AB070. Feedback improves orientation discrimination in neurotypical adults, but not in adults with autism: a pilot study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Understanding how individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) learn is important for developing and implementing effective educational and behavioral interventions. Evidence suggests that individuals with ASD are relatively stronger in certain areas of perception (Simmons et al. , 2009; Dakin and Frith, 2005); it therefore cannot be assumed that individuals with ASD learn using the same rules and strategies as neurotypicals (NT). Of particular interest, perceptual learning (PL) is a class of learning that is based upon changes induced by the repeated exposure and response to specific types of perceptual information. Such learning often includes feedback, indicating whether or not a response was correct during a trial within a PL task. The objectives of this study were to perform a pilot investigation of; (I) perceptual learning in adults with and without ASD using a low-level orientation discrimination task; and (II) the influence of feedback on accuracy in this task. Methods: Eleven adults with ASD and fifteen NT adults, matched on Wechsler full-scale IQ and age (18–31 years), performed a low-level PL task. They were asked to indicate whether a grating was tilted to the left (i.e., counter-clockwise) or to the right (i.e., clockwise) relative to an oblique 45-degree reference orientation. Thresholds, defined by the minimal deviation in degrees needed to discriminate tilt orientation, were measured for each participant every 15 minutes, with each block consisting of 420 trials. To assess baseline performance, all participants completed a first block with no feedback. Participants were then randomly assigned to either feedback (NASD =6, NTD =8) or no feedback groups (NASD =5, NTD =7) and completed six subsequent testing blocks. Results: PL was defined as the percent change in orientation discrimination threshold in each of the six testing blocks relative to baseline performance. No significant increase was found in performance as a function of testing block for any group; PL was therefore not evidenced under the conditions tested. ASD performance remained equal to that of baseline across testing blocks, whether or not trial-by-trial feedback was present. In contrast, NT performance was significantly increased when feedback was present. Conclusions: NT individuals significantly benefited from feedback, while individuals with ASD did not. These results provide preliminary evidence for a divergent learning style in ASD and NT individuals. These pilot findings raise important questions regarding the impact of feedback during interventions, and at a more basic level, the atypical underlying perceptual and cognitive processes in individuals with ASD.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».