Category induction in autism: Slower, perhaps different, but certainly possible
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Available studies on categorization in autism indicate possibly intact category formation, performed through atypical processes. Category learning was investigated in 16 high-functioning autistic and 16 IQ-matched nonautistic participants, using a category structure that could generate a conflict between the application of a rule and exemplar memory. Same-different and matching-to-sample tasks allowed us to verify discrimination abilities for the stimuli to be used in category learning. Participants were then trained to distinguish between two categories of imaginary animals, using categorization tests early in the training and at the end (160 trials). A recognition test followed, in order to evaluate explicit exemplar memory. Similar discrimination performance was found in control tasks for both groups. For the categorization task, autistic participants did not use any identifiable strategy early in the training, but used strategies similar to those of the nonautistic participants by the end, with the same level of accuracy. Memory for the exemplars was poor in both groups. Our findings confirm that categorization may be successfully performed by autistics, but may necessitate longer exposure to material, as the top-down use of rules may be only secondary to a guessing strategy in autistics.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".