Visuospatial cueing differences as a function of autistic traits

Abstract

Atypical orienting of visuospatial attention in autistic individuals or individuals with a high level of autistic-like traits (ALTs) has been well documented and viewed as a core feature underlying the development of autism. However, there has been limited testing of three alternative theoretical positions advanced to explain atypical orienting - difficulty in disengagement, cue indifference, and delay in orienting. Moreover, research commonly has not separated facilitation (reaction time difference between neutral and valid cues) and cost effects (reaction time difference between invalid and neutral cues) in orienting tasks. We addressed these limitations in two experiments that compared groups selected for Low- and High-ALT levels on exogenous and endogenous versions of the Posner cueing paradigm. Experiment 1 showed that High-ALT participants exhibited a significantly reduced cost effect compared to Low-ALT participants in the endogenous cueing task, although the overall orienting effect remained small. In Experiment 2, we increased task difficulty of the endogenous task to augment cueing effects. Results were comparable to Experiment 1 regarding the finding of a reduced cost effect for High-ALT participants on the endogenous cueing task and additionally demonstrated a reduced facilitation effect in High-ALT participants on the same task. No ALT group differences were observed on an exogenous cueing task included in Experiment 2. These findings suggest atypical orienting in High-ALT individuals may be attributable to general cue indifference, which implicates differences in top-down attentional processes between Low- and High-ALT individuals. We discuss how indifference to endogenous cues may contribute to social cognitive differences in autism.

Keywords: Attention; Cognitive and attentional control; Cognitive neuroscience.

Fig. 1

Illustration of how the conventional subtraction method is unable to separate different patterns of visuospatial orienting (top panel) and distinguish between theoretical models (bottom panel). In the top panel, the subtraction method yields the same orienting effect for Persons 1–3 despite clear differences in corresponding facilitation and cost effects. In the bottom panel, despite the same orienting effect for Persons 2 and 3, they are showing different patterns of cost and facilitation effects that are consistent with different theories, relative to Person 1

Fig. 2

Sequence of events within a single trial in the endogenous cueing task

Fig. 3

Mean reaction time (RT; ms) in Experiment 1 as a function of autistic-like trait (ALT) group, stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), and Cue Condition. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean

Fig. 4

Cost and facilitation differences between High- and Low-autistic-like trait (ALT) groups in Experiment 1 (collapsed across stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA)). Error bars represent one standard error of the mean

Fig. 5

Sequence of events within a single trial for each task in Experiment 2. The top panel depicts the exogenous cueing task, while the bottom panel depicts the endogenous cueing task

Fig. 6

Mean reaction time (RT; ms) in the endogenous cueing task in Experiment 2 as a function of autism-like trait (ALT) Group, stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), and Cue Condition. Values in parentheses represent standard errors of the mean

Fig. 7

Cost and facilitation differences between High- and Low-ALT groups on the endogenous cueing task in Experiment 2 (collapsed across SOA). Error bars represent standard errors of the mean

Fig. 8

Mean reaction time (RT; ms) in the exogenous cueing task in Experiment 2 as a function of autism-like trait (ALT) group, stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), and Cue Condition. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean

Fig. 9

Cost and facilitation differences across High- and Low-ALT groups on the exogenous task in Experiment 2 (collapsed across stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA)). Error bars represent standard errors of the mean