Intentions vs. resemblance: Understanding pictures in typical development and autism

Hartley, Calum; Allen, Melissa L.

doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.12.009

Cited by 32 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, it appears that minimally-verbal children with ASD do not know intuitively what names refer to when paired with pictures (i.e., the picture itself, the depicted object's shape, or the depicted object's color) and their symbolic comprehension is significantly influenced by the type of picture. Taken together, these differences suggest that there might be an atypical route of word learning via pictures in ASD (see also Hartley and Allen, 2014b), but they leave open the question of whether media type (e.g., iPad or book) can impact the capacity for symbolic understanding .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

iPads and the Use of “Apps” by Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Do They Promote Learning?

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advent of electronic tablets, such as Apple's iPad, has opened up the field of learning via technology, and the use of electronic applications (“apps”) on these devices continues to dramatically rise. Children with communication and social impairment, specifically those with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), often use educational and recreational apps within the context of their home and school settings. Here we examine in which contexts learning via this medium may be beneficial, and outline recommendations for the use of electronic tablets and the design features for apps to promote learning in this population that is characterized by a unique profile of needs and heterogeneous ability levels.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

iPads and the Use of “Apps” by Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Do They Promote Learning?

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Extensive research by developmental scientists has shown that object-picture equivalence is shown in typically developing children between 18–36 months (e.g., Daehler, Perlmutter, & Myers, 1976; Hartley & Allen, 2014). There has been much interest also in this topic by animal cognition researchers (e.g., Watanabe, 1993; Fagot, Martin-Malivel, & Dépy, 1999).…”

Section: The Present Challenge and Program Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching stimulus–stimulus relations to minimally verbal individuals: reflections on technology and future directions

McIlvane

Gerard

Kledaras

et al. 2016

European Journal of Behavior Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses recent methodological approaches and investigations that are aimed at developing reliable behavioral technology for teaching stimulus-stimulus relations to individuals who are minimally verbal and show protracted difficulty in acquiring such relations. The paper has both empirical and theoretical content. The empirical component presents recent data concerning the possibility of generating rapid relational learning in individuals who do not initially show it. The theoretical component (1) considers decades of methodological investigations with this population and (2) suggests a testable hypothesis concerning some individuals exhibit unusual difficulties in learning. Given this background, we suggest a way forward to better understand and perhaps resolve these learning challenges.

show abstract

“…Numerous researchers have investigated young children's emerging ability to deal with symbols. From such work, we know that by 3 to 4 years of age, most children can consider the intentions of a symbol's creator when interpreting a representation (e.g., Bloom & Markson, 1998;Hartley & Allen, 2014). However, children's understanding of symbols is far from complete and young children often make errors.…”

Section: Chapter Two: What Is Known About Children's Symbolic Understmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Though Myers and Liben present the most directly relevant research, there are pertinent findings from other related work. Such research has addressed children's understanding of symbols as intentional (Bloom & Markson, 1998;Hartley & Allen, 2014;Sharon, 2005), as well as their understanding of iconic or conventional representations as a mnemonic tool (Eskritt & McLeod, 2008;Eskritt & Olson, 2012).…”

Section: Research Investigating Children's Understanding Of Legendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Gelman and Ebeling (1998) found that when drawings were described as having been created intentionally, compared to when they were created accidentally, 2-and 3-year-olds were more likely to label them based on the objects they roughly depicted. Other research found that when 3-and 4-year-olds were presented with drawings, supposedly made by a child with a broken arm, they were able to consider details such as relative size to infer the artist's intention and correctly identify the corresponding referents (despite the drawings lacking any physical resemblance to their referents; Bloom & Markson, 1998;Hartley & Allen, 2014). Along the same line, Preissler and Bloom (2008) found that when 3-year-olds were presented with an ambiguous drawing that looked equally like two unfamiliar objects, they were more likely to indicate that the drawing was of the object the artist was gazing at while creating the representation.…”

Section: Children's Understanding Of Symbols As Intentionalmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conveying Symbolic Relations: Children's Ability to Evaluate and Create Informative Legends

Astle¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Symbols are used regularly in our daily lives, but in order for a symbol to serve its intended purpose, its meaning must be conveyed in some way (Myers & Liben, 2012).Across two studies, this research examined 4-to 6-year-olds' understanding of how the relations between symbols and their referents are effectively conveyed using legends. To investigate this issue, a novel task was developed in which it was necessary to convey the arbitrary correspondence between symbols (the shapes on top of a set of boxes) and a set of referents (cards with shapes on them), so that an unknowing other would know which card went inside each box. Study One was an investigation of children's ability to evaluate legends that either effectively or ineffectively conveyed symbol-referent relations. Children's performance was examined in relation to age, the ability to detect ambiguity (Ambiguous Messages and Droodle tasks), and Executive Function skills (Inhibitory Control, Working Memory, Planning tasks). The results provide evidence that both the ability to detect ambiguity and Executive Function uniquely relate to children's ability to evaluate legends. Study Two investigated a new group of children's ability to create a legend to convey symbol-referent pairs, in relation to the same cognitive skills considered in StudyOne. In addition, to examine the impact of exposure to effective legends, half of the children who did not create an effective legend were then presented with legends created by the experimenter, while the other half served as the baseline group. Children who received this exposure, relative to those in the baseline group, significantly improved their legend creations and transferred this improvement to a new set of stimuli. This iii study found evidence that ambiguity detection was related both to legend creation on children's first attempt, and children's ability to improve following exposure. However, Executive Function performance did not relate to legend production. Taken together, these studies provide insight on factors that relate to children's developing understanding of how symbol meanings are effectively conveyed, and argue for the important role of being able to detect ambiguity.iv

show abstract

Intentions vs. resemblance: Understanding pictures in typical development and autism

Cited by 32 publications

References 46 publications

iPads and the Use of “Apps” by Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Do They Promote Learning?

iPads and the Use of “Apps” by Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Do They Promote Learning?

Teaching stimulus–stimulus relations to minimally verbal individuals: reflections on technology and future directions

Conveying Symbolic Relations: Children's Ability to Evaluate and Create Informative Legends

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About