1 / 31

Atypical Visual Processing in Infant Siblings of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)

Atypical Visual Processing in Infant Siblings of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). Karen Dobkins Leslie Carver Joseph McCleery. Psychology Department University of California, San Diego. Funded by NAAR / Autism Speaks. & the M.I.N.D. Institute (UC Davis). TWO TYPE OF TESTS.

brant
Download Presentation

Atypical Visual Processing in Infant Siblings of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Atypical Visual Processing in Infant Siblings of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Karen Dobkins Leslie Carver Joseph McCleery Psychology Department University of California, San Diego Funded by NAAR / Autism Speaks & the M.I.N.D. Institute (UC Davis)

  2. TWO TYPE OF TESTS COGNITIVE/BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS (6 - 36 months) Ages and Stages Questionnaire, MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI), Mullen Scales of Early Learning ASD Screening/Diagnogstics: M-CHAT, PDDST, ADOS, ADI 2) EXPERIMENTAL MEASURES A) Low-Level Visual Processing: 6 months A) Low-Level Visual Processing: 6 months B) Face Processing: 10 months B) Face Processing: 10 months C) Social Referencing: 18 months TWO ANALYSES: 1) ASD analysis: High-Risk, Affected vs. Unaffected 2) Endophenotype analysis: High-Risk vs. Controls 2) Endophenotype analysis: High-Risk vs. Controls

  3. FACES OBJECTS OBJECTS 1) FACE PROCESSING PARADIGM: - Faces vs. Objects - Event Related Potentials (ERPs) Adults: Bentin et al., 1996. Infants: de Haan et al, 2002, Halit, et al, 2003, 2004; de Haan & Nelson, 1999

  4. Amplitude (microvolts) - - Occipito-temporal cortex Face Component: N170 Averaged electrical response time-locked to repeated picture presentations

  5. * Difference Scores N170 Latency (msec) Face Advantage N170 Latency Difference (Objects - Faces) F N170 Latency (msec) 0 0 N = 14 Object Advantage F N = 9 N = 14 N = 9 Study of Adults with ASD N170 Latency (msec) McPartland, Dawson, Webb, Panagiotides, Carver (2004)

  6. 10-month-olds High-Risk Infants Vs. Low-Risk Control Infants EEG Sensor Net Fast Application 124 Electrodes Electrical Geodesics, Inc.

  7. Subjects 10 High-Risk infants Diagnosis of Their Older Sibling: - 5 Autistic Disorder - 1 Aspergers Syndrome - 4 PDD-NOS Controls: 20 Low-Risk infants Two Groups Matched: - gender, age, number of days born pre/post due date • overall cognitive development • Ages and Stages Questionnaire, MacArthur-Bates Communicative • Development Inventory (CDI), Mullen Scales of Early Learning

  8. CCTV Camera Testing Set-up Speakers Stimulus Monitor

  9. In adults: N170 In infants: N290 + P400 P400 N290 N170 Amplitude (microvolts) - -

  10. N290 * p = 0.003 * p = 0.038 Face Advantage Mean Latency Difference (msec) (Objects - Faces) Mean Latency Difference (msec) (Objects - Faces) Object Advantage Controls (n = 20) High-Risk(n = 10) Latency Differences (Objects - Faces) P400

  11. Let me know if you want to see: 1) RAW Latency Data for P400 and N290 2) Group difference for Amplitude of P400 and N290 3) Group differences in the effects of Familiarity

  12. Our results in High-Risk 10-month-olds look like results from previous studies: Adults with ASD: McPartland et al. (2004) 2) Toddlers (3-4 yrs) with ASD: Webb et al. (2006) 3) Parents of Children w/ ASD: Dawson et al. (2005)

  13. 2) LOW-LEVEL VISUAL PROCESSING PARADIGM: - Subcortical Magnocellular (M) vs. Parvocellular (P) Pathway Processing - Visual Psychophysics - 6-month-olds A test of the hypothesis that atypicalities in face processing in ASD arise from abnormal development of the subcortical face processing pathway, i.e., the “amygdala” pathway (Schultz, 2005) ….. which originates in the M pathway

  14. MAGNO = Luminance (Light/Dark) PARVO = Chromatic (Red/Green)

  15. Forced-Choice Preferential Looking 6-month old infants

  16. Luminance Contrast (%)

  17. Subjects 13 High-Risk infants Diagnosis of Their Older Sibling: - 6 Autistic Disorder - 1 Aspergers Syndrome - 6 PDD-NOS Controls: 26 Low-Risk infants Two Groups Matched: - gender, age, number of days born pre/post due date • overall cognitive development

  18. * p = 0.011 * p = 0.011 Log Difference Score (Lum - Chr) Log Contrast Sensitivity Controls (n = 26) High-Risk(n = 13) Magnocellular vs. Parvocellular Pathway Processing in 6 month olds

  19. Thank you

  20. * p = 0.011 Log Difference Score (Lum - Chr) Log Contrast Sensitivity Controls (n = 26) High-Risk(n = 13) Magnocellular vs. Parvocellular Pathway Processing

  21. Adults with ASD McPartland et al (2004) N170 3-4 year olds with ASD Webb et al (2006) N290 Parents of ASD Dawson et al (2005) N170 Latency Difference 10-month-old Infants P400 10-month-old Infants N290 Face Advantage Latency Difference (msec) (Objects - Faces) Latency Difference (msec) (Objects - Faces) Object Advantage

  22. P400 N290 Latency Difference Latency Difference * p = 0.004 * p = 0.047 P400 Latency (msec) N290 Latency (msec) O F O F F F O O Controls (n = 20) High-Risk(n = 10)

  23. Amplitude Differences (Faces - Objects) P400 N290 * p = 0.021 * p = 0.035 Face Advantage Mean Amplitude Difference (Faces - Objects) Mean Amplitude Difference (Faces - Objects) Object Advantage Controls (n = 20) High-Risk(n = 10) Very similar to children with ASD (Webb et al., 2006)

  24. Familiarity Effects (N290) (Unfamiliar - Familiar) * MS Controls (n = 20) High-Risk(n = 10) Familiar Advantage Mean Latency Difference (Unfamiliar - Familiar) Unfamiliar Advantage

  25. 3-4 year olds with ASD Webb et al (2006) Face Advantage Latency Difference (Objects - Faces) Object Advantage Parents of Children with ASD Dawson et al (2005) Face Advantage Latency Difference (Objects - Faces) Object Advantage Adults with ASD McPartland et al (2004) Face Advantage Latency Difference (Objects - Faces) Object Advantage 60% scale

  26. Stimuli FACES Familiar (mother) Unfamiliar (stranger) OBJECTS Familiar (favorite toy) Unfamiliar (novel toy) TODAY’S TALK: Data averaged over Familiar and Unfamiliar Data averaged over Right and Left Hemispheres

  27. Single Trial Timeline Baseline (100 ms) Post-Stimulus (700 ms) Stimulus (500 ms) -100 0 1200 ms 500 ms Data Recording Continuous EEG, 250 Hz sampling Impedance: 80 kOhms 0.1 - 100 Hz bandpass filter Cz reference

  28. Data Analysis 40 Hz low-pass filter Automated artifact rejection and individual trial inspection Data average over Occipito-Temporal electrodes (16 channels) TODAY’S TALK: Data averaged over RH and LH Replace up to 10 channels

  29. Log(POSpost/NEGpost) - Log(POSpre/NEGpre) POS Toy Advantage P500 Latency Difference POS - NEG Toy (msec) Mean # References NEG Toy Advantage Controls (n = 23) High-Risk(n = 21) 3) SOCIAL REFERENCING PARADIGM: - Behavior & ERPs - 18-month-olds

More Related