4.5 Article

A new test of advanced theory of mind: The Strange Stories Film Task captures social processing differences in adults with autism spectrum disorders

期刊

AUTISM RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 6, 页码 1120-1132

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/aur.1744

关键词

autism spectrum disorder; adults; advanced theory of mind; social cognition; empathy; mentalising; alexithymia

资金

  1. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) [CDRF - 2012 - 03 - 059]
  2. MRC [MR/N026063/1, G9817803] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G9817803, MR/N026063/1, G9817803B] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. National Institute for Health Research [RP-PG-0606-1045] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Real-life social processing abilities of adults with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) can be hard to capture in lab-based experimental tasks. A novel measure of social cognition, the Strange Stories Film task' (SSFt), was designed to overcome limitations of available measures in the field. Brief films were made based on the scenarios from the Strange Stories task (Happe) and designed to capture the subtle social-cognitive difficulties observed in ASD adults. Twenty neurotypical adults were recruited to pilot the new measure. A final test set was produced and administered to a group of 20 adults with ASD and 20 matched controls, alongside established social cognition tasks and questionnaire measures of empathy, alexithymia and ASD traits. The SSFt was more effective than existing measures at differentiating the ASD group from the control group. In the ASD group, the SSFt was associated with the Strange Stories task. The SSFt is a potentially useful tool to identify social cognitive dis/abilities in ASD, with preliminary evidence of adequate convergent validity. Future research directions are discussed. Autism Res2017. (c) 2017 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Autism Res 2017, 10: 1120-1132. (c) 2017 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据