In the typical population, a series of drawing strategies have been outlined, which progressively emerge during childhood. Individuals with Williams syndrome (WS), a rare genetic disorder, produce drawings that lack cohesion, yet drawing strategies in this group have hitherto not been investigated. In this study, WS and typically developing (TD) groups drew and constructed (from pre-drawn lines and shapes) a series of intersecting and embedded figures. Participants with WS made use of the same strategies as the TD group for simple intersecting figures, though were less likely to use a typical strategy for more complex figures that contained many spatial relations. When replicating embedded shapes, the WS group used typical drawing strategies less frequently than the TD group, despite attempting to initiate a strategy that is observed in TD children. Results suggested that individuals with WS show a particular difficulty with replicating figures that include multiple spatial relations. The impact of figure complexity and task demands on performance are discussed.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 March 2017.
All research outputs
#14,534,821
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Developmental Psychology
#396
of 599 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,214
of 190,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Developmental Psychology
#90
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 599 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 190,666 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
