Face processing in autism: Reduced integration of cross-feature dynamics

Abstract

Characteristic problems with social interaction have prompted considerable interest in the face processing of individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Studies suggest that reduced integration of information from disparate facial regions likely contributes to difficulties recognizing static faces in this population. Recent work also indicates that observers with ASD have problems using patterns of facial motion to judge identity and gender, and may be less able to derive global motion percepts. These findings raise the possibility that feature integration deficits also impact the perception of moving faces. To test this hypothesis, we examined whether observers with ASD exhibit susceptibility to a new dynamic face illusion, thought to index integration of moving facial features. When typical observers view eye-opening and -closing in the presence of asynchronous mouth-opening and -closing, the concurrent mouth movements induce a strong illusory slowing of the eye transitions. However, we find that observers with ASD are not susceptible to this illusion, suggestive of weaker integration of cross-feature dynamics. Nevertheless, observers with ASD and typical controls were equally able to detect the physical differences between comparison eye transitions. Importantly, this confirms that observers with ASD were able to fixate the eye-region, indicating that the striking group difference has a perceptual, not attentional origin. The clarity of the present results contrasts starkly with the modest effect sizes and equivocal findings seen throughout the literature on static face perception in ASD. We speculate that differences in the perception of facial motion may be a more reliable feature of this condition.

Empathy and face processing in adults with and without autism spectrum disorder

“…The fact that viewers with ASD needed slightly more time than typical viewers to make their judgements in both dynamic Garner tasks might indicate that one or both of these processes were compromised. Indeed, reduced ability to extract idiosyncratic facial motion signatures [O'Brien et al, ] and reduced cross‐feature integration [Shah et al, ] have been described in ASD. A third possibility is that interference was eliminated in dynamic trials because viewers in both groups attended more closely to local features or to specific regions of the face, making interference from global facial changes (associated with task‐irrelevant variations in identity or expression) less likely.…”

“…It is possible that adults with ASD would respond differently to the introduction of dynamic cues in the Garner task, given that group differences in processing static vs. dynamic social stimuli have been reported with other paradigms [e.g., Gepner & Feron, ; Horlin et al, ; Rigby, Stoesz, & Jakobson, ]. Conducting work involving dynamic faces is important, particularly in light of recent arguments that atypical perception of facial motion may be a more reliable feature of ASD than atypical static face perception [Shah et al, ].…”

“…Numerous factors contribute to the social difficulties in this population including, for example, problems with executive function [Pugliese et al, ], emotion regulation [Samson, Hardan, Lee, Phillips, & Gross, ], and social perception [Forgeot d'Arc et al, ]. Recent work in the area of face perception [e.g., Cassidy, Mitchell, Chapman, & Ropar, ; Chevallier et al, ; Shah, Bird, & Cook, ] highlights the need to clarify the nature of observed face processing difficulties; determine whether problems documented with static face stimuli persist when facial motion cues are available; and determine the relationships between face processing abilities and individual differences in symptom severity and traits such as empathy. The aim of the present study was to contribute to efforts that address these needs.…”

The composite face illusion

“…However, observers' ability to use motion cues is sensitive to orientation, suggestive of holistic or configural representation (Hill & Johnston, 2001;Knight & Johnston, 1997). Interestingly, observers with ASD are relatively poor at recognising individuals' facial motion signature (O'Brien, Spencer, Girges, Johnston, & Hill, 2014) and show little or no susceptibility to the illusory slowing induced by dynamic crossfeature interactions (Shah, Bird, & Cook, 2016). Moreover, the relationship between the dynamic and static composites remains unclear; while both illusions exhibit sensitivity to alignment and orientation, it is uncertain whether they are products of common processes or representations.…”

Typical integration of emotion cues from bodies and faces in Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…For example, ASD is associated with good detection of embedded figures, which requires observers to disregard extraneous information present within a complex pattern or scene, to locate a target element (Ropar & Mitchell, 2001;Shah & Frith, 1983). Those with ASD may also be less susceptible to context-induced visual illusions than typical individuals (Happé, 1996;Shah, Bird, & Cook, 2016; but see Manning, Morgan, Allen, & Pellicano, 2017) and show reduced global-to-local interference when responding to ("Navon") compound letter arrays (Behrmann, Avidan et al, 2006). Similarly, individuals with ASD may rely less than typical individuals on contextual cues to distinguish homographs when reading (Frith & Snowling, 1983;López & Leekam, 2003).…”