Atypical neural networks for social orienting in autism spectrum disorders
Research highlights
►Greater activation for social vs. nonsocial orienting in typical development than ASD. ►No differences in behavioral performance in typical development and ASD. ►Group X cue condition interactions confirm group differences in brain activity.
Introduction
Autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are characterized by profound deficits in social communication and interaction. One of the most notable aspects of these social impairments is reduced orienting in response to social cues (e.g., eye gaze, pointing gestures). Converging behavioral and neural evidence shows that this deficit is not simply the result of impaired sensory processing of social stimuli, but rather a more specific impairment in social attention. For example, neuroimaging studies have demonstrated decreased activity in brain regions involved in processing faces, emotions, and voices in ASD (Critchley et al., 2000, Dalton et al., 2005, Gervais et al., 2004). Yet, when ASD individuals are cued to attend to the social stimuli, activity in these regions normalizes (Hadjikhani et al., 2004, Wang et al., 2004, Wang et al., 2007). Pelphrey et al. (2005) also found that individuals with ASD showed normal activation of the superior temporal sulcus (STS) when viewing gaze shifts. However, STS activity varied depending on the intentions conveyed by the gaze shift in control participants, while no such difference was found in the ASD group. Thus, impaired orienting in response to social cues (social orienting) in ASD likely results from impaired attentional responses to social stimuli.
Naturalistic studies investigating social orienting provide compelling behavioral evidence for impaired utilization of social cues among children with ASD. For example, these children fail to orient their attention toward social stimuli significantly more than typically developing (TD) children and those with Down syndrome (Dawson et al., 1998). Moreover, ASD children fail to shift their attention toward novel objects selectively when these objects are cued socially by a head turn and gaze shift (Leekam et al., 2000). Consistent with these findings, retrospective studies examining the home movies of infants prior to ASD diagnosis have shown that those infants who will later be diagnosed with ASD displayed less social orienting behavior, including reduced orienting to faces and following pointing gestures (Osterling and Dawson, 1994, Osterling et al., 2002, Werner et al., 2000). Thus, both orienting toward a social stimulus and orienting toward an object that is cued by a social stimulus are clearly impaired in children with ASD in naturalistic situations.
Surprisingly, computerized laboratory experiments do not show similar deficits. Social orienting can be tested in the laboratory using a variant of Posner's spatial cueing paradigm (1980) in which a social spatial cue (e.g., eyes gazing to the side) precedes a target stimulus. Even when the direction of the cue (gaze) is not predictive of the location of the upcoming target, adults and children show faster responses to targets occurring in the cued location than in an uncued location (Driver et al., 1999, Friesen and Kingstone, 1998, Ristic et al., 2002). This facilitation effect is thought to reflect an automatic shift in attention toward the cued location (Friesen et al., 2005, Langton et al., 2000). Most gaze cueing studies in ASD adults and children report intact facilitation effects and no differences in those effects between ASD and TD controls using dynamic gaze cues (Chawarska et al., 2003, Swettenham et al., 2003), static gaze cues (Kylliainen and Hietanen, 2004, Vlamings et al., 2005), and even counterpredictive gaze cues (Senju et al., 2004). To our knowledge, only two studies using a computerized gaze cueing paradigm found impaired social orienting in ASD (Goldberg et al., 2008, Ristic et al., 2005). Thus, most of the evidence suggests that both children and adults with ASD automatically orient toward the location indicated by gaze cues presented on a computer screen.
It should be noted, however, that some differences have been observed between ASD and TD performance despite intact facilitation effects. For example, one study found that TD adults responded more slowly for social cues than for nonsocial cues, whereas ASD adults showed no difference (Vlamings et al., 2005), and another showed that TD children were slower in social cueing tasks than ASD children (Chawarska et al., 2003). Others found that TD children responded at similar speeds to social and nonsocial cues, while ASD children were faster for social cues (Senju et al., 2004). Further, using counterpredictive cues, Senju et al. demonstrated that gaze cues were more effective than arrow cues in automatically orienting attention in TD children, with no such difference in ASD children. Still, the failure to find differences in the facilitation effect of social cues is perplexing, especially in light of the clear impairments reported in naturalistic paradigms.
Considering the underlying neural mechanisms involved in social orienting may help reconcile these discrepant findings. Neuroimaging studies investigating gaze perception have found that the superior temporal sulcus (STS) plays a prominent role in processing gaze (Hoffman and Haxby, 2000, Hooker et al., 2003). In addition, when Hoffman and Haxby (2000) compared neural activity for viewing averted gaze to that for viewing directed gaze (toward the participant), they also found stronger activity in the intraparietal sulcus (IPs), a region of the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) that is part of a frontoparietal network consistently implicated in attentional orienting (Corbetta and Shulman, 2002, Mesulam, 1981). Heightened STS and PPC activity has also been found among adults and children when viewing gaze shifts (Mosconi et al., 2005, Pelphrey et al., 2003). Moreover, neurotypical adults displayed differential activation in the STS and PPC when comparing gaze shifts that met versus those that violated expectations (Pelphrey et al., 2003), whereas ASD adults did not (Pelphrey et al., 2005). Thus, activity in the STS and PPC has already provided some clues as to how individuals with ASD process social stimuli.
Only a handful of neuroimaging studies have investigated social orienting using a spatial cueing paradigm among neurotypical adults. While a few of these studies reported overlapping activation for social and nonsocial cues in frontoparietal regions (Greene et al., 2009, Sato et al., 2009, Tipper et al., 2008), most of these studies found differential activation during social cueing compared to nonsocial cueing, including heightened activity in the extrastriate cortex (Engell et al., 2010, Greene et al., 2009, Hietanen et al., 2006, Tipper et al., 2008), the inferior frontal gyrus (Engell et al., 2010), the medial frontal cortex (Tipper et al., 2008), and the STS (Kingstone et al., 2004), as well as reduced activity in frontoparietal regions (Hietanen et al., 2006). Thus, the typical adult brain treats social and nonsocial cues somewhat differently.
Understanding how the ASD brain processes social compared to nonsocial cues should help explain the discrepant behavioral results found in naturalistic and experimental studies. One possibility is that individuals with ASD process gaze cues as nonsocial cues, using nonsocial mechanisms that rely on lower-level directional properties of eye gaze rather than on its social significance for orienting attention (Nation and Penny, 2008). Thus, orienting behavior in simple laboratory experiments may appear intact even though there are differences in the brain that account for the impairments seen in real life situations. Thus, the goal of the present study was to use fMRI in order to reveal differences in processing even when they are not apparent in behavior. Children and adolescents with and without ASD underwent fMRI while they performed a spatial cueing task that included social (eye gaze) and nonsocial (arrow) cues. We predicted that the ASD and TD groups would show no differences at the behavioral level but would show variation in brain activity, reflecting underlying group differences in the processing of social cues. Specifically, if individuals with ASD treat social cues as nonsocial, we would expect them to display fewer differences in brain activity between the cue types than the TD group.
Section snippets
Participants
Our sample included 22 high-functioning children and adolescents with ASD (20 male; 19 right-handed) and 21 TD children and adolescents (19 male; 18 right-handed) matched by age, IQ, and extent of head motion while in the MRI scanner (see Table 1). Two additional ASD children participated in the study but were excluded from subsequent behavioral and imaging analyses, one for excessive eye movements and one for excessive head movement during scanning. Participants were recruited through the UCLA
Behavioral results
Table 2 lists the mean reaction time for each condition in each group. The 2 (Cue type) × 2 (Validity) × 2 (Group) ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of Cue type, with faster RT for gaze cues (M = 436, SD = 62.2) than for arrow cues (M = 462.4, SD = 65.8), F(1, 38) = 18.19, p < .001, and a main effect of Validity, with faster RT for the valid condition (M = 427.7, SD = 63.4) than for the invalid condition (M = 470.6, SD = 64.1), F(1, 38) = 58.62, p < .001. There was also a significant interaction of Cue type ×
Discussion
This is the first study to investigate the neural correlates of social orienting in autism using a spatial cueing paradigm. One of the most striking results was that TD and ASD children and adolescents demonstrated similar social orienting behavior in the laboratory task, yet the brain activity underlying that behavior showed clear group differences. The TD group exhibited greater activity for social cues than for nonsocial cues in many regions, while the ASD group showed less distinction that
Conclusions
In sum, the present findings have a number of important implications. First, they help reconcile some of the discrepant findings in the literature, highlighting the need to develop more ecologically valid paradigms to study social orienting in the laboratory. Second, they add to a growing body of work (e.g., Wang et al., 2007) showing significant abnormalities in the autistic brain, even in the presence of intact behavioral performance. These observations indicate that inferences on the
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [P50 HD055784] and Autism Speaks [4854 to D.J.G.]. For generous support the authors also wish to thank the Brain Mapping Medical Research Organization, Brain Mapping Support Foundation, Pierson-Lovelace Foundation, Ahmanson Foundation, Tamkin Foundation, Jennifer Jones-Simon Foundation, Capital Group Companies Charitable Foundation, Robson Family, William M. and Linda R. Dietel Philanthropic Fund at the
References (63)
- et al.
General multilevel linear modeling for group analysis in FMRI
Neuroimage
(2003) - et al.
Brain and conscious representation of outside reality
Neuropsychologia
(1981) - et al.
Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex
Trends Cogn. Sci.
(2000) - et al.
Behavioral correlates of activity in basal ganglia neurons
Trends Neurosci.
(1984) - et al.
Does gaze direction really trigger a reflexive shift of spatial attention?
Brain Cogn.
(2005) - et al.
Activation of the fusiform gyrus when individuals with autism spectrum disorder view faces
Neuroimage
(2004) - et al.
Imitation and action understanding in autistic spectrum disorders: how valid is the hypothesis of a deficit in the mirror neuron system?
Neuropsychologia
(2007) - et al.
Automatic attention orienting by social and symbolic cues activates different neural networks: an fMRI study
Neuroimage
(2006) - et al.
Brain networks for analyzing eye gaze
Cogn. Brain Res.
(2003) - et al.
The large-scale neural network for spatial attention displays multifunctional overlap but differential asymmetry
Neuroimage
(1999)
The eyes have it!: an fMRI investigation
Brain Cogn.
Do the eyes have it? Cues to the direction of social attention
Trends Cogn. Sci.
Taking an “intentional stance” on eye-gaze shifts: a functional neuroimaging study of social perception in children
Neuroimage
Brain activation evoked by perception of gaze shifts: the influence of context
Neuropsychologia
Eyes are special but not for everyone: the case of autism
Cogn. Brain Res.
Commonalities in the neural mechanisms underlying automatic attentional shifts by gaze, gestures, and symbols
Neuroimage
Neural correlates of facial affect processing in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder
J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry
Robust group analysis using outlier inference
Neuroimage
Multilevel linear modelling for FMRI group analysis using Bayesian inference
Neuroimage
Parallel organization of functionally segregated circuits linking basal ganglia and cortex
Annu. Rev. Neurosci.
Automatic attention cueing through eye movement in 2-year-old children with autism
Child Dev.
Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain
Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
The functional neuroanatomy of social behaviour: changes in cerebral blood flow when people with autistic disorder process facial expressions
Brain
Gaze fixation and the neural circuitry of face processing in autism
Nat. Neurosci.
Children with autism fail to orient to naturally occurring social stimuli
J. Autism Dev. Disord.
Defining the broader phenotype of autism: genetic, brain, and behavioral perspectives
Dev. Psychopathol.
Gaze perception triggers reflexive visuospatial orienting
Vis. Cogn.
Differential activation of frontoparietal attention networks by social and symbolic spatial cues
Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci
The eyes have it! Reflexive orienting is triggered by nonpredictive gaze
Psychon. Bull. Rev.
Abnormal cortical voice processing in autism
Nat. Neurosci.
A large-scale distributed network for covert spatial attention: further anatomical delineation based on stringent behavioural and cognitive controls
Brain
Cited by (0)
- 1
Present address: Washington University School of Medicine, 4525 Scott Ave., Suite 2220, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.