Atypical visual-auditory predictive coding in autism spectrum disorder: Electrophysiological evidence from stimulus omissions

Laarhoven, Thijs van; Stekelenburg, Jeroen J.; Eussen, Mart; Vroomen, Jean

doi:10.1177/1362361320926061

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(71 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the latter, the higher amplitude omission responses in children could be explained as a consequence of a still imprecise predictive model, where high weight is assigned to sensory input in order to update the model. A similar interpretation of the oN1 has recently been proposed by van Laarhoven et al (2020) in the context of autism, where people suffering from autism demonstrated to assign a uniform, inflexibly high weight to prediction errors ( Van de Cruys et al, 2014 ). However, whether this hypothesis can be transferred to sensory predictions in children has to be addressed in future studies.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Sound omission related brain responses in children

Dercksen

Widmann

Scharf

et al. 2022

Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Action is an important way for children to learn about the world. Recent theories suggest that action is inherently accompanied by the sensory prediction of its effects. Such predictions can be revealed by rarely omitting the expected sensory consequence of the action, resulting in an omission response that is observable in the EEG. Although prediction errors play an important role in models of learning and development, little is known about omission-related brain responses in children. This study used a motor-auditory omission paradigm, testing a group of 6–8-year-old children and an adult group (N = 31 each). In an identity-specific condition, the sound coupled to the motor action was predictable, while in an identity unspecific condition the sound was unpredictable. Results of a temporal principal component analysis revealed that sound-related brain responses underlying the N1-complex differed considerably between age groups. Despite these developmental differences, omission responses (oN1) were similar between age groups. Two subcomponents of the oN1 were differently affected by specific and unspecific predictions. Results demonstrate that children, independent from the maturation of sound processing mechanisms, can implement specific and unspecific predictions as flexibly as adults. This supports theories that regard action and prediction error as important drivers of cognitive development.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Sound omission related brain responses in children

Dercksen

Widmann

Scharf

et al. 2022

Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Individuals with ASD appear to set the weight of the prior lower (and that of the sensory inputs higher) than optimal when the environment shifts from a normal to an unpredictable, volatile regimen. A similar inability to adapt to process unexpected sensory stimulation has been reported in several recent studies [4,24,36,51]. For example, using audiovisual recordings of hand-clapping with unexpected omissions of sound [51] found an early negative omission response (the oN1 component of the event-related potential) -a key signature of processing unexpected sensory stimulation -to be significantly more pronounced in their ASD relative to the TD group.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Beyond Prior and Volatility: The Distinct Iterative Updating Account of ASD

Shi

Theisinger

Allenmark

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been widely reported to show atypicalities in predictive coding, though there remains a controversy regarding what causes such atypical processing. Suggestions range from overestimation of volatility to rigidity in the reaction to environmental changes. Here, we tested two accounts directly using duration reproduction of volatile and non-volatile interval sequences. Critically, both sequences had the same set of intervals but differed in their stimulus presentation orders. Comparing individuals with ASD vs. their matched controls, we found both groups to respond to the volatility in a similar manner, albeit with a generally reduced prior in the ASD group. Interestingly, though, relative to the control group, the ASD group exhibited a markedly reduced trust in the prior in the volatile trial session when this was performed after the non-volatile session, while both groups performed comparably in the reverse session order. Our findings suggest that it is not the learning of environmental volatility that is compromised in ASD. Rather, it is their response to a change of the volatility regimen from stable to volatile, which causes a highly inflexible weighting of prediction errors.

show abstract

“…They found no differences in predictive gaze. van Laarhoven, Stekelenburg, Eussen, and Vroomen [2020] considered neural activity indicative of predictions based on the association between the sight and sound of a handclap. The ASD group showed increased modulation of neural activity by prediction.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both showed reduced modulation by prediction of the early ERP response to auditory stimuli in the ASD group compared to the control group. A third study examining the effect of auditory omission during an auditory visual action (i.e., hand clap) showed an increased oN1 in the ASD group compared to the NT group, suggesting a larger prediction error in the ASD group compared to the NT group [van Laarhoven et al, 2020].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another prediction type likely to be innate or strongly learned in the ASD brain is the prediction of a stimulus when it is self‐initiated, so the observation of relatively attenuated neural response to self‐generated tones supports this hypothesis. Finally, the presence of a stronger omission response to the sight of a handclap without the sound [van Laarhoven et al, 2020] suggests that predictive processes based on strongly learned associations are present in ASD, and that signaling differences may stem from an over signaling of prediction errors rather than a failure to predict.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Prediction in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to a recent influential proposal, several phenotypic features of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may be accounted for by differences in predictive skills between individuals with ASD and neurotypical individuals. In this systematic review, we describe results from 47 studies that have empirically tested this hypothesis. We assess the results based on two observable aspects of prediction: learning a pairing between an antecedent and a consequence and responding to an antecedent in a predictive manner. Taken together, these studies suggest distinct differences in both predictive learning and predictive response. Studies documenting differences in learning predictive pairings indicate challenges in detecting such relationships especially when predictive features of an antecedent have low salience or consistency, and studies showing differences in habituation and perceptual adaptation suggest low‐level predictive processing differences in ASD. These challenges may account for the observed differences in the influence of predictive priors, in spontaneous predictive movement or gaze, and in social prediction. An important goal for future research will be to better define and constrain the broad domain‐general hypothesis by testing multiple types of prediction within the same individuals. Additional promising avenues include studying prediction within naturalistic contexts and assessing the effect of prediction‐based intervention on supporting functional outcomes for individuals with ASD. Lay Summary Researchers have suggested that many features of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may be explained by differences in the prediction skills of people with ASD. We review results from 47 studies. These studies suggest that ASD may be associated with differences in the learning of predictive pairings (e.g., learning cause and effect) and in low‐level predictive processing in the brain (e.g., processing repeated sounds). These findings lay the groundwork for research that can improve our understanding of ASD and inform interventions. Autism Res 2021, 14: 604–630. © 2021 International Society for Autism Research and Wiley Periodicals LLC

show abstract

Atypical visual-auditory predictive coding in autism spectrum disorder: Electrophysiological evidence from stimulus omissions

Cited by 20 publications

References 35 publications

Sound omission related brain responses in children

Sound omission related brain responses in children

Beyond Prior and Volatility: The Distinct Iterative Updating Account of ASD

Prediction in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About