Low- and high-level vision in individuals with autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is often associated with impaired performance in high-level visual tasks such as recognition of faces or facial expressions. In contrast, individuals with ASD may outperform neurotypical controls in detail-oriented visual tasks. We investigated whether this superior ability for fine detail in ASD originates from fundamentally superior low-level processing of spatial frequency and orientation. We tested 19 adult participants, 13 controls and 6 with ASD in two low-level and three high-level visual tasks. In Experiment 1, we measured contrast thresholds for detecting Gabor patches ranging in spatial frequency between 0.5-16cpd. Control results replicated typical contrast sensitivity profiles. ASD participants either showed atypical and reduced contrast sensitivity compared to controls (N=4), or showed typical profiles with higher sensitivity than controls at high spatial frequencies (N=2). In Experiment 2, we measured orientation discrimination thresholds for a 4cpd Gabor patch across base orientations ranging between 0-180 degrees. Controls again yielded typical curves associated with the oblique effect showing better discrimination around vertical and horizontal compared to oblique angles. Alternatively, ASD participants either showed a flat elevated threshold profile (N=3) or an impaired oblique effect (N=3). In Experiment 3, we measured contrast thresholds for face and house recognition. ASD participants were impaired in both tasks compared to controls. Moreover, the ASD group performed better with houses than faces whereas controls showed an opposite trend. Finally, in Experiment 4, we measured discrimination thresholds for subtle changes in facial expression. ASD participants showed significantly impaired performance compared to controls. Overall, our results confirm that high-level visual ability is impacted in people with ASD. In addition, these results suggest significant variation in visual abilities across the ASD population. While some may be impaired in both low and high-level tasks, others may show typical or superior low-level vision despite higher-level impairments. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".