ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2024
Characterizing Attention Resource Capacity in Autism: A Multiple Object Tracking Study.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptual Learning of Multiple Object Tracking Is Not Enhanced by Transcranial Random Noise Stimulation of hMT.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Performance of clay pigeon shooters in multiple object tracking under different target loads: skill level and gender differences.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Investigating autistic hyperfocus and monotropism: Limited convergence of event-related potentials, laboratory tasks, and questionnaire responses.Research in autism · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The extant literature aimed at characterizing attentional capability in autistics has presented inconsistent findings. This inconsistency and uncertainty may be the product of different theoretical and methodological approaches used to define attention in autism. In the current study, we investigate whether the allocation of attentional resources to task demands, and attention resource capacity, differs between autistics with no comorbid attention-deficit diagnosis (n = 55) and age-matched neurotypicals (n = 55). We compared differences in capacity and the allocation of resources by manipulating attentional load in a Multiple Object-Tracking (MOT) task, a robust, versatile, and ecological measure of selective, sustained, and distributed attention. While autistics demonstrated lower MOT performance, this difference disappeared when we accounted for fluid reasoning intelligence. Additionally, the similarity in the trend of MOT performance at increasing levels of attentional load between autistics and neurotypicals suggests no differences in the allocation of attentional resources to task demands. Taken together, our study suggests that higher-order cognitive abilities, such as intelligence, should be considered when characterizing attention across the autistic population in research. Similarly, our findings highlight the importance of considering cognitive competence when assessing attentional capabilities in autistic individuals, which could have significant implications for clinical diagnosis, treatment, and support.
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.