Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Research shows that pedophilic (PED) child molesters exhibit slower performance speed and greater performance accuracy when compared to nonpedophilic (N-PED) child molesters or other criminal and noncriminal controls. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether these differences reflect a slow/deliberate response style among PEDS (as we have previously hypothesized; Eastvold, Suchy, & Strassberg, 2011; Suchy, Whittaker, Strassberg, & Eastvold, 2009a, 2009b), or a fundamental neuropathological weakness in processing speed. Data came from a larger study examining neurocognition among sex offenders. Processing speed in three different domains (motor speed, visual-perceptual speed, and visual-motor integration) was examined in 20 phallometrically identified PEDs, 20 N-PEDs, and 20 nonsexual offenders, using both clinical (Finger Tapping, Symbol Search, Digit Symbol Coding) and experimental measures (Inspection Time Task [ITT]). The ITT assessed speed of visual-perceptual processing independent of response speed. On clinical measures, PEDs exhibited slower visual perception [F(2, 57) = 5.24, p = .008] and visual-motor integration [F(2, 57) = 5.02, p = .010] than the other groups, with no differences for simple motor speed. On the ITT, PEDs performed less accurately than the other groups [F(2, 57) = 3.95, p = .025], clearly indicating that slow processing speed cannot be explained by a deliberate response style. Group differences persisted after controlling for other potential confounds (age, estimate IQ, working memory, ethnicity, and substance use). PEDs' slower performance is due to a fundamental neurocognitive weakness, rather than a slow/deliberate response style. These results are consistent with Cantor et al.'s (2008) work identifying white matter abnormalities among PEDs and provide further support for a neurodevelopmental etiology of pedophilia.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035812 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!