Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Neuroscience
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Neuroscience

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
    • Information for Authors
    • Fees
    • Journal Clubs
    • eLetters
    • Submit
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Advertise
    • For the Media
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Feedback
  • SUBSCRIBE
PreviousNext
Journal Club

Enhanced Motion Perception as a Psychophysical Marker for Autism?

Pascal Wallisch and Aaron M. Bornstein
Journal of Neuroscience 11 September 2013, 33 (37) 14631-14632; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2945-13.2013
Pascal Wallisch
New York University, New York, New York 10003
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aaron M. Bornstein
New York University, New York, New York 10003
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

In recent decades, the incidence of autism has reached epidemic proportions. The ever-mounting burden of disease from autism spectrum disorders highlights the urgency of developing effective treatment options. However, this remains a formidable task. Although autism is characterized by core symptoms, such as impaired communication, social interactions and stereotyped behaviors, it presents heterogeneously. This makes diagnostics challenging and might suggest diverse underlying pathologies. Fortunately, research is beginning to elucidate the neurophysiological basis of autism, namely, reduced neural inhibition, increasing the excitation/inhibition ratio (Rubenstein and Merzenich, 2003). In addition, individuals with autism exhibit an increased intertrial variability in response to sensory stimuli when probed with neuroimaging methods (Dinstein et al., 2012).

What are the perceptual consequences of such physiological effects in individuals with autism? Neural inhibition plays a fundamental role in cortical anatomy and physiology. Inhibitory connections are ubiquitous in sensory systems. Most receptive fields in the visual system have an inhibitory surround. It has now even been proposed that sensory responses are dominated by inhibition (Haider et al., 2013). Thus, one would expect widespread perceptual ramifications if the excitation/inhibition ratio was altered. Some phenomena, such as binocular rivalry, are hypothesized to crucially depend on the precise balance between excitation and inhibition. Yet, studies investigating this phenomenon in autistic and neurotypical populations show no difference in binocular rivalry (Said et al., 2013).

The initial motivation of Foss-Feig et al. (2013) was to track down the psychophysical signature of a possible underlying excitation/inhibition imbalance in autistic individuals. To do so, they investigated the well studied phenomenon of spatial suppression. Spatial suppression refers to the counterintuitive observation that larger stimuli are less readily perceived than smaller stimuli, particularly at high contrasts (Tadin et al., 2003). This is thought to occur because, relative to a small stimulus, a larger stimulus covers more of the inhibitory surround of a given neuron's receptive field, and therefore will produce greater inhibition of the cell. If neural inhibition is weakened, one would expect a diminished spatial suppression effect, rendering larger stimuli more visible than smaller ones. Such effects have been shown in patient populations with known GABAergic deficits, e.g., those suffering from major depression (Golomb et al., 2009).

To determine whether autistic individuals exhibit lower levels of spatial suppression, the authors recruited male children who had been diagnosed with autism, and a comparison group of age- and IQ-matched typically developing children. Both groups viewed slowly moving sinusoidal gratings of different sizes and contrasts. The task of the research participants was to judge whether these stimuli moved to the left or to the right. The authors measured how long the stimuli had to be presented for motion direction to be accurately discriminated (the “duration threshold”).

Surprisingly, given the excitation/inhibition hypothesis, the authors did not find weaker spatial suppression in autistic individuals. Instead, they report several other effects. First, autistic individuals were much more sensitive in this task, as evinced by substantially lower duration thresholds, than neurotypicals. Across all stimulus sizes, typically developing children needed stimuli to be presented roughly twice as long as autistic children to accurately discriminate the motion direction. In addition, there was a profound effect of contrast: autistic children performed similarly to typically developing children at low contrasts, but for the smallest stimuli (which presumably are least affected by spatial suppression effects) an increase in contrast enhanced perception in autistic children much more than in typically developing children.

Finally, the authors did not find systematic correlations between perceptual performance in this task and the severity of clinical symptoms in the group of autistic children, as assessed by standard diagnostic interviews. This is surprising, because strong correlations between spatial suppression strength and other metrics have been found for domains as diverse as length of depressive episodes (Golomb et al., 2009) and IQ (Melnick et al., 2013).

The authors interpret their results to indicate that the excitation/inhibition imbalance underlying autism predominantly manifests as a lack of contrast response gain, not as a lack of spatial suppression. Moreover, the fact that perceptual sensitivity clearly distinguished autistic and neurotypical individuals without correlations to severity of autistic symptoms led the authors to suggest that the observed enhancement of motion could function as a categorical marker of autism.

Overall, the study was conducted in a technically rigorous and careful fashion. For instance, the sinewave gratings used in this study were windowed with smooth envelopes both spatially and temporally, thus avoiding potential edge artifacts that would have resulted from sharper windowing. Nonetheless, we would like to highlight a few points that could potentially weaken some of the conclusions in the paper.

A first concern is the choice of dependent measure, namely duration thresholds. This metric is pervasively used in the spatial suppression literature and it might have serendipitously revealed the differential gain control effect, something that may have been unlikely using contrast thresholds. However, we think it is important to link these results to the rest of the psychophysical literature, which rarely uses duration thresholds, for good reason: varying the exposure duration of a stimulus changes its power in the spatiotemporal frequency domain. At short exposure durations, the power distribution is smeared across the spectrum, which could have unforeseen consequences, especially when examining putative inhibitory mechanisms whose effectiveness can vary nonlinearly with time. This is a particular concern given that the stimulus was only shown for a few frames in some cases. Instead, one could easily use the same high contrast stimuli, but use a fine-discrimination task to establish direction discrimination thresholds (Purushothaman and Bradley, 2005).

The authors used two tasks, one low and one high contrast, to distinguish spatial suppression and summation effects. Yet, spatial suppression and summation are inherently confounded regardless of contrast, even though spatial suppression is presumably weaker at low contrast and summation weaker at high contrast. Indeed, there seems to be a hint of a spatial suppression effect in the low contrast condition for the typically developing group. One could avoid this confound by presenting a center stimulus of fixed size, while varying the size of an uninformative surround stimulus, thus independently modulating spatial suppression. A manipulation of this sort could provide valuable confirmatory evidence to observations in this paper, and perhaps elucidate the precise mechanism.

Finally, there is a less interesting interpretation of these results, namely a speed-accuracy tradeoff. It has been shown that autistic individuals sometimes exhibit longer reaction times (Inui et al., 1995) and that waiting for a while after a stimulus ends before responding can improve task performance (Vlassova and Pearson, 2013). Therefore, the reported higher sensitivity in autistic individuals could have simply resulted from the fact that they waited longer before responding. Although this explanation cannot account for the low-contrast results, this issue is left unaddressed by the authors, and could be resolved by measuring reaction times or by enforcing a sufficiently long wait period before all participants are allowed to respond.

Recording reaction times could also help to substantiate a parallel between the effect on motion perception of autism and that of IQ in neurotypicals. Specifically, Melnick et al. (2013) report that high IQ predicts reduced performance for large motion stimuli like those used in this study. IQ accounts for a substantial proportion of the variance of the reported perceptual performance effects in that study, as autism does in this. Is there a latent factor driving both correlations? While high IQ has not been linked to global inhibition levels, and a unifying biophysical explanation of complex phenomena such as IQ and autism seems ambitious at this stage, that these traits appear to share computational features suggests potentially fruitful model-based analyzes. In particular, the link between both effects could be substantiated by fitting reaction times with a drift-diffusion model, an approach recently applied to suggest that IQ modulates specific aspects of evidence accumulation during simple detection tasks (Ratcliff et al., 2008). A common effect of IQ and autism on perceptual processing, captured by models with well characterized parameter spaces, could open new research directions for psychophysical markers of autism.

Taken at face value, the results reported by Foss-Feig et al. (2013) are interesting and certainly deserving of further inquiry. Specifically, the possibility of diminished contrast gain control in autism is interesting, and could be investigated with an adaptation study: we would expect stronger adaptation effects for autistic individuals. It is also possible that autistics have an advantage at processing briefly presented stimuli per se. It would be straightforward to test this by using a variety of fixed stimulus durations and a diverse set of stimuli. Regardless of future studies to establish the validity and generality of the reported results, this is an intriguing study as it promises to allow a rapid and objective diagnosis of autistic individuals. As such, it is at the vanguard of an exciting development: bringing the hard-won knowledge of vision science to bear on disorders of the nervous system in general, and hopefully helping to alleviate the devastating suffering that they cause.

Footnotes

  • Editor's Note: These short, critical reviews of recent papers in the Journal, written exclusively by graduate students or postdoctoral fellows, are intended to summarize the important findings of the paper and provide additional insight and commentary. For more information on the format and purpose of the Journal Club, please see http://www.jneurosci.org/misc/ifa_features.shtml.

  • A.M.B. was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Predoctoral Research Fellowship 1F31MH095501. We thank Michael Alexander Grubb and Zack Westrick for helpful discussions in preparation of this manuscript.

  • Correspondence should be addressed to Pascal Wallisch, New York University, 4 Washington Place, Suite 809, New York, NY 10003. pascal.wallisch{at}nyu.edu

References

  1. ↵
    1. Dinstein I,
    2. Heeger DJ,
    3. Lorenzi L,
    4. Minshew NJ,
    5. Malach R,
    6. Behrmann M
    (2012) Unreliable evoked responses in autism. Neuron 75:981–991, doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.07.026, pmid:22998867.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Foss-Feig JH,
    2. Tadin D,
    3. Schauder KB,
    4. Cascio CJ
    (2013) A substantial and unexpected enhancement of motion perception in autism. J Neurosci 33:8243–8249, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1608-12.2013, pmid:23658163.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Golomb JD,
    2. McDavitt JR,
    3. Ruf BM,
    4. Chen JI,
    5. Saricicek A,
    6. Maloney KH,
    7. Hu J,
    8. Chun MM,
    9. Bhagwagar Z
    (2009) Enhanced visual motion perception in major depressive disorder. J Neurosci 29:9072–9077, doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1003-09.2009, pmid:19605644.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Haider B,
    2. Häusser M,
    3. Carandini M
    (2013) Inhibition dominates sensory responses in the awake cortex. Nature 493:97–100, doi:10.1038/nature11665, pmid:23172139.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Inui N,
    2. Yamanishi M,
    3. Tada S
    (1995) Simple reaction times and timing of serial reactions of adolescents with mental retardation, autism, and Down syndrome. Percept Mot Skills 81:739–745, doi:10.2466/pms.1995.81.3.739, pmid:8668429.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Melnick MD,
    2. Harrison BR,
    3. Park S,
    4. Bennetto L,
    5. Tadin D
    (2013) A strong interactive link between sensory discriminations and intelligence. Curr Biol 23:1013–1017, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.053, pmid:23707433.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Purushothaman G,
    2. Bradley DC
    (2005) Neural population code for fine perceptual decisions in area MT. Nat Neurosci 8:99–106, doi:10.1038/nn1373, pmid:15608633.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Ratcliff R,
    2. Schmiedek F,
    3. McKoon G
    (2008) A diffusion model explanation of the worst performance rule for reaction time and IQ. Intelligence 36:10–17, doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.12.002, pmid:18584065.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Rubenstein J,
    2. Merzenich M
    (2003) Model of autism: increased ratio of excitation/inhibition in key neural systems. Genes Brain Behav 2:255–267, doi:10.1034/j.1601-183X.2003.00037.x, pmid:14606691.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Said CP,
    2. Egan RD,
    3. Minshew NJ,
    4. Behrmann M,
    5. Heeger DJ
    (2013) Normal binocular rivalry in autism: implications for the excitation/inhibition imbalance hypothesis. Vision Res 77:59–66, doi:10.1016/j.visres.2012.11.002, pmid:23200868.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Tadin D,
    2. Lappin JS,
    3. Gilroy LA,
    4. Blake R
    (2003) Perceptual consequences of centre–surround antagonism in visual motion processing. Nature 424:312–315, doi:10.1038/nature01800, pmid:12867982.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Vlassova A,
    2. Pearson J
    (2013) Look before you leap: sensory memory improves decision making. Psychol Sci doi:10.1177/0956797612474321, Advanced online publication. Retrieved July 1, 2013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Neuroscience: 33 (37)
Journal of Neuroscience
Vol. 33, Issue 37
11 Sep 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Advertising (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Neuroscience article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Enhanced Motion Perception as a Psychophysical Marker for Autism?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Neuroscience
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Neuroscience.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Enhanced Motion Perception as a Psychophysical Marker for Autism?
Pascal Wallisch, Aaron M. Bornstein
Journal of Neuroscience 11 September 2013, 33 (37) 14631-14632; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2945-13.2013

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Request Permissions
Share
Enhanced Motion Perception as a Psychophysical Marker for Autism?
Pascal Wallisch, Aaron M. Bornstein
Journal of Neuroscience 11 September 2013, 33 (37) 14631-14632; DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2945-13.2013
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Parabrachial Projections to PAG-RVM Axis May Promote Placebo Hypoalgesia and Nocebo Hyperalgesia
  • Differential Dopamine Dynamics in Adolescents and Adults
  • Complementing Neuroregeneration: Deciphering the Role of Neuro-Immune Interactions in CNS Repair
Show more Journal Club
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Issue Archive
  • Collections

Information

  • For Authors
  • For Advertisers
  • For the Media
  • For Subscribers

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
(JNeurosci logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2022 by the Society for Neuroscience.
JNeurosci Online ISSN: 1529-2401

The ideas and opinions expressed in JNeurosci do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the JNeurosci Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in JNeurosci should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in JNeurosci.