Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35850696›Full record

ArticleMolecular autism2022

Attentional influences on neural processing of biological motion in typically developing children and those on the autism spectrum.

Emily J Knight, Aaron I Krakowski, Edward G Freedman, John S Butler, Sophie Molholm, John J Foxe

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular autism, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Severely Attenuated Visual Feedback Processing in Children on the Autism Spectrum.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Emily J KnightThe Frederick J. and Marion A. Schindler Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Neuroscience, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, The Del Monte Institute for Neuroscience, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 603, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. EmilyJ_Knight@urmc.rochester.edu.
Aaron I KrakowskiThe Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Pediatrics and Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
Edward G FreedmanThe Frederick J. and Marion A. Schindler Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Neuroscience, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, The Del Monte Institute for Neuroscience, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 603, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.
John S ButlerThe Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Pediatrics and Neuroscience, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY, USA.
Sophie MolholmThe Frederick J. and Marion A. Schindler Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Neuroscience, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, The Del Monte Institute for Neuroscience, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 603, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA.
John J FoxeThe Frederick J. and Marion A. Schindler Cognitive Neurophysiology Laboratory, Department of Neuroscience, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, The Del Monte Institute for Neuroscience, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 603, Rochester, NY, 14642, USA. john_foxe@urmc.rochester.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4300-3098
The Graduate Center, CUNY · USUniversity of Rochester Medical Center · USAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · US

Funding

University of Rochester Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research CenterP50HD103536 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI JOHN J FOXE, Anna K Majewska · 2020 to 2026
$9.8M
Support for the Rose F. Kennedy IDDRCU54HD090260 · NICHD · ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, INC · PI MOLHOLM, SOPHIE · 2016 to 2020
$6.0M
Neurophysiology of Multisensory IntegrationR01MH065350 · NIMH · NATHAN S. KLINE INSTITUTE FOR PSYCH RES · PI FOXE, JOHN J · 2003 to 2007
$1.4M
NICHD NIH HHS P50 HD103536NICHD NIH HHS U54 HD090260NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH065350
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiological motion imparts rich information related to the movement, actions, intentions and affective state of others, which can provide foundational support for various aspects of social cognition and behavior. Given that atypical social communication and cognition are hallmark symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), many have theorized that a potential source of this deficit may lie in dysfunctional neural mechanisms of biological motion processing. Synthesis of existing literature provides some support for biological motion processing deficits in autism spectrum disorder, although high study heterogeneity and inconsistent findings complicate interpretation. Here, we attempted to reconcile some of this residual controversy by investigating a possible modulating role for attention in biological motion processing in ASD.

methodsWe employed high-density electroencephalographic recordings while participants observed point-light displays of upright, inverted and scrambled biological motion under two task conditions to explore spatiotemporal dynamics of intentional and unintentional biological motion processing in children and adolescents with ASD (n = 27), comparing them to a control cohort of neurotypical (NT) participants (n = 35).

resultsBehaviorally, ASD participants were able to discriminate biological motion with similar accuracy to NT controls. However, electrophysiologic investigation revealed reduced automatic selective processing of upright biologic versus scrambled motion stimuli in ASD relative to NT individuals, which was ameliorated when task demands required explicit attention to biological motion. Additionally, we observed distinctive patterns of covariance between visual potentials evoked by biological motion and functional social ability, such that Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale-Socialization domain scores were differentially associated with biological motion processing in the N1 period in the ASD but not the NT group. LIMITATIONS: The cross-sectional design of this study does not allow us to definitively answer the question of whether developmental differences in attention to biological motion cause disruption in social communication, and the sample was limited to children with average or above cognitive ability.

conclusionsTogether, these data suggest that individuals with ASD are able to discriminate, with explicit attention, biological from non-biological motion but demonstrate diminished automatic neural specificity for biological motion processing, which may have cascading implications for the development of higher-order social cognition.

Indexed as

Autism Spectrum DisorderAutistic DisorderAdolescentChildCross-Sectional StudiesElectroencephalographyHumansSocial SkillsASDBiological motionERPEvent-related potentialsSocial cognitionVEPVisual evoked potential

Identifiers

PMID35850696
PMCPMC9290301
OpenAlexW4285727738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.