Testing Sensory and Multisensory Function in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Baum, Sarah H.; Stevenson, Ryan A.; Wallace, Mark T.

doi:10.3791/52677

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the ability to benefit from seeing an speaker's face while conversing in a noisy environment is dependent upon the effectiveness of the auditory signal, but individuals with schizophrenia (Ross, Saint-Amour, Leavitt, Molholm, et al, 2007) and autism (Foxe, et al, 2013) show deficits in the amount of perceptual benefit they gain at low levels of stimulus effectiveness. Furthermore, dysfunction in temporal processing of multisensory stimuli have also been shown in individuals with autism (Baum, Stevenson, & Wallace, 2015; Bebko, Weiss, Demark, & Gomez, 2006; de Boer-Schellekens, Eussen, & Vroomen, 2013; Foss-Feig, et al, 2010; Kwakye, Foss-Feig, Cascio, Stone, & Wallace, 2011; Stevenson, Segers, Ferber, Barense, & Wallace, 2014; Stevenson, Siemann, Schneider, et al., 2014; Stevenson, Siemann, Woynaroski, et al, 2014a, 2014b; Wallace & Stevenson, 2014; Woynaroski, et al, 2013), schizophrenia (Martin, Giersch, Huron, & van Wassenhove, 2013), and dyslexia (Froyen, Willems, & Blomert, 2011; Hairston, Burdette, Flowers, Wood, & Wallace, 2005b; Virsu, Lahti-Nuuttila, & Laasonen, 2003). Since having an appropriately sized temporal binding window ensures proper multisensory integration, one avenue of future research should investigate whether or not clinical populations with enlarged temporal windows will show a corresponding widening of these windows with changing stimulus properties (i.e., stimulus intensities as described in the current study) or with increasing levels of stimulus complexity (Stevenson & Wallace, 2013; Vroomen & Stekelenburg, 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus intensity modulates multisensory temporal processing

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the more challenging feats that multisensory systems must perform is to determine which sensory signals originate from the same external event, and thus should be integrated or "bound" into a singular perceptual object or event, and which signals should be segregated. Two important stimulus properties impacting this process are the timing and effectiveness of the paired stimuli. It has been well established that the more temporally aligned two stimuli are, the greater the degree to which they influence one another's processing. In addition, the less effective the individual unisensory stimuli are in eliciting a response, the greater the benefit when they are combined. However, the interaction between stimulus timing and stimulus effectiveness in driving multisensory-mediated behaviors has never been explored -which was the purpose of the current study. Participants were presented with either high-or low-intensity audiovisual stimuli in which stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) were parametrically varied, and were asked to report on the perceived synchrony/asynchrony of the paired stimuli. Our results revealed an interaction between the temporal relationship (SOA) and intensity of the stimuli. Specifically, individuals were more tolerant of larger temporal offsets (i.e., more likely to call them synchronous) when the paired stimuli were less effective. This interaction was also seen in response time (RT) distributions. Behavioral gains in RTs were seen with synchronous relative to asynchronous presentations, but this effect was more pronounced with high-intensity stimuli. These data suggest that stimulus effectiveness plays an underappreciated role in the perception of the timing of multisensory events, and reinforces the interdependency of the principles of multisensory integration in determining behavior and shaping perception.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stimulus intensity modulates multisensory temporal processing

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, individuals with diagnoses of ASD and SZ performed an audiovisual speech simultaneity judgment task (Baum et al ., ). In addition to the standard analysis entailing fitting these data with a Gaussian function and deriving the TBW (Van der Burg et al ., ; Noel et al ., ; Simon et al ., ), we applied a Bayesian causal inference model to the data (Kording et al ., ; Shams & Beierholm, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Atypical audiovisual temporal function in autism and schizophrenia: similar phenotype, different cause

Noel

Stevenson

Wallace

2018

Eur J of Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Binding across sensory modalities yields substantial perceptual benefits, including enhanced speech intelligibility. The coincidence of sensory inputs across time is a fundamental cue for this integration process. Recent work has suggested that individuals with diagnoses of schizophrenia (SZ) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) will characterize auditory and visual events as synchronous over larger temporal disparities than their neurotypical counterparts. Namely, these clinical populations possess an enlarged temporal binding window (TBW). Although patients with SZ and ASD share aspects of their symptomatology, phenotypic similarities may result from distinct etiologies. To examine similarities and variances in audiovisual temporal function in these two populations, individuals diagnosed with ASD (n = 46; controls n = 40) and SZ (n = 16, controls = 16) completed an audiovisual simultaneity judgment task. In addition to standard psychometric analyses, synchrony judgments were assessed using Bayesian causal inference modeling. This approach permits distinguishing between distinct causes of an enlarged TBW: an a priori bias to bind sensory information and poor fidelity in the sensory representation. Findings indicate that both ASD and SZ populations show deficits in multisensory temporal acuity. Importantly, results suggest that while the wider TBWs in ASD most prominently results from atypical priors, the wider TBWs in SZ results from a trend toward changes in prior and weaknesses in the sensory representations. Results are discussed in light of current ASD and SZ theories and highlight that different perceptual training paradigms focused on improving multisensory integration may be most effective in these two clinical populations and emphasize that similar phenotypes may emanate from distinct mechanistic causes.

show abstract

“…Surprisingly, the groups did not differ in either the simple flash-beep condition or the tool condition. However, individuals with ASD showed decreased temporal acuity in the speech task, meaning that they needed longer stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs) to recognize asynchronous onsets than controls (see also Baum et al 2015b). Stevenson et al (2014a) also found that the width of the TBW measured in the flash beep, tool, and speech tasks correlated with the strength of the McGurk effect (McGurk and MacDonald 1976) in the ASD but not the TD group.…”

Section: Discrepancies Between Temporal Binding Window Studies In Asdmentioning

confidence: 97%

Temporal integration of multisensory stimuli in autism spectrum disorder: a predictive coding perspective

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, a growing number of studies have examined the role of multisensory temporal integration in people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Some studies have used temporal order judgments or simultaneity judgments to examine the temporal binding window, while others have employed multisensory illusions, such as the sound-induced flash illusion (SiFi). The SiFi is an illusion created by presenting two beeps along with one flash. Participants perceive two flashes if the stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) between the two flashes is brief. The temporal binding window can be measured by modulating the SOA between the beeps. Each of these tasks has been used to compare the temporal binding window in people with ASD and typically developing individuals; however, the results have been mixed. While temporal order and simultaneity judgment tasks have shown little temporal binding window differences between groups, studies using the SiFi have found a wider temporal binding window in ASD compared to controls. In this paper, we discuss these seemingly contradictory findings and suggest that predictive coding may be able to explain the differences between these tasks.

show abstract

Testing Sensory and Multisensory Function in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Cited by 17 publications

References 34 publications

Stimulus intensity modulates multisensory temporal processing

Stimulus intensity modulates multisensory temporal processing

Atypical audiovisual temporal function in autism and schizophrenia: similar phenotype, different cause

Temporal integration of multisensory stimuli in autism spectrum disorder: a predictive coding perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About