4.2 Article

A cross-syndrome study of the development of holistic face recognition in children with autism, Down syndrome, and Williams syndrome

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY
卷 102, 期 4, 页码 456-486

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jecp.2008.11.005

关键词

Autistic spectrum; Down syndrome; Williams syndrome; Developmental disorders; Face recognition; Holistic processing; Trajectory analyses; Benton

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0701484, G0300188] Funding Source: Medline
  2. MRC [G0300188, G0701484] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G0300188, G0701484] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report a cross-syndrome comparison of the development of holistic processing in face recognition in school-aged children with developmental disorders: autism, Down syndrome, and Williams syndrome. The autism group was split into two groups: one with three high-functioning children and one with low-functioning children. The latter group has rarely been studied in this context. The four disorder groups were compared with typically developing children. Cross-sectional trajectory analyses were used to compare development in a modified version of Tanaka and Farah's part-whole task. Trajectories were constructed linking part-whole performance either to chronological age or to several measures of mental age (receptive vocabulary, visuospatial construction, and the Benton Facial Recognition Test). In addition to variable delays in onset and rate of development, we found an atypical profile in all disorder groups. These profiles were atypical in different ways, indicating multiple pathways to, and variable outcomes in, the development of face recognition. We discuss the implications for theories of face recognition in both atypical and typical development, including the idea that part-whole and rotation manipulations may tap different aspects of holistic and/or configural processing. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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