Atypical Cross Talk Between Mentalizing and Mirror Neuron Networks in Autism Spectrum Disorder

Fishman, Inna; Keown, Christopher L.; Lincoln, Alan J.; Pineda, Jaime A.; Müller, Ralph Axel

doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.83

Cited by 147 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding of diminished rTPJ activity for hearing one's own name in the ASD group is in accord with our hypothesis of a deficit in selfother distinction, and corresponds to results of earlier studies showing reduced TPJ activity in ASD during tasks requiring self-other distinction (Lombardo et al, 2011;Spengler et al, 2010) and mentalizing (Eddy, 2016;Murdaugh et al, 2014;Pantelis, Byrge, Tyszka, Adolphs, & Kennedy, 2015). It further adds to the accumulating evidence that the rTPJ is a core region implicated in ASD (Chien et al, 2015;Fishman et al, 2014;Kana et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Atypical neural responding to hearing one’s own name in adults with ASD.

Nijhof

Dhar

Goris

et al. 2018

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diminished responding to hearing the own name is one of the earliest and strongest predictors of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Here, we studied for the first time the neural correlates of hearing one's own name in ASD. Based on existing research, we hypothesized enhancement of late parietal positive activity specifically for the own name in neurotypicals, and this effect to be reduced in adults with ASD. Source localization analyses were conducted to estimate group differences in brain regions underlying this effect. 21 adults with ASD, and 21 age-and gender-matched neurotypicals were presented with three categories of names (own name, close other, unknown other) as task-irrelevant deviant stimuli in an auditory oddball paradigm, while EEG was recorded. As expected, a late parietal positivity was observed specifically for own names in neurotypicals, indicating enhanced attention to the own name.This preferential effect was absent in the ASD group. This group difference was associated with diminished activation in the rTPJ in adults with ASD. Further, a familiarity effect was found for the N1, with larger amplitudes for familiar names (own name and close other).However, groups did not differ for this effect. These findings provide evidence of atypical neural responding to hearing one's own name in adults with ASD, suggesting a deficit in selfother distinction, associated with rTPJ dysfunction.Keywords: autism spectrum disorder; ERP; own name; TPJ General Scientific Summary: Infants at risk of ASD are known to show a diminished response to hearing their own name. By investigating the neural response to hearing their own name in adults with ASD, we showed for the first time that also in adulthood, individuals with ASD show an atypical response to hearing their name.3

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Atypical neural responding to hearing one’s own name in adults with ASD.

Nijhof

Dhar

Goris

et al. 2018

Journal of Abnormal Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reduced connectivity of DMN-hubs has commonly been reported in individuals with ASD at different ages. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]22 The DMN has been shown to be recruited during tasks requiring self-referential imagination and therefore been suggested to have a key role in self-relevant mentalizing. 61 This hypothesis is consistent with the DMN's overlap with networks essential for social cognition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Reduced DMN RS connectivity has been observed across age-groups in individuals with ASD, both within the DMN [13][14][15][16] and between the DMN and other regions. [17][18][19][20] In contrast, some studies have reported increased DMN RS connectivity. 13,[20][21][22] Reduced SN RS connectivity has been found in children, adolescents and adults with ASD, affecting connectivity within the SN as well as connectivity between SN key nodes and sensory, prefrontal, and emotion processing regions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Alterations in resting state connectivity along the autism trait continuum: a twin study

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has been found to be associated with alterations in resting state (RS) functional connectivity, including areas forming the default mode network (DMN) and salience network (SN). However, insufficient control for confounding genetic and environmental influences and other methodological issues limit the generalizability of previous findings. Moreover, it has been hypothesized that ASD might be marked by early hyper-connectivity followed by later hypo-connectivity. To date, only a few studies have explicitly tested age-related influences on RS connectivity alterations in ASD. Using a within-twin pair design (N = 150 twins; 8-23 years), we examined altered RS connectivity between core regions of the DMN and SN in relation to autistic trait severity and age in a sample of monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins showing typical development, ASD or other neurodevelopmental conditions. Connectivity between core regions of the SN was stronger in twins with higher autistic traits compared to their co-twins. This effect was significant both in the total sample and in MZ twins alone, highlighting the effect of non-shared environmental factors on the link between SN-connectivity and autistic traits. While this link was strongest in children, we did not identify differences between age groups for the SN. In contrast, connectivity between core hubs of the DMN was negatively correlated with autistic traits in adolescents and showed a similar trend in adults but not in children. The results support hypotheses of age-dependent altered RS connectivity in ASD, making altered SN and DMN connectivity promising candidate biomarkers for ASD.Molecular Psychiatry advance online publication, 1 August 2017; doi:10.1038/mp.2017.160 INTRODUCTION Altered patterns of brain connectivity have been suggested as a key neurobiological correlate of the behavioral characteristics of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, as findings are inconsistent, the precise brain connectivity characteristics of ASD remain unclear. A large number of resting-state (RS) functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain connectivity studies have shown a complex pattern of both hypo-and hyper-connectivity in ASD.1-3 Notably, a large multi-site classification study including ASD and typically developing individuals (N = 252, 6-36 years) showed that of the top 100 biomarkers of brain connectivity achieving together 90.8% accuracy, 45% were related to hyperconnectivity and the remaining 55% to hypo-connectivity. 4 It is likely that the observed inconsistencies in classical brain connectivity investigations are limited by methodological issues, such as insufficient control for head motion or the inclusion of global signal regression which can modulate or even invert the direction of functional connectivity differences. [5][6][7] Moreover, gender has recently been shown to modulate the direction of connectivity differences in ASD. 8 In contrast, another study found default mode network (DMN) hypo-connectivity in both genders.

show abstract

“…Functional (Yang, Rosenblau, Keifer, & Pelphrey, 2015) and anatomical (Herbet et al, 2014) data suggest there are multiple routes to understanding other minds and multiple systems which typically interact in doing so e an interaction which is conspicuously atypical in autism (Fishman, Keown, Lincoln, Pineda, & Mü ller, 2014). These interacting systems include 'higher-order' mentalizing areas (ventromedial prefrontal cortex, cingulate cortex and temporoparietal junction) and 'lower-order' simulatory areas (premotor and somatosensory cortex, the frontoparietal mirror network) (Centelles, Assaiante, Nazarian, Anton, & Schmitz, 2011;Herbet et al, 2014;Keysers & Gazzola, 2007;Schippers, Roebroeck, Renken, Nanetti, & Keysers, 2010;Sperduti, Guionnet, Fossati, & Nadel, 2014;Spunt & Lieberman, 2012;Zaki, Weber, Bolger, & Ochsner, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%