Impaired Ability to Infer Intentionality in Children Born at Very Low Birth Weight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children born at very low birth weight (VLBW; <1500 g) are at increased risk for impairments affecting social functioning, including autism spectrum disorders (Johnson et al, 2010). One area that has not been examined in this population is theory of mind (ToM) reasoning: the ability to attribute mental states (beliefs, intentions or desires) to oneself and to others. In the present study we used the Happe-Frith Animated Triangles task to study this ability in VLBW children and full-term controls. Participants included 34 VLBW children and 36 full-term controls, aged 8-11 years. Groups were comparable in terms of age-at-test, processing speed, verbal IQ, gender, handedness, and SES. They completed the Animated Triangles task, which includes animations depicting two triangles moving randomly with respect to one another (random), ones depicting physical interactions (goal-directed), and ones depicting interactions with implied intentionality (ToM). As descriptions provided by VLBW children were shorter than those of full-term peers [t(68) = 2.4, p<.02] we controlled for description length (word count) in subsequent analyses. Although the groups did not differ in terms of the degree of certainty they displayed when describing the animations, VLBW children generally provided less appropriate descriptions than their peers [F(1,67)=4.0, p<.05]. However, both groups of children found it most challenging to describe the ToM displays appropriately [F(2,134) = 5.8, p<.005]. Importantly, VLBW children over-attributed intentionality to shapes in the random displays and under-attributed intentionality those in the ToM displays; performance with the goal-directed displays did not differ between the groups [F(2,134)=9.5, p<.001]. Together, these results suggest that, like adults with autism (e.g., Castelli et al 2002), VLBW children are impaired in their ability to use dynamic cues to attribute intentionality. This impairment may reflect atypical development of and/or functioning in the superior temporal sulcus – a region implicated in this ability (Castelli et al. 2002). Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".