Acquisition of a learning set by normal and mentally retarded children.

Abstract

A survey of the literature indicates that extensive studies of the learning process with mentally retarded children have been extremely rare. The purpose of the present study was to determine the applicability of discrimination-learning methodology, originally described by Harlow (3), to the study of learning in normal and mentally retarded children. Specifically, group differences in the acquisition of an object-quality discrimination learning set were studied. Also included in this study was an empirical analysis of error factors. METHOD Apparatus and SubjectsThe testing device was the Wisconsin General Test Apparatus, slightly modified to adapt it for children (4, 5). There were 400 pairs of stimulus objects which differed from each other in multiple characteristics. These have been described elsewhere (4, 5).Subjects were eight mentally retarded children enrolled in a special opportunity class and six normal children in regular classes from the same rural elementary school. The following criteria were used in selecting the retarded group: (a) A Stanford-Binet IQ of SO to 75. A report of the child's behavior during the administration of the test was included in the analysis of the test data so that any temporary and specific conditions of the cliild at the time of testing could be given careful consideration in evaluation of the validity and reliability of the test results. (&) Comparable case history and/or psychometric data obtained in an attempt to determine the presence or absence of a relatively similar degree and type of intellectually subaverage status in one or both parents and in most siblings, (c) Available social, developmental, and academic data. These were evaluated along with psychometric results to facilitate the clinical "screening out" of those children not considered to be legitimately classified as mentally retarded, (d) Specific exclusions were epileptics, clinical types such as mongoloids, severely crippled 5s, and those with visual, auditory, or obvious neurological handicaps.The Stanford-Binct IQ range of the normal children was 90 to 109 inclusive. The means of both groups were closely matched in terms of chronological age, sex and age at which S first entered elementary school. Normal

Chapter III: Mental Retardation

“…In comparing the learning-set performances of normal and educable children, Kaufman and Peterson (56) observed that normal children made more correct responses than retarded children on 48 object-quality problems, a significantly greater percentage of stimulus-perseveration errors being made by the retarded group (which did not include clinical types such as Mongoloids).…”

Cognitive profile of rats exposed to lactational hyperphenylalaninemia: Correspondence with human mental retardation

“…As noted above, previously HP monkeys were also found to repeat incorrect object choices in discrimination tasks. Stimulus perseveration has also been noted to characterize mentally retarded humans in learning set tasks (Kaufman & Peterson, 1958, 1965).…”

Monkey Retardate Learning Analysis

“…These investigations found superior response performances in both groups following failure on trial one, than following comparable success (House and Zeaman, 1958). However, on the same ta.sk (1958) and in a conditionaldiscrimination problem, Kaufman and Peterson (1965) foimd human retardates exhibiting more stimultis-perseveration errors (perseverating with the incorrect stimulus after a loss) than normals but no differences in the emission of response-shift errors.Where outcome is uncertain, Schusterman (1964) reports that severe mental retardates are more likely to make a ehoice based upon the outcome and the choice of the preceding trial, persisting less with a previously unsuccessful choice than less severe retardates or normals in a two-choice problem. Retardates, on the other hand, were found to be more stereotyped in an insolulile mtiltlple-choice task (Goulet and Barclay, 1967) and to perseverate more and alternate less in a complex binary-choice guessing game {Gerjuoy and Winters, 1966).…”

“…These investigations found superior response performances in both groups following failure on trial one, than following comparable success (House and Zeaman, 1958). However, on the same ta.sk (1958) and in a conditionaldiscrimination problem, Kaufman and Peterson (1965) foimd human retardates exhibiting more stimultis-perseveration errors (perseverating with the incorrect stimulus after a loss) than normals but no differences in the emission of response-shift errors.…”