Utilitarian Attention by Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder on a Filtering Task

Abstract

The findings are evidence that persons with ASD benefit more than typically developing (TD) persons from spatial framing cues in focusing their attention on a visual target. Participants were administered a forced-choice task to assess visual filtering. A target stimulus was presented on a screen and flanker stimuli were presented simultaneously with or after the target, with varying stimuli onset asynchronies (SOAs). Regardless of SOA, TD children showed the expected distracting effects with slower reaction times (RTs) when flankers were at closer distances from the target. However, children with ASD displayed shorter RTs in the conditions in which the stimuli were presented simultaneously or with a short SOA. These findings are interpreted as reflecting utilitarian attention among children with ASD.

Visual filtering in time and space among persons with Down syndrome

“…These findings are both consistent with evidence from TD persons (e.g., Burack 1994; Brodeur et al . 2018) and convergent with findings from comparisons of visual filtering between participants with DS and TD persons matched on non‐verbal MA (Randolph & Burack 2000; Breckenridge et al . 2013).…”

“…The task was a forced‐choice RT target detection paradigm as described by Brodeur et al (2018) and included conditions based on time between the onset of the target and distractors (0, 150, 300, or 450 ms), distance (close: 20.2 mm or 2.32° of visual angle from the target, intermediate: 60.2 mm or 6.92° of visual angle from the target, and far: 120.8 mm or 13.78° of visual angle from the target) and target–flanker feature similarity (similar or dissimilar). Additionally, a baseline condition was comprised of 24 trials with the target presented in the absence of flankers.…”

“…Accordingly, we included both temporal and spatial manipulations on a variant of the traditional flanker task (Brodeur et al . 2018), in which centrally located target stimuli are flanked by non‐target, potentially distracting stimuli. In our task, the flankers were presented either simultaneously with the target or 150, 300 and 450 ms prior to its presentation (Fig.…”

“…Consistent with current conceptualizations of the development of attention in which real-world considerations are emphasised (Ristic & Enns 2015;Burack et al 2017), we attempted to, at least partially, capture the complexity of filtering in a dynamic environment. Accordingly, we included both temporal and spatial manipulations on a variant of the traditional flanker task (Brodeur et al 2018), in which centrally located target stimuli are flanked by non-target, potentially distracting stimuli. In our task, the flankers were presented either simultaneously with the target or 150, 300 and 450 ms prior to its presentation (Fig.…”

The science of humanity and the humanity of science: Perspectives on Ed Zigler's contributions to developmental psychopathology and the study of all children

“…For example, contrary to the common notion that persons with ASD cannot or do not follow eyes, Ristic et al (2005) found that eye gaze following may be more effective among persons with ASD as it appears to be contingency based rather than automatic, as is the case with typically developing persons. Similarly, Brodeur, Stewart, Dawkins, and Burack (2018) cited findings that they interpreted as indicating a particularly utilitarian approach to attending: their participants with ASD seemed to be particularly able to utilize certain dynamic objects in the environment as beneficial cues, whereas the other participants found them distracting and an impediment to performance (for a comprehensive discussion, see Burack & Brodeur, 2020). In a related example of apparently more efficient processing of information, Russo, Mottron, Burack, and Jemel (2012) found that individuals with ASD processed incongruence between an animal sound and a picture of a different animal particularly quickly, as indicated by a positive event related potential (ERP) of around 100 ms as compared with a negative ERP of 400 ms observed among the IQ- and aged-matched typically developing comparison participants, although the groups performed similarly in terms of the speed and accuracy of behavioral responding.…”