View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Utilitarian Attention by Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder on a Filtering Task

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Utilitarian Attention by Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder on a Filtering Task
Language: English
Authors: Brodeur, Darlene A., Stewart, Jillian, Dawkins, Tamara, Burack, Jacob A.
Source: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Dec 2018 48(12):4019-4027.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Children, Pervasive Developmental Disorders, Autism, Attention, Visual Perception, Visual Stimuli, Reaction Time, Comparative Analysis, Cues
DOI: 10.1007/s10803-018-3619-5
ISSN: 0162-3257
Abstract: The findings are evidence that persons with ASD benefit more than typically developing (TD) persons from spatial framing cues in focusing their attention on a visual target. Participants were administered a forced-choice task to assess visual filtering. A target stimulus was presented on a screen and flanker stimuli were presented simultaneously with or after the target, with varying stimuli onset asynchronies (SOAs). Regardless of SOA, TD children showed the expected distracting effects with slower reaction times (RTs) when flankers were at closer distances from the target. However, children with ASD displayed shorter RTs in the conditions in which the stimuli were presented simultaneously or with a short SOA. These findings are interpreted as reflecting utilitarian attention among children with ASD.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 30
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1195838
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHQVSNuxCRLquBGfRC52CwgAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEJrNK1qzy1LXwG4KQIBEICBm1UqCM5C73lc91g7t-OlhH3HH8KBLGI5yXxi15SzDseBAxcuY0mnIte2sdIO_G539S21y9IunIurOOZbKOPlymHzyCUAGIUtV2-hsEBmpGkmnjsnH28bMqk8_sMLS77PJXhzzEv119emHUSzD40kdczWRFMzDK2RrjCHJhHhjTMZuKthS8BpnFragvFrhMii4M3vMCF7hW3umVfW
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0132879727;aut01dec.18;2018Nov09.13:41;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0132879727-1">Utilitarian Attention by Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder on a Filtering Task </title> <p>The findings are evidence that persons with ASD benefit more than typically developing (TD) persons from spatial framing cues in focusing their attention on a visual target. Participants were administered a forced-choice task to assess visual filtering. A target stimulus was presented on a screen and flanker stimuli were presented simultaneously with or after the target, with varying stimuli onset asynchronies (SOAs). Regardless of SOA, TD children showed the expected distracting effects with slower reaction times (RTs) when flankers were at closer distances from the target. However, children with ASD displayed shorter RTs in the conditions in which the stimuli were presented simultaneously or with a short SOA. These findings are interpreted as reflecting utilitarian attention among children with ASD.</p> <p>Keywords: Attention; Visual filtering; Flanker paradigm; Autism spectrum disorder</p> <hd id="AN0132879727-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Over-focused attention, the excessive focus on one piece, part of a piece, or a group of pieces of information or events at the expense of processing others, might best describe the essence of prevailing theories about the cognitive style of persons with ASD. For example, the theory of mind deficits might be seen as an over-focus on objects and events from an egocentric view rather than from others' viewpoints; the theory of executive function deficits as an over-focus on ideas in the here and now rather than on those to be planned for the future; and the theories of weak central coherence and enhanced perceptual functioning as an over-focus on details rather than on the global objects. These conceptual extrapolations from theory and behavior are consistent both with depictions of the actual attentional processing of persons with ASD as over-focused (Rincover and Ducharme 1987; Wainwright-Sharp and Bryson 1993) or overselective (Townsend and Courchesne 1994; Townsend et al. 1996) and with evidence suggestive of tunnel vision (Robertson et al. 2013).</p> <p>Yet, in an early direct examination of visual focus among persons with ASD, Burack (1994) highlighted evidence that appeared to reflect the opposite—<emph>under-focused</emph> attention (see Bowler 2006 for a relevant review). Using an adapted version of an Eriksen flanker task (Eriksen and Eriksen 1974), Burack (1994) found that only a group of low functioning persons with ASD, as compared to two groups of mental age (MA)-matched individuals with intellectual disability and a group of MA-matched typically developing persons, showed enhanced reaction times (RTs) in identifying a target stimulus that appeared in the middle of the screen in conditions with no distractors, when a visual window was superimposed around the middle of a screen. However, the facilitative effects of the window were negated in the presence of visual distractors, which impeded the performance of the persons with ASD more than any of the other groups. This effect was so pronounced that the persons with ASD were distracted even by distractors that were so far from the target that they were outside the bounds of the usual attentional range of focus and, as expected, did not diminish the performance of the participants in the three other groups. In direct contradiction to an over-focused account, Burack (1994) argued that the attention of individuals with ASD might be described as "overly extended in certain circumstances" (p. 541) with an attentional lens that is inefficient especially in contracting its focus to a narrow visual field in order to process a target.</p> <p>Burack's (1994) conclusions have subsequently been challenged. For example, Mann and Walker (2003) argued that individuals with ASD do not have difficulty in adjusting the attentional lens, but rather a difficulty in broadening the focus of attention. Their position was supported by the finding that children with ASD had difficulty quickly and accurately judging the size of a cross-hair only when the large crosshair followed a small one, and not in any other condition (large-small, small-small, or large-large). Concordantly, Ronconi et al. (2013) reported that high functioning children with ASD around age 13 years, as compared to typically developing children of the same chronological age (CA) and matched on several cognitive variables, tended to deploy a narrower attentional spotlight on the focus of attention but were deficient in the broad distribution of the attentional spotlight. Ronconi et al. suggested that their findings reflect a prolonged zoom-in lens, but a sluggish zoom-out lens, thereby seemingly supporting the notion of over-focused attention.</p> <p>In trying to make sense of the discrepant findings of over- and under-focused attention among persons with ASD, we assessed two abilities directly linked to the focus of attention—one, "zooming" the focus of attention to a meaningfully restricted spatial area, and, two, maintaining that focus despite the occurrence of events or the appearance of objects in the environment. The incorporation of manipulations of both space and time in the paradigm is consistent with the call to better reflect attending in our real-world everyday dynamic environments (Burack et al. 2017; Ristic and Enns 2015a, b) as visual attention is used in both dimensions in our daily lives (von Mühlenen et al. 2005). Whereas space, with regard to the distal relationship between target and non-target stimuli, had been the focus of the earlier studies of focus of attention among persons with ASD (i.e., Burack 1994; Ronconi et al. 2013), the inclusion of a temporal component, as manifested in different onsets for the target and non-target stimuli, was indicated by evidence that persons with ASD were less likely than TD persons to prioritize novel onset stimuli (Greenaway and Plaisted 2005; Keehn and Joseph 2008). These preliminary findings suggest that persons with ASD might be protected from the potentially distracting effects of novel onset non-target stimuli which are generally thought to be effective in capturing attention in many circumstances (Gaspelin et al. 2016; Jonides and Yantis 1988; Schreij et al. 2008; von Mühlenen et al. 2005; Yantis and Jonides 1984). The paradigm, which was administered to persons with ASD as compared to MA-matched typically developing children of a mental age of approximately 7-1/2 years, involved a forced-choice RT task in which the participants needed to focus attention to the middle of a screen in order to identify the target stimulus and to ignore irrelevant and potentially distracting flanker stimuli that varied in relation to the target stimulus with regard to distance and temporal onset. With regard to distance, the flankers were presented at near, intermediate, or far distances to the left and right of the target. With regard to temporal onset, the flankers were presented either simultaneously with the target or 150, 300, or 450 ms after the target.</p> <p>The over- and under-focused theories of attention among persons with ASD led to quite disparate hypotheses regarding space and time. With regard to space, the over-focused hypothesis led to the prediction the performance of the participants with ASD, as compared to the TD participants, would be less deleteriously affected by the flankers because they would either maintain a narrower breadth of attention (Ronconi et al. 2013) or would have more difficulty in broadening it (Mann and Walker 2003). With regard to the time manipulation, the over-focused attention perspective led to the prediction that the participants with ASD would be less deleteriously affected by the presentation of non-target flankers following the presentation of the target stimulus due to the evidence that they are less sensitive to novel onset stimuli (Greenaway and Plaisted 2005; Keehn and Joseph 2008) and experience difficulty disengaging attention during childhood (Landry and Bryson 2004). With regard to space, the under-focused perspective led to the expectation that the participants with ASD would be more deleteriously affected by flankers distant from the target, due an inefficiency in narrowing the lens of attention (Burack 1994). Similarly, with regard to time, the under-focused hypothesis led to the expectation that the participants with ASD would be especially prone to distraction by the sudden onsets of task-irrelevant stimuli within the visual field that typically capture attention and disrupt target identification more than task-irrelevant stimuli presented simultaneously with the target (Jonides and Yantis 1988; von Mühlenen et al. 2005; Yantis and Jonides 1984).</p> <hd id="AN0132879727-3">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0132879727-4">Participants</hd> <p>The participants included 13 children with ASD between the ages of 5.2 and 14.6 years (<emph>M</emph><subs><emph>age</emph></subs> = 10.4 years) and 13 TD children between the ages of 4.6 and 12.9 years (<emph>M</emph><subs><emph>age</emph></subs> = 7.7 years).1 [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>] The children with ASD were recruited from two private schools in Montreal serving children with special needs. The TD children were recruited from an advertisement placed in a Montreal-based publication for families. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the McGill University Research Ethics Board, informed consent for participation was given by the participants' parents and guardians, and the children provided verbal assent for their participation. The inclusion criterion for the children with ASD was a diagnosis of ASD provided by a psychiatrist according to psychiatric guidelines (APA 2000) that was found in the student files from the educational institution. These diagnoses had been accepted by both the school and the provincial ministry of education in its coding system for funding for services to the school. The exclusionary criteria for all of the participants included significant sensory or motor impairment, major physical abnormalities, and a history of serious head injury and/or neurological disease. The exclusionary criteria for the TD participants were a history of problems related to attention, learning, and/or behaviour, or unusually high or low cognitive ability as assessed by their scores on the Leiter International Performance Scale Revised (Leiter-R; Roid and Miller 1997).</p> <p>The groups were matched as closely as possible on MA based on the Leiter International Performance Scale Revised (Leiter-R; Roid and Miller 1997), a standardized measure of non-verbal intelligence that yields an intelligence quotient (IQ) score. The mean MAs of the children with ASD (<emph>M</emph> = 7.45 years; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.64) and the TD children (<emph>M</emph> = 7.40 years; <emph>SD</emph> = 1.33) did not differ [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref3">24</reflink>) = .01, <emph>p</emph> > .930]. The participants' characteristics, including CA, MA, and gender are presented in Table 1.</p> <p></p> <p>The Leiter-R in particular was chosen as the measure of MA in this study because it is a nonverbal measure, and as such is ideal for use with individuals whose language is delayed or underdeveloped, and whose abilities would be underestimated by tests of MA that rely on verbal ability as is often the case for individuals with ASD (Roid and Miller 1997). Further, the Leiter-R emphasizes fluid intelligence, so results should not be significantly influenced by the child's educational, social, or family experience. This is of significance when matching on MA, as the life experiences of children with ASD are likely different from those of TD children (Burack et al. 2004).</p> <hd id="AN0132879727-5">Stimuli and Apparatus</hd> <p>All the stimuli were presented on a Dell New Inspirion laptop computer with a 15.6-in LCD monitor, with the screen resolution set at 1366 × 768 pixels and a screen refresh rate of 59.9 Hz. Stimulus presentation and data recording were controlled with E-prime 2.0 software (Schneider et al. 2007). The participants responded by pressing either the left or right button on an RB-530 series response pad (Cedrus Corporation 2005), which offers 1 millisecond reaction time resolution.</p> <p>The stimuli were comprised of four symbols, each measuring 10.1 × 10.1 mm (1.16° × 1.16° of visual angle), including a circle, a cross, a triangle, and an asterisk. All the symbols were presented in black on a white background. The target stimulus in any trial was either the circle or cross, presented in the center of the screen. Each of the two response keys was assigned to a target stimulus, and was labelled with an image of that target shape. The flanker stimuli were the triangle and asterisk, which appeared on either side of the target, on the same horizontal plane. In relation to the target, the flankers were either feature similar (e.g., a cross flanked by an asterisk), feature dissimilar (e.g., a cross flanked by a triangle), or not presented. The stimuli were considered to be similar when they both demonstrated the Gestalt principle of closure, or both displayed line intersection. They were considered to be dissimilar when one was a closed figure and the other had line intersection (Brodeur 2004). The stimuli shapes and visual representations of flanker conditions are presented in Table 2.</p> <p>The presentation included conditions with an without flankers. In the conditions with flankers, they were presented in one of three distance conditions—with a visual display subtending 20.2 mm (2.32° of visual angle) in the close condition, with a visual display subtending 60.2 mm (6.92° of visual angle) in the intermediate condition; or with a visual display subtending 120.8 mm (13.78° of visual angle) in the far condition. The target was always presented centred between the left and right flanking distractors. The flankers were either presented simultaneous with, or 150, 300, or 450 ms following target presentation. The variations in timing and distance between the targets and the flankers are presented in Fig. 1.</p> <p>Sequence of events for flankers presented simultaneous with, and following target presentation. Dashes illustrated beside flankers represent the intermediate and far distance locations for distractors and were not visible on the screen</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <hd id="AN0132879727-6">Procedure</hd> <p>The participants were tested individually in a quiet well-lit room in their schools (the children with ASD) or at McGill University (the TD children). All the participants were seated 50 cm from the computer screen and were instructed to place their head on a chin rest so that the head position remained at eye level with the computer screen. The experimenter instructed the participants to place each hand on a response button, to focus their eyes on the center of the computer screen, and to respond to target stimuli presented on the computer screen by pressing one of two labelled buttons on the response pad, each corresponding to one of the target stimuli. The participants were instructed to respond as quickly and as accurately as possible as soon as the target stimulus was presented, and to respond only to the stimuli presented in the center of the screen. The button assignment to the targets was counterbalanced across participants to control for a dominant hand advantage.</p> <p>The participants completed one block of 24 practice trials before each set of test trials. During the practice trials, the experimenter provided verbal feedback following each response. The participants were told "good" if they pressed the button that corresponded to the correct target shape, or "no" if their choice was incorrect. Feedback was given until it was observed that the participant responded without errors.</p> <p>Each practice and test block began with instructions to the participants to press the spacebar to start the task. In each trial, a blank screen was displayed for 1000 ms prior to the presentation of the target and flanker stimuli. The stimuli were displayed until a response was provided or until 3000 ms have passed. The data from any trial in which responses were provided after 3000 ms or not at all were treated as errors and are included in the reported error rates. For each distance condition (i.e., close, intermediate, far) there were 192 trials, 48 trials of which were presented at each SOA (i.e., 0, 150, 300, 450), and 24 trials per distance and SOA were presented with each flanker type (i.e., similar, dissimilar). There were also 24 baseline trials where no flankers were presented. In total 600 test trials were presented in two sets, with the conditions randomized within each of six blocks of 50 test trials per set. The participants were allowed to take breaks of 1-5 min between each of the blocks. The total administration time for the two sets was approximately 1 h.</p> <hd id="AN0132879727-7">Results</hd> <p>The primary analysis involved a mixed design analysis of variance (ANOVA) on median correct response times (RT) with Group (ASD and TD) as the between-subjects factor, and, distance (close, intermediate, far) and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA: 0, 150, 300, and 450 ms) as the within-subjects factors.2 [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref4">2</reflink>] Mauchly's test indicated that the assumption of sphericity for the SOA and Group by SOA effects were violated; therefore corrected probabilities are reported for these effects. Simple main effects tests and pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni adjustments were conducted to further investigate the significant effects.</p> <p>The analysis revealed significant main effects of Distance (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref5">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref6">48</reflink>) = 7.40, <emph>p</emph> = .002; ηp2 = .24;.90CI = .06-.37) and SOA (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>, 72) = 7.80, <emph>p</emph> = .000; ηp2 = .24;.90CI = .09-.35). No significant main effect of Group was found. Both significant main effects were qualified by interactions with Group.</p> <p>A Group by Distance interaction was found (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref8">2</reflink>, 48) = 12.26, <emph>p</emph> < .000; ηp2 = .34;.90CI = .15-.47). In order to determine the source of this interaction, we examined the effects of Distance on median RTs within each group separately. This approach was adopted because it directly addressed the question of whether the pattern of distractor proximity effects would be the similar within each group. Follow-up ANOVAs for each group using Bonferroni corrected probabilities and pairwise comparisons revealed that the TD children displayed shorter RTs with flankers at the far distance than with flankers at the intermediate or close distances (<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>, 24) = 13.88, <emph>p</emph> < .025, ηp2 = .54;.90CI = .25-.66). The RTs of the children with autism did not differ across the different distances [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref10">2</reflink>, 24) = 3.42, <emph>p</emph> > .025, ηp2 = .22;.90CI = .00-.39] (see Fig. 2).</p> <p>Mean RTs (SEs) of the children with ASD, and TD children with no flankers and with flankers presented at close, intermediate, and far distances from the target</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <p>A Group by SOA interaction was found [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>, 24) = 4.73, <emph>p</emph> < .020; ηp2 = .16;.90CI = .03-.27]. In order to determine the source of the Group by SOA interaction, we examined the effects of SOA on median RTs within each group separately. This approach was adopted because it directly addressed the question of whether the pattern of SOA effects would be the similar within each group. Follow-up ANOVAs for each group using Bonferroni corrected probabilities and pairwise comparisons revealed that the participants with ASD displayed shorter RTs on simultaneous trials than on trials with 150, 300, and 450 ms SOAs, and significantly shorter RTs on trials with 150 ms SOA than on trials with 300 ms SOA [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref12">3</reflink>, 36) = 6.80, <emph>p</emph> < .025, ηp2 = .36;.90CI = .12-.49]. However, the RTs of the TD children did not vary with SOA [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>, 36) = 1.92, <emph>p</emph> > .025, ηp2 = .14:.90CI = .00-.26] (see Fig. 3).</p> <p>Mean RTs (SEs) of children with ASD and TD children, with flankers presented simultaneous with target (0 ms), or 150, 300, or 450 ms following the target</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <p>As is clear in Fig. 3, the median baseline RTs for the participants with ASD group were longer than those of the TD participants. A striking group difference was seen as the median baseline RTs for the participants with ASD were longer than for median RTs in the distractor conditions, whereas the the group median RTs of the TD participants reflected the opposite pattern. In order to examine these patterns, distractor difference scores were computed for each distance and SOA condition. Median RTs for the baseline condition were subtracted from the median RTs for flanker conditions for all distances and SOAs. Difference scores were then analyzed in the same manner as the raw RT scores using a mixed design ANOVA with Group (ASD and TD) as the between-subjects factor, and Distance (close, intermediate, far) and SOA (0, 150, 300, and 450 ms) as the within-subjects factors. Main effects were found for Distance [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref14">2</reflink>, 48) = 7.40, <emph>p</emph> = .002, ηp2 = .24;.90CI = .06-.37], SOA [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref15">3</reflink>, 72) = 7.80, <emph>p</emph> = .000, ηp2 = .24;.90CI = .90-.35], and Group [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref16">1</reflink>, 24) = 6.58, <emph>p</emph> = .017, ηp2 = .22;.90CI = .02-.41]. All the main effects were qualified by significant interactions.</p> <p>Group interacted with both Distance [F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>, 48) = 12.26, p = .000, ηp2 = .34;.90CI = .15-.47) and SOA [F(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref18">3</reflink>, 72) = 4.73, p = .005, ηp2 = .16;.90CI = .03-.27)]. As illustrated in Fig. 4, the difference scores varied with distance for the TD children (F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>, 24) = 13.89, p < .025, ηp2 = .54;.90CI = .25-.66), such that the scores for the close and intermediate distances did not differ, but were both significantly larger than the scores for the far distance. Because the difference scores were positive, the results indicate that the TD children were distracted by flankers, relative to the no-flanker condition, when the flankers were either at the close or intermediate distances from the target. For the children with ASD, no significant effect of distance was found on the difference scores [F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref20">2</reflink>, 24) = 3.42. p > .025, ηp2 = .22;.90CI = .00-.40)]. Follow-up comparisons for the TD participants indicated that the difference scores were significantly larger than the difference scores of the participants with ASD for the close (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref21">24</reflink>) = 2.71, <emph>p</emph> < .02) and intermediate (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref22">24</reflink>) = 3.17, <emph>p</emph> < .01) distances, but not the far distance.</p> <p>Mean RT difference scores (SEs) in children with ASD and TD children in all flanker distance conditions</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <p>The Group by SOA interaction is illustrated in Fig. 5. No effects of SOA on difference scores were found for the TD children [F(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>, 36) = 1.56, p > .025, ηp2 = .12;.90CI = .00-.23)], but the difference scores of the children with ASD varied significantly with SOA [F(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>, 36) = 15.40, p > .025, ηp2 = .56;.90CI = .33-.66]. The difference scores were significantly larger for the 0 ms SOA than for all other SOAs, and larger for the 150 ms SOA relative to the 300 ms SOA. No differences were found between the 300 and 450 ms SOAs. Because the difference scores for the ASD group were negative, the results suggest that when the flankers appeared simultaneously with the target, or shortly thereafter, response times were shortened for this group relative to the no flanker baseline. However, the TD children were slower across all SOAs when the flankers were presented.</p> <p>Mean RT difference scores (SEs) across all target-flanker SOAs in children with ASD and TD children</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR)</p> <p>Follow-up comparisons indicated that the group difference scores for the TD participants were different than those of the participants with ASD at the 0 ms SOA [<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>) = 4.00, <emph>p</emph> < .01] and the 150 ms SOA [<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref26">24</reflink>) = 2.87, <emph>p</emph> < .01], and marginally so at the 300 ms SOA [<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref27">24</reflink>) = 2.08, <emph>p</emph> = .049]. For the first 2 SOAs, the difference scores were positive for the TD but negative for the ASD group. For the 300 ms SOA, the TD group maintained positive difference scores whereas the scores were near zero for the ASD group.</p> <p>Mean proportion of errors for all conditions were also subjected to a mixed design ANOVA with Group (ASD and TD) as the between-subjects factor, and Distance (close, intermediate, far) and SOA (0, 150, 300, and 450 ms) as the within-subjects factors. Means and standard errors for both groups in all conditions are presented in Table 3. Less than 10 percent of overall error rates were due to responses greater than 3000 ms. No significant effects (all <emph>p</emph>'s > .05) were found, and therefore effects noted in the reaction time analyses cannot be attributed to group differences in speed-accuracy trade-off strategies. A t-test comparing mean proportion of errors for the TD (M = .08; SD = .09;.95CI = .03-.13) and ASD (M = .10, SD = .08;.95CI = .04-.15) groups in the no-distractor baseline condition was also completed. No group differences were found (<emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref28">24</reflink>) = .48, <emph>p</emph> = .64; Mean Difference = − .02;.95CI = − .09-.06). No further analysis of error data was necessary.</p> <p></p> <p>Mean error rates (SE) for ASD and TD groups in all task conditions</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"> SOA (ms) </th><th align="left" colspan="3"> TD </th><th align="left" colspan="3"> ASD </th></tr><tr><th align="left"> Close </th><th align="left"> Intermediate </th><th align="left"> Far </th><th align="left"> Close </th><th align="left"> Intermediate </th><th align="left"> Far </th></tr><tr><td align="left">0</td><td align="left">.12 (.03)</td><td align="left">.11 (.03)</td><td align="left">.09 (.02)</td><td align="left">.15 (.03)</td><td align="left">.14 (.03)</td><td align="left">.12 (.02)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">150</td><td align="left">.10 (.03)</td><td align="left">.07 (.02)</td><td align="left">.10 (.03)</td><td align="left">.14 (.03)</td><td align="left">.13 (.02)</td><td align="left">.12 (.03)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">300</td><td align="left">.08 (.02)</td><td align="left">.08 (.03)</td><td align="left">.06 (.03)</td><td align="left">.12 (.02)</td><td align="left">.16 (.03)</td><td align="left">.14 (.03)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">450</td><td align="left">.08 (.02)</td><td align="left">.10 (.02)</td><td align="left">.08 (.03)</td><td align="left">.14 (.03)</td><td align="left">.13 (.02)</td><td align="left">.12 (.03)</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0132879727-8">Discussion</hd> <p>In order to test the under-versus over-focused theories of attentional processing among persons with ASD, a dynamic adaptation of the Eriksen flanker paradigm was used to compare attentional focus between children with ASD and TD children matched on a nonverbal mental age of approximately 7-1/2 years. The TD children showed the typical distracting effects of the flanker stimuli, as they displayed longer RTs to the flankers that were at the close or intermediate, but not far, distances from the target. This effect was found regardless of the SOA, the duration between the onset of the presentations of the target and the flankers. The findings from the participants with ASD were quite different as SOA, but not distractor distance, seemed to affect performance, and RT was surprisingly facilitated in the conditions in which the target and flankers were presented simultaneously or with the relatively short SOA of 150 ms. Although these findings are at first glance contrary to the expectations based on either the over- or under-focused theories and to Burack's (1994) claims of increased distractibility among persons with autism, they are consistent with his findings that a spatial cue can uniquely benefit the performance of persons with ASD but not of TD persons or those with intellectual disabilities not associated with ASD.</p> <p>In the Burack (1994) study, the window facilitated the performance of only the persons with ASD who were least efficient in modulating, or adjusting, the attentional lens to focus on the target. They displayed the greatest increase in RTs in the presence of flankers, which appeared to serve as distractors, regardless of their distance from the target stimulus. Thus, the participants with ASD in that study appeared to use the window as an external facilitator for more effectively narrowing the lens. The findings from this study appear to provide further evidence of the facilitative effects of a spatial framing cue even when only comprised of individual stimuli (i.e., the flankers) rather than a full window surrounding the target. However, we note that this finding was unexpected as the participants with autism in the Burack (1994) study were most deleteriously affected by the flanker stimuli. We suggest that in the absence of an explicit boundary (i.e., the window frame cue) surrounding the target on all conditions in this study, the participants were able to utilize the flanker stimuli as the framing cue. The lack of a distance effect among persons with ASD is consistent with the findings from the Burack (1994) study and is convergent evidence of diminished sensitivity to the effects of proximity among stimuli in the environment, at least for the spatial parameters tested in this study.</p> <p>The effect of SOA on the performance of the participants with ASD suggests that the facilitative effects of the imposed spatial boundary cue was greatest when the flankers were presented simultaneously with the target and still somewhat evident when presented approximately 150 ms afterward. However, not surprisingly, a longer delay was not associated with enhanced performance as the cue probably appeared too late to help speed up the response. In contrast, the lack of an effect of SOA on the performance of the TD participants indicates, somewhat surprisingly, that the deleterious effects of apparently distracting stimuli extends even to considerably long delays between target and flanker presentations. Furthermore, the failure to find any effect of the late onset flankers on RT in this group might be explained by Gaspelin et al.'s (2016) contention that attentional capture by late onset stimuli is not seen in tasks of easy visual search, which was the case in this study.</p> <p>In trying to reconcile the findings from this study with Burack's (1994) conclusion that their "findings reflect impairments in the abilities of persons with autism to focus on a target stimulus and to filter extraneous stimuli", we suggest that the task may be processed differently by the participants with ASD and those without. Whereas the flankers are processed by the latter group as stimuli to be ignored for the sake of optimal responding to the target stimulus, as indicated in the instructions, the persons with ASD appeared to process the stimuli in a utilitarian way. Although the finding was unexpected, this interpretation is convergent with evidence of the enhanced utility of attentional processing among persons with ASD (for a discussion, please see Burack et al. 2016). For example, in debunking the claims that persons with ASD do not follow eye gaze, Ristic et al. (2005) concluded they can do so but only tend to do so when it is useful, whereas it is the default action of TD persons. Similarly, when Iarocci et al. (2006) varied the probability of whether the targets would appear at the global or local level but did not explicitly explain this manipulation to the observers, only the participants with ASD, whose accuracy rates were similar to those of MA-matched TD participants, showed RTs that varied with the implicit biases of the task. Their faster RTs to the global targets in the global bias condition, but similar RTs between the global and local targets in the local bias condition, suggested that the performance of the participants with ASD was more influenced by a subtle implicit contingency and that, as compared to TD persons, they may have even been better able to effectively 'tune' their performance to information from the environment. This is consistent both with the call to understand the development of attention within the complex ongoing relationship between individuals and their environments (Ristic and Enns 2015a, b) and the notion that the attentional processing of persons with ASD may, in many situations, indicate a more flexible and efficient use of information from the environment (Burack et al. 2016).</p> <p>As with virtually all studies of cognitive functioning persons with ASD, the generalizability of the findings needs to be qualified. Until more research is conducted across a broad range of participants, the evidence and conclusions regarding utilitarian attention among persons with ASD presented here is only relevant to persons with ASD within the same range of level of developmental functioning (e.g., MA) performing this type of flanker task. However, the concordance with theoretical frameworks and experimental evidence from other studies suggests, at least, that utilitarianism might be a useful way to understand the attentional functioning of at least some persons with ASD on some tasks of attention.</p> <hd id="AN0132879727-9">Conclusions</hd> <p>In this study, the meaning and utility of the flankers differ between the groups, as they appear to be potential distractors to be ignored by the typically developing participants but meaningful visual-spatial guides to be used by the participants with ASD. Although the generalizability of the findings may be limited, this is yet another part of a converging mosaic of data that is consistent with a particularly utilitarian style of attending among persons with ASD (Burack et al. 2016). Consistent with Ristic and Enns' (2015a, b) essential rethinking of the conceptualizations of the development of attention (also, see Burack et al. 2017), we suggest that this type of focus on style of processing may be a more helpful framework for understanding attention among persons with ASD than simply pitting types of deficient attention, over- or under-focused, against each other as we had done in originally setting out the goals of this paper.</p> <hd id="AN0132879727-10">Funding</hd> <p>This study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (File Number 410-2009-1144).</p> <hd id="AN0132879727-11">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The authors gratefully acknowledge the children and parents who participated in our project, the teachers and staff from Summit and Giant Steps schools in Montreal, Heidi Flores, Stephanie Rishikof, Vanessa Babineau, and members of the McGill Youth Study Team who helped with data collection, and Margarita Miseros, Emily Stubbert, and Samantha O'Brien for their help in the preparation of the manuscript. This work was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada awarded to Jacob A. Burack.</p> <hd id="AN0132879727-12">Author Contributions</hd> <p>All authors contributed to the study concept and design. DAB and TD developed the stimuli and task design. JS and TD recruited participants and collected study data. Study data was analyzed by DAB and JS. The study manuscript was prepared by DAB, JS, and JAB. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0132879727-13">Compliance with Ethical Standards</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0132879727-14">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>D.A. Brodeur declares that she has no conflict of interest. J. Stewart declares that she has no conflict of interest. T. Dawkins declares that she has no conflict of interest. J. A. Burack declares that he has no conflict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0132879727-15">Ethical approval</hd> <p>All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from parents or guardians of all individual participants included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0132879727-16">References</hd> <ref id="AN0132879727-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 2000, 4, Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref4" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bowler D, Autism spectrum disorders: Psychological theory and research, 2006, West Sussex, Wiley</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref7" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brodeur DA, Age changes in attention control: Assessing the role of stimulus contingencies, Cognitive Development, 2004, 19, 241, 252, 10.1016/j.cogdev.2004.01.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Burack JA, Selective attention deficits in persons with autism: Preliminary evidence of an inefficient attentional lens, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1994, 103, 535, 543, 10.1037/0021-843X.103.3.535</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Burack JA, Iarocci G, Flanagan T, Bowler DM, On melting pots and mosaics: Conceptual considerations for matching strategies, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2004, 34, 65, 73, 10.1023/B:JADD.0000018076.90715.00</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Burack JA, Jefferies LN, Ringo J, Landry O, Hopkins B, Geangu E, Linkenauger S, Attention, Cambridge encyclopedia of child development, 2017, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burack JA, Russo N, Koshoff H, Fernandes TP, Ringo J, Landry O, Iarocci G, How I attend—not how well do I attend: Rethinking developmental frameworks of attention and cognition in autism spectrum disorder and typical development, Journal of Cognition and Development, 2016, 17, 4, 553, 567, 10.1080/15248372.2016.1197226</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> SuperLab Pro (Version 4.0), 2005, San Pedro, CA, Cedrus Corporation</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Eriksen BA, Eriksen CW, Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task, Perception and Psychophysics, 1974, 16, 143, 149, 10.3758/BF03203267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaspelin N, Ruthruff E, Lien MC, The problem of latent attentional capture: Easy visual search conceals capture by task-irrelevant abrupt onsets, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2016, 42, 1104, 1120, 10.1037/xhp0000214</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greenaway R, Plaisted K, Top-down attentional modulation in autistic spectrum disorders is stimulus-specific, Psychological Science, 2005, 16, 987, 994, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01648.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Iarocci G, Burack JA, Shore DI, Mottron L, Enns JT, Global-local visual processing in high functioning children with autism: Structural versus implicit task biases, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 2006, 36, 117, 129, 10.1007/s10803-005-0045-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jonides J, Yantis S, Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 1988, 43, 346, 354, 10.3758/BF03208805</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keehn B, Joseph RM, Impaired prioritization of novel onset stimuli in autism spectrum disorder, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2008, 49, 1296, 1303, 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01937.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landry R, Bryson SE, Impaired disengagement of attention in young children with autism, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2004, 45, 1115, 1122, 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00304.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mann TA, Walker P, Autism and a deficit in broadening the spread of visual attention, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2003, 44, 274, 284, 10.1111/1469-7610.00120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rincover A, Ducharme JM, Variables influencing stimulus overselectivity and "tunnel vision" in developmentally delayed children, American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1987, 91, 442, 430</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ristic J, Enns JT, Liben L, Mueller U, Attentional development: Past, present, and future, Handbook of child psychology: Cognitive processes within the relational, developmental system, 2015, 7, Hoboken, NJ, Wiley-Blackwell</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ristic J, Enns JT, The changing face of attentional development, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2015, 24, 24, 31, 10.1177/0963721414551165</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ristic J, Mottron L, Friesen CK, Iarocci G, Burack JA, Kingstone A, Eyes are special but not for everyone: The case of autism, Cognitive Brain Research, 2005, 24, 715, 718, 10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2005.02.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robertson CE, Kravitz DJ, Freyberg J, Baron-Cohen S, Baker CI, Tunnel vision: Sharper gradient o spatial attention in autism, Journal of Neuroscience, 2013, 33, 6776, 6781, 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5120-12.2013</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roid G, Miller L, Leiter International Performance Scale- Revised, 1997, Wood Dale, IL, Stoelting</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ronconi L, Gori S, Ruffino M, Molteni M, Facoetti A, Zoom-out attentional impairment in children with autism spectrum disorder, Cortex, 2013, 49, 1025, 1033, 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider W, Eschman A, Zuccoloto A, E-prime 2.0, 2007, Pittsburgh, Psychological Software Inc</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schreij D, Owens C, Theeuwes J, Abrupt onsets capture attention independent of top-down control settings, Perception & Psychophysics, 2008, 70, 208, 218, 10.3758/PP.70.2.208</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Townsend J, Courchesne E, Parietal damage and narrow "spotlight" spatial attention, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 1994, 6, 220, 232, 10.1162/jocn.1994.6.3.220</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Townsend J, Courchesne E, Egaas B, Slowed orienting of covert visual-spatial attention in autism: Specific deficits associated with cerebellar and parietal abnormality, Development and Psychopathology, 1996, 8, 563, 584, 10.1017/S0954579400007276</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von Mühlenen A, Rempel MI, Enns JT, Unique temporal change is the key to attentional capture, Psychological Science, 2005, 16, 979, 986, 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01647.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wainwright-Sharp JA, Bryson SE, Visual orienting deficits in high-functioning people with autism, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 1993, 23, 1, 13, 10.1007/BF01066415</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yantis S, Jonides J, Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1984, 10, 601, 621, 10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.601</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0132879727-18"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> An a priori power analysis based on Cohen's moderate effect size (.25) for the interaction effects suggests that a total N of 24 would be needed for a power of.80. In addition, a post hoc power analysis for detection of the interaction effect, using our estimates of effect size from the data, revealed a power estimate of.86 (minimum is.80). Given our interest in the interaction effects with group, these estimates suggest that the number of participants allows for the detection of an appropriate effect size.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Differences between distractor types were not analyzed as part of the primary analyses because we had no specific hypotheses related to distractor type, effects of type were controlled with the experiment design, and sample size did not warrant the inclusion of another independent variable. However, an exploratory analysis of distractor type revealed that all patterns described in the primary analyses held, and that the magnitude of these effects was in general greater when the distractors were dissimilar than when they were similar. In addition, this difference was more pronounced for the TD group than the ASD group. These effects need to be explored further in future studies.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Darlene A. Brodeur; Jillian Stewart; Tamara Dawkins and Jacob A. Burack</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref6"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1195838
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Utilitarian Attention by Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder on a Filtering Task
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Brodeur%2C+Darlene+A%2E%22">Brodeur, Darlene A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stewart%2C+Jillian%22">Stewart, Jillian</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dawkins%2C+Tamara%22">Dawkins, Tamara</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burack%2C+Jacob+A%2E%22">Burack, Jacob A.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Autism+and+Developmental+Disorders%22"><i>Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders</i></searchLink>. Dec 2018 48(12):4019-4027.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. 233 Spring Street, New York, NY 10013. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-348-4505; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pervasive+Developmental+Disorders%22">Pervasive Developmental Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autism%22">Autism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attention%22">Attention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Perception%22">Visual Perception</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Visual+Stimuli%22">Visual Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reaction+Time%22">Reaction Time</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cues%22">Cues</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10803-018-3619-5
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0162-3257
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The findings are evidence that persons with ASD benefit more than typically developing (TD) persons from spatial framing cues in focusing their attention on a visual target. Participants were administered a forced-choice task to assess visual filtering. A target stimulus was presented on a screen and flanker stimuli were presented simultaneously with or after the target, with varying stimuli onset asynchronies (SOAs). Regardless of SOA, TD children showed the expected distracting effects with slower reaction times (RTs) when flankers were at closer distances from the target. However, children with ASD displayed shorter RTs in the conditions in which the stimuli were presented simultaneously or with a short SOA. These findings are interpreted as reflecting utilitarian attention among children with ASD.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 30
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1195838
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1195838
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10803-018-3619-5
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 4019
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pervasive Developmental Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Autism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Perception
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Visual Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reaction Time
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cues
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Utilitarian Attention by Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder on a Filtering Task
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Brodeur, Darlene A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stewart, Jillian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dawkins, Tamara
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burack, Jacob A.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 12
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0162-3257
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 48
            – Type: issue
              Value: 12
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
              Type: main
ResultId 1