Intact biological motion processing in adults with autism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of recent studies on biological motion perception in people with autism have produced conflicting results with respect to the question whether biological motion perception is impaired in people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or not. We designed two experiments which probe two different aspects of biological motion and tested a group of 13 adult, high functioning people with autism as well as a group of age matched control subjects. The first experiment required observers to indicate whether a display showing a mask of scrambled walkers also contained a coherent walker or not. Solving this task requires the observer to perceptually organize the dots constituting the walker into a coherent percept. The second task required the observer to indicate perceived facing direction of a walker presented in sagittal view. In the critical condition, the walker was scrambled. Solving this task requires intact processing of the cues contained in the local motion of individual dots which signals direction and animacy to normal observers. In both experiments, stimuli were shown both upright and inverted and the degree of the inversion effect which observers experience was quantified. In both tasks, human and non-human (cat, pigeon) walkers were employed. Results reproduced general effects of inversion, masking, and the nature of the walker, all of which have been shown earlier. However, they did not reveal any main group effect nor any interactions that involved the between-subject factor. In both experiments, the overall performance, the degree of the inversion effect, the sensitivity to mask density, and differences in the processing of human vs. non-human walkers were the same between the two groups. However, for the ASD group, in the direction task, we found a significant positive correlation between subjects' IQ and overall performance and a negative correlation between subjects' IQ and sensitivity to stimulus inversion.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".