Prediction in Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence

Abstract

According to a recent influential proposal, several phenotypic features of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may be accounted for by differences in predictive skills between individuals with ASD and neurotypical individuals. In this systematic review, we describe results from 47 studies that have empirically tested this hypothesis. We assess the results based on two observable aspects of prediction: learning a pairing between an antecedent and a consequence and responding to an antecedent in a predictive manner. Taken together, these studies suggest distinct differences in both predictive learning and predictive response. Studies documenting differences in learning predictive pairings indicate challenges in detecting such relationships especially when predictive features of an antecedent have low salience or consistency, and studies showing differences in habituation and perceptual adaptation suggest low‐level predictive processing differences in ASD. These challenges may account for the observed differences in the influence of predictive priors, in spontaneous predictive movement or gaze, and in social prediction. An important goal for future research will be to better define and constrain the broad domain‐general hypothesis by testing multiple types of prediction within the same individuals. Additional promising avenues include studying prediction within naturalistic contexts and assessing the effect of prediction‐based intervention on supporting functional outcomes for individuals with ASD. Lay Summary Researchers have suggested that many features of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may be explained by differences in the prediction skills of people with ASD. We review results from 47 studies. These studies suggest that ASD may be associated with differences in the learning of predictive pairings (e.g., learning cause and effect) and in low‐level predictive processing in the brain (e.g., processing repeated sounds). These findings lay the groundwork for research that can improve our understanding of ASD and inform interventions. Autism Res 2021, 14: 604–630. © 2021 International Society for Autism Research and Wiley Periodicals LLC

Prediction learning in adults with autism and its molecular correlates

“…Since the formulations of these hypotheses, several studies attempted to test them more directly. A recent systematic review evidenced some differences between ASD and NT individuals in predictive learning and predictive responses [ 16 ]. They found that most of the studies investigating the predictability of repeated stimuli showed reduced habitation in ASD (e.g.…”

An examination of active inference in autistic adults using immersive virtual reality

“…Furthermore, proposed differences in predictive processing 22 align with a range of autism-related sensorimotor atypicalities, including: impaired movement planning 23 , 24 , reduced anticipatory motor adjustments 7 , 25 , suboptimal movement initiation kinematics 5 , 8 , slower error-based saccade adaptation 26 , and atypical gaze fixation behaviours 27 . However, prediction-related difficulties only emerge under some task conditions (see review 28 ), with autistic people demonstrating intact visual motion prediction 29 , anticipatory lifting forces 30 , and non-social ocular tracking abilities 31 . These inconsistent findings undermine proposals that prior expectations are generically attenuated in autism.…”

Prediction Impairment May Explain Communication Difficulties in Autism

“…Recent studies have illustrated abnormalities in predictive abilities in autistic individuals outside the domains of language (see Cannon et al, 2021 , for a recent review of empirical evidence). Neuroimaging and eye-tracking studies using tasks in which participants are presented with predictable repetitive stimuli that are infrequently interrupted by an unpredictable deviant stimulus found that autistic individuals showed an altered response compared to neurotypical controls (Jeste et al, 2015 ; Balsters et al, 2017 ; Lawson et al, 2017 ; Goris et al, 2018 ).…”