Visuospatial Learning and Memory Performance on the Indiana Faces In Places Test In Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Background:   Findings regarding visuospatial learning and memory in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have been inconsistent to date (Williams et al., 2006). The results of several studies (e.g., Zinke et al., 2010; Williams et al., 2005) suggest impaired performance by individuals with ASD on visuospatial memory tasks. However, some examinations of visuospatial memory in ASD (e.g., Klin et al., 1999) have failed to demonstrate differences between ASD and comparison participants. To further examine the nature of visuospatial learning and memory in individuals with ASD, we administered the Indiana Faces in Places Test (IFIPT; Beglinger et al., 2009). This is a novel, yet reliable and valid, test of visuospatial learning and memory that has been previously been shown to be sensitive to group differences between clinical and comparison samples.

Objectives:   Given the potential clinical utility of the IFIPT, the current study investigated visuospatial learning and memory in youths with high-functioning ASD using this measure. We hypothesized that participants with ASD would show poorer ability to match faces with spatial locations during both immediate and delay conditions, relative to comparison participants.

Methods:   To date, 12 youths (aged 9 to 16) with ASD and 17 age-, sex-, and IQ-matched comparison participants have completed the study. In the IFIPT, stimuli consist of black-and-white photographs of faces with neutral expressions (10 targets, 30 foils). During each of three acquisition trials, each target stimulus was presented for two seconds in 1 of 10 spatial locations. Then, in two immediate recognition trials and one delayed recognition trial, participants were presented with 10 target and 10 foil stimuli, asked if they recognized each face and, if ”yes”, asked to identify the spatial location in which it was presented. Dependent variables included number of faces accurately recognized, number of faces correctly matched to spatial locations, and number of false positives.

Results:   A 2 x 3 (Group x Recognition Trial) mixed repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for each dependent variable. The ANOVA for number of faces correctly matched to spatial locations revealed a significant effect of Group (F (1, 27) = 11.55, p = .002; partial eta² = .30), with comparison participants correctly identifying more spatial locations than participants with ASD. Though no significant main effects of group were observed for number of faces accurately recognized or number of false positives, there was a non-significant trend toward poorer performance in the ASD group for number of faces accurately recognized (F (1, 27) = 3.6, p = .069; partial eta² = .12). For all dependent variables, there was a significant main effect of Recognition Trial, with performance for both groups improving between the first and second immediate recognition trials and then declining between the second immediate recognition and delayed recognition trials. However, no Group x Recognition Trial interactions were observed. 

Conclusions: This study revealed that individuals with ASD experienced more difficulty than comparison participants when asked to recall the spatial location of stimuli. Discussion will focus on the implications of these findings for our understanding of visuospatial learning and memory in ASD.