Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23224515›Full record

ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2013

Viewing social scenes: a visual scan-path study comparing fragile X syndrome and Williams syndrome.

Tracey A Williams, Melanie A Porter, Robyn Langdon

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Quantifying naturalistic social gaze in fragile X syndrome using a novel eye tracking paradigm.American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric genetics : the official publication of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics · 2015
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tracey A WilliamsDepartment of Cognitive Science, ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia. tracey.shaw@mq.edu.au
Melanie A Porter
Robyn Langdon
ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders · AUMacquarie University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fragile X syndrome (FXS) and Williams syndrome (WS) are both genetic disorders which present with similar cognitive-behavioral problems, but distinct social phenotypes. Despite these social differences both syndromes display poor social relations which may result from abnormal social processing. This study aimed to manipulate the location of socially salient information within scenes to investigate the visual attentional mechanisms of: capture, disengagement, and/or general engagement. Findings revealed that individuals with FXS avoid social information presented centrally, at least initially. The WS findings, on the other hand, provided some evidence that difficulties with attentional disengagement, rather than attentional capture, may play a role in the WS social phenotype. These findings are discussed in relation to the distinct social phenotypes of these two disorders.

Indexed as

Social PerceptionAdolescentAdultAttentionChildChild, PreschoolEye MovementsFemaleFragile X SyndromeHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsVisual PerceptionWilliams SyndromeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID23224515
OpenAlexW2025851574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.