1+1 National Library

of Canada
Bibliothèque nationale
du Canada
Acquisitions and Direction des acquisitions et
Bibliographie Services Branch des services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395, r'.Je Wellington
Ottawa, Ontario Orawa (Ontario)
K1A ON4 K1A ON4

NOTICE AVIS

The quality of this microform is La qualité de cette microforme

heavUy dependent upon the dépend grandement de la qualita
quality of the original thesis de la thèse soumise au
submitted for microfilming. microfilmage. Nous avons tout
Every effort has been made to fait pour assurer une qualité
ensure the highest quality of supérieure de reproduction.
reproduction possible.

If pages are missing, contact the S'il manque des pages, veuillez
university which granted the communiquer avec l'université
degree. qui a conféré le grade.

Some pages may have indistinct La qualité d'impression de

print especially if the original certaines pages peut laisser à
pages were typed with a poor désirer, surtout si les pages
typewriter ribbon or if the originales ont été
university sent us an inferior dactylographiées à l'aide d'un
photocopy. ruban usé ou si l'université nous
a fait parvenir une photocopie de
qualité inférieure.

Reproduction in full or in part of La reproduction, même partielle,

this microform is governed by de cette microforme est soumise
the Canadian Copyright Act, à ;a Loi canadienne sur le droit
R.S.C. 1970, c. C-30, and d'auteur, SRC 1970, c. C-30, et
subsequent amendments. ses amendements subséquents.

Cana_a
d···
•
Do the Deaf "See" Better? Effects of
Deafness on Visuospatial Skills

Charlene Chamberlain
School of Communication Sciences and Disorders

•
McGill University, Montreal
August, 1994

A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research

in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science

© Charlene Chamberlain, 1994

'.
~+I
National Ubrary Bibliothèque nationale
of Canada du Canada
Acquisitions and Direction des acquisitions et
Bibliographie Services Branch des services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington
Ottawa. Ontario Ottawa (Ontario)
K1A ON4 K1A ON4

TIIE AUTHOR HAS GRANTED AN L'AUTEUR A ACCORD~' UNE LICENCE

IRREVOCABLE NON-EXCLUSIVE IRREVOCABLE ET NON EXCLUSIVE
LICENCE ALLOWING THE NATIONAL PERMETTANT A LA BffiLIOTHEQUE
LffiRARY OF CANADA TO NATIONALE DU CANADA DE
REPRODUCE, LOAN, DISTRIBUTE OR REPRODUIRE, PRETER, DISTRIBUER
SELL COPIES OF HISIHER TIIESIS BY OU VENDRE DES COPIES DE SA
ANY MEANS AND IN ANY FORM OR THESE DE QUELQUE MANIERE ET
FORMAT, MAKING TInS TIIESIS SOUS QUELQUE FORME QUE CE SOIT
AVAILABLE TO INTERESTED POUR METTRE DES EXEMPLAIRES DE
PERSONS. CETTE THESE A LA DISPOSITION DES
PERSONNE INTERESSEES.

TIIE AUTHOR RETAINS OWNERSHIP L'AUTEUR CONSERVE LA PROPRIETE

OF THE COPYRIGHT IN HISIHER DU DROIT D'AUTEUR QUI PROTEGE
THESIS. NEITIIER nIE THESIS NOR SA THESE. NI LA THESE NI DES
SUBSTANTIAL EXTRACTS FROM IT EXTRAITS SUBSTANTŒLS DE CELLE-
MAY BE PRINTED OR OTHERWISE CI NE DOIVENT ETRE IMPRIMES OU
REPRODUCED WlTHOUT HISIHER AUTREMENT REPRODUITS SANS SON
PERMISSION. AUTORISATION.

ISBN 0-612-00010-9

Canad!i
• Abstract
Deaf people who know and use Arnerican Sign Language, ASL,
outperform normaliy hearing people on certain visuospatial tests.
This enhanced visuospatial performance is interpreted as being the
result of knowing and using a visual and spatial grammar. An
alternative explanation is that this enhanced visuospatial performance
is due to sensory compensation, thelt is, a heavy reliance on vision
throughout development due to deafness. The present study tested
this alternative explanation. Eight congenitally and profoundly deaf
adults (4 women.4 men) who did not know sign language and eight
normaUy hearing c.."Ontrols (4 women, 4 men) were tested on four

• . visuospatial tasks requiring mental rotation in two and three

dimensions (Card Rotation, Paper Ft'rm Board, Space Relations and
Spatial Visualization). Subjects were matched for age, sex, and
education. Spatial solution strategy and handedness were also assessed.
Results showed that both groups were significantly faster and more
accurate on the two-dimensional tasks than on the three-dimensional
tasks. AdditionaUy, hearing women and deaf men were significantly
faster than the deaf women over aU tasks. The two groups used similar
solution strat~gy for aU tasks except Spatial Visualization, where more
deaf subjects used a mental rotation strategy. These findings suggest
that sensory compensation per se does not lead to enhanced
visuospatial skill.

•
 ii

• Résumé
Les personnes sourdzs qui connaissent et utilisent la langue des
signes américaine, ASL, ont une meilleure performance lors de
certains tests d'habileté visuo-spatiale que le personnes entendantes.
Cette performance accrue est interprété coinrne ré'sultant de la
connaissance et de l'utilisation d'une grammaire visuelle et spatiale.
Elle peut aussi être perçue comme étant le résultat d'une compensation
sensorielle, c'est-à-dire que, lors de son développement la personne
sourde dépend principalement du canal visuel puisque le canal auditif
est inutilisable à cause de la surdité. La présente étude a pour but de
vérifier cette seconde explication. Huit adultes sourds profonds de
naissance (4 femmes, 4 hommes) qui ne connaissent pas la langue des
signes et huit adultes entendants (4 femmes, 4 hommes) ont été
évalués lors de quatre activités visuo-spatiales nécessitant une rotation

•
mentale à deux ou trois dimensions (Card Rotation, Paper Form Board,
Space Relations et Spatial Visualization). Les sujets ont été appariés en
fonction de l'âge, du sexe et du profil scolaire. Les stratégies de solution
spatiales ainsi que la préférence manuelle (gaucher ou droitier) ont
aussi été évaluées. Les résultats montrent que les deux groupes sont
significativement plus rapides et plus précis lors de tâches
biè-imensionnelles que lors de tâches tridimensionnelles. De plus, les
femmes entendantes ainsi que les hommes sourds sont
significativement plus rapides que le femmes sourdes dans l'en.,~mble
des tâches effectuées. Les deux groupes utilisent des stratégies de
solution semblables dans toutes les tâches à l'exception du test Spatial
Visualization, pour lequel une plus grande proportion de sujets sourds
ont utilisé une stratégie de rotation mentale. Ces résultats semblent
indiquer que la compensation sensorielle en tant que telle ne conduit
pas à une meilleure habileté visuo-spatiale.

•
 iii

• Ackuowledgments

First,I thank my committee membersi my advisor, Dr. Rachel

Mayberry, Dr. Katherine Schultz (University of Winnipeg) and Dr.
Jamie MacDougaIl for aIl their input and feedback. Special th'\nks to
Rachf~l for aIl her de tailed and careful reading of the many drafts of this
thesis and generous feedback and discussions at every stage of the
tbinking about this project as weIl as during the clinical part of this
degree. 1 would like to express my sincere appreciation to Katherine for
providing me with aIl the test stimuli and materials for this project,
guidance on statistical analysis and generous feedback on the writing of
the thesis. 1 feel espécially grateful to have these two strong women,
flot only as teachers and guides, but as mentors and friends.
The research in this thesis was partially supported by a McGill
Faculty of Medicine Summer Research Bursary, as weIl as grant given

• ta Dr. R. Mayberry by the National Institute on Deafness and Other

Communication Disorders (DC00231).
Special thanks ta my aIl my classmatE's for lengthy discussions of
every possible, conceivable, imaginable detaii of graduate school (and
the rest of life) most espedaIlYi Diane, Paul, Cathy, Margret, Donna,
Karen and Lori. An extra special thanks to Neil for bis computer
wizardry, and Daniel for translating the abstract.
Finally,I have two special familles to thank for aIl their love and
support. First, my biological familYi Josh, Chelsea, Evan, Ethel, David,
Brenda, Brian, Madison, Lee, Joyce and Winnie. Second, my spiritual
family, who will remain anonymous.

•
 iv

• Table of Contents

Abstract. .i
Résumé ii
Acknowledgements .iii
Table of Contents .iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
List of Appendixes viii
INTRODUCTION 1
Circumstances of Deafness 3

• Language Experience of Deaf People

Deaf and Hearing Native Signers
Deaf Non-Native Signers
4
6
7
Deaf Non-Signers ("Oral" Deaf) 7
Sensory Compensation and Visual Perceptual Skills 8
Spatial Cognitiorl 13
Definition of Spatial Ability 13
History of Spatial Ability Research 14
Factors Related to Individual Differences 15
Sign Language Usage and Spatial Cognition 18
Sensory Compensation and Spatial Cognition 33
Pre&ent Study 34

•
 v

• METHOD
Subjects
37
37
Stimuli and Materials 39
Background Measures 39

Visuospatial Tasks 40

Solution Strategy 42

Testing Equipment 43
Procedure 43
RESULTS 46

Background Measures 46

Performance Accuracy 48

• Performance Response Time

Solution Strategy
Su..11l.Illary
51
54
58
DISCUSSION 59
REFERENCES 69
APPENDIX A 75
APPENDIX B 81
APPENDIX C 83

•
 vi

• Table 1.
List of Tables
Major Causes of Deafness 5
Table 2. Subject Characteristics 38
Table 3. Means and Standard Deviations on Background
Measures 47
Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Visuospatial
Performance Accuracy 49
Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations for Visuospatial
Performance Rt!spC'nse Time .s2
Table 6. Number of Subjects Reporting each Strategy on each
Task 55

• Table 7. Percentage of Deaf and Hearing Subjects Reporting

Rotation or Non-Rotation Strategy on each Task 57

•
 vii

• Figure 1.
List of Figures
Interaction between Sex, IIearing Status en Card Rotation
and Form Board 50
Figure 2. Response time interaction betwE:en Sex and Hearing
Status 53

•
 viii

• Appendix A.
List of Appendixes
Background Measures and Questionnaires 75
Appendix B. Visuospatial Tasks 81
AppendixC. Spatial Solution Strategy Questionnaire 83

•
 1

• INTRODUCTION

It has always been apparent that human beings a

le~rn
great deal during infancy and childhood and that the results of
this learning often continue to affect behavior throughout the
remainder of the life span (p. 239, Beach & Jaynes, 1954).

Philosophers and scientists as far back as Aristotle have observed

and studied the effects of early experience on later adult behaviour
(Beach & Jaynes, 1954). In the middle of the 20th century, Hebb (1949)
first proposed a general neuropsychological theory of the role of early
experience (referred to as "learning" in his work) in the final
organization of adult behaviour (Spigelman, 1968). AlI behaviour is
influenced by this early leaming according to Hebb (1949), who argues

• for it~ role in perception, learning, pain, hunger, emotional

disturbances and the growth and decline of intelligence. Clearly, early
experience has a tremendous effect on later behaviour.
One of the most common approaches to the question of how
early experience effects later functioning has been to study the effects of
early sensory deprivation on later adult functioning. Vision has been
the sense modality that has received the most attention for a variety of
reasons. The generally devastating effects of early visual deprivation
have been weIl documented (Greenough, Black & Wallace, 1987; Sacks,
1993) and will not be reviewed here.
Another approach to the question has been to study the effects of
sensory deprivation in one modality, such as deafness, on the

•
 2

• functioning of a remaining intact modality, such as vision

(MacDougall, 1969, 1971). The rationale is that the intact modality may
compensate for the damaged or deprived modality. This
phenomenon, variously called "intermodal compensation" or
"sensory compensation" has also been observed and studied for
centuries, with documented writings by the 18th century French
philosopher Diderot who observed the enhanced tactile and auditory
sensitivity of a blind man (Burnstine, Greenough & Tees, 1984).
In keeping with this line of research, this thesis examines the
possible effects of deafness on one aspect of higher level cognitive
functioning -- mental rotation ability, which is a component

• visuospatial skill. Recent research has reported that deaf people who
use American 5ign Language, A5L, outperform normally hearing
people on certain visuospatial tasks. This enhanced visuospatial
performance is interpreted as being the result of knowing and using a
visual and spatial grammar. An alternative explanation is that the
reported enhanced performance is due te sensory compensation, that
is, heavy reliance on vision throughout development due to deafness.
The present study examines this alternative explanation.
In order to provide the background necessary for this study, the
literature review will be divided into five sections. First, the
circumstances of deafness are discussed. When and how children
become deaf and the severity of their deafness affects the resulting
language experience of deaf people and, hence, are germane to the

•
 3

• present study. Second, sensory compensation studies that focus

primarily on deafness are reviewed. Third, a brief summary of spatial
cognition research and concepts is presented in order to set the context
for the fourth section -- a detailed discussion of the experimental
research on deafness, sign language usage and spatial cognition. The
final and fifth section is a brief introduction to the present study.

Circumstances of Deafness
The circumstances of deafness are very complex. There are
many genetic and adventitious causes of deafness, both congenital and
occurring later in life. Additionally, a hearing loss can range from only

• a minimalloss to a loss so profound so as to be beyond the limits of the

testing equipment. The focus of this thesis is on the effects of early
experience on later behaviour, therefore only deafness that occurs early
in life will be discussed.
Recent demographic studies of deaf children in Canada from
birth to 21 years confinned the overall incidence of deafness to be
approximately 1 in 1000 people (MacDougall, 1987, 1988). The age of
onset for the majority of deaf children is birth (67.4%) and for an
additional 22.4% the hearing loss occurred between birth and two years
of age. Only about 10% of deafness occurred after age 3.
Table 1 shows the most common reported causes of deafness.
The "other" category causes included childhood diseases such as
measles, mumps, cytomegalovirus, or maternaI infection. In over fifty

•
 4

• Table 1
Major Causes of Deafness

Etiology Percentage

Unknown 51.3
Genetic 16.8
MatErnaI Rubella 9.1
Meningitis 6.1
Otitis Media 6.0
Trauma at birth 4.9

• Other 5.8

Note: Adapted from MacDougall (1987) with permission.

•
 5

• percent of deaf children the cause of the deafness is reported as

unknown. Additionally, close to 70% of deaf children have no family
history of deafness (MacDougall, 1987). For the majority of families,
the arrivaI of a deaf child is completely unexpected and an undoubtedly
devastating occurrence.
Because spontaneous speech occurs at between 60 and 70 dB, any
hearing loss greater than 70 dB bilaterally prevents a child from
spontaneously acquiring spoken language. Fifty-five percent of deaf
children have hearing.losses that range from severe (71-90 dB), to
greater than no dB (MacDougall, 1990).
Another important issue to consider is that many types of

• deafness are accompanied by other deficits. For example, maternaI

rubella can also cause visual and neurological problems in addition to
causing deafness. Therefore, etiology is an important factor to take into
consideration if assessing visual skills of deaf subjects.

Deafness and Language Experience

Deafness poses many challenges for the deaf child, perhaps the
greatest being acquiring a fluent and naturallanguage. This is so
because less than ten percent of deaf children are born into deaf
families who use a natural sign language such as American Sign
Language (ASL). A natura! sign language is one that has evolved over
generations of use by deaf people. This is in contrast with sign systems

•
 6

• that have been invented for educational purposes. More than 90% of
deaf children are bom into hearing families who do not know or use
all.Y type of sign language. This has a tremendous impact on the
language development of the deaf child in either spoken language or
sign language (Mayberry, 1992). It is beyond the scope of this thesis to
discuss in detail the circumstances of language development and the
deaf child. However, since the early language experience of deaf
subjects is the main criterion for selection in the studies to be reviewed,
it is important to describe the various language experiences facing deaf
children and their families.
Deaf and Hearing Native 5igners

• Both deaf and hearing children bom into deaf signing families
spontaneously acquire A5L from birth in a manner completely
analogous to hearing children's spontaneous acquisition of a spoken
language. First, the child begins at the sign babbling stage, moving to a
one-sign stage, then a two-sign stage. Next the child begins to acquire
the visually and spatially complex morphology and grammar of A5L.
It is not until five or six years of age that the language is completely
acquired (Newport & Meier, 1985; Pettito & Marenette, 1991). This
spontaneous acquisition of A5L provides evidence that congenital
deafness alone does not affect the child's language learning ability
(Mayberry,1992). The hearing children raised in these deaf signing
families will, by virtue of their intact ability to hear, also spontaneously

•
 7

• acquire the spoken language of the environment through their

exposure to other hearing children and adults.
Deaf Non-Native Signers
Deaf non-native signers is the most heterogenous group of aIl to
be discus3ed. These were deaf children, who were born into hearing
families that did not know or use sign language, and generally they did
not begin acquiring sign language until they entered a school for the
deaf. Entrance into this type of school happened as young as four years
or as late as adolescence. Not acquiring sign language until adolescence
was the result of initially being educated in an "oral" program as a
young child. Only after the child failed to learn spoken language were

• they transferred to a school with other deaf signing children. This does
not imply that ASL was the language of instruction in the school. In
fact, ASL (and any type of gesture) was historically banned from the
classroom for many years (Lane, 1984). It is through exposure to deaf
signing children on the school yard and in the dormitories after school
hours where these children began to acquire sign language. The
consequences of this situation was that these children were actually
acquiring their first language in late childhood or early adolescence.
This variable schedule of first language acquisition has a pronounced
influence on later sign language processing (Mayberry, 1993, 1994).

•
 8

• Deaf Non-Signers (or "Oral" Deaf)

Oral deaf individuals are also a group 01 deaf children born into
hearing families who did not know or u~ any type of sign language.
However, these children were more successful ir't acquiring spoken
language skills than other deaf children and werf therefore integrated
into l"egular schools with hearing chilchen.. Four factors most
commonly associated with successful development 1)f spoken language
skills in profoundly deaf children were doc.':llllented by Geers and
Moog (1987). First, intense parental i~volvement in speech and
language therapy at an early age is very impdrtant. Second, at least
sorne minimal residual hearing that càn be successfully aided is

• required. Third, aboV'c average non-verbal intelligence and, fourth,

above average sodoeconomic status "f the family contribute tothe
child's success (Geers & Moog, 1987).
It should be obvious that congenitally deaf children, due ta their
profound deafness, must rely extens~vely on vision throughout their
lives. Not only to leam about and move through their environments .
as a normally hearing child must, but aIl forms of communication the
deaf child is exposed to, rely heavily on the visual modality. Does this
early, extensive visual experience have long-term effects on
visuoperceptual and visuospatial skills? In order to address this
question adequately, it is necessary to fust describe sensory
compensation, visual perceptual skills and spatial cognition, and
review the factors that affect them.

•
 9

• Sensory Compensation and Visual Perceptual Skills

The idea of "sensory compensation" has a long philosophical
history. Bumstine, Greenough and Tees (1984) referred cO it as
"intermodal compensation" and defined it as a .....behavi.oral
phenomenon in which capacities emerge in an intact modality which
are superior or unique to individuals who have had damage or
deprivation in other modalities" (p. 4). Although the
neurophysiological underpinnings of the possible mechanisms will
not he a focus in this thesis, two suggestive explanations for this
phenomena have been proposed (Burnstine, Greenough & Tees, 1984).
The first, compensatory hypertrophy, is when additional capacity

• would be added by reorganization of neural tissup within the intact

. modality. The second, functional reallocation, would be when neural
tissue-from. one;modality is reorganized to be used by another
modality, for example if the auditory cortex were to process visual
information (Bumstine, Greenough & Tees, 1984).
Bumstine etai. (1984) summarized experimental studies of
sensory compensa~on in humans dating back to 1879. The results of
the studies are contradictory and somewhat confusing. Approximately
half of the studies found evidence for sensory coI"lpensation, one-
quarter did not while a final one-quarter actually showed sensory
deficits (Burnstine" Greenough & Tees, 1984).
The majority of studies from 1879 to 1981100ked at various
auditory and tactile sensitivities of blind subjects, both children and

•
 10

• adults. In many of the studies reviewed, the results are not clearl
mostly because subject characteristics such as severity of nodality
deprivation (deafness or blindness) and age of onset of the deprivation
are not always provided. Morenver, many of the studies used very
small sample sizes and some only one subject (Burnstine, Gr~enough

& Tees, 1984).

Only three of the 34 studies reviewed by Burnstine et al.

inc1uded deaf subjects and another four studied subjects who wereboth
deaf and blind. Thus, the possibility of sensory compensation in deaf
subjectS has not been extensively studied. In one study, four groups of
children, normal, blind, deaf and aphasie, belween the ages 11 and 13,

• were compared on their ability for "discrimination of rhythmic

vibratory pattern on fingertips" (Rosenstein, 1957). The hypothesis was
that since rhythmic perception is a form of time perception, perhaps it
would be dependent upon auditory experience. Thus, four groups
were compared: two hearing groups, blind and normal, and t\\70 "non-
hearing groups" (sie), deaf and aphasie. Results showed that blind
performed better than the three other groups on the tactile rhythmic
perception. Blind and normal subjects imprvved with repeated trials
but deaf and aphasie children did no t,. thereby suggesting that auditory
experience contributes to the hnprovement of rhythmic
discrimination.
Deaf and hearing children belween the ages of three and seven
have been compared on "audit('lry and visual temporal-pattern

•
 11

• reprcduction" on a tasked which used a telegraph key to copy temporal

patterns created by a flashing light or an above-threshold tone (Sterritt,
Camp & Lipman, 1966). Hearing d'Jldren performed better than deaf
children on. both modalities. Deaf children were better with visual
than auditory stimuli, but their performance was not superior to
hearing children.
Two experiments compared two groups of deaf and hearing
children on a "cutaneous form sensitivity" task (Blank & Bridger,
1966). The first group, deaf and hearing children between the ages of
three and nve, were compared on their ability to transfer concepts such
as "something" versus "nothïng" (stimuli present or absent) from the

• visual modality to the tactile modality. The second group, deaf and
hearing children between the ages of five and six, were tested on their
ability to use the number concepts "one" and "two" for visual and
tactile problem solving. Results of the first experiment showed that
the younger children did equaIly poody, whlle the older children did
equally weIl, suggesting the conceptual transfer from one modality to
another is age dependant rather than auditory dependent. In the
second experiment, both groups were equally able to use number
concepts to solve problems, and in addition, the deaf subjects were
more proficient in the tactile modality (Blank & Bridger, 1966).
To summarize, these studies show a range of performance for
deaf children depending on the tasks and modality employed.
Generalizability of the results is difficult for this reason. Further, none

•
 12

• of the studies reported the communication modality of the deaf

children, which means that sorne of the children may have been
native signers, non-native signers or completely oral deaf which may
have influenced the results of the studies.
Apart from the sensory compensation hypothesis (which does
not seem to have strong experimental support to date), there are two
other hypotheses that have been discussed in the literature pertaining
to deaf people and visual skills (Parasnis, 1983). The first hypothesis is
the perceptual deficit hypothesis, which suggests that deficits in one
sense modality negatively affect development and organization of
other sense modalities. The se~ond hypothesis is referred to as the

• experiential deficiency hypothesi.s, which posits that the language

impairments associated with deafness limits the child's experience
with the world and therefore that she or he is unable to perform as
adequately as a normally hearing child (Parasnis, 1983).
These hypotheses have emerged from the observation of deaf
children's performance on many different types of non-verbal tests that
have been used to the determine educational potential of deaf children.
The underlying hypothesis is that the language deficiencies of deaf
children lead to deficiencies in perceptual and abstract thinking
processes (parasnis, 1983). In fact, there has been much recent evidence
showing that deaf children, as a group, are not deficient in conceptual
and cognitive development (Mayberry, 1992).

•
 13

• The general conclusions of the studies reviewed by Parasnis

(1983) was that on tests that require attending to "whole patterns", deaf
subjects perform better than hearing subjects. For example, this finding
was found on tests such as Marble Board, Pattern Reproduction,
Closure Speed Tests which aIl require the subject to copy patterns or
configurations to that of ones of the experimenter. For tests that
require "analysis of pattern" hearing subjects perform better than deaf
subjects. For example, tests such as Picture Test, Figure-Ground,
Closure Flexibility Test, Group Embedded Figure Test aIl require the
subject to analyze and disambiguate certain key features from the
whole pattern. This pattern of performance suggests that the

• performance of deaf and hearing subjects may vary dependjng on

whether the task employed requires a person to use an analytic or
global perceptual strategy in processing the visual information
(Parasnis,1983).
Does this pattern of performance hold on visuospatial tasks as
weIl as visuoperceptual tasks? Prior to addressing this question, it is
necessary to provide background in spatial cognitive research and
concepts.

Spatial Cognition
Spatial cognition is complex and therefore it is necessary to
provide a brief review of the definition and history of the study of
spatial ability.

•
 14

• Definition of Spatial Ability

Arriving at an explicit d~finition of spatial ability has been an
enduring problem. Spatial ability can be broadly defined as the
"processing of non-linguistic information" or narrowly defined as
performance on a particular spatial test (Eliot & McFarlene Smith,
1983). However, spatial ability is generally defined as skill in
·'...representing, transforming, generating and recalling symbolic, non-
linguistic information" (Linn & Petersen, 1985). Factor analytic studies
have identified two factors within the concept of spatial abilities, spatial
orientation and spatial visualization. Spatial orientation has been
defined as "...the ability to think about those spatial relations i:r which

• the body orientation of the observer is an essential part of the problem"

(Mc.Gee, 1979) while spatial visualization has been defined as "...the
ability to comprehend imaginary movements in three-dimensional
space or the ability to manipulate objects in the imagination" (McGee,
1979).
Within these complex definitional variations, therf: is a
tremendous range of tasks that are defined as "spatial". Researchers
most often narrowly define spatial ability by the tasks they choose to
employ. This definitional specifidty can lead to serious generalization
problems.
History of Spatial Abilities Research
Spatial factors, or abilities, have been studied for over a hundred
years. Studies began with the efforts of late 19th century researchers to

•
 15

• define and test intelligence and its component factors (Eliot &
McFarlene Smith, 1983). Early factor analytic studies of mechanieal and
practical ability suggested a factor in addition to general intelligence
and separate from verbal ability, and referred to this as a 'spatial' factor
(McGee, 1979).
Spatial research during the 20th century has had three different
phases of activity (Eliot & McFarlene Smith, 1983). From the 1900's to
the late 1930's, research focused on whether there was, in fact, a spatial
factor separate from general intelligence. From the late 1930's to early
1960's, researchers tried to determine whether and how spatial factors
differed from each other. The most recent phase, from the early 1960's

• to early 1980's (and continuing to the present), has focused on SJurces

of variance in spatial performance, such as age or sex differences, and
on the relationship of spatial abilities to other complex cognitive
abilities (Eliot & McFarlene Smith, 1983).
Over time, various approaches haye been used to characterize
spatial ability. The oldest is the traditional factor analytic or
psychometrie perspective. The second is the 'differential' perspective
which is used to compare the performance of different populations,
most usually females and males. The third 'cognitive' approach has
been used to try to identify universal processes involved in the
solution of spatial tasks. Finally, the fourth perspective examines the
strategie approaches individuals use to solve spatial iasks (Linn &
Petersen, 1985).

•
 16

• Factors Related to Individual Differences in Spatial Performance

Recent research has extensively examined factors that influence
individual differences in spatial performance, particularly in mental
rotation. This research has focused on three factors, sex, handedness
and familial sinistrality (number of left-handed family members)
(McKeever, 1991) and has implicated solution strategy.
The extent to which biological sex influences performance on
spatial tasks has been extensively studied (for major reviews see
CapIan, MacPherson & Tobin, 1985; Halpern, 1992; Linn & Peterson,
1985; McGee, 1979; Nyborg, 1983). However, findings have not always
been definitive, and often depend on the type of task used to measure

• spatial ability. In general, spatial tasks involving mental rotation have

shown relatively consistent sex differences, with males scoring slightly
higher than females (Halpern, 1992; Maccoby & Jacklin; 1974). The
work studying the underlying reasons for this sex difference has
examined both biological and environmental factors, since biological
sex is completely confounded in this society with factors such as
It••• hormone concentrations, social expectations, power, status,
childbirth experiences, learning histories, to name a fewlt (p. 30,
Halpern, 1992). One particular environmental explanation of this sex
difference focuses on experience. Following even minimal levels of
practice and training on particular mental rotation tasks, the sex related
differences in performance disappears (Chamberlain, 1991; Schultz,
Chamberlain & Moshenko, 1993).

•
 17

• The influence of handedness on spatial ability, although less

firmly established than that of sex, has also been studied in the context
of laterality of cerebral function (McKeever, 1991). Spatial ability is
thought to be a right hemisphere function (Kolb & Whishaw, 1990).
The majority of the population is right-handed and left hemisphere
dominant for language capacity. However, 30-40% of left-handers are
right hemisphere dominant and language capacity is more likely
controIled by the right hemisphere or bilaterally distributed. Such
functional distribution may influence spatial processing. McKeever
(1991) reviewed several studies and summarized that left-handers tend
to score lower than right-handers on a variety of spatial tasks. As weIl,

• there appears to be a sex by handedness L."teraction, whereby left-

handed males and right-handed females have increased spatial
performance relative to right-handed males and left-handed females.
Also as summarized by McKeever (1991), familial handedness,
particularly the number of left-handed family members, also seems to
exert an influence on spatial performance and interacts with the effects
of sex and handedness. Familial sinistrality was associated with better
spatial performance for male right-handers, but not for male non-right-
handers (i.e, both left-handers and ambidextrous). For females,
familial sinistrality was associated with slightly increased performance
by right but not left-handers (McKeever, 1991).
One last factor influencing individual spatial performance is
solution strategy. Research in this area speculates that individuals may

•
 18

be using different strategies to solve the same spatial problems and

therefore a single task could be tapping different abilities across
different people. One study looked at the extent to which solution
strategy influenced performance and found that solution strategy
contributed significantly to performance of mentai rotation tasks
(Schultz, 1991). Performance on Three-Dimensional Spatial
Visualization (Vandenburg & Kuse, 1978) was higher when a mental
rotation dtrategy was used and lower when an analytic strategy was
employed. Likewise, on a spatial orientation task, a mental rotation
strategy was associated with lower scores (Schultz, 1991). Hence, how
people solve spatial tasks may be as important as are the characteristics

• of the individual performing the task.

Sign Language Usage and Spatial Cognition

Because deaf people ÎIl general, and native signers in particular,
represent only a small minority of the population, there are few ~tudies

of spatial cognition in this group. In reviewing these studies, it is

particularly important to examine the specifie groups tested and tasks
employed in order to more fully understand spatial cognition in
signers. In general, these studies explore whether the childhood
experience of acquiring and using a dynamic, visuospatial si~

language influences non-linguistic cognitive skills, such as visual-

spatial perception, memory, and mental transformation ability
(Emmorey, Kosslyn & Bellugi, 1993). These studies have tested various

•
 19

• aspects of spatial cognition, generally using deaf native signers and

hearing native signers as subject groups and hearing non-signers as
controls.
The aspects of spatial cognition that have been tested so far are:
movement detection in peripheral and central space (Neville &
Lawson, 1987a,b,c); tests of non-verbal IQ in deaf signing children
(Bellugi, O'Grady, Lillo-Martin, Hynes, van Hoek, & Corina, 1990); face
recognition, visual imagery, and image transformation (Emmorey,
Hom & Baer, 1990; Emmorey, Kosslyn, Bellugi, 1993); and object
recognition and object location (Bettger, 1992).
First, spatial attention was studied by Neville and Lawson (1987

• a,b,c) and the results of these three studies were summarized in a later
chapter (Neville, 1988). These studies examined movement detection
in both central and peripheral space by deaf native <;igJL~rs (six women
and six men) and hearing native signers (six women and six men) and
non-signing hearing controis (six women and six men). Handedness
was assessed using a self-report measure and aIl subjects were right
handed except for one hearing conn-ol. These three subject groups
were used to determine the separate effects of the early acquisition of
sign language and of being deaf. Separate effects would be
demonstrated if the deaf and hearing native signers performed
similarly (and different from the non-signers); this would mean that
the early experience of sign language acquisition influenced
performance. If the two hearing groups (native signers and non-

•
 20

• signers) perform similarly and different from the deaf signers, then
deafness would be the mediating factor in spatial attention.
In these three studies, the task was designed to test subjects'
ability to detect illusionary motion in both central and peripheral
visual space. The cortical stimulation resulting from periorming the
task (event-related brain potentials, or ERPs), and the performance
accuracy and reaction time were measured. In the first study, normal
hearing adults (non-signers) were tested; the second study tested
congenitally deaf adults who were also native signers; and the third
study tested hearing native signers.
The task in an three studies involved viewing a computer

• monitor with a small, centered white dot as a fixation point. The

stimuli were small white squares presented 18 degrees to the left and
right of the fixation point (peripheral space) or slightly above the
fixation point (central space). In eighty percent of the trials, one of the
single squares was shown for 33 milliseconds (msec) ("standards"). On
twenty percent of the trials, the same single square was shown for 33
msecs, followed immediately by a 33 msec exposure of a square in one
of eight adjacent squares ("targets"). The appearance of the second
square created the illusion of motion along the vertical, diagonal, or
horizontal axes in the direction of the second square. The subjects
pushed a button on the computer key board corresponding to the
movement's direction. Percent correct reaction times were recorded
automatically by the computer. Event-related brain potentials (ERPs)

•
 21

• were measured by placing electrodes on the subject's head over the

regions of the left and right frontal, anterior temporal, temporal,
parietal and occipital lobes. The electrical activation that occurred over
these regions during the tasks was measured.
For the normally hearing, non-signing adults, attention to the
left peripheral space was accompanied by increased activity over the
parietal and temporal regions of the right hemisphere, but no changes
in the left hemisphere or in the occipital lobes. Attention to central
space resulted in bilaterally increased activity over the occipital lobes.
For attention to central space, the general pattern of activity was very
similar for the deaf native signers. For attention to peripheral space,

• however, the amplitudes were several times larger for the deaf subjects
compared to those found for hearing subjects. In addition, for the deaf
subjects, the effects of right and left peripheral space showed
differential activity. That is, deaf subjects showed increased activity
bilaterally over the occipital lobes, which was in contrast to hearing
subjects' lateral activation. Behavioral measures also showed
differences between these groups. The deaf subjects were more accurate
at detection of motion in the right visual field, whereas the hearing
subjects were more accurate in the left visual field (Neville, 1988).
The hearing signers showed patterns of activity for attention to
central space similar to those of both the deaf signers and hearing
controls. However, for attention to peripheral space, there was very
little effect over the occipital lobes. This finding was similar to that for

•
 22

• hearing controls and contrary to that for the deaf signers. This finding
suggests that the increased activity over the occipital lobes for attention
to peripheral space was not related to acquiring sign language from
birth, but was related to auditory deprivation. The hearing native
signers did show a pattern of activity that was similar to deaf signers
and different from the hearing controls. This increased activity over
the left temporal and parietal regions demonstrated a increased left
hemisphere attention to peripheral space for both groups of native
signers (Neville, 1988).
In sum, there are c1early differential neurophysiological effects
on brain organization as a result of the early experience of acquiring

• sign language from birth and the early experience of being deaf from
birth. Are there behavioral concomitants of these neurophysiological
differences?
Behavioral studies of higher order skills have also examined the
possible relationship between early sign experience, deafness and
visuospatial performance. Tests that are commonly used to assess non-
verbal IQ were used to test deaf signing children between the ages of
two and ten years (number of females and males or handedness was
not reported) (Bellugi, O'Grady, Lillo-Martin, Hynes, van Hoek, &
Corina, 1990). Only summary information was reported and no control
group of hearing children was tested. The performance of the deaf
children was graphically compared to the norms published for the

•
 23

• various tests. The information is suggestive and thus relevant to the

present study.
The five tasks these children were tested with were: Drawing
with Model (Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Exam), Copying Geometrie
Shapes (The Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration), Block
Design (Wechler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised), Hooper
Visual Reorganization Task, and Benton Facial Recognition. For the
two drawing tasks, the children were asked to copy pietures of common
items (such as a house, a flower, etc.) and pietures of various geometrie
shapes. The deaf children performed similarly on these two tasks to
the norms for hearing children of the same age.

• In contrast, on Block Design, Hooper Test, and Facial

Recognition, sorne deaf children performed above age equivalent
scores. Block Design, deseribed as a spatial construction task, required
the children ta assemble small square blocks, sorne of which are
painted red, white, half-red or half-white to match a pieture of a model
only showing the top surface. This task ranges in diffieulty from using
only four blocks ta nine blocks. Results on this task showed that
several of the deaf children (12 out of 20) scored higher than the mean
norms for hearing children of the same age group but significance was
not assessed.
The Hooper Visual Reorganization Test, described as a spatial
organization task, showed drawings of objects cut in pieces and
presented in a random scatter. The child was to determine what the

•
 24

• object was without rearranging the pieces of the picture. On this task,
the average score for the deaf children at age three was 32.7% correct
which increased to 70% correct by age four. From age four to ten the
deaf childrens' scores varied between 60% to approximately 75%
correct, showing that they were performing very close to the norms of
hearing junior high school students, which was 85% correct.
For Facial Recognition, the subject is shown a front view photo
of a person's face and asked to choose the same face out of an array of
six photos. In the first of three parts of the test, the task is to pick the
same face from an array of six other front view photos. In the second
part, three of six photos are shown at a three-quarter tum and the

• subject is to pick three photos matching the initial front view photo. In
the last part, aU six photos are shown from different lighting positions
and the subject must pick tluee of the six photos which match the
original stimuli. The norms for this task only begin for age six, (33.0
out of a total score of 54) but the three, four and five year old deaf
children performed above this level. The six year old deaf children
scored 39 and by 10 years the deaf childrents scores were equivalent to
those of the normal adult (45), which is about four years ahead of
hearing children who do not reach this score until about age fourteen.
To summarize, BeUugi e,t al. (1990) have reported that deaf
signing children performed close to the norms for hearing children on
two drawing and copying tasks, but somewhat better than the norms
for hearing children on Block Design, Hooper Organization and Facial

•
 25

• Rec(\gnition. These results lcd Bellugi et al. (1990) to hypothesize that

acquiring a visual and spatial sign lar.guage (as these children were)
was the factor that led to this enhanced or superior performance on the
latter three tests.
The spatial performance of two groups of Chinese first-grade
children, signing deaf children and non-signing hearing children, has
also been explored (Bellugi et al, 1990). Both groups of children were
just beginning to read and write Chïnese script The test stimuli were
video recordings of an experimenter with a light-emitting diode
attached to her fingertip in a darkened room. The experimenter traced
in the air various Chinese pseudo-characters in separate strokes. On

• the video screen only the trace of the continuous movement was
visible to the child. The task for the children was to remember and
reproduce, by writing down, the pseudo-character that was shown on
the video screen. Although only qualitative judgements can be made
on this task (because it is a drawing task) the authors state, ''The deaf
children were significantly better than the hearing children in
remembering, analyzing, and decoding the movement in space into its
discrete components." (p. 296). Again, Bellugi et al. (1990) conclude that
knowing sign language contributed to the "significantly better"
performance by these deaf children.
Similar findings emerged when deaf signing adults and normal
hearing adults were tested on Facial Recognition, Kosslyn Image
Generation, and Kosslyn Mental Rotation (Emmorey, Hom & Baer,

•
 26

• 1990). Facial Recognition, as previously described requires the subject

to select faces that match a single front view photo. For this task, no
control group was tested, so results for the deaf signing adults were
simply compared to the norms published for adults, and the deaf adults
performed slightly better than the hearing adult norms. According to
Benton, Hamsher, Varney and Spreen (1983), the standardized mean
for adults is 45.9 and SD is 3.96, so the scores reported for the deaf
adults, about 47, faU within one standard deviation of the mean.
The two remaining tasks, Kosslyn Image Generation and
Kosslyn Mental Rotation were both computerized such that the stimuli
were presented and the responses collected by computer. Both tasks

• were completed by 32 deaf signers and 32 hearing controls. Neither the

number of each sex in each group nor handedness was reported. In the
image generation task, subjects first memorized the representation of
10wer case letters in upper case block letters that were drawn on a grid
of 4 squares in height and 5 square in width. After training was
complete, subjects were tested on their ability to discern whether two
small x's presented within this 4 by 5 grid (labelled with the lower case
letter) would be inc1uded in the spaces that the letter would have
covered. If they were, the subjects pressed a button for yes and if both
were not, 5ubjects pressed the no button. There were no differences
between deaf signers and hearing controis on this task (Emmorey,
Horn & Baer, 1990).

•
 27

• The third task was the Kosslyn Mental Rotation, a modified

version of the Shepard and Metzler (1971) mental rotation task.
Subjects were shown two fiat, two-dimensional shapes made of 5 small
squares connected together. The criterion item on the right was always
upright with the longest side up. The item on the left was either the
same item in the same orientation, rotated at various angles, or was a
mirror image either in the same orientation or rotated as well. Here,
the deaf signers were significantly more accurate than the hearing
controis at determining whether the comparison shape was the same
or a mirror image. Emmorey et al. (1990) concluded that sign language
knowledge selectively enhances spatial performance because the deaf

• subjects performed better on only two of the three tasks in this study.
Hearing native signers were included in a later study replicating
Image Generation and Mental Rotation and adding a third task, Image
Maintenance (Emmorey, Kosslyn & Bellugi,l993). Tl.e subject groups
were 19 deaf native signers (10 womeni 9 men)i 21 deaf non-native
signers (11 womeni 10 men)i and 34 hearing controIs (28 womeni 6
men). Ten hearing native signers, were matched "as closely as
possible" for age, education, handedness and gender to 10 deaf native
signers and 10 hearing controis. Five of the 40 deaf and two of the 34
hearing subjects were left-handed as determined by self-rep\lrt.
As previously described, the purpose of testing hearing native
signers was to determine whether the spatial performance
"enhancement" effect is due to early sign language experience or the

•
 28

early experience of auditory deprivation, that is, deafness. If the two

signing groups, deaf and hearing, performed similarly but differently
from the non-signing group, then differences in performance were
attributed to sign language experience. However, if the two hearing
groups, signers or non-signers, performed similarly but differently
from the deaf signers, then performa.nce differences would be
attributed to deafness. The rationale for using these particular tasks
was that they tap skills that are thought to be developed by the use of
sign language (Emmorey, Kosslyn & BeUugi, 1993).
Image Generation and Mental Rotation tasks have been
described previously. For Image Maintenance, subjects were shown

• patterns of filled-in squares on 4 x 5 grid like that used in the Image

Generation task. Each pattern had one, two or three "perceptual units".
One "perceptual unit" was a vertical or horizontal bar varying in
position or length in the grid. Two and three units were distinct
patterns composed of several filled squares forming groups and each
group touched the other at one point. Bach pattern had an empty grid
matched to it with a single upper case X placed somewheJ:e in the grid.
For half the trials at each level of complexity (one, two or three
perceptual units), the X would faU in an identical place on the pattern
where the filled in squares would have been. This constituted a "yes"
trial. In the other half of the trials, the X would not be in a place where
the pattern would be and this was a "no" trial. Subjects were shown

•
 29

• the pattern, followed by a delay of either 500 or 2500 ms, and then the
empty grid with the X. Their task was to respond "yes" or "no".
Contra&)' to the results of the previous study where no
differences on Image Generation were found (Emmorey, Horn & Baer,
1990), both deaf and hearing signers were faster than the hearing
controIs at Image Generation. Error rates were similar for the two
groups. On Mental Rotation, deaf and hearing signers were again
significantly faster than the hearing controls but the errors rates were
not different. On Image Maintenance, there were no differences found
between the groups in response time or accuracy. So, on this selection
of tasks, it seems that signers, both deaf and hearing, show selective

• "enhancement" only in the speed of performance because they were

not more accurate than the hearing controIs (Emmorey, Kosslyn &
Bellugi, 1993).
Bettger (1992) also tested the hypothesis that "enhancement" of
visuospatial performance is due to either native knowledge of sign
language or auditory deprivati ")n/deafness. 5ubjects in this study were:
deaf native signers (fivemail co and three females), hearing native
signers (two males and six females), deaf non-native signers (four
males and four females) and hearing controIs (four males and four
females). AU subjects were college students except for the hearing
native signers who were sign interpreters and on average 42 years old.
Handedness was measured by a modified Edinburgh Inventory
(Oldfie1d,1971). AU but five subjects were right-handed. The tasks were

•
 30

• chosen to test two sub-components of spatial cognition, object

recognition and object location. These abilities may be related to ASL
comprehension and production, although it was not reported explicitly
how. The Raven's Progressive Matrices was used as a general measure
of perceptual/cognitive functioning.
abject recognition was tested with four tasks: Facial
Recognition, Hand Recognition, Foot Recognition and Sequential
Pattern Recognition (Chinese pseduo-characters). RecaIl that Facial
Recognition and Sequential Pattern Recognition were two of the tasks
used by Bellugi et al. (1990) with the deaf signing children. In the Hand
and Foot Recognition tasks, subjects were shown Une drawings of

• human hands and feet in various orientations and are asked to

determine as quickly as possible whether it was a left or right hand or
foot. Drawings of the hands were either the paIm or the top of the
hand and the feet were either the top or bottom of the foot.
On Facial Recognition, the deaf native signers and hearing
native signers were significantly more accurate than the hearing
controls. The deaf non-native signers, were only minimally more
accurate than the hearing controls. Bettger (1992) interpreted this
finding to support the daim that native acquisition of a sign language
improves performance. However, when the results were analyzed
separately for each section of the test, that is, front view, side view or
different lighting, it was only on the last part th&t there were significant
differences between the groups. It is interesting to note that the

•
 31

• differences between the hearing and deaf subjects were apparent on

only the most difficult part of the test. On Sequential Pattern
Recognition, the deaf native signers and the deaf non-narive signers
scored similarly to each other and significantly better than the two
hearing groups (both signers and controls), showing a main effect for
deafness (Bettger, 1992).
For Hand Recognition, reaction time results showed that the two
deaf groups performed similarly and significantly faster than the two
hearing groups. Accuracy results showed the deaf native signers were
significantly more aCC'.1rate than aIl other groups. The hearing controls
had the lowest scores. On Foot Recognition reaction time, the deaf

• native signers were faster than both the deaf non-native signers and
hearing signers. An unexpected result was the hearing controls were
faster than hearing signers. Bettger (1992) offered no explanation for
this finding.
Object Location was tested with two tests, Categorical Location
and Metric Location (Bettger, 1992). In Categorical Location, subjects
were shown a horizontal !ine and a dot simultaneously on a computer
screen. The dot could appear in any one !)f 12 locations, six positions
above the line and six positions below the line, but aIl in the same
vertical row. When the Une and dot appeared on the screen, subjects
were to determine as quick1y as possible whether the dot was above the
line or below by pressing a button on a response box.

•
 32

•
 33

• studies, but in two of the three studies, there was no control group used
and therefore the data were not subject to statistical analysis. Therefore
the magnitude (or the existence) of the effect is unknown. In the third
study, the only significant difference was on the most difficult part of
the Facial Recognition test. It is not surprising that native signers
would perform better than hearing controIs on this task since in ASL
facial expression carries linguistically important information.
Therefore, finding that native signers (both hearing and deaf) perform
better on Facial Recognition than hearing controls is a completely
intuitive and predictable result.

• Sensory Compensation and Spatial Cognition

The studies discussed thus far have used the subject group of
hearing native signers to differentiate the effects of early sign language
experience from those of early auditory deprivation experience. The
experimental paradigm has been that when hearing native signers
perform similarly to deaf native signers, and different from the hearing
controIs, these differences are attributed to sign language experience. If
l.~aring native signers perform similarly to hearing controls and
different from deaf signers, then differences are attributed to deafness.
Therefore, testing deaf people who do not use sign language, Le. "oral
deaf", may provide additional insight into the effects of deafness on
visuospatial skill. There is an important reason why most studies do
not test oral deaf. Generally, the level of hearing loss of native signing

•
 34

• children (or adults) is in the profound range (greater than 90 dB). 50 to

find deaf subjects who have comparable levels of hearing loss but have
nevertheless successfully acquired spoken language is quite diffieult.
This is most likely the main reason researchers have not tested this
subject group.
Only one study to date has te~ted this alternative subject group,
Le. "oral deaf" on visuospatial tasks (Parasnis, Sathe, & Bettger, 1993).
In this study, 12 severely to profoundly deaf children between the ages
of ten to twelve years (four females and eight males) and twelve
matched hearing controls were tested. Information about level of
hearing loss was gained from audiological records, but specifie hearing

• levels were not provided. AlI subjects completed fh'e tests of visual
perception, memory and construction. These tests included Visual
Motor Integration Test (VMI), Visual AuraI Digit Span Test (VADS),
WISC-R Mazes, Facial Recognition and Judgement of Visual
Retention. The only significant differences reported were on the
VADS sequentiai memory test where the the deaf children had lower
scores than the hearing children. Parasnis et al. (1993) suggested that
sorne factor other than auditory deprivation alone may be required for
enhancement of visual spatial skill as measured by these tasks.

•
 35

• Present Study
The present study was designed to further test the hypothesis
that enhancement of visuospatial skill may be the result of deafness
and not sign language. Therefore, the subjects selected for this study
were non-signing, l.ongenitally and profoundly deaf adults who had no
experience with sign language and were integratcd into the hearing
community.
The tasks selected for this study tested for an important
component of visuospatial skill -- mental rotation. This component
was selected for study for two reasons. First, mental rotation has been
extensively studied in the normally hearing population and therefore

• provides a struct:ured framework within which to develop hypotheses

and predictions about how deaf subjects, both oral and signing, might
perform on these tasks. As explained previously, much is known
about the factors influencing individual differences in mental rotation,
such as sex, handedness, familial sinistrality and solution strategy.
Second, previous studles using deaf subjects have employed primarily
recognition type tasks and used generally two-dimensional stimuli.
Perhaps using a set of tasks with a wider range of difficulty (two-
dimensional and three-cLnensional) and carefully assessing solution
strategies will provide further insighis into the possible effects of
childhood deafness on the visual process:,ng capacities of the deaf
subjects. Thus, the following research questions were posed.

•
 36

• First, is the "enhancement" of visuospatial performance

reported in previous studies due to deafness? That is, is it a form of
sen:iOry compensation which results from extensive reliance on vision
throughout development? This question can be addressed by studying
profound1y and congenitally deaf subjects who do not know or use any
type of sign language.
Second, will visuospatial enhancement be evident on tasks that
require more than perceptual recognition? More specifically, will such
enhancement be present for cognitive tasks such as mental rotation in
two and three dimensions. This question will be addressed by
analyzing performance on tests that require mental rotation in two and

• three dimensions.
Third, will deaf and hearing subjects differ in the strategies they
use to solve visuospatial tasks? This question will be addressed by
analyzing the solution strategy subjects will report.

•
 37

• 5ubjects
METHOD

Eight deaf adults (4 women and 4 men) and eight hearing

controIs (4 women and 4 men) partidpated in this study. The deaf
subjects and hearing controls were matched for age, sex, and education
level as shown in Table 2. Equal numbers of females and males were
tested because small but relatively consistent sex-related differences
have been reported on spatial tasks (Halpern, 1992). Therefore it was
important to control for this possibility as well as to allow for a wider
generalization of the results. The mean age was 20.6 years for the deaf
subjects and 21.5 years for the hearing controls (rcmge 16 to 28). The

• mean years of education was 13.0 for the deaf subjects and 13.3 for the
hearing controls (range Il to 16 years).
The deaf subjects were screened and selected for a congenital
hearing loss in the profound range (> 90 dB). Each deaf subject
provided their most recent audiogram. The deaf subjects did not know
or use any type of signed language, but were completely fluent in
spoken and written English and had been successfully educated Ï:'"l
hearing schools. 5ubjects with congenital and profound hearing 1055
were tested since these individuals would have had the greatest
reliance on the visual system throughout development. Additionally,
their profound degree of hearing loss was comparable to that of the
deaf signing subjects used in previous studies (e.g., Bettger, 1992;
Emmorey, Kosslyn & Bellugi, 1993).

•
 38

• Table 2
5ubject Characteristics

Levelof Pure Tone

Group Age Education Average"

Deaf
Fl 18 College 106
F2 20 College 97
F3 18 High 5chool 100
F4 19 College 88
Ml 18 College 96
M2 22 University 103
M3 25 University 90
M4 25 University 96

Mean 20.60 13.00years 97

5D 2.55 1.60

• Hearing
Fl
F2
F3
23
22
16
College
University
High 5chool
F4 18 College
Ml 17 High 5chool
M2 25 College
M3 28 University
M4 23 University

Mean 21.50 13.30years

5D 4.18 2.07

"Note: Unaided pure tone average at 250,500, lK and 2K Hertz in

better ear.

•
 39

• Vision was determined by self-report to be normal or corrected

to normal. AlI subjects were English speakers and right-handed.
Participants were recruited by word of mouth and were paid $20.00 to
participate in the study.
Materials and Stimuli
Backg~ound measures. Sînce handedness and family history of
handedness have been implicated as factors respons;ble for portions of
variance in visuospatial performance (Casey & Brabeck, 1990; Burnett,
Lane & Dratt, 1982; Sanders, Wilson & Vandeburg, 1982) these two
factors were very carefully assessed.
A behavioral assessment of subjects' handedness was completed

• using the Dot Filling-In Task (Tapley & Bryden, 1985). This task
required subjects to use a felt tip pen to place a dot inside a small circle.
The small circles were arranged in vertical columns connected by
horizontal rows as shown in Appendix A. FoUr alternating bials were
completed; one with the dominant hand and one with the non-
dominar..t hand, then each repeated. Each bial was 20 seconds in
duration. Subjects dotted as many circles as they could in the 20
seconds. Scores were calculated first by counting the number of circles
dotted using the right (IR) and the left (IL) hand. Then using the ratio
(IR - IL) / (IR + IL), a handedness score was obtained. Scores could
range from -1 (indicating complete left-handedness) to +1 (indicating
complete right-handedness).

•
 40

• Laterality was assessed using a modified version of the

Edinburgh Laterality Inventory (Oldfield, 1971). Subjects indicated
degree of laterality using a five point scale, with "1" indicating "very
strong LEFT preference", and "5" indicating "very strong RIGHT
preference". For hand preference, subjects circled their degree of
preference for 10 different activities: writing, drawing, throwing, using
scissors, toothbrush, knife, spoon, broom, opening a box, and striking a
match. Preference for foot, eye, and ear used the same scale for various
activities such as, kicking a baIl, looking through a telescope, listening
to radio with a ear plug. Subjects were also asked to indicate if anyone
had tried to "switch" their writing hand when they were learning to

• write. This information was important since a self-reported "right-

handed" person could actually be left-handed.
Familial handedness was assessed by having participants fili out
a brief questionnaire that asked them to indicate the preferred hand of
each of their first degree biological relatives (that is, parents, siblings
and children). Familial handedness was quantified by dividing the
number of right handed family members by the total number of family
members and then multiplying by 100. Thus the percent of familial
dextrality was determined.
Visuospatial tasks. Four tests of visuospatial performé&nce,
described below, were 1.lsed in this study. AlI tasks were originally
designed as timed paper and pencil tests to be administered to groups.
In general, such tests were administered as follows. Subjects are given

•
 41

• a specified am01mt of time to complete a selection of problems. For

example, on the Test of Three-Dimensional Spatial Visualization
(Spatial Visualization) (Vandenburg & Kuse, 1978) subjects are given
six minutes to complete 20 problems. In the present study, in order to
assess both response time and accuracy, each problem was presented on
a separate photographic slide. AlI subjects completed aIl four tasks,
which each included 16 problems. Each subject therefore completed 64
problems.
The two-dimensional tasks were the Educational Testing Service
Card Rotation Task (Card Rotation), (French, Ekstrom & Price, 1963).
On Card Rotation, participants were presented with a row of five

• drawings (one criterion and four comparisons) of sL-nple two-

dimensional figures. They were asked to indicate which one of the
four drawings were the same as the comparison drawing shown on the
left. 'Same' was defined as a rotated version of the comparison;
'different' was defined as the mirror image of the comparison.
The second two-dimensional task was the Revised Minnesota
Paper Form Board Task (Form Board), (Likert & Quasha, 1941). On
Forrn Board, subjects were shown a line drawn figure dissected into
several pieces. They were to select, from four choices, the one that
showed what the drawing would look like if aIl the pieces were fitted
together. The pieces could be rotated in any way in the plane of the
paper, but could not be flipped over or mirror image.

•
 42

• Three-dimensional mental rotation performance was assessed

using the DifferentiaI Aptitude Test: Space Relations Sub-Test (Space
Relations), (Bennett, Seashore & Wesman, 1947). On Space Relations,
subjects were presented with a fiat two-dimensional pattern and were
asked to choose which one of the four three-dimensional drawings of
figures cûuld be made from that pattern.
The second test was the Test of Three-Dimensiona 1. Spatial
Visualizati.on (Spatial Visualization), (Vandenburg & Kuse, 1978).
Spatial Visualization showed three-dimensional drawings of block
towers at various angles of rotation. Subjects were to chose one of four
comparison towers that was the same as the criterion tower in aIl but

• rotation. 'Same' towers were pictures of the criterion tower rotated at

different angles; 'different' towers were different arrangements of
blocks or mirror images or mirror and/or rotated images of the
criterion tower.
Solution Strategy. A separate Solution Strategy Questionnaire
(SSQ) (Schultz, 1991) was admmistered for each spatial task at the end
of the testing session in order to determine how each subject solved
each visuospatial task. The SSQ gives three alternative solution
strategies: imagine moving the test object, imagine yourself moving
around the test object, and finding a key feature and noting whether it
is present or how it is changed. The third category also stipulated that
using the key feature did not inc1ude imagining moving the test object
or imaging moving one~s self around the test object. The SSQ also

•
 43

• includes three additional response categories; "just know", "guess",

and "other". The "other" category allows subjects to describe their
solution strategy if it differed from the alternatives provided. Subjects
were instructed to choose only the one strategy that best described what
they did to solve a particularo task.
Testing Equipment
The equipment used in this experiment included a Lafayette
Instrument Co. Clock/Counter, Model54035 (the timer), an Emos
Ornnigraphic 300AF slide projector, and a Micro Experimental
Laboratory Response Box Model RB-100/N. The response box had four
buttons labelled "A", "B", "C" and "0", that corresponded to the

• lettered alternatives the subjects were to choose from when selecting

their answer to the spatial problems presented. The slide projector and
timer were electrically connected so that when the experimenter
advanced the slide projector to the next slide, the timer was started.
When the subject pressed any response, the timer stopped. The
experimenter then manually reset the timer to zero, aI~d advanced the
slide projector to the next slide until aIl 64 slides had been projected.
Procedure
Each subject was tested in an individual session lastin 1
approximately 60 minutes. Subjects were seated at a small round table
with only the response box in front of them. They were first asked to
fill out a background questionnaire asking for information about their

•
 44

• date of birth, visual acuity, edacation, language(s), hearing status, etc.

Next, the handedness and laterality measures were completed.
Instructions were then given for the first of the four spatial tasks.
These were in written form to ensure that both the deaf and hearing
subjects understood the instructions. AlI subjects firsl read through the
instruction themselves and completed two practice problems included
in written instructions. Subjects were free to ask for information or
clarification at any time. However, care was taken that the instructions
and clarifications provided would not encourage a speçific solution
"strategy". When the subject indicated she or he understood how to do
the spatial task, the experimental task was begun. The first slide was a

• practice problem to ensure proper focusing of the slide and to ensure

that the subject understood how to use the response box. When the
subject understood aU the instructions and how the equipment
worked, the sixteen problems of each experimental task were
presented.
The problems ranged from relatively easy to relatively difficult
within tasks, ~ ùt also across tasks. For ~xample, the three-dimensional
Space Relations and Spatial Visualization tasks are more difficult than
the two-dimensional Card Rotation and Form Board. Therefore,
general instructions were given to the subjects to inform them of tbis
prior to their doing any of the tasks. 5ubjects were told that they were
not expected to correctly solve aU the problems , but that they were to
do their best to solve the problems as quickly and as accurately as

•
 45

• possible; both aspects were presented as equally important. FinaIly,

subjects were told that a maximum of 30 seconds would be allowed for
each problem. If they were not able to solve it within that time, the
examiner would move to the next problem.
Response time and accuracy were manually recorded by the
experimenter on prepared data sheets. Procedures were identical for aIl
four tasks. At the completion of the four visuospatial tasks, subjects
were asked to fill out a separate Solution Strategy Questionnaire for
each of the four tasks.
Copies of aIl measures, questionnaires and examples of the
visuospatial tasks are included in the Appendix.

•
 46

• RESULTS
The results of this study are discussed as follows. First, the
backb1'0und measures of handedness, familial dextrality and laterality
are presented. Next, performance on the visuospatial tasks, and finally
the solution strategy measures are presented.
Background Measures
Separate !-tests were carried out to determine whether the two
groups differed in or on handednes5, laterality or familial dextrality.
Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of these measures by
group (deaf and hearing).
The groups showed no significant differences on any of the

• measures (12. > .2). "Dot" was the behavioral handedness measure and
the scores on it can range from -1 (indicating complete left-handedness)
to +1 (indicating complete right-handedness). Both groups scored in
the .2 range indicating moderate right-handedness. As will be recalled,
familial handednes is the i'ercent of left-handed, first degree biological
relatives. In this sample, two of the four hearing women had more
than one left-handed family member, thus the standard deviation in
the hearing group was large. Note that laterality for "ear" was not
measured for the deaf subjects due to their profound, bilateral hearing
loss.

•
 47

• Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations on Background Measures

Group

Hearing Deaf
Task M SD M SD

Dot .21 .11 .22 .04

Familial Handedness 84.50 26.81 100.00 0
Laterality

• Hand
Foot
Eye
.94
1.0
.63
.10
0
.74
.97
.88
.88
.08
.35
.35
Ear 1.0 0 NA

•
 48

• Vis.uospatial Performance Accuraçy

Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations for
performance accuracy for the deaf and hearing groups on the four tasks.
Sixteen was the highest score possible on each task.
A 2 x 2 x [4] (Sex x Hearing Status x [Task]) repeated measures
analysis of variance revealed a main effect for Task, f{3,12) = 31.554; 11
<.01. Post-hoc t-tests showed that both groups were significantly more
accurate on tlle two dimensional tasks, Card Rotation and Form Board
<M = 13.69, SO =3.01 and M =13.31, SO = 2.02 respectively) than on the
three dimensional tasks, Space Relations and Spatial Visualization <M.
=9.44, SO 2.13 and M =7.75, SO = 3.77 respectively). But within

• dimension, the tasks were not significantly different from each other.
There were no other significant main effects.
Because the three-dimensional tasks were more difficult than
the two-dimensionaltasks, accuracy scores were converted to standard
scores to enable a more appropriate comparison across tasks. A 2 x 2 x
[4] (Sex x Hearing x [Task]) repeated measures analysis of variance of the
standard scores showed a significant three-way interaction between aIl
factors, Sex, Hearing Status, and Task Œ(3,12) =3.63; 11 <.05 ) shown in
Figure 1. Post-hoc protected t-tests showed that on Card Rotation, the
deaf women were significantly less accurate than the three other
groups, hearing men, hearing women and deaf men (11 < .05). On
Form Board the hearing men were more accurate than the deaf men (11
< .05).

•
 49

• Table 4
Means and Standard Deviation of Visuospatial Performance Accuracy

Task
Two Dimensional Three Dimensional

Card Form Space Spatial

Group Rotation Board Relations Visualization

M SD M SD M SD M SD
Deaf

• Women
Men
Total
10.25 4.35
14.50 1.73
12.38 3.82
14.00 1.83 8.'l5
11.75 2.50 10.50
12.88 2.36 9.63
3.20
1.00
2.39
7.00
9.75
8.38
3.83
5.32
4.54
Hearing
Women 14.75 .96 13.00 2.16 9.00 1.41 6.75 2.63
Men 15.25 .96 14.40 .58 9.50 2.65 7.50 3.70
Total 15.00 .93 13.75 1.67 9.25 1.98 7.12 3.00

•
 50

•
~
~ 0
~
~
.l9
t/)

e-e Cl DeafWomen
§
-(
-1
• DeafMen
~ Hearing Women

• HearingMen

•
-2
Card Rotation Form Board
Task

Figure 1: Three-way interaction between Task, Sex and Hearing St;Jtus

with aIl groups more accurate than Deaf Women on Card Rotation,
and Hearing Men more accuratE'l' than Deaf Men on Form Board.

•
 51

• Visuospatial Performance Response Time

Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations of the subjects'
response time on the rour tasks. Dnly the response times for correct
answers were analyzed. A 2 x 2 x [4] (Sex x Hearing Status x [Task])
repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a main effect for Task
(}:(3/12) = 19.35; ~ < .01). Both groups/ deaf and hearing, were
significantly faster on the two dimensional tasks, Card Rotation and
Form Board CM = 7.92, SO =5.97 and M = 8.99/ SO = 2.33 respectively)
than the three dimensional tasks, Space Relations and Spatial
Visualization <M =14.16/ SO =4.55 and M =14.15/ SO 3.64 respectively),
but they did not differ within dimension.

• Figure 2 shows the two-way interaction between Sex and

Hearing Status Œ(1/1) = 4.73; ~ <.05). Post-hoc !-tests showed the
response times of the deaf women were significantly slower than those
of the deaf men and hearing women <M = 13.76/ SO =3.18;:M = 9.77/ SO
= 2.91 and M = 9.55/ SO =2.75 respectively). The response times of the
hearing men were not different from any other group.
Again, because the three dimensional tasks were more difficult
than the two dimensional tasks, response times were converted to
standard scores to allow for a more appropriate comparison across
tasks. A 2 x 2 x [4] (Sex x Hearing Status x [Task]) repeated measures
analysis of variance showed the same two-way interaction between Sex
and Hearillg Status ŒU/l) =4.39; 12-= .0581)/ with the response times of
the hearing women fa.ster than those of the deaf women.

•
 52

• Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations of Visuospatial Performance Response
Time in Seconds

Task
Two Dimensional Three Dimensional

Card Form Space Spatial

Group Rota tion Board Relations Visualization

M 5D M 50 M 5D M 5D

• Deaf
Women
Men
13.97
5.71
9.09
4.18
9.34
9.05
1.61
3.58
16.64 3.14
13.12 4.41
15.05 3.50
11.19 1.21
Total 9.84 7.90 9.21 2.58 14.88 4.01 13.12 3.19
Hearing
Women 6.04 2.61 7.90 2.32 Il.55 4.03 12.73 3.59

Men 5.96 2.52 9.62 2.11 15.34 6.10 17.62 2.86

:rotaI 6.00 2.37 8.76 2.21 13.44 5.20 15.18 4.00

•
 53

•
-CI)
"tS
s:i
0
20
18
16
o
•
Women
Men
u

-Q)
CI)

Q)

.§
14
12
10
E-!
Q) 8
CI)
s:i 6
0
Q.c
CI)
4
Q)
~ 2
0
Deaf Hearing

• Figure 2: Interaction between Hearing Status and Sex, with the Hearing
Women and Deaf Men faster than Deaf Women.

•
 54

• Solution Strategy
The subjects' solution strategies were assessed with the Solution
Strategy Questionnaire (Schultz, 1991), as previously described. Table 6
shows the number of subjects endorsing each strategy for each spatial
task.
Move Object, the mental rotation strategy, was the clearly
preferred strategy for Card Rotation and Spatial Visualization with the
majority of subjects endorsing it. Key Feature, the analytic strategy, was
the preferred strategy for Form Board and Space Relations.
lnterestingly, even though these l'Wo strategies were preferred by the
majority of subjects, it is also clear that subjects used a variety of

• strategies to solve the same task.

Inspection of the data shown in Table 6 yields the following
variations to these general patterns. One subject reported using the
orientation strategy on Spatial Visualization. One subject reported
"just know" on the Form Board. Twelve subjects reported the strategy
designated as "other". In aIl cases "other" referred to a combination of
Move Object and Key Feature strategy. AH strategies that were not
strictly "rotation" (that is, Move Object) were included in a "non-
rotation" category for the following analysis.

•
 55

• Table 6
Number of Subjects Reporting EélCh Strategy on Each Task

Task
Two Dimensional Three Dimensional

Card Form Space Spatial

Strategy Rotation Board Relations Visualization

Move object 13 5 4 9

• Move self
Kêy Feature
Just Know
0
1
0
0
7
1
0
9
0
1
2
0
Other 2 3 3 4

•
 56

• The overall trends for solution strategy used by the groups is

shown in Table 7. This table shows that for deaf subjects the preferred
strategy was rotation for Card Rotation and Spatial Visualization.
Hearing subjects preferred the rotation strategy for Card Rotation, but
the non-rotation strategy for Spatial Visualization. For the Form Board
and Space Relations, both groups preferred non-rotational strategies.
Chi-square tests of significance were performed to determine if
the groups reported using different solution strategies for the four
tasks. Significant differences emerged only on Spatial Visualization
(X2 =6.35,12. < .01). As is shown in Table 7, 87.5% of the deaf subjects
but only 25% of hearing subjects, reported using the rotation strategy

• on this task. Conversely, 75% of the hearing subjects but only 12.5% of
the deaf subjects reported using an non-rotation strategy on this task.
Correlations between solution strategy and both performance
accuracy and response time on each task were carried out to determine
if endorsing either the rotation or non-rotation strategy was associated
with better perfOlmance. A point-biserial correlation (Glass & Stanley,
1970) was used. This correlation tests the association between
dichotomeus data (in this case, solution strategy -- either rotation or
non-rotation) and continuous data (performaJ.~ce scores -- accuracy and
response time). There were no significant correlations between
solution strategy and visuospatial performance.

•
 57

• Table 7
Percentage of Deaf and Hearing Subjects Reportin"'" Rotation or Non-
Rotation Strategy on Each Task

Task
Two Dimensional Three Dimensional

Card Form Space Spatial

Strategy Rotatior. Board Relations Visualization

Deaf

• Rotation
Non-Rotation
Hearing
87.5
12.5
25.0
75.0
25.0
75.0
87.5
12.5

Rotation 75.0 37.5 25.0 25.0

Non-Rotation 25.0 62.5 75.0 75.0

•
 58

• Summary
To summarize, deafness did not contribute to enhanced
performance on the four visuospatial tasks employed in this
experiment. Both groups were significantly faster and more accurate
on the two-dimensional tasks than on the three-dimensional tasks.
There was an interaction between Hearing Status and Sex for response
time, with the hearing women and deaf men performing faster than
the deaf women over aU tasks. As weU, there was an interaction
between Hearing Status by Sex by Task on performance accuracy
involving the two-dimensionai tasks. The deaf women were
significantly less accurate than the three other groups on Card

• Rotation. The hearing men were significantly more accurate that the
ùeaf men on Form Board.
However, deafness did contribute to solution strategy on the
three-dimensional task, Spatial Visualization, with the deaf subjects
reporting significantly mC're frequently the use of a mental rotation
strategy and the hearing subjects reporting the use of a non-rotation
strategy.

•
 59

• DISCUSSION
This thesis examined the effects of deafness on visuospatial skill,
in particular mental rotation ability. Specifically, this study addressed
the following three questions: a) Will sensory compensation due to
extensive reliance on vision throughout development occur in
visuospatial performance? b) '-\Till enhancement be evident for
mental rotation ability in two and three dimensions? and c) Will deaf
and hearing subjects differ in the strategies they use to solve mental
rotation tasks?
The first question of this study was whether deaf people who do
not know or use sign language would show an enhancement on

• visuospatial tasks. They did not. The deaf subjects in this study
showed the same performance patterns, both in terms of accuracy and
response lime as the hearing subjects.
The second question asked whether enhancement would be
evident on cognitive tasks such as mental rotatior< in two and three
dimensions. Il was not. Both groups were faster and more accurate on
the two-dimensional than three-dimensional tasks. Finding that both
groups performed faster on the two-dimensional than the three-
dimensional tasks was expected and follows from previous findings on
mental rotation that report that the greater the degree of rotation
required, the longer the task takes to perform (Shepard & Cooper, 1982).
The current finding that deaf women were slower than both
hearing women and deaf men was unexpected. Deaf women and

•
 60

• hearing men did not differ significantIy on response time, thus, a

plausible explanation for the performance of deaf women is that the
other two groups (hearing women and deaf men) were atypically fast at
performing mental rotations. Performance demands such as response
time have, in fact, been found to exert an influence on sex-related
performance differences on mental rotation tasks (Goldstein, Haldane
& Mitchell, 1990). When there was no time restriction imposed on the

task, that is, when the task was untimed, women aI.. d men did not
differ in the number of problems they tried to solve nor the number of
problems solved correctIy (Goldstein, Haldane & Mitchell, 1990).
Therefore, the slower response time of the deaf women in the present

• study could be the product of a much more cautious performance style,

rather than of any kind of performance defidency. This possibility
could be studied by testing this group of subjects on untimed versions
of these tasks.
The interaction between sex and hearing status for performance
accuracy was not expected, especially not on the two-dimensional tasks,
Card Rotation and Form Board. Differences were antidpated on the
more difficult three-dimensional tasks where processing abilities and
strategies are more challenged, and where the extensive visual
experience of the oral deaf would be expected to exert an influence.
The nature of the unexpected interaction was such that the deaf
women were significantIy less accurate than the three other groups on
Card Rotation, and the deaf men were significantIy less accurate than

•
 61

• the hearing men on Foml Board. Card Rotation was the easiest of the
four tasks. Nearly aU subjects, except two deaf women, scored almost at
ceiling. These women had scores in the 40% correct ra.nge. It is
possible that they did not adequately understand the task and did not
seek clarification, even though it was readily available throughout
testing. However, it is difficult to interpret why hearing men
performed better than deaf men on Form Board. These differences
were not attributed to an accuracy-speed trade-off. Further, deaf men
and hearing women were the two fastest groups overall. 50 the
interpretation of this interaction remains unclear.
The third question asked whether the deaf and hearing subjects

• would differ in the strategies they w01ùd use to solve the tasks.
Significant differences between the deaf and hearing groups were
found only on the most difficult task, Spatial Visualization. On this
task more deaf than hearing subjects reported using a strictly mental
rotation strategy (i.e., move object). On aU other tasks, both groups
used similar, and varied, solution strategies. Schultz (1991) argues that
a mental rotation task is such only if the subject solves it by using a
mental rotation strategy. In this experiment, the hearing subjects most
often used a combination of mental rotation and analytic strategy (i.e.,
noting the presence, absence or change of key features of the test object)
for this task, and therefore may not have been treating Spatial
Visualization as a strictly mental rotation task. Because the deaf

•
 62

• subjects used a strictIy mental rotation strategy to solve this task, it was
for them, a mental rotation task. Interestingly, however, the two
groups did not differ in their performance on the task despite using
different strategies. Schultz (1991) found that using a mental rotation
strategy on Spatial Visualization was associated with higher scores
while using an analytic strategy was associated with lower scores. Here
this relationship was not found. However, the small sample size in
the present study may account for the lack of group performance
differences based on strategy use.
Unlike other studies, solution strategy was directIy and explicitIy
assessed for each task. Other researchers have nonetheless made

• inferences regarding strategy based on their subjects' pattern of

performance. As was shown in this study, performance on the Spatial
Visualization did not differ between the hearing status groups, yet
there was a significant difference between these groups on the strategy
that subjects reported using. Therefore, caution must be taken when
making inferences about solution strategy if it is not explicitIy assessed.
Moreover, assessing solution strategy is another approach to gain
further insights into the nature of group performance differences
between deaf and hearing signers and non-signers. Perhaps group
performance differences that have been attributable to deficiency or
superiority may simply be attributable to using a strategy that is
different, or more or less efficient (Parasnis, 1983).

•
 63

• The main caution for generalizations of the results of this study

is that of small sample size. As was discussed earlier, the oral deaf
population is small in number, and in this study only eight deaf
subjects were available to be tested. Thus, generalizations to the deaf
population in general, and about spatial cognition in particular, must
be preliminary. However, choosing oral deaf subjects does provide a
method of determining if deafness alone plays a role in spatial abilities,
particularly performance on mental rotation tasks, without the
confounds of sign language knowledge and use. This subject group
had not been previously been tested, but is a crudal element in
answering the question of spatial-ability enhancement in deaf signers

• since this group explidtly separates deafness from sign language.

Clearly the next step is to assess deaf native signers on this battery of
measures. Comparing the performance of oral deaf individuals to that
of signing deaf individuals would then clarify the effects of sign
language acquisition on spatial abilities.
Subjeet characteristics such as sex, handedness and familial
handedness are important factors influencing generalizability of results
of other studies in this area. The amount of variance in visuospatial
performance accounted for by these factors is not large, but they do
exert a documented influence on performance and it is difficult to
attribute performance differences strictly to sign language use or
deafness if such factors are not controlled.

•
 64

• Previous studies that tested a hearing control group generally

reported and balanced sex relatively weIl. However in the EmmoreYI
l

Kosslyn and Bellugi (1993) studYI the hearing control bTOUP consisted of
28 females and only six males while the deaf group had 21 females and
l

19 males. The variance in spatial performance accounted for by

biologi~al sex is only between 3 and 5% of total variance (Caplan l

MacPherson & Tobin 1985). In addition

l l ~actors related to gender may
account for much greater variance. That iSI effects of social cultural l l

educational and political circumstances associated with being female

l

in this society (Halpernl 1992). Thus1 not balancing for sex in a hearingl
non-signing control groupi a plentiful populationl may create spurious

• findings. Recall that in the Emmorey et al. studYI the main finding
l

was that deaf signers were faster than hearing controls on the Kosslyn
Mental Rotation and Kosslyn Image Maintenance tasks but that the l

error rates across groups did not differ. Recalll alsol that women have
been found to display a more cautious performance style than menl
increasing the time they take to perform spatial tests without
differences in accuracy (Goldstein Haldane & Mitchell 1990). Since the
l l

control group in the Emmorey et al. study consisted of almost aIl

women the "enhanced" speed of performance attributed to sign
l

language acquisition may actually be an artifact of having so few men

in the control group.
Support for this interpretation comes from Bettger (1992) who
also reported age and sex effects for all reaction Mme tasks in his study

•
 65

• of spatial performance. These effects were primarily in

~&th
inter~ction

group, that is, with whether the subjects were dF;af or hearing and
with whether they T,vere signers or non-signers. Thus, it seems clear
that within this literature the resultl; on response time tasks must be
viewed cautiously because of the complex way that sex interacts with
other subject characteristics, including both deafness and signing.
Due to the influence that handediless and familial handedness
has been found to exert on spatial performance, adequately assessing
handedness is another issue in studies on spatial ability in the deaf.
Bettger (1992) assessed subject handedne53 with the Edinburgh
h'ventory, but did not conduct a behavior;.J measure of handedness.

• 11'. the present study both the Edinburgh Inventory (Oldfield, 1971) and
the Dot-Filling In task (Tapley & Bryden, 1985), were administered
thereby allowing the comparison of "hand preference" and "hand
performance" as is recommended as an adequate assessment of
handedness (Bryden & Steenhuis, 1991). AlI other studies reviewed
here relied only on subject self-report of writing hand to determine
handedness. This has been shown to be an unreliable measure of
laterality of function due to cultural and training practices at home and
in schools (Bryden & Steenhuis, 1991). Moreover, familial handedness
was not even mentioned in any of these studies so its effects are
virtually unknown.
Clearly, spatial ability, and thus performance on spatial tasks, is
not a unitary ability and is influenced by many individual subject

•
 66

• variables that must be taken into consideration prior to attributing

performance differences (either "superiority" or "deficiency") solely to
factors such as the early experience of sign language acquisition or the
early experience of deafness or both.
More important still than the influence individual subject
charact~ristics exert on spatial performance, is the particular tasks
chosen to assess spatial ability. As discussed in the introduction, spatial
behavior has many components, from physically negotiating ourselves
and objects through real space and time to the complex representation
of these factors in cognitive space (Kolb & Whishaw, 1990). It is
necessary for researchers to explicitly delineate which aspect of spatial

• ability they are intending to test, the rationale for choosing that aspect,
and demonstrating that the tests they have chosen will in fact assess
that aspect.
The tasks selected for the present study test mental rotation, a
sub-component of spatial visualization. As discussed in the
introduction, mental rotation performance has been assessed
extensively on the normally hearing population and much is known
about individual differences in perfonnance. As well, much is known
about how reliably these tests load on a mental rotation factor in factor
analysis, thereby providing evidence that these tasks are in fact testing
mental rotation. Further, the tasks in this study varied in dimension,
by testing two and three dimensional mental rotation. This provided

•
 67

• information regarding the cxtent to which spatial performance may be

affected by deafness, sex, handedness and familial handedness.
Emmorey et al. (1993) also assessed mental rotation performance,
although in only two dimensions, as weIl as assessing image
generation and image maintenance abilities. AlI three of these skills
were reported to be integral to the production and comprehension of
&ign language. In particular, the detection of mirror images is
hypothesized to be a primary skill involved in sign language
comprehension. Bettger (1992) also purported to select tasks involved
in sign language comprehension and production. However, he did not
explain how Foot Recognition, or judging the positions of dots and

• lines on a computer screen, were related to sign language

comprehension or production. ~urêhermore, while it is relatively
intuitively clear that Facial Recognition and Hand Recognition are
linked to sign language, it was not clear what definition of spatial
ability was used to determine that these, or any of the other tasks were
in fact spatial tasks.
What does aIl of this mean for research on the effects of sign
language and deafness related sensory compensation on spatial
cognition? First, clearly, there is much more work to be done before
any cO!lclusive statements can be made regarding the "enhanced"
spatial abilities of deaf native Sig:..lcrS. Neurophysiological effects on
brain organization as a result of native sign language acquistion and
deafness have been shown (Neville & Lawson, 1987a,b,c), but

•
 68

• behavioral and cognitive correlates of these neurophysiological

changes have not been strongly dem.onstrated to date. Thus, future
work will need to select tests, such as the battery selected for the present
study, that have been extensively used in order to understand what
componerlts of spatial ability are being tested. Moreover, it will he
necessary to delineate explicitly how th~se components of spatial ability
are related to sign language use and/ or deafness.
In summary, deafness without the confound of sign language
experience did not show enhancement in visuospatial performance.
No evidence was found for sensory compensation with respect to
performance accuracy or response time. However, deafness was related

• to how a difficult three-dimensional task was solved suggesting that

sensory compensation may influence strategy. Finally, a careful
elucidation of the individual factors that influence visuospatial
performance coupled with recent research on deaf individuals and
their early language experience promises to shed light on this complex
issue.

•
 69

• REFERENCES

Beach, F. A. & Jaynes, J. (1954). Effects of early experience upon the

behavior of animaIs. Psychological Bulletin,2.L 239-263.

Bellugi, U., O'Grady, L., Lillo-Martin, D., Q'Grady Hynes, M., Van
Hoek, K., Corina, D. (1990). Enhancement of spatial cognition in
deaf children. In V. Volterra & C. Erting (Eds.), From Gesture to
Language in Hearing and Deaf Children. New York: Springer-
Verlag.

Bennett, G. K., Seashore, H. G., & Wesman, A. G. (1947). DifferentiaI

Aptitude Tests: Space Relations (Form A). New York: Psychological
Corporation.

Benton, A. L., Hamsher, K. deS., Varney, N. R., & Spreen, Q. (1983).

Contributions to neuropsychological assessment: A clinical
manual. New York: Oxford University Press

•
Bettger, J. (1992). The effects of experience on spatial cognition:
Deafness and native knowledge of ASL. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana-ehampaign, IL.

Blank, M. & Bridger, W. H. (1966). Conceptual cross-modal transfer in

deaf and hearing children. Child Development. ~ 29-38.

Bryden, M. P. & Steenhuis, R. E. (1991). Issues in the assessment of

handedness. In F. L. Kitterle (Ed.), Cerebrallateralit;y: Theory and
research. (pp. 35-51). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bumett, S. A., Lane, D. M., & Dratt, L. M. (1982). Spatial ability and
handedness. Intelligence. 2, 57-68.

Burnstine, T. H., Greenough, W. T. & Tees, R. C. (1984). Intermodal

compensation following damage or deprivation: A review of
behavioral and neural evidence. In C. R. Almi & S. Finger (Eds.),
Early brain damage. Volume 1, Research orientations and clinical
observations. (pp. 3-34), New York: Academie Press.

•
 70

• CapIan, P. J., MacPhe:rson, G. M. & Tobin, P. (1985). Do sex-related

differences in spatial ability exist? A multilevel critique wiili new
data. American Psychologist. ~ 786-799.

Casey, M. B. & Brabeck, M. M. (1990). Women who excel on a spatial

task: Proposed genetic and environmental factors. Brain ?nd
Cognition,.lb 73-84.

Chamberlain, C. (1991). The effect of practice and training on spatial

performance and solul;Ion strategy. Unpublished honours thesis,
University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba.

French, J. W., Ekstrom, R. B. & Priee, L. A. (1963). Kit of reference tests

for cognitive factors. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Eliot, J. & McFarlane Smith, I. (1983). International director.y of spatial

tests. Winsor, UK: NFEF-Nelson.

Emmorey, K., Kosslyn, S. & Bellugi, U. (1993). Visual imagery and

•
visual-spatiallanguage: Enhanced imagery abilities in deaf and
hearing ASL signers. Cognition, ~ 139-181.

Emmorey, K., Horn, P. & Baer, O. (May,1990). On-line processing of

spatial language: Implications for spatial cognition. In Language
Modality and the Brain, Symposium conducted at the Third
International Conference on Theoretical Issues in Sign Language
Research, Boston, MA.

Geers, A. & Moog, J. (1987). Predicting spoken language acquisition of

profoundly hearing-impaired students. Journal of Speech &
Hearing Research, ~ 84-94.

Glass, G. V. & Stanely, J. C. (1970). Statistical methods in education and

psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,Inc.

Halpern, D. F. (1992). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. (2nd ed.)

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hebb, O. O. (1949). Organization of behavior: A neuropsychological

theory. New York: John Wilely & Sons.

•
 71

• Kolb, B. & Whishaw, I. (1990). Fundamentals of Human

Neuropsychology. (3rd ed.), New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.

Lane, H. (1984). When the mind hears: A history of the deaf. New
York: Random House.

Likert, R. & Quasha, W. H. (1941). Revised Minnesota Paper Form

Board Test. New York: Psychological Corporation.

Linn, M. C. & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of

sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child
Development. 56, 1479-1498.

MacDougall, J. C. (1969). Early auditOlY deprivation and visual

behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University,
Montreal.

MacDougall, J. C. (1971). Early auditory deprivation and sensory

compensation. Developmental Psychology. 5, 368.

• MacDougall, J. C. (1988). Deaf children in Canada. Rehabilitation

Fesearch Canada. 1, 97-102.

MacDougall, J. C. 0.990). The McGill study of deaf children in Canada.

In A. Weisel (Ed.). Demographie and Large-Scale Research with
Hearing-Impaired Populations: An International Perpective.
Washinton, DC: Gallaudet Research Institute and Rochester
Institute of Technology.

Mayberry, R. 1. (1992). The cognitive development of deaf children:

Recent insights. In S. J. Segalowitz and 1. Rapin (Vol. Eds.),
Handbook of Neuropsychology. Vol. 7: Child Neuropsychology.
(pp. 51-68), F. Boller and J. C .afman (Series Eds.). Amsterdam:
Elsevier Science Publishers.

Ivbyberry, R. 1. (1993). First-Ianguage acquisition after childhood differs

from second-language acquisition: "l.n.e case of Ameriean Sign
Language. TournaI of Speech and Hearing Research. ~ 1258-1270.

•
 72

• Mayberry, R. 1. (1994). The importance of childhood to language

acquisition: Evidence from Ameriean Sign Language. In J. C.
Goodman & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.), The Development of Speech
Perception. (pp. 57-89), Cambridge: MIT Press.

McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometrie studies and

environmental, genetie, hormonal, and neurological influences.
Psychologieal Bulletin, ~ 889-918.

McKeever, W. F. (1991). Handedness, language laterality and spatial

ability. In F. L. Kitterle (Ed.), Cerebral Laterality: Theoryand
Research. (pp. 53-70). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Neville, H. & Lawson, D. (1987). Attention to central and peripheral

visual space in a movement detection task: An even-related
potential and behavioral study. I Normal hearing adults. Brain
Research, 405, 253-267.

Neville, H. & Lawson, D. (1987). Attention to central and peripheral

•
visual space in a movement detection task: an event-related
potential and behavioral study. II Congenitally deaf adults. Brain
Research, 405,268-283.

Neville, H. & Lawson, D. (1987). Attention to central and peripheral

visual space in a movement detection task. III. Separate effects of
auditory deprivation and acquisition of a visuallanguage. Brain
Research, 405,284-294.

Neville, H. (1988). Cerebral organization for spatial attention. In J.

Stiles-Davis, M. Kritchevsky, U. Bellugi (Eds.), Spatial cognition:
Brain bases and development (pp. 3:l7-341). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.

Newport, E. & Meier, R. (1985). The acquisition of American Sign

Language. In D. 1. Slobin (Ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of
Language Acquisition: Volume 1. The Data. (pp.881-939). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nybourg, H. (1983). Spatial ability in men and women: Reviewand
new theoPJ. Advanced Behavioural Research Theory, 5, 89-140

•
 73

• Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment analysis of handedness: The

Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia,2, 97-113.

Parasnis,1. (1983). Visual perceptual skills and deafness: A research

review. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology,1Q,
161-181.

Parasnis, 1., Samar, V., Sathe, K. & Bettger, J. (1993). Is there

enhancement of visual spatial cognition in deaf children? Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Atlanta, GA.

Petitto, L. A. & Marentette, P. F. (1991). Babbling in the manual mode.

Science, 251, 1493-1495.

Rosenstein, B. S. (1957). Tactile perception of rhythmic patterns by

normal, blind, deaf, and aphasie children. American Annals of the
Deaf, 102,339-403.

•
Sacks, O. (May 10, 1993). To see and not see. The New Yorker, pp. 59-
73.

Sanders, B., Wilson, J. R. & Vandenburg, S. G. (1982). Handedness and

spatial ability. Cortex, ~ 79-90.

Schultz, K. J. (1991). The contribution of solution strategy to spatial

performance. Canadian Journal of Psychology, §, 474-491.

Schultz, K. J., Chamberlain, C. & Moshenko, B. (1993). Experience, not

sex, determines gender differences in spatial performance. Poster
presented at Fifth Convention of the American Psychological
Society, Chicago, USA.

Shepard, R. & Cooper, L. (1982). Mental images and their

transformations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Shepard, R. & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional

objects. Science, 171, 701-703.

•
 74

• Spigelman, M. N. (1968). Effects of early blindness on auditorv-spatial

development in rats and humans. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. The University of Waterloo, Canada.

Sterritt, G. M., Camp, B. W. & Lipman, B. S. (1966). Effects of early

auditory deprivation upon auditory and visual information
processing. Perceptual and Motor SkiUs. ~ 123-130.

Tapley, S. M. & Bryden, M. P. (1985). A group test for the assessment of

performance between the hands. Neuropsychologia. ~ 215-22.

Vandenburg, S. G. & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations: A group test

of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor
Skills. ~ 599-604.

•
 75

• APPENDIXA

Background Information
Sex: F_ _ M_ _
Date of Birth: _
15 your vision normal? yes _ _ no_ _
If no, is it correctt:d to normal? yes__ no __
Have you ever had a learning disability? yes__ no _
Are you currently taking any medication? yes _ no _
If yes, please specify what it is:, _

Have you every had a neurological examination? yes __ no __

If yes, please specify reason:, _

• EDUCATION:
Age when started school:
Most recently completed year of school:
LANGUAGE:
_
_

What languageCs) do you use at home?

What languageCs) do you use outside the home? _
Do you know any signed languages? yes no
If 50, which oneCs)? when did you start? _
who do you use it with?
Have you ever been in a class that uses a signed language as a means of
instruction? yes no

•
 76

• Participant #_ _

HEARING STArus
Age when diagnosed:. _
Cause of hearing impairment (if known): _
Age when first fitted with hearing aids:. _
Do you were hearing aids full time? yes _ _ no _ _
FAMILY HEARING STATUS
Mother: DeaflHearing Impaired _ _ Hearing _ _
Father: Deaf IHearing Impaired Hearing _ _
Sibling(s) DeafIHearing Impaired _ t.:{earing _ _

•
 77

• LA'I"ERAL1TY QUESTIONNAIRE
ID #:

1. Please indicate yeur preferences for the use of yom risbt or lm bands, fcet,
cyes or cars iD the foUowiDg ae:tMties, UlÏDI the foUowing sc;uc:

1 • very mong LEFT preference

2 • LEFT preference
3 • 110 preference (cquaDy likcJy ta use left or risbt)
.. • RluHT preference
5 • very strang RIGHT preference

Some of the letivities requirc bath bands. ID thesc cases, the pan of the task
or object for which band preference is wanted is iDdicated in brackets.

Please try to answer aIl the questions. Lcavc. bJank onJy if yeu have no
cxperience at aIl with the abject or task. Amwcr the questions on this sheet by
circling the ap:,roprîate number.

A. Which lw1à do you use for:

LEFT RIGHT

• 1.
2-
3.
4.
5.
6.
writing
drawing
throwing
seissors
toothbrush
tnife
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
..
..
..
..
..
..
5
5
5
5
5
5
7. spoon 1 2 3 .. 5
8. broom (upper IwJd) 1 2 3 .. 5
9. striking match (-nBteh) 1 2 3 .. 5
10. operong box (lid) 1 2 3 .. 5
B. Which ~ do you use ta:
11. kick a ball 1 2 3 .. 5
12- step on. bug 1 2 3 .. 5
C. Which œ do yeu use ta:
13. look waugh a te1csc:ope 1 2 3 .. 5
14. pccp waugh • key hole 1 2 3 .. 5
D. Which BI do )'Ou use ta:
1S. 1istcn ta • tnnsistor radio with
an car plug 1 2 3 .. 5
16- listen iD on a conversation gaing
on bchind a doscd door 3 .. 5

•
1 2
 78

• Il. 1. On the sc:ale below, plcasc ÏDdicate the band used mest frequently by each

l
member of your biological family.

• RIGHT band
2 - LEfT band
3 • uses BOni left and right band with equaJ frequency
4 • do not Jcnow

If an alternative does not appty, plcasc lcave it blaDk.

R L li 1 R L li ....,
Mother 1 2 3 .. Brether A 1 2 3 4
Father 1 2 3 4 Brether B 1 2 3 4
Sister A 1 2 3 . Brether C 1 2 3 4
Sister B 1 2 3 . Brether D 1 2 :' 4
Sister C 1 2 3 . Brether E 1 2 3 4
Sister D 1 2 3 4 Brother f 1 2 3 4
Sister E 1 2 3 4 SenA 1 2 3 4
Sister F 1 2 3 4 Son B 1 2 3 ..
Daughter A 1 2 3 4 Sone 1 2 3 4
Daughter B 1 2 3 4

• 2-

3.
Daughter C 1 2 3 4

What is the writing hand of your spouse? _

(If not applicable, lcave blank.)
Right _ Lcft _ Unknown

To the best of your recolleetion, did anyone try to "switch" your writing hand
when you were leaming to write?

No Yes; why?

4. Whic:h writing position mast cJoscty rescmblcs your owu1 (Orcle the let\er.)

L C- d.

-
•
 79

• FAMILIAL HANDEDNESS
Is anyone in your biologica1 family (i.e. mother, father, brothers, sistcrs) left handcd or
ambidexttous? (Check one.)

Yes No Don'l know

If Yes, who? (Check all that apply.)

Motber _ Falher _ Sister(s) _ Brother(s)

NATIVE LANGUAGE
Is English the first language you leamcd 10 speak? (Check one.)

Yes No Don't know

•
 80

• DOT FILLING-IN TASK

ID 1:

Please use jour dominant hand first. When you receive the signal, start
filling in the circles as quickly as possible with a single dot each.
_

Start and stop exactly when indicated. You are not expected to cOlile near
finishing the row. Repeat the process (when given the indication) in the
second set with your nondominant hand. The third and fourth sets should
be done with the nondominant and then dominant hind, respectively.
1. Dominant hand • L R (circle oroe)
0 o0 0 0 0 00000 00 0 0 0 oQ 0 0 0 0
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00000 o0 0 0 0 0000 0 00000 o 0 000
Total •
2. Nondominant hand • L R (circle one)
0 o0 0 0 0 00000 o0 0 0 0 o0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

•
00000 o0 0 0 0 o 0 000 00000 o 0 000
Total •

3. Nondominant hand = L R (circle one)

0 o 0 000 00000 o0 0 0 0 o 0 000 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
o0 0 0 0 00000 o 000 0 00000 o0 0 0 0
Total •
4. Dominant hand • L R (ci rcle one)
0 1} D li D 0 o0 0 0 0 00000 0000 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00000 o0 0 0 0 o 0 00 O. 00000 OODOO
Total •
Total L • R•
Total L + R •

•
 81

• APPENDIXB

Two-Dimensional Tasks

Card Rotation (French. Ekstrom & Priee. 1964)

a b c d

•
Form Board (Likert & Ouasha. 1941)

a b c d

•
 82

•
Three-Dimensional Task~

Space Relation (Bennett. Seashore & Wesman. 1947)

a b c d

• Spatial Visualization (Vandenburg & Kuse. 1978)

a b c d

•
 83

• Task: Space Relations

APPENDIXC

DD.#: _

SOLUTION STRA1EGY

1. Mark only one (1) answer, the one that bcst descnbcs your problem solving
technique for this set of problems.

To solve this wk did you:

imagine moving the test objectes) (e.g. twisting, tuming, rotating)?

imagine yourself moving around the teSt objectes) or moving through

spacc (c.g. walking, driving, Ooating)?

find a key feature (size, angle, position, shape, etc.) of the problem and,
without imagining mOVtU! the object or yourself, note whether it was
present or how it changed?

just know the answer?

• gucss?
other (specify) _

2. How accurately does the statement you selected reflect the way you solvcd these
problems?

cxactly L __-+I-----fl --J.I:.-----;'-I---:hot at aH

/ 11/ / i

~G)@~@! • .' c • 1