Face processing in Williams syndrome is already atypical in infancy.

Face processing is a crucial socio-cognitive ability. Is it acquired progressively or does it constitute an innately-specified, face-processing module? The latter would be supported if some individuals with seriously impaired intelligence nonetheless showed intact face-processing abilities. Some theorists claim that Williams syndrome (WS) provides such evidence since, despite IQs in the 50s, adolescents/adults with WS score in the normal range on standardized face-processing tests. Others argue that atypical neural and cognitive processes underlie WS face-processing proficiencies. But what about infants with WS? Do they start with typical face-processing abilities, with atypicality developing later, or are atypicalities already evident in infancy? We used an infant familiarization/novelty design and compared infants with WS to typically developing controls as well as to a group of infants with Down syndrome matched on both mental and chronological age. Participants were familiarized with a schematic face, after which they saw a novel face in which either the features (eye shape) were changed or just the configuration of the original features. Configural changes were processed successfully by controls, but not by infants with WS who were only sensitive to featural changes and who showed syndrome-specific profiles different from infants with the other neurodevelopmental disorder. Our findings indicate that theorists can no longer use the case of WS to support claims that evolution has endowed the human brain with an independent face-processing module.

Using developmental trajectories to examine verbal and visuospatial short-term memory development in children and adolescents with Williams and Down syndromes.

Williams (WS) and Down (DS) syndromes have been associated with specifically compromised short-term memory (STM) subsystems. Individuals with WS have shown impairments in visuospatial STM, while individuals with DS have often shown problems with the recall of verbal material. However, studies have not usually compared the development of STM skills in these domains, in these populations. The present study employed a cross-sectional developmental trajectories approach, plotting verbal and visuospatial STM performance against more general cognitive and chronological development, to investigate how the domain-specific skills of individuals with WS and DS may change as development progresses, as well as whether the difference between STM skill domains increases, in either group, as development progresses. Typically developing children, of broadly similar cognitive ability to the clinical groups, were also included. Planned between- and within-group comparisons were carried out. Individuals with WS and DS both showed the domain-specific STM weaknesses in overall performance that were expected based on the respective cognitive profiles. However, skills in both groups developed, according to general cognitive development, at similar rates to those of the TD group. In addition, no significant developmental divergence between STM domains was observed in either clinical group according to mental age or chronological age, although the general pattern of findings indicated that the influence of the latter variable across STM domains, particularly in WS, might merit further investigation.

Executive function in Williams and Down syndromes.

Williams (WS) and Down (DS) syndromes are characterised by roughly opposing ability profiles. Relative verbal strengths and visuospatial difficulties have been reported in those with WS, while expressive language difficulties have been observed in individuals with DS. Few investigations into the executive function (EF) skills of these groups have examined the effect of verbal/visuospatial task type on performance. Analogous verbal and visuospatial measures were administered to these populations within four EF domains: executive-loaded working memory (ELWM), inhibition, fluency and set-shifting. Performance in both groups was compared to that of typically developing (TD) children using regression techniques controlling for potentially influential cognitive/developmental factors. Individuals with WS showed the expected relative visuospatial difficulties, as indicated by poorer performance than TD individuals, on tests of ELWM and fluency. Individuals with DS displayed the expected relative verbal difficulty in the domain of set-shifting. In addition, each population showed pervasive deficits across modality in one domain; ELWM for individuals with DS, and inhibition for individuals with WS. Individuals with WS and DS showed EF difficulties in comparison to a TD group, but, their executive performance was affected by EF task type (verbal/visuospatial) and EF domain in different ways. While the findings indicated that EF in these populations is characterised by a range of specific strengths and weaknesses, it was also suggested that the relative verbal/visuospatial strengths associated with each population do not consistently manifest across EF domains. Lastly, syndrome specificity was indicated by the differences in groups' performance patterns.

Attention disengagement in children with developmental coordination disorder.

PURPOSE: Previous research has shown that children with Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) have poorly developed strategies for allocating attention. This study examines the allocation of attention and integration of visuo-spatial and motor systems in children with DCD in a motor (look+hit condition) and a motor-free (look condition) task. METHOD: Three groups of control children were used to compare the performance of a group of children with DCD. Children were seated in front of a central fixation point and six peripheral targets, and were asked to look at or hit targets when illuminated. Saccade/hand movement latencies were measured on gap trials (gap between fixation offset and target onset) and overlap trials (fixation offset and target onset overlapped). RESULTS: DCD children were not slower than controls to disengage attention during the look condition. However, during the look+hit condition the DCD children showed a prolonged disengagement period, which was also seen in younger control children. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that DCD children may have deficits in the allocation of attention for action, in both the speed of onset of a movement and the accuracy of the movement. It is concluded that attention disengagement may contribute to problems of visuo-motor integration in DCD.

How active gaze informs the hand in sequential pointing movements.

Visual information is vital for fast and accurate hand movements. It has been demonstrated that allowing free eye movements results in greater accuracy than when the eyes maintain centrally fixed. Three explanations as to why free gaze improves accuracy are: shifting gaze to a target allows visual feedback in guiding the hand to the target (feedback loop), shifting gaze generates ocular-proprioception which can be used to update a movement (feedback-feedforward), or efference copy could be used to direct hand movements (feedforward). In this experiment we used a double-step task and manipulated the utility of ocular-proprioceptive feedback from eye to head position by removing the second target during the saccade. We confirm the advantage of free gaze for sequential movements with a double-step pointing task and document eye-hand lead times of approximately 200 ms for both initial movements and secondary movements. The observation that participants move gaze well ahead of the current hand target dismisses foveal feedback as a major contribution. We argue for a feedforward model based on eye movement efference as the major factor in enabling accurate hand movements. The results with the double-step target task also suggest the need for some buffering of efference and ocular-proprioceptive signals to cope with the situation where the eye has moved to a location ahead of the current target for the hand movement. We estimate that this buffer period may range between 120 and 200 ms without significant impact on hand movement accuracy.

Dethroning the myth: cognitive dissociations and innate modularity in Williams syndrome.

Despite increasing empirical data to the contrary, it continues to be claimed that mor-phosyntax and face processing skills of people with Williams syndrome are intact. This purported intactness, which coexists with mental retardation, is used to bolster claims about innately specified, independently functioning modules, as if the atypically developing brain were simply a normal brain with parts intact and parts impaired. Yet this is highly unlikely, given the dynamics of brain development and the fact that in a genetic microdeletion syndrome the brain is developing differently from the moment of conception, throughout embryogenesis, and during postnatal brain growth. In this article, we challenge the intactness assumptions, using evidence from a wide variety of studies of toddlers, children, and adults with Williams syndrome.

Spatial representation and attention in toddlers with Williams syndrome and Down syndrome.

The nature of the spatial representations that underlie simple visually guided actions early in life was investigated in toddlers with Williams syndrome (WS), Down syndrome (DS), and healthy chronological age- and mental age-matched controls, through the use of a "double-step" saccade paradigm. The experiment tested the hypothesis that, compared to typically developing infants and toddlers, and toddlers with DS, those with WS display a deficit in using spatial representations to guide actions. Levels of sustained attention were also measured within these groups, to establish whether differences in levels of engagement influenced performance on the double-step saccade task. The results showed that toddlers with WS were unable to combine extra-retinal information with retinal information to the same extent as the other groups, and displayed evidence of other deficits in saccade planning, suggesting a greater reliance on sub-cortical mechanisms than the other populations. Results also indicated that their exploration of the visual environment is less developed. The sustained attention task revealed shorter and fewer periods of sustained attention in toddlers with DS, but not those with WS, suggesting that WS performance on the double-step saccade task is not explained by poorer engagement. The findings are also discussed in relation to a possible attention disengagement deficit in WS toddlers. Our study highlights the importance of studying genetic disorders early in development.