|
“For
any taxonomic model of human cognitive abilities to be complete, all sensory moralities must
be encompassed within its framework (Carroll, 1993; Roberts et al., 1999; Stankov, Seizova-
Cajic, & Roberts, 2001)” (Danthiir, Roberts, Pallier & Stankov, 2001). Currently,
a significant
gap exits in the CHC taxonomy regarding the human sensory domains of tactile, kinesthetic, and
olfactory abilities (Danthiir et al., 2001). Recent factor analytic research argues for the
expansion of the CHC taxonomy to include a number of additional broad ability constructs. |
|
Despite
the historical and frequent use of measures of tactile and kinesthetic abilities in
neuropsychological assessment settings (e.g., Dean-Woodcock Neuropsychological Battery,
Dean & Woodcock, 2003; Halstead- Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery, Reitan & Wolfson,
1985; Luria-Nebraska Neuropsychological Test Batteries, Golden, Hammeke & Purisch, 1985),
and the importance of understanding how these processes are used by individuals with visual
impairments to navigate in the absence of on non-visual cues (Klatzky, Golledge, Loornis,
Cicinelli, & Pellegrino, 1995), the structural evidence for these domains has been meager (Carroll,
1993). Since Carroll’s factor analytic meta-analysis, a handful of new studies (Li, Jordanova
&
Lindenberger 1998; Pallier, Roberts, & Stankov, 2000; Roberts, Stankov, Pallier & Dolph, 1997;
Stankov, Senzova-Cajic & Roberts, 2001) have factored sets of tactile and kinesthetic variables
together with cognitive variables. Collectively, these studies have tentatively suggested that
separate broad kinesthetic (Gk) and tactile (Gh) abilities should be included in a more
comprehensive CHC taxonomy (Stankov, 2000). [Note. Gk = kinesthetic; Gh = tactile (“h” stands
for
“haptic”) as per the Stankov research group notation. ]
The
Stankov group isolated three different abilities at the narrow (stratum I) ability level. The
TP
(Tactile Performance) factor reflected the ability to perform complex tactile-kinesthetic tasks.
The complexity of the TP ability was due to the inability of these researchers to “disentangle”
TP
from the higher- order influences of Gv and Gf. In terms of practical test interpretation
issues,
Stankov (2000) concluded that the interpretation of the complex Halstead- Reitan tactile and
kinesthetic tasks may be problematic as it was not possible to isolate separate tactile and
kinesthetic factors distinct from Gv. “In other words, the processes involved in complex
tactile
and kinesthetic tasks seem to activate visualization abilities during their performance, a finding in
agreement with the experimental literature (e. g., Livesey & Intili, 1996)” (Stankov, 2000,
p. 42).
The
Stankov group also identified separate Tactile (TS) and Kinesthetic (KS) abilities. TS
abilities “require processing that depends on fine discrimination of pressure on the skin”
while KS
abilities involve “the awareness of (passive) movements of upper limbs and the ability to visually
recognize path that individuals follow while blindfolded” (Stankov, 2000, p. 43). The
kinesthetic
(KS) and tactile (TS) factors were found to be weakly correlated with higher- stratum cognitive
abilities (e.g., Gv, Ga, Gf, etc.; Stankov et al, 2001). The common variance among the
cognitively simple KS and TS factors “cast doubt on the existence of a broad ability that spans
the kinesthetic and tactile domains” (Stankov et al., 2001, p.25).
In
a sample of 179 middle age adults, Li, Jordanova and Lindenberger (1998) isolated two tactile
discrimination abilities (i.e., Tactile Pressure Sensitivity and Texture Discrimination) and one
tactile similarity (Arc-Part part whole matching) ability. All three factors bear resemblance
to
the TS ability described by the Stankov group. Given that each of Li et al.’s (1998)
three factors
were based on multiple scores from each of the three different tasks, it is possible that these
three factors may represent singlet test factors and not separate abilities. Until replicated,
the
differentiation of TS into sub-abilities is not encouraged. [Note. It is important to note than Li et al
(1998) included their tactile factors, together with visual and auditory acuity factors, as causal variables
with direct effects on g, which in turn was represented by a measurement model consisting of
five latent
factor cognitive variables. The tactile variables where factored separately. As a result,
it is not possible to
determine the structural relations between the tactile factors and the five cognitive factors in a manner
similar to that of the Stankov group. The Li et al. (1998) study was focused on exploring
the causal
relations between sensory abilities and g, not the structural characteristics of cognitive abilities.
] |
|
Carroll
(1993) cited only one study (Jones, 1957) that investigated the structure of the olfactory
domain. Although largely ignored in structural investigations of human cognitive abilities,
olfactory abilities are important to study given the use of the olfactory sense by blind or partially
sighted people, and experts such as “gourmets, wine connoisseurs, coffee experts, and the like”
(Danthiir, Roberts, Pallier, G. & Stankov, 2001, p. 357). In addition, recent
clinical research has
suggested that declines in olfactory abilities may be associated with a variety of clinical disorders
and diseases ranging from Azheimer’s, idiopathic Parkinson’s, alcoholism and drug abuse,
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders, severe- stage anorexia nervosa, Down’s syndrome, head
trauma, multiple sclerosis, restless leg syndrome, seasonal affective disorder, and others (see
Doty, 2001, for a complete review)
Carroll’s
(1993) analysis of the Jones (1957) olfactory sensitivity data suggested a possible
hierarchical structure with four odor-specific narrow abilities (O1, O2, O3, O4) and two unnamed
higher-order factors. More recently, in a study of university students, Danthiir et al. (2001)
identified a stratum I Olfactor Memory (OM) ability that was independent of other higher- order
CHC abilities and only weakly related to simple olfactory sensitivity (Stankov, 2000). Danthiir
et
al. (2002) concluded that the “OM factor can be considered as part of the taxonomy of cognitive
abilities, apparently not dependent on simple olfactory acuity” (p. 355).
Collectively,
the structural research of Carroll (1993) and Danthiir et al. (2002), as well as basic
and clinical studies of the olfactory system, suggests that a broad olfactory ability domain (Go)
should be included within a comprehensive CHC taxonomy. Although the Go structural research
is sparse, the recent development of sophisticated psychophysical measurement technologies and
easy-to-use olfactory function tests, some with relatively large norm samples, will soon likely lead
to a better understanding of the cognitive component of Go.
[Note.
The interested reader should consult Doty’s (2001) review for information on new olfactory
assessment instruments. These include tests such as the 40-odor University of Pennsylvania Smell
Identification Test (UPSIT ; known commercially as the Smell Identification Test), the 12-odor Brief-Smell
Identification Test (also known as the Cross-Cultural Smell Identification Test), the 3-odor Pocket
Smell
Test, the 12-item Odor Memory Test, the Odor Confusion Matrix Test, the San Diego Odor Identification
Test , the Scandinavian Odor Identification Test, the “Sniff ‘n Sticks” test, the Viennese
Olfactory Test
Battery, an 8-odor identification test, and the T&T olfactometer
test.] |
|
|
|
|
|
1. 1. Introduction
