atypical visual processing in infant siblings of children with autism spectrum disorders (asd) karen...
TRANSCRIPT
Atypical Visual Processing in Infant Siblings of Children with
Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)
Karen DobkinsLeslie Carver
Joseph McCleery
Funded by NAAR / Autism Speaks
Psychology DepartmentUniversity of California, San Diego
& the M.I.N.D. Institute (UC Davis)
1) COGNITIVE/BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS(6 - 36 months)
2) EXPERIMENTAL MEASURES
Ages and Stages Questionnaire, MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI), Mullen Scales of Early Learning
A) Low-Level Visual Processing: 6 months
B) Face Processing: 10 months
C) Social Referencing: 18 months
B) Face Processing: 10 months
A) Low-Level Visual Processing: 6 months
TWO ANALYSES:
1) ASD analysis: High-Risk, Affected vs. Unaffected2) Endophenotype analysis: High-Risk vs. Controls2) Endophenotype analysis: High-Risk vs. Controls
TWO TYPE OF TESTS
ASD Screening/Diagnogstics: M-CHAT, PDDST, ADOS, ADI
OBJECTSFACES
1) FACE PROCESSING PARADIGM:
Adults: Bentin et al., 1996.Infants: de Haan et al, 2002, Halit, et al, 2003, 2004; de Haan & Nelson, 1999
- Event Related Potentials (ERPs) - Faces vs. Objects
OBJECTS
Face Component: N170
Occipito-temporal cortex
Am
plit
ud
e(m
icro
volt
s)
200 400 600
10
Latency (msec)
0
20
-20
-10
-100
StimulusOnset
0
-
-
McPartland, Dawson, Webb, Panagiotides, Carver (2004)
Study of Adults with ASD
N17
0 L
aten
cy (
mse
c)
N17
0 L
ate
nc
y (m
sec )
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
Controls ASD
N17
0 L
ate
nc
y (m
sec )
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
Controls ASDN
170
Lat
ency
Dif
fere
nce
(Ob
ject
s -
Fac
es)
Fac
eA
dva
nta
ge
Ob
ject
Ad
van
tag
e
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20 Difference Scores
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
Controls
F0
N = 14 N = 9ASD
F0
*
Controls
N = 9
N = 14
10-month-olds
High-Risk InfantsVs.
Low-Risk Control Infants
Subjects
Diagnosis of Their Older Sibling:- 5 Autistic Disorder- 1 Aspergers Syndrome- 4 PDD-NOS
10 High-Risk infants
Controls:20 Low-Risk infants
Two Groups Matched:
- overall cognitive development Ages and Stages Questionnaire, MacArthur-Bates Communicative
Development Inventory (CDI), Mullen Scales of Early Learning
- gender, age, number of days born pre/post due date
Testing Set-up
Am
plit
ud
e(m
icro
volt
s)
200 400 600
10
Latency (msec)
0
20
-20
-10
-100
StimulusOnset
0
-
-
In adults: N170
N170
In infants: N290 + P400
N290
P400
P400
Latency Differences(Objects - Faces)
Mea
n L
aten
cy D
iffe
ren
ce (
mse
c)(O
bje
cts
- F
aces
)
N290
ControlInfants
High-RiskInfants
-40
-20
0
20
40
60* p = 0.038
High-RiskInfants
High-Risk (n = 10)
FaceAdvantage
ObjectAdvantage
Mea
n L
aten
cy D
iffe
ren
ce (
mse
c)(O
bje
cts
- F
aces
)
ControlInfants
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Controls (n = 20)
* p = 0.003
2) Group difference for Amplitude of P400 and N290
Let me know if you want to see:
1) RAW Latency Data for P400 and N290
Our results in High-Risk 10-month-olds look likeresults from previous studies:
1) Adults with ASD: McPartland et al. (2004)
2) Toddlers (3-4 yrs) with ASD: Webb et al. (2006)
3) Parents of Children w/ ASD: Dawson et al. (2005)
2) LOW-LEVEL VISUAL PROCESSING PARADIGM:
- Visual Psychophysics
- Subcortical Magnocellular (M) vs. Parvocellular (P) Pathway Processing
- 6-month-olds
A test of the hypothesis that atypicalities in faceprocessing in ASD arise from abnormal development of the subcortical face processing pathway, i.e., the “amygdala” pathway (Schultz, 2005)
….. which originates in the M pathway
MAGNO = Luminance(Light/Dark)
PARVO = Chromatic(Red/Green)
Forced-Choice Preferential Looking
6-month old infants
T h r e s h o l d =
6 . 5 %
S e n s i t i v i t y = 1 /t h r * 1 0 0
= 1 5 .4
Luminance Contrast (%)
Subjects
Diagnosis of Their Older Sibling:- 6 Autistic Disorder- 1 Aspergers Syndrome- 6 PDD-NOS
13 High-Risk infants
Controls:26 Low-Risk infants
Two Groups Matched:
- overall cognitive development- gender, age, number of days born pre/post due date
Magnocellular vs. Parvocellular Pathway Processing in 6 month olds
High-Risk (n = 13)
Lo
g C
on
tras
t S
ensi
tiv i
ty
Controls (n = 26)
Luminance(Magnocellular)
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Chromatic(Parvocellullar)
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
High-RiskInfants
ControlInfants
Lo
g D
iffe
ren
ce S
core
(L
um
- C
hr)
* p = 0.011 * p = 0.011
Thank you
Magnocellular vs. Parvocellular Pathway Processing
High-Risk (n = 13)
Lo
g C
on
tras
t S
ensi
tiv i
ty
Controls (n = 26)
Luminance(Magnocellular)
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Chromatic(Parvocellullar)
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
High-RiskInfants
ControlInfants
Lo
g D
iffe
ren
ce S
core
(L
um
- C
hr)
* p = 0.011
Lat
ency
Dif
fer e
nce
(m
sec)
(Ob
ject
s -
Fac
es)
Controls
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
High-Risk
Controls
High-Risk-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Lat
ency
Dif
fer e
nce
(m
sec)
(Ob
ject
s -
Fac
es)
Controls
ASDAdults
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
3-4 year olds with ASDWebb et al (2006)
N290
Lat
ency
Dif
fere
nce
Adults with ASDMcPartland et al (2004)
N170
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Controls
ASD(3-4 years)
Parents of ASDDawson et al (2005)
N170
Controls Parentsof
ASD
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
10-month-old InfantsN290
10-month-old InfantsP400
FaceAdvantage
ObjectAdvantage
Lat
ency
Dif
fere
nce Controls
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
High-Risk
Controls
High-Risk-40
-20
0
20
40
60
Lat
ency
Dif
fere
nce
N290 P400
* p = 0.004*
p = 0.047
P40
0 L
aten
cy (
mse
c)
Controls High-Risk
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
F F
N29
0 L
aten
cy (
mse
c)
Controls High-Risk220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
FF
O
OO
O
Controls (n = 20)
High-Risk (n = 10)
Amplitude Differences(Faces - Objects)
* p = 0.021
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
ControlsHigh-Risk
Mea
n A
mp
l itu
de
Dif
fere
nce
(Fac
es -
Ob
ject
s)
N290
Very similar to children with ASD(Webb et al., 2006)
P400
FaceAdvantage
ObjectAdvantage
Mea
n A
mp
l itu
de
Dif
fere
nce
(Fac
es -
Ob
ject
s)
Controls
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
High-Risk
* p = 0.035
Controls (n = 20)
High-Risk (n = 10)
Familiarity Effects (N290)(Unfamiliar - Familiar)
FamiliarAdvantage
UnfamiliarAdvantageM
ean
Lat
ency
Dif
fere
nce
(Un
fam
i lia
r -
Fam
i lia
r)
Controls (n = 20)
High-Risk (n = 10)
Controls ASD-20
-10
0
10
20
* MS
Lat
ency
Dif
fere
nce
(Ob
ject
s -
Fac
es)
Fac
eA
dva
nta
ge
Ob
ject
Ad
van
tag
e
Adults with ASDMcPartland et al (2004)
Controls
ASDAdults
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Lat
ency
Dif
fere
nce
(Ob
ject
s -
Fac
es)
Fac
eA
dva
nta
ge
Ob
ject
Ad
van
tag
e
3-4 year olds with ASD Webb et al (2006)
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Controls
ASD(3-4 years)
Lat
ency
Dif
fere
nce
(Ob
ject
s -
Fac
es)
Fac
eA
dva
nta
ge
Ob
ject
Ad
van
tag
e
Parents of Children with ASD Dawson et al (2005)
ControlsParentsof
ASD
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
Familiar (mother) Unfamiliar (stranger)
Familiar (favorite toy) Unfamiliar (novel toy)
FACES
OBJECTS
Stimuli
TODAY’S TALK: Data averaged over Familiar and Unfamiliar
Data averaged over Right and Left Hemispheres
Baseline(100 ms)
Stimulus(500 ms)
Post-Stimulus(700 ms)
-100 0 500 ms 1200 ms
Single Trial Timeline
Data Recording
Continuous EEG, 250 Hz sampling
Impedance: 80 kOhms
0.1 - 100 Hz bandpass filter
Cz reference
Data Analysis
40 Hz low-pass filter
Automated artifact rejection and individual trial inspection
Data average over Occipito-Temporal electrodes (16 channels)
TODAY’S TALK: Data averaged over RH and LH
3) SOCIAL REFERENCING PARADIGM:
- Behavior & ERPs - 18-month-olds
Controls (n = 23)
High-Risk (n = 21)
Me
an
# R
ef e
ren
ce
s
Component 1:Seeking Emotional Info
0
0.5
1.5
2.0
1.0
*p = 0.05
P50
0 L
aten
cy D
iffe
ren
ceP
OS
- N
EG
Toy
(m
sec)
POS Toy
Advantage
NEG Toy Advantage
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
p = 0.06MS
Component 2:Associate Emotion
with Object
Component 3:Regulate Behavior in
Response to EmotionallyTagged Object
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06 **p = 0.017
Log
(PO
Sp
ost/
NE
Gp
ost)
-
Log
(PO
Sp
re/N
EG
pre
)