↓ Skip to main content

Are the deficits in navigational abilities present in the Williams syndrome related to deficits in the backward inhibition?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Are the deficits in navigational abilities present in the Williams syndrome related to deficits in the backward inhibition?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, March 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00287
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesca Foti, Stefano Sdoia, Deny Menghini, Laura Mandolesi, Stefano Vicari, Fabio Ferlazzo, Laura Petrosini

Abstract

Williams syndrome (WS) is associated with a distinct profile of relatively proficient skills within the verbal domain compared to the severe impairment of visuo-spatial processing. Abnormalities in executive functions and deficits in planning ability and spatial working memory have been described. However, to date little is known about the influence of executive function deficits on navigational abilities in WS. This study aimed at analyzing in WS individuals a specific executive function, the backward inhibition (BI) that allows individuals to flexibly adapt to continuously changing environments. A group of WS individuals and a mental age- and gender-matched group of typically developing children were subjected to three task-switching experiments requiring visuospatial or verbal material to be processed. Results showed that WS individuals exhibited clear BI deficits during visuospatial task-switching paradigms and normal BI effect during verbal task-switching paradigm. Overall, the present results suggest that the BI involvement in updating environment representations during navigation may influence WS navigational abilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Switzerland 1 3%
Unknown 34 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Researcher 4 11%
Professor 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 10 28%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 8%
Engineering 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 March 2015.
All research outputs
#18,403,994
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,103
of 29,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,139
of 286,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#397
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 286,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.