VT Works

Square Central and Parallel with Blocks Non-Contiguous

In Part One, we began with a square positioned centrally and parallel to the edge of the table. Each additional block touched the square along an entire side, creating a design with clear, concrete relationships. The patient did not have to estimate where a block belonged somewhere in open space, since the shared edges provided that information. A triangle was not simply next to the square; it was physically connected to its upper edge. A parallelogram was not merely somewhere to one side; its placement was defined by direct contact with the square.

In Part Two, we make what may appear to be a small change: one or more blocks no longer touch the square along an entire side. The square remains central and it remains parallel. The patient uses the same blocks and continues to reproduce a visible three-dimensional model; however, removing that full-edge contact changes the spatial demands of the activity considerably. The patient must now organize relationships that can no longer be determined through touch alone.

Removing the Concrete Connection

Contiguous placement gives the patient a physical boundary: the edge of one block meets the edge of another along an entire side, making the relationship visible, tactile, and relatively stable. With non-contiguous placement, that complete edge-to-edge relationship is reduced or removed. A block may touch only part of the square, meet it at a corner, or remain entirely separated. Introducing this level asks the patient to judge the block’s position with less reliance on physical contact and greater attention to the spatial relationship between the blocks.

Where does the block belong? How far off center is it from the square? Where should it be placed relative to the square? Does one corner align with another? Is the space between the blocks consistent with the model? At this level, the patient is no longer matching only the blocks; they must also match the spatial relationships surrounding and sometimes separating them. One of the central challenges is recognizing that the space is not empty. It carries direction, distance, proportion, and relationship.

The Square Still Provides an Anchor

Although the blocks are no longer contiguous, the central square continues to provide a stable organizing reference. The square has not been rotated, displaced from the center, or removed from the pattern. This is an important feature of the progression, since we are increasing the complexity of one variable while preserving the others. The square still establishes the center of the design, and its parallel orientation still provides a relationship to the edge of the table. In this arrangement, the patient can continue to organize the remaining blocks relative to that stable reference. The difference is that those relationships must now, at least in part, be projected across space. A triangle may be shifted relative to the square, a parallelogram may contact a corner without sharing an entire edge, and two blocks may be separated by a small gap that becomes as important to the design as the blocks themselves. At this stage, the patient must begin to appreciate that objects can maintain meaningful relationships even when they are not physically connected.

From “What Touches What?” to “Where Is It?”

At the contiguous level, the patient may begin with the question, “Which side of the square does this block touch?”

At the non-contiguous level, that question may no longer provide enough information. The patient must consider several characteristics simultaneously:

• Direction from the central square
• Distance from the square
• Alignment of edges and corners
• Orientation of the individual block
• Size and shape of the intervening space
• Relationship of each block to the complete pattern

This requires a more sophisticated spatial description.

“Above” may be correct but insufficient. The block might be above and to the right, with its left corner aligned over the square’s right edge. “Next to” may describe the general location while overlooking the amount of separation or the block’s orientation.

The Vision Therapist can help the patient move toward more precise observations:

• “Where is the triangle in relation to the square?”
• “Which part of the triangle is closest to the square?”
• “How much space do you see between them?”
• “Do those two edges seem to be moving in the same direction?”
• “If you drew an imaginary line between those corners, where would it go?”
• “What could you use as a reference before placing that block?”

While pointing to their own pattern, the Vision Therapist might ask the patient to identify the corresponding area on the patient’s pattern, which calls attention to an inaccurate positioning. The purpose of these questions is not to lead the patient through one specific pattern. It is to help the patient develop a method that can be used with many different arrangements.

The Space Becomes Part of the Pattern

Patients frequently attend to the objects in a design while giving little attention to the spaces between them. They may select all the correct blocks and orient each one properly, yet compress or expand the design because the intervals have not been considered. When the blocks are contiguous, there is very little space to judge, but once they are separated, the negative space becomes part of the information. A patient may reproduce the individual pieces accurately but place them too close together, or another may exaggerate the separation between blocks. Someone else may preserve the distance while shifting the entire relationship diagonally. These are not identical errors, as each may reflect a different way of attending to and organizing the model.

The Vision Therapist should observe whether the patient:

• Notices the open space without prompting
• Treats distance as part of the design
• Uses the central square as a consistent reference
• Estimates placement before moving the block
• Makes repeated small adjustments without an apparent strategy
• Compares one relationship at a time or evaluates the entire pattern
• Recognizes when individual blocks are correct but the overall configuration is not
• Can describe how the reproduced space differs from the model

The goal is not necessarily to prevent trial and error, because we know productive experimentation can be valuable. The question is whether the patient gathers new information from each attempt or simply continues moving the block without refining the plan.

Local Accuracy and Global Organization

Non-contiguous patterns make the difference between local and global accuracy particularly apparent. A patient may reproduce the relationship between the square and triangle correctly but misplace the parallelogram, while a different patient may position every block at approximately the correct distance from the square while rotating the entire outer configuration. Someone else may concentrate on reproducing a gap so carefully that the overall pattern drifts away from the center. In each of these scenarios, the Vision Therapist can help the patient alternate between the parts and the whole:

“Look at the relationship between these two blocks. How does it compare?”

Then:

“Now look at the entire pattern. Does it have the same overall shape?”

This movement between local detail and global organization is essential. Focusing exclusively on the whole may cause the patient to overlook an important discrepancy, while focusing exclusively on individual parts may prevent the patient from recognizing how those parts work together.

Success requires both.

Superimposition Reveals the Invisible

The transparent model remains especially valuable at this level. When a contiguous design is superimposed, the patient can see whether the blocks and their shared edges align. In a non-contiguous pattern, superimposition also reveals differences in the spaces between the blocks. A block that appeared to be “close enough” may be displaced farther than the patient realized, and two corners that seemed aligned may fall on different axes. The patient may discover that the individual blocks are oriented correctly but the overall design has been expanded, compressed, or shifted. Because the transparent model makes these discrepancies visible, the Vision Therapist does not have to become the source of every correction.

Instead of saying, “Move that block farther to the left,” the Vision Therapist can ask:

“What becomes clearer when the two patterns are placed together?”

If the patient identifies a difference, remove the transparent sheet and allow time for another attempt. Then superimpose the patterns again. The same cycle introduced in Part One continues:

Construct. Compare. Identify. Modify. Recheck.

At this stage, the task has become more complex, but the process remains dependable.

Developing Internal References

Superimposition offers powerful feedback, but the ultimate goal is not for the patient to depend upon it indefinitely. The patient should gradually develop more effective ways to predict and evaluate placement before the transparent model is applied.

The Vision Therapist might ask the patient to pause before positioning a block. Useful questions at this stage might be:

• “Where do you expect it to go?”
• “What will tell you that it is in the correct place?”
• “Which part of the pattern are you using as your reference?”

This pause encourages the patient to form an intention before acting, and placement becomes less reactive and more purposeful. After the block has been positioned, the patient can compare the result with the original prediction. Encouraging observation and self-analysis may sound like:

• “Did it land where you expected?”
• “What information would help you make the next placement more accurate?”

This does not mean that every movement must be verbalized, and we should remember that excessive questioning can interrupt the patient’s organization and turn the procedure into an oral examination. The Vision Therapist must determine when language clarifies the process and when quiet observation is more useful.

When Approximation Becomes “Good Enough”

Non-contiguous patterns can expose differences in a patient’s criteria for completion. One patient may insist that a design is finished when every block occupies the correct general area. Another may recognize extremely small differences and become unable to accept a reasonable approximation. A third may see the discrepancy but avoid changing the pattern because revision feels like an admission of failure.

The Vision Therapist should be careful not to reduce these responses to simple labels such as careless, perfectionistic, or unmotivated. The behavior must be understood within the larger context of the patient’s performance.

Useful questions might include:

• Does the patient perceive the discrepancy?
• Does the patient believe the difference is meaningful?
• Can the patient determine how to correct it?
• Does the patient tolerate making and revising an error?
• Is the demand appropriate for the patient’s developmental level?
• Has the Vision Therapist communicated what constitutes a successful match?

Parquetry gives the patient repeated opportunities to learn that an initial response is not a final verdict. A pattern can be examined, adjusted, and improved.

That lesson may be as important as the spatial judgment itself.

Role Reversal Raises the Standard

As with most activities, role reversal remains important as the patterns become non-contiguous. The patient constructs a model, and the Vision Therapist attempts to reproduce it. Now the patient must evaluate not only whether the correct blocks were selected and oriented properly, but also whether the Vision Therapist reproduced the intended distances and alignments. If the patient says, “That one is in the wrong place,” ask for greater precision:

“What makes my pattern (or placement) different?”

The patient might explain:

• “It needs to be farther from the square.”
• “The corner should line up with the middle of this edge.”
• “The gap is too wide.”
• “It is the right distance away, but it is too high.”
• “The pieces are correct, but the whole pattern is spread out.”

The ability to identify and describe the discrepancy demonstrates a deeper level of spatial understanding than simply moving the block until it looks right, while role reversal also allows the patient to experience being the source of information. The Vision Therapist becomes the learner, and the patient must organize the explanation clearly enough for another person to act upon it.

Determining Mastery

As in Part One, mastery should not be determined by one successful pattern. The Vision Therapist should present a variety of designs while keeping the square central and parallel. Across those designs, the patient should demonstrate increasing consistency in:

• Using the square as an organizing anchor
• Recognizing spatial relationships across open areas
• Judging distance and direction
• Comparing individual relationships and the overall configuration
• Detecting meaningful discrepancies
• Making purposeful corrections
• Explaining how the patterns agree or differ

The amount of separation and complexity can be increased gradually. Early designs might use partial-edge contact or small, easily judged gaps. Later patterns can introduce greater distances and less obvious alignments. The progression should challenge the patient’s organization without removing every available reference at once.

Going Deeper with the Sanet Approach

This blocks series can introduce the logic behind each level of parquetry, but the approach taught to me by both Dr. Bob Sanet and Linda Sanet, COVT extends far beyond what can be captured in an individual blog post.

A particularly valuable resource to consider is Dr. Leonard Press’s comprehensive commentary accompanying the Online Sanet Seminar Series. The 600-page digital commentary is available separately through Emergent, allowing Vision Therapists and doctors to use it as a stand-alone clinical and training resource. For Optometrists and Vision Therapists who want to understand the larger developmental sequence, not simply collect additional parquetry patterns, the commentary provides an opportunity to study the reasoning, progressions, and related procedures in far greater depth.

Weekend Three in the recorded series, devoted to visual information processing, includes Linda Sanet’s presentation on parquetry and Dr. Harry Wachs’ Developmental Hierarchy, with screenshots illustrating the different levels. It also explores visual memory, auditory jam, attribute blocks and sorting, cognitive style, and tempo. More than 50 pages are devoted to procedures from Linda Sanet, COVT, and Dr. Carl Hillier, FOVDR, with screenshots that allow readers to examine the material at their own pace.

Learning to Organize What Is Not Touching

The movement from contiguous to non-contiguous patterns is visually small but developmentally meaningful. At the first level, complete edge-to-edge contact defines the relationships. At the second, reduced or absent contact requires the patient to organize those relationships with less concrete support. Distance, direction, alignment, and negative space become increasingly important parts of what must be observed and reproduced. The square remains central and parallel because it continues to provide a dependable place from which the patient can organize the pattern. We are not taking away the foundation; rather, we are asking the patient to use it more broadly.

That is the real progression in parquetry. Each new level changes the arrangement of the blocks, but the deeper challenge is to develop a more flexible and organized way of understanding space.

Stay tuned for Part Three…