Exogenous spatial attention: Evidence for intact functioning in adults with autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deficits or atypicalities in attention have been reported in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), yet no consensus on the nature of these deficits has emerged. We conducted three experiments that paired a peripheral precue with a covert discrimination task, using protocols for which the effects of covert exogenous spatial attention on early vision have been well established in typically developing populations. Experiment 1 assessed changes in contrast sensitivity, using orientation discrimination of a contrast-defined grating; Experiment 2 evaluated the reduction of crowding in the visual periphery, using discrimination of a letter-like figure with flanking stimuli at variable distances; and Experiment 3 assessed improvements in visual search, using discrimination of the same letter-like figure with a variable number of distractor elements. In all three experiments, we found that exogenous attention modulated visual discriminability in a group of high-functioning adults with ASD and that it did so in the same way and to the same extent as in a matched control group. We found no evidence to support the hypothesis that deficits in exogenous spatial attention underlie the emergence of core ASD symptomatology.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".