Spontaneous theory of mind in autism: are anticipatory gaze and reaction time biases consistent?

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Frontiers in Psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-12-09 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1189777
Keigo Onda, Rizal Ichwansyah, Keisuke Kawasaki, Jun Egawa, Toshiyuki Someya, Isao Hasegawa
{"title":"Spontaneous theory of mind in autism: are anticipatory gaze and reaction time biases consistent?","authors":"Keigo Onda, Rizal Ichwansyah, Keisuke Kawasaki, Jun Egawa, Toshiyuki Someya, Isao Hasegawa","doi":"10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1189777","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) exhibit persistent deficits in social interaction and communication in adulthood. Pioneering studies have suggested that these difficulties arise from a lack of immediate, spontaneous mentalizing (i.e., theory of mind: ToM), specifically, an ability to attribute false beliefs to others, which should be usually acquired during neurotypical development. However, this view has been challenged by recent reports of nonreplications of spontaneous mentalizing, even in neurotypical adults.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to evaluate (1) whether measurements of spontaneous ToM in two representative paradigms, gaze bias in the anticipatory looking (AL) test and reaction time bias in the object detection (OD) test, are correlated in neurotypical adults and (2) whether these two measurements are altered in individuals with ASD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We developed a novel hybridized spontaneous false belief test combining the AL and OD paradigms to enable within-subject comparison of different spontaneous ToM measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results obtained with our hybridized test replicated the earlier positive evidence for spontaneous ToM in both AL and OD paradigms. Our results also revealed a correlation between the participants' spontaneous gaze bias in the AL paradigm and reaction time bias in the OD paradigm, indicating that the participants who had spontaneously anticipated other's false belief driven actions more quickly detected the object. We further found that spontaneous gaze and reaction time biases were altered in individuals with ASD. Finally, we ascertained those inclusions of these biases as diagnostic variables in a regression model improved the accuracy of diagnosing ASD. ASD diagnosis was best predicted by the model when variables obtained from both AL and OD methods were included in the model.</p><p><strong>Conclusions/implications: </strong>Our hybridized paradigm not only replicated spontaneous gaze bias in early AL studies and reaction time bias in the OD paradigms, but indicated significant correlation between them, suggesting that different implicit tasks tap the same spontaneous ToM in neurotypical adults. Group differences of these indices between ASD and neurotypical adult groups indicated that our task could help diagnose ASD, which is essential for evaluating the social difficulties that individuals with ASD face in adulthood.</p>","PeriodicalId":12605,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Psychiatry","volume":"15 ","pages":"1189777"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11663880/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1189777","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) exhibit persistent deficits in social interaction and communication in adulthood. Pioneering studies have suggested that these difficulties arise from a lack of immediate, spontaneous mentalizing (i.e., theory of mind: ToM), specifically, an ability to attribute false beliefs to others, which should be usually acquired during neurotypical development. However, this view has been challenged by recent reports of nonreplications of spontaneous mentalizing, even in neurotypical adults.

Objectives: We aimed to evaluate (1) whether measurements of spontaneous ToM in two representative paradigms, gaze bias in the anticipatory looking (AL) test and reaction time bias in the object detection (OD) test, are correlated in neurotypical adults and (2) whether these two measurements are altered in individuals with ASD.

Methods: We developed a novel hybridized spontaneous false belief test combining the AL and OD paradigms to enable within-subject comparison of different spontaneous ToM measurements.

Results: The results obtained with our hybridized test replicated the earlier positive evidence for spontaneous ToM in both AL and OD paradigms. Our results also revealed a correlation between the participants' spontaneous gaze bias in the AL paradigm and reaction time bias in the OD paradigm, indicating that the participants who had spontaneously anticipated other's false belief driven actions more quickly detected the object. We further found that spontaneous gaze and reaction time biases were altered in individuals with ASD. Finally, we ascertained those inclusions of these biases as diagnostic variables in a regression model improved the accuracy of diagnosing ASD. ASD diagnosis was best predicted by the model when variables obtained from both AL and OD methods were included in the model.

Conclusions/implications: Our hybridized paradigm not only replicated spontaneous gaze bias in early AL studies and reaction time bias in the OD paradigms, but indicated significant correlation between them, suggesting that different implicit tasks tap the same spontaneous ToM in neurotypical adults. Group differences of these indices between ASD and neurotypical adult groups indicated that our task could help diagnose ASD, which is essential for evaluating the social difficulties that individuals with ASD face in adulthood.

自闭症的自发心理理论:预期凝视和反应时间偏差是否一致?
背景:自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)个体在成年期表现出持续的社会互动和沟通缺陷。开创性的研究表明,这些困难源于缺乏即时的、自发的心智化(即心智理论:ToM),具体来说,是一种将错误信念归因于他人的能力,这种能力通常应该在典型神经发育过程中获得。然而,这一观点受到了最近关于自发性心智化不可复制的报道的挑战,即使在神经正常的成年人中也是如此。目的:我们的目的是评估(1)自发性ToM在两种典型范式中的测量是否相关,即预期注视(AL)测试中的凝视偏倚和物体检测(OD)测试中的反应时间偏倚;(2)这两种测量是否在ASD个体中发生改变。方法:我们开发了一种新的混合自发错误信念测试,结合了AL范式和OD范式,以便在受试者内比较不同的自发错误信念测量。结果:我们的杂交实验结果重复了早期在AL和OD范式中自发ToM的阳性证据。实验结果还揭示了人工智能范式下被试的自发注视偏差与OD范式下的反应时间偏差之间的相关性,表明自发预期他人错误信念驱动行为的被试更快地检测到目标。我们进一步发现自发性凝视和反应时间偏差在ASD个体中发生了改变。最后,我们确定将这些偏差纳入回归模型作为诊断变量,提高了诊断ASD的准确性。当从AL和OD两种方法获得的变量都包含在模型中时,该模型对ASD诊断的预测效果最好。结论/意义:我们的杂交范式不仅复制了早期AL研究中的自发注视偏差和OD范式中的反应时间偏差,而且两者之间存在显著的相关性,表明不同的内隐任务在神经典型成人中触发了相同的自发ToM。这些指标在ASD和神经正常成人组之间的组间差异表明,我们的任务可以帮助诊断ASD,这对于评估ASD个体在成年期面临的社交困难至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Frontiers in Psychiatry Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
8.50%
发文量
2813
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers in Psychiatry publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research across a wide spectrum of translational, basic and clinical research. Field Chief Editor Stefan Borgwardt at the University of Basel is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. The journal''s mission is to use translational approaches to improve therapeutic options for mental illness and consequently to improve patient treatment outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信