SynthesisPsychonomic bulletin & review2024
Category learning in autistic individuals: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensory Processing Profiles and Learning Potential in Autism: A Longitudinal Study of Cognitive Development in Preschoolers.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- From cognitive abstraction to adaptive behavior: neural bases of concept learning in autistic adolescents.Molecular autism · 2026Article
- Autistic Individuals' Categorical Induction Abilities Improve by Mid-Adolescence.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025Article
- Testing the Labeling Effect in Autistic Children.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025Article
- Linking Subclinical Autistic Traits and Perceptual Category Learning.The European journal of neuroscience · 2025Article
- Discrimination sensitivity of visual shapes sharpens in autistic adults but only after explicit category learning.Molecular autism · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Learning new categories is a fundamental human skill. In the present article, we report the first comprehensive meta-analysis of category learning in autism. Including studies comparing groups of autistic and nonautistic individuals, we investigated whether autistic individuals differ in category learning from nonautistic individuals. In addition, we examined moderator variables accounting for variability between studies. A multilevel meta-analysis of k = 50 studies examining n = 1,220 autistic and n = 1,445 nonautistic individuals based on 112 effect sizes in terms of the standardized mean difference revealed lower-level category learning skills for autistic compared with nonautistic individuals, g = -0.55, 95% CI = [-0.73, -0.38], p < .0001. According to moderator analyses, the significant amount of heterogeneity, Q(111) = 617.88, p < .0001, was explained by only one of the moderator variables under investigation-namely, study language. For the remaining variables-namely, age, year of publication, risk of bias, type of control group, IQ of autistic group, percentage of male autistic participants, type of category, type of task, and type of dependent measure-there were no significant effects. Although hat values and Cook's distance statistics confirmed the robustness of findings, results of Egger's test and a funnel plot suggested the presence of publication bias reflecting an overrepresentation of disadvantageous findings for autistic groups. Objectives for future work include identifying additional moderator variables, examining downstream effects of suboptimal category learning skills, and developing interventions.
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.