The ability of typically developing 2–3 year olds to infer the control mechanism for eye-gaze technology and the impact of causal language instruction

Purpose: Little is known about how children learn to control eye-gaze technology, and clinicians lack information to guide decision-making. This paper examines whether typically developing 2–3 year olds can infer for themselves the causal mechanisms by which eye-gaze technology is controlled, whether a teaching intervention based on causal language improves performance and how their performance compares to the same task accessed via a touchscreen. Methods and materials: Typically developing children’s (n = 9, Mean Age 28.7 months) performance on a cause and effect game presented on eye-gaze and touchscreen devices was compared. The game was presented first with no specific instruction on how to control the devices. This was followed by a subsequent presentation with explicit instruction about how the access methods worked, using a causal language approach. A final presentation examined whether children had retained any learning. Results: Performance in the eye-gaze condition without instruction (42.5% successful trials) was significantly below performance in the corresponding touchscreen condition (75%). However, when causal language instruction was added, performance with both access methods rose to comparable levels (90.7% eye-gaze and 94.6% touchscreen success). Performance gains were not retained post-intervention. Conclusions: Although 2–3 years in the study could make use of eye-gaze technology with support, this study found no evidence that these children could infer the causal mechanisms of control independently or intuitively. The lack of spatial contiguity and the comparative lack of feedback from eye-gaze devices are discussed as possible contributory factors.</p

The autistic child's theory of mind : a computer-based investigation.

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:DX97570 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Lightening the Load: Perceptual Load Impairs Visual Detection in Typical Adults but Not in Autism

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research portrays a mixed picture of attentional abilities with demonstrations of enhancements (e.g., superior visual search) and deficits (e.g., higher distractibility). Here we test a potential resolution derived from the Load Theory of Attention (e.g., Lavie, 2005). In Load Theory, distractor processing depends on the perceptual load of the task and as such can only be eliminated under high load that engages full capacity. We hypothesize that ASD involves enhanced perceptual capacity, leading to the superior performance and increased distractor processing previously reported. Using a signal-detection paradigm, we test this directly and demonstrate that, under higher levels of load, perceptual sensitivity was reduced in typical adults but not in adults with ASD. These findings confirm our hypothesis and offer a promising solution to the previous discrepancies by suggesting that increased distractor processing in ASD results not from a filtering deficit but from enhanced perceptual capacity

Contrasting the Effects of Task Difficulty and Perceptual Load on Auditory Detection Sensitivity in Individuals with Autism

To test a central assumption of the increased perceptual capacity account in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), the effects of perceptual load and target-stimulus degradation on auditory detection sensitivity were contrasted. Fourteen adolescents with ASD and 16 neurotypical controls performed a visual letter search task under three conditions: low perceptual load, high perceptual load and low perceptual load with a degraded target while simultaneously detecting an auditory tone in noise. For both participants with ASD and neurotypical controls, increasing perceptual load and target degradation increased task difficulty as indexed by reaction times and accuracy. However, only increasing perceptual load reduced subsequent auditory detection sensitivity. The study confirms that perceptual load, and not task difficulty, modulates selective attention in ASD