Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Comparisons between the ET and the GET in the typically-developing samples from studies 1 and 2.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Figure 1.

Comparison of performance on the ET and GET in the learning-disordered group (Study 2).

Children in the learning-disordered group who were identified as having difficulty with social-emotional skills do not seem to show a floor effect with respect to the Generative Eyes Task (GET), a concern when testing a clinical population. However, compared to the traditional Eyes Task (ET), the GET remains more difficult for this group as a whole as evidenced by statistically significant differences in performance between the two versions of the GET and the ET. Error bars represent 2 SDs of standard error.

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Figure 2.

Comparison of performance on the ET (2a) and GET (2b) between the learning-disordered or typically-developing groups (Study 2).

Comparisons between the two groups on the Eyes Task (ET; Figure S2a) and the Generative Eyes Task (GET; Figure S2b) show that although there is no difference in performance on the ET, there is a difference on the GET. Notably, the two groups were comparable in verbal ability (despite the learning-disordered group being older), suggesting that verbal ability is key to the ET, but not the GET. The difference between the two groups on the GET was statistically significant at p<.05. Error bars represent 2 SDs of standard error.

More »

Figure 2 Expand