A test of central coherence theory: Can adults with high-functioning autism or Asperger syndrome integrate objects in context?

Abstract

Weak central coherence was investigated by exploring the conceptual integration of objects. Normally intelligent adults with either autism or Asperger syndrome were given two novel experiments. Experiment 1, the Object Integration test, had sets of line drawings depicting objects and people. Each set had to be either visually integrated to make the most coherent scene, or compared for similarities. The clinical groups were significantly impaired in their ability to integrate objects, but they were not impaired in looking for similarities. Experiment 2, the Scenic test, presented black line drawings of scenes containing an item that was inappropriate for the context. Participants were required to describe the scenes, identify the type of scene and context-inappropriate object, and locate a name (incongruent) object as quickly as they could. The clinical groups' descriptions suggest that they did not spontaneously pay preferential treatment to local details, nor were they faster at locating a named incongruent object. Whereas only a few of their descriptions lacked coherence, there was a deficit in both their ability to spontaneously notice and identify incongruent objects, as well as to identify the scenes. These tests provide support for Frith's (1989) central coherence hypothesis. Conceptual or high-level processing seemed inferior, whereas perceptual or lowlevel processing seemed normal, but not superior. Poor performance on these tasks characterized the majority of clinical participants, but those with autism performed at a consistently poorer level than those with Asperger syndrome. Possible explanations for the clinical groups' difficulties are explored along with suggestions for future research.

A New Computerised Advanced Theory of Mind Measure for Children with Asperger Syndrome: The ATOMIC

“…Although participants performed more poorly on the central coherence questions with high-simultaneous processing demands, and took longer to respond to these items than those with lowsimultaneous processing demands, this was evident for both the control and AS groups. This result is inconsistent with Jolliffe and Baron-Cohen's (2001) finding that participants with ASDs were impaired relative to matched controls in their ability to spontaneously identify objects that were incongruent with scenes. As Jolliffe and BaronCohen's (2001) central coherence task was very similar to that used in the ATOMIC programme, differences in task demands are unlikely to account for this discrepancy in findings.…”

“…Mottron, Peretz, & Menard, 2000;Plaisted et al, 1999) others plead against it (e.g. Jolliffe & Baron-Cohen, 2001). To account for this discrepancy in findings, proposed that the capacity of individuals with ASD to appreciate the 'gestalt' is only revealed when they are instructed to process information in a coherent manner, or task demands clearly require them to do so.…”

“…Evidence for this notion comes from Snowling and Frith (1986), who found that individuals with autism who previously failed to pronounce homographs in context were capable of doing so after being given explicit instructions. Jolliffe and Baron-Cohen (2001) also suggested that the number of items of information that need to be processed simultaneously (i.e. working memory load) may influence whether individuals with ASDs process information coherently.…”

Children with autism do not show sequence effects with auditory stimuli.

“…This includes the evidence discussed earlier, such as difficulty using context to select a correct pronunciation for a homograph (Frith & Snowling, 1983;Happé, 1997) and difficulty locating an object that is conceptually incongruent with a depicted scene (Jolliffe & Baron-Cohen, 2001). Other convergent evidence includes, for example, difficulties with tests of visual disembedding such as the embedded figures task (Jolliffe & Baron-Cohen, 1997;Shah & Frith, 1983) and the block design task (Happé, 1994b;Shah & Frith, 1993).…”

“…For example, adults with autism were less efficient at locating objects that were conceptually incongruent with surrounding context in depictions of common scenes (e.g. a butterfly in a winter snow scene, Jolliffe & Baron-Cohen, 2001). …”