However, it soon became apparent that a deficit in global motion, compared to global form sensitivity, was not a special characteristic seen only in children with Williams syndrome. Work from our group and others found that this pattern, of elevated thresholds for motion compared to form, characterized children's performance in many different forms of developmental disorder and disruption, including hemiplegia (Gunn et al.,
2002), fragile-X syndrome (Kogan et al.,
2004), developmental dyslexia (e.g., Cornelissen, Richardson, Mason, Fowler, & Stein,
1995; Hansen, Stein, Orde, Winter, & Talcott,
2001; Ridder, Borsting, & Banton,
2001), children with very preterm birth (e.g., Atkinson & Braddick,
2007; Taylor, Jakobson, Maurer, & Lewis,
2009), and young children with developmental coordination disorder (Corbett, Atkinson, & Braddick,
2016). Motion coherence deficits in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been widely reported, (e.g., Spencer et al.,
2000; Koldewyn, Whitney, & Rivera,
2010; Robertson et al.,
2014), with the relationship between local and global motion processing in ASD and the role played by related cognitive biases being widely debated (see Dakin & Frith,
2005; Manning, Tibber, Charman, Dakin, & Pellicano,
2015). Early visual deprivation due to congenital cataract reduces global motion sensitivity by a factor of 4.9 compared to only 1.6 for global form (comparing Ellemberg, Lewis, Maurer, Brar, & Brent,
2002, with the same patients in Lewis et al.,
2002). Adult strabismic amblyopes also show a greater reduction in global motion sensitivity than for static form (e.g., Simmers, Ledgeway, Hess, & McGraw,
2003; Ho et al.,
2005; Simmers, Ledgeway, & Hess,
2005; see also the review by Hamm, Black, Dai, & Thompson,
2014). Several results suggest that both local motion processing and global integration are impaired in both amblyopic and fellow eyes in amblyopia (Aaen-Stockdale & Hess,
2008; Hou, Pettet, & Norcia,
2008; Knox, Ledgeway, & Simmers,
2013; Levi,
2013).