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: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
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
Introduction: Recent work challenged past findings that documented relational memory impairments in autism. Previous studies often relied solely on explicit behavioral responses to assess relational memory integrity, but successful performance on behavioral tasks may rely on other cognitive abilities (e.g., executive functioning) that are impacted in some autistic individuals. Eye-tracking tasks do not require explicit behavioral responses, and, further, eye movements provide an indirect measure of memory. The current study examined whether memory-specific viewing patterns toward scenes differ between autistic and non-autistic individuals.
Methods: Using a long-term memory paradigm that equated for complexity between item and relational memory tasks, participants studied a series of scenes. Following the initial study phase, scenes were re-presented, accompanied by an orienting question that directed participants to attend to either features of an item (i.e., in the item condition) or spatial relationships between items (i.e., in the relational condition) that might be subsequently modified during test. At test, participants viewed scenes that were unchanged (i.e., repeated from study), scenes that underwent an "item" modification (an exemplar switch) or a "relational" modification (a location switch), and scenes that had not been presented before. Eye movements were recorded throughout.
Results: During study, there were no significant group differences in viewing directed to regions of scenes that might be manipulated at test, suggesting comparable processing of scene details during encoding. However, there was a group difference in explicit recognition accuracy for scenes that underwent a relational change. Marginal group differences in the expression of memory-based viewing effects during test for relational scenes were consistent with this behavioral outcome, particularly when analyses were limited to scenes recognized correctly with high confidence. Group differences were also evident in correlational analyses that examined the association between study phase viewing and recognition accuracy and between performance on the Picture Sequence Memory Test and recognition accuracy.
Discussion: Together, our findings suggest differences in the integrity of relational memory representations and/or in the relationships between subcomponents of memory in autism.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10484720 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1210259 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!