ArticleDevelopmental science2022
Implicit learning in 3-year-olds with high and low likelihood of autism shows no evidence of precision weighting differences.
Article in Developmental science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of volatility in linguistic input on prediction behavior in autistic toddlers.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2024Article
- Intact predictive processing in autistic adults: evidence from statistical learning.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Implicit learning in 3-year-olds with high and low likelihood of autism shows no evidence of precision weighting differences.Developmental science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Predictive Processing accounts of autism claim that autistic individuals assign higher precision to their prediction errors than non-autistic individuals, that is, autistic individuals update their predictions more readily when faced with unexpected sensory input. Since setting the level of precision is a fundamental part of perception and learning, we propose that such differences should be detectable in various domains at a very early age, before clinical symptoms have fully emerged. We therefore tested 3-year-old younger siblings of autistic children, with a high likelihood of later receiving an autism diagnosis themselves, and low-likelihood children with an older sibling without autism. We used a novel implicit learning paradigm to examine the effect of sensory noise on the predictions participants built. In order to learn a sequence, our participants had to select which visual information to attend to and disregard low-level prediction errors caused by the sensory noise, which the theory claims is more difficult for autistic individuals. Contrary to the proposed higher precision-weighting of prediction errors in autism, the high-likelihood children did not show signs of updating their predictions more readily when we added sensory noise compared to the low-likelihood children, either in their reaction times or in the recurrence and determinism of their response locations. These results raise challenges for Predictive Processing theories of autism, specifically for the notion that prediction errors are inflexibly highly weighted by individuals with autism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.