Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Illustration of the mapping stimulus used. Each panel illustrates one trial (only 3 trials are shown but a run comprised six trials). Within a trial of the pRF mapping runs a bar swept across the visual field (in 24 discrete step of half a bar width) in four cardinal directions. The third and sixth trial in each run always contained a blank period. The order of sweep directions varied between runs. During HRF runs the full-field version of this stimulus is how the stimuli would appear to participants.
- Figure 2.
Maps for polar angle (A), eccentricity (B), and pRF size (C) on a spherical model of an anatomical template left cortical surface (see Materials and Methods). Maps from individual participants were spatially normalized by registering their cortical surfaces to the template. Data were then averaged within each group. Left, ASDs. Right, Neurotypical controls. The boundaries of visual regions included in the analysis are indicated on each map. These are based on the group polar map (A) and only for illustration. For analysis, the regions were delineated in native space separately for each participant. Only regions that could be identified in every participant are shown here. The length of the boundaries indicates the extent of an area.
- Figure 3.
pRF size (A, C) and cortical magnification factors (B, D) averaged across each group and plotted against eccentricity for early (A, B) and higher visual areas (C, D). pRF became larger with greater eccentricity, whereas cortical magnification decreased. However, in V2 and V3 there were also differences between groups in both measures. PRF sizes were also larger in V4 and MT+. Symbols denote the mean in each eccentricity band, solid lines are curves fitted to these data. Error bars denote ±1SEM (errors were typically smaller than the symbol size). Warm colors, ASD group; cold colors, controls. A, B, Circles, V1; diamonds, V2; squares, V3. C, D, Circles, V3A; diamonds, V4; squares, MT+.
- Figure 4.
Beta estimates (A, C) and goodness-of-fit for the pRF model (B, D) averaged across each group and plotted against eccentricity for early (A, B) and higher visual areas (C, D). Beta estimates were slightly larger in the ASD group in many of the same regions as the pRF differences we observed. Symbols denote the mean in each eccentricity band. Error bars denote ±1 SEM. Warm colors, ASD group; cold colors, controls. A, B, Circles, V1; diamonds, V2; squares, V3. C, D, Circles, V3A; diamonds, V4; squares, MT+.
- Figure 5.
Results from difference-of-Gaussians pRF model. Only results from V1–V3 are shown but the pattern is comparable in higher regions. pRF center size (A), surround size (B), surround/center amplitude ratio (C), and β parameters (D) are plotted against eccentricity. All other conventions are the same as in Figures 3 and 4.
- Figure 6.
A–C, Hemodynamic response functions for all visually responsive voxels (A) and separately for each of the early visual areas, V1–V3, (B) and V3A-MT+ (C). The response to a 2.55 s visual stimulus is plotted against time. D, SEM of the response in each participant at each time point, averaged across participants in each group, plotted against time. Error bars denote ±1 SEM across participants. Warm colors, ASD group; cold colors, controls. B, Circles, V1; diamonds, V2; squares, V3. C, Circles, V3A; diamonds, V4; squares, MT+.
- Figure 7.
Individual AQ scores plotted against pRF size averaged across each region of interest for V1 (A), V2 (B), V3 (C), V4 (D), V3A (E), and MT+ (F). Statistics in each panel show the strength of robust correlation between variables for each group. Each circle denotes results from one participant; open circles denote outliers rejected by the robust correlation test. Red, ASD group; blue, neurotypical controls. The solid lines indicate the best fitting linear model to the data.
- Figure 8.
Behavioral perceptual measures. Threshold uncertainty (SD) in global direction discrimination (A), threshold angle in orientation discrimination (B), and the magnitude (point of subjective equality) of the Ebbinghaus illusion (C) for both groups. Large circles and solid line, median; small circles, individual participants. A, One outlier with a direction uncertainty threshold <60° was excluded from ASD group. C, One ASD participant could not perform the Ebbinghaus task.
Tables
ID Group Age Gender DH AQ IQ ADOS 401 Control 29.5 M R 7 112 — 456 Control 37.2 F R 11 108 — 281 Control 43.5 M R 11 112 — 412 Control 32.9 F R 18 107 — 498 Control 37.7 F R 10 127 — 499 Control 33.5 M R 7 123 — 497 Control 28.9 M R 11 128 — 414 Control 42.4 M R 16 113 — 467 Control 30.7 M R 18 102 — 440 Control 36.9 F R 20 121 — 606 Control 33.1 M R 10 126 — 430 Control 20.9 F R 12 104 — 180 ASD 26.3 M R 39 136 17 352 ASD 47.8 F R 45 116 15 351 ASD 48.0 M R 27 118 15 327a ASD 60.9 M R 46 103 8 308 ASD 57.5 M R 45 132 7 388 ASD 21.9 F R 40 129 3 316 ASD 34.7 F R 46 103 9 313 ASD 34.2 M R 40 116 7 397 ASD 27.9 F R 37 131 7 160 ASD 28.6 F R 48 112 7 115 ASD 35.3 M L 41 88 — 184 ASD 48.6 F R 39 115 6 121 ASD 24.6 M R 35 108 13 306 ASD 28.2 M R 48 107 12 ↵aOne participant could not perform the Ebbinghaus illusion task.
DH, Dominant hand; AQ, autism-spectrum quotient; IQ, full scale intelligence quotient; ADOS, autism diagnostic observation scale.
