Back

Autistic and non-autistic adults similarly experience statistical regularities

Rittershofer, K.; Ward, E. K.; Press, C.

2026-07-10 neuroscience
10.64898/2026.07.09.737492 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Bayesian accounts of autism propose that perception is less influenced by prior expectations and more strongly driven by incoming sensory information in autistic than non-autistic individuals, with this altered balance cascading through the cognitive hierarchy to also influence higher cognitive functions. However, empirical support for these accounts remains mixed. Previous work has mostly tested these ideas in the context of objective environmental statistics, but recent work suggests that it may be subjective experience of structure, rather than structure itself, that shapes perceptual processing. Characterising these subjective experiences in autistic individuals is therefore crucial for understanding predictive processing in autism. In the present study, we thus examined subjective experience of statistical structure in autistic and non-autistic adults and tested how this experience relates to perceptual decisions. Participants were exposed to statistical regularities between action cues and visual stimuli (shapes), and we measured their speed and accuracy in reporting which shape they had seen. At the end of the study, participants were asked to estimate the probability and rate their surprise for each action-shape combination. Autistic and non-autistic participants showed similar subjective probability and surprise ratings and a comparable relationship between these ratings and perceptual decisions. Across participants, subjective ratings explained perceptual decisions better than objective structure. Together, these findings show that autistic and non-autistic adults experience statistical structure similarly, with these experiences exerting a similar influence on perceptual decisions - therefore suggesting that subjective experience plays a comparable role in predictive processing in autistic and non-autistic adults.

Matching journals

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

1
Neuropsychologia
85 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.5%
2
Cortex
119 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.9%
3
Cognition
47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
4
Developmental Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.4%
5
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 17%
5.4%
6
The Journal of Neuroscience
1025 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.8%
7
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 27%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
8
Autism Research
39 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.0%
9
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.4%
10
Psychological Science
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
11
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 38%
2.7%
12
Cerebral Cortex
396 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
13
eneuro
439 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.4%
14
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 13%
1.9%
15
NeuroImage
903 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
16
Molecular Autism
33 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
17
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
96 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
18
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.1%
19
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
77 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
20
Biological Psychology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
21
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 29%
1.1%
22
PLOS Biology
486 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.0%
23
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
72 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
Journal of Neurophysiology
302 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
25
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 42%
0.8%
26
Journal of Vision
110 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
27
Neuroscience
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
28
Psychophysiology
77 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%