| Literature DB >> 32581859 |
Kathryn M Hauschild1, Peter Felsman1,2, Cara M Keifer1, Matthew D Lerner1,3.
Abstract
A common interpretation of the face-processing deficits associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is that they arise from a failure to develop normative levels of perceptual expertise. One indicator of perceptual expertise for faces is the own-age bias, operationalized as a processing advantage for faces of one's own age, presumably due to more frequent contact and experience. This effect is especially evident in domains of face recognition memory but less commonly investigated in social-emotional expertise (e.g., facial emotion recognition; FER), where individuals with ASD have shown consistent deficits. In the present study, we investigated whether a FER task would elicit an own-age bias for individuals with and without ASD and explored how the magnitude of an own-age bias may differ as a function of ASD status and symptoms. Ninety-two adolescents (63 male) between the ages of 11 and 14 years completed the child- and adult-face subtests of a standardized FER task. Overall FER accuracy was found to differ by ASD severity, reflecting poorer performance for those with increased symptoms. Results also indicated that an own-age bias was evident, reflecting greater FER performance for child compared to adult faces, for all adolescents regardless of ASD status or symptoms. However, the strength of the observed own-age bias did not differ by ASD status or severity. Findings suggest that face processing abilities of adolescents with ASD may be influenced by experience with specific categories of stimuli, similar to their typically developing peers.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; autism spectrum disorder; emotion recognition; face processing; own-age bias; perceptual expertise
Year: 2020 PMID: 32581859 PMCID: PMC7286307 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00428
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychiatry ISSN: 1664-0640 Impact factor: 4.157
Descriptive Statistics and Independent Samples t-Tests Comparing Age, Full-Scale IQ, and ADOS-2 CS Across Participants in the ASD and Non-ASD Groups.
| ASD (N = 52, 38 male) | Non-ASD (N = 40, 25 male) |
| df | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Racial or Ethnic Minority ( | 7, 13.5% | 10, 25% | – | – |
| Parental Education ( |
|
| – | – |
| Yearly Household Income ( |
|
| – | – |
| Age ( | 12.64, 1.10 | 12.85, 1.07 | .90 | 90 |
| Full-Scale IQ ( | 105.67, 14.08 | 106.55, 14.79 | .29 | 90 |
| ADOS-2 CS ( | 7.58, 2.05 | 1.83,.87 | −16.59*** | 90 |
***p <.001. ADOS-2 CS, Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule–Second Edition Comparison Score.
Figure 1Example images from the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy-2 depicting happy expressions from the (A) adult face subtest and (B) child face subtest.
Descriptive Statistics and One-Sample t-Tests for Facial Emotion Accuracy on the DANVA-2.
| DANVA-2 Subtest | Mean Accuracy (SD) | N | Comparison Value | 95% CI for Mean Difference |
| df | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASD | Adult Faces | 72.76% (11.08) | 52 | .25 | 44.67–50.84 | 31.07*** | 51 |
| Adult Happy Faces | 89.74% (12.42) | ||||||
| Adult Sad Faces | 78.85% (24.72) | ||||||
| Adult Angry Faces | 59.29% (20.46) | ||||||
| Adult Fearful Faces | 63.14% (20.96) | ||||||
| Child Faces | 81.41% (12.66) | 52 | .25 | 52.89–59.94 | 32.128*** | 51 | |
| Child Happy Faces | 94.55% (11.30) | ||||||
| Child Sad Faces | 89.10% (14.34) | ||||||
| Child Angry Faces | 63.46% (29.34) | ||||||
| Child Fearful Faces | 78.53% (17.57) | ||||||
| Non-ASD | Adult Faces | 75.10% (12.39) | 40 | .25 | 46.14–54.07 | 25.57*** | 39 |
| Adult Happy Faces | 89.58% (14.95) | ||||||
| Adult Sad Faces | 80.83% (18.32) | ||||||
| Adult Angry Faces | 61.25% (20.81) | ||||||
| Adult Fearful Faces | 68.75% (20.74) | ||||||
| Child Faces | 83.54% (11.40) | 40 | .25 | 54.90–62.19 | 32.48*** | 39 | |
| Child Happy Faces | 95.83% (11.79) | ||||||
| Child Sad Faces | 94.17% (9.66) | ||||||
| Child Angry Faces | 61.67% (26.74) | ||||||
| Child Fearful Faces | 82.50% (18.47) |
***p <.001. 95% CI for Mean Difference = 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Difference. As there are four face options for every trial, ¼ (or.25) is the comparison (chance) value against which response rates are compared. DANVA-2 Adult Face Accuracy, percentage of facial emotions correctly identified on the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy–Second Edition adult subtest; DANVA-2 Child Face Accuracy, percentage of facial emotions correctly identified on the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy–Second Edition child subtest.
Figure 2FER percent accuracy for the non-ASD and ASD diagnostic groups on the DANVA-2 by stimulus face age and emotion. Observed main effects of face age and emotion are denoted. A stepwise relationship was observed for comparisons between emotions such that accuracy for happy was significantly greater than sad, fearful, and angry; accuracy for sad was significantly greater than fearful and angry; and accuracy for angry was significantly greater than fearful, all at the p <.001 level. *** p <.001.
Figure 3Percent FER accuracy for the adult and child subtests of the DANVA-2 by emotion. *** p <.001.
Figure 4Scatter plots displaying the relationship between ASD symptom severity, as measured by the ADOS-2 Comparison Scores, and behavioral facial emotion recognition accuracy on the (A) child subtest (r(90) = −.21, p =.04), (B) adult subtest (r(90) = −.20, p =.06), and (C) overall task (r(90) = −.23, p =.03).