No Colavita effect: Lack of visual dominance in people with autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown that individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may perceive the world differently. Superior performance has been demonstrated on perceptual tasks involving detail recognition and visual search; however, deficits have also been demonstrated in tasks such as motion perception and attentional shifting. We investigated whether participants with ASD demonstrate typical visual dominance when presented with an audio-visual event. The current experiments measure speeded detection and discrimination of auditory, visual and audiovisual targets presented as a stream of paired familiar objects and sounds in people with ASD and typically developing controls. We found that all participants were equally able to detect the presence of auditory, visual or bimodal targets. However, when asked to discriminate between the unimodal and bimodal targets the control group demonstrated preferential processing of visual over auditory information with the bimodal stimuli -- the Colavita visual dominance effect. Moreover, participants with ASD, showed no Colavita effect and demonstrated a preference of auditory stimuli compared to visual stimuli or rather, a reverse Colavita effect. This suggests an absence of the typical visual dominance and instead auditory dominance. These results may be due to difficulties associated with integrating information into higher levels of processing. These findings indicate a difference in perceptual processing that may contribute to social communication impairments associated with autism spectrum disorder. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".