Empathy and face processing in adults with and without autism spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many factors contribute to social difficulties in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The goal of the present work was to determine whether atypicalities in how individuals with ASD process static, socially engaging faces persist when nonrigid facial motion cues are present. We also sought to explore the relationships between various face processing abilities and individual differences in autism symptom severity and traits such as empathy. Participants included 16 adults with ASD without intellectual impairment and 16 sex‐ and age‐matched controls. Mean Verbal IQ was comparable across groups [t(30) = 0.70, P = 0.49]. The two groups responded similarly to many of the experimental manipulations; however, relative to controls, participants with ASD responded more slowly to dynamic expressive faces, even when no judgment was required; were less accurate at identity matching with static and dynamic faces; and needed more time to make identity and expression judgments [F(1, 30) ≥ 6.37, P ≤ 0.017, ηp2 ≥ 0.175 in all cases], particularly when the faces were moving [F(1, 30) = 3.40, P = 0.072, ηp2 = 0.104]. In the full sample, as social autistic traits increased and empathic skills declined, participants needed more time to judge static identity, and static or dynamic expressions [0.43 < |rs| < 0.56]. The results suggest that adults with ASD show general impairments in face and motion processing and support the view that an examination of individual variation in particular personality traits and abilities is important for advancing our understanding of face perception. Autism Res 2018, 11: 942–955. © 2018 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Lay Summary Our findings suggest that people with ASD have problems processing expressive faces, especially when seen in motion. It is important to learn who is most at risk for face processing problems, given that in the general population such problems appear to be linked to impaired social skills and empathy. By studying relationships between different abilities and traits, we may be able to find better ways to diagnose and support all people on the autism spectrum.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".