ArticleCognition2015
Geometric and featural systems, separable and combined: Evidence from reorientation in people with Williams syndrome.
Article in Cognition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive and Adaptive Functioning of CTNNB1 Syndrome Patients: A Comparison With Autism Spectrum Disorder and Cerebral Palsy.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2025Article
- Review
- What have we learned from research on the "geometric module"?Learning & behavior · 2024Review
- The spatiotemporal organization of episodic memory and its disruption in a neurodevelopmental disorder.Scientific reports · 2019Observational
- Impaired behavioral and neural representation of scenes in Williams syndrome.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2019Article
- Dissociable spatial memory systems revealed by typical and atypical human development.Developmental science · 2019Article
- Spatial Impairment and Memory in Genetic Disorders: Insights from Mouse Models.Brain sciences · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Spatial reorientation by humans and other animals engages geometric representations of surface layouts as well as featural landmarks; however, the two types of information are thought to be behaviorally and neurally separable. In this paper, we examine the use of these two types of information during reorientation among children and adults with Williams syndrome (WS), a genetic disorder accompanied by abnormalities in brain regions that support use of both geometry and landmarks. Previous studies of reorientation in adolescents and adults with WS have shown deficits in the ability to use geometry for reorientation, but intact ability to use features, suggesting that the two systems can be differentially impaired by genetic disorder. Using a slightly modified layout, we found that many WS participants could use geometry, and most could use features along with geometry. However, the developmental trajectories for the two systems were quite different from one other, and different from those found in typical development. Purely geometric responding was not correlated with age in WS, and search processes appeared similar to those in typically developing (TD) children. In contrast, use of features in combination with geometry was correlated with age in WS, and search processes were distinctly different from TD children. The results support the view that use of geometry and features stem from different underlying mechanisms, that the developmental trajectories and operation of each are altered in WS, and that combination of information from the two systems is atypical. Given brain abnormalities in regions supporting the two kinds of information, our findings suggest that the co-operation of the two systems is functionally altered in this genetic syndrome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.