Auditory processing in noise is associated with complex patterns of disrupted functional connectivity in autism spectrum disorder

Abstract

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is associated with difficulty in processing speech in a noisy background, but the neural mechanisms that underlie this deficit have not been mapped. To address this question, we used magnetoencephalography to compare the cortical responses between ASD and typically developing (TD) individuals to a passive mismatch paradigm. We repeated the paradigm twice, once in a quiet background, and once in the presence of background noise. We focused on both the evoked mismatch field (MMF) response in temporal and frontal cortical locations, and functional connectivity with spectral specificity between those locations. In the quiet condition, we found common neural sources of the MMF response in both groups, in the right temporal gyrus and inferior frontal gyrus (IFG). In the noise condition, the MMF response in the right IFG was preserved in the TD group, but reduced relative to the quiet condition in ASD group. The MMF response in the right IFG also correlated with severity of ASD. Moreover, in noise, we found significantly reduced normalized coherence (deviant normalized by standard) in ASD relative to TD, in the beta band (14–25 Hz), between left temporal and left inferior frontal sub-regions. However, unnormalized coherence (coherence during deviant or standard) was significantly increased in ASD relative to TD, in multiple frequency bands. Our findings suggest increased recruitment of neural resources in ASD irrespective of the task difficulty, alongside a reduction in top-down modulations, usually mediated by the beta band, needed to mitigate the impact of noise on auditory processing.

Specific Functional Connectivity Patterns of Middle Temporal Gyrus Subregions in Children and Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder

“…According to the results of functional characterization, the maMTG.R was highly associated with hearing and language, which are two vital components of auditory processing. Although many researchers identified auditory processing deficits in adults with ASD and hypothesized that there is a common disruption in the neural network associated with auditory processing in ASD [Bomba & Pang, 2004;Mamashli et al, 2017;Marco, Hinkley, Hill, & Nagarajan, 2011;Schwartz, Shinn-Cunningham, & Tager-Flusberg, 2018], the main brain regions involved in the network are still an open question. Our findings provide evidence that the disruptions of the maMTG.R might be associated with auditory processing deficits in adults with ASD.…”

Oscillatory dynamics of cortical functional connections in semantic prediction

“…In summary, multiple comparisons within each of the sub‐ROIs are accounted for by the cluster analysis in time and frequency (Step 1) and by the permutations approach (Step 2, 3) for the sub‐ROIs tests. Please see (Mamashli et al, ) for more details on this method. Matlab scripts are available online through our github repository (https://github.com/fm897/NSR).…”

Functional Brain Connectivity of Language Functions in Children Revealed by EEG and MEG: A Systematic Review

“…Autism spectrum disorder is a neurodevelopmental disorder commonly associated with verbal and communicative dysfunctions (Mcdaniel et al, 2018). In three studies identified in this review, alteration of language task-related coherence was associated with ASD (Righi et al, 2014;Kovelman et al, 2015;Mamashli et al, 2017). However, no direct association was made with language functioning.…”

“…Finally, Mamashli et al (2017) used an MEG tonal mismatch paradigm in children (9-15 years old) with ASD. The MEG recording revealed an increase in frontotemporal coherence in the ASD group relative to the TD group, in response to both standard and deviant stimuli.…”

“…This occurs as early as 11 months of age (Asano et al, 2015) and appears to be constant throughout development. Interestingly, when it comes to examining the pattern of task-related FC in populations at risk of language disorders, in comparison with neurotypical children, differences are prominently characterized by a tendency for greater FC in the right hemisphere (Righi et al, 2014;Lizarazu et al, 2015;Mamashli et al, 2017).…”