Atypical gaze patterns in autistic adults are heterogeneous across but reliable within individuals.
Autism
Eye tracking
Heterogeneity
Individual differences
Videos
Journal
Molecular autism
ISSN: 2040-2392
Titre abrégé: Mol Autism
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101534222
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 09 2022
24 09 2022
Historique:
received:
27
05
2022
accepted:
16
09
2022
entrez:
24
9
2022
pubmed:
25
9
2022
medline:
28
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Across behavioral studies, autistic individuals show greater variability than typically developing individuals. However, it remains unknown to what extent this variability arises from heterogeneity across individuals, or from unreliability within individuals. Here, we focus on eye tracking, which provides rich dependent measures that have been used extensively in studies of autism. Autistic individuals have an atypical gaze onto both static visual images and dynamic videos that could be leveraged for diagnostic purposes if the above open question could be addressed. We tested three competing hypotheses: (1) that gaze patterns of autistic individuals are less reliable or noisier than those of controls, (2) that atypical gaze patterns are individually reliable but heterogeneous across autistic individuals, or (3) that atypical gaze patterns are individually reliable and also homogeneous among autistic individuals. We collected desktop-based eye tracking data from two different full-length television sitcom episodes, at two independent sites (Caltech and Indiana University), in a total of over 150 adult participants (N = 48 autistic individuals with IQ in the normal range, 105 controls) and quantified gaze onto features of the videos using automated computer vision-based feature extraction. We found support for the second of these hypotheses. Autistic people and controls showed equivalently reliable gaze onto specific features of videos, such as faces, so much so that individuals could be identified significantly above chance using a fingerprinting approach from video epochs as short as 2 min. However, classification of participants into diagnostic groups based on their eye tracking data failed to produce clear group classifications, due to heterogeneity in the autistic group. Three limitations are the relatively small sample size, assessment across only two videos (from the same television series), and the absence of other dependent measures (e.g., neuroimaging or genetics) that might have revealed individual-level variability that was not evident with eye tracking. Future studies should expand to larger samples across longer longitudinal epochs, an aim that is now becoming feasible with Internet- and phone-based eye tracking. These findings pave the way for the investigation of autism subtypes, and for elucidating the specific visual features that best discriminate gaze patterns-directions that will also combine with and inform neuroimaging and genetic studies of this complex disorder.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Across behavioral studies, autistic individuals show greater variability than typically developing individuals. However, it remains unknown to what extent this variability arises from heterogeneity across individuals, or from unreliability within individuals. Here, we focus on eye tracking, which provides rich dependent measures that have been used extensively in studies of autism. Autistic individuals have an atypical gaze onto both static visual images and dynamic videos that could be leveraged for diagnostic purposes if the above open question could be addressed.
METHODS
We tested three competing hypotheses: (1) that gaze patterns of autistic individuals are less reliable or noisier than those of controls, (2) that atypical gaze patterns are individually reliable but heterogeneous across autistic individuals, or (3) that atypical gaze patterns are individually reliable and also homogeneous among autistic individuals. We collected desktop-based eye tracking data from two different full-length television sitcom episodes, at two independent sites (Caltech and Indiana University), in a total of over 150 adult participants (N = 48 autistic individuals with IQ in the normal range, 105 controls) and quantified gaze onto features of the videos using automated computer vision-based feature extraction.
RESULTS
We found support for the second of these hypotheses. Autistic people and controls showed equivalently reliable gaze onto specific features of videos, such as faces, so much so that individuals could be identified significantly above chance using a fingerprinting approach from video epochs as short as 2 min. However, classification of participants into diagnostic groups based on their eye tracking data failed to produce clear group classifications, due to heterogeneity in the autistic group.
LIMITATIONS
Three limitations are the relatively small sample size, assessment across only two videos (from the same television series), and the absence of other dependent measures (e.g., neuroimaging or genetics) that might have revealed individual-level variability that was not evident with eye tracking. Future studies should expand to larger samples across longer longitudinal epochs, an aim that is now becoming feasible with Internet- and phone-based eye tracking.
CONCLUSIONS
These findings pave the way for the investigation of autism subtypes, and for elucidating the specific visual features that best discriminate gaze patterns-directions that will also combine with and inform neuroimaging and genetic studies of this complex disorder.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36153629
doi: 10.1186/s13229-022-00517-2
pii: 10.1186/s13229-022-00517-2
pmc: PMC9508778
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
39Subventions
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : P50 HD103556
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : R01 MH110630
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Neuroimage. 2015 Nov 15;122:222-32
pubmed: 26241683
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2008 Aug;65(8):946-54
pubmed: 18678799
J Neurosci. 2010 Sep 15;30(37):12281-7
pubmed: 20844124
Front Neurosci. 2012 Oct 01;6:143
pubmed: 23060743
J Neurosci. 2019 May 22;39(21):4113-4123
pubmed: 30867260
Nat Neurosci. 2006 Oct;9(10):1218-20
pubmed: 17001340
Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 12;10(1):4576
pubmed: 32165647
J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1992 Oct;33(7):1169-82
pubmed: 1400699
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2002 Sep;59(9):809-16
pubmed: 12215080
Brain. 2005 May;128(Pt 5):1038-48
pubmed: 15758039
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2003 Feb 28;358(1430):345-60
pubmed: 12639332
Hum Brain Mapp. 2018 Jun;39(6):2391-2404
pubmed: 29504186
Trends Cogn Sci. 2019 Aug;23(8):699-714
pubmed: 31257145
Autism Res. 2009 Aug;2(4):220-31
pubmed: 19708061
Neuroimage Clin. 2013 Oct 24;3:489-97
pubmed: 24273731
J Autism Dev Disord. 1998 Dec;28(6):479-85
pubmed: 9932234
Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Apr;16(4):231-9
pubmed: 22425667
J Autism Dev Disord. 2021 Jul;51(7):2369-2380
pubmed: 32951157
Neuron. 2015 Nov 4;88(3):604-16
pubmed: 26593094
J Neurosci. 2015 Apr 8;35(14):5837-50
pubmed: 25855192
Curr Biol. 2019 Feb 4;29(3):513-519.e6
pubmed: 30686740
Biol Psychiatry. 2014 Feb 1;75(3):231-7
pubmed: 23954107
Autism Res. 2010 Apr;3(2):53-67
pubmed: 20437601
Res Dev Disabil. 2016 Jan;48:79-93
pubmed: 26547134
Sci Data. 2014 May 27;1:140003
pubmed: 25977761
Neuron. 2001 Dec 20;32(6):969-79
pubmed: 11754830
Curr Biol. 2017 Nov 20;27(22):3554-3560.e3
pubmed: 29129535
Nature. 2009 May 14;459(7244):257-61
pubmed: 19329996
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Jan;68(1):101-9
pubmed: 20819977
Neuropsychol Rev. 2010 Sep;20(3):290-322
pubmed: 20809200
Autism Res. 2014 Jun;7(3):392-9
pubmed: 24740914
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2006 Dec;1(3):194-202
pubmed: 18985106
Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020 Jan 16;6(1):5
pubmed: 31949163
Dev Psychobiol. 2002 Apr;40(3):213-25
pubmed: 11891634
J Neurodev Disord. 2013 Sep 26;5(1):28
pubmed: 24069955
J Autism Dev Disord. 2006 Jan;36(1):5-25
pubmed: 16450045
Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Nov;16(11):559-72
pubmed: 23047070
J Autism Dev Disord. 2014 Aug;44(8):1996-2012
pubmed: 24590409
J Neurodev Disord. 2012 Jun 07;4(1):17
pubmed: 22958650
Nat Neurosci. 2015 Feb;18(2):302-9
pubmed: 25599222
Sci Rep. 2020 Dec 10;10(1):21739
pubmed: 33303942
Nat Neurosci. 2005 Apr;8(4):519-26
pubmed: 15750588
Autism Res. 2019 Jun;12(6):878-883
pubmed: 30802365
J Autism Dev Disord. 2002 Aug;32(4):249-61
pubmed: 12199131
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2015 Oct;10(10):1348-56
pubmed: 25698698
J Vis. 2014 Jan 28;14(1):
pubmed: 24474825
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 Jan 19;371(1686):20150082
pubmed: 26644600
Nat Neurosci. 2015 Nov;18(11):1664-71
pubmed: 26457551
J Autism Dev Disord. 2007 May;37(5):929-39
pubmed: 17006775
Mol Autism. 2019 Dec 18;10:49
pubmed: 31890147
Neuron. 2012 Sep 20;75(6):981-91
pubmed: 22998867
Front Psychol. 2013 Nov 26;4:863
pubmed: 24324449
J Grad Med Educ. 2012 Sep;4(3):279-82
pubmed: 23997866
Nat Commun. 2020 Sep 11;11(1):4553
pubmed: 32917902
Neuropsychologia. 2012 Dec;50(14):3313-9
pubmed: 23022433
J Autism Dev Disord. 2001 Feb;31(1):5-17
pubmed: 11439754
Nature. 2017 Jul 20;547(7663):340-344
pubmed: 28700580
J Neurodev Disord. 2012 May 17;4(1):8
pubmed: 22958506
Hum Brain Mapp. 2016 Mar;37(3):1066-79
pubmed: 26686668
Nat Commun. 2018 Dec 4;9(1):5159
pubmed: 30514836