ArticlePloS one2024
The relationship between interpersonal distance preference and estimation accuracy in autism.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Peripersonal space and interpersonal distance as windows onto multisensory body representation in adolescents with overgrowth syndromes.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
People naturally seek an interpersonal distance that feels comfortable, striking a balance between not being too close or too far from others until reaching a state of equilibrium. Previous studies on interpersonal distance preferences among autistic individuals have yielded inconsistent results. Some show a preference for greater distance, while others indicate a preference for shorter distances, or reveal higher variance in preferences among autistic individuals. In a related vein, previous studies have also investigated the way autistics accurately judge distance, and these studies have received inconsistent results, with some showing superior spatial abilities and others indicating biases in distance estimations. However, the link between distance estimation and preference has never been examined. To address this gap, our study measured interpersonal distance preferences and estimations and tested the correlation between the two factors. The results indicate greater variance among autistic people in both the preference of distance and the ability to estimate distance accurately, suggesting that inconsistencies in previous studies originate from greater individual differences among autistics. Furthermore, only among autistic individuals were interpersonal distance preference and estimation bias associated in a manner that violated equilibrium. Underestimation bias (judging others as closer than they are) was linked to a preference for closer proximity, while overestimation bias (judging others as further away) was associated with a preference for maintaining a greater distance. This connection suggests that biases in the estimation of interpersonal distance contribute to extreme preferences (being too close or too far away). Taken together, the findings suggest that biases in the estimation of interpersonal distance are associated with socially inappropriate distance preferences among autistics.
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.