ArticlePeerJ2023
Exploring randomness in autism.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The fast, intuitive and autonomous system 1 along with the slow, analytical and more logical system 2 constitute the dual system processing model of decision making. Whether acting independently or influencing each other both systems would, to an extent, rely on randomness in order to reach a decision. The role of randomness, however, would be more pronounced when arbitrary choices need to be made, typically engaging system 1. The present exploratory study aims to capture the expression of a possible innate randomness mechanism, as proposed by the authors, by trying to isolate system 1 and examine arbitrary decision making in autistic participants with high functioning Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Methods: Autistic participants withhigh functioning ASD and an age and gender matched comparison group performed the random number generation task. The task was modified to limit the contribution of working memory and allow any innate randomness mechanisms expressed through system 1, to emerge. Results: Utilizing a standard analyses approach, the random number sequences produced by autistic individuals and the comparison group did not differ in their randomness characteristics. No significant differences were identified when the sequences were examined using a moving window approach. When machine learning was used, random sequences' features could discriminate the groups with relatively high accuracy. Conclusions: Our findings indicate the possibility that individual patterns during random sequence production could be consistent enough between groups to allow for an accurate discrimination between the autistic and the comparison group. In order to draw firm conclusions around innate randomness and further validate our experiment, our findings need to be replicated in a bigger sample.
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.