Atypical Time Course of Object Recognition in Autism Spectrum Disorder

Laurent Caplette, Bruno Wicker, Frédéric Gosselin, Laurent Caplette, Bruno Wicker, Frédéric Gosselin

Abstract

In neurotypical observers, it is widely believed that the visual system samples the world in a coarse-to-fine fashion. Past studies on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) have identified atypical responses to fine visual information but did not investigate the time course of the sampling of information at different levels of granularity (i.e. Spatial Frequencies, SF). Here, we examined this question during an object recognition task in ASD and neurotypical observers using a novel experimental paradigm. Our results confirm and characterize with unprecedented precision a coarse-to-fine sampling of SF information in neurotypical observers. In ASD observers, we discovered a different pattern of SF sampling across time: in the first 80 ms, high SFs lead ASD observers to a higher accuracy than neurotypical observers, and these SFs are sampled differently across time in the two subject groups. Our results might be related to the absence of a mandatory precedence of global information, and to top-down processing abnormalities in ASD.

Figures

Figure 1. Use of SFs across time…
Figure 1. Use of SFs across time in each group and differences between the groups.
Upper panel: One-sample t maps illustrating how each SF in each time frame correlates with accurate object recognition, and one-sample t vectors indicating the slope of use of each SF across time, for the neurotypical and ASD groups. Lower panel: Two-sample t map illustrating the between-group differences in the use of each SF in each time frame, and two-sample t vector indicating the between-group differences in the slope of use of each SF across time. Pixels enclosed by black lines and bold portions of the vectors are significant (p < 0.05, FWER-corrected). Note that since the width of all images subtended 6 degrees of visual angle, cycles per image can be converted in cycles per degree by dividing by 6. Note also that only statistics up to 64 cycles per image (cpi) are shown; there are no statistically significant results in the portions not shown. Note finally that color axes are different in the panels.
Figure 2. Illustration of the sampling method.
Figure 2. Illustration of the sampling method.
On each trial, we randomly generated a matrix of dimensions 256 × 40 (representing respectively SFs and frames) in which most elements were zeros and a few were ones. We then convolved this sparse matrix with a 2D Gaussian kernel (a “bubble”). This resulted in the trial’s sampling matrix, shown here as a plane with a number of randomly located bubbles. Every column of this sampling matrix was then rotated around its origin to create isotropic 2D random filters. Finally, these 2D random filters were dot-multiplied by the base image’s spectrum and inverse fast Fourier transformed to create a filtered version of the image for every video frame.

References

    1. Simmons D. R. et al.. Vision in autism spectrum disorders. Vision Res. 49, 2705–2739 (2009).
    1. Deruelle C., Rondan C., Gepner B. & Tardif C. Spatial frequency and face processing in children with autism and Asperger syndrome. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 34, 199–210 (2004).
    1. Plaisted K., Swettenham J. & Rees L. Children with autism show local precedence in a divided attention task and global precedence in a selective attention task. J. Child Psychol. Psyc. 40, 733–742 (1999).
    1. Rinehart N. J., Bradshaw J. L., Moss S. A., Brereton A. V. & Tonge B. J. Atypical interference of local detail on global processing in high- functioning autism and asperger’s disorder. J. Child Psychol. Psyc. 41, 769–778 (2000).
    1. Happé F. & Frith U. The weak coherence account: detail-focused cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 36, 5–25 (2006).
    1. Mottron L., Dawson M., Soulières I., Hubert B. & Burack J. Enhanced perceptual functioning in autism: an update, and eight principles of autistic perception. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 36, 27–43 (2006).
    1. Van der Hallen R., Evers K., Brewaeys K., Van den Noortgate W. & Wagemans J. Global processing takes time: A meta-analysis on local–global visual processing in ASD. Psychol. Bull. 141, 549–573 (2015).
    1. Vlamings P. H. J. M., Jonkman L. M., van Daalen E., van der Gaag R. J. & Kemner C. Basic abnormalities in visual processing affect face processing at an early age in autism spectrum disorder. Biol. Psyc. 68, 1107–1113 (2010).
    1. Boeschoten M. A., Kenemans J. L., Engeland H. V. & Kemner C. Abnormal spatial frequency processing in high-functioning children with pervasive developmental disorder (PDD). Clin. Neurophysiol. 118, 2076–2088 (2007).
    1. Jemel B., Mimeault D., Saint-Amour D., Hosein A. & Mottron L. VEP contrast sensitivity responses reveal reduced functional segregation of mid and high filters of visual channels in autism. J. Vision 10, 13 (2010).
    1. Kéïta L., Guy J., Berthiaume C., Mottron L. & Bertone A. An early origin for detailed perception in autism spectrum disorder: biased sensitivity for high-spatial frequency information. Sci. Rep. 4, 5475 (2014).
    1. de Jonge M. V. et al.. Visual information processing in high-functioning individuals with autism spectrum disorders and their parents. Neuropsychology, 21, 65–73 (2007).
    1. Koh H. C., Milne E. & Dobkins K. Spatial contrast sensitivity in adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. J. Autism Dev Disord, 40, 978–987 (2010).
    1. Behrmann M. et al.. Configural processing and its relationship to face processing. Neuropsychologia 44, 110–129 (2006).
    1. Hughes H. C., Nozawa G. & Kitterle F. Global precedence, spatial frequency channels, and the statistics of natural images. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 8, 197–230 (1996).
    1. Schyns P. G. & Oliva A. From blobs to boundary edges: evidence for time- and spatial-scale-dependent scene recognition. Psychol. Sci. 5, 195–200 (1994).
    1. Bar M. A cortical mechanism for triggering top-down facilitation in visual object recognition. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 15, 600–609 (2003).
    1. Bar M. et al.. Top-down facilitation of visual recognition. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 449–454 (2006).
    1. Goddard E., Carlson T. A., Dermody N. & Woolgar A. Representational dynamics of object recognition: Feedforward and feedback information flows. Neuroimage, 128, 385–397 (2016).
    1. Loth E., Gómez J. C. & Happé F. When seeing depends on knowing: Adults with autism spectrum conditions show diminished top-down processes in the visual perception of degraded faces but not degraded objects. Neuropsychologia 48, 1227–1236 (2010).
    1. Ropar D. & Mitchell P. Shape constancy in autism: the role of prior knowledge and perspective cues. J. Child Psychol. Psyc. 43, 647–653 (2002).
    1. Pellicano E. & Burr D. When the world becomes “too real”: a Bayesian explanation of autistic perception. Trends Cogn. Sci. 16, 503–509 (2012).
    1. Van de Cruys S. et al.. Precise minds in uncertain worlds: Predictive coding in autism. Psychol. Rev. 121, 649–675 (2014).
    1. Gosselin F. & Schyns P. G. Bubbles: a technique to reveal the use of information in recognition tasks. Vision Res. 41, 2261–2271 (2001).
    1. Ullman S. Visual routines. Cognition 18, 97–159 (1984).
    1. Caplette L., McCabe E., Blais C. & Gosselin F. The time course of object, scene and face categorization in Handbook of categorization in cognitive science, 2nd edition (eds Lefebvre C. & Cohen H.) (Elsevier, in press).
    1. Behrmann M. et al.. Configural processing in autism and its relationship to face processing. Neuropsychologia 44, 110–129 (2006).
    1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 4th edition, text revision (Author, 2000).
    1. Brainard D. H. The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision 10, 433–436 (1997).
    1. Pelli D. G. The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision 10, 437–442 (1997).
    1. Shenhav A., Barrett L. F. & Bar M. Affective value and associative processing share a cortical substrate. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 13, 46–59 (2013).
    1. Willenbockel V. et al.. Controlling low-level image properties: The SHINE toolbox. Behav. Res. Meth. 42, 671–684 (2010).
    1. Allard R. & Faubert J. The noisy-bit method for digital displays: Converting a 256 luminance resolution into a continuous resolution. Behav. Res. Meth. 40, 735–743 (2008).
    1. Chauvin A., Worsley K. J., Schyns P. G., Arguin M. & Gosselin F. Accurate statistical tests for smooth classification images. J. Vision 5, 659–667 (2005).

Source: PubMed

Подписаться