Visual configural processing in adults born at extremely low birth weight

Being born at extremely low birth weight (ELBW; ≤1,000 g) is associated with enduring visual impairments. We tested for long‐term, higher order visual processing problems in the oldest known prospectively followed cohort of ELBW survivors. Configural processing (spacing among features of an object)...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Developmental science 2020-03, Vol.23 (2), p.e12890-n/a
Main Authors: Mathewson, Karen J., Maurer, Daphne, Mondloch, Catherine J., Saigal, Saroj, Van Lieshout, Ryan J., Schmidt, Louis A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acuity
Adult
Binocular vision
Birth weight
Cerebral cortex
Cognition
Cohort Studies
Discrimination
extremely low birth weight
extremely preterm
Face
face-processing
Facial Recognition - physiology
Female
Humans
Infant, Extremely Low Birth Weight - physiology
Infant, Newborn
Information processing
Intelligence
Low birth weight
Male
Memory
Neural coding
Pattern recognition
perceptual development
second-order relations
Visual discrimination
Visual Perception - physiology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Being born at extremely low birth weight (ELBW; ≤1,000 g) is associated with enduring visual impairments. We tested for long‐term, higher order visual processing problems in the oldest known prospectively followed cohort of ELBW survivors. Configural processing (spacing among features of an object) was examined in 62 adults born at ELBW (Mage = 31.9 years) and 82 adults born at normal birth weight (NBW; ≥2,500 g: Mage = 32.5 years). Pairs of human faces, monkey faces, or houses were presented in a delayed match‐to‐sample task, where non‐matching stimuli differed only in the spacing of their features. Discrimination accuracy for each stimulus type was compared between birth weight groups, adjusting for neurosensory impairment, visual acuity, binocular fusion ability, IQ, and sex. Both groups were better able to discriminate human faces than monkey faces (p 
ISSN:1363-755X
1467-7687
DOI:10.1111/desc.12890