Neural Correlates of Congruency Sequence Effects in Autism Spectrum Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Persons with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) often exhibit stereotyped, repetitive, instead of flexible and appropriate behavior for a particular goal and context. We investigated how adjustments of cognitive resources in ASD, a developmental disorder, may be influenced by recent experiences with stimuli that have either competing or complementary dimensions (i.e., influence of "trial history"; Gratton, 1992). Previous work has shown that experiencing stimuli features that are incompatible with an internal goal slows down performance on the current trial (thus producing "interference"), but facilitates processing on a subsequent conflict trial, as manifested in speeded RTs and increased accuracy (e.g., Botvinick et al., 2001). Functional MRI and behavioural data were acquired from children and adults with ASD (N=55) and typically developing controls (N=78), matched by age, IQ, and gender. Participants performed a stimulus-response compatibility task (Simon, 1969) by judging the direction of left- or right-facing arrow, while ignoring its spatial location. We found that ASD and TD participants responded more quickly to current congruent trials compared to incongruent trials (F(1,131) = 124.419, p <0.000). In both groups RTs were faster on a current incongruent trial if a preceding trial was another incongruent trial, F(1,131)= 77.386, p<0.000, an effect called conflict adaptation. Dorsal Anterior Cingulate Cortex (dACC) and Left Inferior Frontal Gyrus (left IFG) activity was associated with processing of interference from incongruent dimension in both TD and ASD groups, with ASD showing significantly more DLPFC activity compared to TD group. However, only TD group showed context-specific conflict adaptation activation in DLPFC, mirroring the behavioural pattern. ASD’s capability to suppress or inhibit prepotent responses is sustained by a network of associative cortices and sub-cortical regions. DLPFC activity was attenuated in ASD depending on previous trial conflict history, perhaps reflecting a decreased neural contribution of DLPFC to flexible processing in ASD. 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".