MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886201784 · doi:10.5539/jedp.v8n2p95

Social Intervention Impacts Action Anticipation, Goal Extraction, and Social Interest in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder

2018· article· en· W2886201784 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joshua Haworth, Klaus Libertus, Rebecca Landa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational and Developmental Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAutismDevelopmental psychologyAutism spectrum disorderGazeSocial cognitionIntervention (counseling)Action (physics)Anticipation (artificial intelligence)Theory of mindCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anticipatory looking in the context of goal-directed actions emerges during the first year of life. However, children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often show diminished social gaze and anticipation while observing goal-directed actions. The current study examined a therapist-mediated social intervention targeting action-anticipation, goal-extraction, and social gaze in 18 children with ASD diagnosis. Before and after the intervention period, children viewed a video displaying a toddler repeatedly placing blocks into a bowl using a cross-body motion. Gaze to the actor’s face and anticipatory gaze to the goal location were analyzed. Results revealed that young children with ASD understand repeated actions and demonstrate goal-extraction even before exposure to the intervention. Further, targeted social intervention experience led to a redistribution of attention in favor of the actor’s face, while retaining action intention comprehension of the block transfer activity. Attention to social aspects during action observation by children with ASD could have favorable cascading effects on social reciprocity, social contingency, and theory of mind development.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.552

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Educational and Developmental PsychologySame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207