What is Sally Anne Thinking?
Published July 28, 2009 @ 09:35AM PT
A recent study published in Science theorizes that in AS the capability for understanding mental states exists, just not spontaneously. This conclusion is drawn because study subjects only "passed" a Sally Anne False-Belief Test when verbally prompted, and not spontaneously with their eye gaze.
Deconstructing assumptions a bit (and admitting I have not had time to read the primary source), there are, of course, some questions. How is it known that eye gaze in AS subjects means the same thing as eye gaze in subjects who do not have AS? Particularly as eye gaze is something that often marks people on the spectrum as visibly different? Particularly as movement and perceptual differences are also often noted? How is it known that eye gaze in AS subjects means the same thing as eye gaze in subjects who do not have AS in relation to this particular false-belief task?
If the verbal prompting appears to refute the idea of "mind blindness," then why is it not possible that it does, in fact, simply refute the idea of "mind blindness?" Why is it necessary to hang onto the notion that mind blindness must exist, there is no other explanation for "social deficit?" The fact that "mind blindness" is often a given when talking about autism does not make "mind blindness" itself a fact.
In fact, there is an interesting paper Does the Autistic Brain Lack Core Modules? that deconstructs the "mind blindness" idea further, including discussing language-based versions of the false-belief test. That paper not only discusses deep issues with the concept of mind blindness, but also some issues with assumptions about eye gaze.
Building on existing theory is an essential in science. But also essential is questioning the existing theory itself.
"Mind blindness," regardless of what the press may say, is not a done deal. The question remains open. There are other equally (more so?) plausible reasons for both differences in social communication and for autistic responses to false belief tests.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (4)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Dora is committed to improving quality of life for individuals on the autistic spectrum--including herself! She is Co-director of the Academic Autistic Spectrum Partnership in Research and Education and a member of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network's Board of Directors.
Featured Autism Actions
-
-
-
End the Perpetuation of Pity
186 People
-
End the Perpetuation of Pity
By coincidence, Michelle Dawson has just posted about eye gaze on her message board so I am going to copy a bit of that and paste it here:
If you follow the links from this blog post
http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/eye-contact-look-away-to-think-and.html [sorry, link is broken] you can find a lot of interesting
information, including a preprint version (here
http://www.le.ac.uk/pc/kbp3/Markson&Paterson08.pdf ) of a paper that's just been published (here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19021925 ).
The conclusion of the paper is lovely to read: "We conclude that gaze aversion benefits cognitive performance, not just by disengaging visual attention from irrelevant visual information, but also by interrupting social interaction processes involved in face-to-face communication."
There's an introduction to gaze aversion research here
http://www.psychology.stir.ac.uk/staff/lcalderwood/GazeAversionR
esearch.htm
Thank you Dora and Michelle both for drawing attention to these issues.
Posted by dinah murray on 07/28/2009 @ 12:14PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks Dinah for posting these links.
Posted by Dora Raymaker on 07/29/2009 @ 01:42AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I thought the "Sally-Anne" experiment had been debunked years ago, by researchers who showed that older children with autism (age 10 instead of 7) could perform the task. Thus, whatever ability is being measured is not absent but only delayed.
Posted by Mark Romoser on 07/28/2009 @ 01:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
These researchers drive me nuts. It doesn't matter what results a study shows, it's always about how we're defective. Thank God for Dawson and Gernsbacher.
Posted by Anemone Cerridwen on 07/28/2009 @ 02:04PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.