ALCOHOLICS SCORING 26-35 AT RAVEN'S COLOURED MATRICES:
THE ANALYSIS OF
WRONG ANSWERS
Renato
COCCHI, a neurologist and a medical psychologist
Morena
MEME', a psychologist
Summary
The
analysis of wrong answers given by 93 alcohol dependent persons (
When
classified into 5 categories, all 175 answers spread into: i. identity by
contiguity (84%); ii. opposition (8.57%); iii. confabulation (5.71%); iv.
similarity (1.71%). Globality answers now disappeared.
Higher
intellectual level alcoholics did less wrong answers but the mechanisms to
elicit them are nearly the same, in about the same proportion previously found.
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: 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), in alcoholics scoring less than 20 (Cocchi, 1993) or between 21-25
(Cocchi, 1996) 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.
We
applied this two-step analysis again to wrong answers given by a cohort of
alcoholics scoring 26-35 to Raven's Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM).
Subjects, materials and
methods
For
this new research we chose the answers 93 alcoholics did to CPM, during their
stay in an Alcohol Therapy Unit between 1st July 1998 and 30th Dec. 1998..
Each
subject had her/his sex and age collected. Via DSM-IV (F10.24) 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 26-35 pointsscore reach this research. This range seems to
make up subjects without any diagnosis of dementia (Bertolani, De Renzi &
Faglioni, 1993).
We
checked up the CPM charts where the psychologist noted the figure of the answer
the subject chose.
We
chose only 14 matrices out of 36 because the higher intellectual level of the
probands did not make significant mistakes in the remaining ones.
From
the series A we examined the matrices A11 and A12; from the series Ab the
matrices Ab20-24, and matrice B30-36 from the series B.
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 closer figure. In this way each table's group of wrong answers
had its theoretical number of random answers for each wrong choice.
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, we divided these significant groups into five 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), and totality.
Results.
All
the CPM charts of 93 alcoholics ( M = 68; F = 25; average age = 41.05 +/-
10.70, range: 24-70) fit the above criterion.
No
subject refused to answer to whatever table, so every CPM chart had the
expected 36 answers.
Of
482 wrong answers, Table 1 shows their number for each CPM table divided into
the figure name of chosen responses from matrix A11 to matrix B12.
CPM
tables no. 1-10 of series A, no. 1-7 of series Ab and no. 1-5 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
Total No. of wrong answers per name figure, as done and corrected No. wrong
table
no, ansers 1 1bis 2 2bis 3 3bis 4 4bis 5 5bis 6 6bis answers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Series A
|
11 |
36 |
15 |
3+ |
6 |
|
2 |
|
9 |
|
* |
|
29 |
17$ |
61 |
|
12 |
36 |
4 |
|
6 |
|
0 |
|
* |
|
0 |
|
10 |
6@ |
20 |
Series Ab
|
8 |
36 |
1 |
|
8 |
6@ |
0 |
|
* |
|
2 |
|
0 |
|
11 |
|
9 |
36 |
0 |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
0 |
|
3 |
|
* |
|
6 |
|
10 |
36 |
0 |
|
2 |
|
* |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
11 |
8$ |
13 |
|
11 |
36 |
1 |
|
3 |
|
15 |
10$ |
1 |
|
* |
|
0 |
|
20 |
|
12 |
36 |
19 |
7& |
* |
|
9 |
|
18 |
6@ |
7 |
|
6 |
|
60 |
Series B
|
6 |
36 |
|
|
10 |
8$ |
* |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
10 |
|
7 |
36 |
6 |
|
10 |
4 ! |
0 |
|
1 |
|
* |
|
13 |
7& |
30 |
|
8 |
26 |
1 |
|
4 |
|
7 |
|
15 |
5# |
24 |
14$ |
* |
|
51 |
|
9 |
36 |
26 |
17$ |
2 |
|
5 |
|
* |
|
7 |
|
7 |
|
47 |
|
10 |
36 |
15 |
7& |
10 |
|
* |
|
4 |
|
7 |
|
6 |
|
42 |
|
11 |
36 |
7 |
|
12 |
3+ |
18 |
9$ |
* |
|
19 |
10$ |
7 |
|
53 |
|
12 |
36 |
3 |
|
25 |
13$ |
12 |
|
9 |
|
* |
|
19 |
7& |
58 |
p: + = .008; ! <.002; # <.0004; @
<.00007; & <.000002; $ <.0000006
As we
can see in Table 1, there are 20 significant groups of 175 surely non random
wrong answers.
There
is an increasing number of tables with grouped wrong answers throughout the
progression of the test which parallels the increased difficulty on solving the
proposed task.
As
for the probability, the symbol "$" stands for probability of 8 or
more same answers after subtraction of the maximum of possible random answers
that table allows according to its total of wrong answers.
The
probability of randomly choosing 17 times the same wrong answer (CPM series A,
tab.
11,
6bis and series B, tab. 9, 1bis ) is less than 1/10^14, a figure that we can
hardly think in any random context.
Table
2 splits the 20 significant groups of 175 non random wrong answers into four
out of six expected fields or categories.
The
"first of present" and "totality answer" categories did not
get any answer, and so they 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
answers
no. answers answers answers answers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Series A
|
11.1 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
11.6 |
|
17 |
|
|
|
12.6 |
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series Ab |
|
|
|
|
|
8.2 |
|
6 |
|
|
|
10.6 |
|
8 |
|
|
|
11.3 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
12.1 |
|
7 |
|
|
|
12.4 |
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Series B |
|
|
|
|
|
6.2 |
|
8 |
|
|
|
7.2 |
|
4 |
|
|
|
7.6 |
|
|
7 |
|
|
8.4 |
|
5 |
|
|
|
8.5 |
|
14 |
|
|
|
9.1 |
|
17 |
|
|
|
10.1 |
|
17 |
|
|
|
11.2 |
|
3 |
|
|
|
11.3 |
|
9 |
|
|
|
11.5 |
|
|
|
10 |
|
12.2 |
|
13 |
|
|
|
12.6 |
|
7(*) |
|
|
Totals 3 = 1.71% 147 = 84% 15 = 8.57% 10
= 5.71%
(*) contiguity by diagonal
As we can see, all 175 non random wrong
answers found their place into these four 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 papers on CPM in
alcoholics scoring less than 20 Cocchi 1963), and between 21 amd 25 (Cocchi,
1996), all wrong answers took place into five categories, but only few of them
into "globality (or, totality) answer" and none into "first not
present" answers.
Although also 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 a kind of "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 scoring 21-25 (Cocchi, 1996), now "totality" answers did
not 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 Halle 1956
and Jacobson 1963 have argued.
One of us 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, 1993), and alcoholics
scoring less than 20 at CPM (Cocchi, 1993).
Similarity (or, better, identity by
similarity) runs as quarter in this sample, but third in the previous sample of
alcoholics (Cocchi, 1993. 1996)
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.
We 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 one of us 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 482 wrong answers at CPM
90 alcoholics did first days of their inpatient stay let out 160 wrong answers
on 20 non random groups. All these non random wrong answers were split into
four categories such as contiguity, opposition, confabulation, similarity, 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.: Alcoholics
scoring 21-25 at Raven's Coloured Matrices: The analysis of wrong answers. It.
J. Intellect Impair. 1996, 9: 181-187.
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., Halle M.:
Fundamentals of Language. Mouton, Den Haag, 1956.
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.
First
printed on It. J. Intellecty. Impair. 1998, 11: 173-178.
Posted on internet on September 2006. Copyright by Renato Cocchi,
2006.
Author's address: dr Renato COCCHI, via Rabbeno, 3
42100 Reggio Emilia, Italy
renatococchi@libero.it
Theoretical and research bases
Home Page / / / Pagina iniziale