Purpose: The purpose of this research is to study the learning efficiency of the cerebral palsied children through the utilization of the Labyrinth Test, referring to the methods adopted by Nielsen and others, with the main emphasis placed on the following items. 1. The learning efficiency of cerebral palsied children, i. e., number of trials required before solutions are obtained on the Labyrinth Test. 2. Course of the learning process: Whether the learning curves are regular or not? 3. Regression: Number of trial failures of "after success" and number of such children. 4. Whether they will adopt a systematic search system in solving the task or not? 5. Whether they will show apersevering tendency or not? 6. Learning abnormality as observed through the analysis of test performance. Method: For the experimental group, 10 children, 4 boys and 6 girls (average CA 8:10, average IQ 111.4, S. D.=12. 3) were selected from the schools for the handicapped children located in Tokyo, of these children 6 were spastic with, the remaining 4 of athetoid. As for the control group, 10 children, 5 boys and 5 girls (average CA 8:9, average IQ 108.1, S.D.=8. 33) were selected from the school children of the primary schools in Tokyo. In selecting the examinees from the cerebral palsied children, the cases of the peri-natal impediments were chosen and those children suffering from convulsion or excessive visual acuity defects were excluded from the selection.As for the test material, the Labyrinth Test, which had been devised by Rey, was modified somewhat so that even a seriously handicapped patient can perform the task of removing the pegs from the boards. As a way of presenting the Test, the 4 boards were arranged in front of the examinee and one by one each board was given to the examinee at the predetermined order of sequence. And on each of these boards there are nine identical pegs, one of which is fastened to the board while the other eight are loose, and the fixed peg has a different position in each of the 4 boards. In this Test, an examinee is to locate the pegs which cannot be lifted, and the number of pegs pulled off are to be considered as the number of errors. Results: 1. The experimental group required more trial number in order to solve the Labyrinth than the control group were 16.9 and 9.9 respectively (p<.05). 2. In comparison with the L-shaped curve of the control group registering a downward trend of the number of errors with the increase of the trial number, the learning curve of the experimental group was irregular with many rises and falls and more number of errors. 3. At a certain stage of trial an examinee was able to localize the fixed pegs correctly and with one or two more trials the course of the learning process was to be terminated, then the examinee made mistakes in the succeeding trials. When number of children who showed such regression were checked separately by groups of the experimental and control, there were 8 and 4 respectively (p<.05). 4. There was no significant difference between the both groups as far as the method they used in solving the problems. 5. The experimental group showed a greaterdegree of persevarance as compared with the control group. 6. The experimental group, in comparison with the control group, produced more errors and revealed more disorders of spatial orientation and temporal sequence.
View full abstract