Autistic children are able to interpret the mental state of others by looking at their eyes, contrary to previous research, a new University of Nottingham study has found.

In findings that contradict previous studies, psychologists found that autistic children can ‘read’ a stranger’s mental state based on that person’s eyes. Autistic children have long been thought to be poor at interpreting people’s mental states based on facial expressions, especially expressions around the eyes.

Some researchers believe that this lack of ability could be central to the social problems experienced by autistic children and adults.

But the latest findings cast doubt on this hypothesis. A study at The University of Nottingham found that autistic children were able to interpret mental states when looking at animated facial expressions. The findings also suggest that the use of moving images, rather than conventional still pictures, gives a much more accurate measure of the abilities of autistic children.

Researchers hope that by increasing understanding of autism, their findings may ultimately help in the teaching and treatment of people with the condition.

Published in the latest issue of the journal Child Development, the study was led by Dr Elisa Back. Her co-researchers were Professor Peter Mitchell and Dr Danielle Ropar of the School of Psychology at The University of Nottingham.

Dr Back said: “Previous findings show that children and adolescents with autism may have difficulty reading mental states from facial expressions but our results suggest that this is not due to an inability to interpret information from the eyes.

“Surprisingly, autistic children seemed particularly reliant on the eyes and also the mouth when making mentalistic inferences.

“The conclusions of previous research are largely based on methods that present static photographs to participants. Our study indicates that a more accurate measure of the abilities of those with autism can be obtained through the use of sophisticated digital imaging techniques with animated facial expressions.”

The study compared two groups of autistic children, one group aged 10-14 and one aged 11-15, with two control groups of non-autistic children. They underwent a series of tests to see whether they could gauge the mental state of a stranger by looking at different parts of the face.

Researchers conducted two experiments in which the participants looked at a series of facial expressions on a laptop screen. In the facial images used, the eyes and mouth were either ‘freeze-framed’ in a neutral expression, or animated and expressive. By showing a sequence of different combinations, they were able to gauge which aspects of the face were used by the autistic children to ‘read’ someone’s mental state - and how successful they were.

In the second experiment, the 18 autistic children involved were as successful as non-autistic children in interpreting mental states, whether they saw the eyes in isolation or in the context of the whole face. This indicates that autistic children do, in fact, make use of information from the eyes - a finding that contradicts prior studies.

An estimated 588,000 people have autism in the UK, according to the National Autistic Society. A mental health survey by the Office for National Statistics found the prevalence of children and young people anywhere on the autistic spectrum is 0.9 per cent - almost one in every 100.

If you spotted an anaconda poised to strike, the signal to pay attention would originate in a different part of your brain than if you gazed at an anaconda in the zoo, neuroscientists at MIT’s Picower Institute for Learning and Memory report in the March 30 issue of Science.

The work, which could have implications for treating attention deficit disorder (ADD), is the first concrete evidence that two radically different brain regions-the prefrontal cortex and the parietal cortex-play different roles in these different modes of attention.

What’s more, when you focus your attention, the electrical activity in these two brain areas synchronizes and oscillates at different frequencies. “It’s as if the brain is using two different stops on the FM radio dial for different types of attention,” said study co-author Earl K. Miller, Picower Professor of Neuroscience. Brain signals related to the knowledge we have acquired about the world are called top-down. Signals related to incoming sensory information are called bottom-up.

“Loud, flashy things like fire alarms automatically grab our attention,” Miller said. “By contrast, we choose to pay attention to certain things we think are important. We found two different modes of brain operation related to each, and they seem to originate in different parts of the brain. Further, the automatic (or bottom-up) versus willful (top-down) modes of attention seem to rely on two different frequency channels in the brain, suggesting that the brain might communicate in different frequency bands for different types of signals.”

ADD involves being overly sensitive to the automatic attention-grabbers and less able to willfully sustain attention. “Our work suggests that we should target different parts of the brain to try to fix different types of attention deficits,” Miller said.

“The downside of most psychiatic drugs is they are too broad,” he continued. “It’s like hitting the problem with a sledgehammer; you get the benefits but also many unintended consequences. Our work suggests that we may one day be able to figure out what is the exact problem with each individual and specifically target those shortcomings. And that is the ultimate goal in psychiatric intervention.”

To address the fact that neural activity from the prefrontal and parietal cortices had never been directly compared, Miller and co-author Timothy J. Buschman, an MIT graduate student in the Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, conducted a series of experiments in which monkeys were engaged in different kinds of tasks. The researchers looked at activity in two areas of their brains simultaneously-the prefrontal cortex, also called the brain’s executive because it is in charge of voluntary behavior, and the parietal cortex, which integrates sensory information coming from various parts of the body.

The monkeys had to pick out rectangles of certain colors and orientations on a video screen. Some of the rectangles popped out at them like the anaconda in the forest; others they had to search for.

The results support the idea that when something pops out at us, sensory cortical areas like the parietal cortex directs our eyes toward the stimulus. When we purposefully look for something, the prefrontal cortex is doing the driving.

“Taken together, these data suggest two modes of operation: When a stimulus pops out, a bottom-up, fast target selection occurs first in the posterior visual cortex; while in search mode, a top-down, longer latency target selection is reflected first in the prefrontal cortex,” Miller said. “To our knowledge, these are the first direct demonstrations that these areas may have different contributions to these different modes of attention.”

This work is supported by the the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and an NSF CELEST Science of Learning Center.

New research from Columbia University Medical Center may explain why people who are able to easily and accurately recall historical dates or long-ago events, may have a harder time with word recall or remembering the day’s current events. They may have too much memory –making it harder to filter out information and increasing the time it takes for new short-term memories to be processed and stored. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (March 13, 2007 issue), the research reinforces the old adage that too much of anything –even something good for you– can actually be detrimental.

Sounds to me like Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics as well.

Research indicates that while clearly understanding the risks, people persist in bad habits and risky behavior. Dr. Cindy Jardine, professor of rural sociology at the University of Alberta, recently reported these findings at the RiskCom 2006 Conference in Sweden.

“When asked to rate the danger of various types of risks including lifestyle habits, subjects clearly understood what types of behavior are the riskiest, but simply knowing isn’t enough to motivate them to change.” Prof. Jardine speculates why there might be such a disconnect between knowledge and behavior.

“For instance, stress is bad for us, yet we wear it as a badge of honor. It is seen as a socially desirable thing to be overworking. We don’t seem to have the same respect for people who work a 40-hour week. As well, we don’t like to hear about what we shouldn’t be doing, so we rationalize our bad habits. We all have a bit of recalcitrant child in us.”

Prof. Jardine admits that until the psychology behind risky behaviour is really understood, people won’t give up their vices, no matter how much they know.

Of course, there must be a better explanation. Let’s consider for a moment why it is that people persist in such behaviors? I find that people tend to engage in the types of activities mentioned because each affords a measure of pleasure. The smoker takes a drag. The workaholic enjoys the pleasure associated with achievement. These feelings are immediately present, as opposed to an imagined feeling associated with a distant future event or situation.

Jardine claims that while stress is bad, people carry it as a sign of honor. One must also consider that while presenting long term risks stress indicates excitatory processes. Perhaps the workaholic is leveraging innate physiological responses to environmental stimuli to continue pursuing an objective (or goal), the attainment of which brings with it feelings of achievement.

While Jardine identifies the aforementioned risky behaviors as “bad,” one ought to consider how such behavior may in fact provide benefits across multiple emotional and/or motivational dimensions. At the time one adopts such behaviors and for years thereafter, such immediate benefits may well outweigh the perceived risks in an imagined and distant future.

Source Material:University of Alberta.