Heterogeneity of social approach behaviour in Williams syndrome: The role of response inhibition

Research in Developmental Disabilities

et al. 2015

NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for publication in Research in Developmental Disabilities. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A denitive version was subsequently published in Research in Developmental Disabilities, 38, March 2015, 10.1016/j.ridd.2014 Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Core executive functions (EF) such as attention, and working memory have been strongly associated with academic achievement, language development and behavioural stability. In the case of children who are vulnerable to cognitive and learning problems because of an underlying intellectual disability, EF difficulties will likely exacerbate an already compromised cognitive system. The current review examines cognitive training programs that aim to improve EF, specifically focusing on the potential of this type of intervention for children who have intellectual disabilities. We conclude that despite considerable discrepancies regarding reported intervention effects, these inconsistencies can be attributed to flaws in both program and study design.We discuss the steps needed to address these limitations and to facilitate the advancement of nonpharmaceutical interventions for children with intellectual disabilities.

Section: Attention Training Vs Working Memory Training In Intellectuamentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Attention Training Vs Working Memory Training In Intellectuamentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive training as a resolution for early executive function difficulties in children with intellectual disabilities

Kirk

Gray

Research in Developmental Disabilities

et al. 2015

“…They observed how both groups displayed impulsive social behaviour, which they attributed to impairments in response inhibition. Indeed, Little et al (2013) proposed that frontal-lobe controlled response inhibition was indicative of social approach behaviour.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Those individuals who experience higher anxiety showed more severe social dysfunction, suggesting that anxiety levels are linked to social behaviour in WS. As individuals with WS show indiscriminate approach behaviour (Little et al, 2013), and a lack of stranger danger awareness (Riby et al, 2013), their personal space regulation when interacting with others is an important facet when looking at their social vulnerability profile (Jawaid et al, 2012;Lough et al, 2015b). Lough et al (2015a) offered the first insights in to personal space regulation in WS and ASD, using the same methods employed by Kennedy and Adolphs (2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Personal Space Regulation in Williams Syndrome: The Effect of Familiarity

Lough

Flynn

2016

J Autism Dev Disord

Self Cite

. (2016) 'Personal space regulation in Williams syndrome : the e ect of familiarity.', Journal of autism and developmental disorders., 46 (10). 3207-3215. Further information on publisher's website:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2864-8Publisher's copyright statement:The nal publication is available at Springer via https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-016-2864-8Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractPersonal space refers to a protective barrier that we strive to maintain around our body. We examined personal space regulation in young people with Williams syndrome (WS) and their typically developing, chronological age-matched peers using a parent report questionnaire and a stop-distance paradigm. Individuals with WS were reported by their parents to be more likely to violate the personal space of others, and indeed they maintained a shorter interpersonal distance in the stop-distance paradigm. Interestingly, WS individuals failed to regulate their personal space based on the familiarity of the person they were interacting with.Findings are discussed in relation to the wider social profile associated with WS, and the possible impact of atypical personal space regulation on social vulnerability. 2Personal space regulation in Williams syndrome: The effect of familiarity When engaging in social interactions, individuals must regulate the distance that they maintain between themselves and other people (Hall, 1996). Personal space is defined as the area around a person's body, which if invaded, can cause feelings of discomfort and anxiety (Perry et al., 2013). Vignemont and Iannetti (2015) outline different types of personal space.Peripersonal space refers to the space around one's body where an object can be grasped, whereas extrapersonal space is the area around the body that is just beyond reach. Indeed, , 1997). The current study is concerned with the protective peripersonal space (herein referred to as simply 'personal space'), and its implications for social vulnerability levels in Williams syndrome.For typically developing individuals, regulating this personal space is a largely automatic process, guided by situational cues, social cues and cultural norms (Beaulieu, 2004). The ability to successfully collate these cues and maintain an appropriate interpersonal distance contributes to successful and positive social interactions (Gessaroli et al., 2013).However, it is known that some individuals with developmental disorders find social interactions challenging, and they may also...

“…Here, we focus on response inhibition and lapses of attention as these are executive skills with clear implications for understanding wider deficits related to facets of the WS phenotype (e.g. the inability to inhibit inappropriate social approach behaviour, Little et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attentional lapse and inhibition control in adults with Williams Syndrome

Greer

Research in Developmental Disabilities

Hamiliton

et al. 2013

Self Cite

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. of executive functions, the aim of the current study was to explore attentional lapse and inhibition skills in older adults with WS (n=20; aged 36 -61 years) and consider the implications of deficits within this group. Participants with WS were compared to typical adults of the same chronological age and typical older adults (aged 65+ years) to consider attentional changes seen in the ageing process. The study employed a sustained attention to response task known to assess inhibition and attentional lapse but which had not previously been used with this population. Compared to both groups of typical matches, the results indicated atypicalities of attention and inhibition in adults with WS. Specifically, compared to the typical matches, adults with WS failed to withhold a response (showing inhibition deficits), had problems re-engaging attentional control processes after making an error and showed a generalized deficit of concentration and task engagement. We conclude that further attention should be paid to the cognitive capacity of older individuals with WS in order to consider the everyday challenges faced by this group and to provide adequate intervention and support for daily living.