scholarly journals Autistic adults anticipate and integrate meaning based on the speaker’s voice: Evidence from eye-tracking and event-related potentials

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahsa Barzy ◽  
Heather Jane Ferguson ◽  
David Williams ◽  
Jo Black
Keyword(s):  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Intended Meaning ◽  
Speaker Meaning ◽  
Autistic People ◽  
Processing Bias ◽  
Related Potentials ◽  
Autistic Adults ◽  
The Voice ◽  
Inconsistent Objects

Typically developing (TD) individuals rapidly integrate information about a speaker and their intended meaning while processing sentences online. We examined whether the same processes are activated in autistic adults, and tested their timecourse in two pre-registered experiments. Experiment 1 employed the visual world paradigm. Participants listened to sentences where the speaker’s voice and message were either consistent or inconsistent (e.g. “When we go shopping, I usually look for my favourite wine”, spoken by an adult or a child), and concurrently viewed visual scenes including consistent and inconsistent objects (e.g. wine and sweets). All participants were slower to select the mentioned object in the inconsistent condition. Importantly, eye movements showed a visual bias towards the voice-consistent object, well before hearing the disambiguating word, showing that autistic adults rapidly use the speaker’s voice to anticipate the intended meaning. However, this target bias emerged earlier in the TD group compared to the autism group (2240ms vs 1800ms before disambiguation). Experiment 2 recorded ERPs to explore speaker-meaning integration processes. Participants listened to sentences as described above, and ERPs were time-locked to the onset of the target word. A control condition included a semantic anomaly. Results revealed an enhanced N400 for inconsistent speaker-meaning sentences that was comparable to that elicited by anomalous sentences, in both groups. Overall, contrary to research that has characterised autism in terms of a local processing bias and pragmatic dysfunction, autistic people were unimpaired at integrating multiple modalities of linguistic information, and were comparably sensitive to speaker-meaning inconsistency effects.

scholarly journals Emotional processing of ironic vs. literal criticism in autistic and non-autistic adults: Evidence from eye-tracking

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahsa Barzy ◽  
Ruth Filik ◽  
David Williams ◽  
Heather Jane Ferguson
Keyword(s):  
Emotional Processing ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Emotional Responses ◽  
Target Sentence ◽  
Emotional States ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Autistic People ◽  
Autistic Adults ◽  
Specific Difficulty

Typically developing (TD) adults are able to keep track of story characters’ emotional states online while reading. Filik et al. (2017) showed that initially, participants expected the victim to be more hurt by ironic comments than literal, but later considered them less hurtful; ironic comments were regarded as more amusing. We examined these processes in autistic adults, since previous research has demonstrated socio-emotional difficulties among autistic people, which may lead to problems processing irony and its related emotional processes despite an intact ability to integrate language in context. We recorded eye movements from autistic and non-autistic adults while they read narratives in which a character (the victim) was either criticised in an ironic or a literal manner by another character (the protagonist). A target sentence then either described the victim as feeling hurt/amused by the comment, or the protagonist as having intended to hurt/amused the victim by making the comment. Results from the non-autistic adults broadly replicated the key findings from Filik et al. (2017), supporting the two-stage account. Importantly, the autistic adults did not show comparable two-stage processing of ironic language; they did not differentiate between the emotional responses for victims or protagonists following ironic vs. literal criticism. These findings suggest that autistic people experience a specific difficulty taking into account other peoples’ communicative intentions (i.e. infer their mental state) to appropriately anticipate emotional responses to an ironic comment. We discuss how these difficulties might link to atypical socio-emotional processing in autism, and the ability to maintain successful real-life social interactions.

scholarly journals Interviewing autistic adults: Adaptations to support recall in police, employment, and healthcare interviews

Autism ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 1506-1520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jade Eloise Norris ◽  
Laura Crane ◽  
Katie Maras
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Semantic Knowledge ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Employment Interviews ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Autistic People ◽  
Autistic Adults

Recalling specific past experiences is critical for most formal social interactions, including when being interviewed for employment, as a witness or defendant in the criminal justice system, or as a patient during a clinical consultation. Such interviews can be difficult for autistic adults under standard open questioning, yet applied research into effective methods to facilitate autistic adults’ recall is only recently beginning to emerge. The current study tested the efficacy of different prompting techniques to support autistic adults’ recall of specific personal memories; 30 autistic and 30 typically developing adults (intelligence quotients > 85) were asked to recall specific instances from their past, relevant to criminal justice system, healthcare, and employment interviews. Questions comprised ‘open questions’, ‘semantic prompting’ (where semantic knowledge was used to prompt specific episodic retrieval) and ‘visual–verbal prompting’ (a pie-diagram with prompts to recall specific details, for example, who, what, and where). Half the participants received the questions in advance. Consistent with previous research, autistic participants reported memories with reduced specificity. For both groups, visual–verbal prompting support improved specificity and episodic relevance, while semantic prompting also aided recall for employment questions (but not health or criminal justice system). Findings offer new practical insight for interviewers to facilitate communication with typically developing and autistic adults. Lay abstract During many types of interviews (e.g. in employment, with the police, and in healthcare), we need to recall detailed memories of specific events, which can be difficult for autistic people in response to commonly used questions. This is especially because these tend to be open questions (i.e. very broad). Autistic people have disproportionately high rates of physical and mental health conditions, are more likely to interact with police, and are the most underemployed disability group. However, interviewers are often unsure about how to adapt their communication for autistic people. Our research tested whether different types of prompts enabled autistic people to recall specific memories (memories of a single event within one day). Participants were asked about situations relating to witnessing a crime (e.g. at the bank), physical or mental health scenarios and employment interviews (e.g. a time you’ve met a deadline). We tested the following: Open questions: basic questions only (e.g. ‘tell me about a time you went to the cinema’), Semantic prompting: a general prompt (e.g. ‘do you enjoy going to the cinema?’) before asking for a specific instance (‘tell me about a time you went to the cinema?’), Visual–verbal prompting: asking participants to recall when it happened, who was there, the actions that occurred, the setting, and any objects. With visual–verbal prompting, autistic and typically developing participants’ memories were more specific and detailed. Semantic prompting was also effective for employment questions. Our study shows that autistic people can recall specific memories when they are appropriately prompted. Visual–verbal prompting may be effective across different situations.

Outcomes of real-world social interaction for autistic adults paired with autistic compared to typically developing partners

Autism ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 1067-1080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerrianne E Morrison ◽  
Kilee M DeBrabander ◽  
Desiree R Jones ◽  
Daniel J Faso ◽  
Robert A Ackerman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Interaction ◽  
Real World ◽  
Social Communication ◽  
Blind Spot ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Interaction Styles ◽  
Autistic People ◽  
Autistic Adults

Differences in social communication and interaction styles between autistic and typically developing have been studied in isolation and not in the context of real-world social interaction. The current study addresses this “blind spot” by examining whether real-world social interaction quality for autistic adults differs when interacting with typically developing relative to autistic partners. Participants (67 autism spectrum disorder, 58 typically developing) were assigned to one of three dyadic partnerships (autism–autism: n = 22; typically developing–typically developing: n = 23; autism–typically developing: n = 25; 55 complete dyads, 15 partial dyads) in which they completed a 5-min unstructured conversation with an unfamiliar person and then assessed the quality of the interaction and their impressions of their partner. Although autistic adults were rated as more awkward, less attractive, and less socially warm than typically developing adults by both typically developing and autistic partners, only typically developing adults expressed greater interest in future interactions with typically developing relative to autistic partners. In contrast, autistic participants trended toward an interaction preference for other autistic adults and reported disclosing more about themselves to autistic compared to typically developing partners. These results suggest that social affiliation may increase for autistic adults when partnered with other autistic people, and support reframing social interaction difficulties in autism as a relational rather than an individual impairment.

scholarly journals The role of contextual materials in object recognition

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Lauer ◽  
Filipp Schmidt ◽  
Melissa L.-H. Vo
Keyword(s):  
Object Recognition ◽  
Context Effects ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Object Processing ◽  
Scene Context ◽  
Consistency Effect ◽  
Related Potentials ◽  
Color Control ◽  
Inconsistent Objects

While scene context is known to facilitate object recognition, little is known about whichcontextual “ingredients” are at the heart of this phenomenon. Here, we address the question ofwhether the materials that frequently occur in scenes (e.g., tiles in bathroom) associated withspecific objects (e.g., a perfume) are relevant for processing of that object. To this end, wepresented photographs of consistent and inconsistent objects (e.g., perfume vs. pinecone)superimposed on scenes (e.g., bathroom) and close-ups of materials (e.g., tiles). In Experiment1, consistent objects on scenes were named more accurately than inconsistent ones, while therewas only a marginal consistency effect for objects on materials. Also, we did not find anyconsistency effect for scrambled materials that served as color control condition. In Experiment2, we recorded event-related potentials (ERPs) and found N300/N400 responses – markers ofsemantic violations – for objects on inconsistent relative to consistent scenes. Critically, objectson materials triggered N300/N400 responses of similar magnitudes. Our findings show thatcontextual materials indeed affect object processing – even in the absence of spatial scenestructure and object content – suggesting that material is one of the contextual “ingredients”driving scene context effects.

scholarly journals A Multidimensional Investigation of Sensory Processing in Autism: Parent- and Self-Report Questionnaires, Psychophysical Thresholds, and Event-Related Potentials in the Auditory and Somatosensory Modalities

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Dwyer ◽  
Yukari Takarae ◽  
Iman Zadeh ◽  
Susan M Rivera ◽  
Clifford D Saron
Keyword(s):  
Sensory Processing ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Auditory Thresholds ◽  
Sensory Experiences ◽  
Hearing Acuity ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Related Potentials ◽  
Auditory Erps

Abstract BackgroundReconciling results obtained using different types of sensory measures is a challenge for autism sensory research. The present study used questionnaire, psychophysical, and neurophysiological measures to characterize autistic sensory processing in different measurement modalities.MethodsParticipants were 46 autistic and 21 typically-developing adolescents. Participants and their caregivers completed questionnaires regarding sensory experiences and behaviours. Auditory and somatosensory ERPs were recorded as part of a multisensory ERP task. Auditory, tactile static detection, and tactile spatial resolution psychophysical thresholds were measured.ResultsSensory questionnaires strongly differentiated between autistic and typically-developing individuals, while little evidence of group differences was observed in psychophysical thresholds. Crucially, the different types of measures (neurophysiological, psychophysical, questionnaire) appeared to be largely independent of one another. However, we unexpectedly found autistic participants with larger auditory Tb ERP amplitudes had reduced hearing acuity, even though all participants had hearing acuity in the non-clinical range.LimitationsThe autistic and typically-developing groups were not well-matched, although this limitation does not affect our main analyses regarding convergence of measures within ASD. The autistic sample in the present study is not representative of the whole autistic constellation, limiting generalizability. Auditory ERPs and auditory thresholds were measured with non-equivalent stimuli.ConclusionsOverall, based on these results, measures in different sensory modalities appear to capture distinct aspects of sensory processing in autism, with relatively limited convergence between questionnaires and laboratory-based tasks. Generally, this might reflect the reality that laboratory tasks are often carried out in controlled environments without background stimuli to compete for attention, a context which may not closely resemble the busier and more complex environments in which autistic people’s atypical sensory experiences commonly occur. For this reason, sensory questionnaires may be more practically useful assessments of autistic people’s real-world sensory challenges. Further research is needed to replicate and investigate the drivers of the unexpected association we observed between auditory Tb ERP amplitudes and hearing acuity, which could represent an important confound for ERP researchers to consider in their studies.

scholarly journals A Signature of Attention-Elicited Electrocortical Activity Distinguishes Response From Non-Response to the Non-Stimulant Atomoxetine in Children and Adolescents With ADHD

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 744-753
Author(s):  
Kristi R. Griffiths ◽  
Barbora G. Jurigova ◽  
John E. Leikauf ◽  
Donna Palmer ◽  
Simon D. Clarke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Attractive Alternative ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
First Line ◽  
Auditory Oddball ◽  
Related Potentials ◽  
The Right ◽  
Leave One Out ◽  
Youth With Adhd

Objective: Atomoxetine has several characteristics that make it an attractive alternative to stimulants for treating ADHD, but there are currently no tests identifying individuals for whom the medication should be a first-line option. Method: Within the ADHD Controlled Trial Investigation Of a Non-stimulant (ACTION) study, we examined neuro-cortical activity in 52 youth with ADHD. Baseline event-related potentials (ERP) were compared between those who subsequently responded to 6 weeks of atomoxetine versus those who did not. Results: Responders were distinguished by significantly lower auditory oddball N2 amplitudes than both non-responders and typically developing controls, particularly in the right frontocentral region ( p = .002, Cohen’s d = 1.1). Leave-one-out cross validation determined that N2 amplitude in this region was able to accurately predict non-responders with a specificity of 80.8%. There were no P3 differences between responders and non-responders. Conclusion: The N2 amplitude is a biomarker that may have utility in predicting response to atomoxetine for youth with ADHD.

scholarly journals Defining Clusters of Young Autistic and Typically-Developing Children Based on Loudness-Dependent Auditory Electrophysiological Responses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Dwyer ◽  
Xiaodong Wang ◽  
Rosanna De Meo-Monteil ◽  
Fushing Hsieh ◽  
Clifford D. Saron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensory Processing ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Neural Responses ◽  
Typically Developing Children ◽  
Strong Response ◽  
Global Field Power ◽  
Related Potentials

Abstract Background: Autistic individuals exhibit atypical patterns of sensory processing that are known to be related to quality of life, but which are also highly heterogeneous. Previous investigations of this heterogeneity have ordinarily used questionnaires and have rarely investigated sensory processing in Typical Development (TD) alongside Autism Spectrum Development (ASD). Methods: The present study used hierarchical clustering in a large sample to identify subgroups of young autistic and typically-developing children based the normalized global field power (GFP) of their event-related potentials (ERPs) to auditory stimuli of four different loudness intensities (50, 60, 70, 80 dB SPL): that is, based on an index of the relative strengths of their neural responses across these loudness conditions. Results: Four clusters of participants were defined. Normalized GFP responses to sounds of different intensities differed strongly across clusters. There was considerable overlap in cluster assignments of autistic and typically-developing participants, but autistic participants were more likely to display a pattern of relatively linear increases in response strength accompanied by a disproportionately strong response to 70 dB stimuli. Autistic participants displaying this pattern trended towards obtaining higher scores on assessments of cognitive abilities. There was also a trend for typically-developing participants to disproportionately fall into a cluster characterized by disproportionately/nonlinearly strong 60 dB responses. Greater auditory distractibility was reported among autistic participants in a cluster characterized by disproportionately strong responses to the loudest (80 dB) sounds, and furthermore, relatively strong responses to loud sounds were correlated with both auditory distractibility and noise distress. This appears to provide evidence of coinciding behavioural and neural sensory atypicalities. Limitations : Replication may be needed to verify exploratory results. This analysis may ignore some variability related to classical ERP latencies and topographies. The sensory questionnaire employed was not specifically designed for use in autism. Variability in sensory responses unrelated to loudness is ignored, leaving much room for additional research. Conclusions: Taken together, these data demonstrate the broader benefits of using electrophysiology to explore individual differences. They illuminate different neural response patterns and suggest relationships between sensory neural responses and sensory behaviours, cognitive abilities, and autism diagnostic status.

scholarly journals Defining Clusters of Young Autistic and Typically-Developing Children Based on Loudness-Dependent Auditory Electrophysiological Responses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Dwyer ◽  
Xiaodong Wang ◽  
Rosanna De Meo-Monteil ◽  
Fushing Hsieh ◽  
Clifford D. Saron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sensory Processing ◽  
Cognitive Abilities ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Neural Responses ◽  
Typically Developing Children ◽  
Strong Response ◽  
Global Field Power ◽  
Related Potentials

Abstract Background: Autistic individuals exhibit atypical patterns of sensory processing that are known to be related to quality of life, but which are also highly heterogeneous. Previous investigations of this heterogeneity have ordinarily used questionnaires and have rarely investigated sensory processing in Typical Development (TD) alongside Autism Spectrum Development (ASD). Methods: The present study used hierarchical clustering in a large sample to identify subgroups of young autistic and typically-developing children based the normalized global field power (GFP) of their event-related potentials (ERPs) to auditory stimuli of four different loudness intensities (50, 60, 70, 80 dB SPL): that is, based on an index of the relative strengths of their neural responses across these loudness conditions. Results: Four clusters of participants were defined. Normalized GFP responses to sounds of different intensities differed strongly across clusters. There was considerable overlap in cluster assignments of autistic and typically-developing participants, but autistic participants were more likely to display a pattern of relatively linear increases in response strength accompanied by a disproportionately strong response to 70 dB stimuli. Autistic participants displaying this pattern trended towards obtaining higher scores on assessments of cognitive abilities. There was also a trend for typically-developing participants to disproportionately fall into a cluster characterized by disproportionately/nonlinearly strong 60 dB responses. Greater auditory distractibility was reported among autistic participants in a cluster characterized by disproportionately strong responses to the loudest (80 dB) sounds, and furthermore, relatively strong responses to loud sounds were correlated with both auditory distractibility and noise distress. This appears to provide evidence of coinciding behavioural and neural sensory atypicalities. Limitations : Replication may be needed to verify exploratory results. This analysis may ignore some variability related to classical ERP latencies and topographies. The sensory questionnaire employed was not specifically designed for use in autism. Variability in sensory responses unrelated to loudness is ignored, leaving much room for additional research. Conclusions: Taken together, these data demonstrate the broader benefits of using electrophysiology to explore individual differences. They illuminate different neural response patterns and suggest relationships between sensory neural responses and sensory behaviours, cognitive abilities, and autism diagnostic status.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document