Parent‐Child Dyadic Gaze Patterns in Fragile X Males and in Non‐fragile X Males with Autistic Disorder

Cohen, Ira L.; Vietze, Peter M.; Sudhalter, Vicki; Jenkins, Edmund C.; Brown, W. Ted

doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1989.tb00286.x

Cited by 106 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These similarities, however, cannot exclude the possibility that the nature of autistic behavior in FraX might be different from that seen in idiopathic ASD. Shyness, social anxiety, and hyperarousal, recognized features of the FraX's behavioral phenotype [Hagerman, 2002], may influence social interactions [Cohen et al, 1989;Cohen, 1995;Hagerman, 1996;Mazzocco et al, 1997;Rogers et al, 2001] and/or affect ADI-R scoring. Future studies including observational instruments, such as the ADOS-G, or combining physiological measures of anxiety and arousal with behavioral analyses, will be needed in order to address this issue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autism spectrum disorder in fragile X syndrome: Communication, social interaction, and specific behaviors

Kaufmann

Cortell

Kau

et al. 2004

American J of Med Genetics Pt A

368

379

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study extends our previous work on social behavior impairment in young males with fragile X syndrome (FraX). Specifically, we evaluated whether the autistic phenomenon in FraX is expressed as a range of behavioral impairments as in idiopathic autism (Aut). We also examined whether there are behaviors, identified as items of the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R), that in FraX predispose to or differentiate subjects with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis. Finally, regression models were utilized to test the relative contribution of reduced communication and socialization skills to ADI-R scores and diagnoses. A cohort of 56 boys (3-8 years) with FraX was examined in terms of scores on measures of cognition (IQ was a co-variate in most analyses.), autistic behavior, problem/aberrant behavior, adaptive behavior, and language development. We found that, indeed, in terms of problem behavior and adaptive skills, there is a range of severity from FraX + Aut to FraX + PDD (Pervasive Developmental Disorder) to FraX + none. ADI-R items representing "Play" types of interaction appear to be "susceptibility" factors since they were abnormal across the FraX cohort. Integrated regression models demonstrated that items reflecting complex social interaction differentiated the FraX + ASD (Aut + PDD) subgroup from the rest of the FraX cohort, while abnormalities in basic verbal and non-verbal communication distinguished the most severely affected boys with FraX + Aut from the milder FraX + PDD cohort. Models incorporating language, adaptive communication, and adaptive socialization skills revealed that socialization was not only the main influence on scores but also a predictor of ASD diagnosis. Altogether, our findings demonstrate that the diagnosis of ASD in FraX reflects, to a large extent, an impairment in social interaction that is expressed with variable severity in young males with FraX.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autism spectrum disorder in fragile X syndrome: Communication, social interaction, and specific behaviors

Kaufmann

Cortell

Kau

et al. 2004

American J of Med Genetics Pt A

368

379

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous behavioral studies in males with fragile X syndrome focused on the autistic features, an approach-avoidance behavior in social interactions, hyperactivity, aggression, anxiety, and hyperarousal. Several controlled studies with various comparison groups, including IQ matched patients and children with autism, suggest that this combination of findings represents a unique behavioral phenotype in patients with fragile X syndrome [Cohen et al, 1989;Sudhatter et al, 1990;Lachiewicz et al, 1994;Baumgardner et al, 1995;Mazzocco et al, 1997]. The underpinnings of the behavioral and cognitive phenotype have been studied by neuroimaging work by Reiss et al [1991Reiss et al [ , 1995.…”

Section: Fraxa Syndrome: Clinical Issues Males Randi Hagermanmentioning

confidence: 95%

Eighth International Workshop on the fragile X syndrome and X-linked mental retardation, August 16-22, 1997

Holden¹,

Percy²,

Allingham-Hawkins³

et al. 1999

Am. J. Med. Genet.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In apparent contradiction, van der Geest et al (2002) found no differences in how high functioning 10-year-old children with ASD and normal controls viewed upright faces, although group differences in strategy emerged for upside-down faces [57]. Similarly, others have reported that individuals with ASD look with normal frequency toward caregivers [58], or at a person's face when attention is drawn [59,60]. The divergence among these data may reflect a combination of age or task specificity of gaze anomalies in ASD, and/or a diversity of ASD phenotypes.…”

Section: Anomalous Gaze Processing Among Children and Adults With Autismmentioning

confidence: 97%

Autism and the development of face processing

Golarai

Grill-Spector

Reiss

2006

Clinical Neuroscience Research

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Autism is a pervasive developmental condition, characterized by impairments in non-verbal communication, social relationships and stereotypical patterns of behavior. A large body of evidence suggests that several aspects of face processing are impaired in autism, including anomalies in gaze processing, memory for facial identity and recognition of facial expressions of emotion. In search of neural markers of anomalous face processing in autism, much interest has focused on a network of brain regions that are implicated in social cognition and face processing. In this review, we will focus on three such regions, namely the STS for its role in processing gaze and facial movements, the FFA in face detection and identification and the amygdala in processing facial expressions of emotion. Much evidence suggests that a better understanding of the normal development of these specialized regions is essential for discovering the neural bases of face processing anomalies in autism. Thus, we will also examine the available literature on the normal development of face processing. Key unknowns in this research area are the neuro-developmental processes, the role of experience and the interactions among components of the face processing system in shaping each of the specialized regions for processing faces during normal development and in autism. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease.

show abstract

Parent‐Child Dyadic Gaze Patterns in Fragile X Males and in Non‐fragile X Males with Autistic Disorder

Cited by 106 publications

References 22 publications

Autism spectrum disorder in fragile X syndrome: Communication, social interaction, and specific behaviors

Autism spectrum disorder in fragile X syndrome: Communication, social interaction, and specific behaviors

Eighth International Workshop on the fragile X syndrome and X-linked mental retardation, August 16-22, 1997

Autism and the development of face processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About