Cortico-Cerebellar neurodynamics during social interaction in Autism Spectrum Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Exploring neural network dynamics during social interaction could help to identify biomarkers of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). A cerebellar involvement in autism has long been suspected and recent methodological advances now enable studying cerebellar functioning in a naturalistic setting. Here, we investigated the electrophysiological activity of the cerebro-cerebellar network during real-time social interaction in ASD. We focused our analysis on theta oscillations (3-8 Hz), which have been associated with large-scale coordination of distant brain areas and might contribute to interoception, motor control, and social event anticipation, all skills known to be altered in ASD. METHODS: We combined the Human Dynamic Clamp, a paradigm for studying realistic social interactions using a virtual avatar, with high-density electroencephalography (HD-EEG). Using source reconstruction, we investigated power in the cortex and the cerebellum, along with coherence between the cerebellum and three cerebral-cortical areas, and compared our findings in a sample of participants with ASD (n = 107) and with typical development (TD) (n = 33). We developed an open-source pipeline to analyse neural dynamics at the source level from HD-EEG data. RESULTS: Individuals with ASD showed a significant increase in theta band power over the cerebellum and the frontal and temporal cortices during social interaction compared to resting state, along with significant coherence increases between the cerebellum and the sensorimotor, frontal and parietal cortices. However, a phase-based connectivity measure did not support a strict activity increase in the cortico-cerebellar functional network. We did not find any significant differences between the ASD and the TD group. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory study uncovered increases in the theta band activity of participants with ASD during social interaction, pointing at the presence of neural interactions between the cerebellum and cerebral networks associated with social cognition. It also emphasizes the need for complementary functional connectivity measures to capture network-level alterations. Future work will focus on optimizing artifact correction to include more participants with TD and increase the statistical power of group-level contrasts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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".