↓ Skip to main content

Social affiliation motives modulate spontaneous learning in Williams syndrome but not in autism

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Autism, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Social affiliation motives modulate spontaneous learning in Williams syndrome but not in autism
Published in
Molecular Autism, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13229-016-0101-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giacomo Vivanti, Darren R. Hocking, Peter Fanning, Cheryl Dissanayake

Abstract

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and those with Williams syndrome (WS) have difficulties with learning, though the nature of these remains unclear. In this study, we used novel eye-tracking and behavioral paradigms to measure how 36 preschoolers with ASD and 21 age- and IQ-matched peers with WS attend to and learn novel behaviors (1) from the outcomes of their own actions (non-social learning), (2) through imitation of others' actions (social learning), and across situations in which imitative learning served either an instrumental function or fulfilled social affiliation motives. The two groups demonstrated similar abilities to learn from the consequences of their own actions and to imitate new actions that were instrumental to the achievement of a tangible goal. Children with WS, unlike those with ASD, increased their attention and imitative learning performance when the model acted in a socially engaging manner. Learning abnormalities in ASD appear to be linked to the social rather than instrumental dimensions of learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 72 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Master 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 16 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 20 27%
Engineering 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 25 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,270,356
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Autism
#574
of 678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,346
of 336,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Autism
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.2. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 336,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.