Studies with infant siblings of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder have attempted to identify early markers for the disorder and suggest that autistic symptoms emerge between 12 and 24 months of age. Yet, a reliable first‐year marker remains elusive. We propose that in order to establish first‐year manifestations of this inherently social disorder, we need to develop research methods that are sufficiently socially demanding and realistically interactive. Building on Keemink et al. [2019, Developmental Psychology, 55, 1362–1371], we employed a gaze‐contingent eye‐tracking paradigm in which infants could interact with face stimuli. Infants could elicit emotional expressions (happiness, sadness, surprise, fear, disgust, anger) from on‐screen faces by engaging in eye contact. We collected eye‐tracking data and video‐recorded behavioural response data from 122 (64 male, 58 female) typically developing infants and 31 infant siblings (17 male, 14 female) aged 6‐, 9‐ and 12‐months old. All infants demonstrated a significant Expression by AOI interaction (F(10, 1470) = 10.003, P < 0.001, ŋp2 = 0.064). Infants' eye movements were “expression‐specific” with infants distributing their fixations to AOIs differently per expression. Whereas eye movements provide no evidence of deviancies, behavioural response data show significant aberrancies in reciprocity for infant siblings. Infant siblings show reduced social responsiveness at the group level (F(1, 147) = 4.10, P = 0.042, ŋp2 = 0.028) and individual level (Fischer's Exact, P = 0.032). We conclude that the gaze‐contingency paradigm provides a realistically interactive experience capable of detecting deviancies in social responsiveness early, and we discuss our results in relation to subsequent infant sibling development. Lay Summary We investigated how infant siblings of children with autism spectrum disorder respond to interactive faces presented on a computer screen. Our study demonstrates that infant siblings are less responsive when interacting with faces on a computer screen (e.g., they smile and imitate less) in comparison to infants without an older sibling with autism. Reduced responsiveness within social interaction could potentially have implications for how parents and carers interact with these infants. Autism Res 2021, 14: 973–983. © 2020 International Society for Autism Research and Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Eye-tracking technology can provide information about social-cognitive processes, without the need for explicit responses or verbal demands. In this pre-publication, written for the BPS Developmental Psychology Forum Newsletter (Issue 95), I introduce our systematic review investigating how eye-tracking technology has been used as a tool to evaluate social cognition among individuals with an intellectual disability, in which we took an Open Research approach. When I came to pre-register the review, I noticed popular guidance were more focused on intervention and outcome, rather than detailed description of methodology. As the purpose of pre-registration is to facilitate transparency and robustness, whilst constraining reporting bias, I wanted to follow a framework that best suited our review. I used the Non-Interventional, Reproducible, and Open Systematic Reviews (NIRO-SR; Topor et al., 2021) guidelines and framework – a 68-item checklist supporting planning, pre-registering, and reporting of non-interventional studies in systematic reviews. Being able to address each item not only maximised transparency of our review processes, but also meant we begun the review with a comprehensive protocol written – supporting efficient and reliable data extraction and synthesis across reviewers. Searches were conducted in PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, and through mailing lists (ID-Research-UK, COGDEVSOC, Dev-Europe). We included both grey literature and peer-reviewed research, as we did not want to overlook the risk of publication bias, and consequently, over-estimate the effectiveness of eye-tracking technology. The review identifies a relatively substantial amount of research; yet variability in eye-tracking protocol and heterogeneity of stimuli used. In addition, studies were often limited by sample size and at times ran exploratory analyses - increasing the potential for sample dependent results and Type 1 error. We recommend presenting protocols transparently, and developing a bank of open-access, validated eye-tracking stimuli, to encourage replication of findings and opportunities for data sharing. Collaborative and open methods will strengthen theoretical and clinical implications regarding social cognition in intellectual disability.

Eye-tracking technology can provide information about social-cognitive processes, without the need for explicit responses or verbal demands. In this pre-publication, written for the BPS Developmental Psychology Forum Newsletter (Issue 95), I introduce our systematic review investigating how eye-tracking technology has been used as a tool to evaluate social cognition among individuals with an intellectual disability, in which we took an Open Research approach. When I came to pre-register the review, I noticed popular guidance were more focused on intervention and outcome, rather than detailed description of methodology. As the purpose of pre-registration is to facilitate transparency and robustness, whilst constraining reporting bias, I wanted to follow a framework that best suited our review. I used the Non-Interventional, Reproducible, and Open Systematic Reviews (NIRO-SR; Topor et al., 2021) guidelines and framework – a 68-item checklist supporting planning, pre-registering, and reporting of non-interventional studies in systematic reviews. Being able to address each item not only maximised transparency of our review processes, but also meant we begun the review with a comprehensive protocol written – supporting efficient and reliable data extraction and synthesis across reviewers. Searches were conducted in PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, and through mailing lists (ID-Research-UK, COGDEVSOC, Dev-Europe). We included both grey literature and peer-reviewed research, as we did not want to overlook the risk of publication bias, and consequently, over-estimate the effectiveness of eye-tracking technology. The review identifies a relatively substantial amount of research; yet variability in eye-tracking protocol and heterogeneity of stimuli used. In addition, studies were often limited by sample size and at times ran exploratory analyses - increasing the potential for sample dependent results and Type 1 error. We recommend presenting protocols transparently, and developing a bank of open-access, validated eye-tracking stimuli, to encourage replication of findings and opportunities for data sharing. Collaborative and open methods will strengthen theoretical and clinical implications regarding social cognition in intellectual disability.

Eye-tracking technology can provide information about social-cognitive processes, without the need for explicit responses or verbal demands. In this pre-publication, written for the BPS Developmental Psychology Forum Newsletter (Issue 95), I introduce our systematic review investigating how eye-tracking technology has been used as a tool to evaluate social cognition among individuals with an intellectual disability, in which we took an Open Research approach. When I came to pre-register the review, I noticed popular guidance were more focused on intervention and outcome, rather than detailed description of methodology. As the purpose of pre-registration is to facilitate transparency and robustness, whilst constraining reporting bias, I wanted to follow a framework that best suited our review. I used the Non-Interventional, Reproducible, and Open Systematic Reviews (NIRO-SR; Topor et al., 2021) guidelines and framework – a 68-item checklist supporting planning, pre-registering, and reporting of non-interventional studies in systematic reviews. Being able to address each item not only maximised transparency of our review processes, but also meant we begun the review with a comprehensive protocol written – supporting efficient and reliable data extraction and synthesis across reviewers. Searches were conducted in PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, and through mailing lists (ID-Research-UK, COGDEVSOC, Dev-Europe). We included both grey literature and peer-reviewed research, as we did not want to overlook the risk of publication bias, and consequently, over-estimate the effectiveness of eye-tracking technology. The review identifies a relatively substantial amount of research; yet variability in eye-tracking protocol and heterogeneity of stimuli used. In addition, studies were often limited by sample size and at times ran exploratory analyses - increasing the potential for sample dependent results and Type 1 error. We recommend presenting protocols transparently, and developing a bank of open-access, validated eye-tracking stimuli, to encourage replication of findings and opportunities for data sharing. Collaborative and open methods will strengthen theoretical and clinical implications regarding social cognition in intellectual disability.

Eye-tracking technology can provide information about social-cognitive processes, without the need for explicit responses or verbal demands. In this pre-publication, written for the BPS Developmental Psychology Forum Newsletter (Issue 95), I introduce our systematic review investigating how eye-tracking technology has been used as a tool to evaluate social cognition among individuals with an intellectual disability, in which we took an Open Research approach. When I came to pre-register the review, I noticed popular guidance were more focused on intervention and outcome, rather than detailed description of methodology. As the purpose of pre-registration is to facilitate transparency and robustness, whilst constraining reporting bias, I wanted to follow a framework that best suited our review. I used the Non-Interventional, Reproducible, and Open Systematic Reviews (NIRO-SR; Topor et al., 2021) guidelines and framework – a 68-item checklist supporting planning, pre-registering, and reporting of non-interventional studies in systematic reviews. Being able to address each item not only maximised transparency of our review processes, but also meant we begun the review with a comprehensive protocol written – supporting efficient and reliable data extraction and synthesis across reviewers. Searches were conducted in PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, and through mailing lists (ID-Research-UK, COGDEVSOC, Dev-Europe). We included both grey literature and peer-reviewed research, as we did not want to overlook the risk of publication bias, and consequently, over-estimate the effectiveness of eye-tracking technology. The review identifies a relatively substantial amount of research; yet variability in eye-tracking protocol and heterogeneity of stimuli used. In addition, studies were often limited by sample size and at times ran exploratory analyses - increasing the potential for sample dependent results and Type 1 error. We recommend presenting protocols transparently, and developing a bank of open-access, validated eye-tracking stimuli, to encourage replication of findings and opportunities for data sharing. Collaborative and open methods will strengthen theoretical and clinical implications regarding social cognition in intellectual disability.