🚀 go-pugleaf

Index Number: 7093

Posted with author's permission:

	       THE NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL BASES OF EDUCATIONAL DISABILITIES

		      Implications for Diagnosis and Remediation

        		      email: 72440.32@compuserve.com
                               Robert Zenhausern, Ph.D.
				Professor of Psychology
				 St. Johns University
				   Jamaica, NY 11439
					  USA

INTRODUCTION

The paragraphs below are in the form of a satire based on the
essay by Jonathan Swift entitled "A Modest Proposal" in which
he presented a solution to the "Irish Problem".  The parallel here is
Learning Disability and the inflexible ways these children are taught.
It is the objective of this paper to show that the problem of the
learning disenfranchised is one that can solved by increasing the
flexibility with which we teach.

Another Modest Proposal:  A Swift Response to an Old Problem
The purpose of this essay is to examine the possibility that we are
systematically doing a disservice to a large segment of the school
population.  Students who have auditory or visual impairments have been
allowed to use artificial means, such as glasses or hearing aids, to
correct their deficits.  Indeed, it is considered praiseworthy to
identify such problems early and then use the services of professionals
who prescribe optical or electronic devices which alleviate the
deficiencies.
The consequences of such actions, however, have not been considered
fully.  Such children may become lazy and make no attempt to
overcome their problems.  What motivation will they have to strengthen
their perceptual weaknesses when such devices make it unnecessary for
them to do so?  What will such people do if, for whatever reason, such
devices are not available? It is the contention of this paper that
artificial devices are crutches which interfere with the complete
development of the child.  As such, they should be eliminated.
Some might argue (and not without a modicum of validity) that by
eliminating those "support systems," such children may not progress
beyond the elementary rudiments of learning.  That, however, should be
secondary to the point that we are not dealing directly with a serious
problem.  The fact that our present state of knowledge does not allow
us to correct such deficiencies should not dissuade us from this course
of action.
Eventually specific techniques will be developed to meet the problems
of poor eyesight and hearing in much the same way that techniques were
developed to alleviate reading and mathematical difficulties -- and
probably with as much success.  There is a minor problem in the fact
that many of the authority figures in the child's environment use those
same artificial devices and thus do not serve as good role models.
Aside from the educational wisdom of this proposal, it has the
added advantage of eliminating the possibility of charges of
discrimination.  Consider, for example, if someone raised the point
that a deficit in vision or hearing, might be compared to a deficit in
arithmetic computation.  They might argue that if vision can be
corrected by glasses why can a calculation deficit not be corrected by
the use of a calculator?
It is difficult to counter these arguments since the two deficits
have so much in common.  Even the poor role model problem has a
parallel since most of the authority figures whom the children contact
would have some difficulty in taking a square root or doing long
division of decimals by hand.  The conclusion is clear: take away
glasses and hearing aids and give the children with sensory defects the
same advantages given to children with calculation defects!
In this Decade of the Disabled it seems fitting to consider the
human rights of the Learning Disabled to an education that more
closely fits their capabilities.
The problems of the Learning Disabled are unique because this is the
only disabled group which is held responsible for its disability.  "If
he worked harder, he could do it", says the frustrated teacher.  No one
expects a blind person to see, if they "worked harder".
Furthermore, to call a child "learning disabled" is to put the burden
of responsibility on the wrong person!  It is our responsibility to
teach much more than it is responsibility of the child to learn.  It is
we who should be called teaching disabled.  The purpose of this paper
is to focus attention on individual differences among both normal
learning disabled children and to consider alternative approaches to
education and thus eliminate our teaching disability.  The major
emphasis will be on the theory and remediation of reading disability
based on a 10 year program of research within a neuropsychological
framework.  The initial Chapter will introduce the concepts of cerebral
asymmetry and hemisphericity and put them in perspective for Education
today.  The second Chapter will discuss behavioral and physiological
measures of individual differences in neuropsychological functioning.
The third Chapter will describe a study that underlines the importance
of these individual differences in an educational setting.  The fourth
and fifth Chapters will describe a series of studies dealing with the
theory, diagnosis and remediation of reading disability that has been
based on these neuropsychological concepts.  The final Chapter will be
a summary that includes the basic information on the Direct Access
approach to reading with specific recommendations.  It can serve as an
abstract of the whole paper.
This Introduction ends with a short quote, found hanging on the
walls of an elementary school in Greensboro, North Carolina and
attributed to Ken Dunn.

If children cannot learn the way we are teaching them, then we must
teach them the way they can learn.

CHAPTER I
THE CEREBRAL HEMISPHERES OF THE BRAIN AND THE NEW PHENOLOGY

Recent work in the areas of neuropsychology, especially those of Sperry who
won the Nobel Prize in 19-- has popularized the notion of the cerebral
asymmetry.  That is, the two hemispheres of the brain are different in
terms of the cognitive processes in which they excel.  There is clear
evidence that the Left Hemisphere has unique control of expressive
speech and operates using a sequential sequentially organized systems.
The Right Hemisphere, on the other hand, has systems that are more
capable of spatially and pictorially oriented processing.
While there are clear differences between the hemispheres,
these differences have been overgeneralized into a new
phrenology of brain functions.  A typical list of "Left Hemisphere
Functions" reads something like: logical, verbal, analytic, inductive,
controlled; the Right Hemisphere is often called: synthetic, emotional,
deductive, intuitive, and abstract.  Some of these labels are
self-contradictory.  The Left Hemisphere is called both analytic and
inductive and the Right Hemisphere both synthetic and deductive.  The
term "abstract" has two diametrically opposed meanings: an article
abstract versus abstract art.
These inconsistencies aside, this neo-phrenological approach must be
rejected on the grounds that it is atomistic.  A hemisphere is neither
verbal, logical, emotional, nor creative; it is a person who has these
characteristics!  All behavior flows from the integrated functioning of
the whole brain.  This does not mean, however, that there is no
individual differences associated with the brain.  The concept of
Hemispheric Related Strategies provides a framework on which to base an
individual difference variable.
For the most part, the two hemispheres do the same things but do
them using different approaches.  Cerebral asymmetries reflect
relative efficiency rather than a "can do-can't do" dichotomy.  There
seems to be one exception to this relative rather than absolute
difference between the hemispheres:  for most people, only the left
hemisphere is capable of speech and of phonetic representation (Levy,
1974).  The isolated hemisphere can tell whether the two words "though"
and "blow" rhyme but the isolated Right Hemisphere can not, even though
it may understand their meaning.  Rhyming demands that the written word
be converted to an auditory form and only the left hemisphere has this
capability.
A second factor that differentiates the two hemispheres is
their type of processing systems: sequential for the left
hemisphere and parallel for the right hemisphere (see Bradshaw and
Nettleton, 1981 for a review.)  Compare these two situations:  1) You
are given a description of someone and must then identify that person;
and 2) You are shown a picture of the person and then must select the
person.  The first task demands the sequential system of the left
hemisphere--the words, descriptive of the various facial features, are
read in sequence and must be combined into an overall perception.
The latter situation reflects the parallel system of the right
hemisphere -- the picture is seen as a whole and various facial
features can be extracted.   The picture is seen all at once in
parallel while the verbal description must be sequentially processed.

The sequential processing system of the Left Hemisphere and its
ability in speech production are the characteristics that
underlie the notion that the Left Hemisphere is the verbal hemisphere.
Language, by its very nature is sequential.  Word order and syntax is
essential to meaning--language cannot be easily processed in parallel.
Thus the left hemisphere has been labeled the "verbal" hemisphere
because its sequential processing system is compatible with the
sequential nature of language, and its control of auditory linguistic
processes make it essential for speech.
For other tasks, even though the processing system of either
hemisphere is compatible with the task, one hemisphere is
clearly superior.  The example of face recognition show intuitively
that the Right Hemisphere pictorial approach is better than a Left
Hemisphere written description.  Note, however, that the task can be
done using Left Hemisphere strategies.   It takes a thousand words to
describe one picture.
Spatial relations tasks are also more easily handled using
Right Hemisphere processes.  Other tasks can be handled equally
well using the strategies of either hemisphere.  For example, a list of
words could be learned by converting and storing them as visual
representations or in an auditory form.  The term Hemispheric Related
Strategies can be used to describe this relationship between observable
behavior and its underlying neuropsychological bases.

Hemispheric Cognitive Style
Two individuals, when faced with the same task, do not
necessarily use the same strategies, that is, people do things
in different ways.  Sometimes those different approaches can be
associated with processing differences between the two cerebral
hemispheres.  These different approaches can be termed Hemispheric
Related Traits.  Hemispheric Cognitive Style is the tendency of an
individual to use distinct patterns of Hemispheric Related Traits.  It
does not imply that one hemisphere is used exclusively, but that
individuals tend to approach tasks in unique and consistent ways.  For
example, if a group of individuals were asked to remember the words
"dog, cat, tree, table, chair", few would have difficulty.  If these
same individuals were asked what strategies they used, there would be
wide variation.  Some would report they repeated the words to
themselves, others that they "saw" the written form of the word, and
others would create images of the words.
These differences in memory strategies can be related to Hemispheric
Related Traits. A person who would be more likely to use imaginal
strategies could be said to use a right Hemispheric Related Trait, and
a person who used auditory strategies could be said to use a left
Hemispheric Related Trait.  Some individuals tend to use the
Hemispheric Related Traits associated with one hemisphere more than
those of the other hemisphere and others show little or no biases.
Those who do favor the Hemispheric Related Traits of one hemisphere can
be said to have a Right or Left Hemispheric Cognitive Style.
It is important not to overgeneralize the scope of Hemispheric
Cognitive Style.  The fact that a person particular strategies
does not imply either a disuse or deficiency in one hemisphere of the
brain.  On a very simple level, a right Hemispheric Cognitive Style
individual has access to the speech centers of the left hemisphere just
as a left Hemispheric Cognitive Style individual has access to the
prosody centers of the right hemisphere.  Thus both right and left
Hemispheric Cognitive Style individuals rely on the integrated
functioning of both hemispheres for expressive speech, and, in fact,
all behavior.
In an intact individual, no task can be accomplished without
the integrated functioning of both hemispheres.  To call an
individual "left or right brained" is to ignore the fact that all
activity depends on the integrated functioning of the whole brain.
These differences, however, can be related to different strategies with
which people approach specific tasks.  One purpose of this paper is to
show how these strategy differences can affect the educational system.
The next chapter will describe how differences in Hemispheric Related
Traits can be measured.  The following chapters will focus on the
application to these traits to mainstream and learning disabled
education.

CHAPTER 2
THE MEASUREMENT OF HEMISPHERIC COGNITIVE STYLE

Two distinct tools have been used in the measurement of
Hemispheric Cognitive Style, one behavioral and the other
physiological.  The behavioral measure is a self rating questionnaire
and the physiological measure relies on the predominant direction of
Lateral Eye Movement (LEM).

The Hemispheric Preference Questionnaire
There are many questionnaires that have been used to measure
"hemisphericity" including many from popular magazines.  Over
the past 12 years I have developed an instrument that has been
successfully used to separate right and left Hemispheric Cognitive
Styles.  A copy of the questionnaire and its scoring key has been
included.  The following studies used the instrument successfully.
Coleman and Zenhausern (1979) compared those who used right and left
Hemispheric Related Traits on a memory retrieval task.
They found the two groups differed on processing speed and the extent
of a left hemisphere bias induced by a verbal memory load.  The bias
was for times stronger for the those who use left Hemispheric Related
Traits than for those who use right Hemispheric Related Traits.
Zenhausern and Nickel (1979) found that Right style individuals learned
a finger maze in fewer trials, in less time and with fewer errors than
those with Left style individuals.  Zenhausern, Notaro, Grosso, and
Schiano (1981) presented right and left style individuals with auditory
messages in which there was a conflict between verbal content and
emotional tone of voice.  Overall, those who use right Hemispheric
Related Traits responded significantly more often to the inflection
cues and those who use left Hemispheric Related Traits significantly
more often to the verbal content.  Dunivin and Zenhausern (1983) found
that left style subjects were more obsessive compulsive, while right
style subjects had more hysterical traits.  Zenhausern and Parisi
(1983) have found that schizophrenics rate themselves as using left
while depressives rate as using right hemisphere related strategies.
The instrument has been used in the area of reading disability
to distinguish two separate syndromes.  Oexle and Zenhausern
(1980), Golden and Zenhausern (1981), Zenhausern and Sinatra (1983),
Maxwell and Zenhausern (1983) have found that 85% of reading disabled
children rate themselves as using more right than left hemisphere
strategies.

The Preference Test for Hemspheric Related Strategies
Indicate your choicd by assigning a number from 1 to 10 with 1 being
the lowest your score on each question.   To score the test, refer to
the scoring key below.  Add the ratings for all the items that are to
be scored right and those that are to be scored left, subtract the two
and divide by 10.  The larger number shows the predominant preference
and the greater the difference the larger the HRS preference.  You
should then develop your own local norms, but as a rule of thumb a
score of .7 or higher can be considered a clear indication of a
prefernce for a Hemispheric Related Strategy.

Test Items

1)      Do you base your decisions on objective facts rather than
	feelings?
2)      Are you psychic?
3)      Do you like using symbols or images in solving problems?
4)      Are you artistically or musically creative?
5)	Are you logical?
6)      Are you good at solving crossword puzzles?
7)      Can you read quickly?
8)      Are your daydreams vivid?
9)      Can you think of synonyms for words easily?
10)     Do you remember dreams?
11)     Are your dreams vivid?
12)     Are you fluent in using words?
13)     Are you good at using images in remembering and thinking?
14)     Do you use a playful approach to problem solving?
15)     Do you use a serious, all business approach to problem solving?
16)     Do you like to keep experiences planned and structured?
17)     Do you like to read or think while sitting upright?
18)     How much does your thinking consist of words?
19)     How much does your thinking consist of mental imagery?
20)     Do you like to explain something using visual presentation?

	SCORING KEY
	Item		Scoring
	1		L	
	2		R
	3		R
	4		R
	5		R
	6		L
	7		L
	8		R
	9		L
	10		R
	11		R
	12		L
	13		R
	14		R
	15		L
	16		L
	17		L
	18		L
	19		R
	20		R

Research into the phenomenon of lateral eye movements (LEM) as
a behavioral measure of neuropsychological activity has been
pursued along two separate dimensions.  LEM have been considered a
measure of both individual differences and task demands.  >From a
neuropsychological perspective, the individual difference aspects have
been associated with the concept of cognitive style and the effects of
task demands with hemispheric asymmetry. There is, however,
considerable controversy as to whether LEM do indeed have
neuropsychological relevance.  The importance of LEM has been
overgeneralized to the point of faddism, which has led to a general
reluctance on the part of the scientific community to give them
credence. In addition, researchers in the area have sometimes failed to
distinguish between these two different aspects of LEM.

Individual Differences and LEM
Research into whether LEM reflect individual personality
differences was initiated by Day (1964), who reported that the
direction of LEM was related to individual styles of coping with
anxiety. Bakan (1971) was the first to propose that the direction in
which a person consistently shifted gaze was related to which of the
cerebral hemispheres an individual used more often.
The relationship between LEM and various dimensions of
individual differences has been explored. Tucker and Suib
(1978) found that left-movers had higher scores on the Performance
tests of the WAIS and did better with imagery oriented questions while
right-movers had better scores on the Verbal subtests of the WAIS and
with questions that were letter and number oriented (e.g., how many
letters are in the word house).
Gur and Gur (1975) showed a relationship between direction of
LEM and defensive style.  Predominantly rightward movers more
often reported using projection and "turning against others" as their
main defenses, while predominantly leftward movers reported using
repression and denial more often. LEM were again shown to be related to
defensive styles in males as measured by the Defense Mechanism
Inventory (Krikorian and Rafales, 1983).  This effect was not
replicated with females, however (Thompson, Greenberg, Fisher, 1982).
In addition, subjects who moved their eyes bidirectionally rather than
predominantly to the left or the right were shown to have better
adaptive coping styles ratings on the adjective check list (Parrott,
1984).
Smokler and Shevrin (1979) showed that normal subjects with
hysterical tendencies made more leftward LEM than normal
subjects with obsessive compulsive tendencies.  The latter group was
more likely to show rightward LEM.  Gur (1978) and Schweitzer (1979)
found that schizophrenics had predominantly leftward LEM.
The relationship between LEM and cognitive styles has also been
explored.  Subjects, who scored as left or right style oriented
on the Laterality Preference Schedule, were shown to have consistent
patterns of LEM, indicating the existence of consistent patterns of
information processing (Breitling and Bonnet, 1985; Bruce, Herman, and
Stern, 1982). When using the Your Style of Learning and Thinking Test
(SOLAT) to measure style of thinking, however, no relationship was
found between LEM and thinking style preference (Alberts and McCallum,
1982). In addition, Owens and Limber (1983) found no relationship
between cognitive style and LEM.
One area of interest in the cognitive style research is the
relationship between what are considered right style ways of
thinking (holistic and broad) and left style ways of thinking (analytic
and narrow) based on proposed functions of the individual hemispheres.
In support of the theory that eye movements indicate hemispheric
activation, and that left hemisphere activation is associated with more
analytic and narrow styles, Huang and Byrne (1978) showed that narrow
categorizers based on the Pettigrew's Category Width Scale made more
leftward LEM than broad categorizers.
Another area of interest has been the relationship between the
ability to recall dreams and LEM.  Predominantly leftward LEM
have been associated with the ability to vividly recall dreams in male
subjects (Leboeuf, Mckay, Clark, 1983), but the same has not been found
with females (Van Nuys, 1985). A related issue is that of creativity
and LEM.  Leftward eye movement has been associated with thinking of
more uses of objects on the Uses Test, which is often used as a measure
of creativity (Falcone and Loder, 1984).
Zenhausern (1987) has shown that LEM can differentiate between
two different types of reading disabled children.
Specifically, rightward LEM are characteristic of reading disabled
children who are unable to derive meaning from the written word despite
being able to say it.  Leftward LEM are characteristic of reading
disabled children who are unable to pronounce the word despite
understanding what it means.  This sampling of research indicates the
scope of individual differences that have been associated with LEM.
In their critique of the LEM literature, Ehrlichman and
Weinberger (1978) concluded that LEM are reliable measures of
individual differences.  They found that despite differences in
methodology and experimental situations the direction a person moves
his or her eyes is a consistent behavior of that individual.  The
individual difference studies above indicate their behavioral
relevance. One purpose of this study is to investigate the reliability
of LEM and determine if they have neuropsychological implications.
Functional Hemispheric Asymmetry and LEM
A second perspective on the nature of LEM was introduced by
Kinsbourne (1972) who proposed that LEM reflect the task
demands on the subject.  He suggested that those tasks that require
input predominantly from the left hemisphere resulted in rightward LEM,
the direction away from the left hemisphere; those tasks that required
predominantly right hemisphere functions resulted in leftward LEM, away
from the right hemisphere.
There has been mixed support for this relationship between LEM
and question type.  The critical variable has usually been
whether rightward LEM are associated with verbal questions, indicating
a relationship between a verbal task and left hemisphere activation.  A
wide variety of what has been called "verbal" questions have been used,
however.
Galin and Ornstein (1974) reported a relationship between
rightward LEM and logical problems and leftward LEM and visual
imagery tasks.   Proverb interpretation have been shown to be related
to rightward LEM (Kinsbourne, 1972; Gur, 1975).
Schwartz Davidson and Maer, 1977, found a relationship between LEM and
task demands.
There have been recent reports of relationships between both
rightward LEM and verbal questions (Hugdahl and Carlgren, 1981;
Ogorman and Siddle, 1981) and leftward LEM and visual spatial tasks
(Swinnen, 1984). In addition to the verbal/non- verbal dichotomy,
emotionally laden questions were used to elicit predominantly leftward
LEM (Krikorian and Rafales, 1983; Jamieson and Sellick, 1985.)
Not all studies have resulted in significant findings. In fact,
Ehrlichman and Weinberger concluded that the evidence for a
relationship between LEM and question type was not convincing on both
empirical and theoretical grounds.  From the empirical point of view,
they noted that, of the 21 studies reviewed, 10 resulted in rightward
movement in response to verbal questions, and 11 resulted in no
difference in LEM to verbal and non verbal questions.  The authors
concluded that the literature thus did not offer strong support that
LEM were related to question type.
A re-evaluation of the empirical studies, however, indicates
that there is a consistent relationship found between the type
of question asked and the direction of LEM.
In only one of the 21 studies reported by Erhlichman and Weinberger
did verbal questions lead to leftward LEM.  While the conclusion that
verbal questions lead to rightward LEM may be in question, the
conclusion that verbal questions do not lead to leftward LEM is
strongly supported.  There may be a relationship between task demands
and LEM, but it is not a simplistic "verbal question leads to rightward
LEM relationship".

Purpose
There is clear evidence that LEM are related to both the type
of question asked and individual difference factors.
Therefore, in any situation, LEM reflect the type of question asked
interacting with the individual differences and it is essential to
separate the two effects.  The purpose of this Chapter is to clarify
the differences between the individual difference and task demand facet
of LEM and to examine the evidence as to whether or not either or both
have neuropsychological relevance.
Two distinct tasks will be used.  One task is purely
informational and can not be uniquely connected with either
hemisphere of the brain.  The second task involves rhyming of non-words
which clearly demands the speech centers of the left hemisphere.
Two experimental questions were addressed.  1) Is the direction of LEM
consistent within an individual both across time and across tasks?  2)
Does the type of question asked have an effect on the direction of
LEM?

METHOD
Subjects. A total of 50 adult subjects were tested.  There were 16
males and 34 females, with an average age of 27 and a range of 16 to
50.  Materials. Stimuli for the rhyme task were four to five letter
nonsense words printed in black ink on white index cards and a series
of prepared questions.  Procedure.  The subjects were informed that
they were participating in a study involving the different ways in
which people think.  They were asked two kinds of questions in a face
to face encounter with the experimenter. The subject responded yes or
no with a nod or shake of the head and the initial direction of eye
movement to each of 40 questions was recorded for each subject. These
non verbal responses were used to eliminate left hemisphere involvement
through speech which was unrelated to the task.
There were two distinct types of questions asked.  The 20
informational questions did not call on any clearly defined
brain areas (Is Miami the capitol of Florida?).
The 20 rhyme questions, on the other hand, clearly demanded the
auditory linguistic capabilities of the left hemisphere. The subject
was shown a nonsense word on an index card and told to remember it. The
card was removed and another nonsense word was verbally spelled by the
examiner and the subjects were asked whether the two words rhymed.  The
subjects were tested in two blocks of 20 trials separated by 30
minutes.  Within each block 10 informational and 10 rhyme questions
were asked.

RESULTS
The data were first explored by means of a correlational
analysis. Both test-retest and split half reliabilities for
informational questions and for rhyme questions are shown in Table 1.
In addition, the correlation between rhyme and informational questions
is also presented. LEM are clearly a consistent measure of individual
differences with reliability coefficients averaging approximately .80
for the same type of question.  When the type of question was changed,
however, there was a dramatic drop in the consistency of LEM although
the correlations were still significant. The direction of LEM changed
as a function of task demands, but not to the extreme that would result
in no correlation.

Table 1
Intercorrelations Among LEM for Information and Rhyme Questions

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Split Half	Test Retest
Rhyme	  	 .85	   .78
Information	 .79	   .83		
Rhyme with Information      .59
DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD0

An initial analysis on the two 20 question blocks indicated no
significant differences and the two were collapsed into a
single set of questions. The data were then analyzed by means of a
split-plot analysis of variance with LEM Group (whether a subject had
predominantly rightward or leftward movement) as a between factor and
Task (Rhyme and Informational questions) and Direction of Movement
(Right, Left, and Stares) as between factors.  Since the scores are
ipsative and the Grouping factor and dependent variable are related,
only the interactions are of interest in this design.  There was a
significant interaction between the Direction of Movement and Task
(F2,92 = 4.92,p<.01).

Table 2
Number and Direction of LEM as a Function of Type of Question
2DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
			Direction of LEM
Task		Right		Left		Stares
Rhyme		6.82		7.64		4.92	
Information	5.50		7.50		6.50
2DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD0

Simple effects analysis indicated that the number of leftward
LEM to informational and rhyme questions were not significantly
different, but there were significantly more rightward LEM than
leftward LEM to rhyme questions.  There were no interactions involving
the LEM Group factor, indicating that the effects of the type of
question were the same for both groups.

DISCUSSION
These results lead to two conclusions.  The first is a
verification of the Ehrlichman and Weinberger (p 1093)
conclusion "...that LEM patterns are reliable characteristics of
persons."   Individuals do move their eyes in a consistent direction
and direction of LEM is a reliable measure of individual differences.
The questions, however, remain as to whether LEM differences can be
related to behavior and whether these behaviors have neuropsychological
implications.  Some of the research reported above has shown the scope
of the variables that have been related to differences in LEM.  (A
fuller listing can be found in Beaumont, Young, and McManus, 1984). Not
every study has shown that LEM differences were related to differences
in performance, but no one should expect LEM to be related to all
behavior.

The final question remains, however, as to whether LEM have
neuropsychological implications. In a very general sense, all
behavior results from brain activity and thus all behavior has
neuropsychological implications.  From a more focused point of view,
LEM have been related to behaviors that neuropsychologist have
associated with the brain.  The problem has been, however, that the
association of the behavior with the brain has not always been clearly
specified.  Logical problems, proverbs, and spelling have all been used
as verbal tasks.  These tasks are extremely complex and clearly involve
both hemispheres of the brain, even though there may be a portion of
the task that is especially dependent on left hemisphere processing.
This was clearly shown in the present study.  The rhyming task demanded
the unique ability of the left hemisphere to create the sound of the
printed word.  The information task had no such clear connections to
either hemisphere of the brain.  Both the correlations and analysis of
variance results pointed to the fact that LEM were different for the
two tasks, with an increase in the number of rightward movements for
the rhyming task.  This change, however, was relatively subtle. Even
though the task demanded specific left hemisphere input, subjects did
not make predominantly rightward LEM; there was only a shift in that
direction.  A subject who made predominantly leftward movement
continued to do so, but the number of rightward movements increased and
the number of stares decreased.

SUMMARY
Lateral Eye Movements have been shown to be a reliable measure
of individual differences, as well as a response to the type of
questions asked.  The importance of both aspects, however, should not
be overemphasized.  The individual difference aspect must be
investigated from a more behavioral point of view. Rather than
comparing a lawyer or a scientist with an artist, determine whether a
courtroom lawyer has more in common with an actor or a corporate
lawyer, or whether a geometrician has more in common with an artist or
an algebrist.
The LEM response to task demands must also be considered in
conjunction with the fact that any task demands the integrated
functioning of the whole brain.  The variable extent to which a task
places special emphasis on one hemisphere must be considered within
this integrated functioning. LEM can be a useful tool, but their value
and meaning can be misunderstood all too easily.   The next Chapter
provides evidence of the usefulness of LEM within a normal classroom
setting.