دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی اوتیسم: فراتر از “تئوری ذهن” به همراه ترجمه فارسی
| عنوان فارسی مقاله: | اوتیسم: فراتر از “تئوری ذهن” |
| عنوان انگلیسی مقاله: | Autism: beyond theory of mind |
| رشته های مرتبط: | روانشناسی و پزشکی، روانشناسی بالینی، روانشناسی رشد و روانپزشکی |
| فرمت مقالات رایگان | مقالات انگلیسی و ترجمه های فارسی رایگان با فرمت PDF میباشند |
| کیفیت ترجمه | کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله خوب میباشد |
| توضیحات | ترجمه این مقاله به صورت خلاصه انجام شده است. |
| نشریه | الزویر – Elsevier |
| کد محصول | f224 |
|
مقاله انگلیسی رایگان (PDF) |
دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی |
|
ترجمه فارسی رایگان (PDF) |
دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله |
|
خرید ترجمه با فرمت ورد |
خرید ترجمه مقاله با فرمت ورد |
| جستجوی ترجمه مقالات | جستجوی ترجمه مقالات روانشناسی |
|
بخشی از ترجمه فارسی مقاله: انسجام مرکزی و یادگیری |
|
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی: Central coherence and mentalizing Central coherence, then, may be helpful in explaining some of the real-life features that have so far resisted explanation, as well as making sense of a body of experimental work not well accounted for by the mentalizing deficit theory. Can it also shed light on the continuing handicaps of those talented autistic subjects who show consistent evidence of some mentalizing ability? Happe (1991), in a first exploration of the links between central coherence and theory of mind, used Snowling and Frith’s (1986) homograph reading task with a group of able autistic subjects. Autistic subjects were tested on a battery of theory of mind tasks at two levels of difficulty (first- and second-order theory of mind), and grouped according to their performance (Happe, 1993). Five subjects who failed all the theory of mind tasks, 5 subjects who passed all and only first-order tasks, and 6 subjects who passed both first- and second-order theory of mind tasks were compared with 14 7-8-year-olds. The autistic subjects were of mean age 18 years, and had a mean IQ of around 80. The three autistic groups and the control group obtained the same score for total number of words correctly read. As predicted, however, the young normal subjects, but not the autistic subjects, were sensitive to the relative position of target homograph and disambiguating context: “There was a big tear in her eye”, versus “In her dress there was a big tear”. The normal controls showed a significant advantage when sentence context occurred before (rare pronunciation) target words (scoring 5 out of 5, vs. 2 out of 5 where target came first), while the autistic subjects (as in Frith and Snowling, 1983) tended to give the more frequent pronunciation regardless (3 out of 5 appropriate pronun-ciations in each case). The important point of this study was that this was true of all three autistic groups, irrespective of level of theory of mind performance. Even those subjects who consistently passed all the theory of mind tasks (mean VIQ 90) failed to use sentence context to disambiguate homograph pronunciation. It is possible, therefore, to think of weak central coherence as characteristic of even those autistic subjects who possess some mentalizing ability. Happe (submitted) explored this idea further by looking at WISC-R and WAIS subtest profiles. Twenty-seven children who failed standard first-order false belief tasks were compared with 21 subjects who passed. In both groups Block Design was a peak of non-verbal performance for the majority of subjects: 18121 passers, and 23/27 failers. In contrast. performance on the Comprehension subtest (commonly thought of as requiring pragmatic and social skill) was a low point in verbal performance for 13/ 17 “failers” but only 6120 “passers”. It seems, then, that while social reasoning difficulties (as shown by Wechsler tests) are striking only in those subjects who fail theory of mind tasks, skill on non-verbal tasks benefiting from weak central coherence is characteristic of both passers and failers. There is, then, preliminary evidence to suggest that the central coherence hypothesis is a good candidate for explaining the persisting handicaps of the talented minority. So, for example, when theory of mind tasks were embedded in slightly more naturalistic tasks, involving extracting information from a story context, even autistic subjects who passed standard second-order false belief tasks showed characteristic and striking errors of mental state attribution (Happe. 1994b). It may be that a theory of mind mechanism which is not fed by rich and integrated contextual information is of little use in everyday life. The finding that weak central coherence may characterize autistic people at all levels of theory of mind ability goes against Frith’s (1989) original suggestion that a weakness in central coherence could by itself account for theory of mind impairment. At present, all the evidence suggests that we should retain the idea of a modular and specific mentalizing deficit in our causal explanation of the triad of impairments in autism. It is still our belief that nothing captures the essence of autism so precisely as the idea of “mind-blindness”. Nevertheless, for a full understanding of autism in all its forms, this explanation alone will not suffice. Therefore, our present conception is that there may be two rather different cognitive characteristics that underlie autism. Following Leslie (1987, 1988) we hold that the mentalizing deficit can be usefully conceptualized as the impairment of a single modular system. This system has a neurological basis – which may be damaged, leaving other functions intact (e.g., normal IQ). The ability to .mentalize would appear to be of such evolutionary value (Byrne & Whiten, 1988; Whiten, 1991) that only insult to the brain can produce deficits in this area. By contrast, the processing characteristic of weak central coherence, as illustrated above, gives both advantages and disadvantages, as would strong central coherence. It is possible, then. to think of this balance (between preference for parts vs. wholes) as akin to a cognitive style, which may vary in the normal population. No doubt, this style would be subject to environmental influences, but, in addition, it may have a genetic component. It may be interesting, then, to focus on the strengths and weaknesses of autistic children’s processing, in terms of weak central coherence, in looking for the extended phenotype of autism. Some initial evidence for this may be found in the report by Landa, Folstein, and Isaacs (1991) that the parents of children with autism tell rather less coherent spontaneous narratives than do controls. Central coherence and executive function With the speculative link to cognitive style rather than straightforward deficit, the central coherence hypothesis differs radically not only from the theory of mind account, but also from other recent theories of autism. In fact, every other current psychological theory claims that some significant and objectively harmful deficit is primary in autism. Perhaps the most influential of such general theories is the idea that autistic people have executive function deficits, which in turn cause social and non-social abnormalities. The umbrella term “executive functions” covers a multitude of higher cognitive functions, and so is likely to overlap to some degree with conceptions of both central coherence and theory of mind. However, the hypothesis that autistic people have relatively weak central coherence makes specific and distinct predictions even within the area of executive function. For example, the “inhibition of pre-potent but incorrect responses” may contain two separable elements: inhibition and recognition of context-appropriate response. One factor which can make a pre-potent response incorrect is a change of context. If a stimulus is treated in the same way regardless of context, this may look like a failure of inhibition. However, autistic people may have no problem in inhibiting action where context is irrelevant. Of course it may be that some people with autism do have an additional impairment in inhibitory control, just as some have peripheral perceptual handicaps or specific language problems. |