Comprehension of Spatial Language Terms in Williams Syndrome: Evidence for an Interaction Between Domains of Strength and Weakness

Phillips, Caroline E.; Jarrold, Christopher; Baddeley, Alan; Grant, Julia D.; Karmiloff‐Smith, Annette

doi:10.1016/s0010-9452(08)70922-5

Cited by 64 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Phillips, Jarrold, Baddeley, Grant, and Karmiloff-Smith (2004) demonstrated an impairment in the understanding of spatial language through words such as "above" and "below", "in" and "on", "in front" and "behind" in WS, in comparison to controls matched by vocabulary level. Specifically, this result points towards a possible problem in coding spatial relations when linguistic terms are necessary for referencing spatial categories (see Hayward & Tarr, 1995).…”

Section: Spatial Locationmentioning

confidence: 97%

Evidence for unusual spatial location coding in Williams syndrome: An explanation for the local bias in visuo-spatial construction tasks?

Farran

Jarrold

2005

Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Second, that the comprehension of visual relations is also at an equivalent level to spatial relational understanding in this population. These results can explain the difference in performance on visuo-spatial perception and construction tasks in WS.In addition, both the WS and control groups displayed response biases in the spatial tasks. However, the direction of bias differed across the groups. This finding is explored in relation to current theories of spatial location coding.

show abstract

Section: Spatial Locationmentioning

confidence: 97%

Evidence for unusual spatial location coding in Williams syndrome: An explanation for the local bias in visuo-spatial construction tasks?

Farran

Jarrold

2005

Brain and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Importantly, the only nonquantitative way to identify deviance over delay in a disorder at the level of mechanism relies on the intuition of the experimenter in classifying errors. If a disorder group produces errors that are deemed qualitatively different based on the researcher's experience, a marker of atypicality is claimed (for examples of using errors to test for atypical mechanism, see, e.g., Scerif et al, 2004;Capirci, Sabbadini, & Volterra, 1996;Karmiloff-Smith et al, 1997;Phillips, Jarrold, Baddeley, Grant, & Karmiloff-Smith, 2004;Thomas et al, 2006). The extent to which cases of atypical development occur in developmental disorders remains controversial.…”

Section: Identifying Atypical Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using Developmental Trajectories to Understand Developmental Disorders

Thomas

Annaz

Ansari

et al. 2009

J Speech Lang Hear Res

402

413

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using Developmental Trajectories to Understand Developmental DisordersPurpose: In this article, the authors present a tutorial on the use of developmental trajectories for studying language and cognitive impairments in developmental disorders and compare this method with the use of matching. Method: The authors assess the strengths, limitations, and practical implications of each method. The contrast between the methodologies is highlighted using the example of developmental delay and the criteria used to distinguish delay from atypical development. Results: The authors argue for the utility of the trajectory approach, using illustrations from studies investigating language and cognitive impairments in individuals with Williams syndrome, Down syndrome, and autism spectrum disorder. Conclusion: Two conclusions were reached: (a) An understanding of the underlying mechanism will be furthered by the richer descriptive vocabulary provided by the trajectories approach (e.g., in distinguishing different types of delay) and (b) an optimal design for studying developmental disorders is to combine initial cross-sectional designs with longitudinal follow-up.

show abstract

“…Reilly, Losh, Bellugi, & Wolfeck, 2004) and spatial grammar (e.g. Phillips, Jarrold, Baddeley, Grant, & Karmiloff-Smith, 2004), comparisons of the verbal and performance IQ scores of individuals with WS have generally shown a verbal superiority (e.g. Grant et al, 1997;Levy & Bechar, 2003).…”

Section: Aetiological and Cognitive Characteristics Of Williams And Dmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using developmental trajectories to examine verbal and visuospatial short-term memory development in children and adolescents with Williams and Down syndromes

Carney

Henry

Messer

et al. 2013

Research in Developmental Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ronnberg, J. (2013). Using developmental trajectories to examine verbal and visuospatial short-term memory development in children and adolescents with Williams and Down syndromes. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(10), pp. 3421-3432. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2013.07.012 This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent

show abstract

Comprehension of Spatial Language Terms in Williams Syndrome: Evidence for an Interaction Between Domains of Strength and Weakness

Cited by 64 publications

References 46 publications

Evidence for unusual spatial location coding in Williams syndrome: An explanation for the local bias in visuo-spatial construction tasks?

Evidence for unusual spatial location coding in Williams syndrome: An explanation for the local bias in visuo-spatial construction tasks?

Using Developmental Trajectories to Understand Developmental Disorders

Using developmental trajectories to examine verbal and visuospatial short-term memory development in children and adolescents with Williams and Down syndromes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About