Local Versus Global Processing in Autism: Special Section Editorial.
Local Versus Global Processing in Autism: Special Section Editorial.
复制标题
自闭症的局部处理与全局处理：专题社论。
DOI：
10.1007/s10803-017-3452-2
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Simmons DR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Simmons DR
《自闭症与发育障碍杂志》这一特殊章节的想法来自2014年加州圣地亚哥自闭症研究国际会议上的一个科学小组，该小组由Bart Boets博士组织，我们中的一位（David Simmons博士）担任讨论人。该小组题为“对自闭症谱系障碍中局部与全局加工的综合神经认知解释”，根据我们自己对自闭症谱系障碍视觉文献的总体回顾（Simmons et al. 2009）和最近发表的鲁汶小组（Boets博士当时是其中一员）的出版物，考虑了支持自闭症中“优越的”局部加工和/或“劣等的”全局加工的证据。针对该主题的荟萃分析（van der Hallen et al. 2015）。虽然Simmons等人（2009）支持优越的局部处理（“……任务中的局部优势效应，如视觉搜索似乎保持自己的优势”，第2728页），但Van der Hallen等人（2015）在该文献中发现了强有力的出版偏见证据，除了因变量是反应时间和任务是“局部”干扰物存在的“全局”判断的情况下，该文献掩盖了一个小到不显著的影响。比如著名的Navon任务的一个版本。Van der Hallen et al.（2015）的分析证实了Simmons et al.（2009）早先在同一页上表达的一种怀疑，即2005年至2009年间发表的关于视力和自闭症的大部分数据是“……相互矛盾的，或者至少是有争议的”。许多关于ASD视力的研究都有一个令人沮丧的特点，即一年内发表的积极结果显示自闭症患者和某种对照人群之间存在显著差异，但随着“文件抽屉”的打开，几乎不可避免地会出现复制失败的情况，这与Van der Hallen等人（2015）的分析一致。那么,最终,
The idea for this special section of the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders came from a Scientific Panel which took place at the 2014 International Meeting for Autism Research in San Diego, CA, organized by Dr. Bart Boets, with one of us (Dr. David Simmons) as the Discussant. The panel, entitled “Towards an integrated neurocognitive account of local versus global processing in Autism Spectrum Disorders” was a consideration of the evidence in favour of “superior” local processing and/or “inferior” global processing in autism in the light of both our own general review of the literature on vision in Autism Spectrum Disorder (Simmons et al. 2009) and the more recent publication, from the Leuven group of which Dr. Boets was then a part, of a meta-analysis focused on the topic (van der Hallen et al. 2015).Whilst Simmons et al.(2009) came down in favour of superior local processing (“… local superiority effects in tasks such as visual search seem to be holding their own”, p. 2728), Van der Hallen et al.(2015) found strong evidence of publication bias in this literature which was obscuring a small-to-insignificant effect except in cases where the Dependent Variable was Reaction Time and the task was a “global” judgement in the presence of “local” distractors, such as one version of the well-known Navon task. Van der Hallen et al.’s (2015) analysis confirmed a suspicion expressed earlier on the same page of Simmons et al.(2009) that much of the data on vision and autism published between 2005 and 2009 was “… contradictory, or at least contested.” A frustrating feature of much research on vision in ASD has been that a positive result showing a significant difference between autistic and some sort of control population published one year is almost inevitably followed by a failed replication as the “file drawer” opens, consistent with Van der Hallen et al.’s (2015) analysis. Ultimately, then,