ALCOHOLICS SCORING 21-25 AT RAVEN'S COLOURED MATRICES:
THE ANALYSIS OF
WRONG ANSWERS
Renato
COCCHI, a neurologist and a medical psuchologist.
Summary
The
analysis of wrong answers given by 90 alcohol dependants to Raven's Coloured Progressive
Matrices, carried out according to criterion used by Cocchi, 1993, brought to
light 468 non random grouped answers (.008 - .0000006).
When
classified into 5 categories, all 468 answers spread into: i. identity by
contiguity (79.78%); ii. opposition (11.97%); iii. confabulation (3.63%); iv.
similarity (2.56%); v. totality (2.14%).
The
results confirm that the analysis of wrong answers given to Raven's Coloured
Progressive Matrices can be used to elicit the neuro-psychic levels the
cognitive processes of alcohol dependants stop in a given problem solving task.
Key
words: Reversebrain, alcohol dependants; Raven's Coloured Progressive
Matrices; wrong answers; analysis; partial identity; identity by contiguity;
opposition; confabulation; totality answers; neuronal mechanisms.
Theoretical
and research bases
Home Page / / / Pagina iniziale
The analysis of wrong answers given to Raven's Progressive Matrices seems
a useful tool, since it could add more information to a net score always rough.
This
analysis in demented (Pola, Cocchi e Zerbi, 1988), in college students (Cocchi,
1993) or in demented alcoholics (Cocchi, 1993) first brought to light non
random grouping of many wrong answers. According to it, the split of the
prevalent mistakes shows the cognitive mechanisms in use to elicit these
answers in a problem solving task.
I
applied this two-step analysis again to wrong answers given by a cohort of
alcoholics scoring 21-25 to Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM).
Subjects, materials and methods.
For
this new research I chose the answers alcoholics did to CPM, during their stay
in an Alcohol Therapy Unit between 1st Oct. 1992 and 30th Apr. 1994.
Each
subject had her/his sex and age collected. Via DSM-III, R (303.92-3) everyone
of them met the diagnosis of alcoholic dependence. Each subject did CPM few
days after admission, or when the symptoms of alcohol withdrawal cleared up.
CPM
is a multiple choice test distributed into three sets of 12 tables (Series A,
Ab and B), each table with an incomplete matrix of relations. To complete the
pattern, a testee must select one of the six alternative answers set below the
matrix, but five of them lead to a wrong result.
If we
mark any possible answer with a number from one to six, from left to right, we
have five figures to point the wrong answers up. The remaining one is the right
answer, but its figure name varies in each table.
As
for CPM scoring, a right answer makes one point, the maximum score being 36.
Only
CPM charts with a 21-25 point score reach this research. This range seems to
make up subjects with a dubious diagnosis of dementia (Bertolani, De Renzi
& Faglioni, 1993).
I
checked up the CPM charts where the psychologist noted the figure of the answer
the subject chose. I decided to put a chart out if it showed a sequence of the
same number, (eg, on 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), a fact due to repetitive responses
the mentally retarded use when tired by the task.
The
wrong answers were counted out and grouped table by table using to the figure
name of any wrong answer. Then each table had all its wrong answers divided by
five, being the ratio token in excess to the up figure. In this way each
table's group of wrong answers had its theoretical number of random answers.
These random answers token away from every group of a table, every remaining
group shows the total of surely non random answers.
Every
group of non random wrong answers had its p found out from an amount of three
(p = 0.008). Then, I divided these significant groups into six fields as it
follows: Partial identity, identity by left side or up contiguity in the
matrix, opposition of colour or shape, confabulation (when the answer has
extraneous details), totality, and first not present.
Results.
All
the CPM charts of 90 alcoholics ( M = 67; F = 23; average age = 43.42 +/- 9.63,
range: 24-70) fit the above criterion because none of them had sequences of
repetitious answers' figures. No subject refused to answer to whatever table,
so every CPM chart had the expected 36 answers.
Of
1182 wrong answers, Table 1 shows their number for each CPM table divided into
the figure name of chosen responses from matrix A4 to matrix B12. CPM tables
no. 1-3 of series A, no. 1 of series Ab and no. 1 of series B did not have any
room in Table 1, because we found all their answers right.
Beside
the column of each of the six figure names, there is a second column,
(n)bis,
which indicates the amounts of surely non random wrong answers, from a minimum
group of three (p = .008).
Table
1: groups of wrong answers, matrix by matrix, and significant groups of
non
random wrong answers. The symbol [*] runs for the right answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPM
table no. of WA per name figure, as done and corrected WA
number
1 1bis 2 2bis 3 3bis 4 4bis 5 5bis 6 6bis amount
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Series A
|
4 |
|
0 |
|
* |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
5 |
|
0 |
|
2 |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
0 |
|
* |
|
|
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
1 |
|
3 |
|
* |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
4 |
|
7 |
|
1 |
|
7 |
|
7 |
|
16 |
10 $ |
1 |
|
* |
|
|
|
32 |
|
8 |
|
6 |
|
* |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
19 |
14$ |
|
|
25 |
|
9 |
|
* |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
3 |
|
17 |
12$ |
3 |
|
|
|
25 |
|
10 |
|
0 |
|
1 |
|
* |
|
7 |
|
0 |
|
31 |
23$ |
|
|
39 |
|
11 |
|
21 |
5# |
21 |
|
2 |
|
10 |
|
* |
|
25 |
9$ |
|
|
79 |
|
12 |
|
10 |
|
12 |
|
2 |
|
* |
|
3 |
|
19 |
5# |
|
|
46 |
Series Ab
|
2 |
|
|
1 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
* |
|
0 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
3 |
|
|
* |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
1 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
4 |
|
|
17 |
12$ |
0 |
|
0 |
|
3 |
|
1 |
|
* |
|
|
|
21 |
|
5 |
|
|
2 |
|
* |
|
8 |
5# |
1 |
|
2 |
|
0 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
6 |
|
|
* |
|
11 |
7& |
1 |
|
0 |
|
8 |
4! |
1 |
|
|
|
21 |
|
7 |
|
|
4 |
|
10 |
6@ |
* |
|
0 |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
17 |
|
8 |
|
|
0 |
|
25 |
18$ |
2 |
|
* |
|
7 |
|
2 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
9 |
|
|
1 |
|
4 |
|
20 |
13$ |
1 |
|
10 |
3+ |
* |
|
|
|
36 |
|
10 |
|
|
0 |
|
16 |
5# |
* |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
37 |
26$ |
|
|
55 |
|
11 |
|
|
2 |
|
16 |
7& |
23 |
14$ |
1 |
|
* |
|
2 |
|
|
|
44 |
|
12 |
|
|
33 |
15$ |
* |
|
5 |
|
40 |
22$ |
5 |
|
5 |
|
|
|
88 |
Series
B
|
2 |
|
|
0 |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
* |
|
|
3 |
|
3 |
|
|
* |
|
5 |
3+ |
0 |
|
0 |
|
1 |
|
0 |
|
|
6 |
|
4 |
|
|
2 |
|
* |
|
1 |
|
5 |
3+ |
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
8 |
|
5 |
|
|
* |
|
2 |
|
0 |
|
3 |
|
25 |
18$ |
0 |
|
|
13 |
|
6 |
|
|
3 |
|
35 |
26$ |
* |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
4 |
|
|
30 |
|
7 |
|
|
18 |
6@ |
17 |
5# |
3 |
|
3 |
|
* |
|
19 |
7& |
|
45 |
|
8 |
|
|
5 |
|
3 |
|
1 |
|
35 |
17$ |
44 |
26$ |
* |
|
|
60 |
|
9 |
|
|
45 |
27$ |
7 |
|
2 |
|
* |
|
29 |
11$ |
3 |
|
|
88 |
|
10 |
|
|
45 |
18$ |
44 |
17$ |
* |
|
3 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
|
86 |
|
11 |
|
|
3 |
|
40 |
22$ |
29 |
12$ |
* |
|
10 |
|
8 |
|
|
103 |
|
12 |
|
|
7 |
|
22 |
5# |
30 |
13$ |
14 |
|
* |
|
12 |
|
|
85 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
total
1182
p: + = .008; ! <.002; # <.0004; @
<.00007; & <.00002; $ <.0000006
As we
can see in Table 1, there are 40 significant groups of surely non random wrong
answers.
The
probability of random choosing 26 times the same wrong answer (CPM series B,
tab. 9, 1bis) is less than 1/10^24, a figure that we can hardly think in any
random context.
Table
2 splits the 40 significant groups of 468 non random wrong answers into five
out of six expected fields or categories.
he
"first of present" category did not get any answer, and so it had no
room in Table 2.
Table
2: non random wrong answers divided into the five chosen categories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CPM
Tab.no./ identity contiguity opposition confabulation totality
answers
no. answers answers answers answers answers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Series A
|
7.4 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
8.6 |
|
14 |
|
|
|
|
7.5 |
|
|
12 |
|
|
|
10.6 |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
11.1 |
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
11.2 |
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
11.6 |
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
12.2 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
12.6 |
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
Series Ab |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
4.4 |
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
5.3 |
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
6.2 |
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
6.5 |
|
|
|
|
4(*) |
|
7.2 |
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
8.2 |
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
9.3 |
|
13 |
|
|
|
|
9.5 |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
10.2 |
|
5(**) |
|
|
|
|
10.6 |
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
11.2 |
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
11.3 |
|
|
14 |
|
|
|
12.1 |
|
15 |
|
|
|
|
12.4 |
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series B |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
4.4 |
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
5.5 |
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
6.2 |
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
7.1 |
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
7.2 |
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
7.6 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
8.4 |
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
8.5 |
|
26 |
|
|
|
|
9.1 |
|
27 |
|
|
|
|
9.5 |
|
11 |
|
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
18 |
|
|
|
|
10.2 |
|
17 |
|
|
|
|
11.2 |
|
22 |
|
|
|
|
11.3 |
|
12 |
|
|
|
|
12.2 |
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
12.3 |
|
13 |
|
|
|
Totals 12 = 2.56% 373 =79.70% 56= 11.97%
17 = 3.63% 10 = 2.14%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) with 90 degrees rotation; (**) diagonal contiguity in the matrix.
As we
can see, all 468 non random wrong answers found their place into these
five
fields.
Discussion.
To
divide the wrong answers, the categories in use came out from a research on
college
students, using PM47, Revision 1962, Form I (Cocchi, 1993). In the previous paper
on CPM in alcoholics scoring less than 20, all wrong answers took place into
five categories, but only few of them into "globality answer" and
none into "first not present" answers.
Although
this time not in use, "first not present" classifies answers that
result from the strategy of choosing, among the six possible answers, the first
one that shows a drawing "not present" into the matrix.
This
strategy brings on a half-clever mechanism coming from a simple hypothesis. If
a tested subject is seeking something to complete a "logical"
context, s/he could consider something new or "not present" as the
rght choice. Sometimes this strategy proofs to run. as it happens for the
"fuzzy" logics.
As we
pointed out (Pola, Zerbi & Cocchi, 1988), this strategy can drive to the
right answer. In CPM this works well for tables 2 and 5 of the series A, 6 and
12 of the series Ab, and 6 and 10 of the series B.
So
the choice of the "first not present" can lead to the very right
answer. Only when we note other "first not present" answers, we can
suspect that the subject could have done the right answers to the above tables
by using a half-correct way of reasoning.
"Confabulation"
needs to be better specified. With this term we think of an answer where out
context and plain elements join on.
But
this type of wrong answer is not always at ease to find, because only few
tables allow of such a choice. A "confabulation" answer works as
partial identity, a metaphor, but the outside element identifies it with the
same term used in speech pathology.
In
this research confabulation takes the third place, while it was quarter in
alcoholics who scored less than 20 at CPM (Cocchi, 1993). In college students
also I found confabulation just after contiguity and opposition (Cocchi, 1993).
Unlike
the previous research in alcoholics (Cocchi, 1993), now "totality"
answers come out. As "globality" answers we found them in demented
inpatients (Pola, Zerbi & Cocchi, 1988), and we noted it as a stop signal
in processing the choice.
The
patient makes of how the matrix fills, but s/he seems unable to leave this
total image behind. So s/he does not switch to the second step, by choosing
what fills in, instead of the wrong answer showing the filled matrix.
As
for the remaining three categories (i.e.: similarity, contiguity and
opposition), I will refer again what I wrote in the previous paper (Cocchi,
1993) with some new details.
There
is quite a long history about similarity and contiguity of perceptions in brain
areas as conditions the brain not only perceives but has also some awareness of
them. In other term the brain proves to be aware of how some neuronal effects
of external stimuli spread out through brain areas. Pribram 1976 stated as
rules of reversible transformation:
"
3. Nerve impulses arriving simultaneously at neighboring locations are
spatially superposed, i.e., neighborod interactions of an addictive (or
subtractive) nature take place.
4.
When two sources simultaneously evoke a state in the slow potential
microstructure, correlation between them takes place and the correlations
becomes decoded into nerve impulses."
In
this way, by relation ways of neural network functioning he gave a meuronal
basis to what Jacobson and
By
myself, I referred to these two to explain why English children say
"comed" instead of "came" when they are learning to talk
(Cocchi, 1982).
Human
brain works by making partial identities or similarities ( metaphors, as figure
of speech) and identities by contiguity (metonymies) out of the verbal language
too.
Again
this sample of alcoholics did wrong answers by mostly using contiguity, as it
came about for demented (Pola, Zerbi & Cocchi, 1988), college students (
Cocchi, 1983), and alcoholics scoring less than 20 at CPM (Cocchi, 1983).
Similarity
(or, better, identity by similarity) runs as quarter in this sample, but third
in the previous sample of alcoholics (Cocchi, 1993).
Now
wrong answers by confabulation came just before. College students put
similarity at the second place (Cocchi, 1993), but the use of matrices with
nine choices instead of six could have led that sample on such a result.
I
cannot compare the place that similarity had run in demented inpatients with
the current place because in that very first research (Pola, Zerbi &
Cocchi, 1988) we used different criterion to classify wrong answers.
Finally
opposition answers take the second place soon after contiguity and this fact
parallels what I found both in college students and in the previous cohort of
alcoholics (Cocchi 1993; Cocchi 1993).
The
way opposition presents itself can vary from true semantic to counterpart (or
mirror), shape or colour opposition. Doing CPM the subject can choose
opposition wrong answers only by shape or colour opposition.
We
discussed this brain mechanism when we presented the first case of "mirror
speaking" after brain surgery (Cocchi et al., 1986). As we referred there
after a literature survey, opposition can also arise in a state of brain
toxicity and alcohol is a well-known poison for the brain. Opposition seems
involved in temporary, stable or stabilized prevalence of non dominant
half-brain in dextrals, a condition perhaps more frequent than what one can
imagine (Cocchi, 1994).
Conclusion.
The
analysis of 1182 wrong answers at CPM 90 alcoholics did first days of their
inpatient stay let out 468 wrong answers on 40 non random groups. All these non
random
wrong answers were split into five categories such as contiguity, opposition,
confabulation, similarity and totality, in reduced amounts.
Some
ways of neural network functioning can account for that.
The
results confirm again that wrong answers given at CPM can notice the neuronal
levels where alcoholics stop reasoning in a problem solving task.
References
Bertolani L., De Renzi E., Faglioni P.:
Test di memoria non verbale di impiego diagnostico in clinica: Taratura su
soggetti normali. Arch. Psicol. Neurol. Psichiat. 1993, 54: 477-486.
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. Ital. Disturbo Intellet. 1993, 6: 83-90.
Cocchi R.: Alcolisti con punteggio <
20 alle Matrici Colorate di Raven: Analisi degli errori. Riv. Ital. Disturbo
Intellet. 1993, 6: 269-275.
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.
Jacobson
R.,
Pola
A., Cocchi R., Zerbi F.: Progressive Matrices PM
Pribram K.H.: Languages of the brain.
Experimental paradoxes and principles in
neuropsychology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliff, 1971.
Printed on It. J. Intellect. Impair. 1996, 9: 181- 187.
Posted on internet on September 2006.
Copyright by Renato Cocchi 2006.
Author's address: dr Renato COCCHI, via Rabbeno, 3
42100 Reggio Emilia (Italy)
renatoocchi@libero.it
Theoretical
and research bases
Home Page / / / Pagina iniziale