Neuropsychology Copyright 1995 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1995, Vol. 9, No. 3, 378-389 0894-4105/95/S3.00

Developmental Trends in Visuospatial Analysis and Planning:

II. Memory for a Complex Figure
Natacha A. Akshoomoff and Joan Stiles
University of California, San Diego

The ability of children between the ages of 6 and 12 to draw the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure
immediately after having copied the figure was assessed with an existing scoring system, as well as
additional measures that the researchers developed to more precisely describe the process used by
children in drawing this figure. As expected, younger children were poorer in their ability to recall
the figure than older children. All children, regardless of age, were more likely to use continuous
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

lines when drawing the main units of the figure from memory than when copying the figure. The
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

approach used to analyze the figure when copying it from a model influenced the accuracy of the
information recalled and the process by which it was recalled. That is, those children who broke the
figure up into smaller units during copy were also more likely to recall the figure in a similar fashion
and were more likely to recall less about the figure.

The Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure is a useful tool for
assessing visuospatial construction, planning, and memory in
both adults and children (Osterrieth, 1944; Rey, 1941; see
Corwin & Bylsma, 1993, for a translation). In a previous study
of developmental change in the ability to copy this figure
(Akshoomoff & Stiles, 1995), we found that children as young
as 6 years of age included most of the features that comprise
the figure in their drawings. Accuracy of the reproductions
improved with age, and change was evident in the process by
which children approach the task of copying the form. This
process was considered in terms of the development of spatial
analysis. Spatial analysis involves parsing a spatial pattern into
its constituent parts and integrating those parts into a coherent
whole. Central to this approach is the notion of a visual pattern
as a hierarchically organized structure. Within this structure,
the whole can also be described as comprising the most global
level of the pattern and the parts the more local levels. The
results of this study showed that increased integration of the
spatial array is found with development, both in terms of the
nature of the pattern elements and in the relations between
those elements.
These findings are in contrast to previous reports that
suggested that performance on the Rey-Osterrieth Complex
Figure shift from more part-oriented processing to more
configurational processing with development (Kirk, 1985;
Waber & Holmes, 1985). In more precise spatial analytic
terms, these interpretations suggest that younger children
Natacha A. Akshoomoff and Joan Stiles, Department of Psychology,
University of California, San Diego.
This research was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the
San Diego McDonnell-Pew Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Na-
tional Research Service Award 1F32-HD07639, and Grant 1R01-
HD25077 from the National Institute for Child Health and Child
Development. We thank our participants and their parents, and
Youngsuk Kim, Gretchen Kambe, and Ryan Skrable for assistance
with data collection and scoring.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joan
Stiles, Department of Psychology, University of California, San Diego,
La Jolla, California 92093-0109.
focus more on parsing the figure, but only as they mature are
they able to synthesize those parts into a coherent whole.
However, careful assessment of the copy productions and the
process by which children go about copying the figure showed
that development results in change in both the nature of the
parts that are identified in the figure and the way in which
those parts are integrated, and that children as young as 6
years of age demonstrate both aspects of spatial analysis in
their reproductions of this complex figure.
The purpose of the present study was to assess how memory
load influences performance on this task. Although informa-
tion is available on normal accuracy measures among adults
(e.g., Osterrieth, 1944), few studies have assessed the range of
approaches normal adults use to copy this figure or recall it
from memory. A study of performance on the Rey-Osterrieth
Complex Figure among adult neuropsychiatric patients found
that perceptual clustering in the copy condition was a better
predictor of performance in the memory condition than the
copy condition accuracy score (Shorr, Delis, & Massman,
1992). Perceptual clustering was defined as the number of
subwhole junctures in the figure that were drawn continuously
or contiguously. These findings suggest that recall accuracy is
higher among those adults who do not fragment the main
structural units of the figure when they first copy the figure.
In one of the few existing studies of children's ability to draw
the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure from memory (Waber &
Holmes, 1986), children's drawings were rated on three catego-
ries of style: part-oriented, intermediate, or configurational.
Memory productions were said to have been produced more
configurationally than copy productions, except among the
younger children. In their article, Waber and Holmes (1986)
gave specific, operationally defined meanings for these catego-
ries, based on the production of the main structure of the
figure. Each drawing was judged to be more or less configura-
tional, depending on the proportion of lines that were drawn in
a continuous fashion (i.e., drawings with more continuous lines
were rated as configurational). Thus the cognitive attribution to
the child of configurational or part-oriented is linked to a
particular operational definition. However, that definition may

378
 VISUOSPATIAL ANALYSIS AND MEMORY
not capture some critical dimensions of change in children's
analysis of spatial patterns.
As discussed in our article on copying (Akshoomoff & Stiles,
1995), children frequently use quite different strategies than
adults when analyzing the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure;
strategies that do not appear to center on the main structure of
the figure. The majority of 6- to 12-year-old children in that
study partitioned the figure into two or three subunits, complet-
ing one subunit before going on to the next. The subunit
approach to analyzing this figure generally results in the
partitioning of the base rectangle. However, failure to use the
rectangle as the central organizing feature does not necessarily
mean that the child is part-oriented; it means that he or she has
analyzed the form differently. The designation of the child as
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
configumtional or part-oriented may simply be the wrong way of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
characterizing developmental change in performance on this
task. Analysis of a spatial pattern, even in its simplest form,
requires the reciprocal processes of encoding and integration.
A choice of initial strategy that focuses on a subunit of the
figure rather than the whole figure reflects a less developmen-
tally advanced strategy. In that sense it could serve as one, high
level measure of configurational sensitivity. At that level,
children's analysis of the figure might be interpreted as less
configural, but certainly not part-oriented. The critical ques-
tion then concerns the consistency of strategies across the
memory and copy task.
The present study assessed the ability of children to immedi-
ately recall the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure after they had
been asked to copy the figure. The product and process
measures used in our study of children's copy performance
(Akshoomoff & Stiles, 1995) were used with this data, and
performance in the memory condition was compared with
performance in the copy condition. Given the developmental
trends in spatial analysis that we found in children's reproduc-
tions of the figure, we hypothesized that recall of the figure
would be affected by the method used to copy the figure. The
method used to copy the figure, including the degree to which
the main features of the figure were fragmented (i.e., not
completed before another part of the figure was started), the
manner in which the figure was started and completed, and the
size of the organizational units used to draw the figure, were
assessed. Using these types of analyses, we thus placed perfor-
mance on this complex figure within the broader context of the
impact of memory load on the development of spatial analysis.
Method
Participants
There were a total of 160 participants, 20 in each of eight age groups.
The age groups were 6-6.6 years (M = 6.3 years), 7-7.8 years (M = 7.4
years), 8-8.8 years (M = 8.3 years), 9-9.9 years (M = 9.4 years),
10-10.7 years (M = 10.3 years), 11-11.9 years (M=11.4 years),
12-12.8 years (M = 12.4 years), and adults 19-28 years (M = 21.9
years). There were equal numbers of male and female participants in
each age group. The children were tested in the laboratory, local
community centers, and a local middle school. The adults were college
students who participated as part of a class requirement. These same
participants also participated in Experiment 1 of our other study
reported in this issue (Akshoomoff & Stiles, 1995).
379
Stimuli
The stimulus (see top of Figure 1) measured approximately 4.25 x
5.5 inch (10.8 x 14.0 cm) and was printed on a laminated 8>/2 x 11 inch
(21.6 x 27.0 cm) white piece of paper. Each participant was given a
white piece of paper of the same dimensions and colored felt-tipped
pens for drawing.
Procedure
Copy. Participants were instructed to copy the figure as exactly as
possible and were told that at specific intervals, they would be given a
different colored pen to continue their drawing. Pens were switched
approximately every minute or when the participant began to draw
another part of the figure. Switching pens allowed for a record of the
order in which the figure was drawn. The participant was not allowed
to rotate the model or the blank sheet of paper. The complete results
of the copy performance for these same participants are reported in
our other article in this issue (Akshoomoff & Stiles, 1995).
Immediate memory. When participants stated that they had com-
pleted their copy, the stimulus and the participants' sheet was taken
away. The participant was provided with a blank sheet of paper and
was immediately asked to draw the figure again from memory. Pens
were again switched approximately every minute or when the partici-
pant began to draw another part of the figure. Each participant was
tested individually, and all sessions were videotaped. The drawings
were scored by three trained raters.
Product Measures
The drawings were scored with the Boston Qualitative Scoring
System for the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure (BQSS; Stern et al.,
1994). This system divides the figure into three sets of features (6
Configural Elements, 9 Clusters, and 7 Details) that are ordered by
level of importance to the structure of the figure (see Figure 1).
These three sets of features were scored according to their Pres-
ence, Accuracy, Placement, and Fragmentation. The Presence scores
indicates that a feature was present in the drawing, regardless of the
quality of the representation. The Accuracy score reflects the quality
of the features in the drawing (i.e., completeness, size, proportion,
correctness of angles, straightness of lines, and accuracy of intersec-
tions with other features). Details are not scored for Accuracy. The
Placement score indicates whether the feature was placed in the
proper region of the figure (Clusters and Details only). The six
Configural Elements and Cluster 1 are rated for Fragmentation, a
measure of seeing the individual features as whole units (i.e., whether
the feature was drawn in a complete pen stroke and completed before
another part of the figure was started). Fragmentation of Rectangle A
is weighted on a scale of 1-3 because of the structural importance of
the rectangle. The remaining features are scored once for fragmenta-
tion.
The final scores for each participant were determined with the
BQSS conversion tables that place all measures on a l-to-5 scale. For
the Presence, Accuracy, and Placement scores, a score of 5 = 100%,
4 = 67%-89%, 3 = 33%-67%, 2 = 25%-33%, and 1 = 0%. The
Fragmentation scores represent the number of fragmentation errors:
5 = 0, 4 = 1-2, 3 = 3-5,2 = 6-8, and 1 = 9 or more.
The BQSS provides objective criteria for determining deviations in
the Size of the production (Reduction, Horizontal Expansion, and
Vertical Expansion) and Rotation of the entire figure. Templates
included with the manual give guidelines for assigning scores to the
participant's drawing (from 5 = no deviations in size or no rotation to
1 = extreme deviations in size or extreme rotation).
The BQSS also provides criteria for rating Perseveration and
Confabulation. A Perseveration is any recognizable inappropriate
 380 NATACHA A. AKSHOOMOFF AND JOAN STILES
CONFIGURAL ELEMENTS
A
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
DETAILS
Figure 1. Configural Elements, Clusters, and Details from the Boston Qualitative Scoring System for the
Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure (Stern et al., 1994).
repetition. This includes repetitions of components within a Cluster or
replication of any part of the figure, such that it appears more than
once throughout the figure. A Confabulation is any novel, unrelated
addition to the figure. Scores for each measure are ranked from 5 (no
persevemtion or no confabulation) to 1 (extremeperseveration or extreme
confabulation).
Process Measures .
The scoring criteria for Planning in the BQSS are meant to provide a
qualitative summary of the overall planning and organizational ap-
proach used by the participant. Planning is considered independently
from the BQSS product measures, using specific criteria (see Stern et
al., 1994). Scores for range from 5 (no planning deficits), which
indicates that the rectangle was drawn first and Configural Elements
B-E were drawn before any Clusters or Details, to 1 (extreme planning
deficits), which indicates there was no appreciation for the overall
structure and organization of the original stimulus, and the order
appears to be completely haphazard.
CLUSTERS
When reviewing preliminary data from over 60 copy drawings from
children using this scoring system, we noted that the Planning score
was not sufficiently sensitive to developmental trends; indeed, this
score appeared to be misleading with regard to developmental trends.
As described in our other article in this issue (Akshoomoff & Stiles,
1995), three different ways were defined to characterize the method
that participants used to start their drawings and within each of these
categories, four subcategories describing in more detail the ways in
which participants completed the figure were specified.
Starting strategies were classified as Perimeter, Partial Perimeter,
and Nonperimeter. The Perimeter strategy is defined as drawing the
outer contour of the figure first, including some combination of
Clusters 2, 3, and Configural Element F before drawing any internal
items. The Partial Perimeter strategy consists of drawing a portion of
the outer contour first and then adding the inner and outer details of
the figure .before completing the entire outline. The Nonperimeter
strategy is one that does not fall into these other two categories.
The Progression strategies note what the participant does next in
completing the figure. We identified four distinct categories that best
 VISUOSPATIAL ANALYSIS AND MEMORY 381

described the data from children ages 6 through 12. These categories
were (a) the rectangle is complete (even if fragmented) and Configural
Elements B and C were drawn as continuous lines; (b) the figure was
broken into two major units and was constructed unit by unit; (c) the
figure is broken into three or more major units and is constructed unit
by unit; (d) inconsistent placement of remaining items. These catego-
ries contrast with the five Planning categories of the BQSS, which
place a greater emphasis on the integrity of the rectangle rather than
describing the method that the participant utilized in parsing the
figure. All drawings that receive a BQSS Planning score of 1 would also
be in the Inconsistent Placement category, and all that receive a BQSS
Planning score of 5 would be in the complete rectangle category.
The phi coefficient (/>) was used to measure the association between
the process scores in the memory condition and the copy condition
(categorical variables). McNemar's test was used to test this paired
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Product Measures
The BQSS product measures focus on what participants
produced in their drawings and include feature presence,
accuracy, placement, fragmentation, size, perseveration, and
confabulation. Many of the product measures from the memory
condition showed systematic change with age, and a number of
differences were found between the memory and copy condi-
tions. The Presence scores are shown in Figure 2. The data
were analyzed with a 7 x 2 x 3 mixed design repeated
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). The between-
subjects variable was age (6, 7, 8, 9,10,11, or 12 years) and the
within-subjects variables were condition (copy and memory)
and feature (Configural Elements, Clusters, and Details). The

data to determine if the counts about the diagonal differed signifi- analysis revealed significant main effects for age, F(6, 133) =
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

cantly from those below the diagonal (Wilkinson, Hill, & Vang, 1992),
thereby representing changes in process scores from the copy condi-
tion to the memory condition.
Results
The data from the 20 adult participants are included in
Figures 2-9 but are not included in the statistical analysis.
13.11, p < .001, condition, F(l, 133) = 582.04,p < .001, and
feature, F(2, 266) = 146.26, p < .001. There was also a
significant Age x Feature interaction, F(12, 266) = 3.24, p <
.001, Condition x Feature interaction, F(2, 266) = 40.32, p <
.001, and Age x Condition x Feature interaction,
F(\2, 266) = 3.10,^ < .001. The Presence scores in the copy
condition were higher than the scores in the memory condi-

PRESENCE
CONFIGURAL ELEMENTS CLUSTERS

LLJ HI
o:.
§3
o
CO

Sr

_J I t_ I I I 1 I 1 I I
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Adult 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Adult
AGE (years) AGE (years)

5 r- DETAILS

DC .
O'

8 9 10 11 12 Adult
AGE (years)
Figure 2. Presence scores for 6- to 12-year-olds and adults.
 382 NATACHA A. AKSHOOMOFF AND JOAN STILES
tion, particularly for Details. The most dramatic age-related
increase in Presence scores in the memory condition was found
for the Configural Elements, which were at a high level among
the older children.
The Accuracy scores are shown in Figure 3. The data were
analyzed with a 7 x 2 x 2 mixed design repeated measures
ANOVA. The between-subjects variable was age and the
within-subjects variables were condition and feature (Config-
ural Elements and Clusters). The analysis revealed significant
main effects for age, F(6, 133) = 10.92, p < .001, and
condition, F(l, 133) = 24.29, p < .001. Scores in the copy
condition were higher than scores in the memory condition,
although the differences were not large. There was also a
significant Age x Feature interaction, F(6, 133) = 2.23, p <
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
.001. Accuracy of Configural Elements across both conditions
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
increased with age more than accuracy of Clusters.
The Placement scores are shown in Figure 4. The data were
analyzed with a 7 x 2 x 2 mixed design repeated measures
ANOVA. The between-subjects variable was age and the
within-subjects variables were condition and feature (Clusters
and Details). The analysis revealed significant main effects for
age, F(6, 133) = 14.16,p < .001, and condition, F(\, 133) =
75.07, p < .001. Placement scores improved with age, and
scores in the copy condition were higher than scores in the
memory condition. There was also a significant main effect for
feature, F(\, 133) = 6.22,p < .05, and a Condition x Feature
interaction, F(l, 133) = 4.37, p < .05. There was a greater
difference between the Placement scores in the copy and
memory conditions for the Clusters than for the Details.
A 7 x 2 (Age x Condition) repeated measures ANOVA
ACCURACY
CONFIGURAL ELEMENTS
LU
OL o
3 o
8
en
I 2
8 9 10 11 12 Adult
AGE (years)
Figure 3. Accuracy scores for 6- to 12-year-olds and adults.
revealed a significant main effect of Condition in Fragmenta-
tion scores (see Figure 5). Participants obtained higher scores
in the memory condition (i.e., fragmented less often) than in
the copy condition. This represents the proportion of features
that were fragmented among the number of features that were
recalled (i.e., scored as present). As discussed above, most of
the participants had fewer features present in their drawings in
the memory condition than in the copy condition. There were
no significant differences in the Fragmentation scores for
either the memory condition or the copy condition as a
function of age, F(6,133) = 1.43, p > .05.
The Size scores (Reduction, Horizontal Expansion, and
Vertical Expansion) were analyzed separately with 7 x 2
(Age x Condition) repeated measures ANOVAs. Although
the majority of the children drew the figure approximately the
same size as the original in both the copy and memory
conditions, there was a significant main effect of age,
F(6,131) = 3.03,p < .01 and condition, F(l, 131) = 18.40,p <
.01, in the Horizontal Expansion scores (see Figure 6); the
Age x Condition interaction approached significance, F(6,
131) = 2.07, p - .06. The younger children were more likely to
expand the figure horizontally, particularly in the memory
condition. In terms of Reduction and Vertical Expansion
scores, there were no significant main effects for age or
condition and no significant interactions (ps > .05).
A 7 x 2 (Age x Condition) repeated measures ANOVA
revealed that there was a significant main effect of age in the
Rotation scores, F(6, 133) = 3.27, p < .01 (see Figure 6). In
the memory condition, 2 of the 6-year-old participants ob-
tained a score of 4 (20-30° rotation), 1 obtained a score of 3,
CLUSTERS
LU
CC 3
r>
o
CO
I2
8 9 10 11 12 Adult
AGE (years)
 VISUOSPATIAL ANALYSIS AND MEMORY 383

PLACEMENT

CLUSTERS DETAILS

01
DC o
3 LU
o
o §3
CO

I2 I2
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

I J
8 9 10 11 12 Adult 8 9 10 11 12 Adult
AGE (years) AGE (years)

Figure 4. Placement scores for 6- to 12-year-olds and adults.

and 2 drew the figure at a 90° rotation (score of 1). The test between the BQSS Planning scores of the seven age groups
remaining 120 participants received a score of 5, except for 6 in the memory condition approached significance, x2(24,
who received a score of 4 and 2 who received a score of 1. In N = 140) = 35.64, p = .06 (see Figure 7). In general,
the copy condition, 6 of the 6-year-old participants obtained a participants 10 years of age and younger obtained similar
score of 4 (20-30° rotation), but one 6-year-old participant
drew the figure at a 90° rotation (score of 1). The remaining FRAGMENTATION
120 participants received a score of 5, except 2 who received a (configural elements & cluster 1)
score of 4.
5 r-
The Perseveration and Confabulation scores were analyzed
separately with 7 x 2 (Age x Condition) repeated measures
ANOVAs. Although these two measures were analyzed sepa-
rately, they are presented together in Figure 6. There was a
significant Age x Condition interaction in the Perseveration LU
\
scores, F(6, 133) = 2.68, p < .05. There was also a significant
main effect of age in the Confabulation scores, F(6, 133) = o
V)
5.91,p < .001, and a Condition x Age interaction, F(6,133) =
3.49, p < .01. In the copy condition, fewer perseverations and
confabulations (i.e., higher scores) were noted in the partici-
pants' reproductions with increasing age. However, in the
memory condition, the number of perseverations and confabu-
lations were higher in the older age groups than in the younger
age groups. J
8 9 10 11 12 Adult
Process Measures AGE (years)

The process measures assess the process by which the

participant reproduced the figure and describe the qualitative
aspects of the individual's performance. A Pearson chi square Figure 5. Fragmentation scores for 6- to 12-year-olds and adults.
 384 NATACHA A. AKSHOOMOFF AND JOAN STILES

HORIZONTAL EXPANSION PERSEVERATION

5 r

UJ LLJ
DC o
O3
O
CO

2
I2

1 -
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

_L
8 9 10 11 12 8 9 10 11 12
ROTATION CONFABULATION
5 i-

UJ LLI
DC DC o
O3
8
co
O
W

1 I2

1 -

J 1_ J L I i i I i i

8 9 10 11 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
AGE (years) AGE (years)

Figure 6. Error scores for 6- to 12-year-olds and adults.

Planning scores, and the 11- and 12-year-olds obtained slightly
higher scores. There was a strong relationship between Plan-
ning scores in the memory and copy conditions (r^ = .91). The
McNemar symmetry chi square test showed that for the 70
children whose performance varied across the two conditions,
Planning scores were significantly higher in the memory
condition than the copy condition; x2(10, N = 140) = 27.20,
p < .01; see Figure 7). More participants received Planning
scores of 4 and 5 in the memory condition (38%) than in the
copy condition (23%). These scores represent a greater appre-
ciation for the rectangle, either because it was drawn first (and
present in its entirety) or that it was not broken into quadrants.
A Pearson chi square test of the Starting strategies used
across the seven age groups in the memory condition was not
significant, x2(12, N = 140) = 16.42, p > .10 (see Figure 8).
There was a strong relationship between scores for the
memory and copy conditions (r^, = .80). A McNemar symmetry
chi square test of the within-subjects comparison of the
Starting strategies used in the copy condition and in the
memory condition was not significant, \2(3) = 4.12, p > .10
(see Figure 8). Children between the ages 6 of 12 used the
three Starting strategies with nearly equal probability in both
conditions; by adulthood there was a shift toward adopting the
Nonperimeter starting strategy (i.e., using neither the Perim-
eter or Partial Perimeter).
There were differences in the Progression strategies in the
memory condition among participants age 6 to 12, x2(18) =
33.02,p < .05. As shown in Figure 9, children age 8 and older
were more systematic in the method they used to complete the
Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure than 6- and 7-year-old chil-
dren. However, note that although 70% of the adults drew the
figure with a complete rectangle and nonfragmented horizon-
tal and vertical bisectors, this was true of only 45% of the
12-year-olds, and less than 20% of the children ages 8 to 11.
There was a moderately strong relationship between scores for
the memory and copy conditions (r$ = .66). A McNemar
symmetry chi square test of the within-subjects comparison of
the Progression strategies used in the copy condition and in the
memory condition was also significant, x2 (6, N = 140) = 25.84,
p < .001 (see Figure 9). Although 17% of the participants used
more systematic Progression strategies in the memory condi-
tion compared with their performance in the copy condition,
 VISUOSPATIAL ANALYSIS AND MEMORY 385

BQSS PLANNING SCORES

COPY MEMORY
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

10 -

H 5 = Rectangle & Configural Elements drawn first

^ 4 = Figure drawn in a logical sequence, taking the whole into account

JH 3 = Rectangle & Configural Elements treated in a piecemeal fashion

fj 2 = Significant structural/organizational problems; rectangle recognizable

IK 1 = No appreciation for overall structure/organization; order appears haphazard

Figure 7. Planning scores for 6- to 12-year-olds and adults. Scores ranged from 5 (the rectangle and
Configural Elements B-E were drawn first) to 1 (poor planning). BQSS = Boston Qualitative Scoring
System for the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure.

41% used less systematic Progression strategies in the memory
condition compared with the strategy they used in the copy
condition. Most notably, 47% of the participants between the
ages of 6 and 12 used the Inconsistent Placement Progression
strategy in the memory condition, whereas only 24% used this
strategy in the copy condition. This strategy was also used by
20% of the adults in the memory condition, but none of these
same adult participants used this strategy in the copy condi-
tion.
As noted above, the four Progression strategy score catego-
ries were derived from children's copy performance (Ak-
shoomoff & Stiles, 1995). Here the complete rectangle cat-
egory required that the horizontal and vertical bisectors also
be present and drawn as continuous lines. To explore the
possibility that increased Planning scores in the memory
condition reflected a greater appreciation of the main rect-
angle, the data from both the copy and memory conditions
were scored to assess solely for the presence of a complete
rectangle. In these drawings, all sides of the rectangle were
also drawn as continuous lines; in the cases where the
perimeter Starting strategy was used, the remainder of the
rectangle was completed with continuous lines. In both the
copy and memory conditions, there were age-related increases
in the number of drawings with a complete rectangle present
(see Figure 10). However, a McNemar symmetry chi square
test revealed that there was no significant differences between
the copy condition and memory conditions in the frequency of
drawings with a complete rectangle present, x2 (1, N — 140) =
1.69,p > .10.
Figure 11 shows representative drawings from the copy and
memory conditions. These examples illustrate the age-related
improvements in product measure scores (i.e., better immedi-
ate recall with increasing age) as well as age-related changes in
the process utilized to complete the figure. Also note the
similarities between the process used to copy the figure and the
process used to recall the figure, as well as how the process
used to copy the figure influences the type of information that
is recalled.
Discussion
This study showed that the BQSS is useful for scoring
children's reproductions of the figure from memory. As ex-
pected, immediate recall drawings contained less information
 386 NATACHA A. AKSHOOMOFF AND JOAN STILES

STARTING STRATEGY SCORES

COPY MEMORY
100 100
90 90
80 80
70
%7°
.«
.a 60 60
» 50 50
| 40 40
CD
Q- 30 30
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

20 20
10 10
0
in to
2 33 33 33
o o o o o
totu tom a to
tu
I
i- CV co i^

Perimeter

Partial Perimeter

Non-Perimeter

Figure 8. Starting strategy data for 6- to 12-year-olds and adults.

than copy drawings, particularly the Details in the figure.
Children under age 9 were also more likely to omit the
Configural Elements in their recall drawings than older chil-
dren, were more likely to draw the Configural Elements and
Clusters (when present) with less accuracy, and were poorer in
recalling the placement of the Clusters and Details.
Children made errors in the size and orientation of the
figure slightly more often in the memory condition than in the
copy condition. In the memory condition, older children were
more likely to make perseverative errors and confabulate than
younger children, and younger children were more likely to
make these types of errors in the copy condition. These results
suggest that when copying the figure, younger children were
perhaps less likely to check their work, and therefore were
more likely to draw the same parts of the figure more than once
or to add in features that were not present in the model. When
asked to reproduce the figure from memory, younger children
drew less. Our observations suggested that younger children
were less certain of their ability to recall the figure and
therefore would simply give up more quickly than older
children. Older children recalled more of the figure and
seemed to have a better sense of the number of details present
in the original figure. Therefore, they were more likely to try to
fill in pieces that they may have been less certain of, which may
explain why they made more perseverative errors and confabu-
lations in immediate recall.
There was a systematic relationship between the BQSS
Planning scores in the copy and memory conditions. Most
notably, Planning scores tended to increase from copy to
memory, suggesting perhaps a greater appreciation for the
main rectangle. Regardless of age, children were also less
likely to fragment the main units of the figure (including the
rectangle) when drawing the figure from memory than when
copying the figure. That is, a greater proportion of the lines
that make up the Configural Elements and Cluster 1 were
drawn as continuous lines in the memory condition than in the
copy condition. We found that in both copying and recalling
the figure, most children by age 11 drew the figure with a
nonfragmented, complete rectangle. However, our results also
showed that regardless of age, this was not necessarily more
common in the memory condition.
An increase in the use of the Inconsistent Placement
progression strategy was seen in the memory condition. This
finding reflects the common process of first recalling the most
salient aspects of the figure and then completing as many
remaining details as possible, one by one. In contrast to the
more systematic approach that was more commonly used by
older children when drawing the figure from a model, this
 VISUOSPATIAL ANALYSIS AND MEMORY 387

PROGRESSION STRATEGY SCORES

COPY MEMORY
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Complete Rectangle with Continuous

Horizontal and Vertical Bisectors

2 units

3 or more units

Inconsistent Placement

Figure 9. Progression strategy data for 6- to 12-year-olds and adults.

more haphazard approach suggests that the task of having to

recall this complex figure from memory is a difficult one for
children.
The three process measures (BQSS Planning score, Starting COMPLETE RECTANGLE
100-,
strategy, and Progression strategy) evaluated different aspects
of the manner in which children reproduced the Rey- 90-
Osterrieth Complex Figure from memory. The BQSS Planning 80-
score evaluates the relative importance of the main structural
70-
units in the participant's drawing. Children of all ages were
more likely to recall the major units of the figure, and this 5- 60-
resulted in generally higher planning scores. The method that CO
50-
children used to start drawing the figure was generally consis-
40-
tent across both the copy and memory conditions. Although
older children were more systematic in their approach to 30-
completing the figure from memory than younger children, all 20-
children were generally less systematic in completing the figure
10-
from memory than when given the opportunity to copy the
figure directly. T 1 ~T 1 1
We found that Fragmentation scores were higher among all 9 10 11 12 Adults
participants in the memory condition than in the copy condi- AGE (years)
tion. In other words, participants drew the main units of the
figure with more continuous lines when recalling the figure Figure 10. Drawings with a complete rectangle present among 6- to
from memory than when copying it from a model. This 12-year-olds and adults.
 388 NATACHA A. AKSHOOMOFF AND JOAN STILES

COPY MEMORY

6 year-old
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

8 year-old

8 year-old

10 year-old

Figure 11. Representative drawings that illustrate age-related changes in product and process between
the copy and memory conditions.

measure is similar to the style measure used in the Waber and
Holmes (1986) study. These authors reported that memory
productions were produced more configurationally (i.e., a
greater proportion of lines within the main structure of the
figure were drawn in a continuous fashion) than copy produc-
tions, except among the younger children. Although our
findings are similar, the use of the term configurational to
describe this type of performance is somewhat misleading. It is
important to consider that the younger children in our study
were poorer than the older children in recalling the Configural
Elements (the main units of the figure), but, as demonstrated
by the higher Fragmentation scores in memory compared with
copy, were more likely to recall the main units of the figure as
continuous lines when they were recalled.
The actual act of copying this type of complex figure appears
to influence the manner in which it is drawn from memory
 VISUOSPATIAL ANALYSIS AND MEMORY
among school-age children (Waber, Bernstein, & Merola,
1989). In a study of 5th- and 8th-grade children, half were
asked to copy the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure prior to
recall and half studied it visually but did not copy it. The
memory productions from the 5th-graders who only studied
the figure visually were more accurate and more configura-
tional than the fifth-graders who first copied the figure. In fact,
eliminating the motor input during the study phase resulted in
performance that was similar to that of the eighth graders in
the study.
In conclusion, normal developmental changes in immediate
memory for a complex spatial pattern not only reflect the
development of visuospatial memory processes but also the
development of spatial analytic processes. Consideration of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
performance during the copy condition is therefore key to the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
interpretation of memory performance. We found that youn-
ger school-age children were more likely to use simpler
integration and encoding strategies when copying the figure
(see Akshoomoff & Stiles, 1995 in this issue for a more
complete discussion). The approach used to analyze the figure
while copying it appears to significantly influence the product
and the process during immediate recall. Those children who
broke the figure up into smaller units during encoding were
also more likely to recall the figure in a similar fashion and
were more likely to recall less about the figure.
This test should be used with caution for evaluating nonver-
bal memory performance in younger children. Our results
show that normal children under age 9 recall a relatively
limited amount of information when asked to reproduce the
figure from memory immediately after having copied it from a
model. Therefore, it appears that it would be difficult to
accurately assess whether younger children with known or
suspected neurological disorders have deficits in nonverbal
memory abilities on the basis of their performance on this task.
The results of this study and our other study in this issue
(Akshoomoff & Stiles, 1995) demonstrate that the BQSS was
developed within an adult framework and therefore does not
capture the developmental changes in planning for this task.
We are currently working with the authors of the BQSS to
develop a modified system that incorporates the BOSS and our
389
additional measures that will be specifically for scoring chil-
dren's performance on this task.
References
Akshoomoff, N. A., & Stiles, J. (1994). Developmental trends in
visuospatial analysis and planning: I. Copying a complex figure.
Neuropsychology, 9, 364-377.
Corwin, J., & Bylsma, F. W. (1993). Translations of excerpts from
Andre Rey's Psychological examination of traumatic encephalopathy
and P. A. Osterrieth's The complex figure copy test. Clinical Neuropsy-
chologist, 7, 3-21.
Kirk, U. (1985). Hemispheric contributions to the development of
graphic skill. In C. T. Best (Ed.), Hemispheric function and collabora-
tion in the child (pp. 193-228). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Osterrieth, P. A. (1944). Le test de copie d'une figure complexe.
Contribution a 1'etude de la perception et de la memoire. [The
Complex Figure Copy Test]. Archives depsychologie, 30, 206-353.
Rey, A. (1941). Psychological examination of traumatic encephalopa-
thy. Archives de psychologie, 28, 286-340.
Shorr, J. S., Delis, D. C., & Massman, P. J. (1992). Memory for the
Rey-Osterrieth figure: Perceptual clustering, encoding, and storage.
Neuropsychology, 6, 43—50.
Stern, R. A., Singer, E. A., Duke, L. M., Singer, N. G., Morey, C. E.,
Daughtrey, E. W., & Kaplan, E. (1994). The Boston Qualitative
Scoring System for the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure: Descrip-
tion and interrater reliability. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 8, 309-322.
Waber, D. P., Bernstein, J. H., & Merola, J. (1989). Remembering the
Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure: A dual-code, cognitive neuropsy-
chological model. Developmental Neuropsychology, 5, 1-15.
Waber, D. P., & Holmes, J. M. (1985). Assessing children's copy
productions of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure. Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 7, 264—280.
Waber, D. P., & Holmes, J. M. (1986). Assessing children's memory
productions of the Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure. Journal of
Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 8, 563-580.
Wilkinson, L., Hill, M., & Vang, E. (1992). SYSTAT: Statistics, Version
5.2 ed. Evanston, IL: Systat.
Received November 8,1994
Revision received February 10, 1995
Accepted February 10,1995 •