ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing the effectiveness of multi-session online emotion recognition training in autistic adults.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Difficulties with emotion recognition can occur in neurodevelopmental conditions, including in autistic individuals. Providing interventions to support this would therefore be beneficial, particularly in terms of downstream effects on wellbeing, social relationships and education. In this online experimental study, we examined the effect of a recently developed facial emotion recognition training task versus a sham/control task in an adult population who self-identified as autistic over four sessions in a 2-week period, with a fifth follow-up session (N = 184). Our main analyses showed that facial emotion recognition accuracy was greater in Session 4 in the active group, with an estimated improvement of 14% (equivalent to approximately 7 additional correct responses), compared to 2% (equivalent to approximately 1 additional correct responses) in the sham group (p = 4x10-09). Additional analyses suggested training effects were generalisable to facial stimuli that participants had not been trained on and were still present, although attenuated, two weeks later. We also observed some self-reported improvements in social interactions post-training. Overall, this study demonstrated improved emotion recognition with this training task in an adult sample who self-identified as autistic. Future work is needed to investigate the effect of this task on emotion recognition accuracy in those with a formal diagnosis of autism, and in autistic children where support could be most beneficial.
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.