Neural Evidence for Speech Processing Deficits During a Cocktail Party Scenario in Minimally and Low Verbal Adolescents and Young Adults with Autism

Abstract

As demonstrated by the Cocktail Party Effect, a person's attention is grabbed when they hear their name in a multispeaker setting. However, individuals with autism (ASD) are commonly challenged in multispeaker settings and often do not respond to salient speech, including one's own name (OON). It is unknown whether neural responses during this Cocktail Party scenario differ in those with ASD and whether such differences are associated with expressive language or auditory filtering abilities. We measured neural responses to hearing OON in quiet and multispeaker settings using electroencephalography in 20 minimally or low verbal ASD (ASD-MLV), 27 verbally fluent ASD (ASD-V), and 27 neurotypical (TD) participants, ages 13-22. First, we determined whether TD's neural responses to OON relative to other names could be quantified with early frontal mismatch responses (MMRs) and late, slow shift parietal and frontal responses (LPPs/ FNs). Second, we compared the strength of MMRs and LPPs/FNs across the three groups. Third, we tested whether participants with poorer auditory filtering abilities exhibited particularly weak neural responses to OON heard in a multispeaker setting. Our primary finding was that TDs and ASD-Vs, but not ASD-MLVs, had significant MMRs to OON in a multispeaker setting, and strength of LPPs positively correlated with auditory filtering abilities in those with ASD. These findings reveal electrophysiological correlates of auditory filtering disruption within a clinical population that has severe language and communication impairments and offer a novel neuroimaging approach to studying the Cocktail Party effect in neurotypical and clinical populations.

Relations between language, non-verbal cognition, and conceptualization in non- or minimally verbal individuals with ASD across the lifespan

“…Insights into such variation as a result of developing skills in adults, however, are virtually absent. Among the rare exceptions are studies that have recruited only young adults in a mixed group with adolescents ( Bal et al, 2020 ; La Valle et al., 2020 ; Schwartz et al, 2020 ). To our knowledge, no study so far has recruited an ample adult-only group and assessed their cognitive profile alongside and in comparison to that of nvASD youngsters.…”

Atypical Perception of Sounds in Minimally and Low Verbal Children and Adolescents With Autism as Revealed by Behavioral and Neural Measures

“…The MMN is elicited by deviant sounds that are perceptually distinct from expected sounds (or “standards”). Because it can be measured passively, the MMN can be used to assess auditory processing in ASD‐MLV participants [Matsuzaki et al, 2019; Schwartz, Shinn‐Cunningham, & Tager‐Flusberg, 2018; Schwartz, Wang, Shinn‐Cunningham, & Tager‐Flusberg, 2020]. In general, researchers have considered the delay and decrease in amplitude of response to deviant sounds that are perceptually distinct in neurotypical listeners to be a sign of auditory processing deficits [Bishop, 2007; Näätänen et al, 2012].…”

A Multidimensional Investigation of Sensory Processing in Autism: Parent- and Self-Report Questionnaires, Psychophysical Thresholds, and Event-Related Potentials in the Auditory and Somatosensory Modalities

“…While prior studies such as those of Dwyer et al (2020) and Schwartz et al (2020b) have found relationships between auditory ERPs and sensory questionnaire scores, both Dwyer et al (2020) and Schwartz et al (2020b) presented auditory stimuli while participants watched quiet or silent videos of personal interest. Thus, it seems possible that neurophysiological responses to sensory stimuli might track better with the daily sensory experiences of autistic individuals if recorded in an experimental paradigm with multiple stimuli competing for attention, more closely resembling the complex real-world environments on which sensory questionnaire reporting may be based.…”

“…It appears intuitively reasonable to imagine that questionnaire reports of hyper- or hypo-responsivity to stimuli should be related to neural hyper- and hypo-responsiveness, especially when brain responses are recorded in a context comparable to the busy real world. Indeed, there may be associations between ERPs and sensory questionnaire scores when ERPs are recorded in passive paradigms while background stimuli compete for attention (as in Dwyer et al, 2020 ; Schwartz et al, 2020b ). However, convergence between sensory questionnaire scores and ERP amplitudes has also been observed while participants complete active tasks, requiring maintenance of particular attentional sets, in low-stimulation environments (e.g., Karhson and Golob, 2016 ), and conversely, studies using passive paradigms do not always report clear associations between ERPs and sensory questionnaire scores (e.g., Donkers et al, 2015 ).…”