Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18764966›Full record

ReviewJournal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS2008

Puppets, robots, critics, and actors within a taxonomy of attention for developmental disorders.

Maureen Dennis, Katia J Sinopoli, Jack M Fletcher, Russell Schachar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Visual attention and reading: A test of their relation across paradigms.Journal of experimental child psychology · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Sustained attention and behavioral ratings of attention in struggling readers.Scientific studies of reading : the official journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading · 2021
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. ADHD and Attention Problems in Children With and Without Spina Bifida.Topics in spinal cord injury rehabilitation · 2016
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Recovery of visual search following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury.Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology · 2015
    Article
  13. Neuropsychiatry of pediatric traumatic brain injury.The Psychiatric clinics of North America · 2014
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Assessment of attention in preschoolers.Neuropsychology review · 2012
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Prospective memory in adults with spina bifida.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2010
    Article
  20. The cognitive phenotype of spina bifida meningomyelocele.Developmental disabilities research reviews · 2010
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Maureen DennisProgram in Neurosciences and Mental Health, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada. maureen.dennis@sickkids.ca
Katia J Sinopoli
Jack M Fletcher
Russell Schachar

Funding

SUBJECT RECRUITMENT AND EVALUATION COREP01HD035946 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI FLETCHER, JACK M · 1998 to 2009
$10.8M
NEUROBEHAVIORAL OUTCOME OF HEAD INJURY IN CHILDRENR01NS021889 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BR GALVESTON · PI HANTEN, GERRI RAE, LEVIN, HARVEY · 1985 to 2013
$10.4M
NICHD NIH HHS P01 HD035946NICHD NIH HHS P01 HD35946NINDS NIH HHS 2R011NS 21889-16NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS021889
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review proposes a new taxonomy of automatic and controlled attention. The taxonomy distinguishes among the role of the attendee (puppet and robot, critic and actor), the attention process (stimulus orienting vs. response control), and the attention operation (activation vs. inhibition vs. adjustment), and identifies cognitive phenotypes by which attention is overtly expressed. We apply the taxonomy to four childhood attention disorders: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, spina bifida meningomyelocele, traumatic brain injury, and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Variations in attention are related to specific brain regions that support normal attention processes when intact, and produce disordered attention when impaired. The taxonomy explains group differences in behavioral inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsiveness, as well as medication response. We also discuss issues relevant to theories of the cognitive and neural architecture of attention: functional dissociations within and between automatic and controlled attention; the relative importance of type of brain damage and developmental timing to attention profile; cognitive-energetic models of attention and white matter damage; temporal processing deficits, attention deficits and cerebellar damage; and the issue of cognitive phenotypes as candidate endophenotypes.

Indexed as

ClassificationAttentionAttention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior DisordersAttention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityBrainBrain InjuriesChildChild, PreschoolDevelopmental DisabilitiesHumansMeningomyeloceleModels, PsychologicalNeurobiologyPrecursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma

Identifiers

PMID18764966
PMCPMC2593155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.