ArticleMolecular autism2025
The influence of interpersonal synchrony and autism on impressions of dyadic interactions: a preregistered study.
Article in Molecular autism, 2025. 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.
- Prediction models for highly scalable technology-assisted differential diagnostics of autism spectrum disorder.BMJ mental health · 2026Article
- Advantages of combining multiple eye-tracking paradigms for distinguishing young autistic from non-autistic children.Molecular autism · 2026Article
- Social communication development in a contingent world: insights from autism.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHumans form almost instantaneous impressions of everyone they encounter. These impressions set the first tone for how they approach and interact with others. Research on impression formation unveiled that impressions formed by autistic and non-autistic people are often less favourable when rating an autistic person. This effect is partly explainable by differences in motion dynamics.
methodsIn this preregistered study, we systematically assessed impressions formed by 27 autistic and 36 non-autistic comparison observers when watching videos showing silent interactions between either two non-autistic or between an autistic and a non-autistic person. We used an eye tracker to capture their gaze patterns while observing these interactions. Of each dyadic interaction, video vignettes with high and vignettes with low interpersonal synchrony of movement (IPS
resultsInteractions were rated less favourably when the observed dyad included an autistic adult. Additionally, interactions showing low IPS LIMITATIONS: In this study, we investigated specific influences on impression formation, specifically interpersonal synchrony of movement and autism. There are many more potentially interesting aspects of individuals that impact impression formation, such as facial expressiveness, gaze behaviour and linguistic content of conversations, which should be investigated systematically and in a controlled fashion in future research.
conclusionsExtending research on autism and impression formation to dyadic interactions, this study reveals that motion dynamics play a role in how pleasant interactions are perceived. Autistic-involved interactions were rated lower, despite observers being unaware of the dyad type and only watching people's outlines. Future research should identify conversational aspects driving lower ratings of mixed dyads, potentially considering the effect of hand dwell times on ratings. Autistic and comparison observers showed different gaze patterns despite similar ratings, confirming distinct social information processing.
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.