Cited by 173Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyChild and Animal Learning Development

Disentangling weak coherence and executive dysfunction: planning drawing in autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Open access
Booth, Rhonda, Charlton, Rebecca, Hughes, Claire, Happé, Francesca·2003·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences

Abstract

A tendency to focus on details at the expense of configural information, ‘weak coherence’, has been proposed as a cognitive style in autism. In the present study we tested whether weak coherence might be the result of executive dysfunction, by testing clinical groups known to show deficits on tests of executive control. Boys with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) were compared with age– and intelligence quotient (IQ)–matched boys with attention–deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and typically developing (TD) boys, on a drawing task requiring planning for the inclusion of a new element. Weak coherence was measured through analysis of drawing style. In line with the predictions made, the ASD group was more detail–focused in their drawings than were either ADHD or TD boys. The ASD and ADHD groups both showed planning impairments, which were more severe in the former group. Poor planning did not, however, predict detail–focus, and scores on the two aspects of the task were unrelated in the clinical groups. These findings indicate that weak coherence may indeed be a cognitive style specific to autism and unrelated to cognitive deficits in frontal functions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.2002.1204

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 173

Authors
Booth, R., Charlton, R., Hughes, C., & Happé, F.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Research Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, DeCrespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, UK
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Published
2003-02-28
Volume
358
Issue
1430
Pages
387-392
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
OpenAlex
W2085864129
Cited by
173
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
executive dysfunction, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, planning, configural information, drawing style, cognitive style, frontal lobe function, boys
MeSH terms
Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Autistic Disorder, Child, Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Humans, Male, Psychological Tests, Psychological Theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review