ArticlePloS one2026
Behavioral differences between infants at and not at elevated risk for autism during a contingency paradigm.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMotor impairments have been reported in infants at elevated likelihood of autism and those later diagnosed with autism. However, empirical studies comparing higher to lower likelihood infants are lacking, limiting our understanding of these motor impairments. This study aimed to determine and describe the behavioral differences between infants at higher (HLA) versus lower likelihood (LLA) of autism during a contingency learning paradigm.
methodsThirty full-term infants (6-9 months of age) at HLA and LLA (n = 15 per group) participated in a contingency learning paradigm. Movements of the infant's right leg activated an infant-sized humanoid robot to reinforce production of right leg movements. Gaze behaviors, the number of times the infants activated the robot, and evidence supporting learning were examined and compared between groups.
resultsGaze and motor behavioral data suggest no discernable group differences in terms of overall looking duration, anticipatory gazes, and number of robot activations. However, four of the infants at HLA displayed visual motor patterns that were qualitatively different.
conclusionResults from our study suggest that infants at HLA and LLA are using similar behaviors to learn a contingency learning task, but heterogeneity within the HLA group is noted and requires further study.
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.