Comparison of visual sensitivity to human and object motion in autism spectrum disorder

Abstract

Successful social behavior requires the accurate detection of other people's movements. Consistent with this, typical observers demonstrate enhanced visual sensitivity to human movement relative to equally complex, nonhuman movement [e.g., Pinto & Shiffrar, 2009]. A psychophysical study investigated visual sensitivity to human motion relative to object motion in observers with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Participants viewed point-light depictions of a moving person and, for comparison, a moving tractor and discriminated between coherent and scrambled versions of these stimuli in unmasked and masked displays. There were three groups of participants: young adults with ASD, typically developing young adults, and typically developing children. Across masking conditions, typical observers showed enhanced visual sensitivity to human movement while observers in the ASD group did not. Because the human body is an inherently social stimulus, this result is consistent with social brain theories [e.g., Pelphrey & Carter, 2008; Schultz, 2005] and suggests that the visual systems of individuals with ASD may not be tuned for the detection of socially relevant information such as the presence of another person. Reduced visual sensitivity to human movements could compromise important social behaviors including, for example, gesture comprehension.

I can see you better if I can hear you coming: Action-consistent sounds facilitate the visual detection of human gait

“…Since Johansson pioneered the experimental use of point-light stimuli, a sizable body of research has emerged aimed towards identifying the types of information that observers can detect in these simplified displays (see Blake & Shiffrar, 2007 for review). Consistent with the hypothesis that the typical human visual system is tuned for the detection and analysis of human movement, visual sensitivity to point-light human movement is typically more robust than sensitivity to similarly constructed point-light displays of moving objects (Kaiser, Delmolino, Tanaka, & Shiffrar, 2010) and animals (Pinto & Shiffrar, 2009).…”

Schematic and realistic biological motion identification in children with high-functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…The predisposition to attend to biological motion has been shown in typical development using multiple methods including, point-light display (Klin et al, 2009; Morita et al, 2012; Simion et al, 2008), schematic motion such as the Michotte “caterpillar” stimulus (Michotte, 1963; Schlottmann & Ray, 2010), or the motion of a single animated dot (Rutherford, Pennington, & Rogers, 2006; Schultz & Bulthoff, 2013). This early sensitivity and preference for animate motion has been difficult to reconcile with some research suggesting that individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have deficits in biological motion perception (Annaz et al, 2010; Annaz, Campbell, Coleman, Milne, & Swettenham, 2012; Blake, Turner, Smoski, Pozdol, & Stone, 2003; Centelles, Assaiante, Etchegoyhen, Bouvard, & Schmitz, 2013; Congiu, Schlottmann, & Ray, 2010; David et al, 2013; Herrington et al, 2007; Kaiser, Delmolino, Tanaka, & Shiffrar, 2010; Klin et al, 2009; Koldewyn, Whitney, & Rivera, 2010; Koldewyn, Whitney, & Rivera, 2011). However, a number of other studies do not support the contention that biological motion processing deficits are characteristic of ASD, particularly among high-functioning, older individuals with ASD (Cleary, Looney, Brady, & Fitzgerald, 2013; Freitag et al, 2008; Hubert et al, 2007; Moore, Hobson, & Lee, 1997; Murphy, Brady, Fitzgerald, & Troje, 2009; Parron et al, 2008; Rutherford & Troje, 2012; Saygin, Cook, & Blakemore, 2010).…”

Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder Do Not Preferentially Attend to Biological Motion

“…It is interesting then, that a number of studies now demonstrate a disruption in the perception of point-light displays of biological motion in children with ASD, either in the context of discrimination of biological motion from scrambled motion (Blake et al 2003), perception of emotion from point-light displays (Moore et al 1997), a lack of the usual perceptual advantage for point-light displays of biological motion over object motion (Kaiser et al 2010a), impaired perception of what constitutes biological motion versus mechanical motion (Cook et al 2009) or an abnormally flat developmental trajectory from 5 to 12 years in perceiving point-light biological motion embedded in noise (Annaz et al 2010). Studies measuring neural activity when viewers with ASD observe biological motion point-light displays have shown a reduction in activity in the superior temporal sulcus (STSp) (Herrington et al 2007;Kaiser et al 2010b) the area usually associated with increased activity during perception of biological motion (Lichtensteiger et al 2008;Pyles et al 2007), and an area which becomes increasingly tuned to the perception of human movement in typically developing children, but not children with ASD (Pelphrey and Carter 2008).…”