4.2 Article

Inhibitory control in children with intellectual disabilities with and without autism spectrum disorders in animal size tests

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1179/2047387713Y.0000000024

关键词

inhibition; executive function; executive dysfunction; cognitive control; intellectual and developmental disabilities; Autistic

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26381309] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Inhibitory control plays an important role in various aspects of child development. The aim of this study was to compare inhibitory control of children with intellectual disabilities (ID) of unknown etiology, children with ID and autism spectrum disorders (ASD), and typically developing (TD) children. Methods: This study examined 41 children in three groups: 11 children with ID of unknown etiology, 9 children with ID and ASD, and 21 TD children who were matched for mental age. Two Stroop-like tasks were administered: the Real Animal Size Test and the Pictorial Animal Size Test. In these tests, participants are presented with pictures of animals (large animals such as an elephant, a giraffe, and a whale vs. small animals such as a frog, a bird, and a squirrel) printed as either big or small images that are mismatched with the animal's real size. Participants must decide the size of the animals (big vs. small) based either on the size in real life or the size of the picture, resisting interference of irrelevant sizes in real life or in a picture. Results: Interference was greater in the Pictorial Animal Size Test for all groups. Interference was greater in children with ID of unknown etiology compared to TD children, whereas interference was comparable between children with ID and ASD and TD children. Conclusion: Results of this study suggest that inhibitory control is unimpaired in children with ID and ASD but impaired in children with ID of unknown etiology, relative to mental-age matched TD children.

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

4.2
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