72 subjects from 16 families performed a visual and kinesthetic aftereffect task where data were also obtained on the pretest variability and on the adjustment times. Considerable sex differences were found, such that for mothers pretest variability correlated positively with magnitude of kinesthetic and negatively with magnitude of visual aftereffect. Daughters showed more pretest variability on both tasks and much larger individual differences on the visual task than sons. These sex differences complicate any attempt at genetic analysis. However, there was some indication of X-linked inheritance in males for magnitude aftereffect and of autosomal inheritance of visual adjustment time in females.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BockR. D.KolakowskiD.Further evidence of sex-linked major-gene influence on human spatial visualizing ability. American Journal of Human Genetics, 1973, 25, 1–14.
2.
BockR. D.VandenbergS. G.Components of heritable variation in mental test scores. In VandenbergS. G. (Ed.), Progress in human behavior genetics. Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1968. Pp. 233–260.
3.
BushD. F.CowardR. T.Sex differences in the solution of achromatic and chromatic embedded figures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1974, 39, 1121–1122.
4.
CumminsJ. E.A study of individual differences in the kinesthetic and visual spatial aftereffect. Unpublished Honour's thesis, La Trobe Univer., 1972.
5.
DayR. H.Excitatory and inhibitory process as the basis of contour shift and negative aftereffect. Psychologia, 1962, 5, 185–192.
6.
DayR. H.SingerG.Spatial aftereffects within and between kinesthesis and vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 68, 337–343.
7.
DayR. H.SingerG.Sensory spatial aftereffects in relation to chronological age, mental retardation and schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychology, 1967, 48, 13–27.
8.
De FriesJ. C.VandenbergS. G.McClearnG. E.Genetics of specific cognitive abilities. Annual Review of Genetics, 1976, 10, 179–207.
9.
EavesL. J.Computer simulation of sample size and experimental design in human psychogenetics. Psychological Bulletin, 1972, 77, 144–152.
10.
FalconerD. S.An introduction to quantitative genetics. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1960.
11.
ImmergluckL.Figural aftereffect potency: A function of sex or field-dependence?Psychonomic Science, 1970, 18, 317–318.
12.
JinksJ. L.FulkerD. W.A comparison of the biomedical genetical, MAVA and classical approaches to the analysis of human behaviour. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 73, 311–349.
13.
LandauerA.SingerG.DayR. H.Correlation between visual and kinesthetic spatial aftereffects. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72, 892–894.
14.
MaccobyE. E.JacklinC. N.The psychology of sex differences. Palo Alto: Stanford Univer. Press, 1974.
15.
MatherK.JinksJ. L.Correlations between relatives arising from sex-linked genes. Nature, 1963, 198, 314–315.
16.
MittlerP.The study of. twins. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1971.
17.
OverR.Individual differences in aftereffects. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, 405–410.
18.
SingerG.DayR. H.Temporal determinants of a kinesthetic aftereffect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 69, 343–348.
19.
TaylorM. M.Figural aftereffects: A psychophysical theory of the displacement effect. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1962, 16, 247–277.
20.
TobinP.FisherP. G.Sex differences and effects of irrelevant auditory stimulation on performance of a visual vigilance task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1974, 39, 1255–1262.
21.
WilsonJ. R.De FriesJ. C.McClearnG. E.VandenbergS. G.JohnsonR. C.RashadM. N.Cognitive abilities: Use of family data as a control to assess sex and age differences in two ethnic groups. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 1975, 6, 261–276.
22.
WitkinH. A.Individual differences in ease of perception of embedded figures. Journal of Personality, 1950, 19, 1–15.
23.
WitkinH. A.DykR. B.FatersonH. F.GoodenoughD. R.KarpS. A.Psychological differentiation: Studies of development. Potomac: L. Erlbaum Assoc., 1974.
