Successfully completing a drawing relies on the ability to accurately impose and manipulate spatial frames of reference for the object that is being drawn and for the drawing space. Typically developing (TD) children use cues such as the page boundary as a frame of reference to guide the orientation of drawn lines. Individuals with Williams syndrome (WS) typically produce incohesive drawings; this is proposed to reflect a local processing bias.
Across two studies, we provide the first investigation of the effect of using a frame of reference when drawing simple lines and shapes in WS and TD groups (matched for non-verbal ability).
Individuals with WS (N=17 Experiment 1; N=18 Experiment 2) and TD children matched by non-verbal ability drew single lines (Experiment One) and whole shapes (Experiment Two) within a neutral, incongruent or congruent frame. The angular deviation of the drawn line/shape, relative to the model line/shape, was measured.
Both groups were sensitive to spatial frames of reference when drawing single lines and whole shapes, imposed by a frame around the drawing space.
A local processing bias in WS cannot explain poor drawing performance in WS.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2018.
All research outputs
#10,295,932
of 30,059,687 outputs
Outputs from Research in Developmental Disabilities
#1,037
of 2,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,485
of 328,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research in Developmental Disabilities
#15
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 30,059,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 65th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.
