15695
The Relationship Between Neural Sensitivity to Social and Non-Social Positive and Negative Feedback and Autistic Traits
Individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) have difficulties with interpersonal functioning. Prominent theories suggest this is due to social cues being less salient in individuals with ASD. Social cues can express both positive and negative feedback, therefore are important modifiers of behaviour. Thus, decreased sensitivity to these cues may underlie atypical development in ASD. With regard to positive feedback, research reports mixed findings, with some reporting a selective decreased neural response to positive social feedback in ASD, and others a more general impairment in the processing of positive feedback. Atypical neural response to social exclusion is seen in ASD, yet unimpaired neural response to monetary (non-social) feedback has been reported elsewhere. Specific comparison between sensitivity to negative social and negative non-social feedback in ASD remains unexplored.
Objectives:
To determine whether sensitivity of neural response, as indexed by event-related potentials (ERPs) to 1) social and non-social positive feedback and 2) social and non-social negative feedback, is associated with self-reported autistic traits.
Methods:
35 typically developing individuals completed a measure of autistic traits using the Social Responsiveness Scale –Adult (SRS-A). ERPs were recorded with a 128 Channel HydroCel Geodesic Sensor Net whilst subjects completed a modified cued incentive go/no-go task. Feedback was provided by presentation of a pre-recorded video after completion of each trial block. In Experiment 1 (positive feedback), correct responses led to the presentation of three conditions of feedback: 1) Social (verbal encouragement by observer), 2) Non-social (gain of sweets) and 3) neutral (geometric shape). In Experiment 2 (negative feedback), incorrect responses led to the presentation of three conditions of feedback: 1) Social (verbal criticism by observer), 2) Non-social (loss of sweets) and 3) neutral (geometric shape). ERPs were time locked to in-task performance cues, those indexing motivational salience (feedback related negativity; FRN), and allocation of resources (P300) were extracted.
Results:
For positive feedback (Experiment 1), repeated measures ANOVA found no overall effect of feedback type upon P300 amplitude (F(2,70)=.39, p=.68). In the social feedback condition, a significant negative relationship was found between level of autistic traits and P300 peak amplitude (r(35)=-.35, p=0.04). No significant relationship was found in the non-social feedback condition (r(35)=-.08, p=.67). For negative feedback (Experiment 2), analyses in progress examine amplitude and latency of FRN and P300 components using repeated measures ANOVA, with condition of feedback as the within-subjects factor (negative social, negative on-social, neutral).
Conclusions:
Our findings suggest less allocation of resources towards social stimuli in individuals with increased autistic traits. This is in line with the social motivation hypothesis, proposing a decrease in salience attributed to social stimuli in individuals with ASD underlies the behavioural phenotype. Results concerning negative feedback will elucidate whether the pattern of decreased sensitivity to social cues associated with autistic traits is selective to positive feedback, or extends to negative social feedback. Understanding where difficulties in feedback processing lie will prove useful in guiding targeted interventions in ASD.