Gaze patterns during scene processing in typical adults and adults with autism spectrum disorders

Rigby, Sarah N.; Stoesz, Brenda M.; Jakobson, Lorna S.

doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2016.01.012

Cited by 23 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, we observed that the ASD group used a more exploratory and less stable face scanning strategy as compared to the TD group. These results contradict previous studies finding less exploration and more visual persistence in ASD [ 32 , 76 , 91 ]. However, in these other studies, gaze exploration was investigated in dynamic scenes, in face-to-face interactions or in pictures of everyday scenes.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Combined frequency-tagging EEG and eye-tracking measures provide no support for the “excess mouth/diminished eye attention” hypothesis in autism

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Scanning faces is important for social interactions. Difficulty with the social use of eye contact constitutes one of the clinical symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). It has been suggested that individuals with ASD look less at the eyes and more at the mouth than typically developing (TD) individuals, possibly due to gaze aversion or gaze indifference. However, eye-tracking evidence for this hypothesis is mixed. While gaze patterns convey information about overt orienting processes, it is unclear how this is manifested at the neural level and how relative covert attention to the eyes and mouth of faces might be affected in ASD. Methods We used frequency-tagging EEG in combination with eye tracking, while participants watched fast flickering faces for 1-min stimulation sequences. The upper and lower halves of the faces were presented at 6 Hz and 7.5 Hz or vice versa in different stimulation sequences, allowing to objectively disentangle the neural saliency of the eyes versus mouth region of a perceived face. We tested 21 boys with ASD (8–12 years old) and 21 TD control boys, matched for age and IQ. Results Both groups looked longer at the eyes than the mouth, without any group difference in relative fixation duration to these features. TD boys looked significantly more to the nose, while the ASD boys looked more outside the face. EEG neural saliency data partly followed this pattern: neural responses to the upper or lower face half were not different between groups, but in the TD group, neural responses to the lower face halves were larger than responses to the upper part. Face exploration dynamics showed that TD individuals mostly maintained fixations within the same facial region, whereas individuals with ASD switched more often between the face parts. Limitations Replication in large and independent samples may be needed to validate exploratory results. Conclusions Combined eye-tracking and frequency-tagged neural responses show no support for the excess mouth/diminished eye gaze hypothesis in ASD. The more exploratory face scanning style observed in ASD might be related to their increased feature-based face processing style.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Combined frequency-tagging EEG and eye-tracking measures provide no support for the “excess mouth/diminished eye attention” hypothesis in autism

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adults with ASD may alter their eye movements appropriately according to differences in the mentalizing demand of the task when intentional information is portrayed by action kinematics but not when internal state inferences require face processing. This theory is supported by data from a previous study that showed that when adults with ASD naturalistically viewed videos and pictures of social scenes they displayed reduced fixation on people’s faces but showed equivalent fixation on bodies to control participants (Rigby et al 2016 ). The typical eye-tracking data in conjunction with the explicit mentalizing deficit in the current study suggest that despite receiving the visual cues they needed, adults with ASD could not accurately interpret the social cues embedded within the action kinematics in order to explicitly infer the actors’ intentions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Abilities to Explicitly and Implicitly Infer Intentions from Actions in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Cole

Slocombe

Barraclough

2017

J Autism Dev Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research suggests that Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) might be associated with impairments on implicit but not explicit mentalizing tasks. However, such comparisons are made difficult by the heterogeneity of stimuli and the techniques used to measure mentalizing capabilities. We tested the abilities of 34 individuals (17 with ASD) to derive intentions from others’ actions during both explicit and implicit tasks and tracked their eye-movements. Adults with ASD displayed explicit but not implicit mentalizing deficits. Adults with ASD displayed typical fixation patterns during both implicit and explicit tasks. These results illustrate an explicit mentalizing deficit in adults with ASD, which cannot be attributed to differences in fixation patterns.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s10803-017-3425-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Participants completed a general information questionnaire, the WASI (where applicable), the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ; Baron‐Cohen et al, 2001), and the Empathy Quotient (EQ: Baron‐Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004). They then completed a simple RT task, a simultaneous identity‐matching task, and several Garner tasks on a computer, along with another task used in a separate investigation [see Rigby et al, ]. The viewing distance was approximately 57 cm.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have shown that, in typical adults, interference between identity and expression processing occurs with static stimuli, but not with dynamic stimuli [Stoesz & Jakobson, ]. 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, ].…”

Section: Face Processing In Individuals With Asdmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our findings suggest that people with ASD have problems processing expressive faces, especially when seen in motion. It is important to learn who is most at risk for face processing problems, given that in the general population such problems appear to be linked to impaired social skills and empathy. By studying relationships between different abilities and traits, we may be able to find better ways to diagnose and support all people on the autism spectrum.

show abstract

Gaze patterns during scene processing in typical adults and adults with autism spectrum disorders

Cited by 23 publications

References 43 publications

Combined frequency-tagging EEG and eye-tracking measures provide no support for the “excess mouth/diminished eye attention” hypothesis in autism

Combined frequency-tagging EEG and eye-tracking measures provide no support for the “excess mouth/diminished eye attention” hypothesis in autism

Abilities to Explicitly and Implicitly Infer Intentions from Actions in Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About