Reduced language lateralization in autism and the broader autism phenotype as assessed with robust individual-subjects analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the few replicated functional brain differences between individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and neurotypical (NT) controls is reduced language lateralization. However, most prior reports relied on comparisons of group-level activation maps or functional markers that had not been validated at the individual-subject level, and/or used tasks that do not isolate language processing from other cognitive processes, complicating interpretation. Furthermore, few prior studies have examined functional responses in other functional networks, as needed to determine the selectivity of the effect. Using fMRI, we compared language lateralization between 28 ASD participants and carefully pairwise-matched controls, with the language regions defined individually with a well-validated language localizer. ASD participants showed less lateralized responses due to stronger right hemisphere activations. Further, this effect did not stem from a ubiquitous reduction in lateralization across the brain: ASD participants did not differ from controls in the lateralization of two other large-scale networks—the Theory of Mind network and the Multiple Demand network. Finally, in an exploratory study, we tested whether reduced language lateralization may also be present in NT individuals with high autistic trait load. Indeed, autistic trait load in a large set of NT participants (n=189) was associated with less lateralized language activations. These results suggest that reduced language lateralization is a robust and spatially selective neural marker of autism, present in individuals with ASD, but also in NT individuals with higher genetic liability for ASD, in line with a continuum model of underlying genetic risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".