🚀 go-pugleaf

Index Number: 7095

Table 3
Total Gains in Percentile and Grade Equivalent Scores
for Direct Access and Controls
			Pre          		Post             	Gain
		Per	Grade		Per	Grade	Per 	Grade		
_______________________________________________________________________________
Grade 1
DA (38)	 7	1.09		32	1.55		25 	0.46
Control (27)	46	1.79		56	2.13		10  	0.34
Grade 2
DA (21)	17	1.76		32	2.15		15	0.39
Control (36)	54	2.89		58	3.19		40	0.3
Grade 3
DA (28)	16	2.33		31	2.99		15	0.66
Control (28)	56	4.49		61	4.94	 	5	0.45
Grade 4
DA (52)	15	2.59		31	3.28		16	0.69
Control (53)	60	5.82		61	5.97		1	0.15
DA (20)	21	3.63		38	5.01		17	1.38
Control (38)	56	6.53		60	7.09		4	0.56
Grade 6
DA (13)	 3	2.36		15	3.68		12  	1.32
Control (17)	71	9.58		74	 9.9		3 	 0.32
Grade 7
DA (21)	 8	3.39		26	5.45		18  	2.068
Control (18)	35	6.57		36	6.64	 	1	0.07
Grade 8
DA (9) 5	3.38		21	5.61		16	2.23
Control (10)	34	6.94		35	7.36		1	0.42
Grade 10
DA (7)17	5.58		26	6.65		9	1.07
Control (13)	15	5.25		18	 5.6		3	0.35
_______________________________________________________________________________
Total
Exper. (209)	12	2.27		29	3.22		17	0.95
Control (240)	52	5.35		56	5.71		4	0.36
_______________________________________________________________________________

During the past year (1988-89) Greensboro and High Point, North
Carolina used the Direct Access approach.  The average gain on
the State mandated California Achievement Test was over 20 percentile
points for those children.  High Point has mandated the Direct Access
approach as the treatment of choice for children who are "at risk" for
reading.  The next Chapter is a discussion of some of the methods that
are consistent with Direct Access.

CHAPTER 6
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
There are two basic types of reading disabled children, the
Phonetic and the Semantic.  The Phonetic disabled reader is the
child who struggles with every word and has great difficulty decoding.
The Semantic disabled reader is the child who will read aloud
perfectly, but does not comprehend what was read.
One way to identify these children is by observing the
direction their eyes tend to move when asked questions about
which they have to think of an answer.  The Phonetic child will tend to
move their eyes to the left and the Semantic to the right.  This
measure is called Lateral Eye Movements (LEM).
One study compared the two groups on a rhyme, case,
word/picture matching, and a synonym/antonym tasks.  All the
words used in the tasks were determined to be in the sight vocabularies
of the children.  The results of those tasks are shown in Figures 1 and
2.  It is clear that the Phonetic disabled children made more errors on
the rhyme task which involves the sound of the words.  Semantic
disabled children, on the other hand, made more errors on the tasks
that involved the meaning of the words.  There were two graphs on this
page which will not be usable in ascii format.

THE TYPES OF READING DISABILITY AND READING METHODS
Current teaching methods almost invariably use an indirect
phonological route to meaning in which the written word is
converted to its phonological counterpart so that meaning derives from
auditory comprehension.  A child comes to school with auditory
comprehension, that is, hearing the word "ball" leads to the concept of
"a round, bouncy thing".  In reading, the letters b-a-l-l must lead to
the concept of "a round, bouncy thing".  In virtually every case, the
child is taught to see the word, say it, and understand it from its
sound.  This is an effective technique for two reasons.  First, it
takes advantage the existing auditory comprehension of children;
second, it provides the background for the future decoding of new
words.  As effective as this procedure is for most children, a
significant number of individuals are not able to learn under this
protocol and they comprise the majority of the children we term
"reading disabled."
There are two major types of reading disability which flow
directly from the indirect phonological techniques that are
typically used to teach reading.  The Phonetic disabled reader has
difficulty in converting the letters of a word to its sound and thus
cannot make the first step in that method.  The Semantic disabled
reader can take that first step, but the sound of the word does not
lead to its meaning.
The standard methods of teaching reading are well-entrenched
and educators sincerely believe that this indirect phonological
route to meaning is the best. Therefore, remediation for these
"disabled readers" means an intensification of what was not successful
in the past.  Extensive drilling in phonetic skills has led to an
emphasis on teaching to weakness, rather than strength. The imbalance
is reflected in reading curricula and standardized tests that stress
phonetic decoding at the expense of comprehension.  Phonetic decoding
is a means to the end of comprehension; it has become an end in
itself.
An alternative approach to reading which does not depend on an
indirect phonological approach to comprehension, called Direct
Access, has one basic principle: the meaning of the printed word should
not be derived from the sound of that word.
Any procedure that avoids the grapheme to phoneme conversion is
consistent with this approach.  The child is never required to read
aloud, but asked to explain what a passage meant.  Trivial deviations
in verbiage, e.g., "jet" for "plane", are de-emphasized. The stress is
on comprehension rather than a slavish word for word decoding.
Specific Direct Access techniques will be discussed later.

RESULTS USING DIRECT ACCESS
Maxwell and Zenhausern in 1983 applied the method to First
Grade children who were "at risk" during the second semester.
After 25 half-hour sessions, the children increased their comprehension
scores from the 26th to the 56th percentile on the Metropolitan
Achievement Test and increased their sight vocabulary by over 100
words. A comparable control group showed no gain in comprehension.
Minardi, Zenhausern, and Maxwell in 1984 found similar results with
Junior and Senior High School children.  Using the same regimen of 25
half-hour sessions, the Junior High School students gained an average
of 7 months and the Senior High School students an average of 1.4
years.
It has only been in the past two years that the Direct Access
approach has been used on a full time basis.  The results from
a 10 week study in Greensboro, North Carolina are show below.  The
average gain was .95 years or 17 percentile points.  Note that the
older the child the greater the gains.  From the fifth grade on, the
children showed gains of at least one year and seventh and eight grade
children gained over 2 years on the average.  Direct Access is not just
for younger children.
Both Greensboro and High Point, North Carolina used Direct
Access for the past year.  On their State mandated California
Achievement Test, those children on Direct Access instruction showed an
average gain of 17 percentile points above last years scores.

SELECTED DIRECT ACCESS TECHNIQUES
The results of the demonstration project and the use of Direct
Access in the past year in North Carolina clearly show that
reading disabled children can benefit from the Direct Access method of
teaching reading.  To be able to read means that one can get meaning
from the printed word.  The indirect phonological route attempts to
accomplish this by having the reader convert the written word to its
phonological counterpart and from this sound derive meaning.
Converting the word to its sound is a means to the end of
comprehension, not the comprehension itself.  Direct Access attempts to
derive the meaning of the printed word not via its sound, but
directly.  The stress is on comprehension, not decoding.
One of the first and most basic Direct Access techniques
consists of pairing an index card which contains a word and one
that contains a picture so that the child can consistently make the
pairing.  At that point the child can read the word, that is, the child
can comprehend the printed word.  Note that this is true whether or not
the child can say the word correctly or not.  The pictures can be
provided by the teacher, cut from magazines for homework by the child,
or even drawn by the child.  The question of abstractions and hard to
picture words at first seems insurmountable, but it is surprising how
easily a child will develop and remember appropriate pictures.  In
connection with this aspect, games can be developed to strengthen the
connection between the words and the pictures.
Variations of Concentration and Old Maid have been used successfully.
This pairing, however, is only the beginning of the Direct
Access approach.  The typical reaction at this point is, "This
is nothing new." or "We tried that 20 years ago and it did not work."
The next step is the most critical.  The words and pictures must be
combined into sentences.  A word sentence can be covered by the
appropriate picture and vice versa.  The child should not be asked to
read the sentence aloud, word for word.
Rather, have the child summarize the sentence, point to a picture from
a series that corresponds to it, or even draw a picture of the
sentence.  The stress should always be on whether the child has
understood the basic meaning of the sentence rather than a word for
word rendition of it.
There are two important side benefits of this approach.  One is
an increase in spelling skills.  The second advantage is the
ease with which children can do creative writing using the cards.  It
is a simple way to separate penmanship from writing.  The child could
be asked to write the funniest (most exciting, etc.) sentence they can
from their words.  The step from sentences to paragraphs is minimal.
There are two basic approaches to class recitation within a
Direct Access framework.  The phonetic disabled reader would be
asked to summarize a passage for the class and the teacher and
classmates could discuss the errors of omission and commission.  It
also opens the door for class discussion on any relevant issues.  The
semantic disabled reader would read aloud, but be required to do so
with expression to assure that the meaning and not only the words were
being read.  Of course, any child could be given the opportunity to use
either approach.
Flash cards are a standard part of the classroom and can be
used within a Direct Access framework.  Let the children have
their pictures in front of them when the words are flashed.  They will
serve as a cue and minimize the chance of failure.  As the children
progress, they can turn the pictures face down on the desk and only
turn them over as needed.  This will strengthen skills and continue to
minimize the chance of failure.  This technique could easily be
converted into a game where more points accrue if a card is not turned
over, but the child will always get some points.
What happens when a child comes across of word they have never
seen before?  This is the usual response of people who first
encounter Direct Access.  There are several approaches to this.  First
and foremost, the child should be encouraged to determine the meaning
of the word from the context of the whole passage.
Second, the teacher can tell the child the word and immediately
have the child cut out or draw an appropriate picture for that word.
Third, the child can be encouraged to look it up in the
dictionary just like anyone else who comes across a word with which
they are unfamiliar.  The child may not be able to pronounce the word,
but its meaning will be known.
Fourth, phonetic decoding should be an essential part of any
reading program.  It is an important skill and should not be
neglected.  On the other hand, it should not be the main approach to
deriving meaning from the printed word for some children.
There is a temporary remediation procedure to use with Semantic
disabled readers.  Have the child read aloud into a tape
recorder.  Then the child can play back the tape while reading from the
text material.  Although this is an awkward procedure it will allow the
child to get meaning from the printed word.  Direct Access has a
technique for the teaching of spelling and number facts.  It has been
shown that some children not only do not learn by verbally repeating
the word and letters (e.g. "cat, C-A-T, cat", "6 times 3 is 18") but
this procedure can actually interfere with learning.  As an alternative
have the child look at the word and practice forming an image of the
letters without saying anything (This is essential!!).  When it comes
time to spell the word, have the child bring back the image of the
letters and copy them.
The Direct Access approach does not depend on a rigid structure
that the teacher must follow slavishly, but is a general
principal that can lead to unique and creative techniques.
Furthermore, the method is not limited to the disabled population, but
may be an effective strategy for all readers since it has some
similarities to "speed reading" techniques.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Reading Disability is as much a physical disability as
blindness, deafness and paralysis but a person with such a
disability has not received the help offered to those suffering from
the latter disorders.  The reading disabled child is considered
responsible for the disability.  The purpose of this paper was to point
out that these children can learn to read if only we are willing to
change the methods with which we teach reading.  The standard
approaches to reading demand that the child convert the written word to
its sound and, from that sound, derive the meaning.  It was shown that
85% of the children we call reading disabled have difficulty making
that first step and the remaining 15% can convert the word to its
sound, but this still does not give them meaning.  The Direct Access
approach to reading can help both types of children because meaning is
not derived by converting the printed word to its sound.  Rather, the
sound of the word is derived from its meaning.  Several specific
techniques using this approach have been discussed earlier in the
Chapter.
Our brain is capable of many fascinating and wondrous things.
Our conscious awareness of our surroundings is somehow derived
from light of various wavelengths falling on our retina and causing
neurons to fire and not fire.  It is this pattern of neuronal activity
that gives us conscious experience.  Even more amazing is the ability
to create literary, musical, and visual works of art.  It is the brain
that is responsible for all of this.  The brain also has a rather
obscure function.  It can take an arbitrary series of symbols (printed
words) and convert them into an equally arbitrary set of sounds (spoken
words).  This function pales alongside literary and artistic
masterpieces.  Why have we made it the basis of our educational
system?

Recommendations
1) Children who are not doing well in school should be tested to
determine if they fall into the Phonetic or Semantic disabled reader
categories.
Children can be tested for Phonetic and Semantic reading
disability by means of a test derived from the results
presented in Chapter 4.  The Phonetic Semantic Reading Scale (PSRS)
requires a child to match written and pictorial material on the basis
of their sound or on the basis of their meaning.  The point would be to
identify individuals who do well on one portion of the test and poorly
on the other to make a differential diagnosis between the Phonetic and
Semantic disabled.

2) Individual preferences in learning strategies should be taken into
consideration in selecting teaching strategies.
Both lateral eye movements and Hemispheric Preference Test data
should be collected on all children.  Strategies of teaching
that are compatible with the learning strategies associated with these
Hemispheric Related Traits should be incoporated into the classroom.

3) Children who are identified as Phonetic or Semantic disabled should
be given appropriate alternative approaches to the teaching of
reading.
The techniques described in the Selected Direct Access
Technique section above should be applied to these children.
These would include, but not be limited to:  a) Alternative forms of
class recitation b) De-emphasis of phonics c) Use of word picture
vocabulary cards d) Emphasis on comprehension rather than decoding

4) The criteria for success should reflect the capabilities of the
child in conjunction with the demands of the culture rather than
artificial restrictions.
These would include, but not be limited to:
a) Speed should be de-emphasized
b) Tests should be given on an "open book" basis.
c) Calculators should be allowed on mathematics tests.
Note that these changes actually reflect the way people operate
in the real world.  No business places unrealistic time limits
on workers or denies them use of tools and references.

The major recommendation of this paper is that learning
disability should be recognized as an true disability and
treated in the same way as more the physical disabilities such as
deafness, blindness and paralysis.  The learning disabled child should
not be considered at fault for the disorder, but should be recognized
as a person in need of special help.  It is our responsibility to
supply that special help.
The emphasis must be on individualizing instruction rather than
finding the "one true method".  The good from all approaches
must be used with those who find it good and avoided for those who find
it not good.  Only by tailoring our teaching to the unique style of
each student do we maximize their strengths rather than trying to
strengthen their minima.

REFERENCES
Alberts, F. L., & McCallum, R. S. (1982).  The relationship among  three
measures of cognitive style. Clinical Neuropsychology,4, 70-71.
Bakker, D. (1982) Cognitive deficits and cerebral asymmetry.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 150, 49-54.
Beaumont, J., Young, A., & McManus (1984) Hemisphericity: A critical review.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 1, 191-212.
Boder, E. (1973) Developmental dyslexia: A diagnostic approach based on three
atypical reading-spelling patterns.  Developmental Medicine and Child
Neurology, 15, 663-687.
Breitling, D., & Bonnet, K. (1985). Lateralizationof GSR, lateral eye
movements and a visual half-fields recognition task. International
Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 7, 140-143
Bruce, P. R., Herman, J. F., & Stern, J. (1982). Lateral eye movements
and the recall of spatial information in a familiar, large-scale
environment.  Neuropsychologica, 20, 505-508.
Coleman, S. & Zenhausern, R. (1979) Processing speed, laterality
patterns, and memory encoding as a function of hemispheric dominance.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 14, 357-360.
Day, M. E. (1967) An eye-movement indicator of individual differences in the
psychological organization of attentional process and anxiety.
Journal of  Psychology, 66, 51-62.
Denckla, M.B. (1979) Childhood learning disabilities. In. K.M. Heilman
and E.M. Valenstein (Eds.), Clinical Neuropsychology, New York:  Oxford
University Press.
Dunn, R., Price, G., Bacilious, Z., & Zenhausern, R. (1983) Learning Style -- a
predictor of school achievement. Momentum, 13, 47-48.
Dunn, R., Zenhausern, R., Cavanaugh, D., & Eberle, B. (1982) Hemispheric
preference the newest elements of learning style. Journal of the
National Association of Biology Teachers, 44, 291-294.
Dunn, R, White, R. & Zenhausern, R. (1984) Do educators create some discipline
problems? Illinois School Research and Development Journal, 34, 56-67.
Ehrlichman, H., & Barrett, J.  (1984) Right hemisphere specialization for mental
imagery a review of the evidence.  Brain and Cognition, 2, 55-76.
Ehrlichman, H., & Weinberger, A.  (1978) Lateral eye movements and hemispheric
asymmetry: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 1080-1101.
Fisk, J. & Rourke, B. (1979) Identification of subtypes of learning
disabled children at three age levels: A neuropsychological, multivariate
approach.  Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 1, 289-310.
Falcone, D. J., & Loder, K. (1984). A modified lateral eye  movement measure,
the right hemisphere, and creativity.  Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 823-830.
Furst, C.  EEG asymmetry and visuospatial performance.  Nature, 260, 254-255.
Galin,D., & Ornstein, R.  (1972) Lateral specialization of cognitive
mode: An EEG study.  Psychophysiology, 9, 412-418.
Galin, D., & Ornstein, R.  (1975) Hemispheric specialization and the
duality of consciousness.  Laterality and brain function.  Springfield,
IL: C.C.Thomas.
Golden, M., & Zenhausern, R.  (1983) Grapheme to phoneme conversion:
The basis of reading disability? International Journal of Neuroscience,
20, 229-240.
Gur, R.E. (1978) Left hemisphere dysfunction and left hemisphere  overactivation
in schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 226-238.
Gur, R. E., & Gur, R. C. (1975).  Defense mechanisms,  psychosomatic
symptomatology, and conjugate lateral eye movements.  Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 416-420.
Gur, R.E., Gur, R.C., & Harris (1975) Cerebral activation, as measured by
subjects' lateral eye movements is influenced by experimenter location.
Neuropsychologia, 13, 35-44.
Gur, R.C., Packer, I, Hungerbuhler, J., Reivich, M., Obrist, W., & Amarner,
W.(1980) Differences in the ion of grey and white matter in the human
cerebral cortex.  Science, 207, 1226-128.
Huang, M. S., & Byrne, B. (1978).  Cognitive style and lateral eye
movements.  British Journal of Psychology, 69, 85-90.
Hugdahl, K., & Carlgren, H. E. (1981).  Hemispheric asymmetry as  indexed by
differences in direction of initial conjugate lateral eye movements (CLEMS)
in response to verbal, spatial, and emotional tasks.  Journal of Mind
and Behavior 2, 259-270.
Jamieson, J. L., & Sellick, T. B. (1985) Effects of subject-to- experimenter
distance and instructions on lateral eye movement. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 60, 155-159.
Kaliski, M., Zenhausern, R., Andrews, R. (1989) The direct access method of
teaching reading and the diagnosis and remediation of reading disability.
International Journal of Neuroscience, 44, 103-109.
Kinsbourne, M. (1972) Eye and head turning indicate cerebral  lateralization.
Science, 176, 539-541.
Kinsbourne, M., & Warrington, E. (1963) Developmental factors in reading and
writing backwardness.  British Journal of Psychology, 54, 145-156.
Krikorian, R., & Rafales, L. (1983). Emotional stimulation,  defensive
orientation, and hemispheric activation.  Brain and Cognition, 1, 371-380.
Leboeuf, A., McKay, P., & Clarke, K. (1983). Lateral eye movements  and dream
recall in males: a reappraisal. Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality, 3, 61-68.
Lenhart, R. E. (1985) The effects of distance between interactants and subject
anxiety on conjugate lateral eye movements.  Brain and Cognition,
4(3), 328-337.
Levy, J. (1974) Psychobiological implications of bilateral asymmetry. In S.
Dimond & J. Beaumont (Eds.) Hemispheric function and the human brain.
New York: Wiley
Mattis, S., French, J., & Rapin, I. (1975) Dyslexia in children and young
adults: three independent neuropsychological syndromes.  Developmental
Medicine and Child Neurology, 17, 150-163
Markman, S. & Zenhausern, R. (1988) The interaction of hemispheric related
strategies and individual differences in learning. International Journal
of Neuroscience, 43, 165-170.
Maxwell, M. & Zenhausern, R. (1983) Teaching reading to disabled readers by
eliminating the necessity for grapheme to phoneme conversion.  Paper
presented at the Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia.
Minardi, A., Zenhausern, R., & Maxwell, M. (1984) The remediation of reading
disability: a new approach. Paper presented at the International Neuropsychology
Convention, Houston.
Oexle, J. & Zenhausern, R. (1981) Differential hemispheric activation in good
and poor readers. International Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 31-36.
Ogorman, J. & Siddle, D. (1981).  The effects of question type  and experimenter
position on bilateral differences in electrodermal activity and conjugate
lateral eye movements.  Acta Psychologica, 49, 43-51.
Owens, W., & Limber, J. (1983). Lateral eye movement as a measure  of cognitive
ability and style.  Perceptual and Motor Skills, 56, 711-719.
Parrott, C. A. (1983). Personality characteristics associated  with lateral eye
movement patterns.  Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 867-874.
Paivio, A., Yuille, J., & Madigan, S. (1968) Concreteness, imagery and
meaningfulness values for 925 nouns.  Journal of Experimental Psychology
Monographs, 76, (1 pt. 2).
Petroskas, R. & Rourke, B. (1979) Identification of subtypes of retarded
readers: A neuropsychological, multivariate approach.  Journal of Clinical
Neuropsychology, 1, 17- 37.
Pirozzolo, F. (1979) The neuropsychology of developmental reading disorders.
New York: Praeger.
Schwartz, G., Davidson, R., & Maer, F. (1977). Right Hemisphere  Lateralization
for Emotion in the Human Brain:  Interactions with cognition. Science, 190,
286-288.
Schweitzer, L. (1979).  Differences of cerebral lateralization  among
schizophrenic and depressed patients.  Biological Psychiatry, 14, 721-733.
Smokler, I. A., & Shevrin, H. (1979).  Cerebral lateralization  and personality
style.  Archives of General Psychiatry, 36, 949-954.
Swinnen, S. (1984). Some evidence for the hemispheric asymmetry   model of
lateral eye movements.  Perceptual and Motor Skills, 58, 79-88.
Thompson, M., Greenberg, R. P., & Fisher, S. (1982). Defense  mechanisms,
somatic symptoms, and lateral eye movements in females.  Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 55, 939-942.
Tucker, D. M., Antes, J. R., Stenslie, C. E., & Barnhardt, T.  M.  (1978).
Anxiety and lateral cerebral function.  Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
87, 380-383.
Tucker, G. H., & Suib, M. R. (1978).  Conjugate lateral eye  movement (CLEM)
direction and its relationship to performance on verbal and visuospatial
tasks.  Neuropsychologica, 16, 251-254
Tucker, D. (1981) Lateral brain function, emotion, and conceptualization.
Psychological Bulletin, 89, 19-46.
Van Nuys, D. (1985) Lateral eye movement and dream recall: II sex  differences
and handedness.  International Journal of Psychosomatics, 31, 3-7.
Weiten, W., & Etaugh, C. F. (1974) Lateral eye movement as related to
verbal and perceptual-motor skills and values.  Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 36, 423-428.
Zenhausern, R. (1978) Imagery, cerebral dominance, and style of thinking:
A unified field model.  Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12, 381-384.
Zenhausern, R. (1982) Rights and lefts and how they learn.
Early Years, 12, 51-67.
Zenhausern, R. (1983) Lateralized presentation and hemispheric integration.
American Psychologist, 38.
Zenhausern, R. (1987) The relationship of reading disability and the techniques
of teaching reading. International Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 55-62.
Zenhausern, R. (1988) Eyes Right. Teaching K through 8, 23, 76-78.
Zenhausern, R. & Dunivin, D. (1981) Differential hemispheric activation and
handedness and hysterical and obsessive personality styles.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 17, 23-25.
Zenhausern, R., & Dunn, R. (1984) How brainy are you about the brain?
Early Years, 15, 46-49.
Zenhausern, R., Dunn, R., Cavanaugh, D. & Eberle, B. (1981) Do right and left
brained students learn differently. Roeper Review, 4, 35-39.
Zenhausern, R. & Gebhard, M. (1979) Hemispheric dominance in recall and
recognition.  Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 14, 71-73.
Zenhausern, R., Notaro, J. Grosso, J. & Schiano, P. (1980) The interaction of
hemispheric preference, laterality, and sex in the perception of
emotional tone and verbal content.

                               --ooOoo--