this regression to more primitive levels of 'ego development' there is a breakdown in object—relationships and an in- creased difficulty in defining the surroundina world. The inference may be drawn from these writin:s that a breakdown in reality-contact includes a loss in the more central processes such as thinking and Judgement. Fenichel has indicated that refressed psychotics employ primitive modes of perception and 'eiperience the world in a more vague and less diff-rentiated way' (4-p.58). Druner (2-p.142) stated more speciiically, "might not we predict for example that a withdrawal from object relations, and an increasing cancern for the self would lead to a breakdown in such phenomena as size and shape constancy? Light not apparent size and shape conform more toward retinal proportions than toward real ohjs particularly so if the stimulus people?" constancy in the in soth organics 11-kdown in the A number cf attempting ceptual Lreahdcsi in chizophrenia. plications in ths concept of (16) where the size of the perceived that of the physical object ( to determine di stsl stimulus) A ct proportions, objects used were other Goldstein (7) observed a vagueness and loss of conception of the structure of objects and schizophrenics, and suggested a perceive boundaries between objects. ecest studies have been carried out whether there is a basic oer- .L haush (ll) saw im- phenonenal regression (5) o jeot lies between and tha‘ f p- ‘ of the retinal imaje (pr oxi al stimulus) . The person is always striving toward perception of tie 'real object'. There is usually a dif?erence, however, hetween perceived size and the actual olysical dimensions of an o ject. This ii’erence is generally slight, but increases when distalce cues are minimal. It is this relatively margin of error between the ctual size, :ape, color, or hcijhtnes; of a physical object and the perception of these qualities that maL:es the world a staple place to live in ~n. For a discussion of these temns see Koffka (10). ‘0 a, o .. . I\ t! For a discus see Gibson (11). sion of the cues in visual constancy The sch zophrenic patient is described clinically, as being withdrawn from reality or out of contact with reality. IZis ability to did ereitiate between objects and between self and outer world objects is believed to as minimal. Raush (14) reasoned that 'if constancy re- presents an "intention" toward oo ect perception as op- posed to proximal stimulus perception, then object "in— te ticn" and constancy may be expected to be reduced in Raush used three groups in his study: (1) A control proup of 50 male collepe stu ents; (2) a patient group A consistinp of 50 patients dia;nosed schizophrenic (ca tonic, hebevhrenic, simple, mixed or unclassified types, but no paranoid); (5) a patient group B of 00 patients di iagnos ed schizophrenic-paran loid type. All patients se- lected had twenty-twenty vision, and were in reasonably good contact with reality according to the criterion use It was discovered in preliminary work that a number .- q of patients '310 nstrated overconstancy. Raush explained this as a r: action on the part of the patients, who were still in fairly good reality contact, to compensate for a prcwing instability in their perceptual world, i.e., to overcompensate. Raush hypothesized: l. paranoids would manifest greater constancy than Hit 1er normals or non-parsroid schizophrenics, and 2. the non-paranoid group would show less constancy than the normals. 4. Overconstancy appeared in all groups, but both schizophrenic groups showed more overconstancy than the normals. Thus the results disajreed with the hypothesis that schizophrenics would show less constancy than nor- mals. Sanders and Pacht (15) also utilized three groups in their investigation: 1. ten normals, 2. ten neurotics, and 5. tan ambulatory schizophren'cs. Sanders' and Pacht's results appeared to be much like those obtained by Raush except that the constancy ratios were lower. The neuro- tics showed almost perfect constancy, and the normals and schizophrenics showed somewhat less constancy but not si nificantly so. Neither study showed the results that were hypothesized, i.e., a breakdown in perceptual con- stancy in schizophrenia. Lovin er ( 2) criticized these studies on the around that the schizophrenics used were in relatively good con- tact with reality. Thcse used by Raush were well oriented, non-hallucinating, and on privileged wards in the hospi- (D tal. Those us d by Sanders and Pacht were outpatients of a Veteran's Administration mental hygiene clinic. Accordingly, Lovinger did a study using both good and poor contact schizophrenics. The criterion used for 'good contact' was unanimous agreement among three Judges that the patient was in 500d contact with reality. The patient must have been on open ward assignment, and must have had a diaénosis of schizophrenia consistent with his case history data, and psychological material. The 'poor contact' group was selected by the unanimous agreement of three judges, closed ward assignnent, and a schizo- “irenic diagnosis consistent with availa le data. The control group or 'normal subjects were hospitalized veterans in a general medical and surgical hospital, none of whom had a history of emotional difficulties re- quiring psychiatric examination or hospitalization, psy- chosomatic complaints, mental deficiency, or neurologi- cal disorders. Each subject was tested in a size con— stancy experiment under conditions offering three differ- ent degrees of distance cues: maximal cue, minimal cue, and no cue. The different cue conditions were achieved by the use of two lipht-tiyht tunnels of different len ths. The distance cues were controlled by varying illumination within the tunnels by Means or two variable transformers. The order of the presentation of the three cue conditions was systematically randomized. The stimulus employed was a circle of light at the end of each tunnel. Each subject judged when one disk out of each series of disks in the comparison stimulus tun el appeared phenomenally equal in size to the circle in the standard stimulus tunnel. The assumption was made that schizophrenics in poor contact with reality would be less responsive to minimal distance cues than schizophrenics in good contact, or nornals. Therefore, under the minimal cue condition it that schizophrenics in poor contact N D; was hypothesi would manifest less size constancy than either schizo- phrenics in good contact or normals. The results of .10 Ju- Lovinger's erperiment are as ollows: The three groups did not differ significantly in their mean target choices for the three cue conditions combined. However, order of presentation was a signif— icant variable. Those to whom the minimal cue condition was presented first, showed significantly less size constancy on the combined mean for the three cue condi- tions than those to whom the maximal cue condition was first presented. When the order effect was taken out by utilizing only the data from the first cue condition pre- sented to each subject, the mean of the poor contact group was significantly lower than the mean of the good contact or normal group. This concurred with the hypo- thesis, but the E was reduced appreciably in each group. Finally, Oppenheim (15) has employed brightness con- stancy as a more primitive per itual process than size 0 (D '13 cons ancy. The subjects consisted of schizophrenics and normals. The schizophrenics were in 'poor contact', and an attention factor was controlled for by a pre-experi- mental examination for attention. There was a signif- icant difference between the tw groups with the schizo- phrenics showing less brightness constancy. plication of .L The present study is essentially a re Lovinger's study (12). Exactly the same apparatus is employed; however the procedure is changed to the ex- tent that each subject responds to only one one condi- tion, thus eliminating the order effect and providing a larger nuwber of suhjeccs upon which to base the re- sults. Toth the maximal cue condition and the minimal cue condition are employed, but the no-cue control con- dition is eliminated because in Lovinger's study it did not dijferentiate the groups. hypothesis Size constancy presents an effective medium for test- ing the present nj,othesis because: (1) it is a basic and universal perceptual process (2) it lends itself to rigorous control and quantification and (5) it involves a relatively simple test that even regressed schizophre- nics are able to perform. Furthermore it has oeen demon- st at as distance cues are reduced size constancy "3 ated tl I in normal visual perception is also reduced (8) (10). According to the reasoning of Raush, Sanders and Pacht, and Lovinjer schizophrenics in poor contact with reality should show considerably poorer size constancy than normals when visual distance cues are reduced (12) (14) (15). Following the same line of reasoning, the hy- pothesis of the present study is as follows: The poor contact schizophrenics will show less size constancy than either normals or good contact schizophre- nics under both cue conditions, but the difference in the maximal one condition will be less than the difference in the minimal one condition. Subjects There were 60 schizophrenic subjects and 50 normals. All the schizonnroiios vu ere patients at the Fort Custer Vete ran' 3 Adainist: ation II msaita l at Tattle Cre ck, Iichi- gen, while the controls were employees of a Veteran's Ad- ministration General Hospital at Ann Arbor, Michigan Thirty schizophrenic patients were considered to be in good contact with reality; thirty schizophrenic patients were considered to be in poor contact with reality; and thirty normal subjects were used as controls. All the subjects had been tested for visual acuity and had at least 20/25 vision, cor: ected or uncorrec cted. Any of the subjects whose vision had been corrected were required to wear their plasses during the experimental procedure. The groups were eouated for age as nearly as the reality con- siderations of the hospital as tting would allow. (see I Althou h neither the study by Raush nor Lovinger re- . I j vealed any signiiic cant dil_erewce in perceptual constancy J between paranoid schizophrenics and other schizophrenics; pa atie nts be aring a paranoid di .pnonls were avoided as much as possible. The iost reqx1e t dia3nos is was unclass- v1 ified schizoehrenia, with a scattering Oi catatonics, and a few simple sonizoelrewics and paranoids. 10 The criteria for the selection of the groups were: A. Poor Contact Schizophrenics 1. Agreement of the ward physician and the ex- perimenter that the patient was in poor contact with reality. This involved withdrawal from interpersonal relationships, bizarre or unusual behavior, confused thinking, hallucinations, and/or other indications of advanced stages of schizophrenic refression. 2. Closed ward assi3nment 5. Diagnosis of schizophrenia, consistent with case history material, and other available data. B. Good Contact Schizophrenics l. A” Q esment of the ward physician and the experi- mentor that the patient was in good contact with reality. 2. Open ward aesigmnent 5. Same as above C. ho history of emotional oifjicrlties necessitating hospitali‘at H o k) [‘1 on, r :sychiatric consultation. (The sub- jects own word was taken as evidence, supplemented in some cases by supervisor's statement.) No indication of o indication of tie disorder. E 5“.) neurological or psychosom mental deficiency, or very low intelligence. COQPAAISOII 03‘ ’L-l-MOUP Ail-43 QEALES ll Group Mean S.D. Range 1. Control Group A 29.86 4.00 25-58 2. Control Group B 51.40 4.80 20-42 5. Poor Contact A 35.00 6.95 25-47. 4. Poor Contact 55.10 5.52 26-44 5. Good Contact 29.8 4.24 20-55 6. Good Contact 50.90 4.24 25.56 Apparatus two tunnels, *3 he apparatus consisted pr'marily Ol one 15 feet long, and the other 4 feet long. Each tunnel was 18 inches square. The tunnels were mounted on stands which were 41 inches in height. Within each tunnel at the and opposite the position of the subject, was an 18 inch square of flashed opal glass. As a target light source, there was a 60-watt bulb located 7 inches behind each of the flashed opal glass plates. The targets were then placed into a slot between the target light and the flashed opal glass. Illumination was supplied to the inside of the tunnels by two 60—watt bulbs, one on either side of the tunnel, located 9% inches from the front of the tunnel. These l‘phts were shielded from the View of the sut act by two semi—cylinirical, black reflectors, j which extended from the top to the bottom of the tunnel. They did not appreciatly restrict the subjects field of vision. The targets were clearly defined 5 at the end of each tunnel. This was achieved by inserting rectangles of sheet metal (called target plates), with varying sized circular holes, precision milled in the cen- ter of each plate, into the slot between the opal glass, and the target li3hts. The target plates, as well as the interior of the tunnels were painted flat black. The flashed opal glass assured the unifiorm li3htin3 of the target source. The distance from the Viewer to the target 15 was 12 feet in the long tun.el, and 3 feet in the short one. Each target-plate insert slot contained a light-trap constructed of stripes of felt and foam rub er. This allowed the insertion or removOl of the target plate without allowing any light to enter the tunnels from the insert slots. The tsrget-plates were 18 gauge sheet metal, 18 inches wide, and 24 inches high. When the target plate was inserted the disk of light then presented was centered on the sheet flashed opal glass consequsnt- ly, and in the tunnel. There was one standard target-plate. This remained in the long tunnel throughout the entire experiment. The comparison stimuli were presented in the short tunnel. The standard target-plate contained a hole 2 inches in diameter, the size of the standard stimulus. There were 24 comparison target-plates. The holes in these ranged from l/Q of an inch to 5 inches in diameter. They progressed in 1/8 of an inch step intervals. These target-plates were numbered consecutively from 1 to 24, from the smallest to the largest. Thus, the number of each plate represented, in eighths of an inch, the dia- meter of the target it defined. The intensity of the tunnel lights was controlled by two variable transformers, one wired into the light circuit of each tunnel. Both variable transformers were V-lO variacs with the following specifications: input- 115 volts; output-O-lSO volts; lO amperes: 50-60 cycle current. The target light intensities were con— 14 trolled by a 750 ohm, 1.1 anpere tubular rheostat; wired in a series circuit with the target lights. The variacs were used to control illumination within the tunnels, and thus the distance cues. The rheostat was employed to control the level of illuqination of the targets. The variacs, the rheostat, and he master switch were mounted on a control-panel table. To insure that cues would not be provided by light from the light source behind the flashed opal glass when the tar et-plates were being changed, all li;ht sources were shut off by means of the master switch until the change had been effected. At the front of each tunnel there was a stereo— scope viewer which could be adjusted for binocular, or monocular vision. These viewers were padded with foam rubber, covered with black cloth in order to make the tunnels light-ti ht. To prevent the subject from seeing the apparatus, black drape material supplemented by hospital sheets was hung directly in front of the appara- tus, so that all the subject saw was the black drape material, and two viewers. The apparatus was set up in two different hospitals. The rooms used were similar in dimensions, and each was dimly illuminated during the experiment. Procedure There were two cue conditions in the study; each subject was presented only one of the cue conditions. A. laximal cue-~the targets were presented with both tunnels fully lighted while the subject viewed them binocularly. The brightness of each of the tunnel lights (as opposed to the target lights) was 1200 footlamberts as measured by a type Dw-GB General Electric light meter. This reading was made with the meter one foot from the light source. 1 a, Linimal cue-- The targets were presented with the tunnels dimly illuminated while the subject viewed them monocularly. The light intensity of each of the tunnel lights under this cue condition was three foot-candles with the light meter five and one-half inches from the light source. In order to minimize the amount of stray light, the light intensity of the target light sources was maintained at a very low level throuyhout the experiment. Their light intensity was one foot-candle with the light meter one inch from the light source. In the case of the schizophrenic subjects, each sub- ject was brought into the testing room by an assisting graduate student, who also gave the subject the directions for the experiment.and stayed with him during the proce- dure. The experimenter was stationed at the rear of the a aratus where he could chanye the com arisen lates. p a 16 The subjects adjustable stool was set such that when seated his eyes were level with the viewers. For all subjects the standard was in the long tunnel, and the comparison in the short tunnel. The directions given the subject stressed a naive, phenomenal approach. The instructions were: ”fie want to find out how well you can see. Here are two viewers which you can look into. Then you look into either of these you will see a circle of 1i ht. Look into this one on the ri ht (standard). Do you see the circle of li ht? how, look in the one on the eft (comparison). Does the circle on the left look larger,‘ smaller, or the same size as the one on the right. (use of appropriate gestures) Try not to think about it, but just give me your first impression." If there were any questions concerning such things as the difference in distance of the two targets, the actual size of the targets etc., the subject was asked not to think of these for the moment, to simply tell how they looked to him. The subject was allowed to look at the standard and comparison targets as many times as he desired. However, if a subject took an unusually long time in makinj a judgement he was instructed to give his first impression. Each subject was required to keep his face tightly against the viewer when looking at the targets. If a sub- ject forgot to do this at any time, he was again reminded 17 to do so. This was done to insure (a) that no stray light entered the tunnels via the viewers and (b) that the sub- ject received no ad.iti onal cues from head movements. when a su ject indicate d that the two targets were the same size, the number of the comparison target-plate was recorded as his choice and this as consi ed a trial. This automatically recorded the target-plate he chose in ei;hts of an inch. Every suoj act was given five trials. The first trial was considered a practice trial and was not included in the experimental data. The presentation of the targets was in order of their sizes i.e. from smallest to larfest, or larpest to smallest for the i‘irs t trial the t.e r ets were pr efi1 ed in asce nd- ing order. For the subsequent trials, the order of pre- sentation was alteriately desce noin; and ascending. In order to increase the probability that the subject was res seidiq to the to ets themselves rather than their ordinal position, the initial tarjets for the trials differed within and between one cow) itions. Table 2 shows the initial tar at for each trial for the two cue conditions. TA ELL—i 2 ~- "'m“'A" mp. >-;m var! Two-'5 M? an ’71 mt“ mm .Li.J-.L.--13.LJ .Liz-L‘o-‘..J.L .343 -45L/sa 4.11-1.1‘XL 0.5 .LLAJ .L.;O .’\TTI:‘. r1.'\""”'.“!'~'1".‘ f-TC‘ ‘JV-_J v\a‘&‘¢J-L--L-L *JU O) gaximal fiinimal '3 I"; I—' o \‘D H (Oi-J 24 22 01 CD gs. 22 17 0‘ *1'3 lG Dior the expe Ml nta l cond Ht ions of this investi— gation, a choice of tarje four would he equal to the W ‘ retinal angle subteno‘ J) (.21 P 3' A g' the standard stimulus, and would, therefore, equal zero size constancy. The se- lection of to fljet si: :teen would be equivalent to the physical size of the standard stimulus and, hence Kl} iw1 for each .1 CD equals perfect constancy. Th mean re. .3ject :iv an in Tails 5 represents the aver 3e for the last four trials. The top line in Table 5 indi- Q cates the three groups, and the second lin edes1;- nates the two cue conditions for each group. A com- parison between the :ood contact and poor contact groups and the control group on each of the cue con- ditions is presented in Ta le 4. T11ere was a si nificant diffierence between the nor- mals and each of the schizophrenic groups in the mini- mal cue condition. There was also a difference in the opposite direction Letwaen the normals and good con- ioant at the ten percent level. There is LO :ea'y ex.la rati .on for this, ot1er Table 5 EBA} SCORES EOE IUDIVILiALS AHD GROUPS 20 Normal Good Contact Poor Contact _l Iaximal minimal Maximal Aifiimal Maximal Minimal l ._u __L 14.25 8.00 15.75 5.00 12.25 14.25 7 22.00 5.00 15.75 22.50 19.50 10.50 15.50 5.75 20.50 7.25 22.00 7.75 10.25 9.00 12.50 7.75 18.25 15.75 14.75 3 10.00 15.75 9.75 15.25 15.00 18.00 g 5.00 15.25 17.50 15.75 7.25 22.25 g 8.75 15.25 11.25 15.25 8.50 14.00 - 10.25 11.50 10.75 15.50 20.75 17.00 , 5.00 19.50 11.00 17.25 14.00 3 15.25 , 8.25 12.75 21.00 19.50 7.25 15.50 ‘ 5.00 9.25 9.00 22.50 12.00 18.25 5.25 12.75 8.25 11.00 15.50 15.00 11.25 17.50 10.25 18.50 7.75 10.00 10.00 14.75 15.25 20.25 8.50 gean 15.02 7.12 14.57 11.70 17.05 ’11.71 i f - . I Standard LeViatlon i .54 5.41 5.14 4.90 5.98 5.94 I I l 4 w Table 4 . ,. C‘ 41 COLPAEISCH Of Iii, I ’J .Ll "WJV'TJOWPS J- .L... 5.1;}. '- 21 Conditions Comparison Contact Ix'aximal Control versus Good 1.958 - > .10 Contact’ Cue Control versus Poor not si-nifi- Contact cant LIinimal Control versus Good 2.970 ( } .Ol Contact Cue Control versus Poor 5.550 5} .01 DiscuSSion g The mean difference between the normal and ea01 3 group 01 schizophrenics in ‘he minimal cue condition was highly signilicant; and the difference 788 in J the direction of greater constancy on the part of I ‘8 (.3 :1 direct op- H. D the schizoprrenics. These results a position to our hypothesis and to the results of the Lovin e (l2) study and more nearly in agreement with the findings of Sanders and Pacht (15) in which the scnizophrenics showed size constancy as great as that shown by normal subjects._ The results were very simi- lar to those obtained by Raush (14) who found more overconstancy in schizophrenics than normals. Lovinge 's (12) suggestion that the results obtained ‘anders and Pacht, and Raush could be explained by S on the tasis of the relatively jood reality contact of the schizophrenics used by these investigators is not borne out by the results of the study. The schizophrenics used in the poor contact group of the ul— .resent study were regressed and deteriorated tut 1. showed "reater constancy than the normals. .__.) Three possible explanations for these results are as follows: 1. An explanation on the 88818 of greater ) perceptual vigilance. It is possible that schizo- phrenics are consistently engaged in more minute ob— (L 0-1 :°Vation of and preoccupation with pe moeetual cues ed from their (D [—1. 5 *1: CD '1 H than are normals. This might roster inner te1sion and their greater need to de1i1ne orioration involves cognitive processes ratler than perceptual processes. Arieti (l) anc others have sugjested that the perceptual oroceuses remain relatively; :nta ct in schizophrenics. H t is in the process of fiving mean1n3 to perce métual cues that the distortion in reality occurs. One of bases of su we ted perceptual aberrations in schizo- phre1ia is the distortions t1 1st occur on projective tests such as the horsehach. These LiStOT tiogs could (W *ven to it by the perceiver. 5. An explana- tion takin; account of the diflerences in motivation existing betwees the scnizoehrcuics and nor.sals. 1ne schiaophresics were 5010, '5 wrnt to 'nd out r w well vru can see any of them took this very seriorsly, and iniu_red unetLer they needed 195-83. is possible that they made use of cues which the normals, who took a more relaxed approach to the task, overlooked. Although records of reaction time were not kept, it is the investi3ator's impression that the normals reacted much more quickly in many instances than the schizophrenics. It is possible that t reason for he difference between the schizopr enics and normals can be explained as more complete use of the available visual cues by the schizophrenics as a result of higher motivation. It would be of interest to see the results of sent comparing the length of reaction time, E. .3 1‘1 an "4X. k and the accuracy of judgement in schizophrenics on a perceptual task. The experi ental desi3n had its short-comings. Anon3 the poor contact schizophrenics there were four instances where the experiaentor ran out of target (0 _> plates oegore a jud3 gent was made. Each of these was on the first trial in which the target sizes were pre- sented in an ascendin: series. It was difficult to know whether the sub act was perseverating, was psychologi- (l) 01 O sally unalle to make a ju‘3-m nt :ecsuse it was too threateni s or whetLer if there had been more target plates a judgement could have been obtained, The data O 01 from these subjects were simply unusab e. ‘I The design of tflo apparatus also offered audi- I) tory cues to the subject. Although the lijhts in the tunnels were turned off durin_ the changing of the target plates, distance cues to the comparison plates could be obtained b, the sounds made during the chang- ing of the plates. This may or may not have influenced the subjects judgement of the comparative distances be- tween the standard and comparison stimuli. It is possible that such auditory cues could have been avoid- ed by the use of a small slide projector set at a given distance from the flashed opal glass, and pro- jecting li ht through openings in the slides in such a manner as to arrive at th same sized circles of light used in this experiment. This would have placed the experimenter farther from the subject, reduced his movements, and employed a less noisy method of changing stimulus sizes. Summary This study was undertaken to investigate the effect of schizophrenia on a basic perceptual pro- cess. Three :roups of subjects were employed in the study: schizophrenics in good contact with reality, schizophrenics in poor contact, and normals. They were tested in a size constancy experiment under two different distance cue conditions: maximal and mini- mal. Each of the groups was divided into two suh-groups, one sub-group was tested in the minimal cue condition and the other in the maximal cue condition. The two cue conditions were achieved by utilizing two light- tight tunnels of fixed but different lengths. The illumination, and thus the distance cues vithin the tunnels, was controlled by means of two variable trans- formers. It was assumed that if schizophrenics in poor contact with reality were perceptually in poor contact, they would be less responsive to minimal distance cues. Therefore, it was hypothesized that especially under experimental conditions involving minima distance cues, soiizophrenics in poor contact would manifest less size U) H 0 £5 1 C) O CL: C) O :3 d‘ D 0 ct- constancy than eithe schizophrenic "S or normals. The results of the investigation were in 27 direct contradiction to this hypothesis. Poth the good co onta ct and poor contact schizophrenics mani- fested significantly hi3her constancy than the nor- mals on the mini a1 cue cozrdition. The dif’Le :ences between groups on the maximal cue condition were not sijrifieant, althou h between the normals and good con- tact schizophrenics approached sigiificance. Possible e: Wplaxat ons for these results were: (1) greater preocou upation with perceptua al cues in an effiort to define reality, 2) schizophre ic deteriora- tion involves cognitive rather than perceptual processes, distortion occurring in the or3anization of perceptions, (3) the scaizophrenics may have seen the ex er iqent as more of a test than the normals and therefore, may have been motiv ted to use more percep tual cues. 03 \I 41) ll. 28 n Selected Reierences Arieti, S. Interpretat on o Schizophrenia. c...“ —_~— - Jew Yora: Roc ert Erunner, fl1355. Pruner, J.S. Personality dynamics and perceiv- inr In R. Elake and 1. Ramsey (Eds.), Per- ception--An Approach to 'erso nality. Lev York:w TnaId Press, 1351 . Erunswik, E. Distal focuss'n‘ of Perception. Size constancy in a representative sample of situations. Psychol. Iono., 1944, 56, No. 254. D Feniche1,0. Thu Psychoanalytic Theory of Ueurosis.1.ev : Norton, 1945. :21 II 31 T1 ?1 " oss of1 eality in neurosis and llccted Papers, Vol. II. t 033, 1918. PTeud, S. The l psychosis. Co v- London: no Gi’Cson, J.J. The Perception of tke Visual World. New York: Houyhton Lifflin Conn) any, 1950. Goldstein <. Vethodoloyical approach to the study 0' sci lizophren ic thou disorder. In J.S. Kasigin (5a.), Inr‘uu133 and Thou ht ill scvizopor n’a. Jerkeie ids An;31es: Univ. caiii. Press: 1941. PJVJ Eolway, A.H. and Torinj, E.G. Determination of ap arent visual size with distance variant. Amer. J. Psychol., 1941, 54, 21-57. Ioffka, L. Principles of rest 1t Ps yc E1r1o y, New Yorl: hercourt, ire ce,‘173:3, Lichten, W. and Lurie o. - the study of ne_oeived size. Amer. J. Psychol., 71 J. y .1 \J 1950, 65, soc-see. Lovinger, E. Note on Sa finders ani Pacht's inves- tigation of size constancy of cli1ica1 groups. J. Consult. Psycnol., 19 52 8, 225-288. I-' {\3 o 1" 1J. Sanders, R. and Pacht A.R. Perceptual si Lovinger,£. Pezceptual contact with reality in schizophrenia. Minus ished dCctCral dis- sertation, Lichi. n State University, East liaisigig, ljicirt3a11, 1&35é. Oppenheim, H. A study of percentual discrimina- tion in schiZOUhPenics and normals. Unnublish- ed doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexin3ton, Ky., 1'355. Raush, 3.1. Percentual constancy in s,nizourrcnia. z 3 crnstoncy of Known clinical groups. J. Con- 1 ' ‘II- , r‘ {‘0 Q ‘ ’ A '1 4 Sl_)_],t ’ ‘1. vDI‘J’ ' ‘I(.IE‘J—.1‘I(I. fl Thouless, 1.H. Fresco nal re3ression to the T381! OtijCt. :0 fi’it. J; P3 :TC}1C11. 1951, 2 , 0(J'-3‘:}0 h C . 0‘ £.ar;:o mu.;a> «Mu 001...... a n...”— .30.. no» 3 £666 {'1}. I.“ 4:""”'r " 'w: 7:3,“; “1'qu Date Due I ' . 9‘ u :2 ‘1': all. y m~ .‘ J11 m MAR 1 18-62 Demco-293 "7'7JWULITWL'WE'LWLWJ'LHTIIITEJT