Multisensory Integration of Low-level Information in Autism Spectrum Disorder: Measuring Susceptibility to the Flash-Beep Illusion

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested audiovisual multisensory integration (MSI) may be atypical in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). However, much of the research having found an alteration in MSI in ASD involved sociocommunicative stimuli. The goal of the current study was to investigate MSI abilities in ASD using lowerlevel stimuli that are not socio-communicative in nature by testing susceptibility to auditory-guided visual illusions. Adolescents and adults with ASD and typicallydeveloping (TD)individuals were shown to have similar susceptibility to a fission illusion. However, the ASD group was significantly more susceptible to the fusion illusion. Results suggest that individuals with ASD demonstrate MSI on the flashbeep illusion task but that their integration of audiovisual sensory information may be less selective than for TD individuals. Various theories attempt to explain the perceptual and sensory processing differences that make up the specific cognitive architecture of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and make the link between sensory processing and the core features (i.e., socio-communicative impairments and repetitive/restricted patterns of behaviors and interests) of ASD ( . One commonality to these cognitive theories is to hypothesize atypical sensory integration in ASD, both within and across sensory modalities (i.e., sight, hearing, touch, etc.).While research on Multisensory Integration (MSI) in ASD has expanded, there remain many questions to be answered with regard to the sensory integration capabilities of individuals with ASD. Much of the information on MSI in ASD has originated from studies examining the integration of sensory stimuli that are socio-communicative in nature (i.e., speech and faces; Brandwein et al. 2013;Mongillo et al. 2008). The McGurk effect (i.e., illusory auditory perception influenced by discordant visual information) has been one frontrunner paradigm for studying MSI in TD individuals as well as in ASD (Foxe and Molholm 2009;Iarocci and McDonald 2006). While some studies have identified a diminished McGurk effect in ASD (Bebko et al. 2014;Mongillo et al. 2008;Williams et al. 2004), others have found that the effect is contingent on developmental factors (Taylor et al. 2010), socio-communicative impairments (Iarocci et al. 2010, or task-related temporal factors (Woynaroski et al. 2013).The speech-in-noise paradigm, which is based on the facilitatory effect of multisensory stimulation, has also been used to better understand multisensory integration processes in typical development as well as in ASD. Using the speech-in noise approach to compare adolescents with Abstract Previous studies have suggested audiovisual multisensory integration (MSI) may be atypical in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). However, much of the research having found an alteration in MSI in ASD involved sociocommunicative stimuli. The goal of the current study was to investigate MSI abilities in ASD using lower-level stimuli that are not socio-communicative in nature by testing susceptibility to au...

Audiovisual multisensory integration in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…For instance, in some cases individuals with ASD have been found to report fewer McGurk illusions than peers (Bebko et al, 2014; Feldman et al, 2018a; Stevenson et al, 2014c), but in other cases no significant between-group differences are observed (e.g., Keane, Rosenthal, Chun, & Shams, 2010; Saalasti et al, 2012; Saalasti, Tiippana, Kätsyri, & Sams, 2011; Stevenson et al, 2018; Woynaroski et al, 2013a). Similar inconsistencies have been noted using other tasks, such as the flash-beep illusion (e.g., Bao, Doobay, Mottron, Collignon, & Bertone, 2017; Foss-Feig et al, 2010; Keane et al, 2010) and tasks measuring TBWs for audiovisual stimuli (e.g., Foss-Feig et al, 2010; Noel, De Niear, Stevenson, Alais, & Wallace, 2017).…”

Atypical Multisensory Integration and the Temporal Binding Window in Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…Second, the present study did not include a condition with two flashes and one beep. Bao et al ( 2017 ) employed a SIFI task that included fusion illusion (i.e., two flashes with one beep perceived as one flash) and reported that individuals with ASD experience the fusion illusion more frequently than TD participants, whereas there was no significant group difference for fission illusion (i.e., one flash with two beeps perceived as two flashes). Other studies that reported non-significant differences in fission illusion have included a condition with two flashes and one beep (Foss-Feig et al 2010 ; Stevenson et al 2018b ; van der Smagt et al 2007 ) whereas studies showing lower fission illusion susceptibility in the ASD group did not include a fusion illusion condition (Stevenson et al 2014 ; Kawakami et al 2018 ).…”

Late attentional processes potentially compensate for early perceptual multisensory integration deficits in children with autism: evidence from evoked potentials

“…Several studies showed intact low-level MSI-driven RTs facilitation in ASD. Autistic individuals have been found to show MSI effects similar to controls in a pip-and-pop visual search task, as well as in MSI illusion paradigms 31 – 34 . Higher ASD susceptibility to the 2Flashes-1Beep illusion has also been reported (possibly due to an extended temporal binding window) 31 .…”

“…Indeed, several studies have shown that attention improves MSI 24 , 25 . The discrepancies in MSI findings in ASD (studies showing intact MSI in ASD 31 – 34 )may suggest that autistic individuals are capable of integrating modalities as long as they actively attend to stimuli, while in controls, MSI facilitation arises spontaneously without the need for strong attentional tone 23 . This finding might bridge the conflicting findings reported previously.…”