Differential neural correlates underlying visuospatial versus semantic reasoning in autistic children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While fronto-posterior underconnectivity has often been reported in autism, it was shown that different contexts may modulate between-group differences in functional connectivity. Here, we assessed how different task paradigms modulate functional connectivity differences in a young autistic sample relative to typically developing children. Twenty-three autistic and 23 typically developing children aged 6 to 15 years underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanning while completing a reasoning task with visuospatial versus semantic content. We observed distinct connectivity patterns in autistic versus typical children as a function of task type (visuospatial vs. semantic) and problem complexity (visual matching vs. reasoning), despite similar performance. For semantic reasoning problems, there was no significant between-group differences in connectivity. However, during visuospatial reasoning problems, we observed occipital-occipital, occipital-temporal, and occipital-frontal over-connectivity in autistic children relative to typical children. Also, increasing the complexity of visuospatial problems resulted in increased functional connectivity between occipital, posterior (temporal), and anterior (frontal) brain regions in autistic participants, more so than in typical children. Our results add to several studies now demonstrating that the connectivity alterations in autistic relative to neurotypical individuals are much more complex than previously thought and depend on both task type and task complexity and their respective underlying cognitive processes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".