Cited by 28Down syndrome and intellectual disability researchDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyMind wandering and attention

Attention and Vigilance in Children with down Syndrome.

Trezise, Kim L., Gray, Kylie M., Sheppard, Dianne M.·2008·Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

Abstract

Background Down syndrome (DS) has been the focus of much cognitive and developmental research; however, there is a gap in knowledge regarding sustained attention, particularly across different sensory domains. This research examined the hypothesis that children with DS would demonstrate superior visual rather than auditory performance on a sustained attention task and that this modality difference would not be seen in children with non‐specific intellectual disability (NSID). Materials and Methods Eleven children with DS and 16 children with NSID were compared on two versions of the sustained attention to response test (SART), varying only in presentation modality (visual or auditory). Errors of commission (failure to withhold response to target) and errors of omission (failure to respond to non‐target distractors) were recorded. Results Significant group differences were found in the visual modality and mental age was also found to effect error rates in the visual condition. No effect of group or mental age was observed in the auditory SART. Conclusions Results suggest that, for individuals with DS, presentation of education material in a visual medium may facilitate sustained attention and thus learning. Further research using tools such as the SART to explore modality differences in sustained attention and additional cognitive domains is recommended.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-3148.2008.00421.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Executive functioning impairments in Down syndrome include deficits in attention, inhibition, planning and organization, set-shifting, and self-monitoring.

    “The impairments in executive functioning include deficits in attention, inhibition, planning and organization, set-shifting, and self-monitoring, all of which are critical categories of intellectual function needed for independent living (Cornish et al., 2007; Abbeduto et al., 2008; Trezise et al., 2008; Lanfranchi et al., 2010; Breckenridge et al., 2013; Costanzo et al., 2013).”

    From Neurodevelopment in Down syndrome: Concordance in humans and models (2022) · cites this paper as Trezise et al., 2008

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Trezise, K. L., Gray, K. M., & Sheppard, D. M.
Affiliations
Monash University (AU)
Venue
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-10-13
Volume
21
Issue
6
Pages
502-508
ISSN
  • 0952-9608 (ISSN-L)
  • 1360-2322
  • 1468-3148
OpenAlex
W2082675348
Cited by
28
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
Keywords
Down syndrome, sustained attention, presentation modality, Sustained Attention to Response Task, mental age, children

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