Emotional face processing across neurodevelopmental disorders: a dynamic faces study in children with autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is classically associated with poor face processing skills, yet evidence suggests that those with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) also have difficulties understanding emotions. We determined the neural underpinnings of dynamic emotional face processing across these three clinical paediatric groups, including developmental trajectories, compared with typically developing (TD) controls. We studied 279 children, 5-19 years of age but 57 were excluded due to excessive motion in fMRI, leaving 222: 87 ASD, 44 ADHD, 42 OCD and 49 TD. Groups were sex- and age-matched. Dynamic faces (happy, angry) and dynamic flowers were presented in 18 pseudo-randomized blocks while fMRI data were collected with a 3T MRI. Group-by-age interactions and group difference contrasts were analysed for the faces vs. flowers and between happy and angry faces. TD children demonstrated different activity patterns across the four contrasts; these patterns were more limited and distinct for the NDDs. Processing happy and angry faces compared to flowers yielded similar activation in occipital regions in the NDDs compared to TDs. Processing happy compared to angry faces showed an age by group interaction in the superior frontal gyrus, increasing with age for ASD and OCD, decreasing for TDs. Children with ASD, ADHD and OCD differentiated less between dynamic faces and dynamic flowers, with most of the effects seen in the occipital and temporal regions, suggesting that emotional difficulties shared in NDDs may be partly attributed to shared atypical visual information processing.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".