Back

Eyes-closed resting state EEG reveals clearer and more stable group differences between autistic and neurotypical individuals than eyes-open resting state EEG

Xiao, W.; Jones, M.; Milne, E.; Dede, A. J. O.

2025-01-13 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.01.13.632659 bioRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundResting-state electroencephalography (rs-EEG) has been widely used to explore neural dynamics in Autism Spectrum Condition (ASC). However, inconsistencies in findings across studies remain a challenge, partly due to variations in brain state, such as eye conditions (eyes-open vs. eyes-closed). This study aims to examine rs-EEG differences between ASC and neurotypical (NT) participants, focusing on the influence of eye condition. MethodsA total of 300 participants (126 ASC) were included. Rs-EEG data were analysed across eyes-open, eyes-closed, and difference between eye conditions, with 726 variables assessed per participant. Linear regression and effect size (2partial) were used to identify group differences, complemented by cluster-based permutation testing and bootstrapped split-half validation for reliability. ResultsGroup differences were most pronounced in the eyes-closed condition, particularly for relative power and multiscale entropy (MSE). Compared to neurotypical participants, ASC participants exhibited reduced frontal coarse-scale MSE, increased delta power, and decreased alpha power, suggesting altered local-global neural dynamics. Cross-validation revealed greater reliability of effects in the eyes-closed condition compared to eyes-open or difference between eye conditions. ConclusionsEye condition plays a critical role in detecting rs-EEG differences between ASC and NT groups, with the eyes-closed condition yielding more consistent and pronounced effects. These findings highlight the importance of controlling brain state in rs-EEG studies and suggest that integrating eye condition effects with other biomarkers may improve identification of neural differences associated with ASC.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.