Affective–motivational brain responses to direct gaze in children with autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear why children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) tend to be inattentive to, or even avoid eye contact. The goal of this study was to investigate affective-motivational brain responses to direct gaze in children with ASD. To this end, we combined two measurements: skin conductance responses (SCR), a robust arousal measure, and asymmetry in frontal electroencephalography (EEG) activity which is associated with motivational approach and avoidance tendencies. We also explored whether degree of eye openness and face familiarity modulated these responses. METHODS: Skin conductance responses and frontal EEG activity were recorded from 14 children with ASD and 15 typically developing children whilst they looked at familiar and unfamiliar faces with eyes shut, normally open or wide-open. Stimuli were presented in such a way that they appeared to be looming towards the children. RESULTS: In typically developing children, there were no significant differences in SCRs between the different eye conditions, whereas in the ASD group the SCRs were attenuated to faces with closed eyes and increased as a function of the degree of eye openness. In both groups, familiar faces elicited marginally greater SCRs than unfamiliar faces. In typically developing children, normally open eyes elicited greater relative left-sided frontal EEG activity (associated with motivational approach) than shut eyes and wide-open eyes. In the ASD group, there were no significant differences between the gaze conditions in frontal EEG activity. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, the results replicate previous finding in showing atypical modulation of arousal in response to direct gaze in children with ASD but do not support the assumption that this response is associated with an avoidant motivational tendency. Instead, children with ASD may lack normative approach-related motivational response to eye contact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".