Looking around houses: attention to a model when drawing complex shapes in Williams syndrome and typical development.
Prompt frequent model checks during drawing tasks for clients with Williams syndrome to offset reduced spontaneous looking.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team watched kids draw a house while an eye-tracker recorded every look.
Some kids had Williams syndrome. Others were typically developing.
The study asked: who looks at the model picture while they draw?
What they found
Kids with Williams syndrome looked at the model less than their peers.
Still, they drew the big parts of the house first.
This shows they do not have a local-detail bias, just less checking.
How this fits with other research
Casey et al. (2009) saw more face-looking in Williams syndrome, not less. The gap is real: moving faces pull extra gaze, but a still house sketch does not.
Back et al. (2022) used the same eye-tracking setup with block design. They also blame slow visuospatial skills, not odd gaze patterns.
McCarron et al. (2013) found some people with Williams syndrome actually avoid faces when anxious. Together the papers say: check each client’s looking profile; don’t assume one size fits all.
Why it matters
When you teach drawing, crafts, or handwriting to clients with Williams syndrome, build in extra prompts to look back at the sample. A simple timer that says “check the picture” every 30 s can bridge their natural looking gap and improve accuracy.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Set a 30 s timer during art tasks; point to the model each time it beeps.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Drawings by individuals with Williams syndrome (WS) typically lack cohesion. The popular hypothesis is that this is a result of excessive focus on local-level detail at the expense of global configuration. In this study, we explored a novel hypothesis that inadequate attention might underpin drawing in WS. WS and typically developing (TD) non-verbal ability matched groups copied and traced a house figure comprised of geometric shapes. The house was presented on a computer screen for 5-s periods and participants pressed a key to re-view the model. Frequency of key-presses indexed the looks to the model. The order that elements were replicated was recorded to assess hierarchisation of elements. If a lack of attention to the model explained poor drawing performance, we expected participants with WS to look less frequently to the model than TD children when copying. If a local-processing preference underpins drawing in WS, more local than global elements would be produced. Results supported the first, but not second hypothesis. The WS group looked to the model infrequently, but global, not local, parts were drawn first, scaffolding local-level details. Both groups adopted a similar order of drawing and tracing of parts, suggesting typical, although delayed strategy-use in the WS group. Additionally both groups drew larger elements of the model before smaller elements, suggested a size-bias when drawing.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.06.024