ALCOHOLICS SCORING < 20 TO THE RAVEN'S COLORED MATRICES: ANALYSIS OF THE WRONG ANSWERS"

ALCOHOLICS SCORING < 20 TO THE RAVEN'S COLORED MATRICES:

ANALYSIS OF THE WRONG ANSWERS

Renato Cocchi, a neurologist and a medical psychologist.

Summary.

The analysis of wrong answers given by 60 chronic alcoholics to Raven's Coloured Matrices PM47, carried out according to criteria used by Cocchi, 1993, brought to light 392 significantly grouped answers (.008 - .0000005). The classification into 5 categories showed the distribution of all 392 answers into the category of i. identity by contiguity or metonimy (67.35%); ii. opposition (15.05%); iii. partial identity or metaphore (11.98 %); iv. confabulation (4.34%); v. choice of the first figure the drawing of which was not present in the conrespondent matrice ("first not present" = 1.28%).

The results confirm that the analysis of wrong answers given to Raven's Progressive Matrices can be used to elicit the neurophysiopsychological levels the cognitive processes in problem solving stop in chronic alcoholics.

Key words: Chronic alcoholics; Raven's Progressive Matrices; wrong answers; analysis; partial identity; identity by contiguity; opposition; confabulation; first not present; neuro-physiological mechanisms.

Theoretical and research bases

Cases

Home Page / / Pagina iniziale

The analysis of the wrong answers to the Raven's Progressive Matrices seems a very valuable tool. It can add a more sophisticated specification to the total score, that is always a little, as for itself.

coarse.

Its use when Colored Matrices where given to demented patients (Poli, Cocchi and Zerbi, 1988) or, as for the Form 1, Rev. 1962, of the PM 47, in college students (Cocchi, 1993) first brought to light that wrong answers gather in not casual way. Following, the analysis of the mistake within the problem solving shows the cognitive mechanism used to produce that answer.

Then I have applied this analysis to a group of answers given by alcoholics to the Colored Matrices PM47.

Subjects, material and method.

For this investigation I chose the answers to the Colored Matrices PM47, given by a group of inpatients in the Alchol Unit between November 1992 and July 1993.

Of each subject we collected sex and age. The diagnosis of alhoolism was made according to DSM-III, R: 303.00.

The PM47 test was part of the neuropsicological entry investigation and was adonistered during first days of staying, or just possible, when a state of predelirium occurred.

One of us have re-examined the cards refferring to the given answers to the PM47, on the what the tester had written even the number of the selected item for the wrong answer. The right answers to the PM47 can be chosen every time among 6 possible answers, only one of them is just the right answer.

Each right answer has one point score till a maximum of 36.

A total score < 20 has selected the choice of the cards. We swerved the cards where the answers obeied to an evident iterative mechanism iterative, with long sequences of wrong answers [aventi] the same number

(example, for a total of 25 wrong answers: 2;5;4;5;4;2;1;2;2;1;2;2;2;2;2;2;2;5;2;2;2;2;2;2;5).

Then we count the wrong answers and gather theb by each matrix.

For eaxh matrix the related wrong answers were divided by 5 (the total of wrong answer posibilities) and the ratio was approximated by excess. This result gave us the theoretical number of surely random wrong answers for each grouping of wrong answers belonging to that matrix.

In every matrix we subtracted the number of theoretical random wrong answers to every grouping of wrong answers. We got, in this way, the number of surely non random wrong answers.

For every grouping of surely non random wrong answers we calculated p of those wrong answers, by starting from 3 of them ( p = 1/125 = .008 ), limiting ourselves to p < .0000006, if the group had 9 or more surely non random wrong answers. Then we classified those surely non random wrong answers according to five categories recently one of us brought to light (Cocchi, 1983 ), that is to say [identity by similarity, horizontal, vertical or diagonal spatial contiguity, opposition (in shape or in colour), first not present, confabulation (an answer where the identity was built from element of different origin).

Results.

Sixty scoring cards out of 63 63 fitted the criteria for this investigation. We swerved three of them because the presence of an evident iterative mechanism in the choice of the answers.

The cards represent the answers to the Colored Matrices PM47, given by 60 Alcoholic patients (14 F + 46 M; average age: 49.85 years +/- 11.70 and range: 21-71 years).

For subjects did not end the test, each one stopping to different matrices, so from the matrix no. 19, 1-4 answers missed.

We indicated the number of the wrong answers, divided as for item, from the matrix 4A the matrix 12B in the Table 1, which indicates even the number of the missing answers, the total number of the wrong answers, and the number of the surely not random wrong answers casual (columns (n)bis ).

Of these last ones we calculated the p of this non random grouping, starting from a group of three nswers. In the Table 2 we spread the not random answers answers according to the five expected cognitive mechanisms.

Tab. 1: Groupings of wrong answers, as given to the various matrices, and corrected with the subtraction of the theoretical random answers ( with * we pointed out the right answers)

Tab. No.	Tot. ans.	Numbers of wrong answers for item, as given or corrected												Total wrong answers
Tab. No.	Tot. ans.	1	*1bis*	2	*2bis*	3	*3bis*	4	*4bis*	5	*5bis*	6	*6bis*	Total wrong answers
Series A
4	60	0		*		5	3+	2		0		0		7
5	60	4		5	2	2		0		0		*		11
6	60	5		11	7&	*		1		1		0		18
7	60	8		6		6		19	11S	0		*		39
8	60	11	4!	*		4		2		2		15	8$	34
9	60	*		6		0		3		23	15$	6		38
10	60	4		6		*		4		0		27	19S	41
11	60	7		9		6		15	4!	*		16	5#	53
12	60	17	9s	7		3		*		3		11	3+	41
Series Ab
1	60	2		2		1		0		0		0		5
2	60	3		5	4!	1		0		*		0		10
3	60	*		4		2		4		2		0		12
4	60	23	13S	6		1		17	7&	0		*		47
5	60	16	5S	*		6		1		9	2	1		33
6	60	*		24	15S	0		7		11	2	4		46
7	59	4		17	9S	*		3		13	5#	4		41
8	59	4		21	10S	4		*		22	11S	1		52
9	59	2		19	9S	15	5#	1		13	3+	*		50
10	59	1		34	24S	*		2		1		1		47
11	59	0		28	18S	14	4!	0		*		6		48
12	58	28	17S	*		4		17	6@	3		3		55
Series B
1	57	0		2		0		1		0		2		5
2	57	1		9	5#	4		2		1		*		17
3	57	*		17	12S	1		2		1		2		23
4	56	1		*		3		6	2	3		5		18
5	56	*		14	4!	3		10		20	10S	0		47
6	56	13	2	22	11S	*		3		5		10		53
7	56	20	10S	17	7&	2		2		*		8		49
8	56	10		3		3		17	7&	18	8$	*		51
9	56	30	19S	8		3		*		9		3		53
10	56	20	10S	21	11S	*		3		1		4		49
11	56	7		21	11S	14	4!	*		5		2		49
12	56	16	5#	12		11		5		*		8		52

p: + = .008; ! <.002; # <.0004; @ <.00007; & <.00002; $ <.000003; S <.0000005

How we can see from the Table 1 there are as well as 43 answer groups with random p <.05. The probability to gain random 24 same answers (Series AB, matrix 10, answer 2) is < 1/10^22, a number dreadfully little.

Tab. 2: Spreading of significantly non random wrong answers according with the hypothesized cognitive mechanisms.

Table no. + tab. answer					First not present
Table no. + tab. answer	Identity	Contiguity	Opposition	Confabulation	First not present
4A.3	3
6A.2			7
7A.4	11
8A.1	4
8A.6	8
9A.5			15
10A.6			19
11A.4			4
11A.6	5
12A.1		9
12A.6		3

2Ab.2	4
4Ab.1		13
4Ab.4	7
5Ab.1			9
6Ab.2		15
7Ab,2		9
7AB.5		5
8Ab.2		10
8Ab.5		11
9Ab.2				9
9Ab.3		5
9Ab.5		3
10Ab.2		24
11AB.2		18
11Ab.3			4
12Ab.1		17
12Ab.4		6

2B.2	5
3B.2		12
5B.2		4
5B.5		10
6B.2		11
7B.1		10
7B.2		7
8B.4		7
8B.5				8
9B.1		19
10B.1		10
10B.2		11
11B.2		11
11B.3		4
12B.1					5
Totals	47 = 11.98%	264 = 67.35%	59 = 15.05%	17 = 4.34%	5 = 1.28%

How we can see, we can spread all the surely not random 392 answers within the five proposed cognitive mechanisms.

Discussion.

The categories used for the possible classification of the wrong answers come out from the precedent research(Cocchi, 1993), where they had been hypothesize in a higher number.

Currently with five categories we could classify all wrong answers.

As already said in the preceding investigation (Cocchi, 1993), with "confabulation," I mean a category of answers where it is an accumulation of disparate elements. They do not obey to the "logics" of similarity, nor to that of contiguity.

It is a category not always easy to single out, and some answers could be an extension of the similarity answers (metaphoric answers).

"First not present" leads to a classification of answers due to a half-clever strategy that drives to choose among the six possible answers, the first that is not present in the matrix.

Unfortunately, as we already reported (Cocchi, Pola and Zerbi, 1988), in the Colored Matrices PM47, the choices of this type to the tables 2 and 5 of the series A, 6 and 12 of the series Ab; 6 and 10 of the series B is even the right answer.

From that follows that several right answers to these tables could be creditable to the using of this strategy, even if we found only in the 1.28 % of all wrong answers.

The results confirmed what found in the previous research. The five categories were enough for classifying all the 392 surely not random wrong answers.

What is still more remarkable is that such answers are, in the order, due to errors for contiguity, opposition, similarity, confabulation, and "first not present."

In comparison with the sample of university students of previous investigation, while contiguity and "first not present " got exactly the same order, the other three categories (similarity, confabulation, opposition) were instead from the second to the quarter place.

For an analysis of the informative value of those answers on brain mechanisms places in action for this task of problem solving, this time too I need to refer to my previous research (Cocchi, 1993).

The fact that these answers came out from persons whose brains were chronically intoxicated by the alcohol, has surely an exact meaning.

Leaving aside the category of the "first not present," founded on an elementary calculation of probability - being a not present picture in the matrix, it has increased probability to be the right answer. This is a way of thinking perfectly useful for this series of tables.

In these patients, this is the category less used, as compared to what did university students (Cocchi, 1993) or demented people, who were given the same test with the same Colored Matrices PM47 (Cocchi, Pola and Zerbi, 1988).

That drives to suppose that the alcoholic intoxication acts in different way, as compared with normal subject or demented people.

For categories of similarity and contiguity, we had to relate and deepen an explanation already forwarded with optimal argumentation by Jacobson and Halle 1956 and Jacobson 1963. It has again referred by Cocchi (1982), who found its neuropsychological base in Pribram, 1976.

The human brain, - but near certainly even the animal act so -, has the habit to do partial identities (similarities = metaphors) and identities by contiguity (metonymies) even outside the verbal language.

Still a time the more used mechanism is that of contiguity, as happened in university students (Cocchi, 1993) and demented inpatients, where three answers had classification as "horizontal repetition" and "vertical repetition" (Pola, Cocchi and Zerbi, 1988).

The answers of similarity, instead, have here the third place, compared to the amount university students did (Cocchi, 1993).

The comparison with demented subjects is not suitable here, because their answers were classified by different criterion.

As for the mechanism of opposition, already Cocchi and coll., 1986 discussed it, following the first reported case of mirror speaking as the outcome of brain neurosurgery. It is curious to remember that this mechanism could appear following brain intoxication (Cocchi and coll., 1986) and can be a fact non random that it leaps to the second place in a group of chronic alcoholics.

Besides, what we have defined as "confabulation," is the building of an assertion with disparate elements, outside the frame of the "paleologics" (according to von Domarus' meaning, 1944) of partial identity, contiguity or opposition.

The criterion of inclusion in this category has been the choice of not immediately close elements to build the wrong answer. This mechanism gained the fourth place, while it had to the third place in university students (Cocchi, 1993).

Conclusions.

The analysis of wrong answers given by 60 chronic alcoholics to the Raven's Colored Matrices PM47, when they entered the hospital, for disintoxication, revealed that 392 wrong answers, grouped in surely not random way.

By using five possible categories to classify them, all went into at least one of those five.

The category of contiguity owned the greater number of answers, followed in that order by opposition, similarity, confabulation and "first not present."

This result is a further confirmation that we can use wrong answers given to Raven's Progressive Matrices, to elicit the neuro-physio-psychological levels where cognitive abilities of morbid subjects stop in problem solving, as for the case of chronic alcoholics.

References.

Anastasi A.: Psychological testing. MacMillan, New York,1960 (trad.ital. I test psicologici. Angeli, Milano 1967).

Campbell D.T.: A tipology of test, projective and otherwise. J.Consult. Psychol. 1957, 21: 206-212.

Cocchi R.: Meccanismi "logici" nella acquisizione del linguaggio verbale: Una ipotesi esplicativa neurofisiologica degli ipercorrettismi. Riv. Neurobiol. 1982, 28: 162-190.

Cocchi R.: Analisi delle risposte errate, date alle PM47 di Raven, Rev. 1962, Forma I, da un campione di studenti universitari. Riv. It. Disturbo Intellet. 1993, 6: 83-90.

Cocchi R., Pola A., Sellerini M., Tosca P., Zerbi F.: Mirror speaking after neurosurgery. Case history. Acta Neurol. Belg. 1986, 86: 224-232.

Jacobson R.: Essais de linguistique generale. Editions de Minuit, Paris 1963 (trad. ital.: Saggi di liguistica generale. Feltrinelli, Milano 1966).

Jacobson R., Halle M.: Fundamentals of Language. Mouton, Den Haag, 1956.

Pola A., Cocchi R., Zerbi F.: Progressive Matrices PM 47 in demented inpatients: qualitative analysis of mistakes and problem solving strategies. It. J. Intellect. Impair. 1988, 1: 111-118.

Pribram K.H.: Languages of the brain. Experimental paradoxes and principles in neuropsychology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliff, 1971 (trad. ital.: I linguaggi del cervello. Angeli, Milano 1976).

Von Domarus E.: The specific laws of logic in schizophrenia. In: Kasanin J. S. (ed): Language and thought in schizophrenia: Collected papers. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1944.

Printed in Italian in Riv. It. Disturbo Intellet, 1993,6:269-275.

Author's address: dr Renato COCCHI, via Rabbeno, 3

42100 Reggio Emilia (Italy)

renatococchi@libero.it

Italian translation

Theoretical and research bases

Cases

Home Page / / Pagina iniziale