l I ¢ 144 288 .THS {ET EfiSEFeSG RY ANS EN'E'ERSEAESGEY ”ISCBIMWWW 9? FORM 3‘.- t v I mask: {‘5}? {Jim Stages 3‘? 3‘55. ‘5‘“ ZifiCi EGRH SW33; " ZZZTY Te}; "3’ \«fat A“? :97 C 1'j*,é-; ‘ ’ LIBRARY 3 Michigan State University ABSTRACT INTRASEJNSORY AND IN'I‘ERSENSORY DISCRIMINATION OF FORM By Terry Walter Allen Intrasensory and intersensory discrimination of form.was investigated with children, 9.“? years of age. The intersensory procedure consisted of presenting a standard stimulus (visually) to §s repeatedly until habituation occurred during the first Habituation Period. Subjects were divided into two groups for the second period: (a) one group of §s received repeated presentations of the same Stimulus as in Habituation Period One (haptically); (b) the other group of §s received repeated presentations of a different stimulus from the one used in Habituation Period One (haptically). Results lent support to the generalization of Sokolov's theory to intersensory functioning. Subjects required more trials to habituate to the different stimulus presented in Habituation Period TWO than §s who received repeated presentations of the same stimulus. In addition, GSR frequency and amplitude habituated more consistently than fixation and touching dependent measures. The results were discussed in light of their implications for present hypotheses concerning the nature of intersensory integration and suggestions for future research. INIRASENSORY AND INTERSENSORY DISCRIMINATION OF FORM By Terry walter Allen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillnent of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1970 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study is based in part on a master's Thesis submitted by the author in partial fulfillment of that degree. This study was supported in part by NIMH Researdh Grant MH918655 and Biomedical Sciences Support Grant FR-O7OU9 to Dr. Hiram Fitzgerald. The author would like to thank the members of the thesis committee: Drs. Elaine Donelson and Lauren Harris. The author would like to especially thank Dr. Hiram.Fitzgerald, chairman of the thesis committee, fOr his advise and aid given during the course of the research. Special thanks are due Cynthia Allen fOr her assistance in data collection; and to the principal, teachers, parents and children of the Holt School District for their cooperation in this study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS List of tables....................................iv List of figures...................................V Introduction......................................l Method............................................A Results..........................................ll Discussion.......................................l6 List of references...............................2l Footnoteso.OO0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000...0.0.0.02“ Table LIST OF TABLES Design for investigating intersensory transfer of form is represented. Stimulus l was a lA—inch perimeter form, while stimulus 2 was a 16—inch perimeter form. iv Page Figure LIST OF FIGURES A representation of stimulus 1 inch perimeter form, and stimu a 16—inch perimeter form a 1A- lus 2, Page INTRODUCTION The orienting reflex (OR) is a general organismic response to change in stimulation (Sokolov, 1963), and includes both somatic and autonomic components. Mbreover, the gradual disappearance of the organismfs OR to repeatedly presented stimuli (habituation) has been extensively used as a reliable dependent variable. For example, habituation of various components of the OR has been demonstrated with infants (Saayman, Ames, & MOffet, 196A; McCall & Kagan, 1967; Schaffer & Parry, 1969), children.(Lewis, Goldberg, & Rausch, 1967; Cantor & Cantor, 196Aa, 196Ab), and adults (Berlyne, 1958; Berlyne, Craw, Salapatek, & Lewis, 1963; Kinnel & Goldstein, 1967). OR components in these studies have included heart rate (HR), visual fixation, and/or skin resistance (SR). Other investigators have demonstrated OR habituation to auditory (Bartoshuk, 1962; Corah & Stern, 1963; Koepke & Pribram, 1966), olfactory (Engen & Lipsitt, 1965), tactile (Grossman & Greenberg, 1957) and gustatory stimuli (Fisher & Fisher, 1969). These studies have in common the demonstration that r§t§_of habituation.nay be influenced by various stimulus factors such as intensity, duration and complexity as well as interstinudus interval. Perceptual research has suggested that children six-years of age and older transfer the perception of form across sensory modalities, while children less than six-years of age do not evidence intersensory transfer of form (Pick, Pick, & Klein, 1967). Several theories have been advanced to account fOr the intersensory integration of sensory input. For example, Piaget and Inhelder (1956) have proposed a cognitive process theory of intersensory integration while Connolly and Jones (1970) have proposed an.information systems theory of intersensory integration. A question of special interest for the present study concerned the extension of Sokolov's neural model theory of habituation as a potential explanation of intersensory integration. Sokolov (1963) has theorized that a central neural process mediates habituation and dishabituation of the OR. According to this theory, incoming stimuli leave traces of their characteristics (neural models) primarily in the cortex. Excitation arising from an incoming stimulus is transmitted to the cortex which in turn is presumed to act as an analyzing center comparing the incoming stimulus with the established neural model. If the incoming stimulus matches an existing model, the cortex directs impulses to the reticular formation to inhibit or block the organismis OR to the incoming stimulus. If, on the other hand, the incoming stimulus does not match the neural model, the cortex is assumed to direct impulses to the reticular formation to elicit an OR. The rate of response habituation has been suggested as indicative of the rate of model formation of that stimulus (Lewis & Goldberg, 1969; Dodd & Lewis, 1969; McCall, 1969). The present study was designed to investigate the effects on habituation rate or dishabituation when a fonn presented in one sensory modality (visual) is followed by the presentation of the same form or a different form in another sensory modality (haptic). Consistent with Sokolov‘s theory and perceptual research it was predicted that visual presentation of a form followed by haptic presentation of the same form would result in more rapid habituation than would occur if a visually presented form were followed by a haptically presented form. MEthOd Subjects A total of 30 boys and 30 girls ranging in age from.eight—years to eleven-years (Mean = 9.A7 years, SD = 1.01) served as Ss. TWenty Se (10 boys, 10 girls) were randomly assigned to each of three experimental groups: Visual—haptic (VH), Visual—visual (W), and Haptic-haptic (HH) . Apparatus Visual stimuli. As indicated in Figure 1, the visual stimuli were photographic slides of two eight-sided random—shaped forms. Random shape 1 had a perimeter of 1“ inches and random shape 2 had a perimeter of 16 inches. Both forms were black and were presented on a white background. The visual presentation apparatus consisted of a 2M" x 24" trans— lucent plate glass screen mounted in a three-inch frame positioned between two 12" x 30" panels. Located in the center of each panel was a 1" x 3" observation hole covered with one—way viewing glass. Subjects were enclosed on their right and left side by olive green felt covered frame walls. Subject to Viewing screen distance was 24 inches. A Carousel slide projector, mounted behind the stinulus presentation apparatus, projected the slides onto the glass screen. Raptig_stimuli. The haptic stimuli were a corresponding set of ferms constructed from.l/A-inch thick masonite. These smooth—surfaced fbrms were mounted on a 16" x 16" piece of masonite and were raised 1/A—inch above the surface of the masonite. Haptic stimuli were mounted in a 16" x 32" frame and presented in the same horizontal and vertical plane as the visual stimuli. The haptic presentation apparatus was located directly in front of §_during Stimulus 1 Stimulus 2 Figure 1. A representation of stimulus l, a 14-inch perimeter form, and stimulus 2, a 16—inch perimeter form. haptic stimulus presentation. During visual stimulus presentation the apparatus was removed. When haptic stimuli were presented, a visor—- attached to a frame bordering st head-—was lowered to block §fs vision. This same visor was raised when visual stimuli were presented. Dependent variables and stimulus events were recorded on a Beckman RS Dynagraph. Stimulus onset and offset, stimulus duration, and intertrial intervals were automatically programmed (Porges & Fitzgerald, in press). Experimental Desigp As indicated in Table 1, the research design consisted of three independent groups: (a) Visual—haptic (VH); (b) visual—visual (VV); (0) haptic-haptic (HH): During Habituation Period One, Se in Group VH and Group VV received repeated presentations of visual stimulus 1 (lu—inch perimeter form) until habituation occurred. Similarly, Ss in Group HH received repeated presentations of haptic stimulus l (lu-inch perimeter form) until habituation occurred. Following Habituation Period One, Ss in each of the three groups were randomly assigned to one of two subgroups. The habituation criterion was three consecutive trials during which no GSR occurred. Intersensory condition. For Habituation Period TWO, §s in Group VH were subdivided into Haptic group A and Haptic group B. Subjects in Haptic group A received repeated presentations of haptic stimulus 1. Subjects in Haptic group B received repeated presentations of haptic stimulus 2. ‘ Entrasensory Condition. For Habituation Period Two, §s in Group VV were subdivided into Visual group A and Visual group B. Subjects in Visual group A received repeated presentations of visual stimulus 1, TABLE 1 Design for investigating intersensory transfer of form.is represented. Stimulus 1 was a lu-inch perimeter form, while stimulus 2 was a 16- inch perimeter form. Habituation Stimulus Habituation Stimulus Period One Presented Period Two Presented Haptic group A Haptic 1 (VHA) Visual 1 C) 8 B E Haptic group B Haptic 2 (VHB) Intersensory Visual group A ‘Visual 1 (WA) Group VV Visual 1 Visual group B Visual 2 (WE) Intrasensory Haptic group C Haptic l (HHC) Group HH Haptic l Haptic group D Haptic 2 (HHD) while Se in'Visua1.gioup B received repeated presentations of visual stimulus 2. Subjects in Group HH were subdivided into Haptic group C and Haptic group D. Subjects in Haptic group C received repeated presentations of haptic stimulus 1, while §s in Haptic group D received repeated presen- tations of haptic stimulus 2. Procedure Each child was brought to the experimental room.and seated in front of the stimulus presentation apparatus. Electrode sites were cleaned with 70% ethanol. GSR was recorded with Grass Instruments silver cup electrodes attached to the palmar region of the hand, dorsal portion of the hand, and to the forearm of the non-preferred hand three inches below the elbow. Grass electrode—paste served as the electrolytic medium. A five minute adaptation period, during which §_was given instructions, preceded onset of Habituation Period One. For Habituation Period One, §s in Groups VH and VV were instructed to watch the screen for pictures that would appear. Visual stimulus duration was 20 seconds. Random intertrial intervals (ITT) ranged from 10-25 seconds, with a mean of 15 seconds. Subjects in Group HH received the following instructions: "Here is a form for you to feel. You.may explore the form for as long as you like." While administering the instructions, E_removed §fs hand from the table and assisted §_in locating the stimulus by placing st hand on the stimulus. After giving the instructions, :3; removed S's hand and the experiment began. Subject began exploring the form when E_told him to start and removed his hand when E_told him to stop. Haptic stimuli were presented for 20 seconds. The ITI ranged from.10—25 seconds, with a mean of 15 seconds. A two minute rest period followed Habituation Period One. In Habituation Period TWO, Se in Groups VH and HH were administered the inStructions regarding haptic exploration of the stimulus ftvnh Subjects in Group VV received the same instructions as they received prior to Habituation Period One. Stimulus durations and ITTs were identical to those employed in Habituation Period One. After Habituation Period Two ended, §_was asked whether the form he just explored (either visually or haptically) was the same as or different than the form he received during Habituation Period One. The following dependent variables were recorded and analyzed: (a) first fixation tine, (b) total fixation time, (c) average fixation time, (d) first touching time, (e) total touching time, (f) average touching time, (g) GSR frequency, and (h) GSR amplitude. ' Visual fixation . First and total fixation time were recorded for each visual presentation trial. First fixation time was defined as the amount of time §_spent looking at the stimulus during his first gaze. Average fixation time for each trial was computed by dividing total fixation time by number of fixations (Cohen, 1969). A second.§;who had earlier given the instructions recorded §fs fixation responses through one of the observation windows located on each side of the screen. Interhobserver reliabilities were determined earlier resulting in 100% agreement among Observers. Tbgching time. Since there has been no previously reported attempt to study habituation to haptically presented stimuli, there have been no scoring procedures developed. Response measures analogous to those 10 used in visual fixation studies were developed. First and total touch- ing time were recorded during each haptic presentation trial. Average touching time was computed in the same way as average fixation time. The second E_also recorded each st touching time. ' GSR. For visually presented stimuli, only responses of 1000 ohms or more occurring three seconds after stimulus onset were scored. Frequency of responses meeting this criterion was also recorded. The purpose of eliminating those responses occurring before three seconds from the analysis was to avoid the inclusion of responses merely to the onset of a stimulus from those occurring to stimulus characteristics. GSR amplitude was computed for each response and transformed into a conductance score. For haptic presentations, a GSR.was said to occur if it was of a magnitude of 1000 ohms or more (Corah & Stern, 1963) and occurred one to three seconds after §_had traced the complete outline of the flonn. If §_fai1ed to trace the complete outline, then the last four seconds of a trial was examined for a response. Nonspecific (NS) GSRs were also scored if they occurred during a haptic presentation trial. NOn— specific GSRs were defined as those GSRs which occurred during a haptic presentation trial, but not to the habituation criteria events. The GSR frequency and amplitude were recorded. Amplitude was transformed into conductance scores. GSRs occurring to stimulus onset and offset were not included in the analysis. All §s included in the data analysis were able to correctly dis— criminate verbally between stimuli presented in Habituation Period One and Habituation Period TWO. 11 Results Main Effects A three-way analysis of variance (Winer, 1962) was performed to assess the effects on habituation rate of presenting the sane stimulus in Habituation Period Two that §_received in Habituation Period One. The analysis of variance was computed on the proportion—ofetrials—to- habituation-score with sex (2), sensory group (3), and stimulus (2) as the factors. In order to control for individual differences in habitua- tion rate, a.proportion score was computed by placing the number of trials to habituation in the second period over the number of trials to habituation in the first periodl. The results of the analysis of variance revealed no significant main or interaction effects due to sex. There was a significant main effect for sensory group (F = 10.27, df = 2/A8, p ( .005). This effect may be attributed to the significant difference in the proportion of trials score between Group VH and Group VV (t = 2.56, df = 38, p ( .02). In addition, there was a significant difference in the proportion of trials score for Group VH and Group HH (t = 2.53, df = 38, p ( .02). There was no significant difference between Group VV'and Group HH. Group VH had a higher proportion of trials score due to the more rapid habituation rate to the visual stimulus presented in Habituation Period One than to the haptic stimulus presented in Habituation Period TWO (independent of whether the stimulus was the same as or different from.the stimulus in Habituation Period One). This finding is specific to Group VH and relates to the Obserb vation.that, in general, Ss required more trials to habituate to a haptic stimulus than to a visual stinulus. 12 There was a significant main effect due to type of stimulus presented in Habituation Period Two (F = 37.18, df = 1/48, p ( .001). Non-directional §_tests (Winer, 1962) were performed on the proportion of trials score to stimuli l (sane) and stimuli 2 (different) for each sensory ETOUp. These planned comparisons indicated highly significant differences between Group VHA-Group VHB proportion scores (t = 3.85, df = 18, p ( .01); Group VVArGroup VVB proportion scores (t = 3.A6, df = 18,}:( .01); and Group HHC—Group HHD proportion scores (t = 2.86, df = 18, p ( .02). These significant differences support the hypothesis that §s who were presented a different stimulus in Habituation Period Two required more trials to habituate than those Ss presented the same stimulus. Within Period Effects A second analysis was perfOrmed to examine the relationship between intersensory and intrasensory transfer of form and.habituation of the dependent measures. Since the criterion for habituation did not involve a fixed number of trials, a mean for each response measure was computed from the first half of the habituation trials and the second half of the habituation trials. This computation was done for the first and second habituation.periods. A non-directional §_test for correlated means (Winer, 1962) was used to test for significance2. 'Visual fixation time3. Although the difference between the means for first fixation time within periods one and two are in the predicted direction, first fixation time showed no significant response decrement within Habituation Periods. There was a significant decrease in total fixation tine during 13 Habituation Period One (t = 5.28, df = 39, p < .001). During Habituation Period TWO, total fixation time showed a significant response decrement for both Group VVA (t = 2.87, df = 9, P'( .02) and Group VVB (t = 3.00, df = 9, p ( .02). Average fixation time, like first fixation time failed to show a significant response decrement during Habituation Periods One and Two, although the difference between the means was in the predicted direction. ' Tbuching time”. First touching tine evidenced no significant response decrement during the Habituation Periods. As was the case with average fixation tine and first fixation tine, the difference between means was in the predicted direction within each Habituation Period with the exception of Group VHA during Habituation Period Two. Total touching time decreased significantly (t = 3.9M, df = 19, p ( .001) during Habituation Period One for all groups. It did decrease during Habituation Period TWO fer each sensory group except for Group VHA, but not significantly. With the exception of Group VHB (t = 2.32, df = 9, p ( .05), average touching time failed to show a significant response decrement during each Habituation Period. GSijpeguency apd.anplitude. During Habituation Period One, GSR frequency showed a significant decrease for the visual sensory condition (t = “.22, df = 9, p ( .01). In the haptic sensory condition, both GSR frequency (t = 6.21, df = 9, p < .001) and NS GSR frequency (t = 3.99, df = 9, pl< .01) decreased significantly. Luring Habituation Period TWO, Group VHA showed a significant 1“ decrease in GSR frequency (t = 3.20, df = 9, p ( .02). Group VHB showed a significant response decrement for both GSR frequency (t = 3.“5, df = 9, p .01) and NS GSR frequency (t = 3.8“, df = 9, p ( .01). Group VVA (t = “.22, df = 9, p ( .01) and Group VVB (t = 6.95, df = 9, p ( .001) showed a significant decrease in GSR frequency. Likewise, Groups HHC [GSR frequency (t “.36, df = 9, p ( .01)] and HHD [GSR frequency (t = 3.61, df 9, p ( .01) and NS GSR frequency (t = 5.“9, df = 9, p ( .001)] showed a significant response decrement. Group VHA and Group HHC failed to indicate a significant decrease in NS GSR frequency. GSR anplitude decreased significantly for the visual sensory condition during Habituation Period One (t = 6.77, df = 39, p < .001). GSR amplitude (t = “.6“, df = 19, p < .001) and NS GSR amplitude (t = 3.82, df = 19, p ( .01) also decreased significantly for the haptic sensory condition. During Habituation Period TWO, GSR.amp1itude decreased significantly for the following sensory groups: Group VHA (t = 2.““, df = 9, p < .05), Group VHB (t = 3.06, df 9, p < .02), Group VVB (t = “.8“, df = 9, p ( .001), Group HHC (t 3.83, df = 9, p ( .01), and Group HHD (t = 2.77, df = 9, p ( .05). GSR amplitude failed to decrease signifi- cantly for Group VVA. In addition, NS GSR amplitude decreased signi— ficantly for the following sensory groups: Group HHD (t = 3.0“, df = S},;>< .02), Group VHA (t = 2.76, df = 9, p < .05), and Group VHB (t = 2.33, df = 9, p < .05). NS GSR amplitude did not decrease significantly for Group HHC. In summary, the results of the above analysis indicate the 15 consistent habituation of GSR frequency and amplitude for most all of the sensory groups during Habituation Periods One and Two. Between Period Effec§§_ A third analysis compared the mean difference scores obtained from the first and second habituation periods. A mean difference score was computed by obtaining the difference between the mean response magnitude of the first half of trials from.the mean response magnitude of the second half of trials for each period for each response. Although the mean difference score showed a decrease from Habituation Period One to Habituation Period TWO, this difference was not statistically significant. 16 Discussion The present study was designed to study the intrasensory and intersensory discrimination of form. The overall pattern of results for each of the sensory groups confirms the hypothesis that habituation is more rapid when Ss are presented the same stimulus than when they are presented a different stimulus in Habituation Period Two. The results for the visual-Visual groups are consistent with those of previous research with children and adults which have shown decreases in total fixation time with repeated presentations of the same stimulus (Cantor & Cantor, 196“a, l96“b; Berlyne, 1958). In addition, results of the present study confirm.Ber1yne et al's (1963) findings with adults which indicate habituation of GSR frequency. On the other hand, first fixation tine and average fixation time did not yield evidence of habituation. This finding is in contrast to those found by studies with infant Ss that have demonstrated habituation of first fixation time (MOCall & Kagan, 1967) and average fixation time (Cohen, 1969). In this regard, the habituation results of Group HH followed a sindlar pattern to those for Group VV. Among the various measures of touching time, total touching time was the only one to evidence habituation. GSR frequency and amplitude habituated during both Habituation Periods. A question of special interest concerns intersensory integration of form; i.e., that condition during which §s were presented a visual stimulus in Habituation Period One and a haptic stimulus during Habituation Period TWO. As indicated by habituation of GSR frequency and amplitude, intersensory integration of form was demonstrated. l7 Mbreover, during Habituation Period One there was significant decrement in total fixation time with repeated stimulus presentation. Group VHB had a similar decrement in mean touching time during Habituation Period TWO. These results are in line with Sokolov's theory of habituation, which suggests that a "neural model" of a stimulus event is constructed with repeated presentations of that stimulus event. Sokolov's theory was primarily proposed to account for the response consequences of the intrasensory presentation of stimuli, where the second.stimu1us remains in the same sensory modality as the first stimulus. On the other hand, the results of the present study suggest the application of Sokolov's theory to the intersensory condition as well. Note, however, in the present study, §s in the intersensory conditions all experienced a change in sensory modality during Habituation Period TWO, but for one half of these §s (Group VHA) the perimeter of the stimulus was the same while fer the other half (Group VHB) it was different. Thus, Se in Group VHB received both a change in sensory modality giving rise to the stimulus and a change in a physical characteristic of the stimu— lus. Since habituation was slower for Se in Group VHB, it appears likely that at least two processes may be involved in the intersensory integration of form: (1) the formation of the form.model from.one sensory modality through_exploration of the form; and (2) transfer of the form model from one sensory modality by integrating stimulus information from.the two sensory inputs. Two alternative hypotheses concerning the nature of sensory integration have been advanced. Piaget and Inhelder (1956), in the first of these, proposed that cognitive factors function not only to l8 construct the form percept, but also function to convert a haptic percept to a visual percept. Their model suggests that information is integrated before before it is stored. Nevertheless, this hypothesis remains to be empirically verified. Connolly and Jones (1970) propose an.infbrnation.systems hypothesis to account for developmental changes in intersensory perception as well as the assymetrical differences in performance on intersensory tasks. This model suggests that information obtained from the various sensory modalities is held in short-term storage systems of which the visual storage system.is the most efficient. On the other hand, transfer of information between modalities is dependent upon information held in an integrated longhternlstorage center. Further, they postulate that information is recoded between modalities before conndtting it to a short-term memory store. For exanple, in their studies of visual and kinesthetic matching (Connolly & Jones, 1970; Jones & Connolly, 1970), they presume that visual sen— sory input is recoded into a kinesthetic code (visual—kinesthetic matching) and held in a kinesthetic memory store before being repro- duced kinesthetically. The reverse process occurs in a kinesthetic— ViSual matching task. Thus, the worse performance observed fer the visual—kinesthetic task over the kinesthetic-visual task may be attributed to the increased efficiency of the visual system (due to 'rehersal') while the kinesthetic memory system.suffers temporal decay. Although their hypothesis adequately accounts for the visual-kinesthetic integration, it fails to account for results reported by others for visualehaptic integration. Several investigators (Blank, Altman, & Bridger, 1968; Lobb, 1965; Eastman, 1967) obtained better performance 19 on visual-haptic tasks in children and adults than on hapticavisual tasks [Although Cashdan (1968) and Gaydos (1956) found the opposite to be true with adults.]. Extending the Connolly and Jones model to account for the results for the visualahaptic tasks, leads to the conclusion that the haptic storage system is more efficient than the visual storage system. Such a conclusion contradicts Connolly and Jones' assumptions concerning the functioning of the visual storage system; thus, their explanation of intersensory integration seems questionable, or at best of limited application. There are additional problems with previous studies of intersensory integration; specifically, gathering information within.one modality about the shape of the object, stimulus complexity, and the cognitive function of integrating this infOrmation. Piaget and Inhelder (1956) found evidence of intersensory integration (visual-haptic) in three— yearhold children using very sinple kinds of noneeuclidean forms. Their results raise the possibility that previous studies have con— founded stimulus information gathering ability with the ability to integrate stinulus information. Abravanel (1968) and Ruzskaya.and ZinChenko (Zaporozhets, 1965) have reported that the exploratory responses to euclidean forms presented haptically and visually in three—and—fourbyearhold children were crude and precluded the knowledge of the complete shape of the form. Therefore, intersensory integration may be present at a younger age, but may be limited by the inefficient nature of the exploratory responses. Another factor affecting intersensory integration is memory and its related effect on the rate at which a 'model' of the stimulus is 20 formed. It nay take longer for younger Ss to form a model of the stink ulus than older Ss. One finding relating to this question is that the use of a simultaneous matching procedure results in fewer errors than a successive matChingjprocedure (Blank & Bridger, 196“; Birch & Lefford, 1963). This difference is probably due to the requirements of the successive matching task that §_remember the standard stimulus through many comparisons of test stimuli. Secondly, the previous methods used may not have allowed.§_sufficient tine to form a complete 'model' of the fbruu therefore resulting in errors in identification due to the method employed. Partial support of this hypothesis is derived from studies using a simultaneous matching procedure (Blank & Bridger, 196“) or a discrimination learning task (Blank et a1, 1968) in comparison with.studies using a successive Hatching procedure (Birch.& Lefford, 1963). This difference could be due to an increased exposure to the relevant stimulus by the simultaneous matching and discrimination learning methods employed. Nevertheless, the comparison is inconclusive due to the nonequivalence of stimulus complexity employed in these studies. In the present study, analysis of the effects of the task on the dependent response measures indicated consistent habituation of GSR frequency and amplitude while total fixation and touching times habituated inconsistently. Thus, the present results support a multiple response recording strategy (Fitzgerald & MOKinney, 1970). LIST OF REFERENCES 21 LIST OF REFERENCES Abravanel, Eugene The development of intersensory patterning with regard to selected spatial dimensions. ‘ Monographs ‘of the Society ’ for Research in Child Development, 1968, ‘33 (9, Whole No. 118) . Bartoshuk, A. K. Response decrement with repeated elicitation of human neonatal cardiac acceleration to sound. ' Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psycholcgy, 1962, ‘5_5_, 9-13. Berlyne, D. E. The influence of complexity and novelty in visual figures on orienting responses. Journal of Experimental Psycho— log, 1958, 55, 289—296. Berlyne, D. E., Craw, M. A., Salapatek, P. H., 8: Lewis, J. L. Novelty, complexity, incongruity, extrinsic motivation and the GSR. Lama of Experimental Psychology, 1963, _6_6_, 560—567. Birch, H. G. , & Lefford, A. Intersensory development in children. ‘ Monographs of the Society for Research in Child DeVelopment, 1963, E (5, Whole No. 89). Blank, Marion, Altman, L. Doris, & Bridger, W. H. Cross—modal transfer of form discrimination in preschool children. ’ PsyChonomic Science, 1968, lg, 51-52. Blank, Marion, & Bridger, W. H. Cross-modal transfer in nursery-school children. ' Journal of ComparatiVe and Ppysiological 'Pg’ycholOgy, 196“, 58, 277-282. Bridger, W. H. Sensory habituation and discrimination in the human neonate. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1961, 117, 991-996. Cantor, J. H., & Cantor, G. N. Observing behavior in children as a function of stimulus novelty. Child Developmeg, 196“, _3_5_, 119-128. (a) Cantor, J. H., 8: Cantor, G. N. Children's observing behavior as related to amount and recency of stimulus familiarization. ‘JOurnal of ' ExperiJental‘Child PsychOlOgy, 196“, _l_, 2“1—2“7. (b) Cashdan, S. Visual and haptic form discrimination under conditions of successive stimulation. ‘ Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1968, _7_§, 215—218. T‘ 22 Cohen, Leslie B. Alternative measures of infant attention. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Santa.MOnica, March 1969. Connolly, Kevin, & Jones, Bill A developmental study of afferent— reafferent integration. British Journal of PsychOlOgy, 1970, Corah, N. L., & Stern, J. A. Stability and adaptation of some measures of electrodermal activity in children. Journal of Experimental PsycholOgy, 1963, 65, 80-85. I Dodd, Cornelia, & Lewis, Michael The magnitude of the OR in children as a function of changes in color and contour. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1969, 8, 296—305. Eastman, R. Relative cross-modal transfer of a form discrimination. ngchonomic Science, 1967, 2, 197—198. Engen, Trygg, & Lipsitt, Lewis P. Decrement and recovery of responses to olfactory stimuli in the human neonate. ’Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1965, 52, 312—316. Fisher, G. Lawrence, & Fisher, Barbara E. Differential rates of GSR habituation to pleasant and unpleasant sapid stimuli. ‘JOurnal of Experimental Psychology, 82, 339-3“2, 1969. Fitzgerald, H. E., & McKinney, J. P. (Eds) Developmental_psy§hologyz studies in human development. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1970. Gaydos, H. F. Intersensory transfer in the discrimination of form. ‘ American Journal of Psychology, 1956, 69, 107-110. Grossman, H. J., & Greenberg, N. H. Psychosomatic differentiation in infancy. I. autonomic activity in the newborn. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1957, 12, 293—306. Jones, Bill, & Connolly, Kevin Memory effects in crossemodal matching. British Journal of Psycholggy, 1970, 61, 267—270. Kimmel, H. D., & Goldstein, A. J. Retention of habituation of the GSR to visual and auditory stimulation. Journal of Experimental “PsychOlogy, 1967, 13, “Cl—“0“. Koepke, Jean.E., & Pribram, Karl H. Habituation of GSR as a fUnction of stimulus duration and spontaneous activity. Journal of 'Epmparative and Ppysiological Psychology, 1966,‘§l, ““2—“H8. Lewis, Michael, & Goldberg, Susan Perceptual-cognitive development in infancy: a generalized expectancy model as a function of the mother- infant interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1969, 15, 81—97. 23 Lewis, M., Goldberg, S., & Rausch, M; Attention distribution as a function of novelty and familiarity. Psychonomic Science, 1967, 1, 227-228. Lewis, Michael, Kagan, Jerome, & Kalafat, John Patterns of fixation in the young infant. Child Developmepp, 1966, i1) 331—3“1. Lobb, H. “Vision versus touch in form.discrimination.‘ Canadian.Journal of PpycholOgy, 1965, 19, 175-187. McCall, Robert B. Magnitude of discrepancy and habituation rate as governors of the attentional response of infants to new stimuli. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Los Angeles, March 1969. McCall, R. B., & Kagan, J. Stimulus—schema discrepancy and attention in the infant. Journal of Experimental Child PsyOhOlggy, 1967, 5, 381—390. Piaget, Jean, & Inhelder, Barbel The child's conception of space. New York: Humanities Press, 1956; Pick, H. L. Jr., Pick, A. D., & Klein, R. E. Perceptual integration in children.. In Lipsett, L. P., & Spiker, C. C. (Eds.), Advances in ' Child behaVior and development, III. New York: Academic Press, 1967, Pp. 192—223. Porges, S. W., & Fitzgerald, H. E. An inexpensive method of programming stimuli using magnetic tape. Ppychophysiology, in press. Saaymen, G., Ames, E. W., & MOffet, A. Response to novelty as an indicator of visual discrimination in the human infant. Journal ' of Experimental Child Psychology, 196“, 1, 189-198. Schaffer, H. R., & Parry, M. H. Perceptualémotor behaviour in infancy as a function of age and stimulus familiarity. British JOurnal ‘ of Psycholpgy, 1969, 69, 1-9. Sokolov, Ye N. Pgrception and the conditioned reflgx, New York: MacMillian, 1963 . Zaporozhets, A. V; The development of perception in the preschool child. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), European research in cognitive development.‘ Monographs of the Society for ResearCh in Child "DeVelopment, 1965,‘39,(2, Whole NO. 100), 82—101. 2“ Footnotes lThe proportioneofetrials—to—habituationsscore was used in order that the differential rates of habituation would not be confounded by individual differences in the number of trials to habituation. Individual differences in habituation rates were controlled by using eaCh,§fs rate of habituation in Habituation Period One. 2A twoeway analysis of variance (Winer, 1962) was performed to assess the effects of sex of §_on performance over trials given in Habituation Period One and Habituation Period Two. The analysis of variance was computed on the mean response magnitude for each dependent measure during Habituation Periods One and TWO. In the analysis of variance, sex (2) was one factor with repeated.measures on a second factor, trials (2). The results of the analysis of variance for Habituation Period One indicated a significant sex main effect for first touching time (F 9.“3, df = 1/18, p ( .01) and average touching time (F = 7.91, df 1/18, p < .025) for Group HH. Females explored the stimulus longer on their first touch (t = 3.“2, df = 38, p ( .01) and explored the stimulus longer on each touch (t = 3.3“, df = 38, p.( .01). The results of the analysis fer Habituation Period TWO showed a significant sex x trials interaction effect for first fixation time (F = 7.81, df = 1/8, p ( .025) for Group VVB. First fixation time showed a significant response decrement (t = 3.“2, df = “, p ( .05) for females in Group VVB, but not fOr males in the same group. 3The number of fixations was recorded and analyzed. The results of the analysis of variance and non-directional §_tests failed to reveal any significant differences. This finding confirms the results of Lewis, Kagan, and Kalafat (1966) with infants indicating no differences in 25 number of fixations. ”All Se in the haptic sensory conditions during Habituation Periods One and TWO traced the complete perimeter of the stimulus presented. It was noted through informal observation that 5s gave GSRs when contact was made with the acute angles of each stimulus during a haptic trial. These GSRs did decrease in magnitude, but did not completely disappear. These observations imply that §_was using the acute angles and their location as cues to aid them.in discovering the Shape of the stimulus and in discriminating between stimuli. These observations and the proposed hypothesis suggest future areas to be investigated. my 2 0 1970 llIIIIUUIWIll!”lllllUllNlllllllllllllllNHIIIIHIIIHHI 31293 03037 9758