2005
DOI: 10.1007/s10803-005-0004-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Effect of Concurrent Task Load on Stimulus Over-Selectivity

Abstract: Stimulus over-selectivity is a phenomenon displayed by individuals with autism, and has been implicated as a basis for many autistic-spectrum symptoms. In four experiments, non-autistic adult participants were required to learn a simple discrimination using picture cards, and then were tested for the emergence of stimulus over-selectivity, both with and without a concurrent task. Greater stimulus over-selectivity was noted when participants completed the concurrent task. The results are discussed in relation t… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

16
70
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

5
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(86 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
16
70
0
Order By: Relevance
“…4 Mean percentage change from the test to the re-test phase for the most and least-selected stimuli in the experimental and control groups across the three age groups. Error bars = 95 % confidence intervals research exploring the effects of increased cognitive load on levels of over-selectivity in a non-clinical population (Broomfield et al 2010;Reed and Gibson 2005;Reynolds and Reed 2011a, b;Reynolds et al 2012). In addition, an age trend in over-selective responding emerged, where overselectivity increased as a function of chronological age.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…4 Mean percentage change from the test to the re-test phase for the most and least-selected stimuli in the experimental and control groups across the three age groups. Error bars = 95 % confidence intervals research exploring the effects of increased cognitive load on levels of over-selectivity in a non-clinical population (Broomfield et al 2010;Reed and Gibson 2005;Reynolds and Reed 2011a, b;Reynolds et al 2012). In addition, an age trend in over-selective responding emerged, where overselectivity increased as a function of chronological age.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2), which is employed to generate over-selective responding in non-clinical populations. This is the same distractor task used by Reed and Gibson (2005) and McHugh and Reed (2007). Previous research investigating over-selectivity in typically developing adults has demonstrated that adding a distractor task can induce higher levels of over-selective responding (Reed and Gibson 2005;Broomfield et al 2010;Reynolds et al 2012;Reynolds and Reed 2011a, b).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Individuals were presented with a match-to-sample task using two, three-element stimuli, and were trained to criterion. Subsequent investigation revealed that, under conditions of increased cognitive load, one of the three stimulus elements exerted greater stimulus control than the others (see also Reed and Gibson 2005). After extinction of this element, the remaining elements demonstrated elevated control over matching performance in the absence of any further training.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The phenomenon is also observed in a many other populations, including individuals with general learning disabilities (Dickson et al 2006), acquired neurological damage (Wayland and Taplin 1985), and the elderly (McHugh and Reed 2007). Stimulus overselectivity has also been induced in rats who were trained to respond to compound stimuli under trace learning conditions , and in adults with no learning disability under increased task demands (Reed 2006;Reed and Gibson 2005).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…However, more recent studies with normally capable humans (Critchfield & Perone, 1993;Dube, Balsamo, Fowler, Dickson, Lombard, & Tomanari, 2006;McHugh & Reed, 2007) indicated that RSC may develop in accordance with how the contingencies of reinforcement are arranged, especially when complex tasks are involved (Reed & Gibson, 2005;Reed, Petrina, & McHugh, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%