Karen Pierce1, Elizabeth Redcay. 1. Department of Neuroscience, University of California, San Diego, USA. kpierce@ucsd.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of face processing for normal social development, no functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of face processing in autism have focused exclusively on the childhood years. To fill this gap, 45 children aged 6-12 participated in practice scans. After exclusion due to motion, 11 children with an ASD and 11 age-matched normal control subjects were included in final analyses. METHODS: Stimuli consisted of pictures of a familiar adult, familiar child, stranger adult, stranger child, and objects. During the scan, children pressed a button in response to an identical face shown on two consecutive trials. On the basis of our prior research, masks of four anatomic regions of interest (ROIs) including the fusiform gyrus, amygdala, and anterior and posterior cingulate were created for each subject and manually edited for anatomic precision. Following deconvolution analyses, the number of voxels significantly active and percent signal change values that fell within each ROI mask were calculated for each subject. RESULTS: Analyses revealed normal fusiform activity in children with autism when viewing a face of their mother or other children. In contrast, looking at stranger adult faces initiated profound deficits in that the mean number of significantly active voxels in the fusiform bilaterally was approximately 25% of that shown in typically developing children. CONCLUSIONS: A selective fusiform deficit in response only to the faces of adult strangers may be the result of reduced attention and interest during those conditions. Face processing abnormalities found in autism beyond the fusiform likely exist.
BACKGROUND: Despite the importance of face processing for normal social development, no functional magnetic resonance imaging studies of face processing in autism have focused exclusively on the childhood years. To fill this gap, 45 children aged 6-12 participated in practice scans. After exclusion due to motion, 11 children with an ASD and 11 age-matched normal control subjects were included in final analyses. METHODS: Stimuli consisted of pictures of a familiar adult, familiar child, stranger adult, stranger child, and objects. During the scan, children pressed a button in response to an identical face shown on two consecutive trials. On the basis of our prior research, masks of four anatomic regions of interest (ROIs) including the fusiform gyrus, amygdala, and anterior and posterior cingulate were created for each subject and manually edited for anatomic precision. Following deconvolution analyses, the number of voxels significantly active and percent signal change values that fell within each ROI mask were calculated for each subject. RESULTS: Analyses revealed normal fusiform activity in children with autism when viewing a face of their mother or other children. In contrast, looking at stranger adult faces initiated profound deficits in that the mean number of significantly active voxels in the fusiform bilaterally was approximately 25% of that shown in typically developing children. CONCLUSIONS: A selective fusiform deficit in response only to the faces of adult strangers may be the result of reduced attention and interest during those conditions. Face processing abnormalities found in autism beyond the fusiform likely exist.
Authors: R T Schultz; I Gauthier; A Klin; R K Fulbright; A W Anderson; F Volkmar; P Skudlarski; C Lacadie; D J Cohen; J C Gore Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2000-04
Authors: Eric Courchesne; Karen Pierce; Cynthia M Schumann; Elizabeth Redcay; Joseph A Buckwalter; Daniel P Kennedy; John Morgan Journal: Neuron Date: 2007-10-25 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: Damien A Fair; Alexander L Cohen; Nico U F Dosenbach; Jessica A Church; Francis M Miezin; Deanna M Barch; Marcus E Raichle; Steven E Petersen; Bradley L Schlaggar Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-03-05 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: H D Critchley; E M Daly; E T Bullmore; S C Williams; T Van Amelsvoort; D M Robertson; A Rowe; M Phillips; G McAlonan; P Howlin; D G Murphy Journal: Brain Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: S Baron-Cohen; H A Ring; E T Bullmore; S Wheelwright; C Ashwin; S C Williams Journal: Neurosci Biobehav Rev Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 8.989
Authors: S L Rauch; P J Whalen; L M Shin; S C McInerney; M L Macklin; N B Lasko; S P Orr; R K Pitman Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2000-05-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Natalia M Kleinhans; Todd Richards; Lindsey Sterling; Keith C Stegbauer; Roderick Mahurin; L Clark Johnson; Jessica Greenson; Geraldine Dawson; Elizabeth Aylward Journal: Brain Date: 2008-01-29 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Sara J Webb; Emily J H Jones; Kristen Merkle; Michael Murias; Jessica Greenson; Todd Richards; Elizabeth Aylward; Geraldine Dawson Journal: Int J Psychophysiol Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 2.997
Authors: Laura Pina-Camacho; Sonia Villero; David Fraguas; Leticia Boada; Joost Janssen; Francisco J Navas-Sánchez; Maria Mayoral; Cloe Llorente; Celso Arango; Mara Parellada Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2012-07
Authors: Sara Jane Webb; Emily J H Jones; Kristen Merkle; Kaitlin Venema; Jessica Greenson; Michael Murias; Geraldine Dawson Journal: Child Dev Date: 2011-10-17
Authors: Jeffrey S Anderson; Jared A Nielsen; Alyson L Froehlich; Molly B DuBray; T Jason Druzgal; Annahir N Cariello; Jason R Cooperrider; Brandon A Zielinski; Caitlin Ravichandran; P Thomas Fletcher; Andrew L Alexander; Erin D Bigler; Nicholas Lange; Janet E Lainhart Journal: Brain Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Ryan A Stevenson; Justin K Siemann; Tiffany G Woynaroski; Brittany C Schneider; Haley E Eberly; Stephen M Camarata; Mark T Wallace Journal: J Autism Dev Disord Date: 2014-06
Authors: Keith M Shafritz; Joel D Bregman; Toshikazu Ikuta; Philip R Szeszko Journal: Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry Date: 2015-03-10 Impact factor: 5.067