2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.05.007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The ability of adults with an intellectual disability to recognise facial expressions of emotion in comparison with typically developing individuals: A systematic review

Abstract: This review systematically examined the literature on the ability of adults with an intellectual disability (ID) to recognise facial expressions of emotion. Studies were included that: recruited only adult participants with ID; that did not specifically recruit participants with co-morbid diagnoses of syndrome(s) related to ID; and that directly compared the performance of adults with ID with a group of people without ID. Nine papers met the eligibility criteria for review and were assessed against pre-defined… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
27
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(31 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
2
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Some participants found it difficult at times to verbalise their opinions, and one account was excluded from the analysis due to the participant's expressive difficulties. Many people with ID experience difficulties in recognising and communicating emotions (Scotland et al 2015) and the use of images, prompts (Corby et al 2015), and alternative methods of communication may have enabled the views of participants to be expressed more fully and the inclusion of those with greater difficulties with verbal communication.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some participants found it difficult at times to verbalise their opinions, and one account was excluded from the analysis due to the participant's expressive difficulties. Many people with ID experience difficulties in recognising and communicating emotions (Scotland et al 2015) and the use of images, prompts (Corby et al 2015), and alternative methods of communication may have enabled the views of participants to be expressed more fully and the inclusion of those with greater difficulties with verbal communication.…”
Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Emotion recognition has been found to generally improve with age in typically developing children (see Rump et al 2009) but the influence of age on the emotion recognition of people with an intellectual disability is not well-researched. A recent review found only two early studies that examined this (Scotland et al 2015). One found no significant relationship between the two (Leung & Singh 1998), the other found a significant negative relationship between age and emotion recognition (McKenzie et al 2001).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A further limitation is that the study used static emotion recognition stimuli. While such stimuli reflect the types of materials which are used in both emotion recognition research (see Scotland et al 2015) and interventions which seek to improve socio-emotional skills (e.g. Wood & Stenfert Kroese 2007), emotion processing and recognition in real-life situations are generally dynamic and fleeting.…”
Section: Emotion Recognitionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, whether this improved ability will generalize to more "real-life" scenarios requires further investigation. Scotland et al (2015) reviewed the literature on emotional recognition abilities in adults with ID and those without ID and found that adults with ID have impairments in emotional recognition in faces highlighting the potential importance of improving these abilities in childhood. The review authors also comment on the infrequent inclusion of control tasks: only two studies out of nine used a control task to investigate whether impairments related to general information processing or whether they were specific to emotional information (Rojahn et al, 1995a,b).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%