EEG responses to auditory stimuli are less context-dependent in preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder compared to typical development
Shao, M.; McNair, K. A.; Parra, G.; Tam, C.; Sullivan, N.; Senturk, D.; Gavornik, J. P.; Levin, A. R.
Show abstract
Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often exhibit atypical auditory processing, yet it remains unclear whether and how the integration of simple acoustic features and contextual information is impacted in ASD. One real-world example of this integration is the auditory looming bias, the prioritized processing and perception of approaching auditory stimuli. We designed a paradigm that presents intensity-rising (looming) and intensity-falling (receding) auditory stimuli to 3-4-year-old children with ASD (n = 21), children with sensory processing concerns who do not have ASD (SPC; n = 16) and children with typical development (TD; n = 30). We recorded neural responses using electroencephalography (EEG) and found evidence of looming bias in the SPC and TD groups, as indexed by greater P1 peak amplitude during the looming than receding stimuli (TD: t(64) = 6.87, p < .001; SPC: t(64) = 4.07, p < .001). But this finding was not present in the ASD group (p = .194). Additionally, the ASD group showed reduced differentiation between looming and receding stimuli, as indicated by significantly lower Rise-Fall Difference Score (RFDS) in comparison to the TD group (Z = -3.00, padj = .008). These findings suggested altered context-dependent modulation of sensory input in ASD. Lay SummaryMany children with autism show differences in how they process sounds. Using sound patterns in which loudness gradually increased and decreased over time, like many real-world sounds, we found that children with autism showed less neural differentiation between increasing and decreasing sounds. This finding suggested that the brain may process changes in sound differently in autism, particularly in how it adjusts to sounds as they change over time, which could contribute to the sensory challenges many children with autism experience in daily life.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Individuals with autism have no detectable deficit in neural markers of prediction error when presented with auditory rhythms of varied temporal complexity 96%
- Idiosyncratic pupil regulation in autistic children 96%
- Intact Somatosensory Temporal Sensitivity in Adults on the Autism Spectrum: A High-Density Electrophysiological Mapping Study Using the Mismatch Negativity (MMN) Sensory Memory Paradigm. 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Beyond massive univariate tests: Covariance regression reveals complex patterns of functional connectivity related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, age, sex, and response control 91%
- Functional connectivity in the social perception pathway at birth is linked with attention to faces at 4 months 91%
- Dimensional gender diversity is associated with greater polygenic propensity for cognitive performance and interacts with other genetic factors in predicting health outcomes 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Left hemispheric deficit in the sustained neuromagnetic response to periodic click trains in children with ASD. 95%
- Globally elevated excitation-inhibition ratio in children with autism spectrum disorder and below-average intelligence 95%
- Increased aperiodic gamma power in young boys with Fragile X is associated with better language ability 95%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Neural Correlates of Eye Contact and Social Function in Autism Spectrum Disorder 96%
- Identifying Neuroanatomical and Behavioral Features for Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnosis in Children using Machine Learning 94%
- Infant low-frequency EEG cortical power, cortical tracking and phase-amplitude coupling predicts language a year later. 94%
"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.