Charlotte DiStefano1, Abigail Dickinson1, Elizabeth Baker1, Shafali Spurling Jeste2. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Institute for Neuroscience, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Department of Neurology, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Institute for Neuroscience,University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electroencephalography can elucidate neurobiological mechanisms underlying heterogeneity in ASD. Studying the full range of children with ASD introduces methodological challenges stemming from participants' difficulties tolerating the data collection process, leading to diminished EEGdataretentionandincreasedvariabilityin participant 'state' during the recording. Quantifying state will improve data collection methods and aide in interpreting results. OBJECTIVES: Observationally quantify participant state during the EEG recording; examine its relationship to child characteristics, data retention and spectral power. METHODS: Participants included 5-11 year-old children with D (N=39) and age-matched TD children (N=16). Participants were acclimated to the EEG environment using behavioral strategies. EEG was recorded while participants watched a video of bubbles. Participant 'state' was rated using a Likert scale (Perceived State Rating: PSR). RESULTS: Participants with ASD had more elevated PSR than TD participants. Less EEG data were retained in participants with higher PSR scores, but this was not related to age or IQ. TD participants had higher alpha power compared with the ASD group. Within the ASD group, participants with high PSR had decreased frontal alpha power. CONCLUSIONS: Given supportive strategies, EEG data was collected from children with ASD across cognitive levels. Participant state influenced both EEG data retention and alpha spectral power. Alpha suppression is linked to attention and vigilance, suggesting that these participants were less 'at rest'. This highlights the importance of considering state when conducting EEG studies with challenging participants, both to increase data retention rates and to quantify the influence of state on EEG variables.
BACKGROUND: Electroencephalography can elucidate neurobiological mechanisms underlying heterogeneity in ASD. Studying the full range of children with ASD introduces methodological challenges stemming from participants' difficulties tolerating the data collection process, leading to diminished EEGdataretentionandincreasedvariabilityin participant 'state' during the recording. Quantifying state will improve data collection methods and aide in interpreting results. OBJECTIVES: Observationally quantify participant state during the EEG recording; examine its relationship to child characteristics, data retention and spectral power. METHODS: Participants included 5-11 year-old children with D (N=39) and age-matched TD children (N=16). Participants were acclimated to the EEG environment using behavioral strategies. EEG was recorded while participants watched a video of bubbles. Participant 'state' was rated using a Likert scale (Perceived State Rating: PSR). RESULTS: Participants with ASD had more elevated PSR than TD participants. Less EEG data were retained in participants with higher PSR scores, but this was not related to age or IQ. TD participants had higher alpha power compared with the ASD group. Within the ASD group, participants with high PSR had decreased frontal alpha power. CONCLUSIONS: Given supportive strategies, EEG data was collected from children with ASD across cognitive levels. Participant state influenced both EEG data retention and alpha spectral power. Alpha suppression is linked to attention and vigilance, suggesting that these participants were less 'at rest'. This highlights the importance of considering state when conducting EEG studies with challenging participants, both to increase data retention rates and to quantify the influence of state on EEG variables.
Entities:
Keywords:
EEG; autism spectrum disorder; intellectual disability; spectral power
Authors: Steven K Sutton; Courtney P Burnette; Peter C Mundy; Jessica Meyer; Amy Vaughan; Chris Sanders; Marygrace Yale Journal: J Child Psychol Psychiatry Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 8.982
Authors: Abigail Dickinson; Kandice J Varcin; Mustafa Sahin; Charles A Nelson; Shafali S Jeste Journal: Autism Res Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 5.216
Authors: Maggie W Guy; Conner J Black; Abigail L Hogan; Ramsey E Coyle; John E Richards; Jane E Roberts Journal: Dev Psychobiol Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 2.531
Authors: Frederick Shic; Adam J Naples; Erin C Barney; Shou An Chang; Beibin Li; Takumi McAllister; Minah Kim; Kelsey J Dommer; Simone Hasselmo; Adham Atyabi; Quan Wang; Gerhard Helleman; April R Levin; Helen Seow; Raphael Bernier; Katarzyna Charwaska; Geraldine Dawson; James Dziura; Susan Faja; Shafali Spurling Jeste; Scott P Johnson; Michael Murias; Charles A Nelson; Maura Sabatos-DeVito; Damla Senturk; Catherine A Sugar; Sara J Webb; James C McPartland Journal: Mol Autism Date: 2022-03-21 Impact factor: 6.476
Authors: Emily S Kuschner; Mina Kim; Luke Bloy; Marissa Dipiero; J Christopher Edgar; Timothy P L Roberts Journal: J Neurodev Disord Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Anna Kaiser; Pascal-M Aggensteiner; Martin Holtmann; Andreas Fallgatter; Marcel Romanos; Karina Abenova; Barbara Alm; Katja Becker; Manfred Döpfner; Thomas Ethofer; Christine M Freitag; Julia Geissler; Johannes Hebebrand; Michael Huss; Thomas Jans; Lea Teresa Jendreizik; Johanna Ketter; Tanja Legenbauer; Alexandra Philipsen; Luise Poustka; Tobias Renner; Wolfgang Retz; Michael Rösler; Johannes Thome; Henrik Uebel-von Sandersleben; Elena von Wirth; Toivo Zinnow; Sarah Hohmann; Sabina Millenet; Nathalie E Holz; Tobias Banaschewski; Daniel Brandeis Journal: Brain Sci Date: 2021-02-10