2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0074-7750(00)80009-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Neural plasticity, joint attention, and a transactional social-orienting model of autism

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

10
156
1
4

Year Published

2005
2005
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 224 publications
(171 citation statements)
references
References 93 publications
10
156
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Although we made three predictions, the first two of these might have been anticipated on the basis of previous research and0or alternative theoretical perspectives~e.g., Swettenham et al, 1998;Mundy & Neal, 2001!, and it was the third that was more specifically derived from our hypothesis. The first prediction concerned the motivation and propensity to engage with other people: we predicted that relative to matched children without autism, children with autism would be rated as spending more time looking at the objects, and less time looking at the tester, in the course of a test of imitation.…”
Section: Hypothesis and Predictionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although we made three predictions, the first two of these might have been anticipated on the basis of previous research and0or alternative theoretical perspectives~e.g., Swettenham et al, 1998;Mundy & Neal, 2001!, and it was the third that was more specifically derived from our hypothesis. The first prediction concerned the motivation and propensity to engage with other people: we predicted that relative to matched children without autism, children with autism would be rated as spending more time looking at the objects, and less time looking at the tester, in the course of a test of imitation.…”
Section: Hypothesis and Predictionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, at this level of description, one might consider the group difference to reflect a distinction in terms of social orientation~Dawson, Meltzoff, Osterling, Rinaldi, & Brown, 1998;Mundy & Neal, 2001!. Third, it is not clear whether the results reflect something enduring about individual differences among participants, something about the connection between their pattern of engagement in this particular setting and their imitative performance, or some mixture of the two. For instance, one can imagine that on a given day an individual of either group might feel less than usually inclined to become involved with the tester, and for this reason deploy his or her attention to the objects of the task and as a result fail to imitate self-0other orientation.…”
Section: Identification: the Missing Link?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…interaction may be intrinsically rewarding; Mundy and Neal, 2000;Schilbach et al, 2010;Pfeiffer et al, 2014), one component of successful social interaction is the creation of a shared psychological state between partners (Clark, 1996;Sperber and Wilson, 1996;Tomasello et al, 2005). Consistent with this perspective, recent behavioral (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Several cognitively oriented theories, such as executive dysfunction theory (e.g., Hughes et al 1994;Pennington and Ozonoff 1996;Hill 2004) and weak central coherence theory (Frith and Happe´1994), postulate that cognitive impairments are the underlying cause of autistic symptomatology. On the other hand, socially oriented theories propose that abnormalities in social perception, social cognition, and social motivation cause subsequent failures of language and cognitive development in autism (e.g., Dawson et al 1998;Mundy and Neal 2001;Klin et al 2002). Both of these theoretical positions are plausible and have considerable supporting evidence.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%