↓ Skip to main content

Route knowledge and configural knowledge in typical and atypical development: a comparison of sparse and rich environments

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Route knowledge and configural knowledge in typical and atypical development: a comparison of sparse and rich environments
Published in
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s11689-015-9133-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily K. Farran, Harry R. M. Purser, Yannick Courbois, Marine Ballé, Pascal Sockeel, Daniel Mellier, Mark Blades

Abstract

Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) and individuals with Williams syndrome (WS) have poor navigation skills, which impact their potential to become independent. Two aspects of navigation were investigated in these groups, using virtual environments (VE): route knowledge (the ability to learn the way from A to B by following a fixed sequence of turns) and configural knowledge (knowledge of the spatial relationships between places within an environment). Typically developing (TD) children aged 5 to 11 years (N = 93), individuals with DS (N = 29) and individuals with WS (N = 20) were presented with a sparse and a rich VE grid maze. Within each maze, participants were asked to learn a route from A to B and a route from A to C before being asked to find a novel shortcut from B to C. Performance was broadly similar across sparse and rich mazes. The majority of participants were able to learn novel routes, with poorest performance in the DS group, but the ability to find a shortcut, our measure of configural knowledge, was limited for all three groups. That is, 59 % TD participants successfully found a shortcut, compared to 10 % participants with DS and 35 % participants with WS. Differences in the underlying mechanisms associated with route knowledge and configural knowledge and in the developmental trajectories of performance across groups were observed. Only the TD participants walked a shorter distance in the last shortcut trial compared to the first, indicative of increased configural knowledge across trials. The DS group often used an alternative strategy to get from B to C, summing the two taught routes together. Our findings demonstrate impaired configural knowledge in DS and in WS, with the strongest deficit in DS. This suggests that these groups rely on a rigid route knowledge based method for navigating and as a result are likely to get lost easily. Route knowledge was also impaired in both DS and WS groups and was related to different underlying processes across all three groups. These are discussed with reference to limitations in attention and/or visuo-spatial processing in the atypical groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 26 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 21%
Student > Master 5 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 18%
Professor 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 36%
Unspecified 7 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 11%
Computer Science 2 7%
Other 2 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#5,174,940
of 7,214,390 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
#155
of 195 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,259
of 283,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,214,390 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 283,780 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.