Citation
The nature of movement and action errors produced by brain-injured patients

Material Information

Title:
The nature of movement and action errors produced by brain-injured patients
Creator:
Macauley, Beth Lynn Martin, 1965-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xiv, 134 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Aphasia ( jstor )
Apraxia ( jstor )
Brain damage ( jstor )
Cognitive models ( jstor )
Gestures ( jstor )
Hemispheres ( jstor )
Human error ( jstor )
Ideomotor apraxia ( jstor )
Lesions ( jstor )
Modeling ( jstor )
Communication Processes and Disorders thesis, Ph. D ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Communication Processes and Disorders -- UF ( lcsh )
City of Gainesville ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1998.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 125-131).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Beth L. Macauley.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
029549529 ( ALEPH )
41372660 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













THE NATURE OF
MOVEMENT AND ACTION ERRORS
PRODUCED BY BRAIN-INJURED PATIENTS












BY

BETH L. MACAULEY


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1998




























Copyright 1998

by

Beth L. Macauley




























For Shawn,
My gift from God













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to begin by extending a very special thank you to Leslie J. Gonzalez-

Rothi, Ph.D., for her unwavering support and encouragement as I pursued the doctoral

degree. I can remember her coming into my "office" during my VA traineeship in 1989

and saying, "You should get a Ph.D. Think about it." Since that time, her mentorship

has been invaluable as she imparted her extensive knowledge in the realm ofneurogenic

communication disorders, her expertise in patient care and being an advocate for her

patients, as well as her personal morals and standards on being a well-rounded individual

and dedicated wife and mother. I am honored to have her as not only a mentor but also a

friend.

Another special thank you goes to Kenneth M. Heilman, M.D., not only for his

support as I served as a research assistant under his grants, but also for imparting his

expertise with great enthusiasm to those working under his supervision. Dr. Heilman's

encouragement and support allowed undergraduate students, graduate students, neurology

residents, and neurology, psychology, and speech pathology faculty to work together in a

smooth, caring, "family" atmosphere which is rare and unique in the realm of higher

education. My skills and knowledge and ability to work in collaborative teams, as well

as my respect for other disciplines, are the direct result of Dr. Heilman's influence and

guidance.

Other special thank yous go to Bruce Crosson, Ph.D., Linda J. Lombardino,

Ph.D., and Ira Fischler, Ph.D., for their invaluable comments, suggestions, and









encouragement given as part of my doctoral committee. These three elite faculty

members have been superb teachers as well as supporters during my graduate career.

I can not say enough about my faculty colleagues in the Department of Speech

and Hearing Sciences at Washington State University. My chairman, Gail D. Chermak,

Ph.D., is a strong advocate for junior faculty and was gracious in allowing me a reprieve

of some faculty duties in order to concentrate and complete this dissertation. Her

unwavering encouragement and support has been a blessing to me as I made the

transition from graduate student to faculty. The other members of the department, Jeanne

Johnson, Ph.D., Chuck Madison, Ph.D., Tony Seikel, Ph.D., Leslie Power, M.S., and

Linda Vogel, M.S., have also given of themselves and served as mentors and friends

during my initial years in their department. Their encouragement, support, and faith that

I would finish the dissertation were never far from my mind. I can honestly say that

without their "reality checks," continuous encouragement, and willingness to ease my

load by increasing theirs, I would not have been able to finish.

More thank yous go to my graduate students, Holly Wiseman, Stacy Wendel,

Maria McClelland, and Erin Beneteau, at University Programs in Communication

Disorders (UPCD), a cooperative graduate program in speech-language pathology and

audiology between Washington State University and Eastern Washington University.

These students willingly tolerated the training protocols and were genuinely excited to be

taking part in research opportunities and endeavors.

I also wish to thank Robert Short, Ph.D., of the Washington Institute for Mental

Illness Research and Training (WIMIRT) for his assistance with the statistics.








A huge thank you goes to my husband often years, Shawn P. Macauley, Ph.D.,

for his unwavering encouragement, prods in the rear to keep moving along, and for never

doubting that I could get it done. His ability to encourage me in the midst of dealing with

an acquired disability that affected his vestibular system and resulted in physical, visual,

and cognitive impairments, has been a blessing above and beyond expectations. His

unconditional love, support, and assistance allowed me to focus on writing without

feeling too guilty about not keeping up with family responsibilities. Thank you also to

my girls, seven year old Erin and three year old Emily, and my boy, three month old

Evan, for their unconditional love as well as their acceptance of "Mommy's computer

time," take-out twice a week, and piles of dirty laundry. Erin and Emily were always

ready with a hug and a kiss whenever they were needed (and even when they were not

needed) while Evan's smiles melted my heart and put everything in perspective.

I also wish to thank my parents, John and Barbara Martin of Bradenton, Florida

for their unconditional love, unwavering support and encouragement throughout my

college career. They never doubted my abilities or decisions and were always looking for

ways to help and show their support. I also wish to thank my in-laws, Curtis and Karen

Winters of North Bangor, New York, for always being a phone call away to impart

guidance, encouragement, and support through the dissertation years.

Last, but certainly not least, I wish to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for

His personal involvement in my life. I am nothing without Christ and my work is a

testimony to the grace that He has given. I honestly believe that without Christ walking

by my side and carrying me when necessary, I would not have finished this research

endeavor, especially with the life-changing trials that have occurred within the past year.









He started me on this journey and He has never failed to be there throughout. A special

thank you to my dear friend, Priscilla Welboumrn, who never let me forget what was most

important in life and encouraged me to keep my feet firmly planted on the Rock while

reaching for the stars. Her unconditional friendship and unwavering support during the

final writing stages of this dissertation has been a blessed and treasured gift from the

Lord.













TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOW LEDGEM ENTS..................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................... x

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... xii

ABSTRACT............................................................................................................. xiii

CHAPTER

ONE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND STATEMENT OF
THE PROBLEM .................................................................................................. 1

Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
Review of the Literature..................................................................................... 3
Historical Perspectives and Theoretical
M odels of Apraxia........................................................................... 3
Cognitive Neuropsychological Model
Of Lim b Praxis and Apraxia.................................................... 12
Right Hemisphere Contributions to Praxis.............................................. 19
The Ecology of Apraxia........................................................................... 21
Significance to Clinicians and Patients........................................... 21
Apraxia in Natural Contexts............................................................ 23
The Relationship Between Apraxia and Pragmatic Action..................... 38
Predictions of the Proposed Relationship Between
M ovements and Actions.................................................................. 49
Classification of Action Errors................................................................. 53
Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................... 56

TW O M ETHODS.......................................................................................................... 63

Subjects............................................................................................................... 63
M materials and M ethods ....................................................................................... 67
Evaluation of Independent Variables....................................................... 68
Disorders of Action Planning and Organization................................ 68
Disorders of Learned, Skilled M ovement.......................................... 69
Disorders of Tool-Object-Function Knowledge................................ 72
viii








Disorders of Supervisory Attention/Working Memory..................... 73
Disorders of Language....................................................................... 74
Neglect................................................................................................ 74
Evaluation of Dependent Variable........................................................... 75
Rater Training ..................................................................................................... 79
Statistical Analyses............................................................................................. 80

THREE RESULTS .......................................................................................................... 82

Experim ental Results......................................................................................... 82
Research Questions............................................................................................. 85
Research Question #1............................................................................... 85
Research Question #2a ............................................................................ 87
Research Question #2b............................................................................. 93
Summ ary of Findings........................................................................................... 98

FOUR DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................... 101

Research Questions............................................................................................. 103
M ethodological Issues and Lim stations of the Study......................................... 111
Implications for Future Research....................................................................... 113
Clinical Implications.................................... 116

APPENDICES

A GESTURE TO COMMAND SUBTEST RANDOMIZED
FORM SA&B ....................................................................................................... 119

B TOOL-OBJECT M ATCHING TEST.................................................................. 123

C STANDARDIZED SCORES FOR TRAILS A & B........................................... 124

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................. 125

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................ 132











ix














LIST OF TABLES


Table Pa2e

2-1 LBD Subject Identification...............................................................................65

2-2 RBD Subject Identification ...................................................... ..................... 66

2-3 Control Subject Identification......................................................................... 67

3-1 Descriptive Statistics for Each Group on Measures of
Independent Variables........................................................ ............. .......84

3-2 Overall Kruskall-Wallace ANOVA for Errors
Produced During the Meal ................................................ .............................. 85

3-3 Comparison of LBD and RBD Groups with Normal Controls ............................ 86

3-4 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Report ......................... ............................. 88

3-5 Average Number of Errors Produced by All Subjects when
Divided into Two Groups According to Cut-off Score
For Each Test................................................................................................... 89

3-6 Average Number of Errors by Specific Error Type Produced
By LBD, RBD, and Control Groups............................................................... 90

3-7 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Total Errors Produced During
the M eal........................................................................................... ................. 94

3-8 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Tool Errors Produced During
the M eal............................................................................................................ 94

3-9 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Non-Tool Errors Produced During
the M eal ........................................................................................................... 95








3-10 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Misuse Errors Produced During
the M eal.............................................................. ............................................ 95

3-11 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Misselection Errors Produced During
the M eal................................................................................ ...................... 96

3-12 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Movement Errors Produced During
the M eal ................................................................. .. .......... ......................... 96

3-13 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and INT Errors Produced During
the M eal................................................................. .......................................... 97

3-14 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Sequence Errors Produced During
the M eal........................................................................................................... 97

3-15 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Timing Errors Produced During
the M eal ......................................................................... .................................98

3-16 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Quantity Errors Produced During
the M eal.................................................................... ....................... ............. 98














LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

1-1 Liepmann's M odel of Praxis.................................................................... 6

1-2 Geschwind's Model of Praxis................................................................... 9

1-3 Heilman and Rothi's Model of Praxis..................................................... 11

1-4 Cognitive Neuropsychological Model of Apraxia................................... 13

1-5 Delineation of Gesture to Command Pathway........................................ 14

1-6 Delineation of Gesture to Visually Presented Object Pathway ............... 18

1-7 Schematic Representation of Misuse and Mis-Selection
A action Errors............................................................................................ 28

1-8 Schematic Interpretation of the Unified Hypothesis................................ 36

1-9 Relationship Between Actions and Movements...................................... 40

1-10 Breakdown of Low Level Schemas......................................................... 41

1-11 Breakdown of High Level Schemas ........................................................ 44

1-12 Addition of Perceptual Input to Low Level Schemas.............................. 46

1-13 Addition of Semantic System to High Level Schemas ............................ 47

1-14 Proposed Relationship Between Apraxia and Pragmatic Action ............48

2-1 The Tower of London .............................................................................. 70













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE NATURE OF
MOVEMENT AND ACTION ERRORS
PRODUCED BY BRAIN-INJURED PATIENTS

By

Beth L. Macauley

August 1998

Chair: Leslie J. Gonzalez-Rothi, Ph.D.
Major Department: Communication Processes and Disorders

Some patients with brain damage produce action errors during activities of daily

living. Investigators in recent research reports have examined the planning, organization,

and production of these action errors through different theoretical models with different

inherent assumptions and predictions, using different research hypotheses and evaluation

criteria, and including subjects with heterogeneous etiologies of brain damage. The

current study describes a proposed relationship between apraxia and pragmatic action that

serves as a framework for the examination of the nature of movement and action errors

produced by brain-injured patients. The hypothesized relationship between apraxia and

pragmatic action can be divided into two parts--high level schemas associated with

executive function, supervisory attention/working memory, and the conceptual

knowledge of the relationship between tools and actions, and low level schemas

associated with the praxis system which mediates learned skilled movements. Forty

xiii








subjects participated in this study--twenty left brain damaged patients (LBD), ten right

brain damaged patients (RBD), and ten non-brain damaged control subjects. All subjects

underwent an evaluation that measured high and/or low schema deficits and were

videotaped while engaged in an activity of daily living, eating a meal. The videotapes

were scored for presence of action and movement errors. Results indicated that both

brain-injured groups significantly differed from the control group in total number of

errors produced. The LBD group produced more tool errors than the RBD group while

both the LBD and the RBD group produced significantly more non-tool errors than the

control group but did not differ from each other. Additionally, production of specific

error types during the meal correlated highly with a measure of high level schema deficits

and a measure of low level schema deficits. Therefore, both high and low level schema

deficits contribute to production of action errors. Additionally, the results appear to

indicate that brain damage to either hemisphere can result in production of action errors

in the natural environment.













CHAPTER ONE
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Introduction

Purposeful movements, defined as intentional "changes in place, position, or

posture" (Webster, 1981, p.747), that have direct purpose or aim, and goal-directed

actions, defined as "acts of will accomplished over a period of time in stages"

(Webster, 1981, p. 12) are learned throughout life as people interact with their

environment. The loss of the ability to produce purposeful, skilled movements as the

result of brain damage has been termed apraxia (Rothi & Heilman, 1997). Liepmann

(1920) defined apraxia as an impairment in the production of learned (or skilled)

movements not caused by weakness, paralysis, incoordination, or sensory loss

(Liepmann, 1920). Apraxia is manifested in a person's inability to "move the moveable

parts of the body in a purposeful manner even though motility is preserved" (Liepmann,

1900/1977, p.161).

A deficit in the ability to produce goal-directed actions has been called frontal

apraxia by Mayer, Reed, Schwartz, Montgomery, and Palmer (1990), Schwartz, Reed,

Montgomery, Palmer, and Mayer (1991), Schwartz, Mayer, DeSalme, and Montgomery

(1993), Schwartz, Montgomery, DeSalme, Ochipa, Coslett, and Mayer (1995), and

Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) and a deficit in managerial knowledge by Sirigu,

Cohen, Duhamel, Pillon, Dubois, and Agid (1995), Sirigu, Zalla, Pillon, Grafminan,

Agid, and Dubois (1995, 1996), and Sirigu, Zalla, Pillon, Grafminan, Dubois, and Agid








(1996). Specifically, both frontal apraxia and deficits in managerial knowledge were

defined as impairments in the planning and sequential hierarchical organization of

actions required to obtain a desired goal (Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997; Sirigu et aL.,

1995).

Mayer et al. (1990), Schwartz et al. (1991, 1993, 1995), and Schwartz and

Buxbaum (1997) reported that brain damaged patients with frontal apraxia produce

errors of action while performing goal-directed activities of daily living such as

preparing coffee and brushing teeth. These learned, goal-directed actions were

subsequently labeled "pragmatic action" by Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997). Ochipa,

Rothi, and Heilman (1989) reported a brain damaged patient with ideational/conceptual

apraxia who made errors of action while eating a meal and brushing teeth, both

"pragmatic actions as defined by Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997). Foundas, Macauley,

Raymer, Maher, Rothi, and Heilman (1995) reported that brain damaged patients with

ideomotor apraxia made action errors while performing the pragmatic action of eating a

meal. Each of the above studies documented action errors in goal-directed activities of

daily living. However, each of the above researchers approached the study of action

and action errors through different theoretical models with different predictions and

assumptions. Mayer et al. (1990), Schwartz et al. (1991, 1993, 1995), and Schwartz

and Buxbaum (1997) approached the study of pragmatic action through the Unified

Hypothesis, a theoretical model based on the activation-trigger-schema (ATS)

framework proposed by Norman and Shallice (1986). The ATS framework for

production of action was derived from the study of normal subjects (Norman &

Shallice, 1986). Ochipa et al. (1989) and Foundas et al. (1995) approached the study of








pragmatic action through the Cognitive Neuropsychological Model of Limb Praxis and

Apraxia proposed by Rothi, Ochipa and Heilman (1991, 1997). The Cognitive

Neuropsychological Model of Limb Praxis and Apraxia was derived from the study of

brain injured patients (Rothi et al., 1991). In order to systematically study errors

produced during pragmatic actions, a theoretical model is needed that explains the

relationship between frontal apraxia, conceptual/ ideational apraxia, and ideomotor

apraxia and incorporates action information from the Unified Hypothesis (Schwartz &

Buxbaum, 1997) and movement information from the Cognitive Neuropsychological

Model of Limb Praxis and Apraxia (Rothi et al., 1992, 1997). The resulting combined

model can then be used to make predictions about pragmatic errors which can be

subsequently studied. The purpose of the present study is to describe a theoretical

model of pragmatic action based on Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) and Rothi et al.

(1997) which is then used as a framework to examine the nature of movement and

action errors produced by brain-injured patients. Pertinent literature is reviewed

relating to the genesis and growth of the study of movements and actions.

Review of the Literature

Historical Perspectives and Theoretical Models of Apraxia

Steinthal, in the late 1800s, was the first to use the term apraxia in describing a

disturbance in skilled limb movements as the result of brain damage (cited in Hecaen &

Rondot, 1985). Steinthal wrote that apraxia consisted of a disturbance in the

relationship between movements and the objects upon which the movements were

enacted (cited in Hecaen & Rondot, 1985). Subsequently, there was a lack of

consensus in discussions of the mechanism for and definition of apraxia. For example,








other researchers had observed the disturbances of object related movements in aphasic

patients but attributed both deficits to asymbolia, a generalized disturbance in the

comprehension or production of symbols in any modality, including language and

gesture (Finkelnstein, cited in Duffy & Liles, 1979; Critchley, 1939). Goldstein (1948)

also related disorders of action to the patient's aphasia and included skilled movement

problems within a definition of aphasia. Pick (1905), however, defined apraxia as an

asymbolia which was not included within a definition of aphasia. Another mechanism

proposed to explain apraxia was posited by Kussmaul (cited in Hecaen & Rondot,

1985) who defined apraxia as an agnosia, an impairment in the recognition of tools,

which then affects the movements produced with tools. In 1905, Liepmann described a

patient, who presented with a severe inability to produce volitional movements with the

left hand as well as profound aphasia. Liepmann's point in describing this case was that

a disorder of language or gnosis could not explain apraxia of only one hand.

Movement failures created by language or gnosis deficits would affect both hands.

Thus, Liepmann (1900/1977, 1905a/1980a, 1905b/1980b, 1907/1980c, 1920) was the

first to describe the mechanism of apraxia as a disorder of movement planning.

Liepmann (1905b/1980b) studied 89 brain-damaged patients, 42 with left

hemiplegia (thus suspected to have right hemisphere lesions), 41 with right hemiplegia

(thus suspected to have left hemisphere lesions), 5 non-hemiplegic with aphasia (left

hemisphere lesions), and one who was neither hemiparetic or aphasic but was apraxic.

The patients were asked to produce three types of movements 1) expressive

movements such as waving and saluting; 2) transitive and intransitive movements to

command (from memory) such as playing an organ grinder and snapping the fingers;








and 3) manipulations of actual tools such as combing hair with a comb and writing with

a pen. Liepmann found that the patients with right hemisphere damage rarely made

errors on these tasks whereas the patients with left hemisphere damage made frequent

errors. Within the groups of patients with left hemisphere damage, approximately half

showed evidence of apraxia and of these, twenty-five percent showed impairments

when manipulating the actual tools (Liepmann, 1905b/1980b). Based upon these

observations, Liepmann proposed that the left hemisphere, specifically the parietal

region, was responsible for the skilled production of both hands (Liepmann,

1905b/1980b). He argued that the right hemisphere is dependent upon the plans and

directives of the left hemisphere for learned movement and that the right hemisphere

receives movement planning information from the left hemisphere via the corpus

callosum. Liepmann proposed the existence of movement formulae which he defined

as knowledge of the course of action (time-space sequences) required to complete an

action goal as well as the semantic information about the tool and object used. The

movement formulae may be implemented by retrieval of innervatory patterns

(configurations of neural connections specialized for particular movement patterns)

which communicate directly with the motor system for movement production (Figure

1-1) (Liepmann, 1905b/1980b).

Additionally, further support for Liepmann's proposal that the left hemisphere

was responsible for the skilled movements of both hands was found in the case

described by Liepmann and Maas (1907) of a patient with a lesion of the corpus

callosum who was unable to produce skilled movements with his nonparalyzed left








Visual/Gestural Input


Visual Analysis


SMovement Formula I


I Innervatory Patterns


Left Right
Primary Primary
Motor Motor
System System
/ \


Right Hand
Gestural
Production


Left Hand
Gestural
Production


Figure 1-1. Liepmann's model of praxis (taken from Rothi, Ochipa, & Heilman, 1991).








hand. He was unable to write and could not even bring his hand into the writing

position. The patient also showed deficits in using actual tools/objects. Liepmann

hypothesized that the effect of corpus callosum lesion in this case was to disconnect the

movement formulae of the left hemisphere from the primary motor cortex of the right

hemisphere--lesion A in Figure 1-1 (Liepmann & Maas, 1907).

Subsequently, Liepmann (1905a/1980a, 1905b/1980b) described three subtypes

of apraxia--limb kinetic apraxia, ideo-kinetic or motor apraxia, and ideational apraxia.

Limb kinetic apraxia was described as a loss of the kinetic components of engrams

resulting in coarse or unrefined movements with movements that no longer have the

appearance of being practiced over time. Ideo-kinetic or ideomotor apraxia was

described as a loss of the voluntary ability to perform learned movements. Ideational

apraxia was described as an impairment of ideational (conceptual) knowledge resulting

in loss of the conceptual linkage between tools and their respective actions as well as

the ability to sequence correctly produced movements (Liepmann, 1905a/1980a,

1905b/1980b). Integral movements may be left out of a series, produced in the wrong

order, or correct movements may be produced with the wrong tools (cited in Brown,

1988). By describing these praxis subtypes, Liepmann (1905a/1980a, 1905b/1980b)

proposed that praxis is supported by a multicomponential system that can be

differentially impaired.

Liepmann's proposals were resurrected by Geschwind in 1965 who discussed

them in the light of new human and animal data. Geschwind supported the notion of

the dominance of the left hemisphere for learned movement skill and of the existence of

movement formulae or memories (stored representations). He also supported








Liepmann's statements that apraxia resulted from lesions in the dominant parietal

region but argued that the important area was the underlying white matter pathways,

specifically the arcuate fasciculus, and not the cortex.

Geschwind proposed that in the left hemisphere, the white matter pathway that

runs deep to the supramarginal gyrus connecting the visual association areas and speech

areas to the frontal lobes is the pathway by which motor responses are carried out in

response to verbal and visual stimuli. These pathways terminate in motor association

area, Brodman's area 6 (Geschwind, 1965). Movement information processed by area 6

is then relayed to the ipsilateral primary motor cortex, Brodman's area 4, as well as the

contralateral motor association area, area 6. Movement information processed by

contralateral area 6 is then relayed to it's affiliated primary motor cortex, area 4. (See

Figure 1-2.)

Based upon this neural mechanism, Geschwind proposed that the apraxia of the

left arm in a patient with right hemiplegia is not caused by the same lesion that caused

the hemiplegia. Rather, the apraxia results from coincidental damage to either area 6,

the callosal fibers connecting the left area 6 and the right area 6, or to the projections to

area 6 from the parietal lobe. This argument implied that a lesion anterior to the left

motor cortex which affects area 6 but spares area 4 should result in a bilateral apraxia.

However, Geschwind stated that as of his writing, no such cases have been described

presumably because lesions of left area 6 would most likely also affect area 4 due to

their anatomical contiguity.






































Figure 1-2. Geschwind's model of praxis. Lateral view of the left hemisphere.
AF = arcuate fasciculus; SMA = supplemental motor area or motor
association cortex; MC=primary motor cortex; VAC = visual
association cortex; VC = primary visual cortex. The arrows indicate
major connections of the areas shown (from Heilman & Rothi, 1985).








Assuming that visuokinesthetic engrams (Liepmann's movement formulae) of

the left parietal lobe are important for correct production of gesture as well as critical to

the decoding of seen, familiar gestures, Heilman, Rothi, & Valenstein (1982) postulated

that damage to the visuokinesthetic engrams would result in difficulty with both the

comprehension and production of gesture. The authors argued that measuring a

patient's ability to discriminate well-performed from poorly performed movements may

enable the clinician to determine whether or not a patient's apraxia resulted from

destruction of these engrams through lesions involving posterior cortical regions:

specifically left parietal lobe. An apraxic patient with preserved visuokinesthetic

engrams would be able to discriminate between good and poor performance while an

apraxic patient with damage to the visuokinesthetic engrams would not be able to make

that discrimination. The authors tested this theory by giving 20 apraxic subjects a

gesture discrimination test. The examiner named a target action and the subjects were

asked to watch a videotape of gesture performances and choose the performance out of

three possible for each command that best represented the named target. Patients with

more difficulty discriminating the gesture productions had posterior lesions (and

presumably damaged visuokinesthetic engrams.) Based on these results, Heilman et al.

(1982) discussed the possibility of two types of ideomotor apraxia: one type which

presents with poor production and comprehension of gestures and results from damage

to the left supramarginal or angular gyrus in the parietal lobe and a second type which

presents with praxis production problems alone and results from damage that does not

involve this parietal region. (See Figure 1-3.)

















































Figure 1-3. Heilman and Rothi's Model of Praxis. View from top of brain.
W = Wernicke's area; VA = primary visual area; VAA = visual association
area; AG = angular gyrus; SMG = supramarginal gyrus; PM = premotor
area (motor association cortex); M = motor cortex; CC = corpus callosum;
LH = left hemisphere; RH = right hemisphere. The arrows indicate major
connections of the areas shown (from Heilman & Rothi, 1985).








Cognitive Neuropsvchological Model of Limb Praxis and Apraxia

Recognizing Liepmann's assertion that skilled praxis was the product of a

complex multi-component system and also recognizing that numerous cases were

described in the literature that reflected behavioral fractionation of praxis related

behavior, Rothi, Ochipa, and Heilman (1991, 1997) proposed a cognitive neuro-

psychological model of apraxia in an attempt to capture these dissociations. A

schematic representation of this model can be found in Figure 1-4. In this model, the

term "action-lexicon" is used as the gestural equivalent to the term "lexicon" used in

language which distinguishes that part of the language system which gives a processing

advantage for words that the person has previously experienced (Rothi & Heilman,

1985). Therefore, the action-lexicon was defined as that part of the praxis system

which gives a processing advantage for movements that the person has previously

produced (Rothi et al., 1991, 1997). That is, it is an action memory. The action lexicon

was divided into input and output components to account for patients who demonstrate

spared gesture comprehension with impaired imitation and gesture to command. The

authors stated that for these patients, spoken language gains access to the output action

lexicon via semantics without being processed by the input action lexicon (Figure 1-5).

In contrast, deficits in gesturing to command with spared repetition and spared

comprehension were explained by dysfunction at or after the output action lexicon

while sparing the innervatory patterns (Rothi et al. 1991).

DeRenzi, Faglioni, and Sorgato (1982) and Rothi, Mack, and Heilman (1986)

discussed cases that provide evidence for modality-specific apraxic deficits. That is,

the praxis performance of the reported patients differed as a result of input modality











Auditory/Verbal Visual/Object Visual/Gestural
Input Input Input


Figure 1-4. Cognitive Neuropsychological Model of Apraxia (from Rothi, Ochipa, & Heilman, 1991).














AuditoryNerbal Visual/Object Visual/Gestural
Innt Input Input


Figure 1-5. Delineation of Gesture to Command Pathway (from Rothi, Ochipa, & Heilman, 1991).








(e.g. auditory, tactile, or visual). Rothi et al. (1991, 1997) accounted for the differences

in performance as a result of input modality by incorporating separate input systems for

visually presented gestural information, tactily presented (no visual input), and

auditorily presented verbal information. For visual/gestural information, the

product of visual analyses accesses either the input action lexicon or the innervatory

patterns directly (Figure 1-4). The presence of this direct route from visual analysis to

innervatory patterns may account for those patients who can imitate gestures but can

not discriminate or comprehend gestures (Rothi et al., 1986). That is, in cases where

gesture imitation is not possible through input to output lexicons or input lexicon to

semantics to output lexicon, gesture imitation may occur through a "non-lexical" route

similar to the route in which nonwords are imitated in language. For visual/ object

information, visual analyses activate the object recognition system which produces a

structural description of the viewed object. It is hypothesized that the structural

descriptions then access either the semantic system or action output lexicon. The

connection between the visual analyses and the action output lexicon may allow for the

production of gesture from the visual modality without accessing semantics. Visual

object information being processed accesses the action output lexicon without prior

processing by the action input lexicon because the action output lexicon pertains to

codes of the "to-be-performed" actions while the action input lexicon pertains to codes

of "perceived" actions (Rothi et al., 1997). This route (visual analysis to action output

lexicon) may account for the ability of certain patients who can not comprehend the

meaning of the gestures because of a failure of the action semantic system, but can

accurately produce gestures to shown tools. These patients may have intact








comprehension of objects but impaired comprehension of actions thereby suggesting a

dissociation within the semantic system for information about objects and information

about actions. Auditory/verbal input is transmitted to auditory association areas that

perform auditory analyses and activate the phonological input lexicon. Information

processed by the action input lexicon can be analyzed semantically by the semantic

system or phonologically for output by the verbal output lexicon. In figure 1-4, the line

connecting the region where auditory analysis is performed to the phonological buffer

may be the route that accounts for those patients who can repeat but not comprehend

verbal information (Rothi et al., 1991).

Roy and Square (1985) propose that praxis processing involves not only

information about gestural production but conceptual information as well. Within the

Rothi et al., (1991, 1997) model, conceptual analysis of praxis is accomplished by the

action semantic component. Roy and Square (1985) and Raymer and Ochipa (1997)

describe praxis conceptual knowledge as knowledge of the functions of tools and

objects, knowledge of actions not related to tools and objects, and knowledge of

combining actions into sequences. Rothi et al., (1991, 1997) state that actions depend

upon the interaction between the conceptual knowledge described above and the

sensorimotor information contained in the motor programs. The action semantic

system contains the conceptual knowledge relating to tools, objects, and actions. In

figure 1-4, the line in the semantics area accommodates recent information that action

semantics can be compartmentalized from nonaction semantics. Support for this

separation within semantics is found in reports of patients with optic apraxia who were

able to accurately gesture to command but were unable to accurately imitate the same








gestures or gesture to visually presented tools (Raymer, Greenwald, Richardson, Rothi,

& Heilman, 1992) as well as studies of Alzheimer's patients with impaired action

semantics with spared nonaction semantics and vice versa (Ochipa et al., 1992,

Raymer, 1992). This separation also accommodates those researchers who claim that

there are multiple semantic systems which reflect the modality and nature of input

material (Beauvois & Saillant, 1985; Paivio, 1986; Shallice, 1987, 1988).

By comparing patients' performance across tasks, researchers and clinicians

may use this neuropsychological model to ascertain the nature of the processing

damage and make predictions regarding performance. For example, when gesturing to

command, patients would receive auditory/verbal information (e.g. "show me how to

use a hammer") which would be processed phonologically by the phonological input

lexicon followed by the conceptual analysis of the action semantic system. After

semantic analysis, the information would be processed by the action output lexicon and

the relevant innervatory patterns would be accessed for production of the gesture by the

motor system (Figure 1-5). When gesturing to a visually presented tool/object, patients

would visually analyze the tool/object and corresponding information would be utilized

by the object recognition system with subsequent access to semantics, action output

lexicon, and the innervatory patterns for production by the motor system (Figure 1-6).

According to the model in Figure 1-6, patients must access semantics to gesture to

command correctly but do not have to access semantics to gesture to a visually

presented tool/object. Therefore, by comparing the patient's performance in these two

tasks, researchers and clinicians may be able to evaluate the integrity of the semantic

system.














AuditoryNerbal


Visual/Object
Input


Visual/Gestural


Figure 1-6. Delineation of Gesture to Visually Presented Object Pathway (from Rothi, Ochipa, & Heilman, 1991).








Right Hemisphere Contributions to Praxis

In addition to his proposals that the left hemisphere was dominant for learned,

skilled movement, Liepmann also acknowledged that the right hemisphere may also

have the ability to plan and generate skilled movement (Liepmann, 1905a/1980a,

1907/1980c, 1920).

However, Liepmann considered the right hemisphere to be subordinate to the

dominate left hemisphere and would require the activation of the movement formulae

(visuokinesthetic engrams) of the left hemisphere for correct production of skilled

movement in situations where the movements were done without manipulation of the

actual tool and object. That is, the right hemisphere depends on the integrity of the left

praxis system for production of learned, skilled movement in the absence of visual or

tactile information. In other words, the right hemisphere relies on the intact left praxis

system to produce correct actions when tools and objects are not used (Liepmann,

1905a/1980a, 1920; Maher, 1995).

This ability of the right hemisphere to produce correct movements and actions

in context with actual tools and objects was confirmed by Rapcsak, Ochipa, Beeson,

and Rubens (1993) who reported a patient, G.K., who suffered destruction of the entire

left hemisphere following a massive stroke. G.K. was strongly right-handed and it

could be hypothesized that the left hemisphere was dominate for language and praxis.

However, results of complete and intensive praxis testing which evaluated each input

and output modality for production and comprehension of learned, skilled movement

indicated that G.K. was severely impaired in all praxis tasks when actual tools and/or

objects were not used. In fact, G.K. reported no difficulty performing common








everyday tasks such as preparing meals and fixing household items in which tools and

objects are used together and in the relevant context.

Maher (1995) studied the role of the right hemisphere in production of learned,

skilled movements by evaluating the temporal and spatial aspects of gestures produced

by patients with left or right hemisphere brain lesions and matched normal control

subjects using a scoring system described by Rothi, Mack, Verfaellie, Brown, and

Heilman (1988). The subjects produced gestures to auditory command using the arm

and hand ipsilateral to the side of lesion to control for possible effects of hemiparesis.

The gestures were scored by two independent raters who were blind to the nature of the

study. The raters received intensive training before each scoring session which resulted

in high inter- and intra-rater reliability. The raters first scored the gestures pass/fail

according to correctness. Then, if a gesture was scored as incorrect, error type(s) were

awarded based on the above error classification system which included the following

error types: internal configuration, external configuration, occurrence, amplitude,

movement, and sequencing of movements (e.g., to use a key one must insert, turn, and

remove the key in that order). Results of the study showed that the left brain lesioned

subjects performed significantly worse than both the right brain lesioned subjects and

normal control subjects overall. When frequency of each error type was compared

across groups, there were significant differences for all error types except movement

and amplitude. Pairwise comparisons were then performed to distinguish etiology of

the differences. These comparisons suggested that the significant difference between

the left and right brain lesioned subjects for movement errors can be accounted for by

extremely poor performance by the left brain lesioned subjects when compared to the








other subject groups. This was a significant result because it supports the notion that

the left hemisphere is dominate for praxis. Apraxia is inherently a disorder of learned,

skilled movement and significant difficulty in the movement aspects of skilled

movements should be observed following damage to this system. The pairwise

comparisons also suggested that the significant difference for amplitude apects of

movement occurred between the right brain lesioned subjects and the normal controls

with no significant difference between the right and left brain lesioned groups. Maher

(1995) proposed that this result suggests that both the right and left hemispheres could

code spatial aspects of movement.

The Ecology of Apraxia

Significance to clinicians and patients

Other than its lateralizing value, apraxia has not been considered of significant

practical importance. DeRenzi (1985) said that apraxia rarely appears in everyday

situations and only emerges "out of context as a purposeful response to an artificial

request" (page 134.) Because ideomotor apraxia was considered to be an examination-

bound symptom that would not attract a clinician's attention unless the clinician

specifically looked for it, apraxia may have been overlooked and underestimated in

brain damaged patients (DeRenzi, 1985).

Many clinicians might agree that patients do not spontaneously complain of

apraxic disturbances (Heilman & Rothi, 1985). One possible explanation for this is that

apraxic patients may have anosognosia (unawareness of the disorder) for their praxis

difficulties (Rothi et aL., 1986). Another possible explanation is that patients with

apraxia frequently have a co-occurring right hemiparesis. Therefore, patients may








associate their clumsiness to use of the non-dominant left hand for tasks in which they

previously used their dominant right hand. While apraxia may be present, praxis

performance may improve when manipulating actual objects or tools (Geschwind,

1965) and caretakers or family members, who rarely have the opportunity to observe

tool/object use pantomime, may not be aware of the disorder. In fact, many family

members may provide assistance in self-care skills such as feeding and dressing for

convenience and efficiency purposes (Heinemann, Roth, Ciehowski, & Betts, 1987).

In a hospital or rehabilitation center, it is possible that the environment of the

patients may be controlled and geared toward partial functional independence where a

patient can complete at least part of a task independently. For example, in a nursing

home environment it has been observed that when it is time for a patient to brush

his/her teeth, the nurse may put the toothpaste on the toothbrush, hand the toothbrush to

the patient, and tell the patient to "brush your teeth." It has also been observed that

during mealtime, the nurse may prepare the food for the patient by cutting the meat,

putting the straw in the drink and/or handing the correct utensil to the patient. A study

by Heinemann and colleagues (1987), which examined functional outcome of stroke

rehabilitation programs, found that all of the independence gained during rehabilitation

in the area of feeding was lost by three months after discharge. They proposed that loss

of a controlled environment that promoted functional independence (e.g., the caregiver

no longer prepared the environment to maximize the patient's skills, but began to assist

the patient directly) may explain this decline in function.

Another study examined factors that influenced a person's ability to return to

work after a stroke (Saeki, Ogata, Okubo, Takahashi, & Hoshuyama, 1993). The








authors followed 244 patients, ages 24 to 65, who were actively employed at the time of

their strokes and extracted information from the admission medical records of each

patient. Results indicated that 58% of the patients returned to work by the time of the

follow-up which varied from 8 to 77 months post-stroke. The most important factor

that determined a patient's ability to return to work was severity of muscle weakness on

admission. The second most important factor was presence of apraxia. The odds of a

patient without apraxia returning to work were determined to be four to five times

greater than for patients with apraxia (Saeki et al., 1993). However, possible

limitations of this study are that the authors combined ideomotor apraxia with

ideational apraxia, dressing apraxia, and constructional apraxia in the analyses; none of

which were operationally defined. As a result, it can not be determined which one or

more types of apraxia affected the patients' ability to return to work or whether the

authors' definition of apraxia was similar to or different from previously published

definitions.

Apraxia in natural contexts

The first study to document the effects of apraxia in the non-clinical

environment was conducted by Sundet, Finset, and Reinvang (1988). These

researchers investigated variables that affected a patient's ability to function in the

home environment following discharge from a rehabilitation hospital. They sent

questionnaires to 68 left hemisphere stroke patients and 77 right hemisphere stroke

patients six months after discharge from rehabilitation. The questionnaire focused upon

activities of daily living and the amount of "dependency" the patients displayed in the

home environment. Dependency was defined as the increased need for caregiver








assistance in performing tasks of daily living. The patients were asked 13 simply

written yes/no questions such as "requires use of kitchen aids" and "requires help to

dress" (Sundet et al., 1988, p.369). Caretakers were asked to answer the questions in

the event that a patient could not. Sundet and colleagues compared the relationship

between results of the questionnaire (measure of dependency) and neuropsychological

deficits such as hemiplegia, aphasia, nonverbal memory deficits, neglect, and apraxia;

the presence of which were determined by review of each patients' medical records.

Results of the study indicated that the highest predictor of dependency for the left

hemisphere damaged subjects was the presence of apraxia.

Limitations of the Sundet et al. (1988) study include the authors' reliance upon a

questionnaire filled out by caregivers rather than direct patient observation to determine

the patients' ability to function independently in a natural environment and context.

There was also a six month hiatus between the neuropsychological testing and

determination of the patients' "dependency" during which time the patients'

performance on the neuropsychological tests (and, in turn, the presence of

neuropsychological deficits including apraxia they were reported to document) may

have changed. Although a study by Rothi and Heilman (1985) documented that over

80% of patients who are acutely apraxic remain apraxic six months later, it is unknown

how many of the 68 left hemisphere damaged subjects in the Sundet et al. (1988) study

would have been considered apraxic at the time of dependency determination.

One study in which patients were directly observed and which did not have a

hiatus between clinical examination and experimental procedures was conducted by

Foundas, Macauley, Raymer, Maher, Rothi, and Heilman (1995). Foundas and








coworkers (1995) examined actual tool use during mealtime in 10 left hemisphere

stroke patients and 10 neurologically normal controls matched for handedness, age,

gender, and education. Subjects were tested for presence of aphasia and apraxia and

then, on the same day as testing or no more than three days later, were videotaped while

eating a meal. For each subject the meal tray was placed on a table in front of the

subject and foil items such as a toothbrush, comb, and pen were included on the tray in

addition to the standard tools and utensils for eating (spoon, fork, knife, napkin, and

condiments). The location of the standard tools and the foils were counterbalanced to

control for their left to right placement on the tray. The examiner left the room and no

assistance was given to the subject in preparing or eating the food.

Results of the Foundas et al. (1995) study documented two main differences

between the control and experimental subjects. The first difference became apparent

when the stages of eating (preparatory, eating, and clean-up) were compared across

groups. During the preparatory phase, behaviors included such things as opening

condiment packages, placing the napkin on the lap, cutting the meat, and putting sugar

in the tea. During the eating phase, the food was eaten. During the clean-up phase,

behaviors such as putting the napkin back on the tray, putting the utensils on the plate,

and pushing the tray away were accomplished. The first difference between the groups

was that 80% of the control subjects proceeded through all three phases of the meal

compared to only 20% of the experimental subjects. The authors reported that the

control subjects respected the boundaries of each phase whereas the experimental

subjects did not. That is, the control subjects showed clear, distinct beginning and end

points of each phase while the experimental subjects tended to have preparatory, eating,








and clean-up actions interspersed randomly throughout the meal as if there was a lack

of anticipation for pending task demands. The authors also reported that within the

eating phase, the control subjects ate using eating patterns that were idiosyncratic

within subjects but consistently developed across subjects. For example, a control

subject might eat portions of the main course (e.g., meat) followed by the bread, the

vegetables, and drink of tea and repeat this pattern over again until all food had been

eaten. In contrast, the experimental subjects tended to eat in a more random fashion

with no definable eating pattern.

In the Foundas et al. (1995) study, the experimental subjects produced more

"tool errors" (errors of action in using tools such as spoon, and fork) than "nontool

errors" (errors of actions that do not involve tools such as wiping the face or moving

the glass) while the control subjects did not produce any errors. One might suggest,

however, that because the experimental subjects had a hemiparesis and the comparison

group did not, the differences between the groups may be related to the presence of a

primary motor defect in the apraxic group. However, an underlying motor system

deficit could not explain the difference in eating praxis performance in these two

groups because a motor deficit should have affected both tool and nontool actions

equally, and it did not. Therefore, even though the experimental subjects had a right

hemiparesis, the action errors they produced, selective only for praxis related to tool

use, were not the result of an underlying motor problem.

Results of the Foundas et al. (1995) study indicated that while the overall eating

time of the experimental subjects did not differ from the control subjects, the

experimental subjects made fewer actions in general, used fewer utensils, and often








misjudged the advantage of using a tool. The experimental subjects produced

significantly more incorrect actions when compared to the controls and as a result were

less efficient in executing individual tool actions. Tool misuse and mis-selection errors

were produced by all but one experimental subject who happened to score within the

normal range on the test for ideomotor apraxia. Errors such as eating ice cream with a

fork (mis-selection), cutting with a spoon (misuse), stirring with a knife (misuse), and

wiping one's face with a slice of bread (mis-selection) were observed. A schematic

representation of misuse and mis-selection errors can be found in Figure 1-7. In

contrast, the normal control subjects made more actions in general, used more utensils,

and used the utensils correctly throughout the meal. The tool actions of the

experimental subjects were often incomplete or imprecise so that a desired goal was not

achieved. Foundaset al. (1995) argued that the high correlation between number of

action errors produced and presence of ideomotor apraxia suggested that ideomotor

apraxia caused the production of action errors in this natural context.

A series of studies by Schwartz and colleagues also examined action errors in

activities of daily living by brain damaged subjects. The first study by Mayer, Reed,

Schwartz, Montgomery, and Palmer (1990) examined a group of brain-injured patients

in a rehabilitation hospital. Forty-five patients with traumatic brain injury and six

patients with stroke were observed during activities of daily living such as brushing

teeth and making coffee. The authors found that 49% of the patients produced errors of

action during activities of daily living. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the brain

damage of the patients they studied, it is not known whether the action errors were the

result of the















Misuse


object


Mis-selection


object


action


object


Misuse and Mis-selection


object


action


object


Figure 1-7. Schematic Representation of Misuse and Mis-selection Action Errors.
// indicate location of errorss.


action


action


object


action


action


object


action








general intellectual impairment or executive function defects commonly found in

traumatic brain injured patients or of apraxia.

Mayer et al. (1990) developed a theory of action based upon Norman and

Shallice's (1986) model of attentional control of action which proposes two modes of

control of action, one which is automatic and one which requires deliberate attentional

control. Mayer et al. (1990) studied the action productions within a natural context of

45 patients with closed head injury and proposed that impairment of the deliberate

attentional control route was the genesis for production of action errors in their patients

with brain damage. For this study, an action coding system was developed that

describes the sequence of actions produced by brain damaged patients as either A-I

units (general actions, not task-specific such as rinsing a glass), A-2 units (specific,

task-related actions such as unscrewing the cap from a toothpaste container), or crux A-

1 units (the action that accomplishes the next goal such as squeezing the toothpaste

onto the toothbrush when preparing to brush teeth). The action coding system enabled

the researchers to examine which actions were produced out of sequence, were omitted,

or were perseverated by applying the action coding system to a script of the patient's

actions and examining the relationship and sequence of the A-I, A-2, and crux A-I

units in the patient's production to that of a prototype script.

Mayer et al. (1990) then applied the action coding system to a script of actions

produced by a brain injured patient during a task of daily living. One patient, H.H., had

suffered a bifrontal injury with resulting aphasia and callosal apraxia in which he was

apraxic with his non-dominant left hand and not apraxic with his preferred right hand.

H.H. was videotaped during breakfast and a script of his actions was written. The








action coding system was applied to the script to analyze action sequences. The authors

reported that even though H.H. produced frequent errors such as pouring tomato juice

on waffles and attempting to spoon oatmeal into tea, his main deficit was in the

efficiency of his action plans. That is, A-1, A-2, and crux A-I units were produced

randomly and not in a logical order or sequence to accomplish the goal of the task at

hand. In addition, there was the appearance of action errors that included misuse and

mis-selection of tools as well as movement errors that included sequencing and timing

of movements. The authors argue that these errors, misuse and mis-selection of tools as

well as sequence, were not a result of the patient's apraxia because "in the majority of

patients with documented apraxia, there (was) no functional consequence of the apraxic

impairment" (Mayer et al., 1990, p.280). Foundas and colleagues, however, would

argue that the above statement is not an accurate assumption in that the authors did not

test for apraxia and as a result could not speak towards the significance of apraxia to the

production of action errors in their patients.

Schwartz, Reed, Montgomery, Palmer, and Mayer (1991) continued their work

by applying the action coding system to two specific tasks--making coffee and brushing

teeth--as produced by H.H., the brain damaged patient described by Mayer et al.

(1990). H.H. was videotaped performing these tasks in the natural environment and

scripts of his actions were analyzed according to the action coding system described by

Mayer, et al. (1990). The authors noted that H.H. had a higher susceptibility to object

substitutions and object misuse as well as a variability of action errors across time.

Regarding normal action processing, the authors argue that learned actions are not








executed as whole programs but are organized into hierarchies of temporally structured

units that depend on the prefrontal area of the brain for integration and production.

Based on the results of the study described above, Schwartz et al. (1991)

proposed four theoretical foundations of intentional actions and action errors: the first

tenet claims that intentional action involves activation of an action plan; the second

claims that the planning and execution of intentional actions are closely coupled in real

time; the third claims that intentional actions are integral to all purposeful behavior; and

the fourth claims that errors of action occur due to weakening of the top-down

formulation of action plans. This weakening of the action plans allows the patient to be

influenced by irrelevant objects and actions leading to a susceptibility of object related

errors of action. Schwartz and colleagues (1991) also proposed that the condition of

action disorganization observed in brain injured patients while performing activities of

daily living be termed frontal apraxia.

The explanation of the mechanism of frontal apraxia offered by Schwartz et al.

(1991) is not contradictory to Liepmann (1900/1977,1905a/1980a, 1905b/1980b, 1907/

1980c, 1920) and Heilman and Rothi's (1985, 1993) description of movement

memories. Rather, Liepmann, Heilman and Rothi's proposals focus upon a retrieval

system for the memories of unique learned skilled movements that span from single

discreet actions (the action lexicons) to subcomponents (innervatory patterns) of these

actions. In contrast, the proposal of Schwartz et al. (1991) focuses upon the internal

relationship between discreet component actions of larger action goals. Both Liepmann

(1920) and Schwartz et al. (1991) use the term "frontal apraxia" to describe the

movement/action errors that occur when the internal relationship between discreet








action representations in the larger action goal context have been loosened or

disorganized by brain damage.

Schwartz, Montgomery, DeSalme, Ochipa, Coslett, and Mayer (1995) expanded

the study of action errors by examining J.K., a patient with traumatic brain injury,

whose behavior was similar to the patient (H.H.) studied by Mayer et al. (1990) and

Schwartz et al. (1991). J.K. was videotaped while eating breakfast and brushing his

teeth and the tapes were scored according to the action coding system described by

Mayer et al. (1990). J.K. also underwent a battery ofneuropsychological tests that

included object identification and recognition, conceptual/semantic knowledge,

functional/use knowledge, gesture knowledge, gesture production, other language

testing, and memory testing. Results indicated that J.K. evinced numerous action errors

during the activities of daily living, especially tool misuse errors. The authors

postulated that the tool errors were not due to a conceptual/ideational apraxia because

J.K. was able to correctly identify tools by name and by function as well as match tools

with their corresponding object. However, the authors argued that J.K.'s tool misuse

errors were not the result of a weakened top-down processing of action plans found

with frontal apraxia because J.K. was able to demonstrate or gesture the appropriate use

for a tool from visual and tactile cues, a high level task (Schwartz et al., 1995). The

authors concluded that in order to accommodate J.K.'s full range of performance, both a

top-down and a bottom-up impairment of intentional action planning should be adopted

(Schwartz et al., 1992). That is, the loosening or disorganization of relationships

between discreet action representations could be the result of damage to either higher or

lower order mechanisms within the action planning and movement production system.








Schwartz et al. (1993) adapted the action-trigger-schema (ATS) framework

developed by Norman and Shallice (1986) as a means of organizing actions and

classifying action errors. The ATS framework proposes that action plans are composed

of schemas which are organized memory structures that integrate different types of

information for use with actions. These schemas and their interrelations are developed

over time through individual experiences and can generate positive or negative

activation to specialized systems such as the motor system from the action plans.

Familiar action sequences such as eating are represented by groups of schemas

organized hierarchically. High level schemas occur in a top-down fashion while the

low level schemas occur in an orderly fashion according to the logical progression of

actions within the schema. For example, the higher level schema for eating breakfast

would be the intent to eat and complete the meal while the lower level schemas would

be those actions required to eat the meal such as opening a juice carton, picking up a

fork, and taking a bite of food. Using the ATS framework, the authors proposed that

action errors are due to the loss or instability of activation within the action schema

network possibly due to a weakening of the connections among schemas (Schwartz et

al., 1993).

Schwartz et al. (1993) argue that a patient with frontal apraxia will produce

errors differently during an activity of daily living than a patient with a disorder of

attention. Specifically, a frontal apraxic patient with dysfunction in the ability to plan

and coordinate action sequences may exhibit incoherence and intrusions of actions

which result in a fragmentation of behavior. Patients with frontal apraxia may also use

tools and objects in novel or bizarre ways because the action plan for using the tools








and objects is inaccurate, nonspecific, and faulty. In contrast, an attention disordered

patient may exhibit intrusions of irrelevant actions and temporary derailments to other

tasks resulting in inefficient but coherent action sequences.

Schwartz et al. (1993) addressed the issue of whether the observed action errors

were related to an ideational apraxia by comparing the action performance of H.H., a

traumatic brain injured patient described in Schwartz et al. (1991), to the action

performance of a left-handed, right hemisphere damaged patient described by Ochipa

et al. (1989) who displayed ideational (conceptual) apraxia. Although both patients

produced numerous errors of action during activities of daily living, H.H. evinced

misuse of tools with spared tool function knowledge while the Ochipa et al. (1989)

patient evinced spared production with impaired tool function knowledge. Schwartz et

al. (1993) posited that frontal apraxia and ideational apraxia have different underlying

mechanisms in that patients with ideational apraxia have impaired conceptual-semantic

knowledge while patients with frontal apraxia have spared conceptual-semantic

knowledge.

Mayer et al. (1990) and Schwartz et al. (1991, 1993, 1995) also applied the

action coding system to the performances of a subject who suffered a hemorrhagic

stroke (J.H., discussed in Schwartz et al., 1991) and a subject who suffered diffuse

damage following traumatic brain injury (J.K., discussed in Schwartz et al., 1993,

1995) during two activities of daily living. Although the errors produced by the

patients were described, the nature of the patients' brain damage did not allow the

researchers to make conclusions about brain-behavior relationships. Both hemorrhagic

strokes and traumatic brain injury may be associated with more damage to the brain








than appears on CT/MRI scans. One other limitation of this series of studies is that

although it was not their intention to include ideomotor apraxia as a possible factor,

ideomotor apraxia is likely to have been present in their cases and may have been an

important factor.

Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) proposed a "Unified Hypothesis" to explain the

errors of action observed in patients with frontal and/or ideational apraxia. The

author's schematic representation of this hypothesis can be found in Figure 1- 8. The

Unified Hypothesis is based upon the ATS framework which states that through

experience and learning, higher level schemas organize lower level schemas into

temporally ordered sequences. Experience and learning solidify connections between

higher and lower level schemas for specific tasks making the retrieval of the lower level

schemas automatic. For example, one higher level schema would contain information

on the sequence of actions required to eat a meal and would automatically activate

lower level schemas for cutting, drinking, wiping, and stirring, etc., as needed

throughout the meal process. Another high level schema would contain information on

the sequence of actions required to build and would activate lower level schemas for

getting the permit, hiring architects, buying materials, putting in the foundation, etc. In

turn, the schema for putting in the foundation would activate lower level schema for

marking the ground, digging the hole, pouring the concrete, and etc. Whether a schema

is considered "low" or "high" is determined by the relationship between schema within

the goal of the task. Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) differentiated between learned,

routine actions and novel or nonroutine actions in that pre-existing connections existed

between high level and low level schemas for learned, routine actions but not for novel











Perpetual/Sensory Input


etion
ItenttEon::]


Figure 1-8. Schematic Interpretation of the Unified Hypothesis (from Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997).


-"- Motor System








or nonroutine actions. The pre-existing connections between higher and low level

schemas allow learned, routine actions to become more automatic, but also more prone

to error (Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997; Reason, 1990). According to Schwartz and

Buxbaum, (1997), it is the evocation of attentional factors at certain critical points

during activation of higher level schemas which opposes error tendencies and keeps the

error rate low.

Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) discussed two key assumptions of the Unified

Hypothesis. The first key assumption is that damage to the movement engrams and/or

the perceptual systems, or the semantic systems that input to the movement engrams

would affect the ATS system by compromising its automatically. This lack of

automaticity leads to greater dependence on attention and specifically on supervisory

attention. Supervisory attention is evoked when automatic action routines are

insufficient or inappropriate to complete the task at hand (Norman & Shallice, 1980,

1986). Supervisory attention has been equated with working memory by Baddeley

(1986). Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) proposed that "for the patient with faulty

access to gesture engrams or perceptual-semantic processing, successful performance

of familiar, pragmatic action, depends more heavily on [attentional] control processes"

(p.19).

The second key assumption of the Unified Hypothesis is that behavioral

consequences of this increased dependency on supervisory attention/working memory

depend upon a combination of the severity of damage to the ATS system and the status

of the supervisory attention/working memory, itself. That is, a deficit in one

component (activation of action schemas or attentional control systems) of the Unified








Hypothesis may not impact actions in natural contexts without some degree of damage

to the other component. The authors argue that it is this combination of deficits that

leads to action errors in natural contexts. That is, patients who have deficits in the

automatic activation of action schemas will not evince action errors unless there is also

a deficit in supervisory attention/ working memory and/or executive control processes.

Conversely, patients with deficits in executive control processes will not evince action

errors unless there are co-existing deficits in posterior processing systems which impact

the automaticity of the action schemas. In addition, patients with a cortical dementia or

diffuse head injury, may demonstrate the most serious errors of action during activities

of daily living because of the severity of deficits in both the automatic activation of

action schemas as well as executive control systems (Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997).

The Relationship Between Apraxia and Pragmatic Action

It is possible that neither the model proposed by Rothi et al. (1991, 1997) or the

Unified Hypothesis proposed by Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) can independently

account for all of the errors produced by brain-damaged patients during goal-directed

activities of daily living (pragmatic action). In the following discussion, pragmatic

action will be defined as the sequences of movements required to progress toward and

obtain a definable goal. The goal may be directed toward common, everyday actions

such as eating, or uncommon actions such as building a house (uncommon actions may

vary from person to person depending upon life experiences). In contrast, movement is

defined as changes in posture, place, or position which can occur within an action as

well as independently. Actions and movements have been disambiguated to represent

the notion that movements are the inherent motor aspect of performing actions (i.e.,








movements are the final common denominator for all actions) and that actions are a

series of movements arranged in hierarchically organized schemas according to the end

goal. Using these definitions of pragmatic action and movements, the Rothi et al.

(1991, 1997) Cognitive Neuropsychological Model of Limb Praxis and Apraxia

encompasses aspects related to the planning, organization, production and

comprehension of discreet movements (hereafter referred to simply as "movements")

while the Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) Unified Hypothesis covers aspects related to

the planning, organization, production, and comprehension of actions which

incorporate discreet movements (hereafter referred to simply as "actions") and it is the

relationship or interaction between these two theories that is crucial for the

understanding of pragmatic action. In the following discussion, a relationship between

movements and actions will be proposed which will then be used as a foundation for

examining the production of errors during goal-directed activities of daily living.

It is proposed that higher level action schemas discussed by Schwartz and

Buxbaum (1997) access lower level schemas of movement organization found in the

action output lexicon as discussed by Rothi et al. (1991, 1997) (Figure 1-9). The action

output lexicon, hereafter referred to as praxicon as suggested by Heilman and Rothi

(1997), in turn, accesses the innervatory patterns and the motor system in that order, for

production of the movement (Rothi et al., 1991, 1997) (Figure 1-10). Within the high

level schemas, information about object, tool, sequence, and other aspects of action are

organized hierarchically into plans or scripts according to specific goals. It is also

proposed that the high level action schemas also contain attributes of movement

planning but under normal circumstances, the praxicon takes precedence.















High Level Schemas


Figure 1-9. Relationship between Actions and Movements.


Movements

(Rothietal., 1991,1997)


Actions

(Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997)


Low Level Schemas











LOW LEVEL SCHEMAS


HIGH LEVEL SCHEMAS







Action

Schemas


Figure 1-10. Breakdown of Low Level Schemas.









According to Schwartz et al. (1991, 1993, 1995, 1997) there may be many

different levels of schema. That is, for one set of goal-directed action sequences, a

particular schema may be organized as a "lower level schema" whereas in a different

set, the same schema may be organized as a "higher level schema." In fact, it is

possible that schemas may be organized in such as way that a lower level schema may

be included in a higher level schema which is included in an even higher level schema

and etc. In order to conceptualize this framework it is proposed that within the high

level schematic system, information is stored in a distributed network framework and is

therefore subject to assumptions associated with parallel-distributed-processing (PDP)

models as described by Rumelhart and McClellan (1986). For example, three

assumptions about connections between nodes that are frequently activated together are

1) as the number of times of activation increases, the strength of the connection will

also increase, 2) as strength increases the nodes are activated faster, and 3) the stronger

the connections, the less likely they are to be degraded (Rumelhart & McClellan, 1986;

Nadeau. 1994). The corresponding assumptions for the high level schematic system are

1) stronger associations occur between informnation/schemas that are frequently

activated together, 2) the schemas with the most activation become learned, routine

actions and eventually become automatic, and 3) the schemas for common, learned

actions are less likely to show deficits following brain damage due to "a great deal of

redundancy [interconnectiveness] in the neural systems responsible for pragmatic

action" (Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997, p2).

Norman and Shallice (1980, 1986) and Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997)

discussed the role of supervisory attention/working memory (SA/WM) in the








production of actions. The role of SA/WM was to monitor actions and step in as

needed during their production so errors would be circumvented. SA/WM also

contributed the most resources to monitor novel actions, a lesser amount of resources to

monitor non-routine actions, and the least amount of resources to monitor routine or

learned actions which could eventually become automatic and be produced correctly

without attentional resources (Schwartz & Buxbaum (1997). To account for these

different aspects of actions, the connection between executive functions (as defined by

Schwartz et al., 1991, 1993, 1995) and the output praxicon has been divided into four

routes, each requiring different amounts of attentional resources (Figure 1-11). It is

proposed that the route for production of automatic actions (those learned, routine

actions that are performed in context using actual tools and objects) bypasses attention

and accesses the output praxicon directly because the combined effects of the natural

context, tools, and objects may be enough information to activate that part of the motor

system specialized for overlearned, automatic movements (Paillard, 1982, Marsden,

1982, Rapscak et al., 1993, Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997) The routes for routine and

non-routine actions both access the output praxicon but non-routine actions require

greater attentional resources than routine actions for accurate production. Additionally,

the route for novel actions accesses the innervatory patterns rather than the output

praxicon because by definition, "novel" movements have not been produced

previously and, therefore, would not have engrams represented in the output praxicon.

Novel actions also require more attentional resources than either routine or non-routine

actions.










LOW LEVEL SCHEMAS


HIGH LEVEL SCHEMAS


automatic

A \ routine
l-~A-



Outp t.r o ,. i \ non-routine.,
PraSicon m


^ f________\ novel __
Inn rvatory Patterns L -




|Motor Systems |


Figure 1-11. Breakdown of High Level Schemas.


Action

Schemas








Because the output praxicon receives information from the semantic system and the

semantic system is accessed by the perceptual systems, both systems (semantic and

perceptual) have been added to the model according to Rothi et al., (1991, 1997) in

Figure 1-12 and 1-13. Additionally, it is proposed that the executive functions in the

high level schematic system also communicates with the semantic system in order to

establish semantic relationships and interactions among related schemas. To

accommodate this communication, the semantic system has been divided into two parts

with one part connecting to the output praxicon and another part with connections to

and from executive functions. This division is not without debate, however, because

one could argue that the semantic system which communicates with the low level

movement schemas contains procedural information about tools and objects while the

semantic system which communicates with the high level action schemas contains

episodic information about action sequences.

Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) and Reason (1979, 1984) also discussed visual,

auditory, and tactile perceptual systems as important input systems for online

monitoring and feedback to ensure correct action production. To accommodate these

reports, the perceptual system has been added to the high level action schema system

with input connections to executive functions (the planning and organization of action

schemas) and attention (Supervisory attention/working memory) in Figure 1-14. The

perceptual systems, therefore, send information to both the low (movement) and high

(action) schema systems.

In summary, the proposed relationship between apraxia and pragmatic action

described above separated the components of pragmatic action into low and high level













LOW LEVEL SCHEMAS I


Audltory/Verbail VbmalObject Ipus tul
Input Input Ip


HIGH LEVEL SCHEMAS


Figure 1-12. Addition of Perceptual Input to Low Level Schemas (Rothi et al., 1991, 1997).















LOW LEVEL SCHEMAS


Visual/Object
Input


I HIGH LEVEL SCHEMAS


VIsual/Gestund
Input


automatic


Figure 1-13. Addition of Semantic System to High Level Schemas.


Auditory/Verbal
Input















LOW LEVEL SCHEMAS I HIGH LEVEL SCHEMAS


Visual/Object Visual/Gstural
Input Input


Perceptual
Sytems
| V[~ ~ ~ y i V isu al A nally sis- ._______



SObjet --------oSyste
| Object RecognitionSyslem I -
Iput Ijroad"n
Frazicon ITA0
Ift 4 |-1 --- / A I et


Figure 1-14. Proposed Relationship Between Apraxia and Pragmatic Action.


Figure 1-14. Proposed Relationship Between Apraxia and Pragmatic Action.


AuditoryNVerbal
Input








schematic systems. The low level system targets planning, organization, production,

and comprehension of movement and movement sequences which are the final

common denominator of actions. The high level system includes planning,

organization, production, and comprehension of actions and action sequences

schemass) which originate in the complex schematic system of executive functions and

require attentional monitoring for correct production. The final common denominator

for both actions and movements is the praxis system, specifically, the output praxicon,

innervatory patterns, and motor system.

Predictions of the Proposed Relationship Between Movements and Actions

Based on the above description of the relationship between action schemas and

movements, the following predictions are made. First, pragmatic action can be divided

into two levels, a high level for actions and a low level for movements, with the final

common denominator of production through the output praxicon. Following this

prediction, there should be dissociations between the ability to plan and organize

actions (which occurs at the high level) from the ability to plan and organize

movements (at the low level). A deficit in the ability to plan, organize, and execute

actions has been documented by Mayer et al. (1990), Schwartz et al. (1991, 1993,

1995), and Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) who studied patients with generalized brain

damage from closed head injury and labeled the deficit frontal apraxia, and Sirigu,

Zalla, Pillon, Grafman, Agid, and Dubois (1995, 1996), and Sirigu, Zalla, Pillon,

Grafman, Dubois, and Agid (1996) who studied patients with frontal lobe damage and

labeled the deficits as problems in managerial knowledge. However, Mayer et al.

(1990), Schwartz et al. (1991, 1993, 1995), Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) and Sirigu








et al. (1995, 1996, in press) did not test for apraxia, a deficit in the ability to plan,

organize and execute movements. Ideomotor apraxia is well documented in the

literature by Liepmann (1900/1977, 1905b/1980b, 1907/1980c, 1920), DeRenzi (1985),

DeRenzi et al. (1966, 1982), Heilman et aL. (1982), Rothi et al. (1985), Rothi and

Heilman, (1985), Sirigu, Cohen, Duhamel, Pillon, Dubois, and Agid (1995), and

Foundas et al. (1995). Ideomotor apraxia has been localized to damage in the dominant

hemisphere (Liepmann & Maas, 1907; Geschwind, 1965; Heilman, 1979; and Poizner,

Meriens, Clark, Macauley, Rothi, & Heilman, 1997) and specifically to posterior

parietal cortex (Heilman, 1979; Freund, 1991; and Poizner et aL., 1997). However, the

focus of the above studies was on either high level action planning and organization

abilities, without documenting presence or absence of low level factors, or vice versa--

focus on low level action planning and organization abilities without documenting

presence or absence of high level factors.

Only one study to date has examined both low and high level schematic

functions within the same patient. Schwartz et al. (1995) examined action planning and

praxis in a patient, J.K., who suffered brain damage as the result of closed head injury.

Results indicated that J.K. evinced significant deficits in both the planning and

organization of actions and the planning and organization of movements.

Unfortunately, due to the extent of brain damage (lesions in right frontal lobe, bilateral

temporo-parietal lobe, and left occipital lobe) brain-behavior relationships could not be

made. Further studies are needed to document whether patients with impaired

planning and organization of actions have spared planning and organization of

movements and vise versa. However, because the supplementary motor area (SMA)








located in the prefrontal gyrus has been implicated in the production of learned

movements (Heilman, 1979) and it is proposed that the production of movements is the

final common pathway for all actions, researchers must be strict as to location of lesion

(i.e., with/without damage to SMA in patients with frontal lobe lesions) and in modality

of task (i.e., test action planning and organization through pictures and not through

actual production for patients with ideomotor apraxia as the ideomotor apraxia will

affect production) when selecting subjects and experimental tasks. It should also be

noted that due to the proposal that the output praxicon is the final common pathway for

production of actions, patients with ideomotor apraxia have the potential to be impaired

in production across tasks clinical and environmental. This impairment across tasks

has been documented experimentally by Foundas et al. (1995) and through case reports

by Jacobs, Macauley, Adair, Gold, Rothi, and Heilman (1995) and Sirigu et al. (1995).

A second prediction states that deficits in action semantics should affect the

functional use of tools within higher level schemas (in context or part of a goal-directed

schema) as well as within lower level schemas (out of context or independent of goal-

directed schema). Ochipa et al. (1989) reported a left-handed patient with a right

hemisphere lesion who demonstrated deficits in the functional use of tools across high

and low level tasks. High level tasks included eating a meal and low level tasks

included pantomiming to command (e.g., show me how you use scissors). Results

indicated that the patient was impaired in all tasks in which the functional relationship

between tool and object were important. It should be noted, however, that Ochipa et al.

(1989) labeled the patient's disorder ideationall apraxia" and defined it as a loss of

conceptual knowledge related to tool use. Raymer (1992) and Raymer and Ochipa








(1997), labeled this disorder "conceptual apraxia" which better describes this global

impairment of both low and high level schema functions.

A third prediction states that errors of action produced by non brain-damaged

people should relate to high level schema problems, the planning and organization of

actions, and not low level schema problems, the planning and organization of

movements. "Normal" people have intact praxis systems and should therefore produce

skilled movements accurately. However, the correct production of actions depends

upon the mediation of supervisory attention/working memory and if a person is not

"paying enough attention" or becomes distracted during the task at hand, a different

action, correctly produced, may be performed. Reason (1979, 1984, 1990) and Reason

and Mycielska (1982) studied human error and lapses of attention in everyday life.

They report that normal people produce errors of omission, addition, anticipation,

perseveration, capture, exchange, and substitution all of which occur within action

schemas and not within movements. For example, an error of capture occurred when a

lady went to the bathroom intending to brush her hair but she picked up the toothbrush

and began to brush her teeth. This lady did not pick up the toothbrush and brush her

hair or perform any action out of sequence for that particular schema, she merely

performed the wrong action schema for her intention which is a high level schematic

system error. Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) classified the errors produced by brain

damaged patients during six daily activities, including making toast and wrapping a

present, using Reason's (1979, 1984) classification system. Schwartz and Buxbaum

(1997) reported that the brain damaged patients produced errors not only from the

categories described by Reason (1979, 1984) but also in four categories not described








by Reason (1979, 1984) grasp/spatial misorientation, spatial misestimation, tool

omission, and quality of movement. These four error types are hypothetically related to

the low level schematic system and would be predicted in patients with damage to the

praxis system by this model. Unfortunately, Schwartz and Buxbaum's (1997) patients

had heterogeneous etiologies and were not tested for conceptual or ideomotor apraxia

and therefore, direct evidence to support this prediction can not be obtained. Further

studies are necessary to examine the types of errors produced by brain damaged

patients and to establish a classification system using the framework of the proposed

model.

Classification of Action Errors

The types of errors described by Foundas et al. (1995), Ochipa et al. (1989),

Mayer et aL.(1990), Schwartz etal. (1991, 1993, 1995), Sirigu et al. (1995, 1996) and

Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) can be divided into two categories based upon the low

(movement) and high (action) schema systems proposed by the relationship described

above (Figure 1-14). That is, error types that reflect deficits in the praxis production

systems (Rothi et al., 1991) would make up low level schematic system errors while

error types that reflect deficits in the planning and organization of action in the

executive function and attentional control mechanisms (Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997)

would make up high level schematic errors. However, some types of errors could be

produced by both a high and a low level schema deficit. For example, the misuse of a

fork to stir tea could be explained by a deficit in the praxis conceptual system a low

level schema error or by a deficit in attentional control of the action sequences (the

patient had just finished using a fork to eat meat and did not switch tools before stirring








tea) a high level schema error. Other types of errors such as the body part as tool

errors reported by Rothi et al. (1991) can only be explained by a low level schema

deficit.

However, no study to date has measured deficits associated with low and high

level schemas within the same group of patients in order to tease out which action

errors are associated with which type of deficit. Foundas et al. (1995) and Ochipa et al.

(1989) tested the praxis production and conceptual systems (low level schema) while

Mayer et al., (1990), Schwartz et al., (1991, 1993), Sirigu et al. (1995, 1997), and

Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) tested executive function, managerial knowledge, and

planning/ organizational abilities (higher level schema). Schwartz et al., (1995)

measured both low and high level schema abilities in a patient with diffuse brain

damage after closed head injury. However, an MRI of this patient showed focal lesions

in the left occipito-parietal area, right frontal area, and bilateral temporal areas which

negated any attempt to establish brain-behavior relationships and examine the

underlying nature of action errors.

Foundas et al. (1995) proposed that the errors produced by the experimental

subjects in their study could be divided into two groups production and conceptual.

Production errors consisted of movement, timing, and sequence errors and conceptual

errors consisted of misuse and mis-selection of a tool for the intended task. However,

as discussed above, production and conceptual errors can occur as the result of deficits

in low and/or high level schema systems. Production errors have been associated with

ideomotor apraxia resulting from discrete lesions of the dominant left hemisphere

(Foundas et al., 1995) as well as executive function disorders from closed head injury








(Schwartz et al., 1995) and conceptual errors have been associated with ideational/

conceptual apraxia resulting from discrete lesions of the dominant hemisphere (Ochipa

et al., 1989) as well as resulting from generalized brain damage from closed head injury

(Schwartz et aL., 1995). However, all of the experimental subjects in the Foundas et al.,

(1995) study had unilateral (dominant hemisphere) brain lesions resulting from single

strokes. Even though it would be easy to propose that the errors produced by these

subjects originated in the low level schema system, these subjects also evinced deficits

in the overall organization of meal planning, a high level schema system. However,

Foundas et al. (1995) did not test for presence of conceptual apraxia or executive

function (planning/ organizational) deficits that may explain the presence of high level

schema errors. Therefore, although Foundas et al. (1995) argued that the errors

produced by the experimental subjects strongly correlated with ideomotor apraxia, it is

not known whether conceptual or executive disorders also influenced the production of

action errors within these subjects.

Each of the above studies (Foundas et aL., 1995; Ochipa et al., 1989; Mayer et

aL, 1990; Schwartz et al., 1991, 1993, 1995; Sirigu et al. 1995, 1996, in press; and

Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997) documents the presence of action errors in activities of

daily living. However, each study evaluated subjects with different etiologies of brain

damage (i.e., traumatic brain injury versus stroke) using different evaluation criteria

and asking different research hypotheses as to the nature of these action errors. As a

result, the nature of the movement and action errors produced by brain damaged

patients observed in natural contexts remains unclear. It is possible that by examining

deficits associated with both low and high level schemas in a homogeneous group of








subjects within a well controlled study that the nature of action deficits in activities of

daily living can be better understood and explained.

Statement of the Problem

While the presence of action and movement errors in natural contexts has been

described by several research groups, the mechanism of these action errors has not been

determined. In the above discussion, four explanations that may account for these

errors in natural contexts were described. The first proposes that movement and action

errors in natural contexts may be the result of an executive disorder of planning and

organization (Mayer et al., 1990; Schwartz et at., 1991, 1993, 1995; Sirigu et al., 1995,

1996; and Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997), a high level schematic system function

according to the proposed relationship between movements and actions. The second

proposal states that action errors in natural contexts may be the result of an impaired

supervisory attention/ working memory (Schwartz et al., 1995; Schwartz & Buxbaum,

1997) a high level schematic system function according to the proposed relationship

between movements and actions. The third proposal states that action errors in natural

contexts may be the result of a deficit in action semantics or tool-function-object

knowledge (Ochipa et al., 1989, 1992) a function that implicates both high and low

level schematic system function according to the proposed relationship between

movements and actions. The fourth proposal states that the action errors in natural

contexts may be the result of ideomotor apraxia, an impairment in the production of

learned, skilled movements (Foundas et al., 1995); a low level schematic system

function according to the proposed relationship between movements and actions.








Previous studies of action errors compared the performance of left brain

damaged patients with normal controls (Foundas et al., 1995), compared patients with

heterogeneous etiologies with normal controls (Sirigu et al. 1995, 1996; Schwartz &

Buxbaum, 1997), or were single case studies (Ochipa et al., 1989; Mayer et al., 1990;

Schwartz et al., 1991, 1993, 1995). In fact, only three subjects, presented as single case

studies, form the basis of the Mayer et al., 1990, and Schwartz et al., 1991, 1993, and

1995 studies. The proposed cognitive neuropsychological model of pragmatic action

predicts that action errors can occur as the result of low level schematic system

impairment as well as high level schematic system impairment, both of which can be

associated with unilateral lesions of the dominant hemisphere. However, no study to

date has examined the presence of action errors in patients with unilateral lesions of the

nondominant (right) hemisphere in right-handed individuals. Due to the heterogeneous

nature of brain damage in previous studies as well as the lack of testing in both the low

and high level schema system, conclusions about brain-behavior relationships and the

nature of action errors can not be made. Therefore, studies are needed that 1) include

subjects with unilateral lesions of the nondominant (right) hemisphere and examine

both low and high level schema function; and 2) use a consistent error classification

system to score the subjects' performance in natural contexts which incorporates

scoring systems described thus far in the literature by Reason (1979, 1984), Foundas

et al. (1995), Schwartz et al. (1995), and Schwartz & Buxbaum, (1997); and 3)

compare subjects with brain damage limited to one hemisphere (right or left) from a

single event rather than generalized brain damage resulting from trauma in order to

examine brain-behavior relationships more clearly.








The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine the nature (low versus high

level schema system functions) of action errors produced during an activity of daily

living in the natural environment in patients with left or right hemisphere brain damage

as well as neurologically normal control subjects. The following specific questions will

be addressed:

1. Does brain damage in either hemisphere result in production of
action errors in the natural environment or are action errors specific to left
hemisphere brain damaged patients?

The Foundas et al. (1995) study documented production of action errors by ten

left hemisphere damaged patients in the natural context of eating a meal. Other studies

described action errors produced by single subjects with either right hemisphere

damage (in a left-handed patient) or closed head injury (Ochipa et al., 1989; Mayer et

al., 1990; Schwartz et al., 1991, 1993, 1995; and Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997).

Because only the left hemisphere damaged patients were experimentally studied, it is

not known whether the action errors described in the above studies are specific to

patients with lesions of the dominant hemisphere or can be found in right hemisphere

damaged patients as well. Using the proposed relationship between apraxia and

pragmatic action, it is proposed that patients with dominant (left) hemisphere brain

damage produce action errors consistent with both low and high level schema system

functions while patients with lesions of the nondominant (right) hemisphere produce

action errors consistent with high level schema system function only. This difference is

due to the bilateral representation of executive functions and the lateralized

representation of the visuokinesthetic engrams for learned movement to the left

hemisphere. This difference would predict that patients with left hemisphere damage








have more opportunity for errors and may therefore produce more errors than patients

with right hemisphere lesions. According to the proposed model, patients with lesions

of the nondominant right hemisphere may evince action errors as a result of executive

system function impairment (deficits in the planning, and organization of actions) as

well as from attention system impairment as these are both represented bilaterally and

impairment of one hemisphere may result in deficits in these systems. The errors

resulting from attentional system impairment may include spatial errors resulting from

neglect which has been described as a disorder of attention by Brain (1941), Zangwill

(1944), McFie, Piercy, and Zangwill (1950), Denny-Brown and Banker (1954),

Heilman (1979), and Heilman, Watson, and Valenstein (1985). Heilman (1979)

reported that some patients with neglect fail to eat from one side of their plate but have

spared action plans for eating and use of tools during eating. The null hypothesis of no

difference in number of action errors produced while eating a meal between the groups

(left hemisphere damaged subjects, right hemisphere damaged subjects, and controls)

will be tested.

2a. Does presence of deficits in
1. production of learned skilled movements,
2. conceptual knowledge of tool-function relationships,
3. action planning and organization, and
4. supervisory attention/working memory
predict production of action errors in the natural environment?

2b. And if so, to what extent does each type of deficit (low level system
deficits--1 and 2 above and high level system deficits-3 and 4 above) predict
type of error (including misuse, mis-selection, external configuration, internal
configuration, timing, quantity, sequence [omission, addition, sequence],
exchange, substitution, movement, and body part as tool)?

Deficits in conceptual knowledge of tool-function relationships and deficits in

production of learned skilled movements are proposed to result from lateralized lesions








to the dominant (left) hemisphere in most right-handed people (Rothi & Heilman, 1985)

and are hypothesized to be associated with low level schemas in the proposed

relationship between movements and actions. Deficits in the planning and organization

of actions and deficits in supervisory attention/working memory are proposed to result

from left, right, and bilateral lesions as well as degenerative brain damage (Schwartz et

al., 1991, 1993, 1995) and are hypothesized to be associated with high level schemas in

the proposed cognitive neuropsychological model of pragmatic action. As a result, all

four deficits of higher cortical function described above have the potential to produce

action errors in natural contexts. To examine the relationship between these disorders

of higher cortical function and production of action errors in the environment,

independent measures (non-context dependent) of each disorder will be correlated with

total number of action errors produced in the experimental measures (context-

dependent). The null hypothesis of no significant correlation between any one

independent measure of higher cortical function and number of total action errors

produced during the context dependent activities of daily living will be tested.

In addition, it is hypothesized that tool and nontool errors will be produced to

different degrees by patients depending on the type and severity of higher cortical

function deficit. That is, patients with deficits in the praxis production and conceptual

systems (low level movement schema) may produce more tool errors (misuse, mis-

selection, internal configuration, external configuration, quantity of food on a utensil,

movement associate with the tool, and body part as tool) than patients without a deficit

in the praxis production and/or conceptual system. Hypothetically, the number of tool

errors produced should reflect the severity of the underlying deficitss. Patients with a








deficit in the planning and organization of actions and/or supervisory attention/working

memory (high level schema) may produce more nontool errors (exchange, substitution,

sequence, omission, addition, and timing,) than patients without a deficit in the

planning and organization of actions and/or supervisory attention/working memory.

Although these patients may also show tool errors of misuse and mis-selection which

could arise from high level schema deficits, these patients should not evince tool errors

of internal configuration, external configuration, quantity, and body part as tool without

a concomitant deficit in the praxis system.

As a result of the action error classification system described above, it is

proposed that the errors reported by Foundas et aL. (1995) as resulting from ideomotor

apraxia or production disorders, may also have been influenced to a certain extent by

high level schema deficits and that errors reported by Mayer et al. (1990), Sirigu et al.

(1995a, 1995b, 1996), and Schwartz et al. (1991, 1993, 1995) as resulting from

disorders of action planning and organization and/or supervisory attention/working

memory may also have been influenced by production and conceptual disorders.

However, it is not known which of the four disorders (praxis production, praxis

conceptual, action planning/ organization, and supervisory attention/working memory)

is most influential in inducing action errors in natural contexts or if all four disorders

are equally influential. To answer this question, independent measures of the praxis

production system, praxis conceptual system, action planning/organization, and

supervisory attention/working memory will be correlated with frequency of each type

and classification of error produced during the experimental activities of daily living.





62


The null hypothesis of no significant correlation between any one independent measure

and number of action errors within one type/classification will be tested.













CHAPTER TWO
METHODS


Some patients with brain damage produce action errors during activities of daily

living (Mayer et aL., 1990; Schwartz et aL., 1991, 1993, 1995; Schwartz & Buxbaum,

1997; Ochipa et al., 1989; Foundas et aL., 1995). Investigators in recent research reports

have examined the planning, organization, and production of these action errors through

different theoretical models with different inherent assumptions and predictions, using

different research hypotheses and evaluation criteria, and included subjects with

heterogeneous etiologies of brain damage (Mayer et al., 1990; Schwartz et al., 1991,

1993, 1995; Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997; Sirigu etal., 1995, 1995, 1996, in press;

Ochipa et al., 1989; Foundas et al., 1995). The current study describes a proposed

relationship between apraxia and pragmatic action which serves as a framework for the

examination of the nature of movement and action errors produced by patients with

unilateral left or right hemisphere brain damage as well as matched normal control

subjects.

Subjects

Three subject groups (two experimental groups and one control group)

participated in this study. The first experimental group consisted of patients with left

hemisphere strokes (LBD) and the second experimental group consisted of patients with

right hemisphere strokes (RBD). All experimental subjects were at least one month post

onset of their stroke, were right-handed, and native English speakers. None had a history
63








64

of previous neurological disease. The experimental subjects were at least one month post

onset of a unilateral CVA (from a single event) as documented by CT/MRI scan and were

identified and recruited through the following sources: Veterans Affairs Medical Center,

W. A. Shands Teaching Hospital, and UpReach Rehabilitation Center, Gainesville,

Florida; Sacred Heart Medical Center, Deaconess Medical Center, St. Luke's

Rehabilitation Center, and University Programs in Communication Disorders Speech and

Hearing Clinic, Spokane, Washington. CT/MRI studies done at least two weeks post-

stroke were obtained for each experimental subject and reviewed by a neurologist. The

neurologist classified the lesions as either right or left as defined by relationship of lesion

to longitudinal fissure. The lesion locations were used to classify the experimental

subjects into left-hemisphere or right-hemisphere damaged groups.

The LBD experimental group included 20 subjects whose ages ranged from 32 to

79 (M = 60.2; SD = 13.50). Educational level ranged from 3 to 16 years (M = 11.85; SD

= 3.25). Time post stroke varied from one month to 261 months (M = 41.45; SD =

65.28). Descriptive information for these LBD subjects is provided in Table 2-1.

The RBD experimental group included 10 subjects whose ages ranged from 54 to

77 (M = 64.2; SD = 8.11). Educational level ranged from 8 to 16 years (M = 12.60; SD =

2.46). Time post stroke varied from one month to 40 months (M = 11.3; SD = 15.47).

Descriptive information for these RBD subjects is provided in Table 2-2.













Table 2-1 LBD Subject Identification


Subject Sex Age Education MPO*


LI
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
LIO
Lll
L12
L13
L14
L15
L16
L17
L18
L19
L20


28
53
25
84
2
168
67
261
19
16
37
28
1
4
17
1
1
1
8
8


*MPO months post-onset













Table 2-2 RBD Subject Identification


Subject Sex Age Education MPO*


RI M 76 13 40
R2 M 58 10 2
R3 M 59 16 27
R4 M 77 13 5
R5 M 62 12 4
R6 M 73 16 1
R7 F 54 8 1
R8 F 61 14 1
R9 M 62 12 1
RIO M 60 12 31
*MPO months post-onset


The control subject group consisted of 10 neurologically intact community

volunteers from Gainesville and Bradenton, Florida, and Spokane, Washington. All

control subjects were also right-handed and native English speakers. Their ages ranged

from 46 to 76 years (M = 64.1; SD = 8.62). Educational levels ranged from 10 to 16

years (M = 12.6; SD = 1.84). Descriptive information regarding the control subjects is

provided in Table 2-3.















Table 2-3 Control Subject Identification


Subject Sex Age Education


Cl M 69 13
C2 M 71 13
C3 M 63 12
C4 M 59 16
C5 F 69 12
C6 F 63 10
C7 M 68 14
C8 M 57 14
C9 M 76 10
C10O F 46 12


Materials and Methods

The description of the experimental procedures that follows is divided into two

sections, each containing a description of the materials, methods of presentation, and

scoring procedures relevant to each measure. The first section, entitled evaluation of

independent variables describes tests designed to measure the deficits associated with

inpairment in action planning and organization (i. e., "frontal apraxia," a high level

schema deficit), deficits in the production of learned, skilled movements (i.e., ideomotor

apraxia, a low level schema deficit), deficits in conceptual knowledge of tool-object-

function relationships (i.e., conceptual apraxia a low and/or high level schema deficit),

and deficits in supervisory attention/working memory (high level schema deficit). In








68

addition, tests of language abilities and presence of neglect are described. Results of the

tests of language and neglect were not used to directly answer the stated research

questions. Rather, due to the co-occurrence of aphasia and apraxia in left hemisphere

damaged patients and the occurrence of neglect in right hemisphere damaged patients,

these variables must be systematically measured in order to assist in the interpretation of

the results. The second section, entitled evaluation of dependent variables describes a

task designed to measure production of movement and action errors in an activity of daily

living.

All subjects were administered the same battery of tests. Testing occurred within

one day or across a two-day period. The order of presentation of all tests was

randomized across subjects.

Evaluation of Independent Variables.

Disorders of action planning and organization

Materials. The Tower of London task (TOL, Shallice, 1982; Krikorian, Bartok, &

Gay, 1994) was given to evaluate deficits in the ability to plan and organize actions

associated with "frontal apraxia." The TOL consists of three pegs of different lengths

mounted on a strip of board and three colored balls (red, green, and blue). The balls have

holes drilled through them so they can be placed on the pegs. The left peg held all three

balls, the middle peg held two balls, and the right peg held one ball.

Methods. The standardized administration procedures described by Krikorian et

al. (1994) were used in this study. The balls were placed in a standard initial position

(red ball on top of green ball on left peg and blue ball on middle peg) and the subject was








69

asked to manipulate the balls on the pegs to reproduce a pictured end state (Figure 2-1).

The subject performed twelve trials of increasing difficulty. A problem was correctly

solved when the end state was achieved in the prescribed number of moves. The subject

had three attempts to solve each trial.

Scoring. The standardized scoring procedures described by Krikorian et al.

(1994) were used in this study. The subject received three points if the trial was solved

correctly on the first attempt; two points if solved on the second attempt; one point if

solved on the third attempt; and zero points if not solved by the third attempt. The

examiner scored each subjects' performance online according to the above mentioned

criteria and percent correct was calculated by dividing the number of points accumulated

by the total number of points possible.

Disorders of learned, skilled movements

Materials. The Randomized Form A (RFA) and Randomized Form B (RFB)

versions of the Gesture -to Command subtest of the Florida Apraxia Battery: Experimental

Edition (Appendices A & B, Rothi, Raymer, Ochipa, Maher, Greenwald, & Heilman,

1992) were given to evaluate presence and severity of disorders of learned, skilled

movements associated with ideomotor apraxia. The Gesture To Command subtest

consists of 30 commands which elicit transitive or intransitive gestures. Transitive

gestures (e.g., show me how you use a hammer) involve tool knowledge and

demonstration of how one uses tools. Intransitive gestures (e.g., show me how you

would salute) do not involve tool knowledge and have been defined as emblems by

Lemay, David, and Thomas (1989). (See Appendix A for copies of the RFA and RFB).















R

B G


Initital State






G

B R



End State 3 moves









End State 5 moves

End State 5 moves


Figure 2-1. The Tower of London (from Krikorian, Bartok, & Gay, 1994).












To control for the possible effects of hand used to gesture, Raymer, Maher,

Macauley, Foundas, Rothi, and Heilman (1997) studied the performance of 16

neurologically normal, right handed control subjects on this Gesture to Command subtest

looking at the influence of hand used. They divided the 16 subjects into four groups and

administered the RFA or RFB counterbalancing hand used to gesture in the following

manner: Group 1 was administered RFA and gestured all items with the right hand

followed by all items with the left hand; Group 2 was administered RFA with the left

hand used first; Group 3 was administered RFB with the right hand used first; and Group

4 was administered RFB with the left hand used first. The tapes were then scored

pass/fail by two raters with at least two year's experience in scoring gesture production

using the Rothi, Mack, Verfaellie, and Brown (1988) error pattern analysis. Results

indicated that there was no significant difference in the performance of the right and left

hands by control subjects with no history of neurological disease when producing

gestures to command (Raymer et al., 1997).

Methods. Each subject was administered either the RFA or RFB using the

instructions written at the top of each score sheet (See Appendix A). The RFA and RFB

were alternated across subjects with half receiving RFA and half receiving RFB. To

control for possible effects of hemiparesis, the experimental subjects produced the

gestures using their ipsilesional hand and five of the ten control subjects were asked to

gesture using their non-dominant left hand. The subjects were videotaped while

performing these gestures.








72

Scoring. The videotapes were scored by two examiners familiar with ideomotor

apraxia who underwent a training session similar to that described by Maher (1995).

During the training sessions, the examiners were required to obtain at least 85%

agreement with practice tapes before beginning to score the experimental tapes. The

scoring system followed the error pattern analysis described by Rothi et al. (1988). Each

gesture was given a pass/fail rating and percent correct was calculated.

Inter-rater reliability was calculated by having the raters score four videotapes

twice and calculating percent agreement across the two sessions. Intra-rater reliability

was calculated by calculating percent agreement between the two scorers on 20% of the

videotapes.

Disorders of tool-object-function knowledge

Materials. A revised version of the Tool-Object Matching Test (TOM) described

by Ochipa et al. (1989) was given to evaluate deficits in tool-function-object knowledge

associated with ideational/conceptual apraxia (Appendix B). The original version of the

Tool-Object Matching Task described by Ochipa et al. (1989) used randomly generated

tools as foils. The revised version used the same foil tools for each trial across subjects.

The foil tools were drawn from the possible correct tool choices for the other trials and all

tools were used three times once as a correct answer and twice as foils (except for

hammer which is a correct answer twice and used as a foil four times).

Methods. Each subject was presented with a partially completed task (e.g. a

partially sawed board) and an array of three tools consisting of the target tool and two foil

tools (e.g. a hammer, saw, and pencil). The subject was asked to select the appropriate








73

tool to complete the task according to the instructions written at the top of the score sheet

(Appendix B).

Scoring. The examiner scored the subject's responses online using a binomial,

pass/fail criteria and percent correct responses was calculated.

Disorders of supervisory attention/working memory

Materials. The Trailmaking Test Parts A & B (Reitan, 1944) was used to

evaluate deficits in supervisory attention/working memory. The Trailmaking Tests -

Parts A & B ("Trails A & B") are standardized neuropsychological measures that are

sensitive to brain damage. Good performance on Trails A & B depends upon attention to

task and working memory with strong visual search and motor performance components.

The standardized test sheets were used in this study. Trails A & B each consist of a

single sheet of 8 1/2 x 11 white paper with the numbers 1 25 (Part A) and 25 numbers

and letters (Part B) written in random order on the page. The numbers and letters are

written in circles.

Methods. Trails A & B were administered according to the standardized

instructions by the examiner.

Scoring. Trails A & B were scored according to the standardized instructions by

the examiner. The time in seconds required for the subject to complete Part A and Part B

were recorded separately and compared to normative data reported by Davies (1968)

(Appendix C).










Disorders of language

Materials. The Western Aphasia Battery (WAB, Kertesz, 1981) was used to

evaluate presence, type, and severity of aphasia. The WAB is a standardized test of

acquired language disorders which enables the calculation of aphasia severity through an

aphasia quotient (AQ) and determination of aphasia type through the WAB aphasia type

taxonomy. The WAB is divided into four sections, spontaneous speech, comprehension,

repetition, and naming, which test each aspect of verbal language skills in brain-injured

patients.

Methods. The WAB was administered according to the standardized instructions

by the examiner, a certified speech-language pathologist with seven years experience

working with neurologically based communication disorders.

Scoring. The WAB was scored according to the standardized instructions by the

examiner, a certified speech-language pathologist with seven years experience working

with neurologically based communication disorders. An aphasia quotient reflecting

aphasia severity score was calculated and type of aphasia was documented based upon

the WAB aphasia taxonomy (Kertesz, 1981).

Neglect

Materials. A line bisection task was used to evaluate presence and severity of

neglect. For the current study, three lines measuring eight, ten, and twelve inches in

length were drawn horizontally across the middle of individual 1 1x14 pieces of paper

using a thick black marker.








75

Methods. The examiner placed one of the pieces of "lined" paper described

above horizontally on the table approximately eighteen inches in front of the subject with

the middle of the line even with the subject's midsagittal plane. The subject was given a

pen and asked to "mark the center of the line." This procedure was repeated for each of

the three lines. The lines were given in random order to each subject

Scoring. The examiner scored the accuracy of the subject's mark by measuring

the difference between the true middle of the line and the subject's mark. An average

difference was calculated in centimeters. Presence of neglect was determined by a

difference score of 10mm between the true midline and the subject's mark (Heilman,

Watson, & Valenstein, 1985). Severity of neglect was determined by the magnitude of

the average difference in that the greater the difference, the more severe the neglect.

Evaluation of Dependent Variable-Eating a Meal.

Materials. A meal consisting of a main course, at least one side dish, a dessert,

and a beverage, and utensils such as a knife, fork, and spoon, were organized on a

hospital tray according to standard etiquette rules. The food was placed on standard

hospital plates with covers. Additionally, three foil items a toothbrush, comb, and

pencil, were also placed on the tray interspersed in random order with the utensils. The

location of the foil items and the utensils were ipsilateral to side of lesion for the

experimental subjects and counterbalanced across control subjects. Subjects who were

inpatients received their meals in their hospital rooms from food service personnel during

regular mealtimes. Subjects who were not inpatients obtained their meals through the

hospital cafeteria using similar plates and covers as the inpatients and ate privately in a








76

research laboratory. Straws, condiments, and napkins were made available to each

subject by the examiner.

Methods. All subjects were videotaped while eating the meal. The videotaping

was done using a Sharp videocamera set on a tripod approximately five feet in front of

the subject. Taping was done on a TDK 120 minute videotape. The video camera was

turned on just prior to the subject receiving their food and turned off after completion of

the meal. The examiner was not in the room during the videotaping and nurses, spouses

or significant others were instructed not to assist the subject in any way during the eating

of the meal, unless specifically asked to do so by the subject. Conversation with family

members during the meal was allowed to ensure a comfortable, natural environment.

The examiner arranged the utensils and foil items on the tray after the meal had been

delivered counterbalancing location (right or left) across control subjects. Subjects with

specific dietary restrictions were accommodated through choice of meal. In order to

control for possible effects of hemiparesis, an equal number of control subjects were

asked to eat with their nondominant hand as experimental subjects who ate with their

nondominant hand.

Scoring. The mealtime videotapes were scored by two raters and a trainer at the

same time but independently. The scoring was completed in a quiet room using a 20 inch

viewing monitor and a Sony video player with slow motion and freeze frame capabilities.

The trainer controlled the tape player for the raters but the raters were free to stop and

rewind to view an action or series of actions as many times as necessary to ensure that all

actions produced by the subjects were included. The raters were encouraged to consult a








77

list of error types given to them during the training time as often as needed during the

scoring periods. No discussion was allowed with respect to the subject's performance

and the raters were not able to see each other's or the trainer's score sheet.

The scoring system described by Foundas et al. (1995) and the error classification

system associated with the proposed relationship between apraxia and pragmatic action

described in chapter one was used in this study. For the current study, an action was

defined as a sequence of individual movements that result in the accomplishment of a

definable goal and movements were defined as changes in place, position, or posture.

For example, picking up the fork, piercing a piece of meat, and bringing the meat to the

mouth would be three individual movements that make up one action. Each action was

categorized as a tool or a nontool action. Examples of tool actions would be stirring tea

with a spoon; eating a piece of meat with a fork; and buttering a slice of bread with a

knife. Examples of nontool actions would be placing the napkin in the lap; moving an

empty plate to the side of the tray; and opening a packet of sugar. The raters were

instructed to use a standard recording form to record the quadrant of the tray in which the

action was initiated, which hand was used to perform the action, which tool and object

were used, and which action was performed. The raters then determined if the action was

correct or incorrect and ifjudged incorrect, the raters assigned an error type to the

incorrect action. The error types are described below:

Errors proposed to result from Low Level System Impairment:

internal configuration: hand posture used to manipulate
tool was incorrect (e.g., holding a spoon with a tightened fist).








78

external configuration: action produced was misplaced in space in absence of
perceptual deficits (e.g., scooping with a spoon on the table beside the plate).

body part as tool: action was produced using a body part as the tool (e.g.,
spreading butter on bread with index finger).

timing: incorrect timing during a sequence of movements within one action (e.g.
spreading butter on bread with pauses in between the knife movements) or
between two actions (e.g., holding a spoonful of food close to the mouth while
one is still chewing a previous bite).

quantity: incorrect or inefficient amount of food is taken to the mouth (e.g.,
putting too much or too little mashed potatoes on a spoon which is then
brought to the mouth).

movement: movement produced was inaccurate or incorrect (e.g., using wrist
motion rather than shoulder motion)

Errors proposed to result from high level system impairment:

sequence: sequence of actions was incorrect (e.g., stirring tea before
adding the sugar)

omission: omitting one action from a sequence of actions (e.g., putting
sugar in tea and not stirring it at all).

addition: adding an additional action during a sequence of actions (e.g.
putting sugar in tea and eating a bite of food before stirring the tea).

Errors proposed to result from high and/or low level system impairment:

misuse: action (movement) produced was incorrect for chosen tool (e.g., stirring
with a knife) (See Figure 1-7.)

mis-selection: action (movement) produced was correct for the chosen tool but
not for the goal with the object (e.g., using a fork to eat ice cream) (See Figure 1-
7.)


It was possible for one action to be judged as represented by more than one error type

during the scoring procedure.








79

Actions over the entire meal were recorded and scored and the following

calculations were obtained:

1. percent correct tool actions:

# of correct tool actions
total # of tool actions

2. percent correct nontool actions:

# of correct nontool actions
total # of nontool actions

3. percent correct total actions:

# of total correct actions (tool + nontool)
# of total actions (tool + nontool)

4. action per time ratio:
total time of meal (seconds)
total # of errors over the entire meal

Rater Training

The rater training protocol used in this study was based on the protocol described

by Maher (1995). The raters for this study were two graduate students in speech-

language pathology. The raters were novices in the study of apraxia and unfamiliar with

the specific research questions in the study. The raters were told that every action the

subjects produced was important and to make sure that every action was recorded and

scored. Prior to a scoring session, the raters were given a score sheet and a list of error

types with definitions and examples. They were asked to record and score a two minute

portion of a mealtime tape from a previous study. These recordings and scores were

reviewed with the raters by the examiner. Any discrepancies in scoring were reevaluated








80

by watching the pertinent section of the videotape and then discussing the scores. This

procedure continued until 85% or greater reliability between the raters was achieved over

16 trials (one trial = one action). At that point, the error types were reviewed by the

trainer and recording/scoring of test trials began.

Inter-rater reliability was calculated by selecting four videotapes at random and

calculating point-to-point reliability for the raters. The raters were not aware of which

subjects were used for reliability calculations. Two subjects selected at random were

scored twice by the raters to calculate intra-rater reliability.

Statistical Analyses

The statistical analyses were tailored specifically for each of the research

questions. For question number 1

Does brain damage in either hemisphere result in production of action errors in
the natural environment or are action errors specific to left hemisphere brain
damaged patients?

the LBD, RBD, and control subjects were compared using an analyses of variance with

the dependent variable being total number of action errors produced during the eating

task. Because a negatively skewed distribution was found for the control subjects, a

nonparametric test, the Kruskal-Wallace, was used. The Wilcoxon Rank Sums Test was

then used to determine differences between groups.

For question 2a
Does presence of deficits in
1. production of learned skilled movements,
2. conceptual knowledge of tool-function relationships,
3. action planning and organization, and
4. supervisory attention/working memory
predict production of action errors in the natural environment?








81

Pearson Product Moment Correlations were calculated between the independent

experimental measures (TOL, FAB, WAB, Trails A, Trails B, Neglect, Tool-Object

Matching) and total number of action errors produced during the meal.

For question 2b

And if so, to what extent does each type of deficit (low level system deficits--1
and 2 above and high level system deficits--3 and 4 above) predict type of error
(including misuse, mis-selection, external configuration, internal configuration,
timing, quantity, sequence [omission, addition, sequence], exchange, substitution,
movement, and body part as tool)?


A multiple stepwise regression statistic was calculated between the independent measures

(TOL, FAB, Trails A, Trails B, Tool-Object Matching) and the dependent variables of

types of errors produced during the meal (misuse, mis-selection, external configuration,

internal configuration, timing, sequence [omission, addition, sequence], movement, and

body part as tool.













CHAPTER THREE
RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to examine the nature of movement and action

errors produced by brain-damaged patients during an activity of daily living--eating a

meal. Two experimental subject groups and one control subject group participated in this

study. The first experimental group consisted of twenty left hemisphere brain-damaged

patients; the second experimental group consisted often right hemisphere brain-damaged

patients; and the control subject group consisted often neurologically normal control

subjects. There were no significant differences between the three groups in age F(2, 37)

= 0.61, p > 0.54 or educational level F(2, 37) = 0.36, p > 0.69. There was also no

significant different in the time post stroke between the two experimental groups F(1, 28)

=2.04,p> 0.16.

Experimental Results

Errors of movement and action were theorized to occur at two levels based on the

low (movement)'and high (action) level schema systems proposed by the relationship

described in Figure 1-4. That is, error types that reflect deficits in the praxis production

system (Rothi et al., 1991) would make up low level schematic system errors while error

types that reflect deficits in the planning and organization of action in the executive

function and control mechanisms (Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997) would make up high

level schematic errors. As described in Chapter Two, the evaluation of independent

variables included tests that were proposed to measure the different deficits that can








occur within the two levels. The Tower of London (TOL; Shallice, 1982, Krikorian et

al., 1994) was given to evaluate deficits in the ability to plan and organize actions

associated with "frontal apraxia", a high level deficit. The Gesture to Command subtest

of The Florida Apraxia Battery: Experimental Edition (Rothi et al., 1992) was given to

evaluate the presence and severity of disorders of learned, skilled movement associated

with ideomotor apraxia, a low level deficit. A revised version of the Tool-Object

Matching Test (TOM) described by Ochipa et al., (1989) was given to evaluate deficits in

tool-function-object knowledge associated with ideational/conceptual apraxia, a low level

deficit. Additionally, the Trailmaking Test Parts A & B (Reitan, 1944) was given to

evaluate deficits in supervisory attention/working memory; The Western Aphasia Battery

(WAB; Kertesz, 1981) was given to evaluate presence of aphasia; and a line bisection

task was used to evaluate presence of neglect. Descriptive statistics for the three groups

on each of the above tasks are listed in Table 3.1. Overall, the three groups were

prototypic of their constituents. That is, 70% of the RBD had neglect while only 40% of

the LBD and none of the controls had neglect. 85% of the LBD had aphasia while none

of the RBD or controls were aphasic. 65% of the LBD had ideomotor apraxia while 20%

of the RBD and none of the controls were apraxic. 20% of the LBD and none of the

RBD or controls had conceptual apraxia. In addition, 80% of LBD and 70% of RBD had

"frontal apraxia" and were slower on the attention tasks than the controls.

Neglect and aphasia were ruled out as variables that affected the data by dividing

all subjects into two groups according to presence/absence of neglect and

presence/absence of aphasia and comparing the mean number and types of errors

produced by the two groups. No significant differences between the groups were found.








Table 3.1 Descriptive Statistics for Each Group on Measures of Independent Variables

Task Mean SD Max Min

Tower of London
LBD 24.4 11.21 34 3
RBD 24.1 10.21 33 5
Control 30.8 3.08 35 26
Total Possible 36

Gesture to Command
LBD 12.8 6.03 25 3
RBD 20.8 6.01 27 10
Control 23.0 3.13 28 17
Total Possible 30

Tool-Object Matching
LBD 9.3 1.94 10 3
RBD 10 0 10 10
Control 10 0 10 10
Total Possible 10

Trails A
LBD 86.71 56.98 232 26
RBD 112.2 74.68 231 39
Control 49.2 23.55 95 21
Range for NBD* varies according to age, (Appendix C)

Trails B
LBD 208.1 197.45 925 67
RBD 213.5 154.15 561 100
Control 111.3 47.78 199 66
Range for NBD* varies according to age, (Appendix C)

Western Aphasia Battery
LBD 69.54 27.20 98.2 10.8
RBD 97.92 1.14 99.6 96.1
Control 99.02 0.64 99.8 98.2
Total Possible 100

Line Bisection
LBD -1.6 1.56 13.3 -31.04
RBD 8.9 2.87 25.0 -2.33
Control 2.9 0.39 0.67 -7.00
Range for NBD*
*NBD= non brain-damaged individuals








Research Questions

Research Question #1

Does brain damage in either hemisphere result in production of action errors in
the natural environment or are action errors specific to left hemisphere brain
damaged patients?

To determine if patients with LBD (left brain damage) and RBD (right brain

damage) produce action errors in the natural environment, the following null hypothesis

was tested:

Ho: There is no significant difference between the mean number of errors
produced while eating a meal for the LBD, RBD, and control groups (NBD, non-
brain damaged).

Using a Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance on Ranks (due to the

skewdness of the control group having produced no errors during the meal), the mean

number of total errors was compared between the three groups. A significant between

group difference was found (Table 3.2).



Table 3.2 Overall Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA for Errors Produced During the Meal

ANOVA dF (2.2)
Task Chi-Square H Statistic P-Value _

Total Errors 16.091 0.0003*

Tool Errors 10.496 0.0053*

Non-Tool Errors 15.479 0.0004*
* significant at p>0.01


Because a significant difference was found for total number of errors produced

during the meal, a follow-up analysis was conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis Multiple

Comparison Z-Value Test. This test is used to examine group differences with non-









parametric data. Results of the follow-up analyses, comparing each brain-damaged group

with the normal controls are listed in Table 3.3. For total number of errors produced

during the meal, the LBD and RBD groups did not differ from each other. However,

both groups did differ significantly from the control group.



Table 3.3 Comparison of LBD and RBD Groups with Normal Controls


Group I vs. Group 2

Total Errors
LBD vs. RBD
LBD vs. Controls
RBD vs. Controls

Tool Errors
LBD vs. RBD
LBD vs. Controls
RBD vs. Controls

Non-Tool Errors
LBD vs. RBD
LBD vs. Controls
RBD vs. Controls

*significant at p>0.01


Critical Difference


z-value >1.96
z-value >1.96
z-value >1.96


z-value >1.96
z-value >1.96
z-value >1.96


z-value >1.96
z-value >1.96
z-value >1.96


Actual Difference


1.012
3.997*
2.585*


2.269*
2.937*
0.5783


0.568
3.861*
2.851*


In order to determine if the significant difference found for number of total errors

could be accounted for by differences in number of tool errors and/or nontool errors

produced by the three groups, additional ANOVAs were calculated for total number of

tool errors and nontool errors. Significant group differences were found for both tool and

nontool errors. See Table 3.2 for ANOVA results. To examine between group

comparisons, follow-up analyses were conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis Multiple




Full Text

PAGE 1

7+( 1$785( 2) 029(0(17 $1' $&7,21 (55256 352'8&(' %< %5$,1,1-85(' 3$7,(176 %< %(7+ / 0$&$8/(< $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

&RS\ULJKW E\ %HWK / 0DFDXOH\

PAGE 3

)RU 6KDZQ 0\ JLIW IURP *RG

PAGE 4

$&.12:/('*(0(176 ZRXOG OLNH WR EHJLQ E\ H[WHQGLQJ D YHU\ VSHFLDO WKDQN \RX WR /HVOLH *RQ]DOH] 5RWKL 3K' IRU KHU XQZDYHULQJ VXSSRUW DQG HQFRXUDJHPHQW DV SXUVXHG WKH GRFWRUDO GHJUHH FDQ UHPHPEHU KHU FRPLQJ LQWR P\ fRIILFHf GXULQJ P\ 9$ WUDLQHHVKLS LQ DQG VD\LQJ f
PAGE 5

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fUHDOLW\ FKHFNVf FRQWLQXRXV HQFRXUDJHPHQW DQG ZLOOLQJQHVV WR HDVH P\ ORDG E\ LQFUHDVLQJ WKHLUV ZRXOG QRW KDYH EHHQ DEOH WR ILQLVK 0RUH WKDQN \RXV JR WR P\ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV +ROO\ :LVHPDQ 6WDF\ :HQGHO 0DUOD 0F&OHOODQG DQG (ULQ %HQHWHDX DW 8QLYHUVLW\ 3URJUDPV LQ &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 'LVRUGHUV 83&'f D FRRSHUDWLYH JUDGXDWH SURJUDP LQ VSHHFKODQJXDJH SDWKRORJ\ DQG DXGLRORJ\ EHWZHHQ :DVKLQJWRQ 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ DQG (DVWHUQ :DVKLQJWRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ 7KHVH VWXGHQWV ZLOOLQJO\ WROHUDWHG WKH WUDLQLQJ SURWRFROV DQG ZHUH JHQXLQHO\ H[FLWHG WR EH WDNLQJ SDUW LQ UHVHDUFK RSSRUWXQLWLHV DQG HQGHDYRUV DOVR ZLVK WR WKDQN 5REHUW 6KRUW 3K' RI WKH :DVKLQJWRQ ,QVWLWXWH IRU 0HQWDO ,OOQHVV 5HVHDUFK DQG 7UDLQLQJ :,0,57f IRU KLV DVVLVWDQFH ZLWK WKH VWDWLVWLFV

PAGE 6

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f0RPP\fV FRPSXWHU WLPHf WDNHRXW WZLFH D ZHHN DQG SLOHV RI GLUW\ ODXQGU\ (ULQ DQG (PLO\ ZHUH DOZD\V UHDG\ ZLWK D KXJ DQG D NLVV ZKHQHYHU WKH\ ZHUH QHHGHG DQG HYHQ ZKHQ WKH\ ZHUH QRW QHHGHGf ZKLOH (YDQfV VPLOHV PHOWHG P\ KHDUW DQG SXW HYHU\WKLQJ LQ SHUVSHFWLYH DOVR ZLVK WR WKDQN P\ SDUHQWV -RKQ DQG %DUEDUD 0DUWLQ RI %UDGHQWRQ )ORULGD IRU WKHLU XQFRQGLWLRQDO ORYH XQZDYHULQJ VXSSRUW DQG HQFRXUDJHPHQW WKURXJKRXW P\ FROOHJH FDUHHU 7KH\ QHYHU GRXEWHG P\ DELOLWLHV RU GHFLVLRQV DQG ZHUH DOZD\V ORRNLQJ IRU ZD\V WR KHOS DQG VKRZ WKHLU VXSSRUW DOVR ZLVK WR WKDQN P\ LQODZV &XUWLV DQG .DUHQ :LQWHUV RI 1RUWK %DQJRU 1HZ
PAGE 7

+H VWDUWHG PH RQ WKLV MRXUQH\ DQG +H KDV QHYHU IDLOHG WR EH WKHUH WKURXJKRXW $ VSHFLDO WKDQN \RX WR P\ GHDU IULHQG 3ULVFLOOD :HOERXUQ ZKR QHYHU OHW PH IRUJHW ZKDW ZDV PRVW LPSRUWDQW LQ OLIH DQG HQFRXUDJHG PH WR NHHS P\ IHHW ILUPO\ SODQWHG RQ WKH 5RFN ZKLOH UHDFKLQJ IRU WKH VWDUV +HU XQFRQGLWLRQDO IULHQGVKLS DQG XQZDYHULQJ VXSSRUW GXULQJ WKH ILQDO ZULWLQJ VWDJHV RI WKLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ KDV EHHQ D EOHVVHG DQG WUHDVXUHG JLIW IURP WKH /RUG 9OO

PAGE 8

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

PAGE 9

'LVRUGHUV RI 6XSHUYLVRU\ $WWHQWLRQ:RUNLQJ 0HPRU\ 'LVRUGHUV RI /DQJXDJH 1HJOHFW (YDOXDWLRQ RI 'HSHQGHQW 9DULDEOH 5DWHU 7UDLQLQJ 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VHV 7+5(( 5(68/76 ([SHULPHQWDO 5HVXOWV 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQV 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ D 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ E 6XPPDU\ RI )LQGLQJV )285 ',6&866,21 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQV 0HWKRGRORJLFDO ,VVXHV DQG /LPLWDWLRQV RI WKH 6WXG\ ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU )XWXUH 5HVHDUFK &OLQLFDO ,PSOLFDWLRQV $33(1',&(6 $ *(6785( 72 &200$1' 68%7(67 5$1'20,=(' )2506 $t% % 722/2%-(&7 0$7&+,1* 7(67 & 67$1'$5',=(' 6&25(6 )25 75$,/6 $t% 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ ,;

PAGE 10

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

PAGE 11

5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 0LVXVH (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 0LVVHOHFWLRQ (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 0RYHPHQW (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG ,17 (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 6HTXHQFH (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 7LPLQJ (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 4XDQWLW\ (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO ;,

PAGE 12

/,67 2) ),*85(6 )LJXUH 3DJH /LHSPDQQnV 0RGHO RI 3UD[LV *HVFKZLQGnV 0RGHO RI 3UD[LV +HLOPDQ DQG 5RWKLf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

PAGE 13

$EVWUDFW RI 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 7+( 1$785( 2) 029(0(17 $1' $&7,21 (55256 352'8&(' %< %5$,1,1-85(' 3$7,(176 %\ %HWK / 0DFDXOH\ $XJXVW &KDLU /HVOLH *RQ]DOH]5RWKL 3K' 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 3URFHVVHV DQG 'LVRUGHUV 6RPH SDWLHQWV ZLWK EUDLQ GDPDJH SURGXFH DFWLRQ HUURUV GXULQJ DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ ,QYHVWLJDWRUV LQ UHFHQW UHVHDUFK UHSRUWV KDYH H[DPLQHG WKH SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG SURGXFWLRQ RI WKHVH DFWLRQ HUURUV WKURXJK GLIIHUHQW WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHOV ZLWK GLIIHUHQW LQKHUHQW DVVXPSWLRQV DQG SUHGLFWLRQV XVLQJ GLIIHUHQW UHVHDUFK K\SRWKHVHV DQG HYDOXDWLRQ FULWHULD DQG LQFOXGLQJ VXEMHFWV ZLWK KHWHURJHQHRXV HWLRORJLHV RI EUDLQ GDPDJH 7KH FXUUHQW VWXG\ GHVFULEHV D SURSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DSUD[LD DQG SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ WKDW VHUYHV DV D IUDPHZRUN IRU WKH H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH QDWXUH RI PRYHPHQW DQG DFWLRQ HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ EUDLQLQMXUHG SDWLHQWV 7KH K\SRWKHVL]HG UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DSUD[LD DQG SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ FDQ EH GLYLGHG LQWR WZR SDUWVf§KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQ VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ DQG WKH FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WRROV DQG DFWLRQV DQG ORZ OHYHO VFKHPDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH SUD[LV V\VWHP ZKLFK PHGLDWHV OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV )RUW\ [LLL

PAGE 14

VXEMHFWV SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\WZHQW\ OHIW EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV /%'f WHQ ULJKW EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV 5%'f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

PAGE 15

&+$37(5 21( 5(9,(: 2) 7+( /,7(5$785( $1' 67$7(0(17 2) 7+( 352%/(0 ,QWURGXFWLRQ 3XUSRVHIXO PRYHPHQWV GHILQHG DV LQWHQWLRQDO fFKDQJHV LQ SODFH SRVLWLRQ RU SRVWXUHf :HEVWHU Sf WKDW KDYH GLUHFW SXUSRVH RU DLP DQG JRDOGLUHFWHG DFWLRQV GHILQHG DV fDFWV RI ZLOO DFFRPSOLVKHG RYHU D SHULRG RI WLPH LQ VWDJHVf :HEVWHU S f DUH OHDUQHG WKURXJKRXW OLIH DV SHRSOH LQWHUDFW ZLWK WKHLU HQYLURQPHQW 7KH ORVV RI WKH DELOLW\ WR SURGXFH SXUSRVHIXO VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV DV WKH UHVXOW RI EUDLQ GDPDJH KDV EHHQ WHUPHG DSUD[LD 5RWKL t +HLOPDQ f /LHSPDQQ f GHILQHG DSUD[LD DV DQ LPSDLUPHQW LQ WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI OHDUQHG RU VNLOOHGf PRYHPHQWV QRW FDXVHG E\ ZHDNQHVV SDUDO\VLV LQFRRUGLQDWLRQ RU VHQVRU\ ORVV /LHSPDQQ f $SUD[LD LV PDQLIHVWHG LQ D SHUVRQnV LQDELOLW\ WR PRYH WKH PRYHDEOH SDUWV RI WKH ERG\ LQ D SXUSRVHIXO PDQQHU HYHQ WKRXJK PRWLOLW\ LV SUHVHUYHG /LHSPDQQ Sf $ GHILFLW LQ WKH DELOLW\ WR SURGXFH JRDOGLUHFWHG DFWLRQV KDV EHHQ FDOOHG IURQWDO DSUD[LD E\ 0D\HU 5HHG 6FKZDUW] 0RQWJRPHU\ DQG 3DOPHU f 6FKZDUW] 5HHG 0RQWJRPHU\ 3DOPHU DQG 0D\HU f 6FKZDUW] 0D\HU 'H6DOPH DQG 0RQWJRPHU\ f 6FKZDUW] 0RQWJRPHU\ 'H6DOPH 2FKLSD &RVOHWW DQG 0D\HU f DQG 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f DQG D GHILFLW LQ PDQDJHULDO NQRZOHGJH E\ 6LULJX &RKHQ 'XKDPHO 3LOORQ 'XERLV DQG $JLG f 6LULJX =DOOD 3LOORQ *UDIPDQ $JLG DQG 'XERLV f DQG 6LULJX =DOOD 3LOORQ *UDIPDQ 'XERLV DQG $JLG

PAGE 16

f 6SHFLILFDOO\ ERWK IURQWDO DSUD[LD DQG GHILFLWV LQ PDQDJHULDO NQRZOHGJH ZHUH GHILQHG DV LPSDLUPHQWV LQ WKH SODQQLQJ DQG VHTXHQWLDO KLHUDUFKLFDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI DFWLRQV UHTXLUHG WR REWDLQ D GHVLUHG JRDO 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP 6LULJX HW DO f 0D\HU HW DO f 6FKZDUW] HW DO f DQG 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f UHSRUWHG WKDW EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV ZLWK IURQWDO DSUD[LD SURGXFH HUURUV RI DFWLRQ ZKLOH SHUIRUPLQJ JRDOGLUHFWHG DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ VXFK DV SUHSDULQJ FRIIHH DQG EUXVKLQJ WHHWK 7KHVH OHDUQHG JRDOGLUHFWHG DFWLRQV ZHUH VXEVHTXHQWO\ ODEHOHG fSUDJPDWLF DFWLRQf E\ 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f 2FKLSD 5RWKL DQG +HLOPDQ f UHSRUWHG D EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQW ZLWK LGHDWLRQDOFRQFHSWXDO DSUD[LD ZKR PDGH HUURUV RI DFWLRQ ZKLOH HDWLQJ D PHDO DQG EUXVKLQJ WHHWK ERWK fSUDJPDWLF DFWLRQV DV GHILQHG E\ 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f )RXQGDV 0DFDXOH\ 5D\PHU 0DKHU 5RWKL DQG +HLOPDQ f UHSRUWHG WKDW EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV ZLWK LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD PDGH DFWLRQ HUURUV ZKLOH SHUIRUPLQJ WKH SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ RI HDWLQJ D PHDO (DFK RI WKH DERYH VWXGLHV GRFXPHQWHG DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ JRDOGLUHFWHG DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ +RZHYHU HDFK RI WKH DERYH UHVHDUFKHUV DSSURDFKHG WKH VWXG\ RI DFWLRQ DQG DFWLRQ HUURUV WKURXJK GLIIHUHQW WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHOV ZLWK GLIIHUHQW SUHGLFWLRQV DQG DVVXPSWLRQV 0D\HU HW DO f 6FKZDUW] HW DO f DQG 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f DSSURDFKHG WKH VWXG\ RI SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ WKURXJK WKH 8QLILHG +\SRWKHVLV D WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHO EDVHG RQ WKH DFWLYDWLRQWULJJHUVFKHPD $76f IUDPHZRUN SURSRVHG E\ 1RUPDQ DQG 6KDOOLFH f 7KH $76 IUDPHZRUN IRU SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ ZDV GHULYHG IURP WKH VWXG\ RI QRUPDO VXEMHFWV 1RUPDQ t 6KDOOLFH f 2FKLSD HW DO f DQG )RXQGDV HW DO f DSSURDFKHG WKH VWXG\ RI

PAGE 17

SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ WKURXJK WKH &RJQLWLYH 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO 0RGHO RI /LPE 3UD[LV DQG $SUD[LD SURSRVHG E\ 5RWKL 2FKLSD DQG +HLOPDQ f 7KH &RJQLWLYH 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO 0RGHO RI /LPE 3UD[LV DQG $SUD[LD ZDV GHULYHG IURP WKH VWXG\ RI EUDLQ LQMXUHG SDWLHQWV 5RWKL HW DO f ,Q RUGHU WR V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ VWXG\ HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQV D WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHO LV QHHGHG WKDW H[SODLQV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ IURQWDO DSUD[LD FRQFHSWXDO LGHDWLRQDO DSUD[LD DQG LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD DQG LQFRUSRUDWHV DFWLRQ LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP WKH 8QLILHG +\SRWKHVLV 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP f DQG PRYHPHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP WKH &RJQLWLYH 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO 0RGHO RI /LPE 3UD[LV DQG $SUD[LD 5RWKL HW DO f 7KH UHVXOWLQJ FRPELQHG PRGHO FDQ WKHQ EH XVHG WR PDNH SUHGLFWLRQV DERXW SUDJPDWLF HUURUV ZKLFK FDQ EH VXEVHTXHQWO\ VWXGLHG 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ LV WR GHVFULEH D WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHO RI SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ EDVHG RQ 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f DQG 5RWKL HW DO f ZKLFK LV WKHQ XVHG DV D IUDPHZRUN WR H[DPLQH WKH QDWXUH RI PRYHPHQW DQG DFWLRQ HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ EUDLQLQMXUHG SDWLHQWV 3HUWLQHQW OLWHUDWXUH LV UHYLHZHG UHODWLQJ WR WKH JHQHVLV DQG JURZWK RI WKH VWXG\ RI PRYHPHQWV DQG DFWLRQV 5HYLHZ RI WKH /LWHUDWXUH +LVWRULFDO 3HUVSHFWLYHV DQG 7KHRUHWLFDO 0RGHOV RI $SUD[LD 6WHLQWKDO LQ WKH ODWH V ZDV WKH ILUVW WR XVH WKH WHUP DSUD[LD LQ GHVFULELQJ D GLVWXUEDQFH LQ VNLOOHG OLPE PRYHPHQWV DV WKH UHVXOW RI EUDLQ GDPDJH FLWHG LQ +HFDHQ t 5RQGRW f 6WHLQWKDO ZURWH WKDW DSUD[LD FRQVLVWHG RI D GLVWXUEDQFH LQ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ PRYHPHQWV DQG WKH REMHFWV XSRQ ZKLFK WKH PRYHPHQWV ZHUH HQDFWHG FLWHG LQ +HFDHQ t 5RQGRW f 6XEVHTXHQWO\ WKHUH ZDV D ODFN RI FRQVHQVXV LQ GLVFXVVLRQV RI WKH PHFKDQLVP IRU DQG GHILQLWLRQ RI DSUD[LD )RU H[DPSOH

PAGE 18

RWKHU UHVHDUFKHUV KDG REVHUYHG WKH GLVWXUEDQFHV RI REMHFW UHODWHG PRYHPHQWV LQ DSKDVLF SDWLHQWV EXW DWWULEXWHG ERWK GHILFLWV WR DV\PEROLD D JHQHUDOL]HG GLVWXUEDQFH LQ WKH FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RU SURGXFWLRQ RI V\PEROV LQ DQ\ PRGDOLW\ LQFOXGLQJ ODQJXDJH DQG JHVWXUH )LQNHOQVWHLQ FLWHG LQ 'XII\ t /LOHV &ULWFKOH\ f *ROGVWHLQ f DOVR UHODWHG GLVRUGHUV RI DFWLRQ WR WKH SDWLHQWnV DSKDVLD DQG LQFOXGHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQW SUREOHPV ZLWKLQ D GHILQLWLRQ RI DSKDVLD 3LFN f KRZHYHU GHILQHG DSUD[LD DV DQ DV\PEROLD ZKLFK ZDV QRW LQFOXGHG ZLWKLQ D GHILQLWLRQ RI DSKDVLD $QRWKHU PHFKDQLVP SURSRVHG WR H[SODLQ DSUD[LD ZDV SRVLWHG E\ .XVVPDXO FLWHG LQ +HFDHQ t 5RQGRW f ZKR GHILQHG DSUD[LD DV DQ DJQRVLD DQ LPSDLUPHQW LQ WKH UHFRJQLWLRQ RI WRROV ZKLFK WKHQ DIIHFWV WKH PRYHPHQWV SURGXFHG ZLWK WRROV ,Q /LHSPDQQ GHVFULEHG D SDWLHQW ZKR SUHVHQWHG ZLWK D VHYHUH LQDELOLW\ WR SURGXFH YROLWLRQDO PRYHPHQWV ZLWK WKH OHIW KDQG DV ZHOO DV SURIRXQG DSKDVLD /LHSPDQQnV SRLQW LQ GHVFULELQJ WKLV FDVH ZDV WKDW D GLVRUGHU RI ODQJXDJH RU JQRVLV FRXOG QRW H[SODLQ DSUD[LD RI RQO\ RQH KDQG 0RYHPHQW IDLOXUHV FUHDWHG E\ ODQJXDJH RU JQRVLV GHILFLWV ZRXOG DIIHFW ERWK KDQGV 7KXV /LHSPDQQ DD EE F f ZDV WKH ILUVW WR GHVFULEH WKH PHFKDQLVP RI DSUD[LD DV D GLVRUGHU RI PRYHPHQW SODQQLQJ /LHSPDQQ EEf VWXGLHG EUDLQGDPDJHG SDWLHQWV ZLWK OHIW KHPLSOHJLD WKXV VXVSHFWHG WR KDYH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH OHVLRQVf ZLWK ULJKW KHPLSOHJLD WKXV VXVSHFWHG WR KDYH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH OHVLRQVf QRQKHPLSOHJLF ZLWK DSKDVLD OHIW KHPLVSKHUH OHVLRQVf DQG RQH ZKR ZDV QHLWKHU KHPLSDUHWLF RU DSKDVLF EXW ZDV DSUD[LF 7KH SDWLHQWV ZHUH DVNHG WR SURGXFH WKUHH W\SHV RI PRYHPHQWV f H[SUHVVLYH PRYHPHQWV VXFK DV ZDYLQJ DQG VDOXWLQJ f WUDQVLWLYH DQG LQWUDQVLWLYH PRYHPHQWV WR FRPPDQG IURP PHPRU\f VXFK DV SOD\LQJ DQ RUJDQ JULQGHU DQG VQDSSLQJ WKH ILQJHUV

PAGE 19

DQG f PDQLSXODWLRQV RI DFWXDO WRROV VXFK DV FRPELQJ KDLU ZLWK D FRPE DQG ZULWLQJ ZLWK D SHQ /LHSPDQQ IRXQG WKDW WKH SDWLHQWV ZLWK ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJH UDUHO\ PDGH HUURUV RQ WKHVH WDVNV ZKHUHDV WKH SDWLHQWV ZLWK OHIW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJH PDGH IUHTXHQW HUURUV :LWKLQ WKH JURXSV RI SDWLHQWV ZLWK OHIW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJH DSSUR[LPDWHO\ KDOI VKRZHG HYLGHQFH RI DSUD[LD DQG RI WKHVH WZHQW\ILYH SHUFHQW VKRZHG LPSDLUPHQWV ZKHQ PDQLSXODWLQJ WKH DFWXDO WRROV /LHSPDQQ EOEf %DVHG XSRQ WKHVH REVHUYDWLRQV /LHSPDQQ SURSRVHG WKDW WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH VSHFLILFDOO\ WKH SDULHWDO UHJLRQ ZDV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH VNLOOHG SURGXFWLRQ RI ERWK KDQGV /LHSPDQQ EO Ef +H DUJXHG WKDW WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH LV GHSHQGHQW XSRQ WKH SODQV DQG GLUHFWLYHV RI WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH IRU OHDUQHG PRYHPHQW DQG WKDW WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH UHFHLYHV PRYHPHQW SODQQLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH YLD WKH FRUSXV FDOORVXP /LHSPDQQ SURSRVHG WKH H[LVWHQFH RI PRYHPHQW IRUPXODH ZKLFK KH GHILQHG DV NQRZOHGJH RI WKH FRXUVH RI DFWLRQ WLPHVSDFH VHTXHQFHVf UHTXLUHG WR FRPSOHWH DQ DFWLRQ JRDO DV ZHOO DV WKH VHPDQWLF LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH WRRO DQG REMHFW XVHG 7KH PRYHPHQW IRUPXODH PD\ EH LPSOHPHQWHG E\ UHWULHYDO RI LQQHUYDWRU\ SDWWHUQV FRQILJXUDWLRQV RI QHXUDO FRQQHFWLRQV VSHFLDOL]HG IRU SDUWLFXODU PRYHPHQW SDWWHUQVf ZKLFK FRPPXQLFDWH GLUHFWO\ ZLWK WKH PRWRU V\VWHP IRU PRYHPHQW SURGXFWLRQ )LJXUH f /LHSPDQQ EO Ef $GGLWLRQDOO\ IXUWKHU VXSSRUW IRU /LHSPDQQnV SURSRVDO WKDW WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH ZDV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU WKH VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV RI ERWK KDQGV ZDV IRXQG LQ WKH FDVH GHVFULEHG E\ /LHSPDQQ DQG 0DDV f RI D SDWLHQW ZLWK D OHVLRQ RI WKH FRUSXV FDOORVXP ZKR ZDV XQDEOH WR SURGXFH VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV ZLWK KLV QRQSDUDO\]HG OHIW

PAGE 20

9LVXDO*HVWXUDO ,QSXW 9LVXDO $QDO\VLV L 0RYHPHQW )RUPXOD  ,QQHUYDWRU\ 3DWWHUQV /HIW 3ULPDU\ 0RWRU 6\VWHP 5LJKW +DQG *HVWXUDO 3URGXFWLRQ 5LJKW 3ULPDU\ 0RWRU 6\VWHP ? /HIW +DQG *HVWXUDO 3URGXFWLRQ )LJXUH /LHSPDQQnV PRGHO RI SUD[LV WDNHQ IURP 5RWKL 2FKLSD t +HLOPDQ f

PAGE 21

KDQG +H ZDV XQDEOH WR ZULWH DQG FRXOG QRW HYHQ EULQJ KLV KDQG LQWR WKH ZULWLQJ SRVLWLRQ 7KH SDWLHQW DOVR VKRZHG GHILFLWV LQ XVLQJ DFWXDO WRROVREMHFWV /LHSPDQQ K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKH HIIHFW RI FRUSXV FDOORVXP OHVLRQ LQ WKLV FDVH ZDV WR GLVFRQQHFW WKH PRYHPHQW IRUPXODH RI WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH IURP WKH SULPDU\ PRWRU FRUWH[ RI WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUHOHVLRQ $ LQ )LJXUH /LHSPDQQ t 0DDV f 6XEVHTXHQWO\ /LHSPDQQ DD EEf GHVFULEHG WKUHH VXEW\SHV RI DSUD[LDOLPE NLQHWLF DSUD[LD LGHRNLQHWLF RU PRWRU DSUD[LD DQG LGHDWLRQDO DSUD[LD /LPE NLQHWLF DSUD[LD ZDV GHVFULEHG DV D ORVV RI WKH NLQHWLF FRPSRQHQWV RI HQJUDPV UHVXOWLQJ LQ FRDUVH RU XQUHILQHG PRYHPHQWV ZLWK PRYHPHQWV WKDW QR ORQJHU KDYH WKH DSSHDUDQFH RI EHLQJ SUDFWLFHG RYHU WLPH ,GHRNLQHWLF RU LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD ZDV GHVFULEHG DV D ORVV RI WKH YROXQWDU\ DELOLW\ WR SHUIRUP OHDUQHG PRYHPHQWV ,GHDWLRQDO DSUD[LD ZDV GHVFULEHG DV DQ LPSDLUPHQW RI LGHDWLRQDO FRQFHSWXDOf NQRZOHGJH UHVXOWLQJ LQ ORVV RI WKH FRQFHSWXDO OLQNDJH EHWZHHQ WRROV DQG WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH DFWLRQV DV ZHOO DV WKH DELOLW\ WR VHTXHQFH FRUUHFWO\ SURGXFHG PRYHPHQWV /LHSPDQQ DD EEf ,QWHJUDO PRYHPHQWV PD\ EH OHIW RXW RI D VHULHV SURGXFHG LQ WKH ZURQJ RUGHU RU FRUUHFW PRYHPHQWV PD\ EH SURGXFHG ZLWK WKH ZURQJ WRROV FLWHG LQ %URZQ f %\ GHVFULELQJ WKHVH SUD[LV VXEW\SHV /LHSPDQQ DD EEf SURSRVHG WKDW SUD[LV LV VXSSRUWHG E\ D PXOWLFRPSRQHQWLDO V\VWHP WKDW FDQ EH GLIIHUHQWLDOO\ LPSDLUHG /LHSPDQQnV SURSRVDOV ZHUH UHVXUUHFWHG E\ *HVFKZLQG LQ ZKR GLVFXVVHG WKHP LQ WKH OLJKW RI QHZ KXPDQ DQG DQLPDO GDWD *HVFKZLQG VXSSRUWHG WKH QRWLRQ RI WKH GRPLQDQFH RI WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH IRU OHDUQHG PRYHPHQW VNLOO DQG RI WKH H[LVWHQFH RI PRYHPHQW IRUPXODH RU PHPRULHV VWRUHG UHSUHVHQWDWLRQVf +H DOVR VXSSRUWHG

PAGE 22

/LHSPDQQn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nV DUHD *HVFKZLQG f 0RYHPHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVHG E\ DUHD LV WKHQ UHOD\HG WR WKH LSVLODWHUDO SULPDU\ PRWRU FRUWH[ %URGPDQnV DUHD DV ZHOO DV WKH FRQWUDODWHUDO PRWRU DVVRFLDWLRQ DUHD DUHD 0RYHPHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVHG E\ R FRQWUDODWHUDO DUHD LV WKHQ UHOD\HG WR LWnV DIILOLDWHG SULPDU\ PRWRU FRUWH[ DUHD 6HH )LJXUH f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

PAGE 23

)LJXUH *HVFKZLQGnV PRGHO RI SUD[LV /DWHUDO YLHZ RI WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH $) DUFXDWH IDVFLFXOXV 60$ VXSSOHPHQWDO PRWRU DUHD RU PRWRU DVVRFLDWLRQ FRUWH[ 02SULPDU\ PRWRU FRUWH[ 9$& YLVXDO DVVRFLDWLRQ FRUWH[ 9& SULPDU\ YLVXDO FRUWH[ 7KH DUURZV LQGLFDWH PDMRU FRQQHFWLRQV RI WKH DUHDV VKRZQ IURP +HLOPDQ t 5RWKL f

PAGE 24

$VVXPLQJ WKDW YLVXRNLQHVWKHWLF HQJUDPV /LHSPDQQfV PRYHPHQW IRUPXODHf RI WKH OHIW SDULHWDO OREH DUH LPSRUWDQW IRU FRUUHFW SURGXFWLRQ RI JHVWXUH DV ZHOO DV FULWLFDO WR WKH GHFRGLQJ RI VHHQ IDPLOLDU JHVWXUHV +HLOPDQ 5RWKL t 9DOHQVWHLQ f SRVWXODWHG WKDW GDPDJH WR WKH YLVXRNLQHVWKHWLF HQJUDPV ZRXOG UHVXOW LQ GLIILFXOW\ ZLWK ERWK WKH FRPSUHKHQVLRQ DQG SURGXFWLRQ RI JHVWXUH 7KH DXWKRUV DUJXHG WKDW PHDVXULQJ D SDWLHQWfV DELOLW\ WR GLVFULPLQDWH ZHOOSHUIRUPHG IURP SRRUO\ SHUIRUPHG PRYHPHQWV PD\ HQDEOH WKH FOLQLFLDQ WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU RU QRW D SDWLHQWf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f %DVHG RQ WKHVH UHVXOWV +HLOPDQ HW DO f GLVFXVVHG WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI WZR W\SHV RI LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD RQH W\SH ZKLFK SUHVHQWV ZLWK SRRU SURGXFWLRQ DQG FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI JHVWXUHV DQG UHVXOWV IURP GDPDJH WR WKH OHIW VXSUDPDUJLQDO RU DQJXODU J\UXV LQ WKH SDULHWDO OREH DQG D VHFRQG W\SH ZKLFK SUHVHQWV ZLWK SUD[LV SURGXFWLRQ SUREOHPV DORQH DQG UHVXOWV IURP GDPDJH WKDW GRHV QRW LQYROYH WKLV SDULHWDO UHJLRQ 6HH )LJXUH f

PAGE 25

)LJXUH +HLOPDQ DQG 5RWKLfV 0RGHO RI 3UD[LV 9LHZ IURP WRS RI EUDLQ : :HUQLFNHnV DUHD 9$ SULPDU\ YLVXDO DUHD 9$$ YLVXDO DVVRFLDWLRQ DUHD $* DQJXODU J\UXV 60* VXSUDPDUJLQDO J\UXV 30 SUHPRWRU DUHD PRWRU DVVRFLDWLRQ FRUWH[f 0 PRWRU FRUWH[ && FRUSXV FDOORVXP /+ OHIW KHPLVSKHUH 5+ ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH 7KH DUURZV LQGLFDWH PDMRU FRQQHFWLRQV RI WKH DUHDV VKRZQ IURP +HLOPDQ t 5RWKL f

PAGE 26

&RJQLWLYH 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO 0RGHO RI /LPE 3UD[LV DQG $SUD[LD 5HFRJQL]LQJ /LHSPDQQfV DVVHUWLRQ WKDW VNLOOHG SUD[LV ZDV WKH SURGXFW RI D FRPSOH[ PXOWLFRPSRQHQW V\VWHP DQG DOVR UHFRJQL]LQJ WKDW QXPHURXV FDVHV ZHUH GHVFULEHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH WKDW UHIOHFWHG EHKDYLRUDO IUDFWLRQDWLRQ RI SUD[LV UHODWHG EHKDYLRU 5RWKL 2FKLSD DQG +HLOPDQ f SURSRVHG D FRJQLWLYH QHXURn SV\FKRORJLFDO PRGHO RI DSUD[LD LQ DQ DWWHPSW WR FDSWXUH WKHVH GLVVRFLDWLRQV $ VFKHPDWLF UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKLV PRGHO FDQ EH IRXQG LQ )LJXUH ,Q WKLV PRGHO WKH WHUP fDFWLRQOH[LFRQf LV XVHG DV WKH JHVWXUDO HTXLYDOHQW WR WKH WHUP fOH[LFRQf XVHG LQ ODQJXDJH ZKLFK GLVWLQJXLVKHV WKDW SDUW RI WKH ODQJXDJH V\VWHP ZKLFK JLYHV D SURFHVVLQJ DGYDQWDJH IRU ZRUGV WKDW WKH SHUVRQ KDV SUHYLRXVO\ H[SHULHQFHG 5RWKL t +HLOPDQ f 7KHUHIRUH WKH DFWLRQOH[LFRQ ZDV GHILQHG DV WKDW SDUW RI WKH SUD[LV V\VWHP ZKLFK JLYHV D SURFHVVLQJ DGYDQWDJH IRU PRYHPHQWV WKDW WKH SHUVRQ KDV SUHYLRXVO\ SURGXFHG 5RWKL HW DO f 7KDW LV LW LV DQ DFWLRQ PHPRU\ 7KH DFWLRQ OH[LFRQ ZDV GLYLGHG LQWR LQSXW DQG RXWSXW FRPSRQHQWV WR DFFRXQW IRU SDWLHQWV ZKR GHPRQVWUDWH VSDUHG JHVWXUH FRPSUHKHQVLRQ ZLWK LPSDLUHG LPLWDWLRQ DQG JHVWXUH WR FRPPDQG 7KH DXWKRUV VWDWHG WKDW IRU WKHVH SDWLHQWV VSRNHQ ODQJXDJH JDLQV DFFHVV WR WKH RXWSXW DFWLRQ OH[LFRQ YLD VHPDQWLFV ZLWKRXW EHLQJ SURFHVVHG E\ WKH LQSXW DFWLRQ OH[LFRQ )LJXUH f ,Q FRQWUDVW GHILFLWV LQ JHVWXULQJ WR FRPPDQG ZLWK VSDUHG UHSHWLWLRQ DQG VSDUHG FRPSUHKHQVLRQ ZHUH H[SODLQHG E\ G\VIXQFWLRQ DW RU DIWHU WKH RXWSXW DFWLRQ OH[LFRQ ZKLOH VSDULQJ WKH LQQHUYDWRU\ SDWWHUQV 5RWKL HW DO f 'H5HQ]L )DJOLRQL DQG 6RUJDWR f DQG 5RWKL 0DFN DQG +HLOPDQ f GLVFXVVHG FDVHV WKDW SURYLGH HYLGHQFH IRU PRGDOLW\VSHFLILF DSUD[LF GHILFLWV 7KDW LV WKH SUD[LV SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH UHSRUWHG SDWLHQWV GLIIHUHG DV D UHVXOW RI LQSXW PRGDOLW\

PAGE 27

$XGLWRU\9HUEDO 9LVXDO2EMHFW 9LVXDO*HVWXUDO ,QSXW ,Q3XW ,QSXW )LJXUH &RJQLWLYH 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO 0RGHO RI $SUD[LD IURP 5RWKL 2FKLSD t +HLOPDQ f

PAGE 29

HJ DXGLWRU\ WDFWLOH RU YLVXDOf 5RWKL HW DO f DFFRXQWHG IRU WKH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ SHUIRUPDQFH DV D UHVXOW RI LQSXW PRGDOLW\ E\ LQFRUSRUDWLQJ VHSDUDWH LQSXW V\VWHPV IRU YLVXDOO\ SUHVHQWHG JHVWXUDO LQIRUPDWLRQ WDFWLO\ SUHVHQWHG QR YLVXDO LQSXWf DQG DXGLWRULO\ SUHVHQWHG YHUEDO LQIRUPDWLRQ )RU YLVXDOJHVWXUDO LQIRUPDWLRQ WKH SURGXFW RI YLVXDO DQDO\VHV DFFHVVHV HLWKHU WKH LQSXW DFWLRQ OH[LFRQ RU WKH LQQHUYDWRU\ SDWWHUQV GLUHFWO\ )LJXUH f 7KH SUHVHQFH RI WKLV GLUHFW URXWH IURP YLVXDO DQDO\VLV WR LQQHUYDWRU\ SDWWHUQV PD\ DFFRXQW IRU WKRVH SDWLHQWV ZKR FDQ LPLWDWH JHVWXUHV EXW FDQ QRW GLVFULPLQDWH RU FRPSUHKHQG JHVWXUHV 5RWKL HW DO f 7KDW LV LQ FDVHV ZKHUH JHVWXUH LPLWDWLRQ LV QRW SRVVLEOH WKURXJK LQSXW WR RXWSXW OH[LFRQV RU LQSXW OH[LFRQ WR VHPDQWLFV WR RXWSXW OH[LFRQ JHVWXUH LPLWDWLRQ PD\ RFFXU WKURXJK D fQRQOH[LFDOf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fWREHSHUIRUPHGf DFWLRQV ZKLOH WKH DFWLRQ LQSXW OH[LFRQ SHUWDLQV WR FRGHV RI fSHUFHLYHGf DFWLRQV 5RWKL HW DO f 7KLV URXWH YLVXDO DQDO\VLV WR DFWLRQ RXWSXW OH[LFRQf PD\ DFFRXQW IRU WKH DELOLW\ RI FHUWDLQ SDWLHQWV ZKR FDQ QRW FRPSUHKHQG WKH PHDQLQJ RI WKH JHVWXUHV EHFDXVH RI D IDLOXUH RI WKH DFWLRQ VHPDQWLF V\VWHP EXW FDQ DFFXUDWHO\ SURGXFH JHVWXUHV WR VKRZQ WRROV 7KHVH SDWLHQWV PD\ KDYH LQWDFW

PAGE 30

FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI REMHFWV EXW LPSDLUHG FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI DFWLRQV WKHUHE\ VXJJHVWLQJ D GLVVRFLDWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH VHPDQWLF V\VWHP IRU LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW REMHFWV DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW DFWLRQV $XGLWRU\YHUEDO LQSXW LV WUDQVPLWWHG WR DXGLWRU\ DVVRFLDWLRQ DUHDV WKDW SHUIRUP DXGLWRU\ DQDO\VHV DQG DFWLYDWH WKH SKRQRORJLFDO LQSXW OH[LFRQ ,QIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVHG E\ WKH DFWLRQ LQSXW OH[LFRQ FDQ EH DQDO\]HG VHPDQWLFDOO\ E\ WKH VHPDQWLF V\VWHP RU SKRQRORJLFDOO\ IRU RXWSXW E\ WKH YHUEDO RXWSXW OH[LFRQ ,Q ILJXUH WKH OLQH FRQQHFWLQJ WKH UHJLRQ ZKHUH DXGLWRU\ DQDO\VLV LV SHUIRUPHG WR WKH SKRQRORJLFDO EXIIHU PD\ EH WKH URXWH WKDW DFFRXQWV IRU WKRVH SDWLHQWV ZKR FDQ UHSHDW EXW QRW FRPSUHKHQG YHUEDO LQIRUPDWLRQ 5RWKL HW DO f 5R\ DQG 6TXDUH f SURSRVH WKDW SUD[LV SURFHVVLQJ LQYROYHV QRW RQO\ LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW JHVWXUDO SURGXFWLRQ EXW FRQFHSWXDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DV ZHOO :LWKLQ WKH 5RWKL HW DO f PRGHO FRQFHSWXDO DQDO\VLV RI SUD[LV LV DFFRPSOLVKHG E\ WKH DFWLRQ VHPDQWLF FRPSRQHQW 5R\ DQG 6TXDUH f DQG 5D\PHU DQG 2FKLSD f GHVFULEH SUD[LV FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH DV NQRZOHGJH RI WKH IXQFWLRQV RI WRROV DQG REMHFWV NQRZOHGJH RI DFWLRQV QRW UHODWHG WR WRROV DQG REMHFWV DQG NQRZOHGJH RI FRPELQLQJ DFWLRQV LQWR VHTXHQFHV 5RWKL HW DO f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

PAGE 31

JHVWXUHV RU JHVWXUH WR YLVXDOO\ SUHVHQWHG WRROV 5D\PHU *UHHQZDOG 5LFKDUGVRQ 5RWKL t +HLOPDQ f DV ZHOO DV VWXGLHV RI $O]KHLPHUfV SDWLHQWV ZLWK LPSDLUHG DFWLRQ VHPDQWLFV ZLWK VSDUHG QRQDFWLRQ VHPDQWLFV DQG YLFH YHUVD 2FKLSD HW DO 5D\PHU f 7KLV VHSDUDWLRQ DOVR DFFRPPRGDWHV WKRVH UHVHDUFKHUV ZKR FODLP WKDW WKHUH DUH PXOWLSOH VHPDQWLF V\VWHPV ZKLFK UHIOHFW WKH PRGDOLW\ DQG QDWXUH RI LQSXW PDWHULDO %HDXYRLV t 6DLOODQW 3DLYLR 6KDOOLFH f %\ FRPSDULQJ SDWLHQWVn SHUIRUPDQFH DFURVV WDVNV UHVHDUFKHUV DQG FOLQLFLDQV PD\ XVH WKLV QHXURSV\FKRORJLFDO PRGHO WR DVFHUWDLQ WKH QDWXUH RI WKH SURFHVVLQJ GDPDJH DQG PDNH SUHGLFWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ SHUIRUPDQFH )RU H[DPSOH ZKHQ JHVWXULQJ WR FRPPDQG SDWLHQWV ZRXOG UHFHLYH DXGLWRU\YHUEDO LQIRUPDWLRQ HJ VKRZ PH KRZ WR XVH D KDPPHUf ZKLFK ZRXOG EH SURFHVVHG SKRQRORJLFDOO\ E\ WKH SKRQRORJLFDO LQSXW OH[LFRQ IROORZHG E\ WKH FRQFHSWXDO DQDO\VLV RI WKH DFWLRQ VHPDQWLF V\VWHP $IWHU VHPDQWLF DQDO\VLV WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ ZRXOG EH SURFHVVHG E\ WKH DFWLRQ RXWSXW OH[LFRQ DQG WKH UHOHYDQW LQQHUYDWRU\ SDWWHUQV ZRXOG EH DFFHVVHG IRU SURGXFWLRQ RI WKH JHVWXUH E\ WKH PRWRU V\VWHP )LJXUH f :KHQ JHVWXULQJ WR D YLVXDOO\ SUHVHQWHG WRROREMHFW SDWLHQWV ZRXOG YLVXDOO\ DQDO\]H WKH WRROREMHFW DQG FRUUHVSRQGLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ ZRXOG EH XWLOL]HG E\ WKH REMHFW UHFRJQLWLRQ V\VWHP ZLWK VXEVHTXHQW DFFHVV WR VHPDQWLFV DFWLRQ RXWSXW OH[LFRQ DQG WKH LQQHUYDWRU\ SDWWHUQV IRU SURGXFWLRQ E\ WKH PRWRU V\VWHP )LJXUH f $FFRUGLQJ WR WKH PRGHO LQ )LJXUH SDWLHQWV PXVW DFFHVV VHPDQWLFV WR JHVWXUH WR FRPPDQG FRUUHFWO\ EXW GR QRW KDYH WR DFFHVV VHPDQWLFV WR JHVWXUH WR D YLVXDOO\ SUHVHQWHG WRROREMHFW 7KHUHIRUH E\ FRPSDULQJ WKH SDWLHQWnV SHUIRUPDQFH LQ WKHVH WZR WDVNV UHVHDUFKHUV DQG FOLQLFLDQV PD\ EH DEOH WR HYDOXDWH WKH LQWHJULW\ RI WKH VHPDQWLF V\VWHP

PAGE 32

)LJXUH 'HOLQHDWLRQ RI *HVWXUH WR 9LVXDOO\ 3UHVHQWHG 2EMHFW 3DWKZD\ IURP 5RWKL 2FKLSD t +HLOPDQ f

PAGE 33

5LJKW +HPLVSKHUH &RQWULEXWLRQV WR 3UD[LV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR KLV SURSRVDOV WKDW WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH ZDV GRPLQDQW IRU OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQW /LHSPDQQ DOVR DFNQRZOHGJHG WKDW WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH PD\ DOVR KDYH WKH DELOLW\ WR SODQ DQG JHQHUDWH VNLOOHG PRYHPHQW /LHSPDQQ DD F f +RZHYHU /LHSPDQQ FRQVLGHUHG WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH WR EH VXERUGLQDWH WR WKH GRPLQDWH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH DQG ZRXOG UHTXLUH WKH DFWLYDWLRQ RI WKH PRYHPHQW IRUPXODH YLVXRNLQHVWKHWLF HQJUDPVf RI WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH IRU FRUUHFW SURGXFWLRQ RI VNLOOHG PRYHPHQW LQ VLWXDWLRQV ZKHUH WKH PRYHPHQWV ZHUH GRQH ZLWKRXW PDQLSXODWLRQ RI WKH DFWXDO WRRO DQG REMHFW 7KDW LV WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH GHSHQGV RQ WKH LQWHJULW\ RI WKH OHIW SUD[LV V\VWHP IRU SURGXFWLRQ RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQW LQ WKH DEVHQFH RI YLVXDO RU WDFWLOH LQIRUPDWLRQ ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH UHOLHV RQ WKH LQWDFW OHIW SUD[LV V\VWHP WR SURGXFH FRUUHFW DFWLRQV ZKHQ WRROV DQG REMHFWV DUH QRW XVHG /LHSPDQQ DD 0DKHU f 7KLV DELOLW\ RI WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH WR SURGXFH FRUUHFW PRYHPHQWV DQG DFWLRQV LQ FRQWH[W ZLWK DFWXDO WRROV DQG REMHFWV ZDV FRQILUPHG E\ 5DSFVDN 2FKLSD %HHVRQ DQG 5XEHQV f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

PAGE 34

HYHU\GD\ WDVNV VXFK DV SUHSDULQJ PHDOV DQG IL[LQJ KRXVHKROG LWHPV LQ ZKLFK WRROV DQG REMHFWV DUH XVHG WRJHWKHU DQG LQ WKH UHOHYDQW FRQWH[W 0DKHU f VWXGLHG WKH UROH RI WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH LQ SURGXFWLRQ RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV E\ HYDOXDWLQJ WKH WHPSRUDO DQG VSDWLDO DVSHFWV RI JHVWXUHV SURGXFHG E\ SDWLHQWV ZLWK OHIW RU ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH EUDLQ OHVLRQV DQG PDWFKHG QRUPDO FRQWURO VXEMHFWV XVLQJ D VFRULQJ V\VWHP GHVFULEHG E\ 5RWKL 0DFN 9HUIDHOOLH %URZQ DQG +HLOPDQ f 7KH VXEMHFWV SURGXFHG JHVWXUHV WR DXGLWRU\ FRPPDQG XVLQJ WKH DUP DQG KDQG LSVLODWHUDO WR WKH VLGH RI OHVLRQ WR FRQWURO IRU SRVVLEOH HIIHFWV RI KHPLSDUHVLV 7KH JHVWXUHV ZHUH VFRUHG E\ WZR LQGHSHQGHQW UDWHUV ZKR ZHUH EOLQG WR WKH QDWXUH RI WKH VWXG\ 7KH UDWHUV UHFHLYHG LQWHQVLYH WUDLQLQJ EHIRUH HDFK VFRULQJ VHVVLRQ ZKLFK UHVXOWHG LQ KLJK LQWHU DQG LQWUDUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ 7KH UDWHUV ILUVW VFRUHG WKH JHVWXUHV SDVVIDLO DFFRUGLQJ WR FRUUHFWQHVV 7KHQ LI D JHVWXUH ZDV VFRUHG DV LQFRUUHFW HUURU W\SHVf ZHUH DZDUGHG EDVHG RQ WKH DERYH HUURU FODVVLILFDWLRQ V\VWHP ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH IROORZLQJ HUURU W\SHV LQWHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ H[WHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ RFFXUUHQFH DPSOLWXGH PRYHPHQW DQG VHTXHQFLQJ RI PRYHPHQWV HJ WR XVH D NH\ RQH PXVW LQVHUW WXUQ DQG UHPRYH WKH NH\ LQ WKDW RUGHUf 5HVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ VKRZHG WKDW WKH OHIW EUDLQ OHVLRQHG VXEMHFWV SHUIRUPHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZRUVH WKDQ ERWK WKH ULJKW EUDLQ OHVLRQHG VXEMHFWV DQG QRUPDO FRQWURO VXEMHFWV RYHUDOO :KHQ IUHTXHQF\ RI HDFK HUURU W\SH ZDV FRPSDUHG DFURVV JURXSV WKHUH ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV IRU DOO HUURU W\SHV H[FHSW PRYHPHQW DQG DPSOLWXGH 3DLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV ZHUH WKHQ SHUIRUPHG WR GLVWLQJXLVK HWLRORJ\ RI WKH GLIIHUHQFHV 7KHVH FRPSDULVRQV VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH OHIW DQG ULJKW EUDLQ OHVLRQHG VXEMHFWV IRU PRYHPHQW HUURUV FDQ EH DFFRXQWHG IRU E\ H[WUHPHO\ SRRU SHUIRUPDQFH E\ WKH OHIW EUDLQ OHVLRQHG VXEMHFWV ZKHQ FRPSDUHG WR WKH

PAGE 35

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f SURSRVHG WKDW WKLV UHVXOW VXJJHVWV WKDW ERWK WKH ULJKW DQG OHIW KHPLVSKHUHV FRXOG FRGH VSDWLDO DVSHFWV RI PRYHPHQW 7KH (FRORJ\ RI $SUD[LD 6LJQLILFDQFH WR FOLQLFLDQV DQG SDWLHQWV 2WKHU WKDQ LWV ODWHUDOL]LQJ YDOXH DSUD[LD KDV QRW EHHQ FRQVLGHUHG RI VLJQLILFDQW SUDFWLFDO LPSRUWDQFH 'H5HQ]L f VDLG WKDW DSUD[LD UDUHO\ DSSHDUV LQ HYHU\GD\ VLWXDWLRQV DQG RQO\ HPHUJHV RXW RI FRQWH[W DV D SXUSRVHIXO UHVSRQVH WR DQ DUWLILFLDO UHTXHVW SDJH f %HFDXVH LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD ZDV FRQVLGHUHG WR EH DQ H[DPLQDWLRQ ERXQG V\PSWRP WKDW ZRXOG QRW DWWUDFW D FOLQLFLDQnV DWWHQWLRQ XQOHVV WKH FOLQLFLDQ VSHFLILFDOO\ ORRNHG IRU LW DSUD[LD PD\ KDYH EHHQ RYHUORRNHG DQG XQGHUHVWLPDWHG LQ EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV 'H5HQ]L f 0DQ\ FOLQLFLDQV PLJKW DJUHH WKDW SDWLHQWV GR QRW VSRQWDQHRXVO\ FRPSODLQ RI DSUD[LF GLVWXUEDQFHV +HLOPDQ t 5RWKL f 2QH SRVVLEOH H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKLV LV WKDW DSUD[LF SDWLHQWV PD\ KDYH DQRVRJQRVLD XQDZDUHQHVV RI WKH GLVRUGHUf IRU WKHLU SUD[LV GLIILFXOWLHV 5RWKL HW DO f $QRWKHU SRVVLEOH H[SODQDWLRQ LV WKDW SDWLHQWV ZLWK DSUD[LD IUHTXHQWO\ KDYH D FRRFFXUULQJ ULJKW KHPLSDUHVLV 7KHUHIRUH SDWLHQWV PD\

PAGE 36

DVVRFLDWH WKHLU FOXPVLQHVV WR XVH RI WKH QRQGRPLQDQW OHIW KDQG IRU WDVNV LQ ZKLFK WKH\ SUHYLRXVO\ XVHG WKHLU GRPLQDQW ULJKW KDQG :KLOH DSUD[LD PD\ EH SUHVHQW SUD[LV SHUIRUPDQFH PD\ LPSURYH ZKHQ PDQLSXODWLQJ DFWXDO REMHFWV RU WRROV *HVFKZLQG f DQG FDUHWDNHUV RU IDPLO\ PHPEHUV ZKR UDUHO\ KDYH WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR REVHUYH WRROREMHFW XVH SDQWRPLPH PD\ QRW EH DZDUH RI WKH GLVRUGHU ,Q IDFW PDQ\ IDPLO\ PHPEHUV PD\ SURYLGH DVVLVWDQFH LQ VHOIFDUH VNLOOV VXFK DV IHHGLQJ DQG GUHVVLQJ IRU FRQYHQLHQFH DQG HIILFLHQF\ SXUSRVHV +HLQHPDQQ 5RWK &LHKRZVNL t %HWWV f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f ZKLFK H[DPLQHG IXQFWLRQDO RXWFRPH RI VWURNH UHKDELOLWDWLRQ SURJUDPV IRXQG WKDW DOO RI WKH LQGHSHQGHQFH JDLQHG GXULQJ UHKDELOLWDWLRQ LQ WKH DUHD RI IHHGLQJ ZDV ORVW E\ WKUHH PRQWKV DIWHU GLVFKDUJH 7KH\ SURSRVHG WKDW ORVV RI D FRQWUROOHG HQYLURQPHQW WKDW SURPRWHG IXQFWLRQDO LQGHSHQGHQFH HJ WKH FDUHJLYHU QR ORQJHU SUHSDUHG WKH HQYLURQPHQW WR PD[LPL]H WKH SDWLHQWnV VNLOOV EXW EHJDQ WR DVVLVW WKH SDWLHQW GLUHFWO\f PD\ H[SODLQ WKLV GHFOLQH LQ IXQFWLRQ $QRWKHU VWXG\ H[DPLQHG IDFWRUV WKDW LQIOXHQFHG D SHUVRQnV DELOLW\ WR UHWXUQ WR ZRUN DIWHU D VWURNH 6DHNL 2JDWD 2NXER 7DNDKDVKL t +RVKX\DPD f 7KH

PAGE 37

DXWKRUV IROORZHG SDWLHQWV DJHV WR ZKR ZHUH DFWLYHO\ HPSOR\HG DW WKH WLPH RI WKHLU VWURNHV DQG H[WUDFWHG LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP WKH DGPLVVLRQ PHGLFDO UHFRUGV RI HDFK SDWLHQW 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW b RI WKH SDWLHQWV UHWXUQHG WR ZRUN E\ WKH WLPH RI WKH IROORZXS ZKLFK YDULHG IURP WR PRQWKV SRVWVWURNH 7KH PRVW LPSRUWDQW IDFWRU WKDW GHWHUPLQHG D SDWLHQWnV DELOLW\ WR UHWXUQ WR ZRUN ZDV VHYHULW\ RI PXVFOH ZHDNQHVV RQ DGPLVVLRQ 7KH VHFRQG PRVW LPSRUWDQW IDFWRU ZDV SUHVHQFH RI DSUD[LD 7KH RGGV RI D SDWLHQW ZLWKRXW DSUD[LD UHWXUQLQJ WR ZRUN ZHUH GHWHUPLQHG WR EH IRXU WR ILYH WLPHV JUHDWHU WKDQ IRU SDWLHQWV ZLWK DSUD[LD 6DHNL HW DO f +RZHYHU SRVVLEOH OLPLWDWLRQV RI WKLV VWXG\ DUH WKDW WKH DXWKRUV FRPELQHG LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD ZLWK LGHDWLRQDO DSUD[LD GUHVVLQJ DSUD[LD DQG FRQVWUXFWLRQDO DSUD[LD LQ WKH DQDO\VHV QRQH RI ZKLFK ZHUH RSHUDWLRQDOO\ GHILQHG $V D UHVXOW LW FDQ QRW EH GHWHUPLQHG ZKLFK RQH RU PRUH W\SHV RI DSUD[LD DIIHFWHG WKH SDWLHQWVn DELOLW\ WR UHWXUQ WR ZRUN RU ZKHWKHU WKH DXWKRUVn GHILQLWLRQ RI DSUD[LD ZDV VLPLODU WR RU GLIIHUHQW IURP SUHYLRXVO\ SXEOLVKHG GHILQLWLRQV $SUD[LD LQ QDWXUDO FRQWH[WV 7KH ILUVW VWXG\ WR GRFXPHQW WKH HIIHFWV RI DSUD[LD LQ WKH QRQFOLQLFDO HQYLURQPHQW ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ 6XQGHW )LQVHW DQG 5HLQYDQJ f 7KHVH UHVHDUFKHUV LQYHVWLJDWHG YDULDEOHV WKDW DIIHFWHG D SDWLHQWnV DELOLW\ WR IXQFWLRQ LQ WKH KRPH HQYLURQPHQW IROORZLQJ GLVFKDUJH IURP D UHKDELOLWDWLRQ KRVSLWDO 7KH\ VHQW TXHVWLRQQDLUHV WR OHIW KHPLVSKHUH VWURNH SDWLHQWV DQG ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH VWURNH SDWLHQWV VL[ PRQWKV DIWHU GLVFKDUJH IURP UHKDELOLWDWLRQ 7KH TXHVWLRQQDLUH IRFXVHG XSRQ DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ DQG WKH DPRXQW RI GHSHQGHQF\ WKH SDWLHQWV GLVSOD\HG LQ WKH KRPH HQYLURQPHQW 'HSHQGHQF\ ZDV GHILQHG DV WKH LQFUHDVHG QHHG IRU FDUHJLYHU

PAGE 38

DVVLVWDQFH LQ SHUIRUPLQJ WDVNV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ 7KH SDWLHQWV ZHUH DVNHG VLPSO\ ZULWWHQ \HVQR TXHVWLRQV VXFK DV UHTXLUHV XVH RI NLWFKHQ DLGV DQG UHTXLUHV KHOS WR GUHVV 6XQGHW HW DO Sf &DUHWDNHUV ZHUH DVNHG WR DQVZHU WKH TXHVWLRQV LQ WKH HYHQW WKDW D SDWLHQW FRXOG QRW 6XQGHW DQG FROOHDJXHV FRPSDUHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ UHVXOWV RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH PHDVXUH RI GHSHQGHQF\f DQG QHXURSV\FKRORJLFDO GHILFLWV VXFK DV KHPLSOHJLD DSKDVLD QRQYHUEDO PHPRU\ GHILFLWV QHJOHFW DQG DSUD[LD WKH SUHVHQFH RI ZKLFK ZHUH GHWHUPLQHG E\ UHYLHZ RI HDFK SDWLHQWVf PHGLFDO UHFRUGV 5HVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH KLJKHVW SUHGLFWRU RI GHSHQGHQF\ IRU WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG VXEMHFWV ZDV WKH SUHVHQFH RI DSUD[LD /LPLWDWLRQV RI WKH 6XQGHW HW DO f VWXG\ LQFOXGH WKH DXWKRUVn UHOLDQFH XSRQ D TXHVWLRQQDLUH ILOOHG RXW E\ FDUHJLYHUV UDWKHU WKDQ GLUHFW SDWLHQW REVHUYDWLRQ WR GHWHUPLQH WKH SDWLHQWVf DELOLW\ WR IXQFWLRQ LQGHSHQGHQWO\ LQ D QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW DQG FRQWH[W 7KHUH ZDV DOVR D VL[ PRQWK KLDWXV EHWZHHQ WKH QHXURSV\FKRORJLFDO WHVWLQJ DQG GHWHUPLQDWLRQ RI WKH SDWLHQWVf GHSHQGHQF\ GXULQJ ZKLFK WLPH WKH SDWLHQWVf SHUIRUPDQFH RQ WKH QHXURSV\FKRORJLFDO WHVWV DQG LQ WXUQ WKH SUHVHQFH RI QHXURSV\FKRORJLFDO GHILFLWV LQFOXGLQJ DSUD[LD WKH\ ZHUH UHSRUWHG WR GRFXPHQWf PD\ KDYH FKDQJHG $OWKRXJK D VWXG\ E\ 5RWKL DQG +HLOPDQ f GRFXPHQWHG WKDW RYHU b RI SDWLHQWV ZKR DUH DFXWHO\ DSUD[LF UHPDLQ DSUD[LF VL[ PRQWKV ODWHU LW LV XQNQRZQ KRZ PDQ\ RI WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG VXEMHFWV LQ WKH 6XQGHW HW DO f VWXG\ ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ FRQVLGHUHG DSUD[LF DW WKH WLPH RI GHSHQGHQF\ GHWHUPLQDWLRQ 2QH VWXG\ LQ ZKLFK SDWLHQWV ZHUH GLUHFWO\ REVHUYHG DQG ZKLFK GLG QRW KDYH D KLDWXV EHWZHHQ FOLQLFDO H[DPLQDWLRQ DQG H[SHULPHQWDO SURFHGXUHV ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ )RXQGDV 0DFDXOH\ 5D\PHU 0DKHU 5RWKL DQG +HLOPDQ f )RXQGDV DQG

PAGE 39

FRZRUNHUV f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f 7KH ORFDWLRQ RI WKH VWDQGDUG WRROV DQG WKH IRLOV ZHUH FRXQWHUEDODQFHG WR FRQWURO IRU WKHLU OHIW WR ULJKW SODFHPHQW RQ WKH WUD\ 7KH H[DPLQHU OHIW WKH URRP DQG QR DVVLVWDQFH ZDV JLYHQ WR WKH VXEMHFW LQ SUHSDULQJ RU HDWLQJ WKH IRRG 5HVXOWV RI WKH )RXQGDV HW DO f VWXG\ GRFXPHQWHG WZR PDLQ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH FRQWURO DQG H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV 7KH ILUVW GLIIHUHQFH EHFDPH DSSDUHQW ZKHQ WKH VWDJHV RI HDWLQJ SUHSDUDWRU\ HDWLQJ DQG FOHDQXSf ZHUH FRPSDUHG DFURVV JURXSV 'XULQJ WKH SUHSDUDWRU\ SKDVH EHKDYLRUV LQFOXGHG VXFK WKLQJV DV RSHQLQJ FRQGLPHQW SDFNDJHV SODFLQJ WKH QDSNLQ RQ WKH ODS FXWWLQJ WKH PHDW DQG SXWWLQJ VXJDU LQ WKH WHD 'XULQJ WKH HDWLQJ SKDVH WKH IRRG ZDV HDWHQ 'XULQJ WKH FOHDQXS SKDVH EHKDYLRUV VXFK DV SXWWLQJ WKH QDSNLQ EDFN RQ WKH WUD\ SXWWLQJ WKH XWHQVLOV RQ WKH SODWH DQG SXVKLQJ WKH WUD\ DZD\ ZHUH DFFRPSOLVKHG 7KH ILUVW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH JURXSV ZDV WKDW b RI WKH FRQWURO VXEMHFWV SURFHHGHG WKURXJK DOO WKUHH SKDVHV RI WKH PHDO FRPSDUHG WR RQO\ b RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV 7KH DXWKRUV UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH FRQWURO VXEMHFWV UHVSHFWHG WKH ERXQGDULHV RI HDFK SKDVH ZKHUHDV WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV GLG QRW 7KDW LV WKH FRQWURO VXEMHFWV VKRZHG FOHDU GLVWLQFW EHJLQQLQJ DQG HQG SRLQWV RI HDFK SKDVH ZKLOH WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV WHQGHG WR KDYH SUHSDUDWRU\ HDWLQJ

PAGE 40

DQG FOHDQXS DFWLRQV LQWHUVSHUVHG UDQGRPO\ WKURXJKRXW WKH PHDO DV LI WKHUH ZDV D ODFN RI DQWLFLSDWLRQ IRU SHQGLQJ WDVN GHPDQGV 7KH DXWKRUV DOVR UHSRUWHG WKDW ZLWKLQ WKH HDWLQJ SKDVH WKH FRQWURO VXEMHFWV DWH XVLQJ HDWLQJ SDWWHUQV WKDW ZHUH LGLRV\QFUDWLF ZLWKLQ VXEMHFWV EXW FRQVLVWHQWO\ GHYHORSHG DFURVV VXEMHFWV )RU H[DPSOH D FRQWURO VXEMHFW PLJKW HDW SRUWLRQV RI WKH PDLQ FRXUVH HJ PHDWf IROORZHG E\ WKH EUHDG WKH YHJHWDEOHV DQG GULQN RI WHD DQG UHSHDW WKLV SDWWHUQ RYHU DJDLQ XQWLO DOO IRRG KDG EHHQ HDWHQ ,Q FRQWUDVW WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV WHQGHG WR HDW LQ D PRUH UDQGRP IDVKLRQ ZLWK QR GHILQDEOH HDWLQJ SDWWHUQ ,Q WKH )RXQGDV HW DO f VWXG\ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV SURGXFHG PRUH fWRRO HUURUVf HUURUV RI DFWLRQ LQ XVLQJ WRROV VXFK DV VSRRQ DQG IRUNf WKDQ fQRQWRRO HUURUVf HUURUV RI DFWLRQV WKDW GR QRW LQYROYH WRROV VXFK DV ZLSLQJ WKH IDFH RU PRYLQJ WKH JODVVf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f VWXG\ LQGLFDWHG WKDW ZKLOH WKH RYHUDOO HDWLQJ WLPH RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV GLG QRW GLIIHU IURP WKH FRQWURO VXEMHFWV WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV PDGH IHZHU DFWLRQV LQ JHQHUDO XVHG IHZHU XWHQVLOV DQG RIWHQ

PAGE 41

PLVMXGJHG WKH DGYDQWDJH RI XVLQJ D WRRO 7KH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV SURGXFHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH LQFRUUHFW DFWLRQV ZKHQ FRPSDUHG WR WKH FRQWUROV DQG DV D UHVXOW ZHUH OHVV HIILFLHQW LQ H[HFXWLQJ LQGLYLGXDO WRRO DFWLRQV 7RRO PLVXVH DQG PLVVHOHFWLRQ HUURUV ZHUH SURGXFHG E\ DOO EXW RQH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFW ZKR KDSSHQHG WR VFRUH ZLWKLQ WKH QRUPDO UDQJH RQ WKH WHVW IRU LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD (UURUV VXFK DV HDWLQJ LFH FUHDP ZLWK D IRUN PLVVHOHFWLRQf FXWWLQJ ZLWK D VSRRQ PLVXVHf VWLUULQJ ZLWK D NQLIH PLVXVHf DQG ZLSLQJ RQHnV IDFH ZLWK D VOLFH RI EUHDG PLVVHOHFWLRQf ZHUH REVHUYHG $ VFKHPDWLF UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI PLVXVH DQG PLVVHOHFWLRQ HUURUV FDQ EH IRXQG LQ )LJXUH ,Q FRQWUDVW WKH QRUPDO FRQWURO VXEMHFWV PDGH PRUH DFWLRQV LQ JHQHUDO XVHG PRUH XWHQVLOV DQG XVHG WKH XWHQVLOV FRUUHFWO\ WKURXJKRXW WKH PHDO 7KH WRRO DFWLRQV RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV ZHUH RIWHQ LQFRPSOHWH RU LPSUHFLVH VR WKDW D GHVLUHG JRDO ZDV QRW DFKLHYHG )RXQGDVH DO f DUJXHG WKDW WKH KLJK FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ QXPEHU RI DFWLRQ HUURUV SURGXFHG DQG SUHVHQFH RI LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD VXJJHVWHG WKDW LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD FDXVHG WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKLV QDWXUDO FRQWH[W $ VHULHV RI VWXGLHV E\ 6FKZDUW] DQG FROOHDJXHV DOVR H[DPLQHG DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ E\ EUDLQ GDPDJHG VXEMHFWV 7KH ILUVW VWXG\ E\ 0D\HU 5HHG 6FKZDUW] 0RQWJRPHU\ DQG 3DOPHU f H[DPLQHG D JURXS RI EUDLQLQMXUHG SDWLHQWV LQ D UHKDELOLWDWLRQ KRVSLWDO )RUW\ILYH SDWLHQWV ZLWK WUDXPDWLF EUDLQ LQMXU\ DQG VL[ SDWLHQWV ZLWK VWURNH ZHUH REVHUYHG GXULQJ DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ VXFK DV EUXVKLQJ WHHWK DQG PDNLQJ FRIIHH 7KH DXWKRUV IRXQG WKDW b RI WKH SDWLHQWV SURGXFHG HUURUV RI DFWLRQ GXULQJ DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ GXH WR WKH QDWXUH RI WKH EUDLQ GDPDJH RI WKH SDWLHQWV WKH\ VWXGLHG LW LV QRW NQRZQ ZKHWKHU WKH DFWLRQ HUURUV ZHUH WKH UHVXOW RI WKH

PAGE 42

0LVXVH WRRO 0LVVHOHFWLRQ WRRO WRRO WRRO 0LVXVH DQG 0LVVHOHFWLRQ WRRO WRRO WRRO )LJXUH 6FKHPDWLF 5HSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI 0LVXVH DQG 0LVVHOHFWLRQ $FWLRQ (UURUV LQGLFDWH ORFDWLRQ RI HUURUVf

PAGE 43

JHQHUDO LQWHOOHFWXDO LPSDLUPHQW RU H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQ GHIHFWV FRPPRQO\ IRXQG LQ WUDXPDWLF EUDLQ LQMXUHG SDWLHQWV RU RI DSUD[LD 0D\HU HW DO f GHYHORSHG D WKHRU\ RI DFWLRQ EDVHG XSRQ 1RUPDQ DQG 6KDOOLFHfV f PRGHO RI DWWHQWLRQDO FRQWURO RI DFWLRQ ZKLFK SURSRVHV WZR PRGHV RI FRQWURO RI DFWLRQ RQH ZKLFK LV DXWRPDWLF DQG RQH ZKLFK UHTXLUHV GHOLEHUDWH DWWHQWLRQDO FRQWURO 0D\HU HW DO f VWXGLHG WKH DFWLRQ SURGXFWLRQV ZLWKLQ D QDWXUDO FRQWH[W RI SDWLHQWV ZLWK FORVHG KHDG LQMXU\ DQG SURSRVHG WKDW LPSDLUPHQW RI WKH GHOLEHUDWH DWWHQWLRQDO FRQWURO URXWH ZDV WKH JHQHVLV IRU SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKHLU SDWLHQWV ZLWK EUDLQ GDPDJH )RU WKLV VWXG\ DQ DFWLRQ FRGLQJ V\VWHP ZDV GHYHORSHG WKDW GHVFULEHV WKH VHTXHQFH RI DFWLRQV SURGXFHG E\ EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV DV HLWKHU $O XQLWV JHQHUDO DFWLRQV QRW WDVNVSHFLILF VXFK DV ULQVLQJ D JODVVf $ XQLWV VSHFLILF WDVNUHODWHG DFWLRQV VXFK DV XQVFUHZLQJ WKH FDS IURP D WRRWKSDVWH FRQWDLQHUf RU FUX[ $ XQLWV WKH DFWLRQ WKDW DFFRPSOLVKHV WKH QH[W JRDO VXFK DV VTXHH]LQJ WKH WRRWKSDVWH RQWR WKH WRRWKEUXVK ZKHQ SUHSDULQJ WR EUXVK WHHWKf 7KH DFWLRQ FRGLQJ V\VWHP HQDEOHG WKH UHVHDUFKHUV WR H[DPLQH ZKLFK DFWLRQV ZHUH SURGXFHG RXW RI VHTXHQFH ZHUH RPLWWHG RU ZHUH SHUVHYHUDWHG E\ DSSO\LQJ WKH DFWLRQ FRGLQJ V\VWHP WR D VFULSW RI WKH SDWLHQWfV DFWLRQV DQG H[DPLQLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS DQG VHTXHQFH RI WKH $O $ DQG FUX[ $O XQLWV LQ WKH SDWLHQWfV SURGXFWLRQ WR WKDW RI D SURWRW\SH VFULSW 0D\HU HW DO f WKHQ DSSOLHG WKH DFWLRQ FRGLQJ V\VWHP WR D VFULSW RI DFWLRQV SURGXFHG E\ D EUDLQ LQMXUHG SDWLHQW GXULQJ D WDVN RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ 2QH SDWLHQW ++ KDG VXIIHUHG D ELIIRQWDO LQMXU\ ZLWK UHVXOWLQJ DSKDVLD DQG FDOORVDO DSUD[LD LQ ZKLFK KH ZDV DSUD[LF ZLWK KLV QRQGRPLQDQW OHIW KDQG DQG QRW DSUD[LF ZLWK KLV SUHIHUUHG ULJKW KDQG ++ ZDV YLGHRWDSHG GXULQJ EUHDNIDVW DQG D VFULSW RI KLV DFWLRQV ZDV ZULWWHQ 7KH

PAGE 44

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nV DSUD[LD EHFDXVH LQ WKH PDMRULW\ RI SDWLHQWV ZLWK GRFXPHQWHG DSUD[LD WKHUH ZDVf QR IXQFWLRQDO FRQVHTXHQFH RI WKH DSUD[LF LPSDLUPHQW 0D\HU HW DO Sf )RXQGDV DQG FROOHDJXHV KRZHYHU ZRXOG DUJXH WKDW WKH DERYH VWDWHPHQW LV QRW DQ DFFXUDWH DVVXPSWLRQ LQ WKDW WKH DXWKRUV GLG QRW WHVW IRU DSUD[LD DQG DV D UHVXOW FRXOG QRW VSHDN WRZDUGV WKH VLJQLILFDQFH RI DSUD[LD WR WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKHLU SDWLHQWV 6FKZDUW] 5HHG 0RQWJRPHU\ 3DOPHU DQG 0D\HU f FRQWLQXHG WKHLU ZRUN E\ DSSO\LQJ WKH DFWLRQ FRGLQJ V\VWHP WR WZR VSHFLILF WDVNVPDNLQJ FRIIHH DQG EUXVKLQJ WHHWKf§DV SURGXFHG E\ ++ WKH EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQW GHVFULEHG E\ 0D\HU HW DO f ++ ZDV YLGHRWDSHG SHUIRUPLQJ WKHVH WDVNV LQ WKH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW DQG VFULSWV RI KLV DFWLRQV ZHUH DQDO\]HG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH DFWLRQ FRGLQJ V\VWHP GHVFULEHG E\ 0D\HU HW DO f 7KH DXWKRUV QRWHG WKDW ++ KDG D KLJKHU VXVFHSWLELOLW\ WR REMHFW VXEVWLWXWLRQV DQG REMHFW PLVXVH DV ZHOO DV D YDULDELOLW\ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV DFURVV WLPH 5HJDUGLQJ QRUPDO DFWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ WKH DXWKRUV DUJXH WKDW OHDUQHG DFWLRQV DUH QRW

PAGE 45

H[HFXWHG DV ZKROH SURJUDPV EXW DUH RUJDQL]HG LQWR KLHUDUFKLHV RI WHPSRUDOO\ VWUXFWXUHG XQLWV WKDW GHSHQG RQ WKH SUHIURQWDO DUHD RI WKH EUDLQ IRU LQWHJUDWLRQ DQG SURGXFWLRQ %DVHG RQ WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ GHVFULEHG DERYH 6FKZDUW] HW DO f SURSRVHG IRXU WKHRUHWLFDO IRXQGDWLRQV RI LQWHQWLRQDO DFWLRQV DQG DFWLRQ HUURUV WKH ILUVW WHQHW FODLPV WKDW LQWHQWLRQDO DFWLRQ LQYROYHV DFWLYDWLRQ RI DQ DFWLRQ SODQ WKH VHFRQG FODLPV WKDW WKH SODQQLQJ DQG H[HFXWLRQ RI LQWHQWLRQDO DFWLRQV DUH FORVHO\ FRXSOHG LQ UHDO WLPH WKH WKLUG FODLPV WKDW LQWHQWLRQDO DFWLRQV DUH LQWHJUDO WR DOO SXUSRVHIXO EHKDYLRU DQG WKH IRXUWK FODLPV WKDW HUURUV RI DFWLRQ RFFXU GXH WR ZHDNHQLQJ RI WKH WRSGRZQ IRUPXODWLRQ RI DFWLRQ SODQV 7KLV ZHDNHQLQJ RI WKH DFWLRQ SODQV DOORZV WKH SDWLHQW WR EH LQIOXHQFHG E\ LUUHOHYDQW REMHFWV DQG DFWLRQV OHDGLQJ WR D VXVFHSWLELOLW\ RI REMHFW UHODWHG HUURUV RI DFWLRQ 6FKZDUW] DQG FROOHDJXHV f DOVR SURSRVHG WKDW WKH FRQGLWLRQ RI DFWLRQ GLVRUJDQL]DWLRQ REVHUYHG LQ EUDLQ LQMXUHG SDWLHQWV ZKLOH SHUIRUPLQJ DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ EH WHUPHG IURQWDO DSUD[LD 7KH H[SODQDWLRQ RI WKH PHFKDQLVP RI IURQWDO DSUD[LD RIIHUHG E\ 6FKZDUW] HW DO f LV QRW FRQWUDGLFWRU\ WR /LHSPDQQ DD EE F f DQG +HLOPDQ DQG 5RWKLfV f GHVFULSWLRQ RI PRYHPHQW PHPRULHV 5DWKHU /LHSPDQQ +HLOPDQ DQG 5RWKLfV SURSRVDOV IRFXV XSRQ D UHWULHYDO V\VWHP IRU WKH PHPRULHV RI XQLTXH OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV WKDW VSDQ IURP VLQJOH GLVFUHHW DFWLRQV WKH DFWLRQ OH[LFRQVf WR VXEFRPSRQHQWV LQQHUYDWRU\ SDWWHUQVf RI WKHVH DFWLRQV ,Q FRQWUDVW WKH SURSRVDO RI 6FKZDUW] HW DO f IRFXVHV XSRQ WKH LQWHUQDO UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ GLVFUHHW FRPSRQHQW DFWLRQV RI ODUJHU DFWLRQ JRDOV %RWK /LHSPDQQ f DQG 6FKZDUW] HW DO f XVH WKH WHUP fIURQWDO DSUD[LDf WR GHVFULEH WKH PRYHPHQWDFWLRQ HUURUV WKDW RFFXU ZKHQ WKH LQWHUQDO UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ GLVFUHHW

PAGE 46

DFWLRQ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV LQ WKH ODUJHU DFWLRQ JRDO FRQWH[W KDYH EHHQ ORRVHQHG RU GLVRUJDQL]HG E\ EUDLQ GDPDJH 6FKZDUW] 0RQWJRPHU\ 'H6DOPH 2FKLSD &RVOHWW DQG 0D\HU f H[SDQGHG WKH VWXG\ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV E\ H[DPLQLQJ -. D SDWLHQW ZLWK WUDXPDWLF EUDLQ LQMXU\ ZKRVH EHKDYLRU ZDV VLPLODU WR WKH SDWLHQW ++f VWXGLHG E\ 0D\HU HW DO f DQG 6FKZDUW] HW DO f -. ZDV YLGHRWDSHG ZKLOH HDWLQJ EUHDNIDVW DQG EUXVKLQJ KLV WHHWK DQG WKH WDSHV ZHUH VFRUHG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH DFWLRQ FRGLQJ V\VWHP GHVFULEHG E\ 0D\HU HW DO f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nV WRRO PLVXVH HUURUV ZHUH QRW WKH UHVXOW RI D ZHDNHQHG WRSGRZQ SURFHVVLQJ RI DFWLRQ SODQV IRXQG ZLWK IURQWDO DSUD[LD EHFDXVH -. ZDV DEOH WR GHPRQVWUDWH RU JHVWXUH WKH DSSURSULDWH XVH IRU D WRRO IURP YLVXDO DQG WDFWLOH FXHV D KLJK OHYHO WDVN 6FKZDUW] HW DO f 7KH DXWKRUV FRQFOXGHG WKDW LQ RUGHU WR DFFRPPRGDWH -.nV IXOO UDQJH RI SHUIRUPDQFH ERWK D WRSGRZQ DQG D ERWWRPXS LPSDLUPHQW RI LQWHQWLRQDO DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ VKRXOG EH DGRSWHG 6FKZDUW] HW DO f 7KDW LV WKH ORRVHQLQJ RU GLVRUJDQL]DWLRQ RI UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ GLVFUHHW DFWLRQ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV FRXOG EH WKH UHVXOW RI GDPDJH WR HLWKHU KLJKHU RU ORZHU RUGHU PHFKDQLVPV ZLWKLQ WKH DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG PRYHPHQW SURGXFWLRQ V\VWHP

PAGE 47

6FKZDUW] HW DO f DGDSWHG WKH DFWLRQWULJJHUVFKHPD $76f IUDPHZRUN GHYHORSHG E\ 1RUPDQ DQG 6KDOOLFH f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f 6FKZDUW] HW DO f DUJXH WKDW D SDWLHQW ZLWK IURQWDO DSUD[LD ZLOO SURGXFH HUURUV GLIIHUHQWO\ GXULQJ DQ DFWLYLW\ RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ WKDQ D SDWLHQW ZLWK D GLVRUGHU RI DWWHQWLRQ 6SHFLILFDOO\ D IURQWDO DSUD[LF SDWLHQW ZLWK G\VIXQFWLRQ LQ WKH DELOLW\ WR SODQ DQG FRRUGLQDWH DFWLRQ VHTXHQFHV PD\ H[KLELW LQFRKHUHQFH DQG LQWUXVLRQV RI DFWLRQV ZKLFK UHVXOW LQ D IUDJPHQWDWLRQ RI EHKDYLRU 3DWLHQWV ZLWK IURQWDO DSUD[LD PD\ DOVR XVH WRROV DQG REMHFWV LQ QRYHO RU EL]DUUH ZD\V EHFDXVH WKH DFWLRQ SODQ IRU XVLQJ WKH WRROV

PAGE 48

DQG REMHFWV LV LQDFFXUDWH QRQVSHFLILF DQG IDXOW\ ,Q FRQWUDVW DQ DWWHQWLRQ GLVRUGHUHG SDWLHQW PD\ H[KLELW LQWUXVLRQV RI LUUHOHYDQW DFWLRQV DQG WHPSRUDU\ GHUDLOPHQWV WR RWKHU WDVNV UHVXOWLQJ LQ LQHIILFLHQW EXW FRKHUHQW DFWLRQ VHTXHQFHV 6FKZDUW] HW DO f DGGUHVVHG WKH LVVXH RI ZKHWKHU WKH REVHUYHG DFWLRQ HUURUV ZHUH UHODWHG WR DQ LGHDWLRQDO DSUD[LD E\ FRPSDULQJ WKH DFWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH RI ++ D WUDXPDWLF EUDLQ LQMXUHG SDWLHQW GHVFULEHG LQ 6FKZDUW] HW DO f WR WKH DFWLRQ SHUIRUPDQFH RI D OHIWKDQGHG ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG SDWLHQW GHVFULEHG E\ 2FKLSD HW DO f ZKR GLVSOD\HG LGHDWLRQDO FRQFHSWXDOf DSUD[LD $OWKRXJK ERWK SDWLHQWV SURGXFHG QXPHURXV HUURUV RI DFWLRQ GXULQJ DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ ++ HYLQFHG PLVXVH RI WRROV ZLWK VSDUHG WRRO IXQFWLRQ NQRZOHGJH ZKLOH WKH 2FKLSD HW DO f SDWLHQW HYLQFHG VSDUHG SURGXFWLRQ ZLWK LPSDLUHG WRRO IXQFWLRQ NQRZOHGJH 6FKZDUW] HW DO f SRVLWHG WKDW IURQWDO DSUD[LD DQG LGHDWLRQDO DSUD[LD KDYH GLIIHUHQW XQGHUO\LQJ PHFKDQLVPV LQ WKDW SDWLHQWV ZLWK LGHDWLRQDO DSUD[LD KDYH LPSDLUHG FRQFHSWXDOVHPDQWLF NQRZOHGJH ZKLOH SDWLHQWV ZLWK IURQWDO DSUD[LD KDYH VSDUHG FRQFHSWXDOVHPDQWLF NQRZOHGJH 0D\HU HW DO f DQG 6FKZDUW] HW DO f DOVR DSSOLHG WKH DFWLRQ FRGLQJ V\VWHP WR WKH SHUIRUPDQFHV RI D VXEMHFW ZKR VXIIHUHG D KHPRUUKDJLF VWURNH -+ GLVFXVVHG LQ 6FKZDUW] HW DO f DQG D VXEMHFW ZKR VXIIHUHG GLIIXVH GDPDJH IROORZLQJ WUDXPDWLF EUDLQ LQMXU\ -. GLVFXVVHG LQ 6FKZDUW] HW DO f GXULQJ WZR DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ $OWKRXJK WKH HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ WKH SDWLHQWV ZHUH GHVFULEHG WKH QDWXUH RI WKH SDWLHQWVn EUDLQ GDPDJH GLG QRW DOORZ WKH UHVHDUFKHUV WR PDNH FRQFOXVLRQV DERXW EUDLQEHKDYLRU UHODWLRQVKLSV %RWK KHPRUUKDJLF VWURNHV DQG WUDXPDWLF EUDLQ LQMXU\ PD\ EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK PRUH GDPDJH WR WKH EUDLQ

PAGE 49

WKDQ DSSHDUV RQ &705, VFDQV 2QH RWKHU OLPLWDWLRQ RI WKLV VHULHV RI VWXGLHV LV WKDW DOWKRXJK LW ZDV QRW WKHLU LQWHQWLRQ WR LQFOXGH LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD DV D SRVVLEOH IDFWRU LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD LV OLNHO\ WR KDYH EHHQ SUHVHQW LQ WKHLU FDVHV DQG PD\ KDYH EHHQ DQ LPSRUWDQW IDFWRU 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f SURSRVHG D f8QLILHG +\SRWKHVLVf WR H[SODLQ WKH HUURUV RI DFWLRQ REVHUYHG LQ SDWLHQWV ZLWK IURQWDO DQGRU LGHDWLRQDO DSUD[LD 7KH DXWKRUf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fORZf RU fKLJKf LV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VFKHPD ZLWKLQ WKH JRDO RI WKH WDVN 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f GLIIHUHQWLDWHG EHWZHHQ OHDUQHG URXWLQH DFWLRQV DQG QRYHO RU QRQURXWLQH DFWLRQV LQ WKDW SUHH[LVWLQJ FRQQHFWLRQV H[LVWHG EHWZHHQ KLJK OHYHO DQG ORZ OHYHO VFKHPDV IRU OHDUQHG URXWLQH DFWLRQV EXW QRW IRU QRYHO

PAGE 50

6HPDQWLFV )LJXUH 6FKHPDWLF ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH 8QLILHG +\SRWKHVLV IURP 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP f

PAGE 51

RU QRQURXWLQH DFWLRQV 7KH SUHH[LVWLQJ FRQQHFWLRQV EHWZHHQ KLJKHU DQG ORZ OHYHO VFKHPDV DOORZ OHDUQHG URXWLQH DFWLRQV WR EHFRPH PRUH DXWRPDWLF EXW DOVR PRUH SURQH WR HUURU 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP 5HDVRQ f $FFRUGLQJ WR 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f LW LV WKH HYRFDWLRQ RI DWWHQWLRQDO IDFWRUV DW FHUWDLQ FULWLFDO SRLQWV GXULQJ DFWLYDWLRQ RI KLJKHU OHYHO VFKHPDV ZKLFK RSSRVHV HUURU WHQGHQFLHV DQG NHHSV WKH HUURU UDWH ORZ 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f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t 6KDOOLFH f 6XSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQ KDV EHHQ HTXDWHG ZLWK ZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ E\ %DGGHOH\ f 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f SURSRVHG WKDW fIRU WKH SDWLHQW ZLWK IDXOW\ DFFHVV WR JHVWXUH HQJUDPV RU SHUFHSWXDOVHPDQWLF SURFHVVLQJ VXFFHVVIXO SHUIRUPDQFH RI IDPLOLDU SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ GHSHQGV PRUH KHDYLO\ RQ >DWWHQWLRQDO@ FRQWURO SURFHVVHVf 3O f 7KH VHFRQG NH\ DVVXPSWLRQ RI WKH 8QLILHG +\SRWKHVLV LV WKDW EHKDYLRUDO FRQVHTXHQFHV RI WKLV LQFUHDVHG GHSHQGHQF\ RQ VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ GHSHQG XSRQ D FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKH VHYHULW\ RI GDPDJH WR WKH $76 V\VWHP DQG WKH VWDWXV RI WKH VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ LWVHOI 7KDW LV D GHILFLW LQ RQH FRPSRQHQW DFWLYDWLRQ RI DFWLRQ VFKHPDV RU DWWHQWLRQDO FRQWURO V\VWHPVf RI WKH 8QLILHG

PAGE 52

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t %X[EDXP f 7KH 5HODWLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ $SUD[LD DQG 3UDJPDWLF $FWLRQ ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW QHLWKHU WKH PRGHO SURSRVHG E\ 5RWKL HW DO f RU WKH 8QLILHG +\SRWKHVLV SURSRVHG E\ 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f FDQ LQGHSHQGHQWO\ DFFRXQW IRU DOO RI WKH HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ EUDLQGDPDJHG SDWLHQWV GXULQJ JRDOGLUHFWHG DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQf ,Q WKH IROORZLQJ GLVFXVVLRQ SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ ZLOO EH GHILQHG DV WKH VHTXHQFHV RI PRYHPHQWV UHTXLUHG WR SURJUHVV WRZDUG DQG REWDLQ D GHILQDEOH JRDO 7KH JRDO PD\ EH GLUHFWHG WRZDUG FRPPRQ HYHU\GD\ DFWLRQV VXFK DV HDWLQJ RU XQFRPPRQ DFWLRQV VXFK DV EXLOGLQJ D KRXVH XQFRPPRQ DFWLRQV PD\ YDU\ IURP SHUVRQ WR SHUVRQ GHSHQGLQJ XSRQ OLIH H[SHULHQFHVf ,Q FRQWUDVW PRYHPHQW LV GHILQHG DV FKDQJHV LQ SRVWXUH SODFH RU SRVLWLRQ ZKLFK FDQ RFFXU ZLWKLQ DQ DFWLRQ DV ZHOO DV LQGHSHQGHQWO\ $FWLRQV DQG PRYHPHQWV KDYH EHHQ GLVDPELJXDWHG WR UHSUHVHQW WKH QRWLRQ WKDW PRYHPHQWV DUH WKH LQKHUHQW PRWRU DVSHFW RI SHUIRUPLQJ DFWLRQV LH

PAGE 53

PRYHPHQWV DUH WKH ILQDO FRPPRQ GHQRPLQDWRU IRU DOO DFWLRQVf DQG WKDW DFWLRQV DUH D VHULHV RI PRYHPHQWV DUUDQJHG LQ KLHUDUFKLFDOO\ RUJDQL]HG VFKHPDV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH HQG JRDO 8VLQJ WKHVH GHILQLWLRQV RI SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ DQG PRYHPHQWV WKH 5RWKL HW DO f &RJQLWLYH 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO 0RGHO RI /LPE 3UD[LV DQG $SUD[LD HQFRPSDVVHV DVSHFWV UHODWHG WR WKH SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQ SURGXFWLRQ DQG FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI GLVFUHHW PRYHPHQWV KHUHDIWHU UHIHUUHG WR VLPSO\ DV fPRYHPHQWVff ZKLOH WKH 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f 8QLILHG +\SRWKHVLV FRYHUV DVSHFWV UHODWHG WR WKH SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQ SURGXFWLRQ DQG FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI DFWLRQV ZKLFK LQFRUSRUDWH GLVFUHHW PRYHPHQWV KHUHDIWHU UHIHUUHG WR VLPSO\ DV fDFWLRQVff DQG LW LV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RU LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKHVH WZR WKHRULHV WKDW LV FUXFLDO IRU WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ ,Q WKH IROORZLQJ GLVFXVVLRQ D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ PRYHPHQWV DQG DFWLRQV ZLOO EH SURSRVHG ZKLFK ZLOO WKHQ EH XVHG DV D IRXQGDWLRQ IRU H[DPLQLQJ WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI HUURUV GXULQJ JRDOGLUHFWHG DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ ,W LV SURSRVHG WKDW KLJKHU OHYHO DFWLRQ VFKHPDV GLVFXVVHG E\ 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f DFFHVV ORZHU OHYHO VFKHPDV RI PRYHPHQW RUJDQL]DWLRQ IRXQG LQ WKH DFWLRQ RXWSXW OH[LFRQ DV GLVFXVVHG E\ 5RWKL HW DO f )LJXUH f 7KH DFWLRQ RXWSXW OH[LFRQ KHUHDIWHU UHIHUUHG WR DV SUD[LFRQ DV VXJJHVWHG E\ +HLOPDQ DQG 5RWKL f LQ WXUQ DFFHVVHV WKH LQQHUYDWRU\ SDWWHUQV DQG WKH PRWRU V\VWHP LQ WKDW RUGHU IRU SURGXFWLRQ RI WKH PRYHPHQW 5RWKL HW DO f )LJXUH f :LWKLQ WKH KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDV LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW REMHFW WRRO VHTXHQFH DQG RWKHU DVSHFWV RI DFWLRQ DUH RUJDQL]HG KLHUDUFKLFDOO\ LQWR SODQV RU VFULSWV DFFRUGLQJ WR VSHFLILF JRDOV ,W LV DOVR SURSRVHG WKDW WKH KLJK OHYHO DFWLRQ VFKHPDV DOVR FRQWDLQ DWWULEXWHV RI PRYHPHQW SODQQLQJ EXW XQGHU QRUPDO FLUFXPVWDQFHV WKH SUD[LFRQ WDNHV SUHFHGHQFH

PAGE 54

/RZ /HYHO 6FKHPDV +LJK /HYHO 6FKHPDV 0RYHPHQWV $FWLRQV 5RWKL HO DO f 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP f )LJXUH 5HODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ $FWLRQV DQG 0RYHPHQWV

PAGE 55

/2: /(9(/ 6&+(0$6 +,*+ /(9(/ 6&+(0$6 )LJXUH %UHDNGRZQ RI /RZ /HYHO 6FKHPDV

PAGE 56

$FFRUGLQJ WR 6FKZDUW] HW DO f WKHUH PD\ EH PDQ\ GLIIHUHQW OHYHOV RI VFKHPD 7KDW LV IRU RQH VHW RI JRDOGLUHFWHG DFWLRQ VHTXHQFHV D SDUWLFXODU VFKHPD PD\ EH RUJDQL]HG DV D fORZHU OHYHO VFKHPDf ZKHUHDV LQ D GLIIHUHQW VHW WKH VDPH VFKHPD PD\ EH RUJDQL]HG DV D fKLJKHU OHYHO VFKHPDf ,Q IDFW LW LV SRVVLEOH WKDW VFKHPDV PD\ EH RUJDQL]HG LQ VXFK DV ZD\ WKDW D ORZHU OHYHO VFKHPD PD\ EH LQFOXGHG LQ D KLJKHU OHYHO VFKHPD ZKLFK LV LQFOXGHG LQ DQ HYHQ KLJKHU OHYHO VFKHPD DQG HWF ,Q RUGHU WR FRQFHSWXDOL]H WKLV IUDPHZRUN LW LV SURSRVHG WKDW ZLWKLQ WKH KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDWLF V\VWHP LQIRUPDWLRQ LV VWRUHG LQ D GLVWULEXWHG QHWZRUN IUDPHZRUN DQG LV WKHUHIRUH VXEMHFW WR DVVXPSWLRQV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SDUDOOHOGLVWULEXWHGSURFHVVLQJ 3'3f PRGHOV DV GHVFULEHG E\ 5XPHOKDUW DQG 0F&OHOODQ f )RU H[DPSOH WKUHH DVVXPSWLRQV DERXW FRQQHFWLRQV EHWZHHQ QRGHV WKDW DUH IUHTXHQWO\ DFWLYDWHG WRJHWKHU DUH f DV WKH QXPEHU RI WLPHV RI DFWLYDWLRQ LQFUHDVHV WKH VWUHQJWK RI WKH FRQQHFWLRQ ZLOO DOVR LQFUHDVH f DV VWUHQJWK LQFUHDVHV WKH QRGHV DUH DFWLYDWHG IDVWHU DQG f WKH VWURQJHU WKH FRQQHFWLRQV WKH OHVV OLNHO\ WKH\ DUH WR EH GHJUDGHG 5XPHOKDUW t 0F&OHOODQ 1DGHDX f 7KH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ DVVXPSWLRQV IRU WKH KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDWLF V\VWHP DUH f VWURQJHU DVVRFLDWLRQV RFFXU EHWZHHQ LQIRUPDWLRQVFKHPDV WKDW DUH IUHTXHQWO\ DFWLYDWHG WRJHWKHU f WKH VFKHPDV ZLWK WKH PRVW DFWLYDWLRQ EHFRPH OHDUQHG URXWLQH DFWLRQV DQG HYHQWXDOO\ EHFRPH DXWRPDWLF DQG f WKH VFKHPDV IRU FRPPRQ OHDUQHG DFWLRQV DUH OHVV OLNHO\ WR VKRZ GHILFLWV IROORZLQJ EUDLQ GDPDJH GXH WR fD JUHDW GHDO RI UHGXQGDQF\ >LQWHUFRQQHFWLYHQHVV@ LQ WKH QHXUDO V\VWHPV UHVSRQVLEOH IRU SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQf 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP Sf 1RUPDQ DQG 6KDOOLFH f DQG 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f GLVFXVVHG WKH UROH RI VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ 6$:0f LQ WKH

PAGE 57

SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQV 7KH UROH RI 6$:0 ZDV WR PRQLWRU DFWLRQV DQG VWHS LQ DV QHHGHG GXULQJ WKHLU SURGXFWLRQ VR HUURUV ZRXOG EH FLUFXPYHQWHG 6$:0 DOVR FRQWULEXWHG WKH PRVW UHVRXUFHV WR PRQLWRU QRYHO DFWLRQV D OHVVHU DPRXQW RI UHVRXUFHV WR PRQLWRU QRQURXWLQH DFWLRQV DQG WKH OHDVW DPRXQW RI UHVRXUFHV WR PRQLWRU URXWLQH RU OHDUQHG DFWLRQV ZKLFK FRXOG HYHQWXDOO\ EHFRPH DXWRPDWLF DQG EH SURGXFHG FRUUHFWO\ ZLWKRXW DWWHQWLRQDO UHVRXUFHV 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP f 7R DFFRXQW IRU WKHVH GLIIHUHQW DVSHFWV RI DFWLRQV WKH FRQQHFWLRQ EHWZHHQ H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQV DV GHILQHG E\ 6FKZDUW] HW DO f DQG WKH RXWSXW SUD[LFRQ KDV EHHQ GLYLGHG LQWR IRXU URXWHV HDFK UHTXLULQJ GLIIHUHQW DPRXQWV RI DWWHQWLRQDO UHVRXUFHV )LJXUH f ,W LV SURSRVHG WKDW WKH URXWH IRU SURGXFWLRQ RI DXWRPDWLF DFWLRQV WKRVH OHDUQHG URXWLQH DFWLRQV WKDW DUH SHUIRUPHG LQ FRQWH[W XVLQJ DFWXDO WRROV DQG REMHFWVf E\SDVVHV DWWHQWLRQ DQG DFFHVVHV WKH RXWSXW SUD[LFRQ GLUHFWO\ EHFDXVH WKH FRPELQHG HIIHFWV RI WKH QDWXUDO FRQWH[W WRROV DQG REMHFWV PD\ EH HQRXJK LQIRUPDWLRQ WR DFWLYDWH WKDW SDUW RI WKH PRWRU V\VWHP VSHFLDOL]HG IRU RYHUOHDPHG DXWRPDWLF PRYHPHQWV 3DLOODUG 0DUVGHQ 5DSVFDN HW DO 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP f 7KH URXWHV IRU URXWLQH DQG QRQURXWLQH DFWLRQV ERWK DFFHVV WKH RXWSXW SUD[LFRQ EXW QRQURXWLQH DFWLRQV UHTXLUH JUHDWHU DWWHQWLRQDO UHVRXUFHV WKDQ URXWLQH DFWLRQV IRU DFFXUDWH SURGXFWLRQ $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH URXWH IRU QRYHO DFWLRQV DFFHVVHV WKH LQQHUYDWRU\ SDWWHUQV UDWKHU WKDQ WKH RXWSXW SUD[LFRQ EHFDXVH E\ GHILQLWLRQ fQRYHOf PRYHPHQWV KDYH QRW EHHQ SURGXFHG SUHYLRXVO\ DQG WKHUHIRUH ZRXOG QRW KDYH HQJUDPV UHSUHVHQWHG LQ WKH RXWSXW SUD[LFRQ 1RYHO DFWLRQV DOVR UHTXLUH PRUH DWWHQWLRQDO UHVRXUFHV WKDQ HLWKHU URXWLQH RU QRQURXWLQH DFWLRQV

PAGE 58

/2: /(9(/ 6&+(0$6 +,*+ /(9(/ 6&+(0$6 )LJXUH %UHDNGRZQ RI +LJK /HYHO 6FKHPDV

PAGE 59

%HFDXVH WKH RXWSXW SUD[LFRQ UHFHLYHV LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP WKH VHPDQWLF V\VWHP DQG WKH VHPDQWLF V\VWHP LV DFFHVVHG E\ WKH SHUFHSWXDO V\VWHPV ERWK V\VWHPV VHPDQWLF DQG SHUFHSWXDOf KDYH EHHQ DGGHG WR WKH PRGHO DFFRUGLQJ WR 5RWKL HW DO f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f DQG 5HDVRQ f DOVR GLVFXVVHG YLVXDO DXGLWRU\ DQG WDFWLOH SHUFHSWXDO V\VWHPV DV LPSRUWDQW LQSXW V\VWHPV IRU RQOLQH PRQLWRULQJ DQG IHHGEDFN WR HQVXUH FRUUHFW DFWLRQ SURGXFWLRQ 7R DFFRPPRGDWH WKHVH UHSRUWV WKH SHUFHSWXDO V\VWHP KDV EHHQ DGGHG WR WKH KLJK OHYHO DFWLRQ VFKHPD V\VWHP ZLWK LQSXW FRQQHFWLRQV WR H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQV WKH SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI DFWLRQ VFKHPDVf DQG DWWHQWLRQ 6XSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\f LQ )LJXUH 7KH SHUFHSWXDO V\VWHPV WKHUHIRUH VHQG LQIRUPDWLRQ WR ERWK WKH ORZ PRYHPHQWf DQG KLJK DFWLRQf VFKHPD V\VWHPV ,Q VXPPDU\ WKH SURSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DSUD[LD DQG SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ GHVFULEHG DERYH VHSDUDWHG WKH FRPSRQHQWV RI SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ LQWR ORZ DQG KLJK OHYHO

PAGE 60

/2: /(9(/ 6&+(0$6 +,*+ /(9(/ 6&+(0$6 $XGLWRU\9HUEDO ,QSXW $XGLWRU\ $QDO\VLV 3KRQRORJLFDO ,QSXW /H[LFRQ 9EXDO2EMHFW ,QSXW 9LVXDO*HVWXUDO ,QSXW 9LVXDO $QDO\VLV $ )LJXUH $GGLWLRQ RI 3HUFHSWXDO ,QSXW WR /RZ /HYHO 6FKHPDV 5RWKL HW DO f

PAGE 61

)LJXUH $GGLWLRQ RI 6HPDQWLF 6\VWHP WR +LJK /HYHO 6FKHPDV

PAGE 62

/2: /(9(/ 6&+(0$6 +,*+ /(9(/ 6&+(0$6 $XGLWRU\9HUEDO ,QSXW 9LVXDO2EMHFW ,QSXW 9LVXDO*HVWXUDO ,QSXW RR )LJXUH 3URSRVHG 5HODWLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ $SUD[LD DQG 3UDJPDWLF $FWLRQ

PAGE 63

VFKHPDWLF V\VWHPV 7KH ORZ OHYHO V\VWHP WDUJHWV SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQ SURGXFWLRQ DQG FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI PRYHPHQW DQG PRYHPHQW VHTXHQFHV ZKLFK DUH WKH ILQDO FRPPRQ GHQRPLQDWRU RI DFWLRQV 7KH KLJK OHYHO V\VWHP LQFOXGHV SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQ SURGXFWLRQ DQG FRPSUHKHQVLRQ RI DFWLRQV DQG DFWLRQ VHTXHQFHV VFKHPDVf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f IURP WKH DELOLW\ WR SODQ DQG RUJDQL]H PRYHPHQWV DW WKH ORZ OHYHOf $ GHILFLW LQ WKH DELOLW\ WR SODQ RUJDQL]H DQG H[HFXWH DFWLRQV KDV EHHQ GRFXPHQWHG E\ 0D\HU HW DO f 6FKZDUW] HW DO f DQG 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f ZKR VWXGLHG SDWLHQWV ZLWK JHQHUDOL]HG EUDLQ GDPDJH IURP FORVHG KHDG LQMXU\ DQG ODEHOHG WKH GHILFLW IURQWDO DSUD[LD DQG 6LULJX =DOOD 3LOORQ *UDIPDQ $JLG DQG 'XERLV f DQG 6LULJX =DOOD 3LOORQ *UDIPDQ 'XERLV DQG $JLG f ZKR VWXGLHG SDWLHQWV ZLWK IURQWDO OREH GDPDJH DQG ODEHOHG WKH GHILFLWV DV SUREOHPV LQ PDQDJHULDO NQRZOHGJH +RZHYHU 0D\HU HW DO f 6FKZDUW] HW DO f 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f DQG 6LULJX

PAGE 64

HW DO LQ SUHVVf GLG QRW WHVW IRU DSUD[LD D GHILFLW LQ WKH DELOLW\ WR SODQ RUJDQL]H DQG H[HFXWH PRYHPHQWV ,GHRPRWRU DSUD[LD LV ZHOO GRFXPHQWHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH E\ /LHSPDQQ EE F f 'H5HQ]L f 'H5HQ]L HW DO f +HLOPDQ HW DO f 5RWKL HW DO f 5RWKL DQG +HLOPDQ f 6LULJX &RKHQ 'XKDPHO 3LOORQ 'XERLV DQG $JLG f DQG )RXQGDV HW DO f ,GHRPRWRU DSUD[LD KDV EHHQ ORFDOL]HG WR GDPDJH LQ WKH GRPLQDQW KHPLVSKHUH /LHSPDQQ t 0DDV *HVFKZLQG +HLOPDQ DQG 3RL]QHU 0HULHQV &ODUN 0DFDXOH\ 5RWKL t +HLOPDQ f DQG VSHFLILFDOO\ WR SRVWHULRU SDULHWDO FRUWH[ +HLOPDQ )UHXQG DQG 3RL]QHU HW DO f +RZHYHU WKH IRFXV RI WKH DERYH VWXGLHV ZDV RQ HLWKHU KLJK OHYHO DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ DELOLWLHV ZLWKRXW GRFXPHQWLQJ SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RI ORZ OHYHO IDFWRUV RU YLFH YHUVDf§ IRFXV RQ ORZ OHYHO DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ DELOLWLHV ZLWKRXW GRFXPHQWLQJ SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RI KLJK OHYHO IDFWRUV 2QO\ RQH VWXG\ WR GDWH KDV H[DPLQHG ERWK ORZ DQG KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDWLF IXQFWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH VDPH SDWLHQW 6FKZDUW] HW DO f H[DPLQHG DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG SUD[LV LQ D SDWLHQW -. ZKR VXIIHUHG EUDLQ GDPDJH DV WKH UHVXOW RI FORVHG KHDG LQMXU\ 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW -. HYLQFHG VLJQLILFDQW GHILFLWV LQ ERWK WKH SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI DFWLRQV DQG WKH SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI PRYHPHQWV 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ GXH WR WKH H[WHQW RI EUDLQ GDPDJH OHVLRQV LQ ULJKW IURQWDO OREH ELODWHUDO WHPSRURSDULHWDO OREH DQG OHIW RFFLSLWDO OREHf EUDLQEHKDYLRU UHODWLRQVKLSV FRXOG QRW EH PDGH )XUWKHU VWXGLHV DUH QHHGHG WR GRFXPHQW ZKHWKHU SDWLHQWV ZLWK LPSDLUHG SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI DFWLRQV KDYH VSDUHG SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI PRYHPHQWV DQG YLVH YHUVD +RZHYHU EHFDXVH WKH VXSSOHPHQWDU\ PRWRU DUHD 60$f

PAGE 65

ORFDWHG LQ WKH SUHIURQWDO J\UXV KDV EHHQ LPSOLFDWHG LQ WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI OHDUQHG PRYHPHQWV +HLOPDQ f DQG LW LV SURSRVHG WKDW WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI PRYHPHQWV LV WKH ILQDO FRPPRQ SDWKZD\ IRU DOO DFWLRQV UHVHDUFKHUV PXVW EH VWULFW DV WR ORFDWLRQ RI OHVLRQ H ZLWKZLWKRXW GDPDJH WR 60$ LQ SDWLHQWV ZLWK IURQWDO OREH OHVLRQVf DQG LQ PRGDOLW\ RI WDVN LH WHVW DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ WKURXJK SLFWXUHV DQG QRW WKURXJK DFWXDO SURGXFWLRQ IRU SDWLHQWV ZLWK LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD DV WKH LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD ZLOO DIIHFW SURGXFWLRQf ZKHQ VHOHFWLQJ VXEMHFWV DQG H[SHULPHQWDO WDVNV ,W VKRXOG DOVR EH QRWHG WKDW GXH WR WKH SURSRVDO WKDW WKH RXWSXW SUD[LFRQ LV WKH ILQDO FRPPRQ SDWKZD\ IRU SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQV SDWLHQWV ZLWK LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD KDYH WKH SRWHQWLDO WR EH LPSDLUHG LQ SURGXFWLRQ DFURVV WDVNV FOLQLFDO DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO 7KLV LPSDLUPHQW DFURVV WDVNV KDV EHHQ GRFXPHQWHG H[SHULPHQWDOO\ E\ )RXQGDV HW DO f DQG WKURXJK FDVH UHSRUWV E\ -DFREV 0DFDXOH\ $GDLU *ROG 5RWKL DQG +HLOPDQ f DQG 6LULJX HW DO f $ VHFRQG SUHGLFWLRQ VWDWHV WKDW GHILFLWV LQ DFWLRQ VHPDQWLFV VKRXOG DIIHFW WKH IXQFWLRQDO XVH RI WRROV ZLWKLQ KLJKHU OHYHO VFKHPDV LQ FRQWH[W RU SDUW RI D JRDOGLUHFWHG VFKHPDf DV ZHOO DV ZLWKLQ ORZHU OHYHO VFKHPDV RXW RI FRQWH[W RU LQGHSHQGHQW RI JRDO GLUHFWHG VFKHPDf 2FKLSD HW DO f UHSRUWHG D OHIWKDQGHG SDWLHQW ZLWK D ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH OHVLRQ ZKR GHPRQVWUDWHG GHILFLWV LQ WKH IXQFWLRQDO XVH RI WRROV DFURVV KLJK DQG ORZ OHYHO WDVNV +LJK OHYHO WDVNV LQFOXGHG HDWLQJ D PHDO DQG ORZ OHYHO WDVNV LQFOXGHG SDQWRPLPLQJ WR FRPPDQG HJ VKRZ PH KRZ \RX XVH VFLVVRUVf 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH SDWLHQW ZDV LPSDLUHG LQ DOO WDVNV LQ ZKLFK WKH IXQFWLRQDO UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WRRO DQG REMHFW ZHUH LPSRUWDQW ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG KRZHYHU WKDW 2FKLSD HW DO f ODEHOHG WKH SDWLHQWfV GLVRUGHU fLGHDWLRQDO DSUD[LDf DQG GHILQHG LW DV D ORVV RI FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH UHODWHG WR WRRO XVH 5D\PHU f DQG 5D\PHU DQG 2FKLSD

PAGE 66

f ODEHOHG WKLV GLVRUGHU fFRQFHSWXDO DSUD[LDf ZKLFK EHWWHU GHVFULEHV WKLV JOREDO LPSDLUPHQW RI ERWK ORZ DQG KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD IXQFWLRQV $ WKLUG SUHGLFWLRQ VWDWHV WKDW HUURUV RI DFWLRQ SURGXFHG E\ QRQ EUDLQGDPDJHG SHRSOH VKRXOG UHODWH WR KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD SUREOHPV WKH SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI DFWLRQV DQG QRW ORZ OHYHO VFKHPD SUREOHPV WKH SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI PRYHPHQWV f1RUPDOf SHRSOH KDYH LQWDFW SUD[LV V\VWHPV DQG VKRXOG WKHUHIRUH SURGXFH VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV DFFXUDWHO\ +RZHYHU WKH FRUUHFW SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQV GHSHQGV XSRQ WKH PHGLDWLRQ RI VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ DQG LI D SHUVRQ LV QRW fSD\LQJ HQRXJK DWWHQWLRQf RU EHFRPHV GLVWUDFWHG GXULQJ WKH WDVN DW KDQG D GLIIHUHQW DFWLRQ FRUUHFWO\ SURGXFHG PD\ EH SHUIRUPHG 5HDVRQ f DQG 5HDVRQ DQG 0\FLHOVND f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f FODVVLILHG WKH HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV GXULQJ VL[ GDLO\ DFWLYLWLHV LQFOXGLQJ PDNLQJ WRDVW DQG ZUDSSLQJ D SUHVHQW XVLQJ 5HDVRQfV f FODVVLILFDWLRQ V\VWHP 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV SURGXFHG HUURUV QRW RQO\ IURP WKH FDWHJRULHV GHVFULEHG E\ 5HDVRQ f EXW DOVR LQ IRXU FDWHJRULHV QRW GHVFULEHG

PAGE 67

E\ 5HDVRQ f JUDVSVSDWLDO PLVRULHQWDWLRQ VSDWLDO PLVHVWLPDWLRQ WRRO RPLVVLRQ DQG TXDOLW\ RI PRYHPHQW 7KHVH IRXU HUURU W\SHV DUH K\SRWKHWLFDOO\ UHODWHG WR WKH ORZ OHYHO VFKHPDWLF V\VWHP DQG ZRXOG EH SUHGLFWHG LQ SDWLHQWV ZLWK GDPDJH WR WKH SUD[LV V\VWHP E\ WKLV PRGHO 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXPfV f SDWLHQWV KDG KHWHURJHQHRXV HWLRORJLHV DQG ZHUH QRW WHVWHG IRU FRQFHSWXDO RU LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD DQG WKHUHIRUH GLUHFW HYLGHQFH WR VXSSRUW WKLV SUHGLFWLRQ FDQ QRW EH REWDLQHG )XUWKHU VWXGLHV DUH QHFHVVDU\ WR H[DPLQH WKH W\SHV RI HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV DQG WR HVWDEOLVK D FODVVLILFDWLRQ V\VWHP XVLQJ WKH IUDPHZRUN RI WKH SURSRVHG PRGHO &ODVVLILFDWLRQ RI $FWLRQ (UURUV 7KH W\SHV RI HUURUV GHVFULEHG E\ )RXQGDV HW DO f 2FKLSD HW DO f 0D\HU HW DOf 6FKZDUW] HW DO f 6LULJX HW DO f DQG 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f FDQ EH GLYLGHG LQWR WZR FDWHJRULHV EDVHG XSRQ WKH ORZ PRYHPHQWf DQG KLJK DFWLRQf VFKHPD V\VWHPV SURSRVHG E\ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS GHVFULEHG DERYH )LJXUH f 7KDW LV HUURU W\SHV WKDW UHIOHFW GHILFLWV LQ WKH SUD[LV SURGXFWLRQ V\VWHPV 5RWKL HW DO f ZRXOG PDNH XS ORZ OHYHO VFKHPDWLF V\VWHP HUURUV ZKLOH HUURU W\SHV WKDW UHIOHFW GHILFLWV LQ WKH SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI DFWLRQ LQ WKH H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQ DQG DWWHQWLRQDO FRQWURO PHFKDQLVPV 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP f ZRXOG PDNH XS KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDWLF HUURUV +RZHYHU VRPH W\SHV RI HUURUV FRXOG EH SURGXFHG E\ ERWK D KLJK DQG D ORZ OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLW )RU H[DPSOH WKH PLVXVH RI D IRUN WR VWLU WHD FRXOG EH H[SODLQHG E\ D GHILFLW LQ WKH SUD[LV FRQFHSWXDO V\VWHP D ORZ OHYHO VFKHPD HUURU RU E\ D GHILFLW LQ DWWHQWLRQDO FRQWURO RI WKH DFWLRQ VHTXHQFHV WKH SDWLHQW KDG MXVW ILQLVKHG XVLQJ D IRUN WR HDW PHDW DQG GLG QRW VZLWFK WRROV EHIRUH VWLUULQJ

PAGE 68

WHDf D KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD HUURU 2WKHU W\SHV RI HUURUV VXFK DV WKH ERG\ SDUW DV WRRO HUURUV UHSRUWHG E\ 5RWKL HW DO f FDQ RQO\ EH H[SODLQHG E\ D ORZ OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLW +RZHYHU QR VWXG\ WR GDWH KDV PHDVXUHG GHILFLWV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ORZ DQG KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDV ZLWKLQ WKH VDPH JURXS RI SDWLHQWV LQ RUGHU WR WHDVH RXW ZKLFK DFWLRQ HUURUV DUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ZKLFK W\SH RI GHILFLW )RXQGDV HW DO f DQG 2FKLSD HW DO f WHVWHG WKH SUD[LV SURGXFWLRQ DQG FRQFHSWXDO V\VWHPV ORZ OHYHO VFKHPDf ZKLOH 0D\HU HW DO f 6FKZDUW] HW DO f 6LULJX HW DO f DQG 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f WHVWHG H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQ PDQDJHULDO NQRZOHGJH DQG SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQDO DELOLWLHV KLJKHU OHYHO VFKHPDf 6FKZDUW] HW DO f PHDVXUHG ERWK ORZ DQG KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD DELOLWLHV LQ D SDWLHQW ZLWK GLIIXVH EUDLQ GDPDJH DIWHU FORVHG KHDG LQMXU\ +RZHYHU DQ 05, RI WKLV SDWLHQW VKRZHG IRFDO OHVLRQV LQ WKH OHIW RFFLSLWRSDULHWDO DUHD ULJKW IURQWDO DUHD DQG ELODWHUDO WHPSRUDO DUHDV ZKLFK QHJDWHG DQ\ DWWHPSW WR HVWDEOLVK EUDLQEHKDYLRU UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG H[DPLQH WKH XQGHUO\LQJ QDWXUH RI DFWLRQ HUURUV )RXQGDV HW DO f SURSRVHG WKDW WKH HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV LQ WKHLU VWXG\ FRXOG EH GLYLGHG LQWR WZR JURXSV SURGXFWLRQ DQG FRQFHSWXDO 3URGXFWLRQ HUURUV FRQVLVWHG RI PRYHPHQW WLPLQJ DQG VHTXHQFH HUURUV DQG FRQFHSWXDO HUURUV FRQVLVWHG RI PLVXVH DQG PLVVHOHFWLRQ RI D WRRO IRU WKH LQWHQGHG WDVN +RZHYHU DV GLVFXVVHG DERYH SURGXFWLRQ DQG FRQFHSWXDO HUURUV FDQ RFFXU DV WKH UHVXOW RI GHILFLWV LQ ORZ DQGRU KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD V\VWHPV 3URGXFWLRQ HUURUV KDYH EHHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD UHVXOWLQJ IURP GLVFUHWH OHVLRQV RI WKH GRPLQDQW OHIW KHPLVSKHUH )RXQGDV HW DO f DV ZHOO DV H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQ GLVRUGHUV IURP FORVHG KHDG LQMXU\

PAGE 69

6FKZDUW] HW DL f DQG FRQFHSWXDO HUURUV KDYH EHHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LGHDWLRQDO FRQFHSWXDO DSUD[LD UHVXOWLQJ IURP GLVFUHWH OHVLRQV RI WKH GRPLQDQW KHPLVSKHUH 2FKLSD HW DO f DV ZHOO DV UHVXOWLQJ IURP JHQHUDOL]HG EUDLQ GDPDJH IURP FORVHG KHDG LQMXU\ 6FKZDUW] HW DO f +RZHYHU DOO RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV LQ WKH )RXQGDV HW DO f VWXG\ KDG XQLODWHUDO GRPLQDQW KHPLVSKHUHf EUDLQ OHVLRQV UHVXOWLQJ IURP VLQJOH VWURNHV (YHQ WKRXJK LW ZRXOG EH HDV\ WR SURSRVH WKDW WKH HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ WKHVH VXEMHFWV RULJLQDWHG LQ WKH ORZ OHYHO VFKHPD V\VWHP WKHVH VXEMHFWV DOVR HYLQFHG GHILFLWV LQ WKH RYHUDOO RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI PHDO SODQQLQJ D KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD V\VWHP +RZHYHU )RXQGDV HW DO f GLG QRW WHVW IRU SUHVHQFH RI FRQFHSWXDO DSUD[LD RU H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQ SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQDOf GHILFLWV WKDW PD\ H[SODLQ WKH SUHVHQFH RI KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD HUURUV 7KHUHIRUH DOWKRXJK )RXQGDV HW DO f DUJXHG WKDW WKH HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV VWURQJO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD LW LV QRW NQRZQ ZKHWKHU FRQFHSWXDO RU H[HFXWLYH GLVRUGHUV DOVR LQIOXHQFHG WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV ZLWKLQ WKHVH VXEMHFWV (DFK RI WKH DERYH VWXGLHV )RXQGDV HW DO 2FKLSD HW DO 0D\HU HW DO 6FKZDUW] HW DO 6LULJX HW DO LQ SUHVV DQG 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP f GRFXPHQWV WKH SUHVHQFH RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ +RZHYHU HDFK VWXG\ HYDOXDWHG VXEMHFWV ZLWK GLIIHUHQW HWLRORJLHV RI EUDLQ GDPDJH LH WUDXPDWLF EUDLQ LQMXU\ YHUVXV VWURNHf XVLQJ GLIIHUHQW HYDOXDWLRQ FULWHULD DQG DVNLQJ GLIIHUHQW UHVHDUFK K\SRWKHVHV DV WR WKH QDWXUH RI WKHVH DFWLRQ HUURUV $V D UHVXOW WKH QDWXUH RI WKH PRYHPHQW DQG DFWLRQ HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV REVHUYHG LQ QDWXUDO FRQWH[WV UHPDLQV XQFOHDU ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW E\ H[DPLQLQJ GHILFLWV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ERWK ORZ DQG KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDV LQ D KRPRJHQHRXV JURXS RI

PAGE 70

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t %X[EDXP f D KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDWLF V\VWHP IXQFWLRQ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH SURSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ PRYHPHQWV DQG DFWLRQV 7KH VHFRQG SURSRVDO VWDWHV WKDW DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ QDWXUDO FRQWH[WV PD\ EH WKH UHVXOW RI DQ LPSDLUHG VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQ ZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ 6FKZDUW] HW DO 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP f D KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDWLF V\VWHP IXQFWLRQ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH SURSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ PRYHPHQWV DQG DFWLRQV 7KH WKLUG SURSRVDO VWDWHV WKDW DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ QDWXUDO FRQWH[WV PD\ EH WKH UHVXOW RI D GHILFLW LQ DFWLRQ VHPDQWLFV RU WRROIXQFWLRQREMHFW NQRZOHGJH 2FKLSD HW DO f D IXQFWLRQ WKDW LPSOLFDWHV ERWK KLJK DQG ORZ OHYHO VFKHPDWLF V\VWHP IXQFWLRQ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH SURSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ PRYHPHQWV DQG DFWLRQV 7KH IRXUWK SURSRVDO VWDWHV WKDW WKH DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ QDWXUDO FRQWH[WV PD\ EH WKH UHVXOW RI LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD DQ LPSDLUPHQW LQ WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV )RUQLGDV HW DO f D ORZ OHYHO VFKHPDWLF V\VWHP IXQFWLRQ DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH SURSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ PRYHPHQWV DQG DFWLRQV

PAGE 71

3UHYLRXV VWXGLHV RI DFWLRQ HUURUV FRPSDUHG WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI OHIW EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV ZLWK QRUPDO FRQWUROV )RXQGDV HW DO f FRPSDUHG SDWLHQWV ZLWK KHWHURJHQHRXV HWLRORJLHV ZLWK QRUPDO FRQWUROV 6LULJX HW DO 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP f RU ZHUH VLQJOH FDVH VWXGLHV 2FKLSD HW DO 0D\HU HW DO 6FKZDUW] HW DO f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f KHPLVSKHUH LQ ULJKWKDQGHG LQGLYLGXDOV 'XH WR WKH KHWHURJHQHRXV QDWXUH RI EUDLQ GDPDJH LQ SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV DV ZHOO DV WKH ODFN RI WHVWLQJ LQ ERWK WKH ORZ DQG KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD V\VWHP FRQFOXVLRQV DERXW EUDLQEHKDYLRU UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG WKH QDWXUH RI DFWLRQ HUURUV FDQ QRW EH PDGH 7KHUHIRUH VWXGLHV DUH QHHGHG WKDW f LQFOXGH VXEMHFWV ZLWK XQLODWHUDO OHVLRQV RI WKH QRQGRPLQDQW ULJKWf KHPLVSKHUH DQG H[DPLQH ERWK ORZ DQG KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD IXQFWLRQ DQG f XVH D FRQVLVWHQW HUURU FODVVLILFDWLRQ V\VWHP WR VFRUH WKH VXEMHFWVf SHUIRUPDQFH LQ QDWXUDO FRQWH[WV ZKLFK LQFRUSRUDWHV VFRULQJ V\VWHPV GHVFULEHG WKXV IDU LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH E\ 5HDVRQ f )RXQGDV HW DO f 6FKZDUW] HW DO f DQG 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP f DQG f FRPSDUH VXEMHFWV ZLWK EUDLQ GDPDJH OLPLWHG WR RQH KHPLVSKHUH ULJKW RU OHIWf IURP D VLQJOH HYHQW UDWKHU WKDQ JHQHUDOL]HG EUDLQ GDPDJH UHVXOWLQJ IURP WUDXPD LQ RUGHU WR H[DPLQH EUDLQEHKDYLRU UHODWLRQVKLSV PRUH FOHDUO\

PAGE 72

7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ WKHUHIRUH LV WR H[DPLQH WKH QDWXUH ORZ YHUVXV KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD V\VWHP IXQFWLRQVf RI DFWLRQ HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ DQ DFWLYLW\ RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ LQ WKH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW LQ SDWLHQWV ZLWK OHIW RU ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH EUDLQ GDPDJH DV ZHOO DV QHXURORJLFDOO\ QRUPDO FRQWURO VXEMHFWV 7KH IROORZLQJ VSHFLILF TXHVWLRQV ZLOO EH DGGUHVVHG 'RHV EUDLQ GDPDJH LQ HLWKHU KHPLVSKHUH UHVXOW LQ SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW RU DUH DFWLRQ HUURUV VSHFLILF WR OHIW KHPLVSKHUH EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV" 7KH )RXQGDV HW DO f VWXG\ GRFXPHQWHG SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV E\ WHQ OHIW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV LQ WKH QDWXUDO FRQWH[W RI HDWLQJ D PHDO 2WKHU VWXGLHV GHVFULEHG DFWLRQ HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ VLQJOH VXEMHFWV ZLWK HLWKHU ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJH LQ D OHIWKDQGHG SDWLHQWf RU FORVHG KHDG LQMXU\ 2FKLSD HW DO 0D\HU HW DO 6FKZDUW] HW DO DQG 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP f %HFDXVH RQO\ WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV ZHUH H[SHULPHQWDOO\ VWXGLHG LW LV QRW NQRZQ ZKHWKHU WKH DFWLRQ HUURUV GHVFULEHG LQ WKH DERYH VWXGLHV DUH VSHFLILF WR SDWLHQWV ZLWK OHVLRQV RI WKH GRPLQDQW KHPLVSKHUH RU FDQ EH IRXQG LQ ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV DV ZHOO 8VLQJ WKH SURSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DSUD[LD DQG SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ LW LV SURSRVHG WKDW SDWLHQWV ZLWK GRPLQDQW OHIWf KHPLVSKHUH EUDLQ GDPDJH SURGXFH DFWLRQ HUURUV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK ERWK ORZ DQG KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD V\VWHP IXQFWLRQV ZKLOH SDWLHQWV ZLWK OHVLRQV RI WKH QRQGRPLQDQW ULJKWf KHPLVSKHUH SURGXFH DFWLRQ HUURUV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD V\VWHP IXQFWLRQ RQO\ 7KLV GLIIHUHQFH LV GXH WR WKH ELODWHUDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQV DQG WKH ODWHUDOL]HG UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH YLVXRNLQHVWKHWLF HQJUDPV IRU OHDUQHG PRYHPHQW WR WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH 7KLV GLIIHUHQFH ZRXOG SUHGLFW WKDW SDWLHQWV ZLWK OHIW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJH

PAGE 73

KDYH PRUH RSSRUWXQLW\ IRU HUURUV DQG PD\ WKHUHIRUH SURGXFH PRUH HUURUV WKDQ SDWLHQWV ZLWK ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH OHVLRQV $FFRUGLQJ WR WKH SURSRVHG PRGHO SDWLHQWV ZLWK OHVLRQV RI WKH QRQGRPLQDQW ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH PD\ HYLQFH DFWLRQ HUURUV DV D UHVXOW RI H[HFXWLYH V\VWHP IXQFWLRQ LPSDLUPHQW GHILFLWV LQ WKH SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI DFWLRQVf DV ZHOO DV IURP DWWHQWLRQ V\VWHP LPSDLUPHQW DV WKHVH DUH ERWK UHSUHVHQWHG ELODWHUDOO\ DQG LPSDLUPHQW RI RQH KHPLVSKHUH PD\ UHVXOW LQ GHILFLWV LQ WKHVH V\VWHPV 7KH HUURUV UHVXOWLQJ IURP DWWHQWLRQDO V\VWHP LPSDLUPHQW PD\ LQFOXGH VSDWLDO HUURUV UHVXOWLQJ IURP QHJOHFW ZKLFK KDV EHHQ GHVFULEHG DV D GLVRUGHU RI DWWHQWLRQ E\ %UDLQ f =DQJZLOO f 0F)LH 3LHUF\ DQG =DQJZLOO f 'HQQ\%URZQ DQG %DQNHU f +HLOPDQ f DQG +HLOPDQ :DWVRQ DQG 9DOHQVWHLQ f +HLOPDQ f UHSRUWHG WKDW VRPH SDWLHQWV ZLWK QHJOHFW IDLO WR HDW IURP RQH VLGH RI WKHLU SODWH EXW KDYH VSDUHG DFWLRQ SODQV IRU HDWLQJ DQG XVH RI WRROV GXULQJ HDWLQJ 7KH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV RI QR GLIIHUHQFH LQ QXPEHU RI DFWLRQ HUURUV SURGXFHG ZKLOH HDWLQJ D PHDO EHWZHHQ WKH JURXSV OHIW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG VXEMHFWV ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG VXEMHFWV DQG FRQWUROVf ZLOO EH WHVWHG D 'RHV SUHVHQFH RI GHILFLWV LQ SURGXFWLRQ RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH RI WRROIXQFWLRQ UHODWLRQVKLSV DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ SUHGLFW SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW" E $QG LI VR WR ZKDW H[WHQW GRHV HDFK W\SH RI GHILFLW ORZ OHYHO V\VWHP GHILFLWVf§ DQG DERYH DQG KLJK OHYHO V\VWHP GHILFLWVf§ DQG DERYHf SUHGLFW W\SH RI HUURU LQFOXGLQJ PLVXVH PLVVHOHFWLRQ H[WHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ LQWHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ WLPLQJ TXDQWLW\ VHTXHQFH >RPLVVLRQ DGGLWLRQ VHTXHQFH@ H[FKDQJH VXEVWLWXWLRQ PRYHPHQW DQG ERG\ SDUW DV WRROf" 'HILFLWV LQ FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH RI WRROIXQFWLRQ UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG GHILFLWV LQ SURGXFWLRQ RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV DUH SURSRVHG WR UHVXOW IURP ODWHUDOL]HG OHVLRQV

PAGE 74

WR WKH GRPLQDQW OHIWf KHPLVSKHUH LQ PRVW ULJKWKDQGHG SHRSOH 5RWKL t +HLOPDQ f DQG DUH K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ORZ OHYHO VFKHPDV LQ WKH SURSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ PRYHPHQWV DQG DFWLRQV 'HILFLWV LQ WKH SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI DFWLRQV DQG GHILFLWV LQ VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ DUH SURSRVHG WR UHVXOW IURP OHIW ULJKW DQG ELODWHUDO OHVLRQV DV ZHOO DV GHJHQHUDWLYH EUDLQ GDPDJH 6FKZDUW] HW DL f DQG DUH K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDV LQ WKH SURSRVHG FRJQLWLYH QHXURSV\FKRORJLFDO PRGHO RI SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ $V D UHVXOW DOO IRXU GHILFLWV RI KLJKHU FRUWLFDO IXQFWLRQ GHVFULEHG DERYH KDYH WKH SRWHQWLDO WR SURGXFH DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ QDWXUDO FRQWH[WV 7R H[DPLQH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKHVH GLVRUGHUV RI KLJKHU FRUWLFDO IXQFWLRQ DQG SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKH HQYLURQPHQW LQGHSHQGHQW PHDVXUHV QRQFRQWH[W GHSHQGHQWf RI HDFK GLVRUGHU ZLOO EH FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WRWDO QXPEHU RI DFWLRQ HUURUV SURGXFHG LQ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO PHDVXUHV FRQWH[W GHSHQGHQWf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f PD\ SURGXFH PRUH WRRO HUURUV PLVXVH PLV VHOHFWLRQ LQWHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ H[WHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ TXDQWLW\ RI IRRG RQ D XWHQVLO PRYHPHQW DVVRFLDWH ZLWK WKH WRRO DQG ERG\ SDUW DV WRROf WKDQ SDWLHQWV ZLWKRXW D GHILFLW LQ WKH SUD[LV SURGXFWLRQ DQGRU FRQFHSWXDO V\VWHP +\SRWKHWLFDOO\ WKH QXPEHU RI WRRO HUURUV SURGXFHG VKRXOG UHIOHFW WKH VHYHULW\ RI WKH XQGHUO\LQJ GHILFLWVf 3DWLHQWV ZLWK D

PAGE 75

GHILFLW LQ WKH SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI DFWLRQV DQGRU VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDf PD\ SURGXFH PRUH QRQWRRO HUURUV H[FKDQJH VXEVWLWXWLRQ VHTXHQFH RPLVVLRQ DGGLWLRQ DQG WLPLQJf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f DV UHVXOWLQJ IURP LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD RU SURGXFWLRQ GLVRUGHUV PD\ DOVR KDYH EHHQ LQIOXHQFHG WR D FHUWDLQ H[WHQW E\ KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWV DQG WKDW HUURUV UHSRUWHG E\ 0D\HU HW DO f 6LULJX HW DO D E f DQG 6FKZDUW] HW DO f DV UHVXOWLQJ IURP GLVRUGHUV RI DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQGRU VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ PD\ DOVR KDYH EHHQ LQIOXHQFHG E\ SURGXFWLRQ DQG FRQFHSWXDO GLVRUGHUV +RZHYHU LW LV QRW NQRZQ ZKLFK RI WKH IRXU GLVRUGHUV SUD[LV SURGXFWLRQ SUD[LV FRQFHSWXDO DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\f LV PRVW LQIOXHQWLDO LQ LQGXFLQJ DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ QDWXUDO FRQWH[WV RU LI DOO IRXU GLVRUGHUV DUH HTXDOO\ LQIOXHQWLDO 7R DQVZHU WKLV TXHVWLRQ LQGHSHQGHQW PHDVXUHV RI WKH SUD[LV SURGXFWLRQ V\VWHP SUD[LV FRQFHSWXDO V\VWHP DFWLRQ SODQQLQJRUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ ZLOO EH FRUUHODWHG ZLWK IUHTXHQF\ RI HDFK W\SH DQG FODVVLILFDWLRQ RI HUURU SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ

PAGE 76

7KH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV RI QR VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ DQ\ RQH LQGHSHQGHQW PHDVXUH DQG QXPEHU RI DFWLRQ HUURUV ZLWKLQ RQH W\SHFODVVLILFDWLRQ ZLOO EH WHVWHG

PAGE 77

&+$37(5 7:2 0(7+2'6 6RPH SDWLHQWV ZLWK EUDLQ GDPDJH SURGXFH DFWLRQ HUURUV GXULQJ DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ 0D\HU HW DO 6FKZDUW] HW DO 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP 2FKLSD HW DO )RXQGDV HW DO f ,QYHVWLJDWRUV LQ UHFHQW UHVHDUFK UHSRUWV KDYH H[DPLQHG WKH SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG SURGXFWLRQ RI WKHVH DFWLRQ HUURUV WKURXJK GLIIHUHQW WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHOV ZLWK GLIIHUHQW LQKHUHQW DVVXPSWLRQV DQG SUHGLFWLRQV XVLQJ GLIIHUHQW UHVHDUFK K\SRWKHVHV DQG HYDOXDWLRQ FULWHULD DQG LQFOXGHG VXEMHFWV ZLWK KHWHURJHQHRXV HWLRORJLHV RI EUDLQ GDPDJH 0D\HU HW DO 6FKZDUW] HW DO 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP 6LULJX HW DO LQ SUHVV 2FKLSD HW DO )RXQGDV HW DO f 7KH FXUUHQW VWXG\ GHVFULEHV D SURSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DSUD[LD DQG SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ ZKLFK VHUYHV DV D IUDPHZRUN IRU WKH H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH QDWXUH RI PRYHPHQW DQG DFWLRQ HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ SDWLHQWV ZLWK XQLODWHUDO OHIW RU ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH EUDLQ GDPDJH DV ZHOO DV PDWFKHG QRUPDO FRQWURO VXEMHFWV 6XEMHFWV 7KUHH VXEMHFW JURXSV WZR H[SHULPHQWDO JURXSV DQG RQH FRQWURO JURXSf SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KH ILUVW H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS FRQVLVWHG RI SDWLHQWV ZLWK OHIW KHPLVSKHUH VWURNHV /%'f DQG WKH VHFRQG H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS FRQVLVWHG RI SDWLHQWV ZLWK ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH VWURNHV 5%'f $OO H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV ZHUH DW OHDVW RQH PRQWK SRVW RQVHW RI WKHLU VWURNH ZHUH ULJKWKDQGHG DQG QDWLYH (QJOLVK VSHDNHUV 1RQH KDG D KLVWRU\

PAGE 78

RI SUHYLRXV QHXURORJLFDO GLVHDVH 7KH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV ZHUH DW OHDVW RQH PRQWK SRVW RQVHW RI D XQLODWHUDO &9$ IURP D VLQJOH HYHQWf DV GRFXPHQWHG E\ &705, VFDQ DQG ZHUH LGHQWLILHG DQG UHFUXLWHG WKURXJK WKH IROORZLQJ VRXUFHV 9HWHUDQV $IIDLUV 0HGLFDO &HQWHU : $ 6KDQGV 7HDFKLQJ +RVSLWDO DQG 8S5HDFK 5HKDELOLWDWLRQ &HQWHU *DLQHVYLOOH )ORULGD 6DFUHG +HDUW 0HGLFDO &HQWHU 'HDFRQHVV 0HGLFDO &HQWHU 6W /XNHfV 5HKDELOLWDWLRQ &HQWHU DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ 3URJUDPV LQ &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 'LVRUGHUV 6SHHFK DQG +HDULQJ &OLQLF 6SRNDQH :DVKLQJWRQ &705, VWXGLHV GRQH DW OHDVW WZR ZHHNV SRVWn VWURNH ZHUH REWDLQHG IRU HDFK H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFW DQG UHYLHZHG E\ D QHXURORJLVW 7KH QHXURORJLVW FODVVLILHG WKH OHVLRQV DV HLWKHU ULJKW RU OHIW DV GHILQHG E\ UHODWLRQVKLS RI OHVLRQ WR ORQJLWXGLQDO ILVVXUH 7KH OHVLRQ ORFDWLRQV ZHUH XVHG WR FODVVLI\ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV LQWR OHIWKHPLVSKHUH RU ULJKWKHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG JURXSV 7KH /%' H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS LQFOXGHG VXEMHFWV ZKRVH DJHV UDQJHG IURP WR 0 6' f (GXFDWLRQDO OHYHO UDQJHG IURP WR \HDUV 0 6' f 7LPH SRVW VWURNH YDULHG IURP RQH PRQWK WR PRQWKV 0 6' f 'HVFULSWLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ IRU WKHVH /%' VXEMHFWV LV SURYLGHG LQ 7DEOH 7KH 5%' H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS LQFOXGHG VXEMHFWV ZKRVH DJHV UDQJHG IURP WR 0 6' f (GXFDWLRQDO OHYHO UDQJHG IURP WR \HDUV 0 6' f 7LPH SRVW VWURNH YDULHG IURP RQH PRQWK WR PRQWKV 0 6' f 'HVFULSWLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ IRU WKHVH 5%' VXEMHFWV LV SURYLGHG LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 79

7DEOH /%' 6XEMHFW ,GHQWLILFDWLRQ 6XEMHFW 6H[ $JH (GXFDWLRQ 032r /, 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0 / ) /, ) / 0 / 0 / ) / ) / ) / ) / ) / ) / 0 r032 PRQWKV SRVWRQVHW

PAGE 80

7DEOH 5%' 6XEMHFW ,GHQWLILFDWLRQ 6XEMHFW 6H[ $JH (GXFDWLRQ 032r 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 ) 5 ) 5 0 5,2 0 r032 PRQWKV SRVWRQVHW 7KH FRQWURO VXEMHFW JURXS FRQVLVWHG RI QHXURORJLFDOO\ LQWDFW FRPPXQLW\ YROXQWHHUV IURP *DLQHVYLOOH DQG %UDGHQWRQ )ORULGD DQG 6SRNDQH :DVKLQJWRQ $OO FRQWURO VXEMHFWV ZHUH DOVR ULJKWKDQGHG DQG QDWLYH (QJOLVK VSHDNHUV 7KHLU DJHV UDQJHG IURP WR \HDUV 0 6' f (GXFDWLRQDO OHYHOV UDQJHG IURP WR \HDUV 0 6' f 'HVFULSWLYH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH FRQWURO VXEMHFWV LV SURYLGHG LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 81

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fIURQWDO DSUD[LDf D KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWf GHILFLWV LQ WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV LH LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD D ORZ OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWf GHILFLWV LQ FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH RI WRROREMHFW IXQFWLRQ UHODWLRQVKLSV LH FRQFHSWXDO DSUD[LD D ORZ DQGRU KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWf DQG GHILFLWV LQ VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWf ,Q

PAGE 82

DGGLWLRQ WHVWV RI ODQJXDJH DELOLWLHV DQG SUHVHQFH RI QHJOHFW DUH GHVFULEHG 5HVXOWV RI WKH WHVWV RI ODQJXDJH DQG QHJOHFW ZHUH QRW XVHG WR GLUHFWO\ DQVZHU WKH VWDWHG UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV 5DWKHU GXH WR WKH FRRFFXUUHQFH RI DSKDVLD DQG DSUD[LD LQ OHIW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV DQG WKH RFFXUUHQFH RI QHJOHFW LQ ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV WKHVH YDULDEOHV PXVW EH V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ PHDVXUHG LQ RUGHU WR DVVLVW LQ WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH UHVXOWV 7KH VHFRQG VHFWLRQ HQWLWOHG HYDOXDWLRQ RI GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV GHVFULEHV D WDVN GHVLJQHG WR PHDVXUH SURGXFWLRQ RI PRYHPHQW DQG DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ DQ DFWLYLW\ RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ $OO VXEMHFWV ZHUH DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH VDPH EDWWHU\ RI WHVWV 7HVWLQJ RFFXUUHG ZLWKLQ RQH GD\ RU DFURVV D WZRGD\ SHULRG 7KH RUGHU RI SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI DOO WHVWV ZDV UDQGRPL]HG DFURVV VXEMHFWV (YDOXDWLRQ RI ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV 'LVRUGHUV RI DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ 0DWHULDOV 7KH 7RZHU RI /RQGRQ WDVN 72/ 6KDOOLFH .ULNRULDQ %DUWN t *D\ f ZDV JLYHQ WR HYDOXDWH GHILFLWV LQ WKH DELOLW\ WR SODQ DQG RUJDQL]H DFWLRQV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK fIURQWDO DSUD[LDf 7KH 72/ FRQVLVWV RI WKUHH SHJV RI GLIIHUHQW OHQJWKV PRXQWHG RQ D VWULS RI ERDUG DQG WKUHH FRORUHG EDOOV UHG JUHHQ DQG EOXHf 7KH EDOOV KDYH KROHV GULOOHG WKURXJK WKHP VR WKH\ FDQ EH SODFHG RQ WKH SHJV 7KH OHIW SHJ KHOG DOO WKUHH EDOOV WKH PLGGOH SHJ KHOG WZR EDOOV DQG WKH ULJKW SHJ KHOG RQH EDOO 0HWKRGV 7KH VWDQGDUGL]HG DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ SURFHGXUHV GHVFULEHG E\ .ULNRULDQ HW DO f ZHUH XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KH EDOOV ZHUH SODFHG LQ D VWDQGDUG LQLWLDO SRVLWLRQ UHG EDOO RQ WRS RI JUHHQ EDOO RQ OHIW SHJ DQG EOXH EDOO RQ PLGGOH SHJf DQG WKH VXEMHFW ZDV

PAGE 83

DVNHG WR PDQLSXODWH WKH EDOOV RQ WKH SHJV WR UHSURGXFH D SLFWXUHG HQG VWDWH )LJXUH f 7KH VXEMHFW SHUIRUPHG WZHOYH WULDOV RI LQFUHDVLQJ GLIILFXOW\ $ SUREOHP ZDV FRUUHFWO\ VROYHG ZKHQ WKH HQG VWDWH ZDV DFKLHYHG LQ WKH SUHVFULEHG QXPEHU RI PRYHV 7KH VXEMHFW KDG WKUHH DWWHPSWV WR VROYH HDFK WULDO 6FRULQJ 7KH VWDQGDUGL]HG VFRULQJ SURFHGXUHV GHVFULEHG E\ .ULNRULDQ HW DO f ZHUH XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KH VXEMHFW UHFHLYHG WKUHH SRLQWV LI WKH WULDO ZDV VROYHG FRUUHFWO\ RQ WKH ILUVW DWWHPSW WZR SRLQWV LI VROYHG RQ WKH VHFRQG DWWHPSW RQH SRLQW LI VROYHG RQ WKH WKLUG DWWHPSW DQG ]HUR SRLQWV LI QRW VROYHG E\ WKH WKLUG DWWHPSW 7KH H[DPLQHU VFRUHG HDFK VXEMHFWVn SHUIRUPDQFH RQOLQH DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH DERYH PHQWLRQHG FULWHULD DQG SHUFHQW FRUUHFW ZDV FDOFXODWHG E\ GLYLGLQJ WKH QXPEHU RI SRLQWV DFFXPXODWHG E\ WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI SRLQWV SRVVLEOH 'LVRUGHUV RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV 0DWHULDOV 7KH 5DQGRPL]HG )RUP $ 5)$f DQG 5DQGRPL]HG )RUP % 5)%f YHUVLRQV RI WKH *HVWXUH WR &RPPDQG VXEWHVW RI WKH )ORULGD $SUD[LD %DWWHU\ ([SHULPHQWDO (GLWLRQ $SSHQGLFHV $ t % 5RWKL 5D\PHU 2FKLSD 0DKHU *UHHQZDOG t +HLOPDQ f ZHUH JLYHQ WR HYDOXDWH SUHVHQFH DQG VHYHULW\ RI GLVRUGHUV RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD 7KH *HVWXUH 7R &RPPDQG VXEWHVW FRQVLVWV RI FRPPDQGV ZKLFK HOLFLW WUDQVLWLYH RU LQWUDQVLWLYH JHVWXUHV 7UDQVLWLYH JHVWXUHV HJ VKRZ PH KRZ \RX XVH D KDPPHUf LQYROYH WRRO NQRZOHGJH DQG GHPRQVWUDWLRQ RI KRZ RQH XVHV WRROV ,QWUDQVLWLYH JHVWXUHV HJ VKRZ PH KRZ \RX ZRXOG VDOXWHf GR QRW LQYROYH WRRO NQRZOHGJH DQG KDYH EHHQ GHILQHG DV HPEOHPV E\ /HPD\ 'DYLG DQG 7KRPDV f 6HH $SSHQGL[ $ IRU FRSLHV RI WKH 5)$ DQG 5)%f

PAGE 84

(QG 6WDWH PRYHV (QG 6WDWH PRYHV )LJXUH 7KH 7RZHU RI /RQGRQ IURP .ULNRULDQ %DUWN t *D\ f

PAGE 85

7R FRQWURO IRU WKH SRVVLEOH HIIHFWV RI KDQG XVHG WR JHVWXUH 5D\PHU 0DKHU 0DFDXOH\ )RXQGDV 5RWKL DQG +HLOPDQ f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nV H[SHULHQFH LQ VFRULQJ JHVWXUH SURGXFWLRQ XVLQJ WKH 5RWKL 0DFN 9HUIDHOOLH DQG %URZQ f HUURU SDWWHUQ DQDO\VLV 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKH SHUIRUPDQFH RI WKH ULJKW DQG OHIW KDQGV E\ FRQWURO VXEMHFWV ZLWK QR KLVWRU\ RI QHXURORJLFDO GLVHDVH ZKHQ SURGXFLQJ JHVWXUHV WR FRPPDQG 5D\PHU HW DO f 0HWKRGV (DFK VXEMHFW ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG HLWKHU WKH 5)$ RU 5)% XVLQJ WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV ZULWWHQ DW WKH WRS RI HDFK VFRUH VKHHW 6HH $SSHQGL[ $f 7KH 5)$ DQG 5)% ZHUH DOWHUQDWHG DFURVV VXEMHFWV ZLWK KDOI UHFHLYLQJ 5)$ DQG KDOI UHFHLYLQJ 5)% 7R FRQWURO IRU SRVVLEOH HIIHFWV RI KHPLSDUHVLV WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV SURGXFHG WKH JHVWXUHV XVLQJ WKHLU LSVLOHVLRQDO KDQG DQG ILYH RI WKH WHQ FRQWURO VXEMHFWV ZHUH DVNHG WR JHVWXUH XVLQJ WKHLU QRQGRPLQDQW OHIW KDQG 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH YLGHRWDSHG ZKLOH SHUIRUPLQJ WKHVH JHVWXUHV

PAGE 86

6FRULQJ 7KH YLGHRWDSHV ZHUH VFRUHG E\ WZR H[DPLQHUV IDPLOLDU ZLWK LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD ZKR XQGHUZHQW D WUDLQLQJ VHVVLRQ VLPLODU WR WKDW GHVFULEHG E\ 0DKHU f 'XULQJ WKH WUDLQLQJ VHVVLRQV WKH H[DPLQHUV ZHUH UHTXLUHG WR REWDLQ DW OHDVW b DJUHHPHQW ZLWK SUDFWLFH WDSHV EHIRUH EHJLQQLQJ WR VFRUH WKH H[SHULPHQWDO WDSHV 7KH VFRULQJ V\VWHP IROORZHG WKH HUURU SDWWHUQ DQDO\VLV GHVFULEHG E\ 5RWKL HW DO f (DFK JHVWXUH ZDV JLYHQ D SDVVIDLO UDWLQJ DQG SHUFHQW FRUUHFW ZDV FDOFXODWHG ,QWHUUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ ZDV FDOFXODWHG E\ KDYLQJ WKH UDWHUV VFRUH IRXU YLGHRWDSHV WZLFH DQG FDOFXODWLQJ SHUFHQW DJUHHPHQW DFURVV WKH WZR VHVVLRQV ,QWUDUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ ZDV FDOFXODWHG E\ FDOFXODWLQJ SHUFHQW DJUHHPHQW EHWZHHQ WKH WZR VFRUHUV RQ b RI WKH YLGHRWDSHV ? 'LVRUGHUV RI WRRORELHFWIXQFWLRQ NQRZOHGJH 0DWHULDOV $ UHYLVHG YHUVLRQ RI WKH 7RRO2EMHFW 0DWFKLQJ 7HVW 720f GHVFULEHG E\ 2FKLSD HW DO f ZDV JLYHQ WR HYDOXDWH GHILFLWV LQ WRROIXQFWLRQREMHFW NQRZOHGJH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LGHDWLRQDOFRQFHSWXDO DSUD[LD $SSHQGL[ %f 7KH RULJLQDO YHUVLRQ RI WKH 7RRO2EMHFW 0DWFKLQJ 7DVN GHVFULEHG E\ 2FKLSD HW DO f XVHG UDQGRPO\ JHQHUDWHG WRROV DV IRLOV 7KH UHYLVHG YHUVLRQ XVHG WKH VDPH IRLO WRROV IRU HDFK WULDO DFURVV VXEMHFWV 7KH IRLO WRROV ZHUH GUDZQ IURP WKH SRVVLEOH FRUUHFW WRRO FKRLFHV IRU WKH RWKHU WULDOV DQG DOO WRROV ZHUH XVHG WKUHH WLPHV RQFH DV D FRUUHFW DQVZHU DQG WZLFH DV IRLOV H[FHSW IRU KDPPHU ZKLFK LV D FRUUHFW DQVZHU WZLFH DQG XVHG DV D IRLO IRXU WLPHVf 0HWKRGV (DFK VXEMHFW ZDV SUHVHQWHG ZLWK D SDUWLDOO\ FRPSOHWHG WDVN HJ D SDUWLDOO\ VDZHG ERDUGf DQG DQ DUUD\ RI WKUHH WRROV FRQVLVWLQJ RI WKH WDUJHW WRRO DQG WZR IRLO WRROV HJ D KDPPHU VDZ DQG SHQFLOf 7KH VXEMHFW ZDV DVNHG WR VHOHFW WKH DSSURSULDWH

PAGE 87

WRRO WR FRPSOHWH WKH WDVN DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV ZULWWHQ DW WKH WRS RI WKH VFRUH VKHHW $SSHQGL[ %f 6FRULQJ 7KH H[DPLQHU VFRUHG WKH VXEMHFWnV UHVSRQVHV RQOLQH XVLQJ D ELQRPLDO SDVVIDLO FULWHULD DQG SHUFHQW FRUUHFW UHVSRQVHV ZDV FDOFXODWHG 'LVRUGHUV RI VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ 0DWHULDOV 7KH 7UDLOPDNLQJ 7HVW 3DUWV $ t % 5HLWDQ f ZDV XVHG WR HYDOXDWH GHILFLWV LQ VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ 7KH 7UDLOPDNLQJ 7HVWV 3DUWV $ t % f7UDLOV $ t %ff DUH VWDQGDUGL]HG QHXURSV\FKRORJLFDO PHDVXUHV WKDW DUH VHQVLWLYH WR EUDLQ GDPDJH *RRG SHUIRUPDQFH RQ 7UDLOV $ t % GHSHQGV XSRQ DWWHQWLRQ WR WDVN DQG ZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ ZLWK VWURQJ YLVXDO VHDUFK DQG PRWRU SHUIRUPDQFH FRPSRQHQWV 7KH VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVW VKHHWV ZHUH XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7UDLOV $ t % HDFK FRQVLVW RI D VLQJOH VKHHW RI [ ZKLWH SDSHU ZLWK WKH QXPEHUV 3DUW $f DQG QXPEHUV DQG OHWWHUV 3DUW %f ZULWWHQ LQ UDQGRP RUGHU RQ WKH SDJH 7KH QXPEHUV DQG OHWWHUV DUH ZULWWHQ LQ FLUFOHV 0HWKRGV 7UDLOV $ t % ZHUH DGPLQLVWHUHG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH VWDQGDUGL]HG LQVWUXFWLRQV E\ WKH H[DPLQHU 6FRULQJ 7UDLOV $ t % ZHUH VFRUHG DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH VWDQGDUGL]HG LQVWUXFWLRQV E\ WKH H[DPLQHU 7KH WLPH LQ VHFRQGV UHTXLUHG IRU WKH VXEMHFW WR FRPSOHWH 3DUW $ DQG 3DUW % ZHUH UHFRUGHG VHSDUDWHO\ DQG FRPSDUHG WR QRUPDWLYH GDWD UHSRUWHG E\ 'DYLHV f $SSHQGL[ &f

PAGE 88

'LVRUGHUV RI ODQJXDJH 0DWHULDOV 7KH :HVWHUQ $SKDVLD %DWWHU\ :$% .HUWHV] f ZDV XVHG WR HYDOXDWH SUHVHQFH W\SH DQG VHYHULW\ RI DSKDVLD 7KH :$% LV D VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVW RI DFTXLUHG ODQJXDJH GLVRUGHUV ZKLFK HQDEOHV WKH FDOFXODWLRQ RI DSKDVLD VHYHULW\ WKURXJK DQ DSKDVLD TXRWLHQW $4f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f 1HJOHFW 0DWHULDOV $ OLQH ELVHFWLRQ WDVN ZDV XVHG WR HYDOXDWH SUHVHQFH DQG VHYHULW\ RI QHJOHFW )RU WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ WKUHH OLQHV PHDVXULQJ HLJKW WHQ DQG WZHOYH LQFKHV LQ OHQJWK ZHUH GUDZQ KRUL]RQWDOO\ DFURVV WKH PLGGOH RI LQGLYLGXDO [ SLHFHV RI SDSHU XVLQJ D WKLFN EODFN PDUNHU

PAGE 89

0HWKRGV 7KH H[DPLQHU SODFHG RQH RI WKH SLHFHV RI fOLQHGf SDSHU GHVFULEHG DERYH KRUL]RQWDOO\ RQ WKH WDEOH DSSUR[LPDWHO\ HLJKWHHQ LQFKHV LQ IURQW RI WKH VXEMHFW ZLWK WKH PLGGOH RI WKH OLQH HYHQ ZLWK WKH VXEMHFWfV PLGVDJLWWDO SODQH 7KH VXEMHFW ZDV JLYHQ D SHQ DQG DVNHG WR fPDUN WKH FHQWHU RI WKH OLQHf 7KLV SURFHGXUH ZDV UHSHDWHG IRU HDFK RI WKH WKUHH OLQHV 7KH OLQHV ZHUH JLYHQ LQ UDQGRP RUGHU WR HDFK VXEMHFW 6FRULQJ 7KH H[DPLQHU VFRUHG WKH DFFXUDF\ RI WKH VXEMHFWnV PDUN E\ PHDVXULQJ WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WUXH PLGGOH RI WKH OLQH DQG WKH VXEMHFWnV PDUN $Q DYHUDJH GLIIHUHQFH ZDV FDOFXODWHG LQ FHQWLPHWHUV 3UHVHQFH RI QHJOHFW ZDV GHWHUPLQHG E\ D GLIIHUHQFH VFRUH RI PP EHWZHHQ WKH WUXH PLGOLQH DQG WKH VXEMHFWfV PDUN +HLOPDQ :DWVRQ t 9DOHQVWHLQ f 6HYHULW\ RI QHJOHFW ZDV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH PDJQLWXGH RI WKH DYHUDJH GLIIHUHQFH LQ WKDW WKH JUHDWHU WKH GLIIHUHQFH WKH PRUH VHYHUH WKH QHJOHFW (YDOXDWLRQ RI 'HSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHf§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

PAGE 90

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f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

PAGE 91

OLVW RI HUURU W\SHV JLYHQ WR WKHP GXULQJ WKH WUDLQLQJ WLPH DV RIWHQ DV QHHGHG GXULQJ WKH VFRULQJ SHULRGV 1R GLVFXVVLRQ ZDV DOORZHG ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH VXEMHFWnV SHUIRUPDQFH DQG WKH UDWHUV ZHUH QRW DEOH WR VHH HDFK RWKHUnV RU WKH WUDLQHUnV VFRUH VKHHW 7KH VFRULQJ V\VWHP GHVFULEHG E\ )RXQGDV HW DO f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f

PAGE 92

H[WHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ DFWLRQ SURGXFHG ZDV PLVSODFHG LQ VSDFH LQ DEVHQFH RI SHUFHSWXDO GHILFLWV HJ VFRRSLQJ ZLWK D VSRRQ RQ WKH WDEOH EHVLGH WKH SODWHf ERG\ SDUW DV WRRO DFWLRQ ZDV SURGXFHG XVLQJ D ERG\ SDUW DV WKH WRRO HJ VSUHDGLQJ EXWWHU RQ EUHDG ZLWK LQGH[ ILQJHUf WLPLQJ LQFRUUHFW WLPLQJ GXULQJ D VHTXHQFH RI PRYHPHQWV ZLWKLQ RQH DFWLRQ HJ VSUHDGLQJ EXWWHU RQ EUHDG ZLWK SDXVHV LQ EHWZHHQ WKH NQLIH PRYHPHQWVf RU EHWZHHQ WZR DFWLRQV HJ KROGLQJ D VSRRQIXO RI IRRG FORVH WR WKH PRXWK ZKLOH RQH LV VWLOO FKHZLQJ D SUHYLRXV ELWHf TXDQWLW\ LQFRUUHFW RU LQHIILFLHQW DPRXQW RI IRRG LV WDNHQ WR WKH PRXWK HJ SXWWLQJ WRR PXFK RU WRR OLWWOH PDVKHG SRWDWRHV RQ D VSRRQ ZKLFK LV WKHQ EURXJKW WR WKH PRXWKf PRYHPHQW PRYHPHQW SURGXFHG ZDV LQDFFXUDWH RU LQFRUUHFW HJ XVLQJ ZULVW PRWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ VKRXOGHU PRWLRQf (UURUV SURSRVHG WR UHVXOW IURP KLJK OHYHO V\VWHP LPSDLUPHQW VHTXHQFH VHTXHQFH RI DFWLRQV ZDV LQFRUUHFW HJ VWLUULQJ WHD EHIRUH DGGLQJ WKH VXJDUf RPLVVLRQ RPLWWLQJ RQH DFWLRQ IURP D VHTXHQFH RI DFWLRQV HJ SXWWLQJ VXJDU LQ WHD DQG QRW VWLUULQJ LW DW DOOf DGGLWLRQ DGGLQJ DQ DGGLWLRQDO DFWLRQ GXULQJ D VHTXHQFH RI DFWLRQV HJ SXWWLQJ VXJDU LQ WHD DQG HDWLQJ D ELWH RI IRRG EHIRUH VWLUULQJ WKH WHDf (UURUV SURSRVHG WR UHVXOW IURP KLJK DQGRU ORZ OHYHO V\VWHP LPSDLUPHQW PLVXVH DFWLRQ PRYHPHQWf SURGXFHG ZDV LQFRUUHFW IRU FKRVHQ WRRO HJ VWLUULQJ ZLWK D NQLIHf 6HH )LJXUH f PLVVHOHFWLRQ DFWLRQ PRYHPHQWf SURGXFHG ZDV FRUUHFW IRU WKH FKRVHQ WRRO EXW QRW IRU WKH JRDO ZLWK WKH REMHFW HJ XVLQJ D IRUN WR HDW LFH FUHDPf 6HH )LJXUH f ,W ZDV SRVVLEOH IRU RQH DFWLRQ WR EH MXGJHG DV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ PRUH WKDQ RQH HUURU W\SH GXULQJ WKH VFRULQJ SURFHGXUH

PAGE 93

$FWLRQV RYHU WKH HQWLUH PHDO ZHUH UHFRUGHG DQG VFRUHG DQG WKH IROORZLQJ FDOFXODWLRQV ZHUH REWDLQHG SHUFHQW FRUUHFW WRRO DFWLRQV RI FRUUHFW WRRO DFWLRQV WRWDO RI WRRO DFWLRQV SHUFHQW FRUUHFW QRQWRRO DFWLRQV RI FRUUHFW QRQWRRO DFWLRQV WRWDO RI QRQWRRO DFWLRQV SHUFHQW FRUUHFW WRWDO DFWLRQV RI WRWDO FRUUHFW DFWLRQV WRRO QRQWRROf RI WRWDO DFWLRQV WRRO QRQWRROf DFWLRQ SHU WLPH UDWLR WRWDO WLPH RI PHDO VHFRQGVnf WRWDO RI HUURUV RYHU WKH HQWLUH PHDO 5DWHU 7UDLQLQJ 7KH UDWHU WUDLQLQJ SURWRFRO XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZDV EDVHG RQ WKH SURWRFRO GHVFULEHG E\ 0DKHU f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

PAGE 94

E\ ZDWFKLQJ WKH SHUWLQHQW VHFWLRQ RI WKH YLGHRWDSH DQG WKHQ GLVFXVVLQJ WKH VFRUHV 7KLV SURFHGXUH FRQWLQXHG XQWLO b RU JUHDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ EHWZHHQ WKH UDWHUV ZDV DFKLHYHG RYHU WULDOV RQH WULDO RQH DFWLRQf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

PAGE 95

3HDUVRQ 3URGXFW 0RPHQW &RUUHODWLRQV ZHUH FDOFXODWHG EHWZHHQ WKH LQGHSHQGHQW H[SHULPHQWDO PHDVXUHV 72/ )$% :$% 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % 1HJOHFW 7RRO2EMHFW 0DWFKLQJf DQG WRWDO QXPEHU RI DFWLRQ HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH PHDO )RU TXHVWLRQ E $QG LI VR WR ZKDW H[WHQW GRHV HDFK W\SH RI GHILFLW ORZ OHYHO V\VWHP GHILFLWV DQG DERYH DQG KLJK OHYHO V\VWHP GHILFLWV DQG DERYHf SUHGLFW W\SH RI HUURU LQFOXGLQJ PLVXVH PLVVHOHFWLRQ H[WHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ LQWHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ WLPLQJ TXDQWLW\ VHTXHQFH >RPLVVLRQ DGGLWLRQ VHTXHQFH@ H[FKDQJH VXEVWLWXWLRQ PRYHPHQW DQG ERG\ SDUW DV WRROf" $ PXOWLSOH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ VWDWLVWLF ZDV FDOFXODWHG EHWZHHQ WKH LQGHSHQGHQW PHDVXUHV 72/ )$% 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % 7RRO2EMHFW 0DWFKLQJf DQG WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV RI W\SHV RI HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH PHDO PLVXVH PLVVHOHFWLRQ H[WHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ LQWHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ WLPLQJ VHTXHQFH >RPLVVLRQ DGGLWLRQ VHTXHQFH@ PRYHPHQW DQG ERG\ SDUW DV WRRO

PAGE 96

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f S RU HGXFDWLRQDO OHYHO ) f S 7KHUH ZDV DOVR QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQW LQ WKH WLPH SRVW VWURNH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR H[SHULPHQWDO JURXSV )O f S! ([SHULPHQWDO 5HVXOWV (UURUV RI PRYHPHQW DQG DFWLRQ ZHUH WKHRUL]HG WR RFFXU DW WZR OHYHOV EDVHG RQ WKH ORZ PRYHPHQWf DQG KLJK DFWLRQf OHYHO VFKHPD V\VWHPV SURSRVHG E\ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS GHVFULEHG LQ )LJXUH 7KDW LV HUURU W\SHV WKDW UHIOHFW GHILFLWV LQ WKH SUD[LV SURGXFWLRQ V\VWHP 5RWKL HW DO f ZRXOG PDNH XS ORZ OHYHO VFKHPDWLF V\VWHP HUURUV ZKLOH HUURU W\SHV WKDW UHIOHFW GHILFLWV LQ WKH SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI DFWLRQ LQ WKH H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQ DQG FRQWURO PHFKDQLVPV 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP f ZRXOG PDNH XS KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDWLF HUURUV $V GHVFULEHG LQ &KDSWHU 7ZR WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV LQFOXGHG WHVWV WKDW ZHUH SURSRVHG WR PHDVXUH WKH GLIIHUHQW GHILFLWV WKDW FDQ

PAGE 97

RFFXU ZLWKLQ WKH WZR OHYHOV 7KH 7RZHU RI /RQGRQ 72/ 6KDOOLFH .ULNRULDQ HW DO f ZDV JLYHQ WR HYDOXDWH GHILFLWV LQ WKH DELOLW\ WR SODQ DQG RUJDQL]H DFWLRQV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK fIURQWDO DSUD[LDf D KLJK OHYHO GHILFLW 7KH *HVWXUH WR &RPPDQG VXEWHVW RI 7KH )ORULGD $SUD[LD %DWWHU\ ([SHULPHQWDO (GLWLRQ 5RWKL HW DO f ZDV JLYHQ WR HYDOXDWH WKH SUHVHQFH DQG VHYHULW\ RI GLVRUGHUV RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQW DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD D ORZ OHYHO GHILFLW $ UHYLVHG YHUVLRQ RI WKH 7RRO2EMHFW 0DWFKLQJ 7HVW 720f GHVFULEHG E\ 2FKLSD HW DO f ZDV JLYHQ WR HYDOXDWH GHILFLWV LQ WRROIXQFWLRQREMHFW NQRZOHGJH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LGHDWLRQDOFRQFHSWXDO DSUD[LD D ORZ OHYHO GHILFLW $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH 7UDLOPDNLQJ 7HVW 3DUWV $ t % 5HLWDQ f ZDV JLYHQ WR HYDOXDWH GHILFLWV LQ VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ 7KH :HVWHUQ $SKDVLD %DWWHU\ :$% .HUWHV] f ZDV JLYHQ WR HYDOXDWH SUHVHQFH RI DSKDVLD DQG D OLQH ELVHFWLRQ WDVN ZDV XVHG WR HYDOXDWH SUHVHQFH RI QHJOHFW 'HVFULSWLYH VWDWLVWLFV IRU WKH WKUHH JURXSV RQ HDFK RI WKH DERYH WDVNV DUH OLVWHG LQ 7DEOH 2YHUDOO WKH WKUHH JURXSV ZHUH SURWRW\SLF RI WKHLU FRQVWLWXHQWV 7KDW LV b RI WKH 5%' KDG QHJOHFW ZKLOH RQO\ b RI WKH /%' DQG QRQH RI WKH FRQWUROV KDG QHJOHFW b RI WKH /%' KDG DSKDVLD ZKLOH QRQH RI WKH 5%' RU FRQWUROV ZHUH DSKDVLF b RI WKH /%' KDG LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD ZKLOH b RI WKH 5%' DQG QRQH RI WKH FRQWUROV ZHUH DSUD[LF b RI WKH /%' DQG QRQH RI WKH 5%' RU FRQWUROV KDG FRQFHSWXDO DSUD[LD ,Q DGGLWLRQ b RI /%' DQG b RI 5%' KDG fIURQWDO DSUD[LDf DQG ZHUH VORZHU RQ WKH DWWHQWLRQ WDVNV WKDQ WKH FRQWUROV 1HJOHFW DQG DSKDVLD ZHUH UXOHG RXW DV YDULDEOHV WKDW DIIHFWHG WKH GDWD E\ GLYLGLQJ DOO VXEMHFWV LQWR WZR JURXSV DFFRUGLQJ WR SUHVHQFHDEVHQFH RI QHJOHFW DQG SUHVHQFHDEVHQFH RI DSKDVLD DQG FRPSDULQJ WKH PHDQ QXPEHU DQG W\SHV RI HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ WKH WZR JURXSV 1R VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH JURXSV ZHUH IRXQG

PAGE 98

7DEOH 'HVFULSWLYH 6WDWLVWLFV IRU (DFK *URXS RQ 0HDVXUHV RI ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV 7DVN 0HDQ 6' 0D[ 0LQ 7RZHU RI /RQGRQ /%' 5%' &RQWURO 7RWDO 3RVVLEOH *HVWXUH WR &RPPDQG /%' 5%' &RQWURO 7RWDO 3RVVLEOH 7RRO2ELHFW 0DWFKLQJ /%' 5%' &RQWURO 7RWDO 3RVVLEOH 7UDLOV $ /%' 5%' &RQWURO 5DQJH IRU1%'r YDULHV DFFRUGLQJ WR DJH $SSHQGL[ &f 7UDLOV % /%' 5%' &RQWURO 5DQJH IRU 1%'r YDULHV DFFRUGLQJ WR DJH $SSHQGL[ &f :HVWHUQ $KDVLD %DWWHUY /%' 5%' &RQWURO 7RWDO 3RVVLEOH /LQH %LVHFWLRQ /%' 5%' &RQWURO 5DQJH IRU 1%'r r1%' QRQ EUDLQGDPDJHG LQGLYLGXDOV

PAGE 99

5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQV 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ 'RHV EUDLQ GDPDJH LQ HLWKHU KHPLVSKHUH UHVXOW LQ SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW RU DUH DFWLRQ HUURUV VSHFLILF WR OHIW KHPLVSKHUH EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV" 7R GHWHUPLQH LI SDWLHQWV ZLWK /%' OHIW EUDLQ GDPDJHf DQG 5%' ULJKW EUDLQ GDPDJHf SURGXFH DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW WKH IROORZLQJ QXOO K\SRWKHVLV ZDV WHVWHG + 7KHUH LV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH PHDQ QXPEHU RI HUURUV SURGXFHG ZKLOH HDWLQJ D PHDO IRU WKH /%' 5%' DQG FRQWURO JURXSV 1%' QRQn EUDLQ GDPDJHGf 8VLQJ D .UXVNDO:DOOLV 2QH:D\ $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RQ 5DQNV GXH WR WKH VNHZGQHVV RI WKH FRQWURO JURXS KDYLQJ SURGXFHG QR HUURUV GXULQJ WKH PHDOf WKH PHDQ QXPEHU RI WRWDO HUURUV ZDV FRPSDUHG EHWZHHQ WKH WKUHH JURXSV $ VLJQLILFDQW EHWZHHQ JURXS GLIIHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG 7DEOH f 7DEOH 2YHUDOO .UXVNDO:DOOLV $129$ IRU (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 7DVN $129$ &KL6DXDUH + 6WDWLVWLF G) f 39DOXH 7RWDO (UURUV r 7RRO (UURUV r 1RQ7RRO (UURUV r r VLJQLILFDQW DW S! %HFDXVH D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH ZDV IRXQG IRU WRWDO QXPEHU RI HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH PHDO D IROORZXS DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG XVLQJ WKH .UXVNDO:DOOLV 0XOWLSOH &RPSDULVRQ =9DOXH 7HVW 7KLV WHVW LV XVHG WR H[DPLQH JURXS GLIIHUHQFHV ZLWK QRQ

PAGE 100

SDUDPHWULF GDWD 5HVXOWV RI WKH IROORZXS DQDO\VHV FRPSDULQJ HDFK EUDLQGDPDJHG JURXS ZLWK WKH QRUPDO FRQWUROV DUH OLVWHG LQ 7DEOH )RU WRWDO QXPEHU RI HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH PHDO WKH /%' DQG 5%' JURXSV GLG QRW GLIIHU IURP HDFK RWKHU +RZHYHU ERWK JURXSV GLG GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP WKH FRQWURO JURXS 7DEOH &RPSDULVRQ RI /%' DQG 5%' *URXSV ZLWK 1RUPDO &RQWUROV *URXS YV *URXS &ULWLFDO 'LIIHUHQFH $FWXDO 'LIIHUHQFH 7RWDO (UURUV /%' YV 5%' ]YDOXH /%' YV &RQWUROV ]YDOXH r 5%' YV &RQWUROV ]YDOXH r 7RRO (UURUV /%' YV 5%' ]YDOXH r /%' YV &RQWUROV ]YDOXH r 5%' YV &RQWUROV ]YDOXH 1RQ7RRO (UURUV /%' YV 5%' ]YDOXH /%' YV &RQWUROV ]YDOXH r 5%' YV &RQWUROV ]YDOXH r r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

PAGE 101

&RPSDULVRQ =9DOXH 7HVW 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH /%' JURXS GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP ERWK WKH 5%' DQG FRQWURO JURXSV LQ QXPEHU RI WRRO HUURUV SURGXFHG EXW WKH 5%' JURXS GLG QRW GLIIHU IURP WKH FRQWURO JURXS ,Q DGGLWLRQ ERWK RI WKH /%' DQG 5%' JURXSV GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP WKH FRQWURO JURXS LQ QXPEHU RI QRQWRRO HUURUV SURGXFHG EXW WKH /%' DQG 5%' JURXSV GLG QRW GLIIHU IURP HDFK RWKHU 6HH 7DEOH f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f ZKLFK PHDVXUHV GHILFLW DERYH WKH WRROREMHFW PDWFKLQJ WHVW 2FKLSD HW DO f ZKLFK PHDVXUHV GHILFLW DERYH WKH 7RZHU RI /RQGRQ 6KDOOLFH .ULNRULDQ HW DO f ZKLFK PHDVXUHV GHILFLW DERYH DQG 7UDLOV $ DQG 7UDLOV % 5HLWDQ f ZKLFK PHDVXUH GHILFLW DERYH ZHUH FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WRWDO QXPEHU RI HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH PHDO 5HVXOWV RI WKLV DQDO\VLV UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH KLJKHVW FRUUHODWLRQ ZDV ZLWK WKH 72/ DQG WKH ORZHVW FRUUHODWLRQ ZDV ZLWK WKH WRROREMHFW PDWFKLQJ WDVN $OO FRUUHODWLRQV DUH OLVWHG LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 102

7DEOH 3HDUVRQ3URGXFW 0RPHQW &RUUHODWLRQ 5HSRUW 7RWDO (UURUV *HVWXUH WR &RPPDQG 7RRO2EMHFW 0DWFK 7RZHU RI /RQGRQ 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH FRUUHODWLRQ VWDWLVWLF DOO VXEMHFWV ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR WZR JURXSV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH QRUPDO YHUVXV DEQRUPDO FXWRII VFRUH IRU HDFK RI WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV 7ZR VDPSOH WWHVWV ZHUH WKHQ FDOFXODWHG IRU WKH PHDQ QXPEHU RI RYHUDOO HUURUV WRWDO WRRO DQG QRQWRROf DV ZHOO DV IRU WKH PHDQ QXPEHU RI VSHFLILF HUURU W\SHV PLVXVH PLVVHOHFWLRQ PRYHPHQW ,17 VHTXHQFH WLPLQJ DQG TXDQWLW\f SURGXFHG E\ WKH QRUPDODEQRUPDO JURXSV 3DUDPHWULF RU QRQSDUDPHWULF WWHVWV ZHUH FKRVHQ EDVHG RQ WKH QRUPDOF\ DQG WKH YDULDQFH RI WKH GDWD ZLWKLQ HDFK HUURU W\SH RQ WKHVH YDULRXV WHVWV 7KHVH GLYLVLRQV DQG DQDO\VHV ZHUH FRPSOHWHG LQ RUGHU WR REWDLQ D EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH LQIOXHQFH RI WKH JURXSLQJ YDULDEOHV GHILFLWV LQ DQG IURP TXHVWLRQ Df RQ HUURU W\SHV LQ WKHVH YDULRXV WHVWV 2Q WKH JHVWXUH WR FRPPDQG WDVN DOO VXEMHFWV ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR WZR JURXSVf§WKRVH VXEMHFWV VFRULQJ RU EHORZ LQGLFDWLQJ SUHVHQFH RI LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD ,0$f ZHUH LQ JURXS ZKLOH WKRVH VXEMHFWV VFRULQJ RU DERYH LQGLFDWLQJ QRUPDO SUD[LV VNLOOV LH QRQ ,0$f ZHUH LQ JURXS 5RWKL HW DO f *URXS FRQVLVWHG RI VXEMHFWV ZKLOH JURXS FRQVLVWHG RI VXEMHFWV 7KH WZR JURXSV ZHUH WKHQ FRPSDUHG LQ HDFK RI WKH RYHUDOO DQG VSHFLILF HUURU W\SHV OLVWHG SUHYLRXVO\ 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW

PAGE 103

GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV DW WKH S OHYHO IRU WRWDO QXPEHU RI HUURUV DV ZHOO DV IRU QXPEHU RI WRRO PLVXVH PRYHPHQW WLPLQJ DQG TXDQWLW\ HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH PHDO ,Q FRQWUDVW QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG IRU QXPEHU RI QRQWRRO HUURUV DV ZHOO DV IRU QXPEHU RI PLVVHOHFWLRQ ,17 DQG VHTXHQFH HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH PHDO 6HH 7DEOHV DQG 7DEOH $YHUDJH 1XPEHU RI (UURUV 3URGXFHG E\ $OO 6XEMHFWV :KHQ 'LYLGHG LQWR 7ZR *URXSV $FFRUGLQJ WR &XW2II 6FRUH IRU (DFK 7HVW 7HVW &XW2II 6FRUH Q $YHUDJH 1XPEHU RI (UURUV 7RWDO 7RRO 1RQ7RRO ,GHRPRWRU r r $SUD[LD &RQFHSWXDO r r r $SUD[LD f)URQWDO r r r $SUD[LDf $WWHQWLRQ WK SHU r r WK SHU 'LYLGHG WK SHU r r r $WWHQWLRQ WK SHU 5RWKL HW DO 2FKLSD HW DL .ULNRULDQ HW DO 6SUHHP DQG 6WUDXVV Q QXPEHU RI VXEMHFWV LQ JURXS SHU SHUFHQWLOH r VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH S OHYHO

PAGE 104

7DEOH $YHUDJH 1XPEHU RI (UURUV E\ 6SHFLILF (UURU 7\SH 3URGXFHG E\ /%' 5%' DQG &RQWURO *URXSV 7HVW &XW2II 6FRUH 0LVXVH 0LVVHOHFWLRQ $YHUDJH 1XPEHU RI (UURUV 0RYHPHQW ,17 6HTXHQFH 7LPLQJ 2XDQWLWY ,GHRPRWRU r r r r $SUD[LD &RQFHSWXDO $SUD[LD )URQWDO r r $SUD[LD $WWHQWLRQ WK SHUFHQWLOH r r WK SHUFHQWLOH 'LYLGHG WK SHUFHQWLOH r r r $WWHQWLRQ WKSHUFHQWLOH 5RWKLHD 2FKLSD HW DO .ULNRULDQ HW DO 6SUHHP DQG 6WUDXVV r VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH S OHYHO

PAGE 105

2Q WKH WRROREMHFW PDWFKLQJ WDVN DOO VXEMHFWV ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR WZR JURXSV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH IROORZLQJ FULWHULD 7KRVH VXEMHFWV VFRULQJ RU EHORZ LQGLFDWLQJ SUHVHQFH RI FRQFHSWXDO DSUD[LD ZHUH LQ JURXS ZKLOH WKRVH VXEMHFWV VFRULQJ LQGLFDWLQJ QRUPDO SUD[LV VNLOOV ZHUH LQ JURXS 2FKLSD HW DO f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f *URXS FRQVLVWHG RI VXEMHFWV ZKLOH JURXS FRQVLVWHG RI VXEMHFWV 7KH WZR JURXSV ZHUH WKHQ FRPSDUHG LQ HDFK RI WKH RYHUDOO DQG VSHFLILF HUURU W\SHV OLVWHG SUHYLRXVO\ 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZHUH VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV DW WKH S OHYHO IRU WRWDO QXPEHU RI HUURUV DV ZHOO DV IRU QXPEHU RI WRRO QRQn WRRO VHTXHQFH DQG TXDQWLW\ HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH PHDO ,Q FRQWUDVW QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG IRU QXPEHU RI PLVXVH PLVVHOHFWLRQ PRYHPHQW ,17 DQG WLPLQJ HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH PHDO 6HH 7DEOHV DQG )RXUWK DOO VXEMHFWV ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR WZR JURXSV DFFRUGLQJ WR 7UDLOV $ VFRUH 7KH FULWHULRQ IRU WKLV GLYLVLRQ ZDV EDVHG RQ 7DEOH SDJH f LQ $ &RPSHQGLXP RI

PAGE 106

1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO 7HVWV 6SUHHP t 6WUDXVV f ZKLFK LV D VXPPDU\ RI QRUPDWLYH GDWD IRU FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH 7UDLOV $ WDVN 6XEMHFWV ZHUH SODFHG LQ JURXS LQGLFDWLQJ SUHVHQFH RI SRRU DWWHQWLRQDO VNLOOV LI WKHLU WLPH WR FRPSOHWH 7UDLOV $ ZDV EHORZ WKH WK SHUFHQWLOH IRU WKHLU DJH 6XEMHFWV ZHUH SODFHG LQ JURXS LQGLFDWLQJ QRUPDO DWWHQWLRQDO VNLOOV LI WKHLU WLPH WR FRPSOHWH 7UDLOV $ ZDV DERYH WKH WK SHUFHQWLOH IRU WKHLU DJH JURXS *URXS FRQVLVWHG RI VXEMHFWV DQG JURXS DOVR FRQVLVWHG RI VXEMHFWV IRXU VXEMHFW ZHUH XQDEOH WR FRPSOHWH WKH WDVNf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f LQ $ &RPSHQGLXP RI 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO 7HVWV 6SUHHP t 6WUDXVV f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f 7KH WZR JURXSV ZHUH WKHQ FRPSDUHG LQ HDFK RI WKH RYHUDOO DQG VSHFLILF HUURU W\SHV OLVWHG SUHYLRXVO\ 5HVXOWV

PAGE 107

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f§ DQG IURP TXHVWLRQ D DERYHf SUHGLFW W\SH RI HUURU LQFOXGLQJ PLVXVH PLVVHOHFWLRQ H[WHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ LQWHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ WLPLQJ TXDQWLW\ VHTXHQFH H[FKDQJH VXEVWLWXWLRQ PRYHPHQW DQG ERG\ SDUW DV WRROf" 7R GHWHUPLQH LI WKHUH LV D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH W\SHV RI GHILFLWV ORZHU RU KLJKHU OHYHO VFKHPDf DQG W\SHV RI HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH PHDO D PXOWLSOH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ VWDWLVWLF ZDV FDOFXODWHG EHWZHHQ WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV )$% WRROREMHFW PDWFK 720f 72/ 7UDLOV $ DQG 7UDLOV % DQG WKH W\SHV RI HUURUV REVHUYHG GXULQJ WKH PHDO WRRO QRQWRRO DQG WRWDO HUURUV DV ZHOO DV WKH LQGLYLGXDO W\SHV PLVXVH PLVVHOHFWLRQ LQWHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ PRYHPHQW VHTXHQFH WLPLQJ DQG TXDQWLW\f 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW b RI WKH YDULDQFH IRU WRWDO HUURUV FDQ EH H[SODLQHG WKURXJK LWHUDWLRQ ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ DQG 720 UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH PXOWLSOH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ IRU WRWDO HUURUV DUH GLVSOD\HG LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 108

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 7RWDO (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 0RGHO 6L]H 5 0RGHO 7UDLOV $ )$% 72/ )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ 720 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW b RI WKH YDULDQFH IRU WRRO HUURUV FDQ EH H[SODLQHG WKURXJK LWHUDWLRQ ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ DQG 7UDLOV % UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH PXOWLSOH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ IRU WRRO HUURUV DUH GLVSOD\HG LQ 7DEOH 7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 7RRO (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 0RGHO 6L]H 5 0RGHO 7UDLOV $ )$% 7UDLOV $ )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % 720 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW b RI WKH YDULDQFH IRU QRQWRRO HUURUV FDQ EH H[SODLQHG WKURXJK LWHUDWLRQ ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH 72/ DQG 720 UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH PXOWLSOH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ IRU QRQWRRO HUURUV DUH GLVSOD\HG LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 109

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 1RQ7RRO (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 0RGHO 6L]H 5 0RGHO 72/ 72/ 720 72/ 7UDLOV % 720 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % 720 )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % 720 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW b RI WKH YDULDQFH IRU PLVXVH HUURUV FDQ EH H[SODLQHG WKURXJK LWHUDWLRQ ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH )$% 72/ DQG 7UDLOV $ UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH PXOWLSOH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ IRU PLVXVH HUURUV DUH GLVSOD\HG LQ 7DEOH 7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 0LVXVH (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 0RGHO 6L]H 5 0RGHO 7UDLOV $ )$% 7UDLOV $ )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ )$% 72/ 75$,/6 $ 75$,/6 % )$% 72/ 75$,/6 $ 75$,/6 % 720 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW b RI WKH YDULDQFH IRU PLVVHOHFWLRQ HUURUV FDQ EH H[SODLQHG WKURXJK LWHUDWLRQ ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ DQG 720 UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH PXOWLSOH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ IRU PLVVHOHFWLRQ HUURUV DUH GLVSOD\HG LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 110

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 0LVVHOHFWLRQ (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 0RGHO 6L]H 5 0RGHO 720 72/ 720 )$% 72/ 720 )$% 72/ 7UDLOV % 720 )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % 720 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW b RI WKH YDULDQFH IRU PRYHPHQW HUURUV FDQ EH H[SODLQHG WKURXJK LWHUDWLRQ ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ DQG 7UDLOV % UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH PXOWLSOH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ IRU PRYHPHQW HUURUV DUH GLVSOD\HG LQ 7DEOH 7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 0RYHPHQW (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 0RGHO 6L]H 5 0RGHO 7UDLOV $ 72/ 7UDLOV $ )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % 720 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW b RI WKH YDULDQFH IRU ,17 HUURUV FDQ EH H[SODLQHG WKURXJK LWHUDWLRQ ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % DQG 720 UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH PXOWLSOH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ IRU ,17 HUURUV DUH GLVSOD\HG LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 111

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG ,17 (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 0RGHO 6L]H 5 0RGHO 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV $ 720 72/ 7UDLOV $ 720 )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % 720 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW b RI WKH YDULDQFH IRU VHTXHQFH HUURUV FDQ EH H[SODLQHG WKURXJK LWHUDWLRQ ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ DQG 720 UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH PXOWLSOH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ IRU VHTXHQFH HUURUV DUH GLVSOD\HG LQ 7DEOH 7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 6HTXHQFH (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 0RGHO 6L]H 5 0RGHO 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV $ 720 72/ 7UDLOV $ 720 )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ 720 )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7ULDOV % 720 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW b RI WKH YDULDQFH IRU WLPLQJ HUURUV FDQ EH H[SODLQHG WKURXJK LWHUDWLRQ ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % DQG 720 UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH PXOWLSOH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ IRU WLPLQJ HUURUV DUH GLVSOD\HG LQ 7DEOH

PAGE 112

7DEOH 5HVXOWV RI 0XOWLSOH 6WHSZLVH 5HJUHVVLRQ $QDO\VLV %HWZHHQ ,QGHSHQGHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG 7LPLQJ (UURUV 3URGXFHG 'XULQJ WKH 0HDO 0RGHO 6L]H 5 0RGHO 72/ 72/ 720 72/ 7UDLOV $ 720 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7UDLOV % 720 )$% 72/ 7UDLOV $ 7ULDOV % 720 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW b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f 3DWLHQWV ZLWK HLWKHU /%' RU 5%' SURGXFH DFWLRQ HUURUV GXULQJ DQ HDWLQJ WDVN

PAGE 113

f 3HRSOH ZLWKRXW EUDLQ GDPDJH GR QRW WHQG WR SURGXFH DFWLRQ HUURUV GXULQJ DQ HDWLQJ WDVN f /%' SDWLHQWV SURGXFH PRUH WRRO DFWLRQ HUURUV GXULQJ DQ HDWLQJ WDVN WKDQ 5%' SDWLHQWV ZKR GR QRW SURGXFH PRUH RI WKHVH HUURUV WKDQ QRUPDO VXEMHFWV f /%' DQG 5%' SDWLHQWV SURGXFH HTXDO DPRXQWV RI QRQWRRO HUURUV GXULQJ DQ HDWLQJ WDVN ERWK RI ZKRP SURGXFH PRUH RI WKHVH HUURUV WKDQ QRUPDO VXEMHFWV 5HJDUGLQJ UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ D LW ZDV IRXQG WKDW f 3UHVHQFH RI GHILFLWV LQ WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV WR FRPPDQG GRHV SUHGLFW SUHVHQFH RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW f 3UHVHQFH RI GHILFLWV LQ WKH FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH RI WRROIXQFWLRQ UHODWLRQVKLSV GRHV SUHGLFW SUHVHQFH RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW f 3UHVHQFH RI GHILFLWV LQ WKH DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ GRHV SUHGLFW SUHVHQFH RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW f 3UHVHQFH RI GHILFLWV LQ WKH VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ GR SUHGLFW SUHVHQFH RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW $GGLWLRQDOO\ f 7KH PHDVXUH RI GHILFLWV LQ DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ ZDV WKH VWURQJHVW SUHGLFWRU ZKLOH WKH PHDVXUH RI GHILFLWV LQ FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH

PAGE 114

RI WRROIXQFWLRQ UHODWLRQVKLSV ZDV WKH ZHDNHVW SUHGLFWRU RI WRWDO QXPEHU RI HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ WKH EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV GXULQJ WKH HDWLQJ WDVN f 3UHVHQFH RI GHILFLWV LQ SURGXFWLRQ RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV DSSHDUHG WR LQIOXHQFH SURGXFWLRQ RI WRRO EXW QRW QRQWRRO HUURUV GXULQJ WKH HDWLQJ WDVN f 3UHVHQFH RI GHILFLWV LQ VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ DSSHDUHG WR LQIOXHQFH SURGXFWLRQ RI QRQWRRO EXW QRW WRRO HUURUV f 3UHVHQFH RI GHILFLWV LQ FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH RI WRROIXQFWLRQ UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ DSSHDUHG WR LQIOXHQFH SURGXFWLRQ RI ERWK WRRO DQG QRQWRRO HUURUV 5HJDUGLQJ UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ E LW ZDV IRXQG WKDW f 1HLWKHU ORZ QRU KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWV LQGHSHQGHQWO\ SUHGLFWHG W\SH RI HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH HDWLQJ WDVN KRZHYHU ORZ DQG KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWV ZKHQ FRPELQHG SUHGLFWHG HDFK HUURU W\SH SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH HDWLQJ WDVN f +RZHYHU WKH GHJUHH RI WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH FRQWULEXWLRQV YDULHG DFFRUGLQJ WR HUURU W\SH SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH HDWLQJ WDVN ZLWK PRYHPHQW HUURUV UHFHLYLQJ WKH VWURQJHVW LQIOXHQFH IURP ERWK ORZ DQG KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWV IROORZHG E\ PLVXVH ,17 TXDQWLW\ WLPLQJ DQG VHTXHQFH UHVSHFWLYHO\

PAGE 115

&+$37(5 )285 ',6&866,21 3UHYLRXV UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH GHVFULEHG HUURUV RI DFWLRQ SURGXFHG GXULQJ DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ E\ SDWLHQWV ZLWK EUDLQ GDPDJH 0D\HU HW DO 6FKZDUW] HW DO 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP 2FKLSD HW DO )RXQGDV HW DO f +RZHYHU HDFK UHVHDUFK WHDP KDV H[DPLQHG WKH SODQQLQJ RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQG SURGXFWLRQ RI WKHVH DFWLRQ HUURUV WKURXJK GLIIHUHQW WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHOV ZLWK GLIIHUHQW LQKHUHQW DVVXPSWLRQV DQG SUHGLFWLRQV 7KH\ KDYH XVHG GLIIHUHQW UHVHDUFK K\SRWKHVHV DU\O HYDOXDWLRQ FULWHULD 0RUHRYHU WKH\ KDYH LQFOXGHG VXEMHFWV ZLWK KHWHURJHQHRXV HWLRORJLHV RI EUDLQ GDPDJH 0D\HU HW DO 6FKZDUW] HW DO 6FKZDUW] t %X[EDXP 6LULJX HW DO D E 2FKLSD HW DO )RXQGDV HW DO f 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZDV WR H[DPLQH WKH QDWXUH RI DFWLRQ HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ EUDLQGDPDJHG SDWLHQWV GXULQJ DQ DFWLYLW\ RI GDLO\ OLYLQJf§HDWLQJ D PHDOf§XVLQJ D WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHO ZKLFK GHVFULEHV D SURSRVHG UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DSUD[LD DQG SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ 7KLV PRGHO VHUYHV DV D IUDPHZRUN IRU WKH H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH QDWXUH RI DFWLRQ DV ZHOO DV PRYHPHQW HUURUV DQG DOORZV IRU FRPSDULVRQ ZLWK PRGHOV SURSRVHG E\ WKH SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFKHUV 7ZR H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFW JURXSV DQG RQH FRQWURO VXEMHFW JURXS SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KH ILUVW H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS FRQVLVWHG RI WZHQW\ OHIW KHPLVSKHUH EUDLQGDPDJHG SDWLHQWV /%'f WKH VHFRQG H[SHULPHQWDO JURXS FRQVLVWHG RI WHQ ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH EUDLQGDPDJHG SDWLHQWV 5%'f DQG WKH FRQWURO VXEMHFW JURXS FRQVLVWHG RI WHQ

PAGE 116

QHXURORJLFDOO\QRUPDO FRQWURO VXEMHFWV 7KH JURXSV ZHUH FRPSDUHG RQ H[SHULPHQWDO WDVNV GHVLJQHG WR PHDVXUH WKH GHILFLWV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LPSDLUPHQW LQ DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ LH IURQWDO DSUD[LD D KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWf GHILFLWV LQ WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV LH LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD D ORZ OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWf GHILFLWV LQ FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH RI WRROREMHFWIXQFWLRQ UHODWLRQVKLSV LH FRQFHSWXDO DSUD[LD D ORZ DQGRU KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWf DQG GHILFLWV LQ VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQ ZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWf (DFK VXEMHFW ZDV DOVR YLGHRWDSHG ZKLOH HQJDJHG LQ DQ DFWLYLW\ RI GDLO\ OLYLQJHDWLQJ D PHDOf§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f DQG DFWLRQ HUURUV GXULQJ DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ WKDQ GLVRUGHUV RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQW ORZHU OHYHO VFKHPDVf DQG DFWLRQ HUURUV GXULQJ DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ +RZHYHU ERWK OHYHOV RI GHILFLWV GR FRQWULEXWH WR SURGXFWLRQ RI HUURUV LQ WKH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW 7KLV FKDSWHU ZLOO GLVFXVV WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ LQ UHVSHFW WR f WKH UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV SRVHG LQ &KDSWHU 2QH DQG UHVXOWV RI SUHYLRXV

PAGE 117

UHVHDUFK f FOLQLFDO LPSOLFDWLRQV f PHWKRGRORJLFDO LVVXHV DQG OLPLWDWLRQV RI WKH VWXG\ DQG f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n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f KHPLVSKHUH ,W ZRXOG WKHUHIRUH EH H[SHFWHG WKDW WKH SUHVHQFH RI LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD PD\ DIIHFW SURGXFWLRQ RI WRRO HUURUV DQG ZRXOG EH REVHUYHG LQ WKH /%' JURXS 2YHUDOO WKLUWHHQ RI WKH WZHQW\ /%' VXEMHFWV SUHVHQWHG ZLWK LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD ZKLOH RQO\ WZR RI WKH WHQ 5%' VXEMHFWV DQG QR FRQWURO VXEMHFWV KDG LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD DV GHILQHG E\ WKH 5RWKL HW DO f FULWHULD

PAGE 118

$GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH /%' DQG 5%' JURXSV GLG QRW GLIIHU IURP HDFK RWKHU EXW ERWK JURXSV GLG GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP WKH FRQWURO JURXS LQ WKH QXPEHU RI QRQWRRO HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH PHDO 7KLV ILQGLQJ ZDV DOVR SUHGLFWHG LQ &KDSWHU 2QH ZKHUH LW ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW QRQWRRO HUURUV PD\ EH PRUH FORVHO\ UHODWHG WR GHILFLWV LQ H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQ DQGRU VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWVf ZKLFK IROORZ GDPDJH WR HLWKHU WKH GRPLQDQW RU QRQGRPLQDQW KHPLVSKHUH 7KDW LV ERWK H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQV DQG VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ KDYH ELODWHUDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQ LQ WKH EUDLQ DQG FDQ EH LPSDLUHG IROORZLQJ GDPDJH WR HLWKHU KHPLVSKHUH ,Q IDFW DOO WZHQW\ /%' VXEMHFWV DQG DOO WHQ 5%' VXEMHFWV GHPRQVWUDWHG GHILFLWV LQ H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQ DFFRUGLQJ WR .ULNRULDQ HW DO FULWHULD f DQGRU VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ DFFRUGLQJ WR 6SUHHP t 6WUDXVV FULWHULDf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f GHILFLWV LQ SURGXFWLRQ RI OHDUQHG VNLOOHG PRYHPHQWV Ef GHILFLWV LQ FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH RI WRROIXQFWLRQ UHODWLRQVKLSV Ff GHILFLWV LQ DFWLRQ SODQQLQJ DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ DQGRU Gf GHILFLWV LQ VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ SUHGLFW

PAGE 119

SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW" $QG LI VR WR ZKDW H[WHQW GRHV HDFK W\SH RI GHILFLW ORZ OHYHO V\VWHP GHILFLWV >D DQG E DERYH@ DQG KLJK OHYHO V\VWHP GHILFLWV >F DQG G DERYH@f SUHGLFW W\SH RI HUURU LQFOXGLQJ PLVXVH PLVVHOHFWLRQ H[WHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ LQWHUQDO FRQILJXUDWLRQ WLPLQJ TXDQWLW\ VHTXHQFH >RPLVVLRQ DGGLWLRQ VHTXHQFH@ H[FKDQJH VXEVWLWXWLRQ PRYHPHQW DQG ERG\ SDUW DV WRROf" 7R DQVZHU WKH ILUVW TXHVWLRQ D FRUUHODWLRQ VWDWLVWLF ZDV FDOFXODWHG EHWZHHQ WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV DQG WKH W\SHV RI HUURUV SURGXFHG GXULQJ WKH PHDO 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW RYHUDOO WKH PHDVXUH RI H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQ KDG WKH KLJKHVW FRUUHODWLRQ ZLWK DOO HUURU W\SHV WRRO QRQWRRO DQG WRWDO HUURUV $OVR WKH PHDVXUH RI LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD KDG WKH VHFRQG KLJKHVW FRUUHODWLRQ DFURVV DOO HUURU W\SHV 7KHVH UHVXOWV DOVR DSSHDU WR VXSSRUW WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWV PD\ fRYHUVHHf RU GRPLQDWH WKH HQWLUH DFWLRQ VHTXHQFH DQG WKHUHIRUH PD\ LQIOXHQFH HUURUV RI HDFK W\SH ZLWKLQ WKDW DFWLRQ VHTXHQFH ZKHQ GDPDJHG 7KH IDFW WKDW D PHDVXUH RI D ORZ OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLW LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LDf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

PAGE 120

DERXW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WRROV DQG REMHFWV DV ZHOO DV VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ PD\ QRW SOD\ DV LPSRUWDQW RI D UROH LQ FRQWULEXWLQJ WR SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV EHFDXVH WKHLU FRUUHODWLRQV ZLWK WKH HUURU W\SHV ZDV QRW DV KLJK DV HLWKHU H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQV RU LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD 7KLV ILQGLQJ DSSHDUV WR FRQWUDGLFW 2FKLSD HW DO f 6FKZDUW] HW DO f DQG 5HDVRQ f 2FKLSD HW DO f UHSRUWHG WKDW WKHLU VXEMHFW SURGXFHG HUURUV VHFRQGDU\ WR D GHILFLW LQ FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH DERXW WRROREMHFW UHODWLRQVKLSV ZKLOH ERWK 6FKZDUW] HW DO f DQG 5HDVRQ f GLVFXVVHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ LQ fSUHYHQWLQJf DQG fFDWFKLQJf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

PAGE 121

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f ZKLOH D KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLW ZRXOG UHVXOW IURP XVLQJ WKH WRRO IURP D SUHYLRXV DFWLRQ IRU WKH QH[W DFWLRQ ZLWKRXW FRQVLGHULQJ WKDW LW LV WKH ZURQJ DFWLRQ )RU TXDQWLW\ HUURUV UHVXOWLQJ IURP ORZOHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWV WKH HUURU ZRXOG UHVXOW IURP D GHILFLW LQ WKH DFNQRZOHGJHPHQW RI WKH PHFKDQLFDO DGYDQWDJH WKDW WRROV SURYLGH HJ D VSRRQ FDQ RQO\ KROG VR PXFK PDVKHG SRWDWRHV ZLWKRXW FRPSURPLVLQJ WKH HIILFLHQF\ RI WKH DFWLRQf ZKLOH TXDQWLW\ HUURUV UHVXOWLQJ IURP KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDV UHVXOW IURP WKH IDLOXUH RI WKH DWWHQWLRQDO V\VWHP WR PHGLDWH DQ LQDSSURSULDWH DFWLRQ :KHQ WKH SDWWHUQ RI HUURUV LV FRPSDUHG IROORZLQJ WKH GLYLVLRQ RI WKH VXEMHFWV DFFRUGLQJ WR SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RI GHILFLWV LQ VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ

PAGE 122

PHPRU\ QRW RQO\ GR PLVXVH DQG TXDQWLW\ HUURUV SUHGRPLQDWH EXW DOVR WLPLQJ HUURUV 7KLV DSSHDUV WR LQGLFDWH WKDW PLVXVH DQG TXDQWLW\ HUURUV DUH WKH PRVW SUHYDOHQW HUURUV IROORZLQJ EUDLQ GDPDJH ,W DOVR VXJJHVWV WKDW DWWHQWLRQDO GHILFLWV FRQWULEXWH WR WLPLQJ HUURUV 7KLV UHODWLRQVKLS LV DOVR ORJLFDO LQ WKDW LI RQH LV QRW SD\LQJ DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH WDVN RQH PD\ ORVH WUDFN RI ZKDW DFWLRQ LV VXSSRVHG WR EH SURGXFHG QH[W DQG PD\ WKHUHIRUH WDNH H[WUD WLPH LQ GHFLGLQJ ZKDW DFWLRQ SODQ WR LQLWLDWH QH[W LQ RUGHU WR FRPSOHWH WKH WDVN :KHQ WKH SDWWHUQ RI HUURUV LV FRPSDUHG IROORZLQJ WKH GLYLVLRQ RI WKH VXEMHFWV DFFRUGLQJ WR SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RI GHILFLWV LQ WKH FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH RI WRRO REMHFW UHODWLRQVKLSV WKH SUHGRPLQDWH HUURU W\SHV ZHUH QRW PLVXVH DQG TXDQWLW\ EXW PRYHPHQW DQG ,17 7KLV ILQGLQJ DSSHDUV WR FRQWUDGLFW WKH SURSRVDO WKDW GHILFLWV LQ WKH FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH RI WRROREMHFW UHODWLRQVKLSV LV D KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLW EHFDXVH ERWK PRYHPHQW DQG ,17 HUURUV DUH VSHFLILFDOO\ REVHUYHG DQG SURGXFHG E\ SDWLHQWV ZLWK LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD D ORZ OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLW +RZHYHU RQO\ IRXU RI WKH WKLUW\ EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV SUHVHQWHG ZLWK GHILFLWV LQ WKH FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH RI WRROREMHFW UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG WKHVH VDPH IRXU VXEMHFWV DOVR KDG VHYHUH LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD ,W PD\ EH SRVVLEOH WKDW WKH HUURU SDWWHUQV DUH D UHIOHFWLRQ RI WKH VHYHUH LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD UDWKHU WKDQ D VSHFLILF GHILFLW LQ WKH FRQFHSWXDO NQRZOHGJH RI WRRO REMHFW UHODWLRQVKLSV 5HVXOWV RI WKH DERYH HUURU SDWWHUQ DQDO\VHV VXSSRUW WKH SURSRVDOV GHVFULEHG E\ 6FKZDUW] HW DO f WKDW HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ EUDLQGDPDJHG SDWLHQWV FDQ UHVXOW IURP DQ LPSDLUPHQW LQ HLWKHU WKH WRSGRZQ RU ERWWRPXS OHYHO RI SURFHVVLQJ ,Q WKLV VWXG\ WRSGRZQ SURFHVVLQJ ZRXOG UHIOHFW GHILFLWV LQ KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDV

PAGE 123

LQIOXHQFLQJ GHILFLWV LQ ORZOHYHO VFKHPDV ZKLOH ERWWRPXS SURFHVVLQJ ZRXOG UHIOHFW GHILFLWV LQ ORZ OHYHO VFKHPDV WKDW DSSHDU WR EH SURGXFHG LQGHSHQGHQWO\ RI KLJK OHYHO fVXSHUYLVLRQf GXULQJ WKH WDVN 6XEMHFWV LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ SURGXFHG HUURU W\SHV IROORZLQJ ERWK RI WKHVH VFHQDULRV 6FKZDUW] HW DO f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f VWXG\ )RXQGDV DQG FROOHDJXHV UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH HUURUV RI DFWLRQ REVHUYHG LQ WKHLU VXEMHFWV UHVXOWHG IURP SUHVHQFH RI LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD +RZHYHU )RXQGDV HW DO f GLG QRW WHVW IRU GHILFLWV LQ KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDV DQG WKH VXEMHFWV IURP ERWK WKH )RXQGDV HW DO f DQG WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZHUH SDWLHQWV ZLWK XQLODWHUDO GDPDJH WR HLWKHU KHPLVSKHUH IROORZLQJ D VWURNH ,W ZRXOG DSSHDU WKDW WKH GHILFLWV LQ KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDV GHPRQVWUDWHG E\ WKH VWURNH SDWLHQWV LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ PD\ DOVR KDYH EHHQ SUHVHQW LQ WKH VXEMHFWV IURP WKH )RXQGDV HW DO f VWXG\ 7KHUHIRUH WKH HUURUV SURGXFHG E\ WKH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH )RXQGDV HW DO f VWXG\ PD\ DOVR KDYH EHHQ LQIOXHQFHG E\ GHILFLWV LQ KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDV ,Q RUGHU WR GHWHUPLQH WKH GHJUHH RI LQIOXHQFH IURP HDFK W\SH RI GHILFLW KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD DQG ORZ OHYHO VFKHPD DQ DOOSRVVLEOH UHJUHVVLRQ VWDWLVWLF ZDV FDOFXODWHG

PAGE 124

EHWZHHQ WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV DQG WKH VSHFLILF HUURU W\SHV 5HVXOWV RI WKHVH DQDO\VHV UHYHDOHG WKDW QR RQH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH FDQ EH GLVWLQJXLVKHG IURP DQ\ RWKHU LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH LQ WKHLU UHODWLYH LQIOXHQFH WR SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV 7KDW LV HDFK HUURU W\SH DSSHDUV WR EH LQIOXHQFHG E\ ERWK KLJK DQG ORZ OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWV 7KLV ILQGLQJ DOVR VXSSRUWV SURSRVDOV PDGH E\ 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f LQ WKHLU GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH 8QLILHG +\SRWKHVLV 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXP f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fV f SURSRVDO WKHUH ZHUH DQ DGGLWLRQDO HOHYHQ VXEMHFWV ZKR SUHVHQWHG ZLWK KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWV RQO\ ZKR GLG SURGXFHG DFWLRQ HUURUV GXULQJ WKH PHDO 7KHVH HOHYHQ VXEMHFWV VKRXOG QRW KDYH SURGXFHG HUURUV LI 6FKZDUW] DQG %X[EDXPfV f SURSRVDOV ZHUH YDOLG ,W LV DOVR LQWHUHVWLQJ WR QRWH WKDW QRQH RI WKH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZKR GHPRQVWUDWHG ORZ OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWV KDG VSDUHG KLJK OHYHO VFKHPDV 7KLV ZRXOG DSSHDU WR VXSSRUW WKH ELODWHUDO QDWXUH RI WKH KLJK

PAGE 125

,OO OHYHO VFKHPDV DV ZHOO DV WKH ODWHUDOL]DWLRQ RI ORZ OHYHO VFKHPDV GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH SUHYLRXV VHFWLRQ 0HWKRGRORJLFDO ,VVXHV DQG /LPLWDWLRQV RI WKH 6WXG\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV UHVHDUFK PXVW EH LQWHUSUHWHG ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH OLPLWDWLRQV RI WKH VWXG\ 2QH SRVVLEOH DUHD RI FRQFHUQ LQYROYHV VXEMHFW VHOHFWLRQ $OO H[SHULPHQWDO VXEMHFWV GLG KDYH &705, GRFXPHQWDWLRQ RI VLQJOH XQLODWHUDO VWURNHV EXW WKH WLPH SRVW RQVHW YDULHG IURP RQH PRQWK WR PRQWKV \HDUVf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f PD\ QRW EH WKH PRVW VHQVLWLYH RU YDOLG 7KHVH PHDVXUHV ZHUH FKRVHQ GXH WR WKHLU HDVH LQ DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH DEOH WR FRPSUHKHQG WKH GLUHFWLRQV DQG SHUIRUP WKH WDVNV DFFRUGLQJO\ ,I PRUH FRPSOH[ RU ORQJHU PHDVXUHV KDG EHHQ FKRVHQ

PAGE 126

LW ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ YHU\ SRVVLEOH WKDW PDQ\ RI WKH DSKDVLF VXEMHFWV ZRXOG QRW KDYH EHHQ DEOH WR SHUIRUP WKH WDVN DQG LPSRUWDQW GDWD ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ ORVW 2QH RWKHU DUHD RI FRQFHUQ LV WKDW DOO VXEMHFWV DWH GLIIHUHQW PHDOV $OWKRXJK DOO PHDOV FRQVLVWHG RI WKH VDPH FDWHJRULHV RI IRRGD PDLQ FRXUVH DW OHDVW RQH VLGH GLVK D GHVVHUW DQG D EHYHUDJHf§WKH W\SHV RI IRRG ZLWKLQ HDFK FDWHJRU\ YDULHG JUHDWO\ 2QH VXEMHFW PD\ KDYH VWHDN DQG SRWDWRHV ZKLOH DQRWKHU KDG VSDJKHWWL DQG JDUOLF EUHDG DQG DQRWKHU KDG FKLFNHQ IDMLWDV DQG D VLGH VDODG $OWKRXJK HDFK W\SH RI PHDO SURYLGHG RSSRUWXQLW\ WR XVH DOO WKUHH XQWHQVLOV NQLIH IRUN DQG VSRRQf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t %X[EDXP f ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW WKH HUURU W\SHV WKDW ZHUH QRW SURGXFHG PD\ EH OHVV IUHTXHQWO\ SURGXFHG LQ JHQHUDO DQG WKDW D ODUJHU QXPEHU RI VXEMHFWV PD\ KDYH EHHQ QHFHVVDU\ WR SURYLGH DPSOH RSSRUWXQLW\ IRU WKH OHVV IUHTXHQW HUURU W\SHV WR EH SURGXFHG $ ILQDO FRQFHUQ SHUWDLQV WR WKH UDWHUV ZKR VFRUHG WKH YLGHRWDSHV RI WKH PHDO DQG GRFXPHQWHG WKH HUURU W\SHV 7KH UDWHUV ZHUH QRW DZDUH RI WKH K\SRWKHVHV RI WKH VWXG\ QRU ZHUH WKH\ IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH &RJQLWLYH 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO 0RGHO RI /LPE

PAGE 127

3UD[LV DQG $SUD[LD RU WKH 8QLILHG +\SRWKHVLV 7KLV ZDV GRQH WR OLPLW WKH HIIHFWV RI UDWHU ELDV RQ MXGJLQJ WKH SUHVHQFH RI DFWLRQ DQG PRYHPHQW HUURUV DQG WR VWUHQJWKHQ WKH LQWHUQDO YDOLGLW\ RI WKH VWXG\ 2QO\ RQH SUHYLRXV VWXG\ 0DKHU f KDV HPSOR\HG WKH VDPH GHJUHH RI FRQWURO RYHU WKLV LVVXH $V 0DKHU f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f RU QRQGRPLQDQW ULJKWf KHPLVSKHUH ZDV WDNHQ LQWR FRQVLGHUDWLRQ ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW PDSSLQJ WKH VL]H DQG ORFDWLRQ RI WKH OHVLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH KHPLVSKHUH PD\ OHDG WR HYHQ JUHDWHU FRQFOXVLRQV UHJDUGLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ EUDLQEHKDYLRU UHODWLRQVKLSV 7KLV LV HVSHFLDOO\ WUXH ZKHQ WKH SURSRVDOV IRU

PAGE 128

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f DQG GHPHQWLD $OWKRXJK 6FKZDUW] HW DO f DQG 2FKLSD f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fQDWXUDOf WR REVHUYH WKH VXEMHFWV HLWKHU ZLWKLQ WKHLU RZQ KRPH RU fILQDO GHVWLQDWLRQf HJ DQ DVVLVWHG OLYLQJ IDFLOLW\ DGXOW IDPLO\ KRPH RU VNLOOHG QXUVLQJ IDFLOLW\f DQG HDWLQJ IRRG WKDW WKH\ KDYH FKRVHQ RU SUHSDUHG WKHPVHOYHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ DWWHPSWV VKRXOG EH PDGH WR REVHUYH RU YLGHRWDSH WKH VXEMHFWV ZLWKRXW WKH

PAGE 129

VXEMHFWV EHLQJ DZDUH RI WKH REVHUYDWLRQ $OO RI WKH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZHUH DZDUH WKDW WKH\ ZHUH EHLQJ YLGHRWDSHG EXW ZHUH XQDZDUH RI WKH QDWXUH RI WKH VWXG\ LH WKDW WKHLU DFWLRQV DQG HUURUV ZHUH JRLQJ WR EH H[DPLQHGf ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW MXVW NQRZLQJ WKDW WKH\ ZHUH EHLQJ YLGHRWDSHG OHG WR LQFUHDVHG FRQVFLRXVQHVV RI WKHLU DFWLRQV $QRWKHU OHDG IRU IXWXUH VWXGLHV ZRXOG LQYROYH ORFDWLQJ DQG HYDOXDWLQJ VXEMHFWV ZLWK RQO\ RQH GHILFLW )RU H[DPSOH WKLV PLJKW LQYROYH VXEMHFWV ZLWK LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD ZKR GR QRW KDYH H[HFXWLYH IXQFWLRQ RU VXSHUYLVRU\ DWWHQWLRQZRUNLQJ PHPRU\ GLVRUGHUV DQG VR IRUWK %\ HYDOXDWLQJ WKHVH fSXUHUf VXEMHFWV D EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH UROH RI HDFK W\SH RI GLVRUGHU ZLWKLQ WKH KLJK DQG ORZ VFKHPD IUDPHZRUNV PD\ EH GHOLQHDWHG 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ WKHVH VXEMHFWV DUH UDUH DQG LW LV SRVVLEOH WKDW WKH GHILFLWV GHVFULEHG LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ DUH PRUH LQGLFDWLYH RI WKH fDYHUDJHf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f UHSRUWHG WKDW WLPH WR HDW ZDV ORQJHU IRU WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV WKDQ IRU WKH FRQWUROV DQG WKDW WKH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV GLG QRW UHVSHFW WKH ERXQGDULHV RI WKH GLIIHUHQW PHDO VWDJHV ,W LV QRW NQRZQ ZKHWKHU SDWLHQWV ZLWK ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH GDPDJH ZRXOG GHPRQVWUDWH WKHVH VDPH GHILFLWV

PAGE 130

,Q DOO UHVHDUFK LQWR WKH QDWXUH RI DFWLRQ DQG PRYHPHQW HUURUV LQ DFWLYLWLHV RI GDLO\ OLYLQJ SUDJPDWLF DFWLRQ DQG UHDOOLIH HIIHFWV RI LGHRPRWRU DSUD[LD DSSHDU WR EH H[FLWLQJ FOLQLFDOO\ UHOHYDQW DQG SURGXFWLYH HQGHDYRUV &OLQLFDO ,PSOLFDWLRQV 7KH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK DFWLRQ HUURUV ZHUH SURGXFHG E\ SDWLHQWV LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ LV LQWHUHVWLQJ LQ WKDW QRQH RI WKH FDUHJLYHUV H QXUVHV RU IDPLO\ PHPEHUVf UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH SDWLHQW KDG EHHQ SURGXFLQJ HUURUV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKHUH LV D VFDUFLW\ RI UHSRUWV LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH WKDW GHVFULEH HUURUV RI DFWLRQ SURGXFHG LQ QDWXUDO FRQWH[WV E\ D JURXS RI EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV 6LQFH WZHQW\IRXU RI WKH WKLUW\ EUDLQ GDPDJHG SDWLHQWV LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ SURGXFHG HUURUV RI DFWLRQ IROORZLQJ D XQLODWHUDO VWURNH LW LV YHU\ SUREDEOH WKDW WKHVH HUURUV RI DFWLRQ JR XQGHWHFWHG ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWUROOHG HQYLURQPHQW RI DQ DFXWH FDUH KRVSLWDO UHKDELOLWDWLRQ FHQWHU RU QXUVLQJ KRPH ,W LV DOVR IHDVLEOH WKDW DQ\ SHUVRQ ZKR VXIIHUV D EUDLQ LQMXU\ LV VXVFHSWLEOH WR SURGXFH DFWLRQ HUURUV VHFRQGDU\ WR KLJK OHYHO VFKHPD GHILFLWV WKDW IROORZ GDPDJH WR HLWKHU KHPLVSKHUH ,I WKLV LV WUXH WKHQ WKHUH DUH VLJQLILFDQW LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU FDUHJLYHUV DQG UHKDELOLWDWLRQ SURIHVVLRQDOV IRU WKHVH EUDLQLQMXUHG SHRSOH 7KH FDUHJLYHUV VKRXOG EH DZDUH RI WKH SRWHQWLDO GDQJHU LQ ZKLFK WKH EUDLQLQMXUHG SDWLHQW LV SODFHG ZKHQ LQ DQ XQVXSHUYLVHG RU XQFRQWUROOHG HQYLURQPHQW 2QH H[DPSOH GHVFULEHG E\ 2FKLSD f ZDV RI D SDWLHQW ZKR ZDV SUHSDULQJ WR EUXVK WHHWK LQ WKH EDWKURRP EXW SLFNHG XS WKH UD]RU LQVWHDG RI WKH WRRWKEUXVK 7KH LQKHUHQW GDQJHU LQ WKDW VFHQDULR LV REYLRXV WR HYHQ WKRVH QRW IDPLOLDU ZLWK GHILFLWV VHHQ IROORZLQJ EUDLQ LQMXU\ +RZHYHU LQ RUGHU WR FRQWURO SRWHQWLDOO\ GDQJHURXV VLWXDWLRQV WKH FDUHJLYHU PXVW EH PDGH DZDUH RI WKH SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW WKH EUDLQLQMXUHG SDWLHQW FDQ DQG ZLOO SURGXFH WKHVH DFWLRQ HUURUV

PAGE 131

8QIRUWXQDWHO\ WKLV LV DQ DUHD DERXW ZKLFK QRW PDQ\ UHKDELOLWDWLRQ SURIHVVLRQDOV DUH DZDUH DQG VXEVHTXHQWO\ PD\ QRW DGHTXDWHO\ LQIRUP WKH FDUHJLYHU 2FKLSD )RXQGDV HW DO f 0RUHRYHU RQFH FDUHJLYHUV DUH PDGH DZDUH RI WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI SXWWLQJ WKH EUDLQLQMXUHG SDWLHQW LQ GDQJHURXV VLWXDWLRQV WKH PDQDJHPHQW RI WKH SUREOHP LV UHODWLYHO\ HDV\ WR DGPLQLVWHU 7KH PDQDJHPHQW LQYROYHV HGXFDWLQJ WKH FDUHJLYHU DQG DQ\ RWKHU VLJQLILFDQW LQGLYLGXDO ZKR ZLOO EH ZRUNLQJ ZLWK WKDW SDWLHQW DV WR ZD\V RI FRQWUROOLQJ WKH HQYLURQPHQW VR DV QRW WR SXW WKH LQGLYLGXDO DW ULVN 7KHVH VXJJHVWLRQV IRU PDQDJHPHQW ZHUH GHVFULEHG E\ 2FKLSD f DQG DUH UHLWHUDWHG KHUH /LPLW DFFHVV WR GDQJHURXV WRROV NQLYHV UD]RUV HWFf /LPLW WKH DYDLODEOH VHOHFWLRQ RI WRROV IRU D SDUWLFXODU WDVN HJ D UD]RU VKRXOG QRW EH ZLWKLQ UHDFK ZKHQ WKH SHUVRQ LV EUXVKLQJ KLVKHU WHHWKf 7RROV VKRXOG RQO\ EH XVHG LQ WDVNV WKDW DUH IDPLOLDU WR WKH SDWLHQW 7RRO XVH LQ QRYHO RU QHZ FRQWH[WV VKRXOG EH DYRLGHG 7DVNV LQYROYLQJ WKH XVH RI PXOWLSOH WRROV VKRXOG EH DYRLGHG $Q\ WDVN WKDW UHTXLUHV WKH XVH RI SRWHQWLDOO\ GDQJHURXV WRROV VKRXOG EH VWULFWO\ VXSHUYLVHG $GGLWLRQDOO\ SUHVHQFH RI G\VSKDJLD VZDOORZLQJ GLVRUGHUVf LQ EUDLQLQMXUHG SDWLHQWV LV DOVR KLJK $OWKRXJK QRW VSHFLILFDOO\ DGGUHVVHG LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ DV VXEMHFWV ZLWK G\VSKDJLD ZHUH VSHFLILFDOO\ H[FOXGHGf ,W LV KLJKO\ SUREDEOH WKDW WKH FRPELQDWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV ZLWK VZDOORZLQJ SUREOHPV GXULQJ PHDOWLPH PD\ SXW WKH EUDLQLQMXUHG VXEMHFW DW KLJKHU ULVN IRU FKRNLQJ RU DVSLUDWLRQ (VSHFLDOO\ ZKHQ LW LV FRQVLGHUHG WKDW WKH PRVW SUHYDOHQW DFWLRQ HUURUV ZHUH PLVXVH DQG TXDQWLW\ 7KH

PAGE 132

SRVVLELOLW\ RI D EUDLQLQMXUHG SDWLHQW ZLWK G\VSKDJLD EULQJLQJ D XWHQVLO WR KLVKHU PRXWK ZLWK WRR PXFK RU WRR OLWWOH IRRG LV YHU\ SRVVLEOH DQG PD\ UHVXOW LQ H[DFHUEDWLRQ RI WKH VZDOORZLQJ SUREOHP 7KH UROH RI WKH VSHHFKODQJXDJH SDWKRORJLVW 6/3f LV DQ LPSRUWDQW RQH ZKHQ DFWLRQ HUURUV LQ WKH QDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW DUH GLVFXVVHG 7KH 6/3 LV XVXDOO\ LQ D XQLTXH UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK WKH EUDLQLQMXUHG SDWLHQW DQG WKHLU FDUHJLYHUV LQ WKDW WKH 6/3fV PDLQ UROH LV WR LPSURYH WKH IXQFWLRQDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ RI WKH SDWLHQW DV ZHOO DV WR HYDOXDWH DQG WUHDW G\VSKDJLD %\ GRLQJ WKHVH WDVNV WKH 6/3 EHFRPHV YHU\ IDPLOLDU ZLWK WKH SDWLHQW DQG WKHLU IDPLO\ DQG LV RIWHQ DVNHG WR LQWHUSUHW RU UHLWHUDWH LQVWUXFWLRQV DQG FRQYHUVDWLRQV E\ RWKHU KHDOWK FDUH SURIHVVLRQDOV 7KURXJK WKHVH FORVH UHODWLRQVKLSV WKH 6/3 LV DFFRXQWDEOH IRU SURYLGLQJ HWKLFDO DQG SURIHVVLRQDO FDUH WR WKH SDWLHQW 7KH 6/3fV UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV RIWHQ LQFOXGH FRXQVHOLQJ SDWLHQWV DQG FDUHJLYHUV SURYLGLQJ LQSXW WR WKH UHKDELOLWDWLRQ WHDP IRU GLVFKDUJH RSWLRQV OHYHO RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ IXQFWLRQ QHHG RI KRPH KHDOWK DLGV RU DVVLVWDQFH DV ZHOO DV EHLQJ DQ fLQWHUPHGLDU\f EHWZHHQ WKH OHYHO RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ FRPSHWHQFH RI WKH UHKDELOLWDWLRQ SURIHVVLRQDOV DQG WKH OHYHO RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ FRPSHWHQFH RI WKH EUDLQLQMXUHG SDWLHQW DQG WKHLU FDUHJLYHU ZKR PD\ EH LJQRUDQW RI WKH KHDOWK FDUH SURFHVV ,Q WKHVH VFHQDULRV WKH UHVSRQVLELOLW\ LV DOVR SODFHG RQ WKH 6/3 WR EH DFFRXQWDEOH DQG NQRZOHGJHDEOH IRU DUHDV WKDW PD\ GHWULPHQWDOO\ DIIHFW WKHLU SDWLHQW RI ZKLFK SURGXFWLRQ RI DFWLRQ HUURUV LV RQH FDWHJRU\

PAGE 133

$33(1',; $ )/25,'$ $35$;,$ %$77(5< *(6785( 72 &200$1' 68%7(67 5$1'20,=(' )250 $ 1$0( '$7( 6XEMHFWV ZLOO EH UHTXLUHG WR SURYLGH D JHVWXUH WR WKH JLYHQ FRPPDQG 6XEMHFWV DUH WR XVH WKH cHIW LSVLOHVLRQDOf KDQG WR JHVWXUH 7KH ILUVW WLPH WKH VXEMHFW SURGXFHV D ERG\ SDUW DV WRRO HUURU UHPLQG VXEMHFW WR SUHWHQG WR KROG DQG XVH WKH WRRO MXVW DV KH QRUPDOO\ ZRXOG DW KRPH 7KHQ DOORZ WR UHDWWHPSW WKH JHVWXUH 'R QRW UHLQVWUXFW RQ VXEVHTXHQW HUURUV 9LGHRWDSH DOO UHVSRQVHV IURP D IURQW YLHZ ZLWK VXEMHFW VHDWHG LQ D FKDLU $OWKRXJK JHQHUDO SHUIRUPDQFH PD\ EH VFRUHG RQOLQH DFWXDO VFRUHV ZLOO EH GHULYHG IURP YLGHRWDSH YLHZLQJ ,QVWUXFWLRQV DP JRLQJ WR DVN \RX WR PDNH VRPH JHVWXUHV ZLWK \RXU OHIW KDQG )RU VRPH JHVWXUHV \RX ZLOO MXVW PDNH GLIIHUHQW KDQG PRWLRQV )RU RWKHUV \RX ZLOO SUHWHQG WR XVH FHUWDLQ WRROV 3UHWHQG WR XVH HDFK WRRO MXVW DV \RX ZRXOG LI \RX ZHUH DFWXDOO\ KROGLQJ WKH WRRO LQ \RXU KDQG DQG XVLQJ LW 6KRZ PH 6FRUH (UURU &RGH KRZ WR XVH D VFRRS WR VHUYH LFH FUHDP VWRS KRZ WR XVH VFLVVRUV WR FXW SDSHU 2. KRZ WR XVH ZLUH FXWWHUV WR VQLS D ZLUH KRZ WR XVH DQ LFH SLFN WR FKRS LFH KRZ WR XVH D FRPE WR IL[ \RXU KDLU KRZ \RX PDNH D ILVW KRZ \RX ZDYH JRRGE\H VRPHRQH LV FUD]\

PAGE 134

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

PAGE 135

)/25,'$ $35$;,$ %$77(5< *(6785( 72 &200$1' 68%7(67 5$1'20,=(' )250 % 1$0( '$7( 6XEMHFWV ZLOO EH UHTXLUHG WR SURYLGH D JHVWXUH WR WKH JLYHQ FRPPDQG 6XEMHFWV DUH WR XVH WKH OHIW LSVLOHVLRQDOf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

PAGE 136

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

PAGE 137

$33(1',; % 722/2%-(&7 0$7&+,1* 7$6. 3URFHGXUH 3ODFH WKH WDUJHW WRRO DQG WKUHH IRLO WRROV LQ UDQGRP RUGHU LQ IURQW RI WKH VXEMHFW 3ODFH WKH REMHFW ZLWK WKH SDUWLDOO\ FRPSOHWHG DFWLRQ EHKLQG WKH WRROV ,QVWUXFWLRQV DP JRLQJ WR VKRZ \RX VRPH WRROV DQG DQ REMHFW LQ ZKLFK DQ DFWLRQ KDV EHHQ FRPSOHWHG 3OHDVH FKRRVH WKH WRRO WKDW \RX ZRXOG XVH WR FRPSOHWH WKH DFWLRQ 2EMHFWV ZLWK SDUWLDOO\ FRPSOHWHG DFWLRQ 7DUJHW WRRO )RLO )RLO KDOI RSHQHG FDQ FDQ RSHQHU VDZ SHQ QDLO KDOI LQ ZRRG KDPPHU VFUHZGULYHU QHHGOH ELW KDOI LQ ZRRG KDQG GULOO ZUHQFK VWDSOH UHPRYHU SDUWLDOO\ VDZHG ERDUG VDZ KDPPHU VFLVVRUV SDUWLDOO\ VHZHG FORWK QHHGOH FDQ RSHQHU VFLVVRUV KDOI GUDZQ SLFWXUH SHQ QHHGOH KDQG GULOO QDLO EHQW LQ ZRRG KDPPHU ZUHQFK VDZ SDUWLDOO\ FXW SDSHU VFLVVRUV SHQ VWDSOH UHPRYHU VFUHZ KDOI LQ ZRRG VFUHZGULYHU ZLUH FXWWHUV KDPPHU VWDSOH KDOI RXW RI SDSHU VWDSOH UHPRYHU FDQ RSHQHU ZLUH FXWWHUV SDUWLDOO\ FXW ZLUH ZLUH FXWWHUV KDQG GULOO KDPPHU QXW t EROW SDUWLDOO\ WLJKWHQHG LQ ZRRG ZUHQFK KDPPHU VFUHZGULYHU

PAGE 138

$33(1',; & 75$,/6 7(67 7LPH LQ 6HFRQGV RQ 3DUWV $ DQG %f IRU 1RUPDO &RQWURO 6XEMHFWV DW 'LIIHUHQW $JH /HYHOV
PAGE 139

5()(5(1&(6 %HDXYRLV 0) t 6DOODQW % f 2SWLF DSKDVLD IRU FRORXUV DQG FRORXU DJQRVLD $ GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ YLVXDO DQG YLVXRYHUEDO LPSDLUPHQWV LQ WKH SURFHVVLQJ RI FRORXUV &RJQLWLYH 1HXURSV\FKRORJ\ %MRPHE\ ( t 5HLQYDQJ f $FTXLULQJ DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ VHOIFDUH VNLOOV DIWHU VWURNH 7KH SUHGLFWLYH YDOXH RI DSUD[LD 7KH 6FDQGLQDYLDQ -RXUQDO RI 5HKDELOLWDWLRQ 0HGLFLQH %UDLQ :5 f 9LVXDO GLVRULHQWDWLRQ ZLWK VSHFLDO UHIHUHQFH WR OHVLRQV RI WKH ULJKW FHUHEUDO KHPLVSKHUH %UDLQ %URZQ -: f $SKDVLD DSUD[LD DQG DJQRVLD 6SULQJILHOG ,/ &KDUOHV & 7KRPDV &ULWFKOH\ f 7KH ODQJXDJH RI JHVWXUH /RQGRQ $FDGHPLF 3UHVV 'HQQ\%URZQ t %DQNHU %4 f $PRUSKRV\QWKHVLV IURP OHIW SDULHWDO OHVLRQV $UFKLYHV RI 1HXURORJ\ DQG 3V\FKLDWU\ 'H5HQ]L ( f 0HWKRGV RI OLPE DSUD[LD H[DPLQDWLRQ DQG WKHLU EHDULQJ RQ WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH GLVRUGHU ,Q ($ 5R\ (Gf 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO VWXGLHV RI DSUD[LD DQG UHODWHG GLVRUGHUV SS f $PVWHUGDP (OVHYLHU 6FLHQFH 3XEOLVKHUV 'H5HQ]L ( )DJOLRQL 3 t 6RUJDWR $ f 0RGDOLW\ VSHFLILF DQG VXSUDPRGDO PHFKDQLVPV RI DSUD[LD %UDLQ 'H5HQ]L ( t /XFFKHOOL ) f ,GHDWLRQDO DSUD[LD %UDLQ ,OO 'XII\ 5t /LOHV %= f $ WUDQVODWLRQ RI )LQNHOQVWHLQnV f OHFWXUH RQ DSKDVLD DV nDV\PERO\n ZLWK FRPPHQWDU\ -RXUQDO RI 6SHHFK DQG +HDULQJ 'LVRUGHUV )RXQGDV $/ 0DFDXOH\ %/ 5D\PHU $0 0DKHU /0 5RWKL /-* t +HLOPDQ .0 f (FRORJLFDO LPSOLFDWLRQ RI OLPE DSUD[LD (YLGHQFH IURP PHDOWLPH EHKDYLRU -RXUQDO RI WKH ,QWHUQDWLRQDO 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO 6RFLHW\ L *HVFKZLQG 1 f 'LVFRQQH[LRQ V\QGURPHV LQ DQLPDOV DQG PDQ 3DUW ,, %UDLQ

PAGE 140

*ROGVWHLQ f /DQJXDJH DQG ODQJXDJH GLVWXUEDQFHV 1HZ
PAGE 141

/LHSPDQQ + Df 6RPH KHOSIXO KLQWV LQ WKH H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH EUDLQn GDPDJHG 0XQFKHQHU PHGL]LQLVFKH ZRFKHQVFKULIW .LPXUD 7UDQVf 8QLYHUVLW\ RI :HVWHUQ 2QWDULR 'HSDUWPHQW RI 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HVHDUFK %XOOHWLQ /LHSPDQQ + Ef 7KH OHIW KHPLVSKHUH DQG DFWLRQ 0XQFKHQHU PHGL]LQLVFKH ZRFKHQVFKULIW .LPXUD 7UDQVf 8QLYHUVLW\ RI :HVWHUQ 2QWDULR 'HSDUWPHQW RI 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HVHDUFK %XOOHWLQ /LHSPDQQ + f &RQFHUQLQJ WKH IXQFWLRQ RI WKH FRUSXV FDOORVXP DQG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI DSKDVLD DQG DSUD[LD WR LQWHOOLJHQFH 0HGL]LQLVFKH .OLQLN .LPXUD 7UDQVf 8QLYHUVLW\ RI :HVWHUQ 2QWDULR 'HSDUWPHQW RI 3V\FKRORJ\ 5HVHDUFK %XOOHWLQ /LHSPDQQ + f $SUD[LH >$SUD[LD@ (UJHEQLVVH GHU JHVDPWHQ PHGL]LQ L /LHSPDQQ + t 0DDV 2 f )DOO YRQ OLQNVHLWLJHU DJUDSKLH XQG DSUD[LH EHL UHFKVVHLWLJHU ODKPXQJ >$ FDVH RI OHIW VLGHG DJUDSKLD DQG DSUD[LD ZLWK ULJKW VLGHG SDUDO\VLV@ = ) 3VYFKRORJLH 8 1HXUROR 0DKHU /0 f 3UD[LV DQG WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH 3K' GLVVHUWDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD *DLQHVYLOOH 0DUVGHQ -/ f 7KH P\VWHULRXV PRWRU IXQFWLRQ RI WKH EDVDO JDQJOLD 7KH 5REHUW :DUWHQEHUJ OHFWXUH 1HXURORJ\ 0D\HU 1+ 5HHG ( 6FKZDUW] 0) 0RQWJRPHU\ 0 t 3DOPHU & f %XWWHULQJ D KRW FXS RI FRIIHH $Q DSSURDFK WR WKH VWXG\ RI HUURUV RI DFWLRQ LQ SDWLHQWV ZLWK EUDLQ GDPDJH ,Q '( 7XSSHU t .' &LFFHURQH (GVf 7KH QHXURSV\FKRORJ\ RI HYHU\GD\ OLIH YRO $VVHVVPHQW DQG EDVLF FRPSHWHQFLHV SS f 1RUZHOO 0$ .OXZHU $FDGHPLF 3XEOLVKLQJ 0F)LH 3LHUF\ 0) t =DQJZLOO 2/ f 9LVXDO VSDWLDO DJQRVLD DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK OHVLRQV RI WKH ULJKW KHPLVSKHUH %UDLQ 1DGHDX 6( f &RQQHFWLRQLVW PRGHOV DQG ODQJXDJH 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH WK $QQXDO &RXUVH LQ %HKDYLRUDO 1HXURORJ\ DQG 1HXURSV\FKRORJ\ 2UODQGR )ORULGD 1RUPDQ '$ f &DWHJRUL]DWLRQ RI DFWLRQ VOLSV 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HYLHZV f 1RUPDQ '$ t 6KDOOLFH 7 f $WWHQWLRQ WR DFWLRQ :LOOHG DQG DXWRPDWLF FRQWURO RI EHKDYLRU ,Q 5'DYLGVRQ *( 6FKZDUW] t 6KDSLUR (GVf &RQVFLRXVQHVV DQG VHOIUHJXODWLRQ YRO SS f 1HZ
PAGE 142

2FKLSD & 5RWKL /-* t +HLOPDQ .0 f ,GHDWLRQDO DSUD[LD $ GHILFLW LQ WRRO VHOHFWLRQ DQG XVH $QQDOV RI 1HXURORJ\ 2FKLSD & 5RWKL /-* t +HLOPDQ .0 f &RQFHSWXDO DSUD[LD LQ $O]KHLPHUnV GLVHDVH %UDLQ 3DLOODUG f $SUD[LD DQG WKH QHXURSK\VLRORJ\ RI PRWRU FRQWURO 3KLORVRSKLFDO 7UDQVDFWLRQV RI WKH 5R\DO 6RFLHW\ /RQGRQ % 3DLYLR $ f 0HQWDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV $ GXDO FRGLQJ DSSURDFK 1HZ
PAGE 143

5RWKL /-* t +HLOPDQ .0 f ,GHRPRWRU DSUD[LD *HVWXUDO GLVFULPLQDWLRQ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ DQG PHPRU\ ,Q ($ 5R\ (Gf 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO VWXGLHV RQ DSUD[LD DQG UHODWHG GLVRUGHUV SS f $PVWHUGDP (OVHYLHU 6FLHQFH 3XEOLVKHUV 5RWKL /-* t +HLOPDQ .0 f ,QWURGXFWLRQ WR OLPE DSUD[LD ,Q /-* 5RWKL t .0 +HLOPDQ (GVf $SUD[LD 7KH QHXURSV\FKRORJ\ RI DFWLRQ SS f +RYH (DVW 6XVVH[ 8. 3V\FKRORJLFDO 3UHVV 5RWKL /-* 0DFN 6 t +HLOPDQ .0 f 3DQWRPLPH DJQRVLD -RXUQDO RI 1HXURORJ\ 1HXURVXUJHU\ DQG 3V\FKLDWU\ 5RWKL /-* 0DFN 6 9HUIDHOOLH / %URZQ 3 t +HLOPDQ .0 f ,GHRPRWRU DSUD[LD (UURU SDWWHUQ DQDO\VLV $SKDVLRORJ\ 5RWKL /-* 2FKLSD & t +HLOPDQ .0 f $ FRJQLWLYH QHXURSV\FKRORJLFDO PRGHO RI OLPE SUD[LV &RJQLWLYH 1HXURSV\FKRORJ\ 5RWKL /-* 2FKLSD & t +HLOPDQ .0 f $ FRJQLWLYH QHXURSSV\FKRORJLFDO PRGHO RI OLPE DSUD[LD DQG DSUD[LD ,Q /-* 5RWKL t .0 +HLOPDQ (GVf $SUD[LD 7KH QHXURSV\FKRORJ\ RI DFWLRQ SS f +RYH (DVW 6XVVH[ 8. 3V\FKRORJLFDO 3UHVV 5RWKL /-* 5D\PHU $0 2FKLSD & 0DKHU /0 *UHHQZDOG 0 t +HLOPDQ .0 f )ORULGD $SUD[LD %DWWHU\ ([SHULPHQWDO (GLWLRQ *DLQHVYLOOH8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 5R\ ($ t 6TXDUH 3 f &RPPRQ FRQVLGHUDWLRQV LQ WKH VWXG\ RI OLPE YHUEDO DQG RUDO DSUD[LD ,Q ($ 5R\ (Gf 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO VWXGLHV RI DSUD[LD DQG UHODWHG GLVRUGHUV SS f $PVWHUGDP (OVHYLHU 6FLHQFH 3XEOLVKHUV 5XPHOKDUW '( t 0F&OHOODQG -/ f 3DUDOOHO GLVWULEXWHG SURFHVVLQJ &DPEULGJH 0,7 3UHVV 6DHNL 6 2JDWD + 2NXED 7 7DNDKDVKL t +RVKX\DPD 7 f )DFWRUV LQIOXHQFLQJ UHWXUQ WR ZRUN DIWHU VWURNH LQ -DSDQ 6WURNH 6DHNL 6 2JDWD + 2NXED 7 7DNDKDVKL t +RVKX\DPD 7 f 5HWXUQ RI ZRUN DIWHU VWURNH $ IROORZXS VWXG\ 6WURNH 6FKZDUW] 0) t %X[EDXP /f 3UDJPDWLF DFWLRQ ,Q /-* 5RWKL t .0 +HLOPDQ (GVf $SUD[LD 7KH QHXURSV\FKRORJ\ RI DFWLRQ SS f +RYH (DVW 6XVVH[ 8. 3V\FKRORJLFDO 3UHVV

PAGE 144

6FKZDUW] 0) 0D\HU 1+ 'H6DOPH (-) t 0RQWJRPHU\ 0: f &RJQLWLYH WKHRU\ DQG WKH VWXG\ RI HYHU\GD\ DFWLRQ GLVRUGHUV DIWHU EUDLQ GDPDJH -RXUQDO RI +HDG 7UDXPD 5HKDELOLWDWLRQ 6FKZDUW] 0) 0RQWJRPHU\ 0: 'H6ODPH (2FKLSD & &RVOHWW +% t 0D\HU 1+ f $QDO\VLV RI D GLVRUGHU RI HYHU\GD\ DFWLRQ &RJQLWLYH 1HXURSV\FKRORJ\ 6FKZDUW] 0) 5HHG (6 0RQWJRPHU\ 0 3DOPHU & t 0D\HU 1+ f 7KH TXDQWLWDWLYH GHVFULSWLRQ RI DFWLRQ GLVRUJDQL]DWLRQ DIWHU EUDLQ GDPDJH $ FDVH VWXG\ &RJQLWLYH 1HXURSV\FKRORJ\ 6KDOOLFH 7 f ,PSDLUPHQWV RI VHPDQWLF SURFHVVLQJ 0XOWLSOH GLVVRFLDWLRQV ,Q 0 &ROWKHDUW 6DUWRUL t 5 -RE (GVf 7KH FRJQLWLYH QHXURSV\FKRORJ\ RI ODQJXDJH SS f /RQGRQ /DZUHQFH (DUOEDXP DQG $VVRF 6KDOOLFH 7 f 6SHFLDOLVDWLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH VHPDQWLF V\VWHP &RJQLWLYH 1HXURSV\FKRORJ\ 6LULJL $ &RKHQ / 'XKDPHO -5 3LOORQ % 'XERLV % t $JLG < f $ VHOHFWLYH LPSDLUPHQW RI KDQG SRVWXUH IRU REMHFW XWLOL]DWLRQ LQ DSUD[LD &RUWH[ + f 6LULJX $ 'XKDPHO -5 t 3RQFHW 0 f 7KH UROH RI VHQVRULPRWRU H[SHULHQFH LQ REMHFW UHFRJQLWLRQ %UDLQ 6LULJX $ =DOOD 7 3LOORQ % *UDIPDQ $JLG < t 'XERLV % f 6HOHFWLYH LPSDLUPHQWV LQ PDQDJHULDO NQRZOHGJH IROORZLQJ SUHIURQWDO FRUWH[ GDPDJH &RUWH[ f 6LULJX $ =DOOD 7 3LOORQ % *UDIPDQ $JLG < t 'XERLV % f (QFRGLQJ RI VHTXHQFH DQG ERXQGDULHV RI VFULSWV IROORZLQJ SUHIURQWDO OHVLRQV &RUWH[ f 6LULJX $ =DOOD 7 3LOORQ % *UDIPDQ 'XERLV % t $JLG < LQ SUHVVf 3ODQQLQJ DQG VFULSW DQDO\VLV IROORZLQJ SUHIURQWDO OREH OHVLRQV ,Q *UDIPDQ ) %ROWHU t .+RO\RDN (GVf 6WUXFWXUH DQG IXQFWLRQV RI WKH KXPDQ SUHIURQWDO FRUWH[ SS f 1HZ
PAGE 145

:HEVWHUfV QHZ FROOHJLDWH GLFWLRQDU\ f 6SULQJILHOG 0$ t & 0HUULDP &R :ROI 3$ .DQQHO :% t 0F*HH '/ f (SLGHPLRORJ\ RI VWURNH LQ 1RUWK $PHULFD ,Q +-0 %DUQHWW %0 6WHLQ -3 0RKU t )
PAGE 146

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ %HWK /\QQ 0DUWLQ 0DFDXOH\ ZDV ERP RQ 'HFHPEHU LQ 6DQIRUG )ORULGD WR -RKQ / DQG %DUEDUD $ 0DUWLQ 6KH KDV RQH \RXQJHU EURWKHU -RKQ :LOOLDP %LOO\f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fV WKHVLV ZDV D XQLTXH VWXG\ WKDW FRPELQHG KHU ILUVW ORYH VSHHFK SDWKRORJ\ ZLWK KHU PDLQ KREE\ ZRUNLQJ ZLWK KRUVHV 7KH WLWOH ZDV f7KH HIIHFWV RI KLSSR WKHUDS\ RQ WKH UHVSLUDWLRQ DQG PRWRU VSHHFK IXQFWLRQV RI WZR IHPDOHV ZLWK FHUHEUDO SDOV\f %HWK FRQWLQXHG KHU WUDLQLQJ E\ FRPSOHWLQJ WKH FOLQLFDO IHOORZVKLS \HDU &)
PAGE 147

RI &OLQLFDO &RPSHWHQFH LQ VSHHFKODQJXDJH SDWKRORJ\ IURP WKH $PHULFDQ 6SHHFK /DQJXDJH+HDULQJ $VVRFLDWLRQ LQ 2FWREHU )ROORZLQJ KHU &)< %HWK UHWXUQHG WR IXOOWLPH JUDGXDWH ZRUN WR SXUVXH WKH GRFWRUDO GHJUHH XQGHU WKH PHQWRUVKLS RI /HVOLH *RQ]DOH]5RWKL 3K' DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD %HWKfV IRFXV ZDV RQ QHXURJHQLF FRPPXQLFDWLRQ GLVRUGHUV ZLWK VSHFLDO HPSKDVLV LQ QHXURSV\FKRORJ\ 'XULQJ KHU GRFWRUDO \HDUV %HWK ZRUNHG DV D UHVHDUFK DVVLVWDQW IRU .HQQHWK 0 +HLOPDQ 0' D EHKDYLRUDO QHXURORJLVW LQ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI 1HXURORJ\ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD &ROOHJH RI 0HGLFLQH DQG WKH &HQWHU IRU 1HXURSV\FKRORJLFDO 6WXGLHV 6KH DOVR ZRUNHG DV D VSHHFKODQJXDJH SDWKRORJLVW IRU 6SHFLDO &RPPXQLFDWLRQV DQG &RQWLQHQWDO 0HGLFDO 6\VWHPV 7KHUDSLHV QRZ 3UR5HKDE ,QFf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

PAGE 148

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fV 5HKDELOLWDWLRQ ,QVWLWXWH 6KH LV DOVR D FRQVXOWDQW VSHHFKODQJXDJH SDWKRORJLVW IRU 3DXO 'RPLWRU 3K' D 6SRNDQH EDVHG FOLQLFDO SV\FKRORJLVW DQG IRU $6WULGH $KHDG 7KHUDS\ 6HUYLFHV D KLSSRWKHUDS\ SURJUDP LQ 'HHU 3DUN :DVKLQJWRQ 8SRQ FRPSOHWLRQ RI KHU 3K' %HWK ZLOO FRQWLQXH DV DQ $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU LQ WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI 6SHHFK DQG +HDULQJ 6FLHQFHV DW :DVKLQJWRQ 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ ,Q 6SRNDQH %HWK LV DFWLYH DW *DUODQG $YHQXH $OOLDQFH &KXUFK VLQJLQJ LQ .LQJfV 3UDLVH DGXOW FKRLU DQG SOD\LQJ IOXWH ZLWK WKH ZRUVKLS RUFKHVWUD +HU LQWHUHVWV LQFOXGH ULGLQJ DQG VKRZLQJ KRUVHV SOD\LQJ WKH IOXWH VHZLQJ FURVVVWLWFK DQG EDNLQJ

PAGE 149

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f§ MQGAU /RPEDUGLQR IRIHVVRU RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 6FLHQFHV DQG 'LVRUGHUV

PAGE 150

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ 7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ 3URFHVVHV DQG 'LVRUGHUV LQ WKH &ROOHJH RI /LEHUDO $UWV DQG 6FLHQFHV DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWUH 6FKRRO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ $XJXVW 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 151

PR PJ K LLW 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EA0465OEU_Z3GXGI INGEST_TIME 2014-06-03T16:24:29Z PACKAGE AA00020704_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


THE NATURE OF
MOVEMENT AND ACTION ERRORS
PRODUCED BY BRAIN-INJURED PATIENTS
BY
BETH L. MACAULEY
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1998

Copyright 1998
by
Beth L. Macauley

For Shawn,
My gift from God

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to begin by extending a very special thank you to Leslie J. Gonzalez-
Rothi, Ph.D., for her unwavering support and encouragement as I pursued the doctoral
degree. I can remember her coming into my “office” during my VA traineeship in 1989
and saying, “You should get a Ph.D. Think about it.” Since that time, her mentorship
has been invaluable as she imparted her extensive knowledge in the realm of neurogenic
communication disorders, her expertise in patient care and being an advocate for her
patients, as well as her personal morals and standards on being a well-rounded individual
and dedicated wife and mother. I am honored to have her as not only a mentor but also a
friend.
Another special thank you goes to Kenneth M. Heilman, M.D., not only for his
support as I served as a research assistant under his grants, but also for imparting his
expertise with great enthusiasm to those working under his supervision. Dr. Heilman’s
encouragement and support allowed undergraduate students, graduate students, neurology
residents, and neurology, psychology, and speech pathology faculty to work together in a
smooth, caring, “family” atmosphere which is rare and unique in the realm of higher
education. My skills and knowledge and ability to work in collaborative teams, as well
as my respect for other disciplines, are the direct result of Dr. Heilman’s influence and
guidance.
Other special thank yous go to Bruce Crosson, Ph.D., Linda J. Lombardino,
Ph.D., and Ira Fischler, Ph.D., for their invaluable comments, suggestions, and
IV

encouragement given as part of my doctoral committee. These three elite faculty
members have been superb teachers as well as supporters during my graduate career.
I can not say enough about my faculty colleagues in the Department of Speech
and Hearing Sciences at Washington State University. My chairman, Gail D. Chermak,
Ph.D., is a strong advocate for junior faculty and was gracious in allowing me a reprieve
of some faculty duties in order to concentrate and complete this dissertation. Her
unwavering encouragement and support has been a blessing to me as I made the
transition from graduate student to faculty. The other members of the department, Jeanne
Johnson, Ph.D., Chuck Madison, Ph.D., Tony Seikel, Ph.D., Leslie Power, M.S., and
Linda Vogel, M.S., have also given of themselves and served as mentors and friends
during my initial years in their department. Their encouragement, support, and faith that
I would finish the dissertation were never far from my mind. I can honestly say that
without their “reality checks,” continuous encouragement, and willingness to ease my
load by increasing theirs, I would not have been able to finish.
More thank yous go to my graduate students, Holly Wiseman, Stacy Wendel,
Marla McClelland, and Erin Beneteau, at University Programs in Communication
Disorders (UPCD), a cooperative graduate program in speech-language pathology and
audiology between Washington State University and Eastern Washington University.
These students willingly tolerated the training protocols and were genuinely excited to be
taking part in research opportunities and endeavors.
I also wish to thank Robert Short, Ph.D., of the Washington Institute for Mental
Illness Research and Training (WIMIRT) for his assistance with the statistics.

A huge thank you goes to my husband of ten years, Shawn P. Macauley, Ph.D.,
for his unwavering encouragement, prods in the rear to keep moving along, and for never
doubting that I could get it done. His ability to encourage me in the midst of dealing with
an acquired disability that affected his vestibular system and resulted in physical, visual,
and cognitive impairments, has been a blessing above and beyond expectations. His
unconditional love, support, and assistance allowed me to focus on writing without
feeling too guilty about not keeping up with family responsibilities. Thank you also to
my girls, seven year old Erin and three year old Emily, and my boy, three month old
Evan, for their unconditional love as well as their acceptance of “Mommy’s computer
time,” take-out twice a week, and piles of dirty laundry. Erin and Emily were always
ready with a hug and a kiss whenever they were needed (and even when they were not
needed) while Evan’s smiles melted my heart and put everything in perspective.
I also wish to thank my parents, John and Barbara Martin of Bradenton, Florida
for their unconditional love, unwavering support and encouragement throughout my
college career. They never doubted my abilities or decisions and were always looking for
ways to help and show their support. I also wish to thank my in-laws, Curtis and Karen
Winters of North Bangor, New York, for always being a phone call away to impart
guidance, encouragement, and support through the dissertation years.
Last, but certainly not least, I wish to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, for
His personal involvement in my life. I am nothing without Christ and my work is a
testimony to the grace that He has given. I honestly believe that without Christ walking
by my side and carrying me when necessary, I would not have finished this research
endeavor, especially with the life-changing trials that have occurred within the past year.
VI

He started me on this journey and He has never failed to be there throughout. A special
thank you to my dear friend, Priscilla Welbourn, who never let me forget what was most
important in life and encouraged me to keep my feet firmly planted on the Rock while
reaching for the stars. Her unconditional friendship and unwavering support during the
final writing stages of this dissertation has been a blessed and treasured gift from the
Lord.
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xii
ABSTRACT xiii
CHAPTER
ONE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND STATEMENT OF
THE PROBLEM 1
Introduction 1
Review of the Literature 3
Historical Perspectives and Theoretical
Models of Apraxia 3
Cognitive Neuropsychological Model
Of Limb Praxis and Apraxia 12
Right Hemisphere Contributions to Praxis 19
The Ecology of Apraxia 21
Significance to Clinicians and Patients 21
Apraxia in Natural Contexts 23
The Relationship Between Apraxia and Pragmatic Action 38
Predictions of the Proposed Relationship Between
Movements and Actions 49
Classification of Action Errors 53
Statement of the Problem 56
TWO METHODS 63
Subjects 63
Materials and Methods 67
Evaluation of Independent Variables 68
Disorders of Action Planning and Organization 68
Disorders of Learned, Skilled Movement 69
Disorders of Tool-Object-Function Knowledge 72
viii

Disorders of Supervisory Attention/Working Memory 73
Disorders of Language 74
Neglect 74
Evaluation of Dependent Variable 75
Rater Training 79
Statistical Analyses 80
THREE RESULTS 82
Experimental Results 82
Research Questions 85
Research Question #1 85
Research Question #2a 87
Research Question #2b 93
Summary of Findings 98
FOUR DISCUSSION 101
Research Questions 103
Methodological Issues and Limitations of the Study 111
Implications for Future Research 113
Clinical Implications : 116
APPENDICES
A GESTURE TO COMMAND SUBTEST - RANDOMIZED
FORMS A&B 119
B TOOL-OBJECT MATCHING TEST 123
C STANDARDIZED SCORES FOR TRAILS A&B 124
REFERENCES 125
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 132
IX

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 LBD Subject Identification 65
2-2 RBD Subject Identification 66
2-3 Control Subject Identification 67
3-1 Descriptive Statistics for Each Group on Measures of
Independent Variables 84
3-2 Overall Kruskall-Wallace ANOVA for Errors
Produced During the Meal 85
3-3 Comparison of LBD and RBD Groups with Normal Controls 86
3 -4 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Report 88
3-5 Average Number of Errors Produced by All Subjects when
Divided into Two Groups According to Cut-off Score
For Each Test 89
3-6 Average Number of Errors by Specific Error Type Produced
By LBD, RBD, and Control Groups 90
3-7 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Total Errors Produced During
the Meal 94
3-8 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Tool Errors Produced During
the Meal 94
3-9 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Non-Tool Errors Produced During
the Meal 95
x

3-10 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Misuse Errors Produced During
the Meal 95
3-11 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Misselection Errors Produced During
the Meal 96
3-12 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Movement Errors Produced During
the Meal 96
3-13 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and INT Errors Produced During
the Meal 97
3-14 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Sequence Errors Produced During
the Meal 97
3-15 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Timing Errors Produced During
the Meal 98
3-16 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between
Independent Variables and Quantity Errors Produced During
the Meal 98
XI

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Liepmann's Model of Praxis 6
1-2 Geschwind's Model of Praxis 9
1 -3 Heilman and Rothi’s Model of Praxis 11
1 -4 Cognitive Neuropsychological Model of Apraxia 13
1 -5 Delineation of Gesture to Command Pathway 14
1 -6 Delineation of Gesture to Visually Presented Object Pathway 18
1 -7 Schematic Representation of Misuse and Mis-Selection
Action Errors 28
1 -8 Schematic Interpretation of the Unified Hypothesis 36
1 -9 Relationship Between Actions and Movements 40
1-10 Breakdown of Low Level Schemas 41
1-11 Breakdown of High Level Schemas 44
1-12 Addition of Perceptual Input to Low Level Schemas 46
1-13 Addition of Semantic System to High Level Schemas 47
1-14 Proposed Relationship Between Apraxia and Pragmatic Action 48
2-1 The To wer of London 70
xii

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE NATURE OF
MOVEMENT AND ACTION ERRORS
PRODUCED BY BRAIN-INJURED PATIENTS
By
Beth L. Macauley
August 1998
Chair: Leslie J. Gonzalez-Rothi, Ph.D.
Major Department: Communication Processes and Disorders
Some patients with brain damage produce action errors during activities of daily
living. Investigators in recent research reports have examined the planning, organization,
and production of these action errors through different theoretical models with different
inherent assumptions and predictions, using different research hypotheses and evaluation
criteria, and including subjects with heterogeneous etiologies of brain damage. The
current study describes a proposed relationship between apraxia and pragmatic action that
serves as a framework for the examination of the nature of movement and action errors
produced by brain-injured patients. The hypothesized relationship between apraxia and
pragmatic action can be divided into two parts—high level schemas associated with
executive function, supervisory attention/working memory, and the conceptual
knowledge of the relationship between tools and actions, and low level schemas
associated with the praxis system which mediates learned skilled movements. Forty
xiii

subjects participated in this study-twenty left brain damaged patients (LBD), ten right
brain damaged patients (RBD), and ten non-brain damaged control subjects. All subjects
underwent an evaluation that measured high and/or low schema deficits and were
videotaped while engaged in an activity of daily living, eating a meal. The videotapes
were scored for presence of action and movement errors. Results indicated that both
brain-injured groups significantly differed from the control group in total number of
errors produced. The LBD group produced more tool errors than the RBD group while
both the LBD and the RBD group produced significantly more non-tool errors than the
control group but did not differ from each other. Additionally, production of specific
error types during the meal correlated highly with a measure of high level schema deficits
and a measure of low level schema deficits. Therefore, both high and low level schema
deficits contribute to production of action errors. Additionally, the results appear to
indicate that brain damage to either hemisphere can result in production of action errors
in the natural environment.
XIV

CHAPTER ONE
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Purposeful movements, defined as intentional “changes in place, position, or
posture” (Webster, 1981, p.747), that have direct purpose or aim, and goal-directed
actions, defined as “acts of will accomplished over a period of time in stages”
(Webster, 1981, p. 12) are learned throughout life as people interact with their
environment. The loss of the ability to produce purposeful, skilled movements as the
result of brain damage has been termed apraxia (Rothi & Heilman, 1997). Liepmann
(1920) defined apraxia as an impairment in the production of learned (or skilled)
movements not caused by weakness, paralysis, incoordination, or sensory loss
(Liepmann, 1920). Apraxia is manifested in a person's inability to "move the moveable
parts of the body in a purposeful manner even though motility is preserved" (Liepmann,
1900/1977, p.161).
A deficit in the ability to produce goal-directed actions has been called frontal
apraxia by Mayer, Reed, Schwartz, Montgomery, and Palmer (1990), Schwartz, Reed,
Montgomery, Palmer, and Mayer (1991), Schwartz, Mayer, DeSalme, and Montgomery
(1993), Schwartz, Montgomery, DeSalme, Ochipa, Coslett, and Mayer (1995), and
Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) and a deficit in managerial knowledge by Sirigu,
Cohen, Duhamel, Pillon, Dubois, and Agid (1995), Sirigu, Zalla, Pillon, Grafman,
Agid, and Dubois (1995, 1996), and Sirigu, Zalla, Pillon, Grafman, Dubois, and Agid
1

2
(1996). Specifically, both frontal apraxia and deficits in managerial knowledge were
defined as impairments in the planning and sequential hierarchical organization of
actions required to obtain a desired goal (Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997; Sirigu et al.,
1995).
Mayer et al. (1990), Schwartz et al. (1991, 1993, 1995), and Schwartz and
Buxbaum (1997) reported that brain damaged patients with frontal apraxia produce
errors of action while performing goal-directed activities of daily living such as
preparing coffee and brushing teeth. These learned, goal-directed actions were
subsequently labeled “pragmatic action” by Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997). Ochipa,
Rothi, and Heilman (1989) reported a brain damaged patient with ideational/conceptual
apraxia who made errors of action while eating a meal and brushing teeth, both
“pragmatic actions as defined by Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997). Foundas, Macauley,
Raymer, Maher, Rothi, and Heilman (1995) reported that brain damaged patients with
ideomotor apraxia made action errors while performing the pragmatic action of eating a
meal. Each of the above studies documented action errors in goal-directed activities of
daily living. However, each of the above researchers approached the study of action
and action errors through different theoretical models with different predictions and
assumptions. Mayer et al. (1990), Schwartz et al. (1991,1993, 1995), and Schwartz
and Buxbaum (1997) approached the study of pragmatic action through the Unified
Hypothesis, a theoretical model based on the activation-trigger-schema (ATS)
framework proposed by Norman and Shallice (1986). The ATS framework for
production of action was derived from the study of normal subjects (Norman &
Shallice, 1986). Ochipa et al. (1989) and Foundas et al. (1995) approached the study of

3
pragmatic action through the Cognitive Neuropsychological Model of Limb Praxis and
Apraxia proposed by Rothi, Ochipa and Heilman (1991, 1997). The Cognitive
Neuropsychological Model of Limb Praxis and Apraxia was derived from the study of
brain injured patients (Rothi et al., 1991). In order to systematically study errors
produced during pragmatic actions, a theoretical model is needed that explains the
relationship between frontal apraxia, conceptual/ ideational apraxia, and ideomotor
apraxia and incorporates action information from the Unified Hypothesis (Schwartz &
Buxbaum, 1997) and movement information from the Cognitive Neuropsychological
Model of Limb Praxis and Apraxia (Rothi et al., 1992, 1997). The resulting combined
model can then be used to make predictions about pragmatic errors which can be
subsequently studied. The purpose of the present study is to describe a theoretical
model of pragmatic action based on Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) and Rothi et al.
(1997) which is then used as a framework to examine the nature of movement and
action errors produced by brain-injured patients. Pertinent literature is reviewed
relating to the genesis and growth of the study of movements and actions.
Review of the Literature
Historical Perspectives and Theoretical Models of Apraxia
Steinthal, in the late 1800s, was the first to use the term apraxia in describing a
disturbance in skilled limb movements as the result of brain damage (cited in Hecaen &
Rondot, 1985). Steinthal wrote that apraxia consisted of a disturbance in the
relationship between movements and the objects upon which the movements were
enacted (cited in Hecaen & Rondot, 1985). Subsequently, there was a lack of
consensus in discussions of the mechanism for and definition of apraxia. For example,

4
other researchers had observed the disturbances of object related movements in aphasic
patients but attributed both deficits to asymbolia, a generalized disturbance in the
comprehension or production of symbols in any modality, including language and
gesture (Finkelnstein, cited in Duffy & Liles, 1979; Critchley, 1939). Goldstein (1948)
also related disorders of action to the patient's aphasia and included skilled movement
problems within a definition of aphasia. Pick (1905), however, defined apraxia as an
asymbolia which was not included within a definition of aphasia. Another mechanism
proposed to explain apraxia was posited by Kussmaul (cited in Hecaen & Rondot,
1985) who defined apraxia as an agnosia, an impairment in the recognition of tools,
which then affects the movements produced with tools. In 1905, Liepmann described a
patient, who presented with a severe inability to produce volitional movements with the
left hand as well as profound aphasia. Liepmann's point in describing this case was that
a disorder of language or gnosis could not explain apraxia of only one hand.
Movement failures created by language or gnosis deficits would affect both hands.
Thus, Liepmann (1900/1977, 1905a/1980a, 1905b/1980b, 1907/1980c, 1920) was the
first to describe the mechanism of apraxia as a disorder of movement planning.
Liepmann (1905b/1980b) studied 89 brain-damaged patients, 42 with left
hemiplegia (thus suspected to have right hemisphere lesions), 41 with right hemiplegia
(thus suspected to have left hemisphere lesions), 5 non-hemiplegic with aphasia (left
hemisphere lesions), and one who was neither hemiparetic or aphasic but was apraxic.
The patients were asked to produce three types of movements - 1) expressive
movements such as waving and saluting; 2) transitive and intransitive movements to
command (from memory) such as playing an organ grinder and snapping the fingers;

5
and 3) manipulations of actual tools such as combing hair with a comb and writing with
a pen. Liepmann found that the patients with right hemisphere damage rarely made
errors on these tasks whereas the patients with left hemisphere damage made frequent
errors. Within the groups of patients with left hemisphere damage, approximately half
showed evidence of apraxia and of these, twenty-five percent showed impairments
when manipulating the actual tools (Liepmann, 1905b/1980b). Based upon these
observations, Liepmann proposed that the left hemisphere, specifically the parietal
region, was responsible for the skilled production of both hands (Liepmann,
1905b/l 980b). He argued that the right hemisphere is dependent upon the plans and
directives of the left hemisphere for learned movement and that the right hemisphere
receives movement planning information from the left hemisphere via the corpus
callosum. Liepmann proposed the existence of movement formulae which he defined
as knowledge of the course of action (time-space sequences) required to complete an
action goal as well as the semantic information about the tool and object used. The
movement formulae may be implemented by retrieval of innervatory patterns
(configurations of neural connections specialized for particular movement patterns)
which communicate directly with the motor system for movement production (Figure
1-1) (Liepmann, 1905b/l 980b).
Additionally, further support for Liepmann's proposal that the left hemisphere
was responsible for the skilled movements of both hands was found in the case
described by Liepmann and Maas (1907) of a patient with a lesion of the corpus
callosum who was unable to produce skilled movements with his nonparalyzed left

Visual/Gestural Input
Visual Analysis
i
Movement Formula
Í
Innervatory Patterns
"7 75
Left
Primary
Motor
System
/
Right Hand
Gestural
Production
Right
Primary
Motor
System
\
Left Hand
Gestural
Production
Figure 1-1. Liepmann's model of praxis (taken from Rothi, Ochipa, & Heilman, 1991).

7
hand. He was unable to write and could not even bring his hand into the writing
position. The patient also showed deficits in using actual tools/objects. Liepmann
hypothesized that the effect of corpus callosum lesion in this case was to disconnect the
movement formulae of the left hemisphere from the primary motor cortex of the right
hemisphere-lesion A in Figure 1-1 (Liepmann & Maas, 1907).
Subsequently, Liepmann (1905a/1980a, 1905b/1980b) described three subtypes
of apraxia-limb kinetic apraxia, ideo-kinetic or motor apraxia, and ideational apraxia.
Limb kinetic apraxia was described as a loss of the kinetic components of engrams
resulting in coarse or unrefined movements with movements that no longer have the
appearance of being practiced over time. Ideo-kinetic or ideomotor apraxia was
described as a loss of the voluntary ability to perform learned movements. Ideational
apraxia was described as an impairment of ideational (conceptual) knowledge resulting
in loss of the conceptual linkage between tools and their respective actions as well as
the ability to sequence correctly produced movements (Liepmann, 1905a/1980a,
1905b/1980b). Integral movements may be left out of a series, produced in the wrong
order, or correct movements may be produced with the wrong tools (cited in Brown,
1988). By describing these praxis subtypes, Liepmann (1905a/1980a, 1905b/1980b)
proposed that praxis is supported by a multicomponential system that can be
differentially impaired.
Liepmann's proposals were resurrected by Geschwind in 1965 who discussed
them in the light of new human and animal data. Geschwind supported the notion of
the dominance of the left hemisphere for learned movement skill and of the existence of
movement formulae or memories (stored representations). He also supported

8
Liepmann's statements that apraxia resulted from lesions in the dominant parietal
region but argued that the important area was the underlying white matter pathways,
specifically the arcuate fasciculus, and not the cortex.
Geschwind proposed that in the left hemisphere, the white matter pathway that
runs deep to the supramarginal gyrus connecting the visual association areas and speech
areas to the frontal lobes is the pathway by which motor responses are carried out in
response to verbal and visual stimuli. These pathways terminate in motor association
area, Brodman's area 6 (Geschwind, 1965). Movement information processed by area 6
is then relayed to the ipsilateral primary motor cortex, Brodman's area 4, as well as the
contralateral motor association area, area 6. Movement information processed by
o
contralateral area 6 is then relayed to it's affiliated primary motor cortex, area 4. (See
Figure 1-2.)
Based upon this neural mechanism, Geschwind proposed that the apraxia of the
left arm in a patient with right hemiplegia is not caused by the same lesion that caused
the hemiplegia. Rather, the apraxia results from coincidental damage to either area 6,
the callosal fibers connecting the left area 6 and the right area 6, or to the projections to
area 6 from the parietal lobe. This argument implied that a lesion anterior to the left
motor cortex which affects area 6 but spares area 4 should result in a bilateral apraxia.
However, Geschwind stated that as of his writing, no such cases have been described
presumably because lesions of left area 6 would most likely also affect area 4 due to
their anatomical contiguity.

9
Figure 1-2. Geschwind's model of praxis. Lateral view of the left hemisphere.
AF = arcuate fasciculus; SMA = supplemental motor area or motor
association cortex; MOprimary motor cortex; VAC = visual
association cortex; VC = primary visual cortex. The arrows indicate
major connections of the areas shown (from Heilman & Rothi, 1985).

10
Assuming that visuokinesthetic engrams (Liepmann’s movement formulae) of
the left parietal lobe are important for correct production of gesture as well as critical to
the decoding of seen, familiar gestures, Heilman, Rothi, & Valenstein (1982) postulated
that damage to the visuokinesthetic engrams would result in difficulty with both the
comprehension and production of gesture. The authors argued that measuring a
patient’s ability to discriminate well-performed from poorly performed movements may
enable the clinician to determine whether or not a patient’s apraxia resulted from
destruction of these engrams through lesions involving posterior cortical regions:
specifically left parietal lobe. An apraxic patient with preserved visuokinesthetic
engrams would be able to discriminate between good and poor performance while an
apraxic patient with damage to the visuokinesthetic engrams would not be able to make
that discrimination. The authors tested this theory by giving 20 apraxic subjects a
gesture discrimination test. The examiner named a target action and the subjects were
asked to watch a videotape of gesture performances and choose the performance out of
three possible for each command that best represented the named target. Patients with
more difficulty discriminating the gesture productions had posterior lesions (and
presumably damaged visuokinesthetic engrams.) Based on these results, Heilman et al.
(1982) discussed the possibility of two types of ideomotor apraxia: one type which
presents with poor production and comprehension of gestures and results from damage
to the left supramarginal or angular gyrus in the parietal lobe and a second type which
presents with praxis production problems alone and results from damage that does not
involve this parietal region. (See Figure 1-3.)

11
Figure 1-3. Heilman and Rothi’s Model of Praxis. View from top of brain.
W = Wernicke's area; VA = primary visual area; VAA = visual association
area; AG = angular gyrus; SMG = supramarginal gyrus; PM = premotor
area (motor association cortex); M = motor cortex; CC = corpus callosum;
LH = left hemisphere; RH = right hemisphere. The arrows indicate major
connections of the areas shown (from Heilman & Rothi, 1985).

12
Cognitive Neuropsychological Model of Limb Praxis and Apraxia
Recognizing Liepmann’s assertion that skilled praxis was the product of a
complex multi-component system and also recognizing that numerous cases were
described in the literature that reflected behavioral fractionation of praxis related
behavior, Rothi, Ochipa, and Heilman (1991, 1997) proposed a cognitive neuro¬
psychological model of apraxia in an attempt to capture these dissociations. A
schematic representation of this model can be found in Figure 1-4. In this model, the
term “action-lexicon” is used as the gestural equivalent to the term “lexicon” used in
language which distinguishes that part of the language system which gives a processing
advantage for words that the person has previously experienced (Rothi & Heilman,
1985). Therefore, the action-lexicon was defined as that part of the praxis system
which gives a processing advantage for movements that the person has previously
produced (Rothi et al., 1991, 1997). That is, it is an action memory. The action lexicon
was divided into input and output components to account for patients who demonstrate
spared gesture comprehension with impaired imitation and gesture to command. The
authors stated that for these patients, spoken language gains access to the output action
lexicon via semantics without being processed by the input action lexicon (Figure 1-5).
In contrast, deficits in gesturing to command with spared repetition and spared
comprehension were explained by dysfunction at or after the output action lexicon
while sparing the innervatory patterns (Rothi et al. 1991).
DeRenzi, Faglioni, and Sorgato (1982) and Rothi, Mack, and Heilman (1986)
discussed cases that provide evidence for modality-specific apraxic deficits. That is,
the praxis performance of the reported patients differed as a result of input modality

Auditory/Verbal Visual/Object Visual/Gestural
Input InPut Input
Figure 1-4. Cognitive Neuropsychological Model of Apraxia (from Rothi, Ochipa, & Heilman, 1991).


15
(e.g. auditory, tactile, or visual). Rothi et al. (1991, 1997) accounted for the differences
in performance as a result of input modality by incorporating separate input systems for
visually presented gestural information, tactily presented (no visual input), and
auditorily presented verbal information. For visual/gestural information, the
product of visual analyses accesses either the input action lexicon or the innervatory
patterns directly (Figure 1-4). The presence of this direct route from visual analysis to
innervatory patterns may account for those patients who can imitate gestures but can
not discriminate or comprehend gestures (Rothi et al., 1986). That is, in cases where
gesture imitation is not possible through input to output lexicons or input lexicon to
semantics to output lexicon, gesture imitation may occur through a “non-lexical” route
similar to the route in which nonwords are imitated in language. For visual/ object
information, visual analyses activate the object recognition system which produces a
structural description of the viewed object. It is hypothesized that the structural
descriptions then access either the semantic system or action output lexicon. The
connection between the visual analyses and the action output lexicon may allow for the
production of gesture from the visual modality without accessing semantics. Visual
object information being processed accesses the action output lexicon without prior
processing by the action input lexicon because the action output lexicon pertains to
codes of the “to-be-performed” actions while the action input lexicon pertains to codes
of “perceived” actions (Rothi et al., 1997). This route (visual analysis to action output
lexicon) may account for the ability of certain patients who can not comprehend the
meaning of the gestures because of a failure of the action semantic system, but can
accurately produce gestures to shown tools. These patients may have intact

16
comprehension of objects but impaired comprehension of actions thereby suggesting a
dissociation within the semantic system for information about objects and information
about actions. Auditory/verbal input is transmitted to auditory association areas that
perform auditory analyses and activate the phonological input lexicon. Information
processed by the action input lexicon can be analyzed semantically by the semantic
system or phonologically for output by the verbal output lexicon. In figure 1-4, the line
connecting the region where auditory analysis is performed to the phonological buffer
may be the route that accounts for those patients who can repeat but not comprehend
verbal information (Rothi et al., 1991).
Roy and Square (1985) propose that praxis processing involves not only
information about gestural production but conceptual information as well. Within the
Rothi et al., (1991, 1997) model, conceptual analysis of praxis is accomplished by the
action semantic component. Roy and Square (1985) and Raymer and Ochipa (1997)
describe praxis conceptual knowledge as knowledge of the functions of tools and
objects, knowledge of actions not related to tools and objects, and knowledge of
combining actions into sequences. Rothi et al., (1991, 1997) state that actions depend
upon the interaction between the conceptual knowledge described above and the
sensorimotor information contained in the motor programs. The action semantic
system contains the conceptual knowledge relating to tools, objects, and actions. In
figure 1-4, the line in the semantics area accommodates recent information that action
semantics can be compartmentalized from nonaction semantics. Support for this
separation within semantics is found in reports of patients with optic apraxia who were
able to accurately gesture to command but were unable to accurately imitate the same

17
gestures or gesture to visually presented tools (Raymer, Greenwald, Richardson, Rothi,
& Heilman, 1992) as well as studies of Alzheimer’s patients with impaired action
semantics with spared nonaction semantics and vice versa (Ochipa et al., 1992,
Raymer, 1992). This separation also accommodates those researchers who claim that
there are multiple semantic systems which reflect the modality and nature of input
material (Beauvois & Saillant, 1985; Paivio, 1986; Shallice, 1987, 1988).
By comparing patients' performance across tasks, researchers and clinicians
may use this neuropsychological model to ascertain the nature of the processing
damage and make predictions regarding performance. For example, when gesturing to
command, patients would receive auditory/verbal information (e.g. "show me how to
use a hammer") which would be processed phonologically by the phonological input
lexicon followed by the conceptual analysis of the action semantic system. After
semantic analysis, the information would be processed by the action output lexicon and
the relevant innervatory patterns would be accessed for production of the gesture by the
motor system (Figure 1-5). When gesturing to a visually presented tool/object, patients
would visually analyze the tool/object and corresponding information would be utilized
by the object recognition system with subsequent access to semantics, action output
lexicon, and the innervatory patterns for production by the motor system (Figure 1-6).
According to the model in Figure 1-6, patients must access semantics to gesture to
command correctly but do not have to access semantics to gesture to a visually
presented tool/object. Therefore, by comparing the patient's performance in these two
tasks, researchers and clinicians may be able to evaluate the integrity of the semantic
system.

Figure 1-6. Delineation of Gesture to Visually Presented Object Pathway (from Rothi, Ochipa, & Heilman, 1991).

19
Right Hemisphere Contributions to Praxis
In addition to his proposals that the left hemisphere was dominant for learned,
skilled movement, Liepmann also acknowledged that the right hemisphere may also
have the ability to plan and generate skilled movement (Liepmann, 1905a/1980a,
1907/1980c, 1920).
However, Liepmann considered the right hemisphere to be subordinate to the
dominate left hemisphere and would require the activation of the movement formulae
(visuokinesthetic engrams) of the left hemisphere for correct production of skilled
movement in situations where the movements were done without manipulation of the
actual tool and object. That is, the right hemisphere depends on the integrity of the left
praxis system for production of learned, skilled movement in the absence of visual or
tactile information. In other words, the right hemisphere relies on the intact left praxis
system to produce correct actions when tools and objects are not used (Liepmann,
1905a/1980a, 1920; Maher, 1995).
This ability of the right hemisphere to produce correct movements and actions
in context with actual tools and objects was confirmed by Rapcsak, Ochipa, Beeson,
and Rubens (1993) who reported a patient, G.K., who suffered destruction of the entire
left hemisphere following a massive stroke. G.K. was strongly right-handed and it
could be hypothesized that the left hemisphere was dominate for language and praxis.
However, results of complete and intensive praxis testing which evaluated each input
and output modality for production and comprehension of learned, skilled movement
indicated that G.K. was severely impaired in all praxis tasks when actual tools and/or
objects were not used. In fact, G.K. reported no difficulty performing common

20
everyday tasks such as preparing meals and fixing household items in which tools and
objects are used together and in the relevant context.
Maher (1995) studied the role of the right hemisphere in production of learned,
skilled movements by evaluating the temporal and spatial aspects of gestures produced
by patients with left or right hemisphere brain lesions and matched normal control
subjects using a scoring system described by Rothi, Mack, Verfaellie, Brown, and
Heilman (1988). The subjects produced gestures to auditory command using the arm
and hand ipsilateral to the side of lesion to control for possible effects of hemiparesis.
The gestures were scored by two independent raters who were blind to the nature of the
study. The raters received intensive training before each scoring session which resulted
in high inter- and intra-rater reliability. The raters first scored the gestures pass/fail
according to correctness. Then, if a gesture was scored as incorrect, error type(s) were
awarded based on the above error classification system which included the following
error types: internal configuration, external configuration, occurrence, amplitude,
movement, and sequencing of movements (e.g., to use a key one must insert, turn, and
remove the key in that order). Results of the study showed that the left brain lesioned
subjects performed significantly worse than both the right brain lesioned subjects and
normal control subjects overall. When frequency of each error type was compared
across groups, there were significant differences for all error types except movement
and amplitude. Pairwise comparisons were then performed to distinguish etiology of
the differences. These comparisons suggested that the significant difference between
the left and right brain lesioned subjects for movement errors can be accounted for by
extremely poor performance by the left brain lesioned subjects when compared to the

21
other subject groups. This was a significant result because it supports the notion that
the left hemisphere is dominate for praxis. Apraxia is inherently a disorder of learned,
skilled movement and significant difficulty in the movement aspects of skilled
movements should be observed following damage to this system. The pairwise
comparisons also suggested that the significant difference for amplitude apects of
movement occurred between the right brain lesioned subjects and the normal controls
with no significant difference between the right and left brain lesioned groups. Maher
(1995) proposed that this result suggests that both the right and left hemispheres could
code spatial aspects of movement.
The Ecology of Apraxia
Significance to clinicians and patients
Other than its lateralizing value, apraxia has not been considered of significant
practical importance. DeRenzi (1985) said that apraxia rarely appears in everyday
situations and only emerges "out of context as a purposeful response to an artificial
request" (page 134.) Because ideomotor apraxia was considered to be an examination-
bound symptom that would not attract a clinician's attention unless the clinician
specifically looked for it, apraxia may have been overlooked and underestimated in
brain damaged patients (DeRenzi, 1985).
Many clinicians might agree that patients do not spontaneously complain of
apraxic disturbances (Heilman & Rothi, 1985). One possible explanation for this is that
apraxic patients may have anosognosia (unawareness of the disorder) for their praxis
difficulties (Rothi et al., 1986). Another possible explanation is that patients with
apraxia frequently have a co-occurring right hemiparesis. Therefore, patients may

22
associate their clumsiness to use of the non-dominant left hand for tasks in which they
previously used their dominant right hand. While apraxia may be present, praxis
performance may improve when manipulating actual objects or tools (Geschwind,
1965) and caretakers or family members, who rarely have the opportunity to observe
tool/object use pantomime, may not be aware of the disorder. In fact, many family
members may provide assistance in self-care skills such as feeding and dressing for
convenience and efficiency purposes (Heinemann, Roth, Ciehowski, & Betts, 1987).
In a hospital or rehabilitation center, it is possible that the environment of the
patients may be controlled and geared toward partial functional independence where a
patient can complete at least part of a task independently. For example, in a nursing
home environment it has been observed that when it is time for a patient to brush
his/her teeth, the nurse may put the toothpaste on the toothbrush, hand the toothbrush to
the patient, and tell the patient to "brush your teeth." It has also been observed that
during mealtime, the nurse may prepare the food for the patient by cutting the meat,
putting the straw in the drink and/or handing the correct utensil to the patient. A study
by Heinemann and colleagues (1987), which examined functional outcome of stroke
rehabilitation programs, found that all of the independence gained during rehabilitation
in the area of feeding was lost by three months after discharge. They proposed that loss
of a controlled environment that promoted functional independence (e.g., the caregiver
no longer prepared the environment to maximize the patient's skills, but began to assist
the patient directly) may explain this decline in function.
Another study examined factors that influenced a person's ability to return to
work after a stroke (Saeki, Ogata, Okubo, Takahashi, & Hoshuyama, 1993). The

23
authors followed 244 patients, ages 24 to 65, who were actively employed at the time of
their strokes and extracted information from the admission medical records of each
patient. Results indicated that 58% of the patients returned to work by the time of the
follow-up which varied from 8 to 77 months post-stroke. The most important factor
that determined a patient's ability to return to work was severity of muscle weakness on
admission. The second most important factor was presence of apraxia. The odds of a
patient without apraxia returning to work were determined to be four to five times
greater than for patients with apraxia (Saeki et al., 1993). However, possible
limitations of this study are that the authors combined ideomotor apraxia with
ideational apraxia, dressing apraxia, and constructional apraxia in the analyses; none of
which were operationally defined. As a result, it can not be determined which one or
more types of apraxia affected the patients' ability to return to work or whether the
authors' definition of apraxia was similar to or different from previously published
definitions.
Apraxia in natural contexts
The first study to document the effects of apraxia in the non-clinical
environment was conducted by Sundet, Finset, and Reinvang (1988). These
researchers investigated variables that affected a patient's ability to function in the
home environment following discharge from a rehabilitation hospital. They sent
questionnaires to 68 left hemisphere stroke patients and 77 right hemisphere stroke
patients six months after discharge from rehabilitation. The questionnaire focused upon
activities of daily living and the amount of "dependency" the patients displayed in the
home environment. Dependency was defined as the increased need for caregiver

24
assistance in performing tasks of daily living. The patients were asked 13 simply
written yes/no questions such as "requires use of kitchen aids" and "requires help to
dress" (Sundet et al., 1988, p.369). Caretakers were asked to answer the questions in
the event that a patient could not. Sundet and colleagues compared the relationship
between results of the questionnaire (measure of dependency) and neuropsychological
deficits such as hemiplegia, aphasia, nonverbal memory deficits, neglect, and apraxia;
the presence of which were determined by review of each patients' medical records.
Results of the study indicated that the highest predictor of dependency for the left
hemisphere damaged subjects was the presence of apraxia.
Limitations of the Sundet et al. (1988) study include the authors' reliance upon a
questionnaire filled out by caregivers rather than direct patient observation to determine
the patients’ ability to function independently in a natural environment and context.
There was also a six month hiatus between the neuropsychological testing and
determination of the patients’ "dependency" during which time the patients’
performance on the neuropsychological tests (and, in turn, the presence of
neuropsychological deficits including apraxia they were reported to document) may
have changed. Although a study by Rothi and Heilman (1985) documented that over
80% of patients who are acutely apraxic remain apraxic six months later, it is unknown
how many of the 68 left hemisphere damaged subjects in the Sundet et al. (1988) study
would have been considered apraxic at the time of dependency determination.
One study in which patients were directly observed and which did not have a
hiatus between clinical examination and experimental procedures was conducted by
Foundas, Macauley, Raymer, Maher, Rothi, and Heilman (1995). Foundas and

25
coworkers (1995) examined actual tool use during mealtime in 10 left hemisphere
stroke patients and 10 neurologically normal controls matched for handedness, age,
gender, and education. Subjects were tested for presence of aphasia and apraxia and
then, on the same day as testing or no more than three days later, were videotaped while
eating a meal. For each subject the meal tray was placed on a table in front of the
subject and foil items such as a toothbrush, comb, and pen were included on the tray in
addition to the standard tools and utensils for eating (spoon, fork, knife, napkin, and
condiments). The location of the standard tools and the foils were counterbalanced to
control for their left to right placement on the tray. The examiner left the room and no
assistance was given to the subject in preparing or eating the food.
Results of the Foundas et al. (1995) study documented two main differences
between the control and experimental subjects. The first difference became apparent
when the stages of eating (preparatory, eating, and clean-up) were compared across
groups. During the preparatory phase, behaviors included such things as opening
condiment packages, placing the napkin on the lap, cutting the meat, and putting sugar
in the tea. During the eating phase, the food was eaten. During the clean-up phase,
behaviors such as putting the napkin back on the tray, putting the utensils on the plate,
and pushing the tray away were accomplished. The first difference between the groups
was that 80% of the control subjects proceeded through all three phases of the meal
compared to only 20% of the experimental subjects. The authors reported that the
control subjects respected the boundaries of each phase whereas the experimental
subjects did not. That is, the control subjects showed clear, distinct beginning and end
points of each phase while the experimental subjects tended to have preparatory, eating,

26
and clean-up actions interspersed randomly throughout the meal as if there was a lack
of anticipation for pending task demands. The authors also reported that within the
eating phase, the control subjects ate using eating patterns that were idiosyncratic
within subjects but consistently developed across subjects. For example, a control
subject might eat portions of the main course (e.g., meat) followed by the bread, the
vegetables, and drink of tea and repeat this pattern over again until all food had been
eaten. In contrast, the experimental subjects tended to eat in a more random fashion
with no definable eating pattern.
In the Foundas et al. (1995) study, the experimental subjects produced more
“tool errors” (errors of action in using tools such as spoon, and fork) than “nontool
errors” (errors of actions that do not involve tools such as wiping the face or moving
the glass) while the control subjects did not produce any errors. One might suggest,
however, that because the experimental subjects had a hemiparesis and the comparison
group did not, the differences between the groups may be related to the presence of a
primary motor defect in the apraxic group. However, an underlying motor system
deficit could not explain the difference in eating praxis performance in these two
groups because a motor deficit should have affected both tool and nontool actions
equally, and it did not. Therefore, even though the experimental subjects had a right
hemiparesis, the action errors they produced, selective only for praxis related to tool
use, were not the result of an underlying motor problem.
Results of the Foundas et al. (1995) study indicated that while the overall eating
time of the experimental subjects did not differ from the control subjects, the
experimental subjects made fewer actions in general, used fewer utensils, and often

27
misjudged the advantage of using a tool. The experimental subjects produced
significantly more incorrect actions when compared to the controls and as a result were
less efficient in executing individual tool actions. Tool misuse and mis-selection errors
were produced by all but one experimental subject who happened to score within the
normal range on the test for ideomotor apraxia. Errors such as eating ice cream with a
fork (mis-selection), cutting with a spoon (misuse), stirring with a knife (misuse), and
wiping one's face with a slice of bread (mis-selection) were observed. A schematic
representation of misuse and mis-selection errors can be found in Figure 1-7. In
contrast, the normal control subjects made more actions in general, used more utensils,
and used the utensils correctly throughout the meal. The tool actions of the
experimental subjects were often incomplete or imprecise so that a desired goal was not
achieved. Foundase/ al. (1995) argued that the high correlation between number of
action errors produced and presence of ideomotor apraxia suggested that ideomotor
apraxia caused the production of action errors in this natural context.
A series of studies by Schwartz and colleagues also examined action errors in
activities of daily living by brain damaged subjects. The first study by Mayer, Reed,
Schwartz, Montgomery, and Palmer (1990) examined a group of brain-injured patients
in a rehabilitation hospital. Forty-five patients with traumatic brain injury and six
patients with stroke were observed during activities of daily living such as brushing
teeth and making coffee. The authors found that 49% of the patients produced errors of
action during activities of daily living. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the brain
damage of the patients they studied, it is not known whether the action errors were the
result of the

28
Misuse
tool
Mis-selection
tool tool tool
Misuse and Mis-selection
tool tool tool
Figure 1-7. Schematic Representation of Misuse and Mis-selection Action Errors.
// indicate location of error(s).

29
general intellectual impairment or executive function defects commonly found in
traumatic brain injured patients or of apraxia.
Mayer et al. (1990) developed a theory of action based upon Norman and
Shallice’s (1986) model of attentional control of action which proposes two modes of
control of action, one which is automatic and one which requires deliberate attentional
control. Mayer et al. (1990) studied the action productions within a natural context of
45 patients with closed head injury and proposed that impairment of the deliberate
attentional control route was the genesis for production of action errors in their patients
with brain damage. For this study, an action coding system was developed that
describes the sequence of actions produced by brain damaged patients as either A-l
units (general actions, not task-specific such as rinsing a glass), A-2 units (specific,
task-related actions such as unscrewing the cap from a toothpaste container), or crux A-
1 units (the action that accomplishes the next goal such as squeezing the toothpaste
onto the toothbrush when preparing to brush teeth). The action coding system enabled
the researchers to examine which actions were produced out of sequence, were omitted,
or were perseverated by applying the action coding system to a script of the patient’s
actions and examining the relationship and sequence of the A-l, A-2, and crux A-l
units in the patient’s production to that of a prototype script.
Mayer et al. (1990) then applied the action coding system to a script of actions
produced by a brain injured patient during a task of daily living. One patient, H.H., had
suffered a biffontal injury with resulting aphasia and callosal apraxia in which he was
apraxic with his non-dominant left hand and not apraxic with his preferred right hand.
H.H. was videotaped during breakfast and a script of his actions was written. The

30
action coding system was applied to the script to analyze action sequences. The authors
reported that even though H.H. produced frequent errors such as pouring tomato juice
on waffles and attempting to spoon oatmeal into tea, his main deficit was in the
efficiency of his action plans. That is, A-l, A-2, and crux A-l units were produced
randomly and not in a logical order or sequence to accomplish the goal of the task at
hand. In addition, there was the appearance of action errors that included misuse and
mis-selection of tools as well as movement errors that included sequencing and timing
of movements. The authors argue that these errors, misuse and mis-selection of tools as
well as sequence, were not a result of the patient's apraxia because "in the majority of
patients with documented apraxia, there (was) no functional consequence of the apraxic
impairment" (Mayer et al., 1990, p.280). Foundas and colleagues, however, would
argue that the above statement is not an accurate assumption in that the authors did not
test for apraxia and as a result could not speak towards the significance of apraxia to the
production of action errors in their patients.
Schwartz, Reed, Montgomery, Palmer, and Mayer (1991) continued their work
by applying the action coding system to two specific tasks--making coffee and brushing
teeth—as produced by H.H., the brain damaged patient described by Mayer et al.
(1990). H.H. was videotaped performing these tasks in the natural environment and
scripts of his actions were analyzed according to the action coding system described by
Mayer, et al. (1990). The authors noted that H.H. had a higher susceptibility to object
substitutions and object misuse as well as a variability of action errors across time.
Regarding normal action processing, the authors argue that learned actions are not

31
executed as whole programs but are organized into hierarchies of temporally structured
units that depend on the prefrontal area of the brain for integration and production.
Based on the results of the study described above, Schwartz et al. (1991)
proposed four theoretical foundations of intentional actions and action errors: the first
tenet claims that intentional action involves activation of an action plan; the second
claims that the planning and execution of intentional actions are closely coupled in real
time; the third claims that intentional actions are integral to all purposeful behavior; and
the fourth claims that errors of action occur due to weakening of the top-down
formulation of action plans. This weakening of the action plans allows the patient to be
influenced by irrelevant objects and actions leading to a susceptibility of object related
errors of action. Schwartz and colleagues (1991) also proposed that the condition of
action disorganization observed in brain injured patients while performing activities of
daily living be termed frontal apraxia.
The explanation of the mechanism of frontal apraxia offered by Schwartz et al.
(1991) is not contradictory to Liepmann (1900/1977, 1905a/1980a, 1905b/1980b, 1907/
1980c, 1920) and Heilman and Rothi’s (1985, 1993) description of movement
memories. Rather, Liepmann, Heilman and Rothi’s proposals focus upon a retrieval
system for the memories of unique learned skilled movements that span from single
discreet actions (the action lexicons) to subcomponents (innervatory patterns) of these
actions. In contrast, the proposal of Schwartz et al. (1991) focuses upon the internal
relationship between discreet component actions of larger action goals. Both Liepmann
(1920) and Schwartz et al. (1991) use the term “frontal apraxia” to describe the
movement/action errors that occur when the internal relationship between discreet

32
action representations in the larger action goal context have been loosened or
disorganized by brain damage.
Schwartz, Montgomery, DeSalme, Ochipa, Coslett, and Mayer (1995) expanded
the study of action errors by examining J.K., a patient with traumatic brain injury,
whose behavior was similar to the patient (H.H.) studied by Mayer et al. (1990) and
Schwartz et al. (1991). J.K. was videotaped while eating breakfast and brushing his
teeth and the tapes were scored according to the action coding system described by
Mayer et al. (1990). J.K. also underwent a battery of neuropsychological tests that
included object identification and recognition, conceptual/semantic knowledge,
functional/use knowledge, gesture knowledge, gesture production, other language
testing, and memory testing. Results indicated that J.K. evinced numerous action errors
during the activities of daily living, especially tool misuse errors. The authors
postulated that the tool errors were not due to a conceptual/ideational apraxia because
J.K. was able to correctly identify tools by name and by function as well as match tools
with their corresponding object. However, the authors argued that J.K.'s tool misuse
errors were not the result of a weakened top-down processing of action plans found
with frontal apraxia because J.K. was able to demonstrate or gesture the appropriate use
for a tool from visual and tactile cues, a high level task (Schwartz et al., 1995). The
authors concluded that in order to accommodate J.K.'s full range of performance, both a
top-down and a bottom-up impairment of intentional action planning should be adopted
(Schwartz et al., 1992). That is, the loosening or disorganization of relationships
between discreet action representations could be the result of damage to either higher or
lower order mechanisms within the action planning and movement production system.

33
Schwartz et al. (1993) adapted the action-trigger-schema (ATS) framework
developed by Norman and Shallice (1986) as a means of organizing actions and
classifying action errors. The ATS framework proposes that action plans are composed
of schemas which are organized memory structures that integrate different types of
information for use with actions. These schemas and their interrelations are developed
over time through individual experiences and can generate positive or negative
activation to specialized systems such as the motor system from the action plans.
Familiar action sequences such as eating are represented by groups of schemas
organized hierarchically. High level schemas occur in a top-down fashion while the
low level schemas occur in an orderly fashion according to the logical progression of
actions within the schema. For example, the higher level schema for eating breakfast
would be the intent to eat and complete the meal while the lower level schemas would
be those actions required to eat the meal such as opening a juice carton, picking up a
fork, and taking a bite of food. Using the ATS framework, the authors proposed that
action errors are due to the loss or instability of activation within the action schema
network possibly due to a weakening of the connections among schemas (Schwartz et
al., 1993).
Schwartz et al. (1993) argue that a patient with frontal apraxia will produce
errors differently during an activity of daily living than a patient with a disorder of
attention. Specifically, a frontal apraxic patient with dysfunction in the ability to plan
and coordinate action sequences may exhibit incoherence and intrusions of actions
which result in a fragmentation of behavior. Patients with frontal apraxia may also use
tools and objects in novel or bizarre ways because the action plan for using the tools

34
and objects is inaccurate, nonspecific, and faulty. In contrast, an attention disordered
patient may exhibit intrusions of irrelevant actions and temporary derailments to other
tasks resulting in inefficient but coherent action sequences.
Schwartz et al. (1993) addressed the issue of whether the observed action errors
were related to an ideational apraxia by comparing the action performance of H.H., a
traumatic brain injured patient described in Schwartz et al. (1991), to the action
performance of a left-handed, right hemisphere damaged patient described by Ochipa
et al. (1989) who displayed ideational (conceptual) apraxia. Although both patients
produced numerous errors of action during activities of daily living, H.H. evinced
misuse of tools with spared tool function knowledge while the Ochipa et al. (1989)
patient evinced spared production with impaired tool function knowledge. Schwartz et
al. (1993) posited that frontal apraxia and ideational apraxia have different underlying
mechanisms in that patients with ideational apraxia have impaired conceptual-semantic
knowledge while patients with frontal apraxia have spared conceptual-semantic
knowledge.
Mayer et al. (1990) and Schwartz et al. (1991,1993, 1995) also applied the
action coding system to the performances of a subject who suffered a hemorrhagic
stroke (J.H., discussed in Schwartz et al., 1991) and a subject who suffered diffuse
damage following traumatic brain injury (J.K., discussed in Schwartz et al., 1993,
1995) during two activities of daily living. Although the errors produced by the
patients were described, the nature of the patients' brain damage did not allow the
researchers to make conclusions about brain-behavior relationships. Both hemorrhagic
strokes and traumatic brain injury may be associated with more damage to the brain

35
than appears on CT/MRI scans. One other limitation of this series of studies is that
although it was not their intention to include ideomotor apraxia as a possible factor,
ideomotor apraxia is likely to have been present in their cases and may have been an
important factor.
Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) proposed a “Unified Hypothesis” to explain the
errors of action observed in patients with frontal and/or ideational apraxia. The
author’s schematic representation of this hypothesis can be found in Figure 1-8. The
Unified Hypothesis is based upon the ATS framework which states that through
experience and learning, higher level schemas organize lower level schemas into
temporally ordered sequences. Experience and learning solidify connections between
higher and lower level schemas for specific tasks making the retrieval of the lower level
schemas automatic. For example, one higher level schema would contain information
on the sequence of actions required to eat a meal and would automatically activate
lower level schemas for cutting, drinking, wiping, and stirring, etc., as needed
throughout the meal process. Another high level schema would contain information on
the sequence of actions required to build and would activate lower level schemas for
getting the permit, hiring architects, buying materials, putting in the foundation, etc. In
turn, the schema for putting in the foundation would activate lower level schema for
marking the ground, digging the hole, pouring the concrete, and etc. Whether a schema
is considered “low” or “high” is determined by the relationship between schema within
the goal of the task. Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) differentiated between learned,
routine actions and novel or nonroutine actions in that pre-existing connections existed
between high level and low level schemas for learned, routine actions but not for novel

Semantics
Figure 1-8. Schematic Interpretation of the Unified Hypothesis (from Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997).

37
or nonroutine actions. The pre-existing connections between higher and low level
schemas allow learned, routine actions to become more automatic, but also more prone
to error (Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997; Reason, 1990). According to Schwartz and
Buxbaum, (1997), it is the evocation of attentional factors at certain critical points
during activation of higher level schemas which opposes error tendencies and keeps the
error rate low.
Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) discussed two key assumptions of the Unified
Hypothesis. The first key assumption is that damage to the movement engrams and/or
the perceptual systems, or the semantic systems that input to the movement engrams
would affect the ATS system by compromising its automatically. This lack of
automaticity leads to greater dependence on attention and specifically on supervisory
attention. Supervisory attention is evoked when automatic action routines are
insufficient or inappropriate to complete the task at hand (Norman & Shallice, 1980,
1986). Supervisory attention has been equated with working memory by Baddeley
(1986). Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) proposed that “for the patient with faulty
access to gesture engrams or perceptual-semantic processing, successful performance
of familiar, pragmatic action, depends more heavily on [attentional] control processes”
(P-l 9).
The second key assumption of the Unified Hypothesis is that behavioral
consequences of this increased dependency on supervisory attention/working memory
depend upon a combination of the severity of damage to the ATS system and the status
of the supervisory attention/working memory, itself. That is, a deficit in one
component (activation of action schemas or attentional control systems) of the Unified

38
Hypothesis may not impact actions in natural contexts without some degree of damage
to the other component. The authors argue that it is this combination of deficits that
leads to action errors in natural contexts. That is, patients who have deficits in the
automatic activation of action schemas will not evince action errors unless there is also
a deficit in supervisory attention/ working memory and/or executive control processes.
Conversely, patients with deficits in executive control processes will not evince action
errors unless there are co-existing deficits in posterior processing systems which impact
the automaticity of the action schemas. In addition, patients with a cortical dementia or
diffuse head injury, may demonstrate the most serious errors of action during activities
of daily living because of the severity of deficits in both the automatic activation of
action schemas as well as executive control systems (Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997).
The Relationship Between Apraxia and Pragmatic Action
It is possible that neither the model proposed by Rothi et al. (1991, 1997) or the
Unified Hypothesis proposed by Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) can independently
account for all of the errors produced by brain-damaged patients during goal-directed
activities of daily living (pragmatic action). In the following discussion, pragmatic
action will be defined as the sequences of movements required to progress toward and
obtain a definable goal. The goal may be directed toward common, everyday actions
such as eating, or uncommon actions such as building a house (uncommon actions may
vary from person to person depending upon life experiences). In contrast, movement is
defined as changes in posture, place, or position which can occur within an action as
well as independently. Actions and movements have been disambiguated to represent
the notion that movements are the inherent motor aspect of performing actions (i.e.,

39
movements are the final common denominator for all actions) and that actions are a
series of movements arranged in hierarchically organized schemas according to the end
goal. Using these definitions of pragmatic action and movements, the Rothi et al.
(1991, 1997) Cognitive Neuropsychological Model of Limb Praxis and Apraxia
encompasses aspects related to the planning, organization, production and
comprehension of discreet movements (hereafter referred to simply as “movements”)
while the Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) Unified Hypothesis covers aspects related to
the planning, organization, production, and comprehension of actions which
incorporate discreet movements (hereafter referred to simply as “actions”) and it is the
relationship or interaction between these two theories that is crucial for the
understanding of pragmatic action. In the following discussion, a relationship between
movements and actions will be proposed which will then be used as a foundation for
examining the production of errors during goal-directed activities of daily living.
It is proposed that higher level action schemas discussed by Schwartz and
Buxbaum (1997) access lower level schemas of movement organization found in the
action output lexicon as discussed by Rothi et al. (1991,1997) (Figure 1-9). The action
output lexicon, hereafter referred to as praxicon as suggested by Heilman and Rothi
(1997), in turn, accesses the innervatory patterns and the motor system in that order, for
production of the movement (Rothi et al., 1991, 1997) (Figure 1-10). Within the high
level schemas, information about object, tool, sequence, and other aspects of action are
organized hierarchically into plans or scripts according to specific goals. It is also
proposed that the high level action schemas also contain attributes of movement
planning but under normal circumstances, the praxicon takes precedence.

Low Level Schemas
High Level Schemas
Movements
1
1
Actions
(Rothi el al, 1991,1997)
1
1
(Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997)
Figure 1-9. Relationship between Actions and Movements.

LOW LEVEL SCHEMAS
HIGH LEVEL SCHEMAS
Figure 1-10. Breakdown of Low Level Schemas.

42
According to Schwartz et al. (1991, 1993, 1995, 1997) there may be many
different levels of schema. That is, for one set of goal-directed action sequences, a
particular schema may be organized as a “lower level schema” whereas in a different
set, the same schema may be organized as a “higher level schema.” In fact, it is
possible that schemas may be organized in such as way that a lower level schema may
be included in a higher level schema which is included in an even higher level schema
and etc. In order to conceptualize this framework it is proposed that within the high
level schematic system, information is stored in a distributed network framework and is
therefore subject to assumptions associated with parallel-distributed-processing (PDP)
models as described by Rumelhart and McClellan (1986). For example, three
assumptions about connections between nodes that are frequently activated together are
1) as the number of times of activation increases, the strength of the connection will
also increase, 2) as strength increases the nodes are activated faster, and 3) the stronger
the connections, the less likely they are to be degraded (Rumelhart & McClellan, 1986;
Nadeau. 1994). The corresponding assumptions for the high level schematic system are
1) stronger associations occur between information/schemas that are frequently
activated together, 2) the schemas with the most activation become learned, routine
actions and eventually become automatic, and 3) the schemas for common, learned
actions are less likely to show deficits following brain damage due to “a great deal of
redundancy [interconnectiveness] in the neural systems responsible for pragmatic
action” (Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997, p2).
Norman and Shallice (1980, 1986) and Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997)
discussed the role of supervisory attention/working memory (SA/WM) in the

43
production of actions. The role of SA/WM was to monitor actions and step in as
needed during their production so errors would be circumvented. SA/WM also
contributed the most resources to monitor novel actions, a lesser amount of resources to
monitor non-routine actions, and the least amount of resources to monitor routine or
learned actions which could eventually become automatic and be produced correctly
without attentional resources (Schwartz & Buxbaum (1997). To account for these
different aspects of actions, the connection between executive functions (as defined by
Schwartz et al., 1991, 1993, 1995) and the output praxicon has been divided into four
routes, each requiring different amounts of attentional resources (Figure 1-11). It is
proposed that the route for production of automatic actions (those learned, routine
actions that are performed in context using actual tools and objects) bypasses attention
and accesses the output praxicon directly because the combined effects of the natural
context, tools, and objects may be enough information to activate that part of the motor
system specialized for overleamed, automatic movements (Paillard, 1982, Marsden,
1982, Rapscak et al., 1993, Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997) The routes for routine and
non-routine actions both access the output praxicon but non-routine actions require
greater attentional resources than routine actions for accurate production. Additionally,
the route for novel actions accesses the innervatory patterns rather than the output
praxicon because by definition, “novel” movements have not been produced
previously and, therefore, would not have engrams represented in the output praxicon.
Novel actions also require more attentional resources than either routine or non-routine
actions.

LOW LEVEL SCHEMAS
HIGH LEVEL SCHEMAS
Figure 1-11. Breakdown of High Level Schemas.

45
Because the output praxicon receives information from the semantic system and the
semantic system is accessed by the perceptual systems, both systems (semantic and
perceptual) have been added to the model according to Rothi et al., (1991, 1997) in
Figure 1-12 and 1-13. Additionally, it is proposed that the executive functions in the
high level schematic system also communicates with the semantic system in order to
establish semantic relationships and interactions among related schemas. To
accommodate this communication, the semantic system has been divided into two parts
with one part connecting to the output praxicon and another part with connections to
and from executive functions. This division is not without debate, however, because
one could argue that the semantic system which communicates with the low level
movement schemas contains procedural information about tools and objects while the
semantic system which communicates with the high level action schemas contains
episodic information about action sequences.
Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) and Reason (1979, 1984) also discussed visual,
auditory, and tactile perceptual systems as important input systems for online
monitoring and feedback to ensure correct action production. To accommodate these
reports, the perceptual system has been added to the high level action schema system
with input connections to executive functions (the planning and organization of action
schemas) and attention (Supervisory attention/working memory) in Figure 1-14. The
perceptual systems, therefore, send information to both the low (movement) and high
(action) schema systems.
In summary, the proposed relationship between apraxia and pragmatic action
described above separated the components of pragmatic action into low and high level

LOW LEVEL SCHEMAS
HIGH LEVEL SCHEMAS
Auditory/Verbal
Input
Auditory Analysis
Visual/Object
Input
Phonological Input
Lexicon
1
Visual Analysis
n
.
Object Recognition System
Visual/Gesturml
Input
Visual Analysis
7\
Figure 1-12. Addition of Perceptual Input to Low Level Schemas (Rothi et al., 1991, 1997).

Figure 1-13. Addition of Semantic System to High Level Schemas.

Figure 1-14. Proposed Relationship Between Apraxia and Pragmatic Action.

49
schematic systems. The low level system targets planning, organization, production,
and comprehension of movement and movement sequences which are the final
common denominator of actions. The high level system includes planning,
organization, production, and comprehension of actions and action sequences
(schemas) which originate in the complex schematic system of executive functions and
require attentional monitoring for correct production. The final common denominator
for both actions and movements is the praxis system, specifically, the output praxicon,
innervatory patterns, and motor system.
Predictions of the Proposed Relationship Between Movements and Actions
Based on the above description of the relationship between action schemas and
movements, the following predictions are made. First, pragmatic action can be divided
into two levels, a high level for actions and a low level for movements, with the final
common denominator of production through the output praxicon. Following this
prediction, there should be dissociations between the ability to plan and organize
actions (which occurs at the high level) from the ability to plan and organize
movements (at the low level). A deficit in the ability to plan, organize, and execute
actions has been documented by Mayer et al. (1990), Schwartz et al. (1991, 1993,
1995), and Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) who studied patients with generalized brain
damage from closed head injury and labeled the deficit frontal apraxia, and Sirigu,
Zalla, Pillon, Grafman, Agid, and Dubois (1995, 1996), and Sirigu, Zalla, Pillon,
Grafman, Dubois, and Agid (1996) who studied patients with frontal lobe damage and
labeled the deficits as problems in managerial knowledge. However, Mayer et al.
(1990), Schwartz et al. (1991, 1993, 1995), Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) and Sirigu

50
et al. (1995, 1996, in press) did not test for apraxia, a deficit in the ability to plan,
organize and execute movements. Ideomotor apraxia is well documented in the
literature by Liepmann (1900/1977, 1905b/1980b, 1907/1980c, 1920), DeRenzi (1985),
DeRenzi et al. (1966, 1982), Heilman et al. (1982), Rothi et al. (1985), Rothi and
Heilman, (1985), Sirigu, Cohen, Duhamel, Pillon, Dubois, and Agid (1995), and
Foundas et al. (1995). Ideomotor apraxia has been localized to damage in the dominant
hemisphere (Liepmann & Maas, 1907; Geschwind, 1965; Heilman, 1979; and Poizner,
Meriens, Clark, Macauley, Rothi, & Heilman, 1997) and specifically to posterior
parietal cortex (Heilman, 1979; Freund, 1991; and Poizner et al., 1997). However, the
focus of the above studies was on either high level action planning and organization
abilities, without documenting presence or absence of low level factors, or vice versa—
focus on low level action planning and organization abilities without documenting
presence or absence of high level factors.
Only one study to date has examined both low and high level schematic
functions within the same patient. Schwartz et al. (1995) examined action planning and
praxis in a patient, J.K., who suffered brain damage as the result of closed head injury.
Results indicated that J.K. evinced significant deficits in both the planning and
organization of actions and the planning and organization of movements.
Unfortunately, due to the extent of brain damage (lesions in right frontal lobe, bilateral
temporo-parietal lobe, and left occipital lobe) brain-behavior relationships could not be
made. Further studies are needed to document whether patients with impaired
planning and organization of actions have spared planning and organization of
movements and vise versa. However, because the supplementary motor area (SMA)

51
located in the prefrontal gyrus has been implicated in the production of learned
movements (Heilman, 1979) and it is proposed that the production of movements is the
final common pathway for all actions, researchers must be strict as to location of lesion
(i.e., with/without damage to SMA in patients with frontal lobe lesions) and in modality
of task (i.e., test action planning and organization through pictures and not through
actual production for patients with ideomotor apraxia as the ideomotor apraxia will
affect production) when selecting subjects and experimental tasks. It should also be
noted that due to the proposal that the output praxicon is the final common pathway for
production of actions, patients with ideomotor apraxia have the potential to be impaired
in production across tasks - clinical and environmental. This impairment across tasks
has been documented experimentally by Foundas et al. (1995) and through case reports
by Jacobs, Macauley, Adair, Gold, Rothi, and Heilman (1995) and Sirigu et al. (1995).
A second prediction states that deficits in action semantics should affect the
functional use of tools within higher level schemas (in context or part of a goal-directed
schema) as well as within lower level schemas (out of context or independent of goal-
directed schema). Ochipa et al. (1989) reported a left-handed patient with a right
hemisphere lesion who demonstrated deficits in the functional use of tools across high
and low level tasks. High level tasks included eating a meal and low level tasks
included pantomiming to command (e.g., show me how you use scissors). Results
indicatéd that the patient was impaired in all tasks in which the functional relationship
between tool and object were important. It should be noted, however, that Ochipa et al.
(1989) labeled the patient’s disorder “ideational apraxia” and defined it as a loss of
conceptual knowledge related to tool use. Raymer (1992) and Raymer and Ochipa

52
(1997), labeled this disorder “conceptual apraxia” which better describes this global
impairment of both low and high level schema functions.
A third prediction states that errors of action produced by non brain-damaged
people should relate to high level schema problems, the planning and organization of
actions, and not low level schema problems, the planning and organization of
movements. “Normal” people have intact praxis systems and should therefore produce
skilled movements accurately. However, the correct production of actions depends
upon the mediation of supervisory attention/working memory and if a person is not
“paying enough attention” or becomes distracted during the task at hand, a different
action, correctly produced, may be performed. Reason (1979, 1984, 1990) and Reason
and Mycielska (1982) studied human error and lapses of attention in everyday life.
They report that normal people produce errors of omission, addition, anticipation,
perseveration, capture, exchange, and substitution all of which occur within action
schemas and not within movements. For example, an error of capture occurred when a
lady went to the bathroom intending to brush her hair but she picked up the toothbrush
and began to brush her teeth. This lady did not pick up the toothbrush and brush her
hair or perform any action out of sequence for that particular schema, she merely
performed the wrong action schema for her intention which is a high level schematic
system error. Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) classified the errors produced by brain
damaged patients during six daily activities, including making toast and wrapping a
present, using Reason’s (1979, 1984) classification system. Schwartz and Buxbaum
(1997) reported that the brain damaged patients produced errors not only from the
categories described by Reason (1979, 1984) but also in four categories not described

53
by Reason (1979, 1984) - grasp/spatial misorientation, spatial misestimation, tool
omission, and quality of movement. These four error types are hypothetically related to
the low level schematic system and would be predicted in patients with damage to the
praxis system by this model. Unfortunately, Schwartz and Buxbaum’s (1997) patients
had heterogeneous etiologies and were not tested for conceptual or ideomotor apraxia
and therefore, direct evidence to support this prediction can not be obtained. Further
studies are necessary to examine the types of errors produced by brain damaged
patients and to establish a classification system using the framework of the proposed
model.
Classification of Action Errors
The types of errors described by Foundas et al. (1995), Ochipa et al. (1989),
Mayer et al.(1990), Schwartz et al. (1991, 1993, 1995), Sirigu et al. (1995, 1996) and
Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) can be divided into two categories based upon the low
(movement) and high (action) schema systems proposed by the relationship described
above (Figure 1-14). That is, error types that reflect deficits in the praxis production
systems (Rothi et al., 1991) would make up low level schematic system errors while
error types that reflect deficits in the planning and organization of action in the
executive function and attentional control mechanisms (Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997)
would make up high level schematic errors. However, some types of errors could be
produced by both a high and a low level schema deficit. For example, the misuse of a
fork to stir tea could be explained by a deficit in the praxis conceptual system - a low
level schema error - or by a deficit in attentional control of the action sequences (the
patient had just finished using a fork to eat meat and did not switch tools before stirring

54
tea) - a high level schema error. Other types of errors such as the body part as tool
errors reported by Rothi et al. (1991) can only be explained by a low level schema
deficit.
However, no study to date has measured deficits associated with low and high
level schemas within the same group of patients in order to tease out which action
errors are associated with which type of deficit. Foundas et al. (1995) and Ochipa et al.
(1989) tested the praxis production and conceptual systems (low level schema) while
Mayer et al., (1990), Schwartz et al., (1991, 1993), Sirigu et al. (1995, 1997), and
Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997) tested executive function, managerial knowledge, and
planning/ organizational abilities (higher level schema). Schwartz et al., (1995)
measured both low and high level schema abilities in a patient with diffuse brain
damage after closed head injury. However, an MRI of this patient showed focal lesions
in the left occipito-parietal area, right frontal area, and bilateral temporal areas which
negated any attempt to establish brain-behavior relationships and examine the
underlying nature of action errors.
Foundas et al. (1995) proposed that the errors produced by the experimental
subjects in their study could be divided into two groups - production and conceptual.
Production errors consisted of movement, timing, and sequence errors and conceptual
errors consisted of misuse and mis-selection of a tool for the intended task. However,
as discussed above, production and conceptual errors can occur as the result of deficits
in low and/or high level schema systems. Production errors have been associated with
ideomotor apraxia resulting from discrete lesions of the dominant left hemisphere
(Foundas et al., 1995) as well as executive function disorders from closed head injury

55
(Schwartz et ai, 1995) and conceptual errors have been associated with ideational/
conceptual apraxia resulting from discrete lesions of the dominant hemisphere (Ochipa
et al, 1989) as well as resulting from generalized brain damage from closed head injury
(Schwartz et al., 1995). However, all of the experimental subjects in the Foundas et al.,
(1995) study had unilateral (dominant hemisphere) brain lesions resulting from single
strokes. Even though it would be easy to propose that the errors produced by these
subjects originated in the low level schema system, these subjects also evinced deficits
in the overall organization of meal planning, a high level schema system. However,
Foundas et al. (1995) did not test for presence of conceptual apraxia or executive
function (planning/ organizational) deficits that may explain the presence of high level
schema errors. Therefore, although Foundas et al. (1995) argued that the errors
produced by the experimental subjects strongly correlated with ideomotor apraxia, it is
not known whether conceptual or executive disorders also influenced the production of
action errors within these subjects.
Each of the above studies (Foundas et al., 1995; Ochipa et al., 1989; Mayer et
al., 1990; Schwartz et al., 1991,1993, 1995; Sirigu et al. 1995, 1996, in press; and
Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997) documents the presence of action errors in activities of
daily living. However, each study evaluated subjects with different etiologies of brain
damage (i.e., traumatic brain injury versus stroke) using different evaluation criteria
and asking different research hypotheses as to the nature of these action errors. As a
result, the nature of the movement and action errors produced by brain damaged
patients observed in natural contexts remains unclear. It is possible that by examining
deficits associated with both low and high level schemas in a homogeneous group of

56
subjects within a well controlled study that the nature of action deficits in activities of
daily living can be better understood and explained.
Statement of the Problem
While the presence of action and movement errors in natural contexts has been
described by several research groups, the mechanism of these action errors has not been
determined. In the above discussion, four explanations that may account for these
errors in natural contexts were described. The first proposes that movement and action
errors in natural contexts may be the result of an executive disorder of planning and
organization (Mayer etai, 1990; Schwartz et ai, 1991, 1993, 1995; Sirigue/a/., 1995,
1996; and Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997), a high level schematic system function
according to the proposed relationship between movements and actions. The second
proposal states that action errors in natural contexts may be the result of an impaired
supervisory attention/ working memory (Schwartz et ai, 1995; Schwartz & Buxbaum,
1997) a high level schematic system function according to the proposed relationship
between movements and actions. The third proposal states that action errors in natural
contexts may be the result of a deficit in action semantics or tool-function-object
knowledge (Ochipa et ai, 1989, 1992) a function that implicates both high and low
level schematic system function according to the proposed relationship between
movements and actions. The fourth proposal states that the action errors in natural
contexts may be the result of ideomotor apraxia, an impairment in the production of
learned, skilled movements (Fornidas et ai, 1995); a low level schematic system
function according to the proposed relationship between movements and actions.

57
Previous studies of action errors compared the performance of left brain
damaged patients with normal controls (Foundas et al., 1995), compared patients with
heterogeneous etiologies with normal controls (Sirigu et al. 1995, 1996; Schwartz &
Buxbaum, 1997), or were single case studies (Ochipa et al., 1989; Mayer et al., 1990;
Schwartz et al., 1991, 1993, 1995). In fact, only three subjects, presented as single case
studies, form the basis of the Mayer et al., 1990, and Schwartz et al., 1991, 1993, and
1995 studies. The proposed cognitive neuropsychological model of pragmatic action
predicts that action errors can occur as the result of low level schematic system
impairment as well as high level schematic system impairment, both of which can be
associated with unilateral lesions of the dominant hemisphere. However, no study to
date has examined the presence of action errors in patients with unilateral lesions of the
nondominant (right) hemisphere in right-handed individuals. Due to the heterogeneous
nature of brain damage in previous studies as well as the lack of testing in both the low
and high level schema system, conclusions about brain-behavior relationships and the
nature of action errors can not be made. Therefore, studies are needed that 1) include
subjects with unilateral lesions of the nondominant (right) hemisphere and examine
both low and high level schema function; and 2) use a consistent error classification
system to score the subjects’ performance in natural contexts which incorporates
scoring systems described thus far in the literature - by Reason (1979, 1984), Foundas
et al. (1995), Schwartz et al. (1995), and Schwartz & Buxbaum, (1997); and 3)
compare subjects with brain damage limited to one hemisphere (right or left) from a
single event rather than generalized brain damage resulting from trauma in order to
examine brain-behavior relationships more clearly.

58
The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine the nature (low versus high
level schema system functions) of action errors produced during an activity of daily
living in the natural environment in patients with left or right hemisphere brain damage
as well as neurologically normal control subjects. The following specific questions will
be addressed:
1. Does brain damage in either hemisphere result in production of
action errors in the natural environment or are action errors specific to left
hemisphere brain damaged patients?
The Foundas et al. (1995) study documented production of action errors by ten
left hemisphere damaged patients in the natural context of eating a meal. Other studies
described action errors produced by single subjects with either right hemisphere
damage (in a left-handed patient) or closed head injury (Ochipa et al., 1989; Mayer et
al., 1990; Schwartz et al., 1991, 1993,1995; and Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997).
Because only the left hemisphere damaged patients were experimentally studied, it is
not known whether the action errors described in the above studies are specific to
patients with lesions of the dominant hemisphere or can be found in right hemisphere
damaged patients as well. Using the proposed relationship between apraxia and
pragmatic action, it is proposed that patients with dominant (left) hemisphere brain
damage produce action errors consistent with both low and high level schema system
functions while patients with lesions of the nondominant (right) hemisphere produce
action errors consistent with high level schema system function only. This difference is
due to the bilateral representation of executive functions and the lateralized
representation of the visuokinesthetic engrams for learned movement to the left
hemisphere. This difference would predict that patients with left hemisphere damage

59
have more opportunity for errors and may therefore produce more errors than patients
with right hemisphere lesions. According to the proposed model, patients with lesions
of the nondominant right hemisphere may evince action errors as a result of executive
system function impairment (deficits in the planning, and organization of actions) as
well as from attention system impairment as these are both represented bilaterally and
impairment of one hemisphere may result in deficits in these systems. The errors
resulting from attentional system impairment may include spatial errors resulting from
neglect which has been described as a disorder of attention by Brain (1941), Zangwill
(1944), McFie, Piercy, and Zangwill (1950), Denny-Brown and Banker (1954),
Heilman (1979), and Heilman, Watson, and Valenstein (1985). Heilman (1979)
reported that some patients with neglect fail to eat from one side of their plate but have
spared action plans for eating and use of tools during eating. The null hypothesis of no
difference in number of action errors produced while eating a meal between the groups
(left hemisphere damaged subjects, right hemisphere damaged subjects, and controls)
will be tested.
2a. Does presence of deficits in
1. production of learned skilled movements,
2. conceptual knowledge of tool-function relationships,
3. action planning and organization, and
4. supervisory attention/working memory
predict production of action errors in the natural environment?
2b. And if so, to what extent does each type of deficit (low level system
deficits—1 and 2 above and high level system deficits—3 and 4 above) predict
type of error (including misuse, mis-selection, external configuration, internal
configuration, timing, quantity, sequence [omission, addition, sequence],
exchange, substitution, movement, and body part as tool)?
Deficits in conceptual knowledge of tool-function relationships and deficits in
production of learned skilled movements are proposed to result from lateralized lesions

60
to the dominant (left) hemisphere in most right-handed people (Rothi & Heilman, 1985)
and are hypothesized to be associated with low level schemas in the proposed
relationship between movements and actions. Deficits in the planning and organization
of actions and deficits in supervisory attention/working memory are proposed to result
from left, right, and bilateral lesions as well as degenerative brain damage (Schwartz et
al., 1991,1993, 1995) and are hypothesized to be associated with high level schemas in
the proposed cognitive neuropsychological model of pragmatic action. As a result, all
four deficits of higher cortical function described above have the potential to produce
action errors in natural contexts. To examine the relationship between these disorders
of higher cortical function and production of action errors in the environment,
independent measures (non-context dependent) of each disorder will be correlated with
total number of action errors produced in the experimental measures (context-
dependent). The null hypothesis of no significant correlation between any one
independent measure of higher cortical function and number of total action errors
produced during the context dependent activities of daily living will be tested.
In addition, it is hypothesized that tool and nontool errors will be produced to
different degrees by patients depending on the type and severity of higher cortical
function deficit. That is, patients with deficits in the praxis production and conceptual
systems (low level movement schema) may produce more tool errors (misuse, mis-
selection, internal configuration, external configuration, quantity of food on a utensil,
movement associate with the tool, and body part as tool) than patients without a deficit
in the praxis production and/or conceptual system. Hypothetically, the number of tool
errors produced should reflect the severity of the underlying deficit(s). Patients with a

61
deficit in the planning and organization of actions and/or supervisory attention/working
memory (high level schema) may produce more nontool errors (exchange, substitution,
sequence, omission, addition, and timing,) than patients without a deficit in the
planning and organization of actions and/or supervisory attention/working memory.
Although these patients may also show tool errors of misuse and mis-selection which
could arise from high level schema deficits, these patients should not evince tool errors
of internal configuration, external configuration, quantity, and body part as tool without
a concomitant deficit in the praxis system.
As a result of the action error classification system described above, it is
proposed that the errors reported by Foundas et al. (1995) as resulting from ideomotor
apraxia or production disorders, may also have been influenced to a certain extent by
high level schema deficits and that errors reported by Mayer et al. (1990), Sirigu et al.
(1995a, 1995b, 1996), and Schwartz et al. (1991, 1993, 1995) as resulting from
disorders of action planning and organization and/or supervisory attention/working
memory may also have been influenced by production and conceptual disorders.
However, it is not known which of the four disorders (praxis production, praxis
conceptual, action planning/ organization, and supervisory attention/working memory)
is most influential in inducing action errors in natural contexts or if all four disorders
are equally influential. To answer this question, independent measures of the praxis
production system, praxis conceptual system, action planning/organization, and
supervisory attention/working memory will be correlated with frequency of each type
and classification of error produced during the experimental activities of daily living.

62
The null hypothesis of no significant correlation between any one independent measure
and number of action errors within one type/classification will be tested.

CHAPTER TWO
METHODS
Some patients with brain damage produce action errors during activities of daily
living (Mayer et al, 1990; Schwartz et al., 1991, 1993, 1995; Schwartz & Buxbaum,
1997; Ochipa et al., 1989; Foundas et al., 1995). Investigators in recent research reports
have examined the planning, organization, and production of these action errors through
different theoretical models with different inherent assumptions and predictions, using
different research hypotheses and evaluation criteria, and included subjects with
heterogeneous etiologies of brain damage (Mayer et al., 1990; Schwartz et al., 1991,
1993, 1995; Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997; Sirigu et al., 1995, 1995,1996, in press;
Ochipa et al., 1989; Foundas et al., 1995). The current study describes a proposed
relationship between apraxia and pragmatic action which serves as a framework for the
examination of the nature of movement and action errors produced by patients with
unilateral left or right hemisphere brain damage as well as matched normal control
subjects.
Subjects
Three subject groups (two experimental groups and one control group)
participated in this study. The first experimental group consisted of patients with left
hemisphere strokes (LBD) and the second experimental group consisted of patients with
right hemisphere strokes (RBD). All experimental subjects were at least one month post
onset of their stroke, were right-handed, and native English speakers. None had a history
63

64
of previous neurological disease. The experimental subjects were at least one month post
onset of a unilateral CVA (from a single event) as documented by CT/MRI scan and were
identified and recruited through the following sources: Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
W. A. Shands Teaching Hospital, and UpReach Rehabilitation Center, Gainesville,
Florida; Sacred Heart Medical Center, Deaconess Medical Center, St. Luke’s
Rehabilitation Center, and University Programs in Communication Disorders Speech and
Hearing Clinic, Spokane, Washington. CT/MRI studies done at least two weeks post¬
stroke were obtained for each experimental subject and reviewed by a neurologist. The
neurologist classified the lesions as either right or left as defined by relationship of lesion
to longitudinal fissure. The lesion locations were used to classify the experimental
subjects into left-hemisphere or right-hemisphere damaged groups.
The LBD experimental group included 20 subjects whose ages ranged from 32 to
79 (M = 60.2; SD = 13.50). Educational level ranged from 3 to 16 years (M = 11.85; SD
= 3.25). Time post stroke varied from one month to 261 months (M = 41.45; SD =
65.28). Descriptive information for these LBD subjects is provided in Table 2-1.
The RBD experimental group included 10 subjects whose ages ranged from 54 to
77 (M = 64.2; SD = 8.11). Educational level ranged from 8 to 16 years (M = 12.60; SD =
2.46). Time post stroke varied from one month to 40 months (M = 11.3; SD = 15.47).
Descriptive information for these RBD subjects is provided in Table 2-2.

65
Table 2-1 LBD Subject Identification
Subject
Sex
Age
Education
MPO*
LI
M
63
9
28
L2
M
79
3
53
L3
M
64
4
25
L4
M
70
15
84
L5
M
62
12
2
L6
M
79
14
168
L7
M
69
12
67
L8
M
62
12
261
L9
M
77
16
19
L10
F
45
15
16
LI 1
F
35
12
37
L12
M
55
12
28
L13
M
65
12
1
L14
F
58
13
4
L15
F
52
14
17
L16
F
55
12
1
L17
F
78
12
1
L18
F
56
12
1
L19
F
32
12
8
L20
M
48
14
8
*MPO - months post-onset

66
Table 2-2 RBD Subject Identification
Subject
Sex
Age
Education
MPO*
R1
M
76
13
40
R2
M
58
10
2
R3
M
59
16
27
R4
M
77
13
5
R5
M
62
12
4
R6
M
73
16
1
R7
F
54
8
1
R8
F
61
14
1
R9
M
62
12
1
RIO
M
60
12
31
*MPO - months post-onset
The control subject group consisted of 10 neurologically intact community
volunteers from Gainesville and Bradenton, Florida, and Spokane, Washington. All
control subjects were also right-handed and native English speakers. Their ages ranged
from 46 to 76 years (M = 64.1; SD = 8.62). Educational levels ranged from 10 to 16
years (M = 12.6; SD = 1.84). Descriptive information regarding the control subjects is
provided in Table 2-3.

67
Table 2-3 Control Subject Identification
Subject
Sex
Age
Education
Cl
M
69
13
C2
M
71
13
C3
M
63
12
C4
M
59
16
C5
F
69
12
C6
F
63
10
C7
M
68
14
C8
M
57
14
C9
M
76
10
CIO
F
46
12
Materials and Methods
The description of the experimental procedures that follows is divided into two
sections, each containing a description of the materials, methods of presentation, and
scoring procedures relevant to each measure. The first section, entitled evaluation of
independent variables describes tests designed to measure the deficits associated with
inpairment in action planning and organization (/. e., “frontal apraxia,” a high level
schema deficit), deficits in the production of learned, skilled movements (i.e., ideomotor
apraxia, a low level schema deficit), deficits in conceptual knowledge of tool-object-
function relationships (i.e., conceptual apraxia a low and/or high level schema deficit),
and deficits in supervisory attention/working memory (high level schema deficit). In

68
addition, tests of language abilities and presence of neglect are described. Results of the
tests of language and neglect were not used to directly answer the stated research
questions. Rather, due to the co-occurrence of aphasia and apraxia in left hemisphere
damaged patients and the occurrence of neglect in right hemisphere damaged patients,
these variables must be systematically measured in order to assist in the interpretation of
the results. The second section, entitled evaluation of dependent variables describes a
task designed to measure production of movement and action errors in an activity of daily
living.
All subjects were administered the same battery of tests. Testing occurred within
one day or across a two-day period. The order of presentation of all tests was
randomized across subjects.
Evaluation of Independent Variables.
Disorders of action planning and organization
Materials. The Tower of London task (TOL, Shallice, 1982; Krikorian, Bartók, &
Gay, 1994) was given to evaluate deficits in the ability to plan and organize actions
associated with “frontal apraxia.” The TOL consists of three pegs of different lengths
mounted on a strip of board and three colored balls (red, green, and blue). The balls have
holes drilled through them so they can be placed on the pegs. The left peg held all three
balls, the middle peg held two balls, and the right peg held one ball.
Methods. The standardized administration procedures described by Krikorian et
al. (1994) were used in this study. The balls were placed in a standard initial position
(red ball on top of green ball on left peg and blue ball on middle peg) and the subject was

69
asked to manipulate the balls on the pegs to reproduce a pictured end state (Figure 2-1).
The subject performed twelve trials of increasing difficulty. A problem was correctly
solved when the end state was achieved in the prescribed number of moves. The subject
had three attempts to solve each trial.
Scoring. The standardized scoring procedures described by Krikorian et al.
(1994) were used in this study. The subject received three points if the trial was solved
correctly on the first attempt; two points if solved on the second attempt; one point if
solved on the third attempt; and zero points if not solved by the third attempt. The
examiner scored each subjects' performance online according to the above mentioned
criteria and percent correct was calculated by dividing the number of points accumulated
by the total number of points possible.
Disorders of learned, skilled movements
Materials. The Randomized Form A (RFA) and Randomized Form B (RFB)
versions of the Gesture to Command subtest of the Florida Apraxia Battery: Experimental
Edition (Appendices A & B, Rothi, Raymer, Ochipa, Maher, Greenwald, & Heilman,
1992) were given to evaluate presence and severity of disorders of learned, skilled
movements associated with ideomotor apraxia. The Gesture To Command subtest
consists of 30 commands which elicit transitive or intransitive gestures. Transitive
gestures (e.g., show me how you use a hammer) involve tool knowledge and
demonstration of how one uses tools. Intransitive gestures (e.g., show me how you
would salute) do not involve tool knowledge and have been defined as emblems by
Lemay, David, and Thomas (1989). (See Appendix A for copies of the RFA and RFB).

70
End State - 3 moves
End State - 5 moves
Figure 2-1. The Tower of London (from Krikorian, Bartók, & Gay, 1994).

71
To control for the possible effects of hand used to gesture, Raymer, Maher,
Macauley, Foundas, Rothi, and Heilman (1997) studied the performance of 16
neurologically normal, right handed control subjects on this Gesture to Command subtest
looking at the influence of hand used. They divided the 16 subjects into four groups and
administered the RFA or RFB counterbalancing hand used to gesture in the following
manner: Group 1 was administered RFA and gestured all items with the right hand
followed by all items with the left hand; Group 2 was administered RFA with the left
hand used first; Group 3 was administered RFB with the right hand used first; and Group
4 was administered RFB with the left hand used first. The tapes were then scored
pass/fail by two raters with at least two year's experience in scoring gesture production
using the Rothi, Mack, Verfaellie, and Brown (1988) error pattern analysis. Results
indicated that there was no significant difference in the performance of the right and left
hands by control subjects with no history of neurological disease when producing
gestures to command (Raymer et al., 1997).
Methods. Each subject was administered either the RFA or RFB using the
instructions written at the top of each score sheet (See Appendix A). The RFA and RFB
were alternated across subjects with half receiving RFA and half receiving RFB. To
control for possible effects of hemiparesis, the experimental subjects produced the
gestures using their ipsilesional hand and five of the ten control subjects were asked to
gesture using their non-dominant left hand. The subjects were videotaped while
performing these gestures.

72
Scoring. The videotapes were scored by two examiners familiar with ideomotor
apraxia who underwent a training session similar to that described by Maher (1995).
During the training sessions, the examiners were required to obtain at least 85%
agreement with practice tapes before beginning to score the experimental tapes. The
scoring system followed the error pattern analysis described by Rothi et al. (1988). Each
gesture was given a pass/fail rating and percent correct was calculated.
Inter-rater reliability was calculated by having the raters score four videotapes
twice and calculating percent agreement across the two sessions. Intra-rater reliability
was calculated by calculating percent agreement between the two scorers on 20% of the
videotapes.
\
Disorders of tool-obiect-function knowledge
Materials. A revised version of the Tool-Object Matching Test (TOM) described
by Ochipa et al. (1989) was given to evaluate deficits in tool-function-object knowledge
associated with ideational/conceptual apraxia (Appendix B). The original version of the
Tool-Object Matching Task described by Ochipa et al. (1989) used randomly generated
tools as foils. The revised version used the same foil tools for each trial across subjects.
The foil tools were drawn from the possible correct tool choices for the other trials and all
tools were used three times - once as a correct answer and twice as foils (except for
hammer which is a correct answer twice and used as a foil four times).
Methods. Each subject was presented with a partially completed task (e.g. a
partially sawed board) and an array of three tools consisting of the target tool and two foil
tools (e.g. a hammer, saw, and pencil). The subject was asked to select the appropriate

73
tool to complete the task according to the instructions written at the top of the score sheet
(Appendix B).
Scoring. The examiner scored the subject's responses online using a binomial,
pass/fail criteria and percent correct responses was calculated.
Disorders of supervisory attention/working memory
Materials. The Trailmaking Test - Parts A & B (Reitan, 1944) was used to
evaluate deficits in supervisory attention/working memory. The Trailmaking Tests -
Parts A & B (“Trails A & B”) are standardized neuropsychological measures that are
sensitive to brain damage. Good performance on Trails A & B depends upon attention to
task and working memory with strong visual search and motor performance components.
The standardized test sheets were used in this study. Trails A & B each consist of a
single sheet of 8 1/2 x 11 white paper with the numbers 1 - 25 (Part A) and 25 numbers
and letters (Part B) written in random order on the page. The numbers and letters are
written in circles.
Methods. Trails A & B were administered according to the standardized
instructions by the examiner.
Scoring. Trails A & B were scored according to the standardized instructions by
the examiner. The time in seconds required for the subject to complete Part A and Part B
were recorded separately and compared to normative data reported by Davies (1968)
(Appendix C).

74
Disorders of language
Materials. The Western Aphasia Battery (WAB, Kertesz, 1981) was used to
evaluate presence, type, and severity of aphasia. The WAB is a standardized test of
acquired language disorders which enables the calculation of aphasia severity through an
aphasia quotient (AQ) and determination of aphasia type through the WAB aphasia type
taxonomy. The WAB is divided into four sections, spontaneous speech, comprehension,
repetition, and naming, which test each aspect of verbal language skills in brain-injured
patients.
Methods. The WAB was administered according to the standardized instructions
by the examiner, a certified speech-language pathologist with seven years experience
working with neurologically based communication disorders.
Scoring. The WAB was scored according to the standardized instructions by the
examiner, a certified speech-language pathologist with seven years experience working
with neurologically based communication disorders. An aphasia quotient reflecting
aphasia severity score was calculated and type of aphasia was documented based upon
the WAB aphasia taxonomy (Kertesz, 1981).
Neglect
Materials. A line bisection task was used to evaluate presence and severity of
neglect. For the current study, three lines measuring eight, ten, and twelve inches in
length were drawn horizontally across the middle of individual 11x14 pieces of paper
using a thick black marker.

75
Methods. The examiner placed one of the pieces of “lined” paper described
above horizontally on the table approximately eighteen inches in front of the subject with
the middle of the line even with the subject’s midsagittal plane. The subject was given a
pen and asked to “mark the center of the line.” This procedure was repeated for each of
the three lines. The lines were given in random order to each subject.
Scoring. The examiner scored the accuracy of the subject's mark by measuring
the difference between the true middle of the line and the subject's mark. An average
difference was calculated in centimeters. Presence of neglect was determined by a
difference score of 10mm between the true midline and the subject’s mark (Heilman,
Watson, & Valenstein, 1985). Severity of neglect was determined by the magnitude of
the average difference in that the greater the difference, the more severe the neglect.
Evaluation of Dependent Variable—Eating a Meal.
Materials. A meal consisting of a main course, at least one side dish, a dessert,
and a beverage, and utensils such as a knife, fork, and spoon, were organized on a
hospital tray according to standard etiquette rules. The food was placed on standard
hospital plates with covers. Additionally, three foil items - a toothbrush, comb, and
pencil, were also placed on the tray interspersed in random order with the utensils. The
location of the foil items and the utensils were ipsilateral to side of lesion for the
experimental subjects and counterbalanced across control subjects. Subjects who were
inpatients received their meals in their hospital rooms from food service personnel during
regular mealtimes. Subjects who were not inpatients obtained their meals through the
hospital cafeteria using similar plates and covers as the inpatients and ate privately in a

76
research laboratory. Straws, condiments, and napkins were made available to each
subject by the examiner.
Methods. All subjects were videotaped while eating the meal. The videotaping
was done using a Sharp videocamera set on a tripod approximately five feet in front of
the subject. Taping was done on a TDK 120 minute videotape. The video camera was
turned on just prior to the subject receiving their food and turned off after completion of
the meal. The examiner was not in the room during the videotaping and nurses, spouses
or significant others were instructed not to assist the subject in any way during the eating
of the meal, unless specifically asked to do so by the subject. Conversation with family
members during the meal was allowed to ensure a comfortable, natural environment.
The examiner arranged the utensils and foil items on the tray after the meal had been
delivered counterbalancing location (right or left) across control subjects. Subjects with
specific dietary restrictions were accommodated through choice of meal. In order to
control for possible effects of hemiparesis, an equal number of control subjects were
asked to eat with their nondominant hand as experimental subjects who ate with their
nondominant hand.
Scoring. The mealtime videotapes were scored by two raters and a trainer at the
same time but independently. The scoring was completed in a quiet room using a 20 inch
viewing monitor and a Sony video player with slow motion and freeze frame capabilities.
The trainer controlled the tape player for the raters but the raters were free to stop and
rewind to view an action or series of actions as many times as necessary to ensure that all
actions produced by the subjects were included. The raters were encouraged to consult a

77
list of error types given to them during the training time as often as needed during the
scoring periods. No discussion was allowed with respect to the subject's performance
and the raters were not able to see each other's or the trainer's score sheet.
The scoring system described by Foundas et al. (1995) and the error classification
system associated with the proposed relationship between apraxia and pragmatic action
described in chapter one was used in this study. For the current study, an action was
defined as a sequence of individual movements that result in the accomplishment of a
definable goal and movements were defined as changes in place, position, or posture.
For example, picking up the fork, piercing a piece of meat, and bringing the meat to the
mouth would be three individual movements that make up one action. Each action was
categorized as a tool or a nontool action. Examples of tool actions would be stirring tea
with a spoon; eating a piece of meat with a fork ; and buttering a slice of bread with a
knife. Examples of nontool actions would be placing the napkin in the lap; moving an
empty plate to the side of the tray; and opening a packet of sugar. The raters were
instructed to use a standard recording form to record the quadrant of the tray in which the
action was initiated, which hand was used to perform the action, which tool and object
were used, and which action was performed. The raters then determined if the action was
correct or incorrect and if judged incorrect, the raters assigned an error type to the
incorrect action. The error types are described below:
Errors proposed to result from Low Level System Impairment:
internal configuration: hand posture used to manipulate
tool was incorrect (e.g., holding a spoon with a tightened fist).

78
external configuration: action produced was misplaced in space in absence of
perceptual deficits (e.g., scooping with a spoon on the table beside the plate).
body part as tool: action was produced using a body part as the tool (e.g.,
spreading butter on bread with index finger).
timing: incorrect timing during a sequence of movements within one action (e.g.
spreading butter on bread with pauses in between the knife movements) or
between two actions (e.g., holding a spoonful of food close to the mouth while
one is still chewing a previous bite).
quantity: incorrect or inefficient amount of food is taken to the mouth (e.g.,
putting too much or too little mashed potatoes on a spoon which is then
brought to the mouth).
movement: movement produced was inaccurate or incorrect (e.g., using wrist
motion rather than shoulder motion)
Errors proposed to result from high level system impairment:
sequence: sequence of actions was incorrect (e.g., stirring tea before
adding the sugar)
omission: omitting one action from a sequence of actions (e.g., putting
sugar in tea and not stirring it at all).
addition: adding an additional action during a sequence of actions (e.g.
putting sugar in tea and eating a bite of food before stirring the tea).
Errors proposed to result from high and/or low level system impairment:
misuse: action (movement) produced was incorrect for chosen tool (e.g., stirring
with a knife) (See Figure 1-7.)
mis-selection: action (movement) produced was correct for the chosen tool but
not for the goal with the object (e.g., using a fork to eat ice cream) (See Figure 1-
7.)
It was possible for one action to be judged as represented by more than one error type
during the scoring procedure.

79
Actions over the entire meal were recorded and scored and the following
calculations were obtained:
1. percent correct tool actions:
# of correct tool actions
total # of tool actions
2. percent correct nontool actions:
# of correct nontool actions
total # of nontool actions
3. percent correct total actions:
# of total correct actions (tool + nontooD
# of total actions (tool + nontool)
4. action per time ratio:
total time of meal (seconds')
total # of errors over the entire meal
Rater Training
The rater training protocol used in this study was based on the protocol described
by Maher (1995). The raters for this study were two graduate students in speech-
language pathology. The raters were novices in the study of apraxia and unfamiliar with
the specific research questions in the study. The raters were told that every action the
subjects produced was important and to make sure that every action was recorded and
scored. Prior to a scoring session, the raters were given a score sheet and a list of error
types with definitions and examples. They were asked to record and score a two minute
portion of a mealtime tape from a previous study. These recordings and scores were
reviewed with the raters by the examiner. Any discrepancies in scoring were reevaluated

80
by watching the pertinent section of the videotape and then discussing the scores. This
procedure continued until 85% or greater reliability between the raters was achieved over
16 trials (one trial = one action). At that point, the error types were reviewed by the
trainer and recording/scoring of test trials began.
Inter-rater reliability was calculated by selecting four videotapes at random and
calculating point-to-point reliability for the raters. The raters were not aware of which
subjects were used for reliability calculations. Two subjects selected at random were
scored twice by the raters to calculate intra-rater reliability.
Statistical Analyses
The statistical analyses were tailored specifically for each of the research
questions. For question number 1
Does brain damage in either hemisphere result in production of action errors in
the natural environment or are action errors specific to left hemisphere brain
damaged patients?
the LBD, RBD, and control subjects were compared using an analyses of variance with
the dependent variable being total number of action errors produced during the eating
task. Because a negatively skewed distribution was found for the control subjects, a
nonparametric test, the Kruskal-Wallace, was used. The Wilcoxon Rank Sums Test was
then used to determine differences between groups.
For question 2a
Does presence of deficits in
1. production of learned skilled movements,
2. conceptual knowledge of tool-function relationships,
3. action planning and organization, and
4. supervisory attention/working memory
predict production of action errors in the natural environment?

81
Pearson Product Moment Correlations were calculated between the independent
experimental measures (TOL, FAB, WAB, Trails A, Trails B, Neglect, Tool-Object
Matching) and total number of action errors produced during the meal.
For question 2b
And if so, to what extent does each type of deficit (low level system deficits-1
and 2 above and high level system deficits-3 and 4 above) predict type of error
(including misuse, mis-selection, external configuration, internal configuration,
timing, quantity, sequence [omission, addition, sequence], exchange, substitution,
movement, and body part as tool)?
A multiple stepwise regression statistic was calculated between the independent measures
(TOL, FAB, Trails A, Trails B, Tool-Object Matching) and the dependent variables of
types of errors produced during the meal (misuse, mis-selection, external configuration,
internal configuration, timing, sequence [omission, addition, sequence], movement, and
body part as tool.

CHAPTER THREE
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the nature of movement and action
errors produced by brain-damaged patients during an activity of daily living-eating a
meal. Two experimental subject groups and one control subject group participated in this
study. The first experimental group consisted of twenty left hemisphere brain-damaged
patients; the second experimental group consisted of ten right hemisphere brain-damaged
patients; and the control subject group consisted of ten neurologically normal control
subjects. There were no significant differences between the three groups in age F(2, 37)
= 0.61, p > 0.54 or educational level F(2, 37) = 0.36, p > 0.69. There was also no
significant different in the time post stroke between the two experimental groups F(l, 28)
= 2.04, p> 0.16.
Experimental Results
Errors of movement and action were theorized to occur at two levels based on the
low (movement) and high (action) level schema systems proposed by the relationship
described in Figure 1-4. That is, error types that reflect deficits in the praxis production
system (Rothi et al, 1991) would make up low level schematic system errors while error
types that reflect deficits in the planning and organization of action in the executive
function and control mechanisms (Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997) would make up high
level schematic errors. As described in Chapter Two, the evaluation of independent
variables included tests that were proposed to measure the different deficits that can
82

83
occur within the two levels. The Tower of London (TOL; Shallice, 1982, Krikorian et
al., 1994) was given to evaluate deficits in the ability to plan and organize actions
associated with “frontal apraxia”, a high level deficit. The Gesture to Command subtest
of The Florida Apraxia Battery: Experimental Edition (Rothi et al., 1992) was given to
evaluate the presence and severity of disorders of learned, skilled movement associated
with ideomotor apraxia, a low level deficit. A revised version of the Tool-Object
Matching Test (TOM) described by Ochipa et al., (1989) was given to evaluate deficits in
tool-function-object knowledge associated with ideational/conceptual apraxia, a low level
deficit. Additionally, the Trailmaking Test - Parts A & B (Reitan, 1944) was given to
evaluate deficits in supervisory attention/working memory; The Western Aphasia Battery
(WAB; Kertesz, 1981) was given to evaluate presence of aphasia; and a line bisection
task was used to evaluate presence of neglect. Descriptive statistics for the three groups
on each of the above tasks are listed in Table 3.1. Overall, the three groups were
prototypic of their constituents. That is, 70% of the RBD had neglect while only 40% of
the LBD and none of the controls had neglect. 85% of the LBD had aphasia while none
of the RBD or controls were aphasic. 65% of the LBD had ideomotor apraxia while 20%
of the RBD and none of the controls were apraxic. 20% of the LBD and none of the
RBD or controls had conceptual apraxia. In addition, 80% of LBD and 70% of RBD had
“frontal apraxia” and were slower on the attention tasks than the controls.
Neglect and aphasia were ruled out as variables that affected the data by dividing
all subjects into two groups according to presence/absence of neglect and
presence/absence of aphasia and comparing the mean number and types of errors
produced by the two groups. No significant differences between the groups were found.

84
Table 3.1 Descriptive Statistics for Each Group on Measures of Independent Variables
Task
Mean
SD
Max
Min
Tower of London
LBD
24.4
11.21
34
3
RBD
24.1
10.21
33
5
Control
30.8
3.08
35
26
Total Possible
36
Gesture to Command
LBD
12.8
6.03
25
3
RBD
20.8
6.01
27
10
Control
23.0
3.13
28
17
Total Possible
30
Tool-Obiect Matching
LBD
9.3
1.94
10
3
RBD
10
0
10
10
Control
10
0
10
10
Total Possible
10
Trails A
LBD
86.71
56.98
232
26
RBD
112.2
74.68
231
39
Control
49.2
23.55
95
21
Range for NBD* varies according to age, (Appendix C)
Trails B
LBD
208.1
197.45
925
67
RBD
213.5
154.15
561
100
Control
111.3
47.78
199
66
Range for NBD* varies according to age, (Appendix C)
Western Aühasia Batterv
LBD
69.54
27.20
98.2
10.8
RBD
97.92
1.14
99.6
96.1
Control
99.02
0.64
99.8
98.2
Total Possible
100
Line Bisection
LBD
-1.6
1.56
13.3
-31.04
RBD
8.9
2.87
25.0
-2.33
Control
Range for NBD*
2.9
0.39
0.67
-7.00
*NBD= non brain-damaged individuals

85
Research Questions
Research Question # 1
Does brain damage in either hemisphere result in production of action errors in
the natural environment or are action errors specific to left hemisphere brain
damaged patients?
To determine if patients with LBD (left brain damage) and RBD (right brain
damage) produce action errors in the natural environment, the following null hypothesis
was tested:
H0: There is no significant difference between the mean number of errors
produced while eating a meal for the LBD, RBD, and control groups (NBD, non¬
brain damaged).
Using a Kruskal-Wallis One-Way Analysis of Variance on Ranks (due to the
skewdness of the control group having produced no errors during the meal), the mean
number of total errors was compared between the three groups. A significant between
group difference was found (Table 3.2).
Table 3.2 Overall Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA for Errors Produced During the Meal
Task
ANOVA
Chi-Sauare H Statistic
dF (2.2)
P-Value
Total Errors
16.091
0.0003*
Tool Errors
10.496
0.0053*
Non-Tool Errors
* * a i
15.479
0.0004*
* significant at p>0.01
Because a significant difference was found for total number of errors produced
during the meal, a follow-up analysis was conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis Multiple
Comparison Z-Value Test. This test is used to examine group differences with non-

86
parametric data. Results of the follow-up analyses, comparing each brain-damaged group
with the normal controls are listed in Table 3.3. For total number of errors produced
during the meal, the LBD and RBD groups did not differ from each other. However,
both groups did differ significantly from the control group.
Table 3.3 Comparison of LBD and RBD Groups with Normal Controls
Group 1 vs. Group 2
Critical Difference
Actual Difference
Total Errors
LBD vs. RBD
z-value >1.96
1.012
LBD vs. Controls
z-value >1.96
3.997*
RBD vs. Controls
z-value >1.96
2.585*
Tool Errors
LBD vs. RBD
z-value >1.96
2.269*
LBD vs. Controls
z-value >1.96
2.937*
RBD vs. Controls
z-value >1.96
0.5783
Non-Tool Errors
LBD vs. RBD
z-value >1.96
0.568
LBD vs. Controls
z-value >1.96
3.861*
RBD vs. Controls
z-value >1.96
2.851*
* significant at p>0.01
In order to determine if the significant difference found for number of total errors
could be accounted for by differences in number of tool errors and/or nontool errors
produced by the three groups, additional ANOVAs were calculated for total number of
tool errors and nontool errors. Significant group differences were found for both tool and
nontool errors. See Table 3.2 for ANOVA results. To examine between group
comparisons, follow-up analyses were conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis Multiple

87
Comparison Z-Value Test. Results indicated that the LBD group differed significantly
from both the RBD and control groups in number of tool errors produced but the RBD
group did not differ from the control group. In addition, both of the LBD and RBD
groups differed significantly from the control group in number of nontool errors produced
but the LBD and RBD groups did not differ from each other. (See Table 3.3.)
Research Question #2a
2a. Does presence of deficits in
1. production of learned skilled movements,
2. conceptual knowledge of tool-function relationships,
3. action planning and organization, and
4. supervisory attention/working memory
predict production of action errors in the natural environment?
To determine if there is a relationship between the presence of deficits in 1,2, 3,
or 4 above, with production of action errors, the following null hypothesis was tested:
H0: There is no correlation between deficits in 1,2, 3, or 4 with number of errors
produced during the eating task across the three subject groups.
Using a Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Statistic, relationships between
scores on the Gesture to Command subtest of the Florida Apraxia Battery: Experimental
Edition (Rothi et ai, 1992) which measures deficit #1 above, the tool-object matching
test (Ochipa et ai, 1989) which measures deficit #2 above, the Tower of London
(Shallice, 1982, Krikorian et ai, 1994) which measures deficit #3 above, and Trails A
and Trails B (Reitan, 1944) which measure deficit #4 above, were correlated with total
number of errors produced during the meal. Results of this analysis revealed that the
highest correlation was with the TOL and the lowest correlation was with the tool-object
matching task. All correlations are listed in Table 3.4.

88
Table 3.4 Pearson-Product Moment Correlation Report
Total Errors
Gesture to Command
-0.389
Tool-Object Match
-0.083
Tower of London
-0.550
Trails A
0.247
Trails B
0.244
In addition to the correlation statistic, all subjects were divided into two groups
according to the normal versus abnormal cut-off score for each of the independent
variables. Two sample t-tests were then calculated for the mean number of overall errors
(total, tool, and non-tool) as well as for the mean number of specific error types (misuse,
misselection, movement, INT, sequence, timing, and quantity) produced by the
normal/abnormal groups. Parametric or non-parametric t-tests were chosen based on the
normalcy and the variance of the data within each error type on these various tests.
These divisions and analyses were completed in order to obtain a better understanding of
the influence of the grouping variables (deficits in #1,2, 3, and 4 from question 2a) on
error types in these various tests.
On the gesture to command task, all subjects were divided into two groups—those
subjects scoring 14 or below, indicating presence of ideomotor apraxia (IMA), were in
group 1 while those subjects scoring 15 or above indicating normal praxis skills (i.e. non-
IMA) were in group 2 (Rothi et al., 1992). Group 1 consisted of 15 subjects while group
2 consisted of 25 subjects. The two groups were then compared in each of the overall
and specific error types listed previously. Results indicated that there were significant

89
differences between the two groups at the p<0.01 level for total number of errors as well
as for number of tool, misuse, movement, timing, and quantity errors produced during the
meal. In contrast, no significant differences were found for number of non-tool errors as
well as for number of misselection, INT, and sequence errors produced during the meal.
See Tables 3.5 and 3.6.
Table 3.5 Average Number of Errors Produced by All Subjects When Divided into
Two Groups According to Cut-Off Score for Each Test.
Test
Cut-Off
Score
n
Average Number of Errors
Total Tool NonTool
Ideomotor
15-30
25
4.32*
1.08*
3.24
Apraxia1
< 15
15
17.87
9.87
7.93
Conceptual
10
36
8.97*
4.00*
4.94*
Apraxia2
< 10
4
14.33
9.33
5.00
“Frontal
33-36
12
1.25*
0.17*
1.10*
Apraxia”3
<33
28
12.63
5.88
6.71
Attention4
> 25th per.
18
1.94*
1.50
0.45*
< 25th per.
18
10.44
4.22
6.16
Divided
> 25th per.
19
3.26*
0.11*
3.16*
Attention5
< 25th per.
16
9.94
6.31
3.56
1 Rothi et al., 1992
2 Ochipa et ai, 1992
3 Krikorian et al., 1994
4,5 Spreem and Strauss, 1991
n = number of subjects in group
per. = percentile
* = significant at the p<0.01 level

Table 3.6 Average Number of Errors by Specific Error Type Produced by LBD, RBD, and Control Groups
Test
Cut-Off
Score
Misuse
Misselection
Average Number of Errors
Movement INT Sequence
Timing
Ouantitv
Ideomotor
15-30
0.20*
0.28
0.20*
0.40
1.00
0.92*
1.24*
Apraxia1
< 15
5.67
0.67
1.93
1.60
0.60
2.00
4.27
Conceptual
10
2.39
0.47
0.67
0.47
0.94
1.19
2.31
Apraxia2
< 10
1.33
0.00
2.33
5.67
0.00
2.00
3.00
Frontal
33-36
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00*
0.58
0.50*
Apraxia3
<33
3.25
0.29
0.92
1.42
1.42
1.21
3.34
Attention4
> 25th percentile
0.28
0.39
0.28
0.56
0.17
0.11*
0.11*
< 25th percentile
2.11
0.56
1.33
0.22
1.17
2.39
2.56
Divided
> 25th percentile
0.00*
0.00
0.11*
0.00
0.74
1.31
1.11*
Attention5
< 25thpercentile
2.6
1.6
1.6
0.8
0.3
1.5
1.63
1 Rothie/a/., 1992.
2 Ochipa et al., 1992.
3 Krikorian et al., 1994.
4,5 Spreem and Strauss, 1991
* = significant at the p<0.01 level

91
On the tool-object matching task, all subjects were divided into two groups
according to the following criteria. Those subjects scoring 9 or below, indicating
presence of conceptual apraxia were in group 1 while those subjects scoring 10,
indicating normal praxis skills, were in group 2 (Ochipa et al., 1992). Group 1 consisted
of 4 subjects while group 2 consisted of 36 subjects. The two groups were then compared
in each of the overall and specific error types listed previously. Results indicated that
there were significant differences between the two groups at the p<0.01 level for total
number of errors as well as for number of tool and non-tool errors produced during the
meal. In contrast, no significant differences were found for number of misuse,
misselection, movement, INT, sequence, timing, or quantity errors produced during the
meal. See Tables 3.5 and 3.6.
On the TOL task, all subjects were divided into two groups-those subjects
scoring 32 or below, indicating presence of frontal apraxia were in group 1 while those
subjects scoring 33 or above, indicating normal praxis skills, were in group 2 (Krikorian
et al., 1994). Group 1 consisted of 28 subjects while group 2 consisted of 12 subjects.
The two groups were then compared in each of the overall and specific error types listed
previously. Results indicated that there were significant differences between the two
groups at the p<0.01 level for total number of errors as well as for number of tool, non¬
tool, sequence, and quantity errors produced during the meal. In contrast, no significant
differences were found for number of misuse, misselection, movement, INT, and timing,
errors produced during the meal. See Tables 3.5 and 3.6.
Fourth, all subjects were divided into two groups according to Trails A score.
The criterion for this division was based on Table 8.12 (page 326) in A Compendium of

92
Neuropsychological Tests (Spreem & Strauss, 1991) which is a summary of normative
data for completion of the Trails A task. Subjects were placed in group 1, indicating
presence of poor attentional skills, if their time to complete Trails A was below the 25th
percentile for their age. Subjects were placed in group 2, indicating normal attentional
skills, if their time to complete Trails A was above the 25th percentile for their age group.
Group 1 consisted of 18 subjects and group 2 also consisted of 18 subjects (four subject
were unable to complete the task). The two groups were then compared in each of the
overall and specific error types listed previously. Results indicated that there were
significant differences between the two groups at the p<0.01 level for total number of
errors as well as for number of non-tool, movement, timing and quantity errors produced
during the meal. In contrast, no significant differences were found for number of tool,
misuse, movement, INT, and sequence errors produced during the meal. See Tables 3.5
and 3.6.
Finally, all subjects were divided into two groups according to Trails B score.
The criterion for this division was also based on Table 8.12 (page 326) in A Compendium
of Neuropsychological Tests (Spreem & Strauss, 1991) which is a summary of normative
data for completion of the Trails B task. Subjects were placed in group 1, indicating
presence of poor divided attentional skills, if their time to complete Trails B was below
the 25th percentile for their age. Subjects were placed in group 2, indicating normal
divided attentional skills, if their time to complete Trails B was above the 25th percentile
for their age group. Group 1 consisted of 16 subjects and group 2 consisted of 19
subjects (five subjects were unable to complete the task). The two groups were then
compared in each of the overall and specific error types listed previously. Results

93
indicated that there were significant differences between the two groups at the p<0.01
level for total number of errors as well as for number of tool, non-tool, misuse,
movement, and quantity errors produced during the meal. In contrast, no significant
differences were found for number of misselection, INT, sequence, and timing errors
produced during the meal. See Tables 3.5 and 3.6.
Research Question 2b
2b. And if so, to what extent does each type of deficit (low level schema deficits-
-1 and 2 from question 2a above and high level schema deficits—3 and 4 from
question 2a above) predict type of error (including misuse, mis-selection, external
configuration, internal configuration, timing, quantity, sequence, exchange,
substitution, movement, and body part as tool)?
To determine if there is a relationship between the types of deficits (lower or
higher level schema) and types of errors produced during the meal, a multiple stepwise
regression statistic was calculated between the independent variables, FAB, tool-object
match (TOM), TOL, Trails A, and Trails B, and the types of errors observed during the
meal (tool, non-tool, and total errors as well as the individual types: misuse, misselection,
internal configuration, movement, sequence, timing, and quantity). The results indicated
that 0.22% of the variance for total errors can be explained through iteration 4 which
included the FAB, TOL, Trails A, and TOM, respectively. The results of the multiple
stepwise regression for total errors are displayed in Table 3.7.

94
Table 3.7 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between Independent
Variables and Total Errors Produced During the Meal
Model Size
R2
Model
1
0.11
Trails A
2
0.16
FAB + TOL
3
0.19
FAB + TOL + Trails A
4
0.23
FAB + TOL + Trails A + TOM
The results indicated that 0.37% of the variance for tool errors can be explained
through iteration 4 which included the FAB, TOL, Trails A, and Trails B, respectively.
The results of the multiple stepwise regression for tool errors are displayed in Table 3.8.
Table 3.8
Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between Independent
Variables and Tool Errors Produced During the Meal
Model Size
R2
Model
1
0.24
Trails A
2
0.26
FAB + Trails A
3
0.32
FAB + TOL + Trails A
4
0.37
FAB + TOL + Trails A + Trails B
5
0.37
FAB + TOL + Trails A + Trails B + TOM
The results indicated that 0.06% of the variance for non-tool errors can be
explained through iteration 2 which included the TOL, and TOM, respectively. The
results of the multiple stepwise regression for non-tool errors are displayed in Table 3.9.

95
Table 3.9 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between Independent
Variables and Non-Tool Errors Produced During the Meal
Model Size
R2
Model
1
0.02
TOL
2
0.06
TOL + TOM
3
0.06
TOL + Trails B + TOM
4
0.06
TOL + Trails A + Trails B + TOM
5
0.06
FAB + TOL + Trails A + Trails B + TOM
The results indicated that 0.25% of the variance for misuse errors can be
explained through iteration 3 which included the FAB, TOL, and Trails A, respectively.
The results of the multiple stepwise regression for misuse errors are displayed in Table
3.10.
Table 3.10 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between Independent
Variables and Misuse Errors Produced During the Meal
Model Size
R2
Model
1
0.19
Trails A
2
0.22
FAB + Trails A
3
0.25
FAB + TOL + Trails A
4
0.26
FAB + TOL + TRAILS A + TRAILS B
5
0.26
FAB + TOL + TRAILS A + TRAILS B + TOM
The results indicated that 0.09% of the variance for misselection errors can be
explained through iteration 4 which included the FAB, TOL, Trails A, and TOM,
respectively. The results of the multiple stepwise regression for misselection errors are
displayed in Table 3.11.

96
Table 3.11 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between Independent
Variables and Misselection Errors Produced During the Meal
Model Size
R2
Model
1
0.02
TOM
2
0.06
TOL + TOM
3
0.08
FAB + TOL + TOM
4
0.09
FAB + TOL + Trails B + TOM
5
0.09
FAB + TOL + Trails A + Trails B + TOM
The results indicated that 0.535% of the variance for movement errors can be
explained through iteration 4 which included the FAB, TOL, Trails A, and Trails B,
respectively. The results of the multiple stepwise regression for movement errors are
displayed in Table 3.12.
Table 3.12 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between Independent
Variables and Movement Errors Produced During the Meal
Model Size
R2
Model
1
0.36
Trails A
2
0.39
TOL + Trails A
3
0.45
FAB + TOL + Trails A
4
0.53
FAB + TOL + Trails A + Trails B
5
0.53
FAB + TOL + Trails A + Trails B + TOM
The results indicated that 0.19% of the variance for INT errors can be explained
through iteration 5 which included the FAB, TOL, Trails A, Trails B, and TOM,
respectively. The results of the multiple stepwise regression for INT errors are displayed
in Table 3.13.

97
Table 3.13 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between Independent
Variables and INT Errors Produced During the Meal
Model Size
R2
Model
1
0.07
Trails A
2
0.10
Trails A + TOM
3
0.13
TOL + Trails A + TOM
4
0.17
FAB + TOL + Trails A + Trails B
5
0.19
FAB + TOL + Trails A + Trails B + TOM
The results indicated that 0.05% of the variance for sequence errors can be
explained through iteration 4 which included the FAB, TOL, Trails A, and TOM,
respectively. The results of the multiple stepwise regression for sequence errors are
displayed in Table 3.14.
Table 3.14 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between Independent
Variables and Sequence Errors Produced During the Meal
Model Size
R2
Model
1
0.02
Trails A
2
0.03
Trails A + TOM
3
0.04
TOL + Trails A + TOM
4
0.05
FAB + TOL + Trails A + TOM
5
0.05
FAB + TOL + Trails A + Trials B + TOM
The results indicated that 0.08% of the variance for timing errors can be explained
through iteration 4 which included the TOL, Trails A, Trails B, and TOM, respectively.
The results of the multiple stepwise regression for timing errors are displayed in Table
3.15.

98
Table 3.15 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between Independent
Variables and Timing Errors Produced During the Meal
Model Size
R2
Model
1
0.02
TOL
2
0.05
TOL + TOM
3
0.06
TOL + Trails A + TOM
4
0.08
TOL + Trails A + Trails B + TOM
5
0.08
FAB + TOL + Trails A + Trials B + TOM
The results indicated that 0.10% of the variance for quantity errors can be
explained through iteration 2 which included the TOL and TOM, respectively. The
results of the multiple stepwise regression for quantity errors are displayed in Table 3.16.
Table 3.16 Results of Multiple Stepwise Regression Analysis Between Independent
Variables and Quantity Errors Produced During the Meal
Model Size
R2
Model
1
0.03
TOL
2
0.10
TOL + TOM
3
0.10
TOL + Trails A + TOM
4
0.10
TOL + Trails A + Trails B + TOM
5
0.10
FAB + TOL + Trails A + Trails B + TOM
Summary of findings
Regarding research question #1, it was found that:
• Patients with either LBD or RBD produce action errors during an eating
task.

99
• People without brain damage do not tend to produce action errors during
an eating task.
• LBD patients produce more tool action errors during an eating task than
RBD patients who do not produce more of these errors than normal
subjects.
• LBD and RBD patients produce equal amounts of non-tool errors during
an eating task, both of whom produce more of these errors than normal
subjects.
Regarding research question #2a, it was found that
• Presence of deficits in the production of learned, skilled movements to
command, does predict presence of action errors in the natural
environment.
• Presence of deficits in the conceptual knowledge of tool-function
relationships, does predict presence of action errors in the natural
environment.
• Presence of deficits in the action planning and organization, does predict
presence of action errors in the natural environment.
• Presence of deficits in the supervisory attention/working memory, do
predict presence of action errors in the natural environment.
Additionally,
• The measure of deficits in action planning and organization was the
strongest predictor while the measure of deficits in conceptual knowledge

100
of tool-function relationships was the weakest predictor of total number of
errors produced by the brain damaged patients during the eating task.
• Presence of deficits in production of learned, skilled movements appeared
to influence production of tool but not non-tool errors during the eating
task.
• Presence of deficits in supervisory attention/working memory appeared to
influence production of non-tool but not tool errors.
• Presence of deficits in conceptual knowledge of tool-function
relationships, and action planning and organization appeared to influence
production of both tool and non-tool errors.
Regarding research question #2b, it was found that
• Neither low nor high level schema deficits independently predicted type of
errors produced during the eating task, however, low and high level
schema deficits when combined, predicted each error type produced
during the eating task.
• However, the degree of their respective contributions varied according to
error type produced during the eating task with movement errors receiving
the strongest influence from both low and high level schema deficits
followed by misuse, INT, quantity, timing, and sequence, respectively.

CHAPTER FOUR
DISCUSSION
Previous researchers have described errors of action produced during
activities of daily living by patients with brain damage (Mayer et al., 1990; Schwartz
et ai, 1991, 1993, 1995; Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997; Ochipa et al., 1989; Foundas et
ai, 1995). However, each research team has examined the planning, organization,
and production of these action errors through different theoretical models with
different inherent assumptions and predictions. They have used different research
hypotheses ar^i evaluation criteria. Moreover, they have included subjects with
heterogeneous etiologies of brain damage (Mayer et al., 1990; Schwartz et al., 1991,
1993, 1995; Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997; Sirigu et al., 1995a, 1995b, 1997; Ochipa et
ai, 1989; Foundas et al., 1995). The purpose of the current study was to examine the
nature of action errors produced by brain-damaged patients during an activity of daily
living—eating a meal—using a theoretical model which describes a proposed
relationship between apraxia and pragmatic action. This model serves as a
framework for the examination of the nature of action as well as movement errors and
allows for comparison with models proposed by the previous researchers. Two
experimental subject groups and one control subject group participated in this study.
The first experimental group consisted of twenty left hemisphere brain-damaged
patients (LBD); the second experimental group consisted of ten right hemisphere
brain-damaged patients (RBD); and the control subject group consisted of ten
101

102
neurologically-normal control subjects. The groups were compared on experimental
tasks designed to measure the deficits associated with impairment in action planning
and organization (i.e., frontal apraxia, a high level schema deficit), deficits in the
production of learned, skilled movements (i.e., ideomotor apraxia, a low level schema
deficit), deficits in conceptual knowledge of tool-object-function relationships (i.e.,
conceptual apraxia, a low and/or high level schema deficit), and deficits in
supervisory attention/ working memory (high level schema deficit). Each subject was
also videotaped while engaged in an activity of daily living-eating a meal—and the
videotapes were subsequently scored for the presence of and type of movement and
action errors. Statistical analyses then compared the groups for differences in the
number and type of errors produced. Results indicated that the LBD, RBD, and
control groups did differ in both the number and type of errors produced during the
eating task which suggests that action errors can occur following unilateral damage to
either hemisphere. Additionally, further analyses revealed that the number and type
of errors produced differed according to the presence or the absence of higher and/or
lower level schema deficits. Furthermore, this finding suggests that a stronger
relationship appears between disorders of planning and organization (higher level
schemas) and action errors during activities of daily living than disorders of learned,
skilled movement (lower level schemas) and action errors during activities of daily
living. However, both levels of deficits do contribute to production of errors in the
natural environment. This chapter will discuss the results of the current study in
respect to: 1) the research questions posed in Chapter One and results of previous

103
research, 2) clinical implications, 3) methodological issues and limitations of the
study, and 4) implications for future research.
Research Questions
The primary question of interest for this study was: Does brain damage in
either hemisphere result in production of action errors in the natural environment or
are action errors specific to left hemisphere brain damaged patients? The major
finding of this study was that brain damage in either hemisphere does result in
production of action errors in the natural environment. Results indicated that both
the LBD and the RBD groups produced significantly more errors overall than the
control group. When the types of errors were broken down into tool errors and non¬
tool errors, the LBD and RBD groups differed from each other as well as with the
controls. The LBD group produced significantly more tool errors than the RBD and
the control group while the RBD group did not differ significantly from the control
group. This difference was predicted in Chapter One where it was hypothesized that
tool errors may be related to the presence of ideomotor apraxia, a low level schema
deficit, in patients with damage to the dominant hemisphere. That is, previous
research has shown that the visuokinesthetic engrams for learned skilled movement,
which are damaged in ideomotor apraxia, are lateralized to the dominant (left)
hemisphere. It would therefore be expected that the presence of ideomotor apraxia
may affect production of tool errors and would be observed in the LBD group.
Overall, thirteen of the twenty LBD subjects presented with ideomotor apraxia, while
only two of the ten RBD subjects and no control subjects had ideomotor apraxia as
defined by the Rothi et al. (1992) criteria.

104
Additionally, the LBD and RBD groups did not differ from each other, but
both groups did differ significantly from the control group, in the number of non-tool
errors produced during the meal. This finding was also predicted in Chapter One
where it was hypothesized that non-tool errors may be more closely related to deficits
in executive function and/or supervisory attention/working memory (high level
schema deficits) which follow damage to either the dominant or non-dominant
hemisphere. That is, both executive functions and supervisory attention/working
memory have bilateral representation in the brain and can be impaired following
damage to either hemisphere. In fact, all twenty LBD subjects and all ten RBD
subjects demonstrated deficits in executive function (according to Krikorian et al.
criteria 1994) and/or supervisory attention/working memory (according to Spreem &
Strauss, 1991, criteria).
Furthermore, when the total number of errors produced was compared, the
LBD subjects produced significantly more errors than the RBD subjects. This was
also predicted in Chapter One where it was hypothesized that the LBD subjects were
more likely to demonstrate both low level and high level schema deficits while the
RBD subjects were more likely to demonstrate high level deficits only. As a result
of this difference, the LBD subjects would have had more opportunities to produce
errors secondary to deficits in both high and low level schemas.
The second research question was presented in two parts: Does presence of
(a) deficits in production of learned skilled movements, (b) deficits in conceptual
knowledge of tool-function relationships, (c) deficits in action planning and
organization, and/or (d) deficits in supervisory attention/working memory predict

105
production of action errors in the natural environment? And if so, to what extent does
each type of deficit (low level system deficits [a and b above] and high level system
deficits [c and d above]) predict type of error (including misuse, mis-selection,
external configuration, internal configuration, timing, quantity, sequence [omission,
addition, sequence], exchange, substitution, movement, and body part as tool)? To
answer the first question, a correlation statistic was calculated between the
independent variables and the types of errors produced during the meal. Results
indicated that overall, the measure of executive function had the highest correlation
with all error types, tool, non-tool, and total errors. Also, the measure of ideomotor
apraxia had the second highest correlation across all error types. These results also
appear to support the hypothesis that high level schema deficits may “oversee” or
dominate the entire action sequence and therefore may influence errors of each type
within that action sequence when damaged. The fact that a measure of a low level
schema deficit (ideomotor apraxia) had the next highest correlation across error types
may indicate that low level schemas are equally important in the success of
completing pragmatic actions as high level schemas. It was proposed in the described
relationship between pragmatic action and apraxia in Chapter One that the final
common pathway for pragmatic action was through the praxicon and movement
formulae associated with low level schemas. Due to the close relationship between
executive functions which govern pragmatic action overall, and the praxis system
which governs the individual movement patterns which make up the pragmatic action
components, it is logical that both would positively correlate with production of
errors within natural contexts. It therefore also appears, that conceptual knowledge

106
about the relationship between tools and objects as well as supervisory
attention/working memory may not play as important of a role in contributing to
production of action errors because their correlations with the error types was not as
high as either executive functions or ideomotor apraxia. This finding appears to
contradict Ochipa et al. (1989), Schwartz et al. (1995), and Reason (1990). Ochipa et
al. (1989) reported that their subject produced errors secondary to a deficit in
conceptual knowledge about tool-object relationships while both Schwartz et al.
(1995), and Reason (1990) discussed the importance of supervisory attention/working
memory in “preventing” and “catching” action errors before they occur. However,
the current study does not negate the importance of either conceptual knowledge of
tool-object relationships or supervisory attention/working memory in producing
pragmatic action. The significance of both was discussed in the proposed relationship
between pragmatic action and apraxia in Chapter One. However, the current study
does examine the roles of these components in regard to the production of action
errors in brain-damaged patients. Within this context, it appears that executive
function and ideomotor apraxia appear to correlate more highly than either conceptual
knowledge of tool-object relationships or supervisory attention/working memory in
the production of action errors during an activity of daily living.
To answer the latter part of the second question, the subjects were divided into
two groups according to the presence or absence of each independent variable and t-
tests were calculated between the two groups for each error type observed. When
subjects were divided according to presence or absence of ideomotor apraxia, a low
level schema deficit, it was predicted that error types associated with low level

107
schema deficits would predominate. However, the subjects with ideomotor apraxia
produced errors in each category, not just those associated with low level schemas.
Additionally, when the subjects were divided according to presence or absence of
executive function disorders, conceptual knowledge of tool-object relationships, and
supervisory attention/working memory, all high level schema deficits, the error types
produced also were categorized into each category, not just those associated with high
level schemas. Therefore, in order to better understand the relationship between each
component and the error types, the relative pattern of errors must be compared and
not just whether or not the error was produced. When the pattern of errors is
compared, it appears that both presence of executive function disorders and
ideomotor apraxia result in a high number of misuse and quantity errors. Both misuse
and quantity errors are the only error types which can be explained by both low level
and high level schema deficits. For misuse errors resulting from a low level schema
deficit, the error would result from choosing the wrong action for the tool (or vice
versa) while a high level schema deficit would result from using the tool from a
previous action for the next action without considering that it is the wrong action. For
quantity errors resulting from low-level schema deficits, the error would result from a
deficit in the acknowledgement of the mechanical advantage that tools provide (e.g., a
spoon can only hold so much mashed potatoes without compromising the efficiency
of the action) while quantity errors resulting from high level schemas result from the
failure of the attentional system to mediate an inappropriate action.
When the pattern of errors is compared following the division of the subjects
according to presence or absence of deficits in supervisory attention/working

108
memory, not only do misuse and quantity errors predominate, but also timing errors.
This appears to indicate that misuse and quantity errors are the most prevalent errors
following brain damage. It also suggests that attentional deficits contribute to timing
errors. This relationship is also logical in that if one is not paying attention to the
task, one may lose track of what action is supposed to be produced next and may
therefore take extra time in deciding what action plan to initiate next in order to
complete the task.
When the pattern of errors is compared following the division of the subjects
according to presence or absence of deficits in the conceptual knowledge of tool-
object relationships, the predominate error types were not misuse and quantity but
movement and INT. This finding appears to contradict the proposal that deficits in
the conceptual knowledge of tool-object relationships is a high level schema deficit
because both movement and INT errors are specifically observed and produced by
patients with ideomotor apraxia, a low level schema deficit. However, only four of
the thirty brain damaged patients presented with deficits in the conceptual knowledge
of tool-object relationships and these same four subjects also had severe ideomotor
apraxia. It may be possible that the error patterns are a reflection of the severe
ideomotor apraxia rather than a specific deficit in the conceptual knowledge of tool-
object relationships.
Results of the above error pattern analyses support the proposals described by
Schwartz et al. (1992, 1995) that errors produced by brain-damaged patients can
result from an impairment in either the top-down or bottom-up level of processing. In
this study, top-down processing would reflect deficits in high level schemas

109
influencing deficits in low-level schemas while bottom-up processing would reflect
deficits in low level schemas that appear to be produced independently of high level
“supervision” during the task. Subjects in the current study produced error types
following both of these scenarios. Schwartz et al. (1992, 1995) also proposed that
actions are not whole programs, but are organized into hierarchies that are activated
in succession by the executive function system in order to complete the task. If this is
true, then different parts of an action plan may be differentially affected by errors
depending on the high versus low level of deficits. This was also observed in the
errors produced by subjects in the current study. The overall task of eating a meal
was completed but the subjects produced errors throughout and the errors were not
produced consistently on the same action.
These results also appear to add additional information to the results of the
Foundas et al. (1995) study. Foundas and colleagues reported that the errors of action
observed in their subjects resulted from presence of ideomotor apraxia. However,
Foundas et al. (1995) did not test for deficits in high level schemas and the subjects
from both the Foundas et al. (1995) and the current study were patients with
unilateral damage to either hemisphere following a stroke. It would appear that the
deficits in high level schemas demonstrated by the stroke patients in the current study
may also have been present in the subjects from the Foundas et al. (1995) study.
Therefore, the errors produced by the subjects in the Foundas et al. (1995) study may
also have been influenced by deficits in high level schemas.
In order to determine the degree of influence from each type of deficit, high
level schema and low level schema, an all-possible regression statistic was calculated

110
between the independent variables and the specific error types. Results of these
analyses revealed that no one independent variable can be distinguished from any
other independent variable in their relative influence to production of action errors.
That is, each error type appears to be influenced by both high and low level schema
deficits. This finding also supports proposals made by Schwartz and Buxbaum
(1997) in their discussion of the Unified Hypothesis. Schwartz and Buxbaum (1997)
argued that it is the combination of deficits that results in action errors in natural
contexts. That is, deficits in executive function may not result in action errors unless
a deficit in the automaticity of the action schemas is also present. This may be
observed in the present study by defining automaticity of action schemas as a low
level schema deficit in the praxicon, which holds the programs for learned, skilled
movements. By using this definition, only a combination of high level schema
deficits and low level schema deficits should result in production of action errors.
When this criteria is applied to the subjects in the current study, only one subject did
not evince deficits in both high and low level schemas and this subject did not
produce any action errors during the meal. Although this appears to support Schwartz
and Buxbaum’s (1997) proposal, there were an additional eleven subjects who
presented with high level schema deficits only who did produced action errors during
the meal. These eleven subjects should not have produced errors if Schwartz and
Buxbaum’s (1997) proposals were valid. It is also interesting to note that none of the
subjects in the current study who demonstrated low level schema deficits had spared
high level schemas. This would appear to support the bilateral nature of the high

Ill
level schemas as well as the lateralization of low level schemas discussed in the
previous section.
Methodological Issues and Limitations of the Study
The results of this research must be interpreted within the context of the
limitations of the study. One possible area of concern involves subject selection. All
experimental subjects did have CT/MRI documentation of single, unilateral strokes
but the time post onset varied from one month to 261 months (21.9 years) post stroke.
It is possible that the subjects who had survived their stroke for a longer period of
time had developed coping skills and strategies for actions. However, when
evaluating the data, even the subjects with the longest post-onset time produced errors
of action. The presence of dysphagia was an exclusionary criteria because the
subjects needed to eat a meal of regular consistency in order to give them opportunity
to use all three utensils. It is possible that stroke patients with swallowing disorders
may have greater deficits in action errors than stroke patients without swallowing
disorders.
It may also be a concern that the procedures or evaluations chosen to measure
the independent variables (TOL for executive function disorders, FAB for ideomotor
apraxia, tool-object matching task for conceptual disorders of tool-object function
knowledge, and Trails A and Trails B for supervisory attention/working memory
disorders) may not be the most sensitive or valid. These measures were chosen due to
their ease in administration. The subjects were able to comprehend the directions and
perform the tasks accordingly. If more complex or longer measures had been chosen,

112
it would have been very possible that many of the aphasic subjects would not have
been able to perform the task and important data would have been lost.
One other area of concern is that all subjects ate different meals. Although all
meals consisted of the same categories of food-a main course, at least one side dish,
a dessert, and a beverage—the types of food within each category varied greatly. One
subject may have steak and potatoes while another had spaghetti and garlic bread and
another had chicken fajitas and a side salad. Although each type of meal provided
opportunity to use all three untensils (knife, fork, and spoon), it is possible that a
subject may have received a meal that was easier or harder for him/her to eat than
they would have normally chosen. However, controlling the type of food received
by every subject was beyond the scope of this study. It is suggested that every
opportunity be made in future studies to limit the variability of the food served.
A final consideration is that the subjects did not produce all of the error types
proposed in Chapter One. This does not necessarily mean that the error types that
were not demonstrated by the subjects do not exist. In fact, all error types discussed
have been reported in other studies (Foundas et al., 1995; Ochipa et al., 1989; Mayer
et al., 1990; Schwartz et al., 1991, 1993, 1995; and Schwartz & Buxbaum, 1997). It
is possible that the error types that were not produced may be less frequently
produced in general and that a larger number of subjects may have been necessary to
provide ample opportunity for the less frequent error types to be produced.
A final concern pertains to the raters who scored the videotapes of the meal
and documented the error types. The raters were not aware of the hypotheses of the
study nor were they familiar with the Cognitive Neuropsychological Model of Limb

113
Praxis and Apraxia or the Unified Hypothesis. This was done to limit the effects of
rater bias on judging the presence of action and movement errors and to strengthen
the internal validity of the study. Only one previous study (Maher, 1995) has
employed the same degree of control over this issue. As Maher (1995) reported, one
possible limitation of this control is that the raters are dependent upon the trainer to
accurately describe correct versus incorrect actions and movements. As a result, any
biases the trainer may have could have influenced the raters. To control for this in the
current study, the raters were given written descriptions of each error type and
underwent a pre-scoring practice session of subjects not included in the study before
undertaking scoring of actual videotapes from the subjects in this study. Therefore,
the raters took their responsibilities seriously and were stringent in their decisions of
whether an action or movement contained an error and then what type of error was
demonstrated. Since the videotapes of all subjects were scored under these strict
guidelines, it does not appear that rater bias affected the results.
Implications for Future Research
The results of this study are interesting and lead to further questions and
possible research endeavors within the areas of limb praxis, pragmatic action,
conceptual apraxia, and supervisory attention/working memory. Although the
subjects in the current study had documented unilateral lesions, only laterality of
lesion to the dominant (left) or non-dominant (right) hemisphere was taken into
consideration. It is possible that mapping the size and location of the lesion within
the hemisphere may lead to even greater conclusions regarding the relationship
between brain-behavior relationships. This is especially true when the proposals for

114
location of the visuokinesthetic engrams for learned skilled movement associated
with ideomotor apraxia have been determined to be in the inferior parietal lobule of
the dominant hemisphere and that executive function disorders result from frontal
lesion of either hemisphere. Therefore questions arise in that do all patients with
frontal lobe lesions demonstrate high level schema deficits in the natural
environment? Do patients with posterior lesions, especially left parietal lesions
demonstrate low-level schema deficits in the natural environment?
Additionally, studies are indicated that use similar evaluation criteria of the
independent variables in subjects with brain damage from different etiologies such as
traumatic brain injury (TBI) and dementia. Although Schwartz et al. (1992, 1995)
and Ochipa (1989) did evaluate patients with these different etiologies, both high and
low level schema deficits were not systematically evaluated. Therefore, it is not
known to what extent the role of high and low level schema deficits contributed to the
production of action errors in their subjects.
Future studies should also take into consideration the possibility of observing
brain-injured patients in their final type of residence. All of the subjects in the current
study were evaluated either in a research laboratory, their room at a rehabilitation
facility, or in the speech and hearing clinic associated with a university. This was
done in order to control the categories of food the subjects received for their meals.
However, it would be more “natural” to observe the subjects either within their own
home or “final destination” (e.g., an assisted living facility, adult family home, or
skilled nursing facility) and eating food that they have chosen or prepared themselves.
In addition, attempts should be made to observe or videotape the subjects without the

115
subjects being aware of the observation. All of the subjects in the current study were
aware that they were being videotaped but were unaware of the nature of the study
(i.e., that their actions and errors were going to be examined). It is possible that just
knowing that they were being videotaped led to increased consciousness of their
actions.
Another lead for future studies would involve locating and evaluating subjects
with only one deficit. For example, this might involve subjects with ideomotor
apraxia who do not have executive function or supervisory attention/working memory
disorders and so forth. By evaluating these “purer” subjects, a better understanding
of the role of each type of disorder within the high and low schema frameworks may
be delineated. Unfortunately, these subjects are rare and it is possible that the deficits
described in the current study are more indicative of the “average” brain-injured
patient.
Other issues that should be addressed in future studies include the relationship
between neglect and the origination of the movements in space during activities of
daily living. Do patients with neglect produce actions originating in the neglected
hemispace during activities of daily living? Do their actions move into or end in the
neglected hemispace? Also, does overall time to eat a meal or organization of the
meal differ across left and right hemisphere damaged patients? Foundas et al. (1995)
reported that time to eat was longer for the left hemisphere damaged patients than for
the controls and that the left hemisphere damaged patients did not respect the
boundaries of the different meal stages. It is not known whether patients with right
hemisphere damage would demonstrate these same deficits.

116
In all, research into the nature of action and movement errors in activities of
daily living, pragmatic action, and real-life effects of ideomotor apraxia appear to be
exciting, clinically relevant, and productive endeavors.
Clinical Implications
The degree to which action errors were produced by patients in the current
study is interesting in that none of the caregivers (/. e., nurses or family members)
reported that the patient had been producing errors. Additionally, there is a scarcity
of reports in the literature that describe errors of action produced in natural contexts
by a group of brain damaged patients. Since twenty-four of the thirty brain damaged
patients in the current study produced errors of action following a unilateral stroke, it
is very probable that these errors of action go undetected within the controlled
environment of an acute care hospital, rehabilitation center, or nursing home. It is
also feasible that any person who suffers a brain injury is susceptible to produce
action errors secondary to high level schema deficits that follow damage to either
hemisphere. If this is true, then there are significant implications for caregivers and
rehabilitation professionals for these brain-injured people. The caregivers should be
aware of the potential danger in which the brain-injured patient is placed when in an
unsupervised or uncontrolled environment. One example described by Ochipa (1989)
was of a patient who was preparing to brush teeth in the bathroom but picked up the
razor instead of the toothbrush. The inherent danger in that scenario is obvious to
even those not familiar with deficits seen following brain injury. However, in order
to control potentially dangerous situations, the caregiver must be made aware of the
possibility that the brain-injured patient can and will produce these action errors.

117
Unfortunately, this is an area about which not many rehabilitation professionals are
aware and subsequently may not adequately inform the caregiver (Ochipa, 1989;
Foundas et al., 1995). Moreover, once caregivers are made aware of the possibility of
putting the brain-injured patient in dangerous situations, the management of the
problem is relatively easy to administer. The management involves educating the
caregiver and any other significant individual who will be working with that patient
as to ways of controlling the environment so as not to put the individual at risk.
These suggestions for management were described by Ochipa (1989) and are
reiterated here:
1. Limit access to dangerous tools (knives, razors, etc.).
2. Limit the available selection of tools for a particular task (e.g. a razor
should not be within reach when the person is brushing his/her teeth).
3. Tools should only be used in tasks that are familiar to the patient. Tool
use in novel or new contexts should be avoided.
4. Tasks involving the use of multiple tools should be avoided.
5. Any task that requires the use of potentially dangerous tools should be
strictly supervised.
Additionally, presence of dysphagia (swallowing disorders) in brain-injured
patients is also high (Although not specifically addressed in the current study as
subjects with dysphagia were specifically excluded). It is highly probable that the
combination of action errors with swallowing problems during mealtime may put the
brain-injured subject at higher risk for choking or aspiration. Especially when it is
considered that the most prevalent action errors were misuse and quantity. The

118
possibility of a brain-injured patient with dysphagia bringing a utensil to his/her
mouth with too much or too little food is very possible and may result in exacerbation
of the swallowing problem.
The role of the speech-language pathologist (SLP) is an important one when
action errors in the natural environment are discussed. The SLP is usually in a unique
relationship with the brain-injured patient and their caregivers in that the SLP’s main
role is to improve the functional communication of the patient as well as to evaluate
and treat dysphagia. By doing these tasks, the SLP becomes very familiar with the
patient and their family and is often asked to interpret or reiterate instructions and
conversations by other health care professionals. Through these close relationships,
the SLP is accountable for providing ethical and professional care to the patient. The
SLP’s responsibilities often include counseling patients and caregivers, providing
input to the rehabilitation team for discharge options, level of communication
function, need of home health aids or assistance, as well as being an “intermediary”
between the level of communication competence of the rehabilitation professionals
and the level of communication competence of the brain-injured patient and their
caregiver, who may be ignorant of the health care process. In these scenarios, the
responsibility is also placed on the SLP to be accountable and knowledgeable for
areas that may detrimentally affect their patient, of which production of action errors
is one category.

APPENDIX A
FLORIDA APRAXIA BATTERY - GESTURE TO COMMAND SUBTEST
RANDOMIZED FORM A
NAME: DATE:
Subjects will be required to provide a gesture to the given command. Subjects are to use
the left (ipsilesional) hand to gesture. The first time the subject produces a body part as
tool error, remind subject to pretend to hold and use the tool just as he normally would at
home. Then allow to reattempt the gesture. Do not reinstruct on subsequent errors.
Videotape all responses from a front view with subject seated in a chair. Although
general performance may be scored on-line, actual scores will be derived from videotape
viewing.
Instructions: "I am going to ask you to make some gestures with your left hand. For some
gestures you will just make different hand motions. For others you will pretend to use
certain tools. Pretend to use each tool just as you would if you were actually holding the
tool in your hand and using it."
Show me: Score Error Code
1. how to use a scoop to serve ice cream.
2. stop.
3.how to use scissors to cut paper.
4.OK.
5.how to use wire cutters to snip a wire.
6.how to use an ice pick to chop ice.
7.how to use a comb to fix your hair.
8.how you make a fist.
9.how you wave good-bye.
10.someone is crazy.
119

120
FAB Gesture to Command, cont. NAME
Randomized form A
11. how to use a salt shaker to salt food.
12. how to use a pencil to write on paper.
13. how to use a glass to drink water.
14. how you salute.
15. how to use a hammer to pound a nail into a wall.
16. how to use an eraser to clean a chalkboard.
17. how to use a spoon to stir coffee.
18. how to use a brush to paint the wall.
19. how to use a screwdriver to turn a screw
into the wall.
20. how to use a bottle opener to remove a bottle cap.
21. go away.
22. how to use an iron to press a shirt.
23. how to use a razor to shave your face.
24. come here.
25. howto use a knife to carve a turkey.
26. how you hitchhike.
27. be quiet.
28. how to use a key to unlock a doorknob.
29. how to use a saw to cut wood.
30. how to use a vegetable peeler to shred a carrot.

121
FLORIDA APRAXIA BATTERY - GESTURE TO COMMAND SUBTEST
RANDOMIZED FORM B
NAME: DATE:
Subjects will be required to provide a gesture to the given command. Subjects are to use
the left (ipsilesional) hand to gesture. The first time the subject produces a body part as
tool error, remind subject to pretend to hold and use the tool just as he normally would at
home. Then allow to reattempt the gesture. Do not reinstruct on subsequent errors.
Videotape all responses from a front view with subject seated in a chair. Although
general performance may be scored on-line, actual scores will be derived from videotape
viewing.
Instructions: "I am going to ask you to make some gestures with your left hand. For some
gestures you will just make different hand motions. For others you will pretend to use
certain tools. Pretend to use each tool just as you would if you were actually holding the
tool in your hand and using it."
Show me: Score Error Code
1.how to use an eraser to clean a chalkboard.
2. how to use a spoon to stir coffee.
3. how to use a brush to paint the wall.
4. how to use a screwdriver to turn a screw into the wall.
5. how to use a bottle opener to remove a bottle cap.
6. go away.
7. how to use an iron to press a shirt.
8. how to use a razor to shave your face.
9. come here.
10.how to use a knife to carve a turkey.
11.how you hitchhike.
12.be quiet.

122
FAB Gesture to Command, cont. NAME:
Randomized form B
13. how to use a key to unlock a doorknob. _
14. how to use a saw to cut wood.
15. how to use a vegetable peeler to
shred a carrot.
16. how to use a scoop to serve ice cream. _
17. stop.
18. how to use scissors to cut paper. _
19. OK.
20. how to use wire cutters to snip a wire. _
21. how to use an ice pick to chop ice.
22. how to use a comb to fix your hair.
23. how you make a fist.
24. how you wave good-bye.
25. is crazy.
26. use a salt shaker to salt food.
27. use a pencil to write on paper.
28. use a glass to drink water.
29. how you salute.
30. how to use a hammer to pound a nail into a wall.

APPENDIX B
TOOL-OBJECT MATCHING TASK
Procedure: Place the target tool and three foil tools in random order in front of the
subject. Place the object with the partially completed action behind the tools.
Instructions: "I am going to show you some tools and an object in which an action has
been completed. Please choose the tool that you would use to complete the action."
Objects with partially
completed action
Target
tool
Foil #1
Foil #2
1. half opened can
can opener
saw
pen
2. nail half in wood
hammer
screwdriver
needle
3. bit half in wood
hand drill
wrench
staple remover
4. partially sawed board
saw
hammer
scissors
5. partially sewed cloth
needle
can opener
scissors
6. half drawn picture
pen
needle
hand drill
7. nail bent in wood
hammer
wrench
saw
8. partially cut paper
scissors
pen
staple remover
9. screw half in wood
screwdriver
wire
cutters
hammer
10. staple half out of paper
staple
remover
can opener
wire cutters
11. partially cut wire
wire cutters
hand drill
hammer
12. nut & bolt partially
tightened in wood
wrench
hammer
screwdriver
123

APPENDIX C
TRAILS TEST: Time in Seconds (on Parts A and B) for Normal Control Subjects
at Different Age Levels
15-20
20-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70-79
Years
Years
Years
Years
Years
Years
in=108)
01=275)
Oi=138)
01=130)
0i=120)
(n=90)
Percentile
A
B
A B
A B
A B
A
B
A
B
90
15
26
21 45
18 30
23 55
26
62
33
79
75
19
37
24 55
23 52
29 71
30
83
54
122
50
23
17
26 65
30 78
35 80
35
95
70
180
25
30
59
34 85
38 102
57 128
63
142
98
210
10
38
70
45 98
59 126
77 162
85
174
161
350
Data extrapolated from Table 8-12 in Spreem and Strauss (1991) A Compendium of
Neuropsychological Tests. London: Academic Press, p. 376.
124

REFERENCES
Beauvois, M.F., & Sallant, B. (1985). Optic aphasia for colours and colour agnosia: A
distinction between visual and visuoverbal impairments in the processing of
colours. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 2, 1-48.
Bjomeby, E., & Reinvang, I. (1985). Acquiring and maintaining self-care skills after
stroke: The predictive value of apraxia. The Scandinavian Journal of
Rehabilitation Medicine. 17. 75-80.
Brain, W.R. (1941). Visual disorientation with special reference to lesions of the right
cerebral hemisphere. Brain. 64, 224-272.
Brown, J.W. (1972). Aphasia, apraxia, and agnosia. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.
Critchley, J. (1939). The language of gesture. London: Academic Press.
Denny-Brown, D., & Banker, B.Q. (1954). Amorphosynthesis from left parietal lesions.
Archives of Neurology and Psychiatry. 71. 302-313.
DeRenzi, E. (1985). Methods of limb apraxia examination and their bearing on the
interpretation of the disorder. In E.A. Roy, (Ed.), Neuropsychological studies of
apraxia and related disorders, (pp. 101-138) Amsterdam: Elsevier Science
Publishers.
DeRenzi, E., Faglioni, P., & Sorgato, A. (1982). Modality specific and supramodal
mechanisms of apraxia. Brain. 105. 301-312.
DeRenzi, E., & Lucchelli, F. (1988). Ideational apraxia. Brain. Ill, 1173-1185.
Duffy, R.J., & Liles, B.Z. (1979). A translation of Finkelnstein's (1870) lecture on
aphasia as 'asymboly' with commentary. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, 44, 156-168.
Foundas, A.L., Macauley, B.L., Raymer, A.M., Maher, L.M., Rothi, L.J.G., & Heilman,
K.M. (1995). Ecological implication of limb apraxia: Evidence from mealtime
behavior. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, i, 62-67.
Geschwind, N. (1965). Disconnexion syndromes in animals and man. Part II. Brain. 88,
585-644.
125

126
Goldstein, K. (1948). Language and language disturbances. New York: Gruñe &
Stratton.
Hecaen, H., & Rondot, P. (1985). Apraxia as a disorder of a system of signs. In E.A.
Roy, (Ed.), Neuropsychological studies of apraxia and related
disorders (pp. 35-48). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Heilman, K.M. (1993). Neglect and related disorders. In K.M. Heilman & E. Valenstein
(Eds.) Clinical neuropsychology. (3rd ed., pp. 243-294). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Heilman, K.M., & Rothi, L.J.G. (1985). Apraxia. In K.M. Heilman & E. Valenstein
(Eds.) Clinical neuropsychology. (2nd ed., pp. 131-151). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Heilman, K.M., & Rothi, L.J.G. (1993). Apraxia. In K.M. Heilman & E. Valenstein
('Eds.'). Clinical neuropsychology. (3rd ed., pp. 131-149). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Heilman, K.M., Rothi, L.J.G., & Valenstein, E. (1982). Two forms of ideomotor apraxia.
Neurology. 32, 342-346.
Heilman, K.M., Watson, R.T., & Valenstein, E. (1985). Neglect and related disorders.
In Clinical neuropsychology. (2nd ed., pp. 243-294). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Heinemann, A.W., Roth, E.J., Cichowski, K., & Betts, H.B. (1987). Multivariate
analysis of improvement and outcome following stroke rehabilitation. Archives
of Neurology. 44,1167-1172.
Kertesz, A. (1982). The western aphasia battery. New York: Gruñe & Stratton.
Krikorian, R., Bartók, J., & Gay, N. (1994). Tower of London procedure: A standard
method and developmental data. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
Neuropsychology. 16 (6), 840-850.
Liepmann, H. (1977). The syndrome of apraxia (motor asymboly) based on a case of
unilateral apraxia. In D.A. Rottenberg & F.H. Hochberg (Eds.), W.H.O. Bonne,
K. Liepmann, & D.A. Rottenberg (Trans.), Neurological classics in modem
translation (pp. 155-183). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
(Reprinted from Monatschrift fur Psvchiatrie und Neurologie. 8, 1900, 15-44)

127
Liepmann, H. (1905a). Some helpful hints in the examination of the brain¬
damaged. Munchener medizinische wochenschrift. 52, 2322-2325, 2375-2378. D.
Kimura (Trans.). University of Western Ontario: Department of Psychology
Research Bulletin #506.
Liepmann, H. (1905b). The left hemisphere and action. Munchener medizinische
wochenschrift. 48, 49. D. Kimura (Trans.) University of Western Ontario:
Department of Psychology Research Bulletin #506.
Liepmann, H. (1907). Concerning the function of the corpus callosum and the
relationship of aphasia and apraxia to intelligence. Medizinische Klinik. 25, 26.
D. Kimura (Trans.). University of Western Ontario: Department of
Psychology Research Bulletin #506.
Liepmann, H. (1920). Apraxie [Apraxia]. Ergebnisse der eesamten medizin, i, 516-
543.
Liepmann, H., & Maas, O. (1907). Fall von linkseitiger agraphie und apraxie bei
rechsseitiger lahmung [A case of left sided agraphia and apraxia with right sided
paralysis]. Z. F. Psvchologie U. Neurolo.. 10. 214-227.
Maher, L.M. (1995). Praxis and the right hemisphere. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Florida, Gainesville.
Marsden, J.L. (1982). The mysterious motor function of the basal ganglia: The Robert
Wartenberg lecture. Neurology. 32, 514-539.
Mayer, N.H., Reed, E., Schwartz, M.F., Montgomery, M., & Palmer, C. (1990).
Buttering a hot cup of coffee: An approach to the study of errors of action in
patients with brain damage. In D.E. Tupper & K.D. Ciccerone (Eds.), The
neuropsychology of everyday life, vol. 2: Assessment and basic competencies
(pp. 259-284). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishing.
McFie, J., Piercy, M.F., & Zangwill, O.L. (1950) Visual spatial agnosia associated with
lesions of the right hemisphere. Brain. 73, 167-190.
Nadeau, S.E. (1994). Connectionist models and language. Paper presented at the 20th
Annual Course in Behavioral Neurology and Neuropsychology, Orlando, Florida.
Norman, D.A. (1981). Categorization of action slips. Psychological Reviews. 88 (1), 1-
15.
Norman, D.A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control
of behavior. In R.J. Davidson, G.E. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds.),
Consciousness and self-regulation, vol. 4. (pp. 72-94). New York: Plenum.

128
Ochipa, C., Rothi, L.J.G., & Heilman, K.M. (1989). Ideational apraxia: A deficit in tool
selection and use. Annals of Neurology. 25. 190-193.
Ochipa, C., Rothi, L.J.G., & Heilman, K.M. (1992). Conceptual apraxia in Alzheimer's
disease. Brain. 115. 1061-1072.
Paillard (1982). Apraxia and the neurophysiology of motor control. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society. London. B298. 111-134.
Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Pick, A. (1905). Uber einen weiteran symptomenkomplex im Rahmen der dementia
senilis, bedingt durch umschriebene starkere himatrophie (gemischte apraxia).
Monatschrift fur Psvchiatrie. 19. 97-108.
Poizner, H., Meriens, A., Clark, M., Macauley, B.L., Rothi, L.J.G., & Heilman, K.M.
(in press - Cognitive Neuropsychology). Left hemispheric specialization for
learned action.
Rapcsaz, S.Z., Ochipa, C., Beeson, P.M., & Rubens, A.B. (1993). Praxis and the right
hemisphere. Brain and Cognition. 23, 181-202.
Raymer, A.M. (1992). Dissociations of semantic knowledge: Evidence from
Alzheimer’s disease. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Raymer, A.M., Greenwald, M. Richardson, M., Rothi, L.J.G., & Heilman K.M. (1992).
Optic aphasia and optic apraxia: Theoretical interpretations. Journal of Clinical
and Experimental Neuropsychology. .14, 396.
Raymer, A.M., Maher, L.M., Macauley, B.L., Foundas, A.L., Rothi, L.J.G., & Heilman,
K.M. (1997). Differences between transitive and intransitive gestures in limb
apraxia. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. 3(1), 55.
Raymer, A.M., & Ochipa, C. (1997). Conceptual praxis. In L.J.G. Rothi & K.M.
Heilman (Eds.) Apraxia: The neuropsychology of action (pp. 51-60). Hove, East
Sussex, UK: Psychological Press.
Reason, J. (1979). Actions not as planned: The price of automatization. In Underwood,
G., & Stevens, R., (Eds.) Aspects of consciousness. Yol. 1 (pp. 67-89). London:
Academic Press.
Reason, J. (1984). Lapses of attention in everyday life. In R. Parasuraman & D.R. Davies
(Eds.) Varieties of attention (pp. 84-1051. LondomAcademic Press.
Reason, J (1990). Human error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

129
Rothi, L.J.G., & Heilman, K.M. (1985). Ideomotor apraxia: Gestural discrimination,
comprehension, and memory. In E.A. Roy, (Ed.), Neuropsychological studies on
apraxia and related disorders (pp. 82-100). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science
Publishers.
Rothi, L.J.G., & Heilman, K.M. (1997). Introduction to limb apraxia. In L.J.G. Rothi &
K.M. Heilman (Eds.) Apraxia: The neuropsychology of action (pp. 1-7). Hove,
East Sussex, UK: Psychological Press.
Rothi, L.J.G., Mack, S., & Heilman, K.M. (1986). Pantomime agnosia. Journal of
Neurology. Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. 49, 451 -454.
Rothi, L.J.G., Mack, S., Verfaellie, L., Brown, P., & Heilman, K.M. (1988). Ideomotor
apraxia: Error pattern analysis. Aphasiology. 2, 381-388.
Rothi, L.J.G., Ochipa, C., & Heilman, K.M. (1991). A cognitive neuropsychological
model of limb praxis. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 8, 443-458.
Rothi, L.J.G., Ochipa, C., & Heilman, K.M. (1997). A cognitive neuroppsychological
model of limb apraxia and apraxia. In L.J.G. Rothi & K.M. Heilman (Eds.)
Apraxia: The neuropsychology of action (pp. 29-50). Hove, East Sussex, UK:
Psychological Press.
Rothi, L.J.G., Raymer, A.M., Ochipa, C., Maher, L.M., Greenwald, M., & Heilman, K.M.
(1992). Florida Apraxia Battery. Experimental Edition. Gainesville:University of
Florida.
Roy, E.A., & Square, P. (1985). Common considerations in the study of limb, verbal,
and oral apraxia. In E.A. Roy, (Ed.), Neuropsychological studies of apraxia and
related disorders (pp. 49-68). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Rumelhart, D.E., & McClelland, J.L. (1986). Parallel distributed processing.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Saeki, S., Ogata, H., Okuba, T., Takahashi, K., & Hoshuyama, T. (1993). Factors
influencing return to work after stroke in Japan. Stroke. 24, 1182-1185.
Saeki, S., Ogata, H., Okuba, T., Takahashi, K., & Hoshuyama, T. (1995). Return of work
after stroke: A follow-up study. Stroke. 26, 399-401.
Schwartz, M.F., & Buxbaum, L.J. (1997). Pragmatic action.. In L.J.G. Rothi & K.M.
Heilman (Eds.), Apraxia: The neuropsychology of action (pp. 269-290). Hove,
East Sussex, UK: Psychological Press.

130
Schwartz, M.F., Mayer, N.H., DeSalme, E.J.F., & Montogomery, M.W. (1993).
Cognitive theory and the study of everyday action disorders after brain damage.
Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 8, 59-72.
Schwartz, M.F., Montgomery, M.W., DeSlame, E.J., Ochipa, C., Coslett, H.B., & Mayer,
N.H. (1995). Analysis of a disorder of everyday action. Cognitive
Neuropsychology. 12, 111-122.
Schwartz, M.F., Reed, E.S., Montgomery, M., Palmer, C., & Mayer, N.H. (1991). The
quantitative description of action disorganization after brain damage: A case
study. Cognitive Neuropsychology. 8, 381-414.
Shallice, T. (1987). Impairments of semantic processing: Multiple dissociations. In M.
Coltheart, G. Sartori, & R. Job (Eds.), The cognitive neuropsychology of
language (pp. 32-55) London: Lawrence Earlbaum and Assoc.
Shallice, T. (1988). Specialisation within the semantic system. Cognitive
Neuropsychology. 5. 133-142.
Sirigi, A., Cohen, L., Duhamel, J.R., Pillon, B., Dubois, B., & Agid, Y. (1995). A
selective impairment of hand posture for object utilization in apraxia. Cortex. 31
(1), 41-55.
Sirigu, A., Duhamel, J.R., & Poncet, M. (1991). The role of sensorimotor experience in
object recognition. Brain. 114, 2555-2573.
Sirigu, A., Zalla, T., Pillon, B., Grafman, J., Agid, Y., & Dubois, B. (1995). Selective
impairments in managerial knowledge following pre-frontal cortex
damage. Cortex. 31 (2), 301-306.
Sirigu, A., Zalla, T., Pillon, B., Grafman, J., Agid, Y., & Dubois, B. (1996). Encoding
of sequence and boundaries of scripts following prefrontal lesions. Cortex. 32 (2),
297-310.
Sirigu, A., Zalla, T., Pillon, B., Grafman, J., Dubois, B., & Agid, Y. (in press). Planning
and script analysis following pre-frontal lobe lesions. In J. Grafman, F. Bolter,
& K.J. Holyoak (Eds.) Structure and functions of the human prefrontal cortex
(pp. 54-81). New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.
Spreem, S., & Strauss, M. (1991). A compendium of neuropsychological tests.
London: Academic Press
Sundet, K., Finset, A., & Reinvang, I. (1988). Neuropsychological predictors in stroke
rehabilitation. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology. 10. 363-
379.

131
Webster’s new collegiate dictionary (1981). Springfield, MA: G & C Merriam Co.
Wolf, P.A., Kannel, W.B., & McGee, D.L. (1986). Epidemiology of stroke in North
America. In H.J.M. Barnett, B.M. Stein, J.P. Mohr, & F. Yates (Eds.),
Stroke: Pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management (pp. 19-29). New York:
Churchill Livingstone.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Beth Lynn Martin Macauley was bom on December 9, 1965, in Sanford, Florida,
to John L. and Barbara A. Martin. She has one younger brother, John William (Billy)
Martin who is an architect in Charlotte, North Carolina. Beth married Shawn P.
Macauley on June 18, 1988, in Port St. Lucie, Florida. They have two beautiful
daughters, Erin Elizabeth bom December 11, 1990, and Emily Logan, bom February 23,
1995, both in Gainesville, Florida, and one handsome son, Evan Alexander, bom March
29, 1998, in Spokane, Washington.
Beth graduated from Ft. Pierce Central High School, Ft. Pierce, Florida, in June
1983, ranked 12th out of 364 graduates. She began her college career at the University of
Florida in the fall of 1983 and graduated with a B.A. degree in speech-language
pathology and audiology in May 1987. Beth continued on in graduate school at the
University of Florida and received her M.A. degree in speech-language pathology in
December 1989. Her master’s thesis was a unique study that combined her first love,
speech pathology, with her main hobby, working with horses. The title was “The effects
of hippo therapy on the respiration and motor speech functions of two females with
cerebral palsy.” Beth continued her training by completing the clinical fellowship year
(CFY) in speech-language pathology in the Department of Communicative Disorders at
W.A. Shands Hospital, Gainesville, Florida, under the supervision of Kenneth Bzoch,
Ph.D., Lowell Hammer, Ph.D., and Michael Crary, Ph.D. Beth received her Certificate
132

133
of Clinical Competence in speech-language pathology from the American Speech-
Language-Hearing Association in October 1990.
Following her CFY, Beth returned to full-time graduate work to pursue the
doctoral degree under the mentorship of Leslie J. Gonzalez-Rothi, Ph.D., at the
University of Florida. Beth’s focus was on neurogenic communication disorders with
special emphasis in neuropsychology. During her doctoral years, Beth worked as a
research assistant for Kenneth M. Heilman, M.D., a behavioral neurologist in the
Department of Neurology, University of Florida College of Medicine and the Center for
Neuropsychological Studies. She also worked as a speech-language pathologist for
Special Communications and Continental Medical Systems Therapies (now Pro-Rehab,
Inc.). Special Communications served state institutions for mentally and physically
handicapped people and CMS Therapies served two skilled nursing facilities the
Gainesville area.
From 1985 through 1994, Beth worked at Florida Horsemanship for Handicapped,
Inc., as a junior instructor and therapist. She represented the program at the 6th
International Congress on Therapeutic Riding in Toronto, Ontario, August, 1988, and the
North American Riding for the Handicapped Association convention in Parsippany, New
Jersey, November, 1989. Beth was also active in the Florida Blue Key Honor Fraternity,
serving as service chairman 1991-1992, the Collegiate 4-H Club, serving as secretary and
vice-president 1984 and 1985, respectively, and the National Student Speech-Language-
Hearing Association, serving as president for the 1987-88 school year.
Toward the end of her doctoral program, Beth applied for various faculty
positions and was extended an invitation to join the faculty in the Department of Speech

134
and Hearing Sciences at Washington State University, Spokane, Washington. Her
husband was also extended an offer to join the Health Research and Education Center and
the Department of Genetics and Cell Biology at Washington State University. They
accepted and began work in December 1995. While in Spokane, Beth has worked as a
weekend rotation and on-call speech-language pathologist for Empire Health Services
which serves Sacred Heart Medical Center, Deaconess Medical Center, Valley Hospital
and Medical Center, and St. Luke’s Rehabilitation Institute. She is also a consultant
speech-language pathologist for Paul J. Domitor, Ph.D., a Spokane based clinical
psychologist and for A-Stride Ahead Therapy Services, a hippotherapy program in Deer
Park, Washington. Upon completion of her Ph.D., Beth will continue as an Assistant
Professor in the Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences at Washington State
University.
In Spokane, Beth is active at Garland Avenue Alliance Church, singing in King’s
Praise adult choir and playing flute with the worship orchestra. Her interests include
riding and showing horses, playing the flute, sewing, cross-stitch, and baking.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Kenneth M. Heilman
Professor of Clinical and Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Bruce Crosson
Professor of Clinical and Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
u -«
-1—4,
jnd^ fofessor of Communication Sciences and
Disorders

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of
Communication Processes and Disorders in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and
to the Graduatre School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy.
August 1998
Dean, Graduate School

mo
ms.
/ h iit
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08557 2104