Autism-Specific Covariation in Perceptual Performances: “g” or “p” Factor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autistic perception is characterized by atypical and sometimes exceptional performance in several low- (e.g., discrimination) and mid-level (e.g., pattern matching) tasks in both visual and auditory domains. A factor that specifically affects perceptive abilities in autistic individuals should manifest as an autism-specific association between perceptual tasks. The first purpose of this study was to explore how perceptual performances are associated within or across processing levels and/or modalities. The second purpose was to determine if general intelligence, the major factor that accounts for covariation in task performances in non-autistic individuals, equally controls perceptual abilities in autistic individuals. METHODS: We asked 46 autistic individuals and 46 typically developing controls to perform four tasks measuring low- or mid-level visual or auditory processing. Intelligence was measured with the Wechsler's Intelligence Scale (FSIQ) and Raven Progressive Matrices (RPM). We conducted linear regression models to compare task performances between groups and patterns of covariation between tasks. The addition of either Wechsler's FSIQ or RPM in the regression models controlled for the effects of intelligence. RESULTS: In typically developing individuals, most perceptual tasks were associated with intelligence measured either by RPM or Wechsler FSIQ. The residual covariation between unimodal tasks, i.e. covariation not explained by intelligence, could be explained by a modality-specific factor. In the autistic group, residual covariation revealed the presence of a plurimodal factor specific to autism. CONCLUSIONS: Autistic individuals show exceptional performance in some perceptual tasks. Here, we demonstrate the existence of specific, plurimodal covariation that does not dependent on general intelligence (or "g" factor). Instead, this residual covariation is accounted for by a common perceptual process (or "p" factor), which may drive perceptual abilities differently in autistic and non-autistic individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".