Eye Avoidance of Threatening Facial Expressions in Parents of Children with ASD

Abstract

Previous research found that autism spectrum disorder (ASD) was characterized by eye avoidance of threatening facial expressions. However, it still remains unclear as to whether these abnormalities are present in parents of children with ASD. Our study aimed to investigate the gaze patterns of parents of children with ASD in the threatening facial expressions. Methods: Thirty-four parents of children with ASD and 35 parents of typically developing (TD) children participated in our study. We investigated the total fixation time of participants when they viewed different facial expression (eg, happy, fearful, angry, sad) videos and examined changes in the fixation duration over time. Results: We observed the following: a) the total fixation time of the parents of children with ASD on the eyes of fearful faces was significantly shorter than that of the normal group, and the difference lasted for five seconds (four to six seconds, eight to nine seconds) throughout the process; and b) The parents of children with ASD avoided the eyes of angry expression faces at around five seconds after the stimulus onset. Conclusion:We concluded that parents of children with ASD tended to avoid the eyes of threatening expression faces while viewing the dynamic emotions video.

Characteristics of emotional gaze on threatening faces in children with autism spectrum disorders

“…The eye-tracking stimulus adapted from a previous study ( 30 ) was used in the present study of gaze characteristics of children with ASD and TD, on the basis of its application in our previous study of gaze characteristics of first-degree relatives of ASD and TD ( 32 ). The experimenters showed each participant four colorful films expressing four different emotions, namely, sad, fearful, angry and happy, respectively.…”

Altering balance perception through the agent’s expression: Happy face suppresses the inward bias.

“…Therefore, the expectation of the avatar’s possible response is highly dependent on the individual differences in the interpretation of the angry emotion. Some may perceive angry emotion as associated with avoidance, while others may perceive it as promoting approach behavior (Vasara & Surakka, 2021; Yang et al, 2021). For example, Xia et al (2019) proposed that anger may induce approach tendencies, such as confronting a threat.…”

“…According to emotional motivation theory, positive emotions (e.g., happiness), which have the function of promoting social bonding, often lead to approach motivational tendencies, whereas negative emotions (e.g., anger), which are defined as threat signals, may lead to avoidance motivational tendencies (Dapprich et al, 2021; Maiß et al, 2021; Nikitin & Freund, 2019; Tamir & Hughes, 2018; Yang et al, 2021). Because facial emotion is the most common way to perceive the attitudes and experiences of others, individuals’ ratings of the viewed object may differ depending on the specific facial emotion of the other.…”