Increased Intra‐Subject Variability of Reaction Times and Single‐Trial Event‐Related Potential Components in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is an increasingly common neurodevelopmental disorder that affects 1 in 59 children. The cognitive profiles of individuals with ASD are varied, and the neurophysiological underpinnings of these developmental difficulties are unclear. While many studies have focused on overall group differences in the amplitude or latency of event related potential (ERP) responses, recent research suggests that increased intra-subject neural variability may also be a reliable indicator of atypical brain function in ASD. This study aimed to identify behavioral and neural variability responses during an emotional inhibitory control task in children with ASD compared to typically developing (TD) children. Children with ASD showed increased variability in response to both inhibitory and emotional stimuli, evidenced by greater reaction time variability and single-trial ERP variability of N200 and N170 amplitudes and/or latencies compared to TD children. These results suggest that the physiological basis of ASD may be more accurately explained by increased intra-subject variability, in addition to characteristic increases or decreases in the amplitude or latency of neural responses. Autism Res 2020, 13:221-229. © 2019 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. LAY SUMMARY: The cognitive functions including memory, attention, executive functions, and perception, of individuals with ASD are varied, and the physiological underpinnings of these profiles are unclear. In this study, children with ASD showed increased intra-subject neural and behavioral variability in response to an emotional inhibitory control task compared to typically developing children. These results suggest that the physiological basis of ASD may also be explained by increased behavioral and neural variability in people with ASD, rather than simply characteristic increases or decreases in averaged brain responses.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".