Preserved Proactive Interference in Autism Spectrum Disorder

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to evaluate further the functioning and structuring of the semantic system in autism spectrum disorders (ASD). We analyzed the performance of 19 high-functioning young adults with ASD and a group of 20 age-, verbal IQ- and education-matched individuals with the Proactive Interference (PI) Paradigm to evaluate semantic functioning in ASD (Experiment 1). In Experiment 2, we analyzed the performances of both groups in a PI paradigm with manipulation of the level of typicality. In both experiments, we observed significant effects of trial and group but no trial by group interactions, which we interpreted as robust evidence of preserved PI (build up effect) that indicated the preservation of semantic mechanisms of encoding and retrieval.

Exploring the neurocognitive basis of episodic recollection in autism

“…Problematically, however, difficulty recalling conceptually organized material has not always been demonstrated in ASD (Beversdorf et al, 1998; Bowler et al, 2009; Mottron et al, 2001; Whitehouse et al, 2007), and some studies have interestingly found that reductions in memory retrieval are not moderated by conceptual organization of material to be learnt (Bowler et al, 2009; Carmo et al, 2016; Gaigg et al, 2015; Smith et al, 2007). Moreover, any difficulty observed in recall of related information also appears to be reduced in tasks that place fewer demands on recollection processes: individuals with ASD can show a recognition advantage for conceptually related words, as do typical controls (Bowler et al, 2008; Toichi et al, 2002), and can show typically enhanced cued recall following semantic than perceptual encoding of words (Gardiner et al, 2003; though see Toichi & Kamio, 2002).…”

“…Additionally, individuals with ASD may be just as susceptible to conceptual false memories, in terms of falsely remembering a word based on its semantic similarity to studied words (Bowler et al, 2000; Gardiner et al, 2003; Kamio & Toichi, 2007; though see Beversdorf et al, 2000), and can also show schema-consistent misinformation effects during event recall (Bruck et al, 2007; Maras & Bowler, 2011). Therefore, it has been argued that people with ASD are perhaps aware of, and encode, the relational structure of information to be learnt, reflecting an “intact” semantic encoding system (Carmo et al, 2016), but can have difficulty using such an organizational structure to freely reconstruct a past event.…”

Contextual effects on visual short-term memory in high-functioning autism spectrum disorders

“…Difficulties in using semantic relatedness to aid memory has been shown in verbal tasks as well (e.g., Tager-Flusberg, 1991), particularly in free recall tasks (but see Carmo et al, 2016). According to some authors (e.g., Bowler, Matthews, & Gardiner, 1997;Bowler, Gardiner, & Berthollier, 2004), recognition tasks (i.e., support-based tasks), in contrast to free recall tasks (i.e., unsupported tasks), lead to a differential pattern of preserved vs. impaired performance in individuals with ASD, respectively.…”

We see the orange not the lemon: typicality effects in ultra‐rapid categorization in adults with and without autism spectrum disorder

“…Regardless of the fact that there is still an ongoing debate about the abilities of individuals with ASD to form and acquire new categories (see for instances, Church et al, 2010;Froehlich et al, 2012;Molesworth, Bowler, & Hampton, 2005), there is now a set of studies (Carmo, Duarte, Pinho, Filipe, & Marques, 2016;Gastgeb, Strauss, & Minshew, 2006;) that suggest that individuals with ASD might have an abnormal and narrowed content of natural existing categories, with difficulties arising when processing items that fall at the categories boundary. These studies have evaluated semantic typicality and have found, in this population, an anomalous processing of atypical items (e.g., detecting penguin as a bird) in comparison with a regular processing of typical instances of a given category.…”