Mindreading in individuals with an empathizing versus systemizing cognitive style An fMRI study

Our fMRI study compares the neural correlates of face-based mindreading in healthy individuals with an empathizing (n=12) versus systemizing cognitive style (n=12). The empathizing group consists of individuals that score high on empathizing and low on systemizing, while the systemizing group consists of individuals with an opposite cognitive pattern. We hypothesize that the empathizing group will show stronger simulation-type neural activity (e.g., in mirror neuron areas, medial prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex) or simulation-related neural activity (e.g., in areas involved in perspective taking and experiential processing) compared to the systemizing group. As hypothesized, our study reveals that the empathizing group shows significantly stronger activity in mirror neuron areas of the brain, such as the left inferior frontal gyrus and inferior parietal lobe, and in temporal areas involved in perspective taking and autobiographical memory. Moreover, the empathizing group, but not the systemizing group, shows activity in the medial prefrontal cortex and anterior cingulate cortex which have been related to simulation-type neural activity in the brain and are central to mindreading. Also, the systemizing group shows significantly stronger activity in the left parahippocampal gyrus. In conclusion, both the empathizing and systemizing individuals show simulation-type and simulation-related neural activity during face-based mindreading. However, more neural activity indicative of simulation-based processing is seen in the empathizing individuals, while more neural activity indicative of non-simulation-based processing is seen in the systemizing individuals

From “Oh, OK” to “Ah, yes” to “Aha!”: Hyper-systemizing and the rewards of insight\ud

Hyper-systemizers are individuals displaying an unusually strong bias toward systemizing, i.e. toward explaining events and solving problems by appeal to mechanisms that do not involve intentions or agency. Hyper-systemizing in combination with deficit mentalizing ability typically presents clinically as an autistic spectrum disorder; however, the development of hyper-systemizing in combination with normal-range mentalizing ability is not well characterized. Based on a review and synthesis of clinical, observational, experimental, and neurofunctional studies, it is hypothesized that repeated episodes of insightful problem solving by systemizing result in attentional and motivational sensitization toward further systemizing via progressive and chronic deactivation of the default network. This hypothesis is distinguished from alternatives, and its correlational and causal implications are discussed. Predictions of the default-deactivation model accessible to survey-based instruments, standard cognitive measures and neurofunctional methods are outlined, and evidence pertaining to them considered

Systemizers are better code-breakers: self-reported systemizing predicts code-breaking performance in expert hackers and naïve participants

Studies on hacking have typically focused on motivational aspects and general personality traits of the individuals who engage in hacking; little systematic research has been conducted on predispositions that may be associated not only with the choice to pursue a hacking career but also with performance in either naïve or expert populations. Here, we test the hypotheses that two traits that are typically enhanced in autism spectrum disorders—attention to detail and systemizing—may be positively related to both the choice of pursuing a career in information security and skilled performance in a prototypical hacking task (i.e., crypto-analysis or code-breaking). A group of naïve participants and of ethical hackers completed the Autism Spectrum Quotient, including an attention to detail scale, and the Systemizing Quotient (Baron-Cohen et al., 2001, 2003). They were also tested with behavioral tasks involving code-breaking and a control task involving security X-ray image interpretation. Hackers reported significantly higher systemizing and attention to detail than non-hackers. We found a positive relation between self-reported systemizing (but not attention to detail) and code-breaking skills in both hackers and non-hackers, whereas attention to detail (but not systemizing) was related with performance in the X-ray screening task in both groups, as previously reported with naïve participants (Rusconi et al., 2015). We discuss the theoretical and translational implications of our findings

Autism spectrum traits in normal individuals : a preliminary VBM analysis

In light of the new DSM-5 autism spectrum disorders diagnosis in which the autism spectrum reflects a group of neurodevelopmental disorders existing on a continuum from mild to severe expression of autistic traits, and recent empirical findings showing a continuous distribution of autistic traits in the general population, our voxel based morphometry study compares normal individuals with high autistic traits to normal individuals with low autistic traits. We hypothesize that normal individuals with high autistic traits in terms of empathizing and systemizing [high systemizing (HS)/low empathizing (LE)] share brain irregularities with individuals that fall within the clinical autism spectrum disorder. We find differences in several social brain network areas between our groups. Specifically, we find increased gray matter (GM) volume in the orbitofrontal cortex, the cuneus, the hippocampus and parahippocampus and reduced GM volume in the inferior temporal cortex, the insula, and the amygdala in our HS/LE individuals relative to our HE/LS (low autistic traits in terms of empathizing and systemizing) individuals

What does the intention to be a volunteer for a student with autism predict? the role of cognitive brain types and emotion and behavior characteristics

The study was designed to verify which cognitive brain types and behaviors in classroom predicted the intention to volunteer to become a peer buddy for a student with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Five hundred and sixteen adolescents attending the first grade of public high schools were enrolled. Gender-related differences were discussed according to the empathizing-systemizing theory. As expected, empathy and prosocial behavior predicted volunteering in ASD intervention. We conclude that the selection of peers as intervention agents should require more informative sources. Clinical and research implications are discussedEste estudio se diseñó para verificar qué tipos de cerebro cognitivo y comportamientos en el aula predecían la intención de ofrecerse voluntario a acompañar a un alumno con trastorno del espectro autista (TEA). Se apuntaron 516 adolescentes de primer curso de enseñanza secundaria. Se abordaron las diferencias relativas al género de acuerdo a la teoría empatía-sistematización. Según lo esperado, la empatía y el comportamiento prosocial predecían la voluntariedad para intervenir en el TEA. Se concluye que la elección de compañeros como agentes de intervención necesitaría de más fuentes de información. Se comentan las implicaciones clínicas y de investigació

Sex differences in the brain: implications for explaining autism

‘Empathizing’ is the capacity to predict and to respond to the behavior of agents (usually people) by inferring their mental states and responding to these with an appropriate emotion. ‘Systemizing’ is the capacity to predict and to respond to the behavior of non-agentive, deterministic systems, by analyzing input-operation-output relations and inferring the rules that govern such systems. At a population level, females are stronger empathizers and males stronger systemizers. The ‘extreme male brain’ theory posits that autism represents an extreme of the male pattern (impaired empathizing and enhanced systemizing). Here we suggest that specific aspects of autistic neuropathology may also be extremes of typical male neuroanatomy

The definition of systematizing in S. Baron-Cohen's gender and autism research

The professor of psychopathology Simon Baron-Cohen is well-known for his thesis that males are on average better at systematizing than empathizing and females are on average better at empathizing than systematizing. In this paper, I note an ambiguity in how he defines systematizing

A behavioral comparison of male and female adults with high functioning autism spectrum conditions

Autism spectrum conditions (ASC) affect more males than females in the general population. However, within ASC it is unclear if there are phenotypic sex differences. Testing for similarities and differences between the sexes is important not only for clinical assessment but also has implications for theories of typical sex differences and of autism. Using cognitive and behavioral measures, we investigated similarities and differences between the sexes in age- and IQ-matched adults with ASC (high-functioning autism or Asperger syndrome). Of the 83 (45 males and 38 females) participants, 62 (33 males and 29 females) met Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) cut-off criteria for autism in childhood and were included in all subsequent analyses. The severity of childhood core autism symptoms did not differ between the sexes. Males and females also did not differ in self-reported empathy, systemizing, anxiety, depression, and obsessive-compulsive traits/symptoms or mentalizing performance. However, adult females with ASC showed more lifetime sensory symptoms (p = 0.036), fewer current socio-communication difficulties (p = 0.001), and more self-reported autistic traits (p = 0.012) than males. In addition, females with ASC who also had developmental language delay had lower current performance IQ than those without developmental language delay (p<0.001), a pattern not seen in males. The absence of typical sex differences in empathizing-systemizing profiles within the autism spectrum confirms a prediction from the extreme male brain theory. Behavioral sex differences within ASC may also reflect different developmental mechanisms between males and females with ASC. We discuss the importance of the superficially better socio-communication ability in adult females with ASC in terms of why females with ASC may more often go under-recognized, and receive their diagnosis later, than males

Cultural differences in perceiving sounds generated by others: self matters

Sensory consequences resulting from own movements receive different neural processing compared to externally generated sensory consequences (e.g., by a computer), leading to sensory attenuation, i.e., a reduction in perceived loudness or brain evoked responses. However, discrepant findings exist from different cultural regions about whether sensory attenuation is also present for sensory consequences generated by others. In this study, we performed a cross culture (between Chinese and British) comparison on the processing of sensory consequences (perceived loudness) from self and others compared to an external source in the auditory domain. We found a cultural difference in processing sensory consequences generated by others, with only Chinese and not British showing the sensory attenuation effect. Sensory attenuation in this case was correlated with independent self-construal scores. The sensory attenuation effect for self-generated sensory consequences was not replicated. However, a correlation with delusional ideation was observed for British. These findings are discussed with respects to mechanisms of sensory attenuation

Motion as manipulation: Implementation of motion and force analogies by event-file binding and action planning\ud

Tool improvisation analogies are a special case of motion and force analogies that appear to be implemented pre-conceptually, in many species, by event-file binding and action planning. A detailed reconstruction of the analogical reasoning steps involved in Rutherford's and Bohr's development of the first quantized-orbit model of atomic structure is used to show that human motion and force analogies generally can be implemented by the event-file binding and action planning mechanism. Predictions that distinguish this model from competing concept-level models of analogy are discussed, available data pertaining to them are reviewed, and further experimental tests are proposed