Autism and Asperger Syndrome are autism spectrum conditions (ASC) characterized by deficits in understanding others' minds, an aspect of which involves recognizing emotional expressions. This is thought to be related to atypical function and structure of the amygdala, and performance by people with ASC on emotion recognition tasks resembles that seen in people with acquired amygdala damage. In general, emotion recognition findings in ASC have been inconsistent, which may reflect low numbers of participants, low numbers of stimuli and trials, heterogeneity of symptom severity within ASC groups, and ceiling effects on some tasks. The present study tested 39 male adults with ASC and 39 typical male controls on a task of basic emotion recognition from photographs, in two separate experiments. On a control face discrimination task the group with ASC were not impaired. People with ASC were less accurate on the emotion recognition task compared to controls, but only for the negative basic emotions. This is discussed in the light of similar findings from people with damage to the amygdala.

We report a study comparing the narrative abilities of 12 adults with high-functioning autism (HFA) or Asperger Syndrome (AS) versus 12 matched controls. The study focuses on the use of referential expressions (temporal expressions and anaphoric pronouns) during a story-telling task. The aim was to assess pragmatics skills in people with HFA/AS in whom linguistic impairments are more subtle than in classic autism. We predicted no significant differences in general narrative abilities between the two groups, but specific pragmatic deficits in people with AS. We predicted they use fewer personal pronouns, temporal expressions and referential expressions, which require theory of mind abilities. Results confirmed both predictions. These findings provide initial evidence of how social impairments can produce mild linguistic impairments.

Metacognitive impairment is crucial to explaining difficulties in life tasks of patients with personality disorders (PDs). However, several issues remain open. There is a lack of evidence that metacognitive impairments are more severe in patients with PDs. The relationship between severity of PD pathology and the extent of metacognitive impairment has not been explored, and there has not been any finding to support the linking of different PDs with specific metacognitive profiles. The authors administered the Metacognitive Assessment Interview to 198 outpatients with PDs and 108 outpatients with no PDs, differentiating overall severity from stylistic elements of personality pathology. Results showed that metacognitive impairments were more severe in the group with PDs than in the control group, and that metacognitive dysfunctions and the severity of the PD were highly associated. Positive correlations were found between specific metacognitive dysfunctions and specific personality styles. Results suggest that metacognitive impairments could be considered a common pathogenic factor for PDs.

No abstract

No abstract