ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2024
Stick with Static: Unexpected Detrimental Effects of Visual Movement in a Looking-While-Listening Task.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLooking while listening (LWL) tasks track eye movements while children view images (e.g., a dog and a ball) and hear an auditory prompt (e.g., "Find the ball"), allowing researchers to measure receptive language in populations who may be difficult to test with traditional measures. However, LWL tasks often result in high levels of missing data and accurately measuring receptive language in autistic children remains a challenge.
methodsWe analyzed data from 18 autistic children ages 2-5 years and examined whether adding visual movement of the named image improved LWL accuracy compared to a static condition. This study also investigated whether receptive language abilities on a standardized assessment moderated the effect of condition (i.e., static vs. movement) on LWL accuracy.
resultsThere was evidence of comprehension in both conditions, although children showed faster recognition in the static compared to the movement condition. Standardized language abilities did not moderate the effect of condition on LWL accuracy. However, as standardized receptive language scores increased, accuracy increased.
conclusionFindings indicate that the visual movement manipulation in the current study did not improve accuracy compared to traditional static images within the LWL task. These results also suggest a continued need to refine LWL tasks in order to improve LWL methodology and refine receptive language measures for autistic children.
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.