Over the past two decades, there have been increasing discussions around which terms should be used to talk about autism. Whilst these discussions have largely revolved around the suitability of identity‐first language and person‐first language, more recently this debate has broadened to encompass other autism‐related terminology (e.g., ‘high‐functioning’). To date, academic studies have not investigated the language preferences of autistic individuals outside of the United Kingdom or Australia, nor have they compared levels of endorsement across countries. Hence, the current study adopted a mixed‐methods approach, employing both quantitative and qualitative techniques, to explore the linguistic preferences of 654 English‐speaking autistic adults across the globe. Despite variation in levels of endorsement between countries, we found that the most popular terms were similar—the terms ‘Autism’, ‘Autistic person’, ‘Is autistic’, ‘Neurological/Brain Difference’, ‘Differences’, ‘Challenges’, ‘Difficulties’, ‘Neurotypical people’, and ‘Neurotypicals’ were consistently favored across countries. Despite relative consensus across groups, both our quantitative and qualitative data demonstrate that there is no universally accepted way to talk about autism. Our thematic analysis revealed the reasons underlying participants’ preferences, generating six core themes, and illuminated an important guiding principle—to respect personal preferences. These findings have significant implications for informing practice, research and language policy worldwide.

Interoception concerns the perception of the body's internal state. Despite the importance of this ability for health and aspects of higher-order cognition, its measurement remains problematic. Most studies of interoception employ one of two tasks: the heartbeat counting or heartbeat discrimination task. These tasks are thought to index common abilities, an assertion often used to justify the use of a single measure of cardiac interoception. However, mixed findings regarding the relationship between performance on these tasks raises the question of whether they can be used interchangeably to assess interoceptive accuracy, confidence and awareness ('metacognition'). The present study employed a meta-analytical approach to assess the association between these tasks. Pooled findings from 22 studies revealed a small relationship between accuracy scores on the measures. Additional analyses demonstrated a moderate relationship between confidence ratings but no association between measures of interoceptive awareness. These findings question the interchangeable use of the two tasks.

Over the past two decades, there have been increasing discussions around which terms should be used to talk about autism. Whilst these discussions have largely revolved around the suitability of identity-first language and person-first language, more recently this debate has broadened to encompass other autism-related terminology (e.g., “high-functioning”). To date, academic studies have not investigated the language preferences of autistic individuals outside of the UK or Australia, nor have they compared levels of endorsement across countries. Hence, the current study adopted a mixed-methods approach, employing both quantitative and qualitative techniques, to explore the linguistic preferences of 654 English-speaking autistic adults across the globe. Despite variation in levels of endorsement between countries, we found that the most popular terms were similar- the terms “‘Autism”, “Autistic person”, “Is autistic”, “Neurological/Brain Difference”, “Differences”, “Challenges”, “Difficulties”, “Neurotypical people”, and “Neurotypicals” were consistently favored across countries. Despite relative consensus across groups, both our quantitative and qualitative data demonstrate that there is no universally accepted way to talk about autism. Our thematic analysis revealed the reasons underlying participants’ preferences, generating six core themes, and illuminated an important guiding principle- to respect personal preferences. These findings have significant implications for informing practice, research and language policy worldwide.

Background: In recent years, there have been increasing discussions surrounding the appropriate terminology to talk about autism. Initially, this debate revolved around the use of person-first language (e.g., person with autism) versus identity-first language (IFL; e.g., autistic person) but has recently expanded to other autismrelated terms (e.g., deficits). However, to date, studies investigating autism-related language preferences have been limited to English-speaking countries, and little is known about preferences in other languages. This study addresses this gap by investigating the language preferences of French-speaking autistic adults. Methods: Five hundred and forty-one French-speaking autistic adults (formal diagnosis and self-identified) completed an online survey where they selected terms they preferred to use to talk about: (1) the nomenclature of autism; (2) an autistic person; (3) someone's autistic identity; (4) autism more broadly; (5) the abilities of autistic people; and (6) people without a diagnosis of autism. Participants also revealed more about their language preferences via an open-text response. Results: The most preferred terms were ''Autisme,'' ''Personne autiste,'' ''Autiste,'' ''Est Autiste,'' ''Diffe ´rence neurologique/ce ´re ´brale,'' ''Diffe ´rences,'' ''Difficulte ´s,'' ''Personne neurotypique,'' ''Neurotypique,'' and ''Personne non-autiste.'' To better understand these preferences, participants' open comments were analyzed, revealing further support for IFL and the social model of disability, and a preference for simple, precise, and validated terms. Conclusions: These results are consistent with autism terminology preferences in English-speaking countries and provide additional insight into the reasons underlying these preferences. Such work has implications for informing the language of researchers, clinicians, and other professionals in the field, as well as the general public.

According to dual-process theory, recognition memory performance draws upon two processes, familiarity and recollection. The relative contribution to recognition memory are commonly distinguished in humans by analyzing receiveroperating-characteristics (ROC) curves; analogous methods are more complex and very rare in animals but fast familiarity and slow recollective-like processes (FF/SR) have been detected in nonhuman primates (NHPs) based on analyzing recognition error response time profiles. The relative utility of these methods to investigate familiarity and recollection/recollection-like processes across species is uncertain; indeed, even how comparable the FF/SR measures are across humans and NHPs remains unclear. Therefore, in this study a broadly similar recognition memory task was exploited in both humans and a NHP to investigate the time course of the two recognition processes. We first show that the FF/SR dissociation exists in this task in human participants and then we demonstrate a similar profile in the NHP which suggests that FF/SR processes are comparable across species. We then verified, using ROC-derived indices for each time-bin in the FF/SR profile, that the ROC and FF/SR measures are related. Hence, we argue that the FF/SR approach, procedurally easier in nonhuman animals, can be used as a decent proxy to investigate these two recognition processes in future animal studies, important given that scant data exists as to the neural basis underlying recollection yet many of the most informative techniques primarily exist in animal models.