Atypical Visual Processing in Infant Siblings of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)

Atypical Visual Processing in Infant Siblings of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) www.phwiki.com

Atypical Visual Processing in Infant Siblings of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)

Calamaio, Cody, News Editor has reference to this Academic Journal, PHwiki organized this Journal Atypical Visual Processing in Infant Siblings of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) Karen Dobkins Leslie Carver Joseph McCleery Funded by NAAR / Autism Speaks Psychology Department University of Cali as long as nia, San Diego & the M.I.N.D. Institute (UC Davis) COGNITIVE/BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS (6 – 36 months) 2) EXPERIMENTAL MEASURES Ages in addition to Stages Questionnaire, MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI), Mullen Scales of Early Learning A) Low-Level Visual Processing: 6 months B) Face Processing: 10 months C) Social Referencing: 18 months B) Face Processing: 10 months A) Low-Level Visual Processing: 6 months TWO ANALYSES: 1) ASD analysis: High-Risk, Affected vs. Unaffected 2) Endophenotype analysis: High-Risk vs. Controls 2) Endophenotype analysis: High-Risk vs. Controls TWO TYPE OF TESTS ASD Screening/Diagnogstics: M-CHAT, PDDST, ADOS, ADI 1) FACE PROCESSING PARADIGM: Adults: Bentin et al., 1996. Infants: de Haan et al, 2002, Halit, et al, 2003, 2004; de Haan & Nelson, 1999 – Event Related Potentials (ERPs) – Faces vs. Objects

Indiana University of Pennsylvania US www.phwiki.com

This Particular University is Related to this Particular Journal

Averaged electrical response time-locked to repeated picture presentations Face Component: N170 McPartl in addition to , Dawson, Webb, Panagiotides, Carver (2004) Study of Adults with ASD N170 Latency (msec) 10-month-olds Electrical Geodesics, Inc. 124 Electrodes Fast Application EEG Sensor Net High-Risk Infants Vs. Low-Risk Control Infants

Subjects Diagnosis of Their Older Sibling: – 5 Autistic Disorder – 1 Aspergers Syndrome – 4 PDD-NOS 10 High-Risk infants Controls: 20 Low-Risk infants Two Groups Matched: overall cognitive development Ages in addition to Stages Questionnaire, MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI), Mullen Scales of Early Learning – gender, age, number of days born pre/post due date Stimulus Monitor Speakers Testing Set-up Amplitude (microvolts) – –

P400 Latency Differences (Objects – Faces) 2) Group difference as long as Amplitude of P400 in addition to N290 3) Group differences in the effects of Familiarity Let me know if you want to see: 1) RAW Latency Data as long as P400 in addition to N290 Our results in High-Risk 10-month-olds look like results from previous studies: Adults with ASD: McPartl in addition to et al. (2004) 2) Toddlers (3-4 yrs) with ASD: Webb et al. (2006) 3) Parents of Children w/ ASD: Dawson et al. (2005)

2) LOW-LEVEL VISUAL PROCESSING PARADIGM: – Visual Psychophysics – Subcortical Magnocellular (M) vs. Parvocellular (P) Pathway Processing – 6-month-olds A test of the hypothesis that atypicalities in face processing in ASD arise from abnormal development of the subcortical face processing pathway, i.e., the “amygdala” pathway (Schultz, 2005) which originates in the M pathway MAGNO = Luminance (Light/Dark) PARVO = Chromatic (Red/Green) Forced-Choice Preferential Looking 6-month old infants

Luminance Contrast (%) Subjects Diagnosis of Their Older Sibling: – 6 Autistic Disorder – 1 Aspergers Syndrome – 6 PDD-NOS 13 High-Risk infants Controls: 26 Low-Risk infants Two Groups Matched: overall cognitive development – gender, age, number of days born pre/post due date

Magnocellular vs. Parvocellular Pathway Processing in 6 month olds Thank you Magnocellular vs. Parvocellular Pathway Processing

Latency Difference (msec) (Objects – Faces) Latency Difference (msec) (Objects – Faces) 10-month-old Infants N290 10-month-old Infants P400 Face Advantage Object Advantage

Calamaio, Cody Arizona Daily Wildcat News Editor www.phwiki.com

Amplitude Differences (Faces – Objects) Very similar to children with ASD (Webb et al., 2006) Familiarity Effects (N290) (Unfamiliar – Familiar) Familiar Advantage Unfamiliar Advantage Mean Latency Difference (Unfamiliar – Familiar) 60% scale Latency Difference (Objects – Faces) Face Advantage Object Advantage Adults with ASD McPartl in addition to et al (2004)

Familiar (mother) Unfamiliar (stranger) Familiar (favorite toy) Unfamiliar (novel toy) FACES OBJECTS Stimuli TODAY’S TALK: Data averaged over Familiar in addition to Unfamiliar Data averaged over Right in addition to Left Hemispheres Data Analysis 40 Hz low-pass filter Automated artifact rejection in addition to individual trial inspection Replace up to 10 channels Data average over Occipito-Temporal electrodes (16 channels) TODAY’S TALK: Data averaged over RH in addition to LH

3) SOCIAL REFERENCING PARADIGM: – Behavior & ERPs – 18-month-olds

Calamaio, Cody News Editor

Calamaio, Cody is from United States and they belong to Arizona Daily Wildcat and they are from  Tucson, United States got related to this Particular Journal. and Calamaio, Cody deal with the subjects like Student/Alumni Interest

Journal Ratings by Indiana University of Pennsylvania

This Particular Journal got reviewed and rated by Indiana University of Pennsylvania and short form of this particular Institution is US and gave this Journal an Excellent Rating.